THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 2841, 27 March 1872, Page 2

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sir, —As this much-vexed question will prooably come before the General Assembly next session, I would feel obliged if you wouli kindly find space for the following. Although not a member of the Catholic Church, I attended service on Sunday evening, the 10th inst, when the Rev Mr Coleman delivered an address on education, and read some long extracts from the London Mail, of December 22, of the proceedings of a meeting of the National Education Union, held at the Town Hall, Manchester, on December 20. The rev. gentleman stated that the Daily Times had declined to insert a letter that was sent to that paper containing a summarised account of the above meeting. Believing that you are animated with a spirit of justice and fair play, I would ask you to give publicity to the following few extracts: — * ‘ The second annual meeting of tl}o National Education Union was held under the presidency of Mr Hugh Birley, M.P., chairman of the Executive Committee. On the platform were Lord Colchester, Lord Stanley, of Alderley, Colonel Akroyd, M.P., itc. &c. The secretary stated that letters had been received from many peers and members of Parliament approving the principles and action of the Union, the objects of which were to secure the primary education of every child on principles of morality and religion, and to eounteiact the effects of the Birmingham League. “The Chairman said the objection to denominational education only amounted to this, that in denominational schools an extra subject was taught m addition to the instruction required by the State. If this extra subject was not objectionable, they had a right to maintain denominational schools,” Lord Stanley of Alderly accused the opponents of the Union as being illogical in tlieir treatment of the Bible as a school book, “ The Hon. Wilbraham Egerton, M.P., expressed his regret that they were compelled to tight for fair play in national education. The exertions of the Union were needed as‘much as ever on behalf of religious education, and to secure justice to the schools of the Church of England and other denominations. He believed that the cdur catioual rate was no more given for religious instruction in denominational schools thap the present grant from Parliament—but they bad an equal claim upon the ratepayers and upon the general taxation of the country for the portion due to denominational schools, . . , . Another fine-sounding argument of the League was that we could not have a national system unless it was founded upon neutral teaching; but the country had already determined that the denominational system was a truly national one. ” “ Lord Colchester moved a resolution to the effect that the Union should urge its fiicnds to continue their most vigorous support. The noble lord said it was essential that supporters of rrl gious education should

defend their principles. . . . There was no doubt that a great part of the people of this country was strongly in favor of the principle, that in all education the controlling idea and the permeating influence should be of a religious character He could hardly conceive a person maintaining that it was more in accordance with liberty to force undenominational schools upon those who object to them, than to force denominational teaching upon those who object to it.” Colonel Akroyd, M.P., after a few remarks in reference to the working of the English Education Act, said the friends of religious education iu the House of Commons were strong, and they were strong throughout the country, but they were not conscious of their strength. He deprecated this religious warfare; but they had no alternative but to resist the aggressions of the League party, and buckle on their armor. He was not for peace at any price. I may state, Sir, that I would have written to you on this impoitant subject before, but I was unable, until a few days ago to procure a copy of the Mail of December 12, There is one thing, however, to which I would wish to direct your attention. The Rev. Mr Coleman, in the course of his address, stated in a most emphatic manner that education was entirely useless unless religion was taught and combined with it; and he also stated that the Church to which he belongs would be quite content, in the event of denominational schools receiving State aid, to stand the brunt of any examination that the Government might desire, and in the event of the Catholic schools not being up to the mark is

regard to secular education, then let the grant be withdrawn. Now. sir, that seeins to me not at all unreasonable, and I must confess that there were several other very strong arguments brought forward by the rev. gentleman that threw a new light on the subject; but I am constrained not to trespass further. I may state that up to a very recent period I was a firm believer in secular education ; but I must confess that my faith in its efficacy has been rather staggered when I came to study the pros and cons of this very debateable quastion. Trusting that you will deem this worthy of insertion, I am, &c., Episcopalian. A HINT. To the Editor, S lU) _Kow that the agitation in favor of shortened hours of labor amongst the human hive of bees has produced desirable results, 1 venture to remind the heads of films here of the approaching Easter holidays. I don t think that it is asking too much for the cmployes that Good Friday be followed with the Saturday half-day. continuing the release from business over Easter Monday, as is the common practice in Melbourne. This boon (so little in itself to solicit) once granted will enable hundreds the opportunity for a country-jaunt, the beneficial effects of which need not be enlarged upon here. No loss will result to the employers if the holiday is general Your assi.tmce with printers ink will °k^ C ‘ E. Pluribus U-NUM. Dunedin, 2bth March, 1872.