still obstinate, despairing of his conversion, she provides for the safety of others separating him from her communion by the sentence of excommunication, and further leaves him to the secular judgment to be exterminated from the world by death."" Such is the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, and, by the direction of the governing body in Rome; by the adoption of the governing body in Ireland; by the testimony of the official whose evidence was most decisive and unexceptionable; such is ascertained to be the doctrine of Maynooth. We shall, for the present, content ourselves with a single obser vation; there are said to be two species of Romanism-one recognises the rights of sovereigns and nations, is capable of rendering true allegiance to crowns, and of indulging to subjects the privileges of rational beings; thus certain Roman Catholics in England, during the last century, were fond of describing their religion, the other raises the ecclesiastical above the civil power; the laws of Rome above the laws of the land; and denies to all the rights of thought, and conscience, and action; this is the species which Roman Catholics, until of late years declared obsolete and exploded; and this is the species which under the direction and sway of Aquinas, has been domesticated, in Ireland, by the Royal College of Maynooth. ELEMENTS OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.t In the first part of the treatise, to which we now desire to call our readers attention, published about a year since, the author had put forward and supported, by a series of close and convincing arguments, the principle, "That to secure the stability of good government, it is necessary to exclude from sharing in the civil power of the state, and prevent from overawing it, the whole of that class, which, by ignorance, poverty, and the vices which they generate, have been found to threaten the interests of society." In the present publicatition he proceeds to consider other leading principles of Civil Government, that may thus be rendered more easily applicable, as tests or aids of the measures of the Civil Governor. The principle stated in the former tract is obviously Conservative only those which I am about to state are untrue. pontiff for the deposition of Elizabeth. He would insinuate of course that that exercise of power was not approved by his church. The insinuation would be most That act of intolerance and of subornation of perjury and treason is recited among the heroic achievements, by which the incendiary merited his beatification. See Codex Constitutionum Suas Summi Pontifices ediderunt, &c. &c. Bull of Clement II., Rome 1729. We willingly transcribe from Charles Butler's Historical Memoirs, his indignant exposure of the shabby artifice by which an intolerant church would inflict upon the civil powers the disgrace of carrying her decrees into execution. " Still, to preserve some appearance of the aversion of the church to the shedding of blood, the inquisitor, when he delivers up the offender, implores in terms of great earnestness, the secular judges, to save the lives of the criminals delivered into their hands: but this is a mockery of mercy, as excommunications have been denounced against all lay judges who refuse or delay to execute the laws which condemn heretics to death."-Additions to the Historical Memoirs, &c. &c. Vol. 3. p. 84. † Second part on the Elements of Civil Government, by a British Jurist. London: James Fraser, 215, Regent-street. Milliken and Son, Dublin. 1838. force, in the full possession of his property, liberty, and life. Now, a very considerable bulk of men thus associated in masses, are chiefly under the influence of two principles of human nature, hate and fear-fear of the penalties and restraints of law-hate of those same penalties and restraints. From the conjoined effects of these two principles, there exists always, in a large portion of the community, a certain sistance to established government, law, and order; the tendency of which is to counteract the blessings of civilization, and reduce society to its original barbarous and insecure condition. As an antagonist to this resistance there should, therefore, be placed in the supreme power an adequate force. A most remarkable illustration of the truth of this proposition may, it appears to us, be found in the state of America. The laws are admirable, the administration of justice pure; and yet, from the want of power to overawe the turbulent, the grossest violations of personal liberty, and the rights of property are continually taking place. We allude, not merely to the flagrant outrages of every day occurrence, denominated Lynch law, but to the events connected with the present Canadian rebellion. The administration of the United States, and, we believe the Senate, are anxious to maintain a friendly interest with Great Britain; but, if we are to believe Sir Francis Head, they have altogether failed in preventing acts of direct hostility from the inhabitants of the States near the Canadian boundary. The next subject discussed is the representative system; or, the principle of selecting a few to represent the many. This, in every free country, is a necessary element of Civil Government. Admitting, then, generally, its excellence and expediency, the question arises, who shall be the electors of these representatives? Is the whole inale population, of full age, individually, to be considered as equally entitled to vote? This must be decided by considering how far their being permitted to do so is likely to forward the great end of Civil Polity; which has been already stated to be security, for property, liberty, and life. Now, it cannot be denied, that a great proportion of every people are destitute of the knowledge necessary to form a wise or safe decision on political measures, and of the honesty requisite to enable them to prefer the interest of the community to their own. The rich must ever constitute the minority; if, therefore, power be given to the needy majority, there is a fearful temptation inducing them to plunder those above them. "The revolutions of France, and the times which immediately succeeded, furnish in this, as in nearly all other points connected with social government, a singularly instructive lesson, and prove that, in fact, the attempt to act upon this principle of universal suffrage is impracticable, except in the very agony of a revolution. In the early stages of revolution, the electors were the people, the population. They were summoned by the tocsin—the writ of the populace! And their votes were for murder and universal subversion of existing government." Thank God! the British people are superior in moral firmness and in the sense of justice to the French. But, how long they would continue so, under the influence of political agitation-of what duration would be their sobriety, under the intoxicating effects of power, to which they had not been accus. tomed, who can tell? Looking to the plain facts and fears, which must stare all, but those