The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1013. THE RIGHT OF ENTRY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1749, 14 May 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1013. THE RIGHT OF ENTRY.

« We publish in another part of this issue two letters on the Bible-in-Schools question—one by Professor T. A. Hunter, and the other by "A Member of the N.S. Defence League" —which call for some comment, though neither of them carry us very far towards a solution of this difficult problem. In reference to our suggestion that tho National Schools Defence League should grasp the fact that a new situation has arisen and not be content with a mere repetition of old shibboleths, Professor Hunter states that it i.s "the attitude of the Bible-in-Schools League that prevents the consideration of other methods." Wc must emphatically dissentfrom this view of the ease. The points at issue are not going to he decided by either of the Leagues, but by the people of New Zealand; and tlie fact that the Bible-in-Sch'ools people put forward a certain "objective" does not prevent the freest discussion of any other proposal. Canon Garland and his friends have certainly inado their position quite clear. They have stated plainly what they want in the following definite terms : (1) Lessons read in school hours by the children themselves, from Scripturo books provided by tho Education Department; State school touchers supervising tho reading, but not giving sectarian or dogmatic teaching: > (i) Visits during school hours by ministers or accredited teachers from the churches, instructing children in the faith of their fathers. These two demands are safe-guarded by a consciencc clause by which the parent would have complete control of the child's religious instruction. Here, then, wo have two distinct proposals. Tho Defence League have unmistakably declared against the first-, and we suggest that it would clcar tho. air considerably if they would candidly state whether they can accept the second, or whether they arc fighting against religious instruction in any form during school hours. Neither of the two letters referred to settle this point, and the Wellington branch of the National Schools Defence League seems unable to make any official pronouncement on the matter, though the Auckland branch has declared that "the introduction of a Scriptural text book and the granting of the right of entry to religions teachers during school hours would violate tho essential principles of our national system of education." If the Defence League does not know its own mind on this vital point it cannot give tho general public a very helpful lead. Our correspondents seem to hold that no legislation would bo required to give effect to tho proposal that the accreditcd representatives, of the religious bodies should be given adequate facilities in school hours to impart religious instruction, with the proviso that any parent should liavo the right to withdraw his child from such teaching. It is pointed out that religious instruction on these lines is already being given in several school districts: but tho important fact is overlooked that the granting of these facilities at present depends upon the whim or favour of the different school committers or education boards' The result is that there is no uniformity in the matter.' Some of the governing bodies are sympathetic and some are not, and permission may be granted one year and withdrawn the next. It is necessary that if the right of entry is granted it should he by statute law, which would put every school-on the same footing; and that tho instruction should be given in school hours, it being,, of course, the duty of the State teachers to ecu that- discipline is maintained. Tho most sensitive eonscicnce could hardly object to this. "A Member of the N.S. Defence League' 1 is apparently opposed to-any religious teaching i/eing given in school hours, but our evening contemporary, which appears to be the mouthpiece of the Defence League, has admitted "that success is practically impossible if tlie lesson is to bo given when the. ordinary lessons arc finished," and Mn. W. J. Speight, of Auckland, one of the strongest opponents of tho Bible-in-Schools movement, has also expressed the opinion that a certain portion of the time should be set apart for religious instruction under the auspices of teachers of different denominations. As regards the referendum Professor Hunter remarks that "if Parliament agrees to the introduction of (he referendum, with or without initiative/ it will he then time enough to decide what questions shall be submitted to the people." This means that either Parliament must decide for or against the Bible-in-Schools proposals, or that tho problem cannot be settled at all unless and until it has first been decided whether the country favours the introduction of the referendum into our general legislative machinery. But, as wc have already stated, it is neither practicable nor desirable to make such a question as Bible-in-Schools a test at election times, and moreover the country has already admitted tho referendum principle in oonncction with the liquor traffic by special Act of Parliament without waiting to decide whether this exceptional method should become a regular part of our ordinary political procedure. It may bo regarded as an exceptional method of dealing with an exceptional case. The National Schools Defence League is pursuing a mistaken policy in seeking to avoid an appeal to tho people. It must eventually come, and the sooner an end is put to the present state of uncertainty and unscttlcmcnt the better it will lie for all concerncd.