case is this: If I was to come up with the schooner, and claim the young lady, it's my belief she wouldn't come with me. Where's my authority? I've none. My commission only authorises me to capture contraband, not runaway young ladies, whatever you may choose to call 'em. Now, it strikes me if you, dear Miss Maria, was to come with me, you'd have due authority over your niece, and could bring her back to the path of rectitude and virtue, while I could tackle the audacious young villain who has run off with her, and clap him in limbo should he prove obstrepolous."

Miss Maria hung down her head.

"But consider my reputation, dear Mr. Sparks," she said, softly. "The world might misconstrue my motives. Would my going be as correctly perfect in all respects as is desirable ?"

"Oh, bless your heart, Miss Maria, yes!" exclaimed the gallant officer, pressing the hand he held with renewed vigour. "I can make it all right, d'ye see, whenever you choose to name the day."

"Then I'll consent, dear Sammy," said the lady, sinking gracefully into the lieutenant's arms-that is to say, if Betty will go, since the faithless Barbara has deserted me."

Betty! Oh, bless you, yes, Betty will go!" cried the lieutenant. My old coxswain, Tom Stumps, has long been a-courting her, and he'll look well after her, depend on that."

Betty forthwith was called in, and made no objection. A trunk and two or three bandboxes were speedily packed. Stumps, who had followed his master up to the house, was ordered to carry them quickly down to the boat; Miss Maria, summoning Grimes, the perfect butler, told him that she should leave the house in his charge till her return in the evening, and then, leaning on the arm of the lieutenant, she followed her luggage and Betty, who had accompanied it, and had not forgotten to lay hands on such savoury viands as were ready in the house, and not probably to be found on board the cutter.

"A pretty rig!" exclaimed Grimes, lifting up his hands as he saw them embark; "Miss Clara been and run off with a handsome young chap; and I'll not blame her, though as for Barbara, I'll not say what I can say, but for the old woman for to go for to hop off with that seaturtle of an officer, it's more than I can stand, and I must take my measures accordingly. Oh, Barbara! Oh, Betty! for to treat me in that way for to desert your loving Giles Grimes. But they're all alike! Oh, womankind!—oh, womankind!”

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

On the 3rd of May last, Mr. Neate, one of the members for the city of Oxford, after Mr. Ewart's motion and Lord H. Lennox's amendment had been withdrawn, moved, as a substantive resolution, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to issue a royal commission to inquire into the provisions and operation of the law under which the punishment of death is inflicted, and the manner in which it has been executed in the United Kingdom, and to report whether it is desirable to make any alteration therein."

The government has not only assented to the motion, but it has also asserted that there are many points connected with the law of homicide which might well be made the subjects of inquiry.

We may, therefore, congratulate ourselves that, after a discussion of some years' duration, this all-important question will shortly be settled. It appears that in Tuscany, Portugal, two of the cantons of Switzerland, and in five of the states of America-viz. Rhode Island, Louisiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, the punishment of death has been abolished, and that most favourable results have ensued, whilst in Russia, France, and Belgium, though not actually abolished, it is seldom inflicted.

The abolitionists-those who wish for justice tempered with mercyare laughed at by their opponents as sentimental philanthropists, and as good-natured old women, who have accepted a brief from the murderer and the depraved. However, those who support the present system of capital punishment for murder, use arguments as well as taunts. They uphold that the infliction of death is more dreaded, and has consequently a greater deterring power, than any other punishment known to man. They insist that its abolition would inevitably be followed by an increase of those crimes which it is now intended to check; that the abolitionists are bound to prove that the proposed change would be beneficial to mankind, and that the present old and approved institution has proved a failure. They further insist that murder should be more severely punished than any other crime, and that the punishment of death has been and is still sanctioned and ordained by God.

Death, inflicted in the name of the law, is not only the most severe punishment we possess, but is the most impressive moral lesson that society can give to its corrupt members. Life is so dear to one, that a life of toil, wretchedness, and ignominy, without a single gleam of hope in this world, may be chosen to certain and instantaneous death. But this lesson we have no right to give until we have tried to do without it; it is wrong and impolitic to use harsh and cruel measures before we have tried the success of those that are mild and humane.

