form a very numerous and influential element, and the leaders not only of the extreme section, with Lord Hugh Cecil at their head, but the Bishops, with the Convocation behind them, were clamouring for substantial help to their sectarian schools. If educational progress alone had been contemplated in the Government policy, it would have been wiser to divide the present Bill and treat the purely educational arrangements apart. Mr. Balfour, in his Mansion House speech, complained that questions of local government and sectarian difference had been largely discussed, while those of educational efficiency had been thrust into the background. There are numbers, probably more among his political opponents than among his supporters, who share his regrets. But the very nature of the Bill decided the nature of the debates, and he must accept the responsibility for the misfortune he deplores. It would hardly have been possible to initiate what is nothing less than a revolution in the administration of our educational system without a discussion on points of local government; but if this were inevitable, it surely made it all the more necessary that questions so difficult should not be still further complicated by the reopening of that religious controversy which has so seriously hampered educational efficiency, and which, it may be safely predicted, will continue to do so until it is finally disposed of by a settlement which, however it may disappoint extremists of all schools, will commend itself to the nation at large as fair and equitable.

The expediency of keeping the two questions apart is so manifest that the opposite course would hardly have been taken had there not been some very strong reason which made it imperative.

This

is not far to seek. The proposals as to the Voluntary' schools were sure to encounter so fierce an opposition that had they stood alone, the fate of the Bill, even in a Parliament where the Ministry have so overwhelming a majority, might have been somewhat doubtful. Certainly it would only have been carried by the most severe exercise of party discipline. The sympathy of those who were really interested in meeting one of the most imperative demands of the new century had to be caught by high sounding professions of the great reform to be effected in our scholastic system. The blessed word 'co-ordination' was coined to attract the unwary, and so experts, who would have looked very suspiciously on a scheme which did nothing but relieve denominationalists from bearing the cost of their own schools, were induced to regard the proposals with a favour which otherwise they would certainly have failed to secure. With this view, a large number of men engaged in educational work and supposed to be representative of different shades of opinion were consulted, and practical suggestions were asked from them. To me it has been extremely amusing to hear in different parts of the country of individuals who have given themselves out to be, to some extent, authors of the Bill. Their mode of talking of

their share in the work has led some of their neighbours to think that they were suffering from a violent attack of tête montée. But this would be to judge them unfairly. It has been the policy of the Government to consult a number of school managers and teachers of a particular type, to introduce certain changes recommended by them which probably may be regarded as distinct reforms, and to use any favour which the measure might thus obtain for the purpose of passing its more obnoxious provisions. But if in discussion the two objects of the measure seemed to come into collision the interests of denominationalism were to be regarded as paramount and supreme.

The results which have followed are so much in the natural order of events that it is folly to complain of them. It is the Ministry itself which has dragged the questions of local government and sectarian antagonism into the arena, and so prevented due attention being given to matters more directly educational and therefore of more vital importance. It is deeply to be regretted that the latter have been so lightly handled, and have in fact been dismissed with hardly any notice at all. It is, to say the least, curious that the first step taken by those who are intent on promoting efficiency should be the abolition of the Boards whose work has earned for them so high a reputation in all parts of the country, and especially in those large towns where schools are most imperatively needed. The need for certain changes, such as the abolition of the cumulative vote, and possibly an entirely different system of administration for urban and rural districts, has long been felt by all who had a practical knowledge of the subject. But to abolish at one fell stroke public bodies which were rendering such invaluable service in a sphere where it was sorely needed was a piece of fatuous folly which seems to indicate that a minister who was impatient of the details of the legislation had probably been unduly influenced by some aspiring official who was too satisfied with his own judgment to be influenced by the experience of the last thirty years. So far from regretting that so much time has been spent in discussion of questions bearing on local government, I have a strong conviction that the work of the future will be materially hindered because they have been so summarily settled by a majority which has acted as though its business was to vote but not give reasons.

But it is with the Nonconformist opposition that I am chiefly concerned. It is no exaggeration to say that the Free Churches have seldom, if ever, been more united in opinion, more resolute in purpose, and, it must be added, more fiery in temper and expression than in their resistance to this measure. The Spectator, with more than ordinary unfairness, speaks of the 'untiring animosity to the Government Bill which has been shown by that section of the Nonconformists who were opposed to the Government policy in the late

war. No suggestion could be much further from the truth. Pro-Boers have been, as they were sure to be, prominent among the critics of the measure, but not more so than Liberal Unionists who, throughout the Home Rule agitation and the South African war, have been steady supporters of the Ministry. There has been an all but universal uprising among all who can fairly be regarded as representing Nonconformity against a measure which is directly opposed, not so much to their sectarian interests, but to those great principles of religious equality without which there can be no true liberty.

It has been a great surprise as well as satisfaction to many of us to find that among the most pronounced of the opponents are men who belong to the Liberal Unionist camp. I listened recently with interest and some little amusement as well as amazement to the fervid denunciation of the measure by one of my brethren who had done his utmost to build up the power of the party which was seeking to inflict so cruel a wrong on him and his fellow-religionists. I could not follow him to the full extent of the resistance which he advocated, but I could quite understand the bitterness with which he resented the betrayal of the trust which he had reposed in statesmen who were using the votes which they had asked for against the Boers in order to crush himself and his fellow-Nonconformists.

