•^S-J 
 
 
 ^^H 
 
 
 ':v:. 
 
 
 ^^H ■ 
 
 Br 
 
 H 
 
 
 §&& 
 
 ».«* -* Ht* m " Z. - • ■ ■ 
 
 ?&zm 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 
 ■ I 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
Class TN -4J1L 
 Book ."Rd 
 
THE DEBATER: 
 
 /T9 
 
 NEW THEORY OF THE ART OF SPEAKING; /?3 / 
 
 BEING A SERIES OP 
 
 COMPLETE DEBATES, OUTLINES OF DEBATES, 
 AND QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION; 
 
 REFERENCES TO THE BEST SOURCES OP INFORMATION ON 
 EACH PARTICULAR TOPIC. 
 
 \ 
 
 FREDERIC ROWTW, 
 
 1 1 
 
 AUTHOR OF " CAPITAL PUNISHMENT REVIEWED,' 
 ETC. ETC. 
 
 Jrcccntr fpnitian. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR. 
 
 LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS, 
 
 PATERNOSTER-ROW. 
 
 1850. 
 

 
 London : 
 
 Spottiswoodes and Shaw, 
 
 New -street- Square- 
 

 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 In presenting a Second Edition of this work to 
 the Public, the Author has merely to observe 
 that he has carefully revised the original text, 
 and has very considerably enlarged the list of 
 questions for discussion. 
 
 F. E. 
 
 London, October, 1850. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction ------- xiii 
 
 Rules of Debate ------ xix 
 
 PART I. 
 
 COMPLETE DEBATES. 
 
 SUBJECTS. 
 
 1. Which is of the greatest Benefit to his Country, 
 
 the Warrior, the Statesman, or the Poet ? - 1 
 
 2. Are the Mental Capacities of the Sexes equal ? - 25 
 
 3. Is Capital Punishment justifiable? * 45 
 
 4. Does Morality increase with Civilisation ? - - 73 
 
 5. Has the Stage a Moral Tendency ? - - - 96 
 
 6. Have the Crusades been beneficial to Mankind? 119 
 
 7. Is the Character of Oliver Cromwell worthy of our 
 
 Admiration? ------ 141 
 
 8. Which was the greater Poet, Shakspere or 
 
 Milton? - 166 
 
 9. Which has done the greater Service to Mankind, 
 
 the Printing Press or the Steam Engine? - 189 
 10. Which does the most to make the Orator — 
 
 Knowledge, Nature, or Art ? - - - 210 
 
 A 3 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 PART II. 
 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 SUBJECTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. Which does the greater Injury to Society, the 
 
 Miser or the Spendthrift? - - - - 231 
 
 2. Is universal Peace probable ? - 234 
 
 3. Which was the greatest Man, Bonaparte, Watt, 
 
 or Howard ? 237 
 
 4. Which are of the greater Importance in Edu- 
 
 cation, the Classics or Mathematics ? 240 
 
 5. Are Brutes endowed with Eeason ? - 243 
 
 6. Is Duelling justifiable? 247 
 
 7. Is Modern equal to Ancient Oratory ? 249 
 
 8. Is the Character of Napoleon Bonaparte to be 
 
 admired? 253 
 
 9. Was the Execution of Charles the First justi- 
 
 fiable? 257 
 
 10. Which is the more happy, a Barbarous, or a 
 
 Civilised, Man? 261 
 
 PART ni. 
 
 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 1. Which was the greater Man, Oliver Cromwell or 
 
 Napoleon Bonaparte ? 264 
 
 2. Was the Execution of Mary Queen of Scots 
 
 justifiable? 264 
 
CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 PAGE 
 
 3. Has the Invention of Gunpowder been of Benefit 
 
 to Mankind ? 265 
 
 4. Which is the more valuable Member of Society, 
 
 a great Mechanician or a great Poet ? - 265 
 
 5. Which was the greater Orator, Demosthenes or 
 
 Cicero? 266 
 
 6. Which is the. more despicable Character, the 
 
 Hypocrite or the Liar ? - 266 
 
 7. Has the Fear of Punishment, or the Hope of 
 
 Reward, the greater Influence on Human 
 
 Conduct? 26; 
 
 8. Is Corporal Punishment justifiable ? - - - 267 
 
 9. Was Brutus justified in killing Caesar ? - . 267 
 
 10. Should Emulation be encouraged in Education ? 268 
 
 11. Which was the greater Poet, Milton or Homer? 268 
 
 12. Is Military Renown a fit Object of Ambition? - 269 
 
 13. Is Ambition a Vice or a Virtue? - 269 
 
 14. Has Novel- reading a Moral Tendency ? - - 269 
 
 15. Is the Character of Queen Elizabeth deserving 
 
 of our Admiration ? - - - - -270 
 
 16. Is England rising or falling as a Nation ? - - 270 
 
 17. Has Nature or Education the greater Influence 
 
 in the Formation of Character ? 270 
 
 18. Which is the more valuable Metal, Gold or Iron ? 271 
 
 19. Is War in any case justifiable? - 271 
 
 20. Has the Discovery of America been beneficial 
 
 to the World? 271 
 
 21. Can any Circumstances justify a Departure from 
 
 Truth? 272 
 
 22. Is Sporting justifiable ? - - - ' - - 272 
 
 23. Does not Virtue necessarily produce Happiness, 
 
 and does not Vice necessarily produce Misery, 
 
 in this Life? 272 
 
 24. From which does the Mind gain the more Know- 
 
 ledge, Reading or Observation ? - - 273 
 
 a 4 
 
Mil CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 25. Have the Gold Mines of Spain, or the Coal Mines 
 
 of England, been more beneficial to the World ? 273 
 
 26. Which was the greater General, Hannibal or 
 
 Alexander? 273 
 
 27. Which was the greater Poet, Dryden or Pope? - 273 
 
 28. Which has done the greater Service to Truth, 
 
 Philosophy or Poetry ? - - - - 274 
 
 29. Is an Advocate justified in defending a Man 
 
 whom be knows to be Guilty of the Crime with 
 which he is charged ? - - - - - 274 
 
 30. Is it likely that England will sink into the Decay 
 
 which befell the Nations of Antiquity ? - - 275 
 
 31. Are Lord Byron's Writings Moral in their Ten- 
 
 dency? ------- 275 
 
 32. Do the Mechanicians of Modern equal those of 
 
 Ancient Times ? 275 
 
 33. Which is the greater Civiliser, the Statesman or 
 
 the Poet? 276 
 
 34. Which is the greater Writer, Charles Dickens 
 
 or Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton ? - - - 276 
 
 35. Is the Principle of Utility a safe Moral Guide? - 276 
 
 36. Was the Deposition of Louis XYI. justifiable ? - 276 
 
 37. Is the Use of Oaths for Civil Purposes expedient ? 277 
 
 38. Is a Classical Education essential to an English 
 
 Gentleman? 277 
 
 39. Are Colonies advantageous to the Mother Country? 277 
 
 40. Which does the most to produce Crime, — Poverty, 
 
 Wealth, or Ignorance ? - - - -277 
 
 41. Is the Unanimity required from Juries conducive 
 
 to the Attainment of the Ends of Justice ? - 278 
 
 42. Is it not the Duty of a Government to establish 
 
 a System of National Education ? - - - 278 
 
 43. Are the Intellectual Faculties of the Dark Races 
 
 of Mankind essentially inferior to those of the 
 White? 278 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 44. Is Transportation a fit and effective Punish- 
 
 ment? 279 
 
 45. Should not all Punishment be Reformatory ? - 279 
 
 46. Is a Limited Monarchy, like that of England, the 
 
 best Form of Government ? - - - - 279 
 
 47. Is not Private Virtue essentially requisite to 
 
 Greatness of Public Character ? - 279 
 
 48. Is Eloquence a gift of Nature, or may it be ac- 
 
 quired? 280 
 
 49. Is Genius an Innate Capacity ? - 280 
 
 50. Is a Rude or a Refined Age the more favourable 
 
 to the Production of Works of Imagination ? - 280 
 
 51. Is the Shaksperian the Augustan Age of English 
 
 Literature? 280 
 
 52. Is there any Standard of Taste ? - - - 281 
 
 53. Ought Pope to rank in the First Class of Poets? 281 
 
 54. Has the Introduction of Machinery been generally 
 
 beneficial to Mankind ? - 281 
 
 55. Which produce the greater Happiness, the Plea- 
 
 sures of Hope or of Memory ? 282 
 
 56. Is the Existence of Parties in a State favourable 
 
 to the Public Welfare ? - 282 
 
 57. Is there any Ground for believing in the ulti- 
 
 mate Perfection and universal Happiness of the 
 Human Race ?------ 282 
 
 58. Is Co-operation more adapted to promote the 
 
 Virtue and Happiness of Mankind than Com- 
 petition? 282 
 
 59. Was the Banishment of Napoleon to St. Helena 
 
 a justifiable Proceeding ? - - - - 283 
 
 60. Ought Persons to be excluded from Civil Offices 
 
 on account of their Religious Opinions ? - 283 
 
 61. Which exercises the greater Influence in the Civi- 
 
 lisation and Happiness of the Human Race, 
 
 the Male or the Female Mind ? 283 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 62. Which did the most to produce the French Revo- 
 
 lution — the Tyranny of the Government, the 
 Excesses of the Higher Orders, or the Writings 
 of Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau ? - 284 
 
 63. Which was the greater Poet, Byron or Burns ? - 284 
 
 64. Is there reasonable Ground for believing that the 
 
 Character of Richard the Third was not so 
 Atrocious as is generally supposed ? 284 
 
 65. Does Happiness or Misery preponderate in Life ? 285 
 
 66. Should the Press be totally Free ? - - - 285 
 
 67. Do modern Geological Discoveries agree with 
 
 Holy Writ? - - - - - - 285 
 
 68. Did Circumstances justify the first French Revo- 
 
 lution? 286 
 
 69. Could not Arbitration be made a Substitute for 
 
 War? 286 
 
 70. Are Annual, Triennial, or Septennial Parlia- 
 
 ments, most in harmony with the British Con- 
 stitution and Character ? 286 
 
 71. Which Character is the more to be admired, that 
 
 of Loyola or Luther ? 287 
 
 72. Are there good Grounds for applying the Term 
 
 " dark " to the Middle Ages ? - 287 
 
 73. Which was the greater Poet, Chatterton or 
 
 Cowper? 287 
 
 74. Are Public or Private Schools to be preferred ? 288 
 
 75. Is the System of Education pursued at the Uni- 
 
 versities, in accordance with the Requirements 
 of the Age ? 288 
 
 76. Is the Decline of Slavery in Europe attributable 
 
 to Moral or to Economical Influences ? - - 288 
 
 77. Is Anger a Vice or a Virtue ? - - - 288 
 
 78. Which was the greatest Hero, Alexander, Caesar, 
 
 or Bonaparte ? 289 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 PAGE 
 
 79. Which was the worse Monarch, Richard the 
 
 Third or Charles the Second? - - - 289 
 
 80. Which was the greater Man, Franklin or Wash- 
 
 ington? - 289 
 
 81. Is it probable that America will hereafter become 
 
 the greatest of Nations ? 290 
 
 82. Should not greater Freedom of Expression be 
 
 encouraged in Debate ? 290 
 
 83. Which was the greater Poet, Chaucer or 
 
 Spenser? 290 
 
 84. Is the present a Poetical Age ? - 290 
 
 85. Was Louis XIV. a great Man ? - 291 
 
 86. Is it the Duty of a Government to make ampler 
 
 Provision for the Literary Writers of the 
 Nation? 291 
 
 87. Which is the greater Poet, Mrs. Howitt or 
 
 Mrs. Hemans? 291 
 
 88. Should not all National Works of Art be entirely 
 
 free to the Public ? - - - - - 291 
 
 89. Are not the Rudiments of individual Character 
 
 discernible in Childhood ? - - - - 291 
 
 90. Is not Satire highly useful as a Moral Agent ? - 292 
 
 91. Has not the Faculty of Humour been of essential 
 
 Service to Civilisation ? 292 
 
 92. Is it not to Emigration that England must 
 
 mainly look for the Relief of her Population ? 292 
 
 93. Does National Character descend from Age to 
 
 Age? 293 
 
 94. Do the Associations entitled " Art Unions," tend 
 
 to promote the Spread of the Fine Arts ? - 293 
 
 95. Is it possible that the World will ever again 
 
 possess a Writer as great as Shakspere ? - 293 
 
 96. Is the cheap Literature of the Age on the whole 
 
 beneficial to general Morality ? 293 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 97. Should not Practice in Athletic Games form a 
 
 Part of any System of Education ? - - 293 
 
 98. Is not the Game of Chess a good intellectual and 
 
 moral Exercise ? - - - - -294 
 
 99. Have Mechanics' Institutions answered the Ex- 
 
 pectations of their Founders ? 294 
 
 100. Which is to be preferred, a Town or a Country 
 
 Life? - 294 
 
 101. Which is the greater Poet, Wordsworth or 
 
 Byron? 295 
 
 102. Which is the more baneful, Scepticism or Super- 
 
 stition? 295 
 
 103. Is the Average Duration of Human Life in- 
 
 creasing or diminishing ? 295 
 
 104. Is Life Assurance at present conducted on safe 
 
 and equitable Principles ? - 295 
 
 105. Are there good Eeasons for supposing that the 
 
 Kuins recently discovered in Central America 
 
 are of very great Antiquity ? 296 
 
 106. Do Titles operate beneficially in a Community ? 296 
 
 107. Would not Pulpit Oratory become more effective 
 
 if the Clergy were to preach extemporane- 
 ously? - - - - - - - 296 
 
 108. Is not Intemperance the chief Source of Crime ? 296 
 
 109. Should not the Study of History be more en- 
 
 couraged than it is ? 297 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This volume is the result of a conviction in the 
 mind of the Author, that a fundamental error pre- 
 vails in the mode which is at present adopted to 
 convey instruction in the Art of Speaking. 
 
 The true Art of Speech is the effective repre- 
 sentation of our thoughts by language. To say 
 what w T e mean, and to say that pleasingly and 
 impressively, are the ends towards which all in- 
 struction in oratory should be directed. 
 
 Now what are the means at present employed 
 by the Professors of the Art of Speech to ac- 
 complish these objects? Simply the study and 
 practice of recitation. There is no communication 
 of knowledge — no education of the mind in habits 
 of thought and reflection — no formation of opinion, 
 conviction, and belief: but the scholar merely 
 learns and repeats certain hackneyed pieces of 
 declamation, poetry, or dramatic composition ; and 
 when he can pronounce "Othello's Apology," 
 " Holla's Address," " Young Lochinvar," and 
 other similar time-worn extracts from our litera- 
 ture, to the sufficient admiration of his friends, he 
 
XIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 is considered to be perfectly instructed in the Art 
 of Speech ! 
 
 But how great an error is there here ! All that 
 has so far been done is to have taught the student 
 how to say his words, without giving him any 
 words to say. He is a perfect reciter of other 
 people's ideas and language, but cannot utter a 
 thought of his own. In brief, he has been in- 
 structed simply in the mechanism of the art, and 
 is left without materials to use, and without tools 
 to handle. 
 
 If we seek for proof of this, we find it in our 
 daily experience. Of the thousands who learn 
 what is called "Elocution" in our schools, how 
 rarely do we meet with even one who can express 
 himself with tolerable clearness and propriety ! 
 The cause of this is plain: they have not been 
 taught to think ; and therefore, when thought is 
 required from them, they have none to give. To 
 teach a scholar elocution, without educating hi 
 oratorical faculties, is like erecting a pump without 
 digging for the water. The machine is there, 
 and it is capable of work ; but it is of no service 
 to you, for you can turn it to no practical account. 
 
 The Author ventures to think that a far better 
 mode of instruction in the important study of 
 which he treats, might be easily devised. He is 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 not vain enough to imagine that the present 
 volume developes the best plan that could be con- 
 ceived; but in the absence of a better, it may 
 perhaps be found not altogether unworthy of con- 
 sideration; at least, it may serve as a pioneer. 
 The idea which this work seeks to realise is that 
 the practice of discussion forms a much better 
 exercise for the student, than the fatiguing reci- 
 tation system which is now pursued. It teaches 
 him at once Thought, Style, and Delivery : — 
 thought, in the preparation which is requisite, 
 even for the simplest debate; — style, through 
 the necessity which the speaker finds of due order 
 and arrangement in his ideas ; — and delivery, in 
 the utterance of his speech. 
 
 Elocution is doubtless an important part of the 
 Art of Speech, but it is not the whole of it. The 
 voice, the gesture, the manner, the action, and 
 the expression are beyond question matters that 
 demand great care and attention ; but the educa- 
 tion and training of the speaking powers are 
 greater matters still. 
 
 Even, however, if Delivery were the whole Art 
 of Speech, as the much misunderstood expression 
 of Demosthenes is often made to imply — surely 
 the utterance of his own sentiments must be a far 
 better elocutionary lesson to the student, than the 
 
XVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 recitation of words which (let him be as earnest as 
 he may) can never truly represent his own ideas 
 and thoughts. But Delivery is not the whole Art 
 of Speech. A speaker must have a subject, and 
 must know how to arrange his ideas upon it, 
 before he can speak with effect ; hence, the course 
 of instruction is evidently, — first Knowledge, 
 then Style, and lastly Delivery. 
 
 This argument is the basis of the plan which 
 the Author has attempted to develope in his book. 
 He has written, first, some Complete Debates. He 
 could not expect that young minds would be im- 
 mediately and intuitively ready to discuss, with- 
 out instruction or model, the questions, however 
 simple, which might be placed before them ; hence 
 he has composed complete speeches, which, without 
 pretending to perfection in either thought or style, 
 may still serve to awaken thought, to establish 
 principle, and to convey general information. 
 These debates are made to turn upon questions 
 which involve at once practical, moral, and specu- 
 lative truth, and are meant to tend at the same 
 time to inquiry, and conviction. 
 
 Next follow some Outlines of Debates, with 
 ample references to the most accessible sources of 
 information on each particular topic. The Author 
 presumes that, after practising, for a time, the re- 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV11 
 
 citation of the complete discussions, the minds of 
 the students will be in some measure prepared to 
 supply information and thought, and will need to 
 be exercised mainly in the arrangement of their 
 ideas. He has therefore noted some of the chief 
 arguments that may be used on either side, and has 
 thus left the scholar to clothe the ideas in language, 
 and to methodise the thoughts he has formed. 
 The questions which these Outlines are intended 
 to discuss, are of similar nature to the subjects of 
 the complete debates, in order that the learner may 
 not be led into altogether new and strange fields 
 of study. 
 
 Lastly, the Author has annexed a mere list of 
 Questions for Discussion, simply attaching to them 
 such brief notes as they may require to explain 
 their meaning, and such references as may lead 
 the debater to the readiest sources of information 
 on the subjects to which they pertain. In the 
 first division of the book he presents Ideas, Ar- 
 rangements, and Words; in the second he pre- 
 sents Ideas only ; and in the third, he gives merely 
 the Subject. The questions are such as will serve 
 to test the progress of the student ; for almost all 
 the leading principles and ideas required for their 
 discussion are evolved in the earlier portions of the 
 Work : and the manner in which the scholar adopts 
 
XV111 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and uses them, will serve to show how far the 
 prior exercises may have been of service and ad- 
 vantage to him. 
 
 It may perhaps be imagined that the subjects 
 selected for debate are of too difficult a character 
 for school-boys. In reply, it might suffice to say 
 that whilst the Work is chiefly meant for school 
 use, it is also intended for Debating Societies ge- 
 nerally : it may be as well, however, to add that 
 the majority of these questions have been discussed 
 by school-boys under the Author's own observa- 
 tion ; and that singular success and pleasure have 
 attended the debates. Some years since, the 
 Author introduced his plan into several first-rate 
 educational establishments in Town, and it is the 
 decided success of his experiment which alone has 
 led him to publish this book. 
 
 One word as to the Book itself. — The Author 
 has sought not merely to open inquiry, but to 
 educe results. He has endeavoured to take ad- 
 vantage of every possible opportunity for enforcing 
 true and useful principles ; and without aiming at 
 the pedantic introduction of either metaphysics or 
 philosophy, has humbly ventured to open many 
 mines of thought both in mental and moral science. 
 
RULES OF DEBATE. 
 
 At the first general meeting of members for the 
 establishment of the class, the title of the society- 
 should be resolved upon, the laws of debate agreed 
 to, and a secretary elected, whose duty it will be 
 to keep minutes of the proceedings. 
 
 General meetings should be held half-yearly, to 
 confirm, amend, or extend the laws, and to elect or 
 re-elect the secretary. 
 
 At the ordinary meetings, after the election of 
 the Chairman from amongst the members, the 
 secretary should read the minutes of the previous 
 meeting. When they have been confirmed, the 
 Chairman should call upon the gentleman who has 
 undertaken to open the debate, to address the 
 meeting. 
 
 It is then usual for the seconder to speak ; and 
 afterwards the other members, at their pleasure. 
 When all who wish to speak have spoken, the 
 
XX RULES OF DEBATE. 
 
 Chairman calls on the opener for his reply ; after 
 which the question is put from the chair, and de- 
 cided by a show of hands. This done, the ques- 
 tion to be discussed at the next meeting is pro- 
 posed, seconded, and agreed upon. The class 
 then adjourns. 
 
 No member is allowed to speak twice, except the 
 opener in reply, or any one in explanation. 
 
 The opener has no right to introduce fresh ar- 
 guments into his reply : he can only refer to what 
 has gone before. 
 
 The Chairman cannot speak unless he quits the 
 chair; nor can he vote unless the numbers be equal: 
 in which case he gives the casting vote. 
 
 It will be found advisable to limit each speaker 
 to a particular time, say ten minutes : the opener 
 may be allowed fifteen minutes. 
 
 If all who wish to speak, cannot do so on one 
 occasion, the debate may be adjourned until the 
 next meeting ; the mover of the adjournment, or 
 the seconder, in the mover's absence, re -opening 
 the discussion. 
 
THE DEBATER. 
 
 PART L 
 
 COMPLETE DEBATES. 
 
 Question I. 
 
 Which is of the greatest benefit to his country — 
 the Warrior, the Statesman, or the Poet ? 
 
 First Speaker. — Sir, The question which I 
 have undertaken to open, is, I think, one of con- 
 siderable importance and interest. We are to be 
 called upon to say — Which is of the greatest 
 benefit to his country, the Warrior, the States- 
 man, or the Poet ? The Warrior is the man 
 who directs the physical strength of his nation : 
 the man who fights its battles, repulses its in- 
 vaders, holds discontent in check, and defends 
 its rights at the hazard of his life : the Statesman 
 is the man who governs the mental force 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 
 
 B 
 
2 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 according 
 to the idea that we form of greatness, shall we 
 alone endeavour to be great. Moreover, the 
 question is a difficult one. Much thought is 
 necessary to elucidate it, and much insight to de- 
 termine it with truth. It is like judging 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 
 jnst as it is difficult to choose between the mem- 
 bers 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 ques- 
 tion, trusting that it will receive that full discus- 
 sion which it merits. 
 
 Second Speaker. — Sir, I quite agree with 
 the opener that he has presented us with a diffi- 
 cult subject for debate. And, I think, with all 
 submission, that he has increased the difficulty 
 by the selection of these particular characters. 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 3 
 
 For I cannot believe that they are the best repre- 
 sentatives that he could have found, of the differ- 
 ent kinds of force between which he calls on us 
 to choose. Granting that the Soldier fairly re- 
 presents 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 debateable, however, without materially 
 altering the opener's words, would it not be 
 better to ask — Which is of the greatest benefit to 
 his country, the Warrior, the wise Statesman, or 
 the Christian Poet ? 
 
 Opener. — Sir, I have no objection at all to 
 the question 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 Philo- 
 sophy, 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 " Phi- 
 losopher " 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 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE DEBATER. 
 
 field of disputed science and theological contro- 
 versy. 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 satisfied, Sir, with the remarks of my friend, 
 and shall proceed 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 favour of the first. I do not mean to 
 deny the great value of the Statesman, nor do I 
 forget the important 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 developes all our best wisdom and energy. 
 The fame of his valour, 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 honour. 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 bene- 
 ficent smile Commerce thrives, Science advances, 
 the Arts flourish, Civilization spreads improve- 
 ment, and social happiness is secured to man. 
 The Warrior is a practical lesson of heroism, too, 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 5 
 
 to his nation. By fixing men's admiration on his 
 courage, he leads them to imitate it. One hero 
 makes many. There never was a dauntless War- 
 rior yet who did not raise a dauntless army. And 
 this dauntlessness is not the mere passionate ex- 
 citement 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 honour the 
 Hero- Warrior much. He seems to me not only 
 a personification of bravery, but a creator of it ; 
 he plucks the sweet flower Peace from the sharp 
 nettle War ; and he is a constant incarnation of 
 the great and useful truth that exertion overcomes 
 difficulty, and courage ensures 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. 1 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 
 
6 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Doer. The arm is dependant on the head ; the 
 head is not dependant on the arm. Take away 
 the arm, the head may be sound and useful still : 
 but take away the head, and of what good will 
 the arm be then? In like manner you may 
 remove the Warrior, and the state will flourish 
 notwithstanding; whilst without the Statesman, 
 it will sink into decay and ruin. The Statesman 
 needs the Warrior but rarely ; the Warrior al- 
 ways needs the Statesman. Give an army 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 
 that 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, in- 
 human, bloodthirsty, and tyrannical, is he then a 
 type fit to follow ? Is such a man worthy of imi- 
 tation — valuable in the state? Or is he not 
 rather the most dangerous member of the com- 
 munity? a poison-seed cast into the ploughed 
 heart of society, bearing evil fruit a thousand- 
 fold? Compared with the Statesman and the 
 Poet, the Warrior appears to me the least esti- 
 mable of the three. I have now then only to 
 decide between the other two. I own that I 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 7 
 
 incline towards the Statesman. I look upon the 
 great Statesman of a nation as the head of its 
 thought and philosophy, the guide of its ener- 
 gies, the centre 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 overwhelming, and in de- 
 fiance of all, have established its prosperity upon 
 a rock : and, consequently, I 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 accomplishes the greatest palpable 
 and immediate good to the community of which 
 he is a member, I should unhesitatingly 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 conceive the important service that the 
 pilot of the state performs 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, 
 
 B 4 
 
8 THE DEBATER. 
 
 which speak to all at once, and at once challenge 
 admiration. 
 
 But I think we should not judge thus super- 
 ficially. 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 in- 
 fluences 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 commu- 
 nity than either the Soldier or the Statesman. 
 I do not speak of the 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 above its 
 mean and grovelling 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 speak- 
 ing to our immortal part, ever telling us that 
 earth is not our final home. Were there no such 
 voice to speak to us, our souls would become stu- 
 pified 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 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 9 
 
 destiny, and so leads us more nobly to fulfil it. 
 We have a threefold life ; a physical, a mental, 
 and a moral life ; of these the last only is im- 
 mortal. 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. 
 
 Fifth Speaker. — Sir, With much that was 
 admirable and eloquent in the speech of the gentle- 
 man 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 great Poets 
 have purified the world, elevated the moral sense, 
 and kept chaste the human heart ? Are there no 
 licentious Poets ? no sceptical Poets ? no misan- 
 thropic 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 holiness — that By- 
 ron is a promulgator of philanthropy ? Sir, if the 
 Poet's office is to teach what these men teach, I 
 must say that I do not believe it to be beneficial 
 to mankind. It seems to me that at best the 
 good which the Poet does is visionary. We do 
 not see, we cannot trace, his influence ; and how, 
 then, can we say w^ith certainty, that it is vast and 
 
10 THE DEBATER. 
 
 good ? I think we act much more wisely in be- 
 stowing our esteem upon men whose work is per- 
 ceptible, such as the Warrior and the Philoso- 
 pher or Statesman. We see what the Soldier 
 does, and what the Statesman does : between 
 them, 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. Rome proves this : so does Sparta : so does 
 our own country. Rome was happiest when her 
 legions were the most victorious ; Greece was 
 greatest when Miltiades and Leonidas led its 
 arms to victory ; and England was mightiest 
 when Cromwell's strong arm ruled its destinies. 
 The Statesman's office is a great one, doubtless ; 
 but the Warrior's seems to me even greater. I, 
 for my part, would cheerfully give up our Chat- 
 hams for our Nelsons. 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 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 11 
 
 of the Warrior, for there is something very at- 
 tractive in the character. Nay, at the first sight 
 there is something even beautiful in it : very 
 beautiful. To direct a mass of men to the ac- 
 complishment 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, the 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 these conspire to attract us 
 towards the military character, and to invest it 
 with a high degree of dignity and excellence. 
 
 But when I come to look through these vest- 
 ments of the Warrior, and behold the man him- 
 self, 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 ! honour be to him wherever he 
 may be! I speak of the soldier by trade, the 
 soldier of enterprise and conquest, the soldier 
 who fights for hire or plunder. I called him a 
 melancholy sight ; and so indeed he is. For what 
 is he? Let us be plain — a murderer: a wilful 
 
12 THE DEBATER. 
 
 and deliberate murderer ; before whose cool atro- 
 city the secret slaughter of the frenzied assassin 
 rises into virtue. 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 till 
 one or other, perhaps both, of the contending hosts 
 are exterminated. I cannot conceive of murder 
 more foul than this : and I appeal to all w T ho hear 
 me whether this is not the characteristic of the 
 Warrior in general ? Survey your list of heroes ! 
 Hannibal — Csesar — William the Conqueror — 
 Cromwell — Bonaparte : are not the very names 
 synonymous with 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 dishonour. I speak plainly, Sir, and emphatic- 
 ally, for I see that the brilliancy of the military 
 character has misled many here, as it has misled 
 millions in the world, 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 de- 
 formity. 
 
 Between the Poet and the Statesman I can 
 scarcely judge ; and I shall wait before I decide. 
 My feelings incline me towards the Poet, but I 
 have not yet heard arguments sufficiently con- 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 13 
 
 vincing to sway me altogether in his favour. I 
 rose chiefly to dispel, if possible, the false glory 
 that attaches to the Warrior, and if I have in the 
 least succeeded, 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 indivi- 
 duals 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 Statesman certainly appears to deserve the 
 higher honour. It has been well said that he 
 sways the mind of his country. [Resides this, he 
 rules all the external circumstances connected 
 with the condition of the people : he regulates 
 their commerce, their manufactures, their physical 
 and intellectual improvement. He rules by a 
 noble style o£ Force, too — the force of intellect. 
 By a stroke of the pen, he does more than the 
 Warrior can do in fifty battles. His breath is 
 stronger than the roar of 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 
 Statesman directs (by invisible power) the minds 
 of men : leads their reason, holds the reins of 
 their obedience, and represses discontent by the 
 
14 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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. Firm- 
 ness, vigilance, justice, moderation, mercy, dig- 
 nity, these are the qualities of the Statesman, 
 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 difficult subject, 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, sceptical poets, misan- 
 thropic poets ? Why, doubtless there are : and 
 might I not ask in return, Are there no brutal 
 Warriors ? are there no stupid Statesmen ? Sir, 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 15 
 
 • 
 
 this gentleman has taken false Poets as his sample 
 of true ones, and so has fallen into deep error in 
 his judgment. We are to decide, I apprehend, 
 between the great Warrior, the wise Statesman, 
 and the true Poet, not fix upon bad specimens of 
 either. 
 
 Judging in this manner, Sir, I presume to add 
 my feeble testimony to the superior service ren- 
 dered to society by the Poet, as compared with 
 the two other great men. He seems to me in- 
 finitely 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 States- 
 man pens his law on mouldering parchment ; the 
 Poet traces his upon the universal heart of man : 
 and while the heart o£ 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 he 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 
 
16 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Lis laws ? But Homer, like a writer of yester- 
 day, stands fresh and young before us, and shall 
 so remain, when 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 characters before us by their most 
 perfect specimens ; and this emboldens me to 
 venture yet a word in favour of that character so 
 much aspersed by some — the Warrior. The 
 speakers who have so blackened the military cha- 
 racter must surely have forgotten our Cceur de 
 Lions, our Cromwells, our Blakes, our Nelsons, 
 our Wellingtons! But even if they chose to 
 forget 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 Warriors al- 
 ways this ? Have we heard of no virtuous, mer- 
 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 Cin- 
 cinnatus, Leonidas, Washington, men who once 
 lived on earth, or are they only 
 
 " false creations 
 
 Proceeding from my heat-oppressed brain?" 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 17 
 
 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 would arise in the hearts of our 
 people : let them imagine our commerce stopped, 
 our supplies cut off, our lives threatened: 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, im- 
 buing them with stern and high resolve ; leading 
 them with dauntless courage into the field of 
 battle, and directing their strength and valour 
 against the enslaving 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 
 defence of him. 
 
