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 - 16 Jan 09