A GENTLEMAN: Perhaps the matter may be got over by making vice-presidents. The PRESIDENT: We have no vice-presidents. Vice-presidents are only ornamental people, and we require no ornamental people here. The Rev. H. SOLLY, of London: I do not see the name of any Congregational minister on the list. I do not belong to that body myself; but I know that they are very zealous in the cause of education, and I think it is only fair that they should be represented. The PRESIDENT: When we have some Congregational minister willing to join and work upon the Executive Committee, we shall be very willing to receive his name and to appoint him. We were very willing to appoint the Rev. R. W. Dale; but some scruple upon a minor point has prevented him from joining hitherto. If Mr. Solly will undertake the duty of inducing that gentleman to join we shall be very glad. These minor points will soon settle themselves. The resolution, as altered in accordance with the suggestion of Dr. Bligh, was put to the meeting and agreed to. Professor FAWCETT, M.P. for Brighton, rose to move that a Bill embodying the principles of the League be introduced into Parliament. He said: The resolution I have the honour and pleasure to move will give a pledge to the whole nation that this League, representing a great and an increasing force of public opinion, is resolved to adopt practical and decisive action. The subject of national education has now happily advanced a stage beyond that of doubt and inquiry; it has reached the stage when it is ripe for action. The reproach is too often with truth made against Leagues and Congresses that they begin with talk, they go on with talk, they end in talk, and that is their only result. But if from this meeting a Bill shall emanate, the whole country will then see placed in a practical form, in a definite shape-so definite that they will be able to express their opinion upon it—what are the views we hold upon this great question, and how we think these views may be practically carried out. It may be said, of course, that Government intends to introduce an Education Bill next session, and that we who repose confidence in the Government should wait until we see what its measure is. In reply to that possible objection to this resolution, it is only necessary to remark that if the Government measure-I am afraid it is too bright an anticipation-comes up to what we require, if it embodies the principles of this League, then all that we shall have to do will be at once to withdraw the Bill which we introduce into Parliament, and use the whole strength of this organization in support of the Government and its measure. But if, on the other hand, the Government measure should have in it any shortcomings which we conceive are antagonistic to the great principles of this League-we cannot, of course, expect that any measure will meet our programme in all its detail-but if, for instance, the Government measure should infringe any of our great fundamental principles-if it should be too denominational in its character—if it should commit what, to my mind, is a fatal mistake of having compulsory rating without compulsory attendance then our Bill will be before the country, and the nation will be able to decide-and I think I can anticipate their decision with confidence-to which measure they will give their support. Now, it would be idle to deny that it is impossible for the great body of men who compose this League to be entirely agreed upon details; but so long as we can get our great aim and ends secured, we should, I venture to say, sacrifice our individual preferences upon minor points; and I for one am prepared on all questions of detail to give up my own opinions and bow cheerfully to the sentiments of the majority. Thus I may have my own opinions as to which would be the best title to adopt-undenominational, secular, or unsectarian; but I am perfectly prepared to accept any one of these three words which the majority of the League think should be the word in our programme. Then again, I have a preference for parents paying for the education of their children, instead of sending them to free schools; but here again I I am perfectly willing to give up my own individual opinions, and if the majority of the Conference is in favour of free schools, I, for one, will not shrink for a moment. What I conceive to be the fundamental principle of this organization, which I look upon as the essential point upon which every one of us must be agreed, which is the bond of our union, the basis of our existence, is this: that we are absolutely determined that elementary education shall be guaranteed to every boy and girl in this country, and that if there is a deficiency of educational appliances, then schools shall be built and maintained out of the rates. Upon this fundamental principle I conceive that there can be no difference whatever amongst us. Now comes the question, if we are to have a Bill, what are to be the main principles of this Bill, in order to carry out compulsory attendance and compulsory rating? As far as I understand the programme of the League, they contemplate that the schools at any rate, in the first instance, the rate-supported schools-shall be unsectarian, and not secular. For a long time, I must confess, I found it somewhat difficult to discover the difference between these phrases. I think the best explanation that can be given of the difference is this: that in the rate-supported schools no catechism shall be used, no dogmas of religion shall be taught, but it shall be perfectly optional with the managers of a school whether, in that school, the Bible shall be read, without any such comment as persons would object to from sectarian