THE SCROLLS & BIBLE

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1856, 16 September 1913, Page 8

THE SCROLLS & BIBLE

CURRENT QUESTION.

CASE FOR THE REFERENDUM

The lnonflif/ meeting of the Wellington Women's Branch of the Biblc-in-Statc-S'chools League was held in St. John's Schoolroom yesterday afternoon, when tho Rev. Canon Garland delivered ail address on tho referendum. About 50 ladies attended. Canon Garland began ■by remarking that it had been stated that tho referendum, while suitable for other matters, was not applicable to questions referring to religion. Tho home of tho referendum .was : Switzerland, and in that republic tho people could demand a referendum on any question. It was required' only that 30,000 people should sign a request for a referendum, and it nmst be granted. The population of thof was 3,738,600, so that .8 per cent, of the people could demand anci obtain the referendum. In New Zealand, 111,126 people had signed tho request for tho popuiar"vote—a proportion .of the population exceeding that required in Switzerland by nine to one. Further, in Switzerland the referendum was regarded as suitable for matters touching religion. In 1882 a referendum had been taken on what would be called in New. Zealand the Bible-iu-State schools. A proposal made in Parliament by tho Redicals and Socialists that the Bible should be taken out of the State schools, resulted in a popular outcry, and 180,000 people (six times tho number required) signed a demand for a referendum. Never before had there been such a big demand. A league was organised, with the motto of' "God in schools," its members including Roman Catholics as well as people belonging to the orthodox Protestant Churches. Opposed to it wero German Radicals, Ireothinkers, and Socialists, who denounced the danger of the introduction of denomiiuttionalism into tho schools. This was surely a case in, which tho referendum had been recognised as a means of deciding a question bearing on religion. Canon Garland then enumerated other democratic countries which had dealt with this same question by referendum — South Australia in 1896, Victoria in. 1904, and Queensland in 1906. In South Australia the proposal had been defeated, with tho result that tho movomont had been killed for many years afterwards, being eifectivoly removed from tho realm of practical politics. In Victoria it had also been defeated, while in Queensland the answer had been in' the affirmative. In asking for the referendum, the New Zealand League was therefore requesting a popular vote on a question on which only ono victoryhad been' won, as against two defeats.

The Bills of 1903 and 1905. In New Zealand itself tho principle of the referendum' on the question had already been admitted. Mr. Soddon, in 1903, introduced a general Referendum Bill, and it was expressly stated in the House that one question which would go to the people was that of the. Biblo in schools. The Bill passed tho Lower House, thus showing that members recognised tho referendum as a suitable method of dealing with the question. In 1905, Mr. Sidoy introduced a Referendum Bill, expressly providing for a popular vote on tho question of Bible in schools. This Bill passed its second reading, .which was most extraordinary, considering that it was a private member's Bill. That this should have hap-' pened -showed that members realised that there was a great deal in tho proposal.

Referenda and Matters of Conscience. Tho question of weekly half-holidays and certain municipal matters were also referred to tho referendum. Theso referenda sometimes touched matters of conscience. The league kept clear of the Prohibition question, but its members, as individuals, were required by law to vote on this matter. To many people this was a matter of conscience. The question of Sunday work was also one which many people regarded as a matter of conscience. For instance, tliey held - stronrj views on tho matter of running Sunday trams, thinking it was wrong and sinful, Still, because of tbo result of tho popular vote, they must not only see the trams running, but consent,' as citizens, to bear their share of the* cost. In .Pjilmei s,ou North, a, referendum had been taken on the question opening a municipal theatre. This was a question of conscience with many people, who believed that theatres were bad, especially when they were vised on Sundays for performances bordering very'nearly on those held on ordinary nights, by tho referendum, people with these scruples were forced to become part owners of tho theatre. It was thus quite clear that in Now Zealand, tho referendum liatl already been recognised as a means of dealing with questions touching religious conscience; Canon Garland went on to refer to tho recognition given by the State to tho Bible in the matter of oaths. Tho Book was nsed in all Courts, except in tho cases of abnormal persons who did not recogniso th© 13iblcj or who did not wish to use it. This was exactly what they asked for in tho schools—tho recognition, of tho Bible, with exceptions for abnormality. 'Tho State had taken on itself tp deal with many things, which hacl drico been decided by tho Ecclesiastical Clourts—for instance, questions of sexual morality. Tho Christian religion was recognised by tbo State as tho foundation of sexual morality. In conclusion, Canon Garland said tha tho wanted to point out why ho considered this'question of the referendum should' apply to tho particular -matter under consideration. He asked first, why were they in such a. position to-day that they should have to go to all this great effort and anxiety to get the Biblo into the schools. How did tlie Bible ever got out of the schools? It had been voted out by members of Parliament. Provision had been made by Mr. (now Sir Charles) Bowen for tho opening of tho schools by prayer and tho reading of the. Bible, but the proposal was voted out. How was it done? By a referendum —only, however, of somo 70 odd members, and not of half a million electors. If it was right for, such a question to be decided by a mero handful of members'of Parliament, surely it was right that it should go to tho great tribunal of the popular vote. Tho referendum would settlo the matter in tho clcarc3t mariner possible. If a referendum was not, to be taken, what other way could their opponents suggest of settling tho question?