The Globe. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1874.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 129, 29 October 1874, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1874.

Tue Synod has discussed the education question, and has come to a deter? mination to appeal to the Provincial Council against the Local Committees. We do not suppose for a moment that their request will be granted. One of the chief causes of the great success of the present education scheme is its highly popular character. Deprive it oAhe sympathy of the people, and the system will Boon become a failure

throughout the province. The school committees are the representatives of the ratepayers of each district, elected for the express purpose of attending to its educational wants, and are, therefore, much more likely to represent the opinions of the people on this question, than are our members in the Provincial Council, who have been returned, perhaps, on an entirely different platform. It is difficult to understand why the clergy are so averse to leave the question of religious education in the hands of the local committees. If, as the Synod asserts, their convictions represent the feelings of a large number of the inhabitants of the province, we may naturally conclude that those views are fully represented in the local committees, and if they are in a majority in those committees, religious education is safe in their hands, and if they are in a minority it is their duty to use all lawful means to enlighten the ignorance of their opponents. It may be a disagreeable thing to be dictated to by coteries of “ tinkers and tailors and uneducated men,” but unfortunately for those who hold this opinion, government by majorities is the only accepted form in a free country like this. But we do not believe that the School Committees deserve to have such language used regarding them as was used recently by a reverend gentleman in the Synod. With perhaps one or two exceptions, they fairly represent the education and intelligence of the province. Nor do we believe there has been almost any disposition shown to throw obstacles in the way of imparting religious instruction in the day schools. Where any real opposition has actually been encountered, it may, we think, be generally traced to the clergy themselves. We all remember how bitterly the scheme was opposed when first introduced, and though the Synod is now graciously pleased to express “ their desire of co-operating heartily and loyally with the Government system of education,” people have not forgotten how strongly the Church party when it was first brought before the Council, fought against it.

The reason assigned by the Synod for seeking an alteration in the Ordinance is “ their deep sense of the ne- “ cessity of religious instruction in “ Government day schools,” and that opportunities for giving such instruction are not at present afforded. Far be it from us to charge the members of the Synod of insincerity. We thoroughly believe that they are deeply impressed with the necessity of religious instrtuction in the Government schools, but the conviction appears, unfortunately, in the majority of cases to remain a conviction only. It does not take the form of using the opportunities available under the Ordinance of putting into practice those deep convictions, and until the public sees more signs of practical earnestness on the part of the Clergy, it is perfectly justified in believing, even if the Ordinance were altered in the direction indicated by the Synod, that the religous education of the Government day schools would be as much neglected as it has hitherto been.