STRIKING ADDRESS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2196, 8 July 1914, Page 6

STRIKING ADDRESS.

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. BISHOP SPROXT P.EPLIES TO CRITICS. THE REFERENDUM. PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE. "I should like to sav something on tho BibKin-sdioih mo\oiner.t," Eaid liisl-op Snrott, wiien addr"SEing the Aiiifhran Synod \esterdaj, and the i>.iwas greeted v, ith applause ' Wo na>e '' continued His Lo'dsl.ip, "'reathed n cr.su mi this movement. I'ailwmcni n in session, and tlio presint sessioi' will, I ♦hi-k largeh d> tcnnino tho f»to of tho mo\emeat.' I'ho address wps \crj well and I tl r> arguments used were frequently applauded. Hi., Lordship, proceeding, said "I do T.ot propose to repeat what I "<iic! lust j.'ar In tre int«"val I havo found reason to doubt ti.e soundness of tlie nrsuiwnls I tiicn put forth in i*s Jaiour Tho movencrt has progressed all expectation. Iho resolutrons roqnrstipc; tho referendum. orig!nallv p-4«scfl br tho councils of tho combined Churches, hav> iiow recened tV< nntUn endorsement of 140,000 electors Our opponents, indeed, tell us tl.at mai.> of these sipned tho league's cards under 'niswprohensions of \aricus kinds I should not be surprised to find that iu some cases this h?s happened. In nil groat movements there are always to be found some who ha\e uninWli2»nt support And where a vast number of -scattered agents aro omploved, then , miy well bo fono v.hosu Keal is greater than their discretion Our league -cannot aspect to escape the lo* of t'l great movements. Al! I can =i> is that the Central Executive has dono its bos* to secure *hit its o'iijoctn( s'nall bo thoroughly explained by its ap;oii*s to all .vho a f e invited to j sign Indeed, th* objective is so nIv ftatc<l upon tl o card that only bv QTnt earplessiiess «-ould a f"rson of nvorago intelligence fail to undcrstai d ■t Fiir'her, after tho statement I refer to M"s made, the organising sc<;re4ary publx'/ anncun"' , d —and the cnpouncon'opt was "idely d ; ffuscd in iho I'ros?— that the league was quito prepared to cancel +ho cf all persons v-ishir.g to yitlidriw who woul 1 "ignifv the same in writing Up to 'late tho response h?° hecn so small as lc bn entirelv negligible. Alleged Misroproscntatlon. "I repel with all my forco any suggestion of conscious rusroprcfentaiion <*n tho part of our igents Whatever •the" have said they have believed. Wo ow" our eanyatsers an untold debt of gMtitudt Ti'oy are for the most part womcr. leading b'ls-, lives in tbo homo cr in 'ho office Thev have frcelv devWl their scan f v leisure to' On not verv plcasint task o f c.-i.vassing bec'litsc. as tl-c l.a'uri , guardiaiia of children, the,- realise the supreme importance cf religiors tcacl mg. B\ their self-sncnflc:rg work, within - tho brief smcc of twenty "lop.ths they have nif-dc tho ii'oicricntpiict ec long ago the bn:t of scoffs and jeers—tho question of tho Ji\, vwth nh.cli ojr p lblic men lire Rot a f once seriously to reckon. I lo not fo r gct the splend'd leadership rf the organising secretary, who. lo it always rrmombercl, came to this couniiv it the urgent rcciiiest of the comliine.l churcli»s, but In himself uo'ild !).•> th" first to ndm t that without our noble bind of women, oven he could flavo achieved 'ittlc (Applnus. ) Referendum nil! this Session. "I 'have said t'.ip movement has b»enmc cno with which our public mon must reckon Parliament '3 now in session, and the leaguo looks for the passing of the Referendum Bill before tho session closes. One hears maiiv fore-ra-,is av tc Parhimeni'n probable action Somc, the rtisi' perhaps bei'ij; tither of the 'houglit prtdiot that Parliament v rl pass no surh B 11 I thinkthat would be a pity W-> have beer, iinsl :i"\ioi's tc keep this movement out o f the t irmcil o f general politics, and st'il more, of party politics Our Icag'i", as a league, i-ro.vs noth.ng of partv fwlitip?, an.] does not deiiro to kmvv anjtiling, 'lint, indt-ed, is ono of th" reasons whv no decided to p-o----rp-d bv Kefnendi'Pi Tho vaiiio of tlio 13 just this, that it enables tl'o in nnttcrs vhich 'it is desirable'to Jeep outside the pi>rtv svi.tcn\ to express its «ii! uithnut dWurbi'ir i'lc per.eral political equi'iorium Should Farliamen , Fa/I. "But shculd Tarliainont fill to pass t'le B-11 this sess'on, I see no heln* for it: into fie General Election this mo-.c-m A iit vmII be forced and forced by