BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS (1871).
Source.—Life of Thomas Henry Huxley, by his Son, vol. ii., pp. 342, 343. (Macmillan and Co., 1900.)
At the first meeting of the Education Committee of the London School Board, Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., proposed, and Mr. Samuel Morley, M.P., seconded a resolution in favour of religious teaching. “That in the schools provided by the Board, the Bible shall be read, and there shall be given therefrom such explanations and such instruction in the principles of religion and morality as are suited to the capacities of children,” with certain provisos. Several antagonistic amendments were proposed; but Professor Huxley gave his support to Mr. Smith’s resolutions, which, however, he thought might “be trimmed and amended in a way that the Rev. Dr. Angus had suggested. His speech, defining his own position, was a very remarkable one. He said it was assumed in the public mind that this question of religious instruction was a little family quarrel between the different sects of Protestantism on the one hand, and the old Catholic Church on the other. Side by side with this much shivered and splintered Protestantism of theirs, and with the united fabric of the Catholic Church (not so strong temporally as she used to be, otherwise he might not have been addressing them at that moment), there was a third party growing up into very considerable and daily increasing significance, which had nothing to do with either of those great parties, and which was pushing its own way independent of them, having its own religion and morality, which rested in no way whatever on the foundations of the other two.” He thought that “the action of the Board should be guided and influenced very much by the consideration of this third great aspect of things,” which he called the scientific aspect, for want of a better name. “It had been very justly said that they had a great mass of low, half-instructed population which owed what little redemption from ignorance and barbarism it possessed mainly to the efforts of the clergy of the different denominations. Any system of gaining the attention of these people to these matters must be a system connected with, or not too rudely divorced from, their own system of belief. He wanted regulations, not in accordance with what he himself thought was right, but in the direction in which thought was moving.” He wanted an elastic system that did not oppose any obstacle to the free play of the public mind. Huxley voted against all the proposed amendments, and in favour of Mr. Smith’s motion. There were only three who voted against it; while the three Roman Catholic members refrained from voting. This basis of religious instruction, practically unaltered, has remained the law of the Board ever since.
There was a controversy in the papers between Professor Huxley and the Rev. W. H. Freemantle as to the nature of the explanation of the Bible lessons. Huxley maintained that it should be purely grammatical, geographical, and historical in its nature; Freemantle that it should include some species of distinct religious teaching, but not of a denominational character.
GENEVA ARBITRATION: THE INDIRECT CLAIMS (1872).
Source.—Life of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P., by T. Wemyss Reid, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23. (Chapman and Hall, 1888.)
But when everything seemed to be settled, and there was at last good hope of the final removal of the long-standing obstacle to the friendship of the two peoples, a new difficulty made its appearance in a very unexpected quarter. This was the claim for indirect damages, which were set forth in the “case” of America, as it was presented to the Court of Arbitration at Geneva. Great was the indignation in England when, at the close of January, 1872, it first became known that the American Government was prepared to prefer this demand. The Cabinet was at once summoned to consider the question, and some of the members were for forthwith withdrawing from the arbitration. Mr. Forster was in favour of a more moderate and prudent course, but at the same time he felt strongly as to the unfairness of the demand made by America. “Clearly,” he writes in his diary (January 30, 1872), “this claim is sharp practice by the Americans, as the protocols prove that they had waived the indirect claims. Our Press is very indignant and exigeant, the Daily News leading. A cool head and a cool temper wanted. I asked Tenterden to dinner to talk the matter over with him. He is strong against diplomatic negotiations, and recommends a protest and refusal to submit the indirect claims to the arbitration to be delivered through our agent to the tribunal to the United States agent, both being appointed by Article 2 of the Treaty. Thereby diplomatic wrangling would be avoided, and the Yankees would not be forced to immediate reply while the Presidential caucus is at its height. I never felt any matter so serious. (January 31.) Drew up a memorandum urging communication through the agents rather than by despatch, on the ‘Alabama’ hitch. Took it to Granville; then sent it to Gladstone, asking him whether he would object to its circulation. Found a note from G—— assenting to circulation, so sent F—— off with the box. (February 2.) My box returned. All the Ministers’ minutes against me, except Gladstone, Granville, Ripon, and Chancellor.”
The question was discussed in the Cabinet, but the opinion was not favourable to Mr. Forster’s proposal, who had to give way.
(P. 26.) In February General Schenck [the leader of the American House of Representatives, who was in England] unofficially proposed four possible plans by way of settling the difficulty: (1) A lump sum paid by England; (2) a maximum sum paid by England to cover all claims, direct or indirect, supposing the arbitrators found against us; (3) proceeding with our arbitration under our protest that we did not consider the indirect claims within the Treaty, and could not abide by any decision against us as respected them, or pay in respect of them any gross sum or portion thereof; (4) an exchange of Vancouver’s Island for the indirect claims, upon the principle that both treaties were open to two interpretations....