sM^ ^o^^.- S.ACi .„.-«-_ .-»amm vUTLINK DEBATES- \M ™ iQi^QUESTibN^ fomiscussroN EXCELSIOR PUBLISHING HOUSE. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from ' IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/completedebatercOOcarerich rrjEj::m COMPLETE DEBATER ooiNrT.A.i3Nri ]Nrc3- DEBATES, OUTLINES of DEBATES QUESTIONS for DISCUSSION. New York: EXCEl^SIOR I^UBT^ISMrNTO HOUSK, 29 AND 31 Beekman St. COPYRIGHT, 18»3, BY EXCELSIOR PUBLISHING HOUSK y- 14 PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY. aims and tendencies, these two are so mutually depend- ent that any blow to the one is a sore affliction to the other. It cannot be denied that a great portion of the manufactured articles that we need, and must have, can be produced in foreign countries and delivered at Ameri- can ports for less than we can make them here. What- ever may be the cause, the fact is there. We cannot and do not want to compete with them, and it would be a sorry plight indeed.if America could not supply her citi- zens with all they need. Yet such must be the issue if Free Traders should have their way. No, sir, we cannot , afford to crush i^iHerican manufactures. If there be no other way of preserving them — and I fail to discover any — than that of a protective tariff, let us by all means have such protection. Fourth Speaker. — I have listened, Mr. Chairman, with close attention to the remarks and arguments that have been already submitted in favor of Protection. . My predecessor on the negative side, the second speaker, failed to touch the question at issue. His re- marks were simply an attempt, and to my mind, a suc- cessful one, to refute certain conclusions which thelRrst speaker strove to establish. The opposing principles of Protection and Free Trade are so hedged in with intrica- cies, and so rarely discussed from a comprehensive and public point of view, that I approach them with feelings of extreme diffidence; not, however, arising from any want of firm and fixed opinions, but from the fear that I lack the ability to do those opinions justice. When the f ramers of our Constitution and the founders of our gov- ernment brought the highest patriotism and clearest judgment to bear on the future welfare of their country, their paramount object was the good of the people. They wisely determined that no direct taxation would be ap- proved, if indeed tolerated, and the only source of reve- nue to defray the necessary expenses of government was PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY. 15 in establishing a duty on imports. Their tariff was a com- pulsory one — a tariff for revenue. Whatever protection such tariff would extend to home industry was an inci- dental consequence— not a prime motive. The saddle of taxation was constructed to fit the public horse, and the horse liked it; the saddle protected it and did not chafe. In those days the Hst of imported goods was compara- tively limited. By and by the American market offered tempting adva.ntages to foreign commerce; the list swelled immensely, and every new line of business cov- ered by imported goods felt the benefit of being protected. It certainly in those earlier days, apart from the increased revenue derived from import duties, did foster home in- dustry, and above all, checked the outward flow of money. But I claim that things are noiv greatly changed. The outward flow is a necessity. We produce gold, sil- ver, and other necessary valuable products, for which we require a foreign market, and which must in a measure remain locked up in America unless our importations are large enough to absorb them. Our glorious Constitution guarantees us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and this word "liberty" is , a comprehensive one. I affirm that it should guarantee the right to every in- dividual of the great American public to get the most and the best for his money; not to be compelled to re- ceive an American article if he can get as good or better from Europe for less money. The question of benefit to a few manufacturers, or even to the large body of the working classes, sinks into almost insignificance when brought in antagonism to the benefit of the entire popu- lation. Whenever any effort is made to reduce the tariff on any article, every man who makes it here is up in arms against it. No ! we cannot stand it ! it would ruin us ! Take it off any thing else but not off our line of goods. 16 PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY. Thus each wants the public horse to be built up to suit his private particular saddle ! No, sir ; I, for one, protest against any thing that trammels our freedom — I object to any system which compels me to pay a higher price for too often an in- ferior article ; and this is what I must do under the workings of a protective tariff. Fifth Speaker. — Tlie remarks of the preceding speaker, Mr. Chairman, would possibly carry some degree of conviction to the superficial listener ; but J do not think that they would have much weight with any one who had devoted even only a small amount of time and patience to a fair investigation of the subject. He admits the wisdom of our forefathers in inaugurat- ing a system, which, even if it was as compulsory as he assumes, he does not attempt to deny did aid and foster home industry ; and I cannot see that in this respect the times have undergone as radical a change as he seems to infer. I think that it is one of the fundamental princi- ples of political economy that a balance of trade in favor of a country is one of the conditions of its prosperity. .The ultimate aim and object of all industry and com- merce is money, and money must flow toward that country whose exports exceed its imports. For many years France had exported immensely, and far in excess of its imports ; and mark the results. When the war with Germany ended, France was called upon to pay an enormous indemnity — all that the German government thought she could bear, and how was it paid ? not by a syndicate of capitalists working for a percentage, but from the savings of her working classes. What better evidence of prosperity than that ? What more thorough refutation of the term " pauper labor" so often applied to the European workman ? Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any other means for inducing a favorable balance of trade, or for checkino^ an PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY. 17 adverse balance, than by adjusting a tariff to fulfill those conditions, and thus tax not our home industry, but the industry of other nations, to our own financial and industrial gain. There is no lack of opportunity to invite, or of enterprise to invest capital in America, and nothing can surpass, as an element of prosperity, a state of things where there is plenty of -money and rapid cir- culation of it. If the advocates of Free Trade can ac- complish that^ I will admit the superiority of their theories, but all the evidence, all the practical facts go to establish the opposite theory, the advisability, nay more — the necessity for a protective tariff. Sixth Speaker. — Mr. Chairman: The question under discussion should, I think, have been confined to Ameri- can experiences and home requirements ; but, since the preceding speaker has seen fit to cross the broad Atlantic for the support of his arguments, I can fairly claim the same latitude and privilege. I wish that I had been present at that historical ban- quet where the hitherto ardent protectionist, Sir Eobert Peel, was so suddenly and completely converted to the principles of Free Trade. I wish I had been there to hear the arguments — convincing, indeed, they must have been — by which so radical a change was worked in the views and opinions of a master mind like his. It may fairly be said that from that time. Free Trade principles steadily gained ground, and to-day England furnishes the nearest approach to Free Trade that has yet been reached by any commercial nation. And yet, England never had so much surplus capital — so great that it seeks investment in every corner of the globe. England, notwithstanding the heavy burden of taxation and debt under w^liich she fairly groans, is as prosperous in the workings of her Fre3 Trade principles as she was when strongly protected through her Custom Houses. The evils consequent on over production have worked 18 PROTECTION TO AMERICAN INDUSTRY. the same harm there as they have here, but that is in no way traceable to any Free Trade sources. The question of Free Trade has never had a fair show- ing in America. The tariff has had its opponents at dif- ferent times, but the only measures attempted have been in the interests of the few. The machinery requisite for the collection of customs duties, involves so much politi- cal patronage that one party dare not and the other is afraid to weaken the power of patronage — possessed by the one and struggled for by the other. - There has been a strong popular pressure in favor of abolishing the war taxes of the Internal Revenue system, with all its stupendous political patronage ; but both parties strive to lead the public opinion away from that by ventilating the tariff. It is "tariff for protection" on the one hand, and "tariff for revenue only " on the other, but it is tariff all the time. So long as patronage is permitted to be the mainstay and sheet-anchor of all political parties alike, the work- ings of Free Trade, even on an experimental basis, will never be permitted to come to a fair test. I fully indorse the maxim that has already been laid down, that every one should be able to get the best for the least money ; and I denounce as inimical to the body politic any system which deprives a man of that right, and compels him to pay an artificial protective price for any thing he needs. I believe in the fundamental prin- ciple upon which our liberties are and ought to be built — " The greatest good to tlie greatest number." First Speaker. — Mr. Chairman : You have placed upon mc the difficult duty of offering a few words in reply. I must confess that some of the points on the affirmative side of this question have been well taken, and that they have been ingeniously if not fairly met by those who liave sj^oken on the negative side. Eut, sir, I feel impressed with the fact that the question at issue is THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 1& one which cannot fully be considered in all its bearings in the short time which wo have devoted to its discus- sion. The remarks of the s]Deak rs on both sides are full of interest and reflect credit n them ; but, sir, the theory and practice of Protection have filled volumes, and elicited the utmost diversity of opinion from master minds. We have seen the workings of protective sys- tems, and we may possibly have connected in our minds with that line of policy effects which should have been traced to other causes ; we have had scant opportunity — almost none — of trying the results of Free Trade, and we may argue, theorize, and make our deductions for years to come, witHout reaching any actual and practical solution of the question. With a thankful appreciation of the attention you have given, Mr. Chairman, to the arguments adduced on both sides, and with the greatest deference to your discrimination and judgment, I must confess that you will find it a difficult task in awarding the palm to either of the contending parties in this debate. QUESTION II. Which is of the greatest benefit to his country— THE Warrior, the Statesman or the Poet ? First Speaker. — Sir : The question which I have un- dertaken to open, is, I think, one of considerable impor- tance and interest. We are to be called upon to say. Which is of the greatest benefit to his country, the Warrior, the Statesman, or the Poet ? The Warrior is the man who directs the physical strength of his nation : the man who fights its battles, repulses its invaders, holds discontent in check, and defends its rights at the hazard of his life : the Statesman is the man who governs the mental force 20 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. of his nation ; who by his keen intellect devises laws, avoids evils, secures social order, and controls the wild elements of popular feeling ; and the Poet is the man who guides the moral power of his nation : who teaches it truth, arouses it to goodness, and impresses it with beauty. Yes, it is important to judge between these three : to know which is the noblest kind of power ; to discern the highest sort of greatness. For our conduct depends in no small measure upon our opinions, and ac- cording to the idea that we form of greatness shall we endeavor to be great. Moreover, the question is a difTi- cult one. Much thought is necessary to elucidate it, and much insight to determine it with tnfth. It is like judg- ing between the different members of the body. For the Warrior is the arm, the Statesman the head, and the Poet the heart, of the community : and just as it is diffi- cult to choose between the members of the body physical, so is it difficult to choose between the members of the body politic. I shall wait, sir, to hear the sentiments of others before I decide, and for the present shall content myself with this simple introduction of the question, trusting that it will receive that full discussion which it merits. Second Speaker. — Sir: I quite agree with the opener that he has presented us with a difficult subject for de- bate. And, I think, with all submission, that he has increased the difficulty by the selection of these particular characters. For I cannot believe that they are the best representatives that he could have found, of the different kinds of force between which he calls on us to choose. Granting 'that the Soldier fairly represents the physical strength of his nation, might we not say with justice that the Philosopher is a completer type of its mind than the Statesman, and the Divine a fairer emblem of its moral power than the Poet ? To make the question more debatable, however, without materially altering the THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 21 opener's words, would it not be better to ask — Which is of the greatest benefit to his country, the Warrior, the wise Statesmfin, or the Christian Poet ? Opener. — Sn^ : I have no objection at all to the ques- tion being" understood as the last speaker wishes : though I think the distinction he has drawn is hardly necessary. In a certain sense the Statesman is the Philosopher, and the Poet is the Divine. The Statesman represents Phil- osophy, inasmuch as he sways by mental strength ; and the Poet represents the Divine, inasmuch as he is an apostle of eternal truth, and a preacher to the soul. I avoided the terms " Philosopher " and '* Divine" in my question, because I know that the words are very often misused, and because I feared that instead of a calm and temperate debate, we should be led into a wide field of disputed science and theological controversy. I think, sir, that after this explanation the discussion may be safely allowed to flow in the channel which I originally opened for it. Second Speaker (in continuation). — I am quite satis- fied, sir, with the remarks of my friend, and shall pro- ceed to consider the question as he proposed it. We are to judge, then, between the Warrior, the Statesman, and the Poet : and the result of my brief reflections leads me to speak in favor of the first. I do not mean to deny the great value of the Statesman, nor do I forget the import- ant mission of the Poet ; but it certainly seems to me that the Warrior does more for his nation than either of the others. To him we owe the National safety, and that sense of security which develops all our best wisdom and energy. The fame of his valor, and the prestige that attaches to his name, preserve his country from attack ; or if it is attacked, tend to secure for it victory and honor. By a beautiful arrangement of Providence, the Warrior is thus made the harbinger of peace. Of the supreme value of peace, I need scarcely speak. Under its benefi- 22 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. cent smile, commerce tlirives, science advances, the arts flourish, civihzation spreads improvement, and social^ happiness is secured to man. The Warrior !s a practical lesson of heroism, too, to his nation. By fixing men's admn*ation on his courage, he leads them to imitate it. One hero makes many. There never was a dauntless Warrior yet who did not raise a dauntless army. And this dauntlessness is not the mere passionate excitement of a moment, but becomes a principle, influencing the whole conduct. It is not confined to the field of battle. It teaches a man to endure calamity, to despise slander, to resist oppression, and to defend insulted right. Sir, I honor the Hero- Warrior much. He seems to me not only a personification of bravery, but a creator of it ; he plucks the sweet flower of peace from the sharp nettle war ; and he is a constant incarnation of the great and use" f ul truth that exertion overcomes difficulty, and courage insures conquest. With these remarks I resume my seat. Third Speaker. — Sir : The opener of this debate said with some aptness that the Warrior was the arm, the Statesman the head, and the Poet the heart, of the body politic. I like the simile, and adopt it. But does it not tend to fix our verdict absolutely on the Statesman ? Is not the head the most important part of the living man ? Compare it with the arm ! The arm only acts ; the head thinks. And is not thought (the originator) greater than action (the product) ? The thinker is always greater and nobler than the doer. The arm is dependent on the head ; the head is not dependent on the arm. Take away the arm, the head may be sound and useful still : but take away the head, and what good will the arm be then ? In like manner you may remove the Warrior, and the state will flourish notwithstanding ; while with- out the Statesman, it will sink into decay and ruin. The Statesman needs the Warrior but rarely ; the Warrior always needs the Statesman. Give an army THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 23 to a general without instructions from the state, and unless that general be a statesman too, he will embroil where he ought to pacify, punish where he ought to conciliate, and rouse revenge instead of producing submission. We have been told tliat a great Warrior is a perpetual type of heroism to his fellow-men ; but let me put this question : Suppose that great Warrior should be (as great warriors have generally been) cruel, inhu- man, bloodthirsty, and tyrannical, is he then a type fit to follow ? Is such a man worthy of imitation — valuable in the state ? Or, is he not rather the most dangerous member of the community? a poison seed cast into the plowed heart of society, bearing evil fruit a thousand- fold ? Compared with the Statesman and the Poet, the Warrior appears to me the least estimable of the three. I have now, then, only to decide between the other two. I own that I incline toward the Statesman. I look upon the great Statesman of a nation as the head of its thought and philosophy, the guide of its energies, the center and representative of its emotions, passions, and ambitions. I call to mind what our own great Statesmen have done for this country, how they have led it through perils of war and revolution that seemed overw^helming, and in defiance of all, have established its prosperity upon a rock: and, consequently, 1 feel that the man who can do this deserves the highest esteem that can be awarded to human exertion. For the Statesman, then, I vote. Fourth Speaker. — Sir: If the palm of merit is to be accorded to that one of the three men before us who ac- complishes the greatest palpable and immediate good to the community of which he is a member, I should un- hesitatingly place it on the brow of the Statesman. He is the pilot who, seeing clearly and estimating carefully the dangers that surround the vessel, steers it safely through them all ; and if we can understand the value of such a helmsman in a ship at sea, we can readily con- 24 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET, ceive the important service that the pilot of the state per- forms for the community he guides. His value is felt and seen, too: the quiet, the contentment, the harmony existing in the country are proofs of his ability and power, which speak to all at once, and at once challenge admiration. But I think we should not judge thus superficially. We must look deeper than this, if we would reach the truth. It is not the most evident merit that is always the worthiest. Quiet influences often do more than noisy ones. The deepest rivers always flow the most silently. And looking beneath the surface of the question now in hand, I seem to think that the Poet does more true and valuable service to the community than either the Sol- dier or the Statesman. I do not speak of tli^ mere rhymer, of course : I mean the real and great Poet, the earnest apostle of Truth and Beauty; the man who, speaking to the divine part of humanity, lifts it up above its mean and groveling passions, and allies it to what is pure and noble. The Poet's office is one of the highest that I know. It is to purify the heart, to elevate the moral sense, to calm the perturbed spirit when agitated by its earthly trials, to refresh the tired soul with draughts from the spring of Eternal Beauty. The Poet is a voice ever speaking to our immortal part, ever telling us that earth is not our final home. Were there no such voic c to speak to us, our souls' would become stupefied and lost in the perplexing cares and sordid ambitions of the world; but as it is, the Poet continually reminds us of our great and lofty destiny, and so leads us more nobly to fulfill it. We have a threefold life ; a physical, a men- tal, and a moral life; of these the last only is immortal. The Warrior leads our physical part, the Statesman our mental part, and the Poet our immortal part. For this reason I hold that the Poet's is the highest mission of the three/ THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 25 Fifth Speaker. — Sir: With much that was admirable and eloquent in the speech of the gentleman who has just resumed his seat, I think there was also much that was visionary and unproved. The Poet should do all that our friend has described, but does he? I submit that this is yet unshown. Will the gentleman maintain that all gr^at Poets have purified the world, elevated the moral sense, and kept chaste the human heart? Are there no licentious Poets? no skeptical Poets? no misanthropic Poets? What was Ovid? What was Shelley? What was Byron? Will our friend pretend to say that Ovid is an apostle of morality — that Shelley is a teacher of holi- ness — that Byron is a promulgator of philanthropy? Sir, if the Poet's office is to teach what these men teach, I must sajfc.that I do not believe it to be beneficiar to man- kind. It seems to me that at best the good which the Poet does is visionary. We do not see, we cannot trace, his in- fluence ; and how, then can we say with certainty, that it is vast and good? I think we act much more wisely in bestowing our esteem upon men whose work is percepti- ble, such as the Warrior and the Philosopher or States- man. We see what the Soldier does, and what the States- man does: between fhem, therefore, our judgment must lie. I give my vote, without hesitation to the Warrior. He may not perhaps mean the most good, but he effects the most. He is the means of extending commerce and civilization, he is a hero, and the creator of heroes, he introduces order, discipline, and regularity into the state, he is the fearless protector of his country's rights, and the architect of its renown. History seems to say to us that a country always flourishes most under military rule. Eome proves this : so does Sparta : so does our own coun- try. Eome was happiest when h^r legions were the most victorious ; Greece was greatest when Miltiades and Leon- idas led its arms to victory ; and England was mightiest when Cromwell's stroaig arm ruled its destinies. The 2Q THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. Statesman's office is a great one, doubtless ; but the War- rior's seems to me even greater. I, for my part, would cheerfully give up our Sewards for our Decaturs. To the Warrior, then, I give my voice. Sixth Speaker.— Sir: I do not wonder that so many of our speakers have adopted the cause of the Warrior, for there is something very attractive in the character. Nay, at the first sight there is something even beauti- ful in it : very beautiful. To direct a mass of men to the accomplishment of one settled purpose, to unite their various energies in a given direction, to fix one aim in a hundred thousand bosoms, to lead that mass on to battle, and to compass victory in defiance of difficulty, danger, and death, seems a great and noble achievement: and in this simple aspect, so it is. The fame, too, |^e glory, the universal acclaim and distinction that await "the hero of a hundred fights;" the trappings, the banners, the excitement, the thrilling battle-music, the "pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war," all of these conspire to attract us toward the military character, and to invest it with a high degree of dignity and excellence. But when I come to look through these vestments of the Warrior, and behold the man himself, to my sight there is not a more melancholy spectacle. I speak not now of the gallant soldier who fights to defend his home, his liberties, and his country — no ! honor be to him wherever he may be ! I speak of the soldier by trade, the soldier of enter- prise and conquest, the soldier who fights for hire or plun- der. I called him a melancholy sight ; and so, indeed, he is. For what is he ? Let us be plain— a murderer : a willful and deliberate murderer before whose cool atrocity the secret slaughter of the frenzied assassin rises into vir- tue. He goes into the field of battle : deliberately plans the destruction of the fellow-creatures opposed to him : brings the most powerful and terrible material agents of the earth to aid his horrid purpose ; and is not satisfied THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 2? till one or other, perhaps hoth, of the contending hosts is exterminated. I cannot conceive of murder more foul than this, and I appeal to all who hear me whether this is not the characteristic of the Warrior in general ? Survey your list of heroes ! Hannibal — Caesar — William the Conqueror — Cromwell — Bonaparte : are not the very names synonymous •witl^cruelty, rapine, and murder ? Oh, Heaven forbid that after this we should ever look upon the Warrior as a benefactor to his nation ! To me he seems its curse, its plague, its dishonor. I speak plainly, sir, and emphatically, for I see that the brill- iancy of the military character has misled many here, as it has misled millions in the Avorld, and I wish, so far as my humble power will let me, to strip it of its false glitter, and expose it in its bare and ghastly deformity. Between the Poet and the Statesman I can scarcely judge ; and I shall wait before I decide. My feelings in- cline me towards the Poet, but I have not yet heard argu- ments convincing to sway me altogether in his favor. I rose chiefly to dispel, if possible, the false glory that at- taches to the Warrior, and if I have in the least suc- ceeded, I shall be perfectly content. Seventh Speaker. -I think, sir, that we owe much to the gentleman who has just sat down for the very proper light in which he has placed the character of one of the three Individuals between whom we are to judge. We are now left to choose, I fancy, between only two. The choice seems to me to be tolerably easy. The States- man certainly appears to deserve the higher honor. It has been well said that he sways the mind of his country. Besides this, he rules all the external circumstances con- nected with the condition of the people ^he regulates their commerce, their manufactures, their physical and .intellectual improvement. He rules by a noble style of force, too — the force of intellect. By a stroke of the pen, he does more than the Warrior can do in fifty bat- 28 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. ties. His breath is stronger than the roar of a cannon. We cannot see the Statesman to greater advantage than by comparing him with the Warrior. The Warrior leads bodily strength : actual, tangible force ; the States- man directs (by invisible power) the minds of men : leads their reason, holds the reins of their obedience and re- presses discontent by the simple force of written law. His parchment conquers more completely than the other's sword. His will binds faster than the other's chains. There is something almost sublime in a great Statesman. He has the keen, clear eye to see a nation's wants, the wise judgment to devise the remedy, the strong bold hand to apply it. Firmness, vigilance, justice, modera- tion, mercy, dignity, these are the qualities of tlie States- man, and they are, to say the least of them, noble and god-like, and deserving of our admiration. They have secured mine, and for the Statesman I shall vote. Eighth Speaker. — Sir : A gentleman who spoke with particular boldness and confidence upon this very dif- ficult subjeS, said, with an air of triumph which did not sit well upon him, for it was simply the triumph of thoughtlessness — not to say of folly — this gentleman said, that although the Poet ought to refine the heart, and purify the soul, of man, he mostly, or frequently fails to do so, and therefore has but a visionary and unproved claim upon our esteem. Are there not, said our triumphant- thoughtless friend, are there not licentious poets, skeptL cal poets, misanthropic poets ? Why, doubtless there are : and might I not ask in return, are there no brutal Warriors ? are there no stupid Statesmen ? Sir, this gen- tleman has taken false Poets as his sample of true ones, and so has fallen into deep erroi* in his judgment. We are to decide, I apprehend, between the great Warrior, the wise Statesman, and the true Poet, not fix upcn bad specimens of either. Judging in this manner, sir, I presume to add my THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 29 feeble testimony to the superior service rendered to society by the Poet, as compared with the two other great men. He seems to me infinitely higher than they are. The soul is the domain he rules ; and as high as the soul is above the body and the brain, so high is the poet above the Warrior and the Statesman. The Warrior writes his law (of force) in blood, the Statesman pens his law on moldering parchment, the Poet traces his upon the universal heart of man ; and while the heart of man exists, the Poet's laws can never die, for they are laws of beauty and of harmony. The law of the Warrior dies with him ; disperse the force ho wields, he passes away and is forgotten. The law of the Statesman perishes with the parchment on which he writes it ; laws are superseded by laws, as waves by waves. But the law of the Poet is imperishable ; it is a law for all time, and will last till time shall be no longer. The works of Alexander are no more ; who can trace them ? The works of Solon are no more ; who acts upon his laws ? But Homer, like a writer of yesterday, stands fresh and young before us, and shall so remain, wnen the very names of Alexander and of Solon shall have faded from the memory of man. Ninth Speaker. — I am grateful, sir, to the last speaker for pointing out to us that we are to judge of the charac- ters before us by their most perfect specimens ; and this smboldens me to venture yet a word in favor of that character so much aspersed by some — the Warrior. The speakers w^ho have so blackened the military character must surely have forgotten Washington and Farragut, Hampden and Nelson ! But even if they chose to for- get history, was it so difficult to imagine a Soldier-Hero, that they could not even give us an idea of one ?.that they were obliged to give us false ideas of the character ? "Murderers," "barbarians," "plunderers:" are War- riors always this f Have we heard of no virtuous, mer- 30 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. ciful, incorruptible heroes ? Is Hannibal a reality, or a dream ? Have any here read of Wallace, or is the name only a vision of my own ? Are Cincinnatus, Leonidas, Belisarius, men who once lived on earth, or are they only " False creations Proceeding from my heat-oppressed brain ? " The soldier, sir, has not been fairly dealt with. Let his detractors imagine an invader landing on our peaceful shores with chains and slavery in his million-hands. Let them imagine the wild terror and mad fear that w^ould arise in the hearts of our people. Let them imagine our commerce stopped, our supplies cut off, our lives threat- ened ; one universal throb of dread in all men's souls. Let them imagine at the darkest moment a hero rising from the mass, instilling courage into the heart, infusing patriotism into the spirit, exciting strength in the arms, of the people. Let them imagine him forming them into enthusiastic armies, imbuing them with stern and high resolve ; leading them with dauntless courage into the field of battle, and directing their strength and valor against the inslaving foe till he is overcome and forced to fly : and if, after imagining this, they do not think higher of the Soldier-Hero than they have done to-night, I will give up my defense of him. Tenth Speaker.— Sir : The gentleman who has just addressed us has very eloquently described the value of the Hero, and the service he renders to his country : but he has not compared him with the "other characters be- fore us, and therefore has faiied to lead us to a result on the matter. Now I have listened very attentively to the speeches already made, and I must say that I feel irre- sistibly led toward the conclusion that our vote should be decidedly in favor of the Poet. For the Poet seems to me to be, in the best points of their character, at once the Statesman and the Warrior too. What constitutes a THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 31 state ? Not the bodies, not the minds, but the free souls of its citizens. To give laws to the soul is the Poet's mission, and nobly he performs his task. Where is the parchment that shows us such a law as Shakespeare gives us when he enjoins Mercy ? — ** The quality of Mercy is not strained, It droppeth like the gentle dew from Heaven, ♦ Upon the place beneath ; — it is twice bless'd — It1)lee8eth him that gives, and him that takes ; ' Tis mightiest in the mightiest : it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown." Show me the parchment that contains a law like that, and I will almost fall down and worship the Statesman that devised it. Well does an eloquent writer* of the • present day say — " Whence does the State its inspiration draw Of mercy ? 'Tis th£ Poet frames the Law.''' And well does another great writerf say, that ** Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." And so the Poet is the Warrior too. What hero ever led his men to battle to such strains as those of Henry V. to his soldiers, from the pen of Poet Shakespeare : or as those of Bruce to his army, from the pen of Poet Burns ?— " Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled I Scots, wham Bruce has aftimes led, Welcome to your gory bed 1 Or to glorious victory ! ** Now's the day, and now's the hour, See the front of battle lour , See approach proud Edward's power— # Edward 1 chains and slavery I *' Wha wad be a traitor knave ! Wha wad fill a coward's grave ? Wha sae base as be a slave ? Traitor ! coward ! turn and flee ! * John Westland Marstan. ^ t Shelley. 82 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. ** Wha for Scotland's king and law Freedom's sword will strongly draw,— Freeman stand or freeman fa '— Caledonians I on wi ' me I *' By oppression's woes and pains I By our sons in srrvile chains I We will drain our dearest veins, But they shall— they shall— be free I " Lay the proud usurpers low. Tyrants fall in every foe, Liberty's in every blow I Forward I let us do or die I " Who does not feel that the heart which felt that was the true Warrior heart after all ? Who does not feel, as the wild strain flashes through his soul, that he too could fight for liberty and right while a pulse of life re- mained in him ? In another point of view, too — a far higher one — the Poet is the Warrior. He is forever at war with the great foe oi man. Evil. No matter in what shape the monster comes, falsehood, tyranny, persecution, super- stition, hypocrisy, selfishness : he dauntlessly attacks it in all. His life is one battle against wrong. To bring about the reign of good on earth, is his unceasing effort : and with an ardor compared with which the enthusiasm of the soldier sinks into insignificance, he fights under his sacred banner, enduring sorrow and defying death. Yes ! the Poet is the Warrior. I wonder it has not occurred to any other speaker that the Warrior and the Statesman themselves admit the superiority of the Poet. Why does the Statesman toiL? That the Poet may celebrate his deeds. Why does the Warrior fight ? That the bard may sing his victories. Is not this an acknowledgment, plain and ^palpable, that the Warrior and the Statesman both consider the Poet sii^rior to themselves ? With this I shall conclude. Opener {in reply), — Sir : I have no hesitation in say- ■'^: THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. 