It was agreed, but in this case only as an experiment, (4) that the teachers may, if willing, give the unrestricted religious teaching in provided as well as in non-provided schools.

It is my belief that these conditions would have been accepted by the Voluntary school managers if there had been legal or permanent security for their fulfilment. I leave for the moment the question of how far these conditions ought to satisfy the requirements of those who represent the Voluntary schools, in order to state fully the grievances of which Nonconformists complain. Our conferences, conducted in the most friendly spirit, and with an earnest desire to conciliate and to co-operate, yielded abundant evidence of the reality of these grievances.

Fully to appreciate the Nonconformists' point of view, we must remember that they acquiesced with comparative tranquillity in the Act of 1870, believing, as one of their leaders stated, that in five years from that time School Boards would be universal in Wales. Prominent among the causes that falsified this anticipation was the growth of the School Board rate, which soon and largely exceeded the promised limit of threepence. Under the influence of the rateterror the Nonconformist bore patiently the grievance of being compelled to send his children to the National school. The present Act intensifies that grievance by making the Voluntary schools rateaided. It may be said that only the Nonconformist conscience could find a greater hardship in rate-aided than in tax-aided schools. But, after all, taxes are largely indirect, and therefore impersonal, miscellaneous in purpose, and centrally administered. The tax is paid so unconsciously that the sense of responsibility for its administration hardly touches the individual. Hence rate-aid revived the old grievance in an acute form. Two grievances, however, surpass all others in their magnitude and prominence in every Nonconformist discussion on the Education Act. The first is the retention of a religious test for head-teachers; the second is the question of public control. I desire to state the facts fully and frankly on both these points. There are 31,026 certificated head-teachers in the public elementary schools of England and Wales. Of that number 10,919 are employed in Board schools, 16,144 in Church of England schools, and 3,963 in other denominational schools.

Now the broad fact stands out that 20,107 certificated headteachers out of a total number of 31,026 are employed in denominational schools. Putting the case in another way, the head-teachers in our elementary schools are now for all practical purposes Civil servants, and the Act of 1902 leaves unaltered the fact that two out of every three head-teacher-hips are subject to a religious test. I only wish to state this fact without comment. Then there is the second and the greatest grievance of all. The demand for public control in the non-provided or Voluntary schools is urged upon the principle that the measure of public control must be commensurate

with the contributions made from public funds. Stated briefly and in decads the facts are as follows:

Of the total cost of maintenance for each child in average attendance in the Voluntary schools 37.7 per cent. came from public funds in the year 1869. This had risen in 1879 to 44.2 per cent., in 1889 to 47.7, in 1899 to 776 per cent. In the year 1904 the contribution will be over 90 per cent. It must be at once granted in the face of these facts that the control cannot remain where it was in 1869. While we accept at once the principle upon which public control is demanded, it must in all fairness be pointed out that a just and precise application of that principle would not logically, and as a matter of course, give that form of public control which is now demanded in non-provided schools. A concrete illustration will make this point clear. We will take the case of a non-provided school, where the cost of maintenance is, as at present, 21 68. 3d. per head; to this must be added for rent of buildings 178. 3d. per head. This sum will be made up in this wayviz. 1. 198. from the Government grants, 188. 11d. from the owners of the non-provided school, and 58. 7d. from the rates. In this calculation I leave out the endowments, which are valued at 18. 2d. per head in the Blue-book, and, on the other hand, I do not allow for the probable increase in the cost of maintenance under the new conditions. Put in another way, it appears that out of every 11. the State will contribute 128 3d., the owners of the non-provided school 58. 11d, and the rates 18. 10d. I simply take things as they are. In this balance-sheet we find that the State contributes almost two-thirds of the total cost, the owners of the school more than onefourth, and the rates slightly more than one-twelfth. Applying the principle with which we started, we find that the predominant control must rest with the representative of the taxpayer. Now the grants from the Imperial Exchequer depend upon the fulfilment of the conditions laid down by the Board of Education, and that fulfilment must be certified by his Majesty's Inspectors. These conditions cover the course of instruction, the qualification of teachers, the number of the staff, the fitness of the structure, the adequacy of its equipment. In fact, if religious instruction and the appointment of the teachers are excluded, there is scarcely a detail left upon which his Majesty's Inspector cannot claim the last word.

For nine-tenths of the school-day the school is under the supreme control of his Majesty's Inspector. What is there left to quarrel about? The one-tenth of the school-time, and the appointment of the teachers. There is already public control, of which none complain, but the present demand is that the local management should be local public control. I do not desire to oppose this contention; but it may be reasonably asked why, for the purposes of control, the difference between rates and taxes should be obliterated in this connection and emphasised in another, and the ratepayer

claim for his representatives what in many cases may be a disproportionate share of control? But let this point be waived, and, for the sake of peace, let it be granted that there must be public control through and through, and that theoretically private management is indefensible, and that public control, locally and imperially, is symmetrical and less open to criticism. Only let it be remembered that it is on these general grounds, and not always on that of financial equity, that the ratepayers can claim to be the predominant partner.

This brings us to the subject of the nature of the public control demanded for the ratepayer. His representatives are to appoint the teachers, and there are to be no religious tests. So far, all is clear, complete freedom is to be given to the local body in the appointment of teachers, but where religious instruction is concerned, this freedom is to be severely restricted. The moment religion is named, the vehement champions of public control produce the Parliamentary fetters. Like their prototypes in 1649 they have 'no intention of countenancing a universal toleration.' The religion taught in all the elementary schools must be rigidly pruned by the Cowper-Temple clause, and kept bare of any leaf or twig of dogma. This section of the opponents of the Act interpret that clause in a much narrower and more exclusive spirit than its original framers ever intended it to convey. Be this as it may, we are here face to face with the real cause of the present educational strife. Strong in the belief that this difficulty can be overcome, I desire to state the problem fully and frankly. Having endeavoured to state the grievances of the Nonconformists without any desire to mitigate or to understate them, I wish in the same spirit to put the case of the Voluntary schools.

