The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-17 00:00:00

PROFESSOR BLACKIE ON DF,MOCRACY

Professor Blackie lately delivered a lecture under the
auspices of the Dunfermline Literary Society in the Music
Hall there. Mr. James Morris occupied the chair, and
briefly introduced the lecturer.
Professor BLACKIE began by saying that while the politi-
cal student in examining the constitution of this country
eighty or an hundred years ago, must have arrived at the
conclusion that it was governed mo re by monarchy and
aristocracy than by democracy, he would bo compelled to
admit that since the passing of the Reform Bill, our con-
stitution had been and now was, democracy, strongly tuodi-
fled by aristocracy, and slightly affected by monarchy-
Our monarchy was now a mere sham, but a very useful
sham, nevertheless, as many shams were. Further, he
would see that during the last thirty years there had been
no reforms in an aristocratic direction, but all in a
democratic direction, showing that the tendency of our
politics was democratic. It therefore became them, as prac-
tical and thinking men, to examine what democracy
really
was. He meant to examine it as a practical man, and as a
thinking man, as he hoped they would admit him to be, aild,
not as a party man, or as a one-idea man as Cobden and
Bright were; and he should prove, first by deduction, that
no democracy had ever stood for 100 years without going
mad, or, rather, it did not need to go mad, for it was mad
at starting. (Laughter.) His definition of democracy, and
which he challenged any democrat to dissent from, was--
'Democracy is that form of government in which the
supreme directing and controlling authority lies with the
whole body of the social organism ; or, in other words'
where the community, acting by its accumulative integers
or units, and not by any transmitted representative bide-
pendent personalty, is its own master." On analysing this,
he found it contained three ideas—freedom, equality, and
self•government. The idea of freedom he took to b°
this, that every man shall have as much scope as pos-
sible to develop himself, and especially this is the mei
that no law—in the sense of restriction—shall be rod°
by one class of men, to give enlargement to their
own sphere of action, by the compulsory circuter
scription of the liberties of another class. Equaliti
he took to be not that all men were essentially equal, bat
that all men were equal for the purpose of a social organise)
—as bank directors, for instance, were equal. The idea
contained in the notion of self-government wits, that all the
healthy, independent, self-supporting waits of a societl
shall at,all times exercise such a coArtrol or pressure eler
the persons who do the governing work, that these persons
shall not be looked upon as independent, but merely as til:
tools, or trustees, to use a more acceptable term, of l,
majority of the great class of people who appoint thew•
should proceed to inquire how far these squared with 13V
ture. They found that nature was full of apparent cen;
tradictions—as the Bible was full of contradictions,°l;
moral science was full of contradictory maxims. b
they had done to learn was, how to apply these maxims jel :o
as to reconcile the contradictions, and arrive at the vibe,-
truth. This was what he proposed to do in his ressoniae.
First, then, the idea of pure freedom was opposed
0
idea of limitation of freedom, or a governing power. „'
badies, madmen, and tigers had the idea of absolute fe
dom—that was a low idea in itself. Civilised and reason-
ing men sought limitation of freedom by alitheri.hi
Steam, when free, went puff, puff, and did nothing, °I. t1(1
only evil ; but when cribbed, cabined, and confined," 11-
put under authority; it was the greatest slave mall to
doing his work while his slave —smashing hire
eternity in a moment when passing beyond his 0111°4,
Equality was opposed by the law of superierlo
oYoungw,then men," A
couldr itehtoetyl eb sea icda,p‘a‘
talree
onfo
pt coal
ipt
iaclosl?e
we fhmichera:ere
Hmore difficult than morals ? How could they govern liej-
lions when they could not govern themselves P All Obi
were not equal naturally, The weak must be guide
the
the powerful, the foolish by the wise, the young vY
experienced. Aristocracy—not in its present aecePto
tion, but correctly speaking—meant government by oa
best. There was a natural aristocracy ; and in eil„ %eh
government means must be provided to get the best oto
to the top. The wise men must be at the helm.
asst
thought of equality on board a ship in a storm. The ":ish
must rule. Professor Blackie here referred to the Se "too
Church, and observed it was the fault of that Church 'l.O
it was too democratic, as it was the fault of the 8115 011
Church that it was too aristocratic. All were alike;
i 0
did their work nobly and well; but none were higher t
another, and the result was, that for sound learning 10.
deep thought the works of German and English the ° 1,
glans were read in preference to the productions of Se°t.,,,,e
thinkers. He admired the Presbyterian form of gove'-if
ment. He believed it to be the best that existed; bett°•
she wished to be perfect, she must be a little more arisif•
cratic in her government. 'With regard to the idea of seere
government, he argued that as all men are not equal rho"
could not be self-government. Thus, the idea of free.oo
was contradicted in nature by limitation. Equality this
met by superiority; and self-government was met by co'
idea of governing by the wisest. In Great Britain via
joyed more genuine freedom—more perfect eclualiti.„ent,
fair play, and more of the blessings of self-governwweto
than in any other country, just because these ideasroa
modified and tempered in our constitution by tiled w°sool,
of the contradictory principles in nature he hat, As'
This was what made Britain the wonder of all °t,h-1,-
tions, and this was the foundation of her streDg''''e it
now proceeded to test democracy by history. Ile, knho W°3
had failed in Athens ; it had failed in Rome ; and —to se°
waiting—or perhaps he did not need to wait longer igor
whether it would fail in America. He did not sPealg frola
rantly ; he had the authority of all philosophere'll to
Solon, who founded a mixed government, d°:l,2ded,,
Aristotle and Polybius, and Cicero ; and' gaiePt
every ancient writer had given his verdict
nr :fJo of
democracy, and in favour of a mixed fhet
government. Athens reached the height " brie'
glory when her Government was a democracy, streshe hod
flueneed by an aristocracy, but ere 30 years after
re, ;
adopted a pure democracy, her power was no rec'tboagect
with Rome with a mixed government; for Rome'
nominally a republic, was not so in reality: suered;
government of aristocracy and democracy she sound,.pa
and Romanised, and civilised the whole known W°r s 06:3
when democracy obfainea the upper hand, the 11°°Iii%ist
came the slaves they were almost to this day. I- to ssvit#
them to the history of the Argentine Republics-- 0, 101°
zerland, which stood not on its own legs, but like odisg
wedged in a crowd by the pressure of those stir r°,, Ad e'
him—to Holland—to the Spanish Republics of sou to 019
rice, and see what they could make of them ; Weft
United States of North America, and see what the/
of cle
making of themselves. (Laughter.) The teneolsciechr
mocracy was to snake the people boastful, full (3' 0044
conceit, envious and jealous of superior worth. 9°11,0 Or'd
was indeed the very devil, as Johnson had said —oolob
Whig was. Professor Blackie then concluded b e 0,0,S
he hoped he would not be mistaken for a Tory. r;gl3t43
man of the people, and an advocate of the peopleailat
but different people had different notions as to Wrosaele
best, and he did not think democracy was best. lie
his seat amid loud applause. d Ole Piv
A vote of thanks to the lecturer conclude
ceedings.