of the case. First I would ask a fair-minded man to glance through
some of the innumerable letters and articles which have flooded the
Nonconformist and Radical press from the first introduction of the
Education Bill down to the present time, and I would ask such a man
to say what, taking his impressions from this source alone, he would
have supposed the purport of that Bill to be. I think I may say without
the slightest exaggeration that he would imagine that its effect must
be (1) to hand over _all_ elementary schools to the Church of England
to be disposed of at her pleasure, (2) to impose on all teachers in
such schools a new and stringent religious test, whose effect would
be to prevent any but Anglican (and perhaps Roman Catholic) teachers
from obtaining employment. I do not think there is any exaggeration in
the above plain summary. On every side one still hears phrases like
“handing over the schools of the nation to the Church,” “imposing a
religious test on teachers,” “giving the People’s property to the
Priest,” “establishing clericalism in the public schools,” etc., which
can have no other rational meaning than that stated above. Now it is
not a matter of argument but one of simple fact that the Education
Act did nothing of the kind,--that nothing of the kind has ever been
proposed in the whole course of the controversy. What the Act did
do was (1) to give effect in denominational schools (already mainly
supported out of public funds) to an enormously increased measure of
public control, where before clerical control had been unbridled (2)
to mitigate largely the effect of such religious “tests” as can in any
sense be said to have existed in such schools. No new “test” of any
sort or kind was imposed, and the Provided or Board Schools remain of
course entirely unaffected except as to their transference from one
publicly elected and unsectarian body to another and far more efficient
one.
Consider for one moment the state of affairs which prevailed before
the passing of the Act. There were then two kinds of public elementary
school recognised by the State--the Board School and the Voluntary
School. Schools of the former type were under the control of School
Boards, bodies of irregular distribution and greatly varying
importance. It must always be remembered that throughout more than
half of England there were no School Boards at all. In the big towns
you had doubtless often enough large and efficient Boards administering
elementary education over the areas of great cities like London,
Glasgow and Birmingham. In the country districts when they existed at
all, the Boards were often elected to govern ridiculously small areas
(sometimes with only one school in a whole district) and were most
commonly inefficient and reactionary.
Such was the situation of the Board Schools: that of the Voluntary
Schools was still more impossible. These schools, founded originally
on denominational lines, were controlled despotically by a private
board of clerical or clerically-minded managers. No effective public
control was insisted upon. Even where a voluntary school was situated
within a school board area, the School Board had no shadow of authority
over it. And, as I have already mentioned, rather less than half of
England possessed School Boards at all. The only pretence of public
supervision then existing in the case of voluntary schools was to be
found in the infrequent visits of notoriously complacent inspectors
from Whitehall. Indeed the inspectors had to be complacent, for few
voluntary schools had the means to make themselves educationally
efficient even though they might wish to do so. Though more than two
thirds of the money spent on their upkeep came out of the public
exchequer in the form of government grants, the remaining third had
to be raised by private subscription, that is to say had to be begged
vigorously from the most incongruous people, from Churchmen anxious to
preserve definite theological teaching and from rich ratepayers and
even Railway Companies anxious to avoid the incidence of a School Board
rate. As a natural consequence the schools which, be it remembered,
were reckoned as part of the national machinery for education, were
counted in the statistics of school accommodation, and were indeed the
only schools available for a considerable part of the child population,
were in a state of chronic and hopeless beggary, and dragged on a
miserable existence,--starved, irresponsible, notoriously inefficient,
yet practically safe from public intervention.
Meanwhile technical education, unnaturally divorced from elementary,
was confided to the care of the County and Borough Councils. Secondary
education was nobody’s business. It would have been entirely neglected
had not some progressive School Boards stretched the term “elementary”
to cover as much as they could until sharply pulled up by the Cockerton
judgment, while some of the more progressive Councils stretched the
term “technical” in much the same way, and would probably, but for the
intervention of the Act, have met with the same fate.
