NATIONAL SCHOOLS DEFENCE LEAGUE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8783, 13 July 1914, Page 8

NATIONAL SCHOOLS DEFENCE LEAGUE

INTERESTING DISCUSSION WITH PRIME MINISTER. A deputation which crowded the Prime Minister’s office waited on the Right Hon. W. F. Massey on Saturday and earnestly urged that the Religious Instructions in Schools Referendum Bill should not bo proceeded with. The imputation included the executive of the New Zealand National bcliools Detenco League and the following delegates from other organisations: Laoour Conferences, Messrs Hunter and Rosser; Duuedm League, Mon. J. T. Paul; Christchurch League, Mr W. T. Grundy; Auckland League, Pastor Meyers; Palmerston North League, Mr Buick, M.P.; Wanganui League, Mr W. A. Veitch, M.P.; Ashburton League, Rev. Dr. Hughes; Hastings League, Prof. Von loedlitz; Napier League, Mr C. J. Cooke. The Hon. A. L. Herdman (Wellington North) said as one of the city representatives it was his privilege to introduce the large deputation which was ODDOsed to the Bill for a referendum to the people on the subject of the Biblo-in-schools. UNFAHI TREATMENT.

Professor Hunter said:—We have to thanK you, sir, for giving us the opportunity of putting before you —tiio head of the Government of tne day—the views of teds of thousands of electors on the most important issue, the Religious Instruction in bchool Referendum Bill. I have to apologise for the absence of Mr A. R. Atainson, whoso absence from the colony we, as defenders of the present scliool system, deeply deplore. We have representatives from Dunedin, Ashburton, Christchurch, Wanganui, Hastings, Auckland, Napier, and Palmerston North. I wish to say candidly and frankly that we feel, sir, that we have not been treated fairly by the Government in this matter. This feeling is very general throughout the country amongst those who are striving to keep our schools free from sectarian strife. The reasons for this feeling are mainly two: —

First. —On August 9th last you, together with the Minister for Education, were good enough to receive a deputation from our league and you then stated clearly and candidly that you were utterly opposed to what might be called sectarianism in the schools of this Dominion, and further that, though Cabinet had not then considered the question, you thought that as long as your Government remained in office nothing would be done by it which would not be consistent with the principle of free, secular and compulsory education in the schools of this Dominion. The general impression given by your remarks is well shown in the headings of the reports of that deputation by the local papers:—The “Post”: “No .Referendum Free, Secular and Compulsory System to Stand.” The "Dominion”: “Little Chance of Change.” The ( “Times’: “Present Secular Education System to Stand.” Accepting your statement, sir, the Schools’ Defence League thought that, if this question was to be brought before Parliament, it could be only by a private member’s bill, which every one realised had no prospect of success. We therefore did not consider it necessary to appoint an organiser until a few weeks ago, when rumours became so persistent as to seem prophetic. Had onr league had any suspicion that your statement to us would not be observed it would have had an organiser in the field ten months ago in order to enlighten the people as to the real issues involved. On this score then we think we have not been fairly treated. KEPT IN THE DARK.

In the second place it is obvious that when CaOmet did consider the question of introducing a bill the views of,our opponents were considered, but not ours. . it is now clear that the molu-iii-achoois JLeague Had information that was not given to us. We tfunk that in view of the precedent established in the case of licensing legislation, and more especially in view of your statement last August, that our views on the hill proposed to be submitted to Parliament should have been considered as well as those of our opponents. On this score again we tlimk we have been unfairly treated. What is the result ? At the first available opportunity the Minister for Education, a member of your Cabinet and head of the Education Department, introduces a bill framed in such a way as to facilitate in every manner the wishes of our opponents and to frustrate our aims. The net result is that if the question were submitted to a plebiscite at this moment it would be impossible for us to place our views adequately before the people. This is a very important matter, because our opponents, while crying ‘trust the people,” have not yet held, ns far as I know, a single “public” meeting. Mr Massey: One moment you say your opponents have never held a single public meeting. What have you to complain of? Professor Hunter: That this matter, owing to the statement you made, has not yet been discussed by the public. The petition card on behalf of the present system was started by a private individual in Auckland, who, apparently, had less faith in the Government than we, and the fact that, without any systematic canvass, this card has been signed by tens of thousands of electors speaks for itself. During the few weeks that Our organiser has been in the field, the cards have come and are still coming in by thousands. The Religious Instruction in Schools Referendum Bill has throughly aroused the people. Further, the method adopted by the Government has relieved ' the Bihle-in-Schools League of the necessity of presenting its petition to Parliament, where it would be subject to scrutiny. We were anxious for this to happen, as w© have conclusive evidence that verv many of the signatories signed under a distinct misapprehension of the nature of the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League. “SECTARIAN ZEAL AND BIGOTRY.”

