PAGANISM IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14000, 4 March 1909, Page 7

PAGANISM IN NEW ZEALAND.

BISHOP NELIGAN'S CHARGES.

i'-.v; : , -'.-:■;. , : gIE HOBT. STOUT'S CRITICISMS ■■??■" ''■(:■■■-■■■ ■■■ , -'■;', '■ * ' ■■'..■ '■ : ' INTERESTING CORRESPON- ■ : , . DENCE. i "- ' i [To the Editor of the New Zealand Herald.] - .Ct ß —l beg to forward for publication ft correspondence that has taken place between His Lordship the Right Reverend Dr JJelig**! and myself. —Yours obediently* . Robert Stout. - Wellington, February 27, 1909.

1 . June 30. 190 S. I. My D ear Justice.— 30. 1906. jfy Dear Chief Justice,— t * - My attention lias been called to a comI ; r «,,ioic»ted article by you in the New S Herald of May 2, based upon a fnmwarised report, inaccurate because inI complete, of a sermon preached by me in I : London on February 16. '" It has been my rule for many years to •'tike no notice of summarised reports in newspapers of what 1 say or am supposed to lhave said in public. I admit responsibility ""' '™v for what I have written or for com- " "verbatim" reports of what I have ■ «id and after 1 have seen the proof. For this reason I decline all invitations to bo | ; "interviewed." either in New Zealand or in London, concerning statements reported jo haw been made by myself or by any other < "■>•? public men. When, however, the Chief Justice of tho Nonunion thinks it consonant with his posi- • tton*> contribute a column and a third to ' tiJne*spaper criticising, or purporting to criticise, what I am reported to have said in \- ' England, I feel it but due to tho high office ! '. too occupy to note with respect what'you •. write concerning me. v I In your communicated articlo you freI quently use phrases indicativo of your ! opinion that there is error in the newspaper ! ■i f report; you use phrases indicating this some #*aen- times. , However, in your last para- ; graph you " have assumed that tho report is ■ correct."'..:• . ■ - ' '■..". ■1 am not the final judge of tho ethics of journalism or of any other commercial venture. I do regard not a little - of such V methods, both in New Zealand and at Home, as being tin-moral. The remarks of SlPthe editor of the New Zealand Herald, 1 'concerning'certain functions of a newspaper, • published last year in an issue of the Aus--1 tralian Lift, go not a little way to support life my opinion.'. ; , - . '".*'.'■ M I am, however, concerned with public life and the standard of it as observed between public men and the observance of the courtesies of public life in that voting country r to whoso best interests I, in common with - yourself, am pledged. x i. No public man , has any right to complain .1 of criticism; indeed without criticism of a I . fair, and honourable and intelligent charac|P^iefT there could be little progress. But a. I £ public man has a right to protest when 1 ; another public man, moro especially one in 1 1- almost the highest office in the land, writes I y\ an article to the press concerning another a[( public man. criticising that man neither iff'; fairly nor charitably, implying many times IH that j the report of that man's words is inII correct and then arriving at conclusions on I the assumption "that report is correct." ■0' c With neither the logic of the conclusions f you draw from admittedly vitiated premises I : : nor the expressed views which you, in ." ' common, with myself, are entitled to hold concernitig religion and education, have I I '. «hy~ concern at resent. My concern is with i what makes in a nation for fairness, justice, J \ honour, ' generosity is public life. Actions "i - that make «; against these qualities hurt [::"■•■. ■■ national > life.«... ■ .- & May I call your attention to a report in the New Zealand Herald, March 21, of a •'-■:- speech you made at. the Auckland Diocesan High School for Girls? The report attributes to you utterance of certain sentiments .not friendly to religious education. Divorced ■-.''.; ' from their context, deprived of the qualify- .! ing words i which of necessity'and courtesy •you: would make on such an occasion, a ;, * thoughtless reader might conclude that you were guilty of a somewhat grave act of dis- [.. ;courtesy, v using a particular position-in a ■ way not usual among honourable men. Of - course such a conclusion would have been wrong, because the report was obviously in- ! ' complete, and =,therefore, incorrect But, suppose > some * ? public' man had, A while suggesting the, incompleteness of the report,, communicated : an article to the press pass- ■ ing judgment ion that report on you and yoor brother judges of the High Court and ; your illustrious '■ predecessor, you ; would, I 'think,'*regret that public man'si action on ■• ",' the simple > and sole ground that it did not mue for tho best in public life; you would itel as I feel, called upon personally to protest against ah action from which were , absent those qualities known to advance the bert public interests. _ ' ; You and I are both public men. As such S iticr of us escape criticism. But as such ; brio of us are,responsible for the exhibition a*wejl as the practice of : fairness, justice, generosity in public life. ; # :• Jou'have'been good enough in the past ■ few years to discuss with me the subjects I iiyc dealt with in my annual Synodical <' charges" and other topics of mutual interest. \ Sac discussion • has * been conducted ' with friendliness and courtesy. It would be no small i matter,, of \ regret- to me if what has been my experience of discussion with you heretofore were to be contradicted by fur';■.