their despair.' 'The knot of this discourse is,' he concludes, 'that if your Majesty find it convenient, on the one side by relenting the rigour of the oath, and on the other side by disabling your unsound subjects, you shall neither execute any but very traitors in all men's opinions and constructions, nor yet put faith in any but those who ever, for their own sakes, must be faithful.'

It was the carrying out of this policy that enabled the apologists of Elizabeth's administration, Burleigh himself, Walsingham, and Bacon, to vindicate her conduct towards the Catholics by alleging that they were punished, not for conscience sake, but for treason. Yet, however strenuously they might deny that consciences were forced, however frequently they might reiterate that the Government was merely punishing those cases of conscience which had changed their character by exceeding all bounds, and become matters of faction, the fact remained that the limits of conscientious scruple had been arbitrarily fixed by themselves, and that it was their own policy of making religion an instrument for the attainment of political ends which had rendered persecution a State necessity. And through the thin disguise of all their arguments in justification of their repressive policy appears the fact that they themselves were half conscious that their real motive and true justification was the Machiavellian doctrine that all means are permissible that conduce to the well-being of the State.

Machiavellian in its details, the ecclesiastical policy of Elizabeth was, like that of Cromwell, Machiavellian also in its broader aspects. The ecclesiastical settlement under Elizabeth constituted in effect a complete revolution in the religious character of the nation. At her accession the Queen had found the nation, for the most part, Catholic; when she died it was fiercely and unalterably Protestant. And yet of this tremendous change, so skilfully veiled had been the processes, and so carefully conservative the methods, that it was possible for the Government to assert, and to assert with some plausibility, that in the polity of the Church no fundamentally new principles had been introduced. In this part (i.e. in the religious innovations),' runs a proclamation of Queen Elizabeth,

we know of no other authority, either given or used by us, as Quene and Governor of this Realm, than hath ben by the Lawe of God and this Realm alwayes due to our Progenitors, Soverayns, and Kinges of the same; although true it is that this Authority hath ben in the Tyme of certen of our Progenitors, some hundred years past, as by Lawes, Records, and Storyes doth appere (and specially in the Reign of our noble Father Henry the Eighth and our deare Brother Edward the Sixth) more clearly recognized by all the Estates of the Realme, as the like hath ben in our Tyme; without that thereby we do either challenge or take to us (as malicious Parsons do untruly surmise) any Superiority to ourself to defyne, decyde, or determyn any Article or Poynt of the Chrestian Fayth and Relligion, or to chang any ancient Ceremony of the Church from the Forme before received and observed

by the Catholick and Apostolick Church, or the Use of any Function belongyng to any ecclesiastical Person being a Minister of the Word and Sacraments of the Church: But that Authority which is yelded to us and our Crown consisteth in this; that, considering we are by God's Grace the Soverayn Prince and Quene, next under God, and all the People of our Realm are immediately born Subjects to us and to none ells, and that our Realme hath of long time past receaved the Christian Fayth, we are by this Authorite bound to direct all Estates, being subject to us, to live in the Fayth and Obedience of Christian Relligion, and to see the Lawes of God and Man, which are ordained to that end, to be duly observed, and the Offenders against the same duly punished, and consequently to provide that the Chirch may be governed and taught by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Ministers accordyng to the ecclesiastical Auncient Pollycy of the Realme, whom we do assist with our soverayn Power . .

22

So the clergy are still, according to Elizabeth, supreme in all spiritual matters; her own function is confined to bringing, as a dutiful daughter of the Catholic Church, the secular power to the aid of religion! Can this be the same voice that threatened to 'unfrock' a certain proud prelate' because he tried to defend the property of his see?

'Whoever desires to introduce reforms into a State,' Machiavelli had written, in such manner as to have them accepted, and maintained to everybody's satisfaction, must retain at least the shadow of old institutions, so as to appear to have altered nothing, while in fact the new arrangements are entirely different from the old.' 23

W. ALISON PHILLIPS.

22 A Declaration of the Queen's Proceedings since her Reign,' published among the Burleigh Papers, Haynes, p. 591. This proclamation was issued early in 1570, after the Northern rising. It was previous to the Pope's Bull of 1570, which threw Elizabeth into the arms of the Protestants.

23 Discorsi, vol. i. p. 25.

1896

THE LOCAL SUPPORT OF EDUCATION

WE have at this moment throughout the country 19,800 elementary schools under separate management-5,316 of these schools are controlled by School Boards; 14,484 by Voluntary managers. The number of scholars enrolled is, in the Board schools, 2,310,253; in the Voluntary schools 3,015,605. Both sets of schools receive aid from the Central Exchequer upon the same terms. The Board schools supplement their central aid by assistance from the rates; the Voluntary schools have to rest satisfied for their supplementary local income with what they can secure from voluntary contributions, with the result that they are, generally speaking, run much more cheaply than the Board schools. For instance, on behalf of the two million children attending the Board schools, there were drawn from the rates last year as income supplementary to the central grants, three and three-quarter millions; on behalf of the three million Voluntary schools children, the supplemental income was, roughly, three-quarters of a million. The facts, examined from the point of view of the money spent on each child, show that 108. 4 d. less was spent last year on each child attending the Voluntary schools than on each child attending the Board schools; and, strangely enough, of this financial disability-'intolerable strain,' Mr. Balfour styles it-of 10s. 42d., 88. 94d. per child is accounted for in the difference between the payments made on account of teachers in the schools of the two systems, that difference being to the disadvantage of the Voluntary school teachers.

Having got thus far, let me set down two fundamental propositions which should, I think, commend themselves to most persons. The first is this: If the country is content to send three of its five millions of elementary school children to Voluntary schools, these schools should be adequately supported. And the second: It should be the duty of the State to see that teachers in all classes of elementary schools should receive the same pay for the same work.

The unfairness of the present system is that neither of these fundamental conditions is fulfilled. The State-aiders' amongst the supporters of Denominational schools—and by 'State-aiders' I mean those who favour the policy of asking for 'special aid' grants from

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 be stowed 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 [C7529] 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, 83d. (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,