THE RUGBY HEAD-MASTERSHIP.
THE decision of the Governing Body of Rugby which we announced last week has not been hastily come to. Our readers will remember the resolution so severely condemning Dr. Hayman's conduct in relation to Mr. Scott, which was made public a year ago, and which, as everyone said, ought, if just, to have been followed by a dismissal, and if unjust, never to have been passed at all,—and that the apology then given for that resolution was this, that without the publication of some such resolution, Mr. Scott's character could not have been vindicated, but that while that resolution was passed by a majority at least—we do not know whether unanimously or not—only a minority of the Trustees were prepared to act upon the moral logic of the facts, and concur in a recommendation to Dr. Hayman to retire. Now it is worth notice that the majority which stood out against any severer action than censure to Dr. Hayman a year ago has quite disappeared, the resolution dismissing him having been passed unani- mously by all the Trustees present,—only two trustees being absent,—so that Dr. Hayman's conduct during the last year must be assumed to have alienated that section of the Governing Body which was least disposed to press heavily on him in 1872. That is the first clearly-marked feature which we observe in this matter ; and we think it may be fairly assumed that when, in a body divided by a sharp per- sonal controversy, one party entirely disappears and merges itself in the other party, there must have been very decisive reasons indeed for such a change of bearing. Next, we must observe that even so far as the rela- tions of the Governing Body of Rugby with Dr. Hayman have been made public, there is ample explanation of that remarkable change of opinion in the Governing Body. The resolution of last December declared that the course taken byDr. Hayman in dealing with Mr. Scott had not been "marked by that spirit of justice which the circumstances of the case required," and then stated that if Dr. Hayman were "not prepared to act in future in a spirit of cordial good- will towards Mr. Scott," Dr. Hayman "should lose no time in retiring from the office of head master." Now, it is obvious that Dr. Hayman might, on receipt of this resolution, have either utterly denied its justice, stated his intention not to retire, and challenged from the Trustees a direct dismissal ; or he might have accepted it heartily, admitted with cordial regret to Mr. Scott that he had been in fault, assured Mr. Scott that no one could more sincerely regret that fault than himself, and 80 have tried by every means in his power to obliterate Mr. Scott's recollections of the past. But he took neither course. He wrote in the first instance to Mr. Scott the most half-and-half letter of verbal compliance with the resolution of the Trustees that can be imagined, not expressing a word of regret, but mentioning that he had "withdrawn the whole of the statement" reflecting on Mr. Scott, that he had "no motive but a sense of duty in drawing Mr. Scott's attention to the matter," and that it was his "earnest desire to act in a spirit of cordial good-will with Mr. Scott" for the future. He did not refer in any way to the gross injustice done to Mr. Scott through the provisional credit attached by his superior to a lot of jealous suspicions and surmises founded on no real evidence at all, and worst of all, he conveyed an impression that some of these surmises and suspicions were well-founded, for no other inference could well be drawn from the remark,—" I never had an opportunity of forming an independent judgment by comparing that state- ment with those which you produced, and it was impossible to foresee that parts of what .1 enclosed to you would appear subsequently less substantial than at first" (the italics are our own). That remark clearly hinted that other parts of what Dr. Hayman enclosed had appeared to him sub- sequently no leas substantial than at first, and therefore he vir- tually reaffirmed some of the charges made. Dr. Hayman him- self appears to have been half-conscious of this. He showed his letter to a friend, and was told by that friend that the sentence we have just quoted was "open to misconstruction," and Dr. Hayman therefore asked Mr. Scott to consider that sentence withdrawn. He added that he was " sincerely disposed to regard the whole matter between us as at an end, and to let bygones be bygones," which certainly was no apology for his own conduct. And he added a meagre expression of " regret " for "any annoyance to which you have been subjected in consequence of the statement which I at the time thought it my duty to send to you, but which has not been supported by a witness who professed to be ready to substantiate it ; or in consequence of any particular expression in my statement which may have needlessly reflected on you." A more formal and unhearty attempt to comply with the words of the recommendation of the Governing Body could hardly be imagined, and so the Governing Body thought. They passed on the 15th of January, 1873, a Minute declaring that, having regard to the Minute of the 30th November, 1872,—the one condemning Dr. Hayman's conduct to Mr. Scott,—and the two letters since written by Dr. Hayman to Mr. Scott, they thought it their duty to deliberate on all the circumstances before them, and they appointed 23rd of January in the present year (1873) for so doing. Then, at last, Dr. Hayman, seeing the imminence of the danger, wrote a letter to the Governing Body, asking them what would content them as a reparation to Mr. Scott. This the Governing Body very properly declined to answer, simply stating that steps of this kind, "if they were to have any value, should have been taken earlier, and should, at any rate, have been spontaneous," but declaring their willingness to hear him at length in relation to their proposed review of the cir- cumstances. Dr. Hayman now found that he must take a more pronounced tone in relation to Mr. Scott, and before the proposed meeting to review the circumstances took place, he wrote him a letter expressing "fully and unre- servedly my regret for having entertained suspicions with regard to your conduct, and doubts with regard to the loyalty of your co-operation with me in the school. I am satisfied that those doubts and suspicions were un- founded. I have dismissed them from my mind, and I hope that the recollection of them may be as completely effaced from yours." But this letter was only written under the distinct perception that the Governing Body seriously condemned his unworthy and half-hearted retrac- tations, and evidently regarded them as aggravations of the original offence. Of course when the Governing Body met to review the whole matter on February 5 last, they felt that the process of painfully extorting, letter by letter, as it were, a cordial apology from Dr. Hayman for a very serious act of injustice' had immensely strengthened the impres- sion entertained by some of their members that the first severe censure ought to have been coupled with a dis-
missal. And they then recorded their opinion that Dr.
