UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY 
 
 :us,
 
 
 THE 
 
 LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS
 
 THE LAW RELATING TO 
 SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 HENRY W. DISNEY, B.A. 
 
 of Lincoln's inn, and of the midland circuit 
 barrister-at-law 
 
 LONDON 
 EDWARD ARNOLD 
 
 37 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND, W.C, 
 
 publisher to the Inbia (Dffkc 
 
 1893 
 
 [All rights reserz'ed]
 
 T 
 
 m3
 
 
 PRE FACE 
 
 To the many thousands of masters and mis- 
 tresses employed in the schools of all grades 
 in this country it is hoped that this little book 
 will be both useful and interesting. 
 
 For them it is primarily written, with the 
 view of setting before them, in language which 
 is as far as possible kept free from legal techni- 
 calities, a sketch of their rights and liabilities 
 according to law. 
 
 It is intended to deal only with questions 
 which arise strictly from the master's position 
 as a schoolmaster, and it is submitted that the 
 titles of the four chapters cover all points of 
 view from which this position is capable of 
 being regarded. The pages on corporal 
 punishment will, it is hoped, be found espe- 
 
 778830
 
 vi Preface 
 
 cially useful in view of the numerous and 
 vexatious prosecutions to which masters are 
 subjected whilst doing their best by such 
 means as are available to maintain the disci- 
 pline of their schools. 
 
 Although, however, this book is written for 
 schoolmasters in the first place, the author is 
 not without hope that members of the legal 
 profession may also find it useful when obliged 
 to act in a matter within its scope, and that 
 the table of cases cited may enable them to 
 find authorities which will give them, when 
 required, fuller and more exhaustive details 
 than these pages profess to supply. 
 
 H. W. D. 
 
 4, Elm Court, Temple, 
 March, 1893.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS ... I 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT ... 36 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL ... ... ... 66 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PARENT OF HIS PUPIL ... 96 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED ... ... ••• 121 
 
 INDEX ... ••• •■• ••• ••• 12 4
 
 THE LAW RELATING TO 
 SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS. 
 
 Classification of Schools. 
 The legal position of a schoolmaster, although 
 depending for the most part on general prin- 
 ciples of law, is to a considerable extent affected 
 by peculiar legislation, and varies according to 
 the class of school to which the master belongs. 
 It will be convenient, therefore, in the first 
 place to consider how the schools of this 
 country may be classified, and it is believed 
 that on examination every school will be found, 
 from the point of view of the position of the 
 
 i
 
 2 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 master, to fall under one, or perhaps more, of 
 the following heads: 
 
 I. Public Schools. — This is a very limited 
 class, and is governed by the Public Schools 
 Act, 1868, 1 which only affects Eton, Winchester, 
 Westminster, Charterhouse, Harrow, Rugby, 
 and Shrewsbury. 
 
 II. Endowed schools under the Endowed 
 Schools Act, 1869. 2 This Act applies to any 
 school, ' wholly or partially maintained by 
 means of any endowment,' for the re-organiza- 
 tion of which a ' scheme ' has been framed by 
 the Charity Commissioners and approved by 
 Her Majesty in Council. Such school cannot 
 be one of those included in Class I., nor a 
 school receiving State aid under the Elemen- 
 tary Education Acts. 
 
 Ill Endowed schools which have not been 
 brought within the Endowed Schools Act, and 
 which are for the most part governed either by 
 charter, or by the provisions of the deeds by 
 which the trusts of the endowment are de- 
 clared. A very large number of all endowed 
 schools are, however, under the provisions of 
 
 • » 31 & 32 Vict. c. 118. 2 32 & 33 Vict. c. 56.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 3 
 
 the Grammar Schools Act, 1840, 1 which 
 applies to ' all endowed schools, founded, 
 endowed, and maintained for the purpose of 
 teaching Latin and Greek or either of such 
 languages.' 
 
 IV. Board schools established or maintained 
 under the provisions of the Elementary Edu- 
 cation Act, 1870. 2 
 
 V. Private schools. — This includes, not only 
 schools which are the property and under the 
 management of private individuals, but also 
 all schools which are maintained by public 
 bodies or corporations, or by the voluntary con- 
 tributions of private individuals, and which are 
 not affected either by any special Act of Parlia- 
 ment, or by the provisions and conditions of 
 any deed of trust. To this class, as a rule, 
 belong those voluntary schools which are ' pub- 
 lic elementary schools ' within the meaning of 
 the Elementary Education Acts, and subject to 
 those Acts in, many respects, but which as to 
 the relationship between the master and his 
 employers fall in the class of private schools. 
 
 1 3 & 4 Vict. c. 77. 2 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75.
 
 4 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Legal Position of a Master with regard to his 
 Governors. 
 
 In considering the legal relationship of a 
 master to his governors or employers, the 
 points which chiefly demand attention are, 
 the appointment and dismissal of the former 
 by the latter. If the school is a private school, 
 the position of the master is that of a servant 
 to the proprietors, and the relationship between 
 them is governed by the contract they have 
 made, by the custom of the scholastic profes- 
 sion, and by the ordinary rules of law relating 
 to master and servant. The schools, however, 
 which are answerable for the education of the 
 large majority of the young people of this 
 country are not private schools, but are sub- 
 ject to various Acts of Parliament, or else to 
 the provisions of certain deeds of trust made 
 by the founders and benefactors, often many 
 hundreds of years ago. The governors of such 
 schools have, therefore, only such powers as 
 are given to them by the Act or trust deed 
 under which they were appointed, and, as 
 governors, cannot bind themselves by any con- 
 tract which is not in accordance with such
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 5 
 
 powers. As private individuals, however, if they 
 were to assume a power they did not possess, 
 and make a contract in excess of their powers 
 as governors, they could probably be made 
 liable for a breach of such contract, as having 
 warranted the power to make it. 1 
 
 Appointment of Master. 
 
 The validity, or otherwise, of the appoint- 
 ment of a master is not likely often to be called 
 in question. The appointment, as a general 
 rule, is left to the discretion of the governors, 
 who are at liberty to choose any person who is, 
 in their opinion, capable and fit for the office, 
 and who possesses the qualifications (if any) 
 required by the statute, charter, or deed by 
 which the governors are empowered to act. 
 If a majority of the governors persisted in 
 appointing a person not duly qualified, they, 
 no doubt, would be restrained by injunction 
 from such a breach of trust at the suit of the 
 minority or of any person interested. If, again, 
 some formalities, duly prescribed to be observed 
 in the appointment of a master, have been 
 
 1 Collen v. Wright, 7 E. & B. 301 : 8 E. B. 647 ; Fir- 
 bank v. Humphreys, 18 O. B. D. 54.
 
 6 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 omitted, and the governors have nevertheless 
 allowed the master chosen to enter upon his 
 office, they would be estopped from afterwards 
 impeaching the validity of their own act; and 
 when a person is found acting as a master of 
 a school, and discharging all the duties of the 
 post, it will be presumed that he has been 
 properly appointed, unless when the regularity 
 of such appointment forms the subject of 
 inquiry. 1 No writing is necessary to a valid 
 appointment, even where the master becomes 
 thereunder the occupier of a house and lands.' 2 
 
 Qualifications of Master. 
 
 Many restrictions on the sphere of choice 
 and many disqualifications of persons who may 
 be chosen masters of schools have been re- 
 moved of recent years. Thus, except in a few 
 cases (such as cathedral schools), no person is 
 disqualified from being a master in a school 
 under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, 3 by 
 reason of his not being in holy orders. 
 
 And again, where it has a regulation in the 
 
 1 Davy v. Hadden, 3 Doug. 310. 
 
 2 Wilkinson v. Malin, 2 Tyr. 544. 
 
 3 S. 18.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 7 
 
 same schools that the head-master must needs 
 be a graduate of some specified university, 
 now it is sufficient if he hold the necessary and 
 prescribed degree at any university of the 
 United Kingdom. 1 But if, on the occasion of 
 a vacancy, the governors of a school were 
 wrongfully to refuse any person's candidature 
 on the grounds that he did not possess some 
 qualification which they improperly required, 
 and were to proceed to the election, and to 
 elect some duly qualified person, the election 
 could not be interfered with, and a mandamus 
 would not lie against the governors to proceed 
 to a fresh election. 2 
 
 It would seem, however, to be the wiser 
 course for governors under such circumstances 
 not to refuse any man's application, for they 
 cannot be compelled to elect any individual, 
 however high his attainments and credentials 
 may be. 
 
 Persons entitled to Mastership by Virtue of some 
 other Office. 
 There are a few cases in which a person 
 holding some other office has a right to be 
 appointed to a mastership on a vacancy. 
 
 1 36 & 2,7 Vict. c. 87, s. 18. 
 
 2 Reg. v. Hertford Coll., 3 Q. B. D. 693.
 
 8 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 In such cases, of course, the governors would 
 be restrained by the Court from passing him 
 over and appointing another. Thus, where the 
 trusts of an endowed school provided that, on 
 a vacancy, the vicar of the parish should be 
 preferred for the office of head-master, but, 
 nevertheless, the trustees appointed some other 
 person, the Court on the vicar's petition, and 
 after an inquiry into his fitness, made a decree 
 displacing the person appointed and declaring 
 the vicar to be of right entitled to the office of 
 master. 1 Such cases are, however, probably 
 very rare indeed. 
 
 Power of Dismissal possessed by Governors. 
 
 The power of dismissal possessed by his 
 employers is no doubt a subject of the greatest 
 importance to a master, and that power it is 
 now proposed to consider. 
 
 In the cases of masters coming under classes 
 I., II., IV., it is expressly provided by the 
 principal statute applying to each class, that 
 a master shall be appointed to hold his office 
 'at the pleasure of the governors. 
 
 With regard to the public schools, the words 
 1 Att.-Gcneral v. Lord Carrington, 4 De G. & Sm. 140.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 9 
 
 are : ' The head-master of every school to 
 which this Act applies shall be appointed by 
 and hold his office at the pleasure of the new 
 governing body. All other masters shall be 
 appointed by and hold their offices at the 
 pleasure of the head-master.' * 
 
 The Elementary Education Act of 1870 is to 
 the same effect. It gives the Board power to 
 appoint teachers ' to hold office during the 
 pleasure of the Board." 2 Again, the Endowed 
 Schools Act, 1869, provides that : ' In even- 
 scheme the Commissioners shall provide for 
 the dismissal, at pleasure, of every teacher and 
 officer in the endowed school to which the 
 scheme relates/ 3 Probably, too, it is provided 
 in many trust deeds and charters that the 
 master of a school shall be appointed to hold 
 office only at the pleasure of those who appoint 
 him, or on conditions which, though expressed 
 differently, are to the same effect. What 
 meaning, then, must be given to these important 
 words, ' at pleasure ' ? This question was very 
 fully considered in the famous case of Hayman 
 v. the Governors of Rugby School, 4 " and the words 
 were interpreted very literally. 
 
 1 31 & 32 Vict. c. 118, s. 13. 2 S. 35. 
 
 3 S. 22. 4 L. R. iS Eq. 28.
 
 10 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 The Rugby School Case. 
 
 In that case the plaintiff was the head-master 
 of Rugby School, and had been appointed to 
 that post by the old trustees of the school in the 
 year 1S69. No statute was made for establish- 
 ing the new governing body as provided for by 
 the Public Schools Act until 1871. In Decem- 
 ber, 1873, the new governing body passed a 
 resolution that Dr. Hayman was not a lit and 
 proper person to hold the position of head- 
 master of Rugby School, and that he should 
 be removed from his office, such removal to 
 take effect from the succeeding April. Dr. 
 Hayman thereupon took proceedings in Chan- 
 cery to restrain the governors from removing 
 or dismissing him from his office, and from 
 electing any person to succeed him. The case 
 was argued at great length for many days be- 
 fore Malins, V.-C, and although never taken to 
 a higher Court, the questions in dispute were 
 so fully and ably discussed that this may be 
 considered the leading case on the subject. 
 The Court held, in the first place, that the new 
 governors had all the powers of dismissal given 
 them by the Act of 1868, notwithstanding the
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS II 
 
 fact that the plaintiff had been appointed by 
 the old trustees. According to the Act, there- 
 fore, the plaintiff held his office only ' at the 
 pleasure of the new governing body. The 
 Court held that this meant that the governors 
 could dismiss a master ' without notice and 
 without any reason being assigned.' The 
 Vice-Chancellor said : ' I think the clear result 
 of the numerous authorities cited on both sides 
 in this case is, that all arbitrary powers, such 
 as the power of dismissal by exercising their 
 pleasure which is given to this governing body, 
 may be exercised without assigning any reason, 
 provided they are fairly and honestly exercised, 
 which they will always be presumed to have 
 been until the contrary is shown, and that the 
 burthen of showing the contrary lies upon those 
 who object to the manner in which the power 
 has been exercised. No reasons need be given, 
 but if they are given the Court will look at 
 their sufficiency.' And if the Court find the 
 reasons insufficient, if it find persons who have 
 jurisdiction reposed in them exercising that 
 jurisdiction upon frivolous, futile, or improper 
 grounds, such persons will be restrained from 
 abusing the confidence reposed in them.
 
 12 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 The Court not a Judge of Facts. 
 
 The Court will not constitute itself a jury to 
 determine whether or not the allegations against 
 the accused are true or false. It will, however, 
 determine whether the cause, supposing it were 
 absolutely proved, is such a cause as would 
 justify the dismissal. The Court will also con- 
 sider whether there was any evidence before 
 the body whose conduct was called in question 
 which, if given before a jury in an ordinary 
 action, would justify the judge in leaving the 
 matter to the jury. 1 The Court will not inter- 
 fere with the discretion of the persons who 
 have to decide on the truth or falsity of certain 
 facts, if any evidence was before them from 
 which reasonable men might have drawn the 
 conclusion which these persons have drawn. 2 
 It is not the province of the Court to decide 
 whether or not any allegation is true, for that 
 would be assuming the functions of the persons 
 who are entrusted with authority so to decide, 
 and in fact depriving them of that authority. 3 
 But it is within the duty of the Court to see 
 
 1 Osgood v. Nelson, L. R. 5, H. L. 636. 
 
 2 Met. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 11 Ap. C. 152. 
 
 3 Davy v. Hadden, 3 Doug. 310.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 13 
 
 that such persons act properly, reasonably and 
 fairly, and on such evidence as reasonable men 
 may consider pertinent to the matter under 
 consideration. 
 
 The Court slow to interfere with the Fair Exercise 
 of Discretion. 
 
 When, however, the governors have acted 
 fairly and honestly, the Court will probably be 
 very slow to interfere with their discretion as 
 to the sufficiency of their reasons ; for a very 
 slight matter will sometimes injure a school, 
 and even an unfounded suspicion of the mis- 
 conduct or unfitness of the master is often 
 enough to cause the decline of a school, and 
 perhaps to justify the dismissal of the master 
 as the only means of restoring its prestige and 
 saving it from destruction. Again, ' although a 
 man's scholarship may be perfect and his char- 
 acter admirable, yet, for the want of the power 
 to control subordinates and govern boys, he 
 may be wholly unfit for a schoolmaster.' 1 
 
 This was the view taken by the Court of 
 Exchequer in the Darlington School Case. 2 
 
 1 Hay man v. Governors of Rugby School, L. R. 18 Eq. 
 at p. 85. 
 
 2 Reg. v. Governors of Darlington School, 6 O. B. 682.
 
 14 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 In that case the school was one founded and 
 endowed by a charter of Queen Elizabeth, and 
 by the terms of the charter the governors had 
 ' full power and authority ' of removing a 
 master 'according to their sound discretion.' 
 It was held by the Court of Exchequer that 
 the governors had full and uncontrolled dis- 
 cretion to remove a master without summon- 
 ing him to answer the charges made against 
 him, and without giving him any opportunity 
 to answer those charges, provided the governors 
 exercised their discretion honestly, and without 
 any corrupt or indirect motive. Tindal, C. J., 
 said : ' There seems nothing unreasonable in 
 the founder's giving such authority to the 
 governors. For there may be causes which 
 render a man altogether unfit to continue to 
 be a schoolmaster, which cannot be made the 
 subject of a charge before a jury, or otherwise 
 of actual proof. A general want of reputation 
 in the neighbourhood, the very suspicion that 
 he has been guilty of the offences stated against 
 him, the common belief of the truth of such 
 charges amongst the neighbours, might ruin 
 the well-being of the school, if the master were 
 continued in it, although the charge itself
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 15 
 
 might be untrue, and at all events the proof 
 of the facts themselves insufficient before a 
 jury.' The Court will, however, very readily 
 interfere with governors when they have not 
 acted ' fairly and honestly,' as when they have 
 acted from any indirect, corrupt, or futile 
 motive, such as private quarrel, pecuniary 
 interest, political animosity, etc. 
 
 Unfair Exercise of Discretion. 
 
 Thus, in an old case, 1 a governing body dis- 
 missed a master of many years' service on the 
 alleged ground of age and infirmity, but really 
 because he had voted for a member of Parlia- 
 ment contrary to the wishes of the majority of 
 the governors. In the Fremington School 
 case, Knight Bruce, V.-C, expressed an opinion 
 that, inasmuch as three out of the governing 
 body had, in writing, expressed their belief in 
 the guilt of a master before they inquired into 
 his guilt, such three governors were disqualified 
 from acting judicially, and the Court granted 
 an injunction restraining the governing body 
 from acting on a resolution dismissing the 
 
 1 Dummer v. Corporation of Chippenham, 14 Vesey, 
 245.
 
 l6 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 master. 1 Subsequently, however, when there 
 had been a fresh inquiry, at which every oppor- 
 tunity was given to the master of meeting the 
 charges against him, and when, after full in- 
 vestigation, the governors came to the same 
 conclusion as to the guilt of the master, the 
 Court refused to interfere with their discretion. 2 
 In the case of Dean v. Bennett? which in- 
 volved the dismissal of the minister of a Non- 
 conformist chapel, the church had discretion 
 to dismiss their minister by resolutions passed 
 at a meeting, provided that such resolutions 
 were confirmed at a second meeting summoned 
 by a notice which should expressly state the 
 object of such meeting. Notice was given of 
 a meeting ' for the purpose of bringing charges 
 against and considering the dismissal of the 
 minister. At this meeting the minister was 
 not present, and it does not appear that 
 evidence was given of any improper conduct 
 on his part ; but a resolution was passed dis- 
 missing him on the ground that he had done 
 certain specified things, and was therefore 
 
 1 In re Fremington School (No. i), 10 Jur. 512. 
 
 2 In re Fremington School (No. 2), 11 Jur. 421. 
 
 3 L. R. 6 Ch. 489.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS IJ 
 
 unfit to hold the office of minister. A second 
 meeting was then called for the purpose of 
 confirming the resolution passed at the first 
 meeting, but the notice did not specify what 
 that resolution was, and the proceedings at 
 the first meeting were unknown to those who 
 voted at the second. Under these circum- 
 stances the Court held that the meeting had 
 not used sound discretion in the matter, and 
 that the dismissal was invalid. 'The course 
 taken,' said the Lord Chancellor, ' was utterly 
 inconsistent with justice or propriety. They 
 first invite people to bring charges without 
 saying what they are, and they then state in 
 this vague fashion that the charges were 
 established, when the person supposed to be 
 incriminated had not heard what any one of 
 the charges is.' 
 
 Burden of proving Alleged Unfairness. 
 
 It must be remembered, however, that 
 (especially where an unfettered discretion is 
 given by Act of Parliament) the burden of 
 proving that the governors, or Board, have not 
 used sound discretion, or have not acted both 
 fairly and honestly, is upon the person calling 
 
 2
 
 l8 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 in question the manner in which the power 
 has been exercised. 1 
 
 Necessity of strictly observing Proper Mode of 
 Dismissal. 
 
 But although the Court will not override 
 ah honest exercise of discretion, it is most 
 important that the governors or Board who 
 purport to dismiss a master should act strictly 
 according to the letter of the regulations laid 
 down for the taking of so important a step. 
 Thus, in the case of a master appointed by a 
 School Board under the Elementary Educa- 
 tion Acts, it is provided that : ' No business 
 involving . . . dismissal of a teacher . . . shall 
 be transacted unless notice in writing of such 
 business has been sent to every member four 
 days at least before the meeting/ 2 If, there- 
 fore, the Board attempted to dismiss a master 
 without strictly obeying the terms of this 
 provision, it could be restrained by injunction 
 from acting upon its irregular resolution, and 
 would also be liable to an action for damages 
 for wrongful dismissal. 
 
 1 Hay man v. Governors of Rugby School, L. R. iS Eq. 
 28. 
 
 - 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86, sch. 3 (9).
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 19 
 
 Again, in the case of schools under the 
 Endowed Schools Acts, although the scheme 
 must ' provide for the dismissal at pleasure 
 of every teacher,' 1 conditions and preliminary 
 steps are usually specified in the scheme, and 
 such must be carefully observed. It is usual 
 for a scheme to provide that, although no 
 cause need be assigned, six months' notice 
 must be given to a head-master ; that a reso- 
 lution of dismissal must be passed by two- 
 thirds of the governors present, and that such 
 a resolution must be passed at two consecutive 
 meetings. Power is at the same time usually 
 given to the governors to dismiss a master 
 without notice for urgent cause, provided in 
 such a case notice is given the master that 
 such a course is to be proposed, and oppor- 
 tunity given him of being heard in his defence. 
 
 It is to be noticed that in the Public Schools 
 Act, 1868, there is no provision for regulating 
 the meetings of the governors, who are there- 
 fore at liberty to make such regulations as 
 they please. Notice of a meeting ought to be 
 given, if reasonably possible, to every member, 
 and it would doubtless be considered a proof 
 1 32 & 33 Vict. c. 56, s. 22.
 
 20 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 of want of bona-fides to hold a meeting to 
 which each governor had not been summoned, 
 or otherwise than in accordance with the 
 regulations the body had themselves made. 1 
 
 School Boards are given power to make 
 such regulations as they think fit ' with respect 
 to the summoning, notice, place, management, 
 and adjournment ' 2 of their meetings, and as 
 to what quorum is necessary to act ; but the 
 quorum must consist of at least three (and in 
 London of at least nine) members. 
 
 Every question is decided by a majority of 
 the votes of those members who are present 
 and vote, and if the votes are equal the chair- 
 man has a casting vote. 3 
 
 In the case of schools under the Endowed 
 Schools Act, 1869, it is provided by that Act 4 
 that the majority of the members of a govern- 
 ing body who are present at a meeting of their 
 body, duly constituted, shall have power to do 
 anything which that body can do. 
 
 1 Fisher \. Jackson, 1891, 2 Ch. 84. 
 
 2 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, sch. 3 (1). 
 ' Id., sch. 3(5). 
 
 4 S. 54-
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 21 
 
 Act of Majority is Act of Whole Body. 
 
 It may be stated as a general rule that a 
 body of governors, trustees or others, who 
 have power to do any act as a body, and 
 who are not obliged to act by any particular 
 majority, can act by a bare majority, and that 
 the decision of a majority is binding on the 
 minority and the act is the act of the body. 1 
 A majority cannot act, however, for the whole 
 body without reference to the other members. 
 All the members have a right to vote and be 
 heard. If, therefore, there is a properly con- 
 stituted meeting of the body, the act of a 
 majority is the act of the whole ; but if there 
 is no meeting a majority cannot assume the 
 powers of the body and act behind the backs 
 of their colleagues. 2 
 
 Dismissal by Court under Grammar School Act. 
 
