EDUCATION PETITIONS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 21, 14 September 1883, Page 25

EDUCATION PETITIONS.

(From Hansard, August 28.) Mr. Pyke brought up the report from the Joint Committee on Education Petitions, stating that owing to the limited time at their disposal they had not been able to enter fully into the subject of the petitions and recommending that the minutes of proceedings end evidence be printed. He moved, " That the report, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence, lie on the table and be printed." As eh drman of the Committee appointed by the House, it was perhaps desirable that he should explain the nature of the recommendations made by the Committee. The evidence went to show that a number of petitions were presented to both branches of the Legislature asking for an extension of the present system of education. The number of petitions amonnted to 126 and the number of signatures to those petitions was 19 763. On the other haud, forty-nine petitions va^fe presented, with 4,561 signatures, against any alteration being^aade in the present system. No desire had been expressed in any of those petitions to interfere with the present system. The C juimittee had considered the matter, and had no specific recommendation to make. They only asked that the evidence should be printed. The evidence disclosed the fact that a large proportion of the population —as nearly as could possibly be estimated one-seventh of the whole population of New Zealand— were dissatisfied with the present system of education. This number had conscientious objections to allowing their children to be educated in the State schools. He might state here, to prevent comment, that all the evidence taken before the Committee was given at the expense of the witnesses. With regard to those conscientious objections the Committee had no specific recommendation to make. Then the evidence showed that this section of the community, the Roman Catholics, had expended the sum of £340,966 in land and buildings for the purposes of education. It also showed that they had built eighty-eight schools, and the number of children educated in those schools was 7,743, showing that a large corresponding saving had been made to the public revenue, not only in regard to the expense of the land and buildings which must necessarily have been expended on the State schools if these children had attended, but also a saving of about £30,000 in the shape of head-money. Then, the Committee had the evidence of Bishop Hadfield and the Rev. Mr. Coffey, tendered on behalf of the

Church of England. The numher of signatures to petitions presented on behalf of that body was something like two thousand. Mr. Fergus rose to a point of order. As a member of the t-om-mittee himself he was not aware that the honourable gentleman was stating the case fairly at all. He was not stating the substance o£ the report which the Committee had asked him to bring up. Mr. Speaker thought it a most inconvenient practice, on the presentation of a report, to refer to the evidence. Mr. Pyke said it was essentially the report which the Committee authorized" the Ch.-drman to bring up. He was only referring to the evidence in order to justify the request of the Committee. He had confined himself to a statements of facts. He trusted that the request of the Committee would be granted without a dissenting TOICP Mr. Macandrew said the honourable member for Wakatipu had made a very serious statement— namely, that this was not the report which the Committee directed the Chairman to bring up. Was he to understand that the evidence which it was proposed should be printed was entirely voluntary ? . Mr. Swanson said that to his certain knowledge, evidence was offered, and it was refused. The question was put to the vote, and it was decided not to take it ; but a certain number of members had done all they could to reverse it, and this one-sided report had been brought up in spite of a considerable part of that Committee. He was quite astonished to hear the speech which had been made. There was no authority from the Committee for the Chairman to make such a speech or statement, bnt he was simply to bring up the report. He (Mr. Swanson) distinctly stated that evidence was refused— evidence of members of the House, many of whom were able and willing to give evidence without a farthing of expense to the country. The Committee was requested to take evidence of heads of departments, but they refused. . , Mr. Pyke said the honourable gentleman was quite right as far as he went, but he was not aware of what had happened before he was a member of the Committee, when evidence of Roman Catholic laity was tendered and refused. Mr. Swanson said it was quite true he did not know what took place before he was a member of the Committee, but nothing which took place before persons were appointed bound them to decisions previously arrived at. He could state however that certain evidence was tendered which wou'd have been no expense to the country, and the Committee refused to take it. Mr. Montgomery said the report stated that the Committee had not been able to arrive at a conclusion, that they had not been able to make an exhaustive examination of the witnesses. According to the statements which had been made by some honourable members, evidence] had been refused, and he thought, if the evidence taken was printed, it should be headed as, " Evidence on one side only." The Committee had not had time to make an exhaustive inquiry. He thought the report of the Committee should lie upon the table, but he earnestly trusted the House would not sanction the printing of evidence of one side only. He should oppose it. He knew that members of the House and others were willing, without expense to the country, to give evidence, but that had not been taken. Mr. Swanson wished to name some of the gentlemen who were proposed to be examined as witnesses. It was propssed that Mr. Hislop the head of the department, should be examined ; he proposed that Mr. Dick, the Minister of Education ; Sir George Grey, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Iveas, Mr. Tole, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Piliet, and other members of the House should be examined. These were all representative men who could have been got without incurring a farthing of expense, but that proposal was refused. He offered some evidence which he could have given himself, both printed and verbal, but that also wa3 refused. i Mr. Turnbull wished to called attention to the order of reference, which stated that the Committee was to report on the petitions presented to the House, and it would have been going beyond the I order to have called persons who were not petitioners. As to members of that House, they were so well known and so capable of expressing: their opinion in the House that it would have been waste of time to have called them. As to the printing oE the evidence, that resolution was come to without a dissentient voice. It was the only point upon which the Committee was unanimous, and he regretted very much that there should be any disagreement about itnow. Colonel Trimble said that surely the order of reference did not direct the Committee to confine itself to taking certain evidence, and it serums that the Committee had met and decided that tbey should take no lay evidence— that they would only take the evidence of the clergy. Well, who were those clerical gentlemen, that they should know more, about the education question than any body else? He happened to be present during the examination of one clerical gentleman who did not seem to know anything about the opinions of the laymen. He said that, if sufficient; influence was brought to bear, the lay opinion migh.t be got in their favour. But under the whole of this there was the ques» tion whether the present system of education should be continued, or whether they should go back to the denominational system. Ho had some experience of schools where the merits of that system were brought out, and he could have given some evidence as to the comparative merits of the two systems in training the young, but of course such evidence was not taken. To print clerical evidence in favour of sectarian education was not the work of that House. He should oppose the motion ; in fact, he thought the report should not be allowed to lie on the table. It was so entirely one-sided that xt was something worse than useless, and ought not to be included in the proceedings of the House at all. Sir G. Grey held very strong views upon the subject of the present system of education. He believed it to be the most perfect system of education which had yet been introduced into any country. In that respect he was a confirmed secularist, but he did not think they intended to uphold that system by establishing this rale : that they were not to allow people to say anything against it. If it was as per-

