‘Education, education, education’: researching the 1902 Education Act

Themes in local history ‘Education, education, education’: researching the 1902 Education Act RO G E R O T T E W I L L Introduction Tony Blair’s frequently–quoted sound bite, ‘education, education, education’, might have been coined for the Education Act of 1902, generally acknowledged as one of the most far-reaching and contentious pieces of legislation of the Edwardian era. As two contemporary observers wrote at the time, ‘controversy has raged over the issues which [the Act] raises, such as the present generation has not seen over any question of domestic legislation.1 Even allowing for a touch of hyperbole, their assessment is echoed in national and local newspaper reports. For example The Times, which supported the legislation, used phrases such as ‘unscrupulous and virulent opposition’ and ‘unreasoning suspicion’ in its editorial columns.2 Likewise, in an article published in the Westminster Gazette, which disapproved of the legislation, reference was made to the threat of ‘political turmoil [and] organised lawlessness for conscience sake’ if the government pursued its intention to legislate.3 The leader writer of another newspaper opposed to the government, The Daily News, referred to it as a ‘vicious and provocative measure’.4 In a similar vein, local newspapers in favour of the legislation, such as the Hampshire Advertiser, spoke of ‘vials of … wrath’ and ‘grossest misrepresentation of fact’ when commenting on the stance of the opposition.5 Those against, such as the Southampton Times and Hampshire News, referred to the government’s ‘contemptuous treatment’ of any who were affronted by the legislation.6 What accounts for the use of such excessive language? The answer lies in the fact that the Education Act aroused strong emotions on the part of the protagonists because it embodied a heady mix of politics, education and religion. Indeed, the word most frequently used to describe the antagonism arising from the Act is ‘bitter’, with its connotations of resentment and pain. Smith, writing during the interwar period, described the Act as being ‘passed in an atmosphere of profound religious bitterness’.7 In the 1960s Cruickshank concluded that ‘The conflict had been unbelievably bitter. Time and time again arguments had been stated and re-stated, solutions proposed and rejected’, while more recently Wendy Robinson referred to ‘the bitter public controversy, largely over questions of religion, which courted the Act, both inside and outside of parliament’.8 The conflict over the Act is generally presented as a clash between, on the one hand, the Unionist government, led by Lord Salisbury until July 1902 and subsequently by Arthur Balfour, and its allies in the Established Church and, on the other, the Liberal opposition and its supporters among nonconformists. The principal aim of the government’s legislation was to streamline and strengthen the education system by ending the divide between voluntary schools (which were provided mainly, but not exclusively, by the Church of England) and schools provided and run by popularly 258 © British Association for Local History 2007 RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 259 elected school boards. Most Church of England schools were rather confusingly named National Schools, because they received financial and other forms of support from the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church, founded in 1811. The much smaller number of nonconformist, and predominantly non-denominational, equivalents were British Schools, so-called because they owed their existence to the initiative of the British and Foreign School Society, which dated from 1808. Most board schools, which were favoured by nonconformists, had been set up to make good shortfalls in the availability of places in National and British schools. This was particularly necessary after 1881 when school attendance for children aged between 5 and 12 became compulsory. By the turn of the twentieth century, the Church of England was finding it increasingly difficult to finance all of its schools. Although it received some grant aid from central government, this was often insufficient to enable National Schools to provide the quality of education available in board schools which had recourse to the local rates. Under the 1902 Act, all voluntary and board schools were to be brought under the wing of county councils and county borough councils (see table 1). Table 1 Summary of the main provisions of the 1902 Education Act ‘An Act to make further provision with respect to education in England and Wales’ Part I established major and minor local education authorities (LEAs). Major LEAs were the councils of counties and county boroughs and minor LEAs the councils of non-county boroughs with populations of over 10,000 and urban districts of over 20,000. Major LEAs were to be responsible for all publicly funded educational provision in their area and minor LEAs for elementary education. (s.1) LEAs took over the duties and powers of school boards and school attendance committees, all of which were abolished (s.5) Part II dealt with higher (i.e. non-elementary) education Part III covered elementary education and the management of schools; council or provided schools were to have six managers, four of whom were appointed by the LEA and the other two by lower tier authorities (s.7) Voluntary or non-provided schools were also to have six managers, up to four of whom, the ‘foundation managers’, were appointed according to the trust deeds of the school and two by the LEA. They were to be responsible for • providing the school buildings and keeping them in good repair, with the LEA paying for repairs caused by ‘fair wear and tear’ • appointing teachers, with the LEA being responsible for their salaries • running the school, but carrying out the directions of the LEA with respect to secular instruction. In these schools the character of religious instruction was to ‘be in accordance with the provisions … of the trust deeds [and to] be under the control of the managers’ (s.7) The Board of Education was given powers to compel LEAs to fulfil their duties under the Education Acts (s.16) 260 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 The reforms meant that Anglican schools would have access to funding from the rates. However, they would still be able to maintain their distinctive denominational ethos and for many nonconformists this was perceived as a ‘sell out’ to the Church of England. 