We object to the hill on many grounds. We most emphatically protest against a referendum on a religious question—the Bishop of Wellington has confessed that the real issue is the kind and method of religious education of the children. If the Government or Parliament lights the fires of sectarian zeal and bigotry in this country, experience shows they

will not die out in one generation. After yoiir statement to” us in August last we think that the bill should not have been introduced into Parliament by a Cabinet Minister in any but his private capacity. Particularly is this the case when, as here, the Minister is the head of the Department of Education; for this raises in the public mind the assumption that the Minister is following the advice of his educational experts., We most emphatically protest against the omission from the ballot paper of the present national system, which should have its rightful place as the first issue on the ballot paper. We protest against the combination of two djstinct issues, and ask that they be separated and adequately described. This is necessary if the Government and ment really wishes to discover the mind of the people. BALLOT FORM SUGGESTED.

Might !• suggest a form of ballot paper:— " I vote for the present national system of education, free, secular, and compulsory. (2) I vote that the clergy he given the right of entry into State schools, within school hours, to give sectarian teaching. (3) I vote that the State school teachers bo compelled (without a conscience clause) to give general religious teaching in State schools. Those who desire the New South Wales system would vote for 2 and 3. We protest against ■ people being asked to vote on the introduction into the schools of a hook they have never seen, that is not yet compiled. In this respect our opponents were fairer in 1904. In the preface of the Bible-in-schools Text Book (specimen lessons). as approved by the Wellington Bible-in-Schools Conference of that year, we find these words: “Inasmuch, however, as there exist but one or two copies of the text-hook, as adopted by the conference, it has been widely felt, not only by opponents, but by friends of the movement as well, that it is necessary in some way to make the people who will have t vote on the question acquainted wvui its contents.” On this point we agree with the Wellington Conference of Churches of 1904. We protest against the proposal to compel State school teachers to give general religious teaching, notwithstanding their conscientious objections. Mr Allen proposes to refuse to teachers what he gives to objectors. BILL SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN. We therefore, ask that, as this Parliament has no mandate on this question, the bill should be withdrawn. Let the people who agitate for this revolutionary change show, in the usual way, at next election that there is a real demand for it. It is useless to say that the present procedure will prevent it from becoming a political issue, the introduction of the hill has made it such. If the Government is, as you are reported to have said recently, pledged to give the House an opportunity to vote on this question, may we ask when and to whom you were so pledged ? ESSENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

If the bill is gone on with we ask — (1) That Cabinet and the Education Department should be completely dissociated from the bill. After your definite statement in August last we think we may, in fairness, ask this. (2) That if the bill passes its second reading we shall be given full opportunity of being heard by the Education Committee before the bill is considered by the House in committee.

(3) That the issues be divided and clearly stated in the way I have indicated.

(4) That the' present national system be given its rightful place on the ballot paper. (5) That no ballot be token until the proposed text-book has been compiled, and the electors have had reasonable ' opportunity of becoming acQuainted with its contents.

(6) That provision bo made for subsequent and regular referenda on this question, as is the ease in the licensing poll. , (7) That in no case shall any individual —whether clerical or lay—be given the right to appoint a substitute to give lessons in State Schools within schools hours. (8) That a conscience clause for teachers be provided. A VIGOROUS CAMPAIGN. Mr I. say, sir,, in conclusion, that though we have been taken unawares, that will only make us more energetic and vigorous in our campaign. Wo feel that it will, be most unfortunate ;f this Government; which has done so much to free State employees from civil and political disabilities, should now be a party to placing on teacher* a more' serious disability than _ that suffered by any civil servant in the history of this country—the obnoxious burden of a religious test. We know the''reply that may be offered: the Government is merely giving Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this question. But I can assure you, sir, that if by the Cabinet’s action any injury is. don© to our educational system, which is the noblest monument 1 ' to the sagacity, liberality and Christian tolerance of the political leaders of the' past, for that injury the people of this Dominion will, and we believe, justly, hold your Government responsible. (Applause.) THE CONSCIENCE OF THE TEACHER.

