(NO. 262.) REPORT. (Hansard, 1 August 1870)

§ EARL RUSSELL
asked the noble Earl the Lord President to explain the powers of the Department with reference to the formation of school Boards?

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, the powers given by the Bill to the Educational Commissioners of the Privy Council with regard to school Boards were two-fold. In the first place, the Education Department might dissolve the Board and order a new election, or they might declare a Board in default, and appoint another Board, and appoint others to do the work; but the Department could not take those steps unless the Board had done something which constituted neglect or default of duty. He desired to take this opportunity of saying a word on a point raised the other night, when the Bill was in Committee, by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle), who considered there was some danger if the last words in sub-section 1 were retained in the 7th clause, that children might absent themselves on every Saint's day in the Calendar. The latter part of the sub-section which related to attendance at religious instruction as it stands in the Bill read thus— Or to attend the school on any day or occasion set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parents belong. 1266 He proposed to remedy the danger by substituting the word "exclusively" for "or occasion."

§ LORD REDESDALE
moved an Amendment in Clause 7, by substituting for the words, "Any scholar may be withdrawn by his parent," the words, "the parent of any scholar may require that he shall be withdrawn," and by inserting after the word "instruction," the words, "and be separately employed in some other work."

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, he preferred the clause as it stood. The principle was to give perfect freedom of withdrawal and perfect freedom of teaching.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
asked how the master was to know that a scholar was withdrawn by his parent?

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
By making inquiry of the parent.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, that that would throw upon the master the onus of ascertaining whether the statements of a scholar were true, and would involve his running about all over the parish.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, there was nothing new in that. It had to be done at present, for boys frequently absented themselves without their parents' knowledge, and were only detected by the inquiries made by the schoolmaster of their parents.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, the question was whether the master should not have statutory protection against responsibility for boys playing truant?

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, there would be no withdrawal from the school except so far as was necessary to withdraw a child from religious teaching.

§ LORD REDESDALE
thought that any Judge reading the words of the clause would interpret them as authorizing the parent to withdraw the child altogether.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
asked whether, supposing the school met at 9 o'clock, and the religious teaching lasted from 9 to 10, a parent would be allowed to keep his child away during that period?

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, that must depend on circumstances, If it were possible to carry on some other 1267 kind of teaching during this period, the children, who would otherwise be withdrawn, would he supposed be required to attend the teaching; but if the room were too small or if, from other circumstances, such an arrangement could not be carried out, the children would be withdrawn from the school while religious instruction was being given. He should be perfectly satisfied to leave the words in the clause to the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that, unfortunately, his noble and learned Friend could not be in every school in the kingdom to give such an interpretation. The words were very vague and obscure.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
thought their Lordships were creating difficulties where none existed. The schoolmasters had found no practical difficulty in working the Time Table Conscience Clause.

§ LORD COLCHESTER
proposed an Amendment which would prevent the principle of compulsion from being carried out against the wishes of two-thirds of the ratepayers. He objected to having the principle enforced in a district which might be unwilling to receive it.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, he was unable to accept the Amendment, as it would render the clause altogether inoperative.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
thought there would be very great danger in working the new system of compulsion. In the rural districts the farmers would oppose it; and even if they were willing to carry it out the justices would refuse to convict—at all events, he should. In the large towns, however, the case would be different, and as we were introducing a principle which was absolutely new, we ought to take the precaution of enacting that the school Board should vote in favour of compulsion by a majority of two-thirds. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD
, on the other hand, hoped their Lordships would not diminish the small powers of compulsion given by the Bill.