called forth an outburst of applause louder than any ever heard in the Inns of Court. A recent judgment of the Appeal Court has been received with the liveliest satis faction by the community at large and will doubtless find sympathetic commendation on the other side of the Atlantic. During the thirty years that have elapsed since Mr. Forster's Education Act of 1870 came into existence, the London School Board has been constantly enlarging the scope of its operations and especially the curriculum of the schools. At first little more than the fundamentals, or the rudiments, of educa tion were given to the scholars. Gradually further subjects were added to the course until children whose parents were of too limited means to spare even the time hereto fore necessarily occupied in teaching them "the four Rs," have been compelled to take music and drawing and art; while the Board out of the ever-increasing taxes established evening continuation or post-graduate schools, to which not only children but adults were admitted. Notwithstanding the fact that the schools were sparsely attended provision was made for large numbers in the way of brilliantly-lighted class-rooms, free books and other sup plies. This naturally provoked dissent on the part of many tax-payers, and at last the aid of the courts has been invoked to decide whether or not such expenditure was lawful. In the case alluded to in the Appeal Court the London School Board were the appellants, and the case raised was whether the Board was justified in paying out of the funds raised by taxes the expenses of the science and art classes in their day schools and evening continuation schools. The mat
ter had originally found its way into court on proceedings for a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash certificates of a govern ment auditor disallowing three sums which had been spent by the School Board upon the maintenance of classes registered under the Science and Art Department. A rule nisi for a writ of certiorari was obtained, but was discharged by a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division, consisting of -Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Kennedy, two of the ablest of our judges. They held it was not within the power of the School Board to provide, at the expense of the tax-payers, the instruction mentioned. The appeal was heard before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Collins and Lord Justice Romer, probably as strong a bench as could be as sembled in England. It was argued by the Attorney General and three other King's Counsel and a fine array of juniors. The de cision of the judges was unanimous that the appeal should be dismissed, and that the auditors report, disallowing the sums ex pended by the Board for its science and art classes and evening continuation schools, should be approved. The opinion, written by the Master of the Rolls, is a voluminous and exhaustive one. Possibly there may be communities in America where tax-payers are growing restive under the profuse ex penditure of Boards of Education, and for this reason I have referred to this case, which will be found in Part V, May ist. 1901, of the Law Reports, Q. B. Division, page 726, and I have mentioned how the matter was brought before the Courts in order that a precedent may be established for any similar proceedings in America. STUFF GOWN.
