by Maxwell Garnett rpHE first attempt to replace inter-, 1 national anarchy by a world order based upon the consent and co-operation of all nations was begun twenty one years ago. It failed : " utterly, dismally failed " according to Professor Rappard's latest account of it.
Was it bound to fail? I think not. " A lasting peace among free and disarmed nations " was not an unattainable objective. But it could not be reached by a frontal attack along the political toad. If it was to be captured, and held, a flanking movement by way of economics and education was indispensable.
Yet the Powers us Versailles gave scarcely a thought to anything but politics. How little regard they had for the economic consequences of the peace they were making was remarked at the time by Maynard Keynes. And for education—to build up the Mternatitsrial community in the minds of the people and of those who would he leading them in ten or twenty years time—they made no provision at all.
It is true that. under pressure from organised labour, the peacemakers of 1919 acknowledged that " universal peace ... can be established only if it is based upon social justice." and that therefore they set up the International Labour Organisation alongside the League of Nations. It is also true that the economic and social services of the League. briefly authorised by Article 23 of the Covenant, made an important contribution to international government. And it is true that the League began, in 1923, to take a mild interest in the education of children and youth in international affairs. But the task of building up a body of public opinion to understand the League, and how peace depended upon its wholehearted support by governments and peoples, was left in most countries, both before and after 1923, to voluntary effort. In the United Kingdom most of this effort was directed by the League of Nations Union.
We Must Do Better Next Time
The Union's precarious receipts seldom
ewxacse e diee5cis £60,000 in h ei n a annnyu a ol nee ilyeenadr itureThoifs
many a school or college. It was not nearly enough for the education of all classes of British people to realise that their peace and prosperity depended upon the maintenance and development of the League system. to look upon the League as a vital British interest, anti to feel bound to the League by a sentiment of loyalty and an invisible band of ideals such as holds our British Commonwealth together. What a different tale history might have had to tell of the 1930s if, during the 1920's, every League Government had spent upon the education of its people in international affairs one-tenth of one per cent. of the sum it spent on armaments 1 But instead of thus strengthening the foundation of the League system, the governments strove to extend and improve its superstructure. fnstead of grasping the fact that, in the long run, the League could only do what enough public opinion wanted it to do, many of the governments supposed that the League's stability could be .ensured by huitres,sing its constitution. They sought to bind the future, not by the increased understanding and loyalty in the minds of men, but by multiplying pasts and promises on paper.
We must do better next time. Whatever may be the central authority of the Society, or Commonwealth of States co-operating to. organise the international community after the war. it will have to concern itself with education. It may help the national Ministries of Education by making inquiries, issuing reports and offering suggestions. But only very rarely arid in the gravest cases would it exert pressure upon a national government which flagrantly failed to apply the agreed principles of education in the Commonwealth.
What ought these principles to be? Should the Commonwealth's concern for education be confined to specific instruction in international affairs, or even to making known the aims and work of the new society of nations and the terms of the new settlement? Or should it extend to every aspect of educaticm that may help the Commonwealth to grow and prosper? What is it. after all, that we expect from education in the Commonwealth?
Citizens of the Commonwealth The citizens of the co-operating States must think of themselves as also citizens of the Commonwealth. They need to understand how its interests are their interests and what its evolution may mean for their peace, prosperity and regular employment. In particular, they should realise that the Commonwealth will not be able to adapt itself to changes in its environment. and so to survive, unless its will prevails in all those matters of common concern over which the co-operating States have agreed to make its authority supreme. (Such matters will include at least the nature, extent and uses of national armament:. as well as the administration and amendment of international law).
But the will of the Commonwealth, as of any other society, is only done by reason of its hold upon the minds of its mernhers or because of its power over their bodies. Loyalty and power, both are
spheres of priestly life are more strenuous than others. If, then, a young man wishes to become a priest and tears his health may not be good enough, he should first consult a doctor. If he has (as in the instance you give) spasmodic bronchial attacks, he should find out whether they are liable to grow worse arid to incapacitate him. If there is no danger of this, he can apply to a Bishop, or to the Superior of a religious Order in which the life would not be too hard for him.
