THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
PREGNANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
BOOK‑REVIEW. THE BREAKDOWN OF NATIONS‑Leopold
Kohr
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3. Number 4. August 1958
Volume 3. Number 5. September 1958
PREGNANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY (1831 REVOLT)
Bleby gives this description of Samuel Sharpe:
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
TALL OAKS FROM LITTLE ACORNS GROW
U.S. SENATE JULY 16. SENATOR MORSE DEFENDS CIVIL
LIBERTIES
Volume 3. Number 6. October 1958
CONTEMPT OF COURT (Colonial Style).
PREGNANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3. Number 8. December 1958
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3.
Number 9. January 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
FREEDOMS OF THE PRESS -GLEANER PROFILE
Volume 3. Number 10. FEBRUARY 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
THOUGHTS FROM EINSTEIN ON EDUCATION
A COMPOSITE POEM - A STUDY IN
RELATIVITY
But not so odd as those who choose
And still more odd that Jews refuse
But oddest far one God should
choose
Volume 3. Number 11. MARCH 1959..
PREGNANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
GREAT FREE-THINKERS - ALBERT EINSTEIN
THOUGHTS FROM EINSTEIN - JUST WHAT IS A JEW
Volume 3. Number 12. APRIL 1959..
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
GREAT FREETHINKERS - THOMAS PAINE
Volume 3. Number 14. June 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3. Number 15. JULY, 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
GREAT FREETHINKERS - PETER WALDO
Volume 3.
Number 16. August 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
Volume 3.
Number 17. SEPTEMBER 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
TENDENTIOUS OR SELECTIVE REASONING OR SPECIAL PLEADING
Volume 3. Number 18. October 1959
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
And in your joyous errand reach the
spot
Volume 3.
Number 19. November 1959
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
PAMPHLET REVIEW - The Roumanian
Treatment for Old Age
Volume 3.
Number 20. DECEMBER, 1959
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3. Number 21. January 1960..
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3. Number 22. February 1960
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
"Where there is no vision the
people perish"
Volume 3. Number 23. MARCH 1960
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Volume 3.
Number 24. April 1960
SIGNIFICANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
BOOK REVIEW. - RHEUMATISM &
ARTHRITIS THE CONQUEST
May 1958 – April 1960
By Ansell
Hart
Kingston 8
Jamaica
Mr. Richard Hart has kindly
provided this Volume of his father’s
Monthly comments for publication on this website. The Copyright for the material
is reserved by the Hart family, who have agreed that the material may be
distributed free of charge for personal use only. They have stipulated that it
not be altered or sold in any format.
Mr.
Ansell Hart published Volume 3 of his Monthly Comments in 24 monthly issues
over a two year period. The first issue, namely Volume 3 number 1, was published in May 1958 and the final
issue of Volume 3 namely Number 24 was published in April of 1960.
The Herald Limited-Printers, 44 Church Street in Kingston, Jamaica, originally printed them. The subscription for all 24 issues was ten shillings sterling or about US$ 1.0 in today's money.
Volume
3 as published on this site contains all twenty four issues and is around one
hundred and twenty five pages.
In
compiling this document, the only license that I have taken, is to attach some
headings to various sections, so that the Table of Contents may be more useful.
You may go to any section listed in the Table of Contents by
"clicking" on the description given there.
Enjoy!
Dr.
John B. deMercado.
Ottawa, Ontario
March 15th
2000
First fruits of Federation:
the tail wags the dog. The governments of Jamaica and Trinidad are practically
un-represented in the federal elected house.
The decision of the Governor
General on nominations for the Senate is palpably absurd. The de facto and de
jure government of Jamaica should not be cut down as to full nominating
privilege merely because the Opposition scored a victory in the federal
elections. The government of Jamaica is still the government of Jamaica for all
purposes.
Solomon's judgment saved the
life of the baby. The Governor General's judgment kills one of the Jamaican
babies.
Nonchalantly the addict
lights another cigarette; and believes he owns the world. In fact he is slave
to the cigarette.
Sometimes it all begins with
a child flouting authority, seeking escape in disobedience. Sometimes it begins
merely as an adolescent pose; sometimes merely as "follow‑fashion".
Later the inescapable habit of escape grips the victim, his pocket book and his
health.
Habit, acquired, sometimes
with difficulty, is sanctioned by illustrious example and sanctified as
necessity. Of such are various forms of infantile regress. Infantile regress is
the law of the many. Over 2000 years ago Socrates noted the fallibility of the
many.
It should be borne in mind
that there are two distinct varieties of attitudes toward organized religion.
The more popular and almost universal one is that in which the particular
religion is made for one by others (mostly parents relatives or friends), is
passed on by tradition or tuition, is settled‑in by conformity and is
crystallized by use and wont a sort of tailor‑made attitude. The other
attitude arises from personal experience and conviction.
It is the apparently secure,
but actually insecure spiritual and intellectual condition of the former class
which causes the members of that class to deprecate any philosophical,
historical or scientific investigation into the origins of their particular
cult or religion. For this reason, in the case of Christianity, centuries had
to pass after its formal establishment before rational investigation was
permitted by public opinion, and this notwithstanding that orthodox forms of
the cult became more or less settled only after much controversy and
internecine strife. In other words there was more latitude in the matter of
orthodoxy in the very early days of Christianity.
When however Gibbon in the
eighteenth century essayed his investigations, public opinion compelled him to
make his findings behind a veil of subtle satire; while his near contemporary,
Tom Paine, incurred severe obloquy for his unveiled approach to the problem. When
nineteenth century Bishop . Colenso questioned traditional fundamentalism, and,
in a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans also questioned the doctrine of
eternal punishment, contemporary religious circles were horrified. Even forty
or fifty years ago biblical criticism was almost monopolized by freethinkers or
agnostics. In modern times however a change has come over the genre of modern
exegesis; and devout Christians have essayed the task. To question tradition or
the written word is no longer tabu. These "Comments" therefore take
their place in quite reverent and respectable company.
Perhaps one of the most
perplexing psychological problems is man's susceptibility to religion; and
among the most intriguing of
historical problems are the origin, rise and spread of any particular cult.
Obviously the answer that any particular cult has unique or exclusive validity
must be rejected. For the student of compartive religion is at once confronted
with the multiform faces and voices of many prophets and evangelists urging the
unique and mutually exclusive validity of conflicting credos so that any one
not favoured with direct revelation or some other more or less direct form of
assurance is necessarily bewildered by incompatible claims.
Gibton felt constrained to
limit his enquiry to the question as to how "a pure and humble religion
gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and
obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition and finally erected the
triumphant banner of the Cross" first on the ruins of the great Roman
Empire and for centuries thereafter was still professed by great nations
distinguished in art and learning, and, as he slily added, in the arts of war.
He claimed that he had to forbear from enquiring into "the descent from Heaven
of the Religion arrayed in her native purity" and was forced to essay
"the more melancholy duty of the historian to discover the inevitable
mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in her long residence upon
earth among a weak and degenerate race of beings". Modern scholarship
however has none of the inhibitions which restricted the enquiries of the 18th
century historian.
A modern historian describes
the barebones of the matter in simple terms: In the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 33)
a Jewish religious leader named Jesus proclaimed a new gospel, claiming to
fulfil and amend the existing Jewish Law and claiming also that the Jewish
Jehovah was the father of all mankind, and not of the Jews alone and that all
men were accordingly brothers. He held out a more distinct promise of future
life than had been adumbrated in orthodox Jewish tradition. Then or thereafter
Jesus was acclaimed as a worker of miracles; and tradition says that he was
tumultuously welcomed in Jerusalem, some say, as a descendant of King David,
some, as the promised Messiah.
The Jewish High Priest
Caiaphas and his associates felt that both Jewish orthodoxy and subservience to
imperial Rome were threatened. In defence of both, Jesus was denounced to the
Roman Procurator. He was sentenced to crucifixion, the usual form of execution
accorded to humble aliens disturbing the peace.
The external historical
records indicate little contemporary attention to the incident or to the
eclectic teachings of Jesus. Indeed there are records of similar teachings
having been ‑for some time past inculcated by the Rabbinical school of
Hillel, and practised by the Essenes.
Some of the followers of
Jesus believed in his resurrection; and constituted themselves into a new
Jewish Christianized sect entirely separated from the Synagogue.
The Jews had themselves for
an appreciable period previously been very active in the Roman empire in
proselytizing zeal, sometimes indulgently permitted, sometimes suppressed by
the Roman authorities. Now they were to be jostled by the new sect, comprising
both Christianized Jews and non Jewish (or Gentile) Christians, who were to
carry the new cult through Asia Minor and Greece to Rome, while Peter (an
original devotee) and Paul (a new convert) along with other zealous converts
laid the foundations of a universal church by missionary visits and epistles.
Traditions of the life of
Jesus, which had grown up, passed from hand to hand in manuscript form; and
were eventually compiled by Mark and later edited in the form in which they
appear in the New Testament. The epistles also were cast into literary form,
and the three other synoptic gospels of Matthew and Luke and still later of
John appeared, as also the Apocalypse and other Apocryphal books, sometimes
accepted, sometimes rejected for the scriptural record. The synoptic gospels
are of unique importance for Christians. They recount for believers practically
all that is known of the earthly life of Jesus and contain the most orthodoxy
authoritative record of his teaching.
Modern scholarship discloses
that the gospel of Mark was used by Matthew and Luke; and that there was a
further body of traditions besides those collected by Mark (known to scholars
as "Q" or "second source"), no trace of which however any
longer remains available. Mark appears therefore to be the sole extant more or
less original authority for most of the incidents in the ministry of Jesus.
Mark was however not an original scribe. His gospel has been likened to a pool
into which many rivulets have flowed ‑ not a historical biography, but a
collection of anecdotes strung together from many sources. It is surmised by
Bishop Barnes that that is perhaps how Jesus comes to appear in the record as a
wonderworker, and also as an exorcist, one who drove out evil spirits. Bishop
Barnes emphasises that Christianity was primarily a movement among the lower
middle and artisan class, the early converts being ill‑educated and
superstitious people; and that in any case the world was then generally a
superstitious world. He .makes it clear that in repudiating the miracles, one
does not necessarily impugn the honesty, but merely the critical acumen of the
gospel writers.
Christianity arose as a
schism or heresy within the Jewish cult; but the history of the early Christian
movement reveals various schisms and heresies within the new cult itself.
At the beginning of his
gospel, Mark links his report of events with Old Testament prophecies. Both
Matthew and Luke did the same. They were all Jews, steeped in Jewish traditions
which held out Messianic promises. The new cult accepted Jesus as the promised
Jewish Messiah.
It is not surprising however
that it should have occurred to a gentile Christian that the God of the New
Testament presented marked differences of character to the Judaic Jehovah. This
gave rise in the second century to the Marcionite heresy. About 140 A.D.
Marcion reached Rome and endeavoured to obtain acceptance of his doctrine,
which sought to jettison the Old Testament (with its law of retaliation) and
the just and jealous God of the Jews as being incompatible with the Christian
doctrine of love and humility.
The golden age of the
Marcionite heresy was between 150 and 250 A.D., during which period the
Marcionite communities ranked second only to Catholicism in the Christian cult.
During the fourth century Marcionism fell prey to Manichaeism; and by the
seventh century Marcionism had completely disappeared.
Marcionism should not be
confused with Gnosticism, which, originating among the Jews before
Christianity, also gave rise to schisms and heresies within Christianity, and
left its traces on Marcionism also.
Another schism or heresy was
that of Montanus. He claimed to be inspired by the Paraclete promised in the
gospel. Montanism emphasised the social character of Christianity, forbade
marriage and childbearing .by reason of the imminent end of the world, (which
was then believed in by Christians) ; and enjoined the renunciation of earthly
joys. Montanism went the way of other heresies; but like them left its mark on
the new cult. It had lasted for some centuries; and was at last suppressed only
by violence by Christian ,Roman emperors.
Contrary to popular belief,
the Catholic Christian Church was not a very numerous body when it first became
socially and politically distinguishable in the second century. The first
Churches in the cities of Asia Minor, like the groups addressed by Paul, were
small conventicles meeting in private houses. It was not until the fourth
century, sixty years after the Emperor Constantine had embraced Christianity
that the oldest and most important Church of Antioch numbered as many as one
hundred thousand in a city population of half a million.
An average Christian of the
second century would be an unlettered person of the lower‑middle or
poorer class, opposed to idols, the theatre, the circus and the public bath,
credulous as to . demons and miracles, uncritical as to the sacred books, very
emotional with regard to the "mysteries" connected with his cult,
addicted to ritual, but sober and chaste and strongly imbued with the spirit of
martyrdom. The community of Christian worshippers were united in hostility to
pagan beliefs and in the hope of personal "salvation" and belief in
individual immortality.
The clergy were of
indifferent culture but often of great strength of character. The Bishop was at
first the treasurer. It was only gradually that the growth of the priesthood
supervened in full measure. Liturgy was for a long time a matter of local
choice; but a eucharist, with varying ritual and hymns, sung by special
officials, was a primary function of every church. By the end of the second
century, as numbers and revenue increased, side by side with the ambition and
administrative ability of the Bishops appeared their vice and arrogance which
gave rise to loud complaints. Nevertheless the Bishops by their force of
character and administrative ability, promoted the growth and consolidation of
the cult.
By the third century,
doctrinal discussion inherited from Judaism had developed ritual and ceremonial
rivalling those of the pagan cults. Incense, formerly abhorred as a form of
idolatry, came into general use, along with images and gold and silver medals.
Baptism and the eucharist had become "mysteries"; and formal exorcism
preceded initiation. The eucharist was retarded as necessary to salvation and
resurrection.
The Nucleus of the creed was
given in the fourth gospel. The suggestion that the author, John, was an eye‑witness
of events in the life of Jesus is not accepted by modern scholarship, and the
last chapter is by general agreement regarded as a later editorial addition.
Editorial insertions and additions were common in the days when the gospels
were circulated in manuscript. While earlier fragments have been found, none of
the existing manuscripts of the New Testament go back earlier than the fourth
century.
Contrary to the fourth
gospel, Justin Martyr (a contemporary of the second century) regarded the Logos
not as a personal form of deity, but as the inspiration given by God to men in
different degrees at different times. Out of this difference, or perhaps to
meet pagan attacks on the cult on the ground of polytheism, arose some of the
later heresies. . Praxeas, for example, taught that the Son and the Holy Spirit
were simply functions of (not entities distinct from) the one God. At once
orthodox Christians labelled him "Patripassian" (one who made God,
the Father, suffer bodily on the cross). In the hands of Sabellius, the
teaching became an influential heresy. The Logos has been regarded sometimes as
an esoteric doctrine, sometimes as a beacon light for the believing Christian.
Heresies over the Logos culminated with Paul of Samosata who taught that the
Logos was merely the wisdom of God, which descended into but was not united with
Jesus. His teaching was condemned by the Council of Antioch in 264 and he
promised reformation but on his failure to keep his promise he was deposed and
excommunicated by another Council which met in 269 or 270. He however refused
to recant, and obtained the protection of Zenobia, who then reigned in Antioch;
but when Antioch was retaken by Marcus Aurelius in 272, Paul was finally
ousted.
The development of these
Councils in the third century seems to prove both the growth and the necessity
for the control of doctrine. Indeed but for the Councils organized Christianity
might well have broken up into a host of undisciplined churches. Nevertheless
the battle continued between the orthodox and the heresies and between
Christianity and Paganism, the polemical writers doing little more than
encouraging and supporting those already convinced and inflaming the
contestants. Polemics suffered surcease when the State adopted Christianity and
reinforced the power of the Council.
"Whose secret presence through
creation's veins, running quicksilver‑like eludes our pains; taking all
shapes from Mah to Mahi; and they change and perish all; but he remains".
This adaptation from Omar Khayyam's Rubalyat indicates in some measure how the
theory of reincarnation runs in various forms through the literature (if the
ages, from Buddhist, or Brahman, Yogi, Pythagoras, Plato, the Bible, Hume,
Schopenhauer, Huxley, and among various poets from Milton and Tennyson through
Masefield to the modern psychoanalyst.
Whatever truth or fiction
may lie in the theory or doctrine of reincarnation (that the soul, after
leaving the body on death, sooner or later is "born again'' in another or
other human form or forms), this theory has nothing to do with the vulgar
theory of transmigration (that the soul, once in man, may reappear on earth in
the form of an animal or insect). Shakespeare popularised this in Twelfth
Night: "What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl? That the
soul of our granddam may haply inhabit a bird". Shakespeare's version is
in all probability an apocryphal vulgarisation of the teaching of Pythagoras.
On the other hand, the
repudiation of transmigration in the sense above indicated does not of itself
invalidate the findings of Indian philosophy that the soul as an entity emerged
or released itself from the animal kingdom and passed into the earliest human
forms and thence into higher and higher human forms. Nevertheless the
individual survival (after death) of the human soul, while widely and deeply believed
in, has never been proved.
Theosophist literature has
familiarised the Western world with the principles of Indian philosophy
relating to involution and evolution which are held by the great schools of
Indian (Hindoo) thought, whether Buddhist or Brahman. In the 1880s certain
Westerners received instruction from Eastern Adepts and gave to the Western
world a good deal of hitherto arcane knowledge or information. The
"Esoteric Buddhism" of A. P. Sinnett, first published in 1883, had
run into six editions by 1888. Madame Blavatsky's "Isis Unveiled" and
"Secret Doctrine" and Ramacharaka's "Hatha Yoga",
"Raja Yoga", "Gnani Yoga" and "Bhakti Yoga" and
many brochures of the Theosophical Society further enlightened us as to the
tenets of Indian philosophy; while the works of Sir John Woodroffe (Avalon) and
Evens‑Wentz familiarised us with the Indian scriptures and adeptship.
One feature of these
disclosures is the remarkable extent to which Indian philosophy (relying
apparently on clairvoyant methods) claims to have anticipated modern
discoveries in physics and psychoanalysis.
There seems little doubt
that, immersed in the day to day aspects of the phenomenal world, the soul (or
less material, or other Lhan material element of man) is "cabin'd,
cribb'd, confin'd, bound in to saucy doubts and fears"; and that
throughout the ages, men have sought or stumbled upon ways and means of
bringing about the necessary detachment, to enable them to make closer contact
with reality. Many participants have testified to the spiritual and/or
intellectual expansion which is experienced. To some it has come by deep‑breathing
exercises, to some under the stress of some great emotion, to some from
meditation or spiritual contemplation, to some from drugs or drink or hashish
or anaesthetics, to some in waking or sleeping dreams, to some under the hands
of the hypnotist, or psychoanalyst, or psychiatrist. Some mystics have told us
of their methods. Many have left us entirely in doubt. But mysticism and
ecstasy are both well authenticated states, even though the addict or adept may
still be in the sphere of illusion. (It is interesting to note that
etymologically the mystic (Gk: muesis) closes his eyes in order spiritually to
see; while in ecstasy (Gk: Ek‑Stasis), one gets out of the body in order
to apprehend).
The oldest extant records on
the subject of the disembodied soul appear to be those of Indian philosophy.
The theory or doctrine is that there is a chain of worlds of different stages
of progress, round which the soul‑monads revolve awaiting reincarnation
and that the total aggregate of embodied and disembodied souls is a fixed
quantity, varying only in the relative quantity of embodied and disembodied at
any particular time. So that, for example, a large number of deaths would at
once release a large number of disembodied monads for re‑incarnation and
increase the birth‑rate of the earth and vice versa.
This doctrine of soul‑monads
and re‑birth is to be found also in later lore, in Swedenborg, in Plato,
and in many of the poets; and is claimed to be apprehended under conditions of
mental detachment from manifestations on the phenomenal level. The Adepts or
Yogis had their special technique for inducing detachment. The modern
techniques of hypnosis, psychoanalysis and drugs have all yielded remarkable
results; but there is still wide scope for varying analyses of the results
obtained; and there is also ample scope for charlatanism and fraud.
In any particular case the
questions remain: Assuming genuineness, are the incidents recorded due to
reincarnation, to cell memory, to telepathy, to auto or hetero‑suggestions,
or to cther factors of which we are unaware. Individual immortality may seem
assured or probable or improbable or may be regarded as still unproved. There
appears to be no reason for getting worked‑up about the matter
Our Chief Minister in time
of drought exhorts the Churches to pray for rain. One voter is shocked at this
exhibition of superstition; while another is profoundly shocked at the latter's
spiritual ignorance. On the whole the Jamaican voter will "like" the
Chief Minister's exhortation.
Prime Minister Baldwin, it
is said, once had to consider a similar political problem. On the margin of the
manuscript of his speech on the King's abdication he noted in bold script
"Refer to A.G." This was not, as his Secretary thought, a reference
to the Attorney General, but, as Baldwin explained to him, a reminder to
himself to "refer to Almighty God, for the English people like this."
The old Persian poet had
much to say on things teleological. Did he believe in the efficacy of prayer?
Surely not: "And this inverted bowl you call the sky where-under crawling,
cooped we live and die, lift not your hands to it for aid; for it as impotently
moves as you or I. " Did he however not also write: "As then the
tulip for his morning sup of heavenly vintage from the soil looks up, do you
devoutly do the like till heaven to earth invert you like an empty cup."
