BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2283, 17 October 1914, Page 4

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

MORE EVIDENCE REV. D. C. BATES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. The Education Committee of the House of Representatives sat again yesterday morning to hear evidence on the Religious Instruction in Schools Referendum Bill. Mr. G. M. Thomson, M.P., presided. . .Canon Garland (organiser for the Bible-in-State-Sohools League) proceededto oioßs-ox'amiuo Mr. J. Caughley, M.A., the representative of the New Zealand Educational Institute, who had given evidence on the previoua sitting day. •:.'■.'. Uep|ying to a question, Mr. Caughley said that the institute which he represented included 95 per cent, of the certificated teachors ot New Zealand. The institute had consulted its members as to their attitude on the Bible-in-schools question more thoroughly than any other' corporate, body. Ho had voluntarily taught the Bible to children for twenty years, but objected to'.being compelled to do it. Mr. R. M'Callum, M.P., complained that Canon Garland was taking far too long over'his cross-examination. Canon Garland said that he was nearly finished, and shortly after that he concluded. Experlcnoe of New South Wales. The Rev. D. C. Bates then gave evidence., He said at the outset that he was entirely disinterested and held independent views.. He stated that no had had nearly seven \years' experience-(lß9l-1898) as an Anglican clergyman in New South Wales. ; The New South Wales system provided a Scripture text-book,. and allowed ministers of all denominations, one hour per day for religious instruction, which had come to mean one hour per week. The Government provided the Irish text book as part of school equipment, but tho regulation that it should be used was systematically ignored. Tlje books were locked in cupboards, unused. The •'right of entry" was widely iieglected in practice. Statistical returns proved that a vaat number, of children were not given special religious instruction on the week days, and that a vast number of the schools were unvisited. Tho lay teachers worked hard going from school to school, and it was possible for any one of them up a record of hundreds of visits' in a year. Ho was told that,by a new regulation four classes taken at a single visit of about- an hour could be counted as four distinct visits. In any case, the boasted 57,321 visits of last year for all the ministers and lay teachers of New South Wales did not represent so much as they seemed to, for the thousands of public schools in that State. He believed ■ that the vast majority of New South Wales teachers would rather bo without these religious instructions. Germany had had the Bible in State schools for generations, and the result had been that. Scripture Jmotvledgo for many. became . nearly a subject for criticism. He concluded by saying that he had tried to. show that tho New South Wales system had proved unsatisfactory, that the league' scheme was inexpedient for tno peoplo of New Zealand, and that the Bill was a proposal to surrender the rights and privileges of i Parliament, offering, a precedent for mob-rule. •'

Cross-Examlnatton. Canon Garland was then givon an opportunity to cross-examine tho witness. ■•.-■ : -.' "Are you," Canon Garland asked, "a fair representative of tbe Churoh of England?" ® Rev. Mr. Bates.: Yes, the same as you are. Canon Garland: Are you not working outside the Church ? Have you not been employed at a secular calling for some time? Rev. Mr. Bates: Yes; I am engaged in a secular calling—the same as you are. ' ■ Canon Garland: I am not a Civil Servant. . \ . Rev. Mr. Bates: "No; you are an agitator." He went on to say that be; held exactly the same kind of license as Canon Garland did, and officiated as a minister in exactly tho same way. The fact that owing to illhealth, and as a result of his service to his country in South Africa, ho had been- compelled to earn his living 1 in another way than as a minister of the Church should not be brought into the question, and he objected to this'kind of cross-examination. •Canon Garland said that he had intended no reflection. He had merely wished to ask if one engaged in secular pursuits considered his ' opinion representative of that of the church to which he belonged. Canon Garland proceeded with the cross-examination, biit the witness complajned that,-instead of. his being questioned solely on his owii evidence, new matter was being introduced in the form of questions. At length, Canon Garland said that ho would not continue with tho witnees any longer. Before the Committee -adjourned it decided to sit again at 10.30; a.m. on Monday, and on every succeeding day till the evidence was concluded. The evidence for the opponents of the Bill has-been concluded, and the point was raised that of the witness in favour of tho Bill, Canon Garland should give his evidence first. The committee, however, decided to leave that matter.to -those concerned, but stated that Canon Garland must be prepared to give his evidence not later than Thursday next. ■• '•• -