CONTROVERSIAL METHODS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14759, 1 September 1913, Page 6

CONTROVERSIAL METHODS.

! It is with littlo pleasure that we return to-day to tho subject. of the methods pursued by too many of the leading opponents of tho Bible-in-Schools movement. We aro forced to do so, however, by the telegram which the Press Association lias been prevailed upon by Mr A. R. Atkinson, the leader of tbe Wellington "antis," to circulate through the newspapers. Mr Atkinson was reported by the Wellington "Dominion" as having 6aid, as a member of a deputation which waited upon the Prime Minister, that it was "singular that " tho forces working for the Bible-in- " Schools movement are a mixture of re"lrgious bigotry and cant." This statement was published on Monday, August 11th, and remained uncontradicted and uncorrected by Mr Atkinson or by Mr Caughley, who had endorsed everything his ally had said. On Sunday, August 17th, Canon Garland, Dr. Gibb, Archdeacon Harper, and others strongly reprobated this unjust languago, and Mr Atkinson proceeded to defend himself in a series of increasingly bold and violent letters. He first- assailed his critics for criticising him without giving him an opportunity to say whether he had used the words complained of. It Avas pointed out that ho bad had a week in which to correct the mistake in the report, but had not dono so. To this he replied that he bad not fully perused the "Dominion's" report; and conveyed the impression that he had, to all intents and purposes, not read it at all. We have shown in earlier articles that this excuse Ls invalid. Op August 13th Mr Atkinson had written to the "Dominion," praising its report as excellent. Ho wrote with an eye to correction, as Canon Garland and his friends havo since pointed out but although he corrected another passage in the report, he saw no error in tho published account of his . remarks on the crucial point. He has now obtained the services of the Press Association to circulate a denial that he used the words .complained of. Of that denial wo shall 6ay nothing moro than that it will be read in conjunction with tho fact that Mr Atkinson made and took his own opportunity to correct the "Dominion" report just as he pleased, that he did not correct the passage in issue, and that he appeared to recognise its objectionable nature only when he was called to account. However, it is something that the opponents of the : Bible-in-Schools movement admit that it would be abominable to call those tens of thousands of good citizens who favour Christian teaching nothing

better than canting bigots. We may hopefully expect that in future the extreme secularists will bo careful with their ton_ues and pens. The incident illustrates very well a most regrettable turn in the controversy. It is perhaps natural that the rough and bitter speech should come from thoso who oppose any interference with the glorious secularism of our schools. It is not necessary, however, that the secularist leaders should resort to those methods which we, are used to in "Liberal" apologists, but which are unaccountablo and bizarro in other people.

