BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 5224, 16 November 1877, Page 2

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

- ■ Tbeniolil fortbightly, meetiDgof the Boerd of a t th e Normal Sehpoj tbNftO’iolook yeeterday afternoon; prcwnt —M*»« alnglia (Ohairm*ti) , Webb,Tane«d, ' * .V '. , jV. ~ii CHAIBMAW’a WOBE a Thework donb by (he Ot airman since the IwlißHtingWMapproved. -.Jt'.'tytA it Pf^enjb m 'Of; tbe attendaroea at the : q«#rtei?eQdiip ft Sep£ ,«awFPnmd -ppr-ib* uWfe of ■ returnawere alio laid upon the table, being Hammondronthe p)rcgyeas if *ii {- , ?-t>H h„, imm'umvmtaAmi v •?») it , '•■ ‘9K»i foUo^ig' ; »eViort' of w tbf'R»«wt*l^«Bi, . ;l|»e .abpVe eaiy 1$ the (abie”:~ :’ ? ■ I have tbe.bosonr to aobmit ny report oajfaje ’, enquiry, iWbWH,by ««*»«!#• »9^?L? . gßa«B«frMMfea», tj/uifw *vj ‘ y-? lIAU I'lP. L st.% S'jjff I J

dated Sept 81, had alafcd that four Soman Catholic childsas affirmed that they bad been cased by Mr Howard tor sot readies the Protestant Bible, and for not writing la their oopy-booksth. eubataaee of what had been read from the Bible.. it waano* affirmed that they were punished bec-awaa aa Catbo. Uoa they refused to seed the Bible, < or write Bible town*, bat *lt Is eyldeat that I the. Importance which Am* J*a Lofmra School Committee,(B^dfchg&ejm-attribated to the charge depended •*“eaaa«mption that the children weroreprssenMa* Crtfcplloepnaiahedfor refusing to accept Mr Howard appeared fo diwe that Iwunld coniine the enqni-y to this I 'be icted that the Board would prefer that A-should accept any evidence Stted to throw light on the manner in which religiose teaching at Loburn tfehool effected the obildren of Bo man Catholic parents, I did, however, «f» t*r recognise the reaaoiiableiiei-s ot air Howard's dsslro aa to suggest toMr Binsfleld that beabonld withhold two witnesses, wtose evidence woold prove nothing but that Boman Catholic obildren who did not withdraw from the religions of the aohool were treated as the ordinary pwpila ware treated, and Mr BinafleM accepted the gmyaOf tiOD* OpOD It* . The case* set forth in detail in Mr Blasd-ld’a letter to the Board, dated Dot 29, were six in numler, and the chargee were aefoUqwß~l*t, that William M'ConvUlo hod been.reqalr«d to learn Bible lesson* after his father bad withdrawn him from religious instruction, and that ha bad been i punished in oon- : nectiou with euch lessons. 2nd, that Patrick Cssaeriey bad been punished with cane or hand about every second day for Bva yean, for /salts in connection with Ms Bible lesson*. In this case it was. alleged that- fear of further punishment hindered the pupil from informing the master that the parents objected to the religious instruction, i. 3rd. That Michael Cassetley was similarly punished end for tbe same cause, and for fear of- punishment refrained from delivering the mas. sage that would have procured his exemption. 4th. That Ellen Brady received religious instruction, and' woe punished tor fault# in connection with it, fearing/ to, deliver s message. ' sth. That John Brady refused to road the Bible on the ground that his,mother wished him not to read it, but was still required to hear arid write Bible lessons, and pun. > iebed for failing to do them correctly, nth, That Michael.-Boyle. xeoeivod religious rnatruoticn and was case it was averred that the master had beenininformed.ot.any objection .on. the part of the parents.. .■ ~ * ■ i - The main charge, as generally understood, could not be affepted by either of the > oases - which ara numbered 2nd, 3rd, lit, and' 6th, and of these the 4tb and tor that reason, os I have Btdtod-The fladend-S.d cases seemedt' fo mei 'tospiir,' to deseivo special oo>. sideratinn,- -because*;they appeared to involve a ohnrge of intimidation, as also did tbe 4th In a less degree, and became in them excessive severity was attributed, to tha rnaatex. .‘ impart of the* original charge was withdrawn at ...an. early atsge of the proceedings.; Mr Binsfleld stated that he found be had hesni misinformed, and that, so far as he conld aseertsin no child had bean punishedfor net reading the Bible. Two of the witaisenp ywliuUted that they, had told him that' they; lied'' Men' punished for hot' reading the Bible, batthey declared that they , had made a mistake in teiilnghlm so, or that on reflection they remembered that it was not for not reading the Bible. (Sea minute* of proceedings and evidence, H'Conville’s eviuonca, page 2, and Michael Caaserley'e evidence, page 3.) - , - Also, at an early stage, Hr Binefiold explained that his letter giving! the cases' and details had been written from memory! When fas was away from home, and with the desire to reply to a lettor from the Board with aa little delay as.posaible, and that thuseome inaccuracies si to dates and ages had crept into it, a», for'ezamp7e, the statement that the frequent pnniahment'ol Patrick Cosserley had extended over a period of five years,-whereas be OBght to have mid'“about ..three years.” It is right that I should say that the inccomacisa acknowledged were of little