CLERICAL IDEAS OF JUSTICE.
WHAT with Bishop Claughton and what with Dr. Hornby, the English public will not be likely to form just now any very high idea of the justice of clerical minds in dealing with education. Not that the failure of justice is limited to clergymen. For, as we regard the matter, both the Trustees of Felsted School and the Governing Body of Eton have been guilty of no little injustice in their recent dealings with the Masters whom they have dismissed, or allowed others to dismiss. But whatever have been the shortcomings of these bodies in their notions of justice, —and in the case of the Felsted Trustees these have been very great, and quite sufficient in the case of the Eton Governing Body to excite grave distrust of their moral competence for their work,—they have all the excuses which collective action usually has for not showing the keen sense of moral responsibility which actuates a refined individual conscience. That moral responsibility is often subdivided till it dis- appears, or all but disappears, when it is apportioned amongst the members of a Board, is a notorious fact. So that while we do not at all extenuate the conduct either of the Felsted Trustees or of the Eton Governing Body, we do not judge it quite as we should the conduct of any individual, if there had been any, who had concentrated in himself the whole of their responsibility. But there is no such excuse for Dr. Hornby or Bishop Claughton. And the Press in general has failed to condemn as it ought to have done the very unfair conduct of Dr. Hornby in bringing before the Governing Body of Eton a paper of charges against Mr. Browning on which he gave Mr. Browning no opportunity of criticism,—and this though Mr. Browning had dealt so straightforwardly by him in submitting to him a copy of the statement sent to the Governing Body, before the Governing Body met. That seems to us simple injustice, and in- justice of a kind which, in the particular case, where a sharp personal altercation had taken place, was more than usually serious. Now, justice is of the essence of school discipline. Whatever Eton boys fail to understand of the dispute, they will all understand this,—that after a serious personal quarrel, which ought to have made both parties particularly scrupu- lous in their mode of dealing with each other, Mr. Browning dealt fairly, while Dr. Hornby did not. And we suspect that this consideration will affect seriously even those who would otherwise have aided with Dr. Hornby against Mr. Browning. All we can say for ourselves is, that with no bias on Mr. Browning's side, and an impression which is somewhat unfavour- able as to the charattei of some of the earlier causes of offence, as Mr. Browning has himself stated them, we yet feel so strongly the unfairness of the course ultimately pursued, that without further explanations, it would seriously affect our judgment as to the selection of Eton as a school under its present Head Master. Dr. Homby may be a very good man in other respects, and he may be, for anything we know, decidedly in the right in thinking Mr. Browning's championship of the new culture a dangerous influence at Eton, but Dr. Hornby's sense of justice is more clerical than judicial ; he has taken a serious advantage over an opponent to which he was not entitled. And there is no defect which we regard as so great a disqualification for such a post as his, as any want of candour or justice. But if Dr. Hornby's case is bad, what shall we say of Bishop Claughton's in Mr. Grignon's case ? Dr. llornby was one of the parties to the suit. Bishop Claughton was him- self the Judge. It was to him that the appeal was made ; and he deliberately decided not to give a personal hearing to the party against whom he had made up his mind to pass judgment. We have seldom read a letter more remarkable for its complete innocence of the very elements of judicial duty than Dr. Claughton's reply to Dr. Butler of Harrow, and the other very eminent Head Masters who pressed him so bard as to his conduct in failing to give Mr. Grignoti the hearing he demanded, before confirming the sentence of dismissal so abruptly passed on Mr. Grignon by the Felsted Trustees. A stronger case for a due hearing of an appeal can hardly be imagined. Mr. Grignon pointed out that after a very long and successful administration of Felsted School, he was dismissed, not only for an offence for which he had grave provocations to plead by way of extenuation, but absolutely without any notice or knowledge of the fact that his dismissal was under discussion. Ile was told that certain re- marks of his,—very improper remarks, as we believe, but the most improper of which had been made a year and a half before, without the Trustees complaining to him and demanding an apology for them,—would be made the subject of a "motion " at a certain meeting of Trustees,—a motion presumably, no doubt, of censure; but no human being could have supposed of summary dismissal. Mr. Grignon's attendance was not even invited at this meeting of Trustees. The Clerk wrote to him that he was " not instructed " to invite his (Mr. Grignon's) attend- ance, but that he (the Clerk) was sure that if Mr. Grignon wished for an audience on the subject of the Trustees' last letter (the improper language referred to), or on any other matter of business, the Trustees would be ready to grant it. Mr. Grignon did not attend, not being invited to do so, and probably thinking it better to await the coming censure before considering how to deal with it. But the Trustees unani- mously dismissed him, without even giving him the least warning that such a course was under consideration. Now, the Judge to whom appeal was to be made as to the rightness