In England as elsewhere, it is asked, why lawsuits are eternal? The lawyers say it is owing to the nature of things.Other people say it is the fault of the lawyers.The above two little traits, which are as two grains of sand picked up in the deserts of Arabia, may assist the judgment as to the causes of delay in such procedures.
3.Previously to the year 1782, the emoluments of the paymaster of the army, whose duty as such consisted in signing, or knowing how to sign, his name, were considerably higher in time of war than in time of peace, being principally constituted of a percentage on the money expended in his department.This great officer, however, always found himself a member of parliament; and it is believed he was thus paid, not for signing, or knowing how to sign, his name, but for talking, and knowing how to talk.Upon a question of peace or war, the probity of this orator must have found itself in somewhat an awkward predicament, continually besieged as it must have been by Bellona with the offer of an enormous revenue, which was to cease immediately he suffered himself to be corrupted by Peace.When the question of economical reform was upon the carpet, this place was not forgotten.It was generally felt at that time, that so decided an opposition between interest and duty was calculated to produce the most pernicious consequences.The emoluments of peace and war were, therefore, equalized by attaching a fixed salary to the office, and the same plan was adopted with respect to various other offices.
In running over the list of functionaries, from the highest to the lowest, one cannot but be alarmed at the vast proportion of them who watch for war as for a prey.It is impossible to say to what a degree, by this personal interest, the most important measures of government are determined.It cannot be supposed that ministers of state, generals, admirals, or members of parliament, are influenced in the slightest degree by a vile pecuniary interest.All these honourable persons possess probity as well as wisdom, so that a trifle of money never can produce the slightest influence upon their conduct, not even the effect of an atom upon the immovable mass of their probity.The mischief is, that evil-minded persons are not convinced by their assertion, but continue to repeat, that---``The honesty which resists temptation is most noble, but that which flies from it is most secure.''[1]
4.In public and private works of all descriptions, it is customary to pay the architect a percentage upon the aggregate amount expended.This arrangement is a good one, when the sum to be expended is fixed: there is danger in the contrary case, since the greater the expense, the greater is the architect's pecuniary profit.
5.Veracity is one of the most important bases of human society.The due administration of justice absolutely depends upon it; whatever tends to weaken it, saps the foundations of morality, security, and happiness.The more we reflect on its importance, the more we shall be astonished that legislators have so indiscreetly multiplied the operations which tend to weaken its influence.
When the possession of the revenues, or other privileges attached to a certain condition of life, depends upon the previous performance of certain acts which are required at entering upon that condition, these privileges cannot fail to operate upon individuals as incentives to the performance of those acts: the effect produced is the same as if they were attached to such performance under the title of reward.
If, among the number of these acts, promises which are never performed are required under the sanction of an oath, these privileges or other advantages can only be regarded as rewards offered for the commission of perjury.If among the number of these acts, it be required that certain opinions which are not believed should be pretended to be believed, these advantages are neither more nor less than rewards offered for insincerity.
But the sanction of an oath once contemned, is contemned at all times.
Oaths may afterwards be observed, but they will not be observed because they are oaths.
In the university of Oxford, among whose members the greater number of ecclesiastical benefices are bestowed, and which even for laymen is the most fashionable place of education,---when a young man presents himself for admission, his tutor, who is generally a clergyman, and the vice-chancellor, who is also a clergyman, put into his hands a book of statutes, of which they cause him to swear to observe every one.At the same time, it is perfectly well known to this vice-chancellor and to this tutor, that there never has been any person who was able to observe all these statutes.It is thus that the first lesson this young man learns, and the only lesson he is sure to learn, is a lesson of perjury.[3]
Nor is this all: his next step is to subscribe, in testimony of his belief, to a dogmatical formulary composed about two centuries ago, asserted by the Church of England to be infallibly true, and by most other churches believed to be as infallibly false.By this expedient, one class of men is excluded, while three classes are admitted.
The class excluded is composed of men who, either from a sense of honour, or from conscientious motives, cannot prevail upon themselves publicly and deliberately to utter a lie.The classes admitted consist---1.Of those who literally believe these dogmas; 2.Of those who disbelieve them; 3.
Of those who sign them as they would sign the Alcoran, without knowing what they sign, or what they think about it.A nearly similar practice is pursued at Cambridge; and from these two sources the clergy of the Church of England are supplied.
