is FREE EDUCATION A BRIBE ?

(1) Is free education a bribe? (2) Is it socialism? (3) Is it destructive of voluntary schools? These are the three questions on which I am allowed to say a few words.

By a society of gentlemen who have proposed to themselves to establish a system of voluntary taxation the forthcoming Government measure on the subject of free education has been called the 'latest crime' and their meaning appears to be this, that, as all compulsory taxation is capable of being manipulated for the purposes of bribery, the Government measure is the last and most flagrant instance of this species of corruption.

There can be no manner of doubt that taxation has been so used on many previous occasions. The Liberal and the Radical party have achieved great successes in this department of statesmanship. There is therefore, we admit, an element of truth in the views put forward by the voluntary taxation society. Compulsory taxation is liable to the same abuses as all other human institutions, and if they like to bracket free education as a crime together with the cheap breakfast table supplied at the cost of an income tax laid on the shoulders of the rich, there let the matter rest. Under a popular form of government all measures for the material benefit of the people are capable of being described as bribes.

It may, no doubt, be said that free education is a special crime in the Conservatives, because they have hitherto been opposed to it, but I think that is an argument which has been pretty well exploded during the last and the present generation. In former days when statesmen and parties remained in power for long terms of years and were able to pursue a continuous course of policy-when they not only reigned but governed-there was some weight in it. But now-a-days, when parties cross from side to side in the House of Commons almost as regularly and as rapidly as the couples in a quadrille, there is next to none. A statesman on returning to office y a short absence finds that things have been done which after on change of front; that still earlier legislation which he becessitate and jo-be-rinning to bear the fruits which he foresaw; vigorously resisted readjusted to actual circumstances. and that his policy must be 1

Mr. Forster's Bill of 1870 would not have been passed by any Conservative Government in the form which it ultimately took. In the womb of compulsory education lay the germ of free education, practically if not theoretically; and the development of its principles by the Liberal party since that time has brought our rulers face to face with difficulties which they cannot overcome by retaining a stationary attitude. If free education is the lesser of two evils, it becomes for all practical purposes a positive good.

I pass on to the charge of socialism which is so freely launched against the forthcoming measure. There is a severe school of economists in whose mouths the objection is legitimate. But when Conservatives tell us that free education is socialism in disguise, and that socialism is one of those evil things which no Conservative ought to touch even with the tongs, we would remind them that they go a little too fast, and that the history of their own party in the palmiest days of its Toryism flatly contradicts them. That the principle of socialism is embodied in the English poor law has already been observed by others. But if it is embodied in the new poor law, what shall we say of the old? I have nowhere seen any comparison between free education and the old system of poor relief as it existed down to 1834. There was hardly anything a family could want which they were not entitled to demand from the parish under a magistrate's order. They could obtain food, firing, clothes, and even house rent, besides what were called 'allowances '-that is, a weekly money payment in supplement of wages. The Act of Parliament which is mainly, though not exclusively, responsible for this system was passed in 1795, when Mr. Pitt was at the summit of his power, and when his mind was fully under the influence of Adam Smith. Mr. Pitt has not usually been considered a sentimental man, yet he went even further than this, and introduced a Bill by which any able-bodied person entitled to parish relief might claim a lump sum in advance for the purpose of buying land, probably with a cow to boot. The Bill never became law, but it shows what were the views of such a man as Mr. Pitt on the subject of socialism' forsooth. Indeed, it was Mr. Pitt's object to prevent the poor man from feeling ashamed of applying to the parish.

Conservatives who grumble at free education must surely forget all this, and forget, moreover, that the Tory party were the special defenders and supporters of this old poor law. And I would also remind any among them who may decline to be associated with the Toryism of that epoch that one Tory, at all events, who is even now recognised as among the ablest and most enlightened statesmen who ever led the House of Commons-I speak of Mr. Canning—was also a warm supporter of the old poor law, and believed that our exemption from many of the calamities which befell the Continent of Europe at the beginning of the present century was due to its

operation and the loyalty to our existing institutions which it inspired in the masses of the people. Sir Robert Peel, though he supported the new poor law, did not speak of the system which it superseded with that unsparing censure which is now so frequently bestowed upon it. I may appeal, finally, to the authority of Lord Beaconsfield, who always believed that the change introduced in 1834 was inconsistent with either Tory or Conservative principles. The point, then, on which I wish to insist at the present moment is this, that no Tory statesman can be said to be untrue to the traditions of his party for bringing in what is called a socialistic measure when a much more socialistic system-assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word is properly applied to it, which I neither admit nor denywas formerly supported by the whole Tory party and by three out of four of its greatest modern leaders, while a fourth, who only partially condemned it, gave his full approval to the new system in which the same principle was retained. The abuses of the old system were so flagrant that some reform had become imperatively necessary. I am not defending it. I only say that if Pitt and Canning could put up with the larger amount of socialism' involved in the old poor law, other men may put up with the smaller amount of socialism involved in free education.

