UNDUE INFLUENCE.
WE understand, and to a great extent sympathise with, the feelings which in all countries underlie the Law of Mortmain. It is probably not expedient that great masses of property should pass to corporations which do not die, which seldom waste, and which are compelled to use their wealth for objects that practically never vary. They stereotype human affairs too much, and may in course of time be pressing towards ends which a higher civilisation or a changed opinion condemns as mischievous or absurd. If left unchecked, they may take too large a share of the labour fund, or misdirect it, or even,—though this has never been done—by long-continued application of the practice of reinvestment, accumulate wealth so large as to be dangerous to the common weal. We prevent this practice in the case of families by direct legislation, and there is no reason why accumulation should not also be checked in the case of corporations. It is also well for religion, which, after all, does not depend on endowments, that bequests for religious purposes should be drawn up while the testator is in health, and that there should be no suspicion against any priesthood of using the natural fear of death to extort money. We understand, therefore, the Mortmain Law; but we do not understand the enduring suspiciousness and dislike with which the British public regards all charitable or religions gifts when
they are made to Associations, or pass a certain proportion of the giver's means. If we may judge by the comments of the public on Miss Alleard's case, the general feeling is that if any one gives away all he or she has, for the highest purposes, to any Association, however voluntary, then he or she must have been under " undue influence." Why P People spend all they have every day, from the best motives or the most absurd motives, and nobody says anything to them about it, or would think an effort to recover the money anything but an act of caprice or selfishness. (Thin does not, we must remark, apply to Miss Allcard, who was not bringing her action for her own good in any way whatever.) They give away to this cause or that cause, this person or that person, without a thought of con- sequences, and nobody thinks of bringing the law to bear to invalidate their acts. It is the commonest thing in the world for relatives to risk total impoverishment for each other's sake, and this without the slighest idea of the "consideration" which the law would regard as a final justification of the gifts. Nobody, however, in such cases marrows about undue influence, any more than they do when a man resolves that his whole fortune shall go to the promotion of what he deems a great cause. Nobody ever publicly blamed Mr. Ruskin for parting with his property in the way publicly described by himself, and men even praise those who, in their own lifetime, have parted with all they had in deference to an idea, not unfrequently ill-founded, of overpowering duty. It is only when a man or woman gives to a religious Association that you hear murmurs, hints of undue influence, and expressions of a wish that the law could be made to recover property so bestowed. In this case, for example, of " Allcard v. Skinner," the unspoken hope was that Miss Skinner and the Sisterhood of which she is the head should be deprived of their money, and an almost comic vexation was expressed that the judgment of the Court should have gone so completely the other way. There is a palpable wish that the law should be directly against religious Associations, or at least severely restrictive. The journalists are, indeed, moderate in their tone, because they have read Mr. Justice Kekewich's masterly decision, and cannot discover a flaw in that piece of reasoning ; but they almost all say something disagreeable,—say, for example, that the case does not matter, because if Miss Allcard had recovered the money from a Protestant Sisterhood, she would have bestowed it at once upon a Catholic one. How does that impair her right to sympathy, if she has been unfairly used; or what does that matter to the real question at issue, which is the right of a human being to expend his own money in his own way, provided that way is not pro- hibited by any law, and is not in itself so foolish as to raise a presumption of insanity P Why should not any legal gift be as free as any legal expenditure P The giver must, of course, be exempt from coercion, and must not be swindled in any way by false pretences ; but what necessity is there for any farther precaution than that P We certainly use none when a girl gives herself as well as her fortune to an ex- travagant scamp, and none when her broker persuades her that Paraguayans or Confederate Bonds are an unquestionable mine of wealth. There is " consideration " in those cases, no doubt ; but so there may be in giving to a Sisterhood, though it may be of a less palpable and material kind. As to influence, the in- fluence of a rascally lover over his victim's judgment is at least as great as that of any confessor ; and that of a broker, though it affects the judgment only, is constantly seen to be over- whelming.
