صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

The use of Government for securing the best interests of human nature has been understood from a very early age. Accordingly it has been established in all civilised countries under the different forms of the monarchy, the aristocracy and the democracy. Each has been founded on a different principle. But do not all the forms of government corroborate the truth of the necessity of salutary reforms? What was the legislation of Solon in the renowned state of Athens ? What, that of Lycurgus in her rival state of Sparta? What was the object of the legislation of the decemvirate? Were not these changes on the preceding order of things? Did not each government as it broke up shew the necessity of farther reforms? Throughout all the changes each, in its progress as well as in its decay, confirmed the principle of reformation.

But let us come nearer to modern times. The constitution of England is justly esteemed the best form of representative government. Has it continued so in all all ages? Or is it birth of the principle of reformation ? There are who cannot forsake their reverence for antiquity and who fancy that they can safely insist on their principle by proving that every part of the constitution was to be found in the former order of things, and the so-called change is not an innovation but a restoration. It is immaterial to the question whether the change be an innovation or a restoration for in both cases some alteration is produced on the state of things preceding the event. Now what has been the course of reform in the English constitution? Has it not kept pace with the growing necessity of the nation? The Magna Charta secured property and personal liberty from being violated by the sovereign. The form of the representative body was less quietly established in the reign of Henry. As the nation prospered under these changes the thoughts of merely leading a private life gave place to the glorious idea of taking part in the noblest theatre of public life. Then began a contest the most glorious in which the English nation had been engaged. At first they proceeded with an equable pace securing the nation against those evils which threatened it. But the violence of some of the reformers divided the nation into two parties who went to the length of drawing the sword of civil war against each other. All the hopes of the nation vanished for a Military Tyranny was established. After the death of the Tyrant the army more directly controlled the proceedings of the government; till the nation in just fear returned to former state of things. The state however was ripe for another revolution and the revolution of 1688 secured to the nation the blessings of a good government and "bound the title of the sovereign with the rights of the people."

Now let us turn to France whose revolutions have taken the most horrible shape of all in the world. Did not the revolutions of France arise from misgovernment? Did not its malignity arise from the long accumulation of evils? The government was owing reforms that may suit the increased intelligence and activity of the nation. They had accumulated to a large amount and the government broke up in paying it. Then rose the demagogues of the people. Then also followed the proscriptions of dreadful fierceness and audacity. At the last the horrors of the revolution were closed by a Tyranny, and the evils of withholding salutary reforms were full.

In law it would seem from the reverence that is shewn to the precedents and practice of former times, that there is no scope for reformation.

m

But this reverence for antiquity extends only so far that we be secure against the admission of an evil. Since any irregularity in law will be felt immediately through all classes of the society it is best to remain where we are than move forward without knowing our way. Yet when the ground before has been found to be firm we have moved beyond the limits prescribed by former ages. Has not the names of Bentham and Romilly been endeared to the English for the reform of that they introduced in the criminal law of their mother land? Has not the Code of Napoleon embalmed him in the memory of France ?

In science the progress of the world since the time of Bacon yields evidence to the truth of our principle. The authority of Aristotle and his Logic had withheld all reformation and along with it had hindered all improvement for centuries. At last Bacon broke the charm. Newton, Laplace and a host of great men unraveled the mysteries of nature. Science and Art raised their head to deck human life in the luxuries of a civilised life and increase his power over nature.

In private life the influence of salutary changes is not less perciptible than in other departments. How widely different is the treatment of women in Europe from that in Asia. In the latter the partner of man and his solace in life is consigned to the jealous seclusion of a zenana, and forbidden the pleasures of society. Nor has she the power of conversing with the great men of by-gone days, being denied the benefits of education. Thus she has no other thoughts to engage her but the capricious love of her lord. But how different is the picture of domestic life in Europe? There the charms of private life alleviate the misery of human nature. An affectionate regard of the husband enlivens the pleasures and mitegates the griefs of the wife, and the reciprocal loving obedience on the part of the wife enhances the value of life to the husband. And is not all this due to the chivalrous spirit of the middle ages? It was then that woman obtained her place in the heart of man.

