The Press. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1877.

Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3823, 23 October 1877, Page 2

The Press. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1877.

The Board of Education have held ; their inquiry into the ease of Mr. Matthews. Our readers will remember that Mr. Lynekey forwarded a complaint against Mr. Matthews, assistant master of the Kaiapoi School, of having taught English history in a manner j offensive to members of the Boman; Catholic Church. Mr. Lynskey Had bad reason to make a similar complaint on a former occasion in the case of j the head master. The Committee had j then informed him that they con- j sidered the master's reply satisfactory, j but had cautioned him "not in any i " way to interpret or explain items of i " history in a manner which might "tend to the belief that he was " favouring. any aect r or denomination "at the expense of another." •' The j " system of education," they went onto say, "in force in this province is " strictly unsectariau, and any teacher " counected with the school who in I" this respect departs from the " regulations laid down in the ' Ordinance, will be punished with " instant dismissal." The true principle was here clearly affirmed, and the promise that it should be rigorously enforced was sufficiently explicit. Subsequently, however, Mr. Lynekey, considering from Mr. MatthewsV conduct that the promise had not been kept, announced his intention of appealing to the Board of Education. The Committee also applied to the Board to institute " a thorough " investigation into the matter." The Board instructed their Secretary to visit Kaiapoi and take notes of the facts; and Mr. Habene's report was laid before them at their last meeting. From the statement of Mr. Lynskey's boy, it appears pretty plain that expressions were used on the occasion referred to which might easily give offence to a sensitive Soman Catholic. Mr. Matthews's account of the matter is that, "according to his eastern," after the boys had written out the list of dates, he proceeded to give an oral lesson, that on eueh occasions he encourages the boys to ask questions, and that eeveral were asked during the lesson under review. He is sure that, among others, questions as to the meaning of the words "sup- " pression " and " monasteries " were put to him. He says that in his reply he gave the meaning of the words, and added that the monasteries were found not to answer at that time the purposes of their foundation, but that he said nothing as to tbTe character of the monks. He desired it should be noted that he had in other lessons spoken of the monasteries as being in early times seate of learning and very ueeiul institutions. Upon this statement the Board came to the conclusion that the charges against Mr. Matthews had not been proved. They, however, " think it de «* sirable that teachers should care- " fully guard against dealing with " questions of history in a manner " which might be offensive to any sec- " tion of the community." Perhaps if the above were all that was known of tbe matter, we should not object very strongly to the conclusion come to by the Board, co tar as Mr. Matthews is concerned. But the case is notoriously otherwise. This is the third statement which Mr. Matthews has put before the public re- .

