unity is useless; indeed, worse than useless. It produces a thousand evils without any good; while it must always be considered as a distinct command of Civil Liberty, that a wellorganized army is of itself a subject of great danger. To make an efficient army, in modern times, harmonize with all the demands of substantial civil liberty is doubtless one of the problems of our race and age, and one most difficult to solveforming, perhaps, with the problem of carrying out a high degree of individual liberty in large and densely peopled cities, the two most difficult problems of high, patriotic and substantial statesmanship.

14. Akin to the last-mentioned guarantee, is that which secures to every citizen the right of possessing and bearing arms. Our constitution says: "The right 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. It will hardly be necessary to add, that laws prohibiting secret weapons, or those which necessarily endanger the lives of the citizens, are no infringement of liberty; on the contrary, liberty resting necessarily on law, and a lawful, that is, peaceful state of the citizens, liberty itself requires the suppression of a return to force and violence among the citizens-a fact by no means sufficiently weighed in recent times in America.

Whenever attempts at establishing liberty have lately been made 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 right of petitioning is indeed a necessary consequence of the right of free speech and deliberation, a simple, primitive and natural right. As a privilege it is not even denied the creature in addressing the deity. It is so

1 It was stated by him that the right of petition was of essential value only in a monarchy, 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 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.

natural a right, in all spheres where there are superiors and inferiors, that its special acknowledgment in charters or by-laws would be surprising, had not ample experience shown the necessity of expressing it.'

Where the government is founded on the parental principle, or where the despot appears as an earthly providence, the petition of individuals plays, naturally, an important part, so

1 The discussion of petitions in the house of commons seems to have undergone a marked change, as will appear from the following remarks of Lord Brougham, which he made in the house of lords, in June 1853, when the extension of the time of the income tax was under debate. Lord Brougham said that he did not expect that the income tax would expire in 1860. He recalled the circumstances under which the old income tax was repealed, in defiance of the government of that day; through the instrumentality of nightly discussions on petitions—a popular privilege no longer allowed in the house of commons.

It had

"In 1806, when the income tax was 10 per cent., it was imposed till the end of the war, and no longer. The war ended in 1814, but it broke out again in 1815; and after its final termination a great fight against the continuance of the tax took place in the house of commons. been said that the present income tax would not be abandoned in 1860; and he believed that the campaign which took place in parliament in 1816 could not be fought again. How was that campaign conducted? By means of petitions. For five or six weeks, from four o'clock in the afternoon till two or three o'clock in the morning, petition after petition was presented, and each petition was debated. If an account was given of the proceedings of the five or six weeks during which that campaign against the income tax was fought, it would describe one of the most extraordinary scenes ever witnessed within the walls of the house of commons, and a resistance which was perfectly successful. He might mention one incident which occurred during those discussions. After the fight had continued some three weeks or more, one night about eleven or twelve o'clock, a question was put from the chair about bringing up the petitions; and all the members on one bench-who might have been supposed to be exhausted by the long sitting-rose in competition with each other to catch, as it was called, the speaker's eye; and the gallantry of those men in standing by their colors under such circumstances so struck the house that they were hailed with a general cheer of applause. He did not think, however, that in 1860, unless a great change took place elsewhere, the same campaign and stand against the income tax would be possible."

long as it does not become either dangerous or troublesome, or unwelcome to the officers near the person of the monarch. The Emperor Nicholas of Russia, was often spoken to in the streets by petitioners; while, on the other hand, we remember a royal decree in Prussia, published about thirty years ago, which directed that petitions must no longer be thrust upon the monarch personally. Under Frederic the Great, again, it was a common thing for petitioners to attract the king's attention by holding the petition above the heads of the crowd, when he would send an aid to take it. In China the right of petitioning the monarch is symbolically acknowledged, by the drum or gong at the palace gate, which the petitioner beats when he drops the petition into the receiving box. But the Chinese doubtless think and feel what the Russians express in the significant saying: "God lives high, and the emperor far." The missionary Huc informs us that popular meetings, where petitions are adopted or dismissed, are not rare in China.'

The political philosopher in treating of this subject must distinguish between petitions to the executive, (and as to petitions for pardon, which have become a most serious evil in the United States, the reader is referred to the paper on pardons in the appendix ;) petitions of the army, which history amply teaches, must be absolutely interdicted; we need only remind the reader of the English history, and that of France; and, lastly, petitions to the legislature. As to the latter, it is all-important for the cause of civil liberty, that is, the freedom of the people in earnest and in reality, that the petition, whatever demonstration of moral power or public opinion it may be, be unaccompanied by physical demonstration of crowds, armed or unarmed, in the legislative halls or outside. Indeed, they cease to be petitions and become physical threats

1 It would be a grave error indeed, to conclude, from this fact, or from the general democratic character of the Chinese system, that there is liberty in China—a conclusion as hasty as it would be to infer that freedom exists in France because the empire declares itself to be founded on universal suffrage.

or coercion. The history of the French revolution is almost one continued commentary on this position. The whole meaning of a legislature, as a necessary element of liberty, is that it be free, and it ceases to be free, so soon as crowds threaten it.

We maintain that the right of petitioning is important, and for this very reason it must neither be treated lightly, on the part of the petitioners, nor wrenched from its meaning and be changed into coercing threat. The petition in free states is an institution, and not an incident as in the despotic government. Resorted to as one of the civil agents by a free people, its distinct uses lie in its direct effect, in inciting and awakening public attention; in keeping alive an important idea, although it may not lead to immediate action; in countenancing those who desire to act and to be supported; in showing public opinion concerning some distinct point; in serving as a safety-valve in times of public excitement, and in being a substitute for unorganized and unreasoning crowds. Its dangers are the dangers of all agents whatever-its abuses, and in the wide-spread weakness of men, which induces them inconsiderately to put down their names, rather than refuse the signature.

16. Closely connected with the right just mentioned is the right of citizens peaceably to meet and to take public matters into consideration, and

17. To organize themselves into associations, whether for political, religious, social, scientific, industrial, commercial or cultural purposes. That this right can become dangerous, and that laws are frequently necessary to protect society against abuse, every one knows perfectly well who has the least. knowledge of the French clubs in the first revolution. But it is with rights, in our political relations, as with the principles of our physical and mental organization-the more elementary and indispensable they are, the more dangerous they become, if not guided by reason. Attempts to suppress their action lead to mischief and misery. What has been more abused than private and traditional judgment in all the spheres of