THE EDUCATION BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5123, 24 August 1877, Page 5

THE EDUCATION BILL.

MEETING OF' CATHOLICS. A meeting of the Catholics of Wellington and its vicinity was held lapt’ evening at the new schoolroom, Boulcott-street, for the purpose of discussing the Education Bill now before Parliament. The large room was crowded, and those present evidently felt a deep interest in the proceedings. , , ■ On the motion of Mr. C.. O’Neill, the Bight Eev. Bishop Bedwood was voted to the chair. - The Chairman said; Before I come tospeak [ of the special object of this meetfcjg—t)>S ,cop- ■ sideration of the Education 'Billnow before Parliament—l have first te state that several gentlemen,'who. honor this 1 meeting with theirpresence] enlighten, it with their elpquent speeches, were they ,not induced, by peculiar reasons connected with their position as members of Parliament, to prefer the part of intelligent hearers to that-of active performers. ,Ih the next place, £ wish it to he distinctly understood ‘ that ft isI,'our 1 ,'our desire to ' say absolutely nbthihg that could wound the : feelings'hr'Shock the sensibility of any person 1 - whomsoever. We are not here to ekhibit animosity, or call names, br impute jhotiv'es ; we '■"'are here to' consider the Education Bill in the' 1 calm,‘serene light of reason, Cbmmon sense, and - universal justice. In our eyes persons sink 1 ■into utter insignificance in a question of. such magnitude as the present—iv .question engrbs-" sing the attention of Catholics throughout the world—a question . keenly' affecting the inte- ; •_ rests of bur children,'not. ;only' here, hut here-' question] therefore, btyitaland eterdal; importance;" We "are ’‘epne'erned with!jjiiim- ; ■ ciples' arid 'their arid "not with'rhbn; ' 'Oh' Ibokih l^1 oVbr the 'liresept' Bill, Ve lt ; is sectarian 1 enough s to; injure ] ■ yet too' secular to .be compatible with'the - , re- ■• ■ quirements’ o^‘ r a''sottnd' : Ch'tiitiah''edu , catibn;.' 7 Wlth.fhb exbeptrbp of a little Protestant Blble reading,and prayei) the'edubationto he en- '■ tirely'of/a secular ■'charac'te'r.Now, Bn thatscore' 'alone; without mfentibning .others,"we Catholics have, many grave objections against "■ 'lt.'" Eirstlyj rfre'bbjebt, th'f'Jts jhobinpletenessl 1 ■Let-'no Hne 'tliink ‘that (]b.tholic(i are afraid " ■ of secular instruction.' Thosewho'slander the 7 Church by’ proclaiming her the enemy of instruction and enlightenment,'contradict both history and'tradition. 1 ' C.athbUcs know that ' there can be no real antagonism between true

.* .science and true, religion.. "Wc are .upt.afraid, of human knowledge,. but we proud r ot divine knowledge,’and we think that the omission. of any kind of knowledge whatever, human or divine, is, as far as'it goes, not .knowledge, but ignorance. ' We hold as certain audjun- ’ deniable that two orders of thingß*acfcyally exist in the world—-the natural and the supernatural. These two orders have the same .ultimate 1 end, though in themselves they are .distmpt.. The natural muslt be'subordinate, and subservient to the supernatural... This is Hod s in?* mutable degree,-far beyond*the reach of hunaan legislation.' * Hetice religion; must, always hold the first place in everything* A. system of education that placesthe natural and the supernatural on the same leveljis absurd, and must be condemned atuthe. bar of reason ; but. a system of. education, that ignores, or,.nearly ignores, the supernatural • altogether, still more wicked and' detestable. ' Yet such is the secular system. * It is .mere instruction, not education it is education without_ the very 1 pith, marrow, ;,and ; soul oi ' education. . ine State has need,' of .course’of : good and able citizens, but it needs far more a virtuous and virile people ; and, for that purpose, we believe that it'is necessary, especially , at' the present day. to Christianise bur youth, particularly, during school hours we' must bring up our children in .a religious 1 atmosphere. • Religion has been aptly compared to leaven. Leavpn, to produce its effect.