undigested mass from which the historian has to cull his materials. Novels-irksome beyond measure, unless stamped with the sterling names of Edgeworth, Opie, Dorset, and a very few others. As to philosophy, it is too late at sixty-five either to study modern nomenclatures, or to revive the knowledge of ancient theories, Poetry is rarely perused with interest by those who have waked from youth's gay dreams, and I doubt whether even the merry lay of Burns can rally the feelings of "green eighteen" round the arm-chair of a sexagenary student. What then shall I review? Is there no subject with which I am sufficiently familiar to write on it with authority? I have found one! But not on the shelves of a library, nor in the gloomy recesses of a college; not in the pages of ephemeral publications, or the vitiated archives of the theatres; but, where few people would have thought of looking for any thing wise, or great,-within myself! Let me review the lengthened series of my own opinions. Surely I cannot have travelled so many of the stages of life, and passed through all the gradations of novelty and satiety, without having gleaned some knowledge which may prove beneficial to those who have yet to explore the thorny maze of this probationary existence, on which I turn with sadness the retrospective glance-still hurried onward with the current of time which knows no refluent wave. If then the public will accept an occasional paper on a publication, which few have yet perused, and which will certainly be very soon out of print, my pen is ready; and some of my lucubrations shall, before the lapse of another mouth, be reduced to a convenient form. SENEX. ON DUELLING. -at once dispatched; Cut off even in the blossoms of his sin- THE present age is distinguished above all that preceded it, by the general diffusion of knowledge. The sources of intellectual gratification are more numerous, and at the same time, more accessible, than in any former period. Those means of information, on subjects of literature and science, which were once confined to the man of professional character, of studious habits, or of opulent resources, are now within the reach of the most cursory and superficial inquirer. Repositories of intelligence, on all possible topics of discussion, from the height of metaphysical abstractions, through all the descending gradations of philosophical, political, and fashionable disquisition, may be obtained at different ratios of expense, adapted to all the degrees of mental capacity. And what might we not expect from such a combination and diversity of the "ways and means" of improvement? What, but a refinement of taste and manners corresponding in some measure with these methods of amelioration? To a certain extent these justly expected results have been attained; nor would it be difficult to illustrate the influence of general knowledge, on the character of the age. It is particularly apparent in its judicial administration. What judge or jury would now attempt to revive the obsolete and sanguinary punishments, formerly inflicted on the wizards and witches of darker times? Who would imagine the endurance of a fiery ordeal, to be a sufficient test of female chastity? It is natural to look for an accuracy, amounting almost to delicacy, in the decisions of law and justice: yet, after all that has been attained in the improvement of our jurisprudence, it is lamentable, that, either through an amazing defect of energy in the law, or an amazing force in the opposition of custom, the practice of DUELLING should still be indulged with impunity! It might have been hoped, that so irrational and pernicious a custom, would of itself, like all other barbarous usages, have become extinct; overborne by the prevalence of sounder opinions, and more refined feelings. But in spite of the ameliorating influence of civilization, its continuance still presents an anomaly in the manners of the age: it is nurtured by courts, and sanctioned by heroes; and while other 'vices seek concealment, this stalks across our fields, disturbing the harmonious intercourse of society, and glorying in our national shame. The frequency of Duels, like that of other crimes, has too often a blasting influence on our moral sensibilities. Accustomed to their recurrence, we forget to shudder at their enormity; we listen with the feeling of momentary regret to the tale which ought to have inspired us with horror; and instead of decisive indignation against its prevalence, we only talk about the laws of honor, and the usages of society! In order to estimate what degree of powerful emotion ought to be excited by the occurrence of a fatal duel, let us suppose that such laws of honor, such usages of fashionable life had never obtained amongst us-that the influence of genuine Christianity had prevented the obtrusion of every false stand ard of moral obligation; and that instead of appealing to the passion of resentment, every private contest had been determined according to the principles of equity and benevolence. If we can suppose such an order of things to have prevailed, what an outrage to the feelings of humanity, and to the convictions of justice, would be witnessed in a single instance of duelling! How subversive of the peace and order of society! What a perversion of the rights and duties of magistrates, to transfer the execution of the law, to the dangerous and destructive paroxysms of individual anger! If the cause of difference between the parties amounted to a serious injury, it might be asked, are not the tribunals of civil and of criminal justice accessible? If that difference arose from trivial causes, could not the healing interference of friendship be obtained? Did the state of social order, and the prevalence of general opinion, accord with the supposition I have made, the whole nation would rise up in indignant hostility against this violation of law, of humanity, and of religion; and not tolerate for a moment a custom barbarous in its origin, brutalising in its tendency, and indefensible in its principles. The practice of Duelling has all the peculiarities of a barbarous origin. The object intended to be accomplished is not, cannot, be realised. There is not a shadow of congruity between the means and the end. If the person aggrieved meet his antagonist in private combat, is there any tendency in the nature of that combat to convince the aggressor that he had given an unpardonable offence; or to impart any real satisfaction to the man who is injured?