There followed a concession to the smaller cities and to urban areas, giving their councils “concurrent powers with the county councils in respect to the expenditure for higher grade schools" (clause 3).a Finally, in view of the fact that the councils were already overtaxed, it was provided that they should delegate their powers under the law— excepting only the power of raising a rate or borrowing money-to education committees (Part IV, sec. 17), while both councils and committees were relieved of the oversight of individual schools through the provision of school managers. (Part III, sec. 6.) c

Thus to the councils designated as education authorities in the first clause of the law (in all, 129) were added 201 city councils, 853 authorities for "higher” education, and an indefinite number of education committees and school managers.d

The London school board, excepted from the law of 1902, was abolished the following year by a special law and the London county council added to its already enormous task the administration of a school system charged with the instruction of nearly a million children and a public expenditure of £4,000,000 ($20,000,000) a year.

As a result of the changes made by the law of 1902 in the status of elementary schools the old terms "board" and "voluntary" schools were replaced by the terms "provided” and "nonprovided" schools. To the former class belong all schools provided by the local authorities, whether former board schools or new schools established by the councils; the voluntary schools were thenceforth to be termed "nonprovided." As the latter were admitted to share in the local taxes equally with the provided schools, the distinction between the two classes of schools was narrowed down to the privileges of denominational teaching and private control which the voluntary schools still retained.

The difficulties that beset local school administration in England are strikingly shown by the breaking down of the "one paramount authority" principle in the law of 1902. In spite, however, of complications and the indiscriminate sacrifice of the experienced school boards, called by Mr. Bryce, “the most potent and active force in education since 1870," the law of 1902 marks a distinct advance in respect to two particulars. As pointed out by Doctor Macnamara, "not only for the first time will every area in the country possess a public authority charged with the administration of education but also—and again for the first time—it is made possible to bring all grades of education, elementary, technical, and secondary, under one and the same local authority in each district. * * * The act revolutionizes the system of financing education in this country. It sweeps away once and for all the dangerous anachronism of endeavoring in part to maintain the education of more than half the children attending the elementary schools out of voluntary contributions. * * * For the first time, too, the local rate will be universalized. * * Of the entire ratable value of England and Wales-£186,500,000-quite sixty millions will thus be brought under compulsory contribution toward elementary education for the first time." e

THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

The foregoing review sets in historic perspective the three great problems with which the education bill of 1906 has to deal—i. e., the basis of a national system, the just treatment of denominational schools, and local school administration. The magnitude of the educational work, the efficiency of which is the matter of prime importance, is indicated by the following tables, which bring into comparative view the enrollment of pupils and the annual expenditure for the schools at the beginning of successive decades. In 1873, the first date selected, the law of 1870 was in full operation; in 1883 the compulsory principle had become well established; and by 1893 the "fee grant" provided by the law of 1891 had brought the

a For text of clause, see p. 42.

b For text, see p. 43.

c For text, see p. 42.

d See Macnamara, Doctor, The new education act at work. Fortnightly Review, January 1903. e Fortnightly Review, January 1903.

f Taken from the official reports for the years specified.

great body of the schools to a free basis, more than four-fifths of the schools having at that date remitted fees and 4,236,867 pupils, above 82 per cent of the total number, having the benefit of free tuition. In 1903, when the education law of 1902 had come into operation, the proportion of free schools had risen to 93 per cent.

From Table I it will be seen that the elementary education of the masses in England is controlled practically by the Established Church and the local authorities. In the last decade included in the table (1893-1903) the latter schools have outstript the church schools even in respect to number of pupils. In 1893 they enrolled 41 per cent of the pupils as against 44 per cent in the church schools; in 1903 the relations were reversed, board or council schools had run up to 49 per cent of the total enrollment, while church schools had fallen to 39 per cent. The British and Wesleyan schools are rapidly becoming a negligible factor in the problem, as they readily pass over to public control. The Roman Catholic schools on the contrary increase, but they represent a very small proportion of the total school provision and they reach a particular class of the poor in crowded centers.

The Government grant for schools, excluding grants for building and other permanent works, had reached in 1902 the princely sum of £8,000,000 ($40,000,000). The Church of England schools derived from this source 77 per cent of their income; in the different classes of voluntary schools the proportion ranged from 72 to 80 per cent, the remainder being made up from endowments, subscriptions, and fees. In the board schools, which absorbed 44 per cent of the grant, the income from this source was only 50 per cent of their entire income. The other 50 per cent, excepting a trifling amount, was derived from the rates.

TABLE I.-Distribution of schools and pupils at specified dates.

a Report of committee of council on education, 1873-74, Part II, pp. 2, 3. Report of committee of council on education, 1883-84, p. 205.

c Report of committee of council on education, 1893-94, p. 715.

d Report of board of education, statistics of public education in England and Wales, 1903-1905, p. 30. e Includes 13 Jewish schools with 11,387 pupils.

f Now "nonprovided" schools.

