BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 17, 14 October 1927, Page 5

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

PRAISE OF NELSON SYSTEM EVIDENCE OF A FOUNDER MR. CAUGHLEY CROSSEXAMINED Evidence in support of the Nelson system was given before the Education Committee of ; the ; House of Representatives, in connection with the Religious Exer- ’ cises in Schools Bill, yesterday. There were some very interesting exchanges during the cross-exam-ination of Mr. J. Caughley, formerly Director of Education. t The Rev. J. H. Mackenzie, of the Presbyterian Church, claimed that he repreaented 25,000 children who were being instructed under the Nelson system.-His experience of the attitude of parents in connection with that system, and the unanimity of the Protestant! Churches in favour of the Bill had convinced ,him that a majority of the people wanted something in the nature of Bible-reading in the schools. The question was: What were the people to get? . He proceeded to outline the history and working of the Nelson system. The scheme, put forward as the outcome of a meeting in 1897 presided over by the late Bishop Mules, was favoured by an overwhelming majority of the parents. When the system was inaugurated in Nelson, complaints were made that the law was being broken, but the system was countenanced and approved by the Education Board. The method employed was simplicity itself. The children attended half an hour before the legal time of opening school. A prayer, commonly the Lord’s Prayer, was followed by the reading of a scripture lesson which was explained by the teacher. Hymns were sometimes introduced, and the lesson closed with a short prayer or the Benediction. Mr. Mackenzie claimed that the system had worked successfully , wherever he had had experience of it. At present he was teaching under the system at the Kelburn Normal School, where there were 300 pupils. He had counted about 17 children who remained outside, while the lesson was being given, but how many had been instructed to do so by their parents he could not tell. Two of the bigger boys, questioned by him, said they thought attendance at Sunday school was sufficient. and evidently re-, garded the day school religious teaching as a kind of medicine. Mr. Mackenzie challenged the statement of Bishop Sadlier in his .evidence before' the Committee that the inauguration of the Nelson system in Nelson had

