{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38373/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38373","id":"gutenberg_38373","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38373","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: History - European","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Liberty","Social history"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLIBERTY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY\n\nBy Frederic May Holland\n\n1899\n\nBY\n\nPREFACE\n\nTHIS book is a result of having studied the development of political\nand religious liberty for forty years. How well I have selected\nmy authorities the reader can judge. I will merely say that I have\nmentioned no writer whom I have not studied carefully. The sun-dial has\nbeen so far my model that victories in the cause of freedom are more\nprominent than defeats in the pages that follow. It did not seem\nnecessary to give much space to familiar authors, though I should have\nliked to do justice to Buckle, George Eliot, and Swinburne.\n\nI regret that I have been unable to tell at any adequate length how the\nRepublic which was proclaimed at Paris in 1870 has survived longer than\nany other government set up in France during the century. Its enemies\nhave been voted down repeatedly everywhere; the schools have been made\nfree from ecclesiastical control; and the hostility of the clergy has\nbeen suppressed by the Pope. The French are still too fond of military\nglory, and too ignorant of the value of personal liberty and local\nself-government; but rapid advance in freedom is already possible under\nthe Constitution of 1884. Not only France, but also Great Britain,\nCanada, and Australia, give proof that the time has gone by when\nAmericans had any right to claim, as they did in my boyhood, to be the\nonly people able to govern themselves.\n\nIf any nation can maintain a free press, just laws, and elections of\nlocal magistrates, it ought to enjoy these rights, however slight may\nbe its fitness for becoming a real republic; and the suppression of such\nrights by Cromwell and Napoleon cannot be pardoned consistently by any\nfriend to liberty. Napoleon's chief guilt, as I must here mention,\nwas in ordering the expulsion from office by soldiers, in 1797, of\nrepresentatives of the people who were striving to maintain liberty at\nhome and establish peace abroad. If there were any necessity for his\nusurpation two years later, it was largely of his own making. Despotism\nhad already been made tolerable, however, even during the first\nRepublic, by the national fondness for war. This is according to a\nprinciple which is taught by Herbert Spencer, and which is illustrated\nin the following pages by many instances from the history of France\nand other nations. The horrors of the Reign of Terror may be explained,\nthough not excused, by the greatness of the danger from invaders as well\nas rebels. And there were very few cases of punishing differences merely\nabout religion by the guillotine.\n\nI have also tried to show how the centralising tendencies of a\ngovernment are strengthened by the wish of its citizens to gain private\nadvantages by state aid. John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer have\npublished timely warnings against the danger of checking the development\nof individual energy and ability by meddlesome laws. Whether the power\nof the government ought to be reduced to the narrow limits proposed by\nthese great thinkers, is a question which has been discussed at some\nlength in my last chapter. It is there suggested that such a reduction\nwould be much more practicable in the case of national than of local\ngovernments. It is not likely to be made anywhere at present; but\nit might be well for reformers to try to restrict the operations of\ngovernments according to the following rule: nothing to be undertaken by\na national government which can be done as well by municipalities; and\nnothing to be attempted by either a local or central government which\ncan be done as well by private citizens, acting singly or in voluntary\nassociations. This rule would justify towns and cities in taking such\ncare of roads, streets, and schools as is not sanctioned by Spencer; but\nit would leave municipalities free to decide the question whether\nthey ought to carry on gas- and water-works, electric roads, and other\nenterprises according to the merits of each special case. Here in\nAmerica internal improvements seem to be the proper charge of the State,\nrather than of the nation; but whether the former has any right to\nenforce Sunday laws, and the latter to impose protective tariffs, are\nquestions which I have taken the liberty of discussing thoroughly.\nHerbert Spencer should not be held responsible for any opinions not\nprinted plainly as his. Most of the instances of the working of Sunday\nstatutes were taken from a religious newspaper entitled The American\nSentinel. Among very recent cases are these. A Georgian was sentenced on\nMay 16, 1899, to pay a fine of twenty dollars or spend six months in the\nchain-gang for working on his farm. That same month a clergyman was\narrested in Mississippi, merely for taking a little exercise with a hoe\nin his garden. In 1898, a farmer in the State of New York was arrested\nfor picking a few apples from one of his own trees. The total number of\nSabbath-breakers arrested that year in New York City is estimated at a\nthousand; and there were nearly four thousand arrests for Sunday trading\nin England and Wales in 1897.\n\nThe principle of giving each citizen every opportunity of development\ncompatible with the general welfare, is so plainly irreconcilable with\nSocialism, that I have thought it well to give several instances of the\nfact that a man seldom does his best work except for his own benefit and\nthat of his family. Even the exceptionally energetic and conscientious\nfounders of New England did not raise food enough until it was agreed\nthat \"They should set corne, every man for his own particular.\" Another\ndifficulty in the way of state Socialism is that the requisite number\nof competent managers could not be found after the abolition of the\ncompetitive system. It is that which brings forward men of unusual\nability and energy, though scarcely in sufficient numbers. Socialism\nwould increase the demand, but lessen the supply. Spencer calls it \"the\ncoming slavery.\" It might better be called a slavery which is becoming\nobsolete. Our existing system of industry certainly needs improvement;\nbut this will have to be made by following the laws of social science.\nTheir action has done much during the present century to improve the\ncondition of the poor; and we may trust that it will do more hereafter.\nThe nineteenth might be called the philanthropic century, if that title\ndid not belong also to the eighteenth.\n\nThe latter has the peculiar merit of doing so much to abolish\npersecution that there have been comparatively few instances during the\nperiod covered by this book. Much more has been done during the last\nhundred years to extend political than religious liberty; but I have not\nneglected to mention the most active champions of the great principle,\nthat human rights ought not to be affected by individual differences\nabout theology. If there is too little agitation at present for\nthis principle in the United States, it is largely on account of an\nunfortunate occurrence of which I have written at some length in the\nlast chapter but one. Here I had the valuable assistance of Francis E.\nAbbot, Ph.D., author of _Scientific Theism_, and Benjamin F. Underwood.\nIf the words, \"militant liberals,\" had been used in this chapter, they\nwould express my meaning more plainly than the term \"aggressive.\"\n\nThe least pleasant part of my work has been the pointing out defects in\na system of philosophy, ethics, and theology which I once delighted to\nhonour. As valuable results may have been reached by the metaphysical\nmethod as by the scientific; but if the latter is right the former\nis certainly wrong. When we find so consistent and warmhearted a\nTranscendentalist as Miss Cobbe placing pantheism and scepticism among\n\"the greatest of sins\" (see her _Religious Duty_, pp. 19, 65, and 100),\nwe may suspect that this philosophy aggravated Carlyle's natural\nbitterness against opponents. There has been comparatively little\nintolerance among American intuitionalists, thanks to the genial\ninfluence of Emerson.\n\nF. M. H.\n\nAugust, 1899.\n\n\n\n\nLIBERTY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. NAPOLEON AND HIS WORK\n\nI. France had been freed by the Revolution from many ghosts of kingly,\nfeudal, and priestly privileges; but she was still the prey of the most\ndeadly of vampires,--military glory. The followers of this fatal guide\nhad driven the party of peace and liberty from power by force and fraud,\nand found a ruler after their own hearts in the conqueror who, in 1804,\nbecame the Emperor Napoleon.\n\nThus was established what some metaphysicians suppose to be the best\nform of government,--an enlightened despotism. The autocrat knew that he\nhad risen to power as the most popular champion of political equality;\nand he gave this democratic principle such additional authority that it\nhas continued supreme in France. Her sons are still equals before the\nlaw, owners of the land they till, exempt from taxes levied for the\nbenefit of any privileged class, and free to choose their own career and\nmode of worship. This is due in great part to the usurper who reduced\nrepresentative government to an empty shell, and who centralised the\nadministration of schools, police, streets, roads, and bridges, and all\nother local concerns even more completely than had ever been done before\nthe Revolution.\n\nHe knew the real needs of France well enough to give her peace with all\nher enemies; but scarcely had he signed the last treaty when he took\npossession of Switzerland, and continued to annex territory, in defiance\nof the protests of the British ministers that he was making peace\nimpossible. War was declared by them in 1803 and kept up against him\nfor eleven years continuously, with occasional assistance from Russia,\nAustria, Prussia, Spain, and other countries. This was a period of\ngreat glory for France, but also of great suffering. Her boundaries were\nenlarged; but her most patriotic citizens were slaughtered in foreign\nlands; her shipping was swept away by British cruisers; her people\nwere hindered in obtaining American grain, British cloth, and other\nnecessaries of life, in exchange for wine, silk, lace, and other\nluxuries; the Emperor could not supervise the prefects who managed,\nor mismanaged, all internal interests, and who were responsible to him\nalone; freedom of the press was prohibited; and all the arts of peace\ndecayed.\n\nThis was the price which France paid for Auster-litz, Jena, and other\nfamous victories over Russia, Austria, and Prussia, which in 1807\nbrought peace with every enemy but England, and made Napoleon master,\neither directly through his prefects, or indirectly through tributary\nkings, not only of France but of the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland,\nSpain, Venice with the rest of Italy, and about three-fourths of\nGermany, including one-half of what had formerly been Prussian\nterritory. Eight years from the usurpation in 1799 brought him to his\nzenith: eight years later, he was at Saint Helena.\n\nHis German, Swiss, and Italian subjects gained political equality, and\nalso the permanent advantage of the code which bears his name. It had\nreally been made by his lawyers, on foundations laid by the Convention.\nThroughout his dominions, Jew, Catholic, and Protestant became equals\nbefore the law. The fact that these reforms survived his authority\nproves that they could have been established without it. They were\nunavoidable results of the eighteenth century.\n\nHow little he was influenced by philanthropy is shown by his driving\ninto exile a statesman named Stein, who had abolished serfdom in\nPrussia, and made it equally possible for the members of all classes\nto buy land and choose occupations. The establishment of the Empire had\nbeen preceded by the revival of slavery in several colonies where it\nhad been abolished by the Convention. It was for helping the Haytians\npreserve their independence by heroic resistance, that Toussaint was\nsent by Napoleon to die in prison. The conquered nations in Europe were\nhanded over from one master to another, without being even invited to\nconsent; but what was still more oppressive was inability to exchange\ntheir own products for cloth and hardware from England, grain from the\nUnited States, coffee and sugar from the West Indies, and many other\narticles whose lack was keenly felt. This trouble was largely due to the\nblockade kept up by British Ships; but Napoleon was so ignorant of the\nadvantage of commerce to both parties engaged in it as to suppose he\ncould conquer England by a plan which really injured only himself and\nhis subjects. He forbade all importation from Great Britain and her\ncolonies wherever he had power or even influence; and many of the\nprohibited goods were taken from merchants and destroyed without\ncompensation. Germany suffered also from having her manufactures\nforbidden to compete with the French. The latter asked in vain for\nfreer trade, and were told by Napoleon that he understood their business\nbetter than they did. Countless outrages on prominent individuals helped\nthe growth of disaffection.\n\nII. The British ministry retaliated against Napoleon's attack on the\nright to trade freely, with a success which led to a great outrage on\nindividual liberty in the United States. The war with Europe gave much\nof the world's commerce to American ships; but they were forbidden\nby Great Britain, in 1806, to trade with some of their best customers\nunless they stopped to pay tribute in her ports. The seizures for\ndisobedience increased the anger which had been long felt against\nthe British for impressing sailors on board of American ships. Three\nthousand citizens of the United States had been forced into a hostile\nnavy before the refusal of our frigate, _Chesapeake_, in 1807, to submit\nto a search brought on a bloody contest.\n\nNapoleon was then at the height of his power; and Great Britain was\nfighting against him single-handed. It was an unusually good time for\ndeclaring a war which soon proved inevitable in defence of merchants'\nand sailors' rights. Jefferson preferred to violate those rights\nhimself, as had been done by the Federalists in 1794, and Congress aided\nhim in forbidding American ships to sail for foreign ports. This embargo\nwas so plainly unnecessary that every captain who was able to get out\nof New York harbour did so at once without caring what crew, cargo, or\npapers he had on board. Fifty million dollars' worth of shipping was\nkept idle for more than a year; a hundred thousand sailors and mechanics\nwere thrown out of work; farms and plantations ceased to be profitable;\nclothing and tools became ruinously dear; thirteen hundred New Yorkers,\nwho had been ruined by the embargo, were imprisoned for debt; and laws\nfor protection against creditors were passed by the Southern and Western\nStates. No one gained by the embargo except the smugglers; and attempts\nto suppress them called out dangerous manifestations of popular\ndiscontent. No one suffered less than the British merchants.\n\nIII. Meantime, Napoleon took the first step towards ruin in placing his\nbrother on the throne of Spain. The Spaniards had borne patiently the\nloss of ships, commerce, and colonies; but this fresh wrong stirred up\ninsurrection. The new King was brought to Madrid by French troops; but\nnot a single Spaniard would enter his service; and he was soon obliged\nto leave the city. He said to his brother, \"Your glory will be wrecked\nin Spain\"; but Napoleon kept on sending in armies, whose victories made\nhim hated, but not obeyed. He offered to abolish feudal privileges, the\ninquisition, and the tariffs which separated province from province. The\nonly result was to make reform odious to a people which cared much more\nfor nationality than progress. The clergy encouraged the peasants to\nkeep up a guerilla war, in which his veterans perished ignominiously;\nand British auxiliaries won victories which made Wellington famous.\n\nAustria took advantage of the situation to try to reconquer the lost\nprovinces. The Tyrolese had been made subjects of the King of Bavaria;\nbut they rose at the call of Hofer, and gained glorious victories over\nFrench and Bavarian soldiers. Other defeats were suffered by Napoleon;\nbut he soon succeeded in forcing Austria to grant him, not only much\nmore of her territory, but the hand of a young princess, who had never\nthought of him but with abhorrence. This involved his divorce from the\nloving Josephine. He pleaded desire for a son who might succeed him; but\nhe was not likely to live until any child who might be born after this\nwould be old enough to keep together an empire whose basis was conquest.\n\nThe Austrian princess had been demanded before Napoleon's application\nfor a Russian one had been answered decisively; his plans for restoring\nPoland had given additional offence to the Czar; and the welfare of\nRussia demanded freedom to use the products of her forests, fields, and\nmines in buying British goods. This right was insisted upon by the Czar;\nand Napoleon had only abuse for the friends who warned him that defeat\nin Russia would call all Germany to arms against him. He was already so\nunpopular at Paris, that he had to remove with his Court.\n\nThe enormous army with which he invaded Russia might easily have taken\npossession of her Polish provinces, where the people were friendly.\nHe preferred to march a thousand miles, through a hostile and barren\ncountry, to Moscow. The city was set on fire at his arrival; but he\nwasted so much time there, that winter helped the Russians turn\nhis retreat into a rout. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers perished\nmiserably.\n\nThe Prussians flew to arms; and Austria demanded restoration of her\nprovinces. He replied that he should not yield an inch, and cared\nnothing for the loss of a million lives. He was driven out of Germany by\n\"the Battle of the Nations,\" which was won at Leipsic, in October,\n1813, by zealous cooperation of the Russians with Prussians, Austrians,\nBavarians, and other Germans.\n\nOne result was described by saying that \"The Dutch have taken Holland.\"\nNeed of a strong government in time of war had given a power almost\nmonarchical to the successors of that Prince of Orange who had saved\nhis republic from Philip II. One of these princes was driven out by\na democratic rebellion in 1787, but restored by a Prussian army. The\nFrench Revolution enabled Holland to return to republicanism; but\nalliance with the Directory meant continual spoliation; and there were\ngrievous conscriptions under Napoleon, whose rule was extremely\nunpopular in a nation which lived by commerce. When the Dutch heard of\nhis defeat at Leipsic, they rose against him without waiting for\nauxiliaries; and the French garrisons were soon driven out by the help\nof soldiers from Russia, Prussia, and England. The rulers of these\ncountries sanctioned the desire of the Orange faction to make the prince\na king. The people were not consulted, but were reconciled by a\nconstitution, under which there was a legislature with some power, local\nself-government, freedom of worship, political equality, and liberty in\ncommerce.\n\nNapoleon might have remained emperor; but he refused to make any\nconcessions, and kept on fighting until his generals abandoned him, and\nhis deposition was voted by the Senate. The people would not rise for\nhim, as they had done for the Republic; and the Parisians refused to\ncry \"Vive l'Empereur\" as he returned from Elba, to be overthrown at\nWaterloo. Three million Frenchmen perished in his wars; and he left\nFrance smaller than he found her. His restrictions on commerce were\nremoved so suddenly as to destroy the industries which he had tried to\nfoster; and the proportion of paupers to the population was three times\nas great as in 1880.\n\nFrance was still desirous that the press should be free, and that\ntaxation should be controlled by representatives of the people. Louis\nXVIII. had to promise that he would respect these rights which his\npredecessors had violated. Toleration continued; and the peasants kept\nthe property and equality which the Revolution had given them, and which\nno sovereign could take away.\n\nNapoleon is the most famous of generals; but his greatness as a\nstatesman would have been plainer if he had not undertaken so many showy\nenterprises which had little chance of success. He failed signally in\nfounding a dynasty, in making France the greatest of manufacturers, and\nin giving her an invincible navy, though he might have gained the first\nof these objects by peace, and the last by free trade. He could not even\nleave to his successor the territory which had been conquered by the\nRevolution. Yet these were his dearest purposes, except the wild dream\nof humbling England. Was he the greatest of architects, every one of\nwhose colossal structures fell under their own weight before they could\nbe used? Greater is he who builds what lasts for ages.\n\nNapoleon made the twenty years ending with 1815 more glorious than any\nlater period, and much more wretched. Western Europe was afflicted by\nbloody wars, and impoverished by restrictions on commerce. If his reign\nhad been peaceable, he might have deprived France much more completely\nof what liberty she had enjoyed under the Directory. Every despot,\nhowever enlightened and benevolent, must necessarily interfere so much\nwith the liberty of his subjects as to hinder their making themselves\nhappy. France and Germany lost nothing in freedom and gained much in\nprosperity by his defeat; for it gave the world many years of peace.\nWhat he brought of political and religious equality to Prussia,\nWestern Germany, and Switzerland survived him; for it was part of his\ninheritance from the Revolution which he closed treacherously. France\nhad received her legacy without his help; and she retained much of it in\nspite of his interference. His victories over hereditary monarchs were\nso suggestive that books about him are still prohibited in Russia; but\nno people lost much by his overthrow except the Italians.\n\nIV. Waterloo might have been called a \"of the Nations\" as well as\nLeipsic; but the best fighting was under the British flag. The English\nhad suffered much from Napoleon, in spite of his never succeeding in\nmaking an invasion. The worst injury he did was in forcing them to\nremain in that absorption in war which had checked the growth of\ntoleration, democracy, and prosperity in 1793. George III. was\npersonally popular; but his weak, unprincipled successor was merely a\nfigurehead. Two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons in 1815\nhad been appointed by the Ministry, or by some nobleman, and most of\nthe others owned or rented some pocket-borough almost destitute of\ninhabitants. The House of Lords was overwhelmingly opposed to government\nby the people; and no Tories were more consistent than those sons or\nproteges of noblemen, the bishops. The successors of the apostles had\nno sympathy with the struggle of the Cross against the Crescent in lands\nwhere Paul had preached. They helped to vote down propagation of the\nGospel in India, as well as enfranchisement of Roman Catholics, and\nmitigation of laws which punished pilfering with death. They tried in\nvain to save the slave-trade from prohibition; and most of the clerical\nand lay members of both Houses were in league to keep the tax on\nimportation of wheat heavy enough to give them large incomes from their\nreal estate.\n\nThis tariff and the depreciation of currency made food excessively dear.\nThe country labourer was often unable to earn more than the price of a\nloaf a day. Employers agreed on wages so low that the peasants had to\nask continually for parochial relief, and could not afford to go out of\nthe parish to seek higher pay. Their degradation was increased by\ntheir almost universal illiteracy; and their misdemeanours, especially\npoaching, were punished cruelly; for the rural magistrate was either the\nsquire or his ally, the parson. There was little chance of justice for\nthe poor against the rich; the rural labourer could seldom improve his\nposition; and the bad harvests of 1816, 1817, and 1818 helped to make\nhim worse off than ever before or since.\n\nThe operatives had higher wages, but suffered under the friction of an\nindustrial revolution, which has done more than any political convulsion\nfor human happiness. The factory had been enabled by the invention of\nthe steam-engine and other machines, shortly before 1800, to take the\nplace of the cottages in making cloth. British goods were in great\ndemand abroad during the war, and had to be carried in British ships.\nImproved roads and canals led merchants and manufacturers to opulence.\nThe rich grew richer, as has usually been the case; but there were some\nexceptional years during which the poor really grew poorer. One man\ncould make as much cotton cloth in a day as two hundred could have done\nbefore; but what was to become of the one hundred and ninety-nine?\nDemand for factory labour kept increasing until 1815; but population\ngrew faster still. Wages were already falling; the return of peace\nlessened the demand abroad; and hundreds of thousands of discharged\nsoldiers and sailors were added to the multitude of unemployed.\nLabourers were forbidden either to emigrate or to combine in order to\nkeep up wages; and their earnings were lowest at the time when bread was\nthe highest. Meat, sugar, foreign fruit, and many other articles now in\ncommon use were almost unattainable by the poor until late in the\ncentury. There was much more intelligence in the towns than in the\ncountry; but there were no opportunities of education in 1818 in England\nfor one-half of the children.\n\nBoys and girls entered the factory at the age of six, and often from the\npoor-house, where they had been sold into slavery. The regular time was\nfourteen hours a day; sitting down was seldom permitted; food was scanty\nand bad; punishment was constant and cruel; deformity and disease were\nfrequent; and the death-rate was unusually high. Terrible cases occurred\nof pauper children, kept sixteen hours at a stretch without rest or\nfood, driven by hunger to rob the troughs in the pig-sty, tortured\nmerely for amusement by the overseer, and even advertised for sale with\nthe mill.\n\nThe middle class differed much more widely than at present, both from\nthe masses on one hand and from the aristocracy on the other, as regards\nfood, dress, culture, amusements, and political liberty. Taxation\nwas heavy and vexatious; representation in Parliament was notoriously\ninadequate; and honest men and women were still liable to imprisonment\nfor debt. No one but an Episcopalian had a right to study at a\nuniversity, enter Parliament, or hold any civil, naval, or military\noffice in England; and neither Dissenters nor Catholics could marry\nwithout going through ceremonies which conscience forbade. The press\nwas fettered by laws which kept Leigh Hunt imprisoned for two years,\non account of an article acknowledging the unpopularity of the Prince\nRegent. Cobbett underwent an equally long imprisonment in Newgate for\nblaming the cruelty of sentencing insubordinate militiamen to be flogged\nfive hundred lashes. No plays could be performed in London in 1814 until\nthey had been read and licensed by the Lord Chamberlain's deputy.\n\nAs soon as a strong government ceased to be needed for protection\nagainst Napoleon, there broke out much agitation for relief of the\ndisfranchised as well as of the destitute. There was an unprecedented\ncirculation of the cheap pamphlets in which Cobbett advised the\ndiscontented to abstain from lawless violence, which could only give\nthem another Robespierre, and devote themselves to striving peaceably\nfor their political rights. Among these he asserted that of every man\nwho paid taxes to vote for members of Parliament. The serious riots\nwhich took place in many parts of Great Britain, even London, made\nthe aristocracy consider all opportunities of addressing the people\ndangerous. The ministry were empowered in 1817 to arrest speakers and\nauthors without any warrant, and keep them in prison without a trial.\nProhibition of public meetings was made possible by an act which\nextended to reading-rooms, debating societies, even among students at\nCambridge, and scientific lectures.\n\nThe mounted militia was sent to disperse a meeting of fifty thousand\nunarmed men and women at Manchester, on August 16, 1819, in behalf of\nparliamentary reform. The people were packed together so closely that\nthey were unable to separate quickly. Fear that some of the young\ngentlemen who had ridden into the throng might get hurt led the\nmagistrates to order several hundred hussars to charge, without notice,\ninto the dense crowd. The meeting was soon reduced to heaps of fallen\nmen and women, who had been overthrown in the general struggle to escape\nor cut down by the soldiers; and the field was covered with bloody hats,\nshawls, and bonnets. Six people were killed, and more than thirty others\nwounded severely. There was indignation everywhere against this wanton\ncruelty; and the Common Council of London voted their censure; but\nParliament passed laws that same year which made public meetings\nalmost impossible, and put cheap pamphlets under a prohibitory tax, by\nrequiring that they must have such an expensive stamp as kept newspapers\nbeyond the reach of people generally. Arrests for printing and selling\nunstamped publications were thenceforward frequent. There were many\nbloody riots; and a conspiracy for assassinating the Ministry was\norganised in 1820. A dangerous revolution might then have broken out, if\nfood had not been made plenty by abundant harvests.\n\nRoman Catholics were still forbidden to hold any office under the\nBritish Government. They could not sit in either House of Parliament,\nor be married legally in Ireland, where they formed four-fifths of the\npopulation, and almost all the offices on that island were filled by\nProtestants who had been sent over from England, or else elected by\nclose corporations containing scarcely any Catholics. The disfranchised\nnation was all the more indignant on account of such facts as\nthat two-thirds of the soil of Ireland had been taken away without\ncompensation by English invaders before 1700, and that the share of the\nIrish in 1800 was only one-tenth. This was held mostly in great estates,\nas was the rest of the island. Rents were everywhere high and wages low,\nfor population was superabundant; manufactures had been crushed by laws\nto protect British interests; the people were left ignorant, even of\nagriculture; and there were frequent famines. Both the land and the\ngovernment were mismanaged by an anti-Irish minority which took little\npains to keep its own partisans from lawless violence, but did its\nutmost to extort money for a legion of priests, who were merely servants\nof oppression to nine-tenths of the people. How little they cared\nabout their professed duty may be judged from the case mentioned by a\ntraveller named Inglis (vol. i., p. 349), of a bishop who drew four or\nfive hundred pounds a year for calling himself rector of a parish\nwhere there was no pretence of any public worship but the Catholic.\nIndignation of Irish Presbyterians had been one main cause of the bloody\nrebellion of 1798; and all patriotic Irishmen were exasperated at the\noppression of the poor by the rich. Removal of religious disabilities\nwas urgently demanded, and most of the men were members in 1825 of an\nindependent association, which could easily have turned the island into\none vast camp.\n\nV. Germany had been devastated by twenty years of battles; and many\nthousand Germans had perished, either in defending their homes against\nNapoleon, or in serving under him in Russia. His overthrow left them in\ndeeper subjection than ever to a league of despots, who differed in pomp\nof title and extent of territory, but agreed in obstinately denying any\npolitical liberty to the people. The servitude of Germany was confirmed\nby the agreement of clergymen and philosophers, that absolute monarchy\nwas \"ordained of God.\" The ban of church and university was on the\nrevolutionary rationalism which had inspired the eighteenth century. The\npredominant philosophy during the first half of the nineteenth century\ninsisted on the infallibility of what was called intuition, but was\noften merely tradition. This was already the case in Germany, where\nmoribund ideas of politics and theology were worshipped as the loftiest\nrevelations of pure reason.