A COLONIAL VIEW OF NEW EDUCATION BILL

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 148, 23 June 1906, Page 9

A COLONIAL VIEW OF NEW EDUCATION BILL

« INTERESTING INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP MOORHOUSE. (From Our Own Correspondent.} LONDON, llih May. A very interesting interview with Bishop Moorhouse, formerly of Alelbourne and later of Manchester, has-been secured by the representative of the Western Morning News — the leading West of England journal — and was published in tha,t paper yesterday. Its New Zealand interest lies iriainly in the Bishop's observations regarding the colonial experience of secular education and its results. I quote it in. full. Ifc runs as follows: — Being of the opinion that there wao ■ one man in England to-day whose woids would shed much light on the present controversy, I made my way to the historic Vale of Taunton Dene, and was privileged to break in upon the wellearned rest and retirement of Bishop Moorhouse, late of Manchester. Nearly fourscore years have now passed over him, and hard work has left- its marks upon his physical form, but it was pleasant to find an intellect as vigorous as ever — "his eye not dim nor his natural force abated." The fact that he was Bishop of Melbourne from. 1876-1886 (the Act which secularised all the schools 'of the colony was passed in 1873), and from 1886 until his retirement a few years ago was immersed in the turmoil and struggle of the teeming millions of Laneasihro, lends a weight and value to his utterance which cannot be gainsaid. It needed no persuasion to rouse up all the old fire. In tones of gravest earnestness lie laid his views before me, the fine old face glowing with animation as he bagan : — "I am sorry that churchmen have adopted the present attitude, because I don't see how ifc is going to lead to any satisfactory settlement. lam quite certain that ;f this Bill is thrown out by the Lords, the Government will retort by introducing a Bill for secularism pure and simple, and then, if that is thiown out, they -will appeal to the electorate, and by that time the whole country will have got so thorcughly sick of the 'religious difficulty,' that it will be said, aa it was said in the colony of Victoria, 'The best way to settle the Teligious difficulty is to have no religion at all." "What you want to do, now you have an opportunity, is to ' do something for religion, not against it. Mr. Birrell's Bill does nothing at all for religion, and it will lead eventually to secularism, without a doubt. .Voluntary, attendance at religious instruction will never bfc a success. Why, you've got to compel the children to ' come to "their ordiriary lessons ; do you think you .won't have to compel them to come to extraordinan lessons? Even if you had a measure oi success at first, you would find that they would soon drop off coming, for one reason or another. ' - "We tried to work >"t in Victoria, -when I was Bishop, of Melbourne ; we had a joint committee of the clergy and ah tlie various Dissenting ministers, and drfc,w up a rota. First of all the teachers fell off — you see the Nonconformist dida't see what good he was doing for his particular place of worship ; the good of the children in general did not appeal to him — then (what else could' you expect. ?) the children fell off. We tried it before school hours, we tried if after school hours, we tried ib on Saturday afternoons. It wouldu't work. It lasted about a month in each case. Believe.me, the idea, of voluntary religious instruction is an absolute illusion. I don't think so ; I know it. • " The oiler of facilities for special instruction is an absolute' illusion, too. It is only intended as a sop to the Roman Catholics. Th« Government know perfectly well that the majority of the Church of England schools are not in the urban areas, but in the country districts, where generally they are the only schools. What would happen auywav"' Every municipal election would turn on this quest-ion ; each year there would bo a miserable dispute m the council chamber about its continuance. No; they would fciro us down. Facilities under the conditions formulated in the Bill would bo impossible. What I would like to see is. the lenders of the Church aud the leaders of Nonconformity put their hoads together and agree on some scheme of compulsory religious instruction of a simple kind in every school in tho land — protected,- ot course,' by the CowperTemple and the conscience clauses. That would be doing something for religion. The only alternative to some such plan as this is secularism.' Whether you pass the Bill in its present form, or whethor you throw it out altogether, I am convinced the only ultimate result will bo secularism. 1 don't think it. lam certain of it Tho colony nf Victoria tried secularism, and I can assure you with most disastrous effects on the life of, tho colony. I made a speech at the Folkestone Church Congress in October, 1892, on this very point. I touched mainly on the question of crime. There was quite an outcry in the colony in consnqueiice of my remarks, and a Dissenting minister was spsuially engaged to investigate tho matter with a view of. confuting what I had stated. In tho repoit which he issued ho was obliged to confess that, so far from overstating, I had considerably understated tho real condition of affairs. A correspondence also ensued in the columns of the Guardian, but in this case also my contentions were thoroughly established. " But, after all, the people from whom criminals are recruited are but a small portion of the population A distinct deterioration was noticeable in 'the morals of the people generally. I should utterly shock you if I ventured to relate many things that came undor my immediate notice in the case of the' school children in Victoria. Nor' wore things better in the case of their elders. The tone of social life was lowered. . So far as mere outward appearances were concerned things were no different from elsewhere; but beneath the surface there was a vast amount of moral indifference. You can not quote statistics of this sort of thing ; it is a case of what A says of B, or C of D. You would need to have the individuals before you to corroborate .this. But what I say is fact. „-■,■• "The etfect was equally noticeable m the case of religion. The Bible came tobe looked upon as a volume of exploded anecdotes; no one ever thought of reading it as people do here. The ignorance of God and religion was stupendous. Imagine this in a civilised country, a colony of tho British Empire, in tho nineteenth century. In the course of my ordinary episcopal visitation wo came across some children playing. Ifc was Good Friday. My wife began to talk to one little fellow, about ten years of age, and asked him : ' Why ia to-day called Good Friday?' He didn't know. ' But don't you know why wo keep today sacred? 1 'No,' he replied. 'Wasn't it because Jesus died on that day?' sho taid. Imagine my consternation at the answer. ' I don't think I know tho gentleman. 1 Would you think it possible! But I heard it with my own ears." "Oh, yea, the whole national life, so to speak, was affected by the Act of 1873. But what can you expect? If you adopt a system, you wiU bo obliged to carry it out to its logical consequences. I saw this operating in all directions. For instance, when the Great Exhibition was held in Melbourne, everybody was anxious that it should be opened in the usual way that other exhibitions had been opened — viz., with ji religious service of thanksgiving for

