MR. STANFORD'S LECTURE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 198, 16 November 1871, Page 5

MR. STANFORD'S LECTURE.

(To the- Editor.) Sin, — I attended the lecture on " Education " given by the Eev. R. L. Stanford on Wednesday evening last, and was impressed with its cleverness — if anything, ifc was too clever. I have* often been struck with this, that dealers in superlatives are guilty of a species of falsehood ; and Mr. Stanford certainly bo dazzled his auditors with exaggerations as almost to blind them to some of the real points at issue in this controversy, and to some other consequences that arpse out of the lecturer's position: I could not help being reminded of one of Mr. Disraeli's sarcasms when Sir It. Peel became a free trader, " The Whigs were bathing, and the Conservatives had run away with their- clothes." In listening to Mr. S.s exposition of the States relation to ; education, I could almost believe myself listening to the Eev. J. Burnet, Edward Bains, Edward Miall, or someother of 25 years ago. State washerwomen, State tailors, &c, were all paraded side by side with the State school master. But then these very parties were obliged to succumb, not to argument, but to the Church of England, Roman Catholics, * Wesleyans, Presbyterians, bond and free, who were all eager for the sake of the public money to maintain the Stateß duty to educate the people. ! Did Mr. . Stanford ever put forth tbe arguments he used last Wednesday evening in the Midland Counties from which he hails? Did he ever denounce the " cruel tyranny " which compelled a large section of the community to support systems there to which they were conscientiouslyopposed. If he did it is enough,; if pot, why this new born zeal on behalf Roman Catholica only? Acr p^ll^l^J^-^^t^raagdbenbjitrj^

tfris question; if so, Will Mr. Stanford's proposal satisfy the demands of aJJ ? Does, ifc satisfy the case o£ those who refuse to have their religious conviction* made a marketable commqdity; in other words, who hold tsuth ,to be too sacred to be bargained for jin (the fashion the Aided Schools and ratjag clauses of the late Bill would have jitj who say I would rather not have ypur money at all than have it on the principle .that all forms •of belief are alike ? I jleaye th,e speculation as beyond my reach whether the filthy worship of the Hindu.B jbe preferable to scientific .teaching only, bu,t I do refuse to be compelled to .support any one's belief, and to have it as a sop for my compliance that he should be equally taxed to support mine. Had 1 the lecturer's talent for exaggeration, I could be very eloquent on this kind of oppression and general debauchery of conscientious convictions; but then these parties happen, to be Protestants, arid they do not find favour with the lecturer. If in this I wrong him, let him correct me. I could not help thinking that the ideas of Egypt still clung to the lecturer, notwithstanding his professed arrival in the Canaan of free education and voluntary churches. I was forcibly reminded of the arguments of upholders of church establishments as against voluntaryism from 25 to 30 years ago. It used to be maintained then that there, was no consistent resting place to voluntaryism but infidelity and atheism, just as the lecturer served up Professor, Huxley as the proper development of that State educationist who refuses to yield up to the State the sacred duty of teaching his religion. There is able p"\rty who hold this ' view, and they were, as well aa others, to regard Professor Huxley as their advanced post. I would, however, remind the lecturer that the voluntary churches are no nearer infidelity than the des cendants of those who classed them with infidels and atheists ; and his bugbear of Professor Huxley does not affect me any more than did the imaginary consequences of those whose position I understood him to have abandoned, but whose ideas he still j retains. i I would further remind the lecturer ! that the grand melodramatic passage of his lecture in which be held a discussion with "Mr. Secularist," who was, from the mode of his address, supposed to be speaking from the window or behind the wall — as he ib so apt to impute consequences — that it was a consequence from this part of his lecture that the parson had little concern in religious education, and still less the parents. All that school masters have hitherto communicated of religious influence is very trjfling as compared with the religion that ' might be taught even at the " washtub," or by the father after a hard day's ploughing. The place that the [ lecturer would give to the school mas- i ter at the expense of the parent I hold j to be a very grievous fault in the lecture. I believe that one of the great defects of society arises from the parent delegating religious teaching to the school master ; and I was sorry to find all Mr. Stanford's strength put forth to extend and confirm this evil. It seems to me that however eloquently Mr. Stanford might plead for religious education, this divorcement is damaging to his scheme. As regards compulsory education I, have never been an admirer of it. I fear it will' be found to work badly, and therefore do not feel myself called upon t<r answer Mr. Stanford m denouncing the tyranny that enforces education without giving the choice of a school ; but this scheme provides no protection for the N conscientious rate or tax payer, as such it is a most unsatisfactory solution of the difficulties of the question. To my mind, the only system that will prove satisfactory" ja' e£thpr. an entirely voluntary system, p.r .pne which sets aside creeds, and leaves the religious teaching to the parents and the churches. — I am, &c, J. Menzies.

(To tlie- Editor.) . Sir, — Mr. Stanford enlightened tbe good folks of Lawrence on the subject of Education on Wednesday last, in a most wonderful manner. He said he had studied his subject intently, but if so, I feel certain it must have beep, with the assistance ot a slang dictionary, for in the same space of time I have never heard so much slang from a man professing to have got an education. His opinion is that' Schoolmasters should be paid by results/ What a pity he did not add clergymen also. He characterised Grrivernmert servants as loafers. Well I have heard clergy,, men called by the same name, but of course that was a malicious j libel, as theyjaever neglect their work or take pay'for teaching a religion tbey don't believe, or a morality they don't practice. How musical were the lecturer's yella' in hi* make-believe conversation with the secularist ! What unbounded charity he showed to his prating opponents who refuse to be taxed to teach dogmas they don't believe, and tbe ''miserable rags" of newspapers which support them ! But, alas, alas, -such an intellectual treat, with a whole form to^ myself,, I am not likely ics: again enjoy fqr a hftlf-crown, as it is found by the promoters it don't pay. Alas for dis r jointed Anglicanism. — I am, &c, Secularist.