RAS-1987 — Page 94

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

lished in 1884 by ex-pupils and prominent members of the Chinese community as a mark of respect for Dr. Frederick Stewart who had resigned as headmaster in 1881 after nearly twenty years service to the school; and various special prizes especially for proficiency in Chinese.

He was appointed under Colonial Standing Order 3248 of 1884, as from 1st January, 1885, at a salary of $300 per year.

27 The authority for his appointment was CSO2202. His starting salary was $240 per annum.

24 For details of the memorial system and the part played in its genesis in England by Andrew Bell (1753-1832) and Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838), see John Lawson and Harold Silver, A Social History of Education in England (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 241-246.

In one of Eitel's reports on the short-lived Normal School in Hong Kong, he refers to the "Madras-born monitorial scheme of Bell and Lancaster" being adopted at the Central School by Stewart. In Eitel's opinion, this scheme suffered in comparison with the Normal School because it did not include “the special private tuition and instruction”, presumably, in teaching rationale and methods. (CO129/202, p. 532).

In his Annual Report for the year 1866, for example, Stewart wrote: "In my last Report I stated that I entertained the hope of being soon able to overcome many difficulties connected with the school by training Chinese assistants for their work. I then anticipated that I should always be able to retain two of the more advanced boys for a period of at least four years, after which they might, if they chose, find employment elsewhere and be succeeded by the two who stood next to them. The project has all but failed. The demand for the services of the more intelligent of the boys is so great that it is, in the meantime, hopeless to expect them to remain for any length of time. The two in whose case the experiment was tried have both left many months ago, just when they were beginning to be of real value to the school. I shall not, however, abandon the scheme. Out of several, it may be possible to retain some; and, as the knowledge of English becomes more general and situations more difficult to be obtained, the greater will be the probability that these Assistants will remain until, at least, others are qualified to take their place.” (Hong Kong Government Blue Book, 1866, pp. 279-280).

30 The dispute was, in some ways, a continuation of the friction which existed between Frederick Stewart and Eitel after the separation of the duties of Headmaster of the Central School from those of the Inspector of Schools in 1878, first as an expedient measure while Dr. Stewart was on long leave in England and subsequently confirmed on Stewart's return to Hong Kong. Bateson Wright succeeded Stewart as Headmaster of the Central School in 1881. He inherited the bitter relations between the two leading education officers in the Government, but his own, quite positive personality, if anything, exacerbated the situation so much so, that the supervision of the Central School was taken away from the responsibilities of the Inspectorate and a “Dual System" inaugurated whereby the Central School, renamed successively Victoria College and Queen's College, was administered and reported on by its own Headmaster and eventually examined by an independent Board which did not include the Inspector of Schools. The Dual System was kept in being until the retirement of Bateson Wright in 1909, when the Government's educational system was reunited and renamed the Education Department, headed by a Director of Education in place of the Inspector of Schools.11 Stokes (1962), p. 47.

Edit History

2026-05-13 03:50:28 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

69 lished in 1884 by ex-pupils and prominent members of the Chinese community as a mark of respect for Dr. Frederick Stewart who had resigned as headmaster in 1881 after nearly twenty years service to the school; and various special prizes especially for proficiency in Chinese. 26 He was appointed under Colonial Standing Order 3248 of 1884, as from 1st January, 1885, at a salary of $300 per year. 27 The authority for his appointment was CSO2202. His starting salary was $240 per annum. 24 For details of the memorial system and the part played in its genesis in England by Andrew Bell (1753-1832) and Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838), see John Lawson and Harold Silver, A Social History of Education in England (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 241-246. In one of Eitel's reports on the short-lived Normal School in Hong Kong, he refers to the "Madras-born monitorial scheme of Bell and Lancaster" being adopted at the Central School by Stewart. In Eitel's opinion, this scheme suffered in comparison with the Normal School because it did not include “the special private tuition and instruction”, presumably, in teaching rationale and methods. (CO129/202, p. 532). In his Annual Report for the year 1866, for example, Stewart wrote: "In my last Report I stated that I entertained the hope of being soon able to overcome many difficulties connected with the school by training Chinese assistants for their work. I then anticipated that I should always be able to retain two of the more advanced boys for a period of at least four years, after which they might, if they chose, find employment elsewhere and be succeeded by the two who stood next to them. The project has all but failed. The demand for the services of the more intelligent of the boys is so great that it is, in the meantime, hopeless to expect them to remain for any length of time. The two in whose case the experiment was tried have both left many months ago, just when they were beginning to be of real value to the school. I shall not, however, abandon the scheme. Out of several, it may be possible to retain some; and, as the knowledge of English becomes more general and situations more difficult to be obtained, the greater will be the probability that these Assistants will remain until, at least, others are qualified to take their place.” (Hong Kong Government Blue Book, 1866, pp. 279-280). 30 The dispute was, in some ways, a continuation of the friction which existed between Frederick Stewart and Eitel after the separation of the duties of Headmaster of the Central School from those of the Inspector of Schools in 1878, first as an expedient measure while Dr. Stewart was on long leave in England and subsequently confirmed on Stewart's return to Hong Kong. Bateson Wright succeeded Stewart as Headmaster of the Central School in 1881. He inherited the bitter relations between the two leading education officers in the Government, but his own, quite positive personality, if anything, exacerbated the situation so much so, that the supervision of the Central School was taken away from the responsibilities of the Inspectorate and a “Dual System" inaugurated whereby the Central School, renamed successively Victoria College and Queen's College, was administered and reported on by its own Headmaster and eventually examined by an independent Board which did not include the Inspector of Schools. The Dual System was kept in being until the retirement of Bateson Wright in 1909, when the Government's educational system was reunited and renamed the Education Department, headed by a Director of Education in place of the Inspector of Schools.11 Stokes (1962), p. 47. 31

