Speech of the Hon. Dr. Menzjes, M.L.C., Delivered in the Legislative Council, Wellington, New Zealand.

Sir,—When the Education Act was passed, in 1877, the Council may remember that I ventured to protest against the decision then arrived at to expel all reference to religious subjects from the course of study to be adopted in schools. I at that time proposed, upon more than one occasion during the progress of the Bill through this Council, first of all that the Bible should be part of the curriculum, and subsequently that it should be read at the beginning of the daily work without necessarily being part of the curriculum; but on both of those occasions the Council thought fit to reject the proposal. I then said that I conceived the question had not been settled aright, and that until it was settled aright no question could be considered to be settled finally. The proposal which I make to-day is somewhat different, and falls considerably short of that which I made then. I do not in any way withdraw from the opinion I then expressed that it was right the Bible should be read in schools—that there should be a recognition of Divine authority in training up the children of the colony; but I conceived I would not have been likely to attain the object in which I formerly failed if I were to attempt to renew it. I think the proposal I now make is a reasonable one, and one to which I trust the Council will accede. It proposes, in effect, to allow the Education Boards in each district to have authority to permit the reading of the Bible in any school in their district where the Committee desires that it should be done. It, in fact, gives to the people of the various districts, as represented by the School Committees, the power of deciding whether they shall have the Bible read in the schools or not. If they desire it, the Education Board, in the event of the Act being amended in the direction I propose, will have the power of allowing them to obtain this privilege, and if they do not desire it they will not be obliged to have the Bible read. I know that in many districts the concession now asked for will be hailed as a great boon. In the remarks which I made on the subject on the second reading of the Education Bill, in 1877, I took occasion to point out that many eminent and intelligent persons, who had written largely on the subject, contended that it would be wise for the State, in the interests of peaceful civil government, to make religion not only an essential, but the foundation of education, and a variety of quotations were made from the writings of many of those authors. Many American authors contended for this on the somewhat low ground of expediency, but other writers—such men as Guizot, Lavaleye, Principal Shairp, and others took higher ground, and contented it was the duty of the State to train the rising generation to a full recognition of the Divine authority, and to familiarize them with that book which recorded the Word of God, inspired them with the page 21 love of truth for its own sake, and taught them a sense of responsibility in a future state, without which foundation, or without a foundation so based, they could not be regarded as having a right moral training. I quoted, from an admirable report which was published in Canterbury some years ago, various passages to the same effect. I do not propose now to repeat them, with the exception of a few lines. The Canterbury report, published in 1863, says,—"It would seem that the Government—by which is meant the representative acting-power of the people—being confessedly Christian, is bound in all its legislation, and not least in the matter of education, to recognize Christianity—not on the points on which it is the subject of human imperfections and infirmities, nor in the divisions of the community into rival sects, violating the laws of the creed they profess, but as a general ruling principle in the life of the State." And then, a little further on, Sir, it says,—"The Commission do not think it necessary to enter into a discussion of the opinion held by some, that all but purely secular knowledge should be banished from our schools. Such a course would not satisfy the wants of the people generally; and, further, without entering into the religious question, it would be impossible in any system of teaching which professed to fit men for the social and civil duties of every-day life to ignore the existence of Christianity as prevading the laws, literature, and institutions of the civilized world. In a Christian country no one could be called educated who was ignorant of the Christian Scriptures, to which our civil institutions are so largely indebted." Sir, in the legislation of the Mother-country the Imperial Parliament recognised this necessity quite as fully as it has been recognised in the words I have just read from the Canterbury report, and the Council will see that they made sufficient provision to meet the wishes of all; and the circumstances there are very much the same as here. In the Home-country, as in New Zealand, there are many denominations, differing from each other, some very widely; but, by certain clauses which were introduced called the conscience clauses, it was conceived then that all reasonable objections would be obviated. Under the provisions of the Imperial Act the religious instruction given was Bible-reading and other religious instruction, such as prayer and singing a hymn, and no children were obliged to attend if their parents desired they should not; in other words, if the parents of any children objected to their attendance while these religious exercises were being performed, then they might