It is needless to multiply illustrations. Wherever we turn we meet with the effects of this principle. If reformation be suppressed it deteriorates the human character. If opposed it endangers the happiness of man. And when the current of this vivifying principle is allowed its natural course, it enlivens the prospect of man's life and decks it with the fresh ornaments of Sciences and Arts.

CALLY PROSUNNO DUTT, First Class,

Senior Scholar, Hindu College.

ARNOLD'S ROME, VOL. I.

Morning Paper.

1. The principal authorities for the part of the History of Rome from its foundation down to the invasion of the Gauls are Livy, Dionysius, Diadoras, and Plutarch. But the accounts they have transmitted to us are not complete. They are mixed up with fictions, and only here and there interspersed with fragments of authentic history. But the blame does not rest solely on them. They had no other materials than the legends and the funeral orations which are surely to contain fictions and impossibilities. But it was their fault that they did not endeavour to bring out truths out of those legendary tales and traditions. They copied what they found in them, little minding the contradictions contained in them.

However the legends and the funeral orations are so romantic and imaginative in their nature, that men of ordinary capacities would be unwilling to sacrifice them to the scrutiny of criticism. They are addressed to the imagination, and please the fancy. They contain nothing about the true origin of the Romans, or their early language. No insight into the political and social relations of the different orders of Roman people could be had from them. They are busy solely with the glorious actions of the early celebrated Romans. But even they had so mixed up with fables and romantic fictions that it is difficult for a modern enquirer to glean out truth from them. And so we find that for a long time they remained in their original state, until at last the immortal labour of Niebuhr cleared the way for modern enquirers, and brought out historical truths from them.

The marked features of the books of Livy and Dionysius are that the first is little partial to the interests of the early aristocratical party, and suppresses many facts which lead to the derogation of the character of the early patricians; and the latter a little inclined to the side of the popular party. Dionysius states many facts of which we find no trace in Livy. The last is too partial to the Quinctilian family, and suppresses the fact of the surprise of the capitol by Keso Quinctius, son of Quinctius Cincinnatus, the deliverer of the consul Minicius and his enemy from the hands of the Equians. But he keeps consistency in his history. He mentions the fact of the banishment of Keso, but suppresses the insurrection connected with it.

2. The object of Servius was to unite, on principles of justice and equity, the two orders of the Roman people, the patrician and the plebian, into one common and national body. He found that great many of the Romans enjoyed personal freedom, but no political rights. The conquered Latins were joined to the Romans, but they remained as it were a distinct body in Rome. They had no internal organization, nor any law to defend themselves against the caprices of the burghers. Accordingly Servius determined to give them an internal organization. He divided the city with the exception of the capitol into four tribes, and the country into twenty-six tribes. These included only the commons, and not the burghers, who lived indiscriminately among the portions allotted to the plebians. The tribes again he subdivided into different pagi, who met and consulted their own affairs in

a neighbouring place, under an officer of their own, named tribune. These tribunes conducted the affairs only of their particular tribes, and all met on a public place to consult about any thing connected with all the commons. This was the origin of the comitia of tribes; and Servius gave them the power of conducting their internal affairs. He also gave the commons laws, and judges out of their body to try all civil cases, whereas before they were obliged to refer all cases to the king, or the body of burghers. In order to give a further organization to the commons, he is said to have instituted the festivals called Paganalia and Compitalia.

Afterwards he intended to make them an order of the state, and to let them have some influence in its jurisdiction. But the feeling of jealousy of the patricians was great, and acordingly he was obliged to keep his intention secret, and to proceed in a silent manner.

Hitherto birth and rank conferred distinction on any member of the state; but he changed it into a timocracy; that is, he made property the standard of direction. Accordingly he divided the whole people of Rome, both patricians and plebians, into six classes, and each class into different centuries. The first class contains those whose property amounted to at least 100,000 ases; the second, those whose property amounted to at least 75,000 ases; the third, those whose property amounted to at least 50,000 ases; the fourth, those whose property amounted to 25,000; the fifth, those who possessed at least 12,500; and all those whose property fell below the minimum of the fifth class, comprised the sixth; and these last were exempt from the tributium, and were required to pay only a poll-tax.

