DIVINITY DEGREES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14586, 24 January 1911, Page 6

DIVINITY DEGREES.

SHOULD THE UNIVERSITY

GRANT THEM?

RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

Christchurch, Monday. There was an interesting discussion at the sitting of the University Senate this morning regarding "degrees" in divinity. The subject was brought up by the following motion, proposed by Sir Maurice O'Rorke : —" That, in the opinion of the Senate, it is derogatory to the dignity and usefulness of tho New Zealand University that it should be debarred from granting degrees in divinity, and that a copy of this resolution bo forwarded to the Government, with a request that it will have the law amended next session so as to authorise the granting of such degrees." .

Sir Maurice O'Rorke said that he regarded it as a blot on the escutcheon of the New Zealand University that' it was prohibited from giving degrees in divinity. It might be argued that the passing of such a resolution as he proposed would be regarded as encouraging the study of religion, which was prohibited in the Government schools. That, however, he regarded as a reason why thoy should encourage it. Ho did not intend to discuss the reason for the action of the Government. The Senate could follow the course adopted by the first University in New Zealand— Otago University.

Professor Salmond seconded the motion, and did not consider that it was opposed to the charter of the' University. The Chancellor said that he.deeply regretted that Professor Salmon d should assume that the charter lent any colour to the suggestion that the University could pant any degrees in divinity. The statute was exceedingly precise, as it definitely excluded the Senate from granting degrees iu theology. Professor Easterfiold supported the motion. Theology, lie said, was a subject which should be seriously studied, as a knowledge of tho truth could only bo arrived at after scientific study. - The Rev. A. 'Cameron also supported the motion. Professor Macmillan Brown opposed the motion, because he was in favour of undenominational. education. It prevented tho bickerings that would bo introduced through the fact of there being so many sects. It was better that the churches should look after their own children, and if the change were made the University would have to affiliate with tho theological col leges. On a division the motion was carried by 13 votes to 8, the voting being: —Ayes: Mr. J. Allen, Rev. A. Cameron, Hon ; Dr. Collins, Professor Easterfield, Rev. W. H. Evans, Dr. Fitchett, Mr. H. A. Gordon, Mr. G. Hogben, Dr. McDowell, Sir G. M. O'Rorke, Professor Salmond, Professor R. J. Scott. and the Hon. J. A. Tole. Noes: Professor F. I). Brown/ Professor Maomillan Brown, Professor Chilton, Mr. H. F. Von Haast, Mr. J. Hay, Professor Shand, Mr. J. Tibbs, and the Chancellor.