THE REFERENDUM AGAIN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8783, 13 July 1914, Page 6

THE REFERENDUM AGAIN

What docs tho Prime Minister stand for ? He told tho Defence people who are opposing the entry of tho Bible and the clergy that he stood for the education system, free, secular and compulsory. That was* tho first time ho met them. The last time of mooting the same people ho found something to explain. He had been, it seems, misunderstood by tho Defence League, which, said ho had treated them unfairly: They had said only this: that they had relied on his uncompromising declaration for tho school system as logical ground for the conclusion that ho certainly would never allow it to bo attacked in any measure emanating from the Government benches. To- this Mr Massey replied that there is “another side.”' It is that when he made that uncompromising statement of plain faith ho had added that ho believed in the Bible and stood by tho Bible every time. It looked as if the Prime Minister was criticising tho Defence League for not having observed that he had met them with two faces. That strengthens the public desire to know which face he is wearing now. He ■ said to Saturday’s deputation that ho thought it “a sorry state of affairs that tho representatives of tho Christian sects do not so© their way to join and arrange a system by which religious instruction would bo imparted in the public schools.” Ho went on to explain that the Government had introduced tho hill because they and, others thought that “when 150,000 people asked for a referendum it would not be right to stand in tho way of giving an opportunity for an opinion, if Parliament was willing,” adding later on that “it was for Parliament to say whether they should have tho referendum.” It follows from this that Mr ivtassey’s opinion is that because tho Christian sects have failed to settle the question of religious instruction it is right to give tho majority/ of these sects the right to settle tho matter in their own way. What that way is the Bishop of Wellington indicated the other day, as we pointed out, by declaring that tho whole question at issue is of religious instruction. It is evidently to be an instruction which tho .minority of tho Christian sects is not prepared to accept ; for their disagreement with the majority is the cause of the “sorry state” which has moved Mr Massey to hand the Settlement over to the majority. Mr Massey’s face now is single, and it points hard to the rule of the majority over tho minority in a matter of religion. Now the cardinal point is that religion is not a question which by any theory of democracy can lie submitted to a majority vote. Mr Massey then lias declared for an extension of majority rule to a matter which is not in tho scope of democratic government. Ho has, by his own admission, allowed his private views to prevail over his duty to the system of government he is .sworn to administer. That ho is sincere wo have no doubt. That he is confused by the majority idea nobody can deny. Tho result is that he has abandoned his preference for education free, secular and compulsory, for a system which shall be free, religious and compulsory. There are thousands of others who aro equally -sincere and equally confused, and for tho sumo reason. It is high time for Parliament to tell them beyond the possibility of doubt, that religion and/religious instruction are net within tho scope of majority rule under • any proper theory of democracy.