“THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG.”

New Zealand Mail, Issue 606, 15 September 1883, Page 15

“THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG.”

During the reign of the second of the Stuart Kings, Charles 11.,.0f infamous memory, the nation experienced the evil effects of a sudden and violent transition from a state of rabid democracy and plebian ascendency, to the most abject, degrading, and servile loyalty. An abject submission to’ the will ■ of the King in all things, from the gravest and most important matters of state to the minutest details of life, constituted the principal articleinthecreedofthepoliticians and the religionists of the day. “ The King is above all law.” ‘He is God's vicegerent,” and as such must be obeyed without question. The lives and property of the people are at his command, and he can dispose of them as he thinks fit. This ridiculous and absurd doctrine was screeched in the Houses of the legislature, vociferated in the streets, and yelled from the pulpit of every sycophant minister in the Kingdom. How bitterly the people of England repented of their rashness, how dearly they paid for their infatuation, and how basely they were deceived by the idol of their worship, every student of history knows full well. It has been said, “ history repeats .itself.” Judging from the tone of several articles which have appeared lately in a journal published in the South Island, and devoted to education and literature, history bids fair to repeat itself in a small way in this colony. First, we are treated to a paragraph relating to a misunderstanding between an inspector and the head master ‘of one of the schools. In this paragraph (a somewhat lengthy one), all that can possibly be said from the inspector’s side" of the question is brought out in the most prominent light; but not a word is said from the master’s point of view. This plan of giving publicity to ex parte information may suit a present purpose ; but we venture to predict that, if persisted in, it will be fatal to the usefulness and popularity of the journal referred to. The “ Argus eye ” of the public will very soon discover the “ cloven foot” underneath the silken folds of the outer garment. Secondly, in a succeding number, the members of an Education Board are treated to a tirade of abuse for making inquiry into some alleged mismanagement of their inspector. Members of Education Boards are not necessarily highly educited men. Their business is not to educate ; but to appoint teachers, build and. repair schools, &c.-, and to superintend the general financial arrangements of their districts. Inspectors are the servants of the Boards, and hence these bodies have a perfect right to inquire into any irregularity which is brought under their notice. The next article of the same kind is an attack upon a Teacher’s Association in the South Island, which found fault with some proposals made by the local inspector. The Association is held up to public ridicule and scorn. We do not affirm that the Association acted wisely in passing some of the resolutions (as reported). Further, we are free to admit that the inspector of the district referred to i 3 a gentleman far above the average of men, both as a scholar and an educationist. What we object to in the articles above mentioned is the principle which underlies, and the spirit which evidently animates, the journal that has given publicity to them-. There is an evident desire and intention to sneer at, and make sport of every man, and everybody of men who presume to enquire into the conduct of an inspector. There is an e- ident desire to place these officers “ above all law,” and by sheer force of ridicule to stamp out the first indications of discontent. We admit that ridicule is a powerful weapon, whose keen edge can make all but the boldest flinch ; but it needs to be wielded by skilful hands, otherwise, it is apt, like the boomerang, to rebound, and wound the unskilful operator.- School inspectors have, not unfrequently, difficult and unthankful duties to perform. Indeed, we can understand that the faithful and conscientious discharge of his duty may cause such an officer to make enemies. Hence, when they

perform their duties with strict impartiality, and endeavour, to the best of their ability, to do justice to all, we feel quite sure that the Boards of Education and the public generally will support them. But what we object to is the attempt to get up a false sentimentality, amounting to the admission that these officers can "do no wrong ; that a man, because he is an inspector, is infallible, that his dictum on all points, and in every case is to be received with unqualified acceptation, and that his deliverance is to be a final judgment from which there is no appeal. We wish to take a fair and impartial' view of the case. We pass no opinion on the merits of the cases already referred to. We feel bound, however, to enter our emphatic and vehement protest against the promulgation of the doctrine already indicated. By all means let every legitimate safeguard be thrown around the inspectorial office, but let it not'be understood that the actions of inspectors cannot and must not on any account be inquired into. Once let such a doctrine find general acceptance, and there would be an end to the peace of mind, the liberty, and the independence of the teachers. We feel sure the good sense of the public will not endorse so dangerous a doctrine.