whip, or not to whip?—that is the question.

Whether 'tis easier in the mind to suffer

The deaf'ning clamor of some fifty urchins,

Or take birch and ferule 'gainst the rebels,

And by opposing end it? To whip—to flog—

Each day, and by a whip to say we end

The whispering, shuffling, and ceaseless buzzing

Which a school is heir to—'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wished. To whip, to flog,

To whip, and not reform—aye, there's the rub.

For by severity what ills may come,

When we've dismissed and to our lodging gone,

Must give us pain. There's the respect

That makes the patience of a teacher's life.

For who would bear the thousand plagues of a school,—

The girlish giggle, the tyro's awkwardness,

The pigmy pedant's vanity, the mischief,

The sneer, the laugh, the pouting insolence,

With all the hum-drum clatter of a school,

When he himself might his quietus make

With a bare hickory? Who would willing bear

To groan and sweat under a noisy life,

But that the dread of something after school

(That hour of rumor, from whose slanderous tongue

Few Tutors e'er are free) puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear these lesser ills,

Than fly to those of greater magnitude.

Thus error does make cowards of us all;

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied over with undue clemency,

And pedagogues of great pith and spirit,

With this regard their firmness turn away,

And lose the name of government.

We here record a curious affair which took place in the State of Georgia in the year 1811. At the Superior Court at Milledgeville a Mrs. Palmer, who, the account states, "seems to have been rather glib of the tongue, was indicted, tried, convicted, and, in pursuance of the sentence of the Court, was punished by being publicly ducked in the Oconee River for—scolding." This, we are told, was the first instance of the kind that had ever occurred in that State, and "numerous spectators attended the execution of the sentence." A paper copying this account says that the "crime is old, but the punishment is new," and that "in the good old days of our Ancestors, when an unfortunate woman was accused of Witchcraft she was tied neck and heels and thrown into a pond of Water: if she drowned, it was agreed that she was no witch; if she swam, she was immediately tied to a stake and burnt alive. But who ever heard that our pious ancestors ducked women for scolding?" This writer is much mistaken; for it is well known that in England (and perhaps in this country in early times) the "ducking-stool" was resorted to for punishing "scolds." This was before the days of "women's rights," for there is no record of any man having been punished in this way.

It is said that the ducking-stool was used in Virginia at one time. Thomas Hartley writes from there to Governor Endicott of Massachusetts in 1634, giving an account of the punishing a woman "who by the violence of her tongue had made her house and neighborhood uncomfortable." She was ducked five times before she repented; "then cried piteously, 'Let me go! let me go! by God's help I'll sin so no more.' They then drew back y^e Machine, untied y^e Ropes, and let her walk home in her wetted Clothes a hopefully penitent woman." In the "American Historical Record," vol. i., will be found a very interesting account of this singular affair, with an engraving of the "ducking-stool." Bishop Meade, in his "Old Churches," etc., says there was a law in Virginia against scolds and slanderers, and gives an instance of a woman ordered to be ducked three times from a vessel lying in James River. There must have been very severe practices in Virginia in the early days, according to Bishop Meade. We refer persons especially interested in this subject to Hone's "Day Book and Table Book," or Chambers's "Book of Days," both English publications, for a full account of the ducking-stool and scold's bridle, formerly used in England for the punishment of scolding women. It is not pleasant to think that such a shameful practice was ever resorted to, but it appears to be well authenticated. We cannot, however, read English history, or any other history, without finding a vast number of disagreeable facts which we are obliged to believe. Some things, too, have occurred in our own country that we should like to forget.

All over the country we are nowadays troubled with "strikes." Such "irregularities" must have been treated in a different spirit half a century ago from what they are now. In these days the "strikers" attempt to dictate terms, and in some cases succeed; although as a general thing they get the worst of the struggle. The method of dealing with such matters fifty years ago is briefly set forth in the "Salem Observer," March 29, 1829. It says: "Turn-out in New York. There has been a turn-out for higher wages among the laborers in the city of New York. Several of the ring-leaders have been arrested and ordered to give heavy bonds for their appearance at Court." In September, 1827, some sailors struck in Boston for higher wages, formed a procession, and marched through the city, making considerable noise with their cheers, etc. They issued the following proclamation, which was read by the leader now and then, and responded to with loud cheers: "Attention! We, the blue Jackets now in the city of Boston, agree that we will not ship for less than $15 a month, and that we will punish any one who shall ship for less in such way as we think proper, and strip the vessel [which he ships in]. What say you?" At the Common they were met by a militia company, who charged upon them; some men of both sides were knocked down, but no lives were lost or blood shed. In the afternoon the sailors were out again with drum and fife. The paper from which we obtain this information says that they probably would not get any advance, as it is assured by a shipper that he found no difficulty in procuring crews at the customary wages. Probably it was not intended that the military should do more than endeavor to keep order.

It is rather surprising that there should have been no conviction for felony in the County of Essex from 1692, when the witches were tried, until 1771,—a period of seventy-nine years. It would so appear, however, from the following extract from the "Essex Gazette," Nov. 12, 1771:—

Laſt Wedneſday Morning the Trial of Bryan Sheehen for committing a Rape on the Body of Mrs. Abial Hollowell, Wife of Mr. Benjamin Hollowell, of Marblehead, in September laſt, came on before the Superior Court of Judicature, at the Court-Houſe in this Town. The Trial laſted from between nine and ten o'Clock A.M. till three in the Afternoon, when the Jury withdrew, and in about one Hour brought in their Verdict, GUILTY. Mrs. Hollowell's Teſtimony againſt the Priſoner was fully corroborated by the Phyſician who attended her, and by the People who were in the Houſe, at and after the Perpetration of the Crime; by which the Guilt and Barbarity of the Priſoner was ſo fully demonſtrated, that the Verdict of the Jury has given univerſal Satisfaction.

This Bryan Sheehen (who has not yet received his Sentence) is the firſt Perſon, as far as we can learn, that has been convicted of Felony, in this large County, ſince the memorable Year 1692, commonly called Witch-Time.

From the "Boston Post-Boy," February, 1763.

BOSTON, January 31.

At the Superiour Court held at Charleſtown laſt Week, Samuel Bacon of Bedford, and Meriam Fitch, Wife of Benjamin Fitch of ſaid Bedford, were convicted of being notorious Cheats, and of having by Fraud, Craft and Deceit, poſſeſs'd themſelves of Fifteen Hundred