 In the case of endowed schools which do 
 not come under the Act, but which are subject 
 to the provisions of the Grammar School 
 Act, 1840, the High Court can empower the 
 governors or the visitor of a school to remove 
 
 1 Cooper v. Gordon, L. R. 8 Eq. 249. 
 
 2 Wilkinson v. Mah'n, 2 Tyr. 544.
 
 22 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 a master on the ground of negligence in the 
 discharge of his duties, or of being unfit or 
 incapable of properly discharging them, either 
 by reason of age or infirmity, or by reason of 
 immoral conduct. 1 The application to the 
 Court is by petition, and the Court will order 
 an inquiry to be made into the alleged unfit- 
 ness. 2 If the unfitness arises from old age or 
 from infirmity, the Court may order a pension 
 to be granted to the master dismissed. 
 
 The School Sites Act. 
 An Act was passed in 1841 (the Schools 
 Sites Act) to facilitate the acquisition of sites 
 for charity schools. It is provided in this 
 Act 3 that no master or mistress appointed to 
 any school erected under the powers thereof 
 shall acquire a life interest in the office, ' but 
 shall in default of any specific engagement 
 hold his office of the trustees of the said 
 school.' 
 
 The Court Leans Against Uncontrolled Discretion 
 
 to Dismiss. 
 
 When a master is appointed under any 
 
 statute which provides that he shall hold office 
 
 1 3 & 4 Vict. c. 77, s. 17. 2 Id., s. 21. 
 
 3 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38, s 17.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 23 
 
 only ' at the pleasure of ' the governors or 
 Board, it is plain from the Rugby School case 
 that he may be dismissed without notice or 
 reason given, provided that the governors or 
 Board act strictly in accordance with the pre- 
 scribed procedure, and are not actuated by 
 any unfair or dishonest motive. Where, how- 
 ever, the master has been appointed under 
 some trust deed, or charter, the Court will 
 not interpret such document as giving powers 
 of so arbitrary and wide a nature to the 
 trustees, unless it is very plain that the trustees 
 are intended to have such uncontrolled dis- 
 cretion. Thus, in the case of Ludlow Grammar 
 School, a scheme was settled by the Court for 
 the management of the charity, and therein 
 it was provided that the trustees should ' have 
 authority from time to time, upon such grounds 
 as they shall at their discretion, in the due 
 exercise and execution of the powers and 
 trusts reposed in them, deem just, to remove 
 the master, etc., from his office,' provided 
 certain formalities be observed. The trustees, 
 observing all the required formalities, passed 
 a resolution dismissing the master, who had 
 no opportunity given him of answering the
 
 24 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 charges made against him. The master took 
 proceedings in equity to restrain the trustees 
 from removing him, 1 and the trustees brought 
 an action of ejectment against the master to 
 recover possession of the school premises. 2 In 
 each of these cases the words quoted from 
 the scheme were considered, and the Court 
 of Exchequer on appeal in the ejectment 
 action held that the trustees had absolute and 
 unlimited discretionary power to dismiss the 
 master subject to the performance of the 
 conditions specified in the scheme ; that these 
 conditions had been observed, and that there- 
 fore the removal was proper. In the concur- 
 rent equity proceedings, however, the Master 
 of the Rolls expressed a different opinion, and 
 distinguished the words in question from the 
 words used in the Darlington School case. 3 
 In that case the trustees had power to dis- 
 miss the master ' according to their sound 
 discretion,' but in this case we have the phrase 
 ' in the due exercise of the powers and trusts 
 reposed in them.' The Master of the Rolls 
 
 1 Willis v. Childe, 20 L. J. Ch. 113. 
 " Childe v. Willis, 20 L. J. Ex. 85. 
 3 Supra, p. 14.
 
 THE HEAD- MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 25 
 
 held that these words distinguished the two 
 cases, because the trustees were bound to act, 
 not merely in exercise of the powers, but also 
 of the trusts reposed in them ; and that the 
 word ' trusts ' added to the word ' powers ' 
 had the effect of restricting the large mean- 
 ing which might otherwise have been given 
 to the word ' discretion.' He further held 
 that the scheme did not give the trustees 
 such an arbitrary power as was claimed for 
 them, that they were not the absolute judges 
 of the sufficiency of the grounds of removal, 
 and that they were subject to the control of 
 the Court in the execution of the trusts re- 
 posed in them. 
 
 These two decisions are of course directly 
 contradictory the one of the other ; but as 
 the Chancery case was decided upon equitable 
 principles which had not then weight in the 
 Courts of Common Law, it is submitted that 
 the judgment of the Master of the Rolls would 
 now be followed ; since by virtue of the Judi- 
 cature Act, 1873, equitable rights are recog- 
 nised and given effect to equally by all Courts. 
 
 It must be remembered, too, that although 
 the Court appears to lean strongly against
 
 26 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 trustees having absolute discretion to dismiss, 
 still, if it is plain that they were intended to 
 have such wide powers, they will not be inter- 
 fered with in the bona-fidc exercise of them. 1 
 
 Where this uncontrolled discretion does 
 exist, it may seem an unreasonably wide 
 power to give to governors or a Board, but 
 (as was said by Vice-Chancellor Malins of 
 the Rugby School governors) ' the apparent 
 harshness of the power is mitigated by the 
 appointment of men of high position, honour 
 and integrity as members of the governing 
 body, by which it is assumed that such power, 
 arbitrary as it is in terms, will not be harshly, 
 unjustly or inconsiderately exercised.' 
 
 Right of Master to receive Notice of Charges, and 
 to be heard in Defence. 
 
 In cases, however, where a master has been 
 appointed under a deed of trust, or under some 
 charter, he is as a rule entitled to far more 
 consideration. If the instrument under which 
 he is appointed provides that he may be dis- 
 missed under certain specified circumstances, 
 
 1 Ex p. Holland, n Jur. 58 1.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 2J 
 
 he can only be dismissed on strict proof that 
 those circumstances have arisen, and he is, as 
 a general rule, entitled to be heard in his own 
 defence before he can be deprived of his post. 1 
 Thus, in a recent case 2 the vicars of three 
 adjoining parishes, who were the trustees under 
 a deed of endowment of certain charity schools, 
 had power to dismiss a master ' if they shall 
 find that the children ... do not make such 
 improvement as might reasonably be expected, 
 and that any of the master's ... do not give 
 a good example to the children and are deficient 
 in either reading, writing, or accounts, or in 
 grounding the children under their care in the 
 principles of the Christian religion.' Two of 
 the three vicars signed and sent the master 
 a notice of dismissal, which stated that they 
 had inquired into his conduct and management 
 of the school and were not satisfied therewith. 
 On motion by the master for an injunction to 
 restrain the trustees from removing him from 
 his office, it was held that he was entitled to 
 an injunction, because he had had no oppor- 
 tunity given him of being heard in his defence. 
 
 1 Thanet v. Garfham, 8 Moore, 368. 
 
 2 Fisher v. Jackson, 1891, 2 Ch. 84.
 
 28 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 North, J., said : ' It appears to me that an 
 elementary principle of justice has been 
 neglected. The person accused has not been 
 told what the charges against him are, and has 
 not had an opportunity of answering them. 
 ... I decline to go into the merits, and for 
 the present purpose I assume that if the due 
 formalities had been observed the merits might 
 have justified the dismissal of the plaintiff . . . 
 the objection in the present case is that the 
 defendants, who might have been able to act 
 legally and equitably if they had followed the 
 proper course for that purpose, have taken 
 upon themselves to act in an unfair way to- 
 wards the plaintiff, and are therefore just as 
 incapacitated from dismissing him as if there 
 had been a defect in their appointments as 
 vicars, or anything else depriving them of the 
 power of exercising judicial authority over him. 
 . . . The plaintiff's right is the right to keep 
 the place to which he has been validly 
 appointed until he is turned out of it by per- 
 sons who have observed the necessary for- 
 malities for that purpose.' 1 In a case of this 
 
 1 Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, 14 C. B. 
 (N.S.) 180 ; Capel v. Child, 2 C. & J. 558.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 2g 
 
 sort, too, the master is entitled not only to an 
 opportunity of being heard in his defence, but 
 to notice of the specific charges to be brought 
 against him, and a reasonable time after such 
 notice and before the inquiry to prepare his 
 answer to such charges, and, if he so desires, 
 to obtain evidence to rebut them. The proper 
 course for the trustees is to reduce the charges 
 which they intend to bring against the master 
 specifically into writing, and to cause them to 
 be communicated to him. Then they should 
 fix upon some reasonable time and place for 
 the inquiry, having due regard to the con- 
 venience of the master and of the others whose 
 duty it is to be present. 1 At the inquiry the 
 master (or his solicitor) ought to be allowed to 
 cross-examine any witnesses who may be called 
 against him, and also to call any witnesses 
 he pleases on his side, to rebut the charges. 2 
 The master has no absolute right to be repre- 
 sented by a solicitor or counsel, but if the 
 governors had legal assistance and refused 
 to allow the same aid to the master, such 
 refusal would probably raise a strong presump- 
 tion against their bona-fidcs. 
 
 1 Ex p. Newman, 9 Jur. 959. 
 
 2 Re Fremingtoti School, 10 Jur. 512.
 
 30 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Every Governor should have Opportunity of 
 adjudicating. 
 
 It is important to notice, also, in the case of 
 Fisher x. Jackson, that the judge intimated that 
 in his opinion the defendants were wrong in 
 acting without notice to the third vicar, so as 
 to give him an opportunity of being present, 
 and giving the master the chance, not only of 
 having one of the three in his favour, but also 
 of having the influence of that one brought to 
 bear on the other two. 
 
 When Consent of Charity Commissioners required 
 before suing. 
 
 A point of considerable importance was 
 raised in the recent case of Rendall v. Blair. 1 
 The plaintiff was the master of a charity 
 school founded under the provisions of the 
 School Sites Act. 2 The deed by which the site 
 was conveyed upon trust for use as a charity 
 school contained the following provision : ' It 
 is hereby declared that the selection, appoint- 
 ment and dismissal of the school teachers shall 
 be in all respects under the control and 
 management of the incumbent and his curate, 
 1 45 Ch. D. 139. ' 2 See p. 22.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 31 
 
 and of four other persons to be nominated 
 annually by the incumbent.' The defendants, 
 the vicar of the parish, and four other persons, 
 gave the plaintiff notice that three months 
 from the date of the notice his services as 
 teacher of the school would be no longer 
 required. The plaintiff brought an action 
 against the defendants for an injunction to 
 restrain them from dismissing him, on the 
 ground that some of the defendants had not 
 been properly appointed managers, and had, 
 therefore, no power or authority to dismiss 
 him ; and also alleging that if these defendants 
 had such authority they had dismissed him 
 improperly. The defendants, among other 
 defences, raised the preliminary objection that 
 the plaintiff could not bring this action without 
 the consent of the Charity Commissioners, as 
 required by the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, 1 
 which enacts that no suit ' for obtaining any 
 relief order or direction concerning or relating 
 to any charity or the estate, funds, property or 
 income thereof shall be commenced, unless a 
 certificate authorizing such proceedings be 
 granted by the Charity Commissioners.' 
 
 1 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 17.
 
 32 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Kay, J., upheld the contention of the de- 
 fendants, and dismissed the action on the 
 grounds that the consent of the Commissioners 
 was necessary. On appeal, however, this 
 decision was reversed, but only by two of the 
 Lords Justices to one, so that, two judges 
 having decided each way, the decision may be 
 considered not unlikely to be over-ruled some 
 day by the House of Lords. The Court of 
 Appeal held that an action of this nature is 
 an action to enforce a common law right, the 
 right of the plaintiff to hold his office until he 
 has been properly dismissed therefrom ; that 
 the act in question does not apply to such an 
 action, but is a purely Chancery statute, and 
 that the consent of the Commissioners is only 
 required where the object of the suit is the 
 administration of the trusts of the charity. It 
 was also held by the whole Court that, even 
 supposing the consent of the Commissioners 
 were necessary, Kay, J., was wrong in dis- 
 missing the action, for it is not necessary to 
 obtain such consent before the action is com- 
 menced, and the judge should have ordered the 
 action to stand over to allow the plaintiff the 
 opportunity of ascertaining whether the Com- 
 missioners would give their consent. This
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS ^5 
 
 decision was followed in the case quoted 
 above, Fisher v. Jackson, 1 in which the same 
 point was raised. The same question was 
 considered very fully in the case of Holme v. 
 Guy, 2 which was the reverse of the case first 
 discussed. 
 
 This was an action by governors against 
 a master, whom they claimed to have duly 
 dismissed, to restrain him from continuing to 
 teach in the school, and from remaining in 
 occupation of the school-house and other pre- 
 mises. The master pleaded in defence that the 
 authority of the Commissioners was necessary 
 before the action could be brought, as provided 
 by the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, and that 
 that authority had not been obtained. The 
 Court, however, held that in effect the action 
 was an action of ejectment, as its object 
 was to obtain possession of the premises which 
 the master refused to resign ; that it was, 
 therefore, a common law action, and that the 
 Act was never intended to restrict or interfere 
 with actions at law; therefore no consent of 
 the Commissioners was required. 
 
 1 (1891) 2 Ch. 84. 
 
 2 5 Ch. D. 901. See Alexander v. Drewett,2 Times R. 
 762. 
 
 3
 
 34 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Recovery of School Premises from Discharged 
 Master. 
 
 Where a master has been dismissed, but 
 refuses to give up to the governors the house 
 or premises which he has occupied in virtue of 
 his office, he can, as a general rule, only be got 
 rid of by bringing against him an action of 
 ejectment. 
 
 A person who occupies a house by virtue of 
 an office is not a ' tenant,' 1 and so justices of 
 the peace have no general jurisdiction, under 
 i and 2 Vict. c. 74, to issue a warrant for his 
 ejectment if he refuses to give up possession. 
 
 Where, however, the master of a school 
 which comes under the Grammar Schools Act 
 has been dismissed under the powers of that 
 Act, or has ceased to be master by resignation 
 or otherwise, but refuses or neglects to give up 
 possession of the house or school premises for 
 the space of three months after dismissal or 
 ceasing to be master, the justices in petty 
 sessions have power to issue a warrant for his 
 eviction. To obtain this warrant a complaint 
 must be made to the justices by the trustees or 
 
 1 Fox v. Dalby, L. R. 10 C. P. 285.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS GOVERNORS 35 
 
 their agent, and an order of the High Court 
 must be produced declaring that master to 
 have been duly dismissed, or to have ceased to 
 be master. 
 
 The warrant must state a time not less than 
 ten days nor more than twenty-one days from 
 the date of its issue within which it is to be 
 executed. 1 
 
 Similar powers of ejectment are given to 
 justices by the School Sites Act, 1841, over a 
 master of a school coming under its provisions ; 
 and these powers are incorporated in the Ele- 
 mentary Education Act, 1870, and extended to 
 the eviction of a Board schoolmaster on the 
 application of the Board. It must, however, 
 be noticed that in this case it is sufficient to 
 prove to the satisfaction of the justices that 
 the master has been duly dismissed or ceased 
 to be master : there is no necessity to produce 
 an order of the High Court to that effect, as 
 is a condition precedent to the issuing a war- 
 rant in the case of masters who come under 
 the Grammar Schools Act. 
 
 1 3 & 4 Vict. c. 77, s. 19.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT. 
 
 Legal Relationship between Head-master and 
 Assistant. 
 
 The position of a master of a private school 
 with regard to his employers, and of an 
 assistant - master to his principal, is usually 
 governed by the general law of master and 
 servant. It depends on the contract between 
 them and on general principles of law. The 
 contract may be either express or implied, or 
 partly express and partly implied. A contract 
 is express when the terms of the agreement 
 between the parties are actually declared in 
 words or in writing. An implied contract, on 
 the other hand, is one the terms of which are 
 not actually declared, but are presumed to 
 have been in the minds of the parties and are 
 imposed by law upon them, owing to the cir-
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 37 
 
 cumstances surrounding their dealings and the 
 customs and usages of the profession. 
 
 It is not necessary, as a rule, that the con- 
 tract should be in writing, but if the period of 
 service is by definite agreement to exceed a 
 year, then a written contract is requisite. 1 
 Whether the contract is one which the law 
 requires to be in writing or not, if as a fact it 
 is in writing, the document must be stamped 
 with a sixpenny stamp. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the relationship 
 between a head-master and his assistant (like 
 that between any other master and his servant) 
 is a private one which can, as a general rule, 
 be lawfully dissolved by either party, without 
 the assignment of any reason or cause, pro- 
 vided that the terms of their agreement as to 
 notice, etc., are observed. 
 
 Summary Dismissal of Assistant for Misconduct. 
 
 The service may also be terminated by the 
 head-master at any time without notice, and in 
 spite of the agreement between the parties, for 
 moral misconduct on the part of his assistant. 
 The misconduct must, however, have occurred 
 
 1 Statute of Frauds, s. 4.
 
 38 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 during the period of service. An act of 
 immorality committed before the contract 
 between the parties is not good ground for 
 dismissal. Thus, where the plaintiff was en- 
 gaged to go out as governess to a family 
 residing in Buenos Ayres for three years at 
 £100 a year, she had described herself in the 
 agreement as ' Margaret Fletcher, spinster.' 
 After entering on her employment, her em- 
 ployer found out that she had been married 
 and divorced, and he therefore discharged her. 
 There was no allegation of fraud against her, 
 and the Court held that she was not bound 
 to tell her employers the fact of her marriage, 
 and that she was wrongly discharged. 1 But 
 any fraudulent concealment of previous mis- 
 conduct, either by direct falsehood or by an 
 intentionally misleading character, would un- 
 doubtedly justify dismissal. 
 
 An assistant-master may also be dismissed 
 for conduct which, though not immoral, is 
 incompatible with his position as a school- 
 master and with the faithful discharge of his 
 duty to his employer. ' If a servant conducts 
 himself in a way inconsistent with the faith- 
 1 Fletcher v. Krell, 42 L. J. Q. B. 55.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 39 
 
 ful discharge of his duty in the service, it 
 is misconduct which justifies immediate dis- 
 missal. That misconduct need not be mis- 
 conduct in the carrying on of the service or 
 business. It is sufficient if it is conduct 
 which is prejudicial, or is likely to be pre- 
 judicial, to the interests or the reputation of 
 the master.' 1 
 
 Thus, for example, if an assistant-master 
 were to insist upon smoking while teaching his 
 class, such conduct could certainly not be 
 described as immoral, and his teaching might 
 be excellent, but probably no jury would hesi- 
 tate to say that such an example to his pupils 
 was conduct prejudicial to the interests and 
 reputation of the head-master and of the 
 school, and that the dismissal of such an 
 assistant was justifiable. Persistent neglect of 
 his duties would also be an example of mis- 
 conduct. 
 
 Cause of Dismissal need not be stated. 
 
 It must be noticed that it is not necessary 
 for a head-master, on dismissing an assistant, 
 
 1 Per Lopes, L. J. ; Pearce v. Foster, 17 Q. B. D. at 
 p. 542.
 
 40 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 to state the grounds for so doing. It is enough 
 if such grounds do in fact exist. 1 
 
 Condonation of Offence. 
 
 If, however, the assistant has acted in such 
 a way as to give his head-master good cause to 
 dismiss him, but, nevertheless, has been for- 
 given, and continues at his post after his mis- 
 conduct has been fully known to the head- 
 master, then he cannot, after such forgiveness, 
 be dismissed for the same cause. As it was 
 clearly put by Blackburn, J., 'The law gives 
 the master the right to terminate the employ- 
 ment of a servant on his discovering that the 
 servant is guilty of fraud. He is not bound to 
 dismiss him, and if he elects, after knowledge 
 of the fraud, to continue him in his service, he 
 cannot at any subsequent time dismiss him on 
 account of that which he has waived or con- 
 doned.' 2 
 
 Disobedience of Assistant. 
 
 An assistant may also be summarily dis- 
 missed for refusing to obey the commands of 
 
 1 Ridgway v. Hangerford Market Co., 3 Ad. and E. 
 171. 
 
 2 Phillips v. Foxall, L. R. 7 Q. B. 680.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 41 
 
 his employer, provided those commands are 
 lawful and reasonable. He is not bound, how- 
 ever, to obey a command to do an act not 
 within the scope of his duties— an act outside 
 the work he contracted to do — and if he is 
 dismissed for refusing to obey such a command 
 his dismissal is illegal, and the head-master 
 liable in an action for damages. 1 Thus, where 
 a master is engaged to teach in a voluntary 
 elementary school, to dismiss him without due 
 notice for refusing to teach in the Sunday- 
 school or to play the organ in church would 
 be a wrongful dismissal unless he had agreed 
 when entering upon the employment that he 
 would so teach or play. The commands must 
 also be bond-fide, for inasmuch as dismissal for 
 just cause involves forfeiture of salary for work 
 done since the last time of payment, a head- 
 master will not be allowed to escape payment 
 by irritating his assistant into disobedience by 
 vexatious orders, or by orders delivered in an 
 unnecessarily insolent manner. 
 
 Incompetence of Assistant. 
 An assistant may also be summarily dis- 
 missed if he turn out to be incompetent to 
 1 Burton v. Pinkerton, L. R. 2 Ex. 340.
 
 4-2 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 perform the duties he has undertaken. It is 
 not necessary that he should have expressly 
 represented himself to be possessed of certain 
 qualities which he is found to be lacking in ; 
 for if he applies for a situation, knowing the 
 duties of that situation, he impliedly repre- 
 sents that he is possessed of the requisite skill 
 and knowledge to properly fill the post, and if 
 he turn out not to have this skill and know- 
 ledge he may be dismissed. 1 When, however, 
 a head-master engages an assistant trusting for 
 proof of his ability (as is so often done) chiefly 
 to the certificates he can produce, or the degrees 
 he has taken, the head-master would probably 
 find it hard to satisfy a jury that the incom- 
 petence of the assistant was such as to justify 
 dismissal without due notice. 
 
 Illness of Assistant. 
 
 Another good ground of dismissal is perma- 
 nent illness, or illness likely to be of long dura- 
 tion, which makes the performance of the 
 contract impossible, and therefore absolves 
 each party from any liability under the con- 
 
 1 Harmer v. Cornelius, 28 L. J. C. P. 85 ; Searle v. 
 Ridley, 28 L. T. 411.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 43 
 
 tract. A contract for the use of personal skill, 
 unless there is express agreement to the con- 
 trary, is made subject to the implied condition 
 that the person contracting to use such skill is 
 not prevented by illness from performing it. 
 Permanent illness, therefore, or illness which 
 really goes to the root of the contract of ser- 
 vice, justifies dismissal. 1 
 
 Temporary illness, however, is not good 
 ground for dismissal. Of course a head-master 
 may dismiss his assistant with due notice on 
 the assistant falling ill ; but the illness is not 
 sufficient cause for summary dismissal, unless 
 it is likely to disable him permanently, or for 
 a long time, from doing his duties. If the 
 assistant is obliged, because of illness, to be 
 absent from his duties for any time, and then 
 returns again to them on recovery, he has a 
 right to his salary for the time he was laid by, 
 as the contract between him and his employer 
 has not been rescinded, and has, therefore, 
 been in force all the time. 2 
 
 1 Poussard v. Spiers, 1 O. B. D. 410 ; Robinson v. 
 Davison, L. R. 6 Ex. 269 ; Boast v. Firth, L. R. 4 C. P. 1. 
 
 2 Cuck son v. Stone, 28 L. J. O. B. 25.
 
 44 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Notice of Dismissal. 
 