\n\nDevout disciples still hold that all established institutions are\njustified and all knowledge revealed by Hegel's method of deduction\nfrom his own peculiar definition of the Infinite. That definition\nseems self-contradictory; but this is only a trifle, compared with the\nmethod's permitting the master to prefer absolute monarchy, and forcing\nhim to deny that any nation, not extremely limited in area, can long\nremain a democracy. Hegel's indifference to the existence of the United\nStates was like his asserting, after the discovery of Ceres, that the\nplace where it had been found, and where hundreds of other planets are\nnow known to exist, must be empty. Among other results of his system\nwere a denial that lightning is electricity, and an assertion that rain\nis merely a change of air into water. Neither liberty nor knowledge\ngains by disregard of experience in favour of deductions from imaginary\nintuitions.\n\nUnfortunately, the experience of Europe under Napoleon, as well as\nduring the Revolution, seemed to justify restoration of old institutions\nas well as of former boundaries. The latter purpose was ostensibly that\nfor which the conquerors of Napoleon met at Vienna, soon after he had\nretired to Elba; but their real object was to divide the spoils among\nthemselves. The Emperors of Russia and Austria had the assistance, or\nopposition, of five kings, and of so many princes and nobles that three\nhundred carriages of state were kept in constant readiness. Lovely\nladies of high rank came from many lands; and it seemed to the\nuninitiated as if nothing was going on but masked balls, private\ntheatricals, hunting parties, stately dinners, and concerts. Beethoven\nwas among the musicians. There was no general meeting of the monarchs\nand ambassadors; but there were frequent conferences of those most\ninterested in one point or another; and the name of Congress of Vienna\nwas amply justified by the number of bargains and compromises. The only\npersons never consulted were the thirty millions whose masters were thus\nselected.\n\nBelgium, for instance, was forced into a union with Holland, which\nled to civil war; and the Norwegians were put under subjection to the\nSwedes, against whom they had just been fighting. Ten millions more\nof Poles were made subjects of the Czar; and his original wish to rule\nmildly was frustrated by their rebellion. The Italians had been brought\nby Napoleon into such unity and sense of nationality as they had not\nfelt for many centuries. Offers of greater liberty made Lombardy and\nVenice take sides against him; they were rewarded by being put under the\nmost hated of rulers, the Austrians; and the latter were made virtually\nmasters of all Italy. When all the plunder had been divided, the\nroyal robbers united in a declaration, acknowledging Jesus as the only\nsovereign and recommending the daily and universal practice of religion.\n\nThe only sovereign who kept his promise, that he would give his subjects\na new constitution if they would help him conquer Napoleon, was Goethe's\npatron at Weimar. He presided over the University of Jena, which\nSchiller, Fichte, and other professors had made the centre of democratic\ninfluence in Germany. A secret political society was formed by students\nwho had fought at Waterloo; and all the universities were invited to\nhelp celebrate, on October 18, 1817, the anniversary, not only of the\nvictory at Leipsic, but of the opening of the Protestant Reformation.\nFive hundred students from various parts of Germany met in the Wartburg,\nthe castle where Luther found refuge after bidding defiance at Worms to\nboth Pope and Emperor. It was agreed that the new society should extend\nthrough all the universities, and should have banners of black, red, and\nyellow. These henceforth were the colours of liberty in Germany.\n\nNapoleon had reduced Prussia's army to a minimum; among the preparations\nfor breaking his yoke had been the practice of such gymnastics as are\nstill kept up by the Turners; and a public exhibition was given that\nevening near the castle, before an immense bonfire. Reference was made\nthere to kings who broke their word; and as the audience broke up, some\nof the students fed the blaze with various emblems of despotism, such\nas the canes with which soldiers were flogged by corporals. Then\nthey burned a number of blank books, with titles copied from those of\npamphlets recently published in opposition to progress.\n\nThe King of Prussia had taken some steps towards constitutional liberty,\nbut these boyish freaks brought him completely under the influence\nof Prince Metternich. This crafty but kind-hearted Austrian worked\nsteadily, from 1814 to 1848, at much sacrifice of ease and pleasure, in\nhope of preserving civilisation and religion from being destroyed by\nany new revolution. He was now the real Emperor of Germany; the British\nMinistry was in sympathy; and the Czar, who had at first been an admirer\nof parliamentary government, was converted by an outrage in the name of\nliberty on the right of free speech. One of the literary champions\nof Russian autocracy, Kotzebue, was assassinated, early in 1819, by\na divinity student who had been at the Wartburg. That same year the\nrepresentatives of the leading German states met at Carlsbad, and\nagreed, with the Czar's approval, that all German journals and\nuniversities should be under strict supervision, that political\noffenders should be tried by a special central tribunal, and that the\nnew colours should be prohibited.\n\nVI. Louis XVIII. cared as little as Charles II. of England about\npromises, but was quite as unwilling to have to travel abroad. He\ndissolved a legislature which was too reactionary; subsequent elections\nreturned liberal candidates, though only one man in a hundred could\nvote; the National Guard was revived; and progressive ideas were\nexpressed freely. France was moving forwards until February 13, 1820,\nwhen a Bonapartist murdered the King's nephew, in hope of cutting off\nthe succession. The legislature was obliged, two days later, to let the\npress be muzzled; sanctions of individual liberty were thrown aside; and\na law was passed to give rich men two votes apiece. The Liberal Ministry\nwas dismissed; and its successor put all education under control of\nthe priests, forbade Cousin and Guizot to lecture, and sent Beranger to\nprison for publishing incendiary songs. Louis XVIII., like Charles II.,\nleft the crown to a bigoted brother, who had been taught by the Jesuits\nto care much more for religion than human rights, or the duty of\nchastity; and Charles X. did his utmost to make himself an absolute\nmonarch. Still worse results of assassination in the name of liberty had\nalready been suffered in Spain and Italy.\n\nNo people had really lost much by the overthrow of Napoleon except the\nItalians. They were learning how to love each other as fellow-citizens\nof one common country, and how to care more for the welfare of the\npeople than for that of the priests. The Congress of Vienna restored\nthe supremacy of the clergy, and cut up Italy once more into little\nprincipalities, whose stupid and cruel despots were guided by\nMetternich. The people were already conscious of the tie of nationality,\ndesirous to be governed with some regard to their own welfare, and\ndestitute of faith in the divine right of kings. Few of them have been\nso plainly not \"ordained of God\" as Ferdinand of Naples and Sicily. He\nhad run away basely from the invaders, and been brought back to promise\namnesty, and to massacre men, women, and children by thousands. No\ncriminals but patriots were watched closely; and brigands defied the\ngovernment. There was no pretence of liberty, even on the stage; and the\nJesuits kept literature and education down to merely nominal existence.\nThe only refuge of freedom was among the Carbonari, or members of a\nsecret society, half a million strong. Their flags of black, red, and\nblue were hoisted in many towns and villages on July 2, 1820, when the\narmy led the revolt. The King swore on the Bible, and after hearing\nmass, that he would establish a constitution like the French one of\n1791, and then asked help from Metternich. The latter brought the\nAustrian, Russian, and Prussian monarchs together at Troppau, Silesia,\nwhere they agreed, on December 8, 1820, to put down all rebels,\nespecially in Italy. An Austrian army won a decisive victory next March\nover the Neapolitans, whose best troops were fighting against an attempt\nat secession in Sicily.\n\nAustria took part, a month later, in suppressing a revolt which had just\nbroken out against the petty despot nicknamed \"King of Sardines.\" His\nfirst step on his restoration, in 1814, had been to reappoint every man\nwho had been in office in 1798; and Napoleon's code gave way to ancient\nstatutes which, for instance, forbade the Piedmontese to send wheat they\ncould not use themselves to the Savoyards, who were starving. He was\nforced to abdicate by a revolt of citizens who wanted a constitution and\nof soldiers who wished to free Lombardy from Austria. Her help enabled\nhis successor to keep the monarchy absolute; and her influence became\nparamount in Sardinia, as elsewhere in Italy.\n\nVII. The month of April, 1821, brought an end of rebellion in Italy, and\nthe outbreak of a ferocious revolution in Greece. The Turkish rule\nwas intolerant, and intentionally oppressive. Exportation of food and\nclothing, for instance, was forbidden in hope of keeping down prices;\nand the result was to check production. The country was full of\nbrigands; and the worst of wrongs were inflicted on unbelievers by\nthe officials. Priests and rulers in other lands refused to help their\nfellow-Christians against Moslem tyrants; and the famous victory won by\nBozzaris was over Roman Catholics. The new republic had only nominal\nauthority. Independent bands of patriots fought desperately; and the\nCrescent soon gave place to the Cross in the Archipelago as well as\nin the Morea, once famous as the Peloponnesus; but the cause was\ncontinually disgraced by pillage, perfidy, massacre, and civil war.\nSeveral millions of contributions, mainly English, were squandered by\nthe captains. Byron sacrificed his life in a vain attempt to create\nmilitary discipline; and lack of any permitted the Morea to be conquered\nin 1825 by the regular army sent over by the Pasha of Egypt.\n\nAll resistance, north of the Isthmus of Corinth, was soon suppressed\nby the co-operation of Egyptians and Turks; and the islanders could do\nnothing better than ask help from foreigners. The only government which\nhad thus far aided Greece was the American; and Congress had done much\nless than the people to relieve distress. An alliance between Great\nBritain, France, and Russia, for preventing extermination of the Greeks,\nwas brought about by Canning. The sovereigns of Turkey and Egypt were\nso obstinate that their ships were destroyed by the allied fleet at\nNavarino, Messenia, on October 20, 1827. The Egyptians were driven out\nof the Morea by French soldiers; and Northern Greece rose against the\nTurks with a success which secured the present boundary. The Greeks were\nnot permitted to establish a republic; but the monarchy finally became\nconstitutional under the pressure of insurrection.\n\nVIII. No nation had been less capable than the Spanish of appreciating\nthe advantage, either of a vigorous government, or of toleration,\nfreedom of the press, political equality, and personal liberty.\n\nAll the time-honoured abuses abolished by Napoleon had been at once\nrestored with the help of the populace; but nothing effective was done\nto suppress the insurrections which had broken out, during the war, in\nMexico and South America. Up to that time, the Indians were serfs\nand the negroes were slaves. All political power was monopolised by\nofficials sent over from Spain. Spanish interests were protected so\nthoroughly that all domestic industries were crippled, and goods often\ncost six times as much as in Europe. Schools and newspapers were almost\nunknown; no books but religious ones could be bought; and heresy was\npunished pitilessly.\n\nThe invasion of Spain by Napoleon gave opportunity for several\nsimultaneous insurrections. That in Venezuela was crushed by a great\nearthquake, which was accepted as a sign of divine wrath. Among the\nleaders was Bolivar, who retreated to Colombia. A Spanish version of\nPaine's _Rights of Man_ had been circulated there, and the patriots\nwere fighting gallantly. There were many bloody battles in Venezuela\nand Colombia; but both countries were finally made free by the battle of\nCarabolo, won on June 24, 1821, by Bolivar.\n\nOn July 28th, in that same year, the independence of Peru was proclaimed\nby General San Martin, who had liberated Chili, three years previously,\nwith an army which he led from the Argentine Republic across the Andes\nby paths never used thus before. His decisive victories were won by the\nhelp of emancipated slaves. Chili would have made him her ruler; but\nhe asked only her help against the Spaniards, who were concentrated\nin Peru. There he found such disorder as led him to declare himself\nProtector; but this made him so unpopular that he resigned his power and\nleft the continent which he had done more than anyone else to liberate.\n\nThe war went on until the hold of Spain on America was broken forever\nby a battle fought, 12,000 feet above the sea, on December 9, 1826, at\nAyacucho, a name given long before by Indians who had fought there among\nthemselves, and meaning \"the Corner of Death.\" Constitutions like that\nof the United States had already been proclaimed; too much power was\nheld by Bolivar and other despots; but they did not keep the people\nin such poverty, ignorance, and apathy as had been inflicted by Spain.\nParaguay, however, had a tyrant who dressed himself after a caricature\nof Napoleon, and tried to imitate his despotism, but had nothing of his\ngenius. Francia was one of Carlyle's model rulers, perhaps because he\nallowed no elections, juries, public meetings, or newspapers, and sent\neveryone who talked politics to prison. Men who would not take off\ntheir hats to him were cut down by his guards; and timid boys were seen\nrunning through the streets with no other article of dress. There were\nno imports or exports, except by special permission; and goods cost\nten times as much as at Buenos Ayres. Equality of races was sought by\ndegrading the whites; but Francia's reign had the one merit of peace.\n\nIX. Intelligent Spaniards were provoked at their king's failure to\nsuppress the rebellion; and the soldiers who were called together for\nthis purpose in 1819 had been so badly paid that they plotted with the\nfriends of progress. A revolt broke out in the camp on the first day of\n1820; and it was soon followed by one at Madrid, where the dungeon of\nthe Inquisition was broken open. The King was forced to restore the\nConstitution which had been framed by the patriots in 1812, after the\nmodel of the French instrument of 1791. The prospect of freedom in\nreligion made the clergy and peasantry mutinous. The reactionists in\nFrance and Spain found favour with the sovereigns of Russia, Austria,\nand Prussia. The Liberal Government was overthrown in April, 1823, by\na French army. The peasants took sides with the invaders, and many\npatriots were massacred by the populace. Absolute monarchy and other\nancient iniquities were restored, but not the Inquisition. France would\nhave gone on to subdue the rebels in South America for her own benefit;\nbut this was prevented by the British Ministry, which was now showing\nthe liberalising influence of peace.\n\nNapoleon's despotism had the awful and baneful grandeur of an eruption\nof Vesuvius; but his despicable enemies merely kept up the oppression of\nhis empire without its glory. Their work completed his, as the last\nof the petty emperors at Rome and Constantinople showed the legitimate\ntendency of the political system of the mighty founder. Caesar and\nNapoleon had much in common as conquerors; but it showed far more\ngreatness to found an empire which endured for fifteen centuries, than\none which held together for scarcely as many years. Even that length of\ndespotism was sadly too long for the welfare of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. FRUITS OF PEACE\n\nEXIGENCIES of war had given the British nobles a despotic power, which\nthey retained long after it ceased to be needed for the nation's safety.\nThe King was their puppet and Parliament their property. The laws were\nframed and administered for their protection and emolument. Clergy,\narmy, militia, and police were all organised for keeping the people\ndown; and education could do nothing to raise the lowly. Pensions and\nsalaries, even in the Church, were reserved for members and servants of\nthe aristocracy, with little care for the public good. Wages were low,\nfood dear, illiteracy common, and paupers numerous. Even the middle\nclass was in great part disfranchised; taxation was needlessly severe;\nthe press was restricted grievously; and Ireland was shamefully\noppressed.\n\nI. As public attention ceased to be absorbed by victorious generals,\nit turned to the miseries of the poor; and there was much discussion of\nplans for their relief. Early in the century it became generally known\nthat Robert Owen's factories were unusually profitable, on account of\nwhat he did for the intelligence, health, and happiness of the\noperatives. His pamphlet, published in 1813, and often reprinted as a\n_New View of Society_ argued strongly for universal education as the\nremedy for poverty and crime; public opinion was much enlightened on the\nContinent, as well as in England; but a sagacious member of the British\naristocracy said to him: \"Oh, I see it all! Nothing could be more\ncomplete for the working-classes; but what will become of us?\"\n\nOwen complained in this pamphlet that Sabbatarianism denied \"innocent\nand cheerful recreation to the labouring man\"; and he spoke in public\nof the influence of religion on progress, with a hostility which sadly\ninjured his popularity. His life was examined with a jealousy which\nbrought to light only its elevation. The opposition of people who\nthought themselves respectable drove him into agitation for what he was\nthe first to call \"Socialism.\" He published on May 1, 1820, his plan for\nforming villages, where the people were to work under the supervision of\nthe eldest, and \"be freely permitted to receive from the general store\nof the community whatever they might require.\" These last words contain\nthe characteristic principle of Socialism, that every labourer is to be\npaid according to his needs, whatever the value of the work.\n\nA dozen such experiments were made in the United States, about 1825; but\nit was found impossible to unlearn the experience of the race. Progress\nhas consisted in bringing each man's welfare into more exact proportion\nto the value of his work. This tendency has never safely been suspended,\nexcept under such coercion as has kept up industry and economy among\nmonks, Rappites, Shakers, and other docile enthusiasts. The cooperative\nstores which Owen was among the first to open seem to have failed\nbecause the salaries were not high enough to secure skilful managers.\n\nII. The proof that a reformer was before his age is the fact that later\nyears caught up with him; and this is by no means so true of Owen as of\nBentham, who declared Socialism impracticable. He was one of the first\nto advocate woman suffrage (_Works_, vol. iii., p. 463), savings banks,\ncheap postage, collection of statistics, direction of punishment towards\nreformation, and repeal of usury laws. His bulky volumes are in great\npart occupied with suggestions for making the courts of justice less\ndilatory and uncertain, less expensive to the poor, and less partial to\nthe rich. His _Principles of Morals and Legislation_ declared, in\n1787, that the sole end of a ruler ought to be the happiness of all\nthe people, and that this rule should be the basis of ethics as well as\npolitics. One of his publications in 1817 claimed the suffrage for every\nman and woman who could read, but insisted that this would be \"worse\nthan nothing\" without that \"shield to freedom,\" the secret ballot.\nAn opponent who feared that this would destroy private property was\nanswered thus: \"Has he ever heard of Pennsylvania?\" The complaint\nthat freedom of the press to expose corrupt officials might weaken\nthe government was met by showing that there can be no good government\nwithout it. To think our ancestors wiser than us, he says, is to take\nit for granted that it is not experience but inexperience that is the\n\"mother of wisdom.\"\n\nBentham's best work was in sowing seed that his friends might reap the\nharvest. Other authors were generously assisted by his manuscripts,\npurse, and library; and there has been no stronger advocate of reform\nthan the _Westminster Review_, which he founded in 1824. The first\nnumber showed that the Whigs were too much like the Tories. Their\nleaders were noblemen or millionaires; their favourite measure,\nabolition of rotten boroughs, was mainly in the interest of the\nmiddle class; and their policy towards the masses was a seesaw between\npromising elevation and permitting oppression. This article was by James\nMill, who showed in a later number that any church which was established\nmust, on that account, be bigoted. His essay _On Government_ urges that\nthe masses cannot be protected unless fully represented. They had\nnot yet found out all they needed; but education would teach it; and\noccasional mistakes would not be so bad as systematic oppression. Among\nhis ablest books is a defence of the rationalism, bequeathed by the\neighteenth century, against Transcendentalism, which eclipsed it during\nthe first half of the nineteenth.\n\nThe inspiration of the new philosophy was added to that of many new\nreforms; and a glorious literature blossomed in the long summer of\npeace. Wordsworth's fear of \"too much liberty\" did not prevent his\nencouraging intellectual independence most impressively. Scott tried \"to\nrevive the declining spirit of loyalty\"; but the result was universal\nadmiration of rebels and sympathy with peasants. Many authors who\nadapted themselves much more closely and intentionally to the needs of\nthe age ceased long ago, for this very reason, to find readers. This,\nfor instance, was the fate of the indefatigable Cobbett.\n\nLandor, on the other hand, was unpopular from the first, because\ndevotion to Greek and Latin literature made his style as well as some of\nhis favourite topics uninteresting, except for scholarly people who\nwere soon offended by such remarks as \"Law in England and in most other\ncountries is the crown of injustice. According to her laws and usages,\nBrutus would have been hanged at Newgate; Cato buried with a stake\nthrough his body in the highroad; Cicero transported to Botany Bay.\"\n\"Certain I am, that several of the bishops would not have patted Cain\nupon the back while he was about to kill Abel.\" \"A peerage I consider as\nthe park-paling of despotism.\" In his _Imaginary Conversations_, Hofer\nand Metternich, the emperors of Russia and China, the kings of Spain\nand Portugal, the Spanish priest, Merino, and many other extraordinary\npersonages tell how badly England was governed by \"the hereditarily\nwise,\" and what a misfortune it was for all Europe, to have her rulers\nenjoy such an intimate and universal friendship as was never known among\ntheir predecessors.\n\nNo writer has spoken more mightily than Byron against the \"blasphemy\"\nof ascribing divine authority to these \"royal vampires.\" He knew that\nNapoleon had been \"the scourge of the world\"; but he was indignant to\nsee the men who had struck down the lion kneeling before wolves; and yet\nhe looked forward to the reign everywhere of \"equal rights and laws.\" He\nspoke freely of the \"sacerdotal gain but general loss\" in superstition;\nand his own highest faith was that \"they who die in a great cause\" would\n\n     \"Augment the deep and sweeping thoughts\n     Which overpower all others and conduct\n     The world at last to freedom.\"\n\nHis poems revealed the grandeur of scenery, as well as history, and made\ndelight in mountains and thunderstorms felt as an ennobling influence.\nHis speeches in the House of Lords were pleas for parliamentary reform,\nCatholic emancipation, and mercy to rioters infuriated by famine. In\n1820, he was one of the leading Carbonari in Italy; he gave his life\nto help the Greeks become free; and his name is still a watchword of\nrevolution.\n\nHis friend, Shelley, went so far in the same direction as to call\nhimself a republican, as well as an atheist. His life was pure in his\nown eyes; but his opinions about divorce were punished by a decision in\nChancery that he was unfit to be trusted with his own children. He had\nconsecrated himself in boyhood to war against all oppressors; and\nhis position to the last was that of his own Prometheus, suffering\ncontinually with the enslaved, but consoled by faith that his sympathy\nwill hasten the glorious day when every man shall be \"king over\nhimself,\" when women, free \"from custom's evil taint,\" shall make earth\nlike heaven, when \"thrones, altars, judgment-seats, and prisons\" shall\nseem as antiquated as the pyramids, and when human nature shall be \"its\nown divine control.\" He took the side of the poor against the rich in\na drama which was suppressed on account of its severity against George\nIV., and which ends with a portentous scene, where\n\n     \"Freedom calls Famine, her eternal foe,\n     To brief alliance.\"\n\nHe spoke as well as wrote for the independence of Ireland; and he\nwould have done much for that of Greece, if he had not died soon\nafter publishing a magnificent tragedy, in which he showed what cruel\nmassacres were perpetrated while the rulers of Christendom refused to\nhelp Christian patriots against the Turks. Byron is called the poet of\nrevolution; but Shelley was the poet of liberty. One was like a painter\nwho captivated the multitude, sometimes by his brilliancy of colour,\nsometimes by his tragic pathos, and sometimes by his amorous warmth. The\nother was like a sculptor who left a few statues and tablets, fanciful\nin design and majestic in execution, for the delight of connoisseurs.\nFortunately the marble is likely to outlast the canvas.\n\nIII. These poets and philanthropists helped the people of England\ncontrast the wrongs they were suffering with the rights they ought\nto have. That love of liberty which drove out the Stuarts revived, as\ndespotism was seen to increase pauperism and excite more crime than it\nsuppressed. The conflict between republicanism and monarchy in Europe\nhad changed to one between despotism and constitutionalism; and peace\nmade England free to resume the advanced position she had held in the\neighteenth century. The declaration of President Monroe, in December,\n1823, that the United States would not permit the South American\nrepublics to be overthrown by any despot in Europe, gained much\nauthority from the concurrence of the British Ministry; and the latter\nwas induced by Canning to form that alliance with France and Russia\nwhich gave independence to Greece.\n\nThe attack on the slave-trade, which began while England was at peace\nwith her neighbours, had slackened in the shadow of the long war. The\nwicked traffic was prohibited in 1807; but little more could be done\nbefore 1823. Then an appeal for emancipation in the West Indies was made\nto Parliament by Wilberforce and other organised abolitionists; and the\nagitation went on until victory was made possible by the rescue of the\nHouse of Commons from the aristocrats. The acts forbidding workingmen\nto combine for higher wages, or to emigrate were repealed in 1824. The\ncriminal laws had already been mitigated, and some protection given\nto children in factories; and the duties on wool and raw silk were now\nreduced, to the common benefit of consumer, manufacturer, and operative.\n\nThe Whigs were strong enough in 1828 to repeal the Test Act, which had\nbeen passed in 1673, for the purpose of enabling the Episcopalians to\nhold all the offices, but had become a dead letter so far as regarded\nProtestants. The House of Lords gave way unwillingly; and one of the\nbishops secured such a compromise as kept Jews out of Parliament for\nthe next thirty years. Conscientious scruples against taking oaths\nwere treated at this time with due respect; and all British Protestants\nbecame equals before the law. Canning had already made the House of\nCommons willing to emancipate Catholics; but neither this reform nor\nthat of abolishing rotten boroughs could pass the bench of bishops; and\nthe Church stood in the way of a plan for free public schools. It was\nthe organised resistance of all Ireland to disfranchisement of Catholics\nwhich won toleration from a Tory Ministry. Its leader, Wellington, cared\nnothing for public opinion or the people's rights; but he was too good\na general to risk a war with a united nation. Even the minister whose\nsympathy with Orangemen had won the nickname of \"Orange Peel\" declared\nthat it was time to yield. Popular prejudice against Romanism had\nbeen much diminished by gratitude for the aid given by Catholic allies\nagainst Napoleon. The bishops rallied around the King, who had never\nbefore been influenced by what he called religion; but he was forced to\nsign, on April 13, 1829, the bill which ended a strife that had cursed\nEurope for three hundred years. Two-thirds of the bishops resisted to\nthe last; and the Tory party was so badly divided as to be unable to\nprevent England from following the example set next year by France.\n\nIV. By the Constitution of 1814, the power belonged mainly to the\nParisian bankers, merchants, and manufacturers. These men preferred\nconstitutional monarchy to either democracy or military despotism; but\nthey meant to maintain their own rights; and they were much offended\nat the attempts of Charles X. to check mental progress and revive\nsuperstition. His plans for fettering the press were voted down in the\nChamber of Nobles; journalists prosecuted by his orders were acquitted\nby the courts; and he could not enforce a law under which burglars who\nrobbed a Catholic church would have mounted the guillotine.\n\nEarly in 1830, he dissolved the Legislature for declaring that he was\nnot governing according to the wish of the people. The candidates next\nelected were two to one against him. On Monday, July 26, appeared his\nordinances forbidding publication of newspapers without his permission,\nunseating all the deputies just chosen, and threatening that subsequent\nelections would be empty formalities. The plan was like that of 1797;\nbut this time the soldiers in Paris were few in number and ill-supplied\nwith provisions, while their general was not even notified of his\nappointment. The police allowed the journalists to spread the news\nthroughout Paris and publish a protest declaring that they would not\nobey the ordinances and appealing to the people for support. The leader,\nThiers, had already called for a king who would reign but not govern.\nLawyers and magistrates pronounced the ordinances illegal. Printers and\nother employers told their men that the next day would be a holiday.\n\nOn Tuesday, the crowds of operatives, clerks, students, ragged men and\nboys could not be dispersed by the police. Marmont took command of the\ntroops that afternoon, and shot a few insurgents. That night all the\nstreet-lamps were put out; thousands of barricades went up, after plans\nbut recently invented; and gun-shops, powder-magazines, arsenals,\nand even museums were broken open. On Wednesday, there was a new city\ngovernment in the Hotel de Ville; everywhere hung the tri-coloured\nbanner of Napoleon and the Republic; and the tocsin called out a hundred\nthousand rebels in arms. The weapons of Crusaders were seen side by side\nwith the bayonets and uniforms of the National Guard, which had been\nrevived by Napoleon but disbanded by Charles X.\n\nMarmont's orders were to clear the streets that afternoon; but the\nsoldiers were met everywhere by a heavy fire and a shower of paving\nstones and furniture. One patriotic girl was said to have sacrificed her\npiano. All the detachments were finally hemmed in between barricades\nand crowds of rebels with pikes, muskets, and bayonets. During the night\nthey were concentrated around the Tuileries, where they suffered\ngreatly from hunger and thirst, as they had done during the day. Their\nammunition was almost exhausted; and new barricades were put up around\nthem. Marmont ordered that there should be no more firing, except in\nself-defence, and tried in vain to make truce with the rebels. The\nlatter were joined on Thursday by the regiments in the Place Vendome.\nThis position was entrusted to part of the Swiss who had defended the\nLouvre; but the others were soon driven out by men and boys who swarmed\nin at unguarded doors and windows. All the soldiers took flight that\nnoon from Paris.