The Conference of 1914 reiterated its customary frustration at the government’s failure to address their grievances in relation to the 1902 Education Act. Delegates desired a well-funded educational system that was ‘thoroughly civic and national, and subject to democratic control’, which afforded ‘entire relief from payment for denominational teaching’ and secured ‘for all teachers absolute freedom from all sectarian test.’ They welcomed improvements in educational administration but feared that the Government had endangered the principle of free education in its recent Finance Act. However, a vote in favour of secular education was defeated as was a motion censuring the Government for its tardiness. Indeed, that year began with a Leader …show more content…
The time was ripe for ‘statesmen’, not ‘agitators’. Although some persisted in the passive resistance campaign for years to come and the Church and its membership never forgot their portmanteau of grievances and fears, the Church’s initial welcome to H. A. L. Fisher’s appointment as Minister of Education and his Education Bill of 1917-18 demonstrated that the statesman had eclipsed the agitator. Denominational issues remained suspended in order that other educational and social reforms could progress, even though Primitive Methodists and many other Nonconformists were ultimately disappointed with most outcomes of the resultant Act and continued to express the same combination of educational complaints and concerns. Early high hopes for Fisher and his Bill were particularly prominent in articles by Guttery and A. L. Shires, a teacher and member of the Church’s Education Committee. Guttery, in welcoming Fisher to his ministerial post and his exposition of educational principles – essentially promises of a well-resourced national system of education, the extension of compulsory schooling at nursery and secondary ages, greater access to tertiary opportunities and improved conditions for teachers – argued for a suspension of former ‘jealousies’, ‘prejudices,