Parliamciit itcolf It is truo our orrliiiarv card of moirbersh:p dors 'iot pledge sia;nator4rs to .iny specific iwm of politic-1 action- but an ninroisu.g nnmber of us, as w tness -esoluiions pissed m various pirts of the country, arc determined, if need hp, to jnu the Qiole-in-schools question Srst, I ii tins e\*cnt fit lonst thn: we nill not ■ vote for vuv candul?to who is i<ct prerarcd to crant the refer"ii-him Sorro iro prepaicd to go furiher than this , Of corrse, ii -ve arc lo'ced bv Pirli.i----l inert Iα outer th" Gencnl 'Election, I our opponent" wi" fcllcw suit, with vi ii t disturbing effect upon 'he goner ii politics of the count:v "ho can vollTlio respcnsind't} nowover. ni!i rost vith iho present Parliament, j.oi with us The Question to be Submitted ' Otnt-r prophets tell us t.iat in ai' probiljilitv Parlian cut will pass tho Uill, but :iot 'Mtl.OLt modifvmg tho f|iiestioii as framed bv tho Icarup Whv, then, prey, pass a lUfer- I Fiiduni Bill at all? A lefe-eiidum ]>resioixiscs a svnttoii rcqucbt by ? reasonable KCbortion of tie population, whoso ii umber ana identitv cm bo ascertained, that tpp will of t!"o "omniuinty should bo tikon cm a spe.ifioj question A reforendrni is n(\ei liken on a vague lirp.rv-iv—for iWiif'i tnc man in tho street is iiltnuaich ro-.ponsiblc—that a lot of people l .ould iik-> soniotlinig of tho kiiif 1 jSow v .o .'•'■ c the o"ij jx'op'e who fJiillil tho conditioi s Wo vo thd <iilv pjojile making a I'ofijii'o request; our nunii, A rs are laigo; oor identity jan bt established I'lfiiilv, H'Ci., cur nuostion tliould bo submitted, or no ques f ioi: it all sl.oald b<» siil>mFttcci. Parinaient pncjib concona'jlv bo justijie.i n icfusiiig any referei.di m it all; iint for Parliament to submit am other ijur-tion than curs is to do a gratuitous .°iid c\pensi\o ac f r for vihic!. iioiv-m h"s iskrd I rruino*, tlii.ik that either ,Msoor logical. I suppose the n.odifcat'on of tho riupehon is proposed with a view lo wpkint, the passing of tin Bill N;o.p pMitrble to o|,[w.ip,its. JJ;,t m ]\ it do so . Opponents of the Bill. Thi> c])|)ononis of Iho Bill nre tre Jiom.in 'Jhnrrli m<l ihe bodv !;uov.n as tho Difrmc Loagiip Xo airo niodiluatio'i ol tho quostiop \'ll disnrni tl.o \ nth <il oilier ot thf-e parties Both have phcid it on recor.l tha f thev rbjott cm princijili- to inv r ferondum '\lnte\or b'lii,; token «n a relicio.is I qu.'stKiii l< t .is hca» their ov n slate-li'i-'its In ihe pptuioii to Pailip ion! oiiuil-lcil foi b' the Itoiii.ui tliUich it is stated "A icferon-lum or plrbiM it", on ,i (|iips(ui> of religion and I of tony it'iiin grounded on religious taitli ' (is meiiit bv us ihronghout the peti- I t-on) iS confar> to Bundxj caracal I

I pmicipiss of natural jight ard true democrat.;, ' "Ou the Defence Leag.ie's c?rd we read. 'OSo religious question can ha decit with b v v the will of a majority, and to take a referendum oa such "a •■ que&tion would bo to inkrfero >vith regions .locrt; " "1 shall return late' to the. doctrinaire limitation tc *hu people's control of their own ocncsils *o n'agiitenallj enunciated n. both these statemcits. At presoni I rimpl.v c ijiphasise t' » point, that no "iero modification o f our question will rlisarin either oass of o'Jr opThey den\, ir tho name of conscience, relig'on, libertv, ind demouacv, I'jrl'ainenVs ct'jipoteiice to take nnv icforcnduin whatevpi. On tho other hand, an , mouircation of tho question ui'l most wr'aiiil. <liij<ieabe 140 000 f'ecto'i j'ld an indefinite further number (for cnrolraent still proceeds), pll of whom w.ll regard "lodihcation as aa unfr.ondlt net They have asked for .1 specific qi.e»ton, and 1. ill accept no other. This cannot ao too c!"ar'v u>.drrstoo'd \,\ i>ll "OPcernt'L Bj modification I niear, of course, substantial modification, s icn as would, iltcr t'.ia pri'iciple of our svstein. To merely v rbal modification no one could reasonably object - If, oj, tho question, tn framed by the league , were nngrammat til or i n clegant in expression., tht purists in Parliament miqht venture, 1 th.nk, without serious risk, to frame it more ele-jantlv, (Laughter.) But uior/ than th s wo cannot accept What Modification? 