The greater part of the two volumes before us is merely an amplification of these paragraphs.What does Mr.Southey mean by saying that religion is demonstrably the basis of civil government? He cannot surely mean that men have no motives except those derived from religion for establishing and supporting civil government, that no temporal advantage is derived from civil government, that men would experience no temporal inconvenience from living in a state of anarchy? If he allows, as we think he must allow, that it is for the good of mankind in this world to have civil government, and that the great majority of mankind have always thought it for their good in this world to have civil government, we then have a basis for government quite distinct from religion.It is true that the Christian religion sanctions government, as it sanctions everything which promotes the happiness and virtue of our species.But we are at a loss to conceive in what sense religion can be said to be the basis of government, in which religion is not also the basis of the practices of eating, drinking, and lighting fires in cold weather.Nothing in history is more certain than that government has existed, has received some obedience, and has given some protection, in times in which it derived no support from religion, in times in which there was no religion that influenced the hearts and lives of men.It was not from dread of Tartarus, or from belief in the Elysian fields, that an Athenian wished to have some institutions which might keep Orestes from filching his cloak, or Midias from breaking his head."It is from religion,"says Mr.Southey, "that power derives its authority, and laws their efficacy." From what religion does our power over the Hindoos derive its authority, or the law in virtue of which we hang Brahmins its efficacy? For thousands of years civil government has existed in almost every corner of the world, in ages of priestcraft, in ages of fanaticism, in ages of Epicurean indifference, in ages of enlightened piety.However pure or impure the faith of the people might be, whether they adored a beneficent or a malignant power, whether they thought the soul mortal or immortal, they have, as soon as they ceased to be absolute savages, found out their need of civil government, and instituted it accordingly.It is as universal as the practice of cookery.Yet, it is as certain, says Mr.Southey, as anything in abstract science, that government is founded on religion.We should like to know what notion Mr.Southey has of the demonstrations of abstract science.A very vague one, we suspect.
The proof proceeds.As religion is the basis of government, and as the State is secure in proportion as the people are attached to public institutions, it is therefore, says Mr.Southey, the first rule of policy, that the government should train the people in the way in which they should go; and it is plain that those who train them in any other way are undermining the State.
Now it does not appear to us to be the first object that people should always believe in the established religion and be attached to the established government.A religion may be false.Agovernment may be oppressive.And whatever support government gives to false religions, or religion to oppressive governments, we consider as a clear evil.
The maxim, that governments ought to train the people in the way in which they should go, sounds well.But is there any reason for believing that a government is more likely to lead the people in the right way than the people to fall into the right way of themselves? Have there not been governments which were blind leaders of the blind? Are there not still such governments? Can it be laid down as a general rule that the movement of political and religious truth is rather downwards from the government to the people than upwards from the people to the government? These are questions which it is of importance to have clearly resolved.
Mr.Southey declaims against public opinion, which is now, he tells us, usurping supreme power.Formerly, according to him, the laws governed; now public opinion governs.What are laws but expressions of the opinion of some class which has power over the rest of the community? By what was the world ever governed but by the opinion of some person or persons? By what else can it ever be governed? What are all systems, religious, political, or scientific, but opinions resting on evidence more or less satisfactory? The question is not between human opinion and some higher and more certain mode of arriving at truth, but between opinion and opinion, between the opinions of one man and another, or of one class and another, or of one generation and another.
Public opinion is not infallible; but can Mr.Southey construct any institutions which shall secure to us the guidance of an infallible opinion? Can Mr.Southey select any family, any profession, any class, in short, distinguished by any plain badge from the rest of the community, whose opinion is more likely to be just than this much abused public opinion? Would he choose the peers, for example? Or the two hundred tallest men in the country? Or the poor Knights of Windsor? Or children who are born with cauls? Or the seventh sons of seventh sons?
We cannot suppose that he would recommend popular election; for that is merely an appeal to public opinion.And to say that society ought to be governed by the opinion of the wisest and best, though true, is useless.Whose opinion is to decide who are the wisest and best?