MR. FIDLER'S LECTURE ON STATE EDUCATION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 435, 19 September 1877, Page 4

MR. FIDLER'S LECTURE ON STATE EDUCATION.

The followiug it the conclusion of Mr. Fidler's lecture :

"Bai now," continued he, "what of this last year ? It rains—the lightning comes—new laws are imposed—the body sickens. Well, what of tha':? Why, what is the cause ? Ask that boy from whence the rain comes.—' From the co>uds.' H wdd it get there?"— * Dunno.' "Ask him who prohibited him entering his neighbour's house unpermitted ?— * The Liws.' Who made the laws I—-Dunno.' "Kay, to be plain, how many of us in th : s assembly, who daily use and enjoy the fi-e, know why it buros. — Because it does. Because U«& made it do bo. .No, gentlemen, we are brought up in the veiy midst of things we under-tand not we see man, and we understand him not —we see the star.*, and hey aie but hgtits to us. We are brought up in complete ignorance and mystery. But it need not be so with our childre . tne year's study (this laet year of the course I have proposed), of the elementary science of the things above, below, and around, would give the child knowledge of incalculable value. I would then have the boy at this last stage of educatiou tauyhc Political Economy, its general principles I n ean, and you will not sneer at my proposition as rid.cul- us when you consider the piesent ignorance of most voters who do not know tii • suhjjets they are voting aLout —wlio vote for this or that form of government with ub having auy id*a of the ueof ei her. Of the fee ences generally the chdd sh >uld have a knowledge, he should understand at least the phenomena he every day fees ab<u* him, which are now a mjstery. What is n-.w a blank would then be to char that he might iuu and read. 7 ' Ihe kctuier then adduced corroborative testimony from \ ariou < authors to the practicability of the scheme of common sense and common knowledge teaching he advocated. After showing tue mode in which the best German Mates had conducted their schook, he ad ed, " Can we prefer a merely experimental system to one which, after trial, gives such results. And from this system i propose that one thing Le introduced, but in a much modified lorm. When the school curriculum has been completed, let the child have a certificate which shall enable it to get employment; and when this becon.es an • stabiished rule, such a certificate will be regarded as virtually essential for anyone to have before b«siiig employed. Let this certificate certify t> two things—both to intellectual capacity and moral iharrcter. iut h anyone having reached this age of 14 have not attained this standard of tducatiou which is fixed, 1 should consider uim to bj ons who, so far as mutual endowment are concerned, may be considered an incura le For such a one surely a certificite tes.ifyiug to probity, candour, ddigence, and punctuality should recompense the want in that part of the testimonial whi h speaks o; scholastic training. But I apprehend that those who wouid rtach this age of 14 without attaining the standard w< uld scarcely pay the state the trouble of further inst uction. It a child goes from school Having a certificate which recommends neither his intellectual acquirements nor his moral character, then \ ou w ill allow that he will carry with li.m a just stigma, and that whe.i in seeking employment he produces such a certificate he will produce but a caveat ihat people may beware." I have g eat hesitation in tntermg upou the last portion ot my s bjtct, that iu which ladvocite srcular education— that is, the imparting ol knowledge iu schoo:s without the inculcation o taitn. (Jont'es ed:y 1 hesitate, bee use 1 know J am advancing to 8 reg on whei e privai e feeling is more powerful than rea on, where the coolness o argument is riestroy. d by the scorching breach of pi ejudice and bigotry. Pi ogri ssive movements like this of education have in all times been impeded by the efforts ot blind devotees who brand the innovators, or supporters of the innovation, wMi the name oi sceptic before consi-.iering or understanding the principles he proposes or supports. The doctor cures the body, and resents a mere chemist prescribing for people who would otherwise be his patients. Is there not some ana o»y, may 1 ask, between the parson and the doctor? v\ oud you not think the parson, knowing it to be his duty to look a-ter the spiritual welfare of the people, should object that a teacher who ha 3 not h;;d proper truning thereto should u.urp his office? The ck-rgyman's duty is to see to the iaith of the | eo, le ; the schoolmaster's to see 10 their minds. For instance, .ying is contrary to morality (t needs uo religion to show that), for men professing religion are often as great liars as those having no tincture of it, and many who do not profess it hate a lie as much as the best of Christians. There are moral Jews, moral Arians, moral Presbyterians, but there are also moral infidels. 'Fell me more moral men than Socrates or Auguste Comte. And since morality i* ail they have iu common, then it is a 1 that we can expect to be taught in State schools where the people of all creeds send chJdr n. What co.s.es over and above morality is the peculiar beLef of each denomination ; that is den«minationalisn. — whether it comes under the broad terms of Judaism or Christianity or under the narrower ones of Protestantism or Catholicism, Now, while morality is taught by example and precept in the school*, it strikes me forcibly the only things pardons are paid for is to expound the precepts of their various churches, and therefore to them and not to the schoolmaster must we lo.ik for doc rines. Christians, infidek, and Jews may wit h safety send their children to the same school*, where the best principles of unoffen ive morality may be taught, and may send their children to rabbins, parsons, and priests for their doctrines. What is held in common should be taught in schools by the teachers ; what principles are the sources of difference must meet with treatment from the clergymen. Kay, in a school to which all sects may go not even the Bible cau with justice be read, for there will be in State schools children of infidels as wed as of Christians. It would be unjust to compel the former to read the Bible ; nay, to cut ■ hort argument,

it would be impossible in tha present state of advanced thought. Well, but say you, t ie Chrs;ians may. Nc, for I wLI show that shis would introduce doctrinal differeuce jiito the schoolroom, where I have s own it must be avoided. The !>ouay or James's V£rsioa must be used: the Protestants cannot WeU us£ the former—the Catholics, consistent}/ with their faith, cannot at all use the

latter. Now, for the Government to give the Catholics aid would be to aid a people holding views inconsistent with reason—l, mean such as those on and to help them to train up .theirjjhildren ; with views on other subjects i anally as un-reaionat-le." 'J he lecturer put his argument in this manner—'-The Bible must be read wi'h or without comment. To aliow masters tn comment would be to allow them to put their own construction upon the important passages. ]f the child read without comment, ihen it must or muse not understand it. If it does not understand, then it reads g.bberi h ; and if it does, child tuougli it is, it do*s more than the greatest Christian s»ge ever professed thor« uglily to do. Then it cannot justly be read with or without comment and it follows from the diiemmy. that it cannot be read at all in scho-1. If any opponent, disag eeing with su.;h vi-ws, shal bring i:i so ne article of f.dth—some new dogma of his Church, then I coi.fes-i he has the uppe- hand of me. He is unanswerable, because h- U unreasonable, and, blinded by the tenets of his creed the power cf rational proof cannot affect him "