The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-15 00:00:00

LONDON TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1870.

NEITHER side can claim a monopoly of logic in
the Education Bill debate. The Government and
the Union have a palpable advantage over the League
on the religious question, but the League maintains
a clear superiority in the argument touching com-
pulsory attendance. No practical Ministry could
adopt the religious proposals of the League.
Apart from other considerations, their effect
would be completely to dissolve the existing
organisation, for they propose that denomi-
national schools should have at most but a
portion of the grant given to secular schools. It
would thus be impossible for the former class to
compete with the latter on equal terms. Secular
teaching would start with a great and permanent
advantage in the race ; and the -vast machinery
which voluntary exertions have established
must in the end fall away and perish, simply
because a more highly favoured system wouk
be able to outbid it. It is not to the point
to inquire what might happen if we were
setting up an organisation where none before
existed. The problem is to amplify the deficient though
extensive apparatus which is now at work, and no
prudent Minister could venture to disregard the money
and labour that has been expended on denominational
teaching during the last twenty years. On the other
hand the League's scheme of direct compulsory at-
tendance without alternative is better than the in-
direct compulsion of the Union, or the permissive
system provided in the Government bill. The pro.
posal of the Union that no employer shall engage a
&and under twelve, unless the young worker
have attained a certain educational standard, is
very well in the case of the Factory Acts ; but if it
be applied to the whole community, how can it differ
from direct compulsion, except that it is more likely
to break down, and that it throws upon the em-
ployer a burden which ought to fall upon the
parent ? A considerate working man, knowing that
his children would not be allowed to labour
unless they complied with certain educational condi-
tions, would take care that they were brought up to
the proper mark ; and for such a parent
the indirect provision would have the same
effect as the pure and simll3 plan. But in
the case of those destitute children whose time is
wasted in the streets there would be no control what-
ever. They would be left, as now, without instruc-
tion. It is obvicus, also, that it such inter-
ference as compulsory attendance involves be
tolerae 1 at all, nothing can be gained by
transferring it from the parent to the employer.
The latter, to escape trouble, would very likely get
rid of all children under twelve, and thus the scope.
of indirect compulsion would be still further re-
stricted. This obligation is one which falls properly
on the parent. In the case of a respectable family,
the indirect proviso, as we have seen, would be just
as stringent as any other, whereas those who most
need binding would not be bound at all.
The clause in Mr. Forster's bill, which ordains that
school boards may, if they think fit, enforce the atten-
tanco of children under 12, is a remarkable instance
of the free and easy style in which Ministers forget
their principles when confronted with practical diffi-
culties. We have had several fine orations from gentle-
men in the Cabinet on the impropriety of permissive
legislation. Mr. Bright, when he last visited Bir-
mingham, enlarged admirably on the theory that the
decisions of Parliament cught to be final and bindi`ng
on the -whole people. And now we are offered a
permissive clause on a question of the highest moment,
and that, too, under the most unfavourable
emditions. Every plea that can possildy
be urg• d against the Permissive Prohibitory
Liquor rill applies to the permissive compulsory
clause, and, in addition, the very substantial argument
that this power of enforcing attendance is given to
those who have little interest in exercising it—an
objection which does not apply to the Liquor Bill.
Is it likely that farmers and others who will com-
pose school-boards will voluntarily take the
trouble to enforce attendance ? A board which
availed itself of the permissive clause in one
district would render itself decidedly unpopular in
comparison with a neighbouring board which might
decide to " let it slide." In fact it would
bo contrary to the interests of most of
these boards to commit themselves to such a
decision. Hitherto the ignorance of the rising gene-
ration, especially in rural districts, has been owing to
an agreement between the parent who wanted money
and the employer who wanted cheap labour. It is
not at all probable that any improvement will be
effected by giving one of the parties to these
bargains the power to decline concluding
any more of the kind. The permissive
clause in the Education Bill is just what the Per-
missive Liquor Bill would be if the power to close
public-houses were given to publicans themselves.
The Government will save themselves much trouble
by accepting pure and simple compulsion. If the
principle be once admitted, there can be nothing to
gain by advocating an absurd compromise. And
in future it may not be too much to hope that per-
missive legislation will receive more respectful treat-
ment at the bands of Cabinet Ministers. 'When the
advocates of general and final legislation calmly pro-
pound this singular permissive clause there must be
something more in the principle than they have
hitherto allowed.

THE divinity that doth hedge a King does not, in
these days at least, apply to those personages who
would be Kings. The Spanish Revolution was a
great and justifiable event;
_but the spread of en-
lightenment has been too universal . for the
present generation to regard the scramble for the
Crown with any feeling other than disgust.
The time when such disgraceful intrigues were ac-
cepted as matters of course is passed. If monarchs
themselves are only tolerated on good behaviour, it
is nut to be expected that a suffering world will relish
the discreditable freaks of " candidates." The lament-
able fiasco in the case of Dom Fernando of Portugal,
the attempts of Marshal Prim to gain absolute power
by setting a boy on the throne, the insurrections of
Don Carlos, and the Montpensier intrigues, form a
dark chapter even in Spanish history. This
duel between the Duke of Montpensier and
Don Henry of Bourbon will serve as a denanzent
to the dismal play. There is no difficulty in deciding
upon the main features of the case. Don Henry of
Bourbon is the brother of Queen Isabella's husband
a gentleman of middle age, a naval officer, but
famous chiefly for his great talent in writing
abusive epistles. It is notorious that between
Queen Isabella and the Duke of Montpensier a
deadly fend has long raged; nor were the ex-Sovereign
and Don Henry on the best of terms : but this (1;3
not prevent him carrying on war. against tne MIRY
too. Don Henry was an Ishmaelite, whose
hand was against every man. The Duke and
Marshal Prim are by no means friendly ; and yet true
to his nature, the two latest effusions of the irascible
Prince were directed, the one against Marshal
Prim, and the other against the Duke of
Montpensier. Whilst Isabella reigned at
Madrid,
_Don Henry
.was compelled to remain,

The very extensive Distillery ,low beitig erected
at Eolfast, with all re3ent huprovonvntfr for tho manufacture or
IVish whisky, by Ales As. DUNVILLE 0; Co., who have rained
it world-wide celebrity for their fine old Irish- whisky, is to be
called "The Royal Irish Distillery."