33 ing that the very full and able debate to which we have listened, has tended to convince me beyond doubt that of the three characters whom I submitted to your judgment the Poet is by far the noblest, the highest, and the worthiest. He is above the Warrior, inasmuch as the immortal must always transcend the perishable ; and he is above the Statesman, inasmuch as morality must ever be superior to intellectual wisdom. The good which the Warrior does, tends toward evil, and most generally produces evil ; that which the Statesman does, is muta- ble and temporary ; but that which the Poet does is everlasting. Love of glory animates the Warrior ; so that his good deeds originate, at most, in selfishness. . The Statesman follows virtue for expediency's sake, and this shows him to be selfish, too. But the Poet worships truth for its own sake alone, and never till he abandons self can he be a Poet at all. I fear, however, it may be thought that all this is speculative. Let us therefore for a moment view the question with the eye of fact. I will select from our history the greatest Warrior, the greatest Philosopher, and the greatest Poet that I find there. I will take Cromwell as our Hero, Bacon as our Statesman, and Shakespeare as our Poet. The same influences tended to produce all three, nearly the same time beheld them, and they are therefore fit objects to be mutually com- pared. What then did Cromwell do for his country ? Eaised it doubtless to its highest pinnacle of political greatness; conquered its enemies, struck terror into the hearts of its malcontents, acquired for it the dominion of the seas, first, indeed, gave England that high supremacy in the world which from that time to this she has held. But let us look a little further. What do we see fol- lowing his despotic rule ? That which always results from military despotism — licentiousness, irreligion, moral 34 THE WARRIOR, THE STATESMAN OR THE POET. slavery. Charles the Second would never have demor- alized us, had not Cromwell first trodden us down. So it is always with the conqueror. I could show you, were it necessary, many parallel instances, some from our own records, some from those of France and other countries. Wherever the iron heel of the Warrior treads, there spring up foul and pestilential weeds which poison the whole atmosphere around, and flower into misery and crime. So much then for our Hero ! And now what of our Statesman ? I grant that the clearest and most sagacious mind in all our annals is the mind of Bacon, and that his philosophy (rightly studied and understood) is of a high, pure, and useful char- acter. But what has he done for us ? To say noth- • ing of the miserable example he sets us by his own conduct, do w.e not find that the effect of his works has been to plunge Europe in skepticism, if not infidelity; in doubt, if not darkness? To it are clearly owing the disbelief of Hume, the atheistic philosophism of the last century, and the mean, ignoble, calculating utilitarianism of the present day. I do not impute this fault to Bacon, nor to his philosophy; I merely instance it to prove that all mere mental teaching is vain, useless, and injurious; that it fills the mind without touching the heart, and that it makes a man wise without leading him to be good. But who can estimate the vast benefit that Shakespeare did and is doing to his country ? Who can sufficiently point out the effect of his chivalrous patriotism, his pure benevolence, his high philosophy, his sound morality, his universal sympathies, his glorious aspirations to nobler and to better worlds than this ? The Warrior, as we have seen, links man to man by the word of com- mand, the word of authority. The Statesman, as we have seen, links man to man by the principle of mutual de- pendence and self-interest. But the Poet links man to M3NTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 35 man by the holj/ tie of sympathy and brotherhood ; a tie which no authority, no force can break. Place, then, these three side by side— Cromwell, Bacon, Shakespeare ; and let your choice point out to you the answer you should give to the question now before us. You will not hestitate, for you cannot doubt. For while you will perceive that the Warrior and the Statesman are but the creatures of the day that produces them, and perish with that day, you will also find that the Poet engraves his glory so deeply on the world's affections, that till the heart of man perishes forever in the grave of time, that glory shall be fresh and ineffaceable. u 1^ c; QUESTION HI. Are the Mental Capacities of the Sexes equal? Opener. — Sir: In rising to open the question which has been put from the chair, I assure you that I feel the need of much indulgence. I expect no small amount of reproach and contumely for the part I mean to take in this debate, for I know the gallantry of many of my friends around me, and I fully make up my mind to smart under the weight of it. However, I prefer truth to reputation, and I do not mind a wound or two in a cause that I feel to be right. I will meet my fate boldly t all events; and I will at once declare that, so far as I have been enabled to judge, I have been led to believe that the mental capacities of the sexes are not equal ; that 36 MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. the man's intellect is, on the average, superior to the woman's. I am quite ready to own that this rule will not hold universally. One cannot read the records of the world, or look round his own circle of acquaintance, without perceiving that some women are superior to some men. But I arrive at my present judgment, hy observing that the best samples of the male sex are superior to the best samples of the female sex ; and that the bulk of the male sex is superior to the bulk of the female sex. We see this proved whichever way we turn. In his- tory, which shines the brighter, the male sex, or the female ? Look among sovereigns. Where is the female Caesar ? the female Alfred ? the female Alexander ? Or, take legislators. What woman have we to compare with Solon or Lycurgus ? Where are the female phil- osoiDhers, moreover ? Where is their Socrates, their Plato, their Newton ? In literature, too ; are the great names those of the fairer, or of the sterner sex ? Homer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron, what lady-writers equal these ? I shall not enter into the philosophical part of the question at all. Facts are the strongest arguments, and these I have produced. Besides, I dare say that some of my supporters will choose that view of the matter ; and into their hands I am quite willing to resign it. I feel that I should weaken mj cause were I to say more. I therefore commit the question to the fair and full discussion of the meeting, quite convinced that a just conclusion will at length be arrived at. Second Speaker.— Sir : My friend who has just re- sumed his seat has regarded this question as it is answered by history. I will view it by the light of reason and philosophy. I think, then, that women were meant to be inferior to men. The female of every kind of animal is weaker MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 37 than the male, and why should a distinction be made with the human species ? The sphere which the female is called upon to fill is the domestic one. To rule and command is the sphere of man. He is here to govern and to guide. Now the exercise of authority requires greater mental power than the duties of the other sex demand; and I think that man would not have been called upon to rule had not greater power been conferred upon him. .What would follow if woman were endowed with the sharpest intel- lect ? Why, that, ' instead of tempering society with grace and softness, she would embitter it with the asperities of debate ; that instead of being man's comforter and better angel, she would be his intel- lectual antagonist, ever at wordy war with him ; that instead of refining the hearts of those who come within the reach of her gentle influence, she would continually spur, excite, and agitate their minds. Where would be man's refuge from the corroding cares of life and thought ? Where would be his domestic comfort and happiness ? Where would be the unutterable delight that now dwells in the magic word "Home," if woman were more intellectually subtle than she is ? All these true joys would be lost to us ; and woman, instead of earning our gratitude and affection by creating them, would be studying metaphysics, diving into theology, or searching out new stars. It seems to me that the very happiness of the world depends upon the inequalities and differences existing in the minds of the sexes, and there- fore I shall vote with my friend the opener. Third Speaker.— Sir : I rise to defend the ladies. I admit the ability of my two friends who have preceded me, but I dispute their arguments, and I utterly deny their conclusions. I shall deal with the opener only, and leave the other gentleman to the tender mercies of suc- ceeding speakers. 38 MENTAL CAPACITIES OP THE SEXES. Our friend referred us to History : very unfortunately, I think. He spoke of Eulers. Where is the female Caesar ? said he, and the female Alexander ? I am proud to reply — Nowhere . No, sir, the fair sex can claim no such murderers, no such usurpers, no such enemies of mankind. They cannot boast of having carried fire and sword among defenseless nations for the sake of con- quest and plunder ; of having trodden down, with re- morseless heel, the sweet flowers of peace and domestic happiness ; of having spread desolation and death where- ever they have gone. But perhaps it is as Heroes that our frieud would have Caesar and Alexander viewed ? Well, then, the fair sex has its heroes too ! Look among martyrs ; you will find them there ; among dauntless demanders of right ; you will find them there ; among patient endurers of calamity and sorrow ; you find them there ! They have no Alexanders, they have no Caesars ; but they have the courage and the bravery of the best of them, and they have greater virtues besides, to which the others cannot lay the shadow of a claim. Fourth Speaker. — Without intending to pronounce an absolute opinion upon the question now under debate, J may perhaps be permitted to offer you a few observa- tions. I have generally noticed, sir, that intellectual strength is a good deal modified by, and dependent upon, physical power. Physical power seems, indeed, absolutely neces- sary to the possessor of intellectual strength ; otherwise his mental strength wears him out. Now, if woman has equal mental power, how is it that her frame is physical- ly weaker ? Either man has too much bodily power, or woman too little : a proposition which I imagine cannot be sustained. Further : woman's brain is smaller than man's ; and does not this of itself prove inferiority of mental strength? Philosophers tell us that the size of the brain is always MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 39 the criterion of intellectual power ; if this be so, the mat- ter is, I suppose, at once decided for us. I wait, how- ever, to be convinced by the stronger side. Fifth Speaker. — Then, I, sir, will try to convince my friend. I will try to convince him that he should adopt the cause of the ladies. The fair sex have not yet had justice done them. ■ What is the argument employed to prove their inferiority ? Simply this : that they are not such strong rulers, such learned lawgivers, or such great poets. But suppose I grant this ; the sexes may be mentally equal, notwithstanding. For, if I can show that the female sex possess qualities which thejmale sex do not; qualities wMch, though widely different from those named, are quite as valuable to the wo];;ld ; I estab- lish an argument in their favor quite as strong as that against them. And I can prove this. In affection, in constancy, in patience, in purity of sentiment, and in piety of life, they as far surpass man, as man surpasses them in mere bodily strength. And what qualities are superior to these ? Is strength of intellect superior to strength of heart ? Is the ability to make laws superior to the power that wins and keeps affection? Is a facility in making rhymes superior to sisterly love and maternal solicitude ? I think, sir, that it is unwise and unfair to judge between the two. The spheres of the sexes are different, and require different powers ; but though different in degree, they may be, and I believe i\mj are, fully equal in amount. Sixth Speaker. — Sir : A gentleman who spoke a few moments since, asked us whether we were not bound to say that as woman's brain is smaller than man's, she is necessarily man's intellectual inferior. I see no such necessity. The do»"'s brain is smaller than the calf's ; but the dog is, notwithstanding, much the more intelli- irent of the two. Mere size of brain proves nothing, for diseased brains are often the largest ; our friend, there* 40 MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. fore, need not fear to vote for the ladies upon, this account. The opener of the debate said rather plausibly, that as the male sex can boast a Shakespeare, a Milton, and a Byron, while the other sex cannot, therefore^ the male sex- must be superior. It is but a poor argument, sir, when plainly looked at. We should recollect that there is but one Shakespeare, but one Milton, but one Byron ! Who can say that the female sex may not ^ome day sur- pass these writers, famous though they be ? Another gentleman spoke of Philosophers. Let me re- mind him (for he seems to have forgotten, or not to know) that the female sex can clafti a De Stael, a Som- erville, and a Mary Wolstoncroft. Not that I would claim for the ladies, for one moment, any merit on this ground. I think that scientific and literary excellence is by no means a laurel worth their gathering. Learning — I mean scholastic learning -does not sit gracefully on the female mind ; a blue-stocking is proverbially disagreeable. Woman's office is to teach the heart, not the mind ; and when she strives for intel- lectual superiority, she quits a higher throne than ever she can win. Seventh Speaker.— Sir: The gentleman who called this a question of difference, not of amount, of intellect, put the question, to my thinking, in its proper light. I quite agree with the opener of the debate, that'in mere mental power, in mere clearness, force, and intensitjipf intellect, the male sex is unquestionably superior to the female. When we see the great names arrayed on the one hand, and the names, though great, yet mentally much smaller, on the other, we can not, I think, have a doubt upon the matter. See, too, what man has done : I mean mechanically and palpably. He has discovered new shores, founded empires and dynasties, discerned and applied mechanical forces; conquered stupendous difficulties, ac- MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 41 complished great things wherever he has been. What has woman done in comparison — 1 mesm visibly done'^ I need njt press thequestion^ for the answer must be on all our lips — comparatively nothing! But, at the same time, I can by no means admit that this proves woman to be infer- ior to the other sex. Much of what man has done results from his superior physical strength ; and, moreover, if man has done great things visibly and mentally, woman has accomplished great things morally and silently. In every stage of society she has kept alive the conscience, refined the manners, and improved the taste ; in barbarism and in civilization alike, she has gladdened the homes, and purified the hearts of those she has gatliered around her. While, therefore, I admit, that in mental strength woman is not, and can never be, eq^ual to the other sex, I maintain that her superior morality makes the balance at least even. Eighth Speaker. — I am quite ready to concede, sir, with the last speaker, that in the private and domestic virtues the female sex is superior to the male ; but I can- not go so far with him as' to say that man is morally woman's inferior. For which are the highest moral virtues? Courage, fortitude, endurance, perseverance; and these I think man possesses far more prominently than woman. Let the field of battle test his courage ; with what heroic boldness he faces certain death! His fortitude again ; what shocks he bears, what bereavements he patiently sustains ! Mark his endurance, too. Priva- tion, hunger, cold, galling servitude, heavy labor, these he suffers oftentimes, without a murmur. See also how he perseveres! He sets some plan before him. Days, months, years, find it still distant, still unwon ; he con. tinues his exertions, and at last he gains the prize. These, sir, I contend are among the highest moral virtues, and I think I have shown that the male sex possesses them more abundantly than the oU^er, 42 MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. Ninth Speaker. —Sir: I quite agree with the gentle- man who spoke last, that courage, endurance, and forti- tude are among the highest moral virtues ; but I do not agree with liim when he says that the female sex pos- sesses them in an inferior degree to the male. True, man shows his courage in the battle-field. He faces death, and meets it unshrinkingl y. But has'not woman courage quite as great ? She fights the battles — not a few : often- times with want, starvation, and ruin, and bravely indeed does she maintain her ground. Far more bravely than the man, in fact. The first shock overcomes him at once ; when attacked by distress he is in a moment laid pros- trate. Then it is, sir, that woman's moral courage, en- durance, and fortitude shine out the most. She sustains, she cheers, she encourages, she soothes the other; nerves him by her example, invigorates him by her tenderness, and directs him by gentle counsel and affectionate en- couragement to put his shoulder to the wheel of his broken fortune, and restore himself to the position he has lost. And how shall I speak sufficiently of the patience and endurance with which she will brave calamity, tend the couch of sickness, and soothe the bed of death ? I know that not one of us can be a stranger to her inestimable value in seasons such as those just named ; and therefore I make sure of general concurrence in my remarks. I think, sir, it has been fully proved that woman is morally superior to man, and with this observation I shall conclude. Tenth Speaker. — Mr. Chairman, I cannot help think- ing that some of the last speakers have wandered a little from the true subject before us. The question was, "Are the mental capacities of the sexes equal ? " and the speakers are now hotly discussing whether the sexes are morally equal, with which point I submit we have noth- ing to do. To bring back the discussion therefore to its MENTAL CAPACITIES OP THE SEXES. 43 proper track, I beg to repeat tliat whicli has yet been un- answered, namely : That as the male sex have produced the more remarkable evidences, of mental power, the palm of mental superiority is evidently theirs. Much has been said during this debate, but no one has disproved this assertion or denied the deduction from it. Till cause is shown, therefore, why the verdict should not be in favor of the male sex, I submit that we have the right to demand it. Eleventh Speaker-. — Sir : The last speaker has in a taunting manner challenged us to deny his assertion and to disprove his argument. I will do both, at least attempt to do so ; and I trust I shall succeed in convincing my bold friend that he has not quite so good a cause as he thinks. I will i>ot admit that the female sex is outdone by the male. True, the one sex has produced a Shakespeare, a Milton, and a Byron ; but the other has a Sappho, a Bar- bauld, and a Hemans . I will "not, however, pursue the intellectual comparison, for it wou^d be an endless and a useless one. But suppose I were to grant what the last speaker claimed, namely, that the female sex has achieved less than the male, what then ? I can show that woman's education has been neglected ; that while the one sex has been taught all the learning, all the wisdom, that phil- osophy, history, and the fine arts can furnish, the other has bv?en left to be instructed in merely the fripperies of education ; that while the one sex has been lauded to the skies, adulated, honored, and flattered, the other has been neglected and discouraged and unnoticed. If, then, woman has not possessed the advantages conferred upon the other sex, how can 3^ou say that she is not naturally man's equal ? Till this is answered.^ nothing has been proved. Twelfth Speaker.— Sir : I think that the answer may 44 MENTAL CAPACITIES OB^ THE SEXES. very easily be given. Great stress has been laid upon the fact that education has not been extended to woman, and therefore, it is said, she is not equal to man. The fact^ then, of her inferiority is admitted ; and now let us look at the excuse. I. think it a very shallow one, sir. Was Shakespeare educated? Was Burns educated? Was James Watt educated ? No ! They achieved their greatness in spite of the disadvantages of their position ; and this^ sir, genius will always do. Nothing can keep it down ; it is superior to all human obstacles, and will mount. It is for want of genius, therefore, not for want of educar tion, thai woman has remained behind in the mental race. I was astonished to hear the gentleman say, that woman has met with discouragement when she has attempted to achieve excellence. Sir, such is not the case. Are not the efforts of our female writers always indulgently re- ceived ? Besides, the male sex has risen in spite of dis- couragement. Galileo was persecuted even to imprison- ment and death, but he persevered in asserting his sub- lime discoveries. Milton wrote the grandest poem ever conceived, and his family received 5Z. for it ! ! ! — Ot way, our greatest dramatist after Shakespeare, died literally from starvation ! ! ! It must be evident, therefore, that neither want of encouragement, nor want of education can keep genius down, and as woman has not yet shown equality of mental power, I think we may justly conclude that she is not endowed with it. Thirteenth Speaker. — Mr. Chairman : In spite of the learned and elegant speeches of the ladies' champions, I am still inclined to vote with the opener. I think my conclusion rests on good authority. We find from Scrip ture history, that man was created first,* and that woman was formed from a part of man — from what Dryden calls " the dross and refuse of a man " — from a rib, in fact. Now I would hup^ly submit that as man was MiENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 45 first formed, he wsiS iJitended to be superior to woman; and tliat woman being made from a pai^t of man only, cannot be looked upon as his equal. We find, too, in scripture, that woman is continually told to obey man, and I contend that this would not be the case were she not inferior. Besides, sir, as it has been ably argued, her duties do not require such great intellect as man's. Now, nature never gives unnecessary strength ; and as a woman is not called upon to use great mental power, we may be sure she does not possess it. Fourteenth Speaker. — Sir: It seems to me that the remarks of the last speaker may be easily shown to be most inconclusive and inconsistent. In the first place, he says, that as Adam was created before Eve, Adam was intended to be superior. I think, sir, that this argu- ment is -singularly unhappy. Why we read that the birds, beasts, and fishes were created before Adam, and if my friend's logic were sound, Adam must be inferior to said birds, beasts, and fishes, in consequence ; an argu- ment, as I take it, not quite supported by fact. Sir, so far as we can judge, the most important creatures seem to have been formed- last, and therefore Eve must, ac- cording to that^ be not only inferior, but superior to Adam. * Then as to the argument about the rib. I did not know before that a man's dross* lay in his ribs, I believe it sometimes lies higher. And what was Adam formed out of ? The dust of the earth. Now it seems to me that a living rib is a much more dignified thing to be made out of than the lifeless dust of the ground : and if so, my friend's argument turns against himself rather than against the ladies. I heard the gentleman say, too, and I confess I heard it with some impatience, that woman's sphere does not require so much intellect as man's. Whence he got such 46 MENTAL CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. an argument I cannot imagine, and I think it by no means creditable either to his taste or to his discernment. Who has to rear the infant mind ? to tend and instruct the growing child ? to teach it truth, and goodness, and piety ? Not impetuous, impatient man, but enduring, gentle, and considerate icoman. What more important or moi^e difficult task could mortal undertake ? It re- quires the noblest intellect to teach a child, and that in- tellect being required in woman, I f^l sure that she po^^sesses it. Although, then, I own, that there are great and inborn differences between the intellectual capacities of the sexes, I cannot for an instant imagine that the one is, in the aggregate, at all inferior to the other. Fifteenth Speaker.— Sir : I have reflected calmly and dispassionately upon the question before us, while I have been listening to the speeches made by my friends around me, and although I own that I was at first in- clined to vote in the affirmative of this question, I am not ashamed to say that my views have undergone a material alteration during the debate, and that I have now made up my mind to defend and vote for the ladies. In the first place, sir, I think we are necessarily unfair judges. We are interested in the verdict, and therefore ought not to sit upon the judgment-seat. • It gratifies our pride to think that we are superior to the other sex ; and reflection upon this point has convinced me, that upon the ground of good taste and modesty alone, we ought at once to give up the point, and admit woman's claims to be at least equal to our own. Reason also moves me to adopt the same conclusion. I concede at once that there are great differences between the capacities of the sexes ; but not greater than between various races of our own sex. The African savage is in- ferior to the European philosopher. Why ? Because he }ias not been educated. So with woman. When you can show me that woman has received the same ad van- MENTAL CAPACITIES OP THE SEXES. 4^ tages as man, and has not then equaled him, why then I will vote against her ; but not till then. Besides, the differences, though innate, are not dif- ferences of amount, but of detail. A man who has a five-dollar piece, and a man who has ten half-dollars, are equally rich : just in the same manner woman may be as intellectually great as man, only possessing her mental wealth in different coin from his. He has one set of qualities, she has another. He has judgment, she has tact. He has boldness, she has i)rudence. He has courage, she has caution. He has reason, she has hope ! Add up the two sides, and though the figures are dif- ferent, the amount will be the same. It has been said that as woman is commanded in Scrip- ture to obey, she must necessarily be inferior. This by no means follows. There must be a head, they cannot both rule ; though equal,- therefore, one must submit. The philosophers and statesmen of this country obey the sovereign who is placed over them ; but that does not prove them to be inferior to that sovereign in intel- lect. This argument has, in fact, nothing to do with the matter. In conclusion, I would say, that as the Creator formed woman to be a help meet for man, I cannot believe that she was made inferior. She was given to him as a com- panion and a friend, not as a slave and servant, and I think that we are displayijig" great arrogance and pre- sumption, as well as a contemptuous depreciation of our Great Creator's best gifts, if we declare and decide that she who adorns and beautifies and delights our existence, is inferior to ourselves in that intelligence which became a part of man's soul when God breathed into him the breath of life. Opener {in reply). — Mr. Chairman: You have called on me to reply. Now I beg at once and frankly to say, that I, like the last speaker, have undergone conviction 48 MENTAL CAPACITIES OP THE SEXES. during tliis debate, and that I mean to vote against the proposition which a short time ago I recommended. I was misled by appearances. I h)oked into history ; but I did not examine it correctly. I looked at the sur- face only. I saw great deeds, and I saw that men had perfoT^med them; but I did not estimate what had been done silently. I forgot to ask myself how much of the good these men wrought was owing to the wisdom and goodness taught to them in their infancy by their mothers. So with philosophy, so with science. The glitter caught me, and I fear I lost the substance. I am not sorry, however, that I introduced the ques- tion. It has changed those who were wrong, it has con- firmed those wlio were right, and it has caused all to think. Let me hope that all who spoke on my side of the question are, like their leader, converted ; and let me in conclusion say, that I trust we shall take to our hearts the truth w^e adopt ; and while we vote here, that the mental capacity of the female sex is fully equal to our own, show by our conduct towards that sex, that we feel their high value and dignity, and treat them in ©very respect as our full equals and as our best friends. IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 49 QUESTION IV. Is Capital Punishment Justifiable. 'Opener — Mr. Chairman, I rise to submit to the discus- sion of this meeting the following important question : "Is Capital Punishment Justifiable?" I feel that I have undertaken a very difficult task ; but urged by a strong, indeed overpowering, sense of duty, I am deter- mined not to fiinch from my w^ork, but to perform it to the very best of my ability. I entertain a deep and solemn conviction, sir, that the punishment of death is, under any circumstances, a foul and frightful crime. I wish, however, to be distinctly un- derstood to admit that it was not always so. That it was at one period of man's history commanded and approved by the Most High, I at once concede. But the proposi- tion I wish to maintain to-night is : That the practice is 710W no longer justifiable in any supposable case. In the first place. Capital Punishment is condemned by policy. It is an undeniable fact — a fact so well known as to call for no proof from me — that crime decreases just as this punishment is more and more discontinued. For- gery, sheep-stealing, coining, burglary, and other offenses lately punishable with death, have, since the repeal of the capital penalty, most strikingly diminished. Even murder is found to decrease just in proportion ks execu- tions become rarer. Not in our country alone, but thi^)ughout all Europe, this fact holds good, and it can- not fail to tell us, in unmistakable language, that the point wj;iere punishment has become an incitement rather than a restraint has at length been reached, and that the principle and application of punishment must conse- quently now be altered. I may perhaps be asked to explain this metaphysically ; to show why punishment now incites rather than pre- 50 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JtJSTIFIABLE. vents ? Sir, this is by no means my duty, and I shall not attempt it ; the fact proves my position, and on that I shall rely. Suffice it to say, tiiat the Punishment of Death is found to be impolitic, inasmuch as it increases the crimes which it seeks to repress. • * Secondly, the infliction of death is inconsistent with our advanced state of morality. It was a just and fit punishment when men were all barbarians ; because then it appealed to their strongest sense, the sense of physical pain : but now, when mental pain (and especi- ally the pain of conscience) is a terror to men beyond the fear of physical suffering, the infliction is signally and necessarily unfit. It is now seen by the wise among men, that all crimes partake more or less of the nature of insanity ; great crimes more especially : and conse- quently it is felt to be unjust to kill a man for a deed which could only have been conceived and executed under frenzy or infatuation. If a further proof were needed of the immorality of Capital Punishments, I would point to the aversion that is growing day by day in the public mind against their infliction. Societies are formed, and more are daily forming, for the express pur pose of., endeavoring to abolish the gallows ; and this would not be, were it not felt to be morally abominable. Lastly : it is repugnant to our religion. We live under the mild and merciful dispensation of the Gospel ; the law of death is repealed, and the law of life is substituted in its place. We are told to revenge not ourselves, but to leave vengeance to God. We are bidden to be l#nd and merciful one to another, even to the worst offenders. By the Gospel we are taught above all things J^he sur- passing value of the human vsoul ; and this should lead us, of itself, to forbear from inflicting a punishment which sends the soul to a tribunal from which there is no appeal. I feel, sir, that I cannot now urge these points at greater length ; but as they will doubtless be ami^lified IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 51 by many wlio are much better qualified to enlarge upon tliem, I am glad here to resign the subject. Second Speaker. — Sir : I lose no time in seeking to address you, for I think the subject of debate a vitally important one. I am strongly of opinion that there is a spirit of false humanity abroad in the present day, which is calculated to do, and indeed is doing, a vast amount of harm. I do not conceal from you, sir, my especial belief that the cry for the abolition of Capital Punishment proceeds from a mawkish sentimentality, a spurious mercy, and a most unwise philanthropy. Whence all this sympathy, this morbid pity, this loud-tongued pleading for the blood- dyed murderer, but from these impure sources ? I am astonished, sir, that men can be found to defend the hor- rid crime of murder, and to demand that it should es- cape its righteous punishment ! As to policy : there is too much talk about policy in the present day ! Let men do what is right, and leave policy to take care of itself. It is easy enough to say murders decrease just as Capital Punishment is discon- tinued, but why may I not say that this decrease in crime is owing to the spread of education, the vigilance of our police, and the increasing justice of our laws ? I think, sir, that death for murder is right, and therefore must be politic. But our friend says that it is 7iot right ; that it is unjust and immoral. Is life for life not just ? Why, what can be juster ? He who does injury ought to suffer injury. Will any one be bold enough to tell me that if a near and dear relation of mine were to be barbarously mur- dered in cold blood, it would not be just and proper for me to desire and demand the life of the murderer ? What is there that is immoral in that ? It seems to me much more immoral to forgive crime, than to punish it ,• for crime is not to be endured on any terms. 52 IS CAPITAL PUNISHIMENT JUSTIFIABLE. I was astonished beyond measure^ ?Ir, when I heard the opener say, moreover, that Capital Punishment is forbidden by our relig'ion. Why, have we not in the first book of the Bible this clear command — '* Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall Ms blood be shed f " What can be plainer than that ? Besides this, have we not the laws which the Almighty expressly gave to the children of Israel, enjoining in all cases death for mur- der ? Surely now that the gentleman finds not only by Divine Command, but by Divine Practice (for the Al- mighty was the head of the Jewish community), that Capital Punishment is enjoined, he will not repeat his inconsiderate assertion that the gallows is repugnant to our religion. Not having had much time for preparation, sir, I am unable at present to say more ; but I trust that the few remarks I have offered will have tended (even though but slightly) to shake the foolish sentimentality which has given rise to this debate, and to give us plain sense and common justice instead. Third Speaker.— Sir: If I wanted a proof that the penalty of death is a punishment essentially inconsider- ate, barbarous and revengeful, I should find it in the speech of the gentleman who has just preceded mo. A more crude, thoughtless, ad captandum address I never heard in my life. It began with abuse and ended with self-laudation ; while you can scarcely require to be told that it contained not even the shadow of a sound argument. What the speaker said about false pity and spurious philanthropy we can afford to despise. When a man begins to call his opponent bad names, we may be sure that he finds he has the worst of the argument. Our friend's loss of temper, therefore* only proves the badness of his cause. From abuse the gentleman descended to misrepresen- IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 53 tation. He told us that the opponents of Capital Punish- ment desire to defend the crime of murder, and to pro- tect the criminal from punishment. Now, once for all, sir, let us firmly deny and repudiate such folly. We ad- mit to the full that murder is a foul and awful crime ; and we by no means desire to screen the offender, either in sight of God or man. We only desire that the pun- ishment shall be a certain instead of an uncertain one ; rational instead of barbarous ; and that it shall be such as will restrain, not promote, the crime. Away, then, forever, with this thoughtless charge of false philan- thropy ! I reiterate the assertion of the opener, that the punish- ment of death is impolitic. Experience proves this, as we have seen ; and reason proves it, too. €)onsider for a mo- ment the aim of Capital Punishment inflicted for murder. It is intended by the legislator to prove and preach to the people that life is sacred, and that murder is wrong : in other words, life is taken to teach that life should not be taken. Can any thing be more absurd ? The act is di- rectly opposed to the aim. Can any thing be more cal- culated to increase crime instead of repressing it ? Kiil- ,j,ing is justified instead of being condemned ; and the man who is unaccustomed to the casuistry by which bad laws a^^e easily defended, will be disposed to justify a sim- ilar deed, committed under provocation, by himself. And the practice not only misleads, but brutalizes, the minds of a people. They are rendered familiar with death, and are therefore made all the more capable of inflicting it. A man who witnesses an execution is depraved from that moment ; and many an individual dates the commence- ment of his sinful career from the moment when he saw the sanctity of life invaded by what is called, or rather miscalled, public justice. Reason, then, as well as fact, must lead us to see that Capital Inflictions are impolitic. Experience |)roves it ^ 54 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. for the crime increases as the inflictions abound : and Beason proves it ; for the slightest thought will lead us to see that killing justified in public, will naturally lead to killing justified in private. Sir, I will not trespass on you longer. Fourth Speaker.— Sir: I object to Capital Punish- ment, because I cannot see that the ruler has any right to inflict it. The sole duty of the civil governor is to protect men's lives and possessions by the means which society delegates to him. Now he can have no right over life, because no such right can be delivered to him. Man in his natural state has no right either over his own life, or over the lives of others ; the right to kill, conse- quently, cannot belong to the ruler by delegation. The right of self-defence may perhaps be pleaded ; but a mo- ment's reflection will serve to show that it can not hold. Killing in self-defense can only be justified by the fact that life is absolutely in danger unless it be resorted to ; and therefore unless it can be shown that the existence of the state is positively threatened by the preservation of the murderer, his destruction is not to be justified. Nor can the ruler have a moral right to inflict death as a punishment. The issues of absolute justice are no- ^ where committed to him ; and if they were, he could not properly dispense them. To judge morally, is to judge of motive ; and man (whether ruler or individual) has neither the power nor the authority to do this. Nor can the ruler have a religious right to condemn his fellow man to death ; for religion (as it has been shown) opposes the practice, both in spirit and in letter. On the bare question of right, then, I object, sir, to the punishment of death ; and this seems to me a suflicient answer to the question before us. Fifth Speaker. —Sir : The question of the ruler's ab~ stract right to inflict the punishment of death is one which is very difficult to discuss. I must own that in IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 55 spite of the last speaker's observations, I am inclined to think that the ruler has such a right. Politically speak- ing, this right seems to me to depend entirely upon ex- pediency. If the well-being of the state is promoted by the sacrifice of its worst members, then I am of opinion that the ruler has a perfect right to resort to it. Wheth- er Capital Punishment does", however, promote the well- being of the state, is a question into which I will not en- ter : 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 fellow-beings. 