THE EDUCATION QUESTION IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4967, 22 February 1877, Page 3

THE EDUCATION QUESTION IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

We extract the following from a speech made by Mr. Buchanan, a member of the New South Wales Legislature, in his place in Parliament, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald :—“So absolutely false in principle, so absolutely rotten in every sense was our present educational system, that he was astonished how it could find any upholders. He would prove iu every possible way by statistics and argument that nothing could be more erroneous, more extravagant, or more ruinous than our present public school system, by which we were led into the expenditure of an amount of money that, if just principles were at the helm, would be reduced absolutely one-half. It could not, at this time, be disputed that, if the State undertook the education of the people—though he held that it was no part of its duty to do 60 —but it having undertaken the duty, it then became a question for every one to consider, namely, upon what principles ought this teaching to be carried out? In a community of this description, composed of every sect of religion, what else coula the State do than give secular education alone. (Hear, hear.) How could it take cognizance of all the religious sects and attempt to teach their dogmas? The thing bore absurdity on the very face of it. Even if the whole people were of one sect, and that established, the State would be under no obligation to teach religion in the public schools, simply because the schools were not a proper place to teach it, if it was a thing which could be taught at all. But how very impolitic itwas when we had abolished the system of State-aid to religion, or rather had given it a death blow which would prove mortal some twenty years hence. Yet, whilst with one hand we had done that, with the other we endowed a more obnoxious system of State-aid to religion; because, in those denominational schools they did nothing but teach the dogmas of the various sects. It had been urged, in defence of these schools, by the hon. member for East Sydney (Mr. Parkes), that they gave a secular education equal to that of the public schools. But, if that were so, what was the use of having two different kinds of schools doing the same thing? Why not have only one kind? But denominational schools were not defended simply because they gave secular instruction. It was because they taught the doctrines of the sects. And it was because of that reason that he was opposed to them. The State was' no enemy to religion because it excluded religion from public schools. It was no enemy to the Bible because it excluded it from the schools. With every respect for religion, and with every respect for the Scriptures, he would have both excluded from our schools; that waa to say so far as dogmatic teaching was understood by the word religion. Was it not of great importance that our children should be taught the elements of knowledge? And was it not an enormous boon if the State gave the children that boon? But, while the State did that, in saying that it could do no more, it showed no disrespect to religion, or want of reverence for the whole Scriptures. What was the attitude of the clergy on this question ? They said that in the event of the adoption of secular teaching, which they called a godless system, our children would grow up infidels, and that nothing but moral ruin would be the result. How completely they ignored their own usefulness ! What became of their churches ? (Hear, hear.) What became of their labors every Sunday ? Did they confess that their teaching was absolutely useless ? If the children were taught nothing more than secular matters in the schools, , the clergy would still have an opportunity once a week of teaching them anything they liked. Was not that enough ? (Mr. Butler: One clergyman to 100; schools.) There was but one clergyman to a congregation, and a congregation often numbered 2000 or 3000. But where, in any part of the country, was there any population without a church ? The clergy had alleged that if a secular system were adopted, nothing but widespread moral ruin would be the result. He believed they were insincere in saying it, and that they said it only for the purpose of answering their own ends. Would any member of the House say that the children of the denominational school were more moral than the children of the public school ? If they would not say so, how could any one say that the public school was not a great benefit to the community ? If there were any truth in the arguments of the clergy, the children in the public school would be all immoral, and those in the denominational school would be all highly moral. But to show the House how totally divested of truth were the assertions of the clergy, there was not one member of this House who for a moment would allege that the children in the public schools were not as moral, as well-behaved, and as estimable as the children belonging to the denominational schools. He said this : “ You have got your churches and your Sunday-schools for the upholding of religion ; and you have got the best place of all for the teaching of religion—that was, the home of the parent.” (Hear, hear.), Religion could not be taught in the public schools ; but if it was the mysteries of the thirty-nine, articles, of the Westminster confession of faith, or of tranaubstantiation and the immaculate conception, that were sought to be taught, then he said these things could be taught in the Sunday-school or the church. Was the public school any place for this to be taught ? But where was it taught ? It was taught in the denominational schools, and they were giving public money away for the purpose of teaching it, thus acting most inconsistently with what had been done in abolishing State aid to religion. There were more serious matters in connection with this. It had become a very serious matter in point of expense. Everywhere all over the country where denominational schools existed, there were two schools where one would actually suffice. It was not often he dealt in statistics, but it was sometimes absolutely necessary to bring one’s views more vividly before one’s hearers. In Sydney there were 32 schools—9 of these were public schools, 10 Church of England schools, 8 Roman Catholic, 2 Presbyterian, 2 Wesleyan, and 1 Hebrew school - So that there were 23 denominational to 9 public schools. He submitted that if the Council of Education did their duty they would have discontinued the denominational schools, and made the 9 public schools into 15. In doing that they would have done away with 23 rival schools that were inimical to the other schools. Any one could see that at a glance. What were these 23 schools established for ? It was that the dogmas of these sects should be disseminated by means of the public money. They were not established for the purpose of giving secular education, but to teach the theological dogmas of religious sects. It was an extravagant and wasteful expenditure of public money, for the sake of conciliating sectarianism, and for the sake of keeping Governments in power. There was a public school at Hill End, with 230 children, and there was a Roman Catholic school with 51 children. Why could they not go to the public school ? At the pnblicschool at Hamilton there were 210 children, and at the Roman Catholic school there were 56 children. Who would say they were not squandering public money in a reckless manner when they saw this state of things ? No doubt some of these denominational schools were well attended, but that did not touch his argument. It was all very well for the Governments to treat the matter lightly. We were in a prosperous state now ; but the dark day might not be far distant when we should see the defects of this extravagant educational system, which raised up competing denominational schools ‘where we wish to keep up a public school. The whole thing was so rotten that he was astonished it could have even one adherent. It had been said that the parents demanded this religious education for their children. To

