CORRESPONDENCE We cannot be answerable for the opinions of our correspondents. Contributions for the next number should be sent in by this day fortnight, written on one side of the paper only. Contributions will be received at the Advertiser Office, or at Mr. Pepperday’s, under cover to the “ Editor cf the Meteor." To the Editor of the Meteor. Sir ,—A “ Radical,” by his sweeping mea sures of Reform, has incurred so much oppo sition, and so many arguments have been brought against his propositions to show that they are impracticable, that I am sure, if he is an ordinary mortal, he must have suc cumbed to the numerous attacks. Now I, for one, think there is a great deal of truth in “ Radical’s ” statements, and that many of his proposals could be adopted with advan tage. I think that he is quite right in his assertion that a body which nominally,—for it does at present only nominally,—represents the Athletic portion of the School, should be elected from the muscles, and not from the brains of the School. I do not mean to say that the Upper School is solely intellectual, for it so happens that it now contains some of the best players at games. Yet, some day it may be otherwise, and one should be pre pared for all contingencies. While “ Radi cal’s ” franchise would always include the best players. Let us see what arguments are brought to bear against “ Radical’s ” proposal for Big-side Levee to consist of House Twenties, House Elevens, Crick and Athletic Winners, and the Commissioned Officers of the Rifle Corps. One corres pondent objects to it on account of its size, and computes the number in the following maimer: House Twenties 180, House Elevens 88, Crick and Athletic Winners (say) 20, Officers 3; Grand Total, 291. Now this correspondent ignores the fact that the ma jority of House Elevens are in their House Twenties ; that the 3 Officers of the Corps are in their respective House Twenties; and that a good number of winners are either in their House Eleven or Twenty. The size would be very nearly the same as at present. Another correspondent does not deny the incompetency, if I may use the word, of the present Levee, but indicates it by a precedent furnished by the House of Commons. He illogically argues “ The House passes bills, See., of which they know nothing: wherefore, why should not Big-side Levee go and do likewise.” 8 THE METEOR. I do not think that any of “ Radical’s ” proposals have been answered satisfactorily. He states this undeniable fact, that the Levee is the “ arbiter ludorwm," and as such should know everything about games. I remain, Sir, Your obdt. servant, ANOTHER RADICAL. To the Editor o f the Meteor. Dear S ir ,—I am sorry to be forced to cry peeeavi to the charge of a serious offence, to wit, that preferred against me by your Mace- donic correspondent, of doubting for a single moment the wisdom of our predecessors. But in as much as that evil deed on my part was productive of some good in giving “ Macedonicus ” an opportunity of displaying his loyalty, and in calling forth so able a letter from the “ Old Rugbeian,” I hope it will meet with some small degree of pardon from those whom it offended. But with all deference to my opponents, who undoubtedly made a strong case out for themselves, I would suggest that they rather did me an injustice in making it appear that I thought Bigside Levee could be satisfactorily remodelled, on no system but the one I suggested. Now 1 think if those gentlemen will take the trouble to refer to my letter, they will find that I particularly deprecated such an idea. My object in writing to you was to break the ice, on a subject about which I knew there was considerable privately-ex pressed discontent. I thought that if the ice were once broken many abler heads than mine might be in duced to turn their thoughts to the matter, and I feel satisfied from the answers in your last Meteor that such is the case. My plan was only intended as a suggestion, for it seemed hardly fair to set to work to pull an old institution to pieces without trying to give some little help in rearing a better one in its place. The able letter of my elder brother Radical showed me clearly that my scheme was in many respects not calculated to effect the desired improvement, from its want of simplicity, and of sufficient reduction in numbers. “ Macedonicus ” too suggested an objection well worthy of consideration, but which unluckily escaped me, the danger of increas ing party rule. As I now believe that the plan I suggested is not simple enough to be of much use, I will not trespass on your space in the answers to the many very answerable objections, such as the subscriptions, and its being Dr. Temple’s invention, and the like, made to