CHAPTER XX. WESTMINSTER. Reginæ fundata manu Regina Scholarum, Celsior, et fama quam fuit illa situ. SOUTH. If you visit any of our great Public Schools in the country, you cannot fail to be struck with the variety of their buildings and the extent of their playing-fields. Westminster impresses a visitor, but in a different manner. Even an illiterate man must feel that he is treading here on consecrated ground. From all quarters of the globe Englishspeaking pilgrims come to Westminster Abbey, as to the Mecca of their race and tongue. This ancient Foundation is part and parcel of the most famous spot of land in the British Empire. Contrasted with the surroundings of Westminster, those even of Eton and Winchester are modern. Stand where you will in the school yard, or even at the back windows of Ashburnham House, you get glimpses of the rose window of the Abbey looking down on the Poets' Corner, or of the Crown Tower rising in the majesty of its proportions. Excluding the dingy-looking boardinghouses, the school buildings are quite worthy of the Abbey to which they belong. First and foremost is the "School." There is no nobler Hall in England, save its neighbour, Westminster Hall. For nearly three hundred years (1591-1883) all classes were held there. It is nearly one hundred feet in length, and was found large enough for the teaching of 400 boys. It was divided into the Upper and the Under School by a curtain just as the Fourth Form Room at Harrow used to be, but it must not be supposed that in any other respect the most ancient building on the Hill can be compared to the "School" of Westminster. The massive arches on which the "School" rests date from the time of Edward the Confessor, while its own walls are of the thirteenth century. The chestnut roof, like that of Westminster Hall, is of a more recent date. This Hall formed the ancient dormitory built by the Confessor for the Benedictines. Within the last thirty years "School" has been lined with oak panels, but these only cover about eight feet of the walls and above the panels are painted the names of Old Westminsters. Proud is the Westminster who has his name painted on the walls, and still prouder he whose coat of arms is emblazoned on its panels. The name painting in this Hall is not a mere matter of whim in the boy or of payment to the school painter; it is intended as an appreciation of a boy, who has been a credit to his old school. An English lad often goes to a particular school, not because it is best fitted to prepare him for the Army or the Bar, not because its bills are adapted to the family purse, not because of its propinquity to home, but because his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather went there before him. This is not a tradition of yesterday, but dates from the 17th century. "Dr. Busby! a great man! he whipp'd my grandfather; a very great man! I should have gone to him myself, if I had not been a blockhead; a very great Man!" Such were the words of Sir Roger de Coverley as he stood before the Busby monument in the Abbey. 1 In "School" the names are painted up in families; the Markhams number some 27, the Glyns come in a good second, followed closely by Phillimores, Randolphs, Vernons, Mures, Madans, Slades, Lowthers, Dicks, Conybeares and Southeys. The earliest of the Randolphs was Thomas, the friend and disciple of Ben Jonson; the earliest of the Glyns, the Sergeant who supported the proposal to confer the title of King upon Oliver Cromwell. It is not often that the name of an expelled boy is painted up with honour in his old school, 1 Spectator, March 18th, 1712, No. 329. but such is the case with Robert Southey. Not only is his name, but his "Arms are up School." This future Poet Laureate wrote a sarcastic attack upon corporal punishment in a school periodical called The Flagellant. Dr. Vincent prosecuted the printer for libel; Southey at once confessed himself the author and apologised, but his soft answer did not turn away the Head Master's wrath. It is useless to reason with or even to apologise to a master with no sense of humour. Yet Dr. Vincent was emphatically a good man. His was a unique career among schoolmasters. He went twice through every form of the school, first as boy and then as assistant master. No one better deserved the honours that fell to him. He is the only Head Master of Westminster, who was promoted to the Deanery. He lies buried in the Abbey he loved so long and so well. Sir Francis Burdett is another expelled boy, who has his "Arms up School." At the head of "School" stands a bust of Busby, the chair in which he sat, and the table in which he kept his rods. If a foreigner were to ask us who was the greatest of our statesmen, he would receive very diverse replies. Each would apply to his favourite the Virgilian lines applied by Mr. Gladstone to Lord Beaconsfield. "Aspice, ut insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis Ingreditur, victorque viros supereminet