Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

designed, and most unequivocal falsehood. And when the influence of flagrant falsehood, pursued in a systematic manner, is proved to be beneficial to society, then will Monachism be proven to have the like effect, but not till then. Monachism is thus false in principle, its tenets are false, its members are interested, its objects are worldly, its spirit is avaricious, and there is scarcely one relieving feature in its career from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries.

flourish of pens and flowing of ink, to produce a specimen about equal to that of the promising devil of Lloyd's delectable Penny Newspaper. We therefore find that their boldest writings are ingenious rather than profound, and that "no idea is ever followed to its ultimate consequences. There is not that imperturbable audacity, that stubbornness of logic, which are displayed in the writings of the ancient civilization." And even the chroniclers, though their narratives were necessarily animated, from the amount of detail which they contained, were still insufferably dull, in consequence of the prosy episodes of egotistical bigotry and gross ignorance. Take Robert the Monk as an instance of this erudition without judgment, and of earnest aspiration without capacity. In the literary efforts of men out of the church we find evidence of a philosophical judgment; there is a comprehensive mastery over principles, joined with a depth and sagacity in the tracing of causes and effects, which we shall look for in vain in the works of the monks. William of Tyre is a wellknown example of this.

As well, therefore, might "Stanislaus" assert that a tempest does no harm, because here and there a fragile shrub braves the storm, as maintain that Monachism, because of its few good acts, is not still, in the grand total of its effects, most baneful. Stanislaus" instances a few of the beneficial effects the monastic system; all of which, we are sorry to find, are open to objection. The monks, according to this writer, were superior in cultivation and in letters to the rest of society. There may be a particle of truth in this; but from the public life of the monk, from the literary specimens now extant, and from his habits of narrow observation and fierce bigotry, as well as judging of We are perfectly willing, with "Stanisthe practical effect of his private creed upon laus," to believe that the monks were the his public conduct, we infer but little of him "good landlords" which he feelingly repreas a student. All his writings are pervaded sents them; and that the influence of Moby a narrow theological spirit. "This spirit nachism was therefore good on the monastic was, as it were," says Guizot, "the blood tenantry. He must, however, recollect that which flowed in the veins of the European these poor tenantry formed but a minute world." The influence of this spirit, accord- portion of European society; and therefore, ing to the same authority, was decidedly whether they thrived or failed-like the mobad; "and it was not until Bacon and Des- dern British landlord in the days of the cartes-Bacon in England, and Descartes in League-is a matter of extreme unconcern to France-who were the first to carry intellect the question at large. Further, it is scarcely out of the beaten tracks of theology." In within the province of "Stanislaus" to disthe monastic literature we find a weak, tur- cuss the pecuniary benefits conferred by Mogid, trimming vein, foolishly copied from the nachism on any body of men whatever. But schoolmen. The monks were competent even here this apparent monastic disinterestenough to keep diaries, to cast up the ac-edness becomes suspicious when we consider counts of the monastery, to register the petty news of the times, to write epitaphs, and to do other small literary labours; but when they ventured upon any work in which a searching and an unbiassed intellect was required" Oh, Hamlet, what a falling off was there!" Their books, however, possessed one recommendation-they were beautifully written. They suggest the allegory of a consummate fop, who, having assumed the habit of the "true man," and possessing a sufficiency of assurance, contrives, after herculean pains and labours, and a vast

the fact that the monks held their lands frequently on an insecure tenure, and that therefore they were deeply interested in conciliating the good will of the tenantry, for there was danger that if any political disturbance arose, the vassals would throw off subjection, and declare an equal right with their good landlords to the possession of the lands. We, therefore, consider this dealing on the part of the monks to be worthy of a Barnum, rather than an example of affection. In producing Hume's authority for this fact "Stanislaus" has apparently ignored the con

sideration that the praise of this astute historian offen flows most smoothly in those cases where an under current of irony is perceptible, the thrusts from which are far more deadly than those from an open

blade.

