PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5132, 4 September 1877, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; Monday, September 3. The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour.

{notice of motion. Mr. MACANDREW gave notice that he would move for the next session of the Assembly to be held at Christchurch. QUESTION. In reply to a question asked by Mr. Macanbrew the Hon Mr. Ormond stated that teiideis had already been accepted for the line of railway between Dunedin and Invercargill. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE EDUCATION BILL. Mr. PYKE resumed the debate. He began by stating that he intended to support the Bill if its main principles were eliminated. The portion of the Bill relating to ‘ religious instruction he was opposed to in toto. Why, he asked, should the dominant sect in this country outrage the feelings of those who did not belong to that sect, by having inserted such provisions for the teaching o£ religious instruction ? As a Protestant in heart and feelin" he protested against such a measure. The State should not interfere in matters of religion. It was its duty to encourage a pn- , vate system of education. He in payment by results. Referring to the capitation fee, he opposed it, as it was objectionable, unnecessary, and not profitable. He characterised it as being harsh, arbitrary, and tyrannical. Unless the Bill underwent amendment in committee he would vote against it. He was equally opposed to the amendment of Mr. Curtis. With regard to the educational districts, they should be increased beyond the number proposed by the Bill. Mr. RUSSELL disagreed with many of ■the remarks that had fallen from the last speaker, who besides being opposed to the religions clauses of the Bill also set himself against a compulsory system of education.; He (Mr. Russell) was himself of the opinion that the religious instruction imparted at most public schools was little more than a matter of form. Therefore he thought it would be better to bar the reading of any portion of the Scriptures in public schsols. The necessity for compulsory education was very great. In a country as democratic as this it was imperative that the people whose duty it would be to take part in its government should be educated. He intended to support the amendment of the hon. member for Is'elsou. He did not do so with feelings of partiality to any particular denomination, but from the conviction that it waVclesirable that the feelings of a large section of the population of the colony should be considered. His principal reason for supporting the amendment of Mr. Curtis was that the systems already prevailing in Nelson, Hawke’s Bay, and other .parts of the colony were found' to work successfully. In the schools at Hawke’s Bay children of different denominations attended, but he (Mr. Russell) had never heard of any attempt being made to proselytise them. He would, as he had already said, vote for the amendment, because it would be a great in j nstice to do away with the’ schools that had been so long established. Mr. SEYMOUR began hy addressing himself to the financial provisions of the Bill. He thought the sum provided would in many districts be inadequate for the requirements of the schools. He would vote against the Scripture clauses of the Bill. He was also opposed to the amendment of Mr. Curtis. We had, he said, not yet reached such a Utopian period •when a uniform system of religious instruction could he fixed upon. The House to be congratulated if it succeeded in passing a good education, law. Two or three years ago an attempt had been made, but the result was a failure. It could not be done then. Now, however, the people were better prepared to deal with the question. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill. Mr. BUNNY wished to ask the House what necessity existed for introducing an Education Bill at all ? For years past the modes obtaining in the various parts of the colony had proved satisfactory. Was it wise, he asked, to upset the present schools simply because the provinces had been abolished. It would be a thorough failure if any attempt were made to have a uniform system of education throughout the colony. He would support the second reading if the amendment of the hon. member for the city of Nelson were adopted. If that was repealed he would endeavor to have the Bill thrown out. He was also opposed to a compulsory system of education. Mr. MONTGOMERY reviewed the mam details of the Bill,and pointed out the modifications he deemed necessary. He trusted that the amendment of the honorable member for Nelson would under no circumstances he imported into the Bill. He believed the Bill would be generally approved of by the House ; but he hoped it would be amended in committee. For his own part he would vote against the capitation clause. With regard to the clauses providing for religious instruction, he would like to hear the explanation to be offered by the hoip the Minister who introduced the Bill. If it were shown that those clauses could be worked without interfering with the. religious feelings of any parents whose children attended the schools, he would support the Bill, but not otherwise. Mr. GIBES would vote for the second reading of the Bill, and said he trusted the House would give its serious consideration to the amendment of Mr. Curtis. . Mr. MANDERS, while prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill, would give the measure his hearty support in committee, with a view to having eliminated from it the clauses that related to the teaching of religion in opposed generally the principles of the Bill. He believed that it had been brought in merely to fulfil a promise. He did not see that there was any necessity for the measure, which proposed to abolish the existing system of education, which was found to work harmoniously. Sir GEORGE GREY said the question -non which they had to legislate was the future of New Zealand. The nation had started under advantages more favorable than those of any other country. No stumblingblocks lay in the path, resulting from events of past times. Under these circumstances it was the duty of the House to approach the important subject before it with the greatest possible caution. In the Bill put forward by the Government the proposals were not fair. The provisions in it went to reduce everything to a dead level. The introduction of the religious clause into the Bill would have the effect of deliberately excluding from school a large number of the of the colony. That result must have been intended by the Bill- He thought himself the reading of the Lord’s Prayer and the Scriptures in school would simply be very often an act of hypocrisy. The icligious clauses in the Bill would not tend to instil the truth of religion into the minds of the young. It would’instead raise up one class and depress another, which was its evident design. The Bill was faulty in every respect, and it would be bettor to delay a measure of this kind until a more perfect system could be adopted by the country. With reference to the capitation provision, the. whole system presented nothing but disadvan-

