a master-will be settled by the Commission alone, and the control of the property and the endowments is to be exercised by the Commission with the concurrence of the Board. Thus it would appear that the Charity Commissioners are to be at once the subordinates, the partners, and the judicial referees of the Board-a complicated relationship which can hardly tend to smooth and speedy administration, to say nothing of the inconvenience caused to local governing bodies in constantly having to refer to two departments instead of to one. We presume that this plan has been adopted by the Government in the hope of avoiding the political difficulties connected with the control of endowments generally, but the present position of the Charity Commission is, by general consent, so unsatisfactory, that it would seem almost impossible for any legislation to deal with any part of its work without raising much broader issues.

Apart from this difficult question, the general effect of the Bill would seem hardly to extend beyond the rearrangement and concentration of the present powers and duties of the three Government departments. The new Board will not have (except by consent) any larger powers of inspection and examination than those already vested in the departments. They will not have any power to control the present local authorities or to constitute such new ones as are recommended by the Royal Commission. They will have no new powers to prevent overlapping or to promote co-operation or to unite areas or to co-ordinate examinations. It is to be hoped that some of these defects may be supplied before the Bill is again introduced, or at any rate before it passes into law. But so convinced are we that the creation of a stronger central authority is essential to the proper organisation of higher instruction, that we should welcome the passing of even such a slender and imperfect measure as that at present submitted to the judgement of the country.

The Government have not yet seen their way to the appointment of a statutory education council of experts like that proposed by the Royal Commission. While they have entrusted the registration of teachers to a council of eighteen representatives of the Crown, the universities, and the teaching profession, they have for other purposes only empowered her Majesty in Council from time to time by order to appoint a consultative committee for the purpose of advising the Board of Education on any matter referred to

6

6

the Committee by the Board.' This provision does not add anything to the inherent powers of the Crown constantly exercised by Ministers when appointing a departmental committee. The reasons stated by the Lord President for this decision were as follows: In our opinion it would only tend to hamper the responsibility of a Minister if a consultative council were appointed by 'statute and endowed with statutory powers: in our opinion 'the Minister must be responsible for the choice of his ' advisers as well as for the action he takes on that advice.' These reasons are no doubt weighty as against any prcposal to set up a council with more than mere advisory powers. But they can hardly be held conclusive against the establishment of a permanent but purely advisory council, constituted in a similar manner to that proposed by the Royal Commission. The existence of such a body, though it might seem of little value to outsiders, would undoubtedly be regarded by most teachers as a guarantee that their educational and professional interests would be duly weighed and considered by the Minister. Indeed, judging from the almost unanimous demand of experts for a statutory Education Council, we fear that its absence would greatly increase the difficulty of bringing certain classes of schools under the supervision of the public authority.

The omission from the Bill of all provision for constituting new local educational authorities was attributed by the Lord President to a fear lest the Bill should be endangered by the rivalries of the County and Borough Councils on the one hand, and those of School Boards and Municipal Council on the other. He seemed to think that the differences which undoubtedly exist as to the degree of autonomy to be granted to the smaller boroughs and the relative representation of Town Councils and School Boards on the new authorities could be better settled outside Parliament than inside, and by persuasion rather than by compulsion. Thus, he said, I have very little doubt that if a central authority 'were established which would inspire confidence, it might, 'by the advice and guidance it would give, while avoiding any appearance of compulsion, induce the ratepayers, from motives of economy, and educational reformers, from 'motives of efficiency, to insist on the adoption of some such system (i.e. of "county authorities ") as that to 'which I have referred, either voluntarily or by legislation.'

We cannot help regretting that a strong Government like the present does not deal with what is admittedly a press

ing question with a firmer and bolder hand. It is true that their Education Bill of 1896 was nominally wrecked by an unwise concession hurriedly made to the representations of the smaller boroughs. But if the truth were known there were other and graver causes-the steadfast opposition of the large School Boards, the denominational difficulty, and the lukewarmness of a large portion of their own supporters-which, in fact, prevented the Government from proceeding with the Bill. Had the principles of that Bill been generally acceptable to the House of Commons, as those of a measure confined to the subject of secondary education would in all likelihood prove to be, a very few hours' discussion would have settled the future position of the non-county boroughs. That the proper solution of this knotty out minor question is that proposed by the Royal Commission, we, and probably the Government themselves, entertain little doubt. The population and area of a town of 50,000 inhabitants is, as a rule, the minimum likely to produce a thoroughly enlightened and independent education authority or a proper co-ordinated system of secondary schools. Moreover, the results of cutting up a county like Lancashire into some forty districts, and leaving the county authority to deal with a honeycombed area bereft of all its natural centres of instruction, would be little short of disastrous to rural education. At the same time there may very well be towns, like Keighley, somewhat below the limit of population, whose inhabitants have shown special zeal and ability in organising and supplying instruction, to which it might be wise to grant an exceptional amount of autonomy. Probably the difficulty will be best met by empowering the central authority to establish separate or specially constituted local authorities for any districts where special circumstances may, in the opinion of the central body, require special treatment. A similar provision would enable a School Board which had proved itself energetic in the cause of higher education to get larger representation on the new authority than a Board which had established no higher grade schools.