 Tenth Speaker. — Sir, The gentlemen who 
 has just addressed us has very eloquently de- 
 scribed the value of the Hero, and the service he 
 renders to his country : but he has not compared 
 him with the other characters before us, and 
 therefore has failed to lead us to a result on 
 the matter. Now I have listened very attentively 
 
 c 
 
18 THE DEBATER. 
 
 to the speeches already made, and I must say that 
 I feel irresistibly led towards the conclusion that 
 our vote should be decidedly in favour 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 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 Shakspere 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, — 
 It blesseth 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 the 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 
 
 * John Westland Marston. f Shelley. 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WAERIOR. 19 
 
 hero ever led his men to battle to such strains as 
 those of Henry V. to his soldiers, from the pen 
 of Poet Shakspere : or as those of Bruce to his 
 army, from the pen of Poet Burns ? — 
 
 " Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled ! 
 Scots, wham Bruce has aftimes led, 
 Welcome to your gory bed ! 
 
 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 ! chains and slavery ! 
 
 u 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 ! 
 
 u Wha for Scotland's king and law 
 Freedom's sword will strongly draw, — 
 Freeman stand or freeman fa', — 
 
 Caledonians ! on wi' me ! 
 
 " By oppression's woes and pains ! 
 By our sons in servile chains ! 
 We will drain our dearest veins, 
 
 But they shall — they shall — be free ! 
 
 " Lay the proud usurpers low, 
 Tyrants fall in every foe, 
 Liberty's in every blow ! 
 
 Forward ! let us do or die I " 
 
 c 2 
 
20 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 lie too could fight for liberty and 
 right whilst a pulse of life remained in him ? 
 
 In another point of view too — a far higher one 
 — the Poet is the Warrior. He is for ever at 
 war with the great foe of man, Evil. No matter 
 in what shape the monster comes, Falsehood, 
 Tyranny, Persecution, Superstition, 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 ardour 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 them- 
 selves 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 superior to themselves ? With this I shall 
 conclude. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — Sir, I have no hesitation 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 21 
 
 in saying 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 immor- 
 tal 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 towards 
 evil, and most generally produces evil ; that which 
 the Statesman does, is mutable 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 Shakspere 
 as our Poet. The same influences tended to 
 produce all three, nearly the same time beheld 
 
 c 3 
 
22 THE DEBATER. 
 
 them, they are therefore fit objects to be mutu- 
 ally compared. 
 
 What then did Cromwell do for his country ? 
 Raised 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 following his despotic rule ? That which al- 
 ways results from military despotism — licen- 
 tiousness, irreligion, moral slavery. Charles the 
 Second would never have demoralised 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 War- 
 rior 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 character. But what 
 has he done for us? To say nothing of the 
 
THE POET, STATESMAN, AND WARRIOR. 23 
 
 miserable example he sets us by his own conduct, 
 do we not find that the effect of his works has 
 been to plunge Europe in scepticism, if not in- 
 fidelity ; in doubt, if not darkness ? To it are 
 clearlv 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 
 Shakspere did and is doing to his country ? Who 
 can sufficiently point out the effect of his chival- 
 rous patriotism, his pure benevolence, Iris high 
 philosophy, his sound morality, his universal sym- 
 pathies, 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 dependence and self-interest. But the 
 Poet links man to man by the holy tie of sym- 
 pathy and brotherhood ; a tie which no authority, 
 no force, can break. Place then these three men 
 side by side — Cromwell, Bacon, Shakspere: and 
 let your choice point out to you the answer you 
 
 c 4 
 
24 THE DEBATER* 
 
 should give to the question now before us. You 
 will not hesitate, for you cannot doubt. For 
 whilst 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 for ever in the grave of time, that 
 glory shall be fresh and ineffaceable. 
 
 See Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. 
 
 pp. 320—327. ; and vol. iii. pp. 200. 252. 
 Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. p. 231.; vol. ii. 
 
 p. 259. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xlvii. pp. 184 — 196. ; 
 
 vol. xxvi. p. 458. 
 Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic 
 
 in History. By Thomas Carlyle. 
 Maxims and Opinions of the Duke of 
 
 Wellington. 
 James's Foreign Statesmen. 
 
25 
 
 Question II. 
 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 ex- 
 pect 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 at 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 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, by observing that the 
 best samples of the male sex are superior to the 
 
26 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 history, 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 philosophers, 
 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, Shakspere, Milton, Byron, what lady- 
 writers equal these ? 
 
 I shall not enter into the philosophical part of 
 the question at all. Facts are the strongest ar- 
 guments, 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 my 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 resumed his seat has regarded this question 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 27 
 
 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 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 to 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 
 intellect? Why that instead of tempering so- 
 ciety with grace and softness, she would embitter 
 it with the asperities of debate ; that instead of 
 being man's comforter and better angel, she w T ould 
 be his intellectual 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 re- 
 fuge from the corroding cares of life and thought ? 
 Where would be his domestic comfort and happi- 
 ness? Where would be the unutterable delight 
 that now dwells in the magic word " Home," if 
 Woman were more intellectually subtle than she 
 
28 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 inequali- 
 ties and differences existing in the minds of the 
 sexes, and therefore 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 succeeding 
 speakers. 
 
 Our friend referred us to History : very un- 
 fortunately, I think. He spoke of Rulers. 
 Where is the female Caesar? said he, and the 
 female Alexander? I am proud to reply — No- 
 where. 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 amongst defenceless nations for 
 the sake of conquest and plunder; of having 
 trodden down, with remorseless heel, the sweet 
 flowers of peace and domestic happiness ; of having 
 spread desolation and death wherever they have 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 29 
 
 gone. But perhaps it is as Heroes that our friend 
 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 will 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, I may perhaps be permitted to 
 offer you a few observations. 
 
 I have generally noticed, Sir, that intellectual 
 strength is a good deal modified by, and depend- 
 ent upon, physical power. Physical power seems, 
 indeed, absolutely necessary to the possessor of in- 
 tellectual strength ; otherwise his mental strength 
 wears him out. Now, if woman has equal mental 
 power, how is it that her frame is physically 
 weaker ? Either man has too much bodily power, 
 or woman too little : a proposition which I ima- 
 gine cannot be sustained. 
 
 Further : woman's brain is smaller than man's ; 
 and does not this of itself prove inferiority of 
 
30 THE DEBATER. 
 
 mental strength? Philosophers tell us that the 
 size of the brain is always the criterion of intel- 
 lectual power: if this be so, the matter 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 the male sex do not; qualities which, 
 though w T idely different from those named, are 
 quite as valuable to the world ; I establish an 
 argument in their favour quite as strong as that 
 against them. And I can prove this. In affec- 
 tion, in constancy, in patience, in purity of senti- 
 ment, 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 affec- 
 tion ? Is a facility in making rhymes superior to 
 
CAPACITIES OP THE SEXES. 31 
 
 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 differ- 
 ent in degree, they may be, and I believe they 
 are, fully equal in amount. 
 
 Sixth Speakek. — 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 in- 
 ferior. I see no such necessity. The dog's brain 
 is smaller than the calf's ; but the dog is, notwith- 
 standing, much the more intelligent of the two. 
 Mere size of brain proves nothing, for diseased 
 brains are often the largest: our friend, therefore, 
 need not fear to vote for the ladies upon tins 
 account. 
 
 The opener of the debate said rather plausibly, 
 that as the male sex can boast a Shakspere, a 
 Milton, and a Byron, whilst 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 Shak- 
 spere, but one Milton, but one Byron! Who can 
 say that the female sex may not some day surpass 
 these writers, famous though they be ? 
 
 Another gentleman spoke of Philosophers. Let 
 me remind him (for he seems to have forgotten, or 
 
32 TIIE DEBATER. 
 
 not to know) that the female sex can claim a De 
 Stael, a Somerville, 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 intellec- 
 tual superiority, she quits a higher throne than 
 ever she can win. , 
 
 Seventh Speaker. — Sir, The gentleman w T ho 
 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 intensity of 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 cannot, 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, accom- 
 plished great things w T herever he has been. What 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 33 
 
 has woman done in comparison — I mean visibly 
 done? I need not press the question, 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 inferior 
 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 bar- 
 barism and in civilization alike, she has gladdened 
 the homes, and purified the hearts of those she 
 has gathered round her. 
 
 Whilst, therefore, I admit, that in mental 
 strength woman is not, and can never be, equal 
 to the other sex, I maintain that her superior 
 morality makes the balance at least even. 
 
 Eighth Speaker. — I am quite ready to con- 
 cede, Sir, with the last speaker, that in the private 
 and domestic virtues the female sex is superior to 
 the male : but I cannot 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 : 
 
34 THE DEBATER. 
 
 with what heroic boldness he faces certain death ! 
 His fortitude again : what shocks he bears, what 
 bereavements he patiently sustains! Mark his 
 endurance, too. Privation, hunger, cold, galling 
 servitude, heavy labour, these he suffers often- 
 times, without a murmur. See also how he per- 
 severes ! He sets some plan before him. Days, 
 months, years, find it still distant, still unwon: 
 he continues his exertions, and at last he gains 
 the prize. These, Sir, I contend are amongst the 
 highest moral virtues, and I think I have shown 
 that the male sex possesses them more abundantly 
 than the other. 
 
 Ninth Speaker. — Sir, I quite agree with 
 the gentleman who spoke last, that courage, en- 
 durance, and fortitude are amongst the highest 
 moral virtues; but I do not agree with him 
 when he says that the female sex possesses them 
 in an inferior degree to the male. True, man 
 shows his courage in the battle-field. He faces 
 death, and meets it unshrinkingly. But has not 
 woman courage quite as great ? She fights battles 
 — not a few : oftentimes 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 
 prostrate. Then it is, Sir, that woman's moral 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 35 
 
 courage, endurance, and fortitude shine out the 
 most. She sustains, she cheers, she encourages, 
 she soothes the other: nerves him by her ex- 
 ample, 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 obser- 
 vation 1 shall conclude. 
 
 Tenth Speaker. — Mr. Chairman, I cannot 
 help thinking 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 no- 
 thing to do. To bring back the discussion there- 
 fore to its proper track, I beg to repeat that 
 which has been yet unanswered, namely, That 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE DEBATER. 
 
 as the male sex have produced the more remark- 
 able 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 favour 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 not admit that the female sex is outdone 
 by the male. True, the one sex has produced a 
 Shakspere, a Milton, and a Byron ; but the other 
 has a Sappho, a Barbauld, and a Hemans. I will 
 not however pursue the intellectual comparison, 
 for it would 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 philosophy, history, 
 and the fine arts can furnish, the other has been 
 left to be instructed in merely the fripperies of 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 37 
 
 education ; that while the one sex has been lauded 
 to the skies, adulated, honoured, 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 
 you 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 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 Shakspere 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 education, 
 that 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 received ? 
 
 D 3 
 
38 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Besides, the male sex has risen in spite of dis- 
 couragement. Galileo was persecuted even to 
 imprisonment and death, but he persevered in 
 asserting his sublime discoveries. Milton wrote 
 the grandest poem ever conceived, and his family 
 received 51. for it ! ! ! — Otway, our greatest dra- 
 matist after Shakspere, died literally from starva- 
 tion ! ! ! 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 eloquent 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 Scripture history, that 
 man was created first, and that woman was formed 
 from a part of man — from what Dry den calls 
 " the dross and refuse of a man" — from a rib, in 
 fact. Xoav I would humbly submit that as man 
 was first formed he was intended to be superior to 
 woman ; and that woman being made from a part 
 of man only, cannot be looked upon as his equal. 
 "We find, too, in Scripture, that woman is con- 
 tinually told to obey man, and I contend that 
 this would not be the case were she not inferior. 
 
 Besides, Sir, a3 it has been ably argued, her 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEX! 39 
 
 duties do not require such great intellect as man's. 
 Xow nature never gives unnecessary strength ; 
 and as 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 argument is sin- 
 gularly 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 the said birds, beasts, and fishes in con- 
 sequence ; an argument, 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, according 
 to that, be not only not 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. Xow 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 
 
 D 4 
 
40 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 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 woman. What 
 more important or more difficult task could mortal 
 undertake ? It requires the noblest intellect to 
 teach a child, and that intellect being required in 
 woman, I feel sure that she possesses 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 be- 
 fore us, whilst I have been listening to the speeches 
 made by my friends around me, and although I 
 own that I was at first inclined to vote in the 
 affirmative of this question, I am not ashamed to 
 say that my views have undergone a material 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 41 
 
 alteration during the debate, and that I have 
 now made up ray 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 con- 
 clusion. 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 inferior to 
 the European philosopher. Why ? Because he has 
 not been educated. So with woman. When you 
 can show me that woman has received the same 
 advantages as man, and has not then equalled 
 him, why then I will vote against her ; but not 
 till then. 
 
 Besides, — the differences, though innate, are 
 not differences of amount, but of detail. A man 
 who has a five-shilling piece, and a man who has 
 ten sixpences, are equally rich : just in the same 
 manner woman may be as intellectually great as 
 man, only possessing her mental wealth in differ- 
 
42 TIIE DEBATER. 
 
 ent coin from his. He has one set of qualities ; 
 she has another. He has judgment, she has tact. 
 He has boldness, she has prudence. He has 
 courage, she has caution. He has reason, she 
 has hope ! Add up the two sides, and though the 
 figures are different, the amount will be the 
 same. 
 
 It has been said that as woman is commanded 
 in Scripture to obey, she must necessarily be in- 
 ferior. 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 intellect. 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 can- 
 not believe that she was made inferior. She wa§ 
 given to him as a companion and a friend, not as 
 a slave and servant, and I think that we are dis- 
 playing great arrogance and presumption, as well 
 as a contemptuous depreciation of our Great Cre- 
 ator's best gifts, if we declare and decide that she 
 who adorns and beautifies and delights our exist- 
 ence, is inferior to ourselves in that intelligence 
 which became a part of man's soul when God 
 breathed into him the breath of life. 
 
CAPACITIES OF THE SEXES. 43 
 
 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 during this debate, and that 
 I mean to .vote against the proposition which a 
 short time ago I recommended. 
 
 I was misled by appearances. I looked into 
 history ; but I did not examine it correctly. I 
 looked at the surface only. I saw great deeds, 
 and I saw that men had performed 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 good- 
 ness taught to them in their infancy by their mo- 
 thers. So with philosophy, so with science. The 
 glitter caught me, and I fear I lost the sub- 
 stance. 
 
 I am not sorry, however, that I introduced 
 the question. It has changed those who were 
 wrong, it has confirmed those who 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 we adopt; and whilst 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 
 
44 TIIE DEBATER. 
 
 dignity, and treat them in every respect as our 
 full equals and as our best friends. 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iii. p. 380, et seq. 
 Madame de Stael's Works, generally. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xv. p. 299, &c. 
 Sydney Smith's Works, vol. i. p. 200, &c. 
 Woman's Mission. By Mrs. Ellis. 
 The Female Poets of Great Britain. 
 
 By Frederic Rowton. 
 Woman in her Social and Domestic Cha- 
 racter. By Mrs. John Sandford. 
 
45 
 
 Question III. 
 
 Is Capital Punishment justifiable f 
 
 ' Opener. — Mr. Chairman, I rise to submit to the 
 discussion 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 determined not to flinch from 
 my work, 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 cir- 
 cumstances, a foul and frightful crime. I wish, 
 however, to be distinctly understood 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 now no longer justifiable in any sup- 
 posable case. 
 
 In the first place, Capital Punishment is con- 
 demned by policy. It is an undeniable fact — a 
 fact so well known as to call for no proof from 
 
46 TIIE DEBATER. 
 
 me — that crime decreases just as this punish- 
 ment is more and more discontinued. Forgery, 
 sheepstealing, coining, burglary, and other offences 
 lately punishable with death, have, since the re- 
 peal of the capital penalty, most strikingly di- 
 minished. Even murder is found to decrease 
 just in proportion as executions become rarer. 
 Not in our country alone, but throughout all 
 Europe, this fact holds good, and it cannot 
 fail to tell us, in unmistakeable language, that 
 the point where punishment has become an in- 
 citement rather than a restraint has at length 
 been reached, and that the principle and appli- 
 cation of Punishment must consequently now be 
 altered. 
 
 I may perhaps be asked to explain this meta- 
 physically : to show why punishment now incites 
 rather than prevents ? 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, that 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 a 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 especially the pain 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 47 
 
 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 espe- 
 cially : and consequently it is felt to be unjust to 
 kill a man for a deed which could only have been 
 conceived and executed under frenzy or infatua- 
 tion. If a further proof were needed of the im- 
 morality 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 ex- 
 press purpose of endeavouring to abolish the gal- 
 lows ; 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 ven- 
 geance to God. We are bidden to be kind and 
 merciful to one another, even to the worst offen- 
 ders. By the Gospel we are taught above all 
 things the surpassing value of the human soul ; 
 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 
 
48 THE DEBATER. 
 
 at greater length ; but as they will doubtless be 
 amplified by many who are much better qualified 
 to enlarge upon them, 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 Punishments proceeds from a mawkish 
 sentimentality, a spurious mercy, and a most un- 
 wise philanthropy. Whence all this sympathy, 
 this morbid pity, this loud-tongued pleading for 
 the blood-dyd murderer, but from these impure 
 sources ? I am astonished, Sir, that men can be 
 found to defend the horrid crime of murder, and 
 to demand that it should escape 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 Capi- 
 tal Punishment is discontinued, but why may I 
 not say that this decrease in crime is owing to the 
 spread of education, the vigilance of our policy 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 49 
 
 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 not 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 re- 
 lation of mine were to be barbarously murdered 
 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. 
 
 I was astonished beyond measure, Sir, when I 
 heard the opener say, moreover, that Capital 
 Punishment is forbidden by our religion. Why, 
 have we not in the first book of the Bible this 
 clear command — w Whoso sheddeth maris blood by 
 man shall his blood be shed?" 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 murder ? 
 Surely now that the gentleman finds not only 
 by Divine Command, but by Divine Practice (for 
 the Almighty was the head of the Jewish com- 
 munity), that Capital Punishment is enjoined, he 
 
 E 
 
50 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 essen- 
 tially inconsiderate, barbarous and revengeful, I 
 should find it in the speech of the gentleman who 
 has just preceded me. A more crude, thought- 
 less, ad captandum address I never heard in my 
 life. It began with abuse and ended with self- 
 laudation : whilst 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 tem- 
 per, therefore, only proves the badness of his 
 cause. 
 
 From abuse the gentleman descended to misre- 
 presentation. He told us that the opponents of 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 51 
 
 Capital Punishments desire to defend the crime 
 of murder, and to protect the criminal from pu- 
 nishment. Now, once for all, Sir, let us firmly 
 deny and repudiate such folly. We admit to the 
 full that murder is a foul and awful crime ; and 
 we by no means desire to screen the offender, 
 either in the sight of God or man, TTe only de- 
 sire that the punishment 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, for ever, with 
 this thoughtless charge of false philanthropy ! 
 
 I reiterate the assertion of the opener, that the 
 punishment of death is impolitic. Experience 
 proves this, as we have seen ; and reason proves it 
 too. Consider for a moment 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 anything be more absurd ? 
 The act is directly opposed to the aim. Can any 
 thing be more calculated to increase crime instead 
 of repressing it ? Killing is justified instead of 
 being condemned ; and the man who is unaccus- 
 tomed to the casuistry by which bad laws are 
 easily defended, will be disposed to justify a 
 similar deed, committed under provocation, by 
 himself. And the practice not only misleads, 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 
 commencement 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. Expe- 
 rience proves it ; for the crime increases as the 
 inflictions abound : and Reason 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 
 Punishment 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 pos- 
 sessions 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, 
 consequently, cannot belong to the ruler by dele- 
 gation. The right of self- defence may perhaps be 
 
IS CAFITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 53 
 
 pleaded : but a moment's reflection will serve to 
 show that it cannot hold. Killing in self-defence 
 can only be justified by the fact that life is abso- 
 lutely in danger unless it be resorted to; and 
 therefore unless it can be shown that the ex- 
 istence 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 nowhere 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 sufficient answer to the question before 
 us. 
 
 Fifth Speaker. — Sir, The question of the 
 ruler's abstract right to inflict the punishment of 
 death is one which it is very difficult to discuss. 
 I must own that in spite of the last speaker's 
 observations, I am inclined to think that the ruler 
 
 £ 3 
 
54 THE DEBATER. 
 
 has such a right. Politically speaking, this right 
 seems to me to depend entirely upon expediency. 
 If the well-being of the state is promoted by the 
 sacrifice of its worst members, then I am of opi- 
 nion that the ruler has a perfect right to resort to 
 it. Whether Capital Punishment does, however, 
 promote the well-being of the state, is a question 
 into which I shall not enter : I wish to keep to 
 the mere matter of right. 
 
 I am quite willing to admit that I cannot accord 
 to the ruler any moral right to destroy his fellow- 
 beings. We cannot judge morally : and the ab- 
 sence of power seems to me to prove, beyond 
 question, the absence of right. Besides, as there is 
 no doubt that the Great Judge of all the earth 
 will unfailingly recompense every man according 
 to his deeds, there can be no pretence that the 
 administration of moral justice is, or needs to be, 
 committed into the feeble hands of man. 
 
 That the ruler possesses, however, a religious 
 right to use the sword of justice, I must say I 
 believe. This clear command — " Whoso sheddeth 
 man's blood by man shall his blood be shed," still 
 remains unrepealed; and in my opinion is ab- 
 solutely binding. It is quite true that the spirit 
 (and perhaps the letter) of the New Testament is 
 in some measure opposed to this command, but I 
 cannot help thinking that a clear and thoughtful 
 mind might reconcile them. 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 55 
 
 I am by no means bigoted, Sir, in favour of the 
 punishment of death; and 1 willingly concede 
 that my moral feelings are much shocked by the 
 practice; but until the arguments I have put 
 forward are disproved, I must reluctantly remain 
 amongst its advocates. 
 
 Sixth Speaker. — Sir, The very temperate 
 and gentlemanly tone of the address to which we 
 have just listened, leads me to hope that there 
 is still a chance of a fair and calm debate upon 
 this interesting topic. 
 
 I think it must be quite clear that the evil 
 effects of Capital Punishment quite destroy any 
 political right of the ruler to inflict it. " The 
 objects of punishment seem by common consent 
 to have been resolved into three, the reformation 
 of the offender, remuneration to the injured, and 
 the prevention of future crime: and all these 
 objects are frustrated by the penalty of death. It, 
 of course, prevents the reformation of the offender, 
 for it cuts him off from all chance of it. It fails 
 in remunerating the wronged, for it cannot bring 
 back the dead. And as to preventing crime, it is 
 notorious that at every execution crime is per- 
 petrated and planned under the very gallows." 
 
 The political right then, is dispelled, the moral 
 right is given up, and now there only remains the 
 
 religious right. 
 
 E 4 
 
56 THE DEBATER. 
 
 The religious right of the ruler to kill the 
 murderer rests, seemingly, upon the passage in 
 Genesis — " Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man 
 shall his blood be shed." But who can prove that 
 this is a command at all ? I think it simply a 
 prediction to the effect that whosoever liveth a 
 life of violence shall be repaid in the same coin ; — 
 a simple denunciation of GooVs vengeance against 
 men of blood and crime. The passage, be it re- 
 membered, is not an imperative command; it is 
 simply expressed in the future tense, and is no 
 more a delegation of divine authority than the 
 similar passage — "Whoso taketh the sword shall 
 perish by the sword." It should be noticed too, 
 that if the passage be any authority at all, it 
 denounces death for manslaughter as well as for 
 murder. "Whoso sheddeth" — are the w r ords : 
 there is no distinction of motive: homicide of 
 every sort is equally punishable w r ith death. This 
 conclusion will not, I suppose, be maintained by 
 any one ; and therefore I submit that it cannot 
 hold at all : the more especially as it is opposed, 
 and indeed altogether condemned, by the Gospel. 
 
 If I should have failed, Sir, in estimating any 
 part of the ruler's right to kill, I dare say I shall 
 soon be informed of it. 
 
 Seventh Speaker. — When the last speaker 
 told us, Sir, that the extract from Genesis simply 
 means that GooVs vengeance shall be awarded to 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 57 
 
 the murderer, he surely forgot that the passage 
 distinctly says — " by man" shall the murderer's 
 blood be shed. On these two words of course 
 the whole weight of the passage depends ; and they 
 are to me quite conclusive upon the matter. 
 
 It has been said, more than once or twice in this 
 debate, that the New Testament is opposed to this 
 command : I am of quite a different opinion. The 
 New Testament appears to confirm, rather than 
 to supersede, the divine authority of the civil 
 ruler. " Submit yourselves to every ordinance 
 of man." " The powers that be are ordained of 
 God." " Honour the king." " Respect them 
 that are set over you." " Resist not the power :" 
 — do not these passages clearly show us that the 
 ruler is the Almighty's vicegerent ? This granted, 
 let us take this other passage — w The ruler 
 beareth not the sw r ord in vain." Now, I think 
 that this clearly affirms the ruler's right and com- 
 mission 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 represen- 
 tative, and that when, as such, he uses the sword 
 to smite the wicked, he does so by divine autho- 
 rity, and is consequently blameless, and indeed 
 praiseworthy. 
 
 Eighth Speaker. — I am not yet quite satis- 
 fied, Sir, of the correctness of the assertion made 
 
58 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 
 rather than repress iniquity. Why does a father 
 correct his child ? To make it an example to the 
 rest. The infliction of chastisement operates upon 
 the fears of the others, and so naturally restrains 
 them from the commission of crime. 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 gallows 
 does restrain many men from murder. It may be 
 a frightful spectacle, perhaps even a depraving 
 one (as far as the mere spectators are concerned), 
 but the moral finds its way into the hearts of 
 millions through the land; and although from 
 the nature of things we cannot see the restraint 
 in operation, we have every fair reason to con- 
 clude 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 ab- 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 59 
 
 strusities 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 Punish- 
 ment can not be justified. 
 
 But the question shall not be so shirked. The 
 supporters of the pain of death may, if they please, 
 dismiss from their minds the sentiments of religion 
 and morality; 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 not justified either by 
 morality or religion. 
 
 Upon moral grounds I believe no one will now 
 defend it: but the religious reason is not yet 
 given up. I think, however, I can now demon- 
 strate 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 " by man shall the 
 murderer's blood be shed : " I quite agree with 
 this gentleman. These two words certainly do 
 seem to imply a sort of divine authority for man 
 to kill the manslayer. But what will the gentle- 
 man say, and what will his supporters say, when 
 
60 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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, Ostervald, and WyclifFe, reject 
 them altogether. 
 
 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 passage is this, — " Whoso sheddeth 
 man's blood that is in him, his blood shall be 
 shed." 
 
 Here, then, falls to the ground for ever the im- 
 posing edifice which has been built upon — a mis- 
 translation! The passage confers no right: it 
 speaks not of the agency of man at all, and there- 
 fore goes for nothing in the argument. 
 
 An intelligent gentleman who addressed us 
 some few minutes since, expressed his belief that 
 the supposed command just quoted, and the ap- 
 parently opposing passages in the New Testament, 
 might possibly be reconcileable. I think the gen- 
 tleman will now see that they are reconciled. 
 Without any command in the Old Testament, and 
 with a decided repugnance in the New Testament, 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 61 
 
 to shed human blood (even the blood of criminals) 
 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 altogether satisfied with the argu- 
 ments to which I have listened on the other side. 
 
 Granitng that the last speaker is right in his 
 new translation of the passage from Genesis, how 
 will he or others get over the fact that capital in- 
 flictions were expressly instituted and commanded 
 by the Most High when he gave laws to the 
 children of Israel ? I suppose it will not be pre- 
 tended that all this* is mistranslated too ; Capital 
 Punishment was most evidently one at time ap- 
 proved 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 de- 
 serves 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. 
 
J 
 
 62 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Eleventh Speaker. — In reply to the asser- 
 tion of the last speaker that we surely cannot 
 make mistakes in punishing the crime of murder, 
 it might be sufficient to point out that errors have 
 been made, — and not a few. Not 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 which they 
 suffered ! 
 
 But although the mere statement of this fact 
 sufficiently rebuts the assertion referred to, the 
 gentleman perhaps wishes to know how mistakes 
 in judgment can be made. I will tell him. It is 
 chiefly because we have not the faculty to dis- 
 tinguish between good and evil motives, and are 
 thus led to mistake deeds of dreadful consequence 
 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 
 a field of battle ! We cannot see motives in any 
 case, and therefore w r e 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 ; 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 63 
 
 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 unchristianised heart ; 
 and I cannot help saying that I think the har- 
 bourers of it were meant for the 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 inclined to live by 
 the light ^f three thousand years ago. Men were 
 barbarians when the law of death was enjoined : 
 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 re- 
 strain us. Moreover 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 by calculation. If by im- 
 pulse, then the mind that conceived it is beyond 
 
84 THE DEBATER. 
 
 the reach of moral restraint altogether: if by 
 calculation, then the criminal finds the chances of 
 escape stronger than the dread of discovery and 
 punishment, 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 sen- 
 tence, 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 unquestionably great horror in the 
 public mind at this law of blood : and even when 
 guilt is most clear, there is always, 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. Were 
 the sentence transportation, 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 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 65 
 
 a morbid sympathy is raised and disseminated on 
 behalf of the malefactor. 
 
 The supposed restraint of the gallows is a 
 vision, a chimera. 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 — although he, for his 
 part, believed in it ! But why 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 com- 
 mitting murder by the dread of the gallows ? 
 Who ever felt or feared the restraint himself? In 
 the very nature of things it is impossible. For 
 when once the idea of murder has been conceived 
 and determined upon, all restraint is alike for- 
 gotten or despised. 
 
 Speak as we may, men do not and will not fear 
 death. Lord Bacon truly says, " There is no pas- 
 sion so weak but it mates and masters this fear." 
 Even the drunkard despises it; and if he — the 
 most imbecile of God's creatures — 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 realise: and hope, even 
 under the worst circumstances, is so strong 
 within us, that it deludes us, and persuades us 
 F 
 
66 THE DEBATER. 
 
 even at the last moment, that we shall not surely 
 die. 
 
 I think then it must now be clear that Capital 
 Punishment, so 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 reason, and the delu- 
 sion 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 ordi- 
 nary motives for committing it. 
 
 Thirteenth Speaker. — Sir, Although this 
 discussion has referred to the chief points con- 
 nected with this interesting subject, there are yet 
 a few considerations remaining which have not 
 been quite cleared up. 
 
 In the first place, it is quite plain that when 
 the Almighty 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 punishment, he does it as God's 
 representative, and is therefore blameless. 
 
 Further : we are told to submit to the ruler, to 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 67 
 
 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 towards the w 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 punished with death, because insanity must 
 have prompted them when they committed their 
 crimes ; but this insanity 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 trans- 
 lators write " by man shall the murderer's blood 
 be shed," whilst some do not. But why are we 
 to take the version which has not the words, 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 good. Will you transport 
 your murderers? That will deprive society of 
 the example offered by their fate. Will you sen- 
 tence them to solitary imprisonment? This would 
 
 F 2 
 
68 THE DEBATER. 
 
 be more barbarous than death, by far. What, 
 then, will you give us in place of a punishment 
 which is at once striking and exemplary ; and 
 which, moreover, by giving the condemned criminal 
 an interval between the sentence and its execu- 
 tion, provides him with leisure for repentance in 
 the sight of God ? 
 
 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 re- 
 tention. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — Sir, I rise to offer a few 
 words in reply. 
 
 It seems to be tacitly admitted by all, that the 
 gallows can only be defended w r hilst it is found to 
 be expedient. As to whether it is expedient or 
 not, there seems still to be a question. 
 
 N'ow no one, Sir, has attempted to controvert 
 my assertion, that executions increase crime. I 
 do not wonder at this, for the fact (explain it as 
 we may) is not to be denied. Experience, then, 
 at all events, is with us. 
 
 And reason, Sir, is with us, too. The punish- 
 ment 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. 
 
