TWO SIDES TO A QUESTION.

Press, Volume II, Issue 50, 26 April 1862, Page 1

TWO SIDES TO A QUESTION.

The denominational system pure and simple has found an able and earnest advocate in Mr. Raven; and if the letter winch appeared in our columns last week were as much distinguished by solid reasoning as it is by eloquent declamation, we should be disposed to beat a retreat from the position we have taken up on the question of education. Mr. Haven has brought out the points of his case with much vigour and clearness, and has done good service by placing the denominational system distinctly and in strong relief before the minds of all those among us who are engaged in considering the subject of education at this critical time; but we trußt he will not take offence at our saying that his letter appears to us full of assumptions from beginning to end. For instance, he assumes in the first place that the Central Board advocated by us would exercise an influence prejudicial to the religious rights and liber ties of the people, but that the Executive, to whom he proposes to entrust the distribution of the educational grant, would not do so. Why so ? Because they have less time on their hands, and being occupied with fifty other mioisterM functions^would not trouble themselves to do more than administer the grant according to the terms of the Ordinance ? Are we sure of this ? We rather think that the result would be, that one member of the Executive would be appointed with special reference to Ins acquaintance with, and interest in, the subject of education; he would hold in fact the portfolio of a minister of public instruction. Or failing this, we have the Inspector behind the scenes, always ready with cut and dried plans, which the Executive are pretty sure to adopt to save themselves trouble; giving then, in either of these posts, a doctrinaire chiefly intent on pushing his own viewß and crotchets, and centralisation, as it seems to us, assumes its very worst features. Better surely to be at the mercy of a Board than of an individual. Make the functions of those who are to be charged with the distribution of the grant as purely ministerial as you can, by laying down the conditions of distribution in the Ordinance, and still we should say that it would be better administered by a Board specially appointed for the purpose, than by the Executive, simply because the latter are already so over-burdened by their multifarious duties, that the educational business of the province, which will soon become large and complicated, would first be neglected, and then handed over to an individual. If the business is to be " purely ministerial" as Mr. Raven says in italics, then why object to a board to be appointed for the purpose, which might be as strictly tied down by Ordinance as the Executive Council 'i We are urged to copy the English system as closely as possible—why not then in this ? The Educational Committee of the Privy Council is a Board of Education, analogous to that which we propose. But here we come acrosß another assumption. It is assumed that the conditions on which schools are to be assisted from the grant will, or can, be so distinctly and fully laid down by Ordinance, that the

