Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Now, though such cases may be, we deny that they are either general or numerous. We appeal to our readers, as buyers, if they treasure up the politics of their merchants

cate for the Ballot would venture to propose, nor could it be enforced, compulsory secret voting in all cases), or adopt some other artifice to secure the fulfilment of a promise? This is both easy and possible, and under it—if they even know them? Is it the the whole effects of the Ballot would be frittered away, while all the arguments against its adoption would remain in greater force. It is preposterous, therefore, to suppose that the Ballot will cure the body politic of its loathsome disease; at the utmost it will only prevent its outbreak in one particular shape.

These remarks are directed against the mechanical working of the new system; let us suppose (and that is granting much) that means would be found to counteract all these artifices, would the Ballot therefore prevent bribery and intimidation? I answer, emphatically,-No! We have still the unanswerable proposition that the Ballot will not cure the moral sin of bribery. There will still exist base men willing to bribe and to be bribed. What is the object of bribing a man? Is it to induce him to become Tory or Liberal in his sentiments? No; he is bribed or threatened for his vote alone. He may declaim for seven years, in all the flowing periods of ultra-Radicalism or bigoted Toryism, but let him at the polling booth register his vote at the bidding of his purchaser, and the hireling's fee is earned. In open voting it is acts or neutrality that are bought; in secret voting it would be words and opinions. The purchase money would thus be paid for cheers and speeches, arguments and declamations, in favour of the buying candidate, and those know little of human nature who assert that, at the last hour, the base hypocrite would forget himself and his purchaser, his secret receipts, open declamations, and hopes of future rewards-remember only his country, and vote for the man of his concealed respect. Such a one has no principle to guide him, and it is only more likely, from constant iteration, his professed opinions would become his real

ones.

There is another, and a somewhat more worthy class, to whom the advocates for the Ballot allege it would grant relief. It is unjust, they say, to demand of struggling shopkeepers or farmers the open avowal of their votes, when it may entail on them oppression, heavy losses, and ultimate ruin.

excellence of his wares or his political opinions that leads them to his shop? The statement is ridiculous. Equally so is it that of a landlord dispossessing an industrious tenant to replace him with an idle partizan of his own. Landlords are too "wide awake" to their own interests to do so. But to give our opponents every advantage, let us suppose such cases to be general:—I am a customer, and have an undoubted right to give my custom wherever I please. As well arraign the plea of private friendship, church membership, or general acquaintanceship;— as well might the fraudulent dealer say to government, -"Do not prosecute me for mixing chicory with coffee, it will affect my dealings with those who do not buy coffee from me!"- -as the Radical (let us suppose) exclaim-" Let my politics be concealed, it will affect my dealings with those who are not Radicals!"

There is another advantage claimed for the Ballot by its admirers. It is asserted, electors are now bribed and threatened for their votes, and that under the proposed system they will be relieved from the tyranny of following their landlord or their purchaser to the polling booths. We have already taken as our standing point the fact that the Ballot will not eradicate evil from the heart of man. It must, therefore, follow that man will still be ready to bribe and willing to be bribed. For what? For their words and promises. The "poor but honest" elector, who is now, it is said, compelled to record his vote at the threats or bidding of his taskmaster, will assuredly be as much compelled to give his promise then. Yet he goes to the ballot box and votes for another candidate, and our opponents applaud his falsehood and hypocrisy, instead of condemning the weakness and the crime which leads him either to vote or promise, save according to his own judgment. The bribed or intimidated are now attacked for their vote; but under the Ballot, their words, their actions, their companions, the papers they subscribe to, will all be noted, and zealously recorded against them, and the same dire consequences will follow from an incautious word or a sus

