« AnteriorContinua »
is round, and Man's heart a Triangle fond of it, and used it as a manual, receptacle for the Trinitie." his "Jewell and delight." Yet there is little in it to entitle it to this high distinction. Unlike Cecil's treatise, it is slightly tinged with Puritanism: but it is sober, even to dulness. Coming to it from the smart, sagacious, proverb-like sentences of that adept in human nature, we find nothing scarcely that takes hold of the imagination. Now and then there is a grotesque description. "Shamefastnesse (shamefacedness) is a goodly ornament of noble persons. It exalteth those which be humble, making them noble. It is the beauty of them that are feeble and weak, the prosperity of them which be sicke, the comfort of them that are in heavinesse, the increase of all beauty, the flower of religion, the defence and buckler against sinne, a multiplier of good deeds; and, to be short, it is the onely paramour and durling of God, the Creator of all."
The last paper in these Miscella nies, all purporting to come from the pen of Cecil, is "The genealogy, offspring, progeny and kindred, the houshold, the family, the servants and retinue of Pride, cum tota sequela sua, with all her trayne and followers," in which goodly company are placed 10thly, "Error, heresie, superstition, schisme, sects, pharisaisme, Puritanisme, idolatry."
Could this lynx-eyed statesman discover no other sentiment than pride as the motive of those men of irreproachable and saintly lives, that would not bow to the authority of a vain, loose-living and profane-talking woman, who succeeded her father, the Nero of his age, as "Head of the Church of Christ upon earth," or that questioned the spiritual lordship of bishops who had played fast and loose with religion, and were frocked or unfrocked at the pleasure of "Queen Bess"?
The "Contents" of this little book are summed up in the following chapters, designed to picture so many "abuses." "1. A wise man without workes. 2. An old man without de
-O! soul of Sir John Cheke."
Cecil was the trimmer from policy that this Greek scholar was from weakness, and the master was so far happier than the scholar, that the grievousness of Cheke's fall from the faith made repentance and restoration almost a matter of course, whilst Cecil's even but slippery tenor of life allowed him to practise hypocritical compliances, without any great outward violation of integrity, and consequently without any deep compunction of conscience.
The whole title of the second tract in the volume runs as follows: "A Glasse, wherein those enormities and foule abuses may most evidently bee seen, which are the destruction and overthrow of every Christian Common wealth. Likewise the only means how to prevent such dangers: by imitating the wholesome advertiseinents contained in this Booke. Which sometimes, was the Jewell and delight of the right honourable Lord, and Father to his Country, FRANCIS, Earle of Bedford, deceased." At first, I thought that the "Glasse" was composed by the "Earle of Bedford," but I believe Mr. "Thomas Jones" means only to represent that the Earle was
votion. 3. A young man without obedience. 4. A rich man without charity. 5. A woman without shamefastnesse. 6. A master or ruler without virtue. 7. A Christian man full of contention. 8. A poore man proud. 9. A wicked and an unjust king. 10. A negligent bishop. 11. A people without discipline. 12. A people without law."
"The ninth abuse" the writer justly calls "a capital abuse indeed." To display it by contrast, he describes royal excellence in a passage not without strength, and containing a summary of patriotic principles: "The righteousnesse and justice of a king, is to oppresse no man wrongfully by power: to judge and give sentence betweene man and man indifferently, without affection of any person: defend strangers, orphane children and widdowes: to see that robbery and theft raigne not in his realme: to punish straitly adulterous and fornicating persons: not to promote and exalt such as are wicked: to give no living to such as are unchaste persons, and makers of vicious pastimes: to destroy out of his land all that are wicked against God and their parents :
to suffer no murtherer or man-queller to live, much lesse such as doe kill either father or mother: to defend the church to comfort the poore with deeds of charity: to take heed that his officers under him bee just and good men: to have of his counsell, ancient, wise and sober men: to give no eare to sooth-sayers, witches or enchanters: not to keepe anger in his stomacke to defend his country justly and valiantly against adversaries: to put his whole trust and confidence for all things in God: not to be the prouder in heart if things doe succeed after his minde, and to beare the contrary patiently to keepe steadfastly the Catholike or universall Faith: not to suffer his children to doe wickedly: to bestowe certaine houres daily in prayer: not to eate and drinke out of season. For woe be to that land, (as the prophet saith,) whose king is a childe, and whose great men doe rise up early to eate and drinke."
The Saviour's name I'll gladly sing,
It is religion makes the man,
The honest moralist dwells upon «6 many and sundry sores" which "doe infect a realme and hinder the prosperous weale thereof," "but above all things," he says, 66 the unrighteousnesse of a King, doth make darke and clowdie the face of his whole realme;" and he concludes with this warning to the possessors of thrones: "But yet let every King take this lesson with him, and marke it well,that as among men he is set highest in his throne, so if he minister not justice, hee shall be deepest in paine. For in this life as many transgressors and offenders as hee had under him, so many in the time to come shall he have above him, to his extreame sorrow and paine remedilesse."
