Title: Discipline in School and Cloister
Author: Jacobus X....
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Discipline in School and Cloister" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

CLOISTER ***


  DISCIPLINE IN SCHOOL & CLOISTER

  Subscriber’s copy.



  DISCIPLINE IN SCHOOL
  AND CLOISTER

  BY

  Dr. JACOBUS X....

  [Illustration]

  PARIS

  ISIDORE LISEUX

  MCMII

  Five hundred copies.


  Printed in France

  C. Unsinger, Paris



FOREWORD


The subject dealt with in the present work touches one of the dark
patches of our social life. Flogging as an aid to education, a mode of
discipline, or a means of repression is universal in time and space.
The subject has always had a strange fascination for curious minds. The
facts presented here are all drawn from authentic sources. They are
stated plainly, without any attempt at colouring them.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]



DISCIPLINE IN SCHOOL AND CLOISTER


Right up to the beginning of the present century the birch rod was
an ordinary part of a school’s equipment, and only a few years have
elapsed since it was looked on by the schoolmaster as the _ultima
ratio_. Indeed, we would not swear that, in certain out-of-the-way
places where, in spite of the railway, civilization has not yet
penetrated, the teacher is not still known by the insulting but
picturesque name of bum-brusher. Today, at any rate in our French
schools, this method of correction has been abandoned; and yet, is the
time so far gone when it would have been regarded as revolutionary not
to use the whip or rod?

But was corporal punishment really efficacious with vicious and
undisciplined children? Was there no risk of defeating one’s own
object—might not a slumbering vice be aroused in the attempt to train
an ill-formed character?

This consideration had not escaped the wisdom of a theologian, who was
also a medical man, Father Debreyne: ‘Flagellation may have a result
quite different from what one expected. It is therefore very important
to abolish this form of punishment from our homes and schools as being
indecent, disgraceful, and dangerous to morals.’

Should we have a more perverse imagination than our ancestors if we
credited them with malign thoughts; or must we believe that a wind
of sadism has blown over our poor humanity during long centuries?
Assuredly, the intentions of most of them were pure, but how many black
sheep there may have been in the flock!


In primitive times the whip was the attribute of brute force. The
father, having complete authority over his child, delegates this
authority to the teacher, who exercises it with more or less rigour
according to his temperament or temper.

The best policed people have not felt called upon to abandon this
instrument of government. If education was severe in Sparta, where
children were submitted early to the most difficult exercises, it was
hardly any milder at Athens, if we are to judge by this description
of Greek customs. ‘Hardly had a child escaped from the tyranny of his
nurse, when he fell into the hands of the teacher, the grammarian, and
the musician, and these took turns at flogging him to teach him their
art. As he grows up, there arrive the arithmetician, the geometer,
and the riding-master. Under these masters he gets no rest, he rises
early, and is often flogged. A little older, and it is the tactician
and gymnastic instructor who now flog and torture him.’ And there have
been philosophers to praise and poets to sing the happy results of this
brutal method.

However, one voice is raised against this system—the voice of Plutarch,
who considers that we should lead children to do their duty by kind
words and gentle remonstrances and not by blows, for flogging is more
suitable for slaves than the free. It hardens and deadens them, and
the pain and shame makes them hate work. Praise and blame are more
suitable for freeborn children than whips and rods.

Rome had borrowed this method of treating slaves from Greece. According
to Petronius, the following notice could be seen on the fronts of
certain houses: ‘Slaves who leave this house without permission will
receive one hundred lashes.’

The least impatience of the mistress, or the least fault of the
female-slave sufficed to get the latter hung up by the hair and lashed
till the blood came. The picture which Juvenal, SAT. vi, has left of
these scenes is simply revolting. This practice was so common that, in
his _Art of Love_, Ovid recommends women not to give way to anger in
the presence of the lover who is watching them at their toilet. Many of
them, indeed, had the rather unhappy habit of choosing this moment for
beating and biting their slaves, or sticking hairpins in their breasts.
And let us not forget that these pins were seven or eight inches long.
Flogging must have seemed very mild alongside such a martyrdom, and we
are no longer astonished that the satirical Horace thanks his teacher
Orbilius for having soundly flogged him when at school.

It was not always the pupils who lent their ... backs to the rod:
the master’s turn came one day. Livy reports that a schoolmaster was
condemned to be flogged for having committed treason. After he had been
stripped of all his clothing and his hands tied behind him, he was
handed over to the children, who flogged him heartily. The roles were
indeed changed.

From time to time sensitive spirits protested against these methods
of education, although the custom was quite generally received and
approved. There was some merit in protesting when one was quite alone
in the belief.

Quintilian wished to abolish flogging, and the only fault about his
reasons was that they were addressed to barbarians who were not yet
ready to understand. ‘I would like scholars not to be beaten: firstly,
such treatment is degrading and used for slaves; if the victims were
older they would be justified in claiming reparation. Secondly, because
if a child is so stubborn that reprimands do not cure him, there is
every possibility of his being made worse by blows, as are rebellious
slaves; besides, such punishment would be needless if the teacher
understood his work. But nowadays teachers are so careless in their
corrections that, instead of compelling the scholars to do what they
should, they are content to punish them when they have not done it.

Further, if we constrain a boy with stripes, how shall we treat a young
man who cannot be flogged, and whose honour should be appealed to
encourage him to study? Add to that, that accidents happen to those who
are beaten which decency forbids us to describe, and which are caused
by fear and pain. The shame felt by the victims injures them and cows
them to such an extent that they fly from the light and sink under
their shame. If wise and skilful teachers have not been chosen, it is
impossible to say to what extremes of cruelty they may not go, and to
what extent they will terrify their pupils.’ Bk. 1, iii.

Quintilian addressed the empty air. He spent his efforts in sheer
waste, trying to uproot a prejudice which was to last longer than he.


The Jesuits have been charged with the invention of pedagogical
flogging—they might well reply that they had many precursors. The
history of monastic flagellation is an argument they would have been
justified in urging in support. But they have a respondent of another
opinion. Has not Solomon said: ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child?’

In the _Coutumes de Cluny_, written by the monk Udabric in 1087, we
read: ‘At prayers, if the children sing badly or fall asleep, the prior
or master will strip them to their shirt and flog them with osiers or
specially prepared cords.’

We know nothing of the duration of the punishments, but the following
fact plainly shows that the delinquents were intimidated. On St.
Mark’s Day some scholars of St. Gall’s had incurred the punishment of
a flogging for truancy. The boy who was sent to the attic to fetch the
rods, wishing to save himself and his comrades from the punishment,
seized a burning brand and set fire to the abbey. This simple fact
plainly shows that the children of those days were little rascals, and
one is not surprised to find a priest complaining to St. Anselme du
Bec that he could do nothing with his pupils although he thrashed them
soundly.

It is true he might have had recourse to a more gradual system of
education, like that proposed by a bishop of Metz—at the first offence
the offender was to be warned: at the second, admonished: at the third,
publicly reprimanded: at the fourth, he was to be put on bread and
water: at the fifth, to be separated from the rest of the community
and locked up or beaten, _if his age permitted_: and lastly, if those
corrections were ineffective, God should be asked to cure him, and he
should be taken before the bishop.

Let us be just: if there were some incorrigible children, certain
masters treated them with a brutality which invited reprisals. On that,
we have undeniable testimony. Guilbert de Nogent, speaking of the
master who had trained him, pays homage to his virtue but confesses
that he overwhelmed him almost daily with cuffs and blows, to force
him to learn what he himself could not teach. ‘One day when I had been
thrashed I went and sat at my mother’s knees, cruelly hurt and most
certainly more than I deserved. My mother having asked me, as was her
custom, if I had been beaten again, I, not wishing to denounce my
master, said that I hadn’t. But, in spite of my resistance, she pulled
aside my shirt and saw my blackened arms and weal-marked shoulders.

As in ecclesiastical schools, so also in monasteries and convents was
flogging in vogue. A rule of St. Cesaire d’Arles, dating from the year
508, stipulates the punishment of flagellation for unruly nuns.

St. Benoit, the restorer of monastic discipline in France, who began
his reform in the eight century, prescribed excessive fasts and harsh
and bloody flagellations, even for children. If a brother, after having
been often checked, neglects to correct himself, he must be punished
with strokes. If anyone soils or damages the monastery fitments, he is
to be checked and punished according to rule, if he does not mend. If
a monk is found with anything claimed as his own property, it is to
be taken from him up to two times; if he does not correct himself, he
is to be severely punished. If anyone violates the rule of silence,
he shall be severely chastised, likewise he who receives books or
presents; who reports what he has seen or heard during a voyage; he who
takes upon himself to publicly reprimand persons older than himself
without an express order from an abbot; or even he who shall correct
children with too much warmth and severity. Disobedience of the abbot
was also to be punished in the same way.

St. Colomban enters into the most minute details for the administration
of discipline to ecclesiastics: so many strokes for the monk who has
not prostrated himself when going out of the monastery: so many for him
who, at the beginning of a meal, has not made the sign of the cross on
his spoon: so many for him who has not trimmed his nails before saying
mass: so many for him who has not gathered up his crumbs at table. The
superior allotted the punishment and generally administered it.

Another rule stipulates that the monks who shall have gone out of the
monastery without the permission of their superior, or who, having
been allowed out have not returned as soon as the errand was finished,
shall be excommunicated for thirty days or beaten with rods; the same
punishment for those who have eaten or drunk to excess. Young monks
who have been convicted of theft are never to be promoted to the
clericature.

The monks who, after having been excommunicated, should wish to
re-enter the community of their brothers (Rule of St. Macaire), are
to be flogged in the presence of the abbot and the whole community
in order that, it not having been possible to correct them by
remonstrances, they shall be corrected by rods.

The monks who shall disturb their brothers or impose on their
simplicity, shall be whipped before the door of the monastery if, after
having been warned three times, they do not correct themselves. (Rule
of St. Pacôme).

The monks who will not forgive those who have offended them and who
strike their brothers, must be treated in a similar manner; but
whatever the offence may be, the number of strokes shall not exceed the
thirty-nine allowed by law. (Rule of St. Aurelian).

And let the victims beware they do not complain, if they wish to escape
severer punishment!

The whip serves also to lead back to the path of duty those monks who
speak too loudly, who are angry, who make others laugh, who rail, who
calumniate—at least, if they do not correct themselves after having
been warned several times. The same treatment must be meted out to
those who are lewd, impudent, and haughty; to those who are liars,
thieves, and blackguards; to those who are wild and stubborn, and who
boldly sustain their faults. (Rule of Saint Fructueux).

Neither young brothers under fifteen nor nuns who have committed a
theft are excused a flogging; nor are the nuns who have struck their
sisters, or are guilty of certain crimes. And so we come to learn how
common were acts of indecency in these communities where only the
divine spirit should have entered.

Licentious conversations with a person of the same or the opposite sex,
as also the more intimate relations, are taken account of by monastic
regulations.

The crime of frequenting women was punished with repeated fustigations.
Those who persisted in casting lascivious glances on women might, after
having been flogged, be expelled from the community, for fear their
bad example might contaminate their brethren. One rule assimilates the
monk convicted with theft with an adulterer, for ‘it can only be lust
which has led him to commit a theft.’

We have an example of the severity with which crimes of this nature
were punished in the story of a nun who was accused and convicted of
incest, by the Council of Donzi, June 13th, 874.

This nun was named Duda; she had sinned with a priest named Humbert.
The latter denied the charge, but the two guilty persons were
overwhelmed by the evidence. It was in fact proved that they had two
accomplices, two nuns named Bertha and Erprède.

The punishment awarded by the council deserves to be set on record:
for three years Duda was to be flogged on the back with rods in the
presence of the abbess and the other nuns, in order to expiate by the
pains of the flesh, the faults which the pleasures of the flesh had
made her commit. For the next three years she was authorised to share
the prayers with the other sisters; however, she was not to be in the
choir with them, but behind the door or in such other place as the
abbess would indicate. The seventh year, she might go to the offering,
but after the others, and at the end of the year she might receive the
body and blood of Our Lord if she were really penitent. She was warned
never to forget the sin, and to move always with downcast eyes, and
to make the sign of the cross whenever she was tormented with impure
thoughts. As to the two accomplices, the council imposed a penitence
of three years and a half, during which time they were to be flogged
for not having divulged their sister’s secret to those who could have
prevented so grave a scandal.

We have sometimes been reproached for using in our various writings
terms which really belong to medicine: it is amusing to see ourselves
justified by a theologian, the Abbé Thiers, who is accusing a colleague
of having erred in that direction. ‘There is nothing to be said against
medical men, when speaking of parts of the human body, using the most
proper and natural terms to explain what modesty forbids us to name
on other occasions: the necessity of their profession compels them
so to do; but that a priest, a doctor of theology, writing a history
which might well be written without the admission of impure facts, yet
admits many which have no bearing on this subject, this, I feel, is
beyond excuse.’

