No. 479

The following town boys are now in the Sixth

W.L. Benbow Grants Prin. Opp. (T.B. Monitor)

E. Poland Grants. T.B. Monitor

                J.B. Hodge Grants T.B. Monitor

T. Morison – Grants

A. Soames – H.B. Grants

                F.F. James – Rigauds

H.G. Gwinner – Home Boarders

W.G. Hewitt H.B. Rigauds

It will be observed that all the monitors are Grantites

No. 455

There has been I am sorry to say a row between the Monitors and Masters about the old moot point of whether Monitors shall punish offences which take place in the presence of Masters. A short time ago, James the Q.S. Capt. came up to me upon coming from Morning Abbey, and said he required our attendance at a Monitors’ meeting at 9.30. a.m. He further explained to me that two small Townboys, Nesbitt and Churchill, had been disgracefully behaving themselves during Abbey, in the afternoon of two days before, namely Saturday. At 9.30. we all appeared in library, where H.N. Robson the head of Rigaud’s, advised us not to have the boys up into library until we had asked Scott’s opinion for Mr James had declared that all offences committed in Abbey were to be taken cognisance of by him. Accordingly, James and myself went to Scott, and without using any names, asked if such an offence could be punished by Monitors, quoting Mr James’ words to Dr Scott. Scott replied in the affirmative, adding that he did not recognise an such rule as the one that the masters contended for, and which I have mentioned at the top of this page. But he told us not to act, until he has spoken to Mr James, so as to prevent the possibility of an “explosion”. – With this decision we were well content – The next day Mr James and Jones both set upon me in the latter’s study, and tried to wring from me, all we had been doing; at the same time alleging that some injustice was being done, as the two boys denied the charge. Of course I was much surprised at what seemed to me such extraordinary conduct; for since the Monitors had taken no active steps, the affair was not public, nor had Mr James any right to take any notice of it. The next day (Wednesday) Robson and Poland went alone to Dr Scott and Robson tried to persuade him that the two boys were innocent. That afternoon Dr Scott sent for all the Monitors and explained to us that he thought us right in punishing such an offence. He further said that the Masters some years before had urged the introduction of the above-mentioned  rule, and then his answer had been to them, “the head-master I supreme in matters of discipline.”  This he said he meant to repeat to them, when he called his Masters’ meeting. He also told us that the two Bous had come to him to state their innocence. It then transpired that Robson had informed the two boys of the measures being taken, and advised them to have recourse to Scott, if they thought themselves innocent. He had also informed Mr James of the matter, which now explained to me that Master’s hitherto incomprehensible behaviour. This conduct of Robson’s appears to me, as to the majority of the Monitors, exceedingly ill-directed; For if he disagreed with us he ought to have informed us of that fact at the Monitors’ meeting, or at any rate, have openly given us notice of the information he was going to give to Mr James and the two Boys; instead of acting against us secretly, and so leaving us in the dark as to his real motives.

Dr Scott at the same time told us that it would never so to introduce such a rule as that depriving the Monitors of a right to act when Masters were present: He said that Masters could not see everything. And the thought no school could be properly governed, without the conjunction of the head-boys, to repress disorder, and encourage discipline …… After this we heard no more for some time; but a short time since, Mr Jones triumphantly assured me that Dr Scott compelled by a threat of resignation on the part of one of the Masters, had sanctioned a rule, and promised to frame it, to the affect that we were to be deprived of all power to punish when in the presence of Masters. Jones also told me that I was wrong in what I had sone myself, a few days before up the house, namely that I had tanned a fellow for misbehaving at prayers, a Master being present – This I would not allow. I then informed James (the Capt) of what Jones had said to me. – Nothing more was then heard of the matter for about another week; Scott neither told the Monitors anything, nor James personally. However about the 20th inst. of October, Scott gave James (the Capt) and myself, the following rule.


Rule 17

“When a Master is in charge of any form or number of boys, no offence then committed except such as the master himself could not have been cognisant of, shall be dealt with by any boy in the way of discipline. And in any such case the offender shall have the option of having the matter laid before the master in charge at the time.”


N.B. In my opinion this rule entirely releases the Monitors from any responsibility; because nearly every offence committed may be said to be done beneath the eye of a Master. The Masters will not govern the school with us, let them govern the school without us. Scott seems to me to have behaved with great weakness in the matter, although perhaps he may have been driven to it by the Masters’ threat of resignation. The Masters throughout have behaved in the lowest manner possible, especially Mr Jones and James who have taken the leading part.

No. 438

Friday June 18th gave rise to one of the most serious rows that have occurred here for many years:……. On Friday June 18th after ‘speeches’ up School a most unseemly disturbance was made by the greater part of the school, and which the masters took no steps to quell whatever. At the advice of Dr. Scott the monitors made a list of offenders, – although I must confess that the greater number did not show themselves up – Thereupon the masters jumped at the conclusion that we were going to tan them all [which was not our intention at all, we were merely acting on behalf of Dr. Scott] and sent a protest to Dr. Scott saying that we were infringing on their rights, and that we had no power to act up School. Mr James and Mr Jones then resorted to the following plan to openly insult the monitors: – at breakfast they announced that if the monitors sent for anyone they were to appeal at once. – This was utterly blackguardly and uncalled for, because, as we were acting under Dr Scott, if we had sent for anyone there could have been no appeal! I at once resigned my place as Head of Grants, but Mr Jones apologised to the house and I was satisfied.

