EDUCATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4595, 11 December 1875, Page 3

EDUCATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF TUB NEW ZEALAND TIMES, Sir, —In your issue of to-day a certain individual self-named “ Polutropos,” or in equivalent plain English, “Weathercock,” impugns one of the sound and irrefragable arguments on which the educational claim of Catholics is based. He calls it “ very plausible.” and then with assumed superiority endeavors to refute it: Admirable refutation ! Such, forsooth, as might be expected from a “ Weathercock.” “ The State,” lie says, “knows nothing of religious distinctions. This, if it means anything, means that the State is professedly and avowedly atheistical. This is evidently a sign of ‘ modern progress ’ ” Well and good so far. But atheism and theism are two religious distinctions—the one negative, the other positive. The State then, to be consistent, should cease to require an oath in the name of God in all the courts of justice in the land. Would “Weathercock” admit this? or if he would, will Christian society at largo ? Again, do the State schools, in practice, “know nothing of religious distinctions.” Look, for instance, at Canterbury and Otago. The schools in those provinces are directly hostile to the Roman Catholic religion. In them the reading of the Bible— Protestant—is compulsory. This provision of the law excludes all Catholic masters and mistresses from the schools as efficaciously as if Catholics were excluded bv name, and certainly stamps upon them the distinctive character of Protestantism. In a word, it is notorious that in Otago the State school system is Presbyterian Protestantism, and in Canterbury, Anglican Protestantism. This is how the State practically ignores religious distinctions. Besides, the whole argument of “Polutropos” is like most other secularistic arguments—strip it of its vagueness and ambiguity and it falls like a house of cards. For what is the “State”—that much-abused name so often made the justification of every variety of modern tyranny ! What is rightly meant by the “State?” Some people seem to have a vague idea that it is something different from the people who compose it. It signifies the entire population of a country or part of a country, considered not merely as a population, but as a political community. It likewise signifies the body of men whem this community has selected from its own members, to whom it has entrusted the charge of administering its affairs, and who, precisely because they represent the “State” at large, and are charged with carrying out its wishes, and protecting its interests, are called the “State.” The State, therefore, is not something distinct from the individuals who compose it. Neither is there any State advantage distinct from that of the individuals composing the State, and to which each and every individual composing it and contributing to its prosperity has not .an abstract right, though in practice he may sometimes be accidentally or maliciously deprived of his rights. A public or common interest means an interest common to all the individuals composing the public. In no instance can the individual be set aside. Whether he enjoy his right by himself, or along with those of his denomination, or with the entire community, his enjoyment is always real and personal. If you take away the individuals composing the State, and talk of the prosperity of some abstract thing remaining, you talk of an unreality. If you sacri-. fice “ the cause of onesection of tho community to some other which it pleases you to call the people”—you commit an injustice. If you take away the Catholics can you, by any stretch of the imagination, call the remaining portions of the community the whole ? Whatever money a Catholic pays into the hands of those men whom he has elected to watch over his interests according to justice, and who, precisely because they undertake to “represent him, and carry out his wishes whenever they are neither unreasonable nor immoral, are called the State, he pays in with an understanding that It is to be laid out to his advantage, and not to the advantage of some abstract unreality, or of a section of the community—call it secularist or otherwise—which does not include him, and which nevertheless is often designated tho people, the State, &c. Why should I pay water-tax if I am to get no water? or education-tax if education if offered to me under conditions which do not allow me to avail myself of it, unless I violate my conscience. As to the last part of “ Polutropos’” letter, in which he impugns the sincerity of the conscientious scruples of Catholics, and insinuates base motives of priestcraft, we fling it back in his rabid teeth with the scorn it deserves. We might retort, and say that the strongest reason in behalf of secularism in education is that it is the direct road to tho destruction of all belief in a revealed religion; and this, under fair pretexts, is the secret of the favors bestowed on it by unbelievers of every shade.