The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1887. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS BILL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1720, 26 November 1887, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1887. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS BILL.

We sincerely regret that the motion for the second reading of the Bible Reading m Schools Bill should have been negatived m the House of Representatives last night, and negatived, 100, by such a large majority — more than two to one of those who voted. From the statements published by the advocates of the measure before the general election, we entertained the hope that a simple measure like this would not have been met with such virulent opposition. Mr Fulton, m bringing forward the motion, explained that its object was to enable School Committees to cause the Bible to be read m schools. It is not to compel School Committees to cause the Bible to be read m schools, but to enable them to do sc — if the majority of the parents deem it advisable, we suppose, for we have not received a copy of the Bill and, therefore, cannot speak with certainity on this point. The mover brought forward a very strong argument. He s&id that the practice obtained throughout the whole civilised portions of the globe and asked, "Why, then, should this colony be an exception m that respect ?" This statement was not challenged by any of the opponents of the scheme nor was ths question answered. He also pointed out that it was only proposed to read a portion of the Bible every morning for twenty minutes, and that no child shuuld be compelled to attend such readings unless the parents or guardians of the children gave their consent. Petitions m favor of the concession asked by the Bill had been signed by 14,00© persons, representing all parts of the district. Dr Hodgkinson appealed to the Young Ne*j§* Zealand Party m the House to vote for it. He, himself, had presented a petition signed by 1000 women of Southland m favor of Bible Reading m Schools. Mr Reeves (Inangahua) failed to see the object of the Bill, as Committees had already got the power to appoint a certain time of the day for the Bible to be read, cither before or after school hours: Mr Goldie thought this was an effort to introduce denominationalism, and that if the Bible were read m the manner proposed by the Bill it would lead to a large amount of irreverence. Mr Buxton appealed to the House to pass the Bill as the Bible would improve the morals of our youths and be a blessing to the colony. Mr Tanner supported the Bill and, m reply to Mr Goldie's remarks about denominationalism, said the denominationalists were now joining together to get the Bible read ip public schools. Mr Blake, Mr Hobbs, and Dr Newman spoke against the Bill. Mr Pratt briefly supported it. Mr Taiwhanga made a very sensible little speech. He said all the foundation of England was the Bible, and no law was made m England without the Bible. He considered that without the Bible England would not stand for more than a (ew years, and he thought New Zealand could not do better than follow that example. He should vole for the second reading of the Bill. The Hon G. Fisher made a strong point by arguing that the fact that the advocates of Bible reading m schools not having availed themselves of the facilities afforded by the Act for this purpose, showed that clergymen were not so earnest m the matter as might be desired. Mr Allen spoke strongly m support of the measure. He admitted that the present Act provided for Bible Reading m Schools but not m school hours. The Hon T. Fergus, Messrs Taylor, Wtihey, Levestaro, | Grimmond, Reeves (St Albans). Fitchett and Sir J. Yogel spoke against the Bill, principally on account of its tendency to introduce denominationatism and thus destroy the present system. Mr Downie £jtewart supported the Bill. He thought that if the people of Otago and Hawkes JGay v»iej;.ed the Bible read m their schools they shouid not fje prevented by the people of other places. The cry of the Bill being the initial stage of denp'ninationalism was one got up by the opponents of the Bill to ftjl % UHW9 JVslJrcr, Cuionese,

Fitzherbert, and Samuel opposed the' Bill, but advanced no fresh argument. Mr Seddon supported the Bill, but would amend it m Committee. Having given on outline of the debate we shall have more to say on the arguments advanced, m a future i issue.