BISHOP MORAN'S LECTURE.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3307, 20 September 1871, Page 2

BISHOP MORAN'S LECTURE.

Dr Mobant, in his concluding remarks on secular education, repeated that he did not wish to argue the question in the abstract : ho had told thorn that he would consider it practici ally, and as the results of experience.' He did not presume to say that he had convinced then), but he had placed the question before them as candid men and candid women — because if we had educated our women as they ought to have been educated, we should have been in a very much higher educational position at the present day — and he thought they would see that the Government would be i very much wiser if ib act about educating the women, and then we should have little ! trouble with the men. He would conclude his remarks on this head by again pointing out that, with the exception of a few petty states of Europe and America, the denominational was the system of all civilised nations, and therefore they were justified in asking for a denominational system .here. It would be the introduction of one of the greitest dangers to ask' for a system that had been abandoned by all nations— a system that had boen productive of very unsatisfactory results. His next point was compulsory education, and he would preface his remarks by saying that he desired to see every child in the country 1 sent to school ; it was the most important duty of e7ery parent to see that his ohildren were educated. No man could have stronger opinions on that point than he had, and ho would adopt every means to try to secure the education of every child in the country ; at the same time he was a most determined opponent of compulsory education, because it was an interference with the right of the parent to educate his own child, and ho supposed that the state had no right to interfere with any man's family matters. Such a state of things would ultimately end in ruin to the country. He knew that people thought his opinions on this point were extreme, but all he could a*y was that he had studied the question for a long time— he had studied the opinions of tbe greatest theologians on the subject— and could find no authority, even in the most dogmatic and authoritativo works, that would justify him in advocating computoory education. He could givo them no better reason for the reverse of that than that given in the parfcof the Decalogue whichsaid to the children *' Honor thy father and thy mother." Anything that trenched on that was highly undesirable ; they should not attempt to make children considei that there was any higher authority than that. Any effort to introduce the system would, in the end, give rise to serious complications, and lead ultimately to the utter ruin of the population. He would ask those before him to think the matter over, and if they could not secure some other means besides the compulsory clauses they wore much better without them altogether. His experience was this : he had never yet met with a paront who was not anxious to give his child a good education, though at the same time there wore many who failed to do this, but their failing to do it arose not from any desire to evade their duty; it arose from their poverty— mostly from their poverty, at auy rate. If we were anxious, therefore, to secure the education ot the child! en of our community, the Government of the country had better turn their attention to tho alleviation of that poverty of the people, and if that were done he did not believe that a Bingle child in tho country would be kept from school. He thought the national pride of tho parents wouU lead move effectually to secure the educa'ion of the children than any compulsory clauses. The Government did not act wisely in introdj^ cinq a principle thafc waß dangerous in itl* consequences. He would remind them of tho^ axiom of law which told them that they/ should not pass a latf for the sake of th.d minority. Tho introduction of such erroneous principles was the most dangerous thing they could do ; besides if they had a sjstem of compulsion they must have a 6yatem of denominationaliam — they could not introduce compulsory education if their system were a secular one, because it was his belief, and ho held it to bo a certain truth, that nine-tenths of every community were in favor of real education— that was, of secular instruction combined with religion instruction. To prove that the majority were in favor of real education they could test it in this way. He would take tho most ardent secularist they could find. Suppose that man -wore a man of means, would

