HL Deb 31 July 1903 vol 126 cc1054-64
* LORD REAY

My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the model By-law No. 3, lately issued by the Board of Education, is in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Education Act, 1870. I regret to have to inflict another educational discussion upon the House, but the noble Marquess is aware of the circumstances which have led to this question being delayed. The by-law to which I wish to call attention allows the parent to withdraw his child from religious instruction without giving any reason for it, and simply by giving notice in writing. He may withdraw him, not merely from the lesson in religious instruction, but from the school altogether. That is the all important change made in this by-law. Section 7 of the Act of 1870 only allows the child to be withdrawn from instruction of in religious subjects in the school, but does not allow him to he removed or withdrawn from the school. That certainly was the interpretation given when the Bill of 1870 was under discussion in the House of Commons, because an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham in exactly the same terms of this by-law was strongly objected to by Mr. Forster, who said— He hoped the Committee would keep the clause as it was. It had been drawn after very great care and thought, and the object was to meet what he considered the real wish of the Committee, that whoever objected to his child's religious instruction or presence at religious observance should be able, without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school, to withdraw his child from that instruction or observance. Therefore, it was not at that time the intention of the Government to interfere with the discipline of the school. An hon. Member asked Mr Foster where the children would be withdrawn to for secular instruction, and Mr. Forster replied that he could not possibly say. In most Government schools there were, he said, class-rooms, and it would be perfectly easy to give the child secular instruction during the time that religious instruction was being given in the rest of the school. Mr. Forster saw no; reason why the child should have less teaching than the other children because his parent objected to his receiving religious instruction. The Amendment moved by the Member for Birmingham was rejected by a majority of 244 votes.

I am quite aware that this by law is permissive and that it will only be adopted by those education authorities who approve of it; but, at the same time, it represents the policy of the Board of Education. It affects the children of Church of England parents no less than those of Nonconformists If parents withdraw their children for the purpose of employment, there will be no means of preventing it. I am all the more surprised that the noble Marquess should have authorized this by-law when I recall what he said in the discussion on an Amendment, moved by Lord Lytton when last year's Act was before the House. The object of that Amendment was to permit children, instead of being withdrawn from school, to have religious instruction of a different kind, in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That Amendment the noble Marquess opposed, and he quoted a sentence from a letter which had then recently appeared from the late Sir Joshua Fitch, and which ran— The effect of the adoption of such a plan (i.e., that children should have religious instruction according to their various creeds) on the general discipline of the school and on the authority of the head teacher would be disastrous. Now, I ask, if that would be disastrous, what will be the effect of a by-law under which you have no guarantee that the children will get religious instruction elsewhere, and which allows children to be withdrawn, without any reason, from all religious instruction whatever.

The Principle of the Act of 1870 is that religious instruction forms an integral part of the instruction given in school. In many cases, as the noble Marquess well knows, certainly in London, the religious instruction which children receive in our schools is the only religious instruction they obtain, and, as regards London Board schools, the withdrawals hitherto attach importance to attendance at school during religious instruction, and if the children cannot be withdrawn from school altogether, the temptation to withdraw them becomes very great, and religious instruction will, under this by-law, be considered not to be one of the most important subjects on the timetable, but an appendix to the timetable. Teachers and attendance officers have always done their utmost to secure the punctual attendance of the children at 9 o'clock in the morning, and this punctuality, of course, has a great influence on the regularity of the attendance as well. If you encourage a section of the parents to send their children to school at 9 o'clock, and allow another section to send their children to school between 9 and 9.45, the it is quite obvious that the children will hour for the school meeting is the hour at which secular instruction begins. It will be necessary to make a double registration of attendances; and children who are withdrawn from religious instruction must receive the punctual attendance mark if they arrive at for hour for the commencement of secular instruction. That is the first step in the direction of secularizing our schools.