of such a sum- mary dismissal, would, one would think, have had the gravest desire to elucidate all the reasons for this most peremptory and unheard-of proceeding. But more than this ; Mr. Grignon urged that he and the Trustees had never had any misunder- standing for eighteen years, till it happened that an Assistant- Master, who had charged him, quite falsely, as is admitted by the Chairman of the Trustees in our own columns to-day, with gross intoxication, and with some other vaguely-expressed but more serious offence, the meaning of which is in dispute, was so far supported against him, that he was requested to give this Assistant-Master a testimonial to facilitate his getting work in another school, which, of course, believing these untrue charges to be the result of violent and malicious feeling, Mr. Grignon declined to do. Here is his explanation of the matter :— " They mot again at Felsted on the 7th Juno, 1873. After they had deliberated for a time, I was summoned to their presence. One of the m (Mr. Onley) proceeded, with no sign of dissent from the rest, to address to me the following marvellous proposition :—' I see,' he said, that it is quite impossible that Mr. — should remain here, but, to avoid injuring him, could not the matter be settled by his consenting to resign, and by your undertaking to give him a good testimonial, so as to enable him to got an equally good mastership elsewhere 1' In reply to a prompt objection from me, 'You need not,' ho added, ' say anything about moral character, but you might speak of his ability in teaching, and so on.' In brief, it was proposed to me that, in order to avoid a discussion cer- tain to be unpleasant to all concerned, I should, by a false testimonial, palm off upon some brother Head Master a man whom admittedly we could not keep at Felsted, a man eminently dangerous, when irritated. I think every one who reads this will agree that no grosser and more un- provoked insult could have been addressed, I will not say, to a clergy- man and gentleman, but to any honest man. I refused, of course, and the case proceeded. I soon observed that the Trustees wore under an impression that I had dealt harshly with Mr. —. I perceived this bias, but could not account for it, for the evidence before tbem did not justify it. I was not then aware that these gentlemen, who must, as magistrates, have had some acquaintance with the first principles of law, had actually received, and had then before them, evidence which had been kept studiously secret from me. My opponent had printed a series of letters and statements skilfully adapted to convey the impres- sion of harshness and bitterness on my part. He had added in writing passages which he could not print. He had early in May placed a copy in the hands of each Trustee, and of their Clerk. Of the existence of that pamphlet I became aware for the first time in the following August, from seeing it accidentally on the table of an old pupil at Cambridge. After that I could not refuse to believe what I had been told, but dis- credited, that one at least of the Trustees had admitted my opponent to a private interview, and that it was not without cause that his partisans had boasted that they' had worked the Trustees welL' It was essential to my case to show that Mr. —'s conduct in a particular instance had been such as to justify my change of opinion about him. When I -referred to this point, I was abruptly silenced by the Chairman, Sir Brydgea Henniker, with the words, 'We don't want to hear about that.' " Now, we are quite aware that this account of the matter is disputed. The Chairman of the Trustees disputes it in our columns to-day, and very possibly he may be in the right. But was not this a most germane matter for the Bishop, who was ap- pealed to as to the Judge of this most peremptory and strange dismissal, to investigate? Here is a successful master, who has --worked hard for eighteen years in co-operation with his trustees, and who for two years back has had bitter disputes with them. He is cavalierly dismissed, and pleads, first, that he had no notice of what was pending. that he was not even heard before being dis- missed, and next, that he had the greatest possible provocation. The• fact as to the peremptory dismissal is certain, and is ad- mitted by the Trustees. The facts as to the provocation are uncertain, and are not so admitted. The Bishop, who has the responsible duty of judging whether the dismissal is rightful or not, knows that the certain fact is, to say the least, to the die- -credit of the Trustees, and does not care to find out whether the uncertain fact is so or not. Nay, he does not even acknowledge Mr. eGrignoa's appeals for a full hearing, but confirms their dismissal -out of band. Now let us see what defence Dr. Claughton makes for this curious perversion of his judicial office. He hardly even offers one, or thinks it needful to do so. All he -says is this "-The Trustees of this school felt that the language, the tone, and 'temper of. Mr. Grignon towards themselves were incompatible with their mutual relation, and therefore with the welfare of the school. The boys, who wera, after all, most to be considered, heard the most contemptu- ous expressions used towards those in authority by the very person from whom they ought to have learnt the lessons of deference and respect. Nothing, as it appeared to me, which Mr. Grignon could say could qualify or explain this tone and language,—certainly could justify it as regards the boys. Under these circumstances, I felt that I could only -confirm the judgment of the Trustees. This is my answer to Mr. 43rignon's complaint that I did not give him the hearing to which ho oonsidered himself entitled."