But this signified merely joyful chortling not precatory intercession.
"Heavenly
Discourse" (that priceless satire) exhibits the awkward contretemps of
conflicting prayers: In the first World War the Germans and French prayed
separately for victory; while the angel Gabriel carelessly dropped the rose
from the spout of the watering can, and gave Nevada a destructive flood, when
all it asked for was relief from drought.
Nevertheless worthy, devout
and altruistic people have supported great works of social service by faith in
prayer: notably the late Mrs. Wortley of the Wortley Home, and now Auntie Bee
of the Golden Spring Faith Home, which we cordially recommend to our readers as
an act of faith and mercy. It is immaterial whether these people draw the right
conclusion as to the efficacy of prayer, or mistake sequence for consequence or
co‑incidence for THE incident.
A very remarkable feature of
Jamaican history is the well‑marked alternations in the appearance,
disappearance and reappearance of local loyalties during the successive periods
(a) from the 1860s to the 1830s, (b) from the 1830s to the 1930s and (c) from
the 1930s.
During the first period the
English settlers evinced intense local loyalty which stemmed (as it often does)
from the quite objective desideratum of self‑interest self‑government,
so that they might protect their planting interests. During this period also
the Negro slaves gave strong and persistent evidence of their desire for
freedom. Future studies will fire concerned with the later periods above
referred to. The present study takes into account the first period.
Colonel D'Oyley, who, by
sheer survival capacity, remained intermittently in command until superseded by
Lord Windsor in 1662, governed by military law until after the accession of
Charles II in 1660. The Buccaneers made Jamaica their principal resort.
Treasure poured in, and the military inhabitants amassed great wealth. It was
not until 1671 (under Sir Thomas Lynch) that an end was put to the privateering
system.)
When the first news of the
Restoration reached the island, the inhabitants expected that it would be
surrendered to Spain; but in May 1681 D'Oyley's Commission arrived, bidding him
proceed to the election of a Council for the government of the island. The army
however was kept on foot owing to the forays of the Spaniards; and a settled
form of government at first proved defective.
In July 1662 Lord Windsor
arrived accompanied by Sir Charles Lyttleton as his lieutenant‑governor
and chancellor and bringing with him the famous Royal Proclamation signifying
that thirty acres of land should be allotted to every resident of twelve years
and upwards and that "all children of any of our natural born subjects of
England to be born in Jamaica shall from their respective births be reputed to
be and shall be free denizens of England and shall have the frame privileges to
‑all intents and purposes as our free born subjects of England."
Enormous patent grants or seizures however defeated the thirty acre allotment.
By his instructions Windsor
was empowered to appoint his Council and to call elected assemblies according
to the custom of the King's other plantations (notably Barbados), to make laws,
which were to be in force for two years (and no more unless confirmed by the
King) and upon emergent occasion to levy money &c. (it is important to note
the twoyear limitation on local legislative powers; seeing that the Crown was
soon to bring pressure on the local legislature by withholding its assent.
Lord Windsor remained only a
few months. In December 1663, after his departure, Lyttleton, by the advice of
the Council, called the first elected Assembly, which enacted laws and provided
for levying and disposing of revenue. Lyttleton left shortly after, and Sir
Thomas Modyford was recalled from Barbados and .became Governor in November
1664, and so continued until 1670, when he was succeeded by Sir Thomas Lynch,
during whose regime piracy gave way to settled agriculture and industry.
The muster roll of the
militia transmitted to the Board of Trade showed two thousand seven hundred and
twenty men, a floating population of seamen of two thousand five hundred and
total white inhabitants of fifteen thousand one hundred and ninety eight. Fifty
seven sugar works were established producing annually about one million seven
hundred and ten thousand pounds of sugar, forty seven; cocoa walks, forty nine
indigo works, three salt ponds and an annual pimento crop of fifty thousand
pounds weight; while the Receiver General reported unlimited supplies of
economic woods and large stocks of cattle.
Land valuation for taxation
purposes was established: At Port Royal half penny per square foot, savannah
and cleared land one penny per acre, with the usual licenses and taxes on the
selling and importation of wines. Population of the whites had now doubled and
the census showed a Negro labour force of over nine thousand.
In March 1675 the former
Buccaneer, now Sir Henry Morgan, arrived as lieutenant‑governor, and
shortly after Lord Vaughan arrived as Governor.
The Assembly which was
called elected Samuel Long as Speaker. This remarkable young man looms large in
early Jamaican history for his clear cut appreciation of the merits and justice
of self‑government. He demanded nothing more, he was to state, than the
rights of an Englishman and would be satisfied with no less. Freedom, he
asserted, did not stop with the shores of Britain.
The condition of the island
on the arrival of Lord Vaughan is described by an annalist of the 1820s
"Jamaica, left to her own
resources, governed by her own men, and ruled by her own ordinances, displayed
a spirit of popular freedom and commercial industry which announced her rising
fortunes". (Like the account of the democracy of ancient Greece, the
historian's account excluded from its purview the slave population).
The prospects were indeed
promising. The amount of export sugar had increased fourfold within a few
years.
Two years had by 1677
elapsed since the laws had been passed and sent to England for confirmation;
and still they had not been returned. It was therefore necessary to re‑enact
them. Lord Vaughan was of an urbane disposition, and was well liked; but cause
of dissension arose when he rejected the revenue act. It appeared that upon
examination of the laws by the Lords of the committee for trade, they advised
the King to reject some and remodel others and return them to Jamaica to be
passed by the Assembly as in Ireland according to Poyning's Laws, which rule
was to apply in future. This would have reduced the Assembly to the status of a
mere rubber‑stamp, which the settlers respectfully :but firmly refused to
tolerate. It was surmised that the refusal of Jamaica to pay to the Crown the
4.5% duty on exports which Barbados paid was the cause of the trouble.
Dissensions naturally arose
between the Assembly and the Governor. One of the members was committed to
prison for an alleged insult to the Governor; and, after a session of two
months the Assembly was hastily dissolved, the House insisting on their
privileges as enjoyed by the House of Commons. On the, day of the dissolution
it was made know that the Earl of
Carlisle would shortly be superseding Lord Vaughan.
The Earl of Carlisle arrived
in July 1678 with his body of laws, which the Assembly rejected. In his speech
the Governor said: "He would not say that the body of laws which he had
now brought were altogether the same which were sent home the last time . . .
Thaw who were present when his commission was published might observe some
alteration in the model of the laws, the style and title being changed to the
King and Assembly; which was a greater honour than any plantation ever yet
shared. That the laws to be made were for the future to be framed after those
of Ireland. That Jamaica was under great obligation to His Majesty, who
expected a suitable return; and that he should next day send over an act of
revenue, which it was necessary should be quickly despatched, that arrears due
might be paid". He added that the King was displeased at the passing of some
acts in former Assemblies without using his name.
Thus began the struggle on a
matter of important principle which was to earn for the Jamaica Assembly the
reputation of being frivolously factious, a slur which was sedulously nurtured
by succeeding Governors; and which, when local loyalties later became
extinguished or suspended, passed into a proverb, and was accepted as true by
all and sundry, and eventually facilitated the liquidation of the local
legislature in 1865.
The struggle for liberty in
which the early settlers was engaged was important to them. They were asked to
rubber‑stamp laws without examination or objection. They were told that
no Assembly was to be called except on special order from England or upon
extraordinary emergency. All laws were to be framed by the Governor and his
Privy Council and, when approved in England, were to .be rubber‑stamped
by the Assembly "according to the usage in Ireland." The Assembly
declared that "the mode proposed was repugnant to the constitution of
England, of which country they were the natural subjects; and that they were
not desirous of living under any other than the laws of England:" The
Governor was forced to permit the Assembly to pass a revenue act of one year's,
duration, and then dissolved the Assembly, the Assembly having separately and
clearly rejected each law which the Governor had put before it, respectfully
requesting him to intercede with his Majesty on their behalf.
Armed with a further mandate
from England, the Governor summoned another Assembly under the same Speaker,
Beeston. The drama was re‑staged. By 1679, the Earl of Carlisle
threatened that if the members proved obdurate, lie would send them as rebels
to England. The members were courteous but adamant. ‑Samuel Long, the
Chief Justice, and member of the Assembly and its recognised leader, was
suspended from his seat in the Privy Council and dismissed from the Bench.
Carlisle dissolved; the Assembly and proceeded to England with Beeston and Long
as virtual prisoners.
No sooner had they reached
England than Long impeached Carlisle on several counts. 1t should be borne in
mind that Long, Carlisle and the lords of plantations belonged more; or less to
the same social circle in England and understood one anothers' sentiments.
Indeed Carlisle, himself one of the lords of plantations, had warned his
colleagues that they were in for rough sledding with the Jamaican settlers on
such touchy constitutional points. In the result, the matter was referred to
the Judges in England on 23rd June 1680 in the following terms: "Whether
.by his Majesty's letter, proclamation or commission annexed, his majesty had
excluded himself from the power of establishing laws in Jamaica; it being a
conquered country, and all laws settled by authority there being now expired."
:There is no record of the judges' decision; but it is of record that the King
himself was present and heard colonels Long and Beeston put their case along
with the planters and merchants then residing in London, and with the advice of
his Privy Council decided in their favour. Accordingly a new commission of the
Earl of Carlisle dated 3rd November restored to the island its former
government enlarged, and granted that the quit rents arising to his Majesty
should be appropriated and applied to the public in order to help the island's
economy.
During Carlisle's absence
Sir Henry Morgan acted as lieutenant governor. His speech to the House of
Assembly in presenting laws for acceptance, which is to be found in the
Journals of the House of Assembly at the Jamaica Institute and the library of
the U C W I is priceless rhetoric which
by way of diversion will repay perusal.
In 1681 Lynch resumed
governorship; and of the laws passed in 1682, twenty eight were confirmed by
the King for seven years; and those with some others that completed the first
volume of Jamaican laws still in print at the time Edward Long wrote in 1774
were later approved and confirmed for twenty one years, and were then still in
force.
Its intolerance of other
religions drew on Christianity in the Roman world reciprocal antipathy. While
this was foreign to the native religious tolerance of pagan governments, it
harmonised with the traditional hostility to a new cult of the 'established
priesthood of ancient religions. For example, this was strongly in evidence
among the Jews themselves as appears in the Old Testament; the Dionysiak cult
was violently resisted by the established pagan cult in Greece; while a
religious panic led: to the suppression of the cults of Isis and Serapis in
Rome. As far as official reaction in Rome was concerned however, the Christians
would have fared‑better had they been more tolerant. To official Rome one
God more or less in the pantheon was of little importance; but to the Christians
pagan Gods were active evil demons. Furthermore the Christians shared. With the
Jews hatred of Rome, amounting almost to sedition as expressed in the truly
terrible indictment contained in the Apocalypse.
In the time of Tertullian
(perhaps about 160 to 240 A.D.) Christians were designated "enemies of the
Gods, of the emperor, of the laws, of morals ands of all nature"; and
"atheists". Nevertheless the famous letter of Pliny to the emperor
Trajan (about 100 A.D.) evinces the official inclination to shelter Christians
from. prevailing anti‑Christian fanatacism, sustained prejudice, cruelty
and oppression. On the whole however persecutions were political, especially
when `emperor worship .became spread through the empire.
It is also. true that fanatic
Christians brought martyrdom on themselves in intolerant outrages on pagan
temples and sacred statues. The story is told of the pro‑consul in Asia
who asked a horde of fanatics seeking martyrdom whether they couldn't find
ropes and precipices for their uses.
The famous early Christian
father Origen, is an outstanding example of the spirit of martyrdom among the
early Christians. In the persecution begun by the emperor Severus in A.D. 202,
Origen was anxious to share with his father, Leonides, the glory of martyrdom;
and was only prevented by the watchfulness of his Mother. His asceticism was
notorious; and his tendency to interpret literally the precepts of Christ
(Matthew 19, 12) led him to his strange act of self‑mutilation.
By the beginning of the fourth
century, the Christian body had become so highly organized that they attracted
on the one hand the hostile zeal of the neo‑Platonists, who claimed that
the Christians blasphemed other men's Gods, and on the other hand aroused fears
in the emperor Diocletian that they were a dangerous organized element in the
body politic, especially in their resistance of emperor worship.
The internecine strife which
raged among the Christians also played into the hands of their enemies. As
Eusebius, the Christian commentator, reports the Christian sects were on the
verge of actual warfare, bishop against bishop and party against party seeking
power, illustrating the doctrine that "power corrupts". They even
accused opponents within the cult of malpractices, giving a handle to similar
charges from external sources.
Between 303 and 311 A.D. the
Christians were subjected to more persistent persecution than ever before. This
was the more remarkable in that Dio had married a Christian, and was himself of
a tolerant disposition. He may have been overborne by Galeius, the most
masterful of his lieu tenants; and a mysterious conflagration in, the palace
enabled officialdom to pin on the Christians the tag of incendiarism, similar
to that which Nero had attempted, and which Hitler and Goering were to use six
hundred years later in respect of the Communists. Christians were made liable
to penalties for arson on a mere refusal to abjure their faith; but the
Governors were very remiss in carrying out orders, while many pagan friends
sheltered the more austere Christians and many escaped penalties by abjuring
their faith. Diocletian himself faltered in his policy; and in 311 Galerius
also confessed the failure of his policy by cancelling the decrees against the
Christians. It is possible that Diocletian's statesmanlike outlook, had he
lived, might have brought him to see (as the less perceptive Galerius did) the
useful role that the highly organized body of Christians might play in helping
to sustain the empire. In 312 the conversion of Constantine, or his formal
acceptance of Christianity opened up a new era of power for the Church. (In
this connection the book reviewed in this issue way seem pertinent).
Constantine, now master of
the West, won over Licinius, his sole surviving colleague in the East, to a
tolerant policy. By the edict of Milan (313) the Christians were accorded
complete freedom of worship and exemption from all pagan ceremonies. This was
reaffirmed, after Constantine had captured and strangled Licinius and become
sole master of the empire.
(Rinehart ‑ 1957)
While the talented Gordon
Lewis, professor of political science at the University of Puerto Rico was
furbishing his pen ,for the Federation campaign for the widening of national
boundaries in the West Indies, his distinguished colleague, Leopold Kohr,
professor of economics and public administration was preparing for publication
his attack on the evils of megalopolitics. His book is indeed full of striking
analogies, shrewd truths, and wise saws. Human nature is cut down to size; but
it is difficult to refute the main thesis of the book in its judgment as to
what happens under the corrupting influence of power.
The author has tried
"to develop a single theory through which not only some but all phenomena
of the social universe can be reduced to a common, denominator." "The
result", he claims, "is a new and unified political philosophy
centering in the theory of size. It suggests that there seems only one cause
behind all forms of social misery ‑ bigness."
The philosophy is claimed to
be new only in the sense that it is the basis of an integrated philosophical
system; because, as a social theory applying to special fields, it has, as the
author points out, been often before proposed, but never given its central
position or integrated form.
Other imaginary causes of
social misery are passed in review and discounted ‑ notably the
"wrath of the Gods" of the ancients, the "witch theory" of
the Middle Ages, the "cosmic theory" of the astrologers and
soothsayers, the "economic theory" of the socialists, the
"psychological theory" of the psychiatrists, the "personal,
ideological, cultural or national theory" which imputes special evil to special
men, ideologies or nations.
The author claims that the
common denominator of national excesses and atrocities is "the simple
ability, the power" to commit the atrocities and get away with it; and
thus he arrives at his "power theory of social misery." "Everyone
having the power will in the end commit the atrocities", given the
opportunity and the temptation and the apparent prospect of personal advantage.
"Once the critical
power is reached, abuse will result spontaneously . . . The vital element is
not so much power but the size of power . . . which . . . depends in turn on
the size of the social group . . . What is the critical magnitude leading to
abuse? . . . It is the volume of power that assures immunity from
retaliation."
Furthermore, "the
frequency of crime, growing with the size of the group, seems to be responsible
alto for the development of a corresponding frame of mind, a condoning
philosophy", which in turn intensifies the frequency of crime. "As
society, and with it power, grows, so grows its corrupting effect on the mind,"
which develops "an adjustable cushion of moral numbness" until
"such general numbness and sophistication may set in that murderers lose
all sense of criminality and onlookers all sense of crime." Not
"perverted leadership or corrupted philosophy but the purely physical
element of size", bringing with it the critical quantity of power, causes
the stultifying effect on perpetrator and onlooker. The critical quantity of
power in turn depends on the size of the social mass. In evaluating the
critical size, regard must be had not only to the density of population but to
its velocity or volatility. All these factors go to make up the size theory of
social misery.
Is there a cure?
Fundamentally the cure lies in the decrease in social size, the establishment
of "social units of ,such small size that accumulations and condensations
of collective power to the danger point can simply not occur." To the
corrupting size of the social units, the author traces war through opportunity
and temptation.
The author proceeds to draw
a new political map of Europe which bears striking similarity to its
"natural original (political) landscape."
Alan Wood's biography of
Bertrand Russell, the great exponent of mathematics logic and philosophy, alto
turns one's mind to Bertrand Russell's flouting of marriage conventions.
Coincidentally it was his brother Frank (the ‑former Earl) who gave his
name to a leading case on technical bigamy.
The preference in Jamaica
for the common law marriage is said to stem from experience. The Jamaican
peasant claims that, with the married status, his mate puts on airs and assumes
possessive rights. In the 1850’s Richard Hill ("Lights & Shadows . . .
" W.I. Reference Library) compared Jamaican extramarital relations not
unfavourably historically with the custom in Scotland.
The reproach of barrenness
lay heavily on the social conscience alike of ancient Jewish matron and
Jamaican peasant maiden. With the latter, economic considerations also
accounted for the child; while the limitation to one child was to a limited
extent a claim to virtue.
Throughout the world the
marriage convention gained social approval and was consolidated by
ecclesiastical influence and legal safeguards. In Jamaica the substitution of
marriage for faithful concubinagge was promoted by Mrs. Victoria Munn in the
Port Royal Mountains in the 1870’s and by Mrs. Morris Knibb in the Liguanea
Plains in the 1940’s.
Prostitution, or commercial
eroticism, wag little known among primitive peoples with a communal economy.
Soviet Russia abolished prostitution by giving women gainful employment. In
Japan it is an honourable estate.
Some of our most illustrious
Jamaicans stem from a deliberate ancestral flouting of the marriage convention.
So it was with William the Conqueror: "His father, Duke Robert, had seen
Arlotta, the daughter of a tanner of the town, washing her linen in the little
brook by Falaise, and, loving her, had made her the mother of his boy."
While Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" is no
longer all fantasy, it is still too soon to judge how artificial insemination
will affect the marriage convention and conventional ideas on chastity.
The Earl of Carlisle's
successor, Sir Thomas Lynch, (1680) announced that "His Majesty, upon the
Assembly's humble address, was pleased to restore us to our beloved form of
making laws; wherein we enjoy beyond dispute all the deliberative powers in our
Assembly that the House of Commons enjoy in their houses." The King at the
same time relinquished his claim to the quit rents, then estimated to be worth
£1,460 per annum.
It is interesting to note
that one of the important laws now passed was the one enacting that
"freeholders of known residence are not subject to arrest and being held
to bail in civil process." The then novel procedure was the: issue of a
summons. (Later, as is well known, the privilege was extended to
mis-demeanours; but it is a privilege ,still more honoured in the breach than
in the observance by the police in Jamaica, causing much unnecessary indignity
to an accused and mach extra trouble to the police and to the courts.)
Trade began to flourish
anew; but the scarcity of labour resulted in the kidnapping and transportation
of a large number of English labourers.
In spite of the restoration
of the Constitution, Royal approval was still withheld ‑from many of the
laws, notably the important act stating that the laws of England were in force
in Jamaica. Indeed this Act was expressly disallowed. For half a century the
sovereign was advised to withhold assent to the laws as a form of pressure for
the upkeep of the local forts out of local revenues. It was not until 1728 that
a compromise was effected.
Lawyers in Jamaica were not
in good odour with constituted authority, as was shewn by an official letter to
the Earl of Carlisle which was for a long time preserved in the island Council
Chamber. The letter referred to the law which Modyford had introduced declaring
the law of England to be in force in Jamaica: "Thus my lord did to
encourage vexatious and troublesome proceedings, that the whole wealth of the
island came into the hands of attorneys and solicitors; and became so grievous
that the Assembly in Sir Thomas Lynch's time made a law that every man plead
his own cause. This did rather hurt than good; for the lawyers being suppressed
and the laws continuing as voluminous as ever, the cunningest knave carried all
before him; and indeed none .but such as intended to cozen everybody durst or
did become administrators to the dead or guardians to children; so that
perceiving the wolves increase, they were forced to let go the tamer devours
the lawyers.”
It was during the brief
Governorship of the Earl of Inchiquin (1690‑,1692) that an early and
serious slave rebellion occurred. The runaway negroes came down from the hills
in marauding expeditions and were joined by the slaves at the Suttons
plantation in Clarendon. As the records of the day naively relate, the
insurgents had no reasonable cause of complaint ‑ except of course their
kidnapping in Africa and their servitude in Jamaica.
