THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1872.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 188, 16 May 1872, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1872.

That one of the chief battles to be fought in the coming session will be that of Education there can be very little doubt. The question was shelved last session, but it will come up again and will have to be decided one way or another. The question is attracting' very general attention, as indeed its importance demands. The liev. Mr. B tiller delivered an excellent lecture on the subject last evening, advocating the secular system, and leaving it an open question whether Bible teaching should be introduced or not. That the question is beset with many difficulties there can be no doubt. It is puzzling the heads of English statesmen at the present moment, and Mr. Forsters Education Bill is being warmly debated from one end of the country to the other. The Press is also, both here and at home, paying much attention to the subject, and amongst some of the most sensible and temperate articles which have appeared on the subject is one in yesterday’s “Herald,” in which the writer says, “ Opinion in this Province is largely in favour of a purely secular system of education. Whilst the State, it is admitted, has a right to insist upon the intellectual development of the minds of its children, and to point the direction and the means by which such development may be secured, it forms no part of its duty to interfere with religious teachings and opinions. These are matters for family government, or, where the head of the family may choose to do so, for relegation by him to the minister of the religious sect to which his family belongs. But it is further held that if ministers of certain sects or denominations will insist on shifting a very important j art of their clerical duties upon the shoulders of lay teachers, and if their people aie willing to allow them to do so ; and if, again, the latter are content to see education in their schools so circumscribed and straightened as to make the religious dogmas which control and mould it acceptable or even possible to the mind, then let them have their own way, but at their own cost, and not at the public expense. They have no right to insist on what, if granted in their case, must be granted in every case, and thus place the benefits of a public system of education beyond the reach of all. The object sought by the State is to facilitate the work of the schoolmaster, not that of the priest; and it fulfils its duty when it does the former without trenching or interfering with, the latter. The Education Billow before the country would do ibis with the strictest possible impartiality were it not for the permission given to school committees to have the Bible read under certain conditions. If the Bible question is left to the decision

of the school committee, which may be supposed to represent the majority in a district, the minority, it may be argued, is amply defended by the conscience clause, which provides that no religious 6'bservanco shall take place within the period appointed for secular instruction, and that’ absence of any scholar from the school during the time when any such observance is being conducted shall in no way cause the absentee to forfeit any benelit connected with the school. This provision, known us the conscience clause in Mr Forster’s English Bill, is' nothing new after all. It has been practically and successluljy worked long before the 41 religious dilfcuity ” in educational matters occupied the attention of statesmen. More than thirty years ago the several class-rooms at the thty of London [School were opened with prayer. The sons of Jews, of whom a large number attended the school, were excused admittance until the prayers were concluded. This is exactly- what the Education Bill seeks to provide, in cases where school committees decide upon Bible reading forming part of each day’s routine, and should give no more cause of offence between sect and sect-, or rather between Protestanism and lioman (Jatho.icism, in New Zealand now, than it has done for nearly half a century between Christianity and Judaism in the school above mentioned, where it worked harmoniously to all concerned. Why, however, this bone of contention should be introduced into the measure atali weave at a loss to see. Surely the reading of the Bible, like the religious teachings and catechisms, may be left to the clergy—the use of the school-house, out of school hours, being freely and fairly afforded to the ministers of every denomination, in turn, and as is indeed provided in clause 50 of the bill. Whatever cramps or impairs the vital principle of non-sec-tarianism in a national system of education for the colony is to bo deprecated. In stickling for nonsectarianism, pure and simple, the contest is narrowed to a struggle between the secular and denominational systems. By introducing the reading of the Bible, without comment, neither of those parties is satisiied, and the additional disturbance of sectarian jealousy is brought into the issue. We trust that the opinion of the public on this, and other principles involved in the Education Bill, which we have not space at present to enter upon, will be made unmistakably plain, and not, as on a former occasion, be given when too late to have any influence on the Legislature or the votes of our local representatives.”