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 accord- ing to his deeds, there can be no pretense that the admin- istration 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, * ' Whosp 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 lielp thinking that a clear and tl^ughtful mind might reconcile them. I am by no means bigoted, sir, in favor of the punish- ment 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 re- luctantly remain aiftong 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. 56 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. . I think it must be quite clear that the evil eftects 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 remun- erating 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 remains only 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 b^ 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 tlie sword shall perish by the sword." It should be noticed too, that if the passage be any authority at all, it de- nounces death for manslaughter as well as for murder. *' Whoso sheddeth" — are the words : there is no distinc- tion of motive : homicide of Q,\QYy #ort is equally pun- ish;^ -ale Avitli death. This conclusion will not, I suppose, be ^Aaintained by any one ; and therefore 1 submit that it c9.nnot hold at all ; the more especially as it is op- posed, and indeed altogether condemned, by the Gospel. IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 5? If I should have failed, sh', in estimating any part of the ruler's right to kill, I dare say I shall soon be in- formed 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 — "61/ 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 de- bate, that the New Testament is opposed to this com- mand. 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 your- selves to every ordinance of man." " The powers that be are ordained of God. " " Honor 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 repre- sentative, and that when, as such, 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 than I have yet listened to, to convince me that the public infliction of punishment must increase 58 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. rather than repress iniquity. Why does a father correct his child ? To make it an example to the rest. The in- fliction of chastisement operates upon the fears of the others, and so naturally restrains ' th-em from the com- mission of crime. And as it is with 'children, so it is with men. The fear of 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 gal- lows 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 through the land ; and although from the nature of things we can- not 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 fancy, who will not be quite so ready to fling religion and morality to the winds. To shrink from testing the question by theological and moral considerations, betrays the consciousness of weak- ness, and goes far to prove that Capital Punishment can not be justified. But the question shall not be so shirked. The sup- porters of the pain of death may, if they please, dismiss from their minds the sentiments of religion and morali- ty ; but we, its opponents, will not. Confident that by these tests the punishment is expressly condemned, I again reiterate the assertion that killing for murder is Kxot justified either by morality or religion. Upon moral grounds I believe no one will now defend IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 69 it : but the religious reason is not yet given up. I think, however, I can now demonstrate that it must, for the future, be entirely renounced. A gentleman who recently addressed us said that the whole weight of the passage from Genesis rests upon the words "62/ man shall the murderer's blood be shed : " I quite agree with this gentlernan. These two words certainly do seem to imply a sort of divine authority for the man to kill the manslayer. But what will the gentleman say, and what will his supporters say, when I assure them that the words "by man" are not in the original at all ? The words are simply, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood his blood shall be shed ; " there is no delegation of authority to man whatever. It is quite true that Cranmer, Cover- dale, and the Bishops who produced our present version of the Bible, interpolate the words "by man ;" but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the versions of Scio, Oster- vald, and Wycliffe, reject them altoi^ether . I am not Hebraist enough to refer you to the original, but I am sufficiently well informed upon the matter to assure you that the exact translation of the original pas- sage is this—" Whoso sheddeth man's blood, that is in him, his blood shall be shed." Here, then, falls to the ground forever the imposing edifice which has been built upon — a mistranslation! The passage confers no right: it speaks not of the agency of man at all, and therefore goes for nothing in the ar- gument. An intelligent gentleman who addressed us some few minutes since, expressed his belief that the supposed command just quoted, and the apparently opposing pas- sages in the New Testament, might possibly be reconcil- able. I think the gentleman will now see that they are reconciled. Without any command in the Old Testa- ment, and with a decided repugnance in the New Testa- ment, to shed human blood (even the blood of criminals) 60 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. it will now not be difficult to see that the opener was right when he said that Capital Punishment is opposed to our religion. Tenth Speaker. — Though a good deal shaken in my original conviction that the punishment of death for murder is defensible, I must confess that I am not alto- gether satisfied with the arguments to which I have lis- tened on the other side. Granting that the last speaker is right in his new trans- lation of the passage from Genesis, how will he or others get over the fact that capital inflictions were expressly instituted and commanded by the Most High when he gave laws to the children of Israel? I suppose it will not be pretended that all this is mistranslated too; Cap- ital Punishment was most evidently at one time approved by the Almighty, and if so, how can we say that it is wrong in principle now? I certainly should like this point settled. Again : I feel still of opinion that life for life and blood for blood is sound and true justice; and that the man who takes the' life of another deserves to forfeit his own. I admit that man is not altogether competent to judge of moral guilt; but in so glaring a crime as murder, he surely can make no mistake in inflicting punishment. Eleventh Speakef —In reply to the assertion of the last speaker that we surely cannot make mistakes in punishing the crime of murder, it might be sufficient to point out the errors that have been made — and not a few. Net only have men punished manslaughter as murder, and murder as manslaughter, but they have actually killed men as murderers who have been subsequently found to be entirely innocent of the crime for w^hich they suffered ! But although the mere statement of this fact suffi- ciently rebuts the assertion referred to, the gentleman perhaps wishes to know how mistakes in judgment can IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 61 be made. I will tell liim. It is chiefly because we have not the faculty to distinguish between good and evil mo- tives, and are thus led to mistake deeds of dreadful con- sequence for deeds of dreadful crime. For Heaven's sake, sir, let us not think ourselves good moral judges when we have made such awful mistakes as to burn some men for their religious belief and to crown others with laurel for slaying thousands in the field of battle ! We cannot see motives in any case, and therefore we cannot properly condemn and punish them in the murderer. But " life for life, blood for blood," is the argument by which Old Bailey strangulation is justified. He who does injury ought to suffer injury, it is said. A nice morality to be sure ; the simple but disgraceful morality of revenge and retaliation : the very system which the Holy Gospel came to overthrow. I called the principle disgraceful, sir; the expression is a strong one: but I will not withdraw it. On the contrary, I reiterate it. It is disgraceful. It shows a barbarous and unchristian- ized heart ; and I cannot help saying that I think the harborers of it were meant for th^ wild and savage state of the world and have unluckily been born too late. The last speaker evidently ought to have existed in the Mosaic era : for he lives in its principles. ''Why," says he, " if Capital Punishment was a good law for the Jews, is it not a good law for us? " Why simply, sir, because we are not Jews. I, for my part, am not in- clined to live by the light of three thousand years ago. Men were barbarians when the law of death was en- joined : and for them, doubtless, the law was the best that^could have been framed ; but we have now grown into a different state ; and the best proof that the law is no longer fit for us is, that it fails to restrain us. More- over the law was abolished by Christ. Death as a penalty for murder must fail. Let me show you why. The crime is committed either by impulse or 62 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. by calculation. If by impulse, then the mind that con- ceived it is beyond the reach of moral restraint altogether : if by calculation, then the criminal finds the chances of escape stronger than the dread of discovery and punish- ment, and so despises the threat. Twelfth Speaker.— Sir: I am opposed to Capital Punishment, because I think that it defeats its professed object by its extreme severity. Prosecutors dislike to come forward, witnesses to testify, juries to convict, and judges to sentence, when the life of a man is at stake ; and this tends to make the punishment uncertain in its operation, and to lead the calculating offender to despise it. Say what we will about life for life, there is unques- tionably great horror in the public mind at this law of blood ; and even when guilt is most clear, there is al- ways, when the penalty is death, a strong effort made to screen and save the malefactor. Now this is caused solely by the frightful nature of the punishment. If the sentence were a long term of imprisonment, or any other secondary punishment, there would be no interference ; on the contrary the law would be allowed and assisted to take its course ; but as it is, it is thwarted by every body ! The result must be clear ; we are led to oppose and hate the law, and to pity, instead of detest, the criminal. Thus, a martyrology of the gallows is formed, and a morbid sympathy is raised and disseminated on behalf of the malefactor. The supposed restraint of the gallows is ^vision, a chi- mera. A gentleman said (and I could not help smiling at his extreme simplicity) that in the very nature of things we could not see the restraint in operation — al- though he for his part, believed in it ! But u^hy cannot we see this restraint at work? I will tell you. Because it does not exist. Who ever saw, or heard, or read of a man who had been restrained from committing murder by the dread of the gallows? Who ever felt or feared IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 63 the restraint himself? In the very natui^e of things it is impossible. For when once the idea of murder has been conceived and determined upon, all restraint is alike forgotten or despised. Speak as we may, men do not and will not fear death. Lord Bacon truly says, "There is no passion so weak but it mates and masters this fear." Even the drunkard despises it ; and if he — the most imbecile of God's crea- tures — can do so, how much more capable of doing so is the fierce, bold, determined man of crime, who crowns his career with murder ? The expectation of death is too tremendous a thing to realize; and hope, even under the worst circumstances, is so strong within us, that it de- ludes us, and persuades us even at the last moment, that we shall not surely die. I think then it must now be clear that capital punish- ment, far from so operating upon our fears as to restrain us from crime, incites, from its very nature, numerous hopes of escape ; which, aided by the calculations of rea- son, and the delusion which our fears excite, conspire to render its infliction utterly inefficient for the sole end of punishment, which is to present to all a stronger motive for abstaining from crime, than the ordinary motives for committing it. Thirteenth Speaker. —Sir: Although this discussion has referred to the chief points connected with this inter- esting subject, there are yet a few considerations remain- ing which have not been quite cleared up. In the first place : It is quite plain that when the Al- mighty gave His laws to the Jews, Capital Punishment for murder was strictly enjoined ; and I have as yet heard no arguments to show that if the principle was right then, it is wrong now. Again: It is expressly asserted in Scripture that the ruler is the vicegerent of the Almighty; and if this be so, it will follow that when the ruler inflicts death as a 64 IS CAiPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. punishment, he does it as God's representative, and is therefore blameless. Further : We are told to submit to the ruler, to resist not the power, and so forth. Now, does not this clearly show that we are wrong in questioning the authority of the civil governor, and guilty of contempt toward the "powers ordained" of God, when we seek to deprive them of the sword which He has committed into their hands ? It has been said that murderers ought not to be pun- ished with death, because insanity must have prompted them when they committed their crimes; but this in- sanity^has not been proved. How are we to know that they were insane ? It appears to me, sir, that unless, it can be most undeniably shown that a murderer is out of his mind when he kills his victim, he ought to suffer for the deed. Once more : It appears from the statement of one of the speakers, that some of the Bible translators vrrit5 "6?/ ^^<^^ shall the murderer's blood be "shed," while some do not. But why are we to take the version w^hich has not the w^ords, and reject that which has ? We may as well take the one as the other. Authorities, it seems, disagree, and there must consequently be two sides to the question. Lastly: If you abolish death as a punishment, what will you give us instead ? I can see no punishment so fit or so entirely commensurate with the crime. It is a plain application of the golden rule : To do as you would be done by. Will you sentence them to solitary impris- onment f This would be more barbarous than death, by far. What, then, will you give us in place of a punish- ment which is at once striking and exemplary; and which, moreover, by giving the condemned criminal an interval between the sentence and its execution, provides him with leisure for repentance in the sight of God ? IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 65 Until all these various objections are satisfied, sir, I am persuaded that a great majority of mankind will remain of opinion that, however benevolent the abolition of the gallows may seem, it is a truer benevolence that demands its retention. Opener {in reply). — Sir: I rise to off er a few words in reply. It seems to be tacitly admitted by all, that the gallows can only be defended while it is found to be expedient. As to whether it is expedient or not, there seems still to be a question. Now no one, sir, has attempted to controvert my asser- tion that executions increase crime. I do not wonder at this, for the fact (explain it as we may) is not to be de- nied. Experience, then^ at all eveitts is with us. And reason, sir, is with us, too. The punishment of death must fail to restrain, because it is not till all moral restraint has become too feeble to bind, that the crime is determined on. It has been shown, moreover, that we have no right to kill. From self-defense we get no right, because we can defend ourselves without inflicting death; by delegation we get no right, for there is no such right in the pre- tended delegator's possession ; from morality we get no right, because the custody of morality is not committed to us. Some think that we derive a right from religion : let me expend a moment in denying this ! It is quite true, as the last speaker affirmed, that there are two versions of a certain passage in the Bible, by one of which we de- rive, or ferret out, a sort of vague authority to kill a manslayer ; and by the other, of which we find no such authority at all. But if there are two versions, each of whidi has its unyielding defenders, the passage is at best but one of doubtful meaning ; and is a doubtful verse a foundation strong enough to sustain the awful act of 66 IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. judicial slaughter ? No, sir, not in the eyes of men of sense. But we are pointed to the fact that God himself or- dained Capital Punishment when He gave laws to the children of Israel. Sir, the Jewish system has been superseded these nineteen centuries, and is now no rule at all for us. Besides, the Jewish law awards death to a host of other ofiPenses as well as to murder ; and if we take it as our rule in one case, we ought also to follow it in all cases. Should we be right in hanging a man for killing a sheep ? for breaking the Sabbath day ? for swearing at his parents ? Ridiculous ! And so it is also ridiculous to say that we ought to hang for murder he- cause the Jewish law enjoined it ! We have been told that the ruler is the representative of the Almighty, and therefore that he is right in inflict- ing Capital Punishment. The absurdity of this line of argument is- easily demonstrable. Was Nero heaven's vicegerent ? Was Henry the Eighth heaven's commis- sioner? Was Queen Mary the appointed minister of God? These worthies bore *'the sword;" was it the sword of eternal justice, think you? They '* smote" with it, too: was it in heaven's name, or in heaven's cause, or by heaven's direction that they did so ? Are Nero's atrocities to be justified — are Henry the Eighth's 72,000 executions to be approved — are Queen Mary's in- famous Smithfield-bon fires to be defended, upon the plea that these wicked sovereigns were "powers ordained of God ? " Doubtless power comes from heaven ; all power ; the power to kill with the rest ; but it may be wrongly used: and the "powers " may be amenable to sense and justice for the errors they commit in the employment of it. Capital Punishment may be wrong, then, in spite of the * ' divine commission " of the ruler. The gentleman who spoke last desired to knowliow the assertion that all murderers are insane can hQ proved. IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE. 67 The answer is most easy : by the deed of murder itself. Murder is a thing so unnatural, so revolting, so tremend^ ous, that no sane being can conceive or perpetrate it. But what do we propose to substitute for the penalty of death ? is a question asked of us. Sir, it matters not wliat — that is short of death. Any thing is better than slaughter : for all other punishments affect the body alone, while slaughter kills body and soul, too. Let us imprison our murderers for life. We imprison our mad- men ; let us add these to them : and we shall not do wrong. Society will be safe, for the culprit will be pre- cluded from the opportunity of doing further harm : the land will be purified from blood ; and the gallows will no longer be the filthy creator of a world of fright- ful crime. 68 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. QUESTION V. Does Morality increase with Civilization ? Opener. — Sir : I think we have here lighted upon a question of great value and interest ; a question involv- ing some most important principles, and one calculated to lead us to conclusions affecting materially our whole life and conduct. We are to say whether Civilization promotes Morality ; or in simpler words, ichether Knoicledge leads to Virtue. If we say "Yes " to this question, then we shall see that it is our duty to promote the mental instruction of our fellow-m^n by every means in our power : and if we say "No " to it, then we shall hesitate ere we help to slake that craving thirst for intellectual knowledge which is one of the chief signs of our age, and which is doubtless working toward some vast result of evil or of good. By the term Morality, sir, I mean good conduct ; con- duct in accordance with justice and virtue. I do not mean mere conventional propriety, or simple literal ad- herence to the moral law ; self-interest or hypocrisy may be the source of this, and the most outwardly irreproach- able man may be really the most inwardly foul and de- testable of his species. I mean by morality, good con- duct springing from true principle : and by my question I seek to know whether this Morality is promoted by the increase of Civilization. I wish to determine what con- nection subsists between the mind and the heart : and I think that I cannot better discover this than by the dis- cussion of the subject I have proposed. I do not mean for the present to take either one side or the other ; I candidly own that I come to learn rather than to teach. I have taken some pains to mold my ques- tion into tlie best form that I could shape for it ; and I DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 69 only stay to express my hope, that the speakers will keep as closely as possible to the meaning of the subject as I have developed it. Second Speaker. — Sir : Fully agreeing with the opener of the debate in the opinion which he has expressed of the importance of the subject, I take the liberty to offer a few remarks to the meeting. I am inclined to adojpt the negative side of this ques- tion. I can not see that there is any connection whatever between knowledge and goodness. Knowledge is the wisdom of the brain : goodness is the wisdom of the heart : and they are things perfectly distinct and different from one another. This is shown by the fact that very learned men are often very bad men, while virtuous men are often very ignorant. Were the affirmative of the ques- tion true, it would naturally follow that the wisest men would be the best men ; which, unfortunately, is by no means the case. I am afraid, indeed, that the reverse of this proposition would be nearer the truth : for it too frequently happens, alas ! that the wisest are the worst men. History shows us this in many signal instances. One of the most remarkable cases is Lord Bacon's. Here was a man whose intellect was gigantic, and whose at- tainments were unparalleled : yet his morality was so weak that he was bribed on the very judgment-seat, and ended what might have been a glorious career, in dis- grace and humiliating shame. This will show at once that there is no necessary connection between intellect and goodness, that there is no road from the head to the heart. We are led to believe, and reason warrants the conclusion, that the very Prince of Evil has surpassing mental strength ; but we know he has no virtue : wis- dom, therefore, is perivXjtly consistent with the deepest immorality. When we see, moreover, that the general tendency of mere intellect (unless directed by virtue) is toward evil rather than toward good, I think we can 70 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. have no doubt that iii reply to the question put from the chair, we must say that Morahty does not necessarily in- crease with Civilization. Third Speaker.— Sir : Though my experience in de- bate has hitherto been but small, I have learned, not- withstanding, that a theory may be exceedingly pretty and true to the look, and yet be altogether cojitradicted by fact. It seems to me that the theory propounded by the last speaker is just in this predicament : nothing can seem more undeniable ; nothing can be less true. Theorize as long as we may, there can be no doubt of this, that as the world has become civilized, it has become morally better. I care not into what department of mor- ality you go, you will find improvement upon improve- ment in it as you trace its history. In political, in social, in domestic or in religious morality, you will discover a com- plete denial of the theory that wisdom has nothing to do with virtue. The world was, in the early ages, overrun with violence and blood : now it is covered with peace and plen- ty. Formerly all nations were at war ; now war, al- though still existing, is almost unknown. History shows us that law was at one time only a series of written tyran- nies ; now it is, or is gradually becoming, the engraven word of justice. Kings, in ages gone by, were absolute and uncontrolled ; shed the blood of their subjects like water, plundered without pity, and destroyed without remorse : now kings are little more than other men : they are as much amenable to law and reason, and can do no wrong without accounting for it. What has wrought this change ? Why, civilization, of course ; men knoiv better than they did, and therefore do better than they did. Learning has generated improvement, and improve- ment has introduced morality. These, sir, are my senti- ments upon the interesting subject before us. Fourth Speaker.— Sir : The most that the last speaker has proved is, that there is a coincidence between increas- DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 71 ed civilization and improved morality : he has by no means shown that there is a connection between them. Civilization has advanced, and morality has advanced ; but we may just as well say that the morality has improved the civilization, as that the civilization has improved the morality. If I were asked to name the cause of this improvement •n morality, I should ascribe it to Christianity rather than to civilization. I cannot find that the world ad- vanced much till the Gospel came. It is from that period that war declined, that kings were humanized, that laws were ameliorated, and that peace began its reign. And the influence of Christianity upon virtue is easily traceable : while the effect of civilization is not trace- able. Peace, justice, mildness, and temperance are the very doctrines of the Gospel : while wisdom, I mean worldly wisdom, intellect, genius, and learning are by no means the instruments that the Gospel uses to propagate its principles. ' ' Not many wise, not many learned, are called " to propound its doctrines, and to unravel its mys- teries ; but men of warm and strong hearts liave ever been its most successful preachers. Civilization, on the other hand, has clearly done much evil : it has spread error with truth ; has introduced lux- ury and enervating refinement ; and has taught the world fraud, pride, and hypocrisy. In barbarism there is no intemioerance, no envy, no deceit ; but in civilized society all these vices abound. I am of opinion, sir, that no poet ever wrote a truer sentiment than Byron pro- duced in that striking line — " The Tree of Knowledge, is not that of Life. " Fifth Speaker.— Sir: I am not at all disposed to deny llie vast influence of the Christian religion in liumariiz- iiig and moralizing the hearts of men ; but I really think that civilization, or intellectual wisdom, has its merits too. 72 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. For myself, sir, I have always imagined that the term civilization includes Christianity. Civilization signifies whatever brings men out of barbarism : and I deem it very unwise to restrict the meaning of the term to mere mental knowledge. I cannot believe that the mind, the intellect of man, has done nothing to improve the condition of the race : I feel that to assert such a thing must be to re- flect upon the All- wise Being who gave us our three-fole^ nature of body, mind and soul. One gentleman told us that brain and heart (mind and soul) were distinct and different things. Sir, 1 cannot think so : they belong to the same being, and must be intimately dependent upon each other. I do not mean to say that the knowledge acquired by the brain must necessarily moralize the heart : but I do mean to say that the heart must be affected by the brain. Our conscience, for instance, is our moral guide, and reproves or commends us, as we go wrong or right. Now, the conscience must depend upon the intellect for its knowledge of right and wrong ; it is only through the intellect that the moral knowledge comes. Nay, the amount of intellect is singularly enough, the very gauge of morality. A man who has no intellect, an idiot, is very properly not held morally accountable at all ; for it is seen that as he can not hnow right and wrong, he can not do them. If then, the doing right or doing wrong absolutely depends upon our intel- lectual knowledge of the one from the other, how can we say that the heart is not affected by the brain ? The ^Tree of Knowledge is not that of life, I grant, but know- ledge at least opens our eyes and shows us where life is. Sixth Speaker. — A short and easy way of discover- ing what improvements m morality the present time ex- hibits as compared with more uncivilized ages, is to take the Decalogue, and see how it is obeyed. This is ac- knowledged to be our highest moral code, and conse- quently is the fittest test we can set up. DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 73 Do we keep the first then ? Do we " worship only ONE TRUE GOD ?" Alas ! we have a multitude of deities. Mammon, jftonor, Glory and Selfishness are worshipped (one or other of them) by the great majority of men. We are little better herein than the heathen who fall down to blocks of wood and stone. Do we ''honor our parents" as we should? I al- most blush to ask the question, sir ; for a shameless disre- gard of parental authority, a studied contempt for hon- orable age, is one of the most crying sins of the day. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the Deity's com- mands : and we break it in a thousand ways. We kill for conquest, for fame, for gold, for revenge, and for many other pretexts, even worse. O sir, let us get out of our barbarism before we begin to talk about what has been done for us by civilization ! "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is another moral law : and this is the worrt kept of all. Who has not been slandered ? Who haL not been falsely accused? Who has not had his " life's life lied away " by tongues charged with the venom of wickedness ? ' ' False wit- ness ! " when do we meet with true witness ? Never, §ir, was falsehood so triumphant as now : and civiliza- tion seems only to swell its glory. As to the rest of the moral law — it is a mockery to ask how it is observed. Vice, Lewdness, Bigotry, and Super- stition sit balef ully glittering in the high places of the world, while Truth is silenced, and Conscience stifled. I attribute all this, sir, to the boasted march of intellect, and I tremble as I do so. For I know that unless the Ail wise prevent, we shall be hurried ere long into a blind and bottomless atheism, as miserable as it will be impious. Seventh Speaker.— Sir : In spite of the melancholy jeremiad just delivered, I really can by no means see that, bad as the world confessedly is, intellect has done all 74 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION, the mischief. Knowledge must be good, for the Most High is himself omniscient ; and although I cannot trace the connection, I firmly believe ^lat perfect wisdom is perfect goodness. Tlie Avisest of men has said that "for the soul to be witliout knowledge is not good," and I, for one, fully admit the truth of the assertion. Other wise men have told us that religion never comes but through the mind : that we hrst perceive the glorious handiwork of the Creator in this beautiful and wonderful w^orld, and then rise "from nature up to nature's God" — direct- ed toward revealed religion by natural religion; and the doctrine seems warrantable and reasonable. Which is tlio more capable of worshiping the Almighty ? The untaught savage into v/hose ignorant mind the rays of thoi;giit have never penetrated; or the cultivated philos- oplici' who has discovered the divine hand of the great Croatoi' in His works ? The gentleman who spoke last moui'iied dolefully over the non-observance of tl.ie moral laws; but does not the giving of the moral law to man clearly sbow that his mind is addressed in order tiiat ho may be moralized ? These laws are communica- ted to his mind. He is made to know them, and his obe- dience is tried and judged by his knowledge. The Gospel is addressed as much to the mind as to the heart ; this clearly proves to me that the mind of a man has much to do with his morality. Is not the mind ad- dressed by the preachers of God's word ? Nay, how can they get to the heart at all but through the mind ? The mind must receive intellectually before ttie soul can learn spiritually. Where belief is not a matter of the mind, as well as of the heart, it is only a kind of superstition ; and thus it is that religion is too often a thing of im- pulse or passion, instead of one of judgment and con- viction. Eighth Speaker. — I fear, sir, that our speakers have gone somewhat into extremes in treating this subject, DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 75 and I am inclined to fancy that the truth of the matter hes somewhere between them. Mere intellect, doubtless, leads to error, and so does mere impulse ; but there is no truth without mental and moral conviction too. It is unwise to set up the head and the heart as rivals ; they are- fellow-workers in the cause of virtue, and ought to fraternize, not quarrel. We owe both good and evil to the brain, and we owe both good and evil to the heart. Pushed to extremes, intellect tends toward disbelief, and feeling towards cred- ulity ; it is only by a union of the two that we arrive at truth. That intellect has done much service to the cause of virtue, I, for my part, cannot doubt for a moment. It has at least taught us to see. When Adam plucked of the tree of Knowledge, his eyes were opened. Sight is the first step towards wisdom, and towards virtue also ; for we must see evil before we can begin to attack it. We have seen not a little evil, and through seeing, have abolished it. We have seen for instance, that ab- solute sovereignty is bad, and we have done away with it : we have seen that slavery is abominable, and we almost destroyed it ; we have seen that ivar is detestable, and we have well nigh discontinued the practice ; and we have seen and abolished a thousand other pressing errors. We have been told that civilization has introduced some vices.* I will not attempt to deny it. Nothing on earth is perfect, and intellect is, like every thing else, liable to go wrong. But it generally works its own cure. Thus, although it has introduced luxury, it has discovered and taught the great lesson that luxury is an evil ; and although it has introduced hypocrisy, it has raised in many minds a love of truth far higher and purer than it would or could have been but for the contrast. I shall certainly vote in the affirmative. 76 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. Ninth Speaker. — It may be very true, sir : and I be- lieve it is true, that as civilization has advanced, outward morality has improved. I admit that the world looks better than it formerly looked, but whether it is better, is quite another thing. I have my fears, sir, on this matter. I fear that crime is quite as great, although not quite so glaring. We have less violence, less bloodshed, and less fighting on the field of battle ; but there is just as much strife in our hearts, and just as much mutual hate. In addition to this, there are to be added the crimes which civilization clearly causes. I think that the liar, the hypocrite, the miser, the slanderer and the spendthrift are creations of civilized society alone. In barbarism these characters do not exist ; there may be others, perhaps belonging peculiarly to savage life, but, in my opinion, they are not so bad. Besides these, soci- ety creates the atheist, the skeptic, the scorner, the infidel, and the bigot. Compared with the condition, physical as well as moral, of the happy inhabitant of the woods and wilds, civilized man seems a tamed, a spiritless, a conventional and degraded being : further from his fellow- man, and further from his God. Take the history of any nation you please, and you will find that its course is — first civilization, then lux- ury, and then decay and ruin. It was so with Greece, so with Rome, and it promises to be the same with the most enlightened nations of modern times. It seems to me that virtue and happiness are infinitely more prevalent in a barbarous state than in a civilized one ; and I can- not but attribute the comparative un worthiness of the civilized community to the influence of mere intellect unaccompanied by morality. With these sentiments I shall certainly vote in the negative of the proposition which has been read from the chair. Tenth Speaker.— Sir : I really wonder that the gen- tleman who last addressed us spoke in English. He DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 77 seemed so enamored of the happiness of the woods and wilds, that I imagined him a Eed Indian in the disguise of a gentleman, and I was only surprised that he did not speak his barbarian morality in a barbarian tongue . But to be serious : I am surprised beyond expression that an individual can be found to lament that the world has been civilized, and to wish for the pleasures of barbar- ism, in place of the pleasures of refinement. How he can imagine that a barbarian is happier than a civilized man, I cannot conceive.