99

over beneficial in their operation. In this statement of Nelson, education for the children of the labouring classes has until very lately been almost entirely, and even now is mainly, furnished in schools conducted on the principles of the British and Foreign Society. These have been very successful, and extensive religious education given there has been approved of by the ministers of different religious bodies. These schools have been established and maintained for years by the exertions of private individuals who would have greatly extended their operations had public aid been afforded them. But the Education Ordinance precludes this aid because they are under the control of no sect in particular. Anything more practically and grossly unjust cannot well be conceived. This injustice has been acknowledged by an attempt to obtain a particular vote of money for their support. But while this would be an inconsistency in legislation and a mere evasion of the proper course to be pursued, the attempt is a sufficient proof, if none other existed, that the principle which is the basis of the present ordinance is not the wisest or at all compatible or satisfactory, because such a vote would involve the adoption of another and contradictory one, to take it out in practice.

This is another instance in proof of the assertion that the present system does not and cannot secure the greatest possible diffusion of education.

I object to this system because it requires the Government, and therefore the members of it to give their positive assent to the dissemination of opposite tenets, and the encouragement of conflicting sects. If equals might be held to be of importance, they cannot conscientiously give it; if they do not, they and the Government are still placed in a false position towards all who do. If the schools so aided are under the control of one sect, it will be to say that sect is aided them first encouraging sectarianism.

8. I object to this system because I believe the tendency is adverse to the freedom of religious opinion and liberty of conscience at present existing. By placing the mighty machinery of education exclusively in the hands of ecclesiastics, it affords opportunities, so far likely to be laid hold of, for the exercise of priesthood, and the general suppression of the free exercise of the human mind in matters religious. Nor will the danger of such apprehensions being so said appear why they should be, when one considers the doctrines of implicit obedience and others having a similar tendency, generally promulgated by an influential body of men who, if not hard and fast adherents to one sect, are the most likely to be so, and who, in any case, like all men, will naturally, whatever the claims of its general accomplishment, whenever the chance of its general accomplishment...

Perhaps it will be said that this system contains within itself a remedy for such an evil. By affording the aid of Government funds to all sects alike, in proportion to their numbers, it will be urged perhaps that this effectually provides for the maintenance of diversity and independence of opinion. But what a remedy! What an alleviation of the first evil consequence! By such a distribution of these funds -- on which indeed its defence on some other points might be rested -- by the patronage of each sect endeavouring to be strong, this system encourages dissension, and continually flings fresh fuel into the flames of sectarianism. It widens and deepens every breach already existing. It offers to every sect a premium upon every proselyte. It arrays them in a stern emulation still against each other. If it maintains independence for a time, it does so by fostering educative. Thus it attempts the remedy of an evil of the first magnitude, by creating another only second to it, and provides an imperfect security against mental enthralment in an effectual promotion of religious and even social disunion.

But what is this security after all? Does the plan of direct pecuniary aid in the form of a power ever vested in a majority of a sect to tax a minority? And may not this bring about at last the preponderance of the overbearing predominance of some one sect, through the entire absorption by it of all others of any consequence? And when has the predominance of any sect over others ever been marked by the absence of tyranny by any such sect over the others? Public opinion is generally cited as the great bulwark against it. But popular education taking in the hands of ecclesiastics alone, and the public mind being thus unreservedly imbibed with sectarianism, how is public opinion to imbue the mind of the pupil with the sentiments of the teacher? It is impossible that public opinion itself would not be so imbued at its source, or the appearance at least of the milder forms of religious tyranny. Some of which have only so recently been obliterated in the annals of fires and faggot in the exclusion of extensive monopolies of ecclesiastical despotism of the public service, of degrading civil and oppressive disabilities? That would be our natural course in this backward leap towards the night of the dark ages.

And indeed, to the present system, because I do not think it is calculated to give to children religious education of the most suitable kind, nor such as to be unexceptionable. I am not now referring to the time which ought to be given.

For I think it may be safely assumed that Christianity -- the embodiment of the idea of the highest attainable development of the decent of man, and of the means of his existence (by voluntary effort and involuntary and sacred self-sacrifice) --