THE BOSTON-SPA CASE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—The writer of the article on " Compulsory Courtesies " takes far too superficial a view, to do justice either to the school- master, or little girl, or the independent father. The school- master is not an obsequious man, neither is he one wanting in respect when and where respect is due. He thoroughly under- stands the links by which society is held together, and would never be wanting in the exercise of respect to a lady. In school he is a thorough disciplinarian, and out of school extends his authority to the moral actions of his scholars. But like all men worth their "salt," he discriminates, and while he would punish boys for fighting in or out of school, or throwing stones, he would not whip a little girl known as acting upon her father's instruc- tions for not curtseying to the Vicar's wife in a lane about a mile from school out of school-hours. In school he saw that proper respect was paid to the Vicar's wife, and to any lady who might visit there. But there are limits even to outward manifestations of respect. The Vicar's wife made her own laws, and interpreted a failure to curtsey as an insult. The child's father made his laws, and looked upon bowing, &c., as signs of a cringing servility, and as approving of the Establishment, to which in politics he was opposed.
Corporal punishment is a form of coercion which should be used with great discrimination. It should not be vindictive, yet the Vicar was vindictive ; it should not be put in force to pre- vent a harmless exercise of civil and religious liberty, yet that was the Vicar's purpose. The clergyman in question is looked upon in the village as a Ritualist. He exhibits a large black cross on the altar of the church in Lent, and spares no pains to exalt his office. His idea seems to be that he there represents the Church, and that his wife, in a reflected way, also represents the Church ;
and that any want of respect, anything left undone, is a want of respect to the Church, which he will not tolerate, if he can help it. If the Church cannot be respected for itself, he will exercise what power he can to enforce respect. Law prescribes that any one who strikes another, to injure or hurt, is liable to punishment for assault. The Vicar wished the little girl to be corporally punished. The schoolmaster, who had already tried persuasion, refused to strike. The little girl was, as it were, between two fires,—the Vicar's wife and her father. The schoolmaster was between two consuming flames,—the Vicar and the said father. He knew that to beat the child was to break the law. He looked upon the Vicar as one urging him to commit an assault, and being a man who, where respect was in question, respected himself, he refused to cane the girl.
That was the extent of his offending. As to the subscriptions, it has not been proved that the Vicar gave anything, either books or money, to the school. As to the teaching character of the lady, she was not looked upon in that light, but rather as, along with her husband, an asserter of the principle of divine right, so far as that principle was there understood. The schoolmaster deserves commendation in that, while he objected to be an element of discord to the Vicar, he refused to be his tool, and so sought quietly to withdraw from his appointment. —I am,
Sir, &c., T. [Of course, if our correspondent's version is correct, and it can hardly be otherwise, there is an end of the possibility of defend- ing the Vicar. We stated all through that we had assumed the
correctness of the most probable,Lbecause the most moderate, of the stories. Even now, the idea that-an English clergyman wished a little girl to be whipped for an act of discourtesy committed outside the school-room, seems to us so monstrous as to be in- credible. The Vicar, however, though distinctly challenged, has not denied it.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
