著者

寺崎 弘昭

出版者

東京大学

雑誌

東京大学大学院教育学研究科紀要 (ISSN:13421050)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.38, pp.15-42, 1998-03-26

---

In this paper, the writer has attempted to reconsider a manslaughter case against a schoolmaster (Regina v. Hopley, 1860) by examining contemporary newspapers and educational journals. Through this research, he intends to clarify not only the incident itself but also public reactions and opinions for/against school corporal punishment. Regina v. Hopley had been regarded as an archetype of legal cases of school corporal punishment in commentaries on the laws of England, until the school corporal punishment was abolished in 1987. But, curiously enough, the incident itself and contemporary reactions have never been brought to light. Because of such absence of full investigative research, we often tended to consider Regina v. Hopley to have been only a trivial and minor matter for contemporary people. However, as the writer has provided a detailed picture on account of his investigation of local newspapers (The Sussex Advertiser, The Lews Times, The Sussex Express, and so on), the Hopley's incident was most sensational and caused the greatest excitement in England. Local newspapers enthusiastically reported the case in detail, and furthermore, submitted a profile of Hopley's career and their analyses of "The Eastbourne Tragedy" (The Brighton Observer, 11 May 1860). Furthermore, most of English and Scotch principal newspapers also reported the trial of Hopley (July 23,1860) and made comments on the incident; The Times, The Illustrated London News, Saturday Review, The Bristol Mercury, The Manchester Guardian, The Caledonian Mercury (Edingburgh), and so on. It is certain, as English legal textbooks told us, that Regina v. Hopley permitted a "moderate and reasonable" corporal punishment. But on the other hand, it is more certain that the "brutal affair" stimulated popular feelings averse to corporal punishment. For example, The Sussex Advertiser pointed out how Hopley's "miserable desire" to establish his educational system "converted correction into cruel and brutally aggravated punishment", and The Brighton Observer (May 11) demanded "the abolition of all corporal punishment in the schools of England" in order to prevent a recurrence of such tragedies. And, above all, not only Justice Cockburn and the prosecutor Parry but also the pleader Ballantine hoped for a school without corporal punishment in the court. On the other hand, it was only four of twelve educational periodicals published in 1860 that made comments on the Hopley case. Most of them, except Papers for the Schoolmaster, were averse to the "public opinion" expressed vigorously in the newspapers; especially their proposal of "the total abolition of corporal punishment" (The Brighton Examiner, 31 July 1860). But they were obliged to keep silence and left behind "public opinion". In order to relieve the educational discourses from such peril and establish a professional leadership in the debate on school corporal punishment, Joseph Payne attempted to formulate a new pedagogical paradigm of school corporal punishment from a point of view of "Science and Art of Education" in his lecture (The Educational Times, March 1861). He was "the first professor of education in Britain" (Richard Aldrich). He himself, however, did not argue against the use of physical punishment as a means of maintaining discipline. He denied only habitual use of corporal punishment. Rather, he asserted that "a vigilant administration", which corresponds to the "pouvoir pastoral" (Michel Foucault), was necessary for the discipline and it would become a basis for the effectiveness of corporal punishment. In Payne's lecture, Hopley's act was criticized merely for its "cool, conscientious barbarity". However, Hopley vindicated his act as a deliberate and educational one based upon John Locke's view of corporal punishment which Payne also referred to as one of his forerunners. Locke even approved corporal punishment against children's "Stubbornness" in his famous book Some Thoughts concerning Education (§ 78).