tions took place, the committals for the same offences fell to 11,332. Here we have a great reduction of capital punishments, accompanied by a considerable decline in commitments.† Who will say, with these facts before their eyes, that every life destroyed upon the scaffold, is not a useless and wanton shedding of blood?

The case for the abolition of capital punishment is greatly strengthened, when we find that crimes non-capital were increasing in this country, during the time in which the decrease took place as to those crimes for which the penalty of death had been either partially discontinued, or altogether abolished by law.

Abolition of the Punishment of Death-Mr. EWART's Motion.— March 5, 1840.

THE motion for the total abolition of capital punishments, of which Mr. EWART has given notice, stands for this evening. Our own opinion on this subject is that no legislature, under the Christian Dispensation, has the right to take human life. Nevertheless, we have from time to time argued the question on the mere ground of political expediency; and on that ground we have shown, by legitimate conclusions from facts incontrovertible, that the interests of society demand no such sacrifices as those which laws of blood impose. * * *

In our enumeration, yesterday, of the great crimes, respecting which the practical mitigation or legislative repeal of the capital punishment had operated beneficially, or, at least, had not been productive of any detriment to society, we omitted to mention the greatest of all. We mean murder-that one which many conscientious people feel most difficulty about. * As to murder, how does the case stand with regard to the expediency of abolishing the capital punishment, on the testimony of experience? Thus :-it rests on the unquestionable authority of parliamentary returns, that in three years, ending

[+ See Parliamentary Return, No. 547, printed in 1840. ED.]

*

December, 1835, in which thirty-nine persons were executed for that crime (all, or nearly all, of those convicted), the committals were 216; while in the three following years, ending December, 1838, in which a practical mitigation of the law reduced the executions to twenty-one, or little more than one-half of the former number, the committals fell to 191, giving a decrease of twenty-five committals in the three years, or about eight per

annum.

How do we account for this and other instances of a diminution of great crimes following the mitigation, or abolition, of the capital law? Simply on the ground that a greater number of guilty persons are acquitted under a capital law, known to be inexorably executed, than under any other. There is, therefore, a greater encouragement to crime under a law of blood rigidly carried into execution, than under a milder law, or one less revoltingly obtruded in practice upon the manly sensibilities of a Christian people.

So far as to the expediency of capital punishments. But when we deny the right of legislatures to destroy human life, we are sometimes met by that often-quoted and much-perverted passage from Holy Writ-" Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

** *

If, indeed, what is commonly called the Noachic command were a command at all, [instead of a prediction,] is it not strange that the ALMIGHTY CREATOR, who is represented as having given that command, did not permit the hand of man to shed the blood of the FIRST MURDERER? What was the sentence on him whose murderous violence caused his brother's blood to cry to Heaven from the ground? Was it death? No-it was perpetual banishment." A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." Was this too light a punishment for the murderer-the first that defaced the image of God in the person of man? OMNIPOTENT WISDOM thought not. The great criminal himself expressed his sense of its terrible but just severity" And CAIN said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear."" What an agony of conscience-stricken suffering breathes in the following words :"Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the

earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me, shall slay me."

Was he slain?-were men commanded to slay him?-was he put to death as a murderer, or made a living and lasting example? The forcible language of Holy Writ gives the emphatic answer- And the LORD set a mark upon CAIN, lest any finding him should kill him.' Let this also be the answer to those who quote the passage, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," as a Divine command, and not as a moral precept.

The great command which says, "Thou shalt not kill," is addressed no less to men in their collective capacity than as individuals. The moral law of JUDAISM is not repealed by Christianity, though the judicial is. The Divine FOUNDER of the religion of mercy condemned the principle of retaliation, when he forbade the taking 66 an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." Using a part for the whole, He thereby condemned, and, as the Great Lawgiver of Christianity, repealed the whole law of retaliation-which is the law under which we punish the murderer, and revenge blood on blood by taking life for life.

