The World's Best Orations, Vol. 1 (of 10) (2024)

Produced by Kent Fielden

THE WORLD'S BEST ORATIONS, Vol. 1 (of 10)

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Right Hon. Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke. Bart., Member of
Parliament—Author of 'Greater Britain,' etc., London, England.

William Draper Lewis, PH. D., Dean of the Department of Law,
University Of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

William P. Trent, M.A., Professor of English and History, Colombia
University, in the city of New York.

W. Stuart Symington, Jr., PH. D., Professor of the Romance Languages,
Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

Alcee Fortier, Lit.D., Professor of the Romance Languages,
Tulane University, New Orleans, La.

William Vincent Byars, Journalist, St Louis, Mo.

Richard Gottheil, PH. D., Professor of Oriental Languages,
Columbia University, in the city of New York.

Austin H. Merrill, A.M., Professor of Elocution, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, Tenn.

Sheldon Jackson. D. D., LL. D., Bureau of Education, Washington, D. C.

A. Marshall Elliott, PH.D. LL. D., Professor of the Romance Languages,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

John W. Million, A.M., President of Hardin College, Mexico, Mo.

J. Raymond Brackett. PH. D., Dean of the College of Liberal Arts,and Professor of Comparative Literature, University OfColorado, Boulder, Colo.

W. F. Peirce. M.A., LL. D., President Of Kenyox College, Gambier,
Ohio.

S. Plantz, PH.D., D. D., President of Lawrence University,
Appleton, Wis.

George Tayloe Winston, LL.D., President of the University Of Texas,
Austin, Texas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOL. I

Preface: Justice David J. Brewer

The Oratory Of Anglo-Saxon Countries: Prof. Edward A. Allen

ABELARD, PIERRE 1079-1142
The Resurrection of Lazarus
The Last Entry into Jerusalem
The Divine Tragedy

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS 1807-1886
The States and the Union

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, JUNIOR 1835-
The Battle of Gettysburg

ADAMS, JOHN 1735-1826
Inaugural Address
The Boston Massacre

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY 1767-1848
Oration at Plymouth Lafayette The
Jubilee of the Constitution

ADAMS, SAMUEL 1722-1803
American Independence

AELRED 1109-1166
A Farewell
A Sermon after Absence
On Manliness

AESCHINES 389-314 B. C.
Against Crowning Demosthenes

AIKEN, FREDERICK A. 1810-1878
Defense of Mrs. Mary E, Surratt

ALBERT THE GREAT (ALBERTUS MAGNUS) 1205-1280
The Meaning of the Crucifixion
The Blessed Dead

ALLEN, ETHAN
A Call to Arms

AMES, FISHER 1758-1808
On the British Treaty

ANSELM, SAINT 1032-1109
The Sea of Life

ARNOLD, THOMAS 1795-1842
The Realities of Life and Death

ARTHUR, CHESTER ALAN 1830-1886
Inaugural Address

ATHANASIUS 298-373
The Divinity of Christ

AUGUSTINE, SAINT 354-430
The Lord's Prayer

BACON, FRANCIS 1561-1626
Speech against Dueling

BARBOUR, JAMES 1775-1842
Treaties as Supreme Laws

BARNAVE, ANTOINE PIERRE JOSEPH MARIE 1761-1793
Representative Democracy against Majority Absolutism
Commercial Politics

BARROW, ISAAC 1630-1677
Slander

BASIL THE GREAT 329-379
On a Recreant Nan

BAXTER, RICHARD 1615-1691
Unwillingness to Improve

BAYARD. JAMES A. 1767-1815
The Federal Judiciary
Commerce and Naval Power

BAYARD, THOMAS F. 1828-1898
A Plea for Conciliation in 1876

BEACONSFIELD, LORD 1804-1881
The Assassination of Lincoln
Against Democracy for England
The Meaning of "Conservatism"

BEDE, THE VENERABLE 672-735
The Meeting of Mercy and Justice
A Sermon for Any Day
The Torments of Hell

BEECHER. HENRY WARD 1813-1887
Raising the Flag over Fort Sumter
Effect of the Death of Lincoln

BELHAVEN, LORD 1656-1708
A Plea for the National Life of Scotland

BELL, JOHN 1797-1869
Against Extremists, North and South
Transcontinental Railroads

BENJAMIN, JUDAH P. 1811-1884
Farewell to the Union
Slavery as Established by Law

PREFACE

Oratory is the masterful art. Poetry, painting, music, sculpture,architecture please, thrill, inspire; but oratory rules. The oratordominates those who hear him, convinces their reason, controls theirjudgment, compels their action. For the time being he is master.Through the clearness of his logic, the keenness of his wit, thepower of his appeal, or that magnetic something which is felt andyet cannot be defined, or through all together, he sways hisaudience as the storm bends the branches of the forest. Hence it isthat in all times this wonderful power has been something longed forand striven for. Demosthenes, on the beach, struggling with thepebbles in his mouth to perfect his articulation, has been the greatexample. Yet it is often true of the orator, as of the poet;nascitur non fit. Patrick Henry seemed to be inspired as"Give me liberty or give me death" rolled from his lips. Theuntutored savage has shown himself an orator.

Who does not delight in oratory? How we gather to hear even anordinary speaker! How often is a jury swayed and controlled by theappeals of counsel! Do we not all feel the magic of the power, andwhen occasionally we are permitted to listen to a great orator howcompletely we lose ourselves and yield in willing submission to theimperious and impetuous flow of his speech! It is said that afterWebster's great reply to Hayne every Massachusetts man walking downPennsylvania Avenue seemed a foot taller.

This marvelous power is incapable of complete preservation on theprinted page. The presence, the eye, the voice, the magnetic touch,are beyond record. The phonograph and kinetoscope may some day seizeand perpetuate all save the magnetic touch, but that weird,illusive, indefinable yet wonderfully real power by which the oratorsubdues may never be caught by science or preserved for the crueldissecting knife of the critic. It is the marvelous light flashingout in the intellectual heavens which no Franklin has yet or mayever draw and tie to earth by string of kite.

But while there is a living something which no human art has yet beenable to grasp and preserve, there is a wonderful joy and comfort inthe record of that which the orator said. As we read we see the verypicture, though inarticulate, of the living orator. We may never knowall the marvelous power of Demosthenes, yet Proton, meg, oandres Athenaioi, suggests something of it. Cicero's silver speechmay never reach our ears, and yet who does not love to read Quousquetandem abutere, O Catilina, patientia nostra? So if onthe printed page we may not see the living orator, we may look uponhis picture—the photograph of his power. And it is this which it isthe thought and purpose of this work to present. We mean tophotograph the orators of the world, reproducing the words which theyspake, and trusting to the vivid imagination of the thoughtful readerto put behind the recorded words the living force and power. In thiswe shall fill a vacant place in literature. There are countless booksof poetry in which the gems of the great poets of the world have beenpreserved, but oratory has not been thus favored. We have manyvolumes which record the speeches of different orators, sometimesconnected with a biography of their lives and sometimes as independentgatherings of speeches. We have also single books, like Goodrich's'British Eloquence,' which give us partial selections of the greatorations. But this is intended to be universal in its reach, acomplete encyclopedia of oratory. The purpose is to present the bestefforts of the world's greatest orators in all ages; and with thispurpose kept in view as the matter of primary importance, tosupplement the great orations with others that are representative andhistorically important—especially with those having a fundamentalconnection with the most important events in the development ofAnglo-Saxon civilization. The greatest attention has been given tothe representative orators of England and America, so that the workincludes all that is most famous or most necessary to be known in theoratory of the Anglo-Saxon race. Wherever possible, addresses havebeen published in extenso. This has been the rule followed in givingthe great orations. In dealing with minor orators, the selectionsmade are considerable enough to show the style, method, and spirit.Where it has been necessary to choose between two orations of equalmerit, the one having the greater historical significance has beenselected. Of course it would not be possible, keeping withinreasonable limits, to give every speech of every one worthy to becalled an orator. Indeed, the greatest of orators sometimes failed.So we have carefully selected only those speeches which manifest thepower of eloquence; and this selection, we take pleasure in assuringour readers, has been made by the most competent critics of thecountry.

We have not confined ourselves to any one profession or field ofeloquence. The pulpit, the bar, the halls of legislation, and thepopular assembly have each and all been called upon for their bestcontributions. The single test has been, is it oratory? the singlequestion, is there eloquence? The reader and student of every classwill therefore find within these pages that which will satisfy hisparticular taste and desire in the matter of oratory.

As this work is designed especially for the American reader, we havedeemed it proper to give prominence to Anglo-Saxon orators; and yetthis prominence has not been carried so far as to make the work aone-sided collection. It is not a mere presentation of American oreven of English-speaking orators. We submit the work to the Americanpublic in the belief that all will find pleasure, interest, andinstruction in its pages, and in the hope that it will prove anInspiration to the growing generation to see to it that oratory benot classed among the "lost arts," but that it shall remain anever-present and increasing power and blessing to the world.

David J. Brewer

THE ORATORY OF ANGLO-SAXON COUNTRIES

By Edward A. Allen, Professor of Anglo-Saxon and English Literaturein the University of Missouri

English-speaking people have always been the freest people, thegreatest lovers of liberty, the world has ever seen. Long beforeEnglish history properly begins, the pen of Tacitus reveals to usour forefathers in their old home-land in North Germany beating backthe Roman legions under Varus, and staying the progress of Rome'striumphant car whose mighty wheels had crushed Hannibal, Jugurtha,Vercingetorix, and countless thousands in every land. The Germanicancestors of the English nation were the only people who did notbend the neck to these lords of all the world besides. In the year9, when the Founder of Christianity was playing about his humblehome at Nazareth, or watching his father at work in his shop, ourforefathers dealt Rome a blow from which she never recovered. AsFreeman, late professor of history at Oxford, said in one of hislectures: "In the blow by the Teutoburg wood was the germ of theDeclaration of Independence, the germ of the surrender of Yorktown."Arminius was our first Washington, "haud dubie liberator," asTacitus calls him,—the savior of his country.

When the time came for expansion, and our forefathers in the fifthcentury began the conquest and settlement of the island that was tobecome their New England, they pushed out the Celts, the nativeinhabitants of the island, just as their descendants, about twelvehundred years later, were to push out the indigenous people of thiscontinent, to make way for a higher civilization, a largerdestiny. No Englishman ever saw an armed Roman in England, andthough traces of the Roman conquest may be seen everywhere in thatcountry to-day, it is sometimes forgotten that it was the Britain ofthe Celts, not the England of the English, which was held for somany centuries as a province of Rome.

The same love of freedom that resisted the Roman invasion in thefirst home of the English was no less strong in their second home,when Alfred with his brave yeomen withstood the invading Danes atAshdown and Edington, and saved England from becoming a Danishprovince. It is true that the Normans, by one decisive battle,placed a French king on the throne of England, but the Englishspirit of freedom was never subdued; it rose superior to theconquerors of Hastings, and in the end English speech and Englishfreedom gained the mastery.

The sacred flame of freedom has burned in the hearts of theAnglo-Saxon race through all the centuries of our history, and thisspirit of freedom is reflected in our language and in ouroratory. There never have been wanting English orators when Englishliberty seemed to be imperiled; indeed, it may be said that thehighest oratory has always been coincident with the deepestaspirations of freedom.

It is said of Pitt,—the younger, I believe,—that he was fired tooratory by reading the speeches in Milton's 'Paradise Lost.' Thesespeeches—especially those of Satan, the most human of thecharacters in this noble epic,—when analyzed and traced to theirsource, are neither Hebrew nor Greek, but English to the core. Theyare imbued with the English spirit, with the spirit of Cromwell,with the spirit that beat down oppression at Marston Moor, andushered in a freer England at Naseby. In the earlier Milton of athousand years before, whether the work of Caedmon or of some otherEnglish muse, the same spirit is reflected in Anglo-Saxonwords. Milton's Satan is more polished, better educated, thanks toOxford and Cambridge, but the spirit is essentially one with that ofthe ruder poet; and this spirit, I maintain, is English.

The dry annals of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are occasionally lightedup with a gleam of true eloquence, as in the description of thebattle of Brunanburh, which breaks forth into a pean ofvictory. Under the year 991, there is mention of a battle at Maldon,between the English and the Danes, in which great heroism must havebeen displayed, for it inspired at the time one of the mostpatriotic outbursts of song to be found in the whole range ofEnglish literature. During an enforced truce, because of a swollenstream that separated the two armies, a messenger is sent from theDanes to Byrhtnoth, leader of the English forces, with a propositionto purchase peace with English gold. Byrhtnoth, angry and resolute,gave him this answer:—

"Hearest thou, pirate, what this folk sayeth? They will give youspears for tribute, weapons that will avail you nought inbattle. Messenger of the vikings, get thee back. Take to thy peoplea sterner message, that here stands a fearless earl, who with hisband wilt defend this land, the home of Aethelred, my prince, folkand fold. Too base it seems to me that ye go without battle to yourships with our money, now that ye have come thus far into ourcountry. Ye shall not so easily obtain treasure. Spear and sword,grim battle-play, shall decide between us ere we pay tribute."

Though the battle was lost and Byrhtnoth slain, the spirit of theman is an English inheritance. It is the same spirit that refusedship-money to Charles I., and tea-money to George III.

The encroachments of tyranny and the stealthier step of royalprerogative have shrunk before this spirit which through thecenturies has inspired the noblest oratory of England andAmerica. It not only inspired the great orators of the mothercountry, it served at the same time as a bond of sympathy with theAmerican colonies in their struggle for freedom. Burke, throughouthis great speech on Conciliation, never lost sight of this idea:—

"This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English coloniesprobably than in any other people of the earth. The people of thecolonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, sir, is a nationwhich still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. Thecolonists emigrated from you when this part of your character wasmost predominant; and they took this bias and direction the momentthey parted from your bands. They are therefore not only devoted toliberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and our Englishprinciples. … The temper and character which prevail in ourcolonies are, I am afraid, unalterable by any human art. We cannot,I fear, falsify the pedigree of this fierce people, and persuadethem that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the bloodof freedom circulates. The language in which they would hear youtell them this tale would detect the imposition; your speech wouldbetray you. … In order to prove that Americans have no right totheir liberties, we are every day endeavoring to subvert the maximswhich preserve the whole spirit of our own. To prove thatthe Americans ought not to be free, we are obliged to depreciate thevalue of freedom itself; and we never gain a paltry advantage overthem in debate without attacking some of those principles, or deridingsome of those feelings, for which our ancestors have shed their blood.. . . As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authorityof this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred templeconsecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons ofEngland worship freedom they will turn their faces towards you. Themore ardently they love liberty the more perfect will be theirobedience. Slavery they can have anywhere—it is a weed that grows inevery soil. They can have it from Spain; they may have it fromPrussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your trueinterest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none butyou."

So, too, in the speeches of Chatham, the great Commoner, whoseeloquence has never been surpassed, an intense spirit of liberty,the animating principle of his life, shines out above all thingselse. Though opposed to the independence of the colonies, he couldnot restrain his admiration for the spirit they manifested:—

"The Americans contending for their rights against arbitraryexactions I love and admire. It is the struggle of free and virtuouspatriots. … My Lords, you cannot conquer America. You may swellevery expense and every effort still more extravagantly; pile andaccumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow; traffic andbarter with every pitiful little German prince that sells and sendshis subjects to the shambles of a foreign prince; your efforts areforever vain and impotent If I were an American as I am anEnglishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I wouldnever lay down my arms—never—never—never!"

Wherever the principle of Anglo-Saxon freedom and the rights of manhave been at stake, the all-animating voice of the orator has keptalive the sacred flame. In the witenagemote of the earlier tongs, inthe parliament of the later kings, in the Massachusetts town-meetingand in the Virginia House of Burgesses, in the legislature of everyState, and in the Congress of the United States, wherever inAnglo-Saxon countries the torch of liberty seemed to burn low, thebreath of the orator has fanned it into flame. It fired theeloquence of Sheridan pleading against Warren Hastings for thedown-trodden natives of India in words that have not lost theirmagnetic charm:—

"My Lords, do you, the judges of this land and the expounders of itsrightful laws, do you approve of this mockery and call that thecharacter of Justice which takes the form of right to execute wrong?No. my Lords, justice is not this halt and miserable object; it isnot the ineffective bauble of an Indian pagoda; it is not theportentous phantom of despair; it is not like any fabled monster,formed in the eclipse of reason and found in some unhallowed groveof superstitious darkness and political dismay. No, my Lords! In thehappy reverse of all this I turn from the disgusting caricature tothe real image. Justice I have now before me, august and pure, theabstract ideal of all that would be perfect in the spirits andaspirings of men—where the mind rises; where the heart expands;where the countenance is ever placid and benign; where the favoriteattitude is to stoop to the unfortunate, to hear their cry, and helpthem; to rescue and relieve, to succor and save; majestic from itsmercy, venerable from its utility, uplifted without pride, firmwithout obduracy, beneficent in each preference, lovely though inher frown."

This same spirit fired the enthusiasm of Samuel Adams and James Otisto such a pitch of eloquence that "every man who heard them wentaway ready to take up arms." It inspired Patrick Henry to hurl hisdefiant alternative of "liberty or death" in the face of unyieldingdespotism. It inspired that great-hearted patriot and orator, HenryClay, in the first quarter of this century, to plead, single-handedand alone, in the Congress of the United States, session aftersession before the final victory was won, for the recognition of theprovinces of South America in their struggle for independence.

"I may be accused of an imprudent utterance of my feelings on thisoccasion. I care not: when the independence, the happiness, theliberty of a whole people is at stake, and that people ourneighbors, our brethren, occupying a portion of the same continent,imitating our example, and participating in the same sympathies withourselves. I will boldly avow my feelings and my wishes in theirbehalf, even at the hazard of such an imputation. I maintain that anoppressed people are authorized, whenever they can, to rise andbreak their fetters. This was the great principle of the Englishrevolution. It was the great principle of our own. Spanish-Americahas been doomed for centuries to the practical effects of an odioustyranny. If we were justified, she is more than justified. I am nopropagandist. I would not seek to force upon other nations ourprinciples and our liberty, if they do not want them. But if anabused and oppressed people will their freedom; if they seek toestablish it; if, in truth, they have established it, we have aright, as a sovereign power, to notice the fact, and to act ascirc*mstances and our interest require. I will say in the languageof the venerated father of my country, 'born in a land of liberty,my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my bestwishes, are irresistibly excited, whensoever, in any country, I seean oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom.'"

This same spirit loosed the tongue of Wendell Phillips to plead thecause of the enslaved African in words that burned into the heartsof his countrymen. It emboldened George William Curtis to assert theright to break the shackles of party politics and follow thedictates of conscience:—

"I know,—no man better,—how hard it is for earnest men toseparate their country from their party, or their religion fromtheir sect. But, nevertheless, the welfare of the country is dearerthan the mere victory of party, as truth is more precious than theinterest of any sect. You will hear this patriotism scorned as animpracticable theory, as the dream of a cloister, as the whim of afool. But such was the folly of the Spartan Leonidas, staying withhis three hundred the Persian horde, and teaching Greece theself-reliance that saved her. Such was the folly of the Swiss Arnoldvon Winkelried, gathering into his own breast the points of Austrianspears, making his dead body the bridge of victory for hiscountrymen. Such was the folly of the American Nathan Hale, gladlyrisking the seeming disgrace of his name, and grieving that be hadbut one life to give for his country. Such are the beacon-lights ofa pure patriotism that burn forever in men's memories and answereach other through the illuminated ages."

So long as there are wrongs to be redressed, so long as the strongoppress the weak, so long as injustice sits in high places, thevoice of the orator will be needed to plead for the rights ofman. He may not, at this stage of the republic, be called upon tosound a battle cry to arms, but there are bloodless victories to bewon as essential to the stability of a great nation and theuplifting of its millions of people as the victories of thebattlefield.

When the greatest of modern political philosophers, the author ofthe Declaration of Independence, urged that, if men were left freeto declare the truth the effect of its great positive forces wouldovercome the negative forces of error, he seems to have hit thecentral fact of civilization. Without freedom of thought andabsolute freedom to speak out the truth as one sees it, there can beno advancement, no high civilization. To the orator who has heardthe call of humanity, what nobler aspiration than to enlarge andextend the freedom we have inherited from our Anglo-Saxonforefathers, and to defend the hope of the world?

Edward A. Allen

PIERRE ABELARD (1079-1142)

Abelard's reputation for oratory and for scholarship was so greatthat he attracted hearers and disciples from all quarters. Theyencamped around him like an army and listened to him with sucheagerness that the jealousy of some and the honest apprehension ofothers were excited by the boldness with which he handled religioussubjects. He has been called the originator of modern rationalism,and though he was apparently worsted in his contest with his greatrival, St. Bernard, he remains the most real and living personalityamong the great pulpit orators of the Middle Ages. This is due inlarge part, no doubt, to his connection with the unfortunateHeloise. That story, one of the most romantic, as it is one of thesaddest of human history, must be passed over with a mere mention ofthe fact that it gave occasion for a number of the sermons ofAbelard which have come down to us. Several of those were preachedin the convent of the Paraclete of which Heloise became abbess,—where, in his old age, her former lover, broken with the load of alife of most extraordinary sorrows, went to die. These sermons donot suggest the fire and force with which young Abelard appealed toFrance, compelling its admiration even in exciting its alarm, butthey prevent him from being a mere name as an orator.

He was born near Nantes, A. D. 1079. At his death in 1142, he wasburied in the convent of the Paraclete, where the body of Heloisewas afterwards buried at his side.

The extracts from his sermons here given were translated byRev. J. M. Neale, of Sackville College, from the first collectededition of the works of Abelard, published at Paris in 1616. Thereare thirty-two such sermons extant. They were preached in Latin, or,at least, they have come down to us in that language.

THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS

The Lord performed that miracle once for all in the body which muchmore blessedly he performs every day in the souls of penitents. Herestored life to Lazarus, but it was a temporal life, one that woulddie again. He bestows life on the penitent; life, but it is lifethat will remain, world without end. The one is wonderful in theeyes of men; the other is far more wonderful in the judgment of thefaithful; and in that it is so much the greater, by so much the moreis it to be sought. This is written of Lazarus, not for Lazarushimself, but for us and to us. "Whatsoever things," saith theApostle, "were written of old, were written for our learning." TheLord called Lazarus once, and he was raised from temporal death. Hecalls us often, that we may rise from the death of the soul. He saidto him once, "Come forth!" and immediately he came forth at onecommand of the Lord. The Lord every day invites us by Scripture toconfession, exhorts us to amendment, promises the life which isprepared for us by him who willeth not the death of a sinner. Weneglect his call, we despise his invitation, we contemn his promise.Placed between God and the devil, as between a father and a foe, weprefer the enticement of the enemy to a father's warning. "We arenot ignorant," says the Apostle, "of the devices of Satan,"—thedevices, I say, by which he induces us to sin, and keeps us backfrom repentance. Suggesting sin, he deprives us of two things bywhich the best assistance might be offered to us, namely, shame andfear. For that which we avoid, we avoid either through fear of someloss, or through the reverence of shame…. When, therefore, Satanimpels any one to sin, he easily accomplishes the object, if, as wehave said, he first deprives him of fear and shame. And when he haseffected that, he restores the same things, but in another sense,which he has taken away; that so he may keep back the sinner fromconfession, and make him die in his sin. Then he secretly whispersinto his soul: "Priests are light-minded, and it is a difficultthing to check the tongue. If you tell this or that to them, itcannot remain a secret; and when it shall have been publishedabroad, you will incur the danger of losing your good character, orbearing some injury, and being confounded from your own vileness."Thus the devil deceives that wretched man; he first takes fromhim that by which he ought to avoid sin, and then restores the samething, and by it retains him in sin. His captive fears temporal, andnot spiritual, evil; he is ashamed before men and he despisesGod. He is ashamed that things should come to the knowledge of menwhich he was not ashamed to commit in the sight of God, and of thewhole heavenly host. He trembles at the judgment of man, and he hasno respect to that of God. Of which the Apostle says: "It is afearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"; and theTruth saith himself, "Fear not them that kill the body, and afterthat have no more that they can do; but fear him rather who can castbody and soul into hell."

There are diseases of the soul, as there are of the body; andtherefore the Divine mercy has provided beforehand physicians forboth. Our Lord Jesus Christ saith, "I came not to call therighteous, but sinners to repentance." His priests now hold hisplace in the Church, to whom, as unto physicians of the soul, weought to confess our sins, that we may receive from them theplaister of satisfaction. He that fears the death of the body, inwhatever part of the body he may suffer, however much he may beashamed of the disease, makes no delay in revealing it to thephysician, and setting it forth, so that it may be cured. Howeverrough, however hard may be the remedy, he avoids it not, so that hemay escape death. Whatever he has that is most precious, he makes nohesitation in giving it, if only for a little while he may put offthe death of the body. What, then, ought we to do for the death ofthe soul? For this, however terrible, may be forever prevented,without such great labor, without such great expense. The Lord seeksus ourselves, and not what is ours. He stands in no need of ourwealth who bestows all things. For it is he to whom it is said, "Mygoods are nothing unto thee." With him a man is by so much thegreater, as, in his own judgment, he is less. With him a man is asmuch the more righteous, as in his own opinion he is the moreguilty. In his eyes we hide our faults all the more, the more thathere by confession we manifest them.

THE LAST ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not." That is, heentered Jerusalem. Yet now he entered, not Jerusalem, which byinterpretation is "The Vision of Peace," but the home oftyranny. For now the elders of the city have so manifestly conspiredagainst him, that he can no longer find a place of refuge withinit. This is not to be attributed to his helplessness but to hispatience. He could be harbored there securely, seeing that no onecan do him harm by violence, and that he has the power to inclinethe hearts of men whither he wills. For in that same city he freelydid whatever he willed to do; and when he sent his disciplesthither, and commanded them that they should loose the ass and thecolt, and bring them to him, and said that no man would forbid them,he accomplished that which he said, although he was not ignorant ofthe conspiracy against himself. Of which he saith to his discipleswhom he sends, "Go ye into the castle over against you"; that is, tothe place which is equally opposed to God and to you; no longer tobe called a city, an assembly of men living under the law, but acastle of tyrannical fortification. Go confidently, saith he, intothe place, though such it is, and though it is therefore opposed toyou, and do with all security that which I command you. Whence headds, also: "And if any man say aught unto you, say that the Lordhath need of them, and he will straightway send them away." Awonderful confidence of power! As if the Lord, using his own rightof command, lays his own injunction on those whom he knows alreadyto have conspired for his death. Thus he commands, thus he enjoins,thus he compels obedience. Nor do they who are sent hesitate inaccomplishing that which is laid upon them, confident as they are inthe strength of the power of him who sends them. By that power theywho were chiefly concerned in this conspiracy had been more thanonce ejected from the Temple, where many were not able to resistone. And they, too, after this ejection and conspiracy, as we havesaid, when he was daily teaching in the Temple, knew how intrepid heshowed himself to be, into whose hands the Father had given allthings. And last of all, when he desired to celebrate the Passoverin the same night in which he had foreordained to be betrayed, heagain sent his Disciples whither he willed, and prepared a home forhimself in the city itself, wherein he might keep the feast. He,then, who so often showed his power in such things as these, nowalso, if he had desired it, could have prepared a home wherever hewould, and had no need to return to Bethany. Therefore, he did thesetwo things intentionally: he showed that they whom he avoided wereunworthy of his dwelling among them; and he gave himself, in thelast hours of his life, to his beloved hosts, that they might havetheir own reception of him as the reward of their hospitality.

THE DIVINE TRAGEDY

Whether, therefore, Christ is spoken of as about to be crowned orabout to be crucified, it is said that he "went forth"; to signifythat the Jews, who were guilty of so great wickedness against him,were given over to reprobation, and that his grace would now pass tothe vast extent of the Gentiles, where the salvation of the Cross,and his own exaltation by the gain of many peoples, in the place ofthe one nation of the Jews, has extended itself. Whence, also,to-day we rightly go forth to adore the Cross in the open plain;showing mystically that both glory and salvation had departed fromthe Jews, and had spread themselves among the Gentiles. But in thatwe afterwards returned (in procession) to the place whence we hadset forth, we signify that in the end of the world the grace of Godwill return to the Jews; namely, when, by the preaching of Enoch andElijah, they shall be converted to him. Whence the Apostle: "I wouldnot, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, thatblindness in part has fallen upon Israel, until the fullness of theGentiles shall be come, and so all Israel shall be saved." Whencethe place itself of Calvary, where the Lord was crucified, is now,as we know, contained in the city; whereas formerly it was withoutthe walls. "The crown wherewith his Mother crowned him in the day ofhis espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart." Forthus kings are wont to exhibit their glory when they betroth queensto themselves, and celebrate the solemnities of their nuptials. Nowthe day of the Lord's crucifixion was, as it were, the day of hisbetrothal; because it was then that he associated the Church tohimself as his bride, and on the same day descended into Hell, and,setting free the souls of the faithful, accomplished in them thatwhich he had promised to the thief: "Verily I say unto thee, to-dayshalt thou be with me in Paradise."

"To-day," he says, of the gladness of his heart; because in his bodyhe suffered the torture of pain; but while the flesh inflicted onhim torments through the outward violence of men, his soul was filledwith joy on account of our salvation, which he thus brought topass. Whence, also, when he went forth to his crucifixion, hestilled the women that were lamenting him, and said, "Daughters ofJerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and yourchildren." As if he said, "Grieve not for me in these my sufferings,as if by their means I should fall into any real destruction; butrather lament for that heavy vengeance which hangs over you and yourchildren, because of that which they have committed against me." Sowe, also, brethren, should rather weep for ourselves than for him;and for the faults which we have committed, not for the punishmentswhich he bore. Let us so rejoice with him and for him, as to grievefor our own offenses, and for that the guilty servant committed thetransgression, while the innocent Lord bore the punishment. Hetaught us to weep who is never said to have wept for himself, thoughhe wept for Lazarus when about to raise him from the dead.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS (1807-1886)

The son of one President of the United States and the grand-son ofanother, Charles Francis Adams won for himself in his own right aposition of prominence in the history of his times. He studied lawin the office of Daniel Webster, and after beginning practice wasdrawn into public life by his election to the Massachusettslegislature in which he served from 1831 to 1838. A Whig in politicsuntil the slavery issue became prominent, he was nominated forVice-President on the Free Soil ticket with Van Buren in 1848. TheRepublican party which grew out of the Free Soil movement electedhim to Congress as a representative of the third Massachusettsdistrict in 1858 and re-elected him in 1860. In 1861 PresidentLincoln appointed him minister to England, and he filled with creditthat place which had been filled by his father and grandfatherbefore him. He died November 21st, 1886, leaving besides his ownspeeches and essays an edition of the works of John and John QuincyAdams in twenty-two volumes octavo.

THE STATES AND THE UNION
(Delivered in the House of Representatives, January 31st, 1861)

I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I should be very jealous, as a citizenof Massachusetts, of any attempt on the part of Virginia, forexample, to propose an amendment to the Constitution designed torescind or abolish the bill of rights prefixed to our own form ofgovernment. Yet I cannot see why such a proposition would be moreunjustifiable than any counter proposition to abolish slavery inVirginia, as coming from Massachusetts. If I have in any waysucceeded in mastering the primary elements of our forms ofgovernment, the first and fundamental idea is, the reservation tothe people of the respective States of every power of regulatingtheir own affairs not specifically surrendered in the Constitution.The security of the State governments depends upon the fidelitywith which this principle is observed.

Even the intimation of any such interference as I have mentioned byway of example could not be made in earnest without at once shakingthe entire foundation of the whole confederated Union. No man shallexceed me in jealousy of affection for the State rights of Massachusetts.So far as I remember, nothing of this kind was ever thought ofheretofore; and I see no reason to apprehend that what has nothappened thus far will be more likely to happen hereafter. But ifthe time ever come when it does occur, I shall believe thedissolution of the system to be much more certain than I do at thismoment.

For these reasons, I cannot imagine that there is the smallestfoundation for uneasiness about the intentions of any considerablenumber of men in the free States to interfere in any manner whateverwith slavery in the States, much less by the hopeless mode ofamending the Constitution. To me it looks like panic, pure panic.How, then, is it to be treated? Is it to be neglected or ridiculed?Not at all. If a child in the nursery be frightened by the idea of aspectre, common humanity would prompt an effort by kindness toassuage the alarm. But in cases where the same feeling pervades thebosoms of multitudes of men, this imaginary evil grows up at onceinto a gigantic reality, and must be dealt with as such. It is atall times difficult to legislate against a possibility. Thecommittee have reported a proposition intended to meet this case.It is a form of amendment of the Constitution which, in substance,takes away no rights whatever which the free States ever shouldattempt to use, whilst it vests exclusively in the slave States theright to use them or not, as they shall think proper, the wholetreatment of the subject to which they relate being conceded to be amatter of common interest to them, exclusively within theirjurisdiction, and subject to their control. A time may arrive, inthe course of years, when they will themselves desire some act ofinterference in a friendly and beneficent spirit. If so, they havethe power reserved to them of initiating the very form in which itwould be most welcome. If not, they have a security, so long as thisgovernment shall endure, that no sister State shall dictate anychange against their will.

I have now considered all the alleged grievances which have thus farbeen brought to our attention, 1. The personal liberty laws, whichnever freed a slave. 2. Exclusion from a Territory whichslaveholders will never desire to occupy. 3. Apprehension of anevent which will never take place. For the sake of these threecauses of complaint, all of them utterly without practical result,the slaveholding States, unquestionably the weakest section of thisgreat Confederacy, are voluntarily and precipitately surrenderingthe realities of solid power woven into the very texture of agovernment that now keeps nineteen million freemen, willing totolerate, and, in one sense, to shelter, institutions which, but forthat, would meet with no more sympathy among them than they now doin the remainder of the civilized world.

For my own part, I must declare that, even supposing these allegedgrievances to be more real than I represent them, I think themeasures of the committee dispose of them effectually andforever. They contribute directly all that can be legitimately doneby Congress, and they recommend it to the legislatures of the Statesto accomplish the remainder. Why, then, is it that harmony is notrestored? The answer is, that you are not satisfied with thissettlement, however complete. You must have more guarantees in theConstitution. You must make the protection and extension of slaveryin the Territories now existing, and hereafter to be acquired, acardinal doctrine of our great charter. Without that, you aredetermined to dissolve the Union. How stands the case, then? Weoffer to settle the question finally in all of the present territorythat you claim, by giving you every chance of establishing slaverythat you have any right to require of us. You decline to take theoffer, because you fear it will do you no good. Slavery will not gothere. But, if that be true, what is the use of asking for theprotection anyhow, much less in the Constitution? Why requireprotection where you will have nothing to protect? All you appear todesire it for is New Mexico. Nothing else is left. Yet, you will notaccept New Mexico at once, because ten years of experience haveproved to you that protection has been of no use thus far. But, ifso, how can you expect that it will be of so much more use hereafteras to make it worth dissolving the Union?

But, if we pass to the other condition, is it any more reasonable?Are we going to fight because we cannot agree upon the mode ofdisposing of our neighbor's lands? Are we to break up the Union ofthese States, cemented by so many years of common sufferings, andresplendent with so many years of common glory, because it isinsisted that we should incorporate into what we regard as thecharter of our freedom a proclamation to the civilized world that weintend to grasp the territory of other nations whenever we can doit, for the purpose of putting into it certain institutions whichsome of us disapprove, and that, too, whether the people inhabitingthat territory themselves approve of it or not?

I am almost inclined to believe that they who first contrived thisdemand must have done so for the sake of presenting a conditionwhich they knew beforehand must be rejected, or which, if accepted,must humiliate us in the dust forever. In point of fact, thisproposal covers no question of immediate moment which may not besettled by another and less obnoxious one. Why is it, then,persevered in, and the other rejected? The answer is obvious. Youwant the Union dissolved. You want to make it impossible forhonorable men to become reconciled. If it be, indeed, so, then onyou, and you alone, shall rest the responsibility of what mayfollow. If the Union be broken up, the reason why it happened shallremain on record forever. It was because you rejected one form ofsettling a question which might be offered and accepted with honor,in order to insist upon another which you knew we could not acceptwithout disgrace. I answer for myself only when I say that, if thealternative to the salvation of the Union be only that the people ofthe United States shall, before the Christian nations of the earth,print in broad letters upon the front of their charter of republicangovernment the dogma of slave propagandism over the remainder of thecountries of the world, I will not consent to brand myself with whatI deem such disgrace, let the consequences be what they may.

But it is said that this answer closes the door of reconciliation.
The slaveholding States will secede, and what then?

This brings me to the last point which I desire to touch today, theproper course for the government to pursue in the face of thesedifficulties. Some of the friends with whom I act have not hesitatedto express themselves in favor of coercion; and they have drawn verygloomy pictures of the fatal consequences to the prosperity andsecurity of the whole Union that must ensue. For my own sake, I amglad that I do not partake so largely in these fears. I see noobstacle to the regular continuance of the government in not lessthan twenty States, and perhaps more, the inhabitants of which havenot in a moment been deprived of that peculiar practical wisdom inthe management of their affairs which is the secret of their pastsuccess. Several new States will, before long, be ready to taketheir places with us and make good, in part, the loss of the oldones. The mission of furnishing a great example of free governmentto the nations of the earth will still be in our hands, impaired, Iadmit, but not destroyed; and I doubt not our power to accomplish ityet in spite of the temporary drawback. Even the problem of coercionwill go on to solve itself without our aid. For if the sentiment ofdisunion become so far universal and permanent in the dissatisfiedStates as to show no prospect of good from resistance, and there beno acts of aggression attempted on their part, I will not say that Imay not favor the idea of some arrangement of a peaceful character,though I do not now see the authority under which it can be originated.The new Confederacy can scarcely be other than a secondary Power. Itcan never be a maritime State. It will begin with the necessity ofkeeping eight millions of its population to watch four millions, andwith the duty of guarding, against the egress of the latter, severalthousand miles of an exposed border, beyond which there will be noright of reclamation. Of the ultimate result of a similar experiment,I cannot, in my own mind, have a moment's doubt. At the last sessionI ventured to place on record, in this House, a prediction by whichI must abide, let the effect of the future on my sagacity be what itmay. I have not yet seen any reason to doubt its accuracy. I nowrepeat it. The experiment will ignominiously fail.

But there are exceptions to the adoption of this peaceful policywhich it will not be wise to overlook. If there be violent andwanton attacks upon the persons or the property of the citizens ofthe United States or of their government, I see not how demands forimmediate redress can be avoided. If any interruptions should beattempted of the regular channels of trade on the greatwater-courses or on the ocean, they cannot long be permitted. And ifany considerable minorities of citizens should be persecuted orproscribed on account of their attachment to the Union, and shouldcall for protection, I cannot deny the obligation of this governmentto afford it. There are persons in many of the States whosepatriotic declarations and honorable pledges of support of the Unionmay bring down upon them more than the ill-will of their infatuatedfellow-citizens. It would be impossible for the people of the UnitedStates to look upon any proscription of them with indifference.These are times which should bring together all men, by whateverparty name they may have been heretofore distinguished, upon commonground.

When I heard the gentlemen from Virginia the other day so bravelyand so forcibly urging their manly arguments in support of theUnion, the Constitution, and the enforcement of the laws, my heartinvoluntarily bounded towards them as brethren sacredly engaged in acommon cause. Let them, said I to myself, accept the offeredsettlement of the differences that remain between us, on some fairbasis like that proposed by the committee, and then, what is toprevent us all, who yet believe that the Union must be preserved,from joining heart and hand our common forces to effect it? When thecry goes out that the ship is in danger of sinking, the first dutyof every man on board, no matter what his particular vocation, is tolend all the strength he has to the work of keeping her afloat.What! shall it be said that we waver in the view of thosewho begin by trying to expunge the sacred memory of the fourth ofJuly? Shall we help them to obliterate the associations that clusteraround the glorious struggle for independence, or stultify thelabors of the patriots who erected this magnificent politicaledifice upon the adamantine base of human liberty? Shall wesurrender the fame of Washington and Laurens, of Gadsden and theLees, of Jefferson and Madison, and of the myriads of heroes whosenames are imperishably connected with the memory of a united people?Never, never!

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, JUNIOR

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Jr. son of Charles Francis Adams, keeps upthe tradition of his family so well that, unless it is John Adamshimself, no other member of the family surpasses him as an orator.He was born in Boston, May 27th, 1835; graduating at Harvardand studying law in the office of R. H. Dana, Jr. His peacefulpursuits were interrupted by the Civil War which he entered a firstlieutenant, coming out a brevet-brigadier general. He was a chief ofsquadron in the Gettysburg campaign and served in Virginiaafterwards. He was for six years president of the Union Pacificrailroad and is well known both as a financier and as an author.The address on the Battle of Gettysburg is generally given as hismasterpiece, but he has delivered a number of other orations of highand well-sustained eloquence.

THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG (Delivered at Quincy, Mass., July 4th,1869)

Six years ago this anniversary, we, and not only we who stood uponthe sacred and furrowed field of battle, but you and our wholecountry, were drawing breath after the struggle of Gettysburg. Forthree long days we had stood the strain of conflict, and now, atlast, when the nation's birthday dawned, the shattered rebel columnshad suddenly withdrawn from our front, and we drew that long breathof deep relief which none have ever drawn who have not passed insafety through the shock of doubtful battle. Nor was our countrygladdened then by news from Gettysburg alone. The army that daytwined noble laurel garlands round the proud brow of themotherland. Vicksburg was, thereafter, to be forever associated withthe Declaration of Independence, and the glad anniversaryrejoicings, as they rose from every town and village and city of theloyal North, mingled with the last sullen echoes that died away fromour cannon over Cemetery Ridge, and were answered by glad shouts ofvictory from the far Southwest. To all of us of this generation,—and especially to such of us as were ourselves part of those greatevents,—this celebration, therefore, now has and must ever retaina special significance. It belonged to us, as well as to ourfathers. As upon this day ninety-three years ago this nation wasbrought into existence through the efforts of others, so upon thisday six years ago I am disposed to believe through our own efforts,it dramatically touched the climax of its great argument.

The time that has since elapsed enables us now to look back and tosee things in their true proportions. We begin to realize that theyears we have so recently passed through, though we did notappreciate it at the time, were the heroic years of Americanhistory. Now that their passionate excitement is over, it ispleasant to dwell upon them; to recall the rising of a great people;the call to arms as it boomed from our hilltops and clashed from oursteeples; the eager patriotism of that fierce April which kindlednew sympathies in every bosom, which caused the miser to give freelyof his wealth, the wife with eager hands to pack the knapsack of herhusband, and mothers with eyes glistening with tears of pride, tolook out upon the shining bayonets of their boys; then came thefrenzy of impatience and the defeat entailed upon us by rashness andinexperience, before our nation settled down, solidly and patiently,to its work, determined to save itself from destruction; and thenfollowed the long weary years of doubt and mingled fear and hope,until at last that day came six years ago which we now celebrate—the day which saw the flood, tide of rebellion reach the high-watermark, whence it never after ceased to recede. At the moment,probably, none of us, either at home or at the seat of war, realizedthe grandeur of the situation, the dramatic power of the incidents,or the Titanic nature of the conflict. To you who were at home,mothers, fathers, wives, sisters, brothers, citizens of the commoncountry, if nothing else, the agony of suspense, the anxiety, thejoy, and, too often, the grief which was to know no end, whichmarked the passage of those days, left little either of time orinclination to dwell upon aught save the horrid reality of thedrama. To others who more immediately participated in those greatevents, the daily vexations and annoyances—the hot and dusty day—the sleepless, anxious night—the rain upon the unshelteredbivouac—the dead lassitude which succeeded the excitement of action—the cruel orders which recognized no fatigue and made noallowance for labors undergone—all these small trials of thesoldier's life made it possible to but few to realize the grandeurof the drama to which they were playing a part. Yet we were notwholly oblivious of it. Now and then I come across strange evidencesof this in turning over the leaves of the few weather-stained,dogeared volumes which were the companions of my life in camp. Thetitle page of one bears witness to the fact that it was my companionat Gettysburg, and in it I recently found some lines of Browning'snoble poem of 'Saul' marked and altered to express my sense of oursituation, and bearing date upon this very fifth of July. The poethad described in them the fall of snow in the springtime from amountain, under which nestled a valley; the altering of a few wordsmade them well describe the approach of our army to Gettysburg.

"Fold on fold, all at once, we crowded thundrously down to your
feet;
And there fronts yon, stark black but alive yet, your army of old
With its rents, the successive bequeathing of conflicts untold.
Yea, each harm got in fighting your battles, each furrow and scar
Of its head thrust twixt you and the tempest—all hail, here we
are."

And there we were, indeed, and then and there was enacted such acelebration as I hope may never again be witnessed there orelsewhere on another fourth of July. Even as I stand here beforeyou, through the lapse of years and the shifting experiences of therecent past, visions and memories of those days rise thick and fastbefore me. We did, indeed, crowd thundrously down to their feet. Ofthe events of those three terrible days I may speak with feeling andyet with modesty, for small, indeed, was the part which those withwhom I served were called upon to play. When those great bodies ofinfantry drove together in the crash of battle, the clouds ofcavalry which had hitherto covered up their movements were sweptaside to the flanks. Our work for the time was done, nor had it beenan easy or a pleasant work. The road to Gettysburg had been pavedwith our bodies and watered with our blood. Three weeks before, inthe middle days of June, I, a captain of cavalry, had taken thefield at the head of one hundred mounted men, the joy and pride ofmy life. Through twenty days of almost incessant conflict the handof death had been heavy upon us, and now, upon the eve ofGettysburg, thirty-four of the hundred only remained, and ourcomrades were dead on the field of battle, or languishing inhospitals, or prisoners in the hands of the enemy. Six brave youngfellows we had buried in one grave where they fell on the heights ofAldie. It was late on the evening of the first of July, that therecame to us rumors of heavy fighting at Gettysburg, nearly fortymiles away. The regiment happened then to be detached, and itsorders for the second were to move in the rear of Sedgwick's corpsand see that no man left the column. All that day we marched to thesound of the cannon. Sedgwick, very grim and stern, was pressingforward his tired men, and we soon saw that for once there would beno stragglers from the ranks. As the day grew old and as we passedrapidly up from the rear to the head of the hurrying column, theroar of battle grew more distinct, until at last we crowned a hill,and the contest broke upon us. Across the deep valley, some twomiles away, we could see the white smoke of the bursting shells,while below the sharp incessant rattle of the musketry told of thefierce struggle that was going on. Before us ran the straight,white, dusty road, choked with artillery, ambulances, caissons,ammunition trains, all pressing forward to the field of battle,while mixed among them, their bayonets gleaming through the dustlike wavelets on a river of steel, tired, foot-sore, hungry,thirsty, begrimed with sweat and dust, the gallant infantry ofSedgwick's corps hurried to the sound of the cannon as men mighthave flocked to a feast. Moving rapidly forward, we crossed thebrook which ran so prominently across the map of the field ofbattle, and halted on its further side to await our orders. Hardlyhad I dismounted from my horse when, looking back, I saw that thehead of the column had reached the brook and deployed and halted onits other bank, and already the stream was filled with naked menshouting with pleasure as they washed off the sweat of their longday's march. Even as I looked, the noise of the battle grew louder,and soon the symptoms of movement were evident. The rappel washeard, the bathers hurriedly clad themselves, the ranks were formed,and the sharp, quick snap of the percussion caps told us the menwere preparing their weapons for action. Almost immediately ageneral officer rode rapidly to the front of the line, addressed toit a few brief, energetic words, the short sharp order to move bythe flank was given, followed immediately by the "double-quick"; theofficer placed himself at the head of the column, and that braveinfantry which had marched almost forty miles since the setting ofyesterday's sun,—which during that day had hardly known eithersleep, or food, or rest, or shelter from the July heat,—now, asthe shadows grew long, hurried forward on the run to take its placein the front of battle and to bear up the reeling fortunes of theday.

It is said that at the crisis of Solferino, Marshal McMahon appearedwith his corps upon the field of battle, his men having run forseven miles. We need not go abroad for examples of endurance andsoldierly bearing. The achievement of Sedgwick and the brave SixthCorps, as they marched upon the field of Gettysburg on that secondday of July, far excels the vaunted efforts of the French Zouaves.

Twenty-four hours later we stood on that same ground. Many dearfriends had yielded up their young lives during the hours which hadelapsed, but, though twenty thousand fellow-creatures were woundedor dead around us, though the flood gates of heaven seemed openedand the torrents fell upon the quick and the dead, yet the elementsseemed electrified with a certain magic influence of victory, and asthe great army sank down over-wearied in its tracks it felt that thecrisis and danger was passed,—that Gettysburg was immortal.

May I not, then, well express the hope that never again may we orours be called upon so to celebrate this anniversary? And yet nowthat the passionate hopes and fears of those days are all over,—now that the grief which can never be forgotten is softened andmodified by the soothing hand of time,—now that the distractingdoubts and untold anxieties are buried and almost forgotten,—welove to remember the gathering of the hosts, to bear again in memorythe shock of battle, and to wonder at the magnificence of thedrama. The passion and the excitement are gone, and we can look atthe work we have done and pronounce upon it. I do not fear the sobersecond judgment. Our work was a great work,—it was well done, andit was done thoroughly. Some one has said, "Happy is the peoplewhich has no history." Not so! As it is better to have loved andlost than never to have loved at all, so it is better to have livedgreatly, even though we have suffered greatly, than to have passed along life of inglorious ease. Our generation,—yes, we ourselveshave been a part of great things. We have suffered greatly andgreatly rejoiced; we have drunk deep of the cup of joy and ofsorrow; we have tasted the agony of defeat, and we have supped fullwith the pleasures of victory. We have proved ourselves equal togreat deeds, and have learnt what qualities were in us, which inmore peaceful times we ourselves did not suspect.

And, indeed, I would here in closing fain address a few words tosuch of you, if any such are here, who like myself may nave beensoldiers during the War of the Rebellion. We should never more bepartisans. We have been a part of great events in the service of thecommon country, we have worn her uniform, we have received her payand devoted ourselves to the death, if need be, in her service. Whenwe were blackened by the smoke of Antietam, we did not ask or carewhether those who stood shoulder to shoulder beside us, whether hewho led us, whether those who sustained us, were Democrats orRepublicans, conservatives or radicals; we asked only that theymight prove as true as was the steel we grasped, and as brave as weourselves would fain have been. When we stood like a wall of stonevomiting fire from the heights of Gettysburg,—nailed to ourposition through three long days of mortal Hell,—did we ask eachother whether that brave officer who fell while gallantly leadingthe counter-charge—whether that cool gunner steadily serving hispiece before us amid the storm of shot and shell—whether the poorwounded, mangled, gasping comrades, crushed and torn, and dying inagony around us—had voted for Lincoln or Douglas, for Breckenridgeor Bell? We then were full of other thoughts. We prized men for whatthey were worth to the common country of us all, and recked not ofempty words. Was the man true, was he brave, was he earnest, was allwe thought of then;—not, did he vote or think with us, or labelhimself with our party name? This lesson let us try to remember. Wecannot give to party all that we once offered to country, but our dutyis not yet done. We are no longer, what we have been, the young guardof the Republic; we have earned an exemption from the dangers of thefield and camp, and the old musket or the crossed sabres hang harmlessover our winter fires, never more to be grasped in these handshenceforth devoted to more peaceful labors; but the duties of thecitizen, and of the citizen who has received his baptism in fire, arestill incumbent upon us. Though young in years, we should rememberthat henceforth, and as long as we live in the land, we are theancients,—the veterans of the Republic. As such, it is for us toprotect in peace what we preserved in war; it is for us to look at allthings with a view to the common country and not to the exigencies ofparty politics; it is for us ever to bear in mind the higherallegiance we have sworn, and to remember that he who has once been asoldier of the motherland degrades himself forever when he becomes theslave of faction. Then at last, if through life we ever bear theselessons freshly in mind will it be well for us, will it be well forour country, will it be well for those whose names we bear, that ourbones also do not molder with those of our brave comrades beneath thesods of Gettysburg, or that our graves do not look down on theswift-flowing Mississippi from the historic heights of Vicksburg?

JOHN ADAMS (1735-1826)

John Adams, second President of the United States, was not a man ofthe strong emotional temperament which so often characterizes thegreat orator. He was fitted by nature for a student and scholarrather than to lead men by the direct appeal the orator makes totheir emotions, their passions, or their judgment His inclinationswere towards the Church; but after graduating from Harvard College,which he entered at the age of sixteen, he had a brief experience asa school-teacher and found it so distasteful to him that he adoptedthe law as a relief, without waiting to consult his inclinationsfurther. "Necessity drove me to this determination," he writes, "butmy inclination was to preach." He began the practice of law in hisnative village of Braintree, Massachusetts, and took no prominentpart in public affairs until 1765, when he appeared as counsel forthe town of Boston in proceedings growing out of the Stamp Actdifficulties.

From this time on, his name is constantly associated with the greatevents of the Revolution. That be never allowed his prejudices as apatriot to blind him to his duties as a lawyer, he showed byappearing as counsel for the British soldiers who killed CrispusAttucks, Samuel Gray, and others, in the Boston riot of 1770. He wasassociated in this case with Josiah Quincy, and the twodistinguished patriots conducted the case with such ability that thesoldiers were acquitted—as no doubt they should have been.

Elected a member of the Continental Congress, Mr. Adams did work init which identified him in an enduring way with the formative periodof republican institutions in America. This must be remembered inpassing upon his acts when as President, succeeding Washington, heis brought into strong contrast with the extreme republicans of theFrench school. In the Continental Congress, contrasted with Englishroyalists and conservatives Mr. Adams himself appeared an extremist,as later on, under the same law of contrast, he appearedconservative when those who were sometimes denounced as "Jacobins"and "Levellers" were fond of denouncing him as a disguised royalist.

Prior to his administration as President, he had served ascommissioner to the court of France, "Minister Plenipotentiary forthe Purpose of Negotiating a Treaty of Peace and Commerce with GreatBritain"; commissioner to conclude a treaty with the States-Generalof Holland; minister to England after the conclusion of peace, andfinally as Vice-President under Washington. His services in everycapacity in which he was engaged for his country showed his greatability and zeal: but in the struggle over the Alien and SeditionLaws his opponents gave him no quarter and when he retired from thePresidency it was with the feeling, shared to some extent by hisgreat opponent Jefferson, that republics never have a proper regardfor the services and sacrifices of statesmen, though they are onlytoo ready to reward military heroes beyond their deserts. The authorof 'Familiar Letters on Public Affairs' writes of Mr. Adams:—

"He was a man of strong mind, great learning, and eminent ability touse knowledge both in speech and writing. He was ever a firmbeliever in Christianity, not from habit and example but from adiligent investigation of its proofs. He had an uncompromisingregard for his own opinion and was strongly contrasted withWashington in this respect. He seemed to have supposed that hisopinions could not have been corrected by those of other men orbettered by any comparison."

It might be inferred from this that Mr. Adams was as obstinate inprejudice as in opinion, but as he had demonstrated to the contraryin taking the unpopular cause of the British soldiers at thebeginning of his public career, he showed it still more strikinglyby renewing and continuing until his death a friendship withJefferson which had been interrupted by the fierce struggle over theAlien and Sedition Act.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS (March 4th. 1797)

When it was first perceived, in early times, that no middle coursefor America remained, between unlimited submission to a foreignlegislature and a total independence of its claims, men ofreflection were less apprehensive of danger from the formidablepowers of fleets and armies they must determine to resist, than fromthose contests and dissensions which would certainly ariseconcerning the forms of government to be instituted over the wholeand over the parts of this extensive country. Relying, however, onthe purity of their attentions, the justice of their cause, and theintegrity and intelgence of the people, under an over-rulingProvidence, which had so signally protected this country from thefirst, the representatives of this nation, then consisting of littlemore than half its present numbers, not only broke to pieces thechains which were forging, and the rod of iron that was lifted up,but frankly cut asunder the ties which had bound them, and launchedinto an ocean of uncertainty.

The zeal and ardor of the people during the Revolutionary War,supplying the place of government, commanded a degree of order,sufficient, at least, for the temporary preservation of society. Theconfederation, which was early felt to be necessary, was preparedfrom the models of the Bavarian and Helvetic confederacies, the onlyexamples which remain, with any detail and precision, in history,and certainly the only ones which the people at large had everconsidered. But, reflecting on the striking difference, in so manyparticulars, between this country and those where a courier may gofrom the seat of government to the frontier in a single day, it wasthen certainly foreseen by some who assisted in Congress at theformation of it, that it could not be durable.

Negligence of its regulations, inattention to its recommendations,if not disobedience to its authority, not only in individuals but inStates, soon appeared with their melancholy consequences—universal languor, jealousies, rivalries of States, decline ofnavigation and commerce, discouragement of necessary manufactures,universal fall in the value of lands and their produce, contempt ofpublic and private faith, loss of consideration and credit withforeign nations; and, at length, in discontents, animosities,combinations, partial conventions, and insurrection, threateningsome great national calamity.

In this dangerous crisis, the people of America were not abandonedby their usual good sense, presence of mind, resolution, orintegrity. Measures were pursued to concert a plan to form a moreperfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity,provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, andsecure the blessings of liberty. The public disquisitions,discussions, and deliberations issued in the present happyconstitution of government.

Employed in the service of my country abroad during the whole courseof these transactions, I first saw the Constitution of the UnitedStates in a foreign country. Irritated by no literary altercation,animated by no public debate, heated by no party animosity, I readit with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads, prompted bygood hearts; as an experiment better adapted to the genius,character, situation, and relations of this nation and country thanany which had ever been proposed or suggested. In its generalprinciples and great outlines, it was conformable to such a systemof government as I had ever most esteemed, and in some States, myown native State in particular, had contributed to establish.Claiming a right of suffrage common with my fellow-citizens in theadoption or rejection of a constitution, which was to rule me and myposterity, as well as them and theirs, I did not hesitate to expressmy approbation of it on all occasions, in public and in private. Itwas not then, nor has been since, any objection to it, in my mind,that the Executive and Senate were not more permanent. Nor have Ientertained a thought of promoting any alteration in it, but such asthe people themselves, in the course of their experience, should seeand feel to be necessary or expedient, and by their representativesin Congress and the State legislature, according to the constitutionitself, adopt and ordain.

Returning to the bosom of my country, after a painful separationfrom it for ten years, I had the honor to be elected to a stationunder the new order of things; and I have repeatedly laid myselfunder the most serious obligations to support the constitution. Theoperation of it has equaled the most sanguine expectations of itsfriends; and from an habitual attention to it, satisfaction in itsadministration, and delight in its effects upon the peace, order,prosperity, and happiness of the nation, I have acquired an habitualattachment to it, and veneration for it.

What other form of government, indeed, can so well deserve ouresteem and love?

There may be little solidity in an ancient idea that congregationsof men into cities and nations are the most pleasing objects in thesight of superior intelligences; but this is very certain, that to abenevolent human mind there can be no spectacle presented by anynation more pleasing, more noble, majestic, or august, than anassembly like that which has so often been seen in this and theother chamber of Congress—of a government in which the executiveauthority, as well as that of all the branches of the legislature,are exercised by citizens selected at regular periods by theirneighbors, to make and execute laws for the general good. Can anything essential, any thing more, than mere ornament and decorationbe added to this by robes or diamonds? Can authority be moreamiable or respectable when it descends from accident orinstitutions established in remote antiquity than when it springsfresh from the hearts and judgments of an honest and enlightenedpeople? For it is the people that are represented; it is their powerand majesty that is reflected, and only for their good, in everylegitimate government, under whatever form it may appear. Theexistence of such a government as ours for any length of time is afull proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtuethroughout the whole body of the people. And what object ofconsideration more pleasing than this can be presented to the humanmind? If natural pride is ever justifiable or excusable, it is whenit springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but fromconviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence.

In the midst of these pleasing ideas, we should be unfaithful toourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to ourliberties—if anything partial or extraneous should infect thepurity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If anelection is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, andthat can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, thegovernment may be the choice of a party, for its own ends, not ofthe nation for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can beobtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud orviolence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the government may notbe the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It maybe foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who governourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that, in such cases,choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance.

Such is the amiable and interesting system of government (and suchare some of the abuses to which it may be exposed) which the peopleof America have exhibited to the admiration and anxiety of the wiseand virtuous of all nations for eight years, under the administrationof a citizen, who, by a long course of great actions, regulated byprudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, conducting a peopleinspired with the same virtues, and animated with the same ardentpatriotism and love of liberty, to independence and peace, toincreasing wealth and unexampled prosperity, has merited thegratitude of his fellow-citizens, commanded the highest praises offoreign nations, and secured immortal glory with posterity.

In that retirement, which is his voluntary choice, may he long liveto enjoy the delicious recollection of his services—the gratitudeof mankind; the happy fruits of them to himself and the world, whichare daily increasing, and that splendid prospect of the futurefortunes of his country, which is opening from year to year. Hisname may be still a rampart and the knowledge that he lives abulwark against all open or secret enemies of his country's peace.

This example has been recommended to the imitation of hissuccessors, by both houses of Congress, and by the voice of thelegislatures and the people, throughout the nation.

On this subject it might become me better to be silent, or to speakwith diffidence; but as something may be expected, the occasion, Ihope, will be admitted as an apology, if I venture to say, that if apreference upon principle, of a free republican government, formedupon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and impartialinquiry after truth; if an attachment to the Constitution of theUnited States, and a conscientious determination to support it,until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of the people,expressed in the mode prescribed in it; if a respectful attention tothe constitution of the individual States, and a constant cautionand delicacy towards the State governments; if an equal andimpartial regard to the rights, interests, honor, and happiness ofall the States in the Union, without preference or regard to anorthern or southern, eastern or western position, their variouspolitical opinions on essential points, or their personalattachments; if a love of virtuous men, of all parties anddenominations; if a love of science or letters and a wish topatronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges,universities, academies, and every institution of propagatingknowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of people, notonly for their benign influence on the happiness of life, in all itsstages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the onlymeans of preserving our constitution from its natural enemies, thespirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue,profligacy, and corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence,which is the angel of destruction to elective governments, if a loveof equal laws, of justice and humanity, in the interior administration;if an inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturesfor necessity, convenience, and defense; if a spirit of equity andhumanity towards the aboriginal nations of America, and adisposition to ameliorate their condition by inclining them to bemore friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them;if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolablefaith with all nations, and the system of neutrality andimpartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe which has beenadopted by the government, and so solemnly sanctioned by both housesof Congress, and applauded by the legislatures of the States and bypublic opinion, until it shall be otherwise ordained by Congress; ifa personal esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence ofseven years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve thefriendship, which has been so much for the honor and interest ofboth nations; if, while the conscious honor and integrity of thepeople of America and the internal sentiment of their own power andenergies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate everyjust cause, and remove every colorable pretense of complaint; if anintention to pursue, by amicable negotiation, a reparation for theinjuries that have been committed on the commerce of ourfellow-citizens, by whatever nation; and, if success cannot beobtained, to lay the facts before the legislature, that they mayconsider what further measures the honor and interest of thegovernment and its constituents demand; if a resolution to dojustice, as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to allnations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with allthe world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, andresources of the American people, on which I have so often hazardedmy all, and never been deceived; if elevated ideas of the highdestinies of this country, and of my own duties towards it, foundedon a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvementsof the people, deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and notobscured, but exalted, by experience and age; and with humblereverence, I feel it my duty to add, if a veneration for thereligion of the people who profess and call themselves Christians,and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianityamong the best recommendations for the public service, can enableme, in any degree, to comply with your wishes, it shall be mystrenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two housesshall not be without effect.

With this great example before me—with the sense and spirit, thefaith and honor, the duty and interest of the same American people,pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, Ientertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy; and my mindis prepared, without hesitation, to lay myself under the most solemnobligations to support it to the utmost of my power.

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the patron of order, thefountain of justice, and the protector, in all ages of the world, ofvirtuous liberty, continue his blessing upon this nation and itsgovernment, and give it all possible success and duration,consistent with the ends of his providence!

THE BOSTON MASSACRE

(First Day's Speech in Defense of the British Soldiers Accused of
Murdering Attucks, Gray and Others, in the Boston Riot of 1770)

May If Please Your Honor, and You, Gentlemen ofthe Jury:—

I am for the prisoners at the bar, and shall apologize for it only inthe words of the Marquis Beccaria:—

"If I can but be the instrument of preserving one life, hisblessings and tears of transport shall be a sufficient consolationfor me for the contempt of all mankind."

As the prisoners stand before you for their lives, it may be properto recollect with what temper the law requires we should proceed tothis trial. The form of proceeding at their arraignment hasdiscovered that the spirit of the law upon such occasions isconformable to humanity, to common sense and feeling; that it is allbenignity and candor. And the trial commences with the prayer of thecourt, expressed by the clerk, to the Supreme Judge of judges,empires, and worlds, "God send you a good deliverance."

We find in the rules laid down by the greatest English judges, whohave been the brightest of mankind: We are to look upon it as morebeneficial that many guilty persons should escape unpunished thanone innocent should suffer. The reason is, because it is of moreimportance to the community that innocence should be protected thanit is that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are sofrequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished; and manytimes they happen in such a manner that it is not of muchconsequence to the public whether they are punished or not. But wheninnocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially todie, the subject will exclaim, "It is immaterial to me whether Ibehave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security." And if such asentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject,there would be an end to all security whatsoever, I will read thewords of the law itself.

The rules I shall produce to you from Lord Chief-Justice Hale, whosecharacter as a lawyer, a man of learning and philosophy, and aChristian, will be disputed by nobody living; one of the greatestand best characters the English nation ever produced. His words arethese:—

(2 H. H. P. C.): Tutius semper est errare, inacquietando quam in puniendo, ex parte misericordiaequam ex parte justitiae.—"It is always safer to err inacquitting than punishing, on the part of mercy than the part ofjustice."

The next is from the same authority, 305:—

Tutius erratur ex parte mitiori,—"It is always safer toerr on the milder side, the side of mercy."

(H. H. P. C. 509): "The best rule in doubtful cases is rather toincline to acquittal than conviction."

And on page 300:—

Quod dubitas, ne feceris.—"Where you are doubtful, never act;that is, if you doubt of the prisoner's guilt, never declare himguilty."

This is always the rule, especially in cases of life. Another rulefrom the same author, 289, where he says:—

"In some cases presumptive evidences go far to prove a personguilty, though there is no express proof of the fact to be committedby him; but then it must be very warily expressed, for it is betterfive guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocentperson should die."

The next authority shall be from another judge of equal character,considering the age wherein he lived; that is, Chancellor Fortescuein 'Praise of the Laws of England,' page 59. This is a veryancient writer on the English law. His words are:—

"Indeed, one would rather, much rather, that twenty guilty personsescape punishment of death, than one innocent person be condemnedand suffer capitally."

Lord Chief-Justice Hale says:—

"It is better five guilty persons escape, than one innocent personsuffer."

Lord Chancellor Fortescue, you see, carries the matter further, andsays:—

"Indeed, one had rather, much rather, that twenty guilty personsshould escape than one innocent person suffer capitally."

Indeed, this rule is not peculiar to the English law; there neverwas a system of laws in the world in which this rule did notprevail. It prevailed in the ancient Roman law, and, which is moreremarkable, it prevails in the modern Roman law. Even the judges inthe Courts of Inquisition, who with racks, burnings, and scourgesexamine criminals,—even there they preserve it as a maxim, thatit is better the guilty should escape punishment than the innocentsuffer. Satius esse nocentem absolvi quam innocentemdamnari. This is the temper we ought to set out with, and thesethe rules we are to be governed by. And I shall take it for granted,as a first principle, that the eight prisoners at the bar had betterbe all acquitted, though we should admit them all to be guilty, thanthat any one of them should, by your verdict, be found guilty, beinginnocent.

I shall now consider the several divisions of law under which theevidence will arrange itself.

The action now before you is homicide; that is, the killing of oneman by another. The law calls it homicide; but it is not criminal inall cases for one man to slay another. Had the prisoners been on thePlains of Abraham and slain a hundred Frenchmen apiece, the Englishlaw would have considered it as a commendable action, virtuous andpraiseworthy; so that every instance of killing a man is not a crimein the eye of the law. There are many other instances which I cannotenumerate—an officer that executes a person under sentence ofdeath, etc. So that, gentlemen, every instance of one man's killinganother is not a crime, much less a crime to be punished with death.But to descend to more particulars.

The law divides homicide into three branches; the first is"justifiable," the second "excusable," and the third "felonious."Felonious homicide is subdivided into two branches; the first ismurder, which is killing with malice aforethought; the second ismanslaughter, which is killing a man on a sudden provocation. Here,gentlemen, are four sorts of homicide; and you are to considerwhether all the evidence amounts to the first, second, third orfourth of these heads. The fact was the slaying five unhappy personsthat night. You are to consider whether it was justifiable,excusable, or felonious; and if felonious, whether it was murder ormanslaughter. One of these four it must be. You need not divide yourattention to any more particulars. I shall, however, before I cometo the evidence, show you several authorities which will assist youand me in contemplating the evidence before us.

I shall begin with justifiable homicide. If an officer, a sheriff,execute a man on the gallows, draw and quarter him, as in case ofhigh treason, and cut off his head, this is justifiable homicide. Itis his duty. So also, gentlemen, the law has planted fences andbarriers around every individual; it is a castle round every man'sperson, as well as his house. As the love of God and our neighborcomprehends the whole duty of man, so self-love and socialcomprehend all the duties we owe to mankind; and the first branch isself-love, which is not only our indisputable right, but ourclearest duty. By the laws of nature, this is interwoven in theheart of every individual. God Almighty, whose law we cannot alter,has implanted it there, and we can annihilate ourselves as easily asroot out this affection for ourselves. It is the first and strongestprinciple in our nature. Justice Blackstone calls it "The primarycanon in the law of nature." That precept of our holy religion whichcommands us to love our neighbor as ourselves does not command us tolove our neighbor better than ourselves, or so well. No Christiandivine has given this interpretation. The precept enjoins that ourbenevolence to our fellow-men should be as real and sincere as ouraffection to ourselves, not that it should be as great in degree. Aman is authorized, therefore, by common sense and the laws ofEngland, as well as those of nature, to love himself better than hisfellow-subject. If two persons are cast away at sea, and get on aplank (a case put by Sir Francis Bacon), and the plank isinsufficient to hold them both, the one has a right to push theother off to save himself. The rules of the common law, thereforewhich authorize a man to preserve his own life at the expense ofanother's, are not contradicted by any divine or moral law. We talkof liberty and property, but if we cut up the law of self-defense,we cut up the foundations of both; and if we give up this, the restis of very little value, and therefore this principle must bestrictly attended to; for whatsoever the law pronounces in the caseof these eight soldiers will be the law to other persons and afterages. All the persons that have slain mankind in this country fromthe beginning to this day had better have been acquitted than that awrong rule and precedent should be established.

I shall now read to you a few authorities on this subject ofself-defense. Foster, 273 (in the case of justifiable self-defense):

"The injured party may repel force with force in defense of person,habitation, or property, against one who manifestly intendeth andendeavoreth with violence or surprise to commit a known felony uponeither. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but pursue hisadversary till he finds himself out of danger; and a conflictbetween them he happeneth to kill, such killing is fiable."

I must entreat you to consider the words of this authority. Theinjured person may repel force by force against any who endeavorethto commit any kind of felony on him or his. Here the rule is, I havea right to stand on my own defense, if you intend to commitfelony. If any of the persons made an attack on these soldiers, withan intention to rob them, if it was but to take their hatsfeloniously, they had a right to kill them on the spot, and had nobusiness to retreat. If a robber meet me in the street and commandme to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without askingany questions. If a person commit a bare assault on me, this willnot justify killing; but if he assault me in such a manner as todiscover an intention to kill me, I have a right to destroy him,that I may put it out of his power to kill me. In the case you willhave to consider, I do not know there was any attempt to steal fromthese persons; however, there were some persons concerned who would,probably enough, have stolen, if there had been anything tosteal, and many were there who had no such disposition. But this isnot the point we aim at. The question is, Are you satisfied thepeople made the attack in order to kill the soldiers? If you aresatisfied that the people, whoever they were, made that assault witha design to kill or maim the soldiers, this was such an assault aswill justify the soldiers killing in their own defense. Further, itseems to me, we may make another question, whether you are satisfiedthat their real intention was to kill or maim, or not? If anyreasonable man in the situation of one of these soldiers would havehad reason to believe in the time of it, that the people came withan intention to kill him, whether you have this satisfaction now ornot in your own minds, they were justifiable, at least excusable, infiring. You and I may be suspicious that the people who made thisassault on the soldiers did it to put them to flight, on purposethat they might go exulting about the town afterwards in triumph;but this will not do. You must place yourselves in the situation ofWeems and Killroy—consider yourselves as knowing that the prejudiceof the world about you thought you came to dragoon them intoobedience, to statutes, instructions, mandates, and edicts, whichthey thoroughly detested—that many of these people werethoughtless and inconsiderate, old and young, sailors and landsmen,negroes and mulattoes—that they, the soldiers, had no friendsabout them, the rest were in opposition to them; with all the bellsringing to call the town together to assist the people in KingStreet, for they knew by that time that there was no fire; thepeople shouting, huzzaing, and making the mob whistle, as they callit, which, when a boy makes it in the street is no formidable thing,but when made by a multitude is a most hideous shriek, almost asterrible as an Indian yell; the people crying, "Kill them, killthem. Knock them over," heaving snowballs, oyster shells, clubs,white-birch sticks three inches and a half in diameter; consideryourselves in this situation, and then judge whether a reasonableman in the soldiers' situation would not have concluded they weregoing to kill him. I believe if I were to reverse the scene, Ishould bring it home to our own bosoms. Suppose Colonel Marshallwhen he came out of his own door and saw these grenadiers comingdown with swords, etc., had thought it proper to have appointed amilitary watch; suppose he had assembled Gray and Attucks that werekilled, or any other person in town, and appointed them in thatsituation as a military watch, and there had come from Murray'sbarracks thirty or forty soldiers with no other arms than snowballs,cakes of ice, oyster shells, cinders, and clubs, and attacked thismilitary watch in this manner, what do you suppose would have beenthe feelings and reasonings of any of our householders? I confess, Ibelieve they would not have borne one-half of what the witnesseshave sworn the soldiers bore, till they had shot down as many aswere necessary to intimidate and disperse the rest; because the lawdoes not oblige us to bear insults to the danger of our lives, tostand still with such a number of people around us, throwing suchthings at us, and threatening our lives, until we are disabled todefend ourselves.

(Foster, 274): "Where a known felony is attempted upon the person,be it to rob or murder, here the party assaulted may repel forcewith force, and even his own servant, then attendant on him, or anyother person present, may interpose for preventing mischief, and ifdeath ensue, the party so interposing will be justified. In thiscase nature and social duty co-operate."

Hawkins, P. C., Chapter 28, Section 25, towards the end:—"Yet itseems that a private person, a fortiori, an officer of justice, whohappens unavoidably to kill another in endeavoring to defend himselffrom or suppress dangerous rioters, may justify the fact in as muchas he only does his duty in aid of the public justice."

Section 24:—"And I can see no reason why a person, who, withoutprovocation, is assaulted by another, in any place whatsoever, insuch a manner as plainly shows an intent to murder him, as bydischarging a pistol, or pushing at him with a drawn sword, etc.,may not justify killing such an assailant, as much as if he hadattempted to rob him. For is not he who attempts to murder me moreinjurious than he who barely attempts to rob me? And can it be morejustifiable to fight for my goods than for my life?"

And it is not only highly agreeable to reason that a man in suchcirc*mstances may lawfully kill another, but it seems also to beconfirmed by the general tenor of our books, which, speaking ofhomicide se defendo, suppose it done in some quarrel or affray.

(Hawkins, p. 71. section 14); "And so, perhaps, the killing of dangerousrioters may be justified by any private persons, who cannototherwise suppress them or defend themselves from them, inasmuch asevery private person seems to be authorized by the law to armhimself for the purposes aforesaid."

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself; and on thestrength of this authority I do not deny the inhabitants had a rightto arm themselves at that time for their defense, not foroffense. That distinction is material, and must be attended to.

(Hawkins, p. 75, section 14): "And not only he who on an assault retreatsto the wall, or some such strait, beyond which he can go no furtherbefore he kills the other, is judged by the law to act uponunavoidable necessity; but also he who being assaulted in such amanner and in such a place that he cannot go back without manifestlyendangering his life, kills the other without retreating at all."

(Section 16); "And an officer who kills one that insults him in theexecution of his office, and where a private person that kills onewho feloniously assaults him in the highway, may justify the factwithout ever giving back at all."

There is no occasion for the magistrate to read the riot act. In thecase before you, I suppose you will be satisfied when you come toexamine the witnesses and compare it with the rules of the commonlaw, abstracted from all mutiny acts and articles of war, that thesesoldiers were in such a situation that they could not helpthemselves. People were coming from Royal Exchange Lane, and otherparts of the town, with clubs and cord-wood sticks; the soldierswere planted by the wail of the Customhouse; they could not retreat;they were surrounded on all sides, for there were people behind themas well as before them; there were a number of people in the RoyalExchange Lane; the soldiers were so near to the Customhouse thatthey could not retreat, unless they had gone into the brick wall ofit. I shall show you presently that all the party concerned in thisunlawful design were guilty of what any one of them did; if anybodythrew a snowball it was the act of the whole party; if any struckwith a club or threw a club, and the club had killed anybody, thewhole party would have been guilty of murder in the law. LordChief-Justice Holt, in Mawgrige's case (Keyling, 128), says:—

"Now, it has been held, that if A of his malice prepense assaults Bto kill him, and B draws his sword and attacks A and pursues him,then A, for his safety, gives back and retreats to a wall, and Bstill pursuing him with his drawn sword, A in his defense kills B;this is murder in A. For A having malice against B, and in pursuancethereof endeavoring to kill him, is answerable for all theconsequences of which he was the original cause. It is notreasonable for any man that is dangerously assaulted, and when heperceives his life in danger from his adversary, but to have libertyfor the security of his own life, to pursue him that maliciouslyassaulted him; for he that has manifested that he has malice againstanother is not at to be trusted with a dangerous weapon in hishand. And so resolved by all the judges when they met at Seargeant'sInn, in preparation for my Lord Morley's trial."

In the case here we will take Montgomery, if you please, when he wasattacked by the stout man with a stick, who aimed it at his head,with a number of people round him crying out, "Kill them, killthem." Had he not a right to kill the man? If all the party wereguilty of the assault made by the stout man, and all of them haddiscovered malice in their hearts, had not Montgomery a right,according to Lord Chief-Justice Holt, to put it out of their powerto wreak their malice upon him? I will not at present look for anymore authorities in the point of self-defense; you will be able tojudge from these how far the law goes in justifying or excusing anyperson in defense of himself, or taking away the life of another whothreatens him in life or limb. The next point is this: that in caseof an unlawful assembly, all and every one of the assembly is guiltyof all and every unlawful act committed by any one of that assemblyin prosecution of the unlawful design set out upon.

Rules of law should be universally known, whatever effect they mayhave on politics; they are rules of common law, the law of the land;and it is certainly true, that wherever there is an unlawfulassembly, let it consist of many persons or of a few, every man init is guilty of every unlawful act committed by any one of the wholeparty, be they more or be they less, in pursuance of their unlawfuldesign. This is the policy of the law; to discourage and preventriots, insurrections, turbulence, and tumults.

In the continual vicissitudes of human things, amidst the shocks offortune and the whirls of passion that take place at certaincritical seasons, even in the mildest government, the people areliable to run into riots and tumults. There are Church-quakes andState-quakes in the moral and political world, as well asearthquakes, storms, and tempests in the physical. Thus much,however, must be said in favor of the people and of human nature,that it is a general, if not a universal truth, that the aptitude ofthe people to mutinies, seditions, tumults, and insurrections, is indirect proportion to the despotism of the government. Ingovernments completely despotic,—that is, where the will of oneman is the only law, this disposition is most prevalent. Inaristocracies next; in mixed monarchies, less than either of theformer; in complete republics the least of all, and under the sameform of governments as in a limited monarchy, for example, thevirtue and wisdom of the administrations may generally be measuredby the peace and order that are seen among the people. However thismay be, such is the imperfection of all things in this world, thatno form of government, and perhaps no virtue or wisdom in theadministration, can at all times avoid riots and disorders among thepeople.

Now, it is from this difficulty that the policy of the law hasframed such strong discouragements to secure the people againsttumults; because, when they once begin, there is danger of theirrunning to such excesses as will overturn the whole system ofgovernment. There is the rule from the reverend sage of the law, sooften quoted before:—

(1 H. H. P. C. 437): "All present, aiding and assisting, are equallyprincipal with him that gave the stroke whereof the party died. Forthough one gave the stroke, yet in interpretation of law it is thestroke of every person that was present, aiding and assisting."

(1 H. H. P. C. 440): "If divers come with one assent to do mischief,as to kill, to rob or beat, and one doeth it, they are allprincipals in the felony. If many be present and one only give thestroke whereof the party dies, they are all principal, if they camefor that purpose."

Now, if the party at Dock Square came with an intention only to beatthe soldiers, and began to affray with them, and any of them hadbeen accidentally killed, it would have been murder, because it wasan unlawful design they came upon. If but one does it they are allconsidered in the eye of the law guilty; if any one gives the mortalstroke, they are all principals here, therefore there is a reversalof the scene. If you are satisfied that these soldiers were thereon a lawful design, and it should be proved any of them shot withoutprovocation, and killed anybody, he only is answerable for it.

(First Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 1 H. H. P. C. 444): "Although ifmany come upon an unlawful design, and one of the company till oneof the adverse party in pursuance of that design, all areprincipals; yet if many be together upon a lawful account, and oneof the company kill another of the adverse party, without anyparticular abetment of the rest to this fact of homicide, they arenot all guilty that are of the company, but only those that gave thestroke or actually abetted him to do it."

(1 H. H. P. C. 445): "In case of a riotous assembly to rob or stealdeer, or to do any unlawful act of violence, there the offense ofone is the offense of all the company."

(In another place, 1 H. H. P. C. 439): "The Lord Dacre and diversothers went to steal deer in the park of one Pellham. Raydon, oneof the company, killed the keeper in the park, the Lord Dacre andthe rest of the company being in the other part of the park. Yet itwas adjudged murder in them all, and they died for it." (And hequotes Crompton 25, Dalton 93. p. 241.) "So that in so strong acase as this, where this nobleman set out to hunt deer in the groundof another, he was in one part of the park and his company inanother part, yet they were all guilty of murder."

The next is:—

(Kale's Pleas of the Crown, 1 H. H. P. C. 440): "The case ofDrayton Bassit; divers persons doing an unlawful act, all areguilty of what is done by one."

(Foster 353, 354): "A general resolution against all opposers,whether such resolution appears upon evidence to have been actuallyand implicitly entered into by the confederates, or may reasonablybe collected from their number, arms or behavior, at or before thescene of action, such resolutions so proved have always beenconsidered as strong ingredients in cases of this kind. And in casesof homicide committed in consequence of them, every person present,in the sense of the law, when the homicide has been involved in theguilt of him that gave the mortal blow."

(Foster): "The cases of Lord Dacre, mentioned by Hale, and ofPudsey, reported by Crompton and cited by Hale, turned upon thispoint. The offenses they respectively stood charged with, asprincipals, were committed far out of their sight and hearing, andyet both were held to be present. It was sufficient that at theinstant the facts were committed, they were of the same party andupon the same pursuit, and under the same engagements andexpectations of mutual defense and support with those that did thefacts."

Thus far I have proceeded, and I believe it will not be hereafterdisputed by anybody, that this law ought to be known to every onewho has any disposition to be concerned in an unlawful assembly,whatever mischief happens in the prosecution of the design they setout upon, all are answerable for it. It is necessary we shouldconsider the definitions of some other crimes as well as murder;sometimes one crime gives occasion to another. An assault issometimes the occasion of manslaughter, sometimes of excusablehomicide. It is necessary to consider what is a riot, (1 Hawkins,ch. 65, section 2): I shall give you the definition of it:—

"Wheresoever more than three persons use force or violence, for theaccomplishment of any design whatever, all concerned are rioters."

Were there not more than three persons in Dock Square? Did they notagree to go to King Street, and attack the main guard? Where, then,is the reason for hesitation at calling it a riot? If we cannotspeak the law as it is, where is our liberty? And this is law, thatwherever more than three persons are gathered together to accomplishanything with force, it is a riot.

(1 Hawkins, ch. 65, section 2): "Wherever more than three persons useforce and violence, all who are concerned therein are rioters. Butin some cases wherein the law authorizes force, it is lawful andcommendable to use it. As for a sheriff [2 And. 67 Poph. 121], orconstable [3 H. 7, 10, 6], or perhaps even for a private person[Poph. 121, Moore 656], to assemble a competent number of people, inorder with force to oppose rebels or enemies or rioters, andafterwards, with such force actually to suppress them."

I do not mean to apply the word rebel on this occasion; I have noreason to suppose that ever there was one in Boston, at least amongthe natives of the country; but rioters are in the same situation,as far as my argument is concerned, and proper officers may suppressrioters, and so may even private persons.

If we strip ourselves free from all military laws, mutiny acts,articles of war and soldiers' oaths, and consider these prisoners asneighbors, if any of their neighbors were attacked in King Street,they had a right to collect together to suppress this riot andcombination. If any number of persons meet together at a fair ormarket, and happen to fall together by the ears, they are not guiltyof a riot, but of a sudden affray. Here is another paragraph, whichI must read to you:—

(1 Hawkins, ch. 65, section 3): "If a number of persons being met togetherat a fair or market, or on any other lawful or innocent occasion,happen, on a sudden quarrel, to fall together by the ears, they arenot guilty of a riot, but of a sudden affray only, of which none areguilty but those who actually began it," etc.

It would be endless, as well as superfluous, to examine whetherevery particular person engaged in a riot were in truth one of thefirst assembly or actually had a previous knowledge of the designthereof. I have endeavored to produce the best authorities, and togive you the rules of law in their words, for I desire not toadvance anything of my own. I choose to lay down the rules of lawfrom authorities which cannot be disputed. Another point is this,whether and how far a private person may aid another in distress?Suppose a press-gang should come on shore in this town and assaultany sailor or householder in King Street, in order to carry him onboard one of his Majesty's ships, and impress him without anywarrant as a seaman in his Majesty's service; how far do you supposethe inhabitants would think themselves warranted by law to interposeagainst that lawless press-gang? I agree that such a press-gangwould be as unlawful an assembly as that was in King Street. If theywere to press an inhabitant and carry him off for a sailor, would notthe inhabitants think themselves warranted by law to interpose inbehalf of their fellow-citizen? Now, gentlemen, if the soldiers hadno right to interpose in the relief of the sentry, the inhabitantswould have no right to interpose with regard to the citizen, forwhatever is law for a soldier is law for a sailor and for acitizen. They all stand upon an equal footing in this respect. Ibelieve we shall not have it disputed that it would be lawful to gointo King Street and help an honest man there against thepress-master. We have many instances in the books which authorizeit.

Now, suppose you should have a jealousy in your minds that thepeople who made this attack upon the sentry had nothing in theirintention more than to take him off his post, and that wasthreatened by some. Suppose they intended to go a little further,and tar and feather him, or to ride him (as the phrase is inHudibras), he would have had a good right to have stood upon hisdefense—the defense of his liberty; and if he could not preservethat without the hazard of his own life, he would have beenwarranted in depriving those of life who were endeavoring todeprive him of his. That is a point I would not give up for myright hand—nay, for my life.

Well, I say, if the people did this, or if this was only theirintention, surely the officers and soldiers had a right to go to hisrelief; and therefore they set out upon a lawful errand. They were,therefore, a lawful assembly, if we only consider them as privatesubjects and fellow-citizens, without regard to mutiny acts,articles of war, or soldiers' oaths. A private person, or any numberof private persons, has a right to go to the assistance of afellow-subject in distress or danger of his life, when assaulted andin danger from a few or a multitude.

(Keyl. 136): "If a man perceives another by force to be injuriouslytreated, pressed, and restrained of his liberty, though the personabused doth not complain or call for aid or assistance, and others,out of compassion, shall come to his rescue, and kill any of thosethat shall so restrain him, that is manslaughter."

Keyl.: "A and others without any warrant impress B to serve the kingat sea. B quietly submitted, and went off with the pressmaster.Hugett and the others pursued them, and required a sight of theirwarrant; but they showing a piece of paper that was not a sufficientwarrant, thereupon Hugett with the others drew their swords, and thepressmasters theirs, and so there was a combat, and those whoendeavored to rescue the pressed man killed one of the pretendedpressmasters. This was but manslaughter; for when the liberty ofone subject is invaded, it affects all the rest. It is aprovocation to all people, as being of ill example and perniciousconsequences."

Lord Raymond, 1301. The Queen versus Tooley et al. LordChief-Justice Holt says: "The prisoner (i.e. Tooley) in this hadsufficient provocation; for if one be impressed upon an unlawfulauthority, it is a sufficient provocation to all people out ofcompassion; and where the liberty of the subject is invaded, it is aprovocation to all the subjects of England, etc.; and surely a manought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the laws: and if any one,against the law, imprisons a man, he is an offender against MagnaCharta."

