The Helvetic Cantons, on the other hand, are forced to yield to the demands even of an Austrian government; and the worried Republic of Switzerland, so far as this goes, cannot be. said to be free. The history of the nineteenth century, but especially that of our own age, is full of instances of the interference with the autonomy of nations or states. Italy, Germany, especially Hessia; Spain, Hungary, furnish numerous instances. Cases may occur, indeed, in which foreign interference becomes imperative. All we can then say is, that the people's liberty so far is gone, and must be recovered. No one will maintain that interference with Turkish affairs at the present time is wrong in those powers who resist Russian influence in that quarter, but no one will say either that Turkey enjoys full autonomy. The very existence of Turkey depends upon foreign sufferance.

Since the preceding paragraph was written, historical illustrations have occurred, too important to be appended in a note. The same statesman who, as minister of foreign affairs in the year 1853, made the manly declaration concerning political fugitives, allowed himself, as prime minister, in the year 1858, to propose a law in the House of Commons, at the instigation of the emperor of the French, by which the fomenting of conspiracies, in England, against foreign princes, should be visited with a higher punishment, or be made punishable, if it was not already so. The English Commons indignantly rejected such a bill proposed at that very time; the premier lost his place, and from that historical jury-box of Middlesex proceeded a verdict of not guilty when a Frenchman, residing in England, was tried for having been an accessory before the fact, of Orsini, who had attempted to assassinate Napoleon III. The verdict was plainly on the ground that Englishmen would not be dictated to in their legislation by a despotic foreign government, and as such was hailed with joy by every man on the European continent, who wishes well to liberty.' It was a similar spirit no doubt, which lately caused many Americans to

1 The case is the Queen vs. Bernard.

take so warm a part against the reported attempts of English vessels to search American traders.

On the other hand, it must be remembered that this unstinted autonomy is greatly endangered at home by interfering with the domestic affairs of foreigners. The opinion, therefore, urged by Washington, that we should keep ourselves aloof from foreign politics, is of far greater weight than those believe who take it merely with reference to foreign alliances and ensuing wars. The interference need not necessarily proceed from government. Petitions, affecting foreign public measures or institutions, and coming from large bodies, or even committees sent to express the approval of a foreign government, of which we have had a recent and most remarkable instance,' are reprehensible on the same ground.

It is one of the reasons why a broadcast liberty and national development was so difficult in the middle ages, that the pope, in the times of his highest power, could interfere with the

1 The address and declaration of four thousand British merchants, presented in the month of April, 1853, to the emperor of the French, will forever remain a striking proof of British liberty; for in every other European country the government would have imprisoned every signer, if, indeed, the police had not nipped the petition in the bud; and it will also forever remain a testimony how far people can forget themselves and their national character when funds are believed to be endangered, or capital is desired to be placed advantageously. But I have alluded to it in the text as an instance only of popular interference with foreign governments, doubtless the most remarkable instance of the kind on record. Whether the whole proceeding was "not far short of high treason," as Lord Campbell stigmatized it in the House of Lords, may be left undecided. It certainly would have been treated as such during some periods of English history, and must be treated by all right-minded men of the present period as a most unworthy procedure.

To this must now be added the record of the tone which pervaded the address of the lord mayor and aldermen of London to Count Walewski, French Ambassador, in the early part of the year 1858, and the manner in which it was received, when Orsini had attempted to assassinate the count's master and cousin, having obtained his explosive weapons in England. The reply of the ambassador was submitted to, although rising to such a degree of impertinence that it was necessary, at a later period, diplomatically to explain and partially to unsay it.

autonomy of states. I do not discuss here whether this was not salutary at times. Gregory VII. was a great, and, possibly, a necessary man; but where civil liberty is the object, as it is now with civilized nations, this medieval interference of the pope would be an abridgment of it, just as much as the Austrian or French influence in the States of the Church is an abridgment of their independence at present.

It is a remarkable feature in the history of England, that even in her most catholic times the people were more jealous of papal interference by legates or other means, than any other nation, unless we except the Germans, when their emperors were in open war with the popes. This was, however, transitory, while in England intercourse with the papal see was legally restricted and actually made penal.

2. Civil liberty requires firm guarantees of individual liberty, and among these there is none more important than the guarantee of personal liberty, or the great habeas corpus principle, and the prohibition of "general warrants" of arrest of persons.

