BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2202, 15 July 1914, Page 8

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

THE REFERENDUM J BILL HON, F. M. B. FISHER CANNOT SUPPORT IT MINISTER INTERVIEWED BY CONSTITUENTS A deputation, . representing the .constituents !of tho Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, who are in favour of the proposed -referendum , on the, Bible-hi-schools question, waited upon him'yesterday to urge hini to support the Bill when it comes ■ f before Parliament.. i ■ Tho Rev. Dr. Gibb said that tho deputation, had come ,to impress upon Mr. Fisher the extreme desirability of tho ■ Bill becoming law this ses-: •sion. The deputation was , compara'tivoly a small one/but: lie could 'assure 1 ■the Minister that it'-represented: a very largo number of his electors. He .would point out .that the supporters of ( tho Bill we're not asking Mr. Fisher or any other member of Parliament to pro- — iliounce a definite opinion on the Biblc-'-in-gchools-question, although in a cer- : . .tain sense that- issue ,was.> now befor? i-Parliameiit. Tho Question. Parliament was asked to decide ijyas really the de-, - .\mocratic ! question, of ..whether," the.."peib-' ;ple of this country were -,to have a voico in whatever affected the education -ot thoir children.'-iJ'lt might be that df the Bill was ..passed': r v the-- Bible-in-Schools League would be beat'eriv btit ho : •behoved that an, overwhelmingly. ,large proportion of the people Iwould support , itheir proposals, in. any case,'the„agiItation would c'oiiei'-to-an end. :,;.Ile' did. say that if they : were- beaten , it : would never bo.: reyiyed, but for many, day there,would bo peaco in the-politi-eal arena. . ■ ... _ A Democratic Proposal, > It seemed such a reasQnable and such . '«fc democratic proposal -that it;, was diffijcult to see how v fcnyono,-could object: to '-.... ;it._ They n-ero extremely. anxious that: !this question should not come into gen-. ■ feral politics at;, the,' coming - elections. - Members of' the 'Bibfe-in-Schools League ibolpnged to all political parties, and he (was sure that they were all of one .mind V—that they should ,npt':be perplexed at ■ 'the coming election by the Bible-in- ■ 'Schools issue 'is to.-what candidates .they : should support. He .said :it ini'no man- ' :aier .as a threat, but-Mr. Fisher and his; ■••fellow Ministers ought-to-be aware that |,there.werethousandsdf people (ofivhom pho was'one) who *fould : givo priority to ■ ; this business at the "coming, election. .They were very sorry to be forced into ; this position] and '"they would take it- up - only because the'y.'-w.er^':.suffering .under a sense of . less .•c6nsidera- : tion was given to theidemaiids of Chrisitian people than itb ..those .'of any othersfffliey would be actuated not only by this - fsenseof wrohg,';but by: the-feeling-that '}they. must have "this' 'maiter settled.' i'Their consciences: would compel them to f«et all other politicalconsiderations . ;aside at the election,.and to give first " Iplacb to those,->ho supported their de--',mands. It must be clea'r..to:Mr.: Fisher .that'this issue should-be taken out of ftho way, and this could be dono only by 'Parliament passing' this - Referendum -""-Bill, and giving th'elpeople the right to, ■ .'express an opinion-on tins veryiinporfx. ant question. Mr. W. Allan, Jlr. A. Richards, and •Mr. T. M. Milligan supported Dr. Gibb. —TV': ' ' ' ' MR. fisher's:repi:y. WILL VOTE AGAINST THE BILL. The Hon. F. M. B. .Fisher said that ho, ,liko other members of the Cabinet,, had given this question tho mbst earnest consideration possible, but ho was bound to confess that he found difficulty" in dealing with the question, for two or three'reasons. One was that- he recognised the force of the public opinion that .-was behind tho Bible-in-Schools niove- . 'lnent, but on tho other_ hand he felt 'that' having expressed his views as he had in tho House against the proposal, nothing, would justify him reversing his vote given, on a former occasion unless he -went before his conistituents and, told them what-he in- ; tended to do. Since thg time to which . ho referred things had. changed consid(;crably. Tho Bill introduced in 1905 was private member s Bill, with only a 'very> apathetic public opinion behind lit. 1 The-present Bill, on tlio other . 'hand, was the voice of 140,000 people. . ; At tho same time liis own feeling was that tho >proper course for him to take \vouhl he to, say when he went before his electors, that in principle he favoured tlie referendum, but that'he would . reserve (his right _to vote against the • ! proposal at the referenduiA Ho was " going to vote against this Sill. He was vorv sorry to have to take'this course, hut ho had expressed his opinion so strongly oil the point that he felt that • ' ho would, bo betraying his trust and ■ what his own cbnscienco ljelieved to bo . right if lie acted' otherwise. Ho had , been told by the Bible-in-Schools League' '' that' they. represented, 'i\ very lareo number of his electors, and that therefore if he voted, against the Bill his fate would be-determined. He was told hv the Defence League that they w'ere supported by a very large number of his electors, and that if he supported the Bill iiis fate would be sealed. Bctvjoen '/wo Forces. ;Whichovei" way he turned, said the Minister, there was danj;er of his beir • ctushed between the two ' opposing forces." lr it should so happen that because he. had recorded a voto-which • was in accordance with his own -con- , science, and with his pledges, lie" would go under/ then ho would have to go V' under. 