It is not the severity of punishment that deters, it is the certainty of it. Let punishment, however light, be the immediate and certain consequence of breaking the law, and with the exception of offences committed from a spirit of revenge, crime would almost cease. But we cannot ensure the commitment of the offenders, much less their punishment, but this is certain, that more severe the penalty, more chance is

there of the culprit escaping unpunished. Juries have very often perjured themselves, and still do so, in preference to sentencing a wretched creature to suffer death, whom their common sense of justice tells them deserves a far lighter punishment.

Murder, and treason against the state, are the crimes for which the highest penalty of the law are reserved. But, in order that they should deserve such a penalty, it ought to be shown that they are of a kind to increase with a less severe punishment.

In the case of treason: a rebellion has been put down, and the ringleaders caught, tried, and sentenced to death. What can be the use of taking away the life of these misguided men? their power to do harm is gone, and their death will not arrest any fresh rising. Imprisonment for life, or even for a term of years, would, therefore, be as effective as the harsher penalty.

In order to discover whether a sentence of death looming in the distance is effective in arresting many would-be murderers, it would be necessary to find out under what circumstances, and from what motives, murders are committed.

They may be committed, first, from feelings of revenge, hatred, malice, &c.; or, secondly, from accident.

1. The thought, the wish, and the intention, to commit murder follow one another very closely. Nothing, then, remains but to find an opportunity to do the deed. This may be done openly-careless of all consequences when it is generally called madness, or it may be conceived and carried out with an ability that, but for one fatal flaw, would have shrouded the crime in eternal mystery. The former course betokens such rashness-we might almost say madness-that it may be assumed that a thought of the future never entered the brain of the murderer, and that, therefore, to all such men or women whose desire it is to take the life of one or more of their fellow-creatures, the threat of death, or of any punishment whatever, will not turn them from their hellish purpose.

to

With the more calculating ruffians this may not be so apparent. They take their chance of death, but, at the same time, do all in their power escape detection and the punishment the law awards. Now, if the penalty were not death, but imprisonment for life, would the number of these plotting, scheming wretches increase? Does the fear of suffering death keep many from killing their enemies? We should be inclined to answer, No. The certainty of detection would doubtless prevent the class of murders of which we are now treating, except, indeed, those which are inspired by revenge. These it would be next to impossible for any legislation to arrest or repress. No punishment will deprive the murderer of the fruits of his crime. It is the fear of detection, and not the fear of any particular punishment, that restrains our murderous propensities. But if the former dread is not very powerful, if the murderer has sufficient courage and confidence in his own ability to run the gauntlet of the gallows, the highest penalty of the law evidently does not deter him. At present, from the consciousness that he is hazarding his own life, the wish, the act of revenge in killing his adversary, is almost ennobling. It is a brave man or woman who slays, who has courage enough to destroy one of God's works. We are threatening one who possibly does not dread

death, who, until the moment of its realisation, fears it as little as the soldier and the sailor whilst in the performance of their duty. Remember, too, that the desire to murder is an all-absorbing passion, that it leaves no room for less powerful feelings.

In the case of a woman killing her new-born infant, it is shame, the fear of ignominy, which occupies her whole thoughts. It never occurs to her that she may suffer death for her crime, she has but one engrossing feeling, a mad desire to hide her shame from the world. In a more modified form, may not this entire concentration of the faculties upon an all-powerful desire to commit murder almost banish from the imagination every other thought or feeling.

It should also be borne in mind that justice is not infallible: that one who is innocent may be hanged, and that, probably, where only circumstantial evidence is procurable, and also in cases of poisoning such a thing does sometimes happen. Far better that the guilty should escape than that the innocent should suffer. But there is no necessity for the guilty to escape. Imprisoned for life their sufferings would be endless in this world, but if a wretched blunder were made, we could rectify it (if an unjust loss of liberty ever can be rectified), whilst now we must perforce leave it to a higher and more just tribunal to make amends for our fatal

sentence.