TABLE II.-Income from Government grant and local sources.

a Report of committee of council on education, Part II, Appendix, 1873-74, pp. 4, 5. b Report of committee of council on education, 1884-85, pp. 232-234.

c Report of committee of council on education, 1893-94, p. 740.

d Report of board of education, statistics of public elementary schools and training colleges, 1901-2, pp. 66, 67.

THE EDUCATION BILL OF 1906.

THE MAIN CLAUSES, WITH DISCUSSIONS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE PUBLIC PRESS.

In its original form, the education bill of 1906 comprized five parts; as reported from the committee and finally adopted by the House it is reduced to four, Part II relating to educational endowments having been withdrawn from want of time for its consideration. It is understood that this subject will be covered hereafter by a separate measure.

PART I.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

The foundation of the bill, the declaration of the national basis, is clause 1, which past the House without amendments in committee stage by a majority of 203. The clause is as follows:

On and after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight, a school shall not be recognized as a public elementary school unless it is a school provided by the local education authority.

Mr. Birrell said on presenting the measure:

It can surprise no one that by the very first clause of this bill it is proposed to be provided that on and after January 1st, 1908, a school shall not be recognized as a public elementary school unless it is a school provided by the local educational authority. That is to say, from and after the date named, no elementary school shall receive a penny of public money either from rates or taxes unless it becomes a provided school within the meaning of the education acts. Unless electoral promises and pledges are fustian and

fudge; unless they are mere sound and fury, signifying nothing," no other clause than this was possible. It does not fall short of our pledge, it does not go beyond our pledge, it is our pledge. It carries also with it a second pledge, in relation to tests for teachers. We have been sliding down what a famous Archbishop of Canterbury once called the 'slippery slope" for many a year. I believe to-day we have reached the bottom of the hill. The act of 1902 held the bill of 1906 within its arms. Many saw it there. If ever men can be said to have intended the natural consequences of their own action, the promoters and supporters of the bill of 1902 must be said to have intended the first clause of the bill of 1906. The late prime minister whose absence from the House and the reason for it I personally greatly deplore for although a most formidable critic he is certainly always the most agreeable of auditors the right hon. gentleman, winding up the third reading debate on the bill of 1902, made use of these significant words, having in them almost something of a prophetic strain. He said:

"I ask no man to change his opinion upon this bill. I ask no man to give up what he regards as a conscientious conviction; my demand is simply this-living as we do in a free and constitutionally governed country, that they should attempt to make the best of a measure passed by the legislature of this country, and that if that measure fails and in so far as it fails they should devote their attention to amending it. I do not ask them to approve it. I do not ask them to say that if they had been in power they would not have found some much better plan for dealing with the infinitely difficult problem, but I do ask them, I do make this demand on the patriotism and public spirit of every class, clerical and nonclerical, in this country, that when this bill becomes law they shall do their best to work it while it is unamended, and if it requires amendment that they shall use constitutional means to amend it in conformity with the declared will of the people."

That is what we are here to do to-day, using constitutional means to amend the law in conformity with the declared will of the people. In old days the voluntary schools of this country, the old British schools, with their noble maxim "schools for all," and the national schools, which were frankly Church of England schools without a conscience clause these voluntary schools were voluntary schools in substance and in fact. No child had need to attend them and no citizen was required to subscribe to them. In 1876 attendance became compulsory, and in 1902 the denominational schools of the country were all dumped down upon the rates, subscriptions became obligatory, and were garnered by that pious churchman, the rate collector.

* * *

Everybody long ago, I can not but think, must have foreseen this inevitable resultthere is no other way out of it-where the public money is taken complete public control must of necessity follow. In many places the abolition and destruction of this vexatious dual system will come as a great relief. The officials of several of our great educational authorities have told me that they are sick with the worry and annoyance of the costly employment of officials who have little else, indeed, sometimes nothing else, to do but to adjust the haggling accounts of the lighting, warming, and heating of these schools between the private owners and the local authority. Dual control has had a gloomy history in this country and in Ireland. We know what comes out of it. I believe that the abolition of it in this case will save an enormous amount of time, temper, and the ratepayers' money.

THE RELIGIOUS QUESTION.

Having thus explained the basis for the future recognition of provided schools (i. e., public schools in the American sense of the term), Mr. Birrell proceeded at once to consider the change it involves in respect to sectarian instruction, hitherto cherished as a sacred mission or an inviolable right in voluntary schools.

