The next complaint was more successful. Mrs. Higdon was accused of caning two Barnardo children, discourtesy to the managers, and our dear old friendly complaint, fire-lighting, once more. These complaints, like the previous ones, were completely false and unfounded. During these complaints Mrs. Higdon was helping the reverend gentleman with his lantern entertainments. _John Bull_, referring to the matter, says: “The role of scape-goat was reserved for the schoolmaster’s wife.” At the last election the schoolmaster, with five labourers of his own way of thinking, was triumphantly returned to the Parish Council. Room was made for them by the unseating of the rector and the leading farmers. In these striking circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the managers of the school should have entreated the County Education Committee to remove them “to a more genial sphere of work.” An early opportunity was found to charge her with the ill-treatment of two of her pupils and—whisper it with bated breath—“intentional discourtesy to the rector’s wife.” That two respectable teachers should be hounded out of house and home simply upon the testimony of a poor Barnardo waif—who privately denied what she publicly confessed, excusing herself by saying “she would have been thrashed by her foster-mother if she had not said so” seems beyond belief. Still the fact remains that Mrs. Higdon did not cane the child, as the whole of the school children can prove. She does not belong to the cane family. Furthermore, the sequel to this complaint proves her entire innocence. Pity, indeed, is it that those who were seeking excuses for her removal could not find a _single_ parent or child belonging to the village to complain of Mrs. Higdon’s treatment of them. 1. That the head teacher has been discourteous to the managers. 2. (_a_) That in view of the direct conflict of evidence with respect to the caning of the Barnardo children they are not able to give a decision on this matter; but they are strongly of opinion that there is no evidence at all that the girl (E.C.) is mentally and morally deficient, or a danger to the school, as stated in the letters of the head teacher and her husband. (The head teacher said she was “_somewhat_” mentally deficient, which, of course, alters the context). (_b_) That, in their opinion, these children are well treated and cared for by their foster-mother, and that the children are not afraid of being beaten by her. (_c_) That in their opinion the communications sent by the head teacher and her husband to Dr. Barnardo’s Institution were not warranted by the facts of the case.