their severe discipline at home, while other teachers contend that the children of the rich and favored are petted so much at home that they need the most physical chastisement; and thus a child of either named class receives chastisement at school, according to the peculiar views of the teachers in different rooms. The child enters the lower class, and the teacher has his idea of parental government; the next room the child enters in his upward progress, the teacher chastises according to his view, and thus the scholar is meted out to each teacher to receive the ultima ratio legum' of the teacher's opinion, whether true or false. We submit that this is an important view of the case; that if the true principle of government is for the teacher to be enthroned in the affection of the pupil, this great contrariety of opinion among teachers has done lasting injury to many children, and will continue to do so as long as the law allows corporal punishment in our public schools.. Teachers cannot always tell how long a child will bear punishment before yielding, and the amount of physical force required (being left to the discretion of the teacher) is often abused. The timid child will naturally show more grief, when punished, than the resolute boy, who will often hold out even after his mind is convinced. The heart, affections and conscience of neither are really made better by the whipping, for both extremes are liable to abuse; either of timidity, which often produces deception, or of personal conflict between the teacher and pupil.

"The Rev. Dr. Sharp says, ' The most turbulent and

unruly children you can find anywhere are those who are beaten most frequently and most unmercifully.'

66

Galloup says, 'Children more often act from impulse than from premeditation, from thoughtlessness than from design, and yet how often is the wrong act put down as a crime, the wrong doer treated as a criminal, while the intent to do evil which alone constitutes crime in the eyes of all laws, human and divine, is wanting.'

"Teachers are often more in fault than their pupils, even to the cause of the offending, for they threaten out of place and time, become rude and impatient, and indulge in tenderness at one time, and extreme severity at another. They often whip for little things, done in buoyancy of spirit, and pass by offences of greater magnitude.

"Corporal punishment should be abolished because some teachers whip in anger, and under great excitement; in fact, such is the nature of the human mind, either in the adult or in the child, that anger excites timidity, or the opposite feeling of moroseness and revenge. Corporal punishment should be abolished because teachers are liable to misjudge, and whip the child who may have committed an error without any wrong intent, equally severe with the child who has committed great wrong intentionally.

"Lyman Cobb, A. M., illustrates this in a work publishsd by him as follows: 'I visited a school, a few years since, intending to spend an hour or two with the teacher and his pupils. Soon after I entered the school-room the teacher called out a class of boys to be exercised in that "ancient and honorable" business

of learning to spell. The teacher had just commenced in his school the system of having the pupil pronounce the word after him before he began to spell it. As the class proceeded in spelling, several of the boys, unaccustomed to this new system, commenced to spell the word before pronouncing after the teacher. After six or seven boys had made the mistake, (which was done of course wholly from the force of habit in spelling on the old plan, without pronouncing the word,) the teacher said in an angry tone, "The next boy who misses I will punish." I was shocked at the injustice of this course on the part of the teacher. Had the announcement been made at the commencement of the exercise, and had he whipped every boy, beginning with the first who made the mistake, there would have been some show of justice, and at least of impartiality, whatever may be said of the expediency, necessity, or humanity of his conduct. Very soon a lovely boy, about ten years of age, of rather a delicate form and nervous temperament, failed to pronounce the word. The teacher said to him, angrily, "Come up here." In an instant his little delicate frame was in a state of nervous tre

mor.

He begged the teacher not to punish him. He said, in the most pitiful and entreating manner, again and again, “I will remember," but to no purpose. The teacher took his thin and slender hand in his, bent it in such a manner as to expose the most sensitive part of it to the blows, and then beat it with a long ferule, the dear boy, at each successive blow repeating with piteous cries, "I will remember, oh, I will remember," to which the humane teacher responded, "I am afraid

you wont remember." The eyes of every boy in the school were directed to this unfortunate lad, and every countenance clearly indicated that the whole school sympathized with the boy, and disapproved of the teacher's conduct. I became so much affected that I took my hat and left the school-room. Even now, while writing this paragraph, I seem to hear the almost heart-rending cries and entreaties of that beautiful boy. Strange as it may seem, at the very next school convention which I attended, this teacher set forth in glowing colors the ruinous consequences which would result to our State and nation, if corporal punishment should be abolished!'

66

Corporal punishment should be abolished, because of the great difference of opinion of teachers and of district committees, as to the proper age to whip. In some States it is abolished in all primary districts, in girls' schools, — while in our own State it is allowed in schools of all grades. The testimony of many medical men has been given in evidence that very young children have been injured for life by the whippings received in school. If such be the fact, which we do not doubt, it seems to us another strong reason why the law should abolish the practice. Just so long as whipping remains recognized as a part of school discipline, cases of excessive punishment will continue to arise. The principle of fear which it engenders, belongs to a savage and not to a civilized race. It is a disgrace to feel, that, while civilization has advanced, this oft-abused power has been allowed to continue in our schools, in place of appeals to the higher faculties and impulses.

"In Quincy's History of Harvard University, we read the following: "Touching discipline, the course of studies, and the nature and efficiency of literary instruction, in the college during the seventeenth century, our means of information are limited and unsatisfactory. Its discipline, unquestionably, partook of the austerity of the period, and was in harmony with the character of the early emigrants. Tradition represents it to have been severe, and corporal punishments to have been among the customary sanctions of college laws. The immediate government kept no record of their proceedings. The tutors

66

chastised at discretion, and on very solemn occasions the Overseers were called together, either to authorize or to witness the execution of the severer punishments. Judge Sewell, in his diary, relates an instance of the mode in which these were inflicted, illustrative of the manners of the age, and of the discipline of the college. It occurred in 1674. The offence was speaking blasphemous words." After examination by the corporation, the offence was submitted to the Overseers for advisement. The offender was sentenced to be "publicly whipped before all the scholars," to be "suspended from taking his bachelor's degree," and "to sit alone by himself uncovered at meals, during the pleasure of the President and Fellows," to be obedient in all things, and, in default, to be finally expelled from the college. The execution of the sentence was no less characteristic than its nature. It was twice read publicly in the library, in the presence of all the scholars, the government, and