importance. - * The evidence adducodjby Mr I!inafield,if it stood alone and unoontradioted, would prove—lst. That two boys, H*ConviUe - and Brady, were required to writs—Biblei''lessons, although at the desire Of their--parents-- they were- exempt from Bible reading.' .2nd,. That excessive severity was used towards seme of the pupils, not because they were Catholics, lrat because their work, in oonnection with Bible lessons, was not well done. 3rd. That fear of-punishment prevented the delivery of messages: intended to secure exemption from *reUgious Instruction. The evidence. adduced, by Mr Binsfleld ia vary , positive as to the . first: of those points, and.it wi11,.! think, be,-necessary for the Board to weigh tbis-e videnoe vorycoiefully in oomparisoa with tbe teetimony of several witnesses who declare that the custom o( the school was that Qatholio children who desired exemption, or for -whom it'was 'desired, were wholly exempt, from religions ' teaching, - The evidence to thia effect refera not only to the custom ot the aohool! hut also to the individual caaee under consideration. The Charge of excessive severity was weakened by the manner in which Patrick Oisserley gave hie evidence. He stated that be wna -puniihed about every second day, but when I asked him whetherhe could really mean that he was punishedevßry other ■Cay.hweoid, “ Mo. every second day •" and, as the minuteaof hieevidanee wiU iadie*to, ib .was very diffioult,fo get him to be definite as to the frequency of the punishment. .. His mother said that he complained of being knocked down, and begged sot to be sent fasek to school, but when I asked himwbat severest puniahmont ha had received from Hr .Howardbe told, “-caningor boxing,” and to• my question Mr Howard ever knocked him downrho replied! •• So," but explained that he had fallen 'sgumat a slate which another, pupil hold. .He adndtted that he did non think he had reason to bedls satisfied withthe-troatmant he had received Irom Mt Howard. Several witnaaaea deelsred that Ur Howard Had not treated this youth .with peculiar hars)me«o, end one sold, that, cm. the contrary, Mr Howard.seemed to show him more consideration and afford him more help than others received, 'probably because of his lameness, and the greater importanceof edooatios to him on that account. Thera were throe pupils who appear to have affirmed that fear of punishment prevented them from informing Mr Howard that, their parents wished them not to receive religious insrincrion, or rather -not. to ba Uught s*cr«i hi*tory ia the school. I regret that 1 did nob observe that Ellen Brady, who at my suggestion was not. presented aa a wit-ness,-waa one of these. The other two were Patrick Cassesley, the youth last spoken of; end. hie brother Miorael. Patrick Camerley, .when ashed why he , did not deliver the mesShge, replied that he did not like to object to a aohool lesion, and that he had hot courage. Further presatd to toy whether be feared punishment,-ordid not like to make on okjectiou, ho said he did not like to object. Hr Binsflald thereupon handsd in a written statement, signed by the youth, aad attested by a witness, in which it was represented. that .he (eared punishment! and was silent on that account Hie brother, gave evidence that he was afraid Mr Howard would; punish him 1 . . , - , .» . ' The inquiry lasted more than six hours, during which lime I took minutes of proceedings and' evidence, extending to 17 pages of foolscap, the whole of which 1 am- afraid i must recommend the Board.toraad, and which I beg to place in your hands with this report. Hr Binsfleld produced as witnesses William fiTConvllle and hia father and mother, Patriok and Hiohael Casserley, with tbeir mother; and Jobu'Brady." Hr Howard called Mary Weis (Provincial Government scholar) Emily ifodgsomMlaeHodgson,Elizabeth Wells, Boetn&m Pattnok, William Bank* (lately pupil teacher at Bangiora, and now a studentat the Normai.ScbooD, and Amy Barker, all of whom either,.are or have, been pupils' at Loburn school. and was ready to call thirteen others, when 1 suggested that nnicas the' other wituesece were to bo called .to give evidence wbicb was net simply corroborativo of whst had bsen already received it waa jperhapa' unnecessary to .call them, whereuphn Mr Howard agreed to be oon-' ■ tent with hutdlrg -me hie list of This Ust is appended 1 (mth -the written statements obtained on,a;previous inquiry by Mr Binaflstdfroto. • hi* Witneasea) to the ihlt ut to of proceedings.; -SSrhe evidence of Hrs Caseerley refers, amongoth'er m*tteT*. to a point ot which' I have not yet said anything. Ur Biceteld- proposed to aek her whether tbe Catholics of Loburn were aware that they could withdraw,ttwlr -.children from the Bible; lessons witboat removing-them from the school. 