-must be diffused throughoutthe wholemass, and the Christian religion, to be-solid and effectives must be ' thoroughly diffused ’throughout the child’s entire educa- • r tion. Not;-a moment of 'the school, hours should be ;without- some, religious influence. The breathing of - air preserves our bodily life, the- constant ; dwelling in a religious medium preserves the life of the youthful soul. We believe it would never do to suffer the ]ohild to devote six days* pf the week to worldly science, and to depend on Sunday forareligious training. This is like taking salt in our food only bn Sundays] Religion-is not a mere Sunday coat; to be put aside for six days of the week/-! The 'secular-system' ihay‘turn, but experfshopboys, first-rate accountants, shrewd and thriving '“earthworms,” but 'neither good citizens nor, virtuous Christians/' Its baneful results in regard to public' honesty and morality have ' been lamentably and glaringly conspicuous id France, America, Australia, and_ in every place where it has had an extensive field !of action. We 1 believe; then] that the religious' and secular elements of educationj though distinct,'are not separable : that education with-, out religion is a mockery, a sham, and, a . plague.’ It is idle to. talk of religious instruction being imparted at home oh 1 in Sunday schools/ ' Experience -and common sense are against such a plan] and wherever secularism . is predominant such abortive means do not preserve religion from public decay. , No; weekday Bible-reading and •' Sunday school* are only “ poor man’s soothing plasters ”-4hat ■ is, almost worthless "palliatives of the huge evils of everyday, secularism. Moreover, the, / incompleteness of this system! proposed .by the Bill is fully equalled by Its patent despotism: The. Bill forces the secular system on all 'sec- . tibns of the community,' whether they ajjprovb/ / of it or hot. Now! the State has' no right to ' impose'such a 1 system upon itsf subjects,;''and 1 this is evident from the: very nature Of,the ] State’ ' The Stat’ehriginated 'from the hatnral | desire of men' to obtain pertain goods, such as • peace, security ‘of life and property,] &b., which J goods neitherindividuals, 'nor, families, nor 1 private -corporations /could procure'satisfac- ,j torily.. '| People’therejfore'established the State, ,! in’ lordef that it'.shmld ahd'gnaraptee 1 thb rights of individuals; faiailies, and cofpo-, i rations. The State is made by the people’ and ' for'. the’people; The great unit ;of society is I and themost and in- ; defeasible of all rights are: parental rights. They 'coisie from God, ;ahd.no;State can lawfdly, ,i invade ‘of. destroy 'thfenai;' But'nowadays;'by, 1 such iheaaufes’as the'.present'Education ,Bill, ) what is thb ’ State doing ? :: It is fast degehera- ; ting into despotism ; its aim is to kbsbfb'the’ ; family r in,' the State ;; to ustvfp the rights of. / parents’ 1 and impede thrif duties! It claims to ; monopolise the 1 eddoatioh of' the people. ■ It takes upon itself to'discharge the duties , im- ; pbted bn parents by the/law of God, just as if fathers and mothers had’Tost their natural instincts as’well as ‘ sense, of duty ;,just as if , the State had all the, r intelligence, virtue, and, forethought "bf the 'public in ’ its keeping. If dispenses parents from a duty, from which ,Gbd will never dispense them. , It has usurped the dflibe of t eachbr ;, and,’ if, not ’ checked, 1 if will : soon set 1 itself up as a preacher, of not, if feli- , gion, at least of infidelity. Ir a' -word/ .the principle of seculaf is despotism,; it , is the outcome of‘feVplutiohaiy sboialism, as history is thefe to prove!"‘The.State,'from the ■ very nature/of its existence, is in duty bound most scrupulously to'abst'ainfrom’the',violation of any of the’rights’it was ofgauised to protect. It ought not!' for instance, ’ to paralyse or; take away the industry Of the ,individual, family, of private institutions, f by. substituting for it its own industry., 'To speak more blainly, the State should protect'.trade; but hqtbela tf’adesmaa ; the State 5 should I 'encourage' a'griculture,: biit nbt'.be ,a: fafifief it ‘ ought to sustain honest handicraft; but'it'.has. ho business to be a tailor,’ carpenter, bf baker. So, in - ~ like ' the "State* should 1 promote ;l and ' pfptect and encourage ’ edapktibfi, hut it