THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6441, 4 October 1882, Page 4

THE EDUCATION QUESTION.

Speaking at Oamaru sn Sunday,. Bishop Moran referred to the question of education as follows:—

Their leaders in every part of the Colony had never ceased to demand some of the public funds for the maintenance of the old Catholic schools. Their demands, however, were met not only in the spirit of opposition, but in another way. J\>r example, he held ig his hand a statement made by one of their opponents, from which he would give them a few extracts so that they might judge of them for themselves. Eecently the Tablet, in arguing this question very teiuperately, stated that as the Catholics formed a seventh part of the community they were entitled to a seventh of the educational expenditure for their own schools. Was not this reasonable? Should

they not be entitled to their share instead ef it being spent on schools for other people's children ? This was a most unjust and iniquitous proceeding, and was nothing

more nor leas" than public plunder and downright robbery. These were strong words; but the poverty of: the English language was such that there were no other words to describe the injustice to the Catholic body in this polony; Of all the money spent on schools during four years, not one shilling had been, spent for Catholic education (he did not speak of exceptions, of which there were always some in every community); but Catholics as a body had steadfastly kept away from aE participation in the expenditure of money oh fc'bdlesa schoqls, and had emphasised their protest by erecting schools in every part of the country; thus paying a double tax. And because, the Catholic body had made these just and equitable demands they were told; that if their demands were complied with the consequence would be that the country would be subjected to an additional taxation of £70,000 per annum. This, statement -was untrue. He did not:. agree with i'the principle which said that the State should provide for the education of all, rich and poor ; it was & principle unjust to the comiriunity. ■" Therefore he maintained that the amount was how amply sufficient : for all persons, 'and all they demanded was a just and equitable distribution of that amount. Again, it Was stated that "everyonein the country would beadditionally taxed to maintain a religious system1." ■ Ibis was pot true; they asked nothing for their religion; but merely for their schools. They maintained their religion by themselves, like generous Christians. It was also stated that this '' religious system " would bring them1 into intellectual and moral slavery." This meant that, in their view of the case who said this; every man was a slave, morally and intellectually, who did not fling off all authority, human and divine, and; abandoning the guidance of God and his Church, Btrike dff Tor himself on unknown seas, and : fall into errors of the grossest description1. They knew what this mode of proceeding had led to in the past and was leading to at the present time. They were also stated to be the victims of the slavery of a tyrannical priesthood. They should be the best judges of that themselves: and if they did not consider their priests tyrants no one had a right to call them so. What civilisation would there have Beeti in the world if it had not been for the Catholic priesthood ? They had established schools for 1800 years throughout ■ the World, and the universities of Europe. ■ It was their opponents who were the tyrants.' He denounced the action of the Government and Parliament of the country in connection with education as tyrannical and most unjustifiable to the Catholic boUvi They were further told that the demand, was made by the priesthood and not by the laity. It was stated that the laity in numbers were opposed to the priesthood on the question. If this were true, it was for the people to say so) but if it was not, then they should rise in their numbers and repudiate the statement. They should meet in their various localities and pass resolutions to declare what are their real senti* raents with regard to the question. There might be half a dozen or so of the laity who were opposed to the priesthood on the question, as for instance Mr Sheehan. He wouid not speak of him if his name had not been used by the writer he had referred to. In all his actions on the question Mr Sheehan had not been a Catholic, and had not acted in accordancs with any Catholic principle. He had gone right in the teethof such principle, and was in no sense a representative Catholic. It would bo better for the Catholic body if Mv Sheehan would cease to call himself a Catholic, and designate himself by some other title. They repudiated his title, and refused to acknowledge him as a member of their Church as long as he pursued his present course. Dr Moran then went on to refer to the' statement made that there waa no religion in the Government schools. Supposing that were so, he said that would be the very reason they objected to it. But he maintained that the system was a Protestant one, and that the whole tone of the: schools was anti-Catholic. He called upon them, therefore, to withdraw their children from such schools if-any of them had any there. They had,' at a great sacrifice, established a good Catholic "school in their midst, and by sending their children there they would have a reward in. children who would be a credit to them. He would ask them to do another thing—namely,'between this and the next meeting of Parliament, to meet: in that place, and in a few short • but strong resolutions togive expression to their principles on this question of education. In conclusion, he said that the whole present system' by which schools were provided was vicious. There' should be a tax for schools, as, for instance, in Canada. The present system taxed the entire community in order'to give free education for the most part to children of well-to-do parents, for it was not those of the poor who profited most by it. It was a disgrace and'a1 shame for well-to-do people to receive education far their children for nothing, and to crowd but the schools so that there was no room for poor children to get in. They would be content with what was right and fair, but with less they never would. .