Dr Wallis before his Constituents.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3148, 21 March 1879, Page 2

Dr Wallis before his Constituents.

The Bey. Dr Wallis, member for Auckland City West, addressed his constituents at the Mechanics' Institute, Auckland, yesterday afternoon. He said he was a supporter of the Government, who had been unjustly blamed in connection with the Kaipara railway. He had offered to address his constituents after the last session, but he was told there was plenty of time ; but after the late contest, which was decided only on one question, men came up to him and said, in in the street, we have a rope round your neck, and. we mean to hang your enemies. The present Ministry, it was said, did not fulfil their promises; that the last session whs barren; that they were not better than their predecessors; but he begged thie meeting to remember when they came into office they were new to the work, and wfere impeded by faction, which the opposition placed in their way. He contended .the . Ministry had kept, their promises contained, in the ' Governor's speech in regard to the Waikato Taranaki railway, reforms,.new Electoral Bill, adjustment of taxation, in all of which they; .h« d done, or were now doing, their best. Hje would admit they had .faults, but had net beeif"so extravagant as previous M inistries. They had endeavored to keep pi onuses of reducing their own salaries, biiAlie House refused to let them, and they'^thought it better to pocket the di Agreeable necessity rather than let the late Ministry ia again. He considered that the appointments of the present Govern* ment to the Upper House were not creditable ; but had any former Government remained eighteen months in office without committing many much.grosser faultsP This present Ministry was the /best that ccjuld be goif under ■ (he circumstances; and, untila dissolution h© wbuld support tbje Grey Ministry, to prevent the restOrition of Provincialism, the protection policy to assist, liberalism, electoral reform, and get fair justice for Auckland atjd the Worth. He would support centralised Government and decentralised' administration. He would also support Sir George Grey to secure electoral reform and triennial Parliaments, the final settlement of the Maori difficulty, and the permanent reconciliation of the two races. N|ow that the colony was united they wanted fair play for the North Island. They should be grateful to Sir George Grey's Government for the colonisation of the land fund. Sir George Grey had not now the same chance of carrying through th[e negotiations with the Maoris as he had. The Maoris knew, his influence— his "mana" among the Europeans had declined, and his negotiations would be rendered more difficult. He defended his action last session in criticising the Governor's speech. He Mjiewed his |?ersQnjaT action last session. "During ms advocacy of nthe extension qfi ftljej 'franchise he made this wonderful ''discovery, that r> only a few years t y ago; women were actually human beings, and as such were entitled to the suffrage. He contended that there was a majority in both Houses in favor of triennial parliaments. The speaker then went on to speak of his action in regard to Mr Curtis' bill. He had held the opinion that religion and morality should go hand in hand, and he contended no nation had any right to say that this book—-the Bible—is the only book which shall,be banished from the schools. He was not a denominatiqnalist; he had supported Mr Bow en's Act from the beginning in every division, and it was in more perfect form than when introduced now. He opposed the! striking out of the Lord's Prayer, and exclusion of the Bible; he had always advocated State education; he denied tha|t Mr Curtis' Bill was a denominational bill.

Jn reply to questions, Dr Wallis said he was mv favour of technical education, which was being dealt with by a Commission of Education, and the results would shortly be published.—When asked whether he would vote for Curtis' Bill, if again introduced, he endeavoured to evade .the question. He said let the meeting first deal with larger political questions. The question was again put; when Dr Wallis asked the questioner to put his question in writing (question put in jwriting). An elector then _ stepped forward and read the question.—Dr Wdllis said the question was a difficult one. He could not answer it. There were some parts of the bill he agreed with and some he disagreed with. The Bey. Mr Duttpnasked >whjj the Church that appeared to be most particularly interested in the Curtis' bill desired

