above, and with the complaint of another Eton master, that it is "a fashionable thing with the leading boys of the school" to frequent such places as the Tap and the Christopher, and that "very often a hundred boys go there in the course of a day,"* we readily understand how the monitorial authority is indeed, as one of the masters explains it, foreign to the whole spirit of the place; but it is not so easy to understand the further explanation, occurring more than once in nearly the same words in the course of the Eton evidence on this point, that "the exercise of those powers has fallen into desuetude from the excellence of the school discipline and the ease with which it is maintained." +

Perhaps the most reasonable objection which may be made to the exercise by boys of seventeen or eighteen of these disciplinary powers is the possible bad effect upon themselves. There is a risk, no doubt, that, as the Commissioners express it, "individual boys may be rendered by it stiff and priggish, or imperious, or" (which seems not so probable) "that they may be oppressed by a responsibility for which they are unfitted by character and disposition." To this danger neither the masters of Rugby nor of Harrow are insensible. But both masters and boys agree that, practically, the risk of this detriment to character is very little. The most important autocrat amongst his schoolfellows soon finds his level at the university: and the remark with which the subject is dismissed by the Commissioners seems sensible and just, that "perhaps even the slight Pharisaism which monitorial authority has been observed by others to engender in characters not quite congenial with their position, may also lead sometimes to the gradual, but real, assumption of good habits."

It must be remembered that both at Harrow and Rugby "no boy is bound to take a punishment from a monitor if he considers it an unjust one." He has the right of appeal; either to the general body of monitors, or to the head-master. The right, as may be supposed, is very seldom exercised, and the appeal, when made, has very rarely been successful; it may be fairly assumed that, unless the abuse of power is very flagrant indeed, the tendency amongst the monitors would be to support a member of their own body, and that the master would also feel that, in the maintenance of general discipline, such appeals were not to be encouraged. The same feeling prevails (and, on the whole, with benefit to the service) in courtmartials and other similarly constituted tribunals. No captain of a ship likes a "sea-lawyer," and a lower boy who is always questioning the judgment of the præpostors had better be removed at once from Rugby to Eton. But the right of appeal is universally acknowledged to exist, and all the evidence goes to show that, however seldom exercised, it practically serves as a check upon the abuse of monitorial power. Mr Lee Warner, when asked whether, as a lower boy at Rugby, he ever saw "boys who habitually abused their powers as præpostors," replies, that he does not think he knows of any such cases "because we should at once have an appeal to a Sixth levy on it." Mr Lang speaks quite as confidently of the temperate exercise of these powers at Harrow; on the part of the lower boys, he says, the monitors' discipline is "cheerfully submitted to "if they think there is anything arbitrary, they can always appeal.” ‡

It is curious to note from these volumes of evidence how much a schoolboy's notion of his indefeas

ible rights and liberties varies at different schools. At Eton, as we have seen, the exercise of monitorial discipline would be resented by public opinion as "not the thing" and no phrase could be more expressive. On the other hand, at Eton, as well as at Harrow, it is the custom—and appears to the authorities there, as it does to the Commissioners, as nothing more than a wholesome precaution -for the masters to visit occasionally the private rooms or studies of the boys in their respective houses. The same takes place in College at Winchester; and in none of these schools is this kind of occasional surveillance complained of by the boys as any violation of their privacy. Mr Harris, one of the assistants at Harrow, is asked in the course of his examination by Sir S. Northcote

"986. Are you in the habit of going up into the boys' rooms at all?—Yes; do always once in the course of the evening. When I am at home during the evening I generally go up before prayers; I always go up once afterwards. 987. Do you go into each room,

or only into some of them?-It depends on circumstances. I have no uniform practice; the less uniform the better. I always knock at the door and go in."

Again,

"487. As a matter of discipline, are boys allowed to lock their doors?-They are not. 488. Would that be considered an offence?-Yes."

At Rugby, on the contrary, any such system would be looked upon as little better than espionage. By time-honoured tradition, every Rugbeian's study is his castle. No doubt, a master has a right to make a domiciliary visit, and would probably do so if he had strong reason to suspect the prevalence of any such habits as gambling or drinking in a particular house; but it is a right very rarely exercised, and such a visit would require to be justified by very peculiar circumstances in order not to violate the traditionary feeling of the school. Even the jurisdiction of a præ

postor, more private and domestic than that of the master, hardly goes the length of demanding admittance into the fortress (about the size of the Commissioner's table, as Dr Temple describes a schoolhouse study) in which the smallest fag has intrenched himself, for lawful or unlawful purposes, in the evening. Sir Stafford Northcote is examining a late member of the Rugby Sixth Form " with regard to keeping order in the house:

"1538. Suppose there was any card

playing going on in the studies, would the Sixth take notice of it?-Certainly, -Did they ever go into the boys' rooms to see if there was any mischief going on?-They would not go into their studies on purpose; but if they came upon it by accident they would notice it. If they knocked, the fellows would probably lock the door.-Was it considered legal to lock your door?It was considered legal.—So that any could not be prevented in that way?— mischief might be carried on, which Except by the influence of the Sixth fellows generally."

