Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 3 July 1913, Page 21

Current Topics

Cardinal Manning's View ; An esteemed Queensland correspondent furnishes us with the following quotation, winch is particularly apropos to the present controversy on the education question. 'Cardinal Manning,' he writes, 'argued thus: "All who pay rates ought to share in the benefit of the rates. To compel payment and to. exclude from participation is political injustice. And to offer participation upon conditions known beforehand to be of impossible acceptance, is wilful and deliberate exclusion." ' The bearing of this observation, as Captain Bunsby used to remark, lies in the application of it ; and its application to the action and attitude of the Bible in State Schools League is sufficiently obvious. The League's Inconsistency _ It is as true in this year of grace 1913 as it was in old Samuel Butler's day that We are best of all led to Men's principles by what they do. The representatives of the Bible in State Schools League have made many fair professions of fair principles, but they have fallen wofuily short of justice and straightforwardness in the application of them. Here is a glaring specimen of their inconsistency, and one, too, in connection with what they profess to regard as a fundamental ' principle.' In one of his latest speeches, delivered the other day at Christchurch, Canon Garland is reported (Christchurch Press, June 9) as laying it down, quite rightly, that this matter of the religious education of the children is a parental question. 'We are going to stand or fall on this system,' declared the speaker, ' that the parents shall be free to have the right to control the moral and religious training of their children. They have also gob a practical right because they are paying for it.' The same perfectly sound principle was enunciated in the course of the agitation which preceded the granting of the referendum in Queensland. Dr. Donaldson, Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane and head of the Bible League in Queensland, declared at a public meeting in Brisbane: 'The proposals of the Bible in State Schools League are just, because they are founded on the unassailable principle that the parent has the right to say whether the child shall be brought up with religion or not ' ; and further affirmed ' that the bedrock of the whole question was that what the parent wishes should be the law of the teacher.' {Brisbane Courier, September 18, 1906). We rise to ask the very natural question: What provision is made in the League proposals for the application of this principle to the case of Catholic parents, and of Jewish parents, and of Unitarian parents ? And the answer is, None whatever. The Jewish parent is told that if he cannot accept the Bible lessons on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ—which are to him sheer blasphemyhe must make provision elsewhere for the religious teaching he desires, and pay for at his own expense, besides bearing his share of the cost of the League's scheme. The Unitarian parent is in like case. As is well known, Catholic parents, while willing to submit to State control— therefore claiming State recognition—in regard to the secular teaching, desire for their children their own religious teaching and religious atmosphere in their own schools; and the League advocates—the men who are posing as the champions of the rights of parents—are forever telling us that this is the very thing they are out to prevent' Truly, consistency is a jewel—a veritable Koh-i-noor, and one which may be looked for in vain in League actions and utterances. °

Challenge and Counter-Challenge Challenges on the subject of the Bible-in-schools question have been floating about somewhat freely of late. At the recent meeting in the Garrison Hall Dean Fitchett issued the following challenge to the teachers:

