JK 246 .P5 Copy 1 THE LAW OF THE LAND I MINISTER PHELPS' ADDRESS AT EDINBURGH, NOVEMBER 12, 1886. FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL LIBERTY AND FEEE GOVEENMENT- THE LAW THAT CHANGES AND THE LAW THAT DOES NOT CHANGE— ENGLISH AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS —SOCIALISM AND CLASS LEGISLATION. HENRY BESSEY, PRINTER, No. 47 Cedar Street. 1886. THE LAW OF THE LAND ; 'toU^.jtx'i^-y'^i'w'' / ej A"nT^I>I7Q^l llllLrD AULfllJl^^O AT EDINBURGH, NOVEMBER 12, 1886. FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT— THE LAW THAT CHANGES AND THE LAVv^ THAT DOES NOT CHANGE— ENGLISH AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS —SOCIALISM AND CLASS LEGISLATION. HENRY BESSEY, PRINTER, No. 47 Cedar Stkeet. 1886. ^% l^\s The Law of the Land. In the Magna Charta of King John appears a phrase, the most significant expression in its most celebrated clause, famiHar now, unknown till then, per legem ierrce — " by the law of the land." It indicates there at once the criterion and the bulwark of the liberties of English- men. And with its context introduces for the first time into the theory of civil government, and crystallizes into language not destined to perish, the idea long moulding and shaping in the unlettered Saxon mind, that human rights are the foundation and not the concession of human authority. Whose phrase it was, we do not know. It was inscribed there by a forgotten hand. It has not been rare in the growth of the English tongue that some new form of words, struck as this was out of the heat of critical time, and compressing as this does a great thought into small compass, has entered for once and for always into the general speech of men. But it is the meaning rather than the origin of the words I have quoted from the Great Charter that I desire to consider. They are repeated oftener than they are understood. It may be useful, possibly, in this day of many novel- ties, to recur to their original significance, and to trace their relation to the political fabric which is the common inheritance of all our race. I ask your attention, there- fore, to some observations, of necessity very general and very brief, upon " The Law of the Land." The term is often made use of in a vague way, as in- cluding all the law which has force or is administered in the country. I do not so understand it. I regard and shall emjDloy it as embracing only tlie fundamental or constitutional law. I conceive the law of the land to be the law that runs with the land and descends with the land. Not the general mass of fluctuating law, derived from changeful legislation, or judicial decision " per- plexed in the extreme ; " but that higher law under which legislation itself obtains its authority and courts their jurisdiction. It was iu this sense, beyond doubt, that the words were employed in Magna Charta. Otherwise the guarantee of personal liberty there contained would alto- gether lose its force. It would no longer stand declared that the liberty of the subject shall be inviolable by gov- ernment ; but only that it shall And its measure and its superior in whatever may have the form or force of law for the time being. And the charter would merely have served to re-enact the old system of arbitrary power, which it was desired to put an end to. In the written Constitution of the United States this distinction is clearly brought out. The fundamental, personal and political rights, which may not be infringed, are enumer- ated and set forth, and are placed beyond the reach of any department of the government. The domain of constitutional law is thus completely separated from that of statute law. The unwritten Constitution of Great Britain, as universally understood, is of the same effect. Though its ultimate construction is entrusted to Parliament, that body is equally bound to refrain in legislation from infringement of the rights which it pro- tects. It has never in recent times disregarded the limit thus imposed upon its action. It is to be remem- bered, therefore, as the starting point necessary to a clear comprehension of the law under which we live, that it consists of two great comjDonent parts, differing widely in their character, the one raised ux^on the other ; the law that changes and the law that does not change. The law that is unchangeable is that which i^rotects the necessary and superior rights of man. THE LAW THAT DOES NOT CHANGE. The tlieory upon whicli our system of government rests is that maukind possesses certain natural rights, usually described as those of life, liberty and property indispensable to human freedom and happiness ; that these rights are not derived from, but are antecedent to government, which is instituted for their maintenance as its first and and principal object ; that it can never be allowed, therefore, to infringe or disregard them, nor to fail to oifer redress for their invasion, and that when it ceases to resjpect and uphold them, the obligation of allegiance terminates, and the right of revolution be- gins. These constitutional principles are of perpetual duration and of perpetual authority, because the na- tural rights they maintain are of perpetual obligation. No change of time or circumstance, no new discovery in political science, no modification of the forms of government, can affect their validity, or restrict their control. The principles of law which I have thus en- deavored to state belong exclusively to the Anglo-Saxon race. In no other system that ever existed are they to be found. They are the distinctive characteristic of the common law of England, which