I am not insensible to Sir Michael Foster's observations on thesecases, but apprehend they do not invalidate the authority of them asfar as I now apply them to the purposes of my argument. If astranger, a mere fellow-subject, may interpose to defend theliberty, he may, too, defend the life of another individual. But,according to the evidence, some imprudent people, before the sentry,proposed to take him off his post; others threatened his life; andintelligence of this was carried to the main guard before any of theprisoners turned out. They were then ordered out to relieve thesentry; and any of our fellow-citizens might lawfully have gone uponthe same errand. They were, therefore, a lawful assembly.

I have but one point of law more to consider, and that is this: Inthe case before you I do not pretend to prove that every one of theunhappy persons slain was concerned in the riot. The authoritiesread to you just now say it would be endless to prove whether everyperson that was present and in a riot was concerned in planning thefirst enterprise or not. Nay, I believe it but justice to say somewere perfectly innocent of the occasion. I have reason to supposethat one of them was—Mr. Maverick. He was a very worthy youngman, as he has been represented to me, and had no concern in therioters' proceedings of that night; and I believe the same may besaid in favor of one more at least, Mr. Caldwell, who was slain;and, therefore, many people may think that as he and perhaps anotherwas innocent, therefore innocent blood having been shed, that mustbe expiated by the death of somebody or other. I take notice ofthis, because one gentleman was nominated by the sheriff for ajuryman upon this trial, because he had said he believed CaptainPreston was innocent, but innocent blood had been shed, andtherefore somebody ought to be hanged for it, which he thought wasindirectly giving his opinion in this cause. I am afraid many otherpersons have formed such an opinion. I do not take it to be a rule,that where innocent blood is shed the person must die. In theinstance of the Frenchmen on the Plains of Abraham, they wereinnocent, fighting for their king and country; their blood is asinnocent as any. There may be multitudes killed, when innocentblood is shed on all sides; so that it is not an invariable rule. Iwill put a case in which, I dare say, all will agree with me. Hereare two persons, the father and the son, go out a-hunting. Theytake different roads. The father hears a rushing among the bushes,takes it to be game, fires, and kills his son, through a mistake.Here is innocent blood shed, but yet nobody will say the fatherought to die for it. So that the general rule of law is, thatwhenever one person has a right to do an act, and that act, by anyaccident takes away the life of another, it is excusable. It bearsthe same regard to the innocent as to the guilty. If two men aretogether, and attack me, and I have a right to kill them, I strikeat them, and by mistake strike a third and kill him, as I had aright to kill the first, my killing the other will be excusable, asit happened by accident. If I, in the heat of passion, aim a blowat the person who has assaulted me, and aiming at him I kill anotherperson, it is but manslaughter.

(Foster. 261. section 3): "If an action unlawful in itself is donedeliberately, and with intention of mischief, or great bodily harmto particulars, or of mischief indiscriminately, fall it where itmay, and death ensues, against or beside the original intention ofthe party, it will be murder. But if such mischievous intention dothnot appear, which is matter of fact, and to be collected fromcirc*mstances, and the act was done heedlessly and inconsiderately,it will be manslaughter, not accidental death; because the act uponwhich death ensued was unlawful."

Suppose, in this case, the mulatto man was the person who made theassault; suppose he was concerned in the unlawful assembly, and thisparty of soldiers, endeavoring to defend themselves against him,happened to kill another person, who was innocent—though thesoldiers had no reason, that we know of, to think any person there,at least of that number who were crowding about them, innocent; theymight, naturally enough, presume all to be guilty of the riot andassault, and to come with the same design—I say, if on firing onthose who were guilty, they accidentally killed an innocent person,it was not their fault. They were obliged to defend themselvesagainst those who were pressing upon them. They are not answerablefor it with their lives; for on supposition it was justifiable orexcusable to kill Attucks, or any other person, it will be equallyjustifiable or excusable if in firing at him they killed another,who was innocent; or if the provocation was such as to mitigate theguilt of manslaughter, it will equally mitigate the guilt, if theykilled an innocent man undesignedly, in aiming at him who gave theprovocation, according to Judge Foster; and as this point is of suchconsequence, I must produce some more authorities for it:

(1 Hawkins. 84): "Also, if a third person accidentally happen to bekilled by one engaged in a combat, upon a sudden quarrel, it seemsthat he who killed him is guilty of manslaughter only," etc. (H. HP. C. 442, to the same point; and 1 H. H. P. C. 484. and 4 Black,27.)

I shall now consider one question more, and that is concerningprovocation. We have hitherto been considering self-defense, andhow far persons may go in defending themselves against aggressors,even by taking away their lives, and now proceed to consider suchprovocations as the law allows to mitigate or extenuate the guilt ofkilling, where it is not justifiable or excusable. An assault andbattery committed upon a man in such a manner as not to endanger hislife is such a provocation as the law allows to reduce killing downto the crime of manslaughter. Now, the law has been made on moreconsiderations than we are capable of making at present; the lawconsiders a man as capable of bearing anything and everything butblows. I may reproach a man as much as I please; I may call him athief, robber, traitor, scoundrel, coward, lobster, bloody-back,etc., and if he kill me it will be murder, if nothing else but wordsprecede; but if from giving him such kind of language I proceed totake him by the nose, or fillip him on the forehead, that is anassault; that is a blow. The law will not oblige a man to standstill and bear it; there is the distinction. Hands off; touch menot. As soon as you touch me, if I run you through the heart, it isbut manslaughter. The utility of this distinction, the more youthink of it the more you will be satisfied with it. It is anassault whenever a blow is struck, let it be ever so slight, andsometimes even without a blow. The law considers man as frail andpassionate. When his passions are touched, he will be thrown offhis guard, and therefore the law makes allowance for this frailty—considers him as in a fit of passion, not having the possession ofhis intellectual faculties, and therefore does not oblige him tomeasure out his blows with a yard-stick, or weigh them in a scale.Let him kill with a sword, gun, or hedge-stake, it is not murder,but only manslaughter.

(Keyling's Report, 135. Regina versus Mawgrige.) "Rules supportedby authority and general consent, showing what are always allowed tobe sufficient provocations. First, if one man upon any words shallmake an assault upon another, either by pulling him by the nose orfilliping him on the forehead, and he that is so assaulted shalldraw his sword and immediately run the other through, that is butmanslaughter, for the peace is broken by the person killed and withan indignity to him that received the assault. Besides, he that wasso affronted might reasonably apprehend that he that treated him inthat manner might have some further design upon him."

So that here is the boundary, when a man is assaulted and kills inconsequence of that assault, it is but manslaughter. I will justread as I go along the definition of assault:—

(1 Hawkins. ch. 62, section 1): "An assault is an attempt or offer, withforce or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another, as by strikingat him with or without a weapon, or presenting a gun at him at sucha distance to which the gun will carry, or pointing a pitchfork athim, or by any other such like act done in angry, threateningmanner, etc.; but no words can amount to an assault,"

Here is the definition of an assault, which is a sufficientprovocation to soften killing down to manslaughter:—

(1 Hawkins, ch. 31, section 36): "Neither can he be thought guilty of agreater crime than manslaughter, who, finding a man in bed with hiswife, or being actually struck by him, or pulled by the nose orfilliped upon the forehead, immediately kills him, or in the defenseof his person from an unlawful arrest, or in the defense of hishouse from those who, claiming a title to it, attempt forcibly toenter it, and to that purpose shoot at it," etc.

Every snowball, oyster shell, cake of ice, or bit of cinder, thatwas thrown that night at the sentinel, was an assault upon him;every one that was thrown at the party of soldiers was an assaultupon them, whether it hit any of them or not. I am guilty of anassault if I present a gun at any person; and if I insult him inthat manner and he shoots me, it is but manslaughter.

(Foster. 295, 396): "To what I have offered with regard to suddenrencounters let me add, that the blood already too much heated,kindleth afresh at every pass or blow. And in the tumult of thepassions, in which the mere instinct of self-preservation has noinconsiderable share, the voice of reason is not heard; andtherefore the law, in condescension to the infirmities of flesh andblood, doth extenuate the offense."

Insolent, scurrilous, or slanderous language, when it precedes anassault, aggravates it.

(Foster, 316): "We all know that words of reproach, how grating andoffensive soever, are in the eye of the law no provocation in thecase of voluntary homicide: and yet every man who hath consideredthe human frame, or but attended to the workings of his own heartknoweth that affronts of that kind pierce deeper and stimulate inthe veins more effectually than a slight injury done to a thirdperson, though under the color of justice, possibly can."

I produce this to show the assault in this case was aggravated bythe scurrilous language which preceded it. Such words of reproachstimulate in the veins and exasperate the mind, and no doubt if anassault and battery succeeds them, killing under such provocation issoftened to manslaughter, but killing without such provocation makesit murder.

End of the first day's speech

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (1767-1848)

No other American President, not even Thomas Jefferson, has equaledJohn Quincy Adams in literary accomplishments. His orations andpublic speeches will be found to stand for a tradition ofpainstaking, scholastic finish hardly to be found elsewhere inAmerican orations, and certainly not among the speeches of any otherPresident. As a result of the pains he took with them, they belongrather to literature than to politics, and it is possible that theywill not be generally appreciated at their real worth for severalgenerations still to come. If, as is sometimes alleged in suchcases, they gain in literary finish at the expense of force, it isnot to be forgotten that the forcible speech which, ignoring allrules, carries its point by assault, may buy immediate effect at theexpense of permanent respectability. And if John Quincy Adams, wholabored as Cicero did to give his addresses the greatest possibleliterary finish, does not rank with Cicero among orators, it iscertain that respectability will always be willingly conceded him byevery generation of his countrymen.

Some idea of the extent of his early studies may be gained from hisfather's letter to Benjamin Waterhouse, written from Auteuil,France, in 1785. John Quincy Adams being then only in his eighteenthyear, the elder Adams said of him:—

"If you were to examine him in English and French poetry, I know notwhere you would find anybody his superior; in Roman and Englishhistory few persons of his age. It is rare to find a youth possessedof such knowledge. He has translated Virgil's 'Aeneid,' 'Suetonius,'the whole of 'Sallust'; 'Tacitus,' 'Agricola'; his 'Germany' andseveral other books of his 'Annals,' a great part of Horace, someof Ovid, and some of Caesar's 'Commentaries,' in writing, besides anumber of Tully's orations. … In Greek his progress has not beenequal, yet he has studied morsels in Aristotle's 'Poetics,' inPlutarch's 'Lives,' and Lucian's 'Dialogues,' 'The Choice ofHercules,' in Xenophon, and lately he has gone through severalbooks of Homer's 'Iliad.'"

The elder Adams concludes the list of his son's accomplishments witha catalogue of his labors in mathematics hardly inferior in lengthto that cited in the classics. Even if it were true, as has beenurged by the political opponents of the Adams family, that no one ofits members has ever shown more than respectable natural talent,it would add overwhelming weight to the argument in favor of thelaborious habits of study which have characterized them to the thirdand fourth generations, and, from the time of John Adams until ourown, have made them men of mark and far-reaching national influence.

In national politics, John Quincy Adams, the last of the line ofcolonial gentlemen who achieved the presidency, stood for education,for rigid ideas of moral duty, for dignity, for patriotism, for allthe virtues which are best cultivated through processes ofsegregation. He ended an epoch in which it was possible for a manwho, as he did, wrote 'Poems on Religion and Society' andparaphrased the Psalms into English verse to be elected President.It has hardly been possible since his day.

Chosen as a Democrat in 1825, Mr. Adams was really the first WhigPresident. His speeches are important, historically, because theydefine political tendencies as a result of which the Whig party tookthe place of the Federalist.

ORATION AT PLYMOUTH

(Delivered at Plymouth on the Twenty-Second Day of December, 1802,in Commemoration of the Landing of the Pilgrims)

Among the sentiments of most powerful operation upon the humanheart, and most highly honorable to the human character, are thoseof veneration for our forefathers, and of love for our posterity.

They form the connecting links between the selfish and the socialpassions. By the fundamental principle of Christianity, thehappiness of the individual is interwoven, by innumerable andimperceptible ties, with that of his contemporaries. By the powerof filial reverence and parental affection, individual existence isextended beyond the limits of individual life, and the happiness ofevery age is chained in mutual dependence upon that of every other.Respect for his ancestors excites, in the breast of man, interest intheir history, attachment to their characters, concern for theirerrors, involuntary pride in their virtues. Love for his posterityspurs him to exertion for their support, stimulates him to virtuefor their example, and fills him with the tenderest solicitude fortheir welfare. Man, therefore, was not made for himself alone. No,he was made for his country, by the obligations of the socialcompact; he was made for his species, by the Christian duties ofuniversal charity; he was made for all ages past, by the sentimentof reverence for his forefathers; and he was made for all futuretimes, by the impulse of affection for his progeny. Under theinfluence of these principles,

"Existence sees him spurn her bounded reign."

They redeem his nature from the subjection of time and space; he isno longer a "puny insect shivering at a breeze"; he is the glory ofcreation, formed to occupy all time and all extent; bounded, duringhis residence upon earth, only to the boundaries of the world, anddestined to life and immortality in brighter regions, when thefabric of nature itself shall dissolve and perish.

The voice of history has not, in all its compass, a note but answersin unison with these sentiments. The barbarian chieftain, whodefended his country against the Roman invasion, driven to theremotest extremity of Britain, and stimulating his followers tobattle by all that has power of persuasion upon the human heart,concluded his persuasion by an appeal to these irresistiblefeelings: "Think of your forefathers and of your posterity." TheRomans themselves, at the pinnacle of civilization, were actuated bythe same impressions, and celebrated, in anniversary festivals,every great event which had signalized the annals of theirforefathers. To multiply instances where it were impossible toadduce an exception would be to waste your time and abuse yourpatience; but in the sacred volume, which contains the substance ofour firmest faith and of our most precious hopes, these passions notonly maintain their highest efficacy, but are sanctioned by theexpress injunctions of the Divine Legislator to his chosen people.

The revolutions of time furnish no previous example of a nationshooting up to maturity and expanding into greatness with therapidity which has characterized the growth of the American people.In the luxuriance of youth, and in the vigor of manhood, it ispleasing and instructive to look backwards upon the helpless days ofinfancy; but in the continual and essential changes of a growingsubject, the transactions of that early period would be soonobliterated from the memory but for some periodical call ofattention to aid the silent records of the historian. Suchcelebrations arouse and gratify the kindliest emotions of the bosom.They are faithful pledges of the respect we bear to the memory ofour ancestors and of the tenderness with which we cherish the risinggeneration. They introduce the sages and heroes of ages past to thenotice and emulation of succeeding times; they are at oncetestimonials of our gratitude, and schools of virtue to ourchildren.

These sentiments are wise; they are honorable; they are virtuous;their cultivation is not merely innocent pleasure, it is incumbentduty. Obedient to their dictates, you, my fellow-citizens, haveinstituted and paid frequent observance to this annual solemnity.And what event of weightier intrinsic importance, or of moreextensive consequences, was ever selected for this honorarydistinction?

In reverting to the period of our origin, other nations havegenerally been compelled to plunge into the chaos of impenetrableantiquity, or to trace a lawless ancestry into the caverns ofravishers and robbers. It is your peculiar privilege tocommemorate, in this birthday of your nation, an event ascertainedin its minutest details; an event of which the principal actors areknown to you familiarly, as if belonging to your own age; an eventof a magnitude before which imagination shrinks at the imperfectionof her powers. It is your further happiness to behold, in thoseeminent characters, who were most conspicuous in accomplishing thesettlement of your country, men upon whose virtue you can dwell withhonest exultation. The founders of your race are not handed down toyou, like the father of the Roman people, as the sucklings of awolf. You are not descended from a nauseous compound of fanaticismand sensuality, whose only argument was the sword, and whose onlyparadise was a brothel. No Gothic scourge of God, no Vandal pest ofnations, no fabled fugitive from the flames of Troy, no bastardNorman tyrant, appears among the list of worthies who first landedon the rock, which your veneration has preserved as a lastingmonument of their achievement. The great actors of the day we nowsolemnize were illustrious by their intrepid valor no less than bytheir Christian graces, but the clarion of conquest has not blazonedforth their names to all the winds of heaven. Their glory has notbeen wafted over oceans of blood to the remotest regions of theearth. They have not erected to themselves colossal statues uponpedestals of human bones, to provoke and insult the tardy hand ofheavenly retribution. But theirs was "the better fortitude ofpatience and heroic martyrdom." Theirs was the gentle temper ofChristian kindness; the rigorous observance of reciprocal justice;the unconquerable soul of conscious integrity. Worldly fame hasbeen parsimonious of her favor to the memory of those generouscompanions. Their numbers were small; their stations in lifeobscure; the object of their enterprise unostentatious; the theatreof their exploits remote; how could they possibly be favorites ofworldly Fame—that common crier, whose existence is only known bythe assemblage of multitudes; that pander of wealth and greatness,so eager to haunt the palaces of fortune, and so fastidious to thehouseless dignity of virtue; that parasite of pride, ever scornfulto meekness, and ever obsequious to insolent power; that heedlesstrumpeter, whose ears are deaf to modest merit, and whose eyes areblind to bloodless, distant excellence?

When the persecuted companions of Robinson, exiles from their nativeland, anxiously sued for the privilege of removing a thousandleagues more distant to an untried soil, a rigorous climate, and asavage wilderness, for the sake of reconciling their sense ofreligious duty with their affections for their country, few, perhapsnone of them, formed a conception of what would be, within twocenturies, the result of their undertaking. When the jealous andnigg*rdly policy of their British sovereign denied them even thathumblest of requests, and instead of liberty would barely consent topromise connivance, neither he nor they might be aware that theywere laying the foundations of a power, and that he was sowing theseeds of a spirit, which, in less than two hundred years, wouldstagger the throne of his descendants, and shake his united kingdomsto the centre. So far is it from the ordinary habits of mankind tocalculate the importance of events in their elementary principles,that had the first colonists of our country ever intimated as a partof their designs the project of founding a great and mighty nation,the finger of scorn would have pointed them to the cells of bedlamas an abode more suitable for hatching vain empires than thesolitude of a transatlantic desert.

These consequences, then so little foreseen, have unfoldedthemselves, in all their grandeur, to the eyes of the present age.It is a common amusem*nt of speculative minds to contrast themagnitude of the most important events with the minuteness of theirprimeval causes, and the records of mankind are full of examples forsuch contemplations. It is, however, a more profitable employmentto trace the constituent principles of future greatness in theirkernel; to detect in the acorn at our feet the germ of that majesticoak, whose roots shoot down to the centre and whose branches aspireto the skies. Let it be, then, our present occupation to inquireand endeavor to ascertain the causes first put in operation at theperiod of our commemoration, and already productive of suchmagnificent effects; to examine with reiterated care and minuteattention the characters of those men who gave the first impulse toa new series of events in the history of the world; to applaud andemulate those qualities of their minds which we shall find deservingof our admiration; to recognize with candor those features whichforbid approbation or even require censure, and, finally, to layalike their frailties and their perfections to our own hearts,either as warning or as example.

Of the various European settlements upon this continent, which havefinally merged in one independent nation, the first establishmentswere made at various times, by several nations, and under theinfluence of different motives. In many instances, the conviction ofreligious obligation formed one and a powerful inducement of theadventures; but in none, excepting the settlement at Plymouth, didthey constitute the sole and exclusive actuating cause. Worldlyinterest and commercial speculation entered largely into the viewsof other settlers, but the commands of conscience were the onlystimulus to the emigrants from Leyden. Previous to their expeditionhither, they had endured a long banishment from their nativecountry. Under every species of discouragement, they undertook thevogage; they performed it in spite of numerous and almostinsuperable obstacles; they arrived upon a wilderness bound withfrost and hoary with snow, without the boundaries of their charter,outcasts from all human society, and coasted five weeks together, inthe dead of winter, on this tempestuous shore, exposed at once tothe fury of the elements, to the arrows of the native savage, and tothe impending horrors of famine.

Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before whichdifficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air. Thesequalities have ever been displayed in their mightiest perfection, asattendants in the retinue of strong passions. From the firstdiscovery of the Western Hemisphere by Columbus until the settlementof Virginia which immediately preceded that of Plymouth, the variousadventurers from the ancient world had exhibited upon innumerableoccasions that ardor of enterprise and that stubbornness of pursuitwhich set all danger at defiance, and chained the violence of natureat their feet. But they were all instigated by personal interests.Avarice and ambition had tuned their souls to that pitch of exaltation.Selfish passions were the parents of their heroism. It was reservedfor the first settlers of New England to perform achievementsequally arduous, to trample down obstructions equally formidable, todispel dangers equally terrific, under the single inspiration ofconscience. To them even liberty herself was but a subordinate andsecondary consideration. They claimed exemption from the mandatesof human authority, as militating with their subjection to asuperior power. Before the voice of heaven they silenced even thecalls of their country.

Yet, while so deeply impressed with the sense of religiousobligation, they felt, in all its energy, the force of that tendertie which binds the heart of every virtuous man to his nativeland. It was to renew that connection with their country which hadbeen severed by their compulsory expatriation, that they resolved toface all the hazards of a perilous navigation and all the labors ofa toilsome distant settlement. Under the mild protection of theBatavian government, they enjoyed already that freedom of religiousworship, for which they had resigned so many comforts and enjoymentsat home; but their hearts panted for a restoration to the bosom oftheir country. Invited and urged by the open-hearted and trulybenevolent people who had given them an asylum from the persecutionof their own kindred to form their settlement within the territoriesthen under their jurisdiction, the love of their countrypredominated over every influence save that of conscience alone, andthey preferred the precarious chance of relaxation from the bigotedrigor of the English government to the certain liberality andalluring offers of the Hollanders. Observe, my countrymen, thegenerous patriotism, the cordial union of soul, the conscious yetunaffected vigor which beam in their application to the Britishmonarch:—

"They were well weaned from the delicate milk of their mothercountry, and inured to the difficulties of a strange land. They wereknit together in a strict and sacred bond, to take care of the goodof each other and of the whole. It was not with them as with othermen, whom small things could discourage, or small discontents causeto wish themselves again at home."

Children of these exalted Pilgrims! Is there one among you who canhear the simple and pathetic energy of these expressions withouttenderness and admiration? Venerated shades of our forefathers! No,ye were, indeed, not ordinary men! That country which had ejectedyou so cruelly from her bosom you still delighted to contemplate inthe character of an affectionate and beloved mother. The sacred bondwhich knit you together was indissoluble while you lived; and oh,may it be to your descendants the example and the pledge of harmonyto the latest period of time! The difficulties and dangers, which sooften had defeated attempts of similar establishments, were unableto subdue souls tempered like yours. You heard the rigidinterdictions; you saw the menacing forms of toil and danger,forbidding your access to this land of promise; but you heardwithout dismay; you saw and disdained retreat. Firm and undaunted inthe confidence of that sacred bond; conscious of the purity, andconvinced of the importance of your motives, you put your trust inthe protecting shield of Providence, and smiled defiance at thecombining terrors of human malice and of elemental strife. These, inthe accomplishment of your undertaking, you were summoned toencounter in their most hideous forms; these you met with thatfortitude, and combatted with that perseverance, which you hadpromised in their anticipation; these you completely vanquished inestablishing the foundations of New England, and the day which wenow commemorate is the perpetual memorial of your triumph.

It were an occupation peculiarly pleasing to cull from our earlyhistorians, and exhibit before you every detail of this transaction;to carry you in imagination on board their bark at the first momentof her arrival in the bay; to accompany Carver, Winslow, Bradford,and Standish, in all their excursions upon the desolate coast; tofollow them into every rivulet and creek where they endeavored tofind a firm footing, and to fix, with a pause of delight andexultation, the instant when the first of these heroic adventurersalighted on the spot where you, their descendants, now enjoy theglorious and happy reward of their labors. But in this gratefultask, your former orators, on this anniversary, have anticipated allthat the most ardent industry could collect, and gratified all thatthe most inquisitive curiosity could desire. To you, my friends,every occurrence of that momentous period is already familiar. Atransient allusion to a few characteristic instances, which mark thepeculiar history of the Plymouth settlers, may properly supply theplace of a narrative, which, to this auditory, must be superfluous.

One of these remarkable incidents is the execution of thatinstrument of government by which they formed themselves into a bodypolitic, the day after their arrival upon the coast, and previous totheir first landing. This is, perhaps, the only instance in humanhistory of that positive, original social compact, which speculativephilosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source ofgovernment. Here was a unanimous and personal assent, by all theindividuals of the community, to the association by which theybecame a nation. It was the result of circ*mstances and discussionswhich had occurred during their passage from Europe, and is a fulldemonstration that the nature of civil government, abstracted fromthe political institutions of their native country, had been anobject of their serious meditation. The settlers of all the formerEuropean colonies had contented themselves with the powers conferredupon them by their respective charters, without looking beyond theseal of the royal parchment for the measure of their rights and therule of their duties. The founders of Plymouth had been impelled bythe peculiarities of their situation to examine the subject withdeeper and more comprehensive research. After twelve years ofbanishment from the land of their first allegiance, during whichthey had been under an adoptive and temporary subjection to anothersovereign, they must naturally have been led to reflect upon therelative rights and duties of allegiance and subjection. They hadresided in a city, the seat of a university, where the polemical andpolitical controversies of the time were pursued with uncommonfervor. In this period they had witnessed the deadly strugglebetween the two parties, into which the people of the UnitedProvinces, after their separation from the crown of Spain, haddivided themselves. The contest embraced within its compass not onlytheological doctrines, but political principles, and Maurice andBarnevelt were the temporal leaders of the same rival factions, ofwhich Episcopius and Polyander were the ecclesiastical champions.

That the investigation of the fundamental principles of governmentwas deeply implicated in these dissensions is evident from theimmortal work of Grotius, upon the rights of war and peace, whichundoubtedly originated from them. Grotius himself had been a mostdistinguished actor and sufferer in those important scenes ofinternal convulsion, and his work was first published very shortlyafter the departure of our forefathers from Leyden. It is wellknown that in the course of the contest Mr. Robinson more than onceappeared, with credit to himself, as a public disputant againstEpiscopius; and from the manner in which the fact is related byGovernor Bradford, it is apparent that the whole English Church atLeyden took a zealous interest in the religious part of thecontroversy. As strangers in the land, it is presumable that theywisely and honorably avoided entangling themselves in the politicalcontentions involved with it. Yet the theoretic principles, as theywere drawn into discussion, could not fail to arrest theirattention, and must have assisted them to form accurate ideasconcerning the origin and extent of authority among men, independentof positive institutions. The importance of these circ*mstanceswill not be duly weighed without taking into consideration the stateof opinion then prevalent in England. The general principles ofgovernment were there little understood and less examined. Thewhole substance of human authority was centred in the simpledoctrine of royal prerogative, the origin of which was always tracedin theory to divine institution. Twenty years later, the subjectwas more industriously sifted, and for half a century became one ofthe principal topics of controversy between the ablest and mostenlightened men in the nation. The instrument of voluntaryassociation executed on board the Mayflower testifies that theparties to it had anticipated the improvement of their nation.

Another incident, from which we may derive occasion for importantreflections, was the attempt of these original settlers to establishamong them that community of goods and of labor, which fancifulpoliticians, from the days of Plato to those of Rousseau, haverecommended as the fundamental law of a perfect republic. Thistheory results, it must be acknowledged, from principles ofreasoning most flattering to the human character. If industry,frugality, and disinterested integrity were alike the virtues ofall, there would, apparently, be more of the social spirit, inmaking all property a common stock, and giving to each individual aproportional title to the wealth of the whole. Such is the basisupon which Plato forbids, in his Republic, the division of property.Such is the system upon which Rousseau pronounces the first man whoenclosed a field with a fence, and, said, "This is mine," a traitorto the human species. A wiser, and more useful philosophy, however,directs us to consider man according to the nature in which he wasformed; subject to infirmities, which no wisdom can remedy; toweaknesses, which no institution can strengthen; to vices, which nolegislation can correct. Hence, it becomes obvious that separateproperty is the natural and indisputable right of separate exertion;that community of goods without community of toil is oppressive andunjust; that it counteracts the laws of nature, which prescribe thathe only who sows the seed shall reap the harvest; that itdiscourages all energy, by destroying its rewards; and makes themost virtuous and active members of society the slaves and drudgesof the worst. Such was the issue of this experiment among ourforefathers, and the same event demonstrated the error of the systemin the elder settlement of Virginia. Let us cherish that spirit ofharmony which prompted our forefathers to make the attempt, undercirc*mstances more favorable to its success than, perhaps, everoccurred upon earth. Let us no less admire the candor with whichthey relinquished it, upon discovering its irremediable inefficacy.To found principles of government upon too advantageous an estimateof the human character is an error of inexperience, the source ofwhich is so amiable that it is impossible to censure it withseverity. We have seen the same mistake, committed in our own age,and upon a larger theatre. Happily for our ancestors, theirsituation allowed them to repair it before its effects had proveddestructive. They had no pride of vain philosophy to support, noperfidious rage of faction to glut, by persevering in their mistakesuntil they should be extinguished in torrents of blood.

As the attempt to establish among themselves the community of goodswas a seal of that sacred bond which knit them so closely together,so the conduct they observed towards the natives of the countrydisplays their steadfast adherence to the rules of justice and theirfaithful attachment to those of benevolence and charity.

No European settlement ever formed upon this continent has been moredistinguished for undeviating kindness and equity towards thesavages. There are, indeed, moralists who have questioned the rightof the Europeans to intrude upon the possessions of the aboriginalsin any case, and under any limitations whatsoever. But have theymaturely considered the whole subject? The Indian right ofpossession itself stands, with regard to the greatest part of thecountry, upon a questionable foundation. Their cultivated fields;their constructed habitations; a space of ample sufficiency fortheir subsistence, and whatever they had annexed to themselves bypersonal labor, was undoubtedly, by the laws of nature, theirs. Butwhat is the right of a huntsman to the forest of a thousand milesover which he has accidentally ranged in quest of prey? Shall theliberal bounties of Providence to the race of man be monopolized byone of ten thousand for whom they were created? Shall the exuberantbosom of the common mother, amply adequate to the nourishment ofmillions, be claimed exclusively by a few hundreds of her offspring?Shall the lordly savage not only disdain the virtues and enjoymentsof civilization himself, but shall he control the civilization of aworld? Shall he forbid the wilderness to blossom like a rose?Shall he forbid the oaks of the forest to fall before the ax ofindustry, and to rise again, transformed into the habitations ofease and elegance? Shall he doom an immense region of the globe toperpetual desolation, and to hear the howlings of the tiger and thewolf silence forever the voice of human gladness? Shall the fieldsand the valleys, which a beneficent God has formed to teem with thelife of innumerable multitudes, be condemned to everlastingbarrenness? Shall the mighty rivers, poured out by the hand ofnature, as channels of communication between numerous nations, rolltheir waters in sullen silence and eternal solitude to the deep?Have hundreds of commodious harbors, a thousand leagues of coast,and a boundless ocean, been spread in the front of this land, andshall every purpose of utility to which they could apply beprohibited by the tenant of the woods? No, generous philanthropists!Heaven has not been thus inconsistent in the works of its hands.Heaven has not thus placed at irreconcilable strife its moral lawswith its physical creation. The Pilgrims of Plymouth obtained theirright of possession to the territory on which they settled, bytitles as fair and unequivocal as any human property can be held.By their voluntary association they recognized their allegiance tothe government of Britain, and in process of time received whateverpowers and authorities could be conferred upon them by a charterfrom their sovereign. The spot on which they fixed had belonged toan Indian tribe, totally extirpated by that devouring pestilencewhich had swept the country shortly before their arrival. Theterritory, thus free from all exclusive possession, they might havetaken by the natural right of occupancy. Desirous, however, ofgiving ample satisfaction to every pretense of prior right, byformal and solemn conventions with the chiefs of the neighboringtribes, they acquired the further security of a purchase. At theirhands the children of the desert had no cause of complaint. On thegreat day of retribution, what thousands, what millions of theAmerican race will appear at the bar of judgment to arraign theirEuropean invading conquerors! Let us humbly hope that the fathersof the Plymouth Colony will then appear in the whiteness ofinnocence. Let us indulge in the belief that they will not only befree from all accusation of injustice to these unfortunate sons ofnature, but that the testimonials of their acts of kindness andbenevolence towards them will plead the cause of their virtues, asthey are now authenticated by the record of history upon earth.

Religious discord has lost her sting; the cumbrous weapons oftheological warfare are antiquated; the field of politics suppliesthe alchemists of our times with materials of more fatal explosion,and the butchers of mankind no longer travel to another world forinstruments of cruelty and destruction. Our age is too enlightenedto contend upon topics which concern only the interests of eternity;the men who hold in proper contempt all controversies about trifles,except such as inflame their own passions, have made it acommonplace censure against your ancestors, that their zeal wasenkindled by subjects of trivial importance; and that howeveraggrieved by the intolerance of others, they were alike intolerantthemselves. Against these objections, your candid judgment will notrequire an unqualified justification; but your respect and gratitudefor the founders of the State may boldly claim an ample apology. Theoriginal grounds of their separation from the Church of England werenot objects of a magnitude to dissolve the bonds of communion, muchless those of charity, between Christian brethren of the sameessential principles. Some of them, however, were not inconsiderable,and numerous inducements concurred to give them an extraordinaryinterest in their eyes. When that portentous system of abuses, thePapal dominion, was overturned, a great variety of religious sectsarose in its stead in the several countries, which for manycenturies before had been screwed beneath its subjection. Thefabric of the reformation, first undertaken in England upon acontracted basis, by a capricious and sanguinary tyrant, had beensuccessively overthrown and restored, renewed and altered, accordingto the varying humors and principles of four successive monarchs.To ascertain the precise point of division between the genuineinstitutions of Christianity and the corruptions accumulated uponthem in the progress of fifteen centuries, was found a task ofextreme difficulty throughout the Christian world.

Men of the profoundest learning, of the sublimest genius, and of thepurest integrity, after devoting their lives to the research,finally differed in their ideas upon many great points, both ofdoctrine and discipline. The main question, it was admitted on allhands, most intimately concerned the highest interests of man, bothtemporal and eternal. Can we wonder that men who felt theirhappiness here and their hopes of hereafter, their worldly welfareand the kingdom of heaven at stake, should sometimes attach animportance beyond their intrinsic weight to collateral points ofcontroversy, connected with the all-involving object of thereformation? The changes in the forms and principles of religiousworship were introduced and regulated in England by the hand ofpublic authority. But that hand had not been uniform or steady inits operations. During the persecutions inflicted in the intervalof Popish restoration under the reign of Mary, upon all who favoredthe reformation, many of the most zealous reformers had beencompelled to fly their country. While residing on the continent ofEurope, they had adopted the principles of the most complete andrigorous reformation, as taught and established by Calvin. Onreturning afterwards to their native country, they were dissatisfiedwith the partial reformation, at which, as they conceived, theEnglish establishment had rested; and claiming the privilege ofprivate conscience, upon which alone any departure from the Churchof Rome could be justified, they insisted upon the right of adheringto the system of their own preference, and, of course, upon that ofnonconformity to the establishment prescribed by the royalauthority. The only means used to convince them of error andreclaim them from dissent was force, and force served but to confirmthe opposition it was meant to suppress. By driving the founders ofthe Plymouth Colony into exile, it constrained them to absoluteseparation from the Church of England; and by the refusal afterwardsto allow them a positive toleration, even in this Americanwilderness, the council of James I. rendered that separationirreconcilable. Viewing their religious liberties here, as heldonly by sufferance, yet bound to them by all the ties of conviction,and by all their sufferings for them, could they forbear to lookupon every dissenter among themselves with a jealous eye? Withintwo years after their landing, they beheld a rival settlementattempted in their immediate neighborhood; and not long after, thelaws of self-preservation compelled them to break up a nest ofrevelers, who boasted of protection from the mother country, and whohad recurred to the easy but pernicious resource of feeding theirwanton idleness, by furnishing the savages with the means, theskill, and the instruments of European destruction. Toleration, inthat instance, would have been self-murder, and many other examplesmight be alleged, in which their necessary measures of self-defensehave been exaggerated into cruelty, and their most indispensableprecautions distorted into persecution. Yet shall we not pretendthat they were exempt from the common laws of mortality, or entirelyfree from all the errors of their age. Their zeal might sometimesbe too ardent, but it was always sincere. At this day, religiousindulgence is one of our clearest duties, because it is one of ourundisputed rights. While we rejoice that the principles of genuineChristianity have so far triumphed over the prejudices of a formergeneration, let us fervently hope for the day when it will proveequally victorious over the malignant passions of our own.

In thus calling your attention to some of the peculiar features inthe principles, the character, and the history of our forefathers,it is as wide from my design, as I know it would be from yourapprobation, to adorn their memory with a chaplet plucked from thedomain of others. The occasion and the day are more peculiarlydevoted to them, and let it never be dishonored with a contractedand exclusive spirit. Our affections as citizens embrace the wholeextent of the Union, and the names of Raleigh, Smith, Winthrop,Calvert, Penn, and Oglethorpe, excite in our minds recollectionsequally pleasing and gratitude equally fervent with those of Carverand Bradford. Two centuries have not yet elapsed since the firstEuropean foot touched the soil which now constitutes the AmericanUnion. Two centuries more and our numbers must exceed those ofEurope itself. The destinies of this empire, as they appear inprospect before us, disdain the powers of human calculation. Yet,as the original founder of the Roman state is said once to havelifted upon his shoulders the fame and fortunes of all hisposterity, so let us never forget that the glory and greatness ofall our descendants is in our hands. Preserve in all their purity,refine, if possible, from all their alloy, those virtues which wethis day commemorate as the ornament of our forefathers. Adhere tothem with inflexible resolution, as to the horns of the altar;instill them with unwearied perseverance into the minds of yourchildren; bind your souls and theirs to the national Union as thechords of life are centred in the heart, and you shall soar withrapid and steady wing to the summit of human glory. Nearly acentury ago, one of those rare minds to whom it is given to discernfuture greatness in its seminal principles upon contemplating thesituation of this continent, pronounced, in a vein of poeticinspiration, "Westward the star of empire takes its way." Let usunite in ardent supplication to the Founder of nations and theBuilder of worlds, that what then was prophecy may continueunfolding into history,—that the dearest hopes of the human racemay not be extinguished in disappointment, and that the last mayprove the noblest empire of time.

LAFAYETTE (Delivered in Congress, December 31st, 1834)

On the sixth of September, 1757, Lafayette was born. The kings ofPrance and Britain were seated upon their thrones by virtue of theprinciple of hereditary succession, variously modified and blendedwith different forms of religious faith, and they were waging waragainst each other, and exhausting the blood and treasure of theirpeople for causes in which neither of the nations had any beneficialor lawful interest.

In this war the father of Lafayette fell in the cause of his kingbut not of his country. He was an officer of an invading army, theinstrument of his sovereign's wanton ambition and lust of conquest.The people of the electorate of Hanover had done no wrong to him orto his country. When his son came to an age capable ofunderstanding the irreparable loss that he had suffered, and toreflect upon the causes of his father's fate, there was no drop ofconsolation mingled in the cup from the consideration that he haddied for his country. And when the youthful mind was awakened tomeditation upon the rights of mankind, the principles of freedom,and theories of government, it cannot be difficult to perceive inthe illustrations of his own family records the source of thataversion to hereditary rule, perhaps the most distinguishing featureof his own political opinions and to which he adhered through allthe vicissitudes of his life….

Lafayette was born a subject of the most absolute and most splendidmonarchy of Europe, and in the highest rank of her proud andchivalrous nobility. He had been educated at a college of theUniversity of Paris, founded by the royal munificence of Louis XIV.,or Cardinal Richelieu. Left an orphan in early childhood, with theinheritance of a princely fortune, he had been married, at sixteenyears of age, to a daughter of the house of Noailles, the mostdistinguished family of the kingdom, scarcely deemed in publicconsideration inferior to that which wore the crown. He came intoactive life, at the change from boy to man, a husband and a father,in the full enjoyment of everything that avarice could covet, with acertain prospect before him of all that ambition could crave. Happyin his domestic affections, incapable, from the benignity of hisnature, of envy, hatred, or revenge, a life of "ignoble ease andindolent repose" seemed to be that which nature and fortune hadcombined to prepare before him. To men of ordinary mold thiscondition would have led to a life of luxurious apathy and sensualindulgence. Such was the life into which, from the operation of thesame causes, Louis XV. had sunk, with his household and court, whileLafayette was rising to manhood surrounded by the contamination oftheir example. Had his natural endowments been even of the higherand nobler order of such as adhere to virtue, even in the lap ofprosperity, and in the bosom of temptation, he might have lived anddied a pattern of the nobility of France, to be classed, inaftertimes, with the Turennes and the Montausiers of the age ofLouis XIV., or with the Villars or the Lamoignons of the ageimmediately preceding his own.

But as, in the firmament of heaven that rolls over our heads, thereis, among the stars of the first magnitude, one so pre-eminent insplendor as, in the opinion of astronomers, to constitute a class byitself, so in the fourteen hundred years of the French monarchy,among the multitudes of great and mighty men which it has evolved,the name of Lafayette stands unrivaled in the solitude of glory.

In entering upon the threshold of life, a career was to open beforehim. He had the option of the court and the camp. An office wastendered to him in the household of the King's brother, the Count deProvence, since successively a royal exile and a reinstated king.The servitude and inaction of a court had no charms for him;he preferred a commission in the army, and, at the time of theDeclaration of Independence, was a captain of dragoons in garrisonat Metz.

There, at an entertainment given by his relative, the Marechal deBroglie, the commandant of the place, to the Duke of Gloucester,brother to the British king, and then a transient traveler throughthat part of France, he learns, as an incident of intelligencereceived that morning by the English Prince from London, that thecongress of rebels at Philadelphia had issued a Declaration ofIndependence. A conversation ensues upon the causes which havecontributed to produce this event, and upon the consequences whichmay be expected to flow from it. The imagination of Lafayette hascaught across the Atlantic tide the spark emitted from theDeclaration of Independence; his heart has kindled at the shock,and, before he slumbers upon his pillow, he has resolved to devotehis life and fortune to the cause.

You have before you the cause and the man. The self-devotion ofLafayette was twofold. First to the people, maintaining a bold andseemingly desperate struggle against oppression, and for nationalexistence. Secondly, and chiefly, to the principles of theirdeclaration, which then first unfurled before his eyes theconsecrated standard of human rights. To that standard, without aninstant of hesitation, he repaired. Where it would lead him, it isscarcely probable that he himself then foresaw. It was thenidentical with the Stars and Stripes of the American Union, floatingto the breeze from the Hall of Independence, at Philadelphia. Norsordid avarice, nor vulgar ambition, could point his footsteps tothe pathway leading to that banner. To the love of ease or pleasurenothing could be more repulsive. Something may be allowed to thebeatings of the youthful breast, which make ambition virtue, andsomething to the spirit of military adventure, imbibed from hisprofession, and which he felt in common with many others. France,Germany, Poland, furnished to the armies of this Union, in ourrevolutionary struggle, no inconsiderable number of officers of highrank and distinguished merit. The names of Pulaski and De Kalb arenumbered among the martyrs of our freedom, and their ashes repose inour soil side by side with the canonized bones of Warren and ofMontgomery. To the virtues of Lafayette, a more protracted careerand happier earthly destinies were reserved. To the moral principleof political action, the sacrifices of no other man were comparableto his. Youth, health, fortune; the favor of his king; theenjoyment of ease and pleasure; even the choicest blessings ofdomestic felicity—he gave them all for toil and danger in adistant land, and an almost hopeless cause; but it was the cause ofjustice, and of the rights of human kind. …

Pronounce him one of the first men of his age, and you have not yetdone him justice. Try him by that test to which he sought in vain tostimulate the vulgar and selfish spirit of Napoleon; class him amongthe men who, to compare and seat themselves, must take in thecompass of all ages; turn back your eyes upon the records of time,summon from the creation of the world to this day the mighty dead ofevery age and every clime—and where, among the race of merelymortal men, shall one be found, who, as the benefactor of his kind,shall claim to take precedence of Lafayette?

There have doubtless been, in all ages, men whose discoveries orinventions, in the world of matter or of mind, have opened newavenues to the dominion of man over the material creation; haveincreased his means or his faculties of enjoyment; have raised himin nearer approximation to that higher and happier condition, theobject of his hopes and aspirations in his present state of existence.

Lafayette discovered no new principle of politics or of morals. Heinvented nothing in science. He disclosed no new phenomenon in thelaws of nature. Born and educated in the highest order of feudalnobility, under the most absolute monarchy of Europe, in possessionof an affluent fortune, and master of himself and of all hiscapabilities, at the moment of attaining manhood the principle ofrepublican justice and of social equality took possession of hisheart and mind, as if by inspiration from above. He devotedhimself, his life, his fortune, his hereditary honors, his toweringambition, his splendid hopes, all to the cause of liberty. He cameto another hemisphere to defend her. He became one of the mosteffective champions of our independence; but, that once achieved, hereturned to his own country, and thenceforward took no part in thecontroversies which have divided us. In the events of ourrevolution, and in the forms of policy which we have adopted for theestablishment and perpetuation of our freedom, Lafayette found themost perfect form of government. He wished to add nothing to it.He would gladly have abstracted nothing from it. Instead of theimaginary republic of Plato, or the Utopia of Sir Thomas Moore, hetook a practical existing model, in actual operation here, and neverattempted or wished more than to apply it faithfully to his owncountry.

It was not given to Moses to enter the promised land; but he saw itfrom the summit of Pisgah. It was not given to Lafayette to witnessthe consummation of his wishes in the establishment of a republicand the extinction of all hereditary rule in France. His principleswere in advance of the age and hemisphere in which he lived. ABourbon still reigns on the throne of France, and it is not for usto scrutinize the title by which he reigns. The principles ofelective and hereditary power, blended in reluctant union in hisperson, like the red and white roses of York and Lancaster, maypostpone to aftertime the last conflict to which they mustultimately come. The life of the patriarch was not long enough forthe development of his whole political system. Its finalaccomplishment is in the womb of time.

The anticipation of this event is the more certain, from theconsideration that all the principles for which Lafayette contendedwere practical. He never indulged himself in wild and fancifulspeculations. The principle of hereditary power was, in hisopinion, the bane of all republican liberty in Europe. Unable toextinguish it in the Revolution of 1830, so far as concerned thechief magistracy of the nation, Lafayette had the satisfaction ofseeing it abolished with reference to the peerage. An hereditarycrown, stript of the support which it may derive from an hereditarypeerage, however compatible with Asiatic despotism, is an anomaly inthe history of the Christian world, and in the theory of freegovernment. There is no argument producible against the existenceof an hereditary peerage but applies with aggravated weight againstthe transmission, from sire to son, of an hereditary crown. Theprejudices and passions of the people of France rejected theprinciple of inherited power, in every station of public trust,excepting the first and highest of them all; but there they clung toit, as did the Israelites of old to the savory deities of Egypt.

This is not the time nor the place for a disquisition upon thecomparative merits, as a system of government, of a republic, and amonarchy surrounded by republican institutions. Upon this subjectthere is among us no diversity of opinion; and if it should take thepeople of France another half century of internal and external war,of dazzling and delusive glories; of unparalleled triumphs,humiliating reverses, and bitter disappointments, to settle it totheir satisfaction, the ultimate result can only bring them to thepoint where we have stood from the day of the Declaration ofIndependence—to the point where Lafayette would have broughtthem, and to which he looked as a consummation devoutly to bewished.

Then, too, and then only, will be the time when the character ofLafayette will be appreciated at its true value throughout thecivilized world. When the principle of hereditary dominion shall beextinguished in all the institutions of France; when governmentshall no longer be considered as property transmissible from sire toson, but as a trust committed for a limited time, and then to returnto the people whence it came; as a burdensome duty to be discharged,and not as a reward to be abused; when a claim, any claim, topolitical power by inheritance shall, in the estimation of the wholeFrench people, be held as it now is by the whole people of the NorthAmerican Union—then will be the time for contemplating thecharacter of Lafayette, not merely in the events of his life, but inthe full development of his intellectual conceptions, of his ferventaspirations, of the labors and perils and sacrifices of his long andeventful career upon earth; and thenceforward, till the hour whenthe trump of the Archangel shall sound to announce that Time shallbe no more, the name of Lafayette shall stand enrolled upon theannals of our race, high on the list of the pure and disinterestedbenefactors of mankind.

THE JUBILEE OF THE CONSTITUTION (Delivered at New York, April 30th, 1839)

Fellow-Citizens and Brethren, Associates of the New York Historical
Society:—

Would it be an unlicensed trespass of the imagination to conceivethat on the night preceding the day of which you now commemorate thefiftieth anniversary—on the night preceding that thirtieth ofApril, 1789, when from the balcony of your city hall the chancellorof the State of New York administered to George Washington thesolemn oath faithfully to execute the office of President of theUnited States, and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect,and defend the Constitution of the United States—that in thevisions of the night the guardian angel of the Father of our countryhad appeared before him, in the venerated form of his mother, and,to cheer and encourage him in the performance of the momentous andsolemn duties that he was about to assume, had delivered to him asuit of celestial armor—a helmet, consisting of the principles ofpiety, of justice, of honor, of benevolence, with which from hisearliest infancy he had hitherto walked through life, in thepresence of all his brethren; a spear, studded with the self-evidenttruths of the Declaration of Independence; a sword, the same withwhich he had led the armies of his country through the war offreedom to the summit of the triumphal arch of independence; acorslet and cuishes of long experience and habitual intercourse inpeace and war with the world of mankind, his contemporaries of thehuman race, in all their stages of civilization; and, last of all,the Constitution of the United States, a shield, embossed byheavenly hands with the future history of his country.

Yes, gentlemen, on that shield the Constitution of the United Stateswas sculptured (by forms unseen, and in characters then invisible tomortal eye), the predestined and prophetic history of the oneconfederated people of the North American Union.

They had been the settlers of thirteen separate and distinct Englishcolonies, along the margin of the shore of the North Americancontinent; contiguously situated, but chartered by adventurers ofcharacters variously diversified, including sectarians, religiousand political, of all the classes which for the two precedingcenturies had agitated and divided the people of the British islands—and with them were intermingled the descendants of Hollanders,Swedes, Germans, and French fugitives from the persecution of therevoker of the Edict of Nantes.

In the bosoms of this people, thus heterogeneously composed, therewas burning, kindled at different furnaces, but all furnaces ofaffliction, one clear, steady flame of liberty. Bold and daringenterprise, stubborn endurance of privation, unflinching intrepidityin facing danger, and inflexible adherence to conscientiousprinciple, had steeled to energetic and unyielding hardihood thecharacters of the primitive settlers of all these colonies. Sincethat time two or three generations of men had passed away, but theyhad increased and multiplied with unexampled rapidity; and the landitself had been the recent theatre of a ferocious and bloodyseven-years' war between the two most powerful and most civilizednations of Europe contending for the possession of this continent.

Of that strife the victorious combatant had been Britain. She hadconquered the provinces of France. She had expelled her rivaltotally from the continent, over which, bounding herself by theMississippi, she was thenceforth to hold divided empire only withSpain. She had acquired undisputed control over the Indian tribesstill tenanting the forests unexplored by the European man. She hadestablished an uncontested monopoly of the commerce of all hercolonies. But forgetting all the warnings of preceding ages—forgetting the lessons written in the blood of her own children,through centuries of departed time, she undertook to tax the peopleof the colonies without their consent.

Resistance, instantaneous, unconcerted, sympathetic, inflexibleresistance, like an electric shock, startled and roused the peopleof all the English colonies on this continent.

This was the first signal of the North American Union, The strugglewas for chartered rights—for English liberties—for the causeof Algernon Sidney and John Hampden—for trial by jury—theHabeas Corpus and Magna Charta.

But the English lawyers had decided that Parliament wasomnipotent—and Parliament, in its omnipotence, instead of trial byjury and the Habeas Corpus, enacted admiralty courts in England totry Americans for offenses charged against them as committed inAmerica; instead of the privileges of Magna Charta, nullified thecharter itself of Massachusetts Bay; shut up the port of Boston;sent armies and navies to keep the peace and teach the colonies thatJohn Hampden was a rebel and Algernon Sidney a traitor.

English liberties had failed them. From the omnipotence ofParliament the Colonists appealed to the rights of man and theomnipotence of the God of battles. Union! Union! was the instinctiveand simultaneous cry throughout the land. Their congress, assembledat Philadelphia, once—twice—had petitioned the king; hadremonstrated to Parliament; had addressed the people of Britain, forthe rights of Englishmen—in vain. Fleets and armies, the blood ofLexington, and the fires of Charlestown and Falmouth, had been theanswer to petition, remonstrance, and address. …

The dissolution of allegiance to the British crown, the severance ofthe colonies from the British empire, and their actual existence asindependent States, were definitively established in fact, by warand peace. The independence of each separate State had never beendeclared of right. It never existed in fact. Upon the principles ofthe Declaration of Independence, the dissolution of the ties ofallegiance, the assumption of sovereign power, and the institutionof civil government, are all acts of transcendent authority, whichthe people alone are competent to perform; and, accordingly, it isin the name and by the authority of the people, that two of theseacts—the dissolution of allegiance, with the severance from theBritish empire, and the declaration of the United Colonies, as freeand independent States, were performed by that instrument.

But there still remained the last and crowning act, which the peopleof the Union alone were competent to perform—the institution ofcivil government, for that compound nation, the United States ofAmerica.

At this day it cannot but strike us as extraordinary, that it doesnot appear to have occurred to any one member of that assembly,which had laid down in terms so clear, so explicit, so unequivocal,the foundation of all just government, in the imprescriptible rightsof man, and the transcendent sovereignty of the people, and who inthose principles had set forth their only personal vindication fromthe charges of rebellion against their king, and of treason to theircountry, that their last crowning act was still to be performed uponthe same principles. That is, the institution, by the people of theUnited States, of a civil government, to guard and protect anddefend them all. On the contrary, that same assembly which issuedthe Declaration of Independence, instead of continuing to act in thename and by the authority of the good people of the United States,had, immediately after the appointment of the committee to preparethe Declaration, appointed another committee, of one member fromeach colony, to prepare and digest the form of confederation to beentered into between the colonies.

That committee reported on the twelfth of July, eight days after theDeclaration of Independence had been issued, a draft of articles ofconfederation between the colonies. This draft was prepared by JohnDickinson, then a delegate from Pennsylvania, who voted against theDeclaration of Independence, and never signed it, having beensuperseded by a new election of delegates from that State, eightdays after his draft was reported.

There was thus no congeniality of principle between the Declarationof Independence and the articles of confederation. The foundation ofthe former was a superintending Providence—the rights of man, andthe constituent revolutionary power of the people. That of thelatter was the sovereignty of organized power, and the independenceof the separate or dis-united States. The fabric of the Declarationand that of the confederation were each consistent with its ownfoundation, but they could not form one consistent, symmetricaledifice. They were the productions of different minds and of adversepassions; one, ascending for the foundation of human government tothe laws of nature and of God, written upon the heart of man; theother, resting upon the basis of human institutions, andprescriptive law, and colonial charter. The corner stone of the onewas right, that of the other was power. …

Where, then, did each State get the sovereignty, freedom, andindependence, which the articles of confederation declare itretains?—not from the whole people of the whole Union—not fromthe Declaration of Independence—not from the people of the Stateitself. It was assumed by agreement between the legislatures of theseveral States, and their delegates in Congress, without authorityfrom or consultation of the people at all.

In the Declaration of Independence, the enacting and constituentparty dispensing and delegating sovereign power is the whole peopleof the United Colonies. The recipient party, invested with power, isthe United Colonies, declared United States.

In the articles of confederation, this order of agency is inverted.Each State is the constituent and enacting party, and the UnitedStates in Congress assembled the recipient of delegated power—andthat power delegated with such a penurious and carking hand that ithad more the aspect of a revocation of the Declaration ofIndependence than an instrument to carry it into effect.

None of these indispensably necessary powers were ever conferred bythe State legislatures upon the Congress of the federation; and wellwas it that they never were. The system itself was radicallydefective. Its incurable disease was an apostasy from the principlesof the Declaration of Independence. A substitution of separate Statesovereignties, in the place of the constituent sovereignty of thepeople, was the basis of the Confederate Union.

In the Congress of the confederation, the master minds of JamesMadison and Alexander Hamilton were constantly engaged through theclosing years of the Revolutionary War and those of peace whichimmediately succeeded. That of John Jay was associated with themshortly after the peace, in the capacity of secretary to theCongress for foreign affairs. The incompetency of the articles ofconfederation for the management of the affairs of the Union at homeand abroad was demonstrated to them by the painful and mortifyingexperience of every day. Washington, though in retirement, wasbrooding over the cruel injustice suffered by his associates inarms, the warriors of the Revolution; over the prostration of thepublic credit and the faith of the nation, in the neglect to providefor the payment even of the interest upon the public debt; over thedisappointed hopes of the friends of freedom; in the language of theaddress from Congress to the States of the eighteenth of April, 1783—"the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which shecontended were the rights of human nature."

At his residence at Mount Vernon, in March 1785, the first idea wasstarted of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by anorganization, of means differing from that of a compact between theState legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. Aconvention of delegates from the State legislatures, independent ofthe Congress itself, was the expedient which presented itself foreffecting the purpose, and an augmentation of the powers of Congressfor the regulation of commerce, as the object for which thisassembly was to be convened. In January 1786 the proposal was madeand adopted in the legislature of Virginia, and communicated to theother State legislatures.

The convention was held at Annapolis, in September of that year. Itwas attended by delegates from only five of the central States, who,on comparing their restricted powers with the glaring anduniversally acknowledged defects of the confederation reported onlya recommendation for the assemblage of another convention ofdelegates to meet at Philadelphia, in May 1787, from all the States,and with enlarged powers.

The Constitution of the United States was the work of thisconvention. But in its construction the convention immediatelyperceived that they must retrace their steps, and fall back from aleague of friendship between sovereign States to the constituentsovereignty of the people; from power to right—from theirresponsible despotism of State sovereignty to the self-evidenttruths of the Declaration of Independence. In that instrument, theright to institute and to alter governments among men was ascribedexclusively to the people—the ends of government were declared tobe to secure the natural rights of man; and that when the governmentdegenerates from the promotion to the destruction of that end, theright and the duty accrues to the people to dissolve this degenerategovernment and to institute another. The signers of the Declarationfurther averred, that the one people of the United Colonies werethen precisely in that situation—with a government degeneratedinto tyranny, and called upon by the laws of nature and of nature'sGod to dissolve that government and to institute another. Then, inthe name and by the authority of the good people of the colonies,they pronounced the dissolution of their allegiance to the king, andtheir eternal separation from the nation of Great Britain—anddeclared the United Colonies independent States. And here as therepresentatives of the one people they had stopped. They did notrequire the confirmation of this act, for the power to make thedeclaration had already been conferred upon them by the people,delegating the power, indeed, separately in the separate colonies,not by colonial authority, but by the spontaneous revolutionarymovement of the people in them all.

From the day of that Declaration, the constituent power of thepeople had never been called into action. A confederacy had beensubstituted in the place of a government, and State sovereignty hadusurped the constituent sovereignty of the people.

The convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no directauthority from the people. Their authority was all derived from theState legislatures. But they had the articles of confederationbefore them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into whichthey had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was inthe agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensablyneeded powers were such as no State government, no combination ofthem, was by the principles of the Declaration of Independencecompetent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. Ahighly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to theconfederacy of States, proposed, as a substitute for theConstitution, a mere revival of the articles of confederation, witha grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan wasrespectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a governmentand of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powershappily prevailed. A constitution for the people, and thedistribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers wasprepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves;and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the convention,not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it toa simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should beno more than a proposal until sanctioned by the confederationCongress, by the State legislatures, and by the people of theseveral States, in conventions specially assembled, by authority oftheir legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passingupon it.

And thus was consummated the work commenced by the Declaration ofIndependence—a work in which the people of the North AmericanUnion, acting under the deepest sense of responsibility to theSupreme Ruler of the universe, had achieved the most transcendentact of power that social man in his mortal condition can perform—even that of dissolving the ties of allegiance by which he is boundto his country; of renouncing that country itself; of demolishingits government; of instituting another government; and of making forhimself another country in its stead.

And on that day, of which you now commemorate the fiftiethanniversary,—on that thirtieth day of April, 1789,—was thismighty revolution, not only in the affairs of our own country,but in the principles of government over civilized man, accomplished.

The revolution itself was a work of thirteen years—and had neverbeen completed until that day. The Declaration of Independence andthe Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistentwhole, founded upon one and the same theory of government, then newin practice, though not as a theory, for it had been working itselfinto the mind of man for many ages, and had been especiallyexpounded in the writings of Locke, though it had never before beenadopted by a great nation in practice.

There are yet, even at this day, many speculative objections to thistheory. Even in our own country, there are still philosophers whodeny the principles asserted in the Declaration, as self-evidenttruths—who deny the natural equality and inalienable rights of man—who deny that the people are the only legitimate source of power—who deny that all just powers of government are derived from theconsent of the governed. Neither your time, nor perphaps thecheerful nature of this occasion, permit me here to enter upon theexamination of this anti-revolutionary theory, which arrays Statesovereignty against the constituent sovereignty of the people, anddistorts the Constitution of the United States into a league offriendship between confederate corporations, I speak to matters offact. There is the Declaration of Independence, and there is theConstitution of the United States—let them speak for themselves.The grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic Statesovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, andresponsible to no power on earth or in heaven, for the violation ofthem, is not there. The Declaration says, it is not in me. TheConstitution says, it is not in me.

SAMUEL ADAMS (1723-1803)

Samuel Adams, called by his contemporaries, "the Father of theAmerican Revolution," drew up in 1764 the instructions of the peopleof Boston to their representatives in the Massachusetts generalassembly, containing what is said to be the first official denial ofthe right of the British Parliament to tax the Colonists.

Deeply religious by nature, having what Everett calls "a mostangelic voice," studying sacred music as an avocation, andexhibiting through life the fineness of nerve and sensitiveness oftemperament which gave him his early disposition to escape thestorms of life by a career in the pulpit, circ*mstances, or ratherhis sense of fitness, dominating his physical weakness, imposed onhim the work of leading in what results have shown to be thegreatest revolution of history. So sensitive, physically, that hehad "a tremulous motion of the head when speaking," his intellectualforce was such that he easily became a leader of popular oppositionto royal authority in New England. Unlike Jefferson in being afluent public speaker, he resembled him in being the intellectualheir of Sidney and Locke. He showed very early in life the bentwhich afterwards forced him, as it did the naturally timid andretiring Jefferson, to take the leadership of the uneducated massesof the people against the wealth, the culture, and the conservatismof the colonial aristocracy.

After passing through the Lovell School he graduated at HarvardCollege, and on proposing a thesis for his second degree, as collegecustom required, he defended the proposition that "it is lawful toresist the supreme authority, if the commonwealth cannot otherwisebe preserved." Like questions had been debated during the MiddleAges from the time returning Crusaders brought back with them copiesof Aristotle and other great Greek philosophers whose authority wasstill reverenced at Byzantium and Bagdad when London and Paris knewnothing of them. Out of the denial of one set of schoolmen that adivine right to rule, greater than that derived from the people,could exist in kings, grew the political controversy which precededthe English revolution against the Stuarts. Our revolution grew outof the English as the French grew out of ours, and in putting on hisseal Cromwell's motto, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,"Jefferson, the Virginian, illustrated the same intellectualheredity which Samuel Adams, the New Englander, showed in assertingthe right of the people composing the Commonwealth to resist thesupreme authority when in their judgment its exercise had becomeprejudicial to their rights or their interests.

From 1764 when he was chosen to present the denial made by thepeople of Boston of the English Parliament's right to tax them,until he joined Jefferson in forcing on the then unprepared mind ofthe public the idea of a complete and final separation from the"Mother Country," his aggressive denunciations of the Englishgovernment's attempts at absolutism made him so hated by the Englishadministration and its colonial representatives that, with JohnHanco*ck, he was specially exempted from General Gage's amnestyproclamation of June 1775, as "having committed offenses of tooflagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that ofcondign punishment."

Joining with John Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson in forcing issuesfor complete separation from England and for the formal Declarationof Independence, Samuel Adams was himself the author of thecelebrated circular letter addressed by the assembly ofMassachusetts to the speakers of the several assemblies in othercolonies. In 1774 he was chosen a member of the ContinentalCongress, where he took a prominent part in preventing thepossibility of compromise with England. In 1794 he succeeded Hanco*ckas governor of Massachusetts, retiring in 1797 because of "theincreasing infirmities of age."

Like many other statesmen of his time he lived the greater part ofhis life in poverty, but his only son, dying before him, left him aproperty which supported him in his old age.

It is said that his great oration on American Independence,delivered at Philadelphia in August 1776, and published here, is theonly complete address of his which has come down to us. It wastranslated into French and published in Paris, and it is believedthat Napoleon borrowed from it the phrase, "A Nation ofShopkeepers," to characterize the English.

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

Countrymen and Brethren:—

I would gladly have declined an honor to which I find myselfunequal. I have not the calmness and impartiality which theinfinite importance of this occasion demands. I will not deny thecharge of my enemies, that resentment for the accumulated injuriesof our country, and an ardor for her glory, rising to enthusiasm,may deprive me of that accuracy of judgment and expression which menof cooler passions may possess. Let me beseech you, then, to hearme with caution, to examine your prejudice, and to correct themistakes into which I may be hurried by my zeal.

Truth loves an appeal to the common sense of mankind. Yourunperverted understandings can best determine on subjects of apractical nature. The positions and plans which are said to be abovethe comprehension of the multitude may be always suspected to bevisionary and fruitless. He who made all men hath made the truthsnecessary to human happiness obvious to all.

Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you isreserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They openedthe Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judgefor himself in religion. Are we sufficient for the comprehension ofthe sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporalones?

Heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity,and man denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know fromour feelings the experience that will make us happy. "You candiscern," they say, "objects distant and remote, but cannot perceivethose within your grasp. Let us have the distribution of presentgoods, and cut out and manage as you please the interests offuturity." This day, I trust, the reign of political protestantismwill commence. We have explored the temple of royalty, and foundthat the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, earsthat hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. Wehave this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to beobedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds hissubjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity ofself-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to thesetting sun, may his kingdom come!

Having been a slave to the influence of opinion early acquired, anddistinctions generally received, I am ever inclined not to despisebut pity those who are yet in darkness. But to the eye of reasonwhat can be more clear than that all men have an equal right tohappiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher andlower degrees of power of mind and body. But what mysteriousdistribution of character has the craft of statesmen, more fatalthan priestcraft, introduced?

According to their doctrine, the offspring of perhaps the lewdembraces of a successful invader shall, from generation togeneration, arrogate the right of lavishing on their pleasures aproportion of the fruits of the earth, more than sufficient tosupply the wants of thousands of their fellow-creatures; claimauthority to manage them like beasts of burthen, and, withoutsuperior industry, capacity, or virtue, nay, though disgraceful tohumanity by their ignorance, intemperance, and brutality, shall bedeemed best calculated to frame laws and to consult for the welfareof society.

Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men givenmerely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to thefollies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts soequally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should asnearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings ofProvidence be equally enjoyed by all? Away, then, with those absurdsystems which to gratify the pride of a few debase the greater partof our species below the order of men. What an affront to the Kingof the universe, to maintain that the happiness of a monster, sunkin debauchery and spreading desolation and murder among men, of aCaligula, a Nero, or a Charles, is more precious in his sight thanthat of millions of his suppliant creatures, who do justice, lovemercy, and walk humbly with their God! No, in the judgment of heaventhere is no other superiority among men than a superiority in wisdomand virtue. And can we have a safer model in forming ours? TheDeity, then, has not given any order or family of men authority overothers; and if any men have given it, they only could give it forthemselves. Our forefathers, 'tis said, consented to be subject tothe laws of Great Britain. I will not, at present, dispute it, normark out the limits and conditions of their submission; but will itbe denied that they contracted to pay obedience and to be under thecontrol of Great Britain because it appeared to them most beneficialin their then present circ*mstances and situations? We, mycountrymen, have the same right to consult and provide for ourhappiness which they had to promote theirs. If they had a view toposterity in their contracts, it must have been to advance thefelicity of their descendants. If they erred in their expectationsand prospects, we can never be condemned for a conduct which theywould have recommended had they foreseen our present condition.

Ye darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives andreligion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of mustyparchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertainand contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation arenot bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell uswhether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us themiserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry,the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for,wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check. Didthey contract for us that, with folded arms, we should expect thatjustice and mercy from brutal and inflamed invaders which have beendenied to our supplications at the foot of the throne? Were we tohear our character as a people ridiculed with indifference? Did theypromise for us that our meekness and patience should be insulted;our coasts harassed, our towns demolished and plundered, and ourwives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger, and death, withoutour feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers ofself-preservation which God has given us? No man had once a greaterveneration for Englishmen than I entertained. They were dear to meas branches of the same parental trunk, and partakers of the samereligion and laws; I still view with respect the remains of theconstitution as I would a lifeless body, which had once beenanimated by a great and heroic soul. But when I am aroused by thedin of arms; when I behold legions of foreign assassins, paid byEnglishmen to imbrue their hands in our blood; when I tread over theuncoffined bodies of my countrymen, neighbors, and friends; when Isee the locks of a venerable father torn by savage hands, and afeeble mother, clasping her infants to her bosom, and on her kneesimploring their lives from her own slaves, whom Englishmen haveallured to treachery and murder; when I behold my country, once theseat of industry, peace, and plenty, changed by Englishmen to atheatre of blood and misery, Heaven forgive me, if I cannot root outthose passions which it has implanted in my bosom, and detestsubmission to a people who have either ceased to be human, or havenot virtue enough to feel their own wretchedness and servitude!

Men who content themselves with the semblance of truth, and adisplay of words, talk much of our obligations to Great Britain forprotection. Had she a single eye to our advantage? A nation ofshopkeepers are very seldom so disinterested. Let us not be soamused with words; the extension of her commerce was her object.When she defended our coasts, she fought for her customers, andconvoyed our ships loaded with wealth, which we had acquired for herby our industry. She has treated us as beasts of burthen, whom thelordly masters cherish that they may carry a greater load. Let usinquire also against whom she has protected us? Against her ownenemies with whom we had no quarrel, or only on her account, andagainst whom we always readily exerted our wealth and strength whenthey were required. Were these colonies backward in givingassistance to Great Britain, when they were called upon in 1739 toaid the expedition against Carthagena? They at that time sent threethousand men to join the British army, although the war commencedwithout their consent. But the last war, 'tis said, was purelyAmerican. This is a vulgar error, which, like many others, hasgained credit by being confidently repeated. The dispute betweenthe courts of Great Britain and France related to the limits ofCanada and Nova Scotia. The controverted territory was not claimedby any in the colonies, but by the crown of Great Britain. It wastherefore their own quarrel. The infringement of a right whichEngland had, by the treaty of Utrecht, of trading in the Indiancountry of Ohio, was another cause of the war. The French seizedlarge quantities of British manufacture and took possession of afort which a company of British merchants and factors had erectedfor the security of their commerce. The war was therefore waged indefense of lands claimed by the crown, and for the protection ofBritish property. The French at that time had no quarrel withAmerica, and, as appears by letters sent from their commander-in-chief,to some of the colonies, wished to remain in peace with us. Thepart, therefore, which we then took, and the miseries to which weexposed ourselves, ought to be charged to our affection to Britain.These colonies granted more than their proportion to the support ofthe war. They raised, clothed, and maintained nearly twenty-fivethousand men, and so sensible were the people of England of ourgreat exertions, that a message was annually sent to the House ofCommons purporting, "that his Majesty, being highly satisfied withthe zeal and vigor with which his faithful subjects in North Americahad exerted themselves in defense of his Majesty's just rights andpossessions, recommend it to the House to take the same intoconsideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation."

But what purpose can arguments of this kind answer? Did theprotection we received annul our rights as men, and lay us under anobligation of being miserable?

Who among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would claimauthority to make your child a slave because you had nourished himin infancy?

'Tis a strange species of generosity which requires a returninfinitely more valuable than anything it could have bestowed thatdemands as a reward for a defense of our property a surrender ofthose inestimable privileges, to the arbitrary will of vindictivetyrants, which alone give value to that very property.

Political right and public happiness are different words for thesame idea. They who wander into metaphysical labyrinths, or haverecourse to original contracts, to determine the rights of men,either impose on themselves or mean to delude others. Public utilityis the only certain criterion. It is a test which brings disputes toa speedy decision, and makes its appeal to the feelings ofmankind. The force of truth has obliged men to use arguments drawnfrom this principle who were combating it, in practice andspeculation. The advocates for a despotic government andnonresistance to the magistrate employ reasons in favor of theirsystems drawn from a consideration of their tendency to promotepublic happiness.

The Author of Nature directs all his operations to the production ofthe greatest good, and has made human virtue to consist in adisposition and conduct which tends to the common felicity of hiscreatures. An abridgement of the natural freedom of men, by theinstitutions of political societies, is vindicable only on thisfoot. How absurd, then, is it to draw arguments from the nature ofcivil society for the annihilation of those very ends which societywas intended to procure! Men associate for their mutual advantage.Hence, the good and happiness of the members, that is, the majorityof the members, of any State, is the great standard by whicheverything relating to that State must finally be determined; andthough it may be supposed that a body of people may be bound by avoluntary resignation (which they have been so infatuated as tomake) of all their interests to a single person, or to a few, it cannever be conceived that the resignation is obligatory to theirposterity; because it is manifestly contrary to the good of thewhole that it should be so.

These are the sentiments of the wisest and most virtuous championsof freedom. Attend to a portion on this subject from a book in ourown defense, written, I had almost said, by the pen of inspiration."I lay no stress," says he, "on charters; they derive their rightsfrom a higher source. It is inconsistent with common sense toimagine that any people would ever think of settling in a distantcountry on any such condition, or that the people from whom theywithdrew should forever be masters of their property, and have powerto subject them to any modes of government they pleased. And hadthere been expressed stipulations to this purpose in all thecharters of the colonies, they would, in my opinion, be no morebound by them, than if it had been stipulated with them that theyshould go naked, or expose themselves to the incursions of wolvesand tigers."

Such are the opinions of every virtuous and enlightened patriot inGreat Britain. Their petition to heaven is, "That there may be onefree country left upon earth, to which they may fly, when venality,luxury, and vice shall have completed the ruin of liberty there."

Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether weourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankindan asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing,therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the onlyquestion is, What is best for us to pursue in our presentcirc*mstances?

The doctrine of dependence on Great Britain is, I believe, generallyexploded; but as I would attend to the honest weakness of thesimplest of men, you will pardon me if I offer a few words on thatsubject.

We are now on this continent, to the astonishment of the world,three millions of souls united in one cause. We have large armies,well disciplined and appointed, with commanders inferior to none inmilitary skill, and superior in activity and zeal. We are furnishedwith arsenals and stores beyond our most sanguine expectations, andforeign nations are waiting to crown our success by their alliances.There are instances of, I would say, an almost astonishingProvidence in our favor; our success has staggered our enemies, andalmost given faith to infidels; so we may truly say it is not ourown arm which has saved us.

The hand of heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps humbleinstruments and means in the great Providential dispensation whichis completing. We have fled from the political Sodom; let us notlook back, lest we perish and become a monument of infamy andderision to the world. For can we ever expect more unanimity and abetter preparation for defense; more infatuation of counsel amongour enemies, and more valor and zeal among ourselves? The same forceand resistance which are sufficient to procure us our liberties willsecure us a glorious independence and support us in the dignity offree, imperial States. We cannot suppose that our opposition hasmade a corrupt and dissipated nation more friendly to America, orcreated in them a greater respect for the rights of mankind. We cantherefore expect a restoration and establishment of our privileges,and a compensation for the injuries we have received from their wantof power, from their fears, and not from their virtues. Theunanimity and valor which will effect an honorable peace can rendera future contest for our liberties unnecessary. He who has strengthto chain down the wolf is a madman if he let him loose withoutdrawing his teeth and paring his nails.

From the day on which an accommodation takes place between Englandand America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shalldate the ruin of this country. A politic minister will study tolull us into security, by granting us the full extent of ourpetitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down thevirtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm andunyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, ourdescendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity andzeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruptionwould be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders ourresistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which nowanimates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, ournumbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims totyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, ifperadventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warrenand Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangledbodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the rewardof such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee,supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glutthe avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war toriot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If yelove wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude thanthe animating contest of freedom,—go from us in peace. We ask notyour counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feedyou. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forgetthat ye were our countrymen!

To unite the supremacy of Great Britain and the liberty of Americais utterly impossible. So vast a continent, and of such a distancefrom the seat of empire, will every day grow more unmanageable. Themotion of so unwieldy a body cannot be directed with any dispatchand uniformity without committing to the Parliament of Great Britainpowers inconsistent with our freedom. The authority and force whichwould be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace andgood order of this continent would put all our valuable rightswithin the reach of that nation.

As the administration of government requires firmer and morenumerous supports in proportion to its extent, the burdens imposedon us would be excessive, and we should have the melancholy prospectof their increasing on our posterity. The scale of officers, fromthe rapacious and needy commissioner to the haughty governor, andfrom the governor, with his hungry train, to perhaps a licentiousand prodigal viceroy, must be upheld by you and your children. Thefleets and armies which will be employed to silence your murmurs andcomplaints must be supported by the fruits of your industry.

And yet with all this enlargement of the expense and powers ofgovernment, the administration of it at such a distance, and over soextensive a territory, must necessarily fail of putting the lawsinto vigorous execution, removing private oppressions, and formingplans for the advancement of agriculture and commerce, andpreserving the vast empire in any tolerable peace and security. Ifour posterity retain any spark of patriotism, they can never tamelysubmit to such burthens. This country will be made the field ofbloody contention till it gain that independence for which natureformed it. It is, therefore, injustice and cruelty to ouroffspring, and would stamp us with the character of baseness andcowardice, to leave the salvation of this country to be worked outby them with accumulated difficulty and danger.

Prejudice, I confess, may warp our judgments. Let us hear thedecision of Englishmen on this subject, who cannot be suspected ofpartiality. "The Americans," they say, "are but little short of halfour number. To this number they have grown from a small body oforiginal settlers by a very rapid increase. The probability is thatthey will go on to increase, and that in fifty or sixty years theywill be double our number, and form a mighty empire, consisting of avariety of States, all equal or superior to ourselves in all thearts and accomplishments which give dignity and happiness to humanlife. In that period will they be still bound to acknowledge thatsupremacy over them which we now claim? Can there be any person whowill assert this, or whose mind does not revolt at the idea of avast continent holding all that is valuable to it at the discretionof a handful of people on the other side of the Atlantic? But if atthat period this would be unreasonable, what makes it otherwise now?Draw the line if you can. But there is still a greater difficulty."

Britain is now, I will suppose, the seat of liberty and virtue, andits legislature consists of a body of able and independent men, whogovern with wisdom and justice. The time may come when all will bereversed; when its excellent constitution of government will besubverted; when, pressed by debts and taxes, it will be greedy todraw to itself an increase of revenue from every distant province,in order to ease its own burdens; when the influence of the crown,strengthened by luxury and a universal profligacy of manners, willhave tainted every heart, broken down every fence of liberty, andrendered us a nation of tame and contented vassals; when a generalelection will be nothing but a general auction of boroughs, and whenthe Parliament, the grand council of the nation, and once thefaithful guardian of the State, and a terror to evil ministers, willbe degenerated into a body of sycophants, dependent and venal,always ready to confirm any measures, and little more than a publiccourt for registering royal edicts. Such, it is possible, may, sometime or other, be the state of Great Britain. What will, at thatperiod, be the duty of the colonies? Will they be still bound tounconditional submission? Must they always continue an appendage toour government and follow it implicitly through every change thatcan happen to it? Wretched condition, indeed, of millions offreemen as good as ourselves! Will you say that we now governequitably, and that there is no danger of such revolution? Would toGod that this were true! But you will not always say the same. Whoshall judge whether we govern equitably or not? Can you give thecolonies any security that such a period will never come? No. THEPERIOD, COUNTRYMEN, IS ALREADY COME! The calamities were at ourdoor. The rod of oppression was raised over us. We were rousedfrom our slumbers, and may we never sink into repose until we canconvey a clear and undisputed inheritance to our posterity! Thisday we are called upon to give a glorious example of what the wisestand best of men were rejoiced to view, only in speculation. Thisday presents the world with the most august spectacle that itsannals ever unfolded,—millions of freemen, deliberately andvoluntarily forming themselves into a society for their commondefense and common happiness. Immortal spirits of Hampden, Locke,and Sidney, will it not add to your benevolent joys to behold yourposterity rising to the dignity of men, and evincing to the worldthe reality and expediency of your systems, and in the actualenjoyment of that equal liberty, which you were happy, when onearth, in delineating and recommending to mankind?

Other nations have received their laws from conquerors; some areindebted for a constitution to the suffering of their ancestorsthrough revolving centuries. The people of this country, alone, haveformally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, andwith open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a socialcompact. Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title tohonorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with thename of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability topromote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. Thisis the only line of distinction drawn by nature. Leave the bird ofnight to the obscurity for which nature intended him, and expectonly from the eagle to brush the clouds with his wings and lookboldly in the face of the sun.

Some who would persuade us that they have tender feelings for futuregenerations, while they are insensible to the happiness of thepresent, are perpetually foreboding a train of dissensions under ourpopular system. Such men's reasoning amounts to this: Give up allthat is valuable to Great Britain and then you will have noinducements to quarrel among yourselves; or, suffer yourselves to bechained down by your enemies that you may not be able to fight withyour friends.

This is an insult on your virtue as well as your common sense. Yourunanimity this day and through the course of the war is a decisiverefutation of such invidious predictions. Our enemies have alreadyhad evidence that our present constitution contains in it thejustice and ardor of freedom and the wisdom and vigor of the mostabsolute system. When the law is the will of the people, it will beuniform and coherent; but fluctuation, contradiction, andinconsistency of councils must be expected under those governmentswhere every revolution in the ministry of a court produces one inthe State—such being the folly and pride of all ministers, thatthey ever pursue measures directly opposite to those of theirpredecessors.

We shall neither be exposed to the necessary convulsions of electivemonarchies, nor to the want of wisdom, fortitude, and virtue, towhich hereditary succession is liable. In your hands it will be toperpetuate a prudent, active, and just legislature, and which willnever expire until you yourselves loose the virtues which give itexistence.

And, brethren and fellow-countrymen, if it was ever granted tomortals to trace the designs of Providence, and interpret itsmanifestations in favor of their cause, we may, with humility ofsoul, cry out, "Not unto us, not unto us, but to thy Name be thepraise!" The confusion of the devices among our enemies, and therage of the elements against them, have done almost as much towardsour success as either our councils or our arms.

The time at which this attempt on our liberty was made, when we wereripened into maturity, had acquired a knowledge of war, and werefree from the incursions of enemies in this country; the gradualadvances of our oppressors enabling us to prepare for our defense;the unusual fertility of our lands and clemency of the seasons; thesuccess which at first attended our feeble arms, producing unanimityamong our friends and reducing our internal foes to acquiescence—these are all strong and palpable marks and assurances thatProvidence is yet gracious unto Zion, that it will turn away thecaptivity of Jacob.

Our glorious reformers when they broke through the fetters ofsuperstition effected more than could be expected from an age sodarkened. But they left much to be done by their posterity. Theylopped off, indeed, some of the branches of Popery, but they leftthe root and stock when they left us under the domination of humansystems and decisions, usurping the infallibility which can beattributed to Revelation alone. They dethroned one usurper only toraise up another; they refused allegiance to the Pope only to placethe civil magistrate in the throne of Christ, vested with authorityto enact laws and inflict penalties in his kingdom. And if we nowcast our eyes over the nations of the earth, we shall find that,instead of possessing the pure religion of the Gospel, they may bedivided either into infidels, who deny the truth; or politicians whomake religion a stalking horse for their ambition; or professors,who walk in the trammels of orthodoxy, and are more attentive totraditions and ordinances of men than to the oracles of truth.

The civil magistrate has everywhere contaminated religion by makingit an engine of policy; and freedom of thought and the right ofprivate judgment, in matters of conscience, driven from every othercorner of the earth, direct their course to this happy country astheir last asylum. Let us cherish the noble guests, and shelter themunder the wings of a universal toleration! Be this the seat ofunbounded religious freedom. She will bring with her in her train,industry, wisdom, and commerce. She thrives most when left to shootforth in her natural luxuriance, and asks from human policy only notto be checked in her growth by artificial encouragements.

Thus, by the beneficence of Providence, we shall behold our empirearising, founded on justice and the voluntary consent of the people,and giving full scope to the exercise of those faculties and rightswhich most ennoble our species. Besides the advantages of libertyand the most equal constitution, Heaven has given us a country withevery variety of climate and soil, pouring forth in abundancewhatever is necessary for the support, comfort, and strength of anation. Within our own borders we possess all the means ofsustenance, defense, and commerce; at the same time, theseadvantages are so distributed among the different States of thiscontinent, as if nature had in view to proclaim to us: Be unitedamong yourselves and you will want nothing from the rest of theworld.

The more northern States most amply supply us with every necessary,and many of the luxuries of life; with iron, timber, and masts forships of commerce or of war; with flax for the manufacture of linen,and seed either for oil or exportation.

So abundant are our harvests, that almost every part raises morethan double the quantity of grain requisite for the support of theinhabitants. From Georgia and the Carolinas we have, as well for ourown wants as for the purpose of supplying the wants of other powers,indigo, rice, hemp, naval stores, and lumber.

Virginia and Maryland teem with wheat, Indian corn, and tobacco.Every nation whose harvest is precarious, or whose lands yield notthose commodities which we cultivate, will gladly exchange theirsuperfluities and manufactures for ours.

We have already received many and large cargoes of clothing,military stores, etc., from our commerce with foreign powers, and,in spite of the efforts of the boasted navy of England, we shallcontinue to profit by this connection.

The want of our naval stores has already increased the price ofthese articles to a great height, especially in Britain. Without ourlumber, it will be impossible for those haughty islanders to conveythe products of the West Indies to their own ports; for a while theymay with difficulty effect it, but, without our assistance, theirresources soon must fail. Indeed, the West India Islands appear asthe necessary appendages to this our empire. They must owe theirsupport to it, and ere long, I doubt not, some of them will, fromnecessity, wish to enjoy the benefit of our protection.

These natural advantages will enable us to remain independent of theworld, or make it the interest of European powers to court ouralliance, and aid in protecting us against the invasion of others.What argument, therefore, do we want to show the equity of ourconduct; or motive of interest to recommend it to our prudence?Nature points out the path, and our enemies have obliged us topursue it.

If there is any man so base or so weak as to prefer a dependence onGreat Britain to the dignity and happiness of living a member of afree and independent nation, let me tell him that necessity nowdemands what the generous principle of patriotism should havedictated.

We have no other alternative than independence, or the mostignominious and galling servitude. The legions of our enemiesthicken on our plains; desolation and death mark their bloodycareer; whilst the mangled corpses of our countrymen seem to cry outto us as a voice from heaven:—

"Will you permit our posterity to groan under the galling chains ofour murderers? Has our blood been expended in vain? Is the onlybenefit which our constancy till death has obtained for our country,that it should be sunk into a deeper and more ignominious vassalage?Recollect who are the men that demand your submission, to whosedecrees you are invited to pay obedience. Men who, unmindful oftheir relation to you as brethren; of your long implicit submissionto their laws; of the sacrifice which you and your forefathers madeof your natural advantages for commerce to their avarice; formed adeliberate plan to wrest from you the small pittance of propertywhich they had permitted you to acquire. Remember that the men whowish to rule over you are they who, in pursuit of this plan ofdespotism, annulled the sacred contracts which they had made withyour ancestors; conveyed into your cities a mercenary soldiery tocompel you to submission by insult and murder; who called yourpatience cowardice, your piety hypocrisy."

Countrymen, the men who now invite you to surrender your rights intotheir hands are the men who have let loose the merciless savages toriot in the blood of their brethren; who have dared to establishPopery triumphant in our land; who have taught treachery to yourslaves, and courted them to assassinate your wives and children.

These are the men to whom we are exhorted to sacrifice the blessingswhich Providence holds out to us; the happiness, the dignity, ofuncontrolled freedom and independence.

Let not your generous indignation be directed against any among uswho may advise so absurd and maddening a measure. Their number isbut few, and daily decreases; and the spirit which can render thempatient of slavery will render them contemptible enemies.

Our Union is now complete; our constitution composed, established,and approved. You are now the guardians of your own liberties. Wemay justly address you, as the decemviri did the Romans, and say,"Nothing that we propose can pass into a law without your consent.Be yourselves, O Americans, the authors of those laws on which yourhappiness depends."

You have now in the field armies sufficient to repel the whole forceof your enemies and their base and mercenary auxiliaries. Thehearts of your soldiers beat high with the spirit of freedom; theyare animated with the justice of their cause, and while they grasptheir swords can look up to Heaven for assistance. Your adversariesare composed of wretches who laugh at the rights of humanity, whoturn religion into derision, and would, for higher wages, directtheir swords against their leaders or their country. Go on, then,in your generous enterprise with gratitude to Heaven for pastsuccess, and confidence of it in the future. For my own part, I askno greater blessing than to share with you the common danger andcommon glory. If I have a wish dearer to my soul than that my ashesmay be mingled with those of a Warren and Montgomery, it is thatthese American States may never cease to be free and independent.