Baseline (Original)

69 lished in 1884 by ex-pupils and prominent members of the Chinese community as a mark of respect for Dr. Frederick Stewart who had resigned as headmaster in 1881 after nearly twenty years service to the school; and various special prizes especially for proficiency in Chinese. 26 He was appointed under Colonial Standing Order 3248 of 1884, as from 1st January, 1885, at a salary of $300 per year. 27 The authority for his appointment was CSO 2202. His starting salary was $240 per annum. 24 For details of the memorial system and the part played in its genesis in England by Andrew Bell (1753-1832) and Joseph Lancaster (1778-1883), see John Lawson and Harold Silver, A Social History of Education in England (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 241-246. In one of Eitel's reports on the short-lived Normal School in Hong Kong, he refers to the "Madras-born monitorial scheme of Bell and Lancaster" being adopt- ed at the Central School by Stewart. In Eitel's opinion this scheme suffered in comparison with the Normal School because it did not include “the special private tuition and instruction”, presumably, in teaching rationale and methods. (CO129/202, p. 532). In his Annual Report for the year 1966, for example, Stewart wrote: "In my last Report I stated that I entertained the hope of being soon able to overcome many difficulties connected with the school by training Chinese assistants for their work. I then anticipated that I should always be able to retain two of the more advanced boys for a period of at least four years, after which they might, if they chose, find employment elsewhere and be succeeded by the two who stood next to them. The project has all but failed. The demand for the services of the more intelligent of the boys is so great that it is, in the meantime, hopeless to expect them to remain for any length of time. The two in whose case the experiment vas tried have both left many months ago, just when they were beginning to be of real value to the school. I shall not, however, abandon the scheme. Out of several it may be possible to retain some; and, as the knowledge of English becomes more general and situations more difficult to be obtained, the greater will be the probability that these Assistants will remain until, at least, others are qualified to take place.” (Hong Kong Government Blue Book, 1866, pp. 279-280). - 30 The dispute was, in some ways, a continuation of the friction which existed between Frederick Stewart and Eitel after the separation of the duties of Head- master of the Central School from those of the Inspector of Schools in 1878, first as an expedient measure while Dr. Stewart was on long leave in England and subse- quently confirmed on Stewart's return to Hong Kong. Bateson Wright succeeded Stewart as Headmaster of the Central School in 1881. He inherited the bitter relations between the two leading education officers in the Government, but his own, quite positive personality, if anything, exacerbated the situation so much so, that the supervision of the Central School was taken away from the responsibil ities of the Inspectorate and a “Dual System" inaugurated whereby the Central School, renamed successively Victoria College and Queen's College, was adminis- tered and reported on by its own Headmaster and eventually examined by an independent Board which did not include the Inspector of Schools. The Dual System was kept in being until the retirement of Bateson Wright in 1909, when the Government's educational system was reunited and renamed the Education De- partment, headed by a Director of Education in place of the Inspector of Schools. 11 Stokes (1962), p. 47. 31

2026-05-13 03:50:28 · Baseline

View content

He was appointed under Colonial Standing Order 3248 of 1884, as from 1st January, 1885, at a salary of $300 per year.

27 The authority for his appointment was CSO 2202. His starting salary was $240

per annum.

24 For details of the memorial system and the part played in its genesis in England by Andrew Bell (1753-1832) and Joseph Lancaster (1778-1883), see John Lawson and Harold Silver, A Social History of Education in England (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 241-246.

In one of Eitel's reports on the short-lived Normal School in Hong Kong, he refers to the "Madras-born monitorial scheme of Bell and Lancaster" being adopt- ed at the Central School by Stewart. In Eitel's opinion this scheme suffered in comparison with the Normal School because it did not include “the special private tuition and instruction”, presumably, in teaching rationale and methods. (CO129/202, p. 532).

In his Annual Report for the year 1966, for example, Stewart wrote: "In my last Report I stated that I entertained the hope of being soon able to overcome many difficulties connected with the school by training Chinese assistants for their work. I then anticipated that I should always be able to retain two of the more advanced boys for a period of at least four years, after which they might, if they chose, find employment elsewhere and be succeeded by the two who stood next to them. The project has all but failed. The demand for the services of the more intelligent of the boys is so great that it is, in the meantime, hopeless to expect them to remain for any length of time. The two in whose case the experiment vas tried have both left many months ago, just when they were beginning to be of real value to the school. I shall not, however, abandon the scheme. Out of several it may be possible to retain some; and, as the knowledge of English becomes more general and situations more difficult to be obtained, the greater will be the probability that these Assistants will remain until, at least, others are qualified to take place.” (Hong Kong Government Blue Book, 1866, pp. 279-280).

30 The dispute was, in some ways, a continuation of the friction which existed between Frederick Stewart and Eitel after the separation of the duties of Head- master of the Central School from those of the Inspector of Schools in 1878, first as an expedient measure while Dr. Stewart was on long leave in England and subse- quently confirmed on Stewart's return to Hong Kong. Bateson Wright succeeded Stewart as Headmaster of the Central School in 1881. He inherited the bitter relations between the two leading education officers in the Government, but his own, quite positive personality, if anything, exacerbated the situation so much so, that the supervision of the Central School was taken away from the responsibil ities of the Inspectorate and a “Dual System" inaugurated whereby the Central School, renamed successively Victoria College and Queen's College, was adminis- tered and reported on by its own Headmaster and eventually examined by an independent Board which did not include the Inspector of Schools. The Dual System was kept in being until the retirement of Bateson Wright in 1909, when the Government's educational system was reunited and renamed the Education De- partment, headed by a Director of Education in place of the Inspector of Schools. 11 Stokes (1962), p. 47.

RAS-1987 — Page 94

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note