is likewise the common law of the English speaking race everyv^here. They were the offspring of no man's creation, the product of no man's brain. Through centuries of vig- orous Saxon life, through much oppression and violence, through the rise and fall of kingdoms, and wars and tumults innumerable, the great idea that underlies free government slowly ripened into perfection. It found its first definite and X3ermanent expression in Magna Charta, and became there the foundation of English law, to distinguish it thenceforth from all other law, and to conduct the people to whom it belonged and their descendants to a prosperity which the world had not seen before. I do not mean to say that under no other 6 system of government are the personal rights main- tained. They may be "upheld to a greater or less ex- tent, and possibly to the full extent under no others. A wise and humane despot might ijromulgate a code of laws which should afford as complete a security to these rights, while it lasted, as the law of England does. But under no other theory than ours can they be as- sured of a complete or permanent protection. In gov- ernments based upon different principles, personal rights so far as they exist are derived from the govern- ing power, and may, therefore, at any time be abridged or taken away by it. Human experience has shown that rights which are thus conferred are sooner or later lost. It is only when they are conceded to be inviolable, and when the observance of them by government be- comes the condition of its existence, that they ever can be permanently safe. There is still another branch of the constitutional law wiiicli is practically unchangeable in its character. To the X->i'otection of the cardinal rights it has been found that certain political institu- tions and certain judicial principles and processes are necessary. The division of government into three inde- pendent branches, the executive, the legislative and the judicial ; representation in Parliament ; the mainte- nance of courts of equal justice, the writ of liabeas corpus^ the trial by jury — these and other jDrincipal features in the administration of civil authority are not of themselves essential to human enjoyment. They are only so many devices shown by experience, as w^ell as by reason, to be indispensable to the just jprotection of the rights that are essential. The fundamental law divides, therefore, into two branches, the principles that define human rights and the machinery established for their security, THE LAW THAT CHANGES. Upon this foundation of constitutional principles is reared that other portion of the general structure of tlie common law wliich I have referred to as the law that is subject to change. It is deduced from these principles, by their gradual ax^plication to the multi- form and various relations of the individual to his fel- lows, and to the community. As civilization becomes more exigent, society more artificial, industry and business more various and complicated, and property more intricate in its forms and titles, the simple princi- ples in which law has its origin require to be developed and extended. New relations spring up, new regula- tions become necessary, fresh remedies have to be sought for. To meet these requirements the law con- stantly advances and is perfectly adequate. All law that is worth anything comes by growth, not by arbitrary creation. It arises out of an increasing and ever vary- ing necessity. Its movement is constant, sometimes in the wrong direction, it is true, but in the long run gen- erally in the right direction. When law ceases to grow society ceases to advance. The province of the general body of the law, in its vast elaboration of detail, is only to increase the security, to diminish the interruptions, to improve and extend the enjoyment of fundamental and indispensable rights. When this is accomplished, the power and province of civil authority are exhausted. Human law can do no more for man. All that remains, to make life happy and prosiDerous, must come, under Providence, from personal conduct and exertion, for which the field is thus opened and protected. I have been thus elementary, and, I fear, at the same time wearisome, in order to point out as clearly as I can just what it is that the law of the land secures, and to emphasize the distinction between con- stitutional rights and merely legal rights ; the first underlying government, and not to be infringed by its power ; the latter derived from government, held sub- ject at all times to its actioij, and liable to be modified or withdrawn. The line which divides these two classes of 8 rights is the one which defines and limits the po^yer of the majority. In respect to merely legal rights, that power is ultimately supreme. CIVIL LIBERTY AND FREE GOVERNMENT. What, then, is civil liberty, and what is free govern- ment ? We know that we enjoy them ; we boast of them ; we value them. But, after all, what do they exactly consist in ? Civil liberty is simply the enjoy- ment of the fundamental rights in their full extent. And free government is the government appropriate in form that secures their permanent protection to all men alike ; not by a security dependent upon the will of the governing power, but by one inherent in the government itself, and co-extensive with its existence. It is a very common mistake to suppose that the freedom of govern- ment consists in its form, and not in its substance ; in the means that should maintain freedom, rather than in the freedom itself. Forms of government, of whatever sort, are only forms. The true