Correspondence.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XV, Issue 33, 23 July 1856, Page 2

Correspondence.

TO THB EDITOE OP THE c NEtSON EXAMINES.*

Sir — In my letter which appeared in your paper of Saturday, July 5, I had the honour of answering Mr. Barnicoat's query "how I got over the difficulty of teaching history to protestant and catholic children together/ Moreover I stated that Mr. Barnicoat's proposition "in getting , pver that difficulty as I did, " and his opinion "of abandoning history in public schools," were as many proofs that the system established by the Education Act was defective ; stating at the same time that such a branch of education would be imparted by the system which I advocate. To this letter Mr. Barnicoat replied; but I am satisfied that he did not controvert my statement, but rather confirmed it, admitting that no system had been propounded yet by which history might be taught in public schools without offending the prejudices of any sect or party, and that he would not mind " setting aside such instruction altogether."

When I wrote, it was natural for me to think that Mr. Barnicoat would make a kind of reply ; but I thought it would be more ad rem. Mr. Barnicoat may win the hilarity of many when he styles as "funny" a deduction which I should rather call obvious and true, but he will not win the approbation of the sound part of his readers. In fact he states as one of his strongest arguments, that I took for granted, and so begged the whole question at issue between the promoters and opposers of the Education Act, that there was some general system of education adapted to the actual condition of this province, under which history as a whole, political and religious, its controverted and uncontroverted portions, might be taught in the public schools without offending the prejudices of any sect or party. I must admit that when I heard the new system so much vaunted, so much extolled, i and as one which was to promote welfare and good morals, I expected to see something more complete than what we had seen in schools before, and which Mr. Barnicoat calls "semi-destitute educational condition." If we see a man pulling down the house which he had built when in poor circumstances, in order to build another, we conclude that the new one will be much more comfortable than the old one ; so also, when we saw promoters of the act pulling down schools which had been established in the very infancy of the colony in order to establish new ones, we expected to see a more complete educational system, particularly since Mr. Barnicoat states that such a system "is calculated to promote the most vital interests of the colony :" this is what I should call an obvious and true deduction, and what Mr. Barnicoat is pleased to name a "funny deduction." Now, in the schools at first established, history, though not complete,' was taught along with other equally interesting branches of education ; it looks rather strange to me (and I might say "funny" with Mr. Barnicoat), to think that schools should be now established on a new system to promote knowledge, and to improve our "semi-destitute educational condition," and should, according to Mr. Barnicoat's opinion, exclude such important matters.

I quite agree with Mr. Barnicoat, that the adherents of the Education Act are as desirous as I can be of carrying education throughout the settlement to its utmost practicable limits. I never called this in question : but I regret that its practicable limits should be so confined as "to abandon such a useful branch as that of history, when the denominational system would allow of it. Such a system is objected to on account of difficulties, which I know