—l am. &c., * Veritas. TO TUB EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES, Sir,— lf “Observer’s" statements bo correct, it is high time that tho Education Board through its chairman took steps to revise tho correspondence of the secretary. For that official to make such a promise to the Roman Catholic community as his letter contains, and then in a subsequent one to coolly describe it as an “unintentional error,” ia to say the least highly censurable, and shows that far too much authority is placed in his hands. “Catholic," like some others who are battling for dcnominationalisra, finds it much easier to indulge in irrelevant comments than to face the two issues which “Presbyter” puts before him, and with which he vainly attempts to deal. Ho spares no pains to Impress ns with the necessity of religious Instruction—which no one denies—and the peril of leaving tho young ignorant of tho Catechism : but does he not pay a poor tribute to his convictions and his zeal when ho hints that if he can't put his hand into the public purse, the youthful members of Ins flock must go without their religious education. “ Catholic’s ” letter leaves us in no doubt as to the character and extent of his demands. Nothing will satisfy him but that the State, from taxes levied upon all classes of religionists in this community, shall build his school, pay tho teaching stalf, allow him to select the teacher—who of course must be of his persuasion—and fix upon class books which “shall contain nothing not Catholic, and much that will be Catholic.” In short, what he claims is not equality but tho endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in this and by means of the common school. Now I not only object to denominational education after “ Catholic’s ” pattern, or any other, for tho reasons given by “Presbyter” aro that such a system means flagrant injustice, and that under such a system tho State usurps functions which do not belong to it, and deals with that upon which it is incompetent to pronounce, for who can tell what religious teaching Is? Are there not definitions—Romish, Anglican, Methodist, and Presbytcrial ? But I take exception to it further, on the ground that it has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. In Victoria, where the conditions are much like what wo have hero, it has been tried under most favorable circumstance*, with every facility for demonstrating its excellence, and with what result? Lot the report of the Royal Commission of ISOG, p, 14, speak:—“The mischievous influences of donominationalism upon public education are represented by the witnesses to be twofold, Ist. It has a tendency to promote jealousy and distrust, and mutual apprehensions generally unfounded amongst tho parents of

different denominations. These feelings do not, we believe, now operate so much amongst the various sects of Protestants as between the whole body ot Protestants on the one hand and of Roman Catholics on the other. 2nd. And more formidable evil arises from the inability of the central authority to compel such an amalgamation of schools belonging to different denominations as maybe required in the interests of good education, and demanded by consideration of economy. It is expressly or impliedly admitted by all the witnesses that denominationalism lias chiefly contributed to produce an undue increase in the number of public schools, a less efficient system of public instruction, and a wasteful expenditure of public money.” , . . .. ... “Catholic” speaks somewhat boastfully of the work of the Christian Brothers, " who are understood to bo a Jesuit arm exclusively engaged in the work of education." He does not favor us, however, with any data upon which to found an opinion; for I suppose he would not have us accept the Nation or the Freemart as authorities. Wo are not, however, in the same doubtful state as to the quality of the mental food they supply, having looked carefully at some of the class-books issued under their authority and in use in their schools. I fully agree with the opinions expressed, I think, by Mr. Fronde, in ‘ Fraser’s Magazine,” for February, 1874. In /egard to their “Historical Class-book,” he says;- The usual plan of the authors when they approach critical questions is to explain away what they cannot deny—to omit altogether what they cannot explain away—-and to fling the falsest accusations broad-cost against all, whether Protestants, or literal Catholics who oppose Ultramontanism.” Respecting their “Treatise on Modern Geography,” ho says—lt is constructed with a thoroughly sectarian design and sots forth the social anil intellectual conditions of all countries in a way to exalt Romanism and disparage Protestants. Regarding their “literary Class-book,” he affirms it to be a first-rate school manual for Fenianism, because ail the most pungent extracts point to insurrection ns the approved method of asserting Irish independence. In this last opinion he is supported by no less a personage than Master Brooke, a member of the Royal Commission on primary education. We are soon to be favored with the presence of some representative-fif this order, and it is a matter almost for surprise that our Education Board, having already conferred exceptional privileges upon the Roman Catholic schools in this city, did not comply with Bishop Redwood’s request to allow these schools to be conducted by the Christian Brothers. I am specially thankful that you have given no uncertain sound on the great question at issue, I fully believe when public opinion is tested, it will be found to be in favor ot an educational system for New Zealand, national, non-religious, or secular, free and compulsory.