The Farr Affair

From the Ballarat Star, courtesy  of Peter Grant

Bones in the Belfry home page

Monday June 1 1874  It is rather surprising to see to what extremes some clergymen are going nowadays. The other day Miss Farr, a rising young vocalist, and the leading singer in the choir of the Dawson street Baptist Church, received a polite note from the Rev. Mr Grant, the pastor of the church, to the effect that if she persisted in singing on the stage at the Mechanics’ Institute she would have to leave the church choir. Miss Farr greatly to her credit, has accepted the alternative, and has left the choir.
 
Thursday June 4  MISS FABR AND THE REV. MR GRANT. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR
SIR ­I was glad to see you allude to the above extraordinary proceeding in yesterday news and notes, but I rather fancy you must either have put it in a very mild form, or been misinformed, that is, if the version that is current is correct, which I have heard from several parties, and if it is, it most certainly involves a very broad principle, viz., how far any minister has a right to interfere and dictate to any member of his congregation as to what he or she shall or shall not do in managing their private affairs. You say “Miss Farr received a polite note from the Rev. Mr Grant, to the effect that if she persisted in singing on the stage of the Mechanics’ Hall she would have to leave the church choir.” Now, this is certainly extraordinary behaviour enough, but the version that is current is infinitely more extraordinary, viz., that the note was anything but polite, and that instead of having to leave the choir she was threatened with expulsion from the church. Now, as everybody must be aware, members of congregations are not generally expelled the church they belong to for trifles; in fact they are supposed to have committed some very grave offence something that affects their moral character ­indeed, something so bad that they are not considered fit to be allowed to sit among the rest of the congregation. Now, as Miss Farr has most certainly done nothing inconsistent with the strictest moral rectitude in singing at the Mechanics’, I consider she has been subjected to a gross indignity, that ought not only to be resented, but taken up as it affects a very important question. There is no doubt, as long as there is singing in churches, the ministers of the various denominations will endeavour to get the best singers of their congregation to sing in their choirs; and as these young singers improve in voice and get proficient in music, so surely will they be pressed to sing at public concerts, and I think it would be a pretty state of things if they are to be forbidden to sing out of the church and the public debarred the pleasure of hearing them, however pleasing a voice they may have, and simply because they sing in a choir. Why, the thing is absurd. But perhaps it would be as well for members of congregations before they join the choir, to ascertain of the minister if they will be allowed to sing at a public concert, without incurring the displeasure of the minister and subjecting themselves to the gross indignity of a threatened expulsion from the church. To say the least this harsh and unjust behaviour of the Rev. Mr Grant towards a young lady who has been of so much use to his church in singing in the choir, is not calculated to do ministers of religion much good, as it shows that while they preach Christianity they don’t always act up to it, for who will say this was a Christian act? Christianity, as I take it, means kindly feeling, forgiveness of each other’s faults, and a study not to hurt another’s feelings; and not for a minister to dictate to and threaten a young lady with expulsion from his church just for singing a few harmless songs in public. I would suggest in order to settle this question as to whether the Rev. Mr Grant has acted rightly or wrongly, that Miss Farr should send the letter she received to you for publication, and that the ministers of other denominations be invited to say whether they approve or not of the act of their brother minister, which would be a guide to members of Congregations singing in choirs, Yours, &c,
A Lover of Justice and Freedom 2nd June 1874.
 
Friday June 5  THE REV. MR GRANT TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR
Sir,- Seeing a misstatement of facts in a paragraph in your paper the early part of this week, and this morning’s in issue containing a Letter from a “Lover of :Justice and Freedom,” I beg to suggest an opportunity be given to: Mr Grant (whom your correspondent might have known is absent in Tasmania) to reply should he deem it expedient. Surely the members of the church over which he is pastor are able to decide as to the propriety of his or another’s conduct, without applying to the general public, or even to ministers of other denominations, whose number and opinions are legion yours, &c
W. H. BURTON
 
Tuesday June 9  The Mechanics’ Institute was well patronised on Monday evening. A very good musical entertainment was provided. Mr and Mrs Empson have been re-engaged for a few nights. Mr J. Rattray was in excellent voice and sang three of his favourite songs. The programme for tonight concert includes a other vocalists the name of Mr James M’Dowall who will sing with Miss Farr. Mr M’Dowall is an elder in St John’s Presbyterian Church, and he intends setting a good example to the Rev. Mr Grant.
 
