CAPTAIN N. S. F. DIGBY.
(Now Vice-Admiral N. S. F. Digby.)
Photo: Smale & Son, Dartmouth.
This is much more likely to be a true statement of the case. The youngster tacitly admits that there may have been others who were not detected, but the general feeling of the bulk of the cadets on the subject is, no doubt, quite truthfully represented; indeed, one could not imagine it possible that it could be otherwise.
However, this simple statement did not stem the tide.
“Another Wykehamist” follows with an assertion of his conviction that the tone is low in spite of favourable appearances; and, among other things, he deprecates the method of corporal punishment by means of a cane over tightened flannel trousers, and says he is not satisfied as to discipline, supervision, and moral training, etc.
October 20th, Admiral G. H. Richards is down upon the last writer, asking, very pertinently, what right he has to expect to be “satisfied” on these points; says the best proof of the efficiency of the Britannia is the officers she turns out; he has had two sons there, and never found any cause of complaint.
On October 22nd, Mr. T. Gibson Bowles, M.P., stands up for the ship, and “Through the Mill” replies at length to the editor of the Western Morning News, winding up by advising parents to send their sons to “one of the best schools in England.”
“Old Etonian” says that Admiral Richards naturally avoids reference to corporal punishment and “second class” punishment, which are brutal. Would it not be possible to give the headship to a man used to boys, and with some ideas of managing them beyond the stick and the “second class”?
One does not quite see why the Admiral should “naturally” avoid reference to corporal punishment, etc. Probably his sons were well conducted, and did not need severe measures which, indeed, were not often resorted to; but in expressing his satisfaction with the ship as a school for his boys he must in common reason be held to approve the whole scheme, including the punishments alluded to when they are needed. The last sentence of “Old Etonian’s” letter, as quoted above, can only be classified as impertinent ignorance—or ignorant impertinence, whichever may be deemed most suitable. His ideas are based on a conviction that no one except a public school master knows anything about the management of boys; which is a great error. There are plenty of men—and a large proportion among the officers of the Navy—who have a natural capacity in this respect, which becomes apparent directly they get their opportunity; and there are others—in public schools as well as elsewhere—who have been managing boys all their lives, and have never done it decently.