must be either unbounded license, or absolute authority.  The master, who punishes, not only consults the future happiness of him who is the immediate subject of correction, but he propagates obedience through the whole school; and establishes regularity by exemplary justice.  The victorious obstinacy of a single boy, would make his future endeavours of reformation or instruction totally ineffectual.  Obstinacy, therefore, must never be victorious.  Yet, it is well known that there, sometimes, occurs a sullen and hardy resolution, that laughs at all common punishment, and bids defiance to all common degrees of pain.  Correction must be proportionate to occasions.  The flexible will be reformed by gentle discipline, and the refractory must be subdued by harsher methods.  The degrees of scholastick, as of military punishment, no stated rules can ascertain.  It must be enforced till it overpowers temptation; till stubbornness become flexible, and perverseness regular.  Custom and reason have, indeed, set some bounds to scholastick penalties.  The schoolmaster inflicts no capital punishments; nor enforces his edicts by either death or mutilation.  The civil law has wisely determined, that a master who strikes at a scholar’s eye shall be considered as criminal.  But punishments, however severe, that produce no lasting evil, may be just and reasonable, because they may be necessary.  Such have been the punishments used by the respondent.  No scholar has gone from him either blind or lame, or with any of his limbs or powers injured or impaired.  They were irregular, and he punished them; they were obstinate, and he enforced his punishment.  But, however provoked, he never exceeded the limits of moderation, for he inflicted nothing beyond present pain; and how much of that was required, no man is so little able to determine as those who have determined against him—­the parents of the offenders.  It has been said, that he used unprecedented and improper instruments of correction.  Of this accusation the meaning is not very easy to be found.  No instrument of correction is more proper than another, but as it is better adapted to produce present pain, without lasting mischief.  Whatever were his instruments, no lasting mischief has ensued; and, therefore, however unusual, in hands so cautious, they were proper.  It has been objected, that the respondent admits the charge of cruelty, by producing no evidence to confute it.  Let it be considered, that his scholars are either dispersed at large in the world, or continue to inhabit the place in which they were bred.  Those who are dispersed cannot be found; those who remain are the sons of his prosecutors, and are not likely to support a man to whom their fathers are enemies.  If it be supposed that the enmity of their fathers proves the justness of the charge, it must be considered how often experience shows us, that men who are angry on one ground will accuse on another; with how little kindness, in a town of low trade, a man who lives by