THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3183, 19 April 1872, Page 2

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir—After the ample discussion of this subject of Education in your columns, it may perhaps need an apology for re-opening, it. My puqjose, however, is not to discuss the merits of rival systems, but to pomfr attention to a danger which, as I think, will, if not anticipated in a spirit of mutual concession and forbearance, result in an issue disastrous to the hopes of all liberal educationists. I refer to the attitude assumed by a section of those opposed to a Denominational system, who, shutting their eyes to the accompanying circumstances, obstinately refuse to see any middlepath to th at end which, in common with others, they wish to reacEt Of those among us who are on principle ins. favour of a public system of education purelysecular, there .are a considerable number, who are unwilling to listen to any compromiser or any qualification in applying this secular principle to the practical case. And in this bigoted tenacity io a dogma they adhere, although this qualification may be recommended by overpowering present expediency,, and although this immediate concession may be shown to be an absolute condition precedent to the conservation of the -very principle itself which they love so well tufe not too wisely.

The writer avows his full belief in the proposition that the State ought not, in sucEt public education as it undertakes, to meddle, in any way whatever with religion or its inculcation. That is to say, he believes it as an abstract principle to which our legislative experiments and our practical administration, should tend—that it is the principle which, will, in fact, ultimately prevail. But wbitet steadily keepingthat principle in view, he cannot wilfully shut his eyes to the practical exigencies of the case.

One point he desires to impress on the tmcompromising people referred to, namely, if it would not be a wise thing to try whether, by a spirit of mutual concession, all those opposed to the extreme Denoininationalists could not be firmly united. Did these gentlemen ever seriously try to represent to. themselves, and fully to realize in, their minds, the question whether this Province or this Colony is at present prepared for apurely secular system ? Will they just look this point straight in the face, and calmly* consider its full meaning ? Will they reflect whether, in grasping at the entire loaf jnsft now, and refusing to accepb anything b«6 the entire loaf, the result will not be that the whole bread, and the butter, and the cheese too, will descend into the barking stomachs of the hungry Denominationalists^ whom of all men they most desire to balk? This is an entirely different question from, any discussion of the absolute merits of different systems. On that point I fully agrees with the persons to whom I refer, and it is utterly idle now to waste time in harping on. that string. The point now is one of present and pressing expediency which there is n* evading, and which, if we cannot deal witk it in a spirit of mutual conciliation and concession, will, as I believe, prove the ruin of

our cause.

Our plain duty is to look steadily- aneE manfully at the whole of the besetting difficulties, and the nature and amount of tha forces opposed to us. and then to adopt sack a broad line of policy as will give wellgrounded hope of united action and ultimate victory in the Parliamentary contest. The writer repeats, he is a firm belieizer in a purely secular system of public education wlien ohtainMe, but for the reason given he thinks that any attempt to carry it afc present will be productive of mischief. It~ will, he thinltß, divide the ranks of those who should present a firm and unbroken, front to the foe, under1- one broad banner, and with one clear, well understood word off battle.

But by grasping at the whole loaf jusfe now we shall defeat our purpose for the present, and very possibly render its attainment impracticable for many years to come. —I am, &c,

HISTOBJCUS.