Monmouthshire Merlin

TUSK GRAMMAR SCHOOL: lIE TRUSTEES AND THE MASTER. A TALE OF A WALNUT TREE. of the Trustees of "Roper Edwards' Charity." Iftfi at ^e B<ough Court, Usk, on Wednesday— g The Rev. S. C. Baker, vicar, in the chair; Rev. Ill Rev. S. W. Gardner, Rev. A. Williams, t, W. Blower, Rev. C. E. Walkey, Mr. D. E. Par- Mr. W. G. Gething, Mr. J. Bromfield, Mr, E. Sftnti'* (tru8tees)> w'tl1 ^r* Davis, clerk. Among the the w^° attended to hear the proceedings, were Sheriff (Mr. G, R. Greenhow Relph), Mr. Mr. Keats, Mr. Price, &c. ft e minutes having been read, the Vicar atated that \he had been convened for the 5th of June, but in jg 88Qce of a quorum, no business was transacted. Cornfield laid on the table a copy of the report of f. as to the state of the school. #f(. 6 Vicar said they would now proceed with the orders tfid The first was the motion of whioh Mr. Par- had given notice -——— lifiv V r°mfield rose to a point of order, which he be- Of 'j? took precedence of any o'her matter and the point was with reference to Mr. Partridge's motion. C*s a well understood principle regulating public jjj Reasi that the discussion of matters should not be in ?/lVeQiently renewed—it was the rule which obtained tfj. ^House of Commons and the subject of Mr: Par" §e s trio-ion had certainly been frequently and fully ft at this Board. It had been fully discussed at j,Qerjjl meeting in December twelve months !iJ.r. Partridae: Excuse me — (Cries of "order,") Pto Gethi°g: I think if you allow Mr. Partridge to you will be satisfied. Jj, Partridge: Having given notice of my motion, j: B'otnfield cannot say anything until I speak. «0T.S. W.Gardner: Certainly not. «». Bromfield Every gentleman has a right to speak R P°Lnt of order. y- Gardner: Order! Really, I say Mr. Brom- Ae. ecidedly out of order. Thn 4an,e further cross-firing, •iwLT"" "» M[- "hou a b,> it, 0 Proceed. *°t to d rtridSe That i9 doiug the Tely 8 y°U °Ug bnt^r" Getlling If the chairman is not in order, we have protegt against it. Bromfield: I am in possession of the floor. ltev- S.W. Gardner: Really this is too bad. I rise to ii jjer now, and I have a right to do BO. The Vicar: Let Mr. Bromfield proceed. Mr. Gardner: Against every rule made, he rises when *le has not a right, and I appeal to you to put him down. *lr. Bromfield: The Chairman has decided 1 am not be put down. The Chairman If Mr. Bromfield is speaking to order, him »ay what he has to say. Mr. Gardner Mr. Bromfield may speak for ever, and "'e may as well sit down. You (Mr. Bromfield) will not frighten me or put me down. You have tried every titte You want to burk the question. You show you are frightened at it. You are doing your friend (the Itev. W H. Wrenford), the greatest possible harm. "Save me from my friends he may well say. Mr. Bromfield With the permission of the Chairman I will go Oil. Mr. Partridge: The Chairman himself is out of order. Mr. Bromfield then proceeded. He said the subject had been discussed ad nauseam-the v had had walnu's to breakfast, to dinner, and supper; and be appealed to the Chairman, on the principle of order, and on the fround that it bad been disoussed twice, to interpose, by "It authority vested in him, and declare that, according lhthe recognise 1 rules of public business, this matter Jjlld not be proceeded with. The Yicar: I was not aware of this point of order. Air. Gardner He gavj no notieo of it. i The Yicar said as the rule of order referred to had not r6en adopted on previous occasions, it appeared to him, III his judgment, that Mr. Partridge had a right to pro- Ceed. Mr. Cuuichill asked if that were wise, after so many had been spent.. Mr. Gardner: I am sure my friend, Mr. Churchill, is 'Peakin" as a friend, and we shall be happy to hear him. Alr. Churchill said by entering upon the discussion, they would lengthen the meeting, and not improve the fueling already existing. He had no feeling, but it teemed to him a trumpery affair. The Vicar did not quite know what the resolution was. lIe hoped Mr. Partridge would not reintroduce the sub- ject. Mr. Partridge: I em going to re-open it entirely. The Yicar: It will inflict a great deal upon us. Mr. Partridge I did not begin it. It as begun out dours. He wuuld ask Mr. D.tvis (the clerk), to state J»hat took place at the quarterly meeting of the trustees in September, 1865. Mr. Davis: You have it all written down: you had better read it. M-r* Gardner: You will say jr.,r- Davis; I will say if it is correct. r* Paitridge then read as follows:—- nf William Davis I recollect the quarterly meeting lL~ tr,lstee8 of Roger Edwards's Charity, in September, and I recollect Mr. Partridge asking about a walnut Air. Falconer was chairman of that meeting, and hen it wag about to close, and on a second application Mr, Partridge, Mr. Falconer turned to me, and told to inquire of Mr. Wrenford about it, and to let those Iftlow who wanted the information. The first time I saw VVrenford I asked him about it. I said to him, it rather an unpleasant business I have to ask you about 1 had not time to state the subject, when he aptici- |?a}ed me, and said, I know all about it—it is Partridge s °ing. I said, I have to inquire whether you sold the j^ftlnnt tree off'the eohool premises, and what you got for J • He waited a few seconds, or so, and then said, I must the question in writing. I said, I think it would be ^Ich better that there should be nothing written I wai Merely told to apply to you, and to give the infor- mation to those who require it. I said, if anything is 5^'Uen, there is no knowing where it will end. Mr- 'enford said, I must have the inquiry in writiug. I ?a>d, Oh, very well then I then took up my pen, and nastily wrote two or three lines, having people in the ~ank, and being busily engaged at the time, and handed II to him, and asked him if it would do. He read it over, *°d replied c capitally,' and put it in his pocket, and said would