REVIEW.

Evening Star, Issue 2810, 20 February 1872, Page 2

REVIEW.

A Lecture on Education by the Rev. W. L. Stanford, of Tokomairiro. Dunedin ; Henry IFise. “ Oh, that mine enemy had written a book !” has been the exclamation of many people. An opponent who revels in hazy generalities, or in tierce denunciations from pulpit or platform is out of the reach of controversy ; but he who deliberately prints and publishes his views can be attacked with some hope of victory. The latter has defined his position, the former has not, and, if proved wrong, will likely accuse his combatant of misrepresentation or misrepresenting his utterances. We are therefore glad that Mr Stanford has published his lecture. It gives us the opportunity of showing what position one who looks upon his Roman Ca Iholic fellow colonists as martyrs takes up, and also the peculiarity of the arguments used to defend that position, We confess, however, that notwithstanding the difficulties under which his Lordship Bishop Moran has labored—having nothing but misprints of his speech published by a “ sneering, insulting, infidel press”—we prefer the Bishop to this supporter qf his. The Bishop has some personal interest in the conflict on which he launched; but, if we pre to believe Mr Stanford his great aim is not to found schools for Episcopalians, but to get justice done to Roman Catholics. Hence, per. haps, Mr Stanford’s glaring inconsistencies. After a few common place remarks on the difference between instruction and education, Mr Stanford deals with the duty of the State to educate. It seems that “ It is the workpf the State to educate,” is only the panic-stricken cry of the few, This few must be very powerful, for in almost all countries the cry is going up, and being heeded by legislatures. The papier stricken Huxley’s, Forster’s, Mills, etc., have great power in Parliament; and, if there be ft panic amongst a “few," that “few” have amongst them the Moran’s, the Stanford’s and the Cullen’s, Panic-stricken they are, surely, when their shouts of “ godless,” “ infidel,” etc, are continually ascending. Nay, when one can thus write {—“lt were better that your children reverted to the type of the ancestral baboon, or crushed a scanty meal upon the root of of cabbage-tree, like a Maori—better they Served C< nfucius, and learned the juggleries of Vishuw, than that they should pass into tho world’s ranks, cunning, indeed, in the subt’o mysteries of finance, and learned in the nn. fathomable intricacies (!) of a ready reckoner, but taught hj its very avoidance in school to ffigard Cod's boot (t,e. tho Bible) as tho dull fouc of soma barbarous age. in which an ancient worhibelleved and trusted, but with which steam and electricity have scant acquaintance—in a word without learning to know God.” Shall We not say ha is panic-stricken ! Of course, in this passage Mr Stanford conveniently assumes that, except the State-paid teachers teach reli. gion, the children will not leant to know God —an assumption not creditable to clergymen nor to the religion they profess. But waving that, Mr Stanford puts infidel Huxley, Tyndall, etc., on a lower lever than baboons, cabbage-tree loving Maories, etc.—and this being so, we need not deal much with Mr Stanford’s peculiar ideas of culture, infidelity, and Biblical teaching. It it a pity that there are panic-stricken ones in Otago. We do not intend to enter fully into the question of the duty of the State to aid education. Indeed, it seems to us that Mr Stanford has admitted the right and duty of State inj.ertt.rence.- He is tbeJaiftte ffiyfhai each'qhffd 1 shall - bb taugbt in : secular subjects ; but the State's' action should cease with the demand. If a child cannot get education—if its parents arc unable to have it trained in the “ unfathomable intricacies of a ready reckoner,” there is an alternative—behold the ancestral baboon or the Yishnw jug?'lor! Ttye Sttjt.cs pqsitiqp, ada-Staii-ord,: i| Do Tifiig whether* you : have mea'ps or pq—in fact it is an Egyptian tasldf piaster’s order, “ Make bricks,” and get the §trpw fqr yoqrgelvgs, jp Support flf this posit jiop Mr Stanford quotes Mr John Stuart Mill. We think tips passage in Mill’s Liberty very unfortunate, for Mr Mill admits, pay assert* the duty of the State to aid those who peep aid. And what more is ever demanded hy any State educationist ? Those, however, who desire to see a reply to the position taken up by opponents of State education, had better consult an article in the Fortnightly Review for November, 1871, by Professor Huxley, on “Administrative Nihilism.” We in New Zealand have not yet resolved that the State is a “ something whose sole aim should be to do nothing.” V/hen this is our creed, then no doubt Stale gojfioois will be as unknown pg State Churcber. Ajjd by-the-hyd Ve’ Ijift'jfe * to congratulate M iStanford and tb.e majority of’ his Anglicnff brethren up the progress evipced by them ig. tWaiins the quegtiqu qf % State Church. Jij England, he who denies tho necessity for this existence of the Anglican establishment, is looked upon as a radical, almost an infidel la the colonies an Anglican clergyman can thus