FLOGGING AS A PUNISHMENT
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your correspondent, Mr. F. 0. Taylor, in commenting upon my letter in your issue of February 25th is delightfully basking in the sun of his own righteous indignation, which, of course, is doubtless what all healthy right-minded Englishmen should do ; for not being in the position of the wretched convict he can afford to indulge in self-satisfied, smug moralising. Such good opinions of oneself, however, have not the slightest value when it is a question of a psychological truth and of real spiritual values. To be sensitive to such things is not to be unhealthy-minded, but to have a decidedly clearer perception of human actions and passions.
Of course Mr. F. O. Taylor would have been shocked if someone had called his headmaster a " sadist." Anyone of his mentality would be. Unfortunately truth can be very " shocking." It is disquieting to all cant and humbug. But we are not dealing with school punishment—that requires separate consideration. We are, however, dealing with a very severe form of torture, the effects of which last throughout the life of the victim, and of which Mr. F. 0. Taylor is in complete ignorance, being pleased to describe it as " temporary minor suffering(!) " (sic). I would recommend him to read the letters of such intelligent men as Sir Christopher Robinson (to the Daily Telegraph and Morning Post of the 3rd inst.), Mr. Henry W. Nevinson, Mr. A. C. H. Duke, Mr. George Ridley, M.P. (to the Manchester Guardian of the 3rd and 4th inst.), all on this subject, and also the protest signed by the Dean of St. Paul's, the Dean of Canterbury, the Vicar of Christchurch, Westminster, Mr. George Benson (secretary to the Howard League) among others. But, of course, to the " healthy minded " like Mr. F. 0. Taylor, these correspondents are also " bleating exaggerators " and sentimentalists, as well as those adverse continental commentators at whose countries the hypocritical English are continually flinging accusations of cruelty. - Mr. Bernard Shaw is absolutely right when he maintains that this form of punishment lowers the standard of civilisation and demoralises the nation. If we admit one form of physical torture, we ought logically to reinstate all the other kinds in use for the different offences in mediaeval days, since it is quite obvious that we have not yet escaped from the slave- mentality of the tenth century. The way in which several newspapers have whipped up and excited sadistic passions of which the great mass of people are entirely unconscious as to their real origin is a proof that this question is not to be lightly set aside. On this the Editorial comment in The Spectator of last week (March 4th) and that in the corresponding section of the New Statesman and Nation for March 5th prove highly illuminating.
I know for certain that many Continental visitors have been astonished to find that the English, who so like to " preach " humaneness to their respective States, are tarred with the same brush. They now realise what they always suspected—that such moralising is pure cant ; while a " tough " Australian over here for the first time told me that the was amazed to find " such barbarity " still in force in England. A few more " bleating exaggerators " and sentimentalists.
I have been given private information from a reliable source (it can be substantiated and witnessed) which leads me to suspect that were floggings to be carried out publicly, say, in Piccadilly Circus, so as to form a kind of Roman holiday, high prices would be paid for the best places by otherwise eminently " educated " and " respectable " people.
Finally, there is the whole literature dealing with this subject —the studies of eminent psychologists, which lead me to re- affirm every point in my first letter ; but I am afraid that Mr. Taylor's highly virtuous and sensitive mind would be very " shocked " were he to set eyes on any of this literature.
Previous page