The worthy Abbé Boileau, who is hinted at here, has however denied
having written an immoral work. Has he not proclaimed that the usage
of lower discipline (he could hardly have been more discreet in his
expression) is nearly always not only unprecedented, new, and useless,
but even bad, infamous, and very shameful?

It would be unjust not to admit that it was this custom he combatted
and tried to abolish. Although he was in a position to know of all the
excesses which are committed in monasteries, he has nevertheless not
drawn aside all the veil; there are others who have not had the same
scruples, and those who are in love with truth have reason therefore to
congratulate themselves.


Even had the written word failed to inform us, religious iconography
would have supplied the missing facts. Glance at a 15th century
manuscript preserved in the Bourgogne Library at Brussels: could words
say more? There we see a monk being flogged in the presence of his
brothers, and the field of operation laid bare to their view.

The same treatment was also meted out in convents: for moral offences,
for negligence or slackness in the performance of religious duties, the
superior punished the offender in the presence of all the other sisters
so that the words of the apostle might be fulfilled: ‘Let sinners be
confounded in the sight of all.’

In an assembly of ecclesiastics held at Aix-la-Chapelle in 817, it was
decided that monks should be flogged naked before all their brethren.
It would appear that the penitence was more meritorious when it was
applied _in anima vili_ (_in corpore vili_ would be more in keeping
with the facts).

The constitution of the Carmelites stipulated that the master of the
novices was to flog them gently, after having decently uncovered the
bottom of the back. In some communities, shirts had to be made open at
the back so that they could be opened and allow a fair field.

In several convents there were novices who were trained specially
for administering discipline. The Ursulines had a mistress specialty
charged to teach them how to hold the instrument, how to lengthen and
shorten their arm so that the blows got home effectively, and how to
maintain a decent posture.

One of the masters of the art of flagellation, Julien de la Croix,
wanted the lashes to be of unequal length so that they fell in
different places and widened the tormented area.

A daughter of Louis XI, Jeanne de France, invented a scourge which made
five wounds. It was a silver cross, armed with five spikes.


Flagellation was not only applied in monasteries; very soon a number of
bishops claimed the same right over their priests as abbots had over
monks.

Although monks, priests, and deacons were, by special canon, exempt
from abbatial fustigation, the monk Godescal submitted to it with grand
apparel in the presence of Charles the Bald. The bishop of Spire was
flogged by order Pope John XII.

This punishment was frequently used with heretics when they were no
longer immured for life, or burnt alive. Their rank was no safeguard
against this infamous chastisement.

Prince Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse, suspected of heresy, was
publicly flogged outside the church of St. Gilles, Valencia, by the
hand of the pope’s legate. Henry II of England was publicly flogged to
expiate the murder of the archbishop of Canterbury.

The son and successor of Philippe Auguste, Louis VIII, being found
guilty of having continued to claim the English crown when the pope had
taken it from him (after having freely given it him), was compelled to
expiate this rebellion by consenting to pay the pope a tenth of his
income for two years, and to present himself barefooted and with a rod
at the door of Notre Dame, Paris, there to be flogged by the canons.
Report says that he was flogged on the backs of his chaplains.

Henry IV also was whipped, in 1595, but this was on the backs of his
ambassadors, Cardinals du Perron and d’Ossat.

This vicarious flagellation was not exceptional. In the last century
but one there could always be found, and almost anywhere, some worthy
capuchin who was willing to make his buttocks responsible for the sins
of the whole parish, and who, proportionate to the payment received,
would flog himself—or at least give out that he had done so. From
thence comes the famous Spanish saying: _yo soy el culo del fray_:
which in the interpretation may be rendered: I feel as sore and rum as
the friar’s bum.

This symbolic application is met with again in the ceremony of
absolution for excommunicated persons. The pleader (if a man), had to
present himself before the church door with bared shoulders, and before
the bishop or priest who was presiding at the ceremony. Kneeling, and
bare headed, he had to humbly beg for the absolution of his sin; and
then the priest, having made him swear to obey the commandments of the
church, would sit down and, taking a whip or rod, would recite a long
psalm and, at each verse, he would strike the petitioner.

The ceremonial was somewhat more solemn for those who had been
excommunicated with anathema, or for those who had been excommunicated
for grave sins or serious crimes.

Illustrious personages, among others William, Duke of Aquitaine:
Raymond, Count of Toulouse: Foulques, Count of Anjou, etc., submitted
to this humiliating penitence. The last named had married the widow
of Alain de Bretagne and had had her son, the heir to the estate,
drowned in a bath. In reparation for this crime he went to Jerusalem,
accompanied by two servants, one of whom led him by a rope which was
fastened round his neck like a victim for the gallows, dragging him
thus to the Holy Sepulchre, while the other continually flogged him
with a bundle of rods.


A rarely consulted source of documentation is the collection of letters
of remission. Among other prerogatives, the French kings enjoyed the
right of pardon. They exercised this right by divers acts, known under
different names: letters of grace, of remission, of abolition, of
pardon, repeal of bans, and so on.

Among these letters of remission there are two which have particularly
held our attention: one dates from the end of the fourteenth, and
the other from the first half of the fifteenth centuries. The first
concerns a man named Durand Tontif, a schoolmaster at Brienon. It
was this teachers custom at the end of the class, to have his pupils
recite, each in his turn, a _De profundis_ and a _Paternoster_ for the
dead of the district. One day, one of the boys either wouldn’t or
couldn’t recite the psalm and the master, from the height of his chair,
struck the child several times on the head with his birch. In trying
to escape, the poor boy was struck on his ears and face, and was soon
drenched with blood. As he still persisted in not saying the lesson,
the master sprang down from his seat, flung the boy on the floor and
flogged him unmercifully. The wretched boy had been operated on a few
days before for stone in the bladder and was not yet recovered. He
struggled to his feet as best he could and dragged himself home to bed.
He died a few days later from the blows he had received. The brutal
teacher was arrested, but he obtained a letter of grace from the king
wherein it was stated that he was ignorant of the boy’s condition, and
that he had not flogged him from any feeling of hatred but simply with
the object of discipline. Nevertheless he had to give up teaching and
compensate the parents. That was in 1398.

The second story shows that in the fourteenth century masters had
little more consideration for servants than the worst of savages had
for their slaves, and this state of things lasted till the seventeenth
century.

A groom’s daughter, aged eight, entered the service of a gentleman,
governor of Langres. She was so ill-treated by her mistress that she
hated her and only awaited an opportunity to get even. After seven
different attempts, (she was now sixteen), she tried to blow the place
up, having particularly in view her mistress’s bedroom. Caught in the
act, she confessed.


The whip has this undeniable superiority—before its omnipotence both
gentle and simple have bowed. That we have already demonstrated. Since
Henry IV, there is a long list of kings and princes who have been
flogged. No-one thought that strange: it was the custom of the times.
It required free spirits such as Montaigne or Rabelais to protest. Most
people remembered that they had been through the mill themselves and
had come out little the worse: their children must go through the same.
There is plenty of evidence in existence, both written and illustrated.


When evoking her memories of childhood, Madame de Maintenon relates
that, when she was ten years old, she was brought up by her aunt Mme.
de Villette. Little girls were not then punished for slander or lying,
or even worse offences—no, the greatest crime in their governess’s eyes
was to mess one’s apron or get it splashed with ink. For one thing,
one was sure to be whipped, for the governess had to wash and iron the
apron. Lie as much as you like, no notice was taken of that—there was
nothing to wash and iron!

We must not lose sight of the fact that in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries a quite different view was held of idle and
intractable children than the present one. Our ideas would have seemed
ridiculous to our fathers: they wouldn’t have understood them. Not that
discipline was always as rigorous as it was, according to Rabelais, in
the Montagu College, where the pupils were treated worse than Moorish
slaves, condemned murderers, dogs even! Such excesses, however, were
not allowed in other schools, and cases are reported where teachers
were charged in the courts for having ill-treated their pupils; others
were dismissed for punching the boys. Still, although cruelty was
generally reproved, no one complained or was shocked at the use of
the birch; in case of need, parents would ask the teachers not to
spare their children, and these latter accepted the punishment with
the resignation born of the knowledge that they were being treated as
children always had been treated. They even went so far as to joke
about it.

It was exceptional for them to protest in a body against a too severe
punishment administered to a boy who had been unruly or had played
truant. They generally accepted the punishment—even if they didn’t
understand the motive.

Thus, in the little town of Die, only the pupils of the four highest
classes were expected to speak Latin; but all are expressly forbidden
to speak dialect; as for French, a boy would only be punished for
speaking it if he were caught in the act, and after having been
previously warned. And what is done at Die is done, more or less,
everywhere.

There are also forbidden games, for playing which one gets it ‘on the
back’ as the scholastic euphemism has it. Games which do not exercise
the body are forbidden; also those played for money or other gain,
such as games with cards or dice. Books, bags, belts, etc., must not be
lost or sold, and no trading carried on in the school. Those who play
about in the privies, or who stay longer than is necessary, are to be
flogged.

Flogging was used in all educational establishments, whether at Port
Royal or under the jesuits. There was, however, a Jansenist named Varet
who was not afraid to write that ‘the severity recommended by Holy
Writ is much better exercised and more in accordance with the spirit
of God, by the refusal of a kiss or caress, rather than by the use of
a rod.’ It wasn’t that he wished to spare them pain, for he adds: ‘If
they have some infirmity or sickness, although in secret you spare no
effort to cure them, try however to teach them to bear their pains with
resignation.’


It would appear that the rigour of the pedagogical rules of the jesuits
has been exaggerated. A number of stories, and some of them only
stories, have contributed to establish this reputation: this one, for
instance, from the _Memoirs of the Count de Bonneval_. ‘The Marquis de
C..., a cavalry captain, had been stationed for a year or two in the
outskirts of Strasburg. He often visited the town and had a mistress
there. He abandoned her in a rather shameful way, and she resolved to
be avenged and as cruelly as possible.

‘She conceived the plan of writing to the rector of the jesuits, in
the name of the Marquis of Louvois. The letter stated that a certain
cavalry officer would call on him, that the king desired that he
should be given twenty-five lashes by the corrector of his college in
the presence of three or four of most respectable monks. The letter
further stated that the victim should lean on the table and cross his
thumbs during the punishment, and that he should give ten louis to
the corrector and thank him for the correction given. It ended by an
order to the rector that he should give a detailed account of all that
happened.

‘While this ridiculous letter was being read by the jesuits and they
were rejoicing that they had the confidence of M. de Louvois, the
captain received one by the same hand ordering him to go on Friday
to the jesuit corrector, who would give him the king’s commands. He
impatiently awaited the day, and went to the college at the indicated
hour, 8 p.m. He was first shown into an inner room and there told the
orders which concerned him. These imbecile monks, who were unable to
understand that these orders, accompanied with so many ridiculous
circumstances, could not possibly have come from the court, pleaded
earnestly with the captain to submit. He was fool enough to believe
them, and indeed prepared himself for the flogging, which was soundly
administered. The treatment was accompanied with a reprimand which his
young lady had dictated. He gave ten louis to the corrector and thanked
him, and the jesuits promised to keep the affair secret.’

To understand better the educational methods of the jesuits, it is
preferable to consult their _Ratio studiorum_, published in 1599.
This _Ratio_ states that a punishment should only be given in a last
extremity. ‘Let not the master be in haste to punish: let him not push
his inquisition too far: let him pretend that he does not see all the
faults committed, if he can do so without compromising the interests of
the pupils.’

In another passage they are recommended to avoid corporal punishment
as much as possible, and in any case they are not to use the rod
themselves. A special corrector, attached to the establishment but not
a member of the order, was detailed for flogging. The corrector was a
servant, either the cook or the doorman; sometimes recourse was had to
a penniless workman of the district, who was given a few coppers for
fulfilling the office.

In the Toulouse province, at Rodez College for example, another plan
was used. The jesuits picked out a hefty scholar and educated him
gratis, on condition that he flogged his fellow-pupils when necessary.
The victim was fastened to the back of a chair, and the punishment took
place before the teacher and all the class. The number of strokes given
was usually from seventy to eighty, never less than forty; sometimes as
many as three hundred were given.

The victim was forbidden to cry out, and the flogger was ordered to
pause for a few seconds between each stroke so that the pain might be
greater.

During the reign of Louis XIV, public opinion pronounced in favour of
corporal punishment so vigorously that elected bodies thought it not
beneath their dignity to pick up the rods which had fallen from the
hands of too-indulgent teachers. And yet as a general thing, there
was little consideration shown for either age or condition, as the
following episode related by Saint Simon of the oldest son of the
Marquis de Boufflers will show.

This boy was fourteen years old, almost a young man, handsome,
well-built, clever, and very promising. He was a boarder with the
jesuits, along with the two sons of d’Argenson.

The fathers wished to show that they feared and favoured nobody, so
they flogged the boy, though as a matter of fact they had nothing
to fear from the Marquis. They were careful however not to touch
the other two, for they were liable to be called to account any day
by d’Argenson, lieutenant of police. Boufflers was so dismayed and
oppressed that he fell sick, and died in four days. There was a
universal outcry, but nothing happened.