1. Education as a ‘political football’: one of the large number of cartoons inspired by the Education Act controversy. This example is from Punch, 22 October 1902 (reproduced with permission of Punch Ltd., www.punch.co.uk) The situation was exacerbated because, as Eaglesham points out, Anglicans and nonconformists conceived of education in fundamentally different ways. For Churchmen, as Anglicans were often labelled, it was seen as part of the process whereby children were instructed in, and socialised into, the beliefs of the Church, with religious instruction being not only a compulsory element but also denominationally-orientated in its content. Indeed, it is suggested that by the 1900s ‘The Church [of England] had become more militant in its attitude to education [and] had come to believe that religion must permeate the whole life of the school’.9 By contrast, nonconformists viewed education as a civic right with the religious dimension being unbiased towards any particular denomination. Thus, in British Schools religious instruction was undenominational. School boards could choose between either undenominational religious instruction or none at all for their schools. In favouring the Church of England the 1902 Education Act was seen by nonconformists as an attack on the integrity of the undenominational mode of religious instruction. In such circumstances, it is easy to understand why nonconformists felt affronted and, in a fit of righteous indignation, sought to oppose the Act by whatever means at their disposal. Their hope was that they could secure a reversal of policy with a change of government. Thus, expressions of hostility continued at least until 1906 when the Unionist government was roundly defeated by the Liberals in a historic landslide victory at the polls. As a testament to the intensity of the controversy its memory lingered, in certain quarters, for many years. For example, during ‘World War II, Churchill … regarded any revision of the … Act as political dynamite’.10 As late as 1966, in a parliamentary debate on the RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 261 Education Bill, two MPs made reference to the earlier conflict. One was the Liberal member for Montgomery, Emlyn Hooson, who commented that ‘I have no interest to declare save that I am a Welsh Nonconformist and come from a family which in the past vehemently supported the movement in the Principality whereby people refused to pay rates and tithes rather than send their children to the Anglican Schools’.11 The other was the Labour member for Bedford, Brian Parkyn, who recollected that he ‘was brought up with a militant Nonconformist background going back some years. My grandfather went to prison on a number of occasions fighting against church schools and even the very gold chain which I am wearing went to court several times’.12 No doubt such poignant reminiscences could be replicated in large numbers of families, given the sensitivities associated with the issues at stake. Historical perspectives In view of the intensity of the controversy surrounding the 1902 Education Act, and the high profile which it enjoyed, it is not surprising that it has attracted the attention of a considerable number of historians. They have approached the legislation and the issues to which it gave rise from a variety of perspectives, at least four of which are worthy of note. First, historians with a particular interest in the education system have focused on the implications of the Act, both positive and negative, for the development of schooling in England and Wales. From this perspective Robinson highlights ‘three broad historical approaches’.13 The first is the celebratory, which sees the ‘legislation as a great landmark in the development of a state provided national educational system’.14 The second is a ‘more measured rationalist view which conceives the Act as necessary to further educational development’. The third is far more critical of the Act and sees it as retrograde, with the abolition of school boards being ‘a seriously wrong turn in the history of English education’.15 A good example of the third approach is a short article by Manton in which he argues that ‘The 1902 Education Act was a deeply reactionary piece of legislation that consciously set out to dismantle the popular schooling system developed by the school boards that had been created by the 1870 Education Act’.16 However, Manton’s paean of praise for school boards is somewhat one-sided, since he fails to give due recognition to the differences between them in terms of size, politicoreligious stance and commitment to raising educational standards. Nonetheless, his account does serve to highlight the need for a more measured view of the reforms. Of course, in making judgements about their significance for educational provision it is necessary to consider the Act’s implementation. Eaglesham, in an article published in the early 1960s, examined its contribution to the development of secondary education alongside the issue of how ‘to ensure that elementary schools were adequately maintained’, specifically in those areas where there was greatest opposition.17 More recently, Robinson researched such topics as pupil-teacher centres and higher grade schools and expressed optimism ‘that should any future reflections on the 1902 Education Act be written … there may yet be different and more sophisticated versions of the story’.18 A second perspective on the Act is that provided by ecclesiastical historians, who have concentrated on the religious dimensions of the conflict and the antipathy which it generated between Anglicans and Free Churchmen. Petersen describes it as ‘the last blaze of the long religious controversy between the Nonconformists and the Church of England’.19 Some have been at pains to emphasise the diversity of view amongst Anglicans and nonconformists and to show that a simple dichotomy is misconceived and misleading. Pugh has explored the enormous variety of attitudes on the Anglican side, ranging from almost complete identification with the nonconformist position, 262 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 through a genuine desire for conciliation and compromise (as represented by the Bishop of Hereford) to implacable hostility to nonconformists and all that they stood for, on the part of some Anglo-Catholics.20 He has also drawn attention to differences amongst nonconformists, with Wesleyan Methodists being the least united in their opposition to the Act.21 Third, political historians often view the Act through the prism of the Liberal landslide in the general election of 1906 and analyse how it, with other controversial measures, contributed to the downfall of the Unionist government. They see it as one