|
Book Five
Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth.
CHAPTER I
Of the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth
PART 3
Of the Expense of Public Works and Public Institutions
ARTICLE III
Of the Expense of the
Institutions for the Instruction of
People of all Ages
In every civilised society, in every society where the
distinction of ranks has once been completely established, there
have been always two different schemes or systems of morality
current at the same time; of which the one may be called the
strict or austere; the other the liberal, or, if you will, the
loose system. The former is generally admired and revered by the
common people: the latter is commonly more esteemed and adopted
by what are called people of fashion. The degree of
disapprobation with which we ought to mark the vices of levity,
the vices which are apt to arise from great prosperity, and from
the excess of gaiety and good humour, seems to constitute the
principal distinction between those two opposite schemes or
systems. In the liberal or loose system, luxury, wanton and even
disorderly mirth, the pursuit of pleasure to some degree of
intemperance, the breach of chastity, at least in one of the two
sexes, etc., provided they are not accompanied with gross
indecency, and do not lead to falsehood or injustice, are
generally treated with a good deal of indulgence, and are easily
either excused or pardoned altogether. In the austere system, on
the contrary, those excesses are regarded with the utmost
abhorrence and detestation. The vices of levity are always
ruinous to the common people, and a single week's thoughtlessness
and dissipation is often sufficient to undo a poor workman for
ever, and to drive him through despair upon committing the most
enormous crimes. The wiser and better sort of the common people,
therefore, have always the utmost abhorrence and detestation of
such excesses, which their experience tells them are so
immediately fatal to people of their condition. The disorder and
extravagance of several years, on the contrary, will not always
ruin a man of fashion, and people of that rank are very apt to
consider the power of indulging in some degree of excess as one
of the advantages of their fortune, and the liberty of doing so
without censure or reproach as one of the privileges which belong
to their station. In people of their own station, therefore, they
regard such excesses with but a small degree of disapprobation,
and censure them either very slightly or not at all.
Almost all religious sects have begun among the common
people, from whom they have generally drawn their earliest as
well as their most numerous proselytes. The austere system of
morality has, accordingly, been adopted by those sects almost
constantly, or with very few exceptions; for there have been
some. It was the system by which they could best recommend
themselves to that order of people to whom they first proposed
their plan of reformation upon what had been before established.
Many of them, perhaps the greater part of them, have even
endeavoured to gain credit by refining upon this austere system,
and by carrying it to some degree of folly and extravagance; and
this excessive rigour has frequently recommended them more than
anything else to the respect and veneration of the common people.
A man of rank and fortune is by his station the
distinguished member of a great society, who attend to every part
of his conduct, and who thereby oblige him to attend to every
part of it himself. His authority and consideration depend very
much upon the respect which this society bears to him. He dare
not do anything which would disgrace or discredit him in it, and
he is obliged to a very strict observation of that species of
morals, whether liberal or austere, which the general consent of
this society prescribes to persons of his rank and fortune. A man
of low condition, on the contrary, is far from being a
distinguished member of any great society. While he remains in a
country village his conduct may be attended to, and he may be
obliged to attend to it himself. In this situation, and in this
situation only, he may have what is called a character to lose.
But as soon as he comes into a great city he is sunk in obscurity
and darkness. His conduct is observed and attended to by nobody,
and he is therefore very likely to neglect it himself, and to
abandon himself to every sort of low profligacy and vice. He
never emerges so effectually from this obscurity, his conduct
never excites so much the attention of any respectable society,
as by his becoming the member of a small religious sect. He from
that moment acquires a degree of consideration which he never had
before. All his brother sectaries are, for the credit of the
sect, interested to observe his conduct, and if he gives occasion
to any scandal, if he deviates very much from those austere
morals which they almost always require of one another, to punish
him by what is always a very severe punishment, even where no
civil effects attend it, expulsion or excommunication from the
sect. In little religious sects, accordingly, the morals of the
common people have been almost always remarkably regular and
orderly; generally much more so than in the established church.
The morals of those little sects, indeed, have frequently been
rather disagreeably rigorous and unsocial.
There are two very easy and effectual remedies, however, by
whose joint operation the state might, without violence, correct
whatever was unsocial or disagreeably rigorous in the morals of
all the little sects into which the country was divided.