\n\nAll this time the King was amusing himself at St. Cloud, and boasting\nthat there would be no concessions. He now offered to dismiss his\nMinistry and revoke the ordinances; but more than a thousand lives had\nbeen lost. The Parisians marched against him: he abdicated and fled: the\nBourbons had ceased to reign. The men who had fought against him called\nfor a republic with universal suffrage and no State church; but the\nwealthier citizens were afraid of war with Russia and Austria. A\ndescendant of Louis XIII. and a friend of Thiers was made King by the\nLegislature. He called himself Louis Philippe, and promised cordially\nto carry out the Constitution, which now meant freedom of the press, and\nequal privileges for all Christian churches. The supremacy of Rome\nin France was at an end. Seats in the Upper House could no longer be\ninherited; and the right to vote for deputies was given to twice as many\nFrenchmen as before. Patriots in all nations were encouraged; and the\nSwiss cantons became more democratic; but Hegel was frightened to death.\n\nAmong other results were unsuccessful revolts in Rome and Warsaw, with\nsuccessful ones in Brussels, Cassell, and Dresden. The subjection to\nHolland, which had been imposed by the Congress of Vienna, was hated\nby the Belgians, partly because it made education secular, and partly\nbecause it gave them only half the Legislature, and very few offices\nelsewhere, although they formed three-fifths of the population. Priests\nwere active in stirring up the revolt which began at Brussels on August\n25, 1830, after the performance of an opera telling how Masaniello had\nset Naples free. The Dutch were driven out; Belgium was made a separate\nconstitutional monarchy by the vote of a convention of deputies; France\nand England helped her maintain political independence; but it was to\nthe loss of intellectual liberty.\n\nV. The success of rebellion with the pressure of hard times enabled the\nWhigs to carry England for parliamentary reform. Peel and Wellington\nhastened their fall by boasting that there could be no improvement of a\nLegislature which accepted members for places without any inhabitants,\nbut not for Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, or some parts of London,\nand which actually enabled one Scotchman to elect himself as sole\nrepresentative of fourteen thousand people, in a district where he was\nthe only voter.\n\nThe people were so discontented with the whole system of Church and\nState, that thousands of sympathisers gathered around Cobbett in July,\n1831, when he was tried for printing a statement that riots of farm\nhands were doing good in forcing the clergy to reduce their tithes. Lord\nBrougham, who had been made Chancellor, was among the witnesses to\nthe generally pacific tendency of Cobbett's writings. The jury did not\nagree; and the Government gave up the case. There was but little more\npolitical persecution of British authors.\n\nReform triumphed that autumn in the House of Commons. The House of Lords\nwould then have been conquered, if the bishops had acted like successors\nof the apostles; but twenty-one out of twenty-three voted for prolonging\ntheir own dominion. Their conduct made it unsafe for them to wear their\npeculiar costume in the streets. Bells tolled, and newspapers put on\nmourning. There were riots in all the cathedral towns. A duke's castle\nwas burned, because he insisted that the votes of his tenants were\nhis private property, and attempts to punish the incendiaries brought\nBristol, one Sunday, into the hands of a mob which burned the bishop's\npalace, the custom-house, and many other buildings. It was agreed by a\nmeeting of a hundred thousand people at Birmingham, that no more taxes\nshould be paid until Parliament was reformed; and on very many houses,\nespecially in London, there was the following notice: \"To save the\nCollector unnecessary trouble, he is informed that No Taxes on this\nhouse will be paid, until the Reform Bill pass into a Law.\" It was at\na meeting to encourage this course that Sydney Smith, who had done good\nservice for Catholic emancipation, told how vainly Mrs. Partington tried\nto sweep back the Atlantic, during a great storm, and added: \"Be quiet\nand steady. You will beat Mrs. Partington.\"\n\nThe episcopal Partingtons continued to be even more hostile than the\nlay members of the House of Lords; but all finally yielded to the\nthreat that there would be new peers enough created to vote them down. A\npopular song made the Reform Bill boast that, \"Twenty peers shall carry\nme, If twenty won't, then forty will; For I 'm his Majesty's bouncing\nBill.\"\n\nThe throne was then filled by William IV., who reigned from 1830 to\n1837, and who gave his consent, though sometimes unwillingly, to several\nof the greatest reforms ever passed in England. The bill which he signed\non June 7, 1832, enabled 141 members of Parliament to be elected by\npopulous districts hitherto unrepresented, instead of by little\nboroughs where the voters were so few as to be bought up easily, or else\nintimidated constantly; and the franchise was also much extended,\nthough not outside of the middle class. Thus Great Britain ceased to be\ngoverned by a league of irresponsible nobles, bishops, and other lords\nof vast estates.\n\nVI. They had kept the lower classes ignorant, in order to secure\nobedience; and their methods were not given up at once. Newspapers had\nalready become the chief teachers of politics; and therefore they were\nunder a triple tax. A duty on paper added one-fourth to the cost\nof publication. There was also a tax of three-and-sixpence on each\nadvertisement; and more of this lucrative business was done by the\npublishers in New York City than by all those in Great Britain. A third\nexaction was that of fourpence for a stamp on every copy; and prices\nwere thus prevented from falling below seven-pence, except in case of\nviolation of the laws. These threatened fine or imprisonment to whoever\nshould publish or sell any periodical costing less than sixpence,\nand containing \"news, intelligence, occurrences, and remarks and\nobservations thereon, tending to excite hatred and contempt of the\ngovernment and constitution of this country as by law established, and\nalso to vilify religion.\" This purpose was avowed explicitly, in so\nmany words, by _The Poor Man's Guardian_, which announced that it\nwas published \"contrary to law\" and would be sold for one penny. The\ncirculation was twice that of _The Times_, and the language often\nviolent. The publisher, Hetherington, was sent twice to prison for six\nmonths; and could not go about except disguised as a Quaker. His papers\nwere packed in chests of tea, by an agent who was afterwards mayor\nof Manchester. Another publisher, who devoted himself to reports of\ncriminal trials, used to send them out in coffins. Many unstamped\nperiodicals were in circulation. Some dealers carried them about in\ntheir hats and pockets. Others hawked them in the streets, and declared,\nwhen sentenced to prison, that they should resume the business on the\nsame spot as soon as they were released. Paid informers and spies helped\nthe Whig Government carry on more than two hundred prosecutions in 1835,\nand more than five hundred previously. Subscription boxes for the relief\nof the martyrs could be seen everywhere. Remonstrances were signed and\nindignation meetings held in London and Manchester. \"The Society for the\nRepeal of All Taxes on Knowledge\" kept up a vigorous agitation, which\nwas aided by Bulwer in Parliament. At last the publishers who bought\nstamps found they could not compete with men who bought none. This duty,\nand also that on advertisements, were reduced in 1836; and the result\nwas so gratifying, even to publishers of the best periodicals, that all\nthese taxes have been abolished.\n\nProtestant bigotry had not prevented unsectarian public schools from\nbeing opened in Ireland in 1833; and that year is also memorable for\nthe abolition of slavery in the West Indies, the extension of universal\nsuffrage in Scotland, the beginning of free trade with India and China,\nthe removal of disability for office from Hindoo subjects of Great\nBritain, the protection of children from being overworked in factories,\nand the suppression of supernumerary bishops and rectors in Ireland.\n\nDuring the next three years, the local government of most English towns\nand cities, though not yet of London, was taken from corrupt oligarchies\nand given to all inhabitants who paid even a moderate rent; seamen\nceased to be impressed; Irish Catholics and English dissenters were\nenabled to marry without apostasy; vexatious methods of collecting\ntithes were abolished in England; the poor-laws were made less\nfavourable to the increase of pauperism; and the growth of prosperity\nand independence among the poor was assisted by the introduction of a\nsystem of unsectarian education, in 1839, though the bishops would\nhave preferred that one-third of the people of England should remain\nilliterate. Penny postage was established in 1840, the last year when\nGreat Britain was governed by the Whigs.\n\nParliament was so philanthropic and tolerant as to reject repeatedly a\nproposal to impose heavy fines for attending secular meetings, visiting\neating-houses, travelling, fishing, or hiring horses on Sunday. Labour,\ntoo, was to be forbidden, but not that of \"menial servants.\" This bill\nwould have prevented the poor from enjoying their only holiday; but\nthere was to be no interference with the pleasures of the rich; and the\nfact was pointed out by a young man, whose _Pickwick Papers_ had just\nbegun to appear in monthly parts. His illustrated pamphlet is entitled:\n_Sunday as it Is; as Sabbath Bills would Make it; as it might be Made_.\nIt has been reprinted with his plays and poems. He tells how much was\ndone for the health and happiness of London by those privileges which\nthe Sabbatarians were trying to abolish; and he shows what gain there\nwould be in knowledge and virtue from opening all the museums and\ngalleries Sunday afternoons.\n\nThe pamphlet shows that delight in the bright side of life, and that\nsympathy with the pleasures of the poor, which won popularity for _The\nPickwick Papers_ in 1836, and afterwards for _The Old Curiosity Shop_\nand the _Christmas Carol_. The novels most like _Sunday as it Is_,\nhowever, are such protests against bigotry and cruelty as _Oliver Twist,\nNicholas Nickleby, and Barnaby Rudge_. Powerful pictures of the gloom\nof that British Sabbath which locked up everything \"that could by any\npossibility afford relief to an overworked people,\" may be found in\n_Little Dorrit_; and the plot turns on the Sabbatarianism of a cruel\nfanatic who had made felony part of her religion. Much was done by this\nnovel, as well as by _Pickwick_ and _Nicholas Nickleby_ towards the\nabolition of imprisonment for debt in 1869. His tone was very mild,\ncompared with that of the popular orators. Resistance to bad laws was\nurged by Richard Carlile; and a clergyman named Taylor, who held the\nGospel to be a solar myth, was imprisoned on October 24, 1827, for\nsaying that the first martyrs for Jesus Christ were the Gadarene pigs.\nAnother London lecturer declared on Sunday evening, December 2, 1832,\nthat \"The elective franchise should belong to women, as a part of the\npeople,\" and again that \"Women are qualified to elect and to be elected\nto all public offices.\" \"Any argument for exclusion is of that kind\nwhich has justified every tyranny,\" says this discourse, which was\nprinted for the first time, on May 11, 1833, in an American newspaper,\n_The Free Enquirer_. Its columns show that a young lady had already\npresented very advanced ideas as a lecturer at the Rotunda in London;\nbut the general opinion of the sex was expressed by the wife of the\nRev. John Sandford, whose popular book declared that \"There is something\nunfeminine in independence. A really sensible woman... is conscious of\ninferiority.\" The Irish have supported themselves so successfully in\nAmerica, and obeyed the laws so generally, as to prove that failure to\ndo either in Ireland should not be attributed to their race or their\nreligion, but wholly to their oppression. Memory of the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries was all the more bitter in the nineteenth, because\nthe destitution of the peasantry was increasing hopelessly. Removal of\nreligious disabilities and reform of Parliament did not prevent bands of\narmed peasants from fighting against attempts to take away their cattle\nin payment of the tithes exacted by well-paid dignitaries of the hated\nChurch. It sometimes happened that a dozen of the combatants were\nkilled. Sydney Smith estimated that this way of keeping up a state\nchurch cost a million lives, from first to last, and Ireland had to\nbe as heavily garrisoned as India, until a less vexatious system was\nestablished in 1838. Municipal government was wholly in the hands of\nlittle corporations, which had the sole power of electing new members\nand seldom admitted a Catholic. The ruling oligarchy was to the\npopulation as one to two hundred in Limerick, and only as one\nto twenty-five hundred in Protestant Belfast. The right of local\nself-government was given to the people of these cities and a few others\nin 1840; but even this small and tardy justice provoked an English\nbishop to threaten that it would call down vengeance from God. Full\nmunicipal suffrage throughout the island and a domestic Parliament\nwere demanded by all Ireland, under the guidance of the mighty orator\nO'Connell; but the prejudice against his cause in Great Britain was made\ninvincible by his denouncing \"the Saxons,\" as he called the English, for\nthe crimes of their ancestors.\n\nVII. All reforms stopped in 1841, when the Whigs lost the supremacy.\nIt was not their fault that excess in speculation on both sides of the\nAtlantic had brought on a panic which threw thousands of people out of\nwork in the factory towns, and reduced other thousands to earning only\ntwopence a day. A succession of bad harvests, just before 1841, made\nwages very low on the farms, and food too dear everywhere. Bread was\nsold in halfpenny slices; labourers robbed pigs of swill; children\nfought with dogs for bones in the streets; one person in every eleven\nwas a pauper; and England seemed to Dickens like one vast poorhouse. The\nold ways of giving charity had been so lavish and indiscriminate as to\nencourage pauperism; the new system of relief proved really kinder;\nbut at first it was administered too slowly and cautiously for the\nemergency; and there was some ground for the complaints in _Oliver\nTwist_. Knowledge that paupers were neglected strengthened the belief of\nthe working-men, that all they needed to make them as well off as their\nbrethren in America was the ballot. Paine, Cobbett, and Hetherington\nwere widely read; manhood suffrage and a secret ballot were called \"the\nPeople's Charter\"; and there were more than a million signatures to\nthe Chartist petition in 1839. These demands were just; but about one\nEnglishman in three was unable to write his name at this time; and\nmany who had acquired this accomplishment knew dangerously little about\npolitics. When we think how much mischief has recently been done in the\nUnited States by illiterate and venal votes, we cannot blame Englishmen\nof the upper and middle classes for delaying to grant universal\nsuffrage. They ought to have made rapid preparation for it, by liberal\nencouragement of popular education through free schools and a cheap\npress; but even the Whigs were too indignant at the violence of the\nChartists, who made bloody riots in 1841. How ignorant these men\nwere was shown by their doing their worst that year to help carry the\nelections against the Whigs, who were much less hostile to Chartism than\nthe Conservatives, as those Tories were called who still condescended to\npolitics.\n\nThe most culpable blunder of the Whigs had been that of allowing the\nrevenue to fall below the expenses; and the policy they had proposed for\nmaking up the deficit was too much like that halfhearted way of dealing\nwith slavery which brought ruin upon the party of the same name in\nAmerica. The British tariff was raised by the war against Napoleon, as\nthe American was under similar pressure afterwards, so high as in some\ncases to prohibit imports and actually check revenue. Either tariff\ncould have been used as an almost complete list of the world's products;\nand both were framed on the principle of protecting everybody, except\nconsumers, against competition. Great Britain unfortunately could\nproduce only part of the food needed by the people; and the tariff was\nso much in the interest of owners of land as to make bread and meat\ndearer than if the island had been barren. Importation of cattle was\nprohibited; and that of wheat and other grain was not permitted until\nprices were high enough to cause famine. Then importation would begin\nslowly, and keep increasing until the supply of both foreign- and\nhome-grown wheat would become large enough to glut the market and make\nfarmers bankrupt. These duties on grain, which were known as the corn\nlaws, acted with similar taxes on all other necessaries of life in\nimpoverishing factory hands and other members of the working class. They\nwere told that the laws which kept living dear kept wages high; but we\nshall see that this turned out not to be the fact. The only real gainers\nby the corn laws were those wealthy owners of great estates of whom\nParliament was composed entirely, with the exception of a few members of\nthe House of Commons.\n\nThat body allowed Manchester and other factory towns to send\nrepresentatives who had found out the tendency of protectionism from\ntheir own business experience, as well as from study of political\neconomy. Among these men was Cobden, who had already planted himself in\nthe road to wealth, but who preferred to remain poor that he might make\nEngland rich. He and his associates knew that imports are paid for by\nexporting what can be produced most profitably; that nothing is imported\nwhich could be produced as cheaply at home; that large imports make\nlarge exports; that the average Englishman knows how to carry on his\nown business; and that the Government could not encourage any otherwise\nunprofitable industry without checking the really profitable ones. On\nthese facts were based the following predictions. In the first place,\nfree trade in grain and cattle would lower the average price of food\nin England, and make the supply so regular that there would be no more\nfamines. Second, those countries which were allowed to send grain and\ncattle, cotton and other raw materials, etc., to England would buy\nBritish manufactures in return. Third, removal of duties from raw\nmaterials would enable factories to produce goods more cheaply, and\nsell larger quantities at home as well as abroad. Then, fourth, this\nincreased activity in manufacturing would raise wages, while remission\nof duties would make all the necessaries of life cheaper, so that\npauperism would diminish and prosperity become more general in the\nworking class. And finally, the commerce of England with other countries\nwould grow rapidly to their mutual benefit; and thus international\nrelations would be kept friendly by free trade.\n\nIn this faith the reformers at Manchester and Birmingham asserted the\nright of all men to buy and sell freely, and demanded the removal of\nall duties except those best adapted to bring in necessary revenue. They\nwere wise enough to attack the monstrous tariff at its weakest point,\nthe tax on bread. The Anti-Corn-Law League was organised in 1839; the\nspot where the Peterloo massacre had been perpetrated, twenty years\nbefore, was soon used for a free trade banquet in which five thousand\nworking-men took part; and appeals to the people were made in all parts\nof England. The Conservatives were all protectionists; and so many Whigs\nwere on that side that those leaders who were opposed to the bread tax\ndid not dare to come out against it. They did propose in 1841 to meet\nthe deficit in the revenue by reducing some duties which were so high as\nto prevent importation, for instance, the tax on all sugar not grown in\nBritish colonies. The protectionist Whigs voted with the Conservatives\nagainst the Ministry; and it had to go out of office without having\ndone enough against the corn laws to secure the support of the League.\nProtectionists, Chartists, and opponents of the new poor-law helped\nto give the Conservatives control of the next Parliament, where the\nfree-traders were one to four.\n\nSuch was the state of things in October, 1841, when the League went to\nwork more vigorously than before in educating the people, and especially\nvoters of the poorer class. During the next twelve months, half a\nmillion dollars was spent in this work. In 1843, there were fourteen\nregular lecturers in the field, besides countless volunteers, and five\nhundred distributors of tracts. The annual number of publications was\nabout ten million copies; and the annual weight exceeded a hundred tons.\nThe dissenting ministers did good work for reform; but the Episcopalian\nclergy were too friendly to a tax which kept up the value of tithes. The\nLeague soon had the support of John Bright, who was one of the greatest\nof British orators. Prominent among opponents was the Chartist leader,\nFeargus O'Connor; and those Chartists who were not protectionists held\nthat their cause ought to take the lead. Public opinion was so strongly\nfor free trade in 1845 that Parliament took off the duties from cotton\nand other raw materials, in hope of conciliating the manufacturers;\nbut these latter redoubled their efforts to abolish the tax on food.\nSubscriptions were larger than ever; and much land was bought by\nfree-traders who wished to qualify themselves as voters for members of\nthe next Parliament, which would have to be elected in or before 1848.\n\nReform seemed still distant, when Shelley's prophecy was fulfilled.\nFreedom's eternal foe, Famine, came suddenly to her help. Dearness of\nwheat and meat had obliged half of the Irish and many of the\nEnglish to live entirely on potatoes. Wages were often paid in Ireland\nby loan of land for raising this crop. The rot which began in August,\n1845, soon became so destructive that Peel, who was then Prime Minister,\nproposed in October that grain should be made free of duty. Wellington\nand other members of the Cabinet demurred; and the question had to be\nsubmitted to Parliament. Disraeli insisted to the last on keeping up the\ntariff; but famine was increasing; and both Houses finally agreed, after\nlong debate, to accept Peel's proposal, that not only the duties on food\nand raw materials, but most of the others, should be either reduced or\nabolished. His conservatism did not keep him from seeing that the\nwhole system of protecting home industries must stand or fall together.\nProminent among obstructionists were the bishops. The House of Lords did\nnot agree before June 25, 1846, to the reform which had been accepted on\nMay 15th by the House of Commons, and which was publicly acknowledged\nby Wellington to be inevitable. Such was the exasperation of the\nprotectionists that they helped the opponents, of coercion in Ireland\nto drive Peel out of office, by a vote which was taken in the House\nof Commons on the very day when his plan of tariff reform gained that\nvictory in the House of Lords which made free trade for ever the system\nof Great Britain.\n\nAbout one-half of the import duties are now levied on tobacco,\none-fourth more on wine and strong drink; and most of the rest on tea\nand other groceries. Duties on articles which could be produced in Great\nBritain are offset by internal-revenue taxes. No monopoly is given to\nfarm or factory; no necessary article is made too dear for the poor; and\nthere are no needless violations of the right of the labourer to spend\nhis wages in the best market.\n\nThis reform made the relief of Ireland possible, though the loss of life\nwas terrible. Never again has England been so near to a famine as in\n1841. Food is now so plenty that five times as much sugar is used in\nproportion to population as in 1842, and more than twice as much butter\nand eggs. This does not mean that the millionaire eats five times as\nmuch sugar, or twice as many eggs, as before, but that poor people can\nnow buy freely what formerly were almost unattainable luxuries. The\nproportion of money in savings banks in England and Wales has doubled;\nand that of paupers sank from 1 in 11 in 1842 to 1 in 37 in 1895. Wages\nhave risen fifty per cent., while other prices have fallen; and British\nworkmen are better off than any others in Europe. The annual value of\nEnglish exports declined steadily from 1815 to 1842; but it is now four\ntimes as great as in the latter year; and it is more than twice as large\nin proportion to population as in those highly protected countries,\nthe United States and France. Low tariffs also enable Belgium to export\nnearly three times as much for each inhabitant as France, and New South\nWales to export five times as much as the United States. Large exports\ndo not depend on density of population but on ability to import freely.\nReadiness of any country to buy freely of her neighbours keeps them able\nand willing to buy whatever she has to sell. Free trade has given\nGreat Britain, New South Wales, and Belgium their choice of the world's\nmarkets. Great Britain has also been enabled to keep up much more\nfriendly relations with the rest of Europe than would otherwise have\nbeen the case. Liberty of commerce has helped her enjoy peace; and peace\nhas preserved free institutions.\n\nThe reforms which culminated in free trade showed Englishmen that they\ncould right any wrong without resort to violence. The attempt of the\nChartists to overawe Parliament in 1848 was seen to be inexcusable; and\nit failed ridiculously. Never since then has insurrection in England\nbeen even possible. The atmosphere of thought has been so quiet that\nsuffrage was greatly extended in 1867, and made practically universal\nin 1894. Voters gained the protection of a secret ballot in 1872; and\nmunicipal self-government was given in 1894 to every part of England\nwhere it had not already been established.\n\nNo wonder that there is little of the revolutionary ardor of Shelley and\nByron in Tennyson, Browning, and other recent poets. They have delighted\nin progress; but they have seen that it must come through such peaceable\nchanges in public opinion, and then in legislation, as are caused by\nfree discussion. The benign influence of peace has enabled them to\ndisplay such brilliancy as had not been seen in England for more than\ntwo hundred years. No other writers ever paid so much attention to\npublic health and the general happiness. The ablest thought of the\ncentury has been devoted to enriching human life, and not to destroying\nit. This has enabled science to make unprecedented progress. A new\nperiod of intellectual history has been opened by Spencer and Darwin.\n\nVIII. Prominent among reformers who had no wish for revolution, and no\nrespect for science, were Dickens and Carlyle. The latter's (\"former's\"\nEd.) aversion to political economy as \"the dismal science\" was echoed in\nthe pages of _Hard Times_; and the absence of any reference in _Dombey\nand Son_ to the great movement against the corn laws is characteristic\nof a novelist whose _Pickwick Papers_ made fun of scientific\ninvestigation. What was there called the \"tittlebat\" is really that\nnest-building fish, the stickleback. Passages ridiculing the use of\nstatistics might be quoted at great length from both authors. Dickens\nhad too much sympathy with paupers, especially those who suffered under\nthe poor-law of 1834; and Carlyle had much too little. They agreed in\nopposition to model prisons and other new forms of philanthropy. Perhaps\nit was mainly the habit of indiscriminate ridicule which suggested such\ncaricatures as Mrs. Jellaby and Mrs. Pardiggle. Carlyle's belief that\nabolitionism was \"an alarming Devil's Gospel\" and his denunciation of\n\"the sugary, disastrous jargon of philanthropy\" were legitimate results\nof idolatry of what he called \"early, earnest times,\" namely the Dark\nAges. His sympathy with mediaeval methods was so narrow that he spoke\nof a poet of weak health and high culture, whom he saw suffering under\na sentence of two years in a pestilential prison, forbidden books or\nwriting materials, kept most of the time alone and on bread and water,\nbut guilty of nothing worse than a Chartist speech, as \"master of his\nown time and spiritual resources to, as I supposed, a really enviable\nextent.\" Dickens shows much more appreciation of the real superiority\nof modern times, though personal disappointments, during his visit\nto America, prevented him from acknowledging the merits of democracy.\nCarlyle's reverence for the early Hebrews and other primitive barbarians\nmade him present hero-worship as the only secure corner-stone of\npolitics. His receipt for a perfect government is this: \"Find in any\ncountry the ablest man that exists there; raise him to the supreme\nplace; and loyally reverence him.\" \"Such a government is not to be\nimproved by voting or debating.\" \"Neither except in obedience to the\nHeaven-chosen is freedom so much as conceivable.\" This theory showed its\nown absurdity in prompting eulogies on Francia and other despots; but\nCarlyle's apologies for Cromwell were of some service to the cause\nof liberty fifty years ago, when England had forgotten to honour\nthe champions of the Long Parliament. Dickens thought more about the\nasceticism than the independence of the Puritans. He and Carlyle\nhave dispelled some of the prejudices against the heroes of the First\nRepublic; but they perpetuated others. Carlyle's best work was in\nencouraging the readers of his first books to think for themselves. The\npower of Dickens to call out sympathy with the unfortunate will never\ncease to bless mankind.\n\nAs much pity for the outcast has been shown by his great rival, Victor\nHugo, and even more fellow-feeling with the oppressed. The spirit which\nhas made France free animates all his writings, especially those\ngrand poems which were called out by the usurpation of Louis Napoleon\nBonaparte. His early dramas dealt so vigorously with royal weakness and\nvice that _Marion de Lorme_ was suppressed by Charles X. and _Le Roi\ns'amuse_ by Louis Philippe. The work which has made him best known,\nand which appeared in 1862 in nine languages, is a plea for mercy to\ncriminals, or in his own words, to \"the miserable.\" The chief aim is to\nshow \"the oppression of laws,\" and the mistake of aiding the tyranny\nof the police by thinking too severely of the fallen. He finds an\nopportunity to introduce an enthusiastic panegyric on the victories of\nNapoleon, closing with the question: \"What could be more grand?\" \"To be\nfree,\" is the reply. Full justice to the French Revolution is done by\nthat most dramatic of novels, _Ninety-Three_. Here he says: \"The agony\nof the nations ended with the fall of the Bastile.\" \"Perhaps the\nConvention is the culmination of history.\" \"It declared poverty and\ndisability sacred.\" \"It branded the slave-trade, and freed the blacks.\"\n\"It decreed gratuitous education.\" \"The object of two-thirds of its\ndecrees was philanthropic.\" Such facts are all the more worthy of\nmention, because they were omitted by Carlyle.\n\n\nSUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER II\n\nI. Thomas Carlyle's prejudice against democracy was strengthened by\nthe failure of the revolutions of 1848. Constitutional monarchy was as\nhostile to reform in France as it was friendly in England.\n\nOnly one Frenchman in thirty could vote; and the legislature cared\nnothing for public opinion. Louis Philippe was hated for habitual\ndishonesty. There had been several attempts at regicide and some bloody\nrevolts. One of the latter gave a basis from history for Victor Hugo's\n_Miserables_. Restrictions on the press and on public meetings increased\nthe unwillingness of the working-men at Paris to be governed by\nthe rich. Socialism was popular, and employment insufficient. The\nprohibition of a reform banquet caused barricades to be thrown up on\nFebruary 22d in Paris. The militia took sides with the populace; the\nKing fled to England; and all France accepted the Republic, which was\nproclaimed on February 24th. Slavery had been reestablished in the\ncolonies by Napoleon; but it was now abolished; and so was capital\npunishment for political offences.\n\nThe example of Paris was followed in March by successful insurrections\nat Berlin, Vienna, and other German cities, as well as in Lombardy\nand Venice. Home rule was demanded by Hungary and Bohemia, and\nconstitutional governments were soon established there as well as in\nAustria, Prussia, and other German states, and in every part of Italy.