New-York tribune., 1906-12-15
THE WEST RIDING JUDGMENT,

The reversal Of the so-caIled West Riding
Judgment by the House Of Lords, following
hard upon the refusal Of the House of Commons
to accept the Lords amendments to Mr.. Bir-
relps Education bill, may simplify In a measure
the hitherto somewhat complicated condition of
the English school laws, but it may also increase
the antagonsms and animosities which have
been so largely developed since the enactment of
the law of 1902. Even so, 1t will be better to
have the conflict conducted On clearly defined
and established lines, well understood by the
combatants and by the public, than more or
less in the dark and on uncertain and only partly
understood lines.
Briefly stated, this is the case: The Educa-
ton act of 1902 required local authorities to
pay, from general taxation, for the giving of
religious instruction in voluntary or denomina-
tional schools. Many Nonconformsts refused
to pay taxes for that purpose, and became
known as Passive Resisters. The County Coun-
ell Of the West Riding Of Yorkshire also refused
to pay teachers for the time spent by them in
giving religious instruction in denominational
schools, and the Board of Education, in behalf
of the teachers, brought suit against the Coun-
ell to compel the payment. This suit was car
ried through the Supreme Court Of Judicature,
or Court of Appeal with the result that just
two months ago the "West Riding Judgment"
was rendered, upholding the County Council in
its refusal to pay the teachers. That judgment
created q sensation 1t practically justified the
Passive Resisters and annuled a most conspic-
uous and essential part Of the Education law Of
1902. and 1t seemed to establish In advance BY
judicial process, one Of the chief ends aimed
at in Mr.. Birrels pending bill, thus either vim
dicating the latter or making 1t superfuous.
The judgment raised many confusing questions
whether, for instance, the payments already
made IN other counties to teachers for religious
WOul6 N he
was generally deemed desirable to carry the
matter to the supreme appellate tribunal. the
House of Lords. for final determination This
was done. with the result that yesterday the
former judgment reversed. the law Of 1902
was sustained and the payment of teachers for
religious instruction decided to be not only
permissible, but compulsory.
Obviously. this simplifes matters. 1t confirms
the payments already made to teachers, and re-
quires the County Council Of the West Riding
Of Yorkshire to make the payments which it
refused The supporters Of Mr.. Birrells bill
will doubtless hold that 1t makes the enactment
OF that measure all the more essential, in order
to repeal the obnOxious-but as 1t now appears
valid-prOvisions of the existing law. 1t may
also strengthen the campaign against the House
of Lords, though it can hardly do SO logically
for, while this reversal of judgment is nomnally
made by the House of Lords, not more than one
1t is not the House of Lords as a whole which
sits as the supreme appellate tribunal, but
merely the Lords of Appeal OF these there are
only four in ordinary. who are among the most
eminent jurists of the country, and who have
been made not hereditary peers, but mere life
peers, for the express purpose Of having them
constitute this tribunal. OF the four now in
office one is a Liberal and three are Unionists;
one is an Irishman, one is a Scotchman and two
are Englishmen; and they are all sons of com
moners. In addition, some dozen other eminent
jurists are qualified to sit in that tribunal. in
Guiding Lord LOreburn, the Lord Chancellor;
Lord Halsbury, the late Lord Chancellor; Lord
AlverstOne the Lord Chief Justice; Lord Ash
bourne, Lord James of Hereford and Lord
O'Brien. As a matter of fact, 1t is seldom that
more than five Of them sit In appeal, and the
other six hundred members Of the House of
Lords have nothing whatever TO do with the
case There could not be- then, a more weighty
and authoritative court than this and its de-
ciSion will, of course be unhestatingly accepted,
no matter how distastefu II may be TO many.
But we shall expect TO hear strengthened de-
mand for legislation which will annul this de-
cisiOn by repeating the law upon which 1t Is
based, precisely as there was for a similar an
nulment of the Taft Vale decision, which had
been rendered by the same tribunal.