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 - 2025