ADDRESSES TO CONSTITUENTS

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1588, 22 March 1879, Page 3

ADDRESSES TO CONSTITUENTS

DR. WALLIS AT AUCKLAND.

[By Telegraph.] Auckland, March 21.

Dr, Wallis had announced that he would meet his constituents on Thursday night, in the Mechanics'llnstitute. In the afternoon it rained heavily, and at the ho*ir 01 meeting only about twenty pereoh'3 were present. Mr J. Cadman Wao elected to the chair, and operned the meeting by referring to the importance of the occasion. Ho spoke of the Bmallness of the meeting, and suggested that the speech should be adjourned, but left it to the vote of tho meeting. It was carried that Dr. Wallis should proceed with his address.

Dr. Wallis said he had no idea until the other day that he was expected to address the constituency ; but he had learned from the newspaper that he was required to do so. He did not think he should be called upon during a time of political excitement to be condemned, when men's blood wag up. He was a supporter of the Grey Government, who had been unjustly blamed in connection with the Kaipara railway. He had offered to address his constituents after last session, but was told there was plenty of time. After the late contest, which was decided only on one question, men came up to him and said in the street, "We have a rope round your neck and we mean to hang you." The enemies of the present Ministry said they did not fulfil their promises, that last session was barren, and that they were not better than their predecessors. But he begged the meeting to remember that when they came into office they were new to the work, and were impeded by a faction, which opposition placed obstacles in their way. He contended that the Ministry had kept the promises contained in the Governor's speech in regard to the Waikato-Taranaki railway, and in reforms, such as the new Electoral Bill and adjustment of taxation, in all of which they had done or were now doing their best. He instanced the two volumes added to the debate book last session in proof that the session was not barren. He would support the Grey Ministry to prevent the restoration of provincialism, or a protection policy, to assist liberalism and electoral reform, and to get fair justice for Auckland and the north. He would support a centralised Government and deeentralised administration. He was told that there was a protection league in Auckland, who intended to bring pressure to bear on the Grey Ministry. He would also support Sir G. Grey to secure electoral reform, triennial Parliaments, the final settlement of the Maori difficulty, and the permanent reconciliation of the two races. Now that the colony was unified they wanted fair play for the North Island. They should be grateful to the Grey Government for the colonialisation of the land fund. He would admit that they had faults, but they had not been bo extravagant as the previous Ministries. They had endeavoured to keep the promises of reduction in their own salaries, but the House refused to let them, and they thought it better to pocket a disagreeable necessity rather than let the late Ministry in again. He considered that the appointments of the present Government to the Upper House were creditable, but had any former Government remained eighteen months in office without committing many much grosser faults. The present Ministry was the best that could be got under the circumstances, and until a dissolution he would support them. Dr. Wallis defended his action last session in criticising the Governor's speech. He did that as a father might criticise his child. He had read the Church history of devil's advocates, and he endeavours to be a "devil's advocate for the Ministry!" but he found it did not pay, and stopped it. He reviewed his personal action last session in advocating the extension of the franchise. He made this wonderful discovery only a few years ago —that women were actually human beings, and as such were entitled to the suffrage. He contended that there was a majority in both Houses in favor of triennial Parliaments, but Mr J. C. Brown lobbied against him. Mr Macandrew, who promised him his vote without a pair. Another walked out because he had the belly-ache. Dr. Wallis went on to speak of his action on Mr Cuitis's Bill. He had held the opinion that religion and morality should go hand-in-hand, and he contended that no nation had any right to say—" Thiß book, tho Bible, is the only book which shall be banished from the school." He was not a Denominationalist. He had supported Mr Bowen's Act from the beginning in every division, and it was in a more perfect form when introduced than it was now. He opposed the striking out of tho reading of the Lord's Prayer and the exclusion of the Bible. He had always advocated State education. He denied that Mr Curtis's Bill was a denominational Bill.

In reply to a question, Dr. Wallis said he was in favor of technical education, which was being dealt with by the Commission on Education, and the result would shortly be published. When asked whether he would vote for Mr Curtis's Bill, if again introduced, Dr Wallis eadeavored to evade the question. He said Jet the meeting first deal with larger political questions.

The question was again put, when Dr. Wallis asked the questioner to put the question in writing, which was done. Dr. WaJlis—Are you a voter in Auckland City West ?

Mr Rout—No. Dr. Wallis—Well, I will ask somo one who is to put the question. An elector then stepped forward and read the question. Dr. Wallis said the question was a difficult one. There were some parts of the Bill he agreed with, and some he had dieagr.-ed with. The Rev. Dutchin asked why the churclj that appeared to be most particularly interested in the Curtis Bill, desired to have the appointment of the teachers.

