THE EDUCATION CONTRACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 164, 11 July 1906, Page 8

THE EDUCATION CONTRACT.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The man in the street hears and reads, so many contradictory statements about the English Education Act that he is apt to regard the matter as one of those unintelligible religious squabbles that are only of interest to archdeacons and maiden ladies who keep cats. As a matter of fact; It is simply a question of contract. It is on all fours with tlie case of a shipping company ' which had built expensive ships to carry mails and also to trade on its own account. It provides the ships free of cost, and contracts for the defraying by Government of the actual cost of carrying the mails. The Church has provided buildings worth 22A millions absolutely free of cost to carry the mails of State education, and receives as consideration the right to use its ships for its own purposes for l-23tb of the time. It pays l-7th of the cost, for l-25th of the time. Churchmen were always bad men of business.

It has built the ships to cany Government mails, believing in the good faith of British Governments, just as contractors build huge works- when promised Government woi'K. A large paper manufacturer erects works to make Government paper, with a proviso that he shall be free to make paper on his own account; but paper manufacturers are men of business, and get stamped agreements: the. Church is like the Portuguese bondholders, it trusted to good faith, and good faith, it seems, cannot be trusted in for specific performance. Of course fho Church paper may be rubbish, but the point is, Docs" the Church manufacture good Government paper? Does it give State education up to Government standard No one is bound to buy the Church's private education, or pay for it unless he likes, any more than we are forced to buy De la Rue's playing cards because he 'uses his plant to make Government stamps. It may be that some of the money we pay" for stamps helps to make cards, aud w'c object to cards.- Then apparently we ought to refuse to use stamps for our letters and receipts, and become passive resistors, and sell our second best coal scuttles to pay for our letters and go to gaol for not stamping receipts. In this age of Brummagem it" seems a martyr's crown can be bought for 12/0. with 5 per cent off for cash, and palms at a proportionate reduction.

The Church' schools all the really important things of life at a reduction of 10 per cent off State prices. A Church scholar can tell when the hands of his watch will be at right angles, and cau calculate the cubic "'contents of a pint poi to *ev~a places of decimals. He knows all about the sentence "He said that that that thai, that man used was wrong." The Church teaches a few unimportant and even '■ pernicious" things at its own cost. People object to-children being taught "to keep their hands from picking- and .stealing and their tongues from evil speaking. lying, and slandering," because it might" prevent many a promising iad from doing a deal in Monowais or making his mark as a society journalist. But thesa "pernicious" doctrines are taught at tne Church's expense, nnd no one is bound to learn'them. All Cue taxpayer pays foils teaching our citizens how long it will take their bath to fill if they turn on both taps and leave the plug'out. The State recognises religious tests for its servants in the c«ae of the

King, the Lord Chancellor, and the. Viceroy of Ireland, but' it leaves the riiass otits people free. ;Some people : live up to • their>religibn,vothers .dress, up <to it. They/can. please themselves.V It puts the motto, "Defender of the Faith" on its threepenny-bits. But it does riot pay for Church education; it has only made a bargain with the Church to. supply State education, at 10 per cent under, fost, in return for which it,gives the Church the right of private trading for. one .hour a week, and it now seeks to evade specific performance of its contract. —I am, etc., AN OLD SCHOOLMASTER.

' [We cannot find space for a categorical refutation of all the fallacies and onisstatements contained in thi3 remarkable letter. . But we call the attention of our correspondent and our readers to the following facts: (1) While the Church of England has spsjit over £20,000,000 in schools, the State has contributed toward the support of these schools over £90,000.000 within the last 70 years. (2) No one wants .to take away the Church of England schools if the Church will support them out of her own funds. (3) No one wants to interfere with the teaching of Church of England doctrine in schools supported by that Church at her own expense. (4) The only contract existing between the State and the Church of England on the subject of education is the Balfour Education Act —a Statute which stands condemned by the overwhelming weight of British public opinion throughout the world. This Act not only compelled Dissenters to pay for the Church of England schools and took away from the taxpayers their constitutional right to control the expenditure of the public funds, but set up the Church of England as supreme head of the British education system and revived the detestable nractice of enforcing sectarian tests for public appointments. ' The Birrell bill is simply an "honest attempt to undo the evil work of the Balfour Education Act. Apparently, "Old Schoolmaster" holds that, no matter how iniquitous a law may be, no matter how absolutely it may be opposed to the principles of the Constitution, the liberties of the subject, or the tone of popular feeling, Parliament should never venture to repeal it, lest someone ehould accuse the State of "breach of contract." —Ed.l