who are wilfully blind, in the face; looking to the numbers, thus called to guide the ever difficult, and, of necessity, embarrassed course of public policy; on whose hopes every fallacious dream of bettering their condition, by any alteration, however extravagant, would be sure to take effect : looking to the natural discontent engendered by poverty and hardship, we cannot but feel that, in a country where property is so unequally divided, and such immense wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few, the temptations to an universal spoliation and destruction of all institutions, law, and property would be so great as to render it absolute madness to grant universal suffrage. But, it is said, America disproves these fears: the suffrage is there universal, and has not been abused to any aggression on the rights of property. The instance adduced is not a case in point. Labour, in a new country, such as America, is property. There is land, and, therefore, subsistence, for any one who has the industry to cultivate it. The suffrage cannot be said to be in the hands of the needy, nor can the same inducements to spoliation be pretended to exist, as in an old and thickly-peopled country. But, let us see how this system works in relation to the other end of government, the "It is in the examination of the display of public opinion in the United States, that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority surpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe. Intellectual principles exercise an influence which is so invisible and often so inappreciable, that they baffle the toils of oppression. At the present time the most absolute monarchs in Europe are unable to prevent certain notions, which are opposed to their authority, from circulating in secret throughout their dominions, and even in their courts. Such is not the case in America; as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, a submissive silence is observed; and the friends, as well as the opponents, of the measure, unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason of this is perfectly clear: no monarch is so absolute as to combine all the powers of society in his own hands, and toconquer all opposition, with the energy of a majority, which is invested with the right of making and of executing the laws. "The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will; but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time; it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but all controversy. "I know no country in which there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America. In any constitutional state in Europe every sort of religious and political theory may be advocated and propagated abroad; for there is no couutry in Europe so subdued by any single authority, as not to contain citizens who are ready to protect the man who raises his voice in the cause of truth, from the consequences of his hardihood. If he is unfortunate enough to live under an absolute governinent, the people is upon his side; if he inhabits a free country, he may find a shelter behind the authority of the throne, if he require one. The aristocratic part of society supports him in some countries, and the democracy in others. But in a nation where democratic institutions exist, organized like those of the United States, there is but one sole authority, one single element of strength and of success with nothing beyond it. "In America, the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fé, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is closed for ever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. published his opinions, he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly, than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think, without having the courage to speak, like him, abandoned him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth. "Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments which tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of our age has refined the arts of despotism, which seemed however to be sufficiently perThe excesses of monarfected before: chial power had devised a variety of physical means of oppression; the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind, as that will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of an individual despot, the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; and the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it, and rose superior to the attempt; but such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The sovereign can no longer say, You shall think as I do on pain of death;' but he says, You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property and all that you possess; but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens if you solicit their suffrages; and they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being; and those who are most persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turu. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence incomparably worse than death." The consideration of the representative system naturally leads to an examination of the question of vote by ballot. "The loud cry for the ballot by the movement party proves two things,-first, that the elector for whom it is sought, is not in that state of independence which would clearly make his vote a safe one, for if he were independent he need not, he would not require that the exercise of his right to vote should be secret; unless, indeed, the protection of secrecy is sought to protect the voter from becoming the victim of a tumultuary opposing party in which case the blame lies on the law on the deficient FORCE-vested in the government or on the negligent exertion of it for the protection of the people. But it is not this species of timidity for which the ballot is sought the cover of the ballot box is sought only for concealment, and it then only proves that the voter is ashamed that his vote should be known and because he apprehends it would disgrace him. The ballot, on this ground, should be withheld from him. "In fact, the great and general cause for which the ballot is sought, is to protect the tenant who votes against the desire of his landlord, which landlord is his creditor for the rent of the very holding out of which he votes. This reason for desiring the ballot, contributes at least, to prove his pauperism, and therefore to shew him not a well qualified elector." We regret to find, in the last Parliamentary division, the respectability and number of the advocates for the ballot increased; and this, too, in direct opposition to the weight and influence of the heads of the Government. Regarding this as one of the most dangerous measures ever proposed, we feel ourselves called on to offer a few observations on the subject. The ballot is inefficacious, as a check on unconstitutional interference with the freedom of election. It would not prevent bribery. The candidate would still trust the promises of voters, and