BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue LXVIII, 4 November 1904, Page 2

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS.

DEPUTATION TO THE PREMIER. SPECIAL REFERENDUM BILL SUG- " GESTED. A deputation representing the Council of the Churches and the Bible-in-Schools Executive waited on the Premier /esterday evening. The deputation consisted of the Revs. Dr. Gibb, J. R. Glasson, Gib&on Smith, and Newman Hall, Professor Easterfield, and Messrs. Balcombe Brown, W. Hopkirk, J. Reith, and M. Menelaus. The Rev. Dr. Gibb expressed regreat that the Legislative Council had thrown out the Referendum Bill. The Council of the Churches had accepted the general Referendum Bill on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread. Now that the Bill was thrown out there seemed to be risk that the Council of the Churches would go breadless, so far as this session was concerned. It was in the, hope of obviating this risk that the deputation had come to the Premier. They wished him to bring in a measure of one or two clauses, and carry it through both Houses, making provision for the taking of a referendum or plebiscite on the question of Bible-reading in schools at the time of the general election next year. Professor Easterfield objected to the newspaper contention "that this agitation was being run by the so-called parsons of the colony." He could assure the Premier that it was regarded favourably by a large proportion of laymen, and that there was a, widespread opinion that the question should be settled by a straightr out vote of the people. In r«ply, Mr. Seddon that none of the deputation felt more keen disappointment than he did at the Xegislative Council's action in rejecting the Referendum Bill ; and what made that disappointment almost border on resentment was that 'Jris was the third time such a measure had been sent to the Council and had met with this treatment. The Council had gone against its best, traditions and refused to give effect to what the people demanded. Mr. Seddon reviewed, the treatment accorded previous Referendum Bills, and said there was good ground for the supposition that many members were not sincere in supporting the Bill on previous occasions. It was a surprise to him to hear from Dr. Gibb that a, large number of members were pledged to support the principle ; he would like Dr. Gibb to take a member's card and prick the names of those who were pledged to Bible -reading in Schools Referendum. He, as Premier, had a right to know that, so that he might know where he was. (The deputation assured the Premier that the pledges were given, but the card was not pricked). As to the proposal for a straight-out Bible-reading in schools issue, he would tell the deputation that it would find objections coming from quarters that supported the Referendum Bill on general principles.. He knew that in the House this spirit would be shown, and he did not think they could get a Bible-reading in .Schools R-eferendum Bill through — he told them this in all sincerity, knowing the opposition there would be and the reasons that would be given for it. They had evidence in the League formed here in Wellington. Such bodies would use their influence with members of Parliament, and the party represented by the deputation would have against it what might be termed the extremes, and the effect would be that through these influences the measure would be blocked in Parliament. He had done all that man could do to redeem the promise made oy him j he had 1 dow all he could to get the Bill through, and done it at great risk to his health. He could not do the same again ; his withers were wrung ; and he thought the deputation, if it was determined to go on with the Bill, should entrust it to a private member. He believed that some of the members opposed the last measure and blocked its way as much as they cnuld so as to put the Government in a false position, thinking that if it failed to get the Bill through Parliament the 'Government would be held to have broken faith. He would not be doing right if he ' misled them ; he would give them his opinion that there was no chance of getting their special Bill through the Council. If they were to have any chance — he repeated now what he said las 1 session — they wouid have to bring in a general Bill. The Council had now rejected such a measure three times ; if the Lower House sent the Council a similar measure next session it would place that body in the very awkward position of having to reject the measure a fourth time wifcb a general election imminent. Public opinion would then voice itself on the question unmistakably, and he was a great believer in eliciting public opinion. Let the deputation still stick to the general Referendum Bill. Knowing the mind of the House he knew that much opposition could be got over by modifying the Bill with reference to the provision for reference to the people of Bills upon which both Houses had failed to agree. He left the Government out of this question ; but there was nothing to prevent the' deputation getting its Bill taken up by a private member. [bt telegraph— press association ] CHRISCTCHURCH, 3rd November, jne Rev. J. Mackenzie, of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, in the course of a speech to-night, mentioned the Referendum Bill, saying that its having been r.nrown out was tremendously important. The Premier had twice promised a deputation of which the speaker was a member that he would introduce a Referendum Bill, and had the best means of knowing that it would be passed ; but it had been twice thrown out. It was time, therefore, for the church to make its voice heard very distinctly. It was being fooled, and there was insincerity in the matter. A demand should be made for a referendum before next session on the Bible-in-schools question. On every question involving great moral issues the voice of united Christians must be heard.