produces, originated, in a great degree, from the studious monks. Their cells were the laboratories for the experimental chymists, and the workshops for the ingenious speculative mechanics. Josiah Bacon, it is said, first discovered gunpowder, and the first clock was made by a monk. War was the business of life, its sole study, with the class of nobles and considerable land proprietors; the sports of the field afforded them intermediate recreation. Manual skill was extolled, but mental skill was considered too monkish to be worthy of a gentleman, unless as a direct advantage in those two ruling motives-love and war. It may truly be said that the monks were the salt of the earth; apart from them, what principles were there in society to preserve it from degeneracy and decay? The Kaffirs of South Africa, like all other savage tribes, have the same ruling characteristic-a love of war, and a propensity to hunt wild animals. But the Kaffirs have no learned class, preserving mental and moral influence, and working for them the upward progress of civilization. European society, from its dawn in Gaul and Germany, acquired, in the providential arrangement of setting aside a distinct class of men, devoted to these pursuits and offices, requiring the exercise of mind. It is perfectly inconceivable to us how any individual can deny the beneficial results of Monachism. Surely their protestant zeal blinds their judgment; they see only the accidental corruptions of the church, while forgetting the blessing which accrued to mankind from her time-honoured institutions. Admitting the chronic superstitions and symbol-worship of the Romish church from her earliest history, but distinguishing the corruptions which particularly belong to a period since a change came o'er the spirit of Romanism, it would be a short-sighted prejudice to accuse Monachism of these corruptions, without considering what connection it had with these latter evils, and how far it is responsible for them. Down to the close of the fifteenth century the church had (V. V. is quite mistaken in his supposiencouraged liberal ideas. It was not only tion that this sale of indulgences sprang the bulwark of freedom in a limited sense, from the avarice of the monks. These emisbut had fostered political liberty in every saries were sent by the pope, who wanted stage of society. The priests were the funds for the building of St. Peter's; it was champions and leaders of the people in their the embellishment of Italy, and not perrisings and struggles against the domination|sonal aggrandizement, that suggested this of their taskmasters. The intense love and enormity.) uncompromising admiration which these patriot priests won from the masses is the best proof we can have of the value of their services. The well-worn steps of Thomas à Becket's shrine at Canterbury is an attestation, handed down to the present day, of this fact. In the fifteenth century, the art of printing was discovered. European society received an impetus-the popular mind expanded - an angel had come down and troubled the water, it was agitated to its inmost depths, threatening to burst through its channels, and overthrow all obstacles. The Lollards and the Albigenses were undermining the doctrines of Rome, from the banks of the Danube to those of the Wye. The gleaming lights of a purer religion began to break through the dark crust of superstition. The Teutonic nations grew uneasy under the weight of Italian supremacy; their developing political power, aided by their national feeling, impelled them to question the vaunted superiority of the degenerate South. For Italy was at that time weakened by contending factions, the papal government but feebly maintaining that dignity which its balance of power rendered necessary. These signs of dissatisfaction were long observed, before there was any extended organized movement to reject, as a whole, the dogmas of Rome. The church continued to assume that mild paternal authority, while its hold upon the people was gradually diminishing. It was not till the next age that she condescended to exercise crafty plausibility, subtle policy, and exterminating persecution, to prop up her changing fortunes. In the former age, the persecutions were urged on by the laity for political reasons, and not by the clergy for religious ones. The rulers and statesmen of that period punished heresies in the same spirit as the petty despots of Italy do the followers of Mazzini. The sale of indulgences roused the mighty spirit of Luther; he woke up Europe with his thunders, and disturbed the halcyon security of catholic dominion. The Lutheran reformation extended over more than one-third of Europe, wresting from the papacy her most energetic races of men. Persecutions and counter persecutions were the immediate result of this change. The contests were many and fierce. The Protestants vied with the Catholics in their proselyting rage; persecutions took a sanguinary form, till the arm of flesh was red with the gore of the slain. In the midst of it the Jesuits sprang up, under the inspiration of Ignatius Loyola. This society originated with one avowed object-the subjugation of the world to the dominion of the Romish church; the enormities