L—i&».

20

ill. \V. CLEAKY.

recognition of the proper equal rights of all before the law. If the Bible in Schools League or other interested parties are willing to sit round a table with us and accept or recognize that principle of the equal rights of conscience of all we will gladly and joyfully meet them. And 1 believe, moreover, that if this principle is recognized—this democratic principle- -that we could settle this question within forty-eight hours. 1 have one further answer n> make in connection with this, which was given by me in JJunedin in Max, l!)i-'i. In reply to a question put to me by a member of the Bible in Schools League as to win (her the Ltoman Catholics had any scheme of their own I replied, " Any one undertaking such a scheme should first of all bear in mind that there were some fifty registered denominations in New Zealand. His Hist step would be to get representatives of these denominations around a table and thresh the matter out. This the League had failed or refused to do. The result was akin to that achieved by the tailors of Laputa. Instead of measuring a man for a suit in the customary way by actual contact, they did so at long range, taking his altitude and ' latitude ' with a theodolite. The result was a hideous misfit. So was the scheme devised at long range by the League. It was a hopeless misfit, and was rejected by over forty religious denominations in the Dominion. There were four Catholic Bishops in New Zealand. They knew what kind of religious teaching suited the children of their own flocks. But they had the saving sense of humour. That was why it had never entered their heads, even in dreams, to play the pari of the tailors of Laputa, to set up their theodolites and at long range to try to lit the forty or fifty Protestant denominations of New Zealand with a school religion, lie lielieved that the denominations concerned s-hould be allowed as free a hand as possible in this matter consistently with regard for those sacred i ights and principles which others could never surrender. What these rights were he had already sufficiently explained. The League, when defeated, woidd probably do at last what they ought to have done at first— considered and consulted others; and when they eliminated from their proposals those which violated conscience and the moral law, then they would find all friends of religious education at their side, and a system would be evolved which would leave the schools secular for those who desired them secular, and religious on fair conditions for the rest." 2. I am afraid I have not grasped from the Bishop yet the outlines of the method by which Roman Catholics would joyfully aid their Protestant fellow-citizens in this matter. May I press the question. I do not want the reply which the Bishop gave about a conference. I did not ask about a conference. I asked the Bishop to state the outlines of the method by which Roman Catholics would joyfully aid their Protestant fellow-citizens to secure biblical and religious instruction for their children in the public schools. 1 submit that 1 have not received an answer to that question? —Mr. Chairman, I should like that the questioner, instead of putting the question in the same way as before, would precisely point out where my answer has tailed to meet his question. If it has on any point failed to meet the question then I will be perfectly frank and meet it, but I do not know wherein my answer has failed. Let him indicate the precise point of failure. Does he wani Dae to detail a sch< the present time for the religious instruction of Catholic children, Mr. Chairman, or does he want me to evolve a scheme for the religious instruction of Protestant children? If for Catholic children, then 1 say it is a matter in which we Catholic Bishops are best entitled to formulate a scheme. If for Protestant children, my answer is already given. We will not have anything to do with drawing up any scheme and forcing it on Protestant children. We will say to those who are directly interested in providing education for Protestant children, "We give you the freest hand in our power. Bring in the New South Wales lessons if you like, or the Queensland lessons; bring in the scheme in force in Western Australia, or bring in any scheme that to you seems good; and so long as you respect the rights of conscience of others in the imparting of that scheme we will give it our sanction and approval, and will wish you God speed in carrying it out." 3. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Bishop has given a little fuller answer to my question. I gather from him—and I want His Lordship to correct me if I am wrong —that if we brought in a scheme by which the lessons to be agreed upon were for the use of non-Roman-Catholic children, then we should have the support of the Roman Catholic Church in that effort, provided, of course, the consciences of others were duly respected (• That is so. 4. Then you have answered my question. r lhe next question I desire to ask is this: Is the Roman Catholic Church definitely opposed to the League's proposal for religious instruction in State schools? —The Roman Catholic Church is definitely opposed to the League's scheme of religious instruction in State schools. 5. Is the Roman Catholic Church irrevocably opposed to permitting the people of New Zealand to express their will by a direct vote at the ballot-box on that proposal or on any other dealing with the subject of religious instruction in State schools?—My answer to both those questions has already been given in my evidence in chief. We are irrevocably opposed to those debated questions of religion and conscience being decided by a plebiscite. The grounds of that objection have been stated sufficiently fully in the evidence to which I have referred. If Canon Garland wishes to enter any further into the grounds of that objection he is free to do so, and I will give him my answer. If he wishes me to extend the answers 1 have already given on this matter I shall be pleased to do so. 6. Is the Roman Catholic Church determined on oontinuing its policy of seeking State aid for its schools irrespective of whether there is religious instruction or no religious instruction added to the present system.' —I might mention. Mr. Chairman, that this question has been answered by me a multitude of times on the public platform and through the public Press. If you will allow me I will read you one of my typical answers to this identical question. One of my answers was given in the Presbyterian Outlook of the 25th February. L 913, when I wrote as follows: "No amount of subsidy to Catholic schools would reconcile me to several important planks in the League's platform. 1 will mention onlj three of these: (a.) Subsidy or no subsidy,