66

picious print, as are now said to follow their words and declared opinions as they from an upright vote. Is not the second now are for their votes? On the other hand, tyranny greater than the first? were the representation reformed, and these As the prevention of bribery is the chief men deprived of the franchise, as they ought argument quoted for the adoption of the to be, there would be no necessity to resort Ballot, would it not be well to inquire how and to the Ballot. In the one case, it would be where it is most prevalent? It is well known inefficient; in the other, it is unnecessary. that there has never been a member unseated Under the present suffrage, it is not applicfor bribery in Scotland, and even in Ireland able or suitable; under our extended suffrage, elections are conducted in comparative purity it would be useless and unnecessary. Are to those of England. How is it that in the we, then, for such a system of recording our latter country the evil is so prevalent? I votes, to discard the manly avowal of our believe that in England the corresponding political opinions, preferring to exercise an class to the Scottish voters-the ten-pound-important right as if we were ashamed to be ers, are every whit as honest and independent. seen doing it? We are told, men love The solution is to be found in two grievous darkness because their deeds are evil;" what oversights in the English Reform Bill. The must Radicalism be, when its avowal is first is in the small boroughs. There are sought to be concealed from every eye? many returning two members, with constituencies below 300, and the majority are below 900; few returning only one member, many three or four. In Ireland also, one borough with 71 electors returns a member for itself, and there are fourteen towns with constituencies below 250. In Scotland, the lowest burghal constituency is Wigton, with 400 electors, the next has 650, while the only two towns returning two members have respectively 6,230 and 15,335 electors. Now, when we find one country so pre-eminently free from bribery, and the other so corrupted by it; and when we also find such discrepancies in the representations-would not the disfranchisement of these small towns, or their union into larger aggregates of electors, be a readier and a better cure for this disease than the Ballot, which leaves it raging in all its violence, and can only tend to hide its ravages from the eye?

I am surprised the admirers of the Ballot do not remind us that it was in use in Athens that most democratic state of antiquity. But they must feel ashamed of the anecdote by which its existence is made known. It must be familiar to every one, and contains a more profound argument against the Ballot than whole pages of theory. Aristides, surnamed The Just, who conquered at Marathon, and fought at Salamis

who, in an age fruitful of heroes, was one of the most eminent-whose integrity and justice were proverbial, and to whose talent and courage Greece was mainly indebted for the defeat of the Persians-he was banished from the country he had so worthily served, by the votes of 6,000 of his fellowcitizens, declared by "Ostracism," or Ballot. Such are the results of the Ballot in its full pre-operation. What it was then, it has con

The second oversight is the class of electors left in possession of the franchise. The majority of electors in English boroughs even in these small ones-are not (to coin a new word) bribable. They are honest, independent men. Most of them would declare their political sentiments were the Ballot in operation to-morrow, and they do not demand nor require its protection. But it is the freemen, who can turn the scale at a contested election, and who are ever ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder. Let us suppose the Ballot in force, and the representation unreformed, would not these freemen be as ready to become bribed for

tinued to be. Had the votes been declared openly and in face of day, such an act of ingratitude as the banishment of this good as well as great man would never have been related by the historian. Were the Ballot in force, our tried and faithful statesmen, who will not descend to flatter the "mob" (as distinct from the people), would be rejected in favour of the demagogue of the day.

In conclusion, I feel confident that the majority of the readers of the Controver.. sialist will agree with me in declaring that the Ballot is neither expedient nor desirable, but would entail greater evils than it pretends to cure. H. C. F.

Sarial Economy.

IS SECULARISM CONSONANT WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF SOCIAL HAPPINESS?

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

It being necessary that Secularism should be clearly defined in this debate, we venture a definition, and shall then proceed to view it from several great stand-points, bearing on the negative answer to this question.

THE necessity of prelimination in a dis-means, you must become acquainted with, cussion of this character is superseded by its and intimately know those who are its provast importance and manifold claims upon fessors and practisers. It is at best an the thoughtfulness of every nation standing ambiguity, involving the profoundest truths, in the scale of civilization, and bearing on and contradicting the first principles of its unfurled banner the divine aspiration rationality, natural and revealed theology, "Onward!"—especially on the thoughtful- and at the same time belying all the better ness of that nation of nations in whose midst aspirations of our common humanity. Secularism is propounded by men assuming the authority of philosophy, and the garb of wide-world benevolence, as the mighty panacea for the myriad soul-yearnings, spiritwants and giant woes of universal humanity -on the deep and earnest thought of that community whose true greatness and glory has sprung from the indwelling, soul-renewing, peace and purity restoring code of morals, and standard of practical religion, we call Christianity! Reader, if Christianity be anything short of the most profound and impious delusion, secularism is the meanest offspring of moral obliquity and infidelity the Christian world has known! If the Bible is the voice of Divinity, and Christianity a divine embodiment, Secularism, in the true, social, and religious acceptation of the term, is an embodied blasphemy.

