STATE EDUCATION.

Bruce Herald, Volume VI, Issue 380, 16 August 1871, Page 6

STATE EDUCATION.

(By " Economist.") : | "It is of very much more importance that men should bare food than that they should have pianofortes • y_t it by no means follows tliat erery piauoforte maker ought to odd the businc.. of » baker to his own." — Loud MacatjljAY.

So many various points have been discussed during. the late stir about education, and the passions and prejudices of so many different parties have been aroused that it is perhaps rather late in the day for one, who holds a different view from any that have been stated as yet, to obtain a hearing. The writer of the present paper, however, trusts that his views will be accepted and endorsed by not a few, who may be glad to see tbeir opinions expressed publicly. What education is ? what is the duty of the State towards it 1 how far, if at all, it should be connected with the Churches? and what ha3 hitherto been the success of the various methods pursued 1 these are some of the questions which require and must receive discussion. The writer proposes to use the word education as equivalent to the drawing out to their full perfection the faculties of the mind ; it is not, to him, instruction— i.e.. the pouring in facts— but the embellishing and brightening the powers that aie already given. He uses religion, and religious teaching, as equivalent to Bible knowledge, and Bible teaching. By denomin ation alists, he means those who conceive that children cannot properly be taught religion except through the medium of acknowledged creeds and formulas. By secularists, he means those who hold that religion and creeds, if taught at all, should properly be taught neither by government schoolmasters, nor in government schools. He does not suppose that these definitions will be accepted by othei s universally, but they may, nevertheless, help to make his meaning the more plain. Much of the misconceptions afloat on the subject arise from the very different meanings which those words express to different minds.

To begin, then, with the duty of the State towards education, for this underlies the -whole question. That such a point should be discussed at all is a proof that we are still in a period of transition. One hundred years ago, had the question been mooted, and had the necessity of some education been as un:versally admitted as it is now, there would have been no hesitation in saying that tbe duty of education belonged entirely to the State ; the paternal relation of a sovereign to his people was admitted almost everywhere — that is, the doctrine that the relation of a king to his people was the same as tlie relation of a father to his children. Macaulay Mill, and kindred writers had not then distinguished the functions of the government of a free country. Most liberal politicians now agree to limit the functions of a State to the preservation of law and order, and cognate subjects, the provision — i.e., that men should be able to live. This, in one way or another, includes everything which the more modern school of political economists assign over to the hands of the Government of a country possessed of representative institutions. It is, then, by a confusion of these two relations of a Government to its people that the difficulties of the education question arise. If the government is paternal it must teach ; if it be merely a gigantic police it need only see that children be taught — i.e., as Sliming that the education of the masses is necessary, to preserve order ; for if it be not necessary education is no concern of the Government at all. The present writer holds that it is the business of the Government to preserve order, and not to teach at all. He holds that to assign this duty to the State is to go back a century or so, and to re-instate the divine right of Provincial Councils ! inatead of beings. He holds that the State should insist, under penalties, on primary education for all, and leave the method and manner to the laws of supply and demand. The duty of the State being to see that citizens are orderly, it may trench so far only upon the duties of a parent as to see that the fountain of ill behaviour— e.g., ignorance — is stopped at the source ; but every step which it takes toward active teaching of any kind it is guilty of an anachronism, and behaves like a parent, while it is only a policeman. It is entitled to inspect the knowledge of a young citizen, and to inflict penalties on those parents who are neglecting their duty to the State of educating the children ; but it cannot itself teach at all without landing itself in a sea of difficulty. This whole question, indeed, has been discussed with respect to the established Church of England, and liberal politician a haye, for the most part, decided that it is not the duty of the State to teach religion. To meet a present pressing evil, they have consented to the State's teaching the young, but it does not require a very cunning .prophet to foretell the day -when both churches and schools will be handed over to private agencies as incompatible with the duties of the State. Here, however, in Otago, where there is no large uneducated mob pressing upon us, it is obviously a mistake for the Government to interfere with education at all, save as far as it should by inspection discover tliat parents are not neglecting their duty, and should provide for the punishment by fine or imprisonment if they do ao neglect it. Public opinion, however, or rather public knowledge, is at present in a state of tranai'ion and this writer proposes, in his next article, to grapple with the difficulties that are now pressing upon us.