RESISTANCE IN ARMS--THE TRUE MEANING OF LAW
I
When we stand up to question false authority we should first make our
footing firm by showing we understand true authority and uphold it. Let
us be clear then as to the meaning of the word law. It may be defined;
an ordinance of reason, the aim of which is the public good and
promulgated by the ruling power. Let us cite a few authorities. "A human
law bears the character of law so far as it is in conformity with right
reason; and in that point of view it is manifestly derived from the
Eternal Law." (_Aquinas Ethicus,_ Vol. 1, p. 276.) Writing of laws that
are unjust either in respect to end, author or form, St. Thomas says:
"Such proceedings are rather acts of violence than laws; because St.
Augustine says: 'A law that is not just goes for no law at all.'"
(_Aquinas Ethicus_, Vol. 1, p. 292.) "The fundamental idea of all law,"
writes Balmez, "is that it be in accordance with reason, that it be an
emanation from reason, an application of reason to society" (_European
Civilisation_, Chap. 53). In the same chapter Balmez quotes St. Thomas
with approval: "The kingdom is not made for the king, but the king for
the kingdom"; and he goes on to the natural inference: "That all
governments have been established for the good of society, and that this
alone should be the compass to guide those who are in command, whatever
be the form of government." It is likewise the view of Mill, in
_Representative Government_, that the well-being of the governed is the
sole object of government. It was the view of Plato before the Christian
era: his ideal city should be established, "that the whole City might be
in the happiest condition." (_The Republic_, Book 4.) Calderwood writes:
"Political Government can be legitimately constructed only on condition
of the acknowledgment of natural obligations and rights as inviolable."
(_Handbook of Modern Philosophy, Applied Ethics_, Sec. 4.) Here all
schools and all times are in agreement. Till these conditions are
fulfilled for us we are at war. When an independent and genuine Irish
Government is established we shall yield it a full and hearty
allegiance: the law shall then be in repute. We do not stand now to deny
the idea of authority, but to say that the wrong people are in
authority, the wrong flag is over us.
II
"We must overthrow the arguments that might be employed against us by
the advocates of blind submission to any power that happens to be
established," writes Balmez, on resistance to _De Facto_ Governments.
(_European Civilisation_, Chap. 55.) We could not be more explicit than
the famous Spanish theologian. To such arguments let the following stand
out from his long and emphatic reply:--"Illegitimate authority is no
authority at all; the idea of power involves the idea of right, without
which it is mere physical power, that is force." He writes further: "The
conqueror, who, by mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not
thereby acquire a right to its possession; the government, which by
gross iniquities has despoiled entire classes of citizens, exacted undue
contributions, abolished legitimate rights, cannot justify its acts by
the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute these
iniquities." There is much that is equally clear and definite. What
extravagant things can be said on the other side by people in high
places we know too well. Balmez in the same book and chapter gives an
excellent example and an excellent reply: "Don Felix Amat, Archbishop of
Palmyra, in the posthumous work entitled _Idea of the Church Militant_,
makes use of these words: 'Jesus Christ, by His plain and expressive
answer, _Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's_, has sufficiently
established that the mere fact of a government's existence is sufficient
for enforcing the obedience of subjects to it....' His work was
forbidden at Rome," is Balmez' expressive comment, and he continues,
"and whatever may have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may
rest assured that, in the case of a book advocating such doctrines,
every man who is jealous of his rights might acquiesce in the decree of
the Sacred Congregation." So much for _De Facto_ Government. It is
usurpation; by being consummated it does not become legitimate. When its
decrees are not resisted, it does not mean we accept them in
principle--nor can we even pretend to accept them--but that the hour to
resist has not yet come. It is the strategy of war.
III
We stand on the ground that the English Government in Ireland is founded
in usurpation and as such deny its authority. But if it be argued,
assuming it as Ireland's case, that a usurped authority, gradually
acquiesced in by the people, ultimately becomes the same as legitimate,
the reply is still clear. For ourselves we meet the assumption with a
simple denial, appealing to Irish History for evidence that we never
acquiesced in the English Usurpation. But to those who are not satisfied
with this simple denial, we can point out that even an authority,
originally founded legitimately, may be resisted when abusing its power
to the ruin of the Commonwealth. We still stand on the ground that the
English government is founded in usurpation, but we can dispose of all
objections by proving the extremer case. This is the case Dr. Murray,
already quoted, discusses. "The question," he writes, "is about
resistance to an established and legitimate government which abuses its
power." (_Essays, Chiefly Theological_, Vol. 4.) He continues: "The
common opinion of a large number of our theologians, then, is that it is
lawful to resist by force, and if necessary to depose, the sovereign
ruler or rulers, in the extreme--the very extreme--case wherein the
following conditions are found united:
"1. The tyranny must be excessive--intolerable.
