The Globe. TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1572, 4 March 1879, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1879.

Mr. Rolleston, iu the course of his very able address to his constituents last night, referred at some length to tho education question. First, in speaking of Mr. Curtis' Bill, ho gave in extenso, his reasons for voting against that measure. Ho said " I will take the proposal to introduce denominational education here. How would it work ? Yon have some 10,000 children in average daily attendance in the schools of the province. Take out the borough schools, and schools which exist in centres of population where it would be possible to create a number of schools under the guidance of religious denominations, amounting, say, to some 1000 children. Tako out theso, and you have some (>OOO children attending school where support of denominationalism could not be introduced in any fairness to tho religious opinions of the parents." He stated it as his opinion that it would not do to entrust religious bodies with tho expenditure of funds which thoy themselves do not raise, for that national education must be a department for which the Government is responsible, in the same way that it is responsible for th» other departments of Government. While saying this, Mr. Rolleston repudiated any intention of implying that a child's education is completed when its mental faculties have been educated, but its moral faculties neglected, and he stated his belief that it is only the religious bodies on the one hand, and the pure secularists on the other, that stand in the way of a satisfactory system, for that there is in tho popular mind a feeling independent of any sectarianism or any system*—namely, that feeling which looks to the great instincts of purity, justice, and truth, and is not satisfied that thoy should be confined to the groove of ecclesiastical narrowness or lost in the quagmire of what is called secular education. Mr. Rolleston alluded to the clause in Mr. Bowen's Bill to the effect that the Bible should be read in the schools, and that they should be opened with prayer, and thinks it a disgrace that the proposition was rejected by the Assembly, holding it a sad thing that the religious factions should not be able to unite their differences so far as to join on the basis that he had indicated as common to all creeds. We heartily agree with Mr. Rolleston in these remarks; there is no doubt but that it is highly desirable that not only the mental but the moral faculties of children should be developed, and that to educate the rising generation with no sense of moral responsibility would be most calamitous. But, while conceding so much, it is difficult to see the remedy, while the cause that brought about the exclusion of Mr. Bowen's clause is still in existence. Mr. Rolleston declares it to be a shame that the religious factions should not have been able to have united their differences and to have agreed that some sort of religious—or rather we might say moral training should be given. But this is the point round which everything centres. If the religious denominations would only combine in some harmonious action satisfactory to all, on some common basis which to the ordinary mind seems not unattainable, there would be no difficulty at all in the matter. But it is over tho definition of the word " morality" that the creeds fall out. Each creed has its own tenets, and few can draw the line where that creed believes broad morality to end and doctrine to commence. No man has ever held more generally liberal opinions that Dr. Arnold, the educational reformer, but his ideas on national education have never gained much credit, because he was unable to distinguish between the broad principles included under the name of general morality and the tenets of the general church. If an advanced thinker such as Dr. Arnold failed to grasp the true bearings of the case we are afraid that Mr. Rolleston will have to wait some time before tho religious Utopia that he sighs for becomes an actual fact. We fancy that the true solution of the difficulty lies in the possibility of the different denominations taking the present state of affairs as unfait accompli, and recognising that their opponents havo difficulties to struggle against as well as themselves. Ample means are given for the imparting of religious instruction in any school. But we ask— Are the opportunities seized upon with avidity ? Granted, as it must be, that a training up in moral principles is desirable, would the bare reading of a few verses from the Bible before school hours affect this ? It is ridiculous to suppose that it would. We do not attach so much importance to the clause cut out of Mr Bowen's Bill. If no obstacles had stood in the way, doubtless its provisions would have been desirable, but we cannot see that it could have been at all likely to effect all that its admirors expected it to. The proper moral training of our youth does not pivot there. It pivots on the zeal of the clergy, and on their recognition of the fact that to the State belongs secular education, and to the clergy and the parents belong religious and moral education. In teaching even the broadest morality it is often nocossary to give reasons. But there aro tho opinions of Bentham on the simplest propositions, and there are the opinions of his opponents, who look upon Bentham's theories as poison. There is tho cast of mind of Luther, and there is the cast of mind of Erasmus. The State has no right to bo asked to enter into all this. The denominations should recognise the difficulty of the position in which the State is placed. They havo their part to play under the present system, and they should play it, and in tho fact whether thoy throw their heart into the matter, or whether they do not, will hinge the proper moral training of our youth.