1 took exception to; this, on the ground that Mrs Cauorloy ooedd aoti M to rpoak for the Cathoiloe of dietotetottofliit; speak at to her own knowleßnH law. I tried for a long time, wit M-tho - stoiatano* of Hr Bint-, field, Mr Howarai'and tKe'Chairman of the School Com mitteo, to pat this qaestion ia a form in which Hre Caeaerlsy OodM it. At last I askelher If .anyone had told her that ehe could withdrawhar children from-the Bible lea eons with-, oat withdrawing them from the school. Bar answer was “ Nik” But afterwards one ot the audience come forward and affirmed that aha had. asked him to'toy that she now Hr O'Ualloriut had told her she oouW do so. ? Inanst call attaatioa to kha evidonoe of John Brady,-who stated that when he first Came to the •ohodl'he was asked to read the ‘Bible; ahd he re.' fused to do so. In ination he said that he was then ia the fourth class. Ihe evidonoe afterwards given a to the work ot tho school went to show that for several years'the first class only, and for the last few years only the first and second classes rtod the Bible, while the third and fourth classes bad never done so. If 1 understand the witnesses called by Hr Howard, they affirm also that written Bible ieseous were not required from the class to which Jobn.Brady belongedat tbs time at which he atoerts that he waa required to write them. ; m> Howard states that he gave Bible lessons to Catholic children, jast as. to. alt, the others, until he knew that iu any ease exemption wse d -aired, that he granted exemption in every ease a* soon aa it waa sought, and that he never imposed a Bible lesson upon any child to whom exemption had been granted. Be stated that sometimes when such children wore told to choose a subject for compesitioD, they chose to write' on * subject from Bible bistW, with which r from previous instrnotkm they were lamjiar. aud that they tometimea voluntarily ooropeted with the others for prises (of sixpence. on a shilling), which he offered on Friday night tor exeroiro* to be written at home on a given subject in Bible history. Bis witnesses confirmed all these stateB3onl». -towp the okse of the inquiry, Ur Cnncinghsm remarked that it was strange that such charges aa faad now been made had been reserved tor so many years, and that tho committee bad never heard of them. ■ --y - • Tho Key J. F. Binsfleld said thpt he wished to {Withdraw any chargee to which, he had put the sanation ot hie hams, and .whjch had not been'-sub-stantiated', He also repeated ' the’ explanation which he bad already offered to tho Board, of his objsat in calling public attention to the matter. I do not understand the,explanation, aud Ido not thlnk; it j*** - within my .commission to ask Mr BinaMld tO mako it plainer. It seems to me to indicatoa point ot view with which l am unfamiliar. t-WTpMiElfoji -be that Mi', Bint Held hslievw toat the spirit of the tdnoatton Ordinance, and of - the t administration, is r intentionally hostile t(fp bji| takh mw to ito adhersnte. and that a »*»*** whose eoadaot ia .skaneterised by p PP. r *' , ®*° ) “ •ad severity towards Henan Ostboho* is only .eetiße m ; STtMrtors expect him to sot. « I iinsleid'fi moani* g. I the energy vriti wbiefa Mr Howard resente the potation, apt tfcs.sw* vritk which the Board m-. ESI .Efc-I'jJh,;.; ,

£ have the bononr to be, sir l’*“ l \ It wa. roiolv.A to dof«^ mßls6sl ‘ r A 1 Konday weeWafai-d “' t(l , 1 BOEOtGE scnnn, 6 PP^ lcal i oll was made by the n~ of the Colombo road school Pi?®® lll '* the Sjdenham diitriot rohool. that After tome diicastioc it wasi grunt the application if it Could v/? h out a fresh pleotion. b ‘ don « »Hb, BBOOKBIDB SCHOOL. It wm resolved to Mm Vo.r teacher at this icbool, the scale f continue her (ervicei. w > aE( i to ASHLEY BASX, In reply to a letter from Hits p, t „ . who has been teaching at tbe a.ki school, it was decided that she m E »t ? B,ci examination before a certificate ' P u 15 granted to her. * c,a^ aSTIEISO Allow AHeE= A letter wasrtad from Mr /’m, , A.hbnrton, asking the Board to bri-, the. notice of tbe Government the ol m.lb, t. nUring StawSl, maslera who had served in the n-,-' choci ‘ service for a lengthened period, ts E . ,Bt stated tbat he wa* 62 years of he would like to retire. " ’ »nd that It wae resolved to forward the letter Government, with a wcom*sDdatic ß some effect should be given to the tioa. ppuc *- BT. AMAHS. A latter was read from the head t the school at this place in ref s » ce , adverse statement* made by Mr regard to the numbers attend ins tWcS and other matters referred to bj that »«•« ’ man, stating that the same wen ntdoi* w and censorious. . 1 na The members of the Board gave «r • to tho opinion that it would bo a SO od to change the school inspectors ak o tt «I* same way that the teenies o! the fc L; r 6 specters were changed, ' It wm reaoived to write to Mr the subject, it being admitttd ;j7 gentleman’* figure* as original]; 1 wrong, BAST CHBISTCHtTBCH SCHOOL niHg, The Board aanotioned the pajm»u iii *£st> toward* the completion of tbe«eWt», EH.DIBTBIBTJTIOB OP mtTBiJCW. It was decided to divide the Bo&td'ibiu. ■nees, amounting to £IIO,OOO, equally attett the New Zealand, National, South Eritiafa, Standard, and Union offices. ’ TUB MECB3 CASH. It wm'reaoived to have a special meeting o{ tbe Board to consider this ease, and the Board adjourned until Nov 22 for that purpcie.