The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 1907. ENGLISH EDUCATION BIEL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3745, 31 January 1907, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 1907. ENGLISH EDUCATION BIEL.

During an interview with the Rev. E. G. Gauge, F.R.A.S., a former president of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, a position which entitles him to be looked upon as one of the leading Nonconformist divines of the Old Land and who is visiting New Zealand, a Wanganui Herald reporter gleaned some interesting information in reference to the English Education Bill. Dealing with the political outlook at Home, the reverend gentleman said that the present British Government was the strongest, and had the biggest majority since the days of Cromwell, and they would stand no nonsense on the Education question. In fact, it was practically on this question that they had come into power.’ It was the Education question which had turned the scale, and had brought Free Churchmen in shoals to the line, even when they had previously voted on the Conservative ticket. , . . , The Government had not compelled the Anglicans to give up their schools ; it had been asked to take them over because the controlling authorities were practically insolvent, the State schools having become such strong competitors. Mr Balfour’s Bill of 1902 took over the Anglican schools at their own request, and dumped them on to the rates, but the ratepayers were given no control though taxed to support them. The law provided six managers for each school, out of which the Anglican Church had the power of, not nominating, but 'appointing four, of which the minister in each locality was always one. Only two were chosen by the local bodies, and “what representation is there in that?” The new Bill merely said that, as the schools were maintained out of public money, they should belong to no denomination, and there should be no denominational teaching in them. Under the Bill it was proposed to pay the Anglican Church one and a half millions in rent for the use of the buildings, leaving them in undisturbed possession for Sunday School and Church purposes. The Anglican Church coul,d resume possession of the at anv time they wanted.

Where, therefore, was the spoliation ? The Nonconformists, said Mr would lie prepared to end the controversy at once if the Anglicans would take the schools back and support them, but they cannot do this as they are practically insolvent through the falling off in voluntary contributions. There was another hardship to Noncoinformists. They had to provide for their sons and daughters, and many of the latter chose the scholastic profession. Yet they were shut out, and had not a ghost of a chance, because the managers would only choose teachers belonging to the Church of England. The strongest force agitating Free Churchmen in the matter, said Mr Gauge, was their love of Protestantism. Of course they would object to any sect taking the stand adopted by the Anglicans, but so many of the latter were Ritualists, and so much Ritualism was taught in the schools, even to the practice of the confessional, that Protestantism was being imperilled, and this was what had touched Nonconformists most deeply. The position of the Catholics, he continued, was practically the same as that of the Anglicans ; though accepting public money for the support of their schools they refused to give public control. In answer to a question whether a secular system of education would not be the best solution of the present impasse, Mr Gauge said Free Churchmen would no doubt regret being compelled to adopt it. They would rather have Bible reading in the schools—not Bible teaching. The Anglicans, however, would not have that; they wanted to teach their own view of the Bible, and unless they gave way the only thing left was to “clear the decks altogether,” and frankly accept secular education, which was preferable to the present situation. As to the ultimate outcome, there are many things the Government can do. It must be remembered first of all that the Commons control the finance. The Prime Minister may say that, having a mandate from the people, if the Fords block the way, he will refuse money, and the Lords can do nothing. Another thing is that most of the Church schools are cheaply built, and so insanitary that it is a wonder they pass inspection. If the inspectors were told to pass them only if they were fit, fully half would be closed. Then the Church must build new schools, which it has not the money to do, or the State schools must step in and take their place. The Government can also refuse grants in aid. No Government has hitherto dared to do it, but the present is a thoroughly democratic Cabinet. Asked as to the Government’s intention, Mr Gauge said that the Bill had been dropped for this session, but he thought next session would see a more drastic Bill introduced. The Government had tried to pacify the Anglicans, but they would not accept half a loaf, and it was probable that “clause 4” would be again introduced. This provided that in a district where there was more than one school, clergymen may give their own denominational teaching if four-fifths of the parents so desire. The Anglicans objected to the four-fifths and wanted a bare majority.”