Now what did the Education Acts do? The first and by far the most
important change which they made was to transfer all education to the
County and Borough Councils.[7] The effect of this was to provide that
in future there should be everywhere throughout England one popularly
elected local authority responsible for every kind and grade of
education within its administrative area, and that this body should
be that responsible for local government as a whole. Thus they made
possible for the first time the co-ordination of all forms of education
and the co-ordination of education with other municipal and local
services.
This change had of course the effect of sweeping away the old system of
electing educational authorities _ad hoc_. This seems to have struck
many people as a flagrant piece of injustice, an impudent repudiation
of democracy, and a shameless invasion of popular rights. It is
difficult to understand why. A County or Borough Council is fully as
democratic a body as a School Board, if democratic be taken to mean
elected by popular suffrages. And if it is seriously contended that
a body ought to be specially elected to deal with education alone,
because the issues at a general municipal election may be confused,
why not carry the principle further and have _ad hoc_ bodies for each
branch of local activity? Indeed why should the principle be applied
only to local affairs? Why not elect a separate Parliament to deal with
foreign affairs, another to deal with Colonial matters, another to deal
with social reform and so on? The fact is that the much vaunted _ad
hoc_ principle never had any real existence. It is not contained, as
Nonconformists and Radicals seem to imagine either in the Bible or in
Magna Charta; it is no part of the Natural Rights of Man or the Social
Contract or even of the British Constitution. It is nothing but the
last relic of a thoroughly discredited system of local government.
The framers of the Education Act of 1870 themselves knew of no such
principle. They created _ad hoc_ bodies to deal with education, simply
because government was then so undeveloped in this country that there
was no other body to which it could be entrusted. County Councils
did not then exist; the Local Government Act of 1889, which like the
Education Act of 1902 we owe to a Tory government, had not yet been
passed. Over the greater part of England there was no democratic local
government at all. Therefore it was necessary to create a stop-gap
authority to deal with education. Similarly there were in the earlier
part of the century innumerable other _ad hoc_ bodies, entrusted with
the duties of lighting the streets, making public improvements, etc.,
but they have all been swept away and their powers absorbed by county,
borough, town, district or parish council. In course of time it was
inevitable that the obsolete School Boards should follow them into the
limbo of rejected experiments. It now only remains for Parliament to
complete its work by abolishing our hopeless and discredited Boards of
Guardians.
I suppose I ought in passing to refer to the contention that the
administrative machinery of the Acts is undemocratic because the
Councils are to govern through Committees. The absurdity of such a
view will be obvious to anyone acquainted with the machinery of local
government. All local bodies act through committees in educational and
other matters. The Committee is a purely executive body, absolutely
subject to the authority which creates it; and in this respect there is
no essential difference between the Education Committee and that which
controls the trams, the parks or the music halls.
To return to the other provisions of the Acts of 1902-3. The second
effect which they have is to give to the local authority complete
control over the “Voluntary” Schools--now called Non-Provided
Schools--in all matters relating to secular education. This, I know
well, will sound an audacious statement in the ears of those who
have taken their views from the declarations of the Liberal press. I
can only recommend such people to buy a copy of the Act and read it
for themselves. They will find that the managers of the non-provided
schools are expressly compelled to carry out any instructions of the
local education authority in regard to secular education, that in the
event of failure to do so they can by a single stroke be deprived of
all the benefits of the Act, and that the authority has two nominated
representatives on the board of managers who are responsible to the
public alone and can at once appeal to the public authority should
their denominational colleagues show symptoms of recalcitrance.
Lastly all the cost of maintaining these schools (except for the upkeep
of the buildings) is to come from public funds, the balance once borne
by private subscriptions now coming out of the rates (bear in mind that
already two thirds of their income was derived from taxes) so that a
great nation is no longer placed in the humiliating position of having
to rely on private charity in order to meet its educational needs,
while denominational schools will no longer be able to plead beggary as
an excuse for inefficiency.
