EDUCATION.

New Zealander, Volume 11, Issue 964, 11 July 1855, Page 1 (Supplement)

EDUCATION.

[CONTINUED !■ ROM THIRD I’AOE.J

wnt of these nefarious designs ; for in the early P‘ 1S j. jg-3 ti ier e can be little doubt that Russia P n have consented to purchase the alliance of * ou “ «]i V price, and the new empire might have France at by Rnother Xilsit 0 n the other P een . ‘ t ]f e alternative of an intimate alliance with hand t<y . Louis Napoleon well knew the condi9 rea i which alone such an alliance could be formed lions on 1 jj e wag wel | aware that in connectan! bu' I ''policy with that of this country he gave a W A af J t he observance of existing treaties, for the P‘, 8® f Belgium, Switzerland, and Sardinia, indeP „wn security, for the maintenance of the exfor our ° , f power, and for his adherence to a disinterested and pacific system of government He 1151 l-o that the only sure ground of this alliance would he absolute good faith and strict veracity in all Ji relations it might call into existence. Such being which lay before him, we say that it does the op judgment and to hi# character, and that ponour J J ) li[n t0 the respect and gratitude Eol of this country, when it appears that he ° £ iy and irrevocably chose the last of these un ~‘mJives. It was not the course which appealed tW ° * directly to the old associations of Imperial France, to the ambition of the people, or the enthur e -imiv : but it was a course dictated by S,a Xn°cc by wisdom, by good policy, and by the P r . ce . and that decision undoubtedly saved d ®. sire untry, as well as France and the rest of Europe, r 'perils’ and evils in comparison with which the ."t of the present war subside into insignificance. OT'the grounds of practical experience and of national • terest we shall, in common with the whole people of colin trv, welcome the visit of the Emperor of the French to the Court of England. It is a conspicuous rk of the strength and energy of that alliance in hj tbe honor of our arms and the success of our common cause are so deeply engaged. It is a fresh f of the confidence and regard with which the Fmueror Napoleon looks upon a country which he has i own well under different circumstances and at other * n It sheltered him a fugitive from the fortress of w iU receive him a guest from the splendour f the Tuileries. But in either capacity he knows that Lis no stranger among us, and that no man ever sought aud held fast to the friendship of this country in vain. ____ the negotiations. (From the Morning Post.) IVe believe we are correct in stating that the third of the four points having come under the consideration ofthe Congress of Vienna, and the plenipotentiaries having exchanged their ideas upon this important condition it has been found by them necessary to commitjiicate with their various governments, and especially with St Petersburg, in consequence of the inability of the plenipotentiaries to reconcile their respective inactions. The third point, it will be remembered, Stipulates for the entrance of Turkey into the European family, and for the limitation of the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. This point, it is true, was, with the others, accepted by that power; but now, when its object and scope come to be determined, it is not surprising that Russia should endeavour to interpret them in a manner as little injurious to herself as useless to us—whilst we are determined to see them carried out in material guarantees, such as the limitation of the naval forces of Russia in the Black Sea to a squadron of a strength merely necessary for the purposes of police, and quite inadequats for aggression. In matters of such importance as these it was not to be expected that plcnipotentiariee would be authorised to give a final answer. But, a the case now stands, M.Titoff and Prince Gortschakoff will have put their imperial master in possession of the requirements of the allies on this point, and will.no doubt, in the course of some days receive hi* instructions. Whilst vraiting for these, the Congress will, probably, continue to meet, and, we may suppose, will pursue the study of the first and second points—whioh have not been accepted, as it has been erroneously stated, but merely acknowledged as to their general bearing. They have yet to be canvassed in all their difficult details; and this, if ever it be come to, will be a work of many weeks. We must caution the public, then, against the stories of the many erroneous telegraphs and letters which have obtained currency, and against the premature statements which may be made, cither peaceful or warlike, during the short interval which must elapse ere an answer is received from St. Petersburg. \Ve wish we could entertain hope that the government of the young Czar will submit to the terms on which alone an honorable and safe peace can be obtained; but we fear that, great as our efforts hare been, it may need yet greater before we can be satisfied of the future tranquillity of Europe.

PUBLIC MEETING. A Public Meeting, for the consideration of this question, was held on the evening of Friday, 6th inst., at the Odd Fellows’ Hall. This meeting, our readers will remember, was an adjournment of one, convened for a similar purpose, by the “ Freedom of Religion Society.” The Chair was taken at 7 o’clock by W. C. Daldy, Esq., who read the advertisement by which the meeting was called. lie again referred to the all-import-ance of the subject they had met to discuss, and alluded with pleasure to the very large attendance, expressive, as it was, of that importance being generally felt by the community. He requested for all the speakers a dispassionate hearing, and suggested that those gentlemen should not occupy the time of the meeting by mere assertion, or by introducing extraneous matter. He named the order of the meeting as pre-arranged—the third resolution of last meetii g to he proposed and seconded ; the amendment then to be proposed and seconded; so with the memorial prepared by the Society and the amended memorial ; any subsequent speaker to be confined to ten minutes. The Rev. T. Hamer having read the first resolution {given as the third resolution in our report of the former meeting), said that he would not again go over the line of argument he had pursued on the preceding occasion, partly because the resolution was in itself comprehensive and expressive, and partly on account °f the time that such iteration would occupy. He Would premise that every man was under an obligation to society to express his convictions —to make the sentiments he held the common property of that portion of society with which he might be connected, •t here was also an obligation on the part of society to listen to the expression of those sentiments, to weigh them, to ponder over them. The obligation, in fact, was mutual. He remembered that, on a former occasion, irritation and hatred had been characterised as the offspring only of evil; but, strange though it may seem, tmth was the frequent occasion of these very feelings. Hence they read in the bible that the gospel was the occasion of feuds ; Christ himself said that it brought a sword that it divided families; it was in fact nothing uncommon to see irritation of feeling arise from causes very different to the one that had been mentioned. He made these remarks in all sincerity, trusting that anything he might say, in course of discussion, would not be charged to him as arising from ill-'ecling or bitterness, but ascribed to a sincere wish for the common good. (Cheers.) He would ask the meeting to permit him to make a few remarks in self-justification. In the New Zealander newspaper the proceedings of their former meeting had been fully and fairly reported ; but in the subsequent publication a leader had appeared, containing statements which lie was desirous of briefly referring to. 'n attempting to refute those statements, he would not so length illy or elaborately. He then read in succession and commented upon the following paragraphs:-.

