Lords Sitting of 21 June 1944

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons
NORTH-WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, before we pass to the further consideration of the Education Bill, I should like to make an appeal to noble Lords to assist the Lord Chairman as far as they possibly can in expediting business. As your Lordships are aware, there are twenty-six pages of Amendments on this Bill, and yesterday, with all our efforts, we got through only three of them. It was arranged yesterday that we should have an extra day for the consideration of the Committee stage, but even so, I am afraid, we are sadly behind schedule. The only result of long delay would be to prejudice discussion of other Motions because we must get this Bill through and send it back to another place. Therefore I hope noble Lords will assist in any way they can to hurry things up.

EDUCATION BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The LORD STANNORE in the Chair.]
Clause 14:
Classification of auxiliary schools as controlled schools, aided schools, or special agreement schools.
(3) The managers or governors of a controlled school shall not be responsible for any of the expenses of maintaining the school, but the following provisions shall have effect with respect to the maintenance of aided schools and special agreement schools:

(a) the following expenses shall be payable by the managers or governors of the school, that is to say, the expenses of discharging any liability incurred by them or on their behalf or by or on behalf of any former managers or governors of the school or any trustees thereof for the purposes of establishing or carrying on the school any expenses incurred in effecting such alterations to the school buildings as may be required by the local education authority for the purpose of securing that the school premises should conform to the prescribed standards, and any expenses incurred in effecting repairs to the school premises not being repairs which are excluded from their responsibility by the following paragraph:

(b) the managers or governors of the school shall not be responsible for repairs to the school playground or playing fields or to the interior of the school buildings or for repairs necessary in consequence of the use of the premises, in pursuance of any direction or requirement of the authority, for purposes other than those of the school.

(4) If at any time the managers or governors of an aided school or a special agreement school are unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection is shall be their duty to apply to the Minister for an order revoking the order by virtue of which the school is an aided school or a special agreement school, and upon such an application being made to him the Minister shall revoke the order.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to insert at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (3):
"Provided that the liability of the managers or governors under this paragraph shall be limited to a sum not exceeding by more than thirty-five per centum the amount which would have been incurred in discharging such liabilities or effecting such alterations or repairs calculated on the basis of the average cost per school place of the provision of additional school places on the three last occasions on which such provision was made in the area of the local education authority concerned previously to the first day of July nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."
The noble Lord said: I shall endeavour to comply with the request of the Leader of the House, but it is not easy to be very short on some of the most important parts of this Bill. The Bill is very complicated, and some of the points are very important. I am afraid I must take a few minutes to develop my argument now. The Amendment I have to propose is of importance to all managers of schools and of the first importance to those of my own community. I am not going to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, but what we feel is that if we cannot get full justice, as we have in Scotland, we ought not to be subject to a burden which it is very doubtful, even now, that we can bear. The special point is the complete uncertainty of the liability that will be thrown upon us. My noble friend in charge of the Bill said he would speak to me in private as to why we could not know the reason the building regulations already in draft were not given to the House. Unfortunately, at the end of business yesterday, I found his attention absorbed by others, and I was not able to attract it. I confess I cannot see why what is in the mind of the Board of Education should not be known to Parliament and, if necessary, modified in consequence of Parliamentary debate. It seems to me altogether a wrong method of procedure. However, I await, before the Report stage, some further explanation which my noble friend cannot give it in public.
As to the cost of the necessary alterations, etc., to our schools, there have been the most varying estimates arising from the original Government estimate of 15 per cent. above the 1939 costs up to some 75 per cent. over these costs in the view of the officials of the London County Council. The latest Government estimate is 35 per cent. over 1939, and it is on that assumption that I framed this estimate, taking the Government figures as the best they were able to arrive at. With regard to 1939, I am rather fortified in my Amendment by the Government themselves, because only yesterday or the day before they introduced a Bill to make provision for the acquisition and development of land for planning purposes and for assessing, by reference to 1939 prices, the compensation payable and so on. Therefore, they do admit that 1939 is a standard year after which increases are
308
practically certain. For that reason they are taking it upon themselves to acquire land for these other excellent purposes by reference to 1939 prices. The point of the Amendment is to restrict the manager's liability to this. In any Amendment of this kind I am in a constitutional difficulty. If I were able to move what is entirely in my mind, I should seek to put any increase over the 1939 prices either on taxes or rates. To put it on taxes is impossible, even for a Private Member in another place, unless there has been a Resolution authorizing him to do it. To put it on rates, though I believe perfectly in the competence of the House, would probably be strongly resisted in another place. So I am constrained to relieve the managers of their liabilities. In this connexion I would ask your Lordships to refer to page 12, subsection (2), where it is laid down that the managers are to satisfy the local authority that they are able to continue the school as an aided school. It is quite possible they might satisfy the authority that they will be able to carry on the school on a 35 per cent. increase, but not on a 50 or 6o per cent. increase.
What I am suggesting is that the figure of increase should be put at a point at which it might be possible for them to carry on. I am quite aware that this may lead in certain cases to unfortunate results—that is to say, we might have a type of school of lesser standard than the rest, which of course would be deplorable, but I see no other way than to accept that possibility. On the principle that the life is more than the raiment, so the schooling is more than the building. I was myself educated in Birmingham under Newman in the last decade of his life, and I am quite certain that the premises would have been condemned, from the point of view of the sanitary arrangements, in an elementary school, but none of us suffered any harm. I suppose we prize the education we received there beyond almost anything we can look back upon. I would just add an explanation of the latter part of the Amendment. I am not taking the average figures all over the country because obviously they would differ in rural parts from what they are in towns. I am taking the best average that can be found. It is said that it does not matter what the increase may be because wages will rise with costs, and therefore there would be

309
more to draw upon. It may be that wages will rise to some extent with costs, but it does not follow that wages all round will rise in the same degree as building costs. These will be forced up by the competition of other public works, whereas, as likely as not, the wages of shipwrights and miners will fall. Therefore I submit that is a false argument. This proposal is put forward not as the best but as an alleviation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 47, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
EARL GREY: My Lords, I should like in very few words to give strong support on behalf of those with whom I am associated to the Amendment that has been proposed. The discussion on the financial burden in mother place centred upon the Roman Catholics, but it would be a great mistake to think that the Church of England was not involved to an even greater extent. As compared with the number of Roman Catholic schools, there are 9,000 schools in the Church of England and they also have to decide what action to take under this Bill. I was extremely curious to discover that, whereas the President in another place gave £10,000,000 as an estimate of the cost to the Roman Catholic Church, no one on behalf of the Church of England has yet succeeded in obtaining any estimate of any sort or kind of what the cost will be to the Church of England. It has been my duty to present the annual budget to the Church Assembly for consideration and therefore I naturally have been most anxious to get some idea of the sort of amounts that may be involved for us, but in spite of repeated attempts I have failed to get any estimate at all from the President of what the cost is likely to be for the Church of England.
I should have thought that it was not in accordance with the best Parliamentary practice to discuss charges unless you can give some indication of the amount to the people who are to bear those charges. They surely ought to know what those charges are likely to amount to. I agree that the Government have attempted to ease the position by the introduction of loans (which will be discussed at a later stage of this Bill) but in doing so I thought their argument in another place
310
was peculiar. It was suggested that too much should not be thought of the total sum because you would be able to get loans in repayment which would mean only a small payment year by year. I recall that it is not so long ago that the Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into purchase by instalments in this country. Yet here we have the Government getting up and saying it is quite easy to find this money because you can spread the payments over a number of years. The position may very well be that before the period of the repayment of the loans has expired we shall be faced with new demands. I beg the noble Earl to realize that the whole financial position is one of the utmost seriousness not only to Roman Catholics but to the Church of England and we are most anxious to have any way pointed out that the Government can devise by means of which we shall be able to meet our difficulties.
THE EARL OE SELBORNE: My noble friend Lord Grey is quite right in saying that this is a matter which affects the Church of England just as much as, and even more than, it affects the Roman Catholic Church. I think both my noble friends realize that I should be very pleased to be in a position to accede to the request that they are making in this Amendment, but I do not think that either of them would have expected that I could have replied in that sense because this Amendment, whatever its merits or demerits, does cut at the root of the settlement that has been so elaborately, laboriously and skilfully built up by the President of the Board of Education. I recognize that the settlement is not an agreed settlement in the sense that it is accepted 100 per cent. by all the denominations and other interests concerned. That I think would be beyond the bounds of human possibility, but I believe we all do recognize that my right honourable friend has very brilliantly framed what he calls a compromise solution. Other people may not accept it entirely but it is a solution which has commanded a very wide measure of assent among the Churches, the teachers, educationists, and the local authorities and other bodies who are primarily concerned in this great problem. My noble friend is here trying to pull away one of the pillars of that settlement, a pillar that he particularly dislikes. The pillar is this, that the State

311
shall defray half the cost of bringing denominational schools up to modern requirements. My noble friends complain that it puts the denominations in a very difficult position because they do not know what the requirements of the President are going to be, and they do not know what the cost of making these alterations will amount to.
In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, said about the building regulations, there are two points which I would like to present for his consideration. In the first place I do think it is difficult to ask the President to publish regulations that he proposes to make under the Bill when it is an Act before the Bill is in fact an Act, because the regulations must be affected by the terms of the Act, and if at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill the Bill was altered in some important respect, it might affect the regulations that the President would draft. Therefore until the Bill has become an Act there can only be draft regulations and if there are such drafts in being at the present moment that surely is merely because the proper people to be consulted can be consulted about them and that those drafts can be amended at any time in the light of further reflection by the President.
I must also point out to my noble friend that, before these regulations can have effect, under Clause 105 of the Bill they have to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and therefore not only the noble Lord's co-religionists but also others in another place would have an opportunity of challenging the Government if in any respect those regulations are deemed to be unfair to the denominations. I do not think it would be only the denominations who will have something to say about the regulations. I think my noble friend will recognize that there are eager educationists who will desire to see the buildings and the schools so improved as to afford the best facilities for the children. There quite well might be pressure brought to bear upon the Government both in the direction of expense as well as in the direction of economy. I think this is a point that should be borne in mind by everybody. Therefore my reply to the noble Lord about publication of the building regulations is that those regulations will be published at the proper time and will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. If either House disagrees
312
with them they will cease to have effect. They will be kept entirely within the control of Parliament.
My noble friend's second point was that he could not tell what the expense of any given alteration will amount to. That is of course perfectly true, but neither can the President. There are these considerations to be borne in mind. Under the scheme of the Bill no expense will fall on the denominations for about three years from the passing of the Act. Then the expense that starts will be of a very minor character. It is not anticipated, I am advised, that any serious expense will fall on the denominations until about five years after the start of the Act. That will give the building industry time to get back to normality. We know that at present building costs are excessively high, but I do not think there is any reason to believe that these very high costs will continue very long after the war.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I interrupt for a moment? These estimates which were given by various authorities were not based on expenditure now but on what expenditure might amount to in, I think it was the first five years, or at any rate in some appreciable period after the war.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said I did not think any heavy expenditure would start to fall on the denominations until after the first five years. We all agree that there will be an increased cost of building and the figure of 35 per cent. has been quoted. I do not think the President ever said that in his view there would be a 35 per cent. increase in the cost of alterations, but he gave 35 per cent. as being—I think the phrase used was—the overall increase in costs and prices, and this would no doubt include building costs. It is impossible to put into an Act of Parliament, or to give a firm estimate of, the exact figure by which building costs will be raised.
Then there is the question of loans of which the noble Earl, Lord Grey, spoke. Those loans are offered as an alleviation and I think a very important alleviation. If a school is called upon to spend £1,000 it is clearly a very important matter that that money can be borrowed at cheap rates and repaid over a period of 30 or 40 years. That eases the burden enormously. Therefore I think I can claim that my

