There seems to be a good deal of hesitation in
the councils of the Nonconformist leaders. On the one hand, the Birmingham League have put out a declaration against the very unsecularist principles of the Scotch Education Bill, and have issued a political appeal to Nonconformist electors to bring pressure to bear on their rnembers,—an appeal in which they remark that "it is impossible for Nonconformists to regard this proposal as anything else than a deliberate declaration on the part of the Ministry that they are determined to disregard and defy the protests of those of their supporters who have complained of the policy of using the rates for the maintenance of sectarian religious instruction." And the Manchester Nonconformists are petitioning for such amendment of the Bill as will make its provisions "consistent with the principles of religious equality,"—i. e., of course, strictly secularist. But, on the other hand, yesterday's Daily News, the principal daily organ of the Secularists, says :—" We are informed that, on reconsideration, the advocates of secular education in the House of Commons have determined not to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Scotch Education Bill, as had been agreed on at a private meeting of members." What does this mean ? Not, we suppose, that the Nonconformists feel that they can do nothing to any purpose till after a general election, for to make their case good for a general election, they ought to fight the Scotch Education Bill on the second reading on downright secularist principles? Or does it mean that they are becoming aware that they have taken a false step in insisting on the Imperial character of the Education question, and that they have no chance of ever carrying Scotland or Ireland with them, what- ever they may do with England ? Or is it only that the Daily News is misinformed ?