Wednesday June 10 With reference to the paragraph which appeared in the Star a few days ago respecting the Rev. Mr Grant’s pastoral mandate to Miss Farr, we are in a position to state that the committee of the Baptist Church met and considered the matter. After hearing an explanation made by Mr Grant, a resolution censuring the action of the rev, gentleman was proposed, but not seconded. A. discussion then ensued, and two of the committeemen were asked to interview Miss Farr, and explain away the pastor’s remarks conveyed to her by letter. They, however, declined to accept the responsibility, and the matter rests there at present.
 
BAPTIST CHURCH Dawson Street. HALF YEARLY SEVICES.
On SUNDAY, 14th June the Rev. J. W. INGLIS preach in the Morning at 11; and the Rev. W. HENDERSON in the Evening at 6.30. On MONDAY Evening, 15th  June, a SPECIAL PRAYER MEETING at 7.30, when the Rev. A. W. GRANT deliver an address on -” The Revival in Scotland.” On TUESDAY 10th June, a TEA and PUBLIC MEETING will be held, commencing at 6.30. Addresses by Mr Matthew Burnett, the Revs J. W. Inglis, W. Henderson. J. Walker, E. G, Atkinson, and W. H. Hoskin. Tickets, is 6d each. On WEDNESDAY 17th June, Mr MATTHEW BURNETT will preach. Service commenced at 7.30p.m. Collections at each Service in aid of the Church Funds.
 
Monday June 14; THE REV. A. W. GRANT AND MISS FARR, TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
SIR,­The Rev A. W. Grant having returned from Tasmania, and not having taken notice of the correspondence published of the matter in dispute, I think it high time that something should be done to remove any wrong impression on the public mind in reference to Miss Farr. As I understand the matter, Mr Grant wrote a letter to Miss Farr, objecting to her singing at the Mechanics’ Institute and remaining in the Baptist Church choir, and that she must give up one or the other; and, if I am correctly informed, Mr Grant stated in his letter that singing at the concerts in the Mechanics’ Institute was only to be compared to singing at a low concert-hall. If this dispute was merely confined to the parties concerned it would be no business of the public to interfere, but when Mr Grant maligns a public institution of this town by likening it to a low concert-hall, then it becomes a public question about which the Mechanics’ Institute committee should have something to say, as the daughters of some of our most respectable citizens have emerged from private life to do honour to a noble institution and endeavour to relieve it from debt. Then there is an injury to Miss Farr. Everyone does not know Mr Grant else there would be no necessity of any explanation in the matter. I therefore think it is due to the public that the letter should be published. It could be then seen whether Mr Grant has maligned one of our public institutions or not. If he has not, then I think the public has nothing to do with it. I wonder whether the dispute Mr Grant had with Mr Batten some time ago has anything to do with his opposition to the Mechanics’ Institute.­Yours, &c. Mechanic.
 
Tuesday June 15; A special prayer meeting in connection with the half-yearly services of the Dawson street Baptist Church was held on Monday evening, after which the Rev. A. W. Grant delivered an address on “The revival in Scotland.” The subject formed an excellent theme of discourse, and the reverend gentleman was pleasingly lucid in his description the great gatherings in various parts of Scotland, caused by the appearance of Messrs Moody and Sankey from Chicago. Mr Grant interspersed his address with brief references to reports of the revival meetings, and made comments upon their character. He urged that it was the duty of the people in Victoria to engage in earnest prayer, and in alluding to revivals deprecated any carnal excitement at such gatherings. He was confident that more good would come of earnest quiet prayer than the boisterous exclamations of Christian brothers, who appeared to think that if they prayed in such a loud tone of voice as to drown the voices of others they were winning souls to Christ. The address of the reverend gentleman was listened to most attentively. This evening tea and public meetings will be held in the church, the former at half-past six o’clock. At the public meeting addresses will be delivered by a number of reverend gentlemen. Mr Matthew Burnet is expected to be present.
 
