or French, or Germans were unfit to partake in the humanizing blessing, although the Italian soil, still bearing the effects of former culture, was the first to bring forth delectable fruit. When Gothic architecture had been elaborated by some, it was not believed that other nations could not raise cathedrals in the same style, and enjoy it and develop it in their own way.

On the other hand, we meet with the very reverse. Anglican liberty is opposed on the ground that it is not indigenous, and that it is both inexpedient and unworthy to adopt it. Large numbers in France, both communists and imperialists, treat "parliamentarism" in this manner; and the emperor lately said, when he had assembled the senate and the legislative corps, that France for "the first time enjoyed the happiness of possessing institutions exclusively French and original." As to the originality, we would only observe that they are facsimiles of what Napoleon the First had established, and that he copied the senate, as he did the eagle, the title and idea of emperor, the name of legion, of prefect, from Rome, unfortunately at her worst period, for the Roman Senate during the better time was part of the proud Senatus Populusque Romanus; and the corps legislatif, if there be any element of a representative legislature in it, is not of French origin; if it be a mute body, however, there is no originality in it either. Even if it were as the Emperor proclaimed it, it would convey nothing to be delighted in of itself. The law of allspreading civilization is emigration, transmission, and addition. Ought the French to reject the Grecian orders of architecture because they are not French, or ought our medical students not go to Paris because the French science of medicine is not ours? Ought the French to reject saving-banks because they were first established

"911

and developed in England; and ought the English to discard Jacquard's machine because invented in France? The son of Sirach said that wisdom was hovering like the clouds until it "took root in an honourable people the Israelites. It is thus with all wisdom, all great ideas, and comprehensive systems. They take root with "an honourable people," that develops them. After that come the winds of heaven, and carry the seeds far and about. Patriotism and national vanity are not the same. Patriotism is excellent so long as it is the love of its own to such a degree that it is ready to bear any sacrifice, and to do all for its benefit; it is not a virtue when it consists in an enamouredness with itself. Narcissus is not the symbol of patriotism, but Lycurgus and Solon, travelling far in order to gather knowledge for their own country, are.

At all great and distinct periods of modern history, there are a general idea and certain adequate forms pervading the whole. Such was the Papal period at the beginning of the middle ages; such was the universal feudal system; such the period of universities springing up everywhere; such the periods of art; such the periods of Abelard and scholastic philosophy; such the rising of free cities in all parts of Europe; such the ardour of maritime discovery and enthusiasm for "cosmography;" such the period of monasteries; such protestantism; and such is, I believe, the present period of civil liberty: and this I believe to consist, for centuries to come, essentially in the Anglican type. To learn liberty I believe that nations must go to America and England, as we go to Italy to study music, and to have the vast world of the fine arts opened to us, or as we go to France to study science, or to Germany that we may

11 Ecclesiasticus xxiv.

learn how to instruct and spread education. It was a peculiar feature of antiquity that law, religion, dress, the arts and customs, that everything in fact was localized. Modern civilization extends over regions, tends to make uniform, and eradicates even the physical differences of tribes and races.12 Thus made uniform, nations receive and give more freely. If it has pleased God to appoint the Anglican tribe as the first workmen to rear the temple of liberty, shall others find fault with Providence? The all-pervading law of civilization is physical and mental mutual dependence, and not isolation.

I do not think it necessary to reply here to those perverters of truth who try to justify their denial of liberty to the people on the ground that it is not national. This is done by governments who at the very time copy foreign absolutism. There is doubtless something essential in the idea of national development, but let us never forget two facts: Men, however different, are far more uniform than different; and all the noblest nations have arisen from the mixture of others, from the Greeks to our own.

12 The mutual influence of different literatures is daily extending. Take as an instance the literature of England, France, Germany, and the United States, and add the mutual influence of the journals of these nations. Then consider how many of the elements of civilization are not national, but common to all-the alphabet, the numeric signs, with the decimal system, commercial usages and bookkeeping, social intercourse and laws of politeness, the visiting card, the railway, the steamboat, the post-office, the institution of money, the bill of exchange, insurance-indeed, it is impossible to enumerate all the agreements of nations belonging to our race. I shall only add the dress, the furniture, and even cookery.

CHAPTER XXV.

THE INSTITUTION. ITS DEFINITION. ITS POWER FOR GOOD AND EVIL.

IT has been shown that civil liberty, as we understand and cherish it, consists in a large amount of individual rights, checks of power, and guarantees of self-government. We have more or less fully indicated that selfgovernment, in the sense in which we take it, and in connexion with liberty, consists in the independence of the whole political society, in a national representative government and local self-government, which implies that even general laws and impulses are carried out and realized, as far as possible, by citizens who, by receiving an office, be it by election or appointment, essentially remain citizens, and do not become members of a hierarchy of placemen.' We have seen that self-government,

1 At a sumptuous ball, which the city of Paris gave, in the year 1851, to the commissioners of the London Exhibition, I was sitting in a corner and reflecting on the police officers in their uniforms and the actual patrols of the military pompiers in the very midst of the festive and crowded assemblage, when I was introduced to one of the first statesmen of France and liberal members of the national assembly. He had been at London to view the exhibition. It was the first time he had visited England. "Do you know," said he, "what struck me most-far more than the exhibition of works of art and industry? It was the exhibition of the civism anglais (this was the term he used) in the London police." It may be readily supposed that an American citizen turned his face toward the speaker, to hear more, when the Frenchman continued: "I am in earnest. The large number of policemen, with their citizen appearance, although in uniform, seeming to be there for no other purpose than to assist the people, and the people ever ready to assist them-voilà what has most attracted my attention. Liberty and the government of law are even depicted in their police,

in general, requires that there be an organism to elaborate and ascertain public opinion, and that, when known, it shall pass into law, and, plainly, rule the rulers; that government interfere as an exception, and not as the rule; and that, on the other hand, self-government neither means self-absolutism, nor absence of rule, but that, on the contrary, liberty requires a true government. A weak government is a negation of liberty; it cannot furnish us with a guaranteeing power, nor can it procure supremacy for public will. In other spheres it may be true that the licence is exaggerated liberty, but in politics there can be nothing more unlike liberty than anarchy.

We have still to ascertain how this system of civil liberty is to be realized. Liberty cannot flourish, nor can freedom become a permanent business of actual life, without a permanent love and a habit of liberty. How

where we should seek it least. What is it that strikes you most in coming here ?"

"The American,” I replied, "in visiting the Continent of Europe, is most impressed by the fact that the whole population, from Moscow to Lisbon, seems to be divided into two wholly distinct parts-the round hats, the people, and the cocked hats, the visible government. The two layers are as distinct as the hats, and the traveller sees almost as many of the one form as of the other."

I believe that my French interlocutor showed a penetrating mind in thus singling out the English police.

There are large police establishments in all European countries, as all densely peopled countries require them. The different spirit and organization, however, of these establishments are most characteristic. Nothing, perhaps, shows more the character of a citizen-government in England than the wide-spread institution of the police, which has developed itself, under Sir Robert Peel, out of the ancient constable. It has immense power; it has preventive, detective, and custodial power; yet it is supported by the citizens, and no one fears that it will ever be used as an institution of political espionage and denunciation-as delatores of old and mouchards of modern times. It is strictly under the public law, and that implies under publicity. There is a whole literature on this subject, but I know of no brief paper exhibiting so well its essential character as the seventh paragraph of Mittermaier's English, Scottish, and American Penal Processes.