that statement he gave a flat and emphatic denial. What they' wished was to see them educated in the elementary principles of secular knowledge, and statistics would with magic force sustain his opinion. It was the clergy only who had got up this hue and cry, and not the parents of the children, who rely upon the churches, the home, and the Sabbath schools, for the religious teaching. And he would prove it thus :—The number of Church of England children in the public schools—which have been denounced as godless—was 22,719- He would ask the House and the country did the parents of these children send them there to get religious instruction? The answerwaa certainlynot; they sent them there to get secular knowledge. The number of Roman Catholic children in the public schools was 10,290, and they went there in defiance of the clergy. The number of Presbyterians in the public schools was 6509 ; Wesleyans, 6826 ; other Protestant sects, 4360 ; in all,, 50,610. Did not these figures triumphantly prove his argument ? Did not this prove that the parents were in favor of the national league ? To show hon. members how little children care for religion in schools, and to show that their parents have no reliance on schools for religious teaching, he would ask them to follow him in the following statistics : —ln the Church of England schools there were 8851 Church of England children, 613 Roman Catholics, 852 Presbyterians, 950 Wesleyans, and 581 other Protestants. In the Roman Catholic schools ( there were 687 Church of England children, 9579 Roman Catholics, 58 Presbyterians, 86 Wesleyans, and 55 other Protestants. In the Presbyterian schools there were 335 Church of England children, 62 Roman Catholics, 126 Presbyterians, 121 Wesleyans, and 86 other Protestants. In the Wesleyan schools there were 264 Church of England children, 55 Roman Catholics, 53 Presbyterians, 573 Wesleyans, and 16 6 ".other Protestants. lu the Hebrew schoolsthere were 27 Church of England children, 1 Roman Catholic, no Presbyterians, 7 Wesleyans, and 58 of other denominations. He did not think there was a better proof of th| parents’ desire, or a more satisfactory-Statement ever put before any public assembly than those statistics elicited. It was almost impossible to imagine anything that more mathematically demonstrated the fact that the parents of those fifty thousand children did not send them to the schools to be taught religion. Their only anxiety was to see their children made men and women of in the public schools, and they looked to other sources than the schools for their religious instruction. There could not be a more triumphant argument against the attitude and position taken up by the clergy on the education question than was shown by those statistics. There were 50,000 children attending these schools, and their parents gave the lie to the clergy’s allegations that the public schools were godless and not fit to send children to. The clergy were not true, but absolutely and entirely false on that point. He would appeal to any hon. member in the House whether the churches, the Sabbath schools, or the homes of the children were not the best and most fit places for teaching the children religion, and that noisy schoolrooms were not. These statistics proved that the parents were with the League, and did not send their children to school to be taught religion.” In the same debate another gentleman, speaking on the same side, said ; “He had attended on a Sunday evening a lecture in the Victoria Theatre, which. was crowded to excess by people listening to a gentleman professing to be a spiritualist, and hundreds were unable to gain admission. Upon that ground, he assumed, we had a right to support a school in connection with the Spiritualistic congregation, or with the Unitarians, or the Mohammedans, or any other section of the religious communities, if funds were demanded. We had got into this position—that we must in justice do it to the whole of them, or to none. If such an immense value was placed by denominationalists upon this State aid, what were the reasons for it? With one breath they said—‘We give the same teaching as you get in the public school in a secular shape ;’ but was it not the fact that in addition to secular training they gave a certain amount of dogmatic training. (Hear, hear.) ■ Then the State, instead of, pursuing a direct line of policy which would have the effect of making good upright citizens, was paying out of the public purse to support denominational schools, everyone of which believed the other to be of heretical nature.”