§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
Amendment proposed [13th June],
In page 24, line 22, after the word "situated," to insert the words "Provided that such conditions shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board."—(Mr. Collins.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he strongly disapproved of the Amendment; it was only the first of an important series of a most formidable character.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he could not understand how his hon. Friend and the other Scotch Members who professed to be the advocates of impartiality in all matters, could object to the Amendment.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, that the Committee had already decided that schools whether denominational or otherwise, should be treated in the same manner, and the words of his Amendment were taken exactly from the English Act.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said on the previous evening that he would accept the Amendment, if there was no opposition offered to it. Now, 1745 he (Mr. Trevelyan) believed there was a very great and reasonable objection in the Committee to adopt the Amendment and that was, that it was useless to tie the hands of the Government, or of the Education Department in the future. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) thoroughly understood English education, but he appeared to apply his opinions to Scotch education without a sufficient study of the question, for if he would read the 2nd Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners on Education in Scotland, he would see that the denominational question did not stand on the same footing in that country as it did in England, because in Scotland there was merely a handful of Episcopalian and Roman Catholic children scattered throughout the country. If it were rendered necessary to set up separate schools everywhere for those children the cost would be something enormous; indeed, at a time when it was reported that 200 schools were wanted in different parts of the country to supply deficiencies, the Commissioners stated that there were actually 40 schools supported under the denominational system which were not required. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, moreover, was in the precise terms of the Amendment which in his judgment wrought such harm in the English Act, and with which he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be satisfied.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that though cordially agreeing in principle with the hon. and learned Member for Boston, he would urge him not to press the Amendment to a division.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that in preparing the Bill he certainly did not consider it necessary to introduce the words now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Boston, although they were before him in the English Act. He omitted them, however, not because they expressed anything different from what was generally intended, but because they appeared to him to be altogether superfluous. The whole of the clause was in the language of permission, and in this respect it followed the wording of the English Act; that Parliamentary Grants might be made to the managers of any school which was, in the opinion of the Scotch Education Department, efficiently contributing to 1746 the secular education of the parish or burgh in which it was situated. The real objection to denominationalism was that it was a system over which we had no control, and that the schools were distributed—he would not say capriciously, but without exclusive reference to the educational requirements of the district. Now, if a school were found to exist where it was not at all needed, or to be what he might call "superfluous," a certificate that it was efficiently educating children might not be sufficient to warrant a Parliamentary Grant being given to it; but the reverse would be the case if it appeared that the school was necessary in the place where it existed; and that rule would be construed as specially applying to schools attended by 20 children and under. As in Scotland, there were to be school boards everywhere, the words of the Amendment might be liable to misconstruction, and in his judgment the declaration was superfluous, otherwise the Government entertained no objection to the proposal. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
§ MR. C. DALRYMPLEsaid, he should contend that, whether superfluous or not, the Amendment was accepted by the Lord Advocate last night, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was bound to adhere to the position he had then taken.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, it was true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the Amendment on the previous evening; but he remarked at the time that he should like to know whether it was accepted by that side of the House or not. For his own part he should vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate ought not to characterize as "superfluous" any school which was efficiently carrying on the great work of education, especially as the Parliamentary Grant was in the nature of a capitation grant. It was, if not essential, at all events highly desirable, to insert the Amendment, in order to make sure that a fair interpretation should be given to the words of the clause in Scotland. He was certainly under the impression that the right hon. and learned Lord accepted the words of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Boston last night; and 1747 he now called upon the Government to accept words which, according to their own argument, were either totally harmless, or else necessary to the fair working of the Bill.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to explain the difference which existed between the system in England and that in Scotland. In England we had to deal with rate schools newly introduced—we had, in fact, to supplement an existing system; while in Scotland we had to deal with a national system in a state of development. It was quite possible that although a school might impart an efficient education to the children attending it, it might he superfluous, inasmuch as it might not be required to meet a demand for education in the district wherein it was situated; and where a second school was not wanted, it was undesirable that such a school should be established, because in such a case competition was of no great advantage. As regarded that particular Amendment, he understood his right hon. and learned Friend to have stated last night that the Government had no objection to it practically if it met with the concurrence of the Committee. He thought they were now in a position to say that if the hon. and learned Member for Boston pushed his Amendment to a division they should think it right to vote for it. At the same time he thought the hon. and learned Member was not acting wisely in pushing his Amendment forward, because if he failed to obtain a majority in favour of it, the principle he was advocating would be in a worse position than if he had not proposed the Amendment.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was glad that the honourable understanding of last night had been recognized by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, for he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had relied upon it. The only object of the Amendment was to ensure that, with regard to the Parliamentary Grant, there should be no distinction between the mode of treating children in one school or another, provided that they satisfied the test required.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that what he really said was, that he should offer no opposition if there were none on the part of the House; and all he now did was to press the withdrawal of the Amendment, since it appeared to him 1748 superfluous. If, however, it were not withdrawn, he would vote for it.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the wording of the Amendment rendered it inapplicable to the Scotch Bill, and it was also unnecessary, he therefore would counsel its withdrawal.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that would not occur, for he should not have assented to the adjournment of the debate last night but for the understanding that the Amendment would be adopted.
§ LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he regarded the Amendment as necessary, or, otherwise, there would be no protection for denominational schools if the school board were to decide whether these schools were required or not. He thought that the power ought not to be in the hands of the school board, but that it should be left to the Education Department, and he should hereafter propose an Amendment with that view.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, he also thought there were already words in the Bill which made the Amendment unnecessary.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, that last night the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate undertook to support the Amendment, if there was no objection to it on the part of the House; and thereupon he at once rose and objected to it, so that the right hon. and learned Lord was released from his obligation.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that as the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate agreed with him upon the merits of the Amendment, it was better not to leave the matter to the Scotch Board. They had had enough of "understandings" in other matters, and it was better to lay down in the Bill, as in the English Act, the principles of action which Parliament thought right. He must, therefore, take the sense of the Committee on the propriety of inserting that provision of the English Act in the Scotch Bill. A great deal had been said about superfluous schools, but the question could be more fitly discussed when sub-section (b) came under the notice of the Committee.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 109: Majority 94.
1749
§
On the Motion of Dr. LYON PLAYFAIR, Amendment made, in page 24, line 23, after "that," by inserting—
Due care shall be taken by the Scotch Education Department, in the construction of such Minutes, that the standard of education which now exists in the public schools shall not be lowered, and that, as far as possible, as high a standard shall be maintained in all schools inspected by the said Department, and provided that.
§ MR. TREVELYAN, in moving, in line 29, to leave out sub-section (b), and insert—
No school, other than a public school, which shall be established after the passing of this Act shall receive any grant,said, that the Amendment bearing on the matter moved the previous night was very complicated, and in some respects invidious. The present proposition, on the contrary, was extremely simple, and its expediency was quite obvious, for it was to obviate the necessity of any expense being incurred for denominational schools set up after the passing of the Bill, which professed to provide a national system of education for Scotland. He also thought it entirely solved the religious difficulty, for the Vice President of the Council had stated that they got rid of the religious difficulty by putting the schools under the control of the school boards; and that the effect of the measure would be to give religious but not sectarian training—in other words, instruction in great moral truths. Now, the Government had had the good fortune to be able to place the whole of Scotland under the school boards, and all he (Mr. Trevelyan) and his Friends desired was to put an effectual check to Parliamentary grants being given to denominational schools. They were repeatedly told that in Scotland the children were very willing to attend schools belonging to other denominations, provided the secular education was good. Why, then, allow such schools to be set up? The result would inevitably be that in small populations perhaps 20 or 30 Episcopalians or Roman Catholics would demand a fresh school, and the power either of giving or refusing these fresh schools would be placed in the hands of the Education Department.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he must decline to accept the Amendment, for the clause as it stood was intended 1750 to carry out what appeared to be the opinion of the great majority of the House of Commons in 1869, when the Bill introduced by Sir James Moncrieff was discussed. The original proposal of that Bill was in accordance with the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan); but it was objected that the effect of allowing denominational schools hereafter to be established might tend to give a boon or encouragement to that class of schools, unless some words of prescription were introduced which should limit the grant to those which might appear necessary; and the whole difficulty was to suggest words which should be effectual for that purpose. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) at that time suggested that in the case of schools which were reasonably required in any town or district they should have the benefit of the grant, but that those schools established with a proselytizing view should not have that encouragement. He (the Lord Advocate) accordingly had endeavoured to introduce words in the present Bill which might have such a restraining effect, and they were the words of this clause now proposed to be omitted. There were in large towns schools which could be proved to be needed, and to refuse them the benefit of the grant would amount to something like persecution. However, the Education Department were instructed to report annually on such schools. That brought the matter annually under the supervision of Parliament; and he (the Lord Advocate) hoped he had succeeded in providing such reasonable checks against abuse as would be satisfactory to the House. With the exception of Roman Catholic schools in large towns, those best acquainted with the subject did not anticipate that there would be any considerable increase in the number of denominational schools in Scotland.