 Unless, however, the master deserves sum- 
 mar)- dismissal on such grounds as have been 
 considered, he is entitled (as all servants are) 
 to fair notice, to enable him to get another 
 situation, and so secure him against the neces- 
 sity of remaining idle while he is seeking fresh 
 employment. If he desires to leave, he must 
 also give his head-master fair notice, so that 
 the head-master may have time to find a sub- 
 stitute, and not be put to the great incon- 
 venience of suddenly being deprived of the 
 means of properly carrying on the work of his 
 school. The length of this notice depends 
 upon the contract between them ; but, failing 
 any express agreement, there appears to be 
 certain firmly-established customs as to the 
 necessary length of notice, which differ, how- 
 ever, in various branches of the profession. 
 
 Custom as to Notice. 
 
 In schools above the class of elementary 
 schools, which follow the example of the public 
 schools in dividing the year into three terms, 
 the custom is that a clear term's notice must 
 be given by a master who desires to leave, or
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 45 
 
 to a master whom his employer wishes to dis- 
 miss. A ' clear term's notice ' is generally- 
 considered to be given if it is given at the 
 latest on the morning of the day on which the 
 boys return to school, though probably it ought 
 strictly to be given the day before that on 
 which the term commences ; and if any ques- 
 tion is likely to occur, it would be the safer 
 course to give notice on the latter day. In 
 elementary schools, both Board and voluntary, 
 it seems to be the established custom that a 
 head master or mistress should give or receive 
 a quarter's notice, and that an assistant should 
 give or receive one month's notice. When, 
 however, a master receives promotion to some 
 other school, it seems to be universally the 
 custom to waive the necessity of giving the 
 strict legal length of notice where necessary, to 
 enable the master to accept the new post. 1 
 
 Cases to which Custom does not apply. 
 
 There probably are schools to which these 
 customs do not apply ; and then, in the absence 
 
 1 These customs are stated on the authority of a con- 
 siderable number of masters of all grades who have been 
 consulted by the author, and who are unanimous in their 
 opinions.
 
 46 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 of express agreement, we are thrown back on 
 general principles of law. Now, where there 
 is nothing to prove the contrary, it is a pre- 
 sumption of law that an indefinite hiring is 
 a hiring for a year, and can, therefore, only be 
 ended by either party at the end of a year, and 
 by giving reasonable notice. 1 This is, how- 
 ever, no inflexible rule ; each particular case 
 must depend upon its own circumstances. 2 
 Custom may be proved to show that in the 
 particular kind of service in question a dif- 
 ferent rule is firmly established. But the rule 
 may also be rebutted by evidence of other 
 matters, which prove an implied contract be- 
 tween the parties to the contrary. Thus, the 
 circumstance that wages are paid weekly, 
 monthly, or quarterly is very strong evidence 
 that the hiring was a weekly, a monthly, or a 
 quarterly hiring, and the evidence is probably 
 conclusive if there be nothing else to show the 
 duration of the contract. 3 
 
 It is a further presumption that the length of 
 notice which it is reasonable to give need not 
 
 1 Buckingham v. The Surrey and Hants Canal Co., 
 46 L. T. 885. 
 
 2 Fair man v. Oakford, 5 H. & N. 635. 
 
 3 Rex v. St. Andrews, 8 B. & C. 679.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 47 
 
 be more extensive than the period of payment ; 
 but this is also capable of being rebutted, and 
 the payment of salary weekly or monthly is not 
 inconsistent with a hiring for a longer period. 
 Short periodical payments are necessary for 
 persons in certain positions, and there is 
 nothing to prevent such persons from being 
 hired by the year at so much a year, payable in 
 monthly instalments. 1 
 
 In such a case the service can only be 
 rightly terminated at the end of a year from 
 the time of hiring, with such notice as may be 
 agreed ; or, in the absence of agreement, as 
 custom has established ; or, in the absence of 
 custom, with reasonable notice. 
 
 Even if the contract of service may by agree- 
 ment be ended by either party at any time, if 
 there is no stipulation as to notice, reasonable 
 notice must be given, and what is reasonable 
 notice can only be decided on the facts of each 
 case. 2 
 
 Remedy for Wrongful Dismissal. 
 
 If a master is dismissed without good cause 
 and without proper notice, then he has a right 
 
 1 Davis v. Marshall, 4 L. T., N. S. 216. 
 
 2 Creen v. Wright, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 591.
 
 48 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 of action against his employer for wrongful 
 dismissal, and is entitled to damages for the 
 breach of contract. He is not entitled to an 
 injunction to restrain his head-master from 
 dismissing him in breach of his agreement. It 
 would obviously be unreasonable to insist upon 
 two persons working together after all mutual 
 confidence had disappeared. As Lord Truro, 
 L.C., said, in a case where an injunction 
 was sought by the manager of a business to 
 restrain his employer from dismissing him in 
 breach of their contract : ' They are to be on 
 the same premises, acting in the management 
 of the same business, and if there is mutual 
 dissatisfaction (well or ill founded), it is 
 perfectly clear that a management con- 
 ducted under such circumstances must tend 
 very much to the prejudice of the concern.' 1 
 The Court therefore will not compel the 
 specific performance of a contract such as 
 that between a head-master and his assistant, 
 but leaves the latter to his remedy by bringing 
 an action for damages, and getting pecuniary 
 compensation for the wrong done him. 
 
 1 Stocker v. Brockelbank, 20 L. J. Ch. 408. See also 
 Johnson v. Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Co., 
 22 L. J. Ch. 921.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 49 
 
 Damages recoverable. 
 
 As in other cases, the damages which can 
 be recovered should be such as follow in the 
 natural course from the wrongful act, and 
 ought to be measured, so as to put the plaintiff 
 pecuniarily in the same position as he would 
 have been if he had been dismissed rightly. 
 He is not necessarily entitled, as was once 
 thought, to his full salary for the unexpired 
 time of his service according to the contract ; 
 he must not sit still and do nothing, but 
 should use all reasonable exertions to get a 
 new situation, and should accept of such 
 suitable employment as may offer itself. If 
 he get a new situation without much delay, 
 the damages will be reduced according to its 
 value ; but whatever the value of the new 
 situation may be, the plaintiff is always entitled 
 to some damages for the wrong done him by 
 the breach of contract. If a master be engaged 
 for a certain definite time, and he is dismissed 
 wrongfully before the end of that time, he can 
 sue at once, and need not wait until the time 
 has expired. Thus, in the case of Hochster 
 v. De la Tour, 1 the plaintiff was engaged by 
 1 2 E. and B. 678. 
 
 4
 
 50 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 the defendant in April to serve the defen- 
 dant as courier during a journey for three 
 months from June i for £10 a month. In 
 May the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, 
 saying that he had changed his mind, 
 and would not employ him. Thereupon on 
 May 22 the plaintiff sued the defendant for 
 damages for wrongful dismissal, but before 
 the action was tried he had got an equally 
 good situation. It was held that the action 
 was rightly brought, and that there was no 
 necessity to wait till June i before suing, for 
 ' the man who wrongfully renounces a con- 
 tract cannot justly complain if he is imme- 
 diately sued for damages by the injured man.' 
 
 It was argued that if the action could be 
 brought before June i, it would be extremely 
 difficult to calculate the damages ; but, as the 
 Court held, this argument would be equally 
 strong against an action before September i, 
 and in either case the jury in assessing the 
 damages ought to look at all that had happened, 
 or was likely to happen, to mitigate or increase 
 the loss of the plaintiff. 
 
 If, therefore, an action is brought for wrong- 
 ful dismissal, and the contract was for service
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 51 
 
 for a fixed time, which has not expired, the 
 jury should estimate the probability of the 
 plaintiff obtaining other employment, and 
 deduct the value of such employment from 
 the salary the plaintiff would have received if 
 he had continued in the service to the end of 
 the agreed time. 1 
 
 Of course, in many cases the damages which 
 should be recovered ought to include other 
 matters than the salary which might have been 
 earned. Often a master occupies a house rent 
 free as part of his remuneration, in which case 
 the value of the house to him, for the time he 
 is wrongfully deprived of its use, must be taken 
 into account. Sometimes, too, he has coals, 
 gas, and other things allowed him, and often 
 he is put to great expense in travelling about 
 in search of a new place ; all of which are 
 matters to be considered in estimating the 
 damages. 
 
 Salary payable where Master rightly dismissed 
 without Notice. 
 
 If a master be dismissed summarily for good 
 
 cause, it is often a question what salary, if 
 
 * Hartlandv. General Exchange Bank, 14 L. T., N. S. 
 863 ; Yelland's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 350.
 
 52 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 any, he is entitled to. Now, as a general rule, 
 where a servant is paid wages at certain stated 
 intervals, no money is due to the servant until 
 the end of a period. Therefore, if a master be 
 paid, e.g., at the end of each school term, and 
 he is dismissed for good cause in the middle of 
 a term, no money is due to him in respect of 
 that term, and he can recover nothing for that 
 term from his employer. 1 If, however, his 
 salary for the preceding term had not been 
 paid, he could recover that, for his right thereto 
 was a vested right at the end of the term, and 
 no subsequent misconduct can deprive him of 
 salary to which he has previously had a right. 
 The rule is the same where the master wrong- 
 fully leaves his situation in the middle of a 
 term without notice : he cannot recover any- 
 thing for the current term. Thus, when plaintiff 
 was engaged by defendant at a salary of £50 
 a month, and, having been paid for seven 
 months, wrongfully abandoned his employment 
 in the middle of the ninth month, and sued for 
 his salary for the eighth month, the Court held 
 that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for 
 
 1 Ridgway v. Hungerford Market Co., 3 Ad. and E. 
 171.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 53 
 
 £50, upon the ground that the contract was for 
 monthly payments of £50, and chat eight 
 months had elapsed and only seven had 
 been paid for; that a cause of action arose 
 as each month elapsed, and that a right 
 of action once vested could not be divested by 
 the plaintiff abandoning his employment. 1 
 
 Salary of Deceased Master. 
 A similar principle governs the right of a de- 
 ceased master's representatives to salary which 
 has actually become due. Thus, in the case of 
 Stubbs' Administrator v. Holywell Railway Co., 2 
 Stubbs had agreed with the defendant com- 
 pany to do certain work for fifteen months for 
 £500, payable in five quarterly payments of 
 £100 each. One payment only had been 
 made, and Stubbs having died in the fourth 
 quarter, his administrator sued for £200 in re- 
 spect of the second and third quarters. It was 
 argued for the defence that plaintiff could only 
 recover on a quantum meruit, for the value of the 
 work he had actually done. The Court, however, 
 held that the plaintiff was entitled to the £200, 
 for although the contract was dissolved by the 
 
 1 Taylor v. Laird, 25 L. J. Ex. 329. 
 
 2 L. R. 2 Ex. 311.
 
 54 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 death, a right of action which had already 
 accrued to the deceased remained to his repre- 
 sentative. Martin, B., said : ' Suppose a man 
 enter into a contract to do a certain piece of 
 work for a certain sum ; then if he die before he 
 completes it, he can recover nothing, not even 
 if, before his death, he had done nine-tenths of 
 it. For the contract was for the whole work, 
 and not for nine-tenths. But suppose the con- 
 tract is for the performance of a certain piece 
 of work for a certain sum, to be paid at the 
 rate, say, of £50 a month, then the person em- 
 ployed earns £50 at the end of each successive 
 month. . . . The contract is, no doubt, ended 
 by the death of Stubbs, but only in this sense, 
 that the act of God has made further perform- 
 ance impossible. . . . The man's life was an 
 implied condition of the contract, but the fact 
 of his death can have nothing whatever to do 
 with what has been actually earned. No vested 
 right of action is taken away by death.' 
 
 Effect of Death of Head-master. 
 
 In all contracts for personal service, the life 
 of each party is an implied condition of the 
 contract, and if either die the contract is at an
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 55 
 
 end. 1 Hence, if a head-master die, the assist- 
 ant, although he is entitled to be paid for his 
 services for such time as he has actually ren- 
 dered them, is not entitled to recover from the 
 executors of the head-master for his salary up 
 to such time as he might have been rightly dis- 
 missed if the head-master had lived, nor for 
 damages for his loss of employment. Thus, when 
 there was an agreement between plaintiff and a 
 deceased farmer that plaintiff should serve as 
 farm bailiff for a certain weekly payment and 
 other advantages, and that the service should 
 be continued until determined by six months' 
 notice, or the payment of six months' wages, 
 the master having died, the plaintiff sued his 
 executors for six months' wages. The Court 
 however, held that, where personal considera- 
 tions are of the essence of the contract, as in 
 the case of master and servant, the death of 
 either party ends the relation ; that obviously, 
 if the servant had died, the master could not 
 have compelled his representatives to perform 
 the services in his stead, or pay damages, and 
 equally by the death of the master the servant 
 
 1 Boast v. Firth, L. R. 4 C. P. 1.
 
 56 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 is discharged of his service, not in breach of 
 contract, but by implied condition. 1 
 
 Assistant liable to be sued for wrongfully 
 leaving. 
 
 As an assistant-master has a remedy against 
 his head-master for dismissing him wrongfully, 
 so the latter has a remedy against the former 
 for wrongfully leaving his employment, and 
 may sue him and recover damages for the loss 
 and inconvenience to which he has been put. 2 
 
 Termination of Service by Mutual Agreement. 
 
 It is evident that the contract between a 
 head-master and his assistant may be ended at 
 any time by mutual agreement, and that then 
 neither is under any liability to the other under 
 the contract. If, however, the contract is thus 
 rescinded in the middle of a term, or between 
 two periods of payment, the assistant is entitled 
 to be paid for his services pro rata for the time 
 which has elapsed since the last payment. 
 If the head-master became bankrupt, the bank- 
 ruptcy is not of itself a breach or a rescission of 
 
 1 Farrow v. Wilson, L. R. 4 C. P. 744. 
 
 2 See Huttman v. Boidnois, 2 C. and P. 510.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 57 
 
 the contract between him and his assistant, 
 but it may be inferred from the circumstances 
 that the contract was rescinded by agreement 
 upon the bankruptcy and that the master is 
 entitled to his salary pro rata up to the date of 
 the bankruptcy. 1 
 
 Board School Assistants. 
 
 An assistant-master of a Board school is 
 appointed by the Board, and holds his position 
 'during the pleasure of the Board.' In this 
 case, therefore, the assistant, although bound 
 in very many things to obey the proper orders 
 and submit to the control of the head-master, 
 is really the servant of the Board, and not of 
 the head-master, and his position with regard 
 to the Board is the same as that of the head- 
 master, and has been already discussed. 2 
 
 Assistants in Public and Endowed Schools. 
 In the seven great public schools affected 
 by the Public Schools Act, 1868, each assistant- 
 master is appointed by the head-master, and 
 holds office only ' at the pleasure of the head- 
 master,' 3 and in schools coming under the 
 
 1 Thomas v. Williams, 1 Ad. and E. 685. 
 
 2 See p. 9. 3 Ibid.
 
 58 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Endowed Schools Act, 1869, it is almost an 
 invariable rule for the scheme to give the head- 
 master sole power and discretion to appoint 
 and dismiss assistant-masters. In these two 
 cases, therefore, the relationship between the 
 head-master and his assistant is that of master 
 and servant. 
 
 Expulsion of Assistant refusing to leave. 
 
 If an assistant-master has been dismissed, 
 but refuses to leave, he may be turned out by 
 force ; x and this is so whether he were dismissed 
 for good cause or not. For as soon as the con- 
 tract between him and his employer is at an 
 end, he is a mere trespasser ; and any person 
 may expel a trespasser from his house or lands, 
 and, if necessary, may use force so to do, pro- 
 vided that no more than is really required be 
 employed. 
 
 Testimonials as to Character, when privileged. 
 
 When a master applies for a new situation, it 
 is almost invariable for the person to whom he 
 applies to require him to produce some cha- 
 racter or testimonial from his former employer, 
 
 1 Mackay v. Ford, 29 L. J. Ex. 404.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 59 
 
 or else to write to the former employer asking 
 him in confidence for his opinion as to the 
 ability and character of the applicant. Now, 
 a head-master is not bound to give any char- 
 acter or testimonial to his assistant ; l but, 
 when he does give one, all statements made 
 therein are privileged, and no action for libel 
 can be brought on them, provided they be 
 made bond-fide. This privilege exists because 
 of the duty thrown upon every person by the 
 convenience of society to state fairly all he 
 knows either for or against a former servant 
 which would be likely to influence another 
 person, who contemplates engaging that ser- 
 vant, in deciding upon the fitness of the servant 
 for the purpose for which he requires him. If, 
 then, in accordance with this duty, a head- 
 master states what he honestly believes to be 
 the truth about his assistant, the law will pro- 
 tect him from any penalties for so doing, even 
 if the things stated are, in fact, untrue. But 
 if he deliberately makes a statement which he 
 knows to be false, and gives his assistant a bad 
 character which he knows he does not deserve, 
 the head-master is not acting in accordance 
 1 Carrol v. Bird, 3 Esp. 201.
 
 60 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 with his duty, and lays himself open to an 
 action for libel at the suit of the injured 
 assistant. Malice being proved destroys the 
 privilege which otherwise would exist, and any 
 deliberate and intentional false statement, or 
 any statement made recklessly, without know- 
 ing whether it be true or false, is evidence of 
 malice. If a head-master give his assistant 
 a good character, by means of which he gains 
 another situation, and the head-master subse- 
 quently finds out that he was mistaken in giving 
 such a character, and informs his former assist- 
 ant's new employer of the mistake, this infor- 
 mation will be privileged, and, indeed, it is the 
 duty of the head-master to correct his mistake. 1 
 
 Voluntary Statements as to Character. 
 
 When, however, a head-master hears that a 
 former assistant is about to be appointed to a 
 new post, it is not his duty to volunteer informa- 
 tion as to such assistant's character, and it is 
 much safer for him to wait until asked before 
 making any statement. 
 
 ' Eagerness to prevent a former servant 
 obtaining another place has the appearance of 
 1 Gardener v. Slade, iS L. J. Q. B. 334-
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 6l 
 
 malice, and if it were found that I wrote 
 systematically to everyone to whom the 
 plaintiff applied for work, the jury would pro- 
 bably give damages against me. On the other 
 hand, if the person into whose service he was 
 about to enter was an intimate friend or a 
 relation of mine, and there was no other evi- 
 dence of malice except that I volunteered the 
 information, the occasion would still be privi- 
 leged.' 1 
 
 In the case of Gilpin v. Fowler, 2 the plaintiff 
 had been master of a national school of which 
 the defendant, the rector of the parish, was a 
 trustee. The master had not been engaged to 
 teach in the Sunday-school, but after he had 
 been in the situation for some considerable 
 time the defendant asked him to do so in 
 addition to his work in the day-school. This 
 the master refused to do, and consequently the 
 defendant caused him to be dismissed. There- 
 upon the plaintiff opened a private school on 
 his own account in the parish. The defendant 
 then printed a circular letter to his parishioners 
 which he was proved to have handed also to 
 
 1 Odgers on Libel and Slander, p. 202. 
 
 2 23 L. J. Ex. 152.
 
 62 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 others living in the immediate neighbourhood, 
 and which strongly tried to dissuade persons 
 from sending their children to the plaintiff's 
 school. This letter became the subject of an 
 action for libel by the master against the rector. 
 Amongst other expressions in the letter alleged 
 to be libellous were the following : ' No rightly 
 disposed Christian who receives in simple faith 
 the teaching of inspiration, " Obey them who 
 have the rule over you, and submit yourselves," 
 can expect God's blessing to rest upon such an 
 undertaking. ... It will be to all intents and 
 purposes a schismatical school. ... Be not 
 partakers with him in his evil deeds.' The 
 Court held that this letter was not privileged, 
 and that, even if it were prima facie privileged, 
 there was evidence of malice which destroyed 
 the privilege. For improper motives were 
 imputed quite unnecessarily, and language 
 used utterly disproportionate to the facts, 
 especially as the defendant, by asking the 
 plaintiff to undertake the Sunday - school, 
 showed that he approved of his capacity, but 
 notwithstanding this tried to injure him in his 
 business.
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 63 
 
 Difference between Spoken and "Written 
 Defamation. 
 
 It must be remembered that there is a very 
 great difference in law between a libel or a 
 written defamation of character, and a slander 
 or verbal defamation. As a general rule, no 
 action will lie against a person for words 
 merely spoken, unless special or actual damage 
 can be proved as the result of the slander, 
 whereas actual damage need not be proved in 
 an action for written words. There are three 
 cases, however, in which an action will lie for 
 slander without the necessity of proving special 
 damage, the charge being of such a nature 
 that the law presumes that damage must result. 
 These are : a charge of having committed a 
 crime, a charge of having some infectious or 
 contagious disease tending to exclude the 
 person slandered from society, and words 
 spoken of a person in the way of his busi- 
 ness or profession, and imputing to him un- 
 fitness therefor. 1 The last is the important 
 exception for the consideration of a school- 
 
 1 There is also one other case provided for by a recent 
 Act, but which concerns women only. See the Slander 
 of Women Act, 1891.
 
 64 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 master. It is quite obvious that a statement 
 as to the conduct of a person in such a 
 position will be regarded (especially by the 
 friends of the children under his charge) with 
 very different eyes from a similar statement 
 made as to the conduct of (say) an engineer 
 or a solicitor, for a high standard of morality 
 is expected from one who has to educate the 
 young, and acts would justify the dismissal of 
 a schoolmaster which would not justify the 
 dismissal of a clerk. The words complained 
 of must, however, be spoken of the master in 
 relation to his position as a schoolmaster to 
 entitle him to succeed in an action of slander 
 without proving special damage. Thus, to 
 say of a master, ' He is not fit to teach Latin ; 
 he cannot construe two lines of Caesar without 
 a crib,' is undoubtedly actionable without the 
 necessity of proving special damage, for it 
 directly imputes to him unfitness for his pro- 
 fession. It is not necessary, however, that 
 the slander should be thus direct, if the words 
 distinctly imply that the master is unfit to 
 exercise his calling. Thus, to say that a 
 master is a habitual drunkard is actionable, 
 or sobriety is a necessary qualification for the
 
 THE HEAD-MASTER AND HIS ASSISTANT 65 
 
 office ; but to say that a master had been seen 
 drunk on a certain occasion, and that not in 
 school, is not actionable, as such a circum- 
 stance alone would not necessitate his dis- 
 missal. 1 Of course, however, if, as a fact, 
 dismissal were the consequence of the slander, 
 that would be special damage, and an action 
 would lie for loss of his situation. 
 
 1 Brandrick v. Johnson, 1 Vict. L. R., C. L. 306.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL. 
 
 Parents obliged to educate their Children. 
 
 Every parent is under an obligation to educate 
 his children to a degree suitable to his station 
 in life. Until recently this was merely a moral 
 obligation, but since the Elementary Education 
 Act of 1870 was passed a parent can be com- 
 pelled to educate his children to a certain 
 extent, unless excused by exceptional circum- 
 stances. 1 
 
 The parent may fulfil this obligation by him- 
 self instructing his child, or by employing a 
 private teacher to instruct the child at home ; 
 but unless he does one of these two things, 
 he must, as a rule, send his child to some 
 school. 
 
