The Star. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1868.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 125, 6 October 1868, Page 2

The Star. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1868.

Indications have been given, in various quarters, that the education rate about to be levied is very distasteful. The Provincial Government have communicated with the Boad Boards and Municipalities, in order to find out whether these bodies will undertake the collection of the rate, and in two or three instances they have met with a positive refusal. The subject was discussed at some length at the meeting of Christchurch Borough Council last night, and it is to this that we wish more particularly to draw attention. , In the first place, it will be noticed that the Mayor took upon himself to speak for the Provincial Council, a liberty that he is no doubt prepared tv justify, but which, nevertheless, is a liberty, and one, too, that the members generally will probably resent. Bat the Mayor,as itappears to us, has alsoplaced the Provincial Council in a false position. In effect, be tells us that the members of the Provincial Council agreed to pass a certain Act because they believed it would not come into force at all ; or, if it did come into force, that it would be only for a short period. This is hardly consistent with the opinion generally entertained of the Provincial Council's aptitude for business. It is certainly no compliment to that body. One Councillor objected to the education rate on the ground that Christchurch would have to bear the larger proportion. Another Councillor seemed to be of opinion that it was objectionable simply because it was a tax. It is not necessary to take any notice of the latter objection, but we have a few words to say on the first. Those who take the trouble to read the report of the Borough Council proceedings will see that the Mayor estimates the gross proceeds of the rate, for the whole province, at about £10,000. This, we have reason to believe, is an overestimate, but that is not the question in the meantime. If the gross proceeds of the rate will amount to £10,000, and Christchurch has to pay about £1333 — we again quote the Mayor's esti mate — Councillor D un can's objection falls to the ground at once. Councillor Duncan Bays tbe inhabitants of Christchurch will derive the least benefit from this rate. We think he will alter this opinion if he will only take the trouble to remember that there are two superior schools in Chria tcli urch, from which the city derives very considerable benefit} and to which a fair proportion of the rate will be allocated. Besides, it is a very narrow view of the question, to say that tbe inhabitants of Christchurch ought to object to a rate because they will derive comparatively little benefit from it. Have we not been constantly telling the outlying districts, when they eomplaiued that the city was getting more than its fair share of money from the Provincial Government, that the capital of the province had prior claims, and that what was spent in its embellishment or improvement was indirectly for the good of the whole province ? Most assuredly we have, and Councillor Duncan will excuse us if

we remind him that ''the argumWt cuts both virays-— that' what ja saude for the goose is also sauce for the gander. We have heard it urged that this education rate is a tax on the owners of property for the benefit of the.poorer members of the community. Well, suppose it is ; do the owners of property not derive the most benefit from the presence of an orderly, well regulated, intelligent, community ? Undoubtedly, and for this reason, if their objection were well founded, they have no right to complain. But the objection ia not well founded. A certain proportion of tbe rate will go to assist in the maintenance of superior schools, and, if the owners of property think this proportion is not sufficient they have their remedy. But we believe they will abandon the objection when they take the trouble to think the matter over. There is, however, a substantial, ground of objection in connection with the rate. The Board of Education, as now constituted, ia uomiuated by the Superintendent. It is composed of gentlemen in whom the public have every reason to place implicit confidence, and we believe, speaking from general memory, that no public body has given more satisfaction. But, if the funds with which tbe Education Board is called on to deal are to be raised by a general rate, it is, we think, absolutely necessary to remodel the Board itself — to make it, in short, an elective body. This might very easily be done, and we believe the gentlemen who are now members of the Board would be the very first to advocate such a course.