“HUSH, HUSH”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 415, 25 July 1928, Page 13

“HUSH, HUSH”

GILBERTIAN COMPLIMENTS IN A CONTROVERSY

DR. BUXTON ON CANON JAMES The controversy between scholarly representatives of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church on the bristling subject of the Bible-in-Schools is here continued by Dr. Buxton, in a letter to the Editor of THE SUN, replying to Canon James’s reference to naval comic opera. The warfare has now reached the “hush-hush” stage. Incidentally, the Editor would like to draw the controversialists’ attention to the obvious fact that the joint has been carved to the bone, and that there cannot be many more helpings left. Sir, — I am glad to see that Canon Janies, in his letter of yesterday, uses expressions regarding Bishop Cleary that are in pleasing contrast to those used by him before his Orange audience of last Sunday week. For his kindly references to Dr. Cleary, I am sure his Lordship and all Catholics are sincerely grateful. I must also thank the Canon for his compliment to my brightening the Bible-in-Schools discussion with a touch of naval comic opera. And. in the words of the captain of “H.M.S. Pinafore,” I say to him:

‘You're exceedingly polite, And I think it only right To return the compliment.

The Canon is quite wrong in accusing me of being angry with him. I am not in the least annoyed; but I am very perplexed at his “hush-hush” policy. With that verbal dexterity for which he has become famous, he utterly ignores the very solid monetary contribution by Catholics to the education funds of the State. He weakly retorts that I term “a great national contribution” of five per cent, of Catholic children who he alleges are attending the State schools! I have said that he cannot, or will ix>t, see that his league’s proposals are utterly unjust in that they would force Catholics to contribute not only the whole cost of education acceptable to their own children, but also to pay their proportionate share of. the cost of Stat# school teaching of a form of religion to which they cannot conscientiously submit. The Canon proves, in his last letter, that he will not meet this question of elementary justice. FIRING STRAY SHOTS In this rearguard action of his, Canon James fires more stray shots. But I have been awaiting his broadside of plain, unambiguous words with which I have repeatedly asked him to state what he meant by the charges of disloyalty that he levelled against Catholic New Zealanders. He is always wanting to appeal to the jury; it is only fair that he should give the jury the facts on which he founds his indictment. If this charge is not one of his usual blank cartridges, I have given him a great opportunity of strengthening his case. But he will not address the jury upon it. So, neither your readers nor I know what he meant —if he meant anything at all. The Canon tried to make a big point about the “placation” of Catholics in 1877. I showed your readers that mere justice then prevented a theft from the Catholics’ pockets of the cost of teaching their children and others a form of religion against which their consciences protested. Again, silence! The Canon is accustomed to use the word “fact” with an utter disregard for its meaning. Here he is at it again. “The fact is that, Bible or no Bible, the Roman Catholic authorities will have nothing to do with our national schools.” Is this a fact? Let the jury hear Bishop Cleary’s evidence on the point before the Parliamentary Committee last year: “With every fibre of our souls, we Catholics for religion as an essential in all education worthy of the name. We have made and remade generous and patriotic offers to aid in the restoration of religion to the secular State .schools. It is a grief to us that these offers have been spurned; a far deeper grief that every scheme thus far presented to Parliament involved oft-specified violations of religious faith and conscience that have placed us with our backs against the wall. Let the promoters of this Bill eliminate these well-defined wrongs, and our opposition will at once and automatically CL I^fe ’APPEAL TO THE JURY The Canon appeals to the jury. He says: “The people should be given an opportunity of expressing their will in a direct and unmistakable manner.” If he believes what he says, why does he call the Orange Lodges “the spearhead at the gates in the fight against the intolerable position imposed by the Roman Catholic minority”? Why does he feel this need of stirring up the jury with sectarian bitterness in order to influence their will in his direction? Is his case so weak that he has to try and “get at” the jury with the NoPopery bogey that is the sole stock-in-trade of the Orange Society? Perhaps h© considers this to be a fitting preparation for the atmosphere of judicial calm in which a jury should express its will in a direct and unmistakable manner.

Finally, Canon James says: “Everything that can be said (on the Bible-in-Schools question) has been said over and over again.” Everything has not been said, and your readers should know it. I call upon Canon James to supply some obvious deficiencies. (1) The Catholic leaders have over and over again, in public utterances and by letter, asked the members of the Bible-in-Schools League to meet them in conference at any time convenient to the league, for the purpose of restoring religion to the State schools, on the basis of the proper equality of religious consciences befor© the law. No reply has ever been given to these offers, and to Dr. Cleary’s written and other communications to the league. The league ignored them utterly. Everything has not been said; we await the acceptance of our offers, or the reason for their refusal. Will Canon James tell the league’s reason for silence on these points? (2) The Canon says: “The Bill protects the consciences of teachers, parents and children. Any parent who does not desir e his child to take part in the religious exercises has only to tell the teacher so in writing. That is all.” It is not all, not by a long way. Over and over again, the Catholic leaders have asked the league to turn this tricky proselytising clause round the other way—to make the very just and very simple provision that any parent wishing his child to take part in the religious exercises (in State schools at which all children have the right to attend) shall so inform the teacher in writing. Why does the league refuse this request? The league meets it with silence. Will Canon James give us that something new for which we have waited, which can be said but which has never been expressed—the league’s reason for refusing to agree to insert this fair and acceptable form of conscience clause in their Bill. We will all be grateful to the Canon if he will reply to these two questions. They ar© aspects of the league’s case that have not been stated so far. L. T. BUXTON. P.S.—I should add that Canon James is a little premature in connecting me with comic opera. My Operatic Society of 80 performers will be staging one in the Scots Hall next month.