necessity of such a defence does not arise from any disposition in the populace to rebellion, or in the troops of the government to revolt. The officers are the rotten part of the corps, infected with democratic principles, the King could place no reliance on them, at least, during the war with France. It is a curious fact, that in this country, during the shock of opinions, the Lazzaroni or lower classes, were the most loyal supporters of the crown, whilst the majority of the noblesse, and opulent merchants, were the advocates of Republicanism. Many of them, even princes, and some priests, carried their principles into practice, for when the French entered the Neapolitan territories with victorious arms, they absolutely fought under the Gallic banners; and, when the tide of success turned, (which may be chiefly ascribed to the English Mediterranean influence,) they fought most gallantly in defending the Castle, and the Convent of St. Elmo, against the royal forces, consisting principally of undisciplined Lazzaroni. They were at length compelled to surrender, and the greater part fell victims to their ambition, and mistaken patriotism; some indeed contrived to escape-many died under the sword of the law---and other were barbarously murdered in the great square, with most savage cruelty, by an infuriated populace, whose extravagant revenge was stimulated by the ideal sanction of religion and authority; nor did their excesses cease there, for every notorious democrat who had not taken arms, was considered a lawful prey to their rage, and his dwelling marked for pillage. And as families or mercantile men commonly live in apartments, not in single houses, they frequently ravaged all the surrounding lodgings, as well as those designed. Notwithstanding the severe blow it received, the republican party in Naples is still of great consequence, and as the proprietors are the main column on which the state ought to depend, and the populace at all times, a very unstable support, it is not improbable that they will some one day, seduce the Lazzaroni, and disturb if not overthrow the monarchy. The character of the king strengthens this conjecture; his occupations are of the most trifling nature, and his amusements mean and vicious.

Our servant was an old soldier, full of anecdote, well versed in that important science, the knowledge of mankind, and very capable of pointing out to us, whatever was worthy our attention.

In our first sally we climbed the steeps of St. Elmo, where we found a melancholy forsaken Chartreuse monastery, with only six old bald-headed monks, who are permitted to remain there whilst they live. On the death of the last, the king designs to convert it into a royal palace. We cannot but admire his taste, for the building is already very elegant, and the situation one of the most delightful in Europe. You look down on the city, as it were from the pinnacle of an exceedingly high tower, and command a distant view of the Calabrian Mountains, which do not fall within my description of nearly the same scenery from the summit of Vesuvius. From this monastery are suspended signals, on the entrance of ships into the bay. All the interior ornaments remain. The chapel is a most superb building, which with the apartulents, is adorned with many fine paintings, by Spagnuoletto, Annibal Carracci, Guido, Mossi, &c.

(To be Continued.)

Printed and Published by Richard Carlile, 62, Fleet-street, where all Communications, post-paid, or free of expense, are requested to be left.

The Lion.

No. 24. VOL. 2.] LONDON, Friday, Dec. 12, 1828. [PRICE 6d. .

HUNTON, AND THE REVEREND PETER FENN.

If I were to argue against the social and legal system of putting offenders to death, I should take the ground, that death is neither a punishment to the individual, nor a satisfaction to the society that has been offended. The practice is a portion of savageness yet unextinguished by philosophy and civilization; and the principle is revenge unaccompanied with justice.

Revenge apart, punishment should socially define the moral restraint that is to moralize the offender, while it secures and satisfies the offended party. All that death to the offender accomplishes is, a security to society against his probable future offences, had he been allowed to live. It neither moralizes, nor satisfies, the individual executed or the society that is offended.

Punishment to the individual should define a state of life under a restraint that shall induce reflection by compulsory atonement, and whatever arrangement will produce that state of things, at the least expence and with the greatest benefit to society, is the penal desideratum. To deprive of life, is to put a stop to punishment and reformation, to restoration of property and satisfaction. The thief now makes his calculation, that as death is the end of life, his temporary success in thieving increases to a very high degree his possession of the necessaries and comforts of life. If it be a short life, it will be a merry one, is the sentiment with the determined thief. Newgate resounds with this sentiment, and the deprivation of life has never been a deterring example, has never moralized nor operated beneficially to the society; while it injures, by the infliction of very severe pangs on the innocent.

In the case of Hunton, the Quaker, executed for forgery on Monday last, the offending individual is not punished, his sensations are irrecoverably destroyed; while there befals his family, No. 24.-Vol. 2.

3 B

and perhaps a very virtuous family, a most bitter and dreadful punishment, that attaches to each of them through life.

In the case of the Rev. Peter Feim, I hope the salutary hint, which I gave a fortnight since, on his prospect of death, on the gallows, with all his clerical functions about him, will operate further to the extension of his life; not that his reverence is most admired by those who know most of him; but that his death will not be a proper atonement for his past offenees.

Death is not a moral punishment, inasmuch as life is the all of man, and the deprivation relates to the surviving relatives, and not to the individual executed. In no other case than in national or civil warfare can the putting to death be morally and socially justified; and these states of warfare will not arise, as mankind throw off their savage natures, and improve by study and experience their social principles.