the voters would still vote for him who had given them money. To suppose other. wise is to suppose them to have not even the honor of thieves. And do not candidates, even now, then give. money before the election day, trusting to the fidelity of the voter; and is it not true, that, in the majority of cases this fidelity is found to exist? Besides how easily can the bribe be promised only in case of the return of the candidate, and each voter converted into, not merely a silent supporter, but an active partizan. He who takes a bribe cannot be supposed to be either a fit judge of political affairs or a very sin cere one. He who has sold his own honor, and so silenced his conscience as to be troubled with no compunctious visitings" money cannot counterbalance, will not surely be more scrupulous with respect to his country. The bank in America, where this ballot is adopted, expended twenty-eight millions in bribery, to prevent General Jackson obtaining the Presidency. There is no check can be given to bribery but the fixing the franchise at such a standard as may insure an independent class of voters. Ballot, censors, public prosecutors-the two last plans worthy of the men who, with professions of liberty and toleration on their lips, have enacted more measures arbitrary and invading on persona freedom, than any absolute sovereign in Europe has dared for years-are Quis custodiet utterly inefficacious. ipsos custodes? They would take away public opinion and public inquiry, and for their safe and salutary controul substitute the secrecy of the ballot box. Nor would the ballot prevent intimidation from the landlord. He can prevent any man, of whose opinions he is not sure, giving his vote. The usual system, in truth, at present in operation, is this. The voter is bribed or intimidated to leave his town or county for the period during which the poll is open. No law could reach this case, for what is to prevent any one offering a man money, on condition he undertakes a journey of a given length, and requiring a certain time to accomplish? How would you prevent a master sending his servant, or a landlord his tenant, away for the required time, on any plausible pretence? Again, suppose a landlord insisted on his tenants openly and os Sir + In 1835 there divided, for the ballot 144; against 317; majority against 173. The last division was, for the ballot 198; against 315; majority against 117. George Sinclair, a Conservative, voted for the ballot. tentatiously marching up to the poll as supporters of the candidate he preferred, taking balloting tickets from his agent, and from no other person; what remedy does the ballot give? Might not those tenants, who really were of his opinions, be spies on the conduct of the suspected; and with all this espionage and influence brought to bear on them, could they possibly avoid polling as their landlord wished? Infinitely less probability is there, that the ballot could shelter the voter from the tyranny of the majority-the evil hereafter to be most guarded against in all legislative enactments. It would be utterly impossible for any caution or contrivance to elude the scrutinizing vigilance of multitudes bound by combination and pledge, inflamed with anger and zeal, and enabled to exercise an unceasing and accurate watchfulness over all, who were suspected hostile to their views. Does any one imagine that a human being, constituted as we are, with like passions and impulses, could for any length of time support a feigned character with such consummate skill, as never on any occasion to betray his real principles? Will no temptation, no unguarded moment, ever beguile him to take off his mask or no contest of conflicting opinions ever forcibly strike it from him? In America, canvassing, promises, intimidation, all the machinery and all the arts usually put in action at an election, openly take place. Our limits will not allow us to enter at present into a series of most convincing facts as to the usefulness of the ballot for the ends its supporters propose. We shall mention only one custom almost universally prevalent-the approaches to the place of balloting are lined on each side by the agents of the different parties, who offer their own tickets to the voter and it is, in the majority of instances, as well known, by the voter's manner and conduct in passing up the avenue, on which side he will vote, as if the polling were public. There would always exist great danger of the balloting box being tampered with by the returning officer-certainly there would always exist among the defeated party a suspicion that it had been. This is found to be the case in France. In Venice, as soon as the *Sir Robert Peel in his admirable graphic description of a secret voter. dit, neminem veretur, se condemnat. system was adopted, fraudulent balloting took place, and laws were obliged to be enacted rendering such an offence punishable by death. It would be impossible to strike off fictitious votes-since it would not be known from whose poll they should be struck off. The voter himself could not be evidence of this fact, since he might declare he had voted for the candidate he was opposed to, and thus diminish his number of voters, and serve his own friend more effectually even than by a mere vote. The privilege of voting is conferred not for the benefit and advantage of the individual, but in trust for the good of the community. It is right the public should know how it has been exerted. There is a moral influence of the most salutary description exercised by a good man's example. It is right, that this influence should be spread abroad, by the publicity of his vote. philosophy that would not inquire by whom measures and men are supported is one utterly ignorant of human nature: and nothing, but the most wilful blindness to the lessons of history and experience, could fail to dread the cause supported by bad men. The ballot tends to degrade the national character. The secrecy of the machinery is not sufficient, nor is it pretended to be sufficient. The open avowal is made by the advocates of the ballot, that the voter must protect himself by a falsehood-not merely by one falsehood, but by a long series of falsehoods. Words were utterly inadequate to mark the enormous guilt of a measure professing to render such a course necessary proclaiming, that the voter, in order to support the line of policy, which he thinks best, and which of course is but a matter of probability, must sacrifice the eternal principles of truth and honor, engraven by his Maker on his conscience. Et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas. For the sake of exercising a political privilege, resign and cast away all, that privilege is only valuable as preserving. Can there be found any one to believe, a man so trained and habituated to dissimulation and dishonesty in truth, with all the distinctions between right and wrong obliterated in his mind by that casuistry, which speech on the ballot this session, quoted Pliny's Poposcit tabellas, stylum accepit, caput condi |