Sir Stafford, with an Etonian's natural preference for his own institutions, returns to the attack subsequently :

"1556. It is not the habit of the masters to go round the house at night, is it? In our house the masters very seldom did, except late at night to see that there was no chance of a fire or

anything of that kind.-Do you think it would be a better system if, instead of trusting the discipline to the Sixth, the masters had themselves occasionally gone to the boys' rooms ?-No; I think that would engender distrust between the masters and the boys, and the

Sixth would not think it their business so much if the masters took it into their hands."

An ancient author with whom we trust Eton and Rugby men are alike familiar tells us how a certain tribe of Indians, of advanced utilitarian views, who piously and reverently ate their aged parents, had their feelings terribly shocked when it was suggested that they should adopt the Greek practice of burning them; they cried out and stopped their ears against the indecency of

the mere proposal. So in the small Etonian the sense of personal dignity revolts against the præpostor's cane, while he feels no loss of independence in the domiciliary visits of the master; while the little Rugbeian takes his licking cheerfully, but stoutly locks his study door in the tallest præpostor's face, and denounces even the visit of an inquisitive master as an intrusion on his domestic privacy. Even Royal Commissioners decline to dogmatise upon the points of honour in these respective systems, and wisely make no attempt to cut out public-school boys all of one pattern. And we must content ourselves with quoting Pindar, as the old historian does, to the effect that “custom is sovereign over all" -public schools included.

As to bullying, which in bygone times used to make many a boy's

life miserable for his first two or three years at a public school, it is as little to be found now at Rugby as at Eton. Dr Temple says

ceived an anonymous complaint upon the subject, of which (as being anonymous) they very properly took no direct notice; but it seems pretty clear that the evil, to whatever extent it may have existed, is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The late head of the school admits that there were "two cases, very bad ones," during his own time, and the energetic way in which they were punished-by the process of Lynch law known as “a public whopping"-shows at least that the practice was foreign to the tone and feeling of the school.

"It was considered one of the most serious offences which a boy could commit; a meeting was called, and the offender was publicly caned by the head of the school, the senior monitors being present as well as the whole school, summoned in the fourth-form room, and then the offender was publicly whopped,' or before a monitors' meeting in the school library."

And this statement is fully borne out by the younger witnesses.

Neither is there much to complain of in this respect at Harrow. The head-master says in his evidence "We do not regard bullying as one of the great dangers which we have practically to apprehend;" and Mr Harris states that "a case of bullying is of very rare occurrence indeed." Lord Clarendon indeed remarks that "there have been some very notorious cases of bullying at Harrow," and that "there was a notion that it was carried on there to a considerable extent;"* and the Commissioners during their sittings re

for half an hour at supper, seems to be almost less than is required even at Eton. The old system of "keeping goal" at the "big-side " football, by which a small boy was compelled to stand shivering in the cold for some two hours of almost every winter half-holiday, without being allowed to amuse himself or keep himself warm by taking any share in the game, was, as Dr Temple very justly calls it, "oppressive" in the extreme, and he deserves every credit for having abolished it; but when we are told that the fagging-out at cricket has very nearly disappeared, and that although a Sixth-Form boy has the power of employing fags to field for him, it is a power which is now

"very rarely exercised," we are by no means inclined to share the satisfaction with which the information will no doubt be received in some quarters. There is no real bardship in an elder boy employing two or three younger ones in stopping his balls for an hour or so it is one of the most practically convenient of the Sixth-Form privileges, and may very fairly be conceded to his position in the school: the service has nothing in it that is menial or degrading, and it is what he might very reasonably require from his younger brothers at home. It only becomes oppressive when a boy is kept at it too long at a time, or so often as to cut up his own half-holidays too much; and this need never be the case in so large a school as Rugby. The Report remarks very justly, that "the Harrow rule as to cricket fagging appears to be well calculated to preserve it from abuse without entirely abolishing it." There are certain boys (known familiarly as slavedrivers) appointed by the head of the school to send fags down to service on the cricket-ground in regular rotation. It is so arranged that no boy has to be fagged in this manner more than once a-week; and if he is sent down a second time," he may simply come to the captain of the eleven," who at once admits the appeal. The Commissioners have not thought it beneath their office to suggest a doubt whether "the total abolition of faggingout at cricket would not unnecessarily shorten the apprenticeship in the less exciting but not useless practice of fielding;" a suggestion to which we hope the reformers of Rugby will give its due weight. We do not think it even a distinct matter for congratulation that the fags have no longer anything to do with keeping the cricket-ground in order. It is the fashion now at public schools that the boys should have everything done for them; even the stumps and bats are now, at most schools, carried down to the ground by one of those paid

