I do not think that the Board has power to defer the examination of teachers in the manner proposed or to ante-date the payment of the salary of a teacher.

It is quite clear that the Board has no right to insist upon visiting any school for which a special Inspector has been appointed, nor can they insist upon being present when the teacher of any such school is examined, unless the teacher wishes a first class certificate, otherwise the proviso in clause 17 would be useless; it was in fact inserted for the express purpose of preventing personal inspection by the Board.

I submit that the Board has no right to require more than the Law; if the Law is defective let it be amended in the next session of the Provincial Council. I shall be happy to give any further opinion to the Board.

FREDK. W. MERRIMAN,
Provincial Law Officer.

29th May, 1857.

The Board of Education beg to submit to His Honor the Superintendent, that the opinion given by the Provincial Law Officer with reference to the right of the Board to claim admittance to all Schools applying for aid, previous to their being received into connexion, did not meet the point which was in the minds of the members of the Board when they put the question to him.

The Board did not desire to know whether they had any right to enter a School for which a special Inspector had been appointed, which was the question answered by the Law Officer, but whether in the case of Schools applying for aid, and which have not yet been received into connexion, and for which therefore no special Inspector could be appointed, the Board have a right, as a preliminary step before coming to a decision whether they will receive the School into connexion or not, to demand admittance for the purpose of ascertaining the fitness of the Teacher to conduct a School.

The Board further desire to know from the Law Adviser, whether in his opinion the proviso in clause 17 of the Act, is to be interpreted as relieving them from the responsibility of satisfying themselves with the moral character and fitness of the Teacher to conduct a School, in the case of Schools established for one year, prior to the passing of the Act, and claiming exemption from examination.

In answer to the questions contained in the memorandum forwarded by the Board of Education, I am of opinion that the Board has no right to demand admission into any School established before the passing of the Education Act, 1857, provided the Teacher shall for the term of one year have been regularly employed as a Teacher therein, and shall be content to be classed as a second class Teacher. I think this is the only interpretation which can be put upon the clause consistently with itself and the remainder of the Act, for it appears to me that the whole object of the proviso was to avoid personal inspection by the Board. If the Board is to be allowed to inspect and personally examine the School and Teachers, why should the Teacher submit to be classed as a Teacher who has received a certificate of the second degree.

If my reading of the clause is correct, and I feel no doubt upon the subject, the Board will clearly be relieved from the responsibility of satisfying themselves with the moral character and fitness of the Teacher to conduct a School in the case of a School for which exemption is claimed. I think the Board is bound to accept the certificate of the patron of the School as prima facie evidence of fitness, but if prepared to prove the contrary, the clause is so worded as to allow further investigation.

FREDK. W. MERRIMAN,
Provincial Law Officer.

8th June, 1857.

Auckland, 15th June, 1857.

Sir,—I beg leave to forward to your Honor the enclosed document, containing the resignation of their Commissions by those Members of the Board of Education whose names are given in the margin, and the reasons for such resignation, together with reasons of dissent from the Provincial Law Adviser’s opinion.

I have the honor to be;

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

ARCH. CLARK.

His Honor
the Superintendent
of the Province of Auckland.

I, David Bruce, Commissioner under the Education Act for the Province of Auckland, in my own name, and in the name of those other Commissioners who may adhere to me, dissent from the opinion of the Provincial Law Adviser on the points submitted to him, which opinion was laid on the table of the Board, at its meeting held on the 10th day of June, as being contrary to the spirit and letter of the aforesaid Act on Education, generally, and of the 17th clause of the Act especially—for the following reasons:—

I. By the spirit of the Education Act, seeing that the Act provides for the granting of money in aid of secular education only, and prohibits any interference with the religious instruction that may be given in schools applying for aid, the Board of Education is clearly supposed to have full liberty to ascertain in every case, and in the manner which they may consider the most satisfactory, the fitness of teachers to conduct a school, previous to their being taken into connection with the Board.