* He will not pretend that he is pJiy- sically happier, I suppose : for surely regular food, ap- propriate clothing, and comfortable lodgment are far superior to the coarse victuals, the ragged garments, and the rude hut of the savage. Nor can he maintain that the savage is mentally happier : for I am sure that our friend must have felt at some time or other the magnifi- cent delights of thought, of reason, of reflection ; and must have then believed that no delights could be more full of happiness. Neither will he say that the savage is morally happier : for the pleasures of hope, of benevo- lence, of affection, of charity, of social intercourse, and of religious belief and meditation are altogether strangers to his heart ; while to the very worst of us they are all in some measure known. Among all our errors, sir, never let us fall into so gross a one as to wish that we were still barbarians. These remarks may not seem altogether to the point, but they are ; for if it can be shown that civilized man is more hapj)y than the barbarian, then he must be mor- ally better : for " Virtue alone is happiness below : " and consequently the possession of superior happiness at once proves the existence of superior morality. Eleventh Speaker. — It seems to me, sir, that, after all, this question is mainly one of fact. Experience, not f8 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. speculation^ must decide 11 le matter for us. Are men better than tliey were ? Do we actually find it so or not? It is true tliat it is difficult to judge ; but we can judge, for all that. Admitting that much of the world's appa- rent virtue is unreal, the very assumption proves that there is real virtue to represent. There would be no false coin were there no true money ; and so in like man- ner thei'e would be no mock goodness were there no real virtue to counterfeit. There appears to be no question that the world is bet- ter conducted than it was. Kings are milder, laws are juster, judges are less prejudiced and corruptible, and men of all sorts and classes are infinitely better behavea. But is the world hoUQv -hearted f that is the question. I maintain that it is ; and I think I can prove the correct- ness of my assertion. How is it, I would ask, that all these great changes have been wrought ? How is it that tyranny has been repressed, injustice subdued, and licentiousness put down? Simply by the force of public opinion. The minds of men have discovered that tyranny, injustice, and licentious- ness are evils ; and these truths would 'never have been arrived at but from a growing belief in morality, and an increasing desire to apply its principles. Compare the public opinion of crime in the present day with the public opinion of crime a hundred years ago, and you will see an improvement in the moral convic- tion, as well as in the intellectual perception, of the nature and consequences of evil. Formerly murder was so common, as scarcely to be deemed a crime; street assassinations were things of every -day occurrence ; now, murder is felt to be so ghastly a deed, that no sane man can be supposed to perpetrate it. Formerly, duelling \Yas a practice universally approved of and followed; now it is looked upon as an imbecile folly, and a cowardly DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 79 Sill. Formerly, debauclieiy was considered a most ex- cusable, indeed indispensable, mode of life : now it meets willi tlic contemx^t of every tliouglitf ul man ; nay, even witli the pity and ridicule of every v/ell-taught cLild. Drunkenness and profanity were tlie practices of even the educated and great; now a gentleman is never seen in- toxicated, and never heard to swear ; he considers either practice a disgrace to him. Turn where we will, we cannot fail to see that the stand- ard of morality is far higher than it was ; and more- over, is rising day by day to nobler heights ; and although I will not go so far as to say that the march of intellect has caused^ and is causing this, I am satisfied that the improvement in mind and morals has been, and is con- temporaneous ; and therefore that there is a relation, and a very close one, between the brain and the heart. I do not pretend to say that by making a man wise, you are sure to make him good ; nor do I afhrm that the surest producer of happiness is intellectual cultivation ; but I assert, and will maintain, that the more a man is civilized, the more he is 77iadG capable of being good, the more he will incline to, and seek after virtue ; and far from entertaining any fears that the spread of knowledge which we witness in the present day is calculated to do harm to the cause of morality, I feel the strongest hope and belief that it is fast preparing the way for a nobler and purer reign of goodness than has ever yet been known on earth. Twelfth Speaker.— Sir: I grieve that I cannot join in the pleasing anticipations which have been so warmly depicted by the last speaker. The dream is a pleasing one, sir, but it is a dream, and we must not allow it to mislead us, I cannot see upon what grounds, either of factor logic, the gentleman has built his conclusion. It cannot be from experience ; for I defy him to point 80 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. out an instance in history when a period of mere intellec- tual activity has been succeeded by a i)eriod of increased morality: nay, I defy him to name an age of intellectual greatness which has not been followed by a diminished morality. I will not refer to ancient time, for the examples are too remote; but I will instance modern times instead. The revival of letters in Italy was succeeded by a grosser superstition than man had ever known before ; the Shake- spearian era of literature was followed by fanaticism, tyranny, and civil war ; the wonderful age in France's intellectual history, which is represented by Voltaire and Rousseau, was succeeded by revolutionary frenzy and hideous licentious atheism. So that fact will not support the vision of our friend. But will philosophy, will reason, warrant his agree- able but improbable belief ? What is there in the nature of things to lead him to suppose that knowledge is the precursor of virtue ? Seeing is not doing, " Men know the right, and yet the wrong pursue." Adam knew full well w^hat a penalty was attached to breaking the law which God gave him in Paradise ; but the knowledge did not restrain him from plucking the forbidden fruit : on the contrary, it directly incited him to his crime. Knoidedge oi good is worth nothing until the potrer^- to do good is given, and that power comes from the Most High alone. I am quite ready to grant that virtue with intellect combined is far greater than virtue alone, and will do more good ; but mere intellectual force or sub- tlety never was, and in my opinion never will be, the cause of goodness. '^The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field." Thirteenth Speaker.— Sir : King Solomon once said — '* With all thy getthigs get understanding ; " and I DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. 81 am firmly persuaded that this injunction would never have been recorded in Holy Writ, were there no good to be got from the mind's cultivation. In spite of the last speaker's logic, I still believe that the improvement of the understanding does promote morality. We know that unless a physician is acquainted with the disease of his patient, he cannot possibly cure him. Now immorality is the disease of the soul ; and unless a man knows the nature and symptoms of the disorder, it is impossible that he can heal it. Knowledge is, both in physics and in morals, the first step toward recovery. It is true that great knowledge may be allied to pro- found immorality : but perfect wisdom must be perfect virtue. The serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, it is true ; but the Most High was much wiser than the serpent. I do not look upon intellect as the absolute cause of virtue, but I would rather liken it to the forerunner of virtue. It opens the way, it sheds light upon the path, and it removes difficulties and obstructions which would otherwise be insurmountable. Opener {in reply). — Sir : I feel now fully prepared to maintain the affirmative of £he question which I was the means of submitting to the consideration of the meeting. That morality increases with civilization, I have now not the slightest doubt. The position I mean to assume is this : that knowledge is not in any sense the cause of goodness ; but that its progress is always contemporaneous and coincident with the progress of goodness. I have come to the conclusion, that although knowledge and virtue are by no means mutually affected, yet the causes that 'advance the one 77iust advance the other ; and therefore that they pro- gress together. I trust that this position will be understood. Two 82 DOES MORALITY INCREASE WITH CIVILIZATION. needles may be attracted toward one magnet ; neither needle helps the other, yet both are drawn forward. Just in like manner the mind and' soul (the brain and heart) are both carried onward by civiUzation, yet neither is in- debted to the other for its progress. That the intellect and morality do advance in equal ratio, must now, I think, be tolerably clear. The great moral improvements that have taken place in every de- partment of human life and conduct, are of themselves sufficient to prove this assertion. If there be any doubt remaining, I would ask the objector to explain this fact, that crime always exists in proportion to ignorance. Malefactors are nearly all uneducated. Our prisons are filled, not with men of intellect and learning, but with men of ignorance and folly. A gentleman who spoke recently, asserted that an age of intellectual activity is always followed by an age of immorality. I do notdoabt it, sir. Who reaps his har- vest on ihe day after he sows his corn ? Who expects fruit in the winter '? In the natural world the seed is sown ; then it perishes ; then it quickens ; then it springs up, and then it bears fruit. And in the moral world the process is the same. The germ of truth is cast into the heart; then it is lost in darkness; then it is revivified ; then it shows its blossom to the world, and then the blossom is succeeded by the fruit. This will explain to our friend the phenomena of the dark ages that succeeded the periods of enlightenment to which he directed our attention. In those ages of intellect, the seeds of truth were soitm, and, as was natural, in the next age those ^eeds perished ; but the periods-of darkness were succeeded by eras of brightness superior to any that had gone before ; and then the world reaped the produce. And this is tlie course of truth in all ages. With light HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 83 there is always darkness, with truth there is always an intermixture of error ; but as darkness always makes daylight the brighter, so the existence of error always leads to the discovery of higher truth. Had sin never entered the world, it is true that man would never have known death ; but neither would he have known Heaven. Night shows us stars, sorrow shows us truths, and the knowledge of sin shows us the beauty of Morality. QUESTION VI. Has THE Stage a Moral Tendency ? First Speaker.— Sir : The question of the morality or immorality of theatrical entertainments is one of the most interesting, and probably one of the most important, that can engage uS. When we reflect upon the univer- sal passion that has been exhibited for this species of amusement ; when we further remember that some of the noblest productions of human intellect have been offered to the world through the medium of the Stage ; and when, lastly, we bear in mind that the theater is one of the chief pleasures of the youthful members of the community in all times and countries, w^e shall see at once that we have here a subject well worthy of debate. I mean to maintain, sir, that the Stage has not a moral tendency : and I come to this conclusion not because I 84 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCfY. have any ascetic objection to the gay nature of the pleas- ure in itself, nor because I think that there are any sound religious objections against theatrical entertainments in the abstract ; but because, after fairly weighing the arguments for and against, I conceive that the Stage does more harm than good. That the Stage might he made a great powerful moral teacher, I will not pretend to dispute ; that it has done much moral good, I will not deny either ; but our ques- tion concerns the present tendency of the drama only, and that^ I still assert, is evil. What, then, is the Stage ? A medium for presenting to the world the sweepings and rubbish-heaps of intellect. Tragedies of milk and water. Comedies of fashionable licentiousness. Farces of inane absurdity. Dramas of blood, blue-fire and slang. Operas of the most irredeem- able silliness ; and ballets of the most gross indecency. This is the Stage itself ; and now what of its promoters ? Its authors (with one or two exceptions) are not the men of talent of the day {they are driven away from the boards by want of encouragement) but the scavengers of literature ; men who do not originate, but copy from the worst originals they can find, and manage to corrupt even them. The iinplements of our dramatists are not thought, passion, and knowledge; but scissors and paste merely. Oh ! what a change from Shakespeare I " Who but must mourn, while these are all the rage, The degradations of our vaunted stage ? " And who are the actors ? There are individual excep- tions of great worth, but as a body they are the most profligate, shameless, and impure of the species. You find among them adulterers, seducers, gamblers, drunk- ards, anjl common knaves innumerable ; who can expect much morality from them ? And who are the patrons of the Stage ? Who are the HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 85 people that visit the theater ? Listless fashionables, rakish dandies, smug apprentices, dissipated shopmen, and idlers about town ; just the very congregation you would expect to attend such preaching ! I feel that I have very little need to ask you whether all this can be in the least favorable to morality ; for my- self, I am at present quite convinced to the contrary; and until I hear arguments stronger than any to which I have ever yet listened on the subject, I fear that I shall remain of the same opinion. Second Speaker. — Sir : With a great deal that was smart and pointed in the remarks of the previous speaker, there was, in my opinion, much that was thoughtless, if not illogical. Admitting that the Stage is neither so great nor so pure as it was in Shakespeare's time, the proof of this is by no means a fair argument against its iabstract morality. Every thing of earth is liable to abuse, and the Stage is of course not an exception. Our friend referred to the great taste that exists for theatrical entertainments ; now does not this of itself prove that the Stage is looked to by mankind as a moral teacher ? So extended and universal a passion ought to be gratified because it is extended and universal. I would not pander to that taste : but I would certainly do my best to satisfy it, and through it direct the mind to truly moral pleasures. What the Stage has done ought to be most carefully borne in mind in answering the question. We should not forget how the Greek tragedians softened, purified, and elevated the barbaric mind ; how the Roman players ex- tended civilization and refinement ; how the great Shakes- peare impressed the heart of the world with thoughts of truth, grace, and beauty, that can never die ; and how since, as well as previously, our dramatists have por- trayed, and our actors have delineated, honor, courage, patriotism, friendship, and virtue, till their principles 86 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. must have been engraven in the very souls of the spec- tators. Well, if the Drama has done this, it can surely do it still. What has been, may always be again ; and although it must be admitted that the Drama of the present day is not to be approved or defended, still I believe that it is even now working its own cure, and that before long, the full glory and full value of the Stage will re- appear. Third Speaker.— Sir : I really feel some difficulty in following my worthy friend who has just ceased to speak ; for I am not accustomed to such peculiar logic, and such extraordinary metaphysics. The first argument which the gentleman employed to defend dramatic representations was one of the most striking and original I ever j:*emember to have heard. It was to this effect : That as there exists (whether right or wrong, no matter) in a certain class of the community, a " taste" for dramatic representations, it is right, nay, it is necessary, to gratify that taste. Truly this is very en- tertaining logic ; and will lead us to strange conclusions, I imagine. Sir : I have been credibly informed, and by many concurrent testimonies have been led to believe, tliat there exists, somewhere or other in this great metropolis, a somewhat large class of persons facetiously denom- inated the " light-fingered gentry," who have a " taste" for relieving people's pockets of silk handkerchiefs, purses, snuff-boxes, and other trinkets equally desirable. Now, according to our friend, this taste ought to be gratified. Here it is, and we ought not by any means to oppose it. No matter whether picking and stealing be moral or not, if people imll pick and steal, it is nothing but fair and right to give them the opportunity. The gentleman would have spoken more to the point, sir, if he had examined the taste itself. Though perhaps the course he took was, after all, the wiser one ; seeing ::-^kii HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 87 that the examination I propose would only have brought him a more complete defeat. Why is this passion for dramatic representations im- planted in so many breasts ? Sir, the minds that harbor the passion are minds which either dislike or cannot en- counter real life, and therefore seek a false existence in fictitious performances. Such minds are countless, and therefore it is no wonder that there should be in all ages countless favorers of the drama. It is because the Stage is essentially unreal, sir, that I deem it detrimental to morality ; and for that reason it has always received my most strenuous and decided op- position. Fourth Speaker.— Sir : I think that the explana- tion which has just been given of the causes of men's X^leasure in theatrical amusements is not by any means a wise or true one. The first and chief reason for the taste seems unquestionably to be the absolute need of amuse- ment. The mind must now and then unbend and luxuriate and the gay doings of the theater form altogether perhaps the best means of relaxation. But besides this, there is a great mental pleasure provided by the very nature of the Drama itself. It represents life and nature in heroics^ and so raises, refreshes and restores the weary and depressed spirit of the world-fatigued and careworn spectator. It is this that to my mind makes the Stage a moralizer. In his contact with the world, man forms a low and groveling idea of life and of his fellow-men ; the mean- ness, selfishness, bitterness, and hypocrisy which he sees around him, all serve to contract and lower his estimate of humanity. But the Stage shows him the world in its finest and brightest colors : brings before him the great, good, and glorious of his species, and so raises and elevates the conceptions which he had previously formed. The Drama gives us the romantic side of life, and thus makes the literal more endurable. In the theater we quiV the sor- 88 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. did world of fraud, semblance and ambition, and enter into the beautiful realm of the ideal. Our eyes and hearts are there feasted with purity, loftiness, and hero- ism and we are beckoned by the models of goodness there displayed, to tread with them the paths of virtue or of greatness, and to win a like renown. Depend upon it that the Drama's exhibition of bravery, strength, resolu- tion and affection, has done no little to foster and nour- ish those sentiments in the hearts of the spectators who have witnessed them. Fifth Speaker.— Sir : The very reason which the last speaker has urged in favor of the Drama, is to me the strongest possible proof of its evil tendency. The speaker described the Stage as the representation of life in heroics ; I agree with him that it is so. But, sir, we want realities not ideals : we want to see the world as it is, not the world as fancy portrays it. The admis- sion that the Drama presents to our view idealities in- stead of truths, is a knock-down blow to the Stage at once ; for the greatest dramatist the world has ever seen has told us that the object of the Stage is "To show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, the very body of the time its form and pressure." As then it is admitted that the Drama is now prostituted to improper uses, I am at a loss to conceive how it can be further defended. And these said heroics^ what are they ? What sort of heroes and patterns have we on the stage ? They are con- querors, glory- seekers, accomplished villains, stoics, chi- valric blood-stained knights, and so forth. The senti- ments they utter are "ambition," "renowm," "honor," " war," brute " courage," and other virtues of similar nature. One of the great heroes of the Stage is Cato. He is de- scribed as "A brave man struggling with the storms of fate, And greatly falling with a falling state,'* HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 89 Stoical iiidiffei^ence is called ** brave struggling," and cowardly suicide is called ** greatly falling ! " A pretty example of heroism this, to a world prone and ready to imitate ! Lucius Junius Brutus is another of the Drama's he- roes. The example he sets us is to order the execution of his sons for a simple act of disobedience ! Very refresh- ing and elevating this must be to a tired and sated mind ! Very much it must raise the spectator's conception of human nature. And this is a fair sample of v^hat the Drama almost al- ways represents to us. Vile passions are invested w^ith the garb of virtue, folly wears the aspect of wisdom, and crime is clothed with the attributes of greatness. To say that the Drama might be pure is beside the question ; what the Drama is, must be the subject we debate ; and judging of the Drama by what we see and know of it, I think we cannot hesitate to say that its tendency is clearly toward evil. Sixth Speaker.— Sir. : It would be folly to deny that a great deal of evil exists in the Drama and in the theater, but I think it equally folly to affirm that the evil of dramatic entertainments outweighs the good. Our friend who spoke last has referred to some of the bad examples which the Stage presents to us ; but he quite omitted to instance any of the good ones. Nay, he led us to believe 4hat there were no good ones ; a great error, as I shall attempt to show. I instance then, Macbeth. We are made to see, first, the generous, brave, and successful warrior, "returning home in triumph " to the honors he has won. We next see the specter of ambition cross his path. We see him parleying with temptation till at last it conquers him, and forces him to resolve and commit a foul and atro- cious murder. We then see him invested with the ob- ject of his desire, the purple of royalty. And then the 90 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. lesson begins. We see retribution comes. We see the sinner stung by the serpent of remorse ; hurried on by fear from crime to crime ; deserted by his guilty hopes and weird helpers ; and at last dying the death of a hunted brute. Is there no morality in this ? No lesson ? No example to the world ? I point you next to William Tell. Here the poet makes us see the hideousness of moral slavery ; shows us that to fight for freedom is at once the duty and the happi- ness of man ; and raises up in Tell the patriot whom chains cannot bind, whom authority cannot subdue, w^hom death itself cannot appall, when battling for truth and right. Who will deny the fine and pure morality of this ? Who will say that the example thus presented to the eyes and hearts of men wdll fail of its effect ? In Cordelia again, what a bea.utiful and affecting pic- ture of filial devotedness is presented to us ! What heart can fail to be touched and improved by the picture ? In prosperity and adversity, in madness and death, this af- fectionate child ever clings to her wayward parent, and offers an example that we may be sure not a few have followed. <• I might instance other characters, but these will suffice. They will serve to show that the Stage is not that promo- ter of immorality which so many have taken great pains to prove it. Seventh Speaker.— Sir : The last speaker has con- * founded the word " Stage " with the word "Drama." But the Drama and the Stage are two totally different things ; the Drama consists in what is written for the theater, the Stage is what is produced there. Now it unfortunately happens that the bright and good examples to which the gentleman has referred are just the very things that are never seen upon our boards. Were the theater always to exhibit the plays of Shake- speare, Knowles, Otway, Sheridan, and the other great HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 91 dramatists who have recorded their imperishable works in our Hterature, no one would object to it. But unluckily, these great moral writers are just those whose works are not performed. Directly a manager produces one of these moral plays, his audience deserts him; and therefore, granting that the works of these writers have a moral tendency, it is evident that they do not suit the Stage : or in other words morality is discountenanced there, because it is felt to be out of place. The question for us to decide is simply this : Are moral plays written for our Stage — are moral plays morally re- presented there ? I for one say "No " to this; and say it advisedly. I appeal to all who hear me, whether our stage does not now (I do not say in every instance, but as a whole) present us with the most abominable trash and the most offensive immorality that it is possible to con- ceive ? Yapid idealism distinguishes our tragedy ; low intrigue and disgraceful amours are the staple commodity of our comedy; nonsense (adapted from the French) animates our farce ; and the exploits of highwaymen, pickpockets, and burglars inspire our melodramas. If any one wants to know what sort of piece attracts most at our theaters, I will tell him — " Jonathan Brad- ford," "Jack Sheppard," or "Tom an^) Jerry." Any thing that has crime, red- fire, murder, robbery, or horror in it is sure to draw ; while a moral play is represented to empty benches. Let me not be told, sir, that the stage is a teacher of morals, for it is evident that men will not listen to the charmer, charm he never so wisely. I have said, sir, that were Shakespeare, Otway, Knowles, Sheridan, and our other gi^eat writers, always and only represented on the stage, I should not object to the theater for a moment . But when I say this, I wish to say also that I by no means join in the blind enthusi- asm which is felt for these writers. Even Shakespeare is not perfect. The murderer Brutus is not worthy of 92 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. honor, although we are led to think so; and many other characters I could name are by no means deserving of the esteem he claims for them. In like manner, Otway gives more honor than can ever be due to conspirators to his favorite Pierre ; and Sheridan invests the gay rake Charles Surface with a brilliancy and interest which ought never to attach to a debauchee. Eighth Speaker.— Sir: Theatrical entertainments seem to me to be so i^tional and natural an amusement, that, until a stronger argument than the fact that they have been abused, is produced, I shall certainly support and defend them. The universality of the passion lor this species of amuse- ment is (in spite of the ridicule thrown upon the fact) a strong argument in favor of tlie Stage; for pleasures may always be made moral teachei^ if they are -rightly em- ployed, and consequently this universal amusement is capable of being a universal means of instruction and profit. That the passion is a natural one is proved by the fact that so soon as a child begins to think and act, it exhibits a predilection for representing by identification what is passing around it. Now, sh*, I would not oppose tho desire ; for, being natural, how could I hope to overcome it. But I w^ould shape it into proper form, direct it toward virtue, and so insure a good Stage instead of an evil one. I said, too, that the passion was rational. Man is an imitative being, and meant to be so, for he learns by imitation. It is reasonable, therefore, that he should delight in the representation of persons and things in the various positions that fancy can invent. By witnessing these representations his perceptions are sharpened, his reflection is aroused, and his sympathies are extended. He learns to judge, to think, and to feel ; and the mimic world of imagination serves to fit him for the real world Has the stage a moral tendencIt. $S of life. He is thus moralized, not by homily, but by example. He carries the wisdom he acquires from tlie scene of fiction into the sphere of fact; and the sym- pathies which he feels for the ideal beings of tiie Stage are extended to the actual fellow-creatures whom he meets with in his daily life. For these reasons I approve of the- Stage. Ninth Speaker .—Sir : The arguments of the last speaker appeared to me to be somewhat strange. He says that the Drama is proved to be a rational and fit -amusement for mankind because children show a passion for it. Now, granting his fact, I am compelled to draw an exactly opposite conclusion from it. To my mind it seems to follow as a necessary consequence that the amusements of the child are 7iot fit amusements for the man. Play is peculiar to children, and as they grow up they acquire a distaste for it. Children all like pantomimes ; but will any man of sense say that there, fore pantomimes are fit amusements for men ? The pre- dilection of children, then, are rather arguments against the Stage, than reasons in its favor. I object also to the last argument of the speaker. He maintains that the Drama moralizes by example ; that, by exciting our sympathies, and sharpening our perceptions, it prepares us to feel and to see in the busy world of life. I cannot admit this. I believe the excitement to be not real excitement, hxxi false. We are ^cited, not by truth, but by falsehood and error ; and mostly in the direction of wrong objects. We are excited by false shows (such as pity for blood-dyed rufiians, compassion for unreal suffering, and admiration for brave villains) until our sympathies are overstrained. We cannot over-estimate this evil. The strained mind must be reacted upon before it can regain its equilibrium ; and we may be pretty sure of this, that h* who is most violently affected by the fictitious scenes of sorrow and distress which he beholds 94 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. on the stage, will be the first to repulse the poor beggar who craves an alms from him as he goes to his home. These convictions, sir, lead me to regard the stage as of immoral tendency. Tenth Speaker. —Sir: The Stage was objected to by one of the gentlemen who addressed us because of the bad character of the performers. Now, without attempt- ing to defend this immorality, let me just point out to our friends that other men may be quite as bad, only they may not be found out. Actors, being public characters, are publicly canvassed and criticised ; and thus it is that their faults are seen. Besides, it should be recollected that they are placed in circumstances of extreme tempta_ tion; and any persons so placed would doubtless give way as they do. I do not urge this as an excuse for the bad conduct of the actors, sir, but simply as the reason and explanation of it. The uses of the stage have not, in my opinion, yet been fairly pointed out. Shakespeare tells you its direct ob- ject — to reflect the age ; but it can do other things beyond this. It has often been employed to still popular dis- content and political excitement. Brutus, by engaging a company of comedians, and throwing open the theaters to the populace, quieted very serious disturbance in Eome. In modern times the same practice has been resorted to, and has proved successful. Further : The Stage is very useful to expose and sati- rize the vices of the great. Where there is a court, there are always parasites, flatterers, debauchees, slanderers, and other vile characters ; the Stage offers the best me- dium I know for holding up these persons to public de- rision and reproof. Another great merit of the Stage is, that it is the sole national school of elocution, it is only in t^e theater that we meet with models whom we can safely follow in the art of speech ; and this, at a time when the power of HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 95 speech is so useful and valuable, is, I conceive, a great argument in favor of the stage . Eleventh Speaker. — Sir: The early arguments that were brought forward in this debate in proof of the mor- ality of the Stage, had, I must confess, some little weight ; but the reasons since urged have become *' small by de- grees and beautifully less;" just as the wine grows worse and worse at a cheap feast. The arguments of the last speaker certainly are the poorest of all that I have heard ; let us look at them. He first says that the admitted immorality of the ac- tors is excusable because they are public men ; and be- cause if other people were placed in the same position, they would be guilty of the same crimes. "Why, this just proves our position for us ; it is one of the strongest arguments against the Stage that could have been em- ployed. I admit that if other people were placed in the position of actors they would be guilty of the same im- moralities ; and why do I make that admission ? Be- cause I see clearly that the Stage has a tendency toward these immoralities; and, must, in fact, produce them. Dr. Johnson was forced to confess that the allurements of the Stage were too much for his virtue ; and millions besides Doctor Johnson have admitted and exemplified this truth. In the vices of the actors, sir, there is noth- ing but necessary cause and effect. The gentleman said, secondly, that the Stage can be used to still political excitement. I will tell my friend an anecdote. When the terrible atrocities of the Eeign of Terror were taking place in the September of the French Revolution, Robespierre and his associates caused all the theaters to be opened free of charge. This had the eflPect of diverting the popular mind, and so the fiendish murders were passed over without concern, in- stead of raising a shout of execration that should have shaken the heavens. The use of the theater then is to D6 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TEl^DENCY. stifle man's natural sense of justice, and to send his moral feelings to sleep. Lastly : We learned that the Stage is useful as a school of elocution. Sir, we do not want a national school of elocution. So long as there are natural passions, feel- ings, and emotions in the human mind, so long will Na- ture teach us how to express them ; and when there are no such passions, feelings, and emotions, we shall not want the instruction. Nay, does not the actor himself copy his art from Nature? Surely then if the great orig- inal remains, we need not be very anxious about the im- itation. Twelfth Speaker.— Sir: Although I admit that I am no great admirer of the Stage as we behold it in the pres- ent day, I yet think there are some sound arguments in its favor as an abstract amusement. The Stage has been objected to because it is abused. Now, with some of the speakers who have gone before me, I cannot think this fair. It should be looked at in the abstract ; and if its design and object were candidly examined I feel sure that we must admit that the Stage might be made one of the noblest moral teachers we could possess. It seems to me that it might be made our purest moral school. We should not forget the debt we owe to the Stage. It elevated Grecian society, it purified Roman morals, it taught our ignorant people Teligion through its ' ' myste- ries " and '* moralities," and through Shakespeare it pre- sented the world with the noblest volume of truth and wisdom that uninspired man ever wrote. I would further defend the Stage upon the ground that light amusements of the nature of which the Drama provides, are necessary for the relief and diversion of men's minds. The most trifling, and indeed in them- selves most ridiculous amusements have been resorted to, by the greatest men, for mere relaxation. A celebrated HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. 97 king of Greece rode on hobby-horses with his children ; a renowned English earl used to play at marbles with his sons; and the naturalist Buffon used to jump over the stools and chairs in his study. This will show that the mind must and will be unbent; and now I ask, what amusement is there that will compare with the Drama? I will here leave the subject, as I think it has now been fully discussed. Opener (in reply).— Sir: I shall not trespass long upon your time in reply. My opinions on this subject have undergone no change, but have been entirely confirmed by the debate which has taken place. While I readily admit that the Stage has been, and might be again, a useful moral teacher, I am still pre- pared to maintain that the Stage, as it is, is most objec- tionable, and immoral in its tendencies ; it excites and demoralizes far more than it elevates. Immoral productions, immoral actors, immoral ad- juncts, and immoral auditors, form the undeniable con- comitants of the Drama of the day. False feeling, false conclusions, and false principles, are abundantly gener- ated by it. It is the cause of dissipation, late hours, and other evils which have been pointed out, and therefore I unhesitatingly condemn it. Only one of the arguments employed to defend the Stage seems to me to have any weight ni it. It is the ar- gument that we ought to look abstractedly at the thea- ter, and not argue against it because it is abused. I do not wonder that our opponents are anxious for an ab- stract view of this matter, for that is the only way in which their cause looks at all respectable. But, sir, are we not justified in refusing to decide the question in this manner? It is now clear . that the Stage tends toward abuse^ and therefore it must be judged through its abuses. The last speaker urged that the Stage is defensible on 98 HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY. the ground that trifling amusements are necessary for the diversion of men's minds. I quite agree with him, sir, that the stage is frivolous amusement ; but I do not agree with him that therefore it is a fit recreation. The gentleman quoted some examples to prove his point; but what were they? Why, that the great men to whom he referred actually did not choose the Stage at all, but other and more innocent amusements for their relaxa- tion ! So much for that. The gentleman further said that the Stage is a moral school. That word " school," sir, was the most unlucky word he could have, chosen. We have had to condemn its lessons ; we have had to condemn its teachers : now,, let us look for a moment at its scholars. If you want to find them, go to the lobbies of any metropolitan theater, and you will see as dissipated, as rakish, and as morally unclean a set of pupils as ever existed in the world. If you want to see them further, try the nearest Concert halls or Pandemoniums, after the performances are over, and there you will find them carrying into pradiice the high lessons they have learned. ^t • But, sir, I must conclude : for I fear that I have al- ready taken up too much of your time. I simply com- mit the question to your fair decision. SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. 