THE CLERGY AND THE EDUCATION BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XV, Issue 5063, 7 February 1878, Page 3

THE CLERGY AND THE EDUCATION BOARD.

TO THE EDITOIt. Sir, —Mr. W. J. VVilliani3 asks two questions respecting the wide-spread feeling against the proposed clerical element in the new Board:—"1. Why their fears? 2. What is it makes the presence of clergymen so undesirable on the new Board '!" In reply, it ms.y be urged th<: rjuesfciou w.-i3 decided by the late Provincial Council, and tho principle of not having such on tho Bnard has worked well so far as sectarian matters have beca concerned ; that no valid reason has been advanced in favour of their leaving their spiritual position for one purely secular; that history t'lows that education has progressed better ou of the hands of the clergy thanwhou under their coutrol. Tho ne cessity of State action proves this. The letter of Mr. Williams also affords some grounds for the " fears," aud a reply to his queries ; for he argues that because iheie arc sumo laymen nominated who are as strongly sectarian as tho clergy, then the rest are :v miserable low. This manuer of passing judgment is so eminently clerical as to give just ground for " fears." The supposition that those who object must be under evil spiritual iulluenee,. even by the spirit of M. Cotnte, certainly affords no evidence of freedom from common clerical thought. Belief or disbelief in the supernatural is not at issue in this matter. Strange that ilr. Williams aud Mr. Bright should here take common ground on spiritual inlluence, for the " takiug possession" IB the curious ground which 2>lr. Williams and Mr. Bright hold in common. Surely Mr. Williams would not have us infer that the clergy aro only distinguished by a belief in the supernatural. It is true that a Christian minister has equal rights. But St. Paul's maxim, "Lawful, but not expedient," should be considered. Mr. Williams says, — All the candidates accept the position as " purely secular." How does he know this ? And, if so, why this rush of clergy to such a position—" purely secular," knowing neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic ? It is well known what are the feelings of the Jtoinan Catholic clergy and many of their people on this matter —not one of this body have accepted nomination, although asked; and is it expedient to put on the Board men (however liberal) who, on account of their official and sacerdotal character, would make our common education system yet more distasteful to the Catholics ? Lastly, have not the clergy enough to do ? are there not sufficient calls iu their own sphere of labour'; and why therefore should they desire other work V —I am, &c, Fheemas.

TO TIIE EDITOR. Sin, — In your last week's issue you have mo to say "support tho many," whereas, I said, " The policy of the laat seven years has been most unmistakably to auppUud the many for the interests of the few." Numbers of your readers who think in the same way will be glad to see the following protests, handed to the -Speaker by lion, members of the Legislative Council : — Blue Book, 3S: — 1. " We, the undersigned members of tho Legislative Council of New Zealand, record our protest agaiust tlje Education Bill, 1877, because it fails to provide for any recognition of the Christian religion, or even of the Supreme Being.—Wμ. H. Kenny, M. Richmond, C.8., \V. S. Peter. 11. J.. Miller." 2. " We, the undersigned members of the Legislative Council of New Zealand, record our protest against tha Education Bill, 1877, in its present shape, because it not only fails to provide for any instruction in the principles of religion, which are the