My Time At Rugby (1869-74) -- By: Henry Hayman
BSac 57:226 (April 1900) p. 218
My Time At Rugby (1869-74)
Such was the character of the opposition with which I had to contend. I know that among my then colleagues of the hostile clique were several who were incapable of thus trifling with the vital elements of schoolboy faith. But they gave me no support, save that of a “nominal” sort already recorded above; while on the Governing Body the bishops and other clerical members took the course which has been shown above, and of which other examples will follow.
It will be remembered 1 that I had dismissed one School-house tutor absolutely, and requested the trustees to dismiss the other from his post as master. From the tuition of the School-house I had myself removed him. This left that side of his hitherto emoluments blank. I did not intend or desire this; but it was the result of the financial system which I found existing and could not summarily alter. I could not recommend private pupils to one who by his attitude and conduct had made my confidence impossible. This, however, on his complaining to the Governors, was what they required me to do. I complied with their decision, but let it be known that it was their act, not mine. They then passed a minute calling on me either to state my grounds for want of confidence (which were, to
BSac 57:226 (April 1900) p. 219
those of them who had followed the history of school-affairs since my appointment, unmistakably evident), or else treat those grounds as non-existent and not allow them to influence my conduct.
The Chairman-Bishop (Worcester) had concurred in the minute reflecting on the assistant masters generally and their purely “nominal cooperation.” He knew of the insolent letter with this same gentleman’s signature to it, and of Dr. (by this time Bishop) Temple’s arrogant impeachment of my appointment. But all this he now thought it decent to ignore, and, having now surrendered to the Temple clique, he thought it further decent to require me to ignore the same facts also. Thus the affectation of not being aware of my reasons for lack of confidence was a flagrant hypocrisy.
In compliance, however, with the official requirement, I wrote to the complainant master a private letter in which I stated the most recent of these reasons hypothetically only, as depending upon statements which had reached me to his discredit, and leaving it open to him to rebut those statements. He made no attempt of the kind, but forwarded my private letter to him, written in compliance with their own requirement, to the Governors, who immediately proceeded to treat it as an accusation brought by me against him. They followed ...
Click here to subscribe