been attended bv the bitterest controversy. Bishop Sadlier was quite incoij rect. The promoters of the system had had to prove themselves right to the Education Board, but it was wrong to say that there had been bitter controversy. The system was carried out in ten schools in the Nelson district, and 25,000 children in 154 schools in the Dominion were receiving rehSious instruction under the system, t had to be remembered that there were six education boards in New Zealand, and three of them had refused to sanction the Nelson system. The Auckland board had been appealed to again ana again, and on two occasions had refused on the casting vote of the chairman. The Nelson system had been kept out of the Auckland schools except at Rotorua. The Southland board had always opposed it, and the Wanganui board had gon© back on its previous attitude. Advantages Claimed. . He claimed that the advantages of the Nelson system were many. It offered to children the opportunity of receiving genuinely religious lessons from religious people. By that he intended no reflection upon the State school teachers, the great mass of whom would, no doubt, honestly do their duty if the Bill became law. The Nelson system cost the State nothing in finance, and no man was asked to pay anything through taxation for the teaching of a faith in which he did not believe. Under the Nelson system no State school teacher could possibly suffer in the matter of appointments or through the people in any district taking offence because the teacher took advantage of a conscience clause as in the Bill. He knew something of what could be done by a country school committee against the interests of a teacher. Under the Nelson system there .was no risk of the oemand for denominational grants that he feared would be made under tne bub-lie asked that the Nelson system should be legalised throughout the country. While Others were clamouring, with the best intentions, for the State to come in and help the churches to do their work, the workers under the Nelson system were doing the work. He thought tnat they had got something like legal recognition of the Nelson system in the Eaucabon Act of 1914. The section dealing with the powers and duties of school coinmittees provided "that nothing in this section or in any by-laws of, tho board shall prevent the committee from granting as it deems fit the use of? any school building as aforesaid for the purpose of moral and religious instruction. But it had been held that'the board had. full control of tlie fixing of school hours and the words "as aforesaid destroyed the whole intention of the clause, v;l ich was introduced with a view to making room for the Nelson , system in the, schools. Therefore, it failed to accomplish the end which, he contended, parliament had plainly in view. He maintained that the working of the Nelson system caused no religious dissension. A simitar system in Victoria was working most successfully, and 125,000 children were receiving religious instruction. This gave some idea of what couHi oe done if the Nelson system were legalised and properly organised in the Dominion. Replying to Mr. H. Holland, Mr. Mackenzie said he was not connected with the Biblc-in-Schools League. Wherever it was proposed to introduce the Nelson system the. parents were first consulted. •They sovy/1 to provide a teacher for each standard. At Kelburn six teachers—one Anglican, one Congre gational, three' Prsbytenans, and one Salvation Army representative. He produced a Government return showing that 25,050 children were receiving instruction under'the Nelson system in New ZealaMr. H. Holland:. lam delighted to hear that; lam perfectly sympathetic with 'the Nelson system. You say it costs the country nothing. What are the school teachers doing during that half-hour? Their salaries go on whether they are teaching or not.' ’ Mr. H. Atmore: The point about the Nelson system not costing anything and the statement of Mr. Caughley that it would cost the country .£175,000 a year to provide the teaching under the Bill, is this. (To Mr. Mackenzie). You teachers are voluntary workers, but under the Bill the religious teaching would be by paid school teachers and it is a fair thing to. charge a proportion of their salary to it. ' Mr. Atmore quoted a recent. report to show that under the system m Victoria 2000 instructors were working in 900 schools and at least 60 per cent, of the Protestant children wore receiving religious instruction. To Mr. Mackenzie: Can you see any reason why the Nelson, system should not succeed in New Zealand if given the chance? "Churches Ready to Unite." Mr. Mackenzie: There is no reason whatever. The churches would bo ready to unite on the Nelson system if it had a proper legal standing. The fact that the laity can co-operate with the clergy is a good thing. Replying to further questions, Mr. Mackenzie said tho Nelson system was infinitely superior to that proposed in the Bill. Mt. Atmore: Would you consider a plebiscite a fair' thing if it did not include a vote ou tho Nelson system? Mr. Mackenzie: It would be unfair. The Nelson system should be tested by a vote of the people. Mr. Atmore: If the Bill camo into operation would not the Catholies be able to say that tho State Had been wrong since 1877 and they were right? Mr. Mackenzie said he thought the Catholics had had small room to complain since 1877, but if tho Bill became law they would have cause for complaint. A . Mr. Atmore: Would not one-seventh of the population opposing religious instruction under the Rill have a good claim for a denominational grant? Mr. Mackenzie: Certainly. I don’t see how the claim of the Roman Catholics for a grant could be refused. . Mr. Bellringer: Will you not nave the same demand if the Nelson system is legalised ? • Mr. Mackenzie sqid he had never heard it hinted and he did not think it probable. Mr. Atmore: You are possibly unaware that Catholic priests are' working under the Nelson system in the Nelson district, where they give their children religious lessons after school hours. Question of Cost. /

Mr. J. Caughley, ex-Director of Education. said ho would like to make clear the position in thgard to the 175,000 he had mentioned, as the annual cost of the religious instruction proposed in the Bill. Under the Bill the State would be paying its teachers to give religious instruction, but in the case of .the Nelson system tho teachers stood aside while the religions lesson was being ■ given. Every denomination stood on the same footing under the Nelson system, but it

'would not be so under the Bill, -n Victoria he thought the system of religious instruction would ultimately reach 80 per cent, of the children—a larger proportion than was reached by the churches among the parents. They could never get everybody under the reach of religious teaching. . . Replying to questions by the Minister of Education, Mr. Caughley said that if religious instruction in schools was not given under a voluntary system, there must be some compulsion. An element of compulsion was present in the secondary schools, where religious exercises were now being given. He had been present at the opening of a certain school, and when the exercises were over he saw eight or nine boys enter the room. He would say candidly that the boys slunk nto the room shamefacedly. He was ashamed of what he saw, and he would not ba present again where boys were affronted in that manner. Many people rather than face that position would refrain from putting their children under that disability. Tho Minister: Do vqu think that it is right that a plebiscite should be taken ? . Mr. Caughley: I claim that na majority has a right to inflict a religious injustice upon a minority. .' ' . • - I Were Secret Pledges Given? The Minister: Now, in regard to these nledges which you- sav have boon given secretly by members of Parliament. Have vou any evidence that that has been done? Mr. Caughley: Only the evidence in Mr. Isitt’s pamphlet, in which he says he has enough supporters in the Reform Party to pass the Bill. Mr. Bellringer: I resent such a suggestion! Tt is most uncalled for! I gavo a public pledge from the platform Mr. Caughley: Some candidates did. no doubt.

