BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2290, 26 October 1914, Page 7

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

CANON GARLAND CROSSEXAMINED

CONSCIENCE CLAUSES

A further sitting of the Education Committee of the House of Representatives was held on Saturday morning, Mr. 6. M. Thomson presiding,' when Mr. John Caughloy proceeded with his cross-examination of Canon Garland. When the Committee resumed, Canon Garland produced a certified copy of the cablegram he had received from Mr. Board, Director of Education, New South Wales, regarding • the "Wilkins circular." This was in accordance (with one immaterial omission) with the copy in the circular in his statement to the Committee. He went on to make a statement that he felt very much the implication) the morning before that ho had falsified and suppressed the document. The effect upon him had been to. embarrass him for the rest of the morning. Sir. A. S. Malcolm: I would ask whether the witness-is allowed to address' the Committeo as to his feelings?

Mr. .Thomson (to witness): If you have a very brief statement to make. . Canon Garland: I was placed in the position that in effect I was accused of falsifying the original document, and then, "Whsn challenged,' of suppressing it.

Mr. Caughley: 'I object to that. Mr. Thompson: i think you have already .stated you . have been, .misrepresented,, and I don't think I can take that long~ statement. ■ ■Mr.''J; Caughley said that there was no imputation of suppression or falsification. Theywere. justified in wanting to see tliat the' document was correct, as there had been two serious printers' errors in previous documents - of the Bible-in-Schdols League. Ho objected to Canon Garland's remarks.

The Scripture Lessons, Mr. Caughley asked whether the State would not compel the teacher to give the lessons if the system was made ' legal? ■' After reading a lengthy statement, Canon Garland said that he was not in a position to say what the State would do. They were asking Parliament' for a referendum of the people, on certain principles. He was, unable to say what the State would do. If the Act did follow, does it require any power of imagination to say that the Act would be carried out?—l could not say? There are a great many Acts of Parliament not carried out." Mr. M'Callum: Only the Noxious Weeds Act. (Laughter.) . Would not the Government be responsible for the Scripture lessons? —)The actual respousibility lies with the Education Department. As one who knows how this instruction is given, would not the State, under this system, be providing only one form of Scripture' lesson, and only one method by which those lessons would be given?—" There again that is involved—to me."

When the system is at work, the Stato provides, 'in some cases, tflie reading books ?—"ln other _ cases it does not provide the ' reading books, and the State does _ not prescribe a uniform method of giving the lessons, no more than it does a uniform method of {jiving any otlier lessons." If your request is acceded to, to give these lessons, would tlha State only provide one set of books?—"lt is absolutely impossible for me to 6ay what the State would do."

You mean that you don't know what the system would be if introduced into New Zealand —"I know what it would bo if introduced on tlie lines of Australia."

Would not the State be prescribing a method under wliich the teachers would give the lessons ? —"I have never been aware of -any special method obligatory on the teachers."_ - If this system is provided in New Zealand, would there be any alternative system for those whose religious prini ciples are opposed to the Stato method ? —"I don't know what you mean by the State method."

Do you not see that the man who should be the most able exponent of this question is unable to give a straight answer to this question?—"l see • nothing of the sort.' I see these questions are so involved that they give me the impression that they are meant to trap me."

Alternative Subjects. Would-the State provide Scripture lessons of alternative_ types, acceptable to various denominations? Canon Garland answered tlhat there had never been any demand for alternative Scripture \ lessons, except the one of Cardinal Moran, who criticised the New South Wales Text Book. Would not, under this system, the State be providing Scripture lessons acceptable only to the Protestants? — '"The facts elsewhere would show that all denominations except the Roman. Catholics will be satisfied." • Would not the State thon he taking the side of certain denominationsj and this one not provided for?—"No; because that one is provided for." He said that the Scripture lessons were available to them, and the Scripture lessons were read by the Roman Catholic children, notwithstanding whatever the Church might say. The Roman Catholio Church, equally with all the other churches, had the same privileges, and could go into the schools as _ often as it liked, and teach, its own children. Further, W said that they had always pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church was heartily opposed to the Bible-in-Schools League's proposals wherever tried. Notwithstanding tho opposition of the hierarchy, there was the .fact that Roman Catholic children, to the number of tens of thousands, did read the particular lessons. It was also a fact that in New _ South Wales and Western Australia the Roman Catholic clergy did go into the schools, but nothing like , in the samo proportion as the clergy of tho othor churches. They (the league could not bo doing an injustice to the Roman Catholic Church when asking for a privilege which the latter could avail themselves of. The lessons wero given indiscrimately by the teachers; no one knew whether they wero Roman Catholics, ■English, or Methodists. Ho had never heard a charge of proselyfcism made' against Stato school teachers. Going back to the question of the day before, Canon Garland said that tlie Director of Education said that the system in Tasmania was regarded by all denominations as a happy solution of tho religious difficulty. Ho was dealing with tho Departmental view. No one said that tho Roman Catholic Church did not objcct. Mr. Caughley: Would not tho State, under this system, be taking a sido with regard to tho teachers' lessons? —"No; because they are acceptable to all. They were asking for the lessons from the point of high English literature only, and not for the Scriptural instruction. Surely every denomination could read the sublime passages from tho Bible as literature. He admitted that for all -reasonable people tho fact that the lessons had been used successively in the Australian States showed that the great majority of the people were satisfied, Tho Nelson sjstewj .Gouqa Garland

said, was unjust to the Roman Catholics, because thoy could not taka advantage of it, under the right of entry for the classes were grouped, but under the system his league proposed they would have equal rights of entry to take separate classes. Tho Roman Catholic clergy would not ho required to take grouped classes. Tho Roman Catholic children would havo the Scripture reading in common with other children if their parents decided to allow tliem to go in. He was not prepared to state that the lessons by the teachers were religious instruction. He believed most Roman Catholic people would object to their children receiving the lessons, therefore they were asking for tho conscience clause for the parent. Gonscicnce Clauses. By what right does your league ask for a scheme which gives a conscience clause to parents and not to teachers? —"By the right of asking for any reform we thiuk necessary." They were asking for tho right to put th© matter before tho people. He contended there wtis no more right for a conscience clause for teachers for Bible-reading lessons than there was for history.

Does your league oppose a conscience clause for teachers ? —' 'They neither do, nor do they not. They were not asking the teachers to do anything that touched their conscience."

Would your league resist, an attempt by Parliament to grant a conscience clause to teachers? —"That is a problematical matter which I cannot an«wer." Would you consider a soheme of religious instruction to be just if an Anglican teacher could only .carry out his official duties by violating the fundamental teachings of his church r— '\\ 6 are not asking for anything to be carried out wliioh will violate the fundamental teachings -of any teacher s church, as is found from tne fact that no tcacher, from religious, conscientious, or any other motive, had. over refused to give the lessons." ■ . Mr. Caughley repeated the question, with tlife substitution of "Roman Catholic." for "Anglican." . Canon Garland said that Roman Catholic teachers had given the lessons,., and were, models to tho other teachers. He was not aware that a teacher could .not give the' lessons without violating the fundamental teaching of Ilia church. As to the membership cards of the league, Canon Garland said that ■ the general instruction was that members should be twenty-one years of age. Reasonable care had been taken to see that all who signed the oards were twentyone years of age. He could give no guarantee that the 103,000 who had signed weTe 21, but reasonable care had adjourned till 10.30 this morning.