—None! There is indeed the gloomy malignant satisfaction of revenge; and this feeling well accords with the character of the barbarous nations of the North of Europe, among whom the practice originated. We are informed by historians that "much of the best blood in Christendom was, at one period, shed through contests of honor; and that war itself was scarcely more destructive to the human race." To what does the duellist appeal in justification of his conduct?-To the principle of honor!" It would be disgraceful to his character," he alleges, "degrading to his rank, or unbecoming his profession to act otherwise-he would not be a gentleman!" But the principle of honor in this instance, is opposed to the laws of Man, as much as to the authority of higher obligations. The learned Blackstone, describing the malitia præcogitata essential to the crime of murder, observes, "this takes in the case of deliberate duelling, where both parties meet avowedly with an intent to murder; thinking it their duty, as gentlemen, and claiming it as their right, to wanton with their own lives, and those of their fellow creatures; without any warrant or authority from any power either divine or human, but in direct contradiction to the laws of God and man; and therefore the law has justly fixed the crime and punish ment of murder, on them, and on their friends also." It is a singular fact in the history of modern jurisprudence, that the crime of duelling should be so distinctly detined, and its appropriate punishment so clearly determined: and yet that the execution of the law should be so successfully resisted by the authority of custom and the principle of honor! The reason is obvious-Duelling is sanctioned by splendid examples: the patriotic hero, and the enlightened statesman, are occasionally is practical advocates. Emboldened by such authorities, and impelled by the ebullitions of passion, the tribes of fluttering and worthless insects that sport amidst the circles of fashion, endeavour to raise themselves into importance, by magnifying their petty resentments into unpardonable provocations! aud challenges, and pistols, and death, are the immediate consequences! When a contemptible bully, whose ignorance and pride render him liable to continual explosions, to the no small terror of his peaceable neighbours, imagines his flimsy dignity to be insulted, we are not surprised at the frothy effervescence of his rage terminating in a duel. There is an entire consistency between the character and the action. But when a man of intelligence and worth is so far the dupe of custom, and the slave of honor, as to expose his life in private combat, because a coxcomb or a villain has sent him a challenge, we ought to raise, rather than depress, the tone of reprobation. An action of this nature is far from proving a man's courage. With what a delightful feeling of approbation do we contemplate the conduct of that distinguished Christian and hero, Colonel Gardiner, who, on the reception of a challenge, returned this magnanimous reply; "I fear sinning-though, as you know, I do not fear fighting!" I cannot close these reflections without animadverting on the prevailing tone of sentiment in reference to the subject, which pervades the writings of modern poets and novelists. As the heroine of a tale is obliged to have several rival suitors in order to render her a more interesting character, it is generally contrived that two high-spirited youths shall have, at least, an argumentative rencontre on the occasion: or if they are more cool-blooded and systematic in their proceedings, a formal duel must take place. No doubt, all these are most important affairs, as they afford admirable opportunities for pathetic description-charmingly nervous agitations, and occasional faintings. Matters of this kind might be tolerated; but when such a serious business as a duel can transpire and call forth no execration from the author, and even be palliated and pleaded for on the ground of juvenile indiscretion, sudden impulse, or prevailing custom, either the head or the heart of the writer must be dreadfully disordered. The great mass, indeed, of such writings, is too insignificant to have much influence on the conduct of society. But when those works of fiction, which are constructed by the magic of genius, and embellished by the refinements of taste, lend their sanction, directly or indirectly, to the irrational custom of duelling, it is an impious prostitution of powers which ought rather to be consecrated to the aid of virtue, and the suppression of vice. Though we generally discover in such productions only the state of sentiment and feeling amongst the classes of fashionable society, yet their influence in the way of re-action is most pernicious. It becomes the friend of truth and social order, therefore, and above all, the responsible tribunals of literary criticism, to attach the stigma of merited infamy to the fatal tendency of such publications. CLERICUS. ON THE PUNISHMENT OF THE PILLORY. A proposition for abolishing this species of punishment is now before parliament, and it is thought that the following observations can at least do no harm. The first reason that strikes us why the Pillory is unfit to answer the purposes of legitimate punishment is, its manifest inequality with respect to the persons upon whom it is inflicted. And this objection arises not merely from the rank and station of the culprit -not only from its inadequacy to terrify the wretched and lowborn, and its overwhelming horrors for the man of fortune and birth-but from the peculiarity of the feelings with which different individuals are endowed. These are circumstances which lie far beyond the ken of a Court of Justice. It is evident that a sentence, the weight of which depends upon strength of nerves-the power of enduring ridicule-and a variety of circumstances that cannot be taken into account on a trial, cannot be averred to be an equitable one. But the force of this consideration is greatly increased when we recollect that the habitually criminal, being insensible to shame, suffer but little; while those who possess moral worth and cling fondly to reputation, are tortured by the severest agonies. It may perhaps be questioned how far punishments, which, like this, affect the mind, almost exclusively, are proper to be at all inflicted. No doubt can be entertained of the impolicy of one in which nothing is certain, but that the worst men will set it at naught, and the best suffer more than a sense of equity can warrant. Another strong objection to this mode of exposure is, that it |