THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 200, 30 November 1871, Page 5

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, — As I have been personal, Mr. Stanford thinks my case a bad one. Why does he not applythe same illogical logic to his own statements 1 Can anyone be more personal than he, aye, and cowardly too, for he does it under cover of such ambiguous language as to leave tho men he so vilely attacks no opportunity of replying to his grossly offensive statements. How wantonly he attacks the provincial schoolmasters, particularly the one not a hundred miles -from. Lawrence. Ought not the consciousness of being a schoolmaster himself have restrained him, even thcujh they so materially affect his trade as to leave it doubtful if his profits from teaching pay for his advertisements 1 I happen to have the misfortune of knowing some of his beys, and if being able to drink, smoke, and swagger about be a mark of the religious and moral culture imparted in his seminary, they do him great credit. Again, look at his attack on the Inspector, and his insinuations about impartial inspection. Of course such remarks will be taken for what they are worth, even though our Lawrence insolvents — who will not pay th ir lawful debts — may give other people's money to flood the province with such statements. — I am, &c, Secularist.

(To the, Editor.)

Sin, — Permit me to express to the Rev. R. L. Stanford my appreciation of the courteous manner in which he has replied to my strictures on his lecture. My first impression on reading his letter was, fcliat the views of the lecturer were so modified that there was little use in replying. On further reflection, however, it appeared that his letter did not do justice to my sentiments in one or two particulars, and that it was important to have these fairly represented. I was glad to find that Mr. S. thinks he was unfortunate in expressing his views in relation to parental training, as it brings out the value he attaches to parental religious instruction ; and also that he thinks voluntary churches are in no danger of falling into infidelity from their voluntaryism, as this might lead to a modification of his views of the tendency of secular schools under Government management. In regard to the exaggerations in the lecture. It was my conviction, and that of others, that a vein of it ran through the lecture as a. whole. The mode of presenting things resembled more the art of the special pleader than f think what ought to be the balanced style of a lecture. A s examples of what I mean, I would instance the use made of the term "secularist," which he now acknowledges was " idly enough " used. That term in the statement of modern opinions I have always understood as designating one who confines his views to present things only, and leaves reli gion and eternity out of account. I note that he quoted his definition as "one who would not have religiontaught by the schoolmaster." But this definition is an exaggeration, if I may use an Irishism, by diminution, and the vice of it was seen in mixing up parties whose views, on religious matters at least, are as far apart as the poles. . We decline, therefore, to be classed with secularists. We go in for secular teaching rattier than denominational"; that is our position : at least it ils mine; I would instance another, case of exaggeration— that place where; it was designated the cruelest tyranny to compel Roman Catholics to educate their children, and not provide dehorn inational schools. That part of the measure does not receive favour from me;* yet I would say that stronger language" could not have been used had the Roman Catholics been compelled to adopt a Protestant creed by the rack and thumbscrew. These instances are given to show that 1 did not speak without book in .charging the lecturer with exaggeration. I thought I had made my meaning plain, whileopposingthe denominational scheme, as making religioxis conviction a marketable commodity, and as tending to the general debauchery of conscientious " convictions in this .- that ( I refused to be " taxed to support another's creed; even thoWh a sop should be offered toe 'that he should buy - JaualJy taxed to support jftine. TJiia

is the meaning of denominational teachinsf at tbe public expense. Moreover, Mr. Stanford seems to suppose that it can be stayed at the Roman Catholics. But once grant the principle that the State is bound to provide education for all taxpayers, or if it undertakes the task it is bound to educate them in their religious beliefs, and also that numbers ought not to be taken into consideration, and you cannot limit the application of the principle. To he equable the bachelor and spinsters who contribute to the taxes ought to have some benefit ; the Chinese ought ; the Maoris with their hauhauism ought ; Mormons and Jews ought. This is no fanciful picture, in all its particulars at least. Under the British Government in India, while the Bible is excluded from native schools, the impurities of Hinduism are taught and paid for. (I quote I^Dm a speech delivered by a TV. Low at 1 Hull.) Now, if the principle leads to such latitudinarianism, I think I am correct in describing it as involving a "general debauchery of conscience."

I would have liked if Mr. Stanford, in quoting my words ' that " a system which sets aside creeds would prove the only satisfactory one," had left out the word " only," and also had added what I did add — " leave religions instruction to the parents and the churches," or a voluntary one. Tho latter was my preference for years ; but those of us who held it toiled on so hopelessly against those who maintained the contrary theory, that I feel convinced the time has gone past for a voluntary system. I have abandoned the position, not because I do not approve of it, but. because the overwhelming force of opinion is against it ; and in accepting tlie other, f-jel myself bound to take that line of action which would save Government teaching from those consequeuces to which I think it tends in supporting denomim»tionalisin.

I scarcely looked upon the small pleasantry I employed in describing the action of the lecturer as melodramatic, as a personality ; but if M>. S. was unfortunate in expressing himself in that part of his lecture, even this does not show the weakness of my case. I inav add that in all likelihood that part of Mr. S.'s performance would, have escaped notice by me had he not himself been so unsparing on everything, au-J, I was goiug to add, everybody, only the objects selected for attack were brought before us under masque. This feature of the lecture leaves the impression that Air. Stanford has no standing when he raises this noli me tangere in reference to himself ; and his own sensitiveness in this particular may suggest to. him a little moderation in this line of illustration for the future. Here I be^ to add that this correspondence, so far as it relates to Mr. S.'s lecture, now closes. — I am, &c, J. Menzies.