■;'ther experience. • - Should you .care to publish this letter I " hive*to request'it be published in full.— I" "Yours faithfully, • M. R. Auckland. 1 heretofore were to be contradicted by fur- |. ther experience, i Should you care to publish this letter I I have" to request it be published in full.— ' Yours faithfully, M. R. Auckland. - Te Aroha, Auckland, August 20, 1908. lit Dear Bishop, I have' to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 30th June last. > I appreciate > your position in .not contradicting "or explaining ,a, mis-report of any speech you may make. ■ There are occasions, however, when such a rule' may well be ignored. When you learn the deep resent- .-... meat' that was felt at the remarks you were r reported to have made, and that by many of i i the best people of your own Church, I feel ' sure you will consider it a duty you owe "to .yourself, and to your high position, to see ; that a correct report of what you said is published. I thought at the time that there had. been some mistako made. I knew that you knew nothing, at first hand, of the people -of* New < Zealand, outside your own diocese, ; and that your onerous duties must have prevented you- becoming acquainted with, at all events, the Auckland people who do not-belong to .the Anglican community, and with their home life. This led mo to ; caution • the ' readers of' my criticism that there might be some mistake in the report. 1. was assured, however, that the report was • a 1 t rJc , °* a sec ' a ' and reliable reporter, and I,' therefore, made my 'remarks on the assumption that the report was correct.yYou say the report was " inaccurate because in- . complete, ' : but you do not say in what respect -was inaccurate. The question is, 1 aid you, M you were reported to have done, attack our country settlers, and our education system? I. hope you will be able to snow that what was ,eft out of tho report nullifies the report of such an attack. ♦t ■ tv° your remarks upon my speech at. the ,D'ecesan School, I have to say the reort, though incomplete, is quite accurate, «M.there is no word in that report I desire to, modify, or to qualify. You do not say wi,at part of my remarks you deem to be a somewhat grave act of discourtesy." You <»;■'* uttered certain " sentiments not mendly to religious education." I presume it must be the first paragraph of the report to which you refer. I can find no phrase in WW paragraph "unfriendly to religious edu_»t»n, and there is no other reference in a* speech" to religion. I am afraid you mast have misread the report of my speech, *»a-in esse you may not have kept tho reafuH- ™ SiyW ° l qUOt ° what is r °P° rte<3 te? ni % of New Zealand, Sir m*l?-.T?. said, as secular. They had «al ,1 . Uo . rain recognised that ' tho politiActual orders remained permanently distinct from the spiritual,' though "» wag afraid that there were some of the P«>Pl? who did not agree with the majority " V" Wis respect, and he would like to quote Wrh,^, Who Was a Roman Catholic, and S' P ,i, the , most c lear "«d man in Europe S tlle *« of last century, said on this ' S?"' t l} , man was Lord Acton, who, ' C ?4 orders ' had written as folnhZ'Ti • hey follow their own ends, they owu laws ' and in doin *>' so they fcV h / :; ausc ,»f religion by tho di/»^y ; of truth - and the upholding of right. " •*« «i d « J th,s HCrvico l> y fulfilling their "wn ends independently and unrestrictedly, • «°£ by ; surrendering them for the sake of v&i Sf" interests. Whatever diverts Govern- - or'll i ' s , ci e.nee from their own spheres, ormfeTj ®l | K'. on to "urp their domains, founds distinct authorities, and imperils V? «uy political right-and, scientific truths, KS^? >At ' canM> of fait h and morals. A S m ? cnt that, for the interests of re- . fIS? disregards political right, and a science LTj ortl >« sake of protecting faith waivers J? dissembles in the pursuit of knowledge, r : -. «■ UUtrumcnts as well adapted to servo the

cause of falsehood as to combat it, and never can be used in furtherance of the truth without that, treachery to principle which is a sacrifice too costly to be made for the service of any interest whatever. .. "That, continued Sir Robert Stout, was why they had State education. The University of New Zealand was Catholic in the truest sense of the word. It welcomed the efforts of every institution that was passing the- torch of learning along, and especially was it interested in secondary schools for girls." ' s Would you be good enough to tell me whore there is any discourtesy in these -remarks? I hope that our canons of courtesyare the same. Tam not aware any persons, save those who desire to see a State Church established, would quarrel with Lord Acton's views.

