BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1748, 6 September 1905, Page 50

BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS.

A VICTORIAN PROPOSAL. The following, from the ‘‘Age” is a small part of the report of the recent debate in the Victorian Legislative Assembly on the bill of Mi' Watt, member for Essendon for the introduction of Scripture reading into the State schools. Mr Watt went on to read the letter written by the Bishop of Melbourne to the “Witness'’ 1 urging the electors to vote right on No. 1 question. That was after the form of the questions had been decided on, and he wrote not as the head of the league. Before -'the referendum took place the campaign council ex r pressed itself as extremely disappointed with the form of the question©. But when it was impossible to alter the questions the Bishop of Melbourne asked the electors to vote “No” to the first question. Mr Watt went on to contend that at a referendum only one clear and unmistakable issue should be submitted, and not a complicated and perplexing list of questions. The term “secular 11 was one of the most ambiguous in the language. It was used in several senses. Its most general use was to signify nonsectarian, non-denominational, and in New South Wales), where this question has been thrashed out, it was defined as instruction which included religious teaching as distinct from dogmatic or polemical theology. There was no doubt that the clearest question was No. 2. The varied policy of those who had been administering the act also made it difficult to define “secular.” At one time there was a blank, arid secularism, and then lessons were introduced in the “School Papers 11 Which would settle this question. In New South Wales schools they had the Irish National school lessons, and there was a conscience clause which laid the obligation on the parent to object to his child being taught Scripture. This bill provided facilities for the teaching to be done outside school hours.

Mr Soott-Bennett: Is not that the thin, end of the wedge ? Mr Watt said the inspectors in New South Wales had reported favourably on the system there, and no objection had been raised. In Tasmania and Western Australia also Scripture lessons were taught. Mr Prendergast: The question was settled in South Australia at the referendum against Scripture lessons. Mr W att: Although the issues were tangled in South Australia, the result of the referendum had probably knocked hope out of the campaign council there. But in Victoria he claimed, a victory for the campaign council. The Premier: Oh ! Mr Watt: In New Zealand a bill has been introduced. The Premier (satirically): Three cheers for New Zealand I Mr Watt: I know the lion, gentleman is not in love with New Zealand. The Premier: I wish you wouM go to New Zealand. Mr Watt: The hon. gentleman is talking in his sleep. Mr Keogh: That doesn’t say much for your speech. (.Laughter). Mr Watt: In New Zealand a bill had Deen introduced to provide for a referendum. and only one question was fc> be asked. Under his bill the teacher who objected to teach the lessons would not be compelled to do so. Mr Graham: And what ia to happen to the children of thi>se schools? Mr Watt: They could be no worse off than at present. An Hon. Member made a partially inaudible interjection about the old denominational days. Mr Watt: The feeling is different now to what it was in the old denominational days. We have reached a stage of toleration now. Mr Gaunson: You ask a good old Orangeman what he thinks of it. Mr Watt: Any teacher who objected would receive adequate protection. Mr Scott-Bennett: - What about sectarian fanatics? Mr Watt: Or Labour fanatics. He recognised that with improper administration there might be trouble. Mr Keogh: Do you propose to increase the teachers’ salaries because of the longer hours ? Mr Watt: That is a matter for the Treasurer. The Premier: Oh, what! Mr Watt: Possibly during the debate proposals might be made for another referendum. Th© Ministerial attitude, he believed, was that it was an open question. He could not conceive of the * propriety of a Government leaving an important measure like that open. Mr Gaunson said he formally seconded the motion with the intention of voting against the bill. Mi’ Watt: You need not trouble. It is seconded already. Mr Gaunson sa d he could conceive of . the Education department shifting a teacher who had a conscientious objection from a pleasant locality to a sort of “hell upon earth” place. He thought a referendum of the uninformed, uneducated public mind should be the last refuge of the poltroon politician. Mr Downward said he had heard nothing from Mr Watt to induce him to vote for the bill. In his youth he attended a school in which religious teaching was given, and it was nothing but a farce. What he learnt of religion was learnt at the Sunday school, where the teaching was effective. Those who spoke as if children would not receive religious instruction unless it was in day schools did not know the extent of the Sunday schools of the State. In the State schools there were 224,090 scholars, while in the Sunday schools, which numbered 2767, there were 230,000 scholars. To introduce religious instruction into the State schools would be to introdh.ee sectarianism. They did not want to raise the dissensions which those who came from the old land desired to leave behind. 'He therefore looked on the proposal as one which had no right to be entertained by the House. The adoption of the Scripture lessons would not end the strife, for they- would be looked upon as the beginning of something more. The Bill was ultimately rejected by forty-five votes to six.