The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1913. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1825, 11 August 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1913. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

The deputation which waited on the Prijie Minister on Saturday to oppose the right of the people to a referendum on the question of making .Scriptural lessons a part of the syllabus in State schools made the very most of thoir case. They spoke impressively of the National Schools Defcncc League, an organisation which appears to be less formidable in numbers than in the activity of its executive; apologies for non-attendance were read from d number of prominent people, who have interested themselves in the question; and they even had managed to include in their ranks a representative of the Socialists, in the person of the member for Grey. Mr. A. R. Atkinson, who is tho chiaf spokesman of the opponents to Scripture lessons in State schools, covered the ground of opposition very ably from the point of view of his party; and with the other speakers emphasised with appropriate vigour all the terrible possibilities associated with the teaching of Bible lessons by State school teachers. The fact that such lessons have been given in tho New South Wales State schools for nearly fifty years, without ally but good results, if responsible Ministers of the Crown, inspectors of schools, and school teachers are to be believed, was either ignored or brushed aside. The further facts that the sarao system has been successfully carried on in Tasmania for nearly as long a period of time; that it has been in operation in West Australia since 1893, and in Queensland since 1910, without occasioning any sectarian or other strife, apparently counts for nothing with those who claim that the people have no right to say what shall or shall not be taught in their own schools. The arguments advanced were all the familiar old friends, and it must be said for the deputation that where argument was lacking there was no want of positive assortion to take'its place.

We clo not'propose to question the weight and influence behind the deputation, although it would be idle to ignoro the fact that while one gentleman spoke "on behalf of th'c teaching profession," tho teaching profession is by no means unanimous on the question at issue. Only a few days ago, for instance, tho Southland Branch of the Educational Institute, tho membership of which spreads over several electorates, declined to be represented at or take part in the deputation to the Prime Minister, believing that teachers should not interfere with the rights of parents. So also in tho cas6 of a lady member of the deputation, who professed to speak for the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which she stated had declared at its last convention in favour of the Nelson system, in preference to the proposals of tie Biblc-in-Schools Leaguo. It is quite true, of course, that tho convention did so decide, but since then no fewer than sixteen brandies of the Union have passed _ resolutions dissenting from the action of the convention, and supporting the League; while only three or four have passed resolutions supporting the action of the convention. It is just as well that facts of this nature should be known, or the public might gain a quite erroneous impression as to the strength of the forces, behind the deputation. It is a little curious, we might remark in passing, that a deputation professing to represent such powerful interests, and so certain of tho weight of public opinion arrayed on its side, should be so very anxious to prevail on the Government and on Parliament to prevent the people expressing their views on this most important question. Why, if they truly represent the majority of the people, should they have any fear of the people's verdict t The only issue to be considered at the moment is the question of whether the people shall be given the right to say by means of a referendum that Scripture lessons shall or shall not be read in school hours as part of the school work. Tho people own and maintain the schools; the people's children ard taught in the schools. It seems to us essentially a question that the people havo the right to decide for themselves. It has been so decided in some of the States ol the Commonwealth. The contention as the'proposal involves religious instruction, it is not ono which should be submitted to tho people for decision is a bold attempt to bluff the public out of their rights, for it is specially provided in tho proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League that ini all cases the parents themselves shall havo the right to say whether or not .their children shall attend tho Scripture lessons. But if tho people aro not' to be allowed to decide the matter who is? ' Parliament? Why should Parliament have any right to decide such a question if the people themselves, who elect the Parliament, aro not to be permitted to vote on it? If it is wrong in the one case, surely it is wrong in the other. The votes of the people are no different to the votes of individual members of Parliament, except that in tho former caso tho will of the people is directly mado known without any chance of error, whereas in the latter it is merely expressed through their representatives, and consequently may not bo a true reflex of public opinion. The New Zealand Parliament has already decided that it is right and proper for it to vote on this question; therefore there is precedent, if such wero_ necessary, even here-in the Dominion, for it being submitted to the vote. We cannot pretend to say what,tho result of a referendum would be, but evidence has already been' afforded that a very strong body of public opinion at least favours a vote of the people being taken on the question of Bible instruction in schools. The Prime Minister on Saturday last stated that he himself was in favour of the maintenance of the present system of education. That was his individual opinion, and he appeared to hint that some of his colleagues held similar views. But he stated also that the question had never been considered by Cabinet. Plainly, theu, Cabinet, should give the matter its consideration at the first convenient opportunity. What it has to decide is, not whether the proposed change is a good or an undesirable one, but whether the people shall bo debarred from their right to deoido by their votes whether then think it *ia a good or an undesirable

one. Thore is only one good reason that we can see why the Government and Parliament should not grant a referendum, and that is that sufficient proof may not have been given that it is desired. What proof, then, do the Government and Parliament want, and what proof has the Bible-in-Schools Lcagiw to offer ? The League should be in a position to afford some definite evidence of the progress it has made in its campaign, and on that evidence Cabinet should be prepared to act. Individual Ministers and individual members of Parliament may disagree with the proposal to amend the school syllabus in the manner sought for, but providing 'there is proof of a widespread desire for a referendum on the question, they cannot allow their individual ideas to stand in the way of the right of the people to express their -views by a direct vote on a matter so vitally affecting their interests and the future of the nation.