INSPECTION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9726, 23 January 1895, Page 5

INSPECTION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.

SIR ROBERT STOUT'S OPINION. [by telegraph.—own correspondent.) i ■ -.-,■„.- W* Wellington, Tuesday. Sir Robert Stout has given an importanb opinion on bhe effect of bhe carrying out of the application from the Roman Catholic authorities for the State inspection of their schools. The opinion is in the form of an interview with a Post correspondent. Sir Robert said that, if carried out, such inspection would have probably far-reaching effects. I extract the following, which ap?ears to embody the whole question :— 'he viewer asks—What do you think will be the effect of this inspection ?—I am nob a prophet, but ib may have a far reaching effect, which those who have asked for it do nob seem bo have considered. How ?—Suppose an inspector says a Catholic sohool has bad methods and bad teaching, difficult questions may be raised. You mean that the inspectors may be subjected to adverse criticism?— I was nob specially referring to that, though the Board does not seem to have given any consideration to that view, and I recognise its importance. Inspectors will certainly be placed in a trying position, for the feeling about Roman Catholic schools is more than political— is religious, and that will the letting-in of more strife and contests than we have now. What other questions do you dread —I do nob dread anything. It seems to me bhat if ib is the function of the State to examine primary schools, its duty will nob end by that. It leads up to what many in a Catholic country, as in France, have insisted on, viz., that ib is the duty of the State to see thab secular teaching is efficient, and that, hence, nobody shall be allowed to teach unless he or she is licensed by the State. You mean thab the first duty of the Government or Board would be to inspect the teachers ?—That is putting it in another shape. Looking at ib rather in this way, clearly ib is not the duty of the State to do private work. It must have a publtc call, so to speak— function. No :ifit is said bhab ib is the duty of bhe State to inspect private schools (and it should nob inspect them if it is not its duty) ib must be its duty, because ib is the function of the State to see that all its citizens are educated. Now this opens up the question of, Can the State, this being its duty, allow badly trained or badly-equipped teachers to teach its children ? and I do nob see how it can logically stop short of insisting bhab only able and efficient teachers should be allowed to teach. It will have the right to

inspect all schools. Now this will not be concurred in by the Catholic Church, which denies thab it is bhe duty of the State to beach or to control education, or rather, I should say, must Catholics do.