fourth brother who has died by the hands of the executioner. His fifth and only surviving brother was apprehended on Thursday on a charge of highway robbery.

It is not attempted to be shown that all crime is the result of insanity, much less that the establishment of such a plea in the case of the murderer would justify his acquittal and consequent restoration to society. The man who destroys a life, whether from sudden impulse or deliberate malice--whether sane or insane-should be carefully secured evermore from the repetition of such an offence. Sound policy dictates that the murderer should not be left at largetho such is too often the effect of the present law. The remedy seems simple enough. The man who has once made an attempt upon life, should be put under perpetual restraint. The question of his insanity should in no way affect his imprisonment, altbo it would modify his treatment. Competent authorities would then decide upon the terms of the imprisonment, whether it should be in the lunatic ward or at the hulks. Society would thus get rid of the disgusting and demoralizing spectacles of public executions. Private executions indeed might get rid of the crowds of profligate and vicious people who gather around the foot of the gallows, but the accounts would still be read, and would produce a deeper effect upon the diseased minds of the criminal classes from the air of mystery surrounding the whole, than even the reports of public executions. The last dying moments would acquire a morbid and higher interest, and the depraved would be left to speculate upon the scene of horrors hidden from them. Under the plan recommended the law would cease to teach vengeance. Capital punishments are clearly founded upon the old blind spirit of retaliation—they are not preventive or corrective merely, but vindictive. The law of the Gospel is, *Return good for evil'-and it is the only principle which can conquer evil.

Capital punishments are a failure. They do not operate as deterrents,—they exercise no salutary influence whatever. Death is rarely dreaded by the criminal, never perhaps looked upon as the greatest of ills. Nay, it is often courted, and the hangman's office is sometimes anticipated by the criminals own act. Death is looked upon as a distant but shadowy necessity—or as the one dark blank in a lottery amid many chances of present escape. Homicide and Suicide are the acts of one state of mind, and both propensities are fed by images, representations, and descriptions of death. Thus Capital punishments sow the seeds of crime and reproduce murder by necessary sequence.

Shall they continue? The ground of debate has been very much narrowed of late years. The Home Secretary has removed it entirely from the theological arena—from the solitary text upon which the advocates of death punishments had rested it. He argues it as a political question,-—as one of expediency. He says_“I agree that if the state is as safe without the infliction of death as with

' it, it has no right to inflict it.” This opinion is in harmony with the expressed views of the best writers on Law and Jurisprudence. The question then is, Have Capital Punishments answered the purpose for which they were designed ? Experience says, No! Crime is committed while the Ilangman is performing his work. Murders keep pace with executions. The public mind is sickened and disgusted with the horrid parade of death. It is in vain to censure the government or the law-the work to be done awaits the public will. Opinion can effect any change-opinion is the only true Revolutionist.


PAPAL AND PROTESTANT FRAUDS. A paragraph under this head was quoted in our volume for 1849, p. 505, from Sir Charles Lyell, relating to the Vatican Codex of the New Testament. The Tablet News. paper for March 15, has a long article on the subject, in which the writer states that Cardinal Mai will shortly publish his Edition of the text, which, as a faithful transcript of the original codex, must no more omit any interpolated passages, than admit any addi. tions by the Pope. It is to be accompanied, however, by critical notes, in which, we presume, the Cardinal will point out which are the passages proved to be interpolations.

TOLERATION. "A mutual agreement of bearing with one another's dissents, in the Non-fundamentals of Religion, is really a greater ornament of Christianity than the most exact uniformity imaginable, it being an eminent act or exercise of Charity, the flower of all christian graces, and the best way, I think, at the long run, to make the Church as uniform as can justly be desired.—HENRY MORE, D. D., 1660.

MYSTERY. "A mystery is a piece of Divine Knowlege measurably abstruse, but yet intelligible that it may be communicable, and true and certain that it may win firm assent.”HENRY MORE.

NATURE AND REVELATION. "It must indeed be a morbid jealousy for revelation which would represent the ordinary as at variance with the extraordinary works of OMNIPOTENCE; which would disparage the great sacrament of Nature, the Priesthood of Science, and the not less sacred than salutary manifestations of Art. The first verse of the Bible tells us that the Deity disclosed to us in that book is also the Maker of heaven and earth; and in the same volume we are expressly told that the craft of the artizan is a special gift of Inspiration.”—The Times. of April 18, 1851.

