Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-08
slnrular case os seho,astLe sever

singular Case Of Scholastic severity.
At the Marlborough street police court on Tuesday,
the Rev. VIM Lonsdae, of Brentford Butts, the mas
ter Of an academy, No. Is Duke street, Grosvenor
square was charged on warrant for cruelty assault
ing in his capacity as schoOlmaster George Diaek,
aged under thirteen years, his pupil
Mr.. Clark conducted the complaint but the defen =
dsnt was undefended. Mr.. Clark having pended
the case and described the natural feelings Of the
parents OF the Lad at the baTbarous infection upon
their son By the Rev. defendant-the young COM
Plainant q SLIM, Misunderstanding youth, deposed
that he was pspil Of SIR LonsdsIe's frsm Jsnua-
" last aad resided with his father, who up
holster 81 2lS Oxford street. There were about
fifty boys in TIE defendants school, and on Mondsy
morning some among them chose 10 amuse them
selves in shooting peas from pea shooters at each
other, one from which had struck the defendant in
the face, when an order was given to search the
desks Of the pupils but none was found in his desk,
and so the morning passed off-a bigger aud older
boy who had pea shooter found iG his possession
being made 70 deliver up the same, and kept back
by way OF punishment one hour after morning school
time. In the interim between his leaving aud re
suming his udes he also brought a pea-shooter
another boy being with him a. the time. During
the afternoon he used the same, shooting pea
from his mouth through the tin tube at scaOol-fel>
low on another form, and this was told the defend
ant, who, sUmnOuiDg him forward with his shooter,
took it Immediately from him, and with IN
lThe cane, far 10 thick TO bend was OF the cTcHmN
terence Of q mans thumb, and vas exhibited in
court, and the boys back, stripped for the magis-
trste's inspection, blsokeEed and discolored IN
a frightful manner, and scored in greatTaT Whesls
in al directions.
The complainant, after his clothes were re>ad-
justed, finished by saying that thers many boys
who Witnessed the beating, the Of several of
whom he supplied the officer With, but none were
present.
TIE defendant who was allowed a seat because he
said he was not WELL fUrebcre to crossex anime the
complainant, but entered into leng defence, the
substance Of which was that be did not punish the
boy who " fhot him" in the morning, except by
keeping Linn, but warned the boys against a re-
petition. Pellets CT paper had been thrown at him
previous TO the peas, and he had cautioned them
against this-had told them all tb9t he should make
3 signal example of any boy again offending in q
similar way. His colleague in the school had in
formed him thai five or six of these shooters had
been taken st different times from this noffensiEs
young man." (lhe oOmplsinant,) whose incorrigi.
bility as "shooter" was well known.
The reverand defendant observed that it was quite
new to him to be called cruel lie had always been
considered too indulgent. That he had corrected
the boy because it was deserved. That he entirrly
repudiated sll desire TO be cruel, and had malig
nant motives TO crafty. Had never been complain
ed of before, though he had found 1t necessary as
q solemn duty, TO punish severely two Of his first
class boys lately Ia iLficng this sort of punish
ment he thought he ought not to be disturbed by pa
rents who entrusted their sons to his training He
had been himself educated ct Elton, and there, if he
had dared to shoot pea il preceptOrs ia,e, his
punishment would have been severe.
Mr.. BeadOn said the question before him was one
Of considerable importance. 1t wss 10 what extent
public teacher of youth might exercise corporal
punishment In this country a certain guantUm of
such correction allowed, AMI perhaps very prop
erly in cases. but English Law required that
it should be moderate The learned doctor had said,
in his defence to this charge against him, that be
was educated ct Eion; so too was he Mr.. BesdOn,)
and he had seen correction inflicted but in modera-
ton only. Any master or tutor there or elsewhere
seeing the marks or whesls on the young boys back,
he quite sure, if he retained one spark Of bu.
msnity, must be perfectly Mortified. To say that
such was to be permitted was montrous; it Was not
correction, but gr0Fs brutality, and Unlisted on a
little boy, most coEardly. That the boy had done
some wrong wss true, and be ought 10 have been
corrected but with discretion, and not in the un>
justif Bile way he had been. He should at once foe
the reTeraud defendant 81 or seud him for two
months to the House Of Correction in default The
defendant paid the fine and left the court.