it by your various correspondents; but I do wish to vindicate myself from the accusation of frivolity. I believed that discussion was the best way of getting at a satisfactory measure of reform, and I wrote to yon from sincere conviction that there was great need of reform in the Levee. Though a Radical I am sufficiently loyal to Rugby, to wish it to have the very best system of government that can be devised for it, and so I look forward with eagerness to my brother Radical’s promised scheme, as being likely to have some good practical points in it, at least if O.R. be as clever a builder as he is a dissector. But one thing I do hope, that he will not mar his plan by such utter carelessness, for I would fain not believe it ignorance, as that he was guilty of in his last letter. In the full swing of his demolition of my assembly “ teeming with anomalies,” he counted up its numbers in this manner, “ All House Twenties, 180, all House Elevens, 99, &c., <fcc., total 270.” I am reproved for uttering sarcasms about dust and row,—may he not fairly be re proved in turn for a much greater offence? I imagined that the weakest intellect, that had any knowledge at all of Rugby, would have seen that a large proportion of House Elevens are almost invariably to be found in their House Twenties. I believe all the names on the prize boards in the Racquet Court gallery were either those of Cricketers or Caps of standing, and I am glad - to say that I have not been in the School long enough to have known a head of it without his cap. Your correspondent will now, I hope, understand that my Levee would hardly have numbered 270 members, nor yet nearly so many as the present Levee. Contenting myself with this single illus tration of my able brother’s fallibility, which rather shook my faith in the credibility of his experience of Big-side Levees, or even of Rugby at all, and with many apologies for so fhr trespassing on your space, Believe me, yours faithfully, A RADICAL. To the Editor of the Meteor. Dear Sir ,— N o doubt the Commissioners thought they were acting best for the School when they made the rules about superannua tion. No doubt the new rule makes away with THE METEOR, 9 aged lazy fellows, and makes room for new comers ; but does it make away with the aged lazy ? Would it not be more strictly true to say that it makes away with every one who is not good in Classics, for in superan nuating a fellow no notice whatever is taken of his Mathematics or Natural Science. I do not mean to say that the marks which are given for Mathematics are insufficient, as I believe they are given in proportion to the time; but what I do mean is that a fellow in the first set of Mathematics, and perhaps also good at Natural Science, being superannuated for not being good at Classics is scarcely fair. There are but few who are good both at Classics and Mathematics, but a fellow good at Classics and in the sixth set of Mathematics, is not so likely to be super annuated as one who is poor or perhaps only fair in the former, and in the first set of the latter. How can we expect henceforth to have many Senior Wranglers, or even Wrang lers at all, since everything here goes by Classics. Will not some kind friend of the School try whether some rule could be made by which those in the first set of Mathematics should be allowed to remain. We have known a fellow superannuated who had been in the first set of Mathematics a long time, who was head of his Natural Science set, and who got three firsts at the Christmas at which he was obliged to leave. Hoping you will not think me trying to reform the masters, I remain, yours truly, MATHEMATICAL SWELL. To the Editor o f the Meteor. Sie,—At this time, when everybody is joining in doing their best for the commemo ration of the coming Tercentenary, it seems that the School, whom it most of all concerns, are standing still and looking at other people trying to benefit them, but are not attempting to leave anything whereby they themselves may benefit generations to come. Now to us, much cogitating, it appears that if we not only agree with other people that the School should do something, but also propose some thing for the said illustrious body to do, it will at all events put those who object to our proposal under a sort of obligation to propose a better. Therefore we beg to submit to the notice of the School the approaching disso lution of the Bat Fives-court, which, what with the enlarged or rebuilt Chapel, and the new Quadrangle, will disappear from amongst us. Surely if it be possible to find a place, all present Rugbeians will be ready to help in building a new arena for this game, which was dear to the hearts of their fore-runners when as yet the Racquet