CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 97, 21 October 1932, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS DEBATE

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—On 18th October, 1029, the Hon. C. J. Carrington quoted in the Legislative Council the words of the late Bishop Cleary when urging the holding of a conference of churches on the Bible in schools question: "At such a conference we would leave our friends o£ other faiths the freest hand in our power. We only want two things— protection of the consciences ot our children and the protection of the consciences of our teachers. Apart from that we give them full freedom to bring as much religion •as they like into the schools. The more there is the better we shall like it. . That is what I have stated many a time on my own behalf $nd as representing the views of. the Catholic Archbishop and Bishops of New Zealand. We shall not venture to dictate to the' people of other faiths what particular torm of religious instruction or worship they should impart, so long as they let our teachers and children alone." Such a conference was held in i 930, and the outcome was. the Religious Instruction m.,, Pub'ic Schools Enabling Bill. This Jim was known in detail by Mr. Carrin"ton in 1931 when the Archbishops approved w;.it was the same Bill when Archbishop Kedwood differed from Archbishop O'Shea and, without notice, opposed it. The clauses dealing with teachers were before Mr. Carrington in 1931, exactly as they are now in 1932. The State aid issue is unaltered. The Roman Catholic agreement was made "irrespective of State aid" following the line suggested' by Bishop Cleary. By the Bill no additional expenditure of public funds whatever can be incurred. In the Council on Friday last Mr Car* rmgton said, according to the report in the papers: "I thought right up to this morning that I should be able to support this measure, but now I can see there will be very grave difficulties with the teachers." Will Mr. Carrington inform the public what alterations there were in the Bill that led him to boast of his support m 1931 and approve it up to the morning of his speech last week, and when the crucial time came, oppose it. If there were no alterations how does he reconcile his inconsistency?—l am, etc, ' r M.R.