of a number of issues around which the Liberal opposition could coalesce and thus as a further ‘nail in the coffin’ of Balfour and his colleagues. As such, educational reform is subsumed within a series of perceived miscalculations, which led to the growing unpopularity of the Unionist government and its increasing alienation from many components of the electorate. Apart from education, these included proposals for tariff reform, which threatened cheap food and businesses engaged in international trade; the Taff Vale dispute, which antagonised trade unionists; the Licensing Act 1904, which affronted the temperance movement and ‘placed private profit before public good’;22 and allowing indentured Chinese labourers to be employed in South Africa, which some regarded as a form of slavery. Other historians, adopting a political, or more accurately a politicoreligious, perspective, tend to concentrate on the conflict itself. Some, such as Koss, have focused on the political stance of nonconformists, and have drawn attention to the relative lack of leadership among the various denominations at the time of the campaign against the Education Bill—notwithstanding the very high profile of the Baptist leader John Clifford who coined the famous, possibly infamous, phrase, ‘Rome on the rates’. In addition, Koss highlights the fault lines within nonconformity and its division into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ components.23 With respect to the former, the most notable expression of opposition was the campaign of passive resistance, which involved withholding that part of the rates destined to fund ‘denominational’ education in church schools. To coordinate this campaign, a National Passive Resistance Committee was established at the beginning of 1903. At local level, ‘By the end of 1903, a network of some 430 citizens’ leagues and committees was in operation throughout England and Wales’.24 Koss suggests that ‘Their object was not so much to incite others to rebellion as to publicise and justify the action of those whose consciences had impelled them 2. John Clifford: Baptist leader and arch-opponent of the 1902 Education Act (National Portrait Gallery, London) RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 263 to rebel’. In the most detailed account of how the drama of passive resistance unfolded, Pugh examines the actions of rate collectors; what happened in the law courts; the distraining of goods in lieu of payment of rates and their subsequent auction; and, for a few diehards, imprisonment.25 A final perspective is offered by administrative historians who have considered the Act in the light of changing ideas about the role of government. Fry, for example, sees it as making a significant contribution to the ‘rationalisation of central responsibility for education’, which he argues was ‘overdue’.26 It can indeed be seen as an important staging post in the long drawn-out transition towards the welfare state, and from voluntarism to public provision with respect to major social services such as education. Thus, the way in which the legislation was fashioned at national level is of particular interest. Fry and others give particular attention to the role of Sir Robert Morant, the first permanent secretary of the Board of Education,27 who ‘masterminded the Act’.28 He, as Eaglesham observed in an article to celebrate the centenary of his birth, was ‘a most controversial figure’.29 Those who supported the principle of democraticallyelected school boards and local autonomy in educational policy-making saw him as a malign influence, pulling the strings from behind the scenes and seeking to undermine the local foundations of the service. Supporters of the reforms naturally took a different view and regarded him as a force for good. To them he was a visionary, his contribution to the 1902 Education Act being, in the words of his obituary in The Times, ‘one of the romances of the Civil Service’.30 Whatever stance one adopts, it is undeniable that Morant was a powerful civil servant who played a significant part in changing the character of central-local relations as far as education was concerned. As expressed in his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, he ‘reorganized the Board of Education into an effective instrument for the implementation of the act, which was characterized by a balance of power between the centre and the local authorities. The board made its presence felt with a series of regulations issued in bold type in publications with differently coloured covers for each type of institution’.31 In view of the new concordat between central government and local authorities, Morant is of interest to local historians as well as those studying the history of local government. Also of importance are the implications of the Act for the structure of local government. It contributed significantly to the shift away from the ‘bewildering array of special bodies, called into being as need became apparent’,32 which had characterised local government in the nineteenth century, to the multi-purpose local authorities of the twentieth. Specifically, the abolition of the school boards and the transfer of their responsibilities to other bodies were seen by many as a significant move towards a more rational mode of local government, and as counteracting, in Goschen’s memorable phrase, ‘a chaos of areas, a chaos of authorities and a chaos of rates’. However, historians such as Manton consider school boards to have been ‘the most advanced democratic bodies of their day’ and their dissolution to be retrograde.33 While the abolition of school boards did reduce the chaos, it must be remembered that the Act replaced one form of complexity with another. This was particularly the case within administrative counties where lower-tier authorities shared responsibility with the county council for elementary education (see table 1).34 For many historians of the 1902 Education Act there is a tendency to adopt what can best be described as a ‘top down’, as opposed to ‘bottom up’, approach. Hence, the historiography of the legislation is skewed towards studies which privilege the national over the local. There remains considerable scope for local historians to add to the richness of the narrative by exploring how the Act, and all that went with it, was experienced at the ‘grass roots’. 