\nThe King of Sardinia took the lead in a war for driving back the\nAustrians across the Alps. Co-operation of French, German, Hungarian,\nand Italian patriots might have made all these countries permanently\nfree.\n\nSuch a union would have been difficult on account of international\njealousies; and it was made impossible by the Socialists at Paris.\nScarcely had a provisional government been set up, when recognition of\n\"the right of employment\" was demanded by a workman, who came musket in\nhand, and was supported by a multitude of armed artisans. They extorted\na decree which promised every citizen work enough for his support. A\nten-hour law was passed. Co-operative factories were started with\naid from the city authorities, and had some success. Opening national\nworkshops was not advised by leading Socialists; but it was considered\nnecessary by some of the Ministry in order to keep the unemployed from\nrevolt. Every applicant drew money constantly, even if not at work. What\nlittle labour was actually performed was done so lazily, and paid so\nhighly, that the number of men soon rose to 120,000. The expenses became\nenormous; and the tax-payers insisted that they too had rights. In order\nto be able to employ all the labourers a government would have to own\nall the property; and it would also have to be strong enough to enforce\nindustry. Even Victor Hugo admitted that the experiment had failed. The\nNational Assembly, of which he was a member, notified the men in\nthe shops that they must enlist in the army, or go to work at a safe\ndistance from Paris on state pay, or look out for themselves. They rose\nin arms against the Republic, and took possession of nearly one-half of\nthe city on June 23, 1848. \"Bread or Lead\" was the motto on their\nred flags; and two of their terrible barricades are described at the\nbeginning of the last Part of _Les Miserables_. They held out against\nregular troops and cannon during four days of such fighting as had never\nbeen seen before in Paris. More Frenchmen are supposed to have fallen\nthan in any of Napoleon's battles. Two thousand of the soldiers were\nslain; but no one knows how many times that number of insurgents\nperished in the fight or in penal colonies.\n\nThenceforth the French Government was much more desirous to repress\ninsurrection at home than to sustain it abroad. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte\nwas elected President that same year, partly on account of his name,\nand partly on account of his promise that he would defend the right of\nprivate property against Socialism. Austrian generals of the rough and\nreckless type which Carlyle loved forced Lombardy and Bohemia back into\nthe Empire, and restored absolute monarchy at Vienna, while the King of\nSardinia was obliged to abdicate after such a defeat in March, 1849, as\nalmost extinguished liberty in Italy. Venice alone held out against them\nunder that purest of patriots, Manin, and suffered terribly during a\nsiege of twenty-one weeks. Hungary was subdued that summer with the aid\nof Russia. France did nothing except to revive the papal despotism at\nRome. Mazzini's republic was crushed by that which had a Bonaparte\nfor President. His power had been increased by the disfranchisement\nof several million French voters of the poorer class. His promise to\nrestore universal suffrage joined with memory of the massacres of June,\n1848, in preventing much resistance to his usurpation of absolute power\non December 2, 1851. There was a monstrous vote, next November, for an\nempire, where the centralisation of administration was complete, and\nthe legislature merely ornamental. Thus the liberation of Europe was\nprevented, partly by race prejudices, but mainly by attempts to benefit\nthe poor by overtaxing the rich. France and Hungary were left with less\npolitical liberty than before; and Italy gained very little; but some of\nthe constitutional freedom acquired in 1848 was retained in Prussia and\nother parts of Western Germany.\n\nII. It was contrary to the general tendency of wars, that those of the\nlatter half of the century aided the growth of free institutions in\nItaly. An honoured place among nations was given by the Crimean war to\nSardinia. Then her patriotic statesman, Cavour, persuaded Napoleon III.\nto help him rescue Lombardy from Austria. Garibaldi took the opportunity\nto liberate Naples; and Victor Emanuel made himself King over all\nItaly except Rome and Venice. The latter city also was brought under a\nconstitutional and friendly government by a third great war, which\nmade the King of Prussia and his successors Emperors of Germany, while\nAustria was compelled to grant home rule to Hungary. The liberation and\nsecularisation of Italy were completed in 1870 by the expulsion from\nRome of the French garrison. The Emperor had lost his throne by waging\nwar wantonly against a united Germany.\n\nIII. The Third Republic was soon obliged to fight for her life against\nthe same enemy which had wounded her sister mortally. Socialism was\nstill the religion of the working-men of Paris, who now formed the\nmajority of the National Guard. Indignation at the failure of the new\nGovernment to repulse the Prussians led, on March 18, 1871, to the\ncapture of all Paris by what was avowedly the revolution of the workmen\nagainst the shopkeepers, \"in the name of the rights of labour,\" for\n\"the suppression of all monopolies,\" \"the reign of labour instead of\ncapital,\" and \"the emancipation of the worker by himself.\" This was\nin harmony with the teaching of the International Working-men's\nAssociation, which endorsed the insurrection fully and formally, and\nwhich held with Karl Marx that wealth is produced entirely by labour\nand belongs only to the working class. Socialists were active in the\nrebellion; but property-holders in Paris took no part; and all the\nrest of France took sides with the Government. What professed to be\nthe rising of the many against the few turned out to be that of the few\nagainst the many. Impressment was necessary for manning the barricades,\nand pillage for raising money. The general closing of stores, factories,\nand offices showed that capital had been frightened away by the red\nflag. One of the last decrees of its defenders was, \"Destroy all\nfactories employing more than fifteen workers. This monopoly crushes the\nartisan.\" This spirit would have caused the confiscation of the funds\nof the National Bank, if the managers had not said: \"If you do that,\nyou will turn the money your own comrades have in their pockets to waste\npaper.\" The priceless pictures and statues in the Louvre were condemned\nto destruction because they represented \"gods, kings, and priests.\"\nMillions of dollars worth of works of art perished in company with\ndocks, libraries, and public buildings; but this vandalism, like the\nmassacre of prisoners, was largely the work of professional criminals.\nThe capture of Paris, late in May, was accompanied with pitiless\nslaughter of the rebels, though many lives were saved by Victor Hugo.\n\nSince then the French Republic has been able to keep down not only the\nSocialists but the Bonapartists and Royalists. It has also succeeded,\nwith the help of writers like Renan, in checking the ambition of the\nclergy. Continuance of peace in Europe has assisted the growth of local\nself-government in France, and also in Germany. The famous Prussian\nvictories seem, however, to have increased the power of the German\nEmperor; and there is still danger that the growth of standing armies\nmay check that of free institutions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. DEMOCRATS AND GARRISONIANS\n\nI. The fall of the English aristocracy was hastened by the success of\ndemocracy in America. Nowhere were the masses more willing to obey the\nlaw; and nowhere else were they so intelligent and prosperous. The gains\nof the many made the country rich; territory and population increased\nrapidly; and Britannia found a dangerous competitor on every sea.\nPolitical liberty and equality were secured by the almost uninterrupted\nsupremacy of the Democratic party from 1800 to 1860. Twelve presidential\nelections out of fifteen were carried by Jefferson and his successors;\nand the Congress whose term began in 1841 was the only one out of the\nthirty in which both Houses were anti-Democratic.\n\nPolitical equality was increased in State after State by dispensing with\nproperty qualifications for voting or holding office. Jefferson and\nhis successor, Madison, refused to appoint days for fasting and giving\nthanks, or grant any other special privileges to those citizens who\nheld favoured views about religion. Congress after Congress refused to\nappoint chaplains; so did some of the States; and a national law,\nstill in force, for opening the post-offices on every day of the week,\nwas passed in 1810. Many attempts were made by Sabbatarians to stop the\nmails; but the Senate voted in 1829, that \"Our government is a civil,\nand not a religious institution\"; and the lower House denied next year\nthat the majority has \"any authority over the minority except in matters\nwhich regard the conduct of man to his fellow-man.\" The opposition\nmade by the Federalists to the establishment of religious equality in\nConnecticut, in 1816, increased the odium which they had incurred by not\nsupporting the war against Great Britain. Four years later, the party\nwas practically extinct; and the disestablishment of Congregationalism\nas the state church of Massachusetts, in 1833, was accomplished easily.\n\nThe Northern States were already so strong in Congress that they might\nhave prevented Missouri from entering the Union that year without\nany pledge to emancipate her slaves. The sin of extending the area of\nbondage so far northwards was scarcely palliated by the other conditions\nof the compromise. The admission of Maine gave her citizens no\nprivileges beyond what they had previously as citizens of Massachusetts;\nand the pledge that slavery should not again be extended north of\nlatitude thirty-six, thirty, proved worthless.\n\nThe North was so far from being united in 1820 that it was not even able\nto raise the tariff. New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio wished to exclude\nforeign competition in manufacturing; but the embargo was too recent\nfor New England to forget the evils of restricting commerce. The\nSalem merchants petitioned for \"free trade\" \"as the sure foundation of\nnational prosperity\"; and the solid men of Boston declared with Webster\nthat \"A system of bounties and protection\" \"would have a tendency to\ndiminish the industry, impede the prosperity, and corrupt the morals of\nthe people.\"\n\nII. The dark age of American literature had ended in 1760. Before that\ndate there were few able books except about theology; and there were\nnot many during the next sixty years except about politics. The works\nof Franklin, Jefferson, and other statesmen were more useful than\nbrilliant. Sydney Smith was not far wrong in 1820, when he complained in\nthe _Edinburgh Review_ that the Americans \"have done absolutely nothing\nfor the sciences, for art, for literature.\" He went on to ask, \"In the\nfour quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?\" His question\nwas answered that same year by the publication in London of Irving's\n_Rip Van Winkle_ and _Legend of Sleepy Hoi-low_. Bryant's first volume\nof poems appeared next year, as did Cooper's popular novel, _The Spy_;\nand the _North American Review_ had begun half a dozen years before.\nBut even in 1823, Channing could not claim that there really was any\nnational literature, or much devotion of intellectual labour to great\nsubjects. \"Shall America,\" he asked, \"be only an echo of what is thought\nand written in the aristocracies beyond the ocean?\"\n\nThis was published during the very year in which President Monroe\ndeclared that the people of the United States would look upon attempts\nof European monarchs \"to extend their system to any portion of this\nhemisphere as dangerous to our peace and liberty.\" Channing was much\ninterested in the study of German philosophy; but he rested his\n\"chief hopes of an improved literature,\" on \"an improved religion.\"\nHe maintained that no man could unfold his highest powers until he had\nrisen above \"the prevalent theology, which has come down to us from the\nDark Ages,\" and which was then \"arrayed against intellect, leagued with\noppression, fettering inquiry, and incapable of being blended with the\nsacred dictates of reason and conscience.\"\n\nUnitarianism claimed for every individual, what Protestantism had at\nmost asked for the congregation,--the right to think for one's self.\nThis right was won earlier in Europe than in America, for here the\nclergy kept much of their original authority and popularity. Their\ninfluence over politics collapsed with Federalism. On all other subjects\nthey were still listened to as \"stewards of the mysteries of God,\" who\nhad been taught all things by the Holy Spirit, and were under a divine\ncall to preach the truth necessary for salvation. The clergyman was\nsupposed to have acquired by his ordination a peculiar knowledge of\nall the rights and duties of human life. No one else, however wise and\nphilanthropic, could speak with such authority about what books might\nbe read and what amusements should be shunned. Scientific habits of\nthought, free inquiry about religion, and scholarly study of the Bible\nwere put under the same ban with dancing, card-playing, reading novels,\nand travelling on Sunday. The pulpit blocked the path of intellectual\nprogress. Its influence on literature was wholly changed by the\nUnitarian controversy, which was at its height in 1820. Still more\nbeneficial controversies followed.\n\nThe trinitarian clergymen tried to retain their imperilled supremacy by\ngetting up revivals. One of these, in the summer of 1828, was carried so\nfar at Cincinnati that many a woman lost her reason or her life. These\nexcesses confirmed the anti-clerical suspicions of Frances Wright, who\nhad come over from England to study the negro character, and had failed,\nafter much labour and expense, to find the slaves she bought for the\npurpose capable of working out their freedom. She had made up her mind\nthat slavery is only one of many evils caused by ignorance of the duties\nof man to man, that these duties needed to be studied scientifically,\nand that scientific study, especially among women, was dangerously\nimpeded by the pulpit.\n\nThat autumn she delivered the first course of public lectures ever given\nby a woman in America. Anne Hutchinson and other women had preached; but\nshe was the first lecturer. The men and women of Cincinnati crowded to\nhear the tall, majestic woman, who stood in the court-house, plainly\ndressed in white. Her style was ladylike throughout; but she complained\nof the many millions wasted on mere teachers of opinions, whose\noccupation was to set people by the ears, and whose influence\nwas stifling the breath of science. \"Listen,\" she said, \"to the\ndenunciations of fanaticism against pleasures the most innocent,\nrecreations the most necessary to bodily health.\" \"See it make of\nthe people's day of leisure a day of penance.\" Her main theme was the\nnecessity of establishing schools to teach children trades, and also\nhalls of science with museums and public libraries.\n\nThis course was repeated in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston,\nand other cities. Her audiences were always large, but she charged no\nadmission fee. What were called \"Fanny Wright societies\" were formed in\nmany places. A Baptist church in New York City was turned into a Hall\nof Science, which remained open for three years, beginning with the last\nSunday of April, 1829. It contained a hall for scientific lectures\nand theological discussions, a free dispensary, a gymnasium, and a\nbookstore. Here was published _The Free Enquirer_, the only paper in\nAmerica which permitted the infallibility of Christianity to be called\nin question. The principal editor, Robert Dale Owen, son of the famous\nSocialist, claimed to have twenty thousand adherents in that city, and a\ncontrolling influence in Buffalo. Celebrations of Paine's birthday were\nnow frequent. It was fortunate for the clergy that controversies about\nreligion soon lost their interest in the fierce struggle about politics.\n\nIII. The fame won by Jackson as a conqueror of British invaders in\n1815, blinded Americans to a fact which had been made manifest by both\nNapoleon and Wellington, as it is said to have been still more recently\nby Grant. The habit of commanding an army has a tendency to create scorn\nof public opinion, and also of those restrictions on arbitrary authority\nwhich are necessary for popular government, as well as for individual\nliberty. Jackson had the additional defect of holding slaves; and it is\nprobable that if he had never done so, nor even had soldiers under\nhis orders, he would have been sadly indifferent to the rights of his\nfellow-citizens and to the principles of free government. He was elected\nin 1828, and proved enough of a Democrat to renounce the policy,\nwhich had recently become popular, of making local improvements at\nthe national expense; but he was the first President who dismissed\nexperienced officials, in order to appoint his own partisans without\ninquiry as to their capacity to serve the nation. He was especially\narbitrary about a problem not yet fully solved, namely, what the\nGovernment should do with the banks. The public money was then deposited\nin a National Bank whose constitutionality was admitted by the Supreme\nCourt. Its stock was at a premium and its notes at par in 1829; and it\nhad five hundred officials in various States. Jackson thought it had\nopposed his election; and he suggested that the public money should be\nremoved to the custody of a branch of the Treasury, to be established\nfor that purpose. The plan has since been adopted; but his friends were\ntoo much interested in rival banks, and his opponents thought only of\npreventing his re-election in 1832. They could not, however, prevent his\nobtaining a great majority as \"the poor man's champion.\"\n\nThe Bank had spent vast sums in publishing campaign documents, and\neven in bribery; and Jackson suspected that it would try to buy a new\ncharter.\n\nHe decided, with no sanction from Congress, and against the advice of\nhis own Cabinet, that the public money already in the Bank should be\ndrawn out as fast as it could be spent, and that no more should be\ndeposited there. He removed the Secretary of the Treasury for refusing\nto carry out this plan; and obliged his successor to set about it before\nhe was confirmed by the Senate. To all remonstrances he replied, \"I take\nthe responsibility\"; and he met the vote of the Senators, that he was\nassuming an authority not conferred by the Constitution, by boasting\nthat he was \"the direct representative of the American people.\" Webster\nreplied that this would reduce the government to an elective monarchy;\nand the opponents to what they called Jackson's Toryism agreed to call\nthemselves Whigs. Their leader was Henry Clay; and they believed,\nlike the Federalists, in centralisation, internal improvements, and\nprotective tariffs.\n\nJackson was sustained by the Democrats; but their quarrel with the Whigs\nprevented Congress from providing any safe place for the public money.\nIt was loaned to some of the State banks; and all these institutions\nwere encouraged to increase their liabilities enormously. Speculation\nwas active and prices high. That of wheat in particular rose so much\nafter the bad harvest of 1836 that there was a bread riot in New York\nCity. Scarcely had Jackson closed his eight years of service, in 1837,\nwhen the failure of a business firm in New Orleans brought on so many\nothers that all the banks suspended payment. Prices of merchandise fell\nso suddenly as to make the dealers bankrupt; many thousand men were\nthrown out of employment; and so much public money was lost that there\nwas a deficit in the Treasury, where there had been a surplus.\n\nIV. These bad results of Jackson's administration strengthened the\nWhigs. They had not ventured to make protectionism the main issue in\n1832; and Clay had acknowledged that all the leading newspapers and\nmagazines were against it in 1824. Its adoption that year was by close\nvotes, and in spite of Webster's insisting that American manufactures\nwere growing rapidly without any unnatural restrictions on commerce. The\nduties were raised in 1828 to nearly five times their average height in\n1789; and there was so much discontent at the South, that some slight\nreductions had to be made in the summer of 1832; but the protectionist\npurpose was still predominant. If the opponents of all taxation except\nfor revenue had done nothing more than appeal to the people that autumn,\nthey would have had Congress with them; Jackson was already on their\nside; and the question might have been decided on its merits after full\ndiscussion. The threat of South Carolina to secede caused the reduction,\nwhich was actually made in 1833, to appear too much like a concession\nmade merely to avoid civil war; and this second attempt to preserve the\nUnion by a compromise was a premium upon disloyalty. This bargain, like\nthat of 1820, was arranged by Henry Clay; and one condition was that the\nrates should fall gradually to a maximum of twenty per cent. Before that\nprocess was completed, the Treasury was exhausted by bad management;\nand additional revenue had to be obtained by raising the tariff in 1842.\nThe Whigs were then in power; but they were defeated in the presidential\nelection of 1844, when the main issue was protectionism. The tariff was\nreduced in 1846 by a much larger majority than that of 1842 in the House\nof Representatives; and the results were so satisfactory that a further\nreduction to an average of twenty per cent, was made in 1857, with the\ngeneral approval of members of both parties. The revenue needed for war\nhad to be procured by increase of taxation in 1861; but the country had\nthen had for twenty-eight years an almost uninterrupted succession of\nlow tariffs.\n\nThe universal prosperity in America between 1833 and 1842 is mentioned\nby a French traveller, Chevalier, by a German philanthropist, Dr.\nJulius, by Miss Martineau, Lyell, and Dickens. The novelist was\nespecially struck by the healthy faces and neat dresses of the factory\ngirls at Lowell, where they began to publish a magazine in 1840. Lyell\nsaid that the operatives in that city looked like \"a set of ladies and\ngentlemen playing at factory for their own amusement.\" Our country had\nseven times as many miles of railroads in 1842 as in 1833; our factories\nmade more than nine times as many dollars' worth of goods in 1860 as\nin 1830; and they sold more than three times as many abroad as in 1846.\nTwice as much capital was invested in manufacturing in 1860 as in 1850;\nthe average wages of the operatives increased sixteen per cent, during\nthese ten years; America became famous for inventions; her farms doubled\nin value, as did both her imports and her exports; and the tonnage of\nher vessels increased greatly. Such are the blessings of liberty in\ncommerce.\n\nEspecially gratifying is the growth of respect for the right of free\nspeech. The complaints by Dickens, Chevalier, and Miss Martineau of\nthe despotism of the majority were corroborated by Tocqueville, who\ntravelled here in 1831 and published in 1835 a very valuable statement\nof the results and tendencies of democracy. The destruction that year\nof a Catholic convent near Boston by a mob is especially significant,\nbecause the anniversary was celebrated next year as a public\nholiday. The worst sufferers under persecution at that time were the\nphilanthropists.\n\nV. In order to do justice to all parties in this controversy we should\ntake especial notice of the amount of opposition to slavery about 1825\nin what were afterwards called the Border States. Here all manual labour\ncould have been done by whites; and much of it was actually, especially\nin Kentucky. There slaves never formed a quarter of the population; and\nin Maryland they sank steadily from one-fourth in 1820 to one-eighth in\n1860. Of masters over twenty or more bondmen in 1856, there were only\n256 in Kentucky and 735 in Maryland. It was these large holders who\nmonopolised the profits, as they did the public offices. White men with\nfew or no slaves had scarcely any political power; and their chance to\nmake money, live comfortably, and educate their children, was much\nless than if all labour had become free. Such a change would have made\nmanufacturing prosper in both Kentucky and\n\nMaryland; but all industries languished except that of breeding slaves\nfor the South. The few were rich at the expense of the many. Only time\nwas needed in these and other States to make the majority intelligent\nenough to vote the guilty aristocrats down.\n\nTwo thousand citizens of Baltimore petitioned against admitting Missouri\nas a slave State in 1820; and several avowed abolitionists ran for\nthe Legislature shortly before 1830. At this time there were annual\nanti-slavery conventions in Baltimore, with prominent Whigs among the\nofficers, and nearly two hundred affiliated societies in the Border\nStates. There were fifty in North Carolina, where two thousand slaves\nhad been freed in 1825, and three-fifths of the whites were reported as\nfavourable to emancipation. Henry Clay was openly so in 1827; and the\nKentucky Colonisation Society voted in 1830 that the disposition\ntowards voluntary emancipation was strong enough to make legislation\nunnecessary. The abolition of slavery as \"the greatest curse that God in\nhis wrath ever inflicted upon a people\" was demanded by a dozen members\nof the Virginia Legislature, as well as by the _Richmond Inquirer_, in\n1832; and similar efforts were made shortly before 1850 in Kentucky,\nDelaware, Maryland, Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, Eastern\nTennessee, and Missouri.\n\nFrom 1812 to 1845 the Senate was equally divided between free and slave\nStates; and any transfer, even of Delaware, from one side to the other\nwould have enabled the North to control the upper House as well as the\nlower. The plain duty of a Northern philanthropist was to co-operate\nwith the Southern emancipationists and accept patiently their opinion\nthat abolition had better take place gradually, as it had done in New\nYork, and, what was much more important, that the owner should have\ncompensation. This had been urged by Wilberforce in 1823, as justice to\nthe planters in the West Indies; the legislatures of Ohio, Pennsylvania,\nand New. Jersey recommended, shortly before 1830, that the nation should\nbuy and free the slaves; and compensation was actually given by Congress\nto loyal owners of the three thousand slaves in the District of Columbia\nemancipated in 1862. Who can tell the evils which we should have\nescaped, if slavery could have continued after 1830 to be abolished\ngradually by State after State, with pecuniary aid from Congress or the\nNorth?\n\nThis was the hope of Benjamin Lundy, who passed much of his life in\nthe South, though he was born in New Jersey. He had advocated gradual\nemancipation in nearly every State, visiting even Texas and Missouri,\norganising anti-slavery societies, and taking subscriptions to his\n_Genius of Universal Emancipation_, which was founded in Tennessee in\n1821, but afterwards was issued weekly at Baltimore. He published the\nnames of nine postmasters among his agents, and copied friendly articles\nfrom more than forty newspapers. One of his chief objects was to prevent\nthat great extension of slavery, the annexation of Texas.\n\nVI. The election of the first pro-slavery President, Jackson, in 1828,\ndiscouraged the abolitionists; and Lundy was obliged to suspend his\npaper for lack of subscribers early next year. When he resumed it in\nSeptember, he took an assistant editor, who had declared on the previous\nFourth of July, in a fashionable Boston church: \"I acknowledge that\nimmediate and complete emancipation is not desirable. No rational man\ncherishes so wild a vision.\" Before Garrison set foot on slave soil,\nit occurred to him that every slave had a right to instant freedom, and\nalso that no master had any right to compensation. These two ideas he\nadvocated at once, and ever after, as obstinately as George the Third\ninsisted on the right to tax America. Garrison, of course, was a zealous\nphilanthropist; and he was as conscientious as Paul was in persecuting\nthe Christians. But he seems to have been more anxious to free his own\nconscience than to free the slaves. Immediate emancipation had been\nadvocated in Lundy's paper at much length, and even as early as\n1825, but so mildly as to call out little opposition. Insisting on no\ncompensation was much more irritating; and Garrison's writings show that\nhis mind was apt to free itself in bitter words, even against such men\nas Whittier, Channing, Longfellow, Douglass, and Sumner. He had been\nbut three months in Baltimore when he published a censure by name of the\nowner and captain of one of the many vessels which were permitted by law\nto carry slaves South, as \"highway robbers and murderers,\" who \"should\nbe sentenced to solitary confinement for life,\" and who deserved \"to\noccupy the lowest depths of perdition.\" He was found guilty of libel,\nand imprisoned for seven weeks because he could not pay a moderate fine.\n\nThe money was given by a generous New Yorker; but Garrison's work in the\nSouth was over, and Lundy's was of little value thenceforth. The man who\nbrought the libel suit was an influential citizen of Massachusetts; and\nBoston pulpits were shut against Garrison on his return. He could not\npay for a hall; but one was given him without cost by the anti-clerical\nsociety, whose leader, Abner Knee-land, was imprisoned thirty days in\n1834 for a brief expression of atheism which would not now be considered\nblasphemous.\n\nTwo weeklies, which were unpopular from the first, began to be published\nat Boston early in 1831. Kneeland's _Investigator_ was pledged \"to\ncontend for the abolition of slavery\" and \"advocate the rights of\nwomen.\" It was friendly to labour reform as well as to scientific\neducation, and opposed capital punishment, imprisonment for debt, and\nlegislation about religion; but its predominant tone has been skeptical\nto the present day. Garrison was too orthodox in 1831 to favour the\nemancipation of women; he was in sympathy with other reforms; but his\nchief theme was the \"pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition.\" The\nnext mistake of his _Liberator_ was the prominence given to negro\ninsurrection and other crimes against whites. The Southerners were\nnaturally afraid to have such subjects mentioned, even in condemnation;\nand guilty consciences made slave-holders think the danger much greater\nthan it was. The first number of the _Liberator_ contained Garrison's\nverses about the horrors of the revolt which might bring emancipation.\nHe announced at the same time that he was going to review a recent\npamphlet which he described thus: \"A better promoter of insurrection was\nnever sent forth to an oppressed people.\" His contributors spoke often\nof the right of slaves to resist, and asked, \"In God's name, why should\nthey not cut their masters' throats?\" Many women and children were\nmassacred by rebel slaves in Virginia that autumn; and Garrison promptly\ndeclared that the assassins \"deserve no more blame than our fathers did\nfor slaughtering the British,\" and that \"When the contest shall have\nagain begun, it must again be a war of extermination.\" Similar language\nwas often used in the _Liberator_ afterwards.\n\nGarrison was too firm a non-resistant to go further than this; but\nthe majority of Northerners would have agreed with the Reverend Doctor\nWayland, President of Brown University, who declared slavery \"very\nwicked,\" but declined to have the _Liberator_ sent him, and wrote to\nMr. Garrison that its tendency was to incite the slaves to rebellion.\nOf course this was not the editor's intention; but history deals mainly\nwith causes and results.\n\nThe consequences were especially bad at the South. Calhoun and other\nDemocrats were striving to unite all her people in resistance to\nemancipation, as well as to protectionism. They appealed to the\ninsurrection in 1831, and to the treatment of this subject in the\n_Liberator_, as proofs that abolitionism was incendiary; and the feeling\nwas so intense in Georgia, that the Governor was authorised by the\nLegislature, before the end of 1831, to offer five thousand dollars\nfor the head of the editor or of any of his agents in that State.