T. A. tJUNTEB.J

1.—13b.

87. Then with regard to your interpretation of the New South Wales regulations, what authority have you for saying that they are interpreted in such a drastic fashion? Whal .statement of mine are you now referring to? 88. Where you say in regard to the regulations thai i he New Zealand teachers would uoi acoepi such a dreadful state of things (---My point is simply this: if ihosc regulations Lad been in force in New Zealand at the present time and this question had come up, neither Mr. John Caughley, Mr. William Foster, nor any other teachers in New Zealand would have been entitled to open their mouths on this question; and whatever may be the case with people who have not had any greater measure of freedom, 1 believe 1 am right in saying that I do not believe the teachers would be content to rest under a system of that kind. 1 do not think Parliament would be content to put them under a system of that kind. 89. Have you seen published statements from teachers in New South Wales to the effeel thai the interpretation you have put on the New South Wales regulations is purelj imaginary I No, I have noi seen the statements, Inn I have ihe regulations, which are quite sufficient I'm , mi . !H). You mentioned Sir Robertson Nicoll, and you quoted him as one of your friends in supporting your point of view? — Yes. 91. Have you seen the pamphlet issued by the executive committee of which he is a member, m IIHII. in which he advocates practically the very things that this League is advocating;- No, I have noi seen that pamphlet, but 1 have here a Press Association cablegram of the 12th February, 1914, which says, " The Hey. Sir \Y. Robertson Nicoll. editor of the British Weekly, the well-known Nonconformist journal, in a Letter to the Press, stales that he doubts whether the Nonconformists would adopt the suggestions of Dr. Frodshain (formerly Anglican Bishop of North Queensland) regarding the problem of religious instruction in State schools." That is, the Queensland system. 92. You also quoted Professor Finlay? —Yes. !)•'!. Are you aware that Professor l-'inlav, at pages Ml and 112 of his book, from which you quoted, speaks of "the demand for right of entry into the public school seems justified," and otherwise in his book advocates almost the system which we are advocating, except that he goes a good deal further! — No, J am not aware of that. I was aware that Professor Finlay is in favour of religious teaching, but I also notice that after the lines you have marked he states, '"But if a suggestion may here be attempted, I would urge that in place of righi of entry ihe parent should demand a right of substitution. For the proper venue for religious instruction is not the public school, with the Anglican teaching one group in Room X. and the Catholic another group in Room V: the church building, the house of God itself, is the tit place of assembly for teaching the distinctive duct lines which the Church holds deal. And the clergyman himself is the fittest teacher, no! the public-school leacher who. in these unhappy controversies, finds his allegiance divided between Church and Slate. It would surely not be difficult for the law to recognize attendance once or more during the school week in church buildings. ill. How do \ini approve of Professor Kinlav's idea of going much further than we propose lo go .' —I have yet to be shown that he proposes to go further than you go. 95. Are you not aware that we are not asking for tin , right of substitution, which means taking the children away into the church?—l am aware you are not asking lor that right. !)(>. Then Professor Finlay does go further than we propose I—l am not prepared to say that that is going further. 1)7. Not taking tin' children into church? I am not prepared to say that is going further. 98. He speaks of the olergyman as being the fittest teacher, not the public-school teacher. Do you not understand thai that is exactly the position we take up' We are asking that the clergyman give the definite religious teaching, and the public-school teacher to take the readinglesson from the Scripture-lesson book? He says, "Not the public-school teacher." There ia relative clause: "who, in these unhappy controversies, finds his allegiance divided between Church and State." That is the v<-\\ thing we are contending. 99. Do you not accept our statement that we believe we are asking the teachers not to teach religion?—l accept your statement that you believe you are not asking it. but I do not believe the statement that you are not asking it. That is my point. .100. 1 notice you'quoted a good many figures in regard to criminal statistics? Yes. 101. Do you really expect people to accept bare ti<_rures as evidence of an increase or decrease of crime as a test of morality ? —lt depends on the figures. 102. Would you mind explaining.' Well, on the way in which the figures are quoted, on the way in which they are arranged, and on the source from which the figures come all problems which lie at the basis of statist ics. Ill'i. On the other hand, you would not accept figures unless you knew all about them?—Of their source, and the way they are arranged. 104. You said that some temperance association stated that New South Wales was the most drunken State in Australia?—lt was cabled to New Zealand. 105. Would \ou accept that as line.' In conjunction with the other evidence I have here I should think it was probable. 106. And if the Commissioner of Police, who knows the facts better than a temperance organization, which may be prejudiced, stated that it was not true, you would still maintain that the statement was true?—l would like to know what knowledge he has of the other States. 107. You would think his knowledge not so good as your own? — No. You asked me whether I would accept his view, and I say I would want to know whether that Police Commissioner, in making a comparative statement, has any knowledge of the other Stale. 108. You quoted Victoria as having the same birth-stains as New South Wales.'- Yes. 109. You believe that?— Yes. 110. Then you are not aware that out of about the first 1,015 arrivals in New Soutli Wales in 1788 there were 742 unfortunate oonvicts, and that in Victoria there was not a single convict

53