BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS BILL THROW OUT BY 3 VOTES

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6677, 2 August 1928, Page 8

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS BILL THROW OUT BY 3 VOTES

Holland /ChCh) Chief Exponent, Holland (Bailer) Chief Opponent Speeches Proceed Along Familiar Lines After a long debate is the House of Representatives last evening on the Religious Exercises in Schools' Bill, the measure was put to a division shortly after one o’clock and was defeatedhy 31 votes to 28. The following is the division list:— ..... 1 ■■■ • FOR THE BILL (28): —Bellringer, Dickie, J. Me. C. Dickson, J. T. Dickson, Forsyth, Girling, A. Hamilton (Wallace), Harris, Hawken, Hockly, H. Holland (Christchurch North), Hudson, Hunter, D. Jones (Ellesmere), E. P. Lee (Oamaru), Linklater, Luke, Lysnar, M’Lennan, M'Leod, M'Millan, Hash, Reid, Sidey, Waits, Williams, Wright, and Young. AGAINST THE BILL (31) Armstrong, Atmore, Bartram, Bell, Buddo, Campbell, Coates, EUott, Field, Forbes, Fraser, H. E. Holland (Bullet), Horn, Howard, W. Jones (Marsden), Kyle, J. A. Lee (Auckland East), M'Keen, Martin, H. G. R. Miison (Eden), J. Mason (Napier), Parry, Ransom, Hon. F. J. Eolleston, J. 0. Rolleston, Savage, Seddon, Smith, Sullivan, Veitch, Waite#. PAIRS—FOR ' THE BILL: Urn, Rhodes, Bitchener, Burnett, J. R. Hamilton (Aw'arua), Downie Stewart, and Nosworthy. AGAINST THE BILL: Ngata, Jordan, M‘Combs, Potter, Samuel, Henare, Pomare.

Per Press' . Association. - . , WELLINGTON,. Last Night.’ When the House resumed at 7.30 toV night Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North) moved the' second reading of the Religious Exercises in Schools’ Bill. He first drew attention to the between this Bill and that of last year, the chief of which was that there was to be no sectarian teaching-whatever,i As now amended the Bill met with the entire approval of those who were asking fur religious exercises in schools. There was no compulsion about attendance at these , exercises and therefore bo understood they met the objection of Roman Catholics. If the Nelson system was installed in all the schools before January. 1, 1929, then the Bid would have no effect. Native schools in the meantime had been excluded from the Bill, but he hoped that the' exclusion would ndt.be permanent. He express-, cd pleasure at-the splendid- spirit in which the previous debate was conducted. He, also expressed his thanks to the Prime Minister for giving him the opportunity to bring the BiUbefofe the House on that occasion. When the Bill was defeated last session they Were given six months in which to consider the Nelson system. They had done so, but had come to the concision that the system would not meet the reuuimmeuts of tho Bible in Schools’ League as it was impossible to procure suuicicnt voluntary workers to provide j, /dr aU our schools. In his opinion the , Bouse as a whole was in favour of some rorm of religious instruction being giv- i uu in our schools, and He quoted a sueceu delivered by Mr. Strong, Director of Baueation, to fortify his opinion that the Bible should not longer be excluded from the schools. Bible readiug was a success in’ the Australian schools where no trouble and no difficulty was raised with the human Catholic teachers. During the last year a vote of the parents was taken on this subject in Otago and there were in favour of tho Bill 86.3 per cent, of the votes cast. In Southland the voting was 81.5, Wellington 81, Taranaki 72.44, Auckland 80.71, and in SO 72 giving ’ a Dominion average in favour of the Bill of 81 per cent, of the votes cast, which, he claimed,' was a splendid result. He concluded with an appeal to the House to' introduce into the schools some religious instruction which would, for instance, bring under, the daily notice of the children fhe beauties of the Lord’s Prayer which could never do anyone .any harm, lx the House desired it ho was agreeable to submit the question to a referendum of the peophf w&ch though not always, satisfactory had the support and authority of some of New-Zealand s mailing statesmen.; the people:were asking for this Bill because they wanted it to , fill the gaps; that .could not h>e filled _by the system.* ■ He them quoted " e Eight Hono t able Stanley Baldwin’s recent eulogisiu of the Bible, and declared that if the' Bible wasestimated so highly by the Prime Minister of Great Britain why should we deprive our children of the rich treasures Hidden be- ' tween its covers which were their inheritance. , ■ ' Mr. Holland, Leader of the Opposi- • tion, said the concluding sentence of the mover’s speech was quite misleading. There was no reason why, the; children should be deprived of the treasures of the Bible if the church-people would teach them in their own homes_ and live, them in thcir’.owri lives. .His words were a serious charge against churcn people, who greatly preponderated in , the Dominion, who could, if they took the trouble, give religious instruction to their own children. Mr. Holland had quoted what was ; being done in other' countries, but he had not showp that the moral; standards of the children in those countries was higher than those-in New Zealand. He would not admit this was so. It-might be a .queetlon whether tho moral standards or our children were as high as they might be, but tnoy wore not lower than those of countries where the Bible, was road in the schools. All three political parties in New Zealand went to the polls at the last election pledged - to free, secular and compulsory education,- and next election would be a test-of the loyalty of the parties to their election pledges. He uehied that the Labour Party was in any way bound to the Eoman Catholic Church, as declared by Canon James who was not altogether a responsible gentleman when speaking of members of the House, Proceeding, he declared the Reform Party was breaking its election pledge in supporting this Bill. The Labour Party’s case was that religion should be taught in the homes, in the church, in the Sundav schools, and not in the day schools, and he quoted John Canghley, late Director of Education, in support of, the view