'The mcdif cation fa\eured in some quarter-; is, 1 bolicv\ tin* division of tho League's laestion into two independent qiiest'ors The Australian sv.atem, which we have adopted, cuns : ste, as \ou know, of tno pa T ts. (1) Bible'eadir.g under the snpenision' of the (yatners. (2) of entry during ' school hours for ministers of religion. ' ard other accredited agents of the cnuHies. In tho League's question tht.se are presented as being lmitudlj complimentary, and as together forra"- ' ing onn consistent svstem of religious toielung. To tho toaelier more specially belongs and historical Eide of the Bible, to the ministers of religion, .ts _pin*'i.il ard application to life. Tha lptter, of course, is by frr tho ijioro lraporant, I but it ••> aiio just that wherein divergence of a iew arises, and therefore that with which the teacher c.ipnot deal. I3.it both are neccssa-y. You cannot J'avo the full significance of the Jiiblo I without tho literary Toundation. The two parts, t'len, are mutuallv compleirer.tarv, and aro so presented in thq Loacue's luestion It is this unity '. hich it is proposed to break up inte two independent questions. J .Right rf Entry. , "What is sought to_ be ganM by thi3 t pioeedura 5 . My ccnjecti're is that it 1-. put forward 'v persons who havo convinced themselves that some kind <if religions teaming has got to be admitted into the schools, but who desire to rsndc +his fact as nalatable as possible to opponents, by making 'It possible fer that Dart cf our sjstem which : opponents mar dishko to bo rejected. Undoubtedly, in. the view of the J advocates of awision, tbo mere obieeticr.able element is the right of entry. Aie they Tight in this v ; ew 5 Are they light in thinking that opponents dis! uo ihc of entrv than" the teachers' lesions 5 The available eiidenco does not ieom to me to po : n» tliat wa\. Our coponeiits aro liic Roman Catholics and tho Defcnco league. A- to i'io Roman L'hnrch tfers can, I tLink be co .'onbt that if some f orfn ( cf teaching is to come ; pto + he .t louid greatly pre'er the nsht rf entrj fo>- ministers of relicion. , Tlini T'sh 1 of entrv is not absolutely orposed to the Church's prme pies :s promd bj tint, to some client at lea;t, its clergy do avail themsehes of :t ;n Australia; ivhcreas, Bible-reading the teachers' t,upei-- \ ision is anath >ma to then: ITie Eothen, will not bo placated Jjy divid-nj; tho question", :." d'rision is meant to secure th? r<. jection of "ght v: ontrj. Th 3 Dafenoe League's Ptsitien. "The position of tlie Defence Lcacua is somen hat ambiguous. Tho DefeiictLeague is one ind +he samo card th'oughout N'tir Zealand. T.vc cards at lea t are in clrculat.oi— cno iu W elhngtou, an 1 another, someI'hat difForont, in Canterbury. Xow if ci.o wre to take one's viei? of the Defence Leagae's position from the Wellington card, one. might conclude that tho Defence I.«aßiw had no obie. , - tion whaie.or to tbo risht of er.try for pnn.stfrs of religion; nai <;n the ppn--1 "iple that in icrta-n ci r cnrr.stan"e3 silence moans consent, <,ne might gather t.'nt ft rat'icr approved of tho nqht of m»r\; ior tbo right of ent-y is no( mcntioi.ed en tho \7ellington cird Here k its petition to Parliament,— " 'Therefore jour petitioner requests jour honourable House to > maintain a national of education on its present free, secular, and comouisir} basis, ard 1o protect the religious liberty of fte people aga'nst the eneroaohjT.ente of those peoplo who propose bv means of a referendum to compel tho fachers of our public fchooki to ghe religious lessons to tho childrpji. . Hardly Carelessness. 'Such - e tho petition, and nlainly n hat I' deprecates is r.ot right of entrt being submitted to a refer?ndum, bi:i only tho Question of tho teacheia' lcs< son", being: so submitted Ida Jicl think ire can attribute the omission of right ot • utr." to mere carelesf draiiKi'tiPir. The Weliirstoii branch oi (he Defeiii« League is a \ try learned brd>, having its members main , j.etsons of higii scholastic at'ainintnt ■Mid j* incredible t! iat su"h -ihoa'd present to tlie Parl.iment oi tho DoTiinio' a petition so JaiiltiN corded <s not to express the pptit.oncrs' chief object ol desire—u.iless. indeol, the ■ bscuro and fau'ty diction w»ro mea.it to impress on Parliament <he Ticetl there is for university reform' The 'C.fitcrburv i"rd. I'crever, does mention the right of ent-y, hut without special emphiiis. hetlier oi- not this poiius t<l a divisior in Mio Defence Leiuce's ranks I cannot fi\ Prolnth ;L" safest conclusion is that, flhde 'ho Defence Leapno does 'iot greath 10.0 tne rif;bt o f entrv it much p r efors :t to the teachers' lessens The Evidence Available. "The available evidence, tlan, tends to show J that the dniSion of the leagu/a quco'ion nould not piacato oppor'nts It may, of course, bo ■'hit division is iiigges'ed in the slj hepo that 't will sow dissension in tho ranks of the Bibic-in-Schools League If ej, it is doomed to disappointment. Ihe leaguo stands frm for the übole quo-ticn in. bo'h its parts ,Non" of thn enarches concerned could coifs"nt to dnisioa vitl-ojt Jishcpour. 