EDUCATION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4600, 17 December 1875, Page 2 (Supplement)

EDUCATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir,—la your issue of Saturday your correspondent “ Veritas,” replying to my argument against concurrent endowment, appears to me to address the State somewhat thus;—“ Gentlemen, either endow tny denominational schools, or I will apply to you an offensive epithet—l will call you atheistical." With your permission, sir, I will carry out this argument a little further. There is a society in Wellington called “ The Wellington Benevolent Association. It consists chiefly of the ministers of the various religions denominations, and the object of it is to afford pecuniary assistance to persons in distress. This society openly professes to relieve the wants of deserving persons, without any reference to their religious opinions; it boasts of it, as of something of which it may well be proud, that in the distribution of its help it knows no religious distinctions : it, in fact, ignores the denominational classification altogether. Sir, some people are proud of this society, but I regret to be under _ the necessity of calling It an atheistical society. “Veritas” says so* * I am aware, however, that of this atheistical society, of this society which ignores religions distinctions, his Lordship the Roman Catholic Bishop of this city is a member, and takes an active part in its affairs. I think, therefore, it is tolerably plain that the argument of “ Veritas" proves a little too much. I do not think that the most timid will be driven to endow the Roman Catholic or any other denomination by such a palpable fallacy as this, The secularisation of the State is the correlative principle to freedom of conscience. When the right of private judgment in matters of religion was once admitted the secularisation of the State began. The non-establishment of a State Church by the different colonies Is an affirmation of the principle that the State is a secular institution, and all history shows that the attempt to engraft upon it a theological character works badly, and is fraught with injustice. The Slate is the organisation of mankind for definite secular purposes, just as the Church is an organisation of the same men for a religious purpose, and to charge the State with atheism because it has no theological character is as wise a proceeding as to charge the Bank of New Zealand with atheism. And it is only where the State is completely secularised that the right of the individual to the exercise of liis private judgment in matters of religion is fully respected. ** Veritas ” hits what was until quite recently a blot on our administration—the imposition of an oath (a barbarous custom, in my judgment, which had come down to us from Roman Catholic times) in our courts of law was imperative. To that extent the State did recognise religious distinctions, and much injustice and hardship was inflicted upon individuals in consequence, many conscientious persons preferring rather to go to prison than violate the command, “Swear not at all" But by a recent Act of the Imperial Legislature, the taking of of an oath in a court of justice is no longer imperative throughout the British dominions, and, to my knowledge, the Act has been put in operation in our own Police Court here in Wellington. Hence whatever infinitesimal weight might attach to an argument drawn from this practice no longer avails. We need not subsidise denominational schools to teach boys and girls how to swear. I quite agree with “Veritas" when he says that the whole is the sum of its parts, but it did not require several long paragraphs to prove that. I also agree with him when he says that the State ought to carry out the wishes of its citizens when they ask for nothing “unreasonable or immoral," but I differ from him in considering it either reasonable or moral to take the money of Protestants and Jews to teach Roman Catholic dogmas. He asks, “ Why should I pay water tax if lam to get no water V* The illustra- ' tion is most apposite, but the reply is obvious. “ You shall have your water paid for out of the common treasury, if water pure and simple mil satisfy you, because all the citizens are agreed that water is a good thing; but you shall not have your brandy-and-water from the common fund, because a large number of the citizens are convinced that your brandy is poison." . A small personal matter remains. “Veritas" tries to’ make capital out of my no in dc plume, but I fear he is weak in his Greek. The adjective poluiropos, I may inform “Veritas,” occurs in the first line of the “ Odyssey," Homer applies it to Ulysses, when introducing him as the hero of his second grand epic. Common sense will now show “ Veritas " that it must needs bear a , complimentary, and not a contemptuous, meaning. The word also occurs in an adverbal form in the first verse of the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, referring to the Divine Being, “who, at sundry times," but Jsurely not in weather-cock fashion, “ spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.” All things are lawful in war, but surely, even in war, it is desirable to know something about the matters we meddle with, lest the ridicule we intend for our opponents should rebound upon ourselves.—l am, &c., POLUTROPOS, Wellington, Dec. 13,1875. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir,—lf the Wellington public look upon “A Catholic’ with the eyes of the gentlemen who write answers to his letters, he is likely to come out of the discussion a poor character. One says he is wanting in education; another, that he lacks ingenuousness, or that his prospective faculty is hopelessly obtuse; that to the thinking man his arguments contain not a particle of logic. Those are rather hard words, but as “Catholic" forms a unit in a community accustomediong since to' bear with harsh treatment, while fighting for a good cause, he will go on saying what he thinks is right, not minding the nature of the compliments which are bestowed upon Mm. He will endeavor to be very abort with “ .Protestant.” who in a few words tells him much which he already knows, and something besides, to which “A Catholic " begs to advert. The granting of my claims, says “Protestant," would inflict. indeed, but a slight injury on the Protestant portion of the community; yet it might be fraught with very serious consequences to the social advancement of the Roman Catholic body, not only in Wellington, but throughout New Zealand. This may be very laudable solicitude, but would “ Protestant" unfold his meaning so as to enable us to appreciate the soundness of his apprehensions in regard to the social welfare of Catholics, should the Education Board grant to them wherewith to erect a schoolhouse. - ..... ... I should feel much obliged also for an answer to this query. Is it really injustice to the community at large to do for Catholics what you said was done without the shadow' of a scruple for the Church of England school 7 That school is denominational; it has books not objectionable to the Protestant clergy, it is the Church of England school; it stands on church ground. The agreement between that school and the Board may be brought to an end by a notice. Yet funds were not refused to enlarge and otherwise improve it, and the ground it stands upon. As “Protestant" is probably allowed free access to documents out of my reach, would he have the kindness to find out, and place before the public, what sums the Board has voted for the above-mentioned purposes? He may then compare them with what has ever been given to Catholics. And should he prove that what Catholics keep asking for is out of proportion. all things considered, with the sum named some time ago before the Education Board, as a help which they would be grateful for, and satisfied with, then he may say that we have been trying to make rather free with the public fund, especially if he puts aside the fact that money had been offered, and that we promised, should it be once granted, that we were willing for a length of time to do without State aid as salaries to the teaching staff. “A Catholic" has already alluded to “ Presbyter’s” letter, while acknowledging his courtesy; and he is convinced that he. may, in safetyto himself, leave it to the public to judge whether he had indeed quoted disingenuously from his first letter. But does the gentleman know that lie is only using a clap-trap phrase when he says that to grant funds to our schools would be equivalent to the granting of State aid to the Catholic Church? Yes, just as granting funds to the Church of England school is the granting of State aid to that church. Their school gives to the State, as value for money received, children to whom it lias imparted a certain required amount of secular instruction. And by so doing, it has fulfilled its part of the contract, and received its payment. If the children leaving the school do not go away without having also received within its walls religions training, which the teachers gave without J>eing paid by the State for it, nor required by the State to give it, how can it follow that because this religious instruction was given and received in the school, the church to which the school belongs is endowed by the State? “A Catholic’s” perspective faculty is really too obtuse to supply the answer. Will “ Presbyter” give it ? I am. Ax., A Catholic.

