THE REFERENDUM BILL

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2211, 25 July 1914, Page 9

THE REFERENDUM BILL

ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY BISHOP CLEARY'S EVIDENCE The Education Committee of tho House of Representatives began yesterday the- hearing of evidence upon the Religious Instruction in Schools Referendum Bill now before Parliament. Members of tho Committee present were Messrs. G. M. Thomson (cliairman), J. Allen, T. K. Sidey, R. M'Callum, H. Poland A. S. Malcolm, J. C. Thomson, C. E. Statham, J. Hanan, and D. H. Guthne.. Others who attended were Mr. G. Hogben (Inspector-General of Scho&ffc),. Canou Garland, Profossor HunW Messrs. T. A. Williams, ' W. loiter, and G. Girluig-Butcher, and a number.of members of Parliament who aro not members of the Committee.. fhe first witness heard was the Right R<jv. Henry "William Cleary, Roman Archbishop of Auckland. His | evidence was given in a very lengthy address, which occupied two hours in reading. Only some of the principal PQints in the address are here touched u Pjn. Bishop Cleary said that he apin connection with the petition *P parliament of the Roman Catholio Arcnrjighop an d bishops and clergy of New f «aland, and of the Catholio Fed-, erated &o o i e tie S representing the F5 k'EMic lay electors of New ,?«• •if ±2™ matter of the petition -w»lt T i j « n^r est of an orjp"y satl ° n styled tho Bible-^n-State-S^ lo^B League for legislation t5- a plebiscite (misnamed a "referendum!') to be taken on a proposal to introduce a certain typo, or religious instruction inte the schools of the Dominion. The petitioners had declared that support for the plebiscite proposal had been obtained by grave and persistent misrepresentations. The league- claimed. Bishop Oleary continued, that the Bill before Parliament had been petitioned for by some 140,000 electors of New Zealand , , and they gathered from a remark of the Prime Minister that tho Bil l was apparently introduced on that account. For soine reason the alleged petition of the Bible-in-Schools League had not yet been presented to Parliament. Nevertheless the anomalous position wae created as matters stood that the proposed alteration of tho law seemed to be treated as if it were in possession, and the existing law was to be treated as if it were merely tho claimant for possession. Roman .Catholics, he. went on to remark, could never bo contented with a purely secular system of education, but .they recognised, at the same time, that it was in possession,' and protested against the position to which he had alluded. ' . , The League Petition. Tho League petition and the provisions oi the Bill were an admission :— (a) That Biblical scraps or selections were to be prepared by the Government! (b) That the electors of the Dominion were not to be allowed an opportunity of seeing and criticising them before voting upon them. (o) That the proposed Government Bibhcarfragments were to bo of such a naturo that many people would, on grounds of. conscience, object to thorn— hence tho conscience clause for pupils, but not for taxpayers or teachers. (d) That: the Government fragments from the Bible-; wero to be compiled by the State, printed, bound, stored, and distributed by the State, at the coet of all the people of the State. (e) ■ That conscientiously objecting teachers', must teach them or take tlhe oonaequenoes of refusal. ■•'", (f) That conscientiously ''/objecting parents must submit to have thoir children taught it unless specially and individually exempted, and no exemptions would be given unless the parents adopted the humiliating resort of protesting against it—presumably' in writing, as in Australia. ■ Tho privileges of the system proposed by the League were'to be strictly reserved to ono privileged party and pooplo who could not accept' Bible matter selected and perhaps.mutilated by the Government wore to bo put outfide tho pale. ...'... ■Roman Catholics would be satisfied only with a truly national 'system which gavo equal rights of conscience to every section in tho community and provided secular education for those who desired it secular, and religious on fair conditions all round for those who desired it roligious, A Cry of Failure. j Bishop Cleary elaborated at great length a contention that the League's cry of denominational failure' represented a vast falling-off in spirit, hope, and energy, from the pre-agitation days, when the League clergy pointed proudly to the achievements of their denominations in moulding the national character of Great Britain. League clergy, he. said, had been proclaiming their denominational failure as an argument in favour of this Bill. Instead of emulating • the enterprise ojE the Roman Catholics, who had established their own schools, the League clergy had laid to the ; charge of the secular system' a serious measure of bad results, -which were fairly traceable to their own act or default. Tho "pagan," "barbarous," "atheistic,"-and .morally degrading" system which they now so severely condemned was created by the direct votes of- tho League denominations. A very small proportion of tho League clergy had availed themselves of. the existing facilities for carrying religions instruction into the schools. They now threatened that ii Parliament and the country did not accede to their wish they would wreck or cause detriment to the national system by starting a rival denominational system. What had prevented them opening sohools of thoir own during the last. 37 years ? Yet during all that long period, with only an occasional verbal protest, the League clergy had accepted the system which they now assailed. The Roman Catholic clorgy, on the other hand, had flung themselves with enthusiasm into the work of religious education, and the Roman Catholio Church looked confidently to the future, and sounded no cry of failure— no appeal to Caesar' or to Parliaments. If the League clergy had put half as much monoy and energy into the Leagues l of Family Prayer and Biblereading, as they had put into political agitation, their various denominations would have been vastly the better by now ■ : ! Confused Issues. The ballot-paper of the Bill, Bishop Cleaiy stated, combined six soparato and confused controversial issues, and electors wore reqnired to treat them as one plain simple issue, and vote a single yos ; or a singlo no upon them all. The six issues were: — (a) The Government to provide selected Bible lessons. (b) The lessons to be road within school hours. (c) Tho teacher to supervise the reading. • : (d) No sectarian teaching .to lie allowed. ' , . (e) Right of entry to clergy for religious instruction. (f) Riglit of parent to withdraw his child from Bible- reading, or from religious instruction, or from both. The League and Its Opponents. In its agitation for tho Bill, the league had proclaimed that it wanted the Bible, but in its petition it demanded Scripture books provided by the Education Department. Great numbers of people favoured the introduction of the Bible, but did not favour the