Professor Kirk spoke especially from the teachers’ standpoint. It was represented that if a teacher were not prepared to give religious lessons he was not fit to teach in' tho public sohqpls. Now there wore teachers whose opinions greatly varied on religious matters, and they had conscientious scruples which should bo respected. Christianity would bo desecrated by compelling them to do something -which they felt they oolild not do without straining their conscience. New conditions were to be imposed, and if they could not conform to them they would have to go. And men who would be Nonconformists in the Old Country were prepared to take their punishment for Nonconformity. It was said teachers would yield, but this would br-ng in a greater moral evil than if the whole ranks of the teachers were depleted. If it were doubted that in the present movement an appeal was made to emotion, he would refer to a sermon preached at St. Paul’s last Sunday. The appeal to ignorance was evidenced by the claim that heathenism was taught in the schools—Confucianism for instance. This statement was made at St. John’s on one occasion on the ground that some precepts of Confuciiis of a very colourless character were included in a reading lesson. He believed there would be very little opposition on the part of the Defence League to the introduction of the Nolson system. ■ . , , Mr Massey: That allows right of Kirk: Not in school hours, and the instruction is not paid for by people who object to it. Under The Nelson system effective work could be done in the town schools, and in tho country schools good effective work could he done at less expense than would he incurred by the Bible-m----schools organisation. “Volunteer Christianity wins to-day, and will win in the future.” NOT'A FAIR ISSUE.

The Rev. Knowles Smith pointed out that the terms “Bible-in-schools” was a misnomer. It by no means expressed the wish or purpose of the Bible-in-Schools League. It could be tested in a very simple way. If they split the referendum idea into two issues —“ Are you in favour of the Bible in schools?” and “Are you in favour of denominational right of entry?” it would be found the strongest opponents were the eo-called Bible-in-Schools League. It was the denominational right of

entry for which they were fighting.. That was a very different thing,to the Nelson right of eptry. It was true that under the Nelson system ministers went into the schools for & given time,, bub not as Methodists, Presbyterians, or Anglicans, to teach any particular teheijsof their own church, but to give a simple Bible lesson upon points that were! common to all. It was said there would be equal rights for all. Accord- * ing to the New South Wales pamphlet issued by the league there wore 42,481 visits made during 1905 'under tho Now South' Wales system. Of these 23,769 were credited to the Anglicans, 7873 ito the Methodists, 7150 to tho Presbyterians, while all' other Protr.-i- - tant denominations only totalled 3387. Thus three of tho larger denominations paid 95 per cent, of the visits. What did this mean? It might be said that these three denomination* were very energetic—very much more concerned, with tlie teaching of the children than ■ the minor bodies. It meant nothing of the kind. It was because they, hav-. ing power, influence, wealthy were able to get into the schools their teadhers, while the other denominations, being weaker and having loss financial - power, were unable to do it. And so these great denominations said to the lesser ones: “We want tho right to teach one particular ‘ism’ in the public school. We know you cannot afford to' dP it, hut wo give you the right to do it, and pray be content.” That was Christian l charity of the sort he had not yef. learned to understand. It was merely a majority claiming what they knew the other could not possibly give. But they said: ‘This is easily overcome. If you cannot afford to go into-the (Schools, group together and give a' lesson 'that will , generally meet all of you.” Now if that were feasible for tlie minor bodies, it was feasible for all tho bodies. In other words, they would introduce the Nelson system. THE “NELSON” SYSTEM. Mr Massey: About the Nolson sys« tent. Do you propose to make the Nelson , system compulsory P I should like a definite statement with regard to that. The Rev. Knowles l Smith: So far aa I am personally concerned, I should like to see the Nelson system taken out of the hands of . the local school committees and put into the hands of the higher education authorities —I mean the Education Department—if it were made possible rather than compulsory. In Christchurch the school committees won’t allow, the Nelson system. . ■ , Mr Massey: We are getting into a difficulty in tho Nelson system. You would leave it to the Minister for Education. The Rev, Knowles Smith: You will get my position in a moment. This denominational interpretation is one of conscience, hut I have yet to learn that any body of men have the right to say that their conscience is tha standard for any other body., Now, so far as the great Roman Catholic Church is concerned, what right have I to say; “If you will introduce denominational right of entry into the public schools you will satisfy my conscience. And if you as a Roman Catholic say It does not satisfy your conscience, I cannot bo bothered with you.” That is the position the league is taking up. I claim that it will not give to the Roman Catholic what it gives to the other, because it does not meet his conscience. Suppose tho Protestant goes into tho public school., This conscience is satisfied, but tho Roman Catholic declares his conscience is not satisfied. We will re-quire-something else. At tlie present you are able to say to the Roman Catholic: “There are the public schools: we don’t touch your religious convictions; we don’t touch your conscience.” But if yon once introduce; the Protestant conscience right into ■ tlie schools, 1 don’t see how you can decline to provide State-aid for the 1 Roman Catholic schools. (Hear, hear.) WHAT WILL FOLLOW.