Let the teachers appoint two of their most intelligent and most trusted teachers and send them as a Commission to inquire what the state of things was in Australia,, and if they would be content to abide by the result the League would pay ; the expenses.' As we have already explained,: this is an entirely useless challenge, for even if the two teachers returned perfectly satisfied as to/the working k of the .system in Australia, it would by no means follow, from the teachers' point of view, that the system would work equally 'well in New Zealand, where;the. teachers are appointed^ not as m Australia by a single central authority, but by elective local bodies, amongst whom religious bias would quickly make itself evident if the teachers were required to administer Bible lessons. In response to : Dean Fitchett's challenge, Mr. John Caughley, President of the N.Z. Educational Institute, wrote as follows to the Dunedin Evening Star of June 24: As a teacher I willingly accept the dean's challenge, provided he will also abide by the result. In addition, I will challenge the dean to stand by his statement': "If the scheme advocated by the League required the teachers to teach religion he (the Dean) would not be a member of the League nor on their platform." ' In a lengthy article in the Star of the same date—which we reproduce elsewhere _ in this issue— Caughley explains that in accepting the Dean's challenge he: does not consider it necessary to visit Australia, but holds that the challenge can be answered here in New Zealand from official and reliable evidence— supplied by the League itselfalready available. He then proceeds to make a categorical indictment against the League's proposals; and challenges the Dean to reply seriatim and without evasion to the points and charges made. More than'a week has elapsed, but so far there has been no reply from the Dean. . . _ ; * " ■ - ' ' ' : In the leading columns of its issue of June 26 the Star makes a further suggestion on the subject. ' ' Our own suggestion,' it says, 'in respect to the Dean's challenge is that it could be accepted in spirit and be satisfied by a public debate between two accredited champions in the Garrison Hall of this city. Such a debate would arouse the keenest interest, would attract a great audience, and would be besides an intellectual treat. We have no authority for using his name in this relation, but if Mr. Caughley, a representative teacher both in the State and the Presbyterian Church Sunday schools, could see his way to champion the existing education system, and - the Very Rev. Dean Fitchett take the other side, there need "be no fear of lack of public interest.' So far there has been no response of any kind from anybody to this thoroughly sensible and pertinent suggestion. - A Weird Appointment The Government have inaugurated the newlyopened session of Parliament by making five ' calls ' to the Upper House, the new legislators being Mr. John Duthie, Sir W. R. Russell, Mr. C. A. C. Hardy, Mr. W. G. Nicholl, and Mr. William Earnshaw. In regard to the appointment of the four first named there is practically no serious criticism, and it is, we think, generally recognised that they are reasonable and legitimate appointments. The same can certainly not be said of the 'call' to Mr. Earnshaw. There is no law limiting the Government's power of ' call' to the Upper House; but it is generally understood that to be eligible for appointment to the Council a person should at least have some sort of standing with the general public, that he should, within a reasonably recent period, have taken some part in public life, or have rendered some sort of service, however modest, to the community, and that he should be well and honorably known as a good citizen. Mr. Earnshaw certainly does not fulfil all of these conditions, and it can hardly be said that he fulfils any one of them. He was returned to Parliam 1890 and again in 1893 as a Labor member. But during the currency or the latter Parliament he deserted Mr. Seddon—one of the best friends that Labor ever had— transferred his allegiance to Sir Robert Stout; and he was, in consequence, rejected with emphasis at

the. General Election in 1896. He has never since secured the confidence of r- any electorate, though he has made three : attempts to do so. ?•, His last" two efforts were in 1902 and 1905. Prior to the 1902 election he made a deliberate appeal to sectarian bigotry by raising the silly cry that the Public Service was 'stuffed with Catholics'—a cry which was effectually squelched by the 'N-Z. Tablet, : which gathered careful and crushing figures from every part of the Dominion. In the 1902 election he was defeated by 444 votes; and in the contest for the same seat (Caversham) in 1905 he was defeated by 1730 votes. For the last eight years he has been altogether out of public life, following his avocation of brass-finisher. It cannot be, therefore, on the strength of his public career that Mr. Earnshaw's claim to elevation can be based. , It was informally given out on behalf of the Government that it was as a representative of Labor that Mr. Earnshaw had been so honored. But,' as we have mentioned, he was violently ' turned down ' by Labor in 1896, when he was regarded as having betrayed the cause; and he has been neither directly nor indirectly associated with Labor for the past fifteen years. Little wonder that, as the Parliamentary reporter of the Dunedin Evening Star puts it, Labor is ' aghast' at such an appointment having been made professedly in its name and interest. Two other qualifications have been mentioned by the press as attaching to Mr. Earnshaw— that he has been 'prominent in Druidic circles,' and that he is also an ardent Orangeman ' —but these seem, to put it very mildly, somewhat inadequate recommendation for legislative honors. As we write these lines a later press message comes to hand intimating that ' It is stated authoritatively that the reasons . which actuated the Government in summoning Mr. Earnshaw to the Council were his knowledge of parliamentary procedure and Labor problems.' With every desire to be charitable, we must confess that this sounds somewhat thin. A ' knowledge of parliamentary procedure ' can hardly be considered essential to usefulness in tho Legislative Council; and a working knowledge of parliamentary forms can surely be picked up by an intelligent member in the course of a session or two. As to a knowledge of Labor problems, scores of men could be found in the Dominion who are possessed of that qualification who have not been deserters from the Labor party, and who are not ' ardent Orangemen.' Age and experience may have mellowed Mr. Earnshaw's judgment and modified his natural intemperateness of speech and action; and it is certainly to be hoped that this may be so. But from the widespread criticism which this particular ' call' has evoked in the public press it is evident that there is a very general feeling that the Government have blundered. A Lively Time in Sens There is a fine old town on the beautiful river Yonne, about 60 miles south of Paris. This old town is blessed, or, if you like, cursed, with the rule of an active ' modern Mayor. He is an important personage, for he is Mayor, member of the French Upper House of Parliament, and high official of the local Masonic lodge. It is quite unnecessary to say that he is, in the matter of education, a secularist, or as they say in France, a neutralist. In the matter of religion heaven knows what he is. Quite possibly he calls himself 'un bon at holt que'; such people so designate themselves sometimes. Anyway, he is an energetic man ; and he wished to show his liberality and neutrality lately. He planned a grand children's festival for Sunday, April 20. He induced his brother-councillors of the municipality to subsidise the festival by providing music, refreshments, flags, and all the drapery necessary for a public meeting and procession. The procession of children, parents, and citizens was to start from the Town Hall and to proceed to an appointed camping-ground, where an oration was to be delivered by an illustrious orator invited from Paris. The subject of the oration was to be one suited to a ' laic and neutral assembly. What was the camping-ground, do you think ? Where was the oration to be delivered ? Who was the orator chosen? What was the subject