 1 39 & 40 Vict. c. 79, s. 4 ; 43 & 44 Vict. c. 23, s. 2.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 67 
 
 Delegation to Master of Parental Authority. 
 
 When a child is sent to school it is obviously 
 necessary for the master to have such an 
 amount of power over his pupil as will enable 
 him to control the pupil, to compel obedience 
 to his lawful and reasonable demands, and to 
 maintain the general discipline of his school. 
 This power he can only obtain from the father 
 or guardian of the child. Now, a father has 
 very extensive powers over his child, powers 
 which extend even beyond the father's life, 
 and enable him to appoint a guardian to the 
 child after his death. ' He may lawfully cor- 
 rect his child being under age in a reasonable 
 manner, for this is for the benefit of his educa- 
 tion. . . . He may also delegate part of his 
 parental authority during his life to the tutor 
 or schoolmaster of his child, who is then in 
 loco parentis, and has such a portion of the 
 power of the parent committed to his charge, 
 viz., that of restraint and correction, as may 
 be necessary to answer the purposes for which 
 he is employed.' 1 In considering the extent 
 of power of the schoolmaster over his pupil, 
 
 1 Blackstone, vol. i., p. 452.
 
 6S THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 then, the broad and general rule is that he 
 has delegated to him by the father just so 
 much power as is necessary to enable him to 
 do his duty to the child. Power over the 
 child to this extent is implied from the~ mere 
 fact of the father having sent his child to the 
 school, but further powers must be expressly 
 conferred upon the master if it is desired that 
 he should possess them, for a master has no 
 legal right or authority over a child except so 
 far as the father gives it to him. 
 
 Delegation may be revoked at any Time. 
 
 And further, as the father is the person 
 who is legally responsible for the care, sup- 
 port, and education of his child, the law for- 
 bids him to bind himself not to exercise his 
 parental rights ; and, therefore, he can at any 
 time revoke any part of such rights which he 
 has delegated to another person, although he 
 has expressly contracted that he will not do 
 so. Thus, in the case of Regina v. Bamardo, 1 
 the mother (a widow) handed over her child 
 to the defendant, who was the proprietor of 
 certain homes in England and the colonies 
 
 » 23 (). B. D. 305.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 69 
 
 for destitute children, under an agreement by 
 which the defendant was given custody of the 
 child and authorized to place the child in a 
 situation either in this country or in Canada, 
 he undertaking in the meanwhile to support 
 and educate the child. The mother having 
 subsequently remarried, she and the step- 
 father, on December 14, 1888, wrote and asked 
 that her child should be restored to her. In 
 spite of this demand the defendant, on Decem- 
 ber 22, sent the child to Canada, and soon 
 afterwards a writ of habeas corpus was issued 
 on the application of the mother and step- 
 father, ordering the defendant to produce the 
 child. 
 
 It was held that up to December 14 the 
 child was lawfully in the custody of the defen- 
 dant, and that before that date he would have 
 been justified in sending the child to Canada; 
 after that date, however, the child 'was in his 
 custody contrary to law, because the child's 
 natural guardians had demanded it, and he 
 had not given it up to them.' The Master of 
 the Rolls said : ' I think that the parent of a 
 child, whether father or mother, cannot get 
 rid of his or her parental right irrevocably by
 
 JO THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 such an agreement, and therefore if the parent 
 revoked the agreement before it had been 
 acted upon by handing over the child to 
 someone else, it would not be binding, and 
 as soon as the agreement was revoked the 
 authority to deal with the child would be at 
 end. Therefore, if before the defendant handed 
 over the child to someone else, in accordance 
 with the agreement, the parent demanded the 
 child back again, he would have no right to 
 keep the child, but would be bound to return 
 it to the parent.' 
 
 Again, in a very similar case against the 
 same defendant, 1 the same learned judge said 
 of a similar agreement : ' The effect is only 
 to give the defendant authority to do certain 
 things as long as such authority remains un- 
 revoked, and although he may have incurred 
 expense and taken trouble relying on such 
 agreement, yet, if the parent chooses to retract 
 the authority before it is acted on, the law of 
 the land is that he or she can do so.' It 
 follows, therefore, that when a father gives to 
 another person the custody of his child, and 
 contracts with that other person to leave the 
 1 Reg. v. Barnardo, 24 O. B. D. 283.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 71 
 
 child in his hands for a certain agreed time, 
 the law will not prevent the father from 
 reclaiming the child before that time has 
 elapsed, but will compel the delivery up of 
 the child to the father in spite of the con- 
 tract. The father does not, however, escape 
 his liability under the contract, and may be 
 sued for damages for breach thereof, as will be 
 seen hereafter. Thus, when a boy is sent to 
 school in the ordinary way, it is part of the 
 contract (either express or implied) between 
 the master and the father that the latter will 
 leave the boy in the custody of the former 
 till the end of the current term at least. But 
 in spite of this agreement the father can take 
 away his boy at any moment, and if the master 
 were to refuse to let him do so, a writ of 
 habeas corpus would lie against the master to 
 compel him to give up the boy to his father, 
 for the parental authority must prevail in case 
 of any conflict. 1 
 
 The Father, as a Rule, is Exclusive Guardian. 
 
 If the father be dead, or deprived by a com- 
 petent Court of his parental power, the mother 
 1 Price v. Wilkins, 58 L. T. 680 (per Wills, J.).
 
 72 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 or some properly appointed guardian stands in 
 the father's place, as far as the master and his 
 pupil are concerned. But unless the father is 
 deprived in such manner, he, and he alone, 
 during his life, has the right to the possession 
 and custody of his legitimate children, to the 
 exclusion even of the mother. For example, in 
 the case ex parte McClellan, 1 a father placed his 
 child at a certain school, and the mother of the 
 child removed her. The Court granted a 
 habeas corpus to compel the mother to bring her 
 child up and deliver her to the schoolmistress. 
 
 Master's Power of Punishment. 
 A master, then, has delegated to him from 
 the father, or other lawful guardian of his 
 pupil, so much of the parental authority as is 
 necessary to control the pupil, and enforce the 
 rules and discipline of the school. To this ex- 
 tent, and until such authority is revoked, the 
 master stands to the pupil in the place of a 
 parent, and has the power of a parent to 
 compel obedience to all reasonable commands, 
 by chastisement if necessary, provided such 
 chastisement is reasonable and moderate. 
 
 1 i Dowl. 81.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 7J 
 
 The master, however, has not the same right 
 to punish his pupil which a parent has to 
 punish his child. He has no general right to 
 punish for all offences, as a parent has. His 
 right is restricted to the limits of his jurisdic- 
 tion and responsibility as a schoolmaster. 
 Within these limits he may exact obedience to 
 all reasonable commands, and may in his dis- 
 cretion inflict even corporal punishment for 
 disobedience to such commands. This punish- 
 ment must not be excessive or cruel, and 
 should bear some proportion to the gravity of 
 the fault. It should also be graduated accord- 
 ing to the age, strength and mental condition 
 of the pupil ; for a beating which would be a 
 trifling punishment to a strong lad of fourteen 
 years might be an act of extreme cruelty to a 
 child of five, and a punishment inflicted for 
 failing to learn a lesson, which might be just 
 and reasonable in the case of a child of 
 ordinary intelligence, might be little short of 
 barbarous in the case of one of low mental 
 development. 1 
 
 1 Vanvactorv. State, 3 Amer. St. R. 64s ; A', v. Griffin, 
 11 Cox, 402.
 
 74 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Consequence of punishing unlawfully. 
 
 Where a master exceeds his jurisdiction in 
 the infliction of corporal punishment, he is 
 liable to a criminal prosecution for assault, and 
 also to a civil action for damages. If any 
 serious bodily injury is caused by the punish- 
 ment, he may have to stand his trial for an 
 aggravated assault, or even for manslaughter 
 or perhaps murder, if the death of the pupil 
 were to follow. 1 When, however, the conduct 
 of the master is called in question, the burden 
 of proving the impropriety of the punishment 
 is upon the person asserting such impropriety, 
 for, until the contrary is proved, a master will 
 be presumed to have acted rightly and within 
 his authority and discretion. It is not enough 
 to show that the pupil is marked, or has 
 suffered some abrasion of the skin ; for the 
 legitimate object of chastisement is to inflict 
 punishment by the physical pain it causes, as 
 well as by the disgrace and degradation it 
 implies. It does not, therefore, necessarily 
 follow that, because the body of the pupil 
 shows the marks of a cane, switch or birch, 
 
 1 Rex v. Grey, Kel. 64. (See Russell on Crimes, 5th 
 ed., i. 773.)
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 75 
 
 and inconvenience or discomfort is caused 
 thereby, the punishment was either cruel or 
 excessive. 1 
 
 Corporal Punishment. 
 It is, of course, impossible to draw any hard 
 and fast line between corporal punishment 
 which is proper and that which is the reverse. 
 The question must always be decided on the 
 facts of the particular case, and the magistrate 
 or jury whose duty it is to decide the question 
 is at liberty to draw such conclusion from the 
 facts put forward in evidence as to him, or 
 them, seems right. There are certain matters, 
 however, which will be of great importance in 
 deciding the question. Thus, the nature of the 
 weapon used for the infliction of corporal 
 punishment will always be considered. For it 
 is obvious that, if a master use any instrument 
 which is likely to cause any real injury to the 
 culprit, he is exceeding his jurisdiction, and is 
 liable for the consequences. The use of a 
 heavy stick, a ruler, a poker, a four-legged 
 stool, and a boot, have all caused unjustifiable 
 injury, and exposed the master to serious con- 
 1 Vanvactor v. State (sup.) ; Danenlwffer v. State, 
 35 Amer. R. 216.
 
 76 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 sequences. 1 If the instrument is of its own 
 nature not unfit, it will be a question for the 
 jury whether it is, in fact, unfit from its exces- 
 sive size or weight. But it is a question of law 
 for the Court to decide whether or not the 
 instrument is of its own kind and nature unfit 
 for the use which has been made of it.' 2 Even 
 the open hand, an ordinary cane, or other 
 proper instrument, if used with undue violence, 
 or in anger, or upon a very young child, may, 
 of course, cause irreparable hurt, and may be 
 made the instrument of illegal punishment. 
 Again, a blow which might be harmless on one 
 part of the body, might cause grave mischief if 
 inflicted on some other part. 
 
 The Part of the Body on which to inflict 
 Corporal Punishment. 
 
 There is not, however, any recognised rule 
 as to the part of the body on which corporal 
 punishment may be inflicted. Thus, in the 
 case of Gardner v. Bygrave, 3 a master of a 
 Board school had caned a pupil on the hand, 
 
 1 R. v. Turner, Comb. 407 ; R. v. Hazel/, I Leach, 
 368 ; R. v. Conner, 7 C. & P. 43§- 
 
 2 See note to A', v. Hopley, 2 F. & F. 202. 
 s 6 T. L. R. 23, 53 J- P. 743-
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL yj 
 
 giving him four strokes for a fault admittedly 
 calling for corporal punishment. The master 
 was prosecuted for an assault upon the pupil, 
 and the magistrate convicted him, giving as his 
 opinion that caning on the hand was of itself 
 an improper mode of punishment, as it was 
 attended by serious risk of permanent injury. 
 Against this decision the master appealed to 
 the High Court, and on his behalf it was 
 argued that the real question is whether the 
 punishment was in fact reasonable and moder- 
 ate. The Court took this view, and quashed 
 the conviction, holding that, as the punishment 
 was deserved and no injury had been caused, 
 it had been properly inflicted. Mathew, J., 
 said : ' When Parliament lays down a chart 
 showing the particular regions of the body to 
 which corporal punishment in schools is to be 
 confined, the Court will take care that these 
 limits are not overstepped. At present there 
 is no such chart.' It is obvious, however, that 
 there are many parts of the body upon which it 
 would be highly improper to inflict a blow. 
 
 Excessive Chastisement. 
 Punishment should always be inflicted in a 
 kind and reasonable spirit, and never in anger.
 
 78 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 If a master strike a pupil in anger, he is un- 
 likely to act with that discretion and delibera- 
 tion which it is his duty to employ ; and if it 
 were proved that a blow was struck in the heat 
 of anger, such fact alone would probably be 
 considered sufficient to shift upon the master 
 the burden of proving the propriety of the 
 punishment. The law on this subject was well 
 summarized by Cockburn, C. J., in the case of 
 R. v. Hopley. 1 The prisoner, who was a school- 
 master, had been authorized by the father of a 
 boy under his care to give him severe corporal 
 punishment in order to subdue alleged obsti- 
 nacy. The master had accordingly beaten the 
 boy for between two and three hours, using a 
 stick an inch thick at one end, and at the other 
 terminating in a ferule about the circumference 
 of a sixpence. Such extreme severity was 
 shown that the unfortunate boy died under the 
 chastisement, and the master was prosecuted 
 for manslaughter. The learned judge, in 
 addressing the jury, said, ' By the law of 
 England, a parent or a schoolmaster (who for 
 this purpose represents the parent, and has the 
 parental authority delegated to him) may for 
 1 2 F. & F. 202.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 79 
 
 the purpose of correcting what is evil in the 
 child inflict moderate and reasonable corporal 
 punishment, always, however, with this con- 
 dition, that it is moderate and reasonable. If 
 it be administered for the gratification of 
 passion or of rage, or if it be immoderate or 
 excessive in its nature or degree, or if it be pro- 
 tracted beyond the child's powers of endurance, 
 or with an instrument unfitted for the purpose 
 and calculated to produce danger to life or 
 limb ; in all such cases the punishment is ex- 
 cessive, the violence is unlawful, and if evil con- 
 sequences to life or limb ensue, then the person 
 inflicting it is answerable to the law, and if 
 death ensue it will be manslaughter,' i.e., man- 
 slaughter at the least. ' It is true that the father 
 authorized the chastisement, but he did not, 
 and no law could, authorize an excessive chas- 
 tisement. There can be no doubt that the 
 prisoner thought the boy obstinate, but that 
 did not excuse extreme severity and excessive 
 punishment.' The prisoner, who was convicted 
 and received a sentence of penal servitude, was 
 only indicted for manslaughter ; if the charge 
 had been one of murder, he would probably 
 have been convicted on the graver charge. It
 
 80 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 is not within the province of this little work to 
 draw a distinction between murder and man- 
 slaughter, but there can be little doubt that 
 the gross savagery displayed by the prisoner in 
 Hopley's case was sufficient to justify an indict- 
 ment for murder. There also can be no doubt 
 that if a master were deliberately to strike a 
 pupil with some weapon dangerous in itself, 
 and likely (considering the pupil's age and 
 strength) to kill or maim, and death were to 
 follow as a consequence of such improper cor- 
 rection, the master would be guilty of murder. 1 
 
 Accidental Injury to Pupil. 
 
 It may sometimes happen that in the course 
 of reasonable chastisement some injury is 
 caused to the pupil by the instrument of cor- 
 rection accidentally touching some unusually 
 weak or delicate part of the body, and so 
 causing hurt which in the ordinary course 
 would not follow. Where this happens the 
 master is not liable. 
 
 Thus, in a Scotch case, 2 a lady, who had 
 
 1 Russell on Crimes, 5th ed., i. 773 I R - v - Gre y> Kel - 6 4> 
 Fost. 262. 
 
 2 Scorgie v. Laurie, 10 Ct. of Sess. C, 4th series, 
 p. 610.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 8l 
 
 been mistress of a school for twenty years, 
 was sued for assault upon a pupil. She had 
 caned a number of girls for not having learned 
 a certain lesson, inflicting upon each one stroke 
 of a cane on the hand. This mode of punish- 
 ment had been used in the school for many 
 years, and was, in fact, the only mode recog- 
 nised. The blow caused such injury to the 
 thumb of the plaintiff that it became perma- 
 nently disabled and paralyzed, but a majority 
 of the Court of Session in appeal decided that 
 the blow was not given vindictively, or with 
 such severity that any injurious consequences 
 could have been foreseen, that in ordinary 
 circumstances no injury would have followed, 
 and that the result was a misadventure which 
 could not have been anticipated. The mistress 
 was accordingly exonerated. But where real 
 harm has been done to a child, it is a very 
 difficult matter to prove that unavoidable 
 accident was the cause, and a jury could 
 seldom be got to take a view favourable to 
 he master.
 
 82 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Punishment should bear Proportion to Offence. 
 
 The punishment should also be proportioned 
 to the gravity of the offence, and though the 
 Courts will be very slow to overrule the dis- 
 cretion of a master who inflicts chastisement, 
 not in itself improper, for a fault which de- 
 serves some form of correction, still a very 
 severe punishment for some trifling miscon- 
 duct would show that the master had not 
 acted in that reasonable and judicial spirit 
 which the parent of every child put under his 
 care has a right to expect, but had exceeded 
 his jurisdiction and authority. 
 
 Rules of the London School Board. 
 
 The rules of the London School Board 
 with regard to corporal punishment should 
 be studied by all masters, and may with 
 advantage be given here. They are as follows: 
 (i) Every occasion of corporal punishment 
 must be formally recorded in a book kept for 
 that purpose. (2) Head-teachers must exercise 
 the utmost caution in inflicting corporal punish- 
 ment, so as never to strike a child on any 
 part of the head, either with the hand or 
 with any instrument whatsoever. (3) Corporal
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 83 
 
 punishment must not be inflicted during school 
 hours. The name of any child to be punished 
 shall be put down, and the cases of corporal 
 punishment be dealt with at a particular time 
 set apart for the purpose. Head -teachers 
 may inflict immediate corporal punishment in 
 exceptional cases which in their judgment 
 require such a course, but a special report of 
 each case must be made by them in the 
 punishment-book, giving in full the reasons 
 for departing from the ordinary rule of the 
 Board. (4) Assistant -teachers and pupil - 
 teachers are absolutely prohibited from inflict- 
 ing such punishment. The head-teacher is 
 held directly responsible for every punishment 
 of the kind. 
 
 Master may authorize Assistant or Monitor to 
 punish. 
 
 Apart from the rules of any particular school, 
 or body of schools, there can be no doubt that 
 assistant-masters may lawfully inflict corporal 
 punishment. In the case re Basingstoke School, 1 
 the question was raised whether corporal 
 punishment inflicted by a prefect or monitor 
 is legal, the rules of the school allowing such 
 1 41 J. P. 118.
 
 S4 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 a practice. The Court held that a head- 
 master can delegate the power of punishment, 
 and that there is nothing in itself unreason- 
 able or necessarily illegal in the infliction of 
 punishment by prefects or monitors, though 
 if they are guilty of any excess or abuse the 
 master's sanction will not excuse them from 
 the consequences. If, then, the head-master 
 can delegate the power of punishing his pupils 
 to other pupils, a fortiori he can delegate that 
 power to his assistant-masters. 
 
 Power to punish possessed by Master of Elementary 
 School. 
 
 A master, again, must not punish except 
 for a fault which is within his cognizance as 
 master, or for disobedience to a command 
 which he has authority to make. Here we 
 see an important distinction between the scope 
 of the jurisdiction of a master of a Public 
 Elementary School, and that of most other 
 masters. For in a school to which a parent 
 is under no obligation to send his child, there 
 is a contract express or implied that the 
 master shall be at liberty to enforce all the
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 85 
 
 rules of the school, and no doubt in the case 
 of scholars who live at home and come to the 
 school only for instruction the master's juris- 
 diction extends to a limited degree over the 
 child even when at his home. For example, 
 the master undoubtedly has the right to require 
 the day scholar to do home-lessons. But when 
 a parent sends a child to a Board school, he 
 is not always performing a purely voluntary 
 act. He must send the child to some efficient 
 school, unless he is excused from so doing for 
 reasonable cause. If the school which the 
 child attends is the only efficient school within 
 reasonable reach, the parent has no option but 
 to cause his child to attend that school. If 
 there are other schools which he might select, 
 then, to a limited extent, it is a voluntary act 
 to select one particular school ; but only thus 
 far, that if he did not send the child to the 
 chosen school he must send him to some 
 other. 1 Hence the parent is not performing a 
 voluntary act in sending his child to a school 
 of this description ; and as the delegation of 
 the parental authority to a schoolmaster must 
 be a voluntary act, it must be concluded that 
 
 1 Wright v. London School Board, 12 Q. B. D. 578.
 
 86 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 where the child is sent to school compulsorily 
 by the State the master acquires his jurisdic- 
 tion over the child from the State, and not 
 from the parent. Therefore, the authority of 
 the master over the child exists only so long 
 as the child is actually under his authority 
 by virtue of the Elementary Education Acts. 
 This was clearly shown in the case of Hunter 
 v. Johnson. 1 Here the master of a Board 
 school detained a child at school after hours 
 as a punishment for not having done home- 
 lessons, which lessons the child was forbidden 
 by his parent to do, of which fact the master had 
 notice. The master was prosecuted for assault, 
 and on hearing an appeal from the magistrates' 
 decision to the High Court, Mathew, J., held 
 that compulsory education is a statutory inter- 
 ference with the liberty of the subject. ' I 
 thought at first,' he said, ' that this might be 
 treated as a matter of school discipline, and 
 within the powers generally exercised by 
 persons in charge of the education of children. 
 Ordinarily, an important part of a child's 
 education is the study at home, but here the 
 child has been punished for disobedience to 
 J 13 Q. B. D. 225.
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 87 
 
 an order which the master has no power to 
 make.' And it was decided to be a proper 
 case for a conviction for assault, and for a 
 nominal penalty. It must not be thought, 
 however, from this case that a Board school 
 master cannot lawfully detain a child after 
 school hours as a punishment for a fault which 
 is within his jurisdiction. It seems to be im- 
 plied in the judgment that detention would 
 have been a reasonable and proper punish- 
 ment if inflicted for disobedience to an order 
 which the master might have made. But the 
 master had no authority, either from the State 
 or from the parent, to control the acts of the 
 child while at home, and therefore the child 
 was punished for disobedience to an order, 
 the making of which was outside the master's 
 jurisdiction ; hence the punishment was illegal. 
 It should be noticed also in this case that the 
 parent expressly forbade the child to do the 
 lessons, and that the master had notice of 
 this. Of course if the parent consent, the 
 master of a Board school has the same 
 authority as any other master to order the 
 child to do lessons at home, or otherwise to 
 control his behaviour when not in school.
 
 68 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 And this consent may doubtless be either ex- 
 press or implied from the fact that the parent 
 has acquiesced in the course taken with full 
 knowledge of the regulations. Even in the 
 case of day-schools, other than Board schools, 
 it is obvious that the master can have only 
 a very limited power over a child when the 
 child is at home, and that the parental 
 authority should not be encroached upon to 
 any serious extent ; but if the question were 
 raised it would have to be decided entirely on 
 the facts of the particular case, whether or 
 not a master had given a command to his 
 pupils which was outside the limits of his 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Scope of Master's Authority. 
 
 In boarding-schools where the pupil is under 
 the master all day and for weeks together, the 
 master evidently has wider powers, and any 
 otherwise proper order he may give is not 
 likely to be improper on the grounds that it 
 is outside the scope of his authority as a 
 schoolmaster. It is submitted, however, as 
 an example of such an order, that a master 
 who forbade a pupil to tell his father of some
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 89 
 
 punishment which had been inflicted upon 
 him would be unjustifiably meddling with the 
 confidence which ought to exist between 
 parent and child, and that if the master were 
 to punish the pupil for disobeying such an 
 order he would be acting outside his juris- 
 diction, and might be liable to a prosecution. 
 It is hardly necessary to say that no person 
 can lawfully compel a child to do anything 
 which is improper of itself, and that even a 
 father might be convicted of assault who 
 inflicted corporal punishment because his child 
 refused to do an act either criminal or im- 
 moral. 
 
