HC Deb 28 July 1902 vol 111 cc1358-60
MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that on Thursday, 29th May, children attending the day schools of St. Mark's Church, Marylebone, were conducted to a service in the church, at which incense was used and Holy Communion celebrated without the requisite number of communicants; will he say whether this treatment of scholars attending a public elementary school in receipt of a Government grant has the sanction of the Education Department; whether they have power to prevent it; and, if not, will he take steps to obtain power to prevent such proceedings in the future.

MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W. R., Holmfirth)

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the children of the church school at Dorchester, Oxfordshire, are required to say the Hail Mary, to bow to the crucifix, to attend the children's mass on saints' days, and to bow to the altar; that several children who refused to bow to the altar have been caned on returning to school; and that children whose parents object to their going to mass are not allowed to take part in the school treat; and will he say what action he will take in the matter.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,) Cambridge University

I am informed that the school referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool is not that of St. Mark's, Marylebone, but that of St. Mark's, Marylebone Road, which is an entirely different school. The Board of Education have no information as to the facts alleged. As to the Question of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire, the facts suggested are not admitted by the correspondent of the Board of Education, and it is positively denied that any child has ever been caned for refusing to bow to the altar. But the religious instruction and observances in a public elementary school are subject to regulation by the managers and not by the Board of Education. Any attempt on the part of the latter to sanction or disallow the religious instruction or observances prescribed by the managers would be, in their opinion, contrary to the spirit of the 97th Section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. Under the Conscience Clause no child can be required against the wish of the parent to attend such observances. It is the statutory duty of the Board of Education to prevent the infraction of this provision of the Elementary Education Acts. But the Board of Education are of opinion that any extension of their duties in this respect would be inexpedient.

MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that I supplied to him the name and address of a gentleman who would fully authenticate the statements in the Question?

SIR JOHN GORST

I did not mean in any way to throw doubt on the facts as stated by the hon. Gentleman, but naturally it was my duty to communicate with the correspondent of the Board, and he wrote back to say that the people were away for their holidays, and that it was impossible for him to get information as to the accuracy of the facts mentioned.

MR. H. J. WILSON

May I ask whether it is permissible to take children out of the schools to church; and also whether the right hon. Gentleman has any answer to give to the latter part of my Question with regard to the school treat?

SIR JOHN GORST

I am told that there is no school treat—that the school is too poor to give a treat. That is one of the inaccuracies in the Question noted by the correspondent. With regard to the other Question of the hon. Member, I see no objection whatever to children being taken from school to a place of worship. It is constantly done.