264 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 The local dimension Investigating the impact of the 1902 Education Act at local level is of particular importance since, although Westminster and Whitehall were a major focus of supporters and opponents alike, once the legislation was on the statute book attention shifted to the authorities charged with its implementation. This has been recognised by Crombie in her study of Staffordshire and by Jones in his account of what happened in parts of Wales where, given that nonconformity and Liberalism were firmly entrenched, resistance was at its most intense.35 However, these works tend to be the exceptions rather than the rule. There remain many parts of the country where little, if any, work has been done. Although education as a topic is popular with local historians, especially the period following the 1870 Education Act with the school boards attracting considerable interest,36 far less attention has been given to the 1902 Act and its immediate aftermath. What are the issues that local historians might investigate and how might they contribute to the historiography of the legislation? The 1902 Act offers local and regional historians a veritable cornucopia of avenues to explore. From an educational perspective, a key consideration is how the provision of schooling was affected by the changes introduced by the legislation. For elementary education this includes inter alia the availability and distribution of school places; the supply and backgrounds of teachers; the impact on the taught and hidden curricula; provision for the physical wellbeing of pupils; and the steps taken to secure greater consistency in the quality of what was provided. Nor should the vexed issue of the mode and form of religious instruction in elementary schools be overlooked, given that it was one of the principal bones of contention. On this subject it is interesting to note the comment of Dr Micklem, the principal of Mansfield College, who observed that ‘those Nonconformists who in 1902 favoured even a ‘secular solution’ as the only way to escape from sectarian controversy did so because they lived, or thought they lived, in mundo Christiano. It was assumed that the general atmosphere of the schools would be Christian, and especially that Christian moral principles would everywhere be inculcated’.37 How this atmosphere was sustained, and whether there were traces of secularism in elementary schools, are subjects worthy of exploration. Likewise it would be interesting to compare and contrast standards in provided schools (i.e. ex-board schools) and non-provided schools (i.e. voluntary schools). Since an underlying purpose of the reforms was to secure greater equality between what was on offer, exploration of the means by which this objective was pursued and the time taken to realise it in a particular area would make an engaging project. Also of interest are the implications of the legislation for education ‘other than elementary’. Here, developments in the field of secondary education and adult education are of considerable importance. Although county councils already had powers under the Technical Instruction Acts of 1889 and 1891 to promote the ‘technical and manual instruction’ of adults as well as children, the 1902 Act marked a significant step forward with respect to their role in the provision of secondary education. In some areas, where school boards had already done a great deal to lay down secure foundations in this sphere of provision, it also caused a certain amount of consternation. Related topics are pupil-teacher centres and the education of teachers more generally, with there being ‘considerable scope for more work in this field’.38 Looked at from an ecclesiastical or religious perspective, the conflict over the 1902 Education Act raises questions about the relationship between the sacred and secular within Christian theology and the extent to which churches should immerse themselves in more worldly concerns at local as well as national level. Large numbers of nonconformist ministers and Anglican priests were heavily involved in the politico- RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 265 religious lives of their communities and were constantly seeking to balance the saving of souls for the next life with the improvement of conditions in this life. An example of the tensions involved can be seen in the comments of the Reverend Ernest Burrows at the time of his ‘recognition’ as the new pastor of Romsey Baptist Church (Hampshire) in September 1905. These were reported in an article which appeared in the Romsey Advertiser under the headline “Militant Nonconformity”. He was not sure he was first and foremost a politician for he believed there was a higher and nobler work. His ideals were (1) that there might be a praying church, and (2) that the Bell Street [Baptist] Church might have a missionary spirit. Along those lines they would, he thought, make for the political side in gaining their ends. He believed the education question was one which to stir up every true Christian and make them have a religious indignation that they had not liberty and popular control in that town. But first and foremost … the work of the church was the winning of souls for Christ.39 In these circumstances, it is not surprising to find that many clergy attended party political meetings, at which some took a leading role. Anglican clergy were often conspicuous by their presence at Conservative Party gatherings and likewise nonconformist ministers at those organised by the Liberal Party. Thus, the engagement of the clergy at local level with the issues arising from the 1902 Education Act should not be overlooked. In pursuing political, as well as spiritual, objectives many emulated the activities of their much better known colleagues at national level. With the conflict surrounding the Act highlighting differences over the education question both within and between denominations, how these manifested themselves in local communities requires further scrutiny. Additionally, local historians might usefully examine the theological justifications for the stances taken by the clergy and members of individual churches and denominations, Anglican as well as nonconformist. It is important not to overlook the fact that in many communities there was a degree of consensus between the denominations over other issues, such as temperance concerns and Sunday trading. Thus, there is value in putting the dispute over education into the wider context of inter-Church relations and campaigning. For those interested in the political aspects, developments before, during and after the passage of the Bill through parliament are worthy of exploration. For example, although school boards were abolished by the 1902 Act, they continued to operate into 1903, with elections being held until the end of 1902. The term of office of members of school