'Ho wished,, however, t,o point;out this:, his own children wore beiwi edu-, cated, and they wore being.taiighlCthe Scriptures, and he paid to, have that, instruction given -to them.- He heard : his children read their Porintpre le°sons and he was very well'satisfied to know that they were learning from that great and good Book. Biit when : ho found religious prejudices creeping , into the when he found people being forced into the position of , infringing-upon the consciontious objections of other peonle. 'in-order to get the decision of all tho peoplo in tlio only way, it could be obtained,''-then ho, fell that although it might lie disturb- - ing to the general election, lie,wanted. • - to get direction on the point. He could " not'possibly, under existing conditions, vote for the Bill. And he was boun,d . ' to say that although ho was a. believer in tho Bible and its teaching, at . tlio same time 1 lie had';a profound admiration for our education system. -'Ho thought it had served us well, and it would be well for -every nit-mber of Parliament to consider; as to'whether the proposed ■innovation was , going to drive a wedee into our system; and to consider whether it'was going to carry with , it . state aid for,-Ronsin Catholic schools. Dr.' Gibb: We dpn't agree tliat it does. Mr. Fisher:. Well, you must allow,tbat'however conscientious you,-are,: • there are other, people with consciences also. Dr. Gibb: What about Australia? There is' no support for, Catholic, schools there. , - 3lr. Fisher: There, may ,be'none in but it Is a question whether thp -Stato is parrying out its obligation. Tlieso arc matters to bo considered. Wo havo our own judgment and our own consciences, and it is not a, Liberal point of .view. Jo say: -that

because you disagree with a man ho is .wrong. A Ceneral Referendum. Ho pointed out -iliat there were people now who were in favour of the Bill who 'some time ago were opposed t-0 it. The whole position had changed recently. In'-, view of nil the circumstances, ho proposed to take jio part in a controversywhich; npppr.wxl to some extent to be assuming the tone of a religious controversy, but lie was going to record his vote against the .Bill. Whon lie ,went to his electors at the end of tho 'year, he proposed to ask them to return him as a supporter of the referendum, reserving his right to vote against tho proposal. He would also point; out that if peoplo woro. given tho right to voto on the Bible-iu-sciiools' question, they must also bo allowed the right to rote on tlio abolition of the totalisatov —(Hear, hear) —or the-abolition-of tho Upper' House. Preferential treatment could not be given to any one' section of opinion, ancl he would be very glad .to support ft, general Referendum Bill to -give every group of persons, holding . cortain opinions on. important questions a right to demand that the voto of the peoplo might bo taken on any of those questions. Whereas 110#' it was claimed that 140,000 people ought to be' granted their request for the passage of tho Bill, theit it must bo reasonablo that the same number of people would have a right to demand the repeal of it. Ho could not vote now for a piecemealBill l/hich denied to one section of the community what it gave to another. He believed there were people in tho House'who would vote against this Bill who would favour a general referendum. Will Face the Consequences. "Tho greatest pressure has been brought to bear on me," he said. • '.'I have had' letters containing, a threat that if 1 do notv vote for this Bill my political career is ended. I'am'to .be cut off in the prime of my political life, so to speak. I am very sorry if that should be so, but holding tho views 1 do, if that -is the prico I have to pay, well, I shall have to pay it." It was unfortunate, he continued, that the Bible-in-Schools organisation had sprung into being, , and assumed power, since last election. 'Now. they' camo before the House with a very vital question, much more important, than had previously come before Parliament in' many years. : Membershad never been, pledged on the question, had probably thought little of it* and | had ..never expressed an opinion upon , it..-j These members wore now asked ,',to;i record their votes in the House, and they were put in the posi;tion r 6f ;| l)e , ing crushed between two opposing factions. It was a very difficult position. Mr'.