'i lie church \ hich s'loulu do so would cut itself off Iron, all fu'ure co-operation with its neighbours, as r. chiTch \Uioso word could not bo triisku. But t!i"re is no possi'jihtj of rii.\thiii!; v of the kir.d'l.appemng Munial io\al'v poriades cur rai.kb. Parliament may dmdo the question, if- is thinks fit But -f lull not bo accedrig to onr dcTiand, it ni'l not be accoding to the (lon ind of any rospoiis'blo hod of people It will be do.ng a gratuitous ani l , in oi.r'uew, a hpstilf act; •• id \'c shall accept no usnonsi'jil it\ f or tl e r"s"U Is a Referendum Improper? "Beth tf'c Iloniau Church ai.d lh» Defc.iie Lcgue as.-ert that all such questio is a-e no , p.oior to bo suljp.itI ted to t'lL people's doc.sior at ail I I hild it to 1« f'.tilo to attempt anteI c"lenth to determine t^^ , l'mi*s bevond [which tfce communitr maj not riglnly

venture to ospross il»j corporate mind and voice Such a prion determinations are, not seldom, littio moro than tho reflection of our own prirnto prejudices and prepossessions. Suro I am that, givon sufficient unanimity and intensity of conviction, tho community will pay small resect to doctrinaire limitations and prohibitions. And certainly it is fntilo to urgo Parliament to formulate and imposo such limitations, ouch demand assumes that Parliament possesses, powers undorivod from tho community, to which tho community inust passively submit. A given Parliament may, I grant, successfully thwart tho general will, but not nil Parliaments for all titno can do so. This Is so self-evident that I cannot help thinking that thoso who call upon Parliament not to permit tho community to do this or that, do so with their tonguo in their eheok. This, of course, does not mean that whatever tho community does is necessarily right; but on!? that Parliament is not tho conscicuco of the community, but an organ of its conscience, from which it derives all its power. Tho words in which, on a famous occasion, tho Speaker of the Houso of Commons set forth his own relation to the ITouso, well express tho relation in which Parliament itself stands to tho community at large: "I havo neither eyes to seo nor tongue to speak save as this Houso shall direct me." (Applause.) Religious Questions Cannot bo Excluded. But loast of all is it possiblo to oxcludo tlio religious question, when the subject under consideration is education. Supposo wo had all just arrived in New Zealand for tho first time. Iu duo courso tho question of. providing education would ariso. Many suggestions would, doubtless, bo made, as, 0.R., that tho community should establish common schools ■under its own exclusivo control; that tbo providing ofschools bo left to private and voluntary effort; and &o on. Tho question of tho character of tho education to be given would also corao under discussion, as, e.g., that religion bo included; that it bo excluded. Now, plainlv, all such questions could only ho finally settled by voto of tho community. And tho last, of courso, is our old friend—tho religious question. Tho community could not possibly avoid coming to a decision regarding it, in plain English, voting on it. It would bo futile to declaim against such voto in tho liamo of religious liberty. For the alternative —religious edncation versus secularwould havo to bo faced and settled. It would not avail to propose that tho community do not voto at all; for soino system of education must bo adopted, and it must bo either secular or relicious, one or tho other. Yet both the Roman Church and tho Defence League, with the gravity of men reciting the Credo, warn Parliament that to tako n referendum on any such question is to mtorfero with religious liberty, and to violate sundry cardinal principles of truo democracy, etc. They utter tho warning with equal improssivoness, but not, I think, with equal regard to logic. National Education. Tho Defence League believes in a national system of education. In its petition it prays Parliament to Maintain - a national system. Docs it not seo that the logical conclusion from its