313
right honourable friend in that manner has gone as far as he can to alleviate the burden that will necessarily fall upon the denominations. As my noble friend Lord Rankeillour will, I think, recognize, if this Amendment were approved by the House questions of privilege would inevitably be raised in another place.
LORD QUICKSWOOD: Why?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Because it would involve an appreciable increase in the burden on the taxpayer.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: No.
A NOBLE LORD: On the ratepayer.
LORD QUICKSWOOD: The ratepayer is not protected by privilege to anything like the extent that the taxpayer is protected. It has been decided by the Speaker that expense which involves an incidental charge on the ratepayer is not necesarily a matter to which the House of Commons could not agree without waiving its rights.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I have put the matter too strongly I apologize and I defer to my noble friend Lord Quickswood who is very learned in these matters, but apart from that it would be in my right honourable friend's view a fundamental departure from the settlement to which the Free Churches and those who object to denominational education are parties and by which they are affected. Therefore he could not accept this Amendment without raising a storm which I am afraid would very much endanger the success of his whole scheme.
EARL STANHOPE: I understood my noble friend to say that no heavy expense would fall on the denominations for five years. Surely that is an amazing statement. It would mean that no black list school is gong to be improved for five years. That surely is not the intention of the Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, but I am speaking of aggregate figures. If the noble Earl follows the processes of the Bill he will see that they work out something like this. Part II comes into force on April 1, 1945. Then the local education authorities have to make their development plans, the schools have to be consulted and they have to elect whether they are going to be aided schools
314
or controlled schools. Then the scheme has to be worked out, and of course in a great many cases new secondary schools will have to be established. It is the intention of the Government to facilitate the provision of temporary buildings to cater for the raising of the school-leaving age to fifteen. That will be done at public expense. Moreover, reorganization would of course immediately free a great many school places. It is not anticipated therefore that the demand for structural alterations to the primary schools would be very important until about three years after the war. I said there would be some expenditure for three years, but that it is not anticipated that there will be heavy expenditure until after about five years. My noble friend must bear in mind that schools will not be the only buildings to be erected. The building industry will be in a tremendous bottleneck and schools will have to take their share of building labour with houses and other buildings that are required. Then, of course, there is the problem of training teachers. If my noble friend would like further details I could give them, but I am advised that there will be no serious expense to fall on the denominations for about five years after the passing of the Act, though there would be a commencement of expenditure after about three years.
EARL STANHOPE: If my noble friend thinks that schools are on the black list merely as a result of overcrowding he will find that that is far from being the case. I wish it were true.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: There is a great deal that my noble friend has said that I cannot accept but I only want to refer to two things. First he used the words I think "agreed between the leaders of the Churches." It was only agreed that they would do their best to work it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say that. If my noble friend thinks I did I feel sure he is mistaken.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: All that they did was to agree under protest that they would do their best to work it. That cannot be called agreeing to the terms. But really this Amendment does not involve even ratepayers' privilege. In order not to allow that point to come up I expressly

315
put it as relieving the managers of a certain liability, and thereby it may be, unfortunately, they are acquiescing in a lower standard. There is really no question of privilege on this Amendment as it stands. I know, as Lord Gorell said yesterday in another connexion, that if the Government do not accept an Amendment it is no use dividing the House upon it at this stage. But I certainly will not withdraw it. I will allow it to be negatived.
On question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), to insert "alterations or extensions" after "repairs." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Rankeillour has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. I shall be able to be very brief. The Amendment is obviously of very considerable importance to the managers of certain schools. I do not think that there is any question of principle involved because the principle has already been admitted by the Government in saying that the local authority would be responsible for repairs. That being so, they are doubtless willing that it should also be responsible for "alterations and extensions." This is of great importance because a large number of schools are situated in towns, and it may be extremely difficult, and indeed impossible, to acquire land for the extension of playgrounds in those large towns. Even if it is possible the expense would be very great. We feel that the burden which would thus be thrown on the managers and governors might become intolerable and lead to the school not being able to continue to function because it would have to comply with those particular regulations. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept the additional words which I propose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 49, after ("repairs") insert ("alterations or extensions").—(The Earl of Perth.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already effects what the noble Earl desires and what indeed the Government also desire. As I understand the Amendment it is designed to secure that the cost of alterations or extensions to school playing grounds or playing
316
fields in aided and special agreement schools should not fall on the managers or governors. By subsection (3) (a) this is secured. It contains a requirement that managers or governors shall be responsible for alterations, which by definition includes enlargements which do not amount to the establishment of a new school, to the school playground or playing fields, required in order to secure that the school premises comply with the required standard. That is, responsibility for alterations to the school, playgrounds, or to the playing fields is not placed on managers or governors but falls upon the local education authority.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am very glad to have that assurance from the noble Earl, but I would like to call attention to an important point. When this question of repairs was discussed in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stated that the question of repairs to the playground did not include the alteration and improvement of the playground. I find it a little difficult, therefore, to reconcile the two statements. Consequently I do hope that these words can be inserted ex abundanti cautea.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on what words in subsection (3) of Clause 14 does he rely in support of his contention? Is not the effect that buildings do not include playgrounds and therefore playgrounds fall to be dealt with by the local authority? I hope I may take my noble friend's words as law, but, of course, this is a matter of interpretation, and I may have to ask him at a later stage to make things a little clearer to the lay mind.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I point out that the noble Earl has referred in this connection to the Interpretation Clause, 107. In the Interpretation Clause the word "repairs" does not appear at all. The noble Earl, if I understood him aright, has referred us to the definition of the word "alterations." "Alterations" is the very term which I understood the noble Earl opposite desires to insert. The word "repairs" standing by itself is not to be found. It would appear to me that the explanation given by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is not altogether relevant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I think that perhaps my noble

317
friend who has just spoken may be under a slight misapprehension. The reference which is made to Clause 107, which is the Interpretation Clause, is not to the definition of "alterations" in subsection (1) of that section, but is a reference to sub-section (2) at the bottom of page 79, which defines the duties of a local education authority. I cannot claim to have looked into this matter minutely, but I think I follow the argument quite clearly and that the Bill as it stands is right. I will look into it and make myself satisfied. I am quite clear that the reference is to the bottom of page 79 and not to the definition.
THE EARL OF PERTH: In view of the statement of the noble Earl, I am of course prepared to withdraw this Amendment, but I would ask him if, in view of the quotation given from the statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, he would verify the whole position at the Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I shall be very pleased to do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), to leave out "the school" ["the school buildings"] and insert "any." The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("the school") and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved to insert at the end of subsection (4):
"And if at any time a local education authority represents to the Minister that the managers or governors of an aided school or a special agreement school have failed to carry out their obligations under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection and the Minister is satisfied that the education of the children attending tae school is in danger of being prejudiced thereby, the Minister may, after due notice to tire managers or governors and after consideration of any objections made by them, make an order revoking the order by virtue of which the school is an aided school or a special agreement school and directing that it shall be a controlled school."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Nathan, who is ill and in hospital, I beg to move this Amendment. Subsection (3) deals with the maintenance of aided and special agreement
318
schools. Paragraph (a) lays it down that certain expenses shall be payable by the managers or governors of the school as required by the local education authority for the purpose of securing that the school premises shall conform to the prescribed standards. But it seems to me that under subsection (4) a way is provided in law whereby that might be avoided, and it is to meet that situation that my noble friend has tabled this Amendment. Subsection (4) reads:
"If at any time the managers or governors of an aided school or a special agreement school are unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations…it shall be their duty to apply to the Minister for an order revoking the order by virtue of which the school is an aided school or a special agreement school, and upon such an application being made to him the Minister shall revoke the order."
It seems to me that that is simply providing a way out for what has already been stipulated, and it will undoubtedly be taken advantage of in order to prevent proceedings when these necessary repairs are required to be made in order that there might be a decent school.
It is also stipulated that in the event of the managers being unable or more particularly unwilling to carry out the repairs, then the school should become a controlled school and should come under the local education authority which would have power to carry out the necessary repairs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ammon.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: May I just say a word on this Amendment? I canot help thinking that it is not really necessary. There are two sides to this question. This Amendment very rightly desires to make sure that the managers of the aided schools and the specially assisted schools shall carry out the repairs which they undertake to do. But it is worth remembering that we have suffered a good deal from certain local education authorities in the past in this respect, that repairs and alterations to schools have been demanded, and then what has happened is that the managers have been unable to undertake the heavy expenditure involved, sometimes amounting to £1,000 or £2,000. The consequence is that the school has been handed over to the local education authority, and then, over a period of perhaps ten or fifteen

319
years—I could quote such cases—the education authority has done only a few necessary repairs and has never carried out those things which were originally demanded of the managers. There is very grave apprehension on this matter in the part of the country from which I come—the West Riding of Yorkshire—that the managers of schools may hand over those schools as controlled schools, and that then it may be found that instead of the alterations being carried out there will be a similar delay to that to which I have referred. That is what has occurred in the past. Therefore it is not fair to managers of denominational schools to suggest that all the fault is on their side.
I notice that the Amendment now under consideration states that—
"… the Minister may, after due notice to the managers or governors and after consideration of any objections made by them, make an order revoking the order by virtue of which the school is an aided school or a special agreement school and directing that it shall be a controlled school."
The main point I would make is this: that in Clause 93 (1) of the Bill there is a provision that if the Minister is satisfied that any local education authority or managers have failed in their duty he may make an order declaring them in default and giving directions for the purpose of enforcing the execution of such order as appeared to him to be expedient. Therefore I submit that the Amendment which is now moved is quite unnecessary.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Government cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment. In passing I desire to say how sorry we are to hear that the noble Lord, in whose name this Amendment was put down, is ill and in hospital. Subsection (4) of Clause 14 lays it down that if the managers of a denominational school are unable to comply with the necessary improvements to the building they should inform the Minister and the Minister then issues an order making the school a controlled school. By this Amendment it is sought to give the Minister power in effect to say to the managers of the school who fail to solve this problem that the school must become a controlled school. I think that is very undesirable. The question as to whether the managers of an auxiliary school have failed in their duties under this Act or not is really a question that ought not to
320
be left to any Minister, but one that ought to be tried by the Courts, and the procedure that the Bill contemplates is that if the Minister is of opinion that the managers of an auxiliary school are failing to carry out their obligations under this Part of the Act, he should proceed against them eventually by mandamus. It would then be decided by the Courts whether the managers have fulfilled their obligations or not. That, in the opinion of the Government, is a much more satisfactory method of dealing with this particular problem.
LORD AMMON: I am rather alarmed at the statement just made by the noble Lord, for it seems to me that he is envisaging that this Bill is going to give rise to a good deal of Judge-made law. I gather from the right reverend Prelate that there is a plea for the continuance of schools that are unfit and that ought to have long since been discontinued. However, I see no use in pressing the matter at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(6) In this section the expression 'school buildings,' in relation to any school, does not include any buildings required only for affording facilities for enabling the local education authority to carry out their functions with respect to medical inspection or treatment or for affording facilities for providing milk, meals or other refreshment for pupils in attendance at the school."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this new subsection is to remove a possible in- consistency between Clause 14 and Clauses 46 (5) and 47. The new subsection puts it beyond doubt that the local education authority must pay for such parts of the school buildings as are required solely for medical inspection and treatment and for school meals. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 27, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Transfer of county and auxiliary schools to new sites, and substitution of new auxiliary schools for old ones.
(2) Where any proposals submitted to the Minister under subsection (2) of Section twelve of this Act include a claim that the school

321
thereby proposed to be maintained by the local education authority as an auxiliary school should be maintained by them in substitution for another school at the time being maintained by a local education authority as an auxiliary school or for two or more such schools which is or are to be discontinued, then, if the Minister is satisfied that the school will be so maintained, he may, if he approves the proposals with or without modifications, by order direct that the school shall be deemed to be in substitution for the discontinued school or schools, and where such an order is made the provisions of this Act relating to the discontinuance of auxiliary schools shall not apply with respect to the discontinuance of the school or schools to be discontinued.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "Where" down to and including "them" and insert
"in connexion with any proposals submitted to the Minister under subsection (2) of Section twelve of this Act it is claimed that any school or schools thereby proposed to be established should be maintained by the local education authority as an auxiliary school."
The noble Earl said: There are two other Amendments which are consequential. They are all part of the same proposal. The object of the Amendments is to introduce a greater measure of elasticity in the new arrangements that are contemplated under the Bill. The present Clause 15 contemplates that one new school may replace two old ones, but it does not envisage the situation in which two new schools will replace in whole or in part one or more old ones. The Amendments in my name on the Paper are simply designed to remedy this defect and to enable new schools to be in replacement of old schools in the various circumstances which may be possible. I hope that I have made my point clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, leave out from ("Where") to ("in") in line 45, and insert the sail new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Can the noble Earl tell us definitely whether in these cases a school which is set up in substitution does or does not count as a new school? We have received information from two quarters on this in opposite directions, but either quarter would normally be held to be decisive. We should prefer that the school should not count as a new school but as a substituted school, and I take it that that will be clearer under the Amendment than it would be otherwise.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes. The Amendment is designed for that purpose, but there is one point which should be made clear and borne in mind. A new school might be held to be in substitution for an old school in respect of a certain number of the latter's pupils but not in respect of all of them, and the financial assistance that the Government gave would of course be affected by that consideration. That is the only qualification which I should like to make to the statement which the most reverend Primate has just made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 48, at end insert ("or schools proposed to be established").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 2, leave out from ("that") to ("and") in line 4, and insert ("the school or schools proposed to be established shall be established in substitution for the school or schools to be discontinued").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, That Clause 15, as amended, be agreed to—
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Following on what the most reverend Primate has just said, I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill how the site is to be provided. Will the compulsory powers proposed to be given to the Government under another Bill now introduced be used to provide for the site, or how otherwise will it be provided? As the most reverend Primate has said, on this as on other points we have had sonic rather contradictory semi-official opinions by way of interpretation. The latest one, I think, is quite satisfactory, though it seems to proceed by an extremely intricate process of relating one clause to another. I do not know whether the noble Earl can do anything to clear this up at the moment; if not, I invite him to consider it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am now able to answer the question put by my noble friend. The Government are taking powers, I think by this Bill but also by another Bill, to enable the sites that are required for denominational schools as well as those for county schools to be acquired compulsorily. That answers the first part of my noble friend's question.

