The New-Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 5, Issue 356, 18 September 1849, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

He just and Fear not: Let all the eiidb 'lion aims't at, be tliy Country's, Thy (loo's, and Tiutli's.

TUESDAY, S E IT EMI) E It IS, 1 8 1 9.

We have an inteiesting Report of a great Public Meeting held m the Town-hall of Manchester, on the 29th of Match, the Mayor in the chair, which furnished a remarkably decisive and satisfactory evidence of the indomitable hostility of the great mass of the English people to any system of such meiely secular Education as that which the majoiity of the Legislative Council of New Minister would, if they could, establish in this colony, and which then chosen (or self-elected) champion, Mr. Alfred Domett, has attempted to vindicate, in a very long and very ambitious, but very unsound and very inconclusive essay, — for which, in viitue of his ptivilege as a Member of Council, he lias obtained insertion in^the (t'ovcrnmeiit Gazette. It appears that the patrons of the " Lancashire Public School Association," whose object is to promote " a system of secular education, to be supported by local lates, and to be under the control oi local aulboiities," proposed for the adoption of the Meeting, a Petition to Parliament, in which, amongst other principles, this was asserted, — " That in order that the lights of conscience may be effectually secured, it should be a fundamental rule that nothing should be taught in any of the schools which favors the peculiar tenets of any religious sect or denomination." The insidious, delusive, and perilous character of the Godless scheme thus propounded, was exposed, and the paramount claims and advantages of a sciipturally zeligious education weie urged, by two eminent Ministeis of Manchester, the Rev. Hugh Stowell, (Church of England,) and the Rev. George Osborn, (Wesleyan), in speeches of extraordinary power and eloquence, which we should gladly transfei to our columns, but for their great length, and the fact that the force of some of the most effective points in them was deiived fiom circumstances and considerations, connected with the educational movements in Gieat Britain and li eland during the last ten yeais, and could theiefore only 'be fully appieciated, in their bearing on the geneial question, by persons having a more intimate acquaintance with the history of that movement than many of our readers luve probably had opportunities of obtaining. Mr. Slowell manfully grappled with the whole matter of controversy at once, by moving the following as a substitute for the Petition pioposed to the Meeting :—": — " That your Petitioner, deeply impressed with the importance of Religious Education, and deeply anxious that National Education should be diffused throughout the land, humbly pray your Honourable House not to sanction any system of general instruction of which the Christian religion is not the basis." After a discussion which lasted for more than five hours, the amendment was declared carried ; — canied, be it remembered, in the heart of the manufacturing districts, where Socialism vaunts of having its strong-hold, and in an immense assembly, with respect to the getting up of which, the Manchester Courier, tells us that " every effort had been made by the enemies of religious education to collect together such a crowd of persons, professing the same no tions, as should effectually overwhelm all oppositioi." Our Manchester contemporary adds, " the originators of the Meeting,— which borrowed all its respectability from those who assembled to defeat its purpose — were beaten in (thanks to the Mayoi) a fair and honorably conducted conflict, — a conflict invited by themselves ! "• * In short, it was a triumph of religion over infidelity, of moials over licentiousness, and we trust that the Petition now to be sent up will duly impress the Government and the Legislature with its true character and significance." We believe that the British Government and Legislature were already deeply impressed with the weighty truth that the Christian people of England will not acquiesce in any system of national education which is not essentially connected with religious instruction. The lesson of 1839 is not yet forgotten, when the right principle of the country triumphed over a Government scheme, which only proposed in a modified form an exclusion of specific religious teaching from national education; and the successful lesistance to Sir James Graham's Factoiies' Education Bill of 1813, (based on its giving unfair advantages and a dangerous power of control to the Established Church,) was so far from an abandonment of the ground then taken, that the classes of Nonconformists who arranged themselves in the greatest numbers and moral strength against that measure, were and aie amongst the most consistent and practical advocates of Scriptural Education. The country would cordially respond to Mr. Stowell 's beautiful declaration on this subject— " Old England did not hold jts religious opinions as men hold their coats,

