OUR LONDON LETTER by M. Ellsworth Olsen

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Nov 19, 1902

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 28, No. 47.

OUR LONDON LETTER.

By M. Ellsworth Olsen

The Real Meaning of the Educational Bill.

PARLIAMENT resumed its sittings yesterday after the summer’s vacation.

One subject was uppermost in the minds of every one; namely, the Educational Bill. This much-disputed document consists of twenty-one clauses couched in terms so ambiguous that its opponents always lay themselves open to the charge of not properly understanding it. Seven clauses were passed before Parliament broke up for the summer recess. Mr. Balfour informed the House last night that the remaining fourteen clauses, which contain the most fiercely-contested points, will have the precedence of all other business until acted upon. The present government has not been fortunate in its efforts to create a system of education for Great Britain. They brought in a bill in 1896 which they were compelled to abandon because, as Mr. Balfour said, it was practically impossible to carry it through the House. There were then no less than 1,238 amendments on paper, with the prospect of still more. Again in 1901 they announced the abandonment of an Educational Bill. The present bill is accordingly the third effort of the existing government, and by it they propose to live or die.

Public opinion is, of course, divided. The Non-conformists, who number about half the population, or at least nearly so, are solidly opposed to it, for the simple reason that it favors the State church, and virtually turns over to that body the control of public education. This the bill does not do ostensibly; in fact it is worded rather obscurely, and therefore its advocates can the more easily put a very mild construction on the parts which awaken the bitterest opposition. But there are some keen, clear-headed men in the Non-conformist ranks, and they see in the measure now before Parliament not only a narrow and clerical system of education for the nation, but ultimately the destruction of their whole status as a religious body.

Accordingly, the various denominations have been active during the last two months holding mass meetings to protest against the bill, and endeavoring in every possible way to stir up opposition to it. A very large number of persons have definitely decided to offer passive resistance, by refusing to pay the rates in case the bill is passed in its present form. Imposing demonstrations have been held recently in Leeds, Manchester, and London, and another is to be held in the latter place the first of November. The tone of all these meetings has been defiant. The government is called upon to withdraw the bill or dissolve Parliament and appeal to the people.

On the other hand, the Primate and the other high dignitaries of the State church have urged the adoption of the bill. At the Church Congress recently held in Northampton scarcely a dissentient note was heard. One speaker referred distinctly to the opportunity the bill would afford for training the children in the faith and practices of the Church of England. Ritualists were the strong element in the Congress, and it is becoming increasingly evident that they have the future of the church entirely in their hands. This party, also known as Sacerdotalists, resemble Roman Catholics in nothing more than in their earnest efforts to mould the minds of the children and youth. There is already a large literature for this purpose, and silently, slowly, but very effectively, it is doing its appointed work.

Cardinal Vaughn, the head of the Catholic Church of Great Britain, has taken a strong stand in favor of the bill. In a letter to Mr. Redmond, leader of the Irish party in Parliament, he writes: “We are unanimous in our desire to see this bill passed into law, if it can be passed without the acceptance of any amendment destructive of the religious independence of our schools.” As the Irish members of Parliament are practically all Roman Catholics, they are likely to join hands with the government in the effort to carry the bill through, altho, as is well known, they are bitterly opposed to the government’s policy in other matters.

Altogether, with a very large working majority and with rare personal popularity backed up by the strenuous but not always discreet Colonial Secretary, Mr. Balfour has a very fair chance of passing the bill with, possibly, a few slight modifications. If this is done, it will mean a long step backwards for Great Britain. Non-conformists are now compelled to support a State church. They will then have the added privilege of supporting a system of public education in which religious teaching based on the Church of England catechism will form a prominent part. Incidentally the system of Board Schools, modeled on the same general principles as our American public schools, will be demolished. It can not be said that the Board Schools are irreligious, for they provide for the teaching of the Bible; but what the clergy evidently want is the creed and the catechism.

With the new bill in force only communicating members of the State church will be qualified to teach in the majority of the schools; and while Dissenters will have some schools where their religious views may be inculcated, thousands of them will be situated where they can not avail themselves of such privileges, and will be in a sense compelled to send their children to schools that will be dominated by High Church or Ritualistic principles.

England may yet become a priest-ridden country. The fond boasts of progress toward greater freedom and liberality are certainly not justified by the present trend of affairs. Medieval intolerance is not so far off as one would suppose. Certainly there is no more vital spot than a nation’s system of education. When the children are once in the hands of the State church, it is not difficult to predict what will be the outcome.

M. ELLSWORTH OLSEN.

London. England, October 30.