The first of those remedies is the study of science and
philosophy, which the state might render almost universal among
all people of middling or more than middling rank and fortune;
not by giving salaries to teachers in order to make them
negligent and idle, but by instituting some sort of probation,
even in the higher and more difficult sciences, to be undergone
by every person before he was permitted to exercise any liberal
profession, or before he could be received as a candidate for any
honourable office of trust or profit. If the state imposed upon
this order of men the necessity of learning, it would have no
occasion to give itself any trouble about providing them with
proper teachers. They would soon find better teachers for
themselves than any whom the state could provide for them.
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and
superstition; and where all the superior ranks of people were
secured from it, the inferior ranks could not be much exposed to
it.
The second of those remedies is the frequency and gaiety of
public diversions. The state, by encouraging, that is by giving
entire liberty to all those who for their own interest would
attempt without scandal or indecency, to amuse and divert the
people by painting, poetry, music, dancing; by all sorts of
dramatic representations and exhibitions, would easily dissipate,
in the greater part of them, that melancholy and gloomy humour
which is almost always the nurse of popular superstition and
enthusiasm. Public diversions have always been the objects of
dread and hatred to all the fanatical promoters of those popular
frenzies. The gaiety and good humour which those diversions
inspire were altogether inconsistent with that temper of mind
which was fittest for their purpose, or which they could best
work upon. Dramatic representations, besides, frequently exposing
their artifices to public ridicule, and sometimes even to public
execration, were upon that account, more than all other
diversions, the objects of their peculiar abhorrence.
In a country where the law favoured the teachers of no one
religion more than those of another, it would not be necessary
that any of them should have any particular or immediate
dependency upon the sovereign or executive power; or that he
should have anything to do either in appointing or in dismissing
them from their offices. In such a situation he would have no
occasion to give himself any concern about them, further than to
keep the peace among them in the same manner as among the rest of
his subjects; that is, to hinder them from persecuting, abusing,
or oppressing one another. But it is quite otherwise in countries
where there is an established or governing religion. The
sovereign can in this case never be secure unless he has the
means of influencing in a considerable degree the greater part of
the teachers of that religion.
The clergy of every established church constitute a great
incorporation. They can act in concert, and pursue their interest
upon one plan and with one spirit, as much as if they were under
the direction of one man; and they are frequently, too, under
such direction. Their interest as an incorporated body is never
the same with that of the sovereign, and is sometimes directly
opposite to it. Their great interest is to maintain their
authority with the people; and this authority depends upon the
supposed certainty and importance of the whole doctrine which
they inculcate, and upon the supposed necessity of adopting every
part of it with the most implicit faith, in order to avoid
eternal misery. Should the sovereign have the imprudence to
appear either to deride or doubt himself of the most trifling
part of their doctrine, or from humanity attempt to protect those
who did either the one or the other, the punctilious honour of a
clergy who have no sort of dependency upon him is immediately
provoked to proscribe him as a profane person, and to employ all
the terrors of religion in order to oblige the people to transfer
their allegiance to some more orthodox and obedient prince.
Should he oppose any of their pretensions or usurpations, the
danger is equally great. The princes who have dared in this
manner to rebel against the church, over and above this crime of
rebellion have generally been charged, too, with the additional
crime of heresy, notwithstanding their solemn protestations of
their faith and humble submission to every tenet which she
thought proper to prescribe to them. But the authority of
religion is superior to every other authority. The fears which it
suggests conquer all other fears. When the authorized teachers of
religion propagate through the great body of the people doctrines
subversive of the authority of the sovereign, it is by violence
only, or by the force of a standing army, that he can maintain
his authority. Even a standing army cannot in this case give him
any lasting security; because if the soldiers are not foreigners,
which can seldom be the case, but drawn from the great body of
the people, which must almost always be the case, they are likely
to be soon corrupted by those very doctrines. The revolutions
which the turbulence of the Greek clergy was continually
occasioning at Constantinople, as long as the eastern empire
subsisted; the convulsions which, during the course of several
centuries, the turbulence of the Roman clergy was continually
occasioning in every part of Europe, sufficiently demonstrate how
precarious and insecure must always be the situation of the
sovereign who has no proper means of influencing the clergy of
the established and governing religion of his country.
