THE WINCHESTER JOB.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Suc,—When a paper proverbial for its fairness is led away to commit a grievous wrong, it may be regarded as a public mis- fortune. When the wrong is committed in the name of justice, the misfortune is all the greater. I know I shall not appeal to you in vain to help me in correcting the false impression an article headed in your last number "The Winchester Job" is calculated to produce. You have always shown yourself willing to retract unintentional misrepresentation ; you will be glad to do something to atone for the pain you must have caused by such misrepresentation to a most highly principled and conscientious man.

You will allow that " job " is an offensive word, implying not merely error of judgment, but improper motive as well. The insinuation of the article is that improper motives brought about the election of the least eligible of three candidates. I am not concerned with the defence of the Fellows of Winchester. I have not the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of any one of them. It is hardly fair to say " It would be requiring too much to expect the Warden and Fellows of Winchester to elect an outsider to a Winchester office when a passable Wykehamist is in the field," when the vacancy the filling up of which creates all this bad feeling is caused by the promotion to the Head Mastership of Eton of an outsider, whom the same Warden and Fellows elected but a few months ago. But this by the way.

I should not have troubled you with this letter, had it not been that the principles laid down by the writer of the article in ques- tion for the determination of fitness for office seemed to me pernicious, and the facts on which the judgment in this case is based (to say no worse) garbled and distorted.

May I be allowed, in the first place, to put out of consideration the case of candidate No. 2 ? He seems merely introduced into the article to make a climax, and to dissemble the real point, which is a comparison between No. 1, who, in the opinion of the writer, ought to have been, and No. 3, who was elected.

May I also be allowed to agree with the writer that " they were all well qualified in respect of attainments." I may say that I testified this personally to the electors in the case of No. 1 and No. 3. Knowing them both as 1 do, the duty I am now under- taking is peculiarly painful. I consider No. 3 has been treated with great injustice by the writer of the article in question. In endeavouring to remedy this I can hardly fail to seem to disparage No. 1. Nothing (he will believe it) can be further from my in- tention. Unless, however, I have been more mistaken in him than I can believe, he will not have been the person least pained by your article of Saturday last.

The objection I have to make on the score of principle to the views of the writer of the article is to the assumption that a double- first classman is on that ground more fit to be a schoolmaster than one who has "obtained a single first-class in classics." This is taken as axiomatic. As a fact, however, with a few remarkable exceptions the most distinguished schoolmasters have not been double firsts. Neither the present Head Master of Winchester, nor of Eton, neither Arnold, nor Kennedy, nor any of the Butlers, .nor Moberly, nor Bradley were double firsts. Both No. 1 and No. 3 would gladly have acquiesced in the decision of the Fellows of Winchester if they had appointed to the Second Mastership " one of the most distinguished Tutors of the University " who did not secure even a single first-class at his degree examination. Here in Oxford it is well known that the verdict of the University Examiners, though accepted as stamping those whom they think worthy of a first-class as persons of exceptional ability, is not regarded as sufficient criterion of the comparative merits of the candidates either in all respects or in any respect except those with which the examination has to do. Newman, Thomson, Bridges were all thirds ; Whately, Pattison, Fronde, Clough, Matthew Arnold, Grant, Grant Duff, Sargent were all seconds. Even College Fellowship examinations often revise the decision of the schools ; but the newspapers are not set to work to cry out "a job " when, for instance, New College elects one of its own men with a single first against a Balliol man with five.

People may, however, differ on a question of principle. I have a more serious charge against the writer of the article. No. l's superiority to No. 3 is attempted to be made out by (perhaps un- intentional) suggestio falsi and suppressio yeri. The person who is accountable for collecting the information on which the article is based has been guilty either of culpable carelessness or of some- thing which I do not care to particularize. I proceed to subtan- tiate this accusation. I will take the guilty passages as they occur in the article.