In opening this debate, we would say, in the clearest terms possible, all personality shall be studiously avoided that the known teachers of Secularism shall neither be named, nor even their writings referred to, notwithstanding the great advantage we might thereby gain. The reason is obvious, since in a debate of this character we ought to analyze principles, search out palpable data, and bring some important point to light, though it be for the ten thousandth time; concerning which we may exclaim, mid all the doubt and gloom which envelop us as beings of religious aspirations and spiritual sympathies," Here will I hold!"

Notwithstanding the noise which Secularism has made in society, it is the most inadequately defined thing known. In fact, if you would learn what Secularism is and

Secularism is a theory which denies not only the existence but the necessity of a revealed, i. e., written religion, which we maintain Christianity really is; while on the other hand it affirms or assumes this much, that it is man's greatest wisdom and highest happiness to make the best of this world, forgetting, or endeavouring to forget, the "to come" of immortality-the eternity which awaits every one of us.

Secularism is the direct and absolute antithesis of the great apostle's soul-arousing, philosophic, and christian exhortation,

"Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth." Secularism denies the great axiom of christian philosophy, the deep truth of which ages proclaim and all ultimate human experience fully corroborates

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Secularism teaches us to abandon the oracles of the Deity, and to bow at the profane shrine of vaunting and error-bound human reason, and rashly to abandon our feeble but effectual faith in "eternal things," to embrace the shadows of this evanescent world, and thus in the act of highest presumption to set God at nought and defy his vengeance.

To any christian mind in doubt concerning the bare possibilities of social good under Secularism, this palpable antagonism—this

bold opposition of erring reason to the "truth of God," would at once and for ever set the matter at rest, even though failing to comprehend the particular error of the system. He would "hold here," it is an absolute impossibility, arising from the very constitution of things, that any system so opposed to that which I count and feel in the secret depths of my soul to be my highest treasure can, in its present influence and final results, alleviate the mighty woes, or establish the happiness of the aggregate of my fellow creatures. No christian man can be a secularist. Secularism is not even consonant with the teachings of the ancient pagan philosophers -even the Shasters and Coran, with all their error, point at its folly. Paganism and idolatry declare it false, inasmuch as they, though in different ways and under many forms, proclaim and manifest the want of the Divine presence, which Secularism, to its eternal shame, denies, and seeks to smother in the vanities of time, on the border of the tomb, at the gate of eternity!

We have, of course, to meet in this debate secularists, and ultimately to answer their arguments, and to maintain our position under their attacks. Of course, as they reject the Bible, they will consider arguments from it of the least weight, and doubtless most easy to be answered. We shall not, therefore, confine ourselves to the sacred word, but rather take other ground nearer the entrenchments of Secularism-somewhat, be it known, in the neighbourhood of their secret mines.

Before so doing, we shall call upon them to prove the rationality of their conduct in rejecting the Bible; also to state precisely the various grounds of such, to us, suicidal folly! Surely we may anticipate but doubtful success in this awful undertaking, since Secularism has been toiling for ages at the proof of this point, and has not as yet established one argument invalidating the truth of scripture, the deity of Jesus, or the character of his apostles.

True, science has been made to utter some opposing facts, in years gone by, concerning geology and astronomy, which did disturb a few good souls reposing on their evidences and inward experiences of eternal truth! But, since then, science has broken from such impious restraint, and with mighty power has borne her testimony against Secularism; and, beholding the Divine imprint in revela

tion, has grasped her outstretched hand in everlasting reunion. True, some vast relics of defunct dynasties and powers some half century ago were brought to light, when, to the surprise of all Christendom, the so-called fact of the fictitious character of the Bible was fully announced to the world! But the triumph was short-very short-these unentombed tablets, like science, added their testimony to the majesty of biblical truth, and silenced the shout of infidel pseudotriumph! True, many have toiled as though for the laurels of immortal fame, or the nepenthe of Elysium, to show how history and its evidence establish the mythical character of Jesus Christ, and the sublime gospels as beautiful forgeries, alias, splendid lies! But confusion has followed all such attempts; it being shown most clearly, by such men as Chalmers, Whately, &c., that the same reasoning would go to prove that Cæsar and Napoleon never walked this earth, or that this article was actually written by the man in the moon!

Probably modern Secularism has some new science, mystic tablet, or hitherto unknown history, true and valid. 1855 may bring great facts to light! Reader, I can join in a smile at the expense of Secularism. Yet, how stupendous is the folly of reasoning, sapient man!