"If will be in the recollection of our readers that, at a very critical period in the late contest for the Superintendency, an agitation Upon this question was begun, and we regard the present 'movement as significant, that in the opinion of the ‘party’ a general election will speedily take place.” ■^° w he would remind the writers of that article that it "as not the Society he (Mr. flamer) was connected with which first moved in the matter referred to. Their movement arose from circumstances that had occurred previously. When the Superintendency was about to become vacant, the Provincial Council hurriedly pushed through the vote for £IOOO, before another Superintendent would be ele led. Their movement was consequent upon that act; and the “ agitation ” recried to as having been begun, was so begun by the "fovmcial Council— not by them.

“ We confess that we are at a loss to discover how freedom of religion has been interfered with by the vote of £IOOO in aid of schools now in operation and connected with the different religious bodies.’ 1

To this part of that article he would revert hereafter.

“ The object of the Provincial Council was, we believe, by a timely subsidy, to maintain the efficiency of all the public schools now existing.”

But wore there not a number of private schools also existing? And were they to be excluded ? The remark was to him suggestive that somebody had aimed hard to divert the public money into one channel—to render assistance to those schools of which publicity of appearance was a characteristic, to the exclusion and injury of perhaps more active, but private schools. Private schools were, in his opinion, a more efficient medium of instruction than denominational; and yet it was the latter only which were to have a claim on the Government for assistance.

“ And to encourage the establishment of others in districts where the increase of population required them.”

He would compare this with the following extract from the Report of the Committee on Education :

“ Your Committee are of opinion, however, that the evidence laid before them justifies them in recommending that in the mean time limited assistance should be afforded out of the Provincial funds to enable those who have hitherto endeavoured through much difficulty to maintain public schools.” From this it appeared that the money was voted for the assistance of schools already established, and not for the formation of new schools. “ We have overabundant elements of discord in our present political circumstances without evoking sectarian animosities—■”

To this he would say—Who commenced evoking sectarian animosities ? Who first asked in the Provincial Council for an educational grant for denominational schools ? Why, those same individuals who, by dint of management, have given public schools a claim, and passed by all private efforts. But he trusted it was not the case—misted that nothing had transpired worthy of being characterised as animosity. But it was natural, if one sect obtained advantages over another, that the aggrieved party should ask for fair play. If money was taken from him for the benefit of another, it was at once his duty aud his privilege to offer resistance. (Cheers.)

“ And we should have had greater faith in the purity of the motives of some of the gentlemen who put themselves most prominently forward as champions of Freedom of Religion if they displayed a little more charity to their neighbours, and a little more o' that tolerance which distinguishes the Christian gentleman from the political partizan.” Now how was the writer to know the purity of any one’s motives. The Scriptures say, “By their fruits ye shall know them and he appealed to the printed report of his speech at last meeting as proof that, on that occasion, he had referred to facts only. The seconder of the resolution that he then proposed had rather implicated him (Mr. Hamer) by remarking that motives had been imputed to the Provincial Council. He protested against having done so ; he had made a simple statement of facts, and had ascribed no motives —in which the report of his speech would bear him out. The word charity was mentioned in that paragraph, but they did not want charity, they wanted justice —they wanted fair play. (Cheers ) He hoped the meeting would uphold that and nothing more. They were also accused of displaying little tolerance. If by tolerance they meant a patient submission to wrong without speaking in remonstrance, then he and his brethren were most likely guilty. Leaving that subject, he would advert to a charge that had been urged against them by Mr. Rowe—want of attachment to voluntary principles. Now what was voluntaryism. It meant simply—self help. It was applicable to a man who worked for his own living. In England, as applied to religion, it was consonant to the spirit of the Kingdom of Christ, which' was distinct from the State, and asked for no State assistance. In the movement that had called them together, the system propounded by the Provincial Council was therefore not characteristic of that kingdom, or of a Christian spirit, and the term voluntaryism was to it inapplicable. In pursuance of the subject he would first allude to the points on which the Society and its opponents agreed, for thev had kindly furnished the Committee with a copy of the resolution and the memorial which they aimed at having adopted, and which he had looked over. He would next refer to those points on which they differed. They agreed, then, that education, to be complete, must be on a Christian basis. Could not the predominant and subtle parts of mind, such as the understanding and the conscience, grasp, as it were, from a thorough education, something beyond the mere geography, astronomy, or geology ? Who was it that was preventing religion from being founded on a religious basis? Before the Provincial Council passed the vote they did, was not the existing education based on religion ? Were not the Episcopalian, the Wesleyan, the Presbyterian, and the Roman Catholic schools, all aiming at imparting religious education ? And if those who had initiated the proceedings in the Provincial Council had not carried them out, the religious education of the country would have gone on as before, and no injustice done to any one. It was not the wish of the Society to interfere with public schools of any character. They aimed at bringing before the public a scheme of education which would occupy ground that denominational schools could not, nor ever could occupy. (Cheers.) Now as to points of difference. The Society said that the State ought not to be cognisant of religion ; their opponents (although he could scarcely term them so) said that the State ought to be so cognisant. It had already been settled in Sweden that Church and State should be separated ; and generally, the voluntary cause was gaining ground. In England, it was especially so, and many members of the Established Church even were advocates of religion being free from State direction or control. And were thev to have Government teaching, Government interference in the Colony 7 Did they send members to the Provincial Council to promote such a system —to consider, in fine, whether the community should or should not have religion ? If members were sent for such a purpose, did the community enquire whether thev were converted men—whether they knew the Christian religion experimentally ? No; these gentlemen were not returned on the supposition that they were capacitated to judge wisely of religious things; and on that ground he objected to the Government being termed a Christian State, and its assistance, as such, solicited. W'hat was understood in Rome as the Christian religion was a very different thing from what was understood by the Church of England, Wesleyan, or other sects. These questions were never fully before Parliament, but have been fully before the public. At the great meeting on the subject held in Leeds, a speech was delivered by Dr. Hook—a minister of the Church of England—which settled the fate of the Education Bill there. He (Mr. Hamer) would give the basis of Ids great speech on that occasion, as embodied in a reply of Dr. Watts, on being examined before the House of Common*’ Committee in Manchester: — Chairman : You think that doctrinal religion ought not to be included in the public school ? Dr. Watts: I think not ; and I should like to give a few reasons why 1 think it ought not to be included. The first is because a plan supported by general taxation ought to be equally available to all; Hut a school inculcating a creed cannot be equally available to all ; and therefore it seems to me that the Rev. Dr. Hook rightly said that the State, cannot give a religious education, for to teach one religion would be unjust, to teach a ll absurd. He would ask whether the members of professedly Christian churches were all Christians in the estimation of each other ? and the answer would assuredly be in the negative. In America, particularly in the New England States, aid from the government was afforded to educational establishments, but it was considered that, in common fairness, no assistance should be extended to those which did not exclude religion, distinctively as such. This did not, of course, apply to religion as decided by the laws of nature —the wisdom, skill, and goodness of God, for instance, as taught by the study of astronomy or geology. But there was another ground of difference between the Society and Ms friends on the right—tlio extent to which government aid was qsk' (J, In their memorial they expressed a desire that ample provision, to the widest attainable extent, should be made by the legislature. But what • >vas the widest attainable extent, and could it only be

