LECTURE ON EDUCATION.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2742, 30 November 1871, Page 2

LECTURE ON EDUCATION.

The Rev. R. L. Stanford, M.A., of Tokomaigjrjj, delivered a lecture in the lower room of tile Atheineum, last evening. The at’endanco was very United ; and Mr E. B, Cargill, M. C.. presided. The rev. lecturer premised his remarks by referring to .the distinction between instruc tion and education, and after expressing an opinion that the first eighteen or twenty yers of a man’s life should be devoted to the development and enrichment of his nature in its broadest range, observed that many of the difficulties which surround the question were caused by the matters of education and instruction not beiug kept riis tinct. But the graver question was—Whose duty was it to teach ? In England, where education had been allowed to go backwa ds, there had arisen a panic stricken cry that it was the duty of the State to educate, and through the press, and by agitators, the cry bad been reiterated that the machinery of the State must be made use of to educate the masses. The arguments that were advanced that education was necessary for the well-being of the country, that it reduced crime, aud made people happy, were excellent reasons for educating the people, but were no reasons in favor of making the Srate do it. He contended that the pure and simple duty of the State was to see that the children were taught—and, if necessary, to- punish those who did not teach them. Such an opinion might be thought heterodoxical, but it was supported by that great political economist, Mill, and by Macaulay. In England, as be had already said, education had been neglected, and now the people were g iog too far in the other direction ; bgt for the people of this • olony there was less excuse. No man could go further than he did in extolling the advantages of education. He believed that it should be widespread that it tended to make a nation happy aud prosperous ; but he totally repudiated the idea that it was the duty of the State to become educator. Now one of the arguments used was that since education was so well known to be for the good of all, every person should pay for it; but such an argument was absurd. Was it to be said th ar. the State should pay directly for every thing that came wi hj the same definition ? Was itto support aState church for instance? Again many men urged that the machinery of the State was best adapted towards ■ecuri g the object in view. Vet these men with strange inconsistency, were ever grumbling about red-tapeiwa and the

inefficiency of government. \s he contended from the firs! the simp'e duty of the State w.i« to net: that every child was taught something and having proved, as he thought he bad ilone. that el. mentary education and "'tat interference wer-- best kept apart, he did not requite to argue the point with regard to higher instruction. lleverting to the qu stion of religions instruction, he contended it was not the duty of the State to teach religion. Religion was a most essential part of education, and to teach and at the same time ignore religion was to leave out the m >st essential part of one’s education, and to teach purely secular subjects to the exclusion of religious ones in schools was unfair. The views of the secularists landed them with quick steps in infidelity. Of course, there were men in the ranks of secularists who abhorred anything approaching infidelity, but they were unconsciously treading that way. Professor Huxley, who said that if the Bible had not existed he would not have reco amended its use as a means of imparting religious instruction, was an infill'd to the Bible Now the secularists said they were of no sect, and arrogated to themselves the position of a national body. They said there should be no religious teaching in school; but the denominatioualists, on the other hand, say there should be. Whichever was right, the action of the State was perfectly plain—if it helped either one to the exclusion of the other, it would be guilty of an act of tyranny and injustice. If the State was to help, it should help each and all; it should not assume that one side was right and the ether wrong. It this cry that had been the cause of all the persecutions there had been since the world began. The alternative submitted by secularists was perfectly fallacious ; and if the State were to adopt a purely secular system tomorrow, the i.'oniau Catholics would no more use it than they do at the presen' time, while it wa< sure to disgust a larger uum er of Episcopa iaus and Wesleyans. Such a system would satisfy no more than the present one did; and at the same time it would drive away a great number who at present were contented. It was an act of tyranny and injustice to say that they we e to give up religious teaching in their schools. The Koman Catholics did not complain that no religion was taught, but that their religion was not allowed to be taught, while they were compelled to pay for what in their opinion was of no use to them. Two questions were dragged in k o ibis matter, which were altogether outside of it, viz,, comparative numbers of sects, and the truth or falsehood of the religion taught by each. If the people regarded the Government as they should, as a joint stock company, they would at once admit that it had no right to interfere with education or other domestic subjects, except in its sole capacity of magistrate, concerned only with the effects and not with the processes which produced them. So too, not much importance had been given to the question, whether the minority was to be allowed to tyrannise over the majority. It would appear that education was to be taken out of the free and placed in the monopolist list. Secularists practically said “ You shall not get religion in your shop ; you must employ us.” He heard it said “ You can get religion at home.” Was it to rest solely with the parent to give religious instruction to their children; were they to be compelled to snatch a few sleepy hours from the night to give that, because we were ashamed of our Christianity, as we refused to allow it to bp taught in our schools. It’ was true a mother’s teaching was often better than all that could be taught in school. Then it was agreed that the ordinary teacher should be supplemented by teaching. I}} country districts a man could do both, and perhaps make religious teaching of more importance jo school management than would be generally approved of. In large towns the minister could not find sufficient time. To teach religion after school hours was impracticable, and to confine religious instruction to the sabbath schools was absurd. Was it of so little importance that there should be 25 hours a week of secular instruction and only one or two hours at the most of religious instruction, lleverting to the Otago system of education, lie said it appeared to him that it was neither very good nor very bad—certainly it did not deserve the high praise which had been showed upon it from almost every quarter, nor was it deserving of the admiration of all other Provinces. As with everything human it had many faults ; still, at the same time it possessed some remarkable virtues of its own—practically it was most successful for those for whom it was intended. The faults were in the working and carrying out of the system—its virtue was its original constitution, Notwithstanding what had been said about a political Board of Education, there was no reason for supposing that favor had been shown any sect. The present mode of election of school committees worked admirably ; but the radical fault of the system, and the one which almost destroyed its value, was the want of sufficient inspection; secondly, there was not sufficient provision for securing good masters ; and thirdly, the masters were in no way dependent upon the results which they produced. To be a good system it required good inspection, which was now merely’’ regarded as a branch instead of an essential part. After characterising the present system of inspection as an entire farce, and denouncing the public examinations as ridiculous, and only tending to foster the vices of self-conceit in the pupils, the lecturer went on to say that he thought teachers should be required to have a certificate of some training college or University degree, and that the power of appointment should be removed from local committees, who were not in a position to judge of a candidate’s qualifications. In. conclusion, he said if it were determined to invoke State interference, the best thing that could be done would be for the Government to give aid to the Koman Catholic and all other denominations requiring it, where the average attendance at any’ one school in any one pla- e was more than 35 scholars. This was modified donomiuationalism, which could do much good and little harm. The secular system would divide the community as it had uevev in-fore been divided. Many held, and he, for one, held roost strongly, that it were far better that the rising generation should grow up in perfect ignorance, and revert to the type of the ancestral ape, rather than that they should go out into the world calculating like Babbage and ignorant of God.

The Eev. Mr. Stuart, in moving a vote of thanks, expressed the pleasure ho had experienced in listening to so able a lecture, but ho did not agree with the hundredth part of what the lepturer had said, He considered his criticism on the Otago schools very rash and ill advised The rev. gentleman went into a long defence of our school system, and said that a fifteen year’s oxper*

ienoe of lie school* of England and Scotland ea Died him to say that the Otago schools compared very favourably with them In the c lUfse of the lectio e the thought struck him that it was strange the. lecturer, who denounced secular education, was a in in her of the Council of the Otago University, which gave a strictly secular instruction. He hoped the lecture would be published. Mr Stout, in seconding the motion, commented on some of the lecturer’s statements and the chairman also defended the Otago schools. The vote being put was carried by acclamation.