The Globe. MONDAY, MAY 14, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 900, 14 May 1877, Page 2

The Globe. MONDAY, MAY 14, 1877.

TlllO conference on the education question on Saturday last, winch had been heralded with such a flourish of trumpets, came very near being a complete fiasco. AVc are at a loss to see what other result could have been expected. The members of the conference had before them no basis upon which to go, as they were completely in the dark as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the new Bill. Despite this they have raised up the shadowy bugbear that the Government intend removing the Bible altogether from the schools, and upon this hypothesis the whole of their arguments rest. Take it away, and what remains? Absolutely nothing. But what grounds have the Association for believing that

it is really tlie intention of the (government to take the stop of removing the Bible altogether. 80 far as wc can learn, there is none except a vague rumour. In addition to this the School Committees intend taking means to have the Bill sent to them before it is introduced, so that the whole of its provisions can be discussed by the parties most interested, viz., the ratepayers, The action taken by the Association therefore is premature and entirely uncalled for, because the probability is that no such intention as is imputed to the Government will be carried out. The Association, however, have carried a resolution on the sub ject, and are, we suppose, satisfied. But the discussion on Saturday brought out some very peculiar ideas. For instance we find a teacher of large experience in our schools emphatically, and in the presence of clergymen, protesting against ministers being allowed to come into the schools at all. Again we have another gentleman taking a very practical view of the whole question, and stating that he would be prepared to teach anything the Government paid him to do. Then the mover of the first resolution wishes the teachers alone to give the scriptural instruction, the absence of which ho deplores. If by tins he means dogmatic teaching, which his expressed opinions would lead us to infer, how is this to be done? We should, if this were carried out, have the old denominational system repeated in even worse form. As was pointed out we now have teachers of all denominations in our schools, and we should find the dogmatic teachings of the different sects being disseminated according to the religious belief of each teacher. How Mr Howard thinks that this can work harmoniously wc are at a loss to understand. In conclusion we regret that the Association should have thought lit to have come thus prominently before the public, and take upon themselves to decide authoritatively a question in which all arc vitally interested. They are but a very small section indeed of the ratepaying community, and it seems very absurd that they should come forward to dictate to the majority what form of education should be given to their children. So long as they devote themselves to what is clearly within their sphere, viz., the making regulations for securing their O O O status and independence as teachers, and for mutual conference on subjects connected with their work, no one has a right to question their proceedings. But when, as they have done now, they step out and set themselves up as arbiters of a most important question, they must expect to find their actions sharply criticised. Let them wait until the Bill is before the public, and is being discussed, as it will be most properly, in public meeting. Then their experience as teachers, and their votes as citizens, will alike bo useful, but till then let them put a curb on their o’er vaulting ambition, which is likely to bring them to grief.