specting his conduct on the occasion complained of. In his first letter, in reply to Mr. Lynekey *"»*!£..»» "J cepted the whole respoiwibility of the acte alleged, and justified his I course of teaching on the ground j that it was acceptable to the great, body of parents and a fulfilment of to ; duty as a schoolmaster. He declared it his special function bo to tram up the young minds committed to his charge asto preserve them from super"stitious credulity and priestly « tyranny." He refused ix> have his teaching'restrained "in deference to " the prejudices of any mdmdual-or "denomination" And he embellished his letter with a peroration in which he Bcornedthe idea of extinguishing the truth "at the instigation ot "pirates and wreckers." In hie second letter all this was toned down very considerably. He denied that he ever indulged in any anti-Catholic exhortations. He described what he had said as being nothing more than a simple explanation of some words the meaning of which had been asked by the boys. And he also gave it to be understood that at that part of the lesson Mr. Lynskey's boy was not present. Thirdly, in the statement given to Mr. Habens,lie no longer insists that the boy was not present; and the boy distinctly asserts that he was there throughout. Mr Matthews's anxiety to have it inferred that the boy was absent goes to imply that something was being said which it was not desirable that he should hear. And it there was no anti-C itholic teaching, why was it so strongly and hotly insisted upon in Mr. Mathews s first letter? It is perfectly evident from that letter that he takes up history, not forthe purpose of teaching history itself, but as a weapon against what he looks upon as superstition and priestcraft ; and that the whole tone and spirit of his teaching are precisely of that sectarian character which it is the express duty of the Board to put down. It must be borne in mind that this is not the first time that there has been a complaint. In the first instance, the teaching of the headmaster was objected to. And on that occasion also, as in the present, the nrst impulse of the master was, not m any way to disprove the charge made, but to justify what he had done. Mr. Eayner peremptorily denied Mr. Lynskey's right to interfere with his teaching. He contended that if the boy's scruples were offended by the lessone, the proper course for him was to use the privilege granted by the Ordinance of staying away. Except in one instance, he did not pretend to I dispute the etatemente made ty Mr. Lynskey. And he justified himself by Collier, referring the Committee to the pages on which they would find mention of all the matters objected to by Mr. Lynskey. It appears, however, that Collier is not used in the school. So that Mr. Bayner went outside of his own text book, and took up Collier only for the purpose of extracting the particular passages that might be made to tell against the Soman Catholics. His letter showed that he was ready and willing to go as far as he could find excuse for giving to instruction an anti-Catholic turn. And Mr. Matthews, imitating and improving on his principal's example, roundly declares that it must be the first obiect of every conscientious master to instil such lessons of history as will guard the minds of the young against being enslaved by Bomisli domination. The fact, we believe, simply is that the school is suffering from the unhappy dissensions in Church matters that prevail in Kaiapoi. Party feeling i* running high, and the animosities which rage without are rife also withm the school. The teachers have taken sides, and act in all the spirit ot partisans. The teaching Mr. Lvnskey objects to is not directed primarily against his co-religionwts; it is Mr. Carlyon who is aimed at. Every hit at the Catholics is in reality dealt at that section of the Church of England with which Mr. Carlyon is identified. This appears plainly from Mr. Matthewee first fetter. His allusions to the parents in Kaiapoi who " pay a wholesome " and wise attention to the events | " happening round them," and "who " wish their children to be forearmed " against superstitious credulity," are unmistakeable. In plain English, he means to say:—Mr. Carlyon is teaching Eomish error, and 1 hold it my duty to use my opportunities ot counteracting him, by exposing the errors and superstitions of the Church of Home, and filling the young minds of my pupils with sound Protestant doctrine. We do not know whether this state of things has influenced the Board. Possibly they feared that any interference on their part would only serve to foment and intensify the existing discord. Or they may have shrunk from taking any action that might be construed as giving their official countenance to either of the contending parties. Or, even unconsciously to themselves perhaps, their sympathy may have disabled their judgment, and Ijiey may not have found it in their hearts to be forward in rebaking a zeal which, if somewhat imprudently exhibited, was manifested in the right cause Whatever the reason, their enquiry was lamentably ineffective. It did nothing at all to clear up the matter. It gives no impression of having been undertaken in earnest. The Board could not avoid the enquiry after the formal referience which had been made to them by the Committee; but-the way I in which they nave dealt with it is that of being only anxious to get decently rid of the subject. They entirely ignored the fact that the complaint las a reiterated one. I^*** o * .{"J" bracing the whole matter within their enquiry* they confined the investigation strictly to one pw^P 0 whether on a certain particular occaeion certain objectionable expressions were made use Jf. Even within these limits, they did not take the j obvious means open to them of ehdting the truth They examined only twoper«raß, the maeter and the boy. When

the statements of these two differed, they accepted the master's version without challenge, and passed un- j noticed "Mr. Habens's suggestion as to the means of obtaining further evidence. In whatever way it is looked at, whether we regard the narrow range allowed to the enquiry or the insufficiency of the steps taken to ascertain the facts, the whole proceeding is most unsatisfactory. The perfunctory enquiry was nttingly terminated by the resolution in which the Board convey their final decision. Instead ot enforcing with all their authority the principle laid down by the Committee, they appear to consider the existence of sectarian bias as a thing of minor moment—not, certainly, to be desired, but by no means necessarily to be condemned. Theßoardhavenotundeistood the duty with which they have been entrusted by the Legislature. Within the whole sphere of their functions, there is none of such supreme importance as that of preserving throughout every part of the educational system an absolute freedom from every species of denominational tendency. The best masters, the best local Committees, will always be in danger of being under the influence ot local jealousies, and, more than all, ot sectarian differences. A gainst these it is the paramount duty of the Board to interpose. Whatever else it does, it will fail if it does not accomplish this. The most perfect organisation, the most economical management, the highest range of teaching, will all be thrown away, if the public cannot repose entire confidence in the maintenance of absolute impartiality between religious creeds. The Kaiapoi case affords the first instance in which this essential qualification has been called on for exercise. We are sorry that the Board has not been better able to stand the test.