BISHOP MURRAY ON EDUCATION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XII, Issue 26, 17 October 1884, Page 15

BISHOP MURRAY ON EDUCATION.

(From the Sydney freeman's Journal.')

The opening of the convent-school at Dubbo gave Dr. Murray an opportunity of replying to adrerae criticism of our schools, which he used with judgment and dexterity. Netthir vulgar abuse nor uncharitable inunendo, in marked contrast to the critics, found a place in his reply ; but he spoke as became a Christian Bishop, conscious of a just cause. Waat was the use of mere assertion, when he had demonstration at hand ? The very facts of the c ise revealed by the scene before him showed the folly of those who prophesied that the Public Instruction Act of 1881 would deal a death-blow to the Catholic clergy. In a distant country town, in which is one of the 6 nest and best-mastered Public schools in the colony, a poor and scanty population of Catholics, at the bidding of their clergy, have denied themselves several thousand pounds to build a Convent-school ; and although they are taxed to support the Public school, they not only refuse to derive any benefit from it, but they tax themselves again in order that their children may be educated in a school countenanced by their clergy. But Dubbo U hat & sample of almost every other town in the colony. In the Diocese of Bathurst alone the Catholic laity have paid no less than £52,950 for the building of Catholic schools, and in addition to that, last year alone, they subscribed £10,979 towards their maintenance. And if the figures of the other dioceses are examined, there will be found the same practical proof of the wish of the laity to have their children educated in Catholic schools. No stronger disproof of the prophecy could have been adduced. As his Lordship aptly put it : — " So mach money would not be spent to carry out a mere fancy or a factious opposition to the Public Sohools Act. There must be a strong conviction as to the necessity of religious education in the minds of the few thousand parents in this diocese wno spent £53,000 to build and £10,000 to maintain our Catholic schools." This, we think, must bi aelf-evideat to everyone who is not wilfully blind. It is one thing for a man to have an opinion, but it is a very different thing for him to back that opinion with his money. His doing so is a proof of his sincerity and earnestness.

We are glad that his Lordship drew attention to the efficiency of our schools, for it is at least due to the laity who make such sacrifices that their children — the fathers and mothers of the next generation— should receive a sound education. Of coursa, in the absenc j of Government inspection it is almost impossible to g*uge exactly the relative quality of the education given in the Catholic schools, but we are inclined to agree with his Lordship that the secular instruction alone is equal to that given in the Public schools. Bnt when that is added, which marks tbe diff jrjnce between instruction and education— that training of the heart which makes a man a good citizen, husband, and father, which is unknowa in the Public school system — the superiority of our schools is evident. No wonder that our rulers feel it, and shrink from a comparison. We fear the public will never make that comparison until the superiority of Catholic education is manifested in the after lives of those who are now educated in our schools.