§ MR. TREVELYAN, in explanation, said, he perceived that the omission of the words might create great difficulty, and he therefore proposed to withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"] If he were forbidden to withdraw it, and if a division took place, he himself should vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) intended to vote against his own Amendment. That hon. Mem- 1751 ber was strenuously fighting against a great principle of the English Act, and which was that all schools should be secular as regarded the school hours; and at Macclesfield a copy of the Ten Commandments had accordingly been taken down from the walls. It would be inconsistent with that principle to inquire, as proposed by the clause, into the religion of the children's parents.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the proposal of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate lay between that of the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) and that of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), which were the two poles of opinion in the matter. It therefore seemed to him (Mr. Bouverie) only just that it should receive the support of both sides of the House. It was also desirable that some loophole should be left with reference, for instance, to the Roman Catholic population, which was numerous in some of the towns and burghs in Scotland, who would probably not attend the National Schools.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the main system hitherto prevailing in Scotland had been one of a public character, though the parish schools were certainly connected with the Church of Scotland, but there had been no attempt at proselytizing. One of the great advantages of schools receiving grants was that they would retain the benefit of inspection, which was a guarantee that the education would be bonâ fide and efficient. Were they going to set up a system in which there would be no competition whatever? Why should not the people be allowed to organize an independent school, provided the education imparted was efficient; and probably it might be superior to that given in the National School, and get a share of the public money? Did the Committee wish that every child should receive education under the inspection of the Government, and so bring home to them that secular knowledge which was so desirable and so necessary? If so, he thought adventure schools should have their share in the rates. It was a question of justice alone, for to the Imperial funds all contributed. By that policy no wrong would be done the Government, or the Exchequer, or the parents, if the grants were conceded on account of the efficiency of the secular instruction.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in explanation, that the Government thought it would not be fair to prevent those taxpayers in Scotland who might prefer a school other than the public school from having an opportunity of participation in the grant from the taxes. But it would not be right or advisable to leave the question as it stood in the English Act, because, whereas in England they were supplementing the voluntary system, in Scotland they were developing a national system; and, accordingly, the principle of the clause was, that there should be no assistance to any future school unless the Department was satisfied that it was specially required in the locality where it was situated. He granted that there was something in the objection to the use of the word "denominational," and therefore the Government would have no objection to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) to strike out the word "denominational," and insert "not being a public school;" but they could only consent to this being done on condition that the following words at the end of the section were struck out:—
And that a majority of the children in attendance are of the denomination to which the school belongs.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the grant was to be given on the ground of efficiency alone. It stood to reason, therefore, that the better the teaching in a school the more likely was it to draw a large clientéle of scholars; but an inefficient school set up by private adventure would draw no children except those which could be influenced by its patrons. For that reason, the money should be given only to schools that were required, and not to those which were really useless to a neighbourhood.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, it must be the duty of the Privy Council to make such inquiries as to the wants of the locality before any grants were given; but the clause as it was originally worded was a very invidious one, and was directed against one particular denomination, and that not Roman Catholic. There was no question that Roman Catholics and Presbyterians would never build schools connected with their own denominations unless there was a 1753 considerable number of children to attend them. But the section as it was worded in the first instance, and as intended by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who made the first suggestion about it, was particularly directed against the Episcopalians. They were a small minority of the population, and no doubt it was almost impertinence upon their part to come forward to lead the education of the country; but he did not think the hon. Member for the Border Burghs ought to take any exception to the clause as proposed to be amended by Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, the suggestion to leave out the latter part of the section was, to a certain extent, satisfactory, as it removed an invidious distinction; but he thought it was equally invidious to allow the words "specially required" to remain in the section. A school might not be specially required, while at the same time it might meet certain wants of the district. As regarded the Episcopalian schools, he had presented Petitions to the House from Presbyterians, praying not only might discouragement not be given, but that even encouragement should be extended towards the promotion of these schools in Scotland, because of their efficiency. In fact, there was a system of teaching in some of the Episcopalian schools in Scotland of more effect than in some of the National Schools. He did not think there was the least reason to fear that the country would be flooded with unnecessary schools.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) would not persevere with his Amendment. On the part of the Government, as he wished the Committee to come to some decision on the subject, he was quite willing to leave out the sub-section and the words relating to a majority of the children; but he could not accept the suggestion to leave out the words "specially required."
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he understood the Government meant to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, which would enact that Parliamentary grants should not be made in respect of a school not being a public school established after the passing of the Act; 1754 and he wished to point out that that would exclude all public schools established before the passing of the Act. What was to become of them?