premises is that tho community, as a community, should not undertako education at all, but should le'avo it entirely to private. and voluntary enterpriso; in other words, that a national system of education is precisely that which ought not to bV? This, of courso, tho Roman Church sees clearly enough. It sees that you caniiot touch education at all without raising and deciding tho issue—religious versus secular. And therefore it maintains— not'lndeed in its' present'petition to Parliament, but iuits gpnoral policy nnd practice—that not only ' Teligious education, but all education, is outsido tho competenco of a mixed community such as Ours. Tho Roman Church' is' logical. Grant its premises and you must accept tho conclusion. I myself should accept tho conclusion,- did I not find in tho Biblo-in-schoob system a solution of the difficulty. Tho Defence Loaguo is hopelessly illogical. It cheerfully accepts tho promises, and as cheerfully continues to maintain that tho community, as a community, is quite competent to control education, and is, indeed, tho only proper authority to control it ; and invokes Parliament" to nee that it does. . "Tho fact is, tho Defenco League's position is only tenablo in a community wholly consisting of non-religious creatures, such as has never anywhere existed in Uio world; nor ever will exist. (Applause.) In such a community the religious issue- would, of courso, never arise. But tho position cannot bo logically or practically sustained in any community in which thoro exists a singlo religious person who believes that religion is an cssontinl part of education. in such a community tho , issue—religious versus secular—inevitably' arises, nnd having arisen, must bo decided ns nil community issues aro decided—by voto of tho people. This, then, is tho outcomo of our opponents' contention: Denominational education, not as a permissiblo systemi or even tho best system, but as the only system compatiblo with religious liberty! The Only Way Out. '■'I can seo only ono way whereby a national system of education, could bo established without raising tho religious issue and submitting it to tho popular voto. It could bo done, if thero wero Botoo person or persons, superior to tho community, with authority underived from tho community, who should doviso a system of education and imposo it without consultation or consent. This method would, of course, avoid tho necessity of popular vote, hi fact, what is needed is somo modern embodiment of tho doctrine of Divino Right of Kings. And, intlcod, I suspect that toino such notion is at tho hack of tho Defence Leaguo's head. (Laughter.) That <loctrino, at loast as operative in English history in tho 17th century, did not merely mean that "tho powers that bo nro ordained of God." It means that a particular family nml a particular member thereof wero by Divino ordinance tho only legitimate depositories of power. Whoever by popular olectiou or Acts of Parliament might bo do facto Sovereign; thero was only ono family in which Sovereignty reposed by right, and that Divnio right. The Modern Embodiment. "Well, tho modern embodiment of this principlo in this very democratic country may ho found, as far ns tho control of education is concerned, in a small eoterio of self-elected superior persons who aro ready to take chargo of our education and to determino for us its religious or secular character. In this way thero will bo no need to submit such questions to popular vote, and tho religious libnrty, so dear to tho Defence League, will bo preserved inviolate. Of courso, for every blessing there is a prico to pay; and tho price of religious liberty is submission lo a tyranny more unreasonable than that which, for a while, our fathers groaned under and then destroyed. Moro unreasonable, I say. For after all thoro was a presumption, however slight, that in an ancient family, long_ used to rule, tho capacity for rule might bo developed and preserved by "heredity. Whereas thoro is 110 presumption—except its own (laughter) —that our modern coterie of superior persons is better fitted than we ourselves to control our education and to clotermino its religious or secular character. Tho Conscicnco Clause. "I havo said that a system of denominational education is the logical issue of our opponents' contention that to take a referendum is to violate liberty of conscience. 1 dealt.with this question of Tonscieitco in my address last .year, and "Tied to show, that neither in its initial