send me an answer, and which answer has already been before the trustees, and published in t ie £ aperB. I most positively assert that Mr. Wrenford w«,l *hew the subject of my inquiry, and that he could uot Jonsequently have been dialed by my note if the word trel-' had been omitted." Mr. Davis having stated that the foregoing was per- "Ctly correct, Mr. Partridge read the following notice of h:s mo- tion :— 23rd May, 1867. A printed statement having been very extensively circulated that certain of the trustees of Roger Edwards' chaiity (including myself), ought to apologise to the gehool-master for having pasocii a vote of censure against him, and it appearing to me that the true facts with re- ference to the vote of censure, have never been properly Stated or investigated, inasmuch as by an unfortunate Oversight and omission on my part, Mr. William Davies, the clerk, or secretary, to the trust, has never been ex- amined with reference to the matter- This is to give notice, that I shall at the next meeting of the trustees in June next, claim to have the statement of Mr. William Davis taken down, and afterwards to move such resolution or resolutions ax I may think proper. (Signed) D. E. PARTRIDGE" -Immediately upon my sending a copy of this to Mr. Davis I a so sent one to the scboolmast-r, wi:h an urgent request to him to attend the meeting tu-day, the reoeipt of which the schoolmaster, Mr. Wrenford, acknowledged the same day; Premising that he would read the observations he had to make, Mr. Partridge then addressed the Board as follows :—Gentlemen,—I much regret bring- ing this subject again before you, but it is not Say fault. It is Mr. Falconer who has opened tL. ma ter, not myself, but I confess for one reason I am glad the subject has bten re-opened, which is, that I think the matter was never before properly investigated, on account of my omission in not getting Mr. William Davis to give us his version of the matter. Now, as Several new trustees have been elected since this matter Was first broached, I think I must begin from the be. ginning, to enable you to understand the subject. Shortly previous to the quarterly meeting held in Septem- ber, 1866, I was informed that a walnut tree had been disposed of by Mr. Wrenford, the Master of the Gram- miar School, from the Grammar School premises I accordingly made the enquiry, when Mr. William Davies ■was directed by Mr. Falconer, who was the chairman of that meeting, to inquire about it. You have heard 'What Mr. Davis has told you on the subject. Mr. Wrenford having declined to answer the inquiry unless it was put in writing, }Ir. Davis writes as follows:— Whether Mr. Wrenford received anything from the walnut standing in the orchard, and what amount he (Mr. Wrenford) received, if any. It will be seen Mr. Davies omitted the word "tree" in his letter in reply to this Mr. Wrenford replies to Mr. Davis as follows In reply to the question you were directed to ask me, viz., whether I received any thing from the walnut (trees) standing in tbe orchard, and what amount I received, if any ? I beg to say, that I have never received anything but the walnuts which grow on them yearly, and at I do not Bell them, I caunot tell you exactly what they may have been worth." -Now, it has been suggested to me, that Mr. Wrenford's friend and partisan, Mr. Falconer, composed this letter perhaps Mr. Wrenford will tell us whether he did so or not. The letter has rever been produced, and what rasken the supposition probable is this, that when the letter of Mr. Davis was asked for, Mr. Falconer said it was in his desk. Probably it was concocted between them. Mr. Davis brought me this letter of Mr. Wren- ford's: in consequence I wrote to him on 3rd September, 1865, a follows:- Within the last few days it has been brought to my notice that some year or two ago you caused a va u walnut tree to be cut down on tbe premises of the mar School, at Usk, belonging to the trustees of o Edwards's Charity, and of which premises you are ana were then the occupier as the Grammar J as e School belonging to the Charity, "orexactlv cut down, or whether ifc was blown down, • i know but I am told it was cut up on the p.emises and disposed of by you, without, as I understood, the consent of the trustees-and, moreover, thatyouhaverenclered no account whatever to the trustees as to the disposal of it. Now, at the last quarterly meeting of the trustees, on Wednesday I called their attention to the matter, and Mr. Davis, the clerk, was directed to apply to you about it Now, I have seen Mr, Davis and he tells me he took an opportunity of speaking to you about it, when you told him you required him to communicate with you on the subject in writing. Mr. Davis tells me he made a com. munication to you in writing, but that he was much en. gaged in the Bank at the time, and therefore, perhaps, did not put his inquiry in precise terms however, be says be thinks lie mnst have conveyed to you sufficiently of his meaning to show you that the inquiry related to a tree you bad caused to be cut down, or at all events had disposed of some time ago. Mr. Davis has brought me your reply to that communication, and I must say I am very much surprise ) at its contents. I will not charac- terise it in the way I think it deserves, as I wish to write nothing offensive, ot in the least degree discourteous to. wards yourself. The matter seems to me a serious one, and I should feel much obliged to you it you will write me a letter, fully explaining all the circumstances of the case." -On the 5th October, Mr. Wrenford answered Mr. Partridge's letter as follows:- On my return home last night I found a note from you, in which you make certain inquiries respecting a Yaluable walnut tree, which, within the last few days, it has been brought to your notice that I caused to be out down on these premises but whether it was cut down or whether it was blown down