On June 7, 1692, occurred
the terrible earthquake which overwhelmed Port Royal: "Wharves ponderous
with spoil sank instantaneously and water stood five fathoms deep where a moment
before the crowded streets had displayed the glittering treasures of Mexico and
Peru." A devout local annalist records: "Thus vanished the glory of
the most flourishing emporium in the New World by a succession of tremendous
judgments resembling those visitations of an offended Deity on some cities of
the Old World, where an iniquitous race was overwhelmed in sudden and
unexpected ruin. Large sums of money, arising from the treasures of unknown or
lost proprietors, fell into the hands of many individuals; and, amongst others,
into those of Sir William Beeston, who was charged by the Assembly ten years
afterwards with having apportioned a considerable share to his own use. One
loss was irrecoverable, and is still severely felt, that of all the official papers
and public records of the island, whose history is thereby rendered so obscure
and incomplete."
In the year 1694 the claim
of the Upper House to seriously interfere with the course of legislation came
into the open. Edward Long in his History of Jamaica (1774) traces the course
whereby the Governor's Council arrogated to it,‑elf rights and privileges
in legislative matters similar to those acquired by the House of Lords in
England. Now a message was sent from the Assembly to the Council question‑
the Council's right to interfere with money bills. The Council claimed that the
Assembly's message was "an unworthy reflection on their majesties (William
and Marys) Lieutenant‑Governor and his Board"; and the Council
claimed that the right not only to reject 'but also to amend money bills and to
apply public moneys was part of their rights and privileges. This was a serious
constitutional matter which gave rise to prolonged controversy. To avoid the
issue, the Assembly was dissolved.
About this time the fugitive
slaves (now known as Maroons) who had formed several settlements in remote
strongholds attacked under their famous hero leader Cudjoe. During the
succeeding forty seven years the intermittent war continued; and is reflected
in the enactment of forty four laws; and, it is estimated, Government
expenditure of £240,000.
The population of the island
under British rule, commencing with the soldiery of Penn and Venables, had been
considerably reinforced by the importation of slaves captured in Africa and purchased
by British traders and transported by means of ships of the British Slave
Trade, which was to prove very lucrative both to African chiefs and British
merchants. It was not possible to bring about abolition of the trade until the
industrial revolution afforded other lucrative outlet for the investment of
British capita. The British slave trade actually lasted until 1807.
By the turn of the century
(1698) Jews in the island had become a body of considerable wealth; and sought
without avail to obtain express legislative extension of civil liberties, which
appeared to be implicit in the Windsor ;declaration, but was de facto denied to
them. Next came the settlers from the ill starred Darien Colony, who were at
last allowed to join the settlers from Surinam, and settled around Bluefields.
The Surinam settlers had come when Surinam had been ceded to the Dutch in 1673
in exchange for the cession to Britain of the Dutch province of New York.
In 1701 scandal broke over
the head of the Governor Sir William Beeston on his refusal to give account of
the vast treasure believed to have been found after the Port Royal earthquake;
and on his failure to account for the disposal of the King' a bounty of £4,000
given to relieve the sufferers of the French invasion of the island under Du
Casse in 1694.
In January 1703 Port Royal
was again destroyed by fire; and this event gave new impetus to the settlement
and growth of Kingston.
It was under the
governorship of General Handasyde that the Crown renewed the demand for permanent
revenue from Jamaica, offering in return to confirm all the legislation passed
during the past twenty one years. Controversy continued, accentuated by
differences between the two houses on revenue matters, and was not re.‑,olved
by successive dissolutions.
Attempts to forbid the
rebuilding of Port Royal had failed. The law on the subject had been
disallowed. Spanish Town became a flourishing social and political centre.
The nine years up to April
1711 had been turbulent political years, mostly pivoting about revenue matters.
Within nine year.) there had 'been fifteen sessions and eight different
Assemblies. Revenue bills had been passed to last for only three months under
fears of interference from Council or Governor. Now the Crown forbade revenue
bills of less that twelve months duration.
Competent historians credit
the emergence of Christianity as the predominant religion in the Roman empire
to a variety of organisational advantages enjoyed by the cult. Their
organisation surpassed that of all other private religions. By the first
century of their existence they had instituted a well organised body of clergy,
possessing wide powers of discipline over the laity. By the time of Marcus
Aurelius (second century) the clerical hierarchy was complete in all
essentials, with a unique system of
inter‑communication.
In the early days of the
third century a critical step forward was taken in the institution of bishops,
who proceeded to convene synods throughout the Roman provinces, under which
finances were organised and a uniform creed formulated. In the reign of
Constantine provincial synods were supplemented by ecumenical congresses. By
330 the administrative framework of the Church Universal was also complete in
all essentials.
The spread of Christianity
was assisted by its special literature, the four Gospels being accepted as
authoritative. By the time of Constantine the whole body of Christian sacred
literature had been codified into the New Testament, and made accessible in
several Latin versions. (The sensitive jealousy of the hierarchy on the
question of vulgar access to the Scriptures was to come later). The task of
revising and amplifying the Christian Creed, which had been begun in the
Epistles of Paul, was carried on by Church Fathers, mostly Greek, among whom
Clement and Origen (c.200) were pioneers.
From the time of Marcus
Aurelius the Church also kept its own historical records, including the Acts of
the Martyrs. In the days of Constantine the famous Palestinian Bishop,
Eusebius, (264‑340) collected the various traditions into a standard
history of the Church, which was nevertheless subject to some of the
inaccuracies of traditions and the spurious interpellations of the times.
The earliest apologetic Christian
literature was that of Aristides and Melito in the reign of Antoninus (middle
second century). Under Marcus Aurelius, his tutor Cornelius Fronto and the
famous Celsus, by their attacks on the Christian pretensions, drew famous
Christian rejoinders. In the fourth century the polemics of the Pagan
philosophers stimulated intensified Christian propaganda, culminating in St.
Augustine's De Civitate Dei (354‑430) , which was accepted as the classic
justification of the Christian faith. A famous example of Christian polemical
writing is Tertullian's Apologia (c. 160‑230) .
Tertullian was indeed the
stormy petrel of early Christianity. He was a non‑celibate early Father
and Presbyter. In middle life he went over to the Montanists, and wrote several
books in defence of that heresy. His defection is alleged .by some (arid
disputed by others) to have been due to disappointed ambition. The article on
Tertullian in the monumental "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Mythology" by the learned William Smith exhibits not only the great
erudition and uncompromising violence of expression of this famous renegade
Father of the early Church, .but also gives valuable insight into tine milieu
within which the Church had its early struggles.
Historians find it difficult
to assess the relative moral standards of Christians, Jews and Pagans in the
Roman empire of the day; but Christians justifiably quote to their credit one
of their most determined opponents, the emperor Julian (361‑363), who
exhorted Pagans to imitate the practical helpfulness of Christians in tending
the sick and relieving the poor.
By the time of Constantine,
Christians had largely lived down the prejudice against them, which had been
largely due to their exclusiveness and self-righteousness and notable enduring
friendships were being formed between individual Pagans and Christians. After
many vicissitudes the Christian Church emerged under Constantine into an era of
settled freedom and power.
As the Church gained wealthy
adherents and strength, it had tended to shed those aspects of practice which
made it seem anti‑social in the Roman world. As it became more sociable
and powerful, .both the Church and constituted authority seemed to sense the
feasibility and advantages of a reconciliation between the State and this alien
faith.
Constantine, following the
example of his father, Constantius, had given complete tolerance to the
Christians in the West, so also had his protagonist, Maxentius. Maximin, in the
East, had alternately persecuted and tolerated Christianity, according as he
had to press or pacify Galerius. Galerius himself, in withdrawing his edict
against the Christians, gave evidence that he valued their alliance.
By 312 Constantine was
master of the West. With his murder of Licinius, he became in 324 master of the
whole Roman empire. Thereupon Christianity emerged as the favoured cult of the
empire. Constantine nevertheless decreed toleration for all cults, and retained
for himself the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus; and figured on the coins and
medals as a devotee of Apollo, Mars, Herakles, Mithra and Zeus. But he gave the
Christian clergy annual allowances and supported the Church's widows and
virgins. He restored the possessions previously taken from believers; and
decreed that all their priests should be exempt from municipal burdens. His
edicts placed the finances of the Church on a firm basis. So great was the gain
accruing to Christian priests that laws were passed limiting the number of the
clergy, and restraining priests and bishops from further enriching themselves
by lending out money at interest. Christianity, gaining size and power, had
(become lucrative.
In the days of Constantine,
Christianity was a long way from being the universal religion of the Roman
empire; but the Christians had planted their propaganda cells in every Roman
province. Their clergy had become a powerful aristocracy; and they had gained
the adherence of the intellectuals. In the middle of the fourth century their
formidable opponent, the Emperor Julian, conceded the ultimate victory in the
future to Christianity.
Constantine's deference to
his Christian advisers is revealed in his legislation on matters of private
morality, and in the institution of a compulsory Sunday as a day of rest. In
his new capital Constantine prohibited the construction of pagan temples but
his religious policy was substantially one of general toleration. The
persecuting activities of a privileged Christian Church belong to later reigns.
Constantine is said to have
been converted to Christianity in 312. If he was, his murder of his colleague
Licinius and his son Crisphus in 324 drew no known rebuke from the Christian
Fathers. And while he presided at the Council of Nicaea in 325, which settled
the Nicene Creed as orthodox, it was not until 337, with death imminent, that
he declared his intention of becoming a Christian and received baptism.
Was Constantine a Christian when he established Christianity as
the religion of the State; or was Christ for him just one more god in the
pantheon?
Konni Zilliacus, who may
justly be styled "apostle of peace", has written a new book: "A
New Birth of Freedom?. World Communism
since Stalin". Preparatory to a review of this most important book, it is
well that readers of the "Comments" should learn something about this
dedicated man.
He has long been a member of
the British Labour Party, which, with all its faults, he feels is the best bet
for decent politics in Britain and the world.
When, in the early 1940s,
Aneurin Bevan, Michael Foot, R. H. Crossman and others formed a left wing
caucus of the British Labour Party, we find Zilliacus not admitted. On enquiry
I learnt that it was because he was "too uncritical" of Soviet
Russia.
When the Labour Party again
came to power, Zilliacus, who had been commissioned to write the election
manifesto of the Party on Foreign Affairs denounced the Party for having
betrayed the election pledges, as indeed it had. He was expelled from the
Party, and, I think, for a time lost his seat in Parliament. He suffered for
his political honesty.
When Zilliacus in 1952
brought out his "Tito of Yugoslavia", I, for one, did him the
injustice of believing that he had written the book to ingratiate himself with
the Labour Party. (Perhaps I was led astray by more tendentious and less
objective writers like Klugman and Burchett). I was to find that Zilliacus has
never faltered in journalistic integrity.
Zilliacus's father was a
member of the Swedish minority in Finland in the time of Czar Nicholas II, and
was exiled for revolutionary tendencies. That is how his son, Konni, became an
Englishman. His wife, Konni's mother, was an American of Scot descent, a strong
liberal and a supporter of women's suffrage.
From 1917 to 1919 Zilliacus
was an intelligence officer in the British "military mission" in
Siberia, a camouflaged intervention movement, fathered, I learn from other
sources, by Winston Churchill.
For nineteen years Zilliacus
served in the Information section of the League of Nations ,Secretariat at
Geneva, where he had first‑hand experience of the hollowness of power
politics. One of his jobs was to follow Soviet affairs.
"Geneva drove home the
lessons learned from Finland and Siberia, the sense of the Russian national
background and content of the new society in the Soviet Union. I can understand
the point of view of Western Communists and anti‑Communists who regard
Soviet Communism as a promise or threat for their own countries. But to me the
Russian revolution has always seemed too Russian to spread except to countries
that missed the French revolution, and, even then, only in their natural
versions".
From 1925 until now
Zilliacus has been preaching peace by intelligent political understanding and
anticipation. In 1946, 1947 and 1948 he visited the East European countries and
talked with their leading men (He is an expert linguist). In 1947 he visited
the Soviet Union, and had the privilege of long talks with Stalin and Molotov.
His reporting integrity did not suit Communist sensitiveness. He got in wrong with
every camp.
He was expelled from the
British Labour Party; he was refused admission in the U.S.A.; and at the same
time he was violently denounced in the Soviet Union and the "People's
Democracies". (He had maintained that Tito should be supported, because
"he was defending the all‑important principle that the relations
between Socialist states should be based on equality, mutual respect for each
other's national independence and non‑interference in each other's
internal affairs".)
In the early 1930s, Victor
Gollanez (himself, like Zilliacus and Harold Laski, a second generation
immigration Englishman) was rendering immense service to liberal journalism
with his five shillings editions of worthwhile books. In 1935 he published
Zilliacus's "Inquest on Peace ‑an analysis of the National
Government's foreign policy" over the penname of "Vigilantes".
"The authors of `The Dying Peace', as the title of the pamphlet indicated,
were aware in 1933 that the national Government's foreign policy would, unless
it were drastically changed, end in a catastrophe of some sort ‑ probably
a war". That was the beginning of Zilliacus's long journalistic career as
a realist in foreign affairs. There followed his "Road to War",
" Why the League failed" and "Why we are losing the Peace".
His warning went unheeded by the makers of British foreign policy. World War II
followed.
In 1944, Gollancz, who had
some time earlier extended his services in the famous Left Book Club editions,
published Zilliacus's "Mirror of the Past”: "Studying the past is
chiefly of interest as an aid to understanding the present. Today it has become
literally vital to understand what is happening in the present in order to know
what we must do in the near future to prevent a third world war". The book
is a study in "international anarchy, imperialism and power
politics".
In 1949 Zilliacus wrote
specially for and first published in a Penguin edition his famous "I
choose Peace", a strong plea for understanding between Soviet Russia and
the West, and "to cure fatalism about war and apathy about world
affairs".
In 1952 came his "Tito
of Yugoslavia", and now in 1958 his "A new Birth of Freedom? World
Communism since Stalin".
It is significant of the
tolerant understanding of Zilliacus that in spite of the fact that George Frost
Kennan had along with Winston Churchill, President Truman and Forrestal, been
an early architect of America's "Containment Policy", Zilliacus
recognized, as early as 1954 (four years before Kennan's famous B.B.C.
broadcasts) that Kennan was one of. the more advanced liberal thinkers within
the American right wing. I strongly suspect that Zilliacus must have had the
advantage then of personal talks with Kennan, who had no doubt by that time
recognised the futility of the Truman Doctrine.
Members of the legal
profession are shocked and bewildered by the convergent attack on Barrister
Peter Evans by Barrister Peter Evans and his lordship Judge Small.
Lebanon is a small Arab
country, a little smaller than Jamaica, touching on the Mediterranean, Syria
and Israel; and is the only Arab country formally accepting the
"Eisenhower Doctrine".
Certain historical sequences
are germane to the present imbroglio (We write on July 16.)
On October 1, 1946 an official
American release announced: Units of the American fleet have been in the
Mediterranean and will continue to be there to support American forces in
Europe, carry out American policy and diplomacy and for purposes of experience,
morale and education of personnel of the fleet.
The Baghdad Pact, about
which Dulles was very active, had an adverse effect on Egyptian relations with
the West. This was accentuated by America's abrupt withdrawal from the promised
financing of the Aswan Dam project. Egypt and Soviet Russia were brought closer
together. Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Co.
The Anglo‑French
Egyptian adventure followed; but, owing to Eden's anxieties to preserve a
somewhat thin political camouflage, the adventure failed to secure the
requisites of international aggression, naively that to gain the approval of
friendly nations it mast be short, snappy and successful.
Intervention in the affairs
of Lebanon has certainly increased tension between Soviet Russia and the
West in the
affairs of Iraq (still
nearer to Russia than Lebanon) the world may well be on the brink of World War
III.
The Eisenhower Doctrine declares: "The independence and
integrity" of Middle East Nations is
"vital to (U.S.)
national interest and world peace" and empowers the President "to use
armed force to
assist any such nation
requesting assistance against armed aggression by any country controlled by
international
communism".
PREGNANT PERIODS OF JAMAICAN HISTORY
Certain mileposts stand out
in Jamaican history, among them being: (a) the English conquest of the island
which resulted in an English settlement of the island (b) the development of
plantation economy, which by virtue of the British slave trade, brought African
slaves to the island in large numbers (c) the paucity of white women, the
exigency of plantation rules, the breakdown of English marriage conventions in
the distant island and the sexual attractions and domestic qualities of the
Negro slave girls, all of which contributed to the production of a considerable
number of "persons of colour" by way of progeny (d) the peculiar
conditions of large areas of waste land, which stimulated the slaves with the
consent and connivance of their masters, to produce "ground
provisions", gain access to the markets, and thus acquire a money economy
and social contacts (e) the arrival of the missionaries, who gave enlightenment
to the slaves and fostered that native self‑respect among human beings
which abhorred slavery (f) the rise in wealth and culture and power of the free
persons of colour and the removal of their civil disabilities (g) emancipation
from slavery.
Items (e) and (f) combined
to bring about the slave revolt of 1831‑'32. For side by side with the
peaceful struggle of free persons of colour for the removal of their civil
disabilities went the anti‑slavery campaign, which, by reason of the
intransigence of the local plantocracy (manifested after the slave revolt)
hastened the process of emancipation from slavery, which was the last
significant act in the Jamaican drama up to the time of the accession to the
British throne of Queen Victoria.
Today we deal with the
remarkable slave revolt of 1831‑'32.
It is a curious comparative
factor of Jamaican history and patriotism that while most other peoples
remember with pride their periods of oppression, Jamaican leaders discourage
such remembrance. School gardens and the celebration of the first of August are
frowned on as being reminiscent of the condition of slavery; while there is
little knowledge of or pride in the fact that one hundred and fifty years of
slavery were punctuated by thirty slave revolts, or an average of one revolt
every five years.
From the time of the
Registry Bill of 1815, the loud and unguarded expressions of resentment among
the planters against the
abolitionists in Britain and even against the British Parliament, served to
implant in the minds of the slaves a suspicion that emancipation was imminent,
but would be strenuously resisted by their masters. When the revolt at last
came, it was generally believed among the slaves that freedom had been granted
and was being perfidiously withheld by the masters, and it was also generally
believed by the planters that the missionaries had incited the slaves to
revolt.
Indeed there was much in the
innocent texts of the missionaries that the superstitious will to believe might
and did distort into omens and portents. "The star in the east" was
distorted into the star at the corner of the moon. When this latter appeared,
it was to be a sign and a portent. Thereupon all slaves must down tools. If
they did not, they would remain slaves forever, even if the King of England
gave them their freedom. It was a short step from belief in the portent to the
belief that the portent had actually appeared. If Daddy Sharp said that the
missionaries had foretold the portent, who were they to disbelieve Daddy Sharp ‑
and the missionaries?
Samuel Sharp was a slave
belonging to a lady residing at Montego Bay. He was a literate and devout
member of the Baptist Church. He was a man of sterling character, beloved by
his employer and her family, and he exercised great influence among his fellow
slaves. He was convinced, like his fellow slaves, that the "free
paper" had come from England, and was being suppressed.
Daddy Sharp was a convinced
believer in nonviolence. He advised that work should not be resumed after the
Christmas holidays. He counseled and enjoined complete non‑violence.
Others counseled the
destruction by fire of the cane-pieces and works; for, they argued, if the
means of production remained intact, they would be compelled at the point of
the gun to work; but Daddy Sharp stood firm on non‑violence. Either
violent counsels prevailed or some drunken men started the conflagration.
Perhaps, as Henry Bleby recounts, the conflagrations continued because the
slaves were infuriated by the shooting which soon commenced. In any event, wide
spread incendiarism eventuated, and a full scale revolt was soon in progress.
The second in command was
Gardiner, head waggoner on Greenwich Estate. He was actually a commander in the
field. Next to Gardiner was "lieutenant‑colonel" Dove, then
came "captain" McCail of Prospect and "captain" Alexander
Campbell, popularly called "Lord Howe". Among the
"lieutenants" were James Miller Fine, Donald McIntosh, James
McIntosh, John Largia, Thomas Simpson and W ilna McDonald. In the main they
commanded incendiary parties. There is no evidence that the slaves planned
anything more violent than securing their freedom by destroying the means of
production.(The two contemporary authorities on the revolt and its suppression
are Bernard Martin on the side of the planters and Henry Bleby on the side of
the missionaries. Bleby was detailed by government to take statements from the
captured rebels.)
The usual Christmas
holidays, during which time the slaves were released from their daily chores,
were in full swing. Until the evening of Tuesday the 27th December, 1831, there
had been no signs of insurrection, although Martin notes signs of prevailing
truculence in the preceding months. At sunset some sugar estates were seen
ablaze. Bernard Martin was of opinion that the sight of the trashhouse at
Bellfield Estate in flames was the pre-concerted signal. The contagion of
incendiarism spread rapidly to Argyle, Retrieve, Montpelier, Lapland &c,
and through most of the adjacent estates in the parish of St. James. The hills
around Montego Bay are described as presenting "a most beautiful and
picturesque amphitheatre elegantly studded with sugar estates".
