IS IT DAMNED?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 12, 14 July 1914, Page 8

IS IT DAMNED?

MR. FISHEft'S POLITICAL CAREER HIS ATTITUDE ON BIBLE IN SCHOOLS OPPOSED TO PROPOSED BILL. REPLY TO A DEPUTATION. To-day, a deputation of about forty electors of both sexes, representing various religions, from the electorate of the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher (Wellington Central) waited upon the Minister, to urge his support towards the Bible-in-Schools Referendum Bill. The deputation was headed. by Rev. Dr. Gibb, who pointed out that they wished to impress upon the Minister the importance of voting upon the referendum for the Bible-in-schools matter. The deputation had been arranged at twentyfour hours' notice, and comprised the Minister's own constituents. He said that they were not asking the members to express their opinion upon the Bible-in-schools question. All they wanted was to have the democratic right for the people to express their voice upon their own affairs, ai all events as it affected the question as to the education of their children. It might be, even if the referendum Were granted, that the League would be defeated, though he did not think this would be, because of the overwhelming support they had received. If once the people definitely said there was to be no Bible^in-schools, then there would for ' a long time be peace in the political arena. They felt on any other question a far less influential requisition was sufficient to justify a referendum. Had < not the question been that of the Bible-in-schools, no doubt the representations made to the Government already would have justified legislation without any referendum at all. They contended that their appeal was thoroughly democratic. They utterly denied that there , was any breach -of civil liberty, as they had a conscience clause in the Bill allowing children to be withdrawn from schools during religious instruction. They were extremely anxious that the question should not come into the sphere of party politics. Less consideration seemed to be meted out to the Christian people of this country than to any other. They felt that they must get this matter settled, as they had a conscience in the matter as well as had their opponents. The party issue might be taken away by Parliament passing the referendum. ■l6yalty and conscience. Mr. W. A. Allen reminded the Minister that they had been loyal to him as electors, and they trusted he would be loyal to them, as far as his conscience would admit. They hoped" lie would help them to gain their object. They did think as constituents that they deserved some consideration. Mr. A. Richards said he had supported the Minister and his father for thirty years. He would be very sorry to go back on the Minister at the next election, but he was in a dilemma as to how he should \vote, and he wanted to know the Minister's views on the question. If the Minister did his best to pass the Referendum Bill, they would do their best for him. Mr. i\ Milligan said he hoped it would not come about that the tables would be turned on the Government at the next election, but the question at issue was vital to a great many electors. In the Minister's own electorate there were 2500 electors in favour of the referendum On the Bible in schools. . , MINISTER WILL VOTE "NO" The Minister, in replying, said that he, like other members of the Cabinet, had giyea the matter very careful consideration. He was bound to confess that he felt in a difficulty in connection with the matter for two 'or three reasons. One reason was that he recognised the great force of public opinion behind the movement. (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, he felt that having expressed liis views in the House that he was against both the referendum and ihe Bible-in-Schools, nothing could justify him in reversing that vote unless he went before his constituents. In view, however, of recent developments — and the position had undoubtedly changed, because the 1905 Bill was the emanation of _a private member, Mr. Sidey, with a" comparatively apathetic public opinion, whereas now there were 140,000 voters, go they were told, behind it — in view of this the proper course, he thought, would be for him when he went'_ before liis electors to say that in principle he believed in the referendum, but he intended to vote "no" on this occasion — he was going to vote against the Bill, ho was sorry to say. But he would' tell his constituents that he would vote for the principle of the referendum, and then if one did not believe in the Bible in schools to vote against it. If. seemed from the two factions at work that if. he voted for the Bibb in schools his fate was to be determined, and if he voted against it his fate also was to be determined. In his own electorate he was assured that there were 2600 voters for Bible, in schools who were" going to make , it the chief ques-' tion at tbe election and on the other side there were 1800 equally determined. Therefore ' if he had the courage to vote in accordance with his election promise and his conscience, and had to go under, he could not help it. RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES. He realised that there were being imported into the question religious differences which ought not to exist. Ho wanted to make it clear to the deputation that his own children were being taught Scripture, and he was paying for it, and he heard them their lessons. He was glad that they were learning what was regarded as the greatest Book of the World. He regretted that unfortunate religious differences and prejudices' were creeping into the* movement, and that people were being forced into the, position of being between the millstones, The only way was to get the answer of the people. " I could not possibly," said Mr. Fisher, "under existing circumstances, vote for the Bill, and I am bound to say this, that though I am a believer in (he Bible, I have at the same time a profound admiration for our educational Bystem. I believe it has served us well. I believe it is a matter for every member of Parliament to consider whether any innovation may nob drive a wedge into our educational system and. carry with it some suggestions of State support for Catholic schools. Dr. Gibb : We don't think so. Mr. Fisher : You will allow that Other people may have consciences. Dr. Gibb : What about the result in Australia? - IN FAVOUR OF GENERAL REFERENDUM. Mr. Fisher : It is a question whether the State is there fairly carrying out the system to the full in Australia. The Minister went to on to say there were people who would have to be considered who had their own opinions and consciences on this question He had spoken to Canon Garland about it, and told him he did not want to take part in any religious controversy, arid the movement now appeared to bo assuming that tono and temper. He was going to record

