CHURCH TRUSTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 255, 25 October 1907, Page 6

CHURCH TRUSTS.

•GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH ENDOWED SCHOOLS. CONDEMNED BY THE SYNOD. Last session of Parliament a bill entitled the Separate Endowed Schools Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Minister for Education, but did not get beyond its first reading. The bill proposed, among other things, to alter the constitution of the Boards of Trustees in the schools referred to, and to make it optional for children of being present or absent during religious exercises. Against these clauses the General Synod of the Anglican Church at its sitting in Dunedin in January last, strongly protested, and its protest was supported at the session of the Auckland Diocesan Synod yesterday, when the Rev. Canon Geo. Mac Murray moved: "That this Synod protests against any tampering with the religious character in any trusts held by trustees under the General Synod of the Church of the Province of New Zealand, and in particular against the proposed interference through The separate Endowed Schools Bill," with the rights of this Church, and as tending to defeat the objects for which the trusts were established, and calls upon all who desire to maintain the inviolability of trusts to use every means in their power to prevent the passage of the bill." It was important, the mover said, that the action of the General Synod should be confirmed. In 1905 a Royal Commission was set up to inquire into a number of Church of England Trusts, and in 1906, a Commission of similar character was established. Thcve were a number of trusts held by the religious bodies in New Zealand, and it was significant that no Royal Commission had been set up to inquire into these trusts. They should direct the attention of churchmen throughout the Dominion to the action of the Government in specially attacking the Church of England, and singling out its trusts for investigation. It was a matter for very great congratulation that they had no reason to fear inquiry into the manner in which the Church had treated the trusts, taken as a whole. The reports of the commissions on these trusts was distinctly favourable, and the only trust which could be looked upon as a partial failure was the Porirua Trust. - That trust was given for the establishment of a school in Porirua, where no school had been erected. Whether there were sufficient funds for the purpose, and how far the Porirua trustees were responsible for the failure, it was not necessary to say, but that was the one trust on which the commissioners could put their finger, and say that there was any failure in carrying out the object of the gift. The commendations of the commissioners were exceedingly satisfactory, and it was also satisfactory to know that the failure of the Porirua trust bade fair to be a thing of the past, because there was now a bill before the House giving power to incorporate the Porirua and Otaki trusts into one strong trust which would be able to maintain a flourishing institution. He would like to express to the Government his thanks for facilitating the passage of this bill through Parliament. What made it necessary that they should express their opinion was the possible re-introduction of the separate endowed schools. That bill had not gone beyond its first reading, but it might be re-introduced next session, and it was important that the Synod should express their opinion 1 before it was too late. The bill primarily referred only to two trusts, Te Aute and Wanganui, and in bringing in this bill the Government picked out two of the most successful schools in the church. If there was one trust which had been successful beyond all others it was the Te Aute Trust, due to the energy and utility of one man, the late Yen. Archdeacon Williams. The Te Aute and Wanganui properties were to be confiscated and vested in _ new board, some of its members being appointed by the General Synod, and the rest by the Governor. At the sitting of the Royal Commission in Napier it came out in evidence that Archdeacon Williams had expended thousands of his own money in buildings and in erecting a school for girls near Napier. The Government proposed to vest this in a new board, money spent by a private individual, an act of pure confiscation. Then the bill proposed to destroy the religious character of the schools, and of the trusts. Those who created those trusts gctve the land for religious purposes, but their desires were to be set aside and the estates confiscated. Perhaps the most dangerous clause of the bill was that providing that any of these trusts included in the schedule, any educational institution wholly or in part maintained by grants from the public revenue, or by endowments granted by the Government or otherwise, could be dealt with in the same manner. The St. Stephen's estate and any amount of other trusts could be confiscated by the Government under this Act, and the religious part of the teaching destroyed. The force of the words, "or otherwise" was that such an estate as the Dilworth estate would come within its scope, and would be liable to confiscation at the will of the Minister of Education. The bill was an attack on the denominational schools of every kind, and an attack on the sacredness of trusts. Mr J. H. Upton seconded. The great lesson to learn from the bill was that trustees should be careful to apply the funds for tho trusts for which they were created. . Where estates granted for special purposes were allowed to lie idle instead of fulfilling their purpose the Government had a right to interfere and provide a means for carrying out the trusts. He did not approve of the present proposal. The Bey. W. Beatty opposed the motion. There were, he said, two sides to every question, and the General Synod had passed its resolution having heard one side only. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he did not think the . bill deserved the unqualified animadversions of Mr Mac Murray. Even if it did the S) m od was not a body to pass a resolution of this kind. Regarding the change hi the personnel of the trustees in a number of cases grants had been made by the Government, and therefore the Government should be represented on the trusts, that was an equitable principle. He had read part of the reports of the Te Aute and Wanganui Commissions, and thought that in the case of Te Aute, Archdeacon Williams was the trust ward, the trustees had the sense to recognise his ability and wisdom and to give him a free hand, and thus the success of the institution was due to one. man, not to the Board. The Crown grant iri connection with the college made no mention of religious instruction. Some of the properties were passed to tbe Board from the Maoris through a Crown grant, and if they wero given for religious purposes it *was a pity that this was not included in the Crown grant. It was quite true that the estates were given for purposes of religious education, but this did not appear

