-
Articles/Ads
Article THE BOYS' SCHOOL INQUIRY. ← Page 2 of 3 Article THE BOYS' SCHOOL INQUIRY. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Boys' School Inquiry.
There is , however , one way out of the difficulty , a method that would be hailed with delight on all sides , and that is for the officials referred to in the Report to endeavour to settle their differences among
themselves , and then to fearlessly announce that they have done , and will continue to do , all that lies in their power to prevent the recurrence of unpleasantness such
as is mentioned in the Report , ignoring for the time being all question as to whether such references are or are not wholly justifiable . The Secretary , the Head
Master , the House Committee , and others , are each and all personally attacked—if the attacks are unjustified , why should they create fresh difficulties in trying to prove themselves innocent ? if they are justified , would
it not be best to promise reform , and ask for a further trial in order to prove the sincerity of their promises ? We believe that by such a course the whole matter would speedily and satisfactorily adjust itself ; while ,
on the other hand , if the question is to be freely and fully discussed to the bitter end , the Institution will be the worst sufferer , and those most intimately concerned will not add to their reputation . We believe
the Subscribers have sufficient confidence in the present officials to still give them full powers , in their respective stations , they will not even lay down hard and fast rules for their future guidance , but it is fair
Jar them to expect that complaints , such as are now made , will be impossible in the future ; leaving out oi consideration , for the time being , all question as to whether they are . justified in regard to the past , or otherwise .
Recognising the importance of the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioners , that "to the friction between the Secretary and the domestic staff on the
one side , and the Head Master and his adherents on tho other , the great part of the present evils is to be attributed , " we propose , first , to express our opinion
on this point . Last week we urged that the conduct of the School and of the affairs of the Institution generally should be properly divided . That in each
case a head should be appointed , and to him should be given supreme authority in his particular sphere . Undoubtedly the Head Master , for the time being ,
should have full control at Wood Green , not only over the masters and others engaged with him in the
eaucational work , but over every servant and official of the Institution employed therein . We cannot see the utility or the reasonableness of any other course ,
and we regard it as quite impossible for the affairs of the School to be carried on harmoniously without some resident and recognised head to take supreme command and be answerable for all that goes on
around him . To divide authority means to divide responsibility also , and if it is difficult clearly to define duties , it is far more difficult to decide on
whom rests the responsibility when anything goes wrong . The House Steward and the Matron appear to particular disadvantage in the Report which has been drawn un . and we verv much oufistinn if thp — — — VUV
X * v JL— ~ - ~ -. * .. Secretary gave them the instructions they refer to , that they were to "take no orders from the Head Master , " or at least he never intended such
instructions to be carried out as these two officials appear to have interpreted them . We have had some experience in the management of workmen , and without making too sweeping a condemnation we may urge ,
that the rule is to shirk work wherever it is possible , and all manner of excuses and contrivances are invented to justify what is reallv nothing mors
V % / 4 / ^ j nor less than neglect of duty . We can well understand that the servants at Wood Green were only too willing to avail themselves of what they recognised
as the commands of the Secretary in regard to not obeying any orders but his , and no doubt if the Secretary had gone to the Institution ancl given
instructions for other work to be performed they would have retaliated by saying , that the orders for it should come from either the Head Master or some
The Boys' School Inquiry.
