Thames Tittle Tattle

Observer, Volume 2, Issue 36, 21 May 1881, Page 390

Thames Tittle Tattle

[The "Tittle Tattle" for this week is unavoidably crushed out.]

— The following very reasonable and mode-rately-worded letters have been forwarded to us for insertion. We agree with the writers that the mistakes do look rather like malice, and our correspondent will liave to explain where lie obtained the information. If he has been hoaxed the delinquent must be exposed :—

"To the Editor : Sir,— l request the insertion in your next issue of the enclosed letter to the editor of the Thames Aducrfi'sci, which discloses some inaccuracies on the part of your Thames correspondent.— l am, &c, James Kilgoub."— [Letter.]— "To the Editor of the Thames Advertiser: Sir,— ln the Observer of the 14th instant, under the heading of ' Thames Tittle Tattle,' appears an article relating to the performance of ' The Sorcerer' by the Thames Amateur Opera Company last week, in which the writer says in reference to the expenses of the entertainment — ' I have made inquiries, and the following is the list of the expenses -. Mr. E. A. E. Owen, professional fee, £5 ss. : Mr. C. Brown, professional fee and expenses, £3 ; rent of hall, £3; printing and odvertising, JB-i; costumes for Mrs K anil Miss C, £10; other costumes and incidentals, £i 15s. ; total, £30.' This list is, with one exception, a tissue of errors from beginning to end, some of the mistakes looking very like intentional malice. For instance, £10 is set down as the cost to the company of the dresses worn by Mrs. Kilgour and by Miss Coney, whereas Mrs. Kilgour's dress did not cost the company one farthing, while the expense of Miss Coney's attire did not exceed a few shillings.— We have, &c, James Kilgour, H. Chas. Lawlor, J. W. Poulgi-ain, B. Wolff.— Thames, May 14, 1881."

—A statement, substantiated by names(wliicli may or may not belong to Thames residents), has been laid before us to the effect that tne correspondent of the Observer in that locality uses, or rather misuses, his position to terrorise over ladies, threatening- to say this, that, or the other about them in the paper, and makingmany very uncomfortable. We have not as yet communicated with our contributor on the subject, because it would look as if we doubted him j and we feel confident he can rebut the charge most satisfactorily. Of course, if it could be proved, we should decline his services for the future, but we do not fear conviction. The correspondent is a gentleman, and if he has htivt any lady's feelings it has, we are sure, been accidentally and not of intent.