it must be considered as the engagement of his sovereign. Leo was not, however, wanting in arguments to justify his conduct. He alleged, in reply, that no instrument of safe-conduct, however full and explicit, would be allowed to avail a person who had conspired against the life of the supreme pontiff, unless the crime was therein expressly mentioned. He contended that the same rule was applicable to the crime of murder by poison; a species of guilt abhorred by all laws, human and divine. By evasions of this nature the pontiff did not scruple to violate that good faith, of which he ought to have set the first example, and condescended to use against his adversary, the same treachery which had been employed against himself.

On the day of Pentecost, Leo having assembled the cardinals, addressed them in a long and pathetic oration, in which he intimated, that although he might legally and properly have pro'ceeded to degrade and punish the guilty, yet he had determined to pardon them. The cardinals present acknowledged his clemency toward their offending brethren, whereupon Leo was melted into tears. He then went to attend the celebration of mass; after which his dispositions and intentions seemed to be astonishingly changed, and it was. thought that he had been instigated to convert the punishment of the offenders into a source of gain. On the twentieth day of June, he proceeded to degrade the Cardinals Petrucci and de' Sauli, and also the Cardinal Riario, from their dignities, and to deprive them of their goods and ecclesiastical preferments; after which, to the terror and astonishment of all the members of the sacred college, he delivered them over to the secular power. During this meeting of the consistory, which continued thirteen hours, great dissensions and tumults arose, as well between the pope and some of the cardinals, as among the cardinals themselves, of whom only twelve were present, being all who then remained in the city. The sentence of deprivation was read by Pietro Bembo. On the following night Petrucci was strangled in prison. The subordinate instruments

of this treachery, Battista 'da Vercelli and Antonio Nino, were also sentenced to death, and after suffering excruciating torments,* were finally strangled, and their bodies quartered. Upon strict grounds of positive law the execution of Petrucci may perhaps be justified; almost all countries having concurred in punishing a projected attempt against the life of the sovereign, in the same manner as if the crime had been actually committed: but the shameful violation of every principle of humanity, exemplified in the execution of the subordinate instruments of his guilt, can never be sufficiently execrated. Are such punishments intended as a retribution for the crime? Justice then degenerates into revenge. Are they for the purpose of deterring others from the like offences? Care should then be taken not to render the offenders objects of compassion, and to prevent that re-action of opinion, which loses the guilt of the criminal in the cruelty of the judge. Are they intended to correct the excesses and to improve the morals of a people? How can this be effected by spectacles that outrage humanity, and which, by their repetition, steel the heart against all those sentiments by which the individual and general safety of mankind are secured, much more effectually than by gibbets, halters, racks, and chains.

Pontificate of Leo X. Vol. III.

*" De Vercellio autem ac Antonio Sereba, acerbissimè supplicium sumptum; adeo ut curru per urbem circumducti, carptimque discerpti candentium forcipum morsibus, ac ad extremum strangulati, in frusta secarentur. Ea severitate Pontifex magnum terrorem omnibus incusserat." Jov. Vita Leon, X. lib. IV. p. 78.

Remarks on the foregoing Extract, by Mr. BLIGH, from the London Review.

What are the sentiments, by which the author supposes that the individual and general safety are so well secured? If any, compassion. But tenderness of feeling is a weak restraint upon violent dispositions. Mr. R. is a professor of the modern school of philosophy;* of those who look upon the human mind as a kind of machine, which by some rare efforts of invention may be brought to perfection, like those deluded men who live in the expectation, that life will be prolonged to eternity by progressive improvements in the medical art. He thinks, that the public security is better maintained by compassion, by that tenderness of heart which revolts at cruelty, than by fear. If a feeling such as the author supposes was universal, one of the great difficulties of government would be removed. Every act of violence would punish itself; the oppressor would suffer more pain than the object of oppression. It is, indeed, a captivating system, and there is in the mind a tendency to virtue, which requires only proper cultivation to make it habitual. But mankind is a various race. And although it is obvious that the government of men would become almost impossible, if none of these milky natures were to be found in a community; yet it cannot be denied that there are also men of fierce and uncultivated, or of depraved natures, not to be controlled but by the utmost rigour of example. These are the tempers which are kept in awe by the terrors of punishment. And if the commission of crimes, atrocious in themselves, or fatal to society in their consequences, is frequent, severity in the punishment must be proportionably frequent, even if it extends to the forfeiture of life.-Vol 1, p. 279.

* This passage, from a Review professed to be written by a Mr. Bligh, is inserted because the editor of this volume conceives it to be his duty to the public, to state the opinions of all authors upon the important subject now under consideration. Surely Mr. Bligh ought to know that it is too late to excite admiration or inflame prejudice by this senseless cant; and that it is no new philosophy, to "desire not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live."

PASTORET.

I.

OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.

THERE are five kinds of capital punishments in France; burning, breaking on the wheel, hanging, beheading, and quartering.

It is a melancholy duty to discuss so many subjects, of which the very name produces an involuntary shuddering. But the desire of contributing to the perfection of our laws, the hope of lending some assistance in effacing from our criminal code those punishments which are it's disgrace, and a holy reverence for the claims of justice and humanity, will support us under the task. Above all, we implore the indulgence of our reader, and the favourable attention of the friends of reason and truth.

An important question here offers itself for our preliminary consideration: Has society, or has it not, a right to take the life of any of it's members? And, if it have, how far does this terrible right extend?

I.

OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN GENERAL.

THE variety of opinions which has prevailed upon this most interesting problem, is at least a proof of the apparent difficulty attending it's solution. Let us, however, make the attempt. Perhaps by reverting to principles, endeavouring to establish them with fairness and perspicuity, and applying them to the laws and

customs of different nations, we may be able to throw some light upon the subject. In this way we shall discuss the three principal theories which have been proposed, and which are all sustained by respectable authorities.

These are

1. To continue capital punishment for all the crimes to which it is at present attached.

2. To abolish it altogether; and

3. To inflict it only in cases of murder, enacting for lighter crimes lighter punishments.

The patrons of the first of these systems consult only the habit of obeying ancient institutions, the respect which their very antiquity inspires, and the promptitude with which the characters of wisdom, justice, and expediency, are lavished upon whatever has been done, devised, or decreed by former ages. The public weal is regarded as inseparably linked with the observance of old customs; and to this important consideration the slight inconveniences, which those customs occasionally create, are compelled to yield. Pedanius Secundus, prefect of Rome, was assassinated by one of his slaves. It was the practice, in cases of this kind, to consign to the executioner all the slaves who happened to be in the house at the moment of the murder. These were accordingly seized, and led to punishment, The people, affected by the sight of so many innocent victims, rose in their behalf. Opinions were divided in the senate; but the majority decided in favour of the existing law. Cassius sternly asserted it's demands; observed that, though it was rigorous toward slaves, it was useful for society at large; and concluded his speech by declaring, that 'The