HL Deb 06 December 1888 vol 331 cc1229-32
THE EARL OF MEATH

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the head master of the Saunders Road Board School was recently fined by the Magistrate at the Hammersmith Police Court for correcting a boy, and the right of appeal refused, although the Magistrate declared that he did not think that a deliberate or grievous assault had been committed; whether this was the Magistrate who recently fined the head master of the Beethoven Street Board School for a similar alleged assault, on which occasion, on appeal to Quarter Sessions, the conviction was quashed, and the Assistant Judge delivered the following judgment:— We are all of opinion in this case that the conduct of the boy was such as to call for chastisement, and even for severe chastisement, and we are of opinion that the punishment to him was not excessive, and we quash the conviction. We think it of the highest importance, having regard to the duties devolving upon the head master of such a school as this, that the discipline should not he weakened by unnecessary interferences with his authority, and we do not think that the appellant has in this case done anything which, as a master, he should he sorry for after the fullest investigation of the facts in this case; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that the above two decisions of the Hammersmith Police Court magistrate are detrimental to the interests of education and discipline in board schools? The noble Earl said, that head masters and mistresses were placed in a most awkward and difficult position by conflicting decisions of the magistrates. They were placed in positions of authority; they had the control of large numbers of children, many of whom were never submitted to any discipline at all in their own homes, and had no idea of order. The masters were responsible to their employers—the School Board—for main- taining discipline. On the other hand, they possessed very few means of maintaining discipline. There were only two ways—namely, by keeping a child in school, and by corporal punishment. The former of these methods entailed great inconvenience on the master or mistress, as it was necessary to remain in school with a child, and the hours the teachers were obliged to be in the school were already long enough. Moreover, the Clerkonwell Police Magistrate had recently decided that masters and mistresses had no power to detain children after school hours. The result of the decisions alluded to had been that it was almost impossible to maintain discipline in some schools. In one a boy had deliberately refused to read when told to do so, and there had been absolutely no means of compelling him. When the master insisted on obedience the boy said—"You had better not touch me; if you do I shall have you fined again." In another case a boy who had stolen a book denied the theft, but the book was found upon him, and, when threatened with punishment, he made a similar observation to the master. In another case a boy misbehaved in the play-ground, and when the caretaker touched him on the shoulder to point him out, the boy said—"You dare to touch me and you will be summoned." In none of these cases had the masters dared, after the recent decisions, to inflict punishment. The result of the magisterial decision in the case he had mentioned, and others which he had not stated, was to render it absolutely impossible to maintain discipline in the board schools, and unless something was done in the matter by Her Majesty's Government, either the teachers would have to resign, or the children would have to be permitted to do what they liked. If things were allowed to remain as they were, the Education Act would have been a curse instead of a blessing to the country. It was very awkward for a master to be told on the one hand by his superiors that he could punish a boy, and on the other hand to be told by the magistrates that he must not do so. If the decisions of the magistrates were all alike there would be nothing to be done but appeal to Parliament if the matter was thought of sufficient importance, but under present circumstances the masters did not know what they might do and what they might not do. He therefore hoped Her Majesty's Government would see if some regulations could not be laid down stating what corporal punishment might be used in board schools. He thought the cane a very bad instrument, but recommended the salutary effect of the birch rod, which he was sure had been applied with good results to their lordships themselves, not excepting the bench of bishops, in the days of their youth.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

I have communicated with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject, and have received from him the following information, which I will give to the House. It is true that Mr. Herbert Williamson, the head master of the Saunders Road Board School, was recently convicted by the magistrate at the Hammersmith Police Court of an assault upon a boy named Walter Kelly, and that such assault consisted of what the magistrate must be taken to have considered the excessive exercise of the right of disciplinary correction. Mr. Williamson was sentenced to pay a fine of 40s. only, so that no appeal lay. Having regard to the fact that the magistrate, in giving to the Secretary of State his observations on the case, implied that in his opinion there was no deliberate cruelty on the part of the master and no serious injury inflicted on the boy, the Secretary of State directed the remission of the fine. It has been alleged that in a similar case the Quarter Sessions reversed on appeal the conviction by the same magistrate of the head master of the Beethoven Street Board School; but the Secretary of State has no information as to the accuracy of the report of the observations attributed to the Assistant Judge. But, in any case, it must be borne in mind that an appeal to Quarter Sessions is a rehearing, at which fresh evidence can be, and often is, tendered. Though, upon a review of the whole circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State thought it right to remit the fine imposed upon Mr. Williamson, he did not take that course without some anxious consideration, and in announcing his decision to the very experienced Magistrate, whoso decision was under review, he thought it right to observe that cases of corporal punishment were very difficult to deal with, and might very well present themselves to different minds in a different point of view; and he thinks it well to say further now that, having regard to the great difficulty in determining the line at which legitimate correction ends, and excess, and therefore assault, begins, it would be well that school authorities should instruct their teachers to observe, in the infliction of corporal punishment, such a regularity both of time and method as to insure the greatest possible security against excess or temper in the person inflicting such punishment.