business of the Executive will be simply to ascertain whether the conditions have been fulfilled in any given case, and then to hand over the money, or not, accordingly. Can any one, giving a second thought to the matter, suppose that this is possible ? Think of all the numerous details respecting school-fees, salaries, different classes of schools, inspection, tenure of school-buildings, and various other points. Can they be all foreseen in drawing up an Ordinance? If foreseen, are they likely to be satisfactorily discussed and settled by a mixed legislative body like the Provincial Council? Much discretionary power must certainly be lodged somewhere; and the individual, or Board, in whom it is vested, must of necessity be a central power, and exercise a palpable influence over the education of the country. Why, every one knows that the Minutes of the Committee of Council in England have but recently stirred and agitated the educational mind of the country from one end to another, and can we prevent, by any legislation, a similar result, though in a less degree, from occurring here? We proposed "a central Board independent of the denominations, but so constituted, if that is possible, as to command the confidence of all;" and we say again that such a Board would be analogous to the Educational Committee of the Privy Council in England, (si magna licet componere parvis) for that is "a central Board independent of the denominations, but so constituted as to command the confidence of all," though consisting chiefly, if not entirely, of members of the Clmrch of England. But Mr. Raven says that" the whole gist of this sentence" lies in the words " if that is possible," and thinks farther that " in the present state of things it is im. possible." Why impossible ? If there is any tangible objection to a Board composed of some of our highest functionaries, judicial and executive, on the ground that " it would be a vast evil to bring sectarian feelings into our courts of judicature, or even into the election of government officers," then why not make these functionaries the nominators of the Board, instead of themselves composing it ? The Board of Education at Auckland is composed of nine members, all appointed by the Superintendent; if we do not think proper to follow this precedent so far as to give the nomination of the whole number to the Superintendent, might not one or more be nominated by him, one by the Judge, one by the Speaker, and other officers and public bodies might be named besides these to whom a like power of appointment might be safely entrusted. There would be nothing to prevent these functionaries from appointing, not themselves, but each other, and if so appointed, they might, or might not, consent to serve as they thought fit. There is no doubt that we have competent men and if that is the case, it cannot be impossible to get at them. Mr. Raven next passes on to the functions of the proposed Board, and here, in the warmth of his antipathy to everything bearing the name of central, he has been betrayed into what appears to us another most monstrous assumption. He takes it for granted that a Board, " so constituted, if that is possible, as to command the confidence of all," would be utterly indifferent to the principles and character of the persons they would appoint as teachers, and would regard nothing but their qualifications as scholars and mathematicians. Can any supposition be more unfounded, any apprehension more groundless? There is not the least reason that we can see why the appointments should not be in every respect as good as those made under the present system. It is not improbable that they might be better ; a higher class of men might be induced to come out, if they knew they were to hold office under a public board, instead of being subject to dismissal by an individual. And then with regard to the religious instruction, as proposed to be communicated under the system suggested by us ; Mr. Raven calls it all manner of names, an item, an extra, an ornament, an accomplishment. But. after all, how is it so widely different in practice from the system pursued at present ? A clergyman of the Church of England goes into the school of the parish two or three days

lin the week, perhaps every day, for an hour or so at a time, for the purpose of communicating religious instruction; during the remainder of the week the school is left to the master. Under the Tasmanian system he does precisely the same, the only difference being that the ministers of other denominations have an equal right of entering at stated times, and communicating religious instruction to children of their own flock. We look upon this in short as only another variety of the denominational system: under the one variety, different religious bodies carry on their distinctive teaching side by side under different roofs; under the other, they may do the same side by side under a common roof. Mr. Raven himself speaks of "times peculiarly set apart" under the system which he approves, v for instruction in the doctrines of religion;" does not this shew that the religious element is capable of being separated from the secular in a very great degree ? Might not this plan be held up to ridicule after Mr. Raven's own fashion ? " Here is a school in which the religious teaching is that of the Church of England; but, gentlemen of the Church of Rome, of the Presbyterian, and the Wesleyan persuasions, you may rest perfectly satisfied on the religious question ; for, if you do not like the religious teaching of the school for your children, you are not obliged to have it; if you don't like it, you may leave it." There is only one other point in Mr. Raven's letter which we wish to notice. He seems to assume towards the end that what the people generally are mainly anxious about in the matter of education is the maintenance of their denominational principles. Our own observation has led us to a different conclusion. In the outlying districts of the province the want which is most generally felt and expressed is that of a school for the children; if the choice lies between this, and a church and clergyman too, the school would be preferred; and so much is this the case, that the first denomination offering to establish a school would be supported in most cases in their undertaking. And it is just this state of things which both under the present system, and under that recommended by Mr. Raven, is likely to lead, as it seems to us, to an unedifying race and unseemly jostling between different religious communions, as well as to mischievous heartburnings and discord among neighbours. Be it remembered, however, that we recommended the Tasmanian system not as the best in itself, but, as it seemed to us, the best attainable under all the circumstances. We greatly prefer the denominational system, pure and simple, if it can be carried out on any satisfactory basis of mutual arrangement. Moreover, by proposing, as we did, that the existing schools in all the present centres of population should be regarded as established institutions, and retained as the existing basis, we were doing our best to secure the citadels and chief fortresses of education for that system; whereas, by aiming at too much, it may in the end lose all. We are puzzled to make out what Mr. Raven's last paragraph about the pride of intellect has to do with the question. We are irresistibly reminded of that choice bit of government latin, which bids fair to become a household word among us— Cvi Refert ?