financial conditions which will increase the grants to schools, and will involve an Exchequer expenditure of 1,400,000l.

Such are, in brief, the provisions of this Bill, and it will be seen that it goes very far towards meeting the most extravagant demands of the extreme Nonconformist. The one particular type of religious instruction which Nonconformists approve of, which some English Churchmen acquiesce in and some disapprove of, and which all Roman Catholics entirely disapprove of, is selected and is to be established and endowed at the public expense. It is to be imposed upon every school, and to be provided for every child that desires it. Those ratepayers who do not acquiesce in it will in country districts be entirely deprived of any teaching that they like, unless they are willing to build a new school and support it entirely, while they will have to pay rates and taxes for the other school. In towns they will be a little better off, as after paying full rates for the school that they disapprove of they will be allowed to receive a grant for their own school.

It is difficult to conceive any measure more strikingly unjust. Let us take certain points in succession. It is admitted that in some country areas Nonconformists have a grievance. They are obliged to send their children to a school, of the religious teaching in which they do not approve. We shall refer to this again. We will only say now that that grievance, although it has been very much exaggerated, is recognized, and that the Church has offered means for correcting it. It is obvious that under the new Bill this Nonconformist grievance is done away with; but in doing so in a very large number of parishes an infinitely greater grievance is created on the other side. Let us take one or two instances to shew this. In the parish of Mickle ham, Surrey, a new school has just been built by voluntary subscription, at a cost of 2,390l. The parish is one in which there are believed to be no Nonconformists, and in which the parents and the people generally, so far as they have any earnest desire with regard to education at all, desire Church teaching. The freehold of this school will, under this Bill, pass to the Surrey County Council without payment, the

Church will have no right to the use of the school (or of the teachers) even out of school hours on five evenings of the week, but the new owners will be able to allow the building to be used for purposes hostile to the Church of England. It is difficult to conceive of a more gross case of unnecessary and unjust confiscation. Or let us take another instance. A correspondent writes to us as follows:

'Let me illustrate the way in which the Bill will work in this parish. The great bulk of the people here are Churchmen, and there are a few Nonconformists. It has always been our custom to allow-it is the rule in all schools in this diocesethe children of Nonconformists to have full Biblical instruction, but to be exempt from the Church Catechism. Only one child in the parish makes use of this privilege, all the rest attend the full religious instruction. I visited every house in which there were Nonconformists, and particularly asked them whether they desired to be exempt from the Church Catechism, and they all said that they wished their children to learn it.'

Again, so far as this village is concerned, in order to meet what is in this case an entirely imaginary grievance, the whole of the population of the place will be deprived of the religious instruction which they desire, and the schools which have been built for the purpose of giving that instruction will be confiscated.

We do not propose to dwell at any length upon the compensation in these matters offered to Church people. They are allowed to have the use of the school on Saturdays and Sundays. This means that on a Saturday, the day on which universal tradition gives the children a whole holiday, the clergyman is to have the privilege of holding classes for teaching the Church Catechism in the schools which used to be Church schools. There is something cynically unjust about this. Then, again, the Bill provides that in these transferred schools the religious syllabus of the London County Council is to be taught: that is to say, that as a great privilege Churchmen are to have the statutory right to enjoy in their own schools the teaching which they have spent large sums of money for the last thirty-eight years to avoid.

Let us now turn to the contracting-out schools. Mr. McKenna in his Bill introduced this part of his subject with the following words:

'Having said so much of the schools under what I may term the national conditions, I think the House will agree that it is impossible to ignore the fact that large sections of our community desire a type of instruction in which more definite denominational teaching is given than in our existing council schools. I recognize clearly that great sacrifices have been made in the past by devoted men and women in founding and maintaining these voluntary schools, and I am aware that, if the State were to refuse to recognize these schools in any form or shape, it would be regarded by very many people as an act of pitiless injustice. The moment voluntary schools are no longer public elementary-the moment they are no longer schools which any child need attend, then, I think, we may begin to consider that the position has changed and that there is room for generous treatment of them.'

