expenditure within about £200, but this sum it is conceived may without much difficulty be saved by means of retrenchments, the nature of which will be mentioned below. It will first be necessary to consider how the funds so raised may be most properly distributed.

There are two opposite theories as to the principle which should govern the distribution of funds applicable to the support of education. On the one hand it is contended that State assistance should only be given in aid of local contributions. That it is not the business of the State to assist those who will not assist themselves. On the other hand it is urged that the State itself is so much interested in the education of the people that, where local efforts fail, it is the duty of the Government to step in and supply what is required. There is a certain amount of truth in both these lines of reasoning, but as it appears to the Commission neither embraces the whole truth; as regards the first it may be said that it is not only unfair to neglect those districts which in whatever manner and from whatever sources contribute largely, and to confine the State assistance to those which, either from poverty or apathy, show no disposition to help themselves, but also that such a system is calculated to discourage voluntary efforts and to induce all to place dependence on the public purse. On the other hand, it may be maintained not without some reason that inability or unwillingness on the part of any locality to contribute to the support of its schools is the very case in which State aid becomes most imperatively necessary because that inability or unwillingness betrays a condition which it is the State’s greatest interest to see remedied. In the first place unwillingness to contribute where the ability to do so exists, is a sign of that very want of power to appreciate the benefits of education which arises solely from ignorance, and which can only be counteracted by means of efforts from without. Again, if backwardness to contribute is the result of poverty, then a system which only grants aid to those who are rich enough to help themselves is a system which measures the assistance required by the wealth of those to be assisted.

It will, however, be probably admitted that the State has an interest of its own quite independent of the apathy or activity, the poverty or the wealth, of different localities.

Perhaps the example of Auckland will afford as good an illustration as can be had of the inexpediency of taking local contributions as the sole test of the amount of aid to be granted. It appears that in that province, where this system is most rigidly adhered to, the number of children under instruction is smaller than in Canterbury; the number of schools is about the same, while the population is larger and consequently the wants greater, and that, moreover, schools have been established as a general rule only in the wealthier districts.

Thus, after a trial of four years, it appears that at the end of September, 1861, when the population of Auckland was about 24,000, the number of public schools was 40, the number of children on the rolls 1528, with an average attendance of 985; while in Canterbury, at the end of April last, with an estimated population of 22,000, there were 1651 children on the rolls, with an average attendance of 994. From this it would appear that, under a system not based exclusively on local effort, with a population less than that of Auckland by 2000, there were 123 more children receiving instruction in Canterbury, with a greater average of attendance.

In considering these conflicting principles the Commission cannot but recognise that each contains a certain element of truth, and that in devising a plan for the distribution of funds, both should be taken into account; that neither should be made the rule to the absolute exclusion of the other; that wealthy districts or those more keenly alive to the value of education should be encouraged, but that poorer districts, or those where education is less regarded, should not be condemned altogether and allowed to grow up in hopeless ignorance.

There is still another consideration to be kept in view in the distribution of the funds—the interest of the respective contributors. The system of finance proposed by the Commission contemplates the raising of a revenue from three sources—the Customs revenue, the educational rate, and the fees received from the children.

The first is contributed by the province. Considered as a whole, this would therefore be properly applied in promoting those objects which would benefit the province as a whole. The second is contributed by the district, and should therefore be employed in the support of schools situated in that district. The third is contributed by parents who send their children to school, and should be used for their exclusive benefit. It may probably be assumed that this last source of revenue should be applied to the support of the schools where it arises. As regards the second, though not perhaps actually unfair, still it would wear the appearance of unfairness, to divert the funds derived directly from one district to the benefit of another; but the Customs revenue, being the property of the whole province, without distinction of localities or districts, might fairly be employed for purposes in which the whole province is interested. Now, it can scarcely be denied that the province as such will be benefited in proportion to the spread of education in the districts which need it most. That it is to the benefit of all its inhabitants that they should live in a community elevated and refined by the general diffusion of education, rather than in one which enjoys these advantages only partially and unevenly. It is not, as it appears to the Commission, either the duty or interest of the community, as a whole, to create or to foster strong contrasts—to leave one portion of the people sunk in ignorance, and to devote all its efforts towards the cultivation of the intelligence of another, perhaps smaller portion. If this is so, it follows that the State, if true to its own functions, would assist and stimulate education, not according to merits or short-comings, but according as assistance