test is not in the nature of the machinery, but in the result that comes of it at last. The machinery, in and of itself, is only a perpetual burden. We should gladly dispense with it. It is but a means, not an end. That a form of government in which the ultimate jDower is in the people is necessary to the maintenance of freedom, is true. That such govern- ments are necessarily free, is not true. They have been usually free, because they have not been perverted from their purj)ose ; not because it is imxDOSsible that they should be. The opx>osite to free government is arbitrary power. That might be administered by a despot or by a class. Of a despotism, there is, at this day and in our race, no danger. Of attempts of establishing class government, there is danger. When, in any form of popular government, equal protection of the fundamental rights, or of any of them, ceases, that government, though its form remains, is no longer free, and becomes an 9 arbitrary authority, unjustly exercised by one class over another. By what means this comes to pass is immaterial. Arbitrary power may exist in a multitude as well as in an emperor, in a democracy as well as in an oligarchy. It may be the government of the few, or the government of the many. It is not the less class government, because the class that governs is the lowest class ; nor is there any advantage in government by the lov/est class over government by the highest, if there is to be class gov- ernment at all. No class government can be free, because the essence and indispensable condition of free govern- ment is equality of rights in all cases. And the object and necessary result of class government is, to attack the just rights of one class for the benefit of another. When a popular form of government thus ceases to be free, and becomes a class government, in which funda- mental rights are not equally protected, it extinguishes itself. Anarchy soon foUovv^s ; and a nevf system of arbitrary power arises out of the ruins, dictated by the necessities of society. Free government, or civil liberty, then, is, in the end, simply the maintenance, by its people, of those fundamental, and therefore constitutional rights that are declared by the law of the land. And, to the existence of those rights, two conditions are essential : First, that they should be inviolable ; second, that they should be equal. If not inviolable, they are not rights, but only enjojanents on sufferance ; if not equal, they are only the iDrivileges of a class, whatever that class may be. IlSrVASION OF NATURAL EIGHTS. Of the three great divisions of natural rights to which I have referred, the first two are not in these days challenged. It has not been proposed in our time to place either life or liberty at the disposal of any other power than that of the regular administration of justice. No reformers have recently appeared who desire to 10 improve society by taking tlie lives even of those guilty of the offence which history shows to be the least pardonable by mankind, that of differing from the majority in opinion. Thus far, at least, the law of the land stands unquestioned. But in various parts of the world, at the present time, in many forms, under many theories, and upon widely differing j^ropositions, the right of projDerty has been brought into question, has given rise to violent discussion, and has become some- times the subject of serious disturbance. In some quarters, it takes the form of active opposition to all X)rivate x^i'opei"ty and to all government. Such propo- sitions are only appropriately met by the bullet and the rope. In other directions, we hear much of a recently discovered nnd much elaborated antagonism between labor and what is called capital ; as if it were i)ossible that elements should be antagonistic which are essential to each other's existence. It seems strange, since labor has been the condition of human life ever since the creation, that the science necessary to the adjustment of its relations should have been born so late. It is to be regretted, now that it has come, that its propositions are not more easily understood. Elsewhere, the inequality in the distribution of property is the subject of debate ; the condition of the rich and of the ipoor is vividly contrasted, and many theories of legislation to counteract and equalize it are brought forward. As civilization has advanced, and the lield of human exertion has grown wider ; as the means for the creation of wealth have increased, and the ability of mankind has been more and more turned to its acquisition, inequalities in its pos- session and in its display have become more numerous and conspicuous, and the line between the rich and the poor has been more sharply drawn, that was plain enough before. That this disparity should be removed by legislation, that it should become the office of the law to secure in some way a more equal distribution, and to 11 enricli poverty by diminishing wealtli ; that the laborer should some how come to receive more than his hire, and that the unfortunate, the idle and the prodigal should share the prosperity they have not created, are specious propositions, eagerly listened to by those whom they promise to benefit. They afford very facile material to philosophers who are more gifted in speech than in clear understanding, and to demagogues who wish to excite the multitude, rather then to instruct them. One among many of the favorite methods by v/hich reformers of this sort i^uriDose to equalize property is, to bring to bear upon those whom prosperity has rendered obnoxious the power of excessive