§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he hoped the hon. Members on the Liberal side would consider what would be the effect of retaining the words the Government proposed to leave out. The only practical effect of retaining those words, and the only schools in Scotland which could not receive any grants under any conditions whatever, would be the Episcopalian. The Roman Catholic schools always had a majority of Roman Catholic scholars attending them, and the same might be said of the Presbyterian schools; but in regard to the Episcopalian schools, it had been found that only 31 per cent of the scholars of that denomination attended, the other 69 per cent being made up of those belonging to other persuasions. Therefore, if a mere majority was required, they would shut out the chance of any Episcopalian schools being formed. He thought there need not be the least fear in accepting the suggestion proposed by the Government.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the objection of the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) as to the effect the adoption of the Amendment would have upon public schools existing prior to the passing of this Act, would be met by inserting the words "not being a public school" after the words "after the passing of this Act," as proposed.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had a great dread of the effect of the Amendment suggested by the Government. The deputations which had waited on the Lord Advocate showed a unanimous desire to prevent the extension of denominational and proselytizing schools. Much harm arose where there was a multitude of small schools in the place of one larger one under efficient management. He therefore entreated the Government not to leave out the words requiring a majority of the children to be of the denomination to which the school belonged.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On the Motion of the Lord ADVOCATE, Amendment made by leaving out the word "denominational," in line 29, and inserting after the word "Act," in line 30, the words "not being a public school."
1755§ MR. DICKINSONmoved, in subsection (b), to omit the remainder of the sub-section after the word "Act," in line 30.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 30, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "belongs," in line 34.—(Mr. Dickinson.)
§ Question put, "That the words 'unless the said Department shall after due inquiry be satisfied that it is specially required in the locality where it is situated' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 99: Majority 151.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in sub-section (b), after the word "situated," the omission of all the words to the end of the sub-section.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 32, to leave out from the word "situated," to the word "belongs," in line 34.—(The Lord Advocate.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 260: Majority 178.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEthen proposed the following addition to Clause 64:—
No Parliamentary grant shall be made in aid of building, enlarging, improving, or fitting up any school, except in pursuance of a written application by a school board containing the information required by the Scotch Education Department for enabling them to decide thereon, and sent to the said department on or before the thirty-first day of December One thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, but without prejudice to applications made prior to the passing of this Act being dealt with according to the existing laws; and, with respect to any parish situated in the counties of Inverness, Argyll, Ross, and Orkney and Shetland, where a school rate of not less than nine-pence in the pound on the rateable value of such parish has been levied, such grants as aforesaid may be made of an amount not exceeding three hundred pounds for each school and one hundred pounds for each teacher's residence, without regard to the amount contributed by the school board out of the school fund or otherwise, or by local subscription, towards the building, enlarging, improving, or fitting up such school or residence; and in any parish so situated where a school rate of not less than threepence in the pound on the rateable value of the parish has been levied, the annual Parliamentary grant to a school shall not be reduced by its excess above the income of the school derived from fees, rates, and subscriptions.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he would not object to the clause being inserted, but thought that Scotchmen were getting that which was not given in England.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 65 (Conscience Clause).
§ MR. ANDERSONproposed, in page 25, line 5, to leave out the words "under this Act," the object of the Amendment being, he said, to make quite sure that the Conscience Clause prescribed in the Bill should apply to every school in receipt of public money. As the Bill was not one for giving Privy Council Grants, which, in fact, existed quite independently, it did not seem perfectly certain that this clause was not intended to except denominational schools from the Conscience Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that his intention was that every school in receipt of public money should have the Conscience Clause, and he would be content with his declaration as a lawyer that that was the proper interpretation of the Bill.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no hesitation in giving his hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked; but as a pledge of his sincerity, he had no objection to the omission of the proposed words.
§ Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he hoped would meet with the approval of the Committee. The object sought to be attained was a very simple one. It was that all children in a public school should receive at least some moral instruction, which should be given during school hours, but that no religious instruction of a dogmatic character should be given during those hours. He proposed this Amendment, because he thought the Conscience Clause was one of which before long they should be almost as much ashamed as they now were of the penal laws of times past. He begged to move, in line 6, after "denomination," to insert—
All children attending any public school shall receive moral instruction from the teacher of such school who may, subject to the control of the Scotch Education Department, use such ex- 1757 tracts from the Bible or such other books as he may deem suitable, but no religious instruction of a dogmatic, doctrinal, or historical character shall be given in any such school during school hours.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was sorry that the Government must oppose the Amendment; but he trusted that the adoption of that course would not lead the Committee to suppose that they were the enemies of moral education being given in the schools, or that they opposed the introduction of the words on any other ground than that really they did not find a fitting place in an Act of Parliament. He might take it for granted that in all schools, whether public or private, which were properly conducted, moral instruction would be given to the children, and that every occasion would be taken advantage of in order to inculcate and impress moral lessons upon them. As to providing that for this purpose extracts from books might be used, he should consider that altogether unnecessary. The schoolmaster would use such books and such means as he thought fitted for the moral training of the children, but the words were not needed in a clause intended only to protect the children from having any dogmatic instruction forced upon them to which their parents objected.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE, for the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), moved an Amendment, in line 12, after "in," to insert words simply intended to carry out the principle of the Time Table Conscience Clause a little more clearly. The clause had worked well in England, and he did not see what objection could be urged to the proposal to insert the words of the English Act in the present measure.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 25, line 12, after the word "in," to insert the words "the time or times during which any religious observance is practised or instruction given in religious subjects is given at any meeting of the school, shall be at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and at the end of such meeting, and shall be inserted in a time table to be approved by the Education Department, and to be kept permanently and conspicuously affixed in every school room; and any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school."—(Mr. Collins.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
1758§ DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment could scarcely be aware of the result of its introduction into Scotland. If it were agreed to, only the senior boys and girls in many of the schools would receive any religious instruction. The junior pupils who required that instruction would not get it, because it was the custom to give religious instruction at certain times of the day when they were absent, and thus the effect would be that in some schools where religious instruction was required, it would, perhaps, never be given at all.
§ MR. GORDONsaid, that in the English Time Table, provision was made for giving religious instruction four times a-day; but when they came to Scotland, where the want of a Conscience Clause was never felt, the 65th clause of the Bill they were now discussing provided for secular instruction during four hours at least; and it was provided that no religious instruction should be given and no religious observance take place except before the commencement and after the close of the secular instruction. It should be remembered that the children came at different hours—the more advanced pupils at an earlier hour, and the other pupils at a later hour; and it was impossible for the teacher to bring them all together for religious instruction without subjecting both himself and the pupils to great inconvenience. The English Act approached more nearly to their requirements in that respect in Scotland, and he wanted to know why they had not the same Conscience Clause? He submitted with great confidence that English Members would not be doing justice to Scotland if they subjected the schools of that country to a more fettered Conscience Clause than that contained in the English Education Act of 1870.
§ MR. ANDERSON, in opposing the Amendment, said, that he had opposed the proposition contained in the English Education Act for having religious instruction four times a-day, and he was glad that the Lord Advocate reduced the time to that which he had endeavoured to insert in the Bill. He thought religious instruction given twice a-day was quite enough, because if they took away the attention of the schoolmaster four times a-day for religious instruction, they should require to pay him for it, and no such provision was made for it in the Bill.
§ MR. C. DALRYMPLEwas anxious that religious instruction should be given four times a-day instead of twice. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would be agreed to. He had, however, no preference for a Time Table, believing that a Conscience Clause was sufficient, and that a Time Table was like elbowing out religion. He was surprised at the view taken by the Prime Minister the other night about a master being compelled to give religious instruction.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in explanation, that what he had said was, that it would be absurd to compel a master to give religious instruction in a case where all the children would withdraw from it.
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, that there was a strong opinion in Scotland that the Bill as it stood was decidedly better than the clause now proposed. The Bill was a secular and not a religious measure, and looking to the principle on which it was founded, he did not think it would be wise to have religious instruction four times a-day.
§ SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, the Bill laid down that no religious instruction should be given, or that no religious observance should take place, except before the commencement or after the termination of the secular instruction of the day; but it appeared to him that those were the very times when the children would not attend to it. He would urge upon the Government the expediency of accepting the Amendment.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the clause was not intended to curtail the time for religious instruction, but to effect an equitable division of time for both classes of instruction. If it was the opinion of the Committee that four times a-day should be substituted for twice, he would have no objection to make the alteration.
§ MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that the clause in its present form would be quite unworkable in populous towns, where the half-time system was in operation in regard to child labour.
§ MR. CRAUFURDhoped the Lord Advocate would stand by his own clause, and not be led by the Vice President of the Council to accept Amendments from either side of the House.
§ SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, what they on his side wished for was, that Scotland should receive the same 1760 treatment in this respect as England had received.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 149: Majority 10.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.
§ And it being now Seven of the Clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the Clock.