+

Some think that we derive a right from religion: let me expend a moment in denying this! It is quite true, as the last speaker affirmed, that there are two versions of a certain passage in the Bible —by one of which we derive, or ferret out, a sort of vague authority to kill a manslayer; and by the other of which we find no such authority at all. But if there are two versions—each of which has its unyielding defenders the passage is at best but one of doubtful meaning: and is a doubtful verse a foundation strong enough to sustain the awful act of judicial slaughter? No, Sir, not in the eyes of men of sense.

But we are pointed to the fact that God himself ordained Capital Punishment when he gave laws to the children of Israel. Sir, the Jewish system has been superseded these nineteen centuries, and is now no rule at all for us. Besides, the Jewish law awards death to a host of other offences as well as to murder; and if we take it as our rule in one case, we ought also to follow it in all cases. Should we be right in hanging a man for killing a sheep?- for breaking the Sabbath day? for swearing at his parents? Ridiculous! And so it is also ridiculous to say that we ought to hang for murder because the Jewish law enjoined it!

We have been told that the ruler is the representative of the Almighty, and therefore that he

is right in inflicting Capital Punishment. The absurdity of this line of argument is easily demonstrable. Was Nero Heaven's vicegerent? Was Henry the Eighth Heaven's commissioner? Was Queen Mary the appointed minister of God? These worthies bore "the sword". was it the sword of eternal justice, think you? They "smote" with it, too: was it in Heaven's name, or in Heaven's cause, or by Heaven's direction that they did so? Are Nero's atrocities to be justifiedare Henry the Eighth's 72,000 executions to be approved-are Queen Mary's infamous Smithfieldbonfires to be defended, upon the plea that these wicked sovereigns were "powers ordained of God"? Doubtless power comes from Heaven all power the power to kill with the rest; but it may be wrongly used: and the "powers may be amenable to sense and justice for the errors they commit in the use of it. Capital Punishment may be wrong, then, in spite of the "divine commission" of the ruler.

The gentleman who spoke last desired to know how the assertion that all murderers are insane can be proved. The answer is most easy: by the deed of murder itself. Murder is a thing so unnatural so revolting-so tremendous-that no sane being can conceive or perpetrate it.

But what do we propose to substitute for the penalty of death? is a question asked of us.

Sir,

it matters not what

-

that is short of death. Any thing is better than slaughter: for all other punishments affect the body alone whilst slaughter kills body and soul, too. Let us imprison our murderers for life: we imprison our madmen: let us add these to them: and we shall not do wrong. Society will be safe for the culprit will be precluded from the opportunity of doing further harm: the land will be purified from blood: and the gallows will no longer be the filthy creator of a world of frightful crime.

See Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH'S WORKS, vol. i. pp. 443.; vol. iii. 309. 367-386.

EDINBURGH REVIEW, vol. xxxv. pp. 320-353.

SYDNEY TAYLOR ON THE PUNISHMENT OF
DEATH, pp. 15-20. 90-94. 119. 176, 258
-261. 417-424.

THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH REVIEWED. By
Frederick Rowton.

QUESTION IV.

Does Morality increase with Civilisation?

OPENER.Sir, I think we have here lighted upon a question of great value and interest; a question involving some most important principles, and one calculated to lead us to conclusions affecting materially our whole life and conduct.

We are to say whether Civilisation promotes Morality; or in simpler words, whether Knowledge leads to Virtue. If we say "Yes" to this question, then we shall see that it is our duty to promote the mental instruction of our fellow-men by every means in our power: - and if we say "No" to it then we shall hesitate ere we help to slake that craving thirst for intellectual knowledge which is one of the chief signs of our age, and which is doubtless working towards some vast result of evil or of good.

By the term Morality, Sir, I mean good conduct; conduct in accordance with justice and virtue. I do not mean mere conventional propriety, or simply literal adherence to the moral law; selfinterest or hypocrisy may be the source of this:

and the most outwardly irreproachable man may be really the most inwardly foul and detestable of his species. I mean by Morality — good conduct springing from true principle: and by my question I seek to know whether this Morality is promoted by the increase of Civilisation. I wish to determine what connection subsists between the mind and the heart and I think that I cannot better discover this than by the discussion of the subject I have proposed.

I do not mean for the present to take either one side or the other; I candidly own that I come to learn rather than to teach. I have taken some pains to mould my question into the best form that I could shape for it; and I only stay to express my hope that the speakers will keep as closely as possible to the meaning of the subject as I have developed it.

SECOND SPEAKER.- Sir, Fully agreeing with the opener of the debate in the opinion which he has expressed of the importance of the subject, I take the liberty to offer a few remarks to the meeting.

I am inclined to adopt the negative side of this question. I cannot see that there is any connection whatever between knowledge and goodness. Knowledge is the wisdom of the brain: goodness is the wisdom of the heart: and they