tages. If we are to have the State to step in and educate the people, that system should i be free. He thought the educational system now existing should be continued. Mr. FISHER intended to support the second reading of the Bill. The religious i clause he considered a farce. The capitation • rate should not be levied, (but education , should be free. The compulsory clauses he quite concurred in. 1 . , Mr. SHEEHAN said he would vote against the second reading of,the Bill, as it was a violation of the promises held out at the time of the abolition of the provinces stating • that education should be free. Either have a system of education thoroughly secuiar or denominational. The present Bill he looked upon as a miserable compromise. Mr. STOUT said he would vote against the third reading unless purely secular instruction were administered in the schools. In reference to the compulsory clause, he thought the hon. member in charge of the Bill should incorporate a clause from the English Act of 1876, to prevent the employment of children of tender age in factories. He concluded by hoping the Government would see its way to introduce a Bill that provided for a purely secular system of education, as adopted in the other colonies. Mr, LUMSDEN objected as much to State schools as he would to State churches. With regard to the religious teaching of the Bill, he saw no objection to reciting the Lord’s Prayer during school hours but there might be very strong objection to the reading of the Scriptures in school. It was the duty of parents to teach their children religion. He thought school boards should be nominated, not elected. He would not support the amendment of Mr. Curtis with respect to granting subsidies to outside schools. The Hon. Mr, FOX accepted this measure of the Government as being on the whole a satisfactory system of primary education for the country. He looked upon the present Bill as an initiatory measure. The country for some few years yet would not be in a position of putting forward a higher standard. The object desired should be that no child in the State should grow up in absolute ignorance. On the whole he did not object to the machinery laid down in the Bill, although some hon. members complained of its too centralising tendencies. In referring to the details of the measure, he contended that the two main things essential in primary schools were a good selection of teachers and proper inspection, and this power the school committees did hot possess. After referring to other details of the Bill, he reviewed the question from its financial aspect. He considered the capitation fee quite fair. He disagreed with the hon. member for Franklin (Mr. Lusk) who had pointed out the difficulties there would he in collecting this rate. The compulsory clause did not meet with his (Mr. Fox’s) concurrence, if it could possibly be avoided. It might, however, be not unwise to give it a trial. The impression had been circulated through the city that the compulsory clauses would compel the Roman Catholics to send their children to the State’schools ; and to remove the impression that was created outside the House, he would point out that such was not a correct interpretation of the clause. The compulsory clause would only be put in operation when parents neglected to send their children to any schoel. With regard to the religious question, he thought the majority of the people would be in favor of having, the Bible read in school. He did not anticipate a