he send his children to a secular school ? His experience was that all men who had the means ■would not send their children to secular schools, but to denominational schools. He would ask these persons — these men of means, a great number of whom were taking an active part in the matter of education at the present time— was it fair, was it just., that they should attempt to give a system of education which they would not adopt for their own children. They would raise an opposition that they would not easily qui-11, and in tho place of working harmoniously, for the benefit of tho community at large, they would create heart-burnings, they would have fighting at tho schools, fighting in tho churches, fighting at their elections, fighting everywhere ; and that was not calculated to advance (he cause of education. He found in some Catholic nations, too, that there were compulsory systems of education, and he did not attempt to defend that, although it would be found that the Catholic Church always advocated freedom ; it was its teaching time gave freedom to the wife, freedom to the child, freedom to the poor, freedom to the slave — it was engaged in the work of freedom in every country, and was a determined opponent of license, but he could not find any catholic author, any theologian, that was in favor of compulsion in the matter of education, or in favor of anything that would establish a prin-Sy-ofposei to that reverence which children fit to have for their parents. lie found, looking over the civilised nations of the C, that there was a system of compulsory education, in many of them, but he found al?o this remarkable fact : that in any country in tho world in which there was compulsory education there was also denominational education, with a very tew exceptions. There wero three exceptions in Europe ; me in Baden, the second Hesse Cassel, and some of the Switzerland cantons, which altogether do not contain three millions of people. In England tlie legislature did not make education compulsory, but it enabled the school boards, if they saw fi', to exercise a certain species of education, but that provision was not to come into force until the bill had lain on the table of the House six months without remonstrance. In tho United States, the system there was not compulsory, except in two cases, and in another it was permissible. They knew what had been tho result of secularism in France. There was the remarkable fact that thut system was almost wholly taught in the largo and populous towns, while in the rural districts the denominational system, which had only existed since 1850, was well attended to. When the recent fearful war broke out it was among those people educated under the old system thut demoralisation manifested itself. The Commune were the secularists of the world, and they had a good opportunity of seeing what they were made of. They carod nothing for life; thry heeded not the traditions of their ancestors ; they sacrificed the glory of Franco. And who were the men who came from their homes to risk their lives in defence of law and order ? They were the peasant boys from the rural districts who fought for liberty and freedom under the guidance of their priests. He would say this: that the Government and the Legislature would be acting most unwisely indeed if it established a system of education which would inevitably emulate tho Communists of Paris— a state of things which they were constituted to guard against— tho reverse of thoso interests they were elected to protect and defend. He had now succeeded, at all events, in liberating his own conscience in placing before so influential and respectable an audience his opinion on two points which he had most at heart— secularism and compuleory education. He dared say they wero all anxious to hear what he expected for his own denomination, though ho did not think that was tho place to give expression to his feelings. Ho was not unreasonable, and did not anticipate that he would get all that he would wish. They liTed in a mixed community, and no man would be more willing to give and take than he would, but ho ■would yield nothing of the principles of right. He did not wish to interfere with any other people ; they could have any system they liked for themselves. They might establish the secular system, and he would daplore it ; but if they established the denominational Byetem he would rejoice. At the same time, ho did not consider it a wise thing to place the Bible in the hands of children. He had too much reverence for that holy book, than to wish to sco it flung about the school room like tho " Reader Made Easy." Another point that had struck him was this : He heard an argument lately — which he could only look upon aa an argument ad hominem — that it appeared to bo hypocrhy on the part of gentlemen who refused to put tho Bible into the hands of children, and yet placed the Greek and Latin classics into their hands. But the Bible was an obscure book ; it was written a very long time ago, at a time different from ours ; the language and allusions were all strange to us ; we have it only in translation, and it was not to bo expected that little children could make out the passages. And then again there were things in it that none of them would put into tho hands of children. But the case of the classics wa3 different. We read those books when we come to years of discretion, after a considerable amount of training, and after we had acquired a considerable amount of knowledge : and when they were put into their hands there was a careful selection made. Thereforo, he considered that the argument to which he had alluded was very unsuccessful indeed, even as an argument ad hominem. He had one word more to say. Ho had made a resolution or compact with himself, that in reference to certain fallacies of history, he would never let anything pass unnoticed. Ho bore in mind the saying of the great De Maistre, that for the last three hundred years there had been a huge conspiracy against truth j also, the saying of Denham, in his let vol. of Germanic History, in Lardner's Cyelopediee, p. 146, that " whoever hntl investigated original documents and compared them with the representations of the same facts by modern historians, would be sickened nt tho contrast. If he extended hi 3 research.es, he would find that in 99 cases out of a 100 — an investigation of many years has earned us the right to make the assertion— the aim of the latter has been to pervert the testimony of the former, to make history the organ of present opiniony, to render turbid the whole current of truth, and — we make the additional observations under the same feeling of responsibility — in no country under Heaven has this abominable dishonesty been co prevalent a3 in England." When he heard these things, ho felt it to be his duty to deny such statements, and to show that they were untrue and deserving of reprobation. He felt it to bo his duty to the Church, to tho Church to which he belonged, to the community over which he presided, and because he was doing a duty to the State — to the community among whom ho had the honor to live to muke known his feelings in the matter. This brought him to another matter, to a letter which had appeared in a local newspaper with reference to the slaughter of the Huguenots, in which the effort of the writer seeded to be to try and make the Catholic Church an accomplice in that terrible deed. That charge had been repeated a thousand times, and was merely repeated either through ignorance or malice. In the present case lie would gay that ho believed it was through ignorance. The facts of the case were these, and he would endeavor to place them before bis audience in an honest and truthful form. He would make no attempt to deny that the slaughter was an unjustifiable one, but Catherine and her officers saw that it was merely an act of articipation — that if thoy had not committed the slaughter they would have been slaughtered themselves. There was no doubt whatever thnt n slaughter did take place, bufc there was grc.it coiihfc about tho number killed. Ho believed ih;jro were about 1700 killed, while fcbia writer said there were 17,000 slain ; but it did not matter whethor there was one or 17,000 killed, the principle would be the aarne; the only thing he sought to show was that these reports wero untrue. The news first

reached tho Pope by an envoy, who said that the King' 9 life had been at stake j that tho existence of the country at largo was at stake; and that the only way of removing the danger was bj the condign punishment of the conspirators. Tiny all knew the famous author Sismundi, and thoy all knew that he stated distinctly that the Papal Nuncio was quite unconscious of the facts until after tho commission of ihe massacre, when the Pope wroto to tho Royal family congratulating them on their escape. He asked if there was any justice in saying that the Catholic Church had any complicity in that slaughter. Those were only" the opinions of a stupid bigotry. It was hi 3 intention to speak in reference to tho education system of Otago, but he did not think that ho would bo justified in laying out his private and domestic grievances before an audience in Wellington. That he had grievances all who knew -anything on tho subject would admit. In f%- schools of that province they put into the hands of the children the worst kind of books. The school authorities said they did not, but he knew they did, because the children when under examination by him always pointed to certain passages which they said they knew best, and these were always in books ojf which he did not at all approve. He considered such things tho abomination of abominations. He wns about (0 return to his diocese, and ho supposed ho would be also returning to tho fight. Be that ns it might, ho could assure tliom that ho would always be willing to accord to other peoplo the liberty to express their opinions, as he would always claim that right for himself. Before leaving them that evening he would like to add, by way of supplement, a few words in reference to a statement he had mado about the Catholics of Auckland. Ho thought it only fair thai he should mention tho subject, because, while he did not for one moment doubt the truthfulness ot the statements made with reference to the Catholics of that city, he must beg leave to say that ho did not believe them. They could not, as Catholics, approve of a secular system, because it was laid down in a syllabus of the Pope— and they all believed him to be infallible — that any person who did so ceased to be a Catholic. The rev gentleman went at length into the reasons of the case, but as tho substance of the doctrine on the point appears in our issue of Monday, we do not think it necessary to repeat it here.