had been ascertained, might, perhaps, be curtailed. On this subject, however, he did not speak positively, and we cannot but hope that he will reconsider it. The curtailment of this year would be a most serious violation of his own "vital principle,' that the deficiency is to be supplied, "if possible," by voluntary schools. In fact, there are the strongest possible reasons for extending it say to two years or, at the very least, eighteen months.

Such, then, is the Government measure as it now stands. Supposing it to pass as it stands, its practical working (so far as it is given us to foresee what is future) would be first to stimulate the activity of those interested in education, by which we may reckon that a large proportion of the actual deficiency of schools will be supplied before the time comes (say eighteen months hence) at which School Boards can be called into operation. The School Boards, when constituted, will be required to supply the remainder. They will not have the power to apply any part of the rate in aid of the voluntary schools, which some men likely to guess right had been inclined to expect would have been their principal function if the Bill had passed in its original form. They will, therefore, be required to supply the deficiency (whatever it may be) by founding new schools. We do not see that the character of these schools is likely to be materially different from that which any schools founded by the School Boards under the original Bill would have had. The general feeling of the classes from which the Boards are likely to be taken is, at the present moment, so strongly in favour of religious but undenominational education, that we expect they will try to carry out that ideal. The mass of the new schools in that case will be, in theory, what the British Schools now are. In practice much will depend on the character of the masters appointed to them, and on the degree to which the clergy and other members of the Established Church are allowed and willing to take an active part in their administration and teaching. Dissenters are so numerous in the great towns that we incline to think they will preponderate on the School Boards; and if they do, we do not see why the mass of the new schools should not be exactly what the British Schools now are. At the same time, should the members of any School Board be out-and-out Church of England men, they may, without the least difficulty, make the new schools quite as decided Church of England schools as any of those now existing. The only limit to their power will be the rule which forbids the "Church Catechism" to be taught in the school. They may appoint what master they please; and he may, as often as he pleases, refer to, quote, and illustrate religious matters by reference to it and to the "Common Prayer Book." The Board, again, might most easily throw the whole of the social influence of the

school into the hands of the clergyman. On the whole, therefore, we see no reason why the schools to be provided out of the rate should not be very much what they would have been if the Bill had passed in its original shape; and as far as we can see, the great mass of them would, in that case, have been "British,"-a few, probably, "Church of England" schools.

Thus far, then, the change now proposed will be unfavourable to denominational education; for while the rate-founded schools will probably be much what they would have been without it, the encouragement which might have been expected from the aid given by the School Boards to voluntary schools will be cut off.

Against this, however, must be set the increased aid to be given by the Privy Council to voluntary schools. It has hitherto been calculated that, under the revised code, the annual cost of a school wholly satisfactory to the Government inspectors might be divided into three equal portions: one-third being met by the Government grant, one-third by the payments of the children, the remaining third by voluntary contributions. Of this last third, one half may now be granted by the Privy Council; so that the result will be that three-sixths (or half the total expense) will be paid by the Government grant, two-sixths (or one-third) by the children, and one-sixth by voluntary subscriptions. There is no doubt that this will be an important stimulus to voluntary schools; and Mr. Gladstone throughout assumed that it was to be extended to such voluntary schools as may hereafter be founded, as well as to those already existing when the School Board begins its operations. It is also to be remembered that as the voluntary schools will not be in any degree dependent on local taxation, while the schools supported by the Board will draw from the rates one-sixth of their annual expenses, as well as the whole cost of their erection, the natural tendency of the ratepayers will be to encourage voluntary schools, and in one way or another to get rid, as far as they can, of those connected with the School Boards.*

It says

The Times evidently pushes this a great deal too far. (June 18):-"When two systems run side by side, one must have the pull. Can it be doubted which of these two will outbid the other in the struggle for existence ? The denominational school will appear under a double advantage. Half the cost of maintenance being refunded by the State, in addition to subscriptions, it can offer education at a cheaper rate, and it will be freed from the apparent odium of adding to the local rates." This article is written throughout in a spirit of hostility to denominational schools, which the writer declares "the voice of the nation rejects," and that "the agitation of the last two or three months has been one continual protest against the spread" of such schools. This is not surprising, as the Times has warmly advocated the figment of "undenominational religious schools," and naturally wishes to get rid of the denominational schools to make room for them. How little the writer attempted to be fair is proved by his saying,

On the whole we incline to think that the practical working of the Bill, if carried as it now stands, will be, that in the great towns, schools practically dissenting and not much different from those now called "British," will be set up to supply whatever deficiency may remain, say eighteen months hence, and that the Church of England and Catholic schools will be more numerous and more efficient than

ever.

If, therefore, the Dissenters, who have lately made a loud cry for national education, really desire only that the means of obtaining secular education should be provided for all children, leaving all parents free to have their own children instructed in their own religion as they think best, we do not see how they can manage to find fault with the amended Bill. For, unless we are mistaken, its working will be, that in the great towns, where Dissenters are numerous, schools practically dissenting will be provided and maintained out of the rate, without any cost to the Dissenters; while Church of England and Catholic schools must be wholly provided by voluntary efforts, and when provided, must have recourse to them for one-sixth at least of their annual expenses. We do not see the fairness of this. But it is only an illustration of what often happens under our Parliamentary government, that a party loud in its complaints gets more than its fair share. Under such circumstances one can hardly wonder that the cry goes on even when there is nothing left to complain of, and, indeed, when the complainers have received much more than justice. This, we fear, may be the case in the present instance. The reception of the Bill in the House of Commons, on June 10th, was not encouraging. Mr. Dixon protested against any increased support to denominational schools, and Mr. Disraeli made an attack as clever as

