THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.

New Zealander, Volume XVIII, Issue 1713, 9 August 1862, Page 4

THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.

To the Editor of the New-Zealander. Sin,—ln your issue of the 23rd July you published a letter which professed to contain an explanation of those points which had appeared to me in the light of difficulties in the way of your correspondent's plan. I confess that I am unable to discover anything in these explanatory remarks calculated to remove any one of these difficulties, or indeed anything which could be tortured into an answer to one of my questions. In case it may have escaped your correspondent's memory, I may mention that these questions were four in number, and as follows: 1. What good reason can be given, why supporters of the Orphan Home should give up their existent and flourishing establishment lor a a projected one. of whoso condnct, or success, they can form no idea? 2. What the the writer meant by " Broad and Unsectarian," terms, which unexplained, are vague and negative? 3. What justice the orphan children of respectable parents would receive by being mixed with those familiar with the grossest forms of vice from infancy? 4. What end was to bo aimed at by the Industrial School teaching? To no one of these baa your correspondent given any distinct answer. Indeed, it almost appears as if ho had taken considerable trouble to elude them. To the second question, and to it alone, I can trace some faint attempt at an explanatory replp; for he informs us that the term " unsectarian" simply referred to the principle on which he imagined the Industrial school would be established; a fact which I at least never doubted, but which does not oxplain what the term itself means. He goes on to say, that since this institution •« is to be supported by pcoplo of all creeds and persuasions," he " does not see how one section of the Christian Church could claim authority over it more than another." With this I readily agree, but I go even beyond him and say, that I do not see how the Christian Church itself can claim any authority over an institution supported in part by Jews and infidels. I can see with him how the Bible may not be " excluded," but I confess I cannot 6eo how, consistently with «his own principles, it can be " taught." My last two questions, certajr,ly not unimportant ones, still await an answer; and I admjt fjiat' \\, puzzles me not a little to understand how men, who qre indignant, and justly so, that in our prisons men convicted of minor offences are brought into contact with tfja typs* bftriWtyj; cap, yoj fejj to sea

of how much greater an inj™»*<» ?m did we conseßt to mingle in "one canons *f»g those children who hare had the miflfortune of losing their parents with those children (far more unfortunate) wh*. from whatever reason, retain little or none of childhood's innocencj. 513 . _■ My desire is to see fully brought out the<pto upon which the philanthropbic projectors of School DroDOse to cany out their school with respect aSnSSSnmg! especially, as. regards those who, are to reside in the proposed institution; and 1 shall, be most happy if a truly efficient system is propounded -while I do not expect that any such plan can be adopted upon Mr. Macfarlanc's basis as wflt predode the necessity of maintaining, at the same time, the Orphan's Home. H

To the Editor of the New-Zeai,ander. Sih,-A few months back attention was strongly directed to some remarks of Canon btowell, that reflected upon the New Zealand colonists. Mr. btoweJl was universally condemned, no one attempting to explain or justify his language Even the. missionaries seemed only desirous to rectify their position with the settlers; and that point being attained, to leave Mr. S. as their scapegoat. One of them went further, and magnanimously attacked this distant foe with great energy. Every newspaper also, as was to be expected, rushed at once into the field with a defence and refutation. These refutations all seemed to labour undcrone cardinal defect. They in no way touched upon the grounds on which Mr. S. might have formed his judgment. They forgot the Auckland w ( .r meeting speeches, the meeting at Whrtnganui. the petitions from Taranaki and Ahuriri, the articles in the newspapers, the conduct of the Taranaki settlers in the matter of W. King and Mr. Tarn's } and far above all others, the despatches of Governor Browne. This officer, well*intenlioned, but as weak in logic as he was in purpose, has left among his self-contra-dictory despatches matter that would damage the character of any people. Out of many take one. A few months before he invaded W. King (Sept 20tH, 1859), he thus writes to the Duke.of Newcastle.—- " The Europeans covet these lands, and are determined to enter in and possess them;" and confirms his remark by quoting a sppech of some member of the Auckland Provincial Council which ends thus: "It was impossible to prevent the An»lo-Saxon race overcoming the Natives; and the the Eu-opeans, if they could not get land with the consent, must get it without the consent of the Government." Thus we were condemned by our own chief magistrate; and an unfair antagonist, irritated by the caustic attacks made upon him, might with a strong appearance of truth have referred us to our own publications, and in the eyes of a distant observer, ridden off" triumphant. Fortunately, we had to deal with one whose sense of truth would compel him to acknowledge it even when only glimpses of it caught his eye. I hope that you and others who have hit him so hard wi'l now do him the justice of publishing his "explanation" as published in the English papers. I am, &c, A Subscriber.