The inspectors of the London School Board have had this new by-law under consideration, and they are of opinion that the adoption of the clause enabling parents to withdraw the children entirely from school during the time of religious instruction would be followed more or less rapidly by the actual withdrawal of many children. This would, they say, especially be the case in the poorer districts, where the sense of parental responsibility is not strong, and where there is a tendency to utilize child labour at every possible opportunity. I cannot believe that the noble Marquess, with his experience, would wish to put the religious instruction at the end of the school meeting. It is quite obvious that you change the whole tone and character of the school if you deprive the children of religious instruction as the first lesson in the morning. Unless religious instruction is given by the headmaster at the beginning of the school, the school really attains a secular character and is no longer what the Act of 1870 intended it to be.

Here I may, perhaps, say that the London School Board has always attached so much importance to the attendance of children at religious instruction that was one of the reasons why exception was made in the case of Jewish children. To meet their case of syllabus was issued securing that they should only have instruction in the Old Testament and in Hebrew. They do not receive any instruction in specific Jewish doctrines. The instruction they receive is in absolute conformity with the conditions laid down by the Act of 1870, and out of the 508 schools, it is only given in seventeen. Jewish children do not receive any preferential treatment. The rule not to require the attendance of Jewish children on Jewish Feast days is in accordance with the Act of 1870, which specifies that children are not to be compelled to attend school on days set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which the parents belong.

I think this is a by-law which the noble Marquess will do well to submit to somewhat closer consideration. Whether it is legal or illegal, it certainly constitutes a fundamental change in out educational system, and I am bound to say that if these are the first fruits of the Act of last year, if that Act has made this concession necessary, then I can hardly conceive a result more disastrous. If this by-law were to be generally carried out it would render nugatory all the results that have been obtained from the wise provisions of the Act of 1870. By a stroke of the pen the Board of Education would be inaugurating an entirely new system of education—a system which was deliberately rejected in 1870 when it was proposed in the House of Commons: a system which certainly was not contemplated (judging by the attitude which the noble Marquess took up on Lord Lytton's Amendment) when the Act of last year was passed, and which is, I believe, opposed to the opinion of the country, Which has never sanctioned any step to be taken in the direction of secularizing education. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

The LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

MY Lords, I desire to express my pleasure in finding myself for the first time in full accord, in an educational debate, with what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite, for whom I have so profound a respect in educational matters. I have no special anxiety that this by-law will affect Church schools, for those in London who take the trouble to send their children to Church schools are parents who will probably see that their children attend at the religious hour. I feel that there is great danger that the by-law may do harm to the religious character of the teaching throughout England. Families to whom every shilling is of importance will be tempted to send children late to school. I also think that religion will be depreciated in the eyes of the children when it no longer occupies any part of their school hours. The by-law is unnecessary. The conscience clause, I rejoice to say, is in active force in the Church schools, as is proved by the statistics of withdrawals, the number of which have increased from 985 in 1887, to 2,3866 in 1902, comprising 999 Jewish children and 128 Roman Catholic children. I rejoice in that, because it shows that conscience clause is really a safeguard. My great fear is that under this by-law we shall have the religious hour stamped out throughout England. We have an object lesson in this matter in what is taking place in Australia and New Zealand, where Churchmen and Nonconformists are united in begging from their Governments some form of religious instructions in their schools for the good of the country. I, therefore hope that the noble Lord will see some way to modify the by-law, or will be able to send some instruction with it to prevent the religious hour being taken away.

* THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

My Lords, as an old member of two School Boards and a manager of many schools, I should feel considerable alarm if this by-law were carried into effect throughout the country. I cannot grasp the idea which is at the root of the by-law, or understand on what advice it had been adopted, but I am afraid it will be attended with disastrous results. Poor families will be tempted to keep children from school for the payment that can be got for their services, small tradesmen will keep them at work till the later hour, local quarrels may be got up by combinations of persons hostile to religious teaching in a particular school, increased difficulties will be put in the way of the attendance officers, and teachers will be fretted and hampered by increased irregularity. The effect of this will be that many children will never see the inside of a Bible at all. It has been said that it is practically the first step towards the secularisation of the schools. The mass of the people, I believe, are strongly opposed to anything that would lead to that state of things, and I myself think it would be one of the greatest disasters that could befall the children of the country. I earnestly hope that the noble Marquess will be led to reconsider the advisability of issuing this by-law, and even if it is issued I hope it will not be very largely adopted

THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

My Lords, I join in the expressions of concern and anxiety of the noble Lord opposite in regard to this matter. It appears to me that the operation of this by-law will very seriously interfere, directly in some places and indirectly in others, with what may be called a staple hour of religious instruction throughout the country. I am not sorry of the opportunity of echoing the testimony of the Primate given the other night to the real though limited value of the religious instruction which is known as undenominational; and if, as I fear we may, we find the incidental advantages given by the by-law are to be bought at the price of seriously impairing the attendance at this hour of religious instruction, I would say that the price is too heavy to pay. I do not find that there is any difficulty in the poor districts of South London in getting the children to attend school for the hour of religious instruction; the difficulty is met with, curiously enough, in the suburban districts, where people want boots blacked and knives cleaned, and find boys convenient for the purpose. It would be very serious indeed if a tendency so real as that should be assisted by the action of this by-law. It is quite possible that in places the by-law may serve a very valuable purpose. Where the action of the Act of last year really presses hardly on Nonconformists, we should be only too glad to welcome anything which would relieve them from coming under a teaching to which they object. But I hope that the greatest care will be taken in the administration of the by-law, and that its operation will be closely watched.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION(The Marquess of LONDONDERRY)

My Lords, my first duty is to express my gratitude to the noble Lord opposite for the very kind consideration he showed me in postponing this Question until to-day to suit my convenience. The noble Lord seems to think that this by-law is an infringement of section 7 of the Act of 1870, but it does not touch that section in the slightest degree. In support of that I can quote the opinion of Dr. Macnamara, M.P., a gentleman who, I think, will be regarded by noble Lords opposite as an educational expert. Dr. Macnamara writes— The new by-law has been before neither the London School Board nor the School Attendance Committee. My view of it is (1) it is in strict accord with the Act of 1870; (2) its form can, of course, be varied by any local authority, subject to the sanction of the Board of Education; (3) it ought to be hailed with satisfaction as likely, in single-school areas especially, to soften the asperities which have grown up under last year's Act. Lord Londonderry is quite at liberty to quote my opinion for what it is worth. I have consulted the Attorney-General, and the opinion of the Attorney-General, expressed in my own language, is as follows: Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, under which by-laws are made, empowers local authorities to make by-laws subject to the approval of the Board of Education for the purpose, inter alia (1)of requiring parents to cause their children to attend school; and (2) of determining the time during which children are so to attend school. The practice of the Education Department and the Board of Education has hitherto been only to approve a by-law which required a child to attend the whole time the school was open (subject to the right of withdrawal from religious instruction); but so far as the question of legality goes there is nothing to prevent a school authority from prescribing given number of hours or certain days of the week, provided the Board of Education approved such a by-law. A by-law determining that in the case of certain children the time shall be the time of secular instruction only, in no way contravenes Section 74 of the Act of 1870; all that is legally required is that the by-law shall not prevent the withdrawal of the child from religious instruction This new clause certainly does not do so.

The conscience clause (Section 7 of the Act of 1870) neither requires nor prohibits the attendance of the child at school during the time of religious instruction. All it requires is that his attendance at religious instruction shall not be a condition of his being admitted to or continuing in the school, and that if withdrawn from religious instruction he shall not forfeit the other benefits of the school. It is wrong to say that it is illegal to require that the parents' withdrawal of the child from school during religious instruction shall be in writing. The by-law does not affect this right of withdrawal. If the authority suspects that a parent Is asking to withdraw his child on wrong grounds, or that parents are likely to do this, they could require the parent to state that he withdraws his child in order to get religious instruction elsewhere, and the authority could, if it chose, frame its by-laws so as to grant the withdrawal from the school upon such ground only, and for such purposes only. This would not in fringe the conscience clause since it would only bring things back to the state which has prevailed from 1870 to 1903, and would make the child come to school though it would not have to hear the religious instruction.

