St Matthew’s Roman Catholic School
Photographs relating to this article, including those in this extract, may be found in Gallery 4.02
St Matthew’s School was built on the west side of South Road beside the fork which leads to Highfield. The foundation stone was laid by the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle on September 23rd 1875. Having been received at Prudhoe Hall in the morning, the bishop drove to the site accompanied by Mrs Liddell and C Cuddon Esquire Junior and Mrs Cuddon. (Mr Liddell was unable to attend because of the state of his health, though the pre-prepared scroll described below would have us believe that he laid the foundation stone). C Cuddon and Mrs Cuddon were nephew and sister-in-law to Mrs Liddell, whose maiden name was Cuddon.
Prior to the ceremony a scroll was placed in the stone, together with a shilling and a current copy of the “Newcastle Chronicle”.
The inscription on the scroll was in Latin, but its translation is as follows: “In the 30th year of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pius LX, Pope by Divine Providence and in the 10th year of the Episcopate of Right Rev James Chadwick, Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, the Rev Wilfrid Lescher OP being Pastor of the Mission of Prudhoe, was laid by Mr Matthew Liddell and his very beloved wife Susanna, the foundation stone of this school, erected to the honour and glory of God, of the most Holy Mary Mother of God, of SS Cuthbert and Matthew and all the Saints. September 23rd 1875”.
The school was dedicated to St Matthew (perhaps in recognition of Matthew Liddell’s patronage) and we are told in Rev J Lender’s “History of the Parish of Prudhoe-on-Tyne”, that “the site chosen for the school was most convenient; built at the top of South Road, at the crossing of the roads and only some 200 yards from the place where the church has since been built it enjoys all the conditions required from every point of view”.
The building was completed for August 1876 and was opened on August 7th. Father Lescher reports that the first teacher was Miss Kate Bayley from Manchester who came for 6 months prior to entering Training College, with a 3rd class Provisional certificate (hardly the qualification needed for opening a new school). The school, we are told, was built with accommodation for 160 children, though Kelly’s Directory of 1897 states that it was built to accommodate 230. For her services Miss Bayley received a salary of £3 10s 0d a month (£42 per annum).
The opening of the new school was described in the “Tablet” magazine of August 19th 1876 as follows:
“On Monday 7th inst., the new school was opened…..The mission of Prudhoe, founded by Mr & Mrs Liddell six years ago, has been hitherto without a school, but at length this want has been supplied by the erection of a building suitable in all respects, standing in a good position, and fitted up with the most recent educational improvements. Upon the day mentioned his Lordship the Bishop of the diocese arrived, accompanied by the Very Rev Dr Bewick VG and by the Rev Fr Pius Cavanagh OP, being met at the station by the pastor of the mission, the Rev Fr Lescher, OP. The proceedings were of a private and unceremonial character, and his Lordship went at once to the new school, where the children and many others were assembled. The teacher, Miss Bayley, having been presented to him, the Bishop addressed those present, in the first place expressing his regret that the serious illness of the founder had cast a shadow over the proceedings, and his hope that the joy then to some degree suppressed would have an occasion soon of showing itself upon the recovery and restoration of their dear friend; but nevertheless, if the wisdom of God decreed otherwise, he could not conceive any more consoling thought than that which this school would bring to mind, or a stronger plea to present at the judgement seat than the blessing it would afford to many of a sound Christian education. (Matthew Liddell survived another five years, dying on 20th October 1881 at the age of 72). His
Lordship then exhorted the children to punctuality, attention and obedience, reminding them that in a very true sense they came to school to make their fortune, to prepare themselves for after life, and to develop habits of diligence and perseverance that would affect their whole future”. (1 wonder how these aims would match up with the “Mission Statements” of schools today!)
As previously mentioned, Miss Bayley was appointed for an initial six month contract. She left in December 1876 to be trained at Liverpool Training College and was succeeded by Miss Margaret Anne Woods who had just completed her course at that college, passing First Class.
The Department of Education
Whitehall
London SW
“SIR,
I have the honour to inform you that I wish to visit the above School for the Annual Inspection.
