1.—13b.

70

IJ. CAUGHLRY.

23. In your statement you say, '' This is.the Le. line's description of its campaign. In Queensland it was ' Vote for God and the Bible.' It talks of littk> else but the Bible, though it stands for a great deal more than the Bible, and for much that is oontrary to the Bible. , ' What is your authority I'm , that assertion? —My authority is the Queensland Hansard reports. It was stated by a member of Parliament that those placards were put up in the booths where the people voted. 24. Vmir statement would be more correct if it said that a member oi' the Queensland Parliament said so-and-so? I d t mind if you put it like that, for all the distinction is worth. 25. You quote me as saving that we insisted on the scheme, the "hole scheme, and nothing but the scheme. Are you not aware thai J have said over and over again that, while we are asking for the Australian system as a whole, we are not asking for every detail of it—we leave the details to be settled bj New Zealand according to its own desires) -1 am quite aware of that tact, and I am quite aware of the fact that each detail the League drops is where they come up against opposition. In order to maintain the League's position they will have to declare that whether or not religion is to be taught during the Bible lesson is a detail. 26. In regard to that quotation, you now admit that I have over and over again made that statement 1 I did not attempt to quote all the remarks you have said in New Zealand on this question. 27. You refer to the l!ev. Dr. Flecker, and you say, " He could speak as to the depth of the ignorance of Scripture of boys who came to the public schools." What is the meaning of " public school " there?- What we would call a secondary school. They have come from the elementary school in which religious instruction has been given, and that gentleman points out that there is just as great a stale of ignorance with the children under religious instruction as the league attempts to point out with our children in New Zealand. 28. In your statement you draw comparisons between Victoria and New South Wales, and you give some figures about Sunday-school teachers. Would you mind stating the authority froni which you give those ligures.' -You will find it in what is called "The World Sunday-school Work," published by the Sunday-school Union of the World. You can get it at any of the Bible depots. 29. Assuming that those figures ale correct, which I do not assume, how do you explain this extraordinary fact 'hat it' there is such satisfaction with the religious work in Victoria as compared with New South Wales, all the Churches in Victoria except the Roman Catholic Church and. I suppose, the Seventh Day Adventists, are combined as strongly as we are here to get the same thing that we are struggling For : how do you explain that?—l do not explain it —I deny it. I make a tremendous distinction between the members of ('lunches combining and the official courts of the Church. I could show you that on no fewer than eight different occasions various efforts a< getting the secular system in Victoria changed have been defeated. 30. You take exception to my use of the word "Churches" and attempt to correct me by saying the official courts of the Church. Are you not aware that ihose official courts speak for the Churches, as. for example, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church oi Australia .' I am glad you mentioned that. 'I o lake a concrete example, the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand declared in favour of your scheme. 1 am a member of the congregation of the Presbyterian Church, of which there are about seven hundred or eight hundred members, and that question has not been put to us. The congregation were not asked, and yet we are pledged to it as a part of the Presbyterian people of New Zealand. That is why I distinguish. .'i I . You are aware that the Churches in Victoria, exclusive of the Roman Catholic Church and the Seventh Day Adventists. speaking through the proper channels, have declared themselves in favour of the proposal which we are making here, and arc asking for what we are asking?—] object to your interpolation of the words that they are speaking through the proper channels. We have no evidence that they have spoken through the proper channels any more than I have about my congregation. .'!2. 1 cannot proceed with the examination if you are going to raise small points like that? — I am not going to answer a question without you make it clear what the meaning of the question is. I am. not going to accept questions which oontain assumptions which are not contained in Ihe answers. :i:i. Ileie is aii official document of tin , Presbyterian Churoh of Australia, showing how they are committed to it. Are you aware, for instance, that the Presbyterian Church of Australia, sitting in its Assembly last month, passed the following resolution : " Assembly reiterates its profound sense importance biblical instruction in public schools of those States where this privilege is granted, and urges all ministers in those States to take full advantage of this oppor Minify, conscious as Assembly is of the value of such work. At the game time it would encourage all its faithful people in other States to persevere in efforts to obtain similar privileges, so that in every school in Commonwealth the Word of God may be taught and Christian instruction given. Carried unanimously." That is signed by the official convener of the Assembly. Are you aware of that?— Yes, and lam also aware that that lias been used to try to cover the decisions of other branches of tin Presbyterian Church in Australia which have expressed adverse opinions to this system. 34. Will you state one of them? —Queensland. In the Queensland Hansard, Vol. cvii. 1910. page 2073. Mr. Beirne said. " I made the statement that a majority of Presbyterian ministers of Queensland arc against the Bill. That statement was contradicted by the Hon. Angus Gibson and the Hon. Mr. Brentnall. but. although I had the most ample proof for the statement I made. and although these honourable gentlemen knew it. and although the Rev. G. E. Rowe and Archdeacon Garland knew it. still Mr. Rowe had had the audacity to make this statement in his sermon last Sunday, entitled 'The Duty of Protestants.' This is what Mr Rowe said, as