Principles of government;

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Chapter I. On The Education Of The People

In a great empire, such as France or Great Britain, it is desirable that there should be a " Minister of Public Instruction,^ si^ecially charged with the superintendence of all educational affairs, in regard of which the intervention of the state is needed : but in small communities it is not advantageous to create a machinery more cumbrous or complex than the necessity of the case requires. We may, therefore, assign to the department of the Intx^rior the superintendence of public instruction, as a branch of administration which naturally belongs to that department.

That the education of the people is one of the most important concerns which can affect the interests of society, is a proposition now universally admitted. Yet there is, perhaps, no question of social polity, respecting which so much controversy exists, as respecting the means by which this object can be best

VOL. II. B attained. One class of reasoners contend that the intervention of the state is not needed at all, that the voluntary action of society itself is sufficient to develope the spirit and the agencies by which instruction may be secured to the community at large. On the other hand, another class of reasoners contend that the voluntary efforts of society are generally misdirected, and are always inadequate to produce the results which educational institutions ought to bear in view — that, therefore, the state is bound to provide for and superintend the education of the people. Between opinions so diametrically opposed to each other, it is impossible to suggest a middle course, which shall be acceptable to either of these classes of reasoners. Yet we venture to think that such a middle course is most consistent with expediency. Upon this subject, as upon many other debated questions, we may hesitate to adopt any undeviating rule of policy. The educational arrangements of each country ought to be regulated according to the special requirements and peculiar tendencies of its population. We cannot agree with those who think that the intervention of the state ought never to be applied to public instruction, because we find that just in proportion as ignorance prevails in a community, there will exist an indisposition to provide means by voluntary action for promoting education. We ought, therefore, to respect as benefactors of mankind, those sovereigns, and ministers, and popular bodies, and munificent individuals, who have founded schools, and colleges, and other seminaries for the enlightenment of their fellow-countrymen ; and we are led to conclude that the public revenues of a state can be applied to no object more legitimate than to public instruction.

On the other hand, it is not desirable that the operations of the state should wholly supersede the efforts of individuals. Least of all, is it desirable that the state should interpose any constraint or impediment which can interfere with perfect liberty in regard of education. State institutions of every kind have a tendency to lose the spirit which infused life into them at their birth, and to become mere pieces of formal mechanism. When once the vivifying spirit is lost, it becomes the interest of all the officeholders connected with them to consider them ratlier as appliances of patronage or of government influence, than as agencies ministering to the public good. The mind, even more than the limbs of man, requires perfect freedom for its operations and exercises. To formalize too much the education of a people, to subject education to restraints imposed by governmental administration, would be a tyranny more fatal to the development of genius and of the reasoning powers — more fatal to the progress of discovery, than even the hateful censure of the press, which is held in such just abhorrence by all lovers of freedom.

The state ought to guide, assist, and superintend education. The state ought to take measures for bringing within reach of every child in the community that sort of instruction which is best suited to its circumstances, and best calculated to promote its welfare and advancement in life ; but these aims ought to be effected rather by developing the educational capacity inherent in each section of the community, than by constraining the mind of the country to assume a certain definite character through the instrumentality of centralized institutions. The arguments which have been urged against excessive centralization in regard to the general functions of government apply also to education. The arguments which we have brought forward in favour of local self-government apply also to educational training. Self-reliance is a quality without which vigour of character cannot exist in nations or in individuals; and the habit of leaning too much upon governmental agency tends utterly to destroy a spirit of self-reliance. To construct a system founded on these principles is no easy task; but the statesman ought not to shrink from an endeavour to bring sound principles into practical operation.

Chapter II. On Reugious Instruction

Education is two-fold, religious and secular. Let us consider, separately, each of these departments of instruction.

