PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 28, 9 November 1883, Page 21

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

. Monday, 6th August, 1883. BISHOP HADFIELD, EXAMINED. nv, 83 v," ?S C Ch™ 4^ : V L °rd, What is your position in the Church of England 2-1 am Bishop of the Diocese of Wellington. ,„ ,, 8 *- "hat is the extent of yonr diocese ?— lt extends from the Waimate Eiver, on the East Coast, to the Tipoka Stream, a few miles on this side of Parihaka and north to the Taupo country. 85. What is the total population of your diocese?— l believe about 68,0 . *t. B6^, ] ?v man y belon S t o*c Church of England and how many to the Catholic Church ?— About 33,000 to the Church of England. I do not know how many Roman Catholics there are. i. i.v 87 ' x^ hat is tbe P ro P° ifci °n belonging to the Church of England to the total population of New Zealand I— About 43 per cent, according to former official papers. I hare recently not seen them distinguished. - 88. And the Catholics ?— I do not know. 89. How many State schools are there in your diocese ?— T do not know. ' diocis o e>-TdrnVklo e w. tlie """^ ° f Cath ° He Bchools iQ *™ 91. Are there any schools supported by the Church of England have a conscientious objection to it. «"""w mey musi 94. Do you find the Cathalic children have a better knowl^d™ I have DO personal lno»ledg e on the subjlot 8 " c * v Me ' of education in any civilised Siy where C^iST, teaming with the view of teachinir obildr«n tw .1 r »^T n "tr'^i^ouir SiSnihS in aid°of s?ho r ols 8 *&%$% S?T Whi ° h askß for convinced that any fS/22 t f he f clauße : " That your petitions are State BhoaM «Sft««« 7 Batl M actor y measure for education by the

HOW

difficulties as to details should cause the Colony to be burdened from one end to the other with a mischievous system when there ia no occasion for it, xxr W:*J he h6 T e recognises no particular mode of faith. Would this paying to the different bodies not be a distinct recognition of religions denominations by the State ?-Yes ; recognition so far as payment was made. There is recognition now under the provisions of the Marriage Act. There would be *o further recognition than that of all denominations being recognised under the Marriage 118. But are they distinctly supported by the State? If I understand you, you simply mean that the schoolmasters in these schools would be practically appointed by the clergy of the different denominations, and dismissed by them, but paid by the State ?— Not necessarily by the clergy. 119. Well, it comes to that, 1 think. The master will be the servant of the denomination, and paid by them, and,they will!receive f»m the State?— My contention is that if a Roman Catholic or Church of England school supplied precisely the same amount of secular education at the same price as any other State school, and chose to give some religious teaching over and abov<\ that is a matter to which the State ought not to object or to be concerned about. 120. This thing has been tried, and this is how it came out • In certain cases it waß proved that the State paid the master r or mistress, and the money the denomination was to pay was not paid. It was found the State was paying the whole thing?— Then there was bad inspection and supervision on the part of the State. 121. And the various denominations thought they should have a espdm Inspector, who should report as to the attendance, efficiency, rind bo on ; and I remember he made one inspection, on which he reported favourably, on the Queen's Birthday, when the children were all away. There were various discrepancies like that. Under your system we should be liable to abuses of that sort, whereas now by Government inspection it ig all prevented ?—I do not think such abuses ought to have existed. 122. Bat it has been tried ?~I do not think the system I sugeest has ever been tried. BS 123. Mb. Pebgus : Do you say that the State is bound to respect the conscientious convictions of every citizen ?— -Quite so. 124. Not the conscientious convictions of a majority of the citizens?—l do not see what the majority have to do with it. v ra r ? re different religious bodies with different heliefs. You think the State is bound to respect the convictions of every body, every person, and to make a system of education to suit every one of those bodies?— l think so, if the State meddles with education at all. 126. You are opposed to the present system of education?— l am decidedly. * • J27;J 27 ; £ c l°l *?*? c whether the bulk of Churchmen are opposed to it ?— I think the bulk are, but lam njt quits certain. 128. You are not aware whether the bulk of Churchmen are or are not opposed to it ?-Some of us are hoping to test that question. We have hitherto hoped for an amendment of the law, but I think we are now establishing an organisation for the purpose of testing that before the next election, and then I think those holding the view I do will take care to vote in a block on that subject. 129. If the conscientious convictions of every person were respected m education, have you any idea of the increased cost that would be entailed upon the Colony ?-I think it would be lessened. ldO. flow I— By calling out voluntary efforts for schools in which people would take an interest. *v i.*?** A f e you not of opinion that the State is the people, and that it is a matter of indifference whether the money comes directly from the State or indirectly in the shape of contributions or school fees/ Do you not thmk the State is more entitled to pay the whole cost of education, seeing that the money ia then subscribed by eveiv one in proportion to his means? Do you not think there would be an increased burden of taxation by your system ?— ldo not. l tnink the present is a demoralizing system, that it has a tendency to destroy self-reliance, and that it really injures the community by destroying Jthe sense of self-reliance, in the rising generation. If people's own exertions were called out instead of everything beiug done by the State, it would be far better for the people, and would not lead them to depend so much on the 132. Bat would not the cost, whether to the State, or the people, be greater than now ?_i do not see why it should be, because the : SSSS^w* SS ss b a mt eaat aDyrate> n ° if tbe DUmber •mA*!?' But i£ the large so h ool8 » which more than pay their way ™J ti£ e f P * r ? eat t ca P» tati on, were broken up into three or four, would not the total cost be larger, wherever the money came from?— l do thmk so because the number of assistants, pupil-teacbers, and fco on in the large schools tend to increase the expenditure quite as Wh at having more but smaller schools. I would not venture to £lcuf»ted 8t it QCt ° PiniOn 8S t0 the difference of having never 134 In Dunedin we have five or six thousand children, for which we receive only £24.000 a year. The cost is only about half, leaviS ShS^i.* o^*?^ 1 amon * Btt he <"na" country school's Sup! poking each body had its own school in that city-perhaps the?e wou In he twenty ortwenty.five of them-do you not think the mone? Sal? UPS she5 he stat t^ Qld^ a i ely Co7er tfae cosfc *-» wSTS s?nw £'n?K g 8cb °° 8 chlldren cos fc *4 a aead to educate, it K^^"g?sr" wtodiTldeflieni - Idonot tMnk iarge rr - I? 5 ' Do .y° u now wrier the present system what is a payine wVSS^^P^**"^ Board? ForaihoSThh b?£n*J^« *ICTl C Ti &iXO ? S^ntia£l2o-, the school does not pay «oSS^? n °i keepifc * oin S that. We have hundreds of 3S£?«R*:EBK£SS