AELRED

(1109-1166)

Saint Aelred, Ealred, or Ethelred. was abbot of the Cistercianmonastery at Rievaulx, Yorkshire, in the twelfth century. Thirty-twoof his sermons, collected and published by Richard Gibbon, remain asexamples of the pulpit eloquence of his age; but not very much isremembered of Aelred himself except that he was virtuous enough tobe canonized, and was held in high estimation as a preacher duringthe Middle Ages. He died in 1166.

His command of language is extraordinary, and he is remarkable forthe cumulative power with which he adds clause to clause andsentence to sentence, in working towards a climax.

A FAREWELL

It is time that I should begin the journey to which the law of ourorder compels me, desire incites me, and affection calls me. Buthow, even for so short a time, can I be separated from my belovedones? Separated, I say, in body, and not in spirit; and I know thatin affection and spirit I shall be so much the more present by howmuch in body I am the more absent. I speak after the manner of menbecause of the infirmity of my flesh; my wish is, that I may laydown among you the tabernacle of my flesh, that I may breathe forthmy spirit in your hands, that ye may close the eyes of your father,and that all my bones should be buried in your sight! Pray,therefore, O my beloved ones, that the Lord may grant me the desireof my soul. Call to mind, dearest brethren, that it is written ofthe Lord Jesus, when he was about to remove his presence from hisDisciples, that he, being assembled together with them, commandedthem that they should not depart from Jerusalem. Following,therefore, his example, since, after our sweet banquet, we have nowrisen from the table, I, who in a little while am about to go away,command you, beseech you, warn you, not to depart from Jerusalem.For Jerusalem signifies peace. Therefore, we commend peace to you,we enjoin peace to you. Now, Christ himself, our Peace, who hathunited us, keep you in the unity of the spirit and in the bond ofpeace; to whose protection and consolation I commend you under thewings of the Holy Ghost; that he may return you to me, and me to youin peace and with safety. Approach now, dearest sons, and in sign ofthe peace and love which I have commended to you, kiss your father;and let us all pray together that the Lord may make our wayprosperous, and grant us when we return to find you in the samepeace, who liveth and reigneth one God, through all ages of ages.Amen.

A SERMON AFTER ABSENCE

Behold, I have returned, my beloved sons, my joy and my crown in theLord! Behold! I have returned after many labors, after a dangerousjourney; I am returned to you, I am returned to your love. This dayis the day of exultation and joy, which, when I was in a foreignland, when I was struggling with the winds and with the sea, I solong desired to behold; and the Lord hath heard the desire of thepoor. O love, how sweetly thou inflamest those that are absent!How deliciously thou feedest those that are present; and yet dostnot satisfy the hungry till thou makest Jerusalem to have peace andfillest it with the flour of wheat! This is the peace which, as youremember, I commended to you when the law of our order compelled mefor a time to be separated from you; the peace which, now I havereturned, I find (Thanks be to God!) among you; the peace of Christ,which, with a certain foretaste of love, feeds you in the way thatshall satisfy you with the plentitude of the same love in yourcountry. Well, beloved brethren, all that I am, all that I have,all that I know, I offer to your profit, I devote to your advantage.Use me as you will; spare not my labor if it can in any way serve toyour benefit. Let us return, therefore, if you please, or ratherbecause you please, to the work which we have intermitted; and letus examine the Holy Ghost enduing us with the light of truth, theheavenly treasures which holy Isaiah has laid up under the guise ofparables, when he writes that parable which the people, freed fromhis tyranny, shall take up against the king of Babylon. "And itshall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee restfrom thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondagewherein thou wast made to serve, that thou shalt take up thisparable against the king of Babylon." Let us, therefore, understandthe parable as a parable. Not imagining that it was spoken againstNebuchadnezzar, the prince of that earthly Babylon, but ratheragainst him who is from the North, the prince of confusion. … Ifany one of us, then, who was once set in the confusion of vices, andoppressed by the yoke of iniquity, now rejoices that he rests fromhis labors, and is without confusion for that which is past, and hascast off the yoke of that worst of slaveries, let him take up thisparable against the king of Babylon. There is labor in vice, thereis rest in virtue; there is confusion in lust, there is security inchastity; there is servitude in covetousness, there is liberty incharity. Now, there is a labor in vice, and labor for vice, andlabor against vice. A labor in vice, when, for the sake offulfilling our evil desires, the ancient enemy inflicts hard laborupon us. There is a labor for vice, when any one is eitherafflicted against his will, for the evil which he has done, or ofhis will is troubled by the labor of penance. There is a laboragainst vice, when he that is converted to God is troubled withdivers temptations. There is also a confusion in vice, when a man,distracted by most evil passions, is not ruled by reason, buthurried along confusedly by the tumult of vices; a confusion forvice, when a man is found out and convicted of any crime, and istherefore confounded, or when a man repenting and confessing what hehas done is purified by healthful confusion and confession; andthere is a confusion against vice, when a man, converted to God,resists the temptation from which he suffers, by the recollection offormer confusion.

Wonder not if I have kept you longer to-day than my wont is, becausedesirous of you, after so long a hunger, I could not be easilysatiated with your presence. Think not, indeed, that even now I amsatiated; I leave off speaking because I am weary, not because I amsatisfied. But I shall be satisfied when the glory of Christ shallappear, in whom I now embrace you with delight, you, with whom Ihope that I shall be happily found in him, to whom is honor andglory to ages of ages. Amen.

ON MANLINESS

Fortitude comes next, which is necessary in temptation, sinceperfection of sanctity cannot be so uninterruptedly maintained inthis life that its serenity will be disturbed by no temptations. Butas our Lord God seems to us, in times when everything appearspeaceful and tranquil, to be merciful and loving and the giver ofjoy, thus when he exposes us either to the temptations of the flesh,or to the suggestions of demons, or when he afflicts us with thetroubles, or wears us out with the persecutions of this world, heseems, as it were, a hard and angry master. And happy is he whobecomes valiant in this his anger, now resisting, now fighting, nowflying, so as to be found neither infirm through consenting, norweak through despairing. Therefore, brethren, whoever is not foundvaliant in his anger cannot exult in his glory. If we have passedthrough fire and water, so that neither did the fire consume us, northe water drown us, whose is the glory? Is it ours, so that weshould exult in it as if it belonged to us? God forbid! How manyexult, brethren, when they are praised by men, taking the glory ofthe gifts of God as if it were their own and not exulting in thehonor of Christ, who, while they seek that which is their own andnot the things of Jesus Christ, both lose that which is their ownand do not gain that which is Christ's! He then exults in Christ'sglory, who seeks not his glory but Christ's, and he understandsthat, in ourselves, there is nothing of which we can boast, since wehave nothing that is our own. And this is the way in which, inindividual men, the City of Confusion is overthrown, when chastityexpels luxury, fortitude overthrows temptations, humility excludesvanity. Furthermore, we have sanctification from the faith andsacraments of Christ, fortitude from the love of Christ, exultationin the hope of the promises of Christ. Let us each do what we can,that faith may sanctify us, love strengthen us, and hope make usjoyful in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be honor and glory foreverand forever. Amen.

AESCHINES (389-314 B.C.)

Professor R. C. Jebe says of Aeschines, the rival of Demosthenes forsupremacy at Athens, that when the Rhodians asked him to teach themoratory, he replied that he did not know it himself. He took pridein being looked upon as a representative of natural oratoricalgenius who had had little help from the traditions of the schools."If, however, Aeschines was no rhetorical artist," writes DoctorJebb, "he brought to public speaking the twofold training of theactor and the scribe. He had a magnificent voice under perfectmusical control. 'He compares me to the sirens,' says Aeschines ofhis rival."

First known as an actor, playing "tritagonist" in the tragedies ofSophocles and the other great Athenian dramatists, Aeschines wasafterwards clerk to one of the minor officials at Athens; thensecretary to Aristophon and Eubulos, well-known public men, andlater still secretary of the ekklesia or assembly.

The greatest event of his life was his contest with Demosthenes 'DeCorona' (Over the Crown). When Ktesiphon proposed that Athens shouldbestow a wreath of gold on Demosthenes for his public services,Aechines, after the bill proposing it had come before the assembly,challenged it and gave notice of his intention to proceed againstKtesiphon for proposing an unconstitutional measure. One of theallegations in support of its unconstitutionally was that "to recorda bill describing Demosthenes as a public benefactor was to deposita lying document among the public archives." The issues were thusjoined between Aeschines and Demosthenes for one of the mostcelebrated forensic contests in history. Losing the case Aeschineswent into banishment. He died at Samos, B.C. 314, in hisseventy-fifth year. He is generally ranked next to Demosthenes amongGreek orators. For the following from the oration of Aeschines, thereader is under obligations to Professor Jebb's admirable translation.

AGAINST CROWNING DEMOSTHENES (Against Ktesiphon)

Our days have not fallen on the common chances of mortal life. Wehave been set to bequeath a story of marvels to posterity. Is notthe king of Persia, he who cut through Athos, and bridged theHellespont, he who demands earth and water from the Greeks, he whoin his letters presumes to style himself lord of all men from thesunrise to the sunset, is he not struggling at this hour, no longerfor authority over others, but for his own life? Do you not see themen who delivered the Delphian temple invested not only with thatglory but with the leadership against Persia? While Thebes—Thebes, our neighbor city—has been in one day swept from the faceof Greece—justly it may be in so far as her general policy waserroneous, yet in consequence of a folly which was no accident, butthe judgment of heaven. The unfortunate Lacedaemonians, though theydid but touch this affair in its first phase by the occupation ofthe temple,—they who once claimed the leadership of Greece,—are now to be sent to Alexander in Asia to give hostages, to paradetheir disasters, and to hear their own and their country's doom fromhis lips, when they have been judged by the clemency of the masterthey provoked. Our city, the common asylum of the Greeks, fromwhich, of old, embassies used to come from all Greece to obtaindeliverance for their several cities at our hands, is now battling,no more for the leadership of Greece, but for the ground on which itstands. And these things have befallen us since Demosthenes tookthe direction of our policy. The poet Hesiod will interpret such acase. There is a passage meant to educate democracies and tocounsel cities generally, in which he warns us not to acceptdishonest leaders. I will recite the lines myself, the reason, Ithink, for our learning the maxims of the poets in boyhood beingthat we may use them as men:—

"Oft hath the bad man been the city's bane;
Oft hath his sin brought to the sinless pain:
Oft hath all-seeing Heaven sore vexed the town
With dearth and death and brought the people down;
Cast down their walls and their most valiant slain,
And on the seas made all their navies vain!"

Strip these lines of their poetic garb, look at them closely, and Ithink you will say these are no mere verses of Hesiod—that they area prophecy of the administration of Demosthenes, for by the agencyof that administration our ships, our armies, our cities have beenswept from the earth. … "O yes," it will be replied, "but then heis a friend of the constitution." If, indeed, you have a regardonly to his delicacy you will be deceived as you were before, butnot if you look at his character and at the facts. I will help youto estimate the characteristics which ought to be found in a friendof the constitution; in a sober-minded citizen. I will oppose tothem the character that may be looked for in an unprincipledrevolutionist. Then you shall draw your comparison and consider onwhich part he stands—not in his language, remember, but in hislife. Now all, I think, will allow that these attributes shouldbelong to a friend of the constitution: First, that he should be offree descent by both parents so that the disadvantage of birth maynot embitter him against those laws which preserve the democracy.Second, that he should be able to show that some benefit has beendone to the people by his ancestors; or, at the worst, that therehad been no enmity between them which would prompt him to revengethe misfortunes of his fathers on the State. Third, he should bevirtuous and temperate in his private life, so that no profligateexpense may lead him into taking bribes to the hurt of the people.Next, he should be sagacious and able to speak—since our ideal isthat the best course should be chosen by the intelligence and thencommended to his hearers by the trained eloquence of the orator,—though, if we cannot have both, sagacity must needs take rankbefore eloquence. Lastly, he must have a stout heart or he may playthe country false in the crisis of danger or of war. The friend ofoligarchy must be the opposite of all this. I need not repeat thepoints. Now, consider: How does Demosthenes answer to theseconditions?

[After accusing Demosthenes of being by parentage half a Scythian,
Greek in nothing but language, the orator proceeds: ]—

In his private life, what is he? The tetrarch sank to rise apettifogger, a spendthrift, ruined by his own follies. Then havinggot a bad name in this trade, too, by showing his speeches to theother side, he bounded on the stage of public life, where hisprofits out of the city were as enormous as his savings were small.Now, however, the flood of royal gold has floated his extravagance.But not even this will suffice. No wealth could ever hold out longagainst vice. In a word, he draws his livelihood not from his ownresources but from your dangers. What, however, are hisqualifications in respect to sagacity and to power of speech? Aclever speaker, an evil liver! And what is the result to Athens?The speeches are fair; the deeds are vile! Then as to courage Ihave a word to say. If he denied his cowardice or if you were notaware of it, the topic might have called for discussion, but sincehe himself admits in the assemblies and you know it, it remains onlyto remind you of the laws on the subject. Solon, our ancientlawgiver, thought the coward should be liable to the same penaltiesas the man who refuses to serve or who has quitted his post.Cowardice, like other offenses, is indictable.

Some of you will, perhaps, ask in amazement: Is a man to be indictedfor his temperament? He is. And why? In order that every one ofus fearing the penalties of the law more than the enemy may be thebetter champion of his country. Accordingly, the lawgiver excludesalike the man who declines service, the coward, and the deserter ofhis post, from the lustral limits in the market place, and suffersno such person to receive a wreath of honor or to enter places ofpublic worship. But you, Ktesiphon, exhort us to set a crown on thehead to which the laws refuse it. You by your private edict call aforbidden guest into the forefront of our solemn festival, andinvite into the temple of Dionysos that dastard by whom all templeshave been betrayed. … Remember then, Athenians, that the citywhose fate rests with you is no alien city, but your own. Give theprizes of ambition by merit, not by chance. Reserve your rewardsfor those whose manhood is truer, whose characters are worthier.Look at each other and judge not only with your ears but with youreyes who of your number are likely to support Demosthenes. Hisyoung companions in the chase or the gymnasium? No, by the OlympianZeus! He has not spent his life in hunting or in any healthfulexercise, but in cultivating rhetoric to be used against men ofproperty. Think of his boastfulness when he claims by his embassyto have snatched Byzantium out of the hands of Philip, to havethrown the Acharnians into revolt, to have astonished the Thebanswith his harangue! He thinks that you have reached the point offatuity at which you can be made to believe even this—as if yourcitizen were the deity of persuasion instead of a pettifoggingmortal! And when at the end of his speech, he calls as hisadvocates those who shared his bribes, imagine that you see uponthis platform where I now speak before you, an array drawn up toconfront their profligacy—the benefactors of Athens: Solon, who setin order the Democracy by his glorious laws, the philosopher, thegood legislator, entreating you with the gravity which so wellbecame him never to set the rhetoric of Demosthenes above your oathsand above the laws; Aristides, who assessed the tribute of theConfederacy, and whose daughters after his death were dowered by theState—indignant at the contumely threatened to justice andasking: Are you not ashamed? When Arthmios of Zeleia broughtPersian gold to Greece and visited Athens, our fathers well-nigh puthim to death, though he was our public guest, and proclaimed himexpelled from Athens and from all territory that the Athenians rule;while Demosthenes, who has not brought us Persian gold but has takenbribes for himself and has kept them to this day, is about toreceive a golden wreath from you! And Themistokles, and they whodied at Marathon and Plataea, aye, and the very graves of ourforefathers—do you not think they will utter a voice oflamentation, if he who covenants with barbarians to work againstGreece shall be—crowned!

FREDERICK A. AIKEN (1810-1878)

In defending the unpopular cause of the British soldiers who wereengaged in the Boston Massacre, John Adams said:—

"May it please your honor and you, gentlemen of the jury, I am forthe prisoner at the bar, and shall apologize for it only in thewords of the Marquis of Beccaria: 'If I can but be the instrument ofpreserving one life, his blessings and tears of transport shall be asufficient compensation to me for the contempt of all mankind.'"

Something of the same idea inspires the fine opening of Aiken'sdefense of Mrs. Surratt. It lacks the sinewy assertiveness ofAdams's terse and almost defiant apology for doing his duty as alawyer in spite of public opinion, but it justifies itself and theplea it introduces.

Until within the recent past, political antagonisms have been toostrong to allow fair consideration for such orations as that ofAiken at the Surratt trial. But this is no longer the case. It cannow be considered on its merits as an oration, without theassumption that it is necessary in connection with it to pass on theevidence behind it.

The assassins of President Lincoln were tried by military commissionunder the War Department's order of May 6th, 1865. The prosecutionwas conducted by Brigadier-General Joseph Holt, as judgeadvocate-general, with Brevet-Colonel H. L. Burnett, of Indiana, andHon. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, assisting him. The attorneys for thedefense were Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland; Thomas Ewing, of Kansas;W. E. Doster, of Pennsylvania; Frederick A. Aiken, of the Districtof Columbia; Walter S. Cox, John W. Clampit, and F. Stone, ofMaryland. The fault of the Adams oration in the case of the BostonMassacre is one of excessive severity of logic. Aiken errs in thedirection of excessive ornament, but, considering the importance ofthe occasion and the great stress on all engaged in the trial aswell as on the public, the florid style may have served better thanthe force of severe logic could have done.

DEFENSE OF MRS. MARY E. SURRATT

For the lawyer as well as the soldier, there is an equally pleasantduty—an equally imperative command. That duty is to shelter theinnocent from injustice and wrong, to protect the weak fromoppression, and to rally at all times and all occasions, whennecessity demands it, to the special defense of those whom nature,custom, or circ*mstance may have placed in dependence upon ourstrength, honor, and cherishing regard. That command emanates andreaches each class from the same authoritative and omnipotentsource. It comes from a superior whose right to command none darequestion, and none dare disobey. In this command there is nothing ofthat lex talionis which nearly two thousand years ago nailed to thecross its Divine Author.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,do ye even so unto them; for this is the law and the prophets."

God has not only given us life, but he has filled the world witheverything to make life desirable; and when we sit down to determinethe taking away of that which we did not give, and which, whentaken away, we cannot restore, we consider a subject the most solemnand momentous within the range of human thought and human action.

Profoundly impressed with the innocence of our client, we enter uponthe last duty in her case with the heartfelt prayer that herhonorable judges may enjoy the satisfaction of not having a singledoubt left on their minds in granting her an acquittal, either as tothe testimony affecting her, or by the surrounding circ*mstances ofthe case.

The first point that naturally arises in the presentation of thedefense of our client is that which concerns the plea that has beenmade to the jurisdiction of the commission to try her—a pleawhich by no means implies anything against the intelligence,fairness, or integrity of the brilliant and distinguished officerswho compose the court, but merely touches the question of the rightof this tribunal, under the authority by which it is convoked. Thisbranch of her case is left to depend upon the argument alreadysubmitted by her senior counsel, the grande decus columenqueof his profession, and which is exhaustive of the subject on whichit treats. Therefore, in proceeding to the discussion of the meritsof the case against her, the jurisdiction of the court, for the sakeof argument, may be taken as conceded.

But, if it be granted that the jurisdiction is complete, the nextpreliminary inquiry naturally is as to the principles of evidence bywhich the great mass of accumulated facts is to be analyzed andweighed in the scales of justice and made to bias the minds of herjudges; and it may be here laid down as a concessum in the case,that we are here in this forum, constrained and concluded by thesame process, in this regard, that would bind and control us in anyother court of civil origin having jurisdiction over a crime such asis here charged. For it is asserted in all the books thatcourt-martial must proceed, so far as the acceptance and theanalysis of evidence is concerned, upon precisely those reasonablerules of evidence which time and experience, ab antiquo, survivingmany ages of judicial wisdom, have unalterably fixed as unerringguides in the administration of the criminal law. Upon this concededproposition it is necessary to consume time by the multiplication ofreferences. We are content with two brief citations from works ofacknowledged authority.

In Greenleaf it is laid down:—

"That courts-martial are bound, in general, to observe the rules ofthe law of evidence by which the courts of criminal jurisdiction aregoverned." (3 Greenleaf, section 467.)

This covers all the great general principles of evidence, the pointsof difference being wholly as to minor matters. And it is alsoaffirmed in Benet:—

"That it has been laid down as an indisputable principle, thatwhenever a legislative act erects a new jurisdiction, withoutprescribing any particular rules of evidence to it, the common lawwill supply its own rules, from which it will not allow suchnewly-erected court to depart. The rules of evidence, then, thatobtain in the criminal courts of the country must be the guides forthe courts-martial; the end sought for being the truth, these ruleslaid down for the attainment of that end must be intrinsically thesame in both cases. These rules constitute the law of evidence, andinvolve the quality, admissibility, and effect of evidence and itsapplication to the purposes of truth." (Benet, pp. 226, 327.)

Therefore, all the facts that tend against the accused, and allthose that mate for her, are to be weighed and are to operate uponher conviction or acquittal precisely as they would in a court oflaw. If they present a case such as would there convict her she maybe found guilty here; and if, on the other hand, the rules of lawupon these facts would raise any presumption or create any doubt, orforce any conclusions that would acquit her in a court of law, thenshe must be discharged, upon the same principles by the commission.This is a point which, in our judgment, we cannot too stronglyimpress upon the minds of her judges. The extraordinary characterof the crime—the assassination that removed from us the Presidentof the United States—makes it most desirable that the findings ofthis tribunal shall be so well founded in reason as to satisfy andsecure public confidence, and approval; for many of the mostmaterial objects of the prosecution, and some of the most importantends of justice, will be defeated and frustrated if convictions andacquittals, and more especially the former, shall be adjudged uponthe grounds that are notoriously insufficient.

Such a course of action would have a tendency to draw sympathy andsupport to the parties thus adjudged guilty, and would rob theresult of this investigation of the wholesome support ofprofessional and public opinion. The jurisdiction of thecommission, for example, is a matter that has already provokedconsiderable criticism and much warm disapproval; but in the case ofpersons clearly found to be guilty, the public mind would easilyoverlook any doubts that might exist as to the regularity of thecourt in the just sentence that would overtake acknowledgedcriminals. Thus, if Booth himself and a party of men clearlyproved, by ocular evidence or confession, to have aided him, werehere tried and condemned, and, as a consequence, executed, not muchstress, we think, would be laid by many upon the irregularity of themode by which they should reach that just death which all goodcitizens would affirm to be their deserts. But the case is fardifferent when it affects persons who are only suspected, or againstwhom the evidence is weak and imperfect; for, if citizens may bearraigned and convicted for so grievous an offense as this uponinsufficient evidence, every one will feel his own personal safetyinvolved, and the tendency would be to intensify public feelingsagainst the whole process of the trial. It would be felt and arguedthat they had been condemned upon evidence that would not haveconvicted them in a civil court, and that they had been deprived,therefore, of the advantage, which they would have had for theirdefense. Reproach and contumely upon the government would be thenatural result, and the first occasion would arise in all historyfor such demonstrations as would be sure to follow the condemnationof mere citizens, and particularly of a woman, upon evidence onwhich an acquittal would follow in a civil court. It is, therefore,not only a matter of the highest concern to the accused themselves,as a question of personal and private right, but also of greatimportance upon considerations of general public utility and policy,that the results of this trial, as affecting each of the accused,among them Mrs. Surratt, shall be rigidly held within the bounds andlimitations that would control in the premises, if the parties wereon trial in a civil court upon an indictment equivalent to thecharges and specifications here. Conceding, as we have said, thejurisdiction for the purpose of this branch of the argument, we holdto the principle first enunciated as the one great, all-important,and controlling rule that is to guide the commission in the findingsthey are now about to make. In order to apply this principle to thecase of our client, we do not propose to range through the generalrules of evidence with a view to seeing how they square with thefacts as proven against her. In the examination of the evidence indetail, many of these must from necessity be briefly alluded to; butthere is only one of them to which we propose in this place toadvert specifically, and that is the principle that may be justlysaid to lie at the foundation of all the criminal law—a principleso just, that it seems to have sprung from the brain of Wisdomherself, and so undoubted and universal as to stand upon therecognition of all the times and all the mighty intellects throughand by which the common law has been built up. We allude, ofcourse, to that principle which declares that "every man is held tobe innocent until he shall be proven guilty"—a principle sonatural that it has fastened itself upon the common reason ofmankind, and been immemorially adopted as a cardinal doctrine in allcourts of justice worthy of the name. It is by reason of this greatunderlying legal tenet that we are in possession of the rule of law,administered by all the courts, which, in mere technical expression,may be termed "the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused."And it is from hence that we derive that further application of thegeneral principle, which has also become a rule of law, and ofuniversal application wherever the common law is respected (and withwhich we have more particularly to deal), by which it is affirmed,in common language, that in any prosecution for crime "the accusedmust be acquitted where there is a reasonable doubt of his guilt."We hardly think it necessary to adduce authorities for this positionbefore any tribunal. In a civil court we certainly should waive thecitations, for the principle as stated would be assumed by any civiljudge and would, indeed, be the starting point for any investigationwhatever. Though a maxim so common and conceded, it is fortified bythe authority of all the great lights of the law. Before referenceis made to them, however, we wish to impress upon the minds of thecourt another and important rule to which we shall have occasion torefer:—

"The evidence in support of a conspiracy is generallycirc*mstantial" (Russell on Crimes, Vol. ii., 698.)

In regard to circ*mstantial evidence, all the best and ablestwriters, ancient and modern, agree in treating it as wholly inferiorin cogency, force, and effect, to direct evidence. And now for therule that must guide the jury in all cases of reasonable doubt:—

"If evidence leave reasonable ground for doubt, the conclusioncannot be morally certain, however great may be the preponderance ofprobability in its favor." (Wills on Circ*mstantial Evidence. LawLibrary, Vol. xli.)

"The burden of proof in every criminal case is on the government toprove all the material allegations in the indictment; and if, on thewhole evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt whether thedefendant is guilty of the crime charged, they are bound to acquithim. If the evidence lead to a reasonable doubt, that doubt willavail in favor of the prisoner." (1 Greenleaf, section 34—Note.)

Perhaps one of the best and clearest definitions of the meaning of a"reasonable doubt" is found in an opinion given in Dr. Webster'scase by the learned and accurate Chief-Justice of Massachusetts. Hesaid;—

"The evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonableand moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs theunderstanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who arebound to act conscientiously upon it." (Commonwealth versusWebster, 5 Cush., 320.)

Far back in the early history of English jurisprudence we find thatit was considered a most serious abuse of the common law, "thatjustices and their officers, who kill people by false judgment, benot destroyed as other murderers, which King Alfred caused to bedone, who caused forty-four justices in one year to be hanged fortheir false judgment. He hanged Freburne because he judged Harpin todie, whereas the jury were in doubt of their verdict; for indoubtful cases we ought rather to save than to condemn."

The spirit of the Roman law partook of the same care and caution inthe condemnation of those charged with crime. The maxim was:—

"Satius est impunitum relinqui facinus nocentis, quaminnocentem damnare."

That there may be no mistake concerning the fact that thiscommission is bound as a jury by these rules, the same as juries incivil courts, we again quote from Benet:—

"It is in the province of the court (court-martial) to decide allquestions on the admissibility of evidence. Whether there is anyevidence is a question for the court as judges, but whether theevidence is sufficient is a question for the court as jury todetermine, and this rule applies to the admissibility of every kindof evidence, written as well as oral." (Benet, pp. 225, 226.)

These citations may be indefinitely multiplied, for this principleis as true in the law as any physical fact in the exact sciences.It is not contended, indeed, that any degree of doubt must be of areasonable nature, so as to overset the moral evidence of guilt.A mere possibility of innocence will not suffice, for, upon humantestimony, no case is free from possible innocence. Even the moredirect evidence of crime may be possibly mistaken. But the doubtrequired by the law must be consonant with reason and of such anature that in analogous circ*mstances it would affect the action ofa reasonable creature concerning his own affairs. We may make thenature of such a doubt clearer to the court by alluding to a verycommon rule in the application of the general principle in certaincases, and the rule will readily appeal to the judgment of the courtas a remarkable and singularly beautiful example of the inexorablelogic with which the law applies its own unfailing reason.

Thus, in case of conspiracy, and some others, where many persons arecharged with joint crime, and where the evidence against most ofthem must, of necessity, be circ*mstantial, the plea of "reasonabledoubt" becomes peculiarly valuable to the separate accused, and themode in which it is held it can best be applied is the test whetherthe facts as proved, circ*mstantial, as supposed, can be made toconsist just as reasonably with a theory that is essentiallydifferent from the theory of guilt.

If, therefore, in the developments of the whole facts of aconspiracy, all the particular facts against a particular person canbe taken apart and shown to support a reasonable theory thatexcludes the theory of guilt, it cannot be denied that the moralproof of the latter is so shaken as to admit the rule concerning thepresumption of innocence. For surely no man should be made tosuffer because certain facts are proved against him, which areconsistent with guilt, when it can be shown that they are also, andmore reasonably, consistent with innocence. And, as touching theconspiracy here charged, we suppose there are hundreds of innocentpersons, acquaintances of the actual assassin, against whom, on thesocial rule of noscitur a sociis, mercifully set aside in law,many facts might be elicited that would corroborate a suspicion ofparticipation in his crime; but it would be monstrous that theyshould suffer from that theory when the same facts are rationallyexplainable on other theories.

The distinguished assistant judge advocate, Mr. Bingham, who hasbrought to the aid of the prosecution, in this trial, such ready andtrenchant astuteness in the law, has laid the following down as aninvariable rule, and it will pass into the books as such:—

"A party who conspires to do a crime may approach the most uprightman in the world with whom he had been, before the criminality wasknown to the world, on terms of intimacy, and whose position in theworld was such that he might be on terms of intimacy with reputablegentlemen. It is the misfortune of a man that is approached in thatway; it is not his crime, and it is not colorably his crime either."

This rule of construction, we humbly submit, in connection with thequestion of doubt, has a direct and most weighty bearing upon thecase of our client. Some indication of the mode in which we proposeto apply it may be properly stated here. Now, in all the evidence,there is not a shadow of direct and positive proof which connectsMrs. Surratt with a participation in this conspiracy alleged, orwith any knowledge of it. Indeed, considering the active part she ischarged with taking, and the natural communicativeness of her sex,the case is most singularly and wonderfully barren of evencirc*mstantial facts concerning her. But all there is, iscirc*mstantial. Nothing is proved against her except some fewdetached facts and circ*mstances lying around the outer circle ofthe alleged conspiracy, and by no means necessarily connected withguilty intent or guilty knowledge.

It becomes our duty to see:—

1. What these facts are.

2. The character of the evidence in support of them, and of the
witnesses by whom they are said to be proven. And,

3. Whether they are consistent with a reasonable theory by which
guilt is excluded.

We assume, of course, as a matter that does not require argument,that she has committed no crime at all, even if these facts beproved, unless there is the necessary express or implied criminalintent, for guilty knowledge and guilty intent are the constituentelements, the principles of all crime. The intent and malice, too,in her case, must be express, for the facts proved against her,taken in themselves, are entirely and perfectly innocent, and arenot such as give rise to a necessary implication of malice. Thiswill not be denied. Thus, when one commits a violent homicide, thelaw will presume the requisite malice; but when one only delivers amessage, which is an innocent act in itself, the guilty knowledge,malice, and intent, that are absolutely necessary to make it criminal,must be expressly proven before any criminal consequences can attachto it. And, to quote:—

"Knowledge and intent, when material, must be shown by theprosecutor." (Wharton's American Criminal Law, section 631.)

The intent to do a criminal act as defined by Bouvier implies andmeans a preconceived purpose and resolve and determination to committhe crime alleged. To quote again:—

"But the intent or guilty knowledge must be brought directly home tothe defendant." (Wharton's American Criminal Law, 635)

"When an act, in itself indifferent, becomes criminal, if done witha particular intent, then the intent must be proved and found," (3Greenleaf, section 13.)

In the light of these principles, let us examine the evidence as itaffects Mrs. Surratt. 1. What are the acts she has done? Thespecification against her, in the general charge, is as follows;—

"And in further prosecution of the said conspiracy, Mary E. Surrattdid, at Washington City, and within the military department andmilitary lines aforesaid, on or before the sixth day of March,A.D. 1865, and on divers other days and times between that day andthe twentieth of April, A.D. 1865, receive and entertain, harborand conceal, aid and assist, the said John Wilkes Booth, DavidE. Herold, Lewis Payne, John H. Surratt, Michael O'Laughlin, GeorgeA. Atzerodt, Samuel Arnold, and their confederates, with knowledgeof the murderous and traitorous conspiracy aforesaid, and withintent to aid, abet, and assist them in the execution thereof, andin escaping from justice after the murder of the said AbrahamLincoln, as aforesaid."

The first striking fact proved is her acquaintance with John WilkesBooth—that he was an occasional visitor at her house. From theevidence, if it can be relied on, it distinctly appears that thisacquaintance commenced the latter part of January, in the vicinageof three months only before the assassination of the President, and,with slight interruptions, it was continued down to the day of theassassination of the President. Whether he was first invited to thehouse and introduced to the family by Weichmann, John H. Surratt, orsome other person, the evidence does not disclose. When asked by thejudge advocate, "Whom did he call to see," the witness, Weichmann,responded, "He generally called for Mr. Surratt—John H. Surratt—and, in the absence of John H. Surratt, he would call forMrs. Surratt."

Before calling the attention of the commission to the next evidenceof importance against Mrs. Surratt, we desire to refresh therecollection of the court as to the time and manner, and by whom,according to the testimony of Lloyd, the carbines were first broughtto his (Lloyd's) house.

From the official record the following is taken:—

Question.—Will you state whether or not some five or six weeksbefore the assassination of the President, any or all of these menabout whom I have inquired came to your house?

Answer.—They were there.

Q.—All three together?

A.—Yes; John H. Surratt, Herold, and Atzerodt were there together.

Q.—What did they bring to your house, and what did they do there?

A.—When they drove up there in the morning, John H. Surratt andAtzerodt came first; they went from my house and went toward T. B.,a post office kept about five miles below there. They had not beengone more than half an hour when they returned with Herold; then thethree were together—Herold, Surratt, and Atzerodt.

Q.—What did they bring to your house?

A.—I saw nothing until they all three came into the bar-room, Inoticed one of the buggies—the one I supposed Herold was drivingor went down in—standing at the front gate. All three of them,when they came into the bar-room, drank, I think, and then JohnSurratt called me into the front parlor, and on the sofa were twocarbines, with ammunition. I think he told me they were carbines.

Q,—Anything besides the carbines and ammunition?

A,—There was also a rope and a monkey-wrench.

Q.—How long a rope?

A.—I cannot tell. It was a coil—a right smart bundle—probablysixteen to twenty feet.

Q.—Were those articles left at your house?

A.—Yes, sir; Surratt asked me to take care of them, to conceal thecarbines. I told him that there was no place to conceal them, and Idid not wish to keep such things in the house.

Q.—You say that he asked you to conceal those articles for him?

A.—Yes, sir; he asked me to conceal them. I told him there was noplace to conceal them. He then carried me into a room that I hadnever been in, which was just immediately above the store room, asit were, in the back building of the house. I had never been in thatroom previous to that time. He showed me where I could put them,underneath the joists of the house—the joists of the second floorof the main building. This little unfinished room will admit ofanything between the joists.

Q.—Were they put in that place?

A.—They were put in there according to his directions.

Q.—Were they concealed in that condition?

A.—Yes, sir: I put them in there. I stated to Colonel Wellsthrough mistake that Surratt put them there; but I put them in theremyself, I carried the arms up myself.

Q.—How much ammunition was there?

A.—One cartridge box.

Q.—For what purpose, and for how long, did he ask you to keepthese articles?

A.—I am very positive that he said that he would call for them ina few days. He said that he just wanted them to stay for a few daysand he would call for them.

It also appears in evidence against Mrs. Surratt, if the testimonyis to be relied on, that on the Tuesday previous to the murder ofthe President, the eleventh of April, she met John M. Lloyd, awitness for the prosecution, at Uniontown, when, the following tookplace:—

Question by the judge advocate:—Did she say anything to you inregard to those carbines?

Answer.—When she first broached the subject to me, I did not knowwhat she had reference to; then she came out plainer, and I am quitepositive she asked me about the "shooting irons." I am quitepositive about that, but not altogether positive. I think she named"shooting irons" or something to call my attention to those things,for I had almost forgot about their being there. I told her thatthey were hid away far back—that I was afraid that the housewould be searched, and they were shoved far back. She told me to getthem out ready; they would be wanted soon.

Q.—Was her question to you first, whether they were still there,or what was it?

A.—Really, I cannot recollect the first question she put to me. Icould not do it to save my life.

On the afternoon of the fourteenth of April, at about half-past fiveLloyd again met Mrs. Surratt, at Surrattsville, at which time,according to his version, she met him by the woodpile near the houseand told him to have those shooting irons ready that night as therewould be some parties calling for them, and that she gave himsomething wrapped in a piece of paper, and asked him to get twobottles of whisky ready also. This mesage to Mr. Lloyd is thesecond item of importance against Mrs. Surratt, and in support ofthe specification against her. The third and last fact that makesagainst her in the minds of the court is the one narrated by MajorH. W. Smith, a witness for the prosecution, who states that while atthe house of Mrs. Surratt, on the night of the seventeenth of April,assisting in making arrest of its inmates, the prisoner, Payne, camein. He (Smith) stepped to the door of the parlor and said,"Mrs. Surratt, will you step here a minute?" As Mrs. Surratt cameforward, he asked her this question, "Do you know this man?" Shereplied, quoting the witness's language, "Before God, sir, I do notknow this man, and I have never seen him." An addition to this isfound in the testimony of the same witness, as he was drawn out bythe judge advocate. The witness repeats the language ofMrs. Surratt, "Before God, sir, I do not know this man, and I havenever seen him, and did not hire him to dig a gutter for me." Thefact of the photographs and card of the State arms of Virginia haveceased to be of the slightest importance, since the explanationsgiven in evidence concerning them, and need not be alluded to. Ifthere is any doubt as to whom they all belonged, reference to thetestimony of Misses Surratt and Fitzpatrick will settle it.

These three circ*mstances constitute the part played by the accused,Mary E. Surratt, in this great conspiracy. They are the acts shehas done. They are all that two months of patient and unwearyinginvestigation, and the most thorough search for evidence that wasprobably ever made, have been able to develop against her. Theacquaintance with Booth, the message to Lloyd, the nonrecognition ofPayne, constitute the sum total of her receiving, entertaining,harboring and concealing, aiding and assisting those named asconspirators and their confederates, with knowledge of the murderousand traitorous conspiracy; and with intent to aid, abet, and assistthem in the execution thereof, and in escaping from justice. Theacts she has done, in and of themselves are perfectly innocent. Ofthemselves they constitute no crime. They are what you or I or anyof us might have done. She received and entertained Booth, theassassin, and so did a hundred others. She may have delivered amessage to Lloyd—so have a hundred others. She might have saidshe did not know Payne—and who within the sound of my voice cansay they know him now? They are ordinary and commonplacetransactions, such as occur every day and to almost everybody. Butas all the case against her must consist in the guilty intent thatwill be attempted to be connected with these facts, we now proposeto show that they are not so clearly proven as to free them fromgreat doubt, and, therefore, we will inquire:—

2. How are these acts proven? Solely by the testimony of LouisJ. Weichmann and John M. Lloyd. Here let us state that we have nomalice toward either of them, but if in the analysis of theirevidence we should seem to be severe, it is that error and duplicitymay be exposed and innocence protected.

We may start out with the proposition that a body of men bandedtogether for the consummation of an unlawful act against thegovernment, naturally would not disclose their purpose and holdsuspicious consultations concerning it in the presence continuallyof an innocent party. In the light of this fair presumption let uslook at the acts of Weichmann, as disclosed by his own testimony.Perhaps the most singular and astonishing fact that is made toappear is his omnipresence and co-action with those declared to beconspirators, and his professed and declared knowledge of all theirplans and purposes. His acquaintance with John H. Surratt commencedin the fall of 1859, at St. Charles, Maryland. In January 1863 herenewed his acquaintance with him in this city. On the first ofNovember, 1864, he took board and lodging with Mrs. Surratt at herhouse, No. 541 H. Street, in this city. If this testimony iscorrect, he was introduced to Booth on the fifteenth day of January,1865. At this first, very first meeting, he was invited to Booth'sroom at the National, where he drank wine and took cigars at Booth'sexpense. After consultation about something in an outer passagebetween Booth and the party alleged to be with him by Weichmann,they all came into the room, and for the first time business wasproceeded with in his presence. After that he met Booth inMrs. Surratt's parlor and in his own room, and had conversationswith him. As near as Weichmann recollects, about three weeks afterhis introduction he met the prisoner, Atzerodt, at Mrs. Surratt's.(How Atzerodt was received at the house will be referred to.) Aboutthe time that Booth played Pescara in the 'Apostate' at Ford'sTheatre, Weichmann attended the theatre in company with Surratt andAtzerodt. At the theatre they were joined by Herold. JohnT. Holohan, a gentleman not suspected of complicity in the greattragedy, also joined the company at the theatre. After the play wasover, Surratt, Holohan, and himself went as far as the corner ofTenth and E Streets, when Surratt, noticing that Atzerodt and Heroldwere not with them, sent Weichmann back for them. He found them ina restaurant with Booth, by whose invitation Weichmann took a drink.After that the entire party went to Kloman's, on Seventh Street, andhad some oysters. The party there separated, Surratt, Weichmann,and Holohan going home. In the month of March last the prisoner,Payne, according to Weichmann, went to Mrs. Surratt's house andinquired for John H. Surratt. "I, myself," says Weichmann, "went toopen the door, and he inquired for Mr. Surratt I told himMr. Surratt was not at home; but I would introduce him to thefamily, and did introduce him to Mrs. Surratt—under the name ofWood." What more? By Weichmann's request Payne remained in thehouse all night. He had supper served him in the privacy ofWeichmann's own room. More than that, Weichmann went down into thekitchen and got the supper and carried it up to him himself, and asnearly as he recollects, it was about eight weeks previous to theassassination; Payne remained as Weichmann's guest until the nestmorning, when he left on the early train for Baltimore. About threeweeks after that Payne called again. Says Weichmann, "I again wentto the door, and I again ushered him into the parlor." But he addsthat he had forgotten his name, and only recollected that he hadgiven the name of Wood on the former visit, when one of the ladiescalled Payne by that name. He who had served supper to Payne in hisown room, and had spent a night with him, could not recollect forthree weeks the common name of "Wood," but recollects with suchdistinctness and particularity scenes and incidents of much greaterage, and by which he is jeopardizing the lives of others. Payneremained that time about three days, representing himself to thefamily as a Baptist preacher; claiming that he had been in prison inBaltimore for about a week; that he had taken the oath of allegianceand was going to become a good loyal citizen. To Mrs. Surratt thisseemed eccentric, and she said "he was a great-looking Baptistpreacher." "They looked upon it as odd and laughed about it." Itseemed from Weichmann's testimony that he again shared his room withPayne. Returning from his office one day, and finding a falsemustache on the table in his room, he took it and threw it into histoilet box, and afterward put it with a box of paints into histrunk. The mustache was subsequently found in Weichmann's baggage.When Payne, according to Weichmann's testimony, inquired, "Where ismy mustache?" Weichmann said nothing, but "thought it rather queerthat a Baptist preacher should wear a false mustache." He says thathe did not want it about his room—"thought no honest person had anyreason to wear a false mustache," and as no "honest person" shouldbe in possession of it, he locked it up in his own trunk. Weichmannprofesses throughout his testimony the greatest regard andfriendship for Mrs. Surratt and her son. Why did he not go toMrs. Surratt and communicate his suspicions at once? She, aninnocent and guileless woman, not knowing what was occurring in herown house; he, the friend, coming into possession of importantfacts, and not making them known to her, the head of the household,but claiming now, since this overwhelming misfortune has fallen uponMrs. Surratt, that, while reposing in the very bosom of the familyas a friend and confidant, he was a spy and an informer, and, that,we believe, is the best excuse the prosecution is able to make forhim. His account and explanation of the mustache would be treatedwith contemptuous ridicule in a civil court.

But this is not all. Concede Weichmann's account of the mustache tobe true, and if it was not enough to rouse his suspicions that allwas not right, he states that, on the same day, he went to Surratt'sroom and found Payne seated on the bed with Surratt, playing withbowie knives, and surrounded with revolvers and spurs. Miss HonoraFitzpatrick testifies that Weichmann was treated by Mrs. Surratt"more like a son than a friend." Poor return for motherly care!Guilty knowledge and participation in crime or in wild schemes forthe capture of the President would be a good excuse for not makingall this known to Mrs. Surratt. In speaking of the spurs andpistols, Weichmann knew that there were just eight spurs and twolong navy revolvers. Bear in mind, we ask you, gentlemen of thecommission, that there is no evidence before you showing thatMrs. Surratt knew anything about these things. It seems farther on,about the nineteenth of March, that Weichmann went to the HerndonHouse with Surratt to engage a room. He says that he afterwardslearned from Atzerodt that it was for Payne, but contradicts himselfin the same breath by stating that he inquired of Atzerodt if hewere going to see Payne at the Herndon House. His intimateknowledge of Surratt's movements between Richmond and Washington,fixing the dates of the trips with great exactitude; of Surratt'sbringing gold back; of Surratt's leaving on the evening of the thirdof April for Canada, spending his last moments here with Weichmann;of Surratt's telling Weichmann about his interview with Davis andBenjamin—in all this knowledge concerning himself and hisassociations with those named as conspirators he is no doubttruthful, as far as his statements extend; but when he comes toapply some of this knowledge to others, he at once shakes all faithin his testimony bearing upon the accused.

"Do you remember," the question was asked him, "early in the monthof April, of Mrs. Surratt having sent for you and asking you to giveMr. Booth notice that she wished to see him?"

Weichmann stated in his reply that she did, that it was on thesecond of April, and that he found in Mr. Booth's room JohnMcCullough, the actor, when he delivered the message. One of twothings to which he swears in this statement cannot be true; 1. Thathe met John McCullough in Booth's room, for we have McCullough'ssworn statement that at that time he was not in the city ofWashington, and if, when he delivered the message to Booth,McCullough was in the room, it could not have been the second ofApril.

ST. LAWRENCE HALL. MONTREAL, June 3. 1865.

I am an actor by profession, at present fulfilling an engagement atMr. Buckland's theatre, in this city. I arrived here on the twelfthof May. I performed two engagements at Ford's Theatre in Washington,during the past winter, the last one closing on Saturday evening,twenty-fifth of March. I left Washington Sunday evening,twenty-sixth of March, and have not been there since. I have norecollection of meeting any person by the name of Weichmann.—John McCullough.

Sworn to and before me, at the United States Consulate General's, in
Montreal, this third day of June, A.D. 1865.
C. H. POWERS, U. S. Vice Consul-General.

If he can be so mistaken about those facts, may he not be in regardto that whole transaction? It is also proved by Weichmann thatbefore Mrs. Surratt started for the country, on the fourteenth ofApril, Booth called; that he remained three or four minutes, andthen Weichmann and Mrs. Surratt started for the country.

All this comes out on his first examination in chief. The followingis also told in his first cross-examination: Mrs. Surratt keeps aboarding house in this city, and was in the habit of renting out herrooms, and that he was upon very intimate terms with Surratt; thatthey occupied the same room; that when he and Mrs. Surratt went toSurrattsville on the fourteenth, she took two packages, one ofpapers, the contents of the other were not known. That persons havebeen in the habit of going to Mrs. Surratt's and staying a day ortwo; that Atzerodt stopped in the house only one night; that thefirst time Payne came to the house he was dressed genteelly, like agentleman; that he heard both Mrs. Surratt and her daughter say thatthey did not care about having Atzerodt brought to the house; and atthe conclusion, in swearing as to Mrs. Surratt's character, he saidit was exemplary and lady-like in every respect, and apparently, asfar as he could judge, she was all the time, from the first ofNovember up to the fourteenth of April, "doing her duties to God andman." It also distinctly appears that Weichmann never had anyconversation with Mrs. Surratt touching any conspiracy. One thingis apparent to our minds, and it is forced upon us, as it must beupon every reasonable mind, that in order to have gained all thisknowledge Weichmann must have been within the inner circle of theconspiracy. He knows too much for an innocent man, and theconclusion is perfectly irresistible that if Mrs. Surratt hadknowledge of what was going on, and had been, with others, aparticeps criminis in the great conspiracy, she certainly wouldhave done more than she did or has been shown against her, andWeichmann would have known it. How does her nonrecognition ofPayne, her acquaintance with Booth, and the delivery of the messageto Lloyd, compare with the long and startling array of facts provedagainst Weichmann out of his own mouth? All the facts pointstrongly to him as a co-conspirator.

Is there a word on record of conversation between Booth andMrs. Surratt? That they did converse together, we know; but ifanything treasonable had passed between them, would not the quickears of Weichmann have caught it, and would not he have recited itto this court?

When Weichmann went, on Tuesday, the eleventh of April, to getBooth's buggy, he was not asked by Mrs. Surratt to get tendollars. It was proffered by Booth, according to Weichmann, andhe took it. If Mrs. Surratt ever got money from Booth she paidit back to him. It is not her character to be in anyone's debt.

There was no intimacy with Booth, as Mrs. Surratt has proved, butonly common acquaintance, and such as would warrant only occasionalcalls on Booth's part, and only intimacy would have excusedMrs. Surratt to herself in accepting such a favor, had it been madeknown to her. Moreover, Miss Surratt has attested to remarks of herbrother, which prove that intimacy of Booth with his sister andmother were not considered desirable by him.

The preceding facts are proven by statements made by Weichmannduring his first examination. But, as though the commission had notsufficiently exposed the character of one of its chief witnesses inthe role of grand conspirator, Weichmann is recalled and furtherattests to the genuineness of the following telegram:

NEW YORK, March 23d, 1865.—To WEICHMANN, Esq., 541 H St.—Tell Johntelegraph number and street at once. [Signed] J. BOOTH.

What additional proof of confidential relations between Weichmannand Booth could the court desire? If there was a conspiracy plannedand maintained among the persons named in the indictment, Weichmannmust have had entire knowledge of the same, else he had not beenadmitted to that degree of knowledge to which he testifies; and insuch case, and in the alleged case of Mrs. Surratt's complicity,Weichmann must have known the same by circ*mstances strong enough toexclude doubt, and in comparison with which all present facts ofaccusation would sink into insignificance.

We proceed to the notice and review of the second chief witness ofthe prosecution against Mrs. Surratt, John M. Lloyd. He testifiesto the fact of a meeting with Mrs. Surratt at Uniontown on theeleventh of April, 1865, and to a conversation having occurredbetween Mrs. Surratt and himself in regard to which he states: "I amquite positive she asked me about the 'shooting irons'; I am quitepositive about that, but not altogether positive. I think she namedshooting irons, or something to call my attention to those things,for I had almost forgotten about their being there." Question.—"Was her question to you first, whether they were there, or what wasit?" Answer.—"Really, I cannot recollect the first question sheput to me—I could not do it to save my life." The question wasasked Lloyd, During this conversation, was the word 'carbine'mentioned? He answered, "No. She finally came out (but I cannot bedetermined about it, that she said shooting irons), and asked me inrelation to them." The question was then asked, "Can you swear onyour oath, that Mrs. Surratt mentioned the words 'shooting irons'to you at all?" A.—"I am very positive she did." Q. __ "Are youcertain?" A.—"I am very positive that she named shooting ironson both occasions. Not so positive as to the first as I am aboutthe last."

Here comes in the plea of "reasonable doubt." If the witness himselfis not absolutely positive as to what occurred, and as to theconversation that took place, how can the jury assume to act upon itas they would upon a matter personally concerning themselves?

On this occasion of Mrs. Surratt's visit to Uniontown, three daysbefore the assassination, where she met Lloyd, and where thisconversation occurred between them, at a time when Lloyd was, bypresumption, sober and not intoxicated, he declares definitelybefore the commission that he is unable to recollect theconversation, or parts of it, with distinctness. But on thefourteenth of April, and at a time when, as testified by hissister-in-law, he was more than ordinarily affected by intoxicatingdrink,—and Captain Gwynn, James Lusby, Knott, the barkeeper, andothers, corroborate the testimony as to his absolute inebriation—he attests that he positively remembers that Mrs. Surratt said tohim, "'Mr. Lloyd, I want you to have those shooting ironsready. That a person would call for them.' That was the languageshe made use of, and she gave me this other thing to give to whoevercalled."

In connection with the fact that Lloyd cannot swear positively thatMrs. Surratt mentioned "shooting irons" to him at Uniontown, bearin mind the fact that Weichmann sat in the buggy on the same seatwith Mrs. Surratt, and he swears that he heard nothing about"shooting irons." Would not the quick ears of Weichmann have heardthe remark had it been made?

The gentlemen of the commission will please recollect that thesestatements were rendered by a man addicted to excessive use ofintoxicating liquors; that he was even inordinately drunk at thetime referred to; that he had voluntarily complicated himself in theconcealment of the arms by John H. Surratt and his friends; that hewas in a state of maudlin terror when arrested and when forced toconfess; that for two days he maintained denial of all knowledgethat Booth and Herold had been at his house; and that at last, andin the condition referred to, he was coerced by threats to confess,and into a weak and common effort to exculpate himself by theaccusation of another and by statements of conversation alreadycited. Notwithstanding his utter denial of all knowledge of Boothand Herold having called at his house, it afterward appears, by hisown testimony, that immediately Herold commanded him (Lloyd) "ForGod's sake, make haste and get those things," he comprehended what"things" were indicated, without definition, and brought forth bothcarbines and whisky. He testifies that John H. Surratt had toldhim, when depositing the weapons in concealment in his house, thatthey would soon be called for, but did not instruct him, it seems,by whom they would be demanded.

All facts connecting Lloyd with the case tend to his implication andguilt, and to prove that he adopted the dernier ressort of guilt—accusation and inculpation of another. In case Lloyd were innocentand Mrs. Surratt the guilty coadjutrix and messenger of theconspirators, would not Lloyd have been able to cite so many openand significant remarks and acts of Mrs. Surratt that he would nothave been obliged to recall, in all perversion and weakness ofuncertainty, deeds and speech so common and unmeaning as histestimony includes?

It is upon these considerations that we feel ourselves safe andreasonable in the position that there are facts and circ*mstances,both external and internal, connected with the testimony ofWeichmann and Lloyd, which, if they do not destroy, do certainlygreatly shake their credibility, and which, under the rule that willgive Mrs. Surratt the benefit of all reasonable doubts, seem toforbid that she should be convicted upon the unsupported evidence ofthese two witnesses. But even admitting the facts to be proven asabove recited, it remains to be seen where is the guilty knowledgeof the contemplated assassination; and this brings us to the inquirywhether these facts are not explainable so as to exclude guilt.

From one of the most respected of legal authorities the following istaken:—

"Whenever, therefore, the evidence leaves it indifferent which ofseveral hypotheses is true, or merely establishes some finiteprobability in favor of one hypothesis rather than another, suchevidence cannot amount to proof. The maxim of the law is that it isbetter that ninety-nine offenders should escape than that oneinnocent man should be condemned." (Starkie on Evidence.)

The acts of Mrs. Surratt must have been accompanied with criminalintent in order to make them criminal. If any one supposes that anysuch intent existed, the supposition comes alone from inference. Ifdisloyal acts and constant disloyal practices, if overt and openaction against the government, on her part, had been shown down tothe day of the murder of the President, it would do something towardestablishing the inference of criminal intent. On the other hand,just the reverse is shown. The remarks here of the learned andhonorable judge advocate are peculiarly appropriate to this branchof the discussion, and, with his authority, we waive all others.

"If the court please, I will make a single remark. I think thetestimony in this case has proved, what I believe historysufficiently attests, how kindred to each other are the crimes oftreason against a nation and the assassination of its chiefmagistrate. As I think of those crimes, the one seems to be, if notthe necessary consequence, certainly a logical sequence from theother. The murder of the President of the United States, as allegedand shown, was preeminently a political assassination. Disloyalty tothe government was its sole, its only inspiration. When, therefore,we shall show, on the part of the accused, acts of intensedisloyalty, bearing arms in the field against that government, weshow, with him, the presence of an animus toward the governmentwhich relieves this accusation of much, if not all, of itsimprobability. And this course of proof is constantly resorted to incriminal courts. I do not regard it as in the slightest degree adeparture from the usages of the profession in the administration ofpublic justice. The purpose is to show that the prisoner, in hismind and course of life, was prepared for the commission of thiscrime: that the tendencies of his life, as evidenced by open andovert acts, lead and point to this crime, if not as a necessary,certainly as a most probable, result, and it is with that view, andthat only, that the testimony is offered."

Is there anything in Mrs. Surratt's mind and course of life to showthat she was prepared for the commission of this crime? Thebusiness transaction by Mrs. Surratt at Surrattsville, on thefourteenth, clearly discloses her only purpose in making this visit.Calvert's letters, the package of papers relating to the estate, thebusiness with Nothe, would be sufficiently clear to most minds, whenadded to the fact that the other unknown package had been handed toMrs, Offutt; that, while at Surrattsville, she made an inquiry for,or an allusion to, Mr. Lloyd, and was ready to return to Washingtonwhen Lloyd drove up to the house. Does not this open wide the doorfor the admission of the plea of "reasonable doubt"? Had she reallybeen engaged in assisting in the great crime, which makes an epochin our country's history, her only object and most anxious wishwould have been to see Lloyd. It was no ruse to transact importantbusiness there to cover up what the uncharitable would call the realbusiness. Calvert's letter was received by her on the forenoon ofthe fourteenth, and long before she saw Booth that day, or evenbefore Booth knew that the President would be at the theatre thatnight, Mrs. Surratt had disclosed her intention to go toSurrattsville, and had she been one moment earlier in her start shewould not have seen Booth at all. All these things furnish powerfulpresumptions in favor of the theory that, if she delivered themessage at all, it was done innocently.

In regard to the nonrecognition of Payne, the third fact adduced bythe prosecution against Mrs. Surratt, we incline to the opinionthat, to all minds not forejudging, the testimony of Miss AnnaE. Surratt, and various friends and servants of Mrs. Surratt,relative to physical causes, might fully explain and account forsuch ocular remissness and failure. In times and on occasions ofcasual meeting of intimate acquaintances on the street, and ofcommon need for domestic uses, the eyesight of Mrs. Surratt hadproved treacherous and failing. How much more liable to fail herwas her imperfect vision on an occasion of excitement and anxiety,like the night of her arrest and the disturbance of her household bymilitary officers, and when the person with whom she was confrontedwas transfigured by a disguise which varied from the one in whichshe had previously met him, with all the wide difference between aBaptist parson and an earth-soiled, uncouthly-dressed digger ofgutters! Anna E. Surratt, Emma Offutt, Anna Ward, Elize Holohan,Honora Fitzpatrick, and a servant, attest to all the visualincapacity of Mrs. Surratt, and the annoyance she experiencedtherefrom in passing friends without recognition in the daytime, andfrom inability to sew or read even on a dark day, as well as atnight. The priests of her church, and gentlemen who have beenfriendly and neighborhood acquaintances of Mrs. Surratt for manyyears, bear witness to her untarnished name, to her discreet andChristian character, to the absence of all imputation of disloyalty,to her character for patriotism. Friends and servants attest to hervoluntary and gratuitous beneficence to our soldiers stationednear her; and, "in charges for high treason, it is pertinent toinquire into the humanity of the prisoner toward those representingthe government," is the maxim of the law; and, in addition, weinvite your attention to the singular fact that of the two officerswho bore testimony in this matter, one asserts that the hall whereinPayne sat was illuminated with a full head of gas; the other, thatthe gaslight was purposely dimmed. The uncertainty of the witnesswho gave the testimony relative to the coat of Payne may also becalled to your notice.

Should not this valuable testimony of loyal and moral charactershield a woman from the ready belief, on the part of judges whojudge her worthiness in every way, that during the few moments Boothdetained Mrs. Surratt from her carriage, already waiting, when heapproached and entered the house, she became so converted todiabolical evil as to hail with ready assistance his terrible plot,which must have been framed (if it were complete in his intent atthat hour, half-past two o'clock), since the hour of eleven thatday?

If any part of Lloyd's statements is true, and Mrs. Surratt didverily bear to his or Mrs. Offutt's hands the field glass, envelopedin paper, by the evidence itself we may believe she knew not thenature of the contents of the package; and had she known, what evilcould she or any other have attached to a commission of so common anature? No evidence of individual or personal intimacy with Boothhas been adduced against Mrs. Surratt; no long and apparentlyconfidential interviews; no indications of a private comprehensionmutual between them; only the natural and not frequent custom on thepart of Booth—as any other associate of her son might anddoubtless did do—of inquiring through the mother, whom he wouldrequest to see, of the son, who, he would learn, was absent fromhome. No one has been found who could declare any appearance of thenursing or mysteriously discussing of anything like conspiracywithin the walls of Mrs. Surratt's house. Even if the son ofMrs. Surratt, from the significancies of associations, is to beclassed with the conspirators, if such a body existed, it ismonstrous to suppose that the son would weave a net of circ*mstantialevidences around the dwelling of his widowed mother, were he neverso reckless and sin-determined; and that they (the mother and theson) joined hands in such dreadful pact, is a thought more monstrousstill!

A mother and son associate in crime, and such a crime as this, whichhalf of the civilized world never saw matched in all its dreadfulbearings! Our judgments can have hardly recovered their unprejudicedpoise since the shock of the late horror, if we can contemplate withcredulity such a picture, conjured by the unjust spirits ofindiscriminate accusation and revenge. A crime which, in its publicmagnitude, added to its private misery, would have driven even theAtis-haunted heart of a Medici, a Borgia, or a Madame Bocarme towild confession before its accomplishment, and daunted even thatsoul, of all the recorded world the most eager for novelty inlicense, and most unshrinking in sin—the indurated soul ofChristina of Sweden; such a crime the profoundest plotters withinpadded walls would scarcely dare whisper; the words forming theexpression of which, spoken aloud in the upper air, would convertall listening boughs to aspens, and all glad sounds of nature toshuddering wails. And this made known, even surmised, to a woman amaterfamilias the good genius, the placens uxor of a home wherechildren had gathered all the influences of purity and thereminiscences of innocence, where religion watched, and the Churchwas minister and teacher!

Who—were circ*mstantial evidence strong and conclusive, such asonly time and the slow-weaving fates could elucidate and deny—whowill believe, when the mists of uncertainty which cloud the presentshall have dissolved, that a woman born and bred in respectabilityand competence—a Christian mother, and a citizen who neveroffended the laws of civil propriety; whose unfailing attention tothe most sacred duties of life has won for her the name of "a properChristian matron"; whose heart was ever warmed by charity; whosedoor unbarred to the poor; and whose Penates had never cause to veiltheir faces—who will believe that she could so suddenly and sofully have learned the intricate arts of sin? A daughter of theSouth, her life associations confirming her natal predilections, herindividual preferences inclined, without logic or question, to theSouthern people, but with no consciousness nor intent of disloyaltyto her government, and causing no exclusion from her friendship andactive favors of the people of the loyal North, nor repugnance inthe distribution among our Union soldiery of all needed comforts,and on all occasions.

A strong but guileless-hearted woman, her maternal solicitude wouldhave been the first denouncer, even the abrupt betrayer of a plottedcrime in which one companion of her son could have been implicated,had cognizance of such reached her. Her days would have beenagonized, and her nights sleepless, till she might have exposed andcounteracted that spirit of defiant hate which watched its moment ofvantage to wreak an immortal wrong—till she might have sought theintercession and absolution of the Church, her refuge, in behalf ofthose she loved. The brains which were bold and crafty and couchantenough to dare the world's opprobrium in the conception of a schemewhich held as naught the lives of men in highest places, would neverhave imparted it to the intelligence, nor sought the aid norsympathy, of any living woman who had not, like Lady Macbeth,"unsexed herself"—not though she were wise and discreet as MariaTheresa or the Castilian Isabella. This woman knew it not. Thiswoman, who, on the morning preceding that blackest day in ourcountry's annals, knelt in the performance of her most sincere andsacred duty at the confessional, and received the mystic rite of theEucharist, knew it not. Not only would she have rejected it withhorror, but such a proposition, presented by the guest who had satat her hearth as the friend and convive of the son upon whose armand integrity her widowed womanhood relied for solace andprotection, would have roused her maternal wits to some sure cunningwhich would have contravened the crime and sheltered her son fromthe evil influences and miserable results of such companionship.

The mothers of Charles IX. and of Nero could harbor underneath theirterrible smiles schemes for the violent and unshriven deaths, or themoral vitiation and decadence which would painfully and graduallyremove lives sprung from their own, were they obstacles to theirdemoniac ambition. But they wrought their awful romances of crime inlands where the sun of supreme civilization, through a gorgeousevening of Sybaritic luxury, was sinking, with red tints ofrevolution, into the night of anarchy and national caducity. In ourown young nation, strong in its morality, energy, freedom, andsimplicity, assassination can never be indigenous. Even among thedesperadoes and imported lazzaroni of our largest cities, it iscomparatively an infrequent cause of fear.

The daughters of women to whom, in their yet preserved abodes, thenoble mothers who adorned the days of our early independence arevividly remembered realities and not haunting shades—thedescendants of earnest seekers for liberty, civil and religious, ofrare races, grown great in heroic endurance, in purity which comesof trial borne, and in hope born of conscious right, whom the wheelsof fortune sent hither to transmit such virtues—the descendantsof these have no heart, no ear for the diabolisms born in hotbeds oftyranny and intolerance. No descendant of these—no woman of thistemperate land—could have seen, much less joined, her son,descending the sanguinary and irrepassable ways of treason andmurder to an ignominious death, or an expatriated and attaintedlife, worse than the punishing wheel and bloody pool of the poets'hell.

In our country, where reason and moderation so easily quench thefires of insane hate, and where the vendetta is so easily overcomeby the sublime grace of forgiveness, no woman could have been foundso desperate as to sacrifice all spiritual, temporal, and socialgood, self, offspring, fame, honor, and all the desiderata of life,and time, and immortality, to the commission, or even countenance,of such a deed of horror, as we have been compelled to contemplateduring the two months past.

In a Christian land, where all records and results of the world'sintellectual, civil, and moral advancement mold the human heart andmind to highest impulses, the theory of old Helvetius is moreprobable than desirable.

The natures of all born in equal station are not so widely varied asto present extremes of vice and goodness, but by the effects of rarestand severest experience. Beautiful fairies and terrible gnomes do notstand by each infant's cradle, sowing the nascent mind with tenderestgraces or vilest errors. The slow attrition of vicious associationsand law-defying indulgences, or the sudden impetus of some terriblymultiplied and social disaster, must have worn away the susceptibilityof conscience and self-respect, or dashed the mind from the height ofthese down to the depths of despair and recklessness, before one ofordinary life could take counsel with violence and crime. In no suchmanner was the life of our client marked. It was the parallel ofnearly all the competent masses. Surrounded by the scenes of herearliest recollections, independent in her condition she was satisfiedwith the mundus of her daily pursuits, and the maintenance of her ownand children's status in society and her Church.

Remember your wives, mothers, sisters, and gentle friends whosegraces, purity, and careful affection, ornament and cherish andstrengthen your lives. Not widely different from their natures andspheres have been the nature and sphere of the woman who sits in theprisoner's dock to-day, mourning with the heart of Alcestis herchildren and her lot; by whose desolated hearthstone a solitarydaughter wastes her uncomforted life away in tears and prayers andvigils for the dawn of hope; and this wretchedness and unpitieddespair have closed like a shadow around one of earth's commonpictures of domestic peace and social comfort, destroyed by the onesole cause—suspicion fastened and fed upon the facts ofacquaintance and mere fortuitous intercourse with that man in whosename so many miseries gather, the assassin of the President.

Since the days when Christian teachings first elevated woman to herpresent free, refined, and refining position, man's power andhonoring regard have been the palladium of her sex.

Let no stain of injustice, eager for a sacrifice to revenge, restupon the reputation of the men of our country and time!

This woman, who, widowed of her natural protectors, who, inhelplessness and painfully severe imprisonment, in sickness and ingrief ineffable, sues for mercy and justice from your hands, mayleave a legacy of blessings, sweet as fruition-hastening showers,for those you love and care for, in return for the happiness of fameand home restored, though life be abbreviated and darkened throughthis world by the miseries of this unmerited and woeful trial. Butlong and chilling is the shade which just retribution, slow creepingon, ped claudo, casts around the fate of him whose heart ismerciless to his fellows bowed low in misfortune.

ALBERTUS MAGNUS (1205-1280)

Albert the Great (Albertus Magnus), teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas,was one of the most celebrated orators and theologians of the Churchin the thirteenth century. He was born at Lauingen on the Danube in1205 (according to some in 1193), and, becoming a Dominican at theage of twenty-nine, he taught in various German cities withcontinually increasing celebrity, until finally the Pope called himto preach in Rome. In 1260 he was made Bishop of Ratisbon, but afterthree years resigned the bishopric and returned to his work in theranks of the clergy. While teaching at Cologne he suddenly lost hismemory, probably as a result of his excessive studies. He diedNovember 15th, 1280. He was placed on the calendar of saints in1615. His works, collected by Peter Jammy, and published at Lyons in1651, make twenty-one volumes, folio.

THE MEANING OF THE CRUCIFIXION

It was surrounded by the thick wreath of thorns even to the tenderbrain. Whence in the Prophet,—the people hath surrounded me withthe thorns of sin. And why was this, save that thine own head mightnot suffer—thine own conscience might not be wounded? His eyesgrew dark in death; and those lights, which give light to the world,were for a time extinguished. And when they were clouded, there wasdarkness over all the earth, and with them the two great lights ofthe firmament were moved, to the end that thine eyes might be turnedaway, lest they should behold vanity; or, if they chance to beholdit, might for his sake condemn it. Those ears, which in heavenunceasingly hear "Holy, Holy, Holy," vouchsafed on earth to befilled with: "Thou hast a devil,—Crucify him, Crucify him!" tothe intent that thine ears might not be deaf to the cry of the poor,nor, open to idle tales, should readily receive the poison ofdetraction or of adulation. That fair face of him that was fairerthan the children of men, yea, than thousands of angels, wasbedaubed with spitting, afflicted with blows, given up to mockery,to the end that thy face might be enlightened, and, beingenlightened, might be strengthened, so that it might be said ofthee, "His countenance is no more changed." That mouth, whichteaches angels and instructs men "which spake and it was done," wasfed with gall and vinegar, that thy mouth might speak the truth, andmight be opened to the praise of the Lord; and it was silent, lestthou shouldst lightly lend thy tongue to the expression of anger.

Those hands, which stretched abroad the heavens, were stretched outon the cross and pierced with most bitter nails; as saith Isaiah, "Ihave stretched forth my hands all the day to an unbelieving people."And David, "They pierced my hands and my feet; I may tell all mybones." And Saint Jerome says, "We may, in the stretching forth ofhis hands, understand the liberality of the giver, who deniethnothing to them that ask lovingly; who restored health to the leperthat requested it of him; enlightened him that was blind from hisbirth; fed the hungry multitude in the wilderness." And again hesays, "The stretched-out hands denote the kindness of the parent,who desires to receive his children to his breast." And thus let thyhands be so stretched out to the poor that thou mayest be able tosay, "My soul is always in my hand." For that which is held in thehand is not easily forgotten. So he may be said to call his soul tomemory, who carries it, as it were, in his hands through the goodopinion that men conceive of it. His hands were fixed, that they mayinstruct thee to hold back thy hands, with the nails of fear, fromunlawful or harmful works.

That glorious breast, in which are hidden all the treasures ofwisdom and knowledge, is pierced with the lance of a soldier, to theend that thy heart might be cleansed from evil thoughts, and beingcleansed might be sanctified, and being sanctified might bepreserved. The feet, whose footstool the Prophets commanded to besanctified, were bitterly nailed to the cross, lest thy feet shouldsustain evil, or be swift to shed blood; but, running in the way ofthe Lord, stable in his path, and fixed in his road, might not turnaside to the right hand nor to the left. "What could have been donemore?"

Why did Christ bow his head on the cross? To teach us that byhumility we must enter into Heaven. Also, to show that we must restfrom our own work. Also, that he might comply with the petition,"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth"; also that he mightask permission of his bride to leave her. Of great virtue is thememory of the Lord's passion, which, if it be firmly held in themind, every cloud of error and sin is dispersed. Whence the blessedBernard says: "Always having Christ, and him crucified, in theheart."

THE BLESSED DEAD

They who die in the Lord are blessed, on account of two things whichimmediately follow. For they enter into most sweet rest, and enjoymost delicate refreshment. Concerning their rest it immediatelyfollows. "Even so saith the spirit" (that is, says the gloss, thewhole Trinity), for they rest from their labors. "And it is apleasant bed on which they take their rest, who, as is aforesaid,die in the Lord." For this bed is none other than the sweetconsolation of the Creator. Of this consolation he speaks himself bythe Prophet Isaiah: "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will Icomfort you, and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem." Of thesecond,—that is, the delicate refreshment of those that die inChrist,—it is immediately subjoined, and their works do followthem. For every virtue which a man has practiced by good works inthis world will bring a special cup of recompense, and offer it tothe soul that has entered into rest. Thus, purity of body and mindwill bring one cup, justice another, which also is to be saidconcerning truth, love, gentleness, humility, and the othervirtues. Of this holy refreshment it is written in Isaiah: "Kingsshall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers." Bykings we understand the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who, ininseparable unity, possess the kingdom of heaven; by queens, thevirtues are expressed, which, as has been said, receive the cups ofrefreshment from the storehouse of the Trinity, and offer them tothe happy souls. Pray, therefore, dearly beloved, to the Lord, thathe would so grant us to live according to his will, that we may diein him, and may evermore be comforted and refreshed by him.

ETHAN ALLEN

Ethan Allen of New York, a descendant of the Revolutionary heromade famous by the capture of Ticonderoga, has never been aprofessional public speaker, but from time to time, when stirred bysome cause which appealed to him strongly, he has shown great poweras an orator. His address of 1861, delivered in New York city, ishere republished from a contemporaneous report, preserved among thepapers of Mr. Enos Clarke. It was described in the newspapers of theday as "thrilling eloquence," and perhaps it is the best expressionextant of the almost inconceivable excitement of the opening monthsof the war.

In 1872 Mr. Alien joined the Liberal Republicans and made earnestpleas for reconciliation with the South. In 1897 he took a prominentpart in supporting the Cubans in their struggle for independence.

A CALL TO ARMS (Delivered in New York city in 1861)

Fellow-Citizens:—

Once more the country is aroused by a call to arms. It is nownearly a century ago that our fathers assembled in mass meetings inthis city to devise ways and means for this very flag which to-daywe give to the winds of heaven, bearing defiance from every star.Fired, then, with the same spirit of freedom that kindles on thisspot to-day, for the time throwing aside the habiliments of peace,our fathers armed themselves for vengeance and for war. The historyof that war, read it in the hearts of the American people; thetrials and struggles of that war, mark them in the teardrops whichthe very allusion brings to every eye; the blessings from that war,count them in the temples of industry and trade that ariseeverywhere around us; the wisdom of that war, and the honor and theperpetuity of its triumphs, behold the one in our unexampledprosperity as a nation, and the other in the impulses that, like anelectric flash, bind heart to heart, throughout this vastassemblage, in the firm resolve that, cost what it may, rebellionshall go down. Again, the American people are assembled in massmeetings throughout the nation, while the States once more rock inthe throes of revolution. Once more the cry to arms reverberatesthroughout the land; but this time we war against domestic foes.Treason has raised its black flag near the tomb of Washington, andthe Union of our States hangs her fate upon the bayonet and thesword. Accursed be the hand that would not seize the bayonet;withered the arm that would not wield the sword in such a cause!Everything that the American citizen holds dear hangs upon the issueof this contest. Our national honor and reputation demand thatrebellion shall not triumph on our soil. In the name of our heroicdead, in the name of our numberless victories, in the name of ourthousand peaceful triumphs, our Union shall and must be preserved!Our peaceful triumphs? These are the victories we should be jealousto guard. Let others recount their martial glories; they shall beeclipsed by the charity and the grace of the triumphs which havebeen won in peace. "Peace hath her victories not less renowned thanwar," and the hard-earned fruits of these victories rebellion shallnot take from us. Our peaceful triumphs? Who shall enumerate theirvalue to the millions yet unborn? What nation in so short a timehas seen so many? On the land and on the sea, in the realms ofscience and in the world of art, we have everywhere gathered ourhonors and won our garlands. Upon the altars of the States they yetlie, fresh from gathering, while their happy influence fills theland. Of the importance and value of our thousand peaceful triumphstime will permit me to mention only one. It is now just two yearsago when up the waters of the Potomac sailed the representatives ofan empire till then shut out from intercourse with all Christiannations. In the Eastern seas there lay an empire of islands whichhad hitherto enjoyed no recognition in the Christian world otherthan its name upon the map. No history, as far as we know,illuminated it; no ancient time-marks told of its advancement, stepby step, in the march of improvement. There it has rested forthousands of years, wrapped in the mysteries of its ownexclusiveness—gloomy, dark, peculiar. It has been supposed topossess great powers; and vague rumors have attributed to it arts tous unknown. Against nearly all the world, for thousands of yearsJapan has obstinately shut her doors; the wealth of the Christianworld could not tempt her cupidity; the wonders of the Christianworld could not excite her curiosity. There she lay, sullen andalone, the phenomenon of nations. England and France and the otherpowerful governments of Europe have at various times tried toconquer this Oriental exclusiveness, but the Portuguese only partlysucceeded, while all the rest have signally failed. At length we,bearing at our masthead the glorious old Stars and Stripes, approachthe mysterious portals and seek an entrance. Not with cannon andthe implements of death do we demand admission, but, appreciatingthe saying of Euripides, that

"Resistless eloquence shall open
The gates that steel exclude,"

we peacefully appeal to that sense of justice which is the "touch ofnature that makes the whole world kin," and behold! theinterdiction is removed; the doors of the mysterious empire flyopen, and a new garland is added to our commercial conquests! Whoshall set limits to the gain that shall follow this one victory ofpeace, if our government shall be perpetuated so as to gather it forthe generations? Who shall say that in an unbroken, undividedunion, the opening of the empire of Japan shall not accomplish forthe present era all that the Reformation, the art of printing,steam, and the telegraph have done within the last three hundredyears? New avenues of wealth are thrown open; new fields are to beoccupied; arts new to us, perhaps, are to be studied; and science,doubtless, has revelations to make us, from that arcana of nations,equal to anything we have ever learned before. Fifty millions ofpeople are to be enlightened; the printing press is yet to catch thedaily thought and stamp it on the page; the magnetic wire must yettremble along her highways, and Niphon yet tremble to her verycentre at each heart-beat of our ocean steamers, as they sweepthrough her waters and thunder round her island homes. All hail,all hail, to these children of the morning; all hail, all hail, tothe Great Republic of the West that calls them into life! Fromevery age that has passed there comes a song of praise for thetreaty that has been consummated. The buried masters of threethousand years start again to life and march in solemn and grandprocession before the eyes of the new-found empire. Homer with hissongs, Greece with her arts, Rome with her legions, and America withher heroes, all come to us with the freshness and novelty of thenewly born. Wipe off the mold that time has gathered upon theirtombs, and let them all come forth and answer, at the summons of anew-born nation that calls them again to life!

Tell to these strangers the story of the resurrection. Clutching intheir hands their dripping blades, the warriors recount theirconquests, and joined at last in harmonious brotherhood, Copernicus,with bony fingers pointing upward, tells to Confucius his story ofthe stars!

Fellow-citizens, I have recounted but one of our many peacefultriumphs. Shall all these hopes of the future, shall all thesepeaceful victories of our people, shall all these struggles of thepast be swept away by the dissolution of this Union and thedestruction of the government? Forbid it, Almighty God! Ratherperish a thousand times the cause of the rebellion, and over theruins of slavery let peace once more resume her sway, and let thecannon's lips grow cold. Delenda est Carthago, said the oldRoman patriot, when gloom settled upon his State. The rebellionmust go down in the same spirit, say we all to-day. Down withparty, sect, and class, and up with a sentiment of unanimity whenour country calls to arms! New England leads us in the contest.The legions of Vermont are now en route for the field. Again,she can say with truth that "the bones of her sons lie mingling andbleaching with the soil of every State from Maine to Georgia, andthere they will lie forever." New York must not be behind the OldBay State which led a year ago. In the spirit world, Warren callsto Hamilton, and Hamilton calls back to Warren, that hand in handtheir mortal children go on together to fame, to victory, or to thegrave. Where the ranks are full, let us catch an inspiration fromthe past, and with it upon us go forth to conflict. Go call theroll on Saratoga, Bunker Hill, and Yorktown, that the sheeted deadmay rise as witnesses, and tell your legions of the effort todissolve their Union, and there receive their answer. Mad withfrenzy, burning with indignation at the thought, all ablaze forvengeance upon the traitors, such shall be the fury and impetuosityof the onset that all opposition shall be swept away before them, asthe pigmy yields to the avalanche that comes tumbling, rumbling,thundering from its Alpine home! Let us gather at the tomb ofWashington and invoke his immortal spirit to direct us in thecombat. Rising again incarnate from the tomb, in one hand he holdsthat same old flag, blackened and begrimed with the smoke of aseven-years' war, and with the other hand be points us to the foe.Up and at them! Let immortal energy strengthen our arms, andinfernal fury thrill us to the soul. One blow,—deep, effectual,and forever,—one crushing blow upon the rebellion, in the name ofGod, Washington, and the Republic!

FISHER AMES (1758-1808)

Fisher Ames is easily first among the New England Federalist oratorsof the first quarter of a century of the Republic. He was greatly,sometimes extravagantly, admired by his contemporaries, and hisaddresses are studied as models by eminent public speakers of ourown day. Dr. Charles Caldwell in his autobiography calls Ames "oneof the most splendid rhetoricians of his age." . . . "Two of hisspeeches," writes Doctor Caldwell, "that on Jay's Treaty and thatusually called his Tomahawk speech, because it included someresplendent passages on Indian massacre, were the most brilliant andfascinating specimens of eloquence I have ever heard, though I havelistened to some of the most eloquent speakers in the BritishParliament,—among others to Wilberforce and Mackintosh,Plunkett, Brougham, and Canning. Doctor Priestly who was familiarwith the oratory of Pitt the father, and Pitt the son, as also withthat of Burke and Fox, made to myself the acknowledgment that thespeech of Ames on the British treaty was 'the most bewitching pieceof eloquence' to which he had ever listened."

Ames was born at Dedham, Massachusetts, on April 9th, 1758. Hisfather, Nathaniel Ames, a physician, had the "honorable familystanding" which was so important in the life of most of thecolonies. He had scientific tendencies and published an"Astronomical Diary," or nautical almanac, which was in considerablevogue. The son, however, developed at the early age of six years afondness for classical literature, which led him to undertake tomaster Latin. He made such progress that he was admitted to Harvardwhen but twelve years old. While there, it "was observed that hecoveted the glory of eloquence," showing his fondness for oratorynot merely in the usual debating society declamation, but by thestudy of classical models and of such great English poets asShakespeare and Milton. To this, no doubt correctly, has beenattributed his great command of language and his fertility inillustration. After graduating from Harvard in 1774, he studied lawin Boston, served in the Massachusetts legislature, in theconvention for ratifying the Federal constitution, and in the firstCongress elected under the constitution. After retiring, be wascalled in 1804 to the presidency of Harvard. He declined the honor,however, on account of diffidence and failing health. His deathoccurred on the fourth of July, 1808, in the fiftieth year of his age.

After the treaty with Great Britain (Jay's), concluded in 1794, hadbeen ratified and proclaimed by the President, he communicated it tothe House of Representatives, "in order that the necessaryappropriations might be made to carry it into effect." The speechon the Treaty, delivered by Ames, was on a resolution in favor ofmaking the appropriations thus called for, the House being incommittee of the whole April 28th, 1796.

ON THE BRITISH TREATY

(Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 28, 1796)

Mr. Chairman:—

I entertain the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my strength will holdme out to speak a few minutes.

In my judgment, a right decision will depend more on the temper andmanner with which we may prevail upon ourselves to contemplate thesubject than upon the development of any profound politicalprinciples, or any remarkable skill in the application of them. Ifwe could succeed to neutralize our inclinations, we should find lessdifficulty than we have to apprehend in surmounting all ourobjections.

The suggestion, a few days ago, that the House manifested symptomsof heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge oughtto create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more justto ourselves and to the occasion. Let us not affect to deny theexistence and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feelinginto the debate, when, from the very structure of our nature, weought to anticipate the circ*mstance as a probability, and when weare admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is the fact.

How can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations tothe House, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and noguide respected but that of the understanding, while the peal torally every passion of man is continually ringing in our ears?

Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with abilityand effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been leftunexplored? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments, and,when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibilities that wouldrequire none. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned tolisten to some peculiar style of address; and yet we seem to believeand to consider as an affront a doubt that we are strangers to anyinfluence but that of unbiased reason.

It would be strange that a subject which has aroused in turn all thepassions of the country should be discussed without the interferenceof any of our own. We are men, and, therefore, not exempt from thosepassions; as citizens and representatives we feel the interests thatmust excite them. The hazard of great interests cannot fail toagitate strong passions. We are not disinterested; it is impossiblewe should be dispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloudthe judgment, and, for a time, pervert the understanding. But thepublic sensibility, and our own, has sharpened the spirit ofinquiry, and given an animation to the debate. The public attentionhas been quickened to mark the progress of the discussion, and itsjudgment, often hasty and erroneous on first impressions, has becomesolid and enlightened at last. Our result will, I hope, on thataccount, be the safer and more mature, as well as more accordantwith that of the nation. The only constant agents in politicalaffairs are the passions of men. Shall we complain of our nature—shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise? It is rightalready, because he, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it so;and because thus made and thus acting, the cause of truth and thepublic good is the more surely promoted.

But an attempt has been made to produce an influence of a naturemore stubborn and more unfriendly to truth. It is very unfairlypretended, that the constitutional right of this house is at stake,and to be asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. Wehear it said that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistanceagainst the design to nullify this assembly and to make it a cipherin the government; that the President and Senate, the numerousmeetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm ofthe country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercionand terror, to force the treaty down our throats, though we loatheit, and in spite of the clearest convictions of duty and conscience.

It is necessary to pause here and inquire whether suggestions ofthis kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, andpernicious in all their influences. They oppose an obstacle in thepath of inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutelyinsurmountable. They will not yield to argument; for as they werenot reasoned up, they cannot be reasoned down. They are higher thana Chinese wall in truth's way, and built of materials that areindestructible. While this remains, it is vain to argue; it is vainto say to this mountain, Be thou cast into the sea. For, I ask ofthe men of knowledge of the world whether they would not hold himfor a blockhead that should hope to prevail in an argument whosescope and object is to mortify the self-love of the expectedproselyte? I ask, further, when such attempts have been made, havethey not failed of success? The indignant heart repels a convictionthat is believed to debase it.

The self-love of an individual is not warmer in its sense, nor moreconstant in its action, than what is called in French, l'espritdu corps, or the self-love of an assembly; that jealousaffection which a body of men is always found to bear towards itsown prerogatives and power. I will not condemn this passion. Whyshould we urge an unmeaning censure or yield to groundless fearsthat truth and duty will be abandoned, because men in a publicassembly are still men, and feel that esprit du corps which isone of the laws of their nature? Still less should we despond orcomplain, if we reflect that this very spirit is a guardian instinctthat watches over the life of this assembly. It cherishes theprinciple of self-preservation, and without its existence, and itsexistence with all the strength we see it possess, the privileges ofthe representatives of the people, and mediately the liberties ofthe people, would not be guarded, as they are, with a vigilance thatnever sleeps and an unrelaxed constancy and courage. If theconsequences, most unfairly attributed to the vote in theaffirmative, were not chimerical, and worse, for they are deceptive,I should think it a reproach to be found even moderate in my zeal toassert the constitutional powers of this assembly; and whenever theyshall be in real danger, the present occasion affords proof thatthere will be no want of advocates and champions.

Indeed, so prompt are these feelings, and, when once roused, sodifficult to pacify, that if we could prove the alarm wasgroundless, the prejudice against the appropriations may remain onthe mind, and it may even pass for an act of prudence and duty tonegative a measure which was lately believed by ourselves, and mayhereafter be misconceived by others, to encroach upon the powers ofthe House. Principles that bear a remote affinity with usurpationon those powers will be rejected, not merely as errors, but aswrongs. Our sensibilities will shrink from a post where it ispossible they may be wounded, and be inflamed by the slightestsuspicion of an assault.

While these prepossessions remain, all argument is useless. It maybe heard with the ceremony of attention, and lavish its ownresources, and the patience it wearies, to no manner of purpose. Theears may be open; but the mind will remain locked up, and every passto the understanding guarded.

Unless, therefore, this jealous and repulsive fear for the rights ofthe House can be allayed, I will not ask a hearing.