To protect the individual against the interference with personal liberty by the power-holder is one of the elementary requisites of all freedom, and one of the most difficult problems to be solved in practical politics. If any one could doubt the difficulty, history would soon convince him of the fact. The English and Americans safely guard themselves against illegal arrest; but a long and ardent struggle in England was necessary to obtain this simple element, and the ramparts around personal liberty, now happily existing, would soon be disregarded, should the people, by a real prava negligentia malorum, ever lose sight of this primary requisite.

The means by which Anglican liberty secures personal liberty are threefold: the principle that every man's house is his castle, the prohibition of general warrants, and the habeas corpus act.

Every man's house is his castle. It is a principle evolved by the common law of the land itself, and is exhibited in a yet stronger light in the Latin version, which is, Domus sua cuique

est tutissimum refugium, and Nemo de domo sua extrahi debet, which led the great Chatham, when speaking on general warrants, to pronounce that passage with which now every English and American schoolboy has become familiar through his Reader. "Every man's house," he said, "is called his castle. Why? Because it is surrounded by a moat, or defended by a wall? No. It may be a straw-built hut; the wind may whistle around it, the rain may enter it, but the king cannot.'

Accordingly, no man's house can be forcibly opened, or he or his goods be carried away after it has thus been forced, except in cases of felony, and then the sheriff must be furnished with a warrant, and take great care lest he commit a trespass. This principle is jealously insisted upon. It has been but recently decided in England, that although a house may have been unlawfully erected on a common, and every injured commoner may pull it down, he is nevertheless not justified in doing so if there are actually people in it.

There have been nations, indeed, enjoying a high degree of liberty, without this law maxim; but the question in this place is even less about the decided advantages, arising to freemen from the existence of this principle, than about the sturdiness of the law and its independent development, that could evolve and establish this bold maxim. It must be a manly race of freedom-loving people, whose own common law could deposit such fruitful soil. For, let it be observed, that this sterling

1 In many countries, and even among hardly civilized tribes, it has been a rule that no one should enter a man's house without the consent of the owner. Missionaries tell us that the Yarriba people in Central Africa do not allow their king to enter a house, even to arrest a criminal, without the consent of the head of the family. So we are very often told that the trial by jury was known before England had its present name; but the question of importance is, how far a principle is developed, how securely it is guaranteed, how essential a part of a general system it is, and how strong it is to resist when public power should choose to interfere with it. The Chinese have censorship, but this absence of censorship is not liberty of the press. The Romans cared very little about the religion of their subjects, (so that they were not Christians,) but this was not constitutional toleration or freedom of worship.

maxim was not established, and is not maintained, by a disjunctive or a law-defying race. The Mainots considered their Lacedæmonian mountain fastnesses as their castles too, during the whole Turkish reign in Greece; the feudal baron braved authority and law in his castle; the Mino-tze1 have never been subdued by the Tartar dynasty of China, and defy the government in their mountain fastnesses to this day, much as the Highlanders of Scotland did before the battle of Culloden; but the English maxim was settled by a highly conjunctive, a nationalized people, and at the same time when law and general government was extending more and more over the land. It is insisted on in the most crowded city the world has ever seen, with the same jealousy as in a lonely mountain dwelling; it is carried out, not by retainers and in a state of war made permanent, as Essex tried to do when he was arrested, but by the law, which itself has given birth to it. The law itself says: Be a man, thou shalt be sovereign in thy house. It is this spirit which brought forth the maxim, and the spirit which it necessarily nourishes, that makes it important.

It is its direct antagonism to a mere police government, its bold acknowledgment of individual security opposite to government, it is its close relationship to self-government, which give so much dignity to this guarantee. To see its value, we need only throw a glance at the continental police, how it enters at night or in the day, any house or room, breaks open any drawer, seizes papers or anything it deems fit, without any other warrant than the police hat, coat and button.

Nor must we believe that the maxim is preserved as a piece of constitutional virtu. As late as the month of June, 1853, a bill was before the House of Commons, proposing some guarantee against property of nuns and monks being too easily withdrawn from relations, and that certain officers should have the right to enter nunneries, from eight A.M. to eight o'clock P.M., provided there was strong suspicion that an inmate was retained against her will. The leading minis

1 In the province of Konang-Si, containing mountainous regions.