Hayman's last letter to Mr. Scott was satisfactory in terms, but that it came so late as to lose its value, and that the position of Dr. Hayman had been so seriously compromised by what had happened, that they considered it their duty to take into consideration whether it would not be right to recommend
Dr. Hayman to retire. This they took into consideration on February 25, and then ordered the Chairman to write to Dr.
Hayman, and communicate to him "in confidence" the opinion
of the Governing Body "that it is very desirable' in his own interest and in that of the School, that he should exert him-
self to procure as early as possible some means of honourable retirement by his own act from the office of Head Master, intimating at the same time, that failing this, and in the event of the interests of the School appearing to require a change of administration, the Governing Body may be obliged to put in execution the power confided to them for that purpose." This resolution Dr. Hayman simply acknowledged, and did not, eventually, in any way act upon. This was in the Febri-~17 of the present year.
In the meantime, there had been, of course, other matters in dispute between Dr. Haymanand the Governing Body. In Jan., 1872, more than a year before this resolution was arrived at after the consideration of the Scott correspondence, the Under- Masters had written to Dr. Hayman to protest against his appointment of a master to a Boarding-house over the heads of many of his seniors, contrary to the custom of the school.
Dr. Hayman replied by asserting that the Public Schools' Act made his discretion absolute in the matter, but stating that he should "doubtless under ordinary circumstances be dis- posed to show all due deference to seniority of standing, when coupled with loyal and cordial support to myself," which im- plied, of course, that the Masters passed over had been want- ing in such loyal and cordial support. The Under-Masters, in a very respectful letter to Dr. Hayman, declared their intention to appeal to the Governing Body ; but the Governing Body, while not feeling able to approve the act of the Head Master, refused to disapprove it, on the distinct ground that as the new statutes and regulations for the government of Rugby School had not yet been passed, they did not think it com- petent to them to interfere with the Head Master's discretion in the matter. Against this decision, however, five of the Governing Body, who had had very special experience of Public Schools and their management, protested, as likely to endanger seriously the service of the School, whose customs of promotion were as binding, they thought, as the like customs of the Bar. The Governing Body at the same time wrote, through their Chairman, a letter to Dr. Hayman, dated April 12 of last year (1872), expressing their desire that in the interval which must elapse before the new statutes and regulations • could be drawn up, the old traditions and customs in regard to the position and emoluments of the Assistant-Masters should be closely adhered to. Dr. Hayman replied on April 16, quite concurring in the wish of the Governing Body, and de- claring that he had no intention whatever of departing from the old usages in the direction suggested by the letter of the Bishop of Worcester (the Chairman of the Governing Body). Notwithstanding this declaration, however, given spontaneously on the 16th of April, 1872, he dismissed, in September, 1873, Mr. A. Sidgwick, one of the six senior classical masters, on account of the falling numbers of the School, though it had been a recognised rule at Rugby that when the retirement of Masters was required by falling num- bers, the Masters who were on the reserve fund should retire before those senior to them ; now Mr. Sidgwick had six classical masters below him on the list, three of whom had, though junior to him, also risen above the reserve fund. Mr.
Sidgwick and another colleague, dismissed by a breach of the same custom, appealed to the Governing Body, who did not reverse Dr. Hayman's decision, which they had no power to do, but did deliberate whether this new act of Dr. Hayman's was not a breach of the undertaking he had given on the 16th April, 1872, to hold by the old usages as regarded the Assistant-Masters until the new Statutes were pre- pared. This question the Governing Body decided in the affirmative, and on a further consideration of the whole rela- tions of Dr. Hayman with Rugby, they decided to ask for his resignation, and failing that, to give him notice of dismissal.
And surely they were right. Even this brief review of the events which have taken place since the censure on Dr. Hayman's conduct to Mr. Scott, establishes clearly that Dr. Hayman, in- stead of regretting earnestly the injustice he had done Mr. Scott, was willing to apologise just so far, and only just so far, as might be necessary to satisfy the demand of the Governing Body, and that all beyond this was wrung from him by the immi- nent peril of his situation ; and further, that in spite of an engagement voluntarily and cordially given to abide by the usages of the School in relation to the Under-Masters, he had broken through one of the most important of those usages,
by dismissing two Masters, one of whom had a right to expect that his position in the School had raised him far above any uncertainty of that nature. In other words, here was a Head Master who would acknowledge himself as much in the wrong as aPpeared to be necessary to meet the demands of his superiors, but no more ; whose cordiality in apologising for a very grave fault grew in exact proportion to the exigency of his position, but was never just, frank, and generous ; and who, in his struggle against some of the Under-Masters whom he chose to regard as disloyal to himself, broke through usages which he had earnestly declared to the 9overning Body his intention to observe. This clearly was not a man with the requisite morale for the conduct of a great public school. He was a strate- gist who yielded the plainest rights of his self-made opponents inch by inch, as iris own position was endangered, and did not even regard his own pledges as inviolably sacred, when he saw an advantage to be gained by ignoring them. Rugby had no chance of true prosperity under his sway.
Previous page