CANON BTOWKLL AND THE NEW ZEALAND WAK. Mr. Stowell has sent to the Manx Sun the subjoined letter, addressed to a Lott'lon frieml of the Rev. H. H. Brown, with whom he was requested to communicate on ',he subject of a speech which he (Mr. Stowell) delivered at a Church Missionary Meeting in Douglas, last October:— Sir, —Your note found me on the point of writing to you, at Mr. Brown's suggestion. 1 wi'l frankly and fully tell you what I am prepared and what I am not prepared to do in the matter on which your friend has written to you as well as o me. Havingfound that the private information whichlhad recened respecting the embroilment in New Zealand, and under the influence of which I spoke very warrrly in Douglas, was one-sided and partial, and I am prepared to express in the Douglas paper (and, so far as I kiow, no part of my address in that town has appea-ed in any publication this side of the Channel) my regret that I used such strong language in reference to the colonists. I am further prepared to state what does not clea-ly appea: from the report of my speech, that the strongest things which I said were not directed against the colony at large, but aga'nst those vagran.s and outcasts from England and Ireland who, iu New Zealand as in all our other infant colonies, hang on the skirts of the regular settlers, and bring a sad reproach on the British name. At the same time, I am not prepared to withdraw substantially my general allegations that the natives have been treated with injustice, oppression, and c• aclty, to the dishonour ot our common Christianity, and the disturbance and hindrance of the blessed work of evangelization, which has been so successfully carried on by the Church MisMonary Society. These charges I cannot withdraw, because to do so would be to contradict my convictions. That those convictions are not singular, let me show you by the following extract from a letter which I have recent y received from one of the ablest, most sound judging, and impartial of the London officials of the Chn -ch Missionary Society —a man who has the fullest information on the points at issue, as well as nearly every other advantage for forming a correct judgment upon them. He writes:— "My dear Friend,—Though you may soften the expressions you used, I do not think you could fairly withdraw one of them. "The declaration of martial law against a party standing out for what they regarded as a legal right, and which they were willing to submit to any fair tribunal, eovers all that you have saitl. The fact that the Government of New Zealand is now about to submit that claim to a legal adjustment is a national confession of the wrong-doing at Taranaki, in the first instance. Mr. Brown has also written a letter of remonstrance to me for allowing our printing-press in New Zealand to print, as he terms them, such false and slanderous pamphlets as those of Sir W. Martin, late Chief Justice of New Zealand, Sir W. Denison. Governor of Sydney, and a Mr. Turner, one of the most respectable settlers. I shall simply answer him that where men equally 4 Christian' with himself take different views from him» self, he has no right to complain if we, judging of both parties impartially, come to the conclusion that he is hims3lf mistaken and the other party right." In support of these views entertained by my friend as well as myself, I beg to refer you to three pamphlets published by the Committee of the Church Missionary Society; documents which first served to form my judgment on the questions involved in the unhappy New Zealand war; they are, " Memorandum of New Zealand Affairs," "Further Remarks on New Zealand Affairs," "A Vindication of the Missionaries and Native Christians." I beg to refer you also io a pamphlet entitled, " The War in Few Zealand, by Wm. Fox, Member of the House of Representatives;'' and to two tracts by Octavius Hadfield, Archdeacon of Kapite, New Zealand, the first entitled " One of England's Little Wars; a Letter to the Right Hon. the Duke of Newcastle;" the other, "A Sequel to One of England's Little Wars, &c." Let me add that you must be aware that in the views published by the Archdeacon, Bishop Selwyn and' other dignitaries of the Church in New Zealand quite concur. Be assured that in the remarks I made at the Douglas meeting I was actuated by no unfriendly feelings towards the colonists. My sole object was to do justice to the wronged natives, and to vindicate the Missionary work from undeserved aspersions. I am. Sir, yours faithfully, Hugh Stowell.