the voluntary schools "can offer education at a cheaper rate," because "half the cost of their maintenance is to be refunded by the State, in addition to subscriptions," the proposal being that the State shall give the same to both classes of schools, but that those of the School Board are to make up the deficiency (always more than half the total cost) by rates, the others by voluntary subscriptions. Of course the rate of payment must be the same in both; and it will be the duty of the Educational Department to see that it is so, otherwise the Boards whose schools cost them nothing may very probably attempt to empty the voluntary schools by underselling them. It is specially provided in the Act (section 24) that the "Board may pay the whole or any part of the school fees payable by any child resident in their district whose parent is, in their opinion, unable from poverty to pay the same; but no such payment shall be made or refused on condition of the child attending any public school other than such as may be selected by the parent." This clause was evidently added expressly to prevent the School Board from bidding to attract the children of the poor from the voluntary schools. One can only hope it may not be evaded; and we must trust to the Education Department to prevent their using the power of "remitting payment" given by clause 17 to the same purpose.

usual, and, we should think, as ill-judged as any. He was bidding_apparently for the support of the more extreme section of the Liberal party to aid him in overturning Mr. Gladstone's administration. But after the exposure of that policy, and of its effects upon the interests of the Conservatives, by Lord Salisbury, in the Quarterly Review last October, we incline to doubt whether he will obtain the support of his party in his attempt. A very short time will show. In reviewing what has hitherto passed we still think that Parliament, instead of leaving it to the School Boards to determine the religious character of the schools-a proposal with which no party has been satisfied (as Mr. Gladstone admits)-should have required that the report by which the amount of school deficiency is to be measured should also specify, as far as it can be ascertained, the religion professed by the parents of the children for whom schools are needed. And if the School Boards had then been required to provide, under the control of the Educational Department, schools of such religious character as would as far as possible meet the wants of the numbers thus ascertained. No one, of course, would wish that in an agricultural village containing, say, a hundred children of the Established Church, twenty Dissenters, and five Catholics, separate schools should be provided for each. These cases can only be met imperfectly; and we do not see how they could be better met than by a "conscience clause." But it is not with such cases that we have practically to do; the real case to be provided for is that of the crowded districts of our great towns. And in them there could be no real difficulty in ascertaining the number of children of each religion for whom schools had to be provided, nor yet in so placing the new schools as exactly to meet the deficiency. Such an arrangement would have been in exact keeping with the great principles of the Bill. For, so far as the action of the State is concerned, it would have provided that all the children hitherto neglected should receive good teaching in secular knowledge and in the religion of their parents. We do not, however, blame Mr. Gladstone for not proposing this, although no doubt the fairest plan. For the opposition it would have excited would have been so strong, that he could hardly hope to carry it. The mass of the Dissenters would have opposed to the death any measure which, as the Spectator expresses it, would have caused the children to be educated ever so well, if it had been "under the flag of the Established Church"; and Protestants in general would have opposed, even more violently, a measure the chief effect of which would have been to secure a good Catholic education to thousands of Catholic children. Sectarian bitterness would, as usual, have been too strong for the interests of the nation.

With regard to compulsion, upon which there has been so much.

discussion, we think the Government proposal about the best that could have been made. The League has in nothing showed more clearly its ignorance of the English character than when it demanded immediate, direct, and universal compulsion. Nothing more effectual could have been devised to set the whole labouring class against education. "Permissive compulsion, as it is called, is proposed; that is, enabling the School Boards (with the consent of the Government, and subject to the veto of Parliament), to draw up rules such as they think it may be possible to enforce in the particular district. This is evidently only an experiment. We are inclined to think that thus cautiously introduced, it will be a great benefit. We should be glad to see an attempt made to apply the principle to country districts. Why should not an analogous power be vested in the magistrates where there is no School Board? No one who has had any practical experience can fail to know that to secure the regular attendance of the children who ought to be at school is often more difficult than to provide a good and efficient school.*

The election of the School Boards is, as Mr. Gladstone himself said in the House of Commons, the point upon which most difficulty has been felt. We adhere to an opinion expressed in our last number, and to which the Times has since acceded, that the only way of getting a fair School Board would be to adopt measures which would secure a very effective representation of minorities. If the districts in which School Boards are to be elected were considerably extended, and the number of members to be elected rather large; and if the election were then left in the hands of all ratepayers, each ratepayer having only one vote however large the number to be elected might be, this, we think, would give us a better Board than we shall get in any other way, and certainly far better than we should get by any system of election which merely represents the majority. The object is, to get a Board which shall be fair to all parties. Such a Board should contain men of every shade of opinion and every condition in life. Sober-minded

* The editor of Catholic Opinion says, June 4,-"The Times goes on to jeer at the notion of compulsory education. To us it seems that no scheme of education will be perfect without it. It may be differently applied in different districts, but there is a large number of parents whose cupidity, and many more, whose indolence will never be overcome by any other means. Some say compulsory education_necessarily supposes undenominational education. We cannot see this. Let it be made compulsory that all children should go to some school. Let parents be compelled to send their children, and to send them regularly, to some school, and let them make their choice. If Catholic parents, being compelled to send their children to some schools, do not send them to Catholic schools, they must be beyond the reach of Catholic influence; they must have lost the faith, and with such we have no means of dealing."

...

VOL. XV.-NO. XXIX. [New Series.]

L