Let us hear now what is to be the generous treatment given to these schools. They are to be entirely free from the supervision of the local authority. There may be tests for teachers and a fee of not more than ninepence may be charged, but they are to be under the strictest surveillance of the Board of Education. They are to keep up the highest standard of efficiency. One might think that in these circumstances somewhat generous treatment would be given them, but we find that the grant which they are entitled to receive will be limited in any case to 47s. a child. This is considerably less than the sum a provided school may earn. As a matter of fact, in London, judging from the report of the London County Council, they will receive 2s. 6d. less per child than this, while there is no guarantee that they will receive it at all; nor is there any obligation on the part of the Board of Education to recognize them unless it likes. Now let us see how this will work. The balance-sheet of the St. John's Schools, Camberwell, has been published, from which we gather that a sum of 1,289/. in the case of that school will have to be made up by fees and subscriptions, in addition,

of course, to the cost of keeping up the buildings. A long report, issued by the Education Committee of the London County Council, discusses this question. It points out that while the total amount which will be received cannot be more than 47s. a child, the average cost of non-provided schools is 31. 16s. 8d. a child; thus the sum of 29s. 8d. will have to be made up. The report further points out that this reversion to previous conditions will be much more difficult now than to have continued in the old way. Many of the schools have drawn largely upon their endowments or have raised a mortgage in order to come up to the standard required by the County Council. They have done this on the Parliamentary assurance of successive Education Acts that the property would be available for the purposes for which it was erected. The enlarged buildings will involve increased charges, a more costly organization is required, the teachers are better paid; more than that, we may point out that the fees have been abolished, and consequently to return to a condition of fees will be exceedingly difficult. We should like also to draw attention to one further point. Mr. McKenna's Bill, which is harsh in its main outlines, always contrives to throw in something to exasperate the situation. Under it a teacher serving in a voluntary school will not be able to count his years of service after the first year towards his pension. Here, again, we have a gratuitous insult added to an already harsh measure.

Now we will ask our readers to observe the sort of religious equality which this Bill implies. Supposing that a parent wishes his children to have Church teaching, he will probably not be able to get it unless he is willing to pay fees for the education of his child. The Nonconformist will get exactly the teaching he wants without these fees. Moreover, the other parent will have to pay rates for teaching the Nonconformist child. Supposing the congregation or parish or body of people belonging to any religious denomination, Roman Catholic or otherwise, have conscientious objections to the teaching in Council schools-there are very many who are in that position-they will be compelled to pay through

the rates for the teaching which they themselves disapprove of, and they will also have to pay subscriptions in order to obtain the teaching which they desire. This is what we are asked to believe represents a condition of equality and justice. We have two more observations to make with regard to contracting-out. We should like, first of all, to quote what a Radical has to say on this subject. Here is what Dr. Clifford says:

'That policy of contracting out" is unjust in itself, necessitates three types of schools, does not exist in the States of Australia, is a menace to the efficiency of education, and perilous to the unity and welfare of the nation.'

And here is a quotation from another Nonconformist :

'The provision for "contracting out" contents no one, not even those it would placate; it frustrates the ambition of a national system; it perpetuates the old mischievous duality; it enriches and gives a new lease of life to unblushing sectarianism in the populous districts, and its atmosphere remains in singleschool districts.'

On the other side, we know that many Church people have expressed their approval of some such system. Mr. Butcher, when the Bill was introduced, spoke in favour of it. The Archbishop of Canterbury introduced an amendment to that effect when Mr. Birrell's Bill was introduced. We should like to ask Mr. Butcher, for example, whether he has ever known what it is to try to carry on a school so as to meet the requirements of the Board of Education out of voluntary subscriptions. For any one who has any interest or care for education to feel that he is continually being hampered by inadequate funds, that he is competing on unequal terms with other schools, is disheartening. From the point of view of education, contracting-out is reactionary and injurious; from the point of view of religious equality it is unjust; and to those Church people who would ask for it we would say, why not have the courage of your convictions? On every principle of justice you have an equal right with your Nonconformist brethren to share in the rates and taxes