other authority—that is , if they dared do so , but perhaps they regarded the present Secretary as a man who would not be trifled with in such a manner ,
and we can but think that the Head Master ought to have prevented such proceedings as he now complains of , either by immediately dismissing or suspending the rebellious domestics , or by some equally severe
measure . We cannot believe that either the House Committee or the Secretary would have resented such action on his part , but , on the contrary , they would have supported him in maintaining order and
discipline . If the Head Master has not assumed the full powers attaching to his position we think he is personally answerable for much of what he
complains , for it could never have been the wish of others in authority that he should be treated by the domestics in the way the Committee of Inquiry tell us he has been , and the sooner he assumes the authority
which should and does attach to the Head Mastership the sooner we may expect reform at Wood Green . We would advise his taking the law into his own hands in case of any further display of
insubordination among the domestics , and we are sure the general body of subscribers will support him . He has been chosen to fill a high position , and it is not the wish of those by whom he was appointed that he should be insulted , or his orders disregarded , as it is
urged they have been . Another part of the conclusion of the Commission we have here referred to states that the Secretary has engrossed the control of the Institution into his own
hands . This may sound very bad , but is it not just what happens in almost every concern of life . Either the Secretary , the Chairman , the Manager , or some
other official " appears " to have the entire control of the undertaking with which he is associated , and we do not know but that it is much better this should be
the case . Let us suppose the opposite extreme , where every member of a committee or other governing body shows a desire to assert himself in the control ,
without recognising either of his fellows , as leader , guide or organiser . Do such bodies fare any better than those who seem to be led by one or other of their
number , or is it not rather the case that when all are for themselves disorder reigns supreme and nothing effectual is done either one wav or the other ? How
many of our Lodges are ruled by the silent influence of one man we should not like to say , but we venture
the opinion that in nine cases out of every ten there is one ruling spirit in a Lodge , who , if he does not actually engross the control , virtually rules the roost and arranges matters much as he thinks best . After
all , what does the control ofthe Secretary amount to ? He has to attend officially the various Committees of the Institution , to draw up the agenda of business ,
to take note of propositions and amendments , and in the discharge of these duties it often happens that it is his words which are ultimately used in a proposition , from the fact that he has to put in writing
the views or suggestions of the speakers , many of whom are not quite certain of what they actually reouire when first thev rise to make a nronosition .
To say that the Secretary has ruled the House and other Committees of the Institution is hardly consistent with facts which might have been considered by the Committee of Inquiry . Had they searched
the minutes ol these Committees we believe they would have discovered , not one or two , but many instances in which Bro . Binckes disagreed with tbfi
Committees on subjects of a controversial character . In addition to these recorded instances there are many others where the Secretary has taken an
opposite view to the Committees , and upheld it , sometimes with success , but often without converting the members to his wav of thinking . If the Committees
were the puppets in the hands of the Secretary which we are led to suppose , this opposition would not have been necessary or possible : but that it has
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Boys' School Inquiry.
There is , however , one way out of the difficulty , a method that would be hailed with delight on all sides , and that is for the officials referred to in the Report to endeavour to settle their differences among
themselves , and then to fearlessly announce that they have done , and will continue to do , all that lies in their power to prevent the recurrence of unpleasantness such
as is mentioned in the Report , ignoring for the time being all question as to whether such references are or are not wholly justifiable . The Secretary , the Head
Master , the House Committee , and others , are each and all personally attacked—if the attacks are unjustified , why should they create fresh difficulties in trying to prove themselves innocent ? if they are justified , would
it not be best to promise reform , and ask for a further trial in order to prove the sincerity of their promises ? We believe that by such a course the whole matter would speedily and satisfactorily adjust itself ; while ,
on the other hand , if the question is to be freely and fully discussed to the bitter end , the Institution will be the worst sufferer , and those most intimately concerned will not add to their reputation . We believe
the Subscribers have sufficient confidence in the present officials to still give them full powers , in their respective stations , they will not even lay down hard and fast rules for their future guidance , but it is fair
Jar them to expect that complaints , such as are now made , will be impossible in the future ; leaving out oi consideration , for the time being , all question as to whether they are . justified in regard to the past , or otherwise .
