The London Welshman

A THUMPING MAJORITY. BY WELSH NATIONALIST. As was anticipated in the article of last week, the second reading debate in the House of Commons of Mr. Birrell's Education Bill revealed at once the strength of the measure and the weakness of its opponents. A few days before the debate opened, a sudden silence fell upon the bishops, and, if anything is heard from them now, it is rather in the nature of the "still small voice" of reason, following on the furious bluster which prevailed earlier. The figures of the second reading majority are decisive; but more important is the indisputable victory in argument of the supporters of the Bill. Welshmen have a right to be proud that, perhaps, the finest defence of the Bill—which was, at the same time, a brilliant exposition of the significance of Nonconformity in the State- came from the Welsh leader. His vindication of the Welsh Council clause was particularly complete and convincing. Where ;.re now the charges of tyranny and confiscation ? The debate has dissipated them into nothingness and all that remains is the stamp of discredit on the heads of those who made such baseless imputations It may be hoped (though it is somewhat sanguine to believe) that one of the results of the debate will be to give Anglican leaders a faint notion of what Nonconformity really means. They seem to think that it is a religion, while in truth it is a political term, which can only exist where there is a political Church. Separate the Church from the State, and there is no Nonconformity.' For this reason there are no Nonconformists in the British Colonies, in the United States, or in some of the European nations. It is a curious perversity of mankind that the very people who maintain the State Church are those who use what they consider the opprobrious epithet of "political Noncon- formists." It is just as absurd as it would be to speak scornfully of political Tories." The political character of the clericals them- selves is well brought out in the opposition of a paper like the Church Times to the present Education Bill. This paper says it wants Anglican schools at the public charge, in order to teach the children (i) why they are Christians and not Infidels, and (2) why they are to be Churchmen and not Dissenters? As to (I), it may be observed that infidels," in the view of the Church Times, would include Agnostics and all that growing body of persons who profess what is called the ethical religion. These people are all taxpayers and ratepayers, and teachers paid out of their pockets are to hold up their views to opprobrium in the public schools. This is seething the kid in its mother's milk. Then we come to the second point. The children are to be taught the sin of dissent—how dissenters are outside the covenanted mercies, and dissenting chapels are to be ranked with public-houses as places to be shunned, because they are insulting to God and full of peril to the soul. These doctrines again are to be taught by High Anglicans in the public schools out of money furnished by the pernicious Dissenters themselves. The Church Times goes even farther. It does not hesitate to say that the teachers of the Anglican (publicly supported) schools should be "elevated" into a minor religious order; that, in fact, these publicly paid teachers should be made a sort of inferior lay curates. This is the arrogant demand of the High Anglicans, and it is largely conceded by the obnoxious Clause 4 of Mr. Birrell's Bill. The more this clause is examined, the more plain it becomes that it may be used to establish and endow Anglican schools in which the great majority of the citizens of this country may be abused in their religious beliefs or convictions at th'eir own expense. The audacity and iniquity of such a thing is astounding in the year of grace which we have reached. Great play is being made by the clericals with the theory of "parental right." In settling their Act of 1902, they opposed every attempt to give the parent any status in the schools. The parson or priest was then everything. Hut the right of the parent in this matter is non-existent. The parent has no more right to claim religious teaching for his child at the public expense than to claim a mid-day meal; and rather less right. The State, for its own purposes, may choose to urovide free dinners or religious teaching, or both; but, as the State is to pay, it is the State (acting through its citizens) that decides the matter, and not the parents alleging rights. If n parents want religious teaching of their own particular kind for their children, then it is their duty to provide and pay for it. No one seeks to prevent them from having it at their own expense. To revert to Clause 4, it does not satisfy the clericals, and is offensive to those who arc Nationalists in the matter of public education. The clause ought to be struck out. It would be far better to make express provision for Roman Catholics and Jews. Such people stand outside the current of English and Welsh national life; and there is a great deal to be said in favour of their special treatment for exceptional reasons. The Catholics cannot be taught our Bible, or our history, or our science. They are in a backwater as to these things, and Mr. Tim Healy loves to have it so. They are also insignificant in point of number, and for them to stand apart, will not injure the progress of the nation as a whole. It is for them to consider whether they are wise to acknowledge themselves to be in such an isolated position, unable to mingle with the larger national elements. But the same con- cession cannot be made to the adherents of the so-called National Church. It is the State Church of a Protestant country, and it must share the national life, or perish. The moment it claims to be a sect apart, its reason to exist as a State Church vanishes. This brings us back, as all these discussions do, to the radical settlement of disestablishment. That is the only solution which will satisfy the national conscience and produce religious peace. Liberal statesmen must gird up their loins to confer upon the nation this great boon. To abolish the great evil of the Sate connection would be to do away at one blow with an innumerable brood of evils and troubles that now distract the public mind, and sow discord and enmity where there ought to be concord and fraternity. No Liberationist wishes to lay a hand on the doctrine, or ritual, or discipline, or government of the Church. Nor does he desire or seek in any way to harm its spiritual power. He simply wishes to set the Church free, from what is frequently a hindering and humiliating bondage to the State. Disestablishment and the resulting equality of all churches and denominations must be the starting point of any real unity and fellowship between Christians. Until that is accomplished, the Bishop of Birmingham and Mr. Jowett may sign whatever reunion manifestoes they please but the rela- tionship between Church and Nonconformity will remain only a Brummagem brotherhood.