have reason to distrust them, and experience has shown that they may trust them safely enough.  Any attempt to throw the burden of making the teaching undenominational upon the managers must be sternly resisted:  it is simply evading the intentions of the Act in an elaborate attempt to carry them out.  We thank Professor Huxley for the warning.  To be forewarned is to be forearmed.”

A good deal of light seems to me to be thrown on the practical significance of the opinions expressed in the foregoing extract by the following interesting letter, which appeared in the same paper:—­

“Sir,—­I venture to send to you the substance of a correspondence with the Education Department upon the question of the lawfulness of religious teaching in rate schools under section 14 (2) of the Act.  I asked whether the words ’which is distinctive,’ &c., taken grammatically as limiting the prohibition of any religious formulary, might be construed as allowing (subject, however, to the other provisions of the Act) any religious formulary common to any two denominations anywhere in England to be taught in such schools; and if practically the limit could not be so extended, but would have to be fixed according to the special circumstances of each district, then what degree of general acceptance in a district would exempt such a formulary from the prohibition?  The answer to this was as follows:—­’It was understood, when clause 14 of the Education Act was discussed in the House of Commons, that, according to a well-known rule of interpreting Acts of Parliament, “denomination” must be held to include “denominations.”  When any dispute is referred to the Education Department under the last paragraph of section 16, it will be dealt with according to the circumstances of the case.’

“Upon my asking further if I might hence infer that the lawfulness of teaching any religious formulary in a rate school would thus depend exclusively on local circumstances, and would accordingly be so decided by the Education Department in case of dispute, I was informed in explanation that ‘their lordships’’ letter was intended to convey to me that no general rule, beyond that stated in the first paragraph of their letter, could at present be laid down by them; and that their decision in each particular case must depend on the special circumstances accompanying it.

    “I think it would appear from this that it may yet be in many
    cases both lawful and expedient to teach religious formularies
    in rate schools.

    “H.I.  Steyning, November 5, 1870.”

Of course I do not mean to suggest that the editor of the Guardian is bound by the opinions of his correspondent; but I cannot help thinking that I do not misrepresent him, when I say that he also thinks “that it may yet be, in many cases, both lawful and expedient to teach religious formularies in rate schools under these circumstances.”