boards was three years, with the date of the election coinciding with the anniversary of the establishment of the board. These elections can provide some insights into the degree of partisanship within a community and the relative strengths of the various groupings active in the field of education in the years leading up to the legislation. Pugh suggests that they are ‘of considerable interest not only for educational reasons but as a guide to the balance of political and religious forces in an area’.40 Moreover, some school boards provided a focus for the opposition to the legislation, when the government’s intentions became clear. More commonly, however, opposition coalesced around nonconformist clergy and Free Church Councils, during 1902 and thereafter. A critical question concerns the manner in which the opposition was expressed and its effectiveness. The strategies not only of the opponents but also of the apologists for the legislation, such as lobbying, passing resolutions and what today would be called networking, are worthy of investigation. As indicated earlier, of these strategies the most dramatic, and the one which has received the most attention, was passive resistance. That said, how citizens’ leagues and committees were constituted and operated, and how their activities were perceived and reported, presents local historians 266 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 with opportunities for enriching the existing narrative. As intended, considerable publicity tended to accrue to the antics of passive resisters so there is plenty to examine.41 While passive resistance attracted the headlines, it is important not to overemphasise this mode of opposition, the most militant expression of hostility towards the Act, thereby failing to provide a more balanced view of what was happening. For example, in many areas electoral activity at local level was quickened by the Act. In the county council elections of 1904 there were far more contests than was usual for this period. For the Isle of Wight County Council, 23 of the 30 electoral divisions were contested and as a local newspaper succinctly put it, ‘The issue is the administration of the Education Act: church v chapel’.42 While most contests involved Free Church candidates challenging Anglican incumbents, there were some important exceptions where local Anglicans sought to unseat nonconformist councillors or those sympathetic to the antiEducation Act cause. Since campaigning for, and against, the legislation continued for a number of years there is a great deal to explore. While such conflict is of particular interest to historians, it should not be overlooked that while ‘the dust and noise of battle obscured [it] did not destroy the very real harmony which existed in many parts of England’.43 Indeed, even where there were substantial numbers of nonconformists, the implementation of the legislation was often characterised more by concord than discord. For example, in writing about the situation in Surrey, David Robinson comments that ‘although there were protests about Anglican dominance on one or two occasions … the Religious Instruction syllabus which the [Education] Committee worked out seems to have given “complete satisfaction to every shade of religious thought in the county”’.44 Similarly, in Hampshire, thanks in no small part to the conciliatory leadership provided by the chairman of the county council, the Earl of Northbrook, the Act was implemented with a minimum of strife. John Blake, one of the small band of nonconformist county councillors, was at pains to point out that although ‘he hated the Act and hoped it would be amended … as regards the administration of the Act he was bound to say that this Council, led by Lord Northbrook, had been fair and reasonable’ in appointing Nonconformists to committees.45 Local historians might well consider whether such leadership was replicated elsewhere and what other factors might account for the relative equanimity with which the legislation was greeted in some parts of country compared with others. Administrative issues arising from the legislation included the form that representative structures for delivering the education service should take. In the administrative counties these embraced bodies at both county and sub-county level. How these were constituted in terms of the denominational affiliations and expertise of members and the exercise of patronage were particularly sensitive matters. Significantly, as Pugh points out, ‘Nonconformists joined Local Education Authorities all over the country, accepting that there was no inconsistency in so doing’.46 Thus, in those areas where nonconformists had been substantially under-represented on councils, steps were often taken to increase their numbers through co-option. In addition, local historians might investigate whether or not those districts which were large enough to provide elementary education in their own right did so, and what factors influenced their decision. Other issues of a politico-administrative kind include the nature of the relationship between members and officers, in particular that between the chairman of the Education Committee and the director of education; the recruitment of school managers; and whether or not the press should be admitted to meetings. RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 267 3. A typical infants’ class in a relatively well endowed board school at the time of the 1902 Act (Hampshire Library and Information Service) Also of considerable interest is how local education authorities reacted to the interventions of the Board of Education and Morant’s desire to ensure a more coherent approach to educational administration. To what extent could nationally determined objectives for education be met through a system in which authorities of varying political and religious persuasions were charged with the task of implementing them? Ultimately, however, the issue that was to loom largest was the financial impact of this increasingly expensive public service. Most, if not all, of the new local education authorities inherited a situation in which the physical fabric of many, particularly church, schools required urgent attention. As Rushton records in her history of Hampshire County Council, In May 1903 the County Surveyor was authorised to make a comprehensive survey of the 459 elementary schools which the Committee had taken over. This revealed both minor defects (which were mostly put right during the holiday periods) and other more serious problems. For example some schools were found to be supplying water declared unfit for human consumption whilst