1. No. 1 is " a Fellow of New College, and the first Wykeham- ist who ever gained that Fellowship by open competition." The impression likely (if not sure) to be conveyed by this passage is that No. 1 gained an open Fellowship at New College. The competi- tion for the Fellowship gained by him is, in fact, limited to New College and Winchester men. At the same time that No. 1 was elected to his Fellowship an open Fellowship was filled up, and the successful candidate's name appears on the list of Fellows of New College above No. 1. The statement of the article is either erroneous, or only saved from being so at the expense of candour.

2. No. 1 was " Head of the School, a position which he occupied at an early age, and held for some time." The last words are either superfluous or convey a false impression. " The system of promotion ceases on entrance into the sixth " at Winchester, as at most public schools (Public Schools' Calendar). The position of head of the school once occupied must be (except in extreme cases) held till the boy leaves the school.

But I have no desire to depreciate No. 1. All I complain of is the deepening of the touches in the picture drawn of his career, while so grudging an acknowledgment is made of the merits of No. 3.

3. No. 1, for instance, " carried off the Duncan, the great mathematical prize, answering to the Tomlin' at Eton." No. 3 simply "obtained the Duncan prize in mathematics."

4. No. 1 subsequently became " President of the Union," an honour which, whatever its value, should also have been included in the qualifications of No. 3.

5. No. 1 was " in all respects one of the most distinguished young Tutors of the University." From the short biography of No. 3 no one would have gathered that he had ever taken part (and a part highly valued by his colleagues) in the tuition of his College.

6. This disparagement of No. 3 runs all through the account of him. No. 2 "gained a first-class in classics ; " No. 3 " obtained a single (could he have obtained a double?) first-class in classics.

7. From the article it appears that out of school hours the Second Master has the charge of the scholars of Winchester. The excessive tendency to athleticism, of which all interested in education nowadays so much complain, could have no check so powerful as those capable of being applied by one who, without sacrificing anything of intellectual or moral culture, had twice rowed in the winning University eight against Cambridge. One who can sympathize with boys' play will best be able to prevent its becoming their main object. Of all this there is not a word in your article.

8. The advantages of a more varied training than New College with all its narrowing influences is likely to give to a Winchester boy might have occurred to one who knew that No. 3 had studied at Balliol and taught at Queen's. A graver omission is that of the fact that No. 3 further proceeded to fit himself for the work of his life at Marlborough, perhaps the best training school for public schoolmasters in England.

9. I have said that, except as testimonials of sufficient ability and attainment, University distinctions are not adequate grounds for deciding between candidates for a vacant mastership. One who thinks they are should have been careful not to have omitted any distinction gained by either of the subjects of comparison. The Ellerton Essay (of which no word in your article), the compe- tition for which is open to all members of the University of a certain standing, might in No. 3's case have been allowed (except of course by an old Winchester boy) to counterbalance two or three of No. l's schoolboy triumphs which are paraded at length.

I might without difficulty carry on the comparison further. It might be invidious so to do. I think, however, I have already advanced enough to show that " gross job," " scandalous and indefensible," " corrupt transaction," " gross abuse of patronage," " malpractices from which they would as individuals shrink with disgust" are epithets wholly unfitted to be applied to the preference of No. 3 over No. 1.

A New College man, a personal friend of No. 1, or one jealous of the promotion of No. 3, might be excused for temporary chagrin at the failure of the candidate in whom he is interested ; but it is exceedingly unfortunate that the Spectator (generally so reticent on University matters) should have been induced to sound an alarm in support of personal or narrow college feeling. It thereby is in danger of misusing its influence on those occasions (unhappily not too rare in Oxford) when it has to raise its voice against real abuses.

I am not anxious for publicity, but as I feel I have made grave charges against the author or inspirer of your article, I have no objection to the publication of my name.—I am, Sir, &c.,

Queen's College, Oxford, April 16. JOHN' R. MAGRATII.

