harmonises with the saying, probably older than Shakspere, that 'Water-drinking makes no man sick or in debt.' The miracle at Cana has been commemorated in a noted epigram, frequently misquoted or curtailed. Doubt rested upon its authorship till it was traced to the 'Epigrammatica Sacra' of Richard Crashaw.* Aaron Hill furnished a paraphrase rather than a translation of the original: 'When Christ, at Cana's feast, by power divine A more literal version would be Whence the strange purple this pale water shows? This miracle is a sort of stock-argument with some against the Temperance Reform, but, if the explanation of St. Augustine be accepted, that it consisted in the sudden effectuation of that change of water into wine which is gradually produced in the vine every year,† the temperance reformer remains master of the field. As the miracle was performed to show forth the Redeemer's glory, this manner of understanding it is consistent with the design of the holy Wonder-worker, and avoids all the difficulties of a moral nature attending an opposite explication. Above all, it should never be lost sight of that the glory of the Saviour in unbroken alliance with the elevation of mankind is the greatest object of the Christian's life; and no custom, however fashionable, and no habit, however agreeable, which cannot be shown to accord with that supreme aim and end, should receive toleration at his hands. Whether the use or disuse of intoxicating liquors would be the more conducive to that twofold result is, therefore, the question which no Christian is permitted to neglect; but every one is under obligation to settle it for himself by the most impartial and assiduous investigation. * Unde rubor vestris et non sua purpura lymphis? Ipse enim fecit vinum illo die in nuptiis in sex illis hydriis quas impler i aqua præcipit qui omni anno facit hoc in vitibus.'-Tractus in Evang. Joannis. For he made wine on that marriage day in the six water-pots which he ordered to be filled with water-he who makes it in the vines every year.' c. 2. ART. ART. III. THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT COMMISSION. 1. Report of the Capital Punishment Commission. 1866. 2. The Law on its Trial, or Personal Recollections of the Death Penalty, and its Opponents. By Alfred H. Dymond. London: Alfred W. Bennett. 1865. 3. Capital Punishment, based on Mittermair's Todestrafe.' Edited by John Macrae Moir, M.A. Elder, and Co. 1865. London: Smith, 4. Report of the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punish ment. 1865. 5. The Substitute for Capital Punishment. By Frederic Hill, Esq. London. 1866. 6. Private Executions. By Humphrey W. Woolrych, Serjeantat-Law. 1866. 7. Analysis and Review of the Blue Book of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment. Reprinted from the 'Social Science Review.' May and June, 1866. THE HE appointment of a Royal Commission to Inquire into Capital Punishment was a virtual surrender on the part of the Government of the whole question. Up to that time Sir George Grey had always held that the punishment of death must be retained for the crime of murder, and he uniformly rejected all proposals for inquiry. In the debate on the 4th May, 1864, he took the same ground, but conceded that there were reasons for inquiring whether an improvement could not be effected in the administration of the law, and he acceded to the motion to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Commission. The appointment was made on the 8th July, 1864, and the report was published in January, 1866. The evidence by which it is accompanied is most instructive and important. The public generally have, and not without reason, a distrust of Parliamentary reports; such reports are sometimes one-sided, and the examinations. very often stifle as much information as they elicit. The majority of blue books may be regarded as so many monuments of great industry, but they become at the same time mausoleums of the facts and evidence which that industry has accumulated. accumulated. In the case of the report before us no such complaint can be made. The Commission was chosen with fairness, and the advocates of the abolition of death punishment were fully represented upon it. The inquiry was conducted with strict impartiality, and the evidence embodies all the arguments by which each side of the question is sustained. The volume may be consulted with advantage by all who are conducting inquiries as to the social and political progress of the British people. The Commission sat sixteen days and examined thirty witnesses, among whom were seven who had been, or, at the time of giving evidence, were judges. There were two Secretaries of State, seven gentlemen connected with prisons, and the others were persons who had given the subject special consideration, including the honorary secretary and the acting secretary of the Anti-Capital Punishment Society, Mr. Thomas Beggs and Mr. William Tallack. The best proof of the efficiency of the Commission is afforded by the care with which the evidence was conducted. Many of the questions indicated the presence of greater knowledge on the part of those who put them than seemed to be possessed by those to whom they were addressed. A desire was manifested throughout to obtain facts and opinions upon all parts of the subject, and also to confine the inquiry within legitimate limits, and to check all divergence into the metaphysical or speculative. The report is, therefore, all the more valuable, as it is founded upon carefully and impartially collected evidence. The recommendations of the report are as follow: 1. That the punishment of death be retained for all murders deliberately committed with express malice aforethought, such malice to be found as a fact by the jury. 2. That the punishment of death be also retained for all murders committed in, or with a view to, the perpetration, or attempt at perpetration of any of the following felonies:-Murder, arson, rape, burglary, robbery, or piracy. 