The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1872.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2794, 31 January 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1872.

A correspondent has kindly favored us with the following article, which appeared in the Scotsman of November 11th, It is so admiiably suited to the educational situation of the Colony, and so fully illustrates and advocates the necessity of a purely secular system, that many, who do not honor a prophet in his own country, may perhaps accept a Home authority’s opinion, though identical with our own, in preference. "We commend it to the careful study of our I'eaders. The position of affairs that has led to this article needs no explanation. THE DENOMINATIONAL DIFFICULTY. “ Whole hecatontomes of controversy,” and not a single schoul built—that is the history of the first year of the London School Board; and, looking at the indecisive decision arrived at lately, the history of the second year promises to be like unto that of the first. What the London Board does, or finds itself unable to do, and even- what it says, is of national importance, both t.hp_Rnard .has chaM^of all ScVfd, first-rate ability anfMnKdoubted earnestness in the cause of education. It is not a “ small working model,” though even if it were only that, its operations would be of much interest ; it is a vast piece of machinery, worked by skilful and honest hands —and'if it fails, as failed it hitherto has, in accomplishing the work set it to do, a despairing question will arise, Where and from whom is success to be looked for ? Fortunately, however, the failure of such a body will lead inevitably to the conclusion that the cause is not in the men, but in the system—not in men, nor even women, so able, earnest, and forbearing, but in a system so clumsy as to machinery and so incongruous or so destitute as to principle. It is almost needless to say that the cause of so much being said and of nothing being done is in that “ religious difficulty ” which Mr Forster, the author of the unworkable, or at least unworking Act, began by declaring to have no existence. The Loudon Board tried to evade the difficulty as long as they could, but finding it in their way at every turn, they faced it at last, and after speaking to it and about it for five days, have again run away from it. Hie immediate cause of their having to attempt facing the difficulty, was their adoption last week of a resolution that compiilsion should be employed to ensure the attendance at some efficient school of all children in London between the ages of live and thirteen. That at once raised the question whether children could be compelled to attend schools where the management or teaching is in the hands of some Church to which their parents are opposed ; and, supplementarily to that, though, from local circumstances, first in order of discussion, arose the question whether the Board should take the ratepayers’ money to pay the fees at denominational schools of children whose parents profess conscientious objections to any other school, and are unable to pay the fees themselves. There have been five days’ debate upon this point, comprising, of course, the general question as to giving public money to sectarian schools, and the result has been to leave the matter, if not where it was, then in a worse position. One proposition which seems to have come pretty near to be adopted, was that the Board should go back to Mr Forster, or rather to Parliament, and ask what was meant and what they were to do. This would only have been a righteous and appropriate retribution. The Act of Parliament threw the settlement or rather the handling of the difficulty upon each locality, to legislate upon for itself; and it would been fitting enough that the largest of all the localities should refer the matter hack to those by whom it had been referred. But the procedure was not practicable, excepting indeed at the cost of leaving everything undone for some months further, aud of having then to begin waiting for an answer which might never come, and which, when it did come, would likely enough prove unintelligible. The decision arrived at in preference, by a majority of the Board, really means nothing at all beyond postponement, evasion, and increased opportunities or necessities for controversy. It is, that no decision shall be pronounced on the general principle or system, but that each case shall be dealt with ‘ ‘ exceptionally” as it arises, “without prejudice to the principles involved on either side,” But as each such case, every one as much as the others, raises the general principle, this simply moans in practice that the principle which the Board decline to decide 6ucc for all shall be disB without ever being deher with the result of arious and conflicting gh been obscured nngSnett a questionof “conscience,” is very clear to all who take time to look. It is merely a question whether people shall be compelled to contribute towards the teaching of religious doctrines which they abhor, not only through national grants, which at present cannot well be helped, but through local rates in addition. That is the only point involving any matter of “conscience” whether, for instance, ultra-Protestant ratepayers shall be compelled to pay for the teaching of Ultramontane fdoctrines, such as the “Infallibility,” or vice, versa. But, oddly enough, the plea of conscience was first raised by those who support that compulsion. It is said that the violation of conscience consists in refusing to teach any man’s child the dogmas which the man believes, at the expense of those who do not believe. Some people feel that their consciences are violated if they are not allowed to violate other people's consciences—that is the whole matter. Nobody proposes to teach any child anything to which its parents object; but some parents insist that their children shall be taught, at the expense of their neighbours, something to which their neighbours object. The Times is among those who cannot see the difference. It says : “If Dissenters are to make it a point of conscience not to contribute towards Denominational schools, what is to prevent Homan Catholics and other strict Denominationalists makffig it a point of conscience not to contribute to Upseotarian Schools. The one grievance is at least as good as the other. ” There is no resemblance, byt coptryst. The

supporters of the Denominational system do, and the supporters of the Unsectarian system do not, ask the public to pay for the teaching of anything about which the public differ. The Denominationalists insist that other people shall pay for what certain Denominationalists believe and other people do not; the Unsecbarians ask only that all shall pay for what all believe, and for nothing mure. There are not “ two grie-ances, one as good as the other,” but one grievance and one aggression. The Unsecbarians are aggrieved, and the Denominationalists aggress, ° The whole evil and impediment is one—and so is the remedy. .Religion or theology, a thing about which people differ endlessly and irreconcilably, under the Act is or may be taught in some shape and quantity by the same means as the many things about which people do not differ at all. That is the evil. Let the teaching of the one thing be separated as to means and machinery from the teaching of the other things. That is the remedy—and there is no other. It is in vain to talk of “compromise,” because separation is compromise, and the only true and practiable compromice. Compromise, in the shape of restriction as to kind, quantity, and times, has already been found, under this Act, only to add fuel to the flam s. Professor • i uxley, who gave in at fi*’st to the idea of arranging the difficulty by clipping and paring religious teaching, declared at one of the late meetings of the London Board that he would not consent to give aid to schools teaching such doctrines as Papal Infallibility. But, if he or any one else once accedes to the system of giving aid to the teaching of any and of various theological doctrines, he has no right to draw the line at some point where the doctrine happens to be particularly repugnant to himself. Tuose who wish this doctrine of Papal Infallibility taught at the ratepayers’ expense have just as strong a repugnance to some of the doctrines to the teaching of which Professor Huxley does not object. There is no possibility of compromise but in entire omission or separation. And every day shows more clearly with what safety that separation could be made. All this extreme zeal and heat about the teaching of religion demonstrates how utterly unnecessary it is tliai; the State should make any such provision that will be either acceptable or effectual. A thing which everybody is so eager about is a thing sure to be provided without the intervention of the State ; and the only effect of the State’s most superfluous intervention is to prevent the State doing the other work which properly belongs to it. By including any amount of religious teaching in its system, the State impedes and more than half destroys the efforts it makes for the teaching tf other things regarding which its aid is both legitimate and necessary. The Times says There may be a good time coining when people will understand that secular teaching can be separated from religious in the case of poor children, just as it is constantly separated in the case of the children of the middle class, s. But we are very far from such a consummation at present, and nothing can more tend to hinder it than the provocation to self-assertion offered to the various sects by the present attitude of the League.” What really tends to tender that desirable consummation is that many people, and especially .our great qonteraporary, will not say what they thijik and seek what they want, but keep approyipg what tl\ey think wrong, and subsidising and confirming .tydiat they desire to remove.