you do not exactly know, but you further state that you were told that it was cut up and disposed of by me without accounting for the proceeds to the trustees. You will pardon me for saying that I caunot recognise the right of any in. dividual trustee, uninstructed by a meeting of his co- trustees, to make such enquiries as the one you ad. dress to me, and I do not find by the minutes of your meeting of Wednesday that you received any such or,ler, or indeed that the subject was mentioned at all. You will permit me further to say that it would have been more courteous and friendly bad you called upon me and us Bought an explanation personally, instead (as you ackoow. led°e that you did) of bringing the matter before a trustee meeting, on what you further state was hears ly evidence, I am told' you aiffrm, &c., &e. I presume, therefore, that it was you who instructed Mr. Davis to write to me. His question was not a very lucid one, and i answered it to the best of my ability. That answer you are at liberty to make any use of you please. Ishoulti answer a similar question in a similar way if again put to me. "I wish, however, to avoid giving you the least shadow of a reason for the continuance of the persistent opposition you have, as a trustee, shown to my wishes in regard to the school during the last two or three years, and therefore I will endeavour to satisfy your mind on the subject about which you write. "I did not cut down a valuable walnut tree or any other tree a year or two ago. A dead walnut tree was blown down in November, 1861, which I presume ill the one your informant alludes to. The trunk was greatly decayed. I received nothing for it in any way directly or indirectly. Stride, in December, 1833, agreed to take it, doing some extra woik in. the school as an equivalent. All these circumstances were perfectly known to Mr. W. Davis at the time, who was consulted by me in the matter throughout. He valued the tree, and was cognisant of every particular, and therefore could have given you the information you wished without troubling you to write to me. And now you will oblige me by stating the name of your informant, which in common justice YOIl are bound to giye me," -On the 5th October, 1865, Mr. Partridge replied to t lis letter of Mr. Wrenford's as follows:- I am in receipt of your letter of this morning as to the walnut tree, and as I wish to avoid any kind of acri- monious correspondence with you, I will confine myself strictly to the subject. Your note appears to me to admit the facts I was enquiring about, as after referring to the tree, which you write was blown down, and not cut down, you Write tlHlS- tride, in December, 1863, agreed to take it, doing some extra work in the school premises as an equivalent. Now it seems to me that you were not justified in dis- posing of the tree on any terms without tho express sanction of the trustees, and that your conduct is liable to censure for doing so. Mr. James Jones, builder, of Bridge street, tells me he was in treaty for the tree, and offered money for it, and that he considers he was not treated fairly by you in your letting Nir. Stride helve it and moreover Mr. Jones further states that when he ap. plied to you about buying the tree, you expressly told him that whatever it realised was to be paid to Mr. Wil- liam Davis, as the clerk or agent to tue Trust, so that if that is so you were fully aware that it was not your property or at your disposal.' You also wrote,- I received nothing for it in any way directly or in. directly.' Now I was on the Building Committee of the New School and the improvements to your house, and 1 know of no extra work that Mr. Stride did in consideration of the walnut trea in question consequently the direct in. ference appears to me to be that you hid the extra woN (if any) done, and if so I cannot understand the above quotation given in your letter, as the extra work must have been doue at year especial request, and for your personal benefit and accommodation, and for which you would have to pay, and which must have been les- sened to the extent of the value Mr. Stride put upon the walnut tree you let him have." On the same day, namely, the 5th October, Mr Wren_ ford answered this letter as f,,Iiows I did not intend to write to you again res; eoting the charge of dishonesty you have brought against too, but I am coustraiued to send you a line to protest entirely agaiust your assumption that I have admitted the facts you were enquiring about, viz., that I cut down (or the wind blew down) a valuable walnut tree, and that I sold it and appropriated the proceeds, and did not ac. count for them to the trustees. I utterly aud total.y deny that I either cut down th<j tree or appropriated in any way the money received for it. u If yo I will be good enough to read a few lines imme- diately following that part of my letter you quote, YOel will at once see that whatever was done in disposing of the tree was doue by the trust, es' agent, and not by we, and I must beg to decline to allow myself to be made the obj ct of censure in any way, or by any person on that account. Mr. James Jones saw the tree, but he said it was of so little value, and offered such a trifling sum to Mr. Davis for it, that he declined to allow Itiw to pur. chase it. You appear to doubt the correctness of my statement, that the value of the tree was expended in extra work on the premises, and you make an inference that if it were, it must have been done for my own per- sonal benefit, and for which I should myself have to pay. In other words, you indirectly charge me with taking money which did not belong to me, aud spending it, and then asserting what was false, viz., that it was laid out in a way in which it, was not expended. I am suie you. will be quite prepared for my saying that as you do not accept my statements as true, 1 am compelled to decline any further correspondence