never solve. 'Skin for skin; all that a man hath will he give for his life.' And, in conclusion, might we invite to calmly and candidly look at his Reformatory theory in the light of the TICKET OF LEAVE system, which the intelligent of the three kingdoms have heartily condemned.

CHAPTER VIII.

PUBLIC EXECUTIONS.

6 WHOM YE SLEW, AND HANGED ON A TREE.'

THIS question has introduced a third party, who have adopted the via media of private executions. We are happy to claim this class as thoroughly at one with us in holding the divine law of death for death, and in condemnation of the abolitionist's main position. By this theory it is assumed that the private execution of the convicted murderer fully meets the demands of justice, while the feelings are spared the harrowing accompaniments of the scaffold. This plea is altogether one of feeling, and may therefore be very readily disposed of. And while we confess sympathy with the nervous affection of our amiable theorist, might we hint that he has the remedy in his own hand, by absenting himself from the last act of the murderer's tragedy? Without cumbering the discussion of this theory of mere natural feeling by stating all the objec

tions to which it is exposed, we rather choose to submit the following observations on its inadequacy for the ends of justice.

I. This theory of private execution contravenes the moral law. If this objection can be shown to be well founded, then all the pleas in favour of private executions must go to the wall. The divine law, then, not only assigns death for the murderer, but also specifies the mode of inflicting it; and thus the mode of inflicting the malefactor's death is, equally with the death itself, an essential part of the law of God. The inference is, that as these two elements are equally essential parts of the same divine law, so our theorist is not at liberty to take the one and to reject the other. He who said, 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,' also said, "Thou shalt hang the murderer against the sun on a tree.' And what intelligent reader of Scripture requires to be reminded of the numerous instances of Israel's compliance with this divine injunction? And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until even-tide.' 'And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees; and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.' But the same mode of publicly punishing murderers characterized the criminal law of all heathen

6

nations. It cannot be argued, on the one hand, that this fact simply shows the copying propensities of the heathen; for this would show that the divine law had recommended itself to heathen nations. Nor can it be argued, on the other, that this proves public executions to be merely heathen; for then, and especially as it was also Israelitish, this mode was universal, and founded in nature. And, in fine, the advocates of private executions cannot consistently plead the repeal of this essential part of the divine law, which they strenuously hold to be still in force.

II. The public execution of the murderer accords with the public character of his crime. To demonstrate the truth of this position we consider a work of supererogation. For although the crime is almost always committed in secret, yet, in its character and effects, no crime is or possibly can be more public; and in regard to it we may apply the words of our Lord: "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.' On this divine sentiment is founded the maxim that 'murder will out;' a maxim which is the groundwork of three-fourths of our popular romance, and which the annals of this crime have marvellously verified. But that murder is a public crime appears from its being an assault, not

only upon the person of the victim, but upon the life of the nation, by shaking the main pillar of the political fabric. For of what avail are the best-framed laws against breach of trust in the social, political, or commercial worlds, if the law securing our natural lives be loose and uncertain? Calm reflection, we are persuaded, will bring our theorist to the conclusion that public punishment is the best preventive of this crime, which, although perpetrated in secret, reaches the majesty of all law, and daringly violates every conceivable interest of the whole community.

The law is so mercifully framed that the prisoner charged with this bloody crime has every facility of proving his innocence in public court. The public trial shows that public interests are deeply affected; and why should not the punishment of the convicted murderer be also public, ay, and ignominious too?

Among the objections to public executions, we have that of the character of those who usually attend on hanging scenes, and are represented as the incurably hardened, and who make these occasions a special opportunity of belching out horrid blasphemy, and of practising their nefarious trade. On this popular objection we offer the subsequent remarks. First, we demur to the assumed truthfulness of this re