Recognising the importance of the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioners , that "to the friction between the Secretary and the domestic staff on the
one side , and the Head Master and his adherents on tho other , the great part of the present evils is to be attributed , " we propose , first , to express our opinion
on this point . Last week we urged that the conduct of the School and of the affairs of the Institution generally should be properly divided . That in each
case a head should be appointed , and to him should be given supreme authority in his particular sphere . Undoubtedly the Head Master , for the time being ,
should have full control at Wood Green , not only over the masters and others engaged with him in the
eaucational work , but over every servant and official of the Institution employed therein . We cannot see the utility or the reasonableness of any other course ,
and we regard it as quite impossible for the affairs of the School to be carried on harmoniously without some resident and recognised head to take supreme command and be answerable for all that goes on
around him . To divide authority means to divide responsibility also , and if it is difficult clearly to define duties , it is far more difficult to decide on
whom rests the responsibility when anything goes wrong . The House Steward and the Matron appear to particular disadvantage in the Report which has been drawn un . and we verv much oufistinn if thp — — — VUV
X * v JL— ~ - ~ -. * .. Secretary gave them the instructions they refer to , that they were to "take no orders from the Head Master , " or at least he never intended such
instructions to be carried out as these two officials appear to have interpreted them . We have had some experience in the management of workmen , and without making too sweeping a condemnation we may urge ,
that the rule is to shirk work wherever it is possible , and all manner of excuses and contrivances are invented to justify what is reallv nothing mors
V % / 4 / ^ j nor less than neglect of duty . We can well understand that the servants at Wood Green were only too willing to avail themselves of what they recognised
as the commands of the Secretary in regard to not obeying any orders but his , and no doubt if the Secretary had gone to the Institution ancl given
instructions for other work to be performed they would have retaliated by saying , that the orders for it should come from either the Head Master or some
The Boys' School Inquiry.
other authority—that is , if they dared do so , but perhaps they regarded the present Secretary as a man who would not be trifled with in such a manner ,
and we can but think that the Head Master ought to have prevented such proceedings as he now complains of , either by immediately dismissing or suspending the rebellious domestics , or by some equally severe
measure . We cannot believe that either the House Committee or the Secretary would have resented such action on his part , but , on the contrary , they would have supported him in maintaining order and
discipline . If the Head Master has not assumed the full powers attaching to his position we think he is personally answerable for much of what he
complains , for it could never have been the wish of others in authority that he should be treated by the domestics in the way the Committee of Inquiry tell us he has been , and the sooner he assumes the authority
which should and does attach to the Head Mastership the sooner we may expect reform at Wood Green . We would advise his taking the law into his own hands in case of any further display of
insubordination among the domestics , and we are sure the general body of subscribers will support him . He has been chosen to fill a high position , and it is not the wish of those by whom he was appointed that he should be insulted , or his orders disregarded , as it is
urged they have been . Another part of the conclusion of the Commission we have here referred to states that the Secretary has engrossed the control of the Institution into his own
hands . This may sound very bad , but is it not just what happens in almost every concern of life . Either the Secretary , the Chairman , the Manager , or some
other official " appears " to have the entire control of the undertaking with which he is associated , and we do not know but that it is much better this should be
the case . Let us suppose the opposite extreme , where every member of a committee or other governing body shows a desire to assert himself in the control ,
without recognising either of his fellows , as leader , guide or organiser . Do such bodies fare any better than those who seem to be led by one or other of their
number , or is it not rather the case that when all are for themselves disorder reigns supreme and nothing effectual is done either one wav or the other ? How
many of our Lodges are ruled by the silent influence of one man we should not like to say , but we venture
the opinion that in nine cases out of every ten there is one ruling spirit in a Lodge , who , if he does not actually engross the control , virtually rules the roost and arranges matters much as he thinks best . After
all , what does the control ofthe Secretary amount to ? He has to attend officially the various Committees of the Institution , to draw up the agenda of business ,
to take note of propositions and amendments , and in the discharge of these duties it often happens that it is his words which are ultimately used in a proposition , from the fact that he has to put in writing
the views or suggestions of the speakers , many of whom are not quite certain of what they actually reouire when first thev rise to make a nronosition .
To say that the Secretary has ruled the House and other Committees of the Institution is hardly consistent with facts which might have been considered by the Committee of Inquiry . Had they searched
the minutes ol these Committees we believe they would have discovered , not one or two , but many instances in which Bro . Binckes disagreed with tbfi
Committees on subjects of a controversial character . In addition to these recorded instances there are many others where the Secretary has taken an
opposite view to the Committees , and upheld it , sometimes with success , but often without converting the members to his wav of thinking . If the Committees
were the puppets in the hands of the Secretary which we are led to suppose , this opposition would not have been necessary or possible : but that it has