BISHOP CLEARY AND MR ISITT.

Hokitika Guardian, 31 August 1927, Page 4

BISHOP CLEARY AND MR ISITT.

THE BISHOP IN FURTHER REPLY. In tho course of a further reply to the Hon. L. M- Isitt, Bishop Cleary savs that the secular school system of 18*77 was passed, and in 1881 ovenvhelmbv great majorities in an overwhelmingly Protestant and mainly Anglican Parliament. Protestant electors and legislators have been its mainstay ever since. Mr Isitt was, till lately, its out-and-out supporter. Mr Isitt attacks the Catholic Church alone in tlio Dominion because the votes of its only three adherents in the Legislative Council (added to those of tho much larger body of Protestant members) “ prevent the ending of a secular system.” The secular system was accepted by tho clergy of the League denominations with few and feeblo verbal protests. Thev closed practically every religious school that required sacrifice to maintain. On numerous school committees they have been for 50 years outstanding administrators ol the secular system. -

Dealing with the conference question Bishop Cleary says:—“ln his letter Mr Isitt says x!ie League gave him the following answer to our bishops’ oilei to confer: ‘ What is the use of any conference when we know that the Roman Catholic demands are such as we cannot agree io and Parliament will never grant-?’ This statement differs materially from that which he made in the Legislative Council, as reported in Hansard. 1926, Council, p. 420. The Hon. .Sir Micliel, a supporter of ill* I silt’s hill, said of our bishops’ offer: •1 1 is not creditable to those on the other side that they did not avail themselves of the offer.’—The Hon. Mr ■lsitt: “Wo have.’ Mr -Michel wont on to say : ** T am sorry to know that wo refused to meet him (Bishop Cleary) or the other representatives of tile Roman Catholic Church.’ —-'Hie lion Mr Isitt: * You are misinformed.’ Will the Hon. Mr Isitt now specify how tho Hon. Mr Michel was misinformed? Also when, where, and to whom was the acceptance of tliaL offer given? It was never intimated to me or to those 1 represented. Mr Isitt- now savs.

•What is the use’ of such a conference? In 1926 lie pleaded quite another excuse. Said lie: *To calf a fresh conference* and re-open the question would furnish opportunities lor the dissatisfied elements in the churches (Protestant as tho context shows) to bring forward all sorts of contradictory suggestions and divide up again into antagonistic sections Handsard, ib... p. 571',. Now, he would have your readers lieiievo that the Catholics alone are blocking a hill hacked by the practically solid support of all the Protestant Churches.”

“In endless official and other pronouncements. and in my evidence lietore Parliament in 1913 and 1926,” i until,lues Bishop Ci'eary, “ wo specified clearly the League’s four demands which violate the propel* and equal rights of till before Lbe law. (a) ‘Hie creation of a State drawn, State conducted, official religion to suit only one of many types of conscience, (h) Compelling conscientiously objecting Protestants, Catholics, Jews and others to pay tithes (in the form of taxes) for the maintenance of tho sectional State religion—the principle of taxation without tho fact or hope of benefit, (el The League’s tricky and discreditaide Irish conscience clause, devised by professional prosei'ytisers for proselytising purposes.”