MASTER AND PUPILS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13848, 7 September 1905, Page 3

MASTER AND PUPILS.

IS CORPORAL PUNISHMENT PART OP SCHOOL DISCIPLINE P LAWYERS SAY ‘j YES.” Tlio question of corporal punishment in schools was brought before the North Canterbury Education Board yesterday, and interesting opinions wore submitted by lawyers. The subject has arisen again owing to the action of Mr W. Had on, of Probbleton. On Juno 5, in the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court, Mr Hadetn claimed £lO from Mr A. Bromley, master of the Prebhloton School, on account of damages alleged to havo boon caused by the infliction of corporal punishment on Ids daughter. The case was brought with the object of ascertaining whether or not the child, who was said to bo in had health, could be sent to the school without having to undergo corporal punishment. The Magistrate, Mr H. W. Bishop, said that the master was not justified, in face of a letter from Mr Haden, in inflicting corporal punishment, and if the school could not be run without the infliction of corporal puin islnnent, the proper course would bo. to expel the child. 'Mr Hadcn was, therefore, awarded 40a and costs. Mr Hadeu has written to the North Canterbury Education Board, stating that his ‘daughter is in such a state .of health that corporal punishment is detrimental to her. He asks whether she will be accepted as a scholar in any school under the Board’s control on the understanding that sho is not to receive any corporal punishment. He adds, he is aware that in certain circumstances a child is liable to bo expelled.' The subject war, referred by the Appointments Committee to -the Board's solicitors, Messrs Garrick and Co., who gave a lengthy opinion. They said that the reply which should ho sent to Air Hadeu was that it would be inconsistent with the duty the Board owed to the public 1 and the maintenance of discipline in its schools lor the Board to give the undertaking asked for in respect to Mr Hadon’s child. The Board might'at the same time inform Mr Hadcn that it was a rule of the Board that all children attending its schools ■ should bo subject to tbo discipline of the school which they attended, and that the Board had sufficient confidence in the masters of its schools to leave it to their discretion to determine when tire administration of punishment was necessary, and to believe mat, when they did find it necessary to administer punishment, they would see that the punishment administered was reasonable and proper in eacfr case. The solicitors set out at length a decision given by Sir James Prendergast in the case Hansen v. Cole' in which the master of a State school was sued for an assault in respect of corporal punishment administered to a pupil. His Honor said: “There can be no doubt that where the schoolmaster’s authority over a child arises out of the employment by the parent, the employment being one of contract between the parent and the schoolmaster, tiro parties are able to restrict the authority. and in such cases, if the parent prohibits the master from giving corporal punishment, the master, by continuing to keep the child, would tacitly consent to such a restriction upon an authority which would otherwise he, implied. On the other hand, where a child is placed by the parent at p. school whore the schoolmaster is not such by. virtue of any contract with the parent, as, for instance, an endowed Grammar School, then the parent, by placing his child at the school, tacitly submits the child ■ to-such modes of correction as, being reasonable, ; is in accordance with the. practice or regulations of, the.,school.: If the parent does not intend that suchcorrection should be used,’ his, remedy \yonld be to -remove his child.,,. Even -in-), such"schools as the latter it, perhaps may bo said that the father delegates his authority. - In-the; present eaten the child is at school not by virtue of any contract, nor can the father remove the child, tHat is, he is compelled to have him educated cither at a common school or elsewhere; but, in my opinion, it does not follow that the' father can regulate the mode in which the child is to be corrected when at a common school. In my opinion, the authority arises not out of any supposed delegation of the parents’ authority, but out of the necessities of the case. In onr Education Act, the authority and duty of the master to correct is recognised; the mode of correction is not pointed out; it must, therefore, be intended to bo left, in the absence of regulations to the contrary, to his discretion, subject, of course, to being for a reasonably sufficient cause and reasonably administered. Expulsion is provided as the consequence only when the misconduct is so gross or the disobedience has been ko incorrigible as to bo an injurious example to the other scholars. _ As the Legislature has not provided for the case of misconduct not so gross, or disobedience not so incorrigible, the inference to ho drawn is that such misconduct or disobedience is to gq uncorrected, but that the schoolmaster is . to have the ordinary powers in such a case. A schoolmaster has the right to inflict reasonable punishment. He must exercise reasonable judgment and discretion in determining when to punish and to what extent. In determining what is a reasonable punishment, various considerations must be ’ regarded : the nature of the offence, the, apparent motive and disposition of the offender, the influence of his exa-mole and conduct upon others, and the sox, age, size and strength of the pupil to he punished. Among reasonable persons, much difference . prevails as to the circumstances which will justify the infliction of punishment, and the extent to which it might properly he administered. On account of this difference of opinion and the -difficulty which exists in determining what is a reasonable punishment, and the advantage which the master has by being on the spot to know nil the circumstance?;, the manner. look, tone, gestures' and language of the offender, which are not always easily described, and' thus to form a correct opinion as to the necessity and! extent of the punishment, considerable allowance should he made to the teacher b.y way of protecting him in the exercise of his discretion. Especially should lie have this indulgence when lie 'appears to have acted from good motives, and not from anger or malice. Hence, the teacher is not to he held liable 'on the ground if, the excess of punishment is clearly excessive. and will bo held so in the general judgment of reasonable men. If the punishment be thus clearly excessive, then I he master would he liable for such excess, though ho acted from good motives in inflicting the . punishment, and in His own .judgment considered it necessary and no; excessive, bur if I there was any reasonable doubt wise- j tlicr the punishment was excessive, the j master should -have' the benefit of the j doubt.” _| The solicitors state that there is nothing in the newspaper report to show | that the attention of Mr Bishop had been drawn to the judgment in the case Hansen v. Colo. Probably, if that case had been before him ho would not have held that if the. master could not conduct the school properly without inflicting corporal punishment, lie had no right to take the child,” or that in the. cane before him it wan not a. question of whether the punishment inflicted was excessive, hat" *' whether the schoolmaster was justified in inflicting corpora! punishment at all,” ox that “tho

proper/courso for the master to take ■was to expel tho child and not inflict corporal punishment.” In the solicitor’s opinion, the school, being a public school, and the child eligible as a scholar, tho master had no option, but was bound to take, the child. It is clear law, they say, both under tho statute and on authority, that the child’s misconduct was not such as to justify expulsion. The solicitors maintain that there is no room to doubt the power of a schoolmaster to include corporal punishment as a part of the discipline of his school, or that the law would ! not interfere with him in the exercise of such power unless it should be proved that .he had exorcised it unreasonably. They add that in cases where a master was warned beforehand that a child was of a highly nervous or delicate constitution, and that corporal punishment may possibly affect its general health, a greater responsibility was east upon him of seeing that any punishment inflicted was reasonable and proper in the particular circumstances. Tho Appointments’ Committee informed the hoard yesterday that it had agreed to communicate with Mr Hadon in tho terms of the solicitors’ letter, and tliat the principles laid down by the solicitors in regard to tho .powers ot a teacher to inflict corporal punishment had.been approved. Air T. AV. Adams moved that ..the committee’s report should be adopted. Ho said that it was one of the most important documents that the Board had had to deal with. Air AI. Dalaiel seconded the motion, which was carried.