AnnualReport-1879 — Page 73

You, who are aware how able is the staff of officials that I have the advantage to be assisted by, can appreciate what I will call the substantial honour that was conferred upon Dr. STEWART by placing him upon the Council and putting him, even for the short space of three months, at the head of the permanent Civil Service of the Colony. I will only say this much, that, though he did his work during my absence, yet, in the ordinary routine of official business, not a week has elapsed since then but papers have come before me which enable me to judge how far the acting appointment I had made was a proper one, and I am bound to say that Dr. STEWART' performed the high functions of Colonial Secretary to my entire satisfaction, and to the credit of the Colony.

The year 1879 is in other respects also an epoch in the history of public instruction in Ilongkong. Dr. STEWART, during his absence in England, was requested by the Secretary of State to express frankly and fully to Her Majesty's Government his opinion upon one or two subjects of paramount importance. It is known to all of you that the Government scheme of education, as far as the grants- in-aid were concerned, was a scheme which did not commend itself to the universal approval of those interested in education in Hongkong. The part of the scheme that was particularly objected to was a clause to this effect--that no school could get a Government grant in which there had not been four hours every day of purely secular instruction. From papers laid before the Legislative Council, it is now a matter of notoriety that various religious bodies in the Colony took objection to that clause in our grant-in-aid scheme. It was objected to by Bishop RAIMONDI; it was objected to by our late Colonial Chaplain, the Rev. Mr. KID; it was objected to by Pastor KLITZKE, of the Berlin Mission: and in each case the objection took this form: they said, "We object to the word 'secular' being in the grant-in-aid scheme. We object especially to the word 'secular' being in that part of the scheme "which relates to the books we are to employ. We have no objection to have, as in other parts of the empire, a system of examination in secular subjects by independent Government Examiners testing the "results of education, but we do desire to have the Bible, or to have religious teaching, made a part "of our daily school life; and, that being so, we cannot accept the Government restrictions." Now, this is a point of such importance that I think it was most fortunate that my friend Dr. STEWART had an opportunity of stating at length his own views on the subject, and of representing also the views of an intelligent portion of this community. I will read to you a sentence in which Dr. STEWART dealt with the subject in his report to the Secretary of State, and I think you will at once admit that, in treating this question as a high question of policy, to be decided by the Secretary of State and on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government-he took a wise and proper course. I find that, in a letter

"

of Dr. STEWART, written in November, 1878, to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, he said :----

"The next objection is to the word 'secular' wherever it occurs, and to the provision that religious "instruction 'must be either before or after the four hours of secular instruction required by the code.' "I have already explained in what sense the word 'secular' is used in the scheme. To remove it and to "allow religious instruction to be given during the time required for the subjects of the standards would "involve a sacrifice of the principle on which Government grants for education are now allowed. If, as "the Bishop claims, distinctive Catholic teaching must pervade the whole work and time of his schools, the Government by allowing this would be departing from the position of religious neutrality which it "has hitherto thought it advisable to maintain. All the protestant denominations that have accepted the "scheme comply ungrudgingly with the regulation, which would therefore appear to be a fair and a "reasonable one. It seems to me that this point is one peculiary calling for the decision of the Secretary "of State as a question of policy."

C

Now, before I received the decision of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH Upon this report of Dr. STEWART, there came to me a representation from the Rev. Mr. KIDD, our late Colonial Chaplain, in which he stated in one sentence his objection to the grant-in-aid scheme. He said :--

"I am sorry to say that I am unable to put my school under Government inspection, and thus claim "the pecuniary support (under the grant-in-aid scheme) which I really very much need. I cannot "conscientiously give secular instruction only for the required number of hours per day, nor can I omit "the Bible and the Prayer Book from my time-table."

The question that Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH had to decide was one of importance. Dr. STEWART had properly described it. It was a question of policy, and it has been finally set at rest, the decision being that the word "secular," wherever it appeared, was to be struck out of our grant-in-aid scheme. In reply to the letter of the Colonial Chaplain I received a despatch dated April, 1879, from Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, telling me that the modifications he had instructed me to make in the grant-in-aid scheme would remove the objections taken to it by the late Colonial Chaplain; and no doubt that is the case. The grant-in-aid scheme is now published for the information of the whole community. The word "secular" no longer appears in it. Every friend of education in the Colony can now come under that scheme and get the benefit of it. The schools must be open to Government inspection. Govern- ment Examiners must examine the children, and report upon the results of education in the specified subjects of the standards; and upon those reports the Government will give its aid. So far for that important question. The decision, I am aware, has given general satisfaction throughout the whole community.

There was another subject, and one also of public interest, which at that time was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who were assisted in coming to a decision by the

You, who are aware how able is the staff of officials that I have the advantage to be assisted by, can appreciate what I will call the substantial honour that was conferred upon Dr. STEWART by placing him upon the Council and putting him, even for the short space of three months, at the head of the permanent Civil Service of the Colony. I will only say this much, that, though he did his work during my absence, yet, in the ordinary routine of official business, not a week has elapsed since then but papers have come before me which enable me to judge how far the acting appointment I had made was a proper one, and I am bound to say that Dr. STEWART' performed the high functions of Colonial Secretary to my entire satisfaction, and to the credit of the Colony.

The year 1879 is in other respects also an epoch in the history of public instruction in Ilongkong. Dr. STEWART, during his absence in England, was requested by the Secretary of State to express frankly and fully to Her Majesty's Government his opinion upon one or two subjects of paramount importance. It is known to all of you that the Government scheme of education, as far as the grants- in-aid were concerned, was a scheme which did not commend itself to the universal approval of those interested in education in Hongkong. The part of the scheme that was particularly objected to was a clause to this effect--that no school could get a Government grant in which there had not been four hours every day of purely secular instruction. From papers laid before the Legislative Council, it is now a matter of notoriety that various religious bodies in the Colony took objection to that clause in our grant-in-aid scheme. It was objected to by Bishop RAIMONDI; it was objected to by our late Colonial Chaplain, the Rev. Mr. KID; it was objected to by Pastor KLITZKE, of the Berlin Mission: and in each case the objection took this form: they said, "We object to the word 'secular' being in the grant-in-aid scheme. We object especially to the word 'secular' being in that part of the scheme "which relates to the books we are to employ. We have no objection to have, as in other parts of the empire, a system of examination in secular subjects by independent Government Examiners testing the "results of education, but we do desire to have the Bible, or to have religious teaching, made a part "of our daily school life; and, that being so, we cannot accept the Government restrictions." Now, this is a point of such importance that I think it was most fortunate that my friend Dr. STEWART had an opportunity of stating at length his own views on the subject, and of representing also the views of an intelligent portion of this community. I will read to you a sentence in which Dr. STEWART dealt with the subject in his report to the Secretary of State, and I think you will at once admit that, in treating this question as a high question of policy, to be decided by the Secretary of State and on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government-he took a wise and proper course. I find that, in a letter

"

of Dr. STEWART, written in November, 1878, to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, he said :----

"The next objection is to the word 'secular' wherever it occurs, and to the provision that religious "instruction 'must be either before or after the four hours of secular instruction required by the code.' "I have already explained in what sense the word 'secular' is used in the scheme. To remove it and to "allow religious instruction to be given during the time required for the subjects of the standards would "involve a sacrifice of the principle on which Government grants for education are now allowed. If, as "the Bishop claims, distinctive Catholic teaching must pervade the whole work and time of his schools, the Government by allowing this would be departing from the position of religious neutrality which it "has hitherto thought it advisable to maintain. All the protestant denominations that have accepted the "scheme comply ungrudgingly with the regulation, which would therefore appear to be a fair and a "reasonable one. It seems to me that this point is one peculiary calling for the decision of the Secretary "of State as a question of policy."

C

Now, before I received the decision of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH Upon this report of Dr. STEWART, there came to me a representation from the Rev. Mr. KIDD, our late Colonial Chaplain, in which he stated in one sentence his objection to the grant-in-aid scheme. He said :--

"I am sorry to say that I am unable to put my school under Government inspection, and thus claim "the pecuniary support (under the grant-in-aid scheme) which I really very much need. I cannot "conscientiously give secular instruction only for the required number of hours per day, nor can I omit "the Bible and the Prayer Book from my time-table."

The question that Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH had to decide was one of importance. Dr. STEWART had properly described it. It was a question of policy, and it has been finally set at rest, the decision being that the word "secular," wherever it appeared, was to be struck out of our grant-in-aid scheme. In reply to the letter of the Colonial Chaplain I received a despatch dated April, 1879, from Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, telling me that the modifications he had instructed me to make in the grant-in-aid scheme would remove the objections taken to it by the late Colonial Chaplain; and no doubt that is the case. The grant-in-aid scheme is now published for the information of the whole community. The word "secular" no longer appears in it. Every friend of education in the Colony can now come under that scheme and get the benefit of it. The schools must be open to Government inspection. Govern- ment Examiners must examine the children, and report upon the results of education in the specified subjects of the standards; and upon those reports the Government will give its aid. So far for that important question. The decision, I am aware, has given general satisfaction throughout the whole community.

There was another subject, and one also of public interest, which at that time was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who were assisted in coming to a decision by the