3. That in all other cases of murder the punishment be penal servitude for life, or for any period not less than seven years, at the discretion of the Court.'* The Commission have adopted the plan recognised in several of the United States of America, of dividing murders into those of the first and second degree, rather than make the attempt at any new classification of homicides. In the case of infanticide, they recommend that it should be removed from the murder list altogether; and, without stating the term of punishment, they propose penal servitude or imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court, where mortal injury is inflicted * Report: page 50. during birth, or within seven days afterwards. They recommend also that the power of recording sentence of death should be restored to the judges; and, further, that the sentence should be carried out within the precincts of the prison, under such regulations as may be considered necessary to prevent abuse, and satisfy the public mind that the law has been complied with.' These are the principal recommendations of the report, and it was signed by all the commissioners; but the following recommendation is appended: "The undersigned members of your Majesty's Commission are of opinion that capital punishment might safely, and with advantage, be at once abolished. Signed by Stephen Lushington, John Bright, Charles Neate, and William Ewart.'* There is also a declaration made by Mr. Justice O'Hagan, giving in his adhesion to that prepared and signed by Mr. Ewart, as a matter of principle, but expressing his doubts. whether public opinion in this country is ripe for such a change; and there are five dissentients to the resolution respecting private executions, namely, Stephen Lushington, William Ewart, Charles Neate, J. Moncrief, and John Bright. These particulars possess an historical importance, and, having given them, we may now proceed to consider some of the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission. It is satisfactory to find that the question has been narrowed down to a well-defined and practical issue. Many years have not passed away since the discussion was embarrassed by theological disquisitions on certain texts of Scripture, and we were carried back to an ancient, peculiar, and exceptional jurisprudence to find an authority in defence of the gibbet. The Commission evidently held it to be no part of their duty to go into this argument. They had a single eye to utility, to that which was best; they have sought, in fact, to discover that principle which would be the most calculated to surround human life with feelings of reverence and respect. The idea of retaliation, of expiation, of punishing the offender because he deserves punishment, which was so strongly infused in the spirit of ancient law, is relinquished by all jurists and writers on criminal jurisprudence in modern times. It is now seen that all punishment is an evil, and that it can only be justified on two grounds-the protection of society and the reformation of the offender. It is necessary to discuss the rationale of punishment, in order to legislate properly, as to the treatment of crime, and from the time of Beccaria to the present a slow * Report: page 51. but sure progress has been making. The report before us is a sign of that progress. We observe that both parties have yielded something in the argument which brings them nearer together, without involving any compromise of principle on either side. Some of the ablest advocates of abolition acknowledge the right of society to take the life of the criminal if by that means the lives of the community can be rendered more secure, while those who contend for the retention of the capital penalty, admit, with Sir George Grey, that there is no obligation to inflict it if society be as safe without it. The language of Sir George some years ago was this:-'I agree that if the State is as safe without the punishment of death as with it, then it has no right to inflict it.' This is, indeed, the one main issue to which the question is reduced; and as the expediency of retaining capital punishment depends upon the deterrent influence of the extreme penalty, it is to that part of the subject we propose to devote the remainder of our observations. Before we enter upon this, however, there are a few preliminary observations we feel constrained to make, and we have also an act of justice to render. The change in public opinion, as to the efficacy of death punishment, has been a marked and a rapid one. Much is due to the labours of the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, which has numbered among its committee some of the most distinguished philanthropists of the present century, many of whom have gone to their reward, and others whose labours still bless this generation. From the latter it will not be considered invidious to select the names of Stephen Lushington and his younger, but equally zealous, associate, William Ewart. The society, under the auspices of such men, has pursued a quiet, unostentatious, but highly useful career; and the attention which the Commission paid to the suggestions of the officers of the society, shews that its labours have been fully appreciated even by those who do not adopt its principles. A very few years have elapsed since men in high places did not think it unbecoming to sneer at the humanitarians, who, it was said, felt so much sympathy for the murderer. The laugh of derision has passed away. This is the history of all movements which aim at reform and improvement. The first earnest advocate has to encounter the flippant and supercilious condemnation, the bitter taunt and the idle jest. The time comes when reflecting and sedate men take up the despised doctrines, place them upon a fair platfrom, and by paying respect and homage to them, ultimately obtain the meed of public sanction and support. This is one of the encouragements |