I am, as you know, a secular educationalist. You and the managers of the school knew my views when you invited me to speak. You could not have expected that I was going to say one thing outside the school and another thing inside the school. I explained, without attacking anyone, or any Church, or any institution, the position of our University as a secular institution, and that was all. I may add that the managers who were present, and who heard my speech, did not think that I had been guilty of any discourtesy, but, on the contrary, asked me for my notes, so.that' they might be published in the Herald.

1 have not. published your letter, but if you desire it to be published I shall have much pleasure in publishing it, and my reply. If you had pointed out wherein the report of your sermon was inaccurate 1 should have given it publicity at once, but, as I have said, you have left in doubt what the inaccuracy was, and I thought that such a statement would not have a good effect on the public mind, and not put an end to the resentment to which I have referred.— Believe me yours very truly, ' Robert Stout. October 14. 1903. My Dear Chief Justice, — I have your letter of August 20th. You will, I feel sure, pardon me if I recall your attention to the point to which I addressed myself in my letter to you of June 30, namely, the hurt likely to accrue to national life when a public man in your high position writes to the press a criticism of another public man under tho circumstances surrounding your action. I note that in your letter of August 20 you support my statement that the conclusion you arrived at in your article was, drawn from vitiated premisses. Yon are good enough to repeat, two premisses and supply a third. You tell me that you "thought at the time that there had been some mistake made;" that you were thus led to " caution the readers of your "criticism" of another public man and the body to which he belongs; "that there might Ix? some mistake in the report." Your third premiss is: < You were " assured, however, that the report was the work of a special and reliable reporter." Unfortunately I have no legal training in weighing evidence. Therefore, I do not venture to criticise the process of reasoning whereby a legal mind such as yours arrives, on those premisses, at a conclusion justifying your article in the public press. To my lay mind the process appears to be somewhat strange. One further remark on this point: : the question is not as you state in your letter of August 20th. "Did you . . . attack . . . "!" etc. The one and only question I have ventured to raise between yourself and myself- is one concerning fairness and justice between publio men. If you will be good enough to refer once more to my letter of June, 30 you will perceive that this was the only question I therein raised. It is still the only question with which I am concerned in this correspondence. I am obliged to you for quoting afresh the extract from the writings of the late Lord Acton. The principles enunciated in the extract are those with which I am personally in agreement. My training and experience have led me to teach' on those lines for many years. If, in my letter of June 30, I have done you or the newspaper reporter any injustice in using the report in the Herald as an illustration of my point, very honestly do I apologise, both to you and the unknown reporter. * You are entitled to your convictions equally as I am entitled ?to mine. The difference lies in. the form and occasion of expression. For instance, on the many public occasions when ;, it has •' been my ■ privilege •to address University students, . and pupils of , State secondary or primary schools in New Zealand; 4 ; I ; have ; been studious to avoid any reference to my own well-known convictions on * the' connotation 'of the word education, as neoessarilv involving the normal training of the spiritual = faculty. "I 'have"always regarded myself on such occasions as a guest of the. State in whose educational establish* Itshment I was then speaking. I may have been quite wrong; but such has been my feeling. We live; in a free.country, and so have equal liberty to hold, ideas as to what is or is not right to say. as"< between guest and host, or to differ altogether , with my idea of the relationship on - such occasions. , f-I observe that your " criticism " has been reproduced in the Freethinker. By almost every mail I am glad to note, through communications from members of both episcopal and non-episcopal' Churches, thatas I understand— true meaning of the word education is gradually gaining ground in the Dominion. '■ '> ' You may be interested in reading at your leisure Jan article by me in the July East and West, forwarded herewith. -...:- : , , I have no objection whatever to offer to your publishing this correspondence. ; Personally, I do not propose further pursuing it. I only request that the? correspondence may be published in full, or not at all.—Yours faithfully, M. R. Auckland.

Wellington, January 11, 1909. My Dear Bishop, ' .