An amusing example of the electioneering methods of tlio would-be M.P. has been receiving some publicity in Wellington. Tlio other day one of tho Wellington newspapers printed a news article, headed "Municipal Insurance—Councillor Flether's Proposals," in which Mr Fletcher developed "his idea" that tho Council should do its own insurance. Several days later another Councillor, apparently unablo to contain himself any longer, informed another paper that the "idea" was not Councilloi Fletcher's at all. Tho facts were that tho "idea," even down to tho dotails, was the Town Clerk's if anybody's, and had been set out in a confidential memorandum to Councillors. Mr Fletcher indignantly denied that he had claimed it as his idea, but the facts -were against him, and his brother Councillor added that the confidential memorandum should not have been used in any way. Mr Fletcher, it need hardly be said, is one of Wellington's leading "Liberals," and he still lives in hopo of reaching Parliament. We have often felt rather sorry for the "Liberal" would-bo M.P. The business of devising excuses for publicity riiu.st bo very wearing. Mr Fletcher appears to bo rather more skilful than most in turning things to good account. Being a Liberal member of the House of Commons is not all fun nowadays, despite tho £100 a year. It became evident, during tho recently ended session, that the Liberal Whips were living in constant dread of a snap division —a sign of disintegration in the coalition. One day the Chief Whip's nervousness drove him into sending a very uncommon letter to Government members. Members should not imagine, he said, that all danger was over. "1 would urge any member who' may be unable to attend tho House to telephone tho Whips (Treasury Exchange) beforo three o'clock, either asking for a pair or indicating where, in case of urgent need, he could be rung up. Members obliged to leavo the House are requested to givo similar information to the Whip at the door, and in no circumstances to leavo except by the main door. For the general convenience I would further ask members to observe the following points: In no case to make arrangements lor leaving London without securing a pair, in which case, as tho Opposition will only offer the". Government Whips day pairs (for reasons it is unnecessary to specify), it is therefore desirable for members to negotiate advanco pairs fcr themselves and notify the Whips." Sonic of the Liberals were indignant. "It treats us," they said, "as if we were a lot of schoolboys." But they owe something for their £400 a year. As the most curious contribution to the discussion of naval defence which has yet been heard in this country, a passage in tho speech of tho member for Awarua must be given a little publicity before it is forgotten. "Men of means and property in New Zealand," he said, "had told him that the day the country committed itself to a local navy they would leavo it with all thoy had. Ho was one of thoso who wonld do the same." Some simple-minded "Liberals," who. have been taught to believe that the "Lrberal" politicians are all poor men, may be surprised at this indication that Sir J. G. Ward is as wickedly a capitalist as anybody. , There was a timo when the member for Awarua would havo spoken for "the great mass of the people." For our part we think an independent local navy would be a disastrous undertaking, but it is not an argument against it that Sir J. G. Ward, or .anyone else, would fieo the country if it wero undertaken. Two or threo years ago a topic of discussion was the unwillingness of the private capitalist to bring or send his money here for irt»_tnient either in land or in industries. Mr Harokl Beauchamp had stressed the point in ono of his addresses to the Bank of New Zealand shareholders, and Sir J. G. Ward was vexed with him. Peoplo had no right, his argument ran, to refrain from investing their capital. Ho considered it was not right of them. One would imagine that he should be consistent, and. lot his capital stay here in spite of everything. One of our contemporaries wonders whether such a threat as ho has just issued is quite proper. Where, it asks, would be the patriotism in such a hasty exit? "If a costly blunder, according to Sir Joseph's opinion, was made here, would not he descrvo more his own respect and the esteem of his fellow-citizens by staying here to assist in a recovery?" In any event, it is. useful to have his admission that capital is sensitive and mobilo—a fact his political allies have so often derided. We should bo sorry to see anyone tako his capital abroad; but should not the "Liberals"' —those friends of the poor man and enemies of tho capitalist—he exclaiming, "Go and thy capital perish with thee"? The fuller reports in the Wellington papers of the proceedings at tho last meeting of tho committee which is enquiring into the circumstances of Mr Itoyd Garlick's appointment throw some fresh light on the member for Lyttelton's pleasant little customs. Mr Laurenson seems to have based his charge that Mr Allon appointed "a personal friend" on a statement in our local contemporary. He did not stop to enquire whether the statement was accurate, although he knows as well as anybody the small reliance he can place upon statements in that quarter. He also said that ho had seen no denial by Mr Allen. Mr Allen, as everyone knows, gave an explicit denial, long before Mr Laurenson made his statement this session, that he was a personal friend of Mr Garlick. What we are asked to believe is that this denial was- overlooked. It will be remembered that Mr W. D. S. Mac Donald, in a carefully reported speech, charged Mr Massey with "jobbing" a railway to his residence. When challenged on the point, ho asked the House to believe that ho had been

misrcported. and had not seen tho report, although the point was emphasised by every "Liberal" paper in the country. Tho complaint from which the "Liberal" politicians aro suffering is "selective blindness." They see only i what it suits them to see. Even tho presenco in it of Mr Lloyd George has not made the British Government quite the pure and upright body that it might be. Indeed, some figures "■iven in a recently-issued pamphlet would appear to indicate that Mr Asquith and his colleagues have made exceeding good use of their powers of patronage. Of 275 Liberal members elected in January, 1910, four havo. become Unionists or Independents, thirteen lost their seats in December, eight did not seek re-election, and six died. This left 214, and amongst these appointments and honours have been allotted as follows:—-Forty-six have received Ministerial appointment's, ten havo received offices of profit, fourteen have been created Peers, and thirtyseven have received further honours. Of these twelvo have had a "second helping." and there were 35 who had received honours shortly before January, 1910. Altogether, in three years more than one-third of tho Party have received honours or preferment. It becomes loss surprising in tho presence of theso figures, that tho "Nation," tracing a policy in them, should bo exceedingly angry, as we noted the other day, that Mr Asquith neglected to appoint to the Episcopate only those churchmen who were heart and soul for Home Rule and Disestablishment. Mr Payne, M.P.. .saved the Ward Government from defeat by breaking his pledge to vote against it —tho undertaking to which he owed his election and which ho solemnly repeated to Mr Massey in writing. It is perhaps only fair that tho "Liberals" should repay him by supporting him in his present rather difficult position. One of their organs rejoices that Mr Massey "failed in Mr Payne's case"—failed, that is to say, to find a man ready to stand by his pledges. Mr Massey, we are told, did not "score a point" this time. It was Mr Payne who scored. Mr Payne, indeed, is regarded by tho antiReformers as a recruit to be proud of. He is certainly worthy of "Liberalism."