We have discussed elsewhere the duty of the Trustees of
Rugby, in case they think that the testimony on which they preferred Mr. Hayman to the other candidates will really bear public comparison with that adduced for some of the other competitors. Nothing can be plainer than that their duty, both to the new Head Master and to the interests of the school, requires them to justify them- selves and him. But we hear it constantly asked how, if they are not, on further reflection, of that opinion, they can even decently withdraw from their false position without a sur- render of dignity of which noble lords are hardly likely to be capable ? We think a way might be contrived. Might they not say, that considering the close approach of the time when their power ceases, and the amount of public dissatisfaction displayed, they would be willing themselves, and would request the new Head Mas- ter, to submit the case to the incoming body of trustees, and so to anticipate the change provided for by Parliament by a few weeks? If the new body of trustees should confirm their judgment, the public would doubtless be satisfied that the claims of Mr. Hayman have been unduly depreciated. If they reversed it, the old trustees would still have the credit of a graceful act of deference to the new regime.
Previous page