' procedure by referendum nor in its practical working did our system offer any violence to conscience that was not adequately met by a conscience clause. As our opponents have not Attempted, m> far as I am aware, to answer what was then said, 1 need not now repent it. They have, however, much to say in condemnation of what 6omo of them term "tho proposed so-called conscience clause." Tho phrase assumes that tho ! conscience has already been formulated. This is a mistake. The formulation of the conscience clauso rests with larliament, and will not bo undertaken till tho Education Act is being amended. I gather thnt what our opponents condemn is a formula which they roquiro all parents who desire partial or com. plcto exemption for their children to signify tho samo to tho headmaster in writing. An Odd Conception. "I must confoss'that somo such formula seems to mo entirely reasonable. Both classes of our opponents tal;o strong exception to it; but whether on tho samo or on different grounds is not clear. Tho ' Defence LcnßUo, S gather, virtually demands that tho conscienco clauso shall apply, not to tho minority but to tbo majority; that is, that it is tho parent who desires religious teaching who shall bo compelled to signify the same in writing, not the parent who '■declines such teaching. This proposal discloses a most odd conception ot tho function of conscienco clauses. Tho very idea and meaning of conscionco clauses is to protect minorities against oppressivo action of majorities. Majorities do not need protection. Theoretically all laws aro assumed to represent tho prevailing mind of the community, nnd, as a general rulo, everybody is expected to accept them, Iu certain cases, however, it is felt bv modern communities to bo a just and I roasonablo concession to individual liberty to permit porsons who do riot approvo of tho law to claim exemption from its scope.. Dut for tho sake of public dignity and order this exemption must bo applied for according to proscribed form. Tho Universal Practice. "Public dignity nnd order forbid that people should exempt themselves, without duo notification to the proper authorities. Accordingly euch laws contain a conscicnco clauso, which concedes tho right of exemption and prescribes tho procedure. This is tho universal uso of conscience clauses. They frotect minorities. Tho Defenco /oague, as I understand, proposes to put tho conscienco clauso to tho very opposite uso, and to require, thoso who approvo of tho law nnd wish tho benefit of its provisions to tako tho troublo of making formal application. Whatever hoard of such a thing? I* faith, ■tho Defence Leaguo genius who conceived the idea or protecting tho lawapproving majority by a conscienco clauso, must be a countryman of my own I (Laughter.) In fact, tho Defenco Leaguo wishes it assumed that tho prevailing mind is opposed to the Jaw until tho contrary is shown by iudiyidual written approval I Tho absurdity is especially glaring in tho present case. For while, owing to tlA> party system and tho opportunities it affords for temporary coalitions between small Parliamentary groups, it sometimee happens that laws aro enacted which by no means represent tho prevailing mind of tho community, onr procedure by Referendum infallibly secures that our system shall not bo legalised unless it do represent, not in theory only but in fact, tho prevailing mind. Wo shall not have to assumo, wo shall know that tho majority approvo it. And wero it an ordinary law, all would bo expected, without moro ado, to observo its provision*. But in this , matter of religious education it is just that parents' liberty 'should be' respected: hence , a' conscieuc6''cla'iiso r "is "provided frtr ctirisciontious objectors. National Defence is a parallel case. Not thoso who approvo of it, but thoso who on certain . specified grounds disapprove, nro required to signify.tho samo to tho authorities. \ct National Defenco was never submitted by Referendum to tho direct and specific vote of tho people. Tho Roman Catholic- Potltlon. "The Roman petition describee tho assumed conscienco clause as 'odious , nnd 'disreputable' Its words arc:—'Tho proposed so-called conscicnco clauso for children is a peculiarly odious and itl«reputablo formula: it falsely protends that all parents desiro for their children tho proposed form of Government religious instruction unless such parents protest