' proved through a denominational medium? He and > others refused it, so that the expression was quite exl traneous. He objected to the principle of any public school taking aid and teaching its own religion. He supposed that the* members of Council, in distributing money for the support of education ou a religious basis, would be called upon to sit iu judgment on the applications, and to decide at the same time what the Christian religion was. That fact outbids us. We have no chance now. (Cheers and hisses). But who , paid for it? (Hear). The scheme of the Society, as embodied in the words of the memorial prepared by the Committee, was the very scheme propounded bv Dr. Watts and others before the Committee of the House of Commons, he having said as follows in reply to the Chairman : “ Chairman. —“ It is said that the Slate ought not to interfere in the matter of education; that it is the duty of the parent; and that is an objection urged against national education —how do you reply to that objection ? “Dr. Watts. —“ The reply is, that if all parents exercised the right ami performed that duty it would pass unquestioned; but to attempt to prevent the legislature from dealing with the, neglected children, is to assert, not the right to educate, but the right to neglect or to prevent; which right once conceded, society is at an end.” On this reply, Mr. Hinton, a great vo umary, remarked : *’ Thus Dr. Watts plainly acknowledges the duty of the parent to he prior to that of the State—-as, indeed, in the nature of things, it must be since the family is prior to society—and that of the State, of course, to be secondary and subordinate. What he contents bimsell with asserting here is the right of the legislature to deal withneglected children, which is talcing very much narrower, and indeed undisputed ground.” Lord John Russell, in giving evidence on the same subject, asked the House to cease looking to the education of those who were able to educate themselves, and to legislate for that portion of society that was unable to do so, and to which help did not reach. (Cheers). It was that class to which the Society looked—thus proposing to occupy ground which the denominational system could not occupv. If the £IOOO were applied to the pet denominational scheme the hack streets would be left unsearched, and the needy children thrown uncared for on the wide world He would like the gentlemen on the opposite side to notice this statement. The Society was not sectarian or political ; the other system was. The Society was not sectarian (laughter)—why, of what sect was it ? (Cheers and hisses). It was not identified with ■ politics. (Cries of oh, oh.) It was political so far, I that it would make use of those gentlemen iu the Council who held the same views on education. A Voice.—You said at last meeting that you were a politician, and intended to be one. The Chairman interfered for the preservation of order. A Voice.—Take care how you mention the Church of Rome. You have already said too much about it. The Chairman again interfered to prevent interruption. Mr. Hamer (in continuation). —Another feature of the system proposed by the Society was that it. left the religion of the children to those whose duty it was to take care of it. While proposing to give the children a sound education, it did not profess to be responsible for their salvation. They had Sunday-school teachers what were they for? They had ministers of the gospel what were they for ? And were not the duties of the Sunday-school teacher and the minister much facilitated by the children being (aught to read in a school under local management. It was not him or his friends who were to manage the proposed schools, but those elected by the citizens to that position ; and he felt confident that schools, overlooked by those who were thus elected, would be well attended to. On this system, it would be quite congruous for government aid to he granted. Auckland could not remain much longer without schools of a higher character—establishments in which architecture, engineering, Sic., would be imparted ; and when these schools were obtained, how would his opponents arrange as to the religion of them—would they introduce the catechism there, or would they teach it in the elementary and not in the higher schools ? If government aid were to be given to elementary schools, as religious schools, it must he given to the higher schools, also as religious establishments, and it would come that the hateful tests of the home universities would he introduced here. At home he might be kept out of Cambridge or Oxford simply because he was not a member of the Church of England ; and he would warn the community here that religious tests would be sure to follow the endowment of a religious educational establishment. By and by there would be a university in Auckland, with its senate and its board for examinations and degrees ; and if his opponents carried th ir scheme, such an establishment would be open to the very objections that were urged against the universities of the mother country. And if it was desirable that the denominational scheme should not apply to higher schools, neither was it desirable that it should begin with the elementary. He invited their opponents to tell the meeting how the denominational scheme would work —to enter into details. lie believed that it would he found to he inefficient. The very expense of such a system was a strong objection to it, lor was it to be supposed that there would be children to fill every denominational school—*yet every one of the teachers must be supported. They were objectionable, also, because lie believed that they would be proselyting schools. They can’t help being so. It was so at home, where a minister was often unable to keep the children of his congregation. It would also be so here. No sooner would the Church of England or the Church of Home become partakers of State endowment than they would seek for proselytes, and other religious bodies would scarcely be able to stand against them. The very system necessarily led, also, to a persecuting spirit. The minister would say, in effect, to a parent, “ if you do not send your child to my school, it will gel no education at all.” Again, would not the system destroy the fine, manly spirit of independence ? (Cries of no, no). Would the recipient of government benefits be independent ? The schools would be under the scrutiny of government. The interference of a government under such circumstances was matter of history; it was written there in glaring and bloody characters. Was this a colony where men should he asked to submit to persecution —should be tongue-tied should he mouth-closed? No ; and he would give a challenge to every one —putting the question on a historical basis—to point out one instance in which an institution received State support, and continued independent ? He would oppose the system on the ground that if only WO were found who could not enter into the denominational scheme, the approval of that scheme would be doing a violence to the consciences of these 200 which could not be told nor measured. (No, no, and cheers). He would also remark, with reference to the denominational scheme, —a remark which applied to the class of which he himself was one —that it would give an undue predominance to the power and influence of the Christian minister. He would ask—Which of the ministers who advocated the denominational scheme had, before deciding on the question, called their people together and asked whether they could .approve of the principle? Jf not, was it not assuming an amount of power, on the part of any minister, of his own will to hook himself and church, by means of a golden ring, to the government car ? (Cheers and hisses). He had seen the same course pursued at home, and he had felt grief mingled with indignation. The question was for the community to decide. Would they maintain their religious freedom in the present advanced stale, for the attainment of which their forefathers had been lighting for hundreds of years at home ? Would they give up that freedom merely because they were connected with the leaders of of an opposite scheme ? Even in Home, as they learned from Mazzini, the friends of the Pope, on declaring their intention of fighting round his holiness, advised him at the same time to separate the ecclesiastical from the secular. He would remark, in conclusion, upon a letter that had appeared in the New Zealander, under the signature of an “ Old Teacher.” The system proposed ly the Society was there said to have a tendency to infidelity. What a discovery! Arithmetic, grammar, &o. were pronounced as tending to infidelity. lie would say, if the teaching of these branches of education tended to infidelity, why did it not do so in the denominational schools? (A voice— Because accompanied by religious leaching). It had not the same effect in the one case, he supposed, because the education was imparted with some sort of religious gloss! But so far from leading to infidelity, the system of education which the Society advocated would, by tetichi.ig the children to read, Ac., open the way for thy Sunday-school and the liuuse ot God. ,

