Evening Post. MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1883. THE CHURCH AND EDUCATION.

Evening Post, Volume XXVI, Issue 103, 29 October 1883, Page 2

Evening Post. MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1883. THE CHURCH AND EDUCATION.

Rktojunq onoe more our review of the evidence given before the Joint Committee on Education, we come next to that of the Rev. Ricbabd Coffey, on behalf of the Church of England. Those who have listened to Mr. CoFFBY'a vigorous and outspoken denunciations of what he deems the evils of the day, will be quite prepared to learn that his testimony waa particularly forcible and straightforward. He did not mince matters in the slightest degree. Asked at starting, "Do you approve the present State system of secular education ?" Mr. Coffey answered with most uncompromising distinctness — " Emphatically NO ! !" With regard to Bible-reading in schools, Mr. Coffey said : — " If the Bible had been introduced as part of the system when it was first inaugurated I might have acquiesced in it as the least of two evils ; but, now we have launched into a system of secular education, from which the Bible has been excluded, I do not think it expedient, on the ground of policy and of principle, to accept as a concession to our just demands the mere reading of the Bible, which might, unless other conditions were attached to it, prove a hindrance to the object we have in view rather than a help to it." The committee then asked Mr. Corner to state fully his reasons for objecting to the State system. The rev. gentleman accordingly proceeded to formulate his views with great clearness. He said: — "I presume that the State, in undertaking this important work, desired to make men good citizens. Now, nine-tenths of the failures in this respect are due to want of selfgovernment, yet no provision is made for the promotion of self-government; hence the New Zealand educational scheme is radically defective. I hold that religion is the chief factor in teaching men selfgovernment, and the New Zealand educational scheme practically excludes religion. This exclusion is based upon an assumption that the Sunday sohools can teach religion — an assumption which is contrary to fact. It is manifest that an hour a week is not sufficient. It is also manifest that the Sunday schools can only reach such children aa are sent, and it is notorious that the children who are most in need of religious instruction are those not likely to be sent to any Sunday school." After referring to the action of the General Synod in the matter, Mr. Coffey proceeded to state his objections seriatim as follows ; — I object as a patriot, for criminal statistics and revolutionary movement* prove that knowledge may be used for wioked purposes, Moreover, there are many who account for the widespread " larrikinism " which prevails in Australia and New Zealand by pointing to the secular charaoter of education imparted in these colonies. I agree with this solution ; abC. » visit to any gaol would be instructive to "toony. I object, on grounds of abstract, justice, to the New Zealand Educational Act. It is manifestly unfair to make Boman Catholics, Jews, and others who cannot avail themselves of the Act pay toward the maintenance of the genome. In faot, the Act is in this reßpeota veiled penal tax, and that, too, in a oonntry where liberty of conscience is supposed to exist. The Act must irritate and alienate a large class of men. History shows the danger and wortbloasness of penal Acts. J object jn the name of statesmanship. For jt ig a maxim of political economy that the State should not interfere unnecessarily. There it here an interference beyond what is necea-

eary. The English system ahows clearly that a national system may advantageously embrace voluntary schools. The business of the state is to supplement not to supplant voluntary effort. I object as a free-trader. For the New Zealand educational system is a monopoly, with the usual consequences — an enhanced price for the article produced, and a deterioration in the quality of work, due to the absence of any healthy competition. The English Education Act illustrates one of my contentions. The cost of educating a child in England in the voluntary school is £1 14s 9d ; in the Board school, JG2 Is C}d. But, when allowance is made for foes. Ac, the cost to the State for the voluntary school is 14a 10£ d; while in the Board school the cost is .£1 lls s£d ; that is, more than double. There is no account taken in this comparison of the cost of administration or the money sunk in buildings, which would make the comparison still more in favour of the voluntary school. To illustrate the tendency toward costliness, I may add that Mr. Forster, when introducing the measure into Parliament, stated that 3d in the pound would suffice, whereas the average rate for England is sd ; in London it is 7d : and in some districts it reaches 2s 6d in the pound. As the English Church educates fully half the children, and, as the Nonconformists educate a large portion of the remainder, it is clear that bnt for the voluntary schools the School Board rate would be oppressive boyond endurance. Lastly, I object to the New Zealand Education Act because— (l.) It is denominationalism in the worst form, namely, in the form of the secular school of thought. It is a concession to that verj class that is likely to prove dangerous to the State. The fact that there are many Christian men in favour of it cannot alter my contention. (2.) It does not reach the very poorest — the class for which a national system should specially provide. (3.) It is, then, seeing that these poor who do not avail themselves of it pay taxes, a tax on the poor for the relatively rioh. This is a very thoroughgoing condemnation of the existing system, and it has the merit of admirable lucidity. There is no mistaking what Mr. Coffey means, at any rate. His replies to the queries subsequently put were similarly trenchant and to the point. He stated plainly his belief that "purely secular education tends to increase crime and infidelity ;" that leaving religious instruction to parents is "absurd: like asking a man who has no arm to do manual work ;" that Sunday school teaching by itself is insufficient; that, "on the grounds of justice and efficiency," the denominational system is the best. He held that the Eoman Catholics had " a crying grievance" under the present system, and he advocated the English plan, by which the denominational and secular methods were combined, and no grievance was heard of. He concurred with his Bishop in approving the first and second clauses of the General Synod's petition (already several times alluded to in our previous articles on this subject), tut differed from that prelate in giving a qualified approval of the third clause, although he would not leave to School Committees the selection of portions of Scripture to be read, because "there might be an infidel or secular committee elected, who might selecb undesirable passages, and the consequences would be disastrous." He believed the denominations could provide the school buildings if requisite, and that they would do things much less expensively than the Government, because "whenever the Government underI take a thing it ia not done in the oheapest way, the object is to fleece them as much as possible." When asked if the bishops and clergy represented the views of the laity on this matter, Mr. Coffey replied, with great candour: — " If you want a sound, wise opinion about medicine, the bulk of the people are unable to give it ; you only go to those who are capable of giving it ; I say the bulk of the people are capable of giving only an ignorant opinion about this matter, and I strongly suspect there is a large proportion who do not sympathise with their wise and learned teachers . . . Many of them were brought up in dissent, and you cannot change a man's skin with the change of climate." Mr. Coffey went on to argue from the fact that the lay menfbera ot the General Synod, who represented the educated and thinking portion of the Church, supported the Synod's petition, therefore it had the support of educated and thoughtful churchmen. He denied that Parliament represented the views of the majority of the people on this question, remarking — "That is the theory — a pious fraud." He contended that the lay members of Synod more justly represented the public view on this question, because it had never fairly came before the Parliamentary electors at all ; what had been set up was the proposal for Bible -reading, which was a totally different affair. Mr. Coffey also said : — " I hold that the education of the religious and moral elementin man is an essential element in education ; I would rather have a boy taught the • three R's ' with the fear of God than all that can be taught in the schools if he is an infidel." Such then are the principal features of Mr. Coffey's very frank and plainspoken testimony. In the main, it will bo perceived, it agrees with that of his bishop and of the three Roman Catholic prelates. We have next to see what are the Wesleyan and Hebrew views on the question.