BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 102, 27 October 1914, Page 3

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

CONCLUSION OF ENQUIRY CANON GARLAND AND THE TRUCE FURTHEE EXAMINATION. The Education. Committee of the House of Representatives concluded yesterday afternoon its enquiry into the Bible-in-Schools question, after sittings extending on and off over three months, and continuously during the last week. The cross-examination of Canon Garland was continued. The Chairman (Mr. G. M. Thomson) presided. Bishop Cleary declared at the outset that he had had no communication or intercourse with the National Schools Defence League in regard to the Wilkins circular and other documents. In reply to questions, Canon Garland 6aid he would undertake to urge the' leaders of the League to accept the offer of the Catholic Church to consider cooperation on the basis of the introduction, of the Catholic version of the Scriptures into the schools for the nse of Catholic children as well as the Authorised version for the use of the Protestant Church. The_ children would hold the various versions according to their denominations. The reading lessons would be conducted by the State school teachers on the lines laid down by Cardinal Moran. He would pledge himself to do everything possible to get the League to accept the proposals of the Catholic Church of Bible lessons as suggested by Cardinal Moran. Cardinal Moran had not raised the question of the particular j faith of the teachers •in the schools. Canon Garland said he could not pledge j the League to a condition that Catholic ! children should be taught Catholic Scriptures' only by Catholic ieachers. The League had desired a- truce at the beginning of the crisis, but -when Parliament resumed and the Committee resumed they came to the conclusion tha-t the truce has not been accepted. Mr. Malcolm said the Committee had decided to go on when it was understood that Caaon Garland was not prepared to accept a- truce. Mr. Hanan said he had been informed that a truce had been arrived at with Canon Garland. THE CANON EXPLAINS. Mr. Malcolm said the ' Committee was prepared to discontinue hearing evidence, but it was understood that Canon Garland ' was not prepared to give any assurance. Canon Garland : I informed the clerk I would have to communicate with, the executive. Mr. Malcolm : Did you consult the executive ? Canon Garland : I informed them about it. , Mr. Malcolm : You were given an opportunity of saying whether the agitation should drop? Canon Garland : I was given an opportunity of answering a casual question over the telephone. I objected to the casual way the communication was made. Mr. Statham : Did the executive then decide to go on with its agitation after receiving the message from the Committee ? Canon Garland : We found the ordinary business of the country was being resumed and wo also found the work of this Committee was going on again. The executive came to the decision to go on with the campaign. Was that decision come to before you got notice to attend this Committee-T-it was before we got notice frdm this Committee, but we only decided in a tentative way without coming to a final definite decision. We decided to be guided by events. The moment we knew the Committee was going to resume then we began again. Work was suspended practically through August and September. It was only resumed j really during the present month. We don't do our business in a formal Way by resolutions and minutes; we act like a Cabinet. We did not come to a definite conclusion ' until notified by the Committee. ANY ACTIVE STEPS? , Did you in the meantime take any active steps? — I should say no, speaking summarily ; there may have been something done, but not in active work. Mr. Malcolm : You ha,d no intention of dropping the campaign? Canon Garland : We had v distinct intention of abandoning the whole campaign at a time when we understood there was a terrible crisis and the. Ministry were anxious for solidarity on all matters. We thought it the right thing to do to relieve Ministers naturally inexperienced in matters like this. We took up the same attitude towards members of Parliament. We considered that members should not be embarrassed at a time when nobody knew what was going to happen. Mr. Malcolm : Your executive then did not decide after the receipt of the message from the Committee to drop the agitation? Canon Garland entered into a somewhat lengthy and complicated explanation, which drew from Mr. Malcolm a warm retort that he understood the English language and was not going to be humbugged by the witness. It was clear that the Committee had got no definite answer from Canon Garland to its question whether he Was prepared to drop the agitation. ' INVITED TO A CONFERENCE. After further discussion, Bishop Cleary was asked to continue bis cross-examina-tion. Canon Garland, in reply to questions, said the invitation of the Catholic Church amounted to a sort of feeling the way towards a conference of the parties interested. If a.n invitation to an open conference without restriction were offered he would consider it when it came. Professor Hunter was recalled by leave of the Committee, and stated in reply to Bishop Cleary that the National Schools Defence League included a number of persons of vaiious denominations. He 'knew of no atheists who were taking any active part in the work of the League. There was no alliance., combination, or understanding between the League and the Catholic Church. When the Rev. Mr. Bates got up to examine the witness Canon Garland entered a further protest against being cross-examined by Mr. Bates, who did not represent any party. The Chairman of the Committee allowed Mr. Bates to proceed. In answer to Mr. Bates, the Canon stated he had organised a League of Earnestness, which he would not admit was a political league. He might have said it was a league within a league. He would neither admit nor deny this. Mr Bates then went into a long examination of the Canon's career in Australia. Canon Garland described his experience in religious instruction in schools. The purpose of the League was to give the people of New Zealand an opportunity of deciding the question of religious instruction in schools. Mr. Bates then lead the following statement :—: — "Traversing my cross-examination, the organiser of the Bible-in* State* Schools League makes' statements with regard to the proceedings of <ho last Wellington Synod which cannot be allowed to pass without^ protest. On tho morning when the motion on the League scheme came up, Canon Garland adi dressed a private meeting of members