be withdrawn. It was felt at the time that, in undertaking the duty of education, if the Government undertook to educate the rising generation, it could not stop at mere secular education; and it may be remembered that, during the debate on the subject, Mr. Foster, who moved the Bill, said the Government recognized the necessity : that, if they meddled with education at all, they must also meddle with religion. Now, the Imperial Act not only prescribes that the religious teaching page 22 shall be such as I have described, but also goes considerably further, and authorizes the inspectors to examine the children in these branches—showing that it is part of the curriculum, and a very essential part of it. The question arose in the course of that debate whether the conscience clause would be sufficient to meet the objections which might be taken, and it was found, from the testimony of teachers and managers generally, as stated in the House, that they all concurred in the expression of opinion that very few parents indeed would take objections to the religious teaching and that very few, even in the denominational schools, would seek to withdraw their children. Of this fact Mr. Gladstone made use in the course of the debate; and pointed out that the very fact that few children were withdrawn even from the denominational schools was the strongest argument for the continuance of the system where the teaching was not denominational. Mr. Gladstone made some other remarks, which I find in the Times of the 25th June, 1870. He says,—"Can it be said that the prevalence of denominationalism in these schools at the present moment is generally felt by the people to be a grievance? On the contrary, is it not the case that everybody and every section are telling us continually that the religious difficulty, directly you come to practice, becomes insignificant, and that it is a difficulty made rather for Parliament and for debate, than one that would be raised within the schools?" After this Mr. Gladstone substantially said,—"Do not say that I overstate and say there is no religious difficulty now. There is, about compelling schoolchildren to attend a church—learn school Catechism; but the conscience clause in the Bill, and prohibition of the Catechism, will give ample protection." Now, Sir, the system that has proved successful at Home—and I shall presently show how signally successful it has been—ought to be equally so here. We have different denominations represented here, and these denominations at Home appear to be satisfied, judging from the results, with the provision made for the instruction in religion. I contend that there can be no sound moral training unless it is based upon Scriptural knowledge. We find that in all Christian countries, notwithstanding the exertions of the various Governments, and the active benevolence of numberless philanthropic individuals and societies, yet there are multitudes growing up utterly untaught, having no sense of moral responsibility, and having no knowledge or hope of the future. These classes are dangerous elements in any State. And how are they to be reached? Will secular schools reach them? I apprehend not. If they are to be humanized at all, it must be through the means of the knowledge conveyed to them by ragged schools and Sunday schools—a knowledge of the Christian Scriptures—and without that there is little hope for their restoration to the ranks of society. It may be a grave question for us to consider whether a serious difficulty may not hereafter arise if we debar the rising generation from obtaining page 23 this knowledge at the fountain head; and, looking at the position of the community here, considering that, according to the census returns, about 94 per cent, are professing Christians, that of these about 80 per cent, are nominal Protestants—considering this, one does not see there would be any grear difficulty in effecting an arrangement in this colony similar to that which has been found so successful in the Mother-country. It is true that a certain section of the community objects to religion being taught in the schools unless taught by their own teachers; but a considerable section consisting of something like per cent, of the population, joins these re-claimants and insists, not only that Protestantism shall not be taught in the schools, but that Christianity shall not be taught in them. Sir, a part of these, about 14½ per cent., consisting of Roman Catholics and Jews, might very well agree in accepting the same arrangement here which has been found so successful, in other countries. I have here a copy of the eighth report of the Education Department in Victoria, and it gives some information about the system now in operation in various countries. It says, for instance, that, in Prussia,—"In the elementary schools religion is considered as the basis of instruction in conformity with the religious creed of the pupil, and consequently every school bears a religious character. The religion of the master must be in conformity with that of the majority of the children; where the master is not of the same creed with the child, the parents of the child may decide as to the religious instruction which the child is to receive." And then, further on it says, with reference to Prussia also,—"As a rule, the national schools must be Evangelical or Catholic; but, in the case of a population containing Jews, wherever a sufficient number of Jewish children are found, Jewish elementary schools may be established and considered as national schools. No child is to be refused admittance to the schools on account of difference of religion. Children who may