[Mr. Magrath charges us with assuming the axiom " that a double-first classman is, on that ground, more fit to be a school- master than one who has obtained a single first-class in classics." There is an ambiguity in the words " on that ground," which must be settled before we can accept Mr. Magrath's enunciation of our proposition. If he means " on that ground alone," we deny that any such proposition is latent in our article. On the contrary, success in the teaching and management of scholars is distinctly recognized, and good character is of course assumed in our article, as among the preliminary and indispensable qualifications for such an appointment. If, however, he means " on that among other grounds," we accept his enunciation of the pro- position, and admit that we consider it an educational maxim. Perhaps, however, as this maxim is nowhere enunciated in our article, but is deduced by Mr. Magrath from its general tenor, we had better give our own version of it, which we do in the following terms :—In case of a contested election to a public schoolmastership, if two candidates be equal in respect of character, teaching, and governing power, the preference should be given to him who has the greater learning.

It was asserted in the article that, two candidates, No. 1 and No. 3, were equal in respect of their character, teaching, and govern- ing power. It was further asserted that No. 1 had the greater learning ; which assertion was supported by reference to the Public Schools and University Calendars, and has not yet been contradicted.

The argument that with a few remarkable exceptions, the most distinguished schoolmasters have not been double-firsts need not be considered, because it is irrelevant to the question, now that the misapprehension on which Mr. Magrath bases it has been removed.

Equally inapplicable is the argument that " College Fellowship examinations often revise the decision of the schools ; but the newspapers are not set to work to cry out a job' when, for instance, New College elects one of its own men with a single first against a Balliol man with five." Does not Mr. Magrath perceive that in such a case as this a further examination has taken place ; and that, if character and personal qualification be equal, the electing college is supposed to be governed in its choice by the result of such re-examination ? Of course, if, in the above case, the newspapers discovered that New College had preferred the man who passed the worse examination, to him who passed the better, because the worse examinee had Tory connections, or because he was son of an intimate friend of the Warden, they would cry out "a job," and would be right to do so.

In the case of young men none of whom has yet published anything, the best, indeed the only reliable evidence of their learn-

ing is the record of their school and University examinations ; and, as between two men who have been at the same school, and the same University, such evidence is conclusive.

Like Mr. Magrath, we have no desire to reconsider the case of No. 2. He was not, however, introduced into the article to make a climax, or to dissemble the real point ; but to show that, even on the hypothesis that experience of school teaching ought to weigh the most in scholastic elections, No. 3 was not the most eligible candidate of the three. In the words of the article- " Only one argument, namely, the greater scholastic experience of the second, could fairly have been alleged in favour of preferring him to the first ; and this, though a reasonable argument, would be outweighed by the much greater attainments of the first."

We have sufficiently answered Mr. Magrath's "objection on principle." We do not suppose that when he has obtained a clear apprehension of what that educational principle is which was assumed in our article, he will disagree with us in recognizing its validity.

Mr. Magrath further charges us with twofold misrepresentation, namely, suppressio yeti and suggestio false, in our record of the

evidence of the respective attainments of the first and third can- didates. We will reply to his charges in the order in which he makes them.

1. We said "No. 1 is a Fellow of New College, and the first Wykehamist who ever gained that Fellowship by open competi- tion." The phrase is awkwardly worded. Instead of " the first Wykehamist who ever gained that Fellowship by open competi- tion," we should have written, " the first Wykehamist who ever gained the Wykehamist Fellowship by competition." The Fellow- ship, as a fact, was open to all New College men and all Wyke- hamists who have been two years at Winchester.

2. It does not necessarily follow that, because a Wykehamist is head of the school at an early age, he therefore holds that posi- tion for some time. He may avail himself of his first chance of an election to a scholarship at New College, and remove at an early age to Oxford. The words, " and held for some time," are not, therefore, superfluous, as Mr. Magrath supposes. Nor do we think there is any reason for asserting that they convey a false impression. The impression which they were meant to convey was that No. 1 occupied for some time a position of the highest school- boy responsibility, and must in that position have acquired some experience in the government of Winchester boys.