If the conduct of men, in this world, depend upon their religious convictions; if their happiness in another, throughout all eternity, depend upon the opinions which they have entertained, and the actions which they have performed while on earth, then it would seem to follow that religious education is immeasurably the most important function in the whole circle of social requirements. Hence the pre-eminence which has in every country, and under every form of religious observance, been assigned to the clergy. Hence the claim which the clergy of every persuasion advance to the support of the state, for the exclusive propagation of what they consider to be religious truth. Now if it were possible to secure uniformity of opinion amongst mankind, and if it were certain that the teaching of a particular creed would make men better citizens than they become under a more latitudinarian liberty, it might be conceded, as an inevitable deduction, that the state ought to encourage, nay, ought to permit the propagation of none but the true doctrine. Hierarchies, lay as well clerical, influenced by these considerations, have frequently endeavoured to secure uniformity of faith. This attempt was made by the polytheist Government of Rome. It has been made by the several Catholic Governments, and also by the Protestant Governments of Europe. What has been the result? Persecution has, in some instances, as in the Low Countries, and in Germany, led to successful resistance. In other countries, as in Spain and Italy, an apparent uniformity of faith has been produced, but the measures taken have only produced an hypocritical conformity to the established religion, whilst they have checked, in some cases extinguished, the development of all that is truly great and noble in the character of man. Ferdinand, by expelling the Moors from Spain, lost his most industrious and accomplished subjects. Louis XIV., in banishing Protestants from France, deprived that country of myriads of its most skilful artisans. The attempts made by Protestant England to extinguish Catholicity in Ireland impoverished and degraded that kingdom, without achieving the desired end. Everywhere we find that efforts to secure uniformity of religious profession, either have failed, or if they have partially succeeded, after a frightful sacrifice of life, they have produced evils greater than any that are found to arise, from unfettered liberty of discussion and from undisguised difference of opinion.

Neither is it an incontestable proposition that the professors of one particular creed are found to be more virtuous men, or better citizens, than those who profess other religious doctrines. It is said by many of those who are best acquainted with the East, that the Hindoo and the Mahometan population of Asia are, in almost all respects, more virtuous and more moral than the Christian population of Europe; and we have no reason to conclude, from European experience, that the Quaker or the Baptist is a less virtuous citizen than the adherent of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of England. The introduction of Christianity amongst aboriginal tribes and uncivilized nations, has generally been productive of vice and degradation amongst them rather than of moral or social improvement. It would, perhaps, be unfair to attribute this result to the teachings of Christian missionaries, but the fact that almost eveiy indigenous population has degenerated after an intercourse has taken place between them and intruders, who are called civilized and Christian men, is one which has been established by the evidence of so many impartial travellers, that it can scarcely be contested.

Seeing, therefore, that it is impossible to secure uniformity of opinion, with regard to religious questions amongst men; seeing that the attempt to procure such uniformity necessarily leads to innumerable evils; seeing that it is evidently the intention of the Deity that differences should exist, respecting matters of faith; seeing that, if uniformity could be secured, there is no reason to believe that men would be better, or more virtuous, as members of society, than they now are; seeing that liberty of thought is the indefeasible right of every human being, — ^we are compelled to arrive at the conclusion, that the state ought not to undertake the propagation of religious opinions, as a national obligation, but that arrangements made by the state, respecting ecclesiastical affairs, should be founded upon considerations of expediency, and should keep in view the just claims of every section of the community, rather than the ascendancy of any particular sect.

It is needless to inquire whether the ministrations of a priesthood are conducive to the happiness and welfare of mankind ; because experience proves that, whatever may be the convictions of the philosopher upon this point, the great bulk of mankind, in all countries, and in all ages, have relied upon religious teachers as guides, who point out the way to future salvation. A sense of religious obligation, whatever modification it may assume, is as much an innate quality of man's nature as is the parent's love of its offspring, or the affection of a child for its parent. This sentiment naturally seeks the priest as the agent who shall direct and satisfy it. The religious inquirer, who exclaims, "What shall I do to be saved?" as naturally sends for the clergyman, as the patient who suffers under disease sends for the doctor. Though it cannot be denied that both doctors and clergymen often infuse more rancorous diseases than those which they profess to cure, yet it may be admitted, even by those who are most sceptical respecting the efficacy of their intervention, that their ministrations are, upon the whole, useful to mankind. But were it otherwise — were the clergyman to be considered as an agent of evil, rather than of good (and such is the judgment which the clergy of adverse creeds, for the most part, form respecting each other) — still, this agent is one of the most influential members of society ; and the statesman has to determine in what manner he shall be treated. To persecute him is a course as unavailing as it is wicked.

