I express no opinion whether it is, or is not, desirable that such powers of controlling all the School Boards in the country should be possessed by a person who may be, like Mr. Forster, eminently likely to use these powers justly and wisely, but who also may be quite the reverse.  I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that such powers are given to the Minister, whether he be fit or unfit.  The extent of these powers becomes apparent when the other sections of the Act referred to are considered.  The fourth clause of the seventh section says:—­

    “The school shall be conducted in accordance with the
    conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in
    order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant.”

What these conditions are appears from the following clauses of the ninety-seventh section:—­

“The conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant shall be those contained in the minutes of the Education Department in force for the time being....  Provided that no such minute of the Education Department, not in force at the time of the passing of this Act, shall be deemed to be in force until it has lain for not less than one month on the table of both Houses of Parliament.”

Let us consider how this will work in practice.  A school established by a School Board may receive support from three sources—­from the rates, the school fees, and the Parliamentary grant.  The latter may be as great as the two former taken together; and as it may be assumed, without much risk of error, that a constant pressure will be exerted by the ratepayers on the members who represent them, to get as much out of the Government, and as little out of the rates, as possible, the School Boards will have a very strong motive for shaping the education they give, as nearly as may be, on the model which the Education Minister offers for their imitation, and for the copying of which he is prepared to pay.

The Revised Code did not compel any schoolmaster to leave off teaching anything; but, by the very simple process of refusing to pay for many kinds of teaching, it has practically put an end to them.  Mr. Forster is said to be engaged in revising the Revised Code; a successor of his may re-revise it—­and there will be no sort of check upon these revisions and counter-revisions, except the possibility of a Parliamentary debate, when the revised, or added, minutes are laid upon the table.  What chance is there that any such debate will take place on a matter of detail relating to elementary education—­a subject with which members of the Legislature, having been, for the most part, sent to our public schools thirty years ago, have not the least practical acquaintance, and for which they care nothing, unless it derives a political value from its connection with sectarian politics?

I cannot but think, then, that the School Boards will have the appearance, but not the reality, of freedom of action, in regard to the subject-matter of what is commonly called “secular” education.