THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AND THE EDUCATION BILL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 145, 20 June 1906, Page 6

THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AND THE EDUCATION BILL.

A correspondent, who would certainly not make a charge in -which he did not fully believe, writes to complain that he "cannot help noticing how unduly prejudiced you appear to be against the Church of England, especially as regards the present Education Bill before the House of Commons." We confess that we are entirely at a loss as to what he can be referring to in making a general chargfe, of which wo can imagine neither the foundation nor the occasion ; but with regard to the special matter which he mentions, the occasion, at any rate, does not admit of dpubt, and he is good enough to give us the means of correcting either our own mistake or his wrong impression. "In fairness to the Church which, has <lono so much for the cause of education in England," he says, "I shall esteem it a favour if in the near future you will quote some of the details set forth in the enclosed cutting from the 'Church Evangelist.'" The details to which he refers are contnined in an article reprinted from the Guardian, and designed to show "What Churchmen have done for Education," and they pro|o, by facts and figures drawn from retains issued by the Board of Education, the magnitude of the work which the Church of England has done, and is still doing, for the cause of elementary education in the Old Country. "One of these returns shows the amoifnts of the voluntary conributions raised for this purpose by the various denominations in the year 1902 to be as follows :— Church of En b land, £670,324; Church of Rome, £87,520; Dissenters, £118,303. The number of scholars educated by thfcse various age.ncies is in much the same proportion : —Church of England, 2,350,176 ; Church of Rome, 467,176 ; Dissenters, -364,461 ; Council Schools, 2,916,511. The last item represents the number of scholars in the schools now controlled by Borough or Parish Councils, etc., and formerly by the School Boards ; and it will be seen that the number in the Church of England schools falls very little short of this. In tho actual number of schools the Church of England beats the local authorities by nearly two to one (11,817 to 6145), and the smaller proportion of scholars fii the church schools is ex>'ained by tho statement that "while the Church cared for the scattered and outlying communities, for which tho Slate authorities did little oi nothing, and so had ,to provide a dieproportionately large number of buildings, tho council schools in the populous centres collected more scholars m larger but less numerous lmildingn." The comparison between iflie relative shares of Church and State in this matter will not; however, be complete until the contributions of the SHate to tho cost of the Church echools is included in the estimate, and in the absence of the official figures M*e can only quote upon the point Uhe statement of Dr. Clifford that these contributions amounted during the yeais 1833—1901 to £90,000,000, or more than twice as much as the Guardian claims to have been spent by the Church during the same period. The fact, however, remains, and ii) would argue gross injustice and ingratitude to deny its significance, that the Church of England has rendered and is etill- Tendering magnificent service to the nation in this vespeep, and the value of the work is all the greater bacause it has been largely of the nature of pioneer work. The Church was in the field long before the Static recognised its obligations in the matter, and whon the ft-atle did move, it was first of all by way of supporting the Church schools by Porliamentiary grants. The State, to bor. row an analogy from one of the authorities supplied by our correspondent, came in as a sort of junior partner in the education business, and if, having gradually put more and more money into the concern, it has now a larger interesb than the original member, and desiies to have the partnership dissolved, it is obviously under more than the usual obligations to considerate and equitable ligations to considerate and equitable treatment. Since the passing of Mr. Balfour's measure in 1902 the anomaly of the position has been that the denominational schools were placed upon the Tates but without giving an effective control to those who found the monoy; in other words, to revert to our previous metaphor, tftie junior partner acquired a vastly preponderating interest in the business, but without a corresponding increase in his voting power. The question is upon what terms can the anomaly be removed, either by a readjustment of tho partnership or by dissolution. Mr. Birrell's Bill proposes to withdraw all grants of public money from any elementary school which does not) becon)e a 'Verjmded achopiy i.c. A doe« not^

come under fu.ll public control ; to make. "Cowper-Temple" teaching — i.e., undenominational religious instruction as formerly carried on in the Board Schools— the rule in all schools, but to allow the tlrustees of a voluntary school, before transferring it to the local authority, to stipulate for special denominational teaching being continued to ttbe school ; and also, under clause 4, which is mentioned in our cablegrams to-day, to allow the local authority to grant "extended facilities" for such teaching in any urban school where four-fifths of the parents desire if. A Royal Commission of three members is to decide any dispute as to the terms of transfer, and Mr Birrell has since promised an amendment* empowering the Board of Education to adjudicate upon the refusal of a local authority to take over a voluntary school. The fundamental objection taken by Churchmen to the Bill is that by reason of the undenominational teaching which it recognises as the normal standard for all schools it is "a Bill for tho establishment and endowment of diesent." In an interesting symposium, "For and Against tihe Education Bill," in last month's Nineteenth Century, Lord Halifax, the President of the English Church Union, states the case against the Bill with characteristic thoroughness. "With such insignificant exceptions," he says "as the Bishop of Hereford, Canon Hensley Henson, and the Dean of Ripon, who are known to speak only for themselves, Mr. Birrell has succeeded in bringing together all sections of the Church of England as they have never been brought) together before." He declares the Bill to be founded on four assumptions, every one of which he disputes:— "(l) That there is such a thing as fundamental or undenominational Christianity which can be of t3ie least use to anybody ; (2) that such a residuum of religious teaching as may remain after the elimination from it of everything to which tlhe various sects calling themselves Christian object, in any way deserves the name of Christian ; (3) that the qualification of the teacher and his competence ,to give religious instruction are matters of no consequence in regard to the character of tho religious instruction given by him in the school ; (4) that moral instruction can be effective apart from the sanctions of religion." It is odd that tho first three of these assumptions- underlie the propaganda of tihe Bible-in-schools party in this colony, but Lord Halifax will have nothing to do with such a "mutilated Christianity." "Fundamental Christianity," he says, "has as little existence as a fundamental mammal, and we refuse to be deceived by it. . . We ask for no favour, for no privilege. We ask only that education shall nob be divorced from religion." Such indeed is the request of most of the militant Churchmen in England, and the limits of this' article will not permit of our discussing now whether, unintentionally, their agitation is not really likely to widen the gap between the two things which they are eager to keep together.