Dr. Hayman's reticence is immovable, and as we have strongly
condemned the Governors of Rugby for passing so severe a censure upon him without removing him, it is only fair to state that the reason for this indefensible middle course, as generally given, is not without weight. The stronger partyamong the Governors (with a majority of, we believe, only one) were determined not to dismiss him, though all of them concurred in the censure, only part of which was published. The minority knew that if, as dismissal was impossible, nothing whatever were done, the Assistant-Master, Mr. Scott, would suffer seriously in reputation, as the public would naturally assume that some of Dr. Hayman's charges against him were true. It was for this reason that the resolution censuring Dr. Hayman was passed and passed unanimously, but its publication was not intended, and seems to us to have been a grave fault, —whoever first published it. Surely the public will note with dismay that even the reformed governing body cannot see so very simple a proposition as this,—that a head-master of whom they can speak as they did of Dr. Hayman is not fit to preside over a great public school. Surely we shall have to reform our reformation.
Previous page