and unequal taxation, and, under the cover of this abuse, to take from the rich for the benefit of the poor. But it would be foreign to my purpose to discuss in detail, or even to attempt to state all the forms which these theories assume in different countries, and under varying circumstances. They have made noise enough to be sufficiently well known. There is a feeling of indefinable alarm on the one hand, and of equally indefinable expectation on the other. Most of the schemes I have alluded to had their birth x)lace on the continent of Europe. They are not the natural growth of countries where the common law prevails. But their authors avail themselves of the freedom of speech and of the press which is accorded in those countries to attempt to propagate these ideas. Under whatever ingenious form they are ]produced, they all tend to the same results ; to invade the right of private property as heretofore secured, and to take by law from one man, in order to give to another ; to enable one set of men to get something from another, without giving anything in return. When established principles are attacked, a nev/ vocabulary is always invented, not to convey, but to conceal the meaning of its authors. When strijDped of verbiage, and pursued to exact results, the conclusion I have stated is that at which all such 12 proposals arrive. And wherever and whenever they are bronght forward, they are accomx-)aniedb3^what, indeed, is their necessary concomitant, an effort to enforce them by creating political parties, formed upon class lines, and by stimulating the poor to organize against the rich. SOCIAL LEGISLATIVE IMPr.OVEMEXTS. When we regard the extent to Avhich poverty, misfor- tune and distress prevail, under the best conditions that can be devised for their relief, it is impossible to refuse attention and sympathy to any scheme of social or legislative improvement which promises to lighten their burden. I am far from intending to say that nothing can be done in this direction by wise and judicious legishition. Much, indeed, has already been done, and it is but fair to hope that more will yet be effected. Upon this point I especially desire not to be misunder- stood. I am dealing with the right of property. I am not justifying its abuse. The fundamental law that secures its title does not place the ov/ner of it beyond the power of legislation, in many particulars connected with its use and its disposition, in respect to which society has its just claims. The law of the land does not contem- plate its subject as an isolated individual, having per- sonal rights that carry no corresponding obligations. He is but one member of the great commonv/ealth, in which all its people are entitled to equal consideration with himself. Up to a certain point restrictions and limitations touching the right of ];)roperty are not only allowable but necessary. It may undoubtedly be dealt with, in respect to the form it assumes, as well as the manner in which it is enjoyed, when such regulation is necessary to the common interest. That individual or corporate prox)erty may be taken by government, when the public necessity requires it, if just compensation is made for it, is one of the conditions upon which it is held and lorotected. In the United States Constitution 13 tliis condition is expressly declared. Sucli a xiroceed- ing is not a dei3rivation of propert}^, but is only turning it into moneys Wliat constitutes public necessity is a question of grave importance, the decision of wliicli may vary very widely in different countries and under different circumstances. But to regulate property for the general good is one thing, to take it way is another. The fatal objection to the schemes I have referred to is that they strike at its title, not at its form or its use. Under color, and doubtless sometimes with the real hoioe of bringing about an apparent justice — attractive in theory, impos- sible in fact — they all attempt, under whatever disguise, what in plain English amounts to this, to beneiit one part of the community by the robbery of another. Such theories transgress the scope and p)rovince of law. When the efficacy of law is exhausted a large field of human conduct still remains, over which sound policy, enlightened morality and the precepts of Christianity exercise the only control that is possible. Invasion of the rights of property defeats also the equality of the law. Equality of rights is ordained of God. Inequality of condition is equally ordained. The one may be tem- porarily broken down, the other can never be overcome. It has pleased Providence to accord to but few the ca- pacity to accumulate or to preserve property to any great extent. It is a beneficent provision that the mass of mankind must live by their industry. It is a blessing and not a curse that b}^ the sweat of the brow we shall eat bread. It would be an unhajppy world if amusement were the sole emj)loyment of its inhabitants. Inequality of acquisition always has been and always must be great under whatever conditions of government. The principle of law, therefore, wdiich secures to every man his own, while it maintains equal rights, cannot prevent most unequal results. There is always to be seen, on the one hand, distress we should gladly alle- 14 viate ; on the other, examples of excessive accumula- tion, of legal rights pushed to a hard extremity, of wealth uncharitably and unwisely applied, which, in the individual cases, we could wish were made impos- sible. The same result attends the observance of the other principal rights secured by the law of the land. There