I cannot press this topic too far; I cannot address myself with toomuch emphasis to the magnanimity and candor of those who sit here,to suspect their own feelings, and, while they do, to examine thegrounds of their alarm. I repeat it, we must conquer our persuasionthat this body has an interest in one side of the question more thanthe other, before we attempt to surmount our objections. On mostsubjects, and solemn ones too, perhaps in the most solemn of all, weform our creed more from inclination than evidence.

Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way ofsupposition, and for a moment, that it is barely possible they haveyielded too suddenly to their alarms for the powers of this House;that the addresses which have been made with such variety of formsand with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that isprejudice and passion in the heart, are either the effects or theinstruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see thesubject once more in its singleness and simplicity.

It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the subject, tojustify the passionate appeals that have been made to us to strugglefor our liberties and rights, and the solemn exhortations to rejectthe proposition, said to be concealed in that on your table, tosurrender them forever. In spite of this mock solemnity, I demand,if the House will not concur in the measure to execute the treaty,what other course shall we take? How many ways of proceeding lieopen before us?

In the nature of things there are but three; we are either to makethe treaty, to observe it, or break it. It would be absurd to saywe will do neither. If I may repeat a phrase already much abused,we are under coercion to do one of them; and we have no power, bythe exercise of our discretion, to prevent the consequences of achoice.

By refusing to act, we choose. The treaty will be broken and fall tothe ground. Where is the fitness, then, of replying to those whourge upon the House the topics of duty and policy that they attemptto force the treaty down, and to compel this assembly to renounceits discretion, and to degrade itself to the rank of a blind andpassive instrument in the hands of the treaty-making power? In casewe reject the appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty ofaction; we gain no safer shelter than before from the consequencesof the decision. Indeed, they are not to be evaded. It is neitherjust nor manly to complain that the treaty-making power has producedthis coercion to act. It is not the act or the despotism of thatpower—it is the nature of things that compels. Shall we, dreadingto become the blind instruments of power, yield ourselves theblinder dupes of mere sounds of imposture? Yet that word, that emptyword, coercion, has given scope to an eloquence that, one wouldimagine, could not be tired and did not choose to be quieted.

Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives that are beforeus, and we shall scarcely fail to see, in still stronger lights, thefutility of our apprehensions for the power and liberty of theHouse.

If, as some have suggested, the thing called a treaty isincomplete,—if it has no binding force or obligation,—the firstquestion is, Will this House complete the instrument, and, byconcurring, impart to it that force which it wants?

The doctrine has been avowed that the treaty, though formallyratified by the executive power of both nations, though published asa law for our own by the President's proclamation, is still a mereproposition submitted to this assembly, no way distinguishable, inpoint of authority or obligation, from a motion for leave to bringin a bill, or any other original act of ordinary legislation. Thisdoctrine, so novel in our country, yet so dear to many, preciselyfor the reason that, in the contention for power, victory is alwaysdear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms as well as the fairinterpretation of our own resolutions (Mr. Blount's). We declarethat the treaty-making power is exclusively vested in the Presidentand Senate, and not in this House. Need I say that we fly in theface of that resolution when we pretend that the acts of that powerare not valid until we have concurred in them? It would benonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most glaringcontradiction, and to claim a share in a power which we at the sametime disdain as exclusively vested in other departments.

What can be more strange than to say that the compacts of thePresident and Senate with foreign nations are treaties, without ouragency, and yet those compacts want all power and obligation, untilthey are sanctioned by our concurrence? It is not my design, in thisplace, if at all, to go into the discussion of this part of thesubject. I will, at least for the present, take it for granted, thatthis monstrous opinion stands in little need of remark, and if itdoes, lies almost out of the reach of refutation.

But, say those who hide the absurdity under the cover of ambiguousphrases, Have we no discretion? And if we have, are we not to makeuse of it in judging of the expediency or inexpediency of thetreaty? Our resolution claims that privilege, and we cannotsurrender it without equal inconsistency and breach of duty.

If there be any inconsistency in the case, it lies, not in makingthe appropriations for the treaty, but in the resolution itself(Mr. Blount's). Let us examine it more nearly. A treaty is a bargainbetween nations, binding in good faith; and what makes a bargain?The assent of the contracting parties. We allow that the treatypower is not in this House; this House has no share in contracting,and is not a party; of consequence, the President and Senate alonemay make a treaty that is binding in good faith. We claim, however,say the gentlemen, a right to judge of the expediency of treaties;that is the constitutional province of our discretion. Be itso. What follows? Treaties, when adjudged by us to be inexpedient,fall to the ground, and the public faith is not hurt. This,incredible and extravagant as it may seem, is asserted. The amountof it, in plainer language, is this—the President and Senate are tomake national bargains, and this House has nothing to do in makingthem. But bad bargains do not bind this House, and, of inevitableconsequence, do not bind the nation. When a national bargain, calleda treaty, is made, its binding force does not depend upon themaking, but upon our opinion that it is good. . . .

To expatiate on the value of public faith may pass with some men fordeclamation—to such men I have nothing to say. To others I willurge, Can any circ*mstance mark upon a people more turpitude anddebasem*nt? Can anything tend more to make men think themselvesmean, or degrade to a lower point their estimation of virtue andtheir standard of action?

It would not merely demoralize mankind; it tends to break all theligaments of society, to dissolve that mysterious charm whichattracts individuals to the nation, and to inspire in its stead arepulsive sense of shame and disgust.

What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where aman was born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to thisardent preference because they are greener? No, sir; this is not thecharacter of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It isan extended self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, andtwisting itself with the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thuswe obey the laws of society, because they are the laws of virtue. Intheir authority we see, not the array of force and terror, but thevenerable image of our country's honor. Every good citizen makesthat honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious, but assacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense, and isconscious that he gains protection while he gives it. For whatrights of a citizen will be deemed inviolable when a State renouncesthe principles that constitute their security? Or, if his lifeshould not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in a countryodious in the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? Could helook with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent?The sense of having one would die within him; he would blush for hispatriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be avice. He would be a banished man in his native land.

I see no exception to the respect that is paid among nations to thelaw of good faith. If there are cases in this enlightened periodwhen it is violated, there are none when it is decried. It is thephilosophy of politics, the religion of governments. It is observedby barbarians—a whiff of tobacco smoke, or a string of beads,gives not merely binding force, but sanctity to treaties. Even inAlgiers a truce may be bought for money; but, when ratified, evenAlgiers is too wise, or too just, to disown and annul itsobligation. Thus, we see neither the ignorance of savages nor theprinciples of an association for piracy and rapine, permit a nationto despise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a resurrectionfrom the foot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could liveagain, collect together and form a society, they would, howeverloath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice, that justiceunder which they fell, the fundamental law of their state. Theywould perceive it was their interest to make others respect, andthey would therefore soon pay some respect themselves to theobligations of good faith.

It is painful, I hope it is superfluous, to make even thesupposition, that America should furnish the occasion of thisopprobrium. No, let me not even imagine that a republicangovernment, sprung as our own is, from a people enlightened anduncorrupted, a government whose origin is right, and whose dailydiscipline is duty, can, upon solemn debate, make its option to befaithless—can dare to act what despots dare not avow, what ourown example evinces, the states of Barbary are unsuspected of. No,let me rather make the supposition that Great Britain refuses toexecute the treaty, after we have done everything to carry it intoeffect. Is there any language of reproach pungent enough to expressyour commentary on the fact? What would you say, or rather whatwould you not say? Would you not tell them, wherever an Englishmanmight travel, shame would stick to him—he would disown his country.You would exclaim, England, proud of your wealth, and arrogant inthe possession of power—blush for these distinctions, whichbecome the vehicles of your dishonor. Such a nation might truly sayto corruption, Thou art my father, and to the worm, Thou art mymother and my sister. We should say of such a race of men, theirname is a heavier burden than their debt.

I can scarcely persuade myself to believe that the consideration Ihave suggested requires the aid of any auxiliary. But,unfortunately, auxiliary arguments are at hand. Five millions ofdollars, and probably more, on the score of spoliations committed onour commerce, depend upon the treaty. The treaty offers the onlyprospect of indemnity. Such redress is promised as the merchantsplace some confidence in. Will you interpose and frustrate thathope, leaving to many families nothing but beggary and despair? Itis a smooth proceeding to take a vote in this body; it takes lessthan half an hour to call the yeas and nays and reject the treaty.But what is the effect of it? What, but this? The very menformerly so loud for redress, such fierce champions that even to askfor justice was too mean and too slow, now turn their capriciousfury upon the sufferers and say by their vote, to them and theirfamilies, No longer eat bread; petitioners, go home and starve; wecan not satisfy your wrongs and our resentments.

Will you pay the sufferers out of the treasury? No. The answer wasgiven two years ago, and appears on our journals. Will you give themletters of marque and reprisal to pay themselves by force? No; thatis war. Besides, it would be an opportunity for those who havealready lost much to lose more. Will you go to war to avenge theirinjury? If you do, the war will leave you no money to indemnifythem. If it should be unsuccessful, you will aggravate existingevils; if successful, your enemy will have no treasure left to giveour merchants; the first losses will be confounded with muchgreater, and be forgotten. At the end of a war there must be anegotiation, which is the very point we have already gained; and whyrelinquish it? And who will be confident that the terms of thenegotiation, after a desolating war, would be more acceptable toanother House of Representatives than the treaty before us? Membersand opinions may be so changed that the treaty would then berejected for being what the present majority say it should be.Whether we shall go on making treaties and refusing to execute them,I know not. Of this I am certain, it will be very difficult toexercise the treaty-making power on the new principles, with muchreputation or advantage to the country.

The refusal of the posts (inevitable if we reject the treaty) is ameasure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in itsconsequences. From great causes we are to look for great effects. Aplain and obvious one will be the price of the western lands willfall. Settlers will not choose to fix their habitation on a field ofbattle. Those who talk so much of the interest of the United Statesshould calculate how deeply it will be affected by rejecting thetreaty; how vast a tract of wild land will almost cease to beproperty. The loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fundexpressly devoted to sink the national debt. What, then, are wecalled upon to do? However the form of the vote and theprotestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution isin substance, and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution toprevent the sale of the western lands and the discharge of thepublic debt.

Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contested by any one?Experience gives the answer. The frontiers were scourged with wartill the negotiation with Great Britain was far advanced, and thenthe state of hostility ceased. Perhaps the public agents of bothnations are innocent of fomenting the Indian war, and perhaps theyare not. We ought not, however, to expect that neighboring nations,highly irritated against each other, will neglect the friendship ofthe savages; the traders will gain an influence and will abuse it;and who is ignorant that their passions are easily raised, andhardly restrained from violence? Their situation will oblige them tochoose between this country and Great Britain, in case the treatyshould be rejected. They will not be our friends, and at the sametime the friends of our enemies.

But am I reduced to the necessity of proving this point? Certainlythe very men who charged the Indian war on the detention of theposts, will call for no other proofs than the recital of their ownspeeches. It is remembered with what emphasis, with what acrimony,they expatiated on the burden of taxes, and the drain of blood andtreasure into the western country, in consequence of Britain'sholding the posts. Until the posts are restored, they exclaimed, thetreasury and the frontiers must bleed.

If any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peacewith the Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I willurge another reply. From arguments calculated to produce conviction,I will appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, and askwhether it is not already planted there. I resort especially to theconvictions of the western gentlemen, whether, supposing no postsand no treaty, the settlers will remain in security. Can they takeit upon them to say that an Indian peace, under these circ*mstances,will prove firm? No, sir; it will not be peace, but a sword; it willbe no better than a lure to draw victims within the reach of thetomahawk.

On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I could find wordsfor them—if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal—I wouldswell my voice to such a note of remonstrance, it should reach everylog house beyond the mountains, I would say to the inhabitants, Wakefrom your false security; your cruel dangers, your more cruelapprehensions, are soon to be renewed; the wounds, yet unhealed, areto be torn open again; in the daytime, your path through the woodswill be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with theblaze of your dwellings. You are a father—the blood of your sonsshall fatten your corn-field; you are a mother—the war-whoop shallwake the sleep of the cradle.

On this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings.It is a spectacle of horror which can not be overdrawn. If you havenature in your hearts, it will speak a language compared with whichall I have said or can say will be poor and frigid.

Will it be whispered that the treaty has made a new champion for theprotection of the frontiers? It is known that my voice as well asvote has been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas I haveexpressed. Protection is the right of the frontiers; it is our dutyto give it.

Who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject? Who will saythat I exaggerate the tendencies of our measures? Will any oneanswer by a sneer, that all this is idle preaching? Will any onedeny that we are bound, and I would hope to good purpose, by themost solemn sanctions of duty, for the vote we give? Are despotsalone to be approached for unfeeling indifference to the tears andblood of their subjects? Are republicans unresponsible? Have theprinciples, on which you ground the reproach upon cabinets andkings, no practical influence, no binding force? Are they merelythemes of idle declamation, introduced to decorate the morality of anewspaper essay, or to furnish pretty topics of harangue from thewindows of that state house? I trust it is neither too presumptuousnor too late to ask, Can you put the dearest interest of society atrisk without guilt, and without remorse?

It is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to bereproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from theirmeasures. This is very true, where they are unforeseen orinevitable. Those I have depicted are not unforeseen; they are sofar from inevitable, we are going to bring them into being by ourvote. We choose the consequences, and become as justly answerablefor them as for the measure that we know will produce them.

By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires—we bind thevictims. This day we undertake to render account to the widows andorphans whom our decision will make, to the wretches that will beroasted at the stake, to our country, and I do not deem it tooserious to say, to conscience and to God. We are answerable, and ifduty be anything more than a word of imposture, if conscience be nota bugbear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as ourcountry.

There is no mistake in this case; there can be none. Experience hasalready been the prophet of events, and the cries of our futurevictims have already reached us. The western inhabitants are not asilent and uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity issuesfrom the shade of their wilderness. It exclaims, that while one handis held up to reject this treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. Itsummons our imagination to the scenes that will open. It is no greateffort to the imagination to conceive that events so near arealready begun. I can fancy that I listen to the yells of savagevengeance and the shrieks of torture. Already they seem to sigh inthe west wind—already they mingle with every echo from themountains.

It is not the part of prudence to be inattentive to the tendenciesof measures. Where there is any ground to fear that these will bepernicious, wisdom and duty forbid that we should underrate them. Ifwe reject the treaty, will our peace be as safe as if we executed itwith good faith? I do honor to the intrepid spirit of those who sayit will. It was formerly understood to constitute the excellence ofa man's faith to believe without evidence and against it.

But as opinions on this article are changed, and we are called toact for our country, it becomes us to explore the dangers that willattend its peace, and to avoid them if we can.

Few of us here, and fewer still in proportion of our constituents,will doubt that, by rejecting, all those dangers will beaggravated. . . .

ST. ANSELM (1032-1109)

St. Anselm, who has been called the acutest thinker and profoundesttheologian of his day, was born in Piedmont about 1032. Educatedunder the celebrated Lanfranc, he went to England in 1093 and becameArchbishop of Canterbury. He was banished by William Rufus as aresult of a conflict between royal and ecclesiastical prerogative.He died in 1109. Neale calls him the last of the great fathersexcept St. Bernard, and adds that "he probably possessed thegreatest genius of all except St. Augustine."

The sermon here given, the third of the sixteen extant, is givenentire from Neale's translation. It is one of the best examples ofthe Middle-Age style of interpreting all Scripture as metaphor andparable. It contains, moreover, a number of striking passages, suchas, "It is a proof of great virtue to struggle with happiness."

THE SEA OP LIFE

"And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship,and to go before him to the other side, while he sent the multitudeaway." (Matt, xiv, 22.)

In this section, according to its mystical interpretation, we have asummary description of the state of the Church, from the coming ofthe Savior to the end of the world. For the Lord constrained hisDisciples to get into a ship, when he committed the Church to thegovernment of the Apostles and their followers. And thus to gobefore him unto the other side,—that is, to bear onwards towardsthe haven of the celestial country, before he himself shouldentirely depart from the world. For, with his elect, and on accountof his elect, he ever remains here until the consummation of allthings; and he is preceded to the other side of the sea of thisworld by those who daily pass hence to the Land of the Living. Andwhen he shall have sent all that are his to that place, then,leaving the multitude of the reprobate, and no longer warning themto be converted, but giving them over to perdition, he will departhence that he may be with his elect alone in the kingdom.

Whence it is added, "while he sent the multitude away." For in theend of the world he will "send away the multitude" of his enemies,that they may then be hurried by the Devil to everlastingvdamnation. "And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up in amountain to pray." He will not send away the multitude of theGentiles till the end of the world; but he did dismiss the multitudeof the Jewish people at the time when, as saith Isaiah, "Hecommanded his clouds that they should rain no rain upon it"; thatis, he commanded his Apostles that they should preach no longer tothe Jews, but should go to the Gentiles. Thus, therefore, he sentaway that multitude, and "went up into a mountain"; that is, to theheight of the celestial kingdom, of which it had been written, "Whoshall ascend into the hill of the Lord, or who shall rise up in hisholy place?" For a mountain is a height, and what is higher thanheaven? There the Lord ascended. And he ascended alone, "for no manhath ascended up into heaven save he that came down from heaven,even the Son of Man which is in heaven." And even when he shall comeat the end of the world, and shall have collected all of us, hismembers, together, and shall have raised us into heaven, he willalso ascend alone, because Christ, the head, is one with hisbody. But now the Head alone ascends,—the Mediator of God and man—the man Christ Jesus. And he goes up to pray, because he went tothe Father to intercede for us. "For Christ is not entered intoholy places made with hands, which are figures of the true, but intoheaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."

It follows: "And when the evening was come, he was there alone."This signifies the nearness of the end of the world, concerningwhich John also speaks: "Little children, it is the last time."Therefore it is said that, "when the evening was come, he was therealone," because, when the world was drawing to its end, he byhimself, as the true high priest, entered into the holy of holies,and is there at the right hand of God, and also maketh intercessionfor us. But while he prays on the mountain, the ship is tossed withwaves in the deep. For, since the billows arise, the ship may betossed; but since Christ prays, it cannot be overwhelmed. …

We may notice, also, that this commotion of the waves, and totteringor half-sinking of Peter, takes place even in our time, according tothe spiritual sense daily. For every man's own besetting sin is thetempest. You love God; you walk upon the sea; the swellings of thisworld are under your feet. You love the world; it swallows you up;its wont is to devour, not to bear up, its lovers. But when yourheart fluctuates with the desire of sin, call on the divinity ofChrist, that you may conquer that desire. You think that the wind isthen contrary when the adversity of this world rises against you,and not also when its prosperity fawns upon you. For when wars, whentumults, when famine, when pestilence comes, when any privatecalamity happens even to individual men, then the wind is thoughtadverse, and then it is held right to call upon God; but when theworld smiles with temporal felicity, then, forsooth, the wind is notcontrary. Do not, by such tokens as these, judge of the tranquillityof the time; but judge of it by your own temptations. See if you aretranquil within yourself; see if no internal tempest is overwhelmingyou. It is a proof of great virtue to struggle with happiness, sothat it shall not seduce, corrupt, subvert. Learn to trample on thisworld; remember to trust in Christ. And if your foot be moved,—ifyou totter,—if there be some temptations that you cannotovercome,—if you begin to sink, cry out to Jesus, Lord, saveme. In Peter, therefore, the common condition of all of us is to beconsidered; so that, if the wind of temptation endeavor to upset usin any matter, or its billows to swallow us up, we may cry toChrist. He shall stretch forth his hand, and preserve us from thedeep.

It follows: "And when he was come into the ship, the wind ceased."In the last day he shall ascend into the ship of the Church, becausethen he shall sit upon the throne of his glory; which throne may notunfitly be understood of the Church. For he who by faith and goodworks now and always dwells in the Church shall then, by themanifestation of his glory, enter into it. And then the wind shallcease, because evil spirits shall no more have the power of sendingforth against it the flames of temptation or the commotions oftroubles; for then all things shall be at peace and at rest.

It follows: "Then they that were with him in the ship came andworshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Theywho remain faithfully in the Church amidst the tempests oftemptations will approach to him with joy, and, entering into hiskingdom with him, will worship him; and, praising him perpetually,will affirm him of a truth to be the Son of God. Then, also, thatwill happen which is written concerning the elect raised from death:"All flesh shall come and shall worship before my face," saith theLord. And again: "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; theywill always be praising thee." For him, whom with their heart theybelieve unto righteousness, and with their mouth confess tosalvation, him they shall see with their heart to light, and withtheir mouth shall praise to glory, when they behold how ineffably heis begotten of the Father, with whom he liveth and reigneth, in theunity of the Holy Ghost, God to all ages of ages. Amen.

THOMAS ARNOLD (1795-1842)

Doctor Thomas Arnold, the celebrated head master of Rugby was bornJune 13th, 1795, at West Cowes, in the Isle of Wight, where hisfather, William Arnold, was a Collector of Customs. After severalyears at Winchester school, he went to Oxford where in 1815 he waselected a fellow of Oriel College. His intellectual bent showed atOxford, on the one hand, in fondness for Aristotle and Thucydides,and on the other in what one of his friends has described as "anearnest, penetrating, and honest examination of Christianity." As aresult of this honesty and earnestness, he became and remains agreat force wherever English is spoken. Elected head master of Rugbyin December 1827, and remaining in charge of that school for nearlyfourteen years, he almost revolutionized and did much to civilizethe English system of public education. When he left Rugby, inDecember 1841, it was to go to Oxford as professor of ModernHistory, but his death, June 12th, 1842, left him remembered by theEnglish-speaking world as "Arnold of Rugby." He left five volumes ofsermons, an edition of 'Thucydides,' a 'History of Rome' in threevolumes, and other works, but his greatest celebrity has been givenhim by the enthusiastic love which his manly Christian characterinspired in his pupils and acquaintances, furnishing as it did themaster motive of 'Tom Brown at Rugby,' a book which is likely tohold the place it has taken next to 'Robinson Crusoe' among Englishclassics for the young.

The sermon here republished from the text given in 'Simons's Sermonsof Great Preachers,' is an illustration of the eloquence whichappeals to the mind of others, not through musical and beautifullanguage so much as through deep thought and compact expression.

THE REALITIES OF LIFE AND DEATH

"God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."—Matt. xxii. 32

We hear these words as a part of our Lord's answer to the Sadducees;and, as their question was put in evident profaneness, and theanswer to it is one which to our minds is quite obvious and natural,so we are apt to think that in this particular story there is lessthan usual that particularly concerns us. But it so happens, thatour Lord, in answering the Sadducees, has brought in one of the mostuniversal and most solemn of all truths,—which is indeed impliedin many parts of the Old Testament, but which the Gospel hasrevealed to us in all its fullness,—the truth contained in thewords of the text, that "God is not the God of the dead, but of theliving."

I would wish to unfold a little what is contained in these words,which we often hear even, perhaps, without quite understanding them;and many times oftener without fully entering into them. And we maytake them, first, in their first part, where they say that "God isnot the God of the dead."

The word "dead," we know, is constantly used in Scripture in adouble sense, as meaning those who are dead spiritually, as well asthose who are dead naturally. And, in either sense, the words arealike applicable: "God is not the God of the dead."

God's not being the God of the dead signifies two things: that theywho are without him are dead, as well as that they who are dead arealso without him. So far as our knowledge goes respecting inferioranimals, they appear to be examples of this truth. They appear tous to have no knowledge of God; and we are not told that they haveany other life than the short one of which our senses inform us. Iam well aware that our ignorance of their condition is so great thatwe may not dare to say anything of them positively; there may be ahundred things true respecting them which we neither know norimagine. I would only say that, according to that most imperfectlight in which we see them, the two points of which I have beenspeaking appear to meet in them: we believe that they have noconsciousness of God, and we believe that they will die. And sofar, therefore, they afford an example of the agreement, if I may sospeak, between these two points; and were intended, perhaps, to beto our view a continual image of it. But we had far better speak ofourselves. And here, too, it is the case that "God is not the Godof the dead." If we are without him we are dead; and if we are deadwe are without him: in other words, the two ideas of death andabsence from God are in fact synonymous.

Thus, in the account given of the fall of man, the sentence of deathand of being cast out of Eden go together; and if any one comparesthe description of the second Eden in the Revelation, and recollectshow especially it is there said, that God dwells in the midst of it,and is its light by day and night, he will see that the banishmentfrom the first Eden means a banishment from the presence of God.And thus, in the day that Adam sinned, he died; for he was cast outof Eden immediately, however long he may have moved about afterwardsupon the earth where God was not. And how very strong to the samepoint are the words of Hezekiah's prayer, "The grave cannot praisethee, Death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down into the pitcannot hope for thy truth"; words which express completely thefeeling that God is not the God of the dead. This, too, appears tobe the sense generally of the expression used in various parts ofthe Old Testament, "Thou shalt surely die." It is, no doubt, leftpurposely obscure; nor are we ever told, in so many words, all thatis meant by death; but, surely, it always implies a separation fromGod, and the being—whatever the notion may extend to—the beingdead to him. Thus, when David had committed his great sin, and hadexpressed his repentance for it, Nathan tells him, "The Lord alsohath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die": which means, mostexpressively, thou shalt not die to God. In one sense David died,as all men die; nor was he by any means freed from the punishment ofhis sin: he was not, in that sense, forgiven; but he was allowedstill to regard God as his God; and, therefore, his punishments werebut fatherly chastisem*nts from God's hand, designed for his profit,that he might be partaker of God's holiness. And thus, althoughSaul was sentenced to lose his kingdom, and although he was killedwith his sons on Mount Gilboa, yet I do not think that we find thesentence passed upon him, "Thou shalt surely die;" and, therefore,we have no right to say that God had ceased to be his God, althoughhe visited him with severe chastisem*nts, and would not allow him tohand down to his sons the crown of Israel. Observe, also, thelanguage of the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, where the expressionsoccur so often, "He shall surely live," and "He shall surely die."We have no right to refer these to a mere extension on the one hand,or a cutting short on the other, of the term of earthly existence.The promise of living long in the land, or, as in Hezekiah's case,of adding to his days fifteen years, is very different from the fulland unreserved blessing, "Thou shalt surely live." And we know,undoubtedly, that both the good and the bad to whom Ezekiel spokedied alike the natural death of the body. But the peculiar force ofthe promise, and of the threat, was, in the one case, Thou shaltbelong to God; in the other, Thou shalt cease to belong to him;although the veil was not yet drawn up which concealed the fullimport of those terms, "belonging to God," and "ceasing to belong tohim": nay, can we venture to affirm that it is fully drawn asideeven now?

I have dwelt on this at some length, because it really seems toplace the common state of the minds of too many amongst us in alight which is exceedingly awful; for if it be true, as I think theScripture implies, that to be dead, and to be without God, areprecisely the same thing, then can it be denied that the symptoms ofdeath are strongly marked upon many of us? Are there not many whonever think of God or care about his service? Are there not many wholive, to all appearances, as unconscious of his existence as wefancy the inferior animals to be? And is it not quite clear, that tosuch persons, God cannot be said to be their God? He may be the Godof heaven and earth, the God of the universe, the God of Christ'sChurch; but he is not their God, for they feel to have nothing atall to do with him; and, therefore, as he is not their God, theyare, and must be, according to the Scripture, reckoned among thedead.

But God is the God "of the living." That is, as before, all who arealive, live unto him; all who live unto him are alive. "God said, Iam the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;"and, therefore, says our Lord, "Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob arenot and cannot be dead." They cannot be dead because God owns them;he is not ashamed to be called their God; therefore, they are notcast out from him; therefore, by necessity, they live. Wonderful,indeed, is the truth here implied, in exact agreement, as we haveseen, with the general language of Scripture; that, as she who buttouched the hem of Christ's garment was, in a moment, relieved fromher infirmity, so great was the virtue which went out from him; sothey who are not cast out from God, but have anything: whatever todo with him, feel the virtue of his gracious presence penetratingtheir whole nature; because he lives, they must live also.

Behold, then, life and death set before us; not remote (if a fewyears be, indeed, to be called remote), but even now present beforeus; even now suffered or enjoyed. Even now we are alive unto God ordead unto God; and, as we are either the one or the other, so weare, in the highest possible sense of the terms, alive or dead. Inthe highest possible sense of the terms; but who can tell what thathighest possible sense of the terms is? So much has, indeed, beenrevealed to us, that we know now that death means a conscious andperpetual death, as life means a conscious and perpetual life. Butgreatly, indeed, do we deceive ourselves, if we fancy that, byhaving thus much told us, we have also risen to the infiniteheights, or descended to the infinite depths, contained in thoselittle words, life and death. They are far higher, and far deeper,than ever thought or fancy of man has reached to. But, even on thefirst edge of either, at the visible beginnings of that infiniteascent or descent, there is surely something which may give us aforetaste of what is beyond. Even to us in this mortal state, evento you advanced but so short a way on your very earthly journey,life and death have a meaning: to be dead unto God or to be alive tohim, are things perceptibly different.

For, let me ask of those who think least of God, who are mostseparate from him, and most without him, whether there is not nowactually, perceptibly, in their state, something of the coldness,the loneliness, the fearfulness of death? I do not ask them whetherthey are made unhappy by the fear of God's anger; of course they arenot: for they who fear God are not dead to him, nor he to them. Thethought of him gives them no disquiet at all; this is the very pointwe start from. But I would ask them whether they know what it is tofeel God's blessing, For instance: we all of us have our troubles ofsome sort or other, our disappointments, if not our sorrows. Inthese troubles, in these disappointments,—I care not how small theymay be,—have they known what it is to feel that God's hand is overthem; that these little annoyances are but his fatherly correction;that he is all the time loving us, and supporting us? In seasons ofjoy, such as they taste very often, have they known what it is tofeel that they are tasting the kindness of their heavenly Father,that their good things come from his hand, and are but an infinitelyslight foretaste of his love? Sickness, danger,—I know that theycome to many of us but rarely; but if we have known them, or atleast sickness, even in its lighter form, if not in its graver,—have we felt what it is to know that we are in our Father's hands,that he is with us, and will be with us to the end; that nothing canhurt those whom he loves? Surely, then, if we have never tastedanything of this: if in trouble, or in joy, or in sickness, we areleft wholly to ourselves, to bear as we can, and enjoy as we can; ifthere is no voice that ever speaks out of the heights and the depthsaround us, to give any answer to our own; if we are thus left toourselves in this vast world,—there is in this a coldness and aloneliness; and whenever we come to be, of necessity, driven to bewith our own hearts alone, the coldness and the loneliness must befelt. But consider that the things which we see around us cannotremain with us, nor we with them. The coldness and loneliness of theworld, without God, must be felt more and more as life wears on: inevery change of our own state, in every separation from or loss of afriend, in every more sensible weakness of our own bodies, in everyadditional experience of the uncertainty of our own counsels,—thedeathlike feeling will come upon us more and more strongly: we shallgain more of that fearful knowledge which tells us that "God is notthe God of the dead."

And so, also, the blessed knowledge that he is the God "of theliving" grows upon those who are truly alive. Surely he "is not farfrom every one of us." No occasion of life fails to remind those wholive unto him, that he is their God, and that they are his children.On light occasions or on grave ones, in sorrow and in joy, still thewarmth of his love is spread, as it were, all through the atmosphereof their lives: they for ever feel his blessing. And if it fillsthem with joy unspeakable even now, when they so often feel howlittle they deserve it; if they delight still in being with God, andin living to him, let them be sure that they have in themselves theunerring witness of life eternal:—God is the God of the living,and all who are with him must live.

Hard it is, I well know, to bring this home, in any degree, to theminds of those who are dead: for it is of the very nature of thedead that they can hear no words of life. But it has happened that,even whilst writing what I have just been uttering to you, the newsreached me that one, who two months ago was one of your number, whothis very half-year has shared in all the business and amusem*nts ofthis place, is passed already into that state where the meanings ofthe terms life and death are become fully revealed. He knows whatit is to live unto God and what it is to die to him. Those thingswhich are to us unfathomable mysteries, are to him all plain: andyet but two months ago he might have thought himself as far fromattaining this knowledge as any of us can do. Wherefore it isclear, that these things, life and death, may hurry their lessonupon us sooner than we deem of, sooner than we are prepared toreceive it. And that were indeed awful, if, being dead to God, andyet little feeling it, because of the enjoyments of our worldly lifethese enjoyments were of a sudden to be struck away from us, and weshould find then that to be dead to God is death indeed, a deathfrom which there is no waking and in which there is no sleepingforever.

CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR (1830-1886)

If "Eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary and no more."President Arthur's inaugural address is one of its best examples. Hewas placed in a position of the gravest difficulty. He had beennominated for Vice-President as a representative of the "Stalwart"Republicans when that element of the party had been defeated inNational convention by the element then described as "Half-Breeds."After the assassination of President Garfield by the "paranoiac"Guiteau, the country waited with breathless interest to hear whatthe Vice-President would say in taking the Presidency. With a tactwhich amounted to genius, which never failed him during hisadministration, which in its results showed itself equivalent to thehighest statesmanship, Mr. Arthur, a man to whom his opponents hadbeen unwilling to concede more than mediocre abilities, rose to theoccasion, disarmed factional oppositions, mitigated the animosity ofpartisanship, and during his administration did more than had beendone before him to re-unite the sections divided by Civil War.

He was born in Fairfield, Vermont, October 5th, 1830. His father,Rev. William Arthur, a Baptist clergyman, born in Ireland, gave hima good education, sending him to Union College where he graduated in1848. After teaching school in Vermont, he studied law and beganpractice in New York city. Entering politics as a Henry Clay Whig,and casting his first vote in 1852 for Winfield Scott, he was activeas a Republican in the Fremont campaign of 1856 and from that timeuntil elected to the Vice-Presidency took that strong interest inpublic affairs which led his opponents to class him as a"professional politician." During the Civil War he wasinspector-general and quarter-master general of New York troops. In1871 President Grant appointed him collector of the port of New Yorkand he held the office until July 1878. when he was suspended byPresident Hayes. Taking an active part in the movement to nominateGeneral Grant for the Presidency to succeed Mr. Hayes. he attendedthe Republican convention of 1880, and after the defeat of the Grantforces, he was nominated as their representative for theVice-Presidency. He died suddenly in New York city, November 18th,1886, having won for himself during his administration as Presidentthe good-will of so many of his political opponents that the futurehistorian will probably study his administration as that duringwhich the most notable changes of the decade were made from thepolitics of the Civil War period.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS (Delivered September 22d, 1881)

For the fourth time in the history of the Republic its chiefmagistrate has been removed by death. All hearts are filled withgrief and horror at the hideous crime which has darkened our land,and the memory of the murdered President, his protracted sufferings,his unyielding fortitude, the example and achievements of his lifeand the pathos of his death will forever illumine the pages of ourhistory.

For the fourth time, the officer elected by the people and ordainedby the constitution to fill a vacancy so created, is called toassume the executive chair. The wisdom of our fathers, foreseeingeven the most dire possibilities, made sure that the governmentshould never be imperiled because of the uncertainty of humanlife. Men may die but the fabric of our free institutions remainsunshaken. No higher or more assuring proof could exist of thestrength and permanence of popular government than the fact thatthough the chosen of the people be struck down, his constitutionalsuccessor is peacefully installed without shock or strain exceptthat of the sorrow which mourns the bereavement. All the nobleaspirations of my lamented predecessor, which found expressionduring his life, the measures devised and suggested during his briefadministration to correct abuses, to enforce economy, to advanceprosperity, to promote the general welfare, to insure domesticsecurity and maintain friendly and honorable relations with thenations of the earth, will be garnered in the hearts of the peopleand it will be my earnest endeavor to profit and to see that thenation shall profit by his example and experience.

Prosperity blesses our country. Our fiscal policy as fixed by lawis well-grounded and generally approved. No threatening issue marsour foreign intercourse and the wisdom, integrity, and thrift of ourpeople may be trusted to continue undisturbed the present career ofpeace, tranquillity, and welfare. The gloom and anxiety which haveenshrouded the country must make repose especially welcome now. Nodemand for speedy legislation has been heard; no adequate occasionis apparent for an unusual session of Congress. The constitutiondefines the functions and powers of the executive as clearly asthose of either of the other two departments of the government, andhe must answer for the just exercise of the discretion it permitsand the performance of the duties it imposes. Summoned to thesehigh duties and responsibilities, and profoundly conscious of theirmagnitude and gravity, I assume the trust imposed by theconstitution, relying for aid on divine guidance and on the virtue,patriotism, and intelligence of the American people.

ATHANASIUS (298-373)

Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, owes his great celebritychiefly to the controversy with the Arians, in which for half acentury he was at the head of the orthodox party in the Church. Hewas born at Alexandria in the year 298, and was ordained a priest atthe age of twenty-one. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to theCouncil of Nice in 325, and when under thirty years old succeeded tothe bishopric, on the death of Alexander, His success in the Ariancontroversy was not achieved without cost, since, as an incident ofit, he spent twenty years in banishment. His admirers credit himwith "a deep mind, invincible courage, and living faith," but as hisorations and discourses were largely controversial, the interestwhich now attaches to them is chiefly historical. The following waspreached from the seventh and eighth verses of the Forty-FifthPsalm.

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

Behold, O ye Arians, and acknowledge hence the truth. The Psalmistspeaks of us all as fellows or partakers of the Lord, but were heone of things which come out of nothing and of things generated hehimself had been one of those who partake. But since he hymned himas the eternal God, saying, "Thy throne, O God, is forever andever," and has declared that all other things partake of him, whatconclusion must we draw, but that he is distinct from generatedthings, and he only the Father's veritable word, radiance, andwisdom, which all things generate partake, being sanctified by himin the Spirit? And, therefore, he is here "anointed," not that hemay become God, for he was so even before; nor that he may becomeking, for he had the kingdom eternally, existing as God's image, asthe sacred oracle shows; but in our behalf is this written, asbefore. For the Israelitish kings, upon their being anointed, thenbecame kings, not being so before, as David, as Ezekias, as Josias,and the rest; but the Savior, on the contrary, being God, and everruling in the Father's kingdom, and being himself the Dispenser ofthe Holy Ghost, nevertheless is here said to be anointed, that, asbefore, being said as man to be anointed with the Spirit, he mightprovide for us more, not only exaltation and resurrection, but theindwelling and intimacy of the Spirit. And signifying this, the Lordhimself hath said by his own mouth, in the Gospel according toJohn: "I have sent them into the world, and for their sakes do Isanctify myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth." Insaying this, he has shown that he is not the sanctified, but theSanctifier; for he is not sanctified by other, but himselfsanctifies himself, that we may be sanctified in the truth. He whosanctifies himself is Lord of sanctification. How, then, does thistake place? What does he mean but this? "I, being the Father's Word,I give to myself, when become man, the Spirit; and myself, becomeman, do I sanctify in him, that henceforth in me, who am truth (for'Thy Word is Truth'), all may be sanctified."

If, then, for our sake, he sanctifies himself, and does this when hebecomes man, it is very plain that the Spirit's descent on him inJordan was a descent upon us, because of his bearing our body. Andit did not take place for promotion to the Word, but again for oursanctification, that we might share his anointing, and of us itmight be said, Know ye not that ye are God's temple, and the Spiritof God dwelleth in you? For when the Lord, as man, was washed inJordan, it was we who were washed in him and by him. And when hereceived the Spirit, we it was who, by him, were made recipients ofit. And, moreover, for this reason, not as Aaron, or David, or therest, was he anointed with oil, but in another way, above all hisfellows, "with the oil of gladness," which he himself interprets tobe the Spirit, saying by the prophet, "The Spirit of the Lord isupon me, because the Lord hath anointed me"; as also the Apostle hassaid, "How God anointed him with the Holy Ghost." When, then, werethese things spoken of him, but when he came in the flesh, and wasbaptized in Jordan, and the spirit descended on him? And, indeed,the Lord himself said, "The Spirit shall take of mine," and "I willsend him"; and to his Disciples, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." And,notwithstanding, he who, as the word and radiance of the Father,gives to others, now is said to be sanctified, because now he hasbecome Man, and the Body that is sanctified is his. From him, then,we have begun to receive the unction and the seal, John saying, "Andye have an unction from the Holy One"; and the Apostle, "And ye weresealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Therefore, because of us,and for us, are these words. What advance, then, of promotion, andreward of virtue, or generally of conduct, is proved from this inour Lord's instance? For if he was not God, and then had becomeGod—if, not being king, he was preferred to the kingdom, yourreasoning would have had some faint plausibility. But if he is God,and the throne of his kingdom is everlasting, in what way could Godadvance? Or what was there wanting to him who was sitting on hisFather's throne? And if, as the Lord himself has said, the Spiritis his, and takes of his, and he sends it, it is not the Word,considered as the Word and Wisdom, who is anointed with the Spirit,which he himself gives, but the flesh assumed by him, which isanointed in him and by him; that the sanctification coming to theLord as man, may come to all men from him. For, not of itself,saith he, doth the Spirit speak, but the word is he who gives it tothe worthy. For this is like the passage considered above; for, asthe Apostle hath written, "Who, existing in form of God, thought itnot robbery to be equal with God, but humbled himself, and took aservant's form," so David celebrates the Lord, as the everlastingGod and king, but sent to us, and assuming our body, which ismortal. For this is his meaning in the Psalm, "All thy garmentssmell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia"; and it is represented byNicodemus's and by Mary's company, when he came, bringing a mixtureof myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pounds weight; and they tookthe spices which they had prepared for the burial of the Lord'sbody.

What advancement, then, was it to the Immortal to have assumed themortal? Or what promotion is it to the Everlasting to have put onthe temporal? What reward can be great to the Everlasting God andKing, in the bosom of the Father? See ye not, that this, too, wasdone and written because of us and for us, that us who are mortaland temporal, the Lord, become man, might mate immortal, and bringinto the everlasting kingdom of heaven? Blush ye not, speaking liesagainst the divine oracles? For when our Lord Jesus Christ had beenamong us, we, indeed, were promoted, as rescued from sin; but he isthe same, nor did he alter when he became man (to repeat what I havesaid), but, as has been written, "The word of God abideth forever."Surely as, before his becoming man, he, the Word, dispensed to thesaints the Spirit as his own; so also, when made man, be sanctifiesall by the Spirit, and says to his Disciples, "Receive ye the HolyGhost." And he gave to Moses and the other seventy; and through himDavid prayed to the Father, saying, "Take not thy Holy Spirit fromme." On the other hand, when made man, he said, "I will send to youthe Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth"; and he sent him, he, the Wordof God, as being faithful.

Therefore "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever,"remaining unalterable, and at once gives and receives, giving asGod's Word, receiving as man. It is not the Word then, viewed as theWord, that is promoted,—for he had all things and has had themalways,—but men, who have in him and through him their origin ofreceiving them. For, when he is now said to be anointed in a humanrespect, we it is who in him are anointed; since also, when he isbaptized, we it is who in him are baptized. But on all these thingsthe Savior throws much light, when he says to the Father, "And theglory which thou gavest me, I have given to them, that they may beone, even as we are one." Because of us, then, he asked for glory,and the words occur, "took" and "gave" and "highly exalted," that wemight take, and to us might be given, and we might be exalted, inhim; as also for us he sanctifies himself, that we might besanctified in him.

But if they take advantage of the word "wherefore," as connectedwith the passage in the Psalm, "Wherefore God, even thy God, hathanointed thee," for their own purposes, let these novices inScripture and masters in irreligion know that, as before, the word"wherefore" does not imply reward of virtue or conduct in the Word,but the reason why he came down to us, and of the Spirit'sanointing, which took place in him for our sakes. For he says not,"Wherefore he anointed thee in order to thy being God or King or Sonor Word,"—for so he was before, and is forever, as has beenshown,—but rather, "Since thou art God and king, therefore thouwast anointed, since none but thou couldst unite man to the HolyGhost, thou the image of the Father, in which we were made in thebeginning; for thine is even the Spirit," For the nature of thingsgenerate could give no warranty for this, angels havingtransgressed, and men disobeyed. Wherefore there was need of God;and the Word is God; that those who had become under a curse, hehimself might set free. If then he was of nothing, he would nothave been the Christ or Anointed, being one among others and havingfellowship as the rest. But, whereas he is God, as being the Son ofGod, and is everlasting King, and exists as radiance and expressionof the Father, wherefore fitly is he the expected Christ, whom theFather announces to mankind, by revelation to his holy prophets;that as through him we have come to be, so also in him all men mightbe redeemed from their sins, and by him all things might be ruled.And this is the cause of the anointing which took place in him, andof the incarnate presence of the Word; which the Psalmistforeseeing, celebrates, first his Godhead and kingdom, which is theFather's, in these tones, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; asceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom"; thenannounces his descent to us thus: "Wherefore God, even thy God, hathanointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

SAINT AUGUSTINE (354-430)

Saint Augustine who is always classed as one of the four great Latinfathers is generally conceded to be chief among them in naturalstrength of intellect. Saint Jerome, who excelled him in knowledgeof classical literature, is his inferior in intellectual acuteness;and certainly no other theologian of the earlier ages of the Churchhas done so much as has Saint Augustine to influence the thought ofits strongest minds.

Augustine (Aurelius Augustinus) was a Numidian by birth. He had aChristian mother, whose devotion resulted in his conversion, as wellas in that of his father, who seems to have been a man of liberalmind, aware of the value of literary education. Augustine was wellversed in the Latin classics. The extent of his knowledge of Greekliterature has been questioned, but it is conceded that he knew thelanguage, at least well enough for purposes of comparative study ofthe Scripture text.

As a young man, his ideas of morality, as we know from his'Confessions,' were not severe. He was not extraordinarilylicentious, but he had the introspective sensitiveness which seemsto characterize great genius wherever it is found, and in his laterlife he looked with acute pain on the follies of his youth.

Becoming a Christian at the age of twenty-three, he was ordained apriest four years later, and in 395 became Bishop of Hippo. Of hisliterary works, his book 'The City of God' is accounted his masterpiece,though it is not so generally read as his 'Confessions.' The sermonon the Lord's Prayer here given as an illustration of his style inthe pulpit, is from his 'Homilies on the New Testament,' astranslated in Parker's 'Library of the Fathers.'

THE LORD'S PRAYER

The order established for your edification requires that ye learnfirst what to believe, and afterwards what to ask. For so saith theApostle, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall besaved." This testimony blessed Paul cited out of the Prophet; for bythe Prophet were those times foretold, when all men should call uponGod; "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall besaved." And he added, "How then shall they call on him in whom theyhave not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom theyhave not heard? Or how shall they hear without a preacher? Or howshall they preach except they be sent?" Therefore were preacherssent. They preached Christ. As they preached, the people heard; byhearing they believed, and by believing called upon him. Becausethen it was most rightly and most truly said, "How shall they callon him in whom they have not believed?" therefore have ye firstlearned what to believe: and to-day have learned to call on him inwhom ye have believed.

The Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, hath taught us a prayer; andthough he be the Lord himself, as ye have heard and repeated in theCreed, the Only Son of God, yet he would not be alone. He is theOnly Son, and yet would not be alone; he hath vouchsafed to havebrethren. For to whom doth he say, "Say, Our Father, which art inheaven?" Whom did he wish us to call our father, save his ownfather? Did he grudge us this? Parents sometimes when they havegotten one, or two, or three children, fear to give birth to anymore, lest they reduce the rest to beggary. But because theinheritance which he promised us is such as many may possess, and noone be straitened, therefore hath he called into his brotherhood thepeoples of the nations; and the only son hath numberless brethren,who say, "Our Father, which art in heaven." So said they who havebeen before us; and so shall say those who will come after us. Seehow many brethren the only son hath in his grace, sharing hisinheritance with those for whom he suffered death. We had a fatherand mother on earth, that we might be born to labors and to death;but we have found other parents, God our father and the Church ourmother, by whom we are born unto life eternal. Let us then consider,beloved, whose children we have begun to be; and let us live so asbecomes those who have such a father. See, how that our Creator hathcondescended to be our Father.

We have heard whom we ought to call upon, and with what hope of aneternal inheritance we have begun to have a father in heaven; let usnow hear what we must ask of him. Of such a father what shall weask? Do we not ask rain of him, to-day, and yesterday, and the daybefore? This is no great thing to have asked of such a father, andyet ye see with what sighings, and with what great desire we ask forrain, when death is feared,—when that is feared which none canescape. For sooner or later every man must die, and we groan, andpray, and travail in pain, and cry to God, that we may die a littlelater, How much more ought we to cry to him, that we may come tothat place where we shall never die!

Therefore it is said, "Hallowed be thy name." This we also ask ofhim that his name may be hallowed in us; for holy is it always. Andhow is his name hallowed in us, except while it makes us holy? Foronce we were not holy, and we are made holy by his name; but he isalways holy, and his name always holy. It is for ourselves, not forGod, that we pray. For we do not wish well to God, to whom no illcan ever happen. But we wish what is good for ourselves, that hisholy name may be hallowed, that that which is always holy, may behallowed in us.

"Thy kingdom come." Come it surely will, whether we ask or no.Indeed, God hath an eternal kingdom. For when did he not reign?When did he begin to reign? For his kingdom hath no beginning,neither shall it have any end. But that ye may know that in thisprayer also we pray for ourselves, and not for God (For we do notsay, "Thy kingdom come," as though we were asking that God mayreign); we shall be ourselves his kingdom, if believing in him wemake progress in this faith. All the faithful, redeemed by theblood of his only son, will be his kingdom. And this his kingdomwill come, when the resurrection of the dead shall have taken place;for then he will come himself. And when the dead are risen, he willdivide them, as he himself saith, "and he shall set some on theright hand, and some on the left." To those who shall be on theright hand he will say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, receive thekingdom." This is what we wish and pray for when we say, "Thykingdom come"; that it may come to us. For if we shall be reprobates,that kingdom shall come to others, but not to us. But if we shallbe of that number, who belong to the members of his only-begottenson, his kingdom will come to us, and will not tarry. For are thereas many ages yet remaining as have already passed away? The ApostleJohn hath said, "My little children, it is the last hour." But itis a long hour proportioned to this long day; and see how many yearsthis last hour lasteth. But, nevertheless, be ye as those whowatch, and so sleep, and rise again, and reign. Let us watch now,let us sleep in death; at the end we shall rise again, and shallreign without end.

"Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth." The third thing wepray for is, that his will may be done as in heaven so in earth.And in this, too, we wish well for ourselves. For the will of Godmust necessarily be done. It is the will of God that the goodshould reign, and the wicked be damned. Is it possible that thiswill should not be done? But what good do we wish for ourselves,when we say, "Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth?" Giveear. For this petition may be understood in many ways, and manythings are to be in our thoughts in this petition, when we pray God,"Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth." As thy angels offendthee not, so may we also not offend thee. Again, how is "Thy willbe done as in heaven, so in earth," understood? All the holyPatriarchs, all the Prophets, all the Apostles, all the spiritualare, as it were, God's heaven; and we in comparison of them areearth. "Thy will be done in heaven, so in earth"; as in them, so inus also. Again, "Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth"; theChurch of God is heaven, his enemies are earth. So we wish well forour enemies, that they too may believe and become Christians, and sothe will of God be done as in heaven, so also in earth. Again, "Thywill be done as in heaven, so in earth." Our spirit is heaven, andthe flesh earth. As our spirit is renewed by believing, so may ourflesh be renewed by rising again; and "the will of God be done as inheaven, so in earth." Again, our mind whereby we see truth, anddelight in this truth, is heaven; as, "I delight in the law of God,after the inward man." What is the earth? "I see another law in mymembers, warring against the law of my mind?" When this strifeshall have passed away, and a full concord be brought about of theflesh and spirit, the will of God will be done as in heaven, so alsoin earth. When we repeat this petition, let us think of all thesethings, and ask them all of the Father. Now all these things whichwe have mentioned, these three petitions, beloved, have respect tothe life eternal. For if the name of our God is sanctified in us,it will be for eternity. If his kingdom come, where we shall liveforever, it will be for eternity. If his will be done as in heaven,so in earth, in all the ways which I have explained, it will be foreternity.

There remain now the petitions for this life of our pilgrimage;therefore follows, "Give us this day our daily bread." Give useternal things, give us things temporal. Thou hast promised akingdom, deny us not the means of subsistence. Thou wilt giveeverlasting glory with thyself hereafter, give us in this earthtemporal support. Therefore is it day by day, and to-day, that is,in this present time. For when this life shall have passed away,shall we ask for daily bread then? For then it will not be calledday by day, but to-day. Now it is called day by day, when one daypasses away, and another day succeeds. Will it be called day by daywhen there will be one eternal day? This petition for daily breadis doubtless to be understood in two ways, both for the necessarysupply of our bodily food, and for the necessities of our spiritualsupport. There is a necessary supply of bodily food, for thepreservation of our daily life, without which we cannot live. Thisis food and clothing, but the whole is understood in a part. Whenwe ask for bread, we thereby understand all things. There is aspiritual food, also, which the faithful know, which ye, too, willknow when ye shall receive it at the altar of God. This also is"daily bread," necessary only for this life. For shall we receivethe Eucharist when we shall have come to Christ himself, and begunto reign with him forever? So then the Eucharist is our dailybread; but let us in such wise receive it, that we be not refreshedin our bodies only, but in our souls. For the virtue which isapprehended there, is unity, that gathered together into his body,and made his members, we may be what we receive. Then will it be,indeed, our daily bread. Again, what I am handling before you nowis "daily bread"; and the daily lessons which ye hear in church aredaily bread, and the hymns ye hear and repeat are daily bread. Forall these arc necessary in our state of pilgrimage. But when weshall have got to heaven, shall we hear the Word, we who shall seethe Word himself, and hear the Word himself, and eat and drink himas the angels do now? Do the angels need books, and interpreters,and readers? Surely not. They read in seeing, for the truth itselfthey see, and are abundantly satisfied from that fountain, fromwhich we obtain some few drops. Therefore has it been said touchingour daily bread, that this petition is necessary for us in thislife.

"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." Is this necessaryexcept in this life? For in the other we shall have no debts. Forwhat are debts, but sins? See, ye are on the point of beingbaptized, then all your sins will be blotted out, none whatever willremain. Whatever evil ye have ever done, in deed, or word, ordesire, or thought, all will be blotted out. And yet if in the lifewhich is after baptism there were security from sin, we should notlearn such a prayer as this, "Forgive us our debts." Only let us byall means do what comes next, "As we forgive our debtors." Do yethen, who are about to enter in to receive a plenary and entireremission of your debts, do ye above all things see that ye havenothing in your hearts against any other, so as to come forth frombaptism secure, as it were, free and discharged of all debts, andthen begin to purpose to avenge yourselves on your enemies, who intime past have done you wrong. Forgive, as ye are forgiven. God cando no one wrong, and yet he forgiveth who oweth nothing. How thenought he to forgive who is himself forgiven, when he forgiveth allwho oweth nothing that can be forgiven him?

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Will thisagain be necessary in the life to come? "Lead us not intotemptation," will not be said except where there can be temptation.We read in the book of holy Job, "Is not the life of man upon eartha temptation?" What, then, do we pray for? Hear what. The ApostleJames saith, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted ofGod." He spoke of those evil temptations whereby men are deceived,and brought under the yoke of the devil. This is the kind oftemptation he spoke of. For there is another sort of temptationwhich is called a proving; of this kind of temptation it is written,"The Lord your God tempteth [proveth] you to know whether ye lovehim." What means "to know"? "To make you know," for he knowethalready. With that kind of temptation whereby we are deceived andseduced, God tempteth no man. But undoubtedly in his deep andhidden judgment he abandons some. And when he hath abandoned them,the tempter finds his opportunity. For he finds in him noresistance against his power, but forthwith presents himself to himas his possessor, if God abandon him. Therefore, that he may notabandon us, do we say, "Lead us not into temptation." "For every oneis tempted," says the same Apostle James, "when he is drawn away ofhis own lust and enticed. Then lust, when it hath conceived,bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forthdeath." What, then, has he hereby taught us? To fight against ourlusts. For ye are about to put away your sins in holy baptism; butlusts will still remain, wherewith ye must fight after that ye areregenerate. For a conflict with your own selves still remains. Letno enemy from without be feared; conquer thine own self, and thewhole world is conquered. What can any tempter from without, whetherthe devil or the devil's minister, do against thee? Whosoever setsthe hope of gain before thee to seduce thee, let him only find nocovetousness in thee; and what can he who would tempt thee by gaineffect? Whereas, if covetousness be found in thee, thou takest fireat the sight of gain, and art taken by the bait of this corruptfood. But if we find no covetousness in thee, the trap remainsspread in vain. Or should the tempter set before thee some woman ofsurpassing beauty; if chastity be within, iniquity from without isovercome. Therefore, that he may not take thee with the bait of astrange woman's beauty, fight with thine own lust within; thou hastno sensible perception of thine enemy, but of thine ownconcupiscence thou hast. Thou dost not see the devil, but the objectthat engageth thee thou dost see. Get the mastery then over that ofwhich thou art sensible within. Fight valiantly, for he who hathregenerated thee is thy judge; he hath arranged the lists, he ismaking ready the crown. But because thou wilt without doubt beconquered, if thou have not him to aid thee, if he abandon thee,therefore dost thou say in the prayer, "Lead us not intotemptation." The judge's wrath hath given over some to their ownlusts; and the Apostle says, "God gave them over to the lusts oftheir hearts." How did he give them up? Not by forcing, but byforsaking them.

"Deliver us from evil," may belong to the same sentence. Therefore,that thou mayst understand it to be all one sentence, it runs thus,"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Therefore,he added "but," to show that all this belongs to one sentence, "Leadus not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." How is this? Iwill propose them singly. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliverus from evil." By delivering us from evil, he leadeth us not intotemptation; by not leading us into temptation, he delivereth us fromevil.

And, truly, it is a great temptation, dearly beloved, it is a greattemptation in this life, when that in us is the subject oftemptation whereby we attain pardon if, in any of our temptations,we have fallen. It is a frightful temptation when that is taken fromus whereby we may be healed from the wounds of other temptations. Iknow that ye have not yet understood me. Give me your attention,that ye may understand. Suppose, avarice tempts a man, and he isconquered in any single temptation (for sometimes even a goodwrestler and fighter may get roughly handled): avarice, then, hasgot the better of a man, good wrestler though he be, and he has donesome avaricious act. Or there has been a passing lust; it has notbrought the man to fornication, nor reached unto adultery—for whenthis does take place, the man must at all events be kept back fromthe criminal act. But he "hath seen a woman to lust after her"; hehas let his thoughts dwell on her with more pleasure than was right;he has admitted the attack; excellent combatant though he be, he hasbeen wounded, but he has not consented to it; he has beaten back themotion of his lust, has chastised it with the bitterness of grief,he has beaten it back; and has prevailed. Still, in the very factthat he had slipped, has he ground for saying, "Forgive us ourdebts." And so of all other temptations, it is a hard matter that inthem all there should not be occasion for saying, "Forgive us ourdebts." What, then, is that frightful temptation which I havementioned, that grievous, that tremendous temptation, which must beavoided with all our strength, with all our resolution; what is it?When we go about to avenge ourselves. Anger is kindled, and the manbums to be avenged. O frightful temptation! Thou art losing that,whereby thou hadst to attain pardon for other faults. If thou hadstcommitted any sin as to other senses, and other lusts, hencemightest thou have had thy cure, in that thou mightest say, "Forgiveus our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." But whoso instigateththee to take vengeance will lose for thee the power thou hadst tosay, "As we also forgive our debtors." When that power is lost, allsins will be retained; nothing at all is remitted.

Our Lord and Master, and Savior, knowing this dangerous temptationin this life, when he taught us six or seven petitions in thisprayer, took none of them for himself to treat of, and to commend tous with greater earnestness, than this one. Have we not said, "OurFather, which art in heaven," and the rest which follows? Why afterthe conclusion of the prayer, did he not enlarge upon it to us,either as to what he had laid down in the beginning, or concludedwith at the end, or placed in the middle? For why said he not, ifthe name of God be not hallowed in you, or if ye have no part in thekingdom of God, or if the will of God be not done in you, as inheaven, or if God guard you not, that ye enter not into temptation;why none of all these? but what saith he? "Verily I say unto you,that if ye forgive men their trespasses," in reference to thatpetition, "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors."Having passed over all the other petitions which he taught us, thishe taught us with an especial force. There was no need of insistingso much upon those sins in which if a man offend, he may know themeans whereby he may be cured; need of it there was with regard tothat sin in which, if thou sin, there is no means whereby the restcan be cured. For this thou oughtest to be ever saying, "Forgive usour debts." What debts? There is no lack of them, for we are butmen; I have talked somewhat more than I ought, have said something Iought not, have laughed more than I ought, have eaten more than Iought, have listened with pleasure to what I ought not, have drunkmore than I ought, have seen with pleasure what I ought not, havethought with pleasure on what I ought not; "Forgive us our debts, aswe also forgive our debtors." This if thou hast lost, thou art lostthyself.

Take heed, my brethren, my sons, sons of God, take heed, I beseechyou, in that I am saying to you. Fight to the uttermost of yourpowers with your own hearts. And if ye shall see your anger making astand against you, pray to God against it, that God may make theeconqueror of thyself, that God may make thee conqueror, I say, notof thine enemy without, but of thine own soul within. For he willgive thee his present help, and will do it. He would rather that weask this of him, than rain. For ye see, beloved, how many petitionsthe Lord Christ hath taught us; and there is scarce found among themone which speaks of daily bread, that all our thoughts may be moldedafter the life to come. For what can we fear that he will not giveus, who hath promised and said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of Godand his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you;for your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things before yeask him." "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,and all these things shall be added unto you." For many have beentried even with hunger, and have been found gold, and have not beenforsaken by God. They would have perished with hunger, if the dailyinward bread were to leave their heart. After this let us chieflyhunger. For, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst afterrighteousness, for they shall be filled." But he can in mercy lookupon our infirmity, and see us, as it is said, "Remember that we aredust." He who from the dust made and quickened man, for that hiswork of clay's sake, gave his only son to death. Who can explain,who can worthily so much as conceive, how much he loveth us?

FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)

Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam and Viscount St. Albans, is called byone of his contemporaries, "the eloquentest man in England." Perhapsthose who read his legal arguments before the Star Chamber may notsee this eloquence so fully exemplified in them as in hisincomparable essays; but wherever he speaks, it is Francis Baconspeaking. It is doubtful if any other man ever lived who has evenapproached him in the power of controlling his own and subsequenttimes by purely intellectual means. Until his time, Aristotle had norival in the domain of pure intellect Since he lived, the highermind of the world has owned his mastery and has shown the results ofthe inspiration of his intellectual daring in following, regardlessof consequences, the "inductive method," the determination to maketruth fruitful through experiment, which has resulted in thescientific accomplishments of the modern world. Lucretius writes ofthe pleasure of knowing truth as like that a man on shore in a stormhas in seeing the struggles of those who are about to beshipwrecked:—

"'Tis sweet when the seas are roughened by violent winds to view onland the toils of others; not that there is pleasure in seeingothers in distress, but because man is glad to know himselfsecure. It is pleasant, too, to look with no share of peril on themighty contests of war; but nothing is sweeter than to reach thosecalm, undisturbed temples, raised by the wisdom of philosophers,whence thou mayst look down on poor, mistaken mortals, wandering upand down in life's devious ways."—(Lucretius ii 1, translated byRamage.)

"Suave mari magno turbantibus aequora ventis,
E terra magnum altcrius spectare laborem;
Non quia vexari quenquam est jucunda voluptas,
Sed quibus ipse malis careas, quia cernere suave est," etc.

Perhaps the spirit of the ancient learning was never so wellexpressed elsewhere as in these lines. In what may be called a pleafor the possibilities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuriesBacon answered it.

"Is there any such happiness for a man's mind to be raised above theconfusion of things where he may have the prospect of the order ofnature and error of man? But is this view of delight only and not ofdiscovery—of contentment, and not of benefit? Shall he not as welldiscern the riches of Nature's warehouse as the beauties of hershop? Is truth ever barren? Shall he not be able thereby to produceworthy effects and to endow the life of man with infinitecommodities?"

Among the "infinite commodities" already developed from the thoughtflowing into and out of the mind which framed these sublimesentences are the steam engine, the electric motor, the discoveriesof the microscope in the treatment of disease, the wonders ofchemistry, working out practical results to alleviate human misery,and to increase steadily from year to year, and from century tocentury, the sum of human comfort. Looking forward to this, Baconworked for it until his whole life became a manifestation of hismaster-thought. It may be said with literal truth that he died ofit, for the cold which brought him his death resulted from hisrashness in leaving his carriage, when sick, to experiment on thearrest of putrefaction by freezing. The idea came to him. It waswinter and the ground was covered with snow. He was feeble, but heleft his carriage to stuff snow into the carcass of a chicken he hadprocured for the experiment. The experiment succeeded, andcenturies later, as a result of it, England is fed with the meat ofAmerica and Australia, But Bacon died after it, leaving behind himideas which stamp him as the greatest and brightest, whether or nothe was also "the meanest of mankind." On this latter point, he mayspeak for himself, as he does thus in the volume 'State Trials' fromwhich his speech on Dueling, before the Star Chamber, here used, isextracted:—

(Howell's, Vol. ii.): "Upon advised consideration of the charge,descending into my own conscience and calling my memory to account,as far as I am able, I do plainly and ingenuously confess that I amguilty of corruption, and do renounce all defense and put myselfupon the grace and mercy of your lordships. … To the nineteentharticle, vis., 'That in the cause between Reynell and Peaco*ck, hereceived from Reynell two hundred pounds and a diamond ring worthfour or five hundred pounds,' I confess and declare that on my firstcoming to the Seal when I was at Whitehall, my servant Huntdelivered me two hundred pounds from Sir George Reynell, my nearally, to be bestowed upon furniture of my house, adding further thathe had received divers former favors from me. And this was, as Iverily think, before any suit was begun. The ring was receivedcertainly pendente lite, and though it was at New Year's tide it wastoo great a value for a New Year's gift, though, I take it, nothingnear the value mentioned in the article."

That while Lord Chancellor of England he took gifts intended tocorrupt justice, he confessed to his shame, but he does not seem tohave been wholly able to decide whether in doing so he broke faithwith those who wished to corrupt him, or with the kingdom andconstitution of England he represented, against their desire topurchase justice. He seems to have believed that though his conductwas corrupt, his decisions were honest. He says, indeed, that inspite of his bribe-taking, "he never had bribe or reward in his eyeor thought when he pronounced any sentence or order."

This cannot be admitted in excuse even for Bacon, but his moralweakness, if it obscure for the time the splendor of his intellect,died with him, while his genius, marvelously radiant above that ofany other of the last ten centuries, still illuminates the path ofevery pioneer of progress.

His address to the Star Chamber on Dueling was delivered in theproceedings against Mr. William Priest for writing and sending achallenge, and Mr. Richard Wright for carrying it, January 26th,1615, Bacon being then the King's attorney-general. The text is fromT. B. Howell's 'State Trials,' London 1816.

SPEECH AGAINST DUELING

My Lords, I thought it fit for my place, and for these times, tobring to hearing before your lordships some cause touching privateduels, to see if this court can do any good to tame and reclaim thatevil, which seems unbridled. And I could have wished that I had metwith some greater persons, as a subject for your censure; bothbecause it had been more worthy of this presence, and also thebetter to have shown the resolution I myself have to proceed withoutrespect of persons in this business. But finding this cause on footin my predecessor's time, I thought to lose no time in a mischiefthat groweth every day; and besides, it passes not amiss sometimesin government, that the greater sort be admonished by an examplemade in the meaner, and the dog to be eaten before the lion. Nay, Ishould think, my lords, that men of birth and quality will leave thepractice, when it begins to be vilified, and come so low as tobarber-surgeons and butchers, and such base mechanical persons. Andfor the greatness of this presence, in which I take much comfort,both as I consider it in itself, and much more in respect it is byhis Majesty's direction, I will supply the meanness of theparticular cause, by handling of the general point; to the end thatby the occasion of this present cause, both my purpose ofprosecution against duels and the opinion of the court, withoutwhich I am nothing, for the censure of them may appear, and therebyoffenders in that kind may read their own case, and know what theyare to expect; which may serve for a warning until example may bemade in some greater person, which I doubt the times will but toosoon afford.

Therefore, before I come to the particular, whereof your lordshipsare now to judge, I think the time best spent to speak somewhat (1)of the nature and greatness of this mischief; (2) of the causes andremedies; (3) of the justice of the law of England, which some sticknot to think defective in this matter; (4) of the capacity of thiscourt, where certainly the remedy of this mischief is best to befound; (5) touching mine own purpose and resolution, wherein I shallhumbly crave your lordships' aid and assistance.

For the mischief itself, it may please your lordships to take intoyour consideration that, when revenge is once extorted out of themagistrate's hands, contrary to God's ordinance, mihi vindicta,ego retribuam, and every man shall bear the sword, not todefend, but to assail, and private men begin once to presume to givelaw to themselves and to right their own wrongs, no man can foreseethe danger and inconveniences that may arise and multiply thereupon.It may cause sudden storms in court, to the disturbance of hisMajesty and unsafety of his person. It may grow from quarrels tobandying, and from bandying to trooping, and so to tumult andcommotion; from particular persons to dissension of families andalliances; yea, to national quarrels, according to the infinitevariety of accidents, which fall not under foresight. So that theState by this means shall be like to a distempered and imperfectbody, continually subject to inflammations and convulsions.Besides, certainly both in divinity and in policy, offenses ofpresumption are the greatest. Other offenses yield and consent tothe law that it is good, not daring to make defense, or to justifythemselves; but this offense expressly gives the law an affront, asif there were two laws, one a kind of gown law and the other a lawof reputation, as they term it. So that Paul's and Westminster, thepulpit and the courts of justice, must give place to the law, as theKing speaketh in his proclamation, of ordinary tables, and suchreverend assemblies; the Yearbooks, and statute books must giveplace to some French and Italian pamphlets, which handle thedoctrines of duels, which, if they be in the right, transeamusad illa, let us receive them, and not keep the people inconflict and distraction between two laws. Again, my lords, it is amiserable effect, when young men full of towardness and hope, suchas the poets call "Aurorae filii," sons of the morning, in whomthe expectation and comfort of their friends consisteth, shall becast away and destroyed in such a vain manner. But much more it isto be deplored when so much noble and genteel blood should be spiltupon such follies, as, if it were adventured in the field in serviceof the King and realm, were able to make the fortune of a day andchange the future of a kingdom. So your lordships see what adesperate evil this is; it troubleth peace; it disfurnisheth war; itbringeth calamity upon private men, peril upon the State, andcontempt upon the law.

Touching the causes of it: the first motive, no doubt, is a falseand erroneous imagination of honor and credit; and therefore theKing, in his last proclamation, doth most aptly and excellently callthem bewitching duels. For, if one judge of it truly, it is nobetter than a sorcery that enchanteth the spirits of young men, thatbear great minds with a false show, species falsa; and a kind ofsatanical illusion and apparition of honor against religion, againstlaw, against moral virtue, and against the precedents and examplesof the best times and valiantest nations; as I shall tell you by andby, when I shall show you that the law of England is not alone inthis point. But then the seed of this mischief being such, it isnourished by vain discourses and green and unripe conceits, which,nevertheless, have so prevailed as though a man were staid andsober-minded and a right believer touching the vanity andunlawfulness of these duels; yet the stream of vulgar opinion issuch, as it imposeth a necessity upon men of value to conformthemselves, or else there is no living or looking upon men's faces;so that we have not to do, in this case, so much with particularpersons as with unsound and depraved opinions, like the dominationsand spirits of the air which the Scripture speaketh of. Hereuntomay be added that men have almost lost the true notion andunderstanding of fortitude and valor. For fortitude distinguishethof the grounds of quarrels whether they be just; and not only so,but whether they be worthy; and setteth a better price upon men'slives than to bestow them idly. Nay, it is weakness and disesteemof a man's self, to put a man's life upon such ledger performances.A man's life is not to be trifled away; it is to be offered up andsacrificed to honorable services, public merits, good causes, andnoble adventures. It is in expense of blood as it is in expense ofmoney. It is no liberality to make a profusion of money upon everyvain occasion; nor no more is it fortitude to make effusion ofblood, except the cause be of worth. And thus much for the cause ofthis evil.

For the remedies. I hope some great and noble person will put hishand to this plough, and I wish that my labors of this day may bebut forerunners to the work of a higher and better hand. But yet todeliver my opinion as may be proper for this time and place, therebe four things that I have thought on, as the most effectual for therepressing of this depraved custom of particular combats.

The first is, that there do appear and be declared a constant andsettled resolution in the State to abolish it. For this is a thing,my lords, must go down at once or not at all; for then everyparticular man will think himself acquitted in his reputation, whenhe sees that the State takes it to heart, as an insult against theKing's power and authority, and thereupon hath absolutely resolvedto master it; like unto that which we set down in express words inthe edict of Charles IX. of France, touching duels, that the Kinghimself took upon him the honor of all that took themselves grievedor interested for not having performed the combat. So must the Statedo in this business; and in my conscience there is none that is butof a reasonable sober disposition, be he never so valiant, except itbe some furious person that is like a firework, but will be glad ofit, when he shall see the law and rule of State disinterest him of avain and unnecessary hazard.

Secondly, care must be taken that this evil be no more co*ckered, northe humor of it fed; wherein I humbly pray your lordships, that Imay speak my mind freely, and yet be understood aright. Theproceedings of the great and noble commissioners martial I honor andreverence much, and of them I speak not in any sort. But I say thecompounding of quarrels, which is otherwise in use by privatenoblemen and gentlemen, is so punctual, and hath such reference andrespect unto the received conceits, what is beforehand, and what isbehindhand, and I cannot tell what, as without all question it doth,in a fashion, countenance and authorize this practice of duels as ifit had in it somewhat of right.

Thirdly, I must acknowledge that I learned out of the King's lastproclamation, the most prudent and best applied remedy for thisoffense, if it shall please his Majesty to use it, that the wit ofman can devise. This offense, my lords, is grounded upon a falseconceit of honor; and therefore it would be punished in the samekind, in eo quis rectissime plectitur, in quo peccat.The fountain of honor is the King and his aspect, and the access tohis person continueth honor in life, and to be banished from hispresence is one of the greatest eclipses of honor that can be. Ifhis Majesty shall be pleased that when this court shall censure anyof these offenses in persons of eminent quality, to add this out ofhis own power and discipline, that these persons shall be banishedand excluded from his court for certain years, and the courts of hisqueen and prince, I think there is no man that hath any good bloodin him will commit an act that shall cast him into that darknessthat he may not behold his sovereign's face.

Lastly, and that which more properly concerneth this court. We see,my lords, the root of this offense is stubborn; for it despisethdeath, which is the utmost of punishments; and it were a just but amiserable severity to execute the law without all remission ormercy, where the case proveth capital. And yet the late severity inFrance was more, where by a kind of martial law, established byordinance of the King and Parliament, the party that had slainanother was presently had to the gibbet, insomuch as gentlemen ofgreat quality were hanged, their wounds bleeding, lest a naturaldeath should prevent the example of justice. But, my lords, thecourse which we shall take is of far greater lenity, and yet of noless efficacy; which is to punish, in this court, all the middleacts and proceedings which tend to the duel, which I will enumerateto you anon, and so to hew and vex the root in the branches, which,no doubt, in the end will kill the root, and yet prevent theextremity of law.

Now for the law of England, I see it excepted to, though ignorantly,in two points. The one, that it should make no difference betweenan insidious and foul murder, and the killing of a man upon fairterms, as they now call it. The other, that the law hath notprovided sufficient punishment and reparations for contumely ofwords, as the lie, and the like. But these are no better thanchildish novelties against the divine law, and against all laws ineffect, and against the examples of all the bravest and mostvirtuous nations of the world.

For first, for the law of God, there is never to be found anydifference made in homicide, but between homicide voluntary andinvoluntary, which we term misadventure. And for the case ofmisadventure itself, there were cities of refuge; so that theoffender was put to his flight, and that flight was subject toaccident, whether the revenger of blood should overtake him beforehe had gotten sanctuary or no. It is true that our law hath made amore subtle distinction between the will inflamed and the willadvised, between manslaughter in heat and murder upon prepensedmalice or cold blood, as the soldiers call it; an indulgence notunfit for a choleric and warlike nation; for it is true, irafuror brevis, a man in fury is not himself. This privilege ofpassion the ancient Roman law restrained, but to a case; that was,if the husband took the adulterer in the manner. To that rage andprovocation only it gave way, that a homicide was justifiable. Butfor a difference to be made in killing and destroying man, upon aforethought purpose, between foul and fair, and, as it were, betweensingle murder and vied murder, it is but a monstrous child of thislatter age, and there is no shadow of it in any law, divine orhuman. Only it is true, I find in the Scripture that Cain enticedhis brother into the field and slew him treacherously; but Lamechvaunted of his manhood, that he would kill a young man, and if itwere to his hurt; so as I see no difference between an insidiousmurder and a braving or presumptuous murder, but the differencebetween Cain and Lamech. As for examples in civil states, allmemory doth consent, that Graecia and Rome were the most valiant andgenerous nations of the world; and that, which is more to be noted,they were free estates, and not under a monarchy; whereby a manwould think it a great deal the more reason that particular personsshould have righted themselves. And yet they had not this practiceof duels, nor anything that bare show thereof; and sure they wouldhave had it, if there had been any virtue in it. Nay, as he saith,"Fas est et ab hoste doceri" It is memorable, that whichis reported by a counsel or ambassador of the emperor, touching thecensure of the Turks of these duels. There was a combat of thiskind performed by two persons of quality of the Turks, wherein oneof them was slain, and the other party was converted before thecouncil of bashaws. The manner of the reprehension was in thesewords: "How durst you undertake to fight one with the other? Arethere not Christians enough to kill? Did you not know that whetherof you shall be slain, the loss would be the great seignor's?" So,as we may see, the most warlike nations, whether generous orbarbarous, have ever despised this wherein now men glory.

It is true, my lords, that I find combats of two natures authorized,how justly I will not dispute as to the latter of them. The one,when upon the approaches of armies in the face one of the other,particular persons have made challenges for trial of valors in thefield upon the public quarrel. This the Romans called "pugnaper provocationem." And this was never, but either between thegenerals themselves, who were absolute, or between particulars bylicense of the generals; never upon private authority. So you seeDavid asked leave when he fought with Goliath; and Joab, when thearmies were met, gave leave, and said "Let the young man play beforeus." And of this kind was that famous example in the wars ofNaples, between twelve Spaniards and twelve Italians, where theItalians bore away the victory; besides other infinite like examplesworthy and laudable, sometimes by singles, sometimes by numbers.

The second combat is a judicial trial of right, where the right isobscure, introduced by the Goths and the northern nations, but moreanciently entertained in Spain. And this yet remains in some casesas a divine lot of battle, though controverted by divines, touchingthe lawfulness of it; so that a wise writer saith: "Taliterpugnantes videntur tentare Deum, quia hoc volunt utDeus ostendat et faciat miraculum, ut justam causamhabens victor efficiatur, quod saepe contra accidit."But whosoever it be, this kind of fight taketh its warrant from law.Nay, the French themselves, whence this folly seemeth chiefly tohave flown, never had it but only in practice and toleration, andnever as authorized by law; and yet now of late they have been fainto purge their folly with extreme rigor, in so much as manygentlemen left between death and life in the duels, as I spakebefore, were hastened to hanging with their wounds bleeding. Forthe State found it had been neglected so long, as nothing could bethought cruelty which tended to the putting of it down. As for thesecond defect, pretended in our law, that it hath provided no remedyfor lies and fillips, it may receive like answer. It would havebeen thought a madness amongst the ancient lawgivers to have set apunishment upon the lie given, which in effect is but a word ofdenial, a negative of another's saying. Any lawgiver, if he hadbeen asked the question, would have made Solon's answer: That he hadnot ordained any punishment for it, because he never imagined theworld would have been so fantastical as to take it so highly. Thecivilians dispute whether an action of injury lie for it, and ratherresolve the contrary. And Francis I. of France, who first set onand stamped this disgrace so deep, is taxed by the judgment of allwise writers for beginning the vanity of it; for it was he, thatwhen he had himself given the lie and defy to the Emperor, to makeit current in the world, said in a solemn assembly, "that he was nohonest man that would bear the lie," which was the fountain of thisnew learning.

As for the words of approach and contumely, whereof the lie wasesteemed none, it is not credible, but that the orations themselvesare extant, what extreme and exquisite reproaches were tossed up anddown in the Senate of Rome and the places of assembly, and the likein Graecia, and yet no man took himself fouled by them, but tookthem but for breath, and the style of an enemy, and either despisedthem or returned them, but no blood was spilt about them.

So of every touch or light blow of the person, they are not inthemselves considerable, save that they have got them upon the stampof a disgrace, which maketh these light things pass for greatmatters. The law of England and all laws hold these degrees ofinjury to the person, slander, battery, mayhem, death; and if therebe extraordinary circ*mstances of despite and contumely, as in caseof libels and bastinadoes and the like, this court taketh them inhand and punisheth them exemplarily. But for this apprehension of adisgrace that a fillip to the person should be a mortal wound to thereputation, it were good that men did hearken unto the saying ofGonsalvo, the great and famous commander, that was wont to say agentleman's honor should be de tela crassiore, of a goodstrong warp or web, that every little thing should not catch in it;when as now it seems they are but of cobweb-lawn or such lightstuff, which certainly is weakness, and not true greatness of mind,but like a sick man's body, that is so tender that it feelseverything. And so much in maintenance and demonstration of thewisdom and justice of the law of the land.

For the capacity of this court, I take this to be a groundinfallible, that wheresoever an offense is capital, or matter offelony, though it be not acted, there the combination or practicetending to the offense is punishable in this court as highmisdemeanor. So practice to imprison, though it took no effect;waylaying to murder, though it took no effect; and the like; havebeen adjudged heinous misdemeanors punishable in this court. Nay,inceptions and preparations in inferior crimes, that are notcapital, as suborning and preparing of witnesses that were neverdeposed, or deposed nothing material, have likewise been censured inthis court, as appeareth by the decree in Garnon's case.

Why, then, the major proposition being such, the minor cannot bedenied, for every appointment of the field is but combination andplotting of murder. Let them gild it how they list, they shall neverhave fairer terms of me in a place of justice. Then the conclusionfolloweth, that it is a case fit for the censure of the court. Andof this there be precedents in the very point of challenge. It wasthe case of Wharton, plaintiff, against Ellekar and Acklam,defendants, where Acklam, being a follower of Ellekar's, wascensured for carrying a challenge from Ellekar to Wharton, thoughthe challenge was not put in writing, but delivered only by word ofmessage; and there are words in the decree, that such challenges areto the subversion of government. These things are well known, andtherefore I needed not so much to have insisted upon them, but thatin this case I would be thought not to innovate anything of my ownhead, but to follow the former precedents of the court, though Imean to do it more thoroughly, because the time requires it more.

Therefore now to come to that which concerneth my part, I say thatby the favor of the king and the court, I will prosecute in thiscourt in the cases following: If any man shall appoint the field,though the fight be not acted or performed. If any man shall sendany challenge in writing, or any message of challenge. If any mancarry or deliver any writing or message of challenge. If any manshall accept to be second in a challenge of either side. If any manshall depart the realm, with intention and agreement to perform thefight beyond the seas. If any man shall revive a quarrel by anyscandalous bruits or writings, contrary to former proclamationpublished by his Majesty in that behalf.

Nay I hear there be some counsel learned of duels, that tell votingmen when they are beforehand, and when they are otherwise andthereby incense and incite them to the duel, and make an art ofit. I hope I shall meet with some of them too; and I am sure, mylords, this course of preventing duels, in nipping them in the bud,is fuller of clemency and providence than the suffering them to goon, and hanging men with their wounds bleeding, as they did inFrance.

To conclude, I have some petitions to make first to your lordship,my lord chancellor, that in case I be advertised of a purpose in anyto go beyond the sea to fight, I may have granted his Majesty's writof ne exeat regnum to stop him, for this giant bestrideth thesea, and I would take and snare him by the foot on this side; forthe combination and plotting is on this side, though it should beacted beyond the sea. And your lordship said notably the last timeI made a motion in this business, that a man may be as well furde se as felo de se, if he steal out of the realm for abad purpose. As for the satisfying of the words of the writ, no manwill doubt but he does machinari contra coronam, as the wordsof the writ be, seeking to murder a subject; for that is evercontra coronam et dignitatem. I have also a suit to yourlordships all in general, that for justice's sake, and for truehonor's sake, honor of religion, law, and the King our master,against this fond and false disguise or puppetry of honor. I may,in my prosecution, which, it is like enough, may sometimes stircoals, which I esteem not for my particular, but as it may hinderthe good service, I may, I say, be countenanced and assisted fromyour lordships. Lastly, I have a petition to the nobles andgentlemen of England, that they would learn to esteem themselves ata just price. Non hos quaesitim munus in usus—theirblood is not to be spilt like water or a vile thing; therefore, thatthey would rest persuaded there cannot be a form of honor, except itbe upon a worthy matter. But this, ipsi viderunt, I am resolved.

JAMES BARBOUR (1775-1842)

Senator James Barbour's speech on the treaty-making power, made inthe United States Senate in January 1816, is one of the ablest andmost concise presentations of the Virginia view of the Federalconstitution represented by Madison before he came under Jefferson'sinfluence. The speech itself, here reproduced from Benton's'Debates,' sufficiently explains all that is of permanent importancein the question presented to the Senate, If, under the Federalconstitution, it was necessary after the ratification of a treaty tospecially repeal laws in conflict with it, then such laws and"municipal regulations" as remained unrepealed by special act wouldbe in force in spite of the treaty. Arguing against this as itaffected the treaty-making power of the Senate from which the Houseof Representatives was excluded by the constitution, Senator Barbourdeclared the treaty-making power supreme over commerce, andincidentally asserted that unless there is such a supremacy lodgedsomewhere in the government, the condition would be as anomalous asthat of Christendom when it had three Popes.

Mr. Barbour was born in 1775 and educated for the bar. He served inthe Virginia legislature, was twice governor of the State, and twiceelected to represent it in the United States Senate. He wasSecretary of War in 1825 under John Quincy Adams, who sent him asminister to England—a post from which he was recalled by PresidentJackson. He presided over the national convention which nominatedWilliam Henry Harrison for the presidency, dying in 1842.

TREATIES AS SUPREME LAWS

Mr. President, as it seems to be the wish of the Senate to pass uponthis subject without debate, it adds to the reluctance I always feelwhen compelled, even by a sense of duty, to intrude on theirattention. Yet, as I feel myself obliged, under the solemnresponsibility attached to the station I hold here, to vote againstthe bill under consideration—as I think, also, it is but a duerespect to the other branch of the legislature, from whom it is mymisfortune to differ, and but an act of justice to myself to statethe grounds of my opinion, I must be pardoned for departing from thecourse which seemed to be desired by the Senate.

In the exercise of this privilege, with a view to promote the wishesof the Senate as far as a sense of duty will permit, I will confinemyself to a succinct view of the most prominent objections which lieagainst its passage, rather than indulge in the extensive range ofwhich the subject is susceptible. Before I enter into the discussionof the merits of the question, I beg leave to call the attention ofthe Senate to the course which was adopted by us in relation to thissubject. A bill, brought in by the Committee on Foreign Relations,passed the Senate unanimously, declaring that all laws in oppositionto the convention between the United States and Great Britain,concluded on the third of July last, should be held as null andvoid. The principle on which this body acted was, that the treaty,upon the exchange of its ratification, did, of itself, repeal anycommercial regulation, incompatible with its provisions, existing inour municipal code; it being by us believed at the time that such abill was not necessary, but by a declaratory act, it was supposed,all doubts and difficulties, should any exist, might beremoved. This bill is sent to the House of Representatives, who,without acting thereon, send us the one under consideration, butdiffering materially from ours. Far from pretending an intimateknowledge of the course of business pursued by the two houses, I donot say that the mode adopted in this particular case is irregular,but if it has not the sanction of precedent, it appears to me to bewanting in that courtesy which should be perpetually cherishedbetween the two houses. It would have been more decorous to haveacted on our bill, to have agreed to it if it were approved, toreject or amend it. In the latter case, upon its being returned tothe Senate, the views of the other body would have been contrastedwith our own, and we might then have regularly passed upon thesubject. A different course, however, has been adopted; and if aregard to etiquette had been the only obstacle to my support to thebill, it would have been readily given; for it is the substance, andnot the shadow, which weighs with me. The difference between the twobills is rendered important by its involving a constitutionalquestion.

It is my misfortune, for such I certainly esteem it, to differ fromthe other branch of the legislature on that question; were it adifference of opinion on the expediency of a measure, it mightreadily be obviated, as being entirely free, or at least I hope so,from pride of opinion. My disposition is to meet, by mutualconcession, those with whom I am in the habit of acting; but when aprinciple of the constitution is involved, concession and compromiseare out of the question. With one eye on the sacred charter of ourliberties, and the other on the solemn sanction under which I acthere, I surrender myself to the dictates of my best judgment (weakenough God knows), and fearlessly pursue the course pointed out bythese guides. My regret is certainly greatly lessened by thereflection that there is no difference of opinion with any one onthe propriety of executing the treaty with good faith—we differonly as to the manner in which our common purpose shall be effected.

