The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1879. CHEAP EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume VII, Issue 318, 23 May 1879, Page 13

The New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1879. CHEAP EDUCATION AND SCHOOLS.

WKITER in the Hawke's Bay Herald, whether he is the gentleman who used to write the short treatises on Education in that journal we do not know, has taken up the role of the individual citizen's friend, and goes in for the position of an adrocate of cheap Education in the interests of fathers of families. He lias probably taken warning by the collapse of the effort made to prove that denominational education, assisted by the State, is more expensive than secular education entirely paid for by the Government, brought about by the striking figures of the English blue book on education, and the speech of Lord G. Hamilton, in which ho moved the education estimates in the British Parliament last year. The position of the gentleman who vrrote the short treatises on education in the Hawke's Bay Herald, has clearly become untenable ; so either he or a friend of his tries another; — what shall we call it? well then — another dodge. The word, we know, is neither classical nor elegant, but it is expressive ; so we shall let it stand. And in what does this new subterfuge consist? Why, just this, if secular schools entirely supported by Government are not, and, indeed, cannot be, cheaper to the State than denominational aided by Government ; this much at least may be said, that one school in a district attended by all the children of the district is cheaper to the district than, say, four or five schools in tlie same locality. This argument, if indeed argument it can be called, appeals directly to the avarice and selfishness of the inhabitants of particular localities, to induce them to abandon their duty, and subject their children to godless influences, in order thereby to. save a little money. But what about the people who sternly refuse to subject their children to godless influences ? Shall they be compelled, after having paid for the education of their own children, to pay also in great measure for the godless education of their neighbours' children ? The writer in the Hawke's Bay Herald alluded to maintains they shall be compelied to do so, and, of course, he thinks such compulsion both just and politic. There must be a great twist in that writer's mind. His argument, such as it is, amounts to this : Almost everywhere there are people, — very well-to-do people too — who do not care to be at the total expense of the education of the children, whom they are bound both by Divine and Natural law to educate in such a way as that they may become good citizens, good men and women, and who prefer throwing the expense of this education on the public at large to making the sacrifices they are bound to make for this purpose ; therefore, in order to save their purses, all people, even those who differ from them in principle, even those who have no children, and also those who have paid for the education of their own children, should join in maintaining schools at the common expense of all for the especial benefit of those who neglect or refuse to do their duty to their children, and will not pay for their education. And the better to secure this common co-operation, Government and Parliament should interpose to compal all to support a godleas education system in the interests of the neglectful, avaricious, and godless, and refuse the least aid out of their own money to denominational schools. Tliis is the argument, and an absurd, supercilious, and tyrannical argument it is. The idea of the Legislature and Government under which we live is, that parents who wish a free, godless education for their children shall be gratified ; and that, in order to this, all the Catholics of the country shall pay for this free education for the godless, whilst at the same time paying entirely out of their own pocket for their own schools. With our Legislature godlessness is at a premium, Christianity, indeed religion of any kind, at a discount. Selfishness and avarice, and neglect ot parental duties, are encouraged and rewarded by it, whereas generosity, fidelity to duty, and sacrifice are discouraged and punished. In addition to the general illustration of this afforded every day by the working of the Education Act, we meet from time

to time with special illustrations. For example, here in Dunedin there are no Government schools in which the Catholic children could be educated even in a godless way. At the present moment the case stands thus : The Government schools in this city are all full to overflowing ; no more children can be admitted into them. But there are 800 children attending Catholic schools. If the Catholic schools were closed, these 800 children, go far as Government schools are concerned, would be cast on the streets, and could not be educated. Well, the Catholics themselves have built their own schools, without any aid from the Government, and support these schools without any aid from the Government, which has made no provision whatever either in their own schools or elsewhere for their children, and yet these Catholics are obliged, not only to pay towards the maintenance of godless Government schools, but also to pay enormous rates for the privilege of doing what the Government and Parliament have neglected to do. This is the species of justice meted out to Catholics by the Government and Legislature of New Zealand, The Catholic's lot is to pay for the education of other peoples children, to pay for coming to the aid of Parliament and making up for its neglect, to be punished for having a conscience, to be, in fact, fined heavily for an honourable adherence to principle. This is the way in which the Government and Parliament treat the Catholic inhabitants of New Zealand, whilst lavishly expending the public monies on people who hand over their children to be brought up in godlessness at the expense of the community.