are those in every community whose death or whose perpetual imprisonment would be a gain to society. But equal protection must nevertheless be afforded to their lives and liberty that is accorded to the benefactor of his race. When the barrier of perfect security to the natural rights, to all men alike, is once removed, when these rights, or either of them, come to be held, not as absolute, but as subject in any degree whatever to the discretion of governmental power, there is no limit and no criterion that can be prescribed to that discretion. Oppression of the poor for the benefit of the rich is a form of tyranny that is promptly re- cognized and condemned. But it is not so easy for some to perceive that the oppression of the rich for the supposed benefit of the poor is equally in derogation of the principles of free government, and equally destruc- tive in the end. All such experiments at once result in a warfare of classes. And in such a conflict, if carried out, which ever party finally prevails, free government is lost. It is a grave error, therefore, to believe that invasion of the right of property is for the benefit of the poor. The result is precisely the reverse. Free government, wliile unquestionably the highest and best civil and social condition for all who live under it, is especially and above all to the advantage of the gen- eral mass of men. It is in itself the elevation of the common people and their emancipation from the tyranny of an oligarchy. Since the jDrinciples of civil and reli- gious liberty were established in England, the advance of civilization and prosperity has been greater than in all the history that had gone before. The improvement 15 in the condition of tlie body of tlio people in all respects has been steady and rapid. When free government is lost by being allowed to degenerate into class govern- ment the strong are likely to take care of themselves. It is the weak who suffer. The wealthy may be made the first and most conspicuous sufferers. But they will be by no means the principal victims in the ultimate catastrophe. Liberty is not the privilege of the strong, it is the protection of the weak. Nor is it the rich who are chiefly interested in the maintenance of the right of property. The less a man has, if he has anything, the more important it is to him that it should be safe. ISTo property can be safe when once the general security that protects all alike is lost. It is a delusion to imagine that it can be impaired to a certain extent and main- tained for the residue, that it may be made the subject of a discriminating protection on the lines of moral justice, at the will of the governing power. There can be no middle ground. Either the title to lawful pro- perty must be universally protected, or it cea&es to be protected at all. That it is not the few, but the many, who are most largely benefited by the protection of the right of property has been strikingly demonstrated in the history of the United States. Under the American Constitution extraordinary safeguards have been de- vised, which have thus far rendered that protection absolute and certain. The result has been the most general distribution of property and the largest individ- ual prosperity that have ever been known in civilized life. The glory of America has been well said to be in the homes of its people. Millions of those homes, the property of their occupants, held in a security of tenure hitherto unquestionable, stretch across the continent from sea to sea. It is true that under the same equal protection the millionare enjoys and increases his accu- mulations, sometimes ill gotten, sometimes ill spent. But to assail him by impairing the general security to 16 property tliat tlie Constitution affords would be like trying to stay the rain from heaven because it falls upon the unjust as well as upon the just. Or like imi:)ugning the beneficence of the Almighty, because, under its im- partial rule, the wicked man still nourishes in his time. AN AMEEICAN ILLUSTRATION. In the Constitution of the United States the political system of Great Britain has been largely followed. Nearly all the great features which give it character are substantially adopted, except that of an hereditary Ex- ecutive and an hereditary Upper House. But in the pro- vision made for the security of personal rights against interference by the government exists a difference be- tween the two sj'stems less conspicuous, but really far more material than any other. The American Constitu- tion declares that " no man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." And that " no State shall pass any law impairing the obliga- tion of contracts." The words " due process of law " have been held, both in England and America, to be precisely equivalent in their significance to the phrase in Magna Charta, " the law of the land." The provision is the same under both sj'stems ; the difference is in the manner of its enforcement. Under the British Constitu- tion Parliament is supreme, and although bound to respect and maintain the personal rights, is its own judge at all times of what constitutes their infringe- ment. The American Congress and the Leo:islature of the States are equally bound to observe constitutional limits in legislation, and to pass no law that would in any respect infringe them. But if by any misajoprehension of what those limits require, or the pressure of any party or j)olitical excitement legislation should take ]Dlace v/hich violates constitutional provisions, the courts of the country, and, in the last resort, the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the