several others were reported to have no water supply at all. A programme of remedying these deficiencies was immediately authorised by a new Buildings SubCommittee.47 This, of course, should not have come as any surprise, since one of the main purposes of the legislation was to bring every school up to an acceptable standard by enabling them to access public funds. How local education authorities responded to this challenge and that of maintaining control of costs provides local historians with some interesting lines of enquiry. Here the situation in Surrey is worthy of note. It had been reliably predicted that a 3d rate would be sufficient to meet the cost of the education service, but 268 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 in 1903-4 a 4d rate was needed. This proved so inadequate that in the next three years rates of 7d, 111/2d and 91/2d were needed, before the education rate settled at 8d to 9d. In a world in which the total county rate had been 6d, these demands were unpopular.48 Undoubtedly in many other parts of the country there was a similar reaction, with councils being criticised for wasting public money. In the case of Surrey the controversy was of such intensity that it reached the national press.49 Thus, there is much to reveal and considerable potential for comparative studies of the implications of the 1902 Education Act for local taxation, as well as other administrative concerns. Source material For those local historians who do wish to investigate further, various sources are likely to be available. Three are highlighted here. The first is official records, such as the minutes and reports of school boards and the local authorities which took over responsibility for education. These, of course, tend to eschew overtly political and partisan comment and can be perceived as dry and boring, but they serve to mark out the terrain and indicate something worth following up in another source, such as a newspaper report. For example, there is likely to be more than meets the eye when a vote is recorded at a board or council meeting, or there is a hint of unease on the part of a member. This can be illustrated by reference to the resignation of the chairman of Fawley School Board (Hampshire) in April 1903. The minutes recorded that ‘as to the New Act of 1902 he must decline to be a party, to be under it—or to assist to carry it out’.50 By contrast, a newspaper quoted him as saying in his resignation speech that the Act was ‘unmitigated vandalism, revolutionary, and unconstitutional, and to cooperate in administering such an Act would be patronising what he sincerely believed to be a gross injustice and in opposition to the wishes of a vast majority of the people’.51 The difference in language speaks for itself! A second source is church records of various kinds. On the Anglican side, they include those of Diocesan Boards of Education and Voluntary Schools Associations. Valuable background material might also be obtained from unexpected sources. For example, in 1899 every vicar and rector in the diocese of Winchester was required to complete a confidential questionnaire prior to a visitation by the Bishop. Among the questions asked there were a number of particular relevance for anyone interested in the role of the clergy in the provision of education and in inter-denominational relations: Q4. How often, and in what subjects do the Clergy give instructions in the Schools? Q4(a). What religious instruction is given by the Clergy to Pupil Teachers? Q6. What places of worship are there in your parish not in connexion with the Church of England? What information can you give as to the numbers attending? Q7. Do you observe any changes in religious faith or feeling, and specially with regard to Dissent, including Romanism? Q8. What account can you give of the general moral condition of the district? Q8a. How is Sunday observed? From the manner in which these questions were answered, one can obtain interesting insights into the feelings of Anglican clergy in the period just before the controversy over the Education Bill. For example, in answer to question 4, the vicar of Avington wrote, ‘Twice weekly, until recent difference of opinion with owner of school buildings’; RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 269 the vicar of Fawley, ‘There are none other than Board schools in our parish. Definite church teaching not allowed. The visits of clergy not encouraged’; and the vicar of Romsey, ‘Religious subjects. Each of the clergy gives instruction twice a week’. Whatever else, these confirm the diversity of situations faced by clergy in contributing to the education of children in their parish. Likewise, responses to question 7 reveal considerable differences of view. The vicar of Alton wrote, ‘No special changes except that a more kindly feeling exists between Churchmen & Dissenters’. Such a stance was qualified by the vicar of Eastleigh: ‘The general feeling is distinctly friendly towards the Church & speaking generally dissent seems to be increasingly political & consequently losing its hold upon its more earnest adherents’. The rector of Bishopstoke, a neighbouring parish to Eastleigh, felt moved to write that This parish is now composed almost entirely of railway Artisans and Navvies. A large number are bad, chiefly intemperate & immoral. A small portion are earnest Christian men. The greater part are unformed souls subject to every wind and doctrine & greatly confused by the jarring of sects. Love of pleasure & sport absorb the interest & Religion is set aside. There is great prejudice against Romanism and also against the Church. It is the outcome of ignorance and confusion and is mainly fostered by nonconformist envy and opportunism.52 Note the ‘sting in the tail’. Clearly the rector was not ecumenically minded. On the nonconformist side, records of individual churches and circuits may have survived and these might well shed light on the attitudes of leading figures within the church towards the controversy. One example from Romsey is the Congregational Church Home Messenger, with copies for the years 1902 and 1903 being available.53 These regularly reported the generally hostile views of the minister, the Reverend Hugh Ross Williamson, towards the Bill. Nevertheless, there is likely to be a far greater wealth of Anglican than nonconformist material. A final, but particularly valuable, source is local newspapers. They serve to put flesh on the bones of the narrative that emerges from the records of public bodies and the churches, as the Fawley School Board example illustrates. Moreover, as Sykes points out, newspapers ‘reflected and