323
It will be no more difficult for a new auxiliary school or a substitute auxiliary school to be built than for a county school. If I understood him correctly, he also asked me whether the cost of the site would be included in the cost of the school. I have not consulted my right honourable friend on that point, but I imagine it certainly would be, because the cost of the site in this case would necessarily be part of the cost of building the school, and I think that it would inevitably be reckoned as such. I would remind my noble friend that if it was a school in substitution of a school which was closed, before the Government paid to the governors the moneys due to them under this Bill they would deduct or take into account any sums that the governors realized by selling the old premises. The value of the premises given up would be part of the transaction and be taken into account; and, as that is so, I think that certainly the cost of the new site would also have to be borne in mind.
Clause 15 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Constitution of managers and governors and conduct of county schools and auxiliary schools.
16.—(1) For every county school and for every auxiliary school there shall be an instrument providing for the constitution of the body of managers or governors of the school in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the instrument providing for the constitution of the body of managers of a primary school is in this Act referred to as an instrument of management, and the instrument providing for the constitution of the body of governors of a secondary school is in this Act referred to as an instrument of government.
(4) Where it appear to the Minister that any provision included or proposed to be included in the instrument of management, rules of management, instrument of government, or articles of government, for a county school or an auxiliary school is in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of any trust deed relating to the school, and that it is expedient in the interests of the school that the provisions of the trust deed should be modified for the purpose of removing the inconsistency, he may by order make such modifications in the provisions of the trust deed as appear to him to be just and expedient for that purpose.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "school," where that word occurs for the fourth time, and insert "or of the
324
governors of a secondary school is in this Act referred to as the articles of association." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting point. Frankly, I do not see any adequate reason why a difference should be made between the managers of a primary school and the governors of a secondary school. Your Lordships will see that under the Bill they are given different terms in regard to what are called "instruments." That really means articles of association, by which the managers or governors come into relation with the local authority. It seems to me that "articles of association" describes what is meant rather better, and I hope in a not less legal form than at present under the Bill. My noble friend yesterday promised us a handbook in order that this Bill should be elucidated for the benefit of the public. I do not envy the officials of the Board when they have to elucidate this clause and Clause 22. It seems to me that if this Amendment is accepted that task will be very much simplified, and it will be much easier to understand both these clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 23, leave out from ("school") to the end of subsection (1) and insert ("or of the governors of a secondary school is in this Act referred to as the articles of association").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend; I do not think that "articles of association" would be a happy phrase in this connexion. It is, after all, a well-known phrase in company law; we all know what "articles of association" means in connexion with limited liability companies. That is surely not an appropriate analogy. It seems to me that "instrument of management" is quite an appropriate and adequate term, and I hope that my noble friend will not press us to alter it.
EARL STANHOPE: I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "just and". The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment, but I think it is a desirable one. We have been told on a number of occasions that the drafting of this Bill is superlatively good; nevertheless I cannot help feeling that in some cases, of which this

325
is one, it can be improved. We are giving under this Bill very great powers to the new Minister, and I think that it is rather cynical to suggest that he would do something that was not just on the grounds that it was expedient, or that he would decide that if something was just he could not do it because it was not expedient. Either these words are tautologous or else there is some distinction between them which is not apparent. The Committee will observe that in line 7 the word "expedient" alone is used, and I think it would be clearer that if in line it that were done also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 11, leave out ("just and").—(Lord Gorell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Selborne thinks it would be more appropriate for me to deal with this than anybody else, and I feel much flattered. By the phrase "just and expedient"—surely quite an appropriate phrase here—we are authorizing the Minister to make a modification. One would have thought that it was quite right to authorize him to make such modifications as appear to him to be just and expedient. That he would make an alteration which was unjust, merely because he thought it was expedient, because of improper influence or other corrupt motive nobody would believe. If there were such a person he ought certainly to be prevented from doing that by being told he must be just. On the other hand, it is not always the case that what is just is expedient at that particular moment. We have to use common sense about it, and I think realty the phrase is one which we should keep in the Bill, though I quite agree the question is whether it is expedient in the interests of the school. But that really is a different case. Therefore I myself in this case stand for justice.
LORD GORELL: I cannot say that I do not also stand for justice, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause i6 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Powers of local education authority as to use and care of premises of auxiliary schools.
21.—(1) The school premises of a controlled school shall be occupied and used in
326
accordance with the directions of the local education authority, so, however, that the managers or governors of the school shall be-entitled to determine the use to which the school premises or any part thereof shall be put on Sundays and on Saturdays except when required to be used on Saturdays for the purposes of the school or for any purpose connected with education or with the welfare of the young for which the local education authority desire to provide accommodation on the premises or on that part thereof.
(2) If the local education authority desire to provide accommodation for any purpose connected with education or with the welfare of the young and are satisfied that there is no suitable alternative accommodation in their area for that purpose, they may require the managers or governors of any aided school or special agreement school to provide free of charge accommodation for that purpose on the school premises or any part thereof on any week-day when not required for the purposes of the school, so, however, that the managers or governors shall not be required to provide such accommodation on more than three days in any week.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on Sundays and." The right reverend Prelate said: Under Clause 17 (3) only one-third of the managers of the controlled schools will be foundation managers. On the new body of managers, therefore, the old denominational foundation will be outnumbered by two to one. Clause 21 as it stands gives the new body of managers the right to determine the use to which the school premises shall be put on Sundays, and on Saturdays with the qualification mentioned. My Amendment accepts this regulation for Saturdays but asks that on Sundays the right to determine the use of the schools shall be given to the foundation managers, as representing the original foundation, rather than to the body of managers as a whole, on which the foundation managers are outnumbered. An illustration will make my plea clearer. Take a Church school which, becomes a controlled school; what I have to say applies to other denominations as well, but I take a Church school as an example. Suppose there are six managers, on the governing body: only two will be-foundation members representing the original church foundation; the other four, appointed by the education authority, might be, let us say, members of no, Christian denomination at all, and a difference of opinion might arise between them and the foundation managers. In that case, the four other managers could outvote the foundation managers and pre-

327
vent the building being used on Sundays for the Church Sunday school.
The Church of England, especially in the country, is often ill-provided with buildings other than the Church itself. I was in a parish a Sunday or two ago which did not even have a vestry. Church people have, therefore, often to rely on the buildings of the Church schools to provide accommodation for the Sunday school on a Sunday. I hope this provision will be secured, and not left in doubt under this clause. I think this modest concession is important because, under financial stress, a good many of the Church schools may have to become controlled schools, even when the managers would much have preferred them as aided schools. This little concession would, I think, be not unfair, and would go some way to relieve the anxieties of the managers, which I have in mind.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 47, leave out ("on Sundays and").—(The Lord Bishop of Truro.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the right reverend Prelate has laid his finger on a weak point in the Bill and one which is really inconsistent with one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. It is one of the primary features of my right honourable friend's settlement that the school buildings remain the property of the denomination, and the foundation managers should therefore certainly have the right to decide what should be done with those buildings on Sunday. I have therefore great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, at end insert ("and the foundation managers or foundation governors of the school shall be entitled to determine the use to which the school premises or any part thereof shall be put on Sundays.")—(The Lord Bishop of Truro.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the consent of the local education authority to the use of the school premises by the managers or governors at any other time when not required for school purposes shall not be unreasonably withheld."
328
The right reverend Prelate said: My Amendment is in line with the Bishop of Truro's and based on the same principle. The point is that very often the village school is the only place where there can be meetings in the evening, and what we want is to see that if the school is not needed for educational purposes under the authority, leave should not be unreasonably refused by the managers to use this for a village meeting—which is often not a Church meeting but a meeting for the whole village. It may be said that this is not necessary because no doubt there will be good will and there will be no difficulty about the authority allowing this. But I think, though we ought to base our claims on good will, that it is exactly when that fails, and where there may be a somewhat unsympathetic authority, that we want some safeguard. I suggest that if this is inserted in the Bill it will ensure that the leave will not be withheld on unfair and unreasonable grounds.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am glad the right reverend Prelate recognizes that the percentage of cases in which the circumstances contemplated by this Amendment would arise is likely to be very small. I cordially agree with him there; I think that in the vast number of cases in our parishes the difficulty which this Amendment contemplates will not arise. We all know that the school is constantly used for village functions, and I cannot believe that any local education authority, still less the managers of the school from the village or the locality, who are appointed by the local education authority, would be likely to take that unreasonable attitude in this matter. Therefore, the right reverend Prelate proposes in his Amendment that these facilities shall not be unreasonably withheld. I also recognise that in employing that phrase he has employed a phrase that is very well known to the law and occurs in quite a number of Acts of Parliament. That phrase does not however occur in this Bill. This Bill goes upon the assumption that everybody will be reasonable, and my right honourable friend cherishes the hope that he will be able to maintain that position.
The right reverend Prelate would ask me then how the Bill proposes to resolve

329
such a difficulty if it did occur. I can direct his attention to Clause 64. That clause lays it down that if any dispute arises between the managers or governors of a school and the local education authority it shall in the last resort be referred to the Minister for settlement. That really would be a better method of dealing with a difficulty of this sort than taking it to the Courts. The effect of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment would ultimately be a law-suit. If you say that permission "shall not be unreasonably withheld," then it has to be argued before the Courts whether consent has been unreasonably withheld or not. Surely in the comparatively rare number of cases where this local friction would occur, the matter would be much better settled by the Minister, always remembering that the Minister would have to justify the decision in Parliament, where he can be cross-examined on the subject. I hope that, with that assurance, the right reverend Prelate will not press his Amendment.
LORD ROCHE: May I say, in support of the right reverend Prelate, that it is hardly correct to say the Amendment would involve any resort to the Courts whatever? If permission to use the school were unreasonably refused, that would be the very dispute which would go under Clause 64 (1) to the Minister. All that the right reverend Prelate proposes is that, whereas the clause does seem to leave everything to the local education authority, attention should be called to the well-known fact that a school may be required for other purposes. It merely accentuates that, it is perfectly harmless, and certainly should give rise to no litigation.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like warmly to support the contention of the right reverend Prelate in moving this Amendment, and for this reason. There are a large number of rural villages in which not only is the village school the sole premises available for social activities, but until we have a village club or community centre established, as some of us hope, not only in the towns but in all our villages, it will be perpetually occurring that school premises will be used for social and not exclusively for educational purposes. Representing, as I do, the National Council of Social Service, which has done a very great work during the last few years in trying to develop a communal spirit in the village, and en-
330
couraging people of all denominations and all political sects to come together as citizens in order to promote the social and recreational enterprises of the village, it seems to me that to refer such a matter as this to the Minister of Education is not merely inconsistent with the proper communal spirit in a properly conducted village, but it is attempting to use a sledgehammer to crush the proverbial nut.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend in charge of the Bill allows me to make a suggestion. I am impressed by the observations made by my noble friend Lord Roche. It seems to me very possible that, instead of having the issue of a writ or anything of that kind, if words like these were inserted the matter would be dealt with by the Minister under Clause 64. I would be very willing to believe that the Amendment would so work out. I think myself that the thing wants to be looked into a little more closely. The Amendment speaks of the use of school premises by the managers out of school hours. There is a little more in it than that. In the village school which has been referred to, apart altogether from the use of the school premises by the managers for purposes other than conducting the school—for prize-giving or demonstrations—there is all over the country the use of these small country schools because they have been borrowed by some respectable association which is going to give a dramatic entertainment or to hold a political meeting or whatever it may be. I am not quite sure that the Amendment would cover all that because it says
"provided that the consent of the local education authority to the use of the school premises by the managers or governors at any other time when not required for school purposes shall not be unreasonably withheld."
My suggestion would be, if the right reverend Prelate agrees, that he should withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking by the Government to look into the points, which are very important points, to see that we have got the Bill quite right. I am not quite sure that we have.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: I am very glad to withdraw my Amendment on that understanding.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved, in subsection (2), after "accommodation," where