there are ; but, after what has taken place lately, I do not think that they are of a more serious character than those of the present system. I rather believe that they would be more J easily removed, such a system being more in accordance with the spirit of religious liberty and equality. I am, &c, A. M. Garin, Catholic Priest. Nelson, July 17, 1856. To the Editor op thb 'Nelson Examines.' Sir — You will have no objection to my sending to your journal a few lines on the great subject of Education, which has lately agitated your province to an unwonted extent. The effort will serve to relieve the tedium of convalescence somewhat to myself personally, and it will tend to show my old friends and neighbours that, though absent, I am not an unobservant nor uninterested spectator of their proceedings. Nelson has every material help to progress, prosperity, and happiness. Your climate is unrivalled for fineness and salubrity. There is a vast extent of land, pastoral, agricultural, and forest ; suitable for every class of settlers. Every acre of it is at your own disposal, you" are happily freed from all fear of Maori annoyance and disturbance. Your sea-board is indented with deep, land-locked bays, harbours, sounds, channels, all easy of access and perfectly safe. Your hills are teeming with mineral riches, coal, copper, and the more valuable metals. Your province will most assuredly lift its head, and be heard of to advantage some day ; the ill-concealed spite of some neighbouring provinces notwithstanding. , There has been another advantage in your province, very likely growing out of those above mentioned. The settlers generally have been so busily employed, so quietly prosperous, that they have had neither time, nor leisure, nor inclination for political agitation. Your few public meetings have been happily exempt from party strife. They have never degenerated into bear-gardens. Differences of opinion have existed, but opponents have not descended to low scurrilities, fierce personalities, and other nuisances which elsewhere have disgraced public meetings. In these things your province has been heard of to advantage. But in the reports of the meetings lately held on the subject of education, I have been surprised and concerned to observe a change. Anger and clamour have tried to put down reason and argument. What astonishes one most of all is that the Roman Catholics should be clamorous for civil and religious liberty !! Come, there is hope for the world yet. I read over the report of the education commission, and the act which was founded on that report, with satisfaction and pleasure. True, the enactment did not meet all my views. But to meet the case of every one would be impossible. All that could be reasonably attempted, would be a good compromise ; and that the act presents. Were your population more concentrated, and your religious bodies fewer, a denominational scheme of education might have been worth the trial. But the objections to such a plan seem at present insuperable. Meanwhile, the necessity for a general education grows more and more urgent, and if you wait until a scheme shall be developed that will satisfy all parties, the present generation must go to a great extent uneducated, and the censure of posterity will deservedly rest on you. The plain, commonsense view of the matter is, take the system which presents the fewest obstacles (your own act for instance) and work it. Most likely in its working, amendments may be found in some of its details. Let them be pointed out as they are discovered, and your representatives in Council will make alterations and improvements in the system from time to time. Really I can see no reason in the outcry raised against the act. It does not prohibit religious teaching. The bible, the only authority in religious teaching, may be used. The ratepayers in every district may have it their own way, save only that an objecting parent's scruples are to be respected. Really I had an opinion that the act was full of Catholic liberty ; that while it violated no man's conscience, it provided such a broad base of operations that all might accept and work it with advantage. If I have been mistaken, so were its framers, and so have been the great bulk of the people. But how can children of various churches be taught together in the same school ? Very well. In our school we had, as the registers will yet show, if they are preserved, children of Roman Catholic parents and of every church in Protestantism, and I never heard the masters express any difficulty, nor the parents find any objection. But how would you teach them history? Why let them read over the simplest, most veritable histories extant, without hiding anything. Let them read about St. Bartholomew's day in France, and in England. Let them read of Mary and Elizabeth's cruelties in the name of religion ; of the slitting up of noses, and cutting off of ears, under Charles I.; of the many attempts and as many failures of kings, and governments, and churches to propagate the religion of Jesus, which is "peace on earth and good will among men," by fire and faggot, by thumbscrew and boot, and by persecuting legislative enactment! ! and we may hope that the children will learn wisdom from the follies of their forefathers, and that as they grow up they will, one and all, assist in exterminating bigotry and hatred and prejudice from the face of the earth.

But the act is not perfect. No one said it was. I myself think it capable of amendment. And with your good leave and that of its framers, I may be permitted to point out one amendment which I think Dr. Renwick proposed in committee, which, had it been conceded, would have blunted the edge of most of its assailants' weapons. I refer to the second charge of ss. per head for every child capable of attending school, in addition to the £\ annual rate per househpld. Now this scarcely seems just and equitable towards those parents who may wish, to educate their children at private schools. Dr, Renwick's amendment was, if I remember rightly, " that a certificate of the child's having attended a separate school should exempt the parent from the second charge." And a very reasonable proposition it was. True, the amount of ss.

per head . is not much ; but that is not the consideration. Is it equitable to levy that sum per head upon persons who are educating their children elsewhere, and in addition to the general rate of £\ per house, against which no one can take exception ? They have already to pay dearly for their liberty. If a parent educate his six children at separate schools, it will cost him nearly £30 yearly ; while his .neighbour's children are taught for fifty shillings. You say, let him send his children to the public school. Should you not rather say, let him please himself so long as he pays his £\ rate and furnishes certificates that his children are at school. But I have already exceeded far the length I proposed, and trespassed too long on your space. I cry mercy, and come to an end, wishing you good speed in all your undertakings. I am sir, Your obedient servant, Samuel Ironside. New Plymouth, July 2, 1856.