amateurs and dilettanti in the various modes of bloodshed; and, in short, Murder-Fanciers.  Every fresh atrocity of that class, which the police annals of Europe bring up, they meet and criticise as they would a picture, statue, or other work of art.  But I need not trouble myself with any attempt to describe the spirit of their proceedings, as you will collect that much better from one of the Monthly Lectures read before the society last year.  This has fallen into my hands accidentally, in spite of all the vigilance exercised to keep their transactions from the public eye.  The publication of it will alarm them; and my purpose is that it should.  For I would much rather put them down quietly, by an appeal to public opinion through you, than by such an exposure of names as would follow an appeal to Bow Street; which last appeal, however, if this should fail, I must positively resort to.  For it is scandalous that such things should go on in a Christian land.  Even in a heathen land, the toleration of murder was felt by a Christian writer to be the most crying reproach of the public morals.  This writer was Lactantius; and with his words, as singularly applicable to the present occasion, I shall conclude:  “Quid tam horribile,” says he, “tam tetrum, quam hominis trucidatio?  Ideo severissimis legibus vita nostra munitur; ideo bella execrabilia sunt.  Invenit tamen consuetudo quatenus homicidium sine bello ac sine legibus faciat:  et hoc sibi voluptas quod scelus vindicavit.  Quod si interesse homicidio sceleris conscientia est,—­et eidem facinori spectator obstrictus est cui et admissor; ergo et in his gladiatorum caedibus non minus cruore profunditur qui spectat, quam ille qui facit:  nec potest esse immunis a sanguine qui voluit effundi; aut videri non interfecisse, qui interfectori et favit et proemium postulavit.”  “Human life,” says he, “is guarded by laws of the uttermost rigor, yet custom has devised a mode of evading them in behalf of murder; and the demands of taste (voluptas) are now become the same as those of abandoned guilt.”  Let the Society of Gentlemen Amateurs consider this; and let me call their especial attention to the last sentence, which is so weighty, that I shall attempt to convey it in English:  “Now, if merely to be present at a murder fastens on a man the character of an accomplice; if barely to be a spectator involves us in one common guilt with the perpetrator; it follows of necessity, that, in these murders of the amphitheatre, the hand which inflicts the fatal blow is not more deeply imbrued in blood that his who sits and looks on:  neither can he be clear of blood who has countenanced its shedding; nor that man seem other than a participator in murder who gives his applause to the murderer, and calls for prizes in his behalf.”  The “praemia postulavit” I have not yet heard charged upon the Gentlemen Amateurs of London, though undoubtedly their proceedings tend to that; but the “interfectori favil” is implied in the very title of this association, and expressed in every line of the lecture which I send you.