of devising a façon de vivre for the minority in the interests of peace would surely commend itself to everyone concerned.

Nothing revolutionary would be likely to happen. With the exception of (1) places where a large influx of population, either of Churchpeople or of Nonconformists, might lead to a change, or (2) places where for one reason or another the schoolmaster or the governing body had made themselves unpopular, the first election, at all events, would probably leave all existing efficient schools as they were; and even in exceptional cases the difficulty would often be met, not by altering the type of any existing school, but by opening another.

What would be secured, to the great advantage of all parties, would be a stable state of things everywhere for ten years. In the great growing suburbs, and suburbs of suburbs, of London, the Church would have the chance of occupying new ground, from which her present handicapped position unfairly debars her. As is clear from the annual reports of the Funds of the Bishops of London, Southwark, and St. Albans, mission clergy with a bare maintenance, a roof over their heads, and a 'tin' church, are early in the field of these new populations, and seldom fail to gather together an otherwise unshepherded flock in ever-increasing numbers. Under the present disheartening uncertainties, and with the prospect of heavy future burdens, who can wonder that such clergy are deterred from attempting to raise money for opening Church schools? But with the certainty of support from the people concerned, whom they have themselves drawn together, and of no disabling State-imposed conditions to face, the Church would have fair play in opening her own schools-in many cases, of course, along with council schools wherever the large population gave scope for both.

Whatever arrangements might be demanded by either minority, the whole matter should rest with the governing body of the school, upon which parents of school-age children should be represented, Parliament merely making it obligatory upon each governing body to make such arrangements as should satisfy the minority, and stipulating that all religious lessons should be given in school hours and subject to a conscience clause."

It is easy to find objections to this scheme on either side. People who believe in the claims of the Church of England-the Church of a thousand years-older than Parliament, older than the State itself -which until recent days did practically all that was done for the education of the poor-must contemplate with great reluctance any scheme which places her hold over her own schools at the mercy every

2 Nonconformists have often complained that the conscience clause is a dead letter. If so, the fact would seem significant of the absence of any very burning 'religious difficulty' in the school areas. It has, however, been well suggested that copies of the conscience clause (in simpler and shorter form) should be circulated among parents. Hung up only in the school, it may be doubted if either child or parent is often the wiser for it.

VOL. LXV-No. 385

H H

ten years of a local election. 'What!' it will moreover be said, ‘are we to risk the betrayal of our trusts?' But must we not sorrowfully admit that in those places where the Church stands to lose her schools, there it must largely be through her own fault. What was she doing during all the years of the past, when the education of the people was entirely in her own hands? With many and splendid exceptions did not the parish clergy too often leave the schools to take care of themselves? Had the Church done her duty in the past, we should have had behind us at the present time a far stronger and more enthusiastic support. Where she has lost her hold over a school area, there we must acknowledge that she has for the time forfeited. her school trust deeds. But she may in the intervening ten years recover lost ground.

Nonconformists, on the other hand, may naturally part very unwillingly with the hope of seeing that type of religious teaching which meets their views established and enforced as the normal religious instruction in all the schools. They may object that whereas Church schools, wherever they exist, are managed religiously in the interest of one denomination only, it is not so with council schools. This we must fully allow; yet in granting the force of the objection, may we not point out that we call upon them for no heavy sacrifice, inasmuch as simple Bible teaching' is what all the sects demand, and is what has as a matter of fact satisfied them, in the shape of the Cowper-Temple clause, for the last thirty-eight years. In proof of this we would remind Nonconformists that there was little, if any, demand on their part, for any fresh educational legislation since 1870. The demand in response to which the Act of 1902 was passed, was simply the bitter cry' of the starving Church schools. The Act of 1902, nevertheless, did much to remove any existing Nonconformist grievance.

The appeal against the late Bill signed by several Liberal M.P.'s which appeared in the Times soon after it was dropped, painted a rosy picture of the coming universal victory of undenominationalism, of the myriads of children pouring into its ample (if indefinite) fold and peace settling down upon this beautiful national system. As to the results on the character of the children these gentlemen wisely forbore to prophesy. But is it either fair or prudent to ignore the other side or to push it out of the way as mere ecclesiasticism' when at all events it can point to vast sums of money spent, heavy sacrifices borne, ceaseless exertions made, and great results achieved, on behalf of the children of the Church?

6

The fact is that any State-favoured educational system is certain to capture, sooner or later, the great bulk of the children. Why? Because it is the best system? No, but because there is, alas! a great multitude of parents totally indifferent to religion and quite content to send their children to any school that lies handy.