of Synod, and there endeavoured to impose silence upon any who might be disposed to oppose the scheme in order that the resolution might seem to have the unanimous approval* of Synod, and also, further, to limit the speaking to laymen, in order that it might appear that it was solely a lay and not a clerical movement that was being promoted. To ! these pretensions, as well as the attempt 1 upon the freedom and privileges of members of the Synod, I and others were utterly opposed. _ "Regarding this agitation for a questionable advantage to the Church and for an imposition upon the State's system of free, compulsory, and secular education, I felt it my duty to show that the agitation •was moreover doing much harm to religion itself. In the Synod the mover of the resolution, Mr. Hadfield, stated that all reports he had heard of the New South Wales system were favourable, and if another view than he expressed were possibly held by anyone, the Synod would be glad to hear of it. Speaking within my rights, and with this invitation in view, I gave the Synod the benefit of my long personal knowledge and experience in Australia and New Zealand. I pointed out that the remedy for decline in church attendance and indifference to religion was not to be found in the State but in the Church itself, and Sunday schools especially. I cast no reflections whatever upon the clergy, whom I only sought to persuade in order- to save the Church from being placed in a doubtful position, and the country from bitter political and religious strife. "Canon Garland freely traversed my speech, calling my experience in question, contradicting my statements, and making not the slightest admission of any truth I had brought forward. After this, I rose to make a brief personal explanation, but was promptly ruled out of order. The view, however, that the League's opinions were not the only ones to be tolerated is not borne out by the address of Dr. Sprott at the Synod of 1913, published i% a League pamphlet, concluding thus : — 'As you know, the scheme has been accepted by our General Synod. That in itself constitutes a strong claim, if not upon the acceptance, certainly upon the most careful consideration of the members' of the Church. A loyal Churchman may, indeed, feel compelled to dissent from the decisions of the supreme Synod of the Church, Lut he will not, 1 think, dissent liphtly or without pain.' Silencing the clfrgy in the manner attempted in caucus is more tyrannical than appears on the st.'face, for it is a fact that only six or se^en out of all the clergy of this diocese held licenses which are not revocable at the sole will and pleasure of the birhop. Only a very courageous rr an indf pendent man could afford to risk his living and the favour of his 'diocesan head by opposing that to which he had given countenance and support. "In a former Synod, 1905, when the old League for the introduction of Eiblereading without the right of entry bad not the tactics of the present organiser at command, intellectual liberty ai;d freedom of speech were exercised, ai.d the present Archdeacon of Wellington, the Veti. Archdeacon Fancourt, saiJ he 'objected to the Referondutn as introducing a new principle, an appeal to mob rule." The Rev. S. G. Handover characterised the Bible-in-State Schools League as an 'unholy alliance,' and the Rev. C. W. I. Maclaverty, now vicar of Island Bay, described the League scheme as a 'wrong measure in every way.' Five days afterwards, in the same Synod in which I had spoken upon the League scheme, a motion was brought forward to ask the Government to give higher rank in the Territorial Forces to the bishops than that to which it was shown that, I, through long and active service, had attained. This afforded one who had seconded a Eible-in-schools motion in th& General Synod of New Zealand the opportunity to comment thus upon roe fn open Synod, before strangers, aild in my absence :—'l: — 'I (Mr R. Wilborfoss) had heard what tnat man had said on the Bible-in-schools issuo, aud he had had the impudence to dare to come and stand p this Synod aiid express an opinion on the clergy of this diocese. I felt that he had dared to cast reflections upon men whose boots he was noE fit to blacken.' As I had passed no reflections upon my brother clergy, whose good-fellowship I prized, and for whose earnestness and devotion I had a profound esteem, and as I had confined myself to the inexpediency of the Bible and clergy in State schools scheme, his remarks could only refer to my attitude on that question. "In a subsequent correspondence with the Bishop I wrote, on 20th July : — 'If, after solemn prayers of Synod under your own immediate leadership, and as it. now appears with your tacit consent, such an exhibition of rancour be possible, one may cease to wonder at the spread of Virulence and strife throughout the land — hundreds are, I believe, being driven out of the churches, and thousands aroused into determined opposition to religion itself.' " Mr. Bates asked Canon Garland whether this statement did not substantially set out the facts. The Canon replied that ac had never heard such an array of misrepresentations, he would not say falsifications, within the limits of three foolscap pages. For one tiling, the meeting referred to was not a private meeting. This concluded the actual evidence before the Committee. Bishop Cleary has a few comments (not introducing new matter) to add.