that if tho Bill passed State-aid must be given to Roman 1 Catholic schools. So far as the Labour Party was concerned, it had never supported a referendum ion religious and lie would oppose a Roman Catholic majority imposing its will on other people just as much as he would oppose a Protestant majority opposing its will on the Roman Catholic minority on this or any other religious question. Here in Now Zealand we have different religions all moving in the same direction, but differing on minor points. They could not agree outside tho schools now. Then could they agree within the schools'? Therefore let the overwhelming majority of church people teach their religion in their homes and there give to the children the treasures which the mover of the Bill said lay between the covers ef thc-Bible. _ , •Mr. Hudson was not against giving children religious instruction in schools but he differed from the Bill as to how that should be done. Personally, he favoured: .the. Nelson system which he explained in 'detail and defended it against -what he called unfair criticism. Some of its critics said it taught idolatory in the schools, and banned Jesus from the schools/ yet these same people Tvere illogical enough to say in this Bill that in those schools where the Nelson system was in operation it could continue. • Mr. Holland: We are not responsible -for what outsiders say. As he favoured [ the Nelson system he proposed to move lin committee an amendment which | would give school committees power to initiate the Nelson system if they thought fit. If he was beaten on that he would fall back on his amendment of last year and if beaten on that ho must rely on an amendment which the member for Nelson hoped to introduce into the Education Bill of this year. Mr. Atmoro said tho supporters of the Bill seemed to think it necessary to traduce the fair name of New Zealand’s children in order to justify the change they proposed. When the Eight Honorable L. C. Amery was in New Zealand ho said bur system of education was the-finest in the Empire dr out of itThat was high testimony coming from such an authority. He clamed church people for losing. the opportunity to ■give their children religious instruction. If this V instruction ha,d to be given by the State, then no greater blow could’ be given to church attendance. He favoured the Nelson system and desired to have that principle embodied in the Education Bill of this year. He understood the Minister was considering the proposal In opposing this Bill he was not opposed to religion. Quito the contrary. What hebppdsed was having religion machinemade. 1 . ■ ' i Mr. Girling supported the Bill- Barents were not teaching their children the principles of religion in the homes, emd manjv of them never ■ heard the Lord’s Piayer. Were their children to be denied all’ religious instruction? There were many beautiful passages in the.,Bible which’ could be brought together in a text book to which there could bo no possible objectionMr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) opposed the Bill. ' V The Reform Party was not sincere in its support of the Bill, he said. If they had been some Minister would Lave introduced it. Instead one of the ’ junior members of the party was put jup to move it, which suggested that the party was merely exploiting it for political support. The Labour Party was net against religion, but what they Objected to' was that one section of the community should attempt to drive everyone else into their own way of thinking. > The debate was continued by Messrs. A. Harris (Waitemata), W. A. Veitch !’(Wanganui), J. Horn (Wakatipu), and ;C. E. Bellringer (Taranaki). ‘ Mr. Holland, in reply, briefly traversed the objections raised to the measure during the debate. A division was then taken, and resulted in the Bill being thrown out by 31 votes to 28. The House thereupon rose at 1.20 a.m, till 2.30 p.m. to-day.