IS CAriTAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 69 
 
 It has been shown, moreover, that we have no 
 right to kill. From self-defence 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 pretended delegator's posses- 
 sion : 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 derive, 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 which 
 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 judicial slaughter ? No, Sir, not in 
 the eyes of men of sense. 
 
 But we are pointed to the fact that God him- 
 self ordained Capital Punishment when He gave 
 laws to the children of Israel. Sir, the Jewish 
 system has been superseded these nineteen centu- 
 ries, and is now no rule at all for us. Besides, 
 the Jewish law awards death to a host of other 
 offences 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 
 
 F 3 
 
70 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 because the Jewish law en- 
 joined it ! 
 
 We have been told that the ruler is the repre- 
 sentative of the Almighty,, and therefore that he 
 is right in inflicting Capital Punishment. The 
 absurdity of this line of argument is easily demon- 
 strable. Was Nero Heaven's vicegerent ? Was 
 Henry the Eighth Heaven's commissioner ? 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 Hea- 
 ven'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 infamous Smith- 
 field-bonfires 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 u powers "may be 
 amenable to sense and justice for the errors they 
 commit in the employment of it. Capital Punish- 
 ment may be wrong, then, in spite of the " divine 
 commission" of the ruler. 
 
 The gentleman who spoke last desired to know 
 
IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT JUSTIFIABLE? 71 
 
 how the assertion that all murderers are insane 
 can be proved. The answer is most easy : by the 
 deed of murder itself. Murder is a thing so un- 
 natural, so revolting, so tremendous, 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 what — that is short of death. Any 
 thing is better than slaughter : for all other punish- 
 ments affect the body alone, whilst slaughter kills 
 body and soul, too. Let us imprison our mur- 
 derers for life: we imprison our madmen: 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 frightful crime. 
 
 See Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol.i. pp. 443. ; 
 
 vol. iii. 309. 367—386. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxv. pp. 320 — 353. 
 Sydney Taylor on the Punishment of 
 
 Death, pp. 15— 20. 90—94. 119. 176. 258 
 
 —261. 417—424. 
 The Punishment of Death Reviewed. By 
 
 Frederic Rowton. 
 Dymond on Punishment. 
 
 F 4 
 
72 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Tayler Lewis on the Ground and Reason 
 of Punishment. 
 
 Sampson's Criminal Jurisprudence. 
 
 wlnslow on the plea of insanity. 
 
 The Complete Argument against the Pu- 
 nishment of Death. Reprinted from the 
 Eclectic Review. 
 
 Reports of the Criminal Law Commis- 
 sioners, 1846 and 1848. 
 
 Basil Montagu on the Punishment of 
 Death. 
 
 Debates in the House of Commons, 1840, 
 1847, 1849, 1850. 
 
 0' Sullivan's Report to the New York 
 Legislature, 1848. 
 
 Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments. 
 
 Bentham on Punishment. 
 
 Criminal Returns annually presented to 
 Parliament by the Home Office. 
 
 Carlyle's Latter Day Pamphlets. 
 
 George Combe on Punishment. 
 
 Cheever on Death Punishments. 
 
73 
 
 Question IV. 
 Does Morality increase with Civilisation ? 
 
 Opener. — Sir, I think we have here lighted 
 upon a question of great value and interest ; a 
 question involving some most important principles, 
 and one calculated to lead us to conclusions affect- 
 ing materially our whole life and conduct. 
 
 We are to say ivhether Civilisation promotes 
 Morality ; or in simpler words, whether Know- 
 ledge 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-men 
 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 know- 
 ledge which is one of the chief signs of our age, 
 and which is doubtless working towards some vast 
 result of evil or of good. 
 
 By the term Morality, Sir, I mean good con- 
 duct ; conduct in accordance with justice and virtue. 
 I do not mean mere conventional propriety, or 
 simple literal adherence to the moral law; self- 
 interest or hypocrisy may be the source of this : 
 
74 THE DEBATER. 
 
 and the most outwardly irreproachable man may- 
 be really the most inwardly foul and detestable of 
 his species. I mean by morality, good conduct 
 springing from true principle : and by my question 
 I seek to know whether this Morality is promoted 
 by the increase of Civilisation. I wish to deter- 
 mine what connection subsists between the mind 
 and the heart : and I think that I cannot better 
 discover this than by the discussion 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 mould my question into the best form 
 that I could shape for it ; and I 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 adopt the negative side of this 
 question. 1 cannot see that there is any con- 
 nection whatever between knowledge and good- 
 ness. Knowledge is the wisdom of the brain: 
 goodness is the wisdom of the heart : and they 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 75 
 
 are things perfectly distinct and different from 
 one another. This is shown by the fact that very 
 learned men are often very bad men, whilst vir- 
 tuous men are often very ignorant. Were the 
 affirmative of the question 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 pro- 
 position 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 attainments were un- 
 paralleled : 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 : wisdom, there- 
 fore, is perfectly consistent with the deepest im- 
 morality. When we see, moreover, that the 
 general tendency of mere intellect (unless directed 
 by virtue) is towards evil rather than towards 
 good, I think we can have no doubt that in reply 
 
76 THE DEBATER. 
 
 to the question put from the chair, we must say- 
 that Morality does not necessarily increase with 
 Civilisation. 
 
 Third Speaker. — Sir, Though my experi- 
 ence in debate has hitherto been but small, I 
 have learned, notwithstanding, that a theory may 
 be exceedingly pretty and true to the look, and 
 yet be altogether contradicted 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. 
 
 Theorise as long as we may, there can be no 
 doubt of this, that as the world has been civilised, 
 it has become morally better. I care not into 
 what department of morality you go, you will 
 find improvement upon improvement in it as you 
 trace its history. In political, in social, in do- 
 mestic or in religious morality, you will discover 
 a complete 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 plenty. For- 
 merly all nations were at war ; now war, although 
 still existing, is almost unknown. History shows 
 us that law was at one time only a series of 
 written tyrannies ; now it is, or is gradually 
 becoming, the engraven word of justice. Kings, 
 in ages gone by, were absolute and uncontrolled ; 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 77 
 
 shed the blood of their subjects like water, plun- 
 dered without pity, and destroyed without re- 
 morse : 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 
 civilisation, of course; men knoio better than 
 they did, and therefore do better than they did. 
 Learning has generated improvement, and im- 
 provement has introduced morality. These, Sir, 
 are my sentiments upon the interesting subject 
 before us. 
 
 Fourth Speaker. — Sir, The most that the 
 last speaker has proved is, that there is a coinci- 
 dence between increased civilisation and improved 
 morality : he has by no means shown that there 
 is a connection between them. Civilisation has 
 advanced, and morality has advanced ; but we 
 may just as well say that the morality has im- 
 proved the civilisation, as that the civilisation has 
 improved the morality. 
 
 If I were asked to name the cause of this 
 improvement in morality, I should ascribe it to 
 Christianity rather than to civilisation. I cannot 
 find that the world advanced much till the Gospel 
 came. It is from that period that war declined, 
 that kings were humanised, that laws were ame- 
 liorated, and that peace began its reign. 
 
78 the Debater. 
 
 And the influence of Christianity upon virtue 
 is easily traceable ; whilst the effect of civilisa- 
 tion is not traceable. Peace, justice, mildness, 
 and temperance are the very doctrines of the 
 Gospel : whilst wisdom, I mean worldly wisdom, 
 intellect, genius, and learning are by no means 
 the instruments that the Gospel uses to propa- 
 gate its principles. " Not many wise, not many 
 learned, are called " to propound its doctrines, 
 and to unravel its mysteries ; but men of warm 
 and strong hearts have ever been its most suc- 
 cessful preachers. 
 
 Civilisation, on the other hand, has % clearly 
 done much evil : it has spread error with truth ; 
 has introduced luxury and enervating refinement ; 
 and has taught the world fraud, pride, and hypo- 
 crisy. In barbarism there is no intemperance, 
 no envy, no deceit ; but in civilised society all 
 these vices abound. I am of opinion, Sir, that 
 no Poet ever wrote a truer sentiment than Byron 
 produced in that striking line — 
 
 " The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life." 
 
 Fifth Speaker. — Sir, I am not at all dis- 
 posed to deny the vast influence of the Christian 
 religion in humanising and moralising the hearts 
 of men ; but I really think that civilisation, or 
 intellectual wisdom, has its merits too. 
 
 For myself, Sir, I have always imagined that 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 79 
 
 the term civilisation includes Christianity. Civili- 
 sation signifies whatever brings men out of bar- 
 barism : and I deem it very unwise to restrict 
 the meaning of the term to mere mental know- 
 ledge. I cannot believe that the mind, the in- 
 tellect of man, has done nothing to improve the 
 condition of the race : I feel that to assert such a 
 thing must be to reflect upon the All-wise Being 
 who gave us our three-fold nature, of body, mind, 
 and soul. One gentleman told us that brain and 
 heart (mind and soul) were distinct and different 
 things. Sir, I 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 
 moralise 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 cannot know right and wrong, 
 he cannot do them. If then the doing right or 
 doing wrong absolutely depends upon our in- 
 
80 THE DEBATER. 
 
 tellectual 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 Knowledge at least opens 
 our eyes and shows us where Life is. 
 
 Sixth Speaker. — A short and easy way of 
 discovering what improvement in morality the 
 present time exhibits as compared with more un- 
 civilised ages, is to take the Decalogue, and see 
 how it is obeyed. This is acknowledged to be our 
 highest moral code, and consequently is the fittest 
 test we can set up. 
 
 Do we keep the first then ? Do we " worship 
 only one true God ? " Alas ! we have a 
 multitude of deities. Mammon, Honour, 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 w T e " honour our parents " as we 
 should ? I almost blush to ask the question, Sir ; 
 for a shameless disregard of parental authority, a 
 studied contempt for honourable age, is one of the 
 most crying sins of the day. 
 
 " Thou shalt not kill " is one of the 
 Deity's commands : and we break it in a thousand 
 ways. We kill for conquest, for fame, for gold, 
 for revenge, and for many other pretexts, even 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 81 
 
 worse. O Sir, let us get out of barbarism before 
 we begin to talk about what has been done for us 
 by civilisation ! 
 
 " Thou shalt not bear false witness " 
 is another moral law : and this is the worst kept 
 of all. Who has not been slandered ? Who has 
 not been falsely accused ? Who has not had his 
 " life's life lied away " by tongues charged with 
 the venom of wickedness? "False witness!" 
 when do we meet with true witness ? Never, Sir, 
 was falsehood so triumphant as now : and civilis- 
 ation 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 Superstition sit balefully glittering 
 in the high places of the world, whilst 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 All-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 the mischief. Knowledge 
 must be good, for the Most High is himself omni- 
 scient; and although I cannot trace the connection, 
 G 
 
82 THE DEBATER. 
 
 I firmly believe that perfect wisdom is perfect 
 goodness. The wisest of men has said " That for 
 the soul to be without 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 first per- 
 ceive the glorious handiwork of the Creator in 
 this beautiful and wonderful world, and then rise 
 "from nature up to nature's God"; — directed to- 
 wards revealed religion by natural religion : and 
 the doctrine seems warrantable and reasonable. 
 Which is the more capable of worshipping the 
 Almighty : the untaught savage into whose ig- 
 norant mind the rays of thought have never pene- 
 trated? or the cultivated philosopher who has 
 discovered the divine hand of the great Creator 
 in his works? The gentleman who spoke last, 
 mourned dolefully over the non-observance of the 
 moral laws : but does not the giving of the moral 
 law to man clearly show that his mind is addressed 
 in order that he may be moralised ? These laws 
 are communicated to his mind: he is made to 
 know them : and his obedience 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 addressed by the preachers of 
 God's word? Nay, how can they get to the 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 83 
 
 heart at all but through the mind? The mind 
 must receive intellectually before the 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 impulse or passion, instead 
 of one of judgment and conviction. 
 
 Eighth Speaker. — I fear, Sir, that our 
 speakers have gone somewhat into extremes in 
 treating this subject ; and I am inclined to fancy 
 that the truth of the matter lies somewhere be- 
 tween 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 fraternise, 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 towards disbelief, and 
 feeling towards credulity; 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 
 
 G 2 
 
84 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 
 absolute sovereignty is bad, and we have done away 
 with it : we have seen that slavery is abominable, 
 and we have almost destroyed it : we have seen 
 that war 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 Civilisation has intro- 
 duced 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 gene- 
 rally works its own cure. Thus, although it has 
 introduced luxury, it has discovered and taught 
 the great lesson that luxury is an evil ; and al- 
 though 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 af- 
 firmative. 
 
 Ninth Speaker. — It may be very true, Sir, 
 and I believe it is true, that as Civilisation 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 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 85 
 
 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 Civilisa- 
 tion clearly causes. I think that the liar, the 
 hypocrite, the miser, the slanderer and the spend- 
 thrift are creations of civilised 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, society creates the atheist, 
 the sceptic, 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, civilised man seems a tamed, a spiritless, a 
 conventional and degraded being: farther from 
 his fellow-man, and farther from his God. 
 
 Take the history of any nation you please, and 
 you will find that its course is — first civilisation, 
 then luxury, and then ruin and decay. It was so 
 with Greece, so with Rome, and it promises to 
 be so with France and with England too. It 
 seems to me that virtue and happiness are in- 
 finitely more prevalent in a barbarous state than 
 in a civilised one ; and I cannot but attribute the 
 comparative unworthiness of the civilised com- 
 munity to the influence of mere intellect unac- 
 
 3 
 
86 THE DEBATER. 
 
 companied by morality. With these sentiments 
 I shall certainly vote in the negative of the pro- 
 position which has been read from the chair. 
 
 Tenth Speaker. — Sir, I really wonder that 
 the gentleman who last addressed us spoke in 
 English. He seemed so enamoured of the hap- 
 piness of the woods and wilds, that I imagined 
 him a Red 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 ex- 
 pression that an individual can be found to lament 
 that the world has been civilised, and to wish for 
 the pleasures of barbarism, in place of the plea- 
 sures of refinement. How he can imagine that 
 a barbarian is happier than a civilised man, I 
 cannot conceive. He will not pretend that he is 
 physically happier, I suppose : for surely regular 
 food, appropriate clothing, and comfortable lodge- 
 ment 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 magnificent 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 
 
 i 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 87 
 
 hope, of benevolence, of affection, of charity, of 
 social intercourse, and of religious belief and me- 
 ditation are altogether strangers to his heart : 
 whilst to the very worst of ns they are all in some 
 measure known. Amongst 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 
 the civilised man is more happy than the barba- 
 rian, then he must be morally better : for 
 
 " Virtue alone is happiness below : " 
 
 and consequently the possession of superior hap- 
 piness 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 speculation, must decide the 
 matter for us. Are men better than they were ? 
 Do we actually find it so, or not ? 
 
 It is true that it is difficult to judge ; but we 
 can judge, for all that. Admitting that much of 
 the world's apparent virtue is unreal, the very as- 
 sumption proves that there is real virtue to repre- 
 sent. There would be no false coin were there 
 no true money; and so in like manner there 
 would be no mock goodness were there no real 
 virtue to counterfeit. 
 
 6 4 
 
88 THE DEBATER. 
 
 There appears to be no question that the world 
 is better 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 behaved. But is the world better- 
 hearted f that is the question. I maintain that it 
 is ; and I think I can prove the correctness 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 Licen- 
 tiousness 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 im- 
 provement in the moral conviction, as well as in, 
 the intellectual perception, of the nature and con- 
 sequences of evil. Formerly murder was so 
 common, as scarcely to be deemed a crime: 
 street assassinations were things of every-day oc- 
 currence : now, murder is felt to be so ghastly 
 a deed, that no sane man can be supposed to 
 perpetrate it. Formerly, Duelling was a practice 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 89 
 
 universally approved and followed : now it is 
 looked upon as an imbecile folly, and a cowardly 
 sin. Formerly, debauchery was considered a 
 most excusable, indeed indispensable, mode of 
 life ; now it meets with the contempt of every 
 thoughtful man ; nay, even with the pity and ridi- 
 cule of every well-taught child. Drunkenness 
 and profanity were the practices of even the edu- 
 cated and the great : now, a gentleman is never 
 seen intoxicated, and never heard to swear: he 
 considers either practice a disgrace to him. 
 
 Turn where we will, we cannot fail to see that 
 the standard of morality is far higher than it was ; 
 and moreover, 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 in Morals has been, and is contem- 
 poraneous : 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 
 affirm that the surest Producer of happiness is in- 
 tellectual cultivation : but I assert, and will main- 
 tain, that the more a man is civilised, the more he 
 is made capable of being good, the more he will 
 incline to, and seek after virtue : and far from 
 entertaining any fears that the spread of Know- 
 
90 THE DEBATER. 
 
 ledge which we witness in the present day, is cal- 
 culated 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 fact 
 or logic, the gentleman has built his conclusions. 
 
 It cannot be from experience : for I defy him 
 to point out an instance in history when a period 
 of mere intellectual activity has been succeeded 
 by a period 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 times, for the ex- 
 amples are too remote : but I will instance modern 
 times instead. The revival of letters in Italy was 
 succeeded by a grosser superstition than men had 
 ever known before : the Shaksperian era of lite- 
 rature was followed by fanaticism, tyranny, and 
 civil war : the wonderful age in French intellec- 
 tual history which is represented by Voltaire and 
 Rousseau, was succeeded by revolutionary frenzy 
 and hideous licentious atheism. 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 91 
 
 So that fact will not support the vision of our 
 friend. 
 
 But will philosophy, will reason, warrant his 
 agreeable but improbable belief? What is there 
 in the nature of things to lead him to suppose 
 that knowledge is the precursor of virtue? See- 
 ins; is not doing : 
 
 " Men know the right, and yet the wrong pursue." 
 
 Adam knew full well that a penalty was attached 
 to breaking; the law which God gave him in Para- 
 dise : but the knowledge did not restrain him 
 from plucking the forbidden fruit ; on the con- 
 trary, it directly incited him to his crime. 
 
 Knowledge of good is worth nothing until the 
 power 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 subtlety 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 gettings get under- 
 standing : " and I 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. 
 
92 THE DEBATER. 
 
 In spite of the last speaker's logic, I still be- 
 lieve 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 im- 
 morality is the disease of the soul ; and unless a 
 man knows the nature and symptoms of the dis- 
 order, it is impossible that he can heal it. Know- 
 ledge is, both in physics and in morals, the first 
 step towards recovery. 
 
 It is true that great knowledge may be allied 
 to profound 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 diffi- 
 culties and obstructions which would otherwise be 
 insurmountable. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — Sir, I feel now fully pre- 
 pared to maintain the affirmative of the question 
 which I was the means of submitting to the con- 
 sideration of the meeting. That morality increases 
 with civilisation, I have now not the slightest 
 doubt. 
 
 The position I mean to assume is this: that 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 93 
 
 knowledge is not in any sense the cause of good- 
 ness: but that its progress is always contempo- 
 raneous and ooincident with the progress of good- 
 ness. I have come to the conclusion, that although 
 knowledge and virtue are by no means mutually 
 affected, yet the causes that advance the one must 
 advance the other : and therefore that they pro- 
 gress together. 
 
 I trust that this position will be understood. 
 Two needles may be attracted towards one mag- 
 net : 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 on- 
 ward by civilisation, yet neither is indebted 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 department of human life and con- 
 duct, 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 not doubt it, Sir. 
 
94 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Who reaps his harvest on the 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 pheno- 
 mena of the dark ages that succeeded the periods 
 of enlightenment to which he directed our at- 
 tention. 
 
 In those ages of intellect, the seeds of truth 
 were soivn : and, as was natural, in the next age 
 those seeds 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 the course of truth in all ages. 
 With light 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, 
 
MORALITY AND CIVILISATION. 95 
 
 and the knowledge of Sin shows us the beauty of 
 Morality. 
 
 See Macaulay's Essays, vol. i. p. 70 et seq. ; ibid, 
 p. 256 et seq. 
 
 Edinburgh Keyiew, vol. xv. p. 313 ; vol. xvii. 
 p. 65. ; vol. xxix. p. 456. 
 
 M'Culloch's Principles of Political Eco- 
 nomy, pp.63 — 76. 
 
 Goldsmith's Citizen of the "World. 
 
 Hume's Essays, vol. i. p. 285 et seq. 
 
 MacKinnon's History of Civilisation. 
 
 Whewell's Elements of Morality. 
 
 Foster's Essay on the Evil of Popular 
 Ignorance. 
 
 Gutzot's History of Civilisation. 
 
96 
 
 Question V. 
 Has the Stage a Moral Tendency ? 
 
 First Speaker. — Sir, The question of the 
 morality or immorality of theatrical entertain- 
 ments is one of the most interesting, and pro- 
 bably one of the most important, that can engage 
 us. When we reflect upon the universal passion 
 that has been exhibited for this species of amuse- 
 ment ; when we further remember that some of 
 the noblest productions of human intellect have 
 been oifered to the world through the medium of 
 the Stage ; and when, lastly, we bear in mind 
 that the theatre is one of the chief pleasures of 
 the youthful members of the community in all 
 times and countries, we 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 have any ascetic objection to the 
 gay nature of the pleasure 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 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 97 
 
 for and against, I conceive that the Stage does 
 more harm than good. 
 
 That the Stage might be made a great and 
 powerful moral teacher, I will not pretend to 
 dispute : that it has done much moral good, I 
 will not deny either : but our question 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 rub- 
 bish-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 irredeemable 
 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 ex- 
 ceptions) 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 implements 
 of our dramatists are not thought, passion, and 
 knowledge ; but scissors and paste merely. Oh ! 
 what a change from Shakspere ! 
 
 1 Who but must mourn, while these are all the rage, 
 The degradations of our vaunted stage ? " 
 
 And who are the actors ? There are individual 
 
 H 
 
98 THE DEBATER. 
 
 exceptions of great worth, but as a body they are 
 the most profligate, shameless, and impure of the 
 species. You find among them adulterers, se- 
 ducers, gamblers, drunkards, and common knaves 
 innumerable : who can expect much morality from 
 them ? 
 
 And who are the patrons of the Stage ? Who 
 are the people that visit the theatre? 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 favourable to 
 morality : for myself I am at present quite con- 
 vinced to the contrary; and until I hear argu- 
 ments 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 Shakspere's time, the proof of this is by no 
 means a fair argument against its abstract mo- 
 rality. Every thing of earth is liable to abuse : 
 and the Stage is of course not an exception. 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 99 
 
 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 man- 
 kind as a moral teacher ? So extended and uni- 
 versal 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 ques- 
 tion. We should not forget how the Greek 
 tragedians softened, purified, and elevated the 
 barbaric mind ; how the Koman players extended 
 civilisation and refinement : how the great Shaks- 
 pere 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 portrayed, and our actors 
 have delineated, honour, courage, patriotism, 
 friendship, and virtue, till their principles 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 de- 
 fended, still I believe that it is even now working 
 
 H 2 
 
100 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 dif- 
 ficulty in following my worthy friend who has 
 just ceased to speak : for I am not accustomed to 
 such peculiar logic, and such extraordinary meta- 
 physics. 
 
 The first argument which the gentleman em- 
 ployed to defend dramatic representations was one 
 of the most striking and original I ever remember 
 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 ne- 
 cessary, to gratify that taste. Truly this is very 
 entertaining 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, that there exists, some- 
 where or other in this great metropolis, a some- 
 what large class of persons facetiously deno- 
 minated the "light-fingered gentry," who have 
 a " taste " for relieving people's pockets of silk 
 handkerchiefs, purses, snuff-boxes, and other trin- 
 kets 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 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 101 
 
 moral or not, if people will pick and steal, it is 
 nothing but fair and right to give them the op- 
 portunity. 
 
 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 that the examination I 
 propose would only have brought him a more 
 complete defeat. 
 
 Why is this passion for dramatic representations 
 implanted in so many breasts? Sir, the minds 
 that harbour the passion are minds which either 
 dislike or cannot encounter real life ; and there- 
 fore seek a false existence in fictitious perform- 
 ances. Such minds are countless, and therefore 
 it is no wonder that there should be in all ages, 
 countless favourers 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 opposition. 
 
 Fourth Speaker. — I think that the ex- 
 planation which has just been given of the causes 
 of men's pleasure 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 amusement. The mind 
 must now and then unbend and luxuriate : and 
 
 H 3 
 
102 THE DEBATER. 
 
 the gay doings of the theatre form altogether 
 perhaps the best means of relaxation. But be- 
 sides this, there is a great mental pleasure pro- 
 vided by the very nature of the Drama itself. It 
 represents life and nature in heroics, and so 
 raises, refreshes, and restores the weary and de- 
 pressed 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 grovelling idea of life and of his 
 fellow-men : the meanness, 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 colours ; brings before him th$ 
 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 theatre we quit the 
 sordid 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 heroism, 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- 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 103 
 
 tion and affection, has done no little to foster 
 and nourish 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 favour of the Drama, 
 is to me the strongest possible proof of its evil 
 tendency. 
 
 The speaker described the Stage as the repre- 
 sentation 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 admission 
 that the Drama presents to our view idealities 
 instead 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 conquerors, glory-seekers, 
 accomplished villains, stoics, chivalric blood- 
 stained knights, and so forth. The sentiments 
 they utter are "ambition," "renown," "honour," 
 
 H 4 
 
104 THE DEBATER. 
 
 " war," brute " courage," and other virtues of si- 
 milar nature. 
 
 One of the great heroes of the Stage is Cato. 
 He is described as 
 
 "A brave man struggling with the storms of fate, 
 And greatly falling with a falling state." 
 
 Stoical indifference 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 
 heroes. The example he sets us is to order the 
 execution of his sons, for a simple act of diso- 
 bedience! Very refreshing and elevating this 
 must be to a tired and sated mind ! Very much 
 it must raise the spectators' conception of human 
 nature ! 
 
 And this is a fair sample of what the Drama 
 almost always represents to us. Vile passions 
 are invested with 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 towards evil. 
 
 Sixth Speaker. — Sir, It would be folly to 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 105 
 
 deny that a great deal of evil exists in the Drama 
 and in the Theatre : but I think it equal folly to 
 affirm that the evil of dramatic entertainments 
 outweighs the good. Our friend who spoke last 
 has referred us to some of the bad examples 
 which the Stage presents to us; but he quite 
 omitted to instance any of the good ones. Xay, 
 he led us to believe that 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 ho- 
 nours he has won. We next see the spectre 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 object of his desire, the purple of royalty. 
 And then the lesson begins. We see retribution 
 come. 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? Xo lesson? Xo 
 example to the world ? 
 
 I point you next to William Tell. Here the 
 poet makes us see the hideousness of moral sla- 
 very: shows us that to fight for freedom is at 
 once the duty and the happiness of man: and 
 
106 THE DEBATER. 
 
 raises up in Tell the patriot whom chains cannot 
 bind, whom authority cannot subdue, whom death 
 itself cannot appal, 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 will fail 
 of its effect ? 
 
 In Cordelia again, what a beautiful and affect- 
 ing picture 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 affectionate child ever 
 clings to her wayward parent, and offers an ex- 
 ample that we may be sure not a few have fol- 
 lowed. 
 
 I might instance other characters, but these will 
 suffice. They will serve to show that the Stage 
 is not that promoter of immorality which so many 
 have taken great pains to prove it. 
 
 Seventh Speaker. — Sir, The last speaker 
 has confounded 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 Theatre : 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 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 107 
 
 seen upon our boards. Were the theatre always 
 to exhibit the plays of Shakspere, Knowles, 
 Otway, Sheridan, and the other great dramatists 
 who have recorded their imperishable works in 
 our literature, no one would object to it. But 
 unluckily, these great moral writers are just those 
 whose works are not performed. Directly a ma- 
 nager produces one of these moral plays, his au- 
 dience 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 represented there ? I for one say 
 €t 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 
 conceive ? Vapid idealism distinguishes our Tra- 
 gedy; 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 theatres, I will tell him — 
 
108 the debater. 
 
 "Jonathan Bradford," "Jack Sheppard," 
 or " Tom and Jerry." Any thing that has 
 crime, red-fire, murder, robbery, or horror in it is 
 sure to draw ; whilst 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 Shakspere, Otway, 
 Knowles, Sheridan, and our other great writers, 
 always and only represented on the stage, I 
 should not object to the theatre for a moment. 
 But when I say this, I wish to say also that I by 
 no means join in the blind enthusiasm which is 
 felt for these writers. Even Shakspere is not 
 perfect. The murderer Brutus is not worthy of 
 honour, although we are led to think so: and 
 many other characters I could name are by ne 
 means deserving of the esteem he claims for them. 
 In like manner, Otway gives more honour than 
 can ever be due to conspirators to his favourite 
 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 enter- 
 tainments seem to me to be so rational and natural 
 an amusement, that until a stronger argument 
 than the fact that they have been abused, is 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 109 
 
 produced, I shall certainly support and defend 
 them. 
 
 The universality of the passion for this species 
 of amusement is (in spite of the ridicule thrown 
 upon the fact) a strong argument in favour of the 
 Stage : for pleasures may always be made moral 
 teachers if they are rightly employed, and conse- 
 quently 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, 
 Sir, I would not oppose this desire; for, being 
 natural, how could I hope to overcome it. But 
 I w T ould shape it into proper form, direct it 
 towards virtue, and so ensure a good Stage in- 
 stead 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 represent- 
 ations 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 of life. He is thus moralised, not by 
 
110 THE DEBATER. 
 
 homily, but by example. He carries the wisdom 
 he acquires from the scene of fiction into the 
 sphere of fact ; and the sympathies which he feels 
 for the ideal beings of the 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 appear 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 con- 
 clusion from it. To my mind it seems to follow 
 as a necessary consequence that the amusements 
 of the child are not 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 
 therefore pantomimes are fit amusements for men ? 
 The predilections of children, then, are rather 
 arguments against the Stage, than reasons in its 
 favour. 
 
 I object also to the last argument of the speaker. 
 He maintains that the Drama moralises by ex- 
 ample; 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 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? Ill 
 
 admit this. I believe the excitement to be, not 
 real excitement, but false. We are excited, not 
 by truth, but by falsehood and error : and mostly 
 in the direction of wrong objects. We are ex- 
 cited by false shows (such as pity for blood-dyed 
 ruffians, compassion for unreal suffering, and ad- 
 miration 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 he who is most vio- 
 lently affected by the fictitious scenes of sorrow 
 and distress which he beholds 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 ob- 
 jected to by one of the gentlemen who addressed 
 us because of the bad character of the performers. 
 Now, without attempting to defend this im- 
 morality, let me just point out to our friend 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 temptation ; and any persons so placed 
 
112 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 explana- 
 tion of it. 
 
 The uses of the Stage have not, in my opinion, 
 yet been fairly pointed out. Shakspere tells 
 you its direct object — to reflect the age: but it 
 can do other things beyond this. It has often 
 been employed to still popular discontent and 
 political excitement. Brutus, by engaging a 
 company of comedians, and throwing open the 
 theatres to the populace, quieted very serious dis- 
 turbances in Rome. In our own country the 
 same practice has been resorted to, and has proved 
 successful. 
 
 Further, the Stage is very useful to expose and 
 satirise the vices of the great. Where there is a 
 court, there are always parasites, flatterers, de- 
 bauchees, slanderers, and other vile characters: 
 the Stage offers the best medium I know for 
 holding up these persons to public derision and 
 reproof. 
 
 Another great merit of the Stage is, that it is 
 the sole national school of elocution. It is only 
 in the theatre that we meet with models whom we 
 can safely follow in the art of speech ; and this at 
 a time when the power of speech is so useful and 
 valuable is, I conceive, a great argument in favour 
 of the Stage. 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 113 
 
 Eleventh Speaker. — Sir, The early argu- 
 ments that were brought forward in this debate 
 in proof of the morality of the Stage, had, I must 
 confess, some little weight ; but the reasons since 
 urged have become " small by degrees and beauti- 
 fully less;" just as the wine gets 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 actors is excusable because they are public 
 men ; and because 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 employed. 
 I admit that if other people were placed in the 
 position of actors they would be guilty of the 
 same immoralities : and why do I make that ad- 
 mission? Because I see clearly that the Stage 
 has a tendency towards these immoralities ; and 
 must, in fact, produce them. Doctor 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 exem- 
 plified this truth. In the vices of the actors, Sir, 
 there is nothing but necessary cause and effect. 
 