highest of all, 17 afford protection and redress against sucli legislation to any person who may be affected by it. An act passed in contravention of this or any other constitntional safeguard is held to be void, and constitutes no justifica- tion to the officer who attempts to enforce it. The con- sequence is that not only life and liberty, but property, individual or corporate, in every form in which it can lawfully exist in the United States, have been made doubly secure against invasion under any form or pre- tence of governmental authority not warranted by the law of the land. First, by the obligation resting upon the legislative power, not to transcend constitutional boundaries; and secondly, by the authority in the courts of justice, if these limits are exceeded by legis- lation or by executive act, to afford a complete relief. THE BEITISn coisrsTiTUTioisr. But in thus pointing out the success v/hich has thus far attended in America the system of judicial protection of constitutional rights, I am not to be understood as claiming for it a superiority over that which prevails in Great Britain. Political institutions, to be successful, must be the fruit of a natural growth, dictated and guided by necessity. They never can be arbitrarily im- posed or created full grown. They come with time and adapt themselves to the soil upon which they arise. That a system has been successful in one country is but an indifferent argument in favor of an attempt to en- graft it upon another. Transfusion of blood is a questionable expedient, and the indigenous tree flour- ishes where the exotic perishes. I have referred to the American experiment in this feature of government rather as an illustration than as an example. It certainly has the advantage of removing from the sphere of political controversy and from the action of popular caprice, and of placing under the uniform and per- manent rules of jurisprudence the preservation of those 18 fundamental personal rights whicli nncler all political changes and chances remain the same. American ex- perience has thus far shown that the assumption of arbitrary poAver by the Executive has not proved the danger to free institutions which theories anticipated. The concentration of power has tended steadily towards the legislative branch of the government. It is from that branch, not from the Executive, that protection has been principally found necessary. What might have occurred in that country in some periods of its short history, if the constitutional restriction I have quoted had not existed, is only a subject of speculation. The frequency with which it has been invoked has de- monstrated its importance. TnE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT. But no system, however elaborate, and no contri- vance, however ingenious, can be finally effectual for the preservation of personal liberty without the constant assistance of an enlightened, healthy and vigorous pub- lic sentiment. Law, however fundamental, is but the reflex of public opinion, and in the long run in a free country must be maintained by that oj)inion or must perish. Constitutions, however guarded, cannot pro- vide for their own immortality. The principles of civil liberty had their origin in the convictions of mankind, and have been nurtured into perfection by the devotion of the race in which they started. Under them the Anglo-Saxon people has become what it is, and by that people they have been made what they are. It is a hackneyed saying, but hackneyed because it is con- stantly true, that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." But vigilance, to be of any avail, must be intelligent as well as active. From whom is it required ? From whom is it to be reasonably expected ? Who are the true and natural guardians of the law of the land ? Manifestly those who are best qualified to understand it, and best capable of patriotic and disinterested con- 19 duct. It was tlie barons of England wlio obtained Magna Charta. It has been tlie best life of Great Britain that from century to century, from generation to generation, in many a crisis, by many a victory, not less of iDeace than of war, has maintained inviolate its great principles. No demagogue, no self-seeker, no man who "follows for a reward," has ever struck an effectual blow for liberty, or has advanced the cause of human freedom a single step. The name of liberty is always in the mouths of such men, but they are its ene- mies, not its friends. They have retarded and disgraced it, but they have never done it any good. They are only camp followers, not soldiers, in the great march destined, we hope, to overcome the world. Liberty, everywhere and alv/ays, has been maintained by the best class of its subjects. I use the term in no conven- tional sense. I understand the best class to be that which is composed of the best people. They may be found in the peerage ; they may rise from humble life ; their distinction is in quality, not in rank. It was the best class of Americans who took up the great quarrel on the far side of the Atlantic, carried through the American Revolution, ordained and set fast the Consti- tution of the United States, and have upheld it ever since. It is in that class everywhere, in all countries, under all free systems of government, that the laws of the land, which is liberty, must find its defenders. Not only against its enemies, but against being wounded in the house of its friends. Friends too ignorant some- times to perceive that a blow aimed at the head is equally a blow at the heart ; that liberty