Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T20:14:50.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1906 Education Bill: Catholic Peers and Irish Nationalists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

John Cashman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ON 20TH DECEMBER, 1906, the Liberal Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman withdrew from the Order Book the Education Bill which had received its First Reading on 9th April, 1906. The Bill had proposed a drastic revision in the generous settlement which the voluntary schools had welcomed with the passing of the 1902 Education Act. The new proposals had sought to make all public elementary schools into ‘council schools’ controlled by the Local Authority. The denominations would receive an agreed rental for the use of their school buildings, and the upkeep of these buildings would become the responsibility of the Local Authority. But the power to appoint the teachers would also pass to the Local Authority. The only concession to the denominations was the proposal that extended facilities for denominational instruction on each school day would be made available in certain elementary schools if three-quarters of the parents whose children attended the schools asked for them. Head-teachers would not be allowed to give the denominational instruction, but assistant teachers would be allowed to give the instruction if they volunteered to do so. Failing this, the denominations would be responsible for providing the teacher to give the instruction. The controversial Clause Four excluded from this concession elementary schools in areas in which the only school was a denominational school, and in areas with a population of less than 5,000.

Type
Articles
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 422 - 439
Copyright
© 1986 Trustees of the Catholic Record Society and individual contributors

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 The Irish Members who had voted against the Bill on the Third Reading, voted for the rejection of the Lords’ Amendments. Two Irish Members. Timothy Healy and William O'Brien, voted in favour of accepting the Lords’ Amendments.

2 Spender, J. A.: The Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. G.C.B. 2 vol. London, 1923. Vol. 2, pp. 311–312.Google Scholar

3 Lord Edmund Talbot, Conservative Member for Chichester, was the Duke of Norfolk's brother and a member of the Catholic Education Council.

4 The Catholic Education Council, formerly the Catholic School Committee, was established in 1904, to act as the official body in negotiations with the Government on matters affecting Catholic schools and colleges.

5 The majority of the Catholic Peers had voted against the amended Bill because it failed to safeguard the future of the Catholic schools.

6 Parliamentary Debates, 11th December, 1906, cc. 216–8.

7 Henry Fitzalan Howard (1847–1917), 15th Duke of Norfolk, was Post-Master General in the Conservative Government, 1895–1900, Mayor of Sheffield, 1895, and a member of the L.C.C from 1892–5.

8 Parliamentary Debates, 19th December, 1906. c. 1412.

9 Parliamentary Debates, 19th December, 1906, c. 1415. Lord Ripon, who had been a member of all the Gladstone Cabinets, became a convert to the Catholic Church in 1874.

10 Spender, J. A: The Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. G.C.B. 2 vol. London, 1923. Vol. 2, pp. 312–313.Google Scholar

11 Later Bishop Brown, Titular Bishop of Pella and Auxiliary Bishop of Southwark. He had been a member of the old London School Board.

12 Parliamentary Debates, 20th December, 1906. cc. 1748–50.

13 The Times, 14th December, 1906, p. 12.

14 The Times, 15th December, 1906, p. 13.

15 The Times, 17th December, 1906. p. 7.

16 The Times, 17th December, 1906, p. 7.

17 The Tablet, 15th December. 1906, p. 862.

18 The Tablet, 22nd December, 1906, p. 991.

19 The Tablet, 9th February, 1907, p. 30.

20 Presumably a reference to Lord Edmund Talbot.

21 The handwriting in the note is difficult to decipher.

22 Westminster Archdiocesan Archives (A.A.W.), File Bo. 1/178, Letter 2, dated 2nd January, 1907.

23 A.A.W., File Bo.1/78, Letter 3, dated 3rd January, 1907.

24 The Duke later denied that any Amendments had ever been submitted to the Catholic Education Council Committee.

25 The deputation met Lord Lansdowne, the Conservative Leader in the Lords, on 29th Ncvember, 1906, to urge him to stand firm on the Lords’ Amendments. The Irish Members were angry that the Deputation had been arranged without their knowledge, and accused Arbishop Bourne of failing to keep them informed. The Archbishop's excuse, that he himself knew nothing about the Deputation until after it had taken place, is difficult to understand. It is possible that his Diocesan Representatives on the Deputation assumed he knew all about the matter, and had not told him when it was to be received by Lord Lansdowne. When Redrnond learned that the Deputation also proposed to see the Prime Minister, he wrote to Birrell, the President of the Board of Education, asking him to persuade Campbell-Bannerman not to receive the Deputation as it was ‘most mischievous,’ and spoke only for ‘a small minority of Catholics.’ (Public Record Office, File Ed. 24/111, Letter B 11, dated 2nd December, 1906.) Redmond's biographer, (Gwynn, D.: The Life of John Redmond, London, 1932, pp. 139–140)Google Scholar described the Deputation as consisting almost entirely of Tory Catholics from London. The list of names of the members of the Deputation in The Times (30th November, 1906, p. 4.), and in The Tablet (8th December, 1906, p. 911) suggests that only two of the forty-four members came from London.

26 In a copy of the letter which Archbishop Bourne wrote to Lord Edmund Talbot (A.A.W., File Bo.1/78, Letter 24, dated 12th March, 1907) the phrase ‘The Bishops had not accepted or approved the later policy of the Catholic Education Council’ is crossed out. Presumably, it was not included in the letter sent to Lord Edmund.

