BISHOP MORAN AND THE HIGH SCHOOL.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2603, 21 June 1871, Page 2

BISHOP MORAN AND THE HIGH SCHOOL.

To the Editor. Sir —Will you be so good as to allow me space for a few words in reference to Mr Hawthorne’s last letter. Notwithstanding my statements as to my own meaning, and the words I used when delivering my last discourse on Our Educational System, notwithstanding my assurance that there was confusion in your report of that discourse, Mr Hawthorne wishes to make his readers believe that I have deliberately made a false statement, and that I have shifted my position. His words are these : ‘ ‘ Driven from one position after another, with the fallacy of bis arguments thoroughly exposed, he,” meming me, “takes up fresh ground, and, nothing daunted, proceeds to entrench himself behind defences exactly similar to those which have been already demolished.” This is a pretty sentence, and would be comment able writing, if it had some truth in it. I have not shifted my position : arid I am so dull as to be unable to perceive how Mr Hawthorne has demolished my. arguments. Ho has not even succeeded in demolishing the phantom he has himself conjured up. I shall here state my position m my own words, as reported in your issue of the Bth inst. •—“ I have been informed that the expense this year will be L 30,0000, which is at the rats of L 5 per hea I (not L 6, as has been erroneously stated), for teaching little children a little reading, writing and arithmetic; for little else is taught, as you will see.” “ I do not think it a commendable or desirable thing that the public at large should pay as much as they do ; because they pay more than half the total expense.” These are my words; but Mr Hawthorne quotes another part of the report, where I am made to say : “The sum of L3o.ooo—the cost of last year’s education—has been .borne entirely by the public.” These two extracts are in direct conflict with each other. It is clear I could not have given expression to both in the same discourse, unless it be supposed, as it would by any fair reasonable man, that the last words, “ entirely by the public,” fell from me by a lapsus linguae—a slip of the tongue ; but the fact is I did not Utter these words at all.- And if any ore seriously entertained a doubt on this point, such doubt ought to have been removed by my affirming that the report in which that contradiction appeared was a confused report, and that I did not mean to use these words. Indeed this was sufficiently evident from the tenor of the discourse itself. My intention was to give expression to the fact that the Government paid the great 3r part, and not the entire of the amount ; and this, as the report shows, I stated clearly and distinctly. Again, Mr Hawthorne quotes from the report the following : “What do you think, the public has to provide the necessary school buildings and grounds, and having done this, has to contribute out of the general revenue, L 36 10s per head to educate these boys.” . I beg to say I made no such statement, my words are here incorrectly reported. I stated this was the cost of educating each boy, but not the cost to the Government; and that this. is truth is evident from another extract from the same report—“ Of course L 712 has to be. substracted from L 2712, so that out of the general revenue something overL3o per head is con-tributed-by the people.” And yet Mr Hawthorne, in order to make what he no doubt considers a strong point against me, ignores tin's extract, and endeavors to fasten on me the other extract which serves his purpose, but which I do not acknowledge as truly reprcscuting what I really said. This is my explanation, which I feel certain every reasonable man will consider satisfactory, and the true explanation. In the hands of such men I leave this matter; and I shall also leave it to such t,a judge whether Mr Hawthorne’s mode of treating this subject is creditable to the intellectual powers and moral sense of the Rector of the High School.

But Mr Hawthorne is not yet done, he says Although he debited the High School with the music master’s salary L4OO when the music master had not given the High School boys a single lesson, Bishop Moran has not had the candour to acknowledge his mistake. Not being able to explain this away, he observes a judicious silence.” Well, I now desire to acknowledge my mistake, and make all reparation in my power : I think, however, under the circumstances, the mistake was not altogether unnatural. I saw in the report book, Departmental Beport, p. 7, this item:—No. 4, Singing master and sub-iuspeetor, L4OO, immediately after the sum total, L 2,233 2s lOd for the High School— and I not unnaturally concluded that his services were principally devoted to this extravagantly favoured institution. I now acknowledge [ felt into an error. It was only in the following year, it appears, that his services came into requisition iu the High School; and I hereby make every necessary amende. The matter, however, is not of very much itU* portanee on the linal result, as we shall see, 1 cannot now remember why I did not allude to this point in my last letter, probably I had not time to look up the matter, and as itwas not of absolute necessity, I passed it over sub silenilo; not however, I assure you with the object of eluding my responsibilities iu reference to it. Mr Hawthorne says again : —“ The third item L 712 is rcckoned.as L 1424 ’’—this may be; if so, there is here a mistake, but I can say I dul not intend it—“while L2OOO, the interest on the cost of buildings ought not to have been charged at not? Mr Hawthorne seems very much afraid of the building question, and'it certainly is inconvenient to remind the public, by raising this question, that Government has provided, out of the public revenue, a residence fot the Rector, and a boarding establishment , lor pupils of the High School, at an expense of L 3,000, the interest of which sum, together with the rent of the ground, must be henceforward added to the annual ordinary expenditure for education. I freelyaoknowledga the mistake in my figures pointed out by M» Hawthorn© as . to ,tjie. sum tptal frqija vincial'Revenue, Fees, andlntereat. , AH X:

can say is, 1 look a, great deal of pains to avoid mistakes us to these sums. £ut whilst 1 freely acknowledge tins mistake, I cannot agree witli Air uuwthorn when he says the uuerest of school buildings ought not to be charged at ail. .Again 1 ask—Why not ? Has not the Oovermuent spent the money, and do not the chi.dren in attendance derive advantages worth money from the expenditure ? v< hy, this is as legitimate and necessary a charge as the annual rent pud for some school piemi es. If the one should not be charged, neither should the other. Air Hawtnorne further says—“ The Bishop may wish to shift his position when it is no longer tenable; but i will not shift mine, nor will 1 aiiow him to shift hs. He must stick to his lext.” Very well. I have not the least inclination to . shi:t my position, and 1 am most willing to stick to my text. Aly position and my text are : lhat om system of education is very expensive, costing the public 1.5 per head for the average attendance in all (government Schools, and L3O per head for the average attendance in the High School in particular, and that the results are not commensurate with the expenditure. In my discourse there is nothing to be found contradictory of anything in my letter. 1 did nob pretend to give all my reasons for my judgment in either ; and as nothing ready stated in one is contradictory of anything stated in the other, it 19 unjustifiable in Air Hawthorne to say i have shifted my position. [The remainder of Dr Moran’s letter will appear to-morrow.]