in the grant. Canon Mac Murray had denounced the bill as . destroying the religious character of the schools and of the trusts. That was a singular statement to make in the Synod. If that destroyed the religious character of the school then the Synod itself had deliberately destroyed the religious character of the Diocesan High School, established without a single Government grant, and on a distinctly Church of England foundation, because in that institution the conscience clause had been inserted by the Synod itself. When doing this sort of thing themselves why should they blame a secular government for doing the same thing as they themselves without any compunction had done. "I think," he continued, "it is time we attempted to be a little more honest, and look a little more on our own faults and a little less on the faults of outside bodies. He did not think that either Canon MacMurray or the General Synod had made out a case, and he deprecated such an assault in a matter which did not merit such strong animadversions. Mr Holmes supported the motion, and said it was quite evident that these trusts were given by the natives for schools, and that Church of England instruction should therein be given. The Government thought itself competent to do anything it chose by legislation, irrespective of whether it was right or wrong. Mr F. G. Ewington, who also supported the motion, said if any trustees committed a breach of trust the Synod could call them to account, but if the Government broke the terms of the trust no one could call them to account, aud herein lay the danger of the bill. The Key. Percy Williams, Warden of St. John's College, considered that the whole objection to the bill lay with the conscience clause. To his mind it would strengthen the trustees to have Government nominees on the boards, but to the conscience clause he emphatically objected. He had spoken to a number of old Wanganui College boys, and one and all were agreed that it was to the chapel they looked back as having formed their high ideals in life. If the conscience clause became operative, and one could go to chapel or stay away, the Church of England schools would be absolutely destroyed. This particularly applied to St. Johns College. It was quite time that the Church of England said definitely, "If you want to use our institution you must coiform to our rules," as did the Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other bodies.

Mr E. W. Burton thought the resolution too sweeping, holding that in some cases the grants were given for general education purposes, and not for Church of England schools alone.

Mr C. J. Tunks expressed the opinion that if the clauses referred to were passed it would be a case of good-bye to the trusts, for further amendments extending the Government's power would follow. He strongly objected to Government interference with the trusts in any way whatever. He would expect to find that in a comparatively short time the natural trend of the whole thing would be towards the Government, and the natural trend would be to reduce the schools to the level of primary schools, and the Synod did not desire to see that come about.

The President (Bishop Neligan) was satisfied that some members had not read the Hansard reports on the Pori-rua-Otaki Bill, or they would not have made the statements they had given expression to. "There is," he said, "no question that the position of the Government, as represented by the Minister for Education, is entirely alien to the interpretation that has been given regarding the grants. His interpretation is this, these grants were given unquestionably to the Church of England for particular purposes, but his contention is that they were given to this body solely because of the temporary exigencies of the period. In the early days of the colony there was nobody except the religious bodies who could undertake educational work, and. in consequence, gTants were given to these religious bodies, and his contention is that they were temporary grants for temporary purposes, and that the time has come when the State can do the work, and the religious body can be suppressed. There is the danger, there is the interference. There can be no continuity, no permanency. There is no civil or" religious liberty if anything of the sort be allowed to pass." The whole church, continued his Lordship, owed a debt of gratitude to the Bishop of Waiapu. who, though full of years, had gone at a day's notice to Wellington to interview the Crown in connection with these matters. He (Bishop Neligan) had had almost daily communication with the Premier and Minister for Education regarding the Porirua-Otaki Bill, as to whether there should be a conscience clause for boarders. The church refused to give way one inch, the Government treatod them honourably and fairly, recognising

that their position was to be respected, and agreed with them. He begged the Sj'nod to be unanimous on the general question of interference with civil and religious liberty. In replying, Canon Mac Murray declared that such interference would effectually prevent any such gifts as that of the late Mr. Dilworth.

The motion was carried by a large majority.