F. H. Lamb writes:— With further reference to the verse in Cardinal Newman's hymn " Praise to the Holiest," in which occurs the expression, " double agony," there should not be a full stop at end of verse, but only a semicolon, thus joining the verse with the next one, which explains the " double agony " as agony " in the garden secretly " and death " on the Cross on high." needed. Power without loyalty is shortlived, for its Use gives rise to resentment, disaffection and secession. Loyalty without power is vain, for there will always be some whose loyalty is deficient, But the greater and more widespread the loyalty, the less power will be needed to coerce disloyal minorities. The best discipline is always self-discipline; and the less use the Commonwealth has to make of power, the better chance will it give to all its citizens to realise their best selves in the service of each other, of their States, of the Commonwealth and of God.
Loyalty to the Commonwealth is consistent with national patriotism. Like patriotism, it is a sentiment, but with a wider object. The Commonwealth loyalty — or world loyalty when the Commonwealth eventually becomes worldwide—should embrace within its system :
(I). A sense of unity, of solidarity,
and of common citizenship throughout the international community;
(2). A feeling of friendliness or coraradeship which makes for justice and mercy; and (3). A common supreme purpose which results in all-round freedom because it ensures that each most Wants to do what the others also want him to do in the interests of all. But unity, freedom and justice will not long prevail unless allied with truth, Ethics Won't Fit Between English and Eurhythmics It would, of course, be madness to insist on agreement in religious belief throughout the Commonwetith. On the other hand, the mere teaching of an ethical code will not suffice. Little good will come of sandwiching Ethics into echoed time-tables between, say, English and Eurhythmics, or of offering to adults a course in Ethics as an alternative to one in Economics.
"What is wanted is something far deeper than an intellectual exercise, something that touches and moves the whole personality, enlisting the driving-power of the instincts to snake loyal citizens of the Commonwealth and eventually of the world." But world loyalty, according to Professor Whitehead, is religion.
" Let us with caution," said George Washington in his farewell address, " indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." " Hitherto," wrote Lord Bryce in The American Commonwealth, "civilised society has rested on religion, and . . free government has prospered beet among religious peoples." And in a speech broadcast on July 22, 1940, the British Foreign Secretary (Lord Halifax) claimed that Christian teaching and belief in God have been the foundations of the United Kingdom and of the
etited States. Nor is it a modern doctrine that religious men and women make the best citizens of a free Commonwealth. It comes down to us, like so much of our Christianity, from the Greeks and from the Jews.
Education in the Commonwealth, as elsewhere, must adapt the people to changes in their environment, which is partly physical or material, partly social and partly spiritual. Education in day-schools, insufficiently supported by home influence or outof-school activities, is apt to neglect the social and spiritual environment. That is part of the case for boarding schools, and for the Public School tradition of appointing headmasters or headmistresses who are vitally interested in the spiritual as well as in the social and intellectual education of their boys or girls.
Training of Character
Only if the training of character advances in step with the enlightening of the mind wilt religious and useful learning supply fit persons for the service of God in Church and State and Commonwealth.
For most of the English-speaking world, education in the things of the spirit means education that is broadly but definitely Christian. Thus a remarkable letter printed in The Times of December 21, 1940, over the signatures of Cardinal Hinsley, the two Anglican Archbishops and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, maintained that " No permanent peace is possible in Europe unless the principles Of the Christian religion arc made the foundations of national policy and of all social life." It seems to me that if these principles are to prevail in this country the State will have to play a more active part in Christian education than that of keeping the ring, or enforcing the conscience clause in all schools maintained or aided by public money.
I would like to see effect given to the proposals made in the Lambeth appeal of February 12; and, in addition:—
(a). All teachers in such State, or State-aided schools (other than schools specially provided for members of a nonChristian minority) supplied with suggestions, which the teachers will regard as valuable and important, for the teaching of their several subjects in relation to a Christian outlook on life; (b). The headmasters and headmistresses of the same schools chosen from among teachers who are vitally interested in the spiritual aspect of education;
(c). More out-of-school activities to train the characters and develop the esprit de corps of day-school pupils;
(d). Boarding-school education provided at the public expense for sufficiently promising pupils; and
(e). The coming into existence, as recently promised by the President of the Board of Education, of part-time continuation schools prescribed in the Education Act of 1921 for boys and girls who leave school and go to work in their early 'teens,