The Evening Star FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2884, 17 May 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1872.

So far as the Provincial Council is concerned, the education question is settled for this session. On the whole, it may be said that the debate went off very creditably to those who took part in it, although it was evident that most of the members were afraid of the suggestions of their own MiGreen truly said they fenced with the matter, and did not dare to speak out. The impression on an impartial observer must have been that very many of the speakers were halting between two opinions, and we believe in that respect they fairly represent the mass of our population. Perhaps the crudest views were expressed by men who will have a voice on the question in the General Assembly, Mr F. D. Bell and the Hon. Mr M'Lean. Mr Bell’s views are anything rather than statesman-like. Very conveniently for an argument, but very inconveniently as a matter of fact, he adopted the expedient of dividing the population into two great classes, the Protestants and Roman Catholics : just as a naturalist might divide animal life into land animals and water animals. And he then proceeded to shew that the same educational conditions did not apply to each, just as the naturalist may argue that the water that was the life of the aquatic would be destructive to the terrestrial animals. He forgot that it was possible there might be a condition of vitality applicable to them both, and that the speciality belonging to each could be added by other moans. His contention was that the aided schools clauses were not so very bad, because denominationalism had worked well in the Province of Nelson—which, if true, is a very exceptional circumstance, and only proves that a bad system may under favorable conditions produce good results. His argument led to this conclusion : it is the duty of the State to make distinctions between men holding different religious creeds, even on a matter of National or Colonial interest, and to allow the intolerance of one of two sects to over-ride the more enlightened and just views of the remainder. But when the marity of a country say to a minority we do not ask you to concede what we will not concede ourselves, they concede all that ought to be expected : it is doing as they would be done by. If the others ask more than that they are asking what, with perfect justice? may be refused. So, when those who advocate secular education, say we are satisfied with that, and will add the religious ourselves, they propose the only plan consistent with justice to all ] and when our Roman Catholic fellow colonists say No, wo will not have it that way, but you shall contribute to schools in which our religion is taught, they ask a privilege beyond what can be fairly granted to them. Those aided clauses are helps to injustice, and no refinement of argument can divest them of that characteristic. But the Hon. Mr McLean’s contention is very different. He satisfied himself, and seemed to think he was very statesmanlike and philosophical, when he advocated retaining the Bible as a school book, and thus refused to remove the chief impediment to the acceptance by the Roman Catholics of a sound system of secular education. His argument was this: The Bible is a historical book, and as all other historical books contain reference to religion, you must retain the Bible. Were it not that we suppose there may be others who, like Mr M'Lean, satisfy themselves with such inconclusive reasons for doing very questionable acts, this absurd conclusion might be passed by as unworthy of serious consideration. The matter is, however, too important to be allowed to pass; and lest he should repeat this shallow sophism elsewhere, for his sake, as well as for the benefit of society, we will point out to him what he has either forgotten or overlooked. If all men looked upon the Bible merely as a history, perhaps none would object to its being read, and rone would advocate its exclusion. It might take its stand like Hume and Smollet, Robertson, Macauley, Gibbon, or any other. If it related

merely to the religion of past ages, and had no bearing upon the present state of Society, it might be read in the same way as the Illiad, or the Koran in Christian countries, or the Shastres, or any other indifferent publication. None of those works are objected to, because they do not offend the consciences of any. It is, however, different with the Bible. It is not merely a history, but a Rule of Faith ; and it is on this ground that it becomes a stumbling block and a rock of offence to those who interpret it differently. On that ground it should not be allowed to be dealt with as a school book. Religion would not suffer by this. If it has any vitality amongst us, not a sect would allow the children to remain untaught in their doctrines. Religion would be, what it has ever been, all the more completely and zealously taught, and have a move deep and permanent hold upon the churches, because of the voluntary and persistant efforts needed to impart its truths.