THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Waikato Times, Volume XIII, Issue 1054, 27 March 1879, Page 2

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Sib,—l felt, when writing my first letter on this question, I should have to run another tilt with my plucky friend, Father Golden, but before we cross steel let me express a hope that Mr O’Neill does not think I have unceremoniously wrenched from him his weapon and “ bowled him off the ground,” as Father Golden puts it. Only two short letters of Mr O’Neill had appeared when I wrote—one headed “ The Block Vote at Nelson,” in which he shows that the Press telegrams, supported by Mr Adams’ speech, should be as worthy of credence as the statement of an unknown correspondent like Mr Frank. In his second letter, he again confines himself to a question of authority, and upholds “ the apostate priest v the apostate peer.” I feel quite innocent of having traversed his ground in any way. Nor can I see how Father Golden looks upon me as an aggressor. Had the question involved been of a private nature, as between man and man, then I might be considered an interloper, but the moment that he opened in the Press upon a matter of public importance, he challenges all comers, and the subject at once becomes public property. One thing I regret exceedingly—that, in making use of the words “ the iron heel of the Church,” I touched upon a “ melancholy chord.” Nothing was further from my thoughts > than any alius on to Church persecutions, , and Father Golden will regret with me that he was led into any reference of such in my own Church. Everyone must admit and deplore that history records i too much on both sides. My remark, taken with the context, purely has refer- , ence to the arbitrary nature of the Church’s power, as witness in Catholic * countries which will not admit of laymen * having a voice in their Government. | Perhaos I might have chosen a more felir citous expression, but I disclaim using it in an offensive sense, t or twenty years • in Australia, my most intimate friends ' and daily companions were Roman ('atholics, and it is not likely that I would try to wound their or their co-religionists’ feelings gratuitously. Having thus made, I trust, an acceptable explanation, I will now proceed upon the question in dispute. Father Golden, to begin with, does not hide his poor opinion of my perceptive powers. Because I can’t see in the same , light as he does, notwithstanding the ref ulgency so unsparingly shed around in his letters, I must be blind past all hope. As a rejoinder to this, I would say that “there are none so blind as those who will not see,” and, until he ceases to confound mere unsupported assertions with 1 logical deductions, I fear he and I will P not view things in the same light. A f simple assertion uttered by a Bishop, [ whether the dignitary belongs to his own » or the Anglican Church, is weightier in 1 his eyes than the most conclusive argument based upon a whole array of facts. Every coin, however worthlsss the ma- } terial of which it is composed, will pass current with my opponent if it only bears r on its face the impress of the mitre, notP withstanding that it must be clear to everyone who reads the newspapers—- ) every issue of the ‘ Australasian ’ proves . it—that lavri inism flourishes most in the large centres of population, where each 1 denomination has the benefit of its 1 own school. Father Golden still proudly nurses the idea that this offence against 1 society is traceable to the national system, ’ and by way of proof, he informs us that • Dr Moorhouse says so. That all the authorities quoted are men of high 1 culture and attainments, I readily admit, but their opinions will not avail against so many advantages in favor of a national system so patent to everyone who has given the matter consideration. But, let us go back to evils of greater antiquity and deeper root than larrikinism. Must 1 not everyone hailing the “ old country ” 1 as his birthplace, feel deep shame and humiliation at the ever recurring dis- | graceful scenes of hatred, riot and blood- ’ shed which, each year, add fresh stains 1 to the pages of Irish history. Father Golden will not be bold enough to say that these are traceable to secularism. Long before the national system was introduced, Ireland had its societies of Whiteboys, Ribbonmen and Orangemen, and now, I think, I might turn the tables upon my opponent and, with reason, say that all this wickedness and disgrace (easily traceable to those societies) has grown up under the fostering wing of donominatioualism, and should be charge* able to that system which, in its working, isolates the youth of each party, and sows the seed of hatred and malice. Had boys been allowed to meet on a common play, ground, they would, when men, look upon each other as old schoolfellows, and not with the hatred of the Montagues and the Capulets. Father Gftlden rubs his hands with satisfaction, that ho has got me at last, but the nut he crack, was grown on the same tree as the others he has given me, and as easily treated. It is a quotation from some authority, a Bishop, I presume, but it is a mere unsupported assertion. It must be taken for what it is worth. That the authority alluded to, however, has a far more intimate knowledge of the prpsent school books than myself, I readily admit, and if he had only taken the trouble to give extracts from any of them, justifying him in his conclusions, we would have some standard to judge him by and, perhaps, the value placed on his opinion upheld; or, if Father Golden, who has already laboured so hard, would kindly give us another instance of his zeal and energy, by pointing out the books that “ deny God and revealed religion,” or tho portions “ hostile to religion,” it will ho more effective and convincing than all the opinions he could quote in a week. I will then admit I have a hard nut to crack, and one with a kernel too. Father Golden takes up a great space upon Pagan history, into which I do not feel inclihe4 to travel, as it does not bear upon the question of education, but, if at all, it is against the side he takes up, for it is very probable that polytheism, the thing ho abhors, was taught ip. their places of learning. How much better if our secular system had been in existence then. It : would have excluded all those ideal gods, and “ adoration of crocodiles ” would not have been encouraged. We hear, also, a great deal about this age of Materialism, Free Thought, Nihilists, _ &0., but when the arguments are looked into, thp results arc unfortunate. England has produced its Darwins and Colensos, and Franco its Voltaire. I think I might say that, in no country has free thought become more fashinonalo than in France, yet the education of its youth has, for two continues, beep in tl|q qhargp qf ij;B Eyiesis. " To, show the distrust sqme of the vptayios pf secularism have in the practice of the system, the fact of the daughters of Protestants being sent to convent schools is advanced ; but, unless it can be shown that the girls receive religious education, there the whole argument topples to"'‘the grounej. Father Goldens letters bristle witli inconsistencies. As an illustration, I will give one: the idea is started that all the late attempts at the lives of Crown Heads, is attributable to secularism. In

