SATURDAY, APRIL 23. 1881. STATE EDUCATION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2232, 23 April 1881, Page 2

SATURDAY, APRIL 23. 1881. STATE EDUCATION.

Now that members of Parliament are commencing to address their constituents previous to their departure to their field of battle in the North, a genoral awakening of interest in political matters will naturally result. The Christchurch constituency have, luckily, in Mr. Stevens, a representative who annually places before them his views with clearness and force, and, whether the electors may agree with him or not, they cannot, at all events, complain that they are left in the dark as to what their representative may think on the various topics of general interest. Although in the coming session the matter of State Education may not in any way come to the front —and there is enough matter to be dealt with, in all conscience, without it—yet there is an undercurrent existing of deep feeling on the matter, and there can be no doubt that at the next general election much will hinge on it. It is, on this account, among others, that we hail Mr Stevens' clear and outspoken words as to the value of the present system with much pleasure. He has weighed the results of that system with the cost, and he unhesitatingly asserts that, although it might in some items be somewhat cheapened, yet, speaking broadly, and using a vulgar proverb, " the game is well worth the candle."

First, as to the quality of the education imparted, Mr Stevens says —"I was for some time chairman of the largest school committee in the Canterbury district—namely, that of East Ohristchurch —and, from my own experience, I can confidently say that the education imparted is not too good for anything like an enlightened community. Not in any respect are the children taught more than anybody ought to know." In connection with the absurd outcry as to the quality of education imparted in our public schools this testimony on the part of a gentleman whom we may, from the position he has held, term an expert, is very valuable. The short sighted individuals who declare that when a boy or a girl has barely learnt the three U's they are armed cap-a-pie for the battle of life, may well ponder over the words of a gentleman, of whom nobody can complain that he is a visionary enthusiast. For the very basis of the theory of State Education is that the State stands, as far as secular education is concerned, in the place of the parent; that it will, as far as its means will allow, start the boy or girl in their ways through life with such advantages as may in some respects level the inequalities that accident of birth must of necessity bring with it. The question is not how little can be given, but how much can be given, consistently with a due regard to economy. But the people who run down the present system build their fallacies on the supposition that the duty of the State stops short at the three It's, and that by some mysterious process the State —that is the adopting parent—should consider that its obligations have ceased when this minimum of instruction has been given. Apparently there is no pliancy in the scheme of these objectors. Should a state be ever so rich, its duty would remain precisely the same as in a poor state. The adopted child would reap no benefit from the accumulated riches of the wealthier classes. And yet these men have the audacity to declare that they are the friends of the people and the folly to state their belief that anything taught over and above the three It's is robbing the poor man in order to give an education gratis to the child of the rich man. It is singular that they cannot see that the higher the average of State Education may be, the more favourable are the conditions of the child of the poor man, while at the same time the bulk of the cost falls on his richer neighbour. An ideal system of State Education would provide that the child of the penniless man might have all the advantages enjoyed by the child of the richest. For "knowledge is power," whatever shallow thinkers may say to the contrary. Then with regard to the cost of, and the process of paying for, the present system of education. Mr. Stevens is no doubt right when he says that the same number of children as are at present taught might be educated at a smaller cost. The present system is somewhat cumbrous, and might judiciously be simplified. The various Boards throughout the country appear to absorb too much of the power, leaving too little play to local committees. The number of returns and other information that masters have constantly to be sending in is something appalling. In this direction, if in no other, the existing system might be improved. The cost of maintaining the present state of education should, Mr. Stevens wisely thinks, come out of the consolidated fund. The money must come from somewhere, and in this way only do all classes of the community equally combine to secure a national good, founded on a broad basis. Capitation and school fees are one-sided in their operation, and the poor man will do well to reject any candidate who advocates thorn. Mr. Ormond, wo see, thinks that the Land Fund should, in the future, bear a considerable portion of the cost of education. We cannot agree with him at all. The present Government have wisely determined that this fund shall not be applied to annual expenditure. This is sound finance. Mr. Ormond apparently holds a different opinion, but many of the views of the member for Clive are eccentric.

A LOVE STORY. That the tender passion runs occasionally as furious a course as it did in the days of Romeo and Juliet is vory evident from stories of real life that wo read of from time to time. Perhaps one of the saddest that has hoen told for many a long day has just been sent to us from New South Wales. The particulars are few and simple, but the attachment formed was so singularly romantic, and

the finale so tragic, that it will bear being taken notice of. A young girl, aged 17, and named Charlotte Fanny Bray, was found dead near the Redmyre railway station, having been run over by the train. The evidence of her sister Alice was to the effect that the deceased had told her that she had formed an attachment to a gentleman whom she used to see in the train when she was going to school. They had not met, but she used to see him on the road and at church. She wished he would speak to her, but she was too nervous herself to address him first. The fact of her not being able to meet him used to grieve her, and at last she fell into a desponding frame of mind. Finally she threw herself before the train 400 or 500 yards from the spot where Mr Robberds, the gentleman in question, lived. Mr Robberds stated in evidence that he knew the deceased, but that he did not think he had spoken to her for the last two years. He had never spoken to her of love. The story is a remarkably simple one, but none the less pathetic. No romancer would dare to work up such material, even into the most pronounced love tale. It would be thought altogether too far fetched. But the tender passion laughs at probabilities, and we find a scheol girl under its influence daring to solve a riddle that frightened Hamlet when he debated on the advantage of " shuffling off this mortal coil " when the evils of the present life became too heavy to bear. The moralist will not feel inclined to bear too hardly on Charlotte Fanny Bray. However rash and foolish her act there is a simple pathos about the denouement that disarms the harshly inclined critic.