If that means anything, it means that the Head Master of a school .owes just as much deference to the Trustees as the boys owe to him,—a very strange view, to say the least, of the relations of the -Head Master to a body of men who are selected to represent, no doubt, the interests of the public, but who are certainly not his superiors at all in any but a purely official sense. We were not aware that it was part of a Head Master's duty to inculcate -"deference and respect" to his Trustees. Dr. Claughton speaks as if the Trustees ought to be made in an endowed school the subject of such a callus as the benefactors of the Uni- versities, for instance, are made in the Bidding prayer. This is a quaint and original view, but it can hardly be a serious -one. That Mr. Grignon's language about the Trustees was un- seemly and improper we have often admitted, but it is a mere joke to assume that in using it he was teaching the boys to think :lightly of a superior class of beings, towards whom a disposition -of pious reverence was a matter of the first obligation. Dr. Claughton says, what appears to be a mistake, that Mr. Grignon 44 avowed" the language he had used, as if it had been open to him -to disavow it, i.e., stood by it, instead of retracting it. But this is not the case. He avowed, as he could not help doing, that he had used it. There is nothing to show that he would not have disavowed it, in the sense of admitting its impropriety. It will be quite clear to all sensible men that, as regards the interests of the school, the true question was,—had the Trustees or Mr. Grignon 'been most in the wrong in the quarrel which had arisen? If the Trustees, then Mr. Grignon should have been supported, but admonished that his language had been unseemly, and needed apology ; if Mr. Grignon, then the sentence of dismissal should have been confirmed. But to discover this, a full and patient in- vestigation was necessary, and for this full and patient investiga- tion. Dr. Claughton had no taste or inclination.
Perhaps the most grotesque thing in the Bishop's letter, however, is his reason for not giving Mr. Grignon even the ordinary courtesy of a personal acknowledgment of his letters asking for a hearing,—the only acknowledgment Mr. Grignon ever received being through the Bishop's official secretaries, Messrs. Day and Hassard, more than ten days after he had asked for a hearing. Dr. Claughton's reason for this remark- . able conduct towards a scholar and a gentleman under great anxiety, and in adverse circumstances which, even if he were -solely responsible for them, deserved some sympathy, was that Mr. Grignon, had acknowledged quite recently his own "fatherly" intervention in another matter, but nevertheless •throughout his -dispute-. with the Trustees had never once appealed to him to intervene. Mr. Grignen's answer is a complete one. The
matter on which the Bishop had intervened; and in which his fatherly care was duly acknowledged, was within his power as Bishop. It was a question affecting the chaplaincy of the schooL As far as Mr. Grignon knows, the Bishop had no visitatorial power in regard to Felsted School, his position being simply that of judge in case the Trustees wished to dismiss the Head Mas- ter, and the Head Master refused to accept the dismissal without the Bishop's approval. So that the fact that Mr. Grignon had been grateful to the Bishop for doing what he could, in a matter in which the Bishop was acting within his proper pro- vince, considered as aggravating, we suppose, his ingratitude in not asking the Bishop for aid as to a matter not at all within the Bishop's province, is made a reason for com- municating with him only officially, and after long delay, when appeal had been finally made to the Bishop in a third matter which was within his province. Can perversity go further in assigning reason for a great, and as it seems to us, most grievous and unintelligible impoliteness, which aggra- vated the substantial injustice of the Bishop's course ? Cer- tainly, to our minds,, Dr: Claughton's procedure in this matter is a perfect beacon, which Judges to whom appeal is allowed from any asserted injustice should avoid. In all future Endowed- School schemes, it would be well to reserve appeals to a Com- missioner appointed by - the Education Office ad hoc, and to eliminate Bishops from such functions.. Whatever. virtues eccle- siastics have, it is rare indeed to find in them the higher formskof justice.
Previous page