Wednesday June 17 an evening a tea meeting in connection with the anniversary of the Dawson street Baptist Church was held in the school behind the church. About one hundred and seventy persons sat down to an excellent tea, provided by Mr Ward. After the good things had been discussed a public meeting was held in the church; the Rev. A. W. Grant in the chair. Several addresses were delivered by the chairman and the Revs. M. Burnett, J. Walker, and E. G. Atkinson; apologies being read from the Revs. W. Henderson and J. W. Inglis. The choir sang several pieces of sacred music during the evening, and the meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the chairman.
 
Wednesday July 17 Dawson street Baptist Church school anniversary was held during the month, and Mr Matthew Burnett the temperance advocate took part in the celebration. At the tea-meeting the Rev. A. W. Grant presided, and nearly two hundred guests were present. The half-yearly services in aid of the church funds have been also celebrated, the preachers being the ministers of the Presbyterian churches of St. Andrew and St. John.
 
A copy of this letter was publicised in the Ballarat Star Wednesday July 24 1874 Page 3 Column 2/3
THE REV. A. W. GRANT AND MISS FARR.
The following correspondence has been sent to us for publication Ballarat. 23rd May, 1874.
“Miss FARR.­Dear Friend,- Having noticed your name advertised this week in connection with the concert. in the Mechanics’, I feel it my duty to communicate with you upon the subject before we meet to-morrow in the house of God, where it will be my duty to lead the service, and yours to take a most prominent part in singing the praises of the Lord. As you are a member of the church of which I am the pastor, I feel myself personally involved in the consequences of your public performances. As a matter of personal opinion, I must say that I am ashamed that the name of a member of my church should be advertised in such a way, and should appear in public under such circumstances; apart from the question of wrong or right, such performances and advertising are the very opposite of respectable. If you compare the advertisement with those of some of the common music-halls of Melbourne, you will see no difference at all. This, however, is a small matter compared with the religious aspect of the question. Surely, your conscience must tell you that whilst you are so conducting yourself on the week-day, you are quite out of place on Sunday leading the service of praise in the house of God, or partaking of the Lord’s Supper, as the case may be. You may say that you see no harm in it, but to my knowledge you are doing harm. You are a stumbling-block to many in our congregation, and a hindrance to the progress of the Gospel. I cannot imagine how you can meet your class in the Sunday-school, and after such conduct all the week profess to try and lead them to Jesus. I do beg of you, if you ever did give your heart to the Saviour­if you ever realised change of heart­that you will consider this, and at once give up all such inconsistent and worldly practices and live as a Christian should live. If you are a real Christian you must give up these things, for they are altogether foreign to the whole spirit of the Christian religion, and utterly incompatible with love to Christ. If you will not take this step, then I can see no other alternative than for you (if you are honest and sincere) to resign all connection with the church.
I have written very plainly to you. I thought it high time to tell you what I think about your ways. You may think me unkind and harsh, but I cannot help that ­you have misunderstood me before; I am convinced that your conduct is hurtful to yourself. You are now (spite of your church membership) travelling the downward path. God grant it may not lead you to destruction. And I am equally convinced that while such conduct as yours is permitted, we can expect no prosperity in the church. I would like you to test your present way of life by the following questions. Would not the best Christians consider you acting very improperly? Would you like Christ to come and catch you in the very act? Is it consistent with your profession that by the cross of Christ “the world is crucified unto you and you unto the world".  Do you think that if you were suddenly laid upon a dying bed you could contemplate your present mode of life with any other feeling than remorse. Read over the lessons for to-morrow afternoon very carefully, and see how God’s people of old were punished for wandering from him. I could say a very great deal more to you, but forbear. I will just say that there is an earnest determination to purge the Church from all such inconsistent practices.
I trust that you will make this a matter of prayer and that God will guide you aright. This letter is not official; you may either keep it secret or show it to whom you please. I retain a true copy so as to avoid all misunderstanding and misrepresentation. May God bless you and deliver you from all the evil associations that you are surrounded with and teach you to know his ways. I remain your Pastor, “
A. W. Grant
 
