Nonconformists. A Nonconformist journal of high character and great influence has lately said: 'High Churchmen have just the same right to protest against the teaching of the Bible apart from the interpretation of the Church as we have to protest against the teaching of the Bible under the interpretation of the Church.' With this acknowledgment the way to an educational settlement ought to be easily found. I am quite willing that all religions should be taught in elementary schools at the cost of the ratepayers provided that my religion finds a place in the list. I am equally willing that no religion shall be taught in elementary schools at the cost of the ratepayers provided that an exception is not made in favour of what I regard as the worst religion of the lot. But though the best Nonconformist opinion goes, as I believe, with the British Weekly, the mass of religious indifferentism in and out of the Church of England clings to the Cowper-Temple clause. It is in possession, it falls in with the general trend of popular opinion, it satisfies the teachers, who do not wish to see their province invaded by volunteers, it has an air of rough common-sense about it which pleases the practical man, who does not mind riding over a religious conviction provided that he can do it without any risk of subsequent trouble. The opponents of Established Undenominationalism—as a voluntary religion it has the same right to exist that every other religion has -have therefore to convince politicians first that they are in earnest, and next that they are prepared with a proposal which saves their conscience without hurting anyone else's.

Such a proposal has often been put forward, but not as yet by those to whom governments and politicians naturally listen. It starts with accepting the two conditions laid down by Dr. Horton in his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury: the subjection to representative public control of all rate-supported schools; and the appointment of all the teachers without reference to their religious belief. I do not myself attach any importance to this latter point. Religious equality would be just as well attained by the German system, under which the teachers are taken from the several Confessions in proportion to the number of children belonging to each. But this plan would certainly be disliked by Nonconformists and by the teachers, and it would probably wreck any compromise of which it formed part. (I can see no reason, however, against allowing the regular teachers to give religious instruction as the paid servants of the denomination employing them.) The prudent course, therefore, is to accept these two conditions frankly and fully. Churchmen should say in effect: We resign all claim to the control of the secular education in our own schools. The management of the schools and the appointment of teachers shall be wholly in your hands; you shall have the use of the school buildings during school hours on any terms that may be adjudged fair. These are the concessions

we are willing to make, and in return for them we ask that all denominations—including the Undenominationalists-shall have the statutory right of providing and paying teachers to give religious instruction in school hours to the children of their own members,' In practice this would resolve itself in a great number of schools to a class receiving Church teaching and a class receiving undenominational teaching. In the opinion of those best qualified to speak, the majority of Nonconformists would be satisfied with such teaching as is now given under the Cowper-Temple clause. The only difference would be that the teacher giving it would be paid, as the Church teacher would be paid, by those who valued the teaching and were anxious that it should be given. If it turned out that the Wesleyans, Congregationalists, or Baptists desired to give separate religious instruction to their own children, they would of course do so. The parent would only have to send with each child on its first coming to school a written statement showing what religion he wished the child to be taught. It would be the duty of the managers of the school to give notice to the recognised authorities of each denomination, or in the case of Undenominationalists to the Committees that would probably be formed to provide 'simple Biblical instruction,' that so many children were awaiting religious instruction at the time devoted to the religious lesson. That time might, as now, be the first threequarters of an hour in the school day. Attendance would be called before the religious lessons began, and then the children would file off to their several classes. Where a parent wished his child to receive no religious instruction he would be set to some secular lesson. Where a denomination had made no provision for religious instruction, the parent might be given his choice whether his child should go to the religious lesson of another denomination, or take a secular lesson instead.

All kinds of practical objections may be taken to this plan. But against what plan may they not be taken? What I have to say in mitigation of them is simply this-that the difficulties that stand in the way of its adoption are objections of practice and detail, whereas the difficulties in the way of any other plan go deeper, and touch upon matters of principle and conscience. I believe that if this plan were tried it might be worked with only a reasonable amount of concession. But the end of an article is not the place for indicating what these concessions should be, nor have I the knowledge required for suggesting or criticising them. I have only sought to establish three things: that the management clauses are doomed; that if Churchmen do not move, and move soon, there is a real danger that undenominational religion, and undenominational religion alone, will be taught in elementary schools; and that the only way of preventing this is to come forward at once with a proposal such as I have described. The next two months may

be of inestimable importance to the place of religion in elementary education. If they go by unimproved, we may in the end have to choose between the entire secularisation of the schools and the exclusive establishment in them of a type of religion which we regard as worse than none at all.