Dr. Wallis said he did not understand the question. After some further questions,

Dr. Wallis said if it was the wish of the meeting he would go into the whole queation, and show that the Curtis Bill was a purely secular Bill, but he would rather not. [Laughter.] The preterit Education Bill was too sectarian for him, and he desired to deprive it of the sectarian taint. Tho words "secular" and " denominutionalism " were used in a vague sense. Secular education might mean infidel or atheistical education, in which case ho would not support it. Ho referred to the Latin derivation of secular. If they wore to teach a child knowledge of the world, they must always give it knowledge of its maker. He contended that moral training was included in secular education. Denominationalism had no meaning. He was not a denominationalist. He was all tilings now. [Laughter.] He was not for putting day schools under churches. Ho was not in favor of tho dogmas of any church being taught in schools. He admitted that the State should bring education within reach of every child, As the State was

bound to punish every criminal, ib was equally bound to make thorn virtuous citizens Ho con!ended that even reading, writing, and arithmetic had a tendency to decrease crime, but, tl.e Str.te should olsj make men truthful, and as there was no established church here, he would advocate moral training in State schools. On what basis should the national By stem bo placed ? The great majority were Protestants, the minority Catholics, and a large number nothingarians. [Mr Swaneon—- " Hebrews."] Well, he would include them. He contended that education based on the system of any one of these would be sectarian. He would aim to make the Education Act of 1877 more unuectarian. The improvements of which the Act was capable were some indisputable and somo disputable. He had contemplated introducing an Amendment Bill next session. The present Act was too much centralised. The Mini-try and Education Boards had too much power. It should be decentralized. The educational districts should be reduced in number. Auckland with 187 schools, and Patea with only five, had each an inspector. This should be changed, and they should only have, say, five inspectors with equal districts—say threo for the South and two for the North Island. Local committees should have larger powers. The system was too costly. No country in the world paid go much per head. Every man, woman, and child was taxed ]£ s a head for education. Thiß enormous expense was not necessary. People were deceived by the absence of direct, taxation. The time would come when this vast system would be thrown on local rates. The system *ho"ld b°. cheapened. One of the disputable amendments was as to gratuitous education. He contended that the State should make education so cheap as to bring it within the means of the poorest, but should not provide gratuitous education for the children of the rich. Gratuitous education demoralised the people. The free system of education in England was a great evil. [Crirs of dissent ] Why should the State have the power of dictating to parents as to the kind of education P Half of the ccst of education should be paid by parents. He had condemned the proposal in regard to nonadmißsion of the Bible. What right had they to exclude that, book ? When they admitted that it was inspired; it was sin and shame to exclude it. They would not exclude any other book. Ho quoted his speech of last session to show that Mahomedanism and paganism were admitted to the school, but Christianity was shut out. Another disputable point of amendment, was that the present gratuitous system would give the State a monopoly of education. Every other system must go down. Nothing could be more undesirable than such a monopoly. [He quoted Stuai t Mill's Political Economy.] Mr Curtis' Bill was an endeavour to set up a rival system to that of the State, and prevent it having a monopoly. It would also remove the ground of dissatisfaction from those who objected to being compelled to accept only one system. He contended that, Mr Curtis' Bill was purely secular, but differed from the Bill in that it gave the authorities of the school the right to teach religion outside of regular school hours, whereas the State system only allowed it as a privilege. Mr Curtis' Bill gave no more favour to Eoman Catholics than to Protestants. He proposed that they should go half way to meet the Roman Catholics, and bo compromise with them. He contended that already there was a school in Auckland established on the principle of Mr Curtis' Bill—the Girls' High School. This received £3 15s a head for each pupil. Why not treat, nuns' convent schools in the same way if they came up to the standard of secular education. He contended that the High School was supported on Mr Curtis' system. There were parts of Mr Curtis' Bill which ho condemned. He voted for the second reading, but would have amended it in committee.

In reply to another question, Dr. Wallis said he would vote for the Local Option Bill, with compensation for the houses closed, but where a man lost his license by transgressing the law, he should have no compensation. To another question as to whether he would give effect to the views of a majority of electors of City West on education. Dr. Wallis said he would support the present Education Bill and try to amend it. Mr Leahy moved a vote of confidence which Mr Machattie seconded. Mr Tremaine was sure that such a vote would be opposed to the opinion of a large majority of the City West electors. [Cheers.] Ho proposed as an amendment —" That we, as electors of City West, have not confidence in Dr. Wallis." On the other hand, if the proposer of the motion would withdraw his motion, he would withdraw the amendment and pay half the expenses of the hall for another evening, when there would be a larger attendance. Mr Leahy declined to withdraw his motion.

Mr Tremaine—Then I shall decline to withdraw my amendment. He said Dr. Wallis had deceived him last sossion in not supporting Mr Pox. Dr Wallis—l did support Mr Fox. The gentleman is stating what is not true. Mr Simpßon seconded the amendment, which waß put, and about twenty hands held up for it, and twelve against.

The Chairman nevertheless ruled that the amendment was lost, and immediately bolted out of the chair without putting the original motion. The meeting than dispersed. At the opening of the meeting only twenty were present, but during the evening the numbers increased to fifty.