liis vote in the House against the Bill. He was in favour of a General Referendum Bill, which would give the people opportunity to vote on any large question that was asked for, and he had told Canon Garland that if any other body of 140,000 electors asked lor a referendum as to the abolition of tho Upper IJouse, or the abolition of the totalisator, or any big question for the people, they were entitled to it. The Bible-in-Schools group was not the only group who had a right to express their opinion through the ballot-box by way of referendum. Was it not equally right that if the Bible in schools were carried by referendum, and if 140,000 other people came and asked for a referendum to abolish it, they should get it? Dr. Gibb : That is not for us to say, Mr. Fisher. PIECEMEAL BILL. The Minister said he could not vote for a piecemeal Bill granting the referendum on one question and not on> others. Dr. Gibb : We don't want to express any opinion on that. The Minister reiterated that he was going to vote against the Bill. He did not believe in giving to one section of the community what was tho right of all sections. "It seems to me," declared Mr. Fisher* "that if I vote against the Bill my political career is damned — cut off in, the prime of life, so to speak (smiling). I am very sorry that is so. if that is the price I have to pay I will pay* it." He had received letters from constituents, he said," practically threatening him, and the greatest pressure had been brought to bear on him. Dr. Gibb said that the Bible-in-schools people had not'taken up the attitude expressed in such letters; but if they did take up such an. attitude it would be forced on them, if they could not get their wishes considered. The Minister said that ,lthe' unfortunate part of the movement, as at the presenttime organised, was that it had assumed its present aspect since the last election. For the last ten years it had not been a vital question until now, and the result was that many members of Parliament had no mandate on the question at all. It was the most difficult position for members. Dr. Gibb : I grant it. Mr. Fisher said he had never been asked a question^ about it during the whole of last election campaign. Dr. Gibb referred to the reverses encountered after the strenuous efforts they bad put forward some years ago when Mr. Seddon introduced his general Referendum Bill and it passed the Lower House. It was a measure intended to cover the question of the Bible 'm Schools. They made a very strenuous effort at the time, and were defeated. "^ will not say why we were beaten,' said 1 the speaker, "it is a very interest ing story which I know all about." Since then the question had lain somewhat in abeyance and the supporters of the movement were resting from their efforts. Ho admitted it had not been a burning question at the last election. Mr. Allan said they had been refused by a previous Government, but they hoped for better things now. They hoped that Mr. Fisher as their member would help them; he could always change his mind. Mr. Fisher: I may be the mouthpiece of my electors in Parliament, but T can't sing a duet. (Laughter.) To Archdeacon Harper the Ministei said he had not giy^n any pledge to the electors; he had simply voluntarily expressed his views in the House on & former occasion, in 1905, and he had nofc receded from that aititude. Mr. Milligan asked if Cabinet was prepared to place a general Referendum Bill before Parliament if the present Bill were defeated. The Minister said he did not know. He could not commit the rest of his colleagues. Ho was not sure at the present time whether there was not & majority in Parliament against the Bill. In conclusion he reminded the deputation that the Government had gone a long way for them in the matter, and if Parliament did not respond to their demand, well, they could elect another Parliament. (Laughter.) The deputation then withdrew.