the Central Exchequer-think they can settle the matter by an appeal for greater help from the Central Exchequer. The rate-aiders' contend that it will never be permanently settled till all schools, Denominational and Undenominational, have an equal pull on 'rate" as well as on 'State' assistance. That is the position in a nutshell. It looks simplicity itself. Only the difficulty comes in, as usual, when politicians begin to discuss the terms of settlement, as the Government will probably learn once more early next year.

But whatever the terms of the settlement may be, I think it essential that still another fundamental consideration should be recognised That every person whose name is on the rate-book should, by some means or other, be made to contribute his fair share to the local burdens necessary for the maintenance of elementary education. At present, roughly, two-thirds only of the rateable value, population, and area of the country (for the fraction is about the same in each case) are taxed locally for education, and taxed in the most grotesque and uneven manner as a result of the extraordinary diversities in the size of the administrative areas, the value of the local property, and the measure of local educational needs. The other third of the country tells us it prefers Denominational schools. This preference enables it to escape a local tax for education. In some cases, no doubt, as much is raised locally by voluntary subscriptions as would reach the average level of the compulsory education rate. And in the large urban centres, it should be gratefully admitted, many people not only pay that tax, but subscribe in addition to Denominational schools.

But in the rural districts especially, the Denominational school too often exists simply and solely that the locality may entirely, or almost entirely, contract itself out' of its proper obligations towards the education of the children of the people. In such districts the schools are either (1) made to live on the central aid alone (1,061 Voluntary schools have no subscriptions and no endowments); or (2) some benevolent forefather of the village having in time past bestowed a little benefaction on the school, present generations consider themselves absolved of any need to dip their hands into their pockets; or (3) the clergyman or the schoolmaster has to worry around with cap in hand coaxing a few guineas out of the Ladies Bountiful, the big farmers, and the Squire.

The result is that we get villages all over the country, and in a rarer number of cases urban districts side by side, in the one case locally taxed up to one, two, and even three shillings in the pound for education; in the next raising nothing, or next to nothing, locally for educational purposes.

Now, as I have said, I can thoroughly recognise and deeply respect the case of the people who say they prefer Denominational schools, and raise out of their private purses from twenty to thirty

shillings a pupil per year-often in addition to paying the School Board rate that the same may be fully maintained. But I am bound to say that I see at the back of a lot of this talk the consideration that under its guise good, thrifty souls are able to wriggle almost entirely out of their local obligations to the education of the children. And if any one be disposed to challenge this statement, let him spend an hour with a Government Blue Book numbered [C— 7529] and purchasable for six shillings and sevenpence. I should await the result with interest.

As I have stated, the amount raised from the localities rated was last year three and three-quarter millions; the amount raised by voluntary subscribers was, roughly, three-quarters of a million. If I divide the country into three equal thirds (spreading the threequarters of a million voluntary subscriptions evenly over the whole country) I get the following interesting statement of facts respecting the local support of education :

Total raised £250,000 Total raised £2,125,000 Total raised £2,125,000

So that, again to rehearse the conclusions :-of the population, area, and rateable value of the country, only two-thirds contribute anything like their proper share to the local support of education. One-third of the country meets its obligation either with (1) nothing at all raised locally, or (2) ' a threepenny voluntary rate' (which many do not pay at all), or (3) by yielding the guinea, the half-guinea, and the crown to the parson's unremitting importunity. One-third, in a word, gets off by raising a quarter of a million, roughly speaking. Each of the other thirds raises over eight times as much! Now, why, I ask, should not everybody be compelled to bear his fair share of this most important communal obligation? I press my question because amongst the 'rate-aiders' there are many who would confine rate-aid to districts already rated this to allay the fears of those who now enjoy immunity from a local charge for education.

The average local school rate in the area taxed is, roughly, 84d. (It ranges, by the way, in the various localities from the decimal of a penny up to forty pence in the pound.) This, levied over twothirds of the country, yields three and three-quarter millions. Levied uniformly and universally it would give us five and a half millions,

which, together with the seven millions central aid now granted, would provide for some time to come for that educational expansion which Sir John Gorst tells us is so essential-'if we wish to give to the children an education anything like that which is given by our rivals in France, and Germany, and the States, and elsewhere '-but of provision for which, curiously enough, we saw but very little in the lately deceased measure upon the back of which is inscribed Sir John's name. We could do very well, I say, with this five and a half millions of local aid for education, and in securing it we could easily, by a material extension of the areas of collection, equalise the burden as it at present exists.