culty?^t^ 8 ?^- 86^ districts, how would you meet the diffi. the strong v^? W °u ld ha / c P^tically to be the nominee of would hav g elo St 7 ' PcP c ' hap ? of one or two settlers onl y- Then, he -I nlveTfntendS "STO Binstmction?8 instmction ? Prescribed by his patrons? You thint %! W ° d meaa thr ee-foarths o£ the schools in the Colony, people ?-I do. PreSent ByStem is detrimentel t° well-being of the secu\&T B Bvs2™JS UU t had f n y "PMtenee °* **» effects of a purely -My rSS ig d «°l a f rehg . lOn3 - Byßtem £ a£ , terlife u P° a <*c people? nrst»ss?u£* P fcty extenßlve ° tt t hi 8 kind of subjects: lam Dn£ S s&*nJ ce Z nt Vl h th . c irr ? U g ious B °hool system of France, lotof fnfii? P u o^ yeaTS lfc ha3beea ia existence, it has turned out a but T »!„• and wanwnista. I get that experience from reading? n»n \ n gU . I - te C - apable of thinking out these matters for myself My should be Ga tahHow thl ? g almost novel thafc a *y ßtem o£ education f i®i if abllßhed where religion is absolutely banished. I think the world has never had experience of such a thing. in 8oS« n^ 6 n 2l th £ poor in Fraace as a ™le always been educated Se tote and «5f d , ireCt JPJ P° atr^ l ° £ the cler^ 7 ~* an > of from which ajd schools under the management of the Government, irom wmcb religion has been banished. ' have h^n ai Dea n7n 7 all , the Soho ° l Bin Fxance £or teaching the poor S™ generally under the control of the clergy ?-I am afraid know there ll^ tt ° V ? 88 ' 1 l lived *° me * e&va ™ »««SS now there were many achools where there was no religious instructo exublV ?™ Ve /°- U JJ 1 ** 1 a ? y cx P erience in the management of schools onin?fit y , t0 lvd = 9 the comparative results of religious and &bdMdJSX BC u° ol , 8 ' Or i 9 ifc merel y tbeor y ? - X ha ™ ha d a good stortedmlSl 80 ! 10018 !U! U ™P?™tending and arranging them. I SStetShKJ tT° 8( l bools * spoke o£ here iv Wellington, and I aave taugtrt in schools when a younger man. vear«ten^*!f y , oa . had aa y experience of schools for a number of years taught exclusively under the secular system ?— No. would von «; T 7—? ULL : The P°P ulatlOn in the towns being larger, b7dim ynlsy nl s J^l VTv y° ur ü ß y ßtem t0 tfa e towns ?-Poasibly. ft would ul Ito1 to establish where there were small numbara. built w^fJ ft, , dlD S sc hools in large town *, the Catholic* have Steve They haye 00 Wuhout any cont ribution from the State ?-I bediwn 4 «f n ' o That^? ald J >ea '& reat; savin £ t0 the State if it were laid cbiK£?n I ? tha * there B ho*ld not be less than one hundred Sin , i!h ? , 8C t OO1 ' aad that the d^erent bodies should erect their own spools ?— I do not see why a special tax should be laid on a whf n«? f k ¥ fche State is to build the school for the secularists, £r ir 1 " EonQan Catholics or for us ? BhonM H,? o*'0 *' c t a t irel y to prevent your system running to excess, aenomiS °?t? t S ?T - Buch condition to P r event the number of S fth?HtS being too large, and consequently the expense to the State ?-The Government should b« quite Satisfied the edtiool was necessary, if it was to be built with Government funds. Before !t was started the Government' should be satisfied there were sufficient numbers to warrant its being carried on. 147. You would not make any attempt to lower the standard ?— Certainly not. Jlo* So the State woul d get all it pays for ?— Exactly. _, ..11. 1 . 9 - Dd r y 011 Propose to teach something essential besides?— That is wbat I mean. 150. Hon. Mb.Menzies : You are really in favour of what ia usually called denominationalism?— That is really what I mean, although there is a prejudice against the word. 151. Further, you think religious instruction in schools should only be given by the clergy or persons appointed by them I— Quite so« • -f52f 52 - Does y Qur reading extend to the German system of education?— Many years ago I read Cousin's Report of the German system, and I have read occasionally on the subject since, but I do not know exactly how the matter stands there now. 153. Some century ago the Bible was excluded from the State schools in Germany ? — Yea. 154. Then, has it been restored ?— I really do not know at the present time, 165. Mb. Db Latttob.] If schools were aided for the Churches, are you of opinion that the teaching should be free ?— Tbat ia a question for the Government, I think free education has a tendency to destroy the t-pirit of self-reliance. 156. But, if the State schools continued to give free educationf — Then, of course, we ought to give it in the same way. 167. Do you think your Church would find the funds for build* mg if the responsibility for the cost of building were put on them aud they merely got the capitation ?— The subject, I think, has never yet been considered. 1 do not know why we should be required to do it if the Sta'e built for the others 158. At pxesant there is a great deal of difficulty in finding money for the churches I—Yes.1 — Yes. J } & ?' . Anti tne Catholics, without the incitement of capitation, are building schools, are they not ?— I believe they are, and supporting them liberally with their own funds. 160 Mb. Bakeon.] Yonara aware the present system was framed I? B^ 6 "wolM 1 instruction apart altogether from religious instruction {— x es.