fect as he believed it was, the more it was discussed the better it would be for the system itself. He was not a bit afraid of any argument that could be urged against it, and he thought it would be unworthy of the House, when a large proportion of their fellow-colonists desired that the evidence giv n before the Committee should be made public, that the House should determine te suppress it or not allow it to be published. He thought, considering the fact that they entailed such an enormous expenditure from the public money on account of what they believed to be so good and excellent, they should not. grudge giving way to the prejudices of those they offended by adopting the present system in having the evidence published — the evidence given by a number of highly — educated gentleman. He thought it would be most becoming of them to do so, consideriug the trivial expenditure which would be entailed compared with the wealth of the whole country. If it was really the wish of a large number of members of the Housa that evidence should be printed usually the House was not chary in granting their request. It did so often at the request of two or three members, and, when a large number desired it, why should they refuse ? He believed the more the subject was discussed the the more they would become attached to the present systenf. He believed the more arguments adduced on one side or the orther the better it would be. If they, were wrong in their belief, then let it be Bhown. Naturally he thought, having attained to the time of life he had, it was little likely th:it his opinions would be sh&ken, but nevertheless he would not refrain from reading what others had to say, and on the arguments put forth by them. He thought it better respect that the evidence should be printed. He believed that the people would become more strongly attached to the present system, but he felt assured if there was one thing likely to lead them to distrust the system it would be that there was something in it which they did not understand, which would be the case if any attempt were made to keep back from them evidence which their opponents were anxious to place before them. Let those opposed to the present system give their evidence. Let it be placed before the people at large throughout the country, and let those in favour of the present system rest confident that, if they were right, as they believed they were, in holding to the secular system, they were confident in the face of whatever evidence might be brought against it. Motion for adjournment of debate, by leave, withdrawn. Motion agreed to. On the motion that the evidence be printed, Mr. Swanson said he would be glad if the questions and answers could be verified in some way. For instance, the evidence of one gentleman was sent to him, and he sent it back with the intimation that there were only one or two words of alteration in it, but the alterations were not submitted to the Committee. He would like to have seen what the alterations were, because he could well imagine that the alterations of two or three words might make a vast difference. One question which he put to one of the Roman Catholic bishops was this : "If you, gentlemen, were in a majority, as the Protestants are in this country, would you concede to the Protestants what the Catholics now ask for, and can you refer to any country where you do it ? " The answer was, "We would not allow anything to be done that would contribute to the propagation of error." Then he said to the bishop, " Some sects must be in error, and in that way the State would be contributing to the propagating error," for certainly some of the creeds must be wrong. And the answer to that was, " Oh, the State has nothing to do with that, because the Stale has no concience." Now, he would like to see what the alterations were, if any, because they might be of some consequence. Mr. Bracken thought the honourable member for Newton had misunderstood the remarks of the gentleman who was being examined. He had just shown, from the speech of His Excellency the Governor, that in the State of Maryland, where the Catholics had full power, there was full liberty of conscience. But they were not going back to the past. They knew that the priests of any church, if they had the chance, would take power to themselves. But they never could get the power again. The Boman Catholics were conservative. There was no doubt about that. But the .Reformation opened the flood-gate* of toleration, and the very basis upon which Protestantism rested was its toleration. As Protestants they should be tolerant, and he was sorry the honourable gentleman, who was very liberal in many respects, should take up the stand he had taken. Mr. Swanson. — I want questions and answers printed as they were giveD. That is all. Mr. Pyke thought it was a pity that te was interrupted by the honourable member for Wakatipu, and called upon by the ruling of . the Sneaker to sit down, because, if he had been allowed to conclude f^^tatement he was making, many of the misstatements which had since been circulated in that chamber would not have been made. He had not made one single comment on the evidence when he was inteirupted. He was simply explaining to the House the nature of the evidence which he was instructed by the Committee to move should be printed. Now the statement had been made that only one kind of evidence .was taken. That statement was altogether wrong. In the first place, the evidence was not confined to the members of one particular chnrch. Some members of the Anglican Church also gave evidence ; one of them protesting against the present system of education an absolutely mischievous. The Rev. Mr. Bavin, the President of ihe Wesleyan Conference, also said that the members of that denomination were aggiieved with the operations of the present Act. All of which showed that the complaints in regard to the present system of education were not confined to the Catholic body only. Then another honourable gentlemen said that the evidence of the laity was refused. Now, before the five additional members from that House, and five from the other House, had beeen added to the Committee, a motion was made that the voluntary evidence tend, rod by the Roman Catholic laymen should be received by the Committee, but that motion was rejected, and it was consequent upon that intolerant refusal that the Committee decided that, as one form of lay evidence had been refused, they would not allow any other form to be received. With regard to the