that'might be put on or off according to convenience, but as part and parcel of the heart that throbs in. the bosom. If England stood aloft, the wonder and envy of the world, trace to the foundation the fabric of her glory, and they would find it to rest in the honesty of her religious opinions and principles. And, he did say, give him Saul the persecutor, rather than Gallio, the type of modern liberalism. Be it so that many colourings in the lesselated pavement, in our, alas !, too life sectarianism, might sometimes be too strong, and sometimes a little haish and too prominent, — he would a thousand times have them lemain as they were rather than bleach them all into the ghastly, wretched paleness of modern liberalism.' 1 Our New Zealand Education Oidinance has gone quite far enough — (some think that, for an act of professedly Chiistian legislation it has gone too far) — to conciliate " the Gallio of modern liberalism," in the pro-vision that children " may, upon application to be made in that behalf by their parents or guardians, be taught in the schools without being instructed in the doctrines of religion." But there is not only a clear distinction but an important difference between this permission, where the parents deliberately take the solemn responsibility in all its weight upon themsehes, and an universal exclusion by legal enaclment of habitual specific instruction in the doctiines of leligion.

The first imitator of Mr. Baptist Noel's example, whose name has transpired, is the Rev. John Dodson, Vicar of Cockerham, who has seceded from the Church of England on grounds similar to those stated in^lliat gentleman's hook, of which we lately gave a copious analysis. He has afforded undeniable proof of his sincerity by resigning a living worth £600 per annum. Mr. Noel has been pleaching at the Rev. James Hamilton's Scotch Church, Regent Square, London.

When we not long ago heard an exposition of the Marriage Law in Scotland, we were aware that — hotvever accnrate it might have heen as a statement of what that law had heen, — it was impossible for any man to say with confidence, what the Scottish law on the subject just then really was. We knew that the Lord Advocate was renewing his endeavours to effect material alterations in it, and we think it by no means unlikely that before now — if not before the date to which we refer — the sanction of Parliament has been given to his propositions. We have no details of his measure before us, that would enable us to give more than an imperfect and peihaps incorrect abstract of it ; but its main objects are stated to be the removal of the uncertainties which, under the old law, caused it frequently to be a matter of the utmost doubt whether parties were really married or not ; and to control the legal laxities which rendered the Border the accommodating refuge for " runaways " from the South, and made the expression " a Gietna Green Marriage" a by -word through the world, as synonymous with what is clandestine, and, in a great majority of instances, improper and immoial, in the formation of the matrimonial contract. At all events, numbers in Scotland were up in arms against the Bill, and Parishes, Parochial Boards, Presbyteries, and County Meetings had petitioned for its rejection. The principal grounds of opposition were, that the people of Scotland, while they acknowledged defects in their marriage-law, neither asked nor wished for such changes as this Bill would effect ; that it would introduce new and alarming sources of uncertainty, by enacting regulations respecting registration and the ministerial position of the person by whom the rite was solemnized, which might often be unintentionally transgressed, and the marriage consequently declared null ; and that it would destroy a check against seduction, by requiring that there should be regular solemnization (as distinguished from private marriages, and promises of marriages, with cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife,) to establish a valid and binding marriage. It is also contended that the admitted evils may be met by specific remedies, and, with reference to the mischievous facilities afforded at the Border for runaway matches, the Edinburgh Advertiser says, — " Any act that would remove such a nuisance out of the land, would be hailed as a national boon, a guarantee to the peace and comfort of many a respectable family." It remains to be seen how far these representations will weigh with Parliament. It is beyond doubt that the licentious doctrines held by Owen and his disciples have produced in many minds a strong re-actionary disposition, in the minds of lovers of morality and social order, to fence round the sacredness of the marriage rite with increased rather than diminished stringency of legal defence. .Side by side with this, though seperate as a measure, is a Registration Bill which is also earnestly opposed, not only on account of its connection with the proposed Marriage Law, but because, as is alleged, it would bring in a cumbious machinery, invest the Registrar-General with despotic powers, and involve c large expediture, — a consideration seldom overlooked anywhere, and ceitainly not likely to be overlooked in Scotland, especially just then when this dour Lord Advocate was threatening to fash the folk with

yet another Bill (for the custody of L u "atics) which would entail a great outlay for t ne erection of Asylums, the salaries of officials, &c. Both Bills, (the Marriage and the Registration) would probably stand or fall together. Besides their share in the agitation of these politico-ecclesiastical questions, the leaders of the Established Church in Scotland were engaged in an agitation of their own which seemed likely to be conducted in a temper rather "free" than "moderate." It respected the appointment to the Modeiatorship of the then ensuing General Assembly, for which two candidates were in the field, — Dr. Simpson, of Kirknewton, and Dr. Bell, of Linlithgow. The Rev. G. Smith, of Edinburgh, was Chairman of Dr. Bell's committee, who stoutly declared their determination to " make every exertion to prevent, by all constitutional means, the election of Dr. Simpson"; while Professor Hill, of Glasgow, who leads for the latter, declares, "of Dr. Simpson's election I have not the slightest doubt." Whether the Professor is correct in this anticipation or not, he is indisputably right in saying that " such a division in the Church is uncalled for and unseemly."