great deal of good to result from the reading of the Bible in school ; but it was at all events a recognition of the Deity. He (Mr. Fox) then proceeded to point out the high standard of excellence attained, by the Sunday-schools in America, which far surpass those of England or the colonies. He argued that hy increasing the efficiency of our Sunday-schools full amends could be made for the absence of religious teaching in the schools. With regard to the Roman Catholics they were equally opposed to a secular system of education. ‘ Mr. SHRIMSKI said he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, his voting for the third reading being subject to certain amendments, which he submitted. These amendments were to the effect that a clause should be inserted in the Bill providing for a purely secular system. Also that after the word “ books,” in the 55th clause, the words “of a non-religious class” should be inserted ; and the 85th clause should be expunged altogether. He had petitions from a number of persons, praying the changes in the Bill which he submitted should be made. Mr. ROWE said he would vote for the second reading of the Bill, hut he would oppose the third reading unless the religious clauses were expunged. Mr. W. WOOD was entirely opposed to religious instruction being imparted to pupils during school hours. With regard to the capitation fee, he thought it would be wise on the part of the Government to strike out altogether that part of the Bill. He also thought it would be advisable for the Government to postpone for a while the debate in order to consider the objections raised. He scarcely felt justified in moving the adjournment ; but he thought it would be well for the Government to put off the second reading, and act on the suggestion offered. Mr. WOOLCOCK hoped the Government would not consent to adjourn the debate. He considered that Ihe measure introduced was most creditable to the hon. member who

brought it forward—the most creditable of all the measures introduced this session. He (Mr. Woolcock) was prepared to vote for the second reading, and would give the Bill his most cordial assistance while in committee. He strongly condemned the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson. It could only be applied in large centres of population. If it were intended for that alone, he was prepared to give every consideration to the desirableness «f embodying it in the Bill. Regarding the religious clauses, he did not consider the heartburnings and troubles concaved by hon. members would arise from its adoption. Although somewhat contrary to his own views, he would consent to the religious aspect of the Bill being expunged iu order to meet with the views of the religious sects’ by whom it was opposed. He felt convinced that the general principle of the Bill was to secure “ the greatest good to the greatest number.” Mr. O’RORKE addressed himself not to the general principle of the Bill, but to the phase imported into it by the amendment of the hon. member for Nelson. He thought that that amendment was by no means too liberal. The proposal of that hon. member was not only identical with the law that has existed in Canada for the past ten years, and given universel satisfaction to both Roman Cathol-’cs and Protestants, hut that law had actually received the assent of the Imperial Parliament. He believed that denominational schools, by establishing a generous rivalry, would he found to be productive of much good to the colony. Mr. BAIGENT opposed the religious clauses in the Bill, and supported the system existing iu Nelson, as embodied in Mr. Curtis’s motion.

The Hon. Mr. BOWEN having replied, the second reading of the Bill was carried on a division hy 41 to 6. The following is the division list :

Ayes 41 : Atkinson, Eaigent, Bowen, Brandon, J. E. Brown, Bryce, Carrington, De Lautour,Fisher, FitzrOy, Gibbs (teller),Gisborne, Hamlin, Harper, Henry, Hodgkinson, Hunter, Hurslhouse, Lumsden, Macandrew, McLean, Montgomery, Moorhouse, Morris (teller), Ormond, O’Rorke, Reid, Reynolds, Rolleston, Rowe, Seymour, Shrimaki, Stevens, Sutton, Swanson, Tawiti, Travers, Wallis, Wason, Whitaker, and Woolcock. Noes, 0 : Barff (teller), J. C. Brown, Dignan, Joyce, Tole (teller), W. Wood. SECOND READINGS. The Census, the Friendly Societies, and the Industrial and Provident Societies Bills, on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Bowen, passed the second reading, aud were ordered to be committed next (this) day. The Honso rose at 12 o’clock.