We believe that the real explanation of this singular state of feeling is one which is seldom avowed, a doubt whether a sensible person ever will let religion be a paramount influence, whether the fact that it directs him or her to his or her own hurt or loss, is not a proof of itself that he or she is more or less incapable of forming a sufficient judgment. Religion is considered a good thing, and sacrifice for it, up to a certain point, a most respectable thing ; but total self-sacrifice on religions grounds excites far more hostility than other foolish actions. That a man should give to his Church is most proper ; but that he should beggar himself for his Church is almost wrong, or, at all events, indicates weak- ness so great as to affect the freedom of the will. This idea is constantly betrayed about converts, and that when the conver- sion is not to the Roman Catholic Church. The mass of English commentators will not believe that the Mormons, many of whom are utter fanatics, can be anything but deluded victims or treacherous villains ; we never heard the conversion of a Euro. pean to Mahommedanism explained except by pecuniary difficulties or desire for a harem ; while the conversion of Lord George Gordon to Judaism is quoted as of itself proof of his insanity. Jews always consider converts from their faith weak or bad persons, while Madam think those who leave them persons under undue influence ; but, indeed, we need not go so far afield for evidence of our proposition. There is evidence enough in this very case. It would be difficult, we think, for any competent person to read Mr. Justice Kekewich's decision in the Allcard case, without deriving the impression that the Judge is .a master of reasoning, a man exceptionally impartial, one to whom he would gladly entrust the decision of his own fate in a prosecution, or of his own property in a civil process. Yet this Judge, who almost admits that he decided under stress of principle against his own feeling, took the occasion to deliver, as one of his arguments for Miss Allcard's perfect mental competence, the following astounding obiter dictum :—" Of the oral evidence, the most important is that of Miss Allcard herself. She gave her evidence on the whole well. It exhibited far less than I expected that deterioration of moral character which almost invariably follows change of faith, and especially of religious faith ; and occasional exaggeration and anxiety to befriend her own case must not prevent my regarding it as on the whole trathful." Just think of that. So deep and immovable is the conviction of this able Judge that religion cannot be supreme over a healthy mind, that he expects to see conversion followed by deterioration, and that even moral deterioration. He does not affirm that St. Paul, St. Augustine, Bishop Latimer, and Cardinal Newman were deteriorated by conversion,—would doubtless deny that de- terioration had occurred ; but still holds the law so well proved and universal, that he should have expected it to occur, and is surprised when in a bumbler instance ho finds it has not occurred. If Mr. Justice Kekewich can not only think, but publicly say a thing like that, what mast be the depth of the feeling in men with less culture and experience of the world P Thousands think with the Judge ;—that is, they do not exactly object to conversions, especially from Paganism to Christianity, or from Catholicism to the Church of England ; but they cannot believe that religion ought to be so supreme, cannot but think that where it is, there is either instability of character, or some weakness leading to moral deteriora- tion. Mr. Justice Kekevrich, it will be observed, is perfectly fair. He at once recognises that the witness before him, though she does desire to become poor for conscience' sake, has an unusual amount of intelligence—" a trained and cultivated in- telligence," says the Judge—but that teaches him nothing. She is merely an exception, and in no way controverts the universal law, which is that any one who strongly adopts a religion in which he or she was not born,—conversion implying strong faith,— must in some way or other be so incompetent as to be liable even to moral deterioration. To have conquered self, to resist one's friends, to overcome the influence of associations twined with the very roots of mental life,—all this is no argument for strength, but, if the moving power is religions convic- tion, is argument of inner imbecility ! With such a sentence before us, uttered by such a man, it is useless to pursue the inquiry any farther ; useless, also, to expect any relaxation of a law which, while sanctioning the most hideous waste by any young cub of twenty-one, at the bidding, perhaps, of an extrava- gant mistress, actually directs that if property is given in charity or for religion under "undue influence," it may be re- covered, and that, as the Judge explicitly said, not only against the donee, but against the innocent holder, the donee having only the power to transfer legally what he legally received. If the property conveyed had been sold, Miss Allcard could have recovered it, if the decision had gone in her favour, from the buyer.
Previous page