That in plain English is what the Education Act of 1902 and the
London Education Act of 1903 have effected. I defy any Liberal
or Nonconformist opponent of the measure to show that I have
misrepresented their purport in any particular.
But no sooner was the first draft of the Bill before the country than
the campaign of unscrupulous mis-statement began. The loudest and most
popular cry was that the Bill “imposed” a religious test on teachers.
I remember once at a public debate asking a gentleman who urged this
with great rhetorical effect to point out to me the Clause of the Bill
which imposed such a test. There upon I experienced the keen pleasure
of watching my antagonists struggle through a copy of the Bill in the
hopeless endeavour to find such a clause. Of course he did not find it
for the same reason which prevented Tilburina from seeing the Spanish
Fleet. There is no religious test imposed by the Act. Its sole effect
in this respect is firstly to introduce an elective and nonsectarian
element into the body which appoints the teacher and secondly to allow
that body to over-ride any religious test imposed upon assistant
teachers by the Trust-deeds of the school.
Then came the cry that the “People’s Schools” were being “handed over
to the Priest.” What this meant I cannot conceive. The reference could
hardly be to the denominational schools which before the passing of
the Act were absolutely under the control of the “Priest” while under
the Act his control is to say the least of a very shadowy and much
mitigated character. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that those
who used the phrase really supposed--or at any rate wished others to
suppose--that the Board Schools were handed over to the Church, which
is of course so monstrously untrue, so devoid of even the faintest
shadow of foundation in fact, that it is difficult to put it on paper
without laughing.
There is, so far as I can see, no escape from one of these conclusions.
Either the Nonconformists who made use of these catch-words and of
many others like them had never read the Education Acts, or they were
incapable of understanding the plainest English, or, having read the
Acts and knowing their purport they deliberately misrepresented them.
Take which ever explanation you choose:--are they men whom we can
safely trust with political power?
Later the agitation passed through another phase. After flagrant
misrepresentation came nauseous cant and fantastic casuistry. I believe
that the English Nonconformists profess a great horror of Jesuits. But
nothing attributed to the latter in the fiercest of Pascal’s satires
can equal the extraordinary casuistical _tour de force_ whereby the
former tried to find a distinction between the payment of rates and
the payment of taxes. With one voice the Nonconformists declared that
it would sear their consciences as with a hot iron if they had to pay
a penny towards the support of schools where “Romanising” teaching was
given. Whereto sensible men replied by pointing out that for years the
Nonconformists had been paying for the cost of such schools out of the
taxes. Then it was that the new ethical principle was discovered. It
appears to be as follows:--_It is not wrong to pay money to a national
body to meet the cost of supporting Denominational Schools but it
is wrong to pay money to a local body for the same purpose._ I will
not attempt to follow the various lines of argument by which this
remarkable conclusion is reached. I merely set down the conclusion
itself for the amusement of my readers.
It should be remembered moreover that all the time that they were
ranting about “Rome on the Rates” and the wickedness of compelling
Dissenters to pay for teaching in which they did not believe the
Nonconformists were themselves forcing on the provided schools and
endeavouring to force on all schools a form of religious instruction
notoriously abhorrent to Anglicans (at any rate of the Catholic type),
Romanists, Agnostics and Jews. Could sanctified hypocrisy go further?
Yes, it could and did! No sooner was the Education Bill law than the
leaders of Nonconformity with Dr. Clifford at their head entered upon
the _Opera Bouffe_ rebellion (mischievous enough despite its silliness)
known as “Passive Resistance.” That is to say that, fortified by
the magnificent ethical principle italicised above, they considered
themselves justified in repudiating their plain duties as citizens in
the hope that by so doing they might injure the educational machinery
of the country. The form which their very prudent insurrection took was
that of refusing to pay their rates and compelling the community to
distrain on their goods.
With the manifold humours of the movement, with the sale of Dr.