Within fifteen minutes
enormous fires were seen, and conch shells were heard accompanied by huzzas,
and cane-fields were set ablaze. On most of the surrounding mountains signal
fires sprang up.
The militia at once
proceeded to the scenes of desolation. Only the old and disabled and the sick
and children among the slave population were to be seen. The rest had fled to
the woods. Not a blacksmith's shop was destroyed. The next evening at sunset
all was ablaze again.
Such is the account of
Bernard Martin.
Henry Bleby places the first
fire not at Belfield but at Kensington. He maintains that the incendiarism was
the work of a few ungovernable spirits, who broke into and plundered a rum
store; and in their intoxicated condition entirely destroyed the planned non‑violent
nature of the revolt. Bleby blames the subsequent violence of the slaves on the
incompetence and cowardice of the militia, while extolling the judgment and
courage of the military. Beaumont, who was in charge of a military task force,
himself vindicated the reputation of the missionaries and scored the
incompetence of the militia.
(To Be Continued)
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
Constantine was bewildered
and angry at the endless strife of the Christian clergy. The divinitas (divine
wrath), he declared, would fall on emperor, clergy and laity alike if the
clergy would not leave one another at peace. He besought them to leave points
of theory alone, or at least to imitate the pagans and dispute without hatred.
The feuds of the clergy were lampooned in the theatres, while Constantine
threatened reprisals against intransigent schismatics.
Nevertheless the Church as
an organized body appeared to be valuable to the State; so Constantine
assimilated it to the body politic and undertook its external administration.
The four leading bishoprics
of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople were equated with the four
praetorian prefectures, and a clerical hierarchy was established parallel with
the gradations of civil administration.
Christianity had assimilated
many of the pagan ceremonials; and Constantine confirmed the assimilation when
he decreed that Sunday should be a day of rest albeit not in later puritanical
sense. The Christians had from an early date expressed a differentiation from
Judaism in substituting Sunday as the Christian sabbath, as the day of Christ's
resurrection. It was mainly the Mithraists (for whom coincidentally the sign of
the cross made on the forehead was the supreme symbol) who had established the
old usage of calling the Sunday (the first day of the week) "the day of
the Lord", Mithra, as the Sun, being the first of the planetary spirits on
whose names the names of the days of the week were based. Critics of the sacred
validity of Christianity have made great play of the assimilation of Christian
ritual, beliefs and practice to well‑established pagan ritual, beliefs
and practices; some partly on this, and partly on weightier, yet still
inconlusive reasoning going so far as to question the historicity of Christ.
The year after he attained
sole power (325 A.D.) Constantine summoned a General Council at his palace of
Nicaea in Bithynia to settle the theological status of Christ and the
establishment of a creed. The question had already been settled against Paul of
Samosata and the Sabellians, who sought to make the Son a mere aspect or
manifestation of the Father. The established current prevailing dogma was now
that God and Jesus were in a way separate Persons; but Arius tried to be more
explicit. He declared that "the Son is totally and essentially distinct
from the Father"; and the old charge of "patripassians" was
revived. But Arius; driven out of the Church as heretic by two Alexandrian
Councils, was merely made more recalcitrant.
In the result, Constantine's
Council of Nicaea by majority vote settled the Creed in the following terms:
"We .believe in one God, the Almighty Father, Creator of all things
visible and invisible And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who alone
was begotten of the Father (that is of the substance of the Father) God of God,
Light of Light (very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one substance with
the Father) through whom all was made that is in" heaven and earth, who
for us men and for our salvation came down and became flesh, became man, suffered
and rose on the third day, is ascended to heaven and will come to judge the
living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit."
The clauses in brackets were
inserted as dogmatic formulas to refute and confound Arius. Hitherto there had
been much freedom about ritual and liturgic formulas. Perhaps in latter days
Church and congregation alike have reverted to pre‑Arian nonpreoccupation
with the bewildering mysteries of the "homoiousios" or the
"homoousios" ("similar" or "the same essence" as
God). In the event the "Trinity" of Athanasius, the great protagonist
of Arius, triumphed.
Arius was banished and the
leading bishops on his side of the dispute deposed. Five years later however
Constantine recalled him from exile; and the reinstated Arlan bishops set about
persecuting their former persecutors, while Athanasius was deprived of office
by the Council of Tyre (355 A.D.). But Arius died in 336 and Constantine the
year after, having on his death‑bed at last received baptism, and that
from an Arlan bishop. Within a few years the succeeding emperor Constans
threatened, war against his brother Constantine if the latter did not restore
Athanasius.
The quarrel has the quality
of being unintelligible to us; but, as in many other questions which in the
course of time have lost their savour, there was probably a sub‑stratum
of importance. It should be borne in mind that the early Christian Church was
under fire from very astute pagan polemists on the charge of polytheism; and
had to maintain both monotheism and the divinity of Christ. It was probably
sensitiveness on this point that accounted at least in part .for the virulence
of the controversy, and the ingenuity displayed in the verbal and philosophical
refinements of the relatively early centuries of Christianity. One important
fact however emerged, namely that Christianity was now the concern of the Roman
rulers, not as a despised, but as an accepted religion. Furthermore it is
possible that the authoritative interference of the emperors did prevent
Christianity from splitting up into a host of small and ineffectual sects.
The Arius‑Athanasius
controversy had centred in Alexandria. Now Africa, a stronghold of the Trinity,
was to be assailed by the schism of the Donatists, a puritan revolt, commenced
over the election of a bishop of Carthage, and receiving its name from one or
two bishops of the name of Donatus. In the year 330 one of the Councils
numbered 270 Donatist bishops and still the schism grew. So the emperor took
their temples from some of the schismatics, banished some of their bishops and
put numbers to death.
Another powerful schism had
arisen called Manichaeism, denouncing the old Testament and rejecting the four
Gospels in favour of a new "inspired" gospel. So great was the zeal
of these schismatics that systematic and destructive persecution was required
for the uprooting of the schism.
Constantine left the empire
to his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius and Constans and two of his
nephews. By a process of eliminating liquidation, as well as the fortunes of
war, Constantius became sole emperor; and at the instigation of the Church
began the persecution of paganism and also of schismatics. Constantius, still
retaining the pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, passed stringent laws against
paganism; but to a large extent the persecution remained theoretical. But
Constantius did help the Church .by giving economic privileges in the way of
higher stipends to the clergy and doles of corn to the congregations. As head
of the Church he presided at Councils; and half‑heartedly he encouraged
Arianism and persecuted Athanasiantsm, while the orthodox of the Church stood
helplessly by. Indeed under pressure from the emperor one Council declared for
Arianism, while torture and massacres proceeded apace. In one massacre at Constantinople
(342) three thousand people lost their lives in the forcible re‑instatement
of an Arian or semi‑Arian bishop.
During his long career as a
political journalist, Zilliacus has consistently pressed unerring fingers on
the pulse of international affairs. Now we have his analysis of affairs in
Communist countries since Khruschev at the twentieth Congress of the Soviet
Union delivered his famous secret report which denigrated Stalin and the
"personality cult" or hero worship of the Stalin era. (The Congress
unanimously adopted a resolution to resolutely dispose of the personality cult
as being alien to Marxism‑Leninism and to strictly apply the rules of
Party conduct and the principles of collective leadership)
The author visited Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union in the autumn of 1956 while the ferment of de‑Stalinisation
was active, and while unrest in Poland and Hungary was giving evidence of the
spirit of freedom which was agitating minds in the Communist countries. The
book gives an account of what he learnt on his visit.
Throughout the book the
author elucidates conditions of thought in these countries. He had
conversations with Khrushchev, Tito and other leaders, as well as with students
and persons in various walks of life; and he gives us an intimate view of the
polemics raging at the time.
He makes it clear that the
people of Soviet Russia are completely loyal to the system of the oligarchy or
dictatorship of the Communist Party. The fact that electors are not free to
name their own candidates leaves them unconcerned. They are completely
creatures of their environment of Communist Party control as we are creatures
of our environment of parliamentary democracy or (to interpose a simile of our
own) as the devout Anglican is a creature of his ecclesiastical environment of
the Trinity. They are quite honestly incapable of grasping the idea that
democracy may mean that people should have the right to have issues decided by
their freely elected representatives. For them, policy decisions are rightly
taken by the Communist Party, while the job of Soviet Councillors is merely to
keep the executives of Communist Party policy up to mark by supplying
information and constructive criticism on their work and indicating how the
people are feeling.
It appears that an
"iron curtain" no longer exists. The author experienced complete
freedom in exchanging views openly with leaders of thought, executives and the
general body of thinking people; while observing that the country was wide open
to visitors and tourists. He was actually asked by the Academy of Science to
give a talk to ,students on "the transition to socialism by parliamentary
means."
His long talk with
Khrushchev was illuminating on a subject in which the author was himself well
versed, namely the puzzling and varying relations between Soviet Russia and
Yugoslavia. Shortly put, Khrushchev insists on the necessity for a solid
international front by all Communist countries, maintaining in effect two
international camps; while Tito is working for complete reconciliation with co‑existence
under the all‑inclusive banner of United Nations. Soviet Russia wants
hegemony, Yugoslavia wants complete national freedom of thought and expression.
An extremely valuable
picture is given of the aspirations for freedom of expression which were
released by Khrushchev’s own disclosures of the horrors of the Stalin era, a
vivid picture too of the wise guidance which Gomulka exercised over the affairs
of Poland and relations with Soviet Russia; and there is an interesting
sidelight explaining the tragedy of Hungary.
The relations between East
and West are judicially reviewed; and the wise reflections of the author
maintain the high standard which he has consistently maintained throughout his
long journalistic career from his "Inquest on Peace" as far back as
1935.
Zilliacus is perhaps one of
the few political journalists of a socialist persuasion who has not yielded to
social or political pressure to "eat his words". He has never
emulated, far example, the recantation by Herbert Spencer (the "perplexed
philosopher" of Henry George) of his notable "Social Statics" or
by his contemporary John Strachey of his no less notable "Theory and
Practice of Socialism". Zilliacus's record of courage and integrity is
abundantly sustained in this his latest book. It is perhaps the most
informative book on present day theory and practice in Communist countries.
Courtesy comprises the
formal acceptance of another's personality; justice comprises recognition of
his rights. The higher the social or economic status, the greater the
compulsion of courtesy as a matter of
justice.
The trained mind looks at
affairs objectively; the disciplined mind acts intelligently.
To act intelligently it is
necessary to try to understand the thoughts, motives and apprehensions of the
man on the other side, even to the extent of seeing the affair through his
eyes.
Legal training tends to
produce a trained and disciplined mind, capable of acting intelligently.
Many good cases however have
been lost through the lawyer being so wrapped up in his own side of the case
that he fails to see the other side. From the same cause, many bad cases have
been allowed to go to trial.
America is slowly emerging
from the 1948‑1958 cycle of reaction which followed on the relatively
liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt era of 1933‑1945, which in turn had followed
the reactionary period of 1920-1930. A reactionary period is usually
illustrated by some outstanding miscarriage of justice; and the 1920‑1930
period of American reaction might well be known as the Sacco‑Vanzetti
period, as the 1948‑1958 period might be known as the Ethel and Julius
Rosenberg and Morton Sobell period.
Around 1920 there was a wave
of Bolshevik fears in America which were fomented by Government with its
anxieties for the established system of free enterprise. Symptomatically
Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, on March 21, 1921, exclaimed:
"Europe cannot recover its economic stability until Russia returns to
production. That requires the abandonment of their present economic
system". His protagonist, Senator Borah, replied some years later:
"So long as you have a hundred and fifty million people outlawed in a
sense, it necessarily follows that you cannot have peace".
It was under Wilson, and
before Harding, that the policy of hostility against Soviet Russia was
formulated and implemented. During the succeeding years of Republican rule this
antagonism continued to be grounded on economic and social considerations.
Almost precisely the same alternating conditions were to prevail under
Democratic Truman and Acheson and Republican Eisenhower and Dulles.
If psycopathology were to
seriously concern itself with national hysteria, many of the phenomena of
social history might be reinterpreted. Under Wilson one of those waves of
national hysteria broke out under the guiding hand of Attorney General Palmer
using as a weapon the then recently passed Espionage Act, as later, under the
guiding hand of Attorney General Brownell, the Smith Act (passed in 1940
against fascism) and the McCarran Act were to be used for similar purposes.
Liberals of high standing
protested in vain. As later, the newspapers were on the side of reaction and
fed public hysteria with imaginary crime waves not borne out by official
statistics.
On April 25, 1920, there was
an atrocious hold‑up accompanied by the brutal murder of men in charge of
a large sum of money provided for a Company's pay‑bill. Two humble
Italians of known radical views (Sacco and Vanzetti) were the scapegoats. They
were convicted and sentenced to death. The conviction on very thin
circumstantial evidence shocked liberal conscience all over the world, as well
as in America. For seven years the battle waged for retrial or reprieve.
Protests and petitions for clemency came from the highest international
quarters. The matter was political dynamite in America in view of the national
hysteria; and the confession of a participator in the crime exculpating Sacco
and Vanzetti was ignored. A detailed study of the case running into over five
hundred pages was written by Osmond Fraenkel of the New York Bar. Howard 'Fast
was to write a novel founded on fact entitled "The Passion of Sacco and
Vanzetti".
Protests came from the
President of Czechoslovakia, Madame Curie, Professor Albert Einstein, La
Fayette's grandson, Nansen, Dreyfus, Caillaux and many others.
For days long lines of
liberals marched before the State House of Boston. Excitement grew as the date
of execution came near. The paraders before the State House became more
numerous and many were arrested.
As symptomatic of the
prevailing hysteria, on the opening of the session of Congress in 1920 the
Speaker had initiated the unseating of five members because they belonged to
the socialist party.
Professor Felix Frankfurter
of the Harvard Law School, later Judge of the Supreme Court, wrote a review of
the case in which he expressed the opinion that the accused were entitled to a
new trial.
As the time of the execution
drew near, letters and petitions poured into Boston and Washington.
In various cities of Europe
and the United States legations had to be put under guard. In others, police
reserves were called out to watch for violence at mass meetings held in
condemnation of the convictions. Everywhere parades and protests sprang up. In
Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina general strikes were called. Newspapers in
London and Paris deplored the event; and in Germany twelve prominent lawyers
prepared and signed a statement decrying the execution of death sentence
pronounced seven years before. In Morocco, Panama and Geneva popular
demonstrations took place, and violence was reported from Sydney, Montevideo,
Bucharest, Stockholm, Berlin, Prague, Athens and Copenhagen.
Nevertheless, when the
parallel case of the Rosenbergs hit the headlines in the fifties, many
Americans and others of this later generation had never heard of the betrayal
of justice in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti.
Bleby places the loss of
life among the Whites at less than a dozen. There are no official returns
either way; but shootings and executions of the Negroes is believed to have run
into several hundreds.
The historical significance
of the revolt is the indirect effect it had in hastening emancipation.
During and after the
suppression of the revolt a flood of persecutive mania broke out against the
Missionaries, who were held by the plantocracy to be responsible for the
revolt. Burchell (Baptist Missionary) who returned from England a few days
after the revolt was arrested, but acquitted after suffering much hardship and
ignominy. He had however to flee to America for safety, and afterwards reached
England to join Knibb in his great fight for emancipation.
The case of the Moravian
Minister Pfeiffer caused consternation even among the Whites, Bernard Martin
being among those who defended his reputation and innocence.
Arrest, imprisonment, and
trial were the fate of the most notable among the Baptist and Wesleyan
Missionaries. One amazing feature of the counterrevolution was the destruction
of the Missionary chapels, sometimes in broad daylight and often at the
instigation of the newspapers. The new Baptist Chapel at Salter's Hill, St.
James was destroyed by fire by the St. James Militia. The chapel at Falmouth
was demolished by the St. Ann Regiment. The destruction of the Chapel at
Stewart Town, of the spacious Baptist Chapel at Montego Bay and of the smaller
one at Brown's Town followed in quick succession. The stout structure at Rio
Bueno yielded to fire at the hands of the Trelawny Militia. The Mission
premises at St. Ann's Bay were razed to the ground and the Baptist house of
worship at Ocho Rios was destroyed by fire. At Lucea the Rector and other
leading citizens pulled the chapel down; and shortly after the Chapel at Green
Island was deliberately destroyed by fire. Burchell's house was burnt down and
the benches, pews, pulpit and furniture of the stations at Gurney's Mount and
Putney were also deliberately destroyed. The foregoing destruction of Baptist
property accounted for a value of £23,000; while a considerable number of
Wesleyan Chapels was also deliberately destroyed; and all this not during the
revolt but within a period of two or three months after the revolt.
The formation of the
infamous "Church Union" forms part of the history of the period. In
1826 the Rev. G. W. Bridges, Rector of St. Ann and author of the famous and
learned "Annals of Jamaica" began to show hostility to the
Missionaries. On Christmas night 1826 a party of the Militia fired into the
Wesleyan Mission House at St. Ann's Bay. Mr. Bridges, being under suspicion of being
implicated, defended himself by vehement letters and by a sermon in which he
referred to the effect of the teaching of the Methodist preachers on the
"unstable minds of the ignorant negroes". So strong was the feeling
against the Missionaries even before the slave revolt that a Committee of the
House of Assembly reported that "the principal object of the Missionaries
in this island is to extort money from their congregations by every possible
pretext, to obtain which recourse has been had to the most indecent expedients;
that in order to further this object, and to gain an ascendancy over the negro
mind. they inculcate the doctrines of equality and the rights of man". (In
1792 Thomas Paine had been prosecuted for libel alleged to have been published
in his "Rights of Man".)
The historian Rev. W. J.
Gardner reports: "The conduct of the Colonial Church Union, with such min
as Rectors Heath and Bridges to urge it on, was far more reprehensible than
that of the most misguided among the slaves. The latter fought for freedom the
Union destroyed property and ill‑used those who fell into its hands that
slavery might be established on a firmer basis and the progress of gospel truth
retarded".
Finally the threat of the
Union to drive the Missionaries from Jamaica induced Rev. William Knibb
(Baptist Missionary) careless of his own safety nevertheless to leave the
island and conduct a campaign in England furthering the cause of emancipation.
Intense feeling was aroused
in England by the news of the atrocities perpetrated against the Missionaries;
so that when Knibb reached England in June 1832 he was able to thrill the vast
assembly at the annual meeting of the Baptist Missionary ;Society with his
narrative of the persecutions and atrocities.
At that time the Society was
endeavoring to moderate all expressions on the anti‑slavery movement,
lest they should in popular opinion be implicated in the recent slave revolt.
Knibb was warned by the Secretary to be most moderate in his expressions. It
was a dramatic moment when the Secretary apprehensively pulled Knibb by the
coat, and Knibb, pausing for a moment, shook himself free, and continued:
"Whatever may be the consequence, I will speak. At the risk of my
connection with the Society and all I hold dear, I will avow this; and if the
friends will not hear me, I will turn and tell it to my God, nor will I desist
till this, the greatest of curses‑slavery is removed". Knibb carried
his audience with him. Enthusiasm was generated, which Knibb, joined later by
Burchell, carried through the length and breadth of England and Scotland.
Knibb gave evidence before
Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The knell of slavery
in the British West Indies had sounded. The job that Daddy Sharp left
uncompleted was helped on its way by the intransigence of the planters, the
militia and the Church Union.
"He was of the middle
size; his fine sinewy frame was handsomely moulded, and his skin as perfect a
jet as can well be imagined. His forehead was high and broad and his nose and
lips exhibited the usual characteristics of the negro race. He had teeth whose
regularity and pearly whiteness a Court beauty might have envied, and an eye
whose brilliancy was almost dazzling . . . . I heard him two or three times
deliver a brief extemporaneous address to his fellowprisoners on religious
topics, many of them being confined in the same cell, and I was amazed both at
the power and freedom with which he spoke, and at the effect which was produced
. . . . He appeared to have the feelings and passions of his hearers completely
at his command . . . . Sharp acknowledged to me that he had, as an individual,
no reason to find fault with the treatment he had received as a slave . . . . ;
but he thought, and he learnt from the Bible, that the Whites had no more right
to hold Black people in slavery than the Black people had to make the White
people slaves; and for his own part he would rather die than live in slavery .
. . . He expressed deep regret that such an extensive destruction of property
and life had resulted from the conspiracy . . . ; but declared this formed no
part of his plan . . . . He was not however to be convinced that he had done
wrong in endeavouring to assert his claim to freedom".
Constantius beside
subsidising the clergy and the congregations maintained a large number of
Christian parasites. As head of the Church, he presided at Councils. As a semi‑Arian
he persecuted Athanasianism. It is not surprising that with such a questionable
head the moral standing of the Church was in parlous condition. An orthodox
writer reports: "At each episcopal election or expulsion the most exalted
sees of Christendom ‑ Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch ‑ furnished
scenes that would have disgraced a revolution"; while Julian tells of the
massacre of whole troops of "heretics", notably at Cyzicus and
Samosata and of the utter destruction of whole towns and villages.
