BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

New Zealand Tablet, 19 November 1914, Page 15

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

f EVIDENCE BEFORE THE EDUCATION , COMMITTEE. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF BISHOP CLEARY. I The following- is a verbatim and official report of the evidence given before the Education Committee byBishop Cleary under cross-examination by Canon Garland and others. Does the Bishop -think that if the League’s scheme were adopted Catholic teachers who did remain in the State service would be placed at a great disadvantage in the matter of appointments? s •> They would be placed at a very obvious disadvantage. I have already referred in my principal evidence to the statement of a number of prominent .League leaders that the teachers who refused to fall in with this scheme of Bible extracts in State schools would be driven out of the Public Service —would be deemed unfit to remain in the Public Service, and so on. Moreover, it is obvious that when a Catholic applied for a position in a school the first question the School Committee would ask would be: Is he willing to teach these lessons ? A Catholic, by the very principles and rules of his faith, cannot in conscience teach those ‘ unsectarian lessons,’ and he would be at once ruled out of Court. I have here in my hands a number of protests by Catholic teachers, and more are forthcoming. These are merely a selection. They all declare that as a matter of conscience they could not teach these lessons. I do not see myself how they could teach those ‘ unsectarian” religious lessons with a safe conscience. You would put the Catholic teacher in the public schools, by the new scheme, in the position already described in my principal .evidence of having either to violate his conscience or go without bread and butter. A number of them have intimated that they will not violate their consciences, that they will sacrifice their positions sooner than adopt this scheme* In the Dominion of July 14, Canon Garland is reported to have said that ‘in 1882 Roman Catholics advocated a referendum in Switzerland, and here denied the right to settle the .questioii of religious instruction in State schools by the method which they advocated elsewhere.’ Will Bishop Cleary say if the facts are as stated by Canon Garland ? Would Canon \ Garland say if he was correctly reported I should like him to do that before I give him my answer. I have the report here. (Report shown to Canon Garland.) . Canon Garland : This is the statement, as reported to have been made by me: ‘Mr. Massey has drawn attention to the fact that the principle of the Referendum as suitable to such a matter had already been recognised by Roman Catholics, who had voted for it in the House on a former occasion. (That refers to the New Zealand House.) Indeed, this has been done elsewhere, as for instance, in Switzerland in 1882, when a referendum' was taken which was regarded as the most notable in.that country, both from the importance of the question voted on and from the large number of electors who went to the poll. It was taken as the result of a request in which Roman Catholics had joined akd upon which they united with orthodox Protestants and with religious people, generally to vote as against the minority composed of German radicals, freethinkers, and socialists. The motto adopted by Roman Catholics and orthodox Protestants throughout the whole of Switzerland was “ God in the schools.”. It was opposed by a bogus cry against Roman Catholicism, and with a denunciation of the danger of clericalism. He asked : if it were right for Roman • Catholics , to demand and take part in a referendum under the cry ‘‘God in the schools” in Switzerland in 1882, how could they find the principle wrong in New Zealand in 1914 He did not mean for a moment/ that hd supposed if the

