CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 167, 8 July 1875, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor op the 'Evening Mail.' Sir— l shall not imitate the bad taste displayed by Mr Webster m publielv-and gratmtously-.iiscußsing the qualifications of a candidate for an appointment to a public rhool, who will ah.ptly appear before a Board of Examiners, of whom lam one. If ifiia Mr Webster's object to intimidate me in the execution of my duty, either as Inspector or Examiner, then I on only say that he has egregiously mistaken his man. During a fourte n years' tenure of office I hare been accastomed to regard the members of the Central Board a3 gentlemen to whom I could always confidently appvat for support in the discharge of functions that are often sufficiently difficult «nd invidious to render such support needful. It has been reserved for a gentleman whose experience of the work of the Board ia barely a week.old to take op the position, as novel as 1 truss it will he rare, of an unreasoning partisan. I feel that no specific defence of my conduct is required— or indted would be seemly— ia «he present stage of proceedings, but it may encourage the mis-timed loquacity of Mr Webster to learn that no fresh stricture? of his will provoke from me another syllable in reply until the vexed question of the appointment to Bridge-street School is settled, lam, &c, „ , _ , W. C. Hodgson. Nelson, July 8.

To the Editor op ths « Evex\ino Mail.' Sir— .The date of. one of my three tes'imonial letters addregstd to Mr Sunley, and published in your issue of yesterday, i 9 mispruittd. Ie mu*t have beeo. written some ?Q^ 8 ,, Eg T°L inatead of on the " nh A P r 'li "875. i h a ve no other interest in rectifying this error than that of avoiding the po9eibie suspicion of having written ie with some referent c to recent controversies between the Central Board of Education and the Town Committee : an act W4icb, regarding my connection with the Central Board, would, of cjurae, have been most unbecoming. I am, &c, J. W. Barnicoat; [We have to apologise to Mr Barnicont for what, on reference to the manuscript, we find to have been a printer's error, although an excusable one, as the writing in that particular pla:a wa* blotted. The date should have beea "7th April, 1870.'— Ed.iV.SJif/)