the mental faculties, but the moral perceptions, that will survive this life. Occasion may be taken in this debate to inculcate kindness and humanity towards the Brute Creation. See JESSE'S ANECDOTES OF DOGS. JESSE'S GLEANINGS IN NATURAL HISTORY. GREGORY'S COMPARATIVE VIEW OF MEN AND WATERTON'S ESSAY ON NATURAL HISTORY. ΤΟ TOPLADY'S SPEECH ON THE IMMORTALITY OF AIMÉ MARTIN'S WORK ON EDUCATION. CARPENTER'S INSTINCT IN ANIMALS. SHARON TURNER'S SACRED HISTORY OF THE WORLD. VESTIGES OF CREATION, pp. 333-336. HUME'S ESSAY ON THE REASON OF ANIMALS, REID ON THE MIND, p. 489. "On Instinct." 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, libertinism, 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— I. Because it fails to accomplish its pretended aims; inasmuch as (whatever its aim may be) it neither avenges nor satisfies wounded honour. II. Inasmuch as it makes an appeal to right a simple game of chance. III. Inasmuch as it gives the injured no redress, and the injurer power to do more mischief. IV. Because, although a law of society, it is a wicked and absurd law; and is therefore not binding. V. Because the vices which it is presumed to hold in check are not abated by it, and could better be restrained by law. VI. Because it proves, not courage, but foolhardiness for what but foolhardy can we call a man who flings his soul to perdition, rather than disobey a foolish custom of society? VII. Because it is an irrational and most ridiculous practice. VIII. Because it is totally opposed to all 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. PALEY'S MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. DR. MILLINGEN ON DUELLING. BRANDE'S DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE, &c. Art. "Duel," and the Works there quoted. 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 dignity, the power, the intellectual and moral force of these great orators, are altogether without parallel 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. 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 Chatham was as dignified and earnest as Demosthenes, that Fox was as simple and massive, and that Burke was as vehement and manly. So, also, it may be argued that Sheridan was as pointed and sarcastic as Cicero; Curran as lofty and dignified; Brougham as crushing and severe; Bossuet as impressive; and Canning as felicitous in illustration 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 Oratory in general, that in richness of illustration and beauty of style (by beauty is here meant appropriateness of imagery, and elegance of language), the modern Orators far surpass their great progenitors. 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 reference, illustration, and proof which the Orators of old were entirely without. If a speech of Demosthenes' or Cicero's be perused by the side of a |