 The gentleman said, secondly, that the Stage 
 i 
 
114 THE DEBATER. 
 
 can be used to still political excitement. I will 
 tell my friend an anecdote. When the terrible 
 atrocities of the Reign of Terror were taking place 
 in the September of the French Revolution, 
 Robespierre and his associates caused all the 
 theatres to be opened free of charge. This had the 
 effect of diverting the popular mind, and so the 
 fiendish murders w T ere passed over without con- 
 cern, instead of raising a shout of execration that 
 should have shaken the heavens. The use of the 
 theatre then is to stifle man's natural sense of 
 justice, and to send his moral feelings to sleep. 
 
 Next we are told that the theatre is very useful 
 as a means to expose the follies of the great. 
 Yes ! but this is just the only thing that it never 
 does! The theatre is dependant on the great for 
 its support, and dare not satirize the great. Is 
 not the Lord Chamberlain, the very head and 
 representative of aristocracy, the licenser of 
 plays ? 
 
 Lastly, we learned that the Stage is useful as a 
 school of elocution. Sir, we do not want a na- 
 tional school of elocution. So long as there are 
 natural passions, feelings, and emotions in the 
 human mind, so long will Nature teach us how to 
 express them: and when there are no such passions, 
 feelings, and emotions, we shall not w T ant the in- 
 struction. Nay, does not the actor himself copy 
 his art from Nature ? Surely then if the great 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 115 
 
 original remains, we need not be very anxious 
 about the imitation. 
 
 Twelfth Speaker. — Sir, Although I admit 
 that I am no great admirer of the Stage as we 
 behold it in the present day, I yet think there 
 are some sound arguments in its favour 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 re- 
 ligion through its " mysteries " and " moralities," 
 and through Shakspere it presented 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 which 
 the Drama provides, are necessary for the relief 
 and diversion of men's minds. The most trifling, 
 and indeed in themselves most ridiculous, amuse- 
 I 2 
 
116 THE DEBATER. 
 
 ments have been resorted to, by the greatest' 
 men, for mere relaxation. A celebrated 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, whit amusement is t lere 
 that will compare with the Drama ? I will here 
 leave the subject, as I think it has now been fully 
 discussed. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — 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. 
 
 Whilst I readily admit that the Stage has been, 
 and might be again, a useful moral teacher, I am 
 still prepared to maintain that the Stage, as it is, 
 is most objectionable and immoral in its tendencies. 
 
 Immoral productions, immoral actors, immoral 
 adjuncts, and immoral auditors, form the un- 
 deniable concomitants of the Drama of the day. 
 False feelings, false conclusions, and false princi- 
 ples, are abundantly generated by it. It is the 
 cause of dissipation, late hours, and other evils 
 which have been pointed out, and therefore I un- 
 hesitatingly condemn it. 
 
HAS THE STAGE A MORAL TENDENCY? 117 
 
 Only one of the arguments employed to defend 
 the Stage seems to me to have any weight in it. 
 It is the argument that we ought to look abstract- 
 edly at the theatre, and not argue against it be- 
 cause it is abused. I do not wonder that our 
 opponents are anxious for an abstract view of this 
 matter : for that is the only way in which their 
 case 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 towards abuse, and therefore it must be 
 judged through its abuses. 
 
 The last speaker urged that the Stage is defen- 
 sible on the ground that trifling amusements are 
 necessary for the diversion of men's minds. I 
 quite agree with him, Sir, that the Stage is a fri- 
 volous amusement ; but I do not agree with him 
 that therefore it is a fit recreation. The gentle- 
 man 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 amuse- 
 ments, for their relaxation ! 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 
 
 I 3 
 
118 THE DEBATER. 
 
 find them, go to the box-lobbies of any metro- 
 politan theatre, 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 Cider-cellars or 
 Pandemoniums, after the performances are over, 
 and there you will find them carrying into prac- 
 tice the high lessons they have learned. 
 
 But, Sir, I must conclude : for I fear that I 
 have already taken up too much of your time. I 
 simply commit the question to your fair decision. 
 
 See Edinburgh Kevtew, vol. xiv. p. 148. 
 Macaulay's Essays, vol. ii. p. 264 et seq 
 Jeremy Collier on the Stage. 
 Dr. Styles on the Stage. 
 
119 
 
 Question VI. 
 Have the Crusades been beneficial to Mankind? 
 
 First Speaker. — Sir, It will be generally ad- 
 mitted, I think, that it is scarcely possible to 
 select a subject for discussion more calculated to 
 awaken interest and thought, than that which has 
 been just read from the chair, It is now univer- 
 sally felt that the Crusades form the starting- 
 point, and first page, of Modern European His- 
 tory ; and the perusal and careful study of that 
 page cannot fail to make us see and judge more 
 wisely the rest of the volume. It will be not 
 merely an amusiug, but an instructive task, to 
 carry ourselves back into the early ages of civi- 
 lisation, and trace the development and growth of 
 those great principles which have since proved so 
 important to the world. I have only to solicit 
 the kind patience of the meeting whilst the task 
 is performed. 
 
 To decide whether these vast and extraordinary 
 enterprises have been of service to the world, we 
 must see what the world was when they were 
 undertaken, and then what it was after they were 
 over. 
 
 I 4 
 
120 THE DEBATER. 
 
 We cannot of course survey the whole world 
 at once : so we will take England as its type, 
 which doubtless it was. What then, was England 
 at this time? The answer is easily given — a land 
 of slavery. By the Normans, the English people 
 were personally and politically enslaved ; by ig- 
 norance they were mentally enslaved ; and by the 
 foulest superstition they were morally enslaved. 
 A more complete state of degradation and bond- 
 age cannot be conceived. 
 
 Well, the Crusades occurred ; and as if by 
 magic, the bondsmen's chains began to break and 
 fall asunder. The feudal system relaxed : the 
 sovereign power was coerced and reduced : Magna 
 Charta was gained by the people : personal bond- 
 age gradually declined : mental and moral slavery 
 were exposed by Wickliff and the other succes- 
 sors of the holy men who called Europe into arms; 
 and from that time civilisation took firm footing 
 in Europe. 
 
 By the Crusades, then, was generated that en- 
 thusiastic love of Freedom which has ever since 
 been so prominent a feature in the European cha- 
 racter. Peter the Hermit little thought when 
 he was calling on all Christians to put an end to 
 the miserable bondage of the worshippers in the 
 East, that he was insuring the freedom, bodily 
 and mental, of the West, as well. But the w T ise 
 Disposer of Events had ordered it so, and so it 
 came to pass. 
 
THE CRUSADES. 121 
 
 To the Crusades we further owe the improve- 
 ment and enlightenment of European taste and 
 learning. The splendour, the riches, and the 
 £oiwou3 architecture of the East contributed 
 materially to our advancement. They led us to 
 imitate what we found of superiority : they en- 
 larged our ideas : and so added many new sources 
 of happiness. From the East we gained much 
 learning, too : the wisdom of the Arabian sages 
 became open and revealed to us, and assisted our 
 progress both in art and literature. The Crusades 
 opened fresh fields for our commerce, also. Europe 
 found that in the East its merchandize was wel- 
 come and in demand ; and thus its manufacturing 
 superiority commenced. I might instance many 
 other benefits that resulted to Europe, and to the 
 world at large, from these great and singular ex- 
 peditions, but these will suffice, at least at present : 
 I doubt not that many of my supporters will make 
 up for my deficiencies ; and for myself, I think it 
 sufficient now to say that I consider the Crusades 
 were extremely beneficial to the world. 
 
 Second Speaker. — Sir, It will help us to 
 form a correct decision upon the subject under de- 
 bate, if we look at the origin and nature of the 
 Crusades. 
 
 What were these expeditions, then? Wars; 
 cruel wars ; religious wars. Now, I question 
 whether war in any case (save for the preservation 
 
122 THE DEBATER. 
 
 of life) is justifiable by morality : but war without 
 attack or provocation is, beyond all question, con- 
 demnable and abominable. 
 
 The Crusades, then, being proved to be evil in 
 their origin, cannot, I believe, be good in their 
 results. Good is not the natural fruit of iniquity : 
 a clean thing cannot come out of an unclean. 
 
 We were told by the opener that good has re- 
 sulted ; but admitting that good has happened in 
 Europe since the Crusades, it has yet to be proved 
 that the Crusades have caused it. I must confess 
 myself sceptical upon this point : and certainly, 
 before I admit it, I must see it demonstrated. It 
 is a very common error to mistake coincidence for 
 causation ; and in my opinion that mistake is made 
 when European civilisation is attributed to the 
 Crusades. 
 
 If we look at the history of the Crusades them- 
 selves, and at the conduct of the Crusaders, we 
 shall see how very unlikely it is that benefit should 
 have resulted from these enterprises. Cruelty, 
 murderous ambition, profligacy, and all the other 
 great crimes that stain the human character, seem 
 to have been aroused by these Crusades : and I 
 will simply ask whether these evil passions let 
 loose in Europe were calculated to improve its 
 morals, to elevate its intellect, to break its chains, 
 or to promote its prosperity ? I appeal to the 
 common sense of the meeting. 
 
THE CRUSADES. 123 
 
 Third Speaker. — Sir, Granting (which I, 
 for one, will not) that the origin and nature of the 
 Crusades were evil, I really cannot understand 
 upon what principle it is that the last speaker 
 has come to the conclusion that therefore their 
 results have been injurious. Why, Sir, it is one 
 of the plainest, as well as one of the grandest, 
 truths enforced by experience, that good inva- 
 riably results from evil. I, for my part, am con- 
 vinced that the results of the Crusades must have 
 been beneficial, because I believe that " whatever 
 is y is right ; " or, in other words, because I believe 
 that there is above us and over all creation, a 
 mighty law which worketh all things w^ell. 
 
 It would be easy to prove this even by the small 
 and trifling events of human life ; but this I will 
 not stop to do. One cannot contemplate, how- 
 ever, the mighty occurrences which we are to- 
 night discussing, without pausing for an instant 
 to observe and trace the operation of this grand 
 and soul-cheering principle. I see a mass of 
 human beings, kings, prelates, nobles, priests, 
 and commoners, gathered from all parts of the 
 most enlightened quarter of the globe, form- 
 ing themselves into one mighty armament, for 
 one single purpose. I see them forgetting their 
 petty differences, discharging their bosoms of 
 their long-harboured enmities, proclaiming them- 
 selves brothers and friends, and leaving their 
 
124 THE DEBATER. 
 
 homes, their comforts, and all that was near 
 and dear to them, supported and nerved by one 
 high and beautiful hope. I see them pressing on 
 under a thousand perils, perils of the sword, 
 of the pestilence, and of the elements, con- 
 tending with want, famine, and fatigue, yet 
 still borne up by their strong enthusiasm, still 
 animated by their high and glorious hope. I see 
 them arrive at the land of their expectations, 
 grievously thinned in numbers, strangers and 
 homeless ; but still undauntedly clinging to their 
 great purpose, and eager to commence their vast 
 work. I see Christian chivalry and Saracen 
 strength engaged in tremendous and continual 
 conflict, and after varying success, relinquish- 
 ing the struggle, wiser, greater, better, than 
 when they commenced it. And it is impossible 
 to look at the features of this great armament — 
 its rise, progress, course and dispersion — without 
 feeling that whatever may have been the evils at- 
 tendant upon it, it awoke in the European breast 
 a thousand great but slumbering principles, all 
 directly and materially affecting the destiny and 
 happiness of the human race. 
 
 The gentleman who preceded me spoke of the 
 horrors of war. War is horrible, but here, as 
 always, it was the cause of peace. The Crusaders 
 found that war would not accomplish their object, 
 and they themselves, the beginners of the war, 
 
THE CRUSADES. 125 
 
 had actually to sue for its discontinuance ! De- 
 pend upon it, that moral sank deeply into the heart 
 of Europe. Good can spring from evil, then* 
 nay does. 
 
 The conclusion to which I come, Sir, is this ; 
 that whether the intention of the Crusaders was 
 virtuous or evil, good must have resulted from 
 their mighty enterprise. 
 
 Fourth Speaker. — Sir, Without entering 
 into the question whether the motives of the 
 Crusaders were virtuous or vile, I am still of 
 opinion that in a most important point of view, 
 their great enterprises did injury to the European 
 world. 
 
 The Crusaders, by their expeditions, boldly 
 asserted the wicked principle, that Christianity is 
 a religion to be propagated by the sword. Bear 
 in mind that the heads of the Church were the 
 chief instigators of these movements, and then ask 
 yourselves what must have been the effect of this 
 pernicious example on the mind of ignorant and 
 superstitious Europe ? Can you not clearly trace 
 to this the fierce persecutions of the Albigenses, 
 the Jews, and Lollards in a subsequent age? 
 the dark horrors of the dreadful Inquisition? 
 the Smithfield burnings of Queen Mary and 
 Bishop Bonner? the armed fanaticism of the 
 seventeenth century? and the relentless, perse- 
 
126 THE DEBATER. 
 
 cuting bigotry so rife in the present day? It 
 appears to me that were this the only reason 
 one could urge against the Crusades, it would be 
 sufficient to make us regard them as forming one 
 of the most mournful eras in our history. Who 
 can estimate the error, the wickedness, and the 
 misery which have been caused by the promul- 
 gation of the awful doctrine that the sword is 
 the best means to propagate the cross! The 
 planting of that error has caused the world a vast 
 harvest of wretchedness, which is not even yet all 
 gathered. 
 
 Fifth Speaker. — Sir, I cannot agree with 
 the previous speaker at all. 
 
 He objects to the Crusades because their pro- 
 moters propagated Christianity by the sword. But, 
 Sir, he ought to have distinguished between the 
 act and the motive. The act was evil, but the 
 motive was good; and in such case it is the 
 motive that operates, and not the act. 
 
 We have no grounds for denying that the mo- 
 tive of the Crusaders was a good one. You tell 
 me of the pride, the ambition, the lust for glory, 
 the fanaticism of the invading host. I grant it 
 all; but I say, notwithstanding, that there were 
 motives beyond and superior to these, which were 
 in reality the cause of the enterprise. These other 
 motives of which you speak were not sufficient to 
 
THE CRUSADES. 127 
 
 account for it : so small a lever could never have 
 performed so great a work. I look, therefore, for 
 some higher and stronger exciting power than 
 mere pride or ambition; and I think I find it. 
 I think I see a lofty religious principle at work, a 
 true and zealous desire to fight to the death for a 
 holy faith. Doubtless it was an error to seek to 
 promote the Gospel by means of war, but it 
 was a sublime and splendid error. It showed 
 enthusiasm and sincerity : and indeed was no 
 great error after all. The Church on earth is 
 militant ; and a warlike character becomes it 
 well. It has ever a great foe to fight — the prince 
 of evil : and must combat before it can conquer. 
 We, more civilised than the Crusaders, have better 
 weapons than the sword ; but the sword was the 
 only weapon they possessed; and in their pure 
 and holy cause they were not wrong to use it. 
 
 And as to the example, I maintain that it was 
 a good and useful one : it told all Europe that 
 evil was to be resisted to the last, and with the 
 sharpest weapons : and whilst our friend who last 
 spoke endeavoured to trace to the Crusades the 
 fierce spirit of persecution and intolerance which 
 since then has so often disgraced and degraded 
 Europe, be it ours to trace to those great enter- 
 prises the firmness, the zeal, the heroic fear- 
 lessness, and the earnest unshakable determina- 
 tion which Europe has ever since that age ex- 
 
128 THE DEBATER. 
 
 hibited in defence of its holy religion. If the 
 Crusades produced the bigots, they also produced 
 the martyrs, of our history ; if they produced the 
 persecutors, they also produced the defenders, of 
 the Church : and if they asserted the error that 
 the sword of steel is the instrument of the Gospel, 
 they discovered the truth that the sword of steel 
 is not so effective a weapon as the sword of the 
 spirit. 
 
 Sixth Speaker. — Sir, it appears to me that 
 morality is being sacrificed to enthusiasm in this 
 debate. The speakers are actually defending crime 
 because the criminals were in earnest ! 
 
 Now, Sir, to me it seems that nothing can 
 justify error ; and therefore that if we prove the 
 Crusades to be morally, politically, and religiously 
 wrong, we do enough to demand a negative reply 
 to the question under debate. 
 
 Well, then, were the Crusades politically called 
 for ? No. There were no dangers hanging over 
 Christendom at the time; the Mahometans were 
 not threatening us : there was nothing to appre- 
 hend from them. 
 
 Or were these enterprises morally justifiable ? 
 What right had the West to attack the East? 
 There is not even a plea of moral right to reply 
 to. 
 
 Or can the Crusades be defended on religious 
 
THE CRUSADES. 129 
 
 grounds? Here they appear to fail the most. 
 The Christian religion is essentially the religion 
 of peace and preservation : and therefore an ex- 
 pedition of war and destruction must, of course, 
 be condemned by it. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that, tried by all our 
 standards of right, these great armaments are 
 found to be wicked and unjustifiable : and, as I 
 said before, I cannot understand why truth 
 should be sacrificed to enthusiasm. To me the 
 Crusades seem wrong altogether, and I do not 
 scruple to say so. 
 
 It may be said that the results justify the Cru- 
 sades ; but I think the results (even granting the 
 argument) are misunderstood. As far as I can 
 judge, I believe that these expeditions tended to 
 perpetuate superstition, to brutalise Europe, and 
 to retard civilisation. 
 
 They encouraged superstition, inasmuch as they 
 increased and acknowledged the domination of the 
 clergy : they brutalised Europe in so far as they 
 made violence and bloodshed meritorious : and 
 they retarded civilisation, by employing the mind 
 of Europe upon physical conquest instead of upon 
 mental advancement. 
 
 Seventh Speaker. — Sir, I have often be- 
 lieved it very difficult to find a perfect standard 
 of moral right, and now I see that such a dis- 
 
130 THE DEBATER. 
 
 covery is impossible. This conviction is, I own, 
 due to the speech of the gentleman who has just 
 addressed us. 
 
 The speaker has tested the morality of the 
 twelfth century, Sir, by the wisdom of the nine- 
 teenth ; and so has come to very unjust conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 The only fair way to try the conduct of men, is 
 to judge them by the light they have : and if we 
 test the Crusaders by this standard, we shall find, 
 as we always find in human conduct, truth and 
 error, too. 
 
 The truth we find is this : a sincere, firm, and 
 zealous belief that they were commissioned by 
 duty to undertake their great enterprises, and to 
 destroy the enemies of God. Say what you will, 
 this was a noble feeling : and that it was sincere 
 we cannot doubt when we read that even children 
 were aroused by it to enlist and arm in the service 
 of the Cross. The error of the Crusaders lay in 
 this : that they mistook their weapons. The 
 sword of the Gospel is a spiritual weapon : but 
 they used a temporal one. 
 
 And yet one might defend the error without 
 much rhetoric. 
 
 The Crusaders knew ho better. They had not, 
 as we have, the Holy Bible to judge by : their 
 sole spiritual voice was the Church to which they 
 belonged. 
 
THE CRUSADES. 131 
 
 The Crusaders were sincere. Sincerity is in 
 itself a virtue, even when attached to error. 
 
 Nay one might justify, as well as excuse. The 
 foes of the Christians were Mussulmans. It is the 
 creed of the Mussulman to extirpate all other 
 religions by the sword : the Mussulman's sword 
 had been employed against the Christian faith : 
 the attack of the Christians, therefore, was self- 
 defence. 
 
 By the philosophical politics and utilitarian mo- 
 rality of the present day I know that it is difficult 
 to defend the fierce Crusades : but these politics 
 and this morality are not universal standards of 
 right and wrong. How would they justify mar- 
 tyrdom ? How would they defend resistance to 
 sovereign authority? It is not, Sir, because 
 Paleyand Bentham condemn that justice .neces- 
 sarily disproves. 
 
 That good resulted from the Crusades, even 
 from their worst evils, I will not dare to doubt. 
 The enthusiasm in error led to enthusiasm in 
 truth. The slaughters in Palestine produced the 
 martyrdoms in Smithfield. The mailed Crusade 
 of Hermit-Peter led to the spiritual Crusade of 
 Luther. 
 
 In the mere gathering together of these arma- 
 ments, we see two important facts, which directly 
 affect the history of the race. We see that Eu- 
 x 2 
 
132 THE DEBATER. 
 
 rope becomes dematerialised, and that Western 
 civilisation and faith are carried to the East. 
 
 Europe had newly found its great faith : and in 
 the contest for its principles had become embroiled 
 in petty wars, which seemed endless. Brother 
 was armed against brother, and friend against 
 friend. There were European idols, too : gross, 
 material, sensual, idols. But the great idea of the 
 Crusades is at length put forth, and lo ! European 
 wars are suspended, and European idols are laid 
 in the dust and forgotten ! There is proclaimed 
 a generous but incomplete principle — that war 
 among Christians is fratricide ; the truth is rung 
 in the ears of the world ; and that principle was 
 the seed of the promised harvest of universal 
 peace. 
 
 The West rises against the East : the growing 
 light of civilisation goes forth to combat with the 
 darkness of barbarism: and that epoch com- 
 menced a great struggle. It introduced European 
 civilisation into the eastern world, and asserted 
 the universality of the Christian faith. 
 
 Eighth Speaker. — Sir, Much as I admire 
 the eloquence and earnestness of the previous 
 speaker, I am not quite convinced of the truth of 
 his arguments. 
 
 He contends that the fierce but mistaken zeal 
 of the Crusaders, however wrong in its nature, 
 
THE CRUSADES. 133 
 
 was in the end productive of religious good. I 
 can scarcely see this. The ages immediately 
 succeeding the era of the Crusades were remark- 
 able for the bigoted, persecuting, and revengeful 
 spirit they displayed. Not only were infidels 
 subjected to the violence of this malignant rage, 
 but the Albigenses, the Prussians, and the Jews 
 were equally the objects of hate and vengeance. 
 Nay, Christians of near creeds were persecuted 
 with equal zeal. Crusades against erring be- 
 lievers were considered just as virtuous and neces- 
 sary as Crusades against Saracens : and so violent 
 and extravagant was this feeling, that even after 
 the many fresh manifestations it has since made 
 among us, it is not even yet exhausted. We still 
 persecute for difference in creeds ; nay even at 
 this moment the Jew remains unemancipated ! 
 
 And not merely was religious error dissemi- 
 nated ; hut political and moral error were extended, 
 too. May we not safely say that the coalition of 
 kings for the restitution of the Sepulchre has 
 suggested those European alliances for civil pur- 
 poses which have since been so notorious ? And 
 may we not further say that the military passion 
 fostered by the Crusades has tended to encourage 
 those vicious and sanguinary wars which have 
 deluged not England alone, but all Europe, with 
 Christian blood, and has nourished in the European 
 breast the fiendish principles of hate and strife ? 
 
 K 3 
 
134 THE DEBATER. 
 
 I will not detain you longer, Sir, but simply 
 express ray hope that this great question will 
 only be decided by the principles of Justice and 
 Philanthropy. 
 
 Ninth Speaker. — Sir, With much that the 
 last speaker has said, I sympathise : and especially 
 in his remarks upon religious intolerance and bi- 
 gotry. They are a disgrace to the age in which 
 we live, and every well-wisher to his species must 
 wish them speedily abolished. I do not think, 
 however, that we owe them to the Crusades, 
 but rather to that unhappy principle of war and 
 enmity which is deep-rooted in human nature, and 
 which manifested itself long before the Crusades 
 ware conceived. 
 
 To me these enterprises appear to have done 
 great service to mankind. To them we owe the 
 origination of two great ideas — Human Equality, 
 and Chivalry. 
 
 You were well informed by the opener of the 
 debate that at the time of the Crusades, Europe 
 was sunk in slavery. It seemed as though there 
 were several hinds of men upon the earth, so 
 separate and distinct was rank from rank. The 
 iron hand of Despotism was then stronger than it 
 had ever been before: the few held earth's good 
 by fraud, force, and violence : and the many were 
 grovelling in darkness, misery, and superstition. 
 
THE CRUSADES. 135 
 
 But the Crusades seem to have put forth to all 
 men the splendid doctrine of Human Equality, 
 and to have struck the first blow dealt by the 
 hand of Europe at Slavery, After this we see 
 the gradual mingling of the different classes of 
 society, the emancipation of the serf, and the 
 slow but sure decline of all feudal and tyrannical 
 power. The impetus to freedom must have been 
 singularly strong ; for it has since that time 
 led us to emancipate ourselves from the thraldom 
 of superstition, and our African brothers from the 
 actual fetters of the body. "We may even now see 
 it breaking one by one the chains of slavery 
 throughout the world. 
 
 The institution of Chivalry, which is clearly 
 owing to the Crusades, has not yet been noticed : 
 but it seems to me to be a very important feature 
 in the subject. I hesitate not to say that the in- 
 stitution of Chivalry is the most striking po- 
 litical element in the civilisation of Europe. It 
 promulgated the sentiments of honour, courtesy, 
 and gallantry : it extended the virtues of dis- 
 interestedness and daring : and above all, it first 
 recognised and gave effect to the power of Wo- 
 man in the social scale. It emancipated her, and 
 thereby assured the emancipation of the whole 
 human race. 
 
 From that moment barbarism declined. The 
 power of Woman was a cause of its downfall. She 
 
 1L 4 
 
136 THE DEBATER. 
 
 directed man's arm to the defence of the weak: 
 Chivalry became a protector : it redressed wrongs, 
 and was thus the precursor of law and order. 
 To it, consequently, we owe much civilisation, 
 social comfort, and regular government. Equality 
 and enlightenment were among its fruits ; it awoke , 
 intelligence, and attached dignity to virtue. It 
 seems to me scarcely possible to over-estimate 
 the advantages we owe to Chivalry, and there- 
 fore to the Crusades, which were the cause of 
 Chivalry. 
 
 To the Crusades we seem also to owe the 
 establishment of towns, the foundation of Eng- 
 land's naval supremacy (for they caused her to 
 commence ship-building), the cessation of civil 
 war, the introduction of Arabian learning, art, 
 and architecture, the invigoration of the Western 
 mind by the mutual intercourse of the Christian 
 states, and the elevation of Europe by collision 
 with the East. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — Sir, The powerful argu- 
 ments of my supporters have left me but little to 
 offer in the way of reply. The question has been 
 fairly and fully discussed, and will now hardly 
 bear another speech. I was afraid at first that we 
 were going to have but a narrow view of the 
 matter, but I am happy to confess that the subject 
 has been treated as comprehensively as I could 
 have wished. 
 
THE CRUSADES. 137 
 
 I must protest against the doctrine urged by 
 some of the speakers, that we are to judge the 
 results of the Crusades by the conduct of the 
 Crusaders. Sir, the object and the effects of an 
 act are things totally distinct ; and require sepa- 
 rate judgments: we have to look at the conse- 
 quences, not the motives, of the Crusades. 
 
 Those consequences have been so amply and so 
 eloquently traced, that I do not need to recapitulate 
 them. In a very few words I will close the subject. 
 
 In addition to the sentiments and virtues ori- 
 ginated in the remarkable era we have surveyed, 
 there was another great principle set in motion to 
 which I feel bound to refer. That principle was, 
 The essential unity of the human race. The 
 European mass and Asiatic mass met as deadly 
 foes; but they parted with far other feelings. 
 Both received benefits. The Western world 
 learned generosity and endurance: the Eastern 
 world gained civilisation, and glimpses of the true 
 faith. They found that they were brethren : 
 they discovered that there was a great moral 
 law that stayed their hands — the law of human 
 love. They found their interests one. They 
 discovered the vast truth that there was but 
 one family in the world, and that peace was 
 that family's best happiness. They learnt, too, 
 the sublime lesson that union is strength, and 
 separation weakness. 
 
138 THE DEBATER. 
 
 I see therefore in the consequences of the 
 Crusades a commingling of the whole race ; a 
 great step taken in the direction of amity and 
 universal peace. 
 
 But I have yet another great influence to 
 notice; perhaps the most important that the 
 Crusades set in motion. I mean the religious 
 sentiment To the religious sentiment was then 
 given an impulse greater and more enthusiastic 
 than it ever before or since received. You call 
 it Fanaticism: it is but another name for the 
 same thing. Beneath its influence all Europe is 
 roused : danger, difficulty, and death are braved : 
 no expense of money or of blood is considered too 
 great to be lavished on the enterprise. Sir, it is 
 impossible to consider that so great an impulse 
 could be given without producing corresponding 
 fruits. And in the subsequent history of the 
 world can we discover none of these effects ? Is it 
 saying too much to assert that when this religious 
 frenzy had subsided, there was seen the real prin- 
 ciple of truth that produced it: that when the 
 torrent ceased, a stream, pure and holy, flowed ? 
 It is surely not speculating too far to say that 
 the impulse given to the religious sentiment 
 caused the world's mind to think, and the world's 
 soul to start from its sleep. The result of this 
 thought was the purification of our religion, and 
 in due time that glorious Reformation to which we 
 
THE CRUSADES. 139 
 
 owe all the liberty we possess. The religious 
 sentiment has never been powerfully agitated 
 without producing vast good : but in this instance 
 its effects were as stupendous as its power was 
 unparalleled. It developed in man the noblest 
 sentiment of which he is capable, and put in 
 motion the working causes of his ultimate and 
 complete happiness. It first and most powerfully 
 asserted that there is but one faith, as well as but 
 one family, and from that moment Christianity 
 took a firm root in the earth. 
 
 In whatever aspect, then, we view this vast 
 and truly sublime series of enterprises, we see 
 great and lasting results of good. We see them 
 amalgamating the various classes of men, destroy- 
 ing tyranny and asserting human right ; we see 
 them carrying Western light into Eastern dark- 
 ness, triumphing over barbarity and force, and 
 urging on the work of civilisation with resistless 
 strength ; we see them elevating Woman into her 
 proper sphere, and so developing the true purify- 
 ing spirit of the world ; we see them teaching 
 men to be brethren and friends, asserting the 
 sublime truth that the earth holds but one family ; 
 and more than all, we see them proclaiming to the 
 uttermost ends of the world, that there is only one 
 God and Father of us all. 
 
 I will now leave the question in your hands, 
 Sir, simply apologising for detaining you so long. 
 
140 THE DEBATER. 
 
 See Edinburgh Review, vol. xxx. p. 323 et seq. 
 
 Gibbon's Decline and Fall, chap. lxi. 
 
 Robertson's Progress of Society in Eu- 
 rope, sect. 1. 
 
 Brande's Dictionary of Science, Litera- 
 ture, and Art. Art. Crusades, and the 
 authorities there referred to. 
 
 Monthly Review, vol. li. p. 53. ; vol.xl. p. 328. 
 
 Quarterly Review, vol. li. pp.311 — 313.; 
 vol. lx. pp. 466—473. 
 
 James's History of Chtvalpy. 
 
 Mill's History of the Crusades. 
 
 ■ 
 
141 
 
 Question VII. 
 
 Is the character of Oliver Cromivell worthy of our 
 admiration ? 
 
 Opener. — Sir, I propose the question which 
 you have just read to us, because I am of opinion 
 that the character of Oliver Cromwell is not yet 
 fully understood by his countrymen ; and because 
 I am anxious to dispel, if possible, in my small 
 sphere, the clouds of error which stand between 
 our judgment and the truth. 
 
 I am firmly of opinion, Sir, that Oliver Crom- 
 well was one of the greatest and best men that 
 England, or the world, has ever produced; and 
 I feel a strong confidence and belief that before 
 we rise from this debate, we shall all be of one 
 mind upon the subject. 
 
 As a Man, as a Leader, and as a Ruler, I 
 think him equally entitled to our praise and ad- 
 miration. 
 
 If I survey him as a Man, I find him irre- 
 proachable in every walk of life. As a son he 
 was dutiful; as a husband he was true and af- 
 fectionate : as a father he was wise, vigilant, and 
 
142 THE DEBATER, 
 
 kind. His personal character was pure beyond 
 the shadow of suspicion ; and his social character 
 was equally above the reach of blame. He was 
 just and honourable to all men : he infringed no 
 lawful rights, and exacted no undue obediences. 
 
 If I further regard him as a Leader, I find in 
 him every thing to admire, and nothing to con- 
 demn. He was brave, far-seeing, quick in in- 
 sight, immediate in action, bold and cautious, 
 prudent and daring. He was just to those under 
 his command, indulgent towards the meritorious, 
 stern and inexorable towards the refractory. He 
 was economical of the lives of his men, soldierlike 
 in his demeanour, and earnest in the cause for 
 which he fought. It would be difficult, I think, 
 to find a general so endowed by nature with the 
 capacity to lead ; the strongest possible proof of 
 which is found in the fact that he was never de- 
 feated, although opposed by the most unheard-of 
 difficulties. 
 
