The Sun.
London, England, 1859-09-03 00:00:00

------
CORP ORAL PUNISHMENT Tia
KING'S SCHOOL, .21r TER,BUB Y.

A case of considerable interest to the friends of
children at public schools has ust occurred at the
King's School at Canterbury, in reference to the
introduction, by thel!ecently-appointed head-master,
the Rev. J. Mitchinson, of a system of corporal .
punishment to be publicly inflicted on the boys.
The circumstances appear to be as follows i--
Lieutenant Vousdca, Q.M. of the 4th Depot Baks,t
talion, now stationed in the'Canterbury Bnarr the
ac
some 18 months since placed his only so in
King's School, under the superintendence of the
Rev. George Wallace, the then head-master of the,
institution. Mr. Wallace has silace resigned
the appointment, and the present head-master has
been in charge of the school rather over a.
requesting
month. On Thursday, the 25th ult., Lieutenant
Vousden. sent a note to the Rev. J. Mitchinson,
11.30 for the day. No answer was returned ; but the
that his son might leave the school at
head-master told the youth that, as he so recently,
had leave, he could not allow him to go then, the
the boy imagining that he meant during the
morning's duties, he left school at the usual hour,
and on reaching hoane found a message that he
was
to follow his father who had gone to Cante
races. This request he accordingly complied WO'
For so doing, the next morning Master Vousden
was called before ate head-master, and, in the pred-
sence of the assembled school was told that be ba
been guilty of a direct act of disobediene, for
which he must be oved at half-past four. ,his
floggedwas communicated to ''Lieutenant Vousden by Ins
son, and the following correspondence has
ensued :
FROM LIEUTENANT VOUSDEN TO THE REF'

J. MITCHINSON.
" Mr. Vousden presents his compliments to the
Rev. S. Mitchinson, and begs to state that his son
was absent from school yesterday afternoon with
his leave and approbation, and therefore requestsnt of
_
that no punishment may be inflicted on accou
such absence.
" Barracks, Canterbury, Aug. 26."
FROM THE REV. J. MITCHINSON TO LIEUTENANT

VOUSDEN.
" The King's School, Aug. 26.
" My dear Sir,—Your note has caused me coni
siderable embarrassment. I was glad to find, as
before imagined, that your son was not alone orders,
sitle for his deliberate disobedience to my
otherwise I should have declined to receive hint nal_
more as a pupil. I write these few lines now to stet;
to you most distinctly that your son must eithe_
submit to the punishment I have publicly prescribed°
for him ; or, if you object to that, that he must cells
to be a pupil of the King's School from this after:
noon. I must beg the favour of an o
imm
answer ; and if I do not hear from you I have n
course open to me but to inflict the punishment.--
I am, dear sir, faithfully yours,
" J. MiTclinsoN.
FROM LIEUTENANT VOUSDEN TO THE BEV' J.
MITCIIINSON. 6
°' Barracks, Aug. 2 • ~
My dear Sir,—ln reply to your note just receiv.ehu.
I much regret that I cannot sanction the Puals
ediate
ment you have thought necessary to inflict on TY_
son, he having had my leave and approbation usual 110:!
absent from school. I wrote to you in the t 0
manner to obtain your sanction, and I am letithe
believe that you only objected to his leaving
school during the morning study, without 9114
reference to the afternoon. I venture to sugge_..,.
that I was justified in looking for an answer toga'.
request in the same manner that it was made, the
you any reason to withhold your sanction to
indulgence asked for. Should you therefore .1"
ever
feel obliged to enforce the punishment, howe 'yr
much I regret it, I must say that you must cand
out your threat, and expel the boy from the chen;
as I cannot sanction his being punished from
fault of his own,---I am, dear sir, faithfully Ye_ll7'
" Thos, VotisDE.N. r
FROM THE REV. J. MITCHINSON TO LIEUTENANT
VOUSDEN.
" The King's School, Canterbury, Aug. 26'ur
"My dear Sir,—l was very sorry to receive I,.°ve
note this afternoon, as it left me no alternavlst
but to inflict what, considered in itself, is a aece,
disproportionate punishment to your boy'af
s etnan
but what was inevitable, or my authority was lathes.
end. You, as an officer, will thoroughly feel
Allow me, however, to observe that I did net, nor
should I have thought of, punishing the bos:der
the faults of others, however great I might consi
them to be. I punished him for deliberately To
ting at nought my distinct refusal to grant him the
holiday—a. refusal of which you were not evire
conscious (it appears) when you left word for h 4
to follow you, or I feel quite sure the breacll4o
discipline would never have taken place.
offence was wilful disobedience and defiance of
..-1.
orders. It was a schoolboy's offence—a serioure
one ; but one for which the cane was an atellic,
punishment, had it not been for your, I must thill
unfortunate interference with the course of It
discipline. I regret that you should have thoug;,
my not replying formally to your note in any Sens
a discourtesy. I think, on reflection, you will
the
that such a course would be incompatible with
th
duties of a head-master. In conclusion, lam wit
•
h
genuinely sorry for the boy, who owes his enis
ment (a most severe one) to his friends in this ca.so,
i
and not to himsel.f I lose in him a pupl who,
though troublesome enough at times and sonievqa;
restless under authority, showed the germs °lartuce
good, open, manly disposition. Thou
hhis:dep
from the school is indispensable and irrevocable,
do not in any sense regard it as expulsion, nor sir
I lose any opportunity of removing such au mere
11
pression from others, or of preventing (if it w.efe.
likely at any time) its injuring his prospects in
—I am, dear sir, faithfully yours,
g
" J. MITCHINSON.
Lieut. Vousden sent a further letter, expressing
regret that Mr. Mitchinson did not answer his note'
to which want of courtesy the misunderstanding
was attributable, and stating that he should laY
the correspondence before the Dean and Chapter'
This Lieut. Vousden accordingly did, and be re-
ceived the following answer :
" The Deanery, Canterbury, Monday, Aug' 29.0
"My dear Sir,—l have laid the correspondenc
which you sent me before my resident colleague°
in the chapter, and I beg to inform you that thei
agree with me in thinking that Mr. A es.
litchinsoLl
he to
was entirely justified in the course which ,
in the matter. With regard to the publication °I
the correspondence, I must leave you to act sa Ili
think most desirable.—l am, my dear sir, faithfuliY.
yours, " HENRY ALFORD, ,'
Dean of Canterbury.