 Expulsion of Pupil. 
 
 The most serious punishment which can be 
 inflicted by a master is expulsion from the 
 school. It is necessary for the master to have 
 such a power as a last resource in the case of 
 incorrigible misconduct, and also for the pro- 
 tection of his other charges from the evil 
 influence of an unusually vicious pupil. Expul- 
 sion, however, cannot be inflicted by the master 
 of a Board school, for the attendance of the 
 child at such a school is compulsory by law,
 
 gO THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 and, unless the child be guilty of an offence 
 justifying his being sent to a reformatory or 
 industrial school, his expulsion from a Board 
 school would imply, most probably, the entire 
 cessation of his education. Also when parents 
 are compelled to send their children to school 
 under the provisions of the Elementary Edu- 
 cation Acts, they are only excused from send- 
 ing them to a Board school for certain 
 reasons, 1 none of which is that the child has 
 been expelled ; therefore, if a child could be 
 expelled, we should have the father in the 
 awkward position of being liable to a penalty 
 for not causing his child to attend a school, to 
 which the master of that school refused to 
 admit the child. 
 
 Expulsion Justifiable only in Grave Cases. 
 
 Such a serious punishment as expulsion 
 should not be used except in very grave cases, 
 for not only does it usually bring much dis- 
 grace and ignominy upon the pupil, but it also 
 (if unjustifiable) constitutes a serious breach of 
 the contract between the master and the 
 parent, as will be more fully considered here- 
 after. 
 
 1 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, s. 74-
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL gi 
 
 It differs from every other punishment, in 
 this respect, that it puts an end to the relation- 
 ship of master and pupil ; and where a master 
 takes so serious a step, and his action forms 
 a subject of inquiry before a court of law, the 
 master will have to show that such circum- 
 stances existed as justified this extreme 
 measure. It appears from the facts in the 
 case of Fitzgerald v. Northcote 1 that the plaintiff 
 was a pupil in a school of which the defendant 
 was the head-master. Defendant thought he 
 had discovered a plot, of which the plaintiff 
 was the ringleader, to oppress and persecute 
 a certain section of the boys in the school who 
 were of a lower social position than the rest. 
 The defendant accordingly expelled the plaintiff, 
 first of all shutting him up in his room until he 
 could be removed, and for this assault and 
 imprisonment the pupil, by his father, brought 
 an action for damages against the master. 
 In summing up the case to the jury, Cockburn, 
 C. J., told them: 'that there is an implied 
 contract between the parent and the master, 
 that the latter will continue to educate the 
 child so long as his conduct does not warrant 
 
 1 4 F. & F. 656.
 
 Q2 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 his expulsion from school. And when we con- 
 sider the serious consequence to a child of his 
 being so expelled, it is the more essential that 
 the implied contract should not be broken ; 
 and, therefore, it will be a question, under all 
 the circumstances — making due allowance for 
 the discretion undoubtedly vested in the pre- 
 sident of such educational establishments, and 
 which is certainly not to be over-ruled upon 
 light grounds — still, the question must be sub- 
 mitted to the jury, whether under all the circum- 
 stances this contract has not been, broken. . . . 
 It is incidental to the authority of a head- 
 master, to expel from the school over which 
 he presides any scholar or student whose con- 
 duct is such that he could not any longer be 
 permitted to remain without danger to the 
 school. This, however, is not a power to be 
 exercised arbitrarily — it may be questioned — 
 and although, no doubt, a large discretion 
 must be allowed, it must not be exercised 
 wantonly or capriciously, and if it has in this 
 case been exercised unreasonably, then its 
 exercise cannot be set up as a defence.' And 
 the learned judge, amongst other questions, left 
 it to the jury to say whether the circumstances
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 93 
 
 were such as to justify the defendant, in the 
 reasonable exercise of his authority, in expelling 
 the plaintiff. The jury answered this question 
 in the negative, and verdict and judgment were 
 given against the master. Hence it follows 
 that a pupil does not, as a general rule, hold 
 his position in a school at the pleasure of a 
 master, but during good behaviour. Whilst 
 there is a subsisting contract between the 
 master and the parent the pupil has a right 
 to remain in the school and to receive all the 
 benefits thereof, as long as his conduct does 
 not warrant expulsion. And whether or not 
 the pupil's conduct has as a fact been such as 
 to warrant expulsion is a question which will 
 be reviewed by the courts, and the expulsion 
 will not be held to be justified unless the cause 
 involves moral misconduct or real danger to 
 the discipline and good order of the school. 
 There may, however, be instances in which, by 
 the rules of the school, if brought to the know- 
 ledge of the parent, the master has a discre- 
 tionary power to dismiss a pupil at pleasure. 
 Such cases are probably very rare.
 
 94 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 Neglect or Ill-treatment of Pupil by Master. 
 
 A master is, of course, bound by his contract 
 with the parent to feed and care for a pupil 
 living under his charge, to the extent agreed 
 upon, and may be sued for damages if he does 
 not observe the terms of such contract. But 
 his duty toward such a pupil is not necessarily 
 contained within the limits of the contract, 
 and for breach of this duty he may be under 
 a more serious liability than that of an action. 
 Thus it is undisputed law that if a master has 
 custody of a pupil who is not able to choose 
 whether he will go or stay, and the master 
 fails to supply the pupil with sufficient food 
 and other necessaries, so that actual bodily 
 hurt or death results, the master is criminally 
 responsible for such culpable negligence. And 
 ' necessaries ' include more than mere food ; for 
 a master would be liable who allowed a child 
 under his care to be injured for want of suffi- 
 cient clothing to preserve health, or who failed 
 to procure necessary medical attention, to the 
 hurt or death of the child. This matter has 
 recently been the subject of legislation ; and,
 
 THE MASTER AND HIS PUPIL 95 
 
 under an Act of 1889, 1 anv person over sixteen 
 years of age who has the ' custody, control or 
 charge of a boy under fourteen years of age, or 
 a girl under sixteen, is made liable to criminal 
 proceedings if such person ' wilfully ill-treats, 
 neglects, abandons, or exposes ' the child ' in 
 a manner likely to cause such child unneces- 
 sary suffering or injury to its health.' The 
 offence may be punished either summarily or 
 on indictment, and the maximum penalty is 
 fixed at a fine of £100 and imprisonment with 
 hard labour for two years. It is, however, 
 provided in the Act that nothing therein ' shall 
 be construed to take away or affect the right 
 of any parent, teacher, or other person having 
 the lawful control or charge of a child, to 
 administer punishment to such child.' 2 
 
 1 The Prevention of Cruelty to and Protection of 
 Children Act, 1889 ; 52 & 53 Vict. c. 44. 
 
 2 S. 14.
 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PARENT OF HIS PUPIL. 
 
 Legal Position of Master with regard to Pupil's 
 Parent. 
 
 The legal position of the master in relation to 
 the parent or guardian of his pupil is deter- 
 mined entirely by the contract which has been 
 made between them. This contract may be 
 express or implied. The contract between 
 master and parent is, however, usually, if not 
 invariably, partly express and partly implied, 
 and in many cases almost all the terms are 
 implied. For example : when a father writes 
 to the master of some well-known school ex- 
 pressing his wish to send his boy to that 
 school, and inquiring whether the master can 
 receive him, and the master writes in answer 
 simply that the boy may come, almost all the 
 terms of the agreement are implied. Thus it
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL'S PARENT 97 
 
 is implied or tacitly understood by the parties 
 that the master will properly educate, board 
 and care for the boy, and that the father will 
 pay the usual fees and delegate to the master 
 his parental authority. However fully the 
 terms are expressed, it is almost necessary that 
 many should remain implied. There is, in 
 law, no difference between the binding force of 
 an express contract and that of an implied 
 contract. The former is, however, of course 
 the easier of proof, as the latter has to be 
 proved by evidence of the general usage and 
 custom of schools, or of other circumstances 
 from which the agreement may be implied. 
 
 Payment of School Fees. 
 
 The chief part of the contract to be per- 
 formed by the parent is to pay the fees agreed 
 upon, and any expenditure by the master for 
 the benefit of the pupil which has been 
 authorized by the parent. In almost all 
 boarding-schools for the education of children 
 of a higher class than those who attend the 
 elementary schools, the year is now divided 
 into three terms, and payments are made three 
 times a year. Until recent years, however, it 
 
 7
 
 gS THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 was common for schools to observe quarters or 
 half-years. 
 
 In some cases the fees for a term's schooling 
 are paid before the term commences, in others 
 after the term is ended. 
 
 Fees Payable when Pupil removed without proper 
 Notice. 
 
 It is an almost invariable condition in the 
 contract made between the master of such a 
 school and the parent of a pupil that a term's 
 notice must be given before removing the 
 pupil, or else a term's fees be paid. Where 
 there is a printed prospectus, this condition 
 generally occupies a conspicuous place in the 
 document, and there can be no doubt that, as 
 a general rule, when brought to the notice of 
 the parent before the agreement is complete, 
 such a condition becomes part of the contract. 
 It is binding upon the parent, and the master 
 can recover a term's fees if the condition be 
 not observed. Thus, in the case of Eardlcy v. 
 Price 1 the school fees were £30 yearly to be 
 paid quarterly, and it was a condition that 
 ' a quarter's notice is required to be given 
 
 1 2 Bos. & P. 333.
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL'S PARENT 99 
 
 before the removal of any young gentleman 
 from school, or to pay for a quarter.' The 
 defendant removed a boy without notice, and 
 the master sued for £y ios., the amount of a 
 quarter's fees in lieu of notice, and recovered. 
 The Court held that the moment the boy was 
 taken away without notice the master was 
 entitled to be paid for an additional quarter. 
 It must be noticed that this case was after- 
 wards dissented from, but only on the ground 
 that the action had been wrongly framed, inas- 
 much as it had been brought for board, school- 
 ing, etc., supplied, when, as a matter of fact, 
 no board or schooling had been supplied. The 
 action should have been brought upon the 
 agreement to pay a quarter's fees as compensa- 
 tion for removing the boy without notice, and 
 would then have been rightly decided in the 
 plaintiff's favour. 1 
 
 Custom as to Notice of Removal. 
 
 In the absence of any express condition, it 
 appears to be the universal custom in schools 
 above the class of elementary schools to re- 
 quire a term's notice of removal ; and if a 
 
 1 Fewings v. Tisdal, 1 Exch. 295.
 
 100 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 pupil be removed without notice, an action 
 for damages will lie. 
 
 Damages recoverable for Removal without Notice. 
 
 The amount of damages recoverable will 
 depend on the circumstances of the case, and 
 it does not follow that they would necessarily 
 be a full term's fees. If the master were im- 
 mediately to take another pupil instead of one 
 improperly removed, so that in effect the 
 number of his pupils remains the same and he 
 loses nothing, the amount of damages awarded 
 would be merely nominal ; and if the master 
 under such circumstances has the oppor- 
 tunity of so taking another suitable pupil, he is 
 bound to do so. The taking of such a pupil, 
 however, would of course only go to reduce 
 the damages when he was actually taken 
 instead of the one removed — that is, when he 
 could not have been taken except for the 
 removal. This would happen, for instance, 
 when a master has a full house, and by the 
 removal of one boy is enabled to take another. 
 If he does so, and if this other pays the 
 usual terms, the master has probably lost 
 nothing. Parents, however, usually make
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL S PARENT 101 
 
 arrangements for placing their children at 
 school with a certain amount of forethought 
 and deliberation, and so it is not commonly 
 possible for a master to fill a vacancy at a 
 moment's notice, especially after the school 
 term has actually been begun. If a pupil be 
 removed without notice, the master is pro- 
 bably put to great inconvenience in providing 
 fruitlessly for a term and reserving a place for 
 a pupil who fails to appear, and in most cases 
 the measure of his damages would be a term's 
 fees. In the case of Collins v. Price 1 the plain- 
 tiff kept a day-school, but received into his 
 house one boarder, the child of the defendant. 
 The charges for this pupil had always been 
 sent in and settled quarterly, but there was no 
 express contract as to notice of removal or 
 time of payment. Four days after the begin- 
 ning of a certain quarter the child fell ill, and 
 was sent home by the master. Defendant did 
 not send the child back, and refused to pay for 
 the quarter. The action was for a quarter's 
 fees, and it was held that there was an im- 
 plied contract from quarter to quarter ; a new 
 quarter had actually begun, and there was no 
 1 5 Ding. 132.
 
 102 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 declaration of any intention to take away the 
 child, and no fault attributable to the master, 
 who could have continued his services if they 
 had been accepted, therefore the plaintiff was 
 entitled to recover for a whole quarter. In 
 this case the pupil had been actually at the 
 school for part of the term, and it appears 
 from the report that the defendant might have 
 sent the pupil back to school before the end of 
 the term. 
 
 Illness of Pupil. 
 Suppose, however, that the pupil does not 
 return to school at all during a term, and is 
 prevented from returning by serious illness ; 
 in this case it becomes impossible for the 
 parent to send his child back to school, 
 and he has probably had no opportunity of 
 giving notice. Here the parent cannot be pro- 
 perly said to have ' removed ' the child at all, 
 and he is not liable for the term's fees. This 
 was held by Denman, J., in the case of Simeon 
 v. Watson. 1 In this case the son of the de- 
 fendant had been sent home seriously ill in the 
 term between Christmas and Easter. After 
 
 1 46 L. J. C. P. 679-
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL'S PARENT IO3 
 
 the Easter holidays the boy was still too ill 
 to return. There had been an express agree- 
 ment that a term's notice of removal should 
 be given or a term's fees paid, and upon this 
 agreement the master sued the parent for the 
 term's fees from Easter to Midsummer. It 
 was held to be a good defence to the action 
 that the defendant was unable to send the boy 
 to the school because of illness. The learned 
 judge said that the ' defendant did not remove 
 his son, or if he did, he did so temporarily, 
 and during a time when he was not bound to 
 send him back. . . . Where a contract is by 
 the father and he is unable to perform it in 
 consequence of the illness of his son, he is 
 excused from its performance.' This case was 
 decided on the authority of Boast v. Firth, 1 
 which was an action by the master of an ap- 
 prentice against the father for damages for 
 breach of a covenant in an apprenticeship 
 deed that the boy would serve the master. 
 The defence was that the apprentice was ' pre- 
 vented by the act of God, to wit, by permanent 
 illness happening and arising after the making 
 of the said indenture, from remaining with or 
 1 L. R. 4 C. P. 1.
 
 104 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 serving the plaintiff during the said term.' 
 This was held to be a good defence. Mon- 
 tague Smith, J., said: 'It seems to me that 
 it must be taken to have been in the con- 
 templation of the parties when they entered 
 into this covenant that the prevention of per- 
 formance by the act of God should be an 
 excuse for its non performance. ... It must 
 necessarily be implied from the nature of the 
 contract that the continued existence of the 
 apprentice in a state to perform his part of it 
 was understood by the parties, and that if pre- 
 vented by the act of God the performance was 
 to be excused.' Therefore, of course, if a pupil 
 were to die the parent would be excused from 
 the performance of his contract to either give 
 a term's notice or to pay a term's fees. 
 
 Pupil leaving School in Middle of Term. 
 
 But where a pupil has actually returned to 
 school, and is either obliged to leave, or is 
 taken away by his parent before the end of the 
 term without any fault attaching to the master, 
 a whole term's fees must be paid, as the con- 
 tract is one by the term, and the master has
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL S PARENT 105 
 
 performed his part by receiving the pupil at the 
 beginning of the term. 
 
 Effect upon the Contract of Expulsion of the Pupil. 
 
 Thus, if a master expels a boy for just cause 
 he can recover the fees for the whole term. 
 The expulsion must, however, be for good 
 cause ; if otherwise, it is the master who 
 breaks the contract and renders himself liable 
 to an action for damages for such breach. 
 For a pupil holds his position in the school 
 not at the pleasure of the master, but during 
 good behaviour, and the master is bound by 
 his contract with the parent to continue to 
 educate the pupil so long as his conduct does 
 not warrant his expulsion. 1 
 
 It is an implied condition in the contract 
 between parent and master that the pupil shall 
 so conduct himself as not to deserve expulsion, 
 and that the parent will not himself break the 
 rules of the school or induce his child to break 
 them. 
 
 Thus, in a recent case, 2 it was a rule of the 
 plaintiff's school (which was known to the 
 defendant) that no boy was allowed during 
 
 1 Fitzgerald v. Northcote, 4 F. & F. 656. 
 
 2 Price v. Wilkins, 58 L. T. 680.
 
 106 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 the term to pass a night away from school. 
 In spite of this rule the defendant insisted on 
 taking his son out and keeping him out for 
 a night. The master thereupon refused to 
 have the boy back at all, and sued the father 
 for his fees for that term, which were due on 
 the first day of the term, but had not been 
 paid. It was held that the plaintiff was en- 
 titled to his fee on the first day of the term, 
 and that the defendant could not be in a better 
 position because he had not performed his part 
 of the contract, and that in order to defeat the 
 plaintiff's claim he must show a state of things 
 which would have entitled him if he had paid 
 at the beginning of the term to have recovered 
 back what he had paid. Wills, J., said : ' The 
 parent surrenders for the time being a part 
 of his otherwise exclusive right to direct and 
 control the child, and certainly undertakes that 
 the master, so far as he or his action is con- 
 cerned, be at liberty to enforce with regard 
 to his son the rules of the school— or to put 
 it at the very lowest, at all events such rules 
 as are known to him and assented to by him. 
 He cannot, without breaking the contract im- 
 plied by the very relation between them,
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL S PARENT 107 
 
 require his son to break such a rule of the 
 school. And the contract of the master is not, 
 at all hazards, and in all events, to supply 
 board, lodging, and tuition, but to supply them 
 on the terms that these rules are observed, so 
 far, at least, as the action of the parent is con- 
 cerned. It seems to me that the very nature 
 of school-life imparts such an obligation on the 
 part of the parent. The contract of the parent 
 was, in my opinion, that he should give to the 
 defendant's son a term's education on certain 
 conditions, one of which was that ' . . . the 
 defendant should not induce his son to break 
 the rules of the school. 'The parental authority 
 in case of conflict must of course prevail, and 
 the father might, no doubt, have had a habeas 
 corpus if the master detained his son against 
 his wish. But the condition affected virtually 
 the discipline of the school ; the observance of 
 the condition by the parent lies at the very 
 root of the contract ; and the plaintiff was 
 justified in refusing to keep the boy upon 
 terms which were not those upon which he 
 had agreed to take him.' Judgment was given 
 for the fees for the full term. It is, however, 
 usual (as was mentioned in the above-cited
 
 108 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 case), where a pupil leaves school in the middle 
 of a term for some good reason, for the master 
 to allow some[abatement. If, therefore, the boy 
 so misconducts himself that the master is justi- 
 fied in expelling him from the school, or the 
 parent induces or compels the boy to break 
 the rules of the school, there is a breach of 
 contraction the parent's side, and the master 
 can make him answer in damages for such 
 breach. 
 
 Liability of Parent for Expenditure on Pupil. 
 
 A question sometimes arises whether a 
 master can recover from the parent, over and 
 above the ordinary school charges, money 
 which he has expended upon the pupil. The 
 rule of law is simple, i.e., that the master can 
 recover all sums paid on the pupil's account 
 with the authority of the parent, but cannot 
 recover any sums paid without that authority. 
 The application of the rule in practice is not so 
 simple, as this authority is so often implied. 
 Where an express authority can be proved, of 
 course the liability of the parent is beyond 
 doubt. 
 
 Authority may be implied from the very
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL'S PARENT log 
 
 nature of the purpose for which the pupil was 
 put under the master, or from the usual course 
 of dealing between the parties, or from neces- 
 sity. Thus, if there is no express contract with 
 regard to the supply of books to the pupil, as a 
 general rule the master has implied authority 
 to supply such books as are necessary, and to 
 charge the parent therewith. Otherwise unless 
 it is part of the master's agreement to find 
 books, the education of the child could not 
 proceed, and the very purpose for which he 
 was sent to school would be defeated. 
 
 Again, if a pupil suddenly falls ill, it is the 
 duty of the master to procure proper medical 
 attention ; and if he were to fail in this duty 
 and the pupil were to be injured thereby, he 
 might be liable to very serious consequences. 
 From the necessity of such a case, therefore, 
 the master must have implied authority to 
 pledge the parent's credit for the doctor's fee. 
 If, however, the illness is not sudden and the 
 master has reasonable opportunity of consulting 
 the parent and ascertaining his wishes, it would 
 no doubt be his duty to do so. In other cases 
 authority may be implied from the fact of the 
 parent having satisfied similar demands without
 
 110 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 complaint on previous occasions. For instance, 
 if the master, without express authority, supplies 
 the pupil with articles of clothing, and charges 
 for the same in the term's account, and the 
 parent pays the account without objecting to 
 such charges, it may reasonably be supposed 
 that the parent tacitly consents to the master 
 continuing to supply such articles, and authority 
 from the parent to the master to pledge his 
 credit will be implied. A master, however, has 
 not any general authority to supply a pupil 
 with clothing at the parent's expense, as was 
 decided in Clements v. Williams. 1 This was an 
 action by a master against the guardian of a 
 pupil for (inter alia) the price of clothing which 
 he had supplied to the pupil. Evidence was 
 given that the boy's clothes were so bad that 
 he was practically unable to go outside the 
 school premises ; but the master was unable 
 to prove any authority from the guardian. The 
 judge directed the jury that the master had no 
 authority to cause his pupil to be supplied with 
 clothes without the sanction, express or implied, 
 of the parent or guardian ; that it was the duty 
 of the master, if he observed his pupil to be in 
 
 1 8 C. & P. 58.
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPILS PARENT III 
 
 want of clothes, to communicate such fact to 
 his friends, but not to supply them without 
 authority. 
 
 Liability of Parent for Wrongs committed by Pupil. 
 
 In the absence of agreement, a master cannot 
 compel a parent to pay for the breakages or 
 other damage to property done by a pupil, 
 though a parent generally does, if possible, 
 make compensation for the deeds of a careless 
 or mischievous son. A parent is not liable to 
 be sued for the torts of his child. 1 In law, 
 however, an infant can be himself sued in tort, 
 but practically, of course, in most cases this 
 would be a useless proceeding. An infant can 
 also be prosecuted for wilfully or wantonly 
 injuring property, but doubtless a master would 
 have recourse to such a severe remedy only in 
 a very exceptional case. As a parent cannot 
 be sued for the torts of his child, so a master 
 cannot be made responsible as a general rule 
 for any injury done to a stranger by his pupil. 
 If, however, either master or parent has 
 authorized a young person to do some act 
 
 1 See Moon v. Towers, 8 C. B., N. S. 61 1, per Willes, J.
 
 112 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 which results in damage, he may be held 
 responsible to the person injured. 
 