 As a Ruler, he is perhaps more remarkable still. 
 For sagacity, strong practical wisdom, prompt- 
 ness, firmness, fearlessness, and unsullied justice, 
 I do not know his equal in history. I can safely 
 challenge proof of one single act of injustice per- 
 petrated during his Protectorate. 
 
 There is, however, a higher standard still by 
 which he must be tried : and here will lie our 
 struggle, I suppose, in this debate : I mean the 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 143 
 
 standard of that morality which a man owes to 
 truth and to heaven : the morality which tries a 
 man, not by his actions and qualities, but by his 
 motives and by his heart. It is by this means 
 alone that we can test and gauge the true cha- 
 racter of Cromwell : that we can say whether he 
 was a great bad man, or a man of pure character 
 and honest heart. It has been the fashion, for 
 these two centuries past, to say — indeed we are 
 told in our school histories that Cromwell was 
 " an ambitious hypocrite," a " rebel," a M usurper," 
 and the like: but men have at length begun to 
 doubt all this, and to inquire, Is it so, or not ? 
 
 It is with the view of clearing up this point, 
 if possible, that I propose this question for debate. 
 I do not mean to anticipate the charges against 
 Cromwell, for they will doubtless be made by 
 others. I simply say to those who are to follow 
 me, that I hope they will look at this great 
 question with earnest and honest minds; that I 
 trust they will not judge Cromwell by childish 
 morality ; and that when they try his conduct 
 they will consider the circumstances in which he 
 was placed. 
 
 Second Speaker. — Sir, as I am one of those 
 who refuse admiration to the character of Crom- 
 well, I lose no time in presenting my remarks. 
 
 I at once admit Cromwell's great qualities; 
 
144 THE DEBATER. 
 
 denial of them would, indeed, be ridiculous. He 
 could never have governed England as he did, 
 had lie not been possessed of a great and masterly 
 mind. 
 
 But we have been truly told that we must 
 judge Cromwell, not by his qualities, but by his 
 motives. I mean to do so, Sir ; and as we can 
 only test a man's motives by his acts, it is by 
 Cromwell's recorded deeds that I shall try him. 
 
 What are Cromwell's deeds, then ? Unhappily 
 we can make no mistake in recounting them. He 
 excited treason against his Sovereign : helped to 
 bring that Sovereign to an ignominious death : 
 and usurped the seat of the dethroned monarch. 
 Here we see rebellion, murder, and foul ambition: 
 for surely we can safely predicate these motives 
 from these deeds. Now, as I said before, there 
 can be no fear of mistake about these facts : they 
 stand black and frowning against him. He killed 
 his king, and he usurped his throne: if this be 
 worthy of admiration, I am strangely in error. 
 
 He must be wrong. Kings are inviolable, and 
 should never, under any circumstances, be de- 
 stroyed. Usurpation is always a crime, and can 
 b} r no sophism be defended. And rebellion is 
 always a wickedness, for we are, by Scripture, 
 expressly commanded to submit to, and not resist, 
 the civil ruler. 
 
 Into the charge of hypocrisy I enter not. 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 145 
 
 Cromwell may have been sincere, but sincerity 
 does not justify crime. The motive must be 
 good, before sincerity can be a virtue. Besides, 
 the charges I have advanced are enough : and 
 now I leave the debate to those who are more 
 qualified to sustain its weight. 
 
 Third Speaker. — The last speaker has at- 
 tributed three crimes to Cromwell : treason, mur- 
 der, and guilty ambition: I wish to say a few 
 words about the first. 
 
 We are told that Cromwell excited treason 
 against the King. What is treason ? Improper 
 resistance to lawful power. But in the case before 
 us, the power was not lawful, and therefore the 
 resistance was not improper. 
 
 It is admitted, for it cannot be denied, that 
 Charles the First was acting illegally when the 
 rebellion first broke out. He was acting with- 
 out a parliament, levying unconstitutional taxes, 
 and exercising an arbitrary power quite incon- 
 sistent with the laws of the land. It was this, in 
 fact, and this only, that caused the rebellion. Had 
 the monarch been constitutional, the people would 
 have been obedient. 
 
 The King, then, placed himself beyond the law, 
 and his defenders cannot in justice complain when 
 those who suffered from the King's unlawfulness, 
 became unlawful too. 
 
146 THE DEBATER. 
 
 But rebellion is always a crime, says the last 
 speaker. Of course it is : for rebellion is rising 
 against lawful authority. But Cromwell's resist- 
 ance was not rebellion ; for it was not against law- 
 ful, but unlawful, authority that he rose. 
 
 The gentleman tells us, however, that we are 
 to resist not at all. He must pardon me for say- 
 ing that I can neither understand nor admit so 
 silly a doctrine. Where the power is lawful and 
 just, resistance is a crime : but where the power 
 is tyrannical and wicked, submission is a greater 
 crime. 
 
 Slavery and tyranny are abominable in the sight 
 of the Most High, and the man who tamely sub- 
 mits to either, is unworthy of his name. Evil 
 is to be resisted wherever it is found, and mon- 
 archs are no exception to the rule. 
 
 I think, Sir, that the charge of rebellion is now 
 disposed of. 
 
 Fourth Speaker. — Sir, I cannot listen to 
 so outrageous a doctrine as that which has been just 
 propounded, without expressing my decided and 
 extreme abhorrence of such dangerous principles. 
 
 The theory of the right of rebellion, Sir, would, 
 if carried out, be a licence to every man to continu- 
 ally debate, judge, and resist every exercise of au- 
 thority to which he personally might object. And 
 when we think of the great numbers of misguided, 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 147 
 
 discontented, and exasperated men who are always 
 to be found in a community, we shall see at once 
 that we should live in a condition of continual vio- 
 lence and disobedience were this liberty accorded. 
 
 A much safer principle to act upon is that which 
 teaches us unqualified submission to authority. If 
 the ruler go wrong, the fault is his, and he is re- 
 sponsible for his misgovernment to Heaven : the 
 subject has no right to arraign, judge, and punish 
 him, but ought to rest assured that Heaven will 
 render justice to them both. 
 
 I will not deny that Charles the First exceeded 
 his legal power : the fact is unhappily too plain. 
 But this is not the question. We are judging 
 Cromwell, not King Charles. 
 
 Was the rising lawful in itself, then ? Where 
 25 the right, in law ? Show it me, and I will be 
 satisfied. Or was levying armies against the 
 monarch lawful? The levying of forces is ex- 
 pressly made ^lawful by statute. Or was the 
 seizure and detention of King Charles a lawful 
 deed ? Seizure of the Sovereign is high treason 
 by act of Parliament. Or was the execution of 
 the King a lawful deed ? By a wise fiction of our 
 law, the King is held to be incapable of doing- 
 wrong : how then can he be lawfully punishable ? 
 This killing of the King is a point which I should 
 like to see well discussed : though I cannot con- 
 ceive of an argument in its favour. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Fifth Speaker. — Sir, whether resistance to 
 lawfully constituted authority, when that autho- 
 rity is unduly exercised, is justifiable or not, is a 
 point which I shall not attempt to debate. My 
 own feelings incline me to non-resistance ; partly 
 because I find from history that such resistance is 
 never in the end successful; but chiefly because 
 I have a higher confidence in heavenly, than in 
 human, power. If a sovereign under whom I 
 lived were wicked and tyrannical, I should 
 
 • " Leave him to Heaven, — 
 
 And to the thorns that in his breast would lodge, 
 To prick and sting him : " — 
 
 knowing full well that he would surely reap his 
 reward, and that justice would one day be done. 
 
 But the case before us is not that of a people 
 rising against their sovereign, but of a sovereign 
 arming himself against his people. The rising of 
 Cromwell, for I select him as representing the 
 movement, was simply a step of self-defence, and 
 the King deliberately incurred the fate he met. 
 
 King Charles provoked war, and commenced 
 it ; he therefore voluntarily took its chances. 
 When foes meet in battle, the command, Thou 
 shalt not kill, is suspended, especially as regards 
 the party that fights in self-defence : and the 
 friends of a man who is slain in a fight which 
 his wilfulness alone has originated, can have no 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 149 
 
 reason to say that his destroyer could plead no 
 right to kill him. 
 
 We must bear in mind that the contest be- 
 tween Charles and his people was not a mere 
 political strife, but a struggle of actual life or 
 death. The victor's only chance of existence lay 
 in the destruction of the vanquished. 
 
 It will now be seen, I think, that the case 
 before us is not that of a monarch slain by his 
 subjects, but of a soldier falling in a battle he 
 himself provoked. 
 
 Sixth Speaker. — Sir, I give my friend who 
 has just spoken great credit for his ingenuity, but 
 I beg to assure him that it will not avail with the 
 thoughtful portion, at least, of his auditory. 
 
 The position of King Charles was not that of a 
 soldier slain in fight, but of a prisoner taken in 
 the field : and even admitting that the monarch 
 voluntarily incurred the chances of war, was it 
 not the height of crime, as well as the extreme of 
 cruelty, in his captors, to destroy him? And 
 will not this of itself be sufficient to demand our 
 condemnation and abhorrence of Cromwell's con- 
 duct and character ? 
 
 Why did not Cromwell preserve, instead of 
 destroying, King Charles? There was no need 
 to kill him. The unfortunate monarch was too 
 weak to be a cause of fear : he was humbled and 
 
 L 3 
 
150 THE DEBATER. 
 
 defeated : there was therefore nothing further to 
 apprehend from him, and his destruction was a 
 deliberate and wilful piece of cruelty and murder. 
 
 This charge of atrocious cruelty, then, I make 
 against Cromwell ; and say that upon this ground 
 alone, I must deny him my admiration. I like 
 his bold and daring character, I respect his clear- 
 ness and comprehensiveness of mind, and I own 
 the benefits resulting to England from his sway : 
 but his cruelty proves to me a lack of principle in 
 his heart, and leads me to believe that it pro- 
 ceeded from his guilty ambition, which saw that 
 when once the obstacle of the King was removed, 
 he should have a better chance of rising to the 
 supreme authority. 
 
 The cruelty of Cromwell, then, and his ambi- 
 tion, are in my opinion clearly proved, and for 
 these reasons I shall vote against him. 
 
 Seventh Speaker. — Sir, The arguments of 
 the last speaker will, if fairly looked at, weigh, 
 not against Cromwell, but against himself. His 
 logic will actually support his opponents* con- 
 clusions. 
 
 The gentleman has admitted that the King was 
 a prisoner of war, and then has asked us, Why 
 should he have been destroyed ? Now this, be it 
 observed, makes the matter of the King's de- 
 struction simply one of policy. The honourable 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 151 
 
 gentleman himself has done this, not I ; for, says 
 he, What need was there to kill the King ? im- 
 plying that if need could be shown, the act would 
 be justifiable. 
 
 Now the need can be shown. It is all very 
 well for the King's defenders to say that he was 
 weak and therefore harmless; that he was de- 
 feated and therefore powerless. There can be no 
 doubt that Charles was blind and obstinate in his 
 resistance to his people, and that he meant to 
 relinquish his wicked struggle only with his life. 
 Imprisonment, you will please to notice, had been 
 already tried without success : plots to escape, 
 and recommence the civil war, were continually 
 afoot. Had the King been suffered to remain 
 alive, his person would have been a centre round 
 which his partisans would have never ceased to 
 rally : and the unnatural struggle would have 
 been continued until one or other of the con- 
 tending parties were exterminated. 
 
 It is, as a great writer says, " a stern business 
 to kill a king ; " but if a king, deaf to all re- 
 monstrance, and heedless of right and justice, ob- 
 stinately throws away his kingship, and snatches 
 at absolute tyranny instead : he is no longer an 
 inviolable king, but a criminal, amenable to the 
 laws of the state and of eternal justice : and must 
 be dealt with as a criminal alone. 
 
 L 4 
 
152 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Eighth Speaker. — Sir, The reason which 
 moves me to refuse my admiration to the character 
 of Cromwell, is the inordinate ambition which I 
 find in it. 
 
 More clear evidence of ambition I cannot con- 
 ceive than I find in the career of Cromwell. 
 
 Nothing seems ever to have satisfied him: he 
 aims higher than the highest. We see him first 
 assuming the captaincy of a troop of horse ; then 
 aspiring to the command of a regiment ; then 
 getting the appointment of Captain General of 
 the Eastern Provinces ; then gaining the post of 
 Lieutenant General of the whole army : then be- 
 coming Lord General of the Kingdom's forces : 
 then dictating to, and with lawless power con- 
 trolling, coercing, dissolving, and at his own plea- 
 sure reconstructing, the Parliament: then made 
 Lord Protector of the realm : and lastly encou- 
 raging men to offer him the crown. I see in this 
 a crafty, bold, and insatiable ambition ; without a 
 parallel (save perhaps the single case of Napoleon) 
 in history. 
 
 He sets his single will against the other au- 
 thority and law, too ; of which we have many 
 signal and striking proofs. 
 
 We see it in his illegal dissolution of the Long 
 Parliament ; in his impatient haste to accelerate 
 the dissolution of the parliaments which he himself 
 formed; in his fierce and determined mastery in 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 153 
 
 council and in the field. He controlled all the 
 powers in the realm : the judges on the bench, 
 the ministers of state, the commanders of both 
 the land and sea forces, the legislative assemblies, 
 and the physical power of the nation — the army. 
 What absolute selfishness, ambition, and tyranny 
 we may see in all this ! What unheard-of vain- 
 glory, self-esteem, and presumption ! I cannot 
 admire such a character at all. 
 
 Ninth Speaker. — Sir, It often strangely 
 happens that the facts adduced by one disputant 
 are found, upon examination, to support the cause 
 of his adversary : I venture to say that in the 
 address of the last speaker we have a fresh and 
 striking instance of this truth. 
 
 He charges Cromwell with ambition ; and proves 
 his point by simply exhibiting his successes and 
 elevations! Sir, I can give you a far better 
 theory. Cromwell's superior advancements are 
 owing solely to his merit. I defy any proof of 
 ambition at all. 
 
 For more than forty years Cromwell had led 
 a retired country life : had never aspired to any 
 dignity or office whatever : and think you that a 
 man whose hot youth is past begins to dream of 
 elevation as he goes down the hill of life ? Pre- 
 posterous ! Cromwell never solicited — never de- 
 sired temporal dignities : his heart was set on far 
 
154 THE DEBATER. 
 
 higher honours : he was perfectly content to re- 
 main and die an honest, pious, country farmer. 
 But when wrong was perpetrated on himself and 
 his countrymen ; when their rights were invaded, 
 and their very liberty of conscience threatened: 
 he rose like a valiant man, and made fight in its 
 defence. He raised his troop of horse ; his extra- 
 ordinary merits were perceived ; and he gradually 
 rose from post to post until he naturally reached 
 the highest. He never solicited one of them : but 
 refused many. Show me a better man displaced 
 for him: show me a single instance of the em- 
 ployment of craft or influence to bring about his 
 elevation, and I will admit his ambition without 
 a scruple ; but as it is, I boldly and utterly deny 
 it. The best proof of the folly of the charge is 
 that he refused the kingship when it was offered 
 him. Very little like ambition that ! In fact, I 
 can safely challenge all proof of it. 
 
 Tenth Speaker. — There is one part of 
 Cromwell's character which has not yet in my 
 opinion received sufficient consideration : I mean 
 his character as a ruler. 
 
 Sir, To Cromwell's enlightened and firm rule, 
 we owe in some measure almost all the political 
 blessings we possess. He was the patron of our 
 arts and literature, the protector of our commerce, 
 and the zealous purifier of our laws. He first 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 155 
 
 demanded and maintained British supremacy upon 
 the seas : he humbled our enemies : he extended 
 our sway: he restored our finances: and he 
 signally improved our social and moral character. 
 To him we owe that unconquerable spirit of 
 liberty which has since always animated the British 
 mind : and to him we owe also that religious free- 
 dom, that right to worship as we will, which we 
 now so happily possess. The very meanest sub- 
 ject was sure of justice during his administration; 
 all vice was steadfastly put down by him. 
 
 The last speaker has denied that Cromwell was 
 ambitious: but one ambition he did exhibit — the 
 ambition of making England the mistress of the 
 world. As to personal aggrandisement, no such 
 thought was ever his: he sacrificed property, 
 labour, and we almost say life, for the common- 
 wealth : but to extend the renown and secure the 
 happiness of his country, was an aim that he not 
 only encouraged, but achieved. 
 
 Cromwell has been called a usurper : by what 
 argument he can be proved one, I should like to 
 know. To usurp is to seize without claim or 
 right: Cromwell did nothing of the sort. His 
 offices were forced upon him : not one of them 
 did he solicit. 
 
 He became the chief magistrate solely by the 
 voice of the people. Cromwell was too wise a 
 man to desire the empty dignities of power and 
 
156 THE DEBATER. 
 
 place : he accepted the chief office in the nation 
 because, conscious of his own mental power, he 
 knew that he could guide the state through its 
 difficulties. Where was the hand in England 
 that could have done as his did ? The best proof 
 of his right is his power. A man more fit to 
 govern men never existed, and I feel that if ever 
 there were to come a time when the statues of 
 our rulers were to be erected in testimony of a 
 nation's gratitude, I should give to Cromwell's 
 the very highest place of honour. 
 
 I believe, Sir, that Cromwell was a man of 
 giant powers and energies : that he acted honestly 
 and greatly according to his heart's convictions : 
 that he was pure in his morality, and sincere in 
 his religion : and with this conviction, I feel an 
 admiration for him which I can accord to but two 
 or three great names in history, besides. 
 
 Eleventh Speaker. — Sir, when the de- 
 fenders of Cromwell speak of his great intellect 
 and energies, they assert a truth in which all 
 must agree ; but when they maintain that his 
 morality was pure, and that his religion was 
 sincere, they make an assertion which I certainly 
 hesitate to admit. 
 
 That Cromwell's moral character (at least in 
 early life) was questionable there is every reason 
 to suppose. He was a member of one of the 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 157 
 
 Inns of Court: but appears to have neglected 
 his studies for licentious pursuits: a supposition 
 supported by the fact that when writing in after 
 life of his early years, he asserts his " exceeding 
 sinfulness," and his u wicked courses." 
 
 And as to his religion, I believe him to have 
 been a hypocrite. When, in conjunction with his 
 awful slaughters, I find him speaking the name 
 and quoting the words of the Most High ; bring- 
 ing the Gospel of peace to justify the horrors of 
 war ; I can come to no other conclusion than that 
 his religion was one of word, and not of deed. 
 Whatever he did, he had a text of Scripture to 
 justify it by. His whole life seems to me a life 
 of pretence and cant. Had his religion been 
 purer, he would have been more peaceable ; but 
 his violent, contentious, and self-willed career 
 seems sufficient to prove that although he had the 
 name of religion ever on his tongue, he had not 
 the spirit of it in his heart. 
 
 The charges I bring against him, are, then, 
 that he was immoral and hypocritical, and unless 
 these can be dispelled, his character is stained 
 beyond redemption. 
 
 Twelfth Speaker. — I am very glad, Sir, 
 that the gentleman who has last addressed you 
 has so specifically charged the character of Crom- 
 well with immorality and hypocrisy ; for of all 
 
158 THE DEBATER. 
 
 the charges ever made against him these are the 
 most easily disproved. — 
 
 First as to the immorality. Where is the proof 
 of it ? " He was a member of one of the Inns of 
 Court/ 5 says our friend, "and neglected his 
 studies for dissipation." This is the common 
 story and belief, I know ; but, Sir, it is absolutely 
 without foundation. Recent researches* have 
 proved that Cromwell's name is not to be found 
 in any of the Inn-books at all. He never belonged 
 to the law in his life. 
 
 But, says our friend, he himself admits his 
 immorality: he speaks expressly of his own 
 u wickedness " and " depravity." Doubtless Crom- 
 well does say this : and yet he may have lived a 
 perfectly moral life for all that. St. Paul calls 
 himself " the chief of sinners," and yet says he 
 u kept the law blameless." Sir, both the apostle 
 and the illustrious subject of our criticism speak 
 of that inner depravity of nature which pertains 
 to all men, and which is quite consistent with a 
 life outwardly correct. They both knew that in 
 heart and thought they were (as all men are) 
 great sinners before God, and they were humble 
 enough to confess it. So much for this magni- 
 ficent charge of immorality. 
 
 And now for the other matter: Cromwell's 
 
 * See Cromwell's Letters and Speeches : by Carlyle. 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 159 
 
 hypocrisy. I should like to know, Sir, by what 
 right men assert this charge? A man's religion 
 is a thing between him and his Maker, and no 
 other man can see and determine its truth or 
 falsehood. Who elevated our friend into the 
 judgment-seat ? Who gave him the right and 
 capacity to judge ? And what was the ground 
 upon which he accused Cromwell of hypocrisy ? 
 Listen, gentlemen, listen : because he was always 
 referring to Scripture! Did you ever hear a 
 charge so unwisely made ? or so miserably sup- 
 ported ? 
 
 Cromwell a hypocrite, Sir ! No, I will believe 
 most things sooner than that. Look at his life. 
 For sixty years he lived devoutly before God and 
 man ; no man ever accused him of injustice, im- 
 piety or irreligion; and yet we are told that he 
 was a hypocrite ! Does his daily household prayer 
 look like hypocrisy ? Does his devout preaching 
 to his troops look like hypocrisy ? Does the 
 selection and formation of that pious regiment of 
 Ironsides look like hypocrisy ? Does his thorough 
 reformation of the manners of his army, and of 
 the nation, look like hypocrisy ? Does his tearful 
 praying before battle look like hypocrisy ? Does 
 his constant ascription of all power and glory and 
 success to God, instead of to himself, look like 
 hypocrisy ? Doe3 his thorough knowledge of 
 Scripture truth, or his strict enforcement of re- 
 
160 THE DEBATER. 
 
 ligious duty, look like hypocrisy? Does that 
 splendid exclamation of his when at the rising of 
 the sun he saw his wicked foes before him — 
 " Let God arise and let his enemies be scattered " 
 — does that look like hypocrisy? 
 
 If ever there were a really practical, earnest, 
 and religious man on earth, we see him here in 
 Cromwell: and yet the honourable gentleman 
 would try to persuade us that all this was show, 
 and that at heart this Cromwell was a hypocrite ! 
 I spurn the miserable theory, Sir, with the con- 
 tempt it merits ! 
 
 Thirteenth Speaker. — Sir, Neither the 
 indignation, nor the eloquence, of the speaker 
 who has just addressed us, shall, if I know it, 
 mislead my judgment on this matter : I am yet 
 unconvinced that Cromwell's is a character to be 
 admired, and I am about to venture a few words 
 upon that side of the question. 
 
 If I wanted proof of Cromwell's wickedness of 
 character, I should find it in the misery and retri- 
 bution of his later life. Whence all that timid 
 fear of assassination ? Whence that concealment 
 of armour and fire-arms beneath his clothes ? 
 Whence that inward restlessness and misery, but 
 from a troubled and wretched conscience ? If he 
 had done nothing but right, what had he to fear? 
 Virtue is always brave, whilst wickedness is 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 161 
 
 always timorous. To me these signs are con- 
 clusive. 
 
 A part of Cromwell's career which is very- 
 indicative of his character seems to have escaped 
 observation : I allude to his conduct in Scotland 
 and Ireland. His craft in Scotland, and his 
 cruelty in Ireland, are matters which his judges 
 would do well to consider. To me this craft 
 appears duplicity, and this cruelty the direst and 
 most thoughtless carnage. These things stamp 
 the man at once: and prove all that has been 
 asserted of his duplicity and cruelty. But enough 
 has been said upon the subject, and I will now 
 resume my seat. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — Sir, My reply will not 
 be very long, for I have not much to answer. 
 Cromwell's character has been criticised both by 
 his deeds and his presumed motives. His rising 
 against the King; his conduct towards the 
 monarch ; his acceptance of the supreme power ; 
 and his slaughter of the nation's enemies ; have 
 all been condemned : but why ? Simply because 
 they have been tested by the rules of ordinary 
 morality ; whilst they ought to have been tried 
 by a far wider standard. I can very well believe, 
 Sir, that there are no parchment laws which 
 warrant a man in resisting a tyrant, or in con- 
 demning him to death; I can perfectly under- 
 
 M 
 
162 THE DEBATER. 
 
 stand that there are no written enactments which 
 permit a man to destroy the enemies of God: 
 and I can readily imagine that there are no acts 
 of Parliament in favour of country gentlemen 
 becoming Lord-protectors : but for all that, I am 
 quite disposed to conceive that there are a good 
 many laws in Heaven's chancery which have 
 never received the Royal assent, and are quite 
 unknown to Blackstone. There are circumstances 
 beyond the scope of human laws ; and they must 
 be tried by quite other principles. Such are the 
 circumstances now before us. 
 
 To get at a fair judgment of Cromwell's cha- 
 racter we must throw ourselves into Cromwell's 
 situation. We must transport ourselves into an 
 age of fierceness, sternness, and war : we must 
 imagine ourselves the victims of tyranny and 
 oppression : we must conceive of a time when 
 religion was not a thing put on with Sunday 
 clothing, but a matter by which men lived, and 
 for which they would fight and die ; we must see 
 the bigotry of power on the one side, and the 
 fanaticism of outraged conscience on the other : 
 and above all things we must place ourselves in 
 the centre of a period when in the minds of the 
 injured there arose a stern determination to deliver 
 themselves from the despotism of irreligion that 
 threatened them, or perish in the attempt. 
 
 Then let us conceive a giant-souled, earnest, 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 163 
 
 honest-hearted, God-fearing, man, of silent ways 
 and deep thoughts, cast into this chaos: and if 
 we do this, we shall then see Cromwell and the 
 circumstances which surrounded him, and be able 
 to form a judgment of his character. 
 
 To me, who have diligently sought to do this, 
 there is no particle of doubt upon the matter. I 
 see in Cromwell a man who, after long thought 
 and prayer, has made up his mind that religion 
 is his only duty and business : and that he will 
 perform that duty, and prosecute that business, 
 against all gainsayers, low and high. I see him 
 cherishing this determination, and performing it 
 in quiet daily life ; prepared to do so even till his 
 death. The active world calls him, however: 
 and, prompt at the voice of duty, he obeys the 
 call, and carries his religious principle into his 
 public conduct. He tries all by this one test: 
 and whatever he finds wanting in the balance, is 
 condemned and exposed without favour or pity. 
 He takes his stand upon the Word of God ; and 
 though the Prince of Evil himself oppose, he 
 cares not, but continues his course. Prating 
 senators, misled covenanters, unjust kings, and 
 unscriptural prelates, are alike his enemies, for 
 they are the enemies of truth and heaven. He 
 uses towards them no half-measures : sincere and 
 terrible in his deep enthusiasm he opposes right to 
 might, and slays them as the foes of God. He 
 
 M 2 
 
164 THE DEBATER. 
 
 is then called on by all men to rule : strong in 
 the strength of heaven, he undertakes the charge; 
 and in the same strength, performs it. Men press 
 him to accept the kingship : he, wiser than they, 
 refuses the empty name, and remains Protector. 
 As Protector he rules England in the fear of 
 God — yes, this nation was once actually governed 
 by the principles of religion : the Bible was once 
 our only book of Law ! — he discards all vice, pro- 
 fanity, and injustice ; and encourages truth, de- 
 voutness, and morality. Lastly, he dies as he had 
 lived, full of truth and fervour ; in lively commu- 
 nion with his Heavenly Father. 
 
 Here then we see a man ; a man whose faith in 
 God was not a vision, but a fact : and who dared 
 all things for the truth ; even death itself: a man 
 earnest and real as nature : a man fit to be a 
 pattern, a king, a hero, among men ! And are 
 we to be told, Sir, that we must not admire him ? 
 Are we to be insulted by a reference to the law 
 books of Westminster Hall and St. Stephen's 
 Chapel, and told that we cannot find his defence 
 written there ? Let the pedants and pharisees of 
 the world assert such folly if they will : I for one 
 will laugh them to scorn, with their law books, 
 too : and I will tell them, in reply, that although 
 no parchment may celebrate the name, and no 
 effigy exhibit the features, of this man, his glory 
 shall live bright and pure in the memory of the 
 
OLIVER CROMWELL. 165 
 
 world, down to the remotest generations of man- 
 kind. 
 
 See Cromwell's Letters and Speeches. By 
 Carlyle. 
 
 Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia. 
 
 Southey's Statesmen of the Common- 
 wealth. 
 
 Southey's Life of Cromwell. 
 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xlviii. p. 133 et seq. 
 
 Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol.i. pp.178 — 
 188. 
 
 D'Aubigne's Protector. 
 
 Macaulay's History of England. 
 
 Forster's Life of Cromwell. 
 
 M 3 
 
166 
 
 Question VIII. 
 Which was the greater Poet — Shakspere or Milton? 
 
 Openek. — Sir, It will be readily admitted that 
 nothing conduces more to give the mind clear- 
 ness and distinctness of thought, than the, practice 
 of criticism ; and therefore 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- 
 souled. I do not wish to know which is the 
 greater in any particular quality, but in the sum 
 and total of their qualities. The question will 
 now, I think, be clearly understood. 
 
 I wish to guard against one error : the error of 
 judging 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 refer. 
 
 My own opinion runs in favour of Shakspere's 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 167 
 
 superiority. I will not deny that Milton may 
 have soared higher than Shakspere, but Shak- 
 spere's, if not so lofty, is a more extended flight. 
 Milton's genius has a tendency to concentration : 
 Shakspere's to diffusion. Milton flies perpendicu- 
 larly, Shakspere horizontally. The question be- 
 comes, therefore, Which flight was the better, 
 more useful, and more admirable of the two ? 
 
 As I said before, I give the palm to Shakspere. 
 I think that his vision is keener and truer and 
 quicker than Milton's. Both are Poets of Hu- 
 manity ; both address themselves to universal feel- 
 ings and passions ; but Shakspere seems to have 
 known the human heart better, and to have ad- 
 dressed it more effectually, than Milton did. This 
 appears to arise from the fact that Shakspere's 
 vision was direct, and perfectly clear : whilst 
 Milton's vision had to pass through the medium 
 of his imagination. Milton rose aloft from the 
 crowd of men, and looked down upon them as 
 through a microscope ; Shakspere mingled with 
 men and saw them face to face. Milton there- 
 fore may have seen erroneously; whilst Shak- 
 spere's vision must have been absolutely true. He 
 who sees through a microscope may perchance have 
 a false or distorted lens before him, whilst he who 
 uses the naked eye is liable to no such danger. 
 Thus it was that Milton's vision of the world was 
 
 M 4 
 
168 THE DEBATER. 
 
 less true than Shakspere's : Shakspere 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 Shakspere. 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: Shakspere makes the earth a world 
 full of busy, active, practical life ; and Man a 
 restless Doer ; working, feeling, hoping, despair- 
 ing ; replete with energy, intelligence, and passion. 
 In a word, man is with Milton an imaginary being ; 
 with Shakspere a real one. Milton gives us man 
 as he would have made him : Shakspere pourtrays 
 him as he is. 
 
 This is all I wish to say upon this subject for 
 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 
 Imagination he is decidedly superior : and Ima- 
 gination is, in my opinion, the highest quality a 
 Poet can display. 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 169 
 
 The great poem of Paradise Lost is the instance 
 I select in proof. 
 
 The very conception of this extraordinary- 
 work is sufficient to stamp Milton as the first of 
 Poets. 
 
 " To vindicate eternal Providence, 
 And justify the ways of God to man" — 
 
 was an idea that only the highest style of mind 
 could have conceived. And the execution of the 
 idea is as wonderful as the conception of it. Eden, 
 Earth, Hell, and Heaven, are in turns 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 de- 
 scription of human life and character : but surely 
 the critics who say so must have forgotten the 
 masterly and touching delineation which he has 
 given us of our First Parents in Paradise. 
 Anything 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, unexhausted hearts : the 
 freshness, quiet sweetness, and unclouded love- 
 liness of Eden : form the most surpassingly beau- 
 tiful and delightful picture that poetry ever con- 
 ceived. I know not where, save in Holy Writ, 
 the tired spirit of man may find such soothing 
 
170 THE DEBATER. 
 
 rest and consolation as in the Paradise of Milton. 
 The contrast of its deep unruffled peace with the 
 storms of life, gives to this portion of the poem a 
 charm which no other work that I know of, pos- 
 sesses. 
 
