ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.—(No. 158.) (Hansard, 3 July 1893)

§ LORD LINGEN
moved to insert, in Clause 7, as to appeals to the Education Department in case of delay, that copies of the appeal and the decision, and of the grounds for the decision, should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. He moved this Amendment because the Bill made a great change in the principles embodied in the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and acted upon for now 23 years. He would not, at this stage, again occupy the time of the House by discussing the many important points raised by the Bill, and would only urge that the changes made were such as to call for Parliament being kept fully informed of what was done. If it were urged that the Bill dealt with somewhat petty details, he would point out that it 649 was only to cases of appeals to the Education Department, and in which the Education Department had come to a decision, that he proposed to direct the attention of Parliament. If the Bill should have any success, the majority of the cases under it would he settled by agreement between the parties interested. It would only be right that Parliament should be kept informed of the action of the Department when appeal was made to it. As an old official, he knew that periodical Returns to Parliament had a very steadying and controlling effect. No doubt, the administration of this Bill would turn on details which seemed petty; but important principles would be constantly involved. For instance, in a country parish two rival schools might exist—one a Board and the other a National school. In the former, two pairs of parents having between them five children would be able to demand their own religious instruction; but in the latter, Dissenting parents must be content with the Conscience Clause, which was purely negative. He was not going to discuss the merits of the Bill, but would only say it was of sufficient importance to justify Parliament in keeping an eye upon it; and he hoped the Amendment would not be opposed by the promoters of the Bill. A negation of the proposal to bring its working, in the more important cases, under the cognisance of Parliament would hardly commend itself TO the other House.

§ LORD NORTON
said, he not only supported the Amendment, but contended that the publication of decisions on appeals to the Education Department was absolutely essential to the working of the Bill. On this subject it was well-known that the Education Department was even more hostile to religious education in the Board schools than the Boards themselves; and these appeals would be, consequently, from a hostile to a still more hostile body on every point in the 650 Bill. Religious teaching must be, in the opinion of the Board, with injury to the efficiency of the school and to the interests of the other children. On another point, the parents of the children receiving the religious instruction had to pay for it in a manner satisfactory to the Board. Was it likely that they would go very far in a matter which was not satisfactory to the Board? Again, the Board might withdraw the teacher if they considered his conduct unbecoming; and nothing would be more unbecoming, in their view, than what they must always be ready to consider religious propagandism. Further, it was provided that the religious teaching must not conflict with the ordinary duties of the school. The Board would, no doubt, take it always as an evasion of their system, and a deduction from the curriculum which they considered it their sole duty to look after. He hoped the right rev. Prelate in charge of the Bill would accede to the Amendment, as it would tend to check, to a certain extent, the action of the Appellate Body in support of Board objections, if its decisions, and the grounds of them, were made public.

§ LORD SHAND
said, the effect of the Amendment would be that whenever any point was brought before the Education Department by any of the School Boards both Houses of Parliament were to be troubled with a Return upon the matter. Matters of small detail, such as the general arrangements for giving religious instruction, the appointment of teachers, where the teaching was to be given, the hours for it, and so on, were the subjects of appeal. On such matters as those the Education Department were to lay Returns before Parliament. Such an addition to the Bill would be cumbrous and bad, and even if it were made no suggestion was offered that Parliament had power to interfere with the decisions of the Department. He could not understand what practical advantage was to be obtained by it; and without it any matter of the least public importance could easily be brought under the notice of Parliament. He was, therefore, opposed to the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY
said, he had no objection to the Amendment, though he had no desire to introduce into the Bill anything which would show suspicion of the Department, or anything 651 that, in the opinion of those who represented the Department, would cause any difficulty in the working of the Bill.