The children will be examined on Thursday, 9th day of November 1876, at 12 0 ‘clock. I trust that all the necessary forms will be duly filled up and ready for use at that time…..”
The receipt of this letter, by Reverend Lescher at the Presbytery, Prudhoe, must have had quite an affect on him, Miss Bayley and the teachers at St Matthew’s – it was the notification of a visit by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools. Similar feelings are felt by schools and teachers today on these occasions – consternation, alarm, panic and even trauma. Its autocratic tone must have created an ominous atmosphere.
The feelings may have been even more intense since this was only six years from the introduction of compulsory schooling by the Education Act — 1870, and ‘payment by results’ was the order of the day. The salaries of the teachers, the very existence of the School, depended upon a satisfactory Inspection.
“…Whatever grants are made to this School, will be issued only once per annum, as soon as possible after the receipt of the Inspector’ s Report showing that the conditions of the Code have been fulfilled……”
At this time, the School Management Committee consisted of Rev Wilfrid Lescher, together with Mrs S M Liddell and Mr Matthew Liddell, of Prudhoe Hall, who had provided the building for the School. They had to contend with the peculiar arrangement of having the coming year’s revenue being dependent upon the results of the past year’s teaching! Everything depended upon the Inspector’s Report.
The first Report available for study is dated 1877 and shows that of the 57 scholars qualified for the ‘examination’, 50 were “presented for examination” by the School, with ages ranging from 5 to 14 years. There were 26 passes in Reading, 19 passes in Writing and 14 passes in Arithmetic. This gave a total of 59 passes which, by calculation using some strange formula of ‘deductions’ and ‘variable awards’, resulted in a Grant of £47 11 s 3d for the coming year. Named, and shamed, in the Report are
Catherine Mc– and Martha M– who are described a “Failures”. Some of the comments of the inspector are:
“ . . . The Children passed a very bad examination in the three elementary subjects ….the Order was good…..The drain in the Urinal requires to be set in order.”
The Inspector also discovered that the Attendance Register was not in order and rebuked the managers and teachers:
“the attendance of one child’s had been wrongly entered with the effect of qualifying it improperly for presentation,.. … My Lords have made no deduction from the Grant this year – but similar leniency will not be repeated,…. When you sign the Form IX, you make yourself responsible….”
The following year saw more difficulties between the School and the HMI’s. The root cause of the troubles seems to have been the appointment of a Miss Grace B– as a teacher at the School, to take over from a less able person. At first, in February, the Department of Education in Whitehall, London, refused to ‘recognise’ Grace as a suitably qualified teacher. The Rev Lescher responded with a letter stating that her qualifications had been forwarded to the Department some months before, if they had lost them he would provide copies. After a few more letters had been exchanged Whitehall responded, agreeing that Miss B– had been recognised.
November arrived and with it the Annual Inspection. The Inspection was carried out by a Mr Rooper and it was an utter disaster. He did not approve of the School in general, and he did not approve of Miss B– in particular:
“….the Dictation was a total failure,….the Grammar and Geography were a complete failure…. My Lords will look for future improvement as a condition of an unreduced Grant next year.”
There was a deduction in the Grant, – of £3 6s 8d, which appeared to coincide with most of Miss B’s quarterly salary!
On behalf of the managers, Rev Lescher wrote a strongly worded letter to Whitehall complaining at the manner in which the Inspection had been carried out. It was closely argued and tightly hand-written, and covered four sides of foolscap. This started a ‘paper battle’ between Prudhoe and Whitehall. An exchange of at least six letters took place during the months of November and December. In the end Rev Lescher prevailed. In December a special payment arrived at Prudhoe, for the sum of £3 6s 8d. In the following January there was another letter from Whitehall:
“Their Lordships regret your dissatisfaction with HMI’s Report, he would be most unwilling to write anything harsh or unfair ….Their Lordships are not ignorant of certain facts that might have been dwelt upon….That the new schoolmistress succeeded to one who allowed the school to fall into a very low state indeed, so that even an experienced teacher could not have recovered its tone in so few months, much less a young person fresh from a Training College Their Lordships are fully aware that these circumstances not only account for, but excuse ….. the present deficiencies of the children….“
That particular battle had been won and, presumably, Grace got her salary.