The Government are, it seems to us, too sanguine if they really think that the rivalries of these local authorities will disappear without any compelling force. No doubt in some of the larger cities, like Manchester or Birmingham, where educationalists are wise and experienced, some co-ordination of schools and institutes will be affected by voluntary action or through the medium of the new county autho

VOL. CLXXXIX. NO. CCCLXXXVII.

M

'rities' now being gradually established under the Science and Art Department's regulations. But where the rivalry is bitter, and where a Borough Council or School Board is not satisfied with its representation on the county authority, no such concordat will be arrived at within reasonable time. If the Government are to wait for the local bodies to agree, and the local bodies are to wait for the Government to legislate, we fear that indefinite and injurious delay must ensue.

Apart from the rivalries of local authorities, which we think might speedily be settled by Parliament, there does not seem to be any serious obstacle to immediate legislation.

The 'religious' difficulty which has been such a stumblingblock to progress in elementary education is not likely to be a formidable hindrance to a Secondary Education Bill. The conscience clauses of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869 have been found to work most satisfactorily when embodied in the numerous schemes passed for public endowed schools. The evidence before the Royal Commission abundantly proved' the extreme rarity of any such difficulty, though the Commissioners remark that there seems to be some 'consciousness that this difficulty is always a possible con'tingency, and perhaps that very feeling is not without its value as a partial safeguard against the danger which it 'apprehends.'

Even in Wales, where religious discord is far more bitter and widespread than in most parts of England, the cases of denominational disputes arising under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act have been few in number, and have usually been traceable to a County Council in its zeal for nonconformity going beyond the lines laid down by that Act, e.g., by prohibiting denominational teaching in boarding houses. Such excesses of undenominationalists and any corresponding excesses of extreme churchmen, neither of which are very likely to be met with in English local bodies, would be easily and promptly checked by a central authority or, in the last resort, by Parliament. In short, we need not entertain any serious apprehension of a difficulty which (in secondary education at all events) is not likely to be raised by parents or by teachers, but only by a small number of extreme theologians or excited politicians.

Nor should we think seriously of the pecuniary difficulty, were it not for a passing remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Educational experts,' said Sir Michael Hicks

* Vol. i. p. 75.

Beach, speaking at Clifton in December last, had fairly 'frightened the British taxpayers and ratepayers.' Such an utterance, coming from the statesman who keeps the strings of our national purse, undoubtedly requires an answer. And the answer we conceive is this, that, though it is true the promoters of elementary education are in no way satisfied with the 7,000,000l. they get annually from the Exchequer, and the 6,000,000l. they get annually from the rates, and are always demanding more public money, yet the advocates of the improvement of our higher instruction have been singularly moderate in their demands. No one can peruse carefully the Report of the Royal Commission without appreciating the careful regard for the economy of public resources which pervades it. Thus, education in secondary schools is (except where poor students are assisted by scholarships) to be given at cost price. Every existing school that is efficient must be utilised; endowments are, if possible, to be economised by diversion or removal; public money is not to be granted to private institutions; the extra rate beyond that already authorised by law is to be limited to one penny in the pound, and no immediate increase of parliamentary grants is recommended. In short, the keynote of their recommendations with regard to resources is, 'Organise and re-adjust your funds' rather than Give and 'enlarge.' This prudent example of public economy has been followed by most of the bodies of educational experts who have reviewed the Report of the Commission. The representatives of secondary schools have rather deprecated than urged large additional funds being placed at the disposal of the local authorities. There has no doubt been a demand for more liberal aid to the Science and Art institutes and to evening continuation schools; but this demand, it should be noted, arises under existing circumstances, and will have to be faced by the Treasury whether legislation takes place or not.

Even assuming that a certain amount of additional money is required, surely such a wealthy country as ours can afford to spend what is, in the opinion of the best judges, necessary to improve the standard of our higher instruction, and thus secure the intellectual progress and maintain the high commercial position of our nation. We have only to study such reports as those made to the Lord President by Sir Philip Magnus and his colleagues in 1896, and to the Manchester City Council by their Technical Instruction Committee in 1897, to realise what vast sums the eminently practical