THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS BILL.

Shannon News, 22 November 1927, Page 3

THE BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS BILL.

WHERE THE MAJORITY WENT TO HON. L. M.'ISITT'S STATEMENT. (To the Editor Levin Chronicle.) Sir, —Constant requests are reaching mc for some explanation of the- rejection of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill on its second reading, and why and how the majority I. so confidently predicted vanished, the Bill being lost by a majority of. five. Such explanation should be given in justice to our supporters, the League Executive, Mr Holland and myself. The facts are as follows:

As the hearing by the' Education Committee of objectors and supporters of the Bill proceeded, it became manifest that there, was a danger of the Bill being side-tracked by the Nelson System being advocated in substitution for it, although the Bill not only legalised the Nelson system, but furnished opportunity "for its adoption in preference to the religious exercises, by any school so desiring. Mr Hudson, the chairman i»f the Committee, and a former supporter of the Bill, was manifestly in favour ot ; .such substitution, and when we found ■former-voters for the Bill outside the Committee, talking on these lines and strangely impervious to our. explanation that, so far from opposing the Nelson system, .the Bill provided for its wholesale adoption wherever it could be efficiently worked, we were naturally greatly concerned. In my evidence before the Committee I-there-fore stressed the fact that I could not understand sympathisers with the Nelson system opposing instead of supporting tiie Bill, that the Bill would enable.any school to establish the Nelson system during the interval between the passing of the Bill and its coming into operation, and that once the system was in force it could be perpetuated in lieu of the religious exercises. The chairman did not question this statement, but asked me if I did not think the time too brief, and if I was in favour of lengthening it. jl replied that I did think the time too short, that personally I should be willing to extend it, and that I felt sure the League would be equally willing. A few days after, Mr Holland told me that Mr. Hudson was moving an amendment against the Bill, but later he told both Sir Jas. Allen and myself, with manifest joy, that- Mr Hudson had interviewed him',- that he had 'shown Mr Hudson an amendment which.he hoped would meet Mr Hudson's wishes, that Mr Hudson had expressed his satisfaction with the amendment, congratulated Mr Holland on his. conciliatory, spirit (so different to mine) and declared that if the amendment was incorporated with the Bill,-he, Mr Hudson, would not move his amendment. We were as pleased as Mr Holland, and a League Executive meeting was summoned at considerable expense. That meeting not only unanimously accepted the compromise, but cut out any time limit so that, at any date, any school wishing to establish the'-Nelson: system in preference to the religious exercises could do so, and we separated; happy in the conviction that the difficulty was over. When the second reading of the Bill came on, Mr Hudson refused to acceptthe agreed-upon amendment and supported Mr -Atmore's amendment tha; "The Bill be read that day six monthm order that the promoters of the Bill have an opportunity of considering the application of the Nelson system as recommended by the Education Committee." That motion' was carried not only killing the Bill, but all possibility of any motion legalising the Nelson .'system' being passed. Mr Hudson later on said to Mr Holland: "I am ■ afraid that I misled you." I refrain from any comment upon Mr Hudson's repudiation of the compromise* but 1 wish to emphasize certain facts: I (a) If the main anxiety of those who wished- to legalise the Nelson system was to obtain , that vote rather than destroy the. Bill, their obvious course was to follow precedent, vote for the .second reading and'when the Bill wasin committee-stage move their amendment.' By acting as they did they destroved .their own professed purpose. (b) Our Bill, while legalising the. Nelson system for any schools that desired it, compelled a 'choice between the Nelson svstem or the religious exercises. No school .could be-left without , religions teaching of some kind. A government approval of any voluntary "\steni is a pci-m'ss-ion only; 5t canno. lie an enforcement, .and the system permitted may remain a dead letter. (c) Both from Mr Atmore's point of view and ours there is every chance of "■his Tesujring from such permission. Mr Atmore has been persistent in his declaration that the Nelson system u a dead letter .so far as country schoolare concerned because the clergy 'aw "too lazy and indifferent" to do the necessary work. It is these so-called "lazv and iy different clergy" upon whom he must absolutely depend t'o.v the efficient workhfg of the Nelson system. Where, if he is right, is the possibility of success? We say that it is a physical impossibility for the clergy to visit Aveekly two thousand six hundred schools. They never have done it and never can do it; hence, our Bill. We cannot understand why those who declare that they yield to none in the earnestness of their desire that the children should receive some religious teaching, refuse, to allow the religious exercises where the Nelson system proves unworkable. v \< Re our majority; by the death of the late Hon. R. Bollard and Mr Martin's j election,, together With, three reversed votes vve lost, stud our opponents gained, four votes. For the first time in the struggle, although all the Maori schools except the Roman Catholic and the Mormon, are strongly favouring the Bill, three Maori members, against our expectation, voted against" the Bill, and three of our supporters were unfortunately away, and obtained no pairs. Seven from thirty-six leaves twenty-nine, add seven to thirty-one, you.have thirty-eight, and a majority for the Bill of' nine instead of a minority of live. Mr H, Holland authorises the record

given here of his arrangement*.of the compromise with Mr Hudson as correct. —Yours faithfullv, r LEONARD M. ISITT. Wellington, November 18, 1927. [To avoid confusion it should perhaps be stressed that the reference to Mr Holland is to the member for Christchurch North and not to the Leader of the Opposition:—Ed. Chronicle.']