The dynamic element, in short, which capitalism, as distinct from the preceding systems, represents consists in this new division of industrial energy and effort so that the highest industrial efficiencies, whether of will or intellect or imagination, instead of confining their effects to the development of incommunicable skill in individuals, lend themselves in the form of direction to the minds and hands of the mass of labourers generally. When once this fact is realised, the rise and the results of capitalism, as described by Marx, become intelligible. As presented by himself, in his mere superficial description of them, they are as unexplained and inexplicable as the action of a steam engine would be if our sole knowledge of it were derived from a description of its external shape and movements, and nothing was said about the properties or even the existence of the steam.

But when orthodox economic science shall have assimilated this fundamental fact, a further fact remains which it must recognise and elucidate likewise. The increased and still increasing efficiency of wealth-producing effort under capitalism is due, we have seen, to the fact that capitalism is merely the means by which the exceptional talents of the few are enabled to affect the individual taskwork of the many; but why did this process begin-as Marx rightly says it did at a particular period? And why, with results of indefinitely increasing magnitude, has this process since then continued to develop and extend itself? In order to answer these questions the economist will have to turn from the details of economic analysis to the wider facts of history; and these facts may be briefly summed up as one fact-or, at all events, as many facts pertaining to a single movement. This movement consists of the gradually increasing deflection of the keenest minds and the most powerful wills from the fields opened to ambition by war, by mere learning, by theology and ecclesiastical politics, and by the service of secular princes, and the concentration of these minds and wills on the processes by which wealth is produced, instead of on those arts which secure it, or its equivalents, ready made as guerdons. This movement, the various causes to which it is due, the partial anticipation of it in northern Italy and elsewhere, and the enormous stimulus given to it by new countries such as America, form subjects for a chapter of history which still remains to be written. The fact of this movement and its general trend are sufficiently familiar to all who have the rudiments of an historical education; but it still remains for economists to elucidate them in such a way as will place them systematically in their true economic setting. The nature of the division of effort here generally indicated, and the various ways in which socialistic logic obscures it, will in the next article be examined more minutely.

W. H. MALLOCK.

1909

SOME SUGGESTIONS TOWARDS A

SOLUTION OF THE EDUCATION PROBLEM

THE breakdown of the last effort after a settlement of the education difficulty, in spite of the high character and marked ability of those who on both sides approached each other with the earnest desire for peace, has surely brought to the front some important lessons.

Is it not clear that the failure is occasioned by the negotiations having started from a basis which is absolutely unsound? This basis is composed of two most unworkable assumptions, viz. :

(1) That England requires a single system of national education. (2) That State schools must have their religious type settled for them by the State.

It is easy to show the fallacy of these two assumptions, which many minds appear to have accepted as axioms.

(1) Whatever may be the case with other countries, the whole genius of the English people is dead against uniformity. In our associations for religious, philanthropic, scientific, artistic, and, if there be any other enterprise, people start on their own lines, employ their own methods, draw up their own rules, choose their own managers. If and when they come to the State for recognition and support, they naturally submit to certain conditions. But not so as to deprive themselves of their own raison d'être or to be forced into some rigid bed of Procrustes.

The late Bill, by its 'contracting out' provisions, in a manner did recognise that the dual system is the only way out of the difficulty. The intention of Government was, no doubt, to make this provision a strictly exceptional one. But it became very clear that 'contractingout' must either starve the schools concerned, or virtually set up a dual system on a large scale by making it tempting for denominationalists to take advantage of it. Would it not be much more in harmony with the nature of things frankly to accept the dual system in a much more whole-hearted and logical way?

Nothing can be more certain than that the country is divided between staunch believers in (1) the denominational and (2) the undenominational system. It is quite idle to deny the strength of denominational convictions in the face of the fifty millions that have

been given in support of Church schools and the strenuous efforts still being made, in spite of the heavy financial burdens with which they are handicapped, to keep the 11,000 which still hold their own. It is surely the duty of the State, now as in the past, to recognise the two systems.

'Yes,' is the well-known reply, that was all very well till the denominational schools came upon the rates, but rate-supported schools must come under public control, and come into the one national system.' 'One national system,' as I have tried to point out, is not desired or desirable in England; it is a mere catch-cry which ignores the facts. Public control' by all means, only let it be clearly understood what it is in the field of national education that the State is entitled to control and what not.

Why does the State take up the education of the people at all? Simply because we have come to recognise that thorough secular education is necessary for the nation if it is to hold its own among other nations, and that it has therefore become a national concern, too important and too costly to be left to private effort.

But there is another side to education-the religious side-which it was no doubt the State's duty to regulate as long as the State and the Church were component parts of one homogeneous body.

But this has long ceased to be the case. Religiously we are divided into hundreds of sections. Parliament represents, not only every variety of Christian persuasion, but also Jewish and other nonChristian bodies. How, then, can it be fair or reasonable for the State to concern itself with the religious education of our children, far less to control it?

