may have comprehended as much more, or as much less, in France, as the history of circumstances was different; but nothing great, certainly, as less or more. In Great Britain the meaning, also, for like reasons, may be different.

And yet, what a word has this said "Liberty" become ! What a talisman in human society! What potency, and what a sweep of influence, has it acquired by having been distilled into an abstract notion, and then bandied about in all such applications as their interests, appetites, and passions have inclined! There is no limit to its meaning-there are no bounds to its influence.

And yet, in society there is no such thing as liberty, except the right of influence in the government—the right of performing a task for one's protection—of making, executing, and maintaining the laws all the rest is duty, obedience, observance of social order, which is an abridgment of liberty, except as a man may choose to step aside from the reach of law, or so to steer his course-anything but liberty-as not to interfere with the empire of law.*

* It will be obvious to the reader that we make a distinction, in this train of reasoning, between liberty and social rights. If any choose to call the latter liberty, it must be conceded that usage warrants it. We mean simply, in the current of these remarks, that the social state is always so incumbered and surrounded with social obligations, as not to admit of absolute freedom of action. The respect we are bound to render to the rights of others always imposes restraints and constraints in numberless forms. Society is a system of mutual concession and reciprocal obligation.

There is no liberty except in the savage state, and not even then unless the savage be alone. The moment I enter into society I resign my liberty; and the more perfect society becomes, and the higher the pitch of civilization, so much the less is there of liberty, and so much the more contented and happy a man may be, and ought to be, as a reasonable and virtuous being. Such is the design, and such the tendency, of the social state, properly ordered.

The nearer a man approximates to being alone, to the state of nature-if it may be called so-so much the greater his liberty; but the deeper he plunges into society, so much the less is his liberty. The spare population of the newly-peopled American wilderness is favourable to liberty; but it is an abridgment of the advantages of civilization-a state not to be desired, only as the force of habit makes the wild man love his solitudes. Common country-life has more of liberty, or less of the constraints of law, than life in town; but even there one must be very circumspect not to interfere with the rights of his neighbour. Hence the commands, "Thou shalt not steal;" "Thou shalt not covet;" "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" &c. Yonder is a field, but it is not mine; it is enclosed, and forbids me to trespass. My own grounds, house, goods, possession of whatever kind, and my family, are mine, to supervise, control, and enjoy, only under the regulations of society. Even here my

liberties are abridged at all points, and I am controlled. My person, my body, and even my spirits, that impalpable species of being, are supervised and governed by others. I cannot will myself, but I fall under the curse of God, and the ban of the social state. But all things else, which society has secured to others, are sacred against my approach or touch. If I lay my hand upon any part of them, or in any way become a trespasser or aggressor, the law lays its hand upon me; and then I may sing of liberty in durance vile; or, if I please, complain to myself for the want of it.

The moment I enter the town, the thousands I meet in the streets have the same right of passage with myself; there is but one house of a thousand, or of many thousand, which I have a title to enter, and that perhaps a hotel, where a hundred others have an equal claim to accommodation. But I am used to these abridgments of liberty, and make myself contented-it may be happy.

Yonder rolls a pleasant carriage, very comfortable to take an airing in; but it is not mine. On the stand is a hackney-coach; but, so sure as I appropriate it to myself, even under the protection of law, I shall very likely be cheated, abused, and vexed. I may desire to enter a certain circle of society, but I have not the entrée. I may descend where I do not wish; but to rise is difficult. There is wealth in the city uncounted, treasures not to be told, and goods in infinite variety; but all de

nied to me. I am surrounded with barriers, prohibitions, and penalties, defending from my touch myriads of objects which are very desirable, if I had not found it necessary, and even best, to resign myself to be the contented and happy slave of the law.

Who, then, has liberty? and where is it to be found? Who desires it? None but the viciousnone but the enemy of society. of society. Liberty has only a name. And what a name! How potent the charm! The only liberty claimed, by any fair interpretation, in the famed Declaration of American Rights, is that of influence, not immediate and personal, but by representation, in the making and administration of the laws, to which all owe obedience. And that liberty is no other than a task, and the effect of it a doom, though it ought to be a satisfactory one.

EQUALITY. And what is the meaning of this? Again to the occasion of the Declaration. In the case of the Americans this was an indirect and accidental result. Their fathers had imbibed a prejudice against the divine right of kings, and against the privileged classes of an aristocracy; and this prejudice passed, by inheritance, to their children. In the administration of the British Government over the American colonies, they imagined—and not without reason-that they discerned an unreasonable preponderance of influence in the Crown,

and in the aristocracy, operating against the claimed rights of the colonies; which increased this prejudice, and matured it to a determined vigour, calling it to acts of resistance.

When men are set to thinking, they are addicted to carry their thinking out. Having once been led to question the divine right of kings, they next begin to discuss their human right; next, whether the blood that runs in the veins of a king is, physically or morally, or for any reasons, different from the blood that courses in the viens of any other man; and so on. Noble blood, too, what is that?-Can a man be born a king or a noble? The result of these cogitations, in the case of the Americans, is known. Having become somewhat enlightened, as they supposed, by these moral, physiological, and political inquiries, and having resolved, under what they deemed sufficient provocation, to strike for independence; they also resolved to make thorough work in this matter and doctrine of kings and nobles. They therefore abolished all these high and distinctive claims by a single word, "equal "— otherwise, equality. Such was the occasion, and such is the meaning, of this term in that instruFarther it goeth not, and comprehendeth no

ment. more.

It ascended not to the heights of heaven; it went not down to the profundities of the abyss; it set upon no chase of a sublunary phantom; but seized upon a simple, palpable fact, and distilled out of it an abstract notion-a very practical one,