EDUCATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4589, 4 December 1875, Page 3

EDUCATION.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. presbyter,” whoso letter is printed in this morning'sissueof the New Zealand Times, says he has given much attention to the letter of “A Catholic,” and Ids judgment upon it is that “it is fitted to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and greatly to misrepresent both persons and things.” “ A Catholic” was far from having such an object in view. He simply asked, Why did not the Education Board fulfil a promise which they had made to Catholics in Wellington ? The Board never supplied the answer, but it flows out of “ Presbyter’s” pen—“ The Board nave discovered only in time that the school might absolutely become Catholic property.” Will the Board indorse the here implied statement that it took them months to make the wonderful discovery that a house belongs to the owner of the land on which it is erected ? Having thus offered his compliment to the sagacity of the Board of Education. “Presbyter” declares his will to force what he calls the fundamental question, viz., Why should the Government build or support schools for the special benefit of the Catholic community? Why, because they had offered and promised to Catholics to build and support such a school, and a promise creates a right; hence the Catholics’ claim for the fulfilment of the promise, or for some compensation from the promising party, should they fail in keeping their word. They may not do so for you (“Presbyter” says) unless they do tire same for others. “ A Catholic” is unable to detect the cogency of the argument. I ask one loaf of bread from a person who promised to let

mo have two. My neighbor, who is well off, asks for nothing, and, therefore, by the law, I must starve and bo .satisfied. Would “Presbyter” be prepared to admit, the justice of this conclusion were he himself the needy party ? But he has two horns to his dilemma. The law can make no concession to you, he. says, unless it can do I lu: same to all others. Until “Presbyter" has proved that what we usk could not be granted to all. “A Catholic ” will hold himself not bound to say more on the point. “No sound reason can he given,” so “ Presbyter’ atUrms, “fur the supporting of Catholic schools from the public funds, which could not be advanced us plausibly for the support of Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist schools.” On this question “ Presbyter” has Ids own views, and we have ours, but they arc not the same. What ! lie Ims a right, and he takes the liberty to affirm; wo have right, and we might take the liberty to deny. Anglicans, Presbyterians, aml.Methodists, make the books for the Government schools. They have found the means, besides, if “ A Catholic.” has been rigidly informed (Mr. Lee, the Inspector of Schools, would know) to make the Bible creep into more than one school under the management of the Board. Now, historical books will hardly avoid touching here and there.upon religion; and have geographies never anything to do with it? nor reading books either? As for the Bible, without notes or comment, everybody knows that it is filled with religion in general. Can “Presbyter” deny that these denominations have nearly all they require of religious teaching in the book’s of the Government schools; while to our children they might bo little better than corrupters of their faith? I should think, therefore, that this difficulty of the school books might not be deemed by “Presbyter” an unsound reason. But here is another. The Catholic creed is more positive, or has a much greater number of dogmas and affirmatives than the non-Catholic, which books not really ami strictly Catholic will not teach children attending the Government schools. To strengthen my conclusion, I must he allowed to quote words of an Anglican Bishop : —“ The education supplied by the national Board is gradually undermining the vastfcfabric of the Irish Catholic Church. I believe, as I said the other day, that mixed education is gradually enlightening the mass of the people, and that if we give it up, we give up the only hope of weaning the Irish from the abuses of Popery. But I cannot venture openly to express this opinion, I cannot openly support the Education Board as an instrument of conversion. I have to fight its battles with one hand, and that my best, tied behind mo” (“ Bishop Whateley’s Life,” by his daughter, first ed., p. 244-li). We read a few days ago as the opinion of Mr. Ross, that Anglicans are not denominational, and, that Presbyterians arc averse to dcnominationaUsm.' But to-day “Presbyter” says that most religious bodies would prefer denominational schools if, etc. The two statements arc certainly not a proof of unity of -view in the two persons; but “Presbyter ” softens the contradiction by equivalently saying, that these religious bodies sacrifice religion (a trifle) “to the advancement of the interests of the education,” two things, according to him, incompatible. The advancement of the interests of education quite Incompatible with the maintenance of denominational institutions! Why, the public papers, in a nation near England, have to record at least once m the year, the marked superiority :(proved by the awarding of prizes) of religious schools under the direction of Christian Brothers, over secular or lay schools. And in vexation, the secularists grin and gnash their teeth at the Brothers, and nickname them ignoramuses. ■ We do not ask for denominational schools all round. But grant them to us here, at least, and to others who may like to have them. Give us a fair trial, that you may see whether we can give you anything but the cheap and nasty? We ask for the favor at a much reduced expenditure of public money, so far are wo from having a will to make education most fabulously expensive. ,~. . “ Catholic” has no intention to make educational interests secondary to religious interests; ho only maintains that they are better promoted if promoted together; and that they complete each other, -help each other ; and that great attention to both is necessary to bring man to perfection, make of him a being complete in regard to education, as religion raises and regulates the heart or the will, while instruction develops the intellect only. ' Separate the two things, cultivate the mind, and neglect the heart, and your so-called educated man. will remain incomplete. You have placed in his hands much power, either for good or for evil, leaving him without a guide or a check for the proper exercise of it. This is why “A Catholic” objects to mere secular education in general, and to same in particular here, because of what he has previously termed a moral impossibility for a Catholic to get in Wellington or in New Zealand, a sufficiently religious education out of the school. I am asked next to name the ground I stand on to prove that a country rejecting all idea of a State religion, should grant to one body the privilege of having .its children effectively brought up in the principles and practices of its denomination., “ A Catholic” stands on the ground of conscience, which no State has a right to encroach upon. He stands on the ground of liberty, which the State promises to all. He stands on the ground of Divine revelation, which tells him that the first and t most necessary - thing for man to do is the sanctifying and {saving of his soul. Ho stands on the ground of his rights and duties as a parent. The former gives him claim on the State, which ho serves and obeys, for assistance in bringing up his family according to what he believes to be the will of God; the latter impose npon him the obligation to have that family brought up thus. ' , ■' Itiis no mission of mine to pass a judgment onthe intention of the Education Board, this much I may desire “Presbyter” to keep in mind, viz., that many a Board of Education have not yet succeeded, if they have ever tried, to prove that, at times at least, they are not favoring one side at the expense of the other. . ' As to Mr. Ross, I am glad to sec him cleaned by “ Presbyter ” from whatever blemish his profession of secularism might have called upon him. Secularism is broadly used to-day, when education is spoken of, by free-thinkers who are openly so, as a cap which fits them. So much the better • for Mr. Ross if he kicks the thing away. What I have said of our fair play with children of other denominations whom their parents may choose to send to our schools I maintain as true. But lam not to try to conceal that had we a truly Catholic school in Wellington our school books would contain nothing not Catholic, and no doubt much winch would be Catholic. But parents should know of it, and it would bo left to them to decide whether their children should be allowed to tread the floor of tbo Catholic school, even with our word of honor that w© shall make no attempt at winning them to our aide. They will, if they come, read history and geography, &c., as wo read them, but that will be done only with theirs and their parents’ consent, since, they are not to be forced into our schools as Catholic children are forced into the Government schools, where there la nothing Catholic for them to read or to hear,—l am, &0., • • A Catholic,