/*.' I did '" not sooner reply to your letter, .as i I learned that you would at an early date be leaving for; Auckland. I need hardly say that in common with all who. know you, I": was much concerned to hear of the danger to which you, Mrs. Neligan, and the other passengers were subjected in the collision of your steamship with another in the Channel. I hope none of you suffered from the accident. I regret that I feel it to be my duty to make one or two' remarks on your last letter. I am afraid that you do hot yet realise the position I have taken up, and fail to appreciate the resentment amongst many, in New Zealand at your attack on our system of education and on the fair fame of our country settlers. If our controversy had: been about " the hurt likely to accrue to national life when one public man criticises another," I would, not have continued it. That is necessarily, if it is divorced from concrete circumstances, a mere academic question, and it is a matter of opinion and has no practical value. If one public man attacks a' system in force amongst us, attempts to weaken it or destroy it, and in order to accomplish that end attacks the character of some of our settlers, then there is a live question to discuss, and that *is the ' question between ' us and no other. I much regret you do not see this. The question really is, Was '■ my criticism justified by the facts? I wrote, as I stated, under the assumption and assurance—though I was loth to believe it—that the report of your sermon was accurate. - If it -was. I was justified. If it was not, I was notand how easily .you could have set the matter right! You have, however, failed to say whethor there was anything in the context of your sermon that modified or nullified the part reported. And what inference must anyone, whether trained in law or theology, draw from such silence? Will you even now say wherein the report on which I founded my remarks was inaccurate or misleading? And if the report was correct attempt to.justify your statements? 1 feel sure that if you had examined the statistics of crime, for example, and had witnessed the growth of altruism in New Zealand during the last 40 years, you would have found that ethically our people had improved. The people who are the most criminal are not those who have been trained in secular schools. Relatively to our population, serious crime hag lessened since 1877, and the New Zealanders trained in our secular schools compare more than favourably with those brought up under the sanctions of ecclosiasticism. Other people than, those of New Zealand have realised the advantage of purely secular instruction. I need not point to France, that had been trained for a century under ecclesiastics. How comes it that this people so trained adopted the secular system? If there is one city in the world that might have boon expected to appreciate the advantages of church teaching, surely it should have been Rome. Yet Rome has just adopted, according to the information in the ipress, a secular system of education. The struggle in England amongst" the Churches, each "attempting to get State-aided schools to teach its creed, might, I should have thought, have shown that the State school must be secular.

You state that my criticism on your reported sermon was reproduced in the Freethinker. I was not aware that that journal was now in existence. I am obliged to its editor for letting it Iks known, if even to a small circle of readers, that your reported views were not accepted universally in tho Dominion. I regret that the editors of the Church journals that deal with _ education questions were not as generous in quoting mo as the editor of the Freethinker. I have to thank you for the magazine East and West, containing > your article, which I need not say I read with interest. I hope, however, you will pardon me for

saying that I do not think you fairly state the position of the State secular school -when you say " God is an extra" in suoh a school. The phrase in the writings of a layman ■ would be deemed to lack reverence. It will depend no doubt on how we define the terms we use whether your criticism is just or fair, or neither. If to acquaint boys and girls with the cosmos, to teach, them something of the universe and the immensities with which we are surrounded is to ■_. make Cod an extra," then wo do not agree in the use of the English language. I should imagine that, attempting to teach children what are after all pin-points of belief and posturings would be, to use vour phrase, to make " God an extra." . We differ m these things, and so do the people of INew Zealand, hence the need of the State shutting out from its schools religious opinions, and confining its efforts to the teaching of real knowledge and true morality. It has been painful to me to write as I nave done, but my devotion to a beneficent system of education, with which I have in some small way been associated for over 40 years must be my excuse. Part of my creed is that anyone that attempts to destroy our secular system of education, and to create divisions and heart-burnings amongst us by denominational schools, is (no doubt unwittingly) an enemy to New Zealand. Citizen life is not too strong in any nation, and a denominational school system when established weakens it everywhere. . .

In conclusion, as. you were attacked by me, 1 should have thought it was for you to say whether our correspondence should bo publisher!. The last paragraph of vour letter seems to invite publication, and "therefore I have forwarded it to the editor of the New akaland Herald for publication.—Relievo me ever, yours very truly. Robert Stout. Feb. 27, 1909.—T would have called on you when you were, passing through Wellington, but I was ill in bed.-R.S.