with you on the subject." —In a posteript, Mr. reoford adds ;is follows As I am tenant for life of these premie, I believe I should have been justified in law in appropri itiug the pro- ceeds of a windfall—I will look into the question. Do not misunderstand uac, I say I should have been justified in doing so—I did not do it." —At a quarterly infecting of the trustees, hrI(1 on 6th December, 1865, at which were present the Rev. S. C. Baker, chairman; the R-vds. William Price, A. Wil- lidm" S. W. Girdner, Mr. C:iurchill, Mr. Lister, Mr. Gething, and myself, the foregoing correspondence was lead by me, I having previously given Mr. Wrenford notice of my doing so, and moved the following resolll tion, which Mr. Gething seconded :— That the letter of the Rev. W. H. Wrenford, Mastejf of the Grammar School, at Usk, to Mr. William Davis, of 29th September, 1865, is disrespectful and discourteous towards the trustees and further, that Mr. Wrenford was not jastified in disposing of the walnut tree (the sub- ject of the correspondence now read), without the sanction of the trustees generally, or at least of the Building Com- mittee for superintending tU3 building of the new School House." An amendment was put, but the resolution was cir- ri-d, five trustees voting for it, an t two only, namely, Mr. Churchill and the Rev. Mr. Price, against it. On the 29th December, 1865, a special u.eet ng was called to rescind the foregoing rasoln'iori, when the trustees were equally divided, and the motion to rescind it was only carried by the chairman, Iltyl Nicho.l, Esq, giving two votes. Having come thus far it will he at once rern rked-Wijv in the world do you bring this matter forward again ? This matter has been dispised of a year and a half ago, and why revive it ? I will t-11 you why. My reason for doing BO is as follows :—A meeting was helJ ot the Usk Elementary Soho Is on the 12 h of January last, at which Mr. Thomas Falconer presided, when that individual thought proper, among other abuses of the Trustees of this Otiatity,lto wri'e or speak as follows with reference to Mr. Wrenford and this matter :— First, he having applied the proceeds of a dead walnut tree, which was his own property, being a wind fall in his garden, to the improvement and decoration of the school house in the year 1861, a vote of censure was passed on his account four years afterwards, namely, in Decem- ber, 1865. Mr. Nicholl, one of the trustees, had told the .master to dispose of the tree, and the law, as it is clearly and distinctly shown in the excellent work of Mr. Craig, Q.C., on legal and equitable rights and liabilities to trees and woods, p. 2 and 123, gave him a personal right to the tree, for any purpose to which he might devote it. lIe had as much right to do what he did as he had to wear his hIt in the street. I got the resolution of censure re- sciuded, but the trustees who voted to censure him ought of their own acoord most humbly to have apologiseu tor having addressed him on the subject. The vote of censure and letter of Mr. Davies were the fruit of utter ignorance of the law. However, some of the trustees damaged the school, and the sohoolmaster, who had not been concerned in a particle of wrong doing. Secondly, it so happened that while this discussion was pending, another tree in the garden fell down, and the master offered to place this tree at the disposal of the trus- tees considering what inexcusable and gratuitous mischief they bad inflicted on him, the trustees ought to have de- clined his offer, and honourably to have told him that his abstinence to make any personal profit on the former occa- sion out of what belonged to him, prevented their accept- ing his offer, and depriving him of his legal right to dis- pose of it; and more especially as he had expressed his willingness to appropriate its produce to the benefit of the Charity property. The master made a kind concession to promote peace, and the majority of the trustees should have acted with manly courtesy in return." Now this is why I have revived this matter. Perhaps some of you will say, why not treat this insolent and audacious statement with silent contempt or, as my friend, Mr. Gardner, did when it was sent to him refuse to take it in ? Well,that might perhapshavebeen the most sensible way of treating it but I am situated differently to any of you. It was I who originally broached the matter, and to myself was the responsibility of bringing it forward attached. I therefore thought as a matter of personal honour I was bound to re-open this matter, and particularly as through my oversight and omission, Mr. William Davis was not examined. Now let us shortly examine this statement of Mr. Falconer's and now let me beg of you to bear in mind that there are two dis- inct charges against the master. This is most import- ant, that you should.remember the one is as to the impro- per disposal of the walnut tree, and the other as to dis- respectful and discourteous conduct towards the trustees. [ shall come to another and more serisus charge by and bye and first as to t ie walnut tree. Now this is com- paratively of trivial importance, but still it requires no- tice from me. It is absolutely incorrect to say this first mentioned walnut tree was a windfall. It was no such thing-it was leaning out of the perpendicular, and being considered unsafe it was cut down, and it took two men a considerable time to fell it, so that it was clearly no windfall at all. And as to the master deriving no benefit from its disposal, that I most positively deny, as I say that he saved his own pocket to the extent of what was allowed him in work for the tree; an,1 to show most olearly and conc!usively this tree did not belong to the master—why,what did the master do as to the second tree, which really was a windfall, whereas the first was not so. In a printed paper, which bears his signatu:e, he writes- As another