BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS DEFEATED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 422, 2 August 1928, Page 11

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS DEFEATED

Bill Rejected by Three Votes

LABOUR MAKES VIGOROUS OPPOSITION

(THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. THE Bible-in-Schools controversy has been disposed of for this session by the rejection of the Religious Exercises in Schools Bill by 31 votes to 28. The second reading of the Bill was moved by Mr. H. Holland, Christchurch North. The debate was without any outstanding merit. Mr. H. E. Holland and Mr. J. A. Lee led the attack on the Bill, their speeches being marked by a severe attack on the Rev. Canon James for his assertion that Labour had identified itself with the Catholic Church on the question.

“Isn’t that a rejection on the church people of New Zealand?” said Mr. H. E. Holland, when Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North) admitted, after moving the second reading of the Bill, that if the Bible is excluded from the State schools then children would be deprived of their inheritance. Mr. H. Holland had made an impassioned plea, marked by striking fervour, for the introduction of some form of Bible-reading in schools. “Could the Lord’s Prayer,” he asked, “be a harmful influence if recited in the schools each morning throughout the country?” Parents were in the majority in supporting this measure. A plebiscite taken since the last session showed that 81 per cent, of the parents were in favour, the following being the details: Southland, 81.5 per cent.; Otago, 86; Wellington, 81; Taranaki, 72.44; Auckland, 80.71; and Canterbury, 80.72. ?* Ik KEEN PUBLIC INTEREST Keen public interest in the debate was shown by the crowded galleries, in which were a large number of clergymen. Labour’s policy, said Mr. H. E. Holland, had always been for secular education. Even Reform had the same platform. Plow did that square with the attitude of individual members of the Reform Party? It meant that nine of its Ministers were violating the party programme. Mr. D. Jones: What is the meaning of the word “secular”? Voices: He doesn’t know. Mr. Holland said that to answer that question, upholders of the Bill would probably want a dictionary of their own. If this Bill were carried, sectarianism would be rampant in the State schools. A Voice: Is that so in New South Wales? Mr. Holland: I went to school in New South Wales when this _ system was working there. Plis experience as a boy was that as soon as boys came into the playground the fight started. He did not want to see the same thing happen in this country. If the Church failed to reach the children in their homes and in the churches, what right had it to try to reach children in schools? If the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were opportunist politicians, they would offer no objections to this Bill going on the Statute Book, and would then come clamouring for State aid for their own denominational institutions, as they would foe entitled to do were this Bill carried. Mr. PI. Atmore and Mr. R. P. Hudson championed the Nelson system, Mr. Atmore stating that under Mr. Holland's Bill an emasculated Bible would be taken into the schools. If this Bill were carried, it would, be a big blow to church attendances. Mr. W. G. GLling, strongly support-

ing the Bill, challenged the contentions that the introduction of the Bibleteaching system would break up the national education system. Mr. J. A. Lee said that if the Bill were passed into law school-teachers would be victimised. In his opinion supporters of the Bill were making the measure a spearhead with which to attack the whole system of secular education. Even the Church of England was not speaking with a united voice on the subject. Mr. A. Harris vigorously contested Mr. Lee’s suggestion that the Bill’s supporters were attacking the national education system. Religion had been taught in secondary schools without arousing any trouble or difficulty. The same thing could be achieved in the primary schools. “My mind goes back,” said Mr. Harris, “to my school-days in London, when Scriptural lessons were read every morning.” Voices: That’s killed the Bill. Mr. Harris said that the future of the children of New Zealand was to a large extent in the hands of Parliament on this occasion. The debate was continued by Mr. J. Horn and Mr. V. H. Potter, and Mr. C. E. Bellringer was still going at 1 a.m., when Mr. Holland rose to reply'. THE DIVISION LIST The division list is as follows: For the Bill—2S 33ellringer Lee, E. P. Dickie Linklater Dickson, ,T. McC. Luke Dickson, J. S. Lysnar McLennan Girling McLeod Hamilton, A. Macmillan Harris Nash Hawken Reid Hockly Sidey Holland, H. Waite Hudson Williams Hunter Wright Jones, D. Young Against the Bill—3l Armstrong Lee, J. A. Atmore McKeen Rartram Martin Bell Mason, H. G. R. Buddo Mason, J. Campbell Parry Coates Ransom Eliott Rolleston, F. J* Field Rolleston, J. C. Forbes Savage Fraser Seddon Holland, H. E. Smith Horn Sullivan Howard Veitch .Tones, W. Walter Kyle Pairs.—For: Bitchener, Burnett, Hamilton, J. R. Stewart, Nosworthy, Rhodes, Uru. Against: McCombs, Potter, Samuel, Henare, Pomare, Ngata, Jordan. Mr. Sykes claimed that he had voted in support of the Bill but that his vote was not recorded. He will raise the point in the House to-day.