That is my reply to the legal part of the Question addressed to me by the noble Lord; but there are other points on which I should like to say a few words. It has been objected that parents may make use of the right of withdrawal to get their children away from school during the hours devoted to religious instruction to employ them for their own advantage. But I would remind the noble Lord that the by-law is purely optional. It rests with the local authority to assure itself, before adopting it, that there will be no abuse. The intention of this by-law is to provide facilities for children receiving religious instruction in accordance with the views of their parents, and in places approved by their parents.

While we were drafting the new form of by-law in April this year, we received an application from many schools in Eastbourne exactly on the lines of the proposed by-law The schools in Eastbourne are mostly Church schools. This is what was proposed: Nonconformist parents will be invited to withdraw their children during the time—9 to 9.40 a.m.—devoted to religious instruction. Arrangements will be made at four different centres, close to the four leading schools, to have religious instruction given to all children who care to come, by four ministers of the Free Churches from 9 to 9.30. In this way the children will get to the schools by 9.45. I ought to say that the Vicar of East-bourne gladly supported the proposal, and I believe that amicable arrangements were come to in the matter. It is to facilitate this kind of thing that the change in the by-law is proposed. Hitherto, under the old by-law, every child was compelled to attend school during the hours of religious instruction, and children for whom exemption from the religious instruction was claimed under the conscience clause had to sit in the school and presumably do some other work. The new by-law will permit such children to have religious instruction elsewhere. In the view of the Board of Education and of the Government, the new form of exemption is a fairer arrangement, and we have every hope that it will be properly used and not abused. I fully agree with the right rev. Prelates that there is a danger of its being abused, but we have, I hope, adopted safeguards. I wish to say, in the first place, that no; authority need adopt the new form of by-law unless it pleases; secondly, that a county authority can adopt it for some of the villages in its area and not for others, if it thinks desirable; and, thirdly, that it can revert to the old form at any time if it finds on experience that it is being abused. The right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, stated that in his opinion children would lose religious instruction under this new by-law. I cannot think that any harm will be done to children whose parents desire that they should receive this instruction.

* THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD

I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the by-law requires that the parents must say that the withdrawal is for the purpose of religious instruction elsewhere.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

No. But in sending out copies of the new form of by-law for the consideration of local authorities, we are warning them of the possible danger of its being abused, and are sending with every copy of the by-law a circular signed by Mr. Morant, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Education, to the following effect—

"Board of Education

" Whitehall, S. W. Sir, in forwarding the enclosed copy of a form of by-laws suggested for the use of Local Authorities, the Board of Education desire me to call attention to the importance of watching the operation of Section 3, as to the time of attendance, in the event of your Council considering it advisable to adopt that portion of the section which enables a parent, after notification in writing, to withdraw a child from school during the time given to religions instruction.

"In suggesting the addition of this provision to the terms of the by-law hitherto in general use the Board have in view the importance of meeting the conscientious objections of parents who desire their children to receive religions instruction elsewhere than at the school. "If however, it should appear that permission for non-attendance is demanded and used for other purposes, and that the children for whom this permission is asked are allowed to remain idle or are employed in secular avocations, the.Board would be prepared to approve proposals from Local Authorities who desired either to withdraw this privilege by reverting to the by-law in its earlier form, or to impose such conditions as would prevent its abuse.

"I am, your obedient servant,

"ROBERT L. MONANT."

We believe that this by-law will give facilities for carrying out the intention of the Act of 1870, and that the policy of the by-law certainly does not contravene that Act. We believe that it will be the means of bringing about a better system of organisation with regard to religious instruction in schools, and that it will remove the possibility of what is called proselytizing of children. In making arrangements for religious instruction to be given according to the views of the parents, we believe that we are acting fairly to all denominations and all classes; and in response to the enquiry of the noble Lord, we believe that we are acting within our legal right in inserting this by-law, and we trust that, safeguarded as it is, it may be attended with satisfactory results.