The Manawatu Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1877.

Manawatu Times, Volume II, Issue 52, 18 April 1877, Page 2

The Manawatu Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1877.

That the present state of popular Education is a transition one appears to be a generally recognized fact, but, unhappily, unanimity on the subject extends no farther than this among the friends of Education. They are divided against themselves*, not only as to the administrative part of the education scheme that is to be, but even on the primary question of the nature of the instruction which the State ought to provide for the masses. Some contend that, as nothing can be more important than the religious and moral training of the children, it ought to form an element -m the educational programme of the State. Others, without denying the importance of Religion, argue from the diversity of opinion which exists on that subject, that it is impracticable for the State to provide religious instruction. It is not our intention, however, to go into this controversy. "We do not propose to investigate the differences between these two parties of educationists, but, on the contrary, to ascertain, if possible, what chance there is of their coming to a mutual understanding. They are agreed, . as we have said, with regard to the importance of religious instruction, and differ only as to the way m which it is to be impaired. And. if we look a little more closely into the controversy, we shall find that they are also of one mind as to "who ought to have charge of the religious training of the young. Those who are the acknowledged guides of the parents are the legitimate guardians of the children, so far as religion is concerned, nor is this denied ,by the most advanced of Secularists. Now, it certainly seems strange that those who agree so far m theory should find it impossible to come to any mutually satisfactory arrangement for the practical application of that theory. The first question which naturally suggests itself is, on which side is the inconsistency ? For one instinctively jumps to the conclusion that there must be inconsistency at the bottom of this chronic disagreement between parties who have so much m common. Either of them is untrue to its own principles, else the practical difficulty would have disappeared long ago. It seems to us that the controversy lies entirely between the Secularists and the Clergy. The latter are certainly the prime movers m the opposition to the Secular education scheme, and if

thov did not move m the matter, the laity never would do so. AYe may therefore regard the Clergy as the opposition party, arid the next question is the cause of their discontent. Ostensibly, that cause is a zeal for religion, which they allege to he inpulted and its importance ignored by the scheme of the Secularists. OsI tensihly, we say, this is the cause of the opposition of the Clergy, but we do not think i£ is the real cause. As well might it be said that the importance of a knowledge of Drawing was ignored, because it does not form part of the daily routine of instruction, as that religion is placed m an unworthy position by the same circumstance. The time devoted to Drawing is sufficient, though it only amounts to two or three hours m the week, because we do not want to make artists of the children, a knowledge of the rudiments being all that is considered necessary. And for Drawing substitute " Theology " m this argument, and the conclusion follows enually from the premises. The time actually devoted to religious instruction is not really considered too short by any one, because nobody wants to make theologians of the children, the mere elements of theology being sufficient. Then as to the influence of religion on the minds of the children that is a thing which does not depend on intellectual training or theological dogma. Let the Secular teacher, who never utters a word on theological doctrines m the presence of his pupils, be nevertheless sincere m his own way of thinking, and the influence of his piety will assert itself m the minds of the children, pervading them like a subtle essence and, if not counteracted by bad example at home, moulding. their characters and determining their future conduct. Now, the most divided of Secularists would consider a teacher of this stamp a valuable acquisition, while on the other hand, every one is aware of the truth of the principle which we have jnst laid down regarding religious influence. But, as we have said, it is not religion that is insulted by the arrangements made for instruction m the Secular schools. That which, is really insulted is the clerical profession. The Secularists are inconsistent with their own principles, because, while they profess to surrender to the clergy the charge of religious instruction, they insist upon interfering with that charge by prescribing the times and places for giving such instruction. If Secularism were consistent with itself it would insist on nothing more than that the schoolmaster should not give religious instruction, and that certain hours should be daily devoted to Secular instruction exclusively. But it goes beyond this. Instead of leaving the clergy entirely free to make their own arrangements for imparting religious instruction, it imposes upon them rules of its own. and the tacit insult — the vote of want of confidence — which is involved m this procedure we believe to be the real cause of the opposition which the clergy of two important denominations are now offering to the Secular scheme o£ education. Let all the arrangements for religious instruction rest entirely with the clergy and the parents, and then we shall see what we shall see.