CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SUNDAY SCHOOLS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1354, 17 June 1878, Page 3

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SUNDAY SCHOOLS.

To the Editor of the Globe. Sir, —L read in your paper of Friday last a report of a meeting of the Diocesan Sunday School Association, in which it sail that the Bov. 11. G. M. Watson thought in certain cases that corporal punishment was admits bio in Sunday schools. I at onoo requested my husband to write to you, asking if Luo report was true, but ho refused, sajing I ought to know jit was all right, because 1 coaid not have forgotten the report, which was current some time ago, that the Rev. Mr Watson had struck a little girl for eating lollies in the Sunday School. Well, sir, I don’t mind telling you what I said to my husband. Sir, I told him that if either the Rev. Mr Watson; or anyone else;, were to strike cur Jeniinia in the Sunday School, and be did not horsewhip that man the next day, I would sow him. up in the LpcUl dhes and thrash him with a broomhandle. \Te, sir, and 1 will do it too. Yours, «Scc,, BETSY JANE.

THEATBE ROYAL. Richard HI. was produced on Saturday night and succeeded in filling the pit and stalls, the boxes being only meagrely attended. The part of the Duke of Gloucester, subsequently King Richard, was sustained by Mr W. C. Dillon. This actor’s forte being melodrama, it might reasonably have been expected that he would have appeared to advantage in a character of which the chief element is action, but this expectation was not realised. Mr Dillon’s conception is sufficiently original to warrant the supposition that it is his own. He makes Richard even more repulsive than ho is usually represented, exhibiting him as a compound of malice, ferocity and sardonic humour, without a redeeming feature. There was somewhat too much of the grotesque element introduced, and this, though it succeeded in secui’ing a certain amount of applause from the pit, militated considerably against the fidelity of the historical portrait. Mr Dillon is a disappointing actor, his business and by-play frequently being so good as render it the greater pity they should bo marred by such elocutionary mannerisms and peculiarities as he indulges _ in. One moment he will raise the expectations of his audience by a successful point, or an effective burst of passion, only to disappoint them next by some more than usually aggravating ant i-climax or declamatory oddity. If Mr Dillon would only be true to himself, and cultivate the rare faculty of natural acting, always keeping in mind the value of the proverb —ars est cclare certrm, there is no reason to doubt that with his fine voice, natural gifts of person, and intelligence, he would take high rank in his profession, and worthily sustain the name rendered so famous by his gifted father, Mr Graham, as the Earl of Richmond, which ho doubled with King Henry, played capitally, and richly earned the applause so liberally bestowed on him. Mr Hoskins as the Duke of Buckingham fully sustained his reputation as an admirable Shakspearian actor. Miss Tilly Andrews appeared to advantage as the Queen, but she would do well to study the costume of the period, and Miss Ashton would do better by remembering that the Duchess of York was an outraged wife and mother, whose wrongs were too deep to find vent in shrill and vulgar scolding. Miss Pender as Lady Anne looked and acted well. Messrs Hydes, Stark, and Hill did justice to their several parts of Lord Mayor, Stanley, and Catesby, while Master Willie Hill evinced considerable talent as the Duke of York. This evening “The Duke’s Motto” will bo produced for the benefit of Mr W. C. Dillon, when a good house may be anticipated.