Under Julian there was a
short Pagan revival. Educated as a Christian, he concealed his leaning to
Paganism during the lifetime of Constantius. It was only when marching against
Constantius that he avowed his religion and offered pagan sacrifices. On the
death of Constantius and his access to sole power in 361 Julian proceeded to
reinstate the ancient rites, and sought to elevate Paganism in theory and
practice, to re‑endow the Pagan temples and to dis-endow the Christian
Churches. Himself a man of great culture, he protected the Christian factions from
each other, restored exiled heretics and (probably to discredit them) invited rival dogmatists to dispute in his
presence. He wrote long and reasoned treatise against the Christian books and
Creed.
Julian fell in battle
against the Persians in 363; and it is believed that his defeat in battle went
far to wean the superstitious soldiery from Mithraism to Christianity. (Their
God had been defeated by the Christian God).
There has been much
speculation as to whether, if Julian had lived as long as Constantine,
Christianity would have been driven from the Roman world. It is to be noted
that from 330 to 370, and again in the Sixth Century, the Persian kings
succeeded by sheer bloodshed in crushing orthodox Christianity in their
kingdom.
Julian was followed by the
weak Jovian, and the latter by the forceful Valentinian. Both were professed
Christians; but neither of them persecuted Paganism.
During the thirty years from
the death of Constantine to the accession of Theodosius the Great the Church
grew in wealth but not apparently in political power. Violent internal disputes
continued but with some abatement. During the period (c.366) the final struggle
of Damasus and Ursinus to secure by force the episcopal chair in Rome accounted
for 137 dead in the Basilica, Damasus having hired gladiators in support of his
cause. While in the Provinces the Church was more decorously represented, in
North Africa the feud between the Donatists and the rest of the Churches had
reached the stage of civil war with guerilla tactics.
The accession of Theodosius
(379) marks the official establishment of Trinitarian Christianity, and the
suppression of Arianism and Paganism. Theodosius. dying in 395, left the old
cults finally disestablished both in Italy and the East. Under the shelter of
persecuting edicts, monks and other enterprising "Reformers"
exploited the opportunity to plunder and destroy Pagan shrines and property. It
was probably during this period, when Pagans as a matter of policy were being
Christianized, that the remarkable assimilation between Pagan and Christian
rites and customs was intensified.
At the end of the fourth
century began the series of convulsions which marked the break‑up of the
Roman empire. A year after the death of Theodosius, Alaric (king of the Visigoths)
ravaged Greece and invaded Italy; and invasion followed invasion until by the
middle of the fifth century the West had lost Gaul, Spain and Africa; and in
the year 476 Rome, thrice sacked, welcomed a Barbarian King.
The invasions did not
adversely affect Christianity. The invaders, although not orthodox, were
Christians. The Barbarians, like the Roman emperors, were very much alive to
the cohesive force of the Church in aid of the State. It is even possible that
Christianity facilitated the Barbarian conquest. It is a significant fact that
all the great heresies, Marcionism, Montanism, Arianism, Manichaeism,
Monophysitism and the Nestorian Church are found subsisting in the Eastern
empire up to the seventh century.
Sad as are the reflections
aroused by the stormy history of a religion of love and humility, it need
hardly be said that human perfidy or vice in no way detracts from the intrinsic
merit or virtue of a cause; and that the history of a religion is no exception
to the rule. If a particular religion happens to be struggling for survival,
the access to or struggle for power among contestants is no less demoralising
in religion than in politics or in war. To the question, "what is wrong
with Christianity?", throughout the ages may be given the apt answer:
"The Christians"; and a similar answer may be given to the several
questions: "What is wrong with Capitalism?", "What is wrong with
Socialism?", "What is wrong with Communism?" Distortion of
function is a factor always to be reckoned with in history.
World War II was
precipitated because the French Ambassador at Berlin misunderstood the
significance of the Carpatho‑Ukraine Pass; and Neville Chamberlain fell
for his mistake. As Bismarck in 1870, favourable to France, was deflected into
attacking her by the opportunity offered by the intransigence of the second
Napoleon, so Hitler in 1939, favourable to Britain and (perhaps through
Britain, relatively to) France, was deflected by‑ the ignorance of
Chamberlain and Bonnet into attacking their countries instead of Soviet Russia,
as he had planned to do. The story is little known; and will bear re‑telling,
as an illustration of the issue of momentous events from a tiny error.
At Munich in October 1938
Chamberlain consummated the ruin of Czechoslovakia with deliberate intent and
considerable political finesse, smugly concluded a non‑aggression pact
with Hitler, and, returning to London, announced: "I have brought back
peace with .honour. I think it is peace in our time". (Churchill .quipped:
"France and Britain had to choose between war and dishonour. They choose
dishonour; they will have war".)
It was an open secret that a
decisive group of Western diplomats with Chamberlain at their head fervently
hoped and fondly believed that a free hand to Hitler would result in a German‑Japanese
attack on Soviet Russia; and accordingly the objective to be served by Munich
(for in this Hitler and Chamberlain were at one) was to break up the l: ranco‑Soviet
alliance and drive Soviet Russia out of the Councils of Europe. Czechoslovakia
was informed that if she fought with Russia against Germany, Britain and France
might not remain neutral and might supply arms and munitions to Germany. Thus
was the stage set.
On December 15, 1938 Robert
Coulondre, French Ambassador at Berlin, had reported: "The will for
expansion in the east seems to me as undeniable on the part of the Third Reich
as its disposition to put aside, at least for the present, any idea of the
conquest of the West .... Germany has no claim in the direction of France . . .
. German dynamism is not to be stopped . . . . and in military circles they
already talk of the advance to the Caucasus and to Baku".
On March 15. 1939, Hitler,
in breach of his pact with Chamberlain, seized Prague, the capital of truncated
Czechoslovakia. In Parliament the next evening, Chamberlain categorically
refused to censure Germany or to associate himself with the "charges of
bad faith", which, he said, were being "bandied about". His
foreign secretary, Sir John Simon, also categorically stated that Britain would
not be drawn into guarantees which would hamper her freedom of action and make
it dependent on the will of other nations.
On the 17th Chamberlain was
to make a speech at Birmingham. It was known that up to that time Chamberlain
had firmly resisted the pressure of dissidents in his own party who were urging
.him to condemn Hitler. On that day however Coulondre reported a change of
opinion on his part as to Hitler's intentions. He pointed out that Hitler had
ceded the Carpatho‑Ukraine Pass to Hungary, proof positive, he claimed,
that Hitler "before carrying out his vast programme to the East will first
turn against the Western Powers". This was a fantastic conclusion; but it
apparently impressed Chamberlain; for he now began to scatter his guarantees to
Poland et al. Britain was to come to Poland's assistance if Germany, in the
opinion of Poland, committed aggression against her independence. World War II
followed probably just when Hitler was about to implement his tacit bargain
with the West by preparing the terrain in Poland, which military commentators
had already noted, was a sine qua non for the necessary attack on a broad front
against Soviet Russia. Max Werner, the famous military critic had already
dismissed as sheer fantasy the idea of attacks through narrow passes.
Gone for nothing now was all
the build‑up of Germany by Britain, Britain's connivance at the march
into the Rhineland, Austria, the butchery of Czechoslovakia, the rearmament of
Germany in breach of the Versailles Treaty, and the pact permitting Germany to
strengthen her fleet; a pact made without the knowledge or approval of the ally
France.
It should not be concluded
that Coulendre's fantastic error was the sole cause of Chamberlain's change of
heart towards his erstwhile colleague Hitler. History is not exclusively
determined by single factors. But Coulondre's fantasy, following on the
pressure from the dissidents of his own party, appears to rave finally
convinced or pressurised Chamberlain at the crucial moment so that it appeared
to him that he and Hitler no longer had common objectives and must part
company.
Senator Morse: There is
pending before the Senate Foreign Relations committee the administration
passport bill. The chief architects . .. . are Mr. Dulles and Mr. Murphy. I
would describe their architectural work as an illegal unconstitutional house of
legislative ill‑fame, because it is such a serious attack upon the basic
liberties of the American people, and it is . . . . so in violation of the
elemental principles of due process of law .... How could such a shocking
proposal be made to the Congress of the United States by a President of the
United States? ... . Never during my thirteen years of service in the Senate
have I been so deeply moved. . .
James Muir, Chairman and
President of the Royal Bank of Canada, visited China this Summer on a fact
finding mission. The following extracts are from his report on his mission.
Cost of living unbelievably
low; in the cities good and immaculately kept hotel accommodation; laundry
returned the same day; dry cleaning a matter of hours.
Saw one fly and one
mosquito, and no sparrows in the cities.
The new irrigation and flood
control dam in the Ming Tombs Valley, which is over 2,000 feet long and about
95 feet high, took only one hundred and forty days to complete; with 100,000
people working in three daily shifts. All work, described as voluntary, but
certainly unpaid (military and voluntary workers); while the work was
accomplished with little else than picks and shovels and bare hands.
There is an almost fanatical
drive towards hygiene and physical culture.
"Unless the whole scene
is a dream or one's sense of observation and appraisement is less than useless
then we think the vast majority of the people of China have the government they
want, a government which is improving their lot, a government in which they have
confidence, a government which stands no chance whatever of being
supplanted."
The report is an urgent
summons to Canada to get out and get some of the Chinese trade: "I believe
there is good and legitimate trade to be done. Other Western people are getting
it. Canada will be negligent and unfair to herself if she does not get her
share."
Judges functioning in the
Colonies have been notoriously hypersensitive in the matter of judicial
dignity; and a judgment in the Privy Council (related below), although deciding
against the Judge "with costs", may be guardedly read as tentatively
condoning colonial judicial hypersensitiveness. The recent "Woman fined
£10 for contempt" (for declining to address Judge McCarthy as
"Sir") might lend interest to quotation from this 1899 Privy Council
case above referred to (reported in 81 Law Times at p 158.
The appellant, one MacLeod,
was a barrister practicing in the St. Vincent Court, the judge was the acting
Chief Justice. The "Federalist" was a newspaper published in Grenada.
The particular number referred to the acting Chief Justice in an editorial as
follows: " . . . is reducing the judicial character to the level of a
clown . . . It does not seem . . . that the acting Chief,. Justice of St.
Vincent is capable of maintaining the noble traditions of the British Bench . .
. If the people can have no faith in the findings of the Chief Justice, they
may doubtless be tempted to redress their own wrongs . . . There is no doubt
that the administration of justice in St. Vincent is rotten and corrupt, and
that except some one be appointed to the Bench who will inspire confidence and
respect, the already oppressed peasantry may be goaded into madness." A
letter from a correspondent in the same issue of the paper, on which indeed the
editorial was .founded, referred to the acting Chief Justice as "a man of
the Torquemada type, narrow, bigoted, vain, vindictive and unscrupulous"
and added: "It is the general opinion that Mr. has proved ,himself incapable
of filling the important post of judge . . . "
The Appellant, MacLeod, was
agent in St. Vincent for the "Federalist". On receiving his copy of
the paper, he called in the afternoon as usual at the library, and met a.
friend, Wilson, who had not yet received his copy of the Federalist, nor had
the librarian. The Appellant then stated that he had received his copies and
offered one to the librarian, who handed it to Wilson. Thereupon the acting
Chief Justice cited the Appellant to show cause why he should not be committed
for contempt of Court. The Appellant filed affidavit setting out the above
facts and that he had not read the paper and had not the slightest idea that it
contained the relevant article or the letter.
The acting Chief Justice
stayed the commitment until the next day to enable the Appellant to apologise.
On the next day the Appellant said: "May it please the Court, ‑
Since the adjournment of the court last night I have seriously considered my
position. I am aware of the grave responsibility which rests upon me. I am
aware that the loss of freedom (the commitment was for fourteen days) may
entail want upon those dependent upon me. But I have come to the conclusion
that I cannot conscientiously do what I have been asked, to do, viz. make an
affidavit pleading guilty to, and expressing; contrition for, a crime of which
I know I am innocent. I am prepared to express regret that I should have
inadvertently and innocently, without knowledge that it contained matter which
this Court has held to be libellous and a contempt of court, lent the man
Wilson a paper for his personal use for one night. But beyond that my
conscience does not allow me to go. Should your Honour unfortunately think that
such an expression of regret is insufficient, I have no alternative 'but to
submit, under protest, and under reserve of all rights as to appeal or
otherwise, to the judgment that your Honour has been pleased to pass upon
me".
The Judge refused to accept
the apology, which he considered insufficient, as not containing an expression
of regret by the Appellant for the, nature of the publication itself.
Lord Morris read the
judgment of the Privy Council on the appeal
" . . . The power
summarily to commit for contempt of court is considered necessary for the proper
administration of justice. It is not to be used for the vindication of the
judge as a person. He must resort to action for libel or criminal information.
Committal for contempt of court is a weapon to be used sparingly and always
with reference to the interests of the administration of justice. Hence when a
trial has taken place and the case is over, the judge and the jury are given
over to criticism. It is a summary process, and should be used only from a
sense of duty, and under the pressure of public necessity, for there can be no
landmarks pointing out the boundaries in all cases. Committals for contempt of
court by scandalising the court itself' have become obsolete in this country
(England). Courts are satisfied to leave to public opinion attacks or comments
derogatory or scandalous to them".
The Judge on behalf of the
Privy Council amazingly went on to differentiate (with a "perhaps")
in the case of "small colonies consisting principally of coloured
populations" where "the enforcement in proper cases of committal for
contempt of court for attacks on the court may by absolutely necessary to
preserve in such a community the dignity of and respect for the court."
But perhaps, in these days, when the social reproach of colour is largely
removed and these colonies are attaining (however ill‑advisedly) the
"dignity" of nationhood, the differentiation may have become somewhat
anachronistic.
In the result, however, the
appeal was upheld and costs were awarded against the Respondent in favour of
the Appellant. (At a certain stage the Appellant had proceeded in forma
pauperis.)
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
It was significant for
Christianity that the invaders of Rome were Christians. The first conversion of
Goths! by an Arlan Christian in the fourth century had been widely extended.
For the Goths, Dogma was relatively unimportant in comparison with the
organizing function of the Church; which the German chiefs seemed to appreciate
ass much as did the Roman emperors. The invaders also exploited the intolerance
of the rival sects by themselves showing greater tolerance. For example, in
Africa, where the Donatists with their four hundred bishops had been persecuted
under Honorius, the Vandals repaid the Donatists for their help .by giving them
freedom of worship. It seems probable that the Manichaeans for the same reason
at first welcomed the invaders; but soon the invaders found it politic to abate
their tolerance. For a time Arianism prevailed; but late in the sixth century a
new king adopted Trinitarianism.
By the end of the fifth
century the immigrant heretic Franks in Gaul underwent involuntary mass
conversion by the mere fiat of their ruler. The re-conquest of Italy by
Belisarius and Narses further strengthened the Catholic cause; while the
Lombards, who conquered the north and south, began to give up Arianism.
Organized and endowed orthodox Christianity then prevailed, proceeding step by
step with the dissolution of the empire, forming a strong cohesive force within
the processes of political disintegration. This was rendered all the more
effective by reason of the fact that a watchful eye was kept by the Church on
all heretical attempts at ratiocination. Dogma now became supreme.
Jovian, an Italian monk, was
condemned in Church Councils, flogged and banished to a desolate island for
approving asceticism, urging a more rational morality and claiming that Mary c‑°ased
to be a virgin on giving birth to Jesus. Vigilantius, a presbyter from Gaul,
who opposed the growing worship of relics, had to bow before the outcry raised
by Jerome; Pelagius and Coelestius, monks in Rome (400‑410) , who drew up
a systematic argument against the doctrines of inherent human depravity,
predestination and salvation by grace, were condemned in Council and had to
flee from Rome.
Augustine, (354‑430)
became the supreme oracle of the Church, passing on to the Middle Ages a lively
body of, polemic theology. He, along with Origin and others, laid the
foundations for the scholarship which followed.
In the fifth century
Theodosius heretically taught that most of the Old Testament prophecies had no
real relevance to Christ; while the chief new schisms of the period were those
of Nestorius and the Monophysites. Nestorius was famous for his attacks on
Appolinaris, bishop of Laodicaea (a strong anti Arian), but nevertheless
himself a schismatic. Nestorius, anti‑schismatic, was himself condemned
by a Council, convicted of blasphemy, classed with Judas, and banished for
life. He had in the meantime incurred the wrath of the multitude for deprecating
the deification of Mary. With the banishment of Nestorius, orthodox
Christianity consolidated the worship of Mary along with the worship of God and
Jesus. The Nestorians were driven to .Persia, where Orthodox Christians were
being persecuted and massacred. It seemed likely that Christianity would
disintegrate along with the empire; but it did not.
In the year 448 Eutyches,
abbot of a monastery in Constantinople, sought to make an end of Nestorianism.
He taught that Christ had an exclusively divine and non‑human nature.
This was however assailed as a return to the Appolinarian heresy. Eutyches was
cast out of the Church by a hostile Council but a subsequent Council acquitted
and re-instated him, and caused his accuser 'to be flogged and banished; but a
third Council at Chalcedon (451) again condemned Eutyches.
The wheel had turned full
circle: At Nicaea (321) Arius had been routed and the dogma established that
Christ was truly God, co‑equal and co‑eternal with the Father,
separate but yet one; at Constantinople (381) Appollinaris had been routed and
the dogma established that Christ was also truly man; at Ephesus (431) it was
established that the two natures were
indivisibly one; and at
Chalcedon (451) that while indivisibly one, the two natures were
distinguishable. The four dogmas united in one became a fixed constituent of
the Christian Creed. Modern orthodox scholarship as well as congregational
thought appear to have lived down the emotional conflict on the now
unintelligible subject of controversy of past ages.
The Eutycheans however
persisted as a schismatic force; and in 482 Zeno, emperor of the East, sought a
reconciliation by means of his "henoticon" (signifying "making
one", or "unifying"); but the orthodox and the schematics would
not be reconciled; and indeed on a distinction (the differences of which are
unintelligible to us) many repudiated their nationality.
Later in the sixth century
the Eutycheans under a new leader, Jacob Baradaeus, became known as Jacobites;
and when in the seventh century the Arab Mohammedan movement broke upon Egypt
where the Jacobites abounded, the latter in their consuming hostility to their
orthodox brethren, welcomed the anti‑Christian enemy in Egypt as they had
previously welcomed him in Persia.
Heraclius (610‑641)
realised the danger and futility of driving out nationals for the sake of the
abracadabra of dogma; and, like his predecessor, sought a reconciliation. In
630 he decreed that, while in Christ there were two natures, as held by some,
there was only one will, as held by others. For a time this formula sufficed;
but in a few years an orthodox "Zealot", Sophronius, patriarch of
Jerusalem, re‑opened the debate and declared that the emperor's formula
was a revival of the Eutychaen heresy. Heraclius (639) firmly forbade further
debate on the question. Finally Constantine (681) accepted the doctrine that in
Christ two wills were harmonized; and this was incorporated in the composite
dogma later known (some centuries later than Athanasius) as the Atharasian
Creed.
Like the Arians, the
Monopnysites had divided into two warring sects, the dispute being as to the
compatibility or the incompatibility of the body of Christ. The two parties
again split into five; and the schism became racial, Egyptian opposing Greek.
One hundred and seventy years later Justinian's general, Narses, at the bidding
of the empress Theodora, destroyed a large part of Alexandria by fire to
establish the doctrine of incompatibility.
Soon afterwards another
imperial nominee, entering the city equipped for battle, eventually reached his
episcopate through a s‑ea of blood. Doctrinal strife and civil war had
.become synonymous and symptomatic, and so continued from the time of
Constantine until the arrival of the Saracens.
Alas! The history of
Christianity is "history" conformable to the laws of history, with
its corrupting influence of power, its irritating effect of spiritual and
intellectual arrogance and its denial of the relativity of truth.
By and large the history of
Christianity is like the history of and "great nation" which has
achieved power. Indeed some great Churchmen have also been great nationalists.
The Christian Churches in
England were aroused to action by the atrocities committed in Jamaica against
the Missionaries as an aftermath of the Slave revolt of 1831‑'32; and the
tide of public feeling set strongly in favour of emancipation.
In May 1833 Mr. Stanley
(later the Earl of Derry), Secretary of State for the Colonies, introduced in
the House of Commons "An Act for the abolition of slavery throughout the
British Colonies, for promoting the industry of the emancipated slaves, and for
compensating the persons hitherto entitled to their services."
Stanley was by temperament
exceedingly conservative in outlook. It was only in 1833 that the office of
Secretary of State for the Colonies had been found for him; and it was mere
accident that he happened to be head of the Colonial Office when events were
ripe for emancipation, as it was mere accident that another Stanley was to be
head of the Colonial Office when events became ripe for Jamaica's New
Constitution of 1944. The former Stanley was also keen to be at the helm when
the ship of state was riding on the wave of popular feeling. He happened to the
fore during the period of parliamentary reform and Vest Indian emancipation
from slavery. The Bill introduced by Stanley was in fact "neither flesh,
fowl nor good red herring"; but the movement was started and the
Apprenticeship Law eventuated.
It is claimed that the slave
revolt in Demerara in 1824 had weakened somewhat the determination of the
Missionaries in the matter of emancipation. On the contrary the Jamaican slave
revolt of 1831‑'32 (largely by reason of the threats of the plantocracy to
drive the Missionaries from Jamaica) appears to hate convinced the advocates of
emancipation that the movement should no longer be delayed. The slaves of
Jamaica had persistently fought for freedom; the Missionaries had within the
law been their solace and hope during slavery.
