A Leeds Education meeting favourable to the policy of the
Bir- mingham League has, we are happy to see, urged immediate legis- lation in relation to primary education. We had feared there were signs of a strong wish on the part of the Secularists to delay legislation for a year or two, in the hope that time would be on
their side and against the Union scheme, and we have even seen it asserted that this was the view of a portion of the Cabinet. Of course, we know nothing about the views of the Cabinet ; but Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster will certainly not do their duty at all if they wait for this very equal, and certainly not to be easily decided battle, to be fought out. They would have to wait not one year, but four or five at least,—in all probability, for a new Parliament, for in this Parliament the Unionists have, no doubt, a majority. Mr. Forster ought, in fact, to take up the position of umpire between the two parties, and give us the completest measure he can. What we care for most is that it should cover the whole ground—country districts as well as town—poor districts as well as rich—that religious education should not be discouraged, but heartily encouraged, and that the parents should be made to feel their responsibility to pay something for their children if they have the means. An able letter in another column shows how the Industrial Schools' Act might be worked much more efficiently in out towns. But the defect of our correspondent's scheme is that it hardly even professes to apply to the rural districts, where educa- tion is most needed.