THE VALUE OF PROPHETIC 'ADAPTATION.' Any clergyman moderately acquainted with the Bible might easily compile from it a service, including lessons, gospel, epistle, sentences, and prayers, so wonderfully adapted to the occasion, that simple-minded people might suppose the Exhibition as much made for the service, as the service for the exhibition.”--The Times of Good Friday, 1851.

OUR DUTY. “Thou shalt love knowlege, search what is the TRUTH of this God's Universe;—thou art privileged and bound to love it, to search for it, in Jesuit Tucuman, in all places that the sky covers ; and shalt try even Volneys for help, if there be no other help.”Thomas Carlyle.



[ocr errors]

[The substance of a LECTURE delivered in the Music Hall, Leeds, April 9th, 1851, under the auspices of the Temperance Society, by Dr. FREDERIC R. LEES, F.S.A., Edin., in reply to statements advanced in the Mechanics' Institution, by Dr. EDWIN LANKESTER, F.R.S., Lond.

The lecture was heard by a crowded audience with marked attention, and thröout warmly applauded.]

INTRODUCTION. ENTLEMEN, --most of you are already aware of the occasion of my addressing you to-night, on the subject announced—“ The Harmony of Teetotalism with the

Natural Laws of Diet, and with the Theory of Liebig concerning Animal Heat.” I say Theory of Liebig, which I am not disposed to dispute, tho it is quite certain that some of his opinions and statements are not only doubtful, but erroneous. Dr. Lankester, in a course of three lectures, delivered in our Literary Institution, “On the Natural History of Plants yielding Food,” went out of his way to discuss questions concerning that non-natural product--"Alcohol: its forms, wine, beer, spirits,”—and to give an "estimate of (them), as articles of diet,"' professing to correct the chemistry and physiology of the Teetotalers! Had Dr. Lankester furnished us with fresh food for thought-had he shown us that some natural and scientific facts had been overlooked in the theory of our system-we should very respectfully have accepted his suggestions for what they were worth; but, as it is, we are entitled to complain of two things—First, the long and widelypublished arguments of the Teetotalers on the very topic of his remarks, are ignored as non-existent, thus conveying the impression to his audience that we were ignorant of what he had got to say, while the fact is, that he was, or affected to be, ignorant of what we had said and written in reply to his adopted hypothesis. Second, there is not, in all his objections, one that is original or new; on the contrary, most of them are very stale, and have been, time after time, shown to be equally flat and unprofitable. Indeed, had the objections I have to notice appeared in any of the usual channels for such things, I must confess that I would not have taken the trouble to refute them for the hundredth time; and the only reason for my doing so now, is the fact that they issued from the platform of our Literary Society, and were listened to with satisfaction by a number of polite and placid gentlemen, fond of the agreeable stimulant,' as Dr. Lankester calls it, and thus likely to accept what the learned Doctor told them, for a good deal more than it was really worth. Authority-even the authority of an F. R. S.-would gain a credit and a currency to which it was in truth not entitled on this subject--all the more because Dr. Lankester avoided the grosser absurdities of our opponents, and re-produced only those plausibilities which were most indefinite in their shape, or most difficult to understand from the complexity of their subject, or the scientific details which they involved. I am not surprized at Dr. Lankester. The medical profession-to which, I believe, he nominally belongshas been true to its ancient character in opposing the dietetic truths of teetotalism ; for it has, in turn, opposed the most important discoveries which have ever been made in medicine and physiology. I recollect that The British and Foreign Medical Review, edited by Dr. Forbes, the Queen's Physician, in the year 1843, just after the publication of Liebig's famous work on Organic Chemistry, announced in the usual ex cathedra style of the profession, that the new theory quite exploded teetoʻalism, which must be regarded thenceforth rather as a vulgar expedient than a scientific principle! One unfortunate gentleman -Surgeon Jeaffreson-challenged us to discussion. I met him in the Town-hall of Framlingham; heard him give a bad edition of Liebig's theory to the rustics, which was applauded in exact proportion to its mystery; rose to put a few questions to the learned gentleman, which led him into a chaos of contradiction; whereon, as a last resource, he put on his cloak and hat, and, with umbrella beneath his arm, prudently made his bow and

-exit! The remarks made on this occasion I published in April, 1843, as an Appendix to my History of Alcohol, in which I showed the remarkable accordance of teetotalism with the discoveries in organic chemistry put forth by Liebig and others.

