prove that an authority is in default. It may do just enough to steer clear of the penalties, while doing very little practical good. It is probable that some hundred Boards will be equally remiss in the work, and will equally deserve the intervention of the Department. If the Department acts fairly, it will have to declare them all in default, and proceed accordingly. It is needless to say that such a course would produce a storm of unpopularity far more severe than that which would attend a measure of universal compulsion.

And, after all, what real ground of fear need there be in introducing such a measure? Have not children always gone to school under compulsion? Three hundred years ago they used to

Creep like snail unwillingly to school.

Three hundred and fifty years ago Tom Tusser found compulsory education flourishing at Eton, and enforced by a species of vivisection.

From Paul's I went
To Eton sent,
To learn straightways
The Latin phrase,
Where fifty-three
Stripes given to me
At once I had.
See, Udal, see,
The mercy of thee,
To me, poor lad!

So far as the children are concerned, there has always been direct compulsion in matters of education. The whole question is really narrowed to this, whether, when the parent is so reckless, and so improvident, as to neglect his plain and undoubted duty, it is not the part of the State to step in, and provide that its future citizens should not grow up as savages, by compelling him to do for his children what every decent and prudent parent already does without compulsion. That the ignorant and improvident parents, who are constantly changing their place of

abode, and are scarcely in the habit of looking forward for a single week, will be sensibly influenced by the prospect of their children's being able to obtain employment four or five years afterwards, or to get their school fees paid for them, is an idea that can scarcely be entertained by anyone who is practically acquainted with the class.

And surely there is a fallacy in the argument in favour of indirect compulsion. If we look at the thing plainly, compulsion is compulsion, whether we call it direct or indirect. Is it direct compulsion to fine a parent an occasional five shillings for not sending his child to school, and indirect compulsion to prevent a child from earing three or four shillings every week, because it has not attended school during the previous five years? I should prefer calling the latter system compulsion with the penalty deferred until it becomes useless for the reformation of the offender. As to the notion of compulsory education injuring the independence of the English character, that argument comes too late. More than twelve millions and a half of people-considerably more than half the population-are already living within the districts of School Boards, and ten millions and a half are already living under compulsory by-laws. If such by-laws injure the national character, the Education Department is already the chief offender in inflicting that injury, and is by this Bill seeking powers to inflict it upon the rural population, provided only that the Boards of Guardians see fit to take the initiative. A greater blow to the independence of the national character is likely to be struck by that clause of the Bill which encourages parents to apply to the Guardians for the payment of school fees, without the risk of losing any franchise, right, or privilege.'

To conclude. This Bill appears to be a proof that almost all persons interested in education are agreed that compulsion is a good and requisite thing, but that many are inclined to think that it will be more cheerfully borne if imposed by the majority of a parish than if imposed by a majority of Parliament. This latter opinion I believe to be erroneous. In either case I do not believe there would be any active resistance. But there would be more likely to be some ill-feeling against a mere by-law passed, perhaps, after a sharp contest, by a majority of neighbours, than against a general law passed by the mysterious wisdom of the Imperial Parliament. The present Bill contains some good and useful provisions. But the good in it is largely neutralized by its probable effect in delaying the general adoption of compulsion for four or five years, 'until we see how the new Act works,' and consequently keeping vacant more than a million school places.

An Act, the principle and mainspring of which should be universal compulsion, tempered by a few necessary exemptions, and enforced by willing and capable administrators, comprising too, as it might, those clauses of the present Bill which are undoubtedly beneficent, would be more creditable to the courage of Parliament, and might form a satisfactory settlement of the question for many years to

come.

POSTSCRIPT.-This article was in type before the debate on the second reading of the Bill, but it does not seem requisite to add much to the remarks contained in it. The result of the division surprised no one, but the preponderance of argument was by no means on the same side as the preponderance of votes. The Government found it much easier to find M.P.'s than reasons. Those who supported them by their votes frequently differed from them

in their speeches. Member after member rose behind them to complain of the absence of the irreligious difficulty, the omission of which was perhaps the chief merit of the Bill. Perhaps the most remarkable speech was that of the honourable gentleman who argued at length against compulsion, as being destructive of the independence, &c., of the English character, and ended by praising the Bill for rendering the compulsory system easy of application. Is it inconceivable that a member of Parliament might be bold enough to say what most people think, that the national character, however admirable, is not perfect, even in the matter of independence, while there are 818,000 people in England eating the bread of pauperism, and that education is required to improve that character, especially in the slight details of ignorance, improvidence, and intemperance?

