The Press. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1875.

Press, Volume XXIII, Issue 3057, 9 June 1875, Page 2

The Press. WEDNESDAY, J UNE 9, 1875.

We cannot understand the attitude the Executive eeem to have taken up with regard to the Canterbury College. They declare themselves warmly interested in the cause of education. They even profess to have \hc interests of the College much at heart. The President assured the deputation the other day that the Government would leave no atone unturned to further the establishment of a College appropriate to the province of Canterbury." Yet somehow these excellent sentiments lead to no result. The Government were but lukewarm, to say the best, in their attempt to carry the vote for the College. They did not contradict a hint thrown out to the Council by one of their supporters that its rejection would help them out of a dilemma about the site. And they have declined to take any steps towards getting it re-included among the appropriations. Wβ can discern in their conduct no iTAce of the exuberant zeal for which Sir C. Wilson took credit in his reply to the deputation. Yet there are several reasons why this vote of all that were on the estimates ought not to have been omitted. I They have repeatedly, however vainly, been pressed on the attention of the Council; but it may be well, while the matter is still open to reconsideration, to bring them forward again. In the first place, the possession of a suitable building is necessary to the successful working of the College, and to its adequate maintenance as a public institution. This we think, will be apparent to everyone. To be possessed of a room or building which may serve as a centre of action, and as a visible embodiment of itself, so to speak, before the public, is a primary object with every Society. In any town where the TVee Masons, for instance, the Oddfellows, the Foresters, or the Good Templars, become thriving bodies, their first step is to build a hall. What would hon members say if it were proposed that, instead of the ornate Chamber in which they hold their meetings, Government should hire some lurge room for the sessions of the Provincial Council. Would notthe proposal be resented as an insult ? Would they not see at once that a wandering Leg'slaturr, without any fixed abode or accommod >tion exclusively its own, must become ridiculous. Would they feel, and rightly, that the adoption of such a course wruld be a damaging blow to the efficiency and prestige of the Council—th ?t it would be hindered in the discharge of business, and, still more, that it would be degraded in the estimation of the people ? Precisely the some feeling exists with regard to the College. The offer of a lectureroom in the Normal School may be serviceable as a temporary expedient; though it can be but temporary, since we presume the school is no largpr than will soon be needed for its proper purposes. But for anything more than that, the offer is miserably insufficient. It betrays a wretched want of appreciation, a total misconception of the requirements and proprieties of the case. The highest place of education in the province cannot be established in that makeshift fashion. Until it is housed, indeed, the College cannot be said to be established at all. It will be wanting alike in present surroundings and in prospects for the future. It will have no sense of stability, no permanent system, no individuality. In a word, it can never become an institution. Its usefulness as a place of learning will be seriously diminished, and its hopes of development, already promising, will be nipped in the bud. Again, the erection of College buildings was included in, and formed a substantial part of, the original scheme. When the Ordinance was passed in 1873, no one ever dreamt that the work of the College would or could be carried on in a spare room of one of the elementary schools of Christchurch. Any suggestion to that effect would have been scouted. The Council was resolved that the Canterbury College should be worthy of its name, and on all points of outward equipment should be fully on a par with the similar institution in Dunedin. Money was voted for the purchase of a site and for buildings; and, as signal evidence of the importance and the public character of the College, a majority of the Council finally resolved that it should be placed in the Public Domain. It was on this understanding that the Professors were engaged. They did not come out here to be merely lecturers, or professors of a college in nuhihtis. They accepted their engagements on the strength of representations that the College was properly organised and provided for, and that their status as College Professors would be all that the term naturally implies. These representations are far from being borne out by what they find on arrival. In rejecting the vote for the College the Council have, we will not say been guilty of breach of faith, but have certainly not acted with perfect good faith towards the gentlemen who have contracted engagements under the Ordinance, especially towards the Professors. Lastly, the College might already have been in course of construction, had it not been for the interference of the Council. If the Board of Governors bad been free to employ the £8000 voted to them, contracts for the building would have been made more than a year ago, and a part at least would by this time have been available. But they were not free. The Council wishing, as we said, to do honour to the College, resolved that it should be situated in the Domain ; which resolution of theirs was not approved by the citizens of Christchurch, and was over-ruled by the General Assembly. The controversy that followed caused delay, and eventually, in the opinion of the Government, necessitated a fresh application to the Council with regard to the site before anything could be decided on. Meanwhile, before such application could be made, the vote lapsed

Under these circumstances we contend that the Board of Governors have au equitable claim to the £8000. They did not lose it through any fault or negligence of theira. The money was given to them with one hand and taken away with the other. It is hard that the College should lose its vote simply because of the deference shown by the Governors to the will of the Provincial Council. If the Road Boards are held entitled to the balance of their grants, when not fully paid on account of deficiency of revenue, surely the College is equally entitled to a vote which waa withheld solely because the Council had imposed a condition which, by mischance, proved impracticable. On these three grounds, then —the necessity of the building to the usefulness and permanence of the College ; as a completion of the original design, and in honorable fulfilment of engagements entered into; and because the Board of Governors was debarred by the action of the Council from making use of the money granted to them —we maintain that the lapsed vote ought to be renewed. The Provincial Secretary objects that the question has already been decided in the negative. Bu* there need be no difficulty about that. A motion for the appointment of a Minister of Education was negatived in Committee on the Education Bill, yet a week afterwards the same motiou was proposed in the House and carried. So a resolution affirming the expediency of granting a sum of money for the purposes of the College might be proposed after the usual notice, or at any time on the motion for going into Committee of Supply. Opportunities enough will offer if there is any disposition to take advantage of them. The question will then be brought fairly before the Council, and, if the Government give it a hearty support, we believe it will be carried. At all events the attempt is worth making. We earnestly entreat the Government to take the matter into consideration, and to endeavour to find means of rescinding a decision which, being arrived at by a small majority in a comparatively thin House, can scarcely be said to represent the deliberate intention of the Council.