The Inspection of the following year, 1879, was carried out by a more senior Inspector, it was the person with whom Rev Lescher had carried on the battle of words during the previous year. Apart from the usual comments on the attainments of the children, “poor”, “fair”, “Fairly good”, “good”, etc., there are these:
“….As to the Offices, the contrivance suggested would prevent the boys from dirtying
the seats.” (the “Offices” appears to be another term for lavatories).
“. . . .The timetable must be rigidly adhered to.”
“…..The managers should check the Registers occasionally”.
“….Grace B– must improve”.
However, there were no deductions and a Grant of £63 12s 0d was awarded. Nearly a £20 increase on the previous year.
Thereafter the matters seem to have improved. The numbers of children steadily increasing, with the Annual Grant keeping in step, so that by 1900 there were 166 scholars in the ‘Mixed School’ and 77 scholars in the ‘Infant School’.
Apart from the “three R’s” some other subjects attracted the Inspectors’ interest, such as ‘Singing’, ‘Drawing, both freehand and geometrical’, ‘Object lessons’ and ‘Needlework’. The Needlework seems to have attracted particular attention:
(1880) “…. Small specimens of the Needlework should be prepared by each child for the Inspector to take away. …“
(1881) “….The singing was fairly good, the Order good, and the Needlework fairly good – but there was no darning….”
In 1883 it was noted in the Inspection Report that: “The Infants read well and wrote fairly, but were backwards in counting.. …There are sufficient Infants to form an Infant’s School.”
In 1884 the Infants are reported on as a separate item;
“….these children should be trained to hold their hands up and not to answer simultaneously….
This was the first occasion on which the report was typewritten and it was a major improvement. The handwriting of some of the previous reports was on occasions unreadable, and this from Inspectors who were assessing ‘writing’!
The only poor year seems to have been 1886 when,
“…allowance was made for a very severe winter and the recent change in the School Year.”
In the same year the managers sent the “plans and elevations” for the construction of the Infant’s School – to Their Lordships in Whitehall. The plans were returned, everything had been approved.
In 1889 it was noted that a new Infant’s School had been provided, as well as a new Office and Urinal, and a Girls’ playground:
….the attainments of the children are now very satisfactory and the Order is excellent.”
At the start of 1890 the principal manager appears to be Rev W Stevenson, but by 1892 it is Rev W Drysdale. The Reports and Examination Schedules are signed by these two gentlemen, and Mrs S M Liddell.
The business of the Annual Inspection, and the amount of Grant, still predominate in the correspondence. The various forms, especially Form 9 and Form 12 have been much improved and more details are available:
Mixed School 121 Scholars @ 19/11d = £120.9.11.
Infants’ School 44 Scholars @ 14/6d = £ 31.18.0.
Total £ 152.0.5
Less deductions £8.0.5.
Total Grant awarded £144.7.6.
In 1893 the results of the Drawing Examination were “excellent”. The Examination Schedule is signed by the managers Rev W Drysdale and Mrs S M Liddell. Extra awards were given on the basis of 1/- for a “Fair” pass, 1/6d for a “Good” pass and 2/- for an “Excellent” pass. The Inspector’s comments included:
“….Much praise is due to the way in which the School is conducted….The lighting and ventilation of the Offices require attention and the ashpit should be covered.”
In 1894 the managers are listed as Mrs S M Liddell and Rev Austin H Simmonds. During this period there are some letters from Whitehall:
“…omitting the Annual Inspection by special recommendation of HMI’s….”
1899 it is noted that, “….there has been much irregularity of attendance on account of sickness, and teaching has not produced such good results as in the past…”
However, there are Reports for most of the years in this decade, so some sort of Inspection must have occurred.
A letter from Whitehall in August 1899 must have caused some amusement in Prudhoe, if not a little panic.