Court was not, and in preserving “ Thompson, turner and fives bat maker,” from impending ruin. HAPPY THOUGHT. To the Editor of the Meteor. Sie,—In spite of the great improvements in our Chapel Singing effected during the last year, a change has been gradually taking place in our hymns. We are now restricted to about six tunes, of which three are repeat ed perpetually. They are of a methodical and old-fashioned style; their names, on referring to the hymn-book, I find to be Crasselius, Angel’s Hymn, and Wareham, of which, to my humble judgment, Crasselius is the most detestable. We get tired of this style of music in an old parish church, but in a School Chapel we expect at least something more varied, if not music of a prettier nature. It was not always so : but I am told by com petent authorities that we have at last found our hymn-book, which was hurriedly com piled, to be full of gross blunders. About three years ago hymn-books began to be published without music, and all who have come within that time have to sing entirely from ear ? Is this absurd or not ? Are we never to have a new hymn-book ? There will soon be not a single member of the choir possessing music in his hymn-book, and we shall be bound down for years to these wearisome, old-fashioned tunes that we use now. The ancient paraphrase that we sang on Good Friday was enough of itself to point out faults in our present book. That such a quaint stanza as this was sung by a modem congregation seems ludicrous :— “ Dogs are around : the godless crew Are waiting close on me to fall. My hands and feet are pierced through ; My bones stand out, I count them all.” Here is a specimen, almost profane, of a hymn in our present book, which we are positively unable to sing “ When John the Apostle heard the fame, He to the tomb with Peter came, But on the way outran the same. Hallelujah!” Tlie 28th Hymn,—to which, by-the-bye, no music was ever set,—will be found to be simply distressing. I hope that these re marks are not too presumptuous, but I think every one, in the Choir at any rate, will sympathise with me in a want of something new in this way.—Yours obediently, K. 10 THE METEOR, made in this department of Rugby School! I sincerely hope that the selling of racquet balls at l|d. each may be one of the things done in celebration of the Tercentenary; and I trust this question may be well ventilated in your valuable columns.—Yours hopefully, THREE HALF-PENCE. Racquet Court, May 15, 1867. To the Editor of the Meteor. Sir ,—I shall probably remind you of the old fable (not HDsop’s I believe) of the slice of bread, which when just toasted to a turn, objected that it would prefer to remain bread. Still I must ask you two questions, for any solution of which I should be greatly indebted to any of your correspondents. I am aware that they do not properly belong to the Meteor's province, but I have no other means of publishing them. They are, (1.) What is a father to do, whose father, grandfather, and great grandfather, have all been at Rugby before him, and though they have not reached a high position in its YIth., have still been useful members of its society,—what can he do when he comes down with his son to his old school, with no great idea of his classical attainments, but with a confidence that he will be no disgrace to the School or himself, and finds there is a matriculation which his son fails to pass ? It may be suggested, send him to a private tutor for a time, to have his classics forced, while the extension of his mind is stopped and he loses all the pleasures and advantages of a Public School. Well, suppose the son does go to a private tutor, and after a year or so comes again to Rugby at 15| years old, say half a year backward in ideas, and half a year in advance of his abilities in classics. Of course he gets into the Lower Middle. At the end of the term he is superannuated and has to leave. And here arises the 2nd question. Wliat is a boy to do who is turned out of Rugby at 16 or 17 years old ? Another Public School is a very bad, if a possible solution. A private tutor again is the only alternative if he is to go to college: and I will not trespass on your space to go through the disadvantages of a private tutor, But remain, your obedient servant, ANTI-SZ7PHR EDUCATION. THE RACQUET COURT. To the Editor of the Meteor. Sir,—Why is it that the balls at present supplied at the Racquet Court are so bad, and last frequently but two or three rounds ? At Cheltenham, where racquets are played as much as at any other School, balls are supplied at the rate of four for 6d. Could not this too be done at Rugby ? When we consider that the old balls are sometimes sold at Id. each, what an enormous profit can be