This first clause [said Mr. Birrell] carries with it certain definite consequences. Every voluntary school receiving rates or grants becomes at once, on so doing, a provided school within the meaning of the education acts, and consequently it will receive the same kind of religious instruction as is now being given in the provided schools of the country, subject to the famous condition that no catechism or religious formulary, distinctive of any particular denomination, shall be taught in the school, and subject always to a conscience clause. This is to be the general rule throughout the land. And on what is it based? It is based, I do honestly believe, upon the happy experience of thirty-six years, during which millions and millions of English children have received their whole school education under these conditions without question and without demur on the part of the parents or of the children attending these schools. On that experience we are content to build. It is often said that this school-board religious instruction, as it is contemptuously described that these religious exercises and biblical instruction given in the schools-were a Nonconformist invention. It has been said by ecclesiastics of eminence, who ought to know better, that it is a Nonconformist religion. As a Nonconformist born and bred, as a man nurtured in Nonconformist history and Nonconformist traditions, as one who might almost be described

as having been born in the very library of a Nonconformist minister, I protest against that description. It is absolutely without truth and without foundation. If you want to find out for yourselves, as I wish every member of this House would find out for himself, the nature and the character of the religious instruction given in the provided schools (former board schools) by almost all-practically by all-the local education authorities, you must seek for it in the various syllabuses which have been printed and issued by these authorities. I have seen scores of such syllabuses and have had the pleasure of reading them. It has been the only part of my duty during the last few months that has done me any spiritual good. *

* *

They are the work of good and pious men of every creed, who have done their best, and have done it successfully, as Sir William Portala has said, to secure harmonious relations throughout the county. I would like hon. gentlemen to put themselves this question: What substantial difference do they think exists in Hampshire between the religious teaching in the county b schools, conducted under the syllabus, and the religious instruction given in the ordinary national schools in communion with the churches? This admirable system has grown up of itself. It was in no sense a foster child of Parliament. If you read the debates of 1870 you will find that eminent parliamentarians made fun of it, and so distinguished a man as Mr. Disraeli ventured to prophesy that the result would be that all sorts of different religions would be taught in different parts of the country-a Leeds religion, a Liverpool religion, and an Exeter religion.

That has not proved to be the case. The inbred piety and good sense of the English people have prevented anything of the sort springing up. I say that it is a system which suits our Protestant population, and a child is seldom withdrawn from this religious instruction. Old teachers-men with thirty years' experience behind them-have told me that, casting their mind back over that long period, they scarcely remember a single instance of anyone withdrawing his child from it. Even unbelievers and they are numerous in large towns-do not as a rule withdraw their children from this instruction. They probably agree with that very wise man, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who said "that if you want to make your son a fanatic the best thing to do is to withdraw him from all sympathy with the religious feelings of the age in which he lives." That is not a wise course, and I believe, therefore, we might honestly say that this system, ridiculed as it has been, of biblical instruction is in conformity with, suits the needs of, and has secured the approval of the large majority of the Protestant population of this country.

ALTERNATIVE TO BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION.

Now, what is the alternative? To banish the opening prayer, to silence the familiar hymn, to exclude the Bible, save in elegant extracts there may be logic in that, but I contend that to do so would be to act against the whole desire of the nation, and I certainly would say, let us preserve as long as we can, in a prosaic age and amongst a prosaic people, any idealism we can lay our hands on. "Where no vision is the people perisheth." Our people have been accustomed to look for such scanty glimpses as they have ever obtained of the heavenly vision in the pages of the Bible. I can see no reason to interfere with what I believe to be the national feeling. The other alternative is denominational education all round—a multiplicity of schools. I will not stop to argue that. I regard it as frankly impossible. I do not deny for a moment that during all the years this strife has been going on between Church and Dissent the onlookers, the noncombatants, have grown more and more numerous, and some of them not a little weary and disgusted. They are disposed to say, "Carry on your quarrels, if you will, on consecrated ground only, and leave us in peace and in possession of our schools and of our children." For the reasons I have given I hope no such views as these will prevail. If they do it will be because of the strange alliance between those who call themselves secularists and those able men, few in number, who regard with suspicion and dislike the simple religious exercises and biblical instruction which some people go so far as to describe as a new religion. I will not enter into any controversy with any living authorities, but I can not help referring to one great Archbishop of Canterbury who entertained a very different opinion about the value of these simple exercises and this biblical instruction. I mean the late Dr. Temple.

He was a scholar, a college tutor, a school inspector, a great headmaster. He was Bishop of Exeter, Bishop of London, and Archbishop of Canterbury. He knew this question from top to bottom, and he never hesitated to express his opinion that he attached extreme value to the instruction given in our board schools, and that he was very far from thinking that there was anything in it inconsistent with the children's receiving at other times, at other hands, and other places the full teaching of the denomination of their parents.

Starting then with complete popular control, carrying with it the appointment by the local educational authority of the teacher to whom no creed test can be applied, and with such sylla

@Vice-chairman of the Hampshire county council.

The provided schools are often referred to as county or council schools.