The Education Question

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 193, 19 October 1871, Page 5

The Education Question

(To tlie Editor.) Sni, — The compliment of courtesf which Mr. "W. D^ Howard has paid me in his letter on the education ques- , tion, I have pleasure in repaying, at/ ' the same time time there are some points in it to which, by. your favour. I would reply. There is an implied accusation' of i' lhberality by Mr. H. on the views presented at the public, meeting, fcta far from that being the case, it was our aim to advocate views whuih would, as nearly as possible, pUce all on an equality. We opposed the "Aided Schools " clausp£ because they give to the denomino-tfcmalist 8 privileges above their neigb&ours. They afford denomiaation/"sts the .public money to teach tjferewith their peculiar tenets, while/he Bill disallows in the provincial/schools the teaching of any catechism or distinctive creed. I do nit think, therefore, that this reflecAo n on our liberality has any foundation. To oppose these clauses, there » fore, is not illiberal but just. The charge of illiberality seems to bo rather" on the other side, for provided tVe denominationalists get what they desire, it is no concern of theirs' how the Bill may affect others. If I am. wrong hi this inference, I shall be glad

to be corrected. On the other hand, the promoters "of the public meeting were anxious to arrive at a common ground where th© interests of all might meet,- but any

hints at concessions were not. taken up, thus shewing that the denominationalists had no desire to meet on common ground. In these circumstances, I will leave tho public .to judge on which side the illiberally lies.

• This I believe is a true statement of the case as between us, and if so, it meets the complaint that the Roman Catholics do not participate in the public fund for the purposes of education. The truth is, they are seeking for an application of the nubile money ia a direction in which no one now

enjoys it in the province of Otago. Let it be applied as indicated in the Aided Schools clauses, and those who get the benefit will in that case have an advantage over all others. I am aware that Mr. M'Swiney stated that the Catholics could not .participate in the schools as they were, and he said we ought to believe them ; but it does not follow froTi that that we must grant them what we ourselves do not have nor claim. It is not for me to prescribe to our friends what course they ought to pursue in tbeir peculiar position. All I have to say ia that I have never sought help from any government to teach my religious convictions, and, as a matter of principle,

am opposed to doing so, I therefore ,do not rest my opposition to these clauses because the .Roman Catholics would get the benefit of them. It would be tbe same with me were the parties of my own creed. Mr. Howard, therefore, is mistaken if he thinks tbe part I took in the demonstration "was against the Catholics as such I beg also to correct Mr. H, as to the beginning of this controversy. It

was not the School Committee that began it. It began with our Roman Catholic friends, both here and elsewhere. But while Mr. 11. casts a reflection on us, and blames us for kindling the fires of controversy, I do not retort by casting the blame on them. They thought they had a grievance, and agitated for the removal of it. Some months ago a petition wa3 fo -warded to .the Provincial Government from the Catholics of the Tuapeka district praying for help to their schools. The Bill was sent us from tho General Government, a proof that the agitation had been carried on elsewhere, and had made some impression. The question was before the public. and not through our means. The Bill pent to us was a challenge to consider the matter, and in bringing it before the public we took a straightforward poursp, and ifc was remote from our intentions to up ill feeling. I should be ashamed of myself it" I had any other feelings than those of respect towards our opponents that evening, who both expressed themselves with courtesy, qnd conducted themBelves with the decorum of gentlemen. Nor do I think I should b_e regarded many other light than that of simply refusing to them what I decline for myself, Mr. Howard seems to think that the multiplication of schools would be a Rood instead of an evil, as they would promote competition. Well, if Mr. Howard could secure the establishment of these schools on a self-sup-porting basis, I have nothing to say

He is welcome, so far as I am concerned, to make the experiment. In that case, the energetic and efficient would succeed, and the others go to the wall ; but it is absurd to talk of competition where the element of denoininationalism "and subsidy interfere %vith a healthy competition. Sectarian feeling would secure. a certain amount of support in ppite of inefficiency, while the subsidy from Government might prop it up. I think, Sir, looking at the variety of our religious interests, the only course open for the State, if it take up the question of education at all, is to provide an education for the rising race, to suit them to become proper subjects- -a system equitable to all; and that is what is attempted in those schools de.surn;ited Provincial. But our Roman Catholic friends do not want what they may enjoy in common with others, but something special to themselves ; and for that they claim a . share of the public taxes. I think the fact; that it is go jjdfes very fair to answer the complaint of non-partici-pation .in this matter of the public money ; and it requires the tax-payer v to' look well to the purse strings to \see that this docs not introduce a principle which will become ' biirdenS6<yie — perhaps-more than. There are other points to which I could refer, but space forbids.— l am, & c - _ n J. MfeyziES. I> - S; — Tms let \r is not unseasonable, for though tht N Education Bill is withdrawn, it will, k a U likelihood, come up again; and tV public ought to be on their guard, nofM o ' be taken By surprise, and the " Aid&J Schools " clauses passed before they a»e aware -J. M. ' \