161. And you have said that the system is entirely mischievous ? —I think so. I think it is not only mischievous but thrown away. I have heard from more than one schoolmaster that this smattering of physical science, for instance, that is given to children of eleven or twelve, is absolutely useless, and simply burdens their minds and interrupts their learning other subjects ; and I have been told by schoolmasters that they rio not believe that one out of a hundred two years after leaving school would be able to answer a question on those subjects. Therefore, tbe teaching in that, respect is simply thrown away. 162. So the imparting of general knowledge apart from religious instruction is mischievous ?— I do not say that. 1 say you should not leave out wliat is the essential point in all education. 163. I understand yon to say that the present system is entirely mischievous ? — I think so, from the utter want of religious instruction. 164. So that, really, a system of secular instruction without religion must be mischievous ? — Exrotly t> ; it makes men lopsided, because it develops one setlof facu i ' ..ij and not another. 165. Do you think, then, it would be better to leave children entirely ignorant?— No ; I do not think so. 166. But you think a system of giving wholly secular instruction is prejudicial to the State ?— lf it takes up the whole time of the children, as this system does. It not only takes up all their time at school for four hours, but at home, and leaves them no time whatever for anything else. As to taking their play-hours for religious instruction, that would simply set them altogether against religion. Therefore I would not do that. 167. You do not go so far as to say it would be better to leave children entirely ignorant of general knowledge than to have a State system which does not combine religious instruction ? — To have education without religion is mischievons. 168. You say that your reading of past history proves that no nation'^fcp rosper unless they have some belief in some deity ? — I said thaftfTo bring tip children without it is almost unknown in the world. There has always been some object of reverence and fear. There certainly was among the Greeks and Romans, and there certainly is among the Hindoos, and everywhere else, except in the present system in New Zealand. 169. Then, do you think all children brought up under what we call the idolatrous systems were better citizens than those where there is_ no religious instruction at all 7—l7 — I believe people who have the belief that they are responsible to some supreme being who will judge them would make far better citizens than the people who are atheists, and have no belief on that subject. 170. And this would apply to every form of religious faith, in contradiction to those who have no religious faith, including any system that we now call idolatry ? — What I mean to convey is this : that a Roman had just as much respect for an oath as we have, and felt that if he broke an oath he would be punished just as much as we do now. That was the opinion of an educated Roman and of the mass of Romans. If people are brought up with no religious education at all there seems not much probability of their making good citizens, and it seems to me a waste of money for the State to give a system of instruction that would have, no tendency to make the people good citizenß. (To be contimied.)