Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4976, 5 March 1877, Page 2

A papeu entitled “ Practical Aims for the Liberal Party,” published in oue of the December magazines, shows in what direction public opinion on the education question in Great Britain is trending. In a review of the effect of Mr. Forster’S Education Act of IS7O and the Act of 1876 promoted by Lord Sandon, the author points out that they have failed to do what the people expected they would do—that they have encouraged the growth of sectarian education—in fact have failed in their objects because those who acted as Liberal leaders did not admit the principle that the schools of the country should' be organised as national institutions, and placed under representative control. After alluding to the necessity of new legislation on the subject, he points out that if secularists are to triumph, they must thoroughly study the principles on which they are to work, “ One party in the State,” he says, “thoroughly understands its own ends and aims, namely, the party on the side of ecclesiasticism ; aud in season and out of season, openly or secretly, boldly advancing or quietly retreating as occasion demands', it follows a definite purpose.” As to what the aims of the party should be, he thinks one should be to take away from School

Boards any charge of religious instruction, and leave with them the great responsibility of providing for the general secular education. The teaching of creeds and catechisms as a part of the common school routine has proved a conspicuous failure as a religious influence. “ Those of our working, classes who have passed through the religious ‘ grind ’ in an elementary school are not distinguished by faith, hut by indifference. . . The employment of the Bible alone is proving equally unsatisfactory. To prepare for an examination in the life of Adam is no mox - e a religious exercise than to do a sum in arithmetic. . .

Pure and undefiled religion involves i-evereuce, love, penitence, and immortal hope. By the attempt to resolve it into a school lesson its essential point is put to flight.” The truth of these remarks should be apparent to all, and we should like to draw the especial attention of the Church of England Synod and Bishop Bedwood (who touched on this question in his late Pastoral) to the following sentence, and ask if it does not strike the keynote of the old worn-out tune they have been strumming at so long :—“ The great religious difficulty is not to be found in the scruples of parents, but in the struggle for spiritual supremacy.” And before lea ring the subject we would introduce a quotation to show how far from the truth ax - e assertions as to the baneful effect of the system in vogue in the United States. The Bishop of Lichfield, in a speech delivered in the Midland Counties, Jan. 1876’, said:—“He had lately been over to the United States, and had been able to see the effect of a system of secular education. He could not say the result was favorable, though it had pleased God, as was usually the case, when any mistake was made,to impart benefit in another way, and the effect of this secular education had been overruled by the act of Providence by far greater earnestness in the work of Sunday-schools than prevailed in this country.” In other wox-ds, an ecclesiastic prejudiced against the system has the candor to admit that secular education does not necessarily entail in its effects a godless people. Do the sectarians assume that Providence will not overrule for good hex - e as well as in America ? The fact is that after all it is a matter of cause and effect. If perfunctory religious teaching be dropped in the ordinary day-school, the various sects will soon organise corps of Sunday-school teachers, who will do the work earnestly arid faithfully, and successfully too.

Parliamentary quarrels are neither few nor, generally speaking, of a mild character, in Victoria. Some few members of the now moribund Parliament very much resemble certain of the leaders of her Majesty’s Opposition in New Zealand. Barred by their incompetence and impracticability from occupying the Government benches, or even from obtaining a respectable following, they find congenial employment in mud-throwing, and neither proved honesty nor high position guards a man fi-om attack. A Mr. Berry, the arch protectionist of Victoria, and the leader of the so-called Libex-al party in that colony, has, in an address before his constituents, made a serious charge against the Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Legislative Assembly, viz., that on one occasion “we could not. have been defeated if there had not been the corrupt, Speaker, and the corrupt Chairpxan of Committees, backing up the Ministry, and giving decisions contrary to all parliamentary law and all parliamentary practice.” The Speaker at once demanded an explanation, and Mr. Berry replied: “It is quite evident that an interpretation beyond what I intended to convey may be placed upon the word in question. I have, therefore, no hesitation in withdrawing it in that sense, and state that what I meant to convey was that undue influence was threatened and used by the Ministry over your decisions, but without impugning your personal integrity as Speaker.” The distinction is mighty fine, and it is hard to see how such an apology could be accepted ; yet accepted by the Speaker it was, and he retires from the stage. The Chairman of Committees; however, is not so easily satisfied, and he wants further explanations, while Sir James McCulloch, Premier, has taken che matter up, and on behalf of the Government demands an investigation. What form this will take remains to be seen, but perhaps an action for libel would be the best means to secure the proof or disproving of the statement. Were the matter to be allowed to rest where the Speaker seems inclined to let it rest, the only conalusion to be come to is that the charges are true.

So much is being said about the damage done by the miuah and other birds introduced by the acclimatisation societies, that to prevent misapprehension as to the value of the work these societies are doing, it is desirable to state facta which tell on the other side. The Melbourne Argus has recently been writing on this matter, and we make so apology for reproducing some of the points made by the Argus. The annual loss to the community through the wholesale destruction of small birds in France is proverbial, and lately the Ministerof Agriculture has been looking into the matter, the result being the posting at crossroads of a notice, of which the following is a translation The hedgehog lives on mice, small rodents, slugs, and grubs—animals hurtful to agriculture. Don’t kill the hedgehog. The toad is a farm assistant, destroys from 20 to 30 insects an hour. Don’t kill the toad. The mole is continually destroying grubs, larvae, palmer-worms, and insects injurious to agriculture. No trace of. vegetation is ever found in its stomach. Does more good than harm. Don’t kill the mole. Birds.—Each Department loses several millions annually through insects. Birds are the only enemies able to contend against them victoriously. They are the great caterpillar-killers and agricultural assistants. Children, don’t destroy their nests.- May Bug and its Larvae or Grub. —Mortal enemy to agriculture. Lays from 70 to 80 eggs. Kill the may-bug. Children will be paid 25 centimes for. every 500 may-bugs placed in the hands of the garde-charapetre.” . The latter clause would be quite unnecessary if the smallbirdsof France were suitably protected. It is now a fact recognised 'by all' ornithologists that insectivorous birds form the moat numerous class, and are the most widely distributed. Many of them, according to Brehm, devour daily fioin three to* four- times their own weight of insect food. The swallow consumes 1000 flies per diem; a couple of hedge-sparrows will convey to their young upwards of 4000 caterpillars or beetles weekly; and a single pair of titmice will average 2000 insects a day, or 730,000 per annum. “And it is worthy of remark,” observes the naturalist just referred to, “ that the most noxious creatures of all classes are principally destroyed by birds.” These facts, are thoroughly realised, and many people who lose perhaps a bushel of apples or pears iprggt.that-such a loss-is but a contribution to Hie support of birds, which by their natural habits prevent valuable trees, even whole orchards, from being devastated by insects. Not many years ago, as an American naturalist tells us, the pines on thousands of acres of land in Norfh Carolina were destroyed by insects not known to have ever done serious injury to that tree before ; and the devastation was traced to the wanton destruction of the robin and other insectivorous birds in that part of the district. Many similar cases are on record ; and there is now a general concensus of opinion among the highest authorities in Europe and America that “without birds no agriculture. or even vegetation, would be possible,” Nevertheless, entire species are disappearing rh both countries, and the instinct of destruction seems .to be so strong in the minds of the civilised races, that its indulgence requires to be combated and curbed by whatever sources of, instruction, persuasion, or restraint may be available for that purpose. These facts are self-evident, and we feel that when better information on the subject is disseminated, the absurd objections to the work of accliiuatisatif|| societies will cease.