of the walnut trees fell last month, and the stick is still on the ground, I am quite ready to have the question of title to the profit of this windfall tried in the County Court, before Judge Herbert, either as a legal or equitable question. My alleged claim being that I am equitable tenant for life, with a beneficial interest in the house and garden in my occupation." Now did the master have the case tried ? No, he paid for the tree, and if y >u refer to the accounts you will find thi amount of the tree there credited. Well, then, if the master, afer claiming a tree which was a windfall, abandons the claim and pays for it, how much stronger is the case against him as regards the first tree, which was no windfall at all; and I have no doubt but that the master had advice, and was told he had no claim t'o the second tree, before he abandoned his claim and paid for it. The idei of the master paying for the tree to promote peace, looking at his letter to Mr. Davis and his conduct all throughout, is so absurd and preposterous that it is totally undeserving of notice and as to Mr. Nichoil giving him the first tree, why that gentleman had no power or authority to give it except with the consent of his co-trustees. I now come to the other part of the vote of censure, namely the disrespectful and discourteous conduct of the master towards the trustees in writing the letter he did to Mr. Davis. Now, you have heard Mr. Davis's statement; and I ask you, can anyone who is not biassed by partizanship, say but what that letter was most disrespectful and discourteous p but what does the master do ?—instead of expressing any regret at this letter, why he deliberately writes to me that he answered Mr. Davis's letter to the best of his ability, and that if the same letter were written to him again he would give the same answer to it. Mind. this is after he had told Mr. Davis he knew all about it and yet Mr. Falconer writes that the five trustees, who passed the vole of censure, ought of their own accord most humbly to have apologised for having addressed him on the subject, and that the schoolmaster had not been concerned in a particle of wrong doing. I am sorry to have detained you so long, but I now come to what appears to me to be the worst feature in this ense as regards the master. It is tliis-wh(n the discussion took place at the special meeting to rescind the vote of censure on 29th December, 1865, the defenders of the master based his defence on the ground that he did not know what Mr. Davis's letter alluded to, except it was as to an absurd inquiry about walnuts, when he (the master) hhd expressly told Mr. Davis, at the very outset, that he knew all about it; ani the master allowed Mr. Davis to be made a scapegoat of a-id a butt for ridicule, at the very time he knew full well to whit Mr. Davis's letter referred ? Now I ask was not the Master well aware of the line of defence his defenders were about to adopt ?—and knowing that was it not most disingenuous and improper; nay, was it not wicked to a low of such a defence when he (the master) well knew of its utter fallacy a-id fdlshood ? I think this is a most seriouH matter, and most damaging to the master's character. Wnv did not the master attend this meeting? I say lie purposely abstained from coming to it because he dared not meet Mr. Davii, face to face, who could have at once put an end to his defence. I will now conclude by hoping I have justified mys-ilf in your estimation by re-opening this matter, and I will conclude by moving the following resolution :— The trustees having heard the statement of Mr. Wm. Davis, as also the statement of the master with reference to the subject of the vote of censure, passed against the master on the 6Lh December, 1835, resolved that the conduct of the master has been improper and unbe- comig, and that thj vote of censure, passed at the meeting of 6th December, 13G5, ought not to have been re- scinded." The Vicar You said you had three charges—as to the walnut tree, as to disrespectful conduct and-what was the third ? Mr. Partridge In allowing such an improper defence to be male, which he knew to be false. Will any one second the resolution ? The Rev. A. Williams suggested its withdrawal. Mr. Gething concurred, but thought that Mr. Par- tridge had been jus ified in his proceodiogs so far. The Rsv. S. W. Gardner Snould I be in order in making a few observations without seconding it ? Mr. Bromfield I object to it. The Rev. S. W.Gardner: You object to everything. Then I second it at once. Mr. Gardner said he had not intended to second the resolution had his application to be allowed to say a very few words not been objected to' Hd rose with mingled tee-lings; and it was matter of deep regret to him that the consideration of the subject had been again force,l in any shape or form upon the trustees; but he was sure that his friend Mr. Par- tridge had been goaded to his present piocaedings by the veiy inju licio«is conduct of the so-called friends of the muster. lie would have preferred the reso- lution being withdrawn but when such an extraordi- nary proceeding had occurred as a gentleman rising on a point of order, and making a long speech to induoe the Chairman not to a'low a motion of which notice had been given to be brought forward, he was not sur- prised that his friend should have gone on with it and when he (the speaker) was not allowed to say a few words of explanation was not he justified in seconding i t ? He was far from thinking there was anything wrong in the resolution, and only laj Sd of time had in- duced lain to wish to hear no more of the subject. But upon whom was it to be charged that they had heard more of it f Not upon Mr. Partridge or the gentlemen who voted with him when the vote of censure was passed Lut upon the threefriends of the master,whocalled ameet- ing. and fixed a day, for rescinding tho resolution and to which