Six years later, after a more accurate study of the theory, I find the Medical Review changing (tho not retracting) its opinions; and, in an article from the pen of Dr. Carpenter, admitting that the teetotalers after all were right in their version of that theory. Dr. Lankester, however, remains where he was, dealing out the old fallacies of eight years ago as new truths of science! We do not deny the facts concerning this question of animal heat, on which he bases his hypothesis, (for theory it is not, but simply subposition-assumption—that is, his opinion is mentally placed beneath the facts, while in a true theory, the facts underlie and support it); but we do question the application and use wbich he makes of the facts,-we do deny the logic of his inferences. It may be observed, in passing, as an illustration of the actual position and claims of the Temperance Reformers, that Dr. Lankester's practical advice on several matters of diet, is equally destitute of novelty with his objections to the teetotal theory. The higher class of our advocates, and our numerous publications, were teaching sanitary and dietetic laws to the people-including nearly all of truth that Dr. Lankester had to say-long before he had ever printed or lectured upon the matter, or before the sanitary gentlemen had published either tract or journal. The fact is, that the Teetotal Society is not merely a system for reforming drunkards, but a vast organization for awakening enquiry, stirring up thought, and diffusing important information among its members. Excuse me if, in proof of this fact, I am compelled to refer to my own connection with this movement,- for it is thus that I know the immense power exercised by this society in educating the people-in preparing the ground for the more complete development of the great sanitary, dietetic, and social truths which are beginning to be recognized in our time. In the Masham Discussion, in 1836, I pointed out the ‘oneness' of drink in nature, and the adapted variety of food, distinguishing between food which merely fattened, and that which really fed, or nourished, the animal frame. Liebig's discoveries, six years later, explained all this. In 1840, I advocated the use of brown-bread as more nutritious and wholesome than white, showing that the birdlime principle (the fibrine, as it is now called), was not present in white flour, tho clearly so in the entire meal. I also pointed out that fermentation was a destructive and pernicious disturbance of the natural arrangements which prevailed in the constitution of wheat; and, in 1842, in the Standard Temperance Library, recommended the unfermented bread, as at once more nutritious and more digestible. Since that time, I have scarcely ever delivered a course of Temperance lectures in Great Britain, -and I have spoken in the largest towns of the kingdom, from Caithness to Cornwall, and from Cumberland to Kent, --without having insisted on these facts, illustrating them by the investigations of the chemists. In 1845, in the Manx Truth Seeker, I pointed out a fallacy of two writers in Blackwood and Chambers' Journal, made in their estimate of the relative value of oats and wheat, as articles of diet—which remark of mine, singularly enough, was substan. tially reproduced in Dr. Lankester's lectures. It will now, I think, be apparent to you, that however much the ladies and gentlemen, young or old, of the Literary Society might peed the illuminating services of our learned opponent, concerning the proper kind of bread, the mysteries of fermentation, and the uses of alcohol, in its bad and good ‘forms,' the teetotalers could very well have dispensed both with his chemistry and his criticism. Indeed, so far as we are concerned, he was simply bringing bad coals to Newcastle; and, as regards the anti-teetotalers, they, certainly, were in no need of any scientific stimulus to drink!

I shall endeavor, as far as possible, to classify the somewhat loose strictures to which Dr, Lankester gave utterance, under three heads—General, Chemical, and Physiological.

I. He told his audience that "it was a vexed question amongst physiologists, whether alcoholic drink formed a proper element of diet for man. Teetotalers, said he, “had great authorities on their side-especially one great physiologist, his friend Dr. William Carpenter. Still, they (the physiologists) disagree about the matter; and, in the meantime, the question ought to be left to each person's conscience, to determine for himself”! In immediate connexion with this remark, he very truly observed that “alcoholic drink is an agreeable stimulant."