99 QUESTION YII. Which was the greater Poet— Shakespeare or Milton ? Opener — Sir : It will be readily admitted that nothing conduces more to give the mind clearness and distinct- ness of thought than the practice of criticism ; and there- fore it will be acknowledged that I have proposed a question for debate which is calculated to afford useful and healthy mental exercise. We are to judge between two poets ; between the two greatest poets (as I believe) that ever lived. We are to say which is the greater poet of the two. By greater I mean altogether larger-soided. I do not wish to know which is the greater in any particular quality, but in the sum and total of his qualities. The question will now, I think, be clearly understood. I wish to guard against one error : the error of judg- ing, the poet as the man. It is between the works, and not between the lives, of these two writers that I wish for a comparison : to their works alone, then, let us re- fer. My own opinion runs in favor of Shakespeare's superi- ority. I will not deny that Milton may have soared higher than Shakespeare, but Shakespeare's, if not so lofty, is a more extended flight. Milton's genius has a ten- dency to concentration: Shakespeare's to diffusion. Milton flies perpendicularly, Shakespeare horizontally. The question becomes, therefore. Which flight was the better, more useful, and more admirable of the two ? As I said before, I give the palm to Shakespeare. I think that his vision is keener and truer and quicker than Milton's. Both are Poets of Humanity ; both address themselves to universal feelings and passions ; but Shakes- peare seems to have known the human heart better, and 100 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. to have addressed it more effectually, than Milton did. This appears to arise from the fact that Shakespeare's vis- ion was direct, and perfectly clear ; while Milton's vis- ion had to pass through the medium of his imagination. Milton rose aloftr from the crowd of men, and looked down upon them as through a microscope; Shakespeare mingled ivith men, and saw them face to face. Milton therefore may have seen erroneously, while Shakespeare's vision must have been absolutely true. He who sees through a microscope may perchance 'have a false or dis- torted lens before him, while he who uses the naked eye is liable to no such danger. Thus it was that Milton's vision of the world was less true than Shakespeare's. Shakespeare saw clearly, and without a medium ; Milton saw through his imagination, and therefore less directly and less distinctly. I have argued from fact to theory ; now let me return from theory to fact. Take the idea of the world and of life which you get from Milton, and take the idea of the world and of life which you gather from Shakespeare. Place them side by side ; what do you see ? Milton makes Earth a grand colossal universe of thought, and man a great, theological, metaphysical, moral Thinker and Debater ; Sliakespeare makes the earth a world full of busy, active, practical life, and man a restless Doer, working, feeling, hoping, despairing, replete with energy, intelligence, and passion. In a word, man is with Mil- ton an imaginary being ; with Shakespeare a real one. Milton gives us man as he would have made him; Shakespeare portrays him as he is. This is all I wish to say upon this sub ject f or the present. Second Speaker.— Sir : I regard Milton as the greater Poet of the two. I' do so because I think that in the quality of Imagina- tion he is decidedly superior ; and Imagination is, in my opinion, the highest quality a Poet can display. SHAKESPEARE OR MlLTOK 101' The great poem of Paradise Lost is the instance I select in proof. The very conception of tnis extraordinary work is suffi- cient to stamp Milton as the iirst of Poets. " To vindicate eternal Providence, And justify the ways of God to man," is an idea that only the highest style of mind could have conceived. And the execution of the idea is as wonder- ful as the conception of it. Eden, Earth, Hell, and Heaven, are in turn presented to us, and described with a vividness, distinctness and force, which we look for in vain in any other writer. It is said that Milton was incorrect in his description of human life and character ; but surely the critics who say so must have forgotten the masterly and touching delin- eation which he has given us of our First Parents in Par- adise. Any thing more purely beautiful I cannot con- ceive. The untainted souls of the new-created pair, their innocent delight in the new scene spread before them, their deep mutual love, the love of young, unworn, un- exhausted hearts, the freshness, quiet sweetness, and un- clouded love lines of Eden, form the most surpassingly beautiful and delightful picture that poetry ever con- ceived. I know not wliere, save in Holy Writ, the tired spirit of man may find such soothing rest and consola- tion as in the Paradise of Milton. The contrast of its deep unrutBed peace with the storms of life gives to this portion of the poem a charm which no other work that I know of possesses. The imagination that produced this work is second to none on earth. Third Speaker.— Sir : I am not disposed to deny that Imagination is the highest quality a Poet can possess; al- though perhaps it would not be difficult to argue with success that the power of describing the Actual is quite 102 SBTAkES^KRt OR MILTON. as great as the power of describing the Possible or Im- agined. But I am disposed to deny that Milton possesses this quality more eminently than Shakespeare. Milton has imagined Paradise ; Shakespeare has imagin- ed Fairy -land. Milton has imagined Satan ; Shakespeare has imagined Ariel and the Weird Sisters. The super- natural is, indeed, common ground to both, and each treads it with equal propriety. Milton's power herein has been noticed ; now let us glance at Shakespeare's. Consider, then, the exquisite chasteness and perfect keep- ing of Shakespeare's supernatural pictures ; whether of Oberon and Fairy-land, or Hecate and Witchland. Whether it be the Fairy '* Hanging a pearl ia every cowslip's ear ;" or whether it be PucJc or Titania ** Wholl put a girdle round about the earth In forty minutes ;'* * Upon the beached margin of the sea. Dancing her ringlets to the whistling wind } * or the Witches^ who *♦ Hover tlirougli the fog and filthy air ;" or the Ghost ** Whose grim portentous figure Walks armed through the night ;'* all these conceptions are as masterly and true as the mind of poet ever conceived, and place Shakespeare at once in the very highest rank as an imaginative writer. And while Shakespeare's imagination is as high as Mil- ton's it is much wider. His *• Poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling, Glances from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven ;'* and embraces the whole universe. I hold, therefore, that SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. 103 Shakespeare's imagination is at least equal, and possibly superior, to Milton's. Fourth Speaker. — Sir : It is said that Milton's imagi- native power, if as great, is not so grasping and universal, as Shakespeare's. I do not admit this ; for granting that his creative power is but rarely applied to Shakespeare's great domain, the human heart ; it, on the other hand, ascends to other subjects which even Shakespeare never reached. ' ' Winged with his angelic power, Milton swept through the realms of time and space; veiled his face be- fore the throne of God, o» stood in the council of Pande- monium; floated in chaos, or walked with Adam in Paradise." I say again, Shakespeare never rose so high as this. But the opener truly told us that we were not to judge by one quality alone ; let us look at some of the other distinguishing characteristics, then, of these two great writers. Milton's exquisite style and fine power of des- cription ought not to be forgotten ; here, I think, he more than rivals Shakespeare. Mark the beauty of this : •' Now morn, her rosy steps ia the eastern clime Advancing, sowed the earth with onent pearl." Equally fine is his description of Adam :' " His fair large front and eye sublime declared Absolute rule ; -and hyacinthine locks Round from his parted forelock manly hung Clustering." Nor let us pass without notice Milton's power over the feelings. In Paradise Lost there are touches of pathos never surpassed. I would instance particularly Eve's penitent reply to Adam's upbraidings, when she " with tears that ceased not flowing, And tresses all disordered, at his feet Fell humble ; and embracing them, besought His peace." Mark also Satan's attempt to address the legions of Hell: 104 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. "Thrice he assay 'd, and thrice, in epite of scorn, Tears Buch as angels weep burst forth : at last Words, interwove with sighs, found out their way." Comment upon this fine passage would be superfluous, and I shall say no more. Fifth Speaker.— I am of opinion that in the chief po- etical quality, Imagination, the two poets before us are equally great. Milton has risen higher than Shakespeare ; Shakespeare has flown wider than Milton. Milton could well have been more universal ; Shakespeare could not with perfect ease have been loftier. But as to the other qualities which constitute a poet, I think that Shakespeare was decidedly the more highly gifted. The last speaker has instanced the descriptive power and the pathos of Milton ; but it seems to me that in both these faculties Shakespeare is the greater of the two. There is nothing in Milton to compare for a moment with the living beauty of that line spoken by Lorenzo : " How eweet the moonlight eleeps upon this bank." ^ This is, in my opinion, the most perfect picture ever pre- sented in words. In Shakespeare's Works, as Hazlitt says, there is ' ' such force and distinctness of description that a word, an epithet, paints a whole scene, or throws us back whole years in the history of the person repre- sented." And as to pathos, I think that our friend was exceed ingly unwise to challenge the comparison. I grant the great beauty of the instances presented to us ; but I find greater beauty by far in the pathos of Shakespeare. I point to Learns recognition of Cordelia in his madness, with her reply; to Macduff^ s grief at the slaughter of his chil- dren; to Ophelia^ s pathetic lamentations for her father, and her death ; to the wild agony of the bereaved Con- stance; to the simple remonstrances of Desdemona on SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. 105 her death-bed; to Antonyms burst of passionate grief over the body of Coesar; and to Othello's intense and heart-broken misery when he is made to believe that his wife is false to him. Any of these instances is, to my mind, quite sufficient to establish the superiority of the pathos of Shakespeare over that of Milton. Sixth Speaker.— Sir: A very important test by which this question may be fairly tried has not yet been alluded to; and by your permission I will here set it up. I mean the moral effect these writers have produced upon the world. This will be a fair gauge of their respective pow- ers ; for effects are always the measures of their causes. Now it seems to me that Shakespeare has done more serv- ice to humanity than any other writer ever born into the world. Through the whole natural and mental universe his spirit has ranged, and whatever it has touched it has illuminated. He has shown " Virtue her owa feature, aud scorn her own image ; *• he has reached ** Imagination's airy height," sounded the lowest depths of Passion, trodden every path of life, and acquainted us with every kind of human experience. There seems not a thought, not a pang, not a pleasure, not a sentiment, not a truth connected with humanity that Shakespeare has not felt and spoken. He has illu- minated for us the whole Past ; he " has turned the globe round, and surveyed the generations of men and the in- dividuals as they passed, with their different concerns, passions, follies, vices, actions, and motives;" he has left us pictures' of undying beauty, to elevate, refine and refresh us ,• he has handed down to us a nobler monu- ment of wisdom than is to be found in the works of all our philosophers ; and he has erected for us a code of truth and morals which surpasses all that the world's statesmen have ever given us. How can we calculate the effect of such a soul upon 106 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. the world ? None but a spirit similarly gifted could hope to show how, through its subtle agency, the mysterious sympathies of man have been secretly and indissolubly linked to the whole universe of life ; could hope to fol- low the high thoughts it has created through their puri- fying and regenerating mission ; or to estimate the life- giving influences of those radiations from the eternal star of beauty which it has conducted from the heavens to the earth. The mind instinctively shrinks from full inquiry, for it f eels^ that only infinity can answer it. Seventh Speaker. —Sir: I think Milton is a greater poet than Shakespeare, because his aim is higher. In Shakespeare we see the divine spirit of Poetry circling the whole human world, and identifying itself with every possible combination of human circumstance, of human joy, of human woe ; in Milton we see it spread its god- like wings and soar into the world of Spirits, connecting the Human with the Divine, and revealing to the eye of man infernal terrors and celestial joys. In Shakespeare the Supernatural is employed upon the affairs of our mortal nature, and has ' ' its be-all and its end-all," here. Thus in Macbeth it is evoked t^ inflame, and thr n to torture, ambition ; in Hamlet, to spur irres- olution ; in Richard, to terrify guilt. Shakespeare never, or so rarely as to warrant the word never, uses it to awaken our sense of Immortality, or to arouse us to the awful realities of the world to come.' The Christian reader must ever mourn that our great national poet should have neglected to string his harp in the service of Eeligion. Religion, indeed (excepting mere natural religion), Shakespeare seems hardly to have known. But Milton, with a high, solemn, and almost prophetic earnestness, makes the great subject of our Immortality his constant theme. Creation, Paradise, Heaven and Hell, Man's Fall, Salvation and Destiny, these are his mighty subjects, and he treats them with a grandeur, SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. 107 indeed an awfulness, befitting tlieir sublimity. Never, I think, has the human soul risen so majestically as in Milton. I look upon the theme of *' Paradise Lost " as the most magnificent, thrilling, and important on which the mind of man can speculate. It is the commencement, the first act of that tremendous and tragic battle between good and evil, which has been going on in all time, through all creation ; which we every one of us feel to be waging in our souls, and which is, of all the sublime and awful questions that can engage us, the most neces- sary for us to solve. For what can compare with it ? On it hangs life or death, torture or rapture, hell or heaven. It comes home to us all, and must be answer- ed for us all and by us all in some way or other. Bid it into the distance we cannot^ we dare not ; its piercing voice keeps up its cry until it gets an answer. Happy are ihej who find the right reply I Shakespeare, then, is the poet of our Human Life ; and Milton the poet of our Immortal Destiny ; and because I think that our Divine is superior to our Human part, I hold that Milton is the greater poet of the two. Eighth Speaker.— Sir: I should be the last to deny that the Immortal must at ill times infinitely transcend the Perishable; in that truth I fully concur with the last speaker, but I cannot agree with him when he says that Shakespeare is the poet only of our Human life. Shakespeare, sir, is the poet of Truth ; and truth being immortal, he is therefore tlie poet of Immortality. There is no writer who refers more constantly to the Eternal rules and laws of God, than Shakespeare ; he recognizes them, and acts by them. He tries conduct, not by circumstance, but by perennial morality ; and considers life only as afl*ected by the world beyond the grave. 108 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. Macl)eth affects to ** jump tlie life to come," but is ever held in fear of the hell he merits. Wolsey is made to say to Cromwell " Let all the ends thou aimst at be thy country's, Thy GocVs, and TrutJCs:'* Hamlet is made to bear the ills of life by " the dread of something after death, That undiscovered country, from whose bourn No traveler returns/' The sense of Immortality is continually appealed to by Shakespeare, by no writer more so. Constance, even in her frenzy, is led to say that " When she meets her pretty child in Heaven, She shall know him." King John is appalled by the fear of the doom that the awful Day of Judgment will award him ; indeed, in- stances of this kind are too numerous and well known to need further quotation. It is regretted that Shakespeare says nothing about Religion. Sir, it is perfectly true that our great poet was no theologian ; but theology is not religion after all. He takes no trouble about creeds, but it is easy enough to see that a more really religious mind never existed. We have seen his religion in his Faith, already. Im- mortality with him was a conviction strong as life itself. We may also see it in his fervent Hope, his Belief in Goodness and in Truth ; we see it lastly in his surpass- ing Charity ; not the mere charity of almsgiving, but the true charity of heart which *'endureth all things and hopeth all things ; " the charity that taught him to say *' Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all ; " the charity that led him in a day of prejudice and unkindness to defend the cause of the oppressed Jew ? No, never let it be 'said that Shakespeare had no SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. 109 religion. He was no sectarian, I know ; very likely he was charitable, even toward heathenism ; but for all that he was a humble and devout child of God. Ninth Spe4KER. — Sir : Without entering into the controversy respecting the theological excellence of the two poets before us, I wish just to say one or two words upon the question. There seems at times a greater force in Milton than in Shakespeare ; a greater intellectual strength. Who can forget " The shout that tore helPs concave ? " or Satan's form as it " Lay floating many a rood ? " or the fallen angels " Hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky ? '* Perhaps a better proof still of Milton's force of description is to be found in his account of the Prince of the Fallen when he calls him " Hell's dread commander ; who above the rest, In shape and gesture proudly eminent, Stood like a tower, ** Paradise Lost" has often been censured for its want of human interest. The subject should center, it has been remarked, in our First Parents ; while by the author it is made to center in Satan. Now to me it seems that the course the poet has taken is the only natural and proper one. Milton's design, as we have been very correctly told, was to mark the entrance of the principle of Evil into the world, and its early prog- ress in the soul of man ; ihe career of Satan is therefore the center around which the whole interest revolves. And never was there a greater creation than this of Milton's Satan. The proud, defiant, all-daring, all en- during, for-ever-fallen archangel, dauntlessly braving 110 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. the darts of Heaven, and yet eternally burning with the inner fire of self -reproach^ and the piercing conscious- ness of happiness forever lost, is the sublimest spectacle the soul of man has yet conceived, , What are Shakespeare's Witches, his Ariel, his Ham- let, to this ? I will not stay to make a comparison, for the objects compare themselves, and themselves give the verdict. Tenth Speaker.— Sir : None of the debaters have yet spok'en of Shakespeare as a moralist, a character in which he is pre-eminent ; and which I believe is not attempted to be fixed on Milton. It has been well said that in the writings of Shakespeare " there is more moral wisdom to be found than is embodied in all the ethical produc- tions of our country put together." Let us take a few examples ; here is one : *' Sweet are the uses of Adversity .■ Which like a toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head." Again : Again : ' Not the king's crown, nor the deputed sword, The marshars truncheon, nor the judge's robe. Becomes them with one-half so good a grace As mercy does." " O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength ; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant." What magnificent and deep philosophy there is in this : " We are such stuff As dreams are made of ; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep! " Here is a moral for kings : " For within the hollow crown That rounds the mortal temples of a king Keeps Death his court ; and there the antic sits. Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp ; SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. Ill Allowing him a breath, a little scene, To mouarchize, be feared, and kill with looks, Infusing him with vain and self conceit. As if this flesh that walls about our life • Were brass impregnable ; and humor'd thus, Comes at the last, and with a little pin Bores through his castle wall, and— farewell king I '* f)ne may find some good in this too : " Glory is like a circle in the water, Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself, Till by broad spreading it disperse to naught." But I fear I weary you : the maxims of Shakespeare are now proverbs, and need not be repeated by me. Eleventh Speaker. — Sir: Shakespeare was a great moralist, certainly; but, in my opinion, Milton is very little, if at all, inferior to him in this respect. Morality proceeds from love of virtue and confidence in goodness. Hear Milton thereupon : " Virtue may be assail'd, but never hurt, Surprised by unjust force, but not enthrall'd ; Yea, even that which mischief meant most harm, Shall in the happy trial prove most glory : But evil on itself shall back recoil. And mix no more with goodness ; when at last, Gather'd like scum, and settled to itself. It shall be in eternal restless change Self -fed, and self-consumed ; if this fail The pillar'd firmament is rottenness, And earth's base built on stubble." Again ; hear the Spirit in Comus : " Mortals that would follow me. Love Virtue ; she alone is ffee. She can teach ye how to climb Higher than the sphery chime ; Or if virtue feeble were Heaven itself would stoop to herl " How exquisite is his reference to " The virtuous mind that ever walks attended By a strong-siding champion, Conscience! " 112 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. Milton as a moralist stands, I think, extremely high. He is utterly free from prejudice ; abjures all bigotry, dogmatism, servility, and mental slavery. A more thoroughly independent mind never existed; conse- quently his morality is never tinged with the pride of the Pharisee. He loves virtue for its own sake, and maj^es no boast of it. He may not pei'haps have written so large a code of morality as Shakespeare has pro- duced, but it is quite as pure, and quite as practically useful. That character of Satan has been of wonderful service to us ; it has taught us the virtue of endurance ; and had Milton done no more than this, he would be deserving of the highest honor as a moralist. Twelfth Speaker. — Sir : I am not quite so sure as the last gentleman who spoke seems to be that the char- acter of Satan is likely to affect us morally or bene- ficially. What is it ? A fallen angel defying the Almighty, and in his own strength enduring and scorning the Almighty's punishments. We hear him say that 'tis " Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.'* We are told by him that into hell ** he brings A mind not to be changed by place or time : The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.'* I really doubt the morality of this. The picture seems to me likely to do at least as much harm as good. I will suppose a man far gone in vice brooding over these senti- ments. What would be the result ? Why, that he, like Satan, would say, ' ' Then farewell hope, and, with hope, farewell fear I Farewell remorse 1 all good to me is lost : Evil! be thou my good! " SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. 113 He, too, would *' disdain submission ; " and in his despair " defy the Omnipotent." The Satan of Milton, the Pro- metheus of Shelley, and the Cain of Byron, all seem to me to be alike immoral and dangerous pictures to present. They are all represented as unconquered by the Almighty, though fallen ; and this leads the mind to think that Evil is too strong for God, and can safely defy him: a very dangerous doctrine to teach. The morality of Milton always appears to me (even the best of it) to be of a vague controversial character; he puts forth declamatory arguments instead of practical maxims, and tries to describe Truth instead of showing her. In a word, Milton's is the morality of Intellect; while Shakespeare's is the morality of the Heart. Choosing between these two, sir, I incline to Shake- speare; his morality is indisputable, while Milton's, how- ever pure, is always open to controversy. Thirteenth Speaker.— Sir: Although I do not think Milton so great a Poet as Shakespeare, I yet think a word or two may be said for him as respects the moral influ- ence of his character of Satan. We have been told that it is a demoralizing and dan- gerous representation ; that we are prone to be fascinated by it ; and that when we see the Arch-Fiend braving and heroically enduring the vengeance of the Almighty, we feel a sympathy, which may probably become an ad- miration, for him, and may lead us to imitate his fierce and dauntless bravery. But it seems to me that our sympathy fastens, not on what is evil, but on what is good. It is not the bold and daring defiance of the Almighty, but the uncontrollable power of mind, that we admire ; the energy which makes soul superior to circumstance ; and, as a great writer says, "Many a man has borrowed new strength from the force, constancy and dauntless courage of evil agents." Be- sides, the horrors of Hell must counterbalance its pleas- 114 SHAKESPEARE OR MILTON. ures, even in tlie mind of the most abandoned calcu- lator. Milton's mastery over the art of Poetr^^has not yet been noticed; his magnificent blanic verse, his " linked sweet- ness long drawn out," his vigorous and polished style, and his lofty mode of thought. All these are qualities which he exhibits very remarkably, and should be taken into account when the comparison is made. Opener {in reply). —Sir: The propositions which I sub- mitted to you in opening this debate have been proved, rather than refuted, by my opponents, so I have not much now to say. As far as regards the art, the mere mechanism of Po- etry, Milton may have been superior to Shakespeare; Shakespeare was not at all a mechanist, and never could be. Still, even upon this point it must be borne in mind that Milton is very much indebted to his learning, while Shakespeare "Warbles his native wood-notes— wild." Take away Milton's learning, and then you \Vill find that, even as an artist, he is not so great as Shake- speare. But, after all, it is in the essential qualities of Poetry that the poet's greatness lies; and these, therefore, are the only proper tests. The conclusion to which this debate leads me is un- questionably that Shakespeare possesses these qualities more eminently than his rival. In imagination I hold that he is at least equal ; in pas- sion, he is far superior; in perception, he is immensely more quick and intelligent ; in sympathy, he is infinitely greater ; in intellect, he is more intuitive and clear ; in ideality, he is undoubtedly more serene and vivid ; and in the aggregate of mind he is more united, harmonious and complete. To use the Vords of Dryden, he ' ' is THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 115 the man of the largest, truest, and most comprehensive soul yet born into the world." QUESTION VIII. Which has done the greater service to Mankind— THE Printing Press or the Steam Engine ? First Speaker.— Sir : It is much to be feared that as we sail along the great and ever-widening ocean of civil- ization, we forget the streams and sources which have helped to form it. It is but rarely that we look back and endeavor to estimate the influences which have made us what we are. Deeply impressed with this truth, I have determined to-night to direct attention to the debt which we owe to two of the greatest causes of our mental, moral, and phys- ical improvement, the Printing Press and the Steam Engine, These seem to me to be the most important inventions ever made by man, and to inquire into their value will doubtless lead us to extend the great advantages which they confer upon mankind. I wish to know to which of these inventions we are the more indebted ? and the best way to open the question will be to recount the benefits they have respectively bestowed upon the human race. First, then ; what has the Printing Press done for man ? The com pletest answer one can give to that ques- tion is, that it has extended knowledge. The consequences of this diffusion of knowledge have been both great 116 THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. and good. The consequences have been good, inasmuch as they have imparted to us — I. Information respecting our pliysical frame, which teaches us how to preserve our health and lengthen our life ; II. Intellectual infor- mation, which enables us to distinguish between false- hood and truth, to profit by the example of the past, and to guide ourselves by the wisdom of experience and phil- osophy ; and III. Moral information, which shows us good and evil, teaches us the beauty of virtue, and the value of religion. And now, what is the nature and extent of our debt to the Steam Engine ? It seems, at the first glance, that we chiefly owe to it the extension and improvement of Phys- ical good. It has cheapened clothing, food, and fuel; it has strengthened our houses, and lowered the cost of building ; it has opened, drained, and worked new mines, which without it never could have seen the light ; it has enabled us to travel on land, at a rate of swiftness well- nigh incredible, with no greater fatigue than if we were sitting in our parlors ; it has enabled us to traverse the sea at all times and in all weathers, in defiance of wind, tide, and tempest ; it has relieved human labor in every department of personal fatigue ; it has introduced us to all parts of the world, has extended commerce, has pro- moted the mutual interchange of produce and manufac- ture, and it has made man practically acquainted with all the varieties of the human race. But the benefits we owe to the Steam Engine do not stop here. We get intellectual and moral as well as phys- ical, good from it. By freeing manual labor it develops mental intelli- gence. It gives men time to think and study. Formerly the great personal fatigue men underwent in the course of their daily labor not only prostrated, but absolutely weakened, their minds. This excessive toil led them fur- ther to desire stimulants to sustain them ; and thus it THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 117 mostly happened that they who spent their days at the loom spent their evenings at the ale-house. The Steam Engine has helped to give the information, too, which it left people leisure to desire. It has made them acquainted with facts in every department of knowl- edge, and has enabled them to see and judge for them- selves. I said, further, that the Steam Engine had extended moral good. This will now be felt evident, for by ac- quainting us with facts it leads us toward truth; and truth in science will soon produce truth in morals. I will now leave the comparison between the value of the respective benefits of these two Great Inventions to the meeting. Second Speaker.— -Sir : When the opener of this de- bate said that the benefit resulting from the Printing Press consisted in the extension of knowledge he gave us perhaps the best reason that can be imagined why we should vote for that invention rather than for the Steam Engine. Look at the state of this country before the discovery of the art of printing, and then at it a century after- njard (when its value had become appreciated); and then you will see at a glance what it accomplished for us. The world, prior to the time of Caxton, was sunk in the grossest mental and moral darkness that one can well conceive on this side of barbarism. Arts and sciences there were none ; even the simplest rudiments of educa- tion were unknown to the common people, nay even to the .nobles ; and the monks and priests monopolized every particle of information. The foulest licentiousness, the most intolerable tyranny, the wickedest cruelty, and the most detestable fraud and violence, existed in the land. Murder was continually perpetrated in the open street ; no man's house or life was safe ; the worst priu- 118 THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. ciples of our nature were in active and deadly exercise. We must add to this lamentable state of things, the fact that all orders of men were plunged deep in superstition ; that they were led like idiot slaves by their spiritual mas- ters ; and that religion, save in its penances and extor- tions, was quite a sealed and hopeless mystery to them. There was no order, no peace, no morality ; but crime and ignorance, like two hideous monsters, ruled gloat- ingly over the chaos. But as the sublime command of the Most High pene- trated the original chaos of the universe, so did the printed word of knowledge penetrate the chaos we have just surveyed. It said, "Let there be Light, and THERE WAS LiGHT ; " and when this Light came, men saw. *' Vice is a monster of such frightful mien, That to be hated needs but to be seen,''* The Printing Press showed this monster to men, and so led them, through abhorrence, to avoid it. It taught them, also, the infamy of slavery ; slavery of every sort, bodily, mental, and intellectual. There is something es- sentially /ree in knowledge ; something that always in- disposes the mind of its possessor to irrational restraint ; and this may be proved by the instance before us. No sooner did knowledge come,' than freedom came. In the reign of Henry the Seventh, Caxton printed ; in the refgn of Henry the Eighth, personal slavery was forever abolished in Britain. But it was not the mere body that was freed, the mind and soul were unshackled also. Great intellects arose, and liberated men from mental darkness. More than this, Luther came, and effected his reformation of our spiritual creed. Then followed Spen- ser, Shakespeare, Burleigh, Bacon, and Milton, all of whom were the production of the impetus given to genius by the Printing Press. I think I have said enough to prove that the Press must claim our verdict. THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 119 Third Speaker.— Sir : The last speaker seems to have quite forgotten that there are two sides to the question before us : he has descanted with much fluency upon the benefits we have derived from the Press, but he has not said a single word about the Steam Engine. He points us to the change that the Printing Press wrought at the end of a hundred years. Well ! I can point to an equally amazing change effected by the other invention now under consideration, a change wrought, mark you ! not at the end of a century, but at the end of less than a quarter of a century ! I say then that the people of twenty-five years ago were as far behind the people of to-day in knowledge and in freedom, as the people before the time of Caxton were be- hind the people who lived a century after his decease. Take any well-educated young man of twenty years of age, and compare him with a man of equal capacity who was considered well educated twenty years ago, and you will find my point proved by the answer to the first questipn you put to them. If your question be in history, the reply of the man educated twenty years ago (if he . give you a reply at all) will be the assertion of some fallacy exploded since he was taught. If your question be in science, in chemistry, natural philosophy, mechan- ics, or physiology, it is a thousand chances to one whether you get an answer from him. For this reason, that when he went to school, he learned reading, writing, and arithmetic, and that was all. True, he hkd an occasional dip into Murray's Grammar, and once now and then ac- quired a page or two of Goldsmith's History of England, as a task ; but there was no learning in that. Now, however, a boy i^ taught at almost any school you can send him to, not merely the common rudiments of edu- cation, but geography, history, chemistry, mathematics; in a word, all the useful, and many of the exact sciences. Add to this, the immense amount of knowledge resulting 120 THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. from the vast circulation of cheap books, peculiar to our time, and then you will be able to form some idea of the immense increase of intellectual knowledge which has taken place within the last twenty years. That the Steam Engine has done this, must, I think, be plain. It has corrected history, because it has enabled men to visit the scenes of history, and to reject from its pages things that were physically impossible ; it has pro- moted science, because it has in a thousand ways laid the book of nature open to the eye of men ; and it has extend- ed information, because it has multiplied the copies of wise men's works. I think that the honorable gentleman who spoke last will now see that the silent contempt with which he treated the Steam Engine was not wise. Fourth Speaker. — Sir : I readily admit that the^ Steam Engine has been of signal service to humanity, but we ought not to forget that the Printing Press was the real originator of many of the benefits apparently con- ferred by Steam. Nay, does not the steam engine itself owe its existence to the Press ? Had it not been for the knowledge disseminated by the art of printing, the Steam Engine would in all probability have remained unknown. Above all things, we must not forget that to the Press we owe the printing and dissemination of the only true moral law we have, the Holy Bible. This divine Book is the true source of our civilization, after all ; and through it alone has come that freedom of mind and body which has been so well described on this occasion. Our improved condition, our superior knowledge, and our in- creased morality, are due, we cannot doubt, to the wise teachings of the sacred Book; and, but for the Printing Press, this precious Volume would have remained in the hands of the clergy, to be communicated possibly through a false medium, presenting to us as much error as truth. THE PmNTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 121 I feel tliat this one argument alone is sufficient to prove the superior advantages .rvvhich have resulted to the world from the Press as compared with the Steam Engine, and I will not weaken my cause by adding feebler reasons after one so powerful. Fifth Speaker. — Sir : I will not attempt to deny that the Printing Press has conferred an incalculable avV vantage upon the human species by the promulgation ot the Scriptures. But when we come to think upon the matter, we perceive that the greater part of this benefit is actually owing to the Steam Engine ! The Press prints the Bibles but the Steam Engine distributes them ; nay, it is actually the Steam Engine that prints them ! It carries numberless copies to distant lands, and here, by its application to the Press, it so multiplies those copies, that where there used to be but one Bible there are now a thousand. Formerly, the cost of paper and printing was so high, that only the rich could afford to purchase the Scriptures; now, no poor man, not even the poorest, need be without them. It is to Steam that we owe this. Steam makes the paper, Steam prints the book, Steam circulates the copies. Were you to reckon up the number of Bibles printed by hand, and the number printed by Steam, you would see that where the Press has produced tens, the Steam Engine has produced thousands of Bibles. However great, therefore, the merit may be that is due to the Press for originally giving us the sacred Book, a greater praise is due to the Steam Engine for multiplying and circulating it. Consider, too, how the Press is enabled through the Steam Engine to inform man daily of what is passing in the world. Before the application of Steam, our daily papers were no more to be compared with the Journals of the present time, than a spark can be compared with a blazing fire. But now Steam collects information daily in every quarter of the world, daily prints the news 122 THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. it brings, and daily carries away again into every quarter of the world the information it h#^ gathered and recorded. I shall vote for the Steam Engine without the least hesitation. Sixth Speaker. — Sir : It seems to me that an origina- tor is always more meritorious than an improver ; and the present comparison appears to prove this most par- ticularly. The Printing Press, it is admitted, first gave us knowl- edge ; now the highest merit of the Steam Engine seems to be that it has carried what the other has made ! To argue that the Steam Engine is the greater, because it has distributed what the Press has printed, is just like saying that the porter who carries a book is greater than the author who wrote it ! Surely the original discoverer of America is greater than the captains who now sail thither ; and surely the originator of any great invention is greater than its mere accelerator. Suppose the Printing Press had never been invented, where would steam have been then ? Or suppose the Steam Engine had existed without the Printing Press, what good could it have done us ? Would it have given us cheap Bibles, correct histories, good education, and all the other great advantages that we are told we owe to it ? No ! it would have improved us physically, but it would have left us just as mentally and morally dark as we were. To me, just as the one Book seems the source of all morality, books in general seem the source of all knowl- edge and wisdom. Long before the Steam Engine was dreamed of, books were civilizing, and moralizing, and Christianizing man ; and long after it is replaced by other inventions, the Press will continue to improve and exalt us. I will not offer any further arguments, sir, upon this subject, but I think I have thrown out some suggestions THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 123 which will not prove altogether unworthy of considera- tion. Seventh Speaker. — Sir: A great writer* has said *' that there is nothing more wonderful than a book." '' In books," he continues, " lies the soul of the whole past time. All that mankind has done, thought or seen; it is lying, as in magic preservation, in the pages of books." And it is this truth, doubtless, that has led so many of the speakers on this question to accord so great a value to the Printing Press, the producer of books. But surely that which will take us to the sources of knowledge, must be greater and more beneficial to us than the mere second-hand record oi knowledge ! Which is the wiser man ? he who knows from actual observa- tion, or he who knows from reading ? Which man, for instance, knows France better ; he who goes there and sees it, or he who reads about it in a book ? The Press w^as called by the last speaker *' the source of knowledge. " It is not so ; it is the source of second- hand knowledge. The Press simply leads us to other men's views of knowledge, and fails to give us actual, experimental knowledge for ourselves. But the Steam Engine enables us to go to the sources of knowledge direct. By the rapidity of its movements, it carries us from place to place in scarcely more time than it formerly took us to read about them ; and we now can see for our- selves what we were once obliged to take upon credit. The result thus obtained for us by the Steam Engine must be Eminently serviceable to truth and morality. From books, however clearly written, we do not get ex- act ideas ; the Grreece we fancy in reading about it is quite different from the actual Greece when we see it. Traveling corrects the errors we form in reading, and thus clears the mind of false impressions, and fills it with true ones. ♦Thomas Carlyle. 