We have found it necessary to make these observations in answer to those persons-among whom are some JUDGES, far better lawyers than theologians-who are in the habit of quoting a text of Scripture in a perverted sense, to justify judicial homicide. Yet many such persons maintain the lawfulness of shedding man's blood in war-nay, are or have been profuse of it upon the scaffold for invasions of the rights of property, or mere political offences. Can they reconcile this to their own interpretation of the scriptural passage from the ninth chapter of the Book of Genesis, to which interpretation we oppose the Divine act of penal justice recorded in the fourth chapter of that holy book, and the spirit that breathes in all the chapters of the book of CHRISTIANITY?

March 7, 1840.-CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS are doomed. The race of blood-stained legislation is nearly run. Ninety-two voices, in a House of Commons consisting of only two hundred

and fifty-five members, in favour of the total abolition of the punishment of death, on the first occasion of such a proposition having ever been submitted to the British Legislature, is an earnest of a great and not very distant triumph of the principles of enlightened criminal jurisprudence. When that triumph takes place, the gallows will no longer be considered an indispensable portion of the machinery of a civilized Government; nor will the executioner be relied on to supply the deficiencies of moral and religious instruction as the teacher of social and political duties to a Christian people.

* * *

On the 7th of June, 1830, in writing upon the question of the reform of the criminal law, in respect of capital punishments, we thus expressed ourselves: We have enforced the sentiments for which we now contend, in times and seasons when the prospect of success was more remote than it appears to be at present. We have abided by them through evil report and through good report. We have had the satisfaction of seeing the impulse given to PUBLIC OPINION, which will yet clear away every obstacle opposed to the establishment of an enlightened system of justice." We little thought then, that, within ten years—a small speck of time, indeed, in the life of a peoplethe anticipation thus indulged in would have been brought so near to its fulfilment. * * *

The VICEROY of Egypt-Russian Intrigue.-Sept. 14, 1840.

"In our days it is not the territorial extent of a state, nor even its material force, which forms its prosperity and safety. It is the more solid guarantee of treaties which constitutes its integrity, by making it enter into the political system of Europe. It is thus, that by glancing over a map, we find many small states without resources, by the side of more powerful empires. They have, however, no oppression nor injustice to fear. All Europe watches over their honour and prosperity."

So spoke, or so wrote, the consuls of the four powers to his Highness the VICEROY of Egypt, at Alexandria, on the 19th of August. The passage is an extract from a document which we published on Saturday, and which originally appeared in the French journal, the Constitutionnel. The document is headed. Reflections on the present position of the VICEROY of Egypt,

submitted to his Highness by the Consuls-general of Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia.

The consular representatives of the four powers, when they penned the passage which we have quoted, must either have been very forgetful of the recent history of Europe; or must have presumed largely upon the supposed ignorance of MEHEMET ALI of events, which-even since the "settlement of Europe" by the great powers, in 1815-have somewhat disturbed, notwithstanding the "solid guarantee of treaties," the political system of the most enlightened quarter of the globe.

Did MEHEMET ALI ever hear of the name of a kingdom, called Poland? That kingdom having been weakened by internal dissensions consequent upon its elective monarchical system, found its crafty and ambitious neighbour-Russia—as ready to pay attention to her domestic concerns, and to "settle" her domestic disputes, as she now is to arrange those of the Ottoman empire, on a plan of permanent pacification. Russia thinking it hazardous, however, to follow out her plan of protecting and settling Poland, without taking to her assistance some other great powers, entered into a tripartite treaty for the purpose with Austria and Prussia, which resulted in those three powers partitioning Poland among them, Russia-of course-retaining for herself the "lion's share."

66

But then the "partition of POLAND," both the first and second, happened long before the "settlement of Europe" by the great powers in 1815. That is true. But on the overthrow of NAPOLEON, that portion of the ancient kingdom of the Poles, which up to the Treaty of Vienna was styled, the "Duchy of Warsaw," was by the congress of pacificators erected into a kingdom, and its independence and nationality placed on the solid guarantee of treaties." It was England, through her minister, Lord CASTLEREAGH, that proposed this arrangement. France, represented by TALLEYRAND, pressed it also. The AUTOCRAT of Russia-finding that the representatives of England and France were firm-appeared to fall in with the policy of those powers. He was compensated for his acquiescence by obtaining the sovereignty of the new kingdom under the title of "King of POLAND." He on his part undertook to give the