In 1870, when for the first time rate-supported schools were established, the State distinctly recognised its limitations by putting an end to religious examination by her Majesty's inspectors and by ceasing to give any grant for religious instruction. Well would it have been had this principle of non-intervention in religion been logically carried out by the State. But from that day to this we have suffered from State interference in the matter, culminating in the recent claim for a universal State-favoured form of religious teaching, and there will be no peace till we are rid of it.

'The secular solution, then?' No, indeed. To all who value the Christian religion as the foundation of character and of good citizenship this would be 'suicide to save one's life.'

Although such a State as ours is no longer fitted to control our children's religion, it would be an evil day for England when it should banish it from our schools. What we do ask of the State is that it should entrust the matter to those whom it immediately concerns, giving them absolute fair play, and neither hindering nor helping.

The State levies rates and taxes upon us all for the purpose of setting up and maintaining thoroughly efficient schools. Why then

is it not prepared to support out of the rates and taxes every efficient school, whatever its religious colour, which turns out the secular results required, and keeps its buildings in thorough sanitary and up-to-date condition?

This brings me to the attack of the second fallacy, i.e. that State schools must have their religious type settled for them by the State.

Surely we must have learnt by now that this is an untenable position. Against it we have to take our stand upon the firm ground of parental versus State responsibility in the matter.

This sound principle has been widely taken up of late, and finds a partial and timid place in the defunct Bill. But I would plead for a much bolder application of it.

We all allow that, as regards secular and sanitary efficiency, the State must be master. 'Popular control over national schools,' therefore, we all ought not only to submit to, but to demand. But I would urge that, with regard to the religious character of the school, this control should be exercised, not by political boards or local educational authorities (as at present constituted), but by popular local vote. Such a vote to be taken as soon as possible in every school area; the point to be decided thereby being simply whether the school in each area shall continue as it is, either council or denominational, under its existing management, or whether it shall be handed over to the alternative type. And this decision once made, it should hold good for the next ten years (roughly the entire school life of a child), so as to avoid continual unrest and uncertainty. These elections to be strictly ad hoc. The school buildings, if the school has to be transferred, to be leased by their owners or trustees to the victorious party, under certain conditions to be agreed upon, for the ten years'

term.

It may be objected that every variety of sect might rush into the field, each fighting for itself. But we are dealing with things as they are; and as a matter of fact the 'Free Churches' are satisfied with the council schools. Their own denominational schools have so largely been transferred that those remaining are a negligible quantity,' and, if any care to survive, they can come under contracting-out' provisions.

No one can deny the objections to elections. These particular ones might doubtless arouse a good deal of hot blood and religious rivalry. Yet, in rural districts, at all events, little is known of religious animosities with regard to the schools. The elections, moreover, would be of very rare occurrence; and they would at any rate be the best, indeed the only, way of securing 'popular control' to the only people who are entitled to it, as regards the religious type of each school.

As to the size of each school constituency, the voting qualifications, the financial arrangements, the majority that should entitle the victor

to decide the question, and many other details, I would not venture to say anything. The only point I would urge as essential is the due representation in each constituency of parents of children of schoolage-the father voting when both parents are living, the mother if he is dead or has deserted her.

Whichever type of school was thus decided upon, arrangements should of course be made to meet the religious demands of the minority. Only let them be the genuine demands of the minority concerned, not a hard and fast rule enforced from without. The differences between one locality and another are many and great. In one place, where the head master or mistress was popular, the minority, supposing the Church school had won the election, might merely demand that their children should receive Scripture teaching only, at the hand of the regular staff. (This plan has been asked for, and has worked perfectly smoothly, in a Welsh Church school.) In another, Scripture teaching in a separate classroom by a teacher from outside might be demanded. Often a portion of the schoolroom partitioned or curtained off would meet the need. Some minorities might demand separate Scripture lessons for their children every day. Some would be content with one, two, or three days a week. Some might demand their own catechisms. Some would simply use the conscience clause.

In the case of a council school winning the election, the minority would probably in most cases demand a classroom and find its own teacher every day.' But here also, if the head or one of the staff were liked and trusted, the Church people might often be willing to let their children attend the regular Scripture lesson two or three days in the week, provided a Prayer-book teacher of their own choice took the lesson on the remaining days.

One thing may fairly be reckoned upon, viz.-that in the vast majority of cases a friendly arrangement would be arrived at. Parents do not cease to be parents because they are ratepayers, nor do ratepayers cease to be ratepayers because they are parents. They will approach the subject from both sides. The well-known local weakness for 'keeping down the rates' would be effectually checked if the State did its duty and enforced on every school up-todate efficiency on pain of forfeiting its grants.

It is the attempt to bring the details of the matter into an Act of Parliament which seems foredoomed to failure. A free hand granted to localities to make out a workable arrangement for themselves, would in all cases be far more likely to end in a peaceable and satisfactory compromise. Where people know each other, where all alike are immediately concerned in hitting off a working plan such as each locality needs, and where all realise that a certain type of school, once decided upon, would hold the ground for ten years, the desirability

As to the cost, in most cases the parish priest would take the lessons himself or provide some lay teacher, in either case free of cost.