ple at large, but they also promote i in others an inherent antagonism to No absolutism, whether that of one institutions. The reason is not only solute rulers discountenance oppo cause there is in every despotism a compatibility with independent a government, in whatsoever narrow rate degree it may strive to mainta is so much the case that often des] intentions for the welfare of the p the most destructive to the remnant or to the germs of future institutions, portion in which they have been gift talents, activity and courage. The only to press forward more vigoro boldly in the career of all absolutisn in the absorption of individuality a action, or in levelling everything comport with a military uniformity, ing annihilation of diversity.

As institutions may be good or ba be favorable or unfavorable to libe indeed give to the representative of

great freedom, but only for the repression of general freedom. The viziership is an institution all over Asia, and has been so from remote periods, but it is an institution in the spirit of despotism, and forms an active part of the pervading system of Asiatic monarchical absolutism. The star chamber was an institution, and gave much freedom of action to its members, yet the patriots under the Stuarts made it their first business to break down this preposterous institution. When in 1660 the Danes made their king hereditary and absolute, binding him by the only oath that he should never allow his or his successors' power to be restricted, the Danish crown became undoubtedly a new institution, but assuredly not propitious to liberty. Of all the Hellenic tribes. the Spartans were probably the most institutional, but they were communists, and communism is hostile to liberty. They dis-individualized the citizens, and, as a matter of course, extinguished in the same degree individual liberty, development and progress. A state in which a citizen could be punished because he had added one more to the commonly adopted number of lute strings, cannot be allowed to have been favorable to liberty.

Many of those very attributes of the institution proper, which make it so valuable in the service of liberty, constitute its inconvenience and danger when the institution is used against it. It is a bulwark, and may protect the enemy of liberty. It is like the press. Modern liberty or civilization cannot dispense with it, yet it may be used as its keenest enemy.

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE INSTITUTION, CONTINUED.

INSTITUTIONAL LIBER

TY. INSTITUTIONAL LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

CIVILIZATION, So closely connected with what we love in modern liberty, as well as progress and security, themselves ingredients of civil liberty, stands in need of stability and continuity, and these cannot be secured without institutions. This is the reason why the historian, when speaking of such organizers or refounders of their nations as Charlemagne, Alfred, Numa, Pelayo, knows of no higher name to give them than that of institutors.

The force of the institution in imparting stability and giving new power to what otherwise must have swiftly passed away, has been illustrated in our own times in mormonism. Every observer who has gravely investigated this repulsive fraud will agree that as for its pretensions and doctrines it must have passed as it came, had it not been for the remarkable character which Joseph Smith possessed as an institutor. Thrice blessed is a noble idea, perpetuated in

1 The great ability of this man seems to be peculiarly exhibited in his mixture of truth and arrant falsehood, his uncompromising boldness and insolence, and his organizing instituting mind. Two

an active institution, as charity in a hôtel-dieu; thrice cursed, a wicked idea embodied in an institution.

The title of institutor is coveted even by those who represent ideas the very opposite to institutions.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, when he lately inaugurated his government, dwelt with pride, or a consciousness that the world prizes the founding of good institutions as the greatest work of a statesman and a ruler, on the "institutions" he had established.2

men have met almost simultaneously with great success, in our own times-Joseph Smith and Louis Napoleon. Of the two the first seems the more clever. He would almost reap all the praises which Machiavelli bestows upon the founder of a new empire. And he did it against all chances, without any assistance from tradition or prestige. Whether he be also the worse of the two will not be hastily pronounced by a careful inquirer.

2 He meant, of course, the senate, legislative corps, and the council of state. Why he calls these new institutions no one else can see, but he evidently wishes to indicate his own belief, or desired, that others should believe, in their permanency, as well as, perhaps, in some degree in their own independent action. To those, however, who consider them as nothing more than the pared and curtailed remnants of former institutions, who do not see that they can enjoy any independent action of their own, and are aware that their very existence depends upon the mere forbearance of the executive; who remember their origin by a mere decree of a dictator whose very power by which he established them bears witness that he considers himself bound by no superior law, and who at any time may decree their cessationto those who know with what studied and habitual sneer "parliamentary governments" are spoken of by the ruling party in France, all these establishments appear in principle no more as real institutions than a tent on a stage, the outpost of an army, or the clerk's office on board of one of our steamboats.

are sure to be filled with litter and become nuisances. But great wisd are necessary to decide whether an to be amputated or not, because it i in politics that many important laws are chiefly efficient as preventi tive agents. It is not sufficient, the glance we do not discover any pal duced by the institution, to justif about lopping it off. Antiquity is dence in favor of an institution,3 and be confounded with obsoleteness; certainly no proof against positiv arguments. On the other hand, ho have frequently the serious inconver

3 I am aware that many persons believe this truth that not only does antiquity of itsel a proof of deficiency, but they turn their Past, as something to be shunned, thus forget society, progress and civilization. Mr. Guizo the History of Representative Governments 1820, found it necessary to warn his hearers a the past. The reader will find remarks on "beginning entirely anew," in my Political Et