Oh! the mistaken notion that flogging will make a bad-*behaved boy a good boy; it has the contrary effect. "'I dunno how 'tis, sir,' said an old farm-laborer, in reply to a question from his clergyman respecting the bad behavior of his children, 'I dunno how 'tis; I beats 'em till they're black and blue, and when they won't kneel down to pray I knocks 'em down, and yet they ain't good.'"
In an excellent article in Temple Bar (November, 1864) on flogging in the army, the following sensible remarks occur: "In nearly a quarter of a century's experience with soldiers, the writer has always, and without a single exception, found flogging makes a good man bad, and a bad man worse." With equal truth it may be said that, without a single exception, flogging makes a good boy bad, and a bad boy worse. How many men owe their ferocity to the canings they received when school-boys! The early floggings hardened and soured them, and blunted their sensibility.
Dr. Arnold of Rugby, one of the best school-masters that England ever produced, seldom caned a boy—not more than once or twice during the half year; but when he did cane him, he charged for the use of the cane each time in the bill, in order that the parents might know how many times their son had been punished. At some of our public schools nowadays a boy is caned as many times in a morning as the worthy doctor would have caned him during the whole half year; but then the doctor treated the boys as gentlemen, and trusted much to their honor; but now many school-masters trust much to fear, little to honor, and treat them as brute beasts.
It might be said that the discipline of a school cannot be maintained unless the boys be frequently caned—that it must be either caning or expulsion. I deny these assertions. Dr. Arnold was able to conduct his school with honor to himself, and with immense benefit to the rising