his last letter, England is included in the list of countries that have produced the would-be assassins, and then he winds up he same letter by asking for the Colonies, he same system and the same justice as obtains in England and Scotland. What on earth, too, induced him to bring forward Mr Whitakcr, as an authority on his side. That gentleman admits the possibility of carrying out denominationalism in largo centres of population, but he does not advocate it,_ and, I imagine, will not divide his principles to please anyone. The report of his speech says, to denominational education, I am very much opposed, and again, whilst acknowledging the importance of religious instructions, he states, " wo will leave that to parsons, priests and parents." I will add, on my own part, that if those do their duty with zeal and efficiency, we will have nothing to fear for the rising generation, and I would ask, why should they not do it ? They should be eminently better fitted for instilling religious sentiments than a schoolmaster, from whom everything of the kind would be looked upon as a task. With regard to abuses in the working of the system, which Father Golden, gives instances of, that does not detract the slightest iota from its importance and value, any Act, for the good government of the country, may prove raaladministrative or become ineffective, but this has got its remedy, and as in this cose you, sir, have pointed out.

I find the truth of my statement challenged, where I assert that, in the majority of oases, the late attempts upon the lives of Eoyalty were in countries where has never gained a footing. My memory may prove defective, but I can only remember three attempts, those in Germany, Spain and Italy. I exclude the threat upon our own Queen's life, as the people of England can hardly be held responsible for the action of a lunatic, and the attempts in Rudsia were upon the heads of the police department. In conclusion, I would say, as far as I am concerned that father Golden* has proved himself a valiant and courteous opponent, but I don't think a judicious general. By attempting to hill his enemies all at once, he scatters his forces too widely, and thus weak ens each position till it becomes untenable, and he is left without a stronghold, excepting that within him>elf—the sincerity and honesty of his own convictions, which no one can assail. With many apologies for again asking so much of your space,—l am, &c, R.W. Hammond—P.S.: A few typographical errors occurred in my former letter. Near the finish, I »m made to say, " Should Father Golden choose to analyse the evil on the more grave offences against society," &o. It should be— ■• analyse this evil, or tho more grave offences," &o. Some other mista es occur, but they are not worth noticing now.—R. W. H.