12i THE PRlNTrnG PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. Books of History, Geography, and Travels, whicli once were implicitly relied on, are now found to be full of misstatements and mistakes. Errors of topography, soil, climate, and produce, have been discovered and recti- fied ; doubted assertions have been either verified or to- tally disproved, and thus truth has been established and extended. One cannot forbear the reflection, that if the Printing Press has promulgated much truth, it has also circulated much error. It has been employed to record and pub- lish falsehood, atheism, blasphemy, sophistry, infidelity, and vice of every kind and shape. It is true that we owe to it our knowledge of the Bible and of Shakespeare ; bu4; we also owe to it the ^' Age of Reason,'' and Voltaire. If, then, we sum up the good and evil of the Press, and compare the total with the unmixed value of the benefits we derive from the Steam Engine, we shall, I think, be led to decide unhesitatingly in favor of the latter. Eighth Speaker. — Sir : Our friend who has just spoken has referred to the evil (as well as good) that the Press has generated. Now, the Steam Engine seems to me to do some evil, too. It has destroyed, from its imperfec- tions, numerous human lives, the lives of those who nave either tended to it or traveled by it ; and thus soci- ety has been injured by the loss of its members. Further, it has superseded manual labor, and has thus thrown men out of employment ; it has supplanted all kinds of industry, and therefore has deprived millions of the comforts they once used to earn. This wilL^o far to explain, I think, the awful distress that exists among our manufacturing population at the present time. Hu- man labor is now so cheap that the best wages will hardly support a man with any degree of decency or comfort. It is said that the Press generates error, but at any rate the Steam Engine does as much harm by circulating it. THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 125 If the defenders of the Steam Engine claim the good which the Press does, because it helps to print and dis- tribute it, they must hold themselves liable to be charged with the evil too. Ninth Speaker.— Sir: The Steam Engine is charged with destroying human lives, and also with supplanting human labor ; let me say a word or two with reference to both these arguments. First, as to destroying human life. It is quite true that on our railways and in our mines and steam pack- ets, great loss of life often occurs ; but the Steam Engine is at least less chargeable in this respect than the contriv- ances it has superseded. The old stage coaches, the old machines for draining mines, and the old sailing vessels, were the causes of far more fatal and frequent accidents than the Steam Engine causes. It is capable of the clearest proof that the loss of life (and let me add, of property) is infinitely smaller since Steam has been used as a working power than it was under any former sys- tem of conveyance, pedestrianism included. We read of accidents, it is true, but they are few and far between; while coaches, carts, wagons and horses were formerly forever doing mischief. A man, in fact, may now travel three hundred miles along a railway with less personal risk than he encounters if he walks a mile. Besides, the Steam Engine is capable of being brought to absolute perfection ; every accident leads to some new improve- ment which will prevent a recurrence of the same sort of accident in future. Now, the old stage-coach and sail- ing vessel system had reached its perfection, and in the nature of things could be no better than it was. This charge, therefore, fails. Besides, the Printing Press is chargeable with a much greater evil ; it often destroys that which is more prec- ious than life by far, I mean reputation and character. The gross libels, the evil slanders, the wicked falsehoods 126 THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGIlTfi. to which the Press has given birth, prove that it is capa- ble of the very worst effects. Many a man has been so falsely condemned and atrociously maligned by it, that he has thereby been driven to despair, to madness, and to self-destruction. Wherein is the ioss of life by a Steam Engine worse than this ? And now let me say a word or two respecting the sec- ond charge that the last speaker made against the Steam Engine, namely, that it has supplanted human labor. Sir, I deny the fact. The Steam Engine provides more labor than it supplants. It diverts labor from old chan- nels, it is true ; but it opens new channels, both larger and better. The making of railways, engines, carriages, telegraphs, rails, steam vessels, and roads, requires an amount of human labor far exceeding all that the Steam Engine could possibly supplant. Moreover, by putting us into near communication with countries which once were hopelessly distant, the demand for our manufac- tures is increased ; and it is supposed by those best able to judge that mor^ men are now requird to superintend our manufactures than were formerly employed in pro- ducing them. So much, then, for these mighty evils ! Tenth Speaker. — Sir : In the Steam Engine I see the greatest civilizer, (Christianity, of course, excepted) that has yet been introduced into the world. It is the greatest actual power yet known ; and is em- ployed in such an infinite variety of ways, minute and stupendous, that it is impossible to say what may not hereafter be done by its agency. There is no department of production, manufacture, or personal comfort, which it has not extended and improved. It is a moralizer in many ways ; but tjhiefly, I think, in this : it brings the various members of the human family into contact and relationship. By its agency we go to lands hitherto almost unknown ; we find there THE PRmTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 127 ignorant and barbarous savages ; we associate with them, we teach them, we civiUze them, we take them our Bible, we tell them of our Holy Father in Heaven, and at length we find in the ignorant savage a brother and a friend. The facilities for traveling which the Steam Engine af- fords induce men to emigrate toother countries, and thus the world is becoming more equally covered. Countries over-crowded are relieved, and countries uninhabited are populated. Civilization is thus carried into savage lands, barbarism is supplanted, heathenism destroyed, and peace, comfort, morality, and religion are led into the remotest regions of the world. Eleventh Speaker.— Sir : In spite of all that has been said, I still believe that the Press does more for us than the Steam Engine. Doubtless a man can now go more easily into foreign climes than he used to do ; but, as the majority of men can not be travelers, the book which records the descrip- tion of other countries must certainly be more generally useful than the machine which enables a man to go to those countries. For every man that can go to another country, a thousand men can only have an opportunity to read about it ; the book, therefore, does good to thousands, while the voyage only does good to individ- uals. It is quite true that the Press publishes error, and not a little of it ; but the evil causes the cure. Attention is drawn to the error put forth, thought is roused, the false- hood is detected and never can appear again. When I call to mind the mighty service that the Print- ing Press performed at the time of its invention in extend- ing religious knowledge, defying bigotry, and bringing about our glorious Reformation, I feel that our debt to it is incalculable, and must not be forgotten when another claimant of merit appears. Excuse me if 1 quote the Ian- 128 THE PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. guage of an eminent man who lived at the time of the invention ; I mean John Fox. Speaking of the art of Printing, he says — " Hereby tongues are known, knowl- edge groweth, judgment increase th, books are dispersed, the Scripture is seen, the doctors are read, stories are opened, times compared, truth discerned, falsehood de- tected, and with finger pointed out, and all (as I said) through the benefit of Printing. Wherefore, I suppose that either the Pope must abolish Printing, or he must seek a new world to reign over : for else, as the world standeth, Printing doubtless will abolish him. But the Pope and all his college of Cardinals must this under- stand, that through the light of Printing, the world be ginneth now to have eyes to see, and heads to judge. He cannot walk so invisible in a net, but he will be spied. And although through might he stopped the mouth of John Huss before, and of Jerome, that they might not preach, thinking to make his kingdom sure ; yet, instead of John Huss and others, God hath opened the Press to preach, whose voice the Pope is never able to stop, with all the power of his triple crown. By this Printing, as by the gift of tongues, the doctrine of the Gospel soundeth to all nations and countries under heaven ; and what God revealeth to one man, is dispersed to- many ; and what is known in one nation is opened to all." These fine thoughts, from one of the ancients, may not perhaps be thought unworthy of the attention of us mod- erns. Opener {in reply). — The conclusion, sir, to which we seem to come is, that Printing originated many of the great elements of modern intellectual and moral cultiva- tion, and that |he Steam Engine has diffused and ex- tended them. It seems invidious to judge between the two ; and it appears ungrateful to choose the last, and pass the first ; but yet, I think, we must do so. Where the Press alone has benefited one, the Steam THR PRINTING PRESS OR THE STEAM ENGINE. 129 Engine is shown to have benefited multitudes. The Press, too, only benefits the mind (at least directly) ; the Steam Engine benefits the mind and body too. The Press, again, has existed for some centuries, and its full powers are known ; the Steam Engine on the other hand, is but just invented, and doubtless will be carried to a perfection we can scarcely dream of. Its usefulness is universal ; there is nothing to which it cannot be ap- plied. The gentleman who spoke last referred to the remarks of an ancient writer in favor of the Printing Press ; let me cite the remarks of an equally great modern writer* in favor of the Steam Engine. "It has become," he says, " a thing stupendous, alike for its force and its flexibility ; for the prodigious power which it can exert, and the ease, and precision, and ductility with which it can be varied, distributed, and applied. The trunk of an elephant, that can pick up a pin, or rend an oak, is as nothing to it. It can engrave a seal, and crush obdurate masses of metal before it ; draw out, without breaking, a thread as fine as a gos- samer, and lift up a ship of war like a bauble in the aii*. It can embroider muslin, and forge anchors ; cut steel into ribbons, and impel loaded vessels against the fury of the winds and waves." I will now leave the question in your hands. ♦Lord Jeffrey. 130 THE ORATOR. QUESTIOI^IX. Which does the most to make the Orator— Knowl- edge, Nature, or Art ? Opener : Oratory has done so mucli for the cause of human progress and enlightenment, and the masters of Oratory have always been held so high in the world, that the question which I have had the honor to propose can- not fail to be both interesting and instructive to us. I seek to know whether the Orator owes his power and success to his Knowledge, to his Natural genius, or to his study of the Art of speech ? Decision upon this point will clearly be of use to us ; for, as we decide, so we shall act. I am of opinion that the Orator owes most to Nature. I think the gift of speech is as much a talent as the gift of music or any other talent with which a man is born. Experience is the ground on which I build my belief. How often do you see a man who knows a* subject thoroughly, and yet cannot say five consecutive words upon it ; while, on the other hand, how frequently do you find that a man, only slightly versed in the same topic, will make you a striking speech upon it full of wit, grace, and eloquence ! That the powder of speech is a gift of nature, is proverbial ; and, in my opinion, justly so ; for observation continually shows us that even in early youth, when knowledge is scanty, the faculty is often strikingly developed ; while in the maturity of manly age, w^hen knowledge is full, and (as far as earth can make it so) complete, the faculty is frequently alto- gether absent. And as to Art. How very common and numerous are the instances where, after instructing a young man in elocution, till he has practiced as long (and almost as THE ORATOR. 131 painfully) as Demostlienes, he stammers and stutters so dreadfully if he have a sentence or two to say, that you feel quite a pain and pity for him ; while, on the con- trary, you continually find that men who have never been taught the Art of speech at all, become accom- plished and striking Orators ! These instances seem to me quite sufficient to prove that Oratory is a natural, and not an acquired power. Second Speaker.— Sir : Our friend who has opened this debate, has spoken so very slightingly of the Art of speech, that I feel (although the humblest champion of the cause) obliged to venture a word or two in its defense. In my opinion it is Art to which the Orator is mainly indebted for his success. I take as an instance of the value of Art, the case of Demosthenes. This great Orator, the greatest that the world has ever seen, was originally so vile a speaker, that his audiences hissed him from their presence. Now, he had genius, for a greater mind never existed ; and Knowledge, for he had been in- structed by the wisest philosophers ; but being deficient in Art, he was so graceless and unpleasing that men would not listen to him. When, however, he devoted himself to the study of the Art, he conquered his defects, and won not merely contemporary applause (which is the total meed of most orators), but the applause and ad- miration of the whole world until now. The next greatest Orator we know of, Cicero, is another example of the truth of my argument. His devotion to the Art is so well known as to need no evidence in proof ; the compi- lation of his great work De Oratore is evidence enough, at all events. And how wonderful was his success ! Other instances as striking, if not so illustrious, might be cited without end, were it necessary ; but these will suffice. They will suffice to show you that as oratory is most successful when the Art of oratory is most culti- vated^ it must be to Art that the success is mainly owing, 132 THE ORATOR. Third Speaker. — Sir : I am of opinion that it is neither to Nature nor to Art that the success of an Orator is owing, but to Knowledge. Were the object of oratory to astonish and dazzle the hearer with fine figures of rhetoric, and graceful streams or overpowering torrents of thought, then I might accord the palm to Genius. Or were the object of human speech to delight the ear with mellifluous cadences, and cliarm the eye with pleasing action and exiDression, then I should say that the power of oratory is in Art. But these are not the ends which oratory has in view ; they are only the means. The soie proper object of all oratory is truth, persuasion, convic- tion. He therefore who is master of his subject, who has the most thorough Knowledge of it, must be the best, because. the most effective, speaker, after all. Take three different men ; a man of plain practical Knowledge, a man of lofty Genius, and a man of con- summate Art, and give them a subject to debate. You will find, that while the man of Genius thrills and de- lights you with his eloquence, while the man of Art enchants you with his elegance of action and delivery, the man of Knowledge is the one who in the end con- vinces you. Genius without Knowledge is dazzling, but useless; Art without Knowledge is empty and vain ; but Knowl- edge, without either Art or Genius, can still bel)f serv- ice to truth, and still acquire respect from all men. How often does it happen that in a debate speakers of great genius and power declaim in vain, while a stam- mering, hesitating, awkward man of fact convinces in a moment ! It is quite true that Genius sometimes triumphs over Knowledge, and makes the worse appear the better reason; but the triumph is short-lived, the fallacy is soon exposed, and Genius is laughed at or despised; but Knowledge oftener triumphs over Genius, and always, in the nature of things, keeps its ground. THE ORATORo 133 These, sir, are my views upon this subject. Fourth Speaker. — Sir : I really cannot understand how the gentleman who spoke before the last speaker can fancy that Art is superior to Nature in Oratory. Why, what is Art ? Simply the copy of nature. What is great, effective, elegant, striking, and graceful in natural speech has been formed into a code by observant men, and this is the derivation of the art of Oratory ! Now surely the original must be greater than the imitation ! Surely the Genius must be greater than the Art ! Look to the rules of the Art themselves, and you will find the admission there. For what is the first maxim of the elocution teacher? ''Be natural;^' ''Study nature;'''' "Be in earnest.^'' What is this, but a direct admission that Nature is the great Orator, after all, and that Genius is greater than Art, and is its model ? Oratory is the clear and forcible expression of thought; and, as the capacity to think clearly and deeply is at all times a natural, and never an acquired power, clear utter- ance, which depend^ upon clear thought, must also be natural and not acquired. This is all I have to say, sir, on the subject. Fifth Speaker. — Sir : Power is of no value without impetus. A steam engine may be of great strength ; but without fuel it is worthless, and without guidance it can do no work. Just in like manner, a man of genius is useless without Knowledge, and ineffective without Art. Mere greatness is nothing, and can do nothing ; it is like a perfect lamp unfilled and untrimmed. Now it is very difficult to say whether we are most in- debted for the light to the lamp, to the oil, or to the trimming. Without the oil the lamp could not be lighted; without tUe lamp the oil would be of no serv- ice ; and without the t^inmiing, the lamp would burn so ill as to be nearly useless, and very disagreeable. And, sir, it is equally difficult to say w^hether the 134 THE ORATOR. genius for speaking, tlie knowledge of the subject, or the art of delivery, is the most important element in the Orator's success. Without Genius his remarks will be commonplace and ineffective ; without Knowledge they will be brilliant but useless ; and without Art they will be ill-arranged, graceless, and unattractive. To me it seems that no man is a good Orator who fails to combine all the three elements we have named ; who has not the genius that gives him clear and deep glances into truth, the knowledge that gives him the power of fact and of proof, and the art that gives him the means of attracting and securing the attention of his auditors. As I must choose between the three sources of the Orator's success, I give my vote for Knowledge. For as it is the oil which is the real source of light, no matter what the lamp' may be, so it is Knowledge that is the true illuminator of speech, no matter who may be the utterer. Sixth Speaker. — I think, sir, it is Rousseau who says that Oratory requires such a combination of qualities that he wonders how any man dares to open his mouth in public. ^'Combination of qualities." Mark that phrase ! qualities, not acquirements, are needed by the Orator ; qualities of genius, not qualities communicated by knowledge. Insight, judgment, comparison, method, boldness, and constructiveness; these are the qualities on which a man depends in Oratory, and these, you will ob- serve, are all born gifts, and not acquired faculties. It follows, therefore, that to Genius, or Nature, the Oratoi is mainly indebted. Take two boys of the same age ; teach them the same facts, and give them an equal knowledge of Art ; you will find that they will make quite different speakers. One boy will be bright, quick, rea^y of perception, facile in illustration, and enthusiastic in argument; the other will be dull, slow to see, incorrect in judgment, inconclusive THE ORATOR. 135 in reasoning*, and feeble in proof. Does not this clearly show us that it is Genius and not education that really makes a man an Orator ? I grant that education is a most important element in the Orator's success; but I hold that it is less important than Natural Talent. Genius without Art will make a man a better speaker than Art without Genius ; for Genius will always give eloquence, while Art at the most can only give fluency. Genius is the possession of mental power, Art is only the means of its development. Genius is the stream, and Art the channel. It needs no logic to prove that Genius must be the greater of the two ; for as a stream will make itself a channel, whatever may obstruct it, so Genius will find for itself a means of development, how- ever great and numerous may be the difficulties in its way. Seventh Speaker. — Sir : Knowledge in an Orator may be compared to materials in the hands of a skillful archi- tect ; it is the matter by which he builds his edifice. Now, just as the skill of the builder would be valueless and unavailing were he without materials to build, so (it seems to me) is the genius of the Orator without use or value, if he be without Knowledge. For what can he do ? Talk, but prove nothing ; shine, but give no light ; please, but yield no instruction. Now, we know that even a common workman, if you give him materials, will build us a house ; it will not be so grand, so elegant, so proportionate, or so tasteful as the house that an architect of genius would raise ; but it will, to say the least of it, be better than none. Well, just in the same way the edifice of thought that a speaker with- out genius, but possessed of knowledge, would rear, would be better and more useful to us (because more substantial) than the airy fabric of fancy and eloquence — fancy without substance, and eloquence without Id form- ation—which the Orator of Genius, unaccompanied by Knowledge, would create for us. 136 THE ORATOR. Only let a man know a subject, and lie will soon find a way to let out his intelligence, and to profit the world by it. He may speak badly, ungracefully, and unmus- ically ; without plan, succinctness, or style ; but he will say what he means before he has done, and will make his audience fully understand him. How often do you see a lecturer upon Art or Science, who exhibits the great- est possible awkwardness and difficulty in the use of speech, and who yet will manage to enlighten you upon his subjects as well (though not so easily) as the most accomplished Orator could have done. Tliis convinces me that Knowledge is the chief power which the student of Oratory should seek to acquire. Eighth Speaker. —Sir : When the last speaker com- pared the Orator to an architect, I could not but call to mind the words of Cowper on this subject. He says, " It is not mortar, wood, and stone, The architect requires alone To finish a fine building ; The structure were but half complete If he could possibly forget The carving and the gilding." Now, we need no interpreter to tell us that the materials here named betoken Knowledge, v^hile the ' ' carving and gilding" typify Art. Here, then, we see the relative value of the two elements. Knowledge supplies material, and Art fits that material to its purpose. If this be so, I think it will appear that Art has the higher value ; ma- terials are nothing by themselves ; the mere heaping to- gether of stones does not build a house. It is only when Art is applied to them, that the materials become of any service. The commonest workman — and I thank the last speaker for the illustration, for it suits my argument, at least as well as his — the commonest workman can only build by rule, by Art. It is Art. that digs the stone Art that makes the tools, Art that shapes the material. Art that lifts them to their proper places, Art that binds the THE ORATOR. 1B7 fabric together. A man may conceive a gorgeous palace in his mind, another may have the materials to build it ; but until the man who has been taught hoiv to build ap- pears, the palace remains unreared. Just in the same way, a man of Genius may conceive a vast truth, and a man of Knowledge possess the materials to prove it, but until a man of Art comes to put it into shape and form, the truth remains unproved and useless. I do not deny that the possession of Genius is in itself greater than the possession of Knowledge or Art ; but I simply argue that as Art is more practically important and necessary than either Knowledge or Genius, it is more valuable to the Orator than they are. Ninth Speaker. —Sir : I am inclined to think that a very important cause of an Orator's success has been hitherto quite overlooked. I think that to confidence a speaker is very deeply indebted for his triumphs. Many a man who possesses all the other sources of power re- ferred to. Genius, Knowledge, and the theory of Art, is so abashed and confused when he begins to speak, that, with all his talent, his attempts end in failure; while, on the contrary, you often find that a man who possesses this quality of confidence succeeds in winning the atten- tion and applause of his audience, although he is neither a man of Genius, nor of Knowledge, nor of Taste. Now I presume that this quality of confidence is a gift of nature, a peculiarity of constitution. Some men are naturally timid, others naturally brave ; the timid ones, of course, will be nervous, apprehensive and abashed when they address an audience, while the brave ones will be bold and courageous. Oratory, then, depends mainly on nature, I believe ; as a man is naturally constituted, so will he be able, or unable, to speak. I have hitherto referred to man's mental constitution, but his success as an Orator depends also very greatly 138 THE ORATOR. upon his physical constitution. If his voice is weak or disagreeable, if his organs of utterance be imperfect, if his countenance be repulsive, his body ridiculous or dim- inutive, his action and gesture naturally awkward or laughable, he will never be successful as a speaker ; con- tempt will attend his efforts, and ridicule will soon force him into silence. On the other hand, how often do you see a man who is evidently stamped an Orator by nature. He possesses a commanding presence, a thoughtful brow, an intelligent eye, a deep and varying voice, a graceful and dignified action, a manner altogether imposing and majestic. If I may be allowed to instance a striking example from the great speakers of the present age, I would select the late Mi\ O'Connell as my proof. No one could have looked at that man without feeling that nature meant him for an Orator. His person, his voice, his gesture, and his striking action, showed at once that he was born with a genius for speech. Whether he were in the House of Commons, or before a hundred thousand of his countrymen in the open air in Ireland, every sound was hushed while he was speaking, and every eye fixed on him throughout his address. And this instance is but one of many. It is nature that stamps the Orator, and to nature he owes his success. Tenth Speaker.— The last speaker has told us, sir, that it is to confidence, and to mental and physical con- stitution, that the Orator owes most of his success. Let me say a few words to you on this point. Now I think that confidence is not a gift of nature at all, and has nothing whatever to do with a man's consti- tution. Confidence depends partly on Knowledge, and partly on Practice, or Art. Many men are nervous because they fear that they will break down ; this must result from a want of confidence in their knowledge. How could they fear failure, if they knew they could prove the truth of what they have to say ? THE ORATOR.. 139 But I think that the chief cause of nervousness in speaking is want of practice. The voice sounds strangely to a young speaker, he does not know it ; the many faces he sees before him, all looking at him, cause his bewil- derment ; memory fails him ; he becomes perplexed, forgetful, and incoherent ; hence he fails. But practice remedies all this. He gets used to the sound of his voice, and to the attention of his auditors ; he feels less trepi- dation every time he speaks ; his memory improves, and gathers strength by exercise ; his thoughts arise more continuously and more regularly ; and he becomes able at length to utter his thoughts with certainty and effect. The debt he owes to Art is a very great one, even in a physical point of view. Art improves, strengthens, and tunes his voice ; drills his body into proper postures ; gives elegance to his action, adds dignity to his appear- ance, and corrects the faults of his utterance. Let any one who is skeptical respecting the high value and im- portance of Art in Oratory refer particularly to the case of Demosthenes. His failure at first and his ultimate success have been already referred to ; let us now see what he did to make himself the perfect Orator he, in the end, . became. He devoted himself entirely to Art. He de- claimed (as we read) with pebbles in his mouth, and so corrected his articulation ; he spoke by the sea-shore, and thus gave power to his voice ; lie practiced attitude and action in a mirror, and so improved his manner and gesture ; in a word, he trusted all to Art, and Art reward- ed him with the most perfect success ever attained by a speaker. What more need I say ? Eleventh Speaker.— Sir : I think that success in ora- tory depends more upon moral character than upon Genius, Knowledge, or Art. The man of truth, of rec- titude, and of goodness, is the greatest Orator, after all. For moral goodness gives consciousness of right ; con- sciousness gives earnestness ; earnestness gives elo- 140 THE ORATOR. quence ; and eloquence never fails to find striking lan- guage and impressive action. How was it that tlie ora- tory of Paul made Felix tremble ? Not because tlie apostle was an orator " stamped by nature," as one gen- tleman said ; for lie was a mean-looking, and, I believe, deformed man ; but because lie spoke with the fervor and earnestness which always attend conviction, of *' righteousness and the world to come." There was no Genius m this, there was no Art in it ; but it was simply the moral conviction of a true-hearted man flashing out of his soul. And thus you will always find that earnest and good men are eloquent men. I do not say " fluent ; " fluency is not eloquence, by any means ; fluency beloiags to words, eloquence to thought. Give a man a subject which engages his whole heart and soul, and whether he be educated or uneducated, a genius or an artist, a man of universal knowledge or a man of limited experience, you will see that he will speak well and forcibly and effectively upon that subject whenever he treats of it. I have a far greater faith in moral conviction than in iniellectual strength, stores of knowledge, or artistical ^perfection. The Orator who speaks from the heart is the only true Orator, the only Orator whose fame will really last. With these sentiments, sir, I must be ex- cused from giving a vote upon this question. Twelfth Speaker. — Sir: With all due respect to the gentleman who cited Demon sthenes as a proof of the value of Art in Oratory, I must be allowed to express my opinion that the great Orator referred to owed less to Art than we (some of us) imagine. It is quite true that Art led him to conquer many nat- ural defects and difficulties : but it was the perception and conviction of the Genius within him that induced him to study Art as he did. Unless it can be shown that the same amount of study would make any man a Demosthenes, it must be admitted that Demosthenes was THE ORATOR. 141 an Orator naturally superior to other men ; and conse- quently that on Nature, more than Art, oratorical success depends. Art was useful to Demosthenes, because he teas possessed of genius ; the same amount of practice by a dullard would have done comparatively little good. Sir, Demosthenes owed all his real success to his genius. He had the sense to see, and the heart to feel, that the slavery and luxury of Greece were abominable and de- testable ; and, with a mental vigor and a moral force without parallel in history, he made his conviction the conviction of all Greece. When he said, " Let us march AGAINST Philip : let us conquer or die," it was not the blazing eye, not the energetic arm, not the loud voice, not the determined manner, of the speaker, that led the vast crowd he addressed to echo his appeal ; it was the sentiment, the truth he uttered, that aroused his audi- tors. His soul saw and spoke to their souls ; and the manner was nothing, as compared with the matter of speech. Upon Nature, therefore, acting upon Knowl- edge, the success of the Orator seems entirely to depend. These, sir, are my opinions on this subject. Thirteenth Speaker.— Sir : It appears to me that Demosthenes himself opposes the arguments of his de- fenders and champions. They maintam that success in Oratory depends on Genius ; he on the contrary asserts that it depends on Art. "What is the first requisite in an Orator ? li§ was asked. Action^ was his reply. What the second ? Action. What the third ? Action. By Action he here means Elocution, or the art of delivery. If, then, it is the opinion of the greatest master of speech ever known, that Art does more for the Orator than Nature, how can we suppose or contend that Nature is superior to Art ? Art, let us bear in mind, is, as it relates to speech, a term of wide meaning. It includes, not merely the mechayiism of speech, but the whole management of 142 T5E ORATOR. knowledge and mental power. The means by which Knowledge is acquired, the rules by which thought is re- duced into order, and the discipline of the mind, as much belong to the art of Oratory, as the management of the voice and the action of the body. To Art, therefore, I give the highest place. Taught by Art, the student will gather wisdom, enlarge his mind, cul- tivate his perception, exercise his imagination, strengthen his memory, accumulate ideas, supply himself with facts and illustrations, practice himself in logic, proof, and philosophy, observe the emotions of feeling and passion, learn how to portray them, and beyond all this train his mind into habits of thought and virtue, and his physical powers into pliancy, gracefulness, and strength. This, you may depend, will make a man a far greater Orator than he will become under the mere impulse of genius, or aided by the most extended human knowledge. Whether we search the history of the past, or look around us in the civilized world of to-day, how few we find who have risen to the high eminence of Oratory. In this country, where freedom of speech is untram- meled, and where every man may be called upon to give free expression to his opinions, even a fluent speaker is a rarity. Fluency of speech will obtain a hearing only so long as the subject is coherent and interesting ; but to hold a vast audience spell -bound in rapt and breath- less attention, to sway their emotions, to raise them to the highest pitch of enthusiasm — this is Oratory ! And, sir, in order to reach such results as these, an orator must not only be naturally gifted with fluency of speech, but his theme must be a lofty one, thoroughly studied in all its bearings ; his chain of reasoning must be logically arranged, his rhetoric unimpeachable, his deductions clear and conclusive. He cannot succeed, he must fail, without these indispensable aids of Study and Art. Opener (in reply). — Sir : I have been led by this de- THE ORATOR. 