Mr. Augustine Birrell, in his very able article on Elementary Education,' uses words that seem to imply that the Voluntary schools were recognised by the Act of 1870 as part and parcel of a national system of education, and that then for the first time they were allowed to become public elementary schools.' But what are the facts? Elementary education in this country first began with voluntary effort. This voluntary effort was in 1833 aided by building grants from Parliament, to be followed in 1839 and 1846 by trainingcollege and augmentation grants, then came in 1862 Mr. Lowe's payment by results. The Act of 1870 was passed not to recognise but to supplement this voluntary effort, and to establish a locally elected body for providing where necessary public elementary schools. The voluntary system has its root deep in the past. Up to 1870 the Voluntary schools held the whole field. Relying upon the honour of Parliament, the Voluntary schools have largely developed. Since 1870 additional accommodation has been provided by voluntary effort for 1,844,745 children, at a cost of at least 12,000,000l. (Report of Education 1903, p. 21–22.)

The Voluntary schools claim consideration not on sentimental,

but on these solid and equitable, grounds. The Act of 1870 met the religious difficulty in this way. It practically said to the Nonconformists, 'We give you the Board schools, from which we shut out any dogmatic and distinctive religious teaching, and, if the ratepayers like, all religious teaching.' It allowed the Voluntary schools to teach their children their own religious belief, while it protected the Nonconformist by a conscience clause.

Practically the compromise has worked in this way. The rates and taxes have paid for the teaching of the School Board religion, and the Church schools have paid for their own. For thirty-three years an undogmatic religion approved by the Nonconformists has been taught at the public expense in public elementary schools of this country. The State, in the Cowper-Temple clause, more brief, but not less binding than the Thirty-nine Articles, defined this School Board religion, and established and endowed its teachers. For thirtythree years this compromise- call it, if you like, concurrent endowment has worked fairly well.

Under the plea of public control, and the grievance of rate-aid, a demand is now being made to force this School Board religion upon all the schools of the country, or to exclude all religion. The Free Churches, we are told, are opposed to any dogmatic teaching whatever. It is, then, abundantly evident that while Churchmen are asked to give up the control of their Voluntary schools, they are not to be offered freedom and toleration; they are not even to be allowed to provide at their own expense for the teaching of their own children in their own faith.

I have endeavoured to state fairly the grievance of the Nonconformists and the claims of the Voluntary schools. In recognising the latter, the Act of 1902 seems to have aggravated the former, and there is a growing conviction that matters cannot be left permanently where they are. What policies or remedies are suggested? The critics who have described the Act as shapen in iniquity,' 'bishopmade,''priest-endowing,' are now afraid to advocate the secularism which they really believe in. On the other side, there are those who, like the Roman Catholics, will not have the atmosphere of their schools tainted by any breath of public control. The Roman Catholics have been consistent throughout, and, unlike the Secularists, are not afraid to declare their whole policy. It will hardly be maintained that either of these parties is strong enough to dictate the educational policy of the future. Educational peace can only be secured by the co-operation of those on both sides who are ready to give and take. Religious instruction is the cause for which the authorities of the Voluntary schools contend.

From this standpoint let us survey the position and policy of the Church schools. According to the last Blue-book there were 4,890,237 children in average attendance in all our elementary schools; of that number 2,546,217 were in Voluntary schools, and

the rest in Board schools. Again, of the total number in Voluntary schools, 1,882,184 were in Church of England schools. It will hardly be maintained that under the Act of 1902 there is any great prospect or even possibility of extending the Voluntary school system. If that is so, the Church of England will be left with her own non-progressive system, and, as a penalty for this possession, she will be permanently shut out from teaching her own children in the provided schools. The practical question, then, for Churchmen is this: Is it better to retain our own schools, where we can teach some of our children in our own way, or to accept a compromise which would give us the right (I assume that no other compromise has any chance of acceptance in this country) of providing religious instruction for our own children in our own faith in every public elementary school in the country? The acceptance of the latter alternative would, I believe, greatly promote the cause of religious instruction in what are now provided schools, where the adoption of such a syllabus as that of the London School Board would under the new conditions probably meet with no opposition. The practical working of such a compromise does not seem beset with great difficulties. The general syllabus of religious instruction would be taught in all schools on four days, and on one day there would be facilities for unrestricted religious teaching. Under this plan every denomination would have the right to provide for the religious instruction of their own children, in their own faith, at their own cost. All the Voluntary schools would then become provided schools, either by sale or lease. What is the great obstacle to such a plan as this? As the law now stands, facilities for definite religious instruction cannot be given in provided schools within the school hours. It is obvious that if we are to start afresh, this survival of the compromise of 1870 must go. The vehement party who denounce the present Act closely resemble those preachers of toleration to whom Cromwell in 1655 said, 'Is there not yet a strange itch upon the spirits of men; nothing can satisfy them, unless they can press their finger upon their brethren's consciences, to pinch them there.' But it can hardly be possible that the great majority of the Nonconformists would commit themselves to a position so unreasonable and so harsh. They cannot in common justice ask the Church of England to give up all her schools and the right, for which she has made such splendid sacrifices in the past, to teach her own children in these schools, while the Nonconformists would then have in all the schools of the country the Board school religion of which they approve, taught by teachers paid by the rates. Churchmen have borne patiently this injustice for thirtythree years in the Board schools; they can hardly be expected to bear patiently its extension now to all schools. If counsels of moderation do not prevail the wrangle will go on, and education will suffer much, but religion most of all.

A. G. ASAPH.