to have the appointment of the teachers P •—Dr Wallis said he did not understand the question.—After some further questions, Dr Wallis said if it was the wish of the meeting he would go into the whole question, and show that Curtis' Bill was purely a secular bill, but he would rather not. (Laughter.) The present Education Bill was too sectarian for him, and he desired to deprive it of the sectarian taint. The words " secular " and " denominational" were used in a vague sense. Secular education might mean infidel or atheistic education, in which owe he would not support it. If they were to teach a child a knowledge of the world they must always'give it knowledge of its Maker. He contended moral training 1 was included in f secular education. He was not a denominationalist. He was not for putting any schools under Churches. He was uot-in favour, of the r dogmas of any Church being taught in schools. He admitted the State should bring education within the reach of every child. 'As the State wits bound to punish every criminal, it was equally bound to make them virtuous citizens. He contended that even reading, writing, md arithmetic had a tendency to reduce crime, but it should also make men#ttth-' ful, for as there was no established Church here, he would advocate ■ moral training'in thei*'BUte sohools. He would aim to make the Education Act of 1877 more unsectarian. "He Tiad contemplated introducing an amended bill next session. The present Act was too much centralised, and the Ministers of Education" and Boards had 'too nraoh power. It should be decentralised. Educational districts should be reduced in number. Auckland with 187 schools , and Fatea with only 5, had each an inspector. Districts shonld be enlarged and only have, say fife, with an equal nnmber s of districts—say three for South and two for the Middle Island. ■ Loo§V«on}mittees should have larger powers. *" The system was too costly; no country in the world paid so much per head. Every man, woman, and- cnild was taxed lOsjf head for education. This enormous expose was not necessary. People were deceived by .the ; absence < of 'direct > tax*t*ot|; w The time would come when this last system would be thrown on local rates. The system should be cheapened. The disputable.jamendments were ( ,rr^(l) fi if Gratuitous education. He contended the State should make education so much .•: as to bring it within the means of the poorest, but should not provide gratuitous * education for the children, of the r?ctt» Gratuitous education demoralised the '"''-■ people. The free system,of education in , England was ' it s great %il. (Cries of dissent.) Why should the State have the power* of dictating to parents as to the kind of education P Half the cost of education should be paid by parents. Curtis^ ■■ bifr' to gnml' iftwl^dhtmmAM '] Another point in which the Act might be amended was in rWard to the admission of the Bible. What right bads thcf?>» to exclude it, when they admi&eC&lj; if\f was inspired P It,was a sin and a shame to exclude it. ; The/*ould; not WoUm any other book.' He quoted his spWh of last session to show, that Mohamedanisni and Paganism are aami tied into the ~sbhoblXJ but Christianity is shut out. Another * disputable point of amendment was that this present gratuitous system Would give the State a monopoly of education* < Every other system must go down, i Nothing could be more undesirable than such a moropoly. (Quoted Stuart Mill on Political Economy; 675.) It would alsoremove the ground of dissatisfaction .from those who objected being compelled to accept only one system. He contended Curtis' Bill was purely secular, but differed from the State Bill, in that it gave the authorities of the school a right to teach religion outside regular sohool hours; whereas the State ]Stt|el^ only allowed it as. a privilege. ,He proposed ■ that the State should.^o Half iray .to get Ro|man Catholics .to -compromise with them. He contended that already] then? was a: school in Auckland established on -fcr the principal !6fl Curtis' Bill-wtke) Girls' inT High School. It received £3 16s a head ;; for each pupil; Why hot treat (he Bin's >■■-- converif schools in the j same way if r ih«y^'-''< gave a standard of secular education t Inj reply, to a .quotum?,*DrJ^a.lliM*id „ he I would Vote for a Local Option Bill !i with compensation for the houses d05ed;......... buf where a man lost bis license by transgressing he should hare nocompen* sation. : h-~* !'*-■%

Mr Leahy moved a rote of oonfldeaoe, which Mr Machattie seooaded. Mr Trewaibe was'sore that sack t kot*-'-'' would be opposed to a luge minority of the electors of Gity Weit. (Cheers.) He proposed an amendment "That we,. as electors of Ci^r West, hare not confidence ( in Dr Wallis," Mr Simpson seconded the amendment, which 'was put^ f,' about twenty hands being held up for the X amendment and twelre against.—The Chairman nerertheless ruled that the amendment was loit, and immediately bolted out of the chair without putting thejoriginal motion. ' ''a