league scheme.. Those opponents were grouped by the league as one body, and were spoken of as "secularists, atheists, and Roman Catholics." Dean JFitchett had spoken of tho opponents of tho league as "a tatterdemalion crow with whom Falstaff would not havo marched through Coventry, but all very dear to Dr. Cleary." . Canon Garland ranked tho oppononts of the league with tho demons, of tho nethermost abyss. It was luminously clear that tho talk about "the Bible." "tho open Bible," and "the battle for the Bible" was a moro party catchword, and in this political campaign the Nelson Presbytery, great numbers of God-loving Protestants, clergy, and people, the whole Roman Catholic body, Jews, etc!, were held up by the league to public odium as "atheists," and enemies of God and his Revealed Word. Seotarian Teaohinn. The sort of Scripture lossons that the Government of New Zoaland would be likely to provide could be best surmised, from the uniform experience oi the Australian Bible-reading States. The Australian manuals were all takeE wholly, or almost wholly, from a sectarian vorsion of the Bible, tho I'retestant Authorised Version. They garbled and mutilated the sacred text, Hinging aside everything unacceptable to tholeaguo denominations. The campaign in favour of the Bill resolved itself into a campaign to mutilate, caricature, and emasculate God's Holy Word. How many signatures would the league have obtained to its petition if these faots had been made known? There was, and could be, Dr. Cleary declared, ing euch thiug as nn6ectarian, undqg.matio, or undenominational Biblical or religious instruction. The parties to the league had flung aside their differences and arrived approximately . at some sort of common denominator The teachers' lessone under this Bill could not bo other than dogmatic. He quoted various authorities in support of a contention that teaching was necessarily dogmatic, and declared that the league had misled the public on this point. He went on to state that deuominationalism iu the schools had all along been favoured by the Anglicans, who had been impeded in the past largely by the activities of Dr. Gibb and othor representatives of the Presbyterian Church. There were manv contradictory voices in the league, which must necessarily have confused and bewildered the : petitioner. ■•■■■'.. Presbyterians and Right of Entry. Presbyterians wero, until the present agitation, vehemently opposed to the right of entry for clergymen into the schools, and they supported it now only by way of compromise with the othor parties to the league. He quoted statements by Dr. Gibb that the Bible in schools wps one thing, and tho admission of priests to the school was a very different thing, and that they wereequally determined to obtain the one and resist the other with all their power.' Dr. Gibb was now vice-presi-dent of tho league, arid supported the change which* he had reeisted so strenuously in 1903. Bishop Cleary declared that tho con-science-clause proposed by the league, and contained in'the Bill, masked under a form of mild words, a cunning tyranny. It was nothing else than the notorious conscience clause devised by astute Irish proselytisers for the purpose of "weaning the Irish from the abuses of Popery." Against that form of conscience clause, Roman Catholics would exhaust every power of protest permitted to them by the moral'law. The Irish conscience- clauso had long ago been abandoned in Ireland. There was only one form of ojnscienco clause which gave any adequate protection to'minorities, that, namely, which admitted to roligious instruction only those children, .whoso, parents demanded it. Two of the league leaders, Bishop Cleary, stated, had wrongly denied that the league had adopted the Irish form of conscience clause. . '.. '.■ .... : Reviving the Penal Code. Dealing with the position of teaohers, Bishop Oleary said that tho scheme pi the league was a proposed application to New Zealand of •► iio principle undor]ying\tho old. repressive legislation of tho Penal Code, which permitted no one to exerciso the office of teacher, unlose ■uo proiossed tho Stato religion. It wa3,, in effect, a , proposal to lurin. out tno : consciences of tho State teachers :to ;. tho league. , Evidently tho only protection for tho teachor !was to pjacovhinr by law entiroly outside of tho proposed Scripture lessoue. After dealing with this aspect of tho subject .at considerable length Bjshop Cloary contended that if the League had frankly, told the public how it proposed.'to.oppress and persecute religious conyiotion in t'he teaching profession it might reasonably bo deemod doubtful whether it would havo secured the signatures of : any but a handful of violent extremists. . . He contended that the Bill before Parliament wae ultra vires—it overstepped the proper limits of the civil authority. It might, if placed upon-the Statute Book, create a legal right for an electoral majority to coerce the consciences of electoral minorities; it.:could never create a moral right or.a right in justice to do so.. Legal rights were only a fraction of human rights.