referendum were provided by Parliament that Roman Catholics would vote “Yes.” He believed the greater majority of them would . vote ‘‘No,” but .that did not affect the principle in question, that in 1882 they advocated a referendum, in Switzerland, and here denied the right to settle the question of religious instruction in schools by the method which they advocated elsewhere.’ That is a fair report of what I said. Professor Hunter : I think I will leave my question as it is. It is perfectly obvious. The Chairman : The question is, are the facts as stated by Canon Garland ? Bishop Cleary : The facts are not as represented by Canon Garland. His statement is absolutely positive that Catholics advocated a referendum in Switzerland and here denied the right to settle the question of religious instruction in schools by the method which they advocated elsewhere! That statement is not in accordance with fact. I have here another and clearer statement on the question by Canon Garland— Canon Garland speaking and being reported by a reporter, but Canon Garland sitting in his chair and writing a document to appear in the Outlook of November 11, 1913 : ‘The case stated for a Referendum on the Bible-in-schools.’ This is his statement: ‘ The suitability of the referendum for settling the question of religious instruction was recognised in the following cases:—Switzerland in 1882 took a referendum upon a proposal to remove religious instruction from the schools : a vast petition was drawn up; within a short time 180,995 signatures were appended (proportionately the signatures already available in New Zealand: are greater) ; the referendum was taken, and since then the question has remained finally settled.’ That is an absolutely clear statement by Canon Garland, and that statement is reproduced in other terms in this , statement of his which appears in the Dominion of 14th July. I have dealt with this matter in the course of a letter to the press which I have here. I am prepared to read that part of it referring to Canon Garland’s statement. There was no such issue in Switzerland as that of religious instruction in the schools. ‘ IJhe terms of the Swiss referendum of 1882 were, briefly. State (Canton) rights against Federal (Central Government) rights in the inspection and organisation of education. (See, for instance, Boyd Winchester’s Swiss Republic, pp. 260-261 ; Ogg, The Governments of Europe, p. 435 Annual Register for 1882, p. 268.).’ Those are only a selection of close on 40 books on the referendum in Switzerland which I have read, and on this one point there is no division of opinion amongst them. Then I go on to say:— Switzerland has the referendum; New Zealand has not. Historically and constitutionally (as I can show) the Swiss referendum is, essentially, a form of substitute for the American veto. It enables electors to reject or approve certain classes of measures after they have been passed by Parliament. It has nothing whatever to do (as the League’s proposed plebiscite has) with promoting future legislation. As stated, the issue of the Swiss referendum of 1882 was Federal against Cantonal (provincial) inspection, etc., of schools. This issue was, in its nature, purely a matter of political policy. There is no Catholic doctrine or principle which forbids a referendum on such an issue, whether in Switzerland or in New Zealand. Many Swiss Catholics and ‘‘orthodox” Protestants feared that the Federal Government’s radical majority, chiefly from the Protestant Cantons, would drive religion out of the schools if they got control of them. But the issue of “religious instruction in schools” was never placed before the electors. The League’s scheme of 1914 is not a referendum. It does not submit to popular veto or approval measures passed by both Houses of Parliament. It is a mere plebiscite, for future ballox-box legislation over the head , of Parliament. It also deals with questions of religion, religious instruction, and religious conscience. The Swiss referendum of 1882 dealt with purely temporal matters of school inspection and school administration.’ Canon Garland’s statement is contrary to fact. The Catholic people did not vote there upon this question of religious instruction in public schools and

there is no difference in the policy or discipline of the Catholic Church in Switzerland and in tnis country, upon that subject.' They would oppose the ’League' plebiscite there as we oppose it here.» Professor Hunter: Then your answer to my statement is'that the statements made by . Canon Garland are not correct?. ; , That is so, they are contrary to fact. <: I should like now to ask: Has the witness seen a League article by the Rev. Mr. Wood, an organiser of the Bible-in-Schools League, in the Dominion of July 30, charging; the -Roman Catholic Bishops with lack of straightforwardness ’ in their campaign, and directing the, attention of this committee to the matter? If so, will the witness state his views on the League article in question ? ' lam glad this question has been brought up. I* had meant to bring it up myself independently. The League article in question by. the Rev. R. Wood. has been published by arrangement by the League with a view of influencing the views and opinions of this committee upon such evidence as I may give here and have already given. It is an attack of the most serious kind, and I will point out one part of it which makes an appeal practically to this committee. It states—‘This championing of secularism on the part of the Roman prelates ought, to be considered very carefully by the Parliamentary Committee at present sitting to hear evidence for and against the Referendum on Bible-in-schools. It is the duty of that committee, and the duty of every member of Parliament to have an intelligent knowledge of what the Roman prelates have said in the past about our secular system of education, and if they do so, they will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there is a lack of straightforwardness in the propaganda of the Roman Bishops.’ Mr. Chairman, I need not point out the importance of a statement of that sort, and the palpable effort that it makes to influence the views of this committee by pointing out certain things; first, that the Roman ,Bishops have: made a number of serious statements'reflecting upon the secular system, second, that we are doing all in our power to destroy this present system, and, third, that we are doing all in our power to maintain the present system. This refers to the evidence which I am giving here today. It covers a great part of the evidence mentioned here to-day ; it tries to traverse it, and show that the evidence is false, that I am acting a part in this matter together with my fellow Bishops, and that we are not straightforward in this matter. If this is not an attempt to influence the views of the committee, then T do not know what such an attempt could be. The Chairman : I think you must ..confine yourself to the attack made here upon your evidence. ■ I will do so. (Mr. Hanan brought up the question of whetherthe publication of the League’s letter was not a breach of privilege in order that the matter may be dealt with afterwards.) Bishop Cleary: May I point out that this letter refers to four points of my evidence, and that’they are seriously misrepresented in- this document with a view to influencing this committee. It is an article in reply to the Roman Catholic Bishops.’ It deals with matters of evidence which have been brought forward by me on behalf of the Catholic Bishops of New Zealand, and it has been published by the League as an advertisement by arrangement in the Dominion. The article is no longer the Rev. Mr. Wood’s publication : it has been taken up officially by the League and published by the League, by arrangement, as an advertisement for the purpose of influencing this committee. In the first place, the statement is made that strong language has been used by Catholic Bishops and by me in particular in regard to the secular system and large quotations are made hereon. In the course of my evL . dence here I .have given strong expressions of opinion . in regard to the secular, system, but I have'also quoted, much sfcrbnger expressions of opinion in regard to the secular system from members of the Bible-in-Schools League, some of whom have called it-a system of ‘white heathenism,’ a system of j ‘ dogmatic secularism,’ ‘ God-