belong to a religion which differs from that of the teacher are not to be forced to attend his religious instruction against the will of the fathers or guardians." Then in Sweden, Mr. West reports on the religious question,—"The instruction given in the schools ought to have for its main object the mental development of the children, who should be made to understand what they read on religious subjects before they take their first communion." In Ireland, this report says—and it is a quotation from the Imperial report,—"In 1867, 59.8 per cent, of the national schools were combined. One thousand and thirty-nine national schools, taught by Protestant teachers, had an average of in Protestant to 28 Roman Catholic children; 132 schools, with both Protestant and Roman Catholic teachers, had an average of 112 Protestants to 100 Roman Catholic children; 2649 schools, taught by Roman Catholic teachers, had 9 Protestant to 126 Roman Catholic children." There seems to be no difficulty there for both denominations to page 24 attend the same schools. In America we find,—" In all the States the schools are maintained chiefly by local rates, and are unsectarian, the Bible only being read, without comment. On this subject the Rev. J. Fraser says,—"There appears no difficulty in assembling children of all denominations in the same schoolroom; but he thinks that the practically entirely secular character of the education given by the public schools causes them to be regarded with growing disfavor by certain sections of the community." I find, from a list contained in this report, that in the New England States—Massachusetts and others, and also in one or two of the Western States—Ohio and California, as well as in New York, the schools are described as "unsectarian," the Bible being read without comment." Now, Sir, I come to the Imperial report. I find it stated,—"It is not invidious to set apart certain hours, but rather to show respect to different religious opinions in a way that forms no departure from the general principle of liberty of conscience. Parents could withdraw their children and appeal to the Board if necessary. Difficulties can be easily overcome by the exercise of common sense and mutual forbearance. The parent, however, must be free to withdraw his child." Then we are told,—"In schools (Scotland) other than parochial, the parent decides what branches his child shall learn. He is a competent judge in the matter, and if he objects to any branch—classical language or religion—that branch is not tought. There is no fixed course of instruction." Then, again, Mr. Dale, I think, says,—"Further, it is important to remark that the principle of respect for liberty of conscience is everywhere fully acknowledged. Either religious instruction in schools is confined to that on which all can agree, or special instruction is given by denominational teachers, or the parents are allowed to withdraw their children from religious instruction altogether. In no case is the school allowed either to endeavor to make proselytes or to refuse to admit scholars whose parents object to the religious teaching that may be given." We know that a keen controversy occurred at the time when the Imperial legislation was passed through, and that all these points were then freely discussed. I shall show presently what the result has been; but I should first like to point out that a discussion of the same character has been going on lately in one of the States of America—Connecticut. About a year ago the School Board of New Haven decided upon prohibiting the religious instruction which had been allowed before, and at the following election a considerable amount of excitement arose, the result being that the former members of the Board were rejected, and men in favor of Bible instruction elected in their places. I need not detain the Council by referring to any of the manifestoes issued during the election, but I may say they are very much of the same character as those we have seen issued in this colony, and I might point out that the result of the contest is suggestive as showing what public opinion may page 25 be here as there. The Board thought they represented popular feeling in prohibition religious instruction, but when the people had an opportunity of showing what they thought, they rejected the members of the Board who had carried the prohibition. I have said the result of the Imperial Act was signally successful, and I think the authority from whence I draw that information will be accepted. From an article in the Contemporary Review I read :—"The question of religious instruction was very hotly contested at the formation of most of the Boards, being, unfortunately, in many cases made a battle-field for political parties. A large number of nonconformists looked upon the introduction of religious teaching into the schools as a violation of those principles on which they were grounding their opposition to the Established Church. But, notwithstanding the efforts of this party, there was so strong a national feeling that it would be a fatal mistake to exclude the Bible from the schools—that, having at great expense and trouble gathered the children of the irreligious and profligate into the schools, it would be utterly unjustifiable to send them forth ignorant of the principles of religion and morality. In London the issue of the contest was very striking—through systematic Biblical education as one of the essential subjects being carried by a majority of five to one in a Board consisting almost equally of Churchmen and Nonconformists. So well has the system worked during the whole term of the Board's existence that no