write :—“ Just in proportion as we have seen the ! gupreniq tolly qi ft State GJiurcfr, gq we ftjs »ljy qf ; ’taking what is inevitably the next step, and acknowledging nq State education.” Sudp ap adipisiuqn as this' ipspires us with hope in tljg grqwth pfgepsible ppipiqps ip secular education. Whep a, Church is “sppreipo folly,” is a State endowed religious education a sensible thing? Assuming that the State will interfere In education, the question arises, how should it interfere ? Mr Stanford’s reply is, by founding a system of bastard denominationalisin. He is not so consistent as tho Bishop, as to demand denominationalisin pure and simple. Ho wishes Roman Catholic schools, and Protestant schools. “ The panic-stricken few ” arc quietly ignored and directed to gaze at the Maori feeding on the cabbage-tree, as the result of the neglect of Bibie tench jpg. 4qtj why does Mr Stanford diitiand this systeriri Hfs position? an- - First: Romap Catholic’s afe being iff used fey the existence of the present system. Second ; lt“sec'iilaf : isuj is introduced, they and the majority qf the Wesleyaps pud Episcopalians, will fis trampled upon. Third': It is impossible to educate prq ; perly if religious instruction is not given along with the thfee B-’s. Regarding the first, we think is is peculiarly pnfortpnate that Mr Stanford pever before dir? goVeied that Roman Catholics were being pm justly upd oppressively treated. He has been some time in the Province. He has held a high position in OUf educational system, being a member of the University Council. He has denounced Bishop Jonner, and been an active member in his own Church Synods—but not until Bishop Moran enlightened ns all, did he, upr indeed did any of our Catholic colonists, dL * cover that the Jatholigs were he{ng oppressed ; Fired pow with hqly zeal tq banish oppression, he demands State aid fqr Catholic schools, Secularism will npt please him - -why ? because “whut the Cathqlies object to is not that religion is taught, but that thuik religion is not tait.ht." Nay, if the State insists upon secular education, and that alone, so far as it is eon. cerued, Wesleyans and Episcopalians will be found following Mr Stanford, arranging themselves under his Lordship Bishop Moran’s banner. A secularist may say, why all this bother ? Can the State not look after the teaching of grammer, geography, history, and arithmetic without being forced to teach the Bible, the Creed, the Catechism, and jtei. baps ;tbe Liturgy of the Roman Church? No

Bays Bishop Moran, and no, re-echoes Mr Stanford. “ I nave said that I hold it not to be the duty of the State,” says Mr Stanford, “ to teach either religion or arithmetic ; but, in the name of common sense, I protest against its doing one without the other. Judging from this sentence they can be separated— arithmetic, including, wc suppose, “ the subtle mysteries of finance,” may be taught apart from the question, “Who is ymr godfather?” and “Of what are you made ? ” The difficulty is not to separate them, but Mr Stanford’s protest. Well, wc do not know if that matters much. j\n Anglican clergyman who looks upon a State Church as “ supreme folly,” is not yet blind to reason. But why should the secular not he separated from the religious ? The reason given is, that if you do not teach religion in secular schools, the children will grow up infidels. Poor “panic-stricken clergymen”! Mr Stanford is not, however, very exacting. The half hour of Bible reading seems to have satisfied him in the past, and will be ample in the future. It really then comes to this : Shall we subsidise schools to inculcate the religious views of our ninety sects, or do away with two and a-half hours’ Bible reading every week ? That is the question the electors have to solve. It is true that Mr Stanford says that if the secular teachers do not do the clergy’s work, the work wdl not be done. That may be so—but there is no reason why it should be so. There arc two da's of the week on which the children are not taught by secular teachers : let the Churches be active on these days. Or if that would not be sufficient for Bible reading, apd the parents are careless or negligent, then surely some arrangements could be made here, like those made in Holland, that wquUl permit the clergy to have these two, and a-half hours for the inculcating of their peculiar creeds. Qf the division of labor Mr Stanford seems ignorant. Does he kno.w that, it is a well-defined law in political science that division of labor is absolutely necessary for the economic performance of almost all work . “ What would you think,” says this new political economist, “ of a cobbler who professed to make boots, but would not undertake to make boot soles ? or a tailor, whp were tq make coats, hut not coat sleeyes ? Would you employ him ?" Is Mr Stanford as ignorant of education and political science as of bootmaking ? Is there any cobbler in New Zealand or out of It wbp makes boot soles | Wc never heard of one. prepared skips on as soles—hut cobblers do not mate boot soles. Besides, in Dunedin we do pot know what takes place in Tokomairiro, one person prepares the “uppers” of tho boot, and another puts ip the “bottoms.” In tailoring, also, no tailor cuts, sews, apd finishes. The ploth that is ultimately made into the coat passes through many hands : one cuts, another sews one part, another another ; one puts ou buttons, another button-holes— and yot we employ these tailors, and find that the establishment or shop that keeps many bauds and divides the labor generally supplies the best pud cheapest article. Ip education also this rule is followed. One schoolmaster teaches mathematics, another classics, and so on. Why then demand that a schoolmaster must be a walking apd talking encyclopaedia before ho is employed ? Is it not possible to have a lectureron physiology who denies the infallibility of either Tope or Bible? Would Huxley be received an a professor in the Otago Univeris, however, a sound reason why the State should not interfere in religious matters at all Mr Stanford says the State is “ a joint stock company,” “ of which the purpose of union is the preservation of law and order.” Being a joint stock company, creedless, not keeping up the “supreme folly” of a State Church, surely it has nothing to do with religion. It does not force children to attend its schools. It opens schools, gives the opportunity to all to come to them, and he +ay,givi Cor-. trr defi ed of the pecefeify of teaching are agreed, hut of those in which there is a difference of opinion it touches not—nay, It would be tyranny if it did ; for there are many--we hope the majority—who deny that it is the right of the State to subsidise any religious sect, or pay for the teaohi'w cf -y V religious doctrinei■ whgtav&i. Mr “Stanford, would violate Their itberfy to please a faction’’hi' ihe Bonura and’Anglienh Churches. Once admit phajt it is -the- duty of 'the State to hand, State' nioney’for distribution by Roman, A'rjglicon, AYesleyfm, qr Br^h i yjtir.[i\n clergymen, (uuf why nut sidr|plr%e churches ? l "|f hpwever Mr Stanford had put faith in greed? apd catechisms,, like Bishop Moran, there plight have’ been some alight excuse for his position. Bftt fie kgf ap entirely opposite belief, “I do not believe that doctrines and dogma* take much hold on a young child’s mind," Mr Stanford’s position is this:--Doctrines and creeds cannot be taught to children, although some Koman Catholics and Episcopalians think so, therefore, the State should go to great expense, and raise class feelings and perpetrate sectarian strife, by founding denominational schools. Of his remarks ou the Otago system, we shall say nothing. They seem to us petty, and to yso ap episcopal phrase, “sneering.” It is surely possible for spine S*,atfe teachers yo bid Yell gs private teachers and parsons. Is there bpy trade gr profession that’s destitute- of 1 incompetent men.’ And beside?, it should never he forgotten that in a pew country we labor under many disadvantages, Indeed, admitting many weaknesses in the Otago system, wo think the Province deserves credit for having within such a brief period had so many school buildings .■.rooted, an (I sq rnapy schoolmasters engaged in Tuition". Ip conclusion, we would only allude to tfie gry of panic-stricken clergy that we are continually hearing- There are about three hundred and fifty clergymen in New Zealand ; there are also elders, deacons, lay readers, lay preachers, Sabbath school teachers, kc., kc. Surely this religious staff might look after religion. And yet, if we arc to judge by the utterances and writings of some clergymen, religion will decline and must decline except the schoolteachers become clerical adjuncts anil auxiliaries. Is then our boasted Christianity such that State funds must be given to it to preserve it ? Did that small baud who met in the upper room, after their master was removed from them, thus think of their creed ? Had they not faith in its divinity. Now-a-days the clergy thenibM.es raise the question of the decline yf PhHgtiax)iist "WJiHi np‘ admission tqhiiiakd’? Christianity decline because the State does not pay for the inculcation gf its doctrines ? What this but to’deny its Divine mission, and condemn it fts unsuitable for these days of “ subtle mysteries of finance,” unfathomable “in tricacies of ready reckoners” and “ steam and elec* tricity.” And many of the clergymen seem to gli>ry in the non-success of the English Education Bill because it is not clerical enough. In tlie diocese of the Bishop of Salisbury it is stated there is only one- school board elected, and no diocese in England is so badly off for schools. Instead, however, of the clergy aiding in the inauguration of the new system, they glory in its non-success. Is it any wonder, then, that laymen should say- With religious education we shall not interfere, but with secular we shall and must? Of covnse the laymen will have their schools called “ thin,” ‘‘starved,” “secular,” “godless,” “infidel,” and all the other choioo epithets in clerical dictionaries ; but we trust that they will have the sense and tho firmness not to yield to the dictation of tbe priests of any communion—not even to those who are versed in the doctrines of Confucius and the juggleries of Vishnu.