THE Evening Star. FRIDAY. AUGUST 20, 1869.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1963, 20 August 1869, Page 2

THE Evening Star. FRIDAY. AUGUST 20, 1869.

Victoria has already made two experiments in systems of National Education ; a third is now proposed by MiFellows. The first was a dual plan—an endeavor to meet the views of two classes of theorists ; those who held strong denominational views on religions subjects, and desired children to be educated in schools provided by sectarians j and those who preferred the assembling together of children of parents of various persuasions, and educating them in common, so that they might, in after life, accord to each other a full recognition of the right to private judgment in religious matters. The experience of years proved the latter to be the better plan. Denominational ism tended to bring into existence many schools in which the attendance was so limited as to prevent the expenditure necessary for efficient instruction, and ultimately a plan not unlike that of Otago was adopted, in which District Schools were managed by School Committees of ratepayers. National education, both at Home and in the Colonies, has always proved a difficult matter to deal with, on account of the jealousy with which State interference is viewed in any matter tending, however remotely, to interfere with individual liberty. This has arisen in a great measure from the

ing the duties »and the rights of be seen reso " lutious proposed by Mr Fellows in the Victorian Parliament touch delicate ground. MelbourjieMrg'iw introduces and states them as follows : The fob owing important which, if carried, would entirely alter the educational system of the Colony, was on Tuesday given notice of by Mr Fellows, who proposes to move it on Tuesday next That the Act for the better maintenance and establishment of common schools should be repealed ; that the instruction cr 11 children in reading, writing, and arithmetic should be enforced by law ; that the selection of the school should bt3 left to the uncontrolled discretion of parents and guardians ; that the teacher of the school selected should be entitled to receive, in lieu of salary, a capitation allowance in respect of every child instructed by him up to the legal standard ; that the attainment of the legal standard should be ascertained by examination before an officer to be appointed for that purpose ; that all moneys appropriated for public instruction should be paid from the Treasury upon the authority, claim, and certificate usually adopted in the Government departments ; that the property vested in the Board of Education (except such as may have been conveyed to them by trustees) should be transferred to the Crown, and dealt with as other Crown land, and that property derived from trustees should be reconveyed as the original trusts.” The proposition to enforce by law “ the “ instruction of all children in reading, “ writing, and arithmetic,” will in all probability be met by determined opposition from many quarters. It will be assailed as an unjustifiable interference in matters with which the State has no right to meddle; and the thousand-and-one stock arguments, of the right of parents to bring up their children as they choose will be urged and repeated in every variety of form. But that is only only side of the question. Admit that in the vast majority of instances parents are so anxious for the welfare of their children, that they will of themselves, and without Government interference take care that they are instructed to the utmost limits of their means, there are many exceptions to that rule, and it is for these exceptions that the law has to provide. Laws do not exist for those who would of themselves do those right things they have been framed to enforce. The law steps in to compel the due observance of mutual rights and obligations, and the principle recognised in Mr Fell* -wss resolutions is, that every child has a right to education. What is proposed is limited enough—the merest elementary knowledge—but it is as far as any statesman dare to go in the present state of men’s minds. Sociology as a science is in its infancy. It is not as yet acknowledged universally that the development of intellect is a State duty, and that Society loses indefinitely if one mind capable of high cultivation passes through an earthly existence grovelling iu the mire of ignorance. Most men look upon superior talent as a sort of stock-in-trade, which will be brought into competition with their own attainments. They calculate the cost of their own education, and ask why the child of one not able to expend the same amountof money iu its training should be placed intellectually on an equal footing with them. But there are many considerations that we can fully enter into that ought to prove how fallacious such a system of reasoning is. Wayland says, “A child enters into “ the world utterly ignorant, and poslt sessed of nothing else than a collection “of impulses aud capabilities. It can “be happy and useful only as this u ignorance is dispelled by education, “ and these impulses enlarged by dis- “ cipline and cultivation.” If this be true, and if the parent neglect to work up this raw material into a condition capable of attaining happiness and becoming useful, it will grow up a noxious weed, ready for deeds of darkness and degradation. The State is then justified in stepping in and saying, Society claims the help that the well-directed talent of this young being may be able one day to give: it has a light, therefore, to enforce the necessary training, and since you neglect your duty by not providing that training, you must be compelled by law to fulfil your obligations to the child.