You cannot banish the priest. This attempt has been tried in the case of the Jews ; it has been tried in the case of the Catholics ; it has been tried in the case of the Protestants ; it has been tried in the case of various other religious denominations. Wherever a vestige of a sect remains, there will be found a priest. Clearly, then, it is for the interest of society that this functionary, so powerful, so indispensable, should stand in the light, rather than that he should lurk in darkness ~ that he should be rendered the friend of the state, rather than its enemy — that he should be made the patron of social order and of social harmony, rather than that he should be led to contemplate the subversion of existing institutions, as the means of advancing his own interests and those of the congregation with which he is connected. These considerations are equally applicable, whether the priest be a Jew, a Mahometan, a Hindoo, a Soman Catholic, or a Protestant. Equal liberty of conscience is the common right of all ; and not only equal toleration, but also equality of civil condition. It is not consistent with justice to tax the Hindoo for the support of the Mahometan religion, unless you are prepared to tax the Mahometan for the support of the religion of the Hindoo. Civil government is established, not to secure felicity in the next world for those by whom it established, but to enable them to enjoy peace and prosperity while upon earth. Man is responsible for his religious opinions, not to his fellow-man, but to his Creator. If he violate a social duty, society may punish him for the breach of that duty ; but the religious enthusiast has no right to presume that the doctrines which he repudiates will necessarily lead to a breach of social duty, and on this ground to prohibit their utterance.

From the foregoing considerations it follows, as a necessary deduction, that Governments ought either to abstain altogether from interfering with religious instruction, or ought so to frame their arrangements as that no cause of just complaint shall be created, by giving advantages to one or more religious communities, to the prejudice or exclusion of the remaining sections of the population. The statesman has, therefore, to determine whether a Government ought to make provision for the support of the teachers of the several religious communities which compose the population of a country, or whether it should leave them to be maintained by the voluntary contributions of their respective congregations.

Whenever all, or nearly all, the inhabitants of a territory profess the same faith, it seems to be natural and desirable that the ministers of that faith should be endowed by the state. In such case, none of the jealousies which arise between contending sects exist. On the other hand, in a community which is much divided in regard of religious opinion, it is simply a question of convenience whether it is more expedient that the clergy should depend upon voluntary contribution than upon a permanent provision for their support. Though this is a question which admits of much controversy, and upon which I speak with much hesitation, yet, upon the whole, I am inclined to think that it is more advantageous that the clergy should be supported by a settled endowment, than that they should be dependent upon the voluntary contributions of their flocks.

Religious teachers ought not to be placed in circumstances which tempt them, from interested motives, unduly to stimulate the passions of the people or to humour their caprices. The minds of the clergy ought to be kept as free as possible from worldly cares, which are generated by poverty, as well as by excess of wealth. The sacred office ought not to be degraded by placing its ministers under the necessity of resorting to expedients for obtaining a livelihood, from which men of refined minds naturally shrink. The function of the priest ought to be an object of ambition to the son of the nobleman, as well as to the son of the peasant. This wiU not be the case, if the clergy are subjected to the degradation of an indirect mendicancy. But the consideration, which, of all others, is most conclusive in favour of a settled provision for the clergy, is, that where no such provision exists the services of the pastor are withheld where they are most needed. In wealthy communities voluntary contribution will generally produce funds more than sufficient to provide for the religious teaching of such communities ; but a popidation which is very poor, or thinly scattered over the surface of the soil, is often left wholly unprovided with spiritual instruction, in those countries in which no established provision is made for the support of a clergy.

When I speak of a settled provision for the clergy, I mean an endowment granted or secured by the stat€ on terms which do not compromise the independence of the clergy. Great as may be the evils which result from too servile a dependence of the clergy upon their congregations, the evils which result from a servile dependency upon ministers of state are infinitely greater. By politicians, the interests of religion are for the most part wholly overlooked. The interests of party and personal aggrandizement are the cherished objects of their aim. If the clergy be dependent upon them, fawning sycophancy, a talent for intrigue, a skilful use of the weapons of political gladiatorship — not learning, not piety, not spiritual zeal, not active benevolence, will be the qualities which will recommend the clerical aspirant for promotion.

Neither ought the civil government to undertake the settlement of questions of religious controversy. A Christian government may, with propriety, assign to the priesthood of its Jewish subjects incomes derived from revenues to which Jews equally with Christians contribute, but what could be more ridiculous than to see a Christian legislature undertaking to settle questions of religious doctrine or discipline for a Jewish community. Equally ridiculous is it to see a Parliament composed, in part at least, of Unitarians, Dissenters, and Roman Catholics, legislating for the internal management of the Church of England, or of the Church of Scotland.

It may be laid down as a general rule, that the civil magistrate ought in no case to interfere with the religious dogmas or discipline of any particular sect.