is equality of rights which no man is too high and no man too low to share in, and that when that equality is invaded, from whatever specious motive or upon whatever promise of temporary advantage, liberty comes to an end, and the old story of^the strong against the weak, of which the world was' so long weary, begins to be 20 rehearsed again. AVhat free government sliould do in the multiform exigencies and emergencies of national life, is often a, grave question. Whether free govern- ment should continue to exist can never be a question in the British or American mind. DAA^GER OF CLASS LEGISLATIONS'. Nothing likely to occur at this day in any such gov- ernment is so much to be dreaded and so necessary to be resisted as movements like those I have referred to towards the organization of parties upon class lines, and the marshalling of one class to make Avar upon another. Political parties hitherto have been composed of all classes. Divisions have been upon the lines of opinion, and not upon those of condition. It is only recently that these movements have been seriously set on foot in va- rious directions, and especially in America. If started in one free country they endanger all. I have tried to IDoint out how dangerous to free government such a war- fare must be if allowed to go on to its legitimate conclu- sion. It is not merely the fortune of the conflict that is to be feared, it is the conflict itself. It is the shortest and most direct road to the resumption of the reign of arbi- trary iDower. The man who inaugurates or encourages such a warfare is a greater, because a more efllcient enemy to liberty, than if he attempted to set up the worst form of despotism with which humanity was ever afiiicted. It needs to be brought home clearly to those to whom ignorance and distress make such j^roposals attractive, how^ cruel is the wrong to themselves that the success of them would bring to pass. How inevitably they must be the sufferers, when the hands of one class are thus turned against another, and what should be a community of interest is divided against itself. How certainly such schemes paralyze the industries and business upon which all self-supporting men depend. They are callable of understanding this, if it is set before 21 them in the right way. But the adjuration against a conflict of classes does not address itself, as too many seem to suppose, to the less fortunate class alone. It appeals to them, undoubtedly ; but it appeals with greater force to the higher and better educated order in society. To avert an impending war, concessions from both sides are generally necessary. But they come, in the first instance, with abetter grace and a stronger force from the side that can best afford them. It is easier, sometimes, to disarm the demagogue by mitigating the grievances that make up his material, than it is to refute him before the audiences where he has sway. The common law has its letter, as well as its spirit. The one gives, as we have seen, an absolute protection to absolute rights. The other teaches, that such protection is a weapon of defence, not of aggression ; most effective when used with forbearance and moderation. It is not always necessary or wise to push even just claims to their extremity. A HOPEFUL OUTLOOK. The gradual but steady improvement of the general mass of mankind in intelligence, in self-respect, in social refinements and in the capacity to enjoy them, is the natural outgrowth of civil liberty, and of that law of the land which starts from the recognition of equal rights. It follows in the footsteps of free government wherever it goes. Its tendency must be accepted as one of the great forces of the time, and at the same time one of the most signal blessings to mankind that freedom has conferred. It is not for us to say how much may come of it hereafter. It is but natural, that with this elevation of the humbler order, should come a desire, not always well directed, but with which a right mind can never fail to symi3athize, for better jDrivileges and surroundings, more advantageous conditions, and a better chance in the race of life. It is but just, as well as politic, that this 22 desire should be met and helped forward in all reasonable ways, and it is for the best interests of humanity that it should be. Doubtless something should be done towards such a i)rogress by enactments, considerate and thought- ful, not shooting arrows into the sky to fall we know not where. But far more can be effected, as it appears to me, by the cultivation of a general sjDirit of conciliation, of kindness and of fraternity, which should unite all honest men, of whatever class, in the bonds of a common sym- pathy and a common hope. The right hand of fellowship is the best offering, after all, that man can make to his neighbor. It is idle to expect Utopian results. The varying lot of humanity can never be equalized. The poor will be always with us. But perhaps, in the ripening fruits of that larger j)hilanthropy, that broader and more generous brotherhood which, taking account of human frailty and human sorrow, shall try to lessen the inequalities of life by raising from below, not by pulling down from above, to obliterate, in some measure, those distinctions that do not mark a difference, and to strengthen the security of rights by diminishing the temptation to attack them, may yet be seen — I cannot believe it visionary to think so — not the least beneficent of the gracious harvests that have been generated upon the land by the law of the land. / LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 011 795 503 5