which they perpetrated, the vile means they resorted to, throw a dark shadow upon their parent source, which we have no wish to palliate. Using all the machinery of the church as they did every other possible agency, the monastic institutions, or at least a part of them, became their tools for a period. Jesuitism under the cowl of a monk was as unprincipled in theory, and abominable in practice, as under the robe of a priest or the gown of a confessor: but we do not know that it was any worse. While the central authority at Rome gave every encouragement to this crafty society, most of the ancient orders looked upon their proceedings with mistrust, and were foremost in some countries to demand their expulsion. Let us consider for one moment what relation this partial and temporary debasement of Monachism had with the principles upon which it had flourished for eleven centuries. The leaven of Jesuitism infused through the catholic body principles at variance with social order and political freedom, those very objects which the monks had for so many ages strenuously advocated, with success to the world and honour to themselves. Monachism was humane-Jesuitism diabolical; the tendency of Monachism was progressivethe tendency of Jesuitism was to hurl society back into bondage and barbarism. A loathsome poison infused into the blood of an individual, and breaking out with leprosy upon his skin, bears the same relation to the vital principle of his life as Monachism bears towards Jesuitism. One word upon the Inquisition before we close. The mind thrills with horror at the bare recollection of that priestly reign of terror, when this terrible tribunal was crushing mankind with its Satanic agency. But it was the fruit of political degradation. Spain was in the very sink of corruption, and her priests were no exception to the universal debasement. The spirit of slavery existed on all sides, and need there be any surprise that it should assume a virulent form against a few heretics who denied the orthodoxy of the national faith? Even Sismondi says, “When political liberty was properly appreciated, religious servitude could not long continue to exist; the Spaniards, therefore, under Charles the Tenth, maintained their independence, in a great degree, against the church of Rome, of which they subsequently became the most timid vassals when deprived of their free institutions." We only wish to infer, by these general remarks, that the principle of Monachism is not responsible for this outrage upon the liberties of mankind. The monks of those times might have assisted individually, but that they originated or sustained it in their collective capacity is denied by all who have studied its history. These reasons we throw in the scale; the beam at once descends, and we have only to record, on the affirmative side, our honest convictions respecting the beneficial results of Monachism to European society. GRAY. Politics. IS THE BALLOT MORE DESIRABLE THAN OPEN VOTING? AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. Ir must seem very unfortunate, at first sight, that the arrangements of the magazine render it necessary to close this debate so soon. But any one who considers the nature of the question really at issue, will see within how small a compass it may be compressed, and how soon exhausted; the It is the difference, in fact, of the member of parliament and the peer of the realm. But our opponent totally ignores the distinction. He assumes the vote to be representative also, in order to gain a foundation for his ridiculous notion that the honest voter should be influenced by a weighty sense of responsibility to public opinion, and in so doing reduces his argument to the very verge of absurdity. This is "Gray's" statement of his own case:-"This we consider a privilege and a trust, involving a weighty responsibility. The fact that he represents the numbers who have not this privilege, is a sufficient reason to render it of that important responsibility. The proportionate number of such votes is limited in the masses to but a few. Take the amount of population in round numbers at thirty millions, and we have not more than a million electors. The individual unit is the political depositor of the thirty." Now, can anything be conceived more outrageously stupid than this statement? The necessities of the argument require that the representative character imputed to the vote be regarded as a bonâ fide one-that it should exist in fact as well as in theory. Just regard it for a moment? First, the individual unit is the political depositor of the thirty BECAUSE the distribution of political power is to that extent disproportionate! Then, may we ask, how does the thing work? Do Tory individual units represent Tories, Whigs-Whigs, and Radicals-Radicals? Then, does the individual representative unit choose (just think of it!!) his own constituents? And have the thirty any influence or control over the vote of their unit? Of course not; the Take, for one instance, his explanation of thing is a mass of absurdities, and will not the nature of the franchise. After a state- bear analysis. I am a non-elector, and I ment as to a qualification conferring a vote, want to find my