THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 262, 9 December 1914, Page 6

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor of TEE RUN. Sir,-—lf I distributed among men as honourable as myself imputations of untruthfulness as lavishly as Mr Caughley, I should need printed forms of apology ready for those whom I had hastily insulted.. But I have striven to observe the utmost courtesy and, politeness throughout this controversy. At present my conscience withholds an apology as insincere and premature. The Rev. G. S. Cook published his impression that 1 ' even such a palpable friend of Mr Caughley's cause as Mr McCallum grew weary of him, and after suggesting better methods at last told him that his questions were so long and obtruse, that neither Canon Garland nor anyone else could give a brief or direct answer to them. There was a painful contrast between the deference paid! to Bishop Cleary and the tone ,commonly adopted towards Canon Garland. Bishop Cleary seemed to feel this, and after Mr Caugh-. ley had finished his cross-eiamination he met us as we were leaving the building and told .Canon Garland.that he would not have to endure anything of that nature from him.'' He said, '' I shall credit you with being as honest and sincere in this matter as I am myself, and treat you as a gentleman, dealing with gentlemen." The Rev. G. S. Cook's final impression was that Bishop Cleary "shone by comparison" with Mr Caughley. The '' we " section implies that both the Rev. G. S. Cook and Can on Garland heard the Bishop's kind remarks, and as Mr McCallum's attack of weariness and impatient protest are said to have occurred duriiig Canon Garland's cross-examination, I cannot. believe that the Rev. G. S. Cook was mistaken till I hear from Canon Garland a different version of the affair. Your readers, too familiar with Mr Caughley's method and style, will appreciate the probability of the , McCallum episode, and Mr Caughley's latest letter with its

suspicions and accusations lends an air of verisimilitude to the story about the Bishop.—l am, etc., parent's Sight. - To the Editor of THE SUN. Sir, —My attention has been drawn to a letter over the signature of J. Oaughley in your issue of December 2 in which the writer (speaking also on behalf of Bishop Gleary and Mr R. McCallum, M.P.) talces exception to statements made in an article of mine which appeared in the '' Methodist Times" of November 14. He quotes my reference to Mr Oaughley's method of examination, where I stated that even a palpable friend of his cause, Mr McCallum, grew weary, and suggested better methods. This is stated by Mr Oaughley to be "an absolute perversion of'fact," and Mr McCallum says "I suggested your prefacing certain questions with the words < assuming that so-and-so is the case,' but I certainly did nothing more.'' Mr Oaughley very ingeniously states that this objection of Mr MeOalluin was applied to this simple question, "If this scheme* becomes law would the State require every teacher to give the Scripture lessons?"

I wish to make;eleaif %>your read' ers *tliat I was not depending on my memory (though that is clear enough) when I wrote the statement referred to, but on written notes of Mr McCallum 's ,remarks on the. morning. o£ October 24, taken at the tihie. If T mention these forgotten comments of his which I have recorded, he may remember them even now. But let me also* remind Mr Oaughley. of the kind of questions which he has apparently forgotten by quoting the following example, namely: "Do you not think that it must be a fair system of religious instruction advocated by the League,, when its chief official, advocate says that the State would have to compel the teachers to give the' lesson, and you will not admit it ?' 1 Canon Garland answered this as follows: "I do not say that I will not admit anything, T simply .say. that it is ,aii absolute impossibility, psychologically and mentally,: to tell what the State will do. •We are< asking for a referendum; to.v}?e, taken, on certain principles, and-it will then be for Parliament to decide how these principles are to be carried out. It is not for us' to decide. Here is another of these 4 ' simple'' questions: "My question intended that if an act did follow, and it became an Act of New" Zealand,, that this kind of religious instruction was to be given in the schools,, does it require any great imagination, or otherwise to know that when a* State passes an Act that the State will. see that the Act is carried out?" Rer member -that these -were; oral,; not written questions; ■ and that a mistake in answering them might be used against a man's reputation. • And compare them with Mr Caughley's '' simple'' example. . According to my notes, Mr McCallum. used the following comments to Mr . Caughley in reference to his questtions: " Too abstruse and dialectic. Too cannot blame Canon Garland for, beingcareful," "No .one can answer a question like that briefly or directly)" ' it Same question 'as was answered before, but different phases of- it. What are you driving at?" Then again, ;in reference to a, question, the league- members over 21, Mr McCalliini said, ' ' You ,are not entitled, to ask for that:'' I think that these remarks^. -■ justified me in forming, the opinion that Mr McCallum notr-satisfied; with. Mr Caughley -s method, and' with'hints as to' the 'f raining of questions. V Mr"; MfcCifilim's S;^re' made in a conversational' toney but rtihey were • clearly audible where I was; sitting. ; "One nail . drives out another," and Mr McCallum has his so full at prese'nt, that a little foi-get-fulness is excusable.

The statement attributed by ine to> Bishop Cleary was clearly made, . 91111 can be substantiated. I have no doubtas to the good understanding .between. Mr Caughley and the Bishops but as T have not yet seen the latter's letter X do not-know, what. mental reservations; he' had. made in his statement to us.

The aspersions on my character in the letter do not affect me. My-reputation still remains in perfectly safe keeping,, and the evidence put on. record will .be read by less biased and' more judicial minds. But when'Mr -Caughley swellshimself out in the concluding part of his letter, and proceeds to pronounce judgment on us" in the name of'- the members-Of the churches associated-in. the Bible-in-Schools he . becomes ridiculous. The approval of Bishop Cleary is surely heady ' stuff. From a purely church point of view, Mr Caughley is a Presbyterian discredited, by his own ehurch in. this matt.er, and waving ,Jiis flag in'a motley procession,, at the head of which marches the banner of the Eoman Catholic Federation. With this as a policy, 11 Muzzle the people and the Bible. Use the forms j of Parliament, the Press, the churches,. I and the teachers for 'tliis purpose, and, if a referendum is secured, split thelissues. Save.usjfrom the people."

I would remind Him that none of thewitnesses before the Commission are responsible for. shaping the policy of the churches associated in the Bible-in-Schools League ami the. principles advocated by/ the League. Even if we were incompetent Witiiesises (which, of I do not adihit) 1 , the reasons which im* pelled those Lchurches to • adopt their policy would,jStiU hold good., The fol* lowing facts would i still remain, namely,,, the value of the Sifeie in education, the need of the Bible in the schools, the dissatisfaction and unrest created thereby, and the failure of the secular system to give satisfaction. Also the success of the system proposed wherever it hasbeen tried, and the right of the people to decide, not ecclesiastics,; members of Parliament, or the teachers, but the people - —to decide this matter in the best interests of the "childreii' by ia, referendum on a definite issue.—l am, etc., , G. §. COOK.