.

was probably, in all countries, the first inftance of the Legiflators interpofing in matters of punishment. This, though a novelty, was fuch as could not alarm individuals, being cal:culated not to restrain the privilege of Revenge, but only to direct it towards its proper object.

The next ftep in order, was to regulate the degree of punishment, and to refcue the offender from the arbitrary power of the party injured. Our Author takes notice of a wife regulation in Abyffinia, for this purpofe; by which the Governor of the province named a Judge, who determined what punishment the crime deferved. If death, the criminal was delivered to the accufer, who had an opportunity of gratifying his Refentment to the full. But this regulation, he obferves, was improved by the Athenian Law, by which, tho' the criminal was delivered to the accufer to be put to death, yet it was unlawful to put him to any torture, or to force money from him. At length, however, all fuch regulations were rendered unneceffary, by a custom, which made a great figure in Europe for many ages, that of pecuniary compofitions for crimes.

1

From the correfpondence between the privilege of revenging voluntary injuries, and the fenfe of merited punishment in the delinquent, punishment came to be confidered as a fort of debt, in the strictest sense, which made room for these pecuniary compofitions, of which our Author difcovers traces among many different nations.

This practice at firft, as may reasonably be conjectured, refted altogether upon private confent: and the perfon injured might punith, or forgive, at his pleafure. The first step towards improvement, was to interpofe in behalf of the delinquent, if he offered a reasonable fatisfaction in cattle or money, and to afford him protection, if the fatisfaction was refufed by the perfon injured. The next step, was to make it unlawful to profecute Refentment, without firft demanding fatisfaction from the delinquent. The third ftep, which compleated the fyftem, was to compel the delinquent to pay, and the perfon injured to accept of a proper fatisfaction.

Our Author traces these gradual advances, through the Laws of feveral barbarous nations, with great diligence and accuracy. He takes notice that thefe compofitions were proportioned to the dignity of the perfon injured, and shews to whom they were payable. By the Salic Law, he obferves, where a man is killed, the half of the compofition belongs to his children, the other half to his other relations, upon

the

the fide of the father and mother. If there be no relations on the father's fide, the part that would belong to them, accrues to the Fifk. The like for want of relations on the mother's fide.

These reflections on pecuniary compofitions, naturally. bring our Author to what he calls the last and most shining. period of the Criminal Law in which he unfolds the means by which criminal Jurifdiction, or the right of punishment,, was transferred from private hands to the Magiftrate. In the infancy of fociety, he obferves, the idea of a Public is fo faint and obfcure, that public crimes, where no individual is hurt, pafs unregarded: but when Government, in its natural growth, hath advanced to fome degree of maturity, the public intereft is then recognized, and the name of a crime, against the Public understood.

It cannot be doubted, he fays, that the compofitions for crimes established by Law, paved the way to thefe improved notions of Government. The Magiftrate having acquired fuch influence in private punishment, proceeded naturally to, affume the privilege of avenging wrongs done to the Public merely, where no individual was hurt. It being once eftablifhed that there is a Public, that this Public is a politic, body, which, like a real perfon, may fue and defend, it was an easy step to intereft the Public even in private crimes, by, imagining every atrocious crime to be a public as well as private injury. In the oldeft compofitions for crimes, there is not a word of the Public in the Salic Laws, there is a long lift of crimes, and of their converfion in money, without any fine to the Public *. At length, however, a fine or Fredum was fuperadded to the King.

In procefs of time, as mankind were more enlightned, certain crimes were reckoned too flagrant to admit of a pecuniary converfion and compofitions established in the days of poverty, bore no proportion to crimes, when nations became rich and powerful. It was not difficult to provide a remedy for this evil: it having been long established, that the perfon injured had no claim but for the compofition, however difproportioned to the crime, this afforded the chief Ma

*Though there was no direct fine to the Public in the old compofitions, yet it is too much to fay, that there is not a word about the Public. For we find by the Salic Law, that for want of relations on the father or mother's fide, the part that would belong to them, accrued to the Fisk. So that we find the idea of a Public began to gain ground at that time.

giftrate a fair opportunity to interpofe, and decree an ade quate punishment. The firft inftances of this kind, had pro bably the confent of the party injured; and it was not difficult to perfuade any man of fpirit, that it was more for his honour to fee his enemy condignly punifhed, than to put up with a trifling compenfation in money. However this be, the new method gained credit, and paffed into a Law. «

After this Revolution in Government, our Author continues, we find the firft punishments extremely moderate, not only because they were directed chiefly to gratify the perfons injured, but because, till authority was fufficiently established, great feverities are beyond the ftrength of a Legislature, But when authority is firmly rooted in the minds of the people, more rigorous punishments may be ventured upon. At Taft, when people are become altogether tamé and fubmiffive, punishments being lefs and lefs neceffary, are generally mild, and ought always to be fo.