IN-WRITING against it, . This rigorous and vigorous scnteiico is open to much criticism, as, e.g., the scornful opithot applied to tho religious -in, struction—'Government religious instruction,' nuictly ignoring tho fact that tho religious instruction will bo given by tho Churches, including tho Roman Church, if it so desire, without Government let or hindrance. Inasmuch, however, as in tho petition, tho clauso 'iu writing' is printed in capital letters, wo must presume that tIM odioiisncss and di.sropiit.iblciios.s nro chiefly to bo found in tho procedure by written letter, tho capital letters being employed to visualise to tho oyo tho hugo enonaity or this method. What other procedure, then, would tho petitioners suggest? Would they think it consonant iiit'i tlio dignity nnd good order of the National Schools that it should bo left to tho children to bear verbal messages from their parents on this most important subject? Or do they wish to impose on parents tho trouble-—m many country districts the appreciable trouble—of themselves interviewing the teachers ? And do they think that cither of thoso methods would bo a more effective safeguard than tho written and signed letter against tho pioselytism which they go on in tho petition to express their exceeding (head of? I suspect, however, notwithstanding tho capital letters, that what these petitioners disapprove is not tho moro method of procedure, whether by letter or otherwise, but that tho minority should havo to claim exemption by any method whatever; and that they aro at ono with tho Defence T.capuo in its absurd demand that tho conpeloiie clauso should apply to the majority. Our Duty, "I believe, however, that despite all opposition, a Referendum Bill, conte.ining our question, and ours only, will bo passed this session. If so, the question will bo submitted to tho people iu December next. ■ Between now and then it behoves all members i>f the Church to bestir themselves, so that when tlio question is submitted it may rccoivo on overwhelming affirmative answer. The passing of tho Referendum Hill, remember, dons not placo tbo Bible in the schools. It merely sots the people froo to deal with their own schools. That achieved, onr true work bofjina —work of nn educative character, explaining, removing misapprehensions, rousing sensn of responsibility, etc. December next I What appeal there is in tho very date—lhe centenary of the enming of Christian civilisation to New Zealand! Strangely significant thnt, nil unpremeditated, Hint, should be the date when the whole people of Now Zealand shall, for the first time in its history, be free by direot voto in express its will ns to the ■character of thi> national education; frro to say wholhcr it is its will that tho Bible, in whose very'words civilisation found its earliest utterance, in this land, shall have national reccinition in our schools. "What if the deliberate vnien nnd vote of the people should saw 'No: tin , Bible Minll not have national recognition'? 1 ask you, dn von like to contemplate such a possibility? Do von like lo think that one prevailing 'No' should be the include to your Mnrsilm Centenary celebrations? For myself 1 confess, if that is to be tbo vnire I shnll benr, all my centenarr enthusiasm will be killed. I shall feel that, insten-1 of thanksgivings and congresses and exhi-

bitions, it wero moro fitting far to proclaim a great week of humiliation that we wero such degenerate children of thoso who first brought Christianity to this land—no longer worthy to bo called their sons. Well; if we tool like this, wo must work—work—work during the next six months. "Our Chance Has Cornel" "Now for tbo first timo in our lives our flianco has como. Iu our lives it will also be tho last time. For, bolievo me, if this chance bo missed, the eaiiso of religious education in this country is (load tor this ceneration— ONCI3 to every man and nntion comee the moment to decide, In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the £O<*l or evil side; Somo preat Cause, God's ik>w Messiah, offering each tho bloom or blijiht— And tho choice (joes by forever 'tutxt that darkness and that lii;ht. Mr. Ernest Iladfield gavo notico to move that tho Synod would express its appreciation of tho action of the Governnient in introducing and of Parliament in passing this its first reading of tho Referendum Hill. Tho motion expresses tho hope that tho Bill will bo carried as introduced.