\nSoutherners were generally provoked at such comparisons of slave-holders\nto thieves as were often made in the _Liberator_ and were incorporated\ninto the formal declaration made by Garrison and the other founders of\nthe New England Anti-Slavery Society at Boston early in 1832. Planters\nfriendly to emancipation were discouraged by Garrison's insisting that\nthey ought not to have compensation, an opinion which was adopted by\nthe American Anti-Slavery Society at its organisation at Philadelphia\nin 1833. Such protests on moral grounds were of great use to politicians\nwho opposed any grant of money for emancipation, because they wished to\npreserve slavery. The national Constitution provided that emancipation\nshould not take place in any State which did not give its consent;\nand this was much less attainable in 1835 than it had been ten years\nearlier.\n\nSo fierce was the hatred of anti-slavery periodicals, that many pounds\nof them were taken from the Charleston post-office and burned by the\nleading citizens in July, 1835; and this action was praised by a public\nmeeting, which was attended by all the clergy. The papers were printed\nin New York, and do not seem to have been destroyed on account of their\nown mistakes, but of those made by the Liberator. Southern postmasters\nrefused after this to deliver any anti-slavery matter; and their conduct\nwas approved by the Postmaster-General, as well as by the President. The\nlegislatures of North Carolina and Virginia demanded, in the session of\n1835 and 1836, that all such publications be suppressed legally by the\nNorthern States.\n\nSouth Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama took the same course; and it was\nagreed everywhere that abolitionists were to be lynched. Loyalty\nto slavery was required of all preachers and editors; no other\nqualification for every office, in the service either of the nation\nor of the State, was exacted so strictly; other controversies lost\ninterest; and men who would have gained greatly from the introduction\nof free labour helped the slave-holders silence those intelligent\nSoutherners who knew what urgent need there was in their section of\nemancipation for the general welfare.\n\nGarrison, meantime, made both friends and enemies at the North. He had\nthe support of nearly four hundred anti-slavery societies in 1835; but\nsome of these had been founded in Ohio by Lundy on the principle of\ngradual emancipation, and others in New York by Jay, whose main objects\nwere repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act and emancipation in the District\nof Columbia. Agitation for immediate abolition without compensation was\nnowhere active at that time, except in New England. The highest estimate\nof its partisans in 1840 was only two hundred thousand; most of them had\nalready renounced the leadership of Garrison; and there is no reason to\nbelieve that the number of his thorough going followers ever reached one\nhundred thousand.\n\nMost of the original abolitionists were church members; and the\nagitation was never opposed, even at first, by so large a proportion of\nthe clergy at the North as of the people generally. Several ministers\njoined Garrison at once; 125 enrolled their names for publication as\nabolitionists in 1833; and two years later he had the open support of\nthe New England Methodist Conference, the Maine Baptist Convention, and\nthe Detroit Presbytery, as well as of many Congregationalists, and\nof most of the Quakers, Unitarians, and Free-Will Baptists. Preaching\nagainst slavery was not common in denominations where the pastor was\nmore liable to be gagged by ecclesiastical superiors.\n\nOne reason that this authority, as well as that of public opinion in\nthe Northern cities, was directed against agitation, was the pressure\nof business interests. The South sent most of her products, especially\ncotton, to manufacturers or merchants in Philadelphia, New York, and\nNew England. This region in return supplied her with clothes, tools,\nand furniture. Much of her food came from the Western farmers; and these\nlatter were so unable to send grain or cattle eastward until after 1850,\nthat the best road for most of them to market was the Mississippi.\nThe slave-holders were such good customers, that people along the Ohio\nRiver, as well as in Eastern seaports and factory towns, were slow to\nsee how badly the slaves were oppressed.\n\nEnlightenment on this subject, as well as about capacity for free\nlabour, was also delayed by prejudices of race and colour, while there\nwas much honest ignorance throughout the North. What was best understood\nabout slavery was that it was merely a State institution, not to be\nabolished or even much ameliorated by the national Government. The main\nresponsibility rested accordingly upon the Southern States; and the\ndanger that these might be provoked to secede could not be overlooked.\nThese considerations prevented the majority of the Northerners, and\nespecially the leading members of every sect, from opposing slavery as\nactively as they would otherwise have been glad to do.\n\nThe most active partisan of the slave-holders was the politician who\nknew they had votes in Congress and in the electoral college for all the\nwhites in the South and also for three-fifths of the coloured people.\nThe views of the Democratic party about the tariff, the bank, and State\nrights had made it in 1832 victorious everywhere south of Maryland and\nKentucky; and its preponderance in the cotton States, as well as in\nVirginia, enabled it long to resist the growing disaffection at the\nNorth. The Whigs went far enough in the same course for their own\ndestruction; and the principle of individual liberty found few\nchampions.\n\nVII. Politicians and merchants worked together in getting up the series\nof mobs against abolitionists, which began in 1833, under the lead of\na Methodist bishop in New York, and kept breaking out in that city,\nPhiladelphia, Cincinnati, Boston, and less important places, until they\nculminated in the burning of Pennsylvania Hall in 1838. After that year,\nthey were neither frequent nor violent. The worst crime of the rioters\nwas murdering a clergyman named Lovejoy in 1837 for trying to save\nhis printing-press. Most of the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian\npreachers and editors were now doing what they could to suppress the\nagitation; but the riots called out no indignation like that which had\npoured forth from all the churches in 1828 against Sunday mails.\n\nThere was little freedom of speech for unpopular opinions in America\nin 1835, when Channing declared that the mob against Garrison had made\nabolitionism \"the cause of Freedom.\" There were many readers, even in\nthe South, for the little book in which he insisted that \"Slavery ought\nto be discussed.\" He protested against depriving the slave of his\nright to improve and respect himself, and vindicated \"the sacredness of\nindividual man.\" He was the first to appeal from the Fugitive Slave\nLaw to that \"everlasting and immutable rule of right revealed in\nconscience.\" And few other clergymen gave such help to John Quincy\nAdams, who was then asserting the right of petition and of discussion\nin Congress. Memorials with a hundred and fifty thousand signatures\nhad been presented against the annexation of Texas, and in favour of\nemancipation in the District of Columbia, when it was voted by all\nthe Southern Representatives, as well as by the Northern Democrats, in\nJanuary, 1837, that all petitions relating to slavery \"shall be laid on\nthe table and no action taken thereon.\" The ex-President, who was then\na Representative from Massachusetts, protested indignantly, as did other\nWhigs, and they continued to plead for the constitutional rights of\nthe North until 1844, when the gag-rule was abolished. On July 4, 1837,\nAdams told the people that \"Freedom of speech is the only safety-valve\nwhich, under the high pressure of slavery, can preserve your political\nboiler from a fearful explosion.\" The number of names, including many\nrepetitions, signed in the next two years to anti-slavery petitions was\ntwo millions.\n\nEmancipation in the District of Columbia was out of the question, if\nonly because the South chose half the Senate. The North was strong\nenough in the House of Representatives to prevent any pro-slavery\nlegislation; and the annexation of Texas was actually postponed until\n1845, in consequence partly of the petitions and partly of remonstrances\nfrom the legislatures of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,\nand other States. These bodies also protested against the neglect of\npetitions in Congress. The subsidence of mobs after 1838 was due to\na general feeling at the North, not only that the rioters were too\nviolent, but also that the South was too dictatorial in gagging\nCongress, in tampering with the mails, in asking Northern legislatures\nto suppress public meetings, and in trying to annex Texas.\n\nVIII. On all these points the Whigs were so far in advance of the\nDemocrats in 1840, as to receive much support from abolitionists. These\nlast, however, were widely and unfortunately divided among themselves.\nMany of the men still called themselves Democrats; for the old party\nwhich had been founded by Jefferson had liberal members, who had\nformerly been called \"Fanny Wright men,\" and were now known as\n\"Loco Focos.\" A few abolitionists took the Gospel aphorisms about\nnon-resistance so blindly as to say it would be a sin for them to vote.\nGarrison renounced the franchise \"for conscience\" sake and the slave's;\nbut it is hard to see precisely what any slave gained by his friends'\nrefusing to vote for Adams, Sumner, or Lincoln. The most consistent\nabolitionists voted regularly, and selected a candidate for his work in\nthe cause, without regard to his party record.\n\nThe Democrats took decided ground in the national convention of 1840 and\nafterwards against abolitionism. Their nominee, Van Buren, was then at\nthe head of a corrupt administration. The Whig candidate, Harrison, was\nin favour of free speech and honest government. He had been chosen in\npreference to Clay, because of the latter's attacking the abolitionists.\nAnother slave-holder who wanted to lynch them, had, however, been\nnominated by acclamation for Vice-President at the Whig convention; and\nthe party had no platform.\n\nIt is hard to see what ought to have been done under these circumstances\nby abolitionists. Some who were afterwards known as \"Liberty men\" set up\nan independent ticket, headed by a martyr to the cause. They had quite\nas much right to do this as Garrison had to refuse to vote. He had\nhitherto taken little responsibility for the proceedings of the national\nsociety; but when the annual meeting was held at New York in May, 1840,\nhe brought on more than five hundred of his own adherents from New\nEngland, in order to pack the convention. Thus he secured the passage\nof a declaration that the independent nominations were \"injurious to the\ncause\" and ought not to be supported. Garrison has justly been compared\nto Luther, and this was like Luther at his worst.\n\nMost of the officers and members seceded and organised a rival society\nwhich did good work in sympathy not only with the Liberty men but with\nthe Free Soilers; and these parties gained most of the new converts\nto abolitionism. In 1847 the _Liberator_ published without comment an\nestimate that it did not represent the views of one active abolitionist\nin ten; and a coloured clergyman of high ability, Dr. Garnett, declared\nin 1851 that the proportion was less than one per cent. Most of the\nclergymen who were friendly to Garrison before 1840 were thenceforth\nagainst him. So many pulpits were suddenly closed against the agitators,\nthat one of them, named Foster, kept insisting on speaking in meeting\nwithout leave in various parts of New England. He was usually dragged\nout summarily, and often to the injury of his coat-tails, though never\nof his temper. Boston was one of the most strongly anti-slavery cities;\nbut twenty pastors out of forty-four refused to asked the people to pray\nfor a fugitive slave who was imprisoned illegally in 1842. Those who\ncomplied had comparatively little influence. The rural clergy in New\nEngland, New York, Michigan, and Northern Ohio, had much more sympathy\nwith reform than their brethren to the southward, especially in large\ncities. Garrison's personal unpopularity in the churches had been\nmuch increased by his violent language against them, and also by his\nasserting the injustice of Sunday laws, as well as the right of women\nto speak for the slave. His position on these points will be considered\nlater.\n\nIX. His worst mistake was the demand, which he published in the\n_Liberator_, in May, 1842, for \"a repeal of the Union between\nNorthern Liberty and Southern Slavery.\" This he called \"essential\" for\nemancipation. In January, 1843, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society\npassed the resolution which was afterwards published regularly in the\n_Liberator_ as the Garrisonist creed. It declared the Union \"a covenant\nwith death and an agreement with hell\" which \"should be immediately\nannulled.\" This position was held by Garrison, Phillips, and their\nadherents until 1861. It was largely due, like their refusal to vote,\nto indignation at the support given to slavery by the national\nConstitution, the Fugitive Slave Act, and some recent legislation\nat Washington. Garrison was also confident, as he said at a Disunion\nconvention in 1857, that if the South were to secede, she would not \"be\nable to hold a single slave one hour after the deed is done.\" Phillips,\ntoo, declared that \"All the slave asks of us is to stand out of his\nway.\" \"Let no cement of the Union bind the slave, and he will right\nhimself.\" It is true that secession brought on emancipation; but\nit would not have done so if Phillips and Garrison had succeeded in\nquenching love of the Union in the North. That patriotic feeling burst\nout in a fierce flame; and it was the restoration of the Union which\nabolished slavery. Another important fact is that the chief guilt\nof slavery rested on the South. The national Government was only an\naccessory at worst. No Northerner was responsible for any clause in the\nConstitution which he had not sanctioned, or for any action of Congress\nwhich he had done his best to prevent.\n\nThe best work against slavery which could be done in 1843 and 1844 was\nto defeat a new attempt to annex Texas. This scheme was avowedly for the\nextension of slavery over a great region where it had been prohibited by\nMexico. There would probably be war with that country; and success would\nincrease the power of the slave-holders in the Senate. One half of its\nmembers were from the slave States in 1844; but annexation was rejected\nin June by a vote of two to one; and the House of Representatives was\nplainly on the same side, though otherwise controlled by the Democrats.\n\nPublic warning of the danger to liberty had been given by Adams and\nother Whigs in Congress early in 1843; but little heed was taken either\nby the clergy or by the Garrisonists. Both were too busy with their own\nplans. Channing died in 1842; and Parker went to Europe in September,\n1843. It was not until two months later that the _Liberator_ found room\nfor Texas. Garrison never spoke against annexation until too late; and\nit was scarcely mentioned in the May meetings of 1843 at New York and\nBoston, in the one hundred anti-slavery conventions which were held that\nsummer in Western New York, Ohio, and Indiana, with the powerful aid of\nFrederick Douglass, or in the one hundred conventions in Massachusetts\nearly in 1844. At the May meeting in New York, Foster said he should\nrejoice to see Texas annexed; and Phillips exulted in the prospect that\nthis would provoke the North to trample on the Constitution. Annexation\nhad been opposed by three candidates for the presidency: Birney, who had\nalready been selected by the \"Liberty men\"; Van Buren, who was rejected\nsoon after on this account by the Democrats; and Clay, who had already\nbeen accepted by the Whigs. All three were formally censured, under\nvarious pretexts, in company with John Quincy Adams, at this and other\ngatherings of the Garrisonians. Their convention soon after in\nBoston voted ten to one for disunion, and closed on June 1st with the\npresentation to Garrison of a red flag bearing on one side the motto,\n\"No Union with Slave-holders,\" and on the other an eagle wrapped in the\nAmerican flag and trampling on a prostrate slave. Two months later,\nand three before the election, this banner was carried through gaily\ndecorated streets in Hingham, amid ringing of church bells, to a meeting\nattended by several thousand disunionists. The Garrisonians thought so\nmuch about getting out of the Union, that they had nothing to say in\nfavour of keeping out Texas.\n\nAmong the few abolitionists who saw the duty of the hour were Whittier\nand Lowell. The full force of their poetry was not much felt before\n1850; but among the stirring publications early in 1842 was a\n_Rallying-Cry for New England against the Annexation of Texas_, which\nLowell sent forth anonymously. It was reprinted in _Harper's Weekly_ for\nApril 23, 1892, but not in the earlier editions of the poems. Among the\nmost striking lines are these:\n\n     \"Rise up New England, buckle on your mail of proof sublime,\n     Your stern old hate of tyranny, your deep contempt of crime.\n\n     One flourish of a pen,\n     And fetters shall be riveted on millions more of men.\n\n     One drop of ink to sign a name, and Slavery shall find\n     For all her surplus flesh and blood a market to her mind.\n\n     Awake New England! While you sleep, the foe advance their lines,\n     Already on your stronghold's wall their bloody banner shines.\n\n     Awake and hurl them back again in terror and despair!\n     The time has come for earnest deeds: we 've not a man to spare.\"\n\nIf the Whigs had nominated Webster that May, on a platform opposing both\nannexation and disunion, they would have gained more votes at the North\nthan they would have lost at the South. They might possibly have carried\nthat election; and their strength in the Border States would have\nenabled them, sooner or later, to check the extension of slavery without\nbringing on civil war. Their platform was silent about Texas, as well\nas about the Union; their chief candidate, Clay, had already made\ncompromises in the interest of the South in 1820 and 1833; he did so\nagain in 1850; and he admitted, soon after the convention, that he\n\"should be glad to see\" Texas annexed, if it could be done without war.\nThis failure of the Whigs to oppose the extension of slavery, together\nwith their having made the tariff highly protective in 1842, cost them\nso many votes in New York and Michigan that they lost the election.\n\nNegligence and dissension at the North had enabled the South to set\naside Van Buren in favour of Polk at the Democratic convention. The\nparty was pledged to annex Texas; and Northern members were appeased\nby a crafty promise that all which was worth having in British America,\nwest of the Rocky Mountains, should be acquired also. The declaration\nin the platform of 1840, that the government ought not \"to foster one\nbranch of industry to the detriment of others,\" was repeated in 1844, as\noften afterwards, but it was so cunningly explained away in Pennsylvania\nthat this State voted for the President who signed the low-tariff bill\nof 1846.\n\nThe election of 1844 strengthened the influence of the South. Texas was\nsoon annexed by the same Congress which had refused to do so\npreviously, and was admitted like Florida, as a slave State, in spite of\nremonstrances made by the legislatures of Massachusetts and Vermont, as\nwell as by two-thirds of the Unitarian ministers.\n\nIn March, 1846, Polk's army invaded Mexico; her soldiers resisted; the\nDemocrats in Congress voted that she had begun the war, which lasted for\nthe next eighteen months; and the Whigs assented reluctantly. Most of\nthe volunteers were Southerners, and there was much opposition at the\nNorth to warfare for the extension of slavery. The indignation was\nincreased by the publication of Whittier's pathetic poem, _The Angels\nof Buena Vista_, as well as of that series of powerful satires, Lowell's\n_Biglow Papers_, The greatest achievement of literary genius thus far\nin America was the creation of _Birdofre-dom Sawin_; and no book except\nMrs. Stowe's famous novel did so much for emancipation.\n\nA foremost place among abolitionists was taken by Parker in 1845, when\nhe began to preach in Boston. His first sermon against the war with\nMexico was delivered the same month as the publication of the first of\nthe _Biglow Papers_, June, 1846.\n\nEarly in 1847 he spoke with such severity, at an indignation meeting in\nFaneuil Hall, that his life was threatened by drunken volunteers. Other\npreachers that year in Massachusetts followed his example so generally\nas to win praise from the Garrisonians, as well as from the most\npatriotic abolitionists; and great effect was produced by his _Letter to\nthe People_, which showed, early in 1848, that slavery was ruining the\nprosperity, as well as the morals, of the South. More about his work\nmay be found in Chapter V. There we shall see how active the\nTranscendentalists were in carrying on the revolt begun by Channing. The\nmost important victory for liberty recorded in this chapter was that\nof 1844 over the protectionists. The defeat of the Garrisonians was\ndue largely to their mistakes; and there was urgent need of a new\nanti-slavery movement on broader ground.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. EMANCIPATION\n\nTHE revolutionary movements of 1848 did much to encourage love of\nliberty in America, where the anti-slavery agitation was now becoming\nprominent in politics. The indignation against the Mexican war increased\nas it was found that nothing would be done to keep the promise of 1844,\nthat Great Britain should be excluded from the Pacific. The purpose of\nthe South, to enlarge the area of slavery but not that of freedom, was\nso plain that the northern Democrats proposed the Wilmot Proviso, by\nwhich slavery would have been forbidden in all territory acquired\nfrom Mexico; and they actually carried it through the House of\nRepresentatives, with the help of the Whigs, in 1846. Similar action was\ntaken by the legislatures of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware,\nand seven other States. The Senate was so unwilling to have slavery\nprohibited anywhere as to oppose, merely on this account, a bill for\ngiving a territorial government to Oregon.\n\nI. Many of the New York delegates to the national Democratic convention\nin 1848 came pledged to \"uncompromising hostility to the extension of\nslavery,\" and were so badly treated that they withdrew. Cass was\nnominated as a friend to the South; the Mexican war was declared \"just\nand necessary\"; and abolitionism was denounced, as it had been in 1840\nand 1844. Van Buren was nominated soon after by the anti-slavery\nDemocrats. A similar movement had already been made by Sumner, Wilson,\nand other men who were known as \"conscience Whigs,\" and who had some\nsupport from Clay and Webster. Both these candidates for the presidency\nwere set aside in favour of a slave-holder, who had been very successful\nin conquering Mexico, but never cast a vote. In fact, General Taylor had\ntaken so little interest in politics, that he was supported in the North\nas a friend, and in the South as an enemy, to the Wilmot Proviso. No\nopinion on this or any other question could be extorted from the\nmajority; Wilson declared in the convention that he should do all he\ncould to defeat its nominee; the conscience Whigs made an alliance with\nthe Van Buren Democrats; and the new movement was joined by the \"Liberty\nmen,\" whose vote of sixty thousand had decided the election of 1844.\nThus was formed the Free Soil party, whose fundamental idea, like that\nafterwards held by the Republicans, was preservation of the Union by\nchecking the extension of slavery.\n\nDouglass and other Garrisonists were present at the Free Soil\nconvention, where he was invited to speak. The new party pledged itself\nto \"Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labour, and Free Men.\" The national\nGovernment was to relieve itself of \"all responsibility for slavery,\"\nand begin by prohibiting its extension. There should be \"no more slave\nStates,\" \"no more slave territory,\" and \"no more compromises with\nslavery.\" The convention also demanded that Oregon should be organised\nas a territory with free labour only; and this was granted at once by\nPresident Polk and both Houses of Congress. Most of the members of the\nconvention were Transcendental enough to think that wisdom must be\nspontaneous; and their scorn of political machinery left it to be used\nfor making Van Buren the candidate. Lowell, who was then at his height\nof productiveness, complained that,\n\n     \"He aint half anti-slav'ry 'nough\";\n\nbut Whittier exclaimed, that September:\n\n     \"Now joy and thanks forever more!\n     The dreary night has well-nigh passed:\n     The slumbers of the North are o'er:\n     The giant stands erect at last!\"\n\nThe anti-slavery vote was nearly five times as large as in 1844. Cass\nwould have been elected if the Free Soilers had supported him in\nNew York. Their hostility gave that State, as well as Vermont and\nMassachusetts, to Taylor, who thus became President. He also carried\nGeorgia and seven other Southern States; but the West was solidly\nDemocratic. It was not an anti-slavery victory, but a pro-slavery\ndefeat.\n\nII. The first question before the new President and Congress was about\nCalifornia. The discovery of gold, before the country was ceded by\nMexico, had brought in crowds of settlers, but scarcely any slaves.\nUnwillingness to have another free State prevented Polk and his Senate\nfrom allowing California to have any better government than a military\none; and this was deprived of all authority by the desertion of\nthe soldiers to the diggings. The settlers knew the value of a free\ngovernment, and made one independently. The constitution which they\ncompleted in October, 1848, was so anti-slavery that it was not\nsanctioned for nearly two years by Congress. Meantime there was no legal\nauthority in California to levy taxes, or organise fire departments,\nor arrest criminals. Robberies and conflagrations were numerous; the\nmushroom cities were not graded, paved, or lighted; the uncertainty of\ntitles to land caused fights in which lives were lost; and criminals\nbecame so desperate that several were lynched by a Vigilance Committee.\n\nThe duty of admitting California as a free State was urged upon the\nnew Congress in December, 1849, by Taylor, who promised to make an\nunexpectedly good President. This plan had become so popular at the\nNorth that it was recommended by the Democratic State conventions of\nMassachusetts and Wisconsin, as well as by the legislature of every\nNorthern State, except Iowa. The House of Representatives could\neasily have been carried; for the Whigs and Free Soilers constituted\na majority, and would have had some help from Northern Democrats. The\nSenate would probably not have consented until after another appeal to\nthe people; but this might have been made with success at the elections\nof 1850.\n\nTaylor had carried Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia,\nNorth Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware. The last two States had\npermitted some Free Soil votes to be cast; this was also the case in\nVirginia; and anti-slavery meetings had been held publicly in St. Louis.\nThe pro-slavery defeat in 1848 encouraged Southerners who knew the\nadvantage of free labour to agitate for emancipation. The convention\nheld for this purpose in Kentucky, in 1849, was attended by delegates\nfrom twenty-four counties; and its declaration that slavery was\n\"injurious to the prosperity of the Commonwealth,\" was endorsed\nby Southern newspapers. Clay himself proposed a plan of gradual\nemancipation; and such a measure was called for, according to the\n_Richmond Southerner_ (quoted in Hoist's _Constitutional History_, vol.\niii., p. 433), by \"two-thirds of the people of Virginia.\" Admissions\nthat \"Kentucky must be free,\" that \"Delaware and Maryland are now in a\ntransition, preparatory to becoming free States,\" and that \"Emancipation\nis inevitable in all the farming States, where free labour can be\nadvantageously used,\" were published in 1853, at New Orleans, in De\nBow's _Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States_ (vols.\ni., p. 407; ii., p. 310; Hi., p. 60). A book which was written soon\nafter by a North Carolinian named Helper, and denounced violently in\nCongress, shows how much those Southerners who did not hold slaves would\nhave gained by emancipation; and what was so plainly for the interest of\nthe majority of the voters would have been established by them, sooner\nor later, if it had not been for the breaking out of civil war.\n\nHow much danger there was, even in 1849, to slave-holders is shown by\ntheir threats to secede. They wished to increase the hostility between\nNorth and South in order to check the spread southwards of Northern\nviews. It was in this spirit that Senators and Representatives from the\ncotton States demanded a more efficient law for returning fugitives.\nMost of the thirty thousand then at the North had come from Maryland,\nVirginia, Kentucky, and Missouri; and these States were invited to act\nwith their southern neighbours against abolitionism.\n\nThere were very few secessionists at this time, except in South\nCarolina, Mississippi, and Texas. President Taylor was so popular at\nthe South, and so avowedly ready to take command himself against rebels,\nthat no army could have been raised to resist him. Webster declared,\nin February, 1850, that there was no danger of secession; and the same\nopinion was held by Benton of Missouri, Seward, and other Senators.\nThere was not enough alarm at the North to affect the stock-market. All\nthat the Whigs needed to do for the Union was to sustain it with all the\nstrength which they could use for that purpose at the South. If they had\nalso insisted that California should be admitted unconditionally, they\nwould soon have had support enough from Northern Democrats in Congress.\nThe demand for a national party of freedom was urgent. The Free Soilers\nwere too sectional; but the Whigs had so much influence at the South\nthat they could have checked the extension of slavery without bloodshed;\nand this would have ensured the progress of emancipation.\n\nIII. All this might have been done if Clay's hatred of the\nabolitionists, who had refused to make him President, had not made him\ntry to cripple them by another compromise. He proposed that California\nshould be admitted at once and without slavery; that it should be\nleft to the settlers in Utah and New Mexico to decide whether these\nterritories should ultimately become free or slave States; that Texas\nshould receive a large sum of money, as well as a great tract of land\nwhich she had threatened to take from New Mexico by force; and, worst\nof all, that a new fugitive-slave bill should be passed. The law then\non the statute books left the question whether the defendant should\nbe enslaved to be decided by a magistrate elected by the people or\nappointed by the governor; and the court was so apt to be restricted\nby local legislation or public opinion, that recovery of fugitives was\npractically impossible in New England. The new law retained the worst\nprovision of the old one; namely, that no jury could be asked to decide\nwhether the defendant had ever been a slave. The principal change was\nthat the judge was to come into such close relations with the national\nadministration as to be independent of the people of the State.\nIn short, fugitive slaves were to be punished, and disloyal Texans\nrewarded, in order that California might get her rights.\n\nThis plan was approved by Webster, who hoped that the grateful South\nwould make him President, and then help him restore those protective\nduties which had been removed in 1846. Other Northerners called the\ncompromise one-sided; and so did men from those cotton States which\nwere to gain scarcely anything. President Taylor would yield nothing\nto threats of rebellion. It was not until after his death that Clay's\nproposals could be carried through Congress; and it was necessary to\npresent them one by one. The bill by which California was admitted, in\nSeptember, 1850, was sandwiched in between those about Texas and the\nfugitives. The latter were put under a law by which their friends were\nliable to be fined or imprisoned; but the new Fugitive Slave Act\nhad only three votes from the northern Whigs in the House of\nRepresentatives; and there were only four Senators who actually\nconsented to all Clay's propositions.