Then he considered the whole people as an army composed of infantry and cavalry. He divided the classes which composed the infantry into different centuries; the first into 80 centuries, of which 40 were composed of men between the years 47 and 45, and they were to march out to battle, and 40, of men between the years 45 and 60, and they were to defend the city; and the second, third, and fourth, each into 20 centuries, of which 10 composed the elder men, and 10, younger ones; and the fifth into 30 centuries, of which 15 composed the elder and 15, the younger men. The sixth formed only one century.

He then divided the three two-fold centuries of the equities which then existed into six single ones, and these formed the six suffragia; and added to these 12 new centuries of the commons.

Afterwards he ordered them all to meet on the Campus Martius, and each century had a single vote. This was the origin of the comitia of centuries, and Servius gave them the power of deciding upon war and peace, the election of principal magistrates, and the confirmation of the legislative measures proposed by the senate.

Accordingly the tribunes of the commons were afterwards used to be elected by the comitia of the centuries, but the clients of the burghers had great influence in it, and so only such tribunes were elected, as favoured the side of the burghers. But Publilius made a law that tribunes of the commons should be henceforth elected in the comitia of tribes which included only the body of commons.

3. Tarquinus ascended the throne by the murder of the good king Servius, and no less tyrannically did he exercise his power when he got the throne into his own hands. He banished many persons from

Rome, confiscated the properties of many, and killed many. He overthrew the constitution of Servius, and employed the commons in servile actions. He conciliated friendship with the principal men in the Latin cities, and employed mercenaries. He then made war on the Volscians, and took from them great plunder. He then began to build the Capitoline temple, and to make drains to carry off from between the hills. In digging the foundation of the temple, he found a fresh human head under the earth, which indicated that Rome should be the head of the whole world.

Afterwards he made war on the Gabians, who did not submit to him like the rest of the Latins, and after a long struggle, his son Sextus succeeded by a stratagem to give it into the hands of his father. He then made a peace with the Gabians, and allowed them to become his allies.

Afterwards he began to oppress his people so hard, that they found means to banish him from their city.

Some of the greater inconsistencies in the legend of Tarquinus Superbus are that immediately after his ascension to the throne he became the father of three grown up sons;—and that he was banished from his kingdom after a long reign, though in a mature age,—and that he exercised tyranny over the Romans for a long time without receiving any check from them, though he had not a power sufficient to overwhelm all their forces.

4. In the early period of the commonwealth the state of the commons was very wretched. During the wars which followed the banishment of Tarquinus they had neglected their farms, and so could not supply themselves with necessaries, for they depended solely on agriculture, and were not allowed to carry on commerce with foreign nations. Accordingly they were obliged to borrow money from the nobles at an exorbitant interest, and so involved themselves in debt. Now the law of debtor and creditor in Rome was very severe, and any person who could not pay his debt within a certain period was dragged by his creditor to his own house, where he was left confined till he paid his debt. If he still continued refractory, his person was produced in three successive market days, if any person would come to his aid, and be his security. If no one stood for him, then after sixty days he was either killed, or sold as a slave beyond the Roman dominions. The next step of the degradation of the commons was easy. They could not attend to their arms, and so the utility which they derived from the constitution of Servius was lost. The burghers began to tyrannize over them, and took from them all the powers which Servius has conferred upon them.

At length, after 15 years from the banishment of the last king, the commons driven to despair, resolved no longer to endure the personal degradation. According with a unanimous consent, they went all out of the city with their wives and children, and established themselves on the Sacred Mountain beyond the river the Arno. They sought safety, and not victory. Accordingly when the senators sent messengers to them to ask their demands and to recall them to Rome, they only insisted upon the articles of the cancelling of all existing debts, the release of all insolvent debtors, and the election of two persons out of their own body to defend them in future against the unlawful attacks of the burghers. The senate granted all the three demands, and so the

« السابقةمتابعة »