BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2298, 31 October 1914, Page 9

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS

HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTS AGAINST THE BILL THE NELSON SYSTEM APPROVED. The reports of the Education Committee on petitions presented to tho House this session relating to the proposed Religious Instruction in Schools Referendum wore presented to the Houso yesterday afternoon. Tho Chairman of the Committee (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was allowed to present tho several reports on tho different classes of petitions ■ before there was any discussion. The committee's report on the several petitions objecting to certain provisions embodied in the Referendum Bill, and praying that the presont ftee, secular, and compulsory system he maintained, was as under: — ''That the Committee has heard evidence on the subject, matter of the petitions—much latitude being allowed witnesses in order to get all the facts—and is of opinion that the New Zealand State system , of free, secular, and compulsory education, under which our children have received incalculable-' ■ benefits, and under which, after 37 years' experience our people— , the immense majority of whom have • passed through our schools—compare most favourably morally, socially, and religiously with the peoplo of any other part of tho world, should be maintained. Further, - that the Committee is fully alive to the value of Biblical and religious instruction, and 'is of opinion thati full opportunity should be given for the adoption of a voluntary system, such as that known as the Nelson system, in which the teaching is imparted outside the statu- , tory school hours, under which the State exercises no authority in religious . matters, and under which there is no compulsion or violation of rights of conscience." . Tho Committee reported on the petitions praying that the Bill be not passed, to tho effect that the Committee was of opinion that the Bill introduced this session by the Hon. Jas. Allen -should not be allowed to become law. A Question of Relevance. > The Hon. J. Allen said he wished to raiso objection to that section of the report of the Committee which made reference to the Nelson system. The chairman of the Committee had ruled it out as irrelevant, but apparently bad allowed it to. slip through later.. -lie (Mr. Allen) wished to express his dissent from this part of the report, because he did not agree that the Nelson system was the only system suitable to this country. Mr. G. JY. Russell (Avon) said he was doubtful about whether the report was irrelevant, roing of opinion rather that the matter covered by it was distinctly within the order of reference.' He wished to. express tho thanks of tho . people of this country to the gentle--1 men who formed the Education Committee \for the magnificent stand they ' have taken inHho interests of our edu- > cation system. That system had gone through a crucial time in the laßt i. twelve months, owing to this agitation. ■ It might go through the crucible again • during the election, but to him it was ■ a matter of the greatest, satisfaction > that tho Education- Committee of this - country had come to the conclusion set ! out in the report. If he were to go r out of politics forever he would rather ' go out fighting for the education sys- • torn than for any other principle. Ho ' hoped the effect of the leport would ' be to smother the agitation. ; Not Unanimous. Mr. D. H. Guthrie (Oroua) said it must not be understood that the ConiIj niittoe were unanimous in their finding. r With regard to the question of the lat--3 tor part of the report being relevant or t not, he was of opinion that it was not j within tho Committee's order of reference. ' 1 Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunodin Central) 9 said that he entirely supported the ru 3 port .of the Education Committee.. Mr. J. B: Hine (Stratford) said he regretted that the Committee had not . adopted the referendum principle. The 3 Committee had apparently agreed that . the Nelson system was a good one, but who was to say whether it should . be adopted.. He would have liked J to see the question of whether tho' Nelf son or some other system ehould- bo e introduced settled by a referendum. 8 Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) - said he hailed with very great gratij tude and gladness the report of tho Education Committee. What he objected- to in the Bible-in-schools' platform was that it was an attempt to !• force upon the people a narrow defined J proposal. .They would not allow any t optional system to be introduced into • tho- referendum, o . 3 To Force a Division. s : Mr. J,, S. Dickson (Parnell) said i- that in order to divide the House on o the question ho would move that the 1- report be referred back to the Coini- mittee. i- Mr. A. H. Atmore (Nelson) accused y the Government of vaoillation and e timidity in regard to the question, and '. of having refused to give a lead. He e believed the matter would have. to be y settled by the people. ' Ho hoped .the i- House would not refer the report back, o but that the Houso would deal with 0 the question, and even at this late d hour insist on. putting through some '• definite legislation, u Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh (Wellington South) said he was amused to hear the 9 word democracy used in advocacy of the a Bible-in-schools question. Religious 7 bitterness was as keen as ever in "- Zealand, and to plunge the people into n a conflict of the kind would be a very 13 wrong action. Every true democrat was opposed to the referendum on this 1. 8 religious question. All University 16 professors, school teachers to a man, were against any scheme for divid- '" ing the people on religious quese tions, while the Marquis of Salisbury, ': Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Atmore, and d people of that class —(laughter)—wore . in favour of it. '' Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dunodin North) l ? said that ho would not reply to the rolt marks of the member for Nelson be1_ cause they wero actuated by one motive '° only—to 'find fault with tho Government at all costs. Ho said that he had allowed the second part of tho re;a port, now alleged to bo irrelevant, to ■ slip through in baste by an oversight. '" Whatever political bitterness that was , imported into tho controversy in the j country, there had been nothing of tho 1 sort in the deliberations of the Com--1 mittee. Their deliberations had been ,° harmonious throughout, and no party ■". spirit or bitterness bad been shown by " members of it. Ho urged tho member who had moved the amendment not !S to insist upon it, as it would serve, no c. useful purpose. ' . ,' ■ The Voting. it The amendment was defeated by 46 m votes to 17, and the report was laid on >r the table. The division was:— is For: 17. Allen Massey Bollard (2) Newman, E. ; ! n Buxton Nosworthy in Dickson Okey Guthrie Rhodes, R.. H. rt Mandev Sidey 5' Herrios Thomson, G, M. • Hine WihoA

= r Against; 46. ,' ' Anderson Mao Donald Atmore Malcolm Bra&ney •■ Millar Buchanan Newman, A, K'. Buick Ngata ' Clark Parata Coates Payne Colvin Pearee Craigie Poland r Davay Kobcrtson Dickie Russell * Ell Scott / > Esoott Seddoa Forbes Smith, R. W\Fraser ' Statham • Glover Thomson, J. 0. ' Hanan Veitch' Harris Ward Herdman Webb Hindmarsh Wilford ' Hunter Wilkinson ' ' Isitt Witty M'CaUum Mr. G. M. Thomson said ho had voted for the amendment because he , considered that be had been in error , in allowing irrelevant matter to get into - the report on one class of petitions.