 For example, if a master were to authorize 
 his boys to let off fireworks, and, through his 
 not exercising proper supervision over them, 
 the fireworks were to cause damage, probably 
 the master could be made responsible for the 
 injury caused. 1 
 
 Who liable to pay Fees. 
 Sometimes a question may arise as to what 
 person is liable to pay for a pupil's schooling, 
 especially where the pupil has no father. The 
 person liable will then be he who made the 
 contract with the master, either directly or by 
 means of some other person as agent. Thus, 
 where the mother of a boy, whose father was 
 dead, took him to school, but no evidence could 
 be given as to what took place between her 
 and the master, the account for schooling was 
 delivered to the defendant, an uncle of the boy. 
 The defendant on receiving the account said : 
 ' It is quite right to send me the bill, for I'm 
 answerable.' Subsequently, however, he refused 
 to pay, and on being sued set up as a defence 
 1 See King v. Ford, I Stark 421.
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPILS PARENT II3 
 
 that his words amounted to a promise to pay 
 the debt of another, and therefore not being in 
 writing he was not liable, by reason of the 
 Statute of Frauds. The Court held, however, 
 that there was evidence to go to the jury, that 
 the original undertaking was by the uncle to 
 pay for the boy's education, and verdict and 
 judgment were for the master. 1 
 
 Proof of Contract between Master and Parent. 
 
 When a master is obliged to sue for his fees, 
 he must, as a general rule, prove the agree- 
 ment which was made between him and the 
 parent. If this agreement was made by cor- 
 respondence the letters which passed between 
 them and the prospectus, if any, must be pro- 
 duced in Court ; but unless one of these was 
 duly stamped with a sixpenny stamp, these 
 documents cannot be received in evidence before 
 the penalty is paid. It sometimes becomes 
 a difficult question to decide, whether the con- 
 tract was in writing or not. A document may 
 sometimes be produced, although unstamped, 
 to prove part of the terms of a verbal contract. 
 Thus, when a master hands a parent a pro- 
 1 Darnell v. Trait, 2 C. & P. 82.
 
 114 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 spectus, and they verbally agree that the child 
 shall be sent to the school upon the terms 
 therein contained, the prospectus may be given 
 in evidence, without having been stamped, as 
 it contained merely a proposal on which a con- 
 tract was founded. In the case of Clay 
 v. Crofts, 1 a friend of the defendant had called 
 upon the plaintiff, who was the master of the 
 school, and had expressed the wish of the 
 defendant to place his two sons at the school. 
 The master handed this friend a prospectus, 
 which stated (inter alia) that the terms were 
 sixty guineas a year, payable quarterly, and 
 that three months' notice or a quarter's pay- 
 ment was required on removal of a boy. After 
 some conversation the master consented to 
 take the two brothers at a reduction, i.e., for 
 fifty guineas each. Without any further nego- 
 tiation the boys were sent to the school, and 
 some time afterwards were removed without 
 notice. This was an action to recover a 
 quarter's fees in lieu of notice of removal. 
 The master tendered the prospectus to prove 
 the agreement to give a quarter's notice 
 or pay a quarter's fees, and its reception was 
 1 20 L. J., Ex. 361.
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL'S PARENT II5 
 
 objected to because it was not stamped. It 
 was, however, admitted in evidence as not 
 requiring a stamp. The Court held that at 
 the time the prospectus was put into the 
 hands of defendant's agent it was a mere pro- 
 posal. The defendant subsequently adopted 
 the proposal and made it a contract by sending 
 his sons to the school ; but that a memoran- 
 dum does not necessarily require a stamp 
 where being simply a proposal in the first 
 instance it afterwards becomes binding by sub- 
 sequent acts. 1 
 
 When a contract is contained in a number 
 of connected documents it is sufficient to 
 stamp any one of the series, and so when a 
 master makes an agreement by sending a pro- 
 spectus, and by subsequent correspondence 
 with the parent, he may stamp one of the 
 parent's letters, and that is sufficient to make 
 the whole series of documents receivable in 
 evidence. 
 
 It does not do, however, to stamp anything 
 
 but one of the actual documents which form 
 
 the contract. Thus in a case where a master 
 
 was suing for a term's fees in lieu of notice, in 
 
 1 See Edgar v. Blick, 1 Stark 292.
 
 Il6 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 proof of the contract he tendered a stamped 
 printed copy of the prospectus ; this document, 
 however, was not received, as it was not the 
 identical one which had been delivered to the 
 defendant. 1 
 
 Liability of Master for Breach of the Contract. 
 
 As a master has a right of action against the 
 parent of his pupil for breach of the contract 
 between them, so also, of course, has the latter 
 against the master. The master, for example, 
 breaks his contract if he fail to board and 
 lodge the pupils according to his agreement ; 
 if he fail to have him properly taught, or if he 
 allow the pupil to suffer any harm from want 
 of proper care or supervision. 2 Again, as 
 we have seen above, a master is liable to an 
 action at the suit of the parent if he expel 
 a pupil without just cause, for this is a breach 
 of his contract with the parent to board and 
 educate the pupil as long as his conduct does 
 not justify expulsion. Probably too, in an 
 extreme case of this sort, a master might have 
 to pay very heavy damages, as it is a great 
 
 1 Williams v. Stoughton, 2 Stark 292. 
 
 2 Fitzgerald v. Northcote, see p. 105.
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPILS PARENT 117 
 
 disgrace and injury to any young person to 
 have been expelled from school. 
 
 To recover more than nominal damages, 
 however, against a master some actual harm 
 to the child or loss to the parent must be 
 proved, and in many cases such proof is diffi- 
 cult or impossible. For instance, a master pro- 
 mises to give a boy fresh meat every morning 
 for breakfast, but on certain mornings he 
 provides salt meat, Unless the parent can show 
 that the boy has been injured by the salt meat, 
 he could not recover any substantial damages 
 for such a breach of contract, and would run 
 the risk of having to pay his own costs for 
 having brought a frivolous action. Such 
 breaches, however, would, if persisted in, justify 
 the parent in removing the boy and in refusing 
 to pay for his schooling, and he probably coulc 
 recover fees he had pre-paid in respect of the 
 term in which the removal took place. 
 
 Liability of Master generally Difficult to Establish. 
 
 It must always be a difficult matter, except 
 in extreme cases, for a parent to prove a 
 charge of not supplying proper board, and 
 still harder to support an allegation of in-
 
 II 8 THE LAW RELATING TO SCHOOLMASTERS 
 
 sufficient instruction. In the latter case the 
 trial would almost involve an examination of 
 the pupil, and even then, however deficient in 
 knowledge he might be found, the master is 
 supplied with a good answer by the natura 
 idleness of most young people, and the gross 
 stupidity of so large a number. To add to 
 the difficulties of proving such charges the 
 parent is unable to give evidence of the treat- 
 ment of other pupils, from which the general 
 incapacity or bad faith of the master might be 
 inferred ; he is confined to evidence as to the 
 treatment of his own child, for that alone is 
 the question being tried. Thus, in the case 
 of Clements v. May, 1 a master sued for his fees 
 for board and education of the defendant's 
 sons. The defence to the action was that the 
 master did not supply sufficient instruction 
 and board according to his contract with the 
 defendant, and the defendant desired to call 
 witnesses to show what the plaintiff's treat- 
 ment of other boys had been. This evidence 
 was rejected as not being material to the 
 question whether or not the plaintiff had 
 failed in his duty towards the defendant's 
 
 1 7 C. & P. 678.
 
 THE MASTER AND THE PUPIL'S PARENT Iig 
 
 sons. The judge said : ' You only complain 
 of the treatment of these particular boys, the 
 defendant's sons, and you cannot go into any 
 evidence as to what was done with other boys.' 
 Of course, however, there can be no doubt 
 that other boys might have been called to give 
 evidence as to the treatment of the defendant's 
 sons — for instance, to testify to the quality of 
 the food they had seen supplied to these boys. 
 
 A master will also be liable if through any 
 want of reasonable care or omission of duty 
 on his part the pupil is injured. Thus, if a 
 boy were to meet with an accident, and were 
 to suffer harm from the master having negli- 
 gently failed to procure for him proper medical 
 attendance, the master would be liable, as 
 such failure would be undoubtedly a breach of 
 duty on his part. Such an allegation was 
 pleaded in one case as a set off against a 
 claim by a master for school-fees, but it was 
 held that although the matter might be made 
 the ground of a cross-action, or counter-claim 
 for damages, it could not be pleaded as a set- 
 off to the plaintiff's claim. 1 
 
 1 Hennequin v. CDoTud, 21 L. T. 803.
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED 
 
 Alexander v. Drewett (1886), 33 
 Attorney-General v. Lord Carrington (1850), 8 
 
 Re Basingstoke School (1877), 83 
 
 Boast v. Firth (1868), 43, 55> io 3 
 
 Brandrick v. Johnson (1875), 65 
 
 Buckingham v. The Surrey, etc., Canal Co. (1882), 46 
 
 Burton v. Pinkerton (1867), 41 
 
 Capel v. Child (1832), 28 
 
 Carrol v. Bird (1802), 59 
 
 Childe v. Willis (1850), 24 
 
 Clay v. Crofts (1851), 114 
 
 Clements v. Williams (1837), no 
 
 Clements v. May (1836), 118 
 
 Cohens. Wright (1857), 5 
 
 Collins v. Price (1828), 101 
 
 Cooper v. Gordon (1869), 21 
 
 Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863), 28 
 
 Creen v. Wright (1876), 47 
 
 Cuckson v. Stone (1858), 43 
 
 Danenhoffer v. State (1879), 7$\ 
 
 Darnell v. Tratt (1825), 113 
 
 Davis v. Marshall (1 861), 47 
 
 Davy v. Hadden (1783), 6, 12 
 
 Dean v. Bennett (1870), 16 
 
 Dummer v. Corporation of Chippenham (1807), 15
 
 122 TABLE OF CASES CITED 
 
 Eardley v. Price (1806), 98 
 Edgar v. Blick (18 16), 115 
 
 Fairman v. Oakford (i860), 46 
 
 Farrow v. Wilson (1869), 56 
 
 Fewings v. Tisdal (1847), 99 
 
 Firbank v. Humphreys (1886), 5 
 
 Fisher v. Jackson (1891), 20, 27, 30, 33 
 
 Fitzgerald v. Northcote (1865), 91, 105, 116 
 
 Fletcher v. Krell (1S72), 38 
 
 Fox v. Dalby (1874), 34 
 
 //; re Fremington School, No. 1 (1846), 16, 29 
 
 In re Fremington School, No. 2 (1847), 16 
 
 Gardener v. Slade (1849), 60 
 Gardner v. Bygrave (1889), 76 
 Gilpin v. Fowler (1854), 61 
 
 Harmer v. Cornelius (1858), 42 
 
 Hartland v. General Exchange Bank (1866), 51 
 
 Ha) man f. Governors of Rugby School (1874), 9, 10, 13,18 
 
 Hennequin v. O'Dowd (1870), 119 
 
 Hochster v. De la Tour (1853), 49 
 
 Ex p. Holland (1847), 26 
 
 Holme v. Guy (1877), 33 
 
 Hunter i'. Johnson (1884), 86 
 
 Huttman ?\ Boulenois (1826), 56 
 
 Johnson v. Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Co. 
 (1853), 48 
 
 King v. Ford (18 16), 112 
 
 Mackay v. Ford (i860), 58 
 
 Exp. McClellan (1831), 72 
 
 Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Wright (1886), 12 
 
 Moon v. Towers (i860), in 
 
 Ex p. Newman (1845), 2 9 
 
 Osgood v. Nelson (1872), 12 
 
 Pearce v. Foster (1886), 39 
 Phillips v. Foxall (1872). 40
 
 TABLE OF CASES CITED 12 3 
 
 Poussard v. Spiers (1876), 43 
 Price v. Wilkins (1888), 71, 105 
 
 Reg. v. Barnardo (1889), 68] 
 
 Reg. v. Barnardo (1890), 70 
 
 Reg. v. Governors of Darlington School (1844), 13 
 
 Reg. v. Hertford College (1878), 7 
 
 Reg. v. Hopley (i860), 76, 78 
 
 Rendall v. Blair (1890), 30 
 
 Rex v. Connor (1835), 7° 
 
 Rex v. Grey (1789), 74, 80 
 
 Rex v. Hazell (1785), 76 
 
 Rex v. St. Andrews (1828), 46 
 
 Rex v. Turner (1698), 76 
 
 Ridgvvay v. Hungerford Market Co. (1835), 40, 52 
 
 Robinson v. Davison (1871), 43 
 
 Scorgie v. Laurie (1883), 80 
 Searle v. Ridley (1873), 4 2 
 Simeon v, Watson (1877), 102 
 Stocker v. Brockelbank (185 1), 48 
 Stubbs v. Holywell Railway Co. (1867), 53 
 
 Taylors. Laird (1856), 53 
 Thanet v. Gartham (1823), 27 
 Thomas v. Williams (1834), 57 
 
 Vanvactor v. State (1887), 73, 75 
 
 Wilkinson v. Malin (1832), 6, 21 
 Williams v. Stoughton (1817), 116 
 Willis v. Childe (1851), 24 
 
 Wright v. London School Board (1884), 85 
 
 Yelland's Case (1867), 51 
 
 N.B. — The number in brackets after the name of the 
 case is the date of the decision quoted. The numbers 
 not in brackets refer to the pages of this book.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Action : 
 
 time to bring, 49 
 Appointment of Master : 
 
 usually a matter of discretion, 5 
 
 no writing necessary for, 6 
 
 when set aside, 8 
 Assistant-Master : 
 
 relationship of, to head-master, 36 
 
 when liable to summary dismissal, 37-42 
 
 length of notice to, of dismissal, 44 
 
 remedy of, for wrongful dismissal, 47 
 
 damages for wrongful dismissal, 49 
 
 in Board schools, 57 
 
 in public and endowed schools, 57 
 
 amount of salary payable to, when rightly dismissed, 
 
 may be sued for leaving without notice, 56 
 
 may be expelled by force when refusing to leave, 58 
 
 may be authorized to inflict corporal punishment, 83 
 Authority of Master : 
 
 scope of, 72, 88 
 
 Bankruptcy : 
 
 of head-master, 56 
 
 Candidate : 
 
 refusal to accept, 7 
 Character, Testimonial of: 
 
 is primd facie privileged, 58 
 
 no obligation to give 59 
 
 when given unsolicited, 60 
 
 when malicious, 60 
 Charges against iMaster : 
 
 right to notice of, 26, 29 
 Charity Commissioners : 
 
 consent of, to action, when required, 30
 
 INDEX 125 
 
 Contract : 
 
 implied, 36 
 
 when required to be in writing, 37 
 
 rescission of, 56 
 
 specific performance of, 48 
 
 between master and parent, 96 
 
 proof of, 113 
 
 breach of, by master, 116 
 Corporal Punishment (see ' Punishment') : 
 
 right of master to inflict, 73 
 
 presumed to have been proper until the contrary is proved, 74 
 
 what, is proper, 75 
 
 instrument of, 75, 80 
 
 excessive, yy 
 
 part of the body proper for, 76 
 
 accidental injury in course of, 80 
 
 Rules of London School Board as to, 82 
 
 may be inflicted by authorized assistant or monitor, 83 
 
 Damages : 
 
 for wrongful dismissal, 49 
 
 for removal of pupil without notice, 100 
 
 against master for breach of contract with parent, 117 
 Death of Master : 
 
 salary in case of, 53, 54 
 Defence : 
 
 right to be heard in, 26 
 Discretion of Governors : 
 
 extent of, 11-14 
 
 unfair exercise of, 15 
 
 Court leans against uncontrolled, 22-26 
 Dismissal of Master : 
 
 by governors or Board, 8-33 
 
 arbitrary powers of, n 
 
 reason for, need not be stated, 11, 39 
 
 necessity of observing formalities in, 18 
 
 by the High Court, 21 
 
 by head-master, see ' Assistant-Master ' 
 Disobedience : 
 
 of assistant-master, 40 
 
 of pupil, 72, 88 
 Disqualifications : 
 
 removal of, 6 
 
 Expenditure on Pupil : 
 
 liability of parent for, 108 
 Expulsion of Pupil : 
 
 last resource of master, 89 
 
 by master of Board school, 89 
 
 only justifiable as punishment in extreme case, 90 
 
 when justifiable, 92, 105 
 
 effect of contract with parent, 105
 
 126 INDEX 
 
 Fees : 
 
 payment of, 97 
 
 when pupil removed without notice, 98 
 
 who liable to pay, 112 
 
 Govenors : 
 
 legal position of master to his, 4 
 
 arbitrary powers of, 11 
 
 interference of Court with discretion of, 12, 13, 22 
 
 powers of, compared with trusts reposed in, 25 
 
 each should have opportunity of adjudicating, 30 
 Graduates : 
 
 need not be of any specified University, 7 
 Guardian of Pupil : 
 
 father as a rule is, 71 
 
 Holy Orders : 
 
 when a necessary qualification for mastership, 6 
 
 Illness : 
 
 of assistant-master, 42 
 
 of pupil, 102 
 Incompetence : 
 
 of assistant-master, 41 
 Injunction : 
 
 by head-master, 18, 27 
 
 by assistant-master, 48 
 
 Libel : 
 
 in testimonial as to character, 59 
 in voluntary statement, 60 
 distinguished from slander, 63 
 
 Majority : 
 
 of governors as a rule binds minority, 21 
 
 acting independently of minority, 21, 30 
 Meetings : 
 
 of governors, 19 
 
 of School Board, 18, 20 
 Misconduct : 
 
 what is, 37 
 
 condonation of, 40 
 
 concealment of, 38 
 
 previous to entering service, 38 
 Monitor : 
 
 may be authorized to inflict corporal punishment, 83 
 
 Notice : 
 
 of meetings, 18 
 of dismissal, 44 
 of removal of pupil, 99 
 
 Office: 
 
 holder of, entitled to mastership, 7
 
 INDEX 127 
 
 Parellt = ,.,-,, rr 
 
 obliged to educate his child, 66 
 
 delegation of authority of, to master, 67 
 
 delegation of authority of, may be revoked at any time, 68 
 
 legal relationship to master, 96 
 
 contract of, with master, 96, 113 
 
 liability of, for expenditure on pupil, 108 
 
 liability of, for misdeeds of pupil, in 
 
 liability of master for breach of contract with, 116 
 Pleasure of the Board : 
 
 judicially interpreted, 9 
 Premises : 
 
 recovery of from discharged master, 34, 35 
 Privilege : 
 
 attaching to a testimonial of character, 58 
 
 Proof : 
 
 burden of, of unfairness, 17 
 
 of contract with parent, 113 
 
 of breach of contract by master, 117 
 Punishment (see ' Corporal Punishment'): 
 
 master's power of, 72, 84 
 
 must be moderate and reasonable, 73, 77 
 
 must be proportionate to offence, 73, 82 
 
 consequence of illegal, 74, 79 
 
 corporal, 75-81 
 
 power of, by master of Elementary School, 84 
 
 by expulsion, 89 
 Pupil : 
 
 punishment of, 72-93 
 
 expulsion of, 89 
 
 ill-treatment or neglect of, 94, 119 
 
 removal of, without notice, 98, 100 
 
 illness of, 102, 109 
 
 leaving in middle of term, 105 
 
 Quorum : 
 
 of School Board, 20 
 Qualifications : 
 
 for post of master, 6 
 misrepresentation as to, 42 
 
 Salary Payable : 
 
 on dismissal, 51 
 
 on leaving before time by agreement, 56 
 
 on death, 53, 55 
 Schools : 
 
 classification of, 1 
 School Sites Act : 
 
 position of master under, 22 
 Slander : 
 
 distinguished from libel, 63 
 
 when actionable, 63
 
 128 INDEX 
 
 Specific Performance : 
 
 of contract between master and assistant will not be decreed 
 48 
 Stamp : 
 
 when required on agreement or prospectus, 113, 115 
 Statutes : 
 
 29 Car. II. c. 3 (Statute of Frauds), 37 
 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 74 (Recovery of Tenements), 34 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 77 (Grammar Schools), 3, 21, 22, 35 
 
 4 & 5 Vict. c. 38 (School Sites), 22 
 
 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137 (Charitable Trusts), 31 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 118 (Public Schools), 2, 9 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 56 (Endowed Schools), 2, 6, 9, 19, 20 
 
 33 cS: 34 Vict. c. 75 (Elementary Education), 3, 9, 20, 35, 90 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 (Judicature Act, 1873), 25 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86 (Elementary Education), 18 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 87 (Endowed Schools), 7 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 79 (Elementary Education), 66 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 23 (Elementary Education), 66 
 52 & 53 Vict. c. 44 (Cruelty to Children), 95 
 
 Testimonial : (see ' Character') 
 Tort of Pupil : 
 
 liability of parent for, in 
 
 liability of master for, 112 
 
 Writing : 
 
 not requisite for appointment, 6 
 
 when necessary in contract of service, 37 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Billing &* Sons, Printers, Gtdlct/ord.
 
 37, Bedford Street, Strand, 
 London, W.C., 
 
 April, 1892. 
 
 Mr. EDWARD ARNOLD'S 
 
 Catalogue of 
 
 New & Forthcoming Publications 
 
 AND 
 
 Works of General Literature. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Forthcoming Publications. 
 New Books. 
 English Literature. 
 Political Science. 
 Natural Science. 
 
 Philosophy. 
 Oriental Literature. 
 Works on Education. 
 Books for the Young. 
 
 A Book about the Garden and the Gardener. 
 
 By the Very Rev. S. Reynolds Hole, Dean of Rochester, 
 
 Author of " A Book about Roses," &c. 
 
 With Steel Plate Frontispiece by John Leech. Crown 8vo., 6s. 
 
 This volume includes a variety of papers on Gardening subjects, and also a 
 new edition of the " Six of Spades," which has long been out of print. A steel 
 plate by Leech, entitled " Love among the Tea Roses," forms the frontispiece. 
 
 Contents : 
 The Joy of a Garden. Alpine Gardens. 
 
 The Gardener's Dream. 
 The Six of Spades. 
 My First Fight in the Wars of the 
 Some Cornish Gardens. [Roses. 
 The Spring Garden at Belvoir. 
 
 The Carnation. 
 
 A Wall of Flowers. 
 
 Types of Gardeners. 
 
 The Song of the Exhibitor. 
 
 Love among the Tea] Roses. 
 
 A Book about Roses. 
 
 By the Very Rev. S. Reynolds Hole, Dean of Rochester. 
 Twelfth Edition. Crown 8vo.. cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 This is a reprint of the Eleventh Edition, which, although published less 
 than a year ago, has already been exhausted. 
 
 " A perfectly charming book." — Daily Telegraph.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 A Little Tour in Ireland. 
 
 By AN OXONIAN. 
 
 With nearly 40 Wood and Steel Engravings by John Leech. 
 
 Large imperial, with Steel Frontispiece, ios. 6d. 
 
 The " Oxonian " who accompanied John Leech in his famous " Little Tour 
 in Ireland,' and who wrote the account which was illustrated by Leech in his 
 happiest and most successful manner, was the present Dean of Rochester. 
 The book has been out of print for over 30 years, for, although the first edition 
 was exhausted in a few weeks after publication, no other was issued, the second 
 being withdrawn owing to a question as to the copyright. 
 
 The whole of the wood-blocks and the well-known steel plate entitled "The 
 Claddagh," were presented by Leech to his friend the Oxonian. They were 
 carefully preserved, and are in as good condition as when the first impressions 
 were taken. 
 
 One HUNDRED Copies have been specially printed on large paper, with 
 the Frontispiece coloured by hand, after Leech's own water-colour sketch, 
 on Arnold's unbleached hand-made paper, and the full-page illustrations on 
 lapanese vellum. 4to., price 21s. nett. 
 