They preach and pray, and sing their
The spirit, at least, of this and a few other passages is worthy of one of the founders of the house of Russell, a "father to his country," whether as the author or the admirer. Had this little compendium of duty been the "jewell and delight" also of the Charleses and the Jameses, it might have saved one from decapitation, another from discrowning, and all four from indelible historic infamy.
And when that happy day is come, When all the Christians are brought home,
We'll shout in high enraptured bliss, With all the blood-wash'd Methodists.
Repository, it is at your service. It is "The Methodist Hymn," taken from a Collection of Hymns, for Camp-Meetings, Revivals, &c. &c. By Hugh Bourne. Nottingham. 1821.
To the Devil's camp I'll bid adieu,
Come sinners, turn unto the Lord,
Come now with me, and you shall know
What a great Saviour can bestow;
I am a soldier of the cross,
The following account "Of the Origin of the English Camp-Meetings," &c., forms the Introduction to the Collection.
"A large Religious Meeting in the
"A day's praying upon Mow began first to be talked of in the year 1801. The thought rose simply from a zeal for praying which had sprung up in that neighbourhood. From the year 1802 to 1807, various accounts of the American Camp-Meetings. were published. These accounts strengthened the cause, and fanned the flame: and in the mean time LORENZO Dow, a native of America, preached in England, and gave some account of these meetings. He drew some attention to the subject, but never had a thought of attempting a Camp-Meeting in England; and when he left England, he had no thought of such a thing taking place.
"In 1807, by a peculiar direction of Providence, a Camp-Meeting took place as above; and two more were published in the same year. These were strangely opposed, and as wonderfully supported, and Camp-Meetings gained an establishment."
Essay on the Principles of Criminal Law.
Ta moment when joy and hope excited by the contemplation of a Legislature engaged in the work of
Mow is a large mountain running between Staffordshire and Cheshire; and about five miles distant from the Staffordshire Potteries.
repairing and improving what time has dislocated, or earlier wisdom had left incomplete, in the great political and social institutions of this country, it may be permitted to any individual, however humble, to offer with suitable diffidence and temperance, his counsel upon the occasion.
It is proposed in the present essay very briefly to discuss the principles of criminal law, or punitive justice; a discussion that might seem altogether superfluous to those who advert only to the copious exposition of those principles which has been made by writers of the most eminent talents in this and other nations. But as the practice of no people, perhaps, has accorded with correct theory in this matter, and as consequently it has been difficult to inquirers at all times to view the subject through a clear medium, an attempt to bring out the chief points to be regarded in this melancholy department of jurisprudence may not be improper or useless. Now, as it is obvious that we cannot expect to draw safe conclusions from false premises, nor to form good systems without establishing and adhering to solid fundamental principles, it appears most important in the inquiry before us to determine what are the proper purposes or ends of criminal laws. These purposes we will begin with stating in the following order:
1. To protect society from injurious and vicious practices, denominated by Blackstone "public wrongs."
2. To reclaim and reform offenders. 3. To deter the criminal and others from a repetition of the offence.
4. To make reparation, wherever it is practicable, to the party injured.
Simply to state the first-mentioned purpose is sufficient, as the only controversy would be respecting the means of attaining that end, and these means are to be investigated under the following heads.
It might be presumed, that in Christian communities the purpose next mentioned would at once be admitted
tal government, punishment is termed correction, whether it be or be not adapted to that end. In the government of a state, we say that justice is administered towards those who are accused of offences; and justice implies what is equal and right, or tend
ing to rectify what is wrong. "In moderate governments," says Montesquieu, a good legislator is less bent upon punishing than preventing crimes; he is more attentive to inspire good morals than to inflict penalties." It is true, that when we speak of the amendment of an offender, we suppose that an offence has been committed, and to prevent offences, it may be reasonably urged, should be our leading desire and aim. Offences, however, will come under the best system of policy. Their enormity may be greatly restrained, and their number diminished, but notwithstanding the force of religion and of law they will exist in every society. Good institutions for religious and moral instruction, wise means for diffusing a virtuous spirit through a nation, are the most effectual preventatives of crime. But our present business is with criminals, and with the laws relating to persons actually in that class. We may contend, then, that the most efficient means of lessening the number and enormity of crimes will be found in judicious plans for reclaiming offenders at the commencement, or at an early stage, of their career. With reflecting persons it surely cannot be difficult to establish the truth of this position. To apply correctives before the mind has been hardened by a long course of criminality must, it seems, offer a better chance of success than to attempt to restrain obdurate of fenders by severity of punishment. The criminal not deeply practised in vice would, in very many, if not in most, cases be reclaimed by being placed in an appropriate situation, and supplied with suitable instruction and aid. He might be led and encouraged, but even he would rarely be forced and terrified into amend ment. And as to criminals more advanced in their sad course, we may, without hesitation, say, that so long as any reasonable hope of their reformation could be entertained, it would be right, and conducive to the best interests of society, to make their punishment a reclaiming process.