331
that word occurs for the second time, to insert "in county or controlled schools." The noble Lord said: I can briefly explain the purport of this very small Amendment. Subsection (2), as I understand it, will enable the local education authority, if it is short of accommodation in its own area, and is satisfied that there is no suitable alternative accommodation in its area, to require the managers of an aided school or special agreement school to provide accommodation on certain days of the week, limited to three. Nobody could object to that requirement, but it seems to me that the words in the clause, as far as the local education authority is concerned, are too restrictive.
It means, as far as I understand it, that before a local education authority can require the managers of an aided or special agreement school to provide alternative accommodation, it must be satisfied that there is in fact no alternative accommodation in its area at all. That does not only mean in the county schools and controlled schools; it means that there is no suitable accommodation anywhere in its area. The result of such a requirement may well be unreasonably onerous to the local education authority. There might perfectly well be suitable alternative accommodation in an aided school or a special agreement school that could be provided cheaply and quite conveniently, but none the less, as I understand the subsection, before the local education authority could require the use of this accommodation it would have to search the whole of its area and be satisfied that there was no suitable alternative accommodation—not a barn, not a hut—to be had. I cannot think that Parliament intended that. It seems to me, as I say, to place a very onerous burden on the local education authority. I bog to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 9, after ("accommodation") insert ("in county or controlled schools").—(Lord Soulbury).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend has exaggerated fears on this score. The subsection enables the local education authority to call on the governors of aided schools for accommodation for purposes that are no part of the duty of the governors of the aided schools, and all that these words to which my noble friend objects mean is that
332
before making this request or calling upon the governors of an aided school to give this facility the local education authority shall satisfy itself that there is no other accommodation. I do not think that is an unreasonable condition and certainly I am not aware that my right honourable friend has received any representations from local authorities objecting to this condition. Therefore I hope very much my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD SOULBURY: I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation which my noble friend has given me. Perhaps some of the local education authorities have not yet woken up to the peril in which we are placed by this clause as drafted. I agree that in nine cases out of ten by arrangements between the local education authority and the aided schools no trouble is likely to arise, but I think that where difficulties occur or where there are disagreements this section places a very unfair burden upon the local education authorities if it is going to be interpreted strictly, as indeed it would be in the case of disagreement. However, I do not propose to press the Amendment and with your Lordships' leave I withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Secular instruction in county schools and in auxiliary schools.
(3) Save in so far as may be otherwise provided by the rules of management or articles of government for the school the power to control the secular instruction provided in any county school or auxiliary school shall include power to determine the times at which the school session shall begin and end on any day, to determine the times at which the school terms shall begin and end, to determine the school holidays, and to require that pupils in attendance at the school shall attend any class not conducted on the school premises for the purpose of receiving instruction or training included in the secular curriculum of the school.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:
"(1) The secular instruction to be given to the pupils in every county school and in every auxiliary school shall include simple teaching as to the right and duty of the citizen to defend his native land."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I realize that I raise an issue

333
of supreme importance and I do hope I shall hive the support of the most reverend Primate and the Bench of Bishops. I also venture to hope I shall have the support of my noble friend Lord Addison and his friends and of noble Lords in other parts of the House. I propose in effect that the words of the Amendment should form part of the pith and substance of this Bill; in other words that the first thing a child should be taught is its duty to the State and what is called the individual duty of each citizen to defend his native land. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not dismiss this matter as one of those subjects which should be left to the local authority. I implore him in all seriousness if he is not willing to accept the words of the Amendment, to accept the view that it is our bounden duty in this House of Parliament, trying to pass an Education Bill at a moment when we are engaged in mortal fight with a tyrant, to say that the first thing a child shall learn is his duty to the State. It is apparent that, should we lose the war, as we so nearly did, the plans of the Bishops and clergy of all denominations would vanish. When I spoke to your Lordships previously I quoted the Bishop of Winchester who had lent me a book proving conclusively that the present tyrant who assailed us, Hitler, has utterly destroyed the Christian faith in every country he has occupied and that tens of thousands of clergy have died sooner than submit to him. I submit to your Lordships that all tyrants must do this. There can be no Christian teaching if a tyrant rules this land. He very nearly did.
Now comes this question: if we do what I ask your Lordships to decree, with the assent of His Majesty's Government, shall we make it less likely for the tyrant to overcome us? There are two arguments and I think they really are conclusive. There is first the positive argument. It has been tried out over and over again. Where the citizens have been taught from their youth up that it is their duty to die for their country, the States so teaching their citizens have survived, while others have fallen. Before I conclude the few words I have to say I will quote something which I think will appeal to everyone, not least to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. History proves it even at this day. You may ask Russians, as I asked
334
M. Maisky, what has helped them to withstand this tyrant. (Without the help of Russians we should have been overwhelmed.) They tell you in answer to such a question, as they have told me, and it will not be denied, that it has been the foundation of the whole of their heroic defence and now of their offence against the tyrant that every child in Russia has been taught that it is his duty to sacrifice if necessary his life in defence of his country.
It may be asked whether that has not been done here. This brings us to the negative side. No, indeed, it has not. Between the two wars, the last Great War and the one we are now waging, in many, indeed in the majority of schools, the children were not taught what appears in Dicey's Law of the Constitution, that it is the individual duty of every citizen to die in defence of his native land. Far from it. They believed, many of them genuinely believed, that if you wanted to keep order you left it to the policeman and if you wanted to defend the land you left it to the soldier. But that is not the law of England, the law which has enabled us since the conquest to defy the invader. The law of England is that the defence of his native land is the duty of every individual. I say to my noble friend, he has either got to say we will make the children, through the schools, know this as they have not known it up to now, or the Government must bring in legislation to reverse the Common Law and the Statutes which my noble friend Lord Roche and others have pointed out to me lay down that it is the sacred duty of every citizen to defend his land.
I therefore implore the Government to accept the view I now venture to put forward. It is not as if no harm had been done. Everyone will remember the ignorance that prevailed and which culminated in what we call the Oxford resolution, in which the young gentlemen or young persons at Oxford resolved by a majority that they would not fight for King and country. They had not the least idea, I am sure, that they were defying the law of the land. People said that it was just a "rag" and that it was not meant, but that is not true. It was meant, and throughout the length and breadth of this land people thought it was a sound

335
doctrine to propound. When I was discussing this matter with the Prime Minister, not in reference to this Bill, I asked if I could quote him, and he said certainly I could. This is what Mr. Churchill said to me: "The effect of the Oxford resolution was shattering on the continent of Europe, shattering to our prestige. We have actual proof now that Mussolini was so affected by it that he definitely came to the conclusion that Britain might be counted out and it is probable that it had a decisive influence on his decision to bring in Italy on the side of Germany." May I claim—certainly no one who was in Malta or in the Middle East will deny the claim—that the young men at Oxford who passed that resolution very nearly decreed the downfall of Britain and her Empire? By their foolish act they did this thing. Surely it is possible that if we start at once to teach every youth his duties to the State this mad folly will not be perpetrated again. When the Prime Minister made his famous speech saving that we shall never surrender, he did not mean in this war but in all time.
I asked another ecclesiastical mentor of mine, a canon residentiary of Winchester, whether I was right in thinking that in the Bible there was some phrase which summed up the whole argument. He said "Yes, I think I can find it for you." I have it here. In that Great Book which contains the sum of human wisdom you will find these words:
"Now, therefore, my sons, be ye zealous for the law and give your lives for the Covenant of your fathers. Call to remembrance all the acts our fathers did in their time. So shall ye receive great honour and an everlasting name."
These were the people who by common consent were the bravest men the world had ever seen. We have got to be like them if we are to keep our empire. I plead with your Lordships and I plead with the Government to accept this Amendment so that we shall follow the words of the Prime Minister and the words of the Bible which appeal to us to sacrifice all, if need be, for our country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 32, at the beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mottistone.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had given Notice to move to amend the proposed Amendment by adding the words "and
336
the British Commonwealth and Empire." The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to confuse the issue by moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I would like to say with what delight I listened to the inspiring and eloquent speech which my noble friend Lord Mottistone addressed to us at this critical period in our national history. I certainly endorse the view that every child destined to enjoy the abounding liberties and privileges of this great democracy—and how few there are who realize how relatively abounding those liberties and privileges are!—should be taught that it is his duty in the life that lies before him to do his part in defending and safeguarding those liberties and privileges. The reason why I, perhaps rather impetuously, put down my Amendment was that I feel the time has arrived when the unit for this is the British Empire and not this small kingdom in which we live. I want to ask noble Lords to bear this in mind, that immediately the Mother Country entered this war, every single part of the Empire, with one unfortunate exception, at once sprang to arms and so far as I know in no other part were there conscientious objectors.
LORD KEYES: I would like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, because I think it is vitally important that this Education Bill should include some reference to the duty of the citizen to defend his native land and, I would add, the British Commonwealth and Empire. It is all the more important because in the interval between the last war and this war there was a marked tendency to teach the children in a good many schools a pernicious form of what was called pacifism. In fact, it was regarded as an incitement to war if one pleaded for re-armament or national military service. My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to that apparently most disastrous action of the young men at Oxford but I do not think they only were to blame. I would remind your Lordships that eleven million men and women signed what was called the Peace Ballot, which had no reference to the realities of the situation in this wicked, unchanging world of ours. I quite agree that it did not mean much but like the Oxford resolution it encouraged the gangster nations to think that we were a decadent people unprepared to defend our great liberties and our great possessions.

