SUEVEY OF THE EARLY SEVENTIES 163 



but the fees could be remitted if the parents were unable to pay, 

 and they were liable to be fined if they did not cause their children 

 to be taught somewhere to read and write. The representatives of 

 the Denominational system and the Eoman Catholics combined 

 against the measure, and though it passed the second reading in 

 the Assembly, it had to be abandoned. Four years later Mr. 

 Heales, then a private member (June, 1862), revived the contro- 

 versy by introducing the "Common Schools Act". This vested 

 the teaching machinery of the State in one Central Board, which 

 was to absorb all the property of the National School Board, and 

 such of the Denominational Board's assets as it was willing to sell 

 or surrender. With the dissolution of the rival Boards, no public 

 money was to be thereafter expended except through the newly 

 created management. The express limitation of times for religious 

 teaching, and the remission of fees in case of poverty, were much 

 the same as in Mr. Michie's proposed Act. One of the strong 

 points made by Mr. Heales was, that under the guise of fostering 

 education the Denominational Board was spreading over the land 

 an unnecessary number of insignificant buildings, which were 

 really so many rudimentary churches often in undesirable com- 

 petition with a National School already occupying the field. The 

 Common Schools Act was vigorously opposed by Messrs. O'Shanassy, 

 Duffy, Haines and others, but the able and eloquent support of 

 George Higinbotham and James Service eventually carried it 

 through, and it passed the Council without amendment. It largely 

 minimised the ill-effects of the old system, but it did not answer 

 the expectation of its supporters. The appointments made by 

 O'Shanassy to the Education Board were not above suspicion, and 

 sectarian strife was only scotched, not killed. 



A very representative Eoyal Commission of both Houses of Par- 

 liament was appointed in September, 1866, to review the system of 

 State Education then in force, and to devise means of bringing it 

 into closer touch with the popular demands. Mr. Higinbotham 

 was the chairman, and the Board included the headmasters of 

 three Public Grammar Schools and a County Court Judge. Unlike 

 the general run of Eoyal Commissions, they set to work promptly 

 and earnestly. Within five months they held fifty-two meetings, 



11* 



