Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 16.djvu/29

 BREVIARY

13

BREVIARY

were induced to leave him, tradesmen were prevented from working for him, and shopkeepers from supply- ing him with goods.

From this case the practice received the name of "boycotting" and immediately the word became cur- rent in the language, The practice spread rapidly through every part of the country. The Government found itself utterly unable to deal with organized boycotting. The powerlessness of the common law was demonstrated by the failure of the Government to convict a number of the leaders of the Land League for unlawful consi)iracy, when in January, ISSl, the jury declared themselves unable to agree and the de- fendants were acquitted. Thereupon followed a succession of coercion and special Crimes Acts, the only effect of which was to render the people more determined and more lawless. Violence and out- rages increased or diminished with the hostility of the Government. After a temporary abatement disorder began to rage fiercely again in 1SS6, when the Plan of Campaign was established and met by a new Crimes Act. On 23 April, 1888, the Congregation of the Holy Office declared that it was not lawful to make use of the Plan of Campaign and boycotting. A short time afterwards the Plan of Campaign was perceived to be a failure and boycotting was gradu- ally discontinued. It had a brief revival about the year 1899. In 1902 boycotting was practically de- stroyed in Ireland, when a number of defendants were convicted in a civil action and damages to the amount of £20,000 were given against them by a jury presided over bj' Chief Baron Pallas.

Boycotting, therefore, in its strict, original sense, means a complete ostracism. It operates by leaving the obnoxious party severely alone and its effective- ness is increased enormously by the threat that any- one who \aolate8 its terms will be regarded as sharing in the offence and will be made to share also in the ostracism of the prime offender. In a wider, but still legitimate, sense of the word it is used of every at- tempt, through the denial of one or more of the ad- vantages or amenities of ordinary social intercourse, to compel an individual or group of individuals to do something which they are legally entitled not to do, or to abstain from doing something which they are legally entitled to do. In this latter sense it may be used of the efforts of a trust, for in.stance, to compel a particular railroad to use only coal from a mine in which it is interested, by the threat that, unless this is done, this railroad will not be allowed any share in the business of carrying the trust's products. A combination or conspiracy is commonly assumed to be of the essence of boycotting. But, although it is true that boycotting generally operates through a combination, the combination does not appear to be at all essential to it. An iron trust or even an iron king may be as well able to exert pressure of the kind pecuhar to boycotting as any combination of Irish tenant farmers. At jiresent there is a growing tendency to use the word boycotting in a wider sense still. It is now very generally u.sed of any discrimination in social or business matters against individuals or sects because of prejudice as to char- acter, tenets, or practices.

The lawlessness and outrages which accompanied boycotting in Ireland in the eighties seem to have impressed it with certain features which distinguish it from other forms of social ostracism, and these features coupled with the condemnation by the Holy Office have cau.sed boycotting to be regarded as affected with a moral taint. For a long time to brand a practice as boycotting was tantamount to labelling it immoral. The ethics of boycotting was discus,sed at considerable length in a number of articles in "The Irish Theolopic'il (Quarterly" in the years 1907 and 1908. Tlw ccnchisions of the con- tributors of the articles differed very widely. As a

result it may at least be safely held that boycotting cannot under all circumstances be pronounced im- moral. The condemnation by the Holy Office may certainly be taken as applying only to the concrete situation as it e-visted at the time in Ireland. Since, therefore, we cannot declare off-hand that boy- cotting is either moral or immoral, and since more- over different instances of boycotting will be found to present very different moral considerations, in practice each case w'ill have to be decided strictly on its merits according to the ordinary moral principles that are apphcable to it.

Mere discrimination in social or business matters, however much it may savour of bigotry or narrow- mindedness in certain circumstances, cannot be called immoral. It is only what everyone does to a certain extent; the most conscientious of men prefer to deal and dine with those whom he knows best or with whom he has most interests in common. As for the element of comiiulsion, the attempt to compel a person to do something in itself moral, which he is legally entitled not to do, that too, in certain cir- cumstances, is perfectly lawful. It is constantly be- ing done in everyday fife by people whom no one thinks of accusing of immorahty. But there are other points substantial in the matter of moraUty, the restraint put on the ordinary liberty of citizens, the use of combination for this purpose, and the liabihty of the practice to grave abuse. These must be con- sidered in every case of boycotting; but they should be considered without prejudice, precisely as they are considered in understandings amongst business men or professional etiquette amongst lawj-ers and doctors.

There is no denying that boycotting constitutes a grave menace to social equity and peace. It may sometimes be used to resist oppression, but un- fortunately it is an instrument that may be made to cut more effectively in the other direction. It is moreover a most powerful instrument in the hands of discontented and vindictive demagogues for produc- ing social turmoil and indulging private spleens. Although the.sc facts do not make a particular case of boycotting immoral, where there is a good to be gained great enough to outweigh the evils and suffi- cient to justify the danger of abu.ses, still, from the point of view of public welfare, they might render it necessary for the legi-slature to prohibit the practice altogether. The boycotting that once prevailed in Ireland has now happily disappeared with the condi- tions in which it had its origin. It is not hkely that any of the Engli.sh -speaking Governments will be called on ever again to take action in connexion with it. The undue advantage taken of their economic strength by certain trusts and companies is much more likely to produce inequity and to call for legislative action.

O'Brien. The Life of Charles Stewart Parnell (I-ondon, 1898); MoRLET, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone (London, 1905); The Irish Theol.Quar.. I, II (Dublin. 1907-08); Lemkchl, Theol. mor. (Freiburg. 1910) ; Vermeersch, Qua:stiones de Justitia (Bruges, 1901).

John Kelleher.

Breviary, Roman, Reform of the. — By the Apos- tolical Constitution "Divino Afflatu" of Pius X (I Xovember, 1911), a change was made in the psalter of the Roman Breviary. Instead of print- ing, together with the psalms, those portions of the Office which sijccially require rubrics, such as the invitatorv, hymns for the sea.sons, blessings, absolu- tions, chapters, suffrages, dominical prayers, Bene- dictus, M:ignifi(it, Te Dcum, etc., these are now all in due order printed by themselves under the title Ordinary. The ps;ilms, under the title Ps.altery, are printed together, so arranged that the entire psalter may be ch;mted or recited each week, and so distrib- uted, or, when too long, divided, that approximately there may be the same number of verses for each