That system would, at least, teach the children selfrespect. But if the one system was said to be so dangerous, he would ask—What was the tendency of the denominational system ? It might seem strange, but it was nevertheless true, that that system of necessity created infidelity. How could the young people receiving that education have any conviction of tbe sincerity of the belief of those men who, at the same time, asked money to teach certaiu tenets in one school, and the very opposite tenets in another ? How could they have confidence in tbe religions belief of men who acted as their forefathers would have scorned to do—as such men as Knox would have died rather than have consented to do ? It was such acts that blasted denominational schools—that destroyed the faith of the community in them. How was it that in Prussia there were few believing men, hut because the government exercised a supervision over the schools? And in India did not the English government bestow the same support on Buddhais n that it did on Christianity ? How different would it be if Christum men would never solicit aid from government—never put government into such a difficulty by asking support for religious teaching at all. Was it creditable to professors of the gospel ? Was it consonant with the practise of the humble fishermen ? The rejection or otherwise of State help was also indieative of the prosperity of the Church. When its faith was weak, it leaned for sup. port on tbe State ; when vigorous, it did without it. In looking to the expenditure of the State grant that had been approved of, he would warn them to think of danger. Danger would come then. (Hisses), ihe Rev. gentleman concluded by readin > his resolution, which we re-publish, and “at down amidst tumultuous cheets and expressions of disapprobation. “ That, in the opinion of this Meeting, it is not only inconsistent with the constitution and functions of Government, to render assistance bv Grants for religious or denominational education, hut undesirable ns the whole community, which equally provides the State Funds, is divided in religious sentiment and views, (as are all free communities), and consequently, this Meeting is convinced that so long us a very large and influential portion of the community, on conscientious grounds, refuses government aid for religious purposes, and on the same ground feels equally hound to resist such Grants being made to denominational bodies of the same community, it is the settled opinion of this Meeting, that all State Grants for the education of the people should be solicited and appropriated for a purely commercial, scientific, and uusectarian education.” The Rev. A. M'Donai.d, in rising to second the resolution, said that it had been so ably moved and explained by Mr. Hamer that he would con fine himself to a few remarks. He would not enter into the details of the principles embodied in his resolution, which he ihought had been elucidated fully and effectively. He was grieved to think that he, as also his friends, had been charged with inconsistency in the position he then assumed, but that position was perfec ly consistent with the voluntary principles he entertained. They might be few in number, but they had strong faith in their principles, and could afford to he sneered at, and those who took |

advantage of their fewness of number wmenot themselves in the most amiable position. The charge of inconsistency did not press heavily ; on the contrary, he might easily use the argumentum ad hominem and turn the argument against his opponents. The word *■ opponents” brought to bis mind that those gentlemen had professed an intention of acting harmoniously, and he was grieved to see them there as oppositionists. But he had no objection to opposition (cheers) if well conducted—if conducted in a spirit of candour and good temper. When he mentioned sects he meant no disrespect ; but the anti-voluntaries themselves were not consistent. A Voice : There are none here

Mr. M’Donaid: Every man who participated in State aid, in any shape, was an anti-voluntary. To a man whose mind is not under the influence of truth, what aspect did denominational schools assume? What was the aspect of the souls of children educated under that system ? He would ask any one to go wi b him to a Catholic school; he spoke it with respect. What was their settled conviction here ns to theexhibition of truth there ? Would they not sav that it was corrupting instead of saving—a delusion and a snare. Was it consistent on the part of men professing Christianity to enter into that medley sort of fellowship—a fellowship the elements of which were to he cemented by a Government grant. (Cheers.) The system to which he belonged had been ch irauterised as ungodly. He denied it. Gold wou d never lure him and his brethren to so corrupt a fellowship as that. This expression elicited a perfect storm of disapprobation, iningltd with cheers from a few. The Chairman requested that order would be observed. Jt had been agreed that considerable latitude should he .‘llowed the speakers, but be hoped it would not he abused.

Mr. M‘Domai.l) (in continuation) —He was going to allude to his namesake, Father M’Donald, who had given his evidence before the Committee of the I’rovincid Coun oil Ha i manured him for his consistency; but, if they met on that subject, he (Mr. M’Donald) would say—“ My friend, you are in error; 1 cannot ask the Siate to support you and he would expect that Father M'Donald, as an honest and consistent man would say the same to him. Regarding the spirited wains of the children, Mr. Hamer had spoken fully. The Lord Jesus Christ did not convert the world by means of any Government, hut by means of his word. The means of grace were not deputed to any Council or Government, hut to the Chu ch of God. He desires the salvation of souls by his own word—not subject to Government interference or dictation. Christ and him crucified whs the theme, and the hearts of men received it. That was ihe way God would hive it done. He also seconded Hie resolution becau-e he wished to see purity of religion in the heart. The moment Government interfered with a religious body it became corrupt. He knew inini-lers of the respective Churches of England and Scotland, who were so shackled by State interference that they could not set according to their consciences, hut were obliged to administer the ordiuancc*“ of religion to immoral persons. Was that free dom or purity of religion ? No ; and it was the bounded duty of all sections of tbe Christian Church to pray for freedom from State interference. (Cheers.) The Rev. A. Reid rose to propose tbe following amendment—