2. Murders resulting from accident, that is to say, the result of robbery, burglary, violence, &c. In these cases, there is no malice or hatred against the particular individual that is murdered; the murder was not even contemplated when the lesser crime was designed. A penalty, therefore, for a crime which it was not proposed to commit, could not well have any restrictive effect, and would consequently be useless.

But it may be said that the penalty of death arrests violence at a certain point, and that if it were taken away there would be no inducement only to murder you within " an inch of your life," but that it would be just as safe, if not safer, to murder you outright.

If this is true, then it must be assumed that our criminal class is totally devoid of all mercy, and that they are capable of reasoning in a moment of excitement and passion. Except with its very worst and most ruffianly members, needless barbarity in the prosecution of their trade is not often used; and to expect a different course in scenes of violence, the knowledge of the difficulty, nay often impossibility, of controlling our own temper and passions, ought to tell us that this is an unfounded assumption.

But what is the objection to imprisonment for life as a penalty? Is it feared that it is not, and cannot be made sufficiently severe. Entire separation from your fellow-creatures for ever, with enforced silence, is that not to be dreaded? Repeated severe bodily punishment, until your spirit is as broken as your flesh, is that not a terrible prospect to look forward to? Yoked for life to a fellow-murderer, chained day and night to a being you would tear to pieces if you could, and with labour so toilsome that your last prayer, as you sink exhausted into a painful slumber, is that you may never rise to see the morn. Is not death preferable to this, is it

not even merciful?

Heaven forbid that we should recommend such cruelty, but sceptics

VOL. LVI.

N

must be shown that the penalty of death is not the greatest that can be bestowed.

Our laws are meant to protect society as a body against criminals as a class, and if that can be done without capital punishment, it should not be retained because there are individuals who are foolish enough to be afraid of being "murdered in their beds" by the hoard of ruffians that, according to them, the more civilised and humanised legislation would let loose.

This longing to punish murder with death is surely but a feeling of vengeance. On hearing of a horrible and brutal murder, the first sentiment is one of repugnance, followed by a desire for vengeance. But is this vindictive spirit right? should it be encouraged? We are not about to discuss whether the punishment of death by mortal hands is sanctioned by Holy Writ, but it cannot be for a moment supposed that vengeance is sanctioned.

It might also be here asked, Have we any right, granting that we may destroy human life, to sentence the culprit to eternal punishment, to destroy his chance of salvation? Yet, in putting criminals to death, this must often happen. If they suffer death before repentance, we must presume that they will never be saved; but by allowing them to live, they may be rescued from a fate in comparison to which the greatest torment upon earth is as nothing. Again, is repentance, with the fear of death before their eyes, to be trusted? May it not be fear of meeting the Supreme Judge that produces it so suddenly, or is it truly contrition and remorse such as years of a blighted existence would surely produce? The thought of destroying the soul as well as the body is almost too terrible to grasp, but if such is the effect of our present laws, the sooner they are amended the better it will be for our own chance of salvation.

To take a more prosaic glance at this question, the views which have been here stated can be supported by statistics. It is true that not much dependence can be placed upon figures in such a case as this, but still they may not be utterly useless. With but one exception, the numerous offences that were once punished with death have decreased since the introduction of a less severe penal code. The single exception is forgery. We must take here into account the increase of population, the greater facilities for committing it, and the former unwillingness to prosecute. The mercantile world is satisfied that there is no real increase. those who are prepared to abide by the tables and averages propose to reintroduce capital punishment? They themselves would be the first to scoff at such an idea.

Would

Lord Hobart, in his essay "On Capital Punishment for Murder," states that in the case of murder the committals to executions are about six to one, and that for other offences they are as four to three. That is to say, that out of every twelve men committed for trial for the crime of murder, ten escape the punishment of death (one of these would be imprisoned, the remaining nine being released), and for other offences, only three escape the penalty awarded them.

Surely the evidence that these statistics afford ought alone to prove to an unbiassed person the inexpediency and uselessness of this penalty, as well as the groundlessness of the fear that the crime of murder would increase with its abolition.