THE TUTOR IN ERROR. 233 



proper allowance made. If one colt learns anything 

 we wish him in a few days, and another does not, the 

 failure of the latter is at once set down to obstinacy, 

 and the poor brute is punished for not doing that 

 which he would willingly do if he really knew what 

 we wanted of him. We will say a horse has been cried 

 " who-ho " to many times, but does not stop : the 

 rider fancies the horse ought to know his wishes, and 

 consequently will also fancy that he does. What 

 would the generality of breakers do on such an 

 occasion ? Why, give a violent snatch at the colt's 

 mouth, accompanied with a " who-ho " loud enough 

 to frighten a drove of oxen, probably with the 



addition of " and be d d to you " at the end of it. 



Could any thing be more absurd than this ? and what 

 would be the probable result of such conduct ? Not 

 assuredly that which was wanted, namely, to make 

 the colt quietly stop ; but on the contrary, the violent 

 pull would make him throw up his head if he had 

 liberty to do so, or run back or plunge if he had not ; 

 in short, it would make him do any thing but what 

 he was wanted to do ; and he will get punished for 

 committing a fault of the rider's own creating. Now, 

 if a colt had learned his lesson, and had constantly 

 stopped on being spoken to, we should then know 

 that he understood our wishes ; and if he on particular 

 occasions did not obey, a properly proportioned punish- 

 ment for his disobedience would be allowable ; but we 

 should be perfectly satisfied on this head before we 

 administer the punishment, however slight it might be, 

 for, wrongly applied, it would undo what had been 

 done before. 



I am very much afraid that punishment is often 

 had recourse to, not as a painful alternative that the 

 future well-doing of the objects compels us to inflict, 



