born in the very Nonconformist library of a Nonconformist minister, I protest against such statements. They are absolutely without truth and without foundation. If you want to find out for yourselves-and I wish every member of the House would make it his duty, if he has not done so already, to find out for himself-the nature and character of the religious instruction given in the provided schools by almost all, practically, I may say all, the education authorities, you must seek for it in the various syllabuses which have been prepared and issued by their authority. I have seen scores of such syllabuses. I have had the pleasure of reading many of them. It has been the only part of my duties during the last three months that has done me any spiritual good. I will give but one example of these syllabuses. I take it from Hampshire. There is safety in Hampshire. There is nothing of the age of reason or the feast of reason but Hampshire. Some time ago, Sir William Portal sent me the following letter: As vice-chairman of the Hampshire County Council, I venture to lay before you the course adopted by us in dealing with the religious question in our provided or council schools. In the year 1904, as for many years previously, we were especially fortunate in having so wise and able an administrator as the late Lord Northbrook as chairman of the County Council; and it was my privilege as vice-chairman to be associated with him in the measures that were taken in regard to this matter. A carefully selected special committee was appointed for the purpose of recommending to the Education Committee a religious syllabus for our Council schools. It consisted of seven persons, namely, a member of the County Council, as chairman, two clergymen of the Church of England, two Nonconformists, a Roman Catholic priest, and a lady who took much interest in the subject. In the opinion of many the prospect of agreement in such a committee was small. The committee, however, was unanimous in approving and recommending (1) Regulations as to religious instruction in the Council schools; (2) a form of prayer to be used both morning and evening; (3) hymns for daily use. These recommendations were submitted to our Education Committee, consisting of fifty persons, the large majority of whom were members of the Church of England; and the recommendations were unanimously approved by them before their final submission to the County Council. The Council was equally unanimous in their approval, and the syllabus was forthwith adopted in the Council schools of Hampshire.' William Portal adds: You may be pleased to learn how harmoniously and unanimously the question of religious teaching, so far as Council schools are concerned, has been dealt with in Hampshire.' What is true of Hampshire is true, I think, of all the syllabuses under all the educational authorities. They are not the work of Nonconformists. They are the work of good and pious men of every creed, who have done their best, and, what is more, have done it-as we have not been able to do in this House-successfully, and have secured, as in Hampshire, harmonious relations throughout the whole country."-(House of Commons, April 9th, 1906.)

Sir

It would be easy to give scores of instances similar to that of Hampshire. The Cumberland syllabus, for instance (since adopted in Westmorland), was drawn up by a sub-committee consisting of six Churchpeople and three Nonconformists; indeed, this syllabus of antiAnglican and Nonconformist teaching (as we are invited to believe it

is) was actually drafted by the wife of one of the leading clergy of the diocese. In its final form it was unanimously adopted by the Education Committee. In Norfolk the sub-committee appointed to draw up the syllabus of teaching to "undermine” Anglicanism consisted of five Churchpeople and four Nonconformists. It reported unanimously, and its report was adopted unanimously by a County Council consisting of a majority of Churchmen.

ANGLICAN TESTIMONIALS.

As we have said, we believe the Church of England as a whole does not take line that Cowper-Temple teaching is anti-Anglican, Nonconformist, or anti-Christian. It would be amazing if it did, after the testimonials to it which eminent Churchmen have given. Let us give some of these testimonials.

The late Bishop of Durham (Dr. Westcott) said in discussing the Bill of 1896 :

:

"When the solid and reverent instruction was given in the Holy Scriptures, such as he firmly believed was given in the Board schools of all their large towns, he did not think it would be interfered with. Such instruction, indeed, was not all that they required, but what was wanting could be supplied elsewhere, and, speaking from direct knowledge of the subject, he believed that greater completeness would be very dearly purchased by interference with the regular course of the school. So in Church schools, if the instruction given was Scriptural and non-controversial, as he believed it was in nearly all cases, it would continue in the future to be just as welcome as it had been in the past."-(Darlington, May 1st, 1906.)

The present Archbishop of Canterbury has said at various times :"It is almost inconceivable how any Christian man who knows the facts can speak of the religious teaching, present given under the London Board as 'worthless.' Have all those who speak with ready assurance on the subject really examined the religious syllabus of the London School Board? To declare it to be impossible profitably to convey to the mind of a little child the sacred lessons which Holy Scripture gives in story and precept and psalm and parable, and, above all, in the life and works of our Blessed Lord, unaccompanied for the moment by Church Doctrines of a distinctive sort-to declare this is, it seems to me, to contradict the simple experience of a thousand Christian homes.

"It is to me almost inconceivable how any Christian man who knows the facts, can speak of the religious teaching at present given under the London Board as 'worthless' because it is-to use a sorely battered term-'undenominational.

"The Board schools of London are a solid fact. Tens of thousands of our children attend them. Is it naught that they should receive therein at the hands of skilled and faithful masters and mistresses (70 per cent. of whom, it is said, have come from Church Training Colleges) a course of such teaching as the religious Syllabus enjoins?

Take, for example, what the Syllabus requires for Standard IV. Besides the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Twenty-third Psalm, St. Matthew xxii. 35-40, and Deuteronomy xxviii. 1-14, all of which have been learned in lower Standards, and have now to be said, a child in Standard IV. must repeat a portion of the fourteenth chapter of St. John, and receive simple lessons from the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, lessons on the Books of Samuel and Kings, and (in the words of the Syllabus) 'Lessons from the Pentateuch, with special reference to the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, with the practical lessons to be derived therefrom, together with the teaching of the laws of Moses with reference to the "Poor," "Stranger," Fatherless," Widow," "Parents," and "Children." This is merely a specimen. A corresponding advance is, of course, required in the higher Standards. It is simply trifling with this grave subject to ignore that such instruction lays the foundation upon which the ampler teaching of the Christian Faith can be securely built." (Charge to Rochester Clergy, 1894.)

