PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 30, 23 November 1883, Page 7

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

Monday, 6th Augtost, 1883. bishop hadfibliD, ex amined.— ( Continued.) 171. Mb. Fish: You say your Church is about to take step 3io ascertain the feeling of the laity in regard to secular education. Have the laity of the Church of England ever presented any petitions, or asked in any way the clergy to take the matter up or to petition, against the piesent system of secular education I—All1 — All I can say is that they have felt some difficiilty with this new system of education of acting at all in the matter. But, in my own travels through my own diocese, and I go through it twice a year, I have heard constant complaints and dissatisfaction with the present system ; but they have never taken any combined action &b a Church. There have been at different times petitions about it. I have rather discouraged petitions, because I have never yet seen that th?re has been a good opening for action in the matter. I have expressed my own opinions very distinctly in the Synod. lam one of those who think that public opinion is changing, and will very soon come round to view the subject more correctly. In different parfs of the country I have found that, and have come to the conclusion I expressed just now. 172. Have the laity presented petitions to the Synod asking the clergy to interfere in the matter? — The Synod contains lay members, who bring forward these subjects quite as much as the clergy do. 173. Do 'you not know it is a fact that the laity of the Church of England are totally at variance with their religious pa9to7s on this question ? — I am not at all awaie of it. 174. Is it not a fact 1 hat nine-tenths of the Church of England parents send their children without any protest to the secular schools ? — Yes ; they do. 175. Do you not think that such religious instruction, as it is necessary to give youth, can be given by means of Sunday-school teaching and, perhaps, taking an hour on Saturday in scnool ? — I do not think it can be done. We get the children of religious parents to come to Sunday-school ; but the children whose parents are careless about religion do not come. Those we shotild be glad to get hold of, but we find a difficulty in approaching them. 176. Then, the Sunday-schools of the Church of England are not well attended ? — Fairly well ; but they do not include a large part of the Church population, 177. Are as many attending as you think there should be I—No1 — No ; I do not think there are. 178. Do you not think that attributable to a want of energy on the part of the ministers? — No, I do not think so, because the miuisteis have so much to do in a country like this. I think the reason is because they have no religious teaching in the daily schools, and so the necessity of religious teaching does not enter their heads. 179. So you think it absolutely necessary that each child should receive every day of the week a certain amount of religious instruction?— l think so. 180. You do not think to establish your proposed system would increase the cost on the whole. Assume that this city lias six State schools now. Do you not think if ihe system you propese were put in force that necessarily the number of schools mu*t be increased ? — The number of schools would have to be increased, but po3sibly the number of children would not be much greater, and therefore not the expense, 181. Is it not a logical sequence that it must be much greater? — not necessarily, because I think the larger the school the larger the expense in some respects. 182. But would it not be more costly as regards the cost of schools. You cannot build twelve small schools as cheaply as six large ones ? — It would perhaps entail more cost at first, but'l think it would save by-and-by when voluntary efforts were stimulated. 183. Suppose we assume as a fact that such a system would be so costly as to break down all State interference in education, would you still be prepared to support the system you advocate ? — That is ati hypothesis that I think need hardly be contemplated, because I do not think it would have that effect. 184. Is your belief so strong as to justify you in. saying this : that even if the present system were broken down you would still retain your views ? — I should say so, assuming that a new system ooiild be built up on the destruction of the old one, as I believe ie could. 185. Do you think it extremely likely that members of your own Church would contribute to the system you advocate I—Ye«.1 — Ye«. I think it would encourage voluntary subscription. Ii England £750,000 a year is subscribed by Church people. 186. Is it not a fact that in the Colony it is a general reproach against members of the Church of England that they fail to csntribute even the proper maintenance of the churches and clergy? — The question is simply irrelevant to the subject I have been brought here to be examined on. I must decline to answer it. 187. If my premises were correct 1 was going to ask, was it likely that the same menilers would contribute voluntarily to schools ? Then, we are to gather, I take it from your opinion. Ibat there should be religious instruction in schcols — not only Biblereading. We should therefore introduce a system of sectarianism, and have religion taught by teachers of vaiious sects? — I have nothing to do with sects, 188. Supposing there were Church of England schools, you •would object to Roman Catholics teaching in them ?~Yes ; * it has always been understood that there would be what is called a con-science-clause, that those who wished might withdraw when religious instruction was given. * Note by witness. — There must be soaae mistake here ; vytiat follows "Yes" must have been in reply io a question bearing on small country schools to be opened at special times to various religious teachers,

