David Nantgwyn sagely remarked that some of these men were better than others. Harry interpolated the offensive comment that this differentiation applied equally to Vicars. David waved him aside with an “Avaunt, stripling,” and proceeded with a recent painful experience. His school had been vacant, and a man had applied with a testimonial from the Rural Dean, deposing that Mr. A. B. was equally admirable whether you regarded him as a schoolmaster or as a Christian--“rather implying, you know, that they are separate walks in life”--in the former capacity he was most efficient; in the latter he was exemplary. David went to see the Rural Dean, and asked his real opinion of A. B. The reply was that A. B. was a reprobate person: he had been dismissed for a series of offences, culminating in brawling in church with suspicions of intemperance. “But, Good Heavens,” David had objected, “you stated in black and white that he was ‘equally efficient’ and all the rest of it.” The Rural Dean was entirely unabashed: “that was only a tes-ti-mo-ni-al.” I remarked that this sin was not confined to the Principality. An English Inspector had told me a story of a school manager who came to him at the inspection about the middle of October with a lamentable account of the schoolmistress. Visiting the school a few days back he had found that the mistress was absent; and on calling at her house he had found her dead drunk. She had been but recently appointed, chiefly on the strength of an excellent character from a clerical neighbour. He added that this giving of false testimonials was immoral and unneighbourly. (“Whether you regard him as a Christian or a neighbour,” suggested David aside, and I accepted the amendment.) The inspector agreed, and suggested that he should prosecute his friend and get him six months. The manager said he should hardly like to do that, but it was a scandal. Meanwhile the inspector had been glancing at what we call Form IX., the paper that Evans brought just now, and on page four he read: “Qu. (4) Are the managers satisfied with the teacher’s character, conduct, and attention to duty?” The answer was “YES.” “Quite so,” the official said, in continuation of the discussion, “but I think if I were you I would modify the answer to _that_ question,” and he laid an incisive finger on Qu. (4). The manager was not at all abashed. “That refers,” he retorted, “to her conduct up to the end of the school year, September 30. It was on October 7 that I found her so drunk.”