m-eting, however inconvenient, or how- ever inclement the weather, the five trustees by whom ttie resolution ha 1 been carried, were obliged to attend to justify and maintain their position. And they did so, and had a right to do so. And how was the reso- lution lescinded ? Tbeie were four to six votes, or rather five to five, and the resolution was rescinded by the casting vote of the Chairman. He did not say it wa contrary to rule for the Ciairinan to give two vote?, one to make the number equal, and a second to m >ke tticui unequal; hut he did say that that was the way in which the resolution was rescinded. Rev. A. Williams: The chairman never heard any of th" arguments. Rev. S. W. Gadner: The chairman had been late. They had waited his arrival a long time, in respect to his age and his high character; and they who supported the i esolution were as anxious he should be present as those who knew he would support its being rescinded. They waited long, but he did net arrive and at last the gentleman who defended the Master—the friend, as he was called, of the Master—entered on ths defence, and read a very eliborate document. Well, that was all over and passed and he for one should have been glad not to hear another word about it. But then what happened ? As Air. Partridge had said, the matter was brought fo[- ward at the Elementary School: and it was not confined to a private discus.-ion there but a document was printed and bown broadcast, wherever it was thought it would be productive of mischief. He was told it contained most violent abuse of hiinself-mist violent abuse of his fiiend, the Vicar of Usk-anú tremendous abuse of Mr. Partridge. But he had adopted a course which showed he did not wish either to move or second a resolution, had he not been driven to it by the injudicious friends of the Master. When a packet tie know not how long oame to him, directed in a well-known band, he wrote tho word refused" on it, and returned it to the postman—and that was all be wished to know or say about that blessed document. But what, as he was credibly informed, did this person do ? He told them and he believed his (the speaker's) name was "the ohief clerical agitator;" —but he told them that fellow has sent back my pam- phlet. I will let him see whether he shall not read it; for he shall have it through his Bishop." Really, it might form a fitting subject for Punch or Judy, or one of the London Charivari; to see the learned and very veracious author of that precious document exhibiting it to the astonished gaze of the refractory priest; and his Bishop standing behind him threatening him with epis- copal ice, and a castigation from the pastoral staff it he did not read line for line, and word for word, the whole of that truthful document! But Providence had placed over them a fitting and proper overseer, and they were in no alarm that their Bishop would so far forget his important and sacred functions as to be induoed by any representation that could be made to him to interfere improperly with his clergy. Their Bishop had too much respect for the high office to which he had been called- was too anxious to discharge faithfully and efficiently the sacred trust which had been reposed in him—too desirous to watch, for good, over his clergy, and he had too much respect for every one of them to interfere in any matter of the kind. That the document had been sent to his lord- ship was too probable-for it had been sent to every farmer and to every cottager who could read, he believed, in his (the speaker's) two parishes, in the hope that it might make some mischief between him and his pa- rishioners. But be had treated it with the contempt it deserved and had it not been wrung from him and forced upon him this morning, by the conduct of a trustee present, Mr. Bromfield, he said distinctly that he should not have risen, as he had done, and jllr. Partridge's reso- lution, richly as he believed it was deserved, would have gone withont a seconder. Having said thus much, he thought he had justified the course he had taken. He still entertained for the document" the same contempt as he ever did. He had told the learned gentleman when he was in the room—(he wished he were here now, for he oould not bear to speak of a man in his absence)— that not 50 county court judges, nor all the judges in the land, headed by the Lord Cnancellor, should induce him to give a vote contrary to his conscience. He stilt eutertained the same feeling,—anxious only to do good to the trust which he had undertaken. Certain resolu- tions which be had proposed had been called mischievous. But two had been carried and he was no more mis- chievous than others. Other resolutions were equal-his friend in the chair did notsee his way to vote one way or tbe other, and the resolution fell. Tne one resolution was that the payment of two guineas per annum paid by bnys be discontinued, and the school be restored to what was intended by its munificent founder—a free school for ever. The trustees were equally divided, and therefore it was lost. The rev. speaker proceeded to comment upon another resolution which had reference to toe secular education to be given to the boys, when Mr. Bromfield interposed by cries of "Question;" and after a rather sharp passage of arms, The Chairman said it appeared to him that Mr. Gard- ner's name having been caLed in question, he was re- viewing the course taken by him. But he apprehended Mr. Gardner would not extend his remarks much far- ther? The Rev. S. W. Gardner said he would not. He re- gretted that it had been needful to detain them so long —he should not have detained them three minutes had he not been driven to it. He thanked them for the patient hearing they had given him, reiterating his regret that he had been obliged t3 second the resolution, which he had rather had not been brought forward, but which he was convinced was a righteous resolution, and