In a society where the birch was looked on as an indispensable teaching
aid, indignation was unlikely to be long-lived, and so it was freely
used in town and country. We will mention one case, because it recalls
the name of a famous novelist. The grandfather of Restif de la Bretonne
gave his son, aged eighteen, three strokes with a whip which fetched
blood through his shirt, because he had spoken several times to a girl
without permission. This same son, now a father of fourteen children,
flogged them with more circumspection: in case of a serious punishment
he simply threatened them with the whip at first, and allowed a week to
pass between the threat and the flogging, so that it should impress the
child more.

This authority of the father over his children is still existent in
rural districts. The Goncourts relate in their _Journal_ that an old
friend of theirs, a doctor, had just married off his daughter. She
quarrelled with her husband. Her father caught her up under his arm,
turned up her skirts and unfastened her drawers, and soundly smacked
her. Then, turning to his dumbfounded son-in-law, he calmly said:
‘There, that’ll quieten her down a bit.’


In a list of the personnel of the Mazarin College, dating from
the eighteenth century, there appears this item: _Chevallier,
floor-polisher and corrector_. This humble official represented an
institution which had been preserved intact throughout the centuries.

‘How changed the times are!’ exclaimed Caraccioli, under Louis XVI.
‘Flogging is almost abandoned; conduct is governed more by honour than
punishment, though the indecent and barbarous method of flogging is not
yet entirely abolished.’

The rod was still a part of school equipment in the second half of
the eighteenth century. Besnard reports that the head of the college
where he studied always appeared in class armed with a flat strip of
whale-bone which had a silver ferrule at each end. He would use this on
the knuckles of inattentive pupils without any warning. He also kept a
rod and whip handy, and freely used them.

The cry of Erasmus’s student: _Væ nostris natibus_, was heard up to and
beyond the revolutionary epoch. One of the institutions which no-one
thought of attacking in the years preceding the cataclysm was this
one of fustigation. The Abbé Morellet states that he was flogged by
the jesuits every Saturday. Voltaire had a painful memory of blows
received. Marmontel, a student of philosophy, escaped a flogging only
by causing the whole college to revolt. La Reveillère-Lepeaux, a
day-boarder at a priest’s, attributed his deformity to the blows he was
always getting on his back. Lastly, G. de Pixérécourt the dramatist,
even goes so far as to say that his liability to gout was contracted in
early youth by his having to kneel on the threshold of the school to
receive the floggings he was always getting.

At Troyes College, a few years before the Revolution, the teacher of
rhetoric wanted to cane one of his pupils; the others were indignant
and cried out—a student of rhetoric, eighteen years old, to be punished
like a child! One voice was raised which thundered out above all the
rest. This young orator, whose first triumph this was, was no other
than Danton. The student whose part he had taken was Paré; the Minister
of Justice of 1792 made him Home Secretary in 1793. College friendships
are useful sometimes.

There are two countries, neighbours of ours, where the rod still has
a place of honour—we mean England and Germany. In America, flogging
has received the development we should expect in the land of Edison.
Some years ago the Chicago papers reported that the staff of the Denver
Industrial School for Girls had installed an electric flogging machine.
The apparatus consisted of a chair with an open seat on which the
victim, suitably unclothed, was placed. The chair was high enough to
allow four beaters, which were fixed under the seat, to revolve, more
or less rapidly, according to the wish of the operator, who had only
to press a button to set the machine in motion. The advantage of the
beaters was that the action was regular and imposed no fatigue on the
operator. Ingenious, but hardly likely to be used outside of America.

A correspondent relates in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, March, 1883,
that he saw a young man, six feet tall, flogged at an English college.
This man had bought a commission in a cavalry regiment and was to leave
in a few days to join up. Having copiously feted Bacchus to celebrate
the occasion, he was brought in dead-drunk, and for this breach of the
rules he was condemned to be flogged. Resigned to his fate, he was
given twelve strokes, and then quitted the college on the best of
terms with everyone.

The head of this college, Dr. Goodford, was convinced that the whip was
the best of teachers, and it was no kindness to youth to spare it. A
tale is related bearing on this point which, if not very credible, is
based on fact.

A pupil who had refused to be flogged had been sent down. Sometime
afterward, attacked by remorse, he went from Yorkshire to Eton to
undergo his punishment. Dr. Goodford had just gone to Switzerland, and
the young man asked where he could find him.

He bought the regulation birch, packed it in his trunk, and set out
to find his head-master. He missed him at Geneva, then at Lucerne,
but at last caught him up at St. Bernard’s. There Goodford, touched
by the recital of his odyssey, resolved to reward such praiseworthy
perseverance. And it was in the refectory of the monastery, in presence
of the monks who stood round gaping with wonder and admiration, that he
flogged him soundly. That done, and with lips pursed up, he gave him a
copy of Murray’s Guide as a present. Quite English, you know!

There is very little caning or flogging in the elementary schools
in England, whereas in the secondary schools corporal punishment is
common. It is the opposite in Germany. Children from six to fourteen
may be caned or whipped. Teachers are warned not to abuse this
punishment, which must be behind closed doors and in the presence
of another teacher and the head-master. If the pupil is a girl, the
regulation states that nothing should be done to offend modesty. Only
sick and delicate children are exempted. This mixture of sentimentalism
and brutality is very characteristic of prudish Germany.

[Illustration]



EXPERIENCES OF FLAGELLATION

_A Series of Remarkable Instances of Whipping Inflicted on Both Sexes._

[Illustration]

COMPILED BY

AN AMATEUR FLAGELLANT



EXPERIENCES OF FLAGELLATION

FLOGGING GIRLS


Discursive readers of weekly and monthly journals, and especially
of those organs which are addressed to the fair sex, are aware that
correspondence is among their leading features. Women’s papers are
usually half made up of questions and answers. One may say of their
patrons, as of the people in the days of Noah, that in these free
and frank columns they buy and sell, eat and drink, marry and are
given in marriage—for there barter-markets are established, whereby
the gentle merchants exchange old music for ostrich feathers and the
like; there cookery recipes by the score are asked for; while the love
affairs avowed and consulted upon are endless. We trust that we may
be permitted, for the edification of the general public, to draw upon
the treasures of a remarkable interchange of opinion appearing in this
way in our amiable contemporary _The Englishwoman’s Domestic Journal_.
It seems that the question had arisen whether or not it was desirable
or proper to flog children generally, and growing girls in particular.
We are not able to state the origin of the epistolary quarrel: our
attention has been arrested by the hot battle with which it closes, and
from it we shall glean the amazing views which certain English parents
seem to entertain respecting home discipline.

As far as we can gather, _A Perplexed Mamma_ began the controversy
by asking what she should do with her unruly girls; and, upon this,
_Pro-Rod, A Lover of Obedience_, and certain other enthusiasts for
domestic flogging, warmly recommended the birch. At the point of the
contest where we come in, this view is ardently sustained by a phalanx
of terrible mammas, sternly brandishing slippers, canes, or birch
twigs. _A Teacher of Troublesome Girls_ writes: ‘I should strongly
recommend _A Perplexed Mamma_ to try the effect of a smart whipping,
and I think if administered to the eldest it will very likely be
beneficial to the younger ones. I do not think the slipper of much use
as an instrument of punishment, unless for quite young children.’ _A
Schoolmistress_ takes the same view of the slipper as an instrument
of virtue, and advocates ‘uncovering the victim, and applying the
punishment to a portion of the frame morally most sensitive.’ These
connoisseurs in justice are backed by _Pater_, who appears to be both
father and mother to his hapless offspring. He says: ‘Two years ago I
lost my wife, having two daughters, aged twelve and fourteen years,
and found them completely defying control. I consulted with their
aunts on the mother’s side, and with several medical men, upon the
punishment of refractory girls and women in reformatories; all agreed
that whipping in the usual manner was the best mode to adopt, and that,
however severely the rod was applied, no personal injury would result,
nor would the health suffer. I therefore adopted this punishment, but
privately in my bedroom.’

To these awful aunts on the mother’s side and this reformatory
_Pater_, succeeds an unabashed _Lover of the Rod_, whose heart is
sad because she has observed of late years a tendency to go to a
perfect idolatry of children. This gentle creature applauds Solomon’s
precept—forgetting, apparently, that Rehoboam turned out a particularly
bad boy—and ‘heartily believes in the good old birch.’ She gives her
advice thus: ‘On the first occasion on which the girls show signs of
disobedience, order all three up to the mother’s bedroom, to wait
until she comes. I would keep them all three in suspense, as not
comprehending your intentions. Then I would provide myself either with
a good birchrod or cane (a cane is very severe), go upstairs, shut
the doors, at once tell the oldest one you are going to give her a
flogging. Doubtless she will feel much astonished and very indignant;
but if you are firm, and threaten to call in the servant to help
you, she will submit. There must be shame as well as pain in this;
but she has deserved them, in my opinion; and one such punishment,
in the presence of her two sisters, will do everything.’ But rod and
slipper are despised by _Another Lover of Obedience_. His method is:
‘When children commit an offence, I do not punish them at the time,
but order them to my bedroom some few hours after. The effect of my
discipline is such that they never fail to do so. When there they
are laid across the bed, their clothes removed, and from fifteen to
fifty smart strokes administered, the amount varying with the offence.
After this I can assure you they are perfectly docile for some time
to come. I have tried many systems, but find this to be the best. I
should advise all to follow this same plan; they will find it answer
remarkably well. Even at the age of eighteen, should my children
require it, I will administer corporal punishment.’ After such an
inventive enthusiast for obedience, who dexterously combines suspense
with agony, we must hold most reasonable the plea of another fond
parent, who thinks that there is nothing wrong in slapping baby ‘with
a satin slipper, to let it know there is a will superior to its own.’
This would seem to be the _elegantiæ_ of the Art, the very esthetics of
corporal punishment—were it not for the same mamma’s declaration that
she ‘detests the moral system.’ Should the baby grow up unimproved by
slipper, a resource is offered her, and those like her, by yet another
_Lover of Obedience_ who writes: ‘the editor has my address, and I hope
will be kind enough to give it any mother who may wish to send her
daughters to me for a few months; I will return them obedient and good.
I have never yet taken charge of young ladies, but would willingly do
so to prove my theory correct.’

With this ogress, panting for the screams and blood of victims whom she
offers to manufacture into slaves, we close our quotations on one side.
We owe it to the _Englishwoman’s Journal_ and Englishwomen generally,
that we should set off against these abominable letters a few of the
indignant protests which happily appear on the other side. Honour to
the _Lady of Title_ who hears with shame and a shock ‘the scenes that
seem to go on in some houses.’ Several _English Mothers_ express their
deep indignation and shame at the correspondence on the pro-rod side.


_Gentleness_ believes that such mothers and fathers ‘must have nigger
blood in them,’ and ‘have learned in suffering what they teach in
shame.’ _Martha_ ‘trusts that if a _Perplexed Mother_ attempts to
flog her eldest daughter the tables will be turned, and she may
suffer herself; then she will know whether corporal punishment is
effectual or not.’ _A Christian Parent_ says very rightly: ‘As for the
_English Mamma_ who has stated that she inflicts twenty strokes with
a birch upon her luckless offspring, she herself, by this admission,
most requires correction, and a sound scourging would be a fitting
punishment for such unwomanly brutality. Patience, gentleness, and
firmness are the qualities required in dealing with children and all
young people; but like produces like, and in each of the above cases
the violent and evil passions of the child are but inherited from
the father or mother. On the parents, therefore, the chief blame
should rest, and to discipline _themselves_ is my advice.’ _S. T. R._
concludes that some mothers are literally brute beasts, and does not
wonder that girls arriving at womanhood escape from such dens at any
cost of self-respect.

There are a few female professors of the art of domestic education
who advocate a little, just a little of the stick. _Trophime_ for
example would always leave the clothes on if the girl be sixteen; and
_Experience_ uses the rod only as a last resort. But the overwhelming
number of mothers, we are glad to say, hurl contempt and anathemas at
these cold-blooded _Lovers of Obedience_ who thus hate their own flesh;
and the preponderance of opinion is entirely with the moral system
which the lady who beats her baby with a slipper so naturally detests.


