A LEGAL BOMBSHELL.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12569, 11 August 1906, Page 8

A LEGAL BOMBSHELL.

Mr Edward' Dicey might find in. the latest decisior. of the Court of Appeal another striking illustration, to show how Judge-made law very largely aaiticipatoe laws Inado by tho legislature. Tho Court of Appeal has put an interpretation* on tlie Education Act of 1902. which virtually anticipates a good deal of what Mr Birrell is seeking to do by tho Act of 1906. Tlie point ot issue affects only the mm-provided or voluntary schools, that is to say, /these in which denominational education is given. Under the Act of 1902. the managers of these schools were to hand them over to the educational authorities rent free, to keep them in repair, and make reasonable alterations and improvements if required. In return the local educational authorities wero made responsible for keeping the schools efficient from an educational point of view. The denominational owners had the privilege of appointing lour managers to aot with two managers appointed by the local authority. Tho consent of tbe latter was required to tho appointment of teachers, but this consent was not <to be witbhokl, except on educational grounds. Tho net result was that tho denominational owners, in consideration of giving the uso of tho building, were assured of efficient education being provided at the cost of tho iratepayers, aided by the Government grant, whilo at tho same timo the religious "atmosphere" of the school was preserved, and ; religious education was given in it in acoordajice with tho tonour of the provisions of the trust deed. It was very generally thought that tho cost of this religious education, as well as of tho secular instruction, was to> come out of the rates. Indeed, it waa contended from tho denominationalists 1 point of view tbat 'they wero really not making a very good bargain because , the distinctive religious teaching in tho j voluntary schools, did not cost more than ono twenty-fifth of the total cost of maintenance, and amounted therefore to not more than £175,000, while th© rent value of tho school buildings, given free for the purposes of instruction, was estimated at not less than £715,000. Tho West Riding Council, ' however, tbrought difffcrently. Fo_tki<wing out in some degree tho precedent set by tho "passive resisted," it separated th© expenses of th© religious education from that of th© secular education in Church schools, and refused'to pay th© former. The 'action of these sturdy and hard-headed Yorkshiremen has now been upheld. By the Court of Appeal. The "ground of their Ixwdshipe' decision put in a nutshell is t-wub as "the Act does not give the. educational authorities control over the religious iust<ruction they ar© not liable to pay for ifb. Both their control and their liability to pay are restricted to tlie secular instruction given in the schools. In other words, the Aot of 1902, which was undoubted brought in by Mr Balfour and passed by hhe Unionist majority as a, concession to tlie Ohuroh of England, is in reality found more favourable to those opposed to denaminaltional teaching beinjg given at the public expense than tho Bill which has been brought in by Mar Birrell to placate his Nanoon_x>mi_fc supporterst It is no wonder that the deoision has caused a sensation in both camps, end it wall be curious to see what t/he Qoverttroeat will do next.