--Milligan asked whether -Parliament'always had a mandate: for legislatibn'.it'passed. • . : Mr., fisher replied that„ Parliament had hot-always such a mandate. -But in' regard to this case, the present system. had.--.been in operation for thirtyseven,years, and peoplo had bepn- com-, paratively "satisfied with it. '. DK;GibTiVNo.. ; .. ' Mf:, Fisher: If ■ yoii were as dissatis.fied at'last' election as you. aro now, why didn't you ask your- members about ,it'P";■-. , ,5. League's, Final Effort. Dr. Gibb said there was. a reason why the Biblo-in-Sehools supporters were quiet at last election. Some years,ago they inado a very strenuous effort, extending over a period of- six years, during xh-ich time MrT Seddpn twice carried through the House a general Referendum Sill; under which it was -understood that the.Bible-in-Schools question would be decided.' Then there came a certain peace, and the matter was allowed to rest -until they could gather their forces for a final, effort. This was.the- reason; "why so little was said, about this issue at last general election. In fact,' he could not remember one instance of the question having been raised during the .campaign. . Mr. .Milligan said, he could remember an ocbasion on which a question dealing with'the'subject had been put to Mr. Fisher, but the question was not answered. Mr. Fisher: I don't remember the incident, and I don't think it can be said that I shirk questions. . Dr. Gibb: To be perfectly candid, -it was not a burning question at last election. '' - Mr. Allan said that they had felt that they were being baulked: by the late Government, but from tho Reform Government they hoped for better things. After a brief discussion as to whether ho was pledged to his electors or not, Mr. Fisher saitl: I would not like to bo misunderstood oh this point. I -am .pledged to my electors only in this way, that on the only occasion on which it was raised I expressed, myself emphatically against tho Bill. I was asked a question on the platform at the election, which took place in the same year, and so far as I know the question has not been raised since. I took up that attitude then, and' I have never receded from it. Mr. Milligan: If this Bill is defeated at the second/reading, is your Government ready to introduce a General Referendum Bill? f . . Mr..Fisher; I can't answer for that. You would havo to consult the Prime Minister about that, and lie would, have to-consult Cabinet. I am not sure that there is not, a majority of Cabinet against this Bill, and I think this Government has,, gone very much further than other Governments might have ,gona in giving you an, opportunity of getting an expression of opinion from Parliament on this Bill. CANON GARLAND. ; CHEERED BY THE SYNOD. , A tribute to tho organising ability >cff Canon Garland (organiser for the -Bible- - nirSchools League) was accorded by tile Anglican Synod last night'. ~ .' On the, motion of Mr. E. B. Brown, it .was -unanimously resolved: "That this. Synod desires to express its warm appreciation of the great services rendered to the Bible-in-State-Scliools "League by the organising secretary, Canon Garland, to congratulate him on the large measure of success already achieved and to assure him of. its entire; confidence in him personally." Upon the motion being pnt, "the delegates ro 50 and enthusiastically, cheered Cniion Gnrlnfld. In,.a. brief reply, Canon Gar/land heartily thanked the Synod for their cordial appreciation. He said/ tliat ■ ho would long remember and value their "testimony. In, the course off further remarks' h'e'.said that he had only come to New Zealand to assist this movement after being repeatedly asked to dn so.-' <It was ' unfair t'hafc he should ho .called' a paid fanatic and a foreigner, for he was merely organising a movement wlijch the majority of the people The Synod iad nraised his organising work, but he. could have dono nothing if there had not been a desire among the people for Bible in tho schools. Unless his judgment was very much at.' fault-, tho question would , : nover unless it was settled in tho manner tho .League wished. It, might not- lie settled .to-morrow, but once it was settled they would hear lip iriore about it, just as they heard no more of',lt - ,now in other countries where the. question had been settled. (Applause'.) PETITIONSiiN PARLIAMENT. AGAINST REFERENDUM BILL.. A further batch of petitions protesting against the Bible-in-Schools Referendum Bill was presented to the House yesterday. Tho nnni.es of the members presenting the petition with tlie number of signatures attached to each, aro as follow:— Mr. Buick (Palmerston), 339 signaturcsj Ma- Davey (Christchurch East),