representative unit. Will he says, "He exercises his vote by right, but "Gray" furnish me with information as to he uses it purely and solely in accordance his whereabouts? No, he cannot; he will with his principles and opinions, following become black first. Why, if the sentiment only the dictates of his conscience. This were uttered in a public meeting of nonvote may be considered as the record of the political units it would be instantly scorched man's opinion, an endorsement of his politi- out of existence by the scathing, indignant cal ideas." Now, this is just what we pre- derision of insulted common-sense. And viously said ourselves, in other words. It yet, forsooth, "Gray" presumes to afflict us is the assertion of the purely personal, as with his "condescension." He assures himdistinguished from the representative char- self of victory, "but is quite willing"-lest acter of the vote. Of course, the shallowest we destroy ourselves in our despair understanding may see that the one is oppo-" to lend a listening ear to our arguments." sed to, and is incompatible with, the other. I hope he will. But we do not covet his The whole article of "Gray" is, in fact, an unfortunate specimen of advocacy, and is not by any means such as we expected to have to encounter. Its language is, in some places, confused and incorrect; and its arguments are at once very positive and hypothetical-dogmatic and doubtful confidently put forth and as candidly confessed to be such as "will not satisfy the advocates of the Ballot." Like his nom de guerre it is a combination of extremes; and we fail to discern, in the neutral tint presented to us, any trace of a definite purpose, of consistency of thought, or of respectability of argument, or of argumentation of any sort which is not nullified by subsequent state ments. The un-English argument of " Gray" does not require any lengthened remark. Were all he says about it true, which we don't admit, it would not at all affect our position; while the general character of the writing is such as we could only describe accurately by a very unparliamentary term. We commend J. R. G.'s article to his attention, though we repudiate the personal imputations in which J. R. G. so freely indulges. condescension. We will meet common-sense | pledge from a mechanic to vote as he directed with common-sense, but we don't want con- him. "Gray," in this case, has allowed his descension from imbecility. "This premise logic to be directed by his ignorance. granted, the conclusion is inevitable,”—so far as yet appears to the contrary, that the Ballot is not "wrong in principle," and we proceed to notice his side objections to the Ballot, as affecting bribery and intimidation. He gives so fair a statement of our case that he cannot answer it, but calls it a "surface view," and then delivers himself of his 'strong doubts" and degrading assumptions. "That the Ballot would prevent or even check bribery we strongly doubt, because the individual elector who had received his bribe to vote in a certain way which the briber required, would be unawed by the turpitude of his crime, simply because the world would not be cognizant of the bribery. And would not the elector, like the assassin, be more likely to hire himself out for vile purposes when the mantle of oblivion shrouded his crimes, than if they were blazoned forth to the ears of day?" 66 With regard to the article of H. C. F., it is so " rhapsodical" that the argumentative points in it are a little hard to get hold of. We will try our best to do justice to it, and we hope H. C. F. will acquit us of intentional unfairness if we omit the notice of any to which he may attach importance. His principal objection to the Ballot is, that it would be inoperative through the bribee demanding an OPEN vote! He says, "Surely no advocate for the Ballot would venture to Now, all this shows a lamentable want of propose, nor could it be enforced, compulsory appreciation of the merits of the dispute. secret voting in all cases." Why, how very We never contended that acts of Parliament innocent H. C. F. must be! That is the can be made instruments for distributing very thing we do propose, and the very thing improved moral qualities to our elective scum. which would be enforced, if the Ballot were The Ballot is designed as a shield to protect in operation. His first and principal objecwhat would be honest independence against tion is, therefore, a decided break-down. the arts and heartlessness of power. We do His second is not more fortunate. "These not dispute that some men would still be found remarks," says H. C. F., are directed willing to accept bribes for votes-would still, against the mechanical working of the new "assassin-like, be found willing to hire them-system; let us suppose (and that is granting selves out for vile purposes, when the mantle of oblivion shrouded their crimes;" but we ask, and we challenge attention to the question, Who would be fool enough to hire them, "when the mantle of oblivion shrouded their crimes" from their paymaster's view? Even an assassin" would not be hired on terms which left the paymaster ignorant as to the fulfilment of the contract. Much the same may be said in reply to "Gray's" objections