Nor is "Stanislaus" more successful in his effort to justify the motives which cause men to join the monastic order. He thus enumerates what he affirms to be the chief causes:-"Some fled to them from fear of their fellow-men; some to live more free from the cares of a worldly life; some from love of retirement; some to weep over a misspent life; some to have more time to spend in the services of God; some from love of learning," &c., &c. Manly motives, these! One man is afraid of another; he flees to hide his coward head in a monastery. A poor creature grows mawkish over the business and cares of life; the monastery opens its sympathizing arms to receive the tender heart. A rake has spent his money, and misspent his life; but instead of going to the Compter, he declares himself to the last degree blasé, and straightway departs for the monastery to weep. A fanatic is seized with the ridiculous lunacy of being a "chosen vessel of God;" he rushes to the monastery, and he declares that he has a "mission" to miserable sinners. He straightway goes abroad to declare his mission, and his bad taste but worse vanity, by donning the ugly habiliments and the long face of a monk. We hear in pathology of a disease which leads the patient to believe that his bodily proportions are of mountainous magnitude; but this disease is nothing compared to that by which the moral stature of a fanatic is self-magnified.

To such as these the door of the monastery is open. Such is the stuff of which monks are made. The proper place for these people is evidently Botany Bay; the salubrious air, exercise, and climate of which are well known recipes for the empty heads and emptier pockets of spendthrifts.

We now advance to the third and most important consideration in the question. We allude, of course, to the moral effect of Monachism on society. For it is evidently a matter of but little moment if a religious body of men are not found to bear the palm for their learning, their literary works, or even for their philosophical toleration of antagonistic creeds. All these may be wanting; yet

there still may be found in great vigour that sterling honesty, that singleness of purpose, that ardent enthusiasm for their sacred cause, and that disinterested attachment to it, which together would constitute one of the noblest and best, if not the most philosophical, of human characters. But these qualities were unknown to monkhood. Or if, indeed, they did possess one of them, it was the least worthy one in the list. The monks were intolerant. But this was not the honest intolerance which arises out of a fervid faith in an espoused dogma. They never felt their souls on fire with the sacred importance of their own beliefs, else they could never have perpetrated the gross falsehoods which continually pervaded their teachings. They never looked round on humanity, and feeling, to their heart of hearts, the nonentity of the opinions which it held, were compelled to exclaim, like truth-loving Coleridge, "No! no! when such opinions are in question, I neither am, nor will be, nor wish to be regarded as, tolerant." They practised deception; and therefore they were positively incapable of that conscientious integrity, that inmost rectitude, which are the soul of all honour and truth. This craving after falsehood, this moral obtusity to its despicable meanness, and this mental stupidity as to its shortsighted policy, are alone enough to have dragged these false prophets and their false system into limbo long ago. It is this propensity to duplicity, joined with the well-known monastic enmity to the intellectual development of their votaries, which drove mankind, in the sixteenth century, to cast off the papal yoke. That religious system, therefore, which after many centuries of uncontrolled jurisdiction was at last compelled to succumb to popular indignation, could at no time have exerted a very beneficial influence on society.

We find that exhaustion of the allotted pages warns us to break off abruptly here, or we would turn to the age of the Reformation, that celebrated epoch in the history of the monastic orders. The reader must, therefore, consider that the foregoing is merely a prelude, embodying the principles and groundwork of our argument—an argument which, though we have but casually supported it by historical testimony, is nevertheless to be considered as based on evidence of the most indubitable character.

JOHN BROWN.

Politics.

IS THE BALLOT MORE DESIRABLE THAN OPEN VOTING?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

"The interests of the individuals constituting the greatest number of the people is, that the government should be conducted favourably to the interests of that greatest number. Thus the general interest is each man's personal interest. When any one is transacting that in which his personal interest alone is at stake, he need be responsible to no other person; and the interference of another will be more likely to lead him astray than to put him right. The elector, if uninfluenced, gaining nothing by his choice but his share in the results of good government to all, votes accordingly for the man who, as a legislator, will act to that end. But if his vote for a person who will not act as a legislator for the general good be made more valuable to him than his chance in the share of the results of good government, he will, in the general case, vote in compliance with that stronger interest. Hence the operations of bribery and intimidation at election. Secrecy of suffrage, or, as it is commonly called, the Ballot, is the remedy for this disease. As the candidate cannot know whether or not the service has been performed, he will not give the wages. Since there is no means of detecting the non-fulfilment of his bargain, the bribed elector is in the same position as to interests with the unbribed-i. e., his interest is identical with that of the public at large, and in favour of good government; and the candidate, knowing this to be the case, will not throw away his money.-Jeremy Bentham.