“ That this meeting holds with unwavering firmness tlie fundamental principle, that Religion is the only basis of a sound Education, and therefore are of opinion that any system of Public Education adopted by the Legislature of this country should clearly and fully recognize this principle.” On the first part of this resolution, ending with the words‘‘sound education,’’ all parties seemed 10 he agreed. Before proceeding to the second part, he would reply to what had fallen from his friend who had just resumed his seat. He had intimated that it was hardly consistent for him (Mr. Reid) and his friends to appear there ns oppositionists, when they had proposed to be co-workers. Hut be was not an opponent; they hud met tor one common end —with the view of arriving at one conclusion, by means of a friendly discussion (Cheers), lie felt it incumbent on him, in unita'i m of the spirit of his master, Jesus Christ, to view his friends who took the opposite view of the question as brethren, not as opponents. (Cheers.) He had listened with considerable interest to what had been said, and he had heard a great deal that did not belong to the question. (Cheers.) So many arguments bad been used against the union of Church and State that it might be inferred that be and bis friends wished the home system fa bo adopted in the Colonies. He bad no such desire (cheers), and lie hoped it would never be accomplished. He utterly repudiated the idea of elevating one or two sects of the Christian Church at the expense of the others. No one wished more than be did for religious freedom and equality ; but there was a groat difference between the connection of Church and Stale at home and the support of schools by a Christian Slate having no wish or desire to interfere with the rights o( coiisi-.il rice. (Cheers.) Mr. Hamer had alluded (o some points on which 'hoy were agreed ; he was thankful that they agreed on many; and was not without hope that they would agree on many snore. They agreed that a perfect education should he based on religion; the education that the Society proposed must therefore he imperfect, loligiou being quite excluded ; whereas the system ho advocated had really a religious basis. He regarded the resolution that had been proposed by h;s friends ns despotic and as sectarian, strange characteristics of a resolution emanating from a freedom ot religion Society. But ho did not believe them to be therefore despots; not a man of them but was actuated by the purest, the highest, r,ud the holiest motives. At the

Committee meetings lie bad been treated as a brother ; be ore commencing their proceedings the blessing of God had been invoked, and, be believed, secured. Whatever, therefore, he might have occa-ion to say did not applv to individuals but to measures. They be- 1 lieved that religion was free to those who desired to hear it —that it was calculated to cheer 'he traveller on his toilsome journey through the world’s wilderness, and eventually to conduct him to a home on high. It was as free to the cot as to the palace ; it encouraged the residents of the lanes and by-wavs to its glad communion. It ever received a hearty welcome till it came to a spacious edifice in the heart of the City and, for the first time, found the doors barred against its entrance. (Cheers.) It was written on the door—Thou shall not enter here; the law prohibits it. If Jesus Christ himself came be could not enter —Jesus who Slid —“ Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” (Cheers.) V\ as that freedom of religion ? (Cheers.) Could not they, friend-, brethren, —he wanted no triumph for a party—could not they evoke a system which would fulfil the duty imposed on them, without excluding religion from their schools ? lie would rather that the meeting would adjourn again and again than that a hasty or party decision should be arrived at on so important a question. He hat staled that he looked upon the resolution that had been proposed as despotic. It shut out religion from a school. This assertion having been received with cries of No, No. from the friends of the Society, Mr. Reid requested the favour of having the resolution read again. The Chairman having read the resolution, Mr, Hnocontinued—He still asserted that the resolution of his friends excluded religion,as he understood the term, from that school. He did not mean that the friends of the Society would make no provi-ion for religious teaching—far from it; they would employ active and sincere Sunday School teachers. But he maintained that, while the children were at that school, they were inaccessinle t»> religion. Ihe master's duly was to forget for the time being that he was a Christ, tan. (Cheers and hisse«.) He was allowed to make no appeal to the Bible—to instil no sentiments of religion and purity into that class. He held that the resolution was also sectarian. (Ironical cries of •* Hear, hear,’’from the Committee.) It was maintained that the State ought not to aid schools where religion was taught. He Would like to know whence that opinion was obtained. He understood it was in the Word of God, bu' he couldn’t find it. It had been wondered at that the VVesleyans had joined in proposing the . duestional assistance that had been voted by the Provincial Council, when it was s'a'ed in the Word of God that the Slate had no right to interfere with religious teaching. But if the Freedom of Religion Society had discovered that passage in the Scriptures, he confessed that he had not; his friends had not; and it was therefore likely to bu a point on which they would agree to dilh r. As such, it was a meie matter of helitd—believed, in short, bv a sect, and consequently sectarian. Mr. M'Donald would shew Mr. Reid a passage from the Bible bearing out their views. Mr. Reid was quite willing to receive instruction, : but would rather at present not be interrupted ; ho had been keeping school till he mounted his hors- 3 , and interruption was apt to derange his thoughts. He hj ui examined the Word of God and couldn’t find such a passage; the assertion did not therefore commend itself as self-evident. He maintained that the separation between Church and State was the result of sin; and if there had been no sin there would have been no necessity for the present d scussion (laughtei). He might refer to the patriarchs of old and of the Church. Melchisedcc was at once a king and a priest. In the j palmy days of the Christian Church God was its I king. Those who believed in the second advent of j Chiist believed that he would exercise regal functions. ! If in the best days of the Church—the time of the ; patriarchs—they found the Church and the State to be one, why ought they now to be severed. When 1 the State elevated one Church at the expense of another.it undoubtedly did much wrong. He was not there to defend the past but to consider the present. Were they to repudiate principles which they held dear because, in consequence of sin, they hj -d worked together for ill instead of the weal of the woild. What had they to do at that meeting but to consider how a child was to be educated without shutting out religion. At home the subject had been much discussed, and, through that di-cusuon, had b-en discovered a means of meeting the difficulty. The State was to go, in effect, to establishments a'ready in operation, and to say,— We wish you well, you Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Wesleyans ; you have done something towar in the destitute and uneducated, give them education, and wc will assist you. If the State gave to all alue —if it encouraged children to c nne from the highways and hedges, lanes and cellars, to receive instruction where was the injustice. (Cheers.) It had no wish to elevate i one section over another. That system had worked ! harmoniously at home. (Oh, from the vicinity of Mr. i Hamer.) At home all were willing to take State aid for education, and to receive the visits of a government inspecter, whose dut.es bad no connection with religion. The children were examined aa to secular instruction only,—religion was left to the various churches. Hj would suppose .-uch a scheme to be adopted here; and, j with the assistance of the State, the minister could go | out and gather in the ignoiant. If aid was alforded to : all, what wrong was inflicted on any section of the I community? What undue influenc was exercise 1? Who was elevated at tlie expense of his neighbour? ! Who could stalk along and i-ay to another. Who are • you ? All were on an equal fooling. There was no | distinction whatever. But, in reali.y, the S ate, as j such, had nothing to do with if. What was the Stale j but ihe community itself, acting for the common weal ! through the agency of chosen representatives. When those men met to legislate for the punlic good —if they : acknowledged God, if they had felt the potent influence J 1 of religion they would feel it their duty to teach that religion to tlio rising youth, so far as compatible with the rights of conscience. In the persons ot their re-prt-senia ives, they were assisting education. According to the numhersof the different sections of the church, did these sections contiibute to the revenue, and according to these numbers, was a port on of these contributions returned them as aid to their educational establishments. The question was—How much has the Roman Catholic community contributed to the revenue? How much has the Wesleyan, and so on, —not what creed or what dogma might be taught. The State, in granting funds for educa ion, was not responsible for the religious teaching. He did not, as bad been al- 1 leged, support the Roman Catholic church ; he could not support it—he had no power to do it. Heatupped 1 at religion. (Cheers.) It had been asked—Would they give up their religious freedom? Certainly not. No : effort was made to induce them to do so. lie and his * friends held religious freedom too dear. They had \ been told, too, that the denominational system led to 1 infidelity, because the children saw State support ad- ‘ ministered alike to Roman Catholic and Protestant. And was a youth, therefore, to become an infidel ? Not 1 at ail. if he had an efficient teacher, the mere develop- 1 rnent of his reasoning poweis would have a contrary 1 effect . They had ben told, too, that in the higher ! schools—in a university, for iu-oance—religious tests would necessarily be introduced. But there was no necessity whatever for that. In Sydney, with the university ! there connected were denominational colleges, and so ' it could be in Aucklan '. It had been said—Tell us how the denominational system would work. Why, it would work harmoniously. Every one would feel that he was treated with even-handed justice. The State would in- i terfere when it had a right to do so, but that interference stopped when religion branched out into sects. It had been also said, that denominational schools would bo proselyting schools. But they were not so now, and lie saw no chance whatever of their becoming so. At one time in Auckland the Wesleyan church had members of nil denominations in its communion ; but it did nothing to prevent these members from obtaining their own ministers in due i time. On the contrary the Wesleyans were right glad to welcome these ministers, and to give them a hearty reception. That harmony, he trusted, would still be maintained. The system which he advocated had been characterised as also a persecuting system. He confessed that he could not follow Mr. Hamer’s ideas on this point, nor conceive how a system that was so obviously founded on equity could he a persecuting system. It was not Mr. Hamer’s money that was taken to support popery, us lie seemed to think, —not a farthing of his money was taken for such a purpose. It was ihe money of the Cm hobos themselves. If each sect received in pro- i portion to its contributions, each would receive what | was right (Cheers.) It was n system Imli just and i equitable, and be repudiated every assertion of an opposite character. The lev. gentleman cot eluded by shewing the advantage of sending a youth into the world with the shield ol Christianity around him. lie