Clifford’s trowels and the sad fate of his bust of Cromwell, with the
evident eagerness of our Nonconformist martyrs to part with their
Bibles at the earliest possible moment, with the diurnal letters of Dr.
Clifford to the _Daily News_, with his just anger against the brutal
authorities who let a “resister” out of prison, with the even more
delicious letters of minor lights of Dissent, with the fear expressed
by one of these lest his heroic action should be supposed by the
cold world to be merely an economic distraint for rent,[8] with the
olympian wrath of those aspirants for the martyr’s crown who found
their hopes blighted by the baseness of some unknown person who had
cruelly paid their rates for them--with none of these do I propose to
deal. Doubtless the proceedings of these brave martyr-rebels, whose
motto, like that of the conspirators in one of Mr. Gilbert’s operas,
“is Revenge without Anxiety--that is without unnecessary Risk,” are
delightful, if regarded from the standpoint of humour. It is to be
regretted that we cannot altogether afford so to regard them. No
Christian can free himself from a sense of shame at seeing Christian
bodies sink so low, nor can any patriotic Englishman, whatever his
creed, watch the signs of the times without anxiety when he sees what
was once a great English party flatter such men and condone such a
policy.
Seriously considered the “Passive Resistance” campaign proved
two things. The immense impetus which it has gained among the
Nonconformists is a symptom of that utter disregard of the public
interest which has in all ages been characteristic of political
sectaries. The toleration, if not encouragement, of it by the bulk
of the Liberal party shows how superficial is the conversion of
Liberals from their former anarchic view of civic duty. For “Passive
Resistance” cannot be justified except the philosophic doctrines and
assumptions of Anarchism be first accepted. Mr. Auberon Herbert might
be a passive resister without inconsistency, for he regards taxation as
a mere subscription sent by the subscriber to an organisation of his
own choice and to be used only for such purposes as he may approve.
He therefore maintains that all taxes should be voluntary and, were
he to “resist” at all, would doubtless resist in the case of all
state expenditure which he may think undesirable,--armaments, wars,
state ceremonial, and even municipal enterprise. Now this theory,
if once accepted, will tell much more against the progressive side
than against the reactionaries. The Nonconformists are as likely as
not, I imagine, to “resist” the payment of money required to start a
municipal public house; taking example from them, other persons may
resist payment of taxes needed to furnish old age pensions on the
ground that their consciences forbid them to allow their money to be
used for the discouragement of the virtue of thrift. In a word the
only logical conclusion of the “passive resistance” policy is complete
Anarchism--Anarchism from which the Liberal ideal sprang and in which
it will end.
For us Collectivists, of course, the problem does not arise at all.
From our point of view it is not Dr. Clifford’s money that is going
to support Roman Catholic schools, but some of the money which the
community allows Dr. Clifford to handle subject to certain conditions,
one of which is that he should pay his contribution towards the general
expenses of government. If he does not like the use made of it, he has
his vote as a citizen and such influence as his abilities may command,
and that is all he is entitled to. That is the case against Passive
Resistance, and I can only say that, if it is invalid, the whole case
for taxation is invalid also.
Finally what strikes one most about this propaganda is its utterly
cruel and cynical carelessness of the interests of the children. At
a time, when education is so necessary to our national existence, it
is no light thing when a deliberate attempt is made by responsible
citizens to wreck our educational machinery in the interest of a
group of sects. This is no exaggeration. We are told explicitly that
the object of the agitation is to make the Education Act unworkable,
that is to say to make it impossible to educate the children properly.
How far in this direction the leaders of the movement are prepared to
go may be seen from the case of Wales, where they are dominant and
can act as they please. There they have formulated a policy whereby
the deliberate ruin of Welsh education will be brought about by Welsh
“patriots,” the object being to defeat what they are pleased to call
the “Welsh Coercion Act,” which of course is not a Coercion Act at all,
but merely an Act making provision for the upkeep of the children’s
schools in cases where local authorities neglect their duties and leave
the unfortunate children fireless and bookless. I could wish that the
Nonconformist leaders, who are so fond of the “Open Bible” would
devote a little attention to Matthew XVIII 6.