“Rev Sir, I am directed to express Their Lordship’s regret that in the last Annual Report the average attendance on which the Fee Grant was paid was incorrectly entered as 197, whereas it should have been entered as 193…An overpayment of £2 has consequently been made and I am to request you to be good enough to repay that sum by cheque in favour of the Paymaster General. I have the honour to be, Reverend Sir, Your Obedient Servant, (H H Pooley)”.
With the start of the century the school seems to be well established. A new version of the Form 9 appeared which gives a sort of census of the school. The Principal Teacher is May C Renolds (aged 45 years), the Infants’ teacher is Sarah Eccles (aged 41 years) and there are four assistant teachers: Mary Brannigan (24), Ada Potts (24), Jane Carroll (19) and Jane Collins (23). The total Grant awarded for the coming year was made up as follows:
Principal Teacher’s salary = £140.0.0.
All other teachers’ salaries = £148.10.6.
Books and stationery = £ 39.7.4.
Fuel, lighting and cleaning = £ 41.2.2.
Rates, Tax and Insurance = £ 2.10.0.
Expenses = £ 0.0.3
Total = £384.18.6
It was also noted that there was no library in the school, nor was there a school savings bank. No doubt these matters would be addressed in the future. In the Report for 1900 the Inspector comments:
“….Infants’ School; this is a very pleasant little Infants’ School. It is conducted in a bright and energetic manner….Mixed School; the children are under gentle and effective control. ….“
This review of the School’s correspondence covers 24 years, from shortly after the introduction of compulsory education, to a point where both the government in Whitehall and the managers and teachers in the schools, had struggled in establishing a new social concept and achieved a large measure of understanding and success.
There were many difficulties which had been overcome, and not without some hurt. What was the effect on those children and Pupil-teachers, assessed as “failures” by the Inspector? In 1892, how did Isaac C react to being described as an “imbecile” when he was in Standard III (aged 12), and a year later, – still in Standard III – as being of “weak intellect”? His fellow scholar in Standard III, Robert D, aged 9 years, received an assessment of “incapable of higher standards, sick”.
One teacher must have been somewhat distressed at the Inspector’s Report of 1884. On receipt of the Report the managers wrote a letter of enquiry as to the meaning of the phrase “a little below par” in the Report. The reply from Whitehall duly explained:
“…The manager does not understand the Report. It is a trifle below satisfactory, but far from bad, … There was some weakness in Arithmetic, as is often the case with female teachers. . …“
Perhaps the managers chose not to show the letter to the teacher concerned.
Class from Prudhoe R C School 1935
The photograph is captioned as Prudhoe in ‘Co Durham’. The confusion has probably arisen in the mind of the photographer due to the fact that Prudhoe lies to the south of the Tyne
Back Row L to R: Miss McNally, Joe Sandland, Robert Best, Edward Monelly, Gordon Robson, Tommy Garrety, Robert McCarten, Will Oxley, Mr McMahon
Third row: Carrie Davis, ?, Jennie Barron, Veronica Collins, Edna Madine, May Elliott, Nancy Porter, Rob Fletcher, Ed Steward
Second Row: Roland Ruddick, Mary Moore, Jenny Barron, Betty Rowell, Jenny Grigg, Veronica Spencer,
Dorothy McClean, Peggy Hamilton
Front row: Ken Hamilton, Ronnie Moore, Edmund Ainsley, Jimmy Carr, Mattie ? , Bernard Stewart, Tony Garretty,
George Rowell, Pat McBride.
But business was now conducted on a more humane and sympathetic level. The notice given for the forthcoming Inspection of 1901 is certainly phrased in a different style to that given in 1876:
“Rev Sir, I hope to call at your school on Tuesday 11th June at 9am. I shall be glad if you can then let me have:
– the Form IX completed with all the necessary papers filed;
– the portfolio;
– cashbook and vouchers;
– and any other necessary referrals.
If any of the children wish for Labour Certificates, they can be examined at my visit.
Yours truly, . …“
St Matthew’s School, like the others in the area, became a First School upon the introduction of comprehensive education and moved to new premises in Highfield Lane. The foundation stone was laid on 10th September 1982. The old building is now occupied by the Community Church with Assemblies of God.