\n\nThe compromise seemed at first to have silenced both secessionists and\nabolitionists. The latter were assailed by worse mobs in Boston and New\nYork than had been the case in these cities for many years. The rioters\nwere sustained by public opinion; enthusiastic Union meetings were\nheld in the large cities; and Webster's course was praised by leading\nministers of all denominations, even the Unitarian. Abolitionism had\napparently been reduced to such a position that it could lead to nothing\nbut civil war. Parker complained, in May, 1850, that the clergy were\ndeserting the cause. Phillips spoke at this time as if there were no\nanti-slavery ministers left. I once heard friendly hearers interrupt him\nby shouting out names like Parker's and Beecher's. He smiled, and began\ncounting up name after name on the fingers of his left hand; but he soon\ntossed it up, and said with a laugh, \"I have not got one hand full yet.\"\n\nWebster's friends boasted that Satan was trodden underfoot; but the\ncompromise was taken as an admission by the Whigs that their party had\ncared too little about slavery. Many of its adherents went over, sooner\nor later, to the Democratic party, which had at least the merit of\nconsistency. About half of the Free Soilers deserted what seemed to be\na lost cause; but few if any went back to help the Whigs. The latter did\nnot elect even three-fourths as many members of Congress in November,\n1850, as they did in 1848; and they fared still worse in 1852.\nDemocratic aid enabled the Free Soilers in 1851 to send Sumner to\nrepresent them in the Senate, in company with Hale and Chase. Seward had\nalready been sent there by the anti-slavery Whigs, and had met Webster's\nplea for the constitutionality of the new Fugitive Slave Law by\ndeclaring that \"There is a higher law than the Constitution.\"\nSumner maintained in Washington, as he had done in Boston, that the\nConstitution as well as the moral law forbade helping kidnappers. He was\nnever a disunionist; but he insisted that \"Unjust laws are not binding\";\nand he was supported by the mighty influence of Emerson.\n\nThe effects of Transcendentalism will be so fully considered in the\nnext chapter but one, that I need speak here merely of what it did to\nencourage resistance to the new law which made philanthropy a crime.\nThe penalties on charity to fugitives were so severe as to call out much\nindignation from the rural clergy at the North. In November, 1850, the\nMethodist ministers of New York City agreed to demand the repeal of the\nlaw; and Parker wrote to Fillmore, who had been made President by\nTaylor's death, that among eighty Protestant pastors in Boston there\nwere not five who would refuse hospitality to a slave. The first hunters\nof men who came there met such a resistance that they did not try to\ncapture the fugitives. A negro who was arrested was taken by coloured\nfriends from the court-house; and a second rescue was prevented only by\nfilling the building with armed hirelings, surrounding it with heavy\nchains under which the judges were obliged to stoop, and finally calling\nout the militia to guard the victim through the streets of Boston. A\nslaveholder who was supposed to be trying to drag his own son back to\nbondage, was shot dead by coloured men in Pennsylvania. Other fugitives\nwere rescued in Milwaukee and Syracuse. The new law lost much of its\npower in twelve months of such conflicts; and it was reduced almost to a\ndead letter by Personal Liberty bills, which were enacted in nearly\nevery Northern State. The compromise was not making the North and South\nfriends, but enemies.\n\nThe hostility was increased by the publication of the most influential\nbook of the century. _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ had attracted much attention as\na serial; and three thousand copies were sold on the day it appeared\nin book form, March 20, 1852. There was a sale that year of two hundred\nthousand copies, which were equally welcome in parlour, nursery, and\nkitchen. Dramatic versions had a great run; and one actress played\n\"Little Eva\" at more than three hundred consecutive performances. Some\nof the most effective scenes were intended to excite sympathy with\nfugitive slaves.\n\nThe total number of votes for all parties did not increase one-third as\nfast between 1848 and 1852 as between 1852 and 1856, when many of \"Uncle\nTom's\" admirers went to the polls for the first time. The Whigs were\nso much ashamed of their party, that they permitted every State, except\nMassachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee to be carried by\nthe Democrats. The latter had the advantage, not only of unity and\nconsistency as regards slavery, but of having made their low tariff\nso much of a success that there was another reduction in 1857. The two\nparties had been made nearly equal in Congress by the election of 1848;\nbut the proportion was changed four years later, to two to one, and the\nbeaten party soon went to pieces.\n\nThe Free Soil candidates and platform were singularly good in 1852; yet\nthe vote was but little more than one-half as large as in 1848. There\nwas no election between 1835 and 1865 when anti-slavery votes seemed so\nlittle likely to do any immediate good. The compromise looked like an\nirreparable error; and many reformers thought they could do nothing\nbetter than vote with the Democrats for free trade.\n\nIV. The victors in 1852 might have had many years of supremacy, if they\nhad kept true to the Jeffersonian principle of State rights. They were\nconsistent in holding that the position of coloured people in each State\nought to be determined by the local majority. The rights of Northerners\nhad been invaded by the new law, which forbade hospitality to fugitives\nand demanded participation in kidnapping; but this wrong might have been\nendured if the South had not denied the right of Kansas to become a free\nState. This was guaranteed by the compromise of 1820, which had been\nkept by the North. Early in 1854, Senator Douglas of Illinois proposed\nthat the compact should be repudiated, and that it should be left for\nfuture settlers to decide whether there should be freedom or slavery in\na region ten times as large as Massachusetts, with a fertile soil and a\nclimate warm enough for negro labour.\n\nThere was such prompt and intense indignation throughout the North\nat this breach of faith, that Douglas said he could find his way from\nChicago to Boston by the light of the bonfires in which he was burned in\neffigy. The difference of opinion between city and country clergy ceased\nat once. An Episcopalian bishop headed the remonstrance which was signed\nby nearly every minister in New York City. Two other bishops signed\nthe New England protest in company with the presidents of Yale, Brown,\nWilliams, and Amherst, with the leaders of every Protestant sect,\nand with so many other clergymen that the sum total rose above three\nthousand, which was four-fifths of the whole number. Five hundred\nministers in the North-west signed a remonstrance which Douglas was\nobliged to present; and so many such memorials came in from all the free\nStates, as to show that there was very little pro-slavery feeling left\namong the clergy, except in the black belt north of the Ohio.\n\nOne-half of the Northern Democrats in the House of Representatives\nrefused to follow Douglas. Leading men from all parties united to form\nthe new one, which took the name of Republican on July 6, 1854, and\ngained control of the next House of Representatives. It was all the\nmore popular because it began \"on the sole basis of the non-extension\nof slavery.\" Victory over the South could be gained only by uniting\nthe North; but Garrison still kept on saying, \"If we would see the\nslave-power overthrown, the Union must be dissolved.\" On July 4, 1854,\ntwo days before the Republican party adopted its name, he burned the\nConstitution of the United States amid several thousand spectators. Then\nit was that Thoreau publicly denied his allegiance to Massachusetts,\nwhich was already doing its best to save Kansas.\n\nEmigrants from New England were sent into that territory so rapidly that\nthe Douglas plan seemed likely to hasten the time when it would be a\nfree State. The South had insisted on the rights of the settlers; but\nthey were outvoted, in November, 1854, and afterwards, by bands of armed\nMissourians, who marched off when they had carried the election. The\nFree State men were then supplied with rifles; and an anti-slavery\nconstitution was adopted by the majority of actual residents.\nThe minority were supported by the President, as well as by the\n\"border-ruffians\"; two rival governments were set up; and civil war\nbegan early in 1855. Lawrence, the principal town in Kansas, was sacked\nby command of the United States Marshal, the most important buildings\nburned, and much private property stolen. Five settlers, whose threats\nof violence had offended John Brown, were slain in cold blood by him and\nhis men, in retaliation for the Lawrence outrage, in May, 1856. Anarchy\ncontinued; but the new State was not admitted until 1861.\n\nProminent among the Northerners who insisted on the right of Kansas to\ngovern herself, was Sumner. His speech in the Senate in May, 1856,\nwas so powerful that half a million copies were printed as campaign\nliterature, and Whittier said, \"It has saved the country.\" The orator\nhad attacked some of his colleagues with needless severity; and on the\nday after the sack of Lawrence, he was assaulted by a Representative\nfrom South Carolina in the Senate Chamber with such ferocity that he\ncould not return to his seat before 1860. This cruel outrage against\nfreedom of speech was universally applauded throughout the South.\n\nThere was indignation enough at the North in 1856 to have given the\nelection to the Republicans, if the field had been clear; but Protestant\nbigotry enabled the South to choose the President who failed to\noppose rebellion. The Catholics had objected as early as 1840 to the\nProtestantism which was taught, in part at their expense, to their\nchildren in the public schools. Some ways in which this was done then\nhave since been abandoned; but the principal controversy has been\nabout using a book which is universally acknowledged to be a bulwark of\nProtestantism. There would not be so much zeal at present for having\nit read daily in the schools, if it has no religious influence; and our\nCatholic citizens have a right to prefer that their children should be\ntaught religion in ways not forbidden by their Church. Pupils have not\nhad much moral or even religious benefit from school-books against which\ntheir conscience rebelled, however unreasonably.\n\nThe Catholic position in 1841, according to Bishop Hughes, afterwards\nArchbishop, was this: \"We do not ask money from the school fund;--all\nour desire is that it should be administered in such a way as to promote\nthe education of all\" and \"leave the various denominations each in\nthe full possession of its religious rights over the minds of its\nown children. If the children are to be educated promiscuously, as at\npresent, let religion in every shape and form be excluded.\"\n\nThe Catholics soon changed their ground, and demanded that their\nparochial schools should be supported by public money. This called out\nthe opposition of a secret society, which insisted on keeping the Bible\nin the schools and excluding Catholics from office. The Know Nothings\nhad the aid of so many Whigs in 1854 as to elect a large number of\ncandidates, most of whom were friendly to the Republicans. The leaders\nwished to remain neutral between North and South; but it is hard to\nsay whether the pledge of loyalty to the Union did not facilitate the\ncapture of the organisation by the insatiable South early in 1856.\nBeecher had already declared that the Know Nothing lodges were\n\"catacombs of freedom\" in which indignation against slavery was stifled.\n\nThe presidential election showed that the outburst of bigotry had\ndone more harm to friends than enemies of liberty. The Democrats lost\nMaryland, but gained Pennsylvania and four other Northern States. This\nenabled them to retain the Presidency and the Senate, as well as to\nrecover the House of Representatives, where they had become weaker than\nthe Republicans. The party of freedom polled eight times as many votes\nas in 1852, and made its first appearance in the electoral colleges. It\ncarried eleven States. The Whigs had accepted the Know Nothing nominee;\nand both these neutral parties soon dissolved.\n\nAnarchy in Kansas had been suppressed by United States dragoons; but\nthey did not prevent the adoption of a pro-slavery constitution by bogus\nelections. Buchanan promptly advised Congress to admit Kansas as a slave\nState, and declared she was already as much one as Georgia or South\nCarolina. This opinion he based on the Dred Scott decision by the\nSupreme Court, that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in any\nterritory. Douglas insisted on the right of the people of Kansas to\n\"vote slavery up or down.\" They were enabled by the joint efforts of\nRepublicans and Northern Democrats to have a fair chance to say whether\nthey wished to become a slave State or remain a territory; and the\nlatter was preferred by four-fifths of the voters.\n\nV. The South called Douglas a traitor; but leading Republicans helped\nthe Illinois Democrats, in 1858, to elect the Legislature which gave him\nanother term in the Senate. He might have become the next President if\nhis opponent in the senatorial contest, Abraham Lincoln, had not led the\nRepublican party into the road towards emancipation. On June 16, 1858,\nhe said, in the State convention: \"A house divided against itself cannot\nstand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave\nand half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not\nexpect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided.\nIt will become all one thing or all the other.\" Seward took the same\nposition, four months later, in his speech about the \"irrepressible\nconflict.\" Lincoln held that summer and autumn a series of joint debates\nwith his opponent, before audiences one of which was estimated at twenty\nthousand. The speeches were circulated by the Republicans as campaign\ndocuments; and Lincoln's were remarkable, not only for his giving no\nneedless provocation to the South, but for his proving that slavery\nought not to be introduced into any new territory or State by local\nelections. He represented Douglas as really holding that if one man\nchooses to enslave another no third man has any business to interfere;\nand he repudiated the decision in the Dred Scott case, that coloured\npeople \"had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.\" He had\nmore votes that fall than Douglas; but the latter's friends were enabled\nby the district system to control the Legislature. Douglas was sent back\nto the Senate. Lincoln gained the national reputation which made him\nPresident.\n\nThe congressional elections were more favourable to the Republicans than\nin 1856, for Northern indignation was growing under the stimulus, not\nonly of the new wrong to Kansas, but of attempts to annex Cuba and\nrevive the slave trade. Plans for emancipation were still discussed in\nthe South; and the agitation had reached even Texas. Helper's _Impending\nCrisis_ had gained circulation enough in his own State, North Carolina,\nto alarm the slaveholders. They knew that they constituted only\nthree-tenths of the Southern voters, and that the proportion was less\nthan one-sixth in Maryland. Helper proved that emancipation would be\ngreatly to the advantage of many men who held slaves, as well as of all\nwho did not. When this was found out by the majority in any Southern\nState, slavery would begin to fall by its own weight. It had been kept\nup by popular ignorance; but the prop was crumbling away. This way of\nemancipation might have been long; but it would have led to friendly\nrelations between whites and blacks, as well as between North and South.\n\nWhat was most needed in 1859 was that all friends of freedom should work\ntogether, and that no needless pretext should be given for secession.\nGarrison still insisted on disunion, and predicted that the South would\nnot \"be able to hold a single slave one hour after the deed is done,\"\nbut he also maintained, as most abolitionists did, that nothing would be\nmore foolish than trying to excite a slave insurrection. Precisely this\ngreatest of blunders was committed at Harper's Ferry. If the attempt had\nbeen made six months later, or had had even a few weeks of success,\nit might have enabled the slaveholders to elect at least one more\nPresident. The bad effect, in dividing the North, was much diminished by\nJohn Brown's heroism at his trial and execution; but great provocation\nwas given to the South, and especially to Virginia, which soon turned\nout to be the most dangerous of the rebel States. Business men were\ndriven North by the dozen from cities which were preparing for war.\n\nThe quarrel between Northern and Southern Democrats kept growing\nfiercer; and the party broke up at the convention for 1860 into two\nsectional factions with antagonistic platforms and candidates. Douglas\nstill led the opposition to those Southerners who maintained that the\nnation ought to protect slavery in the territories. A third ticket was\nadopted by neutrals who had been Whigs or Know Nothings, and who now\nprofessed no principle but a vague patriotism. The Republicans remained\npledged to exclude slavery from the territories; but they condemned John\nBrown, and said nothing against the Fugitive Slave Law or in favour of\nemancipation in the District of Columbia. Their leaders had favoured\nfree trade in 1857; but the platform was now made protectionist, in\norder to prevent Pennsylvania from being carried again by the Democrats.\nIllinois and Indiana were secured by the nomination of Lincoln. He was\nsupported enthusiastically by the young men throughout the North:\npublic meetings were large and frequent; torchlight processions were\na prominent feature of the campaign. The wealth and intellect of the\nnation, as well as its conscience, were now arrayed against slavery; but\nthe clergy are said to have been less active than in 1856. Lincoln had\nthe majority in every Northern State, except New Jersey, California, and\nOregon. He also had 17,028 votes in Missouri, and 8042 in other slave\nStates which had sent delegates to the Republican convention. Not one\nof the Southern electors was for Lincoln; but he would have become\nPresident if all his opponents had combined against him.\n\nVI. The South had nothing to fear from Congress before 1863, but she had\nlost control of the North. Kansas would certainly be admitted sooner or\nlater; and there would never be another slave State, for the Republican\nplan for the territories was confirmed by their geographical position.\nThe free States might soon become so numerous and populous as to\nprohibit the return of fugitives, abolish slavery in the District\nof Columbia, repeal the clause of the Constitution which allowed\nrepresentation for slaves, and forbid their transportation from State\nto State. It was also probable, in the opinion of Salmon P. Chase,\nafterwards Secretary of the Treasury, and of many leading Southerners,\nthat under Federal patronage there might soon be a majority for\nemancipation in Maryland, Kentucky, and other States (see _Life of\nTheodore Parker_, by Weiss, vol. ii., pp. 229, 519). The vote of thanks\ngiven to Parker in 1855 by the hearers of his anti-slavery lecture in\nDelaware, showed that abolitionism would eventually become predominant\nin the Senate, as it was already in the House of Representatives.\n\nThis prospect was especially alarming to the comparatively few men who\nowned so many slaves that they could not afford emancipation on any\nterms. Their wealth and leisure gave them complete control of politics,\nbusiness, public opinion, and social life in the cotton States; where\nboth press and pulpit were in bondage. Their influence was much less\nin the farming States than in 1850; but they had since come into such\nperfect union among themselves, as to constitute the most powerful\naristocracy then extant. Their number may be judged from the fact that\nthere were in 1850 about six thousand people in the cotton States who\nowned fifty slaves or more each.\n\nIt was in the interest of these barons of slavery that South Carolina\nseceded soon after the election, and that her example was followed by\nGeorgia and all the Gulf States before Lincoln was inaugurated. The\nGarrisonists wished to have them depart in peace; but there was a\nstrong and general preference for another compromise. Lincoln and other\nRepublicans insisted that the territories should be kept sacred to\nfreedom, and that \"The Union must be preserved.\" The question was\nsettled by those aggressions on national property which culminated in\nthe bombardment of Fort Sumter. Lincoln's call to arms was answered by a\ngreat uprising of the united North. Loyalty to the nation burst forth in\nso fierce a flame that abolitionists who had been trying for many years\nto extinguish it now welcomed it as the destined destroyer of slavery.\n\nWar had been declared for the sole purpose of suppressing rebellion; and\nnothing more could at first have been attempted without violating the\nConstitution. Fugitives were sent back promptly by Federal generals, and\nanti-slavery songs forbidden in the camps. This policy seemed necessary\nto keep the North united, and prevent secession of doubtful States.\nSome of those already in revolt might thus, it was hoped, be induced to\nreturn voluntarily, or be conquered easily. These expectations were\nsoon disappointed. A few of the slave States were kept in subjection\nby military force; but the people of the others united in a desperate\nresistance, with the aid of the slaves, who supplied the armies with\nfood and laboured without complaint in camps and forts. But little\nwas accomplished by the immense armies raised at the North; for the\ndiscipline was at first lax, and the generals were inefficient. Many\ndefeats of Union armies by inferior forces showed how difficult it is\nfor a nation that has enjoyed many years of peace to turn conqueror.\n\nVII. The innate incompatibility of war and liberty was disclosed by the\nunfortunate fact that even Lincoln was obliged to consent unwillingly to\nwar measures of a very questionable sort; for instance, the conscription\nand that Legal Tender Act which was really a forced loan, and which has\ndone much to encourage subsequent violations of the right of property by\nboth Republicans and Democrats in Congress. More harm than good was done\nto the Union cause by arbitrary arrests for talking and writing against\nthe war. Phillips declared, in December, 1861, that \"The right of free\nmeetings and a free press is suspended in every square mile of the\nrepublic.\" \"At this moment one thousand men are bastilled.\" Hale and\nother Republican Senators remonstrated; and so patriotic an author as\nHolmes said that teapots might be dangerous, if the lids were shut. All\npolitical prisoners but spies were released by the President early in\n1862; and there were no more arbitrary arrests except under plea of\nmilitary necessity.\n\nFailures of Union generals encouraged opposition to the war from men who\nstill preferred compromise; and their disaffection was increased by\nthe passage, in March, 1863, of a bill establishing a conscription and\nputting all the people under martial law. The commander of the military\ndistrict that included Ohio issued orders which forbade \"declaring\nsympathy for the enemy,\" and threatened with death \"all persons within\nour lines who harbour, protect, feed, clothe, or in any way aid the\nenemies.\" These orders were denounced as unconstitutional at a public\nmeeting before more than ten thousand citizens. Many wore badges cut\nfrom the large copper coins then in use and bearing the sacred image\nand superscription of Liberty. This practice brought the nickname\n\"Copperheads\" upon people who longed to have the South invited back\non her own terms. Such a policy was recommended at the meeting by\nVallandigham, who had recently represented Ohio in Congress. He called\nupon the people to vote against the \"wicked war,\" and said he would\nnever obey orders aimed against public discussion.\n\nFor this speech he was arrested at night, by soldiers who broke into\nhis house, tried by court-martial, and sentenced on May 7, 1863, to\nimprisonment during the remainder of the war. A writ of _habeas corpus_\nwas refused by the United States Court, which admitted itself \"powerless\nto enforce obedience.\" At the clang of war, laws are silent.\n\nIndignation meetings in great cities voted that \"The Union cannot be\nrestored without freedom of speech.\" Loyal newspapers regretted that\nVallandigham was under \"a penalty which will make him a martyr.\" A\npetition for his release was sent to Lincoln, who had not ordered\nthe arrest and admitted that it was not justified by the speech. He\nconcluded that the culprit's behaviour towards the army had been so\ndangerous that he had better be sent South, beyond the lines. This was\ndone at once; but the agitator was allowed to return through Canada in\nthe last summer of the war. Even Lincoln found it difficult to respect\nindividual liberty under the pressure of military necessity. A strong\ngovernment was needed; and that fact has opened the way for Congress to\ninterfere with private business, for instance in changing the tariff,\nduring the latter part of the century much more frequently and\nextensively than had been done before. Another significant fact is that\nthe old controversy about internal improvements has died away since our\ngovernment was centralised by war; and much money is wasted under that\npretext by Congress.\n\nVIII. The impossibility of putting down the rebellion without\ninterfering with slavery gradually became plain, even to men who had\nformerly hated abolitionism. The only question was how to turn what\nwas the strength of the Confederacy into its weakness. In March, 1862,\nCongress forbade the army to return fugitives; and many thousand fled\ninto the Union camps, where they did good service, not only as teamsters\nand labourers, but even as soldiers. The number under arms amounted\nfinally to more than a hundred thousand; and they did some of the best\nfighting that took place during the war. The colour prejudice at the\nNorth yielded slowly; but the leading Republicans saw not only the need\nof more soldiers, but the justice of setting free the wives and children\nof men who were risking death for the nation. An Emancipation League was\nformed during the first gloomy winter of the war; and Frederick Douglass\nsaid on the Fourth of July amid great applause: \"You must abolish\nslavery, or abandon the Union\"; \"for slavery is the life of the\nrebellion.\"\n\nLincoln was already thinking of setting free the slaves in all the\nStates which should continue in rebellion after the close of the year;\nand his draft of a proclamation, announcing this purpose, was read\nto the Cabinet on July 22, 1862. The army in Virginia had been so\nunfortunate that summer as to cause a postponement; but the victory\nof Antietam was followed by the publication, on September 22d, of\nthe formal notice that emancipation might be proclaimed on the 1st of\nJanuary. How welcome the new policy was to loyal citizens may be judged\nfrom the approbation expressed by the clergy of all denominations, even\nthe New School Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic. When\nNew Year's Day dawned there was much doubt whether the promise would\nbe fulfilled. Abolitionists and coloured people met in Boston and other\ncities, and waited hour after hour, hoping patiently. It was evening\nbefore the proclamation began to pass over the wires. It promised\nfreedom to all slaves in Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,\nGeorgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, besides most of those\nin Louisiana and Virginia. Tennessee and some other States were not\nmentioned, because held to have been brought back into the Union. There\nwas to be freedom thenceforth wherever the Stars and Stripes waved. No\nwonder that the news caused great audiences to shout or weep with joy,\nand many to spend the night in praise and prayer. The North was now\ninspired by motives amply sufficient to justify even a war of conquest;\nand her men and money were given freely, until superiority in resources\nenabled General Grant to close the war in April, 1865. The revolted\nStates came back, one by one, and left slavery behind. Even where it had\nnot been formally abolished, it was practically extinct. Douglass was\nright in saying \"It was not the destruction, but the salvation of the\nUnion, that saved the slave.\"\n\nAn amendment to the Constitution, which swept away the last vestiges\nof slavery, and made it for ever impossible in the United States, was\nadopted on December 18, 1865. It had been proposed two years before;\nbut the assent of several States then actually in revolt would have been\nnecessary to secure the majority of three-fourths necessary for adoption\nof an amendment. It was by no means certain that even the nominally\nloyal States would all vote unanimously for emancipation. In order to\nincrease the majority for the Thirteenth Amendment, the admission\nof Nevada and Colorado as States was voted by Congress, despite some\nopposition by the Democrats, in March, 1864. Nevada had a population of\nless than 43,000 in 1870. There were not 46,000 people there in 1890,\nand there had been a decline since 1880. It is not likely that her\ninhabitants will ever be numerous enough to justify her having as much\npower in the Senate as New York or Pennsylvania. Senators who represent\nmillions of constituents have actually been prevented from passing\nnecessary laws by Senators who did not represent even twenty-five\nthousand people each. Nevada is still the worst instance of such\ninjustice; but it is by no means the only one; and these wrongs can\nnever be righted, for the Constitution provides that. \"No State, without\nits consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.\"\nThe Thirteenth Amendment did not, I think, come into force a day earlier\nthan it would have done if Nevada had never been admitted, for the\n_bona-fide_ States came forward with unexpected willingness. Colorado\nwas not fully admitted before 1876. Lincoln's favouring the bills\nfor admitting these States was a serious error, though the motive was\npatriotic. His beauty and grandeur of character make the brightest\nfeature of those dark, sad years. No name stands higher among martyrs\nfor freedom.\n\nIX. There is no grander event in all history than the emancipation of\nfour million slaves. This was all the more picturesque because done by\na conquering army; but it was all the more hateful to the former owners.\nThey refused to educate or enfranchise the freedmen, and tried to reduce\nthem to serfdom by heavy taxes and cruel punishments for petty crimes.\nThe States which had seceded were kept under military dictators after\nthe war was over; and their people were forced to accept the Fourteenth\nAmendment, which gave protection to coloured people as citizens of the\nUnited States.\n\nIn 1867 there were twenty-one Northern States; but only Maine, New\nHampshire, and Vermont gave the ballot freely to illiterate negroes\nwithout property. Massachusetts had an educational test for all voters;\nthere were other restrictions elsewhere; and no coloured men could vote\nin Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or the North-west. In fact, very few had\never voted anywhere when Congress gave the suffrage to all the freed men\nfor their own protection, with no discrimination against illiteracy.\n\nThe result of this measure in the District of Columbia was that\nunscrupulous politicians gained strong support from needy and ignorant\nvoters of all colours. Public money was spent recklessly; taxation\nbecame oppressive; and the public debt grew to alarming size. On June\n17, 1874, when Grant was President and each branch of Congress was more\nthan two-thirds Republican, the House of Representatives voted, ten to\none, in favour of taking away the suffrage, not only from the blacks\nwho had received it seven years before, but even from the whites who had\nexercised it since the beginning of the century. All local government\nwas entrusted to three commissioners appointed by the President and\nconfirmed by the Senate. There was no opposition; for the arrangement\nseemed only temporary. It proved permanent. Even taxation without\nrepresentation has been thought better than negro suffrage; and the\ncitizens of the national capital remain in 1899 without any voice in\ntheir own municipal government.