functionaries whom Provost Goodford of Eton (and we cordially agree with him) would wish to see banished by authority from every school cricket-ground in the kingdom. In former days, it was considered one of the advantages of a public-school life that boys learnt to do things for themselves. The system of education pursued at Mr Squeers's well-known establishment was far from perfect; but that "first class in English spelling and philosophy," in which a boy learnt not only to spell "horse but to rub him down, always struck us as a redeeming feature. And an hour's rolling of the old cricket-ground at Rugby was very wholesome and improving exercise for a young gentleman who was rather loud in his orders to servants at home. The fault of schools fifty years ago was hardness; future years will not improve them if they introduce softness instead. Even at Rugby, the comparative luxuriousness of modern habits seriously diminishes the profits of the boarding-house masters, by "necessitating very much better accommodation, and therefore much larger rents, and secondly, a great many more servants of a different class;" and this is not only likely to involve a future increase in the charges to parents (which Dr Temple suggests), but has already led to some difficulty in obtaining first-rate men as masters when vacancies occur, because the profits of a boardinghouse (which form one of the main sources of emolument), no longer offer the same inducement as formerly. And yet it is of Rugby that the Commissioners specially report that "as the charge for board is moderate, so is the dietary simple;" that "it certainly does not incline too much to a high scale," though amply sufficient "to support a studious life," as well as "football in its most combative form." In short, the school makes some respectable attempt to maintain that "plain living and high thinking" which one who carried off its highest honours once recommended in a time

of trouble to his fellow-students at Oxford.*

There is one point of school government common to both Harrow and Rugby, to which they owe much of their present success and prosperity; it is the cordial working together of the head-master and his staff. Nothing is clearer, both from Dr Temple's and Mr Butler's evidence than this; that, retaining for themselves in theory the supreme and unfettered control of all the school regulations, and accepting all the responsibility which this involves, in practice they would take no step of importance without consulting their assistant-masters, and would give the greatest weight to any of their suggestions or remonstrances. The Harrow masters meet regularly once a-fortnight for consultation at the head - master's house. "I habitually consult all of the masters," says Mr Butler; "I should attribute the greatest importance to their opinions, whether expressed at their meetings or privately." At Rugby, the system of regular councils for the purpose of discussing all matters connected with the discipline and studies of the school was introduced by Dr Arnold, first in the good old-fashioned way of friendly dinners, then for a short period every morning for about a quarter of an hour before "second lesson," and latterly, in more formal fashion, at intervals of about three weeks. These meetings fell somewhat into abeyance under Dr Goulburn, but have been resumed by the present head-master. "To this," say Mr Anstey and Mr Buckoll, who have worked loyally on the school staff under many successive rulers,-" to this it is attributable, in a very great degree, that we have so very harmonious a working of the school."+ Of the necessity of some such practice in order to insure anything like that unity of spirit and action throughout the body of masters, without which no public school can hope to

work with any real success, there can be no question; but it may be doubted whether the enforcing it as a necessary part of the school constitution, as the Commissioners recommend in their general Report, would not be quite as apt to introduce elements of discord. The summoning of any such council should be a spontaneous and cordial motion of the head-master. But it is, as the Report observes, “impossible to read the evidence furnished from these schools and from Eton respectively, without perceiving that in the former the assistants have a thorough sense of co-operation with the head-master, which is wanting in the other." In the Rugby evidence especially, every one who has read Dr Temple's examination will be quite prepared to find that the footing upon which he stands not only with Rugby masters but with Rugby boys, is thoroughly open and cordial; that, as one of his pupils testifies, there is "a very great deal of intercourse between him and the boys," and that the influence of his personal character is felt " very perceptibly indeed." In short, as Lord Clarendon sums up the state of things at Rugby in a few permissible leading questions-not at all more than the whole tone of the previous evidence fairly warrants—

66

the masters were on very good terms with each other, and with the boys,-there was a friendly relation between them, as if the whole thing was a joint-stock company, and success the object of all.Ӥ If that feeling has indeed been established, and can be maintained there, it is not necessary to inquire into the special character of the teaching, or the details of the curricu lum of study, to account for the undoubted popularity and success of Rugby School.

The Commissioners seem, indeed, almost to have overstepped the limits of their office-which we take to have been "to inquire," rather than

Evidence, 119.

§ Evidence, 2392, &c.