Over and over again Bishop Cleary stated, lie had intimated the willingness of the Roman Catholic leaders to meet all other, interested parties in conference upon this subject—with only one' proviso: the recognition of the proper equal rights of all before the law. "That Way Lies Ruin." In the latter part of.his' address Bishop Cleary dealt at length with the position, in New South Wales and contended that Now Zealand, whioh had hitherto been so free from the venom of sectarian rancour in social and political life would do well to take warning from the experience of that State. "Wo should likewise- take warning," said Bishop Cleary, "from the deplorable efforts mado daring the past two years to foment sectarian distrust among fellow-citizens here. . Above all, Parliament should give short shrift to a measure which would send the population of ■ this Dominion into opposing interests, along lines of cleavage in religious belief. That way lies ruin. I speak now as a citizen that loves his adopted land as ho loves that which gave him birth." v When Bishop Cleary had concluded his evidence the Committee adjourned until Friday next.

Eight further petitions against the Referendum Bill, containing a total of 931 signatures, wero presented to the House yesterday by Messrs. R. F. Bollard (Edon), T. W. Rhodes (Thames), J. Craigie (Timaru), W. D. S. MacDonald (Bay of Plenty), T. M. Wilford (Hutt), H. Poland (Ohinemuri), J. V. Brown (Napier), and H. M. Campbell (Hawke'e Bay). Petitions in favour of tho Bill, ■ containing 1040 signatures, have been presented by Mr. D. Buick (Palmorston North). The total number of the signatures to the petitions presented to date are as follows:—For tho'Bill 1040; against the Bill, 59,256.