to what he calls our "remedial expediency" for intimidation. He serves up a mechanic in three courses, and says that the chances are that he will be found out after all. Well, the Ballot could not give him common sense, but it would afford him protection, if he required it, and had the sense to hold his tongue; and in any case it is not likely that any employer would be so wanting in discretion as to require, categorically, a 66 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." It is always a safe thing controversy, and it is certainly most prudent, never to vaunt with a triumphant flourish any proposition as unanswerable till it has had at least one chance of being refuted. Now, we will undertake to destroy his presumed impregnable castle in a couple of sentences. In the first place, we are happily too measured in our language to commit the extravagance of asserting that any act of parlia ment will purify the nature of man. In the second place, there is no such thing as a moral sin of bribery to eradicate. Bribery can less properly be called a moral sin than a social crime. But, in any case, a man contracts no guilt till he commits the overt act of bribery. Previous to that act he is not in any sense guilty of bribery, as a man who meditates theft, murder, or adultery, is morally guilty of those crimes. What, then, becomes of our opponent's "unanswerable proposition?" He has already granted all that we need be anxious to prove. "Let us suppose (and that is granting much) that means may be found to counteract all these artifices, would the Ballot therefore prevent bribery and intimidation? I answer, emphatically, - No!" What an unfortunate misapprehension! Granting what he does, he “EMPHATICALLY answers,-Yes!" The means which it is granted may be found to counteract all these artifices, effectually prevents the commission of all overt acts of bribery; therefore, the Ballot, by his own admission, will prevent bribery and intimidation. There is another point, however, very similar in character to the one just disposed of, which deserves a passing notice. It is the statement that, "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." As to the first point, we can have no special interest in depriving him of the use of the fact upon which he stands with so much satisfaction to himself. But it does not, "therefore, follow, that men will still be ready to bribe." In the case of bribery, a vote is an article of merchandise, as much so as a leg of pork. We put it to the common sense of our opponents, whether they can believe that any man, with even the most easy notions as to the value of money, would buy a quantity of wine or any other commodity of a dealer who should stipulate as a part of the bargain that he should in no wise attempt to ascertain if the goods were ever really sent to his house? That is precisely the case with bribery under the operation of the Ballot. No doubt men would be found willing to sell their votes, but the question is, would any one be found willing to buy them? But there is this very important consideration, which has been overlooked by our opponents. In all keenly contested elections the amount of bribery is determined by the exigencies of the candidates upon the actual day of election. Well, then, as the state of any candidate's prospects could not possibly be ascertained till the close of the contest, what earthly inducement could any candidate have to throw away his money in buying up votes, which he might not want, and, if he did, could not be certain that he had secured them? Our opponents rest their case almost entirely upon the naturally corrupt state of human nature. We reply, the more corrupt you prove electors to be, the less likely is it that any candidate will trust his fortune to them without the guarantee afforded by the system of open voting. We think the subject is exhausted. The two cases given as defects in the Reform Bill are beside the mark as opposed to the Ballot. H. C. F. thinks the aggregation of small boroughs, and the suppression of the freemen, would be more effectual than the Ballot in suppressing bribery. With regard to the first, it is sufficient to say that most of those who advocate the Ballot advocate also the creation of electoral districts; and as to the freemen, they are certainly a doomed set. As to the general question, without any desire to claim victory over an opposition which it is very little honour to beat, we may express our confidence and satisfaction that the question is making steady and satisfactory progress in the public mind. The engrossing public question will soon be, Are the people to be masters of the people's house? And the more that question is agitated, the more clearly will it be seen and felt, that the heaviest blow which can be dealt at class interests and power-mongering, at aristocratic usurpation, and the consequent abasement of humble but effective and talented administrative ability, will, as a first step, be given by the thorough adoption of the Ballot. NEGATIVE REPLY. IRENE. OUR worthy debater "Irene," in his very | the question to one point-a claim which we sensible article on the Ballot, seeks to narrow cannot accede to; for if the question is dis N |