\n\nThe problem has been still more difficult in those eleven States which\nhad to accept negro suffrage, in or after 1867, as a condition of\nrestoration to the Union. The extension of franchise made in all the\nStates by the Fifteenth Amendment, in 1870, seemed such a blessing to\nthe Republicans that Frederick Douglass was much censured for holding\nthat it might possibly have been attained without special supernatural\nassistance. It soon became plain, however, that Congress ought to have\ngiven the spelling-book earlier than the ballot. The suffrage proved no\nprotection to the freedman; for his white neighbours found that he could\nbe more easily intimidated than educated. Congress tried to prevent\nmurder of coloured voters by having the polls guarded by Federal troops\nand the elections supervised by United States marshals. The _Habeas\nCorpus_ Act was suspended by President Grant in districts where the\nblacks outnumbered the whites. It was hard to see what liberty had\ngained.\n\nThe negro's worst enemies were his own candidates. They had enormous\nmajorities in South Carolina; and there, as Blaine admits, they \"brought\nshame upon the Republican party,\" \"and thus wrought for the cause of\nfree government and equal suffrage in the South incalculable harm.\"\nBetween 1868 and 1872 they added ten millions by wanton extravagance to\nthe State debt. Large sums were stolen; taxes rose to six per cent.; and\nland was assessed far above its value, with the avowed purpose of taking\nit away from the whites. Such management was agreed at a public meeting\nof coloured voters under Federal protection, in Charleston, in 1874,\nto have \"ruined our people and disgraced our State.\" Negro suffrage was\ndeclared by the New York Evening Post to have resulted in \"organising\nthe ignorance and poverty of the State against its property and\nintelligence.\"\n\nThis took place all over the South, and also in Philadelphia, New\nYork, and other northern cities. Here the illiterate vote was largely\nEuropean; and the corruption of politics was facilitated by the\nabsorption of property-holders in business. There was great need that\nintelligent citizens of all races, parties, and sections should work\ntogether to reform political methods sufficiently to secure honest\ngovernment. Some progress has already been made, but by no means so much\nas might have been gained if the plundered taxpayers at the South had\nmade common cause with those at the North in establishing constitutional\nbulwarks against all swindlers whose strength was in the illiterate and\nvenal vote.\n\nUnfortunately, prejudice against negroes encouraged intimidation; and\nfraud was used freely by both parties. When elections were doubted,\nRepublican candidates were seated by Federal officials and United States\nsoldiers. These latter were not resisted; but the Southern Democrats\nmade bloody attacks on the negro militia. One such fight at New Orleans,\non September 14, 1874, cost nearly thirty lives. What was called a\nRepublican administration collapsed that day throughout Louisiana; but\nit was soon set up again by the army which had brought it into power.\n\nAt last the negroes found out that, whoever might conquer in this\ncivil war, they would certainly lose. They grew tired of having hostile\nparties fighting over them, and dropped out of politics. The Republicans\nheld full possession of the presidency, both branches of Congress, the\nFederal courts, the army, the offices in the nation's service, and most\nof the State governments; but they could not prevent the South from\nbecoming solidly Democratic. The new governments proved more economical,\nand the lives of the coloured people more secure. The last important\nresult of negro suffrage in South Carolina and Louisiana was an alarming\ndispute as to who was elected President in 1876. The ballot has not been\nso great a blessing to the freedmen as it might have been if it had\nbeen preceded by national schools, and given voluntarily by State after\nState.\n\nThese considerations justify deep regret that emancipation was not\ngained peaceably and gradually. Facts have been given to show that it\nmight have been if there had been more philanthropy among the clergy,\nmore principle among the Whigs, and more wisdom among the abolitionists.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. EMERSON AND OTHER TRANSCENDENTALISTS\n\nI. The best work for liberty has been done by men who loved her too\nwisely to vituperate anyone for differing from them, or to forestall\nthe final verdict of public opinion by appealing to an ordeal by battle.\nSuch were the men who took the lead in establishing freedom of thought\nin America. Very little individual independence of opinion was found\nthere by Tocqueville in 1831; and the flood of new ideas which had\nalready burst forth in England was not as yet feeding the growth of\noriginality in American literature. This sterility was largely due to\npreoccupation with business and politics; but even the best educated men\nin the United States were repressed by the dead weight of the popular\ntheology; and Channing complained that the orthodox churches were\n\"arrayed against intellect.\" The silence of the pulpit about slavery\nis only one instance of the general indifference of the clergy to new\nideas. We shall see that at least one other reform was opposed much more\nzealously. The circulation of new books and magazines from Europe was\nretarded by warnings against infidelity; and colleges were carefully\nguarded against the invasion of new truth.\n\nIntercourse with Europe was fortunately close enough for the brightness\nof her literature and art to attract many longing eyes from New England.\nGoethe, Schiller, Fichte, Jean Paul, Mme. de Stael, and Rousseau won\nreaders in the original, as well as in translations; and the influence\nof Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Carlyle increased rapidly.\nPlato and Kant found many worshippers, and a few students. The plain\nincapacity of orthodoxy to solve the pressing moral and intellectual\nproblems of the day permitted young people who knew nothing about\nscience to welcome the idea that the highest truth is revealed by\nintuitions which transcend experience and should supersede logic. This\nsystem is peculiarly that of Schelling, who was then expounding it in\nGermany; but the credit for it in America was given to his disciples,\nand especially to Coleridge. A few admirers of these authors formed\nthe Transcendental Club in Boston, in September, 1836; and the new\nphilosophy made converts rapidly. Severity of climate and lack of social\namusements favoured introspection. Thinkers welcomed release from the\ntyranny of books. Lovers of art were glad of the prospect of a broader\nculture than was possible in the shadow of Puritanism. Reformers seized\nthe opportunity of appealing from pro-slavery texts and constitutions\nto a higher law. Friends of religion hoped that the gloom of the popular\ntheology would be dispelled by a new revelation coming direct from God\ninto their souls.\n\nII. A mighty declaration of religious independence was made on July 15,\n1838, when Emerson said to the Unitarian ministers: \"The need was never\ngreater of new revelation than now.\" \"It cannot be received at second\nhand.\" There has been \"noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus.\"\n\"Cast aside all conformity, and acquaint men at first hand with\nDeity.\" \"The old is for slaves.\" Much controversy was called out by\nthe publication of this address. It was preceded by another in which\neducated men were told that they must believe themselves \"inspired\nby the Divine Soul which inspires all men.\" \"There can be no scholar\nwithout the heroic mind.\" \"Each age must write its own books.\" Emerson\nhad also sent out in 1836 a pamphlet entitled _Nature_; and one of its\nfirst readers has called it \"an 'open sesame' to all thought, and\nthe first we had ever had.\" Still more important were the essays on\n\"Heroism\" and \"Self-Reliance,\" which were part of a volume published in\n1841. Then Emerson's readers were awakened from the torpor of submission\nto popular clergymen and politicians by the stern words: \"Whoso would\nbe a man must be a nonconformist.\" \"Insist on yourself: never imitate.\"\n\"The soul looketh steadily forwards.\" \"It is no follower: it never\nappeals from itself.\" The Russian Government was so well aware of the\nvalue of these essays as to imprison a student for borrowing them. A\nLord Mayor in England acknowledged that their influence had raised him\nout of poverty and obscurity. Bradlaugh's first impulse to do battle for\nfreedom in religion came from Emerson's exhortation to self-reliance.\n\nThe author's influence was all the greater, because he was already an\nimpressive lecturer. There was much more demand, both in England and\nin America, between 1830 and 1860, for literary culture and useful\nknowledge than was supplied by the magazines and public libraries.\nThe Americans were peculiarly destitute of public amusements. Dancing,\nplaying cards, and going to the theatre were still under the ban; and\nthere was not yet culture enough for concerts to be popular. There was\nat the same time much more interest, especially in New England, in the\nanti-slavery movement than has been called out for later reforms; for\nthese have been much less picturesque. The power with which Phillips and\nParker pleaded for the slave was enough to make lectures popular; but\nI have known courses attended, even in 1855, by young people who went\nmerely because there was nowhere else to go, and who came away in\nblissful ignorance of the subjects. Deeper than all other needs lay that\nof a live religion. Emerson was among the first to satisfy this demand.\nHis earliest lecture, in 1833, took a scientific subject, as was then\ncustomary; but he soon found that he had the best possible opportunity\nfor declaring that \"From within, or from behind, a light shines through\nupon things and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is\nall.\" Invitations were frequent as early as 1844, though the audience\nwas usually small; and his genius became generally recognised after his\nreturn, in 1848, from a visit to England. There scholarship was high\nenough to give him, as early as 1844, thousands of readers for that\nlittle book on _Nature_, of which only a few hundred copies had been\nsold in America. Invitations to lecture came from all parts of Great\nBritain, and in such numbers that many had to be declined. The\naristocracy of rank as well as of intellect helped to crowd the halls in\nManchester, Edinburgh, and London. Once at least, he had more than two\nthousand hearers. The newspapers reported his lectures at such length\nthat much of his time was spent in writing new ones. He had not intended\nto be anyone's guest; but invitations were so numerous and cordial, that\nhe could seldom escape into solitude. He wrote to his wife, \"My\nreception here is really a premium on authorship.\"\n\nSuccess in England increased his opportunities, as well as his courage,\nto speak in America. Invitations grew more and more frequent, and\ncompensation more liberal. His thrilling voice was often heard,\nthenceforth, in the towns and cities of New England. In 1850, he went to\nlecture at St. Louis, and met audience after audience on the way. During\nthe next twenty years he spent at least two months of discomfort,\nevery winter, lecturing in city after city throughout the free States.\nEverywhere he gave his best thought, and as much as possible of it, in\nevery lecture. Logical order seemed less important; and he spent much\nmore time in condensing than in arranging the sentences selected from\nhis note-books. Strikingly original ideas, which had flashed upon him at\nvarious times, were presented one after another as if each were complete\nin itself. The intermixture of quotations and anecdotes did not save the\ngeneral character from becoming often chaotic; but the chaos was\nalways full of power and light. Star after star rose rapidly upon his\nastonished and delighted hearers. They sometimes could not understand\nhim; but they always felt lifted up. Parker described him in 1839 as\npouring forth \"a stream of golden atoms of thought\"; and Lowell called\nhim some twenty years later \"the most steadily attractive lecturer in\nAmerica.\" These young men and others of like aspirations walked long\ndistances to visit him or hear him speak in public. The influence of\nhis lectures increased that of the books into which they finally\ncrystallised. In 1860, he had made his way of thinking so common that\nhis _Conduct of Life_ had a sale of 2500 copies in two days. His readers\nwere nowhere numerous, outside of Boston; but they were, and are, to be\nfound everywhere.\n\nLovers of liberty on both sides of the Atlantic were brought into closer\nfellowship by books singularly free from anti-British prejudice; but he\nwas so thoroughly American that he declared, even in London, that the\ntrue aristocracy must be founded on merit, for \"Birth has been tried and\nfailed.\" This lecture was often repeated, and was finally given in 1881\nas his last word in public. Introspective and retiring habits kept him\nfor some time from engaging actively in the reforms which were in full\nblast about 1840; but Lowell said he was \"the sleeping partner who has\nsupplied a great part of their capital.\" His words about slavery\nwere few and cold before the Fugitive Slave Bill was passed in 1850.\nIndignation at this command to kidnap made him publicly advise his\nneighbours to break the wicked law. He spoke in support of a Free Soil\ncandidate in 1852, and for the Republican party in 1854; but John Brown\ncalled out much more of his praise than any other abolitionist. The\nattempt of the Garrisonians to persuade the North to suffer the seceders\nto depart in peace won his active aid; but the speech which he tried to\ndeliver on their platform, early in 1861, was made inaudible by a mob\nof enthusiasts for maintaining the Union by war. He rejoiced in\nemancipation; but it was not achieved until he had lost much of his\nmental vigour. This, in fact, was at its height between 1840 and 1850.\nHis last volumes were in great part made up of his earliest writings.\nThere was no change in his opinions; and his address in 1838 was fully\napproved by him when he re-read it shortly before his death.\n\nHis most useful contribution to the cause of reform was the\ncharacteristic theory which underlies all he wrote. In the essays\npublished in 1841, he states it thus: \"Every man knows that to his\ninvoluntary perceptions a perfect faith is due.\"... \"We know truth when\nwe see it.\" From first to last he held that \"Books are for the\nscholar's idle hours.\"... \"A sound mind will derive its principles from\ninsight.\"... \"Truth is always present; it only needs to lift the iron\nlids of the mind's eye to read its oracles.\" This was a doctrine much\nmore revolutionary than Luther's. Emerson proclaimed independence of the\nBible as well as of the Church. His innate reverence was expressed in\nsuch sayings as \"The relations of the soul to the divine spirit are so\npure, that it is profane to interpose helps.\" Love of spontaneity made\nhim declare that \"Creeds are a disease of the intellect.\" It was in\nhis indignation at the Fugitive-Slave Law that he said, \"We should not\nforgive the clergy for taking on every issue the immoral side.\" His\ntreatment of religious institutions was not perfectly consistent; but\nthe aim of all his writings was to encourage heroic thought. He wrote\nthe Gospel of Nonconformity. Personal knowledge of his influence\njustified Bishop Huntington in saying that he has \"done more to unsettle\nthe faith of the educated young men of our age and country in the\nChristianity of the Bible than any other twenty men combined.\"\n\nHow desirous Emerson was to have the inner light obeyed promptly and\nfully may be judged from his describing his own habit of writing as\nfollows: \"I would not degrade myself by casting about for a thought,\nnor by waiting for it.\"... \"If it come not spontaneously, it comes not\nrightly at all.\" Much of the peculiar charm of his books is due to his\nhaving composed them thus. Again and again he says: \"It is really of\nlittle importance what blunders in statement we make, so only that we\nmake no wilful departure from the truth.\"... \"Why should I give up\nmy thought, because I cannot answer an objection to it?\"... \"With\nconsistency, a great soul has simply nothing to do.\"... \"Speak what you\nthink now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in\nhard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day.\"...\n\"I hope in these days we have heard the last of conformity and\nconsistency. Let the words be\"... \"ridiculous henceforward.\" This\nis not meant for mere theory. We are told often that \"Virtue is the\nspontaneity of the will.\"... \"Our spontaneous action is always the\nbest.\"... \"The only right is what is after my own constitution, the only\nwrong what is against it.\"\n\nIII. The passages quoted in the last paragraph are of great importance;\nfor they did more than any others to abolish slavery. Its defenders\nappealed to the Bible as confidently as to the national Constitution;\nbut the Garrisonians declared with Emerson, that \"The highest virtue is\nalways against the law.\" They were confident that they knew the truth\nas soon as they saw it, and had no need to answer objections. The same\nfaith in spontaneous impressions inspired the suffragists, of whom the\nnext chapter will give some account. Agitations against\nestablished institutions sprang up thickly under the first step of\nTranscendentalism. Church, State, family ties, and business relations\nseemed all likely to be broken up. Lowell says that \"Everybody had a\nmission (with a capital M) to attend to everybody else's business.\"...\n\"Conventions were held for every hitherto inconceivable purpose.\"\n\"Communities were established where everything was to be in common\nbut common sense.\" The popular authors about 1840 were mostly\nTranscendentalists; and nearly every Transcendentalist was a Socialist.\nSome forty communities were started almost simultaneously; but not\none-half lasted through the second year. One of the first failures was\nled by a man who had been working actively against slavery, but who had\ncome to think that the only way to attack it was to try to do away with\nall private property whatever. Brook Farm lasted half a dozen years,\nwith a success due partly to the high culture of the inmates, and partly\nto some recognition of the right of private ownership. The general\nexperience, however, was that a Transcendentalist was much more willing\nto make plans for other people, than to conform in his own daily life\nto regulations proposed by anyone else. The very multiplicity of the\nreforms, started in the light of the new philosophy, did much to prevent\nmost of them from attaining success. We have seen how slavery was\nabolished; but no one should regret the failure of most of the\nTranscendentalist schemes.\n\nThe subsidence of Socialism was especially fortunate on account of the\nfrankness with which matrimony was repudiated by the system most in\nvogue, that of Fourier. He had followed the spontaneous and instinctive\nimpulses of man with the utmost consistency. Other Socialists have been\nmore cautious; but the problem of reconciling family ties with communal\nlife has not been solved. Some of the English Transcendentalists\npublished a pamphlet recommending systematic encouragement of\nlicentiousness; and an American philosopher, who turned Roman Catholic\nin 1844, declared that free love was \"Transcendentalism in full\nbloom.\" The term \"higher law\" was used to support the pretence of some\nobligation more binding than marriage. A free-love convention was held\nin New York about 1857; and very lax ideas had been already announced by\nactive apostles of spontaneity known as Spiritualists.\n\nNo writer has done more to encourage purity of thought than Emerson. His\nlife was stainless; but perhaps the best proof of this is his saying,\n\"Our moral nature is vitiated by any interference of our will\"; and\nagain, \"If the single man plant himself indomitably on his instincts,\nand there abide, the huge world will come round to him.\" No man\never wrote thus who was not either notoriously corrupt or singularly\ninnocent. Policemen and jailers exist largely for the purpose of\npreventing people from planting themselves on their instincts--for\ninstance, those which lead to theft, drunkenness, and murder. Socialism\nwould perhaps be practicable if industry were as natural as laziness.\nAlmost all moralists have thought it necessary to insist on constant\ninterference with the instincts. So earnest and able a Transcendentalist\nas Miss Cobbe gives these definitions in her elaborate treatise on\n_Intuitive Morals_: \"Happiness is the gratification of all the desires\nof our nature.\" \"Virtue is the renunciation of such of them as are\nforbidden by the moral law.\" Theodore Parker insisted on the duty of\nsubordinating \"the low qualities to the higher,\" but Emerson held, as\nalready mentioned, that \"Virtue is the spontaneity of the will.\"\n\nSuch language was largely due to his perception that all activity,\nhowever innocent, of thought and feeling had been too much repressed by\nthe Puritanical churches, in whose shadow he was brought up. The same\nmistake was made in the Dark Ages; and the reaction from that asceticism\nwas notorious during the Renaissance. The early Unitarians overrated\nhuman nature in their hostility to the Trinitarians, who underrated\nit; and Emerson went beyond his original associates in the Unitarian\nministry because he was more Transcendental. The elevation of his own\ncharacter encouraged him to hope that our higher qualities are so strong\nas to need only freedom to be enabled to keep all impure desire in\nsubjection. It was a marked change of tone when in 1876 he allowed these\nwords to be printed in one of his books: \"Self-control is the rule. You\nhave in you there a noisy, sensual savage which you are to keep down,\nand turn all his strength to beauty.\" Similar passages, especially\na censure of the pruriency of Fourierism, occur in essays which were\nprobably written some years earlier, but were not published until after\nhis death. Most of the Transcendentalists have fortunately acknowledged\nthe duty of self-control much more plainly and readily. It is a fair\nquestion whether they were more consistent. How does anyone know which\nof his instincts and impulses to control and which to cultivate? What\nbetter light has he than is given either by his own experience or by\nthat of his parents and other teachers? I acknowledge the power of\nconscience; but its dictates differ so much in different individuals as\nto be plainly due to early education. Thus even a Transcendentalist has\nto submit himself to experience; as he would not do if it were really\ntranscended by his philosophy.\n\nEmerson himself was singularly fortunate in his \"involuntary\nperceptions.\" Those of most men are dark with superstition and\nprejudice. It is what we have heard earliest and oftenest that recurs\nmost spontaneously. If all mankind had continued satisfied to \"trust\nthe instinct to the end though it can render no reason,\" we should still\nbelieve in the divine right of kings, and the supremacy of evil spirits.\nThere would have been very little persecution if men could have known\ntruth when they saw it. Parker believed devoutly in the intuitions, but\nhe said that Emerson exaggerated their accuracy to such an extent that\nhe \"discourages hard and continuous thought.\" \"Some of his followers\nwill be more faithful than he to the false principles which he lays\ndown, and will think themselves wise because they do not study, and\ninspired because they say what outrages common sense.\" The danger of\nfollowing instinctive impressions in regard to the currency has\nbeen shown in recent American politics. Anyone who is familiar with\nscientific methods will see where Emerson's failed. It is true that he\nprized highly many of the results of science, especially the theory of\nevolution as it was taught by Lamarck and other forerunners of Darwin.\nHis inability to see the value of investigation and verification is\ndisclosed plainly; and he preferred to have people try to \"build science\non ideas.\" He acknowledged that too much time was given to Latin and\nGreek in college; but his wishes in regard to study of the sciences were\nso old-fashioned as to call out a remonstrance from Agassiz.\n\nIV. How little scientific culture there was before 1860 may be judged\nfrom the rapid growth of Spiritualism. Transcendentalism had shown\ntremendous strength in helping people escape from the old churches; but\nit was of little use in building new ones. Churches exist for the\nexpress purpose of enabling believers in a common faith to unite in\npublic worship. No society could be so holy as solitude to a sincere\nTranscendentalist; and the beliefs of his neighbours seemed much less\nsacred than his own peculiar intuitions. Exceptional eloquence might\nmake him pastor of a large society; but it began to decline when he\nceased to speak. Transcendentalism was excellent material for\nweathercocks, but it had to be toughened by adulteration with baser\nmetal before it supplied any solid foundation for a new temple.\n\nMost of the people who had lost faith in the old churches were longing\nafter some better way of receiving knowledge about the heavenly world.\nMillions of Americans and Europeans rejoiced to hear that spirits had\nbegun to communicate by mysterious raps at Rochester, N. Y., on the last\nday of March, 1848. Messages from the departed were soon received in\nmany places; but the one thing needful was that the room be filled with\nbelievers; and a crowded hall was peculiarly likely to be favoured with\nstrange sounds and sights. Here was the social element necessary for\nfounding a new religion. It appealed as confidently as its rivals to\nmiracles and prophecies, while it had the peculiar attraction of being\npreached mainly by young women. Instinctive impulses were regarded as\nrevelations from the spirit-land, but not considered infallible except\nby the very superstitious. The highest authority of an intelligent\nSpiritualist has usually been his own individual intuition. Some of\nthe earliest lectures on that platform had little faith in anything but\nscience, and put their main strength into announcing those revelations\nof geology which have dethroned Genesis. One of the first teachers of\nevolution in America was a Spiritualist named Denton, who held a public\ndebate in Ohio, in 1858, when he defended the theory of man's gradual\ndevelopment from lower animals against a preacher named Garfield, who\nbecame President of the United States. Some eminent scientists have\nbecome converts to Spiritualism; but its general literature has shown\nlittle influence from scientific methods of thought.\n\nThe advocates of the new religion have owed much of their success to\nimpassioned eloquence. Opposition to Christianity has been expressed\nboldly and frequently. Girls of seventeen have declared, before large\naudiences, that all the creeds and ceremonies of the churches are mere\nidolatry. Among the earliest communications which were published as\ndictated by angels in the new dispensation were denials of the miracles\nof Jesus, and denunciations of the clergy as \"the deadliest foes of\nprogress.\" An eminent Unitarian divine declared in 1856, that \"the\ndoctrines professedly revealed by a majority of the spirits, whose\nwords we have seen quoted, are at open war with the New Testament.\"\nSome moderate Spiritualists have kept in friendly relations with liberal\nchurches; but many others have been in active co-operation with the most\naggressive of unbelievers in religion. The speakers at the Spiritualist\nanniversary in 1897 said to one another, \"You and I are Christs, just\nas Jesus was,\" and claimed plainly that \"our religion\" was distinct from\nevery \"Christian denomination.\" Spiritualists have all, I think, been in\nfavour of woman suffrage; and the majority were abolitionists. Some\nof Garrison's companions, however, deserted in the heat of the battle,\nsaying that there was nothing more to do, for the spirits would free\nthe slaves. Anti-slavery lecturers in the North-west found themselves\ncrowded out of halls and school-houses by trance-speakers and mediums.\nOne of the most eminent of converts made by the latter, Judge Edmonds,\nwas prominent among the defenders of slavery in the free States.\n\nFreedom from any definite creed or rigid code of morality joined with\nthe constant supply of ever-varying miracles in attracting converts.\nThose in the United States were soon estimated in millions. Spiritualism\nswept over Great Britain so rapidly that it was declared by the\n_Westminster Review_ to give quite as much promise as Christianity had\ndone, at the same age, of becoming a universal religion. No impartial\nobserver expects that now. Believers are still to be found in all parts\nof Europe and South America, and they are especially numerous in the\nUnited States. Proselytes do not seem to be coming in anywhere very\nthickly; and the number of intelligent men and women who have renounced\nSpiritualism, after a brief trial, is known to be large. The new\nreligion has followed the old ones into the policy of standing on the\ndefensive.\n\nOne instance of this is the opposition to investigation. A Mediums'\nNational Defence Association was in open operation before 1890. A\nleading Spiritualist paper suggested in 1876, that the would-be inquirer\nshould be \"tied securely hand and foot, and placed in a strong iron\ncage, with a rope or small chain put tightly about his neck, and\nfastened to an iron ring in the wall.\" Early in 1897, some young men\nwho claimed to have exposed an impostor, before a large audience in the\nSpiritualist Temple in Boston, were prosecuted by his admirers on the\ncharge of having disturbed public worship.\n\nV. During the last quarter of the century, free love has been much\nless prominent than before in Spiritualistic teachings; but the\nonly Americans who were able to proclaim liberty without encouraging\nself-indulgence, prior to 1870, were the logical and scholarly\nTranscendentalists. Theodore Parker, for instance, is to be reckoned\namong the followers of Hegel rather than of Schelling; for he tried by\nhard study and deep thought to build up a consistent system of religion\nand morality by making deductions from a few central principles which he\nrevered as great primary intuitions, held always and everywhere sacred.\nHis faith in his ideas of God, duty, and immortality was very firm; and\nhe did his best to live and think accordingly. He began to preach in\n1836, the year of the publication of Emerson's first book, but soon\nfound his work hindered by an idolatry of the Bible, then prevalent even\namong Unitarians. Familiarity with German scholarship enabled him to\nteach his people to think rationally.\n\nHis brethren in the Unitarian ministry were alarmed; and a sermon\nwhich he preached in Boston against the mediatorship of Jesus made it\nimpossible for him to occupy an influential pulpit. The lectures which\nhe delivered that year in a hall in the city, and published in 1842,\nwon the support of many seekers for a new religion. They voted that he\nshould \"have a chance to be heard in Boston\"; and on February 16, 1845,\nhe preached in a large hall to what soon became a permanent and famous\ncongregation.\n\nThither, as Parker said, he \"came to build up piety and morality; to\npull down only what cumbered the ground.\" His main purpose to the last\nwas to teach \"the naturalness of religion,\" \"the adequacy of man for\nhis functions\" without priestly aid, and, most important of all, that\nsuperiority of the real Deity to the pictures drawn in the orthodox\ncreeds, which Parker called \"the infinite perfection of God.\" He was\nsingularly successful in awakening the spirit of religion in men who\nwere living without it, but the plainness with which he stated his\nfaith, in sermons which had a large circulation, called out many\nattacks. Prayers were publicly offered up in Boston, asking that the\nLord would \"put a hook in this man's jaws, so that he may not be able to\npreach, or else remove him out of the way and let his influence die with\nhim.\" No controversy hindered his labouring systematically for the moral\nimprovement of his hearers, who sometimes amounted to three thousand.\nHis sermons are full of definite appeals for self-control and\nself-culture; and his personal interest in every individual who could\nbe helped was so active that he soon had seven thousand names on his\npastoral visiting list. Appeals for advice came from strangers at a\ndistance, and were never neglected.\n\nNot one of the great national sins, however popular, escaped his severe\nrebuke; and he became prominent as early as 1845 among the preachers\nagainst slavery. He was active in many ways as an abolitionist, but was\nnot a disunionist. He seldom quitted his pulpit without speaking for the\nslave; and every phase of the anti-slavery movement is illustrated in\nhis published works. Pro-slavery politicians were as bitter as orthodox\nclergymen against him; and he describes himself as \"continually fired\nupon for many years from the barroom and pulpit.