1.—1:4u.

J. CAUGHLEY.

in front of "religious instruction," is omitted, and in the next line, where it reads that the Act provides for what is called religious instruction you have omitted the word "special." May i point out thai they were underlined in Mr. Board's letter. 62. Vim want in suggest that we have made the omission from the Inspector's statement when vmi say we have printed ii with the exception of those two words, which 1 claim was distinctly an accident J —Knowing that those words had been left out I really assumed that other alterations had occurred in a similar way. G. 5. Do yon think it is quite fair in your statement and elsewhere to suggest that we have deleted a sentence.'—l am quite prepared to accept your statement. til. When yiui yourself have just said that you were in possession of a copy supplied to you. and thai yon looked at the document we published and you could find only two words left out. is it fair to come before this Committee with a statement published throughout the length of the land suggesting thai we have cut mil of the Inspector's report a quotation that was never supplied io usi—That would lie unjust to you to state that you had done that. You say that was the only alteration, hut I might explain that portion of it which has been omitted or altered was done by Mr. Board and not by t!u Bible in Schools League. As the question has been raised I will read the report in order Io show that these official testimonials are not always what they appear to be. A large part of that statement of Mr. Hoard's is taken from the New South Wales Royal Commission report of 1904. It reads. "The general religious teaching in the State schools of New South Wales is placed on exactly the same footing as any other subject. So far is this true that at the customary annual inspection of the schools failure of a class to reach the departmental standard in ' Scripture ' would be regarded under the system of the Stale as evidence against the efficiency of the teacher." Here is the way Mr. Hoard puts it: "This religious teaching is placed on exactly the same footing as geography, grammar, or any other subject, and at the annual inspection of schools Scripture receives the same consideration as any other subject. In the junior classes, when children are unable to read." He has omitted the words " Failure of a class to reach the departmental standard in 'Scripture , would be regarded under the system of the State as evidence against the efficiency of the teacher.' . Then, the Royal Commission report reads, "Just as success would tell in his favour in that respect. In the junior classes, when children are unable to read, all lessons are given orally in the form of lectures, and generally cover a complete course, of Old and New Testament history." In Mr. Hoard's version we have. "All lessons are given orally in the form of stories drawn from the authorized Scripture lessons on the Old and New Testaments." Further on in the Commission report we have, " All teachers, irrespective of the denomination to which they belong, are required to teach these Scripture lessons, and the Commissioners are informed that in no case has any refusal to do so taken place, nor has there, so far as they are aware, ever been a complaint that the lessons have been otherwise than reverently given." In Mr. Board's version it reads, "Nor has any complaint been made to the Department that the lessons have been ridiculed or made light of." Then, continuing on, we get this statement: "The following extracts from the report of one of the most experienced Inspectors may be taken as representing the departmental conception of the value of the lessons." Tn MY. Board's version he says, " The following extracts from the report of one of our most experienced Inspectors may be taken as representing the true value of the lessons." Then there is an omission of this sentence from Mr. Board's version: " I believe that in about 50 per cent", of our schools these lessons have been so treated." Then, continuing on. the report says. " Tt is rare that a teacher of special religious instruction desires to visit more than once a week." Mr. Board's version is. "As a rule, no teacher of special religious instruction visits more than once a week." Then the report goes on, "It must be admitted that the clergy of various denominations have availed themselves of this provision only to a limited extent, and. speaking generally, the religious instruction in the State of New South Wales is, so far as State schools are concerned, largely confined to the general religious instruction above referred to." This is omitted from Mr. Board's letter. Then following that statement of the Inspector there is the omission of those two words " general " and " special," which we may say makes not inconsiderable the difference between teachers' instruction and the ministers'. 05. You know that Mr. Board is senior officer of the Department and Mr. Knibbs was only a special officer appointed to make the inquiry?— Yes. 66. Do you not think a permanent official who is responsible to his Minister, and through the Minister to Parliament, is justified in giving what he did? He summed up the whole thing from his own point of view The only part where he ile reference to this report is where he says. "The following extracts from the report of one of our most experienced Inspectors." He never nine referred to the Commissioner's report nor to Mr. Knibbs's singular opinions?—l am surprised to hear that you condone it in that way. Although it is not put in inverted commas it is a verbatim continuous extract from this report. In nine cases where it has been modified it has been modified in making the system look more favourable than it otherwise would do to the people of New Zealand, and it has been modified to show the teachers of New Zealand what the system it like. The omission at the end of. the Inspector's statement is quite unmistakable. If Mr. Board wished to give his own opinion he should have triven it, and not have missed out a number of parts which would not appeal well to the people of New Zealand. 67. Are you not able to see the distinction of the difference between Mr. Knibbs's own personal opinion and the official opinion b\ which the Department is bound? He may have chosen to save himself the trouble of quotations but not misusing the quotations?—lt would have saved him a great deal of trouble if he had taken it as it was. (is. Do vmi not recognize the distinction between Mr. Knibbs's personal opinions and the departmental opinion over the signature of the proper officer?- -No, 1 would nol agree that the

10—I. 13b.

73