But what a picture of domestic misery and stupid cruelty is unveiled
by the other side of this extraordinary correspondence! No wonder that
girls go wrong and throw their womanhood away in sin and anguish, when
their youth is passed with fathers and mothers whose stupidity is such
that they confound brutality with discipline, and are not ashamed to
boast of the outrages they commit on their own flesh and blood. If we
have appeared to cite the complacent suggestions of such people with
patience, it is because no words of condemnation could be so severe as
their own description of themselves and their ways. To those parents
the great and sacred gift of children has come like pearls to swine.
Perhaps in many cases it is their heads more than their hearts which
are at fault, and their dense ignorance leaves them with no sense of
right. But, whatever may be the cause, that which they call love of
obedience is lust of powder and wicked impatience; they play the tyrant
over their helpless offspring and think themselves virtuous, while they
are absolutely criminal. If the secrets of all hearts were known, it
would probably be seen that the parents who flogged and tortured their
children for lies and evil conduct first taught them those offences by
their own characters, and deserved the rod much more thoroughly. This
correspondence is a serious thing; it reveals the existence of a whole
world of unnatural and indefensible private cruelty of which law ought
to have cognisance. We do not live in Roman times, when a parent might
sell a son into slavery or take his life. These are Christian days,
and each human soul has its dignity and its rights, to be respected
and enforced. It would do some of these smirking malefactors good to
be denounced and punished at the police court for what is not less an
assault with violence because it is committed by a child’s natural
protector. We have all learned from Mr. Rarey that whipping is the
worst way, and gentleness the best way, with horses, dogs, and the
dumb creation generally. We have abolished flogging in the army, and
it will linger only during this session in the navy. The cat is now
reserved as an indescribable disgrace for garotters in goal, and—as it
seems—for the tender girl-children of many a ‘respectable’ household.
Emphatically we denounce this relic of the past generation; we say that
to beat a girl-child is shameful and abominable, and never yet had any
result but mischief to the victim and degradation to the executioner.
As one reads these detestable confessions, there can no longer be any
surprise felt that young girls go astray, even from the homes of the
well-to-do classes. They escape from the vile discipline of the scourge
like maddened creatures, without a vestige of self-respect or honour.
We did not expect to find the ancient fallacy of Virtue taught by
Violence displaying its cloven feet in so many households.


_A Rector_ writes: ‘I am glad to see that the subject of the punishment
of children is again alluded to in your columns. I think it was
dropped too soon. Surely it is as important and interesting a subject
to Englishwomen as tight-lacing which has occupied more time and space
than this thoroughly practical and domestic question.

Although I am only in early middle life, I am old-fashioned enough to
regret the disuse of corporal punishment both at home and at school;
and, with many others, I believe that the loss of parental authority
and the precious independence and lawlessness of young persons, are due
in no small degree to this fact. No longer ago than my own childhood
it was otherwise. I and my brothers were whipped, and I believe we
are all the better for it. At any rate, we never doubted then or
since that our good mother was right; I have never loved or respected
her the less for our well-deserved punishment. Nor was the use of
the rod confined to boys. I remember we used to look with a sort of
awe upon a lady who lived near us and attended the same church with
a family of girls, because it was the current report that she was a
very strict disciplinarian and used the birch unsparingly. Nor could I
ever understand why girls should not be whipped just as much as boys,
if they deserved it. If the good old custom had not been allowed to
go out, there would not have been so many girls of the period at the
present day. A dignitary of the Church whom I know was so convinced of
this, that when he lost his wife he still occasionally used the rod
himself while his daughters were still children. In former times both
home governesses and schoolmistresses used the rod, both with boys and
girls, as a matter of course. I could quote instances in abundance in
proof of this; but things are changed now, and for the worse. The birch
is happily still used in all the older grammar schools for boys, but I
fear that in girls’ schools it is seldom heard of—at least, I should be
very glad to hear it if your correspondents can report otherwise.

I remember, some fifteen years ago, a boy told it me as a rather
wonderful thing that at the school where his sister was, they birched
the girls just like boys. Whether they do so still I do not know.
I shall be glad to say a few words more on this topic on a future
occasion.’


_Tiny_ agrees with the remarks made by _An English Lady_ on the
birchrod question. There is something in it perfectly revolting to
any refined female mind. If children are properly brought up, with a
clear knowledge of right and wrong, their education being based upon
sound religious teaching, depend upon it at fifteen years of age they
will not require such a degrading punishment. _Tiny_ is a mother, and
she would never punish her child in such a way, and were she positively
compelled to do so the pain and grief to herself would be far greater
than any the child would feel; and most certainly _Tiny_ would never
boast of the punishment as _A Mother_ does.

Children are gifted with reasoning powers, and should be taught that
their first duty is strict obedience—the unquestioning obedience which
is cheerfully given because they know no-one can have their welfare so
much at heart as their parents. And mothers should so act as to win
the respect of their children. How can an intelligent girl of fifteen
respect the mother who chastises her as she would an unruly spaniel?
Where such correction is needed, depend upon it the bringing up of the
child is at fault. Teach a child that her mother is her best friend,
enter into all her childish pleasures and sorrows, and at fifteen she
will be a companion, not a plague.


_A Scotch Mother_ says: It appears from the letters in your magazine
that some correspondent wishes further information on the subject
of whipping children. Now, before the subject closes, I would be
much obliged to any of your lady correspondents who would give me
information through your columns on the following points:—Whether a
whipping has more good effect on boys than girls—that is to say, which
requires the rod to be used most seldom; and also at what age can boys
be whipped by ladies, my opinion being that except at a very early age
few ladies can inflict a chastisement on boys sufficiently severe to be
remembered.’


In regard to the proper chastisement of the young, _Agnes_ writes:
‘While you have so many opinions expressed both for and against
corporal punishment for girls, perhaps the opinion of one who has
herself suffered during her youth may be acceptable.

Up to the age of sixteen I was educated at home, and I believe to a
certain extent spoiled. On arriving at that age I was placed at a
finishing school near Bath, in the charge of a lady who was dearly
loved by all her pupils, but at the same time did not fail to punish
them severely for their faults. At the same time I had a very bad
habit of boastful fibbing—a habit which she reprimanded very sternly
soon after I was placed there; this not having the desired effect, she
one morning sent for me to her sitting-room, and there told me of her
intention of endeavouring to effect a cure of this habit by inflicting
a whipping. I was then sent to my bedroom in charge of a governess,
to remove my underclothing, and on my return to the sitting-room, was
obliged to lie across an ottoman, while the punishment was inflicted
with a birchrod. I was somewhat resentful at the time, but have since
had much cause to be grateful, for two or three similar applications
completely cured me.

This is now eight years ago, and should I ever have any daughters, I
should not hesitate to treat them in a like manner.’


_The Husband of a Schoolmistress_ writes: ‘My wife keeps a
boarding-school for little girls. The youngest is just turned six; the
eldest about twelve. One of the pupils, just turned nine, was detected
in a moral offence. My wife took her into a private room alone and
chastised her with a rod. The mother called the following day, was
indignant, and removed the child. I claimed a quarter’s payment, in
lieu of notice. This was peremptorily refused. It was agreed that the
question should be referred to a neighbouring magistrate, a retired
barrister with a family of daughters. He heard the child’s statement
and that of the mother as to the marks on the child’s person. When they
had finished he asked my wife whether she had been in the habit of so
punishing her scholars; to which she answered in the affirmative. He
then said he did not wish to hear anything more from her, that his own
children were so corrected, and that the quarter’s payment in lieu of
notice must be paid.’


_A Rector_ writes: ‘It would be a difficult task to enumerate the
numberless authorities in favour of corporal punishment for children
from Solomon to our own day. Some of the greatest names would be
contained in the list. Thus Dr. Arnold always defended and advocated
this form of discipline, and practised it himself. The head of another
large public school, in his evidence before the Royal Commission,
not only declared it was the wisest and most efficacious form of
punishment, but said it had a good effect upon the mind and body of
children—it quickens the circulation of the blood, and is therefore
specially beneficial to children of sluggish temperament and dull
understanding. I believe he quoted the opinion of medical men in
support of this.[1] It has a good effect also as teaching that sin
brings pain. It is nonsense to talk of reasoning with children.
Authority is what they require. Reason will come in due time, but the
first duty of the parent is to secure obedience. Many parents are
evidently most unfit for their responsible position and have no right
to be parents. They will only bring up undisciplined children who will
cause misery to themselves and others. Many of your correspondents are
evidently of this class of ignorant and silly parents. If children
are properly brought up, the use of the rod will become less frequent
as they grow older, till it will be altogether laid aside, and a word,
a look, or a remonstrance will be enough. Many children nothing but
pain will subdue; passionate children, sulky and obstinate children,
and those addicted to falsehood and idleness, are such. A prompt and
severe whipping will do what hours of reasoning or pleading will not
effect, and this is better for the child and the parent too. There is
no punishment that girls and boys dread so much as a whipping. It is a
real punishment and a personal one, while many of the substitutes for
it are unequal, unfair, injurious, and ineffective.’

  [1] For a full discussion of the stimulating powers of flagellation,
  see: MEIBOMIUS—A Treatise on the Utility of Flogging in Medicine and
  Venery.


_A Schoolmistress_ writes: ‘I am rejoiced to see that the subject of
the personal chastisement of children is again being brought forward.
Now no one has tested the exceeding efficacy of the systematic use of
the rod more than I have done, so I gladly give my experience—extending
now over thirty-five years. Up to twelve years of age I was brought
up by my aunt, who kept up my father’s house (my mother died when I
was very young). During this time no attempt was made to correct
by physical pain (except of the mildest description) my many evil
propensities and bad habits; but after I was twelve, my father married
again, and I was sent to a boarding-school in Norwich where, when I
had been about three weeks, I had my first whipping. I had been guilty
of gross misconduct, and told a lie to screen myself. The punishment
inflicted on me was the beginning of my entire reformation.

I shall never forget that first whipping, how I was told after prayers
to go to Mrs. S.’s private room; how, after a most loving reprimand,
I was told that as reproof had failed to do me good, I must prepare
to be whipped. Mrs. S. then rang the bell, and giving to the maid who
answered it a long woollen dress which she took from a hanging closet,
bade her see that I put that on and came back to her. The maid, an old
confidential servant, took me into Mrs. S.’s bedroom, made me undress
and don the long woollen garment, which fastened round the waist with a
band and was open down each side from the waist to the feet. I then was
bidden to put my feet in a pair of list slippers. This being done, the
maid, carrying off all my clothes to my own bedroom, requested me to
go back to the room where I had left Mrs. S., and give four knocks at
the door. Instead of doing this, I lingered in the passage, where the
maid found me a few minutes afterwards. She told me to follow her. I
did so, and she remained till I had knocked four times at the door. On
being told to enter, I found Mrs. S. sitting at a table reading, but on
the table lay a long lithe rod; pushing the table on one side, she took
up the rod, pointed to a long narrow stool, which I afterwards knew
as the Horse, and told me to lie across it. The previous preparation
and Mrs. S.’s manner so awed me that I submitted. I then found myself
buckled across by a strap across the horse. I heard Mrs. S. fasten the
door and draw a heavy curtain across it. She then very quickly folded
the back part of the woollen dress—which was open on each side from the
waist to the feet—above the waist; then very briefly speaking of my
faults, she grasped the rod and gave me very deliberately a most severe
birching. Of course I screamed, and shrieked, and implored, but the rod
pursued its destined course and did its destined work. The stinging
pain, the after-feeling and marks, the present shame, the necessary
submission, the ceremony observed—all did their work; and as I took my
course to bed, I felt the first overthrow of the old rebellious nature.
From that time till I was sixteen I had to pay seven similar visits,
and go through even more severe whippings. But behold the fruit! At
nineteen I became a teacher in the same school; I remained for ten
years Mrs. S.’s most trusted assistant. I have now for many years had
a school of my own, and I myself administer corporal punishment in
precisely the same way as I have described, and we have never known it
to fail. Dozens of pupils, in their happy after-lives, have gratefully
thanked me for my discipline. I am most anxious that this should be
made public, and will gladly furnish many special cases and give all
information.’


_A Rejoicer in the Restoration of the Rod_ says: ‘I call myself by
this title because I do most firmly believe that a great many of the
acknowledged evils of the present age—undutiful children, and reckless,
heedless young men and women—arise from so many parents and teachers
having of late years neglected a most essential duty in not using
sufficient and proper corporal punishment. But from all I hear a great
reaction is taking place in this respect. And though there may be many
loving mothers, like _Tiny_, who shrink from it, yet I rejoice that
true love is being more shown in duty triumphing over sentiment, and
that the birchrod is regaining its old place both among boys and girls;
so much so that I believe it is a very rare thing to find a preparatory
school for boys—especially those conducted by ladies—where the rod is
not more or less used. I know one most excellent school of this kind
in Kentish Town, where there are boys from six to fourteen, and where
the very kind and good ladies who manage it, and who always have more
applications for admission than they can receive, administer the rod
in a way which, if _A Scotch Mother_ could witness, would effectively
negative her idea of ladies not being able to birch a boy worth
mentioning after he ceased to be a little boy.’


_Florence_ thus narrates her experience: ‘Both my brother and myself
were spoiled in the fullest sense of the word. My father spoiled me,
and my mother spoiled my brother. However, when I was fourteen years of
age my parents were compelled to go abroad for mamma’s health, and I
was left under the guardianship of a maiden aunt, who quickly decided
that a strict school was the best place for me.

