BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1749, 14 May 1913, Page 3

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

l Sir,—May Ibe allowed U> make a few j comments oil your leader on this subject. \ oil urge that tho Defence League ought , to statu its views on a lnelhou thai is : really beaido the present issue. The . Li'uic-iu-iichools Leaguo has decided ior a ( deiinite selieme, and no other, anu, as Mr. _ C'aughley clearly showed, is pressing lis j claims with very little care lor the morju- f itv oi its methods. it is the l»ible-m- ■ Schools League that has inirroived the ( issue to the question: Is the scheme of the j ijiljie-in-Seii-uls League in the best inter- , ests of the schools? Until this question , is settled, no other issue call be raised without coniusing the public. His thus , the attitude of tlio Uiblc-ni-Scliools : League that prevents the consideration oi , other methods. To convince yourself oi this, Sir, ask the League if it will accept the plan you havo in mind. The solution you appear to favour is, as you suggest, virtually adopted ill some iiistricts, viz., those in which tho clergy, unliko their brethren in -N.S.W., are prepared to use the facilities that exist at h'or seventeen years .Mr. Duncan Wright, tlio City llissioner at Dunediu, has successfully conducted these Bible classes, before or after the hours of secular school work, ami, unfortunately, without any encouragement from the majority of the elergv. The formation of the tiible-in-(Schools Leaguo is sufficient evidence that uie clergy are not prepared to use tho present facilities. You advocate a referendum, to prevent this question from becoming the main issue at a general election. Does liot what has happeucjl in connection with the licensing poll rather lead to tho opposite conclusion? ]s not the Prohibition, party eudeavouring to decide nest general election on this issiie alone? Before agreeing to decide any issuo by referendum we must decide whether wo favour the introduction of the referendum into cur legislative machinery. If Parliament agrees to tho introduction of tho referendum, with or without initiative, it will bo then timo enough to decide what questions shall be submitted to tho people. As the introduction of the referendum is a plank in tho platform of the United Labour party, tho question will 110 doubt be threshed out at the next general election.—l am, etc., TIIOS. A. HUNTEE. Wellington, Hay 12, 11)13.

Sir,—lt- is to he sincerely hoped that yu'.ir leader on "The Schools and tiro People" may da something to clear tlio atmosrdicro. It' all you would ask for is what is kuov.-ii as the "Kelson system," why should thero be any occasion, for a rot'oruiHium ? Tho Nelson system proper is in. 110 way an infringement of the Education Act." It imposes 110 duties on teachers. Attendance* 011 the part of pupils is subject to their parents' consent. Tho work of instruction is carried 011 by clergymen, or their representatives, before or alter tho hours set apart for sanilar work. In some schools, however, n »,v- : iem of Bibb instruction obtains which, though called tlio "Nelson system," lias 110 claim whatever to tlio name. It entails manipulation of tho sccular time-table and imposes duties on State teachers. Tho teachers are present to keep order—and to teach, unless they object to 'teach. This latter system is clearlv an infringement of the Education Act, yet it is "tolerated" by not a fewSchool Committees and Education Boards.

I should- lie very much surprised to learn that you think it a "fair" or a "reasonable" proposal to submit tlio following issues, directly or indirectly, to the psoplo by referendum:— 1. Tho'iniposing of tile task of conducting Bible k-sons, or religious instruction,, upon teachers without a conscience clause (for teachers). 2. Compulsory attendance of children at Bible lessons, or religious instruction, conducted !:y accreditcd representatives of the churches. Now, unless vou are in favour of either of the above issues being determined by "referendum," what, may I ask, with all dcfcrer.ce, do you think the issue or issues to bo determined by "referendum" ought tl> Tho Bible-in-Schools Tarty, through their orsasiiter and through several of their nioro prominent clerical leaders, have, again and again,.declared that: (1) A conscience clause for teachers would ruin their wholo scheme; and (2) 'Uia< ; "the Nelson svstem is totally inadequate. Is it not, therefore, the Bible-in-fechools Party that acands in the way of such a compromise as you suggest? Personally I do not know a single member of a National Schools Defcueu Lcaguo who is against allowing accreditcd representatives of tho churches to have tho uso of schoolrooms before or after tho hours allocated to secular work. If this is really so, surely tho "difficulty" 111 tho way of tlio compromise you suggest cannot reasonably bo laid at the door of theso connected wi'ili tho National Schools Dofence lnoveiiient.—C am, etc., A MEMBER OF THE N.&. DEFENCE LEAGUE.