3

H.—35.

remuneration was fixed at a salary of £400 per annum, together with one-eighth of the fees; free residence, containing full accommodation for himself and his family, and also for about forty boarders, for whose board and lodging he was authorized to charge £40 per annum. His engagement was to continue for three years from the date of his landing in Dunedin; afterwards, the engagement to be terminable by six months' notice on either side. It appears from Mr. Norrie's statement that he had been led to believe that the boarding establishment would produce a very large additional income. The provision to be made for forty boarders seems to imply an expectation that the boarding establishment would be a very important feature in the arrangement. It was a considerable disappointment to him to find on his arrival that there were no boarders at all, and the number seems never to have exceeded thirteen. Mr. Norrie entered upon his duties on 13th April, 1875. He seems soon to have found that his expectations as to an addition to his income from the boarding establishment were not likely to be realized. On the contrary, he found that the boarding establishment, so far from being a source of income, caused him a positive loss. Upon this he proposed that he should be authorized to charge £60 instead of £40, or that his salary should be increased by £200. The Board agreed to authorize the charge of £52 10s on 3rd December, 1875. On the 16th May, 1876, in consequence of a private conversation between Mr. Norrie and Mr. Macandrew upon the loss incurred by the boarding establishment, a formal minute of the Board was passed to tho effect that Mr. Norrie might, if he desired it, relinquish the boarding establishment, but that he was not to have any claim against the Government. On the 10th June, 1876, Mr. Norrie formally addressed the Board, referring to his understanding with the Home Agent, which had led him to believe that his total profit from salary and boarders would be about £1,000 per annum. He requested the Board to relieve him of the duty of keeping boarders and, as a compensation tor the loss of anticipated profit, to increase his salary by £100 per annum. No decision appears to have been come to on this application till August following, when it was determined that the sum of £100 would be granted as " contribution to alleged loss up to 31st March, 1877." On 27th June of the present year, Mr. Norrie, finding the boarding establishment still resulting in loss to himself, addressed a letter to' the Board requesting to be relieved at once from the duty of keeping boarders. This letter appears to have been received at the Board room during or immediately after a meetirrg of the Board, while the members were still present, and it was agreed that it should be considered at a meeting to be held on the 10th July following. Accordingly on tlrat date Mr. Gillies, Chairmau of the Board, brought forward a scheme whereby arrangements could be made in view of Mr. Norrie's relinquishment of the boarding establishment. Up to this time, it appears that the relations of Mr. Norrie and the Board were of a perfectly friendly nature. At least, Mr. Norrie does not seem to have had any specific cause of complaint against the Board, or against any of its members. There can, however, be little doubt that there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in his mind with his position, and probably some feeling that he had been misled at Home as to his prospects here, and that the Board had not done its utmost to compensate him. On 10th July, according to the arrangement made at the previous meeting, the Chairman of the Education Board brought forward his scheme for supplying Mr. Norrie's place in the boarding establishment, the material part of which was, that one of the teachers in the school should be charged with this part of the Rector's duty ; that Mr. Norrie should vacate the Rectory; and that he should receive for house rent £120 per annum. There is a slight discrepancy here in the evidence as to the occasion on which the name of the gentleman who was to take Mr. Norrie's place was first mentioned. It will be seen that this is not altogether an unimportant point, in considering the feelings and motives of the respective persons. One member of the Board states that this gentleman's name was not even mentioned until the 9th of July, that is, the day immediately preceding the meeting of the Board. Another says the name was suggested at the meeting held on the 27th of June. It seems quite clear that the former of these gentlemen is mistaken, for Mr. Norrie heard of the proposal on the Bth of July from the gentleman himself who it was proposed should succeed him. Mr. Norrie seems not unnaturally to have felt himself aggrieved that members of the Board, with whom he thought himself on friendly terms, and with whom he had had conversations in the interval, should have studiously, as he thought, kept him in the dark about the proposed future arrangements, and should not even have informed him whether his request to be relieved of the boarding-house would be agreed to. But this passing feeling of irritation became very much intensified when the report of the proceedings of the Board appeared in the public prints. One member was reported to have made use of some very offensive expressions, and the whole tone of the speeches, as reported, was calculated to give pain. From the date of the appearance of that report the attitude of the Rector towards the Board was one of irritation and distrust. The Board itself, though not assuming an equally hostile position, can hardly be supposed to have felt itself on the same terms as before. It is, however, only fair to the Board to state that, so soon as they became aware of the pain which the expressions used had given, they, or at least, individual members, took every means privately to remove the impression produced on Mr. Norrie's mind. It appears almost certain that the actual words complained of were, in fact, never used; and at the subsequent meeting of the Board the member who was reported to have made use of them submitted a written statement denying the accuracy of the reports in the papers, and handed it over to the reporters. Unfortunately, only a portion of this statement appeared in print, and it did not convey the idea of explaining the words specially complained of. In fact, the discussion, as reported, that followed the reading of this statement had rather the appearance of amounting to a reiteration of the objectionable phrases. It was in the heat of this irrita'ion that inquiries were addressed to Mr. Norrie as to the authority by which leave was granted to one of the masters. Here, again, by an unfortunate accident, the Acting Secretary questioned Mr. Norrie, not simply in his capacity as Secretary, but as acting under instructions. Mr. Norrie, aware that the Board had had no meeting at which such instructions could have been