regretted that so few really religious impressions wer* : imparted in day schools. Why was it so ? One reason was the temptation that presented itself to the mind to dwell merely on what was intellectual, and another was the over anxiety of the parents for the incul: ation of reading and branches of a more showy ch tracor. The system of the society would lend to foster tint ■ ril. In a school where there was no religion, the iiitelleclu >1 progress of the pupil would satisfy those parents who had no regard for religion. He implored them calmly and seriously to deliberate before arriving at a conclusion on so momentous a subject. As Cbristiins, they held that God would direct their minds to the truth, if appealed to in a light spirit, and even there bis guidance would not be withheld from the devout suppliant. (Cheers.) The Rev. A. G. Puacins, in seconding the amendment, said that he had heard the proceedings of that evening with mingled feelings of satisfaction and regret—satisfaction at so important a subject being brought before the community of the Province, and at the large assembly that had met to hear it discussed—■ regret that they had not met to carry out educational objects in a united way. He did not like opposition ; but, in the present case, it was forced upon him by a sense of duly, and he felt that he had no right to refuse. He cordially and heartily joined in the able remarks of his friend who had sat down ; and he sincerely believed that, if the efforts of the society were successful, a very grievous wrong would be inflicted on the community (cheers,) —a wrong, the fruits of which they might not live to see in full maturity, but which would continue on the increase, to the lasting injury of the great nation, of which the present youthful generation was the seed plot. He would not go over the ground that had been so abl/ traversed by Mr. Reid. To the spirit of brotherly kindness, (cheers.) which that gentleman had exhibited he subscribed to the fullest extent. He did not regard the gentlemen who took the opposite view of the subject as opponents ; he wished rather to considrr that they were working together in a common cause, a feeling which he believed w s also entertained by every member of the Church to which he belonged. There was none of that bitterness of feeling which the same subject had called forth at home. In the colony, the church to which he belonged was also a voluntary church, and it was no wish of theirs to be abore any other church. None could be more anxious or more desirous for religious freedom than himself and colleagues; yet he believed that the objects of the Society, if attained, would effectually put an end to freedom of religion. He would not notice the resolution at any length, as the hour was late, and other gentlemen, better speakers than himself, would yet address the meeting, but there were one or two points on which he was desirous of expressing an opinion. And first, the resolution affirmed that it was inconsistent with the conslitu i m and functions of government to grant money in aid of religious education. In Mr. Hamer’s speech, two subjects of quite a distinct nature had been confound-d—one the support of religion per se ; the other, the support of religious education. Now he was as much opposed to ecc'esiasticai establishments in the colour as Mr. Hamer ; he would never consent that they should be introduced into a colony like this; it would be a positive act of injustice. But it was quite different when they came to speak of education. He did not profess to be learned on the subject of governments, but he would state what was a common sense view of the subject. Inconsistent with i the constitution of government ? What! in New 1 Zealand. Mr. Reid had very concisely and ably shewn | that the revenue was derived from the contributions of I the whole people, that the franchise was so extensive at j to be almost universal, and t mt hj y had deput d te- | presentatives to act for them in matters of public weal. What they did was, in theory at least, uo'hing more | than the echo of the wishes of the majority. If the people wished that a portion of their own money should be applied to teaching their own children, it could not i be inconsistent in the representatives of the people to vote that money. State aid to education was said to be* inconsistent also with the functions of Government. He had always believed that these functions were to do all that could be done by men for the peace, happ’ness, and welfare of the community: and none would p obably deny that the providing of a sound religious education would tend to preserve peace, !o increase happiness, and in every way to promote the welfare of the community. It seemed to him, therefore, that the reverse of the assertion of the resolution was t-ue, and that it was not only entirely consistent with the constitution and functions of government to make all necessary provision for the religious education of the peop e, but that it was one of its highest and most sacred duties to do so. He regarded the desirableness of such an education over that of a mere secular education as fully admitted ; and a practical question then arose, —How could such an education be provided without infringing the rights cf conscience? He fully believed that a government, at such, could not provide a religious education, because it had no one religion. Tiiat was the position in which they were placed. A great boon was desired by the people. The government, from the very nature of the case, had no machinery necessary to convey that boon to the people, hut the machinery existed in other hands, and its owners offered the disposal of it to the government on one c mdition—that those who were best acquainted with that machinery should have the charge of working it. (Cheers). All that the government had a right to ask—and that was conceded at once—was that they should see that the machinery was kept in motion ; that the work for which the money was paid was satisfactorily performed* All that the State had to do was to see that the instruction, in aid of which they hj d granted money, was honestly and faithfully given. No denominational school ever refused religious inspection, the object of which was merely to see that the pupils were not asleep at their desks, and by no means to interfere with their religious education. There was another point to which he would allude. If the scheme of his friends (the Committee) was carried out, it would not produce the effect anticipated by them. The secular system never yet got hold of the destitute; it had been tried and had failed; nothing hut the religious element would be found to he effectual. If the State provided for schools under the charge of a religious teacher, a larger number of destitute children the children of the poor and the offspring of the careless and dissolute—would be collected than by any other sys em. He had recently seen a paper called the Scottish Guardian, of the principles of which he knew nothing, but which contained a paragraph on the subject of schools, the arguments arising from which commended themselves to his mind, and he trusted to theirs also, if they would perm.t him to read it. (Cheers). “ Within the city of Edinburgh itself may be found a demonstration of the fact that a national system of education would be utterly inadequate to alleviate the evil it was designed to cure. A go >d many years ago it was found that Heriot’s Hospital had become so rich as to afford an extension of its educational operations. The trustees accordingly succeeded in planting in destitute localities in Edinburgh, schools for common elementary instruction. The teachers of these schools are w*ell paid and efficient, and by no means without scholars. No fees are exacted, and there is no li ng to prevent access to the schools to the most destitute. Yet they have left the destitution untouched, and are merely educating those who would have been educated without them.”

