§ MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURI beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, with respect to the alleged punishment of a girl for objecting to bow to an image of the Virgin Mary, while attending St. John's Schools, Sutton-on-Plym, Plymouth, whether, having regard to the fresh representations that have been made to the Board of Education, he will now make any statement, or proposes to take any further action in the matter.
§ THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,) Oxford UniversityA fresh set of statutory declarations has been sent to me by the hon. Member. The original declarations related to a time when a life-sized image of the Virgin stood in the church referred to (St. John's Church, Sutton-on-Plym). The later declarations, made by the same persons as the earlier, state that the date given in the earlier was erroneous, as the girl was not attending the St. John's School at that date. The later declarations relate to a period nineteen months before the image was even placed in the church. I am informed that on the altar screen is a group representing the Crucifixion, and that one figure in this group represents the Virgin; but it does not appear that this figure has been an object of worship, or that it could be separately worshipped, being one of a group; and I am informed that the words used in the declarations "bow one by one as we passed this image" would, from the position of this figure, bo totally inapplicable. Having regard to these apparent inconsistencies in a story relating to a period two and a half years ago, supported only by declarations, of which the later set admittedly contradicts the earlier, the Board of Education do not propose to make further inquiry into the case.
§ MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURArising out of that answer, may I ask whether the father of the girl, or the girl herself, has withdrawn anything from the original statement except the date; also whether among the fresh representations he has received there is one from another girl who alleged that she was caned in the same school for the same offence.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONThe alteration of the date puts the incident back to a time when there was no image of the sort described in the first declaration. As regards the other case, it relates to a period more than three years ago.
§ MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURAre there two images in the church?