should, ndt'direct and monopolise education • it has no business to be a schoolmaster/, "What, aii outcry and’eohfhsion there would bp 1 if the Government made State, workshops; and thereby , ruined all other similar/trades/".Now, this is what the State does in a faf more'vital matter —in education. What an absurdity! Why,' the State has no more .right'to usurp the whole control of education, than to regulate the’ length of a boot br the' dimensions of a . shirt/ It claims the right to educate bur chil-' drei; why then, does it not just as well claim the right to nhfse,'. feed, clothe,- doctor, and lodge them? ; It wants strong .and healthy citizens quite, as much as instructed ones. Why then does it fbrow all these burdens on the parehts, and assume that of instruction? It cannot claim,to know inofe about grammar than • about cooking 1 and' nursing. ; Who does not admit the folly; of forcing a divided people into uniformity in the taatter of religion. In it not just as unreasonable, just as wicked, to force the people into uniformity in the matter of education? Both species of despotism, disregard the claims of conscience, ' trample on the most vital rights of individuals, and ilsurp the. most sacred rights of parents/ Are we then advocates of 1 popular ignorance? Nothing of the kind; Of course, we admit that the State rhay require, the children to reach a fair stauq dard of worldly knowledge, so as to be worthy members of society and ■ fit subjects of the State; but claim, and give,' 'and monopolize their, education it cannot/ I understand the State making "provision 1 for education in reference to the poor and'otherwise unprovided —the very thing which this Bill does -not —and standing to this class irt loco parentis', but what business has the State po step in' between every parent and his child, or monopolize the education of the people at large?' I speak of a Christion State,' and Christian, T pfe'sume, our Nevy Zealand Government still claims to he. ,' We are supposed to be'living In Christian civilization. Now' the characteristic of this civilization is' that ’it 1 has inserted the • dignity of freedom of thp ’ individual; man, while 'the, ancient or Gentile; civilization sunk the individual man iii the composite society 'of the State. ' On' that; heathen assumption, it was "consistent that the 'State should, as pwer," assume 1 the : burdon of providing for the education of its offspring. Hence the Pagan doc.trine, the ,children bf the State.* But', ladies and gontleirieh/your children are not the children,'of tlie 'State^n-they 1 are your, own. ' The' Stafe hAS.uo claim on them,; never had, never will have, ’The'State dbes.hot own either them] br their parents, "bf ahybody else, thank God; - in 'this free land.; Wo have'not got that far,' I trustj on the way to slavery. We are not heathens, or Mahometans, br E-uasians. We are free, ; as’British ; suhjects,- and still tnore , as, children of' God. • -Your children too; are free t they 'belong/ in /the order bf, to their parents, and .to Jesus Christ. The rights of parents over the education of their children are,, therefore, from God,’ and ihalienhbloi' The right of education is a right of conscience—a right far beyond the' merely temporal' order which alone belongs^to the State'/ When the State has children of its own’, it will then be time to teach them. How. long will it take our enlightened age to learn '

. ..this, edementarytnithl.The unre as on able ne a s " "of the Government in claiming -’the Tight of ’ public education 1 is rendered more conspicuous ’ 'by its utteriincbmpetency" fo'r the task/' : It if ' attempts to'teach- religion in the public schools, ’ 'it will be unfair to -every form bf religion’ ex--1 cept the one adopted in* the school/; 'ln a ; divided community like Ours nb common ' Christianity can" befound-'-; --much- -less any ‘■’Common.’religion, -.'lf.