Now, observe the contrast between that ami : h' remaining part of the paragraph. Another school w, s referred to, which, by virtue of Christi.n ageaoy, overtook the poor and the destitute. (Cheers.) “ Not far from the locality of some of the.-e schools and in the midst of a very destitute population, stands the Westport church and school, the one in connection with the other, and both under the saute management. This school, i.i virtue of its connection with a Christian agency, has really overtaken the education of the district. All the children have been gathered into it, and are receiving a good education. It deserves the support ot the Legislature, for it is doing the very work which a beneficent Legislature should desire to accomplish, lint, alas ! it is a denominational school, and is, therefore, by all true philanthropists, to be denounced and put down. “ Now, what we affirm is, that the Ileriot schools, so far as they extend, represent exactly the utmost benefit which a national system of education would confer upon the uneducated masses, and that the Westport school, denominational though it be, represents the bcnelit which that system, which it has become fashionable to denounce, is capable of conferring upon them.” There was one oth- r point to which he would refer. The Memorial prayed the Council, in any, measure of education, that the Christian religion should constitute the basis of legislation. Now the question had been asked, what was the Chris-

tian religion ? The question was one of great importance, and one to which he would not willingly have alluded in a mixed assembly. In reply,— without attempting to give any definition, —he would put a question to the conscience ot every one pre—sent, —Was not the amount of real truth, taught by any system, better than the utter absence of truth? (Cheers.) It was infinitely bettei that a child should be taught bv any system than be allowed to grow up in gross ignorance. (Cheers.) Mr. B. Reynolds rose to support the amendment. He did so because he had never had an opportunity of observing the effect of any system of education that was not based on religion. As most of the gentlemen who composed the Freedom of Religion Society were natives of that country so long celebrated for that peculiarly national gift called the second sight, it was probable they might have a cimirer insight in'o the working of the contemplated scheme of education than those whose vision was more limited. But, if he might argue from analogy, he would say that mankind were already wicked enough; even when the most vi tuous inixims were imprinted on the lender mind of youth, they were soon effaced by innate depravity or evil association and how greatly then would the evil be exaggerated if those virtuous principles were never communicated at all. He would not, as a reverend gentleman bad done, characterise any portion of religion as erroneous. That gentleman had informed them that the greatest part of his life had been spent in study. If so, it might be inferred that he bad attained the same eminence in theology as the law adviser had in jurisprudence. (Cheers and Laughter.) A Voice : Had that had any bearing on the point at issue. The Cn unMATJ said that considerable latitude was to be permitted the speakers, but that time was advancing rapidly, and speakers should be brief. Mr. Reynolds would not occupy many minutes. The rev. gentleman be bad referred to and the law officer were known to be intimate oraeles of a high officer of the Provincial Government; and nothing was more natural than for the one to determine what was law, and the other to dictate what was gosjrel (Great Laughte-.) He would not disturb the harmony of the meeting by defending the old religion that had been so rudely assailed by Messrs.“Hamer and McDonald. He bad too much respect for the Protestant community to make any retort, especially as he was aware that Mr, Hamer and his flock formed a very small portion indeed of that community. (Laughter.) With reference to that religion be would only say that if no individual but himself was found to walk on the Catholic road, he would still do it. He might refer to the old Latin proverb —via trila via tuta, the beaten road was the safe one, and he believed it. It appeared to him that the Freedom of Religion Society had overlooked one important consideration in their endeavors to revolutionize the present system of education—their own numerical inferiority. The greatest good of the gieatest number was a sound political m xim, and if the General Assembly, by a judicious grant of the public money, rescued only one hundred poor children from ignorance and vice, he thought that the approval of their own hearts would indemnify them again-t all the anathemas of the grudging but scrupulous twenty, calling themselves the “ Freedom of Religion Society” (Laughter), who would neither receive assistance themselves nor permit otheis to do so. The day was when religion would have been contaminated by contact wiih the State tieasury; that day had passed; a corrupt influence was no longer txeicised. If the Freedom of Religion Society would aropt the philosophy of Panuage, and fear nothing but danger,— Mr. Hamer. —Mr. Chairman, was that to the resolution ?

