HC Deb 14 April 1896 vol 39 cc885-7
*MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in September and November 1888 the Education Department compelled a number of school boards in whose schools the doctrinal portions of the Church Catechism were taught to abandon the practice; and whether, although the Department last year adopted the same course in regard to certain schools named in Appendix III. to the Return of 1895, and in doing so stated that the question was, not whether instruction in the Catechism was complained of or not, but whether the requirements of the Cowper-Temple Clause had been complied with, it is now to be understood that the Department will not take similar action in regard to other school boards using the Catechism unless complaint be made by some aggrieved person?

SIR JOHN GORST

In 1888, letters were written to school boards which taught the Church Catechism advising them which parts were not distinctive of a religious denomination. In 1895, a correspondence took place with certain school boards teaching the Church Catechism which is to be found in the Return to which the Question refers. The Committee of Council do not consider that it is necessary to take any further action at present, but they would he state to express their intentions in the formulary suggested to them by the Question.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to deny that the Committee of Council have taken action in these cases?

SIR J. GORST

Oh, yes, they have taken proper action, but the hon. Gentleman asks whether they have compelled a number of school boards to abandon the practice. No, Sir, they did not compel the school boards to abandon the practice, but they told them what the law- was and the school boards observed it.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

May I ask whether a different course is to be pursued in the future?

SIR J. GORST

I cannot answer hypothetical questions. If it is necessary to correspond with school boards, of course they will be corresponded with, but I cannot undertake to say what will be done in any individual case. The incident is now closed and the school boards have been corresponded with and their attention has been called to the law.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

Has the right hon. Gentleman corresponded with all the school boards mentioned in the Return?

SIR JOHN GORST

The difference between the hon. Member and myself is this. He assumes that the law has been broken. I assume that the law has been observed, and I will not accuse the managers of schools of breaking the law unless there is some primâ facie evidence to show that they have broken it.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

Does not the Return itself show that the school boards have violated the law?

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! That will appear from the Return. Notice should be given of any further Questions.

MR. F. A. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

May I ask whether, in this correspondence any intimation was given to the school boards that the grants might be withdrawn, in the case of the practice not being abandoned?

SIR J. GORST

I cannot speak without the correspondence.