‘it 'leaves out religion altogether, then it'only half educates—it only ■ instructs—and mere instruction is not educa--tibn. The conclusion is obvious—-the State -is ' incompetent to educate,' Tt wont, admit this conclusion! and-forthwith it stands- in a’^false ■ position, ' IJqw, there is nothing so awkward; : for ■•-■al" man as a 'false' position. "- His-; 'every movement becomes absurd'of ridiculous/ 'No -matter/ the State attempts au impbssiblity. It says : ‘‘ We will impart only secular instruction-;' we will not interfere with/religion:" 0, gross and : glaring sophism ! -Not'interfere ■ with'religion ! -Why, the greatest ' of all interference with religion is the systematic exelu- ■ sion of religion: ' When' shall we have ■ done with" such’ nonsense ? Ih a divided 1 community like ours, I understand that it is the duty of the Government to tolerate all sections. ; A’ greater one —'Almighty But a' State —a Christian State—cannot "play infidel,and under'the shallow pretence of avoiding sectarian partiality/ strike practically; at ■the root of all Christianity. 1 So much for the despotic nature of the‘ Bill. ' Now tor injustice. In the hamb of justice, what right has a Government to tax Catholics to' support schools which their ; conscience " rejects'? Whether' the schools‘are utterly "secular, ;or partly Protestant; ' as the Bible clause of the; present'Bill renders them—the injustice still remains. ’ There is au invasion of oiif rights of conscience. -For,'by'what authority does the State impose-an 'established-system- of educa;- 1 tion at bur expense, against our judgment, consent, and conscience? "And I should like ;to khbWj in what this differs from thb' grievance : of an established 'church, such ;i as/was lately removed, after having been imposed for centuries by State supremacy, on the'lrish pepple against their consent! , I' need hot dwell bn the Unfairness' of ' the /Bill towards all Catholic schoolmasters, who are excluded by the'Bible; clause' from the public schools,; nor on the injustice ;tb all’ private and / dehbminational Schools, by mean's of the arbitrary nature bf ’the exemption' certificates. Other speakers will forcibly point out the grievances. ; I look once, mope 'qt the 'Bill as a.whole/ I .'find it is substantially "gratuitous,' compulsory,/ and secular. ■ Thesb ‘three ' words and, ideas,, must be taken'together 1 Jh Their full solidarity." As gratuitous, the Bill'is a bribe to Catholics' at large, to send their children to schools/which thbir conscience rejects. It is a bribe for a 'breach'of conscience. It is an injustice to private schools, and to Catholic Schools, which it so overweights as to tend to their, extinction. It is a gross ■State'ihbhopdly,, '!As compulsory, it 'is »"powerful iand'; unjnst' pressure ,on Catholic "..tending to the same immoral epd-ythe transgression' of the 1 dictates ; of .'conscience. As secular or JProtestant, it is contrary to the' whole body of CathoUcs'throughout the world. Once more, then, hqw; can it tie forced upon Catholics ?, '.Surely 1 this, is. despotic \vith a vengeance., Why infiict.it 'bn a peaceful 1 community ? '/For ‘years' all denominations have lived ' in' peace in .this colony,"whose interests we allshould have at Heart.; - Why force upon us a constant cause of heartburning and dissensions? Wc have freedomof, conscience ih religion j-let us/enjoy'the/same in educa-; tion; for without freedom' of 1 education, feli-' gious freedom cannot be. complete. /We beg the Legislature' to pause,''.before if enters oh so fatal a coufae. ' We 'ask it to listen to our fair 1 and moderate, claims ;'and,'mthout impairing its consistency].to satisfy..all parties,by a broad and liberal] policy, and thus , lay the] deep and; solid' foundation of t future 'epheofd, peace; and, Christian 'prosperity/ WhaV theh do; we/.Catholics want'.? We want liberty /and' 'liberty ' alone. We 'do hot' look' for irresponsible con.trol of school fvmds we ] do. hot .hsk that teachers should /be'-’paid/’for giyiiig r'eligipns ihstrhction ; yre /haVb'/'no/' pbjeciiqh to / fair Government.; inspection ■- we arb, willing ; |o. keep up our schools to the Gpverhtneht standard ih secular .' instruction ;' . \ye ,- .demarid' nothing which we would not willingly see conceded to others • but we demand, in the name' of juatice.that we should have our fair share of , the’ public fuhdbjto which we tiy] taxation, for the ainouht 'of secular instruction' imparted ih bur] kchpolg, ’bn ]th'e principle bf , numbers and fesyjig.'