337
An Amendment was moved in another place that
"every local education authority shall secure that part-time education is provided for all male persons over compulsory school age in the essential work and duty of the Armed Forces of the Crown and the Civil Defence Services."
The honourable and gallant admiral who moved the Amendment quoted from a Board of Education pamphlet issued in 1940 the following passage:
"Opportunities for service must therefore be afforded to young people as well as opportunities to equip themselves for that service. At a time like the present when the nation is fighting for its life the preparation of our youth for full participation in the life of the nation assumes a new significance."
It is indeed significant that it is not until the nation is in dire straits that the education authorities recognize the obligation of every citizen to serve or defend as country. Twice already in this generation thousands of our young men have paid with their lives because we were utterly unprepared for war when war was forced on us. In declining to accept the Amendment Mr. Butler agreed that it was a perfectly legitimate request but he said it was not suitable to put in the Bill the clause referred to. He did remark however that there was quite enough lack of preparation last time and that we must be fully prepared on another occasion. He said the way to achieve this was to continue on the voluntary basis of associating boys out of school hours with Cadet Corps and organizations.
Once again when this was is over service to the country is to be left to individual inclination, and preparation for defence of the country is to be left to the voluntary Cadet Corps. Memories are short. It is only a few years ago that a Socialist Government not only suppressed the Cadet Corps but suppressed the celebration of Empire Day in our schools. Only a few months ago the Minister of Labour struck a grievous blow at the Cadet movement, on which the President of the Board of Education relies, when he included trained cadets of 18 in the ballot for the mines. He declined to make any exception for cadets, and he took boys who had spent as much as three years in Cadet Corps. It could not have affected the coal shortage at the moment, which was due mainly to the lack of education of young miners in their duty to the
338
country. What guarantee have we that this sort of thing will not happen again? We cannot afford to leave this important matter of the education and upbringing of our children to politicians, local authorities and schoolmasters who may be in office in years to conic. I do beg your Lordships to make it perfectly clear that in the opinion of this Committee these vitally important matters, in connexion with the bringing up of the nation's children, should be embodied in the Bill.
When rejecting Lord Bledisloe's Amendment with reference to the teaching of Commonwealth and Empire matters in the schools, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, stated that this Amendment could not be embodied in the Bill because of drafting difficulties, and he warned Lord Mottistone that he would have to give him a similar answer. I think too much is made of these difficulties of drafting, and that in this case it could be overcome as it was in the Disabled Persons Bill, when it was declared that drafting difficulties made it impossible to give preference to men and women who were disabled in the service of their country, although it was the intention of the Minister that this should be done. These matters really cannot be left to the Minister who may be in power at the time. In that case strong pressure was brought to bear in another place and the drafting difficulty was very soon overcome, as no doubt it could be here. I hope that my noble friend will not withdraw his Amendment and that your Lordships will support him in his effort to have the vital principle of duty and service to the country embodied in an Act of Parliament so that in future our children will look upon it as their duty to defend and serve the country which gives them their liberties and their education.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not desire to intervene for more than a moment, but I feel that there are two matters in the speech of the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken to which I must refer. I have no objection to this Amendment. It is entirely a matter for the Government to say whether it is suitable for introduction into the Bill at this stage and in this place. But two extraneous observations have been made. With respect to one, I am forced to explain that there is a complete misapprehension in the mind of the speaker as to what the facts of the case really were. The first matter

339
to which I refer is the vote of the Oxford Union to the effect that the voters would not fight for King and country. It was a very unwise vote no doubt, and nobody, I suppose, has ever defended it except those who enjoyed it. But it certainly did not mean that those young men would not fight for their country in any circumstances. All it meant was that they would not regard the mere statement that it was for their King and country that they were asked to fight as excluding their right to consider whether the war was a just or unjust one. But I have nothing to do with that particular incident. I was quite unconcerned with it.
The noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down said something similar about the Peace Ballot. I really am surprised that anyone with any information on the subject should have made a statement such as he made. The noble Lord appears to regard all those who voted or took part in that very striking demonstration of the opinion of the country as pacifists. Nothing could be less true. It is utterly, absolutely and entirely untrue. A number of questions was set out and people were requested to vote on them one way or another. In substance, what was asked was: "Are you in favour of the maintenance and enforcement of the provisions of the League of Nations?" I have no doubt that the Prime Minister is quite right in saying that if the League of Nations had been supported, in accordance with the desire of the 11,000,000 people who supported it in the Peace Ballot, this war would not have taken place. As to the suggestion that all who voted to answer those questions in the way that the great majority of voters did were pacifists, in the sense of being against war in any circumstances, that is absolutely untrue. On the contrary, a very large majority voted that, in the circumstances, not only were they in favour of the other provisions of the League of Nations, but they were also in favour of those provisions which required members of the League to go to war in defence of that instrument.
LORD KEYES: I think perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. I made no attack on the people who signed that Peace Ballot. I merely referred to the effect that it had on gangster nations, and
340
I suggested that it had a similar effect to that of the unfortunate Oxford declaration.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If a bad effect was produced it was because a very large number of people chose to misrepresent the Peace Ballot.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Possibly I can shorten this most interesting debate by bringing this Committee to Clause 22, page 18, line 32. We have strayed from it into paths to which, I think, we were led, possibly, by the eloquence, the very great eloquence, of my noble friend in moving his Amendment.
LORD MOTTISTONE: May I point out that my Amendment was put down by the officials of the House here as being the proper place in which, so far as they could see, it should go? It is nothing whatever to do with me where it stands. The proper officials thought that this was a good place to put it and there it is.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I was not suggesting anything to the contrary. I was merely suggesting that the great eloquence of my noble friend had produced such a feeling of exaltation in the Committee that we had strayed from the strict purpose of his Amendment. I would like to say that I think the whole Committee listened with very great admiration to the eloquent words with which the noble Lord brought this matter forward and I quite agree that it is a fundamentally important point.
I think that the Government will certainly wish to give effect to the wishes of the Committee in this respect so clearly expressed in the speeches to which we have listened—speeches which quite clearly commanded the unanimous assent of the Committee. But, as I pointed out yesterday, an Amendment of the Bill would not really be an appropriate method of doing this, and I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone would not insist on the letter of his plans to achieve his object. His object is that the secular instruction to be given to the pupils in every county school and every auxiliary school shall include simple teaching as to the right and duty of the citizen to defend his native land, or, as we might put it, instruction in the elementary principles of citizenship.

341
This Bill, as I have pointed out before, does not deal with the secular curriculum in any part, and therefore I am advised that it would be very inappropriate, however desirable in many ways, to put this into the Bill. As my noble friend suggests, the right way to secure what he and indeed we all desire is that the Minister of Education; exercising the authority conferred upon him by this Bill, should issue a regulation to that effect. I would remind my noble friend that any regulation so issued by the Minister has to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and either House can disagree with it if it desires to do so. Therefore the matter is still within Parliamentary control. I am prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Education, that he will include in the regulations that he will issue as a result of this Bill instructions to the effect suggested, and in view of that promise I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I am sorry to introduce a jarring note, but I should like to know what it is that the Minister is pledged to do. Let there be instruction in the duties of citizenship by all means. The more that can be instilled into our children the better it will be. But it depends on the interpretation we give to that kind of instruction. I am second to none in my enthusiasm for the principles of liberty represented by the British Empire, but I am very doubtful as to the form of words here suggested and what they might be made to mean. I can understand that Hitler would have rejoiced in words like these—the very thing he has been doing for the last fifteen years with the children of Germany, according to his interpretation of it. Therefore I do want to know what kind of regulation the Minister is going to make. I rejoiced when my noble friend Viscount Cecil corrected the impression given with regard to the Peace Ballot. So very much depends upon the interpretation, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten us further on that point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What I said with regard to my noble friend Lord Mottistone is equally applicable to my noble friend Lord Addison. This has nothing to do with the Peace Ballot whatsoever. What I have promised is that
342
my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education will include in the regulations that he makes certain regulations providing simple teaching as to the right and duty of the citizen to defend his native land. That is what I call elementary citizenship, and I hope that my noble friend will take the same view. But in any case if this regulation should prove unacceptable to the noble Lord when it comes before this House he will have an opportunity of debating its terms.
LORD WINSTER: May I ask whether the instruction in the rights of citizenship will include instruction in those matters and principles upon which the defence policy of this country is established? It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet Lord Chatfield recently moved a Motion in your Lordships' House the object of which was to ensure that the defence policy of this country should in future be framed and determined in a rather more serene and impartial atmosphere than has usually been the case in the past. In the course of his remarks Lord Chatfield pointed out that this would certainly involve some education being given in these matters—education which is not given at the present moment. I have taken part in a great many elections, and I can safely say this, that where questions of defence policy or armaments have been concerned the electorate have certainly voted upon them in a state of practically complete ignorance. I hope that this instruction which is to be given will include instruction upon those matters on which our defence policy is founded, for whatever have been our views about the rights and wrongs of these questions, none of us would wish that they should be decided by the electorate in a state of ignorance and consequently without any due sense of responsibility.
LORD TEVIOT: I should like to detain the Committee for one moment by recalling a conversation which I had with the first Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener said to me when he had returned from Australia that he had found no adequate military organization at all. He put this question to them, "Do you not think that it is necessary and the duty of every citizen so to prepare himself in military equipment and

343
knowledge that he is able to protect his home?" I wish heartily to support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: With regard to this regulation which is contemplated, it would require to be laid before Parliament by the Minister, but would it be possible for it to be withdrawn by another Minister without the consent of Parliament?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think so.
LORD ROCHE: Will the noble Earl, before he vetoes putting this into the Bill and proceeding by regulation, consider the terms of the Bill itself? In Clause 41 (1), providing for the establishment of young people's colleges, the local education authority is directed to establish and maintain such colleges for young persons who are not in full-time attendance at any school. Would it not be possible in these colleges as a matter of education to teach the young people such things as would prepare them for the responsibilities of citizenship? A great deal too much is being made, in my opinion, of the difficulties of this subject. There is no difficulty in putting such an important provision in its proper place in this Bill, and I rather tend to advocate this course.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I think we can solve this problem quite easily. First of all, may I definitely ask the Leader of the Opposition if he supports the principle expounded in my Amendment, which has been accepted in principle by the noble Lord opposite? Quite apart from the Peace Ballot, which has nothing whatever to do with it, and quite apart from any other extraneous matter, does he agree that it is the bounden duty, by the law of the land and the Constitution of England, of every citizen to be prepared to fight, and if need be to die in battle, as they have done in Russia and elsewhere, in defence of his native land? If he does agree, that solves one problem.
LORD ADDISON: I am willing to say at once—and I think that this war has proved it—that we are quite ready to die in the defence of our country. I cannot imagine what it is about which the noble Lord is complaining. I cannot imagine a more magnificent demonstration of
344
national solidarity than this war has produced. What in the world is he so nervous about? I am not nervous about my fellow-countrymen; they will rally to defend their country at any time, and thank God it is in their nature to do so. I cannot imagine why the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Admiral behind me, are so wretchedly fidgety. I am not fidgety; I have complete confidence that my fellow-citizens will defend their country when necessary. One of the first duties of the citizen, however, is to be a good citizen to his neighbour, and I should like to hear some reference to the great Second Commandment—"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." That is an essential duty of citizenship, as well as fighting somebody else. I have no use in an Act of Parliament for such words as are suggested. We want the right spirit in our people, and we have it; they have responded to the national need, and they will do so again.
LORD MOTTISTONE: That does not carry us much further. We all want to love our neighbour as ourselves, but we do not want to show our love for him by letting him do the fighting for us while we remain safely at home. As that is what some of the teaching did evolve into between the two wars, it is just as well to make sure this time. However, I have the assurance of my noble friend that he does agree to that thesis, and that gets rid of that difficulty. It is a fact, however, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, points out, that it would be much more sensible to enshrine this in the Bill itself. Lord Roche is no mean authority on this matter. To proceed by regulation has advantages, but it also has drawbacks. To save time, I should like to say that I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment in consideration of the promise given by the noble Earl that he will proceed by regulation.
I should like to ask him whether between now and the Report stage he will not only provide us with the words—which I think should be quite simple—embodying the principle which we all seek to establish, but also tell us whether it cannot be brought, as Lord Roche suggests, within the four corners of this Bill. Before we leave the question of Oxford, and in deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, I may say that,

345
having had a little to do with landing us in this war, they did try to make up for it just before the war by voting for conscription, but that was a little too late.
THE EARL or SELBORNE: If my noble friend would be so kind as to help the Board of Education by suggesting a form of words for a regulation, I can promise him that it will be carefully considered at once. No regulation could be published, of course, until after the Bill became an Act. With regard to the second point, I shall certainly consult my right honourable friend between now and the Report stage, but I cannot give him any promise.
LORD MOTTISTONE: In view of the very satisfactory reply, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD moved to insert in subsection (3):
"Provided that the consent of the local education authority to the closing of the school by the managers on occasional days or half-days shall not be unreasonably withheld."
The right reverend Prelate said: This is a very pedestrian matter compared with that which has just been discussed, but the Committee will realize that there are times when it is most desirable that the school should be available for local purposes. A distant local education authority is not always aware of those needs, and therefore this Amendment provides that the consent of the local education authority to the closing of the school by the managers on occasional days or half-days shall not be unreasonably withheld. It may be said that this is already provided by certain by-laws and by certain authorities, but I would suggest that, even though that is so, it is a very good thing to have it in the Bill, so that it may be brought to the notice of every authority, and so that there may be this right of appeal. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, for his intervention on my previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Clause 22 (3) entitles the local education authority to determine the school holidays. That power, however, is subject to what may be otherwise provided by the rules of
346
management or articles of government, so that under such rules or articles the managers or governors may be given the power of selecting an occasional day or half-day holiday. In so far as the matter pertains to articles of government it can be settled by the Minister at the stage when those articles are approved; but, if the matter is not dealt with in the articles of government, the Minister would still have power, under Clause 64, to settle any dispute between the managers and the local education authority. I am advised, therefore, that this Amendment is really not necessary; but, in view of the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor in the case of the previous Amendment dealing with unreasonable withholding, I can promise that this matter will be further considered before the Report stage. I cannot, however, give any promise as to what will be done. I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary.
EARL STANHOPE: My noble friend just now found the wording of the Bill such that he could not commit it to memory. That difficulty would have been avoided if the suggestion which I made earlier in the proceedings with regard to the use of the phrase "articles of association" had been adopted.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: In view of the statement which has been made, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
General provisions as to religious education in county and auxiliary schools.
24.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the school day in every county school and in every auxiliary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in, attendance at the school, and the arrangements made therefor shall provide for a single act of worship attended by all such pupils unless, in the opinion of the local education authority or in the case of an auxiliary school of the managers or governors thereof, the school premises are such as to make it impracticable to assemble them for that purpose.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had on the Paper two Amendments to subsection (1)—namely, after "collective," to insert "religious," and after "school," to insert "and shall be conducted by a teacher professing that religion." The noble Earl