To a school in Hertfordshire I was accordingly sent, the mistress
having been previously informed that I was a child of wayward
disposition. I had not been there a week before the spirit of
opposition which pervaded me, as my aunt used to term it, got me into
hot water, and I was ordered to bed. I had not been undressed many
minutes when Miss Margaret, one of the principals, came into the
bedroom and, after lecturing me on my conduct, told me she intended
to whip me. She then rang the bell, and one of the maids brought a
birch, and I was told to prepare, which I flatly refused to do. As I
was rebellious, the maid tied my hands together with a towel, the ends
of which were fastened to a peg high up on the wall, so that I could
only just reach the floor with the tips of my toes. Miss Margaret then
gave me a severe flogging. Finding I was obstinate, after a minute or
two she desisted and left the room, leaving me with the maid. I tried
hard to get off the peg, but could not. When Miss Margaret returned she
asked me whether I was sorry. “No” I shouted. “Then I must whip you
again,” she said, suiting the action to the word. This second whipping
was too much for my spirit, and I begged for forgiveness. The rest
of the day I did not cease crying, not so much from the pain as from
mortification that I had met my match and been conquered. Strange as it
may seem, from that day to the present I have loved Miss Margaret, and
felt her to be a true friend.

As I believe great benefit has resulted from corporal punishment, I
think it right to advocate it, for I know from observation that if our
faults are not corrected when we are young, we generally suffer in a
far harder school when we grow up.’


_Mrs. L. Gray_ writes: ‘Being a mother of three daughters, the eldest
being thirteen and the youngest nine years old, who have, up to the
present time, given me great trouble in managing, I have determined,
since reading the letters in your last number signed _Agnes_ and _A
Schoolmistress_, as a last resource, to whip them. I am sure many of
your subscribers and myself would feel greatly obliged to the lady
who signed herself _A Schoolmistress_ if she would kindly give us a
few instances where whipping has proved effective, and if she or any
of your readers will inform me how old I may pursue that course of
correction, as I have had a niece put under my care whose parents
are in India, who is very wilful and disobedient, and, being nearly
sixteen, I do not know how to punish her without whipping her. I should
feel greatly obliged to any of your readers who would kindly let me
know through your columns of a shop where I could get good birchrods
from in London, as I am going to reside there in future. I am sure you
would be conferring a boon on parents if you could publish the many
letters that have appeared upon the chastisement of children, when the
correspondence closes, in a separate book.’


From Philadelphia, _A Sister_ writes: ‘You have a subject discussed in
your magazine which at this present time is very interesting to me. I
refer to the personal chastisement of children. My case is this. I
have my two younger sisters to bring up (their mother being dead), and
I feel great difficulty in making them obey. They are often extremely
disobedient and naughty. The only punishment that I have inflicted on
them is a box on the ears, or sending them to bed, neither of which I
find does them any good. Their father has given me full control over
them, and says if I find it well to whip them to do so; but I would
first like to ask some elder sister who has had the bringing up of
some younger ones if it is well for a sister to administer corporal
punishment? I see none of the letters in your magazine are from
sisters, or I would not have troubled you with this. I see most of your
correspondents advocate a bunch of twigs as the best instrument of
correction. I should like to ask if they leave any marks for any length
of time, when applied without covering; because I do not wish to be too
severe, although I should like the punishment to be effectual.

By inserting this as soon as possible, you will greatly oblige.’


A lady, signing _Experience_, writes: ‘As many of your readers seem
anxious to know how to punish girls of fifteen years old and upwards, I
take the liberty of informing you that about three years ago my eldest
girl gave me a good deal of trouble by disregarding my directions and
orders. She was then turned sixteen, was home from school for her
holidays, and evidently thought that under those circumstances she was
entitled to do just what she pleased.

I spoke to her two or three times very seriously, and at last
threatened that if she continued to disregard what I said to her I
should be compelled to enforce my orders with the birch. When my
children were little I had been used, if they were naughty, to lay
them across my knee and whip them with my slipper or a small birchrod,
but now this mode of procedure was not available, as my daughter was
too big for that treatment, and would only laugh at the slight pat
she would receive. It being a real struggle for the mastery, it was
important that my authority should be supported, and if it were not for
this I do not think that I should have whipped her at all. What I did
was this: I bought a birch broom and took from it twenty long, stiff,
and bushy switches, tied them together with string, the handle being
about as thick as my wrist.

Shortly after it was made I had occasion to use it. I first lectured
the culprit, and then pinioned her arms behind her back, laid her
across a sofa, and applied the birch sharply. She promised amendment,
and I left off, telling her at the same time that I would whip her
again if she broke her word. Before a week was over she had done so,
and I was afraid that what I had done was useless, perhaps worse.
However, I determined to give it another trial. I did so, this time
making her first remove her drawers. I gave her twenty strokes
deliberately, and with excellent effect, for since she has conducted
herself well, and I have not had to repeat the experiment. My advice
to mothers is this: Do not use the rod unless you are absolutely
obliged, but if you do use it make it smartly felt. It is no disgrace
to a girl to be whipped by her mother—the disgrace is in deserving it.
Boys of the very highest birth are constantly flogged by their fathers
and masters, and why should not a girl be whipped by her mother or
governess.’

_Alice de V._ writes: ‘Surely if the letters upon chastising children
are real, they cannot be written by _ladies_, but must come from those
who are “born in the garret—in the kitchen bred,” “whose ‘usbands
keep ‘orses, and ‘unt the ‘ounds three times hevery week.” No wonder
we hear such things of the modern girl when there are such mammas in
the world! Why do they not civilize themselves, correct their own
evil dispositions and set a good example to their children, instead
of chastising them for being small editions of their coarse-minded
mammas? I am confident that whipping girls degrades them and takes away
every feeling of self-respect and modesty. I think the letter from _A
Schoolmistress_ conclusively proves this.’


_A Musicmaster_ writes: ‘I have read the correspondence relating to
the personal chastisement of young ladies in your pages with great
interest; and as your correspondent who signs himself _Rector_ seems to
doubt its application, I just write a few lines from my own personal
observation to convince him to the contrary. I am a teacher of music
in five schools conducted by ladies, and in two of these the most
strict discipline is kept up. When I am giving a music lesson the lady
principal remains in the room, and the pupils keep coming one at a
time to have their ciphering and writing books inspected; and if these
are untidily kept or the pupil has not been diligent, she is ordered
to hold out her hand, and receives several smart slaps on the palm
with an instrument which I will proceed to describe. It consists of a
leathern strap, narrowed at one end to fit the hand of the mistress,
and divided at the other end into five tails. The consequence is that
each strip of leather inflicts a separate blow upon the pupil’s hand;
and the punishment, although sufficiently severe, leaves no bruise
upon the hand, a great advantage over the cane. With this strap there
is no danger of seriously damaging the hand, and the pain, though
severe, soon passes off; and it has this advantage over the birch, that
there is no exposure, and the age of the pupil is of no consequence.
This, I think, is of great importance, as my experience has convinced
me that it is not always the youngest pupils in a school who require
correction.

I have frequently seen this punishment applied to the hands of pupils
of sixteen years of age, and I am quite sure it is productive of
the most beneficial effects. I am certain most of your readers will
agree with me that the use of the birch is quite out of the question
with young ladies of this age; and the most convincing proof of the
utility of this kind of punishment lies in the fact that in both of
these schools where corporal punishment is inflicted the lessons are
invariably gone through better than in any of the other three where it
is not used, and the behaviour of the pupils is much more ladylike.
To my mind this mode of punishment is by far the best, and it is
easily applied. The age of the pupil is not of much importance, and
the palm of a young lady’s hand is sufficiently sensitive to allow
of a tolerably severe punishment being inflicted; and my opinion is
that punishment should be seldom inflicted, but when it is required
it should be sharp and severe. It is very seldom indeed that I am
compelled to report a pupil to the principal, but whenever I am
compelled to do so punishment is promptly inflicted, and the girl is
always more attentive at the next lesson. In conclusion, I must say
that I cannot understand why this kind of punishment on the hand, to
which boys are so freely subjected, should be considered inapplicable
to young ladies.’


_Medical Student_ writes: ‘With regard to the whipping of girls, I
think that as this is the age of the ladies, there is no reason why
girls should not be whipped as well as boys. But let me remind some of
your correspondents that the days when Milton was whipped at Oxford are
long gone by, and if the girls require to be whipped at sixteen they
will require it all their lives. I suppose that their husbands are the
only persons on whom the duty will devolve after they have left the
paternal mansion. Now, as husbands are punished for thrashing their
wives, why should not schoolmistresses be punished for doing the same
by young ladies of sixteen committed to their care?’


_Gratitude_ writes: ‘I own, as you see, one of the most honoured
names in England, and call myself _Gratitude_ because I am anxious
to show my gratitude for the fact that I owe my present position as
a useful happy English lady to the firm discipline I experienced at
the very turning-point of my life. I was brought up in a loving home
and had every possible advantage; but amidst it all I became sullen,
self-willed, disobedient and idle. I was the grief of my parents and a
byword to my companions.

However, soon after I was fifteen I most fortunately was sent to Mrs.
—’s school for young ladies, in Brighton, where I showed the same evil
disposition which I had evinced elsewhere, but where, most fortunately
and happily for me, it was checked and cured.

In school and out of it, during the first month, Mrs. — and the other
teachers reproved me, set me tasks and kept me in. But I only grew
worse; and one night after I had refused to do an imposition, Mrs.
— came and sat in my room after I was in bed and talked to me most
impressively. The next day, however, the effect of what she had said
wore off, and I was as bad as ever.

But a change was at hand, for in the evening, when we had just gone to
our bedrooms, Mrs. — again came to me, and said: ‘Miss W., you will
to-night occupy the dressing-room adjoining my room. I will show
you the way.” I was half inclined to disobey. However, I followed my
governess through her bedroom and across a small sitting-room which
opened out of it into a room comfortably furnished, in which was a
small low bed, and telling me to undress and go to bed, Mrs. — left
me, locking the door after her. I had been in bed about a quarter of
an hour when Mrs. — came to me, holding in her hand a long birchrod.
Placing the rod and the candlestick on the table, she told me that but
one course was now open to her after my behaviour, and that she was
going to flog me, and I was to get up. But though the twigs of the
birch stood out in ominous shadow in front of the candlestick, and
while I noted the thin, closely wrapped bundle of that rod and its
fanlike top, I never attempted to obey. Three times she told me to get
up, but I stirred not. Mrs. — returned to her own room, and came back
with a small thin riding whip, and said: ‘Must I use this?” There was
something about her which quite awed me—it was more her manner than her
tall powerful figure—and as she swung that whip about in her hand I at
once stepped out of bed and stood before her. “Give me your hands,”
she said, but I put them behind me, when slash across my shoulders
came six or seven smart strokes of her whip, and screaming I put out
my hands, which she fastened together with a cord at the wrists. Then
making me lie down across the foot of the bed face downwards, she very
quietly and deliberately, putting her left hand round my waist, gave
me a shower of smart slaps with her open right hand—a proceeding which
so surprised and humiliated my proud self that I could hardly believe
in my own identity, and as I screamed and struggled, she merely said:
“This is for not doing _now_ as I told you, and it will not only punish
you for _that_, but will increase the pain of the birching I am now
going to give you.”

Mrs. — then, as I lay, spoke to me for a few minutes with great
kindness and earnestness. She then rose, took the birch in her right
hand, and stooping over me, pressed her left hand tightly on my
shoulder so as to hold me as if I were in a vice; then raising the
birch, I could hear it whizz in the air, and oh, how terrible it felt
as it came down, and as its repeated strokes came swish, swish,
swish, on me! yet I felt, spite of the terrible stinging pain, that I
deserved it all—and it _was_ painful! I was a stout fair girl, and very
sensitive to pain. I screamed, I protested, I implored, but it was of
no avail; Mrs. — heeded not my cries, but held me down and birched on
till she had finished a whipping which seemed to have lasted an age,
but which quite changed my character. At last it _was_ over. I was
permitted to rise, my hands were unbound, and, burning and smarting,
I raised my tear-stained face to my true friend’s, on whose face no
sign was visible of the slightest anger or passion. Calm and serene,
she wished me good-night and left me conquered. Henceforward I was
a different girl; and though a few weeks afterwards I relapsed, yet
another night spent in Mrs. —’s dressing-room and another similar
application by her of that wonder-working birch—I did exactly as she
told me this time—sufficed finally to cure me. I became cheerful,
obedient, unselfish. My parents and friends the next holidays could
hardly believe that I was the same girl. I stayed three years at
Brighton, leaving when I was nineteen with much regret. I am now
twenty-four, and hope to be married at Easter to _the best man in the
world_ who never _could_ have loved me had not sensible wholesome
discipline changed my evil nature, as _the_ means under God of doing
so. I am thankful to publish my experience, and so to express not only
my gratitude, but confirm what others have so well said and told on
this subject.’


_Emma_ writes: ‘A while ago I undertook to bring up two nieces of the
ages of twelve and fourteen. I soon found them to be most stubborn
tempers and impudent. Thus they have often caused me much trouble and
annoyance. Though not an advocate of corporal punishment, I was much
struck with the description by _A Schoolmistress_ of a most ceremonious
method of inflicting punishment that I determined to follow exactly the
same method and try it the same morning.