THE FATAL STEAMBOAT
ON THE TYNE.

Mr. Reed, the coroner for Soutb. Northumer.
land, concluded a long inquiry at North Shields,
on Thursday night, into the circumstances of th?
explosion of one of the boilers of the William an
Mary steam-tug on Friday afternoon, by Nvi
John Cockburn, the fireman of that vessel, vata
blown into the river Tyne and drowned. As before
reported in The Sun, a new company have col;
menced to run passage steamers on that river, an"
of course the old steamboat men are hostile to them'
and offer them all kinds of opposition and 'lnner'
ante. On Friday afternoon the William and Marl
had started off with the Louise Crawshay, a neW
boat belonging to the new company, from Newca-
stle Quay, and attempted to race against her, but
while half-way between Newcastle and Shields the
bcooinlkerbuorfn,tthheeWotihelliramt
two
inandenA,ltahrye
nbrueztnafntdhekbil
01 d
aet
escaping by leaping over the stern of the steamer
into the Tyne. It was proved in evidence at the
inquest that the average speed of the Walla!
and Mary is from six to seven miles an hour, and
that of the Louise Crawshay from 11 to 12 miles an
hour; and to put a pressure on the boilers of the
William and Mary her crew had placed some anis
of chain and some iron upon the safety-valve under
their control. The Government safety valve had..
been also previously tampered with, and the weighb
had been so jammed that it would not act at all.
As there was no vent there, and as more than
double the proper pressure was placed upon t
lever under the charge of the men, and as they ba°
d
fired the boat heavily, an explosion appears t
have been inevitable. The Government inspector
was clearly of opinion that if the engineer of
the boat had. known his business he would
have seen that the Government valve was no
working, and it was also the duty
the master of the boat to have taken care,
that no improper pressure was placed on the valve,
under the control of the boatmen. Enunanue4
Gregory, the master, and James Campbell, the
engineman of the boat, made a statement accusin4
the deceased man, Cockburn, of having tamper e,
with the safety valves and put on undue pressure'
The jury, however, after a short consultation!,
through their foreman, said that they were all 0.1
one opinion—that the explosion had been occasioned
by the ignorance and recklessness of Gregory an.
Carnphell, and that their verdict was,
were guilty of the manslaughter of John Cockburn ,
The coroner quite concurred in their verdict, boat a
hoped that it would be a warning to the steara
men of the Tyne, whose reckless conduct in Ilan,
that thel
gating the boats had been much complained of 'J./
the public. Campbell and Gregory were. ierarara
diately taken into custody by the river polic
were committed for trial at the Northumberiaral
Assizes, upon the coroner's warrant.

No further loans were effected by the India
Council in the Stock 'Exchange yesterday, but they as
understood to have placed out a considerable sum at 2 per
cent. in other quarters.
•