And this brings me to a consideration of the grossly unfair incidence of the local rate where now levied. Let me levy an imaginary School Board rate of a penny upon a variety of boroughs and rural School Board areas taken at random. In London a penny rate brings in for School Board purposes, roughly, 140,000l.; in Liverpool, 13,2001.; Manchester, 11,980l.; Birmingham, 9,000!. ; Leeds, 5,660l.; Sheffield, 4,820.; Bristol, 4,000l.; Newcastle, 3,9301.; Cardiff, 3,560l.; Nottingham, 3,240l.; Brighton, 2,866.; Portsmouth, 2,680l.; and Leicester, 2,650l. (It would be an interesting study to compare these varying amounts with the Board School needs of each of these great centres, but that is scarcely my present purpose.) I come at once now to some strikingly different incomes from the self-same penny. At Jacobstow, in Cornwall, a penny rate realises 10%.; at North Tamerton (Cornwall), 10l.; Lanlivery (Cornwall), 6l. 58.; Rhoscolyn (Anglesea), 5l. 168.; Maes Mynis (Brecon), 6l. 158.; Kirkbride (Cumberland), 8l. 118.; Clayhanger (Devon), 7. 148.; Ashen (Essex), 6l. 38.; Keinton Mandeville (Somerset), 4l. 188.; Barnardiston (Suffolk), 3l. 188.; and so on.

Of course it is at once admitted that the educational needs of the great urban centres quoted are not to be compared with those of the small rural districts mentioned. But it is suggested that there is a far greater disproportion between the proceeds of a similar rate levied in these various localities than there is between their actual educational requirements.

Naturally, we get the sequel to this absurd restriction of the areas over which the local school rate is levied in the heavy burden cast upon many of the rural districts. The following little table may be left to tell its own tale. It should serve, in its way, as a rebuke to those wealthy Londoners especially who are always bewailing their hard fate in having to pay more than Mr. Forster's 'three pence in the pound.'

PARISH SCHOOL BOARDS IN ENGLAND AND WALES, OUT OF A TOTAL
OF 2,271, ISSUING PRECEPTS OF

I might also go on to point out that the present system throws, in the rural districts levying an education rate, in many cases a much greater proportion of the cost of education upon the locality, as compared with the share borne by the Central Exchequer, than is the case in the great urban centres. For instance, take London. For every 11. we in London get from the Central Exchequer we have to spend 11. 98. from the rates. This is noisily objected to just now, especially by the West End section of the community, as casting too severe a burden on the locality.

But what about Great Bentley in Essex, where for every pound received from the Central Exchequer they had to raise last year over 14. locally. Look at the following list and strike your own comparisons between the amounts raised locally and centrally respectively, remembering also that, in all probability, contiguous with these parishes are others that raise little or nothing locally for their schools.

I have taken only two of the first three counties in the alphabetical list, but they will serve. Berkshire, the second of the first three counties, furnishes no example in the above list; I put the whole county in instead. It received last year 9,0371. 78. 8d. from the Central Exchequer, and had to raise in return from local School Board rates 18,011. 88. !

Well, now, I can restate my case in the form of three queries. Why should not every ratepayer, urban and rural, take his share in the local support of education? Why should not this local support be equalised in such a way as to render the incidence of the burden fair and equitable throughout the country? And why should not all public elementary schools be adequately and fairly financed, not only out of the central but out of the local purse as well?

The last query, of course, raises questions of vital moment in connection with the management and control of the schools, the powers of managers over the appointment of teachers, and the character of the religious instruction imparted to the children. But if the friends of Denominational schools are prepared to go into the question of the local support of education, prepared indeed to urge the claims of their schools upon the local purse-as so many of them are so strenuously anxious to do-it seems to me that the immediate and

ultimate effects of the policy may be contemplated with complacency by those who desire to perfect and popularise elementary education throughout the country.

T. J. MACNAMARA.

P.S. Since the foregoing was written, supporters of Church schools have decided to ask for 'rate-aid,' but only in districts already rated. This I view as a pure piece of opportunism. My figures, curiously enough, will serve as a striking comment on this policy, which increases the burdens of those who already bear, and perpetuates the repudiation of those who now repudiate. I cannot think that the Government will make such a plan the basis of legislation.