THE "NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR," AND MR. BAKER'S PAMPHLET.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 363, 26 April 1856, Page 4

THE "NEW ZEALAND SPECTATOR," AND MR. BAKER'S PAMPHLET.

Oar late remarks on Mr. Baker's pamphlet have cnlled forth an article in the New Zealand Spectator, of the 9th of April. We give the article in our present number, and now proceed to make some observations upon it. We are sorry to fill so large a space with a matter chiefly personal, but courtesy to the Spectator, and justice to ourselves, forbid us to pass it by in silence. The writer is evidently much displeased with our remarks, and we cannot blame him for trying to prove'them worthies?. He does this in the first place by accusing us of 'off-hand haste and inconsideration* as shewn by our 4 perpetually missing the points' of Mr. Baker's production. We must say that there is much excuse to be made for any person missing Mr. Baker's jioints, lost, as they are in what the Spectator calls ' the brevity of his treatise, and the abruptness of his style.' We are almost inclined to think that in some cases, an excuse may be iound* by supposing that these points agree too closely with the well-known definition — i a point is that which hath no parts, or which hath no magnitude.' We are quite ready however to confess our want of perception, and to apologise for our errors, if we have made any mis-statements: but we cannot plead guilty to the charges brought, against us on the evidence given in the Spectator. Three specimens are produced where we are said 'to have missed the points/ The first is thus given : "His ' own bias," he admits, 8 has been towards the Denominational system,' but, ' the door must be opened very wide; in fact, the Secular system must be mixed with the Denominational." 1 From this it is taken for "ranted, that we could not

have perceived ' one express purpose of Mr. Baker's pamphlet, namely, to declare that Secular schools as representing the Denomination of Secularists would not be shut out by the Denominational system.' Now our remarks contained in the paragraph referred to were intended to point out that with a strong bias towards the Denominational 'system, we yet felt that it was not a perfect one, and we concluded by expressing our opinion that ' under the particular circumstances of a new colony,* since the population was small and scattered, and schools for all denominations c uld not be established, % if the Denominational system were used, the Secular system must be liberally mixed with it ;* i. c.. in all Denominational schools supported by Government grants, there ought to be a liberal provision for giving a secular education only, where objections *vere made lo the particular religion* teaching. It certainly does not follow from this that we misled what is said to have been one of Air, Baker's points : namely, that secular school might be supported by public grants under the Denominational system, as well ns schools where religion was taught. In Knglaud the rule has been, and we suppose pi ill is, that no public grants are made except to school 4' where religious as .well as secular instruction is jriven, and the attempt to extend tUe grant- lo secular schools has not succeeded. But we always understood, as we said in our former remarks, that ■■ by the Denominational system was iut'Tidi-d that system in which the funds available to educ itinm! purposes wine grained lo the various deMouiiiKjtio':* without regard tode.'ioiMinriiional differences." Under one ;t'!uni!!Stra:ion o'*it we ii;av have the ruL.; laid down, as inKuglaml, that rdigious instruction must he ; un i<;r another we limy Ueye th'j iarm denoiniua!iou;.l extcisduil. as it is by Mr. Baker and otm-;-s, and without any ruta o: the sort. O'.;r <iun!4s> ,-is to the perfection <>f tb** systtiin arife, !k>v ever romprehcusive i* may be : t'ujugh the ie marks, which we were led So inak<;, hnd especial reference to the fact, that Mr.

Baker's main arguments in favour of the Denominational system rest upon this, that its schools are religious schools. So much for the first specimen.

The next charge made against us is, that * we complain that Mr. Baker has suggested no lemedy for the difficulties of providing schoolmasters, and securing the attendance of children —whereas we ought to have known that he was not suggesting details, but arguing out principles.' We were surprised at. this charge, and turned with some curiosity to our former remarks, to see if there were the slightest ground for it. We found that we had made no complaint of the sort. We were mentioning certain contents of the pamphlet, and merely stated that after alluding to both difficulties, Mr. Baker did not suggest a remedy for the one, and did suggest a remedy for the other. The last specimen of our'missing the points' is. that we are supposed to accuse Mr. Baker of encouraging proselytism, and the rival) y of sects, because we inferred a doubt as to the perfection of a system which, as he says, depends mainly for rs support on ' the rivalries of sects,' and 'the agitation of Christian ministers.* We still express that doubt, and we cannot wonder that many who are sinceiely seeking to establish a sound education, should feel difficulties about a system, which gains its chief assistance from tiie divisions of Christians, which will possibly become most effective where the breaches are the wiriest, and strong antipathies urge men on to strong exertions. But though these are our feelings, we do not suppose for a moment that Mr. Baker is fond of the Denominational system for this particular reason, that he thinks it will sot every body by the ears and cause a general disturbance. It is surely possible to see certain nvil tendencies in a system without supposing that its advocate delights in them. Such is the evidence brought ayainst us, and still we say, we really cannot plead guilty upon it. But we have another rod in store for us. If these specimens are not enough to take away ail our credit, —a description of our character ' drawn from internal evidence alone,' will destroy up quite. And here we are fairly put out of breath by a volley of hard words, —' lack of moral courage' ' intolerant,' ' trimming,' ' time serving.' and the like, all applied without mercy to ourselves, unfortunate as we are. Now we are really sorry that Mr. Baker's advocate should think it advisable to use such weapons ; we are sorry for his sake, though fi.)• our own, we naturally rejoice to see so sure a symptom that after all we have not so very much ' missed the points.' (From the " Wellington Spectator-""( The Ly.'telton Times of March I.9th contains .some lengthy strictures on the Rev. A. Baker's recent pamphlet on the Education question. The writer appears to have read and considered the pamphlet with the offhand haste which \w. attributes to Mr. Baker in !n> composition ; for he" perpelualh/ misses the points. His " own bias, " he admits, '• has been towards the Denominational system. " but, " the door must be opened very wide ; in fact the Secular System mist be mixed with the Denominational." Now, it appears to v« j th it one express purpose of Mr. Brikcr'.s pamph'ct is to show, that Secular schools representing a denomination, (which he '.vails " the Secularists"), would iK.t be excluded by the D.enomiuaii'jiud Sv-t-m, but would receive si just proportion of tin-public grants. This," indeed, is Ihe pi'f;-ili:irily "in Mr. Baker's usagoof the term "D'-Miomiualinnai System ;" which th.> writer in the Lytlcllon Times dOi-M no\jpe cci c. fie says "we have not heard any uiher explanation given .to the term" than such a* Mr. Balw descries. In its coiumun acceptation liv: term hardy mt ans