924; Mr. Ell (Christchurch South), 1105;, Sir J. Carroll (Gisborne), 248; Mr. Isitt (Christchurch 1 North), 449 ; Hon. .)'. Allen -(Bruco), 644; Jlr.-Hun-tor (Waipawa), 493; Mr. Webb (firoy), 161; Jlr. Gutlirio (Oroua), 348; Mr. Ciuthrie, on bclial fof Jlr.' E. Newman (Rangitikei), 503; Sir J. Ward (Awarua), 328; Mr. Wilson (Taumarunui), 2iiß; Mr. Robertson (Otaki), 502; Mr; Craigie (Tiniarn), 872; Jlr. Witty (Ric- . carton),- 432; Jfr. Russell (Avon), 562; Mr. Coates (Kaipara), 438; Jlr. Wilkinson (Egmont), 258. Tlio total number of signatures represented ,-by tlio above petitions is 8844. Tlio total number of signatures on all tho petitions against tho Bill presented to dato is 25,619. AN AUCKLAND CANDIDATURE. (By Tolaj»ranta.—Bseolal Oorrtßßondeut.l Newton (Auckland), July 14. Jlr. A. S. Holmes, of Onehunga, is being approached b.v the Bible-in-Schools Leaguo re his candidature for Auckland East in;the interests of the League. BJSHOP CLEARY AND REFER- - ENDUM. (To tho Editor.) Sir,—A lamentable case of misrepre- v sentation, perpetrated in Dunedin, has been telegraphed to you by your correspondent there. Ho calls attention to it as ''a remarkably sano and powerful argument for the Referendum Bill." It appears (he adds) in "a pamphlet circulated by Dr. Cleary," ' in the "shape" of a reprint from a leading article in tlio 'Otago Daily Times.' " Tho suggestion convoyed is that Dr. Cleary, at tho time x of publication of the pamphlet (1909), favoured in some degree such a meagijj-e as the present Refereudum Bill. Permit me to state what follows: —(1) The pamphlet in question was a mutually arranged" re-print of au entirely friendly discussion between the "Otago Daily Times" and ine. (2) . The "Times" editorial article, referred to aboye, appeared on''July 2, "1880. An amicable difference of opinion having arison as to the interpretation of a portion of it (pp. 170, 175), it was (by 'arrangement) reprinted in full in an appendix (pp. iBB-190), so that readers might judge ,for themselves. ■ (3) It contains not so much as ii word or hint regarding-a referendum. (4) In tlio whole book (so far as I can ascertain) there ,is only one reference to' a "referendum," and that is an unfriendly one (p. 140). (5) In the, whole book there is nothing that can . give the smallest, comfort to the Referendum Bill, cither from my pen or from that of the editor of the "Otago Daily Times." : ■ I am.no more responsible for tho editorial opinions of tho "Otago Daily Times" than lam for yours. But, as quoted in your columns, that old article of July 2, 1880, has. been garbled and mutilated in an amazing way. Here are a few examples in point(l) Tlie writer flings asido the following: "in the whole obntroyersy there is one generally receive'd 'axiom,- it'- is that the State cannot, and .ought not to. teach religion.- It must hold the balance evenly between contending :':forms of faith.' '.It must" accept as'iteachers men of all.shades'of'belief or disbelief> It is contemplated by tho New South Wales Education Bill that a certain amount of not clearly defined religious 'instruction may ho imparted by the teacher, and .we cannot for the life of us see how this is to work at all satisfactorily "in the present divided state of tho community on_Toligions . questions." (2) Then begins the mutilated and misleading scrap quoted by your Duifedm correspondent. Froui ( tho .very middle of that scrap, the southern leaguo controversialist tears out and flings asido several qualifying phrases, including tlio editorial opinion favouring; making tho Biblical selections } such as "to give no just'grounds of oflence to any considerable religious body." (3) ■At tho end of his mutilated extract; tho. leaguo writer suppresses the following further vital matters: Tlio New South Wales scheme (said tho "Otago Daily Times'' article) "could only work' satisfactorily by concert- and agreement between the different religious bodies, and, after all, could never satisfy tlio Roman Catholics." (b) Tlie articlo is sympathetic towards the protest against the secular system, but (it says) "wo cannot see any easy solution .of the practical difficulties." (c) The article views (with sympathy, as it soems to me) the; "possibility" of an arrangement among tho various, interested: parties along the following lines: "A modified system of payment by results." This it describes as "a system which would leave greater freedom to all w-ho are anxious to combino religious with-secular instruction, by making the State the equal distributor of all public grants for secular instruction-only, and would allow eacli separate, organisation to give what religious instruction ■it pleased, i This would bo an absolutely impartial system." (d) The articlo declares that the success of tho New South Wales system would be "contrary to our expectations." ' And (ej in case of its failure "there will be, it says "so far as we can see, no practicable alternative between an absolutely secular State system, and a system of payment by results"—which it has already described as "au absolutely impartial system." ' . Throughout, there is. not so much as a hint about- the referendum.-, Much less is there "a remarkably sano and powerful argument, for tho Referendum Bill." ' But there is a "remarkably" . lamentable exhibition of the lengths of garbling and suppression which some enthusiasts are prepared' to go in order to sustain an argumentatively indefensible schejie.—l am, etc., HENRY W. CLEARY, ' ' I Bishop of Auckland. July. 13: