§ SIR HENRY TYLER,who had placed on the Paper a Motion—
That the Hall of Science is, by reason of its associations, not a proper place, and Dr. Edward B. Aveling, Mrs. Besant, and the daughters of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, are not proper persons to he employed for the work of instruction, in connection with the Science and Art Department of Her Majesty's Government,disclaimed bringing this forward as a Party question in any sense, and declared that he had no personal feeling in the matter. He desired no worse to the persons mentioned in the Resolution than that they should see the error of their ways, and that they should in future use their abilities for the public good instead of continually employing them for evil purposes. The question might be asked—"What has science to do with religion?" and certainly as long as persons taught science properly he did not desire in any way to inquire into their religious opinions. But this particular case stood in a very different position, as Atheism and irreligion constituted the first object of the persons he was referring to, who used science as a means of promoting their doctrines. In proof of this view, the hon. Member read extracts from a series of articles written in The National Reformer, under the title of Design in Nature, by Dr. Aveling, who asserted that "God is left out of all calculations in science." Again, in a pamphlet entitled The Wickedness of God, Dr. Aveling said—The God held up to reverence by the Christian religion is by his own showing a being of the most immoral character.1406 Yet this man was chosen by the Vice President of the Council to teach science.
§ MR. MUNDELLABy the late Vice President.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERobserved that, in a pamphlet entitled Irreligion and Science, Dr. Aveling stated that there was an internecine warfare between science and religion. Mrs. Besant, too, had asserted that "all science is by necessity Atheistic," and that "every branch of science must be Atheistic if it is to progress;" while Miss Hypatia Bradlaugh had expressed her opinion that "scientific education is the most efficient aid in our Freethought movement." He maintained that such persons ought not to be employed by the Science and Art Department to instruct the people of this country in science.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREcomplained of the bad taste, not only of the hon. Member's mode of treating the question, but of the course he had pursued in introducing into a Notice, which he had allowed to remain 12 months on the Paper, the names of the daughters of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh as not being proper persons to be employed in instruction. These were quiet, inoffensive young ladies. The hon. Member seemed to think it a high crime and misdemeanour that they were the daughters of their father. The hon. Member said he had no ill-feeling towards Mr. Bradlaugh; but he come had forward as a species of Defender of the Faith, and brought an action against the father of these young ladies for blasphemy. Whether that was an indication of good or bad feeling he would leave the House to judge.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERexplained that what he said was that he had no ill-feeling against the persons named in his Notice of Motion.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREWell, because the hon. Member had an ill-feeling towards the father he sacrificed his good feeling towards the daughters. The young ladies taught botany and mathematics. The hon. Gentleman urged that because The National Reformer taught Atheism these young ladies should not be allowed to teach mathematics. He complained of the time this Motion had been kept on the Paper, and left the action of the hon. Gentleman in regard to his (Mr. Labouchere's) Colleague to 1407 the appreciation of Members of both sides of the House.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought that a Member who put on the Paper a Motion reflecting on other persons and on ladies ought to have used due diligence to have brought it before the House in less than 12 months. He could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the support he had now from his own Party, for every Member of it had deserted those Benches, not to be subjected to the infliction they had had. The hon. Member spoke of these persons as if they were employed by the Science and Art Department. The fact was, that he and the noble Lord who preceded him (Lord George Hamilton) had no option in the matter, and could not impose a religious test as to who should be employed. Among the teachers of science in this country there were no fewer than 35 clergymen of all denominations. The hon. Member objected to these persons teaching science on account of their Secularist opinions.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, he had not said that; but he objected to them on account of their connection with The National Reformer, with the circulation of pamphlets, and with other means for propagating Atheism in the country.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, let it be supposed they were connected with The National Reformer, what right would that give him to say that they should not receive grants for the teaching of science? In "another place" a noble Lord had lately attacked Professor Huxley in connection with the publication on his own account of a science primer. Was the Education Minister to begin inquiring into the religious opinions of Professors of Science? If he were to do so at all, surely he must begin at the head. Did the hon. Member assume that all opinions were orthodox except those of the Secularists? The science classes at the Hall of Science had been formed three or four years ago, strictly in accordance with the regulations laid down in the official directory, with a committee which included a clergyman of the Church of England. He had requested one of the Inspectors to ascertain what kind of teaching was really going on there, and whether anything was being taught of that horrible literature to which the hon. Member seemed inclined to give a wide circulation. The 1408 Inspector made several surprise visits to the Hall, and reported that the teaching that went on there was sound and deserved commendation. He might say that the Inspector in question was a religious man, and the son of a clergyman. What was taught there was simply dry science, without reference to religious subjects. On what pretexts could he withdraw the grants for good science teaching? Was it wise to make these attacks in the House and to give a wide circulation to extracts such as had been read? Was it serving the cause of charity and of true religion to attack in this way lady-like and well-educated women, and to attempt to associate the Government with blasphemy? He had as much reverence as the hon. Member; but he could not see any grounds on which he should be justified in interfering with the efficient teaching of science in strict accordance with the prescribed regulations.