MR. EDITOR.-We are told that the great Voltaire, when on his deathbed, requested but a few hours to live in order that he might recant and revoke all that he had previously written. We hope that in this respect "Gray" will be more fortunate; and that an opportunity may be granted to him in order that he may see the folly of his reasoning on the Ballot, and atone for the little credit which he therein attaches to human nature. We cannot but think that our opponent has fallen into the common error of measuring a bushel out of his own sack; for, on reference to his article, it will be seen that (in order to suit his argument), in each illustration of his objection to the Ballot, the voter is represented as being without principle and without morality-as being anxious to serve his own ends open, either to take bribes, tell lies, or turn his own accuser. He first prejudices the question by the following insinuation: "We all know that men generally will

act more honourably, more consistently, with the eyes of the world upon them than they will when closeted alone with their vacillating hearts, when temporary expedients or selfish interests are the tempters." And as a corollary on this, he hurls the foregoing at the electors of the United Kingdom as being their general character, coupled with the assertion, that "voters will act under a sense of public opinion with more sincerity and honesty when their moral worth is at stake, than when they can safely play the hypocrite, and sacrifice public duty for unworthy motives." After this compliment to the general character of the voters, especially as his illustrations prove the same, what can be expected from an argument when the bad are selected as abstract cases, and made to represent the bulk of the community! One feature in his illustrations, which we must admit our total incapacity to comprehend, is the honesty which he attaches to the character of a man who receives a bribe, and whom he represents as voting in accordance with the wish of the briber. Here the barrenness and insufficiency of his reasoning becomes painfully manifest; for what guarantee has the electioneering agent that the vote will be recorded as bargained for? We should like to inquire how "Gray" could repose confidence in men who were so guilty as to vote against conscience, when they were so dishonest as to be bribed? It does appear passing strange to find writers, who brand dishonest, relying upon them voting as required, more especially when secrecy hides the vote from scrutiny. So far as we are concerned, "Gray" may rest assured that we shall never seek to obtain his services, although he seems to think, judging from his article, that the majority of men are as bad as himself. We will now pass on to consider the objections to the Ballot.

men as

[ocr errors]

un

The Ballot is charged with being English;" and this, perhaps, is the only

available reason which its opponents can find to bring against it. However correct this may be, we should like to inquire if the measure is any more chargeable with being unEnglish than the practices of bribery, treating, corrupting, and intimidating the electors in order to secure their votes. Why, on the same score, do not its opponents object to Masonic lodges and other secret societies, the members of which are sworn to conceal and not to reveal the business transacted therein? Nor can we see how the army and navy clubs, &c., &c., are exempt from this rule, as "Gray" would have us believe. The same principle is involved, and the same duty attaches to either; the functions being somewhat different, though (in some places, institutions, lyceums, &c.) not less important. We can only wonder at the strange inconsistency of those who can tolerate one but not both of these agencies, or who are content with the existence of secret societies, should object to the establishment of the Ballot.

should like to hear defined) the stalking-
horse for opposition to the Ballot, and seem-
ing to think that men are
"afraid to vote
openly" because they could avail themselves
of its protection from the
screw " on
the one hand, and from bribery and cor-
ruption, on the other. He also adds, "if
men are afraid to vote openly, and pusilla-
nimously screen themselves behind the Bal-
lot, they would naturally shrink from an
open avowal of their views, avoiding every-
thing like free discussion," &c., &c. There
is but little truth in the conclusion drawn
from the premise,-and for our own part we
pledge our word, should he ever be so fortu-
nate as to become a returning-officer, to prove
for once his mistake on this head. We are
rather surprised he did not assert that men
were afraid of an open avowal of their
views" on the Ballot itself. We very much
question if he will find such men as he
represents amongst the advocates of the
Ballot.

[ocr errors]

"Gray" next refers to the House of Commons, and triumphantly chuckles over "its open speaking and open debating," in contradistinction to the secret system; as though there were no distinction between the man who becomes the responsible represen

[ocr errors]

Moreover, is it not consistent that the Ballot should be compulsory on all persons irrespectively? The Bill is intended as a protection for those who, under the influence of threat, intimidation, bribery, corruption, &c., would incur great risks-by being, as Gray" says, "thrown upon their own re-tative of the opinions of others, and indivisources," and probably ruined for ever; and such parties would, under the present system, be necessarily compelled to yield to the pressure of the "screw." Under the Ballot, however, they are enabled to maintain and exercise inviolate their prescriptive right to the franchise, and to assert their right to the obligations which conscience necessarily demands being represented in and by their

vote.

Our opponent makes use of a species of reasoning often resorted to when argument fails, by an appeal to the passions-evoked | by reference to the good old times of the pure and high-minded Saxon race;" and, further on, by "the dignity and glory of selfdenial, and even martyrdom, purely for principles' sake." The feelings are made to appear as being involved in the question, and consequently memorials of ancient fame are sought for, by which to excite reverence and win admiration.

