The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2882, 15 May 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1872.

Mr Macassey’s speech, advocating what he termed in his resolution “ the ri<dit of the Roman Catholic body to participate in the annual grant for educational purposes,” may have been oratorically good, but it was argumentatively bad. He set out to prove one thing, and succeeded abundantly in proving another. His whole reasoning went to show that the introduction of the religious element into a system of national education is a serious mistake. He showed that Roman Catholics are not so numerous as the other sects united, and that in consequence in the election of School Boards they seldom are chosen. No great wonder that. He pointed out that ministers of the Gospel of other denominations are schoolmasters, and members of the Council of the University, and maintained that, because of their religion, no Roman Catholic would be appointed to any office connected with our educational establishments. While the honorable member’s facts are undeniable, and his inferences plausible, they are not the true conclusions. The end to which they point is what we have ever held, that no religious teacher should occupy any position of either a secular or quasi- secular character. The clergy look upon such a proposition as a gratuitous insult, and conceive that it is intended as a blow to religion. They mistake. It is not that we do not admit their claim to the rights of citizenship, and were men all of one faith we should not object to present arrangements. But since men are of different faiths, each having an equal right to consideration, representation, and the protection of the State, we see no other way to remove causes of complaint than to coniine their public services to the duties they have undertaken, and to exclude them from any share in the management of our educational institutions. This is precisely the course that any of them would take were he of the spirit of him who pointed out the duty of self-denial lest weak brethren should be offended—he would not accept such a position if offered. This exclusion for the sake of equality is the tendency of ecclesiastical affairs all over the world. It has been found necessary to withdraw the supremacy of the Church of Ireland : the disestablishment of the Church of England is only a matter of time, and could the clergy but read the signs of the times, they would see that if they would keep the lead all men are inclined to concede to them, it must be by withdrawing from positions in which they stand in antagonism to other religious teachers, and gathering around them churches of intelligent and devoted followers, trained and taught by themselves. They must remember that the position they hold is of itself more influential than that of other men, and should be sufficient to compensate them for the absence of worldly distinctions that render them objects of envy to those who claim to be entitled to equal honors. Mr Macassey asked the Council to adopt what he termed “ a healing, conciliatory policy,” by conceding what he termed “ just claims.” But it was this single matter of justice that he failed to demonstrate. It is just that all religions should be placed on an equality, so far as State help is concerned, and there is but one way of doing this: Leave each to teach its doctrines in its own fashion ; giving no distinction to the ministers of any one sect. It is just that every child in the State should be trained for citizenship, and to this, extent the means of education are a common good, and may therefore be provided by the State. But Mr Macassey’s healing policy is to give to a particular sect, a privilege which no other sect openly asks—the privilege of using funds provided by the' State for the teaching of peculiar religious doctrine. Dr Moran says he will not dissever secular from religious education. The true way of dealing with the matter is to remove every shadow of complaint foupded.on reason. If the Roman Catholic complains of the authorised version of the Bible being read in schools, and the Protestant of of the Douay version, the matter can be settled with infinite advantage to true religion, by excluding them both. A very much better and surer system can be adopted of teaching religious truth than persisting in a plan that is made an occasion for a grievance by a large portion of our fellow citizens. As for the demand that certain histories shall be excluded because they speak

disrespectfully of Protestant or Roman Catholic, it would be as weak to concede it as it is childish to ask it. That education must be very incomplete that does not enable a youth to weigh and examine the truth or falsehood of an author’s statement, and that estimate of humanity must be very low that presupposes it possible to blind the trained mind to the opinions expressed of the transactions of past ages. It is one end and purpose of education to enable men to throw aside these mental trammels. They have been in bondage too long. The fetters have been broken, and all attempts to re-impose them will be as fruitless as the advocacy of such a course is a sign of imbecility.