BISHOP MORAN AND THE HIGH SCHOOL.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2601, 19 June 1871, Page 2

BISHOP MORAN AND THE HIGH SCHOOL.

To the Editor. Sir, —To intelligent readers Bishop Moran’s own letter in Thursday’s issue is a sufficient refutation of his previous statemental without any further remarks from

hie. There are always some, however, in fcVery community who think that so long as a man is not silenced, his arguments nave not been disproved. Judging from Bishop Moran’s answer, I fear it is a hopeless thing to expect him to acknowledge an error. Driven from one position after another, with the fallacy of his arguments and assertions thoroughly exposed, he tahes up fresh ground, and, nothing daunted, proceeds to entrench himself behind defences exactly similar to those which have been already demolished. It is the old story of a man convinced against his will. Although he debited the High School with the music master’s sa'ary (L 400), when the music master had not Given the High School boys a single lesson, Bishop Moran has not had the candor to acknowledge his mistake. Hot being able to explain this away, he observes a judicious silence. Some people are wise in their generation. As this L4OU, however, made a considerable difference in the average cost of High School pupils, the deficiency must be made up in come way. What statistics, with 'their inexorable logic, refused to do, originality, combined with a warm imagination, resolved to effect. Under the head of annual cost of High School, was set down LSOO, interest on cost of building at 10 per cent.! This item unfortunately •proves too much. Bishop Moran states distinctly in the third paragraph of bis letter that the same reasons which guided him in making his statements originally guided h;ro in repeating them. I would ask his lordship, and I should like to get a categorical answer, how he reconciles this statement with the fact that the item of interest did not enter into his calculations in the first instance at all ? To prove that the Bishop—apparently from the fear that if he is discovered to be fallible in one point, he may be considered equally so in others— is determined to abide by his original statements with regard to the costliness of our system of education, it is only necessary to refer to the third paragraph of his letter, beginning “With your permission.” In this portion of his letter he endeavors to prove that he was tight in stating that each boy’s education at the Common Schools costs L 5 a year at least. And how does he prove it ? Thus From the Provincial revenue, ... ... ••• £13,602 13 6 Fees of Common Schools ... 6,634 8 3 High School fees ... ... 712 0 Q Interest on £20,000 (value of buildings)* at 10 per cent. 2,000 0 0 Total £23,(561 1 0 Such, according to the Bishop, is the sum total of those items. Bat, sir, if you add them up yourself—or, still better, if yon get one of the ‘ ‘ little boys, who learn only a little arithmetic, &c., at the Common Schools,” to add them up—you will find that the sum total is L 22.949 Is 9d, or just L 712 less than the Bishop makes them. This L 712 is the High School fees added in twice! That is to say. each High School boy is made to pay L2O a year school fees instead of HO ! But this is nothing. How are these items made up ? Understand distinctly that the question is, not the cost of “education generally,” as the Bishop would now try to make it, but,.the cost of the common school*. The Bishop may wish to shift his position when it is no longer tenable; but I will not shift mine, nor will I allow him, to shift his. He must stick to his text. Well, the first item contains L 3,146 10s, which has nothing whatever to do with the the cost of elementary education, but is made up as follows High School ... ...£2,233 210 'Public Libraries ... 658 10 6 Purchase of Sites ... 127 0 2. Provincial Scholarships.,, 12? 10 0 £3.146 10 0 The second item, fees from common schools, must also be deducted, because it has nothing to do with what each pupil costs the public revenue. But, as if a fatality attended the Bishop whenever he attempted to meddle with ficures, even hero he falls into a mistake. T c school fees were only L 5310 Cs Bd, instead of L 6.634 : the difference, L,1324 Is 7d, being derived from “ contributions and other sources. ” (See page 14, Educational Report). The third item, L 712, is reckoned as L 1,424 ; while the last item, L 2,000, tpe interest on the cost of buildings, ought not to have been charged at all. Dividing the so-called total expenditure, which is made up in this extraordinary manner, by the number of High School and District School boys added together, Bishop Moran asserts that he. has proved the truth of hia original statement —that the pfls.t of elementary e(]{]cqtii'P ftuvsLG a, head! The Bishop informs you, however, after finding his errors exposed, that ho “did. not say this as the cost to the Government.” Taking your report of his address, which he acknowledges to he substantially correct, I affirm that he did state that this was the “ cost to the Government." Unless, as some think, that language is intended to conceal one’s thoughts, what else can the following sentence mean;—“ The sura of L 30,000, the cost of last year’s education, has been borne entirely by the public ” ? And again, in ye, ference to the High School, ]\e say a \ •' What do you think ? the pqbljc has to provide the nectary school buildings and grounds ; and having done thi-, has to contribute out out of the general revenue the sum of L 36 10s per head to educate these hoys. ” Both statements cannot be true, as they contradict each other. I should like to know which the Bishop intends to hold by. [The remainder of Mr. Hawthorne’s letter will appear te-morrow.]