The difference between the friends of the bill, and those opposed toit is, as I understand it, this: the former contend, that the law ofCongress, discriminating between American and British tonnage, isnot abrogated by the treaty, although its provisions conflict withthe treaty, but that to effect its repeal, the bill in question, amere echo of the treaty, must pass; the latter, among whom I wish tobe considered, on the contrary say, that the law above alluded towas annulled upon the ratification of the treaty. I hope I havesucceeded in stating the question fairly, for that certainly was mywish, and it is also my determination to discuss it in the samespirit.

This, then, is the issue which is made up between the friends andthe opponents of the bill; and although in its practical effects Icannot believe it would be of consequence which way it is decided,yet, as the just interpretation of the constitution is the pivot onwhich it turns, from that consideration alone the question becomesan interesting one.

Fortunately for us we have a written constitution to recur to,dictated with the utmost precision of which our language issusceptible—it being the work of whatsoever of wisdom, ofexperience, and of foresight, united America possessed.

To a just understanding of this instrument, it will be essential torecur to the object of its adoption; in this there can be nodifference of opinion. The old band of union had been literallydissolved in its own imbecility; to remedy this serious evil, anincrease of the powers of the general government was indispensable.

To draw the line of demarcation between the powers thus granted tothe general government, and those retained by the States, was theprimary and predominating object. In conformity with this view, wefind a general enumeration of the powers assigned the former, ofwhich Congress is made the depository; which powers, althoughgranted to Congress in the first instance, are, in the sameinstrument, subsequently distributed among the other branches of thegovernment. Various examples might be adduced in support of thisposition. The following for the present will suffice: Article i., sectioni, of the constitution declares, that "all legislative powers hereingranted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, whichshall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Yet wefind, by the seventh section of the same article, the Presidentinvested with a large share of legislative power, and, in fact,constituting an integral branch of the legislature; in addition tothis, I will here barely add, that the grant of the very power toregulate the exercise of which gave birth to this bill, furnishes,by the admission of the friends of the bill, another evidence of thetruth of this position, as I shall show hereafter; and, therefore,to comprehend the true meaning of the constitution, an isolated viewof a particular clause or section will involve you in error, while acomprehensive one, both of its spirit and letter, will conduct youto a just result; when apparent collisions will be removed, andvigor and effect will be given to every part of the instrument.With this principle as our guide, I come directly to that part ofthe constitution which recognizes the treaty-making power. In thesecond clause, second section, second article, are the followingplain and emphatic words: "He [the President] shall have power, byand with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties,provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." Twoconsiderations here irresistibly present themselves—first, thereis no limitation to the exercise of the power, save suchrestrictions as arise from the constitution, as to the subjects onwhich it is to act; nor is there any participation of the power,with any other branch of the government, in any way alluded to.

Am I borne out in this declaration by the clause referred to? ThatI am, seems to me susceptible of demonstration. To the Presidentand Senate has been imparted the power of making treaties. Well,what is a treaty? If a word have a known signification by thecommon consent of mankind, and it be used without any qualificationin a law, constitution, or otherwise, the fair inference is that thereceived import of such word is intended to be conveyed. If so, theextent of the power intended to be granted admits of no difficulty.It reaches to those acts of courtesy and kindness, whichphilanthropy has established in the intercourse of nations, as wellas to treaties of commerce, of boundaries, and, in fine, to everyinternational subject whatsoever. This exposition is supported bysuch unequivocal authority, that it is believed it will not bequestioned. I, therefore, infer that it will be readily yielded,that in regard to the treaty, in aid of which this bill isexhibited, the treaty-making power has not exceeded its just limits.So far we have proceeded on sure ground; we now come to the pith ofthe question. Is the legislative sanction necessary to give iteffect? I answer in the negative. Why? Because, by the secondclause of the sixth article of the constitution, it is declared thatall treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of theUnited States, shall be the supreme law of the land. If this clausemeans anything, it is conclusive of the question.

If the treaty be a supreme law, then whatsoever municipal regulationcomes within its provisions must ipso facto be annulled—unlessgentlemen contend there can be at the same time two supreme laws,emanating from the same authority, conflicting with each other, andstill both in full vigor and effect. This would indeed produce astate of things without a parallel in human affairs, unless indeedits like might be found in the history of the Popes. In oneinstance, we are told, there were three at one time roaming over theChristian world, all claiming infallibility, and denouncing theiranathemas against all who failed to yield implicit obedience totheir respective mandates, when to comply with the one was todisobey the other. A result like this, so monstrous in its aspect,excludes the interpretation which produces it. It is a safe coursein attempting to ascertain the meaning of a law or constitution toconnect different clauses (no matter how detached) upon the samesubject together. Let us do it in this case. The President shallhave power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, tomake treaties, which treaties shall be the supreme law of theland. I seek to gain no surreptitious advantage from the wordsupreme, because I frankly admit that it is used in theConstitution, in relation to the laws and constitutions of theStates; but I appeal to it merely to ascertain the high authorityintended to be imparted by the framers of the constitution to aratified treaty. It is classed in point of dignity with the laws ofthe United States. We ask for no superiority, but equality; and asthe last law made annuls a former one, where they conflict, so wecontend that a subsequent treaty, as in the present case, revokes aformer law in opposition thereto. But the other side contend that itis inferior to the law in point of authority, which continues infull force despite of a treaty, and to its repeal the assent of thewhole legislature is necessary. Our claims rest on the expressedwords of the constitution—the opposite on implication; and if thelatter be just, I cannot forbear to say that the framers of theconstitution would but ill deserve what I have heretofore thought ajust tribute to their meritorious services. If they really designedto produce the effect contended for, instead of so declaring by apositive provision, they have used a language which, to my mind,operates conclusively against it. Under what clause of theconstitution is the right to exercise this power set up? The replyis, the third clause of eighth section, first article—Congressshall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, etc. Iimmediately inquire to what extent does the authority of Congress,in relation to commercial treaties, reach? Is the aid of thelegislature necessary in all cases whatsoever, to give effect to acommercial treaty? It is readily admitted that it is not. That atreaty, whose influence is extra territorial, becomes obligatory theinstant of its ratification. That, as the aid of the legislature isnot necessary to its execution, the legislature has no right tointerpose. It is then admitted that while a general power on thesubject of commerce is given to Congress, that yet importantcommercial regulations may be adopted by treaty, without theco-operation of the legislature, notwithstanding the generality ofthe grant of power on commercial subjects to Congress. If it be truethat the President and Senate have, in their treaty-making power, anexclusive control over part and not over the whole, I demand to knowat what point that exclusive control censes? In the clause reliedupon, there is no limitation. The fact is, sir, none exists. Thetreaty-making power over commerce is supreme. No legislativesanction is necessary, if the treaty be capable of self-execution,and when a legislative sanction is necessary, as I shall more atlarge hereafter show, such sanction, when given, adds nothing to thevalidity of the treaty, but enables the proper authority to executeit; and when the legislature do act in this regard, it in under suchobligation as the necessity of fulfilling a moral contract imposes.

If it be inquired of me what I understand by the clause in question,in answer I refer to the principle with which I set out: that thiswas a grant of power to the general government of which Congress wasin the first instance merely the depository, which power, had not aportion thereof been transferred to another branch of thegovernment, would have been exclusively exercised by Congress, butthat a distribution of this power has been made by the constitution;as a portion thereof has been given to the treaty-making power, andthat which is not transferred is left in the possession ofCongress. Hence, to Congress it is competent to act in this grant inits proper character by establishing municipal regulations. ThePresident and the Senate, on the other hand, have the same powerwithin their sphere, that is, by a treaty or convention with aforeign nation, to establish such regulations in regard to commerce,as to them may seem friendly to the public interest. Thus eachdepartment moves in its own proper orbit, nor do they come incollision with each other. If they have exercised their respectivepowers on the same subject, the last act, whether by the legislatureor the treaty-making power, abrogates a former one. The legislatureof the nation may, if a cause exist in their judgment sufficient tojustify it, abrogate a treaty, as has been done; so the Presidentand Senate by a treaty may abrogate a pre-existing law containinginterfering provisions, as has been done heretofore (without theright being questioned), and as we say in the very case underconsideration. I will endeavor to make myself understood byexamples; Congress has power, under the clause in question, to layembargoes, to pass nonintercourse, or nonimportation, orcountervailing laws, and this power they have frequentlyexercised. On the other hand, if the nation against whom one ofthose laws is intended to operate is made sensible of her injusticeand tenders reparation, the President and Senate have power bytreaty to restore the amicable relations between the two nations,and the law directing otherwise, upon the ratification of thetreaty, is forthwith annulled. Again, if Congress should be ofopinion that the offending nation had not complied with theirengagements, they might by law revoke the treaty, and place therelation between the two nations upon such footing as theyapproved. Where is the collision here? I see none. This view of thesubject presents an aspect as innocent as that which is producedwhen a subsequent law repeals a former one. By this interpretationyou reconcile one part of the constitution with another, giving toeach a proper effect, a result always desirable, and in rules ofconstruction claiming a precedence to all others. Indeed, sir, I donot see how the power in question could have been otherwisearranged. The power which has been assigned to Congress wasindispensable; without it we should have been at the mercy of aforeign government, who, knowing the incompetency of Congress toact, would have subjected our commerce to the most injuriousregulations, as was actually the case before the adoption of theconstitution, when it was managed by the States, by whom no regularsystem could be established; indeed, we all know this very subjectwas among the most prominent of the causes which produced theconstitution. Had this state of things continued, no nation whichcould profit by a contrary course would have treated. On the otherhand, had not a power been given to some branch of the government totreat, whatever might have been the friendly dispositions of otherpowers, or however desirous to reciprocate beneficial arrangements,they could not, without a treaty-making power lodged somewhere, berealized.

I therefore contend, that although to Congress a power is given inthe clause alluded to, to regulate commerce, yet this power is inpart, as I have before endeavored to show, given to the Presidentand Senate in their treaty-making capacity—the truth of whichposition is admitted by the friends of the bill to a certain extent.The fact is, that the only difference between us is to ascertain theprecise point where legislative aid is necessary to the execution ofthe treaty, and where not. To fix this point is to settle thequestion. After the most mature reflection which I have been ableto give this subject, my mind has been brought to the followingresults; Whenever the President and Senate, within the acknowledgedrange of their treaty-making power, ratify a treaty uponextraterritorial subjects, then it is binding without any auxiliarylaw. Again, if from the nature of the treaty self-executory, nolegislative aid is necessary. If on the contrary, the treaty fromits nature cannot be carried into effect but by the agency of thelegislature, that is, if some municipal regulation be necessary,then the legislature must act not as participating in thetreaty-making power, but in its proper character as a legislativebody.

BARNAVE (1761-1793)

Antoine Pierre Joseph Marie Barnave was born at Grenoble, France, in1761. He was the son of an advocate, who gave him a carefuleducation. His first work of a public character, a pamphlet againstthe Feudal system, led to his election to the States-General in1789. He advocated the Proclamation of the Rights of Man andidentified himself with those enthusiastic young Republicans of whomLafayette is the best type. The emancipation of the Jews from allcivil and religious disabilities and the abolition of slaverythroughout French territory owed much to his efforts. He alsoopposed the Absolute Veto and led the fight for the sequestration ofthe property of the Church. This course made him a popular idol andin the early days of the Revolution he was the leader of the extremewing of the Republicans. When he saw, however, that mob law wasabout to usurp the place of the Republican institutions for which hehad striven, he leaned towards the court and advocated thesacrosanctity of the King's person. Denounced as a renegade, withhis life threatened and his influence lost, he retired to his nativeprovince. In August 1792 he was impeached for correspondence withthe King, and on November 26th, 1793. he was guillotined. Thespecimens of his eloquence here given were translated for thisLibrary from the Paris edition of his works, published in 1843.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AGAINST MAJORITY ABSOLUTISM
(Delivered in the National Assembly, August 11th, 1791)

It is not enough to desire to be free—one must know how to befree. I shall speak briefly on this subject, for after the successof our deliberations, I await with confidence the spirit and actionof this Assembly. I only wish to announce my opinions on aquestion, the rejection of which would sooner or later mean the lossof our liberties. This question leaves no doubt in the minds ofthose who reflect on governments and are guided by impartialjudgments. Those who have combatted the committee have made afundamental error. They have confounded democratic government withrepresentative government; they have confounded the rights of thepeople with the qualifications of an elector, which societydispenses for its well understood interest. Where the government isrepresentative, where there exists an intermediary degree ofelectors, society which elects them has essentially the right todetermine the conditions of their eligibility. There is one rightexisting in our constitution, that of the active citizen, but thefunction of an elector is not a right. I repeat, society has theright to determine its conditions. Those who misunderstand thenature as they do the advantages of representative government,remind us of the governments of Athens and Sparta, ignoring thedifferences that distinguish them from France, such as extent ofterritory, population, etc. Do they forget that they interdictedrepresentative government? Have they forgotten that theLacedemonians had the right to vote in the assemblies only when theyheld helots? And only by sacrifice of individual rights did theLacedemonians, Athenians, and Romans possess any democraticgovernments! I ask those who remind us of them, if it is at suchgovernment they would arrive? I ask those who profess heremetaphysical ideas, because they have no practical ideas, those whoenvelop the question in clouds of theory, because they ignoreentirely the fundamental facts of a positive government—I ask isit forgotten that the democracy of a portion of a people would existbut by the entire enslavement of the other portion of the people? Arepresentative government has but one evil to fear, that ofcorruption. That such a government shall be good, there must beguaranteed the purity and incorruptibility of the electorate. Thisbody needs the union of three eminent guarantees. First, the lightof a fair education and broadened views. Second, an interest inthings, and still better if each had a particular and considerableinterest at stake to defend. Third, such condition of fortune as toplace the elector above attack from corruption.

These advantages I do not look for in the superior class of therich, for they undoubtedly have too many special and individualinterests, which they separate from the general interests. But ifit is true that we must not look for the qualifications of the pureelector among the eminently rich, neither should I look for it amongthose whose lack of fortune has prevented their enlightenment; amongsuch, unceasingly feeling the touches of want, corruption too easilycan find its means. It is, then, in the middle class that we findthe qualities and advantages I have cited. And, I ask, is it thedemand that they contribute five to ten francs that causes theassertion that we would throw elections into the hands of the rich?You have established the usage that the electors receive nothing; ifit were otherwise their great number would make an election mostexpensive. From the instant that the voter has not means enough toenable him to sacrifice a little time from his daily labor, one ofthree things would occur. The voter would absent himself, or insiston being paid by the State, else he would be rewarded by the one whowanted to obtain his suffrage. This does not occur when acomfortable condition is necessary to constitute an elector. Assoon as the government is established, when the constitution isguaranteed, there is but a common interest for those who live ontheir property, and those who toil honestly. Then can bedistinguished those who desire a stable government and those whoseek but revolution and change, since they increase in importance inthe midst of trouble as vermin in the midst of corruption.

If it is true, then, that under an established constitutionalgovernment all its well-wishers have the same interest, the power ofthe same must be placed in the hands of the enlightened who can haveno interest pressing on them, greater than the common interest ofall the citizens. Depart from these principles and you fall into theabuses of representative government. You would have extreme povertyin the electorate and extreme opulence in the legislature. You wouldsee soon in France what yon see now in England, the purchase ofvoters in the boroughs not with money even, but with pots ofbeer. Thus incontestably are elected many of their parliamentarymembers. Good representation must not be sought in either extreme,but in the middle class. The committee have thus placed it by makingit incumbent that the voter shall possess an accumulation theequivalent of, say forty days of labor. This would unite thequalities needed to make the elector exercise his privilege with aninterest in the same. It is necessary that he own from one hundredand twenty to two hundred and forty livres, either in property orchattels. I do not think it can seriously be said that thisqualification is fixed too high, unless we would introduce among ourelectors men who would beg or seek improper recompense.

If you would have liberty subsist do not hesitate because ofspecious arguments which will be presented to you by those who, ifthey reflect, will recognize the purity of our intentions and theresultant advantages of our plans. I add to what I have alreadysaid that the system will diminish many existing inconveniences, andthe proposed law will not have its full effect for two years. Theytell us we are taking from the citizen a right which elevated him bythe only means through which he can acquire it. I reply that if itwas an honor the career which you will open for them will imprintthem with character greater and more in conformity with trueequality. Our opponents have not failed either to magnify theinconveniences of changing the constitution. Nor do I desire itschange. For that reason we should not introduce imprudentdiscussions to create the necessity of a national convention. Inone word, the advice and conclusions of the committee are the soleguarantees for the prosperity and peaceable condition of the nation.

COMMERCIAL POLITICS

Commerce forms a numerous class, friends of external peace andinternal tranquillity, who attach themselves to the establishedgovernment.

It creates great fortunes, which in republics become the origin ofthe most forceful aristocracies. As a rule commerce enriches thecities and their inhabitants, and increases the laboring andmechanical classes, in opening more opportunities for theacquirement of riches. To an extent it fortifies the democraticelement in giving the people of the cities greater influence in thegovernment. It arrives at nearly the same result by impoverishingthe peasant and land owner, by the many new pleasures offered himand by displaying to him the ostentation and voluptuousness ofluxury and ease. It tends to create bands of mercenaries ratherthan those capable of worthy personal service. It introduces intothe nation luxury, ease, and avarice at the same time as labor.

The manners and morals of a commercial people are not the manners ofthe merchant. He individually is economical, while the general massare prodigal. The individual merchant is conservative and moral,while the general public are rendered dissolute.

The mixture of riches and pleasures which commerce produces joinedto freedom of manners, leads to excesses of all kinds, at the sametime that the nation may display the perfection of elegance andtaste that one noticed in Rome, mistress of the world or in Francebefore the Revolution. In Rome the wealth was the inflow of thewhole world, the product of the hardiest ambition, producing thedeterioration of the soldier and the indifference of the patrician.In France the wealth was the accumulation of an immense commerce andthe varied labors of the most industrious nation on the earthdiverted by a brilliant and corrupt court, a profligate andchivalrous nobility, and a rich and voluptuous capital.

Where a nation is exclusively commercial, it can make an immenseaccumulation of riches without sensibly altering its manners. Thepassion of the trader is avarice and the habit of continuouslabor. Left alone to his instincts he amasses riches to possessthem, without designing or knowing how to use them. Examples areneeded to conduct him to prodigality, ostentation, and moralcorruption. As a rule the merchant opposes the soldier. One desiresthe accumulations of industry, the other of conquest. One makes ofpower the means of getting riches, the other makes of riches themeans of getting power. One is disposed to be economical, a tastedue to his labor. The other is prodigal, the instinct of hisvalor. In modern monarchies these two classes form the aristocracyand the democracy. Commerce in certain republics forms anaristocracy, or rather an "extra aristocracy in the democracy."These are the directing forces of such democracies, with theaddition of two other governing powers, which have come in, theclergy and the legal fraternity, who assist largely in shaping thecourse of events.

ISAAC BARROW (1630-1677)

It is not often that a sermon, however eloquent it may be, becomes aliterary classic, as has happened to those preached by Barrowagainst Evil Speaking. Literature—that which is expressed inletters—has its own method, foreign to that of oratory—the artof forcing one mind on another by word of mouth. Literature canrely on suggestion, since it leaves those who do not comprehend atonce free to read over again what has attracted their attentionwithout compelling their understanding. All great literature reliesmostly on suggestion. This is the secret of Shakespeare's strengthin 'Hamlet,' as it is the purpose of Burke's in such speeches asthat at the trial of Hastings, to compel immediate comprehension bycrowding his meaning on the hearer in phalanxed sentences, moving tothe attack, rank on rank, so that the first are at once supportedand compelled by those which succeed them.

It is not easy to find the secret by virtue of which sermons thatmade Barrow his reputation for eloquence escaped the fate of mosteloquent sermons so far as to find a place in the standard"Libraries of English Classics," but it lies probably in theircompactness, clearness, and simplicity. Barrow taught Sir IsaacNewton mathematics, and his style suggests the method of thoughtwhich Newton illustrated in such great results.

Born in London in 1630, Barrow was educated at the CharterhouseSchool, at Felstead, and at Cambridge. Belonging to a Royalistfamily, under Cromwell, he left England after his graduation andtraveled abroad, studying the Greek fathers in Constantinople. Afterthe Restoration he became Lucasian professor of mathematics atCambridge and chaplain to Charles II., who called him the bestscholar in England. Celebrated for the length of his sermons, Barrowhad nevertheless a readiness at sharp repartee which made himformidable on occasion. "I am yours, Doctor, to the knee-strings,"said the Earl of Rochester, meeting him at court and seekingamusem*nt at his expense. "I am yours, my lord, to the shoe-tie,"answered the Doctor, bowing still lower than the Earl haddone. "Yours, Doctor, to the ground," said Rochester. "Yours, raylord, to the centre of the earth," answered Barrow with anotherbow. "Yours. Doctor, to the lowest pit of hell," said Rochester, ashe imagined, in conclusion. "There, my lord, I must leave you!" wasthe immediate answer.

SLANDER

General declamations against vice and sin are indeed excellentlyuseful, as rousing men to consider and look about them; but they dooften want effect, because they only raise confused apprehensions ofthings, and indeterminate propensions to action, which usually,before men thoroughly perceive or resolve what they should practice,do decay and vanish. As he that cries out "Fire!" doth stir uppeople, and inspireth them with a kind of hovering tendency everyway, yet no man thence to purpose moveth until he be distinctlyinformed where the mischief is; then do they, who apprehendthemselves concerned, run hastily to oppose it: so, till weparticularly discern where our offenses lie (till we distinctly knowthe heinous nature and the mischievous consequences of them), wescarce will effectually apply ourselves to correct them. Whence itis requisite that men should be particularly acquainted with theirsins, and by proper arguments be dissuaded from them.

In order whereto I have now selected one sin to describe, anddissuade from, being in nature as vile, and in practice as common,as any other whatever that hath prevailed among men. It is slander,a sin which in all times and places hath been epidemical and rife,but which especially doth seem to reign and rage in our age andcountry.

There are principles innate to men, which ever have, and ever will,incline them to this offense. Eager appetites to secular and sensualgoods; violent passions, urging the prosecution of what men affect;wrath and displeasure against those who stand in the way ofcompassing their desires; emulation and envy towards those whohappen to succeed better, or to attain a greater share in suchthings; excessive self-love; unaccountable malignity and vanity arein some degrees connatural to all men, and ever prompt them to thisdealing, as appearing the most efficacious, compendious, and easyway of satisfying such appetites, of promoting such designs, ofdischarging such passions. Slander thence hath always been aprincipal engine whereby covetous, ambitious, envious, ill-natured,and vain persons have striven to supplant their competitors andadvance themselves; meaning thereby to procure, what they chieflyprize and like, wealth, or dignity, or reputation, favor and powerin the court, respect and interest with the people.

But from especial causes our age peculiarly doth abound in thispractice; for, besides the common dispositions inclining thereto,there are conceits newly coined, and greedily entertained by many,which seem purposely leveled at the disparagement of piety, charity,and justice, substituting interest in the room of conscience,authorizing and commending for good and wise, all ways serving toprivate advantage. There are implacable dissensions, fierceanimosities, and bitter zeals sprung up; there is an extremecuriosity, niceness, and delicacy of judgment; there is a mightyaffectation of seeming wise and witty by any means; there is a greatunsettlement of mind, and corruption of manners, generally diffusedover people; from which sources it is no wonder that this flood hathso overflown, that no banks can restrain it, no fences are able toresist it; so that ordinary conversation is full of it, and nodemeanor can be secure from it.

If we do mark what is done in many (might I not say, in most?)companies, what is it but one telling malicious stories of, orfastening odious characters upon, another? What do men commonlyplease themselves in so much as in carping and harshly censuring, indefaming and abusing their neighbors? Is it not the sport anddivertisem*nt of many to cast dirt in the faces of all they meetwith? to bespatter any man with foul imputations? Doth not in everycorner a Momus lurk, from the venom of whose spiteful or petulanttongue no eminency of rank, dignity of place, or sacredness ofoffice, no innocence or integrity of life, no wisdom orcirc*mspection in behavior, no good-nature or benignity in dealingand carriage, can protect any person? Do not men assume tothemselves a liberty of telling romances, and framing charactersconcerning their neighbors, as freely as a poet doth about Hector orTurnus, Thersites or Draucus? Do they not usurp a power of playingwith, or tossing about, of tearing in pieces their neighbor's goodname, as if it were the veriest toy in the world? Do not many havinga form of godliness (some of them demurely, others confidently, bothwithout any sense of, or remorse for, what they do) backbite theirbrethren? Is it not grown so common a thing to asperse causelesslythat no man wonders at it, that few dislike, that scarce any detestit? that most notorious calumniators are heard, not only withpatience, but with pleasure; yea, are even held in vogue andreverence as men of a notable talent, and very serviceable to theirparty? so that slander seemeth to have lost its nature and not tobe now an odious sin, but a fashionable humor, a way of pleasingentertainment, a fine knack, or curious feat of policy; so that noman at least taketh himself or others to be accountable for what issaid in this way? Is not, in fine, the case become such, thatwhoever hath in him any love of truth, any sense of justice orhonesty, any spark of charity towards his brethren, shall hardly beable to satisfy himself in the conversations he meeteth; but will betempted, with the holy prophet, to wish himself sequestered fromsociety, and cast into solitude; repeating those words of his, "Oh,that I had in the wilderness a lodging-place of wayfaring men, thatI might leave my people, and go from them: for they are … anassembly of treacherous men, and they bend their tongues like theirbow for lies"? This he wished in an age so resembling ours, that Ifear the description with equal patness may suit both: "Take yeheed" (said he then, and may we not advise the like now?) "every oneof his neighbor, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brotherwill utterly supplant, and every neighbor will walk withslanders. They will deceive every one his neighbor, and will notspeak the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies, andweary themselves to commit iniquity."

Such being the state of things, obvious to experience, no discoursemay seem more needful, or more useful, than that which serveth tocorrect or check this practice: which I shall endeavor to do (1) bydescribing the nature, (2) by declaring the folly of it: or showingit to be very true which the wise man here asserteth, "He thatuttereth slander is a fool." Which particulars I hope so toprosecute, that any man shall be able easily to discern, and readyheartily to detest this practice.

1. For explication of its nature, we may describe slander to be theuttering false (or equivalent to false, morally false) speechagainst our neighbor, in prejudice to his fame, his safety, hiswelfare, or concernment in any kind, out of malignity, vanity,rashness, ill-nature, or bad design. That which is in HolyScripture forbidden and reproved under several names and notions:of bearing false witness, false accusation, railing censure,sycophantry, talebearing, whispering, backbiting, supplanting,taking up reproach: which terms some of them do signify the nature,others denote the special kinds, others imply the manners, otherssuggest the ends of this practice. But it seemeth most fullyintelligible by observing the several kinds and degrees thereof;as also by reflecting on the divers ways and manners of practicingit.

The principal kinds thereof I observe to be these:—

1. The grossest kind of slander is that which in the Decalogue iscalled, bearing false testimony against our neighbor; that is,flatly charging him with acts which he never committed, and isnowise guilty of. As in the case of Naboth, when men were subornedto say, "Naboth did blaspheme God and the king," and as was David'scase, when he thus complained, "False witnesses did rise up, theylaid to my charge things that I knew not of." This kind in thehighest way (that is, in judicial proceedings) is more rare; and ofall men, they who are detected to practice it are held most vile andinfamous, as being plainly the most pernicious and perilousinstruments of injustice, the most desperate enemies of all men'sright and safety that can be. But also out of the court there aremany knights-errant of the poet, whose business it is to run aboutscattering false reports; sometimes loudly proclaiming them in opencompanies, sometimes closely whispering them in dark corners; thusinfecting conversation with their poisonous breath: these no lessnotoriously are guilty of this kind, as bearing always the samemalice and sometimes breeding as ill effects.

2. Another kind is, affixing scandalous names, injurious epithets,and odious characters upon persons, which they deserve not. As whenCorah and his accomplices did accuse Moses of being ambitious,unjust, and tyrannical; when the Pharisees called our Lord animpostor, a blasphemer, a sorcerer, a glutton and wine-bibber, anincendiary and perverter of the people, one that spake againstCaesar, and forbade to give tribute; when the Apostles were chargedwith being pestilent, turbulent, factious, and seditious fellows.This sort being very common, and thence in ordinary repute not sobad, yet in just estimation may be judged even worse than theformer, as doing to our neighbor more heavy and more irreparablewrong. For it imposeth on him really more blame, and that suchwhich he can hardly shake off; because the charge signifies habitsof evil, and includeth many acts; then, being general andindefinite, can scarce be disproved. He, for instance, that calletha sober man drunkard doth impute to him many acts of suchintemperance (some really past, others probably future), and noparticular time or place being specified, how can a man clearhimself of that imputation, especially with those who are notthoroughly acquainted with his conversation? So he that calleth aman unjust, proud, perverse, hypocritical, doth load him with mostgrievous faults, which it is not possible that the most innocentperson should discharge himself from.

3. Like to that kind is this: aspersing a man's actions with harshcensures and foul terms, importing that they proceed from illprinciples, or tend to bad ends; so as it doth not or cannotappear. Thus, when we say of him that is generously hospitable,that he is profuse; of him that is prudently frugal, that he isnigg*rdly; of him that is cheerful and free in his conversation,that he is vain or loose; of him that is serious and resolute ina good way, that he is sullen or morose; of him that isconspicuous and brisk in virtuous practice, that it is ambitionor ostentation which prompts him; of him that is close andbashful in the like good way, that it is sneaking stupidity, orwant of spirit; of him that is reserved, that it is craft; of himthat is open, that it is simplicity in him; when we ascribe aman's liberality and charity to vainglory or popularity; hisstrictness of life, and constancy in devotion, to superstition,or hypocrisy. When, I say, we pass such censures, or impose suchcharacters on the laudable or innocent practice of our neighbors,we are indeed slanderers, imitating therein the great calumniator,who thus did slander even God himself, imputing his prohibition ofthe fruit unto envy towards men; "God," said he, "doth know that inthe day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall beas gods, knowing good and evil;" who thus did ascribe the steadypiety of Job, not to a conscientious love and fear of God, but topolicy and selfish design: "Doth Job fear God for naught?"

Whoever, indeed, pronounceth concerning his neighbor's intentionsotherwise than as they are evidently expressed by words, orsignified by overt actions, is a slanderer; because he pretendeth toknow, and dareth to aver, that which he nowise possibly can tellwhether it be true; because the heart is exempt from alljurisdiction here, is only subject to the government and trial ofanother world; because no man can judge concerning the truth of suchaccusations, because no man can exempt or defend himself from them:so that apparently such practice doth thwart all course of justiceand equity.

4. Another kind is, perverting a man's words or actionsdisadvantageously by affected misconstruction. All words areambiguous, and capable of different senses, some fair, some morefoul; all actions have two handles, one that candor and charitywill, another that disingenuity and spite may lay hold on; and insuch cases to misapprehend is a calumnious procedure, arguingmalignant disposition and mischievous design. Thus, when two mendid witness that our Lord affirmed, he "could demolish the Temple,and rear it again in three days"—although he did, indeed, speakwords to that purpose, meaning them in a figurative sense,discernible enough to those who would candidly have minded his driftand way of speaking:—yet they who crudely alleged them againsthim are called false witnesses. "At last," saith the Gospel, "cametwo false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able todestroy the temple," etc. Thus, also, when some certified of StStephen, as having said that "Jesus of Nazareth should destroy thatplace, and change the customs that Moses delivered"; althoughprobably he did speak words near to that purpose, yet are those mencalled false witnesses. "And," saith St. Luke, "they set up falsewitnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemouswords," etc. Which instances do plainly show, if we would avoid theguilt of slander, how careful we should be to interpret fairly andfavorably the words and actions of our neighbor.

5. Another sort of this practice is, partial and lame representationof men's discourse, or their practice, suppressing some part of thetruth in them, or concealing some circ*mstances about them whichmight serve to explain, to excuse, or to extenuate them. In such amanner easily, without uttering; any logical untruth, one may yetgrievously calumniate. Thus, suppose a man speaketh a thing uponsupposition, or with exception, or in way of objection, or merelyfor disputation's sake, in order to the discussion or clearing oftruth; he that should report him asserting it absolutely,unlimitedly, positively, and peremptorily, as his own settledjudgment, would notoriously calumniate. If one should be inveigledby fraud, or driven by violence, or slip by chance into a bad placeor bad company, he that should so represent the gross of thataccident, as to breed an opinion of that person, that out of puredisposition and design he did put himself there, doth slanderouslyabuse that innocent person. The reporter in such cases must notthink to defend himself by pretending that he spake nothing false;for such propositions, however true in logic, may justly be deemedlies in morality, being uttered with a malicious and deceitful (thatis, with a calumnious) mind, being apt to impress false conceits andto produce hurtful effects concerning our neighbor. There areslanderous truths as well as slanderous falsehoods; when truth isuttered with a deceitful heart, and to a base end, it becomes a lie."He that speaketh truth," saith the wise man, "showeth forthrighteousness, but a false witness deceit." Deceiving is the properwork of slander; and truth abused to that end putteth on its nature,and will engage into like guilt.

6, Another kind of calumny is, by instilling sly suggestions, whichalthough they do not downrightly assert falsehoods, yet they breedsinister opinions in the hearers, especially in those who, fromweakness or credulity, from jealousy or prejudice, from negligenceor inadvertency, are prone to entertain them. This is done in manyways: by propounding wily suppositions, shrewd insinuations, craftyquestions, and specious comparisons, intimating a possibility, orinferring some likelihood of, and thence inducing to believe thefact. "Doth not," saith this kind of slanderer, "his temper inclinehim to do thus? may not his interest have swayed him thereto? hadhe not fair opportunity and strong temptation to it? hath he notacted so in like cases? Judge you, therefore, whether he did itnot." Thus the close slanderer argueth; and a weak or prejudicedperson is thereby so caught, that he presently is ready thence toconclude the thing done. Again: "He doeth well," saith thesycophant, "it is true; but why, and to what end? Is it not, asmost men do, out of ill design? may he not dissemble now? may henot recoil hereafter? have not others made as fair a show? yet weknow what came of it." Thus do calumnious tongues pervert thejudgments of men to think ill of the most innocent, and meanly ofthe worthiest actions. Even commendation itself is often usedcalumniously, with intent to breed dislike and ill-will towards aperson commended in envious or jealous ears; or so as to givepassage to dispraises, and render the accusations following morecredible. Tis an artifice commonly observed to be much in usethere, where the finest tricks of supplanting are practiced, withgreatest effect; so that pessimum inimicorum genus,laudantes; there is no more pestilent enemy than a malevolentpraiser. All these kinds of dealing, as they issue from theprinciples of slander, and perform its work, so they deservedly bearthe guilt thereof.

7. A like kind is that of oblique and covert reflections; when a mandoth not directly or expressly charge his neighbor with faults,but yet so speaketh that he is understood, or reasonably presumedto do it. This is a very cunning and very mischievous way ofslandering; for therein the skulking calumniator keepeth areserve for himself, and cutteth off from the person concernedthe means of defense. If he goeth to clear himself from thematter of such aspersions: "What need," saith this insidiousspeaker, "of that? must I needs mean you? did I name you? why doyou then assume it to yourself? do you not prejudge yourselfguilty? I did not, but your own conscience, it seemeth, dothaccuse you. You are so jealous and suspicious, as personsoverwise or guilty use to be." So meaneth this serpent out of thehedge securely and unavoidably to bite his neighbor, and is inthat respect more base and more hurtful than the most flat andpositive slanderer.

8. Another kind is that of magnifying and aggravating the faults ofothers; raising any small miscarriage into a heinous crime, anyslender defect into an odious vice, and any common infirmity intoa strange enormity; turning a small "mote in the eye" of ourneighbor into a huge "beam," a little dimple in his face into amonstrous wen. This is plainly slander, at least in degree, andaccording to the surplusage whereby the censure doth exceed thefault. As he that, upon the score of a small debt, doth extort agreat sum, is no less a thief, in regard to what amounts beyondhis due, than if without any pretense he had violently orfraudulently seized on it, so he is a slanderer that, byheightening faults or imperfections, doth charge his neighborwith greater blame, or load him with more disgrace than hedeserves. 'Tis not only slander to pick a hole where there isnone, but to make that wider which is, so that it appeareth moreugly, and cannot so easily be mended. For charity is wont toextenuate faults, justice doth never exaggerate them. As no manis exempt from some defects, or can live free from somemisdemeanors, so by this practice every man may be rendered veryodious and infamous.

9. Another kind of slander is, imputing to our neighbor's practice,judgment, or profession, evil consequences (apt to render himodious, or despicable) which have no dependence on them, orconnection with them. There do in every age occur disorders andmishaps, springing from various complications of causes, workingsome of them in a more open and discernible, others in a more secretand subtle way (especially from Divine judgment and providencechecking or chastising sin); from such occurrences it is common tosnatch occasion and matter of calumny. Those who are disposed thisway are ready peremptorily to charge them upon whomsoever theydislike or dissent from, although without any apparent cause, orupon most frivolous and senseless pretenses; yea, often when reasonshoweth quite the contrary, and they who are so charged are in justesteem of all men the least obnoxious to such accusations. So,usually, the best friends of mankind, those who most heartily wishthe peace and prosperity of the world and most earnestly to theirpower strive to promote them, have all the disturbances anddisasters happening charged on them by those fiery vixens, who (inpursuance of their base designs, or gratification of their wildpassions) really do themselves embroil things, and raise miserablecombustions in the world. So it is that they who have theconscience to do mischief will have the confidence also to disavowthe blame and the iniquity, to lay the burden of it on those who aremost innocent. Thus, whereas nothing more disposeth men to liveorderly and peaceably, nothing more conduceth to the settlement andsafety of the public, nothing so much draweth blessings down fromheaven upon the commonwealth, as true religion, yet nothing hathbeen more ordinary than to attribute all the miscarriages andmischiefs that happened unto it; even those are laid at his door,which plainly do arise from the contempt or neglect of it, being thenatural fruits or the just punishments of irreligion. King Ahab, byforsaking God's commandments and following wicked superstitions, hadtroubled Israel, drawing sore judgments and calamities thereon; yethad he the heart and the face to charge those events on the greatassertor of piety, Elias: "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" TheJews by provocation of Divine justice had set themselves in a fairway towards desolation and ruin; this event to come they had thepresumption to lay upon the faith of our Lord's doctrine. "If,"said they, "we let him alone, all men will believe on him, and theRomans shall come, and take away our place and nation," whereas, intruth, a compliance with his directions and admonitions had been theonly means to prevent those presaged mischiefs. And, si Tibrisascenderit in mania, if any public calamity did appear, thenChristianos ad leones, Christians must be charged andpersecuted as the causes thereof. To them it was that Julian andother pagans did impute all the discussions, confusions, anddevastations falling upon the Roman Empire. The sacking of Rome bythe Goths they cast upon Christianity; for the vindication of itfrom which reproach St. Augustine did write those renowned books 'DeCivitate Dei.' So liable are the best and most innocent sort of mento be calumniously accused in this manner.

Another practice (worthily bearing the guilt of slander) is, aidingand being accessory thereto, by anywise furthering, cherishing,abetting it. He that by crafty significations of ill-will dothprompt the slanderer to vent his poison; he that by a willingaudience and attention doth readily suck it up, or who greedilyswalloweth it down by credulous approbation and assent; he thatpleasingly relisheth and smacketh at it, or expresseth a delightfulcomplacence therein; as he is a partner in the fact, so he is asharer in the guilt. There are not only slanderous throats, butslanderous ears also; not only wicked inventions, which engender andbrood lies, but wicked assents, which hatch and foster them. Notonly the spiteful mother that conceiveth such spurious brats, butthe midwife that helpeth to bring them forth, the nurse that feedeththem, the guardian that traineth them up to maturity, and setteththem forth to live in the world; as they do really contribute totheir subsistence, so deservedly they partake in the blame due tothem, and must be responsible for the mischief they do.

BASIL THE GREAT (329-379)

Basil the Great, born at Caesarea in Cappadocia A. D. 329, was oneof the leading orators of the Christian Church in the fourthcentury. He was a friend of the famous Gregory of Nazianzus, andGregory of Nyssa was his brother.

The spirit of his time was one of change. The foundations of theRoman world were undermined. The old classical civilization ofbeauty and order had reached its climax and reacted on itself; theGreek worship of the graceful; the Roman love of the regular, thestrong, the martial, the magnificent, had failed to save the worldfrom a degradation which, under the degeneracy of the later Caesars,had become indescribable. The early Christians, filled with aprofound conviction of the infernal origin of the corruption of thedecaying civilization they saw around them, were moved by such acompelling desire to escape it as later times can never realize andhardly imagine. Moved by this spirit, the earnest young men of thetime, educated as Basil was in the philosophy, the poetry, and thescience of the classical times, still felt that having this theywould lose everything unless they could escape the influences of theworld around them. They did not clearly discriminate between whatwas within and without themselves. It was not clear to them whetherthe corruption of an effete civilization was not the necessarycorruption of all human nature including their own. This doubt sentmen like Basil to the desert to attempt, by fasting and scourging,to get such mastery over their bodies as to compel every rebelliousnerve and stubborn muscle to yield instant obedience to theiraspirations after a more than human perfection. If they neverattained their ideal; if we find them coming out of the desert, asthey sometimes did, to engage in controversies, often fierce andunsaintly enough, we can see, nevertheless, how the deep emotions oftheir struggle after a higher life made them the great orators theywere. Their language came from profound depths of feeling. Oftentheir very earnestness betrays them into what for later ages isunintelligibility. Only antiquarians now can understand how deeplythe minds of the earlier centuries of the New Order, which savedprogress from going down into the bottomless pit of classicaldecadence, were stirred by controversies over prepositions andconjunctions. But if we remember that in all of it, the men whoare sometimes ridiculed as mere ascetics, mere pedants, were movedby a profound sense of their duty to save a world so demoralized, soshameless in the pursuit of everything sensual and base, thatnothing short of their sublime enthusiasm, their very madness ofcontempt for the material and the sensual, could have saved it.

After studying in Constantinople and in Athens, the spirit of theReformers of his time took hold on Basil and, under the asceticimpulse, he visited the hermits of Arabia and Asia Minor, hoping tolearn sanctity from them. He founded a convent in Pontus, which hismother and sister entered. After his ordination as "Presbyter." hewas involved in the great Arian controversy, and the ability heshowed as a disputant probably had much to do with his promotion tothe bishopric of Caesarea. In meeting the responsibilities of thatoffice, his courage and eloquence made him famous. When threatenedby the Emperor Valens, he replied that having nothing but a fewbooks and his cloak, he did not fear confiscation of his goods; thathe could not be exiled, since the whole earth was the Lord's; thattorture and death would merely put an end to his labors and bringhim nearer to the God for whom he longed. He died at CaesareaA. D. 379. Such men must be judged from their own standpoints. It isworth much to understand them.

The sermon 'To the Fallen,' here used from Fish's translation, wasgreatly admired by Fenelon, who calls it a masterpiece. It wasoccasioned by a nun's breaking a vow of perpetual virginity.

ON A RECREANT NUN

It is time, now, to take up the exclamation of the Prophet: "O thatmy head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I mightweep for the wounded of the daughter of my people!"—Jer. ix. i.

For, although they are wrapped in profound silence, and lie quitestupefied by their calamity, and deprived, by their deadly wound,even of the very sense of suffering, yet it does not become us towithhold our tears over so sad a fall. For if Jeremiah deemed thoseworthy of countless lamentations who had received bodily wounds inbattle, what shall we say when souls are involved in so great acalamity? "Thy wounded," says the Prophet, "are not wounded withthe sword, and thy dead are not the dead of war." But mylamentation is for grievous sin, the sting of the true death, andfor the fiery darts of the wicked, which have cruelly kindled aflame in both body and soul. Well might the laws of God groanwithin themselves, beholding such pollution on earth, those lawswhich always utter their loud prohibition, saying in olden time,"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"; and in the Gospels,"That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committedadultery with her already in his heart." But now they behold thevery bride of the Lord—her of whom Christ is the head—committing adultery without fear or shame. Yes, the very spirits ofdeparted saints may well groan, the zealous Phineas, that it is notpermitted to him now to snatch the spear and to punish the loathsomesin with a summary corporeal vengeance; and John the Baptist, thathe cannot now leave the celestial abodes, as he once left thewilderness, and hasten to rebuke the transgression, and if thesacrifice were called for, to lay down his head sooner than abatethe severity of his reproof. Nay, let us rather say that, likeblessed Abel, John "being dead yet speaketh," and now lifts up hisvoice with a yet louder cry than in the case of Herodias, saying,"It is not lawful for thee to have her." For, although the body ofJohn, yielding to the inevitable sentence of God, has paid the debtof nature, and his tongue is silent, yet "the word of God is notbound." And he who, when the marriage covenant had been violated inthe case of a fellow-servant, was faithful even unto death with hisstern reproofs, what must he have felt if he had seen the holybride-chamber of the Lord thus wantonly outraged?

But as for thee, O thou who hast thus cast off the yoke of thatdivine union, and deserted the undefiled chamber of the true King,and shamefully fallen into this disgraceful and impious defilement,since thou hast no way of evading this bitter charge, and no methodor artifice can avail to conceal thy fearful crime, thou boldlyhardenest thyself in guilt. And as he who has once fallen into theabyss of crime becomes henceforth an impious despiser, so thoudeniest thy very covenant with the true bridegroom; alleging thatthou wast not a virgin, and hadst never taken the vow, although thouhast both received and given many pledges of virginity. Rememberthe good confession which thou hast made before God and angels andmen. Remember that venerable assembly, and the sacred choir ofvirgins, and the congregation of the Lord, and the Church of thesaints. Remember thy aged grandmother in Christ, whose Christianvirtues still flourish in the vigor of youth; and thy mother in theLord, who vies with the former, and strives by new and unwontedendeavors to dissolve the bands of custom; and thy sister likewise,in some things their imitator, and in some aspiring to excel them,and to surpass in the merits of virginity the attainments of herprogenitors, and both in word and deed diligently inviting thee, hersister, as is meet, to the same competition. Remember these, andthe angelic company associated with them in the service of the Lord,and the spiritual life though yet in the flesh, and the heavenlyconverse upon earth. Remember the tranquil days and the luminousnights, and the spiritual songs, and the melodious psalmody, and theholy prayers, and the chaste and undefiled couch, and the progressin virginal purity, and the temperate diet so helpful in preservingthy virginity uncontaminated. And where is now that gravedeportment, and that modest mien, and that plain attire which sobecome a virgin, and that beautiful blush of bashfulness, and thatcomely paleness—the delicate bloom of abstinence and vigils, thatoutshines every ruddier glow. How often in prayer that thoumightest keep unspotted thy virginal purity hast thou poured forththy tears! How many letters hast thou indited to holy men,imploring their prayers, not that thou mightest obtain these human—nuptials, shall I call them? rather this dishonorable defilement—but that thou mightest not fall away from the Lord Jesus? Howoften hast thou received the gifts of the spouse! And why should Imention also the honors accorded for his sake by those who are his—the companionship of the virgins, journeyings with them, welcomesfrom them, encomiums on virginity, blessings bestowed by virgins,letters addressed to thee as to a virgin! But now, having been justbreathed upon by the aerial spirit that worketh in the children ofdisobedience, thou hast denied all these, and hast bartered thatprecious and enviable possession for a brief pleasure, which issweet to thy taste for a moment, but which afterward thou wilt findbitterer than gall.

Besides all this, who can avoid exclaiming with grief, "How is Zion,the faithful city, become an harlot!" Nay, does not the Lordhimself say to some who now walk in the spirit of Jeremiah, "Hastthou seen what the virgin of Israel hath done unto me?" "Ibetrothed her unto me in faith and purity, in righteousness and injudgment, and in loving-kindness and in mercies," even as I promisedher by Hosea, the prophet. But she has loved strangers; and evenwhile I her husband lived, she has made herself an adulteress, andhas not feared to become the wife of another husband. And whatwould the bride's guardian and conductor say, the divine and blessedPaul? Both the ancient Apostle, and this modern one, under whoseauspices and instruction thou didst leave thy father's house, andjoin thyself to the Lord? Would not each, filled with grief at thegreat calamity, say, "The thing which I greatly feared has come uponme, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me," for "I espousedyou unto one husband, that I might present you as a chaste virgin toChrist"; and I was always fearful, lest in some way as the serpentbeguiled Eve by his subtilty, so thy mind should sometime becorrupted. And on this account I always endeavored, like a skillfulcharmer, by innumerable incantations, to suppress the tumult of thepassions, and by a thousand safeguards to secure the bride of theLord, rehearsing again and again the manner of her who is unmarried,how that she only "careth for the things of the Lord, that she maybe holy both in body and in spirit"; and I set forth the honor ofvirginity, calling thee the temple of God, that I might add wings tothy zeal, and help thee upward to Jesus; and I also had recourse tothe fear of evil, to prevent thee from falling, telling thee that"if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." Ialso added the assistance of my prayers, that, if possible, "thywhole body, and soul, and spirit might be preserved blameless untothe coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," But all this labor I havespent in vain upon thee; and those sweet toils have ended in abitter disappointment; and now I must again groan over her of whom Iought to have joy. For lo, thou hast been beguiled by the serpentmore bitterly than Eve; for not only has thy mind become defiled,but with it thy very body also, and what is still more horrible—Idread to say it, but I cannot suppress it; for it is as fire burningand blazing in my bones, and I am dissolving in every part andcannot endure it—thou hast taken the members of Christ, and madethem the members of a harlot. This is incomparably the greatestevil of all. This is a new crime in the world, to which we mayapply the words of the Prophet, "Pass over the isles of Chittim, andsee; and send unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if therebe such a thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet nogods?" For the virgin hath changed her glory, and now glories inher shame. The heavens are astonished at this, and the earthtrembleth very exceedingly. Now, also, the Lord says, the virginhath committed two evils, she hath forsaken me, the true and holybridegroom of sanctified souls, and hath fled to an impious andlawless polluter of the body, and corrupter of the soul. She hathturned away from God her Savior, and hath yielded her membersservants to imparity and iniquity; she bath forgotten me, and goneafter her lover, by whom she shall not profit.

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,and he cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of theLord's virgins to offend. What impudent servant ever carried hisinsane audacity so far as to fling himself upon the couch of hislord? Or what robber has ever become so madly hardened as to layhands upon the very offerings devoted to God?—but here it is notinanimate vessels, but living bodies, inhabited by souls made in theimage of God. Since the beginning of the world was any one everheard of, who dared, in the midst of a great city, in broad midday,to deface the likeness of a king by inscribing upon it the forms offilthy swine? He that despises human nuptials dies without mercyunder two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, supposeye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Sonof God, and defiled his espoused wife, and done despite to thespirit of virginity? . . .

But, after all this, "shall they fall and not arise? shall he turnaway and not return?" Why hath the virgin turned away in soshameless an apostasy?—and that, too, after having heard Christ,the bridegroom, saying by Jeremiah, "And I said, after she hadlewdly done all these things, turn thou unto me. But she returnednot," "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?Why, then, is not the health of the daughter of my peoplerecovered?" Truly thou mightest find in the Divine Scriptures manyremedies for such an evil—many medicines that recover fromperdition and restore to life; mysterious words about death andresurrection, a dreadful judgment, and everlasting punishment; thedoctrines of repentance and remission of sins; those innumerableexamples of conversion—the piece of silver, the lost sheep, theson that had devoured his living with harlots, that was lost andfound, that was dead and alive again. Let us use these remedies forthe evil; with these let us heal our souls. Think, too, of thy lastday (for thou art not to live always, more than others), of thedistress, and the anguish, as the hour of death draws nearer, of theimpending sentence of God, of the angels moving on rapid wing, ofthe soul fearfully agitated by all these things, and bitterlytormented by a guilty conscience, and clinging pitifully to thethings here below, and still under the inevitable necessity oftaking its departure. Picture to thy mind the final dissolution ofall that belongs to our present life, when the Son of Man shall comein his glory, with his holy angels; for he "shall come, and shallnot keep silence," when he shall come to judge the living and thedead, and to render to every man according to his work; when thetrumpet, with its loud and terrible echo, shall awaken those whohave slept from the beginning of the world, and they shall comeforth, they that have done good to the resurrection of the life, andthey that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. Rememberthe divine vision of Daniel, how he brings the judgment before oureyes. "I beheld," says he, "till the thrones were placed, and theAncient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and thehair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fieryflame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued andcame forth from before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him,and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the judgmentwas set, and the books were opened," revealing all at once in thehearing of all men and all angels, all things, whether good or bad,open or secret, deeds, words, thoughts. What effect must all thesethings have on those who have lived viciously? Where, then, shallthe soul, thus suddenly revealed in all the fullness of its shame inthe eyes of such a multitude of spectators—Oh, where shall ithide itself? In what body can it endure those unbounded andintolerable torments of the unquenchable fire, and the tortures ofthe undying worm, and the dark and frightful abyss of hell, and thebitter howlings, and woeful wailings, and weeping, and gnashing ofteeth; and all these dire woes without end? Deliverance from theseafter death there is none; neither is there any device, norcontrivance, for escaping these bitter torments. But now it ispossible to escape them. Now, then, while it is possible, let usrecover ourselves from our fall, let us not despair of restoration,if we break loose from our vices. Jesus Christ came into the worldto save sinners. "Oh, come, let us worship and bow down," let usweep before him. His word, calling us to repentance, lifts up itsvoice and cries aloud, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavyladen, and I will give you rest." There is, then, a way to besaved, if we will Death has prevailed and swallowed us up; but beassured, that God will wipe away every tear from the face of everypenitent. The Lord is faithful in all his words. He does not lie,when he says, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be aswhite as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be aswool." The great Physician of souls is ready to heal thy disease;he is the prompt Deliverer, not of thee alone, but of all who are inbondage to sin. These are his words,—his sweet and life-givinglips pronounced them,—"They that be whole need not a physician, butthey that are sick. I am not come to call the righteous, butsinners to repentance." What excuse, then, remains to thee, or toany one else, when he utters such language as this? The Lord iswilling to heal thy painful wound, and to enlighten thy darkness.The Good Shepherd leaves the sheep who have not strayed, to seek forthee. If thou give thyself up to him, he will not delay, he in hismercy will not disdain to carry thee upon his own shoulders,rejoicing that he has found his sheep which was lost. The Fatherstands waiting thy return from thy wanderings. Only arise and come,and whilst thou art yet a great way off he will run and fall uponthy neck; and, purified at once by thy repentance, thou shalt beenfolded in the embraces of his friendship. He will put the bestrobe on thy soul, when it has put off the old man with his deeds; hewill put a ring on thy hands when they have been washed from theblood of death; he will put shoes on thy feet, when they have turnedfrom the evil way to the path of the Gospel of peace; and he willproclaim a day of joy and gladness to the whole family of bothangels and men, and will celebrate thy salvation with every form ofrejoicing. For he himself says, "Verily I say unto you, that joyshall be in heaven before God over one sinner that repenteth." Andif any of those that stand by should seem to find fault, becausethou art so quickly received, the good Father himself will plead forthee, saying, "It was meet that we should make merry and be glad;for this my daughter was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, andis found."

RICHARD BAXTER (1615-1691)

Richard Baxter, author of 'The Saints' Everlasting Rest' and ofother works to the extent of sixty octavo volumes, was called byDoddridge "the English Demosthenes." He was born November 12th.1615, in Shropshire, England, and was admitted to orders in theEnglish Church in 1638. He refused, however, to take the oath of"Submission to Archbishops. Bishops," etc., and established himselfas the pastor of a dissenting church in Kidderminster. He was twiceimprisoned for refusing to conform to the requirements of theEstablished Church. He died in 1691. One of his critics says ofhim:—

"The leading characteristics of Baxter are, eminent piety and vigorof intellect, keenness of logic, burning power and plainness oflanguage, melting pathos, cloudless perspicuity, gracefuldescription, and a certain vehemence of feeling which brings homehis words with an irresistible force."

The sermon here extracted from was preached first at Kidderminsterand afterwards at London, and it is said it produced "a profoundsensation." As published entire, under the title 'Making Light ofChrist and Salvation,' it makes a considerable volume.

UNWILLINGNESS TO IMPROVE

Beloved hearers, the office that God bath called us to, is bydeclaring the glory of his grace, to help under Christ to the savingof men's souls, I hope you think not that I come hither to-day onany other errand. The Lord knows I had not set a foot out of doorsbut in hope to succeed in this work for your souls. I haveconsidered, and often considered, what is the matter that so manythousands should perish when God hath done so much for theirsalvation; and I find this that is mentioned in my text is thecause. It is one of the wonders of the world, that when God hath soloved the world as to send his Son, and Christ hath made asatisfaction by his death sufficient for them all and offereth thebenefits of it so freely to them, even without money or price, thatyet the most of the world should perish; yea, the most of thosethat are thus called by his word! Why, here is the reason, whenChrist hath done all this, men make light of it. God hath showedthat he is not unwilling; and Christ hath showed that he is notunwilling that men should be restored to God's favor and be saved;but men are actually unwilling themselves. God takes not pleasurein the death of sinners, but rather that they return and live. Butmen take such pleasure in sin that they will die before they willreturn. The Lord Jesus was content to be their Physician, and hathprovided them a sufficient plaster of his own blood: but if men makelight of it, and will not apply it, what wonder if they perish afterall? The Scripture giveth us the reason of their perdition. This,sad experience tells us, the most of the world is guilty of. It isa most lamentable thing to see how most men do spend their care,their time, their pains, for known vanities, while God and glory arecast aside; that he who is all should seem to them as nothing, andthat which is nothing should seem to them as good as all; that Godshould set mankind in such a race where heaven or hell is theircertain end, and that they should sit down, and loiter, or run afterthe childish toys of the world, and so much forget the prize thatthey should run for. Were it but possible for one of us to see thewhole of this business as the all-seeing God doth; to see at oneview both heaven and hell, which men are so near; and see what mostmen in the world are minding, and what they are doing every day, itwould be the saddest sight that could be imagined. Oh how should wemarvel at their madness, and lament their self-delusion! Oh poordistracted world! what is it you run after? and what is it thatyou neglect? If God had never told them what they were sent intothe world to do, or whither they are going, or what was before themin another world, then they had been excusable; but he hath toldthem over and over, till they were weary of it. Had he left itdoubtful, there had been some excuse; but it is his sealed word, andthey profess to believe it, and would take it ill of us if we shouldquestion whether they do believe it or not.

Beloved, I come not to accuse any of you particularly of this crime;but seeing it is the commonest cause of men's destruction, I supposeyou will judge it the fittest matter for our inquiry, and deservingour greatest care for the cure, To which end I shall, 1. Endeavorthe conviction of the guilty, 2. Shall give them such considerationsas may tend to humble and reform them. 3. I shall conclude withsuch direction as may help them that are willing to escape thedestroying power of this sin. And for the first, consider:—

1. It is the case of most sinners to think themselves freest fromthose sins that they are most enslaved to; and one reason why wecannot reform them, is because we cannot convince them of theirguilt. It is the nature of sin so far to blind and befool thesinner, that he knoweth not what he doth, but thinketh he is freefrom it when it reigneth in him, or when he is committing it; itbringeth men to be so much unacquainted with themselves that theyknow not what they think, or what they mean and intend, nor whatthey love or hate, much less what they are habituated anddisposed to. They are alive to sin, and dead to all the reason,consideration, and resolution that should recover them, as if itwere only by their sinning that we must know they are alive. MayI hope that you that hear me to-day are but willing to know thetruth of your case, and then I shall be encouraged to proceed toan inquiry. God will judge impartially; why should not we do so?Let me, therefore, by these following questions, try whether noneof you are slighters of Christ and your own salvation. And followme, I beseech you, by putting them close to your own hearts, andfaithfully answering them.

1. Things that men highly value will be remembered; they will bematter of their freest and sweetest thoughts. This is a knowncase.

Do not those then make light of Christ and salvation that think ofthem so seldom and coldly in comparison of other things? Follow thyown heart, man, and observe what it daily runneth after; and thenjudge whether it make not light of Christ.

We cannot persuade men to one hour's sober consideration what theyshould do for an interest in Christ, or in thankfulness for hislove, and yet they will not believe that they make light of him.

2. Things that we highly value will be matter of our discourse; thejudgment and heart will command the tongue. Freely anddelightfully will our speech run after them. This also is a knowncase.

Do not those men make light of Christ and salvation that shun themention of his name, unless it be in a vain or sinful use? Thosethat love not the company where Christ and salvation is much talkedof, but think it troublesome, precise discourse; that had ratherhear some merry jests, or idle tales, or talk of their riches orbusiness in the world? When you may follow them from morning tonight, and scarce have a savory word of Christ; but, perhaps, someslight and weary mention of him sometimes; judge whether these makenot light of Christ and salvation. How seriously do they talk of theworld and speak vanity! but how heartlessly do they make mention ofChrist and salvation!

3. The things that we highly value we would secure the possessionof, and, therefore, would take any convenient course to have alldoubts and fears about them well resolved. Do not those men thenmake light of Christ and salvation that have lived twenty orthirty years in uncertainty whether they have any part in theseor not, and yet never seek out for the right resolution of theirdoubts? Are all that hear me this day certain they shall besaved? Oh that they were! Oh, had you not made light ofsalvation, you could not so easily bear such doubting of it; youcould not rest till you had made it sure, or done your best tomake it sure. Have you nobody to inquire of, that might help youin such a work? Why, you have ministers that are purposelyappointed to that office. Have you gone to them, and told themthe doubtfulness of your case, and asked their help in thejudging of your condition? Alas, ministers may sit in theirstudies from one year to another, before ten persons among athousand will come to them on such an errand! Do not these makelight of Christ and salvation? When the Gospel pierceth the heartindeed, they cry out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do to besaved?" Trembling and astonished, Paul cries out, "Lord, whatwilt thou have me to do?" And so did the convinced Jews toPeter. But when hear we such questions?

4. The things that we value do deeply affect us, and some motionswill be in the heart according to our estimation of them. O sirs,if men made not light of these things, what working would there bein the hearts of all our hearers! What strange affections would itraise in them to hear of the matters of the world to come! Howwould their hearts melt before the power of the Gospel! What sorrowwould be wrought in the discovery of their sins! What astonishmentat the consideration of their misery! What unspeakable joy at theglad tidings of salvation by the blood of Christ! What resolutionwould be raised in them upon the discovery of their duty! Oh whathearers should we have, if it were not for this sin! Whereas, nowwe are liker to weary them, or preach them asleep with matters ofthis unspeakable moment. We talk to them of Christ and salvationtill we make their heads ache; little would one think by theircareless carriage that they heard and regarded what we said, orthought we spoke at all to them.

5. Our estimation of things will be seen in the diligence of ourendeavors. That which we highliest value, we shall think no painstoo great to obtain. Do not those men then make light of Christand salvation that think all too much that they do for them; thatmurmur at his service, and think it too grievous for them toendure? that ask of his service as Judas of the ointment, Whatneed this waste? Cannot men be saved without so much ado? This ismore ado than needs. For the world they will labor all the day,and all their lives; but for Christ and salvation they are afraidof doing too much. Let us preach to them as long as we will, wecannot bring them to relish or resolve upon a life of holiness.Follow them to their houses, and you shall not hear them read achapter, nor call upon God with their families once a day; nor willthey allow him that one day in seven which he hath separated to hisservice. But pleasure, or worldly business, or idleness, must have apart. And many of them are so far hardened as to reproach them thatwill not be as mad as themselves. And is not Christ worth theseeking? Is not everlasting salvation worth more than all this? Dothnot that soul make light of all these that thinks his ease more worththan they? Let but common sense judge.

6. That which we most highly value, we think we cannot buy too dear:Christ and salvation are freely given, and yet the most of men gowithout them because they cannot enjoy the world and them together.They are called but to part with that which would hinder them fromChrist, and they will not do it. They are called but to give Godhis own, and to resign all to his will, and let go the profits andpleasures of this world when they must let go either Christ or them,and they will not. They think this too dear a bargain, and say theycannot spare these things; they must hold their credit with men;they must look to their estates: how shall they live else? Theymust have their pleasure, whatsoever becomes of Christ andsalvation: as if they could live without Christ better than withoutthese: as if they were afraid of being losers by Christ or couldmake a saving match by losing their souls to gain the world. Christhath told us over and over that if we will not forsake all for himwe cannot be his disciples. Far are these men from forsaking all,and yet will needs think that they are his disciples indeed.

7. That which men highly esteem, they would help their friends to aswell as themselves. Do not those men make light of Christ andsalvation that can take so much care to leave their childrenportions in the world, and do so little to help them to heaven?that provide outward necessaries so carefully for their families,but do so little to the saving of their souls? Their neglectedchildren and friends will witness that either Christ, or theirchildren's souls, or both, were made light of.

8. That which men highly esteem, they will so diligently seek afterthat you may see it in the success, if it be a matter withintheir reach. You may see how many make light of Christ, by thelittle knowledge they have of him, and the little communion withhim, and communication from him; and the little, yea, none of hisspecial grace in them. Alas! how many ministers can speak it tothe sorrow of their hearts, that many of their people know almostnothing of Christ, though they hear of him daily! Nor know theywhat they must do to be saved: if we ask them an account of thesethings, they answer as if they understood not what we say tothem, and tell us they are no scholars, and therefore think theyare excusable for their ignorance. Oh if these men had not madelight of Christ and their salvation, but had bestowed but half asmuch pains to know and enjoy him as they have done to understandthe matters of their trades and callings in the world, they wouldnot have been so ignorant as they are: they make light of thesethings, and therefore will not be at the pains to study or learnthem. When men that can learn the hardest trade in a few yearshave not learned a catechism, nor how to understand their creed,under twenty or thirty years' preaching, nor can abide to bequestioned about such things, doth not this show that they haveslighted them in their hearts? How will these despisers of Christand salvation be able one day to look him in the face, and togive an account of these neglects?

JAMES A. BAYARD (1767-1815)

During the first decade of the nineteenth century, a most importantformative period of American history, James A. Bayard was therecognized leader of the Federalists in the Senate. They had lostthe presidential election of 1800, and their party had been socompletely disorganized by the defeat that they never recovered fromit, nor won, as a party, another victory. Defeat, however, did notprevent them from making a stubborn fight for principle—fromfiling, as it were, an appeal from the first to the third quarter ofthe century. In this James A. Bayard was their special advocate andrepresentative. The pleas he made in his celebrated speech on theJudiciary, delivered in the House of Representatives, and in similarspeeches in the Senate, defined as they had not been defined before,the views of that body of Conservatives whose refusal to accept thedefeat of 1800 as anything more than an ephemeral incident, led tothe far-reaching results achieved by other parties which their ideasbrought into existence. It was said of Bayard, as theirrepresentative and leader, that "he was distinguished for the depthof his knowledge, the solidity of his reasoning, and the perspicuityof his illustration." He was called "the Goliath of Federalism,"and "the high priest of the constitution," by the opponents of"Jacobinism." as Federalists often termed Jeffersonian democracy.Mr. Bayard was born in Philadelphia, July 28th, 1767. His father,Dr. James A. Bayard, claimed his descent from the celebrated"Chevalier" Bayard,—a fact which greatly influenced the son as ithas others of the family who have succeeded him in public life.Thus when offered the French mission James A. Bayard declined it,fearing that it might involve the suspicion of a bargain. "Myambitions," he wrote in a letter to a relative, "shall never begratified at the expense of a suspicion. I shall never lose sightof the motto of the great original of our name."

After preparing for the bar. Bayard settled in Delaware and in 1796that State elected him to the lower house of Congress, promoting himin 1804 to the Senate and re-electing him at the expiration of hisfirst term. In 1813, President Madison appointed him one of theCommissioners to conclude the treaty of peace with England.

After the success of that mission, he was appointed minister toRussia, but declined saying that he had "no wish to serve theadministration except when his services were necessary for thepublic good." He died in August 1815.

His speeches show a strong and comprehensive grasp of facts, a powerto present them in logical sequence, and an apprehension ofprinciple which is not often seen in public speeches. They wereaddressed, however, only to the few who will take the pains to dosevere and connected thinking and they are never likely to becomeextensively popular.

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

(Delivered on the Judiciary Bill, in the House of Representatives,on the Nineteenth of February, 1802)

Mr. Chairman:—

I must be allowed to express my surprise at the course pursued bythe honorable gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Giles, in the remarkswhich be has made on the subject before us. I had expected that hewould have adopted a different line of conduct. I had expected itas well from that sentiment of magnanimity which ought to have beeninspired by a sense of the high ground he holds on the floor of thisHouse, as from the professions of a desire to conciliate, which hehas so repeatedly made during the session. We have been invited tobury the hatchet, and brighten the chain of peace. We were disposedto meet on middle-ground. We had assurances from the gentleman thathe would abstain from reflections on the past, and that his onlywish was that we might unite in future in promoting the welfare ofour common country. We confided in the gentleman's sincerity, andcherished the hope, that if the divisions of party were not banishedfrom the House, its spirit would be rendered less intemperate. Suchwere our impressions, when the mask was suddenly thrown aside, andwe saw the torch of discord lighted and blazing before our eyes.Every effort has been made to revive the animosities of the Houseand inflame the passions of the nation. I am at no loss to perceivewhy this course has been pursued. The gentleman has been unwillingto rely upon the strength of his subject, and has, therefore,determined to make the measure a party question. He has probablysecured success, but would it not have been more honorable and morecommendable to have left the decision of a great constitutionalquestion to the understanding, and not to the prejudices of theHouse? It was my ardent wish to discuss the subject with calmnessand deliberation, and I did intend to avoid every topic which couldawaken the sensibility of party. This was my temper and design whenI took my seat yesterday. It is a course at present we are nolonger at liberty to pursue. The gentleman has wandered far, veryfar, from the points of the debate, and has extended hisanimadversions to all the prominent measures of the formeradministrations. In following him through his preliminaryobservations, I necessarily lose sight of the bill upon your table.

The gentleman commenced his strictures with the philosophicobservation, that it was the fate of mankind to hold differentopinions as to the form of government which was preferable; thatsome were attached to the monarchical, while others thought therepublican more eligible. This, as an abstract remark, is certainlytrue, and could have furnished no ground of offense, if it had notevidently appeared that an allusion was designed to be made to theparties in this country. Does the gentleman suppose that we have aless lively recollection than himself, of the oath which we havetaken to support the constitution; that we are less sensible of thespirit of our government, or less devoted to the wishes of ourconstituents? Whatever impression it might be the intention of thegentleman to make, he does not believe that there exists in thecountry an anti-republican party. He will not venture to assertsuch an opinion on the floor of this House. That there may be a fewindividuals having a preference for monarchy is not improbable; butwill the gentleman from Virginia, or any other gentleman, affirm inhis place, that there is a party in the country who wish toestablish monarchy? Insinuations of this sort belong not to thelegislature of the Union. Their place is an election ground, or analehouse. Within these walls they are lost; abroad, they have hadan effect, and I fear are still capable of abusing popularcredulity.

We were next told of the parties which have existed, divided by theopposite views of promoting executive power and guarding the rightsof the people. The gentleman did not tell us in plain language, buthe wished it to be understood, that he and his friends were theguardians of the people's rights, and that we were the advocates ofexecutive power.

I know that this is the distinction of party which some gentlemenhave been anxious to establish; but it is not the ground on which wedivide. I am satisfied with the constitutional powers of theexecutive, and never wished nor attempted to increase them; and I donot believe, that gentlemen on the other side of the House ever hada serious apprehension of danger from an increase of executiveauthority. No, sir, our views, as to the powers which do and oughtto belong to the general and State governments, are the true sourcesof our divisions. I co-operate with the party to which I amattached, because I believe their true object and end is an honestand efficient support of the general government, in the exercise ofthe legitimate powers of the constitution.

I pray to God I may be mistaken in the opinion I entertain as to thedesigns of gentlemen to whom I am opposed. Those designs I believehostile to the powers of this government. State pride extinguishes anational sentiment. Whatever power is taken from this government isgiven to the States.

The ruins of this government aggrandize the States. There areStates which are too proud to be controlled; whose sense ofgreatness and resource renders them indifferent to our protection,and induces a belief that if no general government existed, theirinfluence would be more extensive, and their importance moreconspicuous. There are gentlemen who make no secret of an extremepoint of depression, to which the government is to be sunk. To thatpoint we are rapidly progressing. But I would beg gentlemen toremember that human affairs are not to be arrested in their course,at artificial points. The impulse now given may be accelerated bycauses at present out of view. And when those, who now design well,wish to stop, they may find their powers unable to resist thetorrent. It is not true, that we ever wished to give a dangerousstrength to executive power. While the government was in our hands,it was our duty to maintain its constitutional balance, bypreserving the energies of each branch. There never was an attemptto vary the relation of its powers. The struggle was to maintainthe constitutional powers of the executive. The wild principles ofFrench liberty were scattered through the country. We had ourJacobins and disorganizes. They saw no difference between a kingand a president, and as the people of France had put down theirKing, they thought the people of America ought to put down theirPresident. They, who considered the constitution as securing allthe principles of rational and practicable liberty, who wereunwilling to embark upon the tempestuous sea of revolution inpursuit of visionary schemes, were denounced as monarchists. A linewas drawn between the government and the people, and the friends ofthe government were marked as the enemies of the people. I hope,however, that the government and the people are now the same; and Ipray to God, that what has been frequently remarked, may not, inthis case, be discovered to be true that they, who have the name ofthe people the most often in their mouths, have their true intereststhe most seldom at their hearts.

The honorable gentleman from Virginia wandered to the very confinesof the federal administration, in search of materials the mostinflammable and most capable of kindling the passions of hisparty. …

I did suppose, sir, that this business was at an end; and I didimagine, that as gentlemen had accomplished their object, they wouldhave been satisfied. But as the subject is again renewed, we must beallowed to justify our conduct. I know not what the gentleman callsan expression of the public will. There were two candidates for theoffice of President, who were presented to the House ofRepresentatives with equal suffrages. The constitution gave us theright and made it our duty to elect that one of the two whom wethought preferable. A public man is to notice the public will asconstitutionally expressed. The gentleman from Virginia, and manyothers, may have had their preference; but that preference of thepublic will not appear by its constitutional expression. Sir, I amnot certain that either of those candidates had a majority of thecountry in his favor. Excluding the State of South Carolina, thecountry was equally divided. We know that parties in that State werenearly equally balanced, and the claims of both the candidates weresupported by no other scrutiny into the public will than ourofficial return of votes. Those votes are very imperfect evidence ofthe true will of a majority of the nation. They resulted frompolitical intrigue and artificial arrangement.

When we look at the votes, we must suppose that every man inVirginia voted the same way. These votes are received as a correctexpression of the public will. And yet we know that if the votes ofthat State were apportioned according to the several voices of thepeople, that at least seven out of twenty-one would have beenopposed to the successful candidate. It was the suppression of thewill of one-third of Virginia, which enables gentlemen now to saythat the present chief magistrate is the man of the people. Iconsider that as the public will, which is expressed byconstitutional organs. To that will I bow and submit. The publicwill, thus manifested, gave to the House of Representatives thechoice of the two men for President. Neither of them was the manwhom I wished to make President; but my election was confined by theconstitution to one of the two, and I gave my vote to the one whom Ithought was the greater and better man. That vote I repeated, andin that vote I should have persisted, had I not been driven from itby imperious necessity. The prospect ceased of the vote beingeffectual, and the alternative only remained of taking one man forPresident, or having no President at all. I chose, as I thenthought, the lesser evil.

From the scene in this House, the gentleman carried us to one in theSenate. I should blush, sir, for the honor of the country, could Isuppose that the law, designed to be repealed, owed its support inthat body to the motives which have been indicated. The chargedesigned to be conveyed, not only deeply implicates the integrity ofindividuals of the Senate, but of the person who was then the chiefmagistrate. The gentleman, going beyond all precedent, has mentionedthe names of members of that body, to whom commissions issued foroffices not created by the bill before them, but which that bill, bythe promotions it afforded, was likely to render vacant. He hasconsidered the scandal of the transaction as aggravated by theissuing of commissions for offices not actually vacant, upon thebare presumption that they would become vacant by the incumbentsaccepting commissions for higher offices which were issued in theirfavor. The gentleman has particularly dwelt upon the indecentappearance of the business, from two commissions being held bydifferent persons at the same time for the same office.

I beg that it will be understood that I mean to give no opinion asto the regularity of granting a commission for a judicial office,upon the probability of a vacancy before it is actually vacant; butI shall be allowed to say that so much doubt attends the point, thatan innocent mistake might be made on the subject. I believe, sir,it has been the practice to consider the acceptance of an office asrelating to the date of the commission. The officer is allowed hissalary from that date, upon the principle that the commission is agrant of the office, and the title commences with the date of thegrant. This principle is certainly liable to abuse, but where therewas a suspicion of abuse I presume the government would depart fromit. Admitting the office to pass by the commission, and theacceptance to relate to its date, it then does not appear veryincorrect, in the case of a commission for the office of a circuitjudge, granted to a district judge, as the acceptance of thecommission for the former office relates to the date of thecommission, to consider the latter office as vacant from the sametime. The offices are incompatible. You cannot suppose the sameperson in both offices at the same time. From the moment,therefore, that you consider the office of circuit judge as filledby a person who holds the commission of district judge, you mustconsider the office of district judge as vacated. The grant iscontingent. If the contingency happen, the office vests from thedate of the commission; if the contingency does not happen, thegrant is void. If this reasoning be sound, it was not irregular, inthe late administration, after granting a commission to a districtjudge, for the place of a circuit judge, to make a grant of theoffice of the district judge, upon the contingency of his acceptingthe office of circuit judge.

The legislative power of the government is not absolute, butlimited. If it be doubtful whether the legislature can do what theconstitution does not explicitly authorize, yet there can be noquestion, that they cannot do what the constitution expresslyprohibits. To maintain, therefore, the constitution, the judges area check upon the legislature. The doctrine, I know, is denied, andit is, therefore, incumbent upon me to show that it is sound. Itwas once thought by gentlemen, who now deny the principle, that thesafety of the citizen and of the States rested upon the power of thejudges to declare an unconstitutional law void. How vain is a paperrestriction if it confers neither power nor right. Of whatimportance is it to say, Congress are prohibited from doing certainacts, if no legitimate authority exists in the country to decidewhether an act done is a prohibited act? Do gentlemen perceive theconsequences which would follow from establishing the principle,that Congress have the exclusive right to decide upon their ownpowers? This principle admitted, does any constitution remain?Does not the power of the legislature become absolute andomnipotent? Can you talk to them of transgressing their powers,when no one has a right to judge of those powers but themselves?They do what is not authorized, they do what is inhibited, nay, atevery step, they trample the constitution under foot; yet their actsare lawful and binding, and it is treason to resist them. How ill,sir, do the doctrines and professions of these gentlemen agree.They tell us they are friendly to the existence of the States; thatthey are the friends of federative, but the enemies of aconsolidated general government, and yet, sir, to accomplish apaltry object, they are willing to settle a principle which, beyondall doubt, would eventually plant a consolidated government, withunlimited power, upon the ruins of the State governments.

Nothing can be more absurd than to contend that there is a practicalrestraint upon a political body, who are answerable to none butthemselves for the violation of the restraint, and who can derive,from the very act of violation, undeniable justification of theirconduct.

If, Mr. Chairman, you mean to have a constitution, you must discovera power to which the acknowledged right is attached of pronouncingthe invalidity of the acts of the legislature, which contravened theinstrument.

Does the power reside in the States? Has the legislature of a Statea right to declare an act of Congress void? This would be erringupon the opposite extreme. It would be placing the generalgovernment at the feet of the State governments. It would beallowing one member of the Union to control all the rest. It wouldinevitably lead to civil dissension and a dissolution of the generalgovernment. Will it be pretended that the State courts have theexclusive right of deciding upon the validity of our laws?

I admit they have the right to declare an act of Congress void. Butthis right they enjoy in practice, and it ever essentially mustexist, subject to the revision and control of the courts of theUnited States. If the State courts definitely possessed the rightof declaring the invalidity of the laws of this government, it wouldbring us in subjection to the States. The judges of those courts,being bound by the laws of the State, if a State declared an act ofCongress unconstitutional, the law of the State would oblige itscourts to determine the law invalid. This principle would alsodestroy the uniformity of obligation upon all the States, whichshould attend every law of this government. If a law were declaredvoid in one State, it would exempt the citizens of that State fromits operation, whilst obedience was yielded to it in the otherStates. I go further, and say, if the States or State courts had afinal power of annulling the acts of this government, its miserableand precarious existence would not be worth the trouble of a momentto preserve. It would endure but a short time, as a subject ofderision, and, wasting into an empty shadow, would quickly vanishfrom our sight.

Let me now ask, if the power to decide upon the validity of our lawsresides with the people. Gentlemen cannot deny this right to thepeople. I admit they possess it. But if, at the same time, it doesnot belong to the courts of the United States, where does it leadthe people? It leads them to the gallows. Let us suppose thatCongress, forgetful of the limits of their authority, pass anunconstitutional law. They lay a direct tax upon one State andimpose none upon the others. The people of the State taxed contestthe validity of the law. They forcibly resist its execution. Theyare brought by the executive authority before the courts uponcharges of treason. The law is unconstitutional, the people havedone right, but the court are bound by the law, and obliged topronounce upon them the sentence which it inflicts. Deny to thecourts of the United States the power of judging upon theconstitutionality of our laws, and it is vain to talk of itsexisting elsewhere. The infractors of the laws are brought beforethese courts, and if the courts are implicitly bound, the invalidityof the laws can be no defense. There is, however, Mr. Chairman,still a stronger ground of argument upon this subject. I shallselect one or two cases to illustrate it. Congress are prohibitedfrom passing a bill of attainder; it is also declared in theconstitution, that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption ofblood or forfeiture, except during the life of the party attainted."Let us suppose that Congress pass a bill of attainder, or theyenact, that any one attainted of treason shall forfeit, to the useof the United States, all the estate which he held in any lands ortenements.

The party attainted is seized and brought before a federal court,and an award of execution passed against him. He opens theconstitution and points to this line, "no bill of attainder or expost facto law shall be passed." The attorney for the UnitedStates reads the bill of attainder.

The courts are bound to decide, but they have only the alternativeof pronouncing the law or the constitution invalid. It is left tothem only to say that the law vacates the constitution, or theconstitution voids the law. So, in the other case stated, the heirafter the death of his ancestor, brings his ejectment in one of thecourts of the United States to recover his inheritance. The law bywhich it is confiscated is shown. The constitution gave no power topass such a law. On the contrary, it expressly denied it to thegovernment. The title of the heir is rested on the constitution, thetitle of the government on the law. The effect of one destroys theeffect of the other; the court must determine which is effectual.

There are many other cases, Mr. Chairman, of a similar nature towhich I might allude. There is the case of the privilege ofhabeas corpus, which cannot be suspended but in times ofrebellion or invasion. Suppose a law prohibiting the issue of thewrit at a moment of profound peace! If, in such case, the writ weredemanded of a court, could they say, it is true the legislature wererestrained from passing the law suspending the privilege of thiswrit, at such a time as that which now exists, but their mightypower has broken the bonds of the constitution, and fettered theauthority of the court? I am not, sir, disposed to vaunt, butstanding on this ground, I throw the gauntlet to any champion uponthe other side. I call upon them to maintain, that, in a collisionbetween a law and the constitution, the judges are bound to supportthe law, and annul the constitution. Can the gentlemen relievethemselves from this dilemma? Will they say, though a judge has nopower to pronounce a law void, he has a power to declare theconstitution invalid?

The doctrine for which I am contending, is not only clearlyinferable from the plain language of the constitution, but by lawhas been expressly declared and established in practice since theexistence of the government.

The second section of the third article of the constitutionexpressly extends the judicial power to all cases arising under theconstitution, laws, etc. The provision in the second clause of thesixth article leaves nothing to doubt. "This constitution and thelaws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereofetc., shall be the supreme law of the land." The constitution isabsolutely the supreme law. Not so the acts of the legislature!Such only are the law of the land as are made in pursuance of theconstitution.

I beg the indulgence of the committee one moment, while I read thefollowing provision from the twenty-fifth section of the judicialact of the year 1789: "A final judgment or decree in any suit in thehighest court of law or equity of a state, in which a decision inthe suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of atreaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the UnitedStates, and the decision is against their validity, etc., may bere-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of theUnited States, upon a writ of error." Thus, as early as the year1789, among the first acts of the government, the legislatureexplicitly recognized the right of a State court to declare atreaty, a statute, and an authority exercised under the UnitedStates, void, subject to the revision of the Supreme Court of theUnited States; and it has expressly given the final power to theSupreme Court to affirm a judgment which is against the validity,either of a treaty, statute, or an authority of the government.

I humbly trust, Mr. Chairman, that I have given abundant proofs fromthe nature of our government, from the language of the constitution,and from legislative acknowledgment, that the judges of our courtshave the power to judge and determine upon the constitutionality ofour laws.

Let me now suppose that, in our frame of government, the judges area check upon the legislature; that the constitution is deposited intheir keeping. Will you say afterwards that their existence dependsupon the legislature? That the body whom they are to check has thepower to destroy them? Will you say that the constitution may betaken out of their hands by a power the most to be distrusted,because the only power which could violate it with impunity? Cananything be more absurd than to admit that the judges are a checkupon the legislature, and yet to contend that they exist at the willof the legislature? A check must necessarily imply a powercommensurate to its end. The political body, designed to checkanother, must be independent of it, otherwise there can be no check.What check can there be when the power designed to be checked canannihilate the body which is to restrain?

I go further, Mr. Chairman, and take a stronger ground. I say, inthe nature of things, the dependence of the judges upon thelegislature, and their right to declare the acts of the legislaturevoid, are repugnant, and cannot exist together. The doctrine, sir,supposes two rights—first, the right of the legislature todestroy the office of the judge, and the right of the judge tovacate the act of the legislature. You have a right to abolish by alaw the offices of the judges of the circuit courts; they have aright to declare the law void. It unavoidably follows, in theexercise of these rights, either that you destroy their rights, orthat they destroy yours. This doctrine is not a harmless absurdity,it is a most dangerous heresy. It is a doctrine which cannot bepracticed without producing not discord only, but bloodshed. If youpass the bill upon your table, the judges have a constitutionalright to declare it void. I hope they will have courage to exercisethat right; and if, sir, I am called upon to take my side, standingacquitted in ray conscience, and before my God, of all motives butthe support of the constitution of my country, I shall not trembleat the consequences.

The constitution may have its enemies, but I know that it has alsoits friends. I beg gentlemen to pause, before they take this rashstep. There are many, very many, who believe, if you strike thisblow, you inflict a mortal wound on the constitution. There are manynow willing to spill their blood to defend that constitution. Aregentlemen disposed to risk the consequences? Sir, I mean no threats,I have no expectation of appalling the stout hearts of myadversaries; but if gentlemen are regardless of themselves, let themconsider their wives and children, their neighbors and theirfriends. Will they risk civil dissension, will they hazard thewelfare, will they jeopardize the peace of the country, to save apaltry sum of money, less than thirty thousand dollars?

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the friends of this measure arenot apprised of the nature of its operation, nor sensible of themischievous consequences which are likely to attend it. Sir, themorals of your people, the peace of the country, the stability ofthe government, rest upon the maintenance of the independence of thejudiciary. It is not of half the importance in England, that thejudges should be independent of the crown, as it is with us thatthey should be independent of the legislature. Am I asked, wouldyou render the judges superior to the legislature? I answer, no,but co-ordinate. Would you render them independent of thelegislature? I answer, yes, independent of every power on earth,while they behave themselves well. The essential interests, thepermanent welfare of society, require this independence; not, sir,on account of the judge; that is a small consideration, but onaccount of those between whom he is to decide. You calculate on theweaknesses of human nature, and you suffer the judge to be dependenton no one, lest he should be partial to those on whom he depends.Justice does not exist where partiality prevails. A dependent judgecannot be impartial. Independence is, therefore, essential to thepurity of your judicial tribunals.

Let it be remembered, that no power is so sensibly felt by society,as that of the judiciary. The life and property of every man isliable to be in the hands of the judges. Is it not our greatinterest to place our judges upon such high ground that no fear canintimidate, no hope seduce them? The present measure humbles themin the dust, it prostrates them at the feet of faction, it rendersthem the tools of every dominant party. It is this effect which Ideprecate, it is this consequence which I deeply deplore. What doesreason, what does argument avail, when party spirit presides?Subject your bench to the influence of this spirit, and justice bidsa final adieu to your tribunals. We are asked, sir, if the judgesare to be independent of the people? The question presents a falseand delusive view. We are all the people. We are, and as long aswe enjoy our freedom, we shall be divided into parties. The truequestion is, shall the judiciary be permanent, or fluctuate with thetide of public opinion? I beg, I implore gentlemen to consider themagnitude and value of the principle which they are about toannihilate. If your judges are independent of political changes,they may have their preferences, but they will not enter into thespirit of party. But let their existence depend upon the support ofthe power of a certain set of men, and they cannot be impartial.Justice will be trodden under foot. Your courts will lose allpublic confidence and respect.

The judges will be supported by their partisans, who, in their turn,will expect impunity for the wrongs and violence they commit. Thespirit of party will be inflamed to madness: and the moment is notfar off, when this fair country is to be desolated by a civil war.