I say this will lead the way to States aid for Roman Catholic schools. It *

will give tho Catholics a greater power to -go the Government, for, Siatty aid in connection with tlioir schools. And against that wc are.out entirely, for more reasons than one. Seeing that the league wo are opjmsing will not have anything but denominational right of entry—seeing it will not meet tho ißonian Catholic conscience, I submit tho only course is to let matters alone and lot your schools ho treated as they aro to-day. Much as I would like to see tho Bible in schools, I cannot seo that you have any other alternative but let the schools alone, and lot us teach our Bible as wo will. The public school is no place for denomination alisiu. (Hear, boar.) ! Wo aro' talking aiwint tho unity of tho church to-day. But this will dispense with •unity altogether and bring our chil-i dren into tho fighting faction and 1 -•nuse greater unrest and disheartening than .Las over been'known, before. jHear, hoar.) MORE FROM THE TEACHER'S VIEW-POINT.

Air W. Foster, M.Aj, said :—Sir, my la.sk is to place before your notice the, more important reasons wby DO perj cent, of the State school teachers aro| opposed to the passage liament of the Religious Instruction inj 'Schools Referendum Bill ami to tho platform of the Bible-in-Schoolsr League. First, I wish to make it clear 1 that teachers aro by tho specific termsl of the Referendum Bill required to give,, and will have to give, religious instruction from a I'oligiou* text-hook. It_ is vain for tho loaders of tho Bible-in-schoels party to urge that teachers aro not to give religious instruction that they aro merely to supervise tho reading of lessons from a religious textl>ook. as it is alleged they do tho reaming of an ordinary reading lesson. Such u statement is made cither in ignorance of tho functions of a competent and honest teacher, or from a wilful intent to cloud tho real issue. A competent teacher cannot take tho reading lesson from a religious text-hook and not teach religion; if ho is to remain an honest servant of tho State he cannot teach Bible literature, Bible history, Bible morals, without teaching religious truths. Ido not say that a teacher could not supervise tho reading of these lessons in a purely superficial way—which is tho way the leaders of tho Bihle-in-schools party say they wish us to take them—but to do so would be to treat them as tho honest and competent teacher treats no other reading lesson- —to treat with irreverence tho Tory Book that should bo most deeply reverenced —a condition of things that would ho deplorable in its effects, not unly on the teachers, but in a much greater degree oil the children of our schools.

A CONSCIENCE CLAUSE,

The fact, then, that the proposals submitted in the Referendum Bill will, if carried, of necessity lead to the teaching of religion by teachers, mates quite clear tho injustice of the_ bill which refuses to teachers a “conscience clause ” in the matter of these lessons. For nearly forty years teachers have been engaged by the State to teach a secular system, and that, of course; without any religious test. Tho State has amongst the ranks of its teachers men and women of all shades or religious belief, and thoso teachers are competent and honest servants of the State. For the State now to impose on thoso servants -duties extraneous to a purely secular system, without giving them the option of exercising a- conscience clause, is to inflict not only .T 6 ,.- grave injustice bn an honourable hotly of State servants; but to inflict a disastrous blow on the education of ,our children. Some of our teachers will either be honeSst to their religious' convictions and bo driven from the service, or they will remain m the. service and play the hypocrite. LIMITING THE RIGHT OF ENTRY.