3. The statement "that No. 3 obtained the Duncan prize in mathematics" was made in these brief terms, not from any grudging spirit, as Mr. Magrath asserts, towards that candidate, but because the nature and importance of this prize had been already stated and defined. It was not necessary to re-state what had been proclaimed a few lines above, and we should simply have

written "obtained the Duncan prize ;" but that it was necessary to use the words " in mathematics," in order to distinguish the

prize obtained by No. 3 from the inferior "Duncan " gained by reading aloud, and by an English historical essay. It was our anxiety to make this distinction in favour of No. 3 that caused us to insert the words " in mathematics." What grudging does Mr. Magrath find here?

4. We were not aware that No. 3 had ever been President of the Union. We are happy to acknowledge that, " whatever its value," that fact cancels the presidency of No. 1, and that the two are quits on that bead.

5. Our article asserts that No. 1 " was one of the most distin- guished young tutors of the University." Mr. Magrath retorts

that No. 3 also took a part in the tuition of his College. These

words are ambiguous. If they mean that No. 3 was a tutor of Queen's, they are incorrect. If they mean that he lectured at Queen's, they are true. But the tutorship of a college, and par- ticularly of a rapidly rising and improving college like New College, is a much more important and responsible post than a lectureship at Queen's. Mr. Magrath must be aware of this fact, and he ought not to have employed the ambiguous word " tuition."

6. The addition of a comma will probably enable Mr. Magrath to understand the meaning of the phrase, " obtained a single first- class, in classics, at moderations." The words "in classics" were added in order to show that it was not the mathematical, but the more honourable classical first-class in moderations which No. 3 gained. They define in which of the two schools No. 3 obtained his honours, but they convey no disparagement of him.

7. The argument that, because No. 3 has rowed twice in the winning University Eight, he is likely to check excessive athleti- cism at Winchester scarcely deserves notice.

8. The "narrowing influences of New College,"—happily now

things of the past. Our article asserted that one reason why the Warden and Fellows of Winchester rejected No. 1, was that " they were influenced by a strong sense of animosity against New College, that nest, as they consider it, of liberal thinkers and young reformers." Mr. Magrath insinuates, he dare not state, that they were, on the contrary, influenced by a desire to introduce the liberalism of Balliol into Winchester. Credat Jutlxus!

9. Our last " suppressio reri," is the omission of the fact that No. 3 gained the Ellerton Theological prize. We regret that we overlooked this distinction, which, of course, may count in some degree as evidence of attainments, on the part of the successful candidate, and would be a more decided recommendation in the choice of a parish priest.

We have now gone through all the charges which Mr. Magrath brings against us. We confess we do not feel their gravity as he does. What we do feel, and what we think our readers will feel, is the genuine weakness of the case of an advocate who is driven, like 4r. Magrath, to ask the public to weigh the two races at Putney and the Ellerton Essay against the far higher school and university honours of No. 1.

As Mr. Magrath is so justly anxious that there should be no suppression of facts in our statement of the respective merits of these two candidates, we will now add what, in the article we forbore to state, that when Mr. Hornby left Winchester the Head Master intrusted the charge of the Junior Sixth Book (Lower Sixth Form) not to No. 3, but to No. 1 ; and that in spite of his rejection by the electors in favour of No. 3, he continues in charge of that form. The significance of this fact is obvious.

To recur, finally, to the application of the principle assumed in the article, and misapprehended by Mr. Magrath. The two candidates are equal in character, teaching, and governing power. One of them had proved by his school and university career that his learning was greater than that of his opponent. He ought therefore to have been selected. What, then, but family influence or animosity to young New College could have caused his rejection, and the preferment of his junior and less distinguished colleague ? And, if such motives influenced the electors, was not such an appointment a gross job, and, therefore, scandalous and inde- fensible ?]