THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1882. THE SCHOOL COMMITTEES ELECTION BILL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2621, 31 August 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1882. THE SCHOOL COMMITTEES ELECTION BILL.

The Legislative Council is a useful body in the main, and does much really good work. It acts as a drag on the other House, who ara apt to be carried away by the emotional sensations which are common to more popular bodies. It baa already, at several junctures, proved its value in. correcting absolute mistakes made oy the House. Even at the present timo they are setting a very good example tq M.H.R’s. They are refusing, our

correspondent tells us, to “ scamp ” their work, whatever our mombera may

wish to do. Conseqaersly, many important measures that should be seen to before Parliament prorogues have still some chance- of- having proper attention paid ■to them. Put still the Council make many mistakes, and one of the greatest they have made this session is, we take it, to throw out the School Committees Election Bill which had passed the Lower House. This Bill, it is needless to remind our readers, was brought in to alter the existing method of electing School Committees. It repealed clauses 63 to 68 inclusive in the Education Act of 1877 bearing on such elections. Of these, clause 65 more particularly regulates the method in which Committeemen are chosen. It provides that “at every election for a School Committee every voter shall bo entitled to a number of votes equal to the number of Oommitteo elected, and may give all such votes to one candidate, or may distribute them among the candidates, as he thinks fit.” This provision was brought in for the object of providing for the representation | of minorities, but it has not been found to work well. And the reason for this is obvious. It presupposed a state of affairs which does not exist, namely, a general enthusiasm in school matters. If all the residents in any school district were to attend the meeting in that district for the election of the committee, then perhaps the provision might work. Or if elections were to be carried on, as it is sometimes proposed that all elections should be, by means of election papers dropped at the houses of the various electors, so that the opinions of ell might be obtained, then again the idea might work satisfactorily. But it is necessary to take things as we find them, and it has been foand that the result of the present arrangement is that it gives to minorities by far too much power. In point of fact it gives to an active minority much more influence than an apathetic majority possesses. If the members of the majority do not turn up in sufficient numbers at a meeting, the active minority are quite certain of carrying their man or men. It may indeed be said that, if the majority will not take the tronble of getting in their men, this serves them right. That is true to a certain extent, and one or two sharp lessons would, no doubt, do the apathetic majority a great deal of goed if there wore any chance that they would mend their ways. But experience has shown us that there is not the slightest chance of this. And it comes to this that the enthusiasm presupposed as existing in the Act of 1877 does not exist, and possibly never will exist, and that consequently the arguments used at that time were unsound. Legislation based on unsound premises is itself unsound, and the sooner it is altered the better. Mr. Steward’s Bill provided that when the Education Board had fixed the time and place of the annual meetings it should call upon the householders entitled to vote to send to the Chairman of the respective School Committees written nominations of the persons to act en the next School Committees. Lists of these nominated persons were then to be displayed on the doors of the respective school houses, and to be published, at the expense of the Board, in some one newspaper having general circulation in the school district concerned. At the public meeting—to pass over oases when seven only or less than seven persons were nominated—the choice of the new members was to he finally decided by bidlot, no person having power to vote for more than seven candidates, or to record more than one vote for any one candidate. There were clauses in Mr. Stewart’s Bill bearing on a few other subjects, but wa have drawn attention to the principal one. The principle of cumulative voting was set aside, and that of the ordinary ballot was substituted in its place. The voters in any district were to see clearly for whom they were to be called upon to vote, and then the posts were to fall to the most popular candidates. This certainly would appear to be the most sensible and straightforward way of conducting the business, even if wa had not before us the failure of the cumulative voting experiment. With this latter failure as conspicuously brought before us as it has bean, there can be no doubt whatever that the ordinary ballot is the proper method. But the Council have thought otherwise, and the present system is still to ran its coarse until popular opinion has made itself felt within the walls of the more conservative chamber. Among the number of the Councillors who voted in favor of Mr. Steward’s Bill wa notice the names of several gentlemen who have always taken a great interest in edneational matters. They have evidently recognised the evils accompanying the present system, and have done their best to put an end to it. Ho details of the debateare yet to hand; we are merely told that the discussion was a warm one. Wo shall be curious to see what were the arguments used counter to the Bill. That anybody can be qnite satisfied with, the present arrangement seems at first sight almost impossible. But the dictum of “ what is, is well,” is one that finds much favour in the Upper Honse. If it is not found that the more cogent reasons were adduced by the upheldera of the proposed measure we shall feel uncommonly surprised.