347
said: The present situation is that in a very large number of county schools the proceedings each day start with an act of worship. That has been stated by my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill, and it is our common experience. It is now to be the law of the land that every school is to start the day with an act of worship. The only schools—they were not many—where the proceedings did not start in that way were those where the headmaster was either an agnostic or an atheist. What is to happen in those cases in future? It may be that another master will conduct the service. But it might be that a headmaster himself would take it and would then rush through the service and scamp it, or deal with it in a way which all of us would dislike. I think everybody in your Lordships' House would agree that in those conditions it would be far better to have no act of worship than one which is done in the wrong way. Therefore in this and the following Amendment I want to make it obligatory that whoever does conduct this act of religious worship shall believe in that worship.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, after ("collective") insert ("religious").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have two comments to make on the Amendment proposed by my noble friend. The first is that he proposes to alter the term "collective worship" to "religious worship." Of course, he will remember that the collective act of worship was one of what were known as the Archbishop's five points, and this is the place where that point is embodied in this Bill. I think that is probably why the phrase which appears in the Bill is used. At any rate that is what is meant—the whole school worshipping together. I submit to my noble friend that the term "religious worship" is repetitive. Worship is religious and can only be religious. An act of worship is an act of religion. Therefore in this connexion if you use the word "worship" you do not want the word "religious": what you do want is "collective," because you want a collective act of the whole school, except such members of the school as are obliged to avail themselves of the conscience clause.
EARL STANHOPE: I may shorten this by saying that these two Amendments go
348
together. You cannot say that somebody shall believe in "that religion" unless you have already got the word "religious" in, and therefore I think it will be seen in regard to the next Amendment in my name, that it is necessary to have the word "religious" put in here.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that the next Amendment would be interpreted as a violation of the pledge, "No tests for teachers." The noble Earl asks me how this matter will be settled. Well, let it be settled in the future as it has been in the past. I think there has been considerable misunderstanding on this matter of the collective act of worship. I am informed that in nearly every school in the country the day's work starts with a collective act of worship. That has been achieved without any friction, without any tests for teachers; and I suggest to my noble friend that it is much better to leave it like that. We do not want to try to force men to act hypocritically, or against their consciences, and therefore I think the matter should be left in the future as it has been in the past. By that method we can really get the best results, by which I mean collective worship in a free spirit.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: We are here dealing with one of the most delicate things in the whole Bill. As I ventured to remark in the course of the Second Reading debate, it has been a matter of some surprise that there has not been more public notice taken of the declarations of the teaching bodies on this subject. They have passed resolutions objecting to making compulsory what is already universal. I certainly do welcome the bringing into the Bill of the collective act of worship, though at the same time I sympathize with the object with which the noble Earl has put down his Amendment. But if it were introduced here I think you would be rather rubbing a sore place, and it is of the most vital consequence that we should to the utmost extent carry the good will of the teachers with us. They are a little anxious, and if this is left open we should have more prospect of securing their hearty co-operation than if we attempted to legislate about it. It is a balance of judgment whether you get the best result one way or the other, but, knowing what I do for instance of the feeling in the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, I feel

349
sure we should achieve our object better by leaving it alone.
LORD LATHAM: I think it would be unfortunate if it went out from this House that in the majority of cases where a collective act of worship did not take place, it was due to the fact that the headmaster or headmistress was either an atheist or an agnostic; because it is a fact that in a large number of schools where the collective act of worship did not take place, the main determining factor was the absence of adequate accommodation in which to hold the collective act of worship. It would be unfortunate if the teachers thought it had been said here that in many cases where a collective act of worship did not take place it was due to the absence of religious faith on the part of the headmaster or headmistress.
EARL STANHOPE: Of course I did not say at all that where religious worship did not take place it was solely due to the views of the headmaster, but I do bow to the views of the most reverend Primate. I quite see his point. I am afraid I do not agree with my noble friend in charge of the Bill, whose argument would have been entirely correct if we had not made it obligatory to hold religious worship in schools, as we do in this Bill. But in view of what was said by the most reverend Primate, I beg to withdraw the Amendment. I think he was right, and I was wrong.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD QUICKSWOOD LORD QUICKSWOOD moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(7) It is hereby expressly declared that it is part of the duty of every teacher giving religious instruction in any county or any auxiliary school to teach his pupils, at such times and opportunities as he may think convenient, that each pupil has a religious obligation to attend public divine worship, in normal circumstances, at least once a week, in accordance with the wishes of his parents and with the teaching and customs of that religious denomination which his parents may approve."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to draw attention to a truth which I think would be almost unanimously held by your Lordships and indeed by all reasonable people, that in educating the young in religion it is even more important to cherish and encourage the devotional side of the religious life than it is the theological side. To be sure, all devotion rests on certain obvious
350
theological beliefs, but the ordinary approach to religion in a child, and indeed in an adult, from day to day and in ordinary life, is devotional rather than theological. People in general, in practising religion, practise it by way of worship, by saying their prayers, they do not practise it by engaging in reading manuals of theology or reciting Creeds. Therefore, though the Bill does in a very wonderful way recognize the necessity for religious education, and provides machinery by which in every school, by some agreed syllabus of religious teaching, the main content of the Christian religion will be offered to all Christian children, it does not provide any machinery, except the collective act of worship at the beginning, by which children will be instructed that their religious life will depend on the degree in which they from Sunday to Sunday practise the rites of religion.
I may say that this is an entirely super-denominational issue. All denominations are agreed upon it. It is a very remarkable fact that the religious observance among Christians of Sunday dates from the times of the Apostles and has been almost universal, amid all the various divisions of opinion that have taken place and is to this day absolutely unanimously accepted by all Christian teachers from the Pope of Rome down to some little independent minister of a small congregation, in one of our great towns. There is not a single person professing to be a minister of the Christian religion who would not inculcate the duty of observance of Sunday unless it be that interesting little body the Seventh Day Adventists who say that the observance should be on the seventh day.
The weekly observance of religion by public worship, which is all that is contained in my Amendment, is absolutely unanimously inculcated by all Christian denominations and all Christian ministers. It is often said that if Christians were all agreed, and if there were not these unhappy divisions that divide Church from Church, the testimony in favour of Christianity would be so overwhelming that the world would be converted. I am afraid that this particular example does not encourage that sanguine belief, because here we have an absolutely unanimous Christendom. There is no exception as far as I know from the inculcation of religion by the practice of weekly worship in church or

351
chapel, and yet during my lifetime the observance of that duty has very much decayed. It is practically the most important thing in what I suppose the Government and those who support them in the various religious bodies in the country have at heart—the revival of the religious life of the nation.
I believe it to be the most important thing you can possibly do to encourage the weekly observance of Sunday by public worship in one denomination or another. The wording of my Amendment is absolutely impartial as between denominations. I have left it entirely to the decision of the parents to express a wish to the child, or to inform the child what denomination it ought to be guided by. It would produce the effect that every child would come back from school having the impression he ought to go, week by week, to some place of public worship. I believe that in the overwhelming number of cases parents, however negligently they might have performed the duty in the past, would approve, and it would revivify the religious life of the nation more than anything else. The Amendment falls far short of what I should like to see. I should like it to be part of the purpose to attach a child to a particular denomination. I think that ought to be. I entirely agree with what the Bishop of Chichester put before your Lordships on the Second Reading in principle. Whatever machinery be adopted, really efficient religious education would always attach the child to some denomination or other. This Amendment unhappily falls far short of that, but it does ensure that every child shall be taught that part of the religious obligation which he is recommended to recognize is the obligation to attend some form of public worship week by week in accordance with the wishes of his parents or of the denomination of which the parents approve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line to, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Quickswood.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I need hardly say that I subscribe to the general principle laid down by my noble friend at the commencement of his speech. I personally agree with practically everything he has said in that connexion, but
352
I do not think it would be at all advisable to insert these words in an Act of Parliament. I have had possibly more personal experience of inducing children to go to church than has my noble friend—especially young children. It is quite true that, from the age of thirteen to eighteen, he has had very great experience in compelling them to attend church, but that is not really the problem. My experience certainly is that the only argument that will cut any ice with the infantile mind is example. It would be deplorable to enjoin in an Act of Parliament that teachers, whom you do not necessarily require to attend church weekly themselves, should be instructed to tell the children it was their duty to go to church. In fact the self-respecting teacher who did not attend a place of worship every week himself would have very great objection to doing anything of the sort. That is not the way the problem should be approached. My object, and the object of every one of your Lordships, would be the same as that which my noble friend has in view; but to put it in an Act of Parliament that teachers, whether they are giving denominational instruction or syllabus instruction, should concentrate on this particular point would be most dangerous.
I should like to say this to my noble friend. A great deal of harm can be done by driving children to church too early and for too long. As I have said, I believe the only thing that really influences them is example. It is much more desirable, if you really want to get a child to wish to go to church, to start by not allowing him to go to church. You should only allow him to go to church on great occasions such as Christmas or Easter. The child then grows up with the idea that this is one of the things he can do when he is a man. To start off by driving children to church, and especially when that is done by people who do not go to church themselves, would produce exactly the contrary effect to what my noble friend desires. Therefore I suggest to him, in the first place, that his policy here is mistaken. Secondly, it is open to exactly the same objection as I have had to make to noble Lords who have wanted particular causes of great excellence to be specially mentioned in the Bill. For these reasons I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment. If he desires to raise the matter of church going in a

353
deliberative assembly, I suggest it is in the Church Assembly that this matter should be ventilated rather than in Parliament. I certainly could not support the suggestion that this would be a wise Amendment of the Bill.
LORD QUICKSWOOD: My noble friend has made a rebuttal which will cause the greatest possible alarm in the minds of all religious people. He contemplates that the teachers who are to give religious instruction in the schools will be people who themselves do not practise religion. What a miserable sham the whole Bill then becomes! Are you going to say you are promoting the religious life of the nation by teaching a nominal syllabus to which it is perfectly clear, the teacher by his own life and example attaches not the smallest value, and does not even practice religion himself, for all the world knows le never goes near a place of worship? Is such a person to be entrusted with the religious instruction of the young? What a miserable sham the Bill is by my noble friend's account. How can he believe that the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church will accept such an outrage on the religious sense, through having people practising irreligion and giving a nominal syllabus of religious instruction. Such a pretence of religious education would be a sham indeed and a scandal from one end of the country to another.
It is the plain truth that if you are going to have religious people, as I hope you are, to give religious instruction they will go to church themselves. If they do not they are not fit to give the religious instruction and they will not be able to give by example as well as by precept the leadership which my noble friend justly thinks is necessary. My noble friend's defence cuts at the root of all education. If children are not to be in the least influenced by what they are taught in school why take them into the school at all? If the way to influence a child is by way of repulsion you had better keep children outside the school and then they will wish to go in. Such arguments are really farcical. As to the suggestion that this might come into the regulations, if my noble friend will give me a promise that it will come into the regulations that might be something of worth. But the point is that religious education which does not lead people to
354
go to church or chapel is an unreality. If you are not prepared to do this you are not prepared to do anything worth doing. The religious life of the child will certainly perish, whatever you teach him in school, if he does not form the habit as an ordinary rule of going to church or chapel on a Sunday. Unless that be the result the whole thing will become a complete unreality and it will be of no worth whatever. As to whether I shall press the Amendment that depends on what sort of support I get from the House, but in any case I shall not withdraw it but I shall leave to the Government the disagreeable step of having it negatived.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: I do not make any apology for speaking on this Amendment, for it seems to me to be the central part of the whole question and I think it is very fortunate that it has been brought again to the notice of your Lordships' House. If we think that we are really going to attain the object with which this Bill is brought forward, to make religious teaching the foundation of education—that is to say the Christian religious teaching—we must face the fact, and it is a fact agreed to by every single Christian denomination I believe, that if you want to teach children in a classroom, however good your teaching may be, and do not somehow bring that teaching into close touch with the living church fellowship to which their parents belong, your religious teaching tails of its true purpose. We have to face the reality that there are a variety of Christian denominations, but unless that close touch with the church of their parents is maintained and fostered after the children leave school they will not belong to any fellowship in which they will be able to practise what they have been taught in the classroom. I do not think anybody wants to force children. This is an instruction to teachers and if it can be put into regulations better than into the Bill, well and good, but the point is that so far as Christian religion goes I do not believe there is any serious division of opinion concerning how you are to do it. Up to date that idea has really not percolated into the minds of the teachers and it certainly has not percolated into the minds of the general public. I do not think it has really got into the minds of the Government as represented in the Board of Education.