But a second and more suggestive feature still is the fervour with which the younger Nonconformist ministers are throwing themselves into the crusade. For the first time we have a considerable Wesleyan contingent in the Free Church ranks, and these men, not Sir George Chubb, represent the spirit of young Methodism. I speak from direct personal knowledge when I say that the younger Congregationalists are more resolute than were numbers in 1870. I confess that personally I have been greatly struck with the new spirit which has been revealed by many of them. They have grown up in a different environment from their fathers, and the change is shown in their temperament. They are no longer content with toleration, or even with graceful concessions, when questions of right are at stake. Events have been helping them to realise their true position in our free Commonwealth. Those who reproach them for their strenuous advocacy of right, and regard them as rivals for the status and power at present belonging to the Establishment, fail to understand their position altogether. They have simply shaken off once and for ever the idea that they are asking a favour when they demand the ordinary rights of citizens. In my earlier days, there was a society for the protection of civil and religious liberty,' which in its very title indicated the limit which the Dissenting idealist had reached. The new generation has happily gone far beyond that. Its representatives feel the stimulus of the new blood of liberty which courses through their veins, and they refuse to acquiesce in the continuance of any State privilege to a particular Church.

VOL. LIII-No. 311

C

6

By men of this temper and with these views the Education Bill is regarded as both an insult and an injury. They did not need Cardinal Vaughan to tell them that its passing would be the victory of the Government over the Nonconformists. For that was what had impressed itself upon them from the outset. It may or may not be true (I do not think it necessary to deny it) that their indignation has led them to exaggerate the evil which the Bill will do. But its real character seemed to them to be sufficiently indicated in the benedictions bestowed upon it from the first by bishops and clergy. If in this they are mistaken, the blame hardly rests upon them. They had the late Primate's all too candid admission that a few years ago—that is, of course, before disunion had paralysed the Liberal party, and the war had supplied an opportunity for playing on that patriotic sentiment which is common alike to Churchman and Dissenter-he would not have contemplated the possibility of the introduction of a measure so favourable to Voluntary Schools. The whole subsequent history of the Bill has simply confirmed this original impression. Most of all, the discussions in Committee of the House of Lords have only made it more manifest that its practical effect will be to relieve Churchmen from the support of schools which are Church institutions. Of course, a certain number who pride themselves on being educationalists, and sneer in the most approved style at the religious difficulty, have been caught by the specious professions of improvement in the machinery. But even these advantages have to some extent disappeared, largely in consequence of the difficulties arising from the determination to safeguard the denominational interests, at whatever cost to educational efficiency.

In face of such facts as these Nonconformists can hardly be reproached if they have been stirred to unusual earnestness. Nothing, perhaps, has surprised them more in the whole course of the discussion than the indignation expressed by Mr. Balfour at their ingratitude. If the Premier really intended to be their benefactor, he has succeeded with wonderful skill in hiding his benevolent intentions from them. There was no reason why they should not have been quick to appreciate any kindly sentiment on his part. I cannot individually profess any sympathy with the principles or policy of his Government. But certainly there was no reason why any of us should have judged him unfairly. In the Unionist ranks were a considerable number of Nonconformists who were not its least sturdy and valuable members. But among these are to be found some of his severest critics of to-day. There was every inducement to them to regard his propositions with favour. But the stern evidence of facts has forced even them into opposition which has been essentially distasteful. It would have been even more widespread and determined had not the presence of Mr. Chamberlain in the Government awakened the hope that the measure might be so modified as to

remove some Nonconformist objections. Mr. Balfour's strong deliverance on the Kenyon-Slaney amendment was almost the only sign of a desire to understand the real Nonconformist objection, and even that indicated a desire rather to correct the extravagances of extreme Anglicans than to meet the just demands of those outside the Church. Apart from that, it might reasonably have been thought, what Cardinal Vaughan certainly did think and what strongly impressed the Free Church deputation, that Nonconformists were the opponents whom the Prime Minister was determined to vanquish. But his own confession in parting with the Bill settles the point. It is a Bill' (he says) 'which does as much as any friend of the Church could possibly hope for denominational education.'

Mr. Balfour has, in fact, treated the whole matter too much as a party game. Certainly his conduct of the debate in Committee has been marked by great adroitness. But his has been the art of a skilful fencer rather than that of a man of intense convictions. Strange as it may seem to him, I, as a pronounced Nonconformist, understand the position of Lord Hugh Cecil a great deal better than his, and am quite prepared to believe that he on his side would do more justice to our Free Churches. It is, in truth, extremely difficult for those who are in the thick of the political fight to treat a question which has ranged the two parties in distinct opposition to each other from an independent standpoint. It must be confessed, too, that seldom has our party system appeared to more disadvantage than in the present heated controversy. Possibly this is partly the result of the appeals to 'the man in the street' which have been so frequent of late. I heard Dr. Parker once say from his pulpit in his own vivid style, 'Every washerwoman in Europe thinks that she could manage the war.' That is the kind of belief which we have been encouraging-a belief based on the extraordinary fallacy that the less a man knows of a subject the more likely is he to form a correct opinion upon it. But if the man in the street 'is to be made into an arbiter, of course every effort will be put forth to influence his judgment. Possibly it is to this cause that the extreme bitterness which has been characteristic of the discussion out of doors is to be attributed.

Even Mr. Balfour himself has not escaped from the evil influence. 'Up to the present time, at least' (he said in his Manchester speech), 'the voice of the calumniator has been too long uncontradicted.' Assuredly such a style of argument will convince no one, and the louder the cheers with which a meeting of excited partisans greet it the more evil its influence. Is it not possible to differ from Mr. Balfour in opinion as to the effect of some provision in the measure and yet not to be a liar or a calumniator? This kind of attack necessarily invites a similar style of defence, and there is great danger