Do not say that you render the judges dependent only on the peopleYou make them dependent on your President. This is his measure.The same tide of public opinion which changes a President willchange the majorities in the branches of the legislature Thelegislature will be the instrument of his ambition, and he will havethe courts as the instruments of his vengeance. He uses thelegislature to remove the judges, that he may appoint creatures ofhis own. In effect, the powers of the government will beconcentrated in the hands of one man, who will dare to act with moreboldness, because he will be sheltered from responsibility. Theindependence of the judiciary was the felicity of our constitution.It was this principle which was to curb the fury of party on suddenchanges. The first movements of power gained by a struggle are themost vindictive and intemperate. Raised above the storm it was thejudiciary which was to control the fiery zeal, and to quell thefierce passions of a victorious faction.

We are standing on the brink of that revolutionary torrent, whichdeluged in blood one of the fairest countries of Europe.

France had her national assembly, more numerous than, and equallypopular with, our own. She had her tribunals of justice, and herjuries. But the legislature and her courts were but the instrumentsof her destruction. Acts of proscription and sentences of banishmentand death were passed in the cabinet of a tyrant. Prostrate yourjudges at the feet of party, and you break down the mounds whichdefend you from this torrent.

I am done. I should have thanked my God for greater power to resista measure so destructive to the peace and happiness of thecountry. My feeble efforts can avail nothing. But it was my duty tomake them. The meditated blow is mortal, and from the moment it isstruck, we may bid a final adieu to the constitution.

COMMERCE AND NAVAL POWER (United States Senate, February 12th, 1810)

God has decided that the people of this country should be commercialpeople. You read that decree in the seacoast of seventeen hundredmiles which he has given you; in the numerous navigable waters whichpenetrate the interior of the country; in the various ports andharbors scattered alone your shores; in your fisheries; in theredundant productions of your soil; and, more than all, in theenterprising and adventurous spirit of your people. It is no more aquestion whether the people of this country shall be allowed toplough the ocean, than it is whether they shall be permitted toplough the land. It is not in the power of this government, norwould it be if it were as strong as the most despotic upon theearth, to subdue the commercial spirit, or to destroy the commercialhabits of the country. Young as we are, our tonnage and commercesurpass those of every nation upon the globe but one, and ifnot wasted by the deprivations to which they were exposed by theirdefenseless situation, and the more ruinous restrictions to whichthis government subjected them, it would require not many more yearsto have made them the greatest in the world. Is this immense wealthalways to be exposed as a prey to the rapacity of freebooters? Whywill you protect your citizens and their property upon land, andleave them defenseless upon the ocean? As your mercantile propertyincreases, the prize becomes more tempting to the cupidity offoreign nations. In the course of things, the ruins and aggressionswhich you have experienced will multiply, nor will they berestrained while we have no appearance of a naval force.

I have always been in favor of a naval establishment—not from theunworthy motives attributed by the gentleman from Georgia to aformer administration, in order to increase patronage, but from aprofound conviction that the safety of the Union and the prosperityof the nation depended greatly upon its commerce, which never couldbe securely enjoyed without the protection of naval power. I offer,sir, abundant proof for the satisfaction of the liberal mind of thatgentleman, that patronage was not formerly a motive in voting anincrease in the navy, when I give now the same vote, when surely Iand my friends have nothing to hope, and for myself, I thank God,nothing to wish from the patronage it may confer.

You must and will have a navy; but it is not to be created in a day,nor is it to be expected that, in its infancy, it will be able tocope, foot to foot with the full-grown vigor of the navy ofEngland. But we are even now capable of maintaining a naval forceformidable enough to threaten the British commerce, and to renderthis nation an object of more respect and consideration.

In another point of view, the protection of commerce has become moreindispensable. The discovery is completely made, that it is fromcommerce that the revenue is to be drawn which is to support thisgovernment, A direct tax, a stamp act, a carriage tax, and anexcise, have been tried; and I believe, sir, after the lesson whichexperience has given on the subject, no set of men in power willever repeat them again, for all they are likely to produce. Theburden must be pretty light upon the people of this country, or therider is in great danger. You may be allowed to sell your back landsfor some time longer, but the permanent fund for the support of thisgovernment is the imports.

If the people were willing to part with commerce, can the governmentdispense with it? But when it belongs equally to the interest of thepeople and of the government to encourage and protect it, will younot spare a few of those dollars which it brings into your treasury,to defend and protect it?

In relation to the increase of a permanent military force, a freepeople cannot cherish too great a jealousy. An army may wrest thepower from the hands of the people, and deprive them of theirliberty. It becomes us, therefore, to be extremely cautious how weaugment it. But a navy of any magnitude can never threaten us withthe same danger. Upon land, at this time, we have nothing—andprobably, at any future time, we shall have but little—to fearfrom any foreign power. It is upon the ocean we meet them; it isthere our collisions arise; it is there we are most feeble, mostvulnerable, and most exposed; it is there by consequence, that oursafety and prosperity must require an augmented force.

THOMAS F. BAYARD (1828-1898)

In 1876, when the country was in imminent danger of the renewal ofcivil war as a result of the contested presidential election, theconservative element of the Democratic party, advised by Mr. Tildenhimself, determined to avoid anything which might result in extrememeasures. The masses of the people were excited as they had notbeen since the close of the Civil War, and the great majority of theDemocrats of the country were undoubtedly opposed to makingconcessions. Thomas F. Bayard, who took the lead in the Senate asthe representative of the moderate policy favored by Mr. Tilden, metthe reproaches sure to be visited in such cases on the peacemaker.Nevertheless, he advocated the Electoral Commission as a method ofsettling the contest, and his speech in supporting it, without doubtone of the best as it was certainly the most important of his life,paved the way for the final adoption of the bill. It is no morethan justice to say that the speech is worthy of the dignity of thatgreat occasion.

Mr. Bayard inherited the equable temperament shown by his father andhis grandfather. He was a warm-hearted man with a long memory forservices done him, but he had a faculty of containing himself whichfew men exercise to the degree that he exercised it habitually, bothin his public and private life. The habit was so strong, in fact,that he indulged only on rare occasions that emotion which isnecessary for the highest success as an orator. The calmness of histhought shows itself in logic which, while it may invite confidence,does not compel admiration. When he is moved, however, the freedomof his utterances from exaggeration and from that tendency to rantwhich mars many orations makes such periods as those with which hecloses his speech on the Electoral Bill models of expression for allwho wish to realize the highest possibilities of cumulative force.

The son of one United States Senator, James A. Bayard, of Delaware,and the grandson of another, Mr. Bayard represented well the familytradition of integrity. Born in 1828, he succeeded to his father'splace in the Senate when forty-one years of age, and remained in thepublic service until within a short time of his death. He wasSecretary of State under the first Cleveland administration andambassador to England under the second. In the convention whichnominated Mr. Cleveland in 1884, Mr. Bayard, who had been stronglysupported for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1880, was soclose to the presidency at the beginning of the balloting that hismanagers confidently expected his success. He became much attachedto President Cleveland, and in 1896 he took a course on thefinancial issue then uppermost, which alienated many of his friends,as far as friends could be alienated by the political action of aman whose public and private life were so full of dignity,simplicity, and the qualities which result from habitual good faith.Mr. Bayard survived almost into the twentieth century as a lastrepresentative of the colonial gentlemen who debated the FederalConstitution. Supposed to be cold and unapproachable, he was reallywarm in his friendships, with a memory which never allowed an act ofservice done him to escape it. Few better men have had anything todo with the politics of the second half of the century. He died in1898.

W. V. B.

A PLEA FOR CONCILIATION IN 1876

("Counting the Electoral Votes," United States Senate, January 24th,1877)

Mr. President, I might have been content as a friend of this measureto allow it to go before the Senate and the country unaccompanied byany remarks of mine had it not been the pleasure of the Senate toassign me as one of the minority in this Chamber to a place upon theselect committee appointed for the purpose of reporting a billintended to meet the exigencies of the hour in relation to theelectoral votes. There is for every man in a matter of such gravityhis own measure of responsibility, and that measure I desire toassume. Nothing less important than the decision, into whose handsthe entire executive power of this government shall be vested in thenext four years, is embraced in the provisions of this bill. Theelection for President and Vice-President has been held, but as tothe results of that election the two great political parties of thecountry stand opposed in serious controversy. Each party claimssuccess for its candidate and insists that he and he alone shall bedeclared by the two houses of Congress entitled to exercise theexecutive power of this government for the next four years. Thecanvass was prolonged and unprecedented in its excitement and evenbitterness. The period of advocacy of either candidate has passed,and the time for judgment has almost come. How shall we who purposeto make laws for others do better than to exhibit our own reverencefor law and set the example here of subordination to the spirit oflaw?

It cannot be disguised that an issue has been sought, if notactually raised, in this country, between a settlement of this greatquestion by sheer force and arbitrary exercise of power or by thepeaceful, orderly, permanent methods of law and reason. Ours is, aswe are wont to boast, a government of laws, and not of will; and wemust not permit it to pass away from us by changing its nature.

"O, yet a nobler task awaits thy hand,
For what can war but endless war still breed?"

By this measure now before the Senate it is proposed to have apeaceful conquest over partisan animosity and lawless action, toprocure a settlement grounded on reason and justice, and not uponforce. Therefore, it is meant to lift this great question ofdetermining who has been lawfully elected President andVice-President of these United States out of the possibility ofpopular broils and tumult, and elevate it with all dignity to thehigher atmosphere of legal and judicial decision. In such a spirit Idesire to approach the consideration of the subject and shall seekto deal with it at least worthily, with a sense of public dutyunobstructed, I trust, by prejudice or party animosity. The truth ofLord Bacon's aphorism that "great empire and little minds go illtogether," should warn us now against the obtrusion of narrow ortechnical views in adjusting such a question and at such a time inour country's history.

Mr. President, from the very commencement of the attempt to form thegovernment under which we live, the apportionment of power in theexecutive branch and the means of choosing the chief magistrate havebeen the subject of the greatest difficulty. Those who founded thisgovernment and preceded us in its control had felt the hand ofkingly power, and it was from the abuse of executive power that theydreaded the worst results. Therefore it was that when theConstitution came to be framed that was the point upon which theymet and upon which they parted, less able to agree than upon almostall others combined. A glance at the history of the convention thatmet at Philadelphia on the fourteenth of May, 1787, but did notorganize until the twenty-fifth day of the same month, will showthat three days after the convention assembled two plans of aConstitution were presented, respectively, by Mr. Edmund Randolph,of Virginia, and Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina. The firstproposed the election of the executive by the legislature, as thetwo houses were then termed, for a term of seven years, withineligibility for re-election. The other proposed an election, butleft the power to elect or the term of office in blank. Both ofthese features in the schemes proposed came up early forconsideration, and, as I have said before, as the grave and ableminds of that day approached this subject they were unable to agree,and accordingly, from time to time, the question was postponed andno advance whatever made in the settlement of the question. Indeed,so vital and wide was the difference that each attempt made duringthe course of the five months in which that convention was assembledonly seemed to result in renewed failure. So it stood until thefourth day of September had arrived. The labors of the conventionby that time had resulted in the framing of a Constitution, wise andgood and fairly balanced, calculated to preserve power sufficient inthe government, and yet leaving that individual freedom and libertyessential for the protection of the States and their citizens. Thenit was that this question, so long postponed, came up forconsideration and had to be decided. As it was decided then, itappears in the Constitution as submitted to the States in 1787; butan amendment of the second article was proposed in 1804, which,meeting the approval of the States, became part of the Constitution.

I must be pardoned if I repeat something of what has preceded inthis debate, by way of citation from the Constitution of the UnitedStates, in order that we may find there our warrant for the presentmeasure. There were difficulties of which these fathers of ourgovernment were thoroughly conscious. The very difficulties thatsurround the question to-day are suggested in the debates of 1800,in which the history of double returns is foretold by Mr. Pinckneyin his objections to the measure then before the Senate. The verytitle of that act, "A Bill Prescribing a Mode of Deciding DisputedElections of President and Vice-President of the United States,"will show the difficulties which they then perceived and of whichthey felt the future was to be so full. They made the attempt in1800 to meet those difficulties. They did not succeed. Again andagain the question came before them. In 1824 a second attempt wasmade at legislation. It met the approval of the Senate. It seemedto meet the approval of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House,by whom it was reported without amendment, but never was acted uponin that body, and failed to become a law. This all shows to us thatthere has been a postponement from generation to generation of asubject of great difficulty that we of to-day are called upon tomeet under circ*mstances of peculiar and additional disadvantage;for while in the convention of 1787 there was a difference arisingfrom interest, from all the infinite variances of prejudice andopinion upon subjects of local, geographical, and pecuniaryinterests, and making mutual concessions and patriotic considerationsnecessary at all times, yet they were spared the most dangerousof all feelings under which our country has suffered of late; for,amid all the perturbing causes to interfere with and distract theircounsels, partisan animosity was at least unknown. There was in thatday no such thing as political party in the United States:—

"Then none were for a party,
But all were for the State."

Political parties were formed afterward and have grown in strengthsince, and to-day the troubles that afflict our country chiefly maybe said to arise from the dangerous excess of party feeling in ourcouncils.

But I propose to refer to the condition of the law and theConstitution as we now find it. The second article of the firstsection of the Constitution provides for the vesting of theexecutive power in the President and also for the election of aVice-President. First it provides that "each State" shall, throughits legislature, appoint the number of electors to which it isentitled, which shall be the number of its Representatives inCongress and its Senators combined. The power there is to the Stateto appoint. The grant is as complete and perfect that the Stateshall have that power as is another clause of the Constitutiongiving to "each State" the power to be represented by the Senatorsin this branch of Congress. There is given to the electorsprescribed duties, which I will read:—

The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote byballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least,shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves: theyshall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, andin distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and theyshall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, andof all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number ofvotes for each; which lists they shall sign and certify, andtransmit sealed to the seat of government of the United States,directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senateshall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.

Then follows the duty and power of Congress in connection with thissubject to determine the time of choosing the electors and the dayon which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the samethroughout the United States. The next clause provides for thequalifications of the candidates for the presidency andvice-presidency. The next clause gives power to the Congress of theUnited States to provide for filling the office of President andVice-President in the event of the death, resignation, or inabilityof the incumbents to vest the powers and duties of the said office.The other clause empowers Congress thus to designate a temporaryPresident. The other clauses simply relate to the compensation ofthe President and the oath he shall take to perform the duties ofthe office. Connected with that delegation of power is to beconsidered the eighth section of the first article which gives tothe Congress of the United States power "to make all laws whichshall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution theforegoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitutionin the government of the United States, or in any department orofficer thereof."

It will be observed, so far, that the Constitution has provided thepower but has not provided the regulations for carrying that powerinto effect. The Supreme Court of the United States sixty-odd yearsago defined so well the character of that power and the method ofits use that I will quote it from the first volume of Wheaton'sReports, page 326:

Leaving it to the legislature from time to time to adopt its ownmeans to effectuate, legitimate, and mold and model the exercise ofits powers as its own wisdom and public interest should require.

In less than four years, in March 1792, after the first Congress hadassembled there was legislation upon this subject, carrying intoexecution the power vested by this second article of theConstitution in a manner which will leave no doubt of what the menof that day believed was competent and proper. Here let me advertto that authority which must ever attach to the contemporaneousexposition of historical events. The men who sat in the Congress of1792 had many of them been members of the convention that framed theFederal Constitution. All were its contemporaries and closely werethey considering with master-minds the consequences of that work.Not only may we gather from the manner in which they treated thissubject when they legislated upon it in 1792 what were their viewsof the powers of Congress on the subject of where the power waslodged and what was the proper measure of its exercise, but we cangather equally well from the inchoate and imperfect legislation of1800 what those men also thought of their power over this subject,because, although differing as to details, there were certainconceded facts as to jurisdiction quite as emphatically expressed asif their propositions had been enacted into law. Likewise in 1824the same instruction is afforded. If we find the Senate of theUnited States without division pass bills which, although not passedby the co-ordinate branch of Congress, are received by them andreported back from the proper committees after examination andwithout amendment to the committee of the whole House, we may learnwith equal authority what was conceded by those houses as to thequestion of power over the subject. In a compilation made at thepresent session by order of the House Committee, co-ordinate withthe Senate Committee, will be found at page 129 a debate containingexpressions by the leading men of both parties in 1857 of thelawfulness of the exercise of the legislative power of Congress overthis subject. I venture to read here from the remarks ofMr. Hunter, of Virginia, one of the most respected and conservativeminds of his day in the Congress of the United States:—

The Constitution evidently contemplated a provision to be made bylaw to regulate the details and the mode of counting the votes forPresident and Vice-President of the United States. The President ofthe Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House ofRepresentatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall thenbe counted. By whom, and how to be counted, the Constitution doesnot say. But Congress has power to make all laws which shall benecessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoingpowers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in thegovernment of the United States, or in any department or officerthereof. Congress, therefore, has the power to regulate by law thedetails of the mode in which the votes are to be counted. As yet,no such law has been found necessary. The cases, happily, have beenrare in which difficulties have occurred in the count of theelectoral votes. All difficulties of this sort have been managedheretofore by the consent of the two houses—a consent eitherimplied at the time or declared by joint resolutions adopted by thehouses on the recommendation of the joint committee which is usuallyraised to prescribe the mode in which the count is to be made. Inthe absence of law, the will of the two houses thus declared hasprescribed the rule under which the President of the Senate and thetellers have acted. It was by this authority, as I understand it,that the President of the Senate acted yesterday. The jointresolution of the two bouses prescribed the mode in which thetellers were to make the count and also required him to declare theresult, which he did. It was under the authority, therefore, and bythe direction of the two houses that he acted. The resolutions bywhich the authority was given were according to unbroken usage andestablished precedent.

Mr. President, the debate from which I have read took place in 1857and was long and able, the question there arising upon the proposedrejection of the vote of the State of Wisconsin, because of thedelay of a single day in the meeting of the electors. A violentsnowstorm having prevented the election on the third of December, itwas held on the fourth, which was clearly in violation of the law ofCongress passed in pursuance of the Constitution requiring that thevotes for the electors should be cast on the same day throughout theUnion. That debate will disclose the fact that the danger thenbecame more and more realized of leaving this question unsettled asto who should determine whether the electoral votes of a Stateshould be received or rejected when the two houses of Congressshould differ upon that subject. There was no arbiter betweenthem. This new-fangled idea of the present hour, that the presidingofficer of the Senate should decide that question between the twodisagreeing houses, had not yet been discovered in the fertility ofpolitical invention, or born perhaps of party necessity. Thequestion has challenged all along through our country's historythe ablest minds of the country; but at last we have reached a pointwhen under increased difficulties we are bound to settle it. It arosein 1817 in the case of the State of Indiana, the question beingwhether Indiana was a State in the Union at the time of the castingof her vote. The two houses disagreed upon that subject; but by ajoint resolution, which clearly assumed the power of controlling thesubject, as the vote of Indiana did not if cast either way controlthe election, the difficulty was tided over by an arrangement forthat time and that occasion only. In 1820 the case of the State ofMissouri arose and contained the same question. There again came thedifficulty when the genius and patriotism of Henry Clay were broughtinto requisition and a joint resolution introduced by him andadopted by both houses was productive of a satisfactory solution forthe time being. The remedy was merely palliative; the permanentcharacter of the difficulty was confessed and the fact that it wasonly a postponement to men of a future generation of a questionstill unsettled.

It is not necessary, and would be fatiguing to the Senate and tomyself, to give anything like a sketch of the debate which followed,of the able and eminent men on both sides who considered thequestion, arriving, however, at one admitted conclusion, that theremedy was needed and that it did lie in the law-making power of thegovernment to furnish it.

Thus, Mr. President, the unbroken line of precedent, the history ofthe usage of this government from 1789 at the first election ofPresident and Vice-President until 1873, when the last count ofelectoral votes was made for the same offices, exhibits this fact,that the control of the count of the electoral votes, theascertainment and declaration of the persons who were electedPresident and Vice-President, has been under the co-ordinate powerof the two houses of Congress, and under no other power at any timeor in any instance. The claim is now gravely made for the firsttime, in 1877, that in the event of disagreement of the two housesthe power to count the electoral votes and decide upon theirvalidity under the Constitution and law is vested in a singleindividual, an appointee of one of the houses of Congress, thepresiding officer of the Senate. In the event of a disagreementbetween the two houses, we are now told, he is to assume the power,in his sole discretion, to count the vote, to ascertain and declarewhat persons have been elected; and this, too, in the face of an actof Congress, passed in 1792, unrepealed, always recognized, followedin every election from the time it was passed until the present day.Section 5 of the act of 1792 declares:—

That Congress shall be in session on the second Wednesday inFebruary 1793, and on the second Wednesday in February succeedingevery meeting of the electors; and the said certificates, or so manyof them as shall have been received, shall then be opened, the votescounted, and the persons who shall fill the offices of President andVice-President ascertained and declared agreeably to theConstitution.

Let it be noted that the words "President of the Senate" nowhereoccur in the section.

But we are now told that though "Congress shall be in session," thatthough these two great bodies duly organized, each with itspresiding officer, accompanied by all its other officers, shall meetto perform the duty of ascertaining and declaring the true result ofthe action of the electoral colleges and what persons are entitledto these high executive offices, in case they shall not agree intheir decisions there shall be interposed the power of the presidingofficer of one of the houses to control the judgment of either andbecome the arbiter between them. Why, Mr. President, how such aclaim can be supposed to rest upon authority is more than I canimagine. It is against all history. It is against the meaning oflaws. It is not consistent with the language of the Constitution.It is in the clearest violation of the whole scheme of this populargovernment of ours, that one man should assume a power in regard towhich the convention hung for months undecided, and carefully andgrudgingly bestowing that power even when they finally disposed ofit. Why, sir, a short review of history will clearly show how itwas that the presiding officer of the Senate became even thecustodian of the certificates of the electors.

On the fourth of September, 1787, when approaching the close oftheir labors, the convention discovered that they must remove thisobstacle, and they must come to an agreement in regard to thedeposit of this grave power. When they were scrupulouslyconsidering that no undue grant of power should be made to eitherbranch of Congress, and when no one dreamed of putting it in thepower of a single hand, the proposition was made by Hon. Mr. Brearly,from a committee of eleven, of alterations in the former schemes ofthe convention, which embraced this subject. It provided:—

5. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as its legislature maydirect a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senatorsand Members of the House of Representatives to which the State maybe entitled in the legislature.

6. The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote byballot for two persons, one of whom at least shall not be aninhabitant of the same State with themselves; and they shall makea list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votesfor each, which list they shall sign and certify, and transmitsealed to the seat of the general government, directed to thePresident of the Senate.

7. The President of the Senate shall, in that house, open all thecertificates; and the votes shall be then and there counted. Theperson having the greatest number of votes shall be thePresident, if such number shall be a majority of the whole numberof the electors appointed; and if there be more than one who havesuch majority and have an equal number of votes, then the Senateshall choose by ballot one of them for President; but if noperson have a majority, then from the five highest on the listthe Senate shall choose by ballot the President. And in everycase after the choice of the President the person having thegreatest number of votes shall be Vice-President. But if thereshould remain two or more who shall equal votes, the Senate shallchoose from them the Vice-President. (See 'Madison Papers.' page506. etc.)

Here we discover the reason why the President of the Senate was madethe custodian of these certificates. It was because in that plan ofthe Constitution the Senate was to count the votes alone; the Housewas not to be present; and in case there was a tie or failure tofind a majority the Senate was to elect the President andVice-President. The presiding officer of the body that was to countthe votes alone, of the body that alone was to elect the Presidentin default of a majority—the presiding officer of that body wasnaturally the proper person to hold the certificates until theSenate should do its duty. It might as well be said that becausecertificates and papers of various kinds are directed to thePresident of this Senate to be laid before the Senate that he shouldhave the control to enact those propositions into law, as to saythat because the certificates of these votes were handed to him heshould have the right to count them and ascertain and declare whatpersons had been chosen President and Vice-President of the UnitedStates.

But the scheme reported by Mr. Brearly met with no favor. In thefirst place, it was moved and seconded to insert the words "in thepresence of the Senate and House of Representatives" after the word"counted." That was passed in the affirmative. Next it was moved tostrike out the words "the Senate shall immediately choose by ballot"and insert the words "and House of Representatives shall immediatelychoose by ballot one of them for President, and the members of eachState shall have one vote," and this was adopted by ten States inthe affirmative to one State in the negative.

Then came another motion to agree to the following paragraph, givingto the Senate the right to choose the Vice-President in case of thefailure to find a majority, which was agreed to by the convention;so that the amendment as agreed to read as follows:—

The President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and Houseof Representatives, shall open all the certificates, and the votesshall then be counted. The person having the greatest number ofvotes shall be President, if such number be a majority of the wholenumber of electors appointed: and if there be more than one who havesuch majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House ofRepresentatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them forPresident, the representation from each State having one vote; butif no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the listthe House of Representatives shall in like manner choose by ballotthe President.

And then follows that if there should remain two candidates votedfor as Vice-President having an equal vote the Senate shall choosefrom them the Vice-President. Mr. President, is it not clear thatthe Constitution directed that the certificates should be depositedwith the presiding officer of that body which was alone to count thevotes and elect both the President and Vice-President in case therewas a failure to find a majority of the whole number of electorsappointed? There is a maxim of the law, that where the reason ceasesthe law itself ceases. It is not only a maxim of common law, butequally of common sense. The history of the manner in which and thereason for which the certificates were forwarded to the President ofthe Senate completely explains why he was chosen as the depositaryand just what connection he had with and power over thosecertificates. After the power had been vested in the House ofRepresentatives to ballot for the President, voting by States, afterthe presence of the House of Representatives was made equallynecessary before the count could begin or proceed at all, thePresident of the Senate was still left as the officer designated toreceive the votes. Why? Because the Senate is a continuing body,because the Senate always has a quorum. Divided into three classes,there never is a day or a time when a quorum of the Senate of theUnited States is not elected and cannot be summoned to perform itsfunctions under the Constitution. Therefore you had the officer of acontinuing body, and as the body over which he presided and by whomhe is chosen was one of the two co-ordinate bodies to perform thegreat function of counting the votes and of ascertaining anddeclaring the result of the electoral vote, he was left in charge ofthe certificates.

You also find in the sixth section of the act of 1792 that Congressexercised its regulating power and declared "that in case thereshall be no President of the Senate at the seat of government on thearrival of the persons intrusted with the lists of votes of theelectors, then such persons shall deliver the lists of votes intheir custody into the office of the Secretary of State to be safelykept and delivered over as soon as may be to the President of theSenate."

What does this signify? That it was a simple question of custody, ofsafe and convenient custody, and there is just as much reason to saythat the Secretary of State being the recipient of those votes had aright to count them as to say that the other officer designated asthe recipient of the votes, the President of the Senate, had a rightto count them.

Now, here is another fact a denial of which cannot be safelychallenged. Take the history of these debates upon the formation ofthe Federal Constitution from beginning to end, search them, and noline or word can be discovered that even suggests any power whateverin any one man over the subject, much less in the President of theSenate, in the control of the election of the President or theVice-President. Why, sir, there is the invariable rule ofconstruction in regard to which there can be no dispute, that theexpress grant of one thing excludes any other. Here you have thedirection to the President of the Senate that be shall receive thesecertificates, or if absent that another custodian shall receivethem, hold them during his absence and pass them over to him as soonas may be, and that then he shall in the presence of the two housesof Congress "open all the certificates." There is his full measureof duty; it is clearly expressed; and then after that follows thetotally distinct duty, not confided to him, that "the votes shallthen be counted."

I doubt very much whether any instrument not written by an inspiredhand was more clear, terse, frugal of all words except thosenecessary to express its precise meaning, than the Constitution ofthe United States. It would require the greatest ingenuity todiscover where fewer words could be used to accomplish a plain end.How shall it be that in this closely considered charter, where everyword, every punctuation was carefully weighed and canvassed, theyshould employ seven words out of place when two words in place wouldhave fulfilled their end? If it had been intended to give thisofficer the power to count, how easy to read, "The President of theSenate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House ofRepresentatives, open and count the votes." Why resort to thisother, strained, awkward, ungrammatical, unreasonable transpositionof additional words to grant one power distinctly and leave theother to be grafted upon it by an unjust implication? No,Mr. President, if it were a deed of bargain and sale, or anyquestion of private grant, if it did not touch the rights of a greatpeople, there would be but one construction given to this language,that the expression of one grant excluded the other. It was asingle command to the President of the Senate that, as thecustodian, he should honestly open those certificates and lay thembefore the two houses of Congress who were to act, and then his dutywas done, and that was the belief of the men who sat in thatconvention, many of whom joined in framing the law of 1792 whichdirected Congress to be in session on a certain day and that thevotes should be counted and the persons who should fill the officeof President and Vice-president ascertained and declared agreeablyto the Constitution.

The certificates are to be opened by their custodian, the Presidentof the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives. Let it be noted this is not in the presence of theSenators and Representatives, but it is in the presence of twoorganized bodies who cannot be present except as a Senate and as aHouse of Representatives, each with its own organization, its ownpresiding officer and all adjuncts, each organized for theperformance of a great duty.

When the first drafts of the Constitution were made, instead ofsaying "in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives,"they called it "the Legislature." What is a Legislature? Alaw-making body organized, not a mob, but an organized body to makelaws; and so the law-making power of this Union, consisting of thesetwo houses, is brought together. But it seems to me a mostunreasonable proposition to withhold from the law-making power ofthis government the authority to regulate this subject and yet bewilling to intrust it to a single hand. There is not a theory ofthis government that will support such a construction. It iscontrary to the whole genius of the government; it is contrary toeverything in the history of the formation of the government; it iscontrary to the usage of the government since its foundation.

The President of the Senate is commanded by the Constitution to openthe votes in the presence of the two houses. He does not summonthem to witness his act, but they summon him by appointing a day andhour when he is to produce and open in their presence all thecertificates he may have received, and only then and in theirpresence can he undertake to open them at all. If he was merely tosummon them as witnesses of his act it would have been so stated.But when did the President of the Senate ever undertake to call thetwo houses together to witness the opening and counting of thevotes? No, sir; he is called at their will and pleasure to bringwith him the certificates which he has received, and open thembefore them and under their inspection, and not his own. When thecertificates have been opened, when the votes have been counted, canthe President of the Senate declare the result? No, sir, he hasnever declared a result except as the mouthpiece and the organ ofthe two houses authorizing and directing him what to declare, andwhat he did declare was what they had ascertained and in whichascertainment he had never interfered by word or act.

Suppose there shall be an interruption in the count, as has occurredin our history, can the President of the Senate do it? Did he everdo it? Is such an instance to be found? Every interruption in thecount comes from some Member of the House or of the Senate, and uponthat the pleasure of the two houses is considered, the question putto them to withdraw if they desire, and the count is arrested untilthey shall order it to recommence. The proceeding in the count, thecommencement of the count is not in any degree under his control.It is and ever was in the two houses, and in them alone. They arenot powerless spectators; they do not sit "state statues only," butthey are met as a legislature in organized bodies to insure acorrect result of the popular election, to see to it that "the votesshall then be counted" agreeably to the Constitution.

In 1792 when some of the men who sat in the convention that framedthe Constitution enacted into law the powers given in relation tothe count of the electoral votes, they said, as I have read, thatthe certificates then received shall be opened and the votescounted, "and the persons to fill the offices of President andVice-President ascertained agreeably to the Constitution," and thatdirection is contained in the same section of the law that commandsCongress to be in session on that day. It is the law-making power ofthe nation, the legislature, that is to perform this solemn andimportant duty, and not a single person who is selected by onebranch of Congress and who is removable at their will, according toa late decision of the Senate.

Yes, Mr. President, the power contended for by some Senators, thatthe President of the Senate can, in the contingency of adisagreement between the two houses, from the necessity of the case,open and count the vote, leads to this: that upon every disputedvote and upon every decision a new President of the Senate could beelected; that one man could be selected in the present case to countthe vote of Florida; another, of South Carolina; another, of Oregon;another, of Louisiana; and the Senate could fill those four officeswith four different men, each chosen for that purpose, and when thatpurpose was over to be displaced by the same breath that set them upfor the time being.

Now, sir, if, as has been claimed, the power of counting the votesis deposited equally in both houses, does not this admission excludethe idea of any power to count the votes being deposited in thepresiding officer of one of those houses, who is, as I say, eligibleand removable by a bare majority of the Senate, and at will? If thepresiding officer of the Senate can thus count the vote, the Senatecan control him. Then the Senate can control the count and, theSenate appointing their President, become the sole controllers ofthe vote in case of disagreement. What then becomes of the equalmeasure of power in the two houses over this subject? If the powermay be said to exist only in case of disagreement, and then exnecessitate rei, all that remains for the Senate is to disagree,and they themselves have created the very contingency that givesthem the power, through their President to have the vote counted ornot counted, as they may desire. Why, sir, such a statementdestroys all idea of equality of power between the two houses inregard to this subject.

When the President of the Senate has opened the certificates andhanded them over to the tellers of the two houses, in the presenceof the two houses, his functions and powers have ended. He cannotrepossess himself of those certificates or papers. He can no longercontrol their custody. They are then and thereafter in thepossession and under the control of the two houses who shall alonedispose of them.

Why, sir, what a spectacle would it be, some ambitious andunscrupulous man the presiding officer of the Senate, as was onceAaron Burr, assuming the power to order the tellers to count thevote of this State and reject the vote of that, and so boldly andshamelessly reverse the action of the people expressed at the polls,and step into the presidency by force of his own decision. Sir, thisis a reduction of the thing to an absurdity never dreamed of untilnow, and impossible while this shall remain a free government oflaw.

Now, Mr. President, as to the measure before us a few words. It willbe observed that this bill is enacted for the present year, and nolonger.

This is no answer to an alleged want of constitutional powerto pass it, but it is an answer in great degree where the merepolicy and temporary convenience of the act are to be considered.

In the first place, the bill gives to each house of Congressequal power over the question of counting, at every stage.

It preserves intact the prerogatives, under the Constitution, ofeach house.

It excludes any possibility of judicial determination by thepresiding officer of the Senate upon the reception and exclusion ofa vote.

The certificates of the electoral colleges will be placed in thepossession and subject to the disposition of both houses of Congressin joint session.

The two houses are co-ordinate and separate and distinct. Neithercan dominate the other. They are to ascertain whether the electorshave been validly appointed, and whether they have validly performedtheir duties as electors. The two houses must, under the act of1792, "ascertain and declare" whether there has been a validelection, according to the Constitution and laws of the UnitedStates. The votes of the electors and the declaration of the resultby the two houses give a valid title, and nothing else can, unlessno majority has been disclosed by the count; in which case the dutyof the House is to be performed by electing a President, and of theSenate by electing a Vice-President.

If it be the duty of the two houses "to ascertain" whether theaction of the electors has been in accordance with the Constitution,they must inquire. They exercise supervisory power over every branchof public administration and over the electors. The methods theychoose to employ in coming to a decision are such as the two houses,acting separately or together, may lawfully employ. Sir, the grantof power to the commission is in just that measure, no more and noless. The decision they render can be overruled by the concurrentvotes of the two houses. Is it not competent for the two houses ofCongress to agree that a concurrent majority of the two houses isnecessary to reject the electoral vote of a State? If so, may theynot adopt means which they believe will tend to produce aconcurrence? Finally, sir, this bill secures the great object forwhich the two houses were brought together: the counting of thevotes of the electoral college; not to elect a President by the twohouses, but to determine who has been elected agreeably to theConstitution and the laws. It provides against the failure to countthe electoral vote of a State in event of disagreement between thetwo houses, in case of single returns, and, in cases of contest anddouble returns, furnishes a tribunal whose composition secures adecision of the question in disagreement, and whose perfect justiceand impartiality cannot be gainsaid or doubted.

The tribunal is carved out of the body of the Senate and out of thebody of the House by their vote viva voce. No man can sit uponit from either branch without the choice, openly made, by a majorityof the body of which he is a member, that he shall go there. Thefive judges who are chosen are from the court of last resort in thiscountry, men eminent for learning, selected for their places becauseof the virtues and the capacities that fit them for this highstation. … Mr. President, objection has been made to theemployment of the commission at all, to the creation of thiscommittee of five senators, five representatives, and five judges ofthe Supreme Court, and the reasons for the objection have not beendistinctly stated. The reasons for the appointment I will dwellupon briefly.

Sir, how has the count of the vote of every President andVice-President, from the time of George Washington and John Adams,in 1789, to the present day, been made? Always and withoutexception by tellers appointed by the two houses. This is withoutexception, even in the much commented case of Mr. John Langdon, who,before the government was in operation, upon the recommendation ofthe constitutional convention, was appointed by the Senate itsPresident, for the sole purpose of opening and counting these votes.He did it, as did every successor to him, under the motion andauthority of the two houses of Congress, who appointed their ownagents, called tellers to conduct the count, and whose count, beingreported to him, was by him declared.

From 1793 to 1865 the count of votes was conducted under concurrentresolutions of the two houses, appointing their respectivecommittees to join "in ascertaining and reporting a mode ofexamining the votes for President and Vice-President."

The respective committees reported resolutions fixing the time andplace for the assembling of the two houses, and appointing tellersto conduct the examination on the part of each house respectively.

Mr. President, the office of teller, or the word "teller," isunknown to the Constitution, and yet each house has appointedtellers, and has acted upon their report, as I have said, from thevery foundation of the government. The present commission is moreelaborate, but its objects and its purposes are the same, theinformation and instruction of the two houses who have a preciselyequal share in its creation and organization; they are theinstrumentalities of the two houses for performing the highconstitutional duty of ascertaining whom the electors in the severalStates have duly chosen President and Vice-President of the UnitedStates. Whatever is the jurisdiction and power of the two houses ofCongress over the votes, and the judgment of either reception orrejection, is by this law wholly conferred upon this commission offifteen. The bill presented does not define what that jurisdictionand power is, but it leaves it all as it is, adding nothing,subtracting nothing. Just what power the Senate by itself, or theHouse by itself, or the Senate and the House acting together, haveover the subject of counting, admitting, or rejecting an electoralvote, in case of double returns from the same State, that power isby this act, no more and no less, vested in the commission offifteen men; reserving, however, to the two houses the power ofoverruling the decision of the commission by their concurrentaction.

The delegation to masters in chancery of the consideration andadjustments of questions of mingled law and fact is a matter offamiliar and daily occurrence in the courts of the States and of theUnited States.

The circuit court of the United States is composed of the districtjudge and the circuit judge, and the report to them of a master isaffirmed unless both judges concur in overruling it.

Under the present bill the decision of the commission will standunless overruled by the concurrent votes of the two houses. I do notpropose to follow the example which has been set here in the Senateby some of the advocates as well as the opponents of this measure,and discuss what construction is to be given and what definition maybe applied or ought to be applied in the exercise of this power bythe commission under this law. Let me read the bill:—

All the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of theelectoral votes of each State shall be opened, in the alphabeticalorder of the States, as provided in Section 1 of this act; and whenthere shall be more than one such certificate or paper, as thecertificates and papers from such State shall so be opened(excepting duplicates of the same return), they shall be read by thetellers, and thereupon the President of the Senate shall call forobjections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, andshall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the groundthereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Memberof the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.When all such objections so made to any certificate, vote, or paperfrom a State shall have been received and read, all suchcertificates, votes, and papers so objected to, and all papersaccompanying the same, together with such objections, shall beforthwith submitted to said commission, which shall proceed toconsider the same, with the same powers, if any, now possessed forthat purpose by the two houses acting separately or together, and,by a majority of votes, decide whether any and what votes from suchStates are the votes provided for by the Constitution of the UnitedStates, and how many and what persons were duly appointed electorsin such State, and may therein take into view such petitions,depositions, and other papers, if any, as shall, by the Constitutionand now existing law, be competent and pertinent in suchconsideration: which decision shall be made in writing.

It will be observed that all the questions to be decided by thiscommission are to be contained in the written objections. Untilthose objections are read and filed, their contents must be unknown,and the issues raised by them undescribed. But whatever they are,they are submitted to the decision of the commission. The duty ofinterpreting this law and of giving a construction to theConstitution and existing laws is vested in the commission; and Ihold that we have no right or power to control in advance, by ourconstruction, their sworn judgment as to the matters which they areto decide. We would defeat the very object of the bill should weinvade the essential power of judgment of this commission andestablish a construction in advance and bind them to it. It would,in effect, be giving to them a mere mock power to decide by leavingthem nothing to decide.

Mr. President, there are certainly very good reasons why theconcurrent action of both houses should be necessary to reject avote. It is that feature of this bill which has my heartiestconcurrence; for I will frankly say that the difficulties which haveoppressed me most in considering this question a year or more ago,before any method had been devised, arose from my apprehensions ofthe continued absorption of undue power over the affairs of theStates; and I here declare that the power and the sole power ofappointing the electors is in the State, and nowhere else. Thepower of ascertaining whether the State has executed that powerjustly and according to the Constitution and laws is the duty whichis cast upon the two houses of Congress. Now, if, under the guiseor pretext of judging of the regularity of the action of a State orits electors, the Congress or either house may interpose the will ofits members in opposition to the will of the State, the act will beone of usurpation and wrong, although I do not see where is thetribunal to arrest and punish it except the great tribunal of anhonest public opinion. But sir that tribunal, though great, thoughin the end certain, is yet ofttimes slow to be awakened to action;and therefore I rejoice when the two houses agree that neither ofthem shall be able to reject the vote of a State which is withoutcontest arising within that State itself, but that the action ofboth shall be necessary to concur in the rejection.

If either house may reject, or by dissenting cause a rejection, thenit is in the power of either house to overthrow the electoralcolleges or the popular vote, and throw the election upon the Houseof Representatives. This, it is clear to me, cannot be lawfully doneunless no candidate has received a majority of the votes of all theelectors appointed. The sworn duty is to ascertain what persons havebeen chosen by the electors, and not to elect by Congress.

It may be said that the Senate would not be apt to throw theelection into the House. Not so, Mr. President; look at therelative majorities of the two houses of Congress as they will beafter the fourth of March next. It is true there will be anumerical majority of the members of the Democratic party in theHouse of Representatives, but the States represented will have amajority as States of the Republican party. If the choice were tobe made after March 4th, then a Republican Senate, by rejecting orrefusing to count votes, could of its own motion throw the electioninto the House; which, voting by States, would be in politicalaccord with the Senate. The House of Representatives, like thepresent House in its political complexion, composed of a numericalmajority, and having also a majority of the States of the sameparty, would have the power then to draw the election into its ownhands. Mr. President, either of these powers would be utterlydangerous and in defeat of the object and intent of theconstitutional provisions on this subject.

Sir, this was my chief objection to the twenty-second joint rule.Under that rule either house of Congress, without debate, withoutlaw, without reason, without justice, could, by the sheer exerciseof its will or its caprice, disfranchise any State in the electoralcollege. Under that rule we lived and held three presidentialelections.

In January 1873, under a resolution introduced by the honorableSenator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] and adopted by the Senate, theCommittee on Privileges and Elections, presided over by thehonorable Senator from Indiana [Mr Morton], proceeded to investigatethe elections held in the States of Louisiana and Arkansas, andinquired whether these elections had been held in accordance withthe Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of saidStates, and sent for persons and papers and made thoroughinvestigation, which resulted in excluding the electoral votes ofLouisiana from the count, (See Report No. 417, third sessionForty-Second Congress.)

The popular vote was then cast, and it was cast at the mercy of amajority in either branch of Congress, who claimed the right toannul it by casting out States until they should throw the electioninto a Republican House of Representatives. I saw that dangerouspower then, and, because I saw it then, am I so blind, am I sowithout principle in my action, that I should ask for myself adangerous power that I refused to those who differ from me inopinion? God forbid.

This concurrence of the two houses to reject the electoral votes ofa State was the great feature that John Marshall sought for in1800. The Senate then proposed that either house should have powerto reject a vote. The House of Representatives, under the lead ofJohn Marshall, declared that they should concur to reject the vote,and upon that difference of opinion the measure fell and was neverrevived. In 1824 the bill prepared by Mr. Van Buren contained thesame wholesome principle and provided that the two houses mustconcur in the rejection of a vote. Mr. Van Buren reported this billin 1824. It was amended and passed, and, as far as I can find fromthe record, without a division of the Senate. It was referred in theHouse of Representatives to the Committee on the Judiciary, and itwas reported back by Mr. Daniel Webster, without amendment, to theCommittee of the Whole House, showing their approval of the bill;and that principle is thoroughly incorporated in the present measureand gives to me one of the strong reasons for my approval.

Mr. President, this bill is not the product of any one man's mind,but it is the result of careful study and frequent amendment.Mutual concessions, modifications of individual preferences, wereconstantly and necessarily made in the course of framing such ameasure as it now stands. My individual opinions might lead me toobject to the employment of the judicial branch at all, ofingrafting even to any extent political power upon the judicialbranch or its members, or confiding to them any question evenquasi-political in its character. To this I have expressed andstill have disinclination, but my sense of the general value of thismeasure and the necessity for the adoption of a plan outweighed mydisposition to insist upon my own preferences as to this feature.At first I was disposed to question the constitutional power to callin the five justices of the Supreme Court, but the duty ofascertaining what are the votes, the true votes, under theConstitution, having been imposed upon the commission, the methodswere necessarily discretionary with the two houses. Any and everyaid that intelligence and skill combined can furnish may be justlyused when it is appropriate to the end in view.

Why, sir, the members of the Supreme Court have in the history ofthis country been employed in public service entirely distinct fromjudicial function. Here lately the treaty of Washington wasnegotiated by a member of the Supreme Court of the United States;the venerable and learned Mr. Justice Nelson, of New York, wasnominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as one of theJoint High Commission. Chief-Justice Jay was sent in 1794, while hewas chief-justice of the United States, as minister plenipotentiaryto England, and negotiated a treaty of permanent value andimportance to both countries. He was holding court in the city ofPhiladelphia at the time that he was nominated and confirmed, as isfound by reference to his biography, and—

Without vacating his seat upon the bench he went to England,negotiated the treaty which has since borne his name, and returnedto this country in the spring of the following year.

His successor was Chief-Justice Rutledge, and the next to him wasChief-Justice Oliver Ellsworth. He, while holding the high place ofchief-justice, was nominated and confirmed as minister plenipotentiaryto Spain. By a law of Congress the chief-justice of the UnitedStates is ex officio the president of the Board of Regents ofthe Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Morton—I should like to ask the Senator, if it does notinterrupt him, whether he regards the five judges acting on thiscommission as acting in their character as judges of the SupremeCourt, if that is their official character, and that this billsimply enlarges their jurisdiction in that respect?

Mr. Bayard—Certainly not, Mr. President. They are not acting asjudges of the Supreme Court, and their powers and their jurisdictionas judges of the Supreme Court are not in any degree involved; theyare simply performing functions under the government notinconsistent, by the Constitution, or the law, or the policy of thelaw, with the stations which they now hold. So I hold that theemployment of one or more of the Supreme Court judges in the matterunder discussion was appropriate legislation. We have early and highauthority in the majorities in both House and Senate in the bill of1800, in both of which houses a bill was passed creating acommission similar to that proposed by this bill and calling in thechief-justice of the United States as the chairman of the grandcommittee, as they called it then, a commission as we term it now.

As has been said before, many of the Senators and members of theCongress of 1800 had taken part in the convention that framed theConstitution, and all were its contemporaries, and one of the chiefactors in the proceedings on the part of the House of Representativeswas John Marshall, of Virginia, who one year afterward became thechief-justice of the United States, whose judicial interpretationshave since that time clad the skeleton of the Constitution withmuscles of robust power. Is it not safe to abide by such examples?And I could name many more, and some to whom my respect is due forother and personal reasons.

In the debate of 1817, in the case of the disputed vote of Indiana;in 1820, in the case of Missouri; and again in 1857, in the case ofWisconsin, I find an array of constitutional lawyers who took partin those debates, among them the most distinguished members of bothpolitical parties, concurring in the opinion that by appropriatelegislation all causes of dispute on this all-important matter ofcounting the electoral vote could be and ought to be adjustedsatisfactorily. Why, sir, even the dictum of Chancellor Kent, thathas been read here with so much apparent confidence by the honorableSenator from Indiana, is itself expressed to be his opinion of thelaw "in the absence of legislation on the subject."

Mr. President, there were other objections to this bill; one by thehonorable Senator from Indiana. He denounced it as "a compromise."I have gone over its features and I have failed to discover, nor hasthe fact yet been stated in my hearing, wherein anything iscompromised. What power of the Senate is relinquished? What powerof the House is relinquished? What power that both should possessis withheld? I do not know where the compromise can be, whatprinciple is surrendered. This bill intends to compromise nothingin the way of principle, to compromise no right, but to provide anhonest adjudication for the rights of all. Where is it unjust? Whoserights are endangered by it? Who can foretell the judgment of thiscommission upon any question of law or fact? Sir, there is nocompromise in any sense of the word, but there is a blending offeeling, a blending of opinions in favor of right and justice.

But, sir, if it were a compromise, what is there in compromise thatis discreditable either to men or to nations? This very charter ofgovernment under which we live was created in a spirit of compromiseand mutual concession. Without that spirit it never would have beenmade, and without a continuance of that spirit it will not beprolonged. Sir, when the Committee on Style and Revision of theFederal convention of 1787 had prepared a digest of their plan, theyreported a letter to accompany the plan to Congress, from which Itake these words as being most applicable to the bill underconsideration:—

And thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of aspirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession whichthe peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

The language of that letter may well be applied to the presentmeasure; and had the words been recalled to my memory before thereport was framed I cannot doubt that they would have been adoptedas part of it to be sent here to the Senate as descriptive of thespirit and of the object with which the committee had acted.

But, sir, the honorable Senator also stated, as a matter deterringus from our proper action on this bill, that the shadow ofintimidation had entered the halls of Congress, and that members ofthis committee had joined in this report and presented this billunder actual fear of personal violence. Such a statement seems to mealmost incredible. I may not read other men's hearts and know whatthey have felt, nor can I measure the apprehension of personaldanger felt by the honorable Senator. It seems to me incredible.Fear, if I had it, had been the fear of doing wrong in this greatjuncture of public affairs, not the fear of the consequences of doingright. Had there been this intimidation tenfold repeated to which theSenator has alluded, and of which I have no knowledge, I should havescorned myself had I hesitated one moment in my onward march of dutyon this subject.

"Hate's yell, or envy's hiss, or folly's bray"—

what are they to a man who, in the face of events such as nowconfront us, is doing that which his conscience dictates to him do?It has been more than one hundred years since a great judgment wasdelivered in Westminster Hall in England by one of the great judgesof our English-speaking people. Lord Mansfield, when deliveringjudgment in the case of the King against John Wilkes, was assailedby threats of popular violence of every description, and he hasplaced upon record how such threats should be met by any public manwho sees before him the clear star of duty and trims his bark onlythat he may follow it through darkness and through light. I will askmy friend from Missouri if he will do me the favor to read theextract to which I have alluded.

Mr. co*ckrell read as follows:—

But here, let me pause.

It is fit to take some notice of the various terrors hung out; thenumerous crowds which have attended and now attend in and about thehall, out of all reach of hearing what passes in court, and thetumults which, in other places, have shamefully insulted all orderand government. Audacious addresses in print dictate to us fromthose they call the people, the judgment to be given now andafterward upon the conviction. Reasons of policy are urged fromdanger to the kingdom by commotion and general confusion.

Give me leave to take the opportunity of this great and respectableaudience to let the whole world know all such attempts are vain.

I pass over many anonymous letters I have received. Those in printare public; and some of them have been brought judicially before thecourt. Whoever the writers are, they take the wrong way. I will domy duty, unawed. What am I to fear? That mendax infamia fromthe press, which daily coins false facts and false motives? Thelies of calumny carry no terror to me. I trust that my temper ofmind, and the color and conduct of my life, have given me a suit ofarmor against these arrows. If, during this king's reign, I haveever supported his government, and assisted his measures, I havedone it without any other reward than the consciousness of doingwhat I thought right. If I have ever opposed, I have done it uponthe points themselves, without mixing in party or faction, andwithout any collateral views. I honor the king, and respect thepeople; bat many things acquired by force of either, are, in myaccount, objects not worth ambition. I wish popularity; but it isthat popularity which follows, not that which is run after. It isthat popularity which, sooner or later, never fails to do justice tothe pursuit of noble ends by noble means. I will not do that whichmy conscience tells me is wrong upon this occasion to gain thehuzzas of thousands, or the daily praise of all the papers whichcome from the press; I will not avoid doing what I think is right,though it should draw on me the whole artillery of libel, all thatfalsehood and malice can invent or the credulity of a deludedpopulace can swallow. I can say, with a great magistrate, upon anoccasion and under circ*mstances not unlike, "Ego hoc animosemper fui. ut invidiam virtute partam gloriam, noninvidiam putarem."

The threats go further than abuse; personal violence is denounced. Ido not believe it; it is not the genius of the worst men of thiscountry in the worst of times. But I have set my mind at rest. Thelast end that can happen to any man never comes too soon, if hefalls in support of the law and liberty of his country (for libertyis synonymous to law and government). Such a shock, too, might beproductive of public good: it might awake the better part of thekingdom out of that lethargy which seems to have benumbed them; andbring the mad part back to their senses, as men intoxicated aresometimes stunned into sobriety.—Burrows's Reports No. 4,pp. 2561-3.

Mr. Bayard—Mr. President, in the course of my duty here as arepresentative of the rights of others, as a chosen and sworn publicservant, I feel that I have no right to give my individual wishes,prejudices, interests, undue influence over my public action. To doso would be to commit a breach of trust in the powers confided tome. It is true I was chosen a Senator by a majority only, but notfor a majority only. I was chosen by a party, but not for a party.I represent all the good people of the State which has sent me here.In my office as a Senator I recognize no claim upon my action in thename and for the sake of party. The oath I have taken is to supportthe Constitution of my country's government, not the fiat of anypolitical organization, even could its will be ascertained. Insessions preceding the present I have adverted to the difficultyattending the settlement of this great question, and have urgentlybesought action in advance at a time when the measure adopted couldnot serve to predicate its results to either party. My failure thengave me great uneasiness, and filled me with anxiety; and yet I cannow comprehend the wisdom concealed in my disappointment, for in thevery emergency of this hour, in the shadow of the danger that hasdrawn so nigh to us, has been begotten in the hearts of AmericanSenators and Representatives and the American people a spirit worthyof the occasion—born to meet these difficulties, to cope withthem, and, God willing, to conquer them.

Animated by this spirit the partisan is enlarged into the patriot.Before it the lines of party sink into hazy obscurity; and thehorizon which bounds our view reaches on every side to the uttermostverge of the great Republic. It is a spirit that exalts humanity,and imbued with it the souls of men soar into the pure air ofunselfish devotion to the public welfare. It lighted with a smilethe cheek of Curtius as he rode into the gulf; it guided the hand ofAristides as he sadly wrote upon the shell the sentence of his ownbanishment; it dwelt in the frozen earthworks of Valley Forge; andfrom time to time it has been an inmate of these halls oflegislation. I believe it is here to-day, and that the presentmeasure was born under its influence.

LORD BEACONSFIELD (BENJAMIN DISRAELI) (1804-1881)

When, at the age of thirty-three. Benjamin Disraeli entered theHouse of Commons, he was flushed with his first literary successesand inclined perhaps to take parliamentary popularity by storm. Itwas the first year of Victoria's reign (1837) and the fashions ofthe times allowed great latitude for the display of idiosyncraciesin dress. It seems that Disraeli pushed this advantage to the pointof license. We hear much of the amount of jewelry he wore and of thegaudiness of his waistcoats. This may or may not have had a decidinginfluence in determining the character of his reception by thehouse, but at any rate it was a tempestuous one. He was repeatedlyinterrupted, and when he attempted to proceed the uproar of criesand laughter finally overpowered him and he abandoned for the timebeing the attempt to speak—not, however, until he had served onthe house due notice of his great future, expressed in the memorablewords—thundered, we are told, at the top of his voice, andaudible still in English history—"You shall hear me!"

Not ten years later, the young man with the gaudy waistcoats hadbecome the leading Conservative orator of the campaign against theLiberals on their Corn Law policy and so great was the impressionproduced by his speeches that in 1852, when the Derby ministry wasformed, he was made Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The secret of his success is the thorough-going way in which heidentified himself with the English aristocracy. Where others hadapologized for aristocracy as a method of government, he justified.Instead of excusing and avoiding, he assumed that a government ofprivilege rather than that based on rights or the assumption oftheir existence is the best possible government, the only naturalone, the only one capable of perpetuating itself without constantand violent changes. Kept on the defensive by the forward movementof the people, as well as by the tendency towards Liberalism orRadicalism shown by the men of highest education among thearistocratic classes themselves, the English Conservatives weredelighted to find a man of great ability and striking eloquence, whoseemed to have a religious conviction that "Toryism" was the onlymeans of saving society and ensuring progress. It is characteristicof his mind and his methods, that he does not shrink from callinghimself a Tory. He is as proud of bearing that reproach as CamillaDesmoulins was of being called a Sansculotte. When a man is thus"for thorough," he becomes representative of all who have hisaspirations or share his tendencies without his aggressiveness. Nodoubt Disraeli's speeches are the best embodiment of Tory principle,the most attractive presentation of aristocratic purposes ingovernment made in the nineteenth century. No member of the Englishpeerage to the "manner born" has approached him in this respect.It is not a question of whether others have equaled or exceeded himin ability or statesmanship. On that point there may be room fordifference of opinion, but to read any one of his great speeches isto see at once that he has the infinite advantage of the rest inbeing the strenuous and faith-inspired champion of aristocracy andgovernment by privilege—not the mere defender and apologist forit.

In the extent of his information, the energy and versatility of hisintellect, and the boldness of his methods, he had no equal amongthe Conservative leaders of the Victorian reign. His audacity waswell illustrated when, after the great struggle over the reformmeasures of 1866 which he opposed, the Conservatives succeeded topower, and he, as their representative, advanced a measure "moresweeping in its nature as a reform bill than that he hadsuccessfully opposed" when it was advocated by Gladstone. Inforeign affairs, he showed the same boldness, working to check theLiberal advance at home by directing public attention away fromdomestic grievances to brilliant achievements abroad. This policywhich his opponents resented the more bitterly because they saw itto be the only one by which they could be held in check, won him thetitle of "Jingo," and made him the leading representative of Britishimperialism abroad as he was of English aristocracy at home.

THE ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN (From a Speech in Parliament, 1865)

There are rare instances when the sympathy of a nation approachesthose tenderer feelings which are generally supposed to be peculiarto the individual and to be the happy privilege of private life; andthis is one. Under any circ*mstances we should have bewailed thecatastrophe at Washington; under any circ*mstances we should haveshuddered at the means by which it was accomplished. But in thecharacter of the victim, and even in the accessories of his lastmoments, there is something so homely and innocent that it takes thequestion, as it were, out of all the pomp of history and theceremonial of diplomacy,—it touches the heart of nations andappeals to the domestic sentiment of mankind. Whatever the variousand varying opinions in this house, and in the country generally, onthe policy of the late President of the United States, all mustagree that in one of the severest trials which ever tested the moralqualities of man he fulfilled his duty with simplicity and strength.Nor is it possible for the people of England at such a moment toforget that he sprang from the same fatherland and spoke the samemother tongue. When such crimes are perpetrated the public mind isapt to fall into gloom and perplexity, for it is ignorant alike ofthe causes and the consequences of such deeds. But it is one of ourduties to reassure them under unreasoning panic and despondency.Assassination has never changed the history of the world. I willnot refer to the remote past, though an accident has made the mostmemorable instance of antiquity at this moment fresh in the mindsand memory of all around me. But even the costly sacrifice of aCaesar did not propitiate the inexorable destiny of his country. Ifwe look to modern times, to times at least with the feelings ofwhich we are familiar, and the people of which were animated andinfluenced by the same interests as ourselves, the violent deaths oftwo heroic men, Henry IV. of France and the Prince of Orange, areconspicuous illustrations of this truth. In expressing ourunaffected and profound sympathy with the citizens of the UnitedStates on this untimely end of their elected chief, let us not,therefore, sanction any feeling of depression, but rather let usexpress a fervent hope that from out of the awful trials of the lastfour years, of which the least is not this violent demise, thevarious populations of North America may issue elevated andchastened, rich with the accumulated wisdom and strong in thedisciplined energy which a young nation can only acquire in aprotracted and perilous struggle. Then they will be enabled notmerely to renew their career of power and prosperity, but they willrenew it to contribute to the general happiness of mankind. It iswith these feelings that I second the address to the crown.

AGAINST DEMOCRACY FOR ENGLAND (Delivered in 1865)

Sir, I could have wished, and once I almost believed, that it wasnot necessary for me to take part in this debate. I look on thisdiscussion as the natural epilogue of the Parliament of 1859; weremember the prologue. I consider this to be a controversy betweenthe educated section of the Liberal party and that section of theLiberal party, according to their companions and colleagues, notentitled to an epithet so euphuistic and complimentary. But afterthe speech of the minister, I hardly think it would become me,representing the opinions of the gentlemen with whom I am acting onthis side of the house, entirely to be silent. We have a measurebefore us to-night which is to increase the franchise in boroughs.Without reference to any other circ*mstances I object to that measure.I object to it because an increase of the franchise in boroughs is aproposal to redistribute political power in the country. I do notthink political power in the country ought to be treated partially;from the very nature of things it is impossible, if there is to be aredistribution of political power, that you can only regard thesuffrage as it affects one section of the constituent body.Whatever the proposition of the honorable gentleman, whetherabstractedly it may be expedient or not, this is quite clear, thatit must be considered not only in relation to the particular personswith whom it will deal, but to other persons with whom it does notdeal, though it would affect them. And therefore it has always beenquite clear that if you deal with the subject popularly calledParliamentary Reform, you must deal with it comprehensively. Thearrangements you may make with reference to one part of thecommunity may not be objectionable in themselves, but may beextremely objectionable if you consider them with reference to otherparts. Consequently it has been held—and the more we consider thesubject the more true and just appears to be the conclusion—thatif you deal with the matter you must deal with it comprehensively.You must not only consider borough constituencies, you must considercounty constituencies: and when persons rise up and urge theirclaims to be introduced into the constituent body, even if you thinkthere is a plausible claim substantiated on their part, you arebound in policy and justice to consider also the claims of otherbodies not in possession of the franchise, but whose right toconsideration may be equally great. And so clear is it when youcome to the distribution of power that you must consider the subjectin all its bearings, that even honorable gentlemen who have takenpart in this debate have not been able to avoid the question of whatthey call the redistribution of seats—a very important part ofthe distribution of power. It is easy for the honorable member forLiskeard, for example, to rise and say, in supporting this measurefor the increase of the borough franchise, that it is impossible anylonger to conceal the anomalies of our system in regard to thedistribution of seats. "Is it not monstrous," he asks, "that Calne,with 173 voters, should return a member, while Glasgow returns onlytwo, with a constituency of 20,000?" Well, it may be equallymonstrous that Liskeard should return one member, and thatBirkenhead should only make a similar return. The distribution ofseats, as any one must know who has ever considered the subjectdeeply and with a sense of responsibility towards the country, isone of the most profound and difficult questions that can be broughtbefore the house. It is all very well to treat it in an easy,offhand manner; but how are you to reconcile the case of NorthCheshire, of North Durham, of West Kent, and many other counties,where you find four or six great towns, with a population, perhaps,of 100,000, returning six members to this house, while the rest ofthe population of the county, though equal in amount, returns onlytwo members? How are you to meet the case of the representation ofSouth Lancashire in reference to its boroughs? Why, those are moreanomalous than the case of Calne.

Then there is the question of Scotland. With a population hardlyequal to that of the metropolis, and with wealth greatly inferior—probably not more than two-thirds of the amount—Scotland yetpossesses forty-eight members, while the metropolis has only twenty.Do you Reformers mean to say that you are prepared to disfranchiseScotland; or that you are going to develop the representation of themetropolis in proportion to its population and property; and soallow a country like England, so devoted to local government and soinfluenced by local feeling, to be governed by London? And,therefore, when those speeches are made which gain a cheer for themoment, and are supposed to be so unanswerable as arguments in favorof parliamentary change, I would recommend the house to recollectthat this, as a question, is one of the most difficult and one ofthe deepest that can possibly engage the attention of the country.The fact is this—in the representation of this country you do notdepend on population or on property merely, or on both conjoined;you have to see that there is something besides population andproperty—you have to take care that the country itself isrepresented. That is one reason why I am opposed to the secondreading of the bill. There is another objection which I have tothis bill brought forward by the honorable member for Leeds, andthat is, that it is brought forward by the member for Leeds. I donot consider this a subject which ought to be intrusted to the careand guidance of any independent member of this house. If there beone subject more than another that deserves the consideration anddemands the responsibility of the government, it certainly is thereconstruction of our parliamentary system; and it is the governmentor the political party candidates for power, who recommend a policy,and who will not shrink from the responsibility of carrying thatpolicy into effect if the opportunity be afforded to them, who aloneare qualified to deal with a question of this importance. But, sir,I shall be told, as we have been told in a previous portion of theadjourned debate, that the two great parties of the State cannot betrusted to deal with this question, because they have both trifledwith it. That is a charge which has been made repeatedly duringthis discussion and on previous occasions, and certainly a graverone could not be made in this house. I am not prepared to admitthat even our opponents have trifled with this question. We havehad a very animated account by the right honorable gentleman who hasjust addressed us as to what may be called the Story of the ReformMeasures. It was animated, but it was not accurate. Mine will beaccurate, though I fear it will not be animated. I am not preparedto believe that English statesmen, though they be opposed to me inpolitics, and may sit on opposite benches, could ever have intendedto trifle with this question. I think that possibly they may havemade great mistakes in the course which they took; they may havemiscalculated, they may have been misled; but I do not believe thatany men in this country, occupying the posts, the eminent posts, ofthose who have recommended any reconstruction of our parliamentarysystem in modern days, could have advised a course which theydisapproved. They may have thought it perilous, they may havethought it difficult, but though they may have been misled I amconvinced they must have felt that it was necessary. Let me say aword in favor of one with whom I have had no political connection,and to whom I have been placed in constant opposition in this housewhen he was an honored member of it—I mean Lord Russell. Icannot at all agree with the lively narrative of the right honorablegentleman, according to which Parliamentary Reform was but thecreature of Lord John Russell, whose cabinet, controlled by him withthe vigor of a Richelieu, at all times disapproved his course; stillless can I acknowledge that merely to amuse himself, or in a momentof difficulty to excite some popular sympathy, Lord John Russell wasa statesman always with Reform in his pocket, ready to produce itand make a display. How different from that astute and sagaciousstatesman now at the head of her Majesty's government, whom I almosthoped to have seen in his place this evening. I am sure it wouldhave given the house great pleasure to have seen him here, and thehouse itself would have assumed a more good-humored appearance. Icertainly did hope that the noble lord would have been enabled to bein his place and prepared to support his policy. According to theanimated but not quite accurate account of the right honorablegentleman who has just sat down, all that Lord Derby did was tosanction the humor and caprice of Lord John Russell. It is truethat Lord John Russell when prime minister recommended that herMajesty in the speech from the throne should call the attention ofParliament to the expediency of noticing the condition of ourrepresentative system; but Lord John Russell unfortunately shortlyafterwards retired from his eminent position.

He was succeeded by one of the most considerable statesmen of ourdays, a statesman not connected with the political school of LordJohn Russell, who was called to power not only with assistance ofLord John Russell and the leading members of the Whig party, butsupported by the whole class of eminent statesmen who had beeneducated in the same school and under the same distinguished master.This eminent statesman, however, is entirely forgotten. The righthonorable gentleman overlooks the fact that Lord Aberdeen, whenprime minister, and when all the principal places in his cabinetwere filled with the disciples of Sir Robert Peel, did think it hisduty to recommend the same counsel to her Majesty. But this is animportant, and not the only important, item in the history of theReform Bill which has been ignored by the right honorable gentleman.The time, however, came when Lord Aberdeen gave place to anotherstatesman, who has been complimented on his sagacity in evading thesubject, as if such a course would be a subject for congratulation.Let me vindicate the policy of Lord Palmerston in his absence. Hedid not evade the question. Lord Palmerston followed the example ofLord John Russell. He followed the example also of Lord Aberdeen,and recommended her Majesty to notice the subject in the speech fromthe throne. What becomes, then, of the lively narrative of theright honorable gentleman, and what becomes of the inference andconclusions which he drew from it? Not only is his accountinaccurate, but it is injurious, as I take it, to the course ofsound policy and the honor of public men. Well, now you have threeprime ministers bringing forward the question of ParliamentaryReform; you have Lord John Russell, Lord Aberdeen, and you have eventhat statesman who, according to the account of the right honorablegentleman, was so eminent for his sagacity in evading the subjectaltogether. Now, let me ask the house to consider the position ofLord Derby when he was called to power, a position which you cannotrightly understand if you accept as correct the fallaciousstatements of the right honorable gentleman. I will give the housean account of this subject, the accuracy of which I believe neitherside will impugn. It may not possibly be without interest, and willnot, I am sure, be without significance. Lord Derby was sent for byher Majesty—an unwilling candidate for office, for let me remindthe house that at that moment there was an adverse majority of 140in the House of Commons, and I therefore do not think that LordDerby was open to any imputation in hesitating to accept politicalresponsibility under such circ*mstances. Lord Derby laid theseconsiderations before her Majesty. I speak, of course, withreserve. I say nothing now which I have not said before on thediscussion of political subjects in this house. But when agovernment comes in on Reform and remains in power six years withoutpassing any measure of the kind, it is possible that thesecirc*mstances, too, may be lost sight of. Lord Derby advised herMajesty not to form a government under his influence, because thereexisted so large a majority against him in the House of Commons, andbecause this question of Reform was placed in such a position thatit was impossible to deal with it as he should wish. But it shouldbe remembered that Lord Derby was a member of the famous Cabinetwhich carried the Reform Bill in 1832. Lord Derby, as Lord Stanley,was in the House of Commons one of the most efficient promoters ofthe measure. Lord Derby believed that the bill had tended to effectthe purpose for which it was designed, and although no man superiorto prejudices could fail to see that some who were entitled to theexercise of the franchise were still debarred from the privilege,yet he could not also fail to perceive the danger which would arisefrom our tampering with the franchise. On these grounds Lord Derbydeclined the honor which her Majesty desired to confer upon him, butthe appeal was repeated. Under these circ*mstances it would havebeen impossible for any English statesman longer to hesitate; but Iam bound to say that there was no other contract or understandingfurther than that which prevails among men, however different theirpolitics, who love their country and wish to maintain its greatness.I am bound to add that there was an understanding at the timeexisting among men of weight on both sides of the house that theposition in which the Reform question was placed was oneembarrassing to the crown and not creditable to the house, and thatany minister trying his best to deal with it under thesecirc*mstances would receive the candid consideration of the house.It was thought, moreover, that a time might possibly arrive whenboth parties would unite in endeavoring to bring about a solutionwhich would tend to the advantage and benefit of the country. Andyet, says the right honorable gentleman, it was only in 1860 thatthe portentous truth flashed across the mind of the country—onlyin 1860, after so many ministers had been dealing with the questionfor so many years. All I can say is that this was the question, andthe only question, which engaged the attention of Lord Derby'scabinet. The question was whether they could secure the franchisefor a certain portion of the working classes, who by their industry,their intelligence, and their integrity, showed that they wereworthy of such a possession, without at the same time overwhelmingthe rest of the constituency by the numbers of those whom theyadmitted. That, sir, was the only question which occupied theattention of the government of Lord Derby and yet the righthonorable gentleman says that it was in 1860 that the attention ofthe public was first called to the subject, when, in fact, thequestion of Parliamentary Reform had been before them for ten years,and on a greater scale than that embraced by the measure underconsideration this evening.

I need not remind the house of the reception which Lord Derby's Billencountered. It is neither my disposition, nor, I am sure, that ofany of my colleagues, to complain of the votes of this house on thatoccasion. Political life must be taken as you find it, and as far asI am concerned not a word shall escape me on the subject. But fromthe speeches made the first night, and from the speech made by theright honorable gentleman this evening, I believe I am right invindicating the conduct pursued by the party with which I act. Ibelieve that the measure which we brought forward was the only onewhich has tended to meet the difficulties which beset this question.Totally irrespective of other modes of dealing with the question,there were two franchises especially proposed on this occasion, which,in my mind, would have done much towards solving the difficulty. Thefirst was the franchise founded upon personal property, and the secondthe franchise founded upon partial occupation. Those two franchises,irrespective of other modes by which we attempted to meet the want andthe difficulty—these two franchises, had they been brought intocommittee of this house, would, in my opinion, have been so shaped andadapted that they would have effected those objects which the majorityof the house desire. We endeavored in that bill to make proposalswhich were in the genius of the English constitution. We did notconsider the constitution a mere phrase. We knew that theconstitution of this country is a monarchy tempered by co-ordinateestates of the realm. We knew that the House of Commons is an estateof the realm; we knew that the estates of the realm form a politicalbody, invested with political power for the government of the countryand for the public good; yet we thought that it was a body foundedupon privilege and not upon right. It is, therefore, in the noblestand properest sense of the word, an aristocratic body, and from thatcharacteristic the Reform Bill of 1832 did not derogate; and if atthis moment we could contrive, as we did in 1859, to add considerablyto the number of the constituent body, we should not change thatcharacteristic, but it would still remain founded upon an aristocraticprinciple. Well, now the Secretary of State [Sir G. Grey] hasaddressed us to-night in a very remarkable speech. He also takes upthe history of Reform, and before I touch upon some of the features ofthat speech it is my duty to refer to the statements which he madewith regard to the policy which the government of Lord Derby wasprepared to assume after the general election. By a totalmisrepresentation of the character of the amendment proposed by LordJohn Russell, which threw the government of 1858 into a minority, andby quoting a passage from a very long speech of mine in 1859, theright honorable gentleman most dexterously conveyed these twopropositions to the house—first, that Lord John Russell had proposedan amendment to our Reform Bill, by which the house declared that nobill could be satisfactory by which the working classes were notadmitted to the franchise—one of our main objects being that theworking classes should in a great measure be admitted to thefranchise; and, secondly, that after the election I was prepared, asthe organ of the government, to give up all the schemes for thosefranchises founded upon personal property, partial occupation, andother grounds, and to substitute a bill lowering the boroughqualification. That conveyed to the house a totally inaccurate ideaof the amendment of Lord John Russell. There was not a single word inthat amendment about the working classes. There was not a singlephrase upon which that issue was raised, nor could it have beenraised, because our bill, whether it could have effected the object ornot, was a bill which proposed greatly to enfranchise the workingclasses. And as regards the statement I made, it simply was this.The election was over—we were still menaced, but we, still actingaccording to our sense of duty, recommended in the royal speech thatthe question of a reform of Parliament should be dealt with; because Imust be allowed to remind the house that whatever may have been ourerrors, we proposed a bill which we intended to carry. And havingonce taken up the question as a matter of duty, no doubt greatlyinfluenced by what we considered the unhappy mistakes of ourpredecessors, and the difficult position in which they had placedParliament and the country, we determined not to leave the questionuntil it had been settled. But although still menaced, we felt it tobe our duty to recommend to her Majesty to introduce the question ofreform when the Parliament of 1859 met; and how were we, except inthat spirit of compromise which is the principal characteristic of ourpolitical system, how could we introduce a Reform Bill after thatelection, without in some degree considering the possibility oflowering the borough franchise? But it was not a franchise of 6pounds, but it was an arrangement that was to be taken with the restof the bill, and if it had been met in the same spirit we might haveretained our places. But, says the right honorable gentleman,pursuing his history of the Reform question, when the government ofLord Derby retired from office "we came in, and we were perfectlysincere in our intentions to carry a Reform Bill; but we experiencedsuch opposition, and never was there such opposition. There was theright honorable gentleman," meaning myself, "he absolutely allowed ourbill to be read a second time."

That tremendous reckless opposition to the right honorablegentleman, which allowed the bill to be read a second time, seems tohave laid the government prostrate. If he had succeeded in throwingout the bill, the right honorable gentleman and his friends wouldhave been relieved from great embarrassment. But the bill havingbeen read a second time, the government were quite overcome, and itappears they never have recovered from the paralysis up to thistime. The right honorable gentleman was good enough to say that theproposition of his government was rather coldly received upon hisside of the house, but he said "nobody spoke against it." Nobodyspoke against the bill on this side, but I remember some mostremarkable speeches from the right honorable gentleman's friends.There was the great city of Edinburgh, represented by acuteeloquence of which we never weary, and which again upon the presentoccasion we have heard; there was the great city of Bristol,represented on that occasion among the opponents, and many otherconstituencies of equal importance. But the most remarkable speech,which "killed co*ck robin" was absolutely delivered by one who mightbe described as almost a member of the government—the chairman ofways and means [Mr. Massey], who, I believe, spoke from immediatelybehind the prime minister. Did the government express anydisapprobation of such conduct? They have promoted him to a greatpost, and have sent him to India with an income of fabulous amount.And now they are astonished they cannot carry a Reform Bill. Ifthey removed all those among their supporters who oppose such billsby preferring them to posts of great confidence and great lucre, howcan they suppose that they will ever carry one? Looking at thepolicy of the government, I am not at all astonished at the speechwhich the right honorable gentleman, the Secretary of State, hasmade this evening. Of which speech I may observe, that although itwas remarkable for many things, yet there were two conclusions atwhich the right honorable gentleman arrived. First, the repudiationof the rights of man, and, next, the repudiation of the 6 poundsfranchise. The first is a great relief, and, remembering what thefeeling of the house was only a year ago, when, by the dangerous butfascinating eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we wereled to believe that the days of Tom Paine had returned, and thatRousseau was to be rivaled by a new social contract, it must be agreat relief to every respectable man here to find that not only arewe not to have the rights of man, but we are not even to have the1862 franchise. It is a matter, I think, of great congratulation,and I am ready to give credit to the Secretary of State for thehonesty with which he has expressed himself, and I only wish we hadhad the same frankness, the same honesty we always have, arisingfrom a clear view of his subject, in the first year of theParliament as we have had in the last. I will follow the example ofthe right honorable gentleman and his friends. I have not changedmy opinions upon the subject of what is called Parliamentary Reform.All that has occurred, all that I have observed, all the results ofmy reflections, lead me to this more and more—that the principleupon which the constituencies of this country should be increased isone not of radical, but I may say of lateral reform—the extensionof the franchise, not its degradation. And although I do not wishin any way to deny that we were in the most difficult position whenthe Parliament of 1859 met, being anxious to assist the crown andthe Parliament by proposing some moderate measure which men on bothsides might support, we did, to a certain extent, agree to somemodification of the 10 pounds franchise—to what extent no one knows; butI may say that it would have been one which would not at all haveaffected the character of the franchise, such as I and my colleagueswished to maintain. Yet I confess that my opinion is opposed, as itoriginally was, to any course of the kind. I think that it wouldfail in its object, that it would not secure the introduction ofthat particular class which we all desire to introduce, but that itwould introduce many others who are totally unworthy of thesuffrage. But I think it is possible to increase the electoral bodyof the country by the introduction of voters upon principles inunison with the principles of the constitution, so that the suffrageshould remain a privilege, and not a right—a privilege to begained by virtue, by intelligence, by industry, by integrity, and tobe exercised for the common good of the country. I think if youquit that ground—if you once admit that every man has a right tovote whom you cannot prove to be disqualified—you would changethe character of the constitution, and you would change it in amanner which will tend to lower the importance of this country.Between the scheme we brought forward and the measure broughtforward by the honorable member for Leeds, and the inevitableconclusion which its principal supporters acknowledge it must leadto, it is a question between an aristocratic government in theproper sense of the term—that is, a government by the best men ofall classes—and a democracy. I doubt very much whether ademocracy is a government that would suit this country; and it isjust as well that the house, when coming to a vote on this question,should really consider if that be the real issue, between retainingthe present constitution—not the present constitutional body, butbetween the present constitution and a democracy.

It is just as well for the house to recollect that what is at issueis of some price. You must remember, not to use the word profanely,that we are dealing really with a peculiar people. There is nocountry at the present moment that exists under the circ*mstancesand under the same conditions as the people of this realm. Youhave, for example, an ancient, powerful, richly-endowed Church, andperfect religious liberty. You have unbroken order and completefreedom. You have estates as large as the Romans; you have acommercial system of enterprise such as Carthage and Venice unitednever equaled. And you must remember that this peculiar countrywith these strong contrasts is governed not by force; it is notgoverned by standing armies—it is governed by a most singularseries of traditionary influences, which generation after generationcherishes and preserves because they know that they embalm customsand represent the law. And, with this, what have you done? Youhave created the greatest empire that ever existed in modern timesYou have amassed a capital of fabulous amount. You have devised andsustained a system of credit still more marvelous and above all, youhave established and maintained a scheme, so vast and complicated,of labor and industry, that the history of the world offers noparallel to it. And all these mighty creations are out of allproportion to the essential and indigenous elements and resources ofthe country. If you destroy that state of society, remember this—England cannot begin again. There are countries which have been ingreat peril and gone through great suffering; there are the UnitedStates, which in our own immediate day have had great trials; youhave had—perhaps even now in the States of America you have—aprotracted and fratricidal civil war which has lasted for fouryears; but if it lasted for four years more, vast as would be thedisaster and desolation, when ended the United States might beginagain, because the United States would only be in the same conditionthat England was at the end of the War of the Roses, and probablyshe had not even 3,000,000 of population, with vast tracts of virginsoil and mineral treasures, not only undeveloped but undiscovered.Then you have France. France had a real revolution in our days andthose of our predecessors—a real revolution, not merely apolitical and social revolution. You had the institutions of thecountry uprooted, the orders of society abolished—you had even thelandmarks and local names removed and erased. But France couldbegin again. France had the greatest spread of the most exuberantsoil in Europe; she had, and always had, a very limited population,living in a most simple manner. France, therefore, could beginagain. But England—the England we know, the England we live in,the England of which we are proud—could not begin again. I don'tmean to say that after great troubles England would become a howlingwilderness. No doubt the good sense of the people would to somedegree prevail, and some fragments of the national character wouldsurvive; but it would not be the old England—the England of powerand tradition, of credit and capital, that now exists. That is notin the nature of things, and, under these circ*mstances, I hope thehouse will, when the question before us is one impeaching thecharacter of our constitution, sanction no step that has apreference for democracy but that they will maintain the orderedstate of free England in which we live, I do not think that in thiscountry generally there is a desire at this moment for any furtherchange in this matter. I think the general opinion of the countryon the subject of Parliamentary Reform is that our views are notsufficiently matured on either side. Certainly, so far as I canjudge I cannot refuse the conclusion that such is the condition ofhonorable gentlemen opposite. We all know the paper circulatedamong us before Parliament met, on which the speech of the honorablemember from Maidstone commented this evening. I quite sympathizewith him; it was one of the most interesting contributions to ourelegiac literature I have heard for some time. But is it in thishouse only that we find these indications of the want of maturity inour views upon this subject? Our tables are filled at this momentwith propositions of eminent members of the Liberal party—meneminent for character or talent, and for both—and what are thesepropositions? All devices to counteract the character of theLiberal Reform Bill, to which they are opposed: therefore, it isquite clear, when we read these propositions and speculations, thatthe mind and intellect of the party have arrived at no conclusionson the subject. I do not speak of honorable gentlemen withdisrespect; I treat them with the utmost respect; I am prepared togive them the greatest consideration; but I ask whether thesepublications are not proofs that the active intelligence of theLiberal party is itself entirely at sea on the subject?

I may say there has been more consistency, more calmness, andconsideration on this subject on the part of gentlemen on this sidethan on the part of those who seem to arrogate to themselves themonopoly of treating this subject. I can, at least, in answer tothose who charge us with trifling with the subject, appeal to therecollection of every candid man, and say that we treated it withsincerity—we prepared our measure with care, and submitted it tothe house, trusting to its candid consideration—we spared nopains in its preparation: and at this time I am bound to say,speaking for my colleagues, in the main principles on which thatbill was founded—namely, the extension of the franchise, not itsdegradation, will be found the only solution that will ultimately beaccepted by the country. Therefore, I cannot say that I look tothis question, or that those with whom I act look to it, with anyembarrassment. We feel we have done our duty; and it is not withoutsome gratification that I have listened to the candid admissions ofmany honorable gentlemen who voted against it that they feel thedefeat of that measure by the liberal party was a great mistake. Sofar as we are concerned, I repeat we, as a party, can look toParliamentary Reform not as an embarrassing subject; but that is noreason why we should agree to the measure of the honorable memberfor Leeds. It would reflect no credit on the House of Commons. Itis a mean device. I give all credit to the honorable member for Leedsfor his conscientious feeling; but it would be a mockery to takethis bill; from the failures of the government and the whole of thecirc*mstances that attended it, it is of that character that I thinkthe house will best do its duty to the country, and will best meetthe constituencies with a very good understanding, if they rejectthe measure by a decided majority.

THE MEANING OF "CONSERVATISM" (Manchester, .April 3d, 1872)

Gentlemen:—The chairman has correctly reminded you that this is not the firsttime that my voice has been heard in this hall. But that was anoccasion very different from that which now assembles us together—was nearly thirty years ago, when I endeavored to support andstimulate the flagging energies of an institution in which I thoughtthere were the germs of future refinement and intellectual advantageto the rising generation of Manchester, and since I have been hereon this occasion I have learned with much gratification that it isnow counted among your most flourishing institutions. There was alsoanother and more recent occasion when the gracious office fell to meto distribute among the members of the Mechanics' Institution thoseprizes which they had gained through their study in letters and inscience. Gentlemen, these were pleasing offices, and if lifeconsisted only of such offices you would not have to complain ofit. But life has its masculine duties, and we are assembled here tofulfill some of the most important of these, when, as citizens of afree country, we are assembled together to declare our determinationto maintain, to uphold the constitution to which we are debtors, inour opinion, for our freedom and our welfare.

Gentlemen, there seems at first something incongruous that oneshould be addressing the population of so influential andintelligent a county as Lancashire who is not locally connected withthem, and, gentlemen, I will frankly admit that this circ*mstancedid for a long time make me hesitate in accepting your cordial andgenerous invitation. But, gentlemen, after what occurred yesterday,after receiving more than two hundred addresses from every part ofthis great county, after the welcome which then greeted me, I feelthat I should not be doing justice to your feelings, I should not domy duty to myself, if I any longer consider my presence hereto-night to be an act of presumption. Gentlemen, though it may notbe an act of presumption, it still is, I am told, an act of greatdifficulty. Our opponents assure us that the Conservative party hasno political program; and, therefore, they must look with muchsatisfaction to one whom you honor to-night by considering him theleader and representative of your opinions when he comes forward, atyour invitation, to express to you what that program is. TheConservative party are accused of having no program of policy. If bya program is meant a plan to despoil churches and plunder landlords,I admit we have no program. If by a program is meant a policy whichassails or menaces every institution and every interest, every classand every calling in the country, I admit we have no program. But ifto have a policy with distinct ends, and these such as most deeplyinterest the great body of the nation, be a becoming program for apolitical party, then I contend we have an adequate program, and onewhich, here or elsewhere, I shall always be prepared to assert andto vindicate.

Gentlemen, the program of the Conservative party is to maintain theconstitution of the country. I have not come down to Manchester todeliver an essay on the English constitution; but when the banner ofRepublicanism is unfurled—when the fundamental principles of ourinstitutions are controverted—I think, perhaps, it may not beinconvenient that I should make some few practical remarks upon thecharacter of our constitution upon that monarchy limited by theco-ordinate authority of the estates of the realm, which, under thetitle of Queen, Lords, and Commons, has contributed so greatly tothe prosperity of this country, and with the maintenance of which Ibelieve that prosperity is bound up.

Gentlemen, since the settlement of that constitution, now nearly twocenturies ago, England has never experienced a revolution, thoughthere is no country in which there has been so continuous and suchconsiderable change. How is this? Because the wisdom of yourforefathers placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere ofhuman passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever thestrife of factions, whatever the excitement and exaltation of thepublic mind, there has always been something in this country roundwhich all classes and parties could rally, representing the majestyof the law, the administration of justice, and involving, at thesame time, the security for every man's rights and the fountain ofhonor. Now, gentlemen, it is well clearly to comprehend what ismeant by a country not having a revolution for two centuries. Itmeans, for that space, the unbroken exercise and enjoyment of theingenuity of man. It means for that space the continuous applicationof the discoveries of science to his comfort and convenience. Itmeans the accumulation of capital, the elevation of labor, theestablishment of those admirable factories which cover yourdistrict; the unwearied improvement of the cultivation of the land,which has extracted from a somewhat churlish soil harvests moreexuberant than those furnished by lands nearer to the sun. It meansthe continuous order which is the only parent of personal libertyand political right. And you owe all these, gentlemen, to thethrone.

There is another powerful and most beneficial influence which isalso exercised by the crown. Gentlemen, I am a party man. I believethat, without party, parliamentary government is impossible. I lookupon parliamentary government as the noblest government in theworld, and certainly the one most suited to England. But without thediscipline of political connection, animated by the principle ofprivate honor, I feel certain that a popular assembly would sinkbefore the power or the corruption of a minister. Yet, gentlemen, Iam not blind to the faults of party government. It has one greatdefect. Party has a tendency to warp the intelligence, and there isno minister, however resolved he may be in treating a great publicquestion, who does not find some difficulty in emancipating himselffrom the traditionary prejudice on which he has long acted. It is,therefore, a great merit in our constitution, that before a ministerintroduces a measure to Parliament, he must submit it to anintelligence superior to all party, and entirely free frominfluences of that character.

