67

1.—13b.

•I. CAUGHJ,EY.

tightly attached to the Bible-in-schools part of the proposal. It concluded thus: " The present movement only becomes possible with the co-operation and assist the Anglican Church. Thai assistance has been given, and is maintained, on the distinct understanding thai ihe complete platform of the League be submitted by way of referendum to the electors as an undivided whole. From the standpoint of the Anglican Church the right oi entry is the all important thing Lny attempt to divide the issue would amount to the disfranchieeuient of the whole body of the Anglicans, who cunnol consistently vote on one issue unless it i> made contingent on the other \U suggestions (re dividing the issues), however plausible they may appear und from whatever source they emanate, must be sternh resisted." This attitude of the Anglican Church has been repeatedly confirmed by public declarations from Canon Garland, Bishop Julius, Bishop Sadlier, and others, and by the Church News, the official organ of the Anglican Diocese i>r Christchurch. The Church News (official organ of the Anglican Church Diocese of Christchuroh; Ist August, litl4; page 2, bottom of second column, leading article): "The chief danger besetting the Iteferendum Bill is not that it may be thrown out, Imt that the issue may be divided or another cue added. We ask for a definite question on » complete scheme, the use of Bible-reading in schools and the right of entry. There may be an attempt to put these two issues separately as alternatives. If so there will be a sufficient majority for neither. Or, again, the Nelson system nraj be added as an alternative issue and lead to no result. These or some such alterations will be suggested, and we need to make it clear wherever infiuencL , can !«• brought to bear that our claim is for a referendum on the issue as defined in the Bill and on no other." It is of no concern to the League that thousands of other electors, including Xonconi'oi mists, who do not reverse like Dr. Gibb, would lie disfranchised by the submission of the double-issue ballot-paper. The unrighteous nature of this " distinct understanding is exactly indicated in the League's official manifesto published in the Christchurch /'its*. !),li May. Mill, ami in every centre oi' the Dominion. In section 7 we read that if the League's scheme is successful the Roman Catholic ( huroh in its demand for State' aid " is effectually prevented in the latter case from forming with any other Church a combination which could obtain Sine aid. Practically all the Churches have definitely dropped the policy of State aid for their schools, preferring to support the national system when it includes (he system advocated by the league." Thus the question of which Churches shall capture the national system for the kind of religious instruction they desire is merely a contingency depending on m-cli sias't ical combines, made t-ffectiv< i>\ a clever form of ballot, any alterations to which the Outlook Kays must be " iernlv resisted from what ever source they emanate," even if they emanate from Parliament. The representatives ■of 600,000 electors must not alter the ballot-paper framed by perhaps ."><>. not), in reality by the officials of the Churches concerned. Further, in section -'I of the manifesto the League, in its endeavour to prevent Bible in schools under the Nelson system, if legalized, declares that Lhat bvsl in would most decidedly favour Stale aid. because it could not be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Yet the scheme which the League wishes t <. introduce into the national schools is far more repugnant to the Roman Catholic Church than is ihe Nelson system, Therefore the League's scheme would favour State aid even more decidedly. The Roman Cutholics would take up exactly the same attitude as Bishop Julius, who said. " I detesi the present system with all ivy heart, and if I cannot get religious instruction in any other way ! »ill have my own school and demand grant in-aid " (Christchurch Press, February, 1913). He claims the right to decide whether an approved form of religious instruction will satisfy his views. Bishop Julius, at the Synod (Report in the Christchurch Frets, 15/10/13) : " An attempt lias been made to offer us the so-called Nelson system. We will have none of it. Undenominational teaching i.- not Christian teaching, nor anything like ii. For practical purposes it is about as effective as the teaching of mechanical engineering by rule-of-thumb." Dean Fitchett said. " Suppose tin Nelson system were made legal and part of our system, the schools would then become impossible for ihe Roman Catholics, and their claims for grants would become irresistible. . . . The State would have taken a side, and the Catholics could not be refused their grants'' (Dunedin Star, 14/6/13). Similarly if the League's scheme*were made legal and part of our system, claims lor grants would become irresistible under the still more repugnant scheme. The Stale would have taken a side, but the League manifesto relies on the political combine of the Churches which ar< to get what they ask for. to prevent the compensation which they admit would, on grounds of justice, lie irresistible. 1 nder such auspices we are asked to put the Word of God into the schools so that the children may learn " to do justice and to love mercy " ; " to love thy neighbour as thyself " ; to " do unto others as you would have them do to you. , ' I The Teachers' Conscience (Jlaune, I have to imt before you a special resolution of the New Zealand Educational Institute. The religious nature of the proposed Scripture lessons is past argument. In fifty-eight places in the League's publications the teachers' lesson is referred to as " religious instruction." The exclusion of sectarian teaching makes it more religious rather than less. The religious nature of the lessons is admitted by the conscience clause for parents. All claims for the introduction of the Word of God into the regular school curriculum would be nullified if the lessons were not religious lessons. Vet the League refuses to consider the granting of a consci* nee clause to teachers. Now, most emphatically we deny the authority of the League to determine this question. We deny the preposterous claim of the League to say that if tiie question is submitted to a vote the League will exclude from the ballot-paper the question of the teachers' conscience. We most emphatically deny that the teachers' conscience is of less concern than the parents'. The teacher would actually have to give the lessons, while the parent would only have to permit them. We. the teachers-