require, and order "full time or summon," summons at once before magistrate," "full time," "half-time," "exemption," "medical certificate to be produced," &c. If the parent fails to appear, the case is dealt with on the information detailed by the visitor, or else is adjourned to give him another chance. When the parent neglects all the notices and warnings conveyed to him, a summons is taken out, and he has to appear before a magistrate.

To show what great care is taken not to proceed to the last extreme without adequate cause, I may mention that last year, out of the 10,000 cases in which summonses were issued, twenty-eight only were dismissed by the magistrates, and several of these because it was found that the child was over thirteen. The Board, while keeping a watchful eye and firm hand on cases of neglect, is anxious to give the willing and hardworking parent every chance of complying with the law before putting it in force against him. Complaints of harshness are seldom made against any of the visitors, and still more seldom is it found that the visitors are to blame. Occasionally the papers seize on what they consider an act of oppression and publish it forth to the world, but they rarely take the trouble to report the other side, and the Board generally have a sufficient answer to any accusation of injustice.'

The scope of the bye-laws has been lately considerably enlarged by the additional powers given to the Board to caution and prosecute employers who infringe the employment clauses of the Education Act of 1876. The weapon thus placed in the hands of the School Board cannot fail to be of great use; and we may hope that the power of striking at the tempter as well as at the tempted will before long put an end to all illegal employment of children of school age.

The ease with which compulsion can be worked depends to a certain extent on the amount of the weekly fees charged in the schools. The fees in the Board schools in London, besides being low, are uniform throughout each department in a school, though the second or further child of a family often pays only half or part of the fee. The boys and girls in a school generally pay the same fee, and the infants

The following case-to give one instance-was severely commented on by the papers when they reported the "first hearing." A widow was summoned for not sending her children--a boy of nine and a girl of eight-to school; she pleaded poverty, and said that the children were insufficiently clothed. The magistrate ordered her to receive £2 from the poor-box, and adjourned the case 28 days. So far the papers; but at the second hearing-which probably was not reported—it was shown that the defendant was earning £1 a week; her son, 14 years of age, was earning 6s., and another son-said at the first hearing to be imbecile at least 10s. a week. She was thereupon fined, and had to pay the costs in addition.

somewhat less. There are schools at all fees between one penny and ninepence the penny fees are chiefly in the infants' departmentand the average fee throughout London is a little over twopence a week. Yet even at this low figure the Board were forced last year to remit the fee in 3,800 cases, and to renew remission in 2,300 others. The Board has from time to time been attacked on the score of the uniformity and lowness of its fees; and it has been urged with considerable force that those parents who can afford it should be forced to contribute more largely than they do now to the expense of their children's education. Let us examine the question to see whether it would be judicious or practicable at once to raise the fees to any appreciable extent.

It must not be supposed that the Board fix the fees in an arbi.rary or haphazard way. On the contrary, before a Board school is opened the managers carefully consider the amount of the fee that they think would best suit the needs of the neighbourhood; and having, as a rule, local knowledge of the district in which the school is situated, they can give a shrewd guess at the average amount that can be paid all the year round without any great hardship by the mass of those who will use the school. The managers send up their recommendation to the School Management Committee, who almost invariably adopt the suggestions without alteration, obtain the consent of the Board, and forward the proposed scale to the Education Department for their approval.

Those who advocate the adoption of higher fees in Board schools do so as a rule in the interests of the voluntary system. And the plan which seems to find most favour would fix the fee at each Board school "at least as high as the highest fee charged at any of the neighbouring schools," and would graduate the fee in individual cases to the supposed ability of the parents to pay, while giving increased facilities for entire or partial exemption from payment.

There are strong objections to such a proposal. And first, it would largely increase the difficulties of carrying out the bye-laws. Compulsion is not so popular, nor does it work so easily, that we can afford in any way to clog its wheels. It is evident that if the tendency that now exists on the part of many parents to avoid the schools were to be increased and extended-as it would be, if the fees were raised-the compulsory staff would have to be enlarged, and much of the money drawn from the poor by the increased fees would merely pass into the pockets of additional visitors. Again, there is little apparent hardship in requiring a man to pay a penny or twopence a week for the schooling of each of his children, when the total amount-say with three

children-would only be some fourpence or sixpence; while the question would assume a different aspect if the law were appealed to to force him to pay a shilling or eighteenpence a week, or even more, out of the eighteen, or twenty-five shillings he may be earning.