I know it will be said, gentlemen, that, however beautiful intheory, the personal influence of the sovereign is now absorbed inthe responsibility of the minister. Gentlemen, I think you willfind there is great fallacy in this view. The principles of theEnglish constitution do not contemplate the absence of personalinfluence on the part of the sovereign; and if they did, theprinciples of human nature would prevent the fulfillment of such atheory. Gentlemen, I need not tell you that I am now making on thissubject abstract observations of general application to ourinstitutions and our history. But take the case of a sovereign ofEngland, who accedes to his throne at the earliest age the lawpermits, and who enjoys a long reign,—take an instance like thatof George III. From the earliest moment of his accession thatsovereign is placed in constant communication with the most ablestatesmen of the period, and of all parties. Even with averageability it is impossible not to perceive that such a sovereign mustsoon attain a great mass of political information and politicalexperience. Information and experience, gentlemen, whether they arepossessed by a sovereign or by the humblest of his subjects, areirresistible in life. No man with the vast responsibility thatdevolves upon an English minister can afford to treat withindifference a suggestion that has not occurred to him, orinformation with which he had not been previously supplied. But,gentlemen, pursue this view of the subject. The longer the reign,the influence of that sovereign must proportionately increase. Allthe illustrious statesmen who served his youth disappear. A newgeneration of public servants rises up, there is a criticalconjunction in affairs—a moment of perplexity and peril. Then itis that the sovereign can appeal to a similar state of affairs thatoccurred perhaps thirty years before. When all are in doubt amonghis servants, he can quote the advice that was given by theillustrious men of his early years, and, though he may maintainhimself within the strictest limits of the constitution, who cansuppose, when such information and such suggestions are made by themost exalted person in the country, that they can be without effect?No, gentlemen; a minister who could venture to treat such influencewith indifference would not be a constitutional minister, but anarrogant idiot.

Gentlemen, the influence of the crown is not confined merely topolitical affairs. England is a domestic country. Here the home isrevered and the hearth is sacred. The nation is represented by afamily—the royal family; and if that family is educated with asense of responsibility and a sentiment of public duty, it isdifficult to exaggerate the salutary influence they may exerciseover a nation. It is not merely an influence upon manners; it is notmerely that they are a model for refinement and for good taste—they affect the heart as well as the intelligence of the people; andin the hour of public adversity, or in the anxious conjuncture ofpublic affairs, the nation rallies round the family and the throne,and its spirit is animated and sustained by the expression of publicaffection. Gentlemen, there is yet one other remark that I wouldmake upon our monarchy, though had it not been for recentcirc*mstances, I should have refrained from doing so. An attack hasrecently been made upon the throne on account of the costliness ofthe institution. Gentlemen, I shall not dwell upon the fact that ifthe people of England appreciate the monarchy, as I believe they do,it would be painful to them that their royal and representativefamily should not be maintained with becoming dignity, or fill inthe public eye a position inferior to some of the nobles of theland. Nor will I insist upon what is unquestionably the fact, thatthe revenues of the crown estates, on which our sovereign might livewith as much right as the Duke of Bedford, or the Duke ofNorthumberland, has to his estates, are now paid into the publicexchequer. All this, upon the present occasion, I am not going toinsist upon. What I now say is this: that there is no sovereignty ofany first-rate State which costs so little to the people as thesovereignty of England. I will not compare our civil list with thoseof European empires, because it is known that in amount they trebleand quadruple it; but I will compare it with the cost of sovereigntyin a republic, and that a republic with which you are intimatelyacquainted—the republic of the United States of America.

Gentlemen, there is no analogy between the position of our sovereign,Queen Victoria, and that of the President of the United States. ThePresident of the United States is not the sovereign of the UnitedStates. There is a very near analogy between the position of thePresident of the United States and that of the prime minister ofEngland, and both are paid at much the same rate—the income of asecond-class professional man. The sovereign of the United States isthe people; and I will now show you what the sovereignty of the UnitedStates costs. Gentlemen, you are aware of the Constitution of theUnited States. There are thirty-seven independent States, each with asovereign legislature. Besides these, there is a Confederation ofStates, to conduct their external affairs, which consists of the Houseof Representatives and a Senate. There are two hundred andeighty-five members of the House of Representatives, and there areseventy-four members of the Senate, making altogether three hundredand fifty-nine members of Congress. Now each member of Congressreceives 1,000 pounds sterling per annum. In addition to this hereceives an allowance called "mileage," which varies according to thedistance which he travels, but the aggregate cost of which is about30,000 pounds per annum. That makes 389,000 pounds, almost theexact amount of our civil list.

But this, gentlemen, will allow you to make only a very imperfectestimate of the cost of sovereignty in the United States. Everymember of every legislature in the thirty-seven States is also paid.There are, I believe, five thousand and ten members of Statelegislatures, who receive about $350 per annum each. As some of thereturns are imperfect, the average which I have given of expendituremay be rather high, and therefore I have not counted the mileage,which is also universally allowed. Five thousand and ten members ofState legislatures at $350 each make $1,753,500, or 350,700 poundssterling a year. So you see, gentlemen, that the immediateexpenditure for the sovereignty of the United States is between700,000 and 800,000 pounds a year. Gentlemen, I have not time topursue this interesting theme, otherwise I could show that you havestill but imperfectly ascertained the cost of sovereignty in arepublic. But, gentlemen, I cannot resist giving you one furtherillustration.

The government of this country is considerably carried on by the aidof royal commissions. So great is the increase of public businessthat it would be probably impossible for a minister to carry onaffairs without this assistance. The Queen of England can commandfor these objects the services of the most experienced statesmen,and men of the highest position in society. If necessary, she cansummon to them distinguished scholars or men most celebrated inscience and in arts; and she receives from them services that areunpaid. They are only too proud to be described in the commissionas her Majesty's "trusty councilors"; and if any member of thesecommissions performs some transcendent services, both of thought andof labor, he is munificently rewarded by a public distinctionconferred upon him by the fountain of honor. Gentlemen, thegovernment of the United States, has, I believe, not less availeditself of the services of commissions than the government of theUnited Kingdom; but in a country where there is no fountain ofhonor, every member of these commissions is paid.

Gentlemen, I trust I have now made some suggestions to yourespecting the monarchy of England which at least may be so farserviceable that when we are separated they may not be altogetherwithout advantage; and now, gentlemen, I would say something on thesubject of the House of Lords. It is not merely the authority ofthe throne that is now disputed, but the character and the influenceof the House of Lords that are held up by some to public disregard.Gentlemen, I shall not stop for a moment to offer you any proofs ofthe advantage of a second chamber; and for this reason. Thatsubject has been discussed now for a century, ever since theestablishment of the government of the United States, and all greatauthorities, American, German, French, Italian, have agreed in this,that a representative government is impossible without a secondchamber. And it has been, especially of late, maintained by greatpolitical writers in all countries, that the repeated failure ofwhat is called the French republic is mainly to be ascribed to itsnot having a second chamber.

But, gentlemen, however anxious foreign countries have been to enjoythis advantage, that anxiety has only been equaled by the difficultywhich they have found in fulfilling their object. How is a secondchamber to be constituted? By nominees of the sovereign power?What influence can be exercised by a chamber of nominees? Are theyto be bound by popular election? In what manner are they to beelected? If by the same constituency as the popular body, whatclaim have they, under such circ*mstances, to criticize or tocontrol the decisions of that body? If they are to be elected by amore select body, qualified by a higher franchise, there immediatelyoccurs the objection, why should the majority be governed by theminority? The United States of America were fortunate in finding asolution of this difficulty; but the United States of America hadelements to deal with which never occurred before, and neverprobably will occur again, because they formed their illustriousSenate from materials that were offered them by the thirty-sevenStates. We gentlemen, have the House of Lords, an assembly whichhas historically developed and periodically adapted itself to thewants and necessities of the times.

What, gentlemen, is the first quality which is required in a secondchamber? Without doubt, independence. What is the best foundation ofindependence? Without doubt, property. The prime minister of Englandhas only recently told you, and I believe he spoke quite accurately,that the average income of the members of the House of Lords is20,000 pounds per annum. Of course there are some who have more,and some who have less; but the influence of a public assembly, so faras property is concerned, depends upon its aggregate property, which,in the present case, is a revenue of 9,000,000 pounds a year. But,gentlemen, you must look to the nature of this property. It isvisible property, and therefore it is responsible property, whichevery rate-payer in the room knows to his cost. But, gentlemen, it isnot only visible property; it is, generally speaking, territorialproperty; and one of the elements of territorial property is, that itis representative. Now, for illustration, suppose—which Godforbid—there was no House of Commons, and any Englishman,—I willtake him from either end of the island,—a Cumberland, or a Cornishman, finds himself aggrieved, the Cumbrian says: "This conduct Iexperience is most unjust. I know a Cumberland man in the House ofLords, the Earl of Carlisle or the Earl of Lonsdale; I will go to him;he will never see a Cumberland man ill-treated." The Cornish man willsay: "I will go to the Lord of Port Eliot; his family have sacrificedthemselves before this for the liberties of Englishmen, and he willget justice done me."

But, gentlemen, the charge against the House of Lords is that thedignities are hereditary, and we are told that if we have a House ofPeers they should be peers for life. There are great authorities infavor of this, and even my noble friend near me [Lord Derby], theother day, gave in his adhesion to a limited application of thisprinciple. Now, gentlemen, in the first place, let me observe thatevery peer is a peer for life, as he cannot be a peer after hisdeath; but some peers for life are succeeded in their dignities bytheir children. The question arises, who is most responsible—apeer for life whose dignities are not descendible, or a peer forlife whose dignities are hereditary? Now, gentlemen, a peer forlife is in a very strong position. He says: "Here I am; I have gotpower and I will exercise it." I have no doubt that, on the whole,a peer for life would exercise it for what he deemed was the publicgood. Let us hope that. But, after all, he might and couldexercise it according to his own will. Nobody can call him toaccount; he is independent of everybody. But a peer for life whosedignities descend is in a very different position. He has everyinducement to study public opinion, and, when he believes it just,to yield; because he naturally feels that if the order to which hebelongs is in constant collision with public opinion, the chancesare that his dignities will not descend to his posterity.

Therefore, gentlemen, I am not prepared myself to believe that asolution of any difficulties in the public mind on this subject isto be found by creating peers for life. I know there are somephilosophers who believe that the best substitute for the House ofLords would be an assembly formed of ex-governors of colonies. Ihave not sufficient experience on that subject to give a decidedopinion upon it. When the Muse of Comedy threw her frolic grace oversociety, a retired governor was generally one of the characters inevery comedy; and the last of our great actors,—who, by the way,was a great favorite at Manchester,—Mr. Farren, was celebrated forhis delineation of the character in question. Whether it be therecollection of that performance or not, I confess I am inclined tobelieve that an English gentleman—born to business, managing hisown estate, administering the affairs of his county, mixing with allclasses of his fellow-men, now in the hunting field, now in therailway direction, unaffected, unostentatious, proud of hisancestors, if they have contributed to the greatness of our commoncountry—is, on the whole, more likely to form a Senator agreeableto English opinion and English taste than any substitute that hasyet been produced.

Gentlemen, let me make one observation more on the subject of theHouse of Lords before I conclude. There is some advantage inpolitical experience. I remember the time when there was a similaroutcry against the House of Lords, but much more intense andpowerful; and, gentlemen, it arose from the same cause. A Liberalgovernment had been installed in office, with an immense Liberalmajority. They proposed some violent measures. The House of Lordsmodified some, delayed others, and some they threw out. Instantlythere was a cry to abolish or to reform the House of Lords, and thegreatest popular orator [Daniel O'Connell] that probably everexisted was sent on a pilgrimage over England to excite the peoplein favor of this opinion. What happened? That happened, gentlemen,which may happen to-morrow. There was a dissolution of Parliament.The great Liberal majority vanished. The balance of parties wasrestored. It was discovered that the House of Lords had behind themat least half of the English people. We heard no more cries fortheir abolition or their reform, and before two years more passedEngland was really governed by the House of Lords, under the wiseinfluence of the Duke of Wellington and the commanding eloquence ofLyndhurst; and such was the enthusiasm of the nation in favor of thesecond chamber that at every public meeting its health was drunk,with the additional sentiment, for which we are indebted to one ofthe most distinguished members that ever represented the House ofCommons: "Thank God, there is the House of Lords."

Gentlemen, you will, perhaps, not be surprised that, having madesome remarks upon the monarchy and the House of Lords, I should saysomething respecting that house in which I have literally passed thegreater part of my life, and to which I am devotedly attached. Itis not likely, therefore, that I should say anything to depreciatethe legitimate position and influence of the House of Commons.Gentlemen, it is said that the diminished power of the throne andthe assailed authority of the House of Lords are owing to theincreased power of the House of Commons, and the new position whichof late years, and especially during the last forty years, it hasassumed in the English constitution. Gentlemen, the main power ofthe House of Commons depends upon its command over the public purse,and its control of the public expenditure; and if that power ispossessed by a party which has a large majority in the House ofCommons, the influence of the House of Commons is proportionatelyincreased, and, under some circ*mstances, becomes more predominant.But, gentlemen, this power of the House of Commons is not a powerwhich has been created by any reform act, from the days of LordGrey, in 1832, to 1867. It is the power which the House of Commonshas enjoyed for centuries, which it has frequently asserted andsometimes even tyrannically exercised. Gentlemen, the House ofCommons represents the constituencies of England, and I am here toshow you that no addition to the elements of that constituency hasplaced the House of Commons in a different position with regard tothe throne and the House of Lords from that it has alwaysconstitutionally occupied.

Gentlemen, we speak now on this subject with great advantage. Werecently have had published authentic documents upon this matterwhich are highly instructive. We have, for example, just publishedthe census of Great Britain, and we are now in possession of thelast registration of voters for the United Kingdom. Gentlemen, itappears that by the census the population at this time is about32,000,000. It is shown by the last registration that, after makingthe usual deductions for deaths, removals, double entries, and soon, the constituency of the United Kingdom may be placed at2,200,000. So, gentlemen, it at once appears that there are30,000,000 people in this country who are as much represented by theHouse of Lords as by the House of Commons, and who, for theprotection of their rights, must depend upon them and the majesty ofthe throne. And now, gentlemen, I will tell you what was done bythe last reform act.

Lord Grey, in his measure of 1832, which was no doubt astatesmanlike measure, committed a great, and for a time it appearedan irretrievable, error. By that measure he fortified thelegitimate influence of the aristocracy, and accorded to the middleclasses great and salutary franchises; but he not only made noprovision for the representation of the working classes in theconstitution, but he absolutely abolished those ancient franchiseswhich the working classes had peculiarly enjoyed and exercised fromtime immemorial. Gentlemen, that was the origin of Chartism, and ofthat electoral uneasiness which existed in this country more or lessfor thirty years.

The Liberal party, I feel it my duty to say, had not acted fairly bythis question. In their adversity they held out hopes to theworking classes, but when they had a strong government they laughedtheir vows to scorn. In 1848 there was a French revolution, and arepublic was established. No one can have forgotten what the effectwas in this country. I remember the day when not a woman couldleave her house in London, and when cannon were planted onWestminster Bridge. When Lord Derby became prime minister affairshad arrived at such a point that it was of the first moment that thequestion should be sincerely dealt with. He had to encounter greatdifficulties, but he accomplished his purpose with the support of aunited party. And gentlemen, what has been the result? A year agothere was another revolution in France, and a republic was againestablished of the most menacing character. What happened in thiscountry? You could not get half a dozen men to assemble in a streetand grumble. Why? Because the people had got what they wanted.They were content, and they were grateful.

But, gentlemen, the constitution of England is not merely aconstitution in State, it is a constitution in Church and State. Thewisest sovereigns and statesmen have ever been anxious to connectauthority with religion—some to increase their power, some,perhaps, to mitigate its exercise. But the same difficulty has beenexperienced in effecting this union which has been experienced informing a second chamber—either the spiritual power has usurpedupon the civil, and established a sacerdotal society, or the civilpower has invaded successfully the rights of the spiritual, and theministers of religion have been degraded into stipendiaries of thestate and instruments of the government. In England we accomplishthis great result by an alliance between Church and State, betweentwo originally independent powers. I will not go into the history ofthat alliance, which is rather a question for those archaeologicalsocieties which occasionally amuse and instruct the people of thiscity. Enough for me that this union was made and has contributed forcenturies to the civilization of this country. Gentlemen, there isthe same assault against the Church of England and the union betweenthe State and the Church as there is against the monarchy andagainst the House of Lords. It is said that the existence ofnonconformity proves that the Church is a failure. I draw from thesepremises an exactly contrary conclusion; and I maintain that to havesecured a national profession of faith with the unlimited enjoymentof private judgment in matters spiritual, is the solution of themost difficult problem, and one of the triumphs of civilization.

It is said that the existence of parties in the Church also provesits incompetence. On that matter, too, I entertain a contraryopinion. Parties have always existed in the Church; and some haveappealed to them as arguments in favor of its divine institution,because, in the services and doctrines of the Church have been foundrepresentatives of every mood in the human mind. Those who areinfluenced by ceremonies find consolation in forms which secure tothem the beauty of holiness. Those who are not satisfied exceptwith enthusiasm find in its ministrations the exaltation theyrequire, while others who believe that the "anchor of faith" cannever be safely moored except in the dry sands of reason find areligion within the pale of the Church which can boast of itsirrefragable logic and its irresistible evidence.

Gentlemen, I am inclined sometimes to believe that those whoadvocate the abolition of the union between Church and State havenot carefully considered the consequences of such a course. TheChurch is a powerful corporation of many millions of her Majesty'ssubjects, with a consummate organization and wealth which in itsaggregate is vast. Restricted and controlled by the State, sopowerful a corporation may be only fruitful of public advantage, butit becomes a great question what might be the consequences of theseverance of the controlling tie between these two bodies. The Statewould be enfeebled, but the Church would probably be strengthened.Whether that is a result to be desired is a grave question for allmen. For my own part, I am bound to say that I doubt whether itwould be favorable to the cause of civil and religious liberty. Iknow that there is a common idea that if the union between Churchand State was severed, the wealth of the Church would revert to theState; but it would be well to remember that the great proportion ofecclesiastical property is the property of individuals. Take, forexample, the fact that the great mass of Church patronage ispatronage in the hands of private persons. That you could not touchwithout compensation to the patrons. You have established thatprinciple in your late Irish Bill, where there was very littlepatronage. And in the present state of the public mind on thesubject, there is very little doubt that there would be scarcely apatron in England—irrespective of other aid the Church wouldreceive—who would not dedicate his compensation to the spiritualwants of his neighbors.

It was computed some years ago that the property of the Church in thismanner, if the union was terminated, would not be less than between80,000,000 and 90,000,000 pounds, and since that period the amountof private property dedicated to the purposes of the Church has verylargely increased. I therefore trust that when the occasion offersfor the country to speak out it will speak out in an unmistakablemanner on this subject; and recognizing the inestimable services ofthe Church, that it will call upon the government to maintain itsunion with the State. Upon this subject there is one remark I wouldmake. Nothing is more surprising to me than the plea on which thepresent outcry is made against the Church of England. I could notbelieve that in the nineteenth century the charge against the Churchof England should be that churchmen, and especially the clergy, hadeducated the people. If I were to fix upon one circ*mstance more thananother which redounded to the honor of churchmen, it is that theyshould fulfill this noble office; and, next to being "the stewards ofdivine mysteries," I think the greatest distinction of the clergy isthe admirable manner in which they have devoted their lives and theirfortunes to this greatest of national objects.

Gentlemen, you are well acquainted in this city with thiscontroversy. It was in this city—I don't know whether it was notin this hall—that that remarkable meeting was held of theNonconformists to effect important alterations in the Education Act,and you are acquainted with the discussion in Parliament which arosein consequence of that meeting. Gentlemen, I have due and greatrespect for the Nonconformist body. I acknowledge their services totheir country, and though I believe that the political reasons whichmainly called them into existence have entirely ceased, it isimpossible not to treat with consideration a body which has beeneminent for its conscience, its learning, and its patriotism; but Imust express my mortification that, from a feeling of envy or ofpique, the Nonconformist body, rather than assist the Church in itsgreat enterprise, should absolutely have become the partisans of amerely secular education. I believe myself, gentlemen, that withoutthe recognition of a superintending Providence in the affairs ofthis world all national education will be disastrous, and I feelconfident that it is impossible to stop at that mere recognition.Religious education is demanded by the nation generally and by theinstincts of human nature. I should like to see the Church and theNonconformists work together; but I trust, whatever may be theresult, the country will stand by the Church in its efforts tomaintain the religious education of the people. Gentlemen, Iforesee yet trials for the Church of England; but I am confident inits future. I am confident in its future because I believe there isnow a very general feeling that to be national it must becomprehensive. I will not use the word "broad," because it is anepithet applied to a system with which I have no sympathy. But Iwould wish churchmen, and especially the clergy, always to rememberthat in our "Father's home there are many mansions," and I believethat comprehensive spirit is perfectly consistent with themaintenance of formularies and the belief in dogmas without which Ihold no practical religion can exist.

Gentlemen, I have now endeavored to express to you my general viewsupon the most important subjects that can interest Englishmen. Theyare subjects upon which, in my mind, a man should speak withfrankness and clearness to his countrymen, and although I do notcome down here to make a party speech, I am bound to say that themanner in which those subjects are treated by the leading subject ofthis realm is to me most unsatisfactory. Although the prime ministerof England is always writing letters and making speeches, andparticularly on these topics, he seems to me ever to send forth an"uncertain sound." If a member of Parliament announces himself aRepublican, Mr. Gladstone takes the earliest opportunity ofdescribing him as a "fellow-worker" in public life. If aninconsiderate multitude calls for the abolition or reform of theHouse of Lords, Mr. Gladstone says that it is no easy task, and thathe must think once or twice, or perhaps even thrice, before he canundertake it. If your neighbor, the member for Bradford, Mr. Miall,brings forward a motion in the House of Commons for the severance ofChurch and State, Mr. Gladstone assures Mr. Miall with the utmostcourtesy that he believes the opinion of the House of Commons isagainst him, but that if Mr. Miall wishes to influence the House ofCommons he must address the people out of doors; whereupon Mr. Miallimmediately calls a public meeting, and alleges as its cause theadvice he has just received from the prime minister.

But, gentlemen, after all, the test of political institutions is thecondition of the country whose fortunes they regulate; and I do notmean to evade that test. You are the inhabitants of an island of nocolossal size; which, geographically speaking, was intended bynature as the appendage of some continental empire—either ofGauls and Franks on the other side of the Channel or of Teutons andScandinavians beyond the German Sea. Such indeed, and for a longperiod, was your early history. You were invaded; you were pillagedand you were conquered; yet amid all these disgraces andvicissitudes there was gradually formed that English race which hasbrought about a very different state of affairs. Instead of beinginvaded, your land is proverbially the only "inviolate land"—"theinviolate land of the sage and free." Instead of being plundered,you have attracted to your shores all the capital of the world.Instead of being conquered, your flag floats on many waters, andyour standard waves in either zone. It may be said that theseachievements are due to the race that inhabited the land, and not toits institutions. Gentlemen, in political institutions are theembodied experiences of a race. You have established a society ofclasses which give vigor and variety to life. But no classpossesses a single exclusive privilege, and all are equal before thelaw. You possess a real aristocracy, open to all who desire toenter it. You have not merely a middle class, but a hierarchy ofmiddle classes, in which every degree of wealth, refinement,industry, energy, and enterprise is duly represented.

And now, gentlemen, what is the condition of the great body of thepeople? In the first place, gentlemen, they have for centuries beenin the full enjoyment of that which no other country in Europe hasever completely attained—complete rights of personal freedom. Inthe second place, there has been a gradual, and therefore a wise,distribution on a large scale of political rights. Speaking withreference to the industries of this great part of the country, I canpersonally contrast it with the condition of the working classesforty years ago. In that period they have attained two results—the raising of their wages and the diminution of their toil.Increased means and increased leisure are the two civilizers of man.That the working classes of Lancashire and Yorkshire have proved notunworthy of these boons may be easily maintained; but their progressand elevation have been during this interval wonderfully aided andassisted by three causes, which are not so distinctivelyattributable to their own energies. The first is the revolution inlocomotion, which has opened the world to the working man, which hasenlarged the horizon of his experience, increased his knowledge ofnature and of art, and added immensely to the salutary recreation,amusem*nt, and pleasure of his existence. The second cause is thecheap postage, the moral benefits of which cannot be exaggerated.And the third is that unshackled press which has furnished him withendless sources of instruction, information, and amusem*nt.

Gentlemen, if you would permit me, I would now make an observationupon another class of the laboring population. This is not a civicassembly, although we meet in a city. That was for convenience, butthe invitation which I received was to meet the county and all theboroughs of Lancashire; and I wish to make a few observations uponthe condition of the agricultural laborer. That is a subject whichnow greatly attracts public attention. And, in the first place, toprevent any misconception, I beg to express my opinion that anagricultural laborer has as much right to combine for the betteringof his condition as a manufacturing laborer or a worker in metals.If the causes of his combination are natural—that is to say, ifthey arise from his own feelings and from the necessities of his owncondition—the combination will end in results mutually beneficialto employers and employed. If, on the other hand, it is factitiousand he is acted upon by extraneous influences and extraneous ideas,the combination will produce, I fear, much loss and misery both toemployers and employed; and after a time he will find himself in asimilar, or in a worse, position.

Gentlemen, in my opinion, the farmers of England cannot, as a body,afford to pay higher wages than they do, and those who will answerme by saying that they must find their ability by the reduction ofrents are, I think, involving themselves with economic laws whichmay prove too difficult for them to cope with. The profits of afanner are very moderate. The interest upon capital invested inland is the smallest that any property furnishes. The farmer willhave his profits and the investor in land will have his interest,even though they may be obtained at the cost of changing the mode ofthe cultivation of the country. Gentlemen, I should deeply regretto see the tillage of this country reduced, and a recurrence topasture take place. I should regret it principally on account ofthe agricultural laborers themselves. Their new friends call themHodge, and describe them as a stolid race. I must say that, from myexperience of them, they are sufficiently shrewd and open to reason.I would say to them with confidence, as the great Athenian said tothe Spartan who rudely assailed him: "Strike, but hear me."

First, a change in the cultivation of the soil of this country wouldbe very injurious to the laboring class; and second, I am of opinionthat that class instead of being stationary has made if not as muchprogress as the manufacturing class, very considerable progressduring the last forty years. Many persons write and speak about theagricultural laborer with not so perfect a knowledge of hiscondition as is desirable. They treat him always as a human beingwho in every part of the country finds himself in an identicalcondition. Now, on the contrary, there is no class of laborers inwhich there is greater variety of condition than that of theagricultural laborers. It changes from north to south, from east towest, and from county to county. It changes even in the samecounty, where there is an alteration of soil and of configuration.The hind in Northumberland is in a very different condition from thefamous Dorsetshire laborer; the tiller of the soil in Lincolnshireis different from his fellow-agriculturalist in Sussex. What theeffect of manufactures is upon the agricultural districts in theirneighborhood it would be presumption in me to dwell upon; your ownexperience must tell you whether the agricultural laborer in NorthLancashire, for example, has had no rise in wages and no diminutionin toil. Take the case of the Dorsetshire laborer—the whole ofthe agricultural laborers on the southwestern coast of England for avery long period worked only half the time of the laborers in otherparts of England, and received only half the wages. In theexperience of many, I dare say, who are here present, even thirtyyears ago a Dorsetshire laborer never worked after three o'clock inthe day; and why? Because the whole of that part of England wasdemoralized by smuggling. No one worked after three o'clock in theday, for a very good reason—because he had to work at night. Nofarmer allowed his team to be employed after three o'clock, becausehe reserved his horses to take his illicit cargo at night and carryit rapidly into the interior. Therefore, as the men were employedand remunerated otherwise, they got into a habit of half work andhalf play so far as the land was concerned, and when smuggling wasabolished—and it has only been abolished for thirty years—these imperfect habits of labor continued, and do even now continueto a great extent. That is the origin of the condition of theagricultural laborer in the southwestern part of England.

But now gentlemen, I want to test the condition of the agriculturallaborer generally; and I will take a part of England with which I amfamiliar, and can speak as to the accuracy of the facts—I meanthe group described as the south-midland counties. The conditionsof labor there are the same, or pretty nearly the same, throughout.The group may be described as a strictly agricultural community, andthey embrace a population of probably a million and a half. Now, Ihave no hesitation in saying that the improvement in their lotduring the last forty years has been progressive and is remarkable.I attribute it to three causes. In the first place, the rise intheir money wages is no less than fifteen per cent. The secondgreat cause of their improvement is the almost total disappearanceof excessive and exhausting toil, from the general introduction ofmachinery. I don't know whether I could get a couple of men whocould or, if they could, would thresh a load of wheat in myneighborhood. The third great cause which has improved theircondition is the very general, not to say universal, institution ofallotment grounds. Now, gentlemen, when I find that this has beenthe course of affairs in our very considerable and strictlyagricultural portion of the country, where there have been noexceptional circ*mstances, like smuggling, to degrade and demoralizethe race, I cannot resist the conviction that the condition of theagricultural laborers, instead of being stationary, as we areconstantly told by those not acquainted with them, has been one ofprogressive improvement, and that in those counties—and they aremany—where the stimulating influence of a manufacturingneighborhood acts upon the land, the general conclusion at which Iarrive is that the agricultural laborer has had his share in theadvance of national prosperity. Gentlemen, I am not here tomaintain that there is nothing to be done to increase the well-beingof the working classes of this country, generally speaking. Thereis not a single class in the country which is not susceptible ofimprovement; and that makes the life and animation of our society.But in all we do we must remember, as my noble friend told them atLiverpool, that much depends upon the working classes themselves;and what I know of the working classes in Lancashire makes me surethat they will respond to this appeal. Much, also, may be expectedfrom that sympathy between classes which is a distinctive feature ofthe present day; and, in the last place, no inconsiderable resultsmay be obtained by judicious and prudent legislation. But,gentlemen, in attempting to legislate upon social matters, the greatobject is to be practical—to have before us some distinct aimsand some distinct means by which they can be accomplished.

Gentlemen, I think public attention as regards these matters oughtto be concentrated upon sanitary legislation. That is a widesubject, and, if properly treated, comprises almost everyconsideration which has a just claim upon legislative interference.Pure air, pure water, the inspection of unhealthy habitations, theadulteration of food,—these and many kindred matters may belegitimately dealt with by the legislature; and I am bound to saythe legislature is not idle upon them; for we have at this time twoimportant measures before Parliament on the subject. One—by a latecolleague of mine, Sir Charles Adderley—is a large andcomprehensive measure, founded upon a sure basis, for it consolidatesall existing public acts, and improves them. A prejudice has beenraised against that proposal, by stating that it interferes with theprivate acts of the great towns. I take this opportunity ofcontradicting that. The bill of Sir Charles Adderley does not touchthe acts of the great towns. It only allows them, if they thinkfit, to avail themselves of its new provisions.

The other measure by the government is of a partial character. Whatit comprises is good, so far as it goes, but it shrinks from thatbold consolidation of existing acts which I think one of the greatmerits of Sir Charles Adderley's bill, which permits us to becomeacquainted with how much may be done in favor of sanitaryimprovement by existing provisions. Gentlemen, I cannot impressupon you too strongly my conviction of the importance of thelegislature and society uniting together in favor of these importantresults. A great scholar and a great wit, three hundred years ago,said that, in his opinion, there was a great mistake in the Vulgate,which, as you all know, is the Latin translation of the HolyScriptures, and that, instead of saying "Vanity of vanities, all isvanity"—Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas—the wise andwitty king really said:"Sanitas sanitatum, omnia sanitas."Gentlemen, it is impossible to overrate the importance of thesubject. After all the first consideration of a minister should bethe health of the people. A land may be covered with historictrophies, with museums of science and galleries of art, withuniversities and with libraries; the people may be civilized andingenious; the country may be even famous in the annals and actionof the world, but, gentlemen, if the population every ten yearsdecreases, and the stature of the race every ten years diminishes,the history of that country will soon be the history of the past.

Gentlemen, I said I had not come here to make a party speech. Ihave addressed you upon subjects of grave, and I will venture tobelieve of general, interest; but to be here and altogether silentupon the present state of public affairs would not be respectful toyou, and, perhaps, on the whole, would be thought incongruous.Gentlemen, I cannot pretend that our position either at home orabroad is in my opinion satisfactory. At home, at a period ofimmense prosperity, with a people contented and naturally loyal, wefind to our surprise the most extravagant doctrines professed andthe fundamental principles of our most valuable institutionsimpugned, and that, too, by persons of some authority. Gentlemen,this startling inconsistency is accounted for, in my mind, by thecirc*mstances under which the present administration was formed. Itis the first instance in my knowledge of a British administrationbeing avowedly formed on a principle of violence. It is unnecessaryfor me to remind you of the circ*mstances which preceded theformation of that government. You were the principal scene andtheatre of the development of statesmanship that then occurred. Youwitnessed the incubation of the portentous birth. You remember whenyou were informed that the policy to secure the prosperity ofIreland and the content of Irishmen was a policy of sacrilege andconfiscation. Gentlemen, when Ireland was placed under the wise andable administration of Lord Abercorn, Ireland was prosperous, and Imay say content. But there happened at that time a very peculiarconjuncture in politics. The Civil War in America had just ceased;and a band of military adventurers—Poles, Italians, and manyIrishmen—concocted in New York a conspiracy to invade Ireland,with the belief that the whole country would rise to welcome them.How that conspiracy was baffled—how those plots were confounded,I need not now remind you. For that we were mainly indebted to theeminent qualities of a great man who has just left us. You rememberhow the constituencies were appealed to to vote against thegovernment which had made so unfit an appointment as that of LordMayo to the vice-royalty of India. It was by his great qualitieswhen Secretary for Ireland, by his vigilance, his courage, hispatience, and his perseverance that this conspiracy was defeated.Never was a minister better informed. He knew what was going on atNew York just as well as what was going on in the city of Dublin.

When the Fenian conspiracy had been entirely put down, it becamenecessary to consider the policy which it was expedient to pursue inIreland; and it seemed to us at that time that what Ireland requiredafter all the excitement which it had experienced was a policy whichshould largely develop its material resources. There were one or twosubjects of a different character, which, for the advantage of theState, it would have been desirable to have settled, if that couldhave been effected with a general concurrence of both the greatparties in that country. Had we remained in office, that would havebeen done. But we were destined to quit it, and we quitted itwithout a murmur. The policy of our successors was different. Theirspecific was to despoil churches and plunder landlords, and what hasbeen the result? Sedition rampant, treason thinly veiled, andwhenever a vacancy occurs in the representation a candidate isreturned pledged to the disruption of the realm. Her Majesty's newministers proceeded in their career like a body of men under theinfluence of some delirious drug. Not satiated with the spoliationand anarchy of Ireland, they began to attack every institution andevery interest, every class and calling in the country. It iscurious to observe their course. They took into hand the army. Whathave they done? I will not comment on what they have done. I willhistorically state it, and leave you to draw the inference. So longas constitutional England has existed there has been a jealousyamong all classes against the existence of a standing army. As ourempire expanded, and the existence of a large body of disciplinedtroops became a necessity, every precaution was taken to prevent thedanger to our liberties which a standing army involved.

It was a first principle not to concentrate in the island anyoverwhelming number of troops, and a considerable portion wasdistributed in the colonies. Care was taken that the troopsgenerally should be officered by a class of men deeply interested inthe property and the liberties of England. So extreme was thejealousy that the relations between that once constitutional force,the militia, and the sovereign were rigidly guarded, and it wascarefully placed under local influences. All this is changed. Wehave a standing army of large amount, quartered and brigaded andencamped permanently in England, and fed by a considerable andconstantly increasing reserve.

It will in due time be officered by a class of men eminentlyscientific, but with no relations necessarily with society; whilethe militia is withdrawn from all local influences, and placed underthe immediate command of the Secretary of War. Thus, in thenineteenth century, we have a large standing army established inEngland, contrary to all the traditions of the land, and that by aLiberal government, and with the warm acclamations of the Liberalparty.

Let us look what they have done with the Admiralty. You remember,in this country especially, the denunciations of the profligateexpenditure of the Conservative government, and you have since hadan opportunity of comparing it with the gentler burden of Liberalestimates. The navy was not merely an instance of profligateexpenditure, but of incompetent and inadequate management. A greatrevolution was promised in its administration. A gentleman[Mr. Childers], almost unknown to English politics, was strangelypreferred to one of the highest places in the councils of herMajesty. He set to at his task with ruthless activity. TheConsulative Council, under which Nelson had gained all hisvictories, was dissolved. The secretaryship of the Admiralty, anoffice which exercised a complete supervision over every division ofthat great department,—an office which was to the Admiralty whatthe Secretary of State is to the kingdom,—which, in the qualitieswhich it required and the duties which it fulfilled, was rightly astepping-stone to the cabinet, as in the instances of Lord Halifax,Lord Herbert, and many others,—was reduced to absoluteinsignificance. Even the office of Control, which of all othersrequired a position of independence, and on which the safety of thenavy mainly depended, was deprived of all its important attributes.For two years the opposition called the attention of Parliament tothese destructive changes, but Parliament and the nation were alikeinsensible. Full of other business, they could not give a thoughtto what they looked upon merely as captious criticism. It requiresa great disaster to command the attention of England; and whenthe Captain was lost, and when they had the detail of the perilousvoyage of the Megara, then public indignation demanded a completechange in this renovating administration of the navy.

And what has occurred? It is only a few weeks since that in theHouse of Commons I heard the naval statement made by a new FirstLord [Mr. Goschen], and it consisted only of the rescinding of allthe revolutionary changes of his predecessor, the mischief of everyone of which during the last two years has been pressed upon theattention of Parliament and the country by that constitutional andnecessary body, the Opposition. Gentlemen, it will not do forme—considering the time I have already occupied, and there arestill some subjects of importance that must be touched—to dwellupon any of the other similar topics, of which there is a richabundance. I doubt not there is in this hall more than one farmerwho has been alarmed by the suggestion that his agriculturalmachinery should be taxed.

I doubt not there is in this hall more than one publican whor*members that last year an act of Parliament was introduced todenounce him as a "sinner." I doubt not there are in this hall awidow and an orphan who remember the profligate proposition toplunder their lonely heritage. But, gentlemen, as time advanced itwas not difficult to perceive that extravagance was beingsubstituted for energy by the government. The unnatural stimuluswas subsiding. Their paroxysms ended in prostration. Some tookrefuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated between amenace and a sigh. As I sat opposite the treasury bench theministers reminded me of one of those marine landscapes not veryunusual on the coast of South America. You behold a range ofexhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest.But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasionalearthquakes, and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.

But, gentlemen, there is one other topic on which I must touch. Ifthe management of our domestic affairs has been founded upon aprinciple of violence, that certainly cannot be alleged against themanagement of our external relations. I know the difficulty ofaddressing a body of Englishmen on these topics. The very phrase"Foreign Affairs" makes an Englishman convinced that I am about totreat of subjects with which be has no concern. Unhappily therelations of England to the rest of the world, which are "ForeignAffairs," are the matters which most influence his lot. Upon themdepends the increase or reduction of taxation. Upon them dependsthe enjoyment or the embarrassment of his industry. And yet, thoughso momentous are the consequences of the mismanagement of ourforeign relations, no one thinks of them till the mischief occursand then it is found how the most vital consequences have beenoccasioned by mere inadvertence.

I will illustrate this point by two anecdotes. Since I have been inpublic life there has been for this country a great calamity andthere is a great danger, and both might have been avoided. Thecalamity was the Crimean War. You know what were the consequencesof the Crimean War: A great addition to your debt, an enormousaddition to your taxation, a cost more precious than your treasure—the best blood of England. Half a million of men, I believe,perished in that great undertaking. Nor are the evil consequencesof that war adequately described by what I have said. All thedisorders and disturbances of Europe, those immense armaments thatare an incubus on national industry and the great obstacle toprogressive civilization, may be traced and justly attributed to theCrimean War. And yet the Crimean War need never have occurred.

When Lord Derby acceded to office, against his own wishes, in 1852,the Liberal party most unconstitutionally forced him to dissolveParliament at a certain time by stopping the supplies, or at leastby limiting the period for which they were voted. There was not asingle reason to justify that course, for Lord Derby had onlyaccepted office, having once declined it, on the renewed applicationof his sovereign. The country, at the dissolution, increased thepower of the Conservative party, but did not give to Lord Derby amajority, and he had to retire from power. There was not theslightest chance of a Crimean War when he retired from office; butthe Emperor of Russia, believing that the successor of Lord Derbywas no enemy to Russian aggression in the East, commenced thoseproceedings, with the result of which you are familiar. I speak ofwhat I know, not of what I believe, but of what I have evidence inmy possession to prove—that the Crimean War never would havehappened if Lord Derby had remained in office.

The great danger is the present state of our relations with theUnited States. When I acceded to office I did so, so far asregarded the United States of America, with some advantage. Duringthe whole of the Civil War in America both my noble friend near meand I had maintained a strict and fair neutrality. This was fullyappreciated by the government of the United States, and theyexpressed their wish that with our aid the settlement of alldifferences between the two governments should be accomplished.They sent here a plenipotentiary, an honorable gentleman, veryintelligent and possessing general confidence. My noble friend nearme, with great ability, negotiated a treaty for the settlement ofall these claims. He was the first minister who proposed to referthem to arbitration, and the treaty was signed by the Americangovernment. It was signed, I think, on November 10th, on the eve ofthe dissolution of Parliament. The borough elections that firstoccurred proved what would be the fate of the ministry, and themoment they were known in America the American government announcedthat Mr. Reverdy Johnson, the American minister, had mistaken hisinstructions, and they could not present the treaty to the Senatefor its sanction—the sanction of which there had been previously nodoubt. But the fact is that, as in the case of the Crimean War, itwas supposed that our successors would be favorable to Russianaggression, so it was supposed that by the accession to office ofMr. Gladstone and a gentleman you know well, Mr. Bright, theAmerican claims would be considered in a very different spirit. Howthey have been considered is a subject which, no doubt, occupiesdeeply the minds of the people of Lancashire. Now, gentlemen,observe this—the question of the Black Sea involved in theCrimean War, the question of the American claims involved in ournegotiations with Mr. Johnson, are the two questions that have againturned up, and have been the two great questions that have beenunder the management of his government.

How have they treated them? Prince Gortschakoff, thinking he saw anopportunity, announced his determination to break from the Treaty ofParis, and terminate all the conditions hostile to Russia which hadbeen the result of the Crimean War. What was the first movement onthe part of our government is at present a mystery. This we know,that they selected the most rising diplomatist of the day and senthim to Prince Bismarck with a declaration that the policy of Russia,if persisted in, was war with England. Now, gentlemen, there wasnot the slightest chance of Russia going to war with England, and nonecessity, as I shall always maintain, of England going to war withRussia. I believe I am not wrong in stating that the Russiangovernment was prepared to withdraw from the position they hadrashly taken; but suddenly her Majesty's government, to use atechnical phrase, threw over the plenipotentiary, and, instead ofthreatening war, if the Treaty of Paris were violated, agreed toarrangements by which the violation of that treaty should besanctioned by England, and, in the form of a congress, showedthemselves guaranteeing their own humiliation. That Mr. Odo Russellmade no mistake is quite obvious, because he has since been selectedto be her Majesty's ambassador at the most important court ofEurope. Gentlemen, what will be the consequence of thisextraordinary weakness on the part of the British government it isdifficult to foresee. Already we hear that Sebastopol is to berefortified, nor can any man doubt that the entire command of theBlack Sea will soon be in the possession of Russia. The time maynot be distant when we may hear of the Russian power in the PersianGulf, and what effect that may have upon the dominions of Englandand upon those possessions on the productions of which you everyyear more and more depend, are questions upon which it will be wellfor you on proper occasions to meditate.

I come now to that question which most deeply interests you at thismoment, and that is our relations with the United States. Iapproved the government referring this question to arbitration. Itwas only following the policy of Lord Stanley. My noble frienddisapproved the negotiations being carried on at Washington. Iconfess that I would willingly have persuaded myself that this wasnot a mistake, but reflection has convinced me that my noble friendwas right. I remember the successful negotiation of theClayton-Bulwer treaty by Sir Henry Bulwer. I flattered myself thattreaties at Washington might be successfully negotiated; but I agreewith my noble friend that his general view was far more sound thanmy own. But no one, when that commission was sent forth, for amoment could anticipate the course of its conduct under the strictinjunctions of the government. We believed that commission was sentto ascertain what points should be submitted to arbitration, to bedecided by the principles of the law of nations. We had not theslightest idea that that commission was sent with power andinstructions to alter the law of nations itself. When that resultwas announced, we expressed our entire disapprobation; and yettrusting to the representations of the government that matters wereconcluded satisfactorily, we had to decide whether it were wise, ifthe great result was obtained, to wrangle upon points howeverimportant, such as those to which I have referred.

Gentlemen, it appears that, though all parts of England were readyto make those sacrifices, the two negotiating States—thegovernment of the United Kingdom and the government of the UnitedStates—placed a different interpretation upon the treaty when thetime had arrived to put its provisions into practice. Gentlemen, inmy mind, and in the opinion of my noble friend near me, there wasbut one course to take under the circ*mstances, painful as it mightbe, and that was at once to appeal to the good feeling and goodsense of the United States, and, stating the difficulty, to inviteconfidential conference whether it might not be removed. But herMajesty's government took a different course. On December 15th herMajesty's government were aware of a contrary interpretation beingplaced on the Treaty of Washington by the American government. Theprime minister received a copy of their counter case, and heconfessed he had never read it. He had a considerable number ofcopies sent to him to distribute among his colleagues, and youremember, probably, the remarkable statement in which he informedthe house that he had distributed those copies to everybody exceptthose for whom they were intended.

Time went on, and the adverse interpretation of the Americangovernment oozed out, and was noticed by the press. Public alarmand public indignation were excited; and it was only seven weeksafterward, on the very eve of the meeting of Parliament,—sometwenty-four hours before the meeting of Parliament,—that herMajesty's government felt they were absolutely obliged to make a"friendly communication" to the United States that they had arrivedat an interpretation of the treaty the reverse of that of theAmerican government. What was the position of the Americangovernment? Seven weeks had passed without their having receivedthe slightest intimation from her Majesty's ministers. They hadcirculated their case throughout the world. They had translated itinto every European language. It had been sent to every court andcabinet, to every sovereign and prime minister. It was impossiblefor the American government to recede from their position, even ifthey had believed it to be an erroneous one. And then, to aggravatethe difficulty, the prime minister goes down to Parliament, declaresthat there is only one interpretation to be placed on the treaty,and defies and attacks everybody who believes it susceptible ofanother.

Was there ever such a combination of negligence and blundering? Andnow, gentlemen, what is about to happen? All we know is that herMajesty's ministers are doing everything in their power to evade thecognizance and criticism of Parliament. They have received ananswer to their "friendly communication"; of which, I believe, ithas been ascertained that the American government adhere to theirinterpretation; and yet they prolong the controversy. What is aboutto occur it is unnecessary for one to predict; but if it be this—if after a fruitless ratiocination worthy of a schoolman, weultimately agree so far to the interpretation of the Americangovernment as to submit the whole case to arbitration, with feeblereservation of a protest, if it be decided against us, I venture tosay that we shall be entering on a course not more distinguished byits feebleness than by its impending peril. There is before usevery prospect of the same incompetence that distinguished ournegotiations respecting the independence of the Black Sea; and Ifear that there is every chance that this incompetence will besealed by our ultimately acknowledging these direct claims of theUnited States, which, both as regards principle and practicalresults, are fraught with the utmost danger to this country.Gentlemen, don't suppose, because I counsel firmness and decision atthe right moment, that I am of that school of statesmen who arefavorable to a turbulent and aggressive diplomacy. I have resistedit during a great part of my life. I am not unaware that therelations of England to Europe have undergone a vast change duringthe century that has just elapsed. The relations of England toEurope are not the same as they were in the days of Lord Chatham orFrederick the Great. The Queen of England has become the sovereignof the most powerful of Oriental States. On the other side of theglobe there are now establishments belonging to her, teeming withwealth and population, which will, in due time, exercise theirinfluence over the distribution of power. The old establishments ofthis country, now the United States of America, throw theirlengthening shades over the Atlantic, which mix with Europeanwaters. These are vast and novel elements in the distribution ofpower. I acknowledge that the policy of England with respect toEurope should be policy of reserve, but proud reserve; and inanswer to those statesmen—those mistaken statesmen who haveintimated the decay of the power of England and the decline of itsresources, I express here my confident conviction that there neverwas a moment in our history when the power of England was so greatand her resources so vast and inexhaustible.

And yet, gentlemen, it is not merely our fleets and armies, ourpowerful artillery, our accumulated capital, and our unlimitedcredit on which I so much depend, as upon that unbroken spirit ofher people, which I believe was never prouder of the imperialcountry to which they belong. Gentlemen, it is to that spirit that Iabove all things trust. I look upon the people of Lancashire asfairly representative of the people of England. I think the mannerin which they have invited me here, locally a stranger, to receivethe expression of their cordial sympathy, and only because theyrecognize some effort on my part to maintain the greatness of theircountry, is evidence of the spirit of the land. I must express toyou again my deep sense of the generous manner in which you havewelcomed me, and in which you have permitted me to express to you myviews upon public affairs. Proud of your confidence, and encouragedby your sympathy, I now deliver to you, as my last words, the causeof the Tory party, of the English constitution, and of the Britishempire.

THE VENERABLE BEDE (672-735)

The VENERABLE BEDE, "The father of English literature," was boraabout 672 in the county of Durham. The Anglo-Saxons, whose earliesthistorian he was, had been converted by St. Austin and others by thethen not unusual process of preaching to the king until he waspersuaded to renounce heathenism both for himself and hissubjects. Bede, though born among a people not greatly addictedeither to religion or letters, became a remarkable preacher,scholar, and thinker. Professionally a preacher, his sermons areinteresting, chiefly because they are the earliest specimens oforatory extant from any Anglo-Saxon public speaker.

Best known as the author of the 'Ecclesiastical History of England,'Bede was a most prolific writer. He left a very considerablecollection of sermons or homilies, many of which are stillextant. He also wrote on science, on poetic art, on medicine,philosophy, and rhetoric, not to mention his hymns and his 'Book ofEpigrams in Heroic and Elegaic Verse'—all very interesting and someof them valuable, as any one may see who will take the trouble toread them in his simple and easily understood Latin. It is a pity,however, that they are not adequately translated and published in ashape which would make the father of English eloquence the firstEnglish rhetorician, as he was the first English philosopher, poet,and historian, more readily accessible to the general public.

Bede's sermons deal very largely in allegory, and though he may havebeen literal in his celebrated suggestions of the horrors of hell—which were certainly literally understood by his hearers—it ispertinent to quote in connection with them his own assertion, that"he who knows how to interpret allegorically will see that the innersense excels the simplicity of the letter as apples do leaves."

Bede's reputation spread not only through England but throughoutWestern Europe and to Rome. Attempts were made to thrust honors onhim, but he refused them for fear they would prevent him fromlearning. He taught in a monastery at Jarrow where at one time hehad six hundred monks and many strangers attending on hisdiscourses.

He died in 735, just as he had completed the first translation ofthe Gospel of John ever made into any English dialect. The presentAnglo-Saxon version, generally in use among English students, issupposed to include that version if not actually to present itsexact language. The King James version comes from Bede's in a directline of descent through Wycliff and Tyndale.

THE MEETING OF MERCY AND JUSTICE

There was a certain father of a family, a powerful king, who hadfour daughters, of whom one was called Mercy, the second Truth, thethird Justice, the fourth Peace; of whom it is said, "Mercy andTruth are met together; Justice and Peace have kissed each other."He had also a certain most wise son, to whom no one could becompared in wisdom. He had, also, a certain servant, whom he hadexalted and enriched with great honor: for he had made him after hisown likeness and similitude, and that without any preceding merit onthe servant's part. But the Lord, as is the custom with such wisemasters, wished prudently to explore, and to become acquainted with,the character and the faith of his servant, whether he weretrustworthy towards himself or not; so he gave him an easycommandment, and said, "If you do what I tell you, I will exalt youto further honors; if not, you shall perish miserably."

The servant heard the commandment, and without any delay went andbroke it. Why need I say more? Why need I delay you by my words andby my tears? This proud servant, stiff-necked, full of contumely,and puffed up with conceit, sought an excuse for his transgression,and retorted the whole fault on his Lord. For when he said, "thewoman whom thou gavest to be with me, she deceived me," he threw allthe fault on his Maker. His Lord, more angry for such contumeliousconduct than for the transgression of his command, called four mostcruel executioners, and commanded one of them to cast him intoprison, another to afflict him with grievous torments; the third tostrangle him, and the fourth to behead him. By and by, when occasionoffers, I will give you the right name of these tormentors.

These torturers, then, studying how they might carry out their owncruelty, took the wretched man and began to afflict him with allmanner of punishments. But one of the daughters of the King, byname Mercy, when she had heard of this punishment of the servant,ran hastily to the prison, and looking in and seeing the man givenover to the tormentors, could not help having compassion upon him,for it is the property of Mercy to have pity. She tore her garmentsand struck her hands together, and let her hair fall loose about herneck, and crying and shrieking, ran to her father, and kneelingbefore his feet began to say with an earnest and sorrowful voice:"My beloved father, am not I thy daughter Mercy? and art not thoucalled merciful? If thou art merciful, have mercy upon thy servant;and if thou wilt not have mercy upon him, thou canst not be calledmerciful; and if thou art not merciful, thou canst not have me,Mercy, for thy daughter." While she was thus arguing with herfather, her sister Truth came up, and demanded why it was that Mercywas weeping. "Your sister Mercy," replied the father, "wishes me tohave pity upon that proud transgressor whose punishment I haveappointed." Truth, when she heard this, was excessively angry, andlooking sternly at her father, "Am not I," said she, "thy daughterTruth? art not thou called true? Is it not true that thou didstfix a punishment for him, and threaten him with death by torments?If thou art true, thou wilt follow that which is true; if thou artnot true, thou canst not have me, Truth, for thy daughter." Here,you see, Mercy and Truth are met together. The third sister,namely, Justice, hearing this strife, contention, quarreling, andpleading, and summoned by the outcry, began to inquire the causefrom Truth. And Truth, who could only speak that which was true,said, "This sister of ours, Mercy, if she ought to be called asister who does not agree with us, desires that our father shouldhave pity on that proud transgressor." Then Justice, with an angrycountenance, and meditating on a grief which she had not expected,said to her father, "Am not I thy daughter Justice? are thou notcalled just? If thou art just, thou wilt exercise justice on thetransgressor; if thou dost not exercise that justice, thou canst notbe just; if thou art not just, thou canst not have me, Justice, forthy daughter." So here were Truth and Justice on the one side, andMercy on the other. Ultima coelicolum terras Astreareliquit; this means, that Peace fled into a far distant country.For where there is strife and contention, there is no peace; and byhow much greater the contention, by so much further peace is drivenaway.

Peace, therefore, being lost, and his three daughters in warmdiscussion, the King found it an extremely difficult matter todetermine what he should do, or to which side he should lean.For, if he gave ear to Mercy, he would offend Truth and Justice ifhe gave ear to Truth and Justice, he could not have Mercy for hisdaughter; and yet it was necessary that he should be both mercifuland just, and peaceful and true. There was great need then of goodadvice. The father, therefore, called his wise son, and consultedhim about the affair. Said the son, "Give me my father, this presentbusiness to manage, and I will both punish the transgressor forthee, and will bring back to thee in peace thy four daughters.""These are great promises," replied the father, "if the deed onlyagrees with the word. If thou canst do that which thou sayest, Iwill act as thou shalt exhort me."

Having, therefore, received the royal mandate, the son took hissister Mercy along with him, and leaping upon the mountains, passingover the hills, came to the prison, and looking through the windows,looking through the lattice, he beheld the imprisoned servant, shutout from the present life, devoured of affliction, and from the soleof his foot even to the crown there was no soundness in him. He sawhim in the power of death, because through him death entered intothe world. He saw him devoured, because, when a man is once dead heis eaten of worms. And because I now have the opportunity oftelling you, you shall hear the names of the four tormentors. Thefirst, who put him in prison, is the Prison of the Present Life, ofwhich it is said, "Woe is me that I am constrained to dwell inMesech"; the second, who tormented him, is the Misery of the World,which besets us with all kinds of pain and wretchedness; the third,who was putting him to death, conquered death, bound the strong man,took his goods, and distributed the spoils; and ascending up onhigh, led captivity captive and gave gifts for men, and brought backthe servant into his country, crowned with double honor, and enduedwith a garment of immortality. When Mercy beheld this, she had nogrounds for complaint, Truth found no cause of discontent, becauseher father was found true. The servant had paid all his penalties.Justice in like manner complained not, because justice had beenexecuted on the transgressor; and thus he who had been lost wasfound. Peace, therefore, when she saw her sisters at concord, cameback and united them. And now, behold, Mercy and Truth are mettogether, Justice and Peace have kissed each other. Thus,therefore, by the Mediator of man and angels, man was purified andreconciled, and the hundredth sheep was brought back to the fold ofGod. To which fold Jesus Christ brings us, to whom is honor andpower everlasting. Amen.

A SERMON FOR ANY DAY

Beloved brethren, it is time to pass from evil to good, fromdarkness to light, from this most unfaithful world to everlastingjoys, lest that day take us unawares in which our Lord Jesus Christshall come to make the round world a desert, and to give over toeverlasting punishment sinners who would not repent of the sinswhich they did. There is a great sin in lying, as saith Solomon,"The lips which lie slay the soul. The wrath of man worketh not therighteousness of God," no more doth his covetousness. Whence theApostle saith, "The love of money and pride are the root of allevil." Pride, by which that apostate angel fell, who, as it is readin the prophecy, "despised the beginning of the ways of God. Howart thou fallen from heaven!" We must avoid pride, which had powerto deceive angels; how much more will it have power to deceive men!And we ought to fear envy, by which the devil deceived the firstman, as it is written, "Christ was crucified through envy,therefore he that envieth his neighbor crucifieth Christ,"

See that ye always expect the advent of the Judge with fear andtrembling, lest he should find us unprepared; because the Apostlesaith, "My days shall come as a thief in the night." Woe to themwhom it shall find sleeping in sins, for "then," as we read in theGospel, "He shall gather all nations, and shall separate them onefrom the other, as a shepherd divideth the sheep from thegoats. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, yeblessed of my Father," where there is no grief nor sorrow; wherethere is no other sound but love, and peace, and everlastinggladness with all the elect of God; where no good thing can bewanting. Then shall the righteous answer and say, Lord, why hastthou prepared such glory and such good things? He shall answer, formercy, for faith, for piety, and truth and the like. Lord, whendidst thou see these good things in us? The Lord shall answer,"Verily, I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of theleast of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me, and what yedid in secret, I will reward openly." Then shall the King say untothem on his left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlastingfire, prepared for the devil and his angels, where shall be weepjngand gnashing of teeth," and tears of eyes; where death is desiredand comes not; where the worm dieth not and the fire is notquenched; where is no joy, but sorrow; where is no rest, exceptpain; where nothing is heard but lamentations. Then they also shallanswer and say, Lord, why hast thou prepared such punishments forus? For your iniquity and malignity, the Lord shall say.

Therefore, my brethren, I beseech you, that they who are in thehabits of good works would persevere in every good work; and thatthey who are evil would amend themselves quickly, before suddendeath come upon them. While, therefore, we have time, let us do goodto all men, and let us leave off doing ill, that we may attain toeternal life.

THE TORMENTS OF HELL

The Sunday is a chosen day, in which the angels rejoice. We mustask who was the first to request that souls might (on Sunday) haverest in hell; and the answer is that Paul the Apostle and Michaelthe Archangel besought the Lord when they came back from hell; forit was the Lord's will that Paul should see the punishments of thatplace. He beheld trees all on fire, and sinners tormented on thosetrees; and some were hung by the feet, some by the hands, some bythe hair, some by the neck, some by the tongue, and some by the arm.And again, he saw a furnace of fire burning with seven flames, andmany were punished in it; and there were seven plagues round aboutthis furnace; the first, snow; the second, ice; the third, fire, thefourth, blood; the fifth, serpents; the sixth, lightning; theseventh, stench; and in that furnace itself were the souls of thesinners who repented not in this life. There they are tormented,and every one receiveth according to his works; some weep, somehowl, some groan; some burn and desire to have rest, but find itnot, because souls can never die. Truly we ought to fear that placein which is everlasting dolor, in which is groaning, in which issadness without joy, in which are abundance of tears on account ofthe tortures of souls; in which a fiery wheel is turned a thousandtimes a day by an evil angel, and at each turn a thousand souls areburnt upon it. After this he beheld a horrible river, in which weremany diabolic beasts, like fishes in the midst of the sea, whichdevour the souls of sinners; and over that river there is a bridge,across which righteous souls pass without dread, while the souls ofsinners suffer each one according to its merits.

There Paul beheld many souls of sinners plunged, some to the knees,some to the loins, some to the mouth, some to the eyebrows; andevery day and eternally they are tormented. And Paul wept, and askedwho they were that were therein plunged to the knees. And the angelsaid, These are detractors and evil speakers; and those up to theloins are fornicators and adulterers, who returned not torepentance; and those to the mouth are they who went to Church, butthey heard not the word of God; and those to the eyebrows are theywho rejoiced in the wickedness of their neighbor. And after this, hesaw between heaven and earth the soul of a sinner, howling betwixtseven devils, that had on that day departed from the body. And theangels cried out against it and said, Woe to thee, wretched soul!What hast thou done upon earth? Thou hast despised the commandmentsof God, and hast done no good works; and therefore thou shalt becast into outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing ofteeth. And after this, in one moment, angels carried a soul from itsbody to heaven; and Paul heard the voice of a thousand angelsrejoicing over it, and saying, O most happy and blessed soul!rejoice to-day, because thou hast done the will of God. And they setit in the presence of God. … And the angel said, Whoso keepeththe Sunday shall have his part with the angels of God. And Pauldemanded of the angel, how many kinds of punishment there were inhell. And the angel said, there are a hundred and forty-fourthousand, and if there were a hundred eloquent men, each having fouriron tongues, that spoke from the beginning of the world, they couldnot reckon up the torments of hell. But let us, beloved brethren,hearing of these so great torments, be converted to our Lord that wemay be able to reign with the angels.

HENRY WARD BEECHER (1813-1887)

A very great orator must be a thoroughly representative man,sensitive enough to be moved to the depths of his nature by themaster-passions of his time. Henry Ward Beecher was a very greatorator,—one of the greatest the country has produced,—and in hisspeeches and orations inspired by the feelings which evolved theCivil War and were themselves exaggerated by it to tenfold strength,we feel all the volcanic forces which buried the primitive politicalconditions of the United States deep under the ashes and lava oftheir eruption. Words are feeble in the presence of the facts ofsuch a war. But what more could words do to suggest its meaning thanthey do in Mr. Beecher's oration on the raising of the flag at FortSumter, April 14th, 1865:—

"The soil has drunk blood and is glutted. Millions mourn for myriadsslain, or, envying the dead, pray for oblivion. Towns and villageshave been razed. Fruitful fields have been turned back towilderness. It came to pass as the prophet had said: 'The sun wasturned to darkness and the moon to blood.' The course of the law wasended. The sword sat chief magistrate in half the nation; industrywas paralyzed; morals corrupted; the public weal invaded by rapineand anarchy; whole States were ravaged by avenging armies. The worldwas amazed. The earth reeled."

In such passages, Mr. Beecher has something of the force whichimmortalized the "Voluspa." The "bardic inspiration," which movedthe early Norse poets to sing the bloody results of the "Berserkerfury," peculiar to the Teutonic and Norse peoples, seems to controlhim as he recounts the dreadful features of the war and reminds thevanquished of the meaning of defeat.

In considering the oratory inspired by the passions which foundtheir climax in the destructiveness of civil war,—and especially inconsidering such magnificent outbursts as Mr. Beecher's oration atFort Sumter, intelligence will seek to free itself alike fromsympathy and from prejudice that it may the better judge the effectof the general mind of the people on the orator, and the extent towhich that general mind as he voiced it, was influenced by thestrength of his individuality. If when we ourselves are moved by nopassion we judge with critical calmness the impassioned utterancesof the orators of any great epoch of disturbance, we can hardly failto be repelled by much that the critical faculties will reject asexaggeration. But taking into account the environment, thetraditions, the public opinion, the various general or individualimpulses which influenced the oratory of one side or the other, wecan the better determine its true relation to the history of thehuman intellect and that forward movement of the world which is buta manifestation of the education of intellect.

Mr. Beecher had the temperament, the habits, the physique of theorator. His ancestry, his intellectual training, his surroundings,fitted him to be a prophet of the crusade against slavery. Of thosenames which for a time were bruited everywhere as a result of thestruggles of the three decades from 1850 to 1880, a majority arealready becoming obscure, and in another generation most of the restwill be "names only" to all who are not students of history as aspecialty. But the mind in Henry Ward Beecher was so representative;he was so fully mastered by the forces which sent Sherman on hismarch to the sea and Grant to his triumph at Appomattox, that hewill always be remembered as one of the greatest orators of theCivil War period. Perhaps when the events of the war are so farremoved in point of time as to make a critical judgment reallypossible, he may even rank as the greatest.

RAISING THE FLAG OVER FORT SUMTER (Delivered April 14th, 1865, byrequest of President Lincoln)

On this solemn and joyful day we again lift to the breeze ourfathers' flag, now again the banner of the United States, with thefervent prayer that God will crown it with honor, protect it fromtreason, and send it down to our children, with all the blessings ofcivilization, liberty, and religion. Terrible in battle, may it bebeneficent in peace. Happily, no bird or beast of prey has beeninscribed upon it. The stars that redeem the night from darkness,and the beams of red light that beautify the morning, have beenunited upon its folds. As long as the sun endures, or the stars,may it wave over a nation neither enslaved nor enslaving! Once, andbut once, has treason dishonored it. In that insane hour when theguiltiest and bloodiest rebellion of all time hurled their firesupon this fort, you, sir [turning to General Anderson], and a small,heroic band, stood within these now crumbled walls, and did gallantand just battle for the honor and defense of the nation's banner.In that cope of fire, that glorious flag still peacefully waved tothe breeze above your head unconscious of harm as the stars andskies above it. Once it was shot down. A gallant hand, in whosecare this day it has been, plucked it from the ground, and reared itagain—"cast down, but not destroyed." After a vain resistance,with trembling hand and sad heart, you withdrew it from its height,closed its wings, and bore it far away, sternly to sleep amid thetumults of rebellion, and the thunder of battle. The first act ofwar had begun. The long night of four years had set in. While thegiddy traitors whirled in a maze of exhilaration, dim horrors werealready advancing, that were ere long to fill the land with blood.To-day you are returned again. We devoutly join with you inthanksgiving to Almighty God that he has spared your honored life,and vouchsafed to you the glory of this day. The heavens over youare the same, the same shores are here, morning comes, and evening,as they did. All else, how changed! What grim batteries crowd theburdened shores! What scenes have filled this air, and disturbedthese waters! These shattered heaps of shapeless stone are all thatis left of Fort Sumter. Desolation broods in yonder city—solemnretribution hath avenged our dishonored banner! You have come backwith honor, who departed hence four years ago, leaving the airsultry with fanaticism. The surging crowds that rolled up theirfrenzied shouts as the flag came down, are dead, or scattered, orsilent, and their habitations are desolate. Ruin sits in the cradleof treason. Rebellion has perished. But there flies the same flagthat was insulted. With starry eyes it looks over this bay for thebanner that supplanted it, and sees it not. You that then, for theday, were humbled, are here again, to triumph once and forever. Inthe storm of that assault this glorious ensign was often struck;but, memorable fact, not one of its stars was torn out by shot orshell. It was a prophecy. It said: "Not a State shall be struckfrom this nation by treason!" The fulfillment is at hand. Liftedto the air to-day, it proclaims that after four years of war, "Not aState is blotted out." Hail to the flag of our fathers, and ourflag! Glory to the banner that has gone through four years blackwith tempests of war, to pilot the nation back to peace withoutdismemberment! And glory be to God, who, above all hosts andbanners, hath ordained victory, and shall ordain peace. Whereforehave we come hither, pilgrims from distant places? Are we come toexult that Northern hands are stronger than Southern? No; but torejoice that the hands of those who defend a just and beneficentgovernment are mightier than the hands that assaulted it. Do weexult over fallen cities? We exult that a nation has not fallen.We sorrow with the sorrowful. We sympathize with the desolate. Welook upon this shattered fort and yonder dilapidated city with sadeyes, grieved that men should have committed such treason, and gladthat God hath set such a mark upon treason that all ages shall dreadand abhor it. We exult, not for a passion gratified, but for asentiment victorious; not for temper, but for conscience; not, as wedevoutly believe, that our will is done, but that God's will hathbeen done. We should be unworthy of that liberty intrusted to ourcare, if, on such a day as this, we sullied our hearts by feelingsof aimless vengeance; and equally unworthy if we did not devoutlythank him who hath said: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith theLord," that he hath set a mark upon arrogant rebellion, ineffaceablewhile time lasts.

Since this flag went down on that dark day, who shall tell themighty woes that have made this land a spectacle to angels and men?The soil has drunk blood and is glutted. Millions mourn for myriadsslain, or, envying the dead, pray for oblivion. Towns and villageshave been razed. Fruitful fields have been turned back towilderness. It came to pass, as the prophet said: "The sun wasturned to darkness and the moon to blood," The course of law wasended. The sword sat chief magistrate in half the nation; industrywas paralyzed; morals corrupted; the public weal invaded by rapineand anarchy; whole States ravaged by avenging armies. The world wasamazed. The earth reeled. When the flag sunk here, it was as ifpolitical night had come, and all beasts of prey had come forth todevour. That long night is ended. And for this returning day wehave come from afar to rejoice and give thanks. No more war. Nomore accursed secession. No more slavery, that spawned them both.Let no man misread the meaning of this unfolding flag! It says:"Government has returned hither." It proclaims, in the name ofvindicated government, peace and protection to loyalty, humiliationand pains to traitors. This is the flag of sovereignty. Thenation, not the States, is sovereign. Restored to authority, thisflag commands, not supplicates. There may be pardon, but noconcession. There may be amnesty and oblivion, but no honeyedcompromises. The nation to-day has peace for the peaceful, and warfor the turbulent. The only condition to submission is to submit!There is the Constitution, there are the laws, there is thegovernment. They rise up like mountains of strength that shall notbe moved. They are the conditions of peace. One nation, under onegovernment, without slavery, has been ordained and shall stand.There can be peace on no other basis. On this basis reconstructionis easy, and needs neither architect nor engineer. Without thisbasis no engineer nor architect shall ever reconstruct theserebellious States. We do not want your cities or your fields. Wedo not envy you your prolific soil, nor heavens full of perpetualsummer. Let agriculture revel here, let manufactures make everystream twice musical, build fleets in every port, inspire the artsof peace with genius second only to that of Athens, and we shall beglad in your gladness, and rich in your wealth. All that we ask isunswerving loyalty and universal liberty. And that, in the name ofthis high sovereignty of the United States of America, we demand andthat, with the blessing of Almighty God, we will have! We raise ourfathers banner that it may bring back better blessings than those ofold; that it may cast out the devil of discord; that it may restorelawful government, and a prosperity purer and more enduring thanthat which it protected before; that it may win parted friends fromtheir alienation; that it may inspire hope, and inaugurate universalliberty; that it may say to the sword, "Return to thy sheath"; andto the plow and sickle, "Go forth"; that it may heal all jealousies,unite all policies, inspire a new national life, compact ourstrength, purify our principles, ennoble our national ambitions, andmake this people great and strong, not for agression andquarrelsomeness, but for the peace of the world, giving to us theglorious prerogative of leading all nations to juster laws, to morehumane policies, to sincerer friendship, to rational, institutedcivil liberty, and to universal Christian brotherhood. Reverently,piously, in hopeful patriotism, we spread this banner on the sky, asof old the bow was painted on the cloud and, with solemn fervor,beseech God to look upon it, and make it a memorial of aneverlasting covenant and decree that never again on this fair landshall a deluge of blood prevail. Why need any eye turn from thisspectacle? Are there not associations which, overleaping the recentpast, carry us back to times when, over North and South, this flagwas honored alike by all? In all our colonial days we were one, inthe long revolutionary struggle, and in the scores of prosperousyears succeeding, we were united. When the passage of the Stamp Actin 1765 aroused the colonies, it was Gadsden, of South Carolina,that cried, with prescient enthusiasm, "We stand on the broad commonground of those natural rights that we all feel and know as men.There ought to be no New England man, no New Yorker, known on thiscontinent, but all of us," said he, "Americans." That was the voiceof South Carolina. That shall be the voice of South Carolina.Faint is the echo; but it is coming. We now hear it sighing sadlythrough the pines; but it shall yet break in thunder upon the shore.No North, no West, no South, but the United States of America.There is scarcely a man born in the South who has lifted his handagainst this banner but had a father who would have died for it. Ismemory dead? Is there no historic pride? Has a fatal fury struckblindness or hate into eyes that used to look kindly towards eachother, that read the same Bible, that hung over the historic pagesof our national glory, that studied the same Constitution? Let thisuplifting bring back all of the past that was good, but leave indarkness all that was bad. It was never before so wholly unspotted;so clear of all wrong, so purely and simply the sign of justice andliberty. Did I say that we brought back the same banner that youbore away, noble and heroic sir? It is not the same. It is moreand better than it was. The land is free from slavery since thatbanner fell.

When God would prepare Moses for emancipation, he overthrew hisfirst steps and drove him for forty years to brood in thewilderness. When our flag came down, four years it lay brooding indarkness. It cried to the Lord, "Wherefore am I deposed?" Thenarose before it a vision of its sin. It had strengthened thestrong, and forgotten the weak. It proclaimed liberty, but trodupon slaves. In that seclusion it dedicated itself to liberty.Behold, to-day, it fulfills its vows! When it went down fourmillion people had no flag. To-day it rises, and four millionpeople cry out, "Behold our flag!" Hark! they murmur. It is theGospel that they recite in sacred words: "It is a Gospel to thepoor, it heals our broken hearts, it preaches deliverance tocaptives, it gives sight to the blind, it sets at liberty them thatare bruised." Rise up then, glorious Gospel banner, and roll outthese messages of God. Tell the air that not a spot now sullies thywhiteness. Thy red is not the blush of shame, but the flush of joy.Tell the dews that wash thee that thou art as pure as they. Say tothe night that thy stars lead toward the morning; and to themorning, that a brighter day arises with healing in its wings. Andthen, O glowing flag, bid the sun pour light on all thy folds withdouble brightness while thou art bearing round and round the worldthe solemn joy—a race set free! a nation redeemed! The mightyhand of government, made strong in war by the favor of the God ofBattles, spreads wide to-day the banner of liberty that went down indarkness, that arose in light; and there it streams, like the sunabove it, neither parceled out nor monopolized, but flooding the airwith light for all mankind. Ye scattered and broken, ye wounded anddying, bitten by the fiery serpents of oppression, everywhere, inall the world, look upon this sign, lifted up, and live! And yehomeless and houseless slaves, look, and ye are free! At lengthyou, too, have part and lot in this glorious ensign that broods withimpartial love over small and great, the poor and the strong, thebond and the free. In this solemn hour, let us pray for the quickcoming of reconciliation and happiness under this common flag. Butwe must build again, from the foundations, in all these now freeSouthern States. No cheap exhortations "to forgetfulness of thepast, to restore all things as they were," will do. God does notstretch out his hand, as he has for four dreadful years, that menmay easily forget the might of his terrible acts. Restore things asthey were! What, the alienations and jealousies, the discords andcontentions, and the causes of them? No. In that solemn sacrificeon which a nation has offered for its sins so many precious victims,loved and lamented, let our sins and mistakes be consumed utterlyand forever. No, never again shall things be restored as before thewar. It is written in God's decree of events fulfilled, "Old thingsare passed away." That new earth, in which dwelleth righteousness,draws near. Things as they were! Who has an omnipotent hand torestore a million dead, slain in battle or wasted by sickness, ordying of grief, broken-hearted? Who has omniscience to search forthe scattered ones? Who shall restore the lost to broken families?Who shall bring back the squandered treasure, the years of industrywasted, and convince you that four years of guilty rebellion andcruel war are no more than dirt upon the hand, which a moment'swashing removes and leaves the hand clean as before? Such a warreaches down to the very vitals of society. Emerging from such aprolonged rebellion, he is blind who tells you that the State, by amere amnesty and benevolence of government, can be put again, by amere decree, in its old place. It would not be honest, it would notbe kind or fraternal, for me to pretend that Southern revolutionagainst the Union has not reacted, and wrought revolution in theSouthern States themselves, and inaugurated a new dispensation.Society here is like a broken loom, and the piece which Rebellionput in, and was weaving, has been cut, and every thread broken. Youmust put in new warp and new woof, and weaving anew, as the fabricslowly unwinds we shall see in it no Gorgon figures, no hideousgrotesques of the old barbarism, but the figures of liberty, vines,and golden grains, framing in the heads of justice, love, andliberty. The august convention of 1787 formed the Constitution withthis memorable preamble: "We, the people of the United States, inorder to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insuredomestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote thegeneral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselvesand our posterity, do ordain this Constitution for the United Statesof America." Again, in the awful convention of war, the people ofthe United States, for the very ends just recited, have debated,settled, and ordained certain fundamental truths, which musthenceforth be accepted and obeyed. Nor is any State nor anyindividual wise who shall disregard them. They are to civil affairswhat the natural laws are to health—indispensable conditions ofpeace and happiness. What are the ordinances given by the people,speaking out of fire and darkness of war, with authority inspired bythat same God who gave the law from Sinai amid thunders and trumpetvoices? 1. That these United States shall be one and indivisible.2. That States have not absolute sovereignty, and have no right todismember the Republic. 3. That universal liberty is indispensableto republican government, and that slavery shall be utterly andforever abolished.

Such are the results of war! These are the best fruits of the war.They are worth all they have cost. They are foundations of peace.They will secure benefits to all nations as well as to ours. Ourhighest wisdom and duty is to accept the facts as the decrees ofGod. We are exhorted to forget all that has happened. Yes, thewrath, the conflict, the cruelty, but not those overruling decreesof God which this war has pronounced. As solemnly as on MountSinai, God says, "Remember! remember!" Hear it to-day. Under thissun, tinder that bright child of the sun, our banner, with the eyesof this nation and of the world upon us, we repeat the syllables ofGod's providence and recite the solemn decrees: No more Disunion!No more Secession! No more Slavery! Why did this civil war begin?We do not wonder that European statesmen failed to comprehend thisconflict, and that foreign philanthropists were shocked at amurderous war that seemed to have no moral origin, but, like thebrutal fights of beasts of prey, to have sprung from ferociousanimalism. This great nation, filling all profitable latitudes,cradled between two oceans, with inexhaustible resources, withriches increasing in an unparalleled ratio, by agriculture, bymanufactures, by commerce, with schools and churches, with books andnewspapers thick as leaves in our own forests, with institutionssprung from the people, and peculiarly adapted to their genius; anation not sluggish, but active, used to excitement, practiced inpolitical wisdom, and accustomed to self-government, and all itsvast outlying parts held together by the Federal government, mild intemper, gentle in administration, and beneficent in results, seemedto have been formed for peace. All at once, in this hemisphere ofhappiness and hope, there came trooping clouds with fiery bolts,full of death and desolation. At a cannon shot upon this fort, allthe nation, as if it had been a trained army lying on its arms,awaiting a signal, rose up and began a war which, for awfulness,rises into the front rank of bad eminence. The front of the battle,going with the sun, was twelve hundred miles long; and the depth,measured along a meridian, was a thousand miles. In this vast areamore than two million men, first and last, for four years, have, inskirmish, fight, and battle, met in more than a thousand conflicts;while a coast and river line, not less than four thousand miles inlength, has swarmed with fleets freighted with artillery. The veryindustry of the country seemed to have been touched by some infernalwand, and, with sudden wheel, changed its front from peace to war.The anvils of the land beat like drums. As out of the ooze emergemonsters, so from our mines and foundries uprose new and strangemachines of war, ironclad. And so, in a nation of peaceful habits,without external provocation, there arose such a storm of war asblackened the whole horizon and hemisphere. What wonder thatforeign observers stood amazed at this fanatical fury, that seemedwithout Divine guidance, but inspired wholly with infernal frenzy.The explosion was sudden, but the train had long been laid. We mustconsider the condition of Southern society, if we would understandthe mystery of this iniquity. Society in the South resolves itselfinto three divisions, more sharply distinguished than in any otherpart of the nation. At the base is the laboring class, made up ofslaves. Next is the middle class, made up of traders, smallfarmers, and poor men. The lower edge of this class touches theslave, and the upper edge reaches up to the third and ruling class.This class was a small minority in numbers, but in practical abilitythey had centred in their hands the whole government of the South,and had mainly governed the country. Upon this polished, cultured,exceedingly capable, and wholly unprincipled class, rests the wholeburden of this war. Forced up by the bottom heat of slavery, theruling class in all the disloyal States arrogated to themselves asuperiority not compatible with republican equality, nor with justmorals. They claimed a right of pre-eminence. An evil prophetarose who trained these wild and luxuriant shoots of ambition to theshapely form of a political philosophy. By its reagents theyprecipitated drudgery to the bottom of society, and left at the topwhat they thought to be a clarified fluid. In their politicaleconomy, labor was to be owned by capital; in their theory ofgovernment, the few were to rule the many. They boldly avowed, notthe fact alone, that, under all forms of government, the few rulethe many, but their right and duty to do so. Set free from thenecessity of labor, they conceived a contempt for those who felt itswholesome regimen. Believing themselves foreordained to supremacy,they regarded the popular vote, when it failed to register theirwishes, as an intrusion and a nuisance. They were born in a garden,and popular liberty, like freshets overswelling their banks, butcovered their dainty walks and flowers with slime and mud—ofdemocratic votes. When, with shrewd observation, they saw thegrowth of the popular element in the Northern States, theyinstinctively took in the inevitable events. It must be controlledor cut off from a nation governed by gentlemen! Controlled, lessand less, could it be in every decade; and they prepared secretly,earnestly, and with wide conference and mutual connivance, toseparate the South from the North. We are to distinguish betweenthe pretenses and means, and the real causes of this war. Toinflame and unite the great middle class of the South, who had nointerest in separation and no business with war, they allegedgrievances that never existed, and employed arguments which they,better than all other men, knew to be specious and false.

Slavery itself was cared for only as an instrument of power or ofexcitement. They had unalterably fixed their eye upon empire, andall was good which would secure that, and bad which hindered it.Thus, the ruling class of the South—an aristocracy as intense,proud, and inflexible as ever existed—not limited either bycustoms or institutions, not recognised and adjusted in the regularorder of society, playing a reciprocal part in its machinery, butsecret, disowning its own existence, baptized with ostentatiousnames of democracy, obsequious to the people for the sake ofgoverning them; this nameless, lurking aristocracy, that ran in theblood of society like a rash not yet come to the skin; thispolitical tapeworm, that produced nothing, but lay coiled in thebody, feeding on its nutriment, and holding the whole structure tobe but a servant set up to nourish it—this aristocracy of theplantation, with firm and deliberate resolve, brought on the war,that they might cut the land in two, and, clearing themselves froman incorrigibly free society, set up a sterner, statelier empire,where slaves worked that gentlemen might live at ease. Nor canthere be any doubt that though, at first, they meant to erect theform of republican government, this was but a device, a stepnecessary to the securing of that power by which they should be ableto change the whole economy of society. That they never dreamed ofsuch a war, we may well believe. That they would have accepted it,though twice as bloody, if only thus they could rule, none can doubtthat knows the temper of these worst men of modern society. Butthey miscalculated. They understood the people of the South; butthey were totally incapable of understanding the character of thegreat working classes of the loyal States. That industry, which isthe foundation of independence, and so of equity, they stigmatizedas stupid drudgery, or as mean avarice. That general intelligenceand independence of thought which schools for the common people andnewspapers breed, they reviled as the incitement of unsettled zeal,running easily into fanaticism. They more thoroughly misunderstoodthe profound sentiment of loyality, the deep love of country, whichpervaded the common people. If those who knew them best had neversuspected the depth and power of that love of country which threw itinto an agony of grief when the flag was here humbled, how shouldthey conceive of it who were wholly disjoined from them in sympathy?The whole land rose up, you remember, when the flag came down, as ifinspired unconsciously by the breath of the Almighty, and the powerof omnipotence. It was as when one pierces the banks of theMississippi for a rivulet, and the whole raging stream plungesthrough with headlong course. There they calculated, andmiscalculated! And more than all, they miscalculated the bravery ofmen who have been trained under law, who are civilized and hatepersonal brawls, who are so protected by society as to havedismissed all thought of self-defense, the whole force of whose lifeis turned to peaceful pursuits. These arrogant conspirators againstgovernment, with Chinese vanity, believed that they could blow awaythese self-respecting citizens as chaff from the battlefield. Fewof them are left alive to ponder their mistake! Here, then, are theroots of this civil war. It was not a quarrel of wild beasts, itwas an inflection of the strife of ages, between power and right,between ambition and equity. An armed band of pestilentconspirators sought the nation's life. Her children rose up andfought at every door and room and hall, to thrust out the murderersand save the house and household. It was not legitimately a warbetween the common people of the North and South. The war was seton by the ruling class, the aristocratic conspirators of the South.They suborned the common people with lies, with sophistries, withcruel deceits and slanders, to fight for secret objects which theyabhorred, and against interests as dear to them as their own lives,I charge the whole guilt of this war upon the ambitious, educated,plotting, political leaders of the South. They have shed this oceanof blood. They have desolated the South. They have poured povertythrough all her towns and cities. They have bewildered theimagination of the people with phantasms, and led them to believethat they were fighting for their homes and liberty, whose homeswere unthreatened, and whose liberty was in no jeopardy. Thesearrogant instigators of civil war have renewed the plagues of Egypt,not that the oppressed might go free, but that the free might beoppressed. A day will come when God will reveal judgment, andarraign at his bar these mighty miscreants; and then, every orphanthat their bloody game has made, and every widow that sitssorrowing, and every maimed and wounded sufferer, and every bereavedheart in all the wide regions of this land, will rise up and comebefore the Lord to lay upon these chief culprits of modern historytheir awful witness. And from a thousand battlefields shall rise uparmies of airy witnesses, who, with the memory of their awfulsufferings, shall confront the miscreants with shrieks of fierceaccusation; and every pale and starved prisoner shall raise hisskinny hand in judgment. Blood shall call out for vengeance, andtears shall plead for justice, and grief shall silently beckon, andlove, heart-smitten, shall wail for justice. Good men and angelswill cry out: "How long, O Lord, how long, wilt thou not avenge?"And, then, these guiltiest and most remorseless traitors, these highand cultured men,—with might and wisdom, used for the destructionof their country,—the most accursed and detested of all criminals,that have drenched a continent in needless blood, and moved thefoundations of their times with hideous crimes and cruelty, caughtup in black clouds, full of voices of vengeance and lurid withpunishment, shall be whirled aloft and plunged downwards forever andforever in an endless retribution; while God shall say, "Thus shallit be to all who betray their country"; and all in heaven and uponthe earth will say "Amen!"

