speak a little plain truth about Sir Henry Parkes' extraor-

Sir,-I was glad to see your correspondent "Historicus "

affect, that all State assistance to Denominational schools

just a session or two back that I introduced a motion to the

for the storm raised by Archbishop Vaughan. Why, it was

tional schools, and I firmly believe he would do so still but

attempt to do away with State assistance to Denomina-

Education Act. He has always strenuously resisted every

nent of the very reforms embodied in the present

eight years Sir Henry Parkes has been a bitter oppo-

respondent's statements on this subject. For the last six or

advocate of secular education, is corroborative of your cor-

our present Education Act. My experience, as a life-long

dinary claims as being the sole author of the principles of

Line 2.2.0 should, on a given date, cease. On that occasion Sir Henry

Line 2.2.1 Parkes opposed my motion, and went into an elabo-

Line 2.2.2 rate defence of Denominational school, pointing

Line 2.2.3 to the Rev. Mr. Smith's Denominational school, and ejacu-

Line 2.2.4 lating, "Would it not be a scandal and a shame to destroy

Line 2.2.5 so fine a school, &c.?" On that occasion, Sir Henry

Line 2.2.6 Parkes' speech was a speech such as might, with great pro-

Line 2.2.7 priety, have come from Mr. Alexander Stuart or Mr.

Line 2.2.8 Gordon ; neither of those gentlemen could have made a

Line 2.2.9 more partisan defence of Denominational schools, eulogizing

Line 2.2.10 and defending them in every possible way. On numerous

Line 2.2.11 other occasions Sir Henry Parkes resisted reform,

Line 2.2.12 and I for one must deliberately assert that for

Line 2.2.13 anything, in the shape of reform, now attained, we have

Line 2.2.14 nothing whatever to thank Sir Henry Parkes for, unless it

Line 2.2.15 be his tardy agreement with the views of the reformors

Line 2.2.16 when he saw there was nothing else for it. Comparing

Line 2.2.17 these truths with Sir Henry Parkes' wholesale claims, as

Line 2.2.18 contained in his Ashfield speech, where he asserts that no

Line 2.2.19 man but himself had any hand in the educational reform

Line 2.2.20 we have now arrived at, I appeal to every advocate of secular

Line 2.2.21 education in the House to say whether they ever heard, in this

Line 2.2.22 world, of any claim so utterly groundless and preposterous.

Line 2.2.23 So far had Sir Henry Parkes gone in his advocacy of the

Line 2.2.24 justice of maintaining Denominational schools, that I had

Line 2.2.25 long looked upon him as belonging to the ranks of the