CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15155, 19 December 1914, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

« BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS. TO THR EDITOR OF "THE I'HESS." Sir, —Why do not opponents of the Hib.e-in-Schools speak tiiO truth? 1 Jo not know oug of txioni who addressed himself to the question at issue They all talked about tho Bible-in Schools, whereas the question ;vas who ther the people should have the chanc to decide the question. For my part 1 supported the rcfeiendum, but i." eve it is taken, my vote- goes against th. proposal. When Mr Seddon established tho tn cnnial referendum on tho licensin; question, he was not dubbed a Pio iiibitionist. To-day anyone favouring tbo Bible-in-Schools reierendum is eai to bo favournble to the introduction " the Biblo. The two cases are exactly analogous, but mark tho difference 'r tho outcome.

Mr Massey's courso is clear. Eh should introduce the Bill which will hi at onco rejected, and then promisnever to introduce* it again. At futu:> elections there should be no supporter of tTio scheme for anyone to vote against.— etc.. XO MORE. THE LICENSING POLL. TO THE HDITOK OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —Every three years wo have the licensing poll in connexion with tho election of members for tho House oi Representatives. The taking of this poll costs an enormous amount of money, and is only asked for by the Prohibitionists, who are in the minority. Why should tho majority, who do not ask for this poll, bo called upon to pay more than half the cost ?

Taking the licensing noil costs more in stationery than the electoral poll. If tho Prohibitionists want a poll taken at every election on this question, let them pay tho piper. .* A great many electors go to the poll simply to vote prohibition. The fitness' of the candidato as a man to ropresent the poopl> and make laws for the general good of the country is nofc considered in any way.—Yours, otc, TEMPERANCE. CLERICALISM ANT> THE BIBLE IN 6CHOOLS. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —It- is interesting to consider who is responsible for the defeat of the Brble-in-Schools movement.. Tho answer plainly in clericalism. Tho clerics insisted on a double-barrelled dum of their own devising, and on the* members of all the churches ignoring other interests however important, and voting only for the man who supported it. The clergy of all tho churches to an unprecedented extent combined over the un-Protestant principle that tho Eiblo could not be read in the schools without clerical interpreters. The people of all the churches, many of them the backbone of their church and tho salt of the earth, resented such teaching and such dictation at the ballot box, and deliberately voted for the men who would have none of this clerically-prepared referendum. The largest majorities in Canterbury were given to its opponents. The electors took the alarm at the proposed intrusion of the clergy as endangering tho national education of this Dominion. It is an oren secret that if "the right of entry" had been cut out of the Bill at the time it was before Parliament, it would probaoly have become law ; The Nelson Presbvtory, to th© disgust of the clerical leaders, passed a resolution, which I had the honour to move, favouring this excision and expressed the hope that at least the people be allowed to vote on the two issues separately. Some of us tried hard to get the Parliamentary Committee to make a recommendation in this direction. In vain. The Bible-in-Schools League blocked the committee's way. Thinking apparently that they had the election in a net they would only have the referendum as it stood. Some of the more distinguished clerics nrerred that they would not touch the Bible-in-Schools question without "the right of entry" for the clergy. They put clericalism before tho Bible. The result wae that Parliament rejected the proposed referendum, and now the, electors havo endorsed its action. Clericalism has killed the Bible-in-Schools. The epirit that has driven all clergy out of the nublic schools on the continent of Europe hn-s driven all clergy out of -the public schools in New Zealand, and won't let them back to teach in school hours under the sanction of the State at any price. Some of us would like to see the Bible in the schools, as it is already largely in thejanguage and text-books used there. We don't see why we could not have the Bible alone in the schools, as in Scotland, the envy of the educational world, where the clersrv of almost all the churches voluntarily retired from the private schools and handed them over to the State on conaition that their Biblical education bo not Beglected by the Scotch Education Department. We jrreatlv denlore the result of this high-handed clericalism in New Zealand. There has been extensively circulated among the electors before tho last poll a circular which Canon Garland apparently intended as a call to arms for his own chnrch. Its blatant high-churchism has been given wind. In this circular the opposition of two priests of the church, the only OTvnosition worth notice as swaying Parliament, is deplored. The last paragraph in particular does not help the cufc-and-dry referendum. It exhorte3 prayer and exhortation "that a request on a moral issue coming from the church, in common with other religious bodies, shall not be treated with similar contempt by the incoming of any future Parliament." Many said in effect: "We are not §yen the tail of the church. We are not in it at all, only to be rated as religious bodies, very useful at times

