THE FELSTED TRUSTEES. [TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "]
SIR,—I had hoped that you and your readers might have been spared any further mention of Felsted. But your remarks on my last letter necessitate my once more addressing you on the same subject. I admit at once that it would have been as well if the reference to imputations bad either been differently worded, or altogether omitted from the letter of the Clerk to the Trustees. It was because I saw, directly that letter appeared in print, the interpretation that would probably be put on the word "imputa- tions," that I asked permission to point out in your columns that reference could not have been intended to the two charges mentioned in Mr. Grignon's pamphlet.
You ask, " Were not all the Masters but one with Mr. Grignon ?" I believe they were at the time of his dismissal. I believe I am correct also in stating that with the exception of that one (who has been fourteen years at Felsted), all the Masters have been appointed during the last three years. Four of them have certainly been appointed since the dismissal of Mr. Jones in 1873, as that dismissal was followed by the resignation of three assistant- masters. Whether the House-Steward and the Clerk are one and the same person is a question in dispute between Mr. Grignon and the Trustees. To make my meaning clear, I will say the Matron and the Clerk.
With reference to your denouncement of the conduct of the Trustees in dismissing Mr. Grignon without sufficient notice, I can only repeat what has been pointed out elsewhere, that the letter written to Mr. Grignon by the Clerk, immediately before the meeting at which he was dismissed, was intended to convey to him that his dismissal would be taken into consideration. I have answered, Sir, your question briefly—I trust not too briefly —because I am anxious to reserve space to reply to Mr. Grignon, who is bewildered at my having contradicted his statement that " he was asked to give a testimonial under circumstances which made that suggestion an insult." Had I heard such a proposal made, I should have dissented from it, although I probably should not have attached the importance to it that Mr. Grignon does, as according to his account of what took place, the suggestion could only have been made before any investigation into the charges brought against him by his assistant had taken place. But I really have no recollection of any such proposal having been made. In saying this, I am very far from intending to impute falsehood to Mr. Grignon ; I think that either his memory is at fault, or that very probably some words may have dropped from one of the Trustees, which I did not hear, to which he (Mr. Grignon) attached a force and meaning they were not intended to bear ; that such words (if spoken) would be binding on the other Trustees, or that, even if such a suggestion was made, as is stated by Mr. Grignon, by one of them, it could be said to be a formal proposal from the Trustees as a body, I cannot admit. But I repeat, I cannot recollect any such suggestion as that described by Mr. Grignon having been offered to him. I can quite under- stand that a well-meant attempt (although, of course, a thoroughly useless one) may have been made by one of the Trustees, in the kindness of his heart, to reconcile two gentlemen, who had long been colleagues, before the case on either side had been opened, and before it was known how wide was the breach between them; but that by this any insult to Mr. Grignon was intended, it is absurd to suppose. I have every reason to believe that what I have suggested did really take place, and if so, I am not in the least surprised that it should have escaped my memory. I could hardly have supposed that so trifling an incident in that day's proceedings would have had such an exaggerated interpretation put upon it, or that it would have been treasured up by Mr. Grignon, and now reproduced (in a somewhat altered form) in his pamphlet, as sufficient justification for all he has since said and written of the Governing Body. But here I tread on rather tender ground, and as I have not the slightest wish to reopen the great question of the wrongs of Mr. Grignon and the rights of the Trustees, already so amply discussed in your pages, 1 will at once conclude this my last letter on the subject of the Felsted Trust.
—I am, Sir, &C., THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRUSTEES. P.S.—I have this moment learnt that it is not true, as I sup- posed, and as I asserted in my letter which appeared in your of the 4th inst., that Mr. Grignon was not on speaking- terms with one of the Assistant-Masters at the time of his dis- missal. I beg, therefore, at once unreservedly to withdraw all that I said in that letter about anarchy prevailing in the schooL I beg also to express my regret if what I said caused pain to Mr.. Grignon, to the Assistant-Master to whom I more particularly- alluded, or to the Assistant-Masters as a body.
[1%,* We have received many other letters on this subject, but have now given as much of our space as we can afford to a matter- which is, after all, chiefly of local importance, though certainly suggesting important inferences of a more general character. The controversy about Felsted School must now terminate.—En. Spectator.)
Previous page
