placing the "Voluntary" Schools on the local rates. About this time (March 1901) the decision in the famous Cockerton case made it necessary that something should be done at once; Mr. Balfour could not force the new Bill through the House but he did manage to have the new authority recognized. Nonconformists claim that the Cockerton case was the result of intrigue by the Church party; however that may be, as a consequence of this appeal, the judgment of two courts declared that many of the School Boards had gone beyond the powers given them by the original Act in supplying continuation classes and evening classes. It was an awkward situation as the work thus done was a national development, it had been done by representatives of the people, acting in good faith, and had been approved by ministers both Liberal and Conservative. Many of the influential School Boards were on the point of closing their classes; and Mr. Balfour put through the House of Commons a short Bill allowing the continuation of this work under the supervision of the Education Committee of the County Council. The Education Bill had to stand over until the following year (1902) but the School Boards thus received warning of the doom prepared for them by a "Conservative" Government. At this period the Countess of Warwick expressed an opinion on Mr. Balfour as an educational leader which was widely shared.

"I could write a great deal about the cowardice of successive Governments-especially those with a big Tory majority-in handling the subject of education. I need not dwell on the fate of the Bill of 1896 which was withdrawn by the leader of the House, with the humiliating confession that he was only a child in these matters. This and the next bill with its grants to voluntary schools were a desperate attempt to bolster up the private subscriber at the expense of public efficiency." (Nineteenth Century, Etc., July 1901).

Making a personal investigation into this subject in England, five years ago, we came across the phrase "whiskey money", and on enquiry we had no difficulty in discovering the meaning of the phrase but some of those engaged in administering the grants had already forgotten the precise form of its origin. It appears that when Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a certain portion of the excise revenue was voted for the use of the County Council for the purpose of establishing a compensation fund to facilitate the extinction of licenses. But the Government, at that time, could not carry the principle of compensation therefore the Councils were left free to use the money in the reduction of taxation, or to encourage education, especially technical. The use of this money for the

latter purpose soon became quite general. Thus by a side wind, so to speak, the County Councils were brought into the sphere of education. The Canadian reader may need to be reminded that the County Councils were in England a later creation than the School Boards, the municipal councils of large towns were of course much older, and in such towns the School Boards were now subjected to the supervision of the Educational Committee of the local council.

THE BILL OF 1902.

The Government having forced through the Commons this declaration of a new principle in regard to "the local authority" proceeded in the following year to develop their scheme, and succeeded in placing a new Act on the Statute Book. When the subject is debated how far Mr. Birrell's Bill represents a real need and is a legitimate consequence of the action taken in 1901 and 1902, it is well to remember that clear warning was given by men who cannot possibly be classed as fanatics, "Public Schools under public management for all, which would slowly have come round but for the opposition of powerful interests will have to be the rallying cry of the progressive section of the English people if once the existing compromise of our national system is torn up in the interests of ecclesiastical supremacy". (E. Lyulph Stanley, Contemporary Review, June, 1901). This warning is surely clear enough; we have also good evidence for saying that "the progressive section" is well represented in the Church of England. The Bishop of Hereford said "But turning from the Nonconformists and their protest, we are met by another from the still wider, more comprehensive body of those who see in the seventh clause of this measure a cynical disregard of the fundamental constitutional principle that every institution which is maintained by public rates and taxes should be controlled and managed by duly appointed representatives of the contributing public; and it is to be noted that this body of objectors contain a vast number of the more intelligent and thoughtful members of the established Church, as of all other religious denominations." (Nineteenth Century, Etc., Oct. 1902.) The Bishop, at the same time warned his fellow-churchmen that the threat of the Nonconformists to continue the fight "against new and reactionary legislation which compels them to pay rates and taxes for a school controlled by a Church from which they conscientiously dissent," must be taken in all seriousness. For the purpose of this article it may be sufficient to state that the Bill of 1902 changed the "local authority," thus abolishing School Boards, throughout the country and placed

