reposed in the Ministry, and greatly incensed the official Liberals by using the expression, "once bit, twice shy."

Mr. Gladstone made an impetuous reply, in which he justified the course which had been taken by the Government. He said, "my honourable friend thinks it worthy of him to resort to a proverb, and to say that the time has come when he is entitled to use the significant language,' once bit, twice shy.' But if my hon. friend has been bitten, by whom is it? If he has been bitten, it is only in consequence of expectations which he has himself chosen to entertain, and which were not justified by the facts. We have been thankful to have the independent and honourable support of my hon. friend, but that support ceases to be of value when accompanied by such reproaches as these. I hope my hon. friend will not continue that support to the Government one moment longer than he deems it consistent with his sense of duty and right. For God's sake, sir, let him withdraw it the moment he thinks it better for the cause he has at heart that he should do so." The language used on both sides proves how intense was the exasperation which existed between Ministers and a large section of their supporters; and the subsequent history of the Administration shows how ready the Nonconformists were to take the Prime Minister at his word. A subsequent portion of his speech may be adduced in proof of the political honesty of his character, but at the same time it exhibits the wide gulf which existed in feeling between himself and the mass of those who had returned him to power. He made no pretence that the Education Act was a measure for secular education only, or even that it was impartial in character. He said, "it was with us an absolute necessity-a necessity of honour and a necessity of policy-to respect and to favour the educational establishments and machinery we found existing in the country. It was impossible for us to join in language, or to adopt the tone which was conscientious

consistently taken by some members of the House, who look upon these voluntary schools, having generally a denominational character, as admirable passing expedients, fit indeed to be tolerated for a time, deserving all credit on account of the motives which led to their foundation, but wholly unsatisfactory as to their main purpose, and therefore to be supplanted by something they think better." These expres

sions were consistent at any rate with the course which Mr. Gladstone had always pursued in relation to education, though they did not exhibit great sagacity in estimating the weight and direction of public opinion.

In the concluding stages Mr. Forster made light of the threat of an agitation against the act-but this did not deter Mr. Dixon from giving notice of his intention to move in the next session for its amendment.

The act received the Royal assent on the ninth of August, 1870.

The Denominationalists were allowed up to the 31st of December to make application for building grants. The Church papers demanded immediate and energetic action on the part of Churchmen. Not a moment, they declared, was to be lost. They were advised to ascertain the educational need in every district, and to report "schools in progress" to the Department. The Roman Catholics took the same course, the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Howard leading the movement. These appeals to purely sectarian interests resulted in 3,111 applications (1) to the Department for building grants in less than five months-the normal rate of application being about one hundred and fifty per annum.

If any doubt had been felt as to the effect of the act in stirring up sectarian feuds, it was soon dissipated by the action of the country. Everywhere the introduction of the law was the signal for the revival of disputes of the most painful 1 Of these applications 1,332 were afterwards withdrawn.

character, which previously had slumbered, and which it was hoped were gradually dying out. Mr. Forster's reward for passing the act, which he accomplished by means of an ability and persistency which are not denied, was a seat in the Cabinet. But his relations with his constituents, or more correctly with the Liberal party in Bradford, were embittered for the next ten years. In January, 1871, he went to Bradford to deliver an account of his stewardship. He was met by a vote amounting to one of want of confidence.

Mr. Alderman West moved, and Mr. Alderman Scott seconded, a resolution,—

"That this meeting tenders its congratulations to the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P., on his having obtained the high and honourable position of a member of Her Majesty's Cabinet, and begs, at the same time, to thank him for the full and clear account of his parliamentary experience during the past year, which he has given this evening."

Mr. Charles Turner moved as an amendment,

"That this meeting having heard Mr. Forster's account of his parliamentary experience during the past session, and fully recognising his previous services to the Liberal cause, regrets its inability to approve of the educational measure passed mainly by his exertions, and deplores deeply the means resorted to, to secure its adoption in a Liberal House of Commons."

Mr. Elias Thomas seconded the amendment, which was carried. The Vice-President, however, had his consolations in the confidence and praise of the clergy, the Tories and their press. On a rumour of his removal from the Education Department, the Guardian remarked, "We should be glad to see his advancement to any post of greater dignity, but certainly it will illustrate very unhappily the necessities of parliamentary government if, just as he has shown himself master of the situation in one most important Department, he

should be transferred to another in which he has everything to learn. The work of the education bill is not done; on the next two or three years everything will depend. We doubt whether Parliament would have given such unexampled autocracy to the Department if they had not fancied that Mr. Forster was to preside over the inauguration of the new work."

With these ill omens, the Education Act of 1870 entered upon its work.

CHAPTER VI.

PERIOD. FROM THE PASSING OF THE EDUCATION ACT, 1870, TO THE ADOPTION BY THE LEAGUE OF THE SECULAR PLATFORM, 1872.

NOTWITHSTANDING its defects in important particulars, the Education Bill, as it was sent up to the House of Lords, was a very different measure from the draft which Mr. Forster had introduced. The separation of religious and secular instruction effected by the time-table conscience clause was only partial-it was as Mr. Gladstone said, a separation in time alone. Yet it was the acceptance of a principle, which, step by step, with a persistency which never yields, has been gradually asserting itself in the practice of our legislature and government for a century past. Ten years before the passing of the Act the justice and practicability of any conscience clause was denied by nine-tenths of the school managers; and the general imposition of a time-table conscience clause would have been felt to be the most complete and disastrous defeat which Denominationalism could sustain. It is not desirable to over-estimate the value of the concession. The time will probably come when such a badge of toleration will not be required. It is very doubtful indeed whether in the existing state of society, any conscience clause which ingenuity could devise would prove effectual. The actual experience under the existing clause has not been satisfactory; but still something was gained. Mr. J. S. Mill said, "I should be glad to forget as soon as possible what the bill would have been without it. Though brought in by a Government which has earned such high distinction as the