143 bate to see that excellence in Oratory depends not upon any one of the elements to which my question refers, but upon all. Mere genius will never make an Orator, nor will mere knowledge, nor will mere art ; it is only by the union of the three that a successful Oi'ator can be formed. In educating for an Orator, therefore, this fact must be most carefully kept in view. We must ascertain, first, that power exists in the mind we seek to teacli, that it has quickness to see, capacity to judge, method to ar- range, and aptness to apply ; we must next fill that mind with knowledge, knowledge of every sort, physical, men- tal, and moral ; not heaped together chaotically, but communicated gradually and in orderly arrangement ; and we must lastly refine the mind by art, methodize what it has thought and learned, and shape it into form and gracefulness, and beauty. I would not bestow too much attention upon Art, for it has a tendency to mechanize and unspiritualize the mind ; but I would keep it in its due place, and perpetually fix attention upon the more important elements beyond it. Above all, I would instruct the mi nd of the student in truth and virtue. I would say to him, "Let truth be your aim, and to that, and that only, bow. You have but one cause to serve ; yes, understand me well ! you must serve the cause of goodness, and that cause alone, or your acquirements will be a curse to you rather than a blessing, and a re- proach rather than an honor. Recollect that as nothing more highly ennobles the character of man than the right use of the faculty of speech, so nothing degrades it lower than the employment of this power to vile pur- poses. If you condescend to stoop from the lofty pedes- tal of honor, and employ your strength to promote vice and error, mistake me not ! you will be made bitterly to feel your degradation, and the shafts you point at truth will turn into your own bosom. He who stirs the pas- 144 THE ORATOR. sions of men to enlist them on the side of infidelity and vice, must necessarily lead a life of hypocrisy and dis- simulation ; and who will say that such a life can be a happy one ? while, on the other hand, he who uses his faculties to promote virtue and Jionor, can- not fail to live a life of peace and pleasure, of peace that is steady and unvarying, of pleasure that is pure- and holy. Let your aim,'' I would say to him in conclusion, *^be the interest and the good of those around you ; let the means you employ be honor and sincerity, and then you will find, that in seeking the happiness of your fellow-beings you have taken the best and most effectual method to advance your own. PART IL-OUTLINES OF DEBATES. QUESTION: Which Does the greater Injury to Society, the Miser or the Spendthrift ? It may be contended that the Miser does more to injure society than the Spendthrift : I. Because he withdraws capital from circulation, while the other causes its distribution. II. Because he leads people by the influence of ex- ample to devote themselves to Mammon- worship, than which there is not a more wicked or per- nicious crime. III. Because his avarice tends to abridge the comforts of those around him, to limit the education of his children in knowledge and virtue, and to set an example of selfishness to the world. IV. Because the hoarding of money tends to the pro- duction of that worst state in which a nation can be placed, when a few are rich and the many poor. V. Because the love of money being the root of all evil, avarice tends to nourish and develop every sort of crime. On the other hand it may be argued that* the Spend- thrift is more injurious to society than the Miser: 146 THE MISER OR THE SPENDTHRIFT. I. Inasmuch as, by distributing capital, he prevents those large accumulations which are the bases of all extensive enterprises in trade or commerce. II. Because he, in effect, discourages industry and fru- gality in the heads of families; for what father would hoard for a spendthrift son ? III. Because he brings to utter ruin those who are de- pendent upon him. IV. Because his miserable courses tend to give us a degraded and vile idea of our species, and so to check friendship and sympathy. V. Because he offers a bad example to the world. Upon the question generally, it may be said that the injury done to society by these two characters is nearly* if not entirely, equal. The Spendthrift is as far away from virtue on the one side, as the Miser is on the other; and the effects of prodigality are as bad as those of avarice. The characters are extremes, and are seemingly set up by nature to be mutually counteractive. Thus the world is generally secured from the effects of hoarding avarice by the fact that miserly fathers usually leave their for- tunes to spendthrift sons. The accumulated heaps of one generation are generally dispersed in the next; and in this manner the equilibrium of character is tolerably well preserved. See M'Culloush's Political Economy, pp. 504-509. Adam Smith's Wealth of Na'ions. Mammon. By the Rev. J. Harris, D. D. Mackenzie's History of Frugality. Ramsay. On the Distribution of Wealth. Torrens. On the Production of Wealth. IS UNIVERSAL PEACE PROBABLE. 147 QUESTION : Is Universal Peace probable ? The supporters of the negative might say : I. That the present appearance of the world gives no promise that Universal Peace is at all to be expected. Ambition is opposed to ambition, interest to interest ; and many other sources exist from which quarrels may be anticipated. Disputed territories, mutual jealousies, irritated distrust, and many other causes of hostility, threaten war daily, even in Europe. II. That the principle of hatred and contention implanted in all our hearts cannot fail to produce and foment quarrels, which only appeals to arms can decide. III. That as a large class in every community finds pleasure and interest in war, it is scai^cely possible that war can ever cease. IV. That while the human race exists, sources of con- tention cannot altogether cease ; but social, domes- tic, political, or foreign discontent, will always need to be repressed by military strength. Ill the affirmative it may be argued : I. That although the present appearance of the world may lead us to think that existing contentions can only be settled by the sword, the increasing infre- • quency of war gives promise of Universal Peace at some future time. II. That civilization brings a growing conviction that war is unjustifiable ; and therefore that when civili- zation is perfect, this conviction will be universal, and war will be abolished. III. That as men have at length found that war is in the liighest degree inexpedient, and destructive k) the best interests of the hjiman race, considerations of policy insure its gradual and certain abolition. 148 BONAPARTE, WATT, OR HOWARD. IV. That although there are in the human heart princi- ples of strife and hatred existing, the Christian religion is gradually rooting out these seeds of evil, and planting principles of Peace instead, which will not cease to grow until they have covered the whole earth. V. That we have clear Scriptural assurances that Uni- versal Peace shall one day prevail. The following among others may be cited : I. The prophetical description of our Saviour, namely, ' * The Prince of Peace. " II. The anthem of the Angels at the birth of Christ, ''''Peace and good will among men." III. The dying bequest of our Lord, ^^ Peace I leave with you ; my peace I give unto you." IV. The distinct prophecy of Isaiah that ^ ' Nation shall not rise against nation, neither shall there be war any more." See Lord Jeffrey's Espays, vol. i. pp. 91-93. Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. pp. 330-327. The Tracts of the Peace Society. Chalmers' Works. Discourse on War. Robert Hall. On War, vol. i. Channing. On War. Pyne's Law of Kindness. Captain Sword and Captain Pen. By Leigh Hunt. QUESTION : Which was the greatest man, Bonaparte, W^^t, OR Howard 'i The supporters of Bonaparte might say that he was the greatest because he had the largest capacity and genius ; proofs of which are^tobe found in that rare com- bination of abilities which made him, from the condition BONAPARTE, WATT, OR HOWARD. 149 of a subordinate soldier, rise to be the humbler of Europe, and the Emperor of France ; and which enabled him to settle and successfully govern his country at the most disorderly and chaotic period in her history. The supporters of Watt might say that he was the greatest man because he did the most to benefit mankind. Napoleon was more dazzling, but Watt was more useful. By applying and improving the steam-engine he conferred lasting advantages upon the human race, while Na- poleon's brilliant career was an injurious and destructive one to man. The question of the comparative greatness of Napoleon and James Watt depends upon whether vast genius not turned to good account is greater than inferior genius beneficially employed. The favorers of Howard might say that, as moral goodness is the only true greatness, his pure philanthropy and generous charity make him a greater man than either the giant-souled Napoleon, or the ingenious and useful Watt. That Howard's unceasing efforts to conquer cruelty in prison discipline prove him to be both of higher courage than Napoleon, and of more value than James Watt ; for his bravery was the bravery of soul, while Bona- parte's was only the bravery of physical courage ; and his philanthropy was the philanthropy of heart which led him to desire the moral good of his fellow-creatures, while James Watt's endeavors were merely directed to the improvement of man's physical condition. Opportunity may be taken in this discussion to show : I. The detestaljility, horrors, and inexpediency of war ; of which Napoleon's history furnishes the most striking instances on record. II. The vast good that a philanthropic spirit can effect; for to Howard's endeavors our improved, but not yet perfect, prison discipline is mainly owing. 150 CLASSICS OR MATHEMATICS. III. That brilliancy is not be mistaken for greatness, as true greatness never exists without goodness. See Robert Hall on Bonaparte. Foster's character of Howard. Lord Jeffrey's Works, vol. iv. pp. 551-556. Carlyle's Hero Worship. " The Hero as King." Emerson's Essay on Heroism. Burke on the Character of Howard (Speeches). Channing's Character of Napoleon. Arago's Life of Watt. QUESTION: Which are of the greater importance in Educa- tion, THE Classics or Mathematics ? To give a wide and useful scope to this discussion, it may be as well to let the word ' ' Classics " stand for * ' General literature, " and ' ' Mathematics " for ' ' Science." The supporters of the Classics might contend that they are of greater value than Mathematics : I. Because they tend to widen thought, while Mathe- matics tend to concentrate it. II. Because they lead to the cultivation of all the facul- ties of the mind, while Mathematics simply exer- cise the perceptive and reasoning powers. III. Because they promote the enlargement and spiritual- ization of the mind, while Mathematics tend to make it mechanical, narrow, and dogmatical. IV. Because they fill the mind with images of beauty which tend both to mental happiness and moral goodness, while Mathematics simply fill th^ mind with facts, and close it against, all speculative philosophy. V. Because they promote inquiry and faith, while Mathematics tend to make the mind reject as false whatever cannot be proved by logic to be true. CLASSICS OR MATHEMATICS. 151 VI. Because by exercising and stimulating thought, they lead to the elevation of mental over mechani- cal force, while Mathematical science tends to sub- jugate spiritual to material power. The defenders of Mathematics might say that they are more beneficial to the mind than the Classics : I. Because they are the best means we possess of arriv- ing satisfactorily at physical, mental, and even moral, truth. II. Because, by placing facts in due mutual relation, they form the only sure foundation on which we can build our Knowledge, our Faith, and our Hopes. III. Because, by cultivating the study of Science, they lead to the discovery of mechanical, mineral, and other material forces, which mere speculation would never have found out. IV. Because, by fixing the mind on fact and proof, they give it firmness, clearness, and solid principles ; and render it less liable to be misled. V. Because, by filling the mind with absolute Knowl- edge, they form the starting-points to truth ; while mere speculative thought mostly leads toward be- wilderment and error. VI. Because they train the mind into steady, earnest, and continuous habits of thought; and thereby pro- duce patience, constancy, determination, order, quickness of apprehension, foresight, and judg- ment. VII. Because they restrain that tendency to credulity, speculativebelief and visionary Philosophy, toward which mere untrained thought generally leads. See Brougham on Subjects of Science, as connected with-Natural The- ology. Chalmers' Christian Revelation as connected with Modern Astron- omy. 152 ARE BRUTES ENDOWED WITH REASON. See Whevvcirs Astronomy and General Physics in reference to Natural Theology. Whewell on University Education. Sidney Smith's Works, vol. i. pp. 183-199. Robt. Hall on Classical Learning. Leslie on Mathematical Science, Playfair on Mathematical Science. QUESTION: Are Brutes endowed with Reason ? The affirmative may be supported by arguments from experience and from analogy. Reason may be defined to be the power of drawing conclusions from premises, of perceiving differences, and of forming a judgment from ideas derived from observa- tion or memory ; and the following (among other) instan- ces may be adduced to show that animals possess this ^ower : I. If a dog be beaten for stealing meat from a butcher's shop, he will never pass that shop again unless he be compelled . Here the recollection of his punish- ment clearly operates with him as a reason to pre- vent him from incurring the chance of a second beating. tl. If an elephant, a horse, or a dog be injured, he will always recollect the injurer, and if possible punish him. Instances of this kind are to be found in every work on natural history. Here we see a rational recollection, and a rational appreciation of revenge as a satisfaction and punishment. III. In the skill of the bee, the provident habits of the ant, the sagacity of the dog, and the ingenuity (among other instances) of the monkey, we clearly see the evidence of constructive, rational. ARE BRUTES ENDOWED WITH REASON. 153 and mental power, which must own a much higher source than mere physical life, and which we can not help imputing to the existence of the same intellectual intelligence (the same in essence,' though different in degree) that is possessed by man. On the other side it may be said : I. That the rational faculties which appear to exist in the Brute Creation are simply the faculties of in- stinct,*and not of Eeason at all. II. That instinct is a species of intelligence quite differ- ent fi'om Reason, consisting mostly of an intuitive perception of facts, while Reason is the power that leads us to discover truth by search. III. That the ideas of animals are essentially different from those of man, inasmuch as they are simply perceptive, while man's are both perceptive and reflective. IV. That as Reason includes a perception of moral good and evil, and as the Brute Creation has no such perception, Brutes are not endowed with Reason. V. That between the least intelligent of Men, and the most intelligent of Brutes, there are such striking differences, that the Brute and the Man must be of essenti'ally different natures. VI. That man's place as "lord of the brute" clearly implies superiority and difference of rational power. A very interesting discussion might arise here upon the immortality of Brutes ; one side maintaining : That if the principle of life which animates the Brute Creation can be forever extinguished, there can not but arise a fear that man's existence may be alto- gether annihilated, too. 154 IS DUELING JUSTIFIABLE. The other side replying : That it is not the mental, but the moral part of man's being" that is promised immortality ; and that (with King David, who says, that "in the grave all our thoughts perish ") we have every ground for believ- ing that it is not the mental faculties, but the moral perceptions^ that will survive this life. Occasion may be taken in this debate to inculcate kind- ness and humanity toward the Brute Creation. See Jesse's Anecdotes of Dogs. • Jesse's Gleanings in Natural History. History and. Instincts of Animals.— Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia. Gregory'8 Comparative View of Men and Animals. Waterton's Essay on Natural History. Dr. Chalmers' Sermon on Cruelty to Animals. Toplady's Speech on the Immortality of Brutes. Aime Martin's Work on Education— Translated by Lee. Carpenter's Instinct in Animals. Sharon Turner's Sacred History of the World. Vestigesof Creation, pp. 333-336. Hume's Essay on the Reason of Animals, vol. ii. pp. 111-117. Reid on the Mind, p. 489. " On instinct." Fletcher's Cruelty to Animals. QUESTION: Is Dueling justifiable ? Dueling may be defended : I. Because it is the only method by which honor can be protected, avenged, or satisfied. II. Because, it being a custom of the state of society in which we find ourselves, we are bound to submit to it. III. Because it is a useful check upon those vices of so- ciety which do not come within the range of law; such as insult, Ubertinism, and falsehood. IS DUELING JUSTIFIABLE. 155 IV. Because it is a test of personal courage, and because it is a plain and intelligible law to the effect, that what a man says or does, he must, when called on, be ready to defend. The opponents of dueling may contend that is un- justifiable : I. Because it fails to accomplish its pretended aims, inasmuch as (whatever its aim may be) it neither avenges nor satisfies wounded honor. II. Inasmuch as it makes an appeal to right a simple game of chance. III. Inasmuch as it gives the injured no redress, and the injurer power to do more mischief, IV. Because, although a law of society, it is a wicked and absurd law, and is therefore not binding. V. Because the vices which it is presumed to hold in check are not abated by it, and could better be restrained by law. VI. Because it proves, not courage, but foolhardiness ; for what but foolhardy can we call a man who flings his soul to perdition, rather than disobey a foolish custom of society ? VII. Because it is an irrational and most ridiculous practice. VIII. Because it is totally opposed to all molality. IX. Because it is a direct violation of the laws of God. See Carlyle'8 Sartor Resartus, Writings of Sidney Taylor, pp. 357, 362, 366. Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy. Chillingworth against Dueling. Dr. Millingen on Dueling. Brande's Dictionary of Science, &c. Art. " Duel," and the Works there quoted. 156 IS MODERN EQUAL TO ANCIENT ORATORY. QUESTION: Is Modern equal to Ancient Oratory ? This question resolves itself into two distinct consid- erations : I. Whether modern is equal to ancient Oratory in Style f and II. Whether it is equal in Aim and Effect ? As to Style (which includes all that is meant by com- position) it may be said by the favorers of ancient Ora- tory, that nothing of modern times equals the style of Demosthenes, ^schinos, and Cicero. The simplicity, the grandeur, the dignity, the power, the intellectual and moral force of these great orators, are altogether without parallel in modern ages. The orations of ^schines and Demosthenes "On the Crown," and the speeches of Cicero for Milo, may be instanced as containing the most perfect specimens of oratorical style that the world pos- sesses. Demosthenes, for bold simplicity of thought, jEschines, for energetic statement and strength of de- nunciation, and Cicero, for his exquisitely lucid, pic turesque, and earnest style, are (it may be said) quite unrivaled by any subsequent orators. In comparison with these great speakers as to style, it may be asserted that among modern orators, speakers are to be found who are as great in some separate quali- ties, if not in all. Thus it may be maintained, for in- stance, that Lord Chatham was as dignified and earnest as Demosthenes, that Fox was as simple and massive, and that Burke was as vehement and manly. So, also, it may be argued that Sheridan was as pointed and sar- castic as Cicero, Curran as lofty and dignified, Brougham as crushing and severe, Bossuet as impressive, and Can- ning as felicitous in illustration and argument. Grant- ing, therefore, that no single modern orator is alone as great as either of the speakers referred to, it may be IS MODERN EQUAL TO ANCIENT ORATORY. 157 safely said, that they separately exhibit the same quali- ties and excellences of style. It may be further said, on behalf of modern Oratory in general, that in richness of illustration and beauty of style (by beauty is here meant appropriateness of im- agery, and elegance of language), the modern Orators far surpass their great progenitors. The vast accumula- tions of knowledge and the incalculable produce of new mines of thought which have been gathered together in modern times, have given to our Orators resources of reference, illustration, and proof, which the Orators of old were entirely without. If a speech of Demosthenes or Cicero be perused by the side of a speech of Brougham or Macaulay, it will be seen at once that where the olden Orator \vas obliged to appeal to abstract reason, the mod- ern Orator is enabled to refer triumphantly to irresistible facts, in support of his position. As to aim and effect^ it may be said by the favorers of ancient Oratory that the endeavors of Demosthenes to rouse effeminate Greece against the invader of her freedom, and the un- ceasing efforts of Cicero to keep inviolate the rights and privileges of his fellow-countrymen, are aims as high., if not higher, than any seen in modern times. The effect these Orators produced is seen, not merely in the ap- plause and success w^hich they immediately experienced, but in the intelligible and striking fact that they have re- mained the acknowledged masters and models of speech from their day to our own. The favorers of modern Qratory may assert, on the other hand, that our own speakers have aimed higher and done more. They may point triumphantly to the efforts of Brougham to exterminate the slave trade ; of Pitt, to procure the honor and independence of his coun- try; of Chalmers, to connect, and mutually prove, natural and revealed religion; of Grattan, to demand right and justice for his injured nation ; of Komilly, to 158 THE CHARACTER OF NAPOLEON. reform our barbarous laws; and of Sheridan, to keep pure the administration of justice. A striking result in favor of Modern Oratory may be obtained by comparing the celebrated Oration of Cicero against Verres, with Sheridan's Invective against Warren Hastings. Cicero declaims against Verres because he has infringed the rights of citizenship, the ^eculmv privileges of the Roman State. His great point against the culprit is, not that he has condemned a Roman citizen to death, but to death like a slave. He calls on the Senate to chas- tise, not the cruelty, not the injustice, not the treason, of Verres, but his contempt and insolence. In a word, he speaks for Privilege and Pride. But Sheridan, in his denunciation of Hastings, takes far loftier ground. Spurning the arbitrary distinctions of "citizen" and "slave," he takes his stand on the broad field of humanity, and demands equality of rights for all who bear the human form. He ranks the man above the citizen, and so shows himself the noble Orator. See Brougham's Essay on the Eloquence of the Ancients.— Collected Works, vol. iv. Sheridan's Panegyric on Demosthenes. Whately's Rhetoric. Hume's Essay on Eloquence. QUESTION : Is THE Character of Napoleon Bonaparte to be Admired ? No character being absolutely bad or good, we can only arrive at judgment of character by striking a bal- ance between the good qualities and the bad ones ; this must, therefore, be done in the case before us. THE CHARACTER OF NAPOLEON. 159 The points to be admired in Bonaparte's character are: I. His clear ^ keen, vigorous intellect. This enabled him to see the position of France at the time of the Revolution, to profit by the emergency, _^ and to raise upon the ruins of faction, a strong and popular throne. It is seen in his choice of generals and statesmen, in his manner of disposing a field of bat- tle, in his military maneuvers, in his political gov- ernment, in his celebrated Code Napoleon, in the rapidity of his conceptions, and the inexhaustible- ness of his inventions. II. His energy of purpose and action. There was no trifling or wavering in him; he instantly executed the plans he conceived. Dithculties never daunted, but always stimulated, him. Witness his crossing of the Alps, his expedition to Egypt, his march to Moscow. III. His courage, boldness^ and presence of mind. He never falters, never shrinks ; he is always cool, guarded, and himself. His schemes are invariably massive, great, and daring. In brief, to use the words of Channing, the greatness of Napoleon was the greatness of action ; the sublime power of conceiving bold and extensive plans, and of constructing and bringing to bear on them a complicated machinery of means, energies and arrangements. He raised himself from obscurity to a throne, and changed the face of the world. So far he was great, and such greatness we must admire. But he had many faults : notice first — His inhumanity. He was perfectly reckless of human life, and would sacrifice all under his command to gain his ends. Jaffa, Acre, and the murders of Due D'Enghien, Wright, and Pichegru, will soil his name forever. 160 THE CHARACTER OF NAPOLEON. He was a violator of all law. He seized upon independent neutral states, such as Leghorn, Parma, and Modena, and compelled tribute from them. He robbed Italy of her treasures of art, usurped the throne of France for ambition's sake alone, and respected no will or right but his own. He deliberately injured Ms country. True, he rebuilt Pans ; true he adorned it with stolen treasures ; but look at his conscriptions ! at the blood- shed of millions in his battles; at his espionage; at his enslavement of the press. He was as wickedly ambitious a man as ever lived. Why was he not content as Emperor of France ! To be that was enough ; but he aimed at being Emperor of the world, and thus showed an ambition without a parallel. Mark further his vanity and egotism. His selfishness almost surpassed belief ; he did all for himself ; thought of none else. He regarded himself as the greatest of men, as something unconquerable and almost divine. This overweening vanity is well seen in his remark to the King of Holland ; ' ' Recol- lect that your first duty is toward ME, your second toward France. Napoleon exhibited further great want of human sym- pathy and affection ; proof of which is to be found in many remarkable instances, but chiefly in his treatment of his wife and mother. Much, however, maybe said in defense of Napoleon on many grounds : I. He was called to action at the time of terror and revolution, and was placed in circumstances of cruelty and selfishness which could not fail to demoralize him. EXECUTION OF CHARLES THE FIRST 161 II. He was called upon to rule while too young to govern. III. He was bred to a military life, the worst possible school of morality. IV. At his time the immoralities of politicians and war- riors were not only not reprobated, but admired and applauded. Falsehood was called state-craft, and the atrocities of war were denominated glories. See Channiiig.— Character of Bonaparte. Col. Mitchell's Fall of Napoleon. Charles Phillips's Character of Napoleon. Sir W. Scott's Life of Napoleon. Bourrienn's Memoirs of Napoleon. Hazlitt's Character of Napoleon. Brougham's Statesmen of the Reign of George HI. (Second Series) vol. ii. "Napoleon." Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. p. 90 et seq. QUESTION : Was the |]xecution of Charles the First Justifi- able ? The point that first arises here is, whether death is ever a justifiable punishment ? for if it be not^ then what- ever Charles may have done, the destruction of him was wrong. The tendency of modern feeling is, perhaps, against the infliction of death at all; but we must not judge by modern feeling. The theory and practice of the period when Charles suffered were unhesitatingly in favor of Capital Punishment. The act, therefore, judged by the light of the age when it was performed, is in itself unobjectionable, and its propriety or impro- priety depends not at all upon abstract considerations. The question we have principally to try is whether the conduct of Charles was worthy of death, according to the morality of the time. 163 EXECUTION OF CHARLES THE FIRST. The supporters of the aflBrmative may say : That Charles, by making war upon his people, committed an act of aggression on the public life, which was fully as heinous as an attempt at individual murder. The asserters of the negative may reply : That Charles was driven by opposition and by evil counsel into the course he took, and that when he commenced war he did so in the firm and conscientious belief that he was doing right ; in which case the wicked motive that animates the malicious murderer is by no means chargeable upon him. The justifiability of King Charles' execution may further be considered as it is affected by considerations of policy. It may be urged on the one side : That the liberty, well-being, indeed existence, of the people of England, depended upon the execution of Charles. While he was in power, the British people were subject to arbitrary and unconstitutional tyranny, were taxed in their pockets, coerced in their religion, threatened in their lives. There was no hope that he would amend, if he were restored, for he showed no remorse and promised no reform. He might have been kept in captivity, but this would have plunged England into continual civil war for his sake. To destroy him was to give a death-blow to his party, and to give England its only chance of peace and order. On the other side it may be maintained : That subse- quent events entirely prove the impolicy of the act. So far from destroying the royalist party, it strengthened their ranks by attaching to it all who pitied the tragical end of Charles ; a party ever increasing during the Pro- tectorate of Cromwell, and strong enough after Crom- well's death to bring back a far worse king, in the person of Charles the Second. It may be fairly questioned whether the licentiousness of the Second Charles did not entail upon the English BARBAROUS OR CIVILIZED MAN. 163 people a far greater amount of evil than would have re- sulted from the continued tyranny of Charles the First. A very important question hearing on this matter is, as to the right of the destroyers of Charles. On one side it may he said : Who made them his judges ? By what right, constitutional or moral, did they arraign and destroy him ? And on the other hand it may he replied : That tyranny always justifies rebellion, and aggression always confers the right of retaliation. The emergency of self-preservation was, it may be said, the right under which Charles's judges tried and punished him. See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. p. 12. Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 135-187 ; 425-490. Statesmen of the Commonwealth, in "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopasdia." Lady Willoughby's Diary of the Time of Charles the First. • Macaulay's Hist ry of England. Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion. Cattermole's Civil War. Aikin's Charles the First. Mrs. Hutchinson's Memoirs. Forster's Life of Cromwell. • Miss Mitford'^ Tragedy " Charles the First." QUESTION : Which is the more happy, a Barbarous, or a Civ- ilized, Man ? It may be said that the savage is more happy than the civilized man, inasmuch as : I. His free and unrestrained life makes him physically healthier. 11. His wants are more simple and more easily satis- fied. III. He is free from the cares, anxieties, jealousies, fears, and ambitions of civilized life. 164 BARBAROUS OR CIVILIZED MAN. IV. He is less liable to disorder, either of body or of mind. y. He is free from the vices of society : — intemperance, hypocrisy, deceit, and fraud. In opposition it may be said : I. That the freedom of life which the savage enjoys is but a poor substitute for the comforts of shelter, clothing, and food, which the civilized man enjoys ; the best proof of which is found in the universal fact, that whenever the savage gets within reach of the civilized man's habits, he adopts them; while the civilized man is never attracted toward the habits of the savage. II. That, although the wants of the savage are simpler and fewer than the wants of the civilized man, his pleasures are also fewer, for he enjoys none of the delights of thought, of affection, of social happi- ness, of hope, and of religious belief. III. That, although he is free from the anxieties of life, he is also without knowledge of its privileges and pleasures, both of sense and soul. IV. That, although he is less liable to physical and men- tal disease, he is also less capable of enjoyment. He has no disease, but he has no happy health ; neither his bodily nor his spiritual powers are turned to good account. V. That, although he is partially free from the vices of society, he is also unacquainted with its virtues. Be- nevolence, pity, honor, heroism, constancy, endu- rance, generosity, patriotism, fortitude, and resist- ance to temptation, are all unknown to him ; while he is free from the thorns he is also without the flowers of life. The state of the savage is darkness — darkness mental and moral. The thrilling delights of thought, of reflec- BARBAROUS OR CIVILIZED MAN. 165 tion, and of judgment, are never his ; his best ideas are vague, idle, dreamy, and useless. The unspeakable pleasures of home, of love, of relationship, of friendship, and of social intercourse, are altogether unknown by him. The happiness that waits on an approving con- science, the ineffable pleasure that follows a good deed done, or a bad deed avoided, is a stranger to the savage breast. Above all, the exquisite happiness the civilized man derives from religious impression and belief, the unutterable joy which he feels in the conviction that he has a kind Father in Heaven on whom he can implicitly rely, and in the certainty that he is immortal, and shall never taste of death, all this is entirely unfelt and un- known to the barbarian. The poet says : "Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." But ignorance is never bliss. See The History of Civilization. By W. A. Mackinnon, Esq , M. P. Hobbes's Treatise on Human Nature.—'* Love of Knowledge.'* Rousseau's "Discours." Hume's Essays, " On Refinement in the Arts," vol. i. p. 285. Goldsmith's Citizen of the World, Letters XI. and LXXXII, Angas's Savage Life. PART IE-QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 1. Which was the greater Man. Oliver Cromwelt or Napoleon Bonaparte f See Carlyle's Letters and Speeches of Cromwell. Channing's Character of Napoleon, Southey's Cromwell. Scott's Life of Napoleon, Mitchell's Fall of Napoleon. Hazlitt's Life of Napoleon. Carlyle's Hero-Worship. ^' The Hero as King." Robert Hall on Bonaparte. Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 180-187. Hallam's Constitutional History. Lord Brougham's Statesmen in the Reign of George III. " Napoleon." 2. JVas the Execution of Mary Queen of Scots Justifiable f See History of England.— Hume. P. Fraser Ty tier's Life of Mary. Miss Strickland's Letters of Mary. Bell's Life of Mary. Mrs. Jameson's Life of Mary. Robertson's History of Scotland. Edinburgh Review, vol. xliv. p. 37. Miss Benger's Life of Mary. Note. — ^This discussion will embrace the following considerations : For what crimes did Mary suffer ? Did she commit the offenses al- leged against her ? And had the law of England any jurisdiction over her ? ^ QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 167 3. Hxis the Invention of Gunpowder been of benefit to Mankind ? See Channing on War. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. Ixv. Edinburgh Review, vol. v. p. 471. Wilkinson's Engines of War. Note. — It is intended to inquire by this question, Whether Gun- powder, by making war more dreadful and abhorrent, has not tend- ed to lead mankind to its discontinuance ? whether, in fact, perfection in War does not necessarily lead to the preference of Peace ? The use of Gunpowder in Mechanics may be taken into consider- ation with advantage to the discussion. 4. WJiich is the more valuable Member of Society, a great Mechanician or a great Poet f See Channing on the Age. Emerson's Essays. Edinburgh Review, vol xlvi. p. 365. , vol. xlvii. pp. 184-202. M'CuUoch's Geographical Dictionary. Art. ** British Em- pire." M'Cfllloch's PoHtical Economy. Passim, Note. — This question turns upon the comparative values of a Great Doer and a Great Thinker, and lies between the utility of Me- chanics and Morals ; of Physics and Metaphysics. It is the belief of many of the chief writers of the day, that our age is too mechanical, and needs to be spiritualized ; this debate will open that question. 5. Which was the greater Orator, Demosthenes or Cicero f See Lord Brougham's Essay on the Eloquence of the Ancients Collected Speeches, vol. iv. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxviii. p. 60. ■ , vol. xxxiii. pp. 226-246. ■ , vol. xxxvi. pp. 86-109. Dr. Anthon's Cicero. With EngHsh Commentary. Note.— The discussion of this question must include reference to style, aim, and effect ; artistical, mental and moral power. 168 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 6. Which is the more despicable Character, the ilypo- crite or the Liar I See Lord Bacon's Essay on Truth. Tillotson, on the Advantages of Truth and Sincerity. Bishop Hall. Character of the Hypocrite. Martin Chuzzlewit. Character of Pecksniff. 7. Has the Fear of Punishment, or the Hope of Reward, the greater Influence on Human Conduct f See Adam Smith's Theory of the Moral Sentiments. Mill on the Human Mind. Bentham's Springs of Action. Dugald Stewart on the Mind. Bentham's Kationale of Keward and Punishment.. Note. — This question involves considerations of great importance. It has to do with Education, Government, and Eeligion. The fear of punishment is the principle usually supposed to influence us ; and upon this principle, for the most part, education^ laws, and religious instruction are founded ; but riany of the wisest men are beginning to doubt this system. 8. 7s Corporal Punishment justifiable f See Edgeworth's Practical Education. Wilderspin's Education of the Young. Marshall's Military Miscellany. Hansard, " Debates on Flogging in the Army." Edinburgh Review, vol. xii. p. 420.. Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 195. 9. Was Brutus justified in killing Ccesar f See the Speech of Brutus in Shakspeare's Julius Caesar. Act III. Scene 2. * Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. p. 274, Yol. ii. pp, 318-325. Hume's Essays, vol. i. pp. 471, &c. ■ , vol. ii. p. 228. Note. — This question must be tried by the morals of the time when the act took place, and not by the present standard of morality. It is quite necessary to make this distinction. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 169 10. Should Emulation he encouraged in Education f See ^dge worth's Practical Education. Godwin's Eeflections on Education. Cowper's Tirocinium. Adam Smith's Theory of the Moral Sentiments. Coleridge's Lines, entitled, " Love, Hope^ and Patience in Education." Hobbes on Envy and Emulation. Sydney Smith's Works, vol. pp. 221-231. Note. — The system of prize-giving in education has supporters and opponents, both so determined, that a discussion upon the sub- ject cannot fail to be interesting and instructive. Philosophy and experience should both be referred to in the debate. 