South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1884.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3486, 7 June 1884, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1884.

Last night’s public meeting was not so successful ns we had hoped, but this arose out of causes which were distinctly preventible. The fact is, a very large number of people were fully prepared to join a Political Eeform Association on its initiation, and a still larger number were prepared to do so after a plan of operations had been unfolded, and some progress had been made. The bulk of last night’s audience left the room with their ardor somewhat damped and their minds quite uninformed as to the line of action it was intended to pursue. This was the natural consequence of want of management, and though we are convinced no more serious result will follow than a little delay in setting to work, we feel bound to point out to the promoters for their future guidance where they erred. The error was one for which we were not prepared, and it was put—though not very happily—by Mr Sando, viz., that care had not been taken to unfold the programme of the Association and to show distinctly what its objects were. The consequence was that when the time came for enrolment, instead of all those present (or a majority of them) coming forward to append their signatures—most of the people quitted the room. Subsequently those who had enrolled themselves proceeded to form the Association, and decided to convene a large public meeting at an early date. Now we trust with their present experience the Association will bring forward someone to lay before that meeting, their real objects. There Is real work to do, and there are objects to be attained which are clear and distinct enough to us and the newly enrolled members, and no time should be lost iu specifying them. At last night’s meeting there was a capital audience, numerous, earnest and attentive, and it was, therefore, the more to

be regretted that they should have been allowed to disperse without being more fully informed of what the Association aimed at accomplishiug. The speeches that were made were not lacking in merit. In particular Mr Ember’s opening speech was a most earnest and moderate and convincing address, and the frequent genuine applause with which he was greeted, showed that the audience fully appreciated him. At the same time he confined himself too exclusively to a review of the condition of the colony—he should have enlarged more upon the objects sought by himself and the other promoters of this excellent movement. We counsel the Committee to adopt an energetic course, to take time by the forelock and call the next public meeting within a very few days, and be prepared to give that meeting more full and satisfactory information than they have yet furnished.

We must set ourselves right on two points in connection with corporal punishment in the Public School. Mr Scott, in the course of- his remarks, seems to have stated that our leading article, of which the Conference was the outcome, was written for the purpose of making out a case against the teachers ; and Mr Ingram, a member of the Committee, to have depreciated the value of the article in question by observing that newspaper articles were often founded in the imagination of the writer. To these observations we must reply. In the first place we never had any idea, whatever of making out a case against the teachers—nor had we any “ case” of undue punishment in our eye. We took the matter up on general, public grounds, and asserted (what is an indisputable fact) that corporal punishment is allowed to be inflicted by too many persons in the school. We brought no charge of brutality, we made no sweeping allegation, we made a calm statement in the public interest. That this is very generally recognised we are happy to learn, and that it has led to this conference is most gratifying. We have the utmost sympathy with the teachers in their arduous duties and peculiar position. Our heart is with them in their work, and when we have occasion to touch on matters of school discipline (which wc never do on insufficient data or ex parte statements) we do so, as a perusal of the article in question will show, with the utmost regard for the reputation and feelings of the teachers. Briefly, our theory is that not the Head Master only ; but only the respective departmental head teachers in the school should be permitted to inflict corporal punishment, and that for subordinate teachers to be licensed to use the rod at their pleasure, is most undesirable, both for themselves and for the pupils. Regarding the implication that our remarks were founded in the imagination of the writer, wo have little to say beyond this—that wo are not given to employing any imaginative faculty we may have in filling our leading columns. When wo make statements we do so on satisfactory data. In this instance we pursued no exceptional course. That wc have done service, and that the matter has been enquired into and placed on an entirely different footing in the school since the appearance of the article, wo have

j reason to know, and it affords us the highest pleasure to have done what we hoped to do—a genuine public service.