Articles of faith, as well as all other spiritual matters,
it is evident enough, are not within the proper department of a
temporal sovereign, who, though he may be very well qualified for
protecting, is seldom supposed to be so for instructing the
people. With regard to such matters, therefore, his authority can
seldom be sufficient to counterbalance the united authority of
the clergy of the established church. The public tranquillity,
however, and his own security, may frequently depend upon the
doctrines which they may think proper to propagate concerning
such matters. As he can seldom directly oppose their decision,
therefore, with proper weight and authority, it is necessary that
he should be able to influence it; and be can influence it only
by the fears and expectations which he may excite in the greater
part of the individuals of the order. Those fears and
expectations may consist in the fear of deprivation or other
punishment, and in the expectation of further preferment.
In all Christian churches the benefices of the clergy are a
sort of freeholds which they enjoy, not during pleasure, but
during life or good behaviour. If they held them by a more
precarious tenure, and were liable to be turned out upon every
slight disobligation either of the sovereign or of his ministers,
it would perhaps be impossible for them to maintain their
authority with the people, who would then consider them as
mercenary dependents upon the court, in the security of whose
instructions they could no longer have any confidence. But should
the sovereign attempt irregularly, and by violence, to deprive
any number of clergymen of their freeholds, on account, perhaps,
of their having propagated, with more than ordinary zeal, some
factious or seditious doctrine, he would only render, by such
persecution, both them and their doctrine ten times more popular,
and therefore ten times more troublesome and dangerous, than they
had been before. Fear is in almost all cases a wretched
instrument of government, and ought in particular never to be
employed against any order of men who have the smallest
pretensions to independency. To attempt to terrify them serves
only to irritate their bad humour, and to confirm them in an
opposition which more gentle usage perhaps might easily induce
them either to soften or to lay aside altogether. The violence
which the French government usually employed in order to oblige
all their parliaments, or sovereign courts of justice, to
enregister any unpopular edict, very seldom succeeded. The means
commonly employed, however, the imprisonment of all the
refractory members, one would think were forcible enough. The
princes of the house of Stewart sometimes employed the like means
in order to influence some of the members of the Parliament of
England; and they generally found them equally intractable. The
Parliament of England is now managed in another manner; and a
very small experiment which the Duke of Choiseul made about
twelve years ago upon the Parliament of Paris, demonstrated
sufficiently that all the parliaments of France might have been
managed still more easily in the same manner. That experiment was
not pursued. For though management and persuasion are always the
easiest and the safest instruments of governments, as force and
violence are the worst and the most dangerous, yet such, it
seems, is the natural insolence of man that he almost always
disdains to use the good instrument, except when he cannot or
dare not use the bad one. The French government could and durst
use force, and therefore disdained to use management and
persuasion. But there is no order of men, it appears, I believe,
from the experience of all ages, upon whom it is so dangerous, or
rather so perfectly ruinous, to employ force and violence, as
upon the respected clergy of any established church. The rights,
the privileges, the personal liberty of every individual
ecclesiastic who is upon good terms with his own order are, even
in the most despotic governments, more respected than those of
any other person of nearly equal rank and fortune. It is so in
every gradation of despotism, from that of the gentle and mild
government of Paris to that of the violent and furious government
of Constantinople. But though this order of men can scarce ever
be forced, they may be managed as easily as any other; and the
security of the sovereign, as well as the public tranquillity,
seems to depend very much upon the means which he has of managing
them; and those means seem to consist altogether in the
preferment which he has to bestow upon them.
In the ancient constitution of the Christian church, the
bishop of each diocese was elected by the joint votes of the
clergy and of the people of the episcopal city. The people did
not long retain their right of election; and while they did
retain it, they almost always acted under the influence of the
clergy, who in such spiritual matters appeared to be their
natural guides. The clergy, however, soon grew weary of the
trouble of managing them, and found it easier to elect their own
bishops themselves. The abbot, in the same manner, was elected by
the monks of the monastery, at least in the greater part of the
abbacies. All the inferior ecclesiastical benefices comprehended
within the diocese were collated by the bishop, who bestowed them
upon such ecclesiastics as he thought proper. All church
preferments were in this manner in the disposal of the church.
The sovereign, though he might have some indirect influence in
those elections, and though it was sometimes usual to ask both
his consent to elect and his approbation of the election, yet had
no direct or sufficient means of managing the clergy. The
ambition of every clergyman naturally led him to pay court not so
much to his sovereign as to his own order, from which only he
could expect preferment.
|