The course of the debate serves to confirm the view that there is a growing feeling in the House, and even in the Government, in favour of compulsion, but that a certain number of members holding that opinion are afraid of voting for it, from an idea that the country is not yet ripe for such a measure. It seems more likely that the country is ripe for it; but, whether that be the case or not, it would be more satisfactory to see the House daring on such a question to lead public opinion. instead of servilely waiting to follow it. If we are to wait until all ranks and classes are unanimously in favour of education, before passing a compulsory law, we may as well say at once that we are to wait until compulsion is unnecessary. Under the system which the present Bill seeks to establish, the enlightened parishes, where children are sent pretty regularly to school, would probably adopt compulsion. The 'benighted parishes, where compulsion is really wanted, would undoubtedly refuse to adopt it.

The Bill, as it stands at present, will call not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance. Nor is it easy to see how we can declare that it is the duty of town councillors and guardians to see that children go to school, if we shrink from saying that it is the duty of their own parents.

The judgment of the House of Commons, as interpreted by the debate, is that the Bill is not one to be rejected, but eminently one to be improved. All who care more for the extension of education than for the credit or discredit of a party, will hope that the amendments to be introduced in committee may succeed in making it a more efficient and a more useful measure.

IT

T may seem ungracious to pronounce that that which, in the mind of the author, was probably the raison d'être of Mr. Firth's bulky work on municipal London to which we referred last month, namely, the last 230 pages, which give a fancy picture of the London of the future, would have been better unpublished. As it is, however, they come before us as an anachronism. Much riper study of the facts accumulated are requisite before one can even attempt a forecast of such a task as the municipal reorganisation of the metropolis.

To ascertain the limits within which change may possibly or probably be attended with advantage, is a duty that lies at the very threshold of any sane attempt at systematic improvement. In his annual summary for 1875, the Registrar-General has indulged in an imaginative statement to the effect that the ratepayers might be supplied with gas and water at half the present cost, or for 800,000l. instead of 1,600,000l. a year, in round numbers; if money could be raised at 4 per cent. to pay off the 20,000,000l. which forms the approximate capital of the companies. In making this hasty assertion the RegistrarGeneral has entirely forgotten that it is not the sole function of the companies to receive dividends. Well or ill as it may be performed, they do a certain amount of work. Well or ill, they water and light London. For the discharge of this duty they spend an annual sum not much below four millions sterling. It does not appear-at allevents, it is not hinted-by the Registrar-General, that this duty could be performed by the Metropoliton Board of Works for much less than the above-named

terms. Thus, if the rate of dividend were reduced by one-half, the total annual outlay would still stand at 4,800,000l. instead of 5,600,000l. as at present. And this is what an authority of the magnitude of the Registrar-General, whose special duty it is to deal with figures, calls supplying gas and water at half the present cost!

We have seen that, in point of fact, the price of 38. 9d. per thousand feet of sixteen-candle gas allows 25 per cent. of that sum, or 11d. per thousand feet, by way of return on the capital invested. We cannot suppose that capital to be extinguished in any other way than by the action of a sinking fund, or by a purchase for which, in some mode or other, the ratepayer, or the taxpayer, must find the money. Turn it how we like, we can do little more than rob Peter to pay Paul. Therefore, any statesman or student of economic policy who wishes to reduce the incidence of the lighting rate, must look, not to the financier, but to the enginecer, for aid. With more or less provident forethought, we have authorised the expenditure of nearly nine millions sterling by the nine metropolitan gas companies. The expenditure is a fact. We derive from it the benefit for which we contracted, or we are in a position to insist on doing so. We cannot rail the seal off the bond; or extinguish the debt by saying that the money has been ill laid out. All that we can honestly do is to search for such a mode of supplying light as shall be cheaper than gas, for the same amount of illuminating power. If that can be done. the tables will be turned on the gas companies; not by a breach of public faith, but by that advance of

science with which all those who invest their money in engineering works have to lay their account.

We cannot for a moment admit that the ne plus ultra of economic illumination has been attained in the supply of gas. To take one item alone, ten per cent. of the gas made is not accounted for. That large loss is in some considerable measure due to leakage. Whatever be its cause, this single item of loss equals 40 per cent. of the dividend. And it is probable that this loss is an almost unavoidable incident of that distant and connected supply which, as we before showed, is liable to grave objections, in certain cases, on the ground of public security. We have thus a cost of about 0'24d. per candle per thousand feet of gas attributed to the mode of supply through pipes, independently of the cost of the pipes themselves, and of their main tenance and renewal. This is one item, as far as it goes, in favour of the plan of independent supply, if we can obtain a material for combustion that is as cheap as coalgas.