If no provision be made by the state for the clergy, then such dogmas and discipline will depend wholly upon opinion — the legitimate basis of religious responsibility. The experience of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, which, during the last three centuries, has been maintained exclusively by the force of opinion, effectually demonstrates that the intervention of seenlar authority is not necessary to enforce and uphold religious teaching. Nowhere has conscientious conviction been compelled to struggle with circumstances more adverse, with external hostility more menacing, or with corrupting influences more insidious ; yet nowhere has there existed so firm an attachment to the spiritual supremacy of Rome. In case an endowment be provided by the state for the ministers of religion, it is perhaps impossible to eliminate altogether the intervention of secular authority in regard of ecclesiastical affairs. Questions will arise, for instance, respecting the appointment of clergymen to cures, in regard of which it may be not always easy to decide which of two competitors has been duly nominated ; but the circle of such controversies may be very much narrowed by a resolute application of the principle of non-interference on the part of the state with the internal organization of each religious community.

One of the objections which may be urged against a state provision for the clergy is, the probability that all the arrangements made by the state will be thrown into confusion by the unexpected occurrence of a complete change of opinion on religious subjects amongst the members of the endowed Church. When, at the time of the Reformation, a large portion of the population of Europe became Protestant, endowments which had been provided by the state for teaching

Roman Catholic doctrines were naturally applied to the propagation of the doctrines of the Reformation, as soon as the people, for whose use the endowments had been granted, had become Protestant. If the people of England were to return to the Roman Catholic Church, it surely would be quite reasonable that the revenues now belonging to the Church of England should be transferred to the Church of Rome. They would thus be appropriated to the religious requirements of the community, though the doctrines taught by the clergy would no longer be the same. These are not imaginary contingencies. A remarkable illustration of the suggested difficulty occurred a few years since in the Church of Scotland, when the secession of the Free Kirk from the Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland took place. A difference of opinion arose among the Presbyterians as to a question of discipline. Instead of leaving the question to be settled by the Scotch Church itself, Parliament .(a body consisting almost entirely of persons who had no connexion whatsoever with either Scotland or with Presbyterianism) interfered, and determined that the temporalities of the Church should belong to that section of the clergy only which resisted the proposals of those who sought to establish a change in the mode of appointing the minister to the charge of the parish. Thus, that portion of the clergy and laity, who deemed it of essential importance to the interests of religion that the change which they recommended should be adopted, were left no alternative, except either to secede, or to ac([uiesce in a system which they had declared to be detrimental to the interests of religion. About four hundred of the clergy, including some of the best and ablest ministers of the Scotch Church, resigned their livings, in a noble spirit of disinterestedness and self-devotion, and threw themselves upon their congregations for a precarious support.

It is not impossible that the recent discussions in the Church of England, in regard to what has been called the Gorham controversy, may eventuate in a similar result. Upon the subject of baptismal regeneration, and other similar questions, the opinions of one section of the clergy and of the laity, who profess the articles of the Church of England, are directly at variance with those of another section, who subscribe to the same fundamental articles. If Parliament, or the courts of law, should undertake to interpret the articles of the Church of England in a sense favourable to either of these views, and insist upon conformity to such a decision, the adherents of the opposite opinion would necessarily be driven into a secession. In the case of the Scotch Church, about one-third of the laity supported the seceding clergy ; and it is not easy to say on which side numbers would preponderate in England, in the event of a rupture.

What, under such contingencies as these, ought to be the policy of the state, in a country in which the clergy are maintained by a national endowment ?

It is manifest that, upon the principles which we have laid down, it would not be just that the seceding portion of the Church should be excluded from all participation in temporalities which have been dedicated to the common use of the whole community. The endowments of the Church of England are a property which belongs, not to that portion of the English Protestants which agrees in opinion with the Bishop of Exeter, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, but to all who subscribe the articles of the Churct of England, or, rather, to speak more accurately, to the nation at large. It would, therefore, be an act of monstrous injustice, in the event of a compulsory secession, to throw upon the seceders the burden of maintaining their own clergy, and to give to five millions of people, for their exclusive use, endowments which had been previously designed and applied by the state for the religious teaching of ten millions. There can be no doubt that the occurrence of such contingencies as these forms a very strong argument against a state provision for the clergy, inasmuch as they necessarily lead to complaints of injustice and spoliation. But if other arguments be held still to preponderate in favour of a state provision for the clergy, the difficulties which arise from secession or dissent ought to be fairly met by equitable adjustment. The legislature of a country ought to do all in its power to prevent such a rupture as we have contemplated ; we should, perhaps, rather say that it ought to abstain

VOL. IL c

18 PRINCIPLES OF GOVERXMEXT.

altogether from intermeddling w^ith controversial questions. But when a rupture finally takes place, it ought to deal with both of the contending parties as equally entitled to respect for their conscientious convictions, and equally entitled to the favour of the state. In the case of the Scotch Church, for instance, Parliament ought to have avoided the precipitate legislation which occasioned the secession ; and if the secession was inevitable, it ought to have applied the endowments of the Scotch Church in equitable proportion for the maintenance of the secession clergy, as well as of the clergy of the Established Church.

