South Canterbury Times. SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2300, 31 July 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1880.

Having discussed the subject of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister and husband’s brother and uncles and aunts till it was worn quite threadbare, and nothing remained but the caudal appendage, the Legislative Council have betaken themselves to a friendly scrimmage over the cost of free education in New Zealand. The Hon Mr Waterhouse originated the debate by moving that certain information relative to the costof our educational system should be furnished. Cuming on, as the debate did, almost immediately after the motion for the abandonment of the honorable members’ honorariums was summarily disposed of, it afforded “ our lords ” a delightful opportunity of exhibiting their consistency, if they waxed exceedingly angry over the question that they should dispense with the “ unearned increment” attached to their scats in the Council, they grew correspondingly happy in condemning free education. The arguments brought home with telling force against an}' interference with their life-pensions, wore converted with a skill and adroitness which is positively delicious into active weapons against the extravagance of State education. In discussing the terrible cost of free schools and State schoolmasters, the proverbial philosophy of the leading sages appears to have found abundant scope. The debate is full of interest, for it affords a singular exemplification of the unnatural bitterness that prevails between the rival childhoods. “Ourlords” entered into the theme with as much earnestness of purpose as if the schools of New Zealand were likely to be subsidised at the cost of their State auuuitics —the honorariums -which they guard as jealously as the apple of their eye.

Now, while every credit is due to the representatives of colonial second childhood for their anxious solicitude respecting the suffering finances of the country,

it occurs to us that in preaching economy to the Education Boards they have wandered too far from home. Had they plucked the beam out of their own eye, their wise observations, born of experience and the wisdom of years, might have realised serious attention, where it is likely to be treated with derisive contempt. Does it not occur to “ our lords” that this debate on the cost of our education system, coming Immediately on the brief but lively discussion of the honorarium question, partakes largely of the nature of a burlesque? Wo have perused the speech of the Hon Mr Waterhouse as it appears in “ Hansard,” and although it contains strictures of a severe nature on the relative cost of educational management in different parts of the colon}', there is notan unfavorable illustration or comment which might not be more aptly and forcibly applied to the school in which the venerable member airs his eloquence. This is unfortunate, for there is no doubt that it detracts from the value of the sentiment when wc know for a fact that the very individuals who arc lamenting the ruinous consequences of national extravagance, arc contributing largely to the results they deplore. For gentlemen who last year drew over £IOO per head for a few hours labor to quarrel with the salaries paid to school inspectors and teachers looks like undisguised hypocrisy.

Perhaps the concluding; jjpart of tld-s educational debate was the most ludicrous. Mr Chamberlain who urged the re-imposition of school fees contended that the educational burden was out of all proportion to the strength of the country ; MrLahmann saw no necessity for central boards, and Mr Williamson thought “ it was high time we cut our cloth according to our coat.” Judicious ! highly judicious ! but spicy also, are observations of this kind from such a source. Could not these gentlemen turn their eyes for a moment inwards? What about the legislative burden as opposed to the educational one ? The inspectors and teachers give a moderate return for their salaries ; can so much be said for the army of pensioners who assemble for a couple hours of an afternoon two or three times a week in the Legislative Council? If this cloth cutting is desirable, why do not these patriotic old gentlemen lead the way? Why are they so reluctant to apply to themselves the economy they recommend to others? Wc have no doubt that in connection with educational salaries there are inequla'ities and abuses that demand attention, but the attack on free education comes with a bad grace from Legislative Councillors. It is possible that the necessity for retrenchment may compel the colony to dispense with many an accustomed luxury, hut we consider that under any circumstances, even if free education should he deemed too costly to he continued, the abolition of the Council’s honorarium should precede the reimposition of school fees.