The question ef the right of' entry of the clergy into tho schools has hoen already dealt with from one aspect, and that tho most important aspect. But I submit that the State, before it votes blindly in this matter, Should require, from the Schools League some definite limitation of the scops of this right of entry. First ns to tho extent of the school day which the right of entry -overs. In New South Wales it is' possible for tho school to bo handed over to tho clorgy or substitute tor one hour a day; but in that State the tchool day is in consequence one-halt longer than tho school day here. How, much is to ho devoted to the sectarian' teaching hy the clergy in New Zca-: land? The State does' not know, but it ought to know. Secondly, what are to bo the respective powers of head teachers and of tho clergy as to arranging tho hours for these sectarian; religious lessons? Aro the clergy to suit the convenience of tho school or Is the school to suit tho convenience of the clergy? Tho State ought to know, font it does not. Moreover, there are some technical difficulties that ought to bo mad® iloar to tho citizens. Tho various ministers may wish to com© to tho schools at tho same time on tho same day, .or at different times on the same day, or on different days, or they mav not come at all. If three or four of them come at tho same time on the same day, how arcs satisfactory arrangements to bo made for their accommodation, especially in tho smaller schools of one or two rooms which form the groat' majority ? if they come nn different days, then how is the ordinary school work affected? And if ‘hoy ‘do not come at all, how is it affected? These questions have been asked and wo are told to look to New nouth Wales. There w© aro told the, school work goes on as usual. But then practical teachers know that tho school work docs not go on ns usual. If a portion of a class is absent receiving sectarian religious teaching, tho remainder of the class is “marking time’’ ns far ns its secular educational progress is concerned. These may! seem minor disadvantages, but their effect is cumulative and inimical to the progress of .tho pupils. A GROUNDLESS CHARGE. > But our objections take deeper grounds than these. It is urged by the IJible-in-Schools League, it has beau preached from tho pulpits of this! country by tho league’s organiser and iither cltgy, that our secular system of, education'is godless, and that this alleged godless education has resulted in, .1 moral and religious turpitude in tho people. I am compelled to resort to « I’arliamentary euphemism in describing this atrocious charge and say that it is a deliberate misstatement of tho truth. Wo have been told that no ■education is complete without religious education; and it has been averred that the children in our schools receive no religious education. Have the gentlemen who make these charges against our system ever read what the school syllabus has to say hy way of instruction in the teaching of morals?, 1 will not weary you with reading the, headings of lessons suggested in that syllabus. They aro there tor everyone,

(to read who wants to sco them, and (some of those lessons aro taught every jday in our .Slate schools. Taught and txught in tho only riglu, way in which •’t.ic religious education of youth can ho taken. Not by set formal lessons of little value, but by school happenings that occurring from time to time c ako fitting opportunity for the driviiv. home of a moral fact. No traps must br set—in vain is tho religious net set in tho sight of youth—the more unconscious tho influence tho better tho roißlllt, says an educational writer. But our system is godless. One of the oxschool teachers who spoke yesterday at the deputation you received from the Synod is reported as saying that tho injunction in tho syllabus that moral teaching in the schools was to be undertaken was a dead letter. I quite 'admit that tho gentleman in question is most competent to say whether tho moral instruction in tho school from tho charge of which ho has lately retired was a dead letter, but he is- not competent to pass that scathing criticism <in tho other schools of tho Dominion. For my part I will say that the responsibility to the State which I have to shoulder in the characterbuilding of the pupils under my charge comes first with mo amongst my scholastic responsibilities, and that one of the greatest joys of the earnest teacher’s life is to watch tho moral development in our schools of honest, truthful, cloau-miudeci, and clean-living children. I speak for myself only. I leave it to ray professional brethren to speak for themselves. RIDICULOUS INFERENCES.