But for the people misled, for the multitudes drafted and driveninto this civil war, let not a trace of animosity remain. Themoment their willing hand drops the musket, and they return to theirallegiance, then stretch out your own honest right hand to greetthem. Recall to them the old days of kindness. Our hearts wait fortheir redemption. All the resources of a renovated nation shall beapplied to rebuild their prosperity, and smooth down the furrows ofwar. Has this long and weary period of strife been an unmingledevil? Has nothing been gained? Yes, much. This nation hasattained to its manhood. Among Indian customs is one which admitsyoung men to the rank of warriors only after severe trials ofhunger, fatigue, pain, endurance. They reach their station, notthrough years, but ordeals. Our nation has suffered, but now isstrong. The sentiment of loyalty and patriotism, next in importanceto religion, has been rooted and grounded. We have something to beproud of, and pride helps love. Never so much as now did we loveour country. But four such years of education in ideas, in theknowledge of political truth, in the love of history, in thegeography of our own country, almost every inch of which we haveprobed with the bayonet, have never passed before. There is half ahundred years' advance in four. We believed in our institutions andprinciples before; but now we know their power. It is one thing tolook upon artillery, and be sure that it is loaded; it is anotherthing to prove its power in battle! We believe in the hidden powerstored in our institutions; we had never before seen this nationthundering like Mount Sinai at all those that worshiped the calf atthe base of the mountain. A people educated and moral are competentto all the exigencies of national life. A vote can govern betterthan a crown. We have proved it. A people intelligent andreligious are strong in all economic elements. They are fitted forpeace and competent to war. They are not easily inflamed, and, whenjustly incensed, not easily extinguished. They are patient inadversity, endure cheerfully needful burdens, tax themselves to meetreal wants more royally than any prince would dare to tax hispeople. They pour forth without stint relief for the sufferings ofwar, and raise charity out of the realm of a dole into a munificentduty of beneficence. The habit of industry among free men preparesthem to meet the exhaustion of war with increase of productivenesscommensurate with the need that exists. Their habits of skillenable them at once to supply such armies as only freedom canmuster, with arms and munitions such as only free industry cancreate. Free society is terrible in war, and afterwards repairs themischief of war with celerity almost as great as that with which theocean heals the seams gashed in it by the keel of ploughing ships.Free society is fruitful of military genius. It comes when called;when no longer needed, it falls back as waves do to the level of thecommon sea, that no wave may be greater than the undivided water.With proof of strength so great, yet in its infancy, we stand upamong the nations of the world, asking no privileges, asserting norights, but quietly assuming our place, and determined to be secondto none in the race of civilization and religion. Of all nations weare the most dangerous and the least to be feared. We need notexpound the perils that wait upon enemies that assault us. They aresufficiently understood! But we are not a dangerous people becausewe are warlike. All the arrogant attitudes of this nation, sooffensive to foreign governments, were inspired by slavery, andunder the administration of its minions. Our tastes, our habits,our interests, and our principles, incline us to the arts of peace.This nation was founded by the common people for the common people.We are seeking to embody in public economy more liberty, with higherjustice and virtue, than have been organized before. By thenecessity of our doctrines, we are put in sympathy with the massesof men in all nations. It is not our business to subdue nations,but to augment the powers of the common people. The vulgar ambitionof mere domination, as it belongs to universal human nature, maytempt us; but it is withstood by the whole force of our principles,our habits, our precedents, and our legends. We acknowledge theobligation which our better political principles lay upon us, to setan example more temperate, humane, and just, than monarchicalgovernments can. We will not suffer wrong, and still less will weinflict it upon other nations. Nor are we concerned that so many,ignorant of our conflict, for the present, misconceive the reasonsof our invincible military zeal. "Why contend," say they, "for alittle territory that you do not need?" Because it is ours!Because it is the interest of every citizen to save it from becominga fortress and refuge of iniquity. This nation is our house, andour fathers' house; and accursed be the man who will not defend itto the uttermost. More territory than we need! England, that isnot large enough to be our pocket, may think that it is more than weneed, because it is more than it needs; but we are better judges ofwhat we need than others are.

Shall a philanthropist say to a banker, who defends himself againsta robber, "Why do you need so much money?" But we will not reasonwith such questions. When any foreign nation willingly will divideits territory and give it cheerfully away, we will answer thequestion why we are fighting for territory! At present—for I passto the consideration of benefits that accrue to the South indistinction from the rest of the nation—the South reaps onlysuffering; but good seed lies buried under the furrows of war, thatpeace will bring to harvest, 1. Deadly doctrines have been purgedaway in blood. The subtle poison of secession was a perpetualthreat of revolution. The sword has ended that danger. That whichreason had affirmed as a philosophy, that people have settled as afact. Theory pronounces, "There can be no permanent governmentwhere each integral particle has liberty to fly off." Who wouldventure upon a voyage in a ship each plank and timber of which mightwithdraw at its pleasure? But the people have reasoned by the logicof the sword and of the ballot, and they have declared that Statesare inseparable parts of the national government. They are notsovereign. State rights remain; but sovereignty is a right higherthan all others; and that has been made into a common stock for thebenefit of all. All further agitation is ended. This element mustbe cast out of political problems. Henceforth that poison will notrankle in the blood. 2. Another thing has been learned: the rightsand duties of minorities. The people of the whole nation are ofmore authority than the people of any section. These United Statesare supreme over Northern, Western, and Southern States. It oughtnot to have required the awful chastisem*nt of this war to teachthat a minority must submit the control of the nation's governmentto a majority. The army and navy have been good politicalschoolmasters. The lesson is learned. Not for many generationswill it require further illustration. 3. No other lesson will bemore fruitful of peace than the dispersion of those conceits ofvanity, which, on either side, have clouded the recognition of themanly courage of all Americans. If it be a sign of manhood to beable to fight, then Americans are men. The North certainly is in nodoubt whatever of the soldierly qualities of Southern men. Southernsoldiers have learned that all latitudes breed courage on thiscontinent. Courage is a passport to respect. The people of all theregions of this nation are likely hereafter to cherish a generousadmiration of each other's prowess. The war has bred respect, andrespect will breed affection, and affection peace and unity. 4. Noother event of the war can fill an intelligent Southern man, ofcandid nature, with more surprise than the revelation of thecapacity, moral and military, of the black race. It is a revelationindeed. No people were ever less understood by those most familiarwith them. They were said to be lazy, lying, impudent, and cowardlywretches, driven by the whip alone to the tasks needful to their ownsupport and the functions of civilization. They were said to bedangerous, bloodthirsty, liable to insurrection; but four years oftumultuous distress and war have rolled across the area inhabited bythem, and I have yet to hear of one authentic instance of themisconduct of a colored man. They have been patient and gentle anddocile, and full of faith and hope and piety; and, when summoned tofreedom, they have emerged with all the signs and tokens thatfreedom will be to them what it was to us, the swaddling-band thatshall bring them to manhood. And after the government, honoringthem as men summoned them to the field, when once they weredisciplined, and had learned the arts of war, they have provedthemselves to be not second to their white brethren in arms. Andwhen the roll of men that have shed their blood is called in theother land, many and many a dusky face will rise, dark no more whenthe light of eternal glory shall shine upon it from the throne ofGod! 5. The industry of the Southern States is regenerated, and nowrests upon a basis that never fails to bring prosperity. Just nowindustry is collapsed; but it is not dead; it sleepeth. It is vitalyet. It will spring like mown grass from the roots that need butshowers and heat and time to bring them forth. Though in manydistricts not a generation will see wanton wastes of self-invokedwar repaired, and many portions may lapse again to wilderness, yet,in our lifetime, we shall see States, as a whole, raised to aprosperity, vital, wholesome, and immovable, 6. The destruction ofclass interests, working with a religion which tends toward truedemocracy, in proportion as it is pure and free, will create a newera of prosperity for the common laboring people of the South, Uponthem have come the labor, the toil, and the loss of this war. Theyhave fought blindfolded. They have fought for a class that soughttheir degradation, while they were made to believe that it was fortheir own homes and altars. Their leaders meant a supremacy whichwould not long have left them political liberty, save in name. Buttheir leaders are swept away. The sword has been hungry for theruling classes. It has sought them out with remorseless zeal. Newmen are to rise up; new ideas are to bud and blossom; and there willbe men with different ambition and altered policy. 7, Meanwhile,the South, no longer a land of plantations, but of farms; no longertilled by slaves, but by freedmen, will find no hindrance to thespread of education. Schools will multiply. Books and papers willspread. Churches will bless every hamlet. There is a good daycoming for the South. Through darkness and tears and blood she hassought it. It has been an unconscious via dolorosa. But in theend it will be worth all that it has cost. Her institutions beforewere deadly. She nourished death in her bosom. The greater hersecular prosperity, the more sure was her ruin. Every year of delaybut made the change more terrible. Now, by an earthquake, the evilis shaken down. And her own historians, in a better day, shallwrite, that from the day the sword cut off the cancer, she began tofind her health. What, then, shall hinder the rebuilding of theRepublic? The evil spirit is cast out: why should not this nationcease to wander among tombs, cutting itself? Why should it notcome, clothed and in its right mind, to "sit at the feet of Jesus"?Is it feared that the government will oppress the conquered States?What possible motive has the government to narrow the base of thatpyramid on which its own permanence depends? Is it feared that therights of the States will be withheld? The South is not morejealous of State rights than the North. State rights from theearliest colonial days have been the peculiar pride and jealousy ofNew England. In every stage of national formation, it waspeculiarly Northern, and not Southern, statesmen that guarded Staterights as we were forming the Constitution. But once united, theloyal States gave up forever that which had been delegated to thenational government. And now, in the hour of victory, the loyalStates do not mean to trench upon Southern State rights. They willnot do it, nor suffer it to be done. There is not to be one rulefor high latitudes and another for low. We take nothing from theSouthern States that has not already been taken from the Northern.The South shall have just those rights that every eastern, everymiddle, every western State has—no more, no less. We are notseeking our own aggrandizement by impoverishing the South. Itsprosperity is an indispensable element of our own.

We have shown, by all that we have suffered in war, how great is ourestimate of the Southern States of this Union; and we will measurethat estimate, now, in peace, by still greater exertions for theirrebuilding. Will reflecting men not perceive, then, the wisdom ofaccepting established facts, and, with alacrity of enterprise, beginto retrieve the past? Slavery cannot come back. It is the interest,therefore, of every man to hasten its end. Do you want more war? Areyou not yet weary of contest? Will you gather up the unexplodedfragments of this prodigious magazine of all mischief, and heap themup for continued explosions? Does not the South need peace? And,since free labor is inevitable, will you have it in its worst formsor in its best? Shall it be ignorant, impertinent, indolent, orshall it be educated, self-respecting, moral, and self-supporting?Will you have men as drudges, or will you have them as citizens?Since they have vindicated the government, and cemented itsfoundation stones with their blood, may they not offer the tributeof their support to maintain its laws and its policy? It is betterfor religion; it is better for political integrity; it is better forindustry; it is better for money—if you will have that groundmotive—that you should educate the black man, and, by education,make him a citizen. They who refuse education to the black man wouldturn the South into a vast poorhouse, and labor into a pendulum,incessantly vibrating between poverty and indolence. From thispulpit of broken stone we speak forth our earnest greeting to allour land. We offer to the President of these United States oursolemn congratulations that God has sustained his life and healthunder the unparalleled burdens and sufferings of four bloody years,and permitted him to behold this auspicious consummation of thatnational unity for which he has waited with so much patience andfortitude, and for which he has labored with such disinterestedwisdom. To the members of the government associated with him in theadministration of perilous affairs in critical times; to thesenators and representatives of the United States, who have eagerlyfashioned the instruments by which the popular will might expressand enforce itself, we tender our grateful thanks. To the officersand men of the army and navy, who have so faithfully, skillfully,and gloriously upheld their country's authority, by suffering,labor, and sublime courage, we offer a heart-tribute beyond thecompass of words. Upon those true and faithful citizens, men andwomen, who have borne up with unflinching hope in the darkest hour,and covered the land with their labor of love and charity, we invokethe divinest blessing of him whom they have so truly imitated. Butchiefly to thee, God of our fathers, we render thanksgiving andpraise for that wondrous Providence that has brought forth from sucha harvest of war the seed of so much liberty and peace! We invokepeace upon the North. Peace be to the West! Peace be upon the South!In the name of God we lift up our banner, and dedicate it to peace,union, and liberty, now and for evermore! Amen.

EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF LINCOLN (Delivered in Brooklyn, April16th. 1865)

Again a great leader of the people has passed through toil, sorrow,battle, and war, and come near to the promised land of peace, intowhich he might not pass over. Who shall recount our martyr'ssufferings for this people? Since the November of 1860, his horizonhas been black with storms. By day and by night, he trod a way ofdanger and darkness. On his shoulders rested a government dearer tohim than his own life. At its integrity millions of men were strikingat home. Upon this government foreign eyes lowered. It stood like alone island in a sea full of storms, and every tide and wave seemedeager to devour it. Upon thousands of hearts great sorrows andanxieties have rested, but not on one such, and in such measure, asupon that simple, truthful, noble soul, our faithful and saintedLincoln. Never rising to the enthusiasm of more impassioned naturesin hours of hope, and never sinking with the mercurial in hours ofdefeat to the depths of despondency, he held on with unmovablepatience and fortitude, putting caution against hope, that it mightnot be premature, and hope against caution, that it might not yieldto dread and danger. He wrestled ceaselessly, through four black anddreadful purgatorial years, wherein God was cleansing the sin of hispeople as by fire.

At last, the watcher beheld the gray dawn for the country. Themountains began to give forth their forms from out the darkness, andthe East came rushing toward us with arms full of joy for all oursorrows. Then it was for him to be glad exceedingly that hadsorrowed immeasurably. Peace could bring to no other heart such joy,such rest, such honor, such trust, such gratitude. But he lookedupon it as Moses looked upon the promised land. Then the wail of anation proclaimed that he had gone from among us. Not thine thesorrow, but ours, sainted soul. Thou hast, indeed, entered thepromised land, while we are yet on the march. To us remains therocking of the deep, the storm upon the land, days of duty andnights of watching; but thou art sphered high above all darkness andfear, beyond all sorrow and weariness. Rest, O weary heart! Rejoiceexceedingly, thou that hast enough suffered! Thou hast beheld himwho invisibly led thee in this great wilderness. Thou standestamong the elect. Around thee are the royal men that have ennobledhuman life in every age. Kingly art thou, with glory on thy brow asa diadem. And joy is upon thee for evermore. Over all this land,over all the little cloud of years that now from thine infinitehorizon moves back as a speck, thou art lifted up as high as thestar is above the clouds that bide us, but never reach it. In thegoodly company of Mount Zion thou shalt find that rest which thouhast sorrowing sought in vain; and thy name, an everlasting name inheaven, shall flourish in fragrance and beauty as long as men shalllast upon the earth, or hearts remain, to revere truth, fidelity,and goodness.

Never did two such orbs of experience meet in one hemisphere, as thejoy and the sorrow of the same week in this land. The joy was assudden as if no man had expected it, and as entrancing as if it hadfallen a sphere from heaven. It rose up over sobriety, and sweptbusiness from its moorings, and ran down through the land inirresistible course. Men embraced each other in brotherhood thatwere strangers in the flesh. They sang, or prayed, or, deeper yet,many could only think thanksgiving and weep gladness. That peace wassure; that government was firmer than ever; that the land wascleansed of plague; that the ages were opening to our footsteps, andwe were to begin a march of blessings; that blood was staunched, andscowling enmities were sinking like storms beneath the horizon; thatthe dear fatherland, nothing lost, much gained, was to rise up inunexampled honor among the nations of the earth—these thoughts,and that undistinguishable throng of fancies, and hopes, anddesires, and yearnings, that filled the soul with tremblings likethe heated air of midsummer days—all these kindled up such asurge of joy as no words may describe.

In one hour joy lay without a pulse, without a gleam or breath. Asorrow came that swept through the land as huge storms sweep throughthe forest and field, rolling thunder along the sky, disheveling theflowers, daunting every singer in thicket or forest, and pouringblackness and darkness across the land and up the mountains. Didever so many hearts, in so brief a time, touch two such boundlessfeelings? It was the uttermost of joy; it was the uttermost ofsorrow—noon and midnight, without a space between.

The blow brought not a sharp pang. It was so terrible that at firstit stunned sensibility. Citizens were like men awakenedat midnight by an earthquake and bewildered to find everything thatthey were accustomed to trust wavering and falling. The very earthwas no longer solid. The first feeling was the least. Men waited toget straight to feel. They wandered in the streets as if gropingafter some impending dread, or undeveloped sorrow, or some one totell them what ailed them. They met each other as if each would askthe other, "Am I awake, or do I dream?" There was a piteoushelplessness. Strong men bowed down and wept. Other and commongriefs belonged to some one in chief; this belonged to all. It waseach and every man's. Every virtuous household in the land felt asif its firstborn were gone. Men were bereaved and walked for days asif a corpse lay unburied in their dwellings. There was nothing elseto think of. They could speak of nothing but that; and yet of thatthey could speak only falteringly. All business was laidaside. Pleasure forgot to smile. The city for nearly a week ceasedto roar. The great Leviathan lay down, and was still. Even avaricestood still, and greed was strangely moved to generous sympathy anduniversal sorrow. Rear to his name monuments, found charitableinstitutions, and write his name above their lintels; but nomonument will ever equal the universal, spontaneous, and sublimesorrow that in a moment swept down lines and parties, and covered upanimosities, and in an hour brought a divided people into unity ofgrief and indivisible fellowship of anguish. …

This nation has dissolved—but in tears only. It standsfoursquare, more solid to-day than any pyramid in Egypt. This peopleare neither wasted, nor daunted, nor disordered. Men hate slaveryand love liberty with stronger hate and love to-day than everbefore. The government is not weakened, it is made stronger. Hownaturally and easily were the ranks closed! Another steps forward,in the hour that the one fell, to take his place and his mantle; andI avow my belief that he will be found a man true to every instinctof liberty; true to the whole trust that is reposed in him; vigilantof the Constitution; careful of the laws; wise for liberty, in thathe himself, through his life, has known what it was to suffer fromthe stings of slavery, and to prize liberty from bitter personalexperiences.

Where could the head of government in any monarchy be smitten downby the hand of an assassin, and the funds not quiver or fallone-half of one per cent? After a long period of nationaldisturbance, after four years of drastic war, after tremendousdrafts on the resources of the country, in the height and top of ourburdens, the heart of this people is such that now, when the head ofgovernment is stricken down, the public funds do not waver, butstand as the granite ribs in our mountains.

Republican institutions have been vindicated in this experience asthey never were before; and the whole history of the last fouryears, rounded up by this cruel stroke, seems, in the providence ofGod, to have been clothed, now, with an illustration, with asympathy, with an aptness, and with a significance, such as we nevercould have expected nor imagined. God, I think, has said, by thevoice of this event, to all nations of the earth, "Republicanliberty, based upon true Christianity, is firm as the foundation ofthe globe."

Even he who now sleeps has, by this event, been clothed with newinfluence. Dead, he speaks to men who now willingly hear what beforethey refused to listen to. Now his simple and weighty words will begathered like those of Washington, and your children and yourchildren's children shall be taught to ponder the simplicity anddeep wisdom of utterances which, in their time, passed, in partyheat, as idle words. Men will receive a new impulse of patriotismfor his sake and will guard with zeal the whole country which heloved so well. I swear you, on the altar of his memory, to be morefaithful to the country for which he has perished. They will, asthey follow his hearse, swear a new hatred to that slavery againstwhich he warred, and which, in vanquishing him, has made him amartyr and a conqueror. I swear you, by the memory of this martyr,to hate slavery with an unappeasable hatred. They will admire andimitate the firmness of this man, his inflexible conscience for theright, and yet his gentleness, as tender as a woman's, hismoderation of spirit, which not all the heat of party could inflame,nor all the jars and disturbances of his country shake out ofplace. I swear you to an emulation of his justice, his moderation,and his mercy.

You I can comfort; but how can I speak to that twilight million towhom his name was as the name of an angel of God? There will bewailing in places which no minister shall be able to reach. When,in hovel and in cot, in wood and in wilderness, in the fieldthroughout the South, the dusky children, who looked upon him asthat Moses whom God sent before them to lead them out of the land ofbondage, learn that he has fallen, who shall comfort them? O, thouShepherd of Israel, that didst comfort thy people of old, to thycare we commit the helpless, the long-wronged, and grieved.

And now the martyr is moving in triumphal march, mightier than whenalive. The nation rises up at every stage of his coming. Cities andStates are his pallbearers, and the cannon beats the hours withsolemn progression. Dead, dead, dead, he yet speaketh. Is Washingtondead? Is Hampden dead? Is David dead? Is any man that ever was fitto live dead? Disenthralled of flesh, and risen in the unobstructedsphere where passion never comes, he begins his illimitablework. His life now is grafted upon the infinite, and will befruitful as no earthly life can be. Pass on, thou that hastovercome. Your sorrows, O people, are his peace. Your bells andbands and muffled drums sound triumph in his ear. Wail and weephere; God made it echo joy and triumph there. Pass on.

Four years ago, O Illinois, we took from your midst an untried manand from among the people. We return him to you a mightyconqueror. Not thine any more, but the nation's; not ours, but theworld's. Give him place, O ye prairies. In the midst of this greatcontinent his dust shall rest, a sacred treasure to myriads whoshall pilgrim to that shrine to kindle anew their zeal andpatriotism. Ye winds that move over the mighty places of the West,chant his requiem. Ye people, behold a martyr whose blood, as somany articulate words, pleads for fidelity, for law, for liberty.

LORD BELHAVEN (1656-1708)

Scotland ceased to exist as a nation by the act of union, May 1st,1707. As occasions have been so rare in the world's history when anation has voluntarily abdicated its sovereignty and ceased to existby its own free act, it would be too much to say that LordBelhaven's speech against surrendering Scotch nationality was worthyof so remarkable a scene as that presented in he Scotch Parliamentwhen, soon after its opening, November 1st, 1706, he rose to make theprotest which immortalized him.

Smollet belongs more properly to another generation, but the feelingagainst the union was rather exaggerated than diminished between thedate of its adoption and that of his poem, 'The Tears of Scotland,'into the concluding stanza of which he has condensed the passionwhich prompted Belhaven's protest:—

"While the warm blood bedews my veins
And unimpaired remembrance reigns,
Resentment of my country's fate
Within my filial heart shall beat,
And spite of her insulting foe,
My sympathizing verse shall flow;—
'Mourn, helpless Caledonia, mourn,
Thy banished peace, thy laurels torn!'"

If there is nothing in Belhaven's oration which equals this inintensity, there is power and pathos, as well as Ciceronian syntax,in the period: "Hannibal, my lord, is at our gates; Hannibal is comewithin our gates; Hannibal is come the length of this table; he isat the foot of this throne; if we take not notice he'll seize uponthese regalia, he'll take them as our spolia opima, and whip usout of this house, never to return."

It is unfortunate for Belhaven's fame as an orator that his mosteffective passages are based on classical allusions intelligible atonce to his audience then, but likely to appear pedantic in timeswhen Latin has ceased to be the "vulgar tongue" of the educated, asit still was in the Scotland of Queen Anne's time.

The text of his speech here used is from 'The Parliamentary
Debates,' London 1741.

A PLEA FOR THE NATIONAL LIFE OF SCOTLAND (Delivered 1706 in the
Scotch Parliament)

My Lord Chancellor:—

When I consider the affair of a union betwixt the two nations, as itis expressed in the several articles thereof, and now the subject ofour deliberation at this time I find my mind crowded with a varietyof melancholy thoughts, and I think it my duty to disburden myselfof some of them, by laying them before, and exposing them to, theserious consideration of this honorable house.

I think I see a free and independent kingdom delivering up thatwhich all the world hath been fighting for since the days of Nimrod;yea, that for which most of all the empires, kingdoms, states,principalities, and dukedoms of Europe, are at this very timeengaged in the most bloody and cruel wars that ever were, to-wit, apower to manage their own affairs by themselves, without theassistance and counsel of any other.

I think I see a national church, founded upon a rock, secured by aclaim of right, hedged and fenced about by the strictest and mostpointed legal sanction that sovereignty could contrive, voluntarilydescending into a plain, upon an equal level with Jews, Papists,Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and other sectaries, etc. I thinkI see the noble and honorable peerage of Scotland, whose valiantpredecessors led armies against their enemies, upon their own propercharges and expenses, now divested of their followers andvassalages, and put upon such an equal foot with their vassals, thatI think I see a petty English exciseman receive more homage andrespect than what was paid formerly to their quondam Mackallamores.

I think I see the present peers of Scotland, whose noble ancestorsconquered provinces, over-run countries, reduced and subjected townsand fortified places, exacted tribute through the greatest part ofEngland, now walking in the court of requests like so many Englishattorneys, laying aside their walking swords when in company withthe English peers, lest their self-defense should be found murder.

I think I see the honorable estate of barons, the bold assertors ofthe nation's rights and liberties in the worst of times, nowsetting a watch upon their lips and a guard upon their tongues,lest they be found guilty of scandalum magnatum.

I think I see the royal state of boroughs walking their desolatestreets, hanging down their heads under disappointments, wormed outof all the branches of their old trade, uncertain what hand to turnto, necessitate to become 'prentices to their unkind neighbors; andyet, after all, finding their trade so fortified by companies, andsecured by prescriptions, that they despair of any success therein.

I think I see our learned judges laying aside their practiques anddecisions, studying the common law of England, graveled withcertioraries, nisi prius's, writs of error, verdicts indovar,ejectione firmae, injunctions, demurs, etc., and frighted withappeals and avocations, because of the new regulations andrectifications they may meet with.

I think I see the valiant and gallant soldiery either sent to learnthe plantation-trade abroad; or at home petitioning for a smallsubsistence, as the reward of their honorable exploits; while theirold corps are broken, the common soldiers left to beg, and theyoungest English corps kept standing.

I think I see the honest, industrious tradesman loaded with newtaxes and impositions, disappointed of the equivalents, drinkingwater in place of ale, eating his saltless pottage, petitioning forencouragement to his manufactories, and answered by counter-petitions.

In short, I think I see the laborious plowman, with his cornspoiling upon his hands, for want of sale, cursing the day of hisbirth, dreading the expense of his burial, and uncertain whether tomarry or do worse.

I think I see the incurable difficulties of the landed men, fetteredunder the golden chain of equivalents, their pretty daughterspetitioning for want of husbands, and their sons for want ofemployment.

I think I see our mariners delivering up their ships to their Dutchpartners, and what through presses and necessity, earning theirbread as underlings in the royal English navy.

But above all, my lord, I think I see our ancient mother Caledonia,like Caesar, sitting in the midst of our senate, ruefully lookinground about her, covering herself with her royal garment, attendingthe fatal blow, and breathing out her last with an Et tuquoque, mi fili.

Are not these, my lord, very afflicting thoughts? And yet they arebut the least part suggested to me by these dishonorablearticles. Should not the consideration of these things vivify thesedry bones of ours? Should not the memory of our noble predecessors'valor and constancy rouse up our drooping spirits? Are our noblepredecessors' souls got so far into the English cabbage stock andcauliflowers that we should show the least inclination that way? Areour eyes so blinded? Are our ears so deafened? Are our hearts sohardened? Are our tongues so faltered? Are our hands so fetteredthat in this our day, I say, my lord, that in this our day, weshould not mind the things that concern the very being andwell-being of our ancient kingdom, before the day be hid from oureyes?

No, my lord, God forbid! man's extremity is God's opportunity; he isa present help in time of need, and a deliverer, and that rightearly. Some unforeseen Providence will fall out, that may cast thebalance; some Joseph or other will say, "Why do ye strive together,since ye are brethren?" None can destroy Scotland, save Scotlanditself; hold your hands from the pen, you are secure. Some Judah orother will say, "Let not our hands be upon the lad, he is ourbrother." There will be a Jehovah-Jireh, and some ram will he caughtin the thicket, when the bloody knife is at our mother's throat. Letus up then, my lord, and let our noble patriots behave themselveslike men, and we know not bow soon a blessing may come.

My lord, I wish from my heart, that this my vision prove not as trueas my reasons for it are probable. I design not at this time toenter into the merits of any one particular article; I intend thisdiscourse as an introduction to what I may afterwards say upon thewhole debate as it falls in before this honorable house; andtherefore, in the farther prosecution of what I have to say, I shallinsist upon few particulars, very necessary to be understood, beforewe enter into the detail of so important a matter.

I shall, therefore, in the first place, endeavor to encourage a freeand full deliberation, without animosities and heats. In the nextplace I shall endeavor to make an inquiry into the nature and sourceof the unnatural and dangerous divisions that are now on foot withinthis isle, with some motives showing that it is our interest to laythem aside at this time. Then I shall inquire into the reasonswhich have induced the two nations to enter into a treaty of unionat this time, with some considerations and meditations with relationto the behavior of the lord's commissioners of the two kingdoms inthe management of this great concern. And lastly, I shall propose amethod, by which we shall most distinctly, and without confusion, gothrough the several articles of this treaty, without unnecessaryrepetitions or loss of time. And all this with all deference, andunder the correction of this honorable house.

My lord chancellor, the greatest honor that was done unto a Romanwas to allow him the glory of a triumph; the greatest and mostdishonorable punishment was that of parricide. He that was guilty ofparricide was beaten with rods upon his naked body till the bloodgushed out of all the veins of his body; then he was sewed up in aleathern sack, called a culeus with a co*ck, a viper, and an ape,and thrown headlong into the sea.

My lord, patricide is a greater crime than parricide, all the worldover.

In a triumph, my lord, when the conqueror was riding in histriumphal chariot, crowned with laurels, adorned with trophies, andapplauded with huzzas, there was a monitor appointed to stand behindhim, to warn him not to be high-minded, not puffed up withoverweening thoughts of himself; and to his chariot were tied a whipand a bell, to mind him that for all his glory and grandeur he wasaccountable to the people for his administration, and would bepunished as other men, if found guilty.

The greatest honor amongst us, my lord, is to represent thesovereign's sacred person in Parliament; and in one particular itappears to be greater than that of a triumph, because the wholelegislative power seems to be wholly intrusted with him. If he givethe royal assent to an act of the estates, it becomes a lawobligatory upon the subject, though contrary or without anyinstructions from the sovereign. If he refuse the royal assent to avote in Parliament, it cannot be a law, though he has theSovereign's particular and positive instructions for it.

His Grace, the Duke of Queensbury, who now presents her Majesty inthis session of Parliament, hath had the honor of that great trust,as often, if not more, than any Scotchman ever had. He hath beenthe favorite of two successive sovereigns; and I cannot but commendhis constancy and perseverance, that notwithstanding his formerdifficulties and unsuccessful attempts, and maugre some otherspecialties not yet determined, that his Grace has yet had theresolution to undertake the most unpopular measures last. If hisGrace succeed in this affair of a union, and that it prove for thehappiness and welfare of the nation, then he justly merits to have astatue of gold erected for himself; but if it shall tend to theentire destruction and abolition of our nation, and that we thenation's trustees will go into it, then I must say that a whip and abell, a co*ck and a viper and an ape, are but too small punishmentsfor any such bold, unnatural undertaking and complaisance.

That I may pave a way, my lord, to a full, calm, and free reasoningupon this affair, which is of the last consequence unto this nation,I shall mind this honorable house, that we are the successors of ournoble predecessors, who founded our monarchy, framed our laws,amended, altered, and corrected them from time to time, as theaffairs and circ*mstances of the nation did require, without theassistance or advice of any foreign power or potentate, and who,during the time of 2,000 years, have handed them down to us, a freeindependent nation, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes.Shall not we then argue for that which our progenitors havepurchased for us at so dear a rate, and with so much immortal honorand glory? God forbid. Shall the hazard of a father unbind theligaments of a dumb son's tongue; and shall we hold our peace, whenour patria is in danger? I speak this, my lord, that I mayencourage every individual member of this house to speak his mindfreely. There are many wise and prudent men amongst us, who thinkit not worth their while to open their mouths; there are others, whocan speak very well, and to good purpose, who shelter themselvesunder the shameful cloak of silence, from a fear of the frowns ofgreat men and parties. I have observed, my lord, by my experience,the greatest number of speakers in the most trivial affairs; and itwill always prove so, while we come not to the right understandingof the oath de fideli, whereby we are bound not only to give ourvote, but our faithful advice in Parliament, as we should answer toGod; and in our ancient laws, the representatives of the honorablebarons and the royal boroughs are termed spokesmen. It lies uponyour lordships, therefore, particularly to take notice of such whosemodesty makes them bashful to speak. Therefore, I shall leave itupon you, and conclude this point with a very memorable saying of anhonest private gentleman to a great queen, upon occasion of a Stateproject, contrived by an able statesman, and the favorite to a greatking, against a peaceable, obedient people, because of the diversityof their laws and constitutions: "If at this time thou hold thypeace, salvation shall come to the people from another place, butthou and thy house shall perish." I leave the application to eachparticular member of this house.

My lord, I come now to consider our divisions. We are under thehappy reign (blessed be God) of the best of queens, who has no evildesign against the meanest of her subjects, who loves all herpeople, and is equally beloved by them again; and yet that under thehappy influence of our most excellent Queen there should be suchdivisions and factions more dangerous and threatening to herdominions than if we were under an arbitrary government, is moststrange and unaccountable. Under an arbitrary prince all are willingto serve because all are under a necessity to obey, whether theywill or not. He chooses therefore whom he will, without respect toeither parties or factions; and if he think fit to take the advicesof his councils or parliaments, every man speaks his mind freely,and the prince receives the faithful advice of his people withoutthe mixture of self-designs. If he prove a good prince, thegovernment is easy; if bad, either death or a revolution brings adeliverance. Whereas here, my lord, there appears no end of ourmisery, if not prevented in time; factions are now becomeindependent, and have got footing in councils, in parliaments, intreaties, armies, in incorporations, in families, among kindred,yea, man and wife are not free from their political jars.

It remains therefore, my lord, that I inquire into the nature ofthese things; and since the names give us not the right idea of thething, I am afraid I shall have difficulty to make myself wellunderstood.

The names generally used to denote the factions are Whig and Tory,as obscure as that of Guelfs and Gibelins. Yea, my lord, they havedifferent significations, as they are applied to factions in eachkingdom; a Whig in England is a heterogeneous creature, in Scotlandhe is all of a piece; a Tory in England is all of a piece, and astatesman in Scotland, he is quite otherways, an anti-courtier andanti-statesman.

A Whig in England appears to be somewhat like Nebuchadnezzar'simage, of different metals, different classes, different principles,and different designs; yet take the Whigs all together, they arelike a piece of fine mixed drugget of different threads, some finer,some coarser, which, after all, make a comely appearance and anagreeable suit. Tory is like a piece of loyal-made English cloth,the true staple of the nation, all of a thread; yet, if we looknarrowly into it, we shall perceive diversity of colors, which,according to the various situations and positions, make variousappearances. Sometimes Tory is like the moon in its full, asappeared in the affair of the bill of occasional conformity; uponother occasions it appears to be under a cloud, and as if it wereeclipsed by a greater body, as it did in the design of calling overthe illustrious Princess Sophia. However, by this we may see theirdesigns are to outshoot Whig in his own bow.

Whig in Scotland is a true blue Presbyterian, who, withoutconsidering time or power, will venture their all for the Kirk, butsomething less for the State. The greatest difficulty is how todescribe a Scots Tory. Of old, when I knew them first, Tory was anhonest-hearted comradish fellow, who, provided he was maintained andprotected in his benefices, titles, and dignities by the State, wasthe less anxious who had the government and management of theChurch. But now what he is since jure divino came in fashion, andthat Christianity, and, by consequence, salvation comes to dependupon episcopal ordination, I profess I know not what to make of him;only this I must say for him, that he endeavors to do by oppositionthat which his brother in England endeavors by a more prudent andless scrupulous method.

Now, my lord, from these divisions there has got up a kind ofaristocracy something like the famous triumvirate at Rome; they area kind of undertakers and pragmatic statesmen, who, finding theirpower and strength great, and answerable to their designs, will makebargains with our gracious sovereign; they will serve herfaithfully, but upon their own terms; they must have their owninstruments, their own measures; this man must be turned out, andthat man put in, and then they will make her the most glorious queenin Europe.

Where will this end, my lord? Is not her Majesty in danger by sucha method? Is not the monarchy in danger? Is not the nation's peaceand tranquillity in danger? Will a change of parties make thenation more happy? No, my lord, the seed is sown that is like toafford us a perpetual increase; it is not an annual herb, it takesdeep root; it seeds and breeds; and, if not timely prevented by herMajesty's royal endeavors, will split the whole island in two.

My lord, I think, considering our present circ*mstances at thistime, the Almighty God has reserved this great work for us. We maybruise this Hydra of division, and crush this co*ckatrice's egg. Ourneighbors in England are not yet fitted for any such thing; they arenot under the afflicting hand of Providence, as we are; theircirc*mstances are great and glorious; their treaties are prudentlymanaged, both at home and abroad; their generals brave and valorous;their armies successful and victorious; their trophies and laurelsmemorable and surprising; their enemies subdued and routed; theirstrongholds besieged and taken, sieges relieved, marshals killed andtaken prisoners; provinces and kingdoms are the results of theirvictories; their royal navy is the terror of Europe; their trade andcommerce extended through the universe, encircling the wholehabitable world and rendering their own capital city the emporiumfor the whole inhabitants of the earth. And, which is yet more thanall these things, the subjects freely bestow their treasure upontheir sovereign! And, above all, these vast riches, the sinews ofwar, and without which all the glorious success had proved abortive—these treasures are managed with such faithfulness and nicety,that they answer seasonably all their demands, though at never sogreat a distance. Upon these considerations, my lord, how hard anddifficult a thing will it prove to persuade our neighbors to aself-denying bill.

'Tis quite otherwise with us, my lord; we are an obscure poorpeople, though formerly of better account, removed to a remotecorner of the world, without name, and without alliances, our postsmean and precarious, so that I profess I don't think any one post ofthe kingdom worth the briguing after, save that of beingcommissioner to a long session of a factious Scotch Parliament, withan antedated commission, and that yet renders the rest of theministers more miserable. What hinders us then, my lord, to layaside our divisions, to unite cordially and heartily together in ourpresent circ*mstances, when our all is at stake? Hannibal, my lord,is at our gates; Hannibal is come within our gates Hannibal is comethe length of this table; he is at the foot of this throne; he willdemolish this throne; if we take not notice, he'll seize upon theseregalia, he'll take them as our spolia opima, and whip us out ofthis house, never to return again.

For the love of God then, my lord, for the safety and welfare of ourancient kingdom, whose sad circ*mstances, I hope, we shall yetconvert into prosperity and happiness, we want no means, if weunite. God blessed the peacemakers; we want neither men, norsufficiency of all manner of things necessary, to make a nationhappy; all depends upon management, Concordia res parvaecresc*nt. I fear not these articles, though they were ten timesworse than they are, if we once cordially forgive one another, andthat, according to our proverb, bygones be bygones, and fair playfor time to come. For my part, in the sight of God, and in thepresence of this honorable house, I heartily forgive every man, andbeg that they may do the same to me; and I do most humbly proposethat his grace, my lord commissioner, may appoint an Agape, mayorder a love feast for this honorable house, that we may lay asideall self-designs, and after our fasts and humiliations may have aday of rejoicing and thankfulness, may eat our meat with gladness,and our bread with a merry heart; then shall we sit each man underhis own fig-tree, and the voice of the turtle shall be heard in ourland, a bird famous for constancy and fidelity.

My lord, I shall make a pause here, and stop going on further in mydiscourse, till I see further, if his grace, my lord commissioner,receive any humble proposals for removing misunderstandings amongus, and putting an end to our fatal divisions; upon honor, I have noother design, and I am content to beg the favor upon my bendedknees. (No answer.) My lord chancellor, I am sorry that I mustpursue the thread of my sad and melancholy story. What remains, Iam afraid may prove as afflicting as what I have said; I shalltherefore consider the motives which have engaged the two nations toenter upon a treaty of union at this time. In general, my lord, Ithink both of them had in their view to better themselves by thetreaty; but before I enter upon the particular motives of eachnation, I must inform this honorable house that since I canremember, the two nations have altered their sentiments upon thataffair, even almost to downright contradiction—they have changedheadbands, as we say; for the English, till of late, never thoughtit worth their pains of treating with us; the good bargain they madeat the beginning they resolve to keep, and that which we call anincorporating union was not so much as in their thoughts. The firstnotice they seemed to take of us was in our affair of Caledonia,when they had most effectually broken off that design in a mannervery well known to the world, and unnecessary to be repeated here;they kept themselves quiet during the time of our complaints uponthat head. In which time our sovereign, to satisfy the nation, andallay their heats, did condescend to give us some good laws, andamongst others that of personal liberties; but they having declaredtheir succession, and extended their entail, without ever takingnotice of us, our gracious sovereign Queen Anne was graciouslypleased to give the royal assent to our act of security, to that ofpeace and war after the decease of her Majesty, and the heirs of herbody, and to give us a hedge to all our sacred and civil interests,by declaring it high treason to endeavor the alteration of them, asthey were then established. Thereupon did follow the threateningand minatory laws against us by the Parliament of England, and theunjust and unequal character of what her Majesty had so graciouslycondescended to in our favors. Now, my lord, whether the desirethey had to have us engaged in the same succession with them, orwhether they found us like a free and independent people, breathingafter more liberty than what formerly was looked after, or whetherthey were afraid of our act of security, in case of her Majesty'sdecease; which of all these motives has induced them to a treaty Ileave it to themselves. This I must say only, they have made a goodbargain this time also.

For the particular motives that induced us, I think they are obviousto be known, we found by sad experience, that every man hathadvanced in power and riches, as they have done in trade, and at thesame time considering that nowhere through the world slaves arefound to be rich, though they should be adorned with chains of gold,we thereupon changed our notion of an incorporating union to that ofa federal one; and being resolved to take this opportunity to makedemands upon them, before we enter into the succession, we werecontent to empower her Majesty to authorize and appointcommissioners to treat with the commissioners of England, with asample powers as the lords commissioners from England had from theirconstituents, that we might not appear to have less confidence inher Majesty, nor more narrow-heartedness in our act, than ourneighbors of England. And thereupon last Parliament, after herMajesty's gracious letter was read, desiring us to declare thesuccession in the first place, and afterwards to appointcommissioners to treat, we found it necessary to renew our formerresolve, which I shall read to this honorable house. The resolvepresented by the Duke of Hamilton last session of Parliament:—

"That this Parliament will not proceed to the nomination of asuccessor till we have had a previous treaty with England, inrelation to our commerce, and other concerns with that nation. Andfurther, it is resolved that this Parliament will proceed to makesuch limitations and conditions of government, for the rectificationof our constitution, as may secure the liberty, religion, andindependency of this kingdom, before they proceed to the saidnomination."

Now, my lord, the last session of Parliament having, before theywould enter into any treaty with England, by a vote of the house,passed both an act for limitations and an act for rectification ofour constitution, what mortal man has reason to doubt the design ofthis treaty was only federal?

My lord chancellor, it remains now, that we consider the behavior ofthe lords commissioners at the opening of this treaty. And before Ienter upon that, allow me to make this meditation, that if ourposterity, after we are all dead and gone, shall find themselvesunder an ill-made bargain, and shall have recourse unto our records,and see who have been the managers of that treaty, by which theyhave suffered so much; when they read the names, they will certainlyconclude, and say, Ah! our nation has been reduced to the lastextremity, at the time of this treaty; all our great chieftains, allour great peers and considerable men, who used formerly to defendthe rights and liberties of the nation, have been all killed anddead in the bed of honor, before ever the nation was necessitated tocondescend to such mean and contemptible terms. Where are the namesof the chief men, of the noble families of Stuarts, Hamiltons,Grahams, Campbels, Gordons, Johnstons, Humes, Murrays, Kers? Whereare the two great officers of the crown, the constables and marshalsof Scotland? They have certainly all been extinguished, and now weare slaves forever.

Whereas the English records will make their posterity reverence thememory of the honorable names who have brought under their fierce,warlike, and troublesome neighbors, who had struggled so long forindependence, shed the best blood of their nation and reduced aconsiderable part of their country to become waste and desolate.

I am informed, my lord, that our commissioners did indeed franklytell the lords commissioners for England that the inclinations ofthe people of Scotland were much altered of late, in relation to anincorporating union; and that, therefore, since the entail was toend with her Majesty's life (whom God long preserve), it was properto begin the treaty upon the foot of the treaty of 1604, year ofGod, the time when we came first under one sovereign; but this theEnglish commissioners would not agree to, and our commissioners,that they might not seem obstinate, were willing to treat andconclude in the terms laid before this honorable house and subjectedto their determination. If the lords commissioners for England hadbeen as civil and complaisant, they should certainly have finished afederal treaty likewise, that both nations might have the choicewhich of them to have gone into as they thought fit; but they wouldhear of nothing but an entire and complete union, a name whichcomprehends a union, either by incorporation, surrender, orconquest, whereas our commissioners thought of nothing but a fair,equal, incorporating union. Whether this be so or not I leave it toevery man's judgment; but as for myself I must beg liberty to thinkit no such thing; for I take an incorporating union to be, wherethere is a change both in the material and formal points ofgovernment, as if two pieces of metal were melted down into onemass, it can neither be said to retain its former form or substanceas it did before the mixture. But now, when I consider this treaty,as it hath been explained and spoke to before us this three weeks bypast, I see the English constitution remaining firm, the same twohouses of Parliament, the same taxes, the same customs, the sameexcises, the same trading companies, the same municipal laws andcourts of judicature; and all ours either subject to regulations orannihilations, only we have the honor to pay their old debts and tohave some few persons present for witnesses to the validity of thedeed when they are pleased to contract more.

Good God! What, is this an entire surrender!

My lord, I find my heart so full of grief and indignation that Imust beg pardon not to finish the last part of my discourse, that Imay drop a tear as the prelude to so sad a story.

JOHN BELL (1797-1869)

John Bell, of Tennessee, who was a candidate with Edward Everett onthe "Constitutional Union" ticket of 1860, when Virginia, Kentucky,and Tennessee gave him their thirty-nine electoral votes in favor ofa hopeless peace, will always seem one of the most respectablefigures in the politics of a time when calmness and conservatism,such as characterized him and his coadjutor., Mr. Everett, ofMassachusetts, had ceased to be desired by men who wished immediatesuccess in public life. He was one of the founders of the Whigparty, and by demonstrating himself to be one of the very few menwho could win against Andrew Jackson's opposition in Tennessee, heacquired, under Jackson and Van Buren, a great influence with theWhigs of the country at large. He was a member of Congress fromTennessee for fourteen years dating from 1827, when he won by asingle vote against Felix Grundy, one of the strongest men inTennessee and a special favorite with General Jackson. Disagreeingwith Jackson on the removal of the deposits, Bell was electedSpeaker of the House over Jackson's protege, James K. Polk, in 1834,and in 1841 he entered the Whig cabinet as Secretary of War underHarrison who had defeated another of Jackson's proteges, VanBuren. In 1847 and again in 1853, he was elected United StatesSenator from Tennessee and he did his best to prevent secession. Hehad opposed Calhoun's theories of the right of a State to nullify aFederal act if unconstitutional, and in March 1858, in the debateover the Lecompton constitution, he opposed Toombs in a speech whichprobably made him the candidate of the Constitutional Unionists twoyears later. Another notable speech, of even more far-reachingimportance, he had delivered in 1853 in favor of opening up the Westby building the Pacific Railroad, a position in which he wassupported by Jefferson Davis.

Mr. Bell was for the Union in 1861, denying the right of secession,but he opposed the coercion of the Southern States, and when thefighting actually began he sided with Tennessee, and took little orno part in public affairs thereafter. He died in 1869.

AGAINST EXTREMISTS NORTH AND SOUTH (From a Speech in the Senate,
March 18th, 1858. on the Lecompton Constitution)

The honorable Senator from Georgia, Mr. Toombs, announced some greattruths to-day. He said that mankind made a long step, a greatstride, when they declared that minorities should not rule; and thata still higher and nobler advance had been made when it was decidedthat majorities could only rule through regular and legal forms. Heasserted this general doctrine with reference to the construction heproposed to give to the Lecompton constitution; and to say that thepeople of Kansas, unless they spoke through regular forms, cannotspeak at all. He will allow me to say, however, that the formsthrough which a majority speaks must be provided and established bycompetent authority, and his doctrine can have no application to theLecompton constitution, unless he can first show that thelegislature of Kansas was vested with legal authority to provide forthe formation of a State constitution; for, until that can be shown,there could be no regular and legal forms through which the majoritycould speak. But how does that Senator reconcile his doctrine withthat avowed by the President, as to the futility of attempting, byconstitutional provisions, to fetter the power of the people inchanging their constitution at pleasure? In no States of the Unionso much as in some of the slaveholding States would such a doctrineas that be so apt to be abused by incendiary demagogues,disappointed and desperate politicians, in stirring up the people toassemble voluntarily in convention—disregarding all therestrictions in their constitution—and strike at the property ofthe slaveholder.

The honorable Senator from Kentucky inquired what, under this newdoctrine, would prevent the majority of the people of the States ofthe Union from changing the present Federal Constitution, andabrogating all existing guarantees for the protection of the smallStates, and any peculiar or particular interest confined to aminority of the States of the Union. The analogy, I admit, is notcomplete between the Federal Constitution and a constitution of aState; but the promulgation of the general principle, that amajority of the people are fettered by no constitutionalrestrictions in the exercise of their right to change their form ofgovernment, is dangerous. That is quite enough for the purposes ofdemagogues and incendiary agitators. When I read the specialmessage of the President, I said to some friends that the message,taking it altogether, was replete with more dangerous heresies thanany paper I had ever seen emanating, not from a President of theUnited States, but from any political club in the country, andcalculated to do more injury. I consider it in effect, and in itstendencies, as organizing anarchy.

We are told that if we shall admit Kansas with the Lecomptonconstitution, this whole difficulty will soon be settled by thepeople of Kansas. How? By disregarding the mode and formsprescribed by the constitution for amending it? No. I am not surethat the President, after all the lofty generalities announced inhis message, in regard to the inalienable rights of the people,intended to sanction the idea that all the provisions of theLecompton constitution in respect to the mode and form of amendingit should be set aside. He says the legislature now elected may, atit* first meeting, call a convention to amend the constitution; andin another passage of his message he says that this inalienablepower of the majority must be exercised in a lawful manner. This isperplexing. Can there be any lawful enactment of the legislature inrelation to the call of a convention, unless it be in conformitywith the provisions of the constitution? They require thattwo-thirds of the members of the legislature shall concur in passingan act to take the sense of the people upon the call of aconvention, and that the vote shall be taken at the next regularelection, which cannot be held until two years afterwards. How canthis difficulty be got over? The truth is, that unless allconstitutional impediments in respect to forms be set aside, and thepeople take it in hand to amend the constitution on revolutionaryprinciples, there can be no end of agitation on this subject in lessthan three years. I long since ventured the prediction that therewould be no settlement of the difficulties in Kansas until the nextpresidential election. To continue the agitation is too importantto the interests of both the great parties of the country todispense with it, as long as any pretext can be found for prolongingit. In the closing debate on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, I told itssupporters that they could do nothing more certain to disturb thecomposure of the two Senators who sat on the opposite side of thechamber, the one from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] and the other fromOhio [Mr. Chase], than to reject that bill. Its passage was theonly thing in the range of possible events by which their politicalfortunes could be resuscitated, so completely had the Free-Soilmovement at the North been paralyzed by the compromise measures of1850. I say now to the advocates of this measure, if they want tostrengthen the Republican party, and give the reins of governmentinto their hands, pass this bill. If they desire to weaken thepower of that party, and arrest the progress of slavery agitation,reject it. And if it is their policy to put an end to the agitationconnected with Kansas affairs at the earliest day practicable, asthey say it is, then let them remit this constitution back to thepeople of Kansas, for their ratification or rejection. In that waythe whole difficulty will be settled before the adjournment of thepresent session of Congress, without the violation of any soundprinciple, or the sacrifice of the rights of either section of theUnion.

But the President informs us that threatening and ominous cloudsimpend over the country; and he fears that if Kansas is not admittedunder the Lecompton constitution, slavery agitation will be revivedin a more dangerous form than it has ever yet assumed. There may begrounds for that opinion, for aught I know; but it seems to me thatif any of the States of the South have taken any position on thisquestion which endangers the peace of the country, they could nothave been informed of the true condition of affairs in Kansas, andof the strong objections which may be urged on principle against theacceptance by Congress of the Lecompton constitution. And I havesuch confidence in the intelligence of the people of the wholeSouth, that when the history and character of this instrument shallbe known, even those who would be glad to find some plausiblepretext for dissolving the Union will see that its rejection byCongress would not furnish them with such a one as they could makeavailable for their purposes.

When the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was under discussion, in 1854, inlooking to all the consequences which might follow the adoption ofthat measure, I could not overlook the fact that a sentiment ofhostility to the Union was widely diffused in certain States of theSouth; and that that sentiment was only prevented from assuming anorganized form of resistance to the authority of the Federalgovernment, at least in one of the States, in 1851, by the earnestremonstrance of a sister State, that was supposed to sympathize withher in the project of establishing a southern republic. Nor could Ifail to remember that the project—I speak of the convention held inSouth Carolina, in pursuance of an act of the legislature—wasthen postponed, not dropped. The argument was successfully urgedthat an enterprise of such magnitude ought not to be entered uponwithout the co-operation of a greater number of States than theycould then certainly count upon. It was urged that all thecotton-planting States would, before a great while, be prepared tounite in the movement, and that they, by the force of circ*mstances,would bring in all the slaveholding States. The ground was openlytaken, that separation was an inevitable necessity. It was only aquestion of time. It was said that no new aggression was necessaryon the part of the North to justify such a step. It was said thatthe operation of this government from its foundation had beenadverse to southern interests; and that the admission of Californiaas a free State, and the attempt to exclude the citizens of theSouth, with their property, from all the territory acquired fromMexico, was a sufficient justification for disunion. It was not amere menace to deter the North from further aggressions. Thesecirc*mstances made a deep impression on my mind at the time, andfrom a period long anterior to that I had known that it was a maximwith the most skillful tacticians among those who desire separation,that the slaveholding States must be united—consolidated into oneparty. That object once effected, disunion, it was supposed, wouldfollow without difficulty.

I had my fears that the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was expected toconsolidate the South, and to pave the way for the accomplishment ofulterior plans by some of the most active supporters of that measurefrom the South; and these fears I indicated in the closing debate onthat subject. Some of the supporters of that measure, I fear, arereluctant now to abandon the chances of finding some pretext foragitating the subject of separation in the South in the existingcomplications of the Kansas embroilment.

To what extent the idea of disunion is entertained in some of theSouthern States, and what importance is attached to the policy ofuniting the whole South in one party as a preliminary step, may beinferred from a speech delivered before the Southern convention latelyheld in Knoxville, Tenn., by Mr. De Bow, the president of theconvention, and the editor of a popular Southern review. I will onlyrefer now to the fate to which the author resigns those who dare tobreak the ranks of that solid phalanx in which he thinks the Southshould be combined—that is, to be "held up to public scorn andpublic punishment as traitors and Tories, more steeped in guilt thanthose of the Revolution itself."

The honorable Senator from New York further announced to us inexultant tones, that "at last there was a North side of thisChamber, a North side of the Chamber of the House of Representatives,and a North side of the Union, as well as a South side of allthese"; and he admonished us that the time was at hand when freedomwould assert its influence in the regulation of the domestic andforeign policy of the country.

When was there a time in the history of the government that therewas no North side of this Chamber and of the other? When was there atime that there was not a proud array of Northern men in bothChambers, distinguished by their genius and ability, devoted to theinterests of the North, and successful in maintaining them?

Though it may be true that Southern men have filled the executivechair for much the larger portion of the time that has elapsed sincethe organization of the government, yet when, in what instance wasit, that a Southerner has been elevated to that high station withoutthe support of a majority of the freemen of the North?

Do you of the North complain that the policy of the government, underthe long-continued influence of Southern Presidents, has beeninjurious or fatal to your interests? Has it paralyzed your industry?Has it crippled your resources? Has it impaired your energies? Hasit checked your progress in any one department of human effort? Letyour powerful mercantile marine, your ships whitening every sea—thefruit of wise commercial regulations and navigation laws; let yourflourishing agriculture, your astonishing progress in manufacturingskill, your great canals, your thousands of miles of railroads, yourvast trade, internal and external, your proud cities, and youraccumulated millions of moneyed capital, ready to be invested inprofitable enterprises in any part of the world, answer that question.Do you complain of a narrow and jealous policy under Southern rule, inextending and opening new fields of enterprise to your hardy sons inthe great West, along the line of the great chain of American lakes,even to the head waters of the Father of Rivers, and over the rich andfertile plains stretching southward from the lake shores? Let theteeming populations—let the hundreds of millions of annual productsthat have succeeded to the but recent dreary and unproductive hauntsof the red man—answer that question. That very preponderance offree States which the Senator from New York contemplates with suchsatisfaction, and which has moved him exultingly to exclaim thatthere is at last a North side of this Chamber, has been hastened bythe liberal policy of Southern Presidents and Southern statesmen; andhas it become the ambition of that Senator to unite and combine allthis great, rich, and powerful North in the policy of crippling theresources and repressing the power of the South? Is this to be theone idea which is to mold the policy of the government, when thatgentleman and his friends shall control it? If it be, then I appealto the better feelings and the better judgment of his followers toarrest him in his mad career. Sir, let us have some brief interval ofrepose at least from this eternal agitation of the slavery question.Let power go into whatever hands it may, let us save the Union!

I have all the confidence other gentlemen can have in the extent towhich this Union is intrenched in the hearts of the great mass ofthe people of the North and South; but when I reflect upon andconsider the desperate and dangerous extremes to which ambitiousparty leaders are often prepared to go, without meaning to do thecountry any mischief, in the struggle for the imperial power, thecrown of the American presidency, I sometimes tremble for its fate.

Two great parties are now dividing the Union on this question. It isevident to every man of sense, who examines it, that practically, inrespect to slavery, the result will be the same both to North andSouth; Kansas will be a free State, no matter what may be thedecision on this question. But how that decision may affect thefortunes of those parties, is not certain; and there is the chiefdifficulty. But the greatest question of all is, How will thatdecision affect the country as a whole?

Two adverse yet concurrent and mighty forces are driving the vesselof State towards the rocks upon which she must split, unless shereceives timely aid—a paradox, yet expressive of a momentous andperhaps a fatal truth.

There is no hope of rescue unless the sober-minded men, both of theNorth and South, shall, by some sufficient influence, be brought toadopt the wise maxims and sage counsels of the great founders of ourgovernment.

TRANS-CONTINENTAL RAILROADS (Delivered in the United States Senate,
February 17th, 1858. in Support of the Pacific Railroad Bill)

An objection made to this bill is, the gigantic scale of theprojected enterprise. A grand idea it is. A continent of threethousand miles in extent from east to west, reaching from theAtlantic to the Pacific, is to be connected by a railway! HonorableSenators will remember, that over one thousand miles—one-third ofthis whole expanse of the continent—the work is alreadyaccomplished, and that chiefly by private enterprise. I may, as asafe estimate, say, that a thousand miles of this railroad leadingfrom the Atlantic to the West, upon the line of the lakes, andnearly as much upon a line further south, are either completed, ornearly so. We have two thousand miles yet to compass, in theexecution of a work which it is said has no parallel in the historyof the world. No, sir; it has no parallel in the history of theworld, ancient or modern, either as to its extent and magnitude, orto its consequences, beneficent and benignant in all its bearings onthe interests of all mankind. It is in these aspects, and in thecontemplation of these consequences, that it has no parallel in thehistory of the world—changing the course of the commerce of theworld—bringing the West almost in contact, by reversing theancient line of communication, with the gorgeous East, and all itsriches, the stories of which, in our earlier days we regarded asfabulous; but now, sir, what was held to be merely fictions of thebrain in former times, in regard to the riches of Eastern Asia, isalmost realized on our own western shores. Sir, these are some ofthe inducements to the construction of this great road, besides itsimportance to the military defenses of the country, and its mailcommunications. Sir, it is a magnificent and splendid project inevery aspect in which you can view it. One-third of this greatrailway connection is accomplished; two-thirds remain to be. Shallwe hesitate to go forward with the work?

Now, with regard to the means provided for the construction of theroad. It is said, here is an enormous expenditure of the public moneyproposed. We propose to give twenty millions of dollars in the bondsof the government, bearing five per cent. interest, and fifteenmillions of acres of land, supposed to be worth as much more, on thepart of the government. This is said to be enormous, and we arereminded that we ought to look at what the people will say, and howthey will feel when they come to the knowledge that twenty millions inmoney and twenty millions in land have been given for the constructionof a railway! Some doubtless there are in this chamber who are readyto contend that we had better give these fifteen millions of acres ofland to become homesteads for the landless and homeless. What is thistwenty millions in money, and how is it to be paid? It is supposedthat the road cannot be constructed in less than five years. In thatevent, bonds of the government to the amount of four millions ofdollars will issue annually. Probably the road will not be built inless than ten years, and that will require an issue of bonds amountingto two millions a year; and possibly the road may not be finished inless than twenty years, which would limit the annual issue of bonds toone million. The interest upon these bonds, at five per cent, willof course have to be paid out of the treasury, a treasury in whichthere is now a surplus of twelve or fourteen millions of dollars.When the road is completed and the whole amount of twenty millions inlands is paid, making the whole sum advanced by the government fortymillions, the annual interest upon them will only be two millions.And what is that? Why, sir, the donations and benevolences, theallowances of claims upon flimsy and untenable grounds, and otherextravagant and unnecessary expenditures that are granted by Congressand the executive departments, while you have an overflowing treasury,will amount to the half of that sum annually. The enormous sum of twomillions is proposed to be paid out of the treasury annually, whenthis great road shall be completed! It is a tremendous undertaking,truly! What a scheme! What extravagance! I understand the cost ofthe New York and Erie road alone, constructed principally by privateenterprise, has been not less than thirty millions—between thirtyand thirty-three millions of dollars. That work was constructed by asingle State giving aid occasionally to a company, which supplied thebalance of the cost. I understand that the road from Baltimore toWheeling, when it shall have been finished, and its furniture placedupon it, will have cost at least thirty millions. What madness, whatextravagance, then, is it for the government of the United States toundertake to expend forty millions for a road from the Mississippito the Pacific.

Mr. President, one honorable Senator says the amount is notsufficient to induce a capitalist to invest his money in theenterprise. Others, again, say it is far too much; more than we canafford to give for the construction of the work. Let us see which isright. The government is to give twenty millions in all out of thetreasury for the road; or we issue bonds and pay five per cent,interest annually upon them, and twenty millions in lands, which, ifregarded as money, amounts to a cost to the government of twomillions per annum.

What are the objects to be accomplished? A daily mail from thevalley of the Mississippi to the Pacific; the free transportation ofall troops and munitions of war required for the protection anddefense of our possessions on the Pacific; which we could not holdthree months in a war either with England or France, without such aroad. By building this road we accomplish this further object: Thisroad will be the most effective and powerful check that can beinterposed by the government upon Indian depredations andaggressions upon our frontiers or upon each other; the northerntribes upon the southern, and the southern upon the northern. Youcut them in two. You will be constantly in their midst, and cut offtheir intercommunication and hostile depredations. You will have aline of quasi fortifications, a line of posts and stations, withsettlements on each side of the road. Every few miles you will thushave settlements strong enough to defend themselves against inroadsof the Indians, and so constituting a wall of separation between theIndian tribes, composed of a white population, with arms in theirhands. This object alone would, perhaps, be worth as much as theroad will cost; and when I speak of what the road will be worth inthis respect, I mean to say, that besides the prevention of savagewarfare, the effusion of blood, it will save millions of dollars tothe treasury annually, in the greater economy attained in movingtroops and military supplies and preventing hostilities.

. . .

I have been thus particular in noting these things because I want toshow where or on which side the balance will be found in theadjustment of the responsibility account between the friends and theopponents of this measure—which will have the heaviest account tosettle with the country.

For myself, I am not wedded to this particular scheme. Rather thanhave no road, I would prefer to adopt other projects. I am nowadvocating one which I supposed would meet the views of a greaternumber of Senators than any other. I think great honor is due toMr. Whitney for having originated the scheme, and having obtainedthe sanction of the legislatures of seventeen or eighteen States ofthe Union. Rather than have the project altogether fail, I would bewilling to adopt this plan. It may not offer the same advantages fora speedy consummation of the work; but still, we would have a roadin prospect, and that would be a great deal. But if gentlemen are torise here in their places year after year—and this is the fifthyear from the time we ought to have undertaken this work—and tellus it is just time to commence a survey, we will never have aroad. The honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] saysthere ought to be some limitation in this idea of progress, whenregarded as a spur to great activity and energy, as to what we shalldo in our day. He says we have acquired California; we have openedup those rich regions on our western borders, which promises suchmagnificent results; and he asks, is not that enough for the presentgeneration? Leave it to the nest generation to construct a work ofsuch magnitude as this—requiring forty millions of dollars fromthe government. Mr. President, I have said that if the condition wasa road or no road, I would regard one hundred and fifty millions ofdollars as well laid out by the government for the work; though Ihave no idea that it will take such an amount. Eighty or one hundredmillions of dollars will build the road.

But with regard to what is due from this generation to itself, orwhat may be left to the next generation, I say it is for the presentgeneration that we want the road. As to our having acquiredCalifornia, and opened this new world of commerce and enterprise,and as to what we shall leave to the next generation, I say that,after we of this generation shall have constructed this road, wewill, perhaps, not even leave to the next generation theconstruction of a second one. The present generation, in myopinion, will not pass away until it shall have seen two great linesof railroads in prosperous operation between the Atlantic andPacific Oceans, and within our own territory, and still leave quiteenough to the next generation—the third and fourth great lines ofcommunication between the two extremes of the continent. One, atleast, is due to ourselves, and to the present generation; and Ihope there are many within the sound of my voice who will live tosee it accomplished. We want that new Dorado, the new Ophir ofAmerica, to be thrown open and placed within the reach of the wholepeople. We want the great cost, the delays, as well as theprivations and risks of a passage to California, by the malariousIsthmus of Panama, or any other of the routes now in use, to bemitigated, or done away with. There will be some greater equalityin the enjoyment and advantages of these new acquisitions upon thePacific coast when this road shall be constructed. Theinexhaustible gold mines, or placers of California, will no longerbe accessible only to the more robust, resolute, or desperate partof our population, and who may be already well enough off to paytheir passage by sea, or provide an outfit for an overland travel oftwo and three thousand miles. Enterprising young men all over thecountry, who can command the pittance of forty or fifty dollars topay their railroad fare; heads of families who have the misfortuneto be poor, but spirit and energy enough to seek comfort andindependence by labor, will no longer be restrained by the necessityof separating themselves from their families, but have it in theirpower, with such small means as they may readily command, in eightor ten days, to find themselves with their whole householdstransported and set down in the midst of the gold regions of theWest, at full liberty to possess and enjoy whatever of the richharvest spread out before them their industry and energy shallentitle them to. It will be theirs by as good a title as any canboast who have had the means to precede them. We hear much said oflate of the justice and policy of providing a homestead, a quartersection of the public land, to every poor and landless family in thecountry. Make this road, and you enable every poor man in thecountry to buy a much better homestead, and retain all the pride andspirit of independence. Gentlemen here may say that the region ofCalifornia, so inviting, and abundant in gold now, will soon beexhausted, and all these bright prospects for the enterprising poorpass away. No, sir; centuries will pass—ages and ages must rollaway before those gold-bearing mountains shall all have beenexcavated—those auriferous sands and alluvial deposits shall giveout all their wealth; and even after all these shall have failed,the beds of the rivers will yield a generous return to the toil ofthe laborer. …

Mr. President, I alluded to the importance of having a communicationby railway between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean, inthe event of war with any great maritime Power. I confess that thedebates upon the subject of our foreign relations within the lastfew weeks, if all that was said had commanded my full assent, wouldhave dissipated very much the force of any argument which I thoughtmight be fairly urged in favor of this road as a necessary work forthe protection and security of our possessions on the Pacific coast.We now hear it stated, and reiterated by grave and respectable andintelligent Senators, that there is no reason that any one shouldapprehend a war with either Great Britain or France. Not now, norat any time in the future; at all events, unless there shall be atotal change in the condition, social, political, and economical, ofthose Powers, and especially as regards Great Britain. All who havespoken agree that there is no prospect of war. None at all. Iagree that I can see nothing in the signs of the times which isindicative of immediate and certain war. Several gentlemen havethrown out the idea that we hold the bond of Great Britain to keepthe peace, with ample guarantees and sureties, not only for thepresent time, but for an indefinite time; and as long as GreatBritain stands as an independent monarchy. These sureties andguarantees are said to consist in the discontented and destituteclass of her population, of her operatives and laborers, and theindispensable necessity of the cotton crop of the United States infurnishing them with employment and subsistence, without which it issaid she would be torn with internal strife.

I could tell gentlemen who argue in that way, that we have anotherguarantee that Great Britain will not break with the United Statesfor any trivial cause, which they have not thought proper to raise.We may threaten and denounce and bluster as much as we please aboutBritish violations of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and theMosquito protectorate, about the assumption of territorial dominionover the Balize or British Honduras, and the new colony of the BayIslands; and Great Britain will negotiate, explain, treat, andtransgress, and negotiate again, and resort to any device, beforeshe will go to war with us, as long as she can hope to prolong theadvantages to herself of the free-trade policy now established withthe United States. It is not only the cotton crop of America whichshe covets, but it is the rich market for the products of hermanufacturing industry, which she finds in the United States; andthis has contributed as much as any other cause to improve thecondition of her operatives, and impart increased prosperity to hertrade and revenue. As long as we think proper to hold to ourpresent commercial regulations, I repeat that it will require verygreat provocation on our part to force Great Britain into a war withthe United States. . . .

As for this road, we are told at every turn that it is ridiculous totalk of war in connection with it, for we will have no wars exceptthose with the Indians. Both England and France dare not go to warwith us. I say this course of argument is not only unwise anddelusive, but if such sentiments take hold on the country, they willbe mischievous; they will almost to a certainty lead to a daring andreckless policy on our part; and as each government labors under asimilar delusion as to what the other will not dare to do, what ismore probable than that both may get into such a position—theresult of a mutual mistake—that war must ensue? It is worth whileto reflect upon the difference between the policy of Great Britainand this country in her diplomatic correspondence and debates inParliament. When we make a threat, Great Britain does not threatenin turn. We hear of no gasconade on her part. If we declare that wehave a just right to latitude 54 degrees 40', and will maintain our rightat all hazard, she does not bluster, and threaten, and declare whatshe will do, if we dare to cany out our threat. When we talk aboutthe Mosquito king, of Balize, and of the Bay Islands, and declareour determination to drive her from her policy and purposes inregard to them, we do not hear of an angry form of expression fromher. We employed very strong language last year in regard to therights of American fishermen; but the reply of Great Britainscarcely assumed the tone of remonstrance against the intemperatetone of our debates. Her policy upon all such occasions is one ofwisdom. Her strong and stern purpose is seldom to be seen in herdiplomatic intercourse, or in the debates of her leading statesmen;but if you were about her dock-yards, or in her foundries, or hertimber-yards, and her great engine manufactories, and her armories,you would find some bustle and stir. There, all is life and motion.

I have always thought that the proper policy of this country is tomake no threats—to make no parade of what we intend to do. Letus put the country in a condition to defend its honor and interests;to maintain them successfully whenever they may be assailed; nomatter by what Power, whether by Great Britain, or France, or bothcombined. Make this road; complete the defenses of the country, ofyour harbors, and navy yards; strengthen your navy—put it upon anefficient footing; appropriate ample means for making experiments toascertain the best model of ships-of-war, to be driven by steam orany other motive power; the best models of the engines to beemployed in them; to inquire whether a large complement of guns, ora few guns of great calibre, is the better plan. We may well, uponsuch questions, take a lesson from England. At a recent period shehas been making experiments of this nature, in order to giveincreased efficiency to her naval establishment. How did she setabout it? Her Admiralty Board gave orders for eleven of the mostperfect engines that could be built by eleven of the most skillfuland eminent engine-builders in the United Kingdom, without limit asto the cost, or any other limitation, except as to class or size.At the same time orders were issued for the building of thirteenfrigates of a medium class by thirteen of the most skillfulshipbuilders in the kingdom, in order to ascertain the best models,the best running lines, and the best of every other qualitydesirable in a war vessel. This is the mode in which Great Britainprepares for any contingencies which may arise. She cannot tellwhen they may occur, yet she knows that she has no immunity fromthose chances which, at some time or other, are seen to happen toall nations. In my opinion, the construction of this road from theMississippi to the Pacific is essential to the protection and safetyof this country, in the event of a war with any great maritimePower. It may take ten years to complete it; but every hundredmiles of it, which may be finished before the occurrence of war,will be just so much gained—so much added to our ability tomaintain our honor in that war. In every view of this question Ican take, I am persuaded that we ought at least prepare to commencethe work, and do it immediately.

JUDAH PHILIP BENJAMIN (1811-1884)

Judah P. Benjamin, the "Beaconsfield of the Confederacy," was bornat St. Croix in the West Indies, where his parents, a family ofEnglish-Jews, on their way to settle in New Orleans, were delayed bythe American measures against intercourse with England. In 1816 hisparents brought him to Wilmington, North Carolina, where, and atYale College, he was educated. Not until after he was ready tobegin life at the bar, did he reach New Orleans, the destination forwhich his parents had set out before he was born. In New Orleans,after a severe struggle, he rose to eminence as a lawyer, and hisfirm, of which Mr. Slidell was a partner, was the leading law firmof the State. He was elected to the United States Senate as a Whigin 1852 and re-elected as a Democrat in 1859. With Mr. Slidell, whowas serving with him in the Senate, he withdrew in 1861 and becameAttorney-General in the Confederate cabinet. He was afterwards madeSecretary of War, but as the Confederate congress censured him inthat position he resigned it and Mr. Davis immediately appointed himSecretary of State. After the close of the war, when pursuit aftermembers of the Confederate cabinet was active, he left the coast ofFlorida in an open boat and landed at the Bahamas, taking passagethence to London where he rose to great eminence as a lawyer. Hewas made Queen's Counsel, and on his retirement from practice,because of ill health, in 1883, a farewell banquet was given him bythe bar in the hall of the Inner Temple, probably the most notablecompliment paid in England to any orator since the banquet toBerryer. He died in 1884.

Benjamin was called the "brains of the Confederacy" and in acutenessof intellect he probably surpassed most men of his time. Heresembled Disraeli in this as well as in being a thorough-goingbeliever in an aristocratic method of government rather than in onebased on universal suffrage and the will of the masses determined bymajority vote.

FAREWELL TO THE UNION (On Leaving the United States Senate in 1861)

Mr. President, if we were engaged in the performance of ouraccustomed legislative duties, I might well rest content with thesimple statement of my concurrences in the remarks just made by mycolleague [Mr. Slidell]. Deeply impressed, however, with thesolemnity of the occasion, I cannot remain insensible to the duty ofrecording, among the authentic reports of your proceedings, theexpression of my conviction that the State of Louisiana has judgedand acted well and wisely in this crisis of her destiny.

Sir, it has been urged, on more than one occasion, in thediscussions here and elsewhere, that Louisiana stands on anexceptional footing. It has been said that whatever may be therights of the States that were original parties to the Constitution,—even granting their right to resume, for sufficient cause, thoserestricted powers which they delegated to the general government intrust for their own use and benefit,—still Louisiana can have nosuch right, because she was acquired by purchase. Gentlemen havenot hesitated to speak of the sovereign States formed out of theterritory ceded by France as property bought with the money of theUnited States, belonging to them as purchasers; and, although theyhave not carried their doctrine to its legitimate results, I mustconclude that they also mean to assert, on the same principle, theright of selling for a price that which for a price was bought.

I shall not pause to comment on this repulsive dogma of a partywhich asserts the right of property in free-born white men, in orderto reach its cherished object of destroying the right of property inslave-born black men—still less shall I detain the Senate inpointing out how shadowy the distinction between the condition ofthe servile African and that to which the white freeman of my Statewould be reduced, if it, indeed, be true that they are bound to thisgovernment by ties that cannot be legitimately dissevered withoutthe consent of that very majority which wields its powers for theiroppression. I simply deny the fact on which the argument isfounded. I deny that the province of Louisiana, or the people ofLouisiana, were ever conveyed to the United States for a price asproperty that could be bought or sold at will. Without enteringinto the details of the negotiation, the archives of our StateDepartment show the fact to be, that although the domain, the publiclands, and other property of France in the ceded province, wereconveyed by absolute title to the United States, the sovereignty wasnot conveyed otherwise than in trust.

A hundredfold, sir, has the Government of the United States beenreimbursed by the sales of public property, of public lands, for theprice of the acquisition; but not with the fidelity of the honesttrustee has it discharged the obligations as regards thesovereignty.

I have said that the government assumed to act as trustee orguardian of the people of the ceded province, and covenanted totransfer to them the sovereignty thus held in trust for their useand benefit, as soon as they were capable of exercising it. What isthe express language of the treaty?

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in theUnion of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible,according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to theenjoyments of all rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens ofthe United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained andprotected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and thereligion which they profess."

And, sir, as if to mark the true nature of the cession in a mannertoo significant to admit of misconstruction, the treaty stipulatesno price; and the sole consideration for the conveyance, as statedon its face, is the desire to afford a strong proof of thefriendship of France for the United States. By the terms of aseparate convention stipulating the payment of a sum of money, theprecaution is again observed of stating that the payment is to bemade, not as a consideration or a price or a condition precedent ofthe cession, but it is carefully distinguished as being aconsequence of the cession. It was by words thus studiously chosen,sir, that James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson marked theirunderstanding of a contract now misconstrued as being a bargain andsale of sovereignty over freemen. With what indignant scorn wouldthose stanch advocates of the inherent right of self-government haverepudiated the slavish doctrine now deduced from their action!

How were the obligations of this treaty fulfilled? That Louisianaat that date contained slaves held as property by her people throughthe whole length of the Mississippi Valley, that those people had anunrestricted right of settlement with their slaves under legalprotection throughout the entire ceded province, no man has ever yethad the hardihood to deny. Here is a treaty promise to protecttheir property—their slave property—in that Territory, beforeit should become a State. That this promise was openly violated, inthe adjustment forced upon the South at the time of the admission ofMissouri, is a matter of recorded history. The perspicuous andunanswerable exposition of Mr. Justice Catron, in the opiniondelivered by him in the Dred Scott case, will remain through alltime as an ample vindication of this assertion.

If then, sir, the people of Louisiana had a right, which Congresscould not deny, of the admission into the Union with all the rightsof all the citizens of the United States, it is in vain that thepartisans of the right of the majority to govern the minority withdespotic control, attempt to establish a distinction, to herprejudice, between her rights and those of any other State. The onlydistinction which really exists is this, that she can point to abreach of treaty stipulations expressly guaranteeing her rights, asa wrong superadded to those which have impelled a number of hersister States to the assertion of their independence.

The rights of Louisiana as a sovereign State are those of Virginia;no more, no less. Let those who deny her right to resume delegatedpowers successfully refute the claim of Virginia to the same right,in spite of her express reservation made and notified to her sisterStates when she consented to enter the Union! And, sir, permit me tosay that, of all the causes which justify the action of the SouthernStates, I know none of greater gravity and more alarming magnitudethan that now developed of the right of secession. A pretension somonstrous as that which perverts a restricted agency constituted bysovereign States for common purposes, into the unlimited despotismof the majority, and denies all legitimate escape from suchdespotism, when powers not delegated are usurped, converts the wholeconstitutional fabric into the secure abode of lawless tyranny, anddegrades sovereign States into provincial dependencies.

It is said that the right of secession, if conceded, makes of ourgovernment a mere rope of sand; that to assert its existenceimputes to the framers of the Constitution the folly of plantingthe seeds of death in that which was designed for perpetualexistence. If this imputation were true, sir, it would merely provethat their offspring was not exempt from that mortality which is thecommon lot of all that is not created by higher than humanpower. But it is not so, sir. Let facts answer theory. Fortwo-thirds of a century this right has been known by many of theStates to be, at all times, within their power. Yet, up to thepresent period, when its exercise has become indispensable to apeople menaced with absolute extermination, there have been but twoinstances in which it has been even threatened seriously; the first,when Massachusetts led the New England States in an attempt toescape from the dangers of our last war with Great Britain; thesecond, when the same State proposed to secede on account of theadmission of Texas as a new State into the Union.

Sir, in the language of our declaration of secession from GreatBritain, it is stated as an established truth, that "all experiencehas shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils aresufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to whichthey have been accustomed"; and nothing can be more obvious to thecalm and candid observer of passing events than that the disruptionof the Confederacy has been due, in a great measure, not to theexistence, but to the denial of this right. Few candid men wouldrefuse to admit that the Republicans of the North would have beenchecked in their mad career had they been convinced of the existenceof this right, and the intention to assert it. The very knowledge ofits existence by preventing occurrences which alone could prompt itsexercise would have rendered it a most efficient instrument in thepreservation of the Union, But, sir, if the fact were otherwise—if all the teachings of experience were reversed—better, farbetter, a rope of sand, aye, the flimsiest gossamer that everglistened in the morning dew, than chains of iron and shackles ofsteel; better the wildest anarchy, with the hope, the chance, of onehour's inspiration of the glorious breath of freedom, than ages ofthe hopeless bondage and oppression to which our enemies wouldreduce us.

We are told that the laws must be enforced; that the revenues mustbe collected; that the South is in rebellion without cause, and thather citizens are traitors.

Rebellion! the very word is a confession; an avowal of tyranny,outrage, and oppression. It is taken from the despot's code, andhas no terror for others than slavish souls. When, sir, didmillions of people, as a single man, rise in organized, deliberate,unimpassioned rebellion against justice, truth, and honor? Well dida great Englishman exclaim on a similar occasion:—

"You might as well tell me that they rebelled against the light ofheaven, that they rejected the fruits of the earth. Men do not waragainst their benefactors; they are not mad enough to repel theinstincts of self-preservation. I pronounce fearlessly that nointelligent people ever rose, or ever will rise, against a sincere,rational, and benevolent authority. No people were ever bornblind. Infatuation is not a law of human nature. When there is arevolt by a free people, with the common consent of all classes ofsociety, there must be a criminal against whom that revolt isaimed."

Traitors! Treason! Ay, sir, the people of the South imitate andglory in just such treason as glowed in the soul of Hampden; justsuch treason as leaped in living flame from the impassioned lips ofHenry; just such treason as encircles with a sacred halo the undyingname of Washington.

You will enforce the laws. You want to know if we have a government;if you have any authority to collect revenue; to wring tribute froman unwilling people? Sir, humanity desponds, and all the inspiringhopes of her progressive improvement vanish into empty air at thereflections which crowd on the mind at hearing repeated, withaggravated enormity, the sentiments against which a Chatham launchedhis indignant thunders nearly a century ago. The very words of LordNorth and his royal master are repeated here in debate, not asquotations, but as the spontaneous outpourings of a spirit thecounterpart of theirs.

In Lord North's speech on the destruction of the tea in Bostonharbor, he said:—

"We are no longer to dispute between legislation and taxation; weare now only to consider whether or not we have any authoritythere. It is very clear we have none, if we suffer the property ofour subjects to be destroyed. We must punish, control, or yield tothem."

And thereupon he proposed to close the port of Boston, just as therepresentatives of Massachusetts now propose to close the port ofCharleston, in order to determine whether or not you have anyauthority there. It is thus that, in 1861, Boston is to pay herdebt of gratitude to Charleston, which, in the days of her struggle,proclaimed the generous sentiment that "the cause of Boston was thecause of Charleston." Who, after this, will say that republicansare ungrateful? Well, sir, the statesmen of Great Britain answeredto Lord North's appeal, "yield." The courtiers and the politicianssaid, "punish," "control." The result is known. History gives youthe lesson. Profit by its teachings!

So, sir, in the address sent under the royal sign-manual toParliament, it was invoked to take measures "for better securing theexecution of the laws," and it acquiesced in the suggestion. Just asnow, a senile executive, under the sinister influence of insanecounsels, is proposing, with your assent, "to secure the betterexecution of the laws," by blockading ports and turning upon thepeople of the States the artillery which they provided at their ownexpense for their own defense, and intrusted to you and to him forthat and for no other purpose—nay, even in States that are nowexercising the undoubted and most precious rights of a free people;where there is no secession; where the citizens are assembling tohold peaceful elections for considering what course of action isdemanded in this dread crisis by a due regard for their own safetyand their own liberty; aye, even in Virginia herself, the people areto cast their suffrages beneath the undisguised menaces of afrowning fortress. Cannon are brought to bear on their homes, andparricidal hands are preparing weapons for rending the bosom of themother of Washington.

Sir, when Great Britain proposed to exact tribute from your fathersagainst their will, Lord Chatham said:—

"Whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own; no man has a rightto take it from him without his consent. Whoever attempts to do itattempts an injury. Whoever does it commits a robbery. You have noright to tax America. I rejoice that America has resisted.

"Let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies beasserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extendto every point of legislation whatever, so that we may bind theirtrade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power, exceptthat of taking money out of their own pockets without theirconsent."

It was reserved for the latter half of the nineteenth century, andfor the Congress of a Republic of free men, to witness the willingabnegation of all power, save that of exacting tribute. WhatImperial Britain, with the haughtiest pretensions of unlimited powerover dependent colonies, could not even attempt without the vehementprotest of her greatest statesmen, is to be enforced in aggravatedform, if you can enforce it, against independent States.

Good God, sir! since when has the necessity arisen of recalling toAmerican legislators the lessons of freedom taught in lispingchildhood by loving mothers; that pervade the atmosphere we havebreathed from infancy; that so form part of our very being, that intheir absence we would lose the consciousness of our own identity?Heaven be praised that not all have forgotten them; that when weshall have left these familiar halls, and when force bills,blockades, armies, navies, and all the accustomed coerciveappliances of despots shall be proposed and advocated, voices shallbe heard from this side of the chamber that will make its very roofresound with the indignant clamor of outraged freedom. Methinks Istill hear ringing in my ears the appeal of the eloquentRepresentative [Hon. George H. Pendleton, of Ohio], whose Northernhome looks down on Kentucky's fertile borders: "Armies, money, bloodcannot maintain this Union; justice, reason, peace may."

And now to you, Mr. President, and to my brother Senators, on allsides of this chamber, I bid a respectful farewell; with many ofthose from whom I have been radically separated in politicalsentiment, my personal relations have been kindly, and have inspiredme with a respect and esteem that I shall not willingly forget; withthose around me from the Southern States I part as men part frombrothers on the eve of a temporary absence, with a cordial pressureof the hand and a smiling assurance of the speedy renewal of sweetintercourse around the family hearth. But to you, noble andgenerous friends, who, born beneath other skies, possess hearts thatbeat in sympathy with ours; to you, who, solicited and assailed bymotives the most powerful that could appeal to selfish natures, havenobly spurned them all; to you, who, in our behalf, have bared yourbreasts to the fierce beatings of the storm, and made willingsacrifice of life's most glittering prizes in your devotion toconstitutional liberty; to you, who have made our cause your cause,and from many of whom I feel I part forever, what shall I, can Isay? Naught, I know and feel, is needed for myself; but this I willsay for the people in whose name I speak to-day: whether prosperousor adverse fortunes await you, one priceless treasure is yours—the assurance that an entire people honor your names, and hold themin grateful and affectionate memory. But with still sweeter andmore touching return shall your unselfish devotion be rewarded.When, in after days, the story of the present shall be written, whenhistory shall have passed her stern sentence on the erring men whohave driven their unoffending brethren from the shelter of theircommon home, your names will derive fresh lustre from the contrast;and when your children shall hear repeated the familiar tale, itwill be with glowing cheek and kindling eye; their very souls willstand a-tiptoe as their sires are named, and they will glory intheir lineage from men of spirit as generous and of patriotism ashigh-hearted as ever illustrated or adorned the American Senate.

SLAVERY AS ESTABLISHED BY LAW (Delivered in the United States
Senate, March 11th, 1858)

Examine your Constitution; are slaves the only species of propertythere recognized as requiring peculiar protection? Sir, theinventive genius of our brethren of the North is a source of vastwealth to them and vast benefit to the nation. I saw a short timeago in one of the New York journals, that the estimated value of afew of the patents now before us in this capitol for renewal was$40,000,000. I cannot believe that the entire capital invested ininventions of this character in the United States can fall short ofone hundred and fifty or two hundred million dollars. On whatprotection does this vast property rest? Just upon that sameconstitutional protection which gives a remedy to the slave-ownerwhen his property is also found outside of the limits of the Statein which he lives.

Without this protection what would be the condition of the Northerninventor? Why, sir, the Vermont inventor protected by his own lawwould come to Massachusetts, and there say to the pirate who hadstolen his property, "Render me up my property, or pay me value forits use." The Senator from Vermont would receive for answer, if hewere the counsel of this Vermont inventor: "Sir, if you wantprotection for your property go to your own State; property isgoverned by the laws of the State within whose jurisdiction it isfound; you have no property in your invention outside of the limitsof your State; you cannot go an inch beyond it." Would not this beso? Does not every man see at once that the right of the inventorto his discovery, that the right of the poet to his inspiration,depends upon those principles of eternal justice which God hasimplanted in the heart of man; and that wherever he cannot exercisethem, it is because man, faithless to the trust that he has receivedfrom God, denies them the protection to which they are entitled?

Sir, follow out the illustration which the Senator from Vermonthimself has given; take his very case of the Delaware owner of ahorse riding him across the line into Pennsylvania. The Senatorsays, "Now you see that slaves are not property, like otherproperty; if slaves were property like other property, why have youthis special clause in your Constitution to protect a slave? Youhave no clause to protect a horse, because horses are recognized asproperty everywhere." Mr. President, the same fallacy lurks at thebottom of this argument, as of all the rest. Let Pennsylvaniaexercise her undoubted jurisdiction over persons and things withinher own boundary, let her do as she has a perfect right todo—declare that hereafter, within the State of Pennsylvania, thereshall be no property in horses, and that no man shall maintain asuit in her courts for the recovery of property in a horse, andwhere will your horse owner be then? Just where the English poet isnow; just where the slaveholder and the inventor would be if theConstitution, foreseeing a difference of opinion in relation torights in these subject-matters, had not provided the remedy inrelation to such property as might easily be plundered. Slaves, ifyou please, are not property like other property in this, that youcan easily rob us of them; but as to the right in them, that man hasto overthrow the whole history of the world, he has to overthrowevery treatise on jurisprudence, he has to ignore the commonsentiment of mankind, he has to repudiate the authority of all thatis considered sacred with man, ere he can reach the conclusion thatthe person who owns a slave, in a country where slavery has beenestablished for ages, has no other property in that slave than themere title which is given by the statute law of the land where it isfound.