The question of forgery is, in a country whose commerce moves upon credit and paper-money, a matter for deep consideration. As a system of robbery, it is the basest, because the most facile, and least exposed to immediate detection; it is, therefore, more subtle, more cowardly, and more pernicious, than open and daring robbery. Its venialities, if the phrase may be allowed, consist of the absence of personal violence, and in being one among many other commercial frauds or robberies, that are not tangible by any other law than that between debtor and creditor. The fundamental error is the rotten system of credit and paper-money on which our commerce is founded and carried on, by which property, to a very great extent, is made to change hands, and to be possessed by rogues without the industry that can honestly acquire it, and to the deprivation of the honest industry or inheritance to which alone it can properly belong.

It is known among commercial men in the city of London, that forgeries to a very great extent pass current which are never exposed, that a very large portion of the bills current are forged bills, and that known forged bills find more facility in being discounted than other bills, where the presenting party has the least responsibility. The discounter feels the greater security while he can demand a higher amount of discount; for the dishonoured bill that is not forged is but a debt, while the dishonoured bill that is forged is death.

These are all so many fair, moral and weighty considerations, why the conviction for forgery should not be fatal to the life of the forger, but fatal to his character, until he has lived and made due atonement to the offended party for his offence.

RICHARD CARLILE.

SCHOOL OF FREE DISCUSSION,

62, FLEET STREET.

THIS school was opened and filled on Sunday evening last, to receive a Jewish gentleman in defence of his religion. His faitha was assailed principally on the ground of history and morals, that of physics not being found necessary. The Jewish gentleman could not defend his religion on either, or on any ground, save that of an eulogy on religion, and a tirade against infidelity. His tirade against infidelity called forth from Mr. Carlile a high-toned assertion, that it was the most honourable distinction of man, that as man held his distinction above other animals by the superiority of his reason, so infidelity, as expressive of the state of mind that is not satisfied with faith, but requires evidence for its adoption of truths, is the mind's superior distinction: with this definition, he maintained, that the infidel was the only searcher after and real lover of truth.

The Jewish gentleman will not again attend this school. There was nothing of which he could complain, unless arguments not to be met with counter-arguments were to him a matter of offence. These religious men cannot stand discussion with infidels, or, if they could, every occupier of a pulpit would heroically challenge the infidel to discussion in his chapel. I challenge the whole religious world to discussion in my chapel; and I proclaim, as a cause in support of that challenge, that, before me, no religious man can successfully maintain the tenets of his religion. Irving, the Scotch preacher, made great lamentation, on Sunday last, about the overpowering progress of infidelity in this country; but why does he not submit his religion to a discussion with that infidelity, before his own or any other congregation? I menace him with the assurance, that infidelity, with its superior moral power, will overthrow his religion. Let him go on to expound the prophecies of the Book of Revelations; I venture to prophecy anew, that that Book of Revelations will be thrown to the dogs, and be forgotten among mankind. It bespeaks a miserable position for religion, that none of these divinity-mongers, none of these pulpit-preachers, none of these faithful and Holy-Ghost-filled men, will venture a discussion before a congregation of people with an intelligent infidel. Even the Freethinking Christians, who, a few years ago, were about to carry both heaven and earth by storm, have never said to an infidel, Let us hold converse together in public. We dispute their religious histories, we dispute the moral pretensions of their presumed revelations, we dispute even the existence of their gods; and nought can they answer!

I shall open my school gratuitously on Sunday evening next, at seven o'clock; and if there be no opposition that leads to discussion on religious topics, I will submit, and leave to discussion, a plan by which it may be made most useful in the ensuing

year, as a library, reading-room, lecture-room, &c. An infidel library is a great desideratum, which I have long desired to accomplish; a good room for conversation, in which the best periodicals of the day may be found, on a Sunday in particular, is another useful consideration; and if to these be added a permission to free and unrestrained discussion, by lecture or debate, which is no where else to be found, I flatter myself that this school, like my present shop, will stand unrivalled: not that I wish either to remain unrivalled; but that I think the example necessary to be set before timid and ill-formed minds.

RICHARD CARLILE.

GILBERT'S LECTURE ON INFIDELITY.

I WILL begin this article, with supporting the offer of a friend at Bristol; that, if Mr. Gilbert, or any friend for him, will transmit to me, the MSS. or authenticated reports of his lectures, they shall be accurately printed in "THE LION;" and what is of more interest, they shall be, as far as they oppose infidelity, fully answered.

I have been furnished with the heads of the two first Sunday evening lectures of this season, and I have also, in a tract which I found at Nottingham, the heads of the former course of lectures, on infidelity; and here, as in every other pretence to refute infidelity, I find the lecturer very ignorant of the subject, and consequently, very unfit for the task which he undertakes to perform. These little challenges are absolutely necessary to cut the consequence of these pulpit-gentlemen, and to put them upon their mettle, where they have honesty, sincerity and mettle in them, for free discussion.

Mr. Gilbert took as a text, the celebrated passage of Saint Paul's Epistle, which says:-" Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." This is a Christian precept; but makes no part of the practice or philosophy of Christians. Though the precept may be Christian, its principle and practice are only put into execution by infidels.

Mr. Gilbert gave, as a reason for commencing the present course of lectures, that, two winters since, when he entered upon a course of lectures upon the evidences of the Christian Religion, he was not aware that persons were to be found who would dare to call in question the existence of an intelligent, designing and omniscient deity; but subsequent circumstances had proved, that not only were they to be found, but in considerable numbers; and that a disbelief of that kind was rapidly gaining ground over that species of infidelity called Deism.

That dare is an ugly word to follow the text of "Prove all things." We can only prove, by daring to prove, or to call in question. R. C.