one which Mr. Partridge was justified under the cir- oumstances in proposing. Mr. Bromfield said it was his intention to move an amendment to the effect that this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and that the meeting pass to the other orders of the day." Having justified himself for interrupting Mr. Gardner, who, he said, had stated that be did not know whether he should end by seconding the resolution or not," which was like wielding a sword with two blades, he proceeded to ask the plain ques- tion, of any sensible man, nnd of all the gentlemen around the table, whether these repeated discussions on what he persisted in calling this paltry and trum- pery subject, conduced to the character of the Trust- were they of a nature to elevate the Trust in the eves of their fellow-townsmen and of the county ? Mr. Partridge was a good advocate, and built up with legal phrases and with the propositions of a lawyer, a superstructure of depositions and statements and letters and comments and so forth. But on what was it all based ? Oa this miserable, rotten walnut tree, of which they had heard so much that they were sick of it. But a superstructure could not be larger than its base, or it would topple over; and so it would be in this case, for it had reached its culminating point. When he exa- mined the notice and the ground on which Mr. Par tridge based his appeal for a renewal of the oft-te-t-,d discussion, he never saw, as Snakespeare said, such a beggarly amount of statement." The true facts had never been properly stated or ventilated Why, good heavens! he had in his pocket a roll of papers which contained a good deal of ventilation. He bad first a broad sheet supplemtnt of the Usk Observer, ten columns, full of the matter; and then there was the statement of Mr. Falconer, which Mr. Partridge had read and commented on with much acrimony, and whoin Mr. Gardner had followed, adding, if possible, a little venom to the acrimony. It was not for him (the speaker) to defend Mr. Falconer: he was known to every man in the county—he was known as a man of high position, high character, and great t lents-lie was one of Her Majesty's judges, in the commission of the peace—lie was well known to all as an excellent man and a good friend; and in spite of Mr. Gardner's venom and Mr. Partridge's acrifUooy hi. charaoter CJulJ take care of itself. But as to this question not being ventilated-why, if ever any subject was not only ven- tilated but blown out of the bellows, it was this subject now before them. It was urged there had been an unfortunate omission. But were they to supply the unfortunate omissions of an advocate, who failed to put a case precisely in the light in which afterwards he thought it should have been put ? To his apprehension, however, the rase had been well put before the public by Mr. Partridge, who had made the most of a miser- able case, and well deserved a complinent. But it appeared this was his hobby-that he could not t'iink of anything else, and they must be called upon thus to repolish and repatch. Air. Partridge You shall never hear another word from me. Mr. Bromfidd As to the remarks with reference to Mr. W renford's absence, Mr. Wrenford had acted wisely — I ad shown too much respect for his character and dignity to attend that Board to be abused. They might as well expect an eel to come to be skinned, or a duck to be killed, fit the call of the cook, as expect Mr. Wrenford to attend there ;—he did better, he showed his own consciousness of worth by staying away. As to the renewed discussion, what was the effect of it? No new facts bad been adduced and as to Mr. Davis's state- ment they knew the gist before, and it was now but elaborated in detail. But were they to be a Court, he was poing to say of honour—he shou'd say of Billings- gate ?-rather let them leave that to a court of old women. For them as gentlemeo—gentlemen in the Commission of the Peaee, as he saw around the table, to go into a question of letters between Mr. Davis and Mr. Wrenford, it was beneath their notice, not worthy of further consideration, nor would he soil his hands or take up time with it, lien other important matters required their attention. But he called on them on broader grcfunds to put an end, once and for all, to this tnalter-and he was glal to know there Were gentlemen present who s iaie.l his views. They little thought what was said in the county of this walnut tree question. The Bishop was dining witti a friend of his the* other day, dAd he said, Well, any more about poor Wrenford and the waluut-tree question ?" And not long since a gen-lenaii-a magistrals in one of the highest positions in the county, said, "Under this walnut tree business is the persecution of a worthy man." He, the speaker, endorsed that suntimen', and he sai l it was the duty of honourable men to say this persecution of a worthy man should go no further. ADd then, he aiÙed them, how was tie school, which required rest and re- pose, to exist and be carried on amid these squabbles ? ihey might as well expect a nervous patient to recover health under the noise of a steam hammer. Mr. G-iidner: Qiestion. Mr. Bromfield it was gratifying to know the school had increased but what was to be the result if they annouoc-d in the neighbouring towns, the ill conduct of the master of the Usk Grammar school ?" He was glid to know that gentlemen wi:o had children attend- ing the school, and woose opinion tili valued, were be- coming conscious of the injury dene by these discus- sions and animosities snd iil-teelitig there was a great change of opinion in Usk and pe sons were beginui: to value at their just price the efforts of those persona. agitators-(tor they agitated with personalities), who by their conduct were tffecting the ruin of the school. And were they to think uottiing of Mr. Wrenford's feeling in the matter ? He hal been schoolmaster 16 yeat-e-lie