CAVERSHAM SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

Evening Star, Issue 11895, 25 May 1903, Page 3

CAVERSHAM SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

TO 'THE EDITOR. Sir, —I think I can prove to you that you have been “ immediately misinformed ” concerning the “ peculiar circumstances of the recent Committee election," for your cen sures must refer to me, as I was the only minister of religion present at the meeting. 1. You state that the episode forms a chapter in the Bible-in-scbools movement, and 1 and my friends ran the election with that end in view. Now, I do not know what the opinions of the members of the Committee are, but I have consistently opposed the introduction of the Bible into our State schools. I have spoken against it at our Baptist Union meetings, I pub licly urged my people to vote "No" when the recent plebiscite was taken, and in your own report of last Monday’s Church Council meeting yon will see 1 seconded Mr Hinton’s amendment. That 1 should endeavor to “capture” the School Committee on behalf of the Bible-in-schools movement is manifestly absurd, and should prove to your “ immediate informant ” that others besides “mice and parsons go agley.” 2. That I engineered and ran the election “ with ways that were dark and tricks that were vain ” is also untrue. Anything I did can bear the light of day fdo not remember asking one person individually to come and record his vote. That I announced the meeting at our Sunday services I admit. Last year I received a letter from the secretary of the Committee informing me of the forthcoming election and asking me to announce it; this year a member of the Committee requested me to do Surely this is not a “dark way” or a “vain trick.” I knew there would be one vacancy on the Committee, and I was asked to stand but I refused (not knowing then that I was ineligible). But I asked two gentlemen if they would consent to nomination, and I found they had already been requested and had consented, and I was not called on to nominate anyone. 3. That I had a “dead set on certain old members of the Committee”—whatever that may mean—is again misleading. I could have supported any one of the candidates who accepted nomination at the meeting; as a matter of fact, I voted for the “tried educationist who was unseated,” and whom up to that time I had held in high esteem. When the unlucky number of thirteen are nominated for nine positions, some must of necesity be disappointed, but there is small occasion to cherish chagrin and ill-will. 4. I plead guilty to your last charge when you mildly state that “ the rev. protagonist was an interloper.” I have admitted to the secretary of the Education Board that I am not a householder, and that I innocently thought I was within my rights during the past four years in taking an active interest in the education of the children. I do* not quarrel with the decision of the Education Board, or with you, sir, in supporting them on this point; hut that a man who has charge of a church in a district, with a Sunday school of over 200 scholars; who has been a school governor under the London School Board; who is able to obtain a seat upon the more important Licensing Committee; because he doesn’t rent a separate roof over his apartments should be disqualified from taking an active part in the education of the children, is to me absurd. Now. sir, I think you must admit that I have shown you that mv vote did not affect the result of the election; that I did not ask anyone to vote for any single candidate; and that your strictures concerning “engineering” and “trickery” are unfair, because untrue.—l am, etc., A. V. G. Chandler. May 22. [We hear with much satisfaction that the Rev. Mr Chandler, so far from being in sympathy with the aims of the Bible-in-schools party, has “consistently opposed the introduction of the Bible into our State schools.” We have thus unwittingly done him an injustice—associating him with the declared enemies of the national education system. And we freely tender him an apology for having suggested that he was the principal factor in the movement to deprive the people of Caversham of the services of two men who, within our knowledge, had done yeoman’s service for the local School Committee. The facts, as presented to ns, did certainly favor the assumption that' a plan of campaign had been organised for the evening of April 25. the objective being to oust from the Committee two members whose views in opposition to Bible-reading in schools were, very pronounced. One of them was defeated by the narrow margin of two votes, while the other retained his seat by a single vote only, and as we were assured on unim peachable authority that no less than eight unqualified persons had been allowed to vote we concluded that there was a close relationship between the cause and the effect of their presence at the meeting. We are further glad to know that Mr Chandler agrees with our estimate of the value to the school of the services of the committeeman who was balloted out, and hope that at the fresh election next, month he will assist to repair the mischief that was done on the previous occasion. We are in hearty agreement with our rev. correspondent that the Education Act is defective in failing to give the franchise to “ lodgers,” who, as contributors to the Consolidated Fund, are as much entitled to exercise the right as any who now vote under the quali fication of “ householder.” Our voice has always been heard in support of the extension of the franchise to such persons, and we think the adoption of the parliamentary roll for school election purposes would be the readiest and most effective way of curing a patent anomaly.—Ed. E.S.]