"2. The tyranny must be manifest, manifest to men of good sense and
right feeling.
"3. The evils inflicted by the tyrant must be greater than those which
would ensue from resisting and deposing him.
"4. There must be no other available way of getting rid of the tyranny
except by recurring to the extreme course.
"5. There must be a moral certainty of success.
"6. The revolution must be one conducted or approved by the community
at large ... the refusal of a small party in the State to join with
the overwhelming mass of their countrymen would not render the
resistance of the latter unlawful." (_Essays, Chiefly Theological_;
see also Rickaby, _Moral Philosophy_, Chap. 8, Sec. 7.)
Some of these conditions are drawn out at much length by Dr. Murray. I
give what is outstanding. How easily they could fit Irish conditions
must strike anyone. I think it might fairly be said that our leaders
generally would, if asked to lay down conditions for a rising, have
framed some more stringent than these. It might be said, in truth, of
some of them that they seem to wait for more than a moral certainty of
success, an absolute certainty, that can never be looked for in war.
IV
When a government through its own iniquity ceases to exist, we must, to
establish a new government on a true and just basis, go back to the
origin of Civil Authority. No one argues now for the Divine Right of
Kings, but in studying the old controversy we get light on the subject
of government that is of all time. To the conception that kings held
their power immediately from God, "Suarez boldly opposed the thesis of
the initial sovereignty of the people; from whose consent, therefore,
all civil authority immediately sprang. So also, in opposition to
Melanchthon's theory of governmental omnipotence, Suarez _a fortiori_
admitted the right of the people to depose those princes who would have
shown themselves unworthy of the trust reposed in them." (De Wulf,
_History of Medieval Philosophy,_ Third Edition, p. 495.) Suarez'
refutation of the Anglican theory, described by Hallam as clear, brief,
and dispassionate, has won general admiration. Hallam quotes him to the
discredit of the English divines: "For this power, by its very nature,
belongs to no one man but to a multitude of men. This is a certain
conclusion, being common to all our authorities, as we find by St.
Thomas, by the Civil laws, and by the great canonists and casuists; all
of whom agree that the prince has that power of law-giving which the
people have given him. And the reason is evident, since all men are
born equal, and consequently no one has a political jurisdiction over
another, nor any dominion; nor can we give any reason from the nature of
the thing why one man should govern another rather than the contrary."
(Hallam--_Literature of Europe_, Vol. 3, Chap. 4.) Dr. Murray, in the
essay already quoted, speaks of Sir James Mackintosh as the ablest
Protestant writer who refuted the Anglican theory, which Mackintosh
speaks of as "The extravagance of thus representing obedience as the
only duty without an exception." Dr. Murray concludes his own essay on
_Resistance to the Supreme Civil Power_ by a long passage from
Mackintosh, the weight and wisdom of which he praises. The greater part
of the passage is devoted to the difficulties even of success and
emphasising the terrible evils of failure. In what has already been
written here I have been at pains rather to lay bare all possible evils
than to hide them. But when revolt has become necessary and inevitable,
then the conclusion of the passage Dr. Murray quotes should be endorsed
by all: "An insurrection rendered necessary by oppression, and warranted
by a reasonable probability of a happy termination, is an act of public
virtue, always environed with so much peril as to merit admiration."
Yes, and given the happy termination, the right and responsibility of
establishing a new government rest with the body of the people.
V
We come, then, to this conclusion, that government is just only when
rightfully established and for the public good; that usurpation not only
may but ought to be resisted; that an authority originally legitimate
once it becomes habitually tyrannical may be resisted and deposed; and
that when from abuse or tyranny a particular government ceases to exist,
we have to re-establish a true one. It is sometimes carelessly said,
"Liberty comes from anarchy," but this is a very dangerous doctrine. It
would be nearer truth to say from anarchy inevitably comes tyranny. Men
receive a despot to quell a mob. But when a people, determined and
disciplined, resolve to have neither despotism nor anarchy but freedom,
then they act in the light of the Natural Law. It is well put in the
doctrine of St. Thomas, as given by Turner in his _History of
Philosophy_ (Chap. 38): "The redress to which the subjects of a tyrant
have a just right must be sought, not by an individual, but by an
authority temporarily constituted by the people and acting according to
law." Yes, and when wild and foolish people talk hysterically of our
defiance of all authority, let us calmly show we best understand the
basis of Authority--which is Truth, and most highly reverence its
presiding spirit--which is Liberty.