THE WANGANUI ENDOWED SCHOOL BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4816, 29 August 1876, Page 3

THE WANGANUI ENDOWED SCHOOL BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sib, —Your issue of this morning contains a letter from the Bishop of Wellington in reference to the Wanganui Endowed School Bill, on which, with your permission, I should like to say a few words. His Lordship says that you have been misled by a false recital in the Bill, and adds that he writes with the original grant before him. I am therefore perfectly prepared to accept his version of the grant as the correct one, and I may say that it is more in accord with the provisions of the Bill than the recital of the Bill itself. The only difference is, that the original grant contains the words, “ children of our subjects of both races,” which are omitted in the copy recited in the schedule of the Bill. Both however recite that the grant was intended for the education of children of poor and destitute persons. Now, as to the falsehood of the recital, let me say that the original grant, being in the “ custody” of the Bishop, was not open for public inspection, and the “ record copy ” of the original grant contains the precise words quoted in the schedule of the Bill. His Lordship says that “he will not venture to offer any conjecture as to why the grant was not correctly cited in the Bill.” I presume therefore that he could not have been perfectly aware that the schedule of the Bill was correctly quoted from the record copy of the grant. I fail entirely to see the positive misstatement of the Royal Commissioners which seems evident to the Bishop. The Commissioners state “ that the whole of the land had been laid off in quarter-acre sections,” and this, as his Lordship himself admits, was perfectly true. The fact that the land had not been selected either in quarter-acre sections or five-acre blocks, has nothing whatever to do with it. Theland was then, and is now, included within the town belt, and has never been excluded from any definition of the town of Wanganui that has ever fallen within my observation. His Lordship says “ it is difficult to conceive what class of boys could be excluded ” by £6 per annum. I say his conception might be assisted by the terms of the grant, “ children of destitute persons.” The Bishop suggests that the alleged breach of trust ought to be tried by a court of law rather than by the Legislature. I am told that he has frequently declared that if it should be tried by a court of law and go against him in this celony he would carry it to the Privy Council. Now, rather than see the estate squandered in law costs, I would say let the Bishop keep it. If he desires an expensive law suit at the cost of the estate, I do not think that King Solomon, if he were here, judging by his celebrated decision, would pronounce the Bishop of Wellington the true mother of the trust. Nor do I think that the decision given by the House of Representatives a few days ago on the Wanganui Endowed School Bill is by any means its final decision. —I am, &c. John Bktce. August 28,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Sib, —ln a letter to this day’s Times, Bishop

Hadfield points oat an omission in the copy of the deed establishing an industrial school at - Wanganui, as printed in a schedule to the Bill lately before the House of Representatives. His Lordship no doubt quotes the deed accurately ; the words supplied by him are necessary to bring out its meaning; but I have noticed the same omission in all the copies hitherto in circulation. It arises very likely from the fact that there has been no access to the original document. I do not, however, see that the added words very materially help the Bishop’s case. First, —Does not the word “other” indicate or assume that the clause immediately preceding it also refers to “ poor subjects ? ” Unless the antecedent clause does SO, the word “ other,” followed by the words “ poor and destitute persons,” seems entirely out of place. If the previous part of the sentence has no such intent as I have suggested, the word “other” should have been eliminated, so that the reading of the deed would be—“ for the education of children of our subjects of all races and of children of . (not other) poor and destitute persons,” &c. It is not so. But secondly,— Suppose we assume that the grant is not intended chiefly, if not entirely, for the children of poor and destitute persons, what of the proviso that it shall continue so long (and, I presume, only so long) “ as religious education, industrial training, and instruction in the English language shall be given to the youth educated therein or maintained thereat ?” This proviso seems to me to be of the very essence of the grant, and failure here would mean complete, although unintentional, misfeasance. I shall not give an opinion on this point; but I may state what is known to myself. I am not aware that the teacher communicates religious education to the boys attending the school I am perfectly sure that he does not give them industrial training ; and I am also equally sure that no youths are maintained thereat. So much £br. this point. The Bishop finds it difficult to conceive what class of boys, at the present rate of wages; an annual charge of £6 would exclude from this school. Possibly because my experience has lain in quite other directions from that of his Lordship, I find no difficulty, not only in conceiving, but in knowing a class of boys excluded by such a fee. But the exclusion in the particular case under consideration does not arise so much from the amount of the charge as from the significant indications given, from time to time, that the attendance of a certain class would be undesirable : this certain class being the one which, in the judgment of simple people, should have been preferred according to the terms of the grant. It seems a small matter whether the land held in trust originally formed a portion of the town of Wanganui or not. _ Arguing from the boundaries, as defined in the deed, one would naturally come to the conclusion that it did; at all events the land is now an integral part of the town. I see no reason, however, to wish for any change of trustees on that score. The present trustees are just as capable of leasing for town purposes, and administering the land properly, as any that may be ap-

pointed. I should seek for no better. The question is one not of land administration but of education. I quite agree with his Lordship, more especially after the recent parliamentary debate on the subject, that the Supreme Court, and not the Legislature, is the proper place to have the whole question discussed and settled. The Wanganui members, with the very best intentions, made a mistake. The Borough Council of Wanganui threw away one favorable opportunity of having it legally settled :. it must try and make' another for itself ; there is now no other course. ■ I have no idea that the cost will be at all so great as is supposed. The interest I have taken in this quest : on for a number of years, must be my apology for trespassing on your space.—l am, &c., W.H. August 28.