This reasoning, as it appears to me, is so ambiguous in its character as to be dangerous in its tendency. Don't you think, gentlemen, that the very agreeableness of the stimulant would be likely to have a disturbing effect on the judgment? Is it not proverbial that our appetites blind our reason ? You may always suspect a chain of logic which is closely attached to a liking. If, indeed, the question were to be determined by the evidence of a full and careful experience, -to be settled by the induction of facts only, appealing to the pure intellect, logically trained, --we could have no objection whatever to the statement of Dr. Lankester. Conscience, we fear, has nothing to do with the matter. The advice, practically, would lead to no' additional trials and tests of our system; to no further search for evidence; to no careful induction and comparison of facts; but simply encourage the drinker to wait for the distant settlement of the question by the physiologists--satisfied, in the meanwhile, with mis-called moderation in the use of the agreeable stimulant.'

The observations of Dr. Lankester, in his second lecture, very naturally excited remarks from the teetotalers who heard him, and especially from two gentlemen who have furnished me with notes of his lectures. Hence Dr. Lankester opened his third lecture by observing that “he was informed that he had been somewhat misunderstood in his remarks on alcohol. He had, indeed, not spoken out so plainly as he ought to have done, from a reluctance to deprive teetotalism of the credit which had been thrown over the system by Dr. Carpenter's treatise.”

Truly, this is very amusing, gentlemen, and, I must add, equally conceited. Dr. Lankester, forsooth, will extend his forbearance to our system, because his friend, Dr. Carpenter, has cast his mantle over our imperfections! Permit me to tell him, thrö you and the press, that we do not need his forbearance, and that we challenge his opposition! Let him speak out, therefore, as plainly as he can, and I, for one, shall be prepared to listen, and, I hope, to answer. He has elsewhere given utterance to his stereotyped objections, which whatever may be his intention, are calculated to do far more harm amongst the weak and the fashionable classes, than a bold and honest opposition. Many of you will recollect how, in this hall, fifteen years ago, the late and lamented Dr. Williamson was put forth as the learned and eloquent champion of 'a little wine’; and you will recollect also that we had no very great difficulty in coping with his arguments, which were far more subtle than those of our last antagonist. Since then, both thrö the press and on the platform, we have fought many battles, but never yet cried out for quarter. So late as last year, the drinking-doctors of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Dr. Glover, and Messrs. Potter, Newton, and Larkin, conspired in a ferocious attack upon tectotalism, and in particular against myself and Professor Carpenter. Leaving medicine and physiology, the doctors turned divines also, and treated us with filthy placards, holy psalms, and rabid personality. Yet we had no difficulty in putting them hors de combat, and making them ashamed, if not of them. selves, at least of their arguments. We have never yet sought forbearance, and we will not accept it now. If we are right we shall be able to stand, if we are wrong we ought to fall. The teetotalers of Leeds, at least, know nothing of mere expediency: we stand upon principle, and the truth will uphold us. Teetotalism does not live upon 'Credit'; it is the expression of the Divine law—of natural facts, and Dr. Carpenter, I presume, was convineed by the evidence of the pre-existing facts,-he did not make them. Teetotalism, as an organized system, had endured and conquered the opposition of thirteen years, had become a Great Fact,' before Dr. Carpenter wrote his book. That book, allow me to say, can confer no credit upon Teetotalism; it does not contain a single important truth or principle not already published by the teetotalers themselves, and in a form quite as logical. The essay, however, is very creditable to the heart and head of its amiable author; and is calculated to effect great good, by finding its way, with our facts (and the Prince Albert dedication) into certain classes of society—into literary cliques and conventional circleswhence the simple God's truth of popular Teetotalism would be excluded. The truth is indebted to no man; and it is presumption and pride to talk about any man conferring credit' upon the truth.

In the course of the same lecture, Dr. Lankester gave us a specimen of his wit and his philanthropy together. He raised the ready laugh against the poor, ignorant, well-meaning teetotalers, by relating the old story (to which I recollect replying fifteen years ago) concerning the company in London, that long, long ago,' employed an apparatus for “catching the alcohol 'evelved from bread (dough ?) in baking." This argument, I



« VorigeDoorgaan »