the prosperity which had made such an exhibition possible, and to ask Divine blessing on the future. Do you think they could manage to arrange anything of the sort? No. They couldn't settle upon a service without fear of offending somebody ; so it came to this, that they had nothing at all. Everybody's religion is nobody's religion. "Indeed, they have already bsgun to recognise the ill-effects of secularism, and in the colonies where facilities have not been granted for religious instruction in school hours, most strenuous efforts are being made to re-Christianise the ■schools. A referendum is being called for, and wherever it is carried out the majority for religious instruction is overwhelming. Noj secularism won'Jfc' do. "So long as men feel that the.moraf obligation is imposed by God, they will) recognise that obligation ; but when it comes to rest only on the- sanction of the State, it will be disputed. Men wilfcease to recognise an obligation^ which they themselves can impose "or 'remove 4 at pleasure. ' • "You know that story of Wellington at Waterloo? The British infantry were posted on the ridge in reserved* Hour after hour they waited .thereJT^As the groat "commander rode alongVthe lines he saw. the cannon shot plough great gaps through" their ranks. One battalion suffered in particular. Time after time he saw them stolidly . close up their depleted ranks. When he almost feared if they could stand much more 'pounding,' o&e cry came, 'Never mind, sir, we know our duty.' Duty, that's tho word. The ascendency of British character is due to that keen sense of duty which has been implanted' in every British heart by the religious instruction received in childhood. You cannot teach duty without religion. "I say one final word : Whatever you do, keep your religious instruction in the schools of the country — keep it at all costs. To lose religious instruction will be moral death." j I left, the Bishop in full agreement with his contention, that after all the main point is the retention of religion. The vital question before Englishmen today is "not in its fundamental essence" one of "rates" or "deeds," but this: • "Is the nation prepared to say that religious instruction, as the only sound basis of true education, shall be denied to the little children of England?" If not, "let 'it hold, fast that which is good."