reinforced the sense that Christianity was part of the fabric of local cultural and social, as well as spiritual life’ of communities.54 However, it is important to appreciate some of their quirks. Almost inevitably newspapers had a particular political or religious stance, even when they claim to be independent or neutral. This coloured the way in which they treated aspects of the controversy surrounding the 1902 Act and its implementation and needs to be taken into account when constructing a historical narrative based upon this source. In addition, press reports are not necessarily comprehensive, consistent or entirely accurate, due to the vagaries of reporting and pressure on space, and it must always be remembered that they were not written with the needs of future historians in mind. Wherever possible, cross-check or triangulate with other sources. Moreover, newspapers make reasonable assumptions about the contemporary and local knowledge of their readers. Over time, of course, this knowledge might well have been lost so the present-day reader is at a distinct disadvantage. For example, denominational affiliations are often not given in stories relating to the Education Act even though they may be of considerable relevance. Readers would often know whether the person concerned was an Anglican, Baptist, Primitive Methodist, Bible Christian or Congregationalist. A similar point can be made about the identification of individuals with political parties. Thus, using material from this source may often involve additional detective work. One way of discovering more about key members of the local politico-religious elite is to find out when and where they died and obtain their obituaries, which are a particular staple of 270 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 local as well as national newspapers. Again, however, one needs to be vigilant since these are likely to accentuate the positive and play down the negative aspects of a person’s character and may contain factual errors. That said, using this method to obtain insights into the personalities and motivations of local ‘movers and shakers’ can pay dividends. As always, historians should seek to unravel the way in which the principal protagonists perceived the issues at stake. Official records and local newspapers are primarily ‘elite sources’ and consequently they sustain an approach which is still, in some respects, ‘history from above’, albeit at local level. Ideally, it would be desirable to complement these sources with those which provide a genuine ‘history from below’ perspective on the issues raised. How were the changes ‘experienced at the grass roots level by teachers, pupils, school managers and administrators’,55 as well as by electors, ratepayers, church members and passive resisters? Finding sources such as diaries and letters, which would enable such ‘voices’ to be heard, however faintly, is a particular challenge. Inevitably, there will always be more traces of the views of school board members than parents; of local authority members than teachers; and of the clergy than their congregations. In the early years of the twentieth century there were, of course, no real attempts to assess the attitudes of the public at large through opinion polls or more formally by means of referenda. Moreover, since only about one in three adults was eligible to vote, even election results reflected the views of a privileged minority rather than the mass of the population. Thus, constant vigilance is required in order to mitigate the ‘top down’ bias within the narratives based on the sources which have survived. Conclusion For contemporary commentators and later historians, the 1902 Education Act stands out as a testament to the sensitivity that surrounded the relationship between politics, education and religion and indeed continues to do so. While the issues involved might seem arcane from the perspective of the first decade of the twenty-first century they are by no means divorced from some of the current controversies in the world of education. In particular, they resonate with those surrounding the legitimacy or otherwise of faith schools. To what extent, if at all, should religious organisations be involved in the provision of education? Does education in faith schools help or hinder relations between different faith communities? Should faith schools receive financial support from the state? Indeed, the issue of state funding for education continues to generate strong feelings. For example, in October 2006 Darren Johnson, a Green Party Member of the London Assembly, wrote in a letter to The Independent that ‘surely it would be better to uphold the principle of non-selective, non-denominational comprehensive education for everyone. It’s time to pull the plug on state funding for religious schools’.56 Such views are not dissimilar from those of many nonconformists at the time of the dispute over the 1902 Education Act. This suggests that, in some respects at least, it is a case of plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. Thus, the question arises as to whether or not anything can be learnt from what happened just over a hundred years ago. It seems likely that the protagonists from that era would have something to say about the present situation. But one would be illadvised to draw too many parallels between the early years of the twentieth century and those of the twenty-first century, given the far-reaching social changes which have occurred in the interim. The process of secularisation and what Brown describes as the ‘decay of discursive religiosity’ are of particular significance.57 During the Edwardian era religious discourse was so firmly entrenched in society that even for many non- RESEARCHING THE 1902 EDUCATION ACT 271 churchgoers it contributed significantly to the construction of their identity. Identification with church or chapel still mattered and this undoubtedly added to potency of the conflict over education. In researching the background to this conflict and how it manifested itself within individual communities, local historians can help to enrich existing narratives and to develop a more nuanced historiography. They can also assist in charting how the controversy reinvigorated religious sensibilities, in the short term, while leading to their gradual diminution, in the longer term. Notes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 W. Casson and C. Whitely, The Education Act 1902 (Knight, 1903) The Times 3 Oct 1902 and 7 Nov 1902 F. Greenwood, ‘The Education Bill. Some Determining Considerations’, Westminster Gazette 26 Sep1902 The Daily News 25 Sep 1902 Hampshire