355
I welcomed this Amendment at once when I saw it and do welcome it now whether it be passed or not. It will have done something at least to bring to your Lordships' notice what is a vital principle of Christian education, as I believe it is of all religious education. But I am really concerned with Christian education and if it is really, as I believe it is, the honest desire to see that our education is based on Christian principles and that it shall go on after the boy or girl has left school with a view to producing Christian character, then it seems to me we must bring home to the teachers that this attendance at a place of worship is fundamental to the teaching of the Christian faith. I cannot imagine a better way to do it than that your Lordships should pass an Amendment of this kind or that the Government should agree to put it into the Bill, not with a view to compelling either teachers or children to go to church but to make it perfectly clear that this is the opinion of the Government of this country and of this House. Without it the provisions which have already been made for religious teaching in schools will not attain their object.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I should not like it to be supposed that everybody on the Bench of Bishops is in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Quickswood. We all agree as to the end and believe most firmly that the only completion of religious education is in membership of a worshipping community, but for my own part I regard the means proposed in this Amendment as quite ludicrous and impossible. Certainly impossible because, as has been suggested in relation to another Amendment, it touches teachers on what is already a very sore point and is apparently to apply to them compulsion in a matter in regard to which they are most resistent to compulsion. More than that, Lord Quickswood's Amendment demands that every teacher of religion shall teach his pupil that it is an obligation to attend divine worship at least once a week. There are many perfectly good teachers in schools who are Christians and have an entirely Christian standpoint who do not in fact conform necessarily to the standard of attending divine worship once a week.
I know something of the public schools of this country. I know many teachers of divinity in public schools and I know
356
of my own knowledge that not all of them attend divine worship every Sunday throughout the holidays. If the Provost of Eton inquires of his own staff I am not sure he would find that those who teach divinity there would be able with a clear conscience to teach elder pupils that it is a religious obligation to attend divine service once every Sunday. It is really impossible to impose an obligation of this kind on the teaching profession. They cannot be driven in this matter. We may indeed trust as time goes on and as the relations between the Churches and the teaching profession draw more close that what we desire will be reached, but to put this into an Act of Parliament would I think cause a rebellion in the teaching profession. If it remained there I cannot conceive that it would have any useful result.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to add to the clause the following subsection:
"(7) Where the parent of any pupil who is a boarder at a county school or an auxiliary school requests that the pupil be permitted to attend worship in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination on Sundays or other days exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs, or to receive religious instruction in accordance with such tenets outside school hours, the managers or governors of the school shall make arrangements for affording to the pupil reasonable opportunities for so doing and such arrangements may provide for affording facilities for such worship or instruction on the school premises, so however that such arrangements shall not entail expenditure by the local education authority."
The right reverend Prelate said: This Amendment is designed to secure to pupils who are boarders in county or auxiliary schools suitable facilities for denominational worship and instruction. Under other clauses of the Bill local authorities are enabled and indeed are encouraged to provide boarding accommodation either in boarding schools or hostels for pupils for whom such education is desired by the local authority and their parents. For my part I trust local authorities will make the fullest possible use of these powers. I believe there is great need for such extension of the provision of boarding school accommodation, I believe there is already demand for it and I believe that that demand will grow very much in the future. Be that as it may, if local authori-

357
ties do in fact provide boarding schools a problem arises which ought not to be left unnoticed in this Bill. Generally speaking, local authorities in the past have been concerned only with day schools, primary and secondary, and in the day schools a pupil spends his evenings, his week-ends and his Sundays at home. It is on that supposition that the religious provisions in this Bill rest.
We have just been saying, with obvious truth, that no religious education is complete unless it attaches to a church or denomination. The county school cannot in itself forge, or even greatly strengthen a church attachment. On the other hand, it does not, in itself, impede any such attachment. In a clay school the pupil on Sundays and at other times is at home under the influence of his parents and his church and can therefore gain opportunities for training in church membership and church worship but in a boarding school the position is completely different. For three months at a time and for three-quarters of the year the pupil is wholly in the charge of the school. During term-time it is both his home and his school in which he lives and moves and has his being. If in such a boarding school there is no religious worship except in the words of the Bill worship which is not "distinctive of any particular religious denomination," if there is no religious instruction except in the words of the Bill instruction which "shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination," then not only is the pupil in a boarding school being not encouraged, but he is being actually debarred altogether from training in doctrine, church membership and worship of the denomination to which he and his parents may belong. That would be a quite manifest injustice.
When a local authority provides a boarding school its managers or governors become practically in loco parentis and must provide at least facilities for every thing which good parents would provide. The Bill as now drafted does not make it impossible to provide denominational facilities such as my Amendment suggests, but that is only an inference from the fact that it is not excluded by the Bill. This is a matter far too important to be left to rest on a possible inference. Therefore my Amendment makes it perfectly clear that where a parent desires
358
that a pupil at a boarding school shall have facilities for denominational instruction and worship the managers shall afford it. I do not know at all whether I have to defend this, but I should maintain that it is not a new principle. In Section 64 of the Education Act, 1921, it is required that a pupil boarded at a special school under the meaning of that Act shall have facilities for receiving religious instruction and attending religious services conducted in accordance with the parent's persuasion, and that such persuasion shall be duly registered on the child's admission to the school. The same principle already exists in the Home Office approved school regulations. That which is being provided for children in special and approved schools can hardly be denied to pupils in these schools.
My Amendment may be criticized indeed as not going far enough. It does not enter into any details and it leaves it to the parents to take the initiative, while in the section of the Act to which I have just referred it is laid down that the denomination of the parent shall be ascertained when the child enters the school and the initiative shall rest upon the school. But for myself I am content to leave the Amendment in its present very general form. No one can see how the principle could be best worked out in practice. We shall need to experiment to find that. There are many different ways in which it may be applied. In any case the relation between the headmaster or the headmistress and the parent will be so close that a matter of this sort will not be forgotten, but it is the principle that I wish to see contained in the Bill.
I ought to draw attention to two further points. My Amendment ends by saying that opportunities may be afforded for such worship or instruction on the school premises. It will be understood that that does not interfere in any way with the preceding sections of the Bill and the restrictions there laid down. My Amendment refers only to extra arrangements made out of school hours for providing instruction in preparation for confirmation or denominational service for those who desire it. This, my Amendment says, may be made where suitable on the school premises. I have consulted some Free Church friends of mine and they are in general sympathy with the Amendment. Some of them did say that they thought

359
possibly some of their friends might be suspicious even of this degree of denominational activity on the premises of a county school, but I cannot believe that they really understand the situation.
If you have a boarding school almost ex hypothesi in a country district, fairly remote and with wide spaces around it, and if there you have one hundred or two hundred, or even four hundred pupils of many denominations, it is ridiculous to suggest that if out of school hours provision is to be made for their denominational instruction and worship, it should take place somewhere else than on the premises. The Church of England would be the least affected by such a provision because every place has its parish church, but my Free Church brethren would find it extremely difficult if they had to cope with fifty or sixty or one hundred children in a village where they have no chapel if the children have to be turned out of the schools to go somewhere else to get denominational instruction. I think it is desirable, right and proper that such facilities should be provided on the school premises.
I have one last comment. My Amendment ends with the words "so, however, that such arrangements shall not entail expenditure by the local education authority." I think it is probably right and necessary that these words should be included in an Amendment moved in this House, but I should like to make it clear on my part that I regard them as quite indefensible if you consider the facts of the situation. If it is the duty of the good parent to attach his child to a religious denomination, if at least some parents most earnestly desire that, if in a good boarding school there would be facilities for sharing in worship of the denominations and if the local education authority builds a boarding school and puts pupils there, becoming in loco parentis, it seems to me that the local authority should meet, whatever expense is involved in providing the denominational facilities. What in a day school is or has become difficult, controversial and impossible, seems to me in a boarding school to be an obvious duty resting upon the authority. I dare even to hope that these simple truisms have penetrated the minds of the Government, and that they may be so bold in another place as to remove these last words
360
from my Amendment. However, I merely throw that out. I move the Amendment as it stands because it seems to me that the arguments in support of it are so overwhelming, and I trust the Government may be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: I should like to support this Amendment. I am not going into the arguments so admirably placed before you by the right reverend Prelate. I would only remind your Lordships and the Government that this Amendment helps to carry out the pledge given by the President of the Board of Education that the wishes of parents should pervade the Bill. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that your Lordships will agree that the right reverend Prelate has made out an unanswerable case for his Amendment. I have only to say that I have much pleasure in accepting it, and that I should like to thank him on behalf of my right honourable friend for having drawn his attention to the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
Special provisions as to religious education in county schools.
25. Subject as hereinafter provided, the collective act of worship required by subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall not, in any county school, be distinctive of any particular religious denomination, and the religious instruction given to any pupils in attendance at a county school in conformity with the requirements of the said subsection shall be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or for those pupils and shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination:
Provided that, where a county secondary school is so situated that arrangements cannot conveniently be made for the withdrawal of pupils from the school in accordance with the provisions of this Act to receive religious instruction elsewhere, then, if the local education authority are satisfied:—

(a) that the parents of pupils in attendance at the school desire them to receive religious instruction in the school in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination; and

(b) that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of such instruc-

361
tion to those pupils in the school, and for securing that the cost of providing such instruction to those pupils in the school will not fall upon the authority;

the authority shall, unless they are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable so to do, provide facilities for the carrying out of those arrangements.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My first is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 11, leave out ("act of").(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 16, leave out ("the said subsection") and insert ("subsection (2) of the said section").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER moved to omit all words after the second "shall" in that part of the clause which precedes the proviso and insert "subject to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule, be in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith, shall be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or for those pupils and shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination." The right reverend Prelate said: The two Clauses 24 and 25 are among the more important clauses of the Bill and it is obvious that much care has been expended upon them. Clause 24 deals with the general provision of religious instruction and 25 begins to deal with the special provisions with regard to religious instruction. There is one rather vital point which I suggest it is important to make clear. In what religion or in what faith is the religious instruction to be given? Accordingly, the new words which I propose to insert in my Amendment direct that the religious instruction shall be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus, that is to say should be in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith.
It is somewhat strange, if one considers it seriously, that the conditions in this clause with regard to religious instruction are, first of all, distinctly neutral—"agreed syllabus" is a neutral term—and, secondly, that they are negative.
362
They require that the teaching shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination. In other words there is no positive description of the religion in which the instruction is to be given. I scent danger in the negative clause which says that it shall not include any formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination. That word "denomination" in itself is not a very clear word. The Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition of it: "A religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name." It does not say that the denomination should be a section of a particular, well-understood religion, and indeed your Lordships will remember that during the discussions on the agreed syllabus mention has been made—T think by the President himself—of the Jewish denomination. So I cannot help thinking that those responsible for the drafting of the Bill might well look carefully at the present phraseology in case there might be litigation in the Courts which succeeded, if any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of some particular Christian denomination were to be included. I do not think that is an altogether exaggerated hesitation or an altogether idle point, and I suggest that it requires looking into.
But leaving that on one side, the point I wish to make is that there are many great religions in the world—there is Christianity, there is Judaism, there is Mahomedanism and all the well-known religions of the East. There are also other religions—the old religion of the Roman Empire focused in the worship of Caesar, and the modern religion of the German Empire which is focused in the worship of the State. I do not think it was at all inappropriate when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his striking speech on the Second Reading, spoke of the rebirth of paganism. Paganism itself is a religion, and, indeed, this is in a very real sense an age of religions. The ideologies which secure the fanatical devotion of our enemy are really religions. It is of course generally understood that the religious instruction to be given under this clause is instruction in the Christian religion. I am well aware that that is the full and positive intention of the Government. But I do believe that, in these extremely uncertain times, if religious instruction is to be made compulsory the faith in which