 This edition being limited, orders are now being booked, and the copies will 
 be delivered to subscribers as soon as the book is ready. 
 
 That Fiddler Fellow. 
 
 A Tale of St. Andrews. 
 
 By Horace G. Hutchinson, 
 
 Author of" My Wife's Politics," "Golf," " Creatures of Circumstance, "&c. 
 
 Popular Edition, crown Svo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 "A singularly ingenious and interesting tale " — Spectator. 
 ' ■ What Mr. Hutchinson writes is always pleasant to read." — The World. 
 ' ' A strange history of hypnotism and crime, which will delight any lover of 
 the grim and terrible." — The Guardian. 
 
 Dante's Eleven Letters. 
 
 Translated and Edited by the late C. S. Latham. 
 
 With a Preface by Professor Charles Eliot Norton. 
 
 Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s. 
 
 Omarah's History of Yemen. 
 
 Edited from the MS. in the British Museum by H. C. Kay, Member of 
 the Royal Asiatic Society. 
 
 Demy 8vo., cloth. 
 
 Six Years of Unionist Government, 
 1886—1892. 
 
 By C. A. Whit.more, M.P. 
 Post 8vo., paper, is. ; cloth, 2s. 6d.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 Education from a National Standpoint. 
 
 By Alfred Fouillee. 
 
 Translated by \V. J. Greenstreet, M.A., Head Master of the Marling 
 
 School, Stroud. 
 
 Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 
 
 The Springs of Conduct. 
 
 By C. Lloyd Morgan, F.G.S., Principal of University College, Biistol, 
 
 Author of " Animal Life and Intelligence," &c. 
 
 New and Cheaper Edition, large crown Svo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 The Name above Every Name, 
 
 And Other Sermons. 
 
 By the Rev. Charles D. Bell, D.D., Rector of Cheltenham, and 
 
 Honorary Canon of Carlisle, 
 
 Author of " The Saintly Calling,"' ''Night Scenes of the Bible," &c. 
 
 Crown 8vo., cloth. 
 
 Men of Might. 
 
 A Series of Short Biographies for Sunday Readings, 
 
 By A. C. Benson, M.A.. and M. T. Tatham, M.A., Assistant Masters at 
 Eton College. 
 
 Contents : 
 Socrates. Carlo Borromeo. 
 
 Mahomet. Fenelon. 
 
 St. Bernard. John Wesley. 
 
 Savonarola. George Washington. 
 
 Michael Angelo. Henry Martyn. 
 
 Crown Svo., cloth, 3s. 6d 
 
 Dr. Arnold. 
 Livingstone. 
 
 General Gordon. 
 Father Damien. 
 
 The Story of Our Continent. 
 
 An outline of the Geography and Geology of North America. 
 
 By N. S. Shaler, Professor of Geology in Harvard College, 
 
 Author of " Nature and Man in America,"' &c. 
 
 Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 Contents : Geography of North America ; the Growth of the Continent ; 
 Present Conditions of North America ; the Aboriginal Peoples ; Natural 
 Products and Resources ; Effect of the Form of North America on the 
 Colonists from Europe and their Descendants ; Commercial Condition of 
 North America. 
 This volume may almost be said to do for North America what Professor 
 Huxley has done for the Thames basin, in his famous text-book of Physio- 
 graphy. Professor Shaler has at his command a magic key that opens the 
 treasure-house wherein lie hidden the secrets of Nature carved upon the 
 boulders of the glacial epoch, or buried beneath the waves of the ocean, and 
 the adamantine rocks of the Cordilleras. In proportion to the great size of the 
 American continent is the grandeur of its physical resources and phenomena ; 
 and no more stimulating or suggestive discussion of them has yet appeared 
 than is contained in Professor Shaler's volume.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 Dark Days in Chile. 
 
 An Account of the Revolution of 1891. 
 
 By Maurice H. Hervey, Special Correspondent of The limes. 
 With fifteen full-page Illustrations. Demy 8vo.. 16s. 
 
 "The portion of the narrative in which the author gives an account of his 
 personal adventures is lull of exciting incidents, and may be taken as giving an 
 accurate account of the movements of the vessels Balmaceda possessed during 
 the Civil War."— The Field. 
 
 " Mr. Hervey's enthusiasm for Balmaceda involved him in many risky enter- 
 prises on board Government torpedo boats." — Broad Arrow. 
 
 " Mr. Hervey has the pen of a ready writer : his humour would cause him 
 to be claimed as an American were his nationality not known. Excellent type 
 and fair pages make easy reading oi ' Dark Days in Chile,' which must rank 
 among the lively books of the year." — Philadelphia Ledger. 
 
 A graphic account of an exceedingly troublous time in the history of South 
 American Republics." — Daily Telegraph. 
 
 " We have derived from Mr. Hervey's book a more intimate and vivid notion 
 of things and people in Chile, of the forces and the men that were the chief 
 factors in the war, than we have derived from any previous source." 
 
 Freeman s Journal. 
 
 " A vivid account of the author's adventures in Chile during the late Civil 
 War. . . His narrative is full of interest and exciting incidents." — The Times. 
 
 Animal Sketches. 
 
 A Popular Book of Natural History. 
 
 By Professor C. Lloyd Morgan, F.G.S., Principal of University 
 
 College, Bristol, 
 
 Author of "Animal Life and Intelligence," "The Springs of Conduct, "&c. 
 
 With nearly 60 Illustrations by W. Monkhouse Rowe. 
 
 Large crown 8vo. , cloth, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Contents : 
 
 The King of Beasts. Seals and Sea Lions. Thornies and Tinkers. 
 
 Bruin the Bear. Awuk the Walrus. Eels and Elvers. 
 
 Long-Xose, Long- Flittermice. The Oyster. 
 
 Neck, and Stumpy. Master Impertinence. The Honey Bee, 
 
 Cousin Sarah. Snakes. Spiders. 
 
 Sally's Poor Relations. The Ostrich. Crayfishes. 
 
 Horns and Antlers. Dwarf Lions. The Mermaid. 
 
 Froggies. 
 
 "One of the most simply delightful books about Natural History that has 
 come under our notice since the days of Frank Buckland whose mantle, indeed, 
 the present author appears to have inherited. Like Buckland, Professor 
 Morgan writes at first hand. The result is a charming volume full of bright 
 and lively anecdotes about all manner of animals, as fresh and simple as if 
 they were being told to a circle of eager listeners, and with just a slight tincture 
 of science in occasionally explaining interesting peculiarities or differences of 
 structure. Professor Morgan says in his brief preface, 'that his great object 
 is to induce the younger friends, whom he has especially in view, to look with 
 more observant and intelligent eyes on animals great and small, from the 
 elephant to the honey-bee.' He need not have limited the readers — who will 
 be charmed with his book — to any age or sex. It is rendered still more attrac- 
 tive by a profusion of most excellent and spirited illustrations by Mr. Rowe, 
 as perfectly true to nature as they are thoroughly artistic." — The Guardian. 
 
 " A charming book about animals." — Saturday Review.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 Animal Sketches— continued. 
 
 "This is one of those delightful books for young people which their parents 
 never had the benefit of, and for which they ought to be duly thankful. A com- 
 petent naturalist here gives them the result of his full and varied knowledge, 
 but gives it so blended with imagination and humour, so intermingled with 
 anecdote and personal adventure or observation, as to make it a real story-book 
 about animals; by reading which we learn much of their lives and habits, their 
 peculiarities of structure and their relation to each other, while we seem to be 
 only reading for amusement. 
 
 "There is a pervading tone of sympathy with all that lives, as well as a 
 general love and admiration of nature, that renders it a most suitable work for 
 the young. The cover and general* get-up are attractive, and every school 
 should add this charming volume to its list of prizes with the certainty that it 
 will be highly appreciated for its own sake by the recipients, and that its influ- 
 ence will be altogether wholesome and good." — Nature. 
 
 " Every page is bright with information and enticing anecdote.'' 
 
 Westmorland Gazette. 
 
 "An altogether delightful book; the illustrations moreover, and that is 
 saying a great deal, are worthy of the text." — Leeds Mercury. 
 
 "A very charming book." — Daily Chronicle. 
 
 Animal Life and Intelligence. 
 
 By C. Lloyd Morgan, F.G.S., Principal of University College, Bristol, 
 Author of "Animal Sketches," "The Springs of Conduct," &c. 
 With 40 Illustrations and a photo-etched Frontispiece. 
 Second Edition. 512 pp., demy Svo., cloth, 16s. 
 
 "Whether we look to the first half of the treatise, which is concerned with 
 animal life, or to the second half, which is devoted to a consideration of 
 animal intelligence, we must equally congratulate the author on the character 
 of his achievement. He has succeeded in the difficult task of furnishing in a 
 manner as interesting to the general reader as to the special student, an 
 almost exhaustive review of the facts and theories which at the present time 
 are of the most general importance to the sciences of biology and psychology. 
 Moreover, he has done this in a spirit of scientific precision, expressed in a 
 clear literary style, and everywhere free from the partisanship which, especially 
 where Darwinian questions are concerned, is becoming almost as marked a 
 feature in science as it is in politics. In short, 'Animal Life and Intelligence ' 
 deserves to be regarded as a noticeable book, because it sets forth the reasoned 
 conclusions of a well-instructed and a thoroughly impartial thinker upon the 
 topics which are now of highest moment to the sciences both of life and of 
 mind." — Professor G. J. Romanes, in Nineteenth Century Review. 
 
 " The work will prove a boon to all who desire to gain a general knowledge 
 of the more interesting problems of modern biology and psychology by the 
 perusal of a single compact, luminous, and very readable volume." 
 
 Professor A. R. Wallace, in Nature. 
 
 '* Professor Lloyd Morgan is emphatically a popular writer. He has the 
 art of selecting interesting facts, and of arranging them suggestively. He 
 uses simple language, and can be read without weariness by the busy and 
 unlearned. ' ' — Leeds Mercury. 
 
 " A learned and elaborate work. . . . Professor Lloyd Morgan is eminently 
 qualified, and his book is one which no serious student can neglect." — 'limes. 
 
 " Perhaps one of the finest passages in the whole treatise is that in which 
 the object and system of evolution is described. One of the most interesting 
 parts of the book to the general reader is that which is devoted to the faculties 
 of animals. . . . All will agree in admiring the masterly handling, the im- 
 partiality, and the absence of dogmatism which characterise Professor 
 Morgan's work." — Daily News.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 Love-Letters of a Worldly Woman. 
 
 By Mrs. W. K. CLIFFORD, 
 
 Author of " Mrs. Keith's Crime," &c. 
 In I vol.. crown 8vo., 6s. 
 'It is that vara avis — a volume characterised by knowledge of human 
 nature, and brightened by refined wit." — Morning Post. 
 
 " A book that will gladden the hearts of all thee who love literature for its 
 own sake." — H orld 
 
 " I have been reading one of the cleverest books that ever a woman wrote — 
 that is, ' Love-Letters of a Worldly Woman.' " — The Queen. 
 
 " The characterisation of the drama t/s persona in each case is forcible and 
 clear, and the letters in which the three stories are embodied are natural and 
 on the whole convincing." — Athenceum. 
 
 " This volume comes to. us in a particularly charming dress, which we hope 
 may entice readers to one of the most delicate, most original, and most 
 noticeable books of the season. . . . Many writers have pictured to us a 
 woman, but none more successfully than Mrs. Clifford, whose Madge Brooke 
 stands forth distinct and almost flesh and blood, — a human document." 
 
 Review of Reviews. 
 " In short analytical stories of this kind, Mrs. Clifford has come to take a 
 unique position in England." — Black and White. 
 
 The New Empire. 
 
 A Canadian Contribution to Modern Politics. 
 
 By O. A. Rowland, Barrister-at-Law. 
 Large crown 8vo., cloth, gilt top, 12s. 6d. 
 
 " A very valuable contiibuticn to the right understanding of that great 
 question that involves the future of the British Empire." — I nipt rial Federation. 
 
 "An earnest attempt to solve the problem of the Cok nies enjoying the 
 greatest possible autonomy without actual independence." — Academy. 
 
 " He argues ably and eloquently for closer union between the mother-country 
 and the colonies." — Times of India. 
 
 " The whole book is interesting as an expression of a body of Canadian 
 opinion of which too little is heard." — Manchester Guardian. 
 
 ' ' An admirable contribution to the solution of some problems not yet studied 
 with the historic continuity their importance merits." — Newcastle Chronicle. 
 
 "Though the subject is by no means a light one, the clearness of 
 Mr. Howland's exposition and the exceptional excellence of his style make 
 his volume anything but dull reading." — Glasgow Herald. 
 
 Friends of the Olden Time. 
 
 By Alice Gardner, Lecturer in History at Newnham College, Cambridge. 
 Illustrated. Square 8vo., 2s. 6d. 
 
 " A capital little book for children, whose interest in history it is desired to 
 stimulate by lively and picturesque narratives of Uie lives of heroes, and the 
 nobler aspects of heroic times Leonidas and Pericles, Solon and Socrates, 
 Camillus and Hannibal, the Gracchi and Alexander, form the subject of Miss 
 Gardner's animated recitals, which possess all the charm of simplicity and 
 clearness that should belong to stories told to children."— Saturday Review. 
 
 " The book is admirably adapted for children. It is gracefully written, full 
 of movement, and gives much delightful information as to the old world and 
 its great names." — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 ' ' So happily are the subjects treated that the book throughout possesses all 
 the fascination of a fairy tale." — Evening News. 
 
 '' In conception and execution the work is admirable, and the illustrations 
 also are excellent." — Glasgow Herald.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold 's List. 
 
 My Mission to Abyssinia. 
 
 By Gerald H. Portal, C.B., Her Majesty's Consul-General at Zanzibar. 
 With Portrait, Map, and numerous Illustrations. Demy 8vo., 15s. 
 
 " A very interesting account of the writer's adventures in Abyssinia on the 
 occasion of his mission in 1887-8 to the King of that country for the purpose 
 of bringing about a modus vivendi between Italy and Abyssinia after the 
 massacre of Dogali. Mr. Portal's narrative is personal and descriptive rather 
 than political. It abounds in interest and excitement, and he has much to tell 
 which is well worth hearing." — Times. 
 
 " We can safely recommend Mr. Portal's book to all classes of readers, and 
 cannot imagine anyone who will not be interested in it. He has much to tell, 
 and tells it well." — Academy. 
 
 "A record of one of the most daring achievements ever accomplished on 
 behalf of the Foreign Office. Mr. Portal's narrative is at once lucid, brief, and 
 intensely interesting." — St. James' Gazette. 
 
 " The dangers to which the mission was constantly exposed, and the calm 
 ness and courage with which they were faced are simply and modestly recorded, 
 whilst we obtain also much light as to the habits and characteristics of the 
 Abyssinians as a nation " — United Service Institution Joicrnai. 
 
 "The book is beautifully illustrated." — Leeds Mercury. 
 
 " Mr. Portal had excellent materials for the making of an exciting book, and 
 he has availed himself of them very creditably. He is fortunate in having seen 
 the country at its best, and still more in having lived to describe it." 
 
 The Guardian. 
 
 Barerock ; or, the Island of Pearls. 
 
 By Henry Nash 
 With numerous full-page and other Illustrations by Lancelot Speed. 
 Large crown 8vo. Over 400 pages, handsomely bound, gilt edges, 6s. 
 
 "Among the best boys' books of the season is 'Barerock,' a thrilling 
 narrative of strange perils and hair-breadth escapes, encountered by flood and 
 field alike, by two youngsters belonging to a whaler — one a brave but ignorant 
 lad sprung from the people, the other a gently-born and studious youth whose 
 booklearning comes in uncommonly handy when both the gallant striplings 
 are cast away on a small and desolate volcanic island off the south-west coast 
 of Africa. It is due, indeed, to Jack Gordon's erudition, aided by natural in- 
 genuity, that he and his fellow-castaway, Tom Hamilton, achieve in the way 
 of making themselves comfortable, in a peculiarly desolate locality, feats which 
 surpass the most remarkable performances of Robinson Crusoe. It is an ex- 
 cellent work, the interest of which, from commencement to finish, does not 
 flag for an instant." — Daily Telegraph. 
 
 " Mr. Henry Nash is a new writer, but he has given us in ' Barerock ' one 
 of the best boys' books of the season. The story is a particularly good one, 
 interesting from start to finish, without being too sensational." 
 
 Review of Reviews. 
 
 '' There is a terse descriptive force of style in ' Barerock ' which gives it a 
 good place among the boys' books of the season. The feats of ingenuity (of 
 the heroes) are both instructive and fascinating reading. Their later blood- 
 curdling experiences among a settlement of blacks who invade the boys' island, 
 and carry them off to the mainland, and the stratagems by which Jack saves 
 the lives of our heroes at every turn, are not a little thrilling." 
 
 Manchester Guardian
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 Barerock ; or, The Island of Pearls— continued. 
 
 " For fertility of invention, wealth of imagination, and luxuriousness of inci- 
 dent, commend us to ' Barerock,' the new story of adventure by Henry Nash. 
 While enchantingly interesting, it is also a splendid moral lesson to read how 
 it becomes possible under a resourceless condition to carve out one's own 
 fortunes. In breathless haste incident succeeds incident, till, thrilled and 
 throbbing, the reader regretfully turns over the last page. "— Sheffield Telegraph. 
 
 " A book vastly to our taste — a book to charm all boys, and ienew the boy 
 in all who have ever been boys. There are all kinds of delights— a shipwreck, 
 a desert island, a Crusoe-like life enjoyed by two boys, a 'surprise party' of 
 savages, and a wonderful coil of exciting incidents among West African blacks. 
 Jack may be a trifle too clever in adapting himself and his comrade to their 
 new environments ; but Mr. Nash is a persuasive romancer. He never over- 
 does the ingenious results of Jack's book-learning like some of our latter-day 
 Crusoe-men, and we acknowledge the spell he casts over us." 
 
 Saturday Review. 
 
 " A captivating story of adventures by sea and land." — Daily News. 
 
 "A story of shipwreck and adventure calculated to make Daniel Defoe 
 jealously uneasy in his grave." — Evening News. 
 
 "A story of the healthiest and most vigorous type, full of excitement and 
 go." — Scottish Leader. 
 
 "A book that' will be devoured by boys, full of adventures, told in capital 
 style, and illustrated with alluring pictures.'' — Sunday Times. 
 
 "The wonderful developments which ensue are skilfully written, and the 
 final escape of the young heroes is worked up to in thrilling style. 
 
 Westmorland Gazette. 
 
 ENGLISH LITERATURE. 
 
 THE HARYARD EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE'S COMPLETE 
 
 WORKS. A fine Library Edition, by Henry N. Hudson, LL.D. , 
 Author of "The Life, Art, and Characters of Shakespeare." In Twenty 
 Volumes. Large crown 8vo., cloth, £6. Also in Ten Volumes, £$. 
 " An edition of Shakespeare to which Mr. Hudson's name is affixed does not need a 
 line from anybody to commend it." — Oliver Wendell Holmes. 
 
 THE LIFE, ART, AND CHARACTERS OF SHAKESPEARE. By 
 
 Henry N. Hudson, LLD. , Editor of" The Harvard Shakespeare," &c. 
 In Two Volumes, 969 pages. Large crown 8vo. , cloth, 21s. 
 "They deserve to find a place in every library devoted to Shakespeare, to editions of 
 his works, to his biography, or to the works of commentators."- — The Atheneeum. 
 
 THE PLAYS OF SHAKESPEARE. Edited by W. J. Rolfe. An 
 admirable Edition for students, with valuable Introductions and ample 
 Notes. Each Play separately. Paper, 2s. 6d. 
 
 THE BEST ELIZABETHAN PLAYS. Edited, with an Introduction, 
 by William R. Thayer. The selection comprises ' ' The Jew of Malta," 
 by Marlowe ; "The Alchemist," by Ben Jonson ; " Philaster, " by Beau- 
 mont and Fletcher; "The Two Noble Kinsmen," by Fletcher and 
 Shakespeare ; and " The Duchess of Malfi," by Webster. 612 pages. 
 Large crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 
 "A useful edition slightly expurgated." — The Times. 
 
 SIR PHILIP SIDNEY'S "DEFENSE OF POESY." Edited by 
 Albert S. Cook, Professor in Yale University. Crown 8vo., Cloth, 4s. 6d. 
 " A more scholarly piece of work could hardly have been produced. . . . We acknow- 
 ledge to have never seen a better student's manual." — Westminster Review. 
 
 SHELLEY'S "DEFENSE OF POETRY." Edited by Albert S. 
 Cook, Professor in Yale University. Crown 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
 
 Mr. Edzuard Arnold 's List. 
 
 ENGLISH LITERATURE— continued. 
 SELECTIONS IN ENGLISH PROSE FROM ELIZABETH TO 
 
 VICTORIA, chosen and arranged by James M. Garnett, M.A., LL.D., 
 
 Professor of English in the University of Virginia. 700 pages. Crown 
 
 8vo., 7s. 6d. 
 
 " The excerpts amount to but thirty-three in all, and each is of such a size as to convey 
 
 a much more satisfactory idea of the particular author's style than can be obtained from 
 
 a collection of disjointed subjects. Mr. Garnett has made his selection with judgment 
 
 and good taste." — National Observer. 
 
 A HANDBOOK TO DANTE. By Giovanni A. Scartazzini. 
 Translated from the Italian, with Notes and Additions, by Thomas 
 Davidson, M A. In two parts, the first treating of Dante's Life; the 
 second, of his Works. To every section is appended a valuable Biblio 
 graphy. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s. 
 "This handbook gives us just what we require, a faithful representation of the man, 
 
 his life, his love, his history, and his work."— Perth Advertiser. 
 
 DANTE'S ELEYEN LETTERS. (See page 2). 
 
 "MODERN MEN" FROM THE "NATIONAL OBSERYER." 
 
 Literary Portraits of the most prominent men of the day. Two volumes 
 in the series are now ready. Crown 8vo., paper, is. each. 
 
 POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 POLITICAL SCIENCE AND COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 LAW. By John W. Burgess, Ph.D , LL.D., Dean of the University 
 
 Faculty of Political Science in Columbia College, U.S A. In Two Volumes, 
 
 Demy 8vo , cloth, 25s. 
 "The work is full of keen analysis and suggestive comment, and may be confidently 
 recommended to all serious students of comparative politics and jurisprudence." 
 
 The Times. 
 THE HARVARD HISTORICAL MONOGRAPHS. 
 Volume I.— THE VETO POWER: Its Origin, Development, and 
 
 Function in the Government of the United States. By Edward 
 
 Campbell Mason. Demy 8vo. , paper, 5s. 
 Volume II —AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF FEDERAL 
 
 GOVERNMENT. By Albert Bushnell Hart, Ph.D. Demy 8vo., 
 
 paper, 5s 
 WORKS BY SIR RAWSON RAWSON, K.C.M.G., Published by the 
 
 Imperial Federation League. 
 
 1. The Tariffs of the British Empire. One Volume. Demy 8vo., 
 cloth, 3s 6d. With 16 Tables illustrating the Course of British 'I rade. 
 
 2. The Trade of the British Empire from 1854 to 1888. Forming 
 a Sequel to the above. Demy 8vo., 6s. 
 
 " The whole empire owes a debt of gratitude to Sir Rawson Rawson.' — The Tunes. 
 