I prepared a woollen dress; not being able to procure a birch, I sent
and had made a pair of very pliant leather taws. In the afternoon I
found the eldest of my nieces in a gross fault, and on being found
fault with she was very pert. I therefore took her to my bedroom
and made her don the garment and follow me to the drawing-room, she
never thinking for a moment of what was to follow. I then quietly told
her of her bad conduct for some time past, and that I was determined
to try what a whipping would do. On ordering her to lie across an
ottoman, she distinctly refused. I told her if she did not at once
comply I would ring for a servant to compel her. Still refusing, I
rang for assistance. Hearing the servant coming upstairs, and seeing
me determined, she lay down rather than be seen by the servant in this
predicament, wherefore I went to the door and sent the servant back.
I then fastened her across the ottoman and proceeded to administer a
few strokes of the taws, which soon elicited cries for forgiveness
and promises for future good conduct, but being determined to try the
efficacy of this method, I continued until I had given her a severe
flogging. I then allowed her to rise, and on her knees to thank me for
the correction, then sent her off to bed for the day. Up to this time
the perfect subjection and submission of this girl is such that I most
heartily recommend all parents and guardians to try the same method
in all cases of disobedience. I think that in all whippings of grown
children a large amount of cool ceremony is most effectual.’


_An Old Boy_ writes: ‘Since the question of the efficacy of corporal
punishment seems to give rise to a great variety of opinions, I venture
to give mine.

When a boy I was educated at Christ’s Hospital, and I assure you the
birch was not neglected there. Punishment was sometimes inflicted
privately, but when the offence was serious due publicity was given it.
The offender after supper was made to stand opposite the warden’s desk
and hold the instrument of torture in his hand (it being customary for
punishments to be doled out after that meal). When the boys had retired
(with the exception of the ward to which the delinquent belonged, who
were ordered to remain in their seats), two of the school porters were
summoned, and the offender was told to prepare himself. He was then
hoisted on the back of one of the porters, when the other with great
deliberation proceeded to remove all unnecessary clothing by tucking
the inner garment beneath the back of his coat, and after having
measured his distance, commenced the punishment, always allowing a
little time between each stroke so as to give them due effect. The
offender, having received the allotted number, was let down, and after
finishing his toilet was allowed to retire with his fellows, who
generally condoled with him if he bore it well.

After once receiving a punishment of this kind it seldom required to be
repeated. But it would be a good thing if schoolmasters, guardians and
parents would study the characters of the children committed to their
charge, as they would soon ascertain what punishment would be most
effectual.

I am convinced that flogging does not suit every case, though it might
be effectual in extreme ones; but I think it is a great mistake to
suppose that that is the only punishment that ought to be inflicted,
as in some cases a word is more effectual, especially with sensitive
children. I am surprised that girls should require such correction, but
I am acquainted with one or two to whom a good wholesome flogging would
indeed be a great boon to themselves and their parents.’

_G. A. N._ writes: ‘A neighbour told me a few nights ago the mode she
adopted for curing her daughter, aged sixteen, of the baneful habit of
pilfering. She had discovered the girl in the very act of taking money
from a drawer in the bedroom, and this being the third time the girl
had been detected, she determined to give her a good whipping and,
having bought a rod for the purpose, told the culprit to go to her
bedroom and prepare by taking off her drawers. In a few minutes she
went upstairs and, having fastened the girl across the bed, birched her
severely. The fruit of the punishment was, that from that time the girl
improved, and is now finally cured.’


_Miss C._ had several apprentices, on some of whom she inflicted the
punishment of the rod. She was not very sorry when they gave her an
opportunity of handling this instrument of pleasure and pain.

Among her apprentices was a slip of a girl addicted to thieving, and
though she had whipped her often for it with severity, the girl did not
amend in the least.

One day as she was going to whip her for stealing some ribbons, one of
the workwomen who had been in Paris for many years told her, if she
was to dip the rod in vinegar as she had seen it done in France, it
would sting her the more._ Miss C._ followed her advice, dipped the end
of a new rod in vinegar, and whipped the girl with it; and it smarted
so sore that she never pilfered again.


_The True Story of Father Girard and Miss Cadière._

One day Girard informed his penitent that she was to be favoured by
a remarkable vision, during which she would (by spiritual agency) be
drawn up into the air, he alone, as her spiritual Father would be
permitted to witness this manifestation; but Miss Cadière, at the
appointed time, was not in a willing mood, in spite of the Holy man’s
threats and entreaties. She resisted the spiritual influence, held fast
to her chair, and would not permit herself to be drawn up. Finding his
expostulations useless, the Father quitted the room in a rage, and sent
Guiol to rebuke his pupil. Although Miss Cadière, when in a calmer
mood the same evening, asked pardon and promised future obedience,
Girard determined that her crime should be expiated by a heavy penance.

The next morning, accordingly, he visited her and, flourishing a
discipline, said: ‘God demands in his justice that you, having refused
to allow yourself to be invested with His gifts, should now, in
punishment for your sins, undress yourself and be chastised. Truly have
you deserved that the whole Earth should witness this infliction on
you; but God has graciously permitted that only I and this wall (which
cannot speak) should be witnesses of your shame. But beforehand, swear
to me an oath of fidelity, for both you and I would be plunged into
ruin if the secret was discovered.’

Girard had his desire, Miss Cadière humbly submitted to discipline, and
the scene which followed we must leave the reader to imagine.


_The Knout applied to an Empress._

When the Empress Eudoxia was sentenced by her husband, Peter the Great,
to undergo the punishment of the knout on a charge of infidelity,
she no sooner saw the dreadful apparatus than, to avoid torture, she
readily confessed every species of criminality they were inclined to
lay to her charge. She owned every amorous intrigue with which she was
accused, and of which, to all appearance, till that horrible moment,
she never had the least idea. She was however condemned to undergo the
discipline, which was administered by two ecclesiastics in full chapter.


_The King of Fiji and his Wives._

In a recent work on Fiji and the Fijians there is a graphic account of
the marriage ceremony or contract as observed in this savage region.
The misery of the woman begins directly after the ceremony. If she be
young and pretty the old big-fisted wives turn their venom against her
and do all they can, by mauling and ill-treatment, to render her as
unsightly as themselves. If she be of the brawny sort, as well able
to give as to take a thrashing, then she is hated, and all sorts of
secret means are used to work her ruin. As may be easily imagined,
these domestic brawls occasionally interfere with the peace of the
lord of the establishment. What does the despotic husband do in such a
case? Does he go out and reason with the rowdies? Does he use gentle
persuasion? Does he! He has by him a stout stick kept for the purpose,
and he lays about him till order is restored.

The staff used by the king for this purpose was inlaid with ivory, but
did not on that account give less pain.


_Punishment of the Knout in Russia._

Olearius gives a description of the manner in which he saw the knout
inflicted on eight men and one woman, only for selling brandy and
tobacco without a licence. The executioner’s man, after stripping them
to the waist, tied their feet and took one at a time on his back. The
executioner stood at three paces distance with a large pizzle, to the
end of which were fastened three raw-hide thongs. Blood flowed at every
blow.

After their backs were thus terribly mangled, they were whipped through
the city of Petersburg for about a mile and a half, and then dismissed.


_Wife Beating._

The wife of an old negro on the neighbouring estate of Anchovy had
lately forsaken him for a younger lover. One night when she happened to
be alone, the incensed husband entered her hut unexpectedly, abused her
with all the rage of jealousy, and demanded the clothes to be restored
which he had previously given her. On her refusal he drew a knife, and
threatened to cut them off her back; nor could she persuade him to
depart until she had received a severe beating.
                                               _Monk Lewis’s Journal._


_The Flagellating Monks and the Bear._

At Lent time, when religious fraternities are accustomed to inflict on
themselves certain discipline, there was in a certain Italian city a
confraternity of Penitents. A pastry-cook in the same city had a tame
bear which ran about the streets, doing no harm to anyone. Wandering
about one evening, it found its way into the chapel (the door of which
was open), coiled itself up in a corner and went to sleep. When the
penitents were all assembled, the door was locked, and after a short
exhortation from the altar, they spread themselves about the chapel.
The light was hidden behind a pillar; the most zealous commenced by
inflicting punishment on themselves, an example that was soon followed.
The noise woke up the bear who, in trying to make his way out, stumbled
against the penitents who, with their breeches down, were inflicting
castigations.

The bear felt with his paw to find what it was; from one behind he
passed on quietly to another; and the penitents in their fear began
to think it was the devil who had come there to disturb them in their
devotions. Their suspicions became a certainty, when the bear passing
by the pillar where the light was, they saw his shadow on the wall.
It was who could get to the door first! And to this day nothing would
convince these worthy disciplinarians that they had not received a
visit from the arch fiend in person.


_A Conjugal Scene._

‘Let you go, my angel! What, just as I have recovered my lost treasure!
No, let them come in and see how naughty children are punished when
they rebel against lawful authority.’

So saying, he came tripping across the room and flung the door open,
admitting into a somewhat odd scene. Fifine was tied across a heavy
chair in the middle of the room, crying as if her heart would break,
her clothes turned up with the utmost precision, while the ugliest old
man I ever saw was administering a whipping, which had already been
severe, judging from the state of her hips and her tear-stained swollen
face.

‘Pardon, ladies,’ he said with an odious leer. ‘Shall not a man do what
he likes with his own? This lady is my runaway wife, my chattel, my
goods: and who shall forbid my chastising her when I find her?’

                                    _Merry Order of St. Bridget._


_Fanciful Flogging._

She got hold of a book out of the library about the feminine customs of
Rome, and she resolved to make me attend upon her toilet as the slaves
of Roman ladies did. So she looked up a short tunic which was among
the fancy dresses, and the next morning she made me go and strip, and
come back to her with nothing on but this garment, which was just like
a sack, with short sleeves only, of soft white merino trimmed with red
satin. It did not come to my knees, and my legs and feet were bare
except for a pair of red sandals.

‘Now take care what you are about, Perkins,’ she said. ‘I am going to
deal with you exactly as the ladies in Rome dealt with their slaves.’

‘But I am not a slave, my lady,’ I said, pertinently enough, I dare
say, for I felt angry. ‘There are no slaves here.’

‘You are mine as long as you are in this room,’ she replied. ‘When my
toilet is sufficiently completed I shall punish you for that speech.’
She made me bathe her and dress her hair, and then before she put on
her stays she said quite calmly: ‘Bring the rod.’ I brought it, and she
made me kiss her and beg her pardon for what I had said; and then I
knelt on the couch, and she whipped me till she was tired—and I, well,
I did not get over it for a long time.

                                                       _Merry Order._


_Revelations of Boarding-School Practices._

At the age of seventeen I was sent to a boarding-school near Exeter.
I was sent there owing to the influence of my aunt, who was always
praising this establishment up to mamma, and strongly recommending it
as a finishing academy for young ladies. My aunt was a maiden lady of
forty, a fine, tall, buxom woman.

Neither myself nor my mamma ever thought she was an advocate of the
rod, and liked administering, and seeing it administered. It turned out
afterwards, as the narrative will show, that she was really in league
with the schoolmistress, and would frequently call at the establishment
and indulge herself in her favourite pastime, for which she no doubt
paid large sums yearly, being a strong and fervent advocate of corporal
chastisement, at times an unseen observer and with some of the elder
young ladies being the operator. In all there were twenty-four young
ladies in this fashionable establishment, their ages varying from
twelve to nineteen. I was as tall, finely-shaped, and handsome as any
young lady in the school, and no doubt when mamma gave her consent to
my leaving home, my aunt thought there was a great treat in store for
her.

A few days after arriving, I soon found out what sort of lady principal
I had to contend with, and her assistants were not much better. The
first sample I saw her administer to one of her pupils was after I had
been there four days. A young lady about fifteen had committed some
trifling error, for which madam told her in plain terms that she should
give her a good whipping when class was over, and this she did and
in front of the whole school. She was taken by the arms and legs by
two of the assistant teachers, and thrown face downwards over a desk
sloping each way and firmly held there. Madam then approached with a
flat piece of wood about an inch and a half in thickness and shaped
like a hair-brush, but much bigger. After addressing a few words of
advice to us and admonishing the culprit, she took hold of her garments
at the bottom, then without any further to do she lifted the spanker,
as this piece of wood was called by my school fellows, and inflicted
a tremendous spank on the girl. A loud yell followed, and a strong
effort to free herself from the grasp of her tormentors, but all of no
avail, for they, no doubt owing to their previous experience, could
hold a young lady in any position. She received about a dozen stripes
before she was released.

We had a system of making so many marks, and if any young lady had not
made so many by the end of the week she was sure to receive a whipping.
I have known as many as seven young ladies whipped on a Saturday. It
was at these whippings that my aunt and her friends were present as
unseen spectators, through the medium of small glass panels let in the
door of a nearby closet.