members of the House, they knew perfectly well that if they desired to give evidence they could do so. One honourable member (the honourable member for Oamarn) did give evidence, which was to \>e found among the documents placed upon the table of the House, and if any other honourable gentleman wished to give evidence he could certainly have done so. All he had to do was to make known "his desire to the C >inmittee. But the whole of the evidence taken was voluntary evidence. The Rev. Mr. Bavin, Bishop Hadfield, of the Anglican Church, Bishop Luck, and Bishop Moran, of the Roman Catholic Church, gave their evidence in a voluntary way ; and the two latter gentlemen travelled, one from Auckland, and the other from Dunedin, at their own expense to give evidence. Well, after the Committee had refused to allow the Primate of New Zealand and others to be called, why should they alter that rule in the case of other persons? The honourable member for Caversham thought fit to canvass the constitution of the Committee. He said that, as originally appointed, it was all on one side. Well, he was a member of the Committee, so that he did not compliment himself by that statement ; the Colonial Secretary was a member of that Committee and he certainly was not on the side to which the honourable member for Caversham referred ; and, indeed, looking over the whole of the names of the Committee, he ventured to say that a fairer Committee could hardly be picked out of that House. As far as he knew there ' was not a single Catholic amongst them. They -were not men whose opinions were formed all on one side. They were men who held fair opinions upnn every question that came before the House. But what happened 1 As soon as it was found that a fair Committee was appointed to investigate the subject, it was thought that the result might not be satisfactory, and an agreement — he would not say a conspiracy — was entered into by means of which ten persons were added tp the Committee, five from eaih branch of the Legislature, and out of this Committee seven were notoriously hot opponents of any alteration whatever being made in the present system ; and it was owing to their addition that the present report now lay on the table. The honourable member for Inaughua waate I to refer the report back ; but if he had been present, and had heard the arguments used in the Committee, and the attempts that were made to prevent any report being presented, he certainly would not have said what he did say.