Unfinished Letter by Prophetes.

Sir,—I have attempted to show in former letters that the duty of the State with regard to education is to supervise, and insist, and guard, and if necessary supplement, but not absolutely to undertake the carrying out of the educating the young of the nation as a whole. This is a duty which devolves upon the parents primarily, and secondarily upon the neighbourhood in which they live,—it is a duty which the State cannot perform thoroughly, efficiently, or economically, and if the State attempts to do it, it thereby destroys the best kind of work: viz., voluntary effort restrained by wise and firm discipline and regulations, and weakens the sense of moral responsibility in parents and the community, which the State should rather seek to strengthen than to weaken.

If instead of undertaking the primary education of the children of the Colony, the State insisted upon the responsibility of those upon whom the duty naturally devolves, and encouraged them and placed facilities in their way whilst insisting, it would be undertaking its proper duty of Government, and would benefit the community. It would leave greater latitude to parents, who ought to have that latitude, to give the children the education they wished, and would enable parents if they wished it to have religious or any other instruction imparted to their children, under State restrictions, which would guard the rights of conscience of those who differed. The nation would be a gainer, for you do not wish to turn out all the children of the nation as if you were running so much molten metal into a precisely similar mould, and sending them out into the world with exactly the same stamp upon them; on the contrary Quot homines tot sententiæ, and if you allow the intelligences of the different parents and committees some play and latitude, comparison and emulation would both have an effect in improving the system as a whole, different systems would severally be the best adapted to different minds, and, as a whole, would result in advantage to the community.

Besides, and this is the most important of all, it would enable the education of the country, as a whole, to be founded upon a religious basis, and subject to a conscience clause, all children of those who wished it—and these would be by far the greatest majority—could be taught their duty towards God, and be brought up in His fear and love. Without this, any system of education will sooner or later prove a failure, and will end in disaster to the community,—without this education fails with regard to each individual in its most important particular—"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

Another point is, and it is one that is most dear to all Englishmen, it would be fair to all classes of the community, and to all page 81 denominations, and would do away with the glaring abuse and blot upon the present systems of education in the Colonies, that they are unjust—in most Colonies to the Roman Catholics, in this Colony to all Christians—in taxing them to support a system which they conscientiously object to, and, to be consistent in their principles they are compelled, in addition to supporting a system that they entirely disapprove of, to build and maintain their own schools. It is said constantly, "Well, it is their own fault if they will not come in to the State schools; there they are, other people use them, and they may if they choose; there is nothing to prevent them; why do not they use them?" But there is something to prevent them, a most important something which amongst high principled people will not, and ought not to be silenced. They say that they conscientiously disapprove of the secular schools, that they cannot conscientiously support them, and that they prefer even if they have to be unjustly taxed for their support, and at great sacrifices to themselves, to support their own schools where they can give the education which they think right. This being so, it is not right, it is not justice, it is un-English, to compel a large class of the community to pay for that which they cannot make use of. It is in plain words robbing them. It is just the same as if a man went to a baker and asked for a loaf of bread, and the baker took his money and gave him a loaf which was unfit for food; and when the man remonstrated, the baker said : "There is your loaf, you may take it or leave it,—there it is; it is declared to be good bread by Act of Parliament, and you must pay for it whether you eat it or not and accordingly, the man had to pay for the loaf which was unfit for food, and pay more money for another loaf of good bread to feed himself and his family, because Parliament had declared that the loaf of bad bread was all right; or, at all events, that it was all that he would get, and he must pay for it. This is not English. England is fair and just upon this question, why should not her daughters be?

Not only is England fair and just, but it answers, for "Honesty is the best policy," and that which is right, and based upon right will, in the long run, triumph over wrong.