27 A.A.W., File Bo.1/78, Letter 12, dated 6th January, 1907.

28 A.A.W., File Bo. 1/178, Letter 11, dated 6th January, 1907. It must remain a matter of some doubt exactly how much the Archbishop knew of the final attempts to save the 1906 Bill. Campbeli- Bannerman's biographer wrote of ‘a draft compromise’ being submitted to Mr. Balfour, ‘who was laid up with influenza.,. Whatever happened to it in the sick room, it never saw the light of day.’ (Spender, Vol. 2, p. 310) Writing many years after the event, Birrell described two meetings held on the evening of 19th December, 1906, before the Bill was withdrawn on the following day. In the first meeting, at the home of Lord Crewe in Curzon Street, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Lansdowne met Lord Crewe, Birrell and the Prime Minister's deputy, Herbert Asquith. Later on the same evening, the parties adjourned to the House of Commons, where they met Arthur Balfour, the Conservative leader, in his room. But two issues were unresolved, viz. extended facilities for denominational religious instruction in voluntary schools in rural areas, and the freedom of teachers who wished to give denominational religious instruction to be allowed to do so. (Birrell, A.: Things Past Redress, London, 1937, pp. 191–2.Google Scholar)

29 A.A.W., File Bo. 1/178, Letter 13, dated 5th January, 1907. This letter must have crossed in the post with Letter 12, in which the Archbishop complained of the attitude of the Catholic Peers towards him.

30 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Letter 14, dated 7th January, 1907.

31 viz. Letter 12.

32 A.A.W., File Bo. 1/178, Letter 15, dated 8th January, 1907.

33 A.A.W., File Bo. 1/178, Letter 16, dated 10th January, 1907.

34 A.A.W., File Bo. 1/178, Letter 17, dated 12th January, 1907.

35 In an essay on Cardinal Bourne (Williamson, Rev. C. ed. Great Catholics London, 1939, pp. 481–490,) S. Seuffert described ‘the Duke of Norfolk and his friends’ as ‘regarding the Cardinal with disdain’ and as ‘being unwilling to co-operate with the Irish Nationalists over the Education Bill’

36 Parliamentary Debates, 10th December, 1906, cc. 1611–1617.

37 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Letter 18, dated 20th January, 1907.

38 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Document 19, ‘Considerations arising out of the Education Debate, 1906, submitted to the Archbishop of Westminster and the Bishops by the Duke of Norfolk, 30th January, 1907.’

39 Archbishop Bourne had told the Duke of Norfolk that he did not regard it ‘as any part of the duty of Catholics to intervene in the disputes of Protestant sects.’ (Letter 18, dated 20th January, 1907)

40 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, ‘Memorandum regarding the Deputation to Lord Lansdowne, 30th January, 1907.’

41 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Letter 23, dated 9th March, 1907.

42 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Letter 24, dated 12th March, 1907.

43 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Letter 7, dated 6th January, 1907.

44 The Tablet, 23rd February, 1907, p. 191.

45 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Letter 8, dated 3rd January, 1907.

46 A.A.W., File Bo.1/178, Bishop Brindle to Archbishop Bourne, dated 8th April, 1907.

47 The Tablet, 23rd February, 1907, p. 310.

47 The Tablet, 9th February, 1907, p. 230.

49 The Tablet, 23rd March, 1907, p. 471.

50 Oldmeadow, E.: Francis, Cardinal Bourne, 2 vol. London. 1940, vol. 1, p. 340.Google Scholar

51 Oldmeadow, E. Vol. 1, pp. 340–341.

52 The Tablet, 29th February, 1908, pp. 339–340.

53 The Manchester Guardian, 21st September, 1909, p. 9.

54 Campbell-Bannerman had resigned on 5th April, 1908, and died on 22nd April, 1908.

55 Birrell, A: Things Past Redress, London, 1937, pp. 191–2.Google Scholar

56 Spender, J. A.: The Life cf Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, G.C.B. 2 vol. London, 1923, vol. 2, p. 310.Google Scholar

57 Public Record Office, File Ed.24/120, ‘Mr. Eaton's History of the Education Bill, 1906.’

58 Birrell had been appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland in January, 1907.

59 The official title of the Bill was ‘Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill, 1907.’ It was withdrawn on 3rd June, 1907.

60 The Tablet, 23rd March, 1907, p. 471.

61 The Tablet, 23rd March, 1907, p. 471.

62 The Tablet, 19th January, 1907, p. 114.

63 The Times, 8th May, 1907, p. 17.

64 The Hon. Charles Russell was a well-known Catholic lawyer. He was the son of Lord Russell of Killowen, the former Lord Chief Justice.

65 The official title of the Bill was ‘Education Act (Single-school Areas) Amendment Act, 1912.’ It was withdrawn on 25th April, 1912.

66 The correspondence is in File Ed.24/617 at the Public Record Office.

67 Parliamentary Debates, 8th March, 1912, cc. 725–6. Knowing of the hopes of the Irish Members for the introduction of a Home Rule for Ireland Bill, Lord Hugh Cecil commented that Dillon's enthusiasm for the Croydon Marks Bill was very like ‘the loyalty of a dog when it expects its dinner.’ (cc. 747–8.)

68 Archbishop Bourne was named Cardinal in 1911.

69 The Tablet, 16th March, 1912, p. 403.

70 The Tablet, 23 rd March, 1912, p. 454.