But in examining the constitution of Sweden we cannot fail to observe that modern liberty is rather superinduced or engrafted on the system of states, than evolved out of it. The constitution of Norway on the other hand is clearly of the character of that liberty which we have designated as Anglican.

I believe that Frenchmen would point out their national guards as an element or guarantee of Gallican liberty. They were established during the first revolution, and have always been diminished in number and restricted in power, in those periods in which the government made war upon liberty. They cannot, however, be considered a valid guarantee in so concentrated a government as the French is, and in a country in which the army is so gigantic.

It must have plainly appeared that liberty seems to me efficiently secured only by the Anglican system. Other attempts in modern times have been but very partially successful, and of these there are but few. The question arises at once, are those persons in the main correct who roundly assert that no people are fit for liberty except the Anglo-Saxon? For thus they call the English nation, and those who have descended from it. Or is it correct to say that whoever wishes to enjoy liberty must copy the main institutions of Anglican liberty? On these and some cognate subjects there exist so many startling errors, that the remarks on the different types of liberty may be appropriately concluded by some observations on them. They have a practical bearing, and influence large masses.

It is doubtless true that the greatest amount of VOL. I.-27

liberty is at present enjoyed by the Anglican tribe, whose institutions and guarantees seem to form the only extensive and consistent, as well as practical system of civil liberty, the only one in which liberty and law have become firmly interlocked, and by which it has thus become possible to establish, as a practical reality, what Tacitus held to be impossible— the union of libertas and imperium. It is true also that the Anglican tribe has had, and still has, a greater influence than any tribe on the whole white race, and that other nations seem to have enjoyed liberty or advanced on her path in recent times in the same proportion only in which they have adopted the main principles and chief institutions elaborated by this tribe; and it is equally true that we enjoy so great an amount of freedom because we are accustomed to liberty and a government of law, and because our tribe has perseveringly developed it for centuries. But it must not be forgotten, on the one hand, that other nations and tribes may possibly develop certain principles in a manner peculiar to their character and circumstances; and, on the other hand, that it is the rule of all spreading advancement of humanity that the full amount of what has been gained by patience, blood, or fortunate combinations, is transferred to other regions and distant tribes.

The missionary-from St. Paul, when he went to Rome, to those who now embark for the Pacific-does not demand the neophyte to pass through the dispensations of the old testament, and all the experience of the early church, before he begins to teach the dispensation of the new testament, and establish

churches according to the government and the theology which exist at his home.

There are many persons who pretend to admire liberty, but withhold it from the people on the plea that they are not prepared for it. Unquestionably, all tribes are not prepared for the same amount of liberty, and many are not yet fit for any real liberty at all. But two things are certain, that all nations, and especially all nations belonging to our own civilized family, prove that they are prepared for the beginning of liberty, by desiring it and insisting upon it, and that you cannot otherwise prepare nations for enjoying liberty than by beginning to establish it, as you best prepare nations for a high christianity by beginning to preach it at once.

There are persons even among ourselves who, observing how many and sad failures have taken place with other nations, bluntly assert that none but the Anglo-Saxons are fit for liberty, and that it cannot be enjoyed by others. That some nations are fitter for the elaboration or peaceful enjoyment of liberty than others, according to their character, which makes them perhaps less fit to excel in some other branches of civilization, cannot be denied. So was the Greek more fit for the fine arts than the Roman. That some tribes appear on the stage of history, act their part, and vanish again without having made any progress in civil liberty, or ever having become conscious of it as an element of advancing civilization, is equally true. But do we hold any nation, once fairly entered upon the path of civilization, unfit for science or the arts, or

a stable government, or a literature, or for christianity? That in which man rises highest, and manifests himself most intellectually-christianity, is believed to be meet for all, but liberty should be restricted to a tribe or a single nation? It is not likely. I have allowed that some nations are fitter for the one or the other. All will not equally cultivate all branches; each cannot originate each branch; but all will partake of every element of civilization; and while it may be proper for the historian to say such a nation has not been able to act with originality in this or another branch, it is not becoming to the philosopher to say that this part of our race will not be able to do so. When the Greek scholars were driven from Constantinople, and carried the last embers of Grecian civilization and intellectuality over the west; when Providence made them the missionaries of a renewed civilization, and the restoration of letters prepared the way for still higher achievements, no one said that the English, or French, or Germans were unfit to partake in the humanizing blessing, although the Italian soil, still bearing the effects of former culture, was the first to bring forth delectable fruit. When Gothic architecture had been elaborated by some, it was not believed that other nations could not raise cathedrals in the same style, and enjoy it and develop it in their own way.

On the other hand, we meet with the very reverse. Anglican liberty is opposed on the ground that it is not indigenous, and that it is both inexpedient and unworthy to adopt it. Large numbers in France,

both communists and imperialists, treat "parliamentarism" in this manner; and the emperor lately said, when he had assembled the senate and the legislative corps, that France for "the first time enjoyed the happiness of possessing institutions, exclusively French and original." As to the originality, we would only observe that they are fac-similes of what Napoleon the First had established, and that he copied the senate, as he did the eagle, the title and idea of emperor, the name of legion, of prefect, from Rome, unfortunately at her worst period, for the Roman senate during the better time was part of the proud Senatus Populusque Romanus; and the corps legislatif, if there be any element of a representative legislature in it, is not of French origin; if it be a mute body, however, there is no originality in it either. Even if it were as the emperor proclaimed it, it would convey nothing to be delighted in of itself. The law of all spreading civilization is emigration, transmission, and addition. Ought the French to reject the Grecian orders of architecture because they are not French, or ought our medical students not go to Paris because the French science of medicine is not ours? Ought the French to reject saving banks because they were first established and developed in England, and ought the English to discard Jacquard's machine because invented in France? The son of Sirach said: that wisdom was hovering like the clouds until it "took root in an honorable people""-the Israelites. It is

11 Ecclesiasticus, 24.