nion that the ruler has a perfect right to resort to it. Whether Capital Punishment does, however, promote the well-being of the state, is a question into which I shall not enter: I wish to keep to the mere matter of right.

:

I am quite willing to admit that I cannot accord to the ruler any moral right to destroy his fellowbeings. We cannot judge morally and the absence of power seems to me to prove, beyond question, the absence of right. Besides, as there is no doubt that the Great Judge of all the earth will unfailingly recompense every man according to his deeds, there can be no pretence that the administration of moral justice is, or needs to be, committed into the feeble hands of man.

That the ruler possesses, however, a religious right to use the sword of justice, I must say I believe. This clear command-"Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed," still remains unrepealed; and in my opinion is absolutely binding. It is quite true that the spirit (and perhaps the letter) of the New Testament is in some measure opposed to this command, but I cannot help thinking that a clear and thoughtful mind might reconcile them.

I am by no means bigoted, Sir, in favour of the punishment of death; and I willingly concede that my moral feelings are much shocked by the practice; but until the arguments I have put

forward are disproved, I must reluctantly remain amongst its advocates.

SIXTH SPEAKER. Sir, the very temperate and gentlemanly tone of the address to which we have just listened, leads me to hope that there is still a chance of a fair and calm debate upon this interesting topic.

—

I think it must be quite clear that the evil effects of Capital Punishment quite destroy any political right of the ruler to inflict it. "The objects of punishment seem by common consent to have been resolved into three- the reformation of the + offender, — remuneration to the injured, and the prevention of future crime: and all these objects are frustrated by the penalty of death. It, of course, prevents the reformation of the offender, for it cuts him off from all chance of it. It fails in remunerating the wronged, for it cannot bring back the dead. And as to preventing crime, it is notorious that at every execution crime is perpetrated and planned under the very gallows."

The political right then, is dispelled, the moral right is given up, and now there only remains the religious right.

The religious right of the ruler to kill the murderer rests seemingly-upon the passage in Genesis" Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed." But who can prove that

this is a command at all? I think it simply a prediction to the effect that whosoever liveth a life of violence shall be repaid in the same coin; a simple denunciation of God's vengeance against men of blood and crime. The passage, be it remembered, is not an imperative command; it is simply expressed in the future tense, and is no more a delegation of divine authority than the similar passage "Whoso taketh the sword shall perish by the sword." It should be noticed too, that if the passage be any authority at all, it denounces death for manslaughter as well as for murder. "Whoso sheddeth are the words : there is no distinction of motive: homicide of every sort is equally punishable with death. This conclusion will not, I suppose, be maintained by any one and therefore I submit that it cannot hold at all: the more especially as it is opposed, and indeed altogether condemned, by the Gospel.

If I should have failed, Sir, in estimating any part of the ruler's right to kill: I dare say I shall soon be informed of it.

SEVENTH SPEAKER. When the last speaker told us, Sir, that the extract from Genesis simply means that God's vengeance shall be awarded to the murderer, he surely forgot that the passage distinctly says" by man" shall the murderer's blood be shed. On these two words of course

+

+

the whole weight of the passage depends; and they are to me quite conclusive upon the matter.

It has been said, more than once or twice in this debate, that the New Testament is opposed to this command: I am of quite a different opinion. The New Testament appears to confirm, rather than to supersede, the divine authority of the civil ruler. "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man. "The powers that be are ordained of God." "Honour the king"-"Respect them that are set over you"-"Resist not the power:" -do not these passages clearly show us that the ruler is the Almighty's vicegerent? This granted - let us take this other passage "The ruler beareth not the sword in vain." Now, I think that this clearly affirms the ruler's right and commission to destroy the wicked. Scripture emblems are all significant: and the "sword" doubtless means the "power to kill." Here then we clearly see that the ruler is constituted Heaven's representative, and that when, as Heaven's representative, he uses the sword to smite the wicked, he does so by divine authority, and is consequently blameless, and indeed praiseworthy.

EIGHTH SPEAKER.-I am not yet quite satisfied, Sir, of the correctness of the assertion made by one of the speakers that the practice of Capital Punishment must tend to increase the crime it seeks to prevent. It requires a shrewder logic

And as it

The fear of

than I have yet listened to, to convince me that the public infliction of punishment must increase rather than repress iniquity. Why does a father correct his child? To make it an example to the rest. The infliction of chastisement operates upon the fears of the others, and so naturally restrains them from the commission of crime. is with children, so it is with men. punishment must evidently tend to keep us from falling into sin. And in spite of what has been said, I firmly believe that the fear of the gallows does restrain many men from murder. It may be a frightful spectacle perhaps even a depraving one-(as far as the mere spectators are concerned) but the moral finds its way into the hearts of millions throughout the land; and although from the nature of things we cannot see the restraint in operation, we have every fair reason to conclude that it exists and acts.

Into the theological and moral parts of the question, I shall not seek to enter; I think that common sense is the fittest judge of the matter, and the abstrusities of religion and justice have, I confess, no charms for me.

NINTH SPEAKER. Although Sir, "the abstrusities of religion and justice" may "have no charms" for the gentleman to whom we have just been privileged to listen - there are men, I