Mr. Forsyth: No member of this committee gave a, secret v,ledge. Mr. Caughley: T nm not talking about th'o committee. ... Mr. Forsyth: Oh. there’s nothing in this secret business! . Mr. Atmore: I think there is a great deal in it. The Minister said, certain members wore forced bv their constituents to sunnort the Bill. . Mr.' Caughley: It’s the eeclesmstical courts that are pressing this Bill. Mr. Holland: Oh, nothing of the kind! The, Conscience Clause.

The Minister: Do you think sectarian influence would prevail to a greater extent under the Bill? Mr. Caughley: There certainly would be greater cause for it. The Minister: Do you think the conscience clause is valueless ? Mr. Caughley: No, I would not say that. But I do say that the Bill, iniquitous as it is, would be even more iniquitous if , there was no. conscience clause. The teachers’ conscience clause would be undoubtedly detrimental to the profession. . . - ■ The Minister: There is a conscience clause in the Act now in regard to the teaching of history? Mr. Caughley: Yes, a most ridiculous one. I don’t know why it was put there. It has never been exercised. The Minister: But it’s there. You know that many parents have objections to their children being taught about certain historical matters. Mr Caughlev: A teacher tan teach anything he likes in history and in any way he likes. He needn’t teach about the Reformation or about tho way tho Church persecuted the Covenanters for the same reason that this Bill has been brought in. . , Replying further to the Minister, Mr. Caughley said the conscience clause in the present Bill was being exercised in every secondary school in New Zealand. The Minister: There is a conscience clause in the Act dealing with military training? , . „ ~, Mr. Caughley: Yes, there is the right of a man to take on non-combatant service. . , The Minister: Teachers m the secondary schools please themselves in regal'd to the kind of religious instruction? Mr. Caughley: Yes. I think tho sys.tern there is a continuance of the system before the coming in of freo places when tho master stood, in loco parentis for the boarders. . . . . The Minister: What about all this talk of sectarian strife in secondary schools? Mr. Caughley: No Roman Catholic could ever be a principal in a secondary school and give religious instruction to Protestant boys. It was this very question that caused the reversal of an appointment to a school in Masterton. There would bo no end to sectarian strife and trouble among teachers and pupils in secondary schools. Is it not a serious trouble when a master is deprived of an appointment on religious grounds? Replying to other questions by the Minister, Mr. Caughley said he knew of cases where a selected teacher had been objected to by a school committee and a lower graded man had been appointed. The Minister: Have you any evidence of a man being selected by a committee on religious grounds? Air. Caughley: "Oh, yes. Quite a number.’’ His own appointment to his first country school had been fought out on the religious question and he had received the appointment. Air. Caughley also said lie would like, in view of the fact that the Minister of Education would certainly be met, if the ■Bill were passed, with a claim for denominational grants, to say how he proposed to meet it. The Minister: That would not be judicious, lam afraid. (Laughter). Air. Caughley: I quite agree that the promoters of the Bill have no answer. Air. Atmore: You are right. Neither the Minister nor Mr. Isitt, nor Mr. Holland can answer it.

Replying to further questions, Mr. Caughley said that the promoters of the Bill maintained that it did not. change the secular nature of the Education Act. Ho did not see how they could reconcile their consciences with a casuistry of that kind. It was of a nature that would being a business man before the Court for fraudulent misrepresentation. To Mr. Forsyth: Any secular system would bo upset if it placed one-soventh of the community under religious disability. Mr. Forsyth: Do you say thati if the Nelson system 'were adopted the State would be paying £175,000 for services it did not receive from the teachers? Mr. Caughley: Yes, but the State would not be teaching religion. Mr. Holland: Was it quite generous to lay a charge of duplicity against members of Parliament in . regard to election pledges concerning this Bill? Mr. Caughley: I am sbrry if I have been too sweeping in my assertion. The point which misled me was the discrepancy between the party pledge of maintaining the present, secular system and the actions of members who support the Bill.