But if these be truths, and if in speculation they might receive general and ready assent, it is evident that they have not been much attended to by practical politicians and legislators. That which we have mentioned third
in order, among the ends of criminal justice, appears solely or principally to have occupied their attention. Every one will concur in the principle that laws must be enacted and measures adopted for this end, of deterring from crime; though a wide difference of sentiment may exist respecting the application of that principle-respecting the measures and the laws best suited for the purpose. Legislators appear commonly to have considered that the prevention of crime could only be effected by the severity of penal enactments. Hence the cruel laws to be found in the codes of many civilized nations, ancient and modern; and hence among us the great number of offences against which the penalty of death is denounced. Montesquieu was of a different opinion. He says, Experience shews, that in countries remarkable for the lenity of their laws, the spirit of the inhabitants is as much affected by slight penalties, as in other countries by severer punishments. Imagination grows accustomed to the severe as well as the milder punishment. Robberies on the highway were grown common in some countries; in order to remedy this evil they invented the punishment of breaking on the wheel, the terror of which put a stop for a while to this mischievous practice. But soon after robberies on the highways became as common as ever. If we inquire into the cause of all human corruptions, we shall find that they proceed from the impunity of criminals, and not from the moderation of punishments." Beccaria, another writer of deservedly high name, thus declares his sentiments : "Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment. The certainty of a small punishment will make a stronger impression than the fear of one more severe, if attended with the hope of escaping. If punishments be very severe, men are naturally led to the perpetration of other crimes to avoid the punishment due to the first. In proportion as punishments become more cruel, the minds of inen, as a fluid rises to the same height with that which surrounds it, grow hardened and insensible, and the force of the passions still continuing, in the space of 100 years the wheel terrifies no more than formerly the prison.
That a punishment produce the effect required, it is sufficient that the evil it occasions should exceed the good expected from crime, including in the calculation the certainty of the punishment, and the privation of the expected advantage. All severity beyond this is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical." And are not Beccaria and Montesquieu right? Surely their arguments are no less supported by experience than by enlightened theory. In framing penal laws, the force of human passions, urged and strengthened by various circumstances, seems to have been forgotten. But, in fact, few persons after proceeding some time in a vicious course can be induced by terror to draw back. If they have subsisted by plunder or dishonesty, they become more and more unfitted for obtaining subsistence by honest means, and those means soon became barred against them; unless they could avail themselves of the poor-laws. Actuated by long-indulged vice; not restrained by religious or moral principle; encouraged by vicious companions; and stimulated by want, real or factitious; will they think of the severity of punishment, with which they are threatened, further than to elude, if possible, the denunciation of the law, and perhaps to prefer the offence, if it will answer their purpose, to which the lighter, rather than that to which the heavier, penalty is attached? If robbery and fraud, in every shape, were made capital crimes, the practised offender, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, would despise the penalty, or avert his eyes from the view of it. This we may hold to be an incontrovertible truth. And the first inference to be drawn from it is, the importance of a corrective process early applied to offenders. The next inference is, that if severity will not deter from crime, neither can it be justly applied in a mere penal way, as if to avenge society. Admitting that there is a class of offenders who, to human view, are incorrigible, or nearly so, and, therefore, that it is expedient to disable them from continuing to injure the community, it does not follow that we can be justified in consigning them to the executioner, and hurrying them unprepared to the bar of Divine justice. From various motives, however, the penalty of death has numerous
and powerful advocates, and many of these will plausibly argue, that if it be allowable to punish murder with death, other crimes that may lead in their consequences to murder, or that in their nature are almost equally injurious, deserve an equal punishment. And others cling to the notion, that the mere denunciation of such a penalty must excite the highest degree of terror, and so most effectually deter from crime. A distinguished senator is reported to have maintained, in a recent debate, that no penalty could be so terrible as the punishment of death, and that the fear of death was the greatest of moral restraints. This at the utmost is mere opinion. And though a contrary opinion is not capable of being established by demonstration, it is supported by Beccaria and other enlightened men, and reason and fact appear to be decidedly in its favour. Men who voluntarily embrace the military profession can have no very strong habitual fear of death. The force of attachment to life must surely be greater or less according to the principles, habits, condition and prospects of a man. At all events, the punishment of death will not effectually deter men from committing crimes, as is evinced every day, and even among criminals not the most abandoned. The question, whether society have a right to take away the life of an offending member will not be here examined; but it deserves the most solemn consideration on the part of legislators; for if it may be properly determined in the affirmative, there are at least objections and difficulties which ought to make us very cautious and forbearing in the exercise of the supposed right. Every truly wise and good man will admit that the punishment of death should never be inflicted, unless it answer a salutary and adequately important purpose. It seems, then, that before this highest of penalties is denounced, we ought to be well assured, that by this, and this alone, certain crimes can be prevented or restrained. Not many will seriously contend that this is the case with respect to scores of offences (such as breaking down the head of a fish-pond, destroying trees or hopvines, demanding money by anonymous letters, sokliers or mariners