PARLIAMENTARY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 208, 3 September 1877, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

[The following telegram did not reach us until nearly 5 p.m. oq Saturday, although it

was lodged at the Wellington office at 10-40 a.m.] Wellington, Saturday. Mr Wakefield continued the education debate. He co-idemned the religious clause as High Church, and he hoped that portion would be withheld. Mr Curtis' amendment was even more objectionable, being pure deuominatioualism. Mr Lusk thought the proposed amount of religious instruction too small to be of any good, but sufficient to entirely destroy the usefulness of the Bill, and only likely to set one section of the community against another. He would also exclude Catholic teachers. He objected equally to Mr Curtis' amendment, as it would afford no relief to Catholics He warmly praised the Auckland system, and objected to committees levyiug the capitat!°a /-< rate ' The P ro P O3e d grant from the Consolidated Revenue was insufficient. There was a tendency to centralism in the Bill, by which the Ministry could make the Boards mere puppets, and good men would not take seats on them. Clause 100 was utterly destructive of local administration, lhe Bill was a good one except iv the particulars indicated. Dr. Wallis warmly supported the Bill as one of the best and simplest compromises possible. The State should supervise and the people administer education. The Committees should have the power to appoint teachers, and two or three Boards would be sufficient. The great blemish of the Bill was its giving the State a monopoly of education, as competition would be impossible. What the churches had done in the way of education should be utilised instead of being excluded. Catholic schools should be subsidised if they gave as good an education as the State schools. The great excellence of the Bill was its non-sectarian character. He contended warmly for reading the Bible and giving religious instruction in the schools, and condemned secularism as the outcome of modern infidelity. He denied that the Auckland system worked well. Mr Macfarlane said it cost £1400 in Auckland to collect £10,000 of education rates. MrDe Latour objected not to religion, but to creeds in schools, and condemned the manner in which the Bill dealt with reserves and trusts. No provision was made for building schools except by the Committees. He believed the Bill shadowed forth heavy taxation for the purpose. He strongly supported Mr Curtis' amendment, as offering justice to the Catholics. He regretted that no provision was made for industrial education if [necessary. He would subsidise Catholic schools if the results obtained were equal to the State schools. Mr Hodgkinaon agreed generally with Mr Lusk. He would prefer the retention of tbe old Provincial system of education, but this being impossible, the Bill on the whole was a fair one. No one could object reasonably to reading the Bible and the Lord's Prayer. The consolidated fund was not likely to be able to bear for long the charge on it. He urged providing for pensiona for teachers. He opposed Mr Curtis' amendment. The Bill would inflict no hardship on anyone beyond not giving State money to teach sectarianism. Mr Pyke moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House rose at 12-15 a.m.