That for its effect on the nervous system, on the durability of the eyesight, and on the general maintenance of health, light produced by the combustion of vegetable hydrocarbons is the best, may be taken for granted. Animal oils rank next to vegetable in light-giving value, although as their supply is necessarily more limited their cost must be regarded as likely to be permanently higher. There can be no doubt that mineral fuel, so long as the yearly increasing demand makes no appreciable mark on the enormous sources of supply that exist over the face of the world, is far cheaper than any of an organic origin. The mineral fuel which competes with the gas distilled from coal is the rock-oil which Nature herself has elaborated in her subterranean receptacles. Crude petro

leum, indeed, is a far more dangerous fuel for domestic purposes than gas, in the present state of science. But the rectification or manipulation of the material is but in its infancy. Such remarkable results have already been obtained from experiment, that it is difficult to see where improvement may stop. Nor is the question only one which relates to the preparation of liquid or gaseous fuel. We can only be said to have made one very decided advance on the mode of burning, so as to produce more light from a given combustible, since very early times. That was the invention of the Argand burner, by which a supply of atmospheric air is admitted into the inner part of a ring of flame. In the case of some of the most powerful lamps used for lighthouses the plan has been adopted of having rows of concentric rings, alternately consisting of flame and of air. It is remarkable that the advantage thus obtained has not led to further experiments in the same way-to the determination of the proportion of oxygen which will be most effective; and to the temperature at which the supply of air shall be admitted to the flame, as well as to the quantity of supply. The idea is not unnatural that hot air is the best for the supply of a lamp, as well as for that of a furnace. But hot air, whatever be its advantages, has the practical defect of too rapidly charring the wick. There is good reason to believe that the admission to the flame of a lamp of an exactly proportioned dose of cool air, and the careful exclusion of all kinds of draught, other than that so supplied, is one of those conditions of combustion by the careful study of which the lamp which contains its own reservoir of fuel may hereafter compete very advantageously with the use of coal gas.

As to water, again, we cannot reasonably look for much diminution

in the cost of supply. Nor is there any reason to complain, as yet, of inadequate quantity. The points to which attention has to be turned with reference to improvement in the water supply of London are chiefly these. First, constant service; second, prevention of waste; and third, purity of source. To the two first of these questions so much attention has been already directed that there can be little doubt that we are gradually advancing towards the introduction of adequate measures to effect this object. As to. purity of source of supply, a word or two may be said with advantage. It must, however, be remembered that the water supply question does not stand alone. It is, unfortunately, closely bound up with the question of sewage. If we compare the quantity of water which is required for the necessities of a family, including drinking, cooking, bathing, domestic washing, and ordinary cleaning of house or yard, with that which the water companies supply, we shall find that the latter amounts to something like ten times the former. From thirty to thirty-three gallons per head per diem is the average supply, and there are advocates for providing at the rate of forty gallons per head per diem. A portion of that large quantity may be consumed in various manufactures. But there can be no doubt that the larger proportion is required for the service of the sewage system; and that, under existing arrangements, this quantity is not in excess. At the same time, the idea is gaining ground that the system of water carriage is open to so many and such grave objections that other methods are not to be denied a fair trial. While our present system has done much to remove certain causes of sanitary danger, and while typhus fever, to name one malady, has been almost exterminated by this and other

VOL. XIV.-NO. LXXIX. NEW SERIES.

agencies, it is admitted by all those who have studied the facts that the scarcely less insidious evil of typhoid fever is directly spread by the existing system of house drainage. On the Continent a pneumatic system for the performance of this task has been so successful that the City Surveyor, who studied this system in operation, has reported in favour of giving it a trial in this country. It is unnecessary to enter into the merits of another competing mode, which seems as yet not to have made good its claims for trial, except in villages and sparselypeopled districts. Without going into details that are suitable only for technical readers, it is enough to say that there is a possibility of such a change of system as would reduce the need for water supply to a maximum allowance of three or four gallons per head of population per diem.

For the purpose of carrying away refuse there is no doubt that the water of the Thames is quite good enough. For drinking, cooking, and even washing, however, this water is highly objectionable. The Legislature has allowed the Thames to be so scandalously polluted that the supplies of the water companies have altered greatly from their original condition. Time after time we have seen the companies extending their mains, and pushing their intake higher up the river. But while Reading and many other towns are allowed to make the Thames do the duty of a scavenger, it is clear that there is great danger in allowing the water of that river to be supplied in the houses of London. To meet this difficulty places of startling magnitude have been brought forward by rival projectors. One would tap the head waters of Wye or of Severn; another would decant one of the Cumberland lakes into a monster reservoir on Stanmore Hill. Millions of money are spoken of as

E