On this head we consider the greater portion of his article as "cant";-making the British constitution (which by the bye we

dual or personal accountability (that is, to one's conscience). Again; he appears to forget, that, objectionable as the Ballot may be, for votes tendered in opposition to the party's political creed, that on two memorable occasions within the last three months, the one on the evening of Mr. Bright's celebrated philippic on the management of the war in the Crimea; the other, on the division on Mr. Roebuck's motion for inquiry into the same; a number of members did not scruple or hesitate to announce their intention of voting in opposition to their strongest personal convictions. If the House of Commons can consistently act thus (which of course must be the case from our opponent quoting it as an illustration) he has yet to prove that the Ballot is as bad as he represents it. With respect to his remarks on the Ballot in France and America, they are gratuitous assertions, they contain assumptions incorrect in themselves, and they also charge the Ballot with evils for which it is not in the least responsible.

In bringing this article to a close, we

regret that we have been compelled to speak | impartial statement of any future question in such condemnatory terms; but they are than is unfortunately the case with the preno less correct than deserved. "Gray" has sent one. He appears to have lost all faith placed the question of the Ballot in the in voters for honesty and morality, and we worst possible light; and by bringing abstract would venture to hope he will seek some cases to apply to universal ones (which logic place to the inhabitants of which he will certainly does not sanction), he does not attribute a more upright integrity than abscruple to charge the voters of the United stract cases would appear to secure to the Kingdom with intent to devote the Ballot to supporters of the Ballot. personal aggrandizement, not national welfare; and although actually charging the Ballot with "increasing rather than diminishing the existing corruption" (an assertion which we challenge him to prove), we do not find that he proposes to suppress this crying evil, but looks upon it with oblivious indifference, which would appear to attest insincerity in his own avowed sentiments.

On leaving our opponent we will take this opportunity of expressing a wish that should he again engage in any discussion he will dismiss that prejudice from his mind which is displayed in his article, and avail himself of appliances, which will secure a more

To sum up; it is evident that opposition to the Ballot either proceeds from apprehensions of the loss of political power on the one hand, or of the success of liberal and enlightened principles on the other; and therefore we can well understand the hostility which is directed against the measure by its opponents. Its adoption would be fatal to territorial influence not evoked by respect. However, the measure must eventually become law; and those who may still continue to oppose its adoption must either be singularly prejudiced and infatuated, or influenced still more by personal and interested motives. Manchester. J. R. G.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-II.

WHATEVER course this debate may take in the Controversialist, it is not necessary that the democratic and monarchical spirits be invoked to the contest. Its affirmative will, no doubt, arouse the sympathies of our reforming friends; but there is no reason that we should be treated (as I fear we may) to rhapsodies on Democratic Progress, Universal Suffrage, and Mutual Republicanism -their Eldorado of government. Its negative may be loudly asserted by the believer in "right divine" and passive obedience, but no appeals to the genius of the constitution will be allowed. The discussion is narrowed to the "desirableness" of the Ballot, per se, and the protection it is alleged to confer on the voter. It lies with those who are satisfied with the gradual advances which our country is making in political science, and not with the extremes of either party.

While perfectly willing to entertain any proposal for putting an end to the gross corruption, oppression, and intimidation which have been proved to exist, we do not believe that the Ballot would be an effectual remedy. We cordially join with our opponents in detesting the influences by which the poor but honest elector is fettered in the most important privilege of a freeman. Yet, while we

mutually regret the evil, we differ as to the means of redressing it.

The Ballot, we are told, is a sovereign remedy for bribery and intimidation. Pictures are drawn of the straits in which unscrupulous electioneering agents will be placed when they will no longer have the same security in the promises of the recipients of their money, or the victims of their threats. Thence glowing deductions are led of corruption chased away, intimidation rendered harmless, and purity of election secured; yet these gratifying results are based on a very slight foundation, viz., that the Ballot will remove all inducement to bribe, as no man will invest his money in so precarious a return as the promise of an elector, who may secretly vote as he pleases. There is one important consideration, however, overlooked -that the man who is base enough to accept a bribe is destitute of principle, and is more likely to vote for his paymaster than for another candidate. The Ballot will not remove all inducement to bribe, nor eradicate the moral sin of bribery; it will only prevent its open proof in a registered vote. Now, what more easy than for the candidate to demand an open proof of his vote, as well under the new system as the old (for surely no advo

« AnteriorContinuar »