MR WATSON IN REPLY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2180, 19 February 1881, Page 3

MR WATSON IN REPLY.

TO THB BDITOB OF THB PBBBS.

Sir,— Will yon allow me to point out several inaccuracies in that portion of Mr Inglia’ statement that was read before the Board at its late meeting. Mr Inglis says—“ Mr Watson represents that the whole matter in dispute was the removal of the second (that is, the acting head) mistress, which the committee strongly recommended, and the Board refused to allow. He adds that this recommendation was overlooked in the Board’s statement,” I nowhere stated that the recommendation was overlooked—on the contrary, I quote the only sentence referring to the Board’s action in reply in these words:— “ The statement says, ‘ The Board replied to the committee’s recommendation that the second mistress could . . not bo dispensed with.’ The whole matter of the dispute is wrapped up in this quiet little sentence.” How any person reading these words can permit himself to say, Mr Watson "adds that this recommendation was overlooked in the Board’s reply,” I cannot understand.

Mr Inglis says—“ Mr Watson represents that tho-whole matter in dispute was the removal of the second mistress.” I expressly stated in my reply that “ the statement of the chairman of the Board of Education is only a partial account of the matter in dispute ”; the matter in dispute being obviously the complaints made atthe meeting of householders. Those complaints were—l. The refusal of the Board to sanction the arrangement proposed by the committee, and as a consequence (2) the reduction _of the salaries of tho second and third masters, in order to provide a salary for the head mistress. These were the matters in dispute, aud my statement went to prove my own remarks at the annual meeting, “ That whoever proposed tho reduction, the Board was responsible for it, as it was forced npon the committee by the refusal of the Board to carry ont the course recommended by tho committee.” One other point. The Board stated in letter of October 25th, that if the services of the acting head mistress be ‘‘ dispensed with, the girls’ department. . . . will be left with bnt two teachers.” Mr Inglis repeats this in his last statement. " The coarse recommended by the committee wonld have left tho school with five teachers besides the headmaster on the boys’ side, and on tho girls’ with only two.” These statements are entirely wide of the facts._ The headmaster’s memo in respect to them is, in fnl! “If the acting head mistress is dispensed with, and a head-mistress appointed, the girls’ department will have (not two but) four adult teachers. Head-mistress, Miss Innes, Miss Allison, Miss Spence, and also Miss Jones, who is practically an assistant teacher. Besides these teachers there are five pupil teachers on the boys’ side, there are four adult teachers. Mr Wykesmith, Mr Tipler, Mr Morton, and Mr Gilling. Besides these adult teachers there are four pupil teachers.” There could not he a more complete contradiction of the chairman’s statement.

Besides, a child might know that the removal of an acting head-mistress, and the appointment of a head-mistress in her place, did not reduce the nnmher of tho teaching staff. Take away one from four and add one, and the Board notwithstanding, four remain. Thus every point in the statement is refuted irrefragibly. There was evidently a fuller statement prepared, and if, as is most natural, the chairman selected for publication the strongest points it contained we can estimate from the part the value of the whole. Tours, &0., H. C. M. Watson.