THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9710, 4 January 1895, Page 3

THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Your correspondent "Zozo,"—why does he shelter under a pseudonym ?—must be very innocent if he imagines that his quotations from Lord Bath, Dean Gregory, and the Bishop of London, justify the stigma fastened upon the Progressives as being in favour of a Godless education." Few fairminded people, I imagine, would regard Lord Salisbury as a reliable authority on the views of Mr. Gladstone, and a large discount must be struck off from the utterances of the clerical party when, in the heat of debate, they undertake to characterise the aims of those to whom they are violently opposed. No more honourable or trustworthy men are to be found anywhere than amon? those who are foremost in contending for the status in quo in relation to Bible teaching in Board schools, and to charge them in the teeth of all that they have said and done with aiming at a Godless education, is nothing short of a wicked and baseless slander. They very properly object, as 1 think, to hand over the Board schools to serve the interests of any particular denomination, and it is on this ground thev have resisted the clerical party on the Board. Under the plea of providing teaching in the Christian religion an attempt is made to capture the public schools for the Church of England. Not content with drawing two millions a year from the public purse for their own denominational schools, and £190,000 a year for their training colleges, the representatives of the Anglican Church have struggled hard to control for their own ends the London School Board. Anyone who wishes to understand the real'inwardness of this struggle for supremacy on the part of the Anglicans will do well to read an article by Dr. Clifford in the November . Contemporary, entitled, "The Destruction of the .London School Board." It will then be seen how far I have been justified in describing the recent triumph in the London School Board election as the triumph of clericalism, and on what grounds that triumph is to be deplored by all who have at heart the best interests alike of religion and education. I certainly do not agree with Dr. Parker's views on the relation of the State to Bible teaching. As I view the case, the State in undertaking to stand in loco parentis in relation to the education of its children becomes responsible for their mora? no less than for their mental training. I know of no text-book of morals equal to the Bible and its regular use in our schools I should regard as entirely consistent with the educational functions of the State. If any parents objected on any grounds to the use of th« Bible I would respect that objection, and provide for it by a conscience clause. Such explanations of Bible teaching as might be necessary to suit it to the capacity of the children could be given by the teachers, whatever might be their personal views on disputed points of theology. No teacher who is morally unfitted to handle the Bible has any right in our schools under any conditions. At the point in moral and religious training where an education in the distinctive doctrines of theology begins, the responsibility of the State in my judgment ceases. Just there the respective churches should step in to claim their own children, and to provide for religious training in their own way and at their . own cost. Having said this much in reply to " Zozo's" demand for a statement of my views on this question, let me say that I beg to decline any further controversy with a correspondent who is so far wanting in the courage of his opinions that he must needs write under an assumed name.— am etc., Wm. J as. Williams.