363
instruction is to be given should be specified. After all, Governments and circumstances change. There is a well-known educational book about other times; it is well-known in the Board of Education and it is entitled "What is and What might be." That book dealt with a different situation and a different problem, but the title does bid us consider what might be as well as what is.
The noble Earl mentioned a few moments ago one of the five points made by the three Archbishops about two years ago and it was obvious that he attached very great importance to the implementing of those five points. The first of those points begins in the following way: "In all schools a Christian education should be given to all scholars, (except, of course, in so far as any parents may wish to withdraw their children from it). The religious instruction should be entrusted to teachers willing and competent to give it." In other words, there is in that first point a very clear designation of the Christian faith as the faith in which religious instruction is to be given. The noble Earl, in reply to some remarks of a general kind on this point on the occasion of the Second Reading, said that he felt that the provisions in the Seventh Schedule protected the schools from any syllabus which was not agreed, and he pointed out that the conference set up under the schedule has to report unanimously and that no conference which contained representatives of the Church of England would report in favour of a non-Christian syllabus. I, of course, accept that, but I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated what unanimity in this conference really involves.
It is a conference of four voters. There are four committees, one representing the Church of England, another representing other religious denominations, a third the teachers, and a fourth the local education authorities. Each of these committees has to make up its mind in which way it desires its voter to vote, so that there must be a majority on each of the committees directing its representative to vote in a certain way. I cannot help thinking that so far as this requirement is concerned the fact that the conference has to report unanimously, while it may secure freedom from a non-Christian syllabus, will certainly give no guarantee that a syllabus will be approved which is satisfactory
364
from the Christian point of view. In any event, the Seventh Schedule, in paragraph 10, makes provision for cases in which a conference does not report unanimously, so that the lack of unanimity in that restricted form is fully recognized.
I therefore press that a direction as to the nature of the religion should be given in the Bill. There are, I am told, two difficulties, one of them not very serious, and the other a larger one. The first difficulty is with regard to the Jews. It is significant, I think, in this connexion that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, speaking of religious instruction, said that it was ideas embodied in the Christian ethic which could alone supply the moral law for European civilization, and he went on to urge that the system of British education, with due regard to conscientious objection, gave full recognition to that fact. Therefore, a very leading representative of the Jewish religion clearly contemplates the Christian religion being the religion in which all, with conscientious exceptions, should be instructed.
But, apart from that, it is worth remembering that the Jewish population is a very small population indeed. There are, according to Whitaker, only 300,000 Jews in England and Wales, the greater number of these, 234,000, are congregated in London, and 38,000 in Lancashire, leaving a very small dispersion over the rest of the country. Of that 300,000, 45,000 are estimated as children under 16, of whom 5,000 are provided for in special schools outside the ordinary State elementary and secondary system. What are 45,000 children of the Jewish community in comparison—so far as numbers are concerned, not quality—with 5,371,000 children of the age between 5 and 14? That difficulty is a very small one indeed. It is a difficulty, however, which we admit and in an Amendment which I am suggesting to the Seventh Schedule, for the instruction of Jewish children in the Jewish faith, we are endeavouring to meet it.
The other difficulty is a more serious one. It is the difficulty of putting into an Act of Parliament the requirement that religious instruction should be in the Christian faith. It is asked whether we can, in an Act of Parliament, define Christianity in a sufficiently effective way to satisfy those who desire the specific

365
inclusion of Christianity, and also avoid litigation in the courts. It is urged that a dispute before the courts as to whether a particular agreed syllabus is really the teaching of the Christian religion would be most undesirable. I think that the possibility of such a dispute before the courts is remote, but it is certainly a real possibility and it ought to be considered. Therefore I have asked myself whether there is any precedent under previous legislation dealing with educational establishments, for the inclusion of some phrase of a general kind concerning the principles of the Christian faith. I have in my hand an extract from a scheme which is the common form in numberless schemes made under the Endowed Schools Acts from 1869 to 1908. These schemes have been drawn up for endowed schools, and with regard to religious instruction the provision reads: "Subject to the foregoing provisions" (dealing with teachers) "religions instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith shall be given in each school under such regulations as shall be made from time to time by the governing body of such schools." I do not know of any case in which the character of the religious instruction given in an endowed school working under such a scheme has been challenged. I do not press for the rigid following of those specific words, but at any rate they give an indication of what is possible and what has not been found hitherto to be a target for litigants.
But if it is really objected still that there is a danger in a new move of this considerable character, and that some aggrieved person might object to an agreed syllabus as specific to the Christian faith, on Fundamentalist or Modernist grounds, mud were to bring a suit before the courts, then I wonder whether it would be possible to meet the difficulty in another way. In the present Bill under Clause 64 there is a provision for dealing with disputes. It is provided that where any complaint is made with regard to religious instruction in denominational schools—I will read the subsection—
"(3) Where any trust deed relating to an auxiliary school makes provision whereby a Bishop or any other ecclesiastical or denominational authority has power to decide whether the religious instruction given in the school which purports to be in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed does or does not accord with those provisions, that question shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed."
366
I suggest that it is reasonable that another subsection should be added to that clause which would provide a way of determining whether the religious instruction given in a county school or a controlled school in any area is in accordance with Clause 25 and Clause 26 (6) of this Bill.
It ought not to be beyond the wit of the draftsman to devise a tribunal or council on religious instruction in county and controlled schools to which a case of difference of opinion on the contents of the syllabus could be referred and by which it could be determined. I cannot help thinking that a small body of persons representing the local authorities, the religious denominations and the teachers might well be given the power to exercise what, after all, really amounts to common sense as to whether a particular syllabus against which complaint is made is a proper agreed syllabus or not. I do press that the point I have raised should be regarded as an important one. If religious instruction is to be compulsory in all schools, we ought to ensure that it is given in the faith in which it is, I submit, intended that it should be given. We have to think of the future, as well as of the present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, leave out lines 17–20 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Bishop of Chichester.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The object of the Amendment is to lay it down in so many words in the body of the Bill that the religious teaching given under this Bill shall be Christian teaching. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that it is the intention of the Government and of the Bill that the religious instruction required to be given shall be Christian instruction, and that the corporate act of worship shall be an act of Christian worship; though no doubt he would agree that where there is a large number of Jewish children a syllabus based on the Old Testament only should be prepared for them, and they should be given the opportunity of Jewish worship; in fact, he has said so much.
The Bill does give effect to that intention, which is not only the intention of the Government but also the intention of Parliament. The Bill gives effect to it in the Seventh Schedule, which we shall discuss in detail at a later stage. It is there

367
set forth that there must be a conference between four panels, of which one represents the Church of England, another the other denominations, the third the local authorities and the fourth the teachers. They have to agree unanimously on the syllabus, and that at any rate ensures that it will be a syllabus which the Church of England can accept, and the Church of England is not going to accept a syllabus which is not in accordance with the Christian faith. I think that the right reverend Prelate will and does recognize that the Bill gives practical effect to what is the intention and the desire of Parliament, and puts it beyond any manner of doubt.
He then asks me this question: he says: "In that case, why do you object to saying so in the Bill itself?" It has been borne in upon me, in listening to these most interesting debates, that what we are doing in this Bill is creating a piece of machinery. We have a number of noble Lords here each of whom has a certain excellent cause at heart and wishes to pin the flag of his cause on to the Bill. There has been Lord Mottistone, who has wished to pin the Union Jack on to the Bill; Lord Bledisloe, who wishes to pin the flags of the Dominions; Lord Barnby, who wishes to pin the flag of technical education (which perhaps might be represented by a hammer and sickle!) In the same way the right reverend Prelate would like to hoist the flag of St. George. I have every sympathy with that, but it does not easily accord with the creation of a piece of machinery.
We may get into all kinds of difficulties, and in this case the difficulty into which we might get is that if we put in an Act of Parliament that a syllabus has to be in accordance with the Christian faith, it is open to any one of His Majesty's subjects to bring before the secular courts of this country the question of whether a particular syllabus is in accordance with the Christian faith or not. There was a good deal of trouble—to put it mildly—caused in the nineteenth century by ecclesiastical causes being tried before secular courts, and I think we should be well advised in not adding to the possibility of further trouble of that nature, because there is nothing to be gained by it. What the Government and Parliament desire is already provided for in the Bill, and
368
therefore to introduce words of this sort would achieve nothing and might conceivably land us in the future into difficulties and controversies. We might find one learned Judge saying that this or that was, or was not, in accordance with the Christian religion, and other learned and good people violently disagreeing with him. I do not think, therefore, that there is anything to be gained by this proposal.
The right reverend Prelate said that in the deeds of a number of endowed schools the term "Christian faith" was used. I should imagine that that was open to exactly the same criticism, and the fact that no case has yet come before the courts does not settle the question. The formula which he quoted was, however, slightly different from that which is in the Amendment. The right reverend Prelate made a number of very helpful and ingenious suggestions as to how the Seventh Schedule could be improved, suggestions which in his view would get over the difficulties to which I have alluded. If he will not press his Amendment this afternoon I am quite willing to re-examine the matter with my right honourable friend between now and the Report stage. I should, however, like to make it clear that there should be no sort of doubt that it is the intention of the Government and the intention of Parliament that the syllabus teaching to be given should be Christian teaching and that the worship should be Christian worship. There must be no doubt about that; but I also wish to claim that the Bill does ensure it. And unless the right reverend Prelate can show a method by which what he desires can be achieved without getting us into further difficulties I hope that he will consent not to press his Amendment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: This is a matter about which very many people have felt very strongly. When I put down my own Amendment to the Interpretation Clause it was at the instigation of the British Council of Churches, representing the Church of England as well as the Free Churches, and the Joint Conference of Anglicans and Free Churches, which has done much in the direction of helping us towards agreement in the matter of religious education. Both of them were most eager that something clear should be stated that would be held afterwards to be decisive. I should like first to thank the noble Earl for the

369
very fair statement he has made of the intention of the Government and of the Bill upon the point. There is something that can be quoted, and I hope it will be decisive. I cannot be quite happy about the reference to the Seventh Schedule as it stanch; because of what might happen in the Event of disagreement. I grant that that is rather a secondary point but it is a matter of some anxiety. You might fail to get agreement and then, except the declaration just made by the noble Earl, you would have nothing to fall back upon to ensure definite Christian teaching. But we have that declaration. I have no doubt the right reverend Prelate will continue, as I shall also, to explore the possibility of an Amendment to the Seventh Schedule. In view of what the noble Earl has said I shall not move my Amendment to the Interpretation Clause, but if we can find a method of bringing it up on the Seventh schedule which will not be open to objection I shall be glad to take that opportunity. I should like to thank the noble Earl again for the statement he has made.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I also would like to thank the noble Earl for the friendliness of his concluding words. There is some difference between hoisting the flag of St. George, as he put it, and the other things that have been mentioned to-day, because religion is such a very large and vague subject. But I also echo all that he says about the undesirability of bringing these questions before the courts. I am, however, very much encouraged by his invitation to pursue inquiries as to whether some other way could be found which would secure
370
what I feel sure he and I equally desire. With the leave of the House, therefore, I will act on the lines of the invitation and withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of yesterday, namely, that they have come to the following Resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House: "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name.
Moved, That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, namely, "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Viscount Clifden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned.