And it appears to me that, as soon as the power of the Monitors is transferred from the ground of strength to that of right; as soon as it is made, in its place, as the power of the Masters in theirs, a recognized and constitutional principle; at that moment all feeling of degradation in submitting to it is done away: there is degradation, because there is cowardice, in submitting tamely to the kicks or cuffs of an equal or an inferior, but there is none in rendering to a Master—nor need there be in rendering to a constituted authority of a lower rank—that submission even to personal correction which may be one of the conditions of the society in which you are placed. By a custom, existing certainly long before my own acquaintance with Harrow, traceable for many years into the past history of the School, the common method of enforcing Monitorial authority has been the use of the cane. A power not formally committed to the Monitors, not (in the strictest sense) delegated by the Master, but still exercised without interference or censure within the limits prescribed by humanity or by the fear of penal consequences in case of its excess. This custom, I repeat, I found established; ignored, it may be, by previous Masters, but not unknown. The question with me was, Is this custom, which I find in force, injurious in its use, or only in its abuse? If the former, it must be, not disavowed only, but destroyed. If the latter, it must be, not only connived at, but turned to account. It must be made conducive to the real welfare of the School. And a Monitor who avails himself of this prescriptive right, in support of good order and good discipline, must feel that he is safe in doing so, provided he stops short of inflicting injury. He must feel that he can depend upon the Master to stand by him, before the School and before the Public, so long as no wanton or tyrannical use of this power can be proved against him.