Poverty Ban Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, November 24, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1003, 24 November 1881, Page 2

Poverty Ban Standard.

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. Thursday, November 24, 1881.

We shall sell to no man Justice or Right; We shall deny to no man Justice or Right; We shall defer to no man Justice or Right.

We have received a circular from the Bible in Schools Association of Hawke’s Bay, purporting to be a “ plebicit of parents,” as to their opinions on the advisability, or otherwise, of re-introducing Bible reading in the public schools of the colony. The result is as follows: —Favorable — 334 parents, representing 810 scholars ; against—sl parents, representing 133 scholars ; neutral — 4 parents, representing 4 scholars ; Informal— 5 parents, representing 10 scholars ; total—-394 parents, representing 957 scholars, out of a strict average of 955 in attendance in certain enumerated schools in the Hawke’s Bay Education District. It is understood that all the schools in the educa tion district were not represented in the return, therefore it was not complete ; and it may be possible that if the whole area were canvassed, the boot might be on the other foot; it might even remain on the same foot, but it might pinch all the harder. The foregoing figures were presented at a committee meeting of the Bible in Schools Association held in Napier on the Ist of November instant, and is said to be a “ plebiscit of parents in Hawke’s Bay ”; whereas, we find, further on that The Chairman thought that unless the larger schools were represented, especially those in the Napier district, the returns could not be considered as complete. He knew the parents in Napier were very anxious to express their opinion on this—to them especially—important question. He would therefore suggest that the circulars be sent through the post to all the parents having children attending the Napier District Schools, enclosing stamped envelopes for their replies. This was agreed to; and It was resolved that the Secretary should write to Mr. Welshe at the Spit; Mr. Twigg, at Patene ; Mrs. Nairn, at Frasertown ; Rev. J. Hili, at Wairoa ; Archdeacon Williams, at Gisborne ; Mrs. Bousfield, at Ormond ; Rev. 3. Warboys, at Ormondville ; Rev. F. Simcox, at Porangahau ; and the Rev. Mr. Eccles, at Waipawa, asking them to undertake the distribution of circulars to the parents having children attending their respective district schools. From this we discover that the number of parents said to be “ favorable,” to, and “ against ” the introduction of Bible reading in schools is admittedly incorrect; and as an expression of opinion on the subject, is absolutely worthless.

It is a great pity, in dealing with public questions of a purely secular character, and, especially during the exciting times of a general election, that prejudiced, and over zealous people, will introduce the thin end of the wedge of Denominationalism into the discussions that take plaoe. This has been brought prominently to our notice by the Hawke’s Bay Bible in Schools Association whose “ plebiscit ” we have referred to above. To bring the question to a focus, we find the following business like announcement issued by the Association :— Parliamentary Elections. The Secretary was further instructed to ■write a letter to each of the Candidates for Parliamentary Representation of the

Electoral Districts of Hawke’s Bay, asking—- “ Would they, in the event of their being returned to Parliament, support a bill for the re-introduction of the Bible into the public schools of the Colony.”

Whether candidates for the East Coast election have received similar communications, we do not know, if so, they have unanimously kept the matter to themselves ; still, it may be satisfactory for the Association to know that three out of the four candidates —Messrs Porter, Locke, and Gannon—are dead against the suggested Bible reading. Mr. Locke, however, confined his objection to schoolmasters, and would allow Ministers of religion stated times in which to read the Bible, and impart religious instruction to the scholars. The Association thinks that this exalted subject should form a test question, the issue of which ought to decide a candidate’s fitness for Parliamentary election. So do we, if the matter must be introduced at all. So do the general body of electors —the Hawke’s Bay incomplete plebiscit notwithstanding—and we venture the opinion that if either of the candidates in this electorate, had said he was a supporter of the Bible reading in schools, it would have been sufficient to oust him from the candidature altogether. We shall be surprised if it has not the same result in Hawke’s Bay.