The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVENT MORNING. GISBORNE, SEPT. 1, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1849, 1 September 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVENT MORNING. GISBORNE, SEPT. 1, 1906.

? Those who have advocated the aboliS tion of the Legislative Council cannot i now deny that it has done something to justify its existence in refusing by 10 votes to 7 to affirm the principle oi Sir Q. M. O'Rorko’s Divinity Degrees Bill on the mition for its second reading. From a sectarian point of view there is perhaps nothing to object to in'this measure; but its advocates could hardly claim that it is right to introduce a chair of theology into our State-aided University so long as theology in any form is excluded from our primary education system by a consensus of public opinion, for if it is not permissible in the one case it is equally impolitic and unreasonable in tho othor, though the roasons for objection iu both cases may not be exactly identical. They are, as a matter of fact, not identical, though they are equally cogent. The Education Act ot thirty years ago has main tained its secular character to the present day by reason of tho almost unanimous opinion held by the public of New Zealand that any attempt to alter its basic secular principles would destroy the whole usefulness of the Act and render it unworkable as a national system, and this, too, not- ! withstanding the many attempts made to introduce sectarianism into tho daily curriculum of tho Schools. It may be denied that the attempts made to introduce Bible reading into tho public schools is an attempt to bring about a I sectarian system of teaching; but while many of the advocates of the altered system do not intend that their action if successful should have that effect, there is still no escape from that ultimate result when once State sanction were given to Bible reading under any conceivable plan. And if that is so in the case of the primary

schools, how much more forcibly (loos tho principle apply to tho university training in theology when onoo sane* tioneil V It would moan, of course,

that tlio Ohaiv of Theology, Divinity, or vvhatovor namo may bo choson for it, could not ombraco all thoological touching with any liopo of succoss, for Anglicans, .lows, Dissenters, Itoinan (Jatholics and others havo each their own systems of theology, neither of which will lit in with any other, and it is abundantly clear, therefore, that to logaliso the sotting up of a Chair of Divinity in the University would mean that a Professor duly sanctioned, if not actually appointed, by ouch of those soctional parties would havo to bo provided for, and each ono could then claim to bo a State church that had its spiritual teachers trained editor wholly or partly at tho Stato’s expense. How long such a condition of things could last it is not dillicult to ircugino, for history has no page relating to religion that docs not display a constant and stronuous endeavour on tho part of each to gain ascendancy ovor all tho others, and oven if they could agree as to tho appointment of space, time, and otner details of College work, they would bo bound to come to the clash* ing point in the matter of prestige. Nor would it he long before that point was roachod, and thoso who are acquainted with past history may well shudder at the thought of what that rivalry would lead to. Even a cursory examination of the subject must lead any unbiassed person to the inevitable conclusion that the State mu3t rocogniso no separate form of religion, and must treat all its subjects alike without regard to their religious convictions ; nor must it offer any inducements, or open any channols that would lead to or in tho least degree I encourage competition, and the only way that that can bo done is to extend its protection to all, ensuring them fair play and no favor so long as their tenets, teachings, and interests do not clash with the interests of the State

itself. That being so, we are not a little surprised at the action of such a usually shrewd and well-informed politician as Sir Maurice O’Korke in introducing that Bill; but the half apologotic tone of his reply, before the dual division was taken upon his measure, gives some color to the thought and impetus to the hope that he recognises his mistake in introducing tho Bill, and that he will not be in a hurry to repeat his mistake.