Wednesday 4th July, 1874. “Mr A. W. GRANT. Sir your communication of the 23rd May last, which you made Mrs Grant the medium of conveying to me, on first perusal of I had determined to treat with contempt, as indeed, such a production emanating from a gentleman following the profession of a Minister of the Gospel was only worthy of such treatment. However on reflection, I think it a duty I owe to myself not to allow one or two remarks of yours to go unchallenged, as silence may be by you construed into acquiescence on my part us to the correctness of the views which you hold. The positions you take up in the first paragraph of our letter is wholly untenable; and show such an utter want of ordinary intelligence on your part entirely opposed to the enlightened views of men occupying a far higher position in the Church than you do that with this observation I rest satisfied, and pass on, to notice the second paragraph. This, I submit, on giving every consideration must have been written by you with the sole object of insulting both me and my parents by a reference to “common music-halls.” Common music halls forsooth! These places in Melbourne, I am credibly informed, are only opened in. connection with low public-houses, and your daring to connect my name, with these places I consider is a gross and apparently studied insult, and should at once be retracted. Such a remark from you was wholly uncalled for, and only shows the length you have gone to endeavour to prevent me identifying myself with a noble institution, which does not allow itself to be dictated to by men of your tyrannical disposition.
Of course, it is a matter of taste whether, or not it is more correct for a Christian lady thus to encourage an institution whose solo, object is to elevate mankind, or for a so-called Christian gentleman to patronise public-houses and billiard saloons, and to oppose a movement made not calculated to benefit such places. It is my parents intention to take such proceedings against you as their lawyer may advise, with the view of obliging you publicly to retract the low insinuations mentioned in your letter, reflecting not only on my character but identifying the Ballarat Mechanics’ Institute with Melbourne music-halls as both they and I believe this was done with the malicious motive of “preventing me from benefiting an institution which did not allow you to dictate to it. I shall continue to lead such a course of life as I have hitherto done, and which, either in a religious aspect or otherwise, I am not ashamed of, so long as my own conscience and my parents are satisfied, irrespective of any such pharisaical views as those enunciated by you. I conclude by stating that I forbear from referring to the religious part of your letter, as I do not consider the writer of such a letter competent to instruct or guide me or any congregation on sacred matters.
A FARR.
 
Wednesday July 24 “Ballarat, 15th July, 1874. “Mr Grant Sir,­As you have not had the courtesy to reply to my daughter’s letter of the 4th instant, written and addressed to you with my full knowledge and consent, I have now,  on her behalf, formally to call upon you to give me a reply thereto  within three days from date.
Thomas Farr.
 
Saturday July 25 THE REV. MR. GRANT AND MISS FARR. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
Sir,- The correspondence which has appeared in your columns of this morning’s issue has given rise to considerable  discussion in various circles in which have been to-day, to which the general result has been given, ie,, a pity that a pastor could not have seen his duty more clearly, and the charge have abstained from the unseemly pique display under which she appears to suffer. In reviewing, however, the three letters the conviction is forced upon me that real sincerity was the motive actuating the Rev. Mr Grant; that as the religious adviser and moral director of Miss Farr, he conceived that the placarding of the name of one of the prominent members of his church in the manner pointed out detrimental to his church interests and her spiritual welfare. So far for Mr Grant’s train of thought, so good. But did the question of propriety beyond the comparison of the Mechanics’ Institution’s advertisement with that of low music-halls in Melbourne suggest itself to Mr Grant’s mind, and have been Pondered without prejudice, and its results then have been communicated to Miss Fair, no doubt an epistle more of the suaviter in modo would have emanated and an amicable understanding been arrived at. In the absence of this Christian charity however, we are treated to his rather intemperate, effusion, and as “an extreme rigor is bound to arm everything against it Miss Farr, or someone else for her, in misguided sympathy, hurls the second letter bearing her name, Beyond deploring that the lady should, or should have allowed herself, to be discourteous in addressing the reverend gentleman as plain “ Mr,” taunting him that others of higher standing in Church ethics were wiser than he, and threatening him with unsavoury consequences, the production is trifling, and only a little superior to Biddy Moriarty’s replies to Dan O’Connell’s sally. The third letter is certainly a puerile attempt to hold in terrorem a fanciful impending visitation of justice by an exasperated parent upon a despoiler of his progeny­a three days wonder. In fine, no doubt the Rev. Mr Grant has considered that expediency is the best rule of conduct, but in his dictum on the fitness of actions he should remember that the rules of propriety as promulgated by a private sect are always open to the questioning of others, apart from that sect, equally moral and so forth in their general life conduct, and may condemn him for determining her severance from his church should she not give up all such inconsistent and worldly practices and laud her continuance of help in her own special way to an institution intended to raise the mental condition of the citizens.­Yours, &c.,
 A. G.
 