189. Would your objection extend to a Wesleyan or other dissenting persons teacliiug religion ? — I should object to" persona of my own dock being taught by those who were not of my flock. 190. Mb. J.Buchanan : Do you think the designations of the present system — free, secular, and compulsory — are correct ones? — I suppose so. 191. Do you hold it is purely secular? — I should want a definition of what is meant by secular. 192. I use it this way : a total exclusion of all religious views ? — Formerly secular- teaching: was teaching by the authorized priest of the paiish. lhafc would have been secular teaching as* distinguished from teaching by the orlers or reguUrs. Tha usual meaning of the word now is the exclusion of religion. 193. The present system does cot do that entirely?— Yes; it doss it utterly. 191. Is there no recognition whatever of [religion in the classbooks / — I do not know. These is nothing of what I call reliyijii in the class-books. 195. la the system entirely free ? — I believe it is. I suppose it is. 196. Is it wholly compulsory ?— I am given to understand it is. I cannot cla^'rn to be an inteipreter of the Act, 197. Are you aware that there are tections of the population excluded from the present schools ? — I know the Roman Catholics aie generally. 198. I am not speaking of those who aie excluded by reason of their faith; I meaut the neglected class. Has it come within your experience that neglected children are excluded from these jiseudo free schools ? — I do not know. 1 99. Are you notaware that some Committees will not admit to the schools what are popularly called " Arabs," ragged children ?—? — I have heard so. 200. Then, should the Act be amended so that certain Committees should not be able to keep out these neglected classes? — I have heard of individual children being refused, but not classes. 201. To you hold that that is in csnformity with the spirit of the Act ? — I should think not. 202. Assuming they are so excluded, can the system be called free ?— Scarcely so. 203. Hon. Mb. Miller : Bo you say you wou'd not considtr mere reading of the Scriptures of any value in the schools supposing allcUsse3 could agree to read selected portioaa at certain times without explanations? Would that be of no value in the event of the system you propose being impossible?— l should object to that, because I do not believe any parson could be appointed to select passages that would satisfy all denominations. Who would you have 1 Should it be the Minister of Education ? 204. You think it is not possible to agree u;jon passages?— l think not. It would exclude the Koman C.vtholics. 205. Are there not passages of Scripture to be met that all might agree upon ? —There aie, but I think not to satisfy everybody— certainly not u.°, and I think not the Roman Catholics. 206. If passages could be agreed upon, do you think that would be better ibau nothing ? — I do not think it would, because in my opinion, it would be a sham. It would not satisfy the people more than the present system. 207. Surely the children would go away with the texts imprinted upon their memory, and they would recur to them in after life? — I do not think it would be of any re*l beuefit. It would, moreover, bs in the power of the master to use Scripture in an improper and irreverent way. 208. Theu, in the event of the State refusing this denominational system, there wonl.i be no alternative?— l do not know of any. 209. Except, of course, the various denominations having their own schools ? — Yes. 210. Hon. Mr. Dick : Was the petition from the General Syaod unanimous? — As to the fiivt paragraph I think it was, but not as to the last. I objected to it. 211. Did the whole of the members of the Synod think it was the duty of the Synod to send suc'a a petition ? — 1 think so, though one or two may have objected to the terms. Some objected to the last paragraph. * 212. The socond paragraph, that means that each denomination must nave its owa teacher or religious instructor for these children 1 — I think that was intended to apply merely to country schools where it would be impossible to have difto'ent schools for each denomination. 213. It does not say so ? —I think that was intended, an 1 that it is supplementary to the first paragraph. 214. Your idea is that each denomination should have its own instructor I — Yes. 215. You think leligion should be taught every day? — Yes. 216. And in school hours? — Certainly. 217. If there were children of half a dozen denominations in one country school, how would yon arrange they should be all taught the same cUy ?—lt? — It could not be done in some country places. 218. What would you suggest as a remedy 7 — Possibly in country places ths people might agree among themselves. 219. Would you be willing in email schools that a Wesleyan teacher should teach your scholars I—No1 — No ; I woxild have a conscienc :- clause. 220. But you say you would teach religion every day. Would you have one clergyman every day to go ?— lt would be a matter of arrangement, no doubt. It would be impossible ttat a clergyman could go every day to country schools. They have not sufficient time. 221. But you would net allow the denominations to unite and give religious instructions unitedly ? — Not unless they agreed. Possibly they might Bgree in country districts. The Wesleyans and others do not object to our teaching. 222. Have you seen the class-books of the State schcols?— Yes. 223. Have you ssen Nelson's Reader ?— No. ~~ To be Continued).