ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13324, 2 November 1906, Page 7

ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE.

QUESTIONING A PAYMENT! DISCUSSION AT ANGLICAN SYNOD. Is pursuance of notice, Mr. W. J. Speight moved at the Anglican Diocesan Synod sittings!, yesterday, " That the attention of the General Synod be called to the item of expenditure appearing in the report of the trustees of St. John's College, presented this session, viz., '£150 was paid last year to the governors to meet a claim made upon them.'" >> In speaking to the motion, Mr. Speight related the,events leading up to the payment of the sum of £150 to a student. The student, who held a Marsh scholarship, had been at St. John's College 12 months, when something occurred which caused the then warden to give Mm notice to leave the college. That was the mildest way he (the speaker) could put it. The student appealed, and in his appeal, while admitting he had done things which he ought not to have done, and for which he apologised, absolutely denied other things, and asked for an inquiry. The matter was discussed by the governors, and during the discussion it came out that the warden claimed to himself the right of discipline of any student, and denied the right of the governors to deal with his decision. He (Mr. Speight) thought he was right in saying the governors held there should be inquiry,, and the warden, who had been supported by at least the chairman, tendered his resignation, which was received at a full meeting of the board. At a later meeting of the board, from which two members were absent, the warden was asked to withdraw his resignation, without anything being done for the principle involved, regarding which the resignation was handed in. The student, who in the meantime had been ejectedit would be noticed he (Mr. Speight) said "ejected," not "expelled' - — had not been tried, and the- governors, without inquiry of a formal character,- decided to terminate the scholarship at the end of the year. The student appealed to the law, and after numerous negotiations it was finally found, months after, that the governors were out of court in determining the scholarship, which was tenable for five years. If the governors found they had no standing, and 'the scholarship was wrongly determined, they should have tried the student, and, if lie was guilty, expelled him, and if innocent, he should have been readmitted to the college. The governors apologised to the student, and paid him £150, but- instead of that payment the student should have been restored his scholarship. The governors had no money to pay that £150, so they appealed to the trustees, and a. special meeting of trustees was called, at which four members were present, and the notice-paper gave under the heading of " business," "re Marsh scholarship." In order to make good the money'required to put the governors in a. position to pay, they took from the Purewa Cemetery fund the sum of £150." He moved the. -/notion, standing in his name. (Applause.) '."- ; ; . The Rev. Canon Nelson seconded tne. motion. He happened to be both a governor and a trustee, and he thought it only right-the Synod should'pass the motion, but f whether it did or not, the General ; Synod must inquire into the item. The whole policy, both of the governors and the trustees, had been utterly'arid entirely wrong. He had been put in the delicate position of having to bring up a. report ' with which he was. practically, in opposition, and he thought it only';fair , the Synod-should pass the motion. ■' '."Mr.; Upton, after .'.referring to 'Mr Speight .as the apparent guardian of the Conscience of the Synod, went on to saythat.oilier trustees as well as Mr. Speight had tried to do their duty. The governors were in. no sense responsible to the trustees for payments made. Quite recently ,I*s■'•.was; of opinion it was impossible to take from the trustees the responsibility for the 'acts of the governors, and the questTOnnv'ls referred to the solicitors,'as ;to whether v :>. tlie governors were' responsible to the ; trustees, and the reply was that ' the : governors were responsible to the Synod alone. What had happened was that; a, student was appointed to a Marsh scholarship, on the method "adopted in: former years, namely, for one year, and if the. "warden reported satisfactorily, the governors reappointed that student at tlie.end of the year. It. was discovered by the"{Student's solicitor', that the scholarship could not be given for one year, and it must -be- for -five years, and an action was . brought to recover £280, for the balance of the scholarship. The governors, he understood, said it would be a highly inadvisable course to pursue to send the student back to college, having once determined the scholarship, and on that point he (the speaker) quite agreed. Instead of the £280 claimed, £150 was accepted, and thereby much litigation and probably heavy costs were saved, for, as far as he was able to understand, the student had a good case. It had been decided years before that profits from Purewa cemetery should go to St. John's College, so there was no mistake, and the payment had been quite legal on the part of the trustees. If the governors spent the money wrongly, they were not responsible to the trustees, but" to the General Synod. Was it the trustees' business to force them into _ the Supreme Court and have their dirty linen washed there'' A Voice: " Far better." Mr. Upton said he did not agree with that idea, and thought it would have been an evil thing to go to the Supreme Court, for the. student would certainly have won, and there would have been costs as well. The Rev. W. Beatty said Mr. Upton' thought the trustees had acted wisely, and the. governors had acted wisely, because they had saved money by not going to the Supreme Court The strong probability was that the Supremo Court would, have ordered those of the governors who were- responsible for the blunder to defray the money out of their own pockets. He would like also to point out that whereas the trustees were very liberal in granting £150 " for general purposes," those " general purposes" being to repair a blunderhe supposed they made so many blunders that to repair a blunder was " general purposes" and whereas the trustees paid the £150 quite cheerfully, the trustees since then had haggled over every coin when an attempt had been made- by the. present warden to restore the college to something like order and efficiency. The present students had to suffer for thai £150. He believed in the interests of the Church, but he did not believe the interests of the Church were to be served by expediency. The Rev. Mr. Monckton .saw no good in the motion. It might be they would have to appeal, for very great help for St. John's College, and that was not the way to go about- it. The motion was then put to a division and lost, there being no majority in any of the orders. The voting was: Clergy— Ayes, 17; noes, 23. Laity—Ayes, 18: noes, 18.