6
all who asked for it, with the provision appended to the Clause, that "it shall not otherwise interfere with the religious teaching of the scholars, as fixed by these presents," (3439)—and to the searching inquiry "how in your mind, would the two operations be combined by the clergyman who remained charged with the religious teaching of Dissenting scholars, while he was bound not to teach them the doctrines of the Church of England?" Mr. Lingen answers, (3443,) "it would be entirely in his hands so long as he and the parents of those children agreed upon the matter; it might vary conceivably in every individual case."
"Agreed," indeed! Mr. Lingen is here sketching not the operation of the Conscience Clause which implies disagreement, but the liberal, wise and judicious course spontaneously pursued by the clergy who are unfettered by a Conscience Clause. Mr. Lingen admits (3446) that a clergyman is, by the Conscience Clause, placed under no obligation to teach a mutilated religion. He affirms (3450) that he would have felt entire confidence if a clergyman in saying to the Dissenting parent, "Your child may come to the secular lessons of my school, but under the conditions which you impose I can have nothing to do with his religious instruction."
Of the legal construction of the clause as now laid down by Mr. Bruce and Mr. Lingen there can be no further doubt. It gives a title to a secular education to all who choose to ask it at the hands of such school managers as have been unwary enough to admit the Conscience Clause into their trust deed. Remembering the repeated and unequivocal declarations of Parliament that National aid should be given only to such education as comprehended instruction in Religion, it is not surprising that the Education Department should wish to escape from or conceal a result so contrariant to the national will (3447, 3451—3453, 3482, 3483.) Their object would be attained by inducing the National Society either to sanction the Conscience Clause, and so veil its irreligious character—alter its terms of union so as to delude school builders with the idea that they can consistently serve two masters (the Church and the Education Department)—or better than either, that they should get their charter altered and destroy the foundations of faith