 OUR GOVERNMENT (OF U.S.A.) : HOW IT GREW ; WHAT IT 
 
 DOES ; AND HOW IT DOES IT. By Jesse Macy, Professor of 
 History and Political Science in Iowa College. 250 pages Crown 8vo., 
 cloth, 3s. 6d. . 
 
 "An admirable elementary sketch for school use of the structure and functions of the 
 
 Federal and States Government."— Prof. James Bryce, LL.D., M.P. 
 
 THE MODERN DISTRIBUTIVE PROCESS : Studies of Competition 
 and its Limits, of the Nature and Amount of Profits, and of the Deter- 
 mination of Wages in the Industrial Society of To-day. By John 
 B. Clark and Franklin H. Giddings. T7 pages. 8vo., cloth, 
 4s. 6d.
 
 io Mr. Ed7vard Arnold's List. 
 
 POLITICAL SCIENCB-«w*nrse* 
 SHARING THE PROFITS: An attempt to state, in the shortest and 
 clearest terms, the theory of Profit-sharing, to explain its methods, and to 
 describe its results. By M. W. Calkins, A M. 70 pages. Crown 8vo., 
 paper, is. 6d. 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF WEALTH: Economic Principles newly 
 formulated. By John B. Clark, A.M., Lecturer on Political Economy 
 in Amherst College, xiii + 235 pages. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. 6d. 
 " The book is one that every wage worker should read, for it is the honest thought of 
 an honest man, honestly expressed." — The Workman. 
 
 LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO CURRENCY, 
 FINANCE AND HANKING, from 1789 to 1891. By Charles F. 
 DlJNBAR, Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University. Demy 
 8vo , cloth, 12s. 6d. 
 
 THE PARNELL COMMISSION. 
 A HANDBOOK TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION : 
 A popular Guide and Commentary, giving the pith of the whole Report, 
 and quoting the most striking points for the use and enlightenment of the 
 General Public By H. O. Arnold-Forster. Demy 8vo., paper, is. 
 (Special terms for quantities for election purposes ) 
 "As far as I have been able to judge from a cursory glance (at the Handbook), it 
 seems to me to be very well done, and I am sure that there is nothing of greater impor- 
 tance than that the electors of the United Kingdom should understand exactly the effect 
 of the findings of the Judges." — SirRichard Webster, M.P., H.M. Attorney-General. 
 
 NATURAL SCIENCE. 
 
 THE JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY: A Journal of Animal Mor- 
 phology, devoted principally to Embryological, Anatomical, and Histological 
 subject's Edited by C. O Whitman, Professor of Biology in Clark 
 University, US. A Three Numbers in a Volume, of 100 to 150 large 4to. 
 pages, with numerous Plates Single Numbers, 17s. 6d ; Subscription to 
 the Volume of three Numbers, 45s. Volumes I. to V. can now be 
 obtained, and the first number of Volume VI. is just ready. 
 
 BIOLOGICAL LECTURHS. Delivered at the Marine Biological 
 Laboratory of Wood's Holl, U S.A., in 1890, by Professor Whitman and 
 others Crown 8vo., with numerous Illustrations, 9s. 
 
 ANIMAL LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE. By Professor Lloyd 
 
 Morgan. (See page 5). 
 ANIMAL SKETCHES. By Professor Lloyd Morgan. (See page 4). 
 
 A GENERAL ASTRONOMY. By Charles A. Young, Professor of 
 Astronomy in the College of New Jersey, Associate of the Royal Astro- 
 nomical Society, Author of "The Sun," &c In One Volume, 550 pages. 
 With 250 Illustrations, and supplemented with the necessary Tables. 
 Royal 8vo., half-morocco, 12s. 6d. 
 " A grand book by a grand man. The work should become a text-book wherever the 
 
 English language is spoken, for no abler, no more trustworthy compilation of the kind 
 
 has ever appeared for the advantage of students in every line of higher education." 
 
 Prof. Piazzi Smyth. 
 
 ELEMENTS OF ASTRONOMY. By the same Author. 7s. 6d. 
 
 LESSONS IN ASTRONOMY. By the same Auihor. 6s. 
 
 ELEMENTS OF STRUCTURAL AND SYSTEMATIC BOTANY: 
 Designed to serve as both a Laboratory Guide and an outline of the 
 Classification of the Vegetable Kingdom, based upon the results of the 
 most recent and reliable authorities By Douglas Houghton Camp- 
 bell, Ph.D , Professor of Botany in the Indiana University. With 128 
 Illustrations Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 WORKS BY DR. PAUL CARUS. 
 THE SOUL OF MAN : An Investigation of the Facts of Physiological 
 and Experimental Psychology. By Dr. Paul Carus. With 150 Illus- 
 trative Cuts and Diagrams. Large crown 8vo , cloth, 12s. 6d. 
 
 HOMILIES OF SCIENCE. By Dr. Taul Carus, Editor of "The 
 Open Court," Author of "The Soul of Man," &c. Contents : Religion 
 and Religious Growth — Progress and Religious Life— God and the World 
 — The Soul — Death and Immortality — Freethought — Doubt and Faith — 
 Ethics and Practical Life— Society and Politics. Large crown 8vo., 
 cloth, 6s. 6d. 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW. Edited by J. G. Schurman, 
 Professor of Philosophy in Cornell University, U S.A Six Numbers a 
 year. Single Numbers, 3s. 6d. ; Annual Subscription, 12s. 6d. The first 
 number was issued in January, 1892. The Review is intended to range 
 over the whole field of Philosophy ; all articles will be signed, and the 
 contributors already secured include the names of the foremost philoso- 
 phical teachers and writers of America, and many of those of England and 
 the Continent of Europe. 
 
 LOTZE'S PHILOSOPHICAL OUTLINES: Dictated Portions of the 
 Latest Lectures (at Gottingen and Berlin) of Hermann Lotze. Translated 
 and edited by George T. Ladd, Professor of Philosophy in Yale College. 
 In Six Volumes, obtainable separately. Vol. I., Metaphysics; Vol II., 
 Philosophy of Religion; Vol. III., Practical Philosophy; Vol. IV., 
 Psychology; Vol. V. , ^Esthetics; Vol. \I . Logic. Crown 8vo., cloth, 
 4s. each. 
 " No man of letters, no specialist in science, no philosopher, no theologian, but would 
 
 derive incalculable benefit lrom the thorough study of Lotze's system of philosophy." 
 
 The Spectator. 
 
 MECHANISM AND PERSONALITY: An Outline of Philosophy in the 
 Light of the Latest Scientific Research. By Francis A Shoup, D.D. 
 Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s. 
 
 THE SPRINGS OF CONDUCT. By Prof. Lloyd Morgan. (See 
 page 3). 
 
 ORIENTAL LITERATURE. 
 
 PUBLICATIONS OF THE INDIA OFFICE AND OF THE GOVERN- 
 MENT OF INDIA. Mr. Edward Arnold, having been appointed 
 Publisher to the Secretary of State for India in Council, has now on sale 
 the above publications at 37, Bedford Street, Strand, and is prepared to 
 supply full information concerning them on application. 
 
 INDIAN GOVERNMENT MAPS. Any of the Maps in this magnificent 
 series can now be obtained at the shortest notice from Mr. Edward 
 Arnold, Publisher to the India Office. 
 
 INDIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. 
 new work on the surveys of india. 
 
 A MEMOIR ON THE INDIAN SURVEYS, 1875-1890. By C. E. 
 Black. The work is designed as a continuation ot Mr. Markham's work 
 on the same subject. Imperial 8vo., with Coloured Frontispiece and 
 Map, 7s.- 6d. 
 
 SCIENTIFIC RESULTS OF THE SECOND YARKAND MISSION. 
 The Two concluding Parts of this work are now ready, viz., A Monograph 
 on the Birds. By Dr. R. Bowdler Sharpe. 20s. And, A General 
 Introduction. By A. O. Hu.ME, C.B. is. 6d.
 
 12 .'//-. Edward Arnold's List. 
 
 ORIENTAL LITERATURE— continued. 
 HARYARD ORIENTAL SERIES. Edited, with the co-operation of 
 
 various Scholars, by Charles Rockwell LANMAN, Professor of Sanskrit 
 
 in Harvard University. 
 Vol I.— The Jataka-Mala; or, Bodhisattvavadana-Mala. 
 
 By Arya-UCra. Edited by Dr. Hendrik Kern, Professor in the 
 
 University of Leiden, with Preface, Text, and Various Readings. 
 
 Royal 8vo., cloth, 6s., nett. 
 A HYMN OF ZOROASTER : YASNA 31. Translated with Comments 
 
 by A. V. W. Jackson, Ph.D., of Columbia College, xii + 62 pages. 
 
 8vo., paper, 5s. 
 AYESTA SERIES (Part I.). Sketch of Avesta Grammar and Syntax 
 
 by A V. Williams Jackson, of Columbia College, New York City. 
 
 [/« Preparation. 
 AYESTA SERIES (Part II.). Texts for easier reading, with brief 
 
 Notes and Vocabulary. The Selections are from the Yasna, Visparad, 
 
 Yashts, Vendidad. By A. V. Williams Jackson. [In Preparation. 
 
 NINE JATAKAS. Pali Text, in Transliteration, with Vocabulary. 
 By Levi H. Elwell. iii + 120 pages. Square 16 mo., cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 THE RIGYEDA: The oldest literature of the Indians. By Adolf Kaegi, 
 Professor in the University of Ziirich. Authorised Translation by R. 
 Arrowsmith, Ph.D. viii+ 198 pages. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d. 
 
 HINDU LITERATURE ; OR, THE ANCIENT BOOKS OF INDIA. 
 
 By E. A. Reed, Member of the Philosophical Society. 428 pages. 
 
 Dcniv 8vo., cloth, 10s. 
 "A very commendable survey of ancient Sanskrit literalure so far as it presents a 
 picture of the earlier phase of Hindu Religion, mytholoey and legendary lore. The work 
 is pre-eminently adapted by its trustworthy character, its judicious selection of what is 
 essential and attractive, and by its readable form, to enlist the sympathetic interest of the 
 educated classes." — Dr. Rost, Librarian to the India Office. 
 
 LANMAN'S SANSKRIT READER. New Edition, with Vocabulary and 
 Notes. By Charles Rockwell Lanman, Professor of Sanskrit in 
 Harvard College. For use in Colleges and for private study, xxiv+405 
 pages. Royal 8vo. , cloth, 10s. 6d. 
 
 A SANSKRIT PRIMER. Based on the Leitfaden fur den Ehmentar- 
 airsus Sanskrit of Professor Georg Biihler, of Vienna. With Exercises 
 and Vocabularies by Edward Delavan Perky, Ph.D., of Columbia 
 College, New York, xii+232 pages. 8vo., cloth, 8s. 
 
 A GRAMMAR OF THE OLD PERSIAN LANGUAGE. With the 
 Inscriptions of the Achxmenian Kings, and Vocabulary. By H. C. 
 Tolman, Ph.D. Cloth, 4s. 6d. 
 
 OMARAH'S HISTORY OF YEMEN. (See page 2). 
 
 PORTAL'S MISSION TO ABYSSINIA. (See page 7). 
 
 WORKS on TEACHING and EDUCATION. 
 
 REMINISCENCES OF FROEBEL. By the Baroness Von Marenholz- 
 BULOW. Translated by Mrs. Mary Mann. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d. 
 
 TALKS ON TEACHING. By F. W. Parker. Tenth Edition. 6s. 6d. 
 
 PATRIDGE'S QUINCEY METHODS. By Lelia E. Patriae. 
 Third Edition. Illustrated 686 pages. 8s. 6d.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. 13 
 
 WORKS ON TEACHING AND EDUCATION— continued. 
 THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SERIES. Edited by William 
 T. Harris, LL. D., &c, United States Commissioner of Education. It 
 forms an admirable collection for Teachers and Students of Educational 
 subjects, and should find a place on the shelves of every Library. Each 
 Volume can be obtained separately, and forms an independent work in 
 itself. The Series is uniformly bound in ornamental cloth covers, crown 
 8vo.,well printed on good paper, with Diagrams and Illustrations where 
 necessary. 
 
 The Philosophy of Education. By Johann Karl Rosenkranz, 
 Doctor of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Konigsberg. (Trans- 
 lated.) Second Edition, xii + 286 pages. 6s. 
 
 A History of Education. By Professor F. V. N. Painter, xvi+335 
 pages. 6s. 
 
 The Yentilation and Warming of School Buildings. With Plans 
 and Diagrams By Gilbert B. Morrison, xxiv+173 pages. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Froebel's " Education of Man." Translated by W. N. Hailman. 
 xx +332 pages. 6s. 
 
 Elementary Psychology and Education. By Dr. J. Baldwin. 
 Illustrated, xviii+293 pages. 6s. 
 
 The Senses and the Will. Forming Part I. of The Mind of the Child. 
 By W. Preyer, Professor of Physiology in the University of Jena. 
 (Translated.) xxvi+346 pages. 6s. 
 
 The Development of the Intellect. Forming Part II. of The Mind 
 of the Child. By Professor W. Preyer. (Translated) xlii + 318 
 pages. 6s. 
 
 How to Study Geography." By Francis W. Parker. 400 pages. 6s 
 
 A History of Education in the United States. By Richard A. 
 Boone, Professor of Pedagogy in Indiana University, xvi+402 pages. 6s. 
 
 European Schools ; or, What I Saw in the Schools of Germany, 
 
 France, Austria, and Switzerland. By L. R. Klemm, Ph.D. With 
 numerous Illustrations, xii+419 pages. 8s. 6d. 
 
 Practical Hints for Teachers. By George Howland, Superinten- 
 dent of the Chicago Schools, xii+198 pages. 43. 6d. 
 School Supervision. By J. L. Pickard. 4s. 6d. 
 Higher Education of Women in Europe. Helene Lange. 4s. 6d. 
 Herbart's Text-Book in Psychology. By M. K. Smith. 4s. 6d. 
 Fouillee's Education from a National Standpoint. 7s. 6d. (See p. 3). 
 
 BOOKS FOR THE YOUNG. 
 
 LAMB'S ADVENTURES OF ULYSSES. With an Introduction by 
 Andrew Lang. Third and Eourth Thousand. Square 8vo. , cloth, 
 is. 6d. Also, the Prize Edition, gilt edges, 2s. 
 " Boys in reading the story of the hero's wanderings find in it the same sort of charm 
 that attracts them in ' Robinson Crusoe'." — Manchester Guardian. 
 
 THE CHILDREN'S DICKENS. David Copperfield— The Old 
 
 Curiosity Shop — Dombey and Son. Illustrated from the Original 
 
 Plates, and abridged for the use of children by J. H. Yoxall. Square 
 
 8vo. , cloth, is. 6d. each volume. Also, specially bound for Prizes and 
 
 Presents, with gilt edges, 2s. each. 
 
 " The books have been cut down to manageable length by the excision of passages 
 
 unsuited to the comprehension of children, or unlikely to maintain their interest, the 
 
 continuity of the story being preserved by the interpolation of short passages from the 
 
 editor's pen, printed in italics. The work of compression is judiciously carried out, the 
 
 type is bold and clear, and the illustrations are taken from the original plates." 
 
 The Guardian.
 
 14 Mr. Edward Arnold'' s List. 
 
 BOOKS FOR THE YOUNG— continued. 
 THE NINE WORLDS. Stones from Norse Mythology. By Mary E. 
 LITCHFIELD. Illustrated. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 
 " These short stories are intended for children, but the author hopes they will not be 
 uninteresting to older persons. We suspect that the latter will enjoy them even more 
 than the former." — Journal of Education. 
 
 TWILIGHT THOUGHTS. Claude's Popular Fairy Stories. With a 
 Preface by Matthew Arnold. Crown 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 
 "There is nature and fable and pathos and morality in these stories, something for 
 every taste." — From the Preface. 
 
 BAREROCK ; or, The Island of Pearls. By H. Nash. (See page 7.) 
 FRIENDS OF THE OLDEN TIME. By Alice Gardner. (Seepage 6.) 
 ANIMAL SKETCHES. By Prof. Lloyd Morgan. (See page 4.) 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 THE WESTMINSTER REYIEW. Founded by Jeremy Bentham. 
 Monthly, 2s. 6d. ; Annual Subscription, 30s. It is a noteworthy fact that 
 George'Eliot was for a considerable time associated with the editorship of 
 the Westminster Review. 
 
 L'AMARANTHE: Revue Litteraire, Artistique Illustree. Dediee aux 
 filles de France. A monthly Magazine containing original articles by the 
 best French writers, specially intended for the perusal of young people, 
 is. monthly ; Annual Subscription, 14s 
 
 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIA- 
 TION. Vols. I. — XXI. Containing Papers by Specialists on Ancient 
 and Modern Languages and Literature. The price of the volumes is 10s. 
 each, except Volumes XV. and XX , which are 12s. 6d. each. Volumes 
 I. and II. are not sold separately. An Index of Authors and Subjects to 
 Volumes I. — XX. is issued, price 2s. 6d. 
 
 "The articles are all able, all excellent of their kind, and all informing 
 and suggestive." — Glasgow Herald. 
 
 The Forum. 
 
 The Famous American Review, which holds a position equivalent to 
 
 that of the Nineteenth Century in England. 
 
 Price Half-a-Crown monthly ; Annual Subscription post free 30s. 
 
 New volumes begin in September and March, but Subscriptions can be 
 commenced at any time. 
 
 The " Forum " is published in New York, but can be obtained regularly in 
 England about the 10th of the month, at all the principal railway bookstalls, 
 or ordered through any bookseller. In case of any difficulty in obtaining it, 
 direct application should be made to Mr. Edward Arnold, Sole Agent for 
 the " Forum " in the United Kingdom. 
 
 A conspicuous feature in the Review is the prominence it gives to articles by 
 European Contributors, nearly every number containing articles by the best 
 English writers 
 
 The importance of the " Forum " to the ever-increasing body of Englishmen 
 who desire to know something ot American intellectual and social affairs, can 
 hardly be exaggerated. Each day brings some new event, or movement or 
 problem which originates in the United States, but reacts throughout the 
 length and breadth of Great Britain ; and the intelligent Englishman who has 
 access to a copy of the ' ' Forum " can rest assured that he has a means ot 
 obtaining information second to none in accuracy, timeliness and authority 
 concerning Transatlantic affairs. 
 
 London: EDWARD ARNOLD, 37, Bedford Street, Strand, W.C.
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's List. J5 
 
 ARNOLD'S LITERARY LIST OF NEW 
 AMERICAN BOOKS 
 
 Is issued as a rule once a quarter, and will be sent post free to 
 any address on application. It contains a carefully selected list 
 of the best books published in the United States, classified under 
 their subjects. Great pains are taken only to include books which 
 have some interest for readers in the Old World. American 
 literature is particularly rich in books on Technical subjects, to 
 which Arnold's Literary List will be found a useful guide. 
 
 EDUCATIONAL CATALOGUE. 
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold's complete Educational Catalogue, 
 including the principal publications of Messrs. Ginn & Co., of 
 Boston, U.S.A., is issued annually in June or July, and will be 
 sent post free on application. Special lists and circulars of new 
 Text-books for use in Elementary and Secondary Schools are also 
 issued periodically. 
 
 INDIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 (See page II.) 
 
 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 No country is more distinguished than the United States for 
 the value and range of the works published officially by Govern- 
 ment. As these books are not sold in the usual ^ourse, Mr. 
 Edward Arnold has made special arrangements for their 
 supply on the best terms. 
 
 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Most of the important American Universities publish from 
 time to time monographs embodying the researches of their 
 distinguished Professors, and containing a vast amount of informa- 
 tion not obtainable elsewhere. On account of their value to 
 English Students and Libraries, Mr. Edward Arnold has 
 placed himself in communication with the Universities in question, 
 and can supply any of their publications. 
 
 London: EDWARD ARNOLD, 37, Bedford Street, W.C. 
 Publisher to the India Office.
 
 i6 
 
 Mr. Edward Arnold'' s List. 
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Arnold-Forster — Handbook to 
 Report ... ... ... .. 10 
 
 L'Amaranthe 14 
 
 American Philological Association 
 Transactions ... 14 
 
 Bell — Name above Every Name... 3 
 Benson & Tatham — Men of Might 3 
 Burgess — Political Science ... 9 
 
 Bulow — Froebel's Reminiscences.. 12 
 
 Clark — Modern Distributive Pro- 
 cess 9 
 
 Philosophy of Wealth 10 
 
 Clifford— Love- Letters 6 
 
 Calkins— Sharing the Profits ... 10 
 
 Campbell — Botany to 
 
 Carus— Soul of Man n 
 
 Homilies of Science 11 
 
 Claude — Twilight Thoughts ... 13 
 
 Dickens — The Children's 13 
 
 Dante — Eleven Letters 2 
 
 Davidson — Handbook to Dante... 9 
 Dunbar — U.S. Laws of Currency, 
 &c ... 10 
 
 Forum ... ... ••• ... 14 
 
 Fouillee — Education ... ... 3 
 
 Greenstreet — Fouillee's Education 3 
 Gardner — Friends of Olden Time 6 
 Garnett — English Prose Selections 9 
 
 Hervey — Dark Days in Chile ... 4 
 
 Hole — Book about Garden ... 1 
 
 Book about Roses 1 
 
 Little Tour in Ireland 2 
 
 Hutchinson — That Fiddler Fellow 2 
 
 Howland — New Empire 6 
 
 Harvard Shakespeare 8 
 
 Harvard Historical Monographs 9 
 
 Harvard Oriental Series ... ... 12 
 
 Hudson- Life, Art, and Characters 
 
 of Shakespeare 8 
 
 India Office Publications. . ... n 
 International Education Series ... 13 
 
 Journal of Morphology ... ... 10 
 
 Kay — Omarah's Yemen ... ... 2 
 
 Lang — Lamb's Ulysses ... ... 13 
 
 Lanman — Sanskrit Reader ... 12 
 
 Latham — Dante's Letters ... 2 
 
 Litchfield — Nine Worlds 14 
 
 Lotze — Philosophical Outlines ... 11 
 
 Macy — Our Government ... ... 9 
 
 Morgan — Springs of Conduct ... 3 
 
 Animal Sketches.. ... ... 4 
 
 Animal Life ... ... ... 5 
 
 Modern Men 9 
 
 Nash — Barerock ... ... .. 7 
 
 Oriental Publications ... ... n 
 
 Oxonian — Little Tour in Ireland 2 
 
 Patridge — Quincey Methods ... 12 
 
 Parker — Talks on Teaching ... 12 
 
 Perry — Sanskrit Primer ... . . 12 
 
 Philosophical Review ... ... 11 
 
 Portal— Mission to Abyssinia ... 7 
 
 Rawson — Works by Sir R. ... 9 
 
 Reed — Hindu Literature 12 
 
 Rolfe — Shakespeare's Plays ... 8 
 
 Shaler — Story of our Continent ... 3 
 Sidney — Defense of Poesy ... 8 
 
 Shelley — Defense of Poetry ... 8 
 
 Shoup— Mechanism 5; Personality 11 
 
 Thayer — Elizabethan Plays ... 8 
 Tolman — Persian Grammar ... 12 
 
 Westminster Review 14 
 
 Whitmore — Six Years of Unionist 
 Government ... ... ... 2 
 
 Wood's i^Hollf Biological Lectures 10 
 Young — Astronomy 10 
 
 London 
 
 EDWARD ARNOLD, 37, Bedford Street, Strand, W.C. 
 
 I'ublisher to the India Office.
 
 LAW LIBKAlO 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 802 157