-—I am, &c., Episkopos.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —For an answer to “ Observer," “ A Catholic” finds it necessary to be again allowed some space in your columns. He must first say, in justification, that he knew nothing of the letter dated July 20. 1575. The one lie quotedTrom, was in date of Juno 17, written by Mr. Graham, as Secretary to the Education Board, expressing the desire of the Board “ of building a new central and commodious schoolhouse, for the special benefit of the Roman Catholic community, in lieu of the two present schoolhouses, in Hillstreet and Boulcott-streefc, both of which are quite unsuitable for the purpose ; and I have been (Mr. Graham says) directed to inquire whether your committee would bo prepared to give the Board a lease, say, for twenty-one years, of a suitable site for the purpose, from that piece of property to your community in Boulcott-street, and overhanging Lambton-quay, on condition that the Board erected a suitable schoolhouse, to be used on similar terms as at present exist between your committee and the Board, these being embodied in the lease.” After reading “ Observer’s’ - letter in to-day’s New Zealand Times, “ A Catholic” went to inquire about the letter dated July 26,1875. This letter, he was told, was never delivered to the head of the Catholic community, owing, probably, to the departure of Dr. Grace for Europe. But he was shown, for the first time, another letter written August 80, by the Secretary to the Board, and directed to Rev. Father Petit Jean, which alludes to the missing letter of July 20. If, therefore, “ A Catholic” has several times quoted expressions, recalled in a subsequent letter, he may not be refused to offer as his apology his ignorance of the fact, which he had no means to know of, until to-day. He has now to stand in the position made for him and Catholics by the suppression of the words: “ For the special benefit of the Catholic community,” Taking it for granted that the quotation by “ Observer” of a letter of the secretary to the Board, July 26, 1875, is authentic, ho is then certain that it convoys to the Catholic committee the mind of the Board in the following words“ All schools are understood to bo for the general benefit, and to be restricted to no particular religious denominations. What I ought to have said, was, that the proposed school was to bo on exactly the same terms as the present schools in Hillstreet and Boulcott-street, under the special agreement dated May 13, 1873, between the Board and the Roman Catholic community.” Those words, indeed, forbid Catholics to hope that the Board will give them and assist a school for Catholics to the exclusion of children of other denominations ; but tlvey never entertained such a hope. The same words also forbid Catholics to expect that the Board will consent to abdicate their control over their school. But Catholics did not look for this abdication either.

All they expected was. a schoolhouse built at the expense of the Board, on a piece of land belonging to the Catholic community, on certain conditions proposed by the Board, and with their promise to have Christian Brothers accepted as teachers, on conditions also, to be agreed between the two contracting parties. Well, such a school would be the conferring upon Catholics of a special benefit; and they never asked anything beyond this —or different from this —until they were offered, as a substitute, the grammarschool. It was only then that they suggested th© idea of a grant by the Board to build the promised school, with a promise on their part not to trouble the Board for a number of years for any grant in payment of salaries to teachers. The offer of the grammar school came unexpectedly to disappoint Catholic expectations and frustrate the hopes of the Catholic community. They saw themselves on the eve of having their two schools closed or left unassisted, without anything given them as a compensation ; for the grammar school, in their estimation, cannot compensate them, placed where it is, and with the conditions under which it was meant to be given. To force its acceptance upon Catholics under threat of ignoring them in Wellington, should they refuse, seemed to Catholics a hard treatment, which they were not willing to suppose it was the Board’s intention to inflict. Hence their proposal of a grant in aid of the building of a schoolhouse, with a pledge on their part to support the school at their own expense for a term of years. They were willing to find in the enjoyment of more liberty in the management of their school, and in its more decidedly Catholic character, a compensation for the loss of an annual grant which they were willing to give up,—l am, &c., A Catholic. December 6. . .