BISHOP MOORHOUSE ON PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3769, 14 August 1883, Page 4

BISHOP MOORHOUSE ON PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Subjoined is the principal portion of the evidence on primary instruction given by the Right Rev. Dr. Moorbouse, Bishop _of Melbourne, before the education commission of Victoria last Aveek, as reported in the Argus:— The Right Rev. Dr. Moorhouse, Bishop of Melbourne, examined, said: I arrived in tho colony in January, 1876. AVhen in England I observed the working of the school board system. On tho Avhole, I approved heartily of the system; but in one respect it was defective. The schoolmasters were not permitted to give elementary undenominational religious instruction. When the state school system has been in operation for some time the pupil teachers get into a way of teaching Avhich they retain as long as they retain the position, and for this reason their methods are not likely to be so effective during the time thoy continue to be schoolmasters as they Avill be afterwards. Ido not, therefore, expect to find very striking differences between the time beforo and the time after the passing of the Education Act. Of course I cannot speak of the former time. From my OAvn observation of our children in Sunday-schools I find that there are tAvo striking defects, Avhich are not noticeable to the same extent at home. One is a defect of religious knoAvledge. The children speak of religion AA'ith startling irreverence sometimes. I may here give the testimony of a clergyman in my own diocese. He at present superintends a Sunday-school in the city. He asked the children to read the account of our Lord's ascension, and then spoke to them reverently about it. In reply to one of his questions a child said, "If Jesus Avent into Heaven ho must haA'c had a lot of gas inside him." I do not think the child meant to be irreverent. Even if he did not belieA-e _ it, ho Avould not speak in terms of such terrible irreverence of itin the presence of those Avhom hekneAv to believe it. Ibelicvehe kneAV nothingAvbatever about it, and tho expression Avas caused, not by want of heart, but by Avant of thought, and by Avant of knowledge of the estimation in Avhich the fact treated of was held by the clergyman who Avas questioning him. I myself have seen less startling manifestations of irreverence on the part of children, Avho committed them quite unconsciously. Another observation I have made is that there is far less -vholesome discipline amongst the children of the Sunday-schools here than that Avhich I have observed at home. I lm/vc catechised schools in both countries, and I find in the colony far more disorder and far less attention to the commands of the teachers than in England. One of the most esteemed and respected clergymen in my diocese—probably the most eminent iioav taking duty in tho church—went to one of the principal schools in the city to give religious instruction. Ho called upon the class to read a passage of Scripture. They read it. Ho then asked them to close their books, and they closed thorn Avith a vengeance! They shut the books aud then shied them at his head. Not all the children, but a very considerable proportion of them. No book hit him, but he said they rained about him on every side and strewed the floor all round him. Noav, I say Avithout the least hesitation that such an act as that Avould have been impossible in any part of England with which lam acquainted. If a man went down to teach a set of streets arabs in a loav quarter of London whero such instruction had never been given, tho children might be capable of such a thing; but that a highly-respectable and well-known clergyman should, Avhen teaching a number of children constantly habituated to the discipline of a school, have the books shied at him would bo absolutely impossible. The event of which I speak occurred just after tho state school had closed, and the clergyman felt himself perfectly poAverless to restore order. It reflects upon the order and discipline of the children Avhen they are brought under religious instruction, and their want of reverence for the subject.

Mr Keogh : It Avas OAving in a great measure to the separation of the religious instruction from the ordinary instruction of the school 't

The Bishop ; Yes. I cannot conceive that if religious instruction was given in the school, or if the children had realised the importance of the subject, they could have behaved as they did.

The Chairman: Have you formed any conclusion as to what will be the probable result in tho future ?

Tho Bishop: It think it will probably result in the demoralisation of the children, and a \evy serious interference Avith the moral tone and dignity of the teachers. It will lead to the former, because it will be impossible, if the word '' secular '' is interrupted, as it is now, to mean "nonreligious," for the teacher honestly to introduce religious motives as tho basis of moral obligation ; and if there is a doubt as to tho interpretation of the Avord he Avon't do it. No man Avill run the risk of affecting his own position before the state by teaching what many persons think he ought not to teach. So that I think doubt is as bad as absolute prohibition. If the teacher is not to introduce the religious authority of moral precepts as that which is to commend them to children, he cannot in the long run enforce upon their conscience the sense of moral obligation. On what is moral teaching to rest if you cannot say, "There is a God, and you must love Him: He made all of us, and because we aro all His children we are bound to love one another ?" I take it for granted that it is absurd to think of teaching morals to children except on the basis of authority. You surely do not suppose that a class of children could bo brought to consider such questions as those started by the large Socialist organisations of Europe—whether property is robbery F Avhether the family is an interference Avith the prerogatives of the state? You could not ask the child to consider Avhether it is better for the happiness of the community that property should be in common and Avives in common, and yet these are burning questions of the day. Where is your authority for your moral teaching ? You cannot suppose that the child will accept the authority of the schoolbook. A teacher of sundry pupils in this city told mo that he tried to enforce the sin of lying by an appeal to the lessonbook, and finding that of no avail ho tried to slioav the child that lying Avould produce distrust, aud distrust would interfere with his oavii interest. The answer he got Avas—"Yes; if they find me out.". He said the child had beaten him, because he could not say— " You Avill offend God if you tell a lie," because he kncAV that the child's father Avas a secularist, and would havo probably objected to tho Minister of Education that tho teacher had been interfering with the secular system. If you take away authority as the basis of moral teaching, I believe tho teaching will be utterly ineffective, and that the system Avill end in the demoralisation of the children.