*

*

66

"For example, the members of the Board admit their obvious duty to take care that no one be called upon to teach what he does not conscientiously believe. They are not likely to find this a very formidable task. An idea has somehow gained currency among those who have no personal knowledge of the subject, that there are hundreds of Board School teachers to whose consciences the teaching of definite Scriptural Christianity is an unfair burden. I have conversed on every side with the Board School teachers of South London, to whose voluntary labours as Church workers we owe so much in the Sunday-schools and Bible classes of our poorest parishes, and from any information they can give me, I have no evidence whatever to justify such fears."(Letter printed in Times, April 2nd, 1894.)

"I am one of those-I have sometimes got into trouble with my friends for it--who have always stood by the admirable religious teaching which has been given under not a few of our great School Boards in the past. I have always believed that in very many places it was good; in some places it was simply excellent."-(Dover, August 25th, 1903.)

Sir William Anson said, when the present Bill was introduced :"He cordially admitted his satisfaction at the retention in all schools of what was called simple Bible teaching."— (House of Commons, April 9th, 1906.)

The Bishop of Manchester now says:—

"As to what was called 'the undenominational solution,' apart from all other inconveniences, it was open to the question--Who gave the State authority to extract from all the creeds that which was common to them all and to present it as a religion which was to be taught in the schools? As the Church declared in its Articles, they 'gave not to princes the ministry of God's Word.' If not to princes who were consecrated by religious service, still less could they give that to local authorities or an education department."-(Manchester, April 22nd, 1906.)

But what did he say as Bishop of Coventry in 1900?

"Referring to the assertion that it was impossible to give undenominational teaching, he quoted from a sermon of the late Head Master of the King Edward's Grammar School, in which he said : 'The trained teacher knows that his lessons must be very simple and adapted to the comprehension of his pupils, and will not dwell on disputed points of theology, but on the great truths that all Christians hold. He will resort much to Bible stories, to the examples of holy men, women, and children. He will teach simple texts that may abide in the memory as long as life lasts, and if he is permitted-this also which we would have conceded to him-to begin the day's work with a simple hymn and prayer, he will often find his burden of responsibility lightened and in spirit refreshed amid the many difficulties and anxieties of his work.' Those words told on Birmingham three years ago, and they deserved to be repeated in Birmingham to-day. He confessed that the cry of the impossibility of undenominational teaching amazed him. There was no book in the world which was so true to the point of the heart's compass as the Bible. Men who read that book differently but read it sincerely still found that was the effect it produced upon them, and that was the effect they desired to see produced on the children, and whatever a teacher could do to enhance that effect without sectarian bias they would give him liberty to do.”—(Birmingham, November 12th, 1900.)

We claim to have proved that this attempt to show that CowperTemple teaching is mere Nonconformity, which " 'undermines" Anglicanism, is the view of only a few extremists. This being so, it is no outrage that in existing Church schools there should, in the future, be Cowper-Temple teaching. We have the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority for saying that such teaching can profitably be given to Church children without injury to the consciences of Church teachers. And in every existing Church school it will, under the Bill, be possible to give Church teaching on at least two days of the week. It is a curious turn of the wheel that those who clamour for the exclusion of the Bible should be some Churchmen who seem to care for nothing but the Prayer-book. We can imagine circumstances in which the Bible would be excluded, but if it should be, the responsibility is none of the Liberal Party's. Surely English folk, when they understand the issue, will not be deceived by this pretence that to teach the Bible is to endow Nonconformity or to undermine the Church of England.

B.-Specimens of Actual Syllabuses.

[The following are samples, taken practically at random, of syllabuses of and regulations for "Cowper-Temple" Teaching, drawn up by the local Education Authorities in various parts of the country.]

CUMBERLAND EDUCATION COMMITTEE. Regulations for Religious Instruction.

The Committee have agreed upon the following scheme of religious observance and instruction which they recommend for use in all Council schools.

OPENING AND CLOSING OF SCHOOL.

Morning School shall begin and afternoon School shall end with Hymn and Prayer, including "The Lord's Prayer.”

In the offering of any Prayer, and in the selection of any Hymns, the provisions of the Education Act, 1870, Sections 7 and 14, must be strictly observed both in letter and spirit.

Pending the provision of a Hymn-book, the managers are recommended to continue the Hymns in use at the present time.

It is hoped that teachers will exercise great care that Hymns, Prayers, and Scripture Lessons are conducted with reverence in every particular.

SCRIPTURE LESSONS.

It is presumed that the Schools will open at 9 a.m., and it is recommended that the religious instruction be the first lesson, and that the lesson does not exceed thirty minutes for Standard children and less in the case of infants.

In the Schools provided by the Council the Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanations and such instruction therefrom in the principles of the Christian religion and of morality as are suited to the capacities of children.

Teachers are desired to make the lessons as practical and interesting as possible, and not to give attention to unnecessary details.

Syllabus of Religious Instruction.

(N.B.-All references to Chapter and Verse are inclusive.)

The Sub-Committee recommend that the Scripture teaching be based upon a cycle of four years.

The Standards to be arranged in three Groups, as under: (1) Infants and Standard I. (2) Standards II. and III. (3) Standards IV., V., VI., VII., and ex-VII. If preferred, another grouping of Standards may be adopted.

The syllabus for the year 1903-4 shall be

For Group I.

A. Simple stories from the Book of Genesis, with special lessons from the life of Joseph. B. Leading facts in the Life of our Lord, told in simple language. C. Learn by heart: The Lord's Prayer; three hymns; and in Standard I., Psalm xxiii.