whole nation-especially when they are national armies, so that the old soldiers return continually to the people -a spirit directly opposite to that which ought to be the general spirit of a free people devoted to self-government. A nation of freemen stands in need of a pervading spirit of obedience to the laws; an army teaches and must teach a spirit of prompt obedience to orders. Habits of disobedience and of contempt for the citizen are produced, and a view of government is induced which is contrary to liberty, self-reliance, self-government. Command ought to rule in an army; self-development of law, and self-sustaining order, ought to pervade a free people. A German king, in one of his throne speeches, when a liberal spirit had already shown itself in that country, said: "The will of one must ultimately rule in the government, even as it is in the camp." This shows exactly what we mean. The entire state, with its jural and civic character, is compared to a camp.

The officers of a large army are in the habit of contemptuously speaking of the "babbling lawyers." Les légistes have always been spoken of by the French officers in the same tone as "those lawyers" were talked of by Strafford and Laud. Where the people worship the army, an opinion is engendered as if really courage in battle were the highest phase of humanity; and the army, in turn, more than aught else, leads to the worship of one man—so detrimental to liberty. All debate is in common times odious to the soldiers. They habitually ridicule parliamentary debates of long duration. Act, act, is their cry, which in that case means-Command and obey are the two poles round which public life ought to turn. A man who has been a soldier himself, and has seen the inspiring and rallying effect which a distinctive uniform may have in battle-the

desire not to disgrace the coat-is not likely to fall in with the sweeping denunciations of the uniform, now frequently uttered by the " peacemen; but it is true that the uniform, if constantly worn, and if the army is large, as on the Continent of Europe, greatly aids in separating the army from the people, and in increasing that alienating esprit de corps which ought not to exist where the people value their liberty.

Standing armies, therefore, wherever necessary-and they are necessary at present, as well as far preferable to the medieval militia-ought to be as small as possible, and completely dependent on the legislature for their existence. Such standing armies as we see in the different countries of the European Continent are wholly incompatible with civil liberty, by their spirit, number and cost.

A perfect dependence of the forces, however, not only requires short appropriations, and limited authority of the executive over them; it is farther necessarybecause they are under strict discipline, and therefore under a strong influence of the executive-that these forces, and especially the army, be not allowed to become deliberative bodies, and that they be not allowed to vote as military bodies. Wherever these guarantees have been disregarded, liberty has fallen. These are rules of importance at all times, but especially in countries where unfortunately very large standing armies exist. France, the army consists of half a million, yet universal suffrage gave it the right to vote, and the army as well as the navy did vote to justify the second of December, as well as to make Louis N. Bonaparte emperor. This may be in harmony with French "equality;" it may be democratic, if this term be taken in the sense in which it is wholly unconnected with liberty; all that we-people

In

with whom liberty is more than a theory, or something æsthetically longed for, and who learn liberty as the artisan learns his craft, by handling it,—all that we know is, that it is not liberty, that it is directly destructive of it.

It was formerly the belief that standing armies were incompatible with liberty, and a very small one was granted to the king of England with much reluctance; and in France we have a gigantic standing army, itself incompatible with liberty, for whom, in addition, the right of voting is claimed.

The Bill of Rights, and our own Declaration of Independence, show how large a place the army occupied in the minds of the patriotic citizens and statesmen who drew up those historic documents, the reasons they had to mention it repeatedly, and of erecting fences against it.

Military bodies ought not to be allowed even the right of petitioning, as bodies. History fully proves the danger that must be guarded against. English history, as well as that of other nations, furnishes us with instructive instances.

14. Akin to the last-mentioned guarantee, is that which secures to every citizen the right of possessing

4 I do not consider myself authorised to say that the Anglicans consider it an elementary guarantee of liberty not to be subjected to the obligation of serving in the standing army; but certain it is that, as matters now stand, and as our feelings now are, we should not consider it compatible with individual liberty; indeed, it would be considered as intolerable oppression, if we were forced to spend part of our lives in the standing army: it would not be tolerated. The feeling would be as strong as against the French system of conscription, which drafts by lot a certain number of young men for the army, and permits those who have been drafted to furnish substitutes; as against the Prussian system, which obliges every one, from the highest to the lowest, to serve a certain time in the standing army, with the exception only of a few "mediatized princes." The Anglicans, therefore, may be said to be unequivocally in favour of enlisted standing armies, where standing armies are necessary.

Our constitution says:

"The right

and bearing arms. of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon;" and the Bill of Rights secured this right to every Protestant. It extends now to every English subject.

Wherever attempts at establishing liberty have been made in recent times, on the Continent of Europe, a general military organization of the people, or "national guards," has been deemed necessary, but we cannot point them out as characteristics of Anglican liberty.

CHAPTER XII.

PETITION. ASSOCIATION.

15. We pass over to the great right of petitioning, so jealously suppressed wherever absolute power rules or desires to establish itself, so distinctly contended for by the English in their revolution, and so positively acknowledged by our constitution.

An American statesman of great mark has spoken lightly of the right of petition in a country in which the citizens are so fully represented as with us;' but this is an error. It is a right which can be abused, like any other right, and which in the United States is so far abused as to deprive the petition of weight and importance. It is nevertheless a sacred right, which in difficult times shows itself in its full magnitude, frequently serves as a safety-valve, if judiciously treated by the recipients, and may give to the representatives or other bodies the most valuable information. It may right many a wrong, and the privation of it would at once be felt by every freeman as a degradation. The

2

1 It was stated that the right of petition was of essential value only in a monarch, against the encroachments of the crown. But this whole view was unquestionably a confined one, and caused by irritation against a peculiar class of persevering petitioners.

2 There is no more striking instance on record, so far as our knowledge goes, than the formidable petition of the Chartists in 1848, and the calm and respect with which this threatening document was received by the Commons, after a speech full of dignity and manly acknowledgment of the people by Lord Morpeth, now Earl of Carlisle.