 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 : although perhaps it would not 
 be difficult to argue with success that the power 
 of describing the Actual is quite as great as the 
 power of describing the Possible or Imagined. But 
 I am disposed to deny that Milton possesses this 
 quality more eminently than Shakspere. 
 
 Milton has imagined Paradise : Shakspere has 
 imagined Fairy-land. Milton has imagined Satan: 
 Shakspere has imagined Ariel and the Weird Sis- 
 ters. The supernatural 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 Shakspere's. Consider, then, the ex- 
 quisite chasteness and perfect keeping of Shak- 
 spere's supernatural pictures; whether of Oberon 
 and Fairy-land, or Hecate and Witchland. 
 
 Whether it be the Fairy 
 
 " Hanging a pearl in every cowslip's ear," — 
 or whether it be Puck — 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 171 
 
 " Who'll put a girdle round about the earth 
 In forty minutes : " — 
 
 or Titania — 
 
 " Upon the beached margin of the sea, 
 Dancing her ringlets to the whistling wind : " — 
 
 or the Witches, who 
 
 " Hover through 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 Shak- 
 spere at once in the very highest rank as an ima- 
 ginative writer. 
 
 And whilst Shakspere's imagination is as high 
 as Milton'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, there- 
 fore, that Shakspere's imagination is at least equal, 
 and possibly superior, to Milton's. 
 
 Fourth Speaker. — Sir, It is said that Mil- 
 ton's imaginative power, if as great, is not so 
 grasping and universal, as Shakspere's : I do not 
 admit this : for granting that his creative power 
 is but rarely applied to Shakspere's great domain, 
 the human heart, it, on the other hand, ascends 
 
172 THE DEBATER. 
 
 to other subjects, which even Shakspere never 
 reached. " Winged with his angelic power, Mil- 
 ton swept through the realms of time and space ; 
 veiled his face before the throne of God, or stood 
 in the council of Pandemonium : floated in chaos, 
 or walked with Adam in Paradise." I say again, 
 Shakspere 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 description ought not to be for- 
 gotten : here, I think, he more than rivals Shak- 
 spere. Mark the beauty of this : — 
 
 " Now morn, her rosy steps in the eastern clime 
 Advancing, sowed the earth with orient 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 in- 
 stance particularly Eve's penitent reply to Adam's 
 upbraidings, when she — 
 
 — " with tears that ceased not flowing, 
 
 And tresses all disorder d, at his feet 
 
 Fell humble ; and embracing them, besought 
 
 His peace." 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 173 
 
 Mark also Satan's attempt to address the legions 
 of Hell : — 
 
 " Thrice he assay'd, and thrice, in spite of scorn, 
 Tears such as angels weep, burst forth : at last 
 Words, interwove with sighs, found out their way." 
 
 Comment upon this fine passage would be super- 
 fluous, and I shall say no more. 
 
 Fifth Speaker. — I am of opinion that in 
 the chief poetical quality, Imagination, the two 
 poets before us are equally great. Milton has 
 risen higher than Shakspere : Shakspere has flown 
 wider than Milton. Milton could well have been 
 more universal : Shakspere could not with perfect 
 ease have been loftier. 
 
 But as to the other qualities which constitute a 
 poet, I think that Shakspere was decidedly the 
 more highly gifted. The last speaker has in- 
 stanced the descriptive power and the pathos of 
 Milton : but it seems to me that in both these 
 faculties, Shakspere 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 sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank." 
 
 This is, in my opinion, the most perfect picture 
 ever presented in words. In Shakspere's Works, 
 as Hazlitt says, there is " such force and distinct- 
 
174 THE DEBATER. 
 
 ness of description, that a word, an epithet, paints 
 a whole scene, or throws us back whole years in 
 the history of the person represented." 
 
 And as to pathos, I think that our friend was 
 exceedingly unwise to challenge the comparison. 
 I grant the great beauty of the instances pre- 
 sented to us : but I find greater beauty by far in 
 the pathos of Shakspere. I point to Lear's re- 
 cognition of Cordelia in his madness, with her 
 reply : to Macduff' } s grief at the slaughter of his 
 children : to Ophelia's pathetic lamentations for 
 her father, and her death ; to the wild agony of 
 the bereaved Constance; to the simple remon- 
 strances of Desdemona on her death-bed : to 
 Antony's burst of passionate grief over the body 
 of Caesar: and to Othello's intense and heart- 
 broken misery when he is made to believe that his 
 wife is false to him. Any one of these instances 
 is to my mind quite sufficient to establish the 
 superiority of the pathos of Shakspere 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 powers ; 
 for effects are always the measures of their causes. 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 175 
 
 Now it seems to me that Shakspere has done 
 more service 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 own feature, and 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 senti- 
 ment, not a truth connected with humanity that 
 Shakspere has not felt and spoken. He has il- 
 luminated for us the whole Past: he "has turned 
 the globe round, and surveyed the generations of 
 men and the individuals 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 monument of wisdom 
 than is to be found in the works of all our philo- 
 sophers; 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 the world! None but a spirit similarly 
 gifted could hope to show how, through its subtle 
 
176 THE DEBATER. 
 
 agency, the mysterious sympathies of man have 
 been secretly and indissolubly linked to the whole 
 universe of life: could hope to follow the high 
 thoughts it has created through their purifying 
 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 feels that only 
 infinity can answer it. 
 
 Seventh Speaker. — I think Milton is a 
 greater poet than Shakspere because his aim is 
 higher. In Shakspere we see the divine spirit of 
 Poetry circling the whole human world, and iden- 
 tifying itself with every possible combination of 
 human circumstance, of human joy, of human woe; 
 in Milton we see it spread its godlike 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 Shakspere 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 to inflame, and then to torture, Ambi- 
 tion: in Hamlet to spur Irresolution: in Richard 
 to terrify Guilt. Shakspere 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 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 177 
 
 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 Religion. Religion, indeed (except- 
 ing mere natural religion), Shakspere 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, indeed an awfulness, befitting their 
 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 and 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 necessary 
 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 
 answered 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 
 N 
 
178 THE DEBATER. 
 
 until it gets an answer. Happy are they who 
 find the right reply ! 
 
 Shakspere, 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 would be the last to 
 deny that the Immortal must at all 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 Shakspere is the poet 
 only of our Human life. 
 
 Shakspere, Sir, is the poet of Truth : and truth 
 being immortal, he is therefore the poet of Im- 
 mortality. There is no writer who refers more 
 constantly to the Eternal rules and laws of God 
 than Shakspere: he recognises them, and acts by 
 them. He tries conduct, not by circumstance, but 
 by perennial morality; and considers life only as 
 affected by the world beyond the grave. 
 
 Macbeth affects to "jump the 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 God's, and Truth's:' 
 
 Hamlet is made to bear the ills of life by — 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTOX. 179 
 
 • " the dread of something after death, 
 
 That undiscoverd country, from whose bourn 
 Xo traveller returns." 
 
 The sense of Immortality is continually appealed 
 to by Skakspere ; by no writer more so. Con- 
 stance, even in her frenzy, is led to say that — 
 
 " When she meets her pretty child in Heaven, 
 She shall not know him." 
 
 King John is appalled by the fear of the doom 
 that the awful Day of Judgment will award him : 
 indeed instances of this kind are too numerous and 
 well known to need further quotation. 
 
 It is regretted that Shakspere says nothing 
 about Eeligion. 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: 
 Immortality 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 surpassing Charity : not the mere 
 charity of almsgiving, but the true charity of 
 heart, which " endureth all things and hopeth all 
 things r 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 
 
180 THE DEBATER. 
 
 and unkindness to defend the cause of the 
 oppressed Jew I 
 
 No, never let it be said that Shakspere had no 
 religion. He was no sectarian, I know: very- 
 likely he was charitable even towards heathenism ; 
 but for all that he was an humble and devout 
 child of God. 
 
 Ninth Speaker. — 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 Shakspere ; a greater intellectual strength. 
 Who can forget 
 
 " The shout that tore hell's 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 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 181 
 
 its want of human interest. The subject should 
 centre, it has been remarked, in our First Parents : 
 whilst by the author it is made to centre 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 progress in the 
 soul of man : the career of Satan is therefore the 
 centre round which the whole interest revolves. 
 
 And never was there a greater creation than 
 this of Milton's Satan. The proud, defiant, all- 
 daring, all-enduring, for-ever-fallen archangel, 
 dauntlessly braving the darts of heaven, and yet 
 eternally burning with the inner fire of self-re- 
 proach, and the piercing consciousness of happiness 
 for ever lost ; is the sublimest spectacle the soul 
 of man has yet conceived. 
 
 What are Shakspere's Witches, his Ariel, his 
 Hamlet, to this ? I will not stay to make a com- 
 parison, for the objects compare themselves, and 
 themselves give the verdict. 
 
 Tenth Speaker. — Sir, None of the debaters 
 have yet spoken of Shakspere 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 
 Shakspere "there is more moral wisdom to be 
 
 N s 
 
182 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 : — 
 
 " Not the king's crown, nor the deputed sword, 
 The marshal's truncheon, nor the judge's robe, 
 Becomes them with one half so good a grace 
 As mercy does." 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " 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 
 
 A3 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 ; 
 Allowing him a breath, a little scene, 
 To monarchize, be feared, and kill with looks, — 
 Infusing him with vain and self conceit, — 
 As if this flesh that walls about our life 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 183 
 
 Were brass impregnable ; and humour'd thus, 
 
 Comes at the last, and with a little pin 
 
 Bores through his castle wall, and — farewell king!" 
 
 One may find some good in this too : 
 
 " Glory is like a circle in the water, 
 Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself, 
 Till by Inroad spreading, it disperse to nought." 
 
 But I fear I weary you : the maxims of Shak- 
 spere are now proverbs, and need not be repeated 
 by me. 
 
 Eleventh Speaker. — Sir, Shakspere 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 con- 
 fidence in goodness. Hear Milton thereupon : 
 
 " Virtue may be assail' d, but never hurt, 
 Surprised by unjust force, but not enthralled ; 
 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 free. 
 k 4 
 
184 THE DEBATER. 
 
 She can teach ye how to climb 
 Higher than the sphery chime ; 
 Or if Virtue feeble were 
 Heaven itself would stoop to her!" 
 
 How exquisite is his reference to 
 
 " The virtuous mind that ever walks attended 
 By a strong-siding champion, Conscience ! " 
 
 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. Consequently his morality is never 
 tinged with the pride of the Pharisee. He loves 
 virtue for its own sake, and makes no boast of 
 it. He may not perhaps have written so large 
 a code of morality as Shakspere has produced, 
 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 en- 
 durance : and had Milton done no more than this, 
 he would be deserving of the highest honour as a 
 moralist. 
 
 Twelfth Speaker. — Sir, I am not quite so 
 sure as the last gentleman who spoke seems to be, 
 that the character of Satan is likely to affect us 
 morally or beneficially. 
 
 What is it? A fallen angel defying the Al- 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 185 
 
 mighty, 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 pic- 
 ture 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 sentiments. What would 
 be the result? Why that he like Satan would 
 say — 
 
 " Then farewell hope, and with hope, farewell fear ! 
 Farewell remorse ! all good to me is lost : 
 Evil ! be thou my good ! " 
 
 He, too, would " disdain submission ; " and in his 
 despair " defy the Omnipotent." The Satan of 
 Milton, the Prometheus 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 
 
186 THE DEBATER. 
 
 (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 : whilst Shakspere's is 
 the morality of the Heart. 
 
 Choosing between these two, Sir, I incline to 
 Shakspere : his morality is indisputable, whilst 
 Milton's, however pure, is always open to con- 
 troversy. 
 
 Thirteenth Speaker. — Sir, Although I do 
 not think Milton so great a Poet as Shakspere, I 
 yet think a word or two may be said for him as 
 respects the moral influence of his character of 
 Satan. 
 
 We have been told that it is a demoralising and 
 dangerous representation: that we are prone to 
 be fascinated by it ; and that when we see the 
 Areh-Fiend braving and heroically enduring the 
 vengeance of the Almighty, we feel a sympathy, 
 which may probably become an admiration, 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 
 
SHAKSPERE AND MILTON. 187 
 
 circumstance ; and as a great writer says, " Many 
 a man has borrowed new strength from the force, 
 constancy, and dauntless courage of evil agents." 
 Besides, the horrors of Hell must counterbalance 
 its pleasures even in the mind of the most aban- 
 doned calculator. 
 
 Milton's mastery over the art of Poetry has not 
 yet been noticed : his magnificent blank verse; — 
 his " linked sweetness long drawn out ; " — his 
 vigorous and polished style ; and his lofty mode 
 of thought. All these are qualities which he ex- 
 hibits very remarkably, and should be taken into 
 account when the comparison is made. 
 
 Opener (inreply). — Sir, The propositions which 
 I submitted to you in opening this debate have 
 been proved, rather than refuted, by my oppo- 
 nents : so I have not much now to say. 
 
 As far as regards the art, the mere mechanism 
 of Poetry, Milton may have been superior to 
 Shakspere : Shakspere 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, whilst Shakspere 
 
 " Warbles his native wood-notes — wild." 
 
 Take away Milton's learning, and then you will 
 find that, even as an artist, he is not so great as 
 Shakspere. 
 
188 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 unquestionably that Shakspere possesses these 
 qualities more eminently than his rival. 
 
 In imagination I hold that he is at least equal ; 
 in passion, he is far superior ; in perception, he is 
 immensely more quick and intelligent ; in sym- 
 pathy, he is infinitely greater : in intellect, he is 
 more intuitive and clear : in ideality, he is un- 
 doubtedly more serene and vivid: and in the 
 aggregate of mind he is more united, harmonious, 
 and complete. To use the words of Dryden, he 
 " is the man of the largest, truest, and most com- 
 prehensive soul yet born into the world." 
 
 See Jeffrey's Contributions to the Edinburgh 
 Review, vol. ii. pp. 315 — 332. 
 
 Macaulay's Critical and Historical Es- 
 says, vol. i. pp. 1 — 32. 
 
 Knight's Shakspere ; a Biography. 
 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xii. p. 59. 
 
 Channing's Essay on Milton. 
 
 Hazlitt on Shakspere. 
 
189 
 
 Question IX. 
 
 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 civilisation, we forget the streams and 
 sources which have helped to form it. It is but 
 rarely that we look back and endeavour to esti- 
 mate the influences which have made us what we 
 are. 
 
 Deeply impressed with this truth, I have de- 
 termined to-night to direct attention to the debt 
 which we owe to two of the greatest causes of 
 our mental, moral, and physical 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 
 
190 THE DEBATER. 
 
 for man ? The completest answer one can give 
 to that question is, that it has extended know- 
 ledge. The consequences of this diffusion of 
 knowledge have been both great and good. The 
 consequences have been good inasmuch as they 
 have imparted to us, — I. Information respecting 
 our physical frame, which teaches us how to pre^ 
 serve our health and lengthen our life : II. Intel- 
 lectual information, which enables us to distin- 
 guish betwen falsehood and truth, to profit by 
 the example of the past, and to guide ourselves 
 by the wisdom of experience and philosophy : 
 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 Physical 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 parlours ; 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 labour in every department 
 of personal fatigue : it has introduced us to all 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 191 
 
 parts of the world : has extended commerce : h&s 
 promoted the mutual interchange of produce and 
 manufacture : 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 physical, good, from it. 
 
 By freeing manual labour it developes mental 
 intelligence. It gives men time to think and 
 study. Formerly the great personal fatigue men 
 underwent in the course of their daily labour, not 
 only prostrated, but absolutely weakened, their 
 minds. This excessive toil led them further to 
 desire stimulants to sustain them; and thus it 
 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 in- 
 formation, too, which it left people leisure to 
 desire. It has made them acquainted with facts 
 in every department of knowledge, and has en- 
 abled them to see, and judge for themselves. 
 
 I said, further, that the Steam Engine had 
 extended moral good : this will now be felt evi- 
 dent: for by acquainting us with facts it leads 
 us towards 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. 
 
192 THE DEBATER. 
 
 Second Speaker. — Sir, When the opener 
 of this debate 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 afterwards (when its value had become 
 appreciated) ; and then you will see at a glance 
 what it accomplished for us. 
 
 England, 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 education were unknown 
 to the common people, nay even to the nobles: 
 and the monks and priests monopolised every 
 particle of information. The foullest licentious- 
 ness, 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 principles 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 masters : and that religion, save 
 
PRINTING TRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 193 
 
 in its penances and extortions, was quite a sealed 
 and hopeless mystery to them. There was no 
 order, no peace, no morality : but Crime and Ig- 
 norance, like two hideous monsters, ruled gloat- 
 ingly over the chaos. 
 
 But as the sublime command of the Most High 
 penetrated 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 LlGHT, AND THERE WAS LlGHT : " 
 
 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 intel- 
 lectual. There is something essentially free in 
 knowledge : something that always indisposes 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 reign of Henry the Eighth, personal 
 slavery was for ever abolished in Britain. But 
 it was not the mere body that was freed : the 
 mind and soul were unshackled also. Great in- 
 tellects arose, and liberated men from mental 
 
 o 
 
194 THE DEBATER. 
 
 darkness. More than this : Luther came, and 
 effected his reformation of our spiritual creed. 
 Then followed Spenser, Shakspere, Burleigh, 
 Bacon, and Milton, all of whom were the pro- 
 duction 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. 
 
 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! /can point to an equally amazing change 
 effected by the other invention now under con- 
 sideration, 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 behind the people who 
 lived a century after his decease. Take any w r ell- 
 educated young man of twenty years of age, and 
 compare him with a man of equal capacity who was 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 195 
 
 considered well-educated twenty years ago, and 
 you will find my point proved by the answer to the 
 first question 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, mechanics, or phi- 
 siology, 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, writ- 
 ing, and arithmetic, and that was all. True, he had 
 an occasional dip into Murray's Grammar, and 
 once now and then acquired a page or two of 
 Goldsmith's History of England, as a task : but 
 there was no learning in that. Now, however, a boy 
 is taught at almost any school you can send him 
 to, not merely the common rudiments of education, 
 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 from the vast circulation of 
 cheap books, peculiar to our time, and then you 
 will be able to form some idea of the immense in- 
 crease 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 histoiy, because 
 it has enabled men to visit the scenes of history, 
 o 2 
 
196 THE DEBATER. 
 
 and to reject from its pages things that were phy- 
 sically impossible : it has promoted science, because 
 it has in a thousand ways laid the book of nature 
 open to the eye of men ; and it has extended in- 
 formation, because it has multiplied the copies of 
 wise men's works. 
 
 I think that the honourable 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 conferred 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 civilisation, after all ; and through it alone has 
 come that freedom of mind and body which has 
 been so well described on this occasion. Our im- 
 proved condition, our superior knowledge, and our 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 197 
 
 increased morality, are clue, 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. 
 
 I feel that this one argument alone is sufficient 
 to prove the superior advantages which have re- 
 sulted 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 in- 
 calculable advantage upon the human species by 
 the promulgation of 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 dis- 
 tant 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 print- 
 ing was so high, that only the rich could afford to 
 purchase the Scriptures ; now, no poor man, not 
 
 o 3 
 
198 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 (fopies. 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 compare 
 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 it brings, and 
 daily carries away again into every quarter of the 
 world the information it has gathered and recorded. 
 I shall vote for the Steam Engine without the 
 least hesitation. 
 
 Sixth Speaker. — Sir, it seems to me that 
 an originater is always more meritorious than an 
 improver ; and the present comparison appears to 
 prove this most particularly. 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM EXGIXE. 199 
 
 The Printing Press, it is admitted, first gave us 
 knowledge : 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 in- 
 vention 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 knowledge and wisdom. Long before the 
 Steam Engine was dreamt of, books were civilising 
 and moralising and Christianising 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 
 
 P 4 
 
200 THE DEBATER. 
 
 this subject ; but I think I have thrown out some 
 suggestions which will not prove altogether un- 
 worthy of consideration. 
 
 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 of know- 
 ledge ! Which is the wiser man ? he who knows 
 from actual observation, 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 was called by the last speaker " the 
 source of knowledge." It is not so; it is the 
 source of second-hand knowledge. The Press sim- 
 ply 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 
 
 * Thomas Carlyle. 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 201 
 
 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 ourselves 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 exact ideas : the Greece we fancy in 
 reading about it, is quite different from the actual 
 Greece when we see it. Travelling corrects the 
 errors we form in reading, and thus clears the mind 
 of false impressions, and fills it with true ones. 
 
 Books of History, Geography, and Travels, 
 which 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 rectified. Doubted as- 
 sertions have been either verified or totally dis- 
 proved ; 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 publish 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 Shakspere ; but we also owe 
 to it the " Age of Reason " and Voltaire. 
 
202 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 unhe- 
 sitatingly in favour 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 imperfections, numerous 
 human lives, the lives of those who have either 
 tended to it or travelled by it : and thus society 
 'has been injured by the loss of its members. 
 
 Further, it has superseded manual labour, 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 go far to explain, I think, the 
 awful distress that exists amongst our manufac- 
 turing population at the present time. Human 
 labour 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. If the defenders of the Steam 
 Engine claim the good which the Press does, be- 
 cause it helps to print and distribute it, they must 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 203 
 
 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 labour: let me say a 
 word or two with reference to both these argu- 
 ments. 
 
 First, as to destroying human life : it is quite 
 true that on our Railways and in our Mines and 
 Steam Packets, great loss of life often occurs: 
 but the Steam Engine is at least less chargeable 
 in this respect than the contrivances it has su- 
 perseded. The old Stage Coaches, the old Ma- 
 chines 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 system of 
 conveyance; pedestrianism included. We read 
 of accidents, it is true ; but they ' are few and 
 far between : whilst coaches, carts, waggons, and 
 horses, were formerly for ever 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 
 
204 THE DEBATER. 
 
 absolute perfection : every accident leads to some 
 new improvement which will prevent a recurrence 
 of the same sort of accident in future. Now the 
 old Stage-Coach and Sailing- 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 precious than life by far, I mean repu- 
 tation and character. The gross libels, the evil 
 slanders, the wicked falsehoods to which the 
 Press has given birth, prove that it is capable 
 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 loss of life by a Steam Engine worse than 
 this? 
 
 And now let me say a word or two respecting 
 the second charge that the last speaker made 
 against the Steam Engine, namely, that it has 
 supplanted human labour. Sir, I deny the fact. 
 The Steam Engine provides more labour than it 
 supplants. It diverts labour from old channels, 
 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 labour far 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 205 
 
 exceeding all that the Steam Engine could pos- 
 sibly supplant. Moreover, by putting us into 
 near communication with countries which once 
 were hopelessly distant, the demand for our manu- 
 factures is increased ; and it is supposed by those 
 best able to judge, that more men are now re- 
 quired to superintend our manufactures than were 
 formerly employed in producing 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 employed 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, manu- 
 facture, or personal comfort, which it has not ex- 
 tended and improved. 
 
 It is a moraliser in many ways; but chiefly, 
 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 un- 
 known : w T e find there ignorant and barbarous 
 savages : we associate with them : we teach them : 
 we civilise them: we take them our Bible: we 
 tell them of our Holy Father in Heaven ; and at 
 
206 THE DEBATER. 
 
 length we find in the ignorant savage a brother 
 and a friend. 
 
 The facilities for travelling which the Steam 
 Engine affords induce men to emigrate to other 
 countries ; and thus the world is becoming more 
 equally covered. Countries over-crowded are re- 
 lieved, and countries uninhabited are populated. 
 Civilisation is thus carried into savage lands, bar- 
 barism 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 ma- 
 jority of men cannot be travellers, the book which 
 records the description of other countries must 
 certainly be more generally useful than the ma- 
 chine 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, whilst the voyage only does good to 
 individuals. 
 
 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 ; 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 207 
 
 thought is roused, the falsehood is detected, and 
 never can appear again. 
 
 When I call to mind the mighty service that 
 the Printing Press performed at the time of its 
 invention in extending religious knowledge, defy- 
 ing bigotry, and bringing about our glorious Re- 
 formation, I feel that our debt to it is incalcul- 
 able, and must not be forgotten when another 
 claimant of merit appears. Excuse me if I quote 
 the language of an eminent man who lived at 
 the time of the invention; I mean John Fox. 
 Speaking of the art of Printing, he says — "Here- 
 " by tongues are known, knowledge groweth, 
 "judgment increaseth, books are dispersed, the 
 •' Scripture is 'seen, the doctors are read, stories 
 " are opened, times compared, truth discerned, 
 " falsehood detected, and with finger pointed out, 
 " and all (as I said) through the benefit of Print- 
 w ing. Wherefore, I suppose that either the Pope 
 " must abolish Printing, or he must seek a new 
 u world to reign over: for else, as the world stand- 
 " eth, Printing doubtless will abolish Mm. But the 
 " Pope and all his college of Cardinals must this 
 " understand, that through the light of Printing, 
 " the world beginneth now to have eyes to see, 
 M and heads to judge. He cannot walk so invisi- 
 " ble 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, 
 
208 THE DEBATER. 
 
 " instead of John Huss and others, God hath 
 u 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 at- 
 tention of us moderns. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — The conclusion to which 
 we seem to come is that Printing originated many 
 of the great elements of modern intellectual and 
 moral cultivation, and that the Steam Engine 
 has diffused and extended them. It seems in- 
 vidious 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 Engine is shown to have benefited multi- 
 tudes. 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 doubt- 
 less will be carried to a perfection we can scarcely 
 
PRINTING PRESS AND STEAM ENGINE. 209 
 
 dream of. Its usefulness is universal: there is 
 nothing to which it cannot be applied. The 
 gentleman who spoke last referred to the remarks 
 of an ancient writer in favour of the Printing 
 Press: let me cite the remarks of an equally great 
 modern writer* in favour 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 
 u 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 
 (i a seal, and crush obdurate masses of metal 
 " before it ; draw out, without breaking, a thread 
 " as fine as a gossamer, and lift up a ship of war 
 " like a bauble in the air. It can embroider 
 K muslin, and forge anchors ; cut steel into rib- 
 " bons, and impel loaded vessels against the fury 
 " of the winds and waves." 
 
 I will now leave the question in your hands. 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. iy. p. 551- 
 
 Hume's Essay ox " The Liberty of thk 
 
 Press, vol. i. p. 9. 
 Sir James Mackintosh's \Vorks, vol. hi. 
 
 pp. 59. 245, 246. 539. 
 Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 122. 
 Beckman's History of Inventions. 
 
 * Lord Jeffrey. 
 P 
 
210 
 
 Question X. 
 
 Which does the most to make the Orator, Know- 
 ledge, Nature, or Art ? 
 
 Opener. — Sir, Oratory has done so much 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 honour to propose cannot 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 : whilst, 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 
 
THE ORATOR. 211 
 
 it, full of wit, grace, and eloquence! That the 
 power 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 ; whilst in the maturity 01 
 manly age, when knowledge is full, and (as far as 
 earth can make it so) complete, the faculty is fre- 
 quently altogether absent. 
 
 And as to Art : How very common and nume- 
 rous are the instances where, after instructing a 
 young man in elocution, till he has practised as 
 long (and almost as painfully) as Demosthenes, 
 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; whilst, on the contrary, 
 you continually find that men who have never 
 been taught the Art of Speech at all, become 
 accomplished and striking Orators ! 
 
 These instances seem to me quite sufficient to 
 prove that Oratory is a natural, and not an ac- 
 quired power. 
 
 Second Speaker. — 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 defence. 
 
 In my opinion it is Art to which the Orator is 
 p2 
 
212 THE DEBATER. 
 
 mainly indebted for his success. I take as an in- 
 stance of the value of Art, the case of Demos- 
 thenes. 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 
 instructed by the wisest philosophers: but being 
 deficient in Art, he was so graceless and unpleas- 
 ing 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 admiration 
 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 compilation of his great work De Ora- 
 tore is evidence enough, at all events. And how 
 wonderful was his success ! Other instances as 
 striking, if not so illustrious, might be cited with- 
 out 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 
 cultivated, it must be to Art that the success is 
 mainly owing. 
 
 Third Speaker. — Sir, I am of opinion that 
 
THE ORATOR. 213 
 
 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 charm the eye with 
 pleasing action and expression, 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 sole proper object of 
 all oratory is truth, persuasion, conviction. 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 prac- 
 tical Knowledge, a man of lofty Genius, and a 
 man of consummate Art ; and give them a subject 
 to debate. You will find, that whilst the man of 
 Genius thrills and delights you with his eloquence, 
 whilst the man of Art enchants you with his ele- 
 gance of action and delivery, the man of Know- 
 ledge is the one who in the end convinces you. 
 
 Genius without Knowledge is dazzling, but 
 useless ; — Art without Knowledge is empty and 
 vain; but Knowledge, without either Art or Ge- 
 nius, can still be of service to truth, and still 
 acquire respect from all men. 
 
 p 3 
 
214 THE DEBATER. 
 
 How often does it happen that in a debate 
 speakers of great genius and power declaim in vain, 
 whilst a stammering, 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 ex- 
 posed, and Genius is laughed at or despised : but 
 Knowledge oftener triumphs over Genius, and 
 always, in the nature of things, keeps its ground. 
 
 These, Sir, are my views upon this subject. 
 
 Fourth Speaker. — Sir, I really cannot un- 
 derstand 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, ele- 
 gant, 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 ? 
 
THE ORATOR. 215 
 
 Oratory is the clear and forcible expression of 
 thought ; and as the capacity to think clearly ond 
 deeply is at all times a natural, and never an ac- 
 quired power, clear utterance, which depends upon 
 clear thought, must also be natural and not ac- 
 quired. 
 
 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 indebted for the light to the lamp, to the 
 oil, or to the trimming. Without the oil the 
 lamp could not be lighted ; without the lamp the 
 oil would be of no service ; and without the trim- 
 ming, the lamp would burn so ill as to be nearly 
 useless, and very disagreeable. 
 
 And, Sir, it is equally difficult to say whether 
 the genius for speaking, the knowledge of the 
 subject, or the art of delivery, is the most impor- 
 tant element in the Orator's success. Without 
 Genius his remarks w T ill be commonplace and in- 
 effective : without Knowledge they will be brilliant 
 p 4 
 
216 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 know- 
 ledge that gives him the power of fact and of 
 proof; and the art that gives him the means of at- 
 tracting 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 Know- 
 ledge. For as it is the oil which is the real source 
 of light, no matter w T hat 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 it is Eousseau 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 ac- 
 quirements, are needed by the Orator : qualities of 
 genius, ntit 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 observe, are all born gifts, and not acquired 
 faculties. It follows, therefore, that to Genius, or 
 Nature, the Orator is mainly indebted. 
 
THE ORATOR. 217 
 
 Take two boys of the same age : teach them 
 the same facts, and give them an equal know- 
 ledge of Art : you will find that they will make 
 quite different speakers. One boy will be bright, 
 quick, ready of perception, facile in illustration, 
 and enthusiastic in argument : the other will be 
 dull, slow to see, incorrect in judgment, inconclu- 
 sive 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 ele- 
 ment 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, whilst Art at the most can only give 
 fluency. Genius is the possession of mental power : 
 Art is only the means of its developemeitt. 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 chan- 
 nel, whatever may obstruct it, so Genius will find 
 for itself a means of developement, however 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 skilful architect : it is the matter by which 
 he builds his edifice. Now just as the skill of the 
 
218 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 edi- 
 fice of thought that a speaker without genius, but 
 possessed of knowledge, would rear, would be 
 better and more useful to us (because more sub- 
 stantial) than the airy fabric of fancy and elo- 
 quence — fancy without substance, and eloquence 
 without information — which the Orator of Genius, 
 unaccompanied by Knowledge, would create for 
 us. 
 
 Only let a man know a subject, and he will 
 soon find a way to let out his intelligence, and to 
 profit the world by it. He may speak badly, un- 
 gracefully, and unmusically; without plan, suc- 
 cinctness, 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 
 greatest possible awkwardness and difficulty in the 
 
THE ORATOR. 219 
 
 use of speech, and who yet will manage to en- 
 lighten you upon his subject as well (though not 
 so easily) as the most accomplished Orator could 
 have done. This convinces me that Knowledge 
 is the chief power which the Student of Oratory 
 should seek to acquire. 
 
