« 이전계속 »
relief stations, we shall find four main classes requiring separate treatment.
There is, first, the degraded vagrant proper, identified by his abhorrence of work, by his turning up at relief station after relief station, or shirking them and preying on the public. We will give him a waybill for identification, as sketched in Julie Sutter's plan, and land him in a colony, detaining him for an education, more or less penal, in honest toil; we will prevent him from breeding; and refuse to allow the children he has to be dragged about the country. We advocate detention for the loafer vagrant, and, if possible, redemption to honest toil.
There is, secondly, the incapable. The man or woman who cannot work deserves pity; the blind, the epileptic, and feeble-minded need care, with a curtailment of liberty, if morally incapable, to prevent the passing on of hereditary defects to a degenerating offspring ; but they need the tenderest help we can give, and all possible compensation for a hard lot. We advocate true charity to the disabled.
There is, thirdly, the ineffective, the man or woman, ill-trained or ill-placed. We need wisely to guide each life to the right spot, to fit each one in by national bureaux of industry, to provide effective education for the new generation, to give increased mobility to meet fluctuations of work, and to look after those who have no personal initiative. We advocate the utilisation of the ineffective.
There is, fourth, the genuine skilled out-of-work man, 'worth his salt.' We need for him some such regulation of municipal enterprise as will provide a true labour market, to equalise employment in times of scarcity, and tide over the periods when, as John Hobson points out, there is a 'temporary simultaneous glut of land, labour, and capital.' We advocate the equalisation of the labour market for the true out-of-works. Part of this provision lies at the door of the municipality. May we hope for wise ' Councillors' in our national time of need ? Part lies at the door of the Poor-law authority. May we hope there will be "Guardians' conservative, not of institutions, but of those national instincts of justice which are ever on the side of the redress of national wrongs ?
Such is our national need. But one word as regards my own sex. Conditions which press heavily on men press cruelly on women. It was the fact, constantly borne in upon me by observation, that women were continually dropping out of the protection of homes, and being forced by destitution into sin, that led me to investigate the condition of the tramp. A recent census was taken of the sleepingout problem in London. Many men were found, and only few women. Why? Is not the number of women in England larger than that of men? I believe the answer is a tale of horror. Destitute women are driven to prostitution. If our national provision for destitution is harsh and insufficient, it amounts to the perpetual forcing of our
Vol, LVI-No. 329
Does it not 1:oer of lodgin Sapping
destitute sisters into a life of vice, and so indirectly to the sapping of the very foundations of society. The number of lodging-houses which take women is decreasing. Does it not lie upon us as a nation to see that no woman shall be forced by destitution into sin ? Every week, sometimes every day, there drift into shelters and homes destitute sisters ; girls, many of them very young; willing and eager to earn their living ; hungry, almost without clothing; tempted, sometimes fallen ; dropped out of homes, bewildered, friendless, but willing to take a helping hand. Who but such as these need ' guardians'? Shall we consider that the mere administration of a rigid law is England's duty ? No; it has rested too long on one sex only; perhaps to that it owes partly its rigidity and harshness. It needs to be transmuted by woman's love and woman's devotion to the trifling details of individual need, unto the charity that is twice blessed, that blesses him that gives and him that takes.'
AN APPEAL TO THE CLERGY
I HAVE more than once predicted in the pages of this Review that the best of the Anglican clergy would in the end throw over the Education Act. I am still of opinion that they will do this in the end, but I am compelled to admit that the end is long in coming. A year and a half ago they were irritated by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause and uneasy at the possible effect on religious teaching of the introduction of representative managers. Six months later they were alarmed at the apparent strength of the Opposition and the possible advent of a Government pledged to amend the Act in an undenominational sense. To-day these causes of dissatisfaction seem to have lost much of their force. The Education Act has come into operation, and in the majority of cases no great change has followed. The Kenyon-Slaney Clause has hardly ever been invoked. The county councils have for the most part been careful to consult the wishes of the foundation managers. The Act has proved more tolerable than the clergy expected, and the recent recovery in the position of the Government has made them hopeful that it will at least not be altered for the worse. Added to this, the attitude of the Nonconformist majority and the general acceptance of Dr. Clifford's leadership have made the dividing line between them and Churchmen very much sharper. Even those who recognise the unsatisfactory character of the present settlement, and the probability that in the long run it will lower the standard of religious teaching in Church schools, seem disposed to put aside the idea of an educational compromise as not at present within reach.
