On Tuesday the debate took place .on Clause VII., which
places a statutory disability on teachers in the State schools to give religious education under Clause III., even though they are anxious to do so, and the giving of such instruction would not interfere with their other duties. In our opinion, the arguments for the imposition of such a disability urged on the Government side were most inconclusive. We find, indeed, nothing to make us alter our view that it will be impossible in the future to maintain the disqualification. The history of British liberty is a continuous record of the abolition of similar disabilities, and we cannot believe that a new one can be successfully imposed at the present time. When the guillotine fell the disqualifying clause was added to the Bill by a majority of 181 (364 to 183). On Wednesday Clause VIII., the Clause appointing the three Commissioners, was under discussion. Mr. Birrell announced that the Com- missioners would be Sir Arthur Wilson, a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; Sir Hugh Owen, the author of standard works upon education and trusts; and Mr. Worsley-Taylor, a Unionist lawyer of distinction who sat in the last Parliament. The names gave general satis- faction, and we trust have produced a sense of shame in those extreme partisans who so unfairly declared that Mr. Birrell intended to appoint a packed Commission or "Star Cham- ber," and so forth. The greater part of Wednesday's debate was occupied with subtle legal arguments in regard to the niceties of the law connected with public trusts.
Previous page
