The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 3, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1623, 3 May 1879, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 3, 1879.

The decision of tho Board of Education with regard to the “ cobbing ” case at Southbridge will meet with general approbation. The enquiry on the spot was conducted with open doors, and both the public and the master must feel that all views of the question were thoroughly ventilated. There is now no doubt whatsoever that “ cobbing ” was occasionally practised at the school with the sanction of tho head master, who looked upon it as an institution conducive to the maintenance of thorough discipline among the ranks of his pupils. But the Board has, of course, at once put its veto on such a rough and ready method of coercing the youthful mind, and has signified its intention of immediately dismissing any master who shall, in the future, allow such practice to obtain. At the same time it has, as regards this special case, taken into consideration Mr. Elwin’s long and faithful career in the cause of education, by passing over this his first offence. Mr. Elwin’s fault is, we thoroughly believe, an error of judgment only. He was anxious to establish some sort of system by which the boys themselves should keep guard over their own school discipline. A method of providing for such a result has long been in vogue among tho public schools in England. Dr. Arnold, the eminent founder of tho present system of public school life in tho old country, was strongly in favor of the “ prefect ” system, which, by giving large responsibilities to tho upper boys in a school, to a partial extent throws upon them the onus of seeing that the school machinery works smoothly. He held that such an arrangement had many advantages. It developed the character of tho older boys by fitting them early in life to undertake positions of trust, it placed a convenient buffer between the master and his younger scholars, and it iuti’oduced into the body scholastic general habits of discipline which would not be forgotten in after life. Ideas pointing in somewhat the same direction may have moved in Mr. Elwin’s mind when ho sanctioned the objectionable system of “cobbing.” But he entirely failed to see one fatal objection to his scheme. In the prefect system the authority is thrown solely into the hands of the upper boys who are directly responsible to the master for the proper use of the power entrusted to them. In tho “ cobbing” system the power is handed over to the mob, who, from their number, are rendered irresponsible, and from their levity are totally unfitted for any such duties. There is all the difference between tho two systems that there is between the wildest and most fickle lynch law and law carefully administered by the superior minds of a community. It is utterly absurd that the power of summary execution should be handed over to a large number of unthinking children.

We do not wish it to be inferred from the above remarks that we are at all in favor of anythingjsimilar to the prefect system being introduced into our schools ; indeed, the thing would be an impossibility from the very nature of these institutions, but we wish merely to point out that Mr. Elwin, in allowing cobbing to be practised in the Southbridge school, may have imagined that he was acting on a general principle sanctioned by high educational authority. But the two systems are in reality as wide apart as the poles. The prefect system is an organised and properly supervised method of rule, the cobbing system something very different. It is well that we have seen the last of <( cobbing” in Canterbury.

In striking contrast to the late utterances of Lord Derby are the views propounded by Mr. W. H. Smith, First Lord of the Admiralty. Lord Derby is a croaker of the first water; his view is . that England is going to the dogs with the greatest rapidity, and that, like rats, everybody should leave the sinking ship. He commits what among the Romans was considered the highest of all crimes—ho despairs of his country. Now, although we are willing, indeed most anxious, to welcome to our shores all the surplus labour of Great Britain, wo can never look upon her misfortunes in any other light than as misfortunes to ourselves. Our interests and sympathies are so bound up with the mother country that it is quite impossible for us to disassociate our own welfare from that of the people that a few short years ago gave us birth. We cannot welcome the utterances of a man who, though ho may drive a few stragglers in our direction, does so at the expense of disheartening our brethren. Lord Derby holds a high position; he is the possessor of a historical name, and his own services as Cabinet Minister entitle him to a hearing. It cannot, therefore, be looked upon as less than a misfortune that he should have uttered the sentiments which ho has been sowing broadcast over the laud. But the English Caucasian is not “ played out,” whatever Lord Derby may say to the contrary, and we must welcome with pleasure such utterances as the First Lord of the Admiralty gave vent to on the occasion of his late address to the London and Westminster Men’s Constitutional Association. Mr. Smith does not despair of his country by any means; he holds that there is an inherent vitality in the Englishman that will triumph over the temporary difiicul-

ties that have thrown a momentary gloom over the country. Ho points to the causes which have brought about tho present state of affairs, and meets such misrepresentations as those of Lord Derby by facts and figures. Tho English people are not, Mr. Smith assorts, downtrodden and excessively taxed, nor aro they unable, from fiscal and other burdens, to maintain competition with other countries. England, with a population of 32 millions, and the United States with a population of 38 millions, raise each in taxation as nearly as may be £100,000,000. France, with a population of 36 millions, raises in the same way £121,000,000. Is there any proof here that tho English are overburdened with taxation p Take another instance. Tho gross taxation paid by tho population of London is—putting local and Imperial taxation together—at the rate of £3 8s lid per head; in Paris it is at the rate of £5 14s Id per head; and in New York at the rate of £6 14s 7d per head. It follows, therefore, that the country districts, i.e., tho large landed proprietors, bear a larger proportionate share of the national burden in England than they do in either France or America, to the manifest advantage of the poorer classes congregated in the towns. Mr. Smith consequently holds that the British workman is not the crushed individual that he chooses to represent himself to be, and he lays the present misfortunes of the latter in a great measure down to his refusal to bend to tho circumstances by which he is surrounded. Trade is at present, says Mr. Smith, paralized by reason of a variety of causes, but the British workman will not recognise the fact; ho is ready to strike, but not to receive lower wages than he has been accustomed to. A spirit of unrest has seized upon him, and his work suffers in consequence, and the manufacturers efforts are paralized. Moreover, a large number of workmen do not take sufficient pains to maintain their superiority in the general labour market, and are consequently being supplanted in cheapness and quality by workmen in other countries. Mr. Smith asks the British workmen whether he is prepared to persist in this suicidical course, the end of which must naturally be ruin to himself and his employer. Luckily here in New Zealand no such crisis, as has called forth these remarks from Mr. Smith, exists. Trade is depressed, but the relations between the employer and the employed are not strained, and we can afford to view the situation in England in a dispassionate spirit, and to thank a public man who has the courage to speak out his mind and the hopefulness to point to a brighter future. The bonds that connect us to England are so strong that when the brighter day dawns we shall be among tho first to welcome its arrival.