CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5617, 19 September 1883, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

(THE HIGH SCHOOL " SENDING -"" AWAY" CASE..

v VO THB BDITOB OB JHB RB-SS. Sm, —WiU you kindly mc space for a few remarks on tfara portion of Mi Miller's case, which is not sib ju&ice. I refer to the correspondence respecting the punishment of one of the toys in December last. One of the, in&mbers of the Board—Mr Grigg, I Mr MUler_ conduct in the matter as prevaricating. I have read and carefully weighed the correspondence, and confess that Mr Grigg -might quite as correctly have called it port wine or Swedish turnips; either term is as germane to Mr MiUer. conduct as that applied by Mr Grigg. The case presented in the published correspondence discloses the foUowing facts:—That two boys for a very serious offence (which might have issued in loss of life), were depriveji of their hoUdoys tiU the end of the 'term, that is, for two weeks, for the offence .6c-

curred early in December j that bothjboys refused; to take their' punishment, and absented themselves from school on .the foUowing Saturday afternoon, that for this : act of- defiance they, were 'fsent away" from school. Ia Mr Miller's memo, to the boy's guardian, he states that the boy- is " sent away," in his letter to the Chairman, of the Board he uses the some phrase.' Both memo, and letter were written oh tbe 4th of December, the day on which the boys were "sent away." So far att -is clear, and nothing more, probably, would have been heard of the ease had not Mr Miller, in the irritation of the 1 moment, threatened to " expel" the boys, and explained to them what expulsion involved. Naturally the boys' guardian, and their parents read into the technical worn " sent away," the meaning expulsion, _ad /as" naturaUy were very much grieved and, annoyed. Hence the correspondence which followed. That Mr Miller was acting: within the scope of his powers, either in expelling or sending awoy the boys,Ys-d,be admitted by aU persons familiar with English public schools. Therefore he is to be oonunend-d for inflicting the lesser punishment involved in " sending awoy." Where he is, in . _ay opinion, to blame is that he did not explain

lin his letter to the parents the meaning of the phrase "sent away/* -It nright hove been assumed that irritated parents or guardians would put the worst construction on the term. , This default is, I think, Mr Miller's sole mist-Ice in the matter, and it is due, probably, to his own, familiarity with a highly technical term. The punishnM_ts a» not tea severe— ___ lo_ll OI TOO. an 4. ooccaiatwy, -0.0 _coaza-s treatmeixtof t_e case —» highly credltaLl* to that body. YXhey uphold the autliority., of the head master throughout. The only; n__take whkh the: correspondence discloses on their part is contained in the last, letter <jf the series, wh«u the'Chao-£an-gratiutously informs his correspo43*nt

that the head master has no power to expel a boy "for good." Such power is exercised by the head master in every public school in England, and unless Mr ifiUer has been expressly deprived of it, he has a right to assume that he is in possession of it here. WhUe I approve of the action of the Board in the treatment pf this case, yet I think the pubUcation of xhe correspondence reflects upon the wisdom of that body. Its tendency is to injure - the school. I conclude, therefore, that some strong motive was at work to* induce them to consent to its pubUcation, ond that that reason was Mr Grigg's charge of prevarication, which was best exploded !,by the correspondence itself. The remedy, *Tiowever, is almost as bad as the disease. -"••■'■"■■■'■•'■ Tours, Ac., •.,-■:■ ■'■-'-: i On or thb Pabbnts.