I come now to the education question. The honourable gentleman, the member for Christ-church North, has the coolness to complain of what we propose to do with regard to the capitation. Sir, did he not himself, in 1884, propose to abolish the capitation? and did he not, fast year, begin to filch it a shilling at a time, without any one knowing anything about it? He had already taken oft one shilling, and we now propose to take the remainder: so that, instead of getting £20,000, we shall only get £16,000, for the honourable gentleman had already taken the other £4,000. He next argues that the House should have ample and abundant opportunities to express its opinions upon this question. Sir, the House expressed its opinion on the question many years ago, when, in 1877, it decided that the statutory capitation should be £3 15s. In the earlier years of the system, and when the country had more money at its disposal than it has now, Parliament increased the amount to £4, by making a 5s. annual grant-in-aid; and it did that for this reason: that in some provincial districts the school system had been carried on upon a somewhat affluent scale, and it became necessary to increase the statutory capitation in order to avoid anything like a violent wrench to the school systems of those districts; but there were other districts where the Education Boards never had been in affluent circumstances, and in those districts the school system had been much more economically conducted. But in paying over the 5s. capitation allowance all districts were treated with uniformity, and so a number of districts which really did not require the 5s. were compelled, nolens, volens, to take it. Now, Sir, I have gone through all available statistics relating to the cost of education in other countries, and I confess it is one of the most unsatisfactory tasks I ever undertook, because of the difficulty of arriving at any unifonn basis of cost, "maintenance" covering so many different items of expenditure in different countries. For purposes of comparison I find every education system defective in this respect. They are all weak on the financial side—that is to say, it is difficult to state the comparison with exactness; but some day, when you get a Minister of Education who, in addition to being an educational enthusiast, is at the same time a business man, I am sure you will get an education system sufficient for all our wants at a much-reduced cost. The system must be analysed more keenly than at present, and, if time only be given, I am sure it will be proved that the amount of reduction we propose will not weaken the system at all. I undertake to say that the system will be strengthened, in the respect that we shall be able to obliterate the rapidly-growing feeling that it is too costly. In that feeling there lurks danger to the system itself. Now, Sir, I think it desirable to show what the cost of our system is as compared with the education systems of the Colonics of Victoria and New South Wales, and I have" or "per child" argument does not, I think, convey a correct idea of what the system is costing relatively to our means. Educational theorists put their views of the cost in their own way. I wish to put my view of the cost in my own way. In addition to knowing what we pay, we want to know what we can afford to pay. Well, this table shows what we pay, and it also shows what Victoria and New South Wales pay:— page 4

Colony.	Population.	Revenue, 1886-87.	Cost of Primary Education.	Revenue per Head of Population.			Cost of Primary Education per Head of Population.			Proportion of Cost of Primary Education out of each £100 of Revenue.
		£	£	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.
Now South Wales	1,030,762	7,594,300	591,246	7	7	4	0	11	5	7	14	0
Victoria	1,033,052	6,906,706	583,856	6	13	9	0	11	4	8	9	1
New Zealand	578,482	3,882,428	431,509	6	14	3	0	14	11	11	2	0

Mr. Fisher.—I will read the figures given in the education paper laid on the table this session, if the House wishes it. I did not read them before, for the reason already given, that the figures do not show in each case exactly what they cover. However, here they are:—

Country.	Compulsory Age-limit.	Comparison of Cost on Average Attendance.			Are Fees paid by Pupils?
		£	s.	d.
New South Wales	6-14	4	16	8	Yes.
Queensland	6-12	4	8	0	No.
Victoria	6-15	4	3	9¼	No.
South Australia	7-13	4	1	1	Yes.
Now Zealand	7-13	4	3	3	No.
Canada (Ontario)	7-13	2	14	9	No.
England and Wales	5-13	2	5	4	Yes.

Now, upon examining this table two things will be observed. In two countries the cost is very much lower than the cost in New Zealand; and in three countries the pupils pay fees, which very much reduces the cost of the system to the State. For instance, in New South Wales each pupil pays a fee of 3d., and last year the fees so paid amounted to no less a sum than £63,164. So that the figures in their naked form as they stand in the table do not furnish an accurate comparison. I have spoken of the difficulty of making a comparison. Let me for one moment dwell upon that difficulty, and illustrate it further. The figures in the table just quoted, as I have already stated, are taken from the education paper prepared by Mr. Habens, the Inspector-General of Schools. The same paper contains this paragraph:—

"The figures that follow are taken from the 'Report of the Committee of Council on Education' for 1885-86. The cost of 'maintenance'—'i.e., salaries of teachers, books, repairs of furniture and buildings, lighting, and warming' (p. xxxiv.)—is stated at page xxxviii. the cost in Board schools is as follows: In London, £3 7s. 10¾d.; in England, including London, £2 6s. 2¼d.; in England and Wales, £2 5s. 4d.; in England, excluding London, £1 18s. 6d.; in Wales, £1 15s. 9¼d. The corresponding figures for the voluntary schools are—£2 2s. 3¾d.; £1 15s. 10¾d.; £1 15s. 9½d.; £1 15s. 4¼d.; £1 13s. These figures are to be compared with £3 16s. 8d. for New Zealand."

I leave the paragraph, coupled with the table in the left hand column, to explain itself Then, again, in England the schools are maintained by grants from the State, by fees, and by rates upon the school district,—the school rate in the London metropolitan district being as high as 8¾d. These varied conditions, I say, make it almost impossible to make any accurate comparison between the cost of the school system of one country and the system of another. But let me ask what the people of New Zealand would say if they had to pay school fees as in New South Wales and South Australia, or if they were rated to maintain their schools as in the case of England. Nest, it is said that our system is costly because ire educate more children in proportion to population than do the adjoining colonies. I do not find that that is so. Upon examining the figures supplied in the reports of the Education Departments of New South Wales and Victoria for the year 1886, which have just come to hand, I find the number of schools and the average number of children in attendance to be,—

1886.	Number of Schools.	Average Attendance.
New South Wales	2,170	105,538
New Zealand	1,117	80,028
Victoria	1,846	123,550