the appropriation of certain grants to certain Denominational schools, as such. la such sense only it obtains in England. Mr Baker proposes in his-pamphlet, and it was the plan advocated in this journal during the public discussion of the question, that the religious character of the school should be ignored altogether, as beside the purpose of the grant ; that it should neither qualify, nor disqualify, fora share in the public vote • that each school should be assisted according to its scholastic merit, as educating a certain number of children (of whatever religious faith, which is a matter of private judgment), and so advancing the civilization of the public and the progress of the State. The Denominational System, so explained (and in this sense only it is employed by Mr. Baker), is suiely the most liberal of all systems, as embracing every other; while every other excludes all others but itself. As Mr. Buker shews, and it is a principle point in his argument, every other System is in fact " the Deinoninational Systemlimited to a single denomination. " On tiffs issue, therefore, Mr. Baker and his Lyttelton critic are at one.

The writer complains that Mr. Baker has " suggested no specific remedy for the difficulties of providing Schoolmasters, and securing the alt ndauce of children." But the object of Mr. Baker's pamphlet was, not to suggest details, but to nvgue out a principle and a system.

He also puts the question, " are we to suppose a system is perfect which, according to Mr. Baker, gains its chief support from the 'rivalries of sects," and the agitation of Christian Ministers ?" And he adds, "There ought to be higher motive than such rivalries, and the desire of Christian Ministers to gtitherjMoselytesaround them, which should urge men to the promotion of sound religion." Now, without, going into the question, as to ivhat is the particular motive which is "higher" than a desire to bring others to the knowledge of what we ourselves believe the truth, we cannot find in the pages of Mr. Baker's pamphlet any encouragement to the proselytism and rivalry of sects. The rivalry he contends for is in the comparative excellency of the merits of each school, which would entitle the promoters to a proportionate share of the public money. And the " agitation" he speaks o\' has reference to the zeal of Christian ministers in beating up children to attend the school, which would naturally be exchanged for an active opposition, if the school were thought detrimental (as many think, for example, those under the Secular system must be) to the interests of true religion.

These are but specimens of the hasty and inconsiderate manner in which Mr. Baker's pamphlet has been reviewed. His reviewer, if we may venture to judge from internal evidence alone, is one ol a class which, having through lack of moral courage, or of a clear settled view, commniitied themselves to a compromise of principle, are intolerant of others who are bold enough to assert it, and regard them as casting a persona! reflection on their own trimming and 'time-serving policy; we cannot otherwise account for the carping spirit of the st net ures. Mr. Baker's apology lor haste in composition plainly has reference, not to any precipitancy or crudeness of opinion on the subject of his (realise, but to its breviiy and abruptness of style. He nelri out. wiiii slaliiig tliat it is uierel}' an exponent of his deliberate and ma'ured conclusions, "a repetition of his arguments at the beginning of the year."

We can, however, entirely subscribe to the closing sentiments of the writer. " While people are fighting for their systems, those most concerned are perhaps »») jug, ~" We do not. want your systems,

support good schools.' Our belief is that it is the wisest plan to reverse the usual order of things. Not to get one system cut and dried, and then force circumstances into it ; but rather to enquire fully into the circumstances and wants of our population, and then to come dispassionately to the enquiry, how can these circumstances and wants be best provided for by the means .we have at hand." This is exactly taking the proper course which our wise Executive have refused. They have endeavoured to force their cut and dried' theories, gathered from foreign countries, and a totally different order of things, down the throats of a free people, who are averse to them, and who have manifested their aversion by rejecting the unpalatable dose. It is just because the Denominational is " improperly called" a system, —being, in fact, a comprehension of all systems of education, that we think it " best adapted to the needs and circumstances of this colony." If we may infer from the universal rejection of the two or three pet " systems" which our Executive have endeavoured to bolster up by lavish promises of pecuniary patronage, and from the evident popularity of our local common schools, we conclude that the public in this Province are of one mind on this subject with ourselves. Perhaps the best argument, after all, against the opponents of the Denominational system, may be drawn from the unmistakeable phenomena of the Easter-Monday school feast, to which, at the time, we drew attention in these columns.