D. C. LATHBURY.

P.S.-I had written this before the publication of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to Lord Ashcombe. But his Grace's argument does not touch the aspect of the question with which I have tried to deal. He gives reasons why the Education Act ought not to be attacked in Parliament; I give reasons why it certainly will be attacked in Parliament, and probably be attacked with success. He believes that to maintain existing Church schools is the only, or at all events the best, way of maintaining Church teaching; I believe that it is the existence of Church schools that blinds Churchmen to the fact that a yearly increasing number of children who ought to be, but are not and never can be, in a Church school get no Church teaching at all. More than this, the Archbishop is prepared to make a concession which would very soon be fatal to Church teaching even in Church schools. He proposes, in 'single school areas,' to draw a distinction between 'denominational instruction' and 'simple Scripture teaching,' and to give the parent the choice which his child should attend. This seems to imply that denominational teaching and Scripture teaching are different things, whereas, as every consistent denominationalist believes, denominational teaching is simply right Scripture teaching. A Churchman can no more teach the Bible undenominationally than he can teach the Church Catechism undenominationally. But to pursue this argument would lead me on to a wholly different ground from that covered by the present article.

SOME NOTES AS TO LONDON THEATRES

PAST AND PRESENT

LORD ROSEBERY, in one of his delightful speeches at an annual dinner of the chairman of the London County Council, gave, as one of the proofs of the growing popularity of that body, the demands that were daily made by the public for endowing them with increased powers-great though those powers were at that time.

Personally, in the increasing mass of business undertaken gratuitously and successfully by men who devote their abilities, their energies, and time for the public good, I play an infinitesimal part. That part is in connection with the licensing and management of the theatres and places of amusement in the County of London.

This business has happily brought me into close and intimate relations not only with the daily increasing numbers of theatrical proprietors and managers, but with the professional and able advisers of the Council, from whom I have gathered much information connected with the history of theatres, which I have found of great interest and which may afford some amusement to others.

Going back to times preceding those of Shakespeare I find that no theatres existed in any part of the country, and performances took place in barns or yards of inns, where the overhanging galleries, which some few of us remember and all of us have seen in old prints, afforded the only shelter to the spectators. Churches gave a temporary home to what were called 'morality plays,' and we of this generation have learnt how pathetic and touching these plays could be by seeing the simple story of Everyman, which has been shown to us with an art probably eclipsing that of old days. Sometimes the plays were performed in amphitheatres, which had been used for bull and bear baiting, and were constructed in the form of an arena surrounded by galleries, which, when these were not required for more brutal sports, were occasionally devoted to the more refined uses of the histrionic art.

The first building appropriated solely for stage plays was known as 'The Theatre,' which was erected in 1575 in Shoreditch. In 1599, the Globe, where Shakespeare often appeared, was erected in

Bankside. Between the first date and the Restoration, a dozen other theatres sprang into existence; but how different from the present luxurious theatres with their gorgeous scenic effects and furniture !

Although the French word matinée, to which we have become accustomed, had never been heard of, the plays began at three o'clock exactly, and the prices of admission ranged from 1d. to ls. Think of that, ye managers of to-day!

These theatres, as they appear in old prints of London, before county councils were even dreamt of, were octagonal or circular, with tiers at different levels, the topmost row only being covered with a roof, while the enclosed ground in front corresponded to a space which in the theatres of to-day would be occupied by stalls and pit. These were open to the air, and it is to be hoped that the heavens were more propitious to outdoor amusements in those days than they are in the year of grace 1903.

The buildings being circular, it of necessity arose that the actors were obliged to turn their backs on some portion of the spectators, a habit which, curiously enough, seems now to be a growing fashion.

The position of actors in Queen Elizabeth's time well illustrated the feudal principles in force in those days, for by the Act of 1547 great noblemen and landowners gave their patronage and licences to companies of play-actors, who by their permission only were allowed to give performances in the neighbourhood. Queen Elizabeth, however, at the beginning of her reign appointed Justices, Mayors, and Lieutenants of Shires to act as Censors of plays; but there evidently existed at that time in many quarters an antagonistic feeling against play-actors, who were driven in their own defence to appeal to a higher authority, with the result that a Master of the Revels was appointed by the Crown, who exercised his authority throughout the country until his office was merged in that of the Lord Chamberlain.

In 1642 all plays were forbidden by an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, and many of the old theatres were pulled down by the Puritan soldiery, and the magistrates were enjoined to have apprehended all actors as rogues and vagabonds.

Up to the time of the Restoration no woman had ever ventured on the stage, but now great changes took place, and actresses were not only tolerated but were welcomed. The first English actress appeared in the character of Desdemona on the 8th of December, 1660, at the Tennis Court Theatre, Vere Street, Clare Market. The patent to Killigrew granted in 1662 runs :

'We do likewise permit and give leave that all the women's parts to be acted in either of the said two companies, the King's and the Duke's, for the time to come may be performed by women.'

We who have hung entranced with the acting of Rachel, Ristori, and Sarah Bernhardt, and have listened with rapture to the exquisite