 Eighth Speaker. — Sir, When the last 
 speaker compared 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, w T hilst 
 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 ; materials 
 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, 
 
220 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 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 how to build appears, 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 the 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 prac- 
 tically important and necessary than either Know- 
 ledge 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 referred to, Genius, Know- 
 ledge, and the theory of Art, is so abashed and 
 confused when he begins to speak, that, with all his 
 
THE OIIATOR. 221 
 
 talent, his attempts end in failure ; whilst, on the 
 contrary, you often find that a man who possesses 
 this quality of confidence succeeds in winning the 
 attention 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 ; whilst 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 consti- 
 tution : but his success as an Orator depends also 
 very greatly upon his physical constitution. If his 
 voice is weak or disagreeable, if his organs of ut- 
 terance be imperfect, if his countenance be repul- 
 sive, his body ridiculous or diminutive, his action 
 and gesture naturally awkward or laughable, he 
 will never be successful as a speaker : contempt 
 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, 
 
222 THE DEBATER. 
 
 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 Mr. 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 w T hilst he was speaking, and every eye 
 fixed on him throughout his address. And this in- 
 stance 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 constitution, 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 constitution. Confidence depends partly 
 on Knowledge, and partly on Practice, or Art. 
 Many men are nervous because thay fear that they 
 shall break down : this must result from a want of 
 confidence in their knowledge. How could they 
 
THE ORATOR. 223 
 
 fear failure, if they knew they could prove the truth 
 of what they have to say ? 
 
 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 bewilderment: 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 trepidation 
 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, and dignity to his appearance ; and 
 corrects the faults of his utterance. Let any one 
 who is sceptical 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 per- 
 fect Orator he, in the end, became. He devoted 
 himself entirely to Art. He declaimed (as we read) 
 with pebbles in his mouth, and so corrected his 
 
224 THE DEBATER. 
 
 articulation : he spoke by the sea-shore, and thus 
 gave power to his voice : he practised attitude and 
 action in a mirror, and so improved his manner 
 and gesture : in a word, he trusted all to Art, and 
 Art rewarded him with the most perfect success 
 ever attained by a speaker. What more need I 
 say? 
 
 Eleventh Speaker. — Sir, I think that success 
 in oratory depends more upon moral character than 
 upon Genius, Knowledge, or Art. The man of 
 truth, of rectitude, and of goodness, is the greatest 
 Orator after all. For moral goodness gives con- 
 sciousness of right; consciousness gives earnest- 
 ness ; earnestness gives eloquence ; and eloquence 
 never fails to find striking language and impressive 
 action. How was it that the oratory of Paul made 
 Felix tremble? Not because the apostle was an 
 orator "stamped by nature," as one gentleman said; 
 for he was a mean-looking, and, I believe, deformed 
 man ; but because he spoke w T ith the fervour and 
 earnestness which always attend conviction, of 
 "righteousness and the world to come." There 
 was no Genius in 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 belongs 
 
THE ORATOR. 225 
 
 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 intel- 
 lectual 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 excused from giving a vote upon this 
 question. 
 
 Twelfth Speaker. — Sir, With all due re- 
 spect to the gentleman who cited Demosthenes 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 natural 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 an Orator na- 
 turally superior to other men ; and consequently 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE DEBATER. 
 
 that on Nature, more than Art, oratorical success 
 depends. Art was useful to Demosthenes, because 
 he teas possessed of genius ; the same amount of prac- 
 tice 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 detestable : and with 
 a mental vigour, and a moral force, without pa- 
 rallel in history, he made his conviction the con- 
 viction 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 man- 
 ner, 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 auditors. 
 His soul saw and spoke to their souls : and the 
 manner was nothing, as compared with the matter 
 of his speech. Upon Nature, therefore, acting 
 upon knowledge, 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 argu- 
 ments of his defenders and champions. They 
 maintain that success in Oratory depends on genius ; 
 he on the contrary asserts that it depends on art. 
 
THE ORATOR. 227 
 
 What is the first requisite in an Orator ? he 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 opinon of the greatest master of 
 speech ever known, that art does more for the 
 Orator than nature, how can we suppose or con- 
 tend 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 mechanism of speech, but the whole 
 management of knowledge and mental power. 
 The means by which Knowledge is acquired, the 
 rules by which thought is reduced 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, cultivate his perception, exer- 
 cise his imagination, strengthen his memory, ac- 
 cumulate ideas, supply himself with facts and il- 
 lustrations, practise 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, grace- 
 fulness, and strength. This, you may depend, 
 
 will make a man a far greater Orator than he will 
 q 2 
 
228 THE DEBATER. 
 
 become under the mere impulse of genius, or aided 
 by the most extended human knowledge. 
 
 Opener (in reply). — Sir, I have been led by 
 this debate to see that excellence in Oratory de- 
 pends 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 know- 
 ledge ; nor will mere art : it is only by the union 
 of the three that a successful Orator 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 teach: that it has quickness to see, capa- 
 city to judge, method to arrange, and aptness to 
 apply: we must next fill that mind with know- 
 ledge : knowledge of every sort : physical, mental, 
 and moral : not heaped together chaotically, but 
 communicated gradually and in orderly arrange- 
 ment : and we must lastly refine the mind by art : 
 methodise what it has thought and learnt, and 
 shape it into form, and gracefulness, and beauty. 
 I would not bestow too much attention upon art ; 
 for it has a tendency to mechanise and unspiritu- 
 alise 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 mind of the student in truth and 
 virtue. I would say to him, Let truth be your 
 
THE ORATOR. 229 
 
 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 reproach 
 rather than an honour. 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 purposes. If you condescend to 
 stoop from the lofty pedestal of honour, and em- 
 ploy 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 passions of men to enlist them on the side of 
 infidelity and vice, must necessarily lead a life of 
 hypocrisy and dissimulation ; and who will say 
 that such a life can be a happy one ? whilst, on 
 the other hand, he who uses his faculties to pro- 
 mote virtue and honour cannot fail to live a life 
 of peace and pleasure, of peace that is steady and 
 unvarying, of pleasure that is pure and holy. 
 <c 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 honour and sincerity, 
 and then you will find that in seeking the happi- 
 ness of your fellow-beings, you have taken the 
 
 Q 3 
 
230 THE DEBATER. 
 
 best and most effectual method to advance your 
 own. 
 
 See Edinburgh Keview, vol. vii. pp.296 — 315.; 
 vol. xxviii. p. 60. ; vol. xxxiii. pp. 240, 241. ; 
 vol. xxxv. pp. 171 — 173. 
 
 Hume's Essay on Eloquence. 
 
 Whateley's Khetoric. 
 
 Brande's Dictionary of Science, Litera- 
 ture, and Art. Art. "Eloquence," and 
 tlie authorities there quoted. 
 
 Austin's Chironomia. 
 
 Lord Brougham's Essay on the Eloquence 
 of the Ancients. 
 
231 
 PART n. 
 
 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 circula- 
 tion, whilst the other causes its distribution. 
 
 II. Because he leads people by the influence of 
 example to devote themselves to Mammon- 
 worship, than which there is not a more 
 wicked or more pernicious 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 production of that worst state in which a 
 nation can be placed, when a few are rich 
 and the many poor. 
 
 Q 4 
 
232 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 V. Because the love of money being the root 
 of al levil, avarice tends to nourish and de- 
 velope every sort of crime. 
 
 On the other hand it may be argued that the 
 Spendthrift is more injurious to society than the 
 Miser : 
 
 I. Inasmuch as, by distributing capital, he pre- 
 vents those large accumulations which are 
 the bases of all extensive enterprises in trade 
 or commerce. 
 
 II. Because he, in effect, discourages industry 
 and frugality in the heads of families; for 
 what father would hoard for a spendthrift 
 son? 
 
 III. Because he brings to utter ruin those who 
 are dependent 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 cha- 
 racters is nearly, if not entirely, equal. The 
 Spendthrift is as far away from virtue on the one 
 
THE MISER AND THE SPENDTHRIFT. 233 
 
 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 fortunes 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'Culloch's Political Economy, pp. 504 — 
 509. 
 Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. 
 Mammon. By the Rev. J. Harris, D.D- 
 Mackenzie's History of Frugality. 
 Eamsay. On the Distribution of Wealth. 
 Torrens. On the Production of Wealth. 
 
234 
 
 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 ap- 
 peals to arms can decide. 
 
 III. That as a large class in every community 
 finds pleasure and interest in war, it is scarcely 
 possible that war can ever cease. 
 
 IV. That whilst the human race exists, sources 
 of contention cannot altogether cease: but 
 social, domestic, political, or foreign discon- 
 tent will always need to be repressed by 
 military strength. 
 
UNIVERSAL PEACE. 235 
 
 In the affirmative it may be argued — 
 
 I. That although the present appearance of the 
 world may lead us to think that existing con- 
 tentions can only be settled by the sword, 
 the increasing infrequency of war gives 
 promise of Universal Peace at some future 
 time. 
 
 II. That civilisation brings a growing convic- 
 tion that war is unjustifiable ; and therefore 
 that when civilisation is perfect, this con- 
 viction will be universal, and war will be 
 abolished. 
 
 III. That as men have at length found that war 
 is in the highest degree inexpedient, and de- 
 structive to the best interests of the human 
 race, considerations of policy ensure its gra- 
 dual and certain abolition. 
 
 IV. That although there are in the human 
 heart principles 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 Universal Peace shall one day prevail. 
 
236 OUTLINES OF DEBATES- 
 
 The following amongst 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 goodwill amongst 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 " Na- 
 tion shall not rise against nation, neither 
 shall there be war any more." 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. pp. 91 — 93. 
 Sir James Mackintosh's Works, ii. pp. 320 — 
 
 327. 
 The Tracts of the Peace Society. 
 Chalmers's Works. Discourse on War. 
 Kobert Hall. On War, vol.i. 
 Channlng. On War. 
 Pyne's Law of Kindness. 
 Captain Sword and Captain Pen. By 
 
 Leigh Hunt. 
 
237 
 
 Question : 
 
 eh icas the greatest man, Bonaparte, Watt, or 
 Howard? 
 
 The supporters of Bonaparte might say that he 
 was the greatest because he had the largest 
 capacity and genius: proofs of which are to be 
 found in that rare combination of abilities which 
 made him, from the condition 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 improv- 
 ing the steam-engine he conferred lasting advan- 
 tages upon the human race, whilst Napoleon's 
 brilliant career was an injurious and destructive 
 one to man. The question of the comparative 
 greatness of Napoleon and James Watt depends 
 
238 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 upon whether vast genius not turned to good ac- 
 count is greater than inferior genius beneficially 
 employed. 
 
 The favourers of Hoicard 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, whilst Bonaparte'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, whilst 
 James Watt's endeavours were directed merely to 
 the improvement of man's physical condition. 
 
 Opportunity may be taken in this discussion to 
 show, 
 
 I. The detestability, 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 endeavours our 
 improved, but not yet perfect, prison disci- 
 pline is mainly owing. 
 
BONAPARTE, WATT, AND HOWARD. 239 
 
 III. That brilliancy is not to be mistaken for 
 greatness, as true greatness never exists 
 without goodness. 
 
 See Robert Hall, ox Bonaparte. 
 Foster's Character of Howard. 
 Lord Jeffrey's Works, vol. iv. pp. ool — 556. 
 Carltle's Hero Worship. "The Hero as 
 
 King." 
 Emerson's Essay ox Heroism. 
 Bu2ke on the Character of Howard 
 
 (Speeches). 
 Chaxnlxg's Character of Napoleon. 
 Arago's Life of Watt. 
 
240 
 
 Question : 
 
 Which are of the greater Importance in Education, 
 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, whilst 
 Mathematics tend to concentrate it. 
 
 II. Because they lead to the cultivation of all 
 the faculties of the mind, whilst Mathematics 
 simply exercise the perceptive and reasoning 
 powers. 
 
 III. Because they promote the enlargement and 
 spiritualisation of the mind, whilst Mathema- 
 tics tend to make it mechanical, narrow, and 
 dogmatical. 
 
 IV. Because they fill the mind with images of 
 beauty which tend both to mental happiness 
 
CLASSICS AND MATHEMATICS. 241 
 
 and moral goodness, whilst Mathematics 
 simply fill the mind with facts, and close it 
 against all speculative Philosophy. 
 
 V. Because they promote inquiry and faith, 
 whilst Mathematics tend to make the mind 
 reject as false whatever cannot be proved by 
 logic to be true. 
 
 VI. Because by exercising and stimulating 
 thought, they lead to the elevation of mental 
 over mechanical force, whilst Mathematical 
 science tends to subjugate 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 arriving 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 me- 
 chanical, mineral, and other material forces, 
 which mere speculation would never have 
 found out. 
 
 R 
 
242 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 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 
 Knowledge, they form the starting-points to 
 truth ; whilst mere speculative thought most- 
 ly leads towards bewilderment and error. 
 
 VI. Because they train the mind into steady, 
 earnest, and continuous habits of thought : and 
 thereby produce patience, constancy, deter- 
 mination, order, quickness of apprehension, 
 foresight, and judgment. 
 
 VII. Because they restrain that tendency to 
 credulity, speculative belief, and visionary 
 Philosophy, tow r ards which mere untrained 
 thought generally leads. 
 
 See Brougham on Subjects of Science, as 
 connected with natural theology. 
 
 Chalmers' Christian Revelation as con- 
 nected w r iTH Modern Astronomy. 
 
 Whewell's Astronomy and General Phy- 
 sics 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. 
 
243 
 
 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 draw- 
 ing conclusions from premises ; of perceiving dif- 
 ferences; and of forming a judgment from ideas 
 derived from observation or memory : and the 
 following (among other) instances may be adduced 
 to show that animals possess this power : 
 
 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 recol- 
 lection of his punishment clearly operates 
 with him as a reason to prevent him from 
 incurring the chance of a second beating. 
 
 II. 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 
 
 R 2 
 
244 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 to be found in every work on natural history : 
 here we see a rational recollection, and a ra- 
 tional 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 (amongst other instances) of the 
 monkey, we clearly see the evidence of con- 
 structive, rational, and mental power, which 
 must own a much higher source than mere 
 physical life ; and which we cannot help im- 
 puting to the existence of the same intellec- 
 tual intelligence (the same in essence, though 
 different in degree) as is possessed by man. 
 
 On the other side it mav be said — 
 
 I. That the rational faculties which appear to 
 exist in the Brute Creation are simply the 
 faculties of instinct, and not of Reason at all. 
 
 II. That instinct is a species of intelligence 
 quite different from Reason, consisting mostly 
 of an intuitive perception of facts, whilst 
 Reason is the power that leads us to discover 
 truth by search. 
 
 III. That the ideas of animals are essentially 
 different from the ideas of man, inasmuch as 
 they are simply perceptive, whilst man's are 
 both perceptive and reflective. 
 
RATIONALITY OF BRUTES. 245 
 
 IV. That as Reason includes a perception of 
 moral good and evil, and as the Brute Crea- 
 tion 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 essentially different na- 
 tures. 
 
 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 main- 
 taining — 
 
 That if the principle of life which animates the 
 Brute Creation, can be for ever extinguished, 
 there cannot but arise a fear that man's exist- 
 ence may be altogether annihilated, too. 
 
 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 believing that it is not 
 
 R 3 
 
246 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 the mental faculties, but the moral perceptions, 
 that will survive this life. 
 
 Occasion may be taken in this debate to incul- 
 cate kindness and humanity towards the Brute 
 Creation. 
 
 See Jesse's Anecdotes of Dogs. 
 
 Jesse's Gleanings in Natural History. 
 History and Instincts of Animals — Lard- 
 
 ner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia. 
 Gregory's 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 ln Animals. 
 Sharon Turner's Sacred History of the 
 
 World. 
 Vestiges of Creation, pp. 333 — 336. 
 Hume's Essay on the Reason of Animals, 
 
 vol.ii. pp. Ill — 117. 
 Reid on the Mind, p. 489. " On Instinct." 
 Fletcher's Cruelty to Animals. 
 
247 
 
 Question : 
 Is Duelling justifiable ? 
 
 Duelling may be defended, — 
 
 I. Because it is the only method by which 
 honour 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 society which do not come within 
 the range of law: such as insult, liberti- 
 nism, and falsehood. 
 
 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 duelling may contend that 
 it is unjustifiable — 
 
 L Because it fails to accomplish its pretended 
 aims; inasmuch as (whatever its aim may 
 be) it neither avenges nor satisfies wounded 
 honour. 
 
 R 4 
 
248 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 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 fool- 
 hardiness: 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 ridi- 
 culous practice. 
 
 VIII. Because it is totally opposed to all 
 morality. 
 
 IX. Because it is a direct violation of the laws 
 of God. 
 
 See Carlyle's Sartor Resartus. 
 
 Writings of Sydney Taylor, pp. 357. 362. 
 
 366. 
 Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy. 
 Chillingworth against Duelling. 
 Dr. Millingen on Duelling. 
 Brande's Dictionary of Science, &c. Art. 
 
 " Duel," and the Works there quoted. 
 
249 
 
 Question : 
 Is Modern equal to Ancient Oratory ? 
 
 This question resolves itself into two distinct 
 considerations: I. Whether modern is equal to 
 ancient Oratory in Style ? and II. Whether it is 
 equal in Aim and Effect ? 
 
 As to Style (which includes all that is meant 
 by composition) it may be said by the favourers 
 of ancient Oratory, that nothing of modern times 
 equals the style of Demosthenes, Eschines, and 
 Cicero. The simplicity, the grandeur, the dig- 
 nity, the power, the intellectual and moral force 
 of these great orators, are altogether without pa- 
 rallel in modern ages. The orations of Eschines 
 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 possesses. Demosthenes, for 
 bold simplicity of thought, Eschines, for energetic 
 statement and strength of denunciation, and Cicero 
 for his exquisitely lucid, picturesque, and earnest 
 style, are (it may be said) quite unrivalled by any 
 subsequent orators. 
 
250 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 In comparison with these great speakers as to 
 style, it may be asserted that amongst modern 
 orators, speakers are to be found who are as great 
 in some separate qualities, if not in all. Thus it 
 may be maintained, for instance, that Lord Chat- 
 ham 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 
 sarcastic as Cicero; Curran as lofty and dignified; 
 Brougham as crushing and severe; Bossuet as 
 impressive ; and Canning as felicitous in illustra- 
 tion and argument. Granting, therefore, that no 
 single modern orator is alone as great as either 
 of the speakers referred to, it may be safely said, 
 that they separately exhibit the same qualities 
 and excellences of style. 
 
 It may be further said, on behalf of modern Ora- 
 tory in general, that in richness of illustration and 
 beauty of style (by beauty is here meant appro- 
 priateness of imagery, and elegance of language), 
 the modern Orators far surpass their great proge- 
 nitors. The vast accumulations of knowledge and 
 the incalulable produce of new mines of thought 
 which have been gathered together in modern 
 times, have given to our Orators resources of re- 
 ference, illustration, and proof which the Orators 
 of old were entirely without. If a speech of De- 
 mosthenes' or Cicero's be perused by the side of a 
 
ANCIENT AND MODERN ORATORY. 251 
 
 speech of Brougham's or Macaulay's, it will be seen 
 at once that where the olden Orator was obliged 
 to appeal to abstract reason, the modern Orator is 
 enabled to refer triumphantly to irresistible facta, 
 in support of his position. As to aim and effect, 
 it may be said by the favourers of ancient Oratory 
 that the endeavours of Demosthenes to rouse ef- 
 feminate Greece against the invader of her freedom, 
 and the unceasing efforts of Cicero to keep invio- 
 late the rights and privileges of his fellow-country- 
 men, are aims, as high, if not higher, than any 
 seen in modern times. The effect these Orators 
 produced is seen not merely in the applause and 
 success which they immediately experienced, but 
 in the intelligible and striking fact that they 
 have remained the acknowledged masters and 
 models of speech from their day to our own. 
 
 The favourers of modern Oratory may assert, on 
 the other hand, that our own speakers have aimed 
 higher and done more. They may point trium- 
 phantly to the efforts of Brougham to exterminate 
 the slave trade : of Pitt, to procure the honour and 
 independence of his country; of Chalmers, to con- 
 nect, and mutually prove, natural and revealed 
 religion ; of Grattan, to demand right and justice 
 for his injured nation; of Eomilly, to reform our 
 barbarous laws ; and of Sheridan to keep pure the 
 administration of justice. 
 
 A striking result in favour of Modern Oratory, 
 
252 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 may be obtained by comparing the celebrated 
 Oration of Cicero against Verres, with Sheridan's 
 Invective against Warren Hastings. Cicero de- 
 claims against Verres because he has infringed the 
 rights of citizenship, the peculiar 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 chastise, not the cruelty, not the in- 
 justice, 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 1 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 nobler Orator. 
 
 See Brougham's Essay on the Eloquence of 
 the Ancients. — Collected Works, vol. iv. 
 Sheridan's Panegyric on Demosthenes. 
 Whateley's Rhetoric 
 Hume's Essay on Eloquence. 
 
253 
 
 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 strik- 
 ing a balance between the good qualities and the 
 bad ones ; this must, therefore, be done in the case 
 before us. 
 
 The point3 to be admired in Bonaparte's cha- 
 racter 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 battle, 
 in his military manoeuvres, in his political 
 government, in the celebrated Code Xapoleon, 
 in the rapidity of his conceptions, and the 
 inexhaustibleness of his inventions. 
 
 II. His energy of purpose and action. 
 
 There was no trifling or wavering in him ; he 
 
254 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 instantly executed the plans he conceived. 
 Difficulties never daunted, but always sti- 
 mulated, 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 exten- 
 sive 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. 
 
 D 
 
 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 
 the Due D'Enghien, Wright, and Pichegru, 
 will soil his name for ever. 
 
CHARACTER OF BONAPARTE. 255 
 
 He was a violatcr of all law. 
 
 He seized upon independent neutral states, such 
 as Leghorn, Parma, and Modena, and com- 
 pelled tribute from them. He robbed Italy 
 of her treasures of art, usurped the throne 
 of France for ambition's sake alone, and re- 
 spected no will or right but his own. 
 
 He deliberately injured his country. 
 
 True, he rebuilt Paris ; true he adorned it with 
 stolen treasures : but look at his conscriptions! 
 at the bloodshed 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 surpasses 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 ; " Recollect 
 that your first duty is tow T ards ME, your 
 second towards France." 
 Napoleon exhibited further a great want of 
 
 human sympathy and affection : proof of which is 
 
256 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 to be found in many remarkable instances, but 
 chiefly in his treatment of his wife and mother. 
 
 Much, however, may be said in defence of 
 Napoleon on many grounds : 
 
 I. He was called to action at a time of terror 
 and revolution: and was placed in circum- 
 stances of cruelty and selfishness which could 
 not fail to demoralise him. 
 
 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 warriors were not only not reprobated, 
 but admired and applauded. Falsehood was 
 called state-craft, and the atrocities of war 
 were denominated glories. 
 
 See Channing. — Character of Bonaparte. 
 
 Col. Mitchell's Fall of Napoleon. 
 
 Charles Phillips's Character of Napoleon. 
 
 Sir W. Scott's Life of Napoleon. 
 
 Bourrienne's Memoirs of Napoleon. 
 
 Hazlitt's Character of Napoleon. 
 
 Brougham's Statesmen of the Reign of 
 George III. (Second Series) vol. ii., " Na- 
 poleon." 
 
 Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. p. 90. et seq. 
 
257 
 
 Question : 
 Was the Execution of Charles the First justifiable ? 
 
 The point that first arises here is, Whether Death 
 is ever a justifiable punishment? for if it be not, then 
 whatever 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 favour 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 im- 
 propriety depends not at all upon abstract con- 
 siderations. 
 
 The question we have principally to try is whe- 
 ther the conduct of Charles was worthy of death, 
 according to the morality of the time. 
 
 The supporters of the affirmative 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 indi- 
 vidual murder. 
 
258 OUTLINES OP DEBATES. 
 
 The assertors 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 con- 
 scientious belief that he was doing right : in which 
 case the wicked motive that animates the mali- 
 cious murderer is by no means chargeable upon 
 him. 
 
 The justifiability of King Charles's execution 
 may further be considered as it is affected by con- 
 siderations 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. 
 Whilst 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 
 subsequent events entirely prove the impolicy of 
 the act. So far from destroying the royalist party, 
 it strengthened their ranks by attaching to it all 
 
EXECUTION OF CHARLES THE FIRST. 259 
 
 who pitied the tragical end of Charles, a party 
 ever increasing, during the Protectorate of Crom- 
 well ; and strong enough after Cromwell's death 
 to bring back a far worse king, in the person of 
 Charles the Second. 
 
 It may be fairly questioned whether the licen- 
 tiousness of the Second Charles did not entail upon 
 the English people a far greater amount of evil 
 than would have resulted from the continued 
 tyranny of Charles the First. 
 
 A very important question bearing on this mat- 
 ter is, as to the right of the destroyers of Charles. 
 
 On one side it may be 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 be 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. 
 
 Macatjlay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp.135 
 
 —187.; 425—490. 
 Statesmen of the Commonwealth, in "Lard- 
 
 ner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia " 
 
260 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 Lady Willoughby's Diary of the Time of 
 Charles the First. 
 
 Macaulay's History of England. 
 
 Clarendon's History of the Great Re- 
 bellion. 
 
 Cattermole's Civil War. 
 
 Aiejn's Charles the First. 
 
 Mrs. Hutchinson's Memoirs. 
 
 Forster's Life of Cromwell. 
 
 Miss Mitford's Tragedy, " Charles the 
 First." 
 
261 
 
 
 Question : 
 
 Which is the more happy, a Barbarous, or a Civi- 
 lised, Man f 
 
 It may be said that the savage is more happy than 
 the civilised man, inasmuch as, 
 
 I. His free and unrestrained life makes him 
 physically healthier. 
 
 II. His wants are more simple and more easily 
 satisfied. 
 
 III. He is free from the cares, anxieties, jea- 
 lousies, fears, and ambitions of civilised life. 
 
 IV. He is less liable to disorder, either of body 
 or of mind. 
 
 V. He is free from the vices of society : intem- 
 perance, 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 com- 
 forts of shelter, clothing, and food, which the 
 s s 
 
262 OUTLINES OF DEBATES. 
 
 civilised man enjoys : the best proof of which 
 is found in the universal fact, that whenever 
 the savage gets within reach of the civilised 
 man's habits, he adopts them ; whilst the ci- 
 vilised man is never atracted towards the 
 habits of the savage. 
 
 II. That, although he wants of the savage are 
 simpler and fewer than the wants of the civi- 
 lised man, his pleasures are also fewer* for he 
 enjoys none of the delights of thought, of 
 affection, of social happiness, 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 mental 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. Benevolence, pity, honour, hero- 
 ism, constancy, endurance, generosity, patriot- 
 ism, fortitude, and resistance to temptation, 
 are all unknown to him: whilst he is free 
 from the thorns, he is also without the flowers 
 of life. 
 
BARBARISM AND CIVILISATION. 263 
 
 The state of the savage is darkness. Darkness 
 mental and moral. The thrilling delights of 
 thought, of reflection, 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 happi- 
 ness the civilised man derives from religious im- 
 pression 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 
 unknown to the barbarian. The poet says : 
 11 Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." 
 But ignorance is never bliss. 
 
 See The History of Civilisation. 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 
 
 XL and LXXXII. 
 Angas's Savage Life. 
 
 s 4 
 
264 
 
 PART III. 
 
 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 1. Which was the greater 3Ian, Oliver Cromwell or 
 Napoleon Bonaparte ? 
 
 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. 
 Mac aul ay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 180 — 187. 
 Hallam's Constitutional History. 
 
 Lord Brougham's Statesmen in the Reign of George III. 
 " Napoleon." 
 
 2. Was the Execution of Mary Queen of Scots 
 justifiable ? 
 
 See History of England. — Hume. 
 
 P. Fraser Tytler's Life of Mary. 
 Miss Strickland's Letters of Mary. 
 Bell's Life of Mary. 
 Mrs. Jameson's Life of Mary. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 265 
 
 See Robertson's History of Scotland. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xliv. p. 37. 
 Miss Benger's Life of Mary. 
 
 Note. — This discussion will embrace the following consider- 
 ations: For what crimes did Mary suffer? Did she commit the 
 offences alleged against her ? And had the law of England any 
 jurisdiction over her? 
 
 3. Has the Invention of Gunpowder been of Benefit 
 to Mankind? 
 
 See Channtng on War. 
 
 Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 
 
 chap. lxv. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. v. p. 471. 
 Wilkinson's Engines of War. 
 
 Note. — It is intended to inquire by this question, Whether 
 Gunpowder, by making war more dreadful and abhorrent, has 
 not tended to lead mankind to its discontinuance ? whether, in 
 fact, perfection in War does not necessarily lead to the pre- 
 ference of Peace. 
 
 The use of Gunpowder in Mechanics may be taken into con- 
 sideration with advantage to the discussion. 
 
 4. Which is the more valuable Member of Society, a 
 great Mechanician or a great Poet ? 
 
 See Channing on the Age. 
 Emerson's Essays. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xlvi. p. 365. 
 -, vol. xlvii. pp. 184—202. 
 
266 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 See M'Culloch's Geographical Dictionary. Art. " British 
 Empire." 
 M'Culloch's Political Economy. Passim. 
 
 Note. — This question turns upon the comparative value of a 
 Great Doer and a Great Thinker ; and lies between the utility 
 of Mechanics 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 spiritualised : this debate will 
 open that question. 
 
 5. Which was the greater Orator, Demosthenes or 
 Cicero ? 
 
 See Lord Brougham's Essay on the Eloquence of the An- 
 cients. 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 English Commentary. 
 
 Note. — The discussion of this question must include refe- 
 rences to style, aim, and effect: artistical, mental, and moral 
 power. 
 
 6. Which is the more despicable Character, the Hypo- 
 crite or the Liar f 
 
 See Lord Bacon's Essay on Truth. 
 
 Tillotson, on the Advantages of Truth and Sincerity. 
 Bishop Hall. Character of the Hypocrite. 
 Carlyle's Miscellanies. Cagliostro. 
 Martin Chuzzlewit. Character of Pecksniff. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 267 
 
 7. Has the Fear of Punishment, or the Hope of Re- 
 ward, the greater Influence on Human Conduct ? 
 
 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 Rationale of Reward and Punishment. 
 
 Note. — This question involves considerations of great im- 
 portance. It has to do with Education, Government, and 
 Religion. The fear of punishment is the principle usually sup- 
 posed to influence us, and upon this principle, for the most part, 
 education, laws, and religious instruction are founded : but many 
 of the wisest men are beginning to doubt this system. 
 
 8. Is Corporal Punishment justifiable ? 
 
 See Edgeworth's Practical Education. 
 Welderspin'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 Casar ? 
 
 See the Speech of Brutus in Shakspere's Julius Caesar, 
 Act III. Scene 2. 
 Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. p. 274., vol. ii. 
 
 pp. 318—325. 
 Hume's Essays, vol. i. pp. 471., &e. 
 ■ — , vol. ii. p. 228. 
 
268 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 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. 
 
 10. Should Emulation be encouraged in Education ? 
 
 See Edgeworth's Practical Education. 
 Godwin's Reflections 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. i. pp. 221 — 231. 
 
 Note. — The system of prize-giving in education has sup- 
 porters and opponents, both so determined, that a discussion 
 upon the subject 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 ? 
 
 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. pp. 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, whilst Milton is the 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 269 
 
 more imagiDative, sublime, and spiritual : the decision must 
 depend upon which are the nobler qualities. 
 
 12. Is Military Renoion a Jit Object of Ambition? 
 
 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. 
 
 13. Is Ambition a Vice or a Virtue? 
 
 See Hughes's Essay on Ambition in the " Guardian." 
 Lord Bacons 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? 
 
 See Sir W. Scott's Criticism on Novels and Romances. 
 Scott's Treatise on Romance. 
 The Edinburgh Review, vol. xxiv. pp. 320, &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 dis- 
 cussion, for moral novels must, of course, have a moral tendency : 
 
270 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 but at least the debate may serve to lead the debaters to a proper 
 selection of novels. 
 
 15. Is the Character of Queen Elizabeth deserving of 
 our Admiration ? 
 
 See Hume's History of England. 
 
 Lucy Aikin's Memoirs of Elizabeth. 
 
 Sir W. Scott's Kenilworth — for a faithful Portraiture 
 
 of Elizabeth. 
 Miss Strickland's Queens of England. 
 Sharon Turner's History of Elizabeth's Reign. 
 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 ? 
 