with which children and parents - were to be regaled? The meeting-place was, the grounds of the diocesan theological college, violently invaded > and taken possession of a few years ago by -the a'neutral';!; French Government! The 'orator's platform, was to % be the predella of the altar of the beautiful college chapel! The orator was P. H. Loyson, son of the apostate Carmelite friar, Pere Hyacinthe, who made much noise in Paris thirty years ago, and who died recently a -kind of agnostic or universalist! The subject of brother Loyson's address was 'The Catholic Faith!' Every circumstance of the festival was chosen to give offence to the Catholic people, that is, to the vast majority' of the people of Sens. - ". * But there happens to be a Bishop in Sens—not one of the old Government appointees. That made all the difference for Mayor Garnet and his projected 'Grande fete laique dcl'enfance.' The Bishop, Mgr. Chesnelong, resolved to prevent as far as he could the enactment of a hideous scandal in his cathedral. town. 5 He : issued a strong, vibrant appeal to his people. He denounced the double profanation that was planned to take place —-the profanation of the beautiful college chapel and its sanctuary; and the profanation of a holier sanctuary still—the souls of the innocent little school children of Sens. He ordered the Miserere and the Farce, Domine to be sung after the parochial' Sunday Masses and Vespers; and exhorted all decent Catholics, old and young, to avoid the Mayor's festival. Well, what was the result of the battle between the Bishop and M. Carnet, Mayor, member of . the Upper House, lodgemaster, and neutralist. This: Of the 1200 school children of the town only 200 were present of the 200 little children of the First Communion classes only 3 attended; of the young men of the bands the majority refused to play and even of the school teachers, >who are, directly under the thumb of an infidel officialdom, the majority were not there. So M. Carnet; in full Masonic regalia, was followed only by 200 children—the children of municipal and government servants afraid to make a stand. It/was intended that most of the chapel should be reserved for school children ; but it was occupied by a crowd who smoked, bandied' rough jokes, and spat all over the place— the disciples of the coming Masonic and naturalistic ' civilisation.' It may be observed here that this highly intellectual audience was wofully disappointed with the orator and his oration. The crowd expected a lowdown, vulgar attack upon the Catholic Church. Instead, they saw before them a refined Parisian, reading m literary French an essay, to them unintelligible, on Comparative Religions.' But, clearly, the refreshments, provided by Mayor Carnet and the Council at the public expense—everything is done by the new benefactors of humanity at the public expense made up for other disappointments; for the Masonic journal stated, on. the following morning, that the festival was 'au d(ela de toute es])erance'— 'beyond all expectation.' *

‘ Here, in this scandal of Sens,’ says M. J. Rockafert, of the Univers, ‘you have present-day France in miniature. On the one side you have France Masonic, secularist, pretendedly neutral but boldly aggressive • represented by Mayor Carnet and his following of Masons, Radicals, and Socialists, On the other, you have France Catholic and conservative, working for law and order, for religion and the Christian virtues—represented by Mgr. Chesneiong and the vast body of the people, sound at heart, and ready to follow the strong, bold, outspoken leader when and where he appears at their head. On the one side you have a godless clique of intriguers, trying to seize upon other people’s children in order to school-manufacture them into the tools and machines of an infidel government. On the other side you have the parents, the divinelygiven guardians and guides of those children, anxious to exercise their liberty in bringing them up according to their own way, in their own faith and principles.’