TO THE EDITOR OF THF SEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sin,—l have read several times, and with all possible attention, “ Episkopos’ ” letter. Of course, I have admired his fervor in warning the Education Board that they should, supposing the truth of certain statements, at once curtail the overgrown authority of their secretary. Such an exordium was promising; too much so, seeing what came next, for do what I may I had to go far into the body of the discourse before I could discover anything in it but assertions to the effect that! indulge in irrelevant comments; that I hint to the fact that unless I can put my hands into the public purse the youthful members of my flock must go without their religious education; that evidently nothing will satisfy me but that the State shall build my school, and pay my teaching staff; that I claim not equality with other denominations, but endowment by the State of the Homan Catholic Church. These I say are mere assertions, and as the poor things have no legs to stand upon I leave them where “Episkopos ” dropped them as cripples which it would be silly, if not unmanly, to fight against. But one thing I should rather like to know, were it not too much trouble for “Episkopos” to explain, how in the world does he make it out that the denominational system, of any pattern, means flagrant injustice, usurpation by the State of functions which do not belong to it, and a dealing with that upon which it is incompetent to pronounce. I mistake very much, or that argumentagainst denominationalism in the school has, wanting all others, the merit of freshest novelty, for which I am confident its author would not be refused a patent should he apply for the favor to some secularist boards of education. His only other argument against denominationalism in the school is somewhat in fine style, and with some scriptual fragrance. The system “has been weighed in the balance and found wanting I" Yet I should like to ask by whom in Victoria was the system found wanting? Were the judges certainly impartial, and of unquestionable integrity ? Who crammed the overweighing scale; and what the value of that wjiich was put jin it? ** Episkopos ” whispers not one word on those concomitant circumstances. One thing amongst others I rememberto baveread of—economy wasplaced In the scale on the secularist side. But after the passing of the Act the Government found that while with the denominational system less than £ 200,000 a-year was enough, the new system revealed the necessity of one half million expenditure, and the Assembly had to vote £0X5,431, wluch the liabilities entirely covered. Two days'later the Ar<ju* (November 27, 1*74). suggested a loan. “Episkopos” thinks that I speak somewhat boastfully of the Christian Brothers, whom he is willing to mistake for an arm of the Jesuit Does he believe it, or docs lie simply mean to pay a tribute of honor to this age of progress so remarkable for its deep historical researches ‘i Be it as it may, but If it

be true that I speak rather boastfully of the Christian Brothers, lam not without motives for doing it; ana ns I am now requested to fulfil my promise, and give my authority as to the efllciency of their teaching, x shall name, first, the eloquent Dominican, rather Bourke, who, quoting from a report read before the English Parliament on the state of the schools in Ireland, as ascertained by the Commission appointed for the purpose, says in’ substance that the most efficient schools in imparting purely secular knowledge were those under the management of the Christian Brothers, who nevertheless gave to religion the first place in their teaching. This will be all my to-day s answer to “ Episkopos.” Concerning the ot Proud’s testimony, when he speaks of things Catnouc in general, and of the Christian Brothers and their books in particular,—has “Episkopos” ever known what castigation Fromle received, some years ago, from P. Bourke and from Mitchel (the latter not a Catholic) in presence of the applauding American public, for his mendacious and slanderous historical statements? Such an authority had better be kept in a dark corner, for no credit is reflected upon the exhibitor by the witness. In further compliance to “Episkopos” request to supply lunr with data upon which he may form an opinion of the Christian Brothers’ work as teachers, I will quote the Umcers of July 27,1575, the most extensively read trench paper after the notorious bifclc, It gives the result of the examination for scholarships of pupils belonging to the school of Saint Nicholas d'lssy, under the management of the Christian Brothers “ Were presented and examined by a commission ad hoc, and not composed of clericals, seventy-three pupils. Sixtynine were received with highly satisfactory notes. I doubt not that in Prance as in Ireland, a Commission sent through the country to examine all the schools and report upon them, would say, as was said before the English Parliament some three years ago ’’The most efficient schools in imparting purely secular knowledge are those in which religion occupies the foremost place in the programme.”—l am, fee., A Catholic*.