Saturday July 25 TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
Sir,­The correspondence published by you this morning, between the Rev. Mr Grant and Miss Farr, was needed, in order that the public might be in a position to pass an unbiased opinion as to Mr Grant’s right to call into question Miss Farr’s conduct as a member of that gentleman’s congregation. I have not the pleasure of the acquaintance of either party and can, with your permission, offer my opinion as one of the public who has heard a great deal said about this matter. The Rev. Mr Grant seems to my mind, in the first place, to have acted rather hastily in writing. If that gentleman had called in his clerical capacity and pointed out to Miss Farr how inconsistent it was for her to take part in the religious instruction of the Sabbath-school children and lead in the praises of the Lord, and then to associate herself with professional and other singers on the boards of a Bijou Theatre, I have no doubt but that lady would have been induced to give up the aeriel for the more substantial pleasure in aiding the young mind to seek salvation. I do not condemn the reverend gentleman, but I feel with him, and experience shows that a pastor in order to keep his sheep in the fold cannot be too strict or watchful. His asking her to resign all connection with his church is not done in a good Christian spirit, for is it not the duty of the Church to open its doors to all sinners? Better one should enter than ninety and nine that are saved. On the other hand, some one who has an eye to the propriety of the Mechanics’ Institute, in order to vindicate its character has induced Miss Parr to write rather intemperately, not vindicating her cause, but that of the institution. A lady should not forget her dignity in addressing her reply to Mr Grant. It shows rudeness, and her allusion to that gentleman’s character was quite uncalled for. We neither want too much priestly interference nor disrespect, and the more private the influence used by clergymen the better­Yours, &c
Reconciliation
 
Monday July 27. THE REV MR GRANT AND MISS FARR, TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
Sir,- Will you allow me to suggest with regard to the case of the Rev. Mr Grant and Miss Farr, that sufficient publicity has been given to the affair to serve any good purpose. Few sensible persons will sanction the injudicious conduct of the rev. gentleman and fewer still will suppose for a moment that the young lady’s reputation has suffered, or that she has sustained any injury beyond a little temporary annoyance. They have both had their say, and in public estimation she has evidently had the best of it, and I should think might be content with her victory. At any rate there is no need to make a martyr of her, and her friends are wise they will attempt nothing so absurd ­Yours &c,
Common Sense
 
Monday July 27. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
Sir,- I have read the letters in connection with Rev, Mr Grant’s conduct towards Miss Farr, especially those from Miss Farr and her father, with surprise, the which I fancy were no more written by her than they were me. I take it she in more of a “talented young vocalist” than a letter writer. Her letter in answer to Rev. Mr Grant’s was a mere effusion of very rude unladylike remarks, and were worthy (as they are) of nothing less than utter contempt. A few remarks may not be out of the way. First, the Rev. Mr Grant does not put the Mechanics’ Institute on a level with the low houses in Melbourne as is inferred by Miss Farr, only that the advertisements were somewhat of a similar nature. Miss Farr should at least have given Mr Grant credit for so much common-sense if no more, as he can have in no way anything against such a noble institution as our Mechanics’ Institute. Mr Grant is certain plain spoken in his language as contained in his letter to Miss Farr as a member of his - a Baptist church; but it’s just like him. He is, honest, plain, and straightforward in his language, as every public man should be, and more reason for him to be so. I am informed on good authority that the Rev. Mr Grant did wait on Miss Farr several times in his clerical capacity, and was each time treated with something little short of contempt when he spoke on matters bearing on her conduct as a Christian, or as a person professing Christianity, and hence the course he was compelled to pursue, as it was his duty she should be made to feel in some way that her conduct was considered, by those who had a right to know, diametrically opposed to that of Christian practices. Any one reading the Rev. Mr Grant’s letter cannot fail to see that it is written in a truly Christian spirit, and to be sincere one must be plain. There are many, no doubt, who Mr Grant severe, but let them examine his letter and see if Miss Farr’s conduct agreed with either Christian or moral teachings or practices as a professing Christian, and they will see then that Mr Grant was only doing his duty in pointing out plainly her line of conduct, as she could not see it herself, and that her conduct on the receipt of the letter showed that her pride was touched, and that was her most vulnerable part. Her slight allusion to billiard-saloons is also contemptible, and not worthy of a thought from a Christian lady, knowing your impartial judgment in matters like the present, and your willingness to see wrong righted, I now conclude by apologising for thus trespassing on your space -Yours &c.,
J. F B.
 
