CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr Allen moved the following three resolutions on the eubjeofc of oorporal punishment;— 1 That the Wangaani School Committee muoh regrets that the Education Board has resolved, by a small majority, to sanction the infliotion of corporal punishment by others th»u head teacheis, as it considers that an interval should elapse between the commission of an offence and the, perhaps, hasty and pasßionate infliction of oorporal punishment ; and that the committee hopeß that the board may be able to reconsider its decision. 2 —That the Wacganui School Committee respectfully requests the Education Board to define the meaning of the term " corporal punishment," as applied in its instructions to teachers; and also to determine ia what form, and to what extent oorporal punishment is to be administered by male and female teachers to girls and boys respeotirafly, 3— That a deputation consisting of^ne chairman, the eeoretary, and the mover wait upon the Education Board at its next meeting to lay the foregoing resolutions before it. Mr Allen.in introdue* ing the subject, said that the board pa&aed its resolution by one vote, there* fore it might reasonably be aßked to reconsider it. The editor of Truth had oaid, " the London School Board [the largest and moat important in the .vorld] refased,by a vote of 30 to 15» to band over ths unfortunate children to •;he indiscriminate violence of the assist* ant teach us. * * * I trust the catepaysrs will * * * refuse to reelect; a single one of those who voted in •;he minority." If corporal punishment meant literally punishment by blows on the body, that is to say, not on tha head, or bauds, was it allowable ok proper for men to corporally punish girls, or for women to corporally punish boyß ? Supposing, a3 in many country schools, there wore boys as big as the mistress, how was Bhe to punish them corporally if they resisted. If oorporal punishment meant punishment by blows elsewhere than the body (e.g., on the head or hands) was it allowable ox proper for teachers to box children's ears, at tha risk of rendering them deaf, or to beat them on the hands at tbe risk of breaking the tender bones of the fingers ? What instruments of torture were allowable ? The cane, supplejack, fcawse, ruler - round or flat— birch? flow many blows were to be administered i If a boy and girl oommitted a similar offence in a school where there was only one teacher, was he tobeat the boy and not the girl ? If the boy deserved corporal punishment in the first sense, i.e. blows on the bare body, was the girl who had oommitted a similar offence to escape without blows on the bare body ? Were teachers to deal out oorporal punishment by some definite rule, always in the same proportion ; or were they to be left to their own discretion, or indiscretion f What about hard-handed and eoffchanded children ? Were delicate childreu who committed offences to be exexempted frnm oorporal punishment, or uot ? Why not? Mr Allen then de« soribed some of his own experiences as a pupil and as a teacher, and said that he was certain that blows oftaner caused hardening than softening; and that while blows might have to be appealed to for lying, bullying, indeoenoy, &0,, but only as a last resort — "it was better to rule by love than fear." — Mr Eioh« ards was glad the subject was introduced, as he had been thinking very seriously about it, having heard of b, reoont aase of excessive punishment by an assistaat teacher in the town BohaoL-— Mr W» Austin, iv seconding the ficat resolution, said that his son bad been caned on th > hand by a former Wanganui master, [ and had thus permanently lost the use of one finger. —Major Neili said that he should vote for the second and third resolutions, as he thought oorporal punishment should ba defined and limited, but he considered that the fiißfc would bo likely to bring the oominittee into collision with the board.— Mr Eyre took the Bame view as Major Neill.— The Chairman (3VTr Stavenson) thought that, as the committee had made it known that they would investigate any complaints made in writing, the first ro« solution was unnecessary, but he would support the eeoond. — On a division, Messrs Alien, Austin, and JJichards yoted for, and Messrs Heill, Eyre, and Stevenson against, the first resolution. Foe Chairman gave his ousting vote igainst ifi, aud it was thus loßt. The seoond and third resolutions were oar'ied unanimously,