The greatest, because the most conclusive and unanswerable argument which can be brought to bear upon this question is, that while Secularism as a theory pretends to advance the moral wellbeing and social happiness of mankind, it rejects the only means by which that grand result can possibly be established and perpetuated, either in the heart of individual man or universal society.

The statement that Christianity is the only power under heaven which can reform and purify the deep and agitated heart of mankind, and thus to the greatest possible extent secure the real happiness of society, according to the degree of such divine and redemptive influence upon the hidden life of men-limited indeed as all true happiness must ever be where sin exists-is a statement which admits not the shadow of doubt, if history, sacred and profane-if experience, whose facts are the most indisputable dataif reason, which, in her own limited sphere, is side by side with divine revelation-if true philosophy, moral and metaphysical, and the

intense out-goings and soul-intuitions, more latitudinarianism of secularism, as it regards or less, of every heart;-if these teach and the Son of God. What can be said of those demonstrate any one grand fact, it is that who profess to be able to prove, and believe, stated in our foregoing proposition. Reader, that Jesus of Nazareth was an impostor, there is, by this mode of arguing, an awful assuming deity to himself, and imposing degree of profanity necessarily brought to upon wayward humanity a practical recognilight, on the part of those who profess them- tion of his assumption;-what, we ask, can selves to be supremely anxious for the re- be said of those who, in the denial of Christ's formation, salvation, and moral well-being of essential and absolute deity, accuse him of mankind, who nevertheless, calmly and with the directest falsehood and purest hypocrisy daring courage, attempt to destroy, not the best means which the aggregate wisdom of all ages has at length brought to light, but, be it remembered, the profound, the mighty, the sublime, and perfect scheme of miracle working mercy, which emanated from the Divine mind, as the only means for man's restoration to God and truth, to love and virtue, and thus to partial happiness on earth, and perfected bliss in Paradise!

who do, nevertheless, hold him forth to the gaze of men as a being of high moral excellence and sublime character, while at the same time, according to their own testimony, and at the fallible bar of their own erring reason, he stands accused of falsehood and hypocrisy? There was far more consistency in the conduct of the ancient Pharisees, who, on hearing Jesus affirm most distinctly his deity, directly manifested their unbelief by attempting to stone him, than in the secularist who, having pronounced him an impostor, forthwith prates about his moral glory and matchless character. We maintain that Secularism is opposed to consistency of belief, and the integrity of reason; and as to its neutrality concerning the Bible, neither conscience nor reason admit it, but pronounce it false and untenable; and that, when secularists eulogize the

they betray their own folly, and publish to the world the existence of that awful repugnance of the depraved heart towards truth and holiness which has closed the gate of Paradise upon thousands.

We are fully aware that many who profess Secularism attempt to take a neutral ground as it regards the sacred word, and its momentous truths, and instead of totally denying the truth of scripture, to make clear way for Secularism, represent the matter-offact character of the Bible to be so dubious, as not to warrant their perfect credence in, and the consequent practice of, its soul reforming revelations. But we submit it to the candid judgment of our readers, where is" Man of Sorrows," and his moral excellence, the consistency of the conduct of those who cannot reject the Bible conscientiously, fearing lest its awful truths be found fully realized by them in the light of eternity; who, as highest wisdom on their part, do nevertheless virtually abandon it, and teach men so to do, by upholding a system which gives the lie to its most palpable revelations? To the point. One of the most evident truths of scripture is the certainty of a future state of immortal being; and another, closely linked to it, is the probationary and preparatory character of this life in connection with that to come. How manifest is the folly of those who cannot deny the two allied truths, but who, notwithstanding, live totally regardless of them, and affirm their conduct to be wise and productive of the highest happiness. Byron himself, opposed as he was to the searching truth of revelation, admitted the wisdom of those who embraced Christianity, even though it should be found hereafter a splendid delusion.

We are aware, too, of the inconsistent

If biblical light and christian philosophy expose the grand errors of Secularism, so also do reason and the deepest sympathies of our common humanity; to these two other points we now turn, viewing them in their mutual relationships to the grand fact that man is a religious being, according to the constitution of his nature, and that the highest amount of social and individual happiness consists in the cultivation of his religious character, his loftiest aspirations towards truth and holiness as they centre in the deity, and his deepest sympathies with that which is spiritual, perfect, and eternal!

Now, Secularism, in its fundamental principles, is altogether opposed to the religious life, culture, and happiness of which we here speak; so much so, that it rather treats man as being incapable of such religious life.

« AnteriorContinuar »