why schools, for those children who naturally fall on public funds for anything beyond food and clothing, should not be likewise supported by compulsory taxation. But, in deciding such a question as this, other considerations must be taken into account, besides that of pecuniary justice. The known tendency of State authority, local or central, to claim its quid pro quo for its pecuniary support, and control the use of the means which it supplies, suggests great danger to the Church from such an arrangement.

counting the cost of maintaining them in a state of efficiency. An unequal system of voluntary taxation such as this cannot, however, last, and is not a basis on which we can expect that the cause will flourish. Let us, however, on this subject, refer to Mr. Douglas Tinling's report:

'The present expense of these schools, inefficient as many of them are, falls so heavily on the parochial clergy, that they are unable to venture more largely without some additional local sympathy, or some exterior aid. I have been told by the clergy that the school costs them annually a sum varying from 107. to 257., and that as they do not feel justified in risking a larger annual expenditure, they are therefore obliged to continue a system of school instruction which they are fully aware is insufficient and unsatisfactory.

In speaking of the sum of 10l. to 257., I am referring only to the smaller schools in many instances the expense of the parish schools falls far more heavily on the clergy; e. g., one clergyman in his published statement shows, on a greatly reduced scale of expenditure, the deficiency of 1237. 13s. in his annual income for his parish schools, which deficiency, when exceeding this amount, he for seven years cheerfully provided for. These schools for the most part depend upon the local funds, which are inadequate, being drawn almost entirely from the clergy, with the addition of a few very small subscriptions, and for this reason inefficient teachers are allowed to hold their places, and the school-room remains unfit for the teaching and training of the children of the poor.'-Minutes, p. 562.

If education then is to progress, it seems to follow from these facts, that a stimulus is necessary to the owners of property, to make them supply the funds. It is most injurious to the services of the Church, as well as to the poor of a parish, that a clergyman should have continually pressing on him a heavy charge for the school. What he has to spare from his income, he would often wish to employ in some little church or parochial arrangements, which his own special interest in the parish may suggest; or in direct relief to the poor, according to his own irresponsible choice of objects.

It is, indeed, a question whether, as a matter of pecuniary justice and right, property should not, in some form or other, be made to provide education for the poor. Wages, in agricultural districts, are calculated without any reference to the expense of education, and all agree that parochial schools cannot be self-supporting. If, therefore, the property of a parish is not forced, by local taxation, or its contribution to the consolidated fund, to provide schools, we fear that they will not exist. Education is a national requirement, and, therefore, he who neglects to educate his child is injurious to the community, as he is who will not vaccinate his child. Surely then means ought to be provided by which he can fulfil this obligation? The expense of vaccination is borne by local rates, and we do not see, so far as the ground we have mentioned is concerned,

why schools, for those children who naturally fall on public funds for anything beyond food and clothing, should not be likewise supported by compulsory taxation. But, in deciding such a question as this, other considerations must be taken into account, besides that of pecuniary justice. The known tendency of State authority, local or central, to claim its quid pro quo for its pecuniary support, and control the use of the means which it supplies, suggests great danger to the Church from such an arrangement.

502

NOTICE S.

ARCHDEACON CHURTON has bestowed great pains and care on another metrical translation of the Psalms. It is published, in commemoration of the excellent writer's Archdeaconry, under the title of 'The Cleveland Psalter,' (J. H. Parker.) Exhibiting great research, and a conscientious comparison of versions and commentaries, as well as a considerable command of poetical diction, if we say that the writer has succeeded as well as most, or even all, of his predecessors, we shall not, in our own estimation, award a very high praise. We believe that in this volume many of the Psalms are metricized as well as they can be: but after all we conclude, as in Mr. Keble's wellknown judgment, that the thing is simply impossible. The genius of Eastern poetry is totally irreconcilable with the Western forms; and while we are free to admit, that graceful and useful poetical and religious exercises may be produced under the form of a metrical Psalter, they do not in any sense reproduce the Book of Psalms. For example: Archdeacon Churton has sought the widest variety in his metres. Does the Hebrew poetry contain in its various forms-for we are free to admit that it has syllabic varieties in length of the lines-anything equivalent to the palpable changes from the iambic to the dactylic and trochaic metres which we find in the present Version, as in many of its predecessors? However, we will let the 'Cleveland Psalter' commend itself, as, indeed, it deserves to do, to such of our readers, and we believe they are many, who do not share in our own dislike to all metrical Psalms. Here is the beginning of Psalm cxix.—one in our judgment eminently unsuitable to the four-line stanza; inasmuch as this particular Psalm is condensed, gnomic and terse in form, therein resembling the Proverbs. Whether its close moral tension and sharply-cut utterances are not, from the nature of the case, diluted and slackened in any stanza, we leave to the judgment of critics :—

'Ps. cxix.

'There is a way, where blessing meets
The pilgrim journeying on:

The saint, whose life was undefil'd,
In that blest way had gone.

'There is a law, whose rules of truth
The wand'ring soul reclaim;
And blest are they, whose heart adores
The God from Whom it came.

'No love misplac'd beguiles their souls
With fraud and wrong to stray:
They walk with innocence secure
In His all-perfect way.'

We do not say that the following, whose form is suggested by 'a familiar Children's hymn, Ere I sleep,' is not a graceful poem: but is it anything like David's Psalm!

We submit the

Cleveland Psalter' to a crucial experiment, in selecting from it two Psalms, on which, and very properly, Archdeacon Churton has bestowed all his skill.

'Ps. xxiii.

'1. My shepherd is the gracious Lord,

Amidst His flock I feed:

While I am His, and He is mine,
I cannot suffer need.

2. He leads me, when on Judah's hills
The pastures spring and blow,
And welling from the eternal fount
Glad streams of comfort flow.

3. He gives my troubled spirit rest,
Restor'd from sin and shame,

To paths of righteousness and peace,
For His most holy Name.

4. Yea, though I walk in dreary vale
Of death's o'ercovering shade,
No evil will I fear, whilst Thou

Art near to bring me aid :