The Government have now introduced the measure which occupied the second place in their programme for the Session, the Secondary Education Bill. The measure in question has, however, only indirectly to do with secondary education. It is really bill to establish a proper Education Department, with a Cabinet Minister at its head. The only wonder is that the present cumbersome system has lasted so long. When early in the century the Government first began to make money grants to schools, the distribution of these grants was entrusted to a Committee of the Privy Council and when in 1870 Mr. Forster's Education Bill was passed, no radical change was made in the system. Nobody has ever rightly known who was the responsible Minister of Education. Practically, of course, it was the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education; but above him was the Lord President of Council. As a rule the Lord President does not interfere much in the work of the Education Department, but he has full power to do so if he pleases, and sometimes he exerts that power not altogether to the liking of the Vice-President. Then the duties of the Science and Art Department conflicted a good deal with those of the Education Department. Now both, as at present constituted, are to be abolished, and all branches of National Education, primary, secondary, art, science, ete, are to be dealt with by one Government office having a President at its head and a Parliamentary Secretary under him. Poor Sir John Gorst, it appears, is not to be the first real Minister of Education, since a clause is inserted retaining the office of Vice-President so long as it is held by Sir John. He is perhaps a little too liberal in education matters for some of his colleagues.
"WaT IS 4 PLace?"
The great betting case has at last been decided in the highest Court of Appeal, the House of Lords. They have decided by a very considerable majority, with whom, it is understood that the late Lord Herschel was in agreement, that Tattersall's enclosure is not a " place" within the meaning of the Betting Acts, and that betting in the ring is therefore not illegal. The result is triumph for the votaries of the turf, and asad blow for the Anti-Gambling League. But there is still a question how far magistrates and judges are bound by this judgment of the Lords. It may be remembered that the whole question arose out of the prosecution of the well-known book-maker Dunn for betting in the ring. But that was a case which, under the vagaries of our law, could not be taken up to the Court of Appeal and the House of Loads, and it has therefore never been upset. The Lords' judgment is really upon a friendly action brought in order to obtain a decision from the highest tribunal, and there is still nothing to prevent a Judge or magistrate in another case deciding in accordance with the Dunn judgment, although with most occupants of the Bench the decision of the Lords will no doubt carry the greater weight. The whole question of the Betting Laws will, however, have to be taken in hands in the not very distant future, and put upon a logical basis.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.