Advertiser 12 Jul 1902 Southampton Times and Hampshire News 12 Apr 1902 F. Smith, A History of Elementary Education 17601902 (University of London Press, 1931) p.350 M. Cruickshank, Church and State in English Education, 1870 to the present day (Macmillan, 1964) p.85; W. Robinson, ‘Historiographical Reflections on the 1902 Education Act’, Oxford Review of Education vol.28 no.2-3 (2002) pp.159172 E.J.R. Eaglesham, The Foundations of TwentiethCentury Education in England (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967) p.46 M. Cruickshank, ‘The Denominational Schools’ Issue in the Twentieth Century’, History of Education vol.1 (1972) pp.200-213 (p.204) Hansard, 6th series, vol.735 col.876 ibid., col.884 Robinson, ‘Historiographical Reflections’, p.163 ibid. ibid. K. Manton, ‘The Education Act 1902’, History Today (December 2002) p.18 E.J.R. Eaglesham, ‘Implementing the Education Act of 1902’, British Journal of Educational Studies vol.10 (1961-2) pp.153-175 Robinson, ‘Historiographical Reflections’, p.171 A.D.C. Petersen, A Hundred Years of Education 3rd ed (Duckworth, 1971) p.39 D.R. Pugh, ‘The Church and Education: Anglican Attitudes 1902’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History vol.13 no.3 (1972) pp.219-232 D.R. Pugh, ‘Wesleyan Methodism and the Education Crisis of 1902’, British Journal of Educational Studies vol.36 no.3 (1988) pp.232249 A.K. Russell, Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906 (David & Charles, 1973) p.183 S. Koss, Nonconformity in Modern British Politics (Batsford, 1975) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ibid., p.53 D.R. Pugh, ‘English Nonconformity, education and passive resistance 1903-6’, History of Education vol.19 no.4 (1990) pp.355-373 G.K. Fry, The Growth of Government (Frank Cass, 1979) Morant was appointed acting permanent secretary in November 1902 and permanent secretary in April 1903. J. Lawson and H. Silver, A Social History of Education in England (Methuen, 1973) p.368 E.J.R. Eaglesham, ‘The Centenary of Sir Robert Morant’, British Journal of Educational Studies vol.12 no.1 (1963) pp.5-18 The Times 15 Mar 1920 G.K. Fry, ‘Morant, Sir Robert Laurie (18631920)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography vol.39 (OUP 2004) pp.5-8. Examples of regulations include Regulations for the Instruction and Training of Pupil-Teachers issued with a green cover in 1903 and the Elementary School Code with a dark blue cover in 1904. B. Keith-Lucas and P. Richards, A History of Local Government in the Twentieth Century (George Allen & Unwin, 1978) Manton, ‘The Education Act 1902’, p.18 W. Robson, The Development of Local Government 3rd ed (George Allen & Unwin, 1954) A. Crombie, ‘ ‘A Free Hand and Ready Help’? The Supervision and Control of Elementary Education in Staffordshire c. 1902-1914’, Oxford Review of Education vol.28 no.2/3 (2002) pp.17386; G.E. Jones, ‘The ‘Welsh Revolt’ revisited: Merioneth and Montgomery shire in default’, Welsh History Review vol.14 (1989) pp.417-38 See, for example, S. Taylor, ‘Bell, book and scandal: the struggle for school attendance in a south Cambridgeshire village 1880-1890’, Family and Community History vol.1 (1978) pp.71-84; M. Spence, ‘The Pattern of School Boards in Hampshire’, History of Education Bulletin, no.21 (1978) pp.25-37; P. Prichard, ‘Churchmen, Catholics and elementary education: A comparison of attitudes and policies in Liverpool during the School Board era’, History of Education vol.12 no.2 (1983) pp.103-120; C. Griggs and D. Wall, ‘Eastbourne and the school board era that never was, 1870-1902’, History of Education vol.13 no.4 (1984) pp.271-286; and M. Turner, ‘Denominationalists and the operation of the Birkenhead School Board 1893-1903, 272 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 THE LOCAL HISTORIAN/NOVEMBER 2007 History of Education Society Bulletin no.60 (Autumn 1997) pp.54-64 Quoted in Petersen, A Hundred Years of Education, p.39 Robinson, ‘Historiographical Reflections’, p.170 Romsey Advertiser 22 Sep 1905 D.R. Pugh, ‘A note on School Board Elections: some North-Western Contests in the nineties’, History of Education vol.6 no.2 (1977) pp.115-120 (p.115) Pugh, ‘English Nonconformity, education and passive resistance 1903-6’ Hampshire Independent 27 February 1904 D.R. Pugh, ‘The 1902 Education Act: The search for a Compromise’, British Journal of Educational Studies, vol.16 (1968) pp.164-178 (p.164) D. Robinson, Surrey Through the Century 18891989 (Surrey County Council, 1989). Unfortunately, the source of the quotation about the religious instruction syllabus is not given. However, one of the protests to which Robinson refers concerns the situation in Richmond where the six nominees of the county council to the Education Committee were all adherents of the Church of England. Not surprisingly the Free Church Council of Richmond supported by that of Reigate took exception to this. Moreover the nominees included the vicar of Richmond who was quoted as saying ‘for the watered down 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Christianity required by Act of Parliament in Board schools, which goes by the name of undenominationalism, I feel intense abhorrence. In theory it is a ridiculous imposture, a mere lay figure of religion’: Surrey Advertiser 1 Aug 1903 Hants and Berks Gazette 15 Aug 1903 Pugh, ‘English Nonconformity, education and passive resistance 1903-6’, p.358 G. Rushton, 100 Years of Progress: Hampshire County Council 1889-1989 (Hampshire County Council, c1989) p.30 Robinson, Surrey Through the Century 1889-1989, p.14 ibid. Hampshire Record Office [HRO] 10/M88/2 Fawley School Board Minutes 1900-1903 Hampshire Independent 21 Mar 1903 HRO 21M65 B4/5 Winchester Diocese Visitation questionnaires HRO 78A01/G1/2 Abbey Congregational Church Home Messenger Jan 1900-Dec 1922 R. Sykes, ‘Popular Religion in Decline: A Study from the Black Country’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History vol.56 no.2 (2005) p.305 Robinson, ‘Historiographical Reflections’, pp.159-172 The Independent 16 Oct 2006 C. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain (Routledge, 2001) p.13 ROGER OTTEWILL has been studying for an MRes in History at the University of Southampton, where he is employed on a part-time basis in the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit. For his dissertation he researched the impact of the 1902 Education Act on the administrative county of Hampshire and particularly the contrasting communities of Basingstoke, Eastleigh and Romsey. This involved consideration of the situation locally before, during and after the passage of the legislation through Parliament.