Mr. Reynolds,— More to rhe resolution than your speechyvas to yours. He would only detain the meeting one or two minutes. To Mr. Ilamer, who, with his colleague Mr. McDonald, had insulted every niemb.r of the church to which he belonged, he would make no reply. They were too impotent, and he had too much respect for the feelings of his audience. lie would say in conclusion that it 20 individuals, who dissented from the great mass ol the people in their opinions on education or religion, were to be permitted to counteract measures beneficial to tbe mass, they were no longer a free people, and every officious innovator would consider that he had a right to do the same. He should not be surprised, indeed, if Mr. Cartwright and his two disciples were to claim a right to go aver the same ground as Mr. Hamer and his 19 colleagues. (Cheers, mingled with hisses). Mr. Williamson obtained permission further to support the amendment, from the fact of the Committee of Education, of which he was one, having "been referred to at the previous meeting. The great length of the proceedings prevents us from giving a report of his observations. The Rev. D. Bruce rose for the purpose of moving an adjournment. He thought that the speakers had shown a tendency, more or less, to go to both extremes, and he was desirous of an opportunity to propose a medium system — a system by which he hoped to unite both parties. That the public mind might be prepared for his proposition he would read a statement of his views—views which represented his own mind and those of the congregation for whom he had the lionor to act ministerially. The Rev. gentleman then read as follows: — 1. That it is our deliberate opinion and decided conviction, that in a Christian country the Bible, unabridged and unmutilated, should form the basis of Education, and that consequently we believe it to be our duty earnestly to recommend to the Government of this colony the adoption of a system of Education which will not in the least degree interfere with the unrestricted possession and use of the Scriptures in the schools receiving its aid. 2. But that in providing Education for a country the inhabitants of which arc >of various religious denominations, and differing widely in religious principles, and in the methods of communicating religious instruction, respect ought to be had to the right of private judgment, liberty of conscience, and parental authority; and that, consequently, while leaving religious instruction to be provided according to the judgment of parents, local committees, or other managers of schools, the Government should insist that no child shall be compelled to receive, or be present at any religious instruction to which his parents or lawful guardians object, in any school receiving its aid. 3. We are further of opinion that in order most easily and effcctive’y to carry out this principle, the providing of school-houses and teachers (their suitableness and efficiency to be certified to the Government) should be left to the people in the various localities requiring schools, and associating together for this purpose, whether in a denominational capacity or otherwise, as the case maybe ; and that every school house shall continue under the control of those who built it, or the local committees or patrons approved by them, subject, in case of abuse, to the cognizance of the Government. 4. That when a school-house has been provided and the school in operation, the patron, being u minister of religion or otherwise, as the case may be, or the local committee, consisting of members of the same religious denomination, or of various denominations, as the case may be, without the necessary concurrence of any other local committee or patron, or any other minister or members of any church, shall enjov the right of applying for aid to the school by a statement of its const tulion and regulations, accompanied with an engagement to adhere to them, the Government reserving the right of cons’dering tbe regulations and deciding accordingly 5. That it shall bo the right of patrons or local committees, or others legally entitled to exercise control over a school, to set apart for rcl gious instruction a convenient portion of the stated school hours, and to direct the master or some other to Superintend it, provided, as before, that no compulsion or influence whatever shall be employed to nduce those to receive religious instruction, or remain during the time it is being communicated, 'whose parents or lawful guardians otherwise direct • Ou these views helnteudcd, at the next meeting, to propose the fallowing amendment: — That this meeting holds decidedly the principle that the pute ChrHtian religion is the only true basis of a sound and complete education, and accordingly is of opinion that any educational system adopted by the Legislature of this colony ought neither to •exclude the religious training of youth ou the one hand, nor, on the other, place undue restriction on the Christian privilege of the teacher, but at the same time should provide that religion shall not be taught to any child contrary to the expressed wish of his parents or lawful guardian. (Cheers.) The motion for adjournment was then put and carried. The Chairman said that, during a fourteen year’s residence in New Zealand he had not spent a more delightful or intellectual evening. The meeting then adjourned. We append a copy of the memorial which was intended to have been proposed as an amendment c that of the Freedom of Religion Society, bad ibne permitted.

To the Honorable the Legislative Council (or House of Representatives) of the General Assembly of New Zealand. The humble Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of Auckland and its neighbourhood : Respectfully Suewetii: That your petitioners, feeling a lively interest in the important subject of public Education, and anticipating that that subject will speedily engage the attention of the General Assembly, regard it as their privilege and duty to lay before your Honorable Council (or House) their deliberate views upon a question which they consider of paramount and vital importance. While your petitioners anxiously desire that ample provision should be made for efiicient instruction, to the widest attainable extent, in the various branches of useful secular knowledge, they are. at the same time, deeply convinced that such instruction is, of itself, defective and insufficient; and that Education, rightly understood, includes the training of the whole human being, —moral as well as intellectual. They believe that it is “ Righteousness” which, pre-eminently, “exalteth a nation,” and that the inculcation of Religious Truth is essential, not only in relation to the higher concerns of Eternity, but also for the purpose of bringing up the young in the principles which will lead them to discharge rightly the duties of political, commercial, social, and domestic life. Your petitioners would rejoice to see, throughout New Zealand, a full accomplishment of the desire of our beloved Queen for England (as expressed in the }e ter in which Lord John Russell communicated to the Marquis of Lansdowne Her Majesty’s intention to create the Committee of Council on Education): —“ It is Her Majesty’s wisli that the youth of this kingdom should be religiously biiought up, and that the rights of conscience should be respected.” It is not the present design of your petitioners to enter into any details of a Plan of Education lor the Colony, (with respect to which they may again—either collectively or sectionally—address your Honorable Council (or House), but they feel called upon to submit, without delay, a statement of their solemn convictions on this part of the subject, which they deem of urgent and fundamental importance. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray, — That in any measure of Public Education which may be adopted by your Honorable Council (or House), the Christian Religion may constitute the great basis of legislation - ; and that aid from the Public Funds or Lauds may be granted only for schools in the constitution and management of which due provision is made for the Iteligious as well as the secular instruction of the scholars, and in which the Teachers shall be left at unrestricted liberty to impart to their pupils instruction in Christian Truth, as their judgment and conscience may dictate. And your petitioners, &c.