A nrccrNT liial (Reid v. Jacobs) in the Supreme Court at Sydney, with some explanatoiy statements to which it has led, throws light on the law respecting medical attendance in Emigrant Ships, which it may be well to have generally known. The Surgeon-Superinten-dent of the Steadfast Government Emigration Ship took proceedings against Mr. Jacobs for £20 as payment for professional services rendered to his family who came out from London as cabin passengers in that vessel. Mr. Jacobs resisted the demand on the ground that, as the ship was advertised as " carrying an experienced surgeon," the passage-money was to be regarded as covering the charges of medical attendance, as well as of the other accommodations promised by the agents. It was decided against him, however; and he was ordered to pay eight guineas — a much smaller sum, indeed, than had been claimed, but enough to determine the question of legal right in the case. The exact point on which this decision turned is so clearly stated in a letter in the Sydney Herald from 11. J. Andrews, Esq., la'.e Sur-geon-Superintendent of the Lady Peel, that we shall quote his explanation of it •.—. — Mr. John Jacobs ia ignorant of the fact that there are two classes of imignmon ships —the priva'e emigrant ship in which the owners nppoint the sur^eo-i, and the " Colonial Government Emigration shij>, " in which the surgeon itccivcs his appointment directly from Her Mi-jcMy's Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners. Of the owners he is to know nothing, and he is distinctly inilnicled t> communicate solc'y with "Stephen Walrott, E^q " Secre'aiy to the Coiumitsioners. In the former class of ships the surgeon is lona fide in the employ of the owner*, piiid l>y ihrfm, and consequent'}? bound to attend all passengers pro. ceeding in their ship ;in the latter, ( a -id the Stead/ait was in Mrs class,) the surgeon is in the employ of the " Colonial Government," pa<d by them, and according to the " charter party," and according to his " pnv.uc instructions," lie is himself but a pasta/gei' ; Ins fellow paiiiengeis, therefore, have no moiccUim on hi'n, in bis professional capacity, than they would have to the piofessionul services of a folici:or wl o might happen to be in the same 1 trust, pen lcnun, y u will not think that I am taking pau in the case of Reid v. Jacob*. I neither know plaintiff nor defendant. Asa surgeon, I regret exceeedingly (hit the csue ■hould hive gone Into Couit, for I could wHi a surgeon's fee to be considered as an honoraiium- I simply object to the assumption, that passeng'rs in a Government emigrant ship ran claim the gratuitous services of the surge Jn superintendent. A% <i question of humanity, it is of couise his duty to attend ; aa a quoytionof courtesy, he may give that attendance gratuitously ; I deny that it can be claimed as a right. The moral of this, as of many another tale of the same kind, is that some of the Shipping Agents in England — plausible and obliging gentlemen though they be — need very much to be looked after ; and that emigrants who are simple enough to confide in all they say or imply, will often find (when they cannot help themselves) that the performance on board lags at a weary distance behind the promise in the office. In one of the Sydney papers now before us, we find a report of another trial in which a gentleman sought to recover damages for ill-treatment of himself and his family in the passage from London by the Tropic. It appeared that " the table was scantily supplied, and the provisions of an unwholesome description "; " the preserved meats were preserved so long as to be scarcely distinguishable from each other "; " the tripe was very green and bad," &c, &c. ; and the Captain lefused to comply with a written request to put in at the Cape of Good Hope for a fresh supply. The Jury gave £100 damages. It would promote the ends of justice and the public good, if passengers similarly treated were more frequently to seek redress in a similar manner ; or, at all events, if intending passengers would so far profit by the experience of those who have sailed and suffered before them as to be more precise and specific as to details than they geneially, are in making their engagements with owners and agents at home. A very instructive " Emigrant's Guide" on this subject might be compiled. We could name more than one or two ships the passengers of which could contribute, from personal experience, some materials for the purpose, which would afford useful information,- and amusement also, if the reader were cynical enough to enjoy the small but vexatious miseries of his follow-creatures.