Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1913.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 46, 22 August 1913, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1913.

MR. FACING BOTH-WAYS - m ■— - The reply of the Premier to the deputation from the National Schools Defence League which waited on him on the 9th inst. gave great satisfaction to the deputation, and was hailed by many of the supporters of the seculars system as a guarantee that the State schools are safe from denominational attack during the term of the present Parliament. We pointed out at the time that this jubilation was premature, but onr opinion was not generally shared. In the face, however, of the weak and evasive reply which the Premier gave to Mr. Harris's question on Wednesday, the justice of our scepticism .will no longer be disputed. Mr. Massey spoke the Defence League's deputation fair, and said that they could rely upon it that the Government would do nothing to violate the free, secular, and compulsory character of the present educational system. Seeing that the aim of the Bible-in-Schools League is to break down the secularity of that system, what answer could be more satisfactory ? But not much room for satisfaction is left when this answer has been followed up by that which has now been given to Mr. Hanan : "I have already indicated/.!, saidjilr. Maasey,^"that,.it ia-

not intended to introduce legislation this session providing for a referendum on the subject of Bible-reading in schools." Yes, he had previously made a statement to this effect in the House, and the Schools Defence League's deputation had waited upon him in order to have it made more definite, and fondly believed that it had succeeded. But how grievous was its mistake is shown by the concluding words of Mr. Massey's reply to Mr. Hanan : "And with that answer," he continued, "the honourable member will have to be satisfied for the present." This sorry shuffle plainly shows that the labours of tho deputation were in vain, and tho guarantee which it was supposed to have obtained is illusory. The Premier's straightforward declaration that the Government would stand by the secular system holds good only for the present session. The Government reserves the right to hand over the keys of the citadel before next session has passed. We are bound to say that the manner in which Mr. Massey fenced with the question puts him in a very bad light. His watchword is supposed to be a "square deal," but the most expert dodger could hardly have paltered more astutely with the matter. No. I— "We don't intend to introduce a Bible-in-Schools Referendum this session." Answer No. 2, after the unsatisfactory nature of this answer had been pointed out owing to its possible implication with regard to future sessions — "You may rely upon the Government to stand by the present system." Answer No. o—"As I said before, there will be no change this session. I can say nothing more." Now, is this square dealing, or is it double dealing? Is it straight going, or is it shuffling? Is it guiding the ship of State, or is it drifting? It is perfectly true, as Mr. Massey told the deputation, that lug first answer covered all the ground that he was asked to cover. He was asked whether the Government intended to introduce a Referendum Bill this session, and he answered "No." The Premier is justified in calling that a straightforward answer, but what are we to say of his apparent outspokenness to the deputation? Ho regards it as having committed him to nothing. Tho blunt, straight words had no substance in them after all. They were merely designed that he might "keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope." This is very deplorable, as indicating not merely that the Government is keeping the way open for backsliding with regard to a great trust which no previous Government had betrayed, but that the words of our square dealer bear a,bout as close a resemblance to pie-crust as those of other politicians whose slimness he was once loud, in denouncing. Mr. Massey was outspoken in his sympathy with the Defence League's deputation, but it is now clear that he considers himself free to be equally outspoken in his sympathy with the opposing organisation when it asks the fa,vour of an interview. He could *be perfectly happy with either if only the other dear charmer were out of the way. As they are both here together, he is prepared to court both at once. The hero of tho square deal is facing both ways on this question, and the defenders of the national system of education should prepare for the worst without delay.