South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2628, 23 August 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1881.

SECOND EDITION

There is not the slightest prospect of the Education Act Amendment Bill now before the House of Representatives becoming law. The sole object of the Bill is to enable the local committees to permit Bible reading in schools. The measure was introduced into the Legislative Council by Dr. Menzies, and the second reading was carried by 18 to 12. The Bill met with a different reception in the Lower House. There it barely escaped being thrown out on the first reading. However, that would have been an extreme course to adopt. So long as we retain the two branches of the Legislature it is necessary that the one should treat the other with courtesy. For the House of Representatives to have rejected the Education Act Amendment Bill on its first introduction would have been an insult to the “Lords,” which latter would have doubtless repaid in kind at a future period. However, it would have been saving of time if the House of Representatives had refused to entertain the Bill, It is a foregone conclusion that any discussion on the

measure will be barren of result. The elections are too close at band for members to evince any wavering on so exciting a subject. The secular principle of the Education .Act in danger would afford a most taking cry at the hustings, Mr Macandrew’s Separation craze would be as nothing in comparison. The real fact is, that the subject of education is one which intimately concerns the every-day life of the people, and it is one on which they hold very pronounced opinions. We will not enquire too closely into the foundation of the very decided views of the mass of colonists on this question. We are afraid that there is an immense amount of bigotry and intolerance on both sides. The Education Act is now in force nearly five years, and there never has been any reasonable dread that its secular principle would be altered, yet within a very recent period we have seen elections decided on the views of candidates on this subject. It was in vain that the friends of denominationalism or Bible reading in schools protested that they had no intention whatever of tampering with the Education Act ; that the electors had pronounced by an overwhelming majority in favor of secularism, and that it would be sheer madness for them to endeavor to stem the current of public opinion. Such assurances failed to satisfy the electors. In five cases out of six those who were really in favor of religious instruction had to swallow their opinions, or elect to be placed at the bottom of the poll. The election which took place on the West Coast of this island a few weeks back was fought out on the Education question. At the outset it required no prophet to forecast who would he returned. The personal fitness of the candidates was not taken into account. Indeed, it was generally admitted that the intellectual qualifications of the defeated candidate were superior to those of the gentleman elected. Mr Curtis is undoubtedly the ablest and most experienced man who has represented Nelson for years, yet he cannot find a scat owing to his views on the Education question. It is a matter of very deep regret, indeed, that the Legislative Council has raised this vexed question on the eve of a general election. The great hulk of the thinking part of the community are content not to interfere with the present Education Act, and entertain no fear that such interference will take place. It is to be feared that if the Bibb) in Schools cry is raised at the elections, many good men will be kept out of I’arliaineufc.