less,' 'the desolating blight of secularism,' a, system that ' degrades 'morals,' a system that is a 'relic of .barbarism,'; and so on. It is made to appear'in this article, as if we Catholics alone had spoken strongly against this system, whereas we have not spoken in language as strong as that used by the League. In the. course of my evidence I have made it clear that we Catholics favor Biblical and religious instruction in the schools, and are willing to meet • the Bible-in-Schools League people in conference in order to arrive at a proper settlement of the matter. This particular publication now before the committee states "that we are not acting straightforwardly in this matter, but standing out to defend this secular system and so on. I need not again refer to the statements made in regard to the conference, but I will go on to another part where it says we are ' root and branch ' opposed to this secular system. We are not 'root and branch' opposed to it. We are opposed to it for our own people, but, as I have said in the course of my evidence, we are prepared at all times to leave the system secular for those desiring it secular, and religious, on fair conditions all round, to those desiring it religious. This is stated in the course of my evidence at page 51, —' We aim at making that system truly national—truly suited to the conscientious as well as-the intellectual requirements, of all the people of the nation ; . secular for those desiring it secular, and .religious) on fair conditions all round, to those desiring it religious.' Canon Garland was here when that was read out and yet a week later this statement is published by him that we are out and out for the maintenance of the present secular system and not acting straightforwardly in this matter. The statement has been made here that we are against the Bible in State, schools. I have already pointed out that we are ; in. favor of it on certain conditions. This was stated in the presence of Canon Garland ; and yet a week afterwards he comes out and publishes this statement in the press which was written by the League organiser in Otago, and which is brought forward here in Wellington for the purpose of influencing the deliberations of the committee. Now, one thing more: in the course of my evidence I made indirect reference to the Nelson system. It comes under the heading ' The Right of Entry.' It reads:—-'A word may, perhaps, be here permitted as regards the Catholic attitude towards the right of entry of the clergy during school hours. Speaking personally, I would not object, provided that the rights of conscience of parents,, teachers, and pupils were properly safeguarded.' . . . I go on to speak of the difficulty of single-roomed schools and so on. Yet here comes this statement published by the League as a League document in order to influence the views of: the committee, and it says : ' The Nelson system as a solution has been held up to scorn by Dr. Cleary.' That is the right of entry of the clergy nominally (and, at best, by a legal fiction) before school hours, really and actually within school hours, for united 'undenominational ' religious instruction of all consenting sects; and then a quotation is made from my pamphlet, Secular versus Religious Education, published in 1909. Now I will point put to the Committee a piece of amazing misquotation. The League article quotes my words in part: ' As regards the implied permission to teach about God and His law outside the hours devoted to the system, that provision serves only to emphasise the exclusion of God from the actual working of the system. Christians might conceivably have been permitted to do as much in Notre Dame, Paris, at the close of the revolutionists' worship of the Goddess of Reason. During school hours our law has put God out of calculation, it has excluded all doctrinal references to Him, or to moral duties towards Him or in Him to the children's neighbors or themselves. It compels the earnest Christian teacher to check his best thoughts and muzzle his tongue and play a part. Bishop Neligan, of Auckland, described God as "an extra" in our secular system. . But "extras" are provided for by the system. God is not. If He is brought into the working of the system, He is brought in surreptitiously and as a stowaway; and all teaching regarding His law

is as contraband as pipe-opium.’ > Now, this- is mad© to appear by 'the League that I am her© holding up -to contempt and scorn the Nelson system. Mr; Chairman, would you be kind enough to see if I made any reference whatever to the Nelson system in the paragraph ? The words ‘ The Nelson System’ have been interpolated there, and if a man interpolated words in a will or a public document he would find himself in the dock. And >’this was published by the League after I "Bad declared myself, in Canon Garland’s'hearing, as having no objection to the right-of entry of clergy, even informal school hours, provided the rights of others were respected. There is no reference to the Nelson system in my statement quoted by the League. I will go further and say that from the beginning to the end {of that pamphlet of mine there is not on© solitary reference<throughout to the Nelson system I will go still further and say that in my long career as a journalist and in the great amount of work done in connection with this movement, I have never published a statement regarding the Nelson system. There is only one mention made to Nelson in the whole of this pamphlet, and that is the reference to the old Nelson denominational system of education which existed in the days of the Provincial Parliaments. Canon' Garland was here and heard my indirect reference to the Nelson system and the right of entry, and yet a week after he had heard it he published that as a League document in order to influence <the-views and deliberations of this Committee. (To be continued.)