Monday July 27 NEWS AND NOTES. We are informed that some people imagine that the letters recently sent to us by Mr and Miss Farr were published by request of the Rev. Mr Grant. It is hardly necessary for us to state that Mr Grant had nothing whatever to do with it.
 
Tuesday July 28 THE REV. MR GRANT, MISS FARR. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.
SIR,- The letter subscribed by “Common Sense” is a very bald attempt to deprive the public of an expression of opinion upon the question at issue between the Rev. Mr Grant and Miss Farr. One sentiment prevails regarding the publication of the correspondence in the first instance, and that is, the unseemliness of private differences being dragged before the public. As its subject matter has, however, become public property, the ipsc dixit of “Common Sense” cannot be so tamely submitted to, as he appears to wish, notwithstanding that “they have both had their say,” and inasmuch as it is not thought that “in public estimation she (Miss Farr) has evidently had the best of it.” I don’t think that any person is desirous of making a “martyr” of the young lady, or being guilty of any ungallant action. On the contrary, I for one would gladly enter the lists to vindicate the position she has taken up, but cannot help deploring that she was induced to send the letter bearing her name, and afterwards being a party to its publication. I am very glad to observe that Miss Farr is to sing to-night at the Mechanics’ Institution, and trust that from this hers may be a “Joyous life,’ and her repose ever a bed of “Summer Roses”  The genius given to her was never intended to remain unused, and if she should withhold her graceful services from a public who always hail the announcement of her name with becoming avidity, simply because a deterrent clergyman expresses his non-compliance, her course would then be highly reprehensible. Yours, &c.,
A. G.
 
Wednesday July 29 THE REV. MR GRANT AND MISS FARR. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR
SIR,­The publication of the correspondence between Mr Grant, the pastor of the Dawson street Baptist Chapel, and my daughter, having brought out many “ready writers,” who have expressed their respective views regarding the circumstances which led to my daughter severing her connection with the chapel referred to, I am disposed to agree with the letter signed “Common Sense,” that no good purpose can be served by continuing a correspondence, the subject matter of which can only interest those immediately concerned. I cannot, however, refrain from correcting one or two statements made by your correspondents. “A. G.” deplores that “the lady should have allowed herself to be discourteous in addressing the reverend gentle man as plain Mr, &c.” There was, Sir, no intention on the part of my daughter or myself in thus addressing Mr Grant to treat him with any discourtesy, as it is held by many members of the Baptist denomination that their pastors are not entitled to be ad dressed as “reverend.” Both your correspondents, “A. G.” and “Reconciliation,” charge my daughter with rudeness towards Mr Grant. I really fail to see to what portion of her letter this can be applied, as the circumstances under which it was written justified the making use of even stronger language. It must also be borne in mind that on several occasions, before Mr Grant addressed his letter to my daughter, his manner towards her was far from what she was justified in expecting from one occupying the position he did. As to your correspondent “J.F.B.” being informed “that Mr Grant called on my daughter and was treated with contempt;” this is incorrect, as it is fully twelve months since Mr Grant favoured my family with a visit. Had Mr Grant called, as alleged, and quietly expressed his views to my daughter, I think those to whom he is known will agree with me that my daughter is not capable of treating any gentleman with contempt, much less one occupying the position of Mr Grant. The object I had in view in publishing the correspondence was to satisfy my friends and others as to the circumstances which induced myself and family to cease attending the chapel over which Mr Grant presides as pastor, and this being now accomplished, I shall allow the matter for the present to rest.-Yours, &c.,
THOMAS FARR.

I have received several other letters upon this subject, but we think that the above should close the correspondence.­ED. Star

If you have additions or corrections to this page, please contact us     Bones in the Belfry home page     Page last updated - 2024