The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAW A wrNT.

HOUSE OF LORI:C.—Mom:4y, MAY 14.
The Loco CHANCE:MON took his oat on the woolamok at
6 Vela*.

- -
THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSIL
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that he wished
to ask whether • clergyman or manager of • church school
satisfied the requirements of the conscience clause by ex-
empting children from attendance at the teaching of forum-
lanes to which their parent. objected ; or whether a
r would be bound to abstain from teaching in the
manager
doctrine of the church of England which the
parent might desire his child should not be taught.
Earl GRAN VILLE said the first part of the question did
not meet the requirements of the conscience clause, and it
would not be acting justly towards the dissenters to allow
the manager of a school in connection with the committee
to permit the children to be withdrawn while the Cate-
chism was being taught, and to allow them to be brought
in again while the formularies of the church were being
taught. The Church and State Review had published an
article on this question, in which the writer said he could
not help thinking that if the dissenters were aware
of the tolerant spirit shown towards their children in the
church schools, they would not make such a fuss about the
conscience clause. He (Earl Granville) (lid not mean to
say that this article represented the real opinions of any
considerable portion of the church, but it was clear that a
small portion of churchmen might, were the schools unpro-
tected the conscience clause, be able to outrage the
feeling's of the great body of dissenters of this country.
It was obvious that whereas this clause did not interfere
with the religious instruction, it absolutely provided that
no interferenoe should take place in that instruction.
The conscience clause did not in the slightest degree ex-
clude the religious teaching of the church of England.
The only thing it did was to ensure that a child should not
attend that portion of religious instruction to which its
parents objected.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said the answer of
the noble earl was satisfactory, and be thought it would
relieve many clergymen from great anxiety.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S said there never was a
time when he did not consider the principle of the con-
science clause as one not only ooneirtent with but absolutely
required by common justice and charity.
The Earl of CARNARVON regretted that the subject
should have been introduced without an opportunity being
given for discussing it. He denied that the arguments
against the conscience clause were so easily disposed of as
the President of the Council had supposed, and if time had
allowed he should have been prepared to have gone into
the whole question. He would content himself, however,
with saying that if it were only on the ground that the
clause bad never been embodied in an act of parliament
or minute of council, or laid before parliament in any
shape or form—that it came before them, in fact, simply
upon the authority of the President of the Council, he
should oppose it.
Lord LYITELTON said there would no doubt be an
opportunity of discussing the whole question.
The subject then dropped.