We must learn to look this bugbear' socialism' in the face. The enemies of the Conservative party will, of course, make the most of their opportunity when they have a chance of calling Conservatives socialists. But what does it all amount to? The poor have been relieved at the public expense from time immemorial, and what more are we asked to do now? Socialism pushed to extremes, socialism which would abolish private property, is social poison. But poisons administered judiciously and in small quantities by competent physicians are sometimes the best medicines. At all events, if free education is socialism, we have reached a state of things in this country in which it cannot be dispensed with. The enormous inequalities between classes which a very complex civilisation almost invariably engenders produces social conditions in which we must either adopt some such palliative or dare something far worse.

I now turn to the question of voluntary schools; and it is unnecessary to say that I have no intention of plunging into any elaborate calculations with regard to school pence, and the way in which the deficiency may be made good. A reasonable suggestion is that education should be made free only for boys and girls who are old enough to go to work; so that the parents shall not be obliged to pay twice over for the same thing, first by what they give in school pence, and secondly by what they lose in children's wages. I am not sure that this would please the farmers, because it would tend to increase the scarcity of juvenile labour, while assisting education just at the very point at which they think it begins

to be unnecessary. But a broader question has to be answered first. Which party in the State is to have the task-welcome or unwelcome-thrown upon it of carrying out the system of free education? If a man is obliged to have his leg cut off, will he choose a surgeon who is a personal friend, or one who nourishes a grudge against him and would be likely to give him a secret stab?

I am assuming, of course, that the Free Education Bill of the Government will have nothing to do with the principle of popular control. This would destroy the voluntary schools at one blow. But we know that in any measure of free education introduced by the Liberal party that principle would certainly be recognised. Very well. Free education being inevitable we have these two systems to choose between. Now what is the contention of the recalcitrant Conservatives on this point? It is this, that the Conservative party will be in a better position to resist popular control when proposed by any future Liberal Government, if they have not touched free education themselves. Vain delusion! Let nobody hug himself in that idle dream. In what better position for resisting parliamentary reform were the Tories of 1831 because they had steadily refused to make the least approach to it before? They were, as everybody knows, in a very much worse position. And so it always has been. The more we put it into the hands of our adversaries to represent us as a stationary or reactionary party from whom nothing is to be expected, the more do we weaken our own powers of resistance.

There is no chance of fighting the Radical principle successfully by a policy of non possumus. But there is a chance of fighting it successfully by the policy which Lord Salisbury has adopted. Supposing voluntary schools to be properly guaranteed, the great point is to ensure the new system a fair trial. If the Liberals came into power immediately after the Bill was passed and before the people had had time to appreciate it, they might be able to overthrow it immediately. In that case I have no doubt that all 'securities' would be swept away like waste paper. This is the contingency to be guarded against. But I am not at all sure that they would be swept away if the system could hold its ground for seven years, which another Conservative majority at the next election would enable it to do. This, I say, is the one chance which the voluntary schools now have before them. Let the Conservative party accept Lord Salisbury's scheme with unanimity. Let the clergy

who now look askance at it recognise the fact that it is the lesser of two evils; let all combine to recommend it to the people of this country, and a renewed lease of power to the Conservative party will give the working-classes time to understand and appreciate it. If we can ward off the sweeping away of securities' for another seven years, it may very well be that the people will not want them swept away. If not, we shall be no worse off than we are now. It is quite

worth while for the voluntary schools to run some slight risk for the sake of such a gain as this.1

One can only smile at the idea that free education was tried and found wanting in some of the recent by-elections. The agricultural labourers have not had time to digest the proposition, and even if they had fully grasped it, they are a suspicious generation, and not to be caught twice. They would think of three acres and a cow, and how much came of that. If free education is to produce any effect on the English peasant, or make him vote for one party rather than another, he must have it in hand. Then we shall see what answer he will make, and how, if he values the gift, he will express his gratitude. But not before.

1 'No one who is acquainted with the poor will feel any doubt that if the rival systems are placed upon precisely the same footing as regards cost to the parents, the denominational will not only not be distanced by reason of its being weighted in the race, but, provided its secular teaching is fairly efficient, will speedily recover all the numerical advantage which it has lost, and probably gain a great deal beyond it.' -Letter in Spectator, May 9, by Rev. J. E. Kempe, Rector of St. James's, Piccadilly.

T. E. KEBBEL.