feeling. Therefore, if we adopt this plan of having unsectarian schools, I think we at once meet the argument of those who say that the education we propose will be irreligious. No one, I think, can pretend to say that the British and Foreign schools in this country are irreligious schools; and, to put our meaning about unsectarian schools in a definite and intelligible form, it seems to me that what we contemplate is this: there will be nothing whatever in our programme to prevent the managers of ratesupported schools from making their schools exactly analogous in their religious character to the schools which at present belong to the British and Foreign School organization. These schools are not irreligious; they are supported by Nonconformists, who have shown the greatest enthusiasm for religion. The second point is this do we propose to deal with existing schools? We contemplate, I conceive, leaving existing schools untouched. If a district or a locality prefer voluntaryism to compulsion-if they choose by their own efforts to provide themselves with schools according to the present system, they should have the power to do So. We only contemplate that the educational rate should be imposed in those districts in which the Government inspector reports that the educational appliances are not adequate for the education of all the children in the locality. Now, the next point is this is it better that these schools should be supported by rates, or from the national exchequer? I believe some gentlemen who are entirely in favour of the great principle of compulsory education, have not joined our League because they think that schools should be supported from the Consolidated Fund, and not from the rates. In reply to these gentlemen I would only say thus much-that I believe that if you take money from the Consolidated Fund, there is a chance of its being extravagantly administered, and that if we made a proposal to take it from the Consolidated Fund, we should at once declare open war against existing schools, for it would be idle to pretend that any existing schools could continue if the public could draw for the support of schools from the Consolidated Fund. In reply to those gentlemen who are in favour of existing schools, and wish to see them maintained, we can truly say that there is nothing whatever in our programme that is in the least degree antagonistic to those schools. If events should show that ratesupported schools are better, then of course the existing schools would gradually cease. But it is quite possible to conceive that the power to levy an educational rate may give a great stimulus to the existing schools, for it is quite possible that many clergymen and ministers of religion, who now find it difficult or almost impossible to support their schools, in consequence of the shabbiness and stinginess of the landed proprietors, may be able to induce them to come forward if they can use this practical argument, that, unless they subscribe, rates will be levied upon them and their tenants. Therefore it is quite possible in some cases that compulsory rating, instead of touching the present system, may give it a greater stimulus and render it far more efficient. The last point, upon which I should like to say a few words--and I speak upon it chiefly to show you that I am anxious, as far as possible, to be conciliatory -is upon the question of free schools. I know there is a very strong feeling in this League in favour of making education free, but what I object to in this may be briefly stated in one sentence: I fear the principle of free education may weaken that sentiment of responsibility which parents should feel towards their children. I think we should lay down the doctrine that it is as much the duty of the parent to provide his child with education as it is to provide him with food and clothing. I know it may be said, in reply to my objections, that in certain extreme cases you support the child upon the rates that you will not let children starve, but as a last resource you maintain them upon the rates. Yes; but if the parent refuses to support his child when he has the means to do so, you say that he shall be punished-he commits a criminal act. Similarly I should hold that rather than let a child's mind be starved, as a last resource he should be provided with a free education; but I should like to see the principle never sacrificed, that if a parent who has the means to give his child education refuses to do so, he, too, should be regarded as being guilty of a criminal act. I know it may be said every parent will contribute indirectly through the rates. There is no doubt some force in that argument; but it would be equally just to say it was the duty of the State to feed and clothe children, and not the duty of parents, because the money devoted to the purpose would be taken from the taxes, and therefore parents would in the aggregate contribute. But this, after all, is only a detail of the great measure we have in view; and I am perfectly willing to sacrifice my own individual views. If we introduce a Bill next session, let me give you one word of advice-let it be introduced almost the very first day of the session. Anyone who knows the House of Commons will know the importance of that. And let it be forced on through all its stages. My short experience in the House of Commons has taught me that persistence is a most valuable quality. When we have prepared this Bill, let us never abandon it until the Government is prepared to carry a measure similar to it, or until that day will arrive-and I believe it will never arrive-when the nation shall unmistakeably express its desire that the great problem of national education should be settled |