single complaint has been made of the teaching that has been given, and not more than one in four thousand children attending the schools has been withdrawn by its parents, although by the rules of the London School Board any person who objects to his child receiving Biblical instruction may require that during the time set apart for this purpose the teacher shall give it secular lessons. In the schools provided by the Board the Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanations, and such instruction therefrom in the principles of morality and religion, as are suited to the capacities of the children." Then the article concludes by saying :—"And, lastly, the almost universal adoption of some amount of religious teaching proves a general concurrence in the opinion that the spiritual—that is, the highest—part of human nature, is one that must not be neglected." Sir, we find that many petitions have been presented to the Legislature upon this subject, and the expressions which they contain show that over a very large extent of country in many districts the most cherished feelings of the community have been outraged by the banishment from the schools of that Book which, in the words of the petitioners, they regard as the Word of God and the supreme rule of conduct. Under the present arrangement, because a small minority of the community will not tolerate a plan which would satisfy the majority, a system which is working well elsewhere, and which would work well here if honestly administered, is not allowed a trial. The action of the minority in pressing this forward shows that they endeavour to page 26 guard the rights of their consciences so vigilantly that they appear to be ready to trample upon those of the majority. The minority say that the Church and the parents should undertake the duty of giving religious instruction. I am afraid that the parents, in too many instances, are careless and neglectful, sometimes unable; but, independently of all this, I contend that the State has a paramount right to see that the rising generation are educated in such a way and grounded in such principles that they shall grow up to be good citizens; and I say that the State cannot find any more effective mode of doing that than grounding them in a knowledge of the Scriptures. The State has no interest in any particular denomination; but it desires, for the sake of peaceful government, that the rising generation shall have a knowledge of religion, and thereby gain a sense of moral responsibility. The State consists of individuals, and to individuals religion is one of two things : it is either everything or nothing. There is no middle term. Which it is to us will be shown if we continue to refuse to recognise Divine authority in the teaching at our schools; while, as a community, if we believe the Bible, let it be read in the schools. It is true that there are disbelievers, but the fact of their denying the authority of the Bible does not disprove its authority; nor is it any reason against reading a book that may enlighten doubters, the right tendency of which no one can dispute, and therefore their objection raised to the reading of the Bible is entitled to no weight. What has been said by one of the gentlemen who reported to the Imperial Parliament with reference to the Bible simply as a school book? Mr. Aldis says :—"Good reading-books are sadly wanted, written by great and good people; those who make children's books are of very average goodness. When the Bible was the only book read, children got good English, good sense, good history, and good poetry. The present reading-books are a sad come-down." But let us take a higher authority, that of Professor Duncan, who is known to have been one of the most profound theologians in the United Kingdom. He said :—"The Bible is the best school-book, not only for teaching things belonging to the inner and the future, but also to the outer and present life. There is no school-book in the world containing so many roots of things in so short a compass." I and those who think with me do not dispute for a moment that, so far as regards the Roman Catholics, their objections are offered in good faith and in earnest; but there is another class, very influential though not very numerous, which, under the mask of sympathy for these, of liberality, of liberty, seeks to drive out of the schools not Protestanism only, but also Christianity. I think I have said enough to show the Council why it should affirm that such amendments should be made in the Education Act as will authorise Education Boards to give permission to the various School Committees where they desire to introduce Bible-reading into the schools. If the Council does agree to it, I believe, speaking from personal ex- page 27 perience, and from the various petitions which have been laid upon the table, that the concession will be regarded as a great privilege. I trust the Council will give no uncertain voice upon this question. I have been told of an intention to evade the question, but I must express a hope that that will not be so, and that we shall also hear an expression of opinion from the Government upon the subject. Sir, I have shown my colors, let other members of the Council show theirs.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That in the opinion of this Council, the Education Act should be so amended as to provide for permissive power deing granted to Education Boards to introduce the reading of the Bible in schools, subject to a timetable and conscience clause."—(Hon. Dr. Menzies.)

After discussion the previous question was put and carried. Dr. Menzies' motion was therefore lost.