* The chief argument, however, against this scheme, and one wellnigh insuperable, would be the difficulty of ascertaining the amount of fee a parent could or ought to pay. How, with any pretence to accuracy, could either the actual wages received, the proportion of wages to necessary rent, the amount that Smith should pay as compared to Jones, be discovered? And this, again, would increase administrative expense. Additional inquisitors would have to be employed to rout up the past history, present receipts, and future prospects of all parents who professed themselves unable to pay the full fee charged at the school. The result would be endless worry, friction, and ill-feeling, scarcely relieved by the faintest prospect of justice. Why, it is difficult enough at present for the "Notice B Committees" and the Bye-laws Committee to settle whether a parent can pay the low fee, or is incapable of paying anything at all. But with a graduated scale of fees, the committees would have peremptorily to decide whether the full fee or no fee at all, or some sum ranging between ninepence and one penny, was to be paid, and the best information they would be able to obtain must in most cases necessarily be very "incomplete, and therefore unworthy of confidence." Is Smith with three children, wages 255., future uncertain, rent 6s., to pay more or less than Jones with two children, wages 18s., certain future, rent 45. ? Neither rent, wages, nor number of children can be taken separately as the basis on which to judge of the amount of fee to be demanded. All these three and many other points must be considered if any approximation to fairness is to be attempted.

Then again, in many parts of London the sun of prosperity shines on the working classes, the small shopkeepers, &c., for six months in the year, and they make their hay then, while in the other half-year work is scarce and earnings diminished. It is evident that in such cases it will come to pass that every few months the parent must appear before his valuers to be appraised afresh. Much of his valuable time will thus be lost, and as the power of remission cannot be entrusted to irresponsible persons, the work entailed on the "Notice B Committees" will be something appalling. At present their duties are sufficiently onerous in connection with the bye-laws pure and simple, and with the three or four thousand cases of remission of fees that come before them. Triple or quadruple the fee, and the number of those who would be forced to apply for whole or partial

remission will be increased fifty or a hundred-fold, while the very multitude of the cases would preclude any extended hearing or careful consideration, and the justice would necessarily be very rough and ready.

The poor

But there is yet another aspect of the question-the effect such a system would have on the poorer classes. possess at present sufficient just and sensible pride to prevent them from begging for remission of the fee when they can possibly avoid doing so. Though an application for remission happily does not brand the mark of pauperism on the applicant, still the request savours of begging, the giving is tainted with charity, and to disclose poverty is always painful. Many therefore struggle on without complaint, though sore put to it to find the weekly pence; but if the fee were raised so high that it became an absolute necessity for the majority, or for a vast number of the parents, to apply for partial remission, the flood-gates of proper pride and right feeling would be swept away, and applications would flow in fast and furious. The worst feature would be that those with least sense of poverty, those with least respect, would be just the individuals to press their claims most clamorously, and probably those to obtain the greatest amount of relief; the worse will seem the better case.

Again, we must not forget that the poor have paid directly and indirectly large amounts towards the education of their children. It cannot, of course, be pretended that the parents who send their children to Board schools contribute anything approaching the full amount of the cost of education. Though they pay some £60,000 a year in fees alone, this represents but a small fraction of the real

cost.

But before compulsory education was introduced, they were free to pay and take, or refuse and save their pence as they thought fit. Now they must pay, whether they like it or no, and lose their children's earnings into the bargain. And it is thus indirectly that they have been mulcted most heavily by the Education Acts. Formerly a man, the father of three children, would have passed as a very respectable and self-denying parent, if he had kept his children. at school until they were ten or eleven years of age, and had then sent them to work; while now such a parent is forced to keep his children at school till a much later age, and is, directly for fees, and indirectly by loss of earnings, thirty or forty pounds the poorer than his congener.

Apply some such calculation to the case of the majority of the parents; remember that in 1871 not half the children in London were

at school; and it will be seen that the poorer classes have borne a very considerable share of the burdens of education.

Compulsory education is still in its infancy, and until it has taken a firm root in the habits and ways of the people, the wisest policy must be, I think, to fix the fees at a low figure. When wages have adapted themselves to the new state of things, and when the eyes of the people are fully opened to the advantages of education, it may be possible gradually to raise the present low scale of fees without any injury resulting to the cause of education.

The object of this paper has been to deal primarily with the questions of school provision, bye-laws, and fees, and I can devote but a few words to the important questions of school management. It is now generally recognised that the religious teaching given in the London Board Schools, though perhaps not so "thorough" as that taught in the voluntary schools, and certainly not so dogmatic, is nevertheless sound, healthy, and essentially religious. The Board Inspectors report favourably of the zeal and earnestness shown by the teachers in imparting religious knowledge; and the interest taken in the Bible teaching is indicated by the fact that this year 113,000 children entered for the examination for the "Peek's prizes," given each year by a member of the Board for proficiency in religious knowledge. It is satisfactory that the so-called "religious difficulty" practically does not exist ; not more than one child in a thousandand those mostly Jewish children-being withdrawn from the religious instruction.

The cry of over-education is constantly being raised throughout the country; and if the assertions that are advanced with respect to the amount and nature of the learning required in Board schools were correct, the complaints of over-education would be no more than just.

It seems to be thought that because a few children learn the special and advanced subjects, every child in a Board school is either learning or will be required to learn the mysteries of Latin, French, German, Science, and I know not what. Even if it were the case that all children were expected to learn these and other subjects equally abstruse, the Education Department and not the School Boards should be taken to task. The former offer special grants for the advanced subjects, which the latter can scarcely be blamed for seeking to gain.

But what are the real facts?

The subjects of instruction are divided into "Standard and Class" and "Special"; some of the schools do not attempt any of