During my two years at this establishment I was whipped several times.
I shall never forget my last experience. I think the lady principal
had made up her mind that I should be flogged on the Saturday, for at
the early part of the week, however well I did my lessons, fault was
found with me, and I got careless towards the end. On Saturday I found
my name on the Black List, as it was called. I was number three on the
list, my two schoolfellows, both girls about fourteen, had gone in and
received their portion and, as usual, had been dismissed to bed. I was
then ordered in. I need not tell you that I entered the room trembling
from head to foot. Madam called me by my Christian name, and informed
me she was very sorry to have to inflict punishment on such a big girl,
but the rules of the school must be enforced, winding up by ordering
me to prepare for punishment. I dropped on my knees and begged her to
take into consideration my age and size; in fact I hardly remember what
I did say. She was inexorable and, with a smile on her face, ordered
me to obey, or she would have to call assistance and my punishment
would be much more severe. I made some remark, when she seized me by my
beautiful long hair and beat me about my ears, head, cheeks and arms
with the birch, until I was compelled to give in and promise obedience
in future.

Soon after, I found means to send a letter to my mamma, informing her
of the circumstances related above. She accordingly took steps for my
early removal, and I was soon afterwards married, but my mamma and aunt
have never been friends or spoken to each other since.


_Flogging at Sea._

However the arbitrary disposition and impetuous temper of Governor
Wall may have been attenuated by years and reflection, the following
anecdote, which the writer had from an eye-witness, has served to show
that Wall, in the infancy of his appointment, evinced a species of
vigour competent to defer mutiny, even in a part more desperate than
Goree. This garrison, so desperate in name, was every way orderly,
and during the kind and humane command of Capt. Lacy, flogging was
abolished altogether on the remonstrance of the surgeon. Stopping their
grog was found more than sufficient to check all irregularities.

Amongst the recruits consigned to his command on his passage outwards,
was an unfortunate man named Green, who formerly kept a hatshop in
London and who, under a conviction for some crime, was sentenced to
fourteen years transportation. His wife, an amiable but heartbroken
woman, was permitted to accompany him on the voyage.

Shortly after the vessel had sailed from the Downs, symptoms of mutiny
were discovered among the convicts. Several had sawn off their irons,
and Green was charged, not with any act of mutiny, but with furnishing
the convicts with money to procure the implements for taking off
their irons. The unfortunate man stated in his vindication that he
had only lent some of the men a few shillings to take some sheets and
other necessaries out of pawn. But his defence would not do. He was
brought to the gangway by order of the Governor, and without any trial
was flogged with a boatswain’s cat until his bones were denuded of
flesh. But the unfortunate man never uttered a groan. The Governor,
who superintended the punishment, swore he would conquer the rascal’s
stubbornness and make him cry out, or whip his guts out. The surgeon
remonstrated on the danger of the man’s death, but in vain. Ensign
Wall, the Governor’s brother, a humane young man, begged on his knees
that the flogging should cease, but also in vain; and his importunity
only served to provoke a threat of having him arrested. He then
entreated the unfortunate Green to cry out and save himself. But the
unhappy man said it was now too late, as he felt himself dying and
unable to cry out; that he had not avoided it from stubbornness, but
concealed his pangs lest his wretched wife, who was down below and knew
nothing of his situation, should hear his cries and die with anguish.
The flogging was continued until the convulsions of his bowels appeared
through his lacerated loins, when he fainted away and was consigned to
the surgeon, who appeared at the trial.

This event stamped a melancholy horror on the mind of the Governor’s
brother that was not abated during the voyage. On his arrival at Goree
he was seized with a raging fever, in which he died, expressing horror
and execration at the cruelty of his brother, whom he would not permit
to come within his sight, and who was subsequently tried and sentenced.


_The Whipping Widow._

It is not so very long ago when there suddenly appeared in society a
rich, or apparently rich, widow, Mrs. W.... She lived in good style,
kept her carriage, and had a fine house and plenty of well-trained
servants. No one knew the source of her wealth, but she rapidly became
popular in the best society, and by her dashing manner and splendid
appearance won for herself an eminent position in the fashionable world.

Like many fine ladies she cherished a secret passion for the rod, and
odd stories began to circulate through the medium of the maids, of the
way she used it on herself and them, and report says she was accustomed
to use the rod upon her late husband very freely. After his death, she
became acquainted with a young student who used to visit her home on
pretence of giving lessons, but in reality it was to receive a good
whipping from her hands.


_Miraculous Cure by the Birch._

Father Nicolo of Narni was a celebrated preacher with a quick eye, when
in the pulpit, over the female part of his flock.

He was one day preaching at Catanea, in Sicily, when amongst the rest
of his auditory he spied out a very agreeable young woman named Agatha,
wife of one Ruggieri, a physician, and was immediately enamoured with
her beauty. The lady was so devout as to have her eyes constantly
fixed on the preacher, and could not help perceiving that he was
handsome, nor wishing secretly that her husband were no less agreeable.
After sermon she addressed herself for confession to Father Nicolo who
was overjoyed at this lucky opportunity of discovering his passion.
Agatha had soon despatched the account of her own sins; after which she
very generously confessed for her husband too, and asked the holy man
if he had no cure for an old man’s jealousy. The Father replied that
jealousy was a passion to be avoided by the lucky person who possessed
so divine a creature. Agatha smiled, and thinking it time to return
to some female friends who were waiting for her, desired absolution.
The priest sighed, and said: ‘My fair daughter, who can free another
that is bound himself? I am chained by the irresistible power of your
beauty, and without your assistance I can neither absolve myself nor
you.’

Agatha was young and inexperienced, yet by the help of a good natural
understanding she was not at a loss to unravel his meaning. She had
besides, to quicken her wit, been strictly guarded and ill-used by her
husband. She therefore soon let the Father see that she understood
him, and that she was not displeased to find, notwithstanding the
sanctity of his character, that he was flesh and blood. The business
of absolution was not forgotten: Father Nicolo urged his passion and,
at his earnest request, the lady undertook to find means for him to
pay her a visit. After a short time she acquainted him, to this end,
that she was troubled with fits, and that all the medicines her husband
could administer procured her no ease; therefore, said she, the next
time he is sent for into the country, I will feign myself seized with
my usual distemper, and send to you to bring some relic of St. Griffon
for my relief. You will, I suppose, comply with the summons, and one
of my faithful maids shall be ready to conduct you to my chamber. The
Father applauded her wit, pronounced a thousand blessings on her for
this happy invention, and thus they parted.

Honest Ruggieri, who dreamt nothing of what had passed, went very
opportunely out of town the next morning. The lady was immediately
seized with a terrible fit, and in the midst of her attendants, who
were officious in helping her, frequently called on the name of St.
Griffon for assistance. The crafty confidant that stood by, and who
was instructed with the secret, took the hint and pressed her to send
for the relics of that saint which, she said, were famous for their
miraculous virtue and wonderful cures. The mistress, who seemed scarce
able to speak, bid her do as she thought fit. Father Nicolo presently
had notice, and obeyed the summons with the utmost expedition.

The priest arrived and followed his guide, entering the room where
the afflicted lady lay, and drawing near to the bed with a becoming
gravity. Agatha received him with profound reverence and begged the
charity of his prayers. He exhorted her to prepare herself that she
might be qualified to receive the benefit of the sacred relics and
birch he had brought; in order to which, said he, it is first necessary
that with a contrite heart you confess, that your soul being healed,
your body may be more easily cured. The lady said she desired nothing
more, and this was a signal to the others in the room to depart, which
they did, leaving the lovers to their private devotions.

The good Father had not long applied the birch and other relics of
St. Griffon for the recovery of the devout Agatha, when Ruggieri was
discovered at the entrance of the street, back sooner than he was
desired or expected. The lovers were immediately alarmed, and the holy
friar leaped upon the floor in such a funk that he forgot to take his
breeches, which he had thrown at the bed’s head, as being unnecessary
on that solemn occasion.

The wench who was in the secret opened the door and cried out that by
the favour of Heaven and St. Griffon her lady was almost recovered,
and called in the rest of the attendants. Ruggieri arrived at the same
instant, but was not well pleased to observe that a friar had found the
way to his house; nor was he less disturbed at this new illness of his
wife. Agatha perceived his disorder by the change of his countenance,
and immediately told him that she had been infinitely obliged to that
holy Father, by whose prayers, together with the application of the
Saint’s rod, she had been snatched from the grave. The good man was
delighted to hear it was no worse and, correcting himself in his own
thoughts for his former suspicions, very heartily thanked the friar
who, after some pious discourse, was glad to withdraw.

Father Nicolo was not gone far before he was recovered out of his
fright, and at the same time perceived he had left his breeches behind
him. This put him into a new concern; he dared not go back, but
comforted himself as well as he could in the hope that Agatha or her
maid would find them first and take care to prevent further mischief.
Ruggieri was now sitting on the bedside by his wife and saying a
thousand kind things to her when, unluckily putting his hand to adjust
the pillow under her head, he had hold on one of the strings and drew
out the breeches. This threw him into a worse fit than any his wife
had had; he stormed like a madman, and asked how this appurtenance of
the friar came there. Agatha, who had all her wits awakened by her
new amour, replied without the least hesitation that it was what she
had told him of. It is to this, said she, I owe my cure. This is the
miraculous garment of St. Griffon which the Holy Father brought, and
he has left it here for my greater security till the evening, at which
time he will send for it, or fetch it himself.

Poor Ruggieri, hearing so ready and unexpected an answer, believed,
or pretended to believe her, and retired. The trusty wench was now
despatched on a new errand, to desire the Father to send for his
relics. She understood her business, and acquainted Nicolo with all
that had passed. The friar, pressed by the necessity of the case, went
to the warden of the house and, confessing the whole intrigue, begged
him to help him. The warden sharply reproved him for his negligence and
said there was no time to be lost, and something must be thought of to
save the reputation of the Order. He therefore caused the chapter bell
to be rung and, the friars being all assembled, he informed them that
heaven had that day wrought a most remarkable miracle by virtue of St.
Griffon’s birch and breeches, in the house of Ruggieri the physician.
In short, he related to them the particulars and persuaded them to go
and fetch back the holy garments, in solemn procession.

The friars were now drawn up in order, and, with a cross carried before
them and the warden at their head holding the tabernacle of the altar
in his hand, marched two and two in profound silence to Ruggieri’s
house. The doctor met them at the door and asked the reason of their
solemn visit. The warden told him they were obliged by the rules of
their order to send their relics privately to such distressed persons
as desired the use of them; that if through the sins of the patient the
relics had no effect, they were to fetch them as privately back; but
when a manifest miracle is wrought, they were to bring them home with
decent ceremony, to publish the miracle, and finally to record it in
their register. Ruggieri now understood their business and expressed
himself overjoyed at the honour which was done him. He told the Fathers
they were all welcome and, desiring the warden and Nicolo to follow
him, he led them to his wife’s chamber.

The good lady, who, it may be supposed, was not asleep at this
juncture, held the breeches in her hand, bound decently up in a
perfumed napkin, which the warden having opened, kissed them with
profound reverence; and having caused them to be kissed in like manner
by all who were in the room, he put them in the tabernacle he had
brought for that purpose, and gave the signal to his fraternity to
return in the same order.

The Fathers set forth in greater solemnity than before and, singing an
anthem, marched round the city accompanied by a great crowd, and then
placing the relic on the altar of their chapel, left it there as an
object of devotion. Ruggieri was zealous in promoting reverence for the
Order, and wherever he went he told of the miracle of the birch and
breeches of St. Griffon.


_A Boy Whipped for Destroying Women’s Apparel with Aquafortis._

Until severe examples were made of the actors in this kind of frolic
and fun, females often found their clothes drop to tatters, and such
as restricted themselves to mere muslin and chemise were frequently
dreadfully burnt in a way invisible and almost unaccountable. A set
of urchins, neither men nor boys, by way of a high game, procured
aquafortis, vitriol, and other corrosive fluids, and filling therewith
a syringe or bottle, would sally forth to give the girls a squirt. Of
this mischievous description we find Edward Beazley, who was convicted
of this unpardonable offence at the Old Bailey, the 11th of March,
1811. He was indicted for wilfully and maliciously injuring and
destroying the apparel of Anne Parker, by feloniously throwing upon the
same a certain poisonous substance called aquafortis, whereby the same
was so injured as to be rendered useless. He was also charged on two
other indictments for the like offence, on two other women.

It appears that the prisoner, a boy of thirteen, took it into his head
to sally into Fleet St. on the night of Sat. Feb. 16, and there threw
the same upon the clothes of several of the Cyprians who parade up
and down there. He was caught, carried before the magistrate at the
Guildhall, and fully committed on three charges.

Three ladies appeared and proved the facts, and the boy was found
guilty.

His master, Mr. Blades of Ludgate Hill, gave him a good character; he
never knew anything wrong of him before, but admitted he had access
to the chemicals. The court having a discretionary power, instead of
transporting him for seven years, only ordered him to be well whipped
in the jail and returned to his friends.