To this, he adds another remark, connected with the former, that it is not the only or chief view of a wife Legiflature, to preferve a ftrict proportion between a crime and its punishment. The purpofes of human punishments are, firft, to add weight to those which Nature has provided; and next, to enforce municipal regulations intended for the good of Society. Whence,' he concludes, that in regulating the punishment of crimes, two circumftances ought to weigh, viz. the immorality of the action, and its bad tendency, of which the latter appears to be the capital circumftance; for this evident reafon, that the peace of Society is an object of much greater importance, than the peace, or even life of individuals.'

This doctrine, however, ought furely to be promulged with the greatest caution and referve. It tends greatly to weaken the principles of Virtue, when men are made fenfible, that political convenience, and moral goodnefs, are independent confiderations, and that the latter is poftponed to the former. Instead of establishing this dangerous diftinction, our Author fhould rather have applied himfelf to prove, that confidered in a legislative view, every act against the peace of Society, includes in it a strong degree of moral turpitude. The Morality or Immorality of our actions, bear refpect to the Que Animo but human Laws must neceffarily prefume, that every bad act, that is, every act against the order of Society, is guided by a bad intent, and confequently immoral. Where avourable circumstances appear in behalf of particular delin

quents

rents, to induce a contrary conclufion, there is in most states' a dernier refort, where a power is lodged of moderating the Law. The Legislature, however, cannot provide against particular contingencies, but is governed by general principles, which lead to conclude, that every action against the peace of Society, is directed by an evil intention: and thus our Au thor's diftinction vanishes.

The Writer, as he proceeds, takes occafion to pay great? commendation to the Egyptian Laws, which, he obferves, have the following peculiar character, that they effectually an fwer their end, with lefs harshness and feverity, than is found! in the Laws of any other nation ancient or modern. Thus, fays he, thofe who revealed the fecrets of the army to the ene my, had their tongues cut out. Those who coined falfe money, or contrived falfe weights, or forged deeds, or razed public records, were condemned to lofe both their hands,

We cannot, however, concur with the Author in his encomiums on thefe Laws. The mutilations they directed, at the fame time that they punished the delinquent, punished the State, by rendering him lefs capable of being ferviceable, A man without hands, is a kind of dead weight to Society; and it cannot effectually answer the end of punishment, to difable the criminal.

This Tract concludes with fome very ingenious remarks on the privilege of profecuting public crimes; and takes notice of various regulations which have fubfifted in different countries, with refpect to the persons authorized for this purpofe. Here, however, our Author has fallen into a miftake with respect to the Law of England, where he fays, No criminal trial, in name of the Crown, can proceed, till 'firft the matter be examined by the Grand Jury of the country,' It has probably escaped the Writer's notice, or recollection, that, by means of an Information, a criminal trial may proceed, without any previous examination by a Grand Jury. But in a work of fuch confpicuous merit, more nue merous and confiderable errors might claim indulgence,

B-d

The Works of W. Hawkins, M. A. late Poetry Profeffor in the University of Oxford, and Fellow of Pembroke College. 8vo, 3 vols. 15s, Dodley, &c.

IN

N the first volume of the publication before us, Mr. Haw kins makes his appearance as a polemical Divine; a character which, in our opinion, does not fit very eafy on him;

nor does his prowefs in the fields of Controverfy entitle him to much honour.

In his first tract, entitled, A rational Enquiry into the Specu lative and Practical Opinions of the Chriftian Religion, he attacks the Sceptics and Unbelievers all round; among whom he not only includes profeffed Atheists and Deifts, but the Socinians, Arians, Roman-catholics, and, indeed, almost every fect that differ in opinion from himself. Unhappily for him, however, we find him here engaged in an undertaking far beyond, his ftrength; being frequently bewildered in attempting the folution of theological difficulties, on the principles of human reafon, independent on the Scriptures. On this occafion, alfo, we cannot help expreffing our concern, to find Proteftant Divines fo ready to lay afide their Bible, in their polemical writings; as if they had no ufe for it, in defence of those truths the holy Scriptures were exprefsly given us to teach, and which are by them only to be defended. In their controverfies, indeed, with Infidels, who deny the authority of the Scripture, they may plead a neceffity of having recourse to mere Philofophy: but in this cafe, we think, Prudence might dictate. There are certain points which they fhould never contest with fuch men at all. They may as well dispute about colours with the blind, as with men who who reject the authority of the Scriptures, concerning fome articles of the Chriftian Faith.

In every cafe, however, where they pretend to rely folely on reafon, they fhould remember, they engage the adverfary at his own weapons, and fhould be watchful to give him no caufe of triumph, in the weakness of their argument. We fhall give an inftance or two of the frength of our Author's.

In difproving the theory of the fuppofed Atheists, who deny the certainty of our knowlege of the moral attributes of the Deity, he fays; There is really no diftinction of natural and moral in the Divine Being: for though the bare idea of power, as fuch, does not neceffarily convey to us that of justice, or goodness, yet when applied to God, it evidently fuppofes the concurrence of both unless we can imagine the divine power to have been exerted in a mechanical, or árbitrary manner, which is at once recurring to abfolute Atheifm. Granting this, yet the Theorift is already fuppofed to be an Atheift; and is he likely to become less fo, merely by our Author's proving him to be fuch?

But