Religions Education.

Otago Witness, Issue 1639, 21 April 1883, Page 11

Religions Education.

The Bishop of Melbourne, addressing a public meeting at Fifczroy recently, under the auspices of the Bible-in-schools League, said : — " For what I am now going to say 1 am alone responsible. It is my own suggestion for carrying out the demand of the League. Let undenominational Bible instruction be given twice a week during the last half-hour in the afternoon.— (Cheers.) Let it be given by the teacher whenever he is willing to undertake such instruction. If the teacher objects, then let the religious denominations undertake to supply the instruction. In large towns I believe that such instruction — that, I mean, which the State school teacher refused to give — could be supplied by ministers of religion and volunteers. In country districts the work could only be done by paid teachers, and to supply these I would suggest that a board be formed if necessary, to consist of representatives of Piotestaut denominations, and that on a given Sunday in every year a collection be made in all Protestant places of worship to enable the Board to engage, pay, and allocate such paid religious teachers. — (Cheers.) And now, what would be the bearing of such a plan on the needs of Roman Catholics? For Roman Catholic children I would suggest that undenominational Bible instruction should be given from the Douay version in a different room where the school had more than one room, and on different days when it had not. And now lam going to suggest the only favour which I would grant to Roman Catholics. I would suggest that, if the parents request it, this iustruction should bs given by persons approved by the Roman Catholic Church, whether the State schoolteacher were willing or unwilling to give the religious instruction. Tv all other respects there would be absolute equality. No sepa at > grant would be given to any denomination ; and I do not see that the greatest stickler for equality ought to be offended. Whether, however, this plan be adopted, or some other to be devised by statesmen, of one thing I am convinced— that if this country is to continue in a sound moral condition, that is, if it is to be permanently .strong, happy, and prosperous, undenominational Bible instruction must form part of its educational course.— ( ireat applause.) Of course there would be a conscience clause in connection with any plan, enabling parents to withdraw their children from religious instruction if they pleased — (cheers) — and this is all which a minority can fairly claim. If we are to abandon every subject of instruction on which any small body of eccentrics among us expresses any doubts, we shall soon have nothing left which it will be worth the trouble to teach — nothing which can affect conduct or can gather lessons from man's past for the guidance of his future.— (Applause.) We must take our stand somewhere against the perpetual fretting of destructive and unreasonable doubt, and I think the time has come when it is the duty of every Christian man to take it here. If the great majority of us are of that mind, statesmen will soon devise a method of carrying out our desires, so relieving themselves from a great trouble and hindrance, and the country from the gravest danger which can threaten the life of a commonwealth.— (Loud cheering.)"

Divorce and, Matrimonial Court. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

JIABY WALLACE (PETITIONER) V. GEOHQE WAL-

LAOS (RESPONDENT). Motion for decree absolute for judicial separation.

Mr Solomon appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent was not represented. Mr Solomon said this was a petition for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. Notice had been served on the respondent, and an answer waß filed admitting the marriage, but denying the cruelty. The acts complained of consisted of actial personal violence and threats to do bodily harm, which were sufficient to amount to legal cruelty. The respondent had been addicted to drink, and when drunk his conducfc towards his wife had been extremely violent. Mr M'Keay had been solicitor for the husband, and had put in a general denial on his behalf, but since then the respondent had diappeared, hadgiven no further instructions, and Mr M'Keay had stated that he should not act further in the matter.

Mary Wallace (the petitioner) deposed that she was married to her husband on the 22nd of December, 1881, at Dunedhi. Since the marriage she had resided with her husband at Sandymouut up to last January. In July, 1882, her husband came home drunk, and struck her with his clenched fisfc; he would not let her milk the cows, and locked her outside the house all night. She remained at the back of the stone wall in the garden all night, and in the morning got through the window into tlje house. Her huob^nd struck vntueay a

good many times about the head at that time. Again in July, when her husband came home drunk, he followed her to the dairy, closed all the doors, struck her on the head with his fist, and also hurt her arm. That nitfht she went to a neighbour's (Mrs Jacksou's), being afraid to stay in the house, as her husband was dangerous. She wont home in the morning, and found the doors all locked. She opened one of the windows to get the buckets, and her husband came and threatened to injure her. On a Saturday in January witness went to the neighbour's, because her husband, who had been drinking all the week, was dangerous. The next_ morning she went to tho house, and was milking the cows, when her husband knocked her down amongst the cows ; and when she went to a neighbour's he followed with a stick, and subsequently took up a stone-hammer and threatened to kill her. In December last witness went on a visit to .Christchurch, and on her return her husband met her at Anderson's Bay. Ho was then drunk, and witness had to drive. When they got near a dangerous precipice on the road the respondent took the reins, stopped the horse, and threatened to throw her over the precipice. On another occasion he put a knife to her breast and threatened to stab her.

Mr Solomon : Do you know of any reason for the ill treatment ?

Witness : My husband wanted power to sell the land, and to do what he liked with it. My first husband had 40 acres of land, and before I married the respondent I made a deed settling the property on myself, and he signed it. Everything on the place belonged to him. I did not put anything in the deed except the land. The deed was made out and signed by Wallace before we went to the registry office. The land was absolutely my own, it having been willed to me by my first husband. The respondent wanted me to give him the land. I refused, and that was the thing we always quarrelled about. My husband (the respondent) sold the cattle and everything on the land in January, and I did not get a halfpenny of the money. His Honor : I suppose, as a matter of fact, in law they were his. The Witness : My husband sold everything he could get hold of, and was cruel because he could not get hold of the land. His Honor : When did the quarrelling first begin ? Witness : The first time he took drink after we were married. That was in February, 1882. He wanted the laud every time he had drink.

His Honor: How was he when he was sober ?

Witness : He was a very wicked man when he was sober. He seemed always disagreeable because he had not the land, but was violent when he was drunk. I am living at Sandymount, but there are people in the house with me. My husband has not been there since he left the place, when he had sold off my things and left the place in ruin. Ellen Smith, who was the last witness' servant in November last, gave corroborative evidence of assaults committed by the respondent upon Mrs Wallace, the petitioner. Witness left the place because she was afraid of the respondent. Samuel Morris and Isabella Jackson (of Sandymount) gave corroborative evidence. This closed the case for the petitioner. His Honor ; Yes, you can take the decree for judicial separation, Mr Solomon. You can take the degree absolute with costs. I see you ask for alimony. Mr Solomon : It is necessary to make the application in tho first instance for alimony, but unfortunately we are not in a position at present to offer any evidence as to what property he has. His Honor :• The probability is that he has no property. Mr Solomon : So far as we know, he has sold everything, and probably has spent the money. I do not know that we are now in a position to ask for alimony. His Honor remarked that the application for alimony might be made subsequently, and that the decree absolute for a judicial separation was granted with costs. The Court was then adjourned.