HL Deb 31 July 1922 vol 51 cc958-62

LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, within the limits permitted by the law, a Sunday School can be regularly carried on in which the teacher of a class of boys, on the 9th instant, after justifying the murder of Field Marshal Sir H. Wilson, made use of the following words: What is necessary for Communism? When you are old enough you had better join the army and navy, so that when sent to fight the capitalist's enemy, instead of using the bayonet against the German workers with whom we have no quarrel, you must use them against your masters for whom you are sent to fight. … Those who, as conscientious objectors, do not go into the army, they could do the same in munition factories, and if they were forced to make munitions, to make them against the master class or not at all. And whether the Government propose to take any steps to put a stop to the widespread corruption of our children by systematic teaching of this character.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the other day I put this Quest ion in an abstract form. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack then taunted me with my total ignorance of the law, compared my intelligence with that of the fat boy who, as I dare say your Lordships remember, spent most of his life asleep, and gave me no answer at all. I am, therefore, putting down the Question in a concrete form. The facts are as they are put in the Question, and I hope this time I may receive a direct answer, "Yes" or "No."

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, the noble Lord has put a Question to me in which he quotes a statement made in a Sunday School. My answer to that is that my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, has no information as to such words having been uttered, or by whom they were uttered, or where. If the noble Lord will furnish particulars as to the evidence available on these points my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, will consider, in consultation with the legal authorities, whether any action can be taken. I can assure my noble friend that in any case where evidence can be produced of seditious utterances, and it appears that legal proceedings would be effective and expedient, the Government are prepared to take action.

LORD SYDENHAM

The noble Earl has not answered the second part of the Question as to whether the Government propose to take any steps to put a stop to the widespread corruption of our children by systematic teaching of this character. I understand him to say that if evidence can be given the Home Secretary will then consider whether or not he will be in a position to take action?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

if the noble Lord will give particulars my right honourable friend will go into the matter with his legal advisers, and where evidence can be produced of seditious utterances, and it appears that legal proceedings would be effective and expedient, the Government are prepared to take action.

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, I recognise that in this country we permit freedom in the expression of opinions. You have only to go into Hyde Park and listen to the speeches made and the opinions there expressed, to realise that. Personally, I think we are very wise in doing so. It is a safety valve. I have travelled a great deal, but I have never found any other country, not even the United States, which follows that practice. I have been a good deal in America, and I have known much of the action of the police there. Without the slightest hesitation, I think, they stop seditious speeches; indeed, I have known them to turn out a Socialist before he has actually said anything. Personally, I make a great distinction between free speech in an open park or a building to adults and the teaching of children. I think there is a vital difference between them.

Some years ago I had knowledge of efforts which were made by a patriotic lady to counteract this teaching in Sunday schools, and she was good enough to ask me to go upon her Committee, which I did. Unfortunately, the lady died, and her work came to an end; but she did good work while she lived. In consequence of what I learned then I know the sort of teaching that is being given in these Sunday schools. Are you going to permit such teaching in your State-aided schools by a considerable number of teachers? Are you going to pay out of the public purse teachers who teach doctrines absolutely contrary to the opinions of the majority of the people of this country? Can you stand that? After all, the majority decides what the education is to be; and we know quite well that the majority of our countrymen are loyal citizens. I hope the Government will think this matter over very carefully. There is a good deal to think about as to what is going to happen in the future. If you allow the minds of your children to be corrupted in this way, God save England.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, may I be allowed to make one observation with regard to the Question which has been asked by the noble Lord. On a previous occasion I pointed out that the noble Lord was a little lacking in explicitness in a Question which he put to the Government, and I should have thought it would have occurred to him that he would not make the same mistake on the present occasion. I find, however, that he has put the matter in an extremely vague manner. It is a general Question. He asks— whether, within the limits permitted by the law, a Sunday School can be regularly carried on in which the teacher of a class of boys, on the 9th instant, after justifying the murder of Field Marshal Sir H. Wilson made use of the following words— And then the noble Lord gives us the words.

I think it would save a great deal of circumlocutory debate, and avoid generalisation, which perhaps when we knew the facts would be found to be superfluous, if the noble Lord were to produce before the Home Secretary the evidence which satisfies him that these words have been used. If it would be of any assistance to him, as far as my opinion is worth anything, I am of opinion that such language would be seditious and could properly be made the subject of prosecution. I would deprecate a general debate at the moment while we still do not know the evidence on which the noble Lord relies. I have been told many times that people have said all sorts of things, but when I have gone into the matter and investigated it, I have found that there was no satisfactory evidence at all. I think it would be unfortunate, on an afternoon when we have many other important topics to discuss, that we should involve ourselves in a general debate on this question.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My lords, I am sure no one will disagree with the general view advanced by the noble and learned Viscount as to the great services to the State which would be rendered if more direct information could be provided. But there are difficulties in the way, and notwithstanding what has fallen from the Lord Chancellor I urge that it is really necessary that some definite step should be taken by the Government in regard to this teaching in our schools. Anybody who is familiar with the history of Ireland during the last thirty years knows perfectly well that a great part, if not the larger part, of the present trouble in Ireland is due to the abominable teaching in the schools. We shall only have ourselves to thank if in this country, the great majority of whose citizens are loyal and law-abiding, it is found that this teaching has produced evil results. I agree that the advice which the Lord Chancellor has given ought to be taken by all who are interesting themselves in this subject, but at the same time I urge on the Government that this evidence ought not to be depended upon the mere production of the actual words of this or that so-called teacher.

Information is easily obtained. It is within the knowledge of many of those who are intimately acquainted with our schools that this teaching is going on. I have heard many in high positions complain of it as a great and growing evil. We have a great Education Department with inspectors all over the country—far too many inspectors—and surely we are entitled to ask, if in these schools seditious teaching is being given, that the Government should enquire into the matter themselves, and if there is any ground, take immediate action. I heard with the greatest satisfaction the pronouncement of the noble and learned Viscount that this language, if it is correctly reported, is seditious. If this is not sedition I do not know what is. If it be true that this man justified the murder of the gallant Field Marshal and then went on to advocate that people should join our defensive forces in order to turn their arms against their own people, such teaching ought not to be tolerated, and the person giving it should be prosecuted.

Back to