§ MR. BRIGGSasked the Vice President of the Council, If it is true that the Curate in charge of Saint Andrews Livesey, Blackburn, first threatened and ultimately dismissed a pupil teacher from the national school of that parish for declining to give up his attendance at a Dissenting Sunday School, and refusing to attend the Church Sunday School; if a dismissal under such circumstances is not a violation of the spirit of the seventh section of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870;"and, whether he has any objection to lay any Correspondence which has taken place upon this case upon the Table?
§ VISCOUNT SANDONI must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Education Department cannot, under Article 72 of the Code, interfere between managers and pupil teachers, except with the consent of both parties, and has no means whatever of instituting a legal inquiry as to the truth of assertions and counter assertions. Beyond this the Department has always been advised that Section 7 of the Act of 1870 applies to scholars only, and not to pupil teachers. Pupil teachers are a part of the teaching staff of the school, may be chosen from outside the school, and their selection rests entirely with the managers, who may make such conditions as they choose. In voluntary schools it is constantly of necessity a part of their duty to take a share in the religious teaching of the children, and, to take supposed cases, it 878 would be impossible, in a Roman Catholic school, virtually to oblige the managers to employ a pupil teacher who did not belong to their Church, and it would be equally impossible to force a Nonconformist or Church of England school to accept a Roman Catholic pupil teacher, as in neither case could the pupil teacher take a part in the religious instruction of the scholars. As, however, the hon. Member has inquired into this particular case, I may say that the letter containing the complaint which is mentioned in his Question was forwarded to the manager of the school, the curate of St. Andrew's Livesey, against whom the complaint was made. In reply, he said that what was stated was entirely without foundation, that he never asked the pupil teacher to go to Sunday school or church, and never used any threats on account of his not going; and to explain the reason of his discharge he quoted from the log-book of the school a series of entries which were made between July and November, most, if not all, of which were made before the date of the supposed threat. They stated that the pupil teacher was absent repeatedly without leave, at least for a period of three weeks; that he was reported by the master for smoking in school and neglecting his duty, for being rude and abusive to the children, and even cruel at times, to the injury of the school; and he ends his letter by saying that he was compelled to discharge him, or his schools would have been ruined. After what I have stated, I can hardly imagine that the hon. Gentleman would think it desirable to have the correspondence on this subject printed. I shall be happy, however, to show it him, and I will lay it on the Table of the House for printing, if he should then consider it worthy of being treated in this manner.