THE EDUCATION "QUESTION,"

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 13, 10 June 1873, Page 2

THE EDUCATION "QUESTION,"

■£p the I'ditok ov the Nelson, EvfiriNO 'Mail. Sir, — rlOyO, signatures! . againßt any alteration 1 of '.hdotth' clause of the Educiation v Aht, and" 86 iii favor of it V a decided victory of one party, over, the other; and what is the use of '.arguing any longer over it ? It was undoubtedly upon ' . :t_bis 7 that ithe Speaker (who by the by, is. one; who seriously . asserts (hat the, New . Testajnent, is not a con- ' trdvor_iar bodlc I)' made the other iiight, an earnest, manly appeal against any such, .amendment as that proposed; . and his iVinhrks raußt havp been, something ■as overwhelming as the number of signatures on his Bide, since tho fate of tbe clause was sealed when the honorble gentleman" resumed" his seat amidst loud cheers. I Such, therefore was the fate of the Edu-cation-Question, and the papers gave tboir'reports accordingly^ and this will be the subject of summaries to teli all the world that in such a question there were 1070 signWures against 86. • --■Nowjet us examine who were those ' who we're' asked to 7sig_ their names to the maintenance of the 37th Clause; or, ; in uo'thdrU words-' \b - the '-.'■ maintenance of religious instruction and: the reading of \'4he /Btblefin school: hours ? a LThey-were all Protestantß,f-:)who:!'could see by^ this "measuro their object obtained, receiving a religious instruction ;' on those broad principles oa which they all L agfee, and reading them Own Bible, in .-'school hours, during; which Catholics,; \on . account of t^e^ff||giouV A prinoipleß have to ,with-. draw,'' "'or in" other words must be oon

demned to keep outside in the rain or the wind or be packed up together in the porch of the schoolroom, as is the case at Spring Grove even in fine weather and thereby being virtually compelled to hear the reading or teaching, and this as long as it Will be the pleasure of a local Board to rule. Must not such Protestants have been in their glory in signing adocument which was for the maintenance of such a privilege ! This was quite natural. But is it not surprising to see that so many who profess to read that sacred book have not discovered in it those precepts of charity by which we are all taught never to do to another what we would not like another do to us. And who were those who were asked to sign the repeal of tho clause in question? They were Catholics who could not, in conscience, submitto receive a teaching which is at variance with their creed (notwithstanding tbe no controversial character condition, wbich in practice becomes impossible), much less theProtes-

tant version of the Bible. These Catholics have a claim upon all the time devoted to secular instruction, and yet are condemned by a defect in the Act to lose a portion of that time in playing, when the others can make it useful. Such Catholics met with the sympathy of several of their Protestant friends who signed along with them. Now, the Protestant population, without speaking of tbe mining districts, number above 13,000, whereas tbe Catholics number 700. Now. I ask, is it wonderful to see tbe petitions of Protestants amounting to 10T1 signatures, and those of the Catholics to 86 only? Besides, on another point of view, if you examine a little further od, you will find that the supporters of the clause started their petitions a long time before the Catholics did. These, at first, did not intend to get petitions signed; it was only some time after, when they saw the Protestants going on with them they tried to imitate them. But with what a different policy. We have heard already by letters in the Examiner and in your columns how pious gentlemen readily obtained signatures from kind ladies, who devote not only their own names but those of their husbands also, even against their will, to adorn the blessed sheet. And what shall I. say of those goodly children and volunteering women who gloried in seeing their names affixed to the support of so good a cause? Whereas the Catholics had strictly agreed upon receiving the signatures of only ratepayers. In conclusion I would ask all thinking readers to work out the simple proportion calculation, "If 700 population obtain 86 signatures, what number of signatures should be obtained from a population of 13,000." Lo ! the so-called majority vanishes; for it should have been 1500 instead of 1000 in order to equal the socalled minority of 86. Surely the recorders bf Hansard will detect this anomaly of majorities, at all events it is to hoped so. I am, &c, Another Ratepayer,