In the year 1833 the British
Parliament enacted the Emancipation Law providing for the abolition of slavery
throughout the British possessions on August 1st 1834, so that however an
apprenticeship period to cushion the shock should prevail for a period of not
more than six years for praedials (farm hands) and not more than four years for
domestics. Compensation of £20,000,000 was awarded to the planters, £6,000,000
of which from the Jamaican quota fell to their English merchant creditors.
Oppression under the Apprenticeship was so harsh, both in the
matter of work and the price of manumission (for which the Law had made
inadequate provision) that the probationary period was subsequently shortened
and full emancipation came into effect on August 1, 1838.
Jamaican intransigence in
the matter of slavery had been proverbial; but in response to the Governor's
conciliatory address in 1833, the Jamaican Assembly declared that the people of
Jamaica "have never advocated slavery in the abstract, but as connected
with the right of property. Upon the principle of compensation they are ready
to relinquish the system and will be proud to show that they have feelings as
favourable to the improvement of the labouring population as their fellow subjects
in the mother country. All they claim is to be fairly dealt with."
Mixed as the moral and
business philosophy might appear to be, the promise of better things was belied
during the period of the Apprenticeship and in succeeding generations; but in justice
to the planters it should be borne in mind that for a long period they suffered
from the dread twin economic diseases of inefficiency and Impecuniosity,
aggravated '.by the vagaries of the world market. The un-reconciled claims of
estate and plantation economy on the one hand and peasants' human freedoms on
the other were to build up barriers to Jamaican progress which time long failed
to wither and custom but served to strengthen. This is not to say that Jamaican
history ran a course different from the ways of universal history. Here, as
elsewhere, human labour was . a commodity to be bought in the cheapest market,
and, when bought, the labourer was little more than a cost entry in the ledger.
Nevertheless strong and remarkable bonds of affection persisted between master
and man, but withal with a strong undercurrent of exploitation and domination
on the one hand and resentment on the other hand.
The day of probationary
emancipation was now drawing to a close. Every precaution was taken for the
suppression of the anticipated revolt. The military force exceeded by one
thousand men the largest force in the island during the French wars. A large
fleet was stationed around the coast, ready to employ the new aids of steam for
rapid movement from point to point.
The first day of August 1834
fell on a Friday; and there was to be a long week‑end holiday through
Friday to Monday. Every chapel was open for worship, and nearly every church,
except, curiously enough, in Kingston. Chapel and Church were filled. There was
no suggestion of disorder. "No people on the face of the globe could have
celebrated a day of such vast importance to themselves and their posterity with
so much real devotion and so little uproarious hilarity", was the
contemporary record. Sunday markets were abolished; and on succeeding Sundays
Church and Chapel at last carne into their own.
ANOTHER MARATHON CORONER'S INQUEST.
The 1860s were a stormy
period in Jamaican history, partly by reason of economic pressure, but partly
also in minor measure because of the confrontation of two diverse
personalities: Governor Eyre, who permitted official irregularities because
committed by "constituted authority", and George William Gordon, the
watchdog of the under‑privileged, who as a coloured man was a stickler
for the proprieties.
Between them stood the
relatively urbane Dr. Lewis Quier Bowerbank, described bay Gordon himself as
"philanthropist", for no reason that I can gather other than that ,he
showed active interest in the Kingston Public Hospital.
Dr. Bowerbank, personal
friend of Governor Eyre, defended the latter in the Assembly as warmly as the
Governor supported Bowerbank's activities anent the Hospital.
As Custos of Kingston, Dr.
Bowerbank was chairman of the Board of Visitors of the Hospital, and made
things very uncomfortable for the Hospital physicians Dr. Fiddes and Dr. Dunn
and the surgeon Dr. Stern, actually making complaint to the Governor about Dr.
Stern, who was however fully exonerated after investigation. In the result, the
Governor's support of Bowerbank, forced the resignations of Drs. Dunn and
Fiddes. In these circumstances, Dr. Bowerbank and his partner Dr. Anderson
succeeded Drs. Dunn and Fiddes at the Hospital; and the functions of the Board
of Visitors lapsed.
Shortly after the advent of
Drs. Bowerbank and Anderson at the Hospital, a patient died under painful
circumstances after an operation performed by Drs. Bowerbank and Anderson. At a
lengthy Coroner's Inquest, a verdict was returned in general terms which in
Governor Eyre's judgment did not require further proceedings.
In rapid succession, another
death took place at the Hospital after an operation. In this case the Inquest
lasted thirteen days; and the verdict was that "David Bell came to his
death in the Public Hospital on the 26th day of July 1865 from two operations
performed on him by the ordinary medical officers Dr. Izett William Anderson and Dr. Lewis Quier
Bowerbank for diffused aneurism, while he was in reality suffering from
circumscribed false aneurism, for which latter disease the treatment and
amputation were quite unwarranted."
Prosecution was demanded by
the public; but Governor Eyre set up an Inquiry by the Police Magistrate of
Kingston and Colonel Fyffe of the Maroons; and there the matter ended.
As is generally known, there
was a riot at Morant Bay in the following October; Gordon was arrested in
Kingston by Governor Eyre and Custos Bowerbank personally, taken to Morant Bay,
where martial law was in force, there tried by Court Martial and executed. After
the execution of George William Gordon, one of Dr. Bowerbank's ,supporters
wrote to the newspaper: "Up to a few days before the breaking out of the
rebellion, the hospital question foamed one of the grand themes for seditious
speeches and slanderous writings against the Governor and other
authorities" ‑ which gives some indication of the high feeling
aroused in Jamaica at the time by hospital matters.
Volume 3.
Number 7. NOVEMBER 1958 .
The generous expressions
which I have received on the "Comments" are not adequately reflected
in paying subscriptions. To help cover expenses we need more and more regularly
paying subscribers, and not only readers.
In the codfish controversy
it does not appear to have been noted that the quality of the fish has improved
recently, with the changed source of supply.
In the early days of our
history, fish and other commodities were largely imported for the slaves. Thus
Jamaica became a dregs market; and codfish of very poor quality was marked down
for Jamaica. I know, because I have received presents of good salt fish, then
quite unknown to the trade here.
Apropos of nothing,
"codfish aristocracy" was a term in use up to the eighteen nineties
to describe the "nouveaux" with social aspirations. The phrase was coined
by Dr. Fiddes.
I remember: when the
dreamers, James Gore and Glaister Baxter, foresaw the coming of roads to Pigeon
Valley and Valdar and the prospect of enhanced values; when women's suffrage
was disreputable and adult suffrage unthinkable; when Edison fired Henry Ford
for wasting his time on the combustion engine and the fantasy of a motor car;
when Judges of the Supreme Court sat on appeals from their own judgments and
sometimes reversed them; when Communism was respectable and almost all intelligent
thinkers were theoretical socialists; when Manly was a champion of civil
liberties and opposed the brainwashing Censorship Bill; when society was less
colourful than it is today, and human pedigree was more meticulously traced
than the pedigree of the race horse; But I do not remember: when hypocrisy ever
neglected to pay tribute to virtue, morals or religion.
FORMOSA.
In the early issues of these
"Comments", we ventured the warning: "Watch that man Dulles. He
is dangerous". When a comprehensive history of the past two decades comes
to be written, it will probably be recorded that the most influentially
menacing figure of the period has been John Foster Dulles. Coming into public
life first as a pronounced pro Nazi and apologist for Hitler, his subsequent
career developed a persistent policy of having a show‑down with Soviet
Russia, taking the world on more than one occasion to the brink of war in the
process. It will probably be found that he was largely responsible for
involving America militarily in the civil conflict between North and South
Korea and in the civil conflict between the Chinese over Formosa.
It was his needling of the
Roosevelt administration for "worsening the prospect of world peace"
by friendship with Britain, that resulted in his being appointed during a
Democratic administration as Republican adviser to the American United Nations
Delegation in the interests of a bi‑partisan foreign policy; and, later,
against his will, Truman, for the same reason, was forced to give him
assignments in the Far East. Perhaps however the anti‑Communist
"bug" which bit them both, helped to bring them together.
In 1895 Japan took by force
from China Formosa and the off ‑shore islands. In 1945 the anti‑Axis
Allies took the islands from Japan and restored them to China. By the end of
1949 Chiang Kai‑Shek had been completely routed by the Communists after a
struggle of twenty‑two years. They established the People's Republic as
the de facto and de jure government of China, Chiang escaping with the remnant of
his forces to Formosa.
By January 1950, many
Governments, including Great Britain, had given recognition to the new
Communist government. The state of American politics, with pro‑Communist
charges being exchanged by way of political blackmail between the Republicans
and Democrats, did not permit Truman to recognise the Communist Republic.
Up to mid‑June 1950
the Democratic government of the U.S. had firmly resisted all attempts of the
Republican Party and the China Lobby to involve America in what Truman called
the "civil conflict in China"; and had categorically stated that they
would not give "military aid or advice" to Chiang on Formosa. General
McArthur from his headquarters in Tokyo had been doing his best to involve
America in a show‑down with the Communist world.
When in 1945 American and
Soviet Russian forces accepted the surrender of Korea from Japan, a line was
drawn at the thirty‑eighth parallel to avoid incidents between the two
forces. North Korea went Communist. Syngman Rhee in the South tried for
unification under his rule; and vice versa.
In the course of time
American and Russian occupying forces were withdrawn from North and South
Korea; but a state of hostility continued between the two parts of the
peninsula, each side threatening unification by force; and armed camps were
mutually threatening at the 38th parallel and carrying out mutual raids.
On June 14, 1950 Dulles left
Washington for the Far East. He said he was going to Korea on the invitation of
Syngman Rhee, the president of South Korea. He said he was going out to
"wage peace". Immediately before leaving he dined with Rhee's
Ambassador in Washington, who duly reported by cable that he had it from Dulles
that America would not abandon South Korea. Dulles visited the South Korean
troops in their trenches, and made a "pep" speech to them, saying:
"The eyes of the free world are upon you. Compromise with Communism would
be a road leading to disaster;" and assured them of the "readiness of
the U.S.A. to give all necessary moral and material support". He wrote to
Syngman Rhee: I attach great importance to the decisive part which may be
played by your country in the great drama that is now unfolding".
(As far back as 1947, after
the Moscow Conference, Dulles had urged the American government to go ahead
with the treaty with Japan without seeking Russian agreement. By May 1950, he
was publicly expressing the view that something more positive than the Cold War
must be developed. As late as September 1958, he told reporters that Government
stuck to the basic tenet that the Communist continued hold ors the mainland was
not one of the facts of life.)
From Korea Dulles proceeded
to McArthur's headquarters in Tokyo. After his talk with McArthur, the
Associated Press reported that Dulles "predicted positive action by the
United States to preserve peace in the Far East".
In the result "positive
action" did not consist in warning the contestants that invasion by either
party would bring intervention by the U.S. The meticulously careful investigation
of the record by I. F. Stone, set out in his "Hidden History of the Korean
War", leaves little doubt of the conclusion that Dulles and McArthur were
planning to exploit some incident as a means of stampeding the U.S. into a show‑down
with Soviet Russia and China; and succeeded in doing so. Ideas of
"preventive war" permeated the American political atmosphere. The
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee had recently discussed the
prevailing atmosphere with newspaper reporters; and said these sort of people
expected an involving incident.
Dulles and McArthur were to
spell out their ideas on the subject; while in August 1950 the Secretary of the
Navy, "Matthews' in a public speech advocated preventive war; and the
Commandant of the Air War College in a public interview advocated an attack on
Russia. Truman was so alarmed that on September 1, 1950 in a radio broadcast he
declared: "We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war".
As the Korean war began,
McArthur endeavoured to involve Soviet Russia in responsibility; but no
evidence was forthcoming. Then began a series of incidents whereby McArthur
sought to embroil Soviet Russia and China in the Korean war. As the record
shows he did finally embroil China by threatening their important waterworks at
the Yalu River. Finally McArthur's in subordination became so pronounced that
Truman took the heroic step of dismissing from his command this idol of the
American public.
But the damage to Sino‑American
relations had been done; and was irreversible. American politics became firmly
affixed to Formosa.
North Korea had moved to the
attack and crossed the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. The incident was first
reported at McArthur's headquarters as an attack by South Korea. Truman was
reported as being interested but not alarmed. On the next day, after
conferences with his Secretaries of State and Defence, he issued a statement
but made no mention of military intervention by the United States, by
themselves or under the auspices of the United Nations. In the Senate the
Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee said "the President does not want to
take a course which will involve the people of the United States in armed
aggression or in war". It was announced that the Republicans were
"unanimous that the incident should not be used as a provocation for
war".
That night however reporters
were summoned to the White House to receive Truman's famous statement to be
released the next day: "The attack on Korea makes it plain beyond all
doubt that Communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer
independent nations and will now use armed invasion and war". It pledged
the United States to military intervention against any further expansion of
Communist rule in the Pacific. It promised more military aid to Indo China and
the Philippines. It ordered United States air and sea forces to give the South
Korean Government troops cover and support; and it ordered the Seventh Fleet to
prevent any attack on Formosa. Up to this point there was no commitment of
American power to support Chiang's aspirations to "liberate" the
mainland. Since then Dulles seems to indicate it to be a basic tenet of
American Policy.
This overnight reversal of
American policy forces one to the conclusion that Dulles and McArthur had at
last succeeded in exploiting the incident for their own purposes and had
persuaded the Administration to completely reverse its foreign policy on the
ground that Communism (that is Soviet Russia) was on the march. Fortunately
however Truman declared war not on ;Soviet Russia, but in general terms only an
Communism.
And so The United States,
dragging with her a token force from the member States of the 'United Nations,
found herself involved in the civil conflict between North and South Korea;
arid now once more finds :herself involved in the civil conflict between Chiang
Kai‑Shek and Communist China. This time it may mean World War III.
Formosa stemmed from Korea.
PREGNANT PERIODS IN JAMAICAN HISTORY.
The reports reaching England
of the oppressive nature of the Apprenticeship induced two Quakers, Sturge and
Harvey, with some associates to visit the islands on a fact finding mission. In
the year 1837 they accordingly visited Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica St. Lucia,
Barbados and Jamaica and published their report in book form in 1838 under the
title: "The West Indies in 1837, being the journal of a visit to Antigua,
Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, Barbados and Jamaica undertaken fox the
purpose of ascertaining the actual condition of the Negro populations of those
islands".
They uncovered and reported
appalling conditions of oppression in the islands, which confirmed the reports
being sent to the Colonial Office by the Marquis of Sligo from Jamaica
supported by the reports of the Stipendiary Magistrates.
In the result full
emancipation was decided upon after a Committee of the House of Commons had
inquired into, conditions in the colonies.
On 20th February, 1838, Lord
Brougham moved in the House of Lords a series of resolutions one of them being
that "it is expedient that the period of praedial apprenticeship in all
the colonies should cease and determine on the first of August 1838". On
this occasion only seven peers supported him. On March 29, a resolution to the
same effects was moved in the House of Commons supported by petitions signed by
more than a million people. Delegates from all parts of the country thronged
the lobby of the House on the night fixed for the. debate. The Government
opposed the motion, two hundred and fifteen voting for the resolution and two
hundred and sixty nine against it. On May 22nd another resolution was
introduced to the erect that Negro apprenticeship in the British colonies
should at once cease and determine. The Government was taken by surprise and
the motion was carried by a majority of three. A week later the Government
secured rescission of the Motion.
In the meantime Queen
Victoria succeeded William IV and Sir Lionel Smith was battling with the
Jamaican Assembly on conditions under the Apprenticeship. On June 5, 1838, the
Governor called the Assembly together to debate the agitation in England over
the Apprenticeship, and in the hope that the Assembly would bring the term of
Apprenticeship to an end, and obviate the necessity for compulsory legislation
to that effect in England. In the event, Jamaica was the last of the islands to
enact this measure. It was done, but under protest; and only after the
compulsory measure had been enacted in England, and its proclamation suspended
to give the colony an opportunity to pass its own act.
The Jamaican legislature
showed up very badly in the proceedings; and the final protest was ill‑advised,
petulant, abusive and utterly unworthy of serious‑minded legislators; but
in extenuation it may be said that they felt the sacred rights of property to
be at stake. But what was important was that at long last three hundred
thousand human beings, representing three fourths of the population of the
island, were freed from slavery, on the first day of August 1838.
In the year 1842 a select
committee was set up by the House of Commons to enquire into the state of the
different West India Colonies in reference to the existing relations between
employers and labourers, the rate of wages, the supply of labour, the system
and expense of cultivation and the general state of their rural and‑
agricultural economy. The minutes taken at the hearings and the report of the
Committee are most informative. In their report the Committee confined
themselves to a series of resolutions, which we briefly relate; but it is the
evidence taken, which, making due allowance for the fact that a man's testimony
largely reveals his own character, does give a picture of the conditions of
industry and labour after emancipation.
It was the opinion of the
Committee: That emancipation was productive "as regards the character and
condition. of the Negro population, of the moat favourable and gratifying
results"; that there had been rapid advance in civilizations and increased
sense of the value of property and independent station; diminution in staple
production; greatest effect in Jamaica, British Guiana and Trinidad; the cause
being the difficulty of obtaining steady and continuous labour; diminished
supply of labour generally because labourers are able to live in comfort and
acquire wealth without labouring on estates for more than three or four days
per week; caused by high wages and insufficiency of labour, and easy terms of
purchase of land by labouring population; labourers allowed to occupy provision
grounds at low or no rental; cheapness of land caused by excess of fertile land
beyond the needs of the population; moderate and prudent changes in
administration are recommended to the planters; promotion of immigration is
suggested to create competition for employment; immigration supervision and
control; relations between employers and labourers, to be regulated by
legislation.
There was of course a good
deal of evidence given in support of the conclusions of the Committee. On the
other hand, the marked effect of good personal relations and fair play may be
illustrated by the evidence given by Capt. Philip Browne, R.N. He was a
proprietor of Morant Estate. St. Thomas, and came out in the year 1831 to try
and restore conditions and remained until 1840. His human relations with slave
and labourer alike were excellent; and he experienced relatively no difficulty
in getting the work done, or, after emancipation, in securing adequate supply
of labour.
The evidence is abundant
that labour was obtainable when payment was regular and treatment reasonably
decent.
It has been suggested that
the very intellectual subjection of the Christian masses in Syria made them
malleable material for Islam; and acted as a supplement to the sectarian
hatreds which threw others into the arms of Islam, as well as into the arms of
the superstitions which accorded authentic validity to the particular God of
the particular conqueror, success in war being regarded as theological proof'.
Be this as it may, when Moslem rule was established from Jerusalem to Carthage,
the Christian Church dwindled to insignificance at its sources of origin;
write, in Africa it disappeared; in Persia it continued, being tolerated by
Islam by reason of its hostility to Christian Byzantium; but in many Asiatic
States it succumbed entirely to Mohammedanism.
Comparatively little is
known in detail of the military outburst of the first Mohammedan invaders, who
in a few years destroyed the kingdom of Persia, tore Egypt, Syria and Africa
from the East Roman Empire, and later conquered realms as far apart as India
and Spain. The Christian narrators wrote at the beginning of the ninth century,
some one hundred and thirty years or more after the conquest of Syria and
Egypt. After the year 800 however we have more precise narratives.
This much we know of the
earlier events: the first rush of Mohammed's followers during mid‑seventh
century broke the Roman eastern frontier, which had withstood for six hundred
years the most formidable enemies. Mohammedans claimed that their successes
were due to the unique validity of their spiritual and religious pretensions.
They were the chosen people of Allah, the one true God, of whom Mahomet was the
unique prophet.
When the swift triumph of
Islam cut off from Christendom the peoples among whom its creed had evolved,
the creed was ruling in the far‑flung Roman empire: the Byzantiun State,
Italy, Spain, Frankish Gaul, part of southern Germany, Saxon Britain and
Ireland.
In the Moslem world
Christianity existed on sufferance, and chiefly in heretical forms; but
Christian Europe was more or less agreed on most of its official dogmas; while
the masses carried on their pagan rites and festivals under the name of
Christianity, translating Christian theory and tradition into terms of their
own traditions or vice versa, with the particular variations as to sexual
behaviour enjoined by Christianity. Through it all however the union of Church
and State was supreme with all the sanctions of enforced centralization.
Monastic orders grew
wealthy; and endowments and religious zeal increased with the temporal power of
the Church, while the worldly and the unworldly operated to the political
interests of benevolent rulers. The Church had become a political as well as a
social function of the State. Perhaps when rulers became convinced that
Christianity was to their interest, docile subjects enjoyed voluntary co‑option.
Augustine claimed that 10,000 Angli were baptized in Kent on Christmas day 597.
A little later Heraclius in the East baptized masses of Jews by force; and the
same course was followed in Spain and Gaul. Among the Barbarians; force
supervened, unlike the voluntary submissions in Britain. Imposition edicts and
the royal support of the missionaries by the sword appear to have been the
rule. In Britain there was a repetition of internecine religious strife which
had agitated the Church within the empire and of mutual massacres and
excommunications.
