civilised nations, for ab origine the only right is

force,

"That they shall take who have the power,

And they shall keep who can."

If a Government can sequester and assume at its will, without payment therefor, all property belonging to religious bodies and communities, why can it not, on the same principle, take the property belonging to any other class

or corporation to merchants, to artists, to Of course,

princes, to hospitals, to colleges? it is admitted by established laws that it may, for the public necessity or benefit, take any private property, but solely on one condition, that it gives a fair remuneration for it; and this is precisely what it does not do in the case of monastic bodies. If monastic institutions are contrary to what are deemed the best interests of the State, it may abolish them; it may prohibit the establishment of such bodies for the future; it may possibly even break up those that

ABOLITION OF THE MONASTERY.

63

This

exist: granted, but only on the same conditions which would apply to all other property held by all other bodies. There cannot justly be one law for monks and nuns as to property, and a totally different one for all other persons. would be simply a tyrannical exercise of power, contrary to all equity, contrary to all recognised principles of law. In the case of religious corporations, their lands and houses have been given, granted, or purchased by them according to law; and it is impossible to see why they should be made an exception to all other persons, why their lands should be virtually wrested from them without adequate remuneration, and why they should be turned out into the world on a scanty pittance, scarcely sufficient to enable them to live. It is even worse in some respects for them than for any other class; for their vows, and habits of life, and religious pledges, not only render them unfit for other avocations, but disable them from assuming them. I have no special admira

tion for or sympathy with monastic bodies. They have undoubtedly done good work in the past, and in their monasteries for centuries was kept alive the fire of literature, which was elsewhere almost entirely extinguished. Without them a gross darkness would have covered the world; the precious works of ancient learning would have been lost; science would have suffered total eclipse, and civilisation declined. If there was a good deal of superstition mixed up with their religious doctrines, if their lives were not on the highest line of Christianity, their influence was at least humanising. They afforded refuge and succour to the poor; they exercised the duties of hospitality; they preached and practised charity to their neighbours, and held up a higher standard of life. They showed at times rare examples of piety and good works; and at all events, whatever were their shortcomings, they were above the general level of society. Their lands and houses were solemnly

ABOLITION OF THE MONASTERY.

65

and formally given to them by deed or bequest. They were as absolute owners of them by law as any other persons or bodies were of their houses

"

and lands and if it is now thought, on the

:

whole, that their good work has been accomplished, and their influence is noxious, this may be a good reason, even if it be a mistaken one, for abolishing them as corporations, and restricting their powers and rights for the future; but it is not a good reason for depriving them of their possessions without proper remuneration, and making them exceptions to the laws applying to all other persons and property. Liberty and law in a properly administered country are universal in their operation. It is not one thing for one class and another for another class.

But Italy has thought differently, and has abolished most of the monastic orders, and confiscated the greater portion of their property, without that fair remuneration which would

E

have been denied to no other class; and in its

estimation, as Hosea Biglow says

-or monks. Among other monasteries, Vallombrosa has been confiscated; and of the hundred monks who have lived and administered this large property, and studied and performed the duties of hospitality and charity, only three now remain on sufferance-deprived of all rights of ownership.

The question is, on the whole (without regard to the justice and equity of the change), What advantage has been gained by the nation-the people at large-or the people and peasants of the neighbourhood? In the matter of revenue, the nation has certainly been the loser. As we have already seen, under the administration of the monks the taxes then paid to the Government, light as taxes were then, amounted to 29,000 scudi or francesconi-equivalent to about