There are people who argue from this sad fact that we ought to lay out our educational system to please these indifferentists. The Church can never take this view. If parents abjure their responsibility for their children's souls, then the Church must step in, in loco parentis. If not, who has to do it? The State? What-the conglomerate of every variety of religion and of no religion which constitutes, and must inevitably constitute the State? By what authority can it assume responsibility over the souls of the children? The State is about as well adapted for settling any child's religion as the child is for settling the nation's politics.

Let it not be forgotten, however, that large as are the armies of indifferentism, large also, and very much to be reckoned with, are the armies of denominationalism. Does the Parents' League, with its 100,000 signatories, mean nothing? Does the existence, in spite of all losses, of 11,000 Church schools, with all that it implies of strain and struggle, mean nothing? Nay, does the recent defeat of so weighty and earnest an attempt at compromise mean nothing? It surely does not become a Liberal Government to impose disabilities upon any section, let alone so considerable a section of the people; to forbid them, under pain of fines, to settle their own religious affairs their own way for their own children.

If only the principles which I have tried to lay down were accepted, viz.--that the State should be absolute master and controller of every national school in the land, as regards its secular and sanitary efficiency and equipment, paying each and all out of public money for their results, and leaving it to each locality to settle the religious character of its own school by popular local vote, allocating its own rate accordingly, with due regard paid, according to local demand, to the claims of the minority-if this scheme were carried into effect, contracting out' would probably only be demanded by Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, which practically have only their own children to cater for, and the State could well afford generous terms to them, as their number would be strictly limited.

The question of tests for teachers' would hardly arise under this scheme. Whichever type of school won, it would have its own management in the hands of its own governing body. But it may be said that some real security for Scripture being taught by really Christian teachers and the provision of a good syllabus in council schools would greatly reconcile Church minorities to Cowper-Temple teaching two or three days a week.

It would be well if teachers would all remember that they exist for the children, not the children for them. The 'tests' of old times were arbitrary enactments, by which non-Churchmen were debarred from University privileges and civil and military posts. What have such tests in common with tests by which, and by which only, we can

ascertain if a man is duly qualified to give the religious instruction which he undertakes to give to our children?

There is a certain section of political dissenters who really seem to have persuaded themselves that 'sectarianism' (i.e. liberty in the schools common to all, to teach our own children our own faith) is something of the nature of smallpox, to be kept at all hazards from contaminating the national schools. We would fain believe that they represent but few of the great body of religious Nonconformists, and that they will learn in time that if an appreciable number of citizens wish for 'sectarianism' or even for the priest in the school,' their wishes must be respected like other people's.

LUCY C. F. CAVENDISH.

P.S.-It is with pleasure that I observe the suggestion of Lord Stanley of Alderley (in the January Number) as to recognition of exceptional schools.' It seems as if it might work in with the scheme I have roughly attempted to sketch.-L. C. F. C.

1909

EDWARD FITZ-GERALD

A PERSONAL REMINISCENCE BY HIS GREAT-NIECE

EDWARD FITZ-GERALD, the great Translator-Poet of the nineteenth century, was born, as all the world now knows, one hundred years ago -on the 31st of March 1809-at what was then called Bredfield White House, near Woodbridge, in Suffolk. His father and mother were first cousins, and the former added her name and arms to his own of Purcell. When she died in 1855, the Illustrated London News spoke of her as 'Mrs. Mary Frances Fitz-Gerald, a lady well known for her high accomplishments and for her patronage of literature and the fine arts-her house being the favourite resort of writers, dramatists, and painters,' and added: Mrs. Fitz-Gerald was a scion of the Ducal House of Leinster, being a Geraldine of that branch which descends from the second son of the first Earl of Kildare.' Then follows an enumeration of her properties, ending with the historic manor of Naseby in Northamptonshire, and the lands of Boulge in Suffolk.'

The Purcell-Fitz-Geralds seem to have lived the usual life of the opulent landowners of the day, migrating between 39 Portland Place and one of their own or some hired country house, such as Worstead, near Ipswich, of which the writer's father has baby recollections-a visit to his grandfather and grandmother-a confused vision of some expanse of water supposed to be the sea off Harwich.

He hunted, and amongst the few recorded memories of FitzGerald's childhood's days was that of his father fully equipped and playfully trying the new lash of his hunting whip on his children's shoulders with the wholly well-meant but inelegant 'Have at ye, ye divils!' as greeting.

She entertained, was entertained, went to the Opera, the Ancient' Concerts,1 the French play, and all other fashionable functions, dressed magnificently—was a recognised beauty. And thus, amidst much ceremony, show, and glitter, their gifted son grew up. A curious and anomalous preparation, one would think it to have been, for the exaltedly simple and wondrously monotonous life which was Fitz-Gerald's own choice in later years.

'These assemblies were nearly as difficult of access as Almack's.