Charlemagne (c. 742‑814)
has always remained in popular estimation as the great Christian protagonist
against Islam. He was indeed acutely alive to the value of Church organization.
In his wars with the Saxons, he decreed that those who rejected the gospel
should be put to death ‑ his wars with them lasted thirty‑three
years.
In the Scandinavian
countries, the founding of Christianity was a life and death struggle lasting
about two hundred and fifty years (820‑1075). Curiously enough, while
active elsewhere in support of the Church, Charlemagne had vetoed its extension
to Denmark, lest it be used against him as a hostile power.
Contrary to custom, the
christianization of Russia was a bloodless process, achieved within three
generations; and Russia remained Christian under the two and a half centuries
of Mongol rule from 1223. But in Bohemia (870‑936), Poland (967), Hungary
(997‑1038), Finland (12thCy) bloodshed accompanied the process of
enforced conversion by conquest and decree.
It is a sad commentary on
the propagation of religion (Christian and Islamic) that it was in each case
accompanied by violence, associated with the power wielded by Church and State.
Throughout the foregoing
period of the history of the rise and spread of Christianity, the records are
filled with the sincere efforts of the followers of the cult to heal diseases, help
distress and satisfy the cravings of the human spirit for contact with reality.
A vast activity of charity and mercy animated the early Church; and has
continued so to do throughout the ages: "to heal the sick, to feed the
hungry, to succour the diseased, to rescue the fallen. to visit the prisoners,
to forgive the erring, to teach the ignorant and to minister to the salvation
of the soul. A mighty power impelled men to deny themselves in the service of
others; and to find in this service their own true life".
Among the early fathers and
continuously thereafter there were men of great probity, spirituality and
unselfishness, as well as great administrators and men of great ability and
literary talent.
The story of the Papacy must
now be told.
Perhaps one is trop a cheval
on a pet hobby; that the recreational urge is one of the strongest factors in
human conduct. Perhaps this conviction is one's particular form of vanity; for
most people agree on the contrary that vanity is a greater compelling factor in
human behaviour.
Vanity seems to proceed from
some inferiority chink in one's armour; and assails both the intellectual and
the uneducated, the master and the slave. Every employer should bear this in mind;
and remember that a word of praise is more effective than an overweight of
blame.
M. G. Smith, the
anthropologist (Social and Economic Research U.C.W.I.) in a penetrating article
on the British West Indies in the 1820s calls attention to "status"
even among slaves. Students of English history know the part status played in
England for countless generations. The hierarchy of status is a manifestation
of vanity.
Often vanity acts as an
inhibitory force; sometimes however it spurs mediocrity to achievement.
Assailing both the intellectual and the uneducated, it assails also both the
ornate and the insignificant. World movements have been stimulated or impeded
by the personal vanity of one or more people of influence.
There are people with whom
one is unable to make any progress even on an admittedly important plan unless
one gets them to believe that one thinks that they think that one thinks that
they originated the plan.
At the turn of the twentieth
century there were two highly placed government officials in Jamaica to whom
the only way of approach was to enlist or pretend to enlist their help.
Vanity does not exclude the
recognition of one's own shortcomings; but does manifest a desire to conceal
them, or to avoid being confronted with them.
I have never quite made up
my mind whether these "Comments" spring from the recreational urge or
from vanity.
Economically, the period
following on emancipation and continuing through to the riot at Morant Bay in
October 1865 forms a very dark and depressing period in Jamaican history. The
attempts of the emancipated slaves and their Missionary leaders to readjust
their society and economy were impeded by both the lack of understanding and
impecuniosity of potential employers. Some attempt will now be made to trace
conditions during this very difficult period; but it is relevant to consider
conditions prevailing shortly before emancipation.
In 1837 there were 183
elementary day schools with nearly 13,000 children on the register, 139 Sunday
schools, 95 evening schools and 124 private schools. From 1837 to 1841, in
addition to grants from religious bodies in England, a grant of £30,000 was
made annually by Great Britain to Jamaica for education. In 1842 the grant was
reduced to £6000, and, diminishing annually, finally ceased in 1846. In the
same year Britain admitted slave grown sugar on equal terms with Jamaican
sugar; and the ruling class was so sorry for itself that it made no provision
to replace the former British grant for education. In 1865 there were only 893
schools accommodating 26,167 children. The ecclesiastical grant for the
established church was said to be £45,000 per annum, while the amount spent on
education was only £3,000, £500 of which was paid to the inspector of schools.
Between 1838 and 1865 there was no more controversial social question in
Jamaica than the propriety of education for the children of peasant and
labourer. George William Gordon was a lone voice pressing for dis-endowment of
the "established" Church.
Of the Negro villages in
time of slavery distance lent enchantment to the view, set as they were amid
groves of fruit trees. The near view gave disillusionment. Thousands of the
homes consisted of one room serving the whole family. Marriage was almost
unknown. Women concubines cooked the food, waited on the men and helped in the
cultivation and sale of crops. Within twenty years the efforts of the
missionaries were rewarded in improved social habits, particularly in the new
villages established after emancipation.
In preparation for
emancipation the village of Sligo Ville was commenced in 1835. By 1843 every
allotment had been sold, and the village was prosperous. In 1843 Clarkson Town
was already of considerable extent. At that time it was estimated that the
number of villages established since emancipation numbered about two hundred
and the lands purchased about 100,000 acres. The heads of families purchasing
numbered 10,000 and the number of cottages erected 3000, the amount paid for
land £70,000 and the value of houses erected £100,000, all within four or five
years.
Full credit should be given
to the missionaries. Now the dress of the country folk kept pace with economic
betterment; and regard for its value was evidenced by the quaint custom, which
continued up to the time of motor conveyance; "dress clothes" and
shoes and stockings carried in a basket on the head near to the social centre
(church or village), and there donned, to be carefully replaced in the basket
after the occasion, then taken home and cleaned and carefully put away against
the needs of the next ceremonial occasion.
The ideas of the peasantry
on the subject of marriage also underwent marked change. In 1840 a law was
passed legalizing the celebration of marriage by missionaries of all
denominations, and the ceremony became a matter of very frequent occurrence,
the prospective husband providing the bride's wedding dress. Between 1841 and
1843 nearly 15,000 marriages were annually celebrated.
Courtesy, always a feature
of primitive peoples, was a marked feature of the countryside. The. humblest of
the peasantry never met without exchanging salutations and inquiries after the
health of the family; and omission to say "howdye" in passing was
regarded as a breach of good manners. Gratitude for favours received, respect
for old age, love of offspring, generous compassion for the distressed, ardent
and disinterested friendship, have, even .by prejudiced writers 'been
acknowledged as redeeming features of the negro's character. These qualities
ware becoming increasingly manifest. In a despatch in 1832 Governor Metcalfe
remarked: "The peasantry sent their children to school and paid for their
schooling. They attended and subscribed for their churches. They were generally
well‑ordered and free from crime."
We know that missionary
bodies financed land settlement in the early days after emancipation and in
preparation for emancipation; but necessity also prevailed on landowners to
part with their land, in spite of the prevailing belief that the sale of land
for negro use was a betrayal of one's class, seeing that possession of land
would disturb the labour market.
Joseph Sturge who had
visited the island in 1837, helped the Baptist Minister John Clark to establish
settlements in the St. Ann mountains. In 1852 Clark, at the request of Sturge,
reported on land settlement. He reported the constant disputes between planter
and emancipated negro on the matter of wages and house rent, which made it
urgently necessary for land to be placed at the disposal of the people. He
first bought 120 acres near Brown's Town at a cost (including cost of title) of
£700. Nearly one hundred building lots and the same number of provision grounds
were established. The house which originally ,stood on the property was
converted into a schoolroom; and a chapel was subsequently built. This was the
settlement called Birmingham in honour of Sturge. In 1850 it had a population
of five hundred and forty. The next property purchased, called Clarksonville,
cost £1500 and comprised six hundred acres, and provided for about one hundred
families. Next came Wilberforce. Then one hundred acres in standing wood was
purchased for £300 and laid out
at the urgent request of
people who lived far away from the other settlements. A large picturesque
village called Stepney was built containing a commodious schoolhouse and a
temporary place of worship.
A planter in the
neighborhood asked Clark to help him dispose of part of his property. Eighty
families were settled on this. It was called Buxton. It was now no longer
necessary for Clark to involve himself in financial responsibility. Several
proprietors offered land for sale in small lots at from £& to £12 per acre;
and the number of independent villages in the district increased to twenty or
more; fifteen or sixteen hundred families, or about three‑fourths of the
people of the district, were settled on their own lands.
Clark reports that there
were 1800 members of Baptist churches; and also that the system of forming
independent villages had been extensively carried out in all parts of the
island, at first by the missionaries and later by the people themselves, until
at least two‑thirds of the whole population possessed their own little
holdings.
In most of the ,settlements
there was a "classroom", where many of the people attended prayers
every morning before going to work and again in the evening after work. Great
care was taken in securing title to land; and, if a holding was assessed at £6
or more, in assuring voting rights for the freeholder. But partly through their
being disfranchised on various pretexts, and partly from their lack of
understanding, or their failure to record their titles, or to pay the voting
tax imposed on the small landowner, many failed to secure the rights of the franchise.
Clark reported the
settlements as going well and the people as industrious, thoughtful, frugal and
socially ambitious. Ground provisions and other annual crops were grown for
subsistence and sale; and a large quantity of "new sugar" was being made
for sale and use. Fourteen years after emancipation one half of the export
quantity of coffee was believed to be the produce of these settlements and a
large portion of the pimento. It was from the "small settler" that
Captain Baker in the 1200s got his early supplies of Bananas for export to
America.
In addition to John Clark's
report, we have the valuable "Missionary Reminiscences" of the first
Presbyterian missionary, Mr. Blyth, the founder of Hampden Church, Trelawny. He
noted the reciprocal advantages of a labouring population of small ; ,attlers
in proximity to the estates. He claimed that the negro had been raised from a
state of deepest degradation to one of civilization and comparative comfort and
independence. Generally he found that the plan of negroes cultivating grounds
for the support of their families had been a great blessing to the country. He
warned that the most watchful and fostering care of those who helped to deliver
them from slavery was necessary, and that the laws emanating from the Colonial
Office and the local legislature needed careful watching, lest the rights and
privileges of the negroes as British subjects be curtailed. They should, he
added, be aided to maintain their religious and educational institutions. He
emphasised the word "aided"; for he advised that their own energies
and resources should continue to be drawn out and applied to these objects; but
he pointed out that at the time (1852) reduction of wages, frequent lack of
employment, the ravages of cholera and smallpox, as well as heavy taxation (the
ad-valorem import duty which provided most of the island's revenue pressed
heavily on them, not to mention discriminatory taxation on their particular
form of livestock) were preventing them from contributing morn than one‑third
of the amount they once cheerfully gave toward building chapels and
schoolhouses and supporting their pastors and teachers.
The idea that by self‑mortification
men attain intercessory power, which is found in ancient religions, inevitably
invaded early Christianity, and, imposed at first to some extent, became more
coercive as control passed out of Jewish hands. It was not unusual therefore
for a presbyter of the second century to gain repute for sanctity by adopting
celibacy. There were sincere (and sometimes extreme) cases like that of Origen.
It was inevitable also that the burden which was undertaken sometimes proved
greater than could be borne; but this thought weighed lightly with the people
who did not fail to denounce priestly lapses. As often before and since, an
artificial ethic created an artificial crime. But nature asserted her rights;
and in the second century priestly concubinage was ill‑concealed; and
sometimes even asserted on the ground of spiritual union. Nevertheless
denunciation by Bishop and Council followed; and it is open to question whether
the discipline of the Western Church did not perforce create underground
disorder.
In the Roman period there
was no machinery for enforcing celibacy. Councils varied in their stringency;
and practice diverged from preaching; while the bishopric of Rome had only a
ceremonial primacy over the provinces.
In the second century,
Victor, Bishop of Rome, excommunicated the Easterns over the practice of the observance
of Easter; but his authority was defied; and for some centuries it was not
again asserted to any similar extent. In the third century, Bishop Cyprian of
Carthage, claimed merely primacy without superior authority for the chief
.bishoprics, and for Rome over the rest. This held good as late as the fourth
and fifth centuries. By that time the bishop alone had the right to appoint to
Church offices.
When in the third century
one party in the Church at Rome ,sought to appoint Novatian as its separate bishop,
led by Cyprian, the bishops in the provinces secured the principle that no town
should have more than one bishop. The bishops were gradually gathering power in
and out of Synod.
The growth of Islam in the
East and of barbarism in the West promoted the growth of the Roman, Papacy as
the supreme ecclesiastical power in Latin‑ Christendom. The movement had
begun in the second century; but in the third century we find Cyprian of
Carthage insisting on the independence of his Church, while admitting the ceremonial
Papacy of Rome. In the fourth century, Damascus tried to induce the Eastern
bishops to go to Rome for the settlement of disputes; but the Pastern Council
sternly rebuked him. While the old empire subsisted, neither the emperor nor
the patriarch at Constantinople would concede any supreme authority to the
bishop of Rome; and in 381, Theodosius constituted the patriarch of
Constantinople the equal of the Bishop of Rome. And while the Roman bishop was
pushing his claims to primacy, the see of Constantinople with the emperor's
connivance was taking province after province from the Roman jurisdiction;
while the bishop of Jerusalem was claiming primacy also.
Leo I (440‑61) did
much toward the event, but it was under Gregory I (590‑804) that the
Roman See begins clearly to appear as the head of the Western Churches, and the
Church itself to establish its spiritual reign on earth.
The Patriarch of
Constantinople had assumed the title of Oecumenical or Universal, and Gregory
had pronounced the claim blasphemous; but a few years later he secured his own
supremacy, but had to fight hard for supremacy in Britain, Gaul and Spain.
In the eighth century the
emperors quarreled with the Papacy; and the majority of the Popes (730‑?5)
called in the help of the Franks. In 754 Pepin presented to the Pope the
sovereignty of the exarchate receiving favours in return. Finally fn 774
Charlemange conquered the Lombards; and fn 800 the "Holy Roman
Empire" was established with the Pope as the spiritual colleague of the
emperor. As Voltaire was somewhat sardonically to remark, it was "neither
holy, nor Roman, nor an empire"
Hitherto the Bishop of Rome
had been popularly elected like other bishops, and like them also was subject
to acceptance by the emperor; but after Pope Zacharias (741‑ 52) the
eastern emperor was ignored. Charlemange however asserted his power over the
Church as Constantine had done. The relations between emperor and pope
depended, as far as the relative assertion of power was concerned, upon the
personal character of each. The Pope, for example, asserted power in relation
to Charlemange's son, Louis, in a measure never attempted against Charlemange;
while in 875 Pope John VIII even claimed the right to choose the emperor. In
the meantime the Pope had not yet secured exclusive prestige within the Church
itself. In 824 a Council of Frankish bishops in Paris actually denounced as
absurd decrees of the Pope enjoining the worship of images.
In the ninth century the
Frankish bishops produced a collection of alleged ancient and authentic
decretals dealing with the local independence of bishops and their right of
appeal to Rome. Pope Nicholas I (858‑67) adopted these and used them in
support of his central authority; but their authenticity is seriously
questioned by scholars. The progress of the Papacy was however somewhat
hampered by internal disorders. From John VIII to Leo IX (1003 ‑ 108) six
Popes were deposed, two murdered and one mutilated, the Papal office being at
the disposal of factions of the Italian nobility. For a time the counts of
Tuscany succeeded in making the office hereditary in their family.
The tenth century had to
reckon with the general tradition based on the Apocalypse that the world would
come to an end in the year 1000 and with the licentiousness that often attends
periods of actual or impending disaster. The elections to the Papacy had become
so scandalous and expensive that the clergy themselves conceded the right of
appointment to Henry III of France in 1047.
Now enters on the scene one
of the most remarkable of the clericals of the eleventh century, the monk
Hildebrand, later to become Pope as Gregory VII. As secretary of Pope Nicholas
II, he advised the latter to decree (1059) that the election of all bishops
should lie with the local "chapters" and the pope; but that the pope
should in future be elected by the seven cardinal bishops of the Roman
district, the choice first to be assented to by the cardinal priests and
deacons of the Roman Churches then by the laity and then to be ratified by the
emperor.
By the time he became Pope
however (1073), Hildebrand had become fanatically attached to the ancient
decretals, had embarked on a programme of drastic reforms and claimed supreme
authority as Pope including the right to depose kings. The struggle between
Henry IV and Gregory VII brought slaughter and misery on both Italy and
Germany; but out of it the papacy emerged with an accession of strength. In the
course of the struggle the Pope reduced Henry to an historic act of self
abasement (1077) at Canossa. Gregory VII as Pope and Hildebrand previously as
Monk made such an impression on contemporary history that some greater details
on the life and activities of this remarkable man appear to be in order in even
a grief sketch of the history of the papacy; and these will accordingly be
taken up in our next issue.
The American "Bill of
Rights" expressly builds into the Constitution guarantees of civil
liberties which remain inviolable and unalterable except by amendment of the
Constitution. An amendment of the Constitution has to be proposed by two‑thirds
of the members of both houses of Congress but cannot go into effect until
ratified by the legislatures of three‑fourths of the States. The
Constitution remains supreme over the legislature; and the Constitution is
authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court. A law passed by the
legislature may therefore be null and void if interpreted by the Supreme Court
as ultra vires (or beyond the powers of) Congress.
Nevertheless repressive laws
violative of the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution have been passed
by Congress and by‑passed by the Supreme Court. This is fully in
accordance with the law of history: that public opinion (often carefully
groomed by politicians or government or newspapers) reacts upon the judiciary
and defeats the Constitution.
In this issue we deal with
the atrocious Smith Act.
The Smith Act, passed in
1940, was the first Federal peace time sedition law enacted since the
"infamous Alien Act of 1798" (our quotation is from President
Truman's veto of the McCarran‑Walter Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952) . The clauses of the Smith Act which constitute flagrant violations of
the "First Amendment" of the Constitution were smuggled through
Congress as a small and inconspicuous part of a lengthy bill aimed at aliens;
and few Americans realised that a concealed violation of the Constitution was
being enacted denying to American citizens civil liberties expressly enshrined
in the Constitution.
These clauses make it a
crime with penalties of $10,000 in fines and ten years in prison "to
knowingly and willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity,
desirability or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the U.S.
by force or violence" or "to organize or help to organize any
society, group or assembly of persons, who teach, advocate or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any government in the U.S. by force or violence; or
to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group or
persons, knowing the purpose thereof." They also provide that "it
shall be unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, or to conspire to
commit, any of the acts prohibited by the provisions of this title."
These provisions violate the
First Amendment, by penalizing mere advocacy of political ideas; and run
counter to the American tradition of free speech.
In the summer of 1948 the
Truman administration in preparation for the elections and to offset Republican
charges of "softness towards Communism" indicted twelve top leaders
of the Communist Party under the Smith Act. The indictment charged that they
"conspired" to put into effect . . . Judge Medina found eleven of the
accused guilty (one of them was not brought to trial by reason of ill‑health)
and sentenced ten of them to five years and ones to three years imprisonment
and also sent their several Counsel to gaol for contempt of Court in the course
of the defence.
Actually the accused were
never charged with any overt act but merely with advocating Marxist doctrines
generally; and no evidence was given of any plan or incitement to overthrow the
government by force or otherwise.
A majority of the Supreme
Court declared the Smith Act constitutional on a palpably false extension of
the famous Judge Holmes's questionable dictum of a "clear and present
danger". Judges Black and Douglas gave dissenting judgments. Extracts from
these dissenting judgments will give some idea of the fantastic nature of the
charge and conviction.
So W. A. Domingo's warning
on Federation of July 1956 has come home to roost. He said: "It might be
possible even at this late date for some of the legislators who accepted the
idea without appearing to have given it any critical study . . . to stop and
take that sober second thought . . . " What would a plebiscite in Jamaica
today reveal?
To the unsophisticated it
may appear shocking that an Opposition which did not oppose (indeed which
ratified) Federation, when opposition a n d non‑ratification might have
been seemly and opportune, should now opportunistically seek kudos and
political profit out of a threat of secession.
Quite apart from the merits
and demerits of Federation, Sir Grantley Adams might with profit to himself and
Federation have studied the political history of the U.S.A. If those who
drafted the American Constitution had prematurely thrown their weight around,
the U.S.A. Federation might well have foundered before the first ten Amendments
and ratification; for the unit States were exceedingly jealous on the score of
State sovereignty; and permitted only in the course of time and under the
stress of real or imaginary necessity, the invasion of State rights and the
Constitution & Bill of Rights by Federal authority.
"Police powers" in
inter‑state commerce, "due process", "equal
protection" in law, and civil liberties were all the subject of carefully
worded provisions; which gave way one by one to ad hoc legislation, some of it
palpably ultra vires the Constitution.
The cynic might well
conclude that Federation is a form of antecedent compulsion to future compacts
which would never otherwise have been voluntarily conceded.