as tools or catepaws, or jackals to tbo Lon. That is all. Wo may- be insulted with impunity, but the church must not on any account bo condemned directly or indirectly by Parliament over which tho church reigns supreme even in its civic legislation." No wonder the nicely-planned referendum was rejected. When the lesson which the people have taught the clerics in all the churches is taken home the next move will be the Bible-in-Sehools without the clergy. That will not be 50 strenuously opposed by the teachers or the people as less likely to mar the discipline of the school or disrupt national education, and more honouring to tho Bible itself and the religion it inculcates. —Yours, etc., JOHN DICKSON. - Stys, Decomber 16th. NO-LICENSE. «O THE EDITOR OF "THJ! PBESS. M Sir, —Iho returns for- tho licensing poll are full of interest, and speak with much force. Every poll since J1902 has shown a marked advance in No-lieenso sentiment, but the 1914 poll denotes a prohibition landslide. This is not to be wondered at, for, since 1911 the leaders of the Party have become mere political machines and party hacks, and the cause hae suffered in consequence. Until this election there has been a distinct line of demarcation between the Trade and the No-license people— neither had anything in common. At previous elections, Mr Isitt and other leaders made it a part of their warfare to attack the brewers and publicans with stinging invective, and in consequence tho public were stimulated to direct action against tho Trade. Mr Isitt himself was hated by tho brewers, and on every occasion was subjected to their bitterest opposition. A change, however, has come over the scene, and now we find the No-license people and the publicans fraternising on the day of the election, both working their hardest to put in the same man at the head of tho poll. In Christchurch South, leading spirit merchants and prohibition leaders worked strenuously to return Mr Ell, with striking success. In Kaiapoi, the brewers and No-license people worked like Trojans to put Mr David Jones out and Mr Buddo in. The figures of tho Christchurch North electorate bear testimony to tho way in which the No-license and the beer vote went. In tho Lyttelton elecorate, Mr McCombs received an enormous vote for those who voted against prohibition. A glance at the figures proves thie. As stated previously, the leaders of the No-license Party have become party hacks and subjected themselves to the enemy. Does anyone challenge this statement? If so y will he or she explain why, in each of tho above-mentioned electorates, the supporters of Sir Joseph Ward were strongly supported "by tho brewers and publicans, even if they were strong advocates of No-license. Do the facts stated not speak eloquently as to tho capitulation of the No-license leaders? If the leaders capitulate, is it to be wondered at that the rank and filo of the temperance army practically lay down their arms? The fact of tho matter is. that the return of Sir Joseph Ward to power was of greater importance to many temperance leaders than the cause they pretended to have at heart. The election all over the Dominion proved that Sir Joseph Ward and beer were not separated, but were one. In every electorate this was a feature of the fight.—Yours, etc.. SEARCHLIGHT. THE SLAPPED FINGEB, AND THE SPOILT PIE. TO THE EDITOR OP "THE PRESS '" Sir, —The views of your Wellington correspondent in your issues of to-day and Monday last are almost unnecessary reminders that an unquestioned factor in the pollin" was the apparent Bwallowing whole of the Bible-in-Schools League's platform by many Reformers. It was, indeed, elevated almost into a party question, and candi-

dates divided accordingly. Probably the only Canterbury candidate to take up a position at once democratic and sincere (to be "democratic" is not always to be sincere) was Mr J. McCombs; on the other hand, Reform candidates even took occasion U. expound the specious scheme of the League from their platforms. I fail to see why you should carry any flattering unction to your soul for your very mild protest on the League's entry into the political arena, when you have consistently offered platitudes, on its behalf, and "pooh- j poohod" as negligible points in its plat- . form which are open to the most trenchant criticism. You owe a grave tactical error to your failure to observe tho contempt of the majority of the peonle for a reprehensible attempt to set up a clerical dictatorship in the State schools. The League does not want, will not have, the Bible read in the schools, unless it can also impress its own particular dogmas on tho children at the same time. There is less chance now of securing simple Biblereading than there was when the League commenced a campaign of promise, under a shrewd and capable organiser, experienced in every trick and move of the game: and had the churches concerned had less conceit in their ability to secure a solid whack of temporal control, had they not been quite bo clever, in fact, and more amenable to a spirit of justice and Christian tolerance towards those outside their particular faiths, the wholly sfneere Bible advocates might now have been rejoicing in a substantial step forward. But the League has marched determinedly under the banner of "Our Scheme. Otir Whole Scheme, and Nothing but Our Scheme." and as the saying goes, its name is now Mud. May I suggest a parallel that also points a moral to them? Just as that very excellent thing, German culture, became untenable when force was brought to aid its propagation, tho most sublime faith in the enduring value of one's own particular "ism" will rot avail in the imposition of it Gy" sim maninu'ation of the political machine. Such policy inevitably ends in t v e r>iteous refrain of "Nobody Loves Mc!" —Yours, etc., A. R. KEELE. December 12th. GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FINANCE. TO THE ETHTOB OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—! understand that there is always a Departmental enquiry into any scandal such as was recently uneartned in tiie local office of the Land Department, but I submit that such an enquiry should be a public one. These Star Chamber methods are against the interests of a democracy. According to tho evidence, the Department handles about one-third of a million sterling pr>r annum, and I venture to cay that if such a condition of things was unearthed in tho City Council office, which certainly handles no moro money, we should have had tho whole ventilated. Such disclosures reflect very seriously upon both the Land and Audit Departments, and it seems to mo there should Ibe an independent enquiry presided jover by a magistrate, at which' the i various Departments would be reprejsented and the reporters present so j that the public whose money is at stake, should know the ins "and outs of tho whole disgraceful business, and that the blame be sheeted home to those responsible. I think we have a nght to demand that the Government should grant such an enquiry, and not let the matter be hushed up for the satv-e of saving anybody's skin.—Yours . etc., DAYLIGHT.