201R. Harrod to the members of the Governing Body, 4 March 1931 [a]

Follows on from 200 R. Harrod claims that the question of making the Duke of Westminster Student a member of the Governing Body was settled by a Governing Body resolution of 18 February, and that it would be undesirable to re-open it. [1]

  1. 1. Harrod's letter seems to have stirred up an angry reaction within the Governing Body. Gilbert Ryle revealed that Harrod's assertion was not liked by the people involved in this matter. He also warned Harrod that members of the Governing Body already regarded him and Grant Bailey as Lindemann's spokesmen, and that if Harrod persisted they would regard him as Lindemann's tool (Ryle to Harrod, [5 March] 1931, in HPBL Add. 72731/114-15). In a further letter, Ryle specifies that Harrod was regarded as Lindemann's spokesman not because he agreed with him, but because he gave special information that he could only have obtained by confabulation with the Prof. Ryle warned Harrod that a certain amount of hostility was imminent, especially from J. C. M[asterman] (6 March 1931, HPBL Add. 72731/116). Indeed, Masterman wrote that Harrod's circular letter on the Duke of Westminster Student was a piece of misrepresentation, as the question was not settled on 18 February (letter to Harrod, 8 March 1931, in HPBL Add. 72763/174). He wrote again on 10 March, explaining that he preferred not to answer a letter from Harrod (not found), because he did not want to be forced into an altercation with anyone in Christ Church (in HPBL Add. 72763/175).

    On the conclusion of the affair see letter 204 R.

    1. a. From Christ Church, Oxford, TL, mimeo, Circular, one page, in HPBL Add. 72768/25.

Welcome page

top of page

Return to index of this section

Go to previous page

Go to next page