the so-called "Voluntary" Schools upon the rates; and in doing so it provided that the denominational trustees of these schools must have a majority on the committee of management. It is at this point that we find the specific Nonconformist grievance; although to many the whole structure and spirit of the Bill was objectionable. The kind of dogmatic teaching given in many of the Church of England schools was a matter that incidentally came in for much discussion. That "clericalism" in the day schools was a force that needed watching was practically admitted by the moderate Churchman. Hence the adoption of the Kenyon-Stanley clause which reads as follows: "Religious instruction shall be given in a school not provided by the local education authority in accordance with the tenure of the provisions (if any) of the trust deed relating thereto, and shall be under the control of the managers." The last few words of this clause are of great importance; as the Spectator pointed out, "These simple words will be found in practice to override any school trust deeds which may have been drawn in a restrictively clerical sense, and to transfer the general direction of the religious instruction to the laity who must always form a majority of the members". At this point, we must note a change in the terminology; henceforth the Board Schools are spoken of as "provided schools" and the Voluntary Schools as "non-provided schools”. The Nonconformists and other opponents of the Bill were told that this Act "was not a compromise. It represents a national educational policy maintained and developed during a Parliamentary struggle extending over a period of nearly 9 months, a policy that may hereafter be modified to meet a rising standard of educational efficiency but one which can never be reversed". (Spectator, Dec. 13th, 1902). The reply was that this policy was forced upon the nation by a Government that had gained its large majority on a quite different issue, and that it would be modified at the earliest opportunity.

PASSIVE RESISTANCE.

It is not our business to justify passive resistance; it seems indeed that when men have the franchise, and constitutional means of changing the law are available, resistance of any kind can only be justified by very arbitrary action on the part of the governing powers. On the other hand, the matter is not settled by declaring that "A conscience which is active in regard to rates but inactive as regards taxes, provides nothing but a foundation of parodox upon which it is impossible to build a sound structure". As a matter of fact, many men in England of unquestioned intelligence and good

ness felt that they would rather go to gaol than pay their share of this particular rate. Such action may not be logical but it has more than once been effective; we remember in our boyhood the case of sturdy Dissenters who took joyfully the spoiling of their goods rather than pay the Church rate, and the Church rate had to go never to return. It simply means this, that in a country like England, where there is a fair share of common sense, and not too much enthusiasm for abstract principles, the Passive Resistance movement was an indication of a very general feeling against the new Act. Thousands who did not take part in that movement were determined that, in all constitutional ways, they would do their part to bring about a reconsideration of the question.

THE BILL OF 1906.

The new Bill does not attempt to reconstruct the educational machinery, neither does it propose to take the non-provided (voluntary) schools off the rates, but it provides that they shall come completely under the control of the local authority, that the State shall pay for the use of the buildings, while the Church has certain definite and limited facilities for religious teaching. The Bill, as it stands, contemplates three classes of schools; (1) The local authority schools (formerly Board Schools); (2) The transferred Voluntary Schools, have certain denominational facilities; (3) Schools which under special circumstances have extended denominational facilities. The Bill as we have said, takes its character from the Act of 1902; an educational expert (Wesleyan) who is in sympathy with the modifications suggested by the Spectator, writes these significant words: "When, under the late Government of the country, denominational schools became recipients of rate-aid the concordat, so to speak, of 1870 between the national Government and the denominations in regard to the Church day-schools of the various denominations was to a certain extent contravened. Direct dependence to some extent, on the parochial rates riveted upon the Church Schools the character of undenominational properties". Hence they are so painfully at the mercy of Parliament to-day. It is not our business to discuss the details of this Bill; it is sufficient if we have been able to show that for almost a century there has been a movement, even if often uncertain and confused towards a really "national" system of elementary education; the present discussion is only one stage in a long process. The House of Commons, as at present constituted, can scarcely reject the principle that public control must go along with public aid. But there will no boubt be fierce discussion in

side and outside of Parliament as to the manner in which the principle is applied.

Several of the Bishops of the Anglican Church have denounced the Bill as a measure of compulsory confiscation in which the provision for the education of their children in the Christian faith according to the tenets of the Church of England is "meagre and unsatisfactory". On the other side, Mr. Snowden, M.P., promises the unqualified opposition of the Independent Labour Party on the ground that the Government has made a complete surrender to the clamour of sectarianism, and succeeding in pleasing no one but the Nonconformists. As the Irish party will probably feel that it is their duty to look after the interests of English Catholics, there is the making of a very pretty row. With regard to Mr. Snowden's statement that the Bill endows Nonconformist religion, after what has been already said, it is only necessary to point out that this Bill does not touch that question directly; it simply leaves alone a system that has, on the whole worked well for thirty years. Of course all citizens have a right to demand such modifications as will, in their opinion, make the Bill more reasonable and effective, but in the words of a journal that defended the Bill of 1902 it might be well for "extreme denominationalists to reflect upon the tremendous responsibility they assume in adopting a course which lends momentum to the drift towards secularisation." (Spectator).

W. G. JORDAN.