 See Bacon's Essay on States : and his Essay on the Great- 
 ness 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 An- 
 cient Prosperity. 
 
 17. Has Nature or Education the greater Influence 
 in the Formation of Character ? 
 
 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, 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 271 
 
 18. Wliich is the more valuable 3fetal, Gold or Iron* 
 
 See Ure's Dictionary of Arts, &c. Art. " Iron." 
 Leyden's Ode to an Indian Gold Coin. 
 Jacob's Enquiry into the Precious Metals. 
 Holland's Metal Manufactures, u Lardner's Cabinet 
 
 Cyclopaedia." 
 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— be- 
 tween ornament and utility. 
 
 19. Is War in any case justifiable? 
 
 See Sydney 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? 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 188 — 209. Article 
 "Columbus." 
 Sydney Smith's Works, yol. i. pp. 280. 362, 
 Robertson's History of America. 
 Washington Irving's Life of Columbus. 
 Martin's British Colonies. " North America." 
 
272 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 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 Sporting justifiable ? 
 
 See Sydney 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 Road." 
 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 ? 
 
 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. 273 
 
 24. From which does the Mind gain the more Know- 
 ledge, Reading or Observation ? 
 
 See Gibbon's Abstract of his Readings. 
 Lord Bacon on Study. 
 Mason on Self- Culture. 
 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? 
 
 See Hood's Poem — "Miss Kilmansegg," for a vivid de- 
 scription of the baneful influence of Gold. 
 A Paper on the Uses of Gold, in " Maunder's Universal 
 
 Class Book." 
 M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary, Art. " Coal." 
 
 Geographical Dictionary, Art. " British 
 
 Empire." 
 
 26. Winch was the greater General, Hannibal or 
 Alexander ? 
 
 See Plutarch's Life of Alexander, 
 History of Rome. 
 Thirlw all's History of Greece. 
 
 27. Wliich was the greater Poet, Dryden or Pope f 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. pp. 163 — 166. 
 Sir W. Scott's Life of Dryden. 
 T 
 
274 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 See Campbell's British Poets. 
 
 Dr. Johnson's Parallel between Dry den and Pope. 
 
 " Lives of the Poets." 
 Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. ii. pp. 520 — 522. 
 Lord Byron's Strictures on Bowles. 
 
 28. Which has done the greater Service to Truth, 
 Philosophy or Poetry ? 
 
 See Edinburgh Review, 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 exhibit, and which seems to be quite independent of 
 acquired knowledge. Philosophy is cultivated reason, poetry is 
 a moral instinct towards 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 intuition and inspiration of 
 our poets, as Homer, Milton, Dante, Shakspere. 
 
 29. Is an Advocate justified in defending a Man 
 whom he knows to be Guilty of the Crime ivith 
 which he is charged ? 
 
 See Sydney Smith's Works, vol. i. "On Counsel being 
 allowed to Prisoners." 
 Bentham. Judicial Establishment. 
 Brougham on the Duty of a Barrister. 
 Paley's Moral Phlosophv. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 275 
 
 See Punch's Letters to his Son. " On the Choice of a 
 Profession." 
 Sydney 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? 
 
 See Playfair's Enquiry into the Fall of Nations. 
 Bacon's Essay on Kingdoms. 
 Volney's Ruins of Empires. 
 Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 
 Socthey's Progress and Prospects of Society. 
 Vaughan's Age of Great Cities. 
 
 31. Are Lord Byron! s Writings Moral in tfieir 
 Tendency ? 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 366 — 371. 
 Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 311. 352. 
 Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 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 Modern equal those of 
 Ancient Times? 
 
 See Fosbrooke and Dunham's Roman Arts and Manufac- 
 tures. 
 
 Greek Ditto. 
 
 Wilkinson's Ancient Egypt. 
 Pettigrew's Ditto. 
 Maurice's Ancient Hindostan. 
 Heeren's Historical Researches. 
 
276 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 33. Which is the greater Cioiliser, the Statesman or 
 the Poet ? 
 
 See Debate No. I. p. 1. 
 
 Carlyle's Hero Worship. cl The Hero as Poet." 
 
 Guicciardini's Maxims ; Martin's Translation. 
 
 See also the authorities quoted in Debate I. 
 
 34. Which is the greater Writer, Charles Dickens or 
 Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton ? 
 
 See The Edinburgh Review, the Quarterly, Blackwood's 
 Magazine, Horne's Spirit of the Age, Fraser's Ma- 
 gazine : various articles on the subject during the last 
 ten 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. 
 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', De 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. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 277 
 
 37. Is the Use of Oaths for Civil Purposes expedient? 
 
 See Bentham's Tract on the Needlessness of an Oath. 
 Hansard. " Debates in Parliament" on this subject. 
 Dymond's Essays, pp. 58 — 67. 
 
 38. Is a Classical Education essential to an English 
 Gentleman ? 
 
 See Milton on Education. 
 
 Whewell's University Education. 
 Locke's Thoughts on Education. 
 
 Amos's Lectures on the Advantages of a Classical Edu- 
 cation. 
 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 ? 
 
 See M'Culloch's Edition of Smith's Wealth of Nations. 
 Meriv ale's Lectures on Colonies. 
 Torrens on Colonisation. 
 
 Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. p. 325. 
 Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. 
 Art. " Colonies," and the works there quoted. 
 
 40. Which does the most to produce Crime, — Poverty, 
 Wealth, or Ignorance ? 
 
 See Dumas's Celebrated Crimes. 
 
 Bacon on the Uses of Knowledge. 
 t 3 
 
278 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 See Dr. Harris's Mammon. 
 
 Foster's Essay on the Evils of Popular Ignorance. 
 Robert Hall on the Hardships of Poverty. 
 Sir James Mackintosh's 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 ? 
 
 See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws. 
 Bentham's Judicial Establishment. 
 Bentham on Government and Special Juries. 
 Stephens' 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 ? 
 
 See Locke's Thoughts on Education. 
 Wyse on Education. 
 Channtng 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. 
 Melvxll's University Sermons. 
 Robert Hall on Knowledge. 
 Life of William Allen, pp. 84 — 86. 
 
 43. Are the intellectual Faculties of the Dark Races 
 of Mankind essentially inferior to those of 
 the White? 
 See Lawrence's Natural History of Man. 
 Prichard's Physical History of Mankind. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 279 
 
 See Button's Physical History. 
 Elliotson's Physiology. 
 Combe on the Constitution of Man. 
 See also Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and 
 Art. Art. " Negroes ; " and the authorities there 
 cited. 
 
 44. Is Transportation a fit and effective Punishment ? 
 See Captain Macoxochie on Transportation. 
 Gibbon Wakefield on Transportation. 
 Sydney Smith's Works, vol. i. pp. 321 — 347. 
 
 45. Should not all Punishment be Reformatory? 
 
 See Bentham on Punishment. 
 
 Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments. 
 Report of the Prison Discipline Society. 
 Howard's State of the Prisons. 
 Romiely'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? 
 See Delolme on the Constitution. 
 Hallam's Constitutional History. 
 De Tocqueytele's Democracy in America. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xx. pp. 275, 276. 
 Hume's Essays, vol. ii. p. 129 — 131. 
 Lord Jeffrey's Essays, voL iv. pp. 4—18. 114, 115. 
 
 47. Is not Private Virtue essentially requisite to 
 Greatness of Public Character? 
 See Dymond's Essays, pp. 70—79. 
 
 T 4 
 
280 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 48. Is Eloquence a Gift of Nature, or may it be 
 acquired ? 
 See the works quoted in Debate X. p. 230. 
 
 49. Is Genius an innate Capacity ? 
 
 See 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. 
 Reid's Inquiry into the Mind. 
 Sir W. Temple's Essay on Poetical Genius. 
 Rev. Robert Hall on Poetic Genius. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xxxiv. pp. 82 — 88. 
 
 50. Is a rude or a refined Age the more favourable 
 to the Production of Works of Imagination ? 
 
 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 Shaksperian the Augustan Age of English 
 Literature ? 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. i. pp. 81 — 161.; ii. pp. 
 315 — 342.; iii. p. 445. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 281 
 
 See Hazlitt's Criticisms. 
 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 ? 
 
 See Alison on Taste. 
 
 Burke on the Sublime and Beautiful. 
 
 Lord Kames'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 ? 
 
 See Campbell's British Poets. 
 Aikin's Do. 
 
 Byron's Defence 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 ? 
 
 See Babbage on Machinery. 
 
 Chalmers' Political Economy. 
 
 M'Culloch's Political Economy, pp. 100 — 206. 
 
282 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 55. Which produce the greater Happiness, the Plea- 
 sures of Hope or of Memory ? 
 
 See Rogers's 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 favourable 
 to the Public Welfare. 
 
 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. 34 — 36. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. xx. p. 343. 
 Dymond's Essays, pp. 117 — 119. 
 
 57. Is there any Ground for believing in the ultimate 
 Perfection and universal Happiness of the 
 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 than Competition ? 
 
 See Channing's Remarks on Associations. 
 
 Report of the Co-operative Knowledge Association. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 283 
 
 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. Abell's Napoleon. 
 
 60. Ought Persons to be excluded from Civil Offices 
 on account of their Religious Opinions ? 
 
 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 Smith's Works, vol. i. p. 232. ; ii. p. 1 — 23. 
 Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. ii. pp. 432 — 402. 
 
 61. Which exercises the greater Influence in the 
 Civilisation and Happiness of the Human 
 Race, the Male or the Female Mind ? 
 
 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. Trans- 
 lated by Cocks. 
 Female Disciple of the Early Christian Church. By 
 
 Mrs. H. Smith. 
 Sydney Smith's Works, vol. i. pp. 200 — 220. 
 
284 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 62, JVhich did the ??iost to produce the French Re- 
 volution, the Tyranny of the Government, the 
 Excesses of the Higher Orders, or the Writings 
 of Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau ? 
 
 See Lord Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 56 — 104. 
 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. 
 Nlebuhr's Age of the French Revolution. 
 Sir James Mackintosh's Works, vol. iii. pp. 1 — 352. 
 
 63. JVhich was 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. 
 
 64. Is there reasonable Ground for believing thai 
 the Character of Richard the Third ivas not so 
 Atrocious as is generally supposed ? 
 
 See Halsted's Richard the Third. 
 Walpole's Historic Doubts. 
 Bulwer's Last of the Barons. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 285 
 
 65 . Does Happiness or Miser?/ preponderate in Life ? 
 
 See Dr. Johnson. Discontent the Common Lot of all 
 Mankind. 
 Jeremy Taylor's Sermon " Via Intelligentiae." 
 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." 
 
 66. 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 Opi- 
 nion." 
 
 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. 
 
 Sydney Taylor's Works, pp. 122. 144. 222. 
 
 67. Do modern Geological Discoveries agree with Holy 
 Writ t 
 
 See Lyell's Elements of Geology. 
 Buckland's Organic Remains. 
 Dr. Pye Smith on Geology. 
 Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. 
 
286 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 See Phillips' Geology. 
 
 Humboldt's Cosmos. 
 
 Ansted's Geology. 
 
 G. F. Richardson on Geology. 
 
 Ansted's Ancient World. 
 See also a series of Articles and Letters in the " Times * 
 Newspaper, of September and October, 1845. 
 
 68. Did Circumstances justify the first French 
 Revolution ? 
 
 See Carlyle, and other authorities quoted at Question 62. 
 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 
 War? 
 
 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. Are Annual, Triennial, or Septennial Parliaments 
 most in harmony with the British Constitution 
 and Character? 
 
 See Townsend's History of the House of Commons. 
 Banks's Baronia Anglica Concentrata. 
 Debates in Parliament on the subject. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 287 
 
 71. Which Character is the more to be admired ; that 
 of Loyola or Luther ? 
 
 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 Luther. 
 The Jesuits as they were and are. 
 Isaac Taylor's Loyola and Jesuitism. 
 Sir James Stephen's Essays on Ecclesiastical Biography. 
 
 72. Are there good Grounds for applying the Term 
 " dark " to the Middle Ages t 
 
 See Hall am 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 Civilisation. 
 
 73. Which was the greater Poet, Chatterton or 
 Cowper ? 
 
 See Southey's Life and Works of Cowper. 
 Hayley's Do. 
 
 Cary's Edition of Cowper's Works. 
 Hazlitt on the British Poets. 
 Jeffrey's Essays. " Cowper." 
 Dr. Johnson's Remarks on Chatterton. 
 
288 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 74. Are Public or Private Schools to be preferred \ 
 
 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. 
 
 H r 
 
 5. Is the System of Education pursued at our U?ii- 
 versities in accordance tvith the Requirements 
 of the Age? 
 
 See Whewell on University Education. 
 Huber's English Universities. 
 The Collegian's Guide. 
 
 Debate on University Reform, House of Commons, 1S50. 
 Kay's Social Condition and Education of the English 
 
 People. 
 Edinburgh Review, vol. lxxx. 
 
 76. Is the Decline of Slavery in Europe attributable 
 to moral or to economical Influences ? 
 
 See James's History of Chivalry. 
 Hallam's Middle Ages. 
 
 Macaulay's History of England. " Introductory Chap- 
 ter." 
 Historical Pictures of the Middle Ages. 
 Guizot on Civilisation. 
 
 77. Is Anger a Vice or a Virtue f 
 
 See Paley's Moral Philosophy. 
 
 Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 289 
 
 See Abercrombie on the Moral Feelings. 
 Whewell's Elements of Morality. 
 Brown's Ethics. 
 Letters to my Unknown Friends. " Temper." 
 
 78. Which was the greatest Hero, Alexander, Ccesar, 
 or Buonaparte ? 
 
 See Plutarch's Lives. 
 
 Carlyle's Hero- Worship. " The Hero as King.*' 
 Niebuhr's History of Rome. 
 Arnold's History of the Roman Commonwealth. 
 Bourrienne's Napoleon. 
 
 79. Which teas the worse Monarch, Richard the Third 
 or Charles the Second ? 
 
 See Sharon Turner's Richard the Third. 
 Macaulay's History of England. 
 Sidney's Diary of the Times of Charles the Second. 
 Walpole's Historic Douhts. 
 Halsted's Richard the Third. 
 
 80. Which ivas the greater Man, Franklin or Wash- 
 ington ? 
 
 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. 
 U 
 
290 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 81. Is it probable that America will hereafter become 
 the greatest of Nations ? 
 
 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. 
 
 82. Should not greater Freedom of Expression be 
 encouraged in Debate ? 
 
 See Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. 
 Art " Eloquence," and the authorities there quoted. 
 Cicero. De Oratore. 
 Hume's Essay on Eloquence. 
 
 83. 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. 
 
 84. Is the present a Poetical Age ? 
 
 See Warwick's Poets' 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. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 291 
 
 85. Was Louis XIV. a great Man ? 
 
 See Miss Pardoe's Louis XIV. 
 James's Life of Louis XIV. 
 Michelet's History of France. 
 Macaulay's History of England. 
 Crowe's History of France. 
 Voltaire's Age of Louis XIV. 
 
 86. Is it the Duty of a Government to make ample? 
 Provision for the Literary Writers of the Nation f 
 
 See Southey's Colloquies on Society. 
 
 Grisenthwaite on the Claims of Genius. 
 Forster's Life and Adventures of Oliver Goldsmith. 
 
 87. Which is the greater Poet, Mrs. Howitt or 
 Mrs. Hemans ? 
 
 See Rowton's Female Poets. 
 
 Gllflllan's Literary Portraits. Mary Howitt. 
 Lord Jeffrey's Essay on Mrs. Hemans. 
 
 88. Should not all national Works of Art be entirely 
 free to the Public ? 
 
 See Debates in Parliament on the subject. 
 Hamilton on Popular Education. 
 
 89. Are not the Rudiments of individual Character 
 discernible in Childhood ? 
 
 See Essays on the Formation of Character. 
 Combe on the Constitution of Man. 
 Combe on Infancy. 
 
292 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 See Early Influences. 
 
 Jean Paul Richter's Levana. 
 
 90. Is not Satire highly useful as a Moral Agent f 
 
 See the Works of Rabelais. Duchat's translation. 
 Leigh Hunt's Wit and Humour. 
 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. 
 
 91. Has not the Faculty of Humour been of essential 
 Service to Civilisation ? 
 
 See Leigh Hunt's Wit and Humour. 
 MacKinnon's History of Civilisation. 
 Carlyle's Miscellanies. Article on Richter. 
 Hazlitt on the Comic Writers of England. 
 Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy. 
 
 92. Is it not to Emigration that England must mainly 
 look for the Relief of her Population? 
 
 Thornton's Over-population and its Remedy. 
 
 Meriv ale's Colonisation and Colonies. 
 
 Torrens on Emigration. 
 
 Reports of Emigration Commissioners. 
 
 Morning Chronicle. Articles on Emigration. 1850. 
 
 Howitt's Colonisation. 
 
 Laing's Notes of a Traveller (second series). 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 293 
 
 93. Does National Character descend from age to 
 
 age ? 
 
 See Carlyle on Characteristics. 
 
 Prichard on the History of Man. 
 Combe on the Constitution of Man. 
 
 94. Do the Associations entitled "Art Unions n tend 
 to promote the Spread of the Fine Arts ? 
 
 See Reports of Art Unions. 
 
 Mrs. Jameson's Art and Morals. 
 
 95. Is it possible that the World will ever again possess 
 a Writer as great as Shakspere ? 
 
 See Dryden on Shakspere. 
 Hazlitt on Shakspere. 
 Schlegel on Shakspere's Drama. 
 Voltaire on Shakspere. 
 
 96. Is the cheap Literature of the Age on the whole 
 beneficial to general Morality ? 
 
 See Publications of the Society for the Diffusion of Know- 
 ledge. 
 Bacon on Knowledge. 
 Chambers's Publications generally. 
 
 97. Should not Practice in Athletic Games form a 
 Part of any System of Education ? 
 
 See Walker's Manly Exercises. 
 
 Rees's Cyclopaedia. Art. " Gymnastics." 
 
 u 3 
 
294 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 See Encyclopaedia Britannica. Art. " Education." 
 Craig's Philosophy of Training. 
 Richter's Levana. 
 
 9S. Is not the Game of Chess a good intellectual and 
 Moral Exercise ? 
 
 See Franklin's Morals of Chess. 
 Walker's Chess Studies. 
 Staunton's Chess Player's Handbook. 
 Tomlinson's Amusements in Chess. 
 
 99. Have Mechanics' Institutions answered the Expec- 
 tations of their Founders ? 
 
 See The City of London Magazine, 1842-43. 
 Reports of the Manchester Athenaeum. 
 
 Do. of the Liverpool Mechanics' Institution. 
 Brougham on Mechanics' Institutions. 
 Manual of Mechanics' Institutions. 
 
 100. Which is to be preferred, a Town or a Country 
 Life? 
 
 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. 
 Miller's Pictures of Country Life. 
 The Boy's Country Book. 
 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 29.5 
 
 101. Wliich is the greater Poet, Wordsworth or Byron? 
 
 See Jeffrey's Essays, vol. ii. pp. 366 — 371. 
 
 Edinburgh Review : on Wordsworth, and on Byron. 
 
 Quarterly Review : on Wordsworth, and on Byron. 
 
 Macaulay's Critical Essays, vol. i. pp. 311—352. 
 
 Sydney Taylor's Works, p. 288. 
 
 Moore's Life of Byron. 
 
 British and Foreign Review, vol. vii. 
 
 102. Which is the most baneful, Scepticism or Super- 
 stition ? 
 
 See Reason and Faith, by H. Rogers. Reprinted from the 
 Edinburgh Review. 
 Cairns on Moral Freedom. 
 Ccleridge's Inquiring Spirit. 
 The Natural History of Enthusiasm. 
 Fanaticism. 
 Hare's Victory of Faith. 
 
 103. Is the average Duration of Human Life increas- 
 ing or diminishing ? 
 
 Se3 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 Labour. 
 Combe's Physiology. 
 
 104. Is Life Assurance at present conducted on safe 
 and equitable Principles ? 
 
 Bayeis's Arithmetic of Life Assurance. 
 Morgan's Principles and Doctrines of Assurance. 
 Pocock's Explanation of Life Assurances. 
 De Morgan's Treatise on Probabilities, 
 u 4 
 
296 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 105. Are there good Reasons for supposing that the 
 Ruins recently discovered in Central America 
 are of very great Antiquity ? 
 
 See Stephens's Central America. 
 
 Do. Do. Second visit. 
 
 Fosbroke's Encyclopaedia of Antiquities. 
 Dunlop's Travels in Central America. 
 
 106. Do Titles operate beneficially in a Community f 
 
 See Paley on Honour. 
 Dymond's Works. 
 
 Bentham on the Rationale of Reward. 
 Macintyre's Influence of Aristocracies. 
 Hamilton on Rewards. 
 
 107. Would not Pulpit Oratory become more effective 
 if the Clergy were to preach extemporaneoudy ? 
 
 Brougham on the Eloquence of the Ancients. 
 Whateley's Rhetoric. 
 Spalding's Rhetoric. 
 
 Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. 
 Art. " Eloquence." 
 
 ] 08. Is not Intemperance the chief Source of Crime % 
 
 See Adshead's Prisons and Prisoners. 
 Life of William Allen. 
 Doubleday's Statistical History of England. 
 Beggs's Lectures on Depravity. 
 
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 297 
 
 109. Should not the Study of History be more en- 
 couraged than it is ? 
 
 See M'Cullagh on History. 
 Bigland on History. 
 Carlyle's Miscellanies. History. 
 God in History : by Dr. Cumming. 
 Schlegel on the Philosophy of History. 
 Arnold's Lectures on Modern History. 
 Smyth's Lectures on History. 
 Stebbing's Essay on the Study of History. 
 Tytler's Elements of General History. 
 
INDEX, 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Advocates : should they defend known Criminals ? - - 274 
 
 Alexander, Caesar, and Bonaparte compared - - - 289 
 
 Alexander and Hannibal compared - - - - - 273 
 
 Ambition : is it a Vice or a Virtue ? 269 
 
 America: has its Discovery been beneficial ? - 271 
 
 America : is it likely to become the greatest of Nations ? - 290 
 
 Ancient and Modern Oratory compared - - - - 249 
 
 Anger : is it a Vice or a Virtue? ----- 288 
 
 Annual, Triennial, or Septennial Parliaments - - - 286 
 
 Arbitration as a Substitute for War - - - - 286 
 Art: what the Orator owes to it - - - - -210 
 
 Art Unions: are they beneficial to Art? - 293 
 
 Athletic Games : should they be practised ? - - - 293 
 
 Barbarians : are they more happy than Civilised Men? - 261 
 
 Bonaparte and Cromwell compared - 264 
 
 Bonaparte, Watt, and Howard ----- 237 
 
 Bonaparte : is his Character to be admired ? - - - 253 
 
 Bonaparte: was his Banishment justifiable ? - 283 
 
 Brutes : are they endowed with Reason ? 243 
 
 Brutus: was he justified in killing Caesar? - 267 
 
 Bulwer and Dickens compared ----- 276 
 
 Byron : are his Writings moral ?----- 275 
 
 Byron and Burns compared ------ 284 
 
 Byron and Wordsworth compared ----- 295 
 
 Caesar: was Brutus justified in killing him? - - - 267 
 Capital Punishment -------45 
 
 Central America -------- 296 
 
 Character: are its Rudiments discernible in Childhood? - 291 
 
 Charles the First : was his Execution justifiable ? - - 257 
 
 Charles the Second and Richard the Third - 289 
 
300 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chatterton and Cowper compared 287 
 
 Chaucer and Spenser compared ----- 290 
 
 Cheap Literature of the Age - ----- 293 
 
 Chess, Morals of 294 
 
 Cicero and Demosthenes ------ 266 
 
 Civilisation and Morality - - - - - -73 
 
 Civilised Men: are they more happy than Barbarians? - 261 
 
 Classics and Mathematics - - - - - - 240 
 
 Classical Education : is it essential ? 277 
 
 Coal Mines and Gold Mines compared - - - - 273 
 
 Colonies : are they advantageous to the Mother Country ? 277 
 
 Co-operation and Competition ----- 282 
 
 Corporal Punishment - - - - - - -26" 
 
 Country Life and Town Life compared - 294 
 
 Cowper and Chatterton compared ----- 287 
 
 Crime, is it most caused by Poverty, Wealth, or Ignorance? 277 
 
 Cromwell and Bonaparte compared - 264 
 
 Cromwell: is his Character to be admired? - - - 141 
 
 Crusades: have they been beneficial to Mankind? - - 119 
 
 Dark and White Races compared ----- 278 
 
 Debate : should it not be more free ? - - - - 290 
 
 Decline of Slavery in Europe ----- 288 
 
 Demosthenes and Cicero compared ----- 266 
 
 Dickens and Bulwer compared ----- 276 
 
 Dryden and Pope compared ------ 273 
 
 Duelling : is it justifiable ?------ 247 
 
 Education: should the State enforce it ? - - 278 
 
 Education or Nature : which most forms the Character - 270 
 
 Eloquence : is it a Gift of Nature ? - - - - 280 
 
 Emigration : the Relief of England .... - 292 
 
 Emulation : should it be encouraged in Education ? - 268 
 
 England : is she rising or falling as a Nation - - - 270 
 
 England : is it likely she will sink into Decay ? - - 275 
 
 Execution of Charles the First - - - - - 257 
 
 Execution of Mary Queen of Scots - - - - 264 
 
INDEX. 301 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Female and Male Mind compared ----- 283 
 
 Franklin and Washington compared - 289 
 
 French Revolution : did Circumstances justify it ? - - 286 
 
 French Revolution : what caused it ? - - - - 284 
 
 Genius, is it innate? ------- 280 
 
 Geology : does it agree with Holy Writ ? 285 
 
 Gold Mines and Coal Mines compared - - - - 273 
 
 Gold and Iron compared - - - - - -271 
 
 Gunpowder : has its Invention been beneficial ? 265 
 
 Hannibal and Alexander compared - - - - 273 
 Happiness and Misery » - -'- - - -285 
 
 Homer and Milton compared ----- 268 
 
 Hope and Memory compared - 282 
 
 Howard, Watt, and Bonaparte ----- 237 
 
 Howitt (Mary) and Mrs. Hemans, compared - - - 291 
 
 Human Life : is its Average increasing ? 295 
 
 Humour : its Services to Civilisation - - - - 292 
 
 Hypocrite and Liar compared ----- 266 
 
 History : should it not be more studied than it is ? - - 297 
 
 Ignorance, Poverty, and Wealth ----- 277 
 Imagination : does it flourish most in Rude Ages ? - - 280 
 Intellect of the Dark and White Races - - - - 278 
 
 Intellect of the Sexes ...... -25 
 
 Intemperance : is it the chief Source of Crime ? 296 
 
 Invention of Gunpowder ---_._ 265 
 Iron and Gold compared - - - - - -271 
 
 Juries: should they be unanimous ? - 278 
 
 Knowledge : what the Orator owes to it - - - 210 
 
 Knowledge: what the Mind owes to it - 273 
 
 Liar and Hypocrite compared ----- 266 
 
 Life Assurance -.-_.-.. 295 
 
 Limited Monarchy - - . - - - -279 
 
302 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Literary Writers: should not Government provide for 
 
 them? 291 
 
 Louis XIV. : was he a great Man? - - - - 291 
 
 Louis XVI. : was his Deposition justifiable? - 276 
 
 Loyola and Luther compared - - - - - 287 
 
 Machinery: has its Introduction been beneficial ? - - 281 
 
 Male and Female Mind compared - - - - 283 
 
 Mary, Queen of Scots - - - - - - - 264 
 
 Mathematics and Classics - - - - * - - 240 
 
 Mechanicians : Ancient and Modern - - 275 
 
 Mechanicians and Poets compared ----- 265 
 
 Mechanics' Institutions - - - - - - -294 
 
 Memory and Hope compared ----- 282 
 
 Mental Capacities of the Sexes - - - - 25 
 
 Middle Ages: should they be termed " dark " ? - - 287 
 
 Military Renown : is it a fit Object of Ambition ? - - 269 
 
 Milton and Homer compared - - - - - 268 
 
 Milton and Shakspere compared - - - - - 166 
 
 Miser and Spendthrift 231 
 
 Misery and Happiness ------- 285 
 
 Modern and Ancient Oratory compared - - - 249 
 Morality and Civilisation - ~ - - - -73 
 
 Morality of the Stage 96 
 
 National Character : does it descend from Age to Age ? - 293 
 
 National Education - 278 
 
 National Works of Art 291 
 
 Nature or Education : which most forms the Character ? - 270 
 
 Nature : what the Orator owes to it - - - - 210 
 
 Novel Reading : has it a Moral Tendency ? - - 269 
 
 Oaths : is their Use expedient ?----- 277 
 
 Observation : what the Mind owes to it - - - - 273 
 
 Oratory : Ancient and Modern compared - 249 
 
 Oratory : what it owes to Knowledge, Nature, and Art - 210 
 
INDEX. 303 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Party : is its Existence beneficial ? - 282 
 
 Philosophy and Poetry compared 274 
 
 Poets and Mechanicians compared - 265 
 
 Poet and Statesman compared as Civilisers - 276 
 
 Poet, Statesman, and Warrior 1 
 
 Poetry and Philosophy compared ----- 274 
 
 Pope : is he a Poet of the first class? - - - - 281 
 
 Pope and Dryden compared ------ 273 
 
 Poverty, Ignorance, and Wealth - - - - - 277 
 
 Present Age : is it Poetical ? - - - - -290 
 
 Press : should it be totally free ?----- 285 
 
 Printing- Press and Steam Engine - - - - - 189 
 
 Public and Private Schools compared - - - - 288 
 
 Pulpit Oratory 296 
 
 Punishment and Reward ------ 267 
 
 Punishment : should it not be reformatory - - - 279 
 
 Queen Elizabeth : is her Character to be admired ? - - 270 
 
 Reading : what the Mind owes to it? - - - - 273 
 Religious Opinions : should they exclude from Civil 
 
 Offices? 283 
 
 Reward and Punishment - - - - - -267 
 
 Richard the Third 284 
 
 Richard the Third and Charles the Second - 289 
 
 Rude and Refined Ages compared - 280 
 
 Satire : its Uses as a Moral Agent ----- 292 
 
 Scepticism and Superstition ------ 295 
 
 Septennial, Annual, or Triennial Parliaments - - - 286 
 
 Sexes, Capacities of the - - - - 25 
 
 Shakspere and Milton - - - - - - -166 
 
 Shaksperian Era : is it our Augustan Age ? - - - 280 
 
 Shakspere --------- 293 
 
 Slavery in Europe ..-_._. 288 
 
 Spendthrift and Miser 231 
 
304 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Spenser and Chaucer ---..„. 290 
 
 Sporting: is it justifiable? ...... 272 
 
 Stage, Morality of the 96 
 
 Statesman and Poet ----._. 276 
 
 Statesman, Poet, and Warrior .... i 
 Steam Engine and Printing- Press - - - - -189 
 
 Taste: is there any Standard of ? - - - - - 281 
 
 Tithes ; do they operate beneficially ? 296 
 
 Town and Country Life compared - - - - - 294 
 
 Transportation : is it an effective Punishment ? - - 279 
 
 Triennial, Annual, or Septennial Parliaments - 286 
 
 Truth : may it ever be departed from ? - - - - 272 
 
 Unanimity of Juries ---._-. 278 
 Universal Peace : is it probable ? - - - - -234 
 
 Universal Happiness : is it probable ? - - - 282 
 
 University Education ------- 288 
 
 Utility : is it a safe moral Guide ? - - - - - 276 
 
 Vice : does it necessarily produce Misery ? 272 
 
 Virtue : does it necessarily produce Happiness ? - - 272 
 
 Virtue : is it not essential to Greatness ? - 279 
 
 War: is it ever justifiable ? 271 
 
 Warrior, Statesman, and Poet ----- 1 
 
 Washington and Franklin compared - - - - 289 
 
 Watt, Bonaparte, and Howard - 237 
 
 Wealth, Poverty, and Ignorance ----- 277 
 
 White and Dark Races compared ----- 278 
 
 Wordsworth and Byron compared ----- 295 
 
 THE END. 
 
 London: 
 
 Spottiswoodes and Shaw, 
 
 New-sireet-Square. 
 
 X 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 027 249 825 8 
 
 ^m 
 
 s;*.- 
 
 » ■ r 
 
 ■•j; f —. v I 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■