Records of the social and economic
conditions surrounding plantation economy in Jamaica in the eighteen twenties
are ample. The anti‑slavery campaign was in full swing; and presentation
of the facts, tinged with the commentator's special bias, or particular
experiences, illuminates the period with much material for historical research
and judgment.
In 1818 the authoritative
survey set down the area of the island at 2,724,262 acres, of which 639,000
were in sugar estates or plantations, 280,000 acres in breeding pens or farms
and 181,000 acres in coffee, pimento, ginger &c. No comprehensive account
was ever taken of the farming of the slaves, by whom was produced the surplus
ground and other provisions which supplied the whole island with staple food
known as bread-kind. At this period the slave population was estimated at
345,252, the white population being computed at 35,000, and there being a large
number of free "persons of colour".
The various local
agricultural products exhibited no marked difference in kind to present day
products; but some variation in volume and use. For, example, the south side of
the island relied to a great extent on the guinea corn, a sorghum, which
produced a kind of flour‑meal for the slaves.
Among the fauna, the wild
hog had retired to the remote recesses of the woods, while the cane‑piece
rat committed immense ravages in the sugar cane and corn fields. It was
estimated that the cane‑piece rat destroyed regularly one‑fourth of
the annual sugar crop at its source in the fields. Thirty thousand were said to
have been destroyed on one plantation in a year.
The quail, then a common
bird in Jamaica, has since, along with other ground‑nesting birds, been
exterminated by a later introduction, the mongoose, which was imported to keep
down the pest of the cane field rats. Yellow, black and brown snakes were also
common in Jamaica during the period. They have been exterminated by the
mongoose.
Better class cattle was
imported occasionally from England, and poorer quality breeds from Cuba. The
price of beef underwent extreme fluctuations ranging between 71/2d. and 1/8d
per lb. The pen-keepers and butchers often combined to keep up the price, as
the magistrates could regulate the price of bread but not of beef.
Chemical fertilizer being
entirely unknown, planters made great use of animal manure, compost heaps,
ashes and marl. Each cane hole received its modicum of animal manure, and
before a field was planted it was subjected to a process of "penning"
2000 head of cattle per acre being successively folded on the land to be
planted. On many absentee‑owned plantations however the overseers took up
new lands for cultivation rather than incur the expense of manuring the already
cultivated lands.
Guinea grass had been in the
island for over a century; and was then usually planted in the rugged outlying
lands. The introduction of guinea grass into Jamaica was fortuitous. A Chief
Justice received from Africa a pair of canaries with bird seed for their
sustenance. When the cage was cleaned the seed germinated; and the domestic cow
was seen to relish the resulting grass. Guinea grass had arrived in Jamaica. (A
later generation of Jamaicans about twenty five years ago witnessed the
introduction of the now ubiquitous Seymour grass, the seed clinging to the
straw in a packing case received at Up Park Camp, St. Andrew.)
Para or Scot's Grass was
also a staple source of fodder in well‑watered districts. At the Ferry a
man was reputed to be making £120 per annum. out of an acre of Scot's grass.
The botanists of the day were urging the importation and development of fodder
grasses.
The "plantain
walk" was an established feature of subsistence economy, along with the
cultivation of yam and coco. The seeded breadfruit (probably our breadnut) had
been introduced into the West Indies by the French as far back as 1782; but it
was not until 1792 that Capt. Bligh succeeded in introducing the breadfruit. In
his honour, the akee, later introduced from Africa, was called by the botanists
blighia sapida. It was often noted that planters in general did not pay
sufficient attention to ,subsistence crops; and that therefore undue
expenditure had to be incurred in the importation of American provisions. It is
interesting to note that during this period there was an active export trade in
the dried okro seed, highly esteemed by Jamaicans for alleged curative
properties in tuberculosis, but more reliably used for thickening in soups and
gravy.
Retail dealers throve on the
extensive system of credit which prevailed in their dealings. Their credit
price was arrived at by multiplying the cost price by three, thus providing a
reserve for bad debts and a margin of profit. Perhaps the bad debts grew more
largely than anticipated; for in later years it was not unusual to see the
legend scrawled on the country shop: "Poor trust is dead. What killed
him? Bad Pay. To trust is to bust; to bust is hell. No trust, no bust, no
hell."
The coinage deficiency was a
continual source of anxiety. The chief coins were Spanish, with a few
Portuguese gold coins; but there were no banks; and the supply of coin in
circulation was quite inadequate for the needs of commerce. At an earlier
period the "clipping" of coins was the subject of much complaint;
and, in the prevailing jealousy of economic competition, was naturally blamed on
the successful Jewish trader, who was for many years to serve peasant and slave
(as the Chinese trader was to serve the peasant at a later date) by tradinging
his products for his needs. Ninety days bills on London carried a premium of
twenty per cent.
The prevailing taxes were a
poll tax on each slave of 6/8d and on livestock of 1/8d per head; land tax of
3d per acre, quit rent of 1/2d per acre, a wheel tax of 20/‑ (from which
agricultural conveyances were exempt), and a house tax of twelve per cent on annual
rental value. There were also parochial taxes on slaves and livestock, a road
tax for keeping the highways in repair, a transient importer's tax of a small
percentage on the invoice, and an import tax on wines, tobacco, refined sugar,
coffee, flour, cattle &c. The annual public revenue amounted to about
£280,000.
The government of Jamaica
came next to that of Ireland in lucrativeness, the Governor's fees and
emoluments being rated at £10,000 per annum, derived largely from Court fees,
Customs seizures, sale. of militia commissions and the escheat of lands. His
court fees were earned 'by virtue of his office as Chancellor and Judge of the
Court of Errors and Ordinary. Next to that of the Governor's the three most
lucrative offices (and at one period more lucrative even than that of Governor)
were those of Island Secretary, Provost‑Marshall‑General and Clerk
of the Supreme Court. They were held by persons resident in England under
Patents from the Crown The holders of the Patents farmed them out to the highest
bidder. (Students of English history may remember how the younger Pitt defended
sinecures on the ground that they were legally real property and their sanctity
should be preserved).
The Island Secretary was
Registrar General, while the provost marshall general was island high sheriff,
with deputies in the various parishes. It may be remembered that the office of
Postmaster General of Jamaica was held by the Postmaster General of England;
and that in the eighteen fifties the Jamaican legislature indignantly refused
to have the island take it over, an the ground that it was thrown back on the
island only when it ceased to be lucrative. The Postmaster General of England
met the occasion by simply demitting office.
Rectors of the established
Church also enjoyed lucrative posts. They had a modest substantive salary,
increased by fees by £1600 to £3000 per annum. Many of the fees were voluntary
as to amount; except in so far as compelled by custom or noblesse oblige. £16
might be the usual voluntary fee for the well‑to‑do on a marriage,
baptism or funeral; but a wealthy man would recognise his social obligations to
a more generous degree. In 1823 there were in Kingston a Roman Catholic chapel,
several meeting houses belonging to Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists &c.,
and a Jewish Synagogue. A Presbyterian Church lead been established a few years
earlier, meeting some opposition to a grant‑in‑aid out of public
moneys on the ground that the Scotch Church was not recognised by the
Constitution.
The Militia was obligatory
for males between sixteen and sixty, involving drill once a month and field
inspection once a quarter.
There was a weekly postal
service between Kingston and other parts of the country, but Spanish Town was
more frequently served. The mails were conveyed on mule back by an accompanying
slave also mounted on mule back. There were forty post offices throughout the
island with a central general past office. The rate of postage depended upon
distance and varied from 72 to 1/3d per letter. All foreign mail to Jamaica
passed through England. Fast sailing ships brought the "packet" to
Jamaica once per month. Arrival before the twentieth of the month entitled the
master of the ship to a bonus of one hundred guineas.
At this period, the free
persons of colour were "feeling their feathers" and preparing to
secure emancipation from their remaining political disabilities. As the
reactionary annalist Bridges pro‑ noted: "That, portion of the
population..
plainly perceived the
influence which it must shortly obtain in an island which in the next
generation will ,surely be their own."
The interweaving stories of
Henry IV and of Pope Gregory VII (as well as the stories of some other popes
who will be mentioned in some detail) vividly illustrate the power‑politics
history of the day and the close connection and rivalry between the Church and
State, which had been seized upon by the older Roman emperors for benefits of
State and had been exploited by the Church in the extension of its powers for
the benefit of clergy. The alliance was often to exhibit connivance and
conflict within the "Holy Roman Empire" within which gyrated the
persons of emperor or king or duke and pope, sometimes pulling together,
sometimes pulling apart Church and State and people.
Henry, on his father's
death, inherited the kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy. He being a minor,
the territories were governed in his name by his mother; but it was symptomatic
of the political power of the Church that she was compelled to hand over
control to the Archbishops of Cologne and Bremen. In March 1065, Henry, at the
age of fifteen, was declared of age, and assumed control.
By 1061, Hildebrand, only an
archdeacon, was already playing an important part in affairs of Church and
State; and had much to do with the transference of papal elections to the
College of Cardinals. The popular faith in his qualifications were such, that,
although the circumstances of his election as Pope invited question in 1073, no
attempt was then made to set up a rival Pope; and this became unthinkable when
his rule as Gregory VII had ripened by custom and efficient administration.
At first Gregory remained
neutral in Henry's territorial disputes, although Henry had sought to prevent
Gregory's journey to Germany; but the Saxon revolt forced him to come to terms
with the Pope; and, as a matter of policy, he did penance at Nuremberg in the
presence of the legates ostensibly to expiate his intimacy with the members of
his Council who had been banned by Gregory. He then took an oath of obedience
and promised his support in the work of reforming the Church, to which Gregory
was fanatically committed.
As soon however as Henry had
subdued the Saxons, he renewed his opposition to Gregory; and on three
occasions, and at Henry's instigation, Gregory was declared deposed and an anti‑Pope,
Clement III, elected in his place.
In 1081, Henry, finding
support in Lombardy, placed Gregory's faithful .friend, Matilda, Marchioness of
Tuscany, under a ban, took the Lombard Crown at Pavia, and secured Clement's
recognition by the ecclesiastical Council. In 1082 he took Rome, and concluded
a treaty with the Romans, in which it was agreed that the quarrel between Henry
and Gregory would be decided by the Synod, the Romans secretly agreeing with
Henry to induce Gregory to crown him, or failing that to choose another Pope.
In 1084 Gregory was accordingly declared deposed and Clement was recognised as
Pope by the Romans, and he crowned Henry as emperor. Henry then attacked the
fortresses that were still in Gregory's hands; but the advance of an enemy
compelled his return to Germany.
In the disputes between
Henry and his son, Conrad, Gregory's papal party supported Conrad and had him
crowned king of Italy in 1093. In 1105 Henry was taken prisoner by his son and
was forced to abdicate the throne of Germany and died the next year.
As far back as 1076
Gregory's severe reprimands had infuriated Henry and his court; and it was at
that time that a Council of Bishops renounced their allegiance to Gregory and
the Romans chose a new Pope. When it was announced at the Synod that Gregory
was deposed it was due only to the restraining influence of Gregory that the
envoy was not at once murdered in the Synod hall. On the following day however
Gregory excommunicated the German king.
This made a profound
impression both in Germany and Italy; and in Germany in particular feeling set
in strongly in favour of Gregory; and it was only the failure to find a
successor that saved Henry's crown. ,But it was settled that if within a year
the ban of excommunication was not lifted, the throne should then be considered
vacant. It was in these circumstances that Henry went to Italy and abased
himself in penance before Gregory , at Canossa. ("Canossa" has passed
into history as a synonym of the humiliation of the head of State).
Reconciliation was effected only after prolonged negotiation and pledges from
the king. But while Henry regarded the sentence deposing him as repealed with
that of the ban of excommunication, Gregory merely reserved his decision on the
question.
It is obvious that the
rebellious German nobles exploited religious questions for political ends. They
were little concerned with the ecclesiastically burning questions of
investiture, still less with simony and the celibacy of the clergy, all of
which meant so much to Gregory in the process of Church discipline and reform.
In the result the king refused to accept deposition; and in 1081 opened
hostilities against Gregory.
Gregory had now fallen on
evil days. He lived to see thirteen cardinals desert him (him, who had done so
much to enhance their prestige and power), Rome surrendered to a German king,
Clement enthroned in his place; while ha himself had to flee from Rome.
Gregory had tried to
establish suzerainty for the Bee of St. Peter at Rome, including the domains of
Corsica, Sardinia, Spain and Hungary; and had threatened Philip I of France
with summary measures, over the abuses of simony.
For Gregory, the Church as a
divine institution, had teen entrusted with the task of embracing all mankind
in a single society ruled by divine law, with the Pope as God's vice‑regent
on earth. While. he acknowledged the co‑existence of Church and State as
a divine ordinance, he maintained the superiority of the Church; and claimed
the right of excommunicating and deposing incapable or unworthy monarchs, and
of confirming the choice of their successors. He denied the right of
investiture to the laity; regulated the canonical appointment to bishoprics;
and insisted on all important disputes being referred to Rome. His battle for
papal omnipotence is involved in his championship of compulsory celibacy among
the clergy and his attacks on the evils of simony.
It was he who formulated the
ideal of the papacy as a structure embracing all peoples; and he took the first
step towards the codification of ecclesiastical law and the definite
ratification of the apostolic Chair as cornerstones of the foundations of the
Church. It was due to his insistence that the celibacy of the clergy became
customary in Catholic Christianity, although inevitably the Church had to pass
through a period of clerical concubinage. It was inevitable also that with the
strict insistence by reformers like Gregory, throughout the Middle Ages there
were complaints against bishops on the score of avarice, luxury and
worldliness; and even in the matter of concubinage, bishops, popes and
presbyters were not free from worldly indulgence; while hypocrisy paid the
usual tribute to ordained virtue.
With the ban on the
publications by the Press of debates in the British Parliament removed,
Gladstone was still maintaining (as Socrates did more than two thousand years
ago and Vice‑President Nixon a few months ago) that wisdom and sound
judgment resided in the few and not in the many. The two politicians claimed
that the few were the government or those elected to the legislature.
Be this as it may, the Press
assumes the function of a molder of the opinions of the many. In exercising
this function in the Western world, the Press may use or abuse two freedoms:
the freedom to publish and the freedom not to publish. The freedom to publish
is subject to the limitations of the law of libel; the freedom not to publish
has no legal limitation.
It has been claimed by
Thomas Wright and others that our Daily Gleaner, which enjoys a virtual
monopoly, generously fulfils its functions in the wide hospitality of its
columns. This praise was (with some qualification) due under the management of
Michael de Cordova. The position appears to be somewhat different under the
present management.
Michael de Cordova had no
inhibitions save and except the firm resolve not to give free advertisement to
any and not to give or sell any advertisement to what was euphemistically
called "competitive publications". A "competitive
publication" might be the weekly "Public Opinion" or some
obscure monthly magazine, or even an annual.
The new management thinks
that this "long established basic policy" might be "due for
review"; and there is evidence that the long established basic policy has
been relaxed of late; but there is a new inhibition which was never in evidence
in the days of Michael de Cordova, that of claiming the right to censor disapproved
views, to decide what is good and what is not good for you or for me to read in
the Gleaner.
Sufficient material has not
been gathered to determine the volume or exact channels of the censorship; but
there is clear evidence that it exists; and that it has nothing whatever to do
with obscenity or defamation.
The American Press exercises
censorship to a marked degree over everything of a leftist tendency; and it
appears to do so on occasion at the bidding of the big advertiser. There is no
evidence that the Gleaner censorship is influenced by the advertiser. It seems
rather to be exercised on the judgment of a sort of self‑constituted
arbiter elegantiarum.
The American press never
gives a reason for refusing to publish an article or to advertise a book; the
Gleaner is somewhat more speciously genial. It gives not one but two
alternative reasons for the censorship, leaving the would‑.be contributor
or advertiser in doubt as to the determining factor which excludes him. For
example an article has been refused on the ground that it is
"unfair", and besides, "the Gleaner is not taking sides".
Or advertisement of a magazine is refused with mention of the "long
established basic policy of the Gleaner which is due for review" but
"the nature of the publication also has a bearing on the matter."
By and large, this writer
believes that, when the evidence is gathered, it will be found that the
exercise of the Gleaner censorship is more pronounced and exclusive than Thomas
Wright and others think.
There was a time when
contributors of any, political or philosophical complexion were made very
welcome to the columns of the Gleaner. Now, one may be tossed out on a two‑pronged
fork that leaves one puzzled, frustrated and hurt. People do not like to have
their contributions arbitrarily labeled "unfair" or their
advertisements rejected with a "procul, O! procul este, profani". If
there were another, daily newspaper in the island, the hurt might not be so
grievous.
All religions, arts and
sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed
toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical
existence and leading the individual toward freedom. It is no mere chance that our older universities have developed f
r o m clerical schools. Both churches and universities in so far as they live up to their true
function serve the ennoblement of the individual. They seek to fulfill the
great task by spreading moral and cultural understanding, renouncing the use of
brute force.
Make no mistake about it: by
act of Government, whether we like it or not, we are pledged to
Federation. Secession therefore is
subversion.
Logically, it is too late to
try to take the point that Federation is unwise or premature; perhaps too late
to argue that we should have Confederation rather than Federation. Although
such argument may be futile, perhaps however public pressure may force the
argument in this direction and prevent the head-on collision of secession or
subversion.
In a sense we are nearly a
hundred years late in the pretence that we have the power of self‑determination
in the matter of Federation. The Constitution was surrendered in 1865; and the
surrender was the fount and origin of government (and constitution‑making)
by Order in Council. Our political masters of the day willed it so without
reference to the people. Now we have been federated without reference to the
people, ostensibly by our local political masters, but actually and inexorably
by Order in Council.
Is it not strange (or is
it?) that drastic constitutional changes are made without previous submission
to the constituencies? So it was in 1865 before party politics; and so again
under the Bustamante Government of 1949‑'54, and so again in 1955‑'56
under the Manley Government. (For it is clear beyond prevarication that
Bustamante shares full responsibility with Manley).
Nevertheless on each
occasion the constituencies knew very well what was being done. In 1865 they
were supine through political ignorance and panic. Each went the way of his
particular phobias; the whites and coloured were jealous of each other and
feared the blacks; the blacks feared both of them. In the prevailing anglolatry
of the day, they all seemed to say: "bearer be ruled by England". In
1949‑'54 and again in 1955‑56 the constituencies were supine simply
because they "couldn't bother". (The Jamaican is proverbially
politically inert except on a ballyhoo for ceremonial, for celebration, for
demonstration of joy ‑ or sorrow).
Although feeling is now
running strongly against Federation (fanned by the two Jamaican architects of
Federation, Bustamante deliberately and with malice aforethought, Manley
involuntarily by his explosive quasi‑political response to Grantley
Adams's ineptitude) it is well to bear in mind that secession is subversion.
Subversion is however by definition an act of the people not an act of
Government. And here is a paradox: if secession is subversion and subversion treason,
"treason doth never proper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none
dare call it treason," or subversion.
But why worry? Perhaps the
tree should never have been planted; perhaps it was planted out of season;
perhaps the first fruits are forced‑ripe; yet a thriftless plant can be
nurtured to maturity, and forced‑ripe fruit has been known to yield place
to good fruit.
In the eighteen twenties t h
e r e were some Jamaicans, persons of colour, who made their mark in Jamaican
history and of whom we shall hear more later. Edward Jordan and Robert Osborn a
n d Richard Hill had attained their majority, Alexander Heslop (later Attorney
General) was a boy of twelve and George William Gordon was an infant in arms.
The new Jamaica, with substantial political and a modicum of social recognition
for persons of colour was already at hand.
Absentee proprietorship was
still largely in vogue; and the time was approaching when estates and
plantations would be gradually slipping into the hands as owners of local white
and coloured attorneys. White and coloured children, sired by whites, were
often sent to England and Scotland for education. There white and coloured
mixed on terms of social equality; !but this idea of equality was rudely
shattered on the return of the coloured folk to Jamaica. (Grant Allen's
"In All Shades" gives a vivid picture of these conditions.).
It was in this school of
social discrimination, that the coloured folk of the nineteenth century were
reared in Jamaica. These conditions gave rise in some cases to a fine reserve
and self‑confidence grounded on consciousness of merit, and often of
moral and intellectual superiority and real achievement; but in many cases it
set up false standards of value involving colour prejudice among the grades of
colour, and often of course there arose feelings of social frustration and
resentments due to an inferiority complex. One resultant feature was the strong
British loyalties which developed among persons of colour, making deep inroads
into the local loyalties which generally arise out of attachment to one's own
country; and which were to have serious political repercussions in 1885.
It should be borne in mind
that time and again the British Government came to the rescue of the despised
and underprivileged in Jamaica, of the slaves seeking relief from oppression
and finally from slavery, and of the coloured folk seeking relief from
disabilities; and, after emancipation, of peasant and labourer seeking relief
from an oppressive plantocracy. So that in the minds of the bulk of the
population strong British loyalties arose from a sense of gratitude for favours
received and from confidence in the inherent relative sense of justice of the
British. These sentiments, which had solid foundation, were sedulously
encouraged by officialdom.
The evils of absenteeism reacted on agriculture, morals and treatment of slaves. The Attorney was ‑remune