.';,'^e'gay;,to. l all parties, do with your childfen as ybu please. "Vfp Catboliys ‘ are convinced ( that ‘children/go],to^school hpt , only to be'made 1 good citizens, but also, to, be educated into 1 good/men and' good phristians, and-,we' believe 'that (education! cannot'.be separated from religious, influence/' Take yoiir schools,''' üb] and this we claim as bur], right'in', the name of, the fullest religious and personal freedom of conscience. 1/ 11 The Hon. Df/GRACE moved the firat rcso-,' lution, which'was' ,’as / follows :—ThS(t T .this" meeting,/while it objects to the principles of the Education Bill oh account of its advocacy of a compulsbry’secular]] and gratuitous system of sybtem' tahtamount] to] p| ( de-'-spbtic invasiqh]”i>f parentol rights, protests, in "thb sacred name of justice/against its exceptiohal pressure oh Catholics, whose convictions force 1 them to 1 support /their own schools, and whe are: taxed to support schools' iytoch; their judgment' and conscience/reject/‘ /He, saijl,; after the lucid hxpQsitiqnjof the Bishop, it waS .urine pessary 'fpfhim to go over the same ground; biit he' would ' pblntjout the difficulties ,the ' pOsitioqthey had to face..] The action,’ of],the Legislature here 1 was the] putepme of public; opinion, which’was hbWadayhfbrmea to a great extent by the Pfew.' '''TSfUfi ’ Ih,] the hgrfy.of .their' ’daily!'business]had 'little] time' lb think an'd and’ yrcite, so as to] attain a smart superficiality, biit with ho great fundamental principle, underlying their opiri], ions, and the tendency bf .modern thought, even in many persons’of high culture,' was adverse., to the doctrines of Christianity. Thp Government were not ] actuated by \n] spirit of hostility to Catholics^-nothihg];of, the kind! What The Government wahfed was.sup-] port, and if the Catholic ing the Government would be glad to have it; but the. Catholics were not united, apd had no organisation; otherwise] if they Were/all (registered. and had votes', no Gpyepnment] would insult thein with‘such a BiU aS that ho w tinder' discussion.. At the hekt,census the population Of New Zealand would be of which at least a sijith would he Catholics, and if thby bhly exerted their legitimate rights’as Votersthe'GbVbrhment couldhbt disregardthem. He'referred he.had,.itftKen.ln.t)i6 Legislative Cbuhpil a year! or] two agb,'when he fOught •this,question 1 tooth ’ 1 and nail,, and ; with the apsistarice'qf Other members succeeded in stopping the BiU]/'./At'all events. It lapsed. That waif days"of' Sir/ Jiiliut Vogel, the most powerful raahihthe / cbuhtcy] who wanted to get 1 the Bill passed, but .could not subebbd,. As he himself said, in a chaffing way, privately, “ They (the Catholics) (gave too much trouble.”/ ' He believed the Catholics themselves deserved to] 1 have the Bill'how bh aepburit bf .'.their apathy -,’and-’he' was glad they 1 had got it. It served' them, right.’ 1 He theh' proceeded '.to /criticise the Bill as an unjust measure, and one ‘that Catholics pould not conscientiously accept, The/ CathoUcs, he said, were bound to 1 sup-! port their own schools, and they meant, to do' it. (Cheers.) . , ." ■ Mr. Buckley seconded the. motion, and said he could not allow the, occasion to pass without,entering his protest against the Bill, which ha regarded as an aot ■ of iniquity towards Catholics, and -which he did not believe the Government intended to pass, It was said ; that language'was, given to men to .conceal their- thoughts, and this yvas. exactly what the Bill did fu its preamble,. ft was a Bill to insuit* Catholics,'and! he],did not ( for a-moment , believe, the Government intended it to pass. 'He then criticised'the Bill as in many respects ridiculous as .well a/s, pujiist. ‘ -Ho alluded to, .the magnificent! schoolroom in .which they;had met that uight as an example of what Catholics could do in the cause of educating their own children, and urged that they should not allow their religious.liberty to be tampered with. ; He. warned the] Government against forcing 1 this Bill bh the Catholics, and, ho had every hope that-every generous-minded Protestant in either branch of the Legislature would unite . with’the Catholic .members in rejecting the * Bill. (Cheers.) ~: ] . ,