_Ill-Treatment of Female Pupils._

We frequently hear of the low-bred and licentious of our sex
ill-treating young helpless females; but to find a minister of the
gospel convicted of so base and unmanly an assault is a scandal to his
office, and an aggravated disgrace to human nature.

This abhorred man, a clergyman and schoolmaster at Newton near
Manchester, was brought up to receive the judgment of the King’s Bench
at Westminster, in consequence of having been convicted at the last
Lancashire Assizes on two indictments for assaulting and whipping Mary
Ann Gillicrand and Mary Barlow, his scholars.

The defendant delivered in the affidavits of several females who had
been his scholars in their youth, declaring upon oath that they never
saw him take the slightest liberty with his pupils in an improper way,
or whip them severely, and that they thought him a fit person to be
intrusted with the instruction of youth.

Mr. Scarlett addressed the court in mitigation. The punishment, he
said, that the court would feel it due to justice to inflict would be
of little additional consequence to the defendant as his ruin was
already consummated; but he had a wife and six children who had been
virtuously bred and educated, and it was on their account he implored
the court not to inflict a punishment on the defendant which would
render him infamous.

Serjeant Cockell said it was not his wish to bruise the bended reed,
yet it was necessary that an example should be made of the defendant.
He was a clergyman and a teacher of youth; and the prosecutors, who had
acted from the most laudable motives, had abundant reasons for what
they had done. They felt themselves irresistibly called upon to check
the practices imputed to the defendant, and which there was too much
reason for believing he had indulged in for a considerable time past.

Mr. Justice Grose, in passing sentence, addressed the defendant to the
following effect: ‘You have been convicted of an assault on a child of
very tender years; the narrative of your conduct is horrible to hear,
and horrible to reflect upon—the aggravations of your offence, I am
sorry to say, are multifarious—the object of your brutality was a child
committed to your care, and you are a teacher, a man grey in years and
possessing a large family. In looking to the class of misdemeanours, I
know of none so horrible as the one of which you have been convicted.
Of your guilt it is impossible to doubt, and I am shocked to see a
clergyman standing to receive sentence for such an offence.’ The
accused was sentenced to three years imprisonment.


_Flogging with a Frying-pan._

At the Woolwich Police court, Dec. 29th 1882, an elderly man named
James Bone was charged on a summons before Mr. Mersham with assaulting
Margaret Chapman.

The complainant, a widow, said that the defendant engaged her to go to
his house in Nun St., Woolwich, and do a day’s washing. There was no
other person in the house, and the defendant told her he had turned his
wife out of doors. About midday he gave her a glass of spirits which
took such effect that she did not remember whether she had any more or
not. She remembered no more until the evening, when she found herself
lying undressed upon the floor, and the defendant pouring water over
her from a pail. He had stripped her of everything and beaten her with
some weapon about the body until she was covered with bruises from head
to foot. As soon as she recovered sufficiently she ran out of the house
to escape from his violence, and some women got clothing for her.

Defendant said he gave the woman a glass of stout with her lunch, and
afterwards a glass of brandy. He went out in the afternoon, and when
he returned, he found that she had drunk a pint of rum and was in a
shocking state of intoxication. She stripped herself and tried to go
to bed, but fell helpless on the floor, and he then bathed her with
cold water, spoiling his new carpet, and also tried to bring her to
her senses by flogging her with the hot frying-pan. He did not deny
causing her bruises, for he hit her perhaps a hundred times, and if she
had not been so heavy he would have thrown her out of the window. He
tied a rope round her feet, but could not drag her out of the room and,
after giving her some more water, she got up and walked into the street
just as she was. He was so disgusted that if he could have got a gun he
would have shot her. All that he could do was to send for a cab and
get her away.

Mrs. C. Limey said that she had occasion to go to the house on
business, and the defendant showed her the complainant lying stripped
upon the carpet. She got up on hearing a woman’s voice and ran into the
street. There were several weals upon her body, and her clothes had
evidently been torn from her with violence.

The prisoner was remanded in custody for a week.


_Extract from ‘The Revelations of Birchington Grange.’_

Asking for a good birch rod, the Colonel says he will show them the
way a real expert would use it, whisking the birch about so that the
trembling victim can hear it hissing through the air.

The Colonel continues: ‘Now the real art of birching consists, of
course, in inflicting the greatest amount of humiliation and suffering,
but without in reality doing serious damage; we have to consider
how so to apply the rod as to effect some radical moral good in the
disposition and mind of the culprit; how to make them feel the
very dregs as it were of humiliation, degradation, and every kind
of mortification. It is a curious fact that it sends the blood of a
sensitive modest girl in impulsive rushes (especially to the face and
neck) in the form of scarlet blushes, which pass over those parts in
continuous waves, corresponding to each stroke of the rod; this is a
curious psychological fact, which is puzzling even to anatomists.’


_Letter from Mrs. Martinet on Slipper Punishment._

A slipper is a splendid thing to slap with, as it has such a stinging
effect without cutting the skin, like a regular birchrod.

I should not write so fully as I do, but knowing you to be an amateur,
and consequently interested in every incident of punishment, it gives
a kind of freedom to my pen, as I know you can be depended on not to
abuse my confidence.

My special penchant used to be for a good stinging bunch of real birch
twigs, and I still think that is far the best thing to use for big
girls over thirteen, but for little delicate chits under that age,
there is nothing answers so well as a nice new slipper. A proficient
disciplinarian would first give the delinquent a short lecture on the
nature of her offence, then firmly insist upon the culprit herself
fetching the instrument of punishment: to my idea, there is more shame
and humiliation at having to bring the slipper to be flogged, than fear
of the smart, which is always worse in imagination than fact.

A skilful flagellatrix will always prolong these sensations, as they
effect as much good as the application of the slipper.


_Flogging and Cruelty in a Glasgow Industrial School._

A case not unlike what has just been brought to light in London is
reported in connection with the Glasgow Girls’ Industrial School.
The charges against the matron consist of acts of cruelty when
administering punishment to the girls. Here is part of an account
given in a Glasgow paper of an interview with the matron regarding her
treatment of a girl who had absconded from the institution. The girl
was taken into the laundry with only her chemise and a petticoat on,
and held by two girls while she flogged her with a taws. She knows that
the girl’s garments got twisted in the struggle, but cannot remember
whether they all came off or not. She is sure the girl did not receive
more than twelve strokes, very likely not so many. After flogging the
girl she went to her own room, she was so excited, leaving instructions
to have the girl put under the spray-bath to cool her down. After
whipping the girls she gave them the spray to revive them. Then a
mattress was taken into the surgery and the girl was put in there. That
very night she visited her in the surgery, and told her she had only
punished her for her good. She taught her a little prayer, and then
she prayed with her. The interview goes on to say: ‘You did not enter
the punishment in the records?’ ‘No, for the girl had never been in
the schoolroom, and the punishment did not form part of the ordinary
discipline of the school.’ ‘You consider that the punishment requisite
to break a girl in should not be entered?’ ‘Well, I go upon precedent.
I was assistant to the former matron, and in a case where a girl was
punished under similar circumstances it was not entered in the book.’

The matron mentioned above is also reported by the same girl to have
confessed to stripping a girl naked before whipping her. This lady who
was assistant matron, said she knew nothing about the rules. One of
the teachers who has since left the institution said she did so out of
disgust at the way it was conducted, and the cruelty practised in the
punishment of the inmates. The resignation of the matron was accepted
by the committee of management.


_The Convent School._

The Superior, with whom Olive had been a favourite, now vented her
spite in every direction amongst the young lady pupils of the seminary,
and I, for one, soon fell under her displeasure and was ordered to
be tied to the whipping-post. It was only for slightly oversleeping
myself, and not dressing quickly when the bell rang for us to get up
at 6 a.m. I was suspended by my wrist, being tied high up on the post,
as I stood on a footstool, when it was suddenly kicked away, the jerk
of the sudden strain on my wrists almost making the straps cut into
the flesh. My feet were dangling some inches from the floor. ‘Oh! oh!
ah-r-r-re!’ I screamed. ‘How cruel! Oh! papa! papa! if you only knew
how they treated us in this awful place!’

The Lady Superior, who seemed delighted at my pain, said: ‘Hold your
foolish tongue; wait till you have something to scream about, girl.’
Then old Serena who, it seemed, was always in attendance at punishment
time, pinned up my skirts, and the Superior went on: ‘This rod shall
make all the sluggards turn out quicker in the morning. What do you
mean, Miss, by making us all wait prayers for ten minutes? Will you
wake up sharper in future?’

She then gave me several sharp cuts with the rod. My screams were
heartrending, but they only seemed to enjoy it more and more, and the
Superior never ended her objurgations till the rod was worn out.


_The Woman in White._

Mme. Hauteville made a very pretty toilette for the occasion—she was
all in white: in the costume of a novice when she takes the veil.
The dress had been considerably modified, as being too flowing for
the occasion, but it was all white silk and lace: and a lovely little
angel she looked when it was complete. From head to foot she had
nothing on that was not pure white; white satin shoes with diamonds
sparkling on the rosettes; white silk stockings, gartered above her
round knees with white velvet garters; white petticoats—one of the
finest flannel—embroidered with lilies, and one of soft lawn, with a
lace flounce. Her robe was silk—the soft noiseless sort that does not
rustle—richly trimmed with costly lace, and over her head she had a
square veil. She had her maid in to assist at her toilette and fasten
her garters and shoes. Madame submitted to be blindfolded with a very
good grace, though she tried hard to get us to tell her what was going
to be done; she had such pretty coaxing ways that it was hard to resist
her; but we did, and she went in quite unprepared.

We led her slowly up the room, and at the first stroke of the rod
nearest the door, she winced but did not cry out; the next blow she
received was a stinging one from a slipper my lady held in her hand
(she knows how to strike with a shoe, I can tell you), and she gave
a little scream and a jump. ‘Oh! what is it?’ she asked between her
teeth; but the next stroke, a fair open-handed slap from Mrs. D—’s fat
hand made her fairly shriek out and twist out of her grasp on to the
floor. It _was_ a slap, and rang out even above the laughter of the
ladies, leaving a broad red mark on the white firm flesh of the little
lady.


_Home Scenes._

Mrs. Eden was brought up in a convent. Her parents were Roman Catholics
and, having no daughter but her, they were desirous of bestowing upon
her every accomplishment, and foolishly imagined a convent education
far superior to any this country could boast of. There she lived till
she was twenty-five, when her father died, and she found herself in
possession of twenty-five thousand pounds. At the importunities of a
fond mother, who went to see her every year, she visited England and,
being a girl of good fortune, it is not to be wondered at that she had
a crowd of admirers. In her visits she was very much taken with that
part of a widower’s family generally found most disagreeable, at least
to young ladies—I mean his children. She observed they were indulged
by a weak father in everything, and were consequently very disobedient
and unruly. Upon this gentleman, though verging on forty, she fixed her
affections, and being a woman of ungovernable spirit, she was happy
to find him an easy pusillanimous creature. The match was scarcely
mentioned when it was concluded, and a few days after she found herself
at the head of his household. She had six little subjects to govern,
three of whom were then at school, who were instantly ordered home,
as she said she would finish their education, which indeed was in her
power, for she was a very sensible woman; but that was not her intent
altogether. It was the boys that were ordered from school, and right
happy they were at leaving so irksome a place; but they little knew
their stepmother. As soon as she was married she discharged all her
servants and hired a set of her own choosing, and among the rest she
took care to engage a French maid whose disposition she knew would just
suit her.

Mrs. Eden was of the first order of beauty, fine turned limbs, good
skin, fine blue eyes, and when not ruffled by passion was certainly
very captivating. If she stepped across the room she displayed uncommon
dignity and elegance, and had all the chic of a Frenchwoman.

Now although she had a passion for flogging, yet she was never observed
to take the rod in hand without cause. She was convinced where there
were such a number of children and they ungovernable, many bickerings
would arise which would give her an opportunity to amuse herself with
the rod. The first to give her a chance was a boy of seventeen who was
so stupid at a lesson she gave him that she resolved to try the effects
of birching. Her maid was ordered to bring a rod, which was no sooner
done than she proceeded to use it; but she found the boy too strong
for her. The maid, with the assistance of her mistress, tied his hands
behind him, and then they found him manageable enough and, the woman
holding his legs, his stepmother whipped him till the twigs flew about
the room.

This was the first sample of her severity, and it made such an
impression on the other children that they trembled in her presence. A
few hours afterwards the boy was tearfully complaining of her treatment
to his elder sister, who advised him to burn the rod at the first
opportunity. This was overheard by the maid, who informed her lady
of the affair. The young lady was summoned to the parlour, where she
denied the fact, was confronted by the maid, and well whipped.

[Illustration]


MEIBOMIUS, (J. H., M.D.) A Treatise on the Utility of Flogging in
Medicine and Venery; wherein many curious things are plainly set out
and elucidated, for the enjoyment of the curious and the delight of the
learned. Faithfully translated from the original Latin. Demy 8vo, cloth.



*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Discipline in School and Cloister" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.