11. Which was the greater Poet^ Milton or Homer f See Coleridge on the Greek Poets. Channing on Milton. Blair's Lectures. « Campbell on Milton. Robert Hall on Poetic Genius. Thirlwall's Greece, vol. i. p. 24. Macaulay's Essays, vol. i. p. 1-32. Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature and Art. *' Epic Poetry," and the authorities there quoted. Note. — This debate will turn upon the facts that Homer is the more real, life-like, and human poet, while Milton is the more im- aginative, sublime, and spiritual ; the decision must depend upon which are the nobler qualities. 12. Is Military Renown a fit Object of Ambition f See Channing's Essay on War. Channing on Napoleon Bonaparte. Childe Harold, Canto I. War. Robert Montgomery's Picture of War. Robert Hall on the Miseries of War. 170 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 13. Is Ambition a Vice or a Virtue f See Hughes' Essay on Ambition in the ** Guardian." Lord Bacon's Essay on Ambition. Wolsey's Advice to Cromwell. Play of Henry VIII. Paradise Lost. Satan's Address to the Sun. Adam Smith on Misdirected Ambition. Bishop Watson's Sermons to Young Persons. M'Culloch's Political Economy, pp. 527-530. 14. Has Novel-reading a Moral Tendency f See Sir W. Scott's Criticisms on Novels and Eomances. Scott's Treatise on Komance. The Edinburgh Eevie"sf , vol. xxiv. pp. 310, &c. Akenside's Pleasures of Imagination. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iii. p. 440. , vol. iv. p. 517. Goldsmith's Citizen of the World, Letter LIII. Note. — It may seem that this question barely admits of discussion, for moral novels must, of course, have a moral tendency ; but at least the debate may serve to lead the debaters to a proper selection of novels. 15. Js the Character of Queen Elizabeth deserving of our Admiration f See Hume's History of England. Lucy Akin's Memoirs of Elizabeth. Sir W. Scott's Kenilworth— for a faithful Portraiture of Eliza- beth. Miss Strickland's Queens of England. Sharon Turner's History of Elizabeth's Keign. Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. pp. 282-284. Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. ii. pp. 1-34. 16. Is England rising or falling as a Nation f See Bacon's Essay on States : and his Essay on the Greatness of Kingdoms. Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. pp. 500, 501. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxi. pp. 22 et seq. M'Culloch's Statistics of the British Empire. Compare the Elements of Modern with the Elements of Ancient Prosperity. QtJESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 171 17. Has Nature or Education the greater Influence in the Formation of Character f See Locke's Thoughts on Education. Combe's Constitution of Man. Godwin on Education. Edgeworth on Education. Watts on the Mind. Aime Martin on Education. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. p. 138. 18. Which is the more valuable Metal, Gold or Iron f See lire's Dictionary of Arts, &c. Art. *'Iron." Leyden's Ode to an Indian Gold Coin, Jacob's Inquiry into the Precious Metals. Holland's Metal Manufactures, ''Lardner's Cabinet Cyclo- paedia." A Paper on the Uses of Gold, "Maunder's Universal Class Book : " also one on Iron. Note. — This is a question between Show and Value — between ornament and utility. 19. Is War in any case justifiable f See Sidney Smith's Sermons on ''Invasion." The Tracts of the Peace Society. Chalmers on the Hatefulness of War. Channing on War. Dr. Johnson's Thoughts on the Falkland Islands. Robert Hall on War. Burke on the Impeachment of Hastings. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxix. pp. 6-18. ^ vol. XXXV. p. 409. Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. pp. 320-327 ; iii. 200, 252. 20. Has the Discovery of America been beneficial to the World f See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 188-209. Article ''Colum- bus." Sidney Smith's Works, vol. i. pp. 280, 362. 172 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. See RobertBon's History of America. Washington Irving's Life of Cohimbiis. Martin's British Colonies. ' * North America." 21. Can any Circumstances justify a Departure from Truth ? See Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy. Beattie's Essay on Truth. Bentham's Principles of Morals. Bacon on Truth. Combe's Moral Philosophy. Robert Hall on Expediency. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iii. pp. 303-310. 22. Is Spo7^ting justifiable f See Sidney Smith's Works, vol. i. ** Game Laws." Strutt on the Sports and Pastimes of England, Walker's Manly Exercises. Walton on Angling. Christopher North's Recreations. Nimrod on ''The Chase, the Turf, and the Rod.' Scrope's Deer Stalking. Pamphlets by the Hon. G. Berkeley. 23. Does not Virtue necessarily produce Happiness, and does not Vice necessarily produce Misery in this Life f See Bentham's Rationale of Reward. Logan's Sermon — "There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." Melvill's Sermon on the same Text. Pope on Virtue. Macbeth's Soliloquy. James Harris on Virtue, Man's Interest. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 173 24. From which does the Mind gain the more Knowledge, Reading or Observation f See Gibbon's Abstract of his Eeadings. Lord Bacon on Study. Mason on 8elf-Cultnre. Todd's Student's Manual. Carlyle on Books. ''Hero-Worship." Channing on Self-Culture. Robert Hall on the Advantages of Knowledge. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxiv. p. 384. 25. Have the Gold Mines of Spain, or the Coal Mines of England, been more beneficial to the World f See Hood's Poem — ''Miss Kiimansegg," for a vivid description of the baneful influences of Gold. A Paper on the Uses of Gold, in "Maunder's Universal Class Book." M'CuUoch's Commercial Dictionaiy. Art. " Coal." Geographical Dictionary. Art. "British Em- pire." 2Q. Which was the greater General, Hannibal or Alex- ander f See Plutarch's Life of Alexander. History of Rome. Thirlwall's History of Greece. 27. Which was the greater Poet, Dryden or Pope f See Lord Jeffrey's l^ssays, vol. i. pp. 163-166. Sir W. Scott's Life of Dryden. Campbell's British Poets. Dr. Johnson's Parallel between Dryden and Pope. "Lives of the Poets." Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. pp. 520-522. Lord Byron's Strictures on Bowles. 174 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 28. Which has done the greater service to Truths Philoso- phy or Poetry f See Edinburgh Keview, vol. xxi. p. 294. Bacon's Advancement of Learning. Also the Works quoted in a previous theme in this Volume, Note. — Philosophy is here meant to signify intellectual wisdom ; and poetry, that inspiration respecting truth which great poets ex- hibit, and which seems to be quite independent of acquired knowl- . edge. Philosophy is cultivated reason, poetry is a moral instinct to- ward the True and Beautiful. To decide the question we must see what we owe on the one hand to the discoveries of our philosophers, to Socrates, Plato, Epicurus, Bacon, Newton, Locke ; and on the other, for what amount and sort of truth we are indebted to the in- tuition and inspiration of our poets, as Homer, Milton, Dante, Shakespeare. 39. Is an Advocate justified in defending a Man whom he knoivs to be Guilty of the Crime with which he is charged f See Sidney Smith's Works, vol. i. "On Counsel being allowed to Prisoners." Bentham. Judicial Establishment. Brougham on the Duty of a Barrister. Paley's Moral Philosophy. Punch's Letters to his Son. *'0n the Choice of a Pro- fession. Sidney Taylor's Works, vol. i. pp. 102, 103. 30. Is it likely that England will sink into the Decay which befell the Nations of Antiquity f See Playfair's Inquiry into the fall of Nations. Bacon's Essay on Kingdoms. Volney's Kliins of Empires. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Koman Empire. Southey's Progress and Prospects of Society. Vaughan's Age of Great Cities. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 175 31. A7^e Lord Byron's Writings Moral in their Ten- dency f See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 308-371. Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 311, 352. Sydney Taylor's Worts, pp. 288. Note. — The works of Byron must here be looked at as a whole, and not be judged by isolated passages ; they must be tried, too, by eternal, and not by fashionable, morality. 32. Do the Mechanicians of Modeim equal those of Ancient Times f See Fosbrooke and Dunham's Roman Arts and Manufactures. Greek Ditto. Wilkinson's Ancient Egypt. Pettigrew's Ditto. Maurice's Ancient Hindostan. Heeren's Historical Researches. 33. Which is the greater Civilizer, the Statesman or the Poet f See Debate No. I. p. 17. Carlyle's Hero Worship. *' The Hero as Poet." Guicciardini's Maxims ; Martin's Translation. Also the authorities quoted in Debate I. p. 33. 34. Which is the greater Writer, Charles Dickens or Lord Lytton f See The Edinburgh Review, the Quarterly, Blackwood's Maga- zine, Horn's Spirit of the Age Frazer's Magazine : various articles on the subject during the last twenty-five years. 35. Is the Principle of Utility a Safe Moral Guide ? See Bentham's Works ; Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iii. pp. 303- 310. Madame De Stael's opinions thereon. 176 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. See An able article on the subject in the New Monthly Magazine for 1837. Robert Hall on Expediency. Paley's Moral Philosophy. Hume's Essays. ''Why Utility pleases." Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. i. pp. 15, 16, 193 and 242. Dymond's Essays, pp. 4, 28, 123. 36. Was the Deposition of Louis XVI. justifiable. See Carlyle's, Thiers', Be Stael's and Macfarlane's History of the French Revolution. Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. pp. 3-352. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 40-45. Historic Fancies. By the Hon. G. Smythe. 37. Is the Use of Oaths for Civil Purposes expedient f See Bentham's Tract on the Needlessness of an Oath. Hansard. '' Debates in Parliament " on this subject. Dymond's JEssays, pp. 58-67. 38. Is a Classical Education Essential to an American Gentleman ? See Milton on Education. Whewell's University Education. Locke's Thoughts on Education. Amos's Lectures on the Advantages of a Classical Education. Robert Hall on Classical Learning. Sydney Smith's Works, vol. i. pp. 183-199. Edinburgh Review, vol. xv. pp. 41-51. 39. Are Colonies advantageous to the Mother Country f See M'Cillloch's Edition of Smith's Wealth of Nations. Merivale's Lectures on Colonies. Torrens on Colonization. Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. p. 325. Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. A.rt. ** Colonies," and the works there quoted. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 177 40. Which does the most to produce Crime — Poverty, Wealth, or Ignorance f See Dumas' Celebrated Crimes. Bacon on the Uses of Knowledge. Dr. Harris's Mammon. Foster's Essay on the Evils of Popular Ignorance. Robert Hall on the Hardships of Poverty. Sir James Mackintoshes Works, vol. iii. pp. 371-376. Edinburgh Review, vol. xlviii. pp. 176-181. 41. Is the Unanimity required from Juries conducive to the Attainment of the Ends of Justice f See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws. Bentham's Judicial Establishment. Bentham on Government and Special Juries. Stephens's Commentaries on the Law. Sydney Taylor's Works, pp. 392, 397, 413. 42. Is it not the Duty of a Government to establish a System of National Education f See'liOcke's Thoughts on Education. Wyse on Education. Channing on Education. James's Educational Institutions of Germany. Fox's Lectures on Education. Simpson's Popular Education. Godwin's Reflections on Education. Rousseau's Emile. Melvill's University Sermons. Robert Hall on Knowledge. Life of WiUiam Allen, pp. 84^86'. 43. Are the intellectual Faculties of the Dark Races of Mankind essentially inferior to those of the White f See Lawrence's Natural History of Man. Prichard's Physical History of Mankind. Buffon's Physical History. 178 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. See Elliotson's Physiology. Combe on the Constitution of Man. Also Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art, Art. ** Negroes ; " and the authorities there cited. 44. Is Solitary Confinement an effective Punishment f See Works on Prison in Question No. 45. Note.— This discussion should include the value of Solitary Con- finement as a punishment, and its reformatory effects on the criminal. 45. Should not all Punishment be Reformatory f See Bentham on Punishment. Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments. Report of the Prison Discipline Society. Howard's State of the Prisons. Romilly's Memoirs. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxii. pp. 1-26. Adshead's Prisons and Prisoners. 46. Is a Limited Monarchy, like that of England, the best form of Government f See Delolme on the Constitution. Hallam's Constitutional History. De Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Edinburgh Review, vol. ii. pp. 275, 276. Hume's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 129-131. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iv. pp. 4-18, 114, 115. 47. Is not Private Virtue, essentially requisite to Great- ness of Public Character f See Dymond's Essays, pp. 70-79. 48. Is Eloquence a Gift of Nature, or may it be acquired f See the works quoted in Debate X. p. 184. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 179 49. Is Genius an innate Capacity f 5 Grisenthwaite's Essay on Genius. Akenside's Pleasures of Imagination. Mill's Analysis of the Human Mind. Dr. Brown's Philosophy of the Mind. Locke on the Understanding. Dugald Stewart's Elements of the Human Mind. Eeid's Inquiry into the Mind. Sir. W. Temple's Essay on Poetical Genius. Kev. Robert Hall on Poetic Genius. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxiv. pp. 82-88. 50. Is a rude or a refined Age the more favorable to the Production of Works of Imagination f See Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 169. Southey's Progress of Society. Jeffrey's Essays. Campbell's British Poets. Hazlitt's Criticism on British Poetry. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxvii. pp. 410-412. , vol. xlii. pp. 306, 307. , vol. xlviii. pp. 50, 51. , vol. xxxiv. p. 449. 51 . Is the Shakespearian the Augustan Age of English Literature f See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. pp. 81-161 ; ii. pp. 315-342 ; iii. p. 446. Hazlitt's Criticism. Sir W. Scott on Poetry. Campbell's British Poets. Aiken's British Poets. Hume's History of England. Schlegel's Lectures on Literature. 52. Is there any Standard of Taste f See Alison on Taste. Burke on the SubUme and Beautiful. 180 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. See Lord Kame's Elements of Criticism. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. p. 75 ; ii. p. 228, &c. Edinburgh Review, xlii. pp. 409-414. Hume's Essays. 53. Ought Pope to rank in the First Class of Poets f See Campbell's British Poets. Aiken's Do. Byron's Defense of Pope, Bowles on Pope. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. Hazlitt on the British Poets. Roscoe's Edition of Pope. 54. Has the Introduction of Machinery been generally beneficial to Mankind f See Babbage on Machinery. Chalmer's Political Economy. M'Culloch's Political Economy, pp. 100-206. 55. Which produce the greater Happiness^ the pleasures of Hope or of Memory f See Rogers' Pleasures of Memory. Campbell's Pleasures of Hope. Abercrombie on the Moral Feelings. Adam Smith's Theory of the Moral Sentiments. Hume's Essay on the Passions. 56. Is the Existence of Parties in a State favorable to the Public Welfare f See The History of Party. By G. W. Cooke. . Essays written, in the Intervals of Business. " On Party Spirit." Hume's Essay on Parties, &c. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iv. pp. 34r-36. Edinburgh Review, vol. xx. p. 343. Dymond's Essays, pp. 117-119. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 181 57. Is there any Ground for believing in the ultimate Perfection and universal Happiness of fhe Human Race f See Southey's Progress and Prospects of Society. Channing's Works generally. Fichte's Destination of Man. Translated by Mrs. Sinnett. Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. pp. 85-92 , ii. p. 212, &c. 58. Is Co-operation more adapted to promote the Virtue and Happiness of Mankind ihan Competition^ See Channing's Remarks on Associations. Report of the Co-operative Knowledge Association. 59. Was the Banishment of Napoleon to St. Helena a justifiable Proceeding ? See Sir. W. Scott's Life of Napoleon. Alison's History of Europe. Hazlitt's Life of Napoleon. Montholon's Memoirs of Napoleon. Bourrienne's Do. History of the French Empire. By Thiers. Mrs. Abel's Napoleon. 00. Ought Persons to be excluded from the Civil Offices on account of their Religious Opinions f See Locke's Thoughts on Toleration. Sir G. Mackenzie on Bigotry. Bacon on Unity of Religions. T. Moore on Corruption and Intolerance. Coll. Works. Peter Plymley's Letters. * Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. p. 116. Sydney Smyth's Works, vol. i. p. 232 ; ii. pp. 1-23. Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. ii, pp. 432-502. Im QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 61. Which exercises the greater Influence on the Civili' zation and Happiness of the Human Race, the Male or the Female Mind f See Aime Martin on the Education of Mothers. Woman's Mission. Woman and her Master. By Lady Morgan. R. Montgomery on the Education of Females. Priests, Women and Families. By Michelet. Translated by Cocks. Female Disciple of the Early Christian Church. By Mrs. H. Smith. Sydney Smith's Works, vol. i. pp. 200-220. 62. Which did the most to produce the French Revolu- tion, the Tyranny of the Government, the Ex- cesses of the Higher Orders, or the Writings of Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau f See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 56-101. Carlyle*s French Revolution. Michelet's French Revolution. Alison's History of Europe. Thiers' History of the French Revolution. Mignet's Do. Smyth's Lectures on Modern History. Dr. Cooke Taylor's Revolutions in Europe. Macfarlane's French Revolution. De Stael's Considerations on the French Revolution. Burke on the French Revolution. Niebuhr's Age of the French Revolution. Sir James Mackintosh's Worfks, vol. iii. pp. 1-352. 63. Which ivas the greater Poet, Byron or Burns f See Carlyle's Hero-Worship. " The Hero as Poet." Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 389-421. Carlyle's Miscellanies. ''Burns." Lockhart's Life of Burns. Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 288, &c. See also Authorities quoted in Question 31, p. 215. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 183 64. Is there reasonable ground for believing that the Character of Richard the Third was not so Atrocious as is generally supposed f See Halsted's Richard the Third. Walpole's Historic Doubts. Bulwer's Last of the Barons. 65. Does Happiness or Misery preponderate in Life f See Dr. Johnson. Discontent the Common Lot of all Mankind. Jeremy Taylor's Sermon ** Via IntelligentisB." Sir G. Mackenzie's ''Happiness.'* Goldsmith on the Love of Life. Pope on Happiness. Thomson on the Miseries of Life. Pollock on Happiness. (Course of Time.) Paley on the Happiness of the World. (Natural Theology.) Burns's Poem, ''Man was made to Mourn." 6Q. Should the Press be totally Free f See Milton on the Liberty of the Press. Curran's Speeches for Rowan and Finnerty. Thoughts on Restraint in the Publication of Opinion. By the Author of Essays on the "Formation of Opinion." Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. pp. 245, 255, 290, 539. Lord Erskine's Speeches on the Liberty of the Press. Hume's Essay on the Liberty of the Press. Edinburgh Review, vol. xxv. pp. 112-124. Sidney Taylor's Works, pp. 122, 144, 222. 67. Do modern Geological Discoveries agree with Holy Writf See Ly ell's Elements of Geology. Buckland's Organic Remains. Dr. Pye Smith on Geology. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Phillips' Geology. Humboldt's Cosmos. ^ 184 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. See Ansted's Geology. G. F. Richardson on Geology. Ansted's Ancient. World. Also a series of Articles and Letters in the ** London Times," of September and October, 1845. 68. Did Circumstances Justify the first French Revo- lution f See Carlyle, and other authorities quoted at Questionl52. Paley on the Right of Rebellion. Alison's Europe. Arnold's Modern History. Taylor's Revolutions of Europe. Lamartine's History of the Girondists, 69. Could not Arbitration be made a Substitute for Warf See Peace Society's Tracts. Debates in the House of Commons, 1848-9. Dymond on War. Sir J. Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. pp. 320-327. Reports of the Peace Congress, 1848-1849-1850. Elihu Burritt's Bond of Brotherhood. 70. Which Character is the more to be admired; that of Loyola or Luther f See Macaulay's Works. Art. ''Loyola." Montgomery's "Luther." Burnet's History of the Reformation. D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation. Stebbing's History of the Reformation. The Jesuits, by Michelet. Michelet's Life of Lutner. The Jesuits as they were and are. Isaac Taylor's Loyola and Jesuitism. Sir James Stephens's Essays #n Ecclesiastical Biography, QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 185 71. Are there good Grounds for applying the Terra^^ ''dark'' to the Middle Ages^, See Hallam on the Middle Ages. Wright's Essays on the Middle Ages. Maccabe's History of England before the Revolution. Turner's History of England during the Middle Ages. Maitland's Dark Ages. Berrington's Literary History of the Middle Ages. Guizot on Civilization. 72. Which was the greater Poet, Chatterton or Cowper f See Southey's Life and Works of Cowper. Hayley's Do Gary's Edition of Cowper's Works. Hazlitt on the British Poets. Jeffrey's Essays, *' Cowper." Dr. Johnson's Remarks on Chatterton. 73. Are Public or Private Schools to be preferred f See Amos on Commercial Education. Arnold's Miscellaneous Works. Kay on the Education of the English People. Cowper's Tirocinium. Tremenheere's Reports on Education. 74. Is the System of Education pursued at our Univer- sities in accordance with the Requirements of the Agef See Whewell on University Education. Huber's English Universities. The Collegian's Guide. Debate on University Reform, House of Commons, 1850. Kay's Social Condition and Education of the English People. Edinburgh Review, vok Ixxx. 186 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 75. Is the Decline of Slavery in Europe attributable to moral or to economical Influences f See James's History of Chivalry. Hallam's Middle Ages. Macaulay's History of England. "Introductory Chapter.'* Historical Pictures of the Middle Ages. Guizot on Civilization. 76. Is Anger a Vice or a Virtue f See Paley's Mdral Philosophy. Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. Abercrombie on the Moral Feelings. Whewell's Elements of Morality. Brown's Ethics. Letters to my Unknown Friend. *' Temper." 77. Which ivas the greatest Hero, Alexander, Ccesar, or Bonaparte f See Plutarch's Lives. Carlyle's Hero-Worship. **The Hero as King." Niebuhr's History of Eome. Arnold's History of the Roman Commonwealth. Bourrienne's Napoleon. 78. Which was the worse Monarch, Richard the Third or Charles the Second f See Sharon Turner's Eichard the Third. Macaulay's History of England. Sidney's Diary of the Times of Charles the Second. Walpole's Historic Doubts. Halsted's Richard the Third. 79. Which was the greater man, Franhlin or Wash- ington f See Life and Times of Washington. Family Library, Bancroft's History of the United States. Macgregor's Progress of America, vol. i. Maunder's Biographical Treasury. Various Lives of Franklin. ,,. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 187 Is it probable that America will hereafter become the greatest of Nations f See Putnam's American Facts. Buckingham's America. Lyell's America. Macgregor's Progress of America. Combe's Notes on America. Hamilton's Men and Manners in America. Wyse's America. 81. Should not greater Freedom of Expression be en- couraged in Debate ? See Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature and Art. Art. "Eloquence," and the authorities there quoted. Cicero. I>e Oratore. Hume's Essay on Eloquence. 82. Which was the greater Poet, Chaucer or Spenser % See Hazlitt's British Poets. Cowden Clarke's Riches of Chaucer. Mitford's Edition of Spenser. Tyrwhitt's Edition of Chaucer. Bell's English Poets. 83, Is the Present a Poetical Age f See WarwicJi's Poet's Pleasaunce. Introduction to Leigh Hunt's "Imagination and Fancy.' Moir's Treatise on Poetry. Foster's Handbook of Modern European Literature. Montgomery's Lectures on Poetry. Macaulay's Essays. Lord Jeffrey's Essays. 84. Was Louis XPV, a great Man f See Miss Pardoe's Louis XTV. James's Life of Louis XIV. Michelet's History of France. 188 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. See Macaulay's History of England. Crowe's History of France. Voltaire's Age of Louis XIV. 85. Is it the Duty of a Government to make ampler Provision for the Literary Winters of the Nation f See Sonthey's Colloquies on Society. Grisenthwaite on the Claims of Genius. Forster's Life and Adventures of Oliver Goldsmith. , Which is the greater Poet, Mrs, Howitt or Mrs, Hemans ? See Kowton's Female Poets. Gilfillan's Literary Portraits. Mary Howitt. Lord Jeffrey's Essay on Mrs. Hemans. 87. Should 7iot all National Works of Art be entirely free to the Public f See Debates in British Parliament on the subject. Hamilton on Popular Education. 88. Are not the Rudiments of individual Character dis- cernible in Childhood ? See Essays on the Formation of Character. Combe on the Constitution of Man. Combe on Infancy. Early Influences. Jean Paul Bichter's Levana. 89. 7s not Satire highly useful as a Moral Agent ? See the Works of Rabelais. Duchat's translation. Leigh Hunt's Wit and Humor^ Eclectic Review, 1845. The Satirical Writers of the Middle Ages. Sterne on Satirical Wit. Hazlitt on the Comic Writers of England. Madan's Juvenal and Persius. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 189 90. Has not the Faculty of Humor been of essential Service to Civilization ? See Leigh Hunt's Wit and Humor. Mackinnon's History of Civilization. Carlyle's Miscellanies. Article on Richter. Hazlitt on the Comic Writers of England. Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy. 91. Is it not to Emigration that England must mainly look for the Relief of her Population f See Thornton's Over-population and its remedy. Merivale's Colonization and Colonies. Torrens on Emigration. Reports of Emigration Commissioners. Morning Chronicle. Articles on Emigration. 1850. Howitt's Colonization. Laing's Notes of a Traveler (second series). 92. Does National Character descend from age to age f See Carlyle on Characteristics. Prichard on the History of Man. Combe on the Constitution of Man. 93. Do the Associations entitled '' Art Unions^'' tend to promote the Spread of the Fine Arts f See Reports of Art Unions. Mrs. Jameson's Art and Morals, 94. Is it possible that the World will ever again possess a Writer as great as Shakespeare f See Dryden on Shakespeare. Hazhtt on Shakespeare • Schlegel on Shakespeare's Drama. Voltaire on Shakespeare. 190 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 95. Is the cheap Literature of the Age on the whole bene* flcial to general Morality ? See Publications of the Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge. Bacon on Knowledge. Chambers's PubUcations generally. 96. Should not Practice in Athletic Games form a part of every System of Education f See Walker's Manly Exercises. Eees's Cyclopaedia. Art. '* Gymnastics." Encyclopaedia Britannica. Art. ''Education." Craig's Philosophy of Training. Richter's Levana. 97. Is not the Game of Chess a good Intellectual and Moral Exercise f See Franklin's Morals of Chess. Walker's Chess Studies. Staunton's Chess Players' Handbook. Tomlinson's Amusements in Chess. , Have Mechanics^ Institutions answered the Expecta- tions of their Founders f See the City of London Magazine, 1842-43. Reports of the Manchester Athenaeum. Reports of the Liverpool Mechanics' Institution. Brougham on Mechanics' Institutions. Manual of Mechanics' Institutions. 99. Which is to be preferred^ a Town or a Country Life ? See Howitt's Rural Life of England. of Germany. Knight's London. Jesse's Literary Memorials of London. Scenes and Tales of Country Life. Blaine's Encyclopaedia of Rural Sports. MiUer's Pictures of Country Life. The Boy's Country Book. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 1^1 100. Which was the greater Poet^ Wordsworth or Byron f See Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 366-371. Edinburgh Review : on Wordsworth, and on Byron, Quarterly Review : on Wordsworth, and on Byron. Macaul'ay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 312-352. Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 288. Moore's Life of Byron. British and Foreign Review, vol. vii. 101. Which is the more baneful, Skepticism or Super- stition f See Reason and Faith, by H. Rogers. Reprinted from the Edin- burgh Review. Cairns on Moral Freedom. Coleridge's Inquiring Spirit. The Natural History of Enthusiasm, Fanaticism. Hare's Victory of Faith, 102. Is the average Duration of Human Life increas- ing or diminishing f See Porter's Progress of the Nation. M'Culloch's Statistics of the British Empire. Neison's Contributions to Vital Statistics. Reports of the Registrar-General. The Claims of Labor. Combe's Physiology. 103. Is Life Assurance at present conducted on safe and equitable Principles f See Baylis's Arithmetic of Life Assurance. Morgan's Principles and Doctrines of Assurance Pocock's Explanation of Life Assurances. De Morgan's Treatise on Probabilities. 192 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 104 . Are there good Reasons for supposing that the Ruins recently discovered in Central America are of very great Antiquity f See Stephens's Central America. Do Do. Second visit. Fosbroke's Encyclopaedia of Antiquities. Drnlop's Travels in Central America. 105. Do Titles operate beneficially in a Community f See Paley on Honor. Dymond's Works. Bentham on the Eationale of Keward. Macintyre's Influence of Aristocracies. Hamilton on Bewards. 106. Would not Pulpit Oratory become more effective if the Clergy were to preach extemporaneously f See Brougham on the Eloquence of the Ancients. Whately's Rhetoric. Spalding's Rhetoric. Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. Art. ** Eloquence." 107. Is not Intemperance the chief Source of Crime f^ See Adshead's Prisons and Prisoners. Life of William Allen. Doubleday's Statistical History of Englando Begg's Lectures on Depravity. 108. Should not the Study of History be more encour aged than it is f See M'Cullagh on History. Bigland on History. Carlyle's Miscellanies. History. Kew and Popular Books sent Free of Postage at Prices Annexed. GERMAN" AT A GLANCE. *'Spreclieii Sle Deutscli?'* A new system, on the most simple principles, for Uni- versal Self-Tuition, with English pronunciation of every word. By this system any person can become proficient in the German language in a very short time. It is the most complete and easy method ever published. By Franz Thimm. (Revised Edition.) Bound in paper cover. Price 25 cts. Bound in boards, with cloth back. Price 35 " FRENCH AT A GLANCE. "Parlez vous Fraiicals?" Uniform aad arranged the same as "German at a Glance,'* being the most thorough and easy system for Self-Tuition. (Revised Edition.) Bound in paper cover. Price 25 cts. Bound in boards, cloth back. Price 35 " SPANISH AT A GLANCE. <<«,Habla V. Espanol?'9 A new system for Self-Tuition, arranged the same as French and German, being the easiest method of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the Spanish language. (Revised Edition.) Bound in paper cover. Price 25 cts. Bound in boards, cloth back. Price 35 " ITALIAN AT A GLANCE. i "Parlate Italiano?" Uniform in size and style with German, French, and Spanish, being the most simple method of learning the ItUian language. (Revised Edition.) Bound in paper cover. Price 25 cts. Bound in boards, cloth back. Price. 35 *' SZCZIL8Z0B FUBL23BZ17a BOUSE, 29 and 31 Beekman Street, Hew 7v^ H. 7, P. O. Box 1X44. r^WAND POPULAR BOOKS SENT FREE OF POSTAGf AT Pn\Cl5 ANNEXED. '^ PAYNE'S BUSINESS EDUCATOR. An encyclopedia of the knowledge necessary to the conduct of busi- ness. Among the contents are : Ar, ep'^ome of tbe Laws of the various States of the Union, alphabetically ar/anged for ready reference ; Model Business Letters and Answers ; Lessons in Penmanship ; Interest Tables ; Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies and Debating Socie- ties ; Tables of Weights and Measures, Standard and Metric Systems ; Lessons in Type-Writing ; Local Forms for all Instruments used in Ordin- ary Business, such as Leases, Assignments, Cton- tracts, etc., etc.; Dictionary of Mercantile Terras ; Interest Laws of the United States ; Official, Military, Scu Mastic, Naval and Profes- sional Titles used in the U. S. ; How to Measure Land ; Value of Foreign Gold and Silver Coins in the United States ; iZ'lucational Statistics of the World; List of Abbreviations; Latin, French, Spanish and Italian Words and Phrases ; Rules of Pronuncia- tion ; Marks of Accent ; Dio*'onary of Synonjrms ; Copyright Law of the United States, etc., etc., miking in all the most complete self-edu» lator published, containing 600 pages, bound in extra cloth. Price, $9.00. ••Knov the Iet? and avoid litigation.*^ PAYNE'S LEGAL ADVISER. 4 new epitome of the Laws of the different States of our Union and those of the General Government of the United States, a id will be found invaluable to those who are forc^vl to appeal to the law, as well as to that large class who wish to avoid it. The whole is alphabeticaily arranged so as to make reference to it easy. This work also contains legal forms of Deeds, Mortgages, Contracts, Assignments, Power of Attorney, Acknowledg- ments, Builders' Contracts, Bills of Lading, Bills of Exchange, Affidavits, Certificate of In. corporation. Form* of Release, For S|^le Con. tracts, Responsibilities of Common Carriers, Proofs of Loss, Leases, Assignment of Lease. Articles of Partnership, Notice of Dissolution, Deed oC Trust, Bill of Sale, Wills, etc., etc. Large 12mo, cloth, 300 ^^^^' Price, S1.50. iSXCEI^SlOIt I»XJI31L,ISH1JVG XJOUBX:, ZQ and. 31 Be«kman Street, New York, N* T« NEW AND POPULAR BOOKS SENT FREE OFPOSTAGE AT PRICES ANNEXED. BROWN'S RECITER.—Containing 73 Selections ot popular recitations and Readings ; many of which have never before appeared in print. There are more funny selections in this book than serious ones, because the author has found that people like fun better than sadness. It contains 202 pages. Paper Cover, Price 25 cents ; cloth, 75 ceuts. EXCELSIOR LUMBER LOG BOOK AND Rapid Reckoner. — Containing tables of Board, Scant- ling and Plank Measure, Cubic Contents of Square and Round Timber, Cubic Contents of Round Timber when Squared, Logs Reduced to inch Board Measure, Standard Contents of Logs, Wood Measure in Load and Pile, Cost of Wood, Cost of Lumber, Weight of Grains per Bushel, Contents of Graneries, Bins, etc., Capacity of Cisterns, Weight of Seasoned Lumber per 1000 feet, Weight of Solids per Cubic Foot, Liquors per Gallon, Wood per Cord, Length of Nails and Number in a Pound, and other Valuable Tables, besides Miscellaneous and Useful Information, etc. Containing 200 pages. Boards, Cloth Back, Price, Postpaid 30 cents* NEW YARNS AND FUNNY JOKES.~Aii the latest ''Good Things" to tell your slower neighbor, to while away the tedium of the railroad or steamboat travel; to help you through a rainy day in the country; to cheer you in a hundred situations which are dull or depressing. It has a thousand good stories, aphorisms, epigrams, dialogues, catches, conundrums and sells; and it has a hundred and seventy funny pictures by the funniest men of the day — Chip Drake, Howarth, Carleton, Sheppard, Peterson, Burns, Bisbee, Smith, Spedon, etc., etc, in no large pages (quarto), in fancy cover. Post* paid accents. CASEY'S POPULAR RECITATIONS.-Fun. ny Stories and Comic Songs. Containing 81 selections, many of which have never before appeared in print. This is without question the best b^k for professional or amateur recitals. 200 pages, paper covers. Price, 25 cents; cloth, 75 Cents* EXCELSIOR PUBLISHING HOUSE, 29 and 31 Beekman Street, New York, N, ¥• PRACTICAL ELECTRICAL WORKS. ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENT MAKING tor Amateurs.— By S. R. Bottone. Contains plain instruc tions, by help of which any one with an ordinary knowledge o\ English, and moderately handy with tools, can make for hi:; own entertainment, or for use in the study of a great science, all the instruments now employed in theoretical or practical Electricity, from Torsion Balances, Holtz Machines and Indue tion Coils to Dynamos, Electric Motors, Telephones, Phono- graphs and Micrographs ; and all the experiments of the great leaders in these studies, Wheats tone, Bell, Price, Hughes and Edi9«n, can, after an attentive perusal of this book, be under- stood and repeated. 200 pages, cloth, postpaid, 75 ceilts. ELECTRO-MOTORS; HOW MADE AND Mow Used. — A handbook for amateurs and practical men, by S. R. Bottone, author of *' The Dynamo," ^* Electricallnstru- ment Making for Amateurs," "Electric Bells," etc., etc., and A. M. A. Beale, author of Beale's Calisthenics, etc. — A com- plete and simple explanation of the source of the power in a dynamo, ani the method of applying the same, commencing with a Simple Motor, and proceeding to an exposition of the Siemen's, Thompson's, Walker's, Grison, Edison and other motors. In addition three special chapters by an American author follow in which the information embraces all American improvements. The work is probably the most complete and easily understood of any of the many now in the field. 180 pages, cloth. Price, postpaid 75 cents» Electric Bells and All About Them.— S. R. Bottone. 196 pages. 100 illustrations. In this volume the whole subject of Electric Bells is explained in simple language. Any one with an English education can master it in a few hours. The illustrations are great helps to understanding the descriptions. The work begins by showing how the force applied to Electric Bells is produced, and goes on to tell how to arrange every kind of signal which can be given by electricity, as well as all needed information that belongs to the subject. It is just the book needed by mechanics who have occasional calls upon them to mount bells, and Bell-Hangers, Locksmiths, etc., who are not yet acquainted with all the uses of the Electric Bell. Cloth, price, postpaid 75 centS* HOW TO MAKE A DYNAMO.-a practical treatise for amateurs. Containing numerous illustrations and detailed instructions for constructing a small dynamo, to pro- duce the electric light. By Alfred Crofts. Bound in cloth ; price, postpaid .♦ 75 cents. Any of the above works sent postpaid on receipt of price. EXCELSIOR PUBLISHING HOUSE, 29 anT?2TT*S Select Eecitations and Eeadingp, IN PROSE AND POETRY. For the Use of Schools, Colleges, and Public Beaders. 1 OO^ffTlESKrTS. Attnle anrl Willie's Prayer. He Boeth his Alms to be Seen of O'Mnrtogh, Annie's Ticket, i Anthony's I'rayer. Men. Henry of Navarre before Paris. One of King Charles' Madcap ISm Only a Jew. Arab's Farewell to his Steed, The. Her Last L«ok. Over the H ill from the Poorh