Even tho pages of the Schol Journal have been diligently searched by tho loaders of the Biblo-in-schools party for material with which to substantiate tho baso charges. Because in. a series of lessons on Egypt, mention was mado of Mahomed and Iris influence on tho history of that land, congregations wore told that teachers were allowed to promulgate tho tenets of Mahonimed and tho Koran in tho schools, hut they wore not allowed to mention' God or tho Bible —and yot that very series of lessons commenced with a reference to the, journey of tho boy Joseph down into Egypt. “Jigo, but uot Jesus” formed another appropriate scare-text for another sermon, and again an amazed public wore Jed to bethat teachers taught tho heathen religion of old Japan, but they dared not mention the name of Jesus. The lesson that was seized upon to give the similitude of truth to this statement appeared in one of the journals of this current year. I wrote to the public press a letter showing that already in this year’s journals there had been up to then at least five lessons filled with high moral and religious teaching—one touching on Christ’s supremo act of solf-sacrifico on tho Cross and- another of His message of peace on earth and goodwill towards man; aud yet that sermon was repeated in substance, uot once, but twice, by different preachers after tho publication of my letter. Why, tho School Journal from its inception has regularly included in its pages lessons of tho highest moral value —oven one of tho Biblo-in-Schools teacher advocates says, in a published article, that picking uji an old bundle of the journals he came across twenty or thirty lessons containing moral teaching and yet our system is Godless. The teachers may bo pardoned, sir, if they feel hot at this baseless charge. Our system of education has been in existence for nearly forty years, and some of us have seen pass through out schools tho children of pupils whom we taught in the earlier-years of our service. The people of this Dominion, many of them, have received their education in the State sahools, and they are in great measure a • reflex of the State school secular system. The teachers of this Dominion leave it to their State employers to say whether the morality of people of Now Zealand does not compare more than favourably with the other States of the world; and the teachers confidently leave it to the State to say whether or not the people of New Zealand owe in some measure that favourable state of morality tothe secular education system. Wo are asked to copy the New South Wales system—why 'f Is it because tho sys-. tem has failed morally, as is proved; not only by its own criminal statis-, tics, but by tho report of its own Education Commissioners ? Victoria, which has an education system very similar to ours, was asked to adopt the New South Wales system, and Victoria refused. What is the result? New, South Wales has 300,000 more people, than Victoria, but Victoria has 578' more Sunday schools, 6000 more Sunday school teachers, and 60,000 mow. Sunday school pupils than New South Wales. PAUSE BEFORE WRECKING THE SYSTEM.

W© make our appeal, sir, to you in your high office, to your Cabinet, and to tho two Houses of Legislature, to pause and jHinder well before you set in train legislation that is doomed to wreck our national system of education. We appeal not only as teachers, but ns citizens, who have, many of us, spent our lives in your schools, know what tho schools are doing, and who thank God for it. As things are now, the schools are one great unifying factor. La the body politic their classrooms are open to all without let or 'hindrance. There is known mo class or sect, nor do wo wish to know thorn. Rich and poor, high and low, Jew and Christian, Catholic and Non-; conformist —all enter freely in, and no question of faith arises. Friendships • aro entered into _ that last through life. Out of their doors into the world go our future citizens trained in moral rectitude, trained to do religious actions. Wo appeal to you to do nothing that will bring into our schools sectarian strife and bitterness., Ono had thought that nothing stood more firm in the affections of tho people than did tho public school —that nothing; could change its basis, principles of freedom, compulsion and secularity, but now an enemy is with in our gates. We appeal to Parliament, to whoso safe keeping tho people of' Now Zealand have entrusted! their education system, to lead us in repelling, this enemy. We appeal to you to take, as your watchword tho motto of the! State Schools Defence League: “Citizens of Now Zealand, defend your schools.” THE VOICE OF LABOUR.

Messrs Hunter nud Kosser also spoke. The latter said ho came from a conference representing 43,500 unionists, and a resolution had boon passed endorsing the sentiments of Professor Hunter. Ho was the son of a Methodist local preacher, and his early training had been scriptural. He denied the right to any other person to take his children in hand to teach them or read to them lessons which should be given by a parent alone or tho church to which he belonged. They said that in matters of conscience and, religion no majority had a right toi coerce a minority, however small. (Hear, hear.) They had not had a, fair chance in this matter. They had, ,jiot discussed the question of tho

Biblc-in-schools with their people because Until recently it was apparently a far-off question. They had had no time to educate their people to prepare them against the extensive propaganda work engaged in by tho other side. They supported the Defence League, and hoped that if the hill wore not withdrawn, at any rate there would be sufficient safeguards in it, and that the question for ballot would be altered so as to give them a fair chance. REBEL REPARTEE. Ho was born a rebel, he had been brought up a rebel—by heredity andi environment he was a rebel, and ho hoped ho would die a rebel. (Laughiter.)

Mr Massey: I hope not. Air Rosser: There may be salvation for me at tho eleventh-hour.

Mr Massey: And there is joy over every sinner that repenteth. Mr Rosser: I hope you will see that. (Groat laughter.) '/be Labour party is entirely solid on this question—that wo have a right to sec that our children are brought up and educated in the schools fret. Iron, sectarian control. (Hear, hear.) Statements were handed in from the Auckland and Christchurch Defence Leagues.