had during that time earned a character which spoke for itself, and in respect to which he (Mi. Bromfield) challenged the opinon of his fellow-towns- men and neighbours. Mr. Wrenford had not laboured for nothiiig-by his consistency, his propriety of con- duct, his conciliatory manner to all-by his conscientiousness and. hill honour, he had earned a character which was not to be whistled to the winds by the reading of Utters, or indulgence in lawyer-like comments and quiobles and be there- fore called upon them to put a stop to this persecu- tion. And in doing so he aSKeù them to protect the interest of the school and of the trust. They repre- sented an income of JE700 or £ 800 a year,and had to guard important interests connected with education and with the well-being of the poor of the town; and he asked the Board to say, wbatevei might be the feeling of Mr. Partridge and Mr. Gardner, who had kept this subject alive with an untiring energy which in a better Ctuse would itave done them credit, that they would baTe no further discussion, for the reason that the discussion of this question was unnecessary. Remarking that Mr. Wrenford had instructed him to deny the words at- tributed to him, and asking that as Mr: Davis's state- ment had been taken down, that denial should also go on the minutes, and stating further that he did not throw the onus of contradiction on Mr. Davis, Mr. Bromfield concluded by moving the amendment. Mr. Davis: Will you allow me to say a few words ? The Vicar It is hardly necessary. Mr. Churchill seconded the amendment. The Vicar, expressing the reluctance with which he took part in the discussion, intimated his concurrence with Mr. Bromfield, that the subject had been thoroughly ventilated. As to the first charge alleged by Mr. Part- ridge, he (the Vicar) thought it quite unjust to promote a charge on a hastily spoken or written word. With re- gard to the second, disrespectful conduct, that was easily disposed of, because it was quite clear that if there had been anything disrespectful, it was a matter entirely between Mr. Wrenford and Mr. Davis. Through- out the whole business Mr. Wrenford's words conveyed no sort of insult, or disrespect, or defiance to the trus- tees that h'ad always been hid opinion; and nothing said to-day had induoed him to recall that opinion. Rev. S. W. Gardner: I beg your pardon. You did not express that opinion. You sat still, and did not vote one way or the other. The Vicar: Just so. He (the Vicar) had many reasons for being silent. If they took by the ear a dog whioh was about to fight, they would likely enough get bitten; and he liked to keep out of other people's quarrels for that reason he was neutral. The third charge, as to allowing a false defence to be made, knowing it to be so, had been denied by Mr. Wrenford himself as to facts. But the three charges, taken in their worse light, w-re futile, in comparison with what it might be supposed would he the only charges which could call forth such repeated and reiterated votes of censure. Had Mr. Wrenford been guilty of ineompetency, or neglect of duty, or disregard of the rules of the trust, then they might have considered whether he ought not be subject to a vote of censure. Now with respect to incompetency, could any person Mr. Gething: Who has touched upon that? (Cris of question.) Rev. S. W. Gardner Not a word said about it. The Vicar His character has been assailed. Rev. S. W. Gardner: Allow me to submit that it is hard I was not permitted to say half-a-dozen wurds and you should go into all manner of things. The Vicar Well, if they would not allow him to enter into those points-and Mr. Wrenford's individual charac- ter he himself could well vindicate—yet as they were all concerned in the character of the school, he would bear h;s testimony as Vicar of the parish, as a trustee of the Charity, and as a parent having children attending the school, that he believed the school had never been in a more efficient state than at the present moment. (Hear. hear,) The votes were then taken, when there appeared for the amendment, 5; for the resolution, 2—and the former was accordingly declared carried. Mr. Lister wished to state, having voted for Mr, Bronfield's amendment, that he considered Mr. Brom- field was to a certain extent to blame for the discusgioii having gone on at all. He very much regretted the dis- cussion which hal taken place. Mr. Gething Every one does. Mr. Lister: Had Mr. Bromfield allowed Mr. Gardner to make a few remarks the resolution, he believed, would not have been seconded, and it would have fallen to the ground. Hi thought it a pity Mr. Partridge had paid any attention to remarks made out of the room, and he thought further, that it would have been better if such remarks had not been made. Mr. Bromfie!d repudiated Mr. Lister's assumption of the position of censor; end said he was glad he had acted as he did, for it had elicited a result of 5 to 2. From one or two further remarks by Mr. Lister and Mr. Gething, it seemed that, had not Mr. Bromfield persisted on the point of order, the resolution would probably not have been brought forward at all. THE ALMS HOUSES. Mr. Bromfield drew attention to the necessity for re- trenchment in connection with the almshouses, as a fund was required for the repair of the property whence the revenue of this branch of the property is derived. There are now 12 iiawates and Mr Bromfield moved, that as vacancies occurred they should, temporarily, not be filled beyond the number of ten. After a discussion the motion was lost, as also an amend- ment by Mr. Gardner, and it was resolved that, if the sanc- tion of the Charity Commissioners conld bj obtaiued, the number of twelve should be maintained, but that the two last appointed should simply occupy the house, and not receive the weekly payment, save after the death of others, so that only ten might be on the funds at any one time.