The most remarkable instance of a violation of the principles of justice in regard of ecclesiastical arrangements, that is to be found in the annals of mankind, is presented by the position of the Church of England in Ireland. About one-tenth only of the population of Ireland profess adherence to the Established Church ; yet not only has the ecclesiastical property of Ireland (great part of which consists of endowments originally granted for Catholic purposes) been exclusively appropriated to the use of the clergy of the Established Church, but, till a very recent period, the population have been subjected to a most irritating species of taxation for the support of the Protestant Church, whilst the Eoman Catholic clergy have been excluded from participation in the revenues raised for ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland. By recent legislation, the mode of levying this taxation has been rendered less oppressive than it was formerly, and its amount has been somewhat diminished ; but in principle its application is as unjust now as ever it was. The ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland are a national property which belongs to the whole people. By the injustice which usually attends usurpation, they have been appropriat<jd for the benefit of only one-tenth of the population. Incessant discontent has naturally been engendered by this injustice; and to this cause may, in part at least, be attributed much of the ill-will which has been habitually felt by the Catholics of Ireland towards the British Government. Justice manifestly requires that if only one religious persuasion is to be maintained in Ireland as an established Church, that established Church should consist of the Roman Catholic clergy, since the preponderating majority of the Irish people profess the religion of Rome. But if the principles which we have set forth in our preceding remarks be well-founded, social justice requires that Government should either make provision for the ministers of all religious persuasions, or of none, in Ireland, as well as elsewhere.

In Belgium — in which country ninety-nine out of every hundred of the population profess to belong to the Roman Catholic Church — the clergy are maintained chiefly by an annual allowance paid out of the general revenues of the state ; and although the number of those who dissent from the national religion is so small as to be almost insignificant, still, allowances are granted by the state to several Protestant clergymen, and also in aid of the religious ministrations of the Jews.

Wherever there exist, among the population, many varieties of religious creeds, it is so extremely difficult to adjust, in a satisfactory manner, the claims of each religious community, so impossible to reconcile their conflicting opinions, that the statesman may feel himself compelled to adopt the alternative which, under other circumstances, he would have shunned — of leaving to each community the support of its own ministers by voluntary contribution. Such has been the principle adopted by the statesmen of the United States of America, and it appears to have been attended there with many beneficial results. It is said that greater harmony prevails in America, among rival sects, than elsewhere, and this blessed result has been attributed to the circumstanqp, that no jealousy is created on account of advantages accorded by the state to one sect, in preference to another.* It is manifest that wherever such a preference

♦ This paragraph was written before the Knownothing party bad arisen in America. The proceedings of that faction havo not only been carried on in violation of the spirit and letter of the constitution of the United States, which proclaims universal toleration, and the civil equality of all sects, but they have also tended greatly to discredit the republican institutions of America, in the minds of many who were disposed to regard them with admiration.

exists, discontent must naturally co-exist. If one-third of the people of England were Roman Catholics, one-third Presbyterians, and one-third Episcopalian Protestants, what would be the feeling of the remaining two-thirds, in case a state endowment were provided for the religious teachers of one of these sects alone ; say for the Roman Catholics ? It is unnecessary to suggest an answer to this question, % as every one must perceive that nothing could be expected except implacable jealousies towards the favoured sect, and permanent disaffection towards the Government which was guilty of this injustice.

In favour of " the voluntary system," it may be urged, that during the times which immediately followed, the appearance of Christ and of his apostles, the Christian ministers were maintained by the contributions of the faithful, and that it was not until the time qf Constantine that endowments were provided by the state. It may also be urged, that though there had arisen, previous to the age of Constantine, many differences of opinion amongst Christians, yet it was not until after the clergy had been endowed by the state that the various sects began to persecute each other. In truth, many of those contentions, which are attributed to zeal for religion, are but the conflicts of avarice between those who are desirous to obtain and those who are desirous to keep possession of the emoluments which have been assigned to the ministers of religion. This passion cannot, by any contrivance, be extinguished altogether. Even under the voluntary system it forces itself into operation, because the incomes of each class of the clergy are augmented in proportion as they can make converts from rival Churches ; but at least all cause of complaint against the Government is removed, when the clergy of the various religious persuasions are treated alike, and when none are made the objects of state endowment.