omnes." Asked who was the most famous of our schoolmasters, the majority would probably give the same reply-Busby. Whether judged by the length of his reign, by the excep tional difficulties he encountered and overcame, by the fame of his scholars, by the distinction he conferred upon his school, by his abiding influence or his exemplary life, Busby is pre-eminently first. In a Foundation rich in distinguished Head Masters he dwarfs them all, and stands out as the strong man of Westminster. Few Founders have left as lasting an impress on their own Foundation as Busby has on the school over which he presided. Had Westminster 1 Head Master of Westminster from 1788 to 1802. been a private instead of a public school, it could not have been more deeply stamped with his image and superscription. Truly he was potter and the school his clay. Near "School" is a small room with a beautiful ceiling, which was built by Dr. Busby and is now called his library. Here are kept the books which he actually used, and as you scan their title pages, you meditate on the fame and fortune of one who was the bridge between the Canterbury of Laud and the Canterbury of Tillotson. Two hundred years have passed since Busby taught and flogged, yet a world that quickly forgets, has not forgotten him. Ill-natured remarks have been made of him, but not by posterity. Like good wine, his reputation has improved with keeping. Yet there is much in his career-in his uniform success-that is difficult to reconcile with strict principle. How was it that he, a Royalist and a Churchman, retained his post under the Commonwealth? From the death of Laud in 1644, for a period of over 15 years the Book of Common Prayer was closed, and divine service was performed in the Temple Church according to the Presbyterian system. 1 In 1649 the House of Commons passed a resolution ordering the Fellows, Masters, and Scholars of Eton, Winchester and Westminster to sign the "Engagement" that they would be "true and faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it is now established, without a King or House of Lords." Provost Rous of Eton and Warden Harris of Winchester took the Covenant and the Engagement. Until the Engagement was withdrawn by the Protector (January 1654) it was taken by every barrister and bencher before he could open his lips in Court. At the trial of Christopher Love, in May 1651, his Counsel, Matthew Hale, was asked by the President whether he had taken the Engagement, and replied, "My Lord, I have done it." 2 Is it probable that the Head Master of Westminster would have been allowed to retain so important a post, while disobeying the orders A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records (edited by Mr. F. A. Inderwick, Q.C.), Vol ii., 105. * Calendar of Inner Temple Records, lxvii. Christopher Love, the Puritan Minister, was executed in 1651. Was he related to Warden Love? of the Government? So staunch a Busbyite as Mr. C. F. Russell Barker is of opinion that Busby did take both the Covenant and the Engagement. Mr. Sargeaunt thinks that Busby did not take the Engagement. It is to be hoped Mr. Sargeaunt is right, as Busby was a Churchman, and could not have taken the Covenant with sincerity, while Warden Harris and Provost Rous were ardent Presbyterians. Fortunately for the two latter and for their Foundations they died before the Restoration; only the tomb of Provost Rous could be desecrated. So long as Busby satisfied the requirements of the law, the Government of the Lord Protector would not have interfered with his management of Westminster. We may reasonably suppose that Oliver Cromwell and Dr. Busby would have found it easy to respect each other. A born ruler of men could tolerate a born ruler of boys. The basis of the character of each is the same. Both are essentially Conservative. Cromwell had probably read in Ascham that "the good or ill bringing up of children did as much serve to the good or ill service of God, our Prince, and our whole country as any one thing beside," and may well have been content to have let well alone at this great school. The Lord Protector was not a small-minded man. He did not hold to the view of the Dean of Christchurch, Dr. John Owen, who said it would never be well for the nation until Westminster School was suppressed. Walker, whose famous work was published in 1714, refers to Busby with respect, but merely adds "he can scarce be called a sufferer." Dr. Busby's contemporaries, Walter Pope, F.R.S. (a pupil of Busby's), and the Jacobite Hearne, openly accuse him of time-serving, but they were incapable of appreciating the greatness of either the head of the State or the head of Westminster. To such critics as these the fact that Dr. Busby attended the funeral of the Lord Protector would be a "damning spot" in his character, whereas it was in reality a tribute of respect paid by one great man to another. 1 Walker's Sufferings, Part II, p. 74. Pope's Life of Seth Ward, p. 18. |