Where it will all end no-one can say. Given favourable circumstances
and a fair and firm administration of the law, I believe “Passive
Resistance” in all its forms would soon die of its own inanity. The
Dissenting Anarchists failed to capture the L.C.C. thanks to the
patriotism and good sense of the Progressives at whom they have been
snarling ever since; and it hardly seems as if, outside Wales, they
would achieve much in the arena of municipal politics. In Wales, where
they have perhaps a slightly stronger case, some compromise might
be effective,--the proposals of the Bishop of St. Asaphs might form
a basis for discussion. But, of course, the whole situation would
be profoundly changed, were a Parliament dominated by Dissent to be
returned at the General Election. In that case the settlement of
1902 would be upset, whole question would be flung once more into
the melting pot, and our educational system would be fought for by
Churchmen and Dissenters, as two ill-tempered dogs fight for a bone.
That is what is quite likely to happen if we are not very careful, and
serious educationalists can only look to the future with anxiety and
disquiet. Though perhaps in the last resort we can rely on the House of
Lords!
OUR BRITISH MOSLEMS.
I have no wish to say anything disrespectful of the religion of Islam.
In many respects it is a very good religion; without doubt it is a
great one and one of the most vigorous in the world. It is said still
to make more converts annually than any other. It reigns unchallenged
from Morocco to Persia, it is dominant throughout a large part of
India, and is spreading more and more every year amongst the wild
tribes of Central Africa and the islanders of the Malay Peninsular. In
this country the orthodox Mohammedan creed has made but little headway;
nevertheless a number of more or less heretical Moslem sects, among
which the Wesleyans, the Baptists, and the Congregationalists are
perhaps the most important, flourish there exceedingly and, if not on
the increase, are at least fairly holding their ground.
One of the basic moral tenets of the Moslem faith is, as everyone
knows, the prohibition of alcohol, and this tenet, despite doctrinal
variations, is held with equal firmness by the English sects above
mentioned. The analogy is not a fanciful one; I express it in this
way because I wish to emphasize the fact that the objection of the
_Daily News_ and of those whose views it represents to beer and
spirit drinking is an objection not to the social evils inseparable
from alcoholic excess, nor to the many corruptions connected with the
private drink trade, but simply and emphatically to the thing, itself.
It is, in fact, a religious tapu. I can respect it as such, and I can
respect the Samoan _tapus_ described by Stevenson, but it is necessary
to recognise its nature, if we wish to understand its relation to what
plain men mean by the temperance problem.
It may reasonably be deduced that the demand so constantly made that
temperance reformers of all schools should unite on a common programme
is utterly impracticable. They cannot unite, because they do not want
the same things. There is no point of contact possible between those
who think beer so bad a thing that they are angry that anyone should be
supplied with it and those that think it so good a thing that they are
angry that it should not be supplied in a pure state and under decent
conditions; between those who object to the modern public house because
they think it at once evil and seductive and those who object to it
because they think it demoralisingly ugly and uncomfortable. In short
there is no possible community of interest between those for whom the
liquour problem is how to _supply_ alcoholic liquors with the greatest
social profit and the least social damage and those for whom the
problem is how to prevent such liquours from being supplied at all.
“The average man” says Mr. Edward R. Pease “wants beer.” This
remarkable discovery is alone sufficient to place Mr. Pease at the
head of all our temperance reformers, for he is the only one of them
who seems to have realised its incontestable truth and importance. His
admirable book “The Case for Municipal Drink,”[9] which I strongly
advise all my readers interested in the question to obtain and study,
is the most perfect presentation I know of the position of those who
wish to know how best to supply drink, not how best not to supply
it. Contrast it with the views constantly set forth in the _Daily
News_--views which may be taken to represent those espoused by at least
a large section of the Liberal Party--and you have something like a
clear issue.