It is an unfortunate moment, no doubt, in which to preach conciliation. And yet this is the object of the present article. Some little time since a small conference of Churchmen and Nonconformists met to consider whether they could discover some common ground, the acceptance of which would involve no sacrifice of principle on either side. A committee was appointed to draw up a scheme, and the outcome of their labour is a draft Bill, the contents of which I am allowed to use, though it has not yet been submitted to the conference. This Bill seems to me to contain all the essential provisions of a reasonable concordat. It gives the Nonconformists what they ask, and all that it claims in return is a frank recognition of the principle of religious equality. I do not say that all its provisions are equally essential, but there is not one of them that really comes into conflict with the civil or religious conscience.
The object of the Bill, as explained by the introductory memorandum, is twofold. On the one hand it introduces public management into all schools ; on the other it sets up absolute religious equality between them, and aims at making adequate provision for the universal teaching of religion. Supposing the Bill to become law, all schools deriving support from the rates would become provided schools, those now known as non-provided schools being handed over to the local Education Authority on equitable terms. The managers of these, as of other schools, would be appointed by this authority, and all the teachers would be chosen without reference to their religious belief. Religious equality is secured by the repeal of the CowperTemple Clause and an enactment that all religious or ethical teaching shall be provided and paid for by religious or other bodies, singly or in combination—the parents of each child being left to say what kind of religious teaching they wished it to receive. It is probable that some schools will decline to come under public management. These, of course, would not be affected by this Bill. But in the event of their being allowed to receive public support on special terms, while remaining outside the Act, whatever is given to one denomination must be given to all. The facilities for religious teaching consist in fixing a time in which it is to be given, and in allowing individual teachers on the staff of the school to give the religious lesson provided that they are paid by the religious or ethical body which employs them.
This memorandum sets out the main contents of the Bill, but to make sure that they will be understood I will give the chief proposals in the actual words.
Notwithstanding (says Clause I.) anything to the contrary contained in the Education Acts 1870 to 1903, or any of them, all public schools maintained but not provided by the local Education Authority . . . shall be deemed to have been so provided.
In this way all rate-aided schools will pass, so far as management is concerned, out of the hands of their present owners into those of the local education authority. This authority, however, may pay the fair annual value of the schoolhouse by way of rent, and it may also purchase it if the trustees consent, at a price to be settled, if need be, by arbitration. By Clause II. the purchase-money is to be applied according to a scheme to be settled by the Charity Commissioners in confor. mity with such of the trusts upon which the school-house was formerly held as were not trusts for secular education.
By Clancu sent, at any of rent
Clause III. repeals the Cowper-Temple Clause and makes it . the duty of the local Education Authority (a) to afford facilities for the duly accredited teacher of any religious body, or combination of religious bodies, to give separate religious instruction in every public elementary school within its district to such of the scholars as shall be required by their parents to receive such instruction, and (6) to afford similar facilities to such body or bodies for the holding of separate Sunday schools in the school so far as is practicable, having regard to the accommodation of the school-house. Provided that no part of the cost of such instruction shall be borne by the local Education Authority. The time devoted to religious instruction shall be at least threequarters of an hour at the beginning or end of each school-day. Secular instruction shall be provided contemporaneously with such religious instruction, and any child whose parents shall not desire him to receive any religious instruction shall be required to attend such secular instruction instead.
I submit that this Bill suggests a settlement of the education difficulty which ought to satisfy all parties except, it may be, fanatical secularists. What are the objections raised by Nonconformists to the Act of 1902 ? That it gives local money without adequate local control; that, in appearance at all events, it appropriates local money to the support of schools belonging to particular denominations; that, in order to secure the teaching proper to such denominations, it permits them to impose a religious test upon the head teacher in each school. Every one of these objections is met by this Bill. The managers of every school will be appointed by the local Education Authority. Not a fraction of the rates can be spent, even in appearance, on the provision of religious instruction of any kind in any school. And as the teachers will all be appointed, mediately or immediately, by the local Education Authority, no question can be asked as to their religious belief. What is there in this settlement to which a Nonconformist can consistently take exception ? Church schools disappear, and in their stead we have in every parish in the kingdom a school wholly under public management and forbidden to show any favour or give any advantage to any one religion over another. Under the present law these principles are necessarily disregarded in single-school districts. A majority of the managers belong to a particular denomination; no religion other than that of this denomination can be taught in the school; and yet the school is maintained out of public funds. The truth is that the present provisions for elementary education are only suited to towns, and to a condition of things which, even in towns, has seldom really existed. If we imagine the educational need supplied in the main by schools built by the denominations, so that only the fringe of children whose wants are not met in this way attend schools of the present provided type, the co-existence of two distinct classes of schools might be accepted as a working settlement. But it is altogether inapplicable to country districts where, more often than not, there is only one school for the children, whatever may be their denomination, and