e first thirty and up to sixty, the Master
received L5, the Usher L2 as a capitation fee. Each was given a house
and garden, rent free, and could take boarders.

More than forty applications for the mastership were received and the
Rev. John Richard Blakiston was appointed. Born in 1829 he was educated
at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he gained a Scholarship. In 1853 he
was Second Classic and took Mathematical Honours. A Fellowship
Examination was to be held in October, 1854, and Mr. Blakiston was
studying for it, when Thring, who had been recently appointed to
Uppingham, offered him a post there as a House-Master. After
three-and-a-half years he accepted the Headmastership of Preston
Corporation School and a year later--December, 1858--was appointed to
Giggleswick. At the same meeting of the Governors the Rev. Matthew Wood
was appointed Usher. Born in 1831 he was a Scholar of S. Catherine's
College, Cambridge, and later an Assistant Master at Durham School.

John Langhorne was the only survivor of the days of Butterton and almost
immediately he resigned and was succeeded by Mr. Arthur Brewin, who had
been trained as a teacher in the Chelsea Training College and had served
under Blakiston at Preston. His salary was to be L130 a year. A Modern
Language Master was also chosen.

The following December the usual examination took place and the Bishop
of Ripon appointed the Rev. Frederic William Farrar, who at that time
was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a Master at Harrow. This
first report is important, because of the great contrast it presents
when compared with later years. The School in 1859 was staffed by very
able, young and ambitious men, indeed Mr. Blakiston's intellectual
capacity and ability as a teacher were quite exceptional, and the report
speaks in terms of commendation of the work of the School, especially
of the boys under Blakiston and Brewin.

[Illustration: REV. J. R. BLAKISTON.]

In the next year 1860, the examiner appointed was the Rev. J. T. B.
Landon, sometime Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford; the progress that
he reported was by no means so satisfactory as in the previous year. He
praised the efficiency of the staff, but he pointed out that the pupils
were not so advanced as to be able to profit sufficiently from the
teaching. Similarly in 1861 there were no boys whose knowledge
corresponded with that of an average sixth form in one of the greater
Public Schools.

The causes