When this apology was given however I was not present, and afterward discovered that his apology was virtually no apology at all as it only concerned me as head of the House:- Up Rigaud’s, Mr James, with that utterly blackguardly vein of humour which defies all description, held Robson up to the ridicule of the House, and stigmatized the monitors as a set of big brutes who wanted to tan fellows smaller than themselves :- What a pity it is that no rule exists to enable monitors to kick masters! – Afterwards, however, I will do Mr James the credit to say he humbly apologised for all he had said to the whole House, when he heard we acted in accordance with Dr. Scott’s wishes.

Now the reason why Dr. Scott was at first inclined to put the case into our hands was because the masters has utterly neglected their duty in allowing such a disgraceful disorder to go on, and one of them, Mr Marklove, had shirked School altogether, during speeches, & he naturally thought they deserved to forfeit their right of dealing with the case:- But the masters were determined to assert their rights; they assembled in Mr Jones’ house, signed a protest, three of them declared their intention of resigning if the monitors officiated, & so compelled Dr. Scott to give way:- Here let me say that Dr. Scott behaved admirably, & had his score off them in return by a polite circular, which, I believe, commented on Mr Marklove’s absence, [He had been bitingly sarcastic to us and inclined to pooh-pooh everything], and generally sat upon them.- Dr. Scott did not allow the masters to deal with the case, but took the matter into his own hands and gave those forms which were most to blame an hour’s work on Wednesday afternoon…. It is needless to say that the masters up School cut that hour very short….. Previous to this the monitors unanimously signed a protest, clearly laying before the masters what we thought of their disgraceful behaviour, in abusing their own authority and trying to undermine our’s…. Perhaps it was too plain, for they did’n’t like it, and demanded an apology. We said we were sorry if the masters had taken offence at what we said. The masters now thought they had sufficiently asserted and vindicated their honour, but really only held themselves up to the ridicule and contempt of all the Upper School…… We are not ‘Bargees’, but the course adopted by the masters deserves stronger language than I care to use, and for them any Public School ought to blush.

Let me add that Dr. Scott told James that such a rule as the master’s represented, viz: that monitors has no power in the presence of a master, never had and never could exist.

Magister docet, says the Latin grammar truly, but, if they cannot keep order, they need not interfere with those who can. Moral.

H. Clifton Benbow. Prin: Opp:

Cff: §205 where the masters sent a protest to Dr. Scott under circumstances of a similar character: But were over-rules, altho’ they maintained that “an offence committed in School in the presence of the masters should not be dealt with by the boys.”

No. 437

On Monday June 7th I and my brother and Robson were asked by H.R. James Q.S. captain to attend a monitors’ meeting on the following day to consider a case in which Sheridan (Grant’s) had shown great insubordination and insolent defiance to F.E. Lewin (Head monitor) whilst ‘picking up’ at Lawn Tennis and a second change was also brought forward in as much as he was alleged by H. Gwinner (HB) to have made insolent remarks at him in Cloisters :- This latter charge Sheridan absolutely denied to us, and most impertinently maintained his cause on the former charge. The monitors were then unanimous in their verdict, but Sheridan claimed the right of appeal to Dr Scott. A good deal of conflicting evidence now ensued, in which it appeared that Lewin had somewhat forgotten his dignity as a monitor, and Sheridan’s father also appeared on the scene. As the case had now assumed a complicated form, Dr Scott, whilst maintaining that Sheridan had added to his defiance of authority a considerable amount of ‘shuffling’ throughout, thought that the case has better not return to the monitors, and punished the offender in Library. Dr Scott, although we considered him somewhat vacillating at first, really behaved very well, and the monitors expressed themselves quite satisfied. The matter here dropt.

H.C. Benbow. Prin: Opp:

No. 435

The following are the T.B.B. monitors for the Midsummer Term:

H.C. Benbow prin: opp: …… Grant’s

W.L. Benbow ……………… Grant’s

H.N. Robson ………………. Rigaud’s

 

The following T.B.B. are also in the Sixth:

H. Gwinner Homeboarder
H. Munro Rigaud’s
T.B. Hodge |

| Grant’s

|

E. Poland
T. Morison

No. 346

At a meeting of Monitors held this term the following rules were passed about the Elizabethan committee.

(1) The committee shall consist of six T.B.B. and six Q.S.S.; vis. The captain, & the three other monitors, one other senior, & the captain of the third elections, & the two head T.B.B. from each house.

(2) This committee shall meet at least once a month to consider the matter of the Elizabethan, etc.

(3) The captain shall be Editor & the Treasurer and Secretary chosen by vote of the committee.

(4) All matters in question shall be decided by vote of the Committee; no majority shall consist entirely of T.B.B. or Q.S.S.

William Bell

Prin: Opp:

No. 243

On the first day of this term, May 27th, two new Town Boy Monitors were made and one QS Monitor. The Town Boys were H.M.C. Macpherson and A.L. Whitlock, so that those for the ensuing year are –

L.S. Bristowe Prin.Op.

H.M.C. Macpherson

A.L. Whitlock

 

The new seniors are –

E.H Alington (Capt)

G.A. Bolton (Monitor)

R.D. Brinton (Monitor)

  1. Waddington (Monitor)

Q.H. Williams

  1. Crowdy

Q.H. Watson

 

No. 206

This half, there being for the last 4 weeks “new” as well as “old” Monitors in College, the former of course, as well as heads of houses, who are not monitors, have to sit in the “Monitors’ Councils”. Scott says that they have a right to sit, but not to vote in it, as of course, if they did so, the whole equilibrium, secured by the present arrangement, would be overturned.

E.G.B. Phillimore. P.O