Thd motion ( was put, _ and ;t,unanimously.-* " , Mr; ’Ward proposed the next resolution,— - That this meeting -protests against the unfairness of ■ the EJucatiori Bill towards Catholic schoolmasters, whom it "effectually y excludes from the public \ schools by the Protestant Bible' ■ and prayer ' clause; as- also against; the ihjustic'e Of the-'ißiU towaVds all private and, de- ■ nomittatiOnal schools,-by the stringent and arbi ■ trary clause referring to exemption certificates. He one ' fact'alone that by this Bill ‘Catholic/teachers'Would be'deprived'of a-■living,-'or else 'violate their consciences;-was enough to condemn it.' They were told that the Government brought forward this Pill for the sake'.'of supperti 'He -regretted to ' hear that; 1 .He considered that the present ’ Goyera- • ment had submitted to’ be placed in Some’ veryignoble positions' iu order to retain their places. He that' wheii Ministers proposed’ measures which "were not acceptable, to the majority; they-should resign,'-and give their places to others; '■ The- acceptance 'of this Bill was a question 1 of conscience, which' must hOt be violated. Ireland-had fought and died for conscience sake for centuries, and. was how beginning' to ’be victorious;' and, if necessary, though he did not think it would-be necessary, and hoped not, they must do as their forefathers had'done, and'die; as they had done, for conscience’sake. •' " _ 't;I . ; Mr. Bonnington seconded the- motion. He ■ observed , that he did 1 riot think-a spirit of hostility had led; to the introduction of this' Bill, but -rather a spirit of indifference to all; religion. ‘He -'regretted ' that; in this 'free country such'a’ Bill '- should be' broiught -forward. 1 He objected to Government having a monopoly :of - eduiation; - ill this Bill passed Catholic children would he so educated as to be’ taught that they were hot ’ allowed the -same privileges ‘as other children, and a spirit ’Of antagonism—the bane and' curse of the old / Country would" be introduced here.' 11 He urged-the Catholics to: unite- together,< to hold frequent meetings, and to' aptate against the ’ Tho resolution was carried unanimously.; , Mr. Kennedy proposed the following-reso-lution,—That in the event of 'this or any other such objectionable Bill' parsing, we Gatholics do pledge ourselves to agitate against it, and to strive ih every legitimate manner/ and ■ particularly at'the-hustings, to bring about its modification or repeal;’' He-criticised'the-'-Bill -Unfavorably, and Said the Government must he 'aWare that'Catholics would not'"accept He' referred 'to what" ''was- 1 taking place -in Victoria;-■’where"secular education'-was in vogue.'’ There 'Catholics' maintained' their own schools/ which' were - more 1 largely - 'attended than before the free secular system was introduced. The Catholics- were prepared to accept ' the system - hitherto Adopted in Kelson and. Westland as a compromise if not a full measure bF justice.; -.The - Catholics were .prepared to build their own schools, and only asked.the, Government to pay for the secular teaching laught in those .schools, the Catholics .paying; for the religious teaching of their children out of their-own pockets. -He urged upon everyCatholic to get his name" placed bn - the- electoral roll. / -. ov ‘ Mr.'O. O’ Neill ’said he cordially supported the motion. : The Catholics ought to beaycry powerful body, and wojuld be if they /acquired the -; power .to vote by getting their-names registered. -He quoted from ‘-a; speech of Mr, Cross," the English .peine Secretary, whose ideas on the subject .of education; were just the reverse of those of the Hon. Mr. Bowen. ■The resbliltion tvas put, and carried 'unani- . mqusly. : , Mr. Ward moved;—That his Lordship-the , Chairman be ■ requested -to forward to the Government the resolutions carried. at this meeting, anil also , a copy of them to each,of the members for-Wellington. - - - • • Mr. Bonningtow seconded the resolution, which was carried,,,... . \ >•,, o Mr. O’Neill moved a vote of thanks to his Lordship Bishop Redwood for presiding on thjs occasion. -, ■ ■■';/' ’ This was seconded, put, and carried by. accla-

mation. _ . ’ . His Lordship;returned thanks; "and 1 the meeting then separated.