The Evening Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3614, 22 September 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1874

Our correspondent “ Un qui rit,” is a bold writer if not a sound reasoner. His object is to give ug a lesson on “ private tuition and the educational duties of the State.’' We cannot be too thankful tor his kindly intentions, and sincerely desire that he had been more successful in his mode of dealing with the subject. Fifty years ago he would have had many sympathisers : but times are changed, and State duties, as well as social duties, are somewhat better understood. We do not admire the mode of thought of our correspondent: we do not admire his expressions regarding children. They tend, however, to explain each other. A writer who considers a child in any class of life sufficiently educated when he is placed on a higher platform than “ the homeless gamin” and who speaks of children as “ brats,” is scarcely likely to offer unprejudiced views on such a subject. Hardly any thinking person will be converted by the illustrations put forth as parallels in “Un qui lit’s ” letter. For any man to place competition in educa-

tion in. the same class as competition in trade or manufactures, betokens a misconception of the subject sufficient to account for the erroneous conclusions arrived at by our correspondent. Without entering minutely into details of proofs controverting completely many of “Un qui rit’s ” statements, we may point to several selfevident considerations that should convince him and every one of the fallacies he has adopted. He says, “ While the State supports a hospital, and pays an official to set bones and heal sores there, I ought not to find myself in the predicament of being obliged to seek relief at the hospital because the Government sees fit to close every avenue against private practitioners by subsidising a number of surgeons.” This is perfectly true—every man has a right to employ his own doctor, and to pay him ; but it does not lessen the duty of the Government to provide for the cure of those who are sick or wounded, and unable to secure a doctor’s services. In like manner, no man is bound to send his children to a State school. He can, if he think fit, pay a private teacher or send them to a private school; yet, we hold it to be a duty on the part of the Governments, at least in the present intellectual condition of society, to provide means for the efficient education of all classes. His next comparison is between education and manufactures; and it is gravely put, as if it were a crushing conclusion, that competition should be stopped in the “ soft goods” trade and in “ boot factories” if, as is affirmed, “ private teachers” are “ shut out from making a living.” There are very wide differences between the employments mentioned that destroy the analogy between them. With regard to “ soft goods” and “ boots and shoes,” the public are pretty good judges both of quality and price. They know what suits their purpose and their pockets, and will not pay a high prme for a bad article. Or, supposing that occasionally they are taken in, and have to suffer the loss of a few pounds or shillings, a little extra exertion, if the loss is pinching, enables them to get over it with only temporary inconvenience. In educational matters it is very different. Because, in times past, education was left to private individuals, it has generally been so imperfect that those capable of judging of its quality are the exceptions, not the rule. Those who have read intelligently the history of education at Home during the past few years, and have had access to the mass of evidence taken on t the subject by the English Parliament, are well aware that private teaching not only failed to impart education generally, but that which was so partially diffused was meagre in quantity and bad in quality. Whatever may be proved advisable in time to come, it is very certain that the great difficulty of the day is that of propeily estimating the value of what is termed education ; and that the difficulty has arisen through the imperfect mental training of past generations. To this day amongst those termed learned, knowledge of the past is ranked higher than that of the present day : skill in dead languages is still called “learning,” and is esteemed more valuable than mathematics or physical science ; and if these errors prevail among those who are looked up to as mentors, little wonder that others, who have not had their advantages, should still more grossly err. As to limiting education in public schools to what is known as the three Rs, no one who holds correct views of the duty of man to man would think of such a thing. It is the old notion, that those who are not rich in worldly goods shall not have even the chance of bettering their condition. It is a perpetuation of the principle of caste, which decreed that the son of a serf should ever ‘ remain a serf. It is somewhat strange that men should be so ready to acknowledge the advantages of the principle of co-operation for the attainment of every other class of desirable objects, and object to it, when directed by Government, for a common good. Mining companies, banking companies, newspaper companies, insurance companies, and thousands of other combinations for specific purposes are entered upon underprivatedireetion, and are approved and supported. But Government education—thatisco-opera-tive association of all for the education of all—the most important object that should be sought by society, and the most difficult of attainment by the mass of mankind because of their inability to select efficient teachers—is treated by many as of secondary importance. “ Soft goods ” and “ boots and slices ” wear out, and are replaced ; but education is not only to last a lifetime, but is to prepare for a life beyond the grave. Bud work may be repaired in the one case—who is to repair tlie other! So far from the schoolmaster having deteriorated under Government inspection, all evidence tends to show his improvement; and this is not confined to Government schools, for private teachers have learned by competition that what was once considered education, would not now be tolerated even in a Dame’s school.