\" His resistance to the\nFugitive Slave Law caused him to be arrested and prosecuted, in company\nwith Wendell Phillips, by the officials of the national Government.\n\nDesire to awaken the people to the danger that lay in the growth of the\nnational sin made him begin to lecture in 1844. Invitations flowed in\nfreely; and he said, after he had broken down under the joint burden\nof overwork and of exposure in travelling: \"Since 1848, I have lectured\neighty or a hundred times each year, in every Northern State east of the\nMississippi,--once also in a slave State and on slavery itself.\"\nThis was his favourite subject, but he never missed an opportunity of\nencouraging intellectual independence; and he found he could say what he\npleased. The total number of hearers exceeded half a million; among them\nwere the most influential men in the North; and he never failed to make\nhimself understood. No one else did so much to develop that love of the\npeople for Union and Liberty which secured emancipation. His works have\nno such brilliancy as Emerson's; but they burned at the time of need\nwith a much more warm and steady light. No words did more to melt the\nchains of millions of slaves. No excess of individualism made him shrink\nback, like Emerson, from joining the abolitionists; or discredit them,\nas Thoreau did, by publicly renouncing his allegiance to Massachusetts\nin 1854, when that State stood foremost on the side of freedom.\n\nThe account of a solitary life in the woods, which Thoreau published\nthat year, has done much to encourage independence of public opinion;\nand Americans of that generation needed sadly to be told that they took\ntoo little amusement, especially out of doors, and made too great haste\nto get rich. Their history, however, like that of the Swiss, Scotch,\nand ancient Athenians, proves that it is the industrious, enterprising,\nmoney-making nations that are best fitted for maintaining free\ninstitutions. As for individual independence of thought and action,\nthe average man will enjoy much more of it, while he keeps himself in\ncomfortable circumstances by regular but not excessive work, than he\ncould if he were to follow the advice of an author who prided himself\non not working more than \"about six weeks in a year,\" and on enduring\nprivations which apparently shortened his days.\n\nThoreau's self-denial was heroic; but he sometimes failed to see the\nright of his neighbours to indulge more expensive tastes than his own.\nThe necessary conditions of health and comfort for different individuals\nvary much more than he realised. Many a would-be reformer still\ncomplains of the \"luxury\" of people who find physical rest or mental\nculture in innocent ways, not particularly to his own fancy. Such\ncensures are really intolerant. They are survivals of that meddlesome\ndisposition which has sadly restricted freedom of trade, amusement, and\nworship.\n\nWe have had only one Emerson; but many scholarly Transcendentalists have\nlaboured to construct the new morality needed in the nineteenth\ncentury. Parker's work has peculiar interest, because done in a terrible\nemergency; but others have toiled as profitably though less famously.\nThe search after fundamental intuitions has led to a curious variety of\nstatements which agree only in the assumption of infallibility; but the\nresult has been the general agreement of liberal preachers in teaching a\nsystem of ethics at once free from superstition, bigotry, or asceticism,\nand at the same time vigorous enough to repress impure desire and\nencourage active philanthropy. Theology has improved in liberality, as\nwell as in claiming less prominence. Thus the clergy have come into much\nmore friendly relations with the philosophers than in the middle of the\ncentury. Our popular preachers quote Emerson; but really they follow,\nthough often unconsciously, the methods of Hegel and Kant. This\nincreases their sympathy with Parker, who has the advantage over Emerson\nof having believed strongly in personal immortality. His works are\ncirculated by the very denomination which cast him out. The most popular\npreachers in many sects openly accept him and Emerson among their\nhighest authorities. Transcendentalism has become the foundation of\nliberal Christianity.\n\nThis agreement is not, however, necessary and may not be permanent.\nHegel's great success was in bringing forward the old dogmas with new\nclaims to infallibility. When some of his disciples showed that his\nmethods were equally well adapted for the destruction of orthodoxy,\nSchelling gave his last lectures in its defence. The singular fitness\nof traditions for acceptance as intuitions has been proved, late in the\ncentury, by the Rev. Joseph Cook in Boston as well as by many speakers\nat the Concord School of Philosophy. The reactionary tendency is already\nso strong that it may yet become predominant. We must not forget that\nShelley called himself an atheist, or that among Hegel's most famous\nfollowers were Strauss and Renan. Who can say whether unbelief,\northodoxy, or liberal Christianity is the legitimate outcome of this\nubiquitous philosophy?\n\nTranscendentalism has been the inspiration of the century. Its influence\nhas been mighty in behalf of political liberty and social progress. But\nthere was no inconsistency in Hegel's opposing the education of women,\nand denying the possibility of a great republic, or in Carlyle's\ndefending absolute monarchy and chattel slavery, or in Parker's\nsuccessor in Boston trying to justify the Russian despotism.\nTranscendentalism is a swivel-gun, which can be fired easily in any\ndirection. Perhaps it can be used most easily against science. The\ndifference in methods, of course, is irreconcilable, as is seen in\nEmerson; and the brilliant results attained by Herbert Spencer have been\nsadly disparaged by leading Transcendentalists in the conventions of the\nFree Religious Association, as well as in sessions of the Concord School\nof Philosophy.\n\nVI. The necessary tendency of Transcendentalism may be seen in the\nagitation against vivisection, which was begun in 1863 by Miss Cobbe.\nShe was aided by Carlyle, Browning, Ruskin, Lecky, Mar-tineau, and other\nTranscendentalists, one of whom, Rev. W. H. Channing, had been prominent\nin America about 1850. Most of the active anti-vivisectionists, however,\nbelong to the sex which has been peculiarly ready to adopt unscientific\nmethods of thought. It is largely due to women with a taste for\nmetaphysics or theology that the agitation still goes on in Great\nBritain and the United States.\n\nAttempts ought certainly to be made to prevent torture of animals by\ninexperienced students, or by teachers who merely wish to illustrate\nthe working of well-known laws. There ought to be little difficulty\nin securing the universal adoption of such statutes as were passed by\nParliament in 1876. Vivisection was then forbidden, except when carried\nout for the purpose of important discoveries, by competent investigators\nduly licensed, and in regular laboratories. It was further required that\ncomplete protection against suffering pain be given by anaesthetics,\nthough these last could be dispensed with in exceptional cases covered\nby a special license.\n\nThe animal must at all events be killed as soon as the experiment was\nover. This law actually put a stop to attempts to find some antidote\nto the poison of the cobra, which slays thousands of Hindoos annually.\nProfessor Ferrier, who was discovering the real functions of various\nparts of the brain, was prosecuted in 1881 by the Anti-Vivisection\nSociety for operating without a license upon monkeys; but the charge\nturned out to be false.\n\nThe real question since 1876 has been as to whether vivisection should\nbe tolerated as an aid to scientific and medical discovery. Darwin's\nopinion on this point is all the more valuable, because he hated all\ncruelty to animals. In April, 1881, he wrote to _The Times_ as follows:\n\n\"I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of\nexperiments on living animals; and I feel the deepest conviction that\nhe who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against\nmankind.... No one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has\ndone for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable benefits\nwhich will hereafter be derived from physiology, not only by man but by\nthe lower animals. Look, for instance, at Pasteur's results in modifying\nthe germs of the most malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens,\nanimals will in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be\nremembered how many lives, and what a fearful amount of suffering,\nhave been saved by the knowledge gained of parasitic worms, through the\nexperiments of Virchow and others upon living animals.\"\n\nAnother high authority, Carpenter, says that vivisection has greatly\naided physicians in curing heart disease, as well as in preventing\nblood-poisoning by taking antiseptic precautions. Much has been learned\nas to the value of hypodermic injections, and also of bromide of\npotassium, chloral, salicylic acid, cocaine, amyl, digitalis, and\nstrychnia. Some of these drugs are so poisonous that they would never\nhave been administered to human beings if they could not have been\ntried previously on the lower animals. The experiments in question have\nrecently assisted in curing yellow fever, sunstroke, diabetes, epilepsy,\nerysipelas, cholera, consumption, and trichinosis. The German professors\nof medicine testified in a body that vivisection has regenerated the\nhealing art. Similar testimony was given in 1881 by the three thousand\nmembers of the International Medical Congress; and the British Medical\nAssociation has taken the same position.\n\nThe facts are so plain that an English judge, who was a vice-president\nof Miss Cobbe's society, admitted that \"vivisection enlarges knowledge\";\nbut he condemned it as ''displeasing to Almighty God.'' It was said to\ngo \"hand in hand with atheism\"; and several of the Episcopalian bishops,\ntogether with Cardinal Manning, opposed it as irreligious.\n\nTranscendentalists are compelled by their philosophy to decide on the\nmorality of all actions solely by the inner light, and not permitted to\npay any attention to consequences. Many of them in England and America\nagreed to demand the total suppression of vivisection, \"even should it\nchance to prove useful.\" This ground was taken in 1877 by Miss Cobbe's\nsociety; and she declared, five years later, in _The Fortnightly_,\nthat she was determined \"to stop the torture of animals, a grave moral\noffence, with the consequences of which--be they fortunate or the\nreverse--we are no more concerned than with those of any other evil\ndeed.\" Later she said: \"Into controversies concerning the utility of\nvivisection, I for one refuse to enter\"; and she published a leaflet\nadvising her sisters to follow her example. Ruskin took the same ground.\nThese hasty enthusiasts were equally indifferent to another fact, which\nought not to have been overlooked, namely, that suffering was usually\nprevented by the use of anaesthetics, which are indispensable for the\nsuccess of many experiments. The bill for prohibiting any vivisection\nwas brought into the House of Lords in 1879; But was opposed by a\nnobleman who presided over the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to\nAnimals; and it was lost by 16 votes against 97. The House of Commons\nrefused even to take action on the subject, despite four years of\nagitation. Thus the right of scientific research was finally secured.\n\nMiss Cobbe was one of the noblest of women; but even she was made blind\nby her philosophy to the right of people who prefer scientific methods\nto act up to their convictions. Garrison, too, was notoriously unable to\ndo justice to anyone, even an abolitionist, who did not agree with\nhim. There is nothing in Transcendentalism to prevent intolerance. This\nphilosophy has done immense service to the philanthropy as well as the\npoetry of the nineteenth century; but human liberty will gain by the\ndiscovery that no such system of metaphysics can be anything better than\na temporary bridge for passing out of the swamps of superstition, across\nthe deep and furious torrent of scepticism, into a land of healthy\nhappiness and clear, steady light.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. PLATFORM VERSUS PULPIT\n\nDURING the nineteenth century the authority of preachers and pastors has\ndiminished plainly; and this is largely due to a fact of which Emerson\nspoke thus: \"We should not forgive the clergy for taking on every issue\nthe immoral side.\" This was true in England, where the great reforms\nwere achieved for the benefit of the masses, and against the interest of\nthe class to which most clergymen belonged. The American pastor seldom\ndiffered from his parishioners, unless he was more philanthropic. He\nwas usually in favour of the agitation against drunkenness; and he had\na right to say that the disunionism of Phillips and Garrison, together\nwith their systematically repelling sympathy in the South, went far to\noffset their claim for his support. It was difficult, during many years,\nto see what ought to be done in the North. When a practical issue was\nmade by the attack on Kansas, the clergy took the side of freedom almost\nunanimously in New England, and quite generally in rural districts\nthroughout the free States. The indifference of the ministers to\nabolitionism, before 1854, was partly due, however, to their almost\nuniversal opposition to a kindred reform, which they might easily have\nhelped.\n\nI. It was before Garrison began his agitation that Frances Wright\ndenounced the clergy for hindering the intellectual emancipation of her\nsex; and her first ally was not _The Liberator_, but _The Investigatory_\nthough both began almost simultaneously. She pleaded powerfully for the\nrights of slaves, as well as of married women, before large audiences\nin the middle States as early as 1836, when these reforms were also\nadvocated by Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, a liberal Jewess. These ladies\nspoke to men as well as women; and so next summer did Miss Angelina\nGrimke, whose zeal against slavery had lost her her home in South\nCarolina. Her first public lecture was in Massachusetts; and the\nCongregationalist ministers of that State promptly issued a declaration\nthat they had a right to say who should speak to their parishioners, and\nthat the New Testament forbade any woman to become a \"public reformer.\"\nTheir action called out the spirited poem in which Whittier said:\n\n        \"What marvel if the people learn\n     To claim the right of free opinion?\n     What marvel if at times they spurn\n     The ancient yoke of your dominion?\"\n\nGarrison now came out in favour of \"the rights of women,\" and thus\nlost much of the support which he was receiving from the country clergy\ngenerally in New England. The final breach was in May, 1840, at the\nmeeting of the National Association of Abolitionists in New York City.\nThere came Garrison with more than five hundred followers from New\nEngland. They gained by a close vote a place on the business committee\nfor that noble woman, Abby Kelley. Ministers and church members seceded\nand started a new anti-slavery society, which carried away most of the\nmembers and even the officers of the old one. The quarrel was embittered\nby the vote of censure, passed at this meeting upon those abolitionists\nwho had dared to nominate a candidate of their own for the presidency\nwithout leave from Mr. Garrison; but the chief trouble came from the\nprejudice which, that same summer, caused most of the members of the\nWorld's Anti-Slavery Convention in London, to refuse places to Harriet\nMartineau and other ladies as delegates. This exclusion was favoured\nby all the eight clergymen who spoke, and by no other speakers so\nearnestly. Among the rejected delegates were Mrs. Lucretia Mott and\nMrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton; and they resolved, that night, to hold a\nconvention for the benefit of their sex in America.\n\nThe volume of essays which Emerson published in 1844 praised \"the new\nchivalry in behalf of woman's rights\"; and the other Transcendentalists\nin America came, one after another, to the same position. Mrs. Stanton\nand Mrs. Mott called their convention in that year of revolutions, 1848,\non July 19th. The place was the Methodist church at Seneca Falls, in\ncentral New York. The reformers found the door locked against them;\nand a little boy had to climb in at the window. The Declaration of\nIndependence, adopted on July 4, 1776, furnished a model for a protest\nagainst the exclusion of girls from high schools and colleges, the\nclosing of almost every remunerative employment against the sex, and the\nlaws forbidding a married woman to own any property, whether earned or\ninherited by her, even her own clothing. This declaration was adopted\nunanimously; but a demand for the suffrage had only a small majority.\nNot a single minister is known to have been present; but there were two\nat a second convention, that August, in Rochester, where the Unitarian\nchurch was full of men and women.\n\nThere were more than twenty-five thousand ministers in the United\nStates; but only three are mentioned among the members of the national\nconvention, held at Worcester, Massachusetts, in October, 1850, by\ndelegates from eleven States. As Phillips was returning from this\nmeeting, Theodore Parker said to him, \"Wendell, why do you make a fool\nof yourself?\" The great preacher came out a few years later in behalf of\nthe rights of women; but it was long before a single religious newspaper\ncaught up with _The Investigator_.\n\nHow the clergy generally felt was shown in 1851, at Akron, in northern\nOhio. There Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and\nUniversalist ministers appealed to the Bible in justification of the\nsubjugation of women. There was no reply until they began to boast of\nthe intellectual superiority of their own sex. Then an illiterate old\nwoman who had been a slave arose and said: \"What 's dat got to do with\nwomen's rights, or niggers' rights either? If my cup won't hold but a\npint, and yourn holds a quart, would n't ye be mean not to let me have\nmy little half-measure full?\" The convention was with her; but the Bible\nargument was not to be disposed of easily. The general tone of both\nTestaments is in harmony with the familiar texts attributed to Paul and\nPeter. These latter passages were written, in all probability, when\nthe position of women was changing for the better throughout the Roman\nEmpire: and the original words, asserting the authority of husbands, are\nthe same as are used in regard to the power of masters over slaves. Such\nlanguage had all the more weight, because the ministers had been brought\nup as members of the ruling sex. They may have also been biassed by the\nfact that their profession depends, more than any other, for success\nupon the unpaid services in many ways of devoted women. Emancipation was\nby no means likely to promote work for the Church. There was an audience\nof two thousand at Syracuse, in 1852, when what was called the \"Bloomer\nConvention,\" on account of the short dresses worn by some members,\ntook up a resolution, declaring that the Bible recognises the rights of\nwomen. Mrs. Rose said that the reform had merits enough of its own,\nand needed no justification by any book. A letter was read from Mrs.\nStanton, saying that \"among the clergy we find our most violent enemies,\nthose most opposed to any change in woman's position.\" The accuracy\nof this statement was readily admitted, after a reverend gentleman\nhad denounced the infidelity of the movement, in a speech described\nas \"indecent\" and \"coarsely offensive\" in the New York Herald; and the\nresolution was lost.\n\nThe lady who offered it was ordained soon after for the\nCongregationalist ministry; but she was obliged to confess, at the\nWoman's Rights' Convention, in 1853, that \"the Church has so far cast\nme off, that to a great extent I have been obliged to go to just such\ninfidels as those around me for aid to preach my Christian views.\" It\nwas at this meeting that a doctor of divinity, and pastor of a prominent\nsociety, denounced the reform so violently that Mr. Garrison called him\na blackguard and a rowdy, with the result of having his nose pulled\nby the champion of the Church militant. There were many such unseemly\nmanifestations of clerical wrath. The _History of Woman Suffrage_, which\nwas edited by Mrs. Stanton and other leading reformers, said, in 1881:\n\"The deadliest opponents to the recognition of the equal rights of women\nhave ever been among the orthodox clergy.\" The Unitarians were more\nfriendly; but I do not think that the reform was openly favoured, even\nas late as 1860, by one clergyman in a thousand out of the whole number\nin the United States. The proportion was even smaller in Europe.\n\nEven as late as 1878, it was resolved by the Woman Suffrage Convention\nat Rochester, N. Y., \"that as the first duty of every individual is\nself-development, the lessons of self-sacrifice and obedience taught\nwoman by the Christian Church have been fatal, not only to her own vital\ninterests but through her to those of the race.\" Influences were already\nat work, however, which have made the relations of platform and pulpit\ncomparatively friendly in this respect.\n\nThe women of the North showed their patriotism, during the great war,\nby establishing and managing the Sanitary Commission, the Freedman's\nBureau, and the Woman's Loyal National League. Important elections\nwere carried in 1862 by the eloquence of Anna E. Dickinson, for the\nRepublican party; and it has often since had similar help. The success\nof the Women's Christian Temperance Union and other partly philanthropic\nand partly religious organisations, has proved the ability of women to\nthink and act independently. Many of their demands have been granted,\none by one; and public opinion has changed so much in their favour, that\nthey ceased long ago to encounter any general hostility from the clergy\nin the Northern States.\n\nEven there, however, women still find it much too difficult for them\nto enter a peculiarly easy, honourable, and lucrative profession. Their\nelocutionary powers are shown on the stage as well as the platform.\nTheir capacity for writing sermons is plain to every one familiar with\nrecent literature. Their ability to preach is recognised cordially in\nthe Salvation Army, as well as by Spiritualists, Quakers, Unitarians,\nand Universalists. Much of the pastoral work is done by women, in actual\nfact; and more ought to be. The Sunday-school, choir, social gathering,\nand other important auxiliaries to the pulpit are almost entirely in\nfemale hands. Women enjoy practically the monopoly of those kinds of\nchurch work for which there is no pay; and their exclusion from the kind\nwhich is paid highly, in the largest and wealthiest denominations, looks\ntoo much like a preference of clergymen to look after the interest of\ntheir own sex. The most orthodox churches are the most exclusive;\nand the same forces which are driving bigotry out of the pulpits are\nbringing women in.\n\nThis reform is one of many in which a much more advanced position has\nbeen taken by New England and the far West than by the South; and the\nAmerican Transcendentalists led public opinion in the section where most\nof them lived. In Great Britain the struggle has been carried on in the\ninterest of the middle and lower classes, and under much opposition from\nthe class to which most admirers of philosophy belonged. No wonder that\none of the keenest critics of Transcendentalism was prominent among the\nchampions in England of the oppressed sex. John Stuart Mill declared,\nin his widely circulated book on _The Subjection of Women_, that \"nobody\never arrived at a general rule of duty by intuition.\" He held that the\nlegal subjection of wives to husbands bore more resemblance, as far as\nthe laws were concerned, to slavery, than did any other relationship\nexisting in Great Britain in 1869. He did not argue from any theory\nof natural rights, but pointed out the advantage to society of women's\ndeveloping their capacities freely. He also insisted on the duty\nof government not to restrict the liberty of any woman, except when\nnecessary to prevent her diminishing that of her neighbours. This last\nproposition will be examined in the next chapter. The fact that Mill's\ngreat work for freedom was done through the press, and not on the\nplatform, makes it unnecessary to say more about him in this place.\n\nII. Clergymen, like Transcendentalists, in England were generally\nconservative, or reactionary; and the friends of reform were much more\nirreligious than in America. Their appeal against the authority of\nChurch and Bible was not to intuition but to science; and they were\naided by Lyell's demonstration, in 1830, that geology had superseded\nGenesis. Working-men were warned in lectures, tracts, and newspapers\nagainst immorality in the Old Testament; and even the New was said\nto discourage resistance to oppression and efforts to promote health,\ncomfort, and knowledge.\n\nThe most popular of these champions against superstition and tyranny\nwas Bradlaugh. He began to lecture in 1850, when only seventeen, and\ncontinued for forty years to speak and write diligently. His atheism\nobliged him to undergo poverty for many years, and much hardship. He\ncharged no fee for lecturing, went willingly to the smallest and poorest\nplaces, and was satisfied with whatever was brought in by selling\ntickets, often for only twopence each. He once travelled six hundred\nmiles in forty-eight hours, to deliver four lectures which did not repay\nhis expenses. Many a hall which he had engaged was closed against him;\nand he was thus obliged to speak in the open air one rainy Sunday, when\nhe had two thousand hearers. At such times his voice pealed out like a\ntrumpet; his information was always accurate; opposition quickened the\nflow of ideas; and he had perfect command of the people's English. His\ngreat physical strength was often needed to defend him against violence,\nsometimes instigated by the clergy. He had much to say against the Old\nTestament; but no struggle for political liberty, whether at home or\nabroad, failed to receive his support; and he was especially active for\nthat great extension of suffrage which took place in 1867. His knowledge\nthat women would vote against him did not prevent his advocating their\nright to the ballot; but it was in the name of \"the great mass of the\nEnglish people\" that he was an early supporter of the cause of Union and\nLiberty against the slave-holders who seceded.\n\nIn 1866 he became president of the National Society of Secularists, who\nbelieve only in \"the religion of the present life.\" Most of the members\nwere agnostics; and one of Bradlaugh's many debates was with Holyoake,\nthe founder of secularism, on the question whether that term ought to be\nused instead of atheism. The society was so well organised that only\na telegram from the managers was needed to call out a public meeting\nanywhere in England. Among Bradlaugh's hearers in America in 1873 were\nEmerson, Sumner, Garrison, Phillips, and O. B. Frothingham. He won soon\nafter a powerful ally in a clergyman's wife, who had been driven from\nher home by her husband because she would not partake of the communion.\nMrs. Besant began to lecture in 1874, and with views like Bradlaugh's;\nbut her chief interest was in woman suffrage. Both held strict views\nabout the obligation of marriage; and their relations were blameless.\n\nBradlaugh's place in history is mainly as a champion of the right of\natheists to sit in Parliament. He was elected by the shoemakers of\nNorthampton in 1880, when oaths of allegiance were exacted in the\nHouse of Commons. Quakers, however, could affirm; and he asked the\nsame privilege. As this was refused, he offered to take the oath, and\ndeclared that the essential part would be \"binding upon my honour and\nconscience.\" This, too, was forbidden; but there was much discussion,\nnot only in Parliament but throughout England, as to his right to\naffirm. His friends held two hundred public meetings in a single week,\nand sent in petitions with two hundred thousand signatures during twelve\nmonths. The liberal newspapers were on his side; but the Methodist and\nEpiscopalian pulpits resounded with denials of the right of atheists\nto enter Parliament on any terms. Among the expounders of this view\nin leading periodicals were Cardinal Manning and other prominent\necclesiastics. They had the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury,\nas well as of many petitions from Sunday-schools. Public opinion showed\nitself so plainly that Brad-laugh was finally allowed by a close vote to\nmake affirmation and take his seat. He was soon forced to leave it by an\nadverse decision of the judges, but was promptly re-elected.\n\nAgain he offered in vain to take the oath. After several months\nof litigation, and many appeals to audiences which he made almost\nunanimous, he gave notice that he should try to take his seat on August\n3, 1881, unless prevented by force. It took fourteen men to keep him\nout; and he was dragged down-stairs with such violence that he fainted\naway. His clothes were badly torn; and the struggle brought on an\nalarming attack of erysipelas. A great multitude had followed him to\nWestminster Hall, and there would have been a dangerous riot, if it had\nnot been for the entreaties of Mrs. Besant, who spoke at Bradlaugh's\nrequest. His next move was to take the oath without having it properly\nadministered. He was expelled in consequence, but re-elected at once.\nThus the contest went on, until the Speaker decided that every member\nhad a right to take the oath which could not be set aside. Bradlaugh was\nadmitted accordingly, on January 13, 1886; and two years later he\nbrought about the passage of a bill by which unbelievers were enabled to\nenter Parliament by making affirmation. The Irish members had tried to\nkeep him out; but this did not prevent his advocating home rule for\nIreland, and also for India. From first to last he fought fearlessly and\nsteadily for freedom of speech and of the press. His beauty of character\nincreased his influence. Mrs. Besant is right in saying: \"That men and\nwomen are now able to speak as openly as they do, that a broader spirit\nis visible in the churches, that heresy is no longer regarded as morally\ndisgraceful--these things are very largely due to the active and\nmilitant propaganda carried on under the leadership of Charles\nBradlaugh.\"\n\nIII. Similar ideas to his have been presented ever since 1870 to immense\naudiences, composed mostly of young men, in Chicago, New York, Boston,\nand other American cities, by Robert G. Ingersoll. Burning hatred of\nall tyranny and cruelty often makes him denounce the Bible with a\npathos like Rousseau's or a brilliancy like Voltaire's. He was decidedly\noriginal when he asked why Jesus, if he knew how Christianity would\ndevelop, did not say that his followers ought not to persecute one\nanother. In protesting against subordinating reason to faith, Ingersoll\nsays: \"Ought the sailor to throw away his compass and depend entirely\non the fog?\" Among other characteristic passages are these: \"Banish\nme from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of\nknowledge!\"... \"Religion has not civilised man: man has civilised\nreligion.\"... \"Miracles are told simply to be believed, not to be\nunderstood.\"\n\nIngersoll is not merely a destroyer but an earnest pleader for what he\ncalls the gospel of cheerfulness and good health, \"the gospel of water\nand soap,\" the gospels of education, liberty, justice, and humanity. He\nregards \"marriage as the holiest institution among men\"; but holds that\n\"the woman is the equal of the man. She has all the rights I have and\none more; and that is the right to be protected.\" He believes fully \"in\nthe democracy of the family,\" and \"in allowing the children to think for\nthemselves.\" He is not so much interested as Bradlaugh was in political\nreform and social progress, but has often taken the conservative side;\nand his speaking in public has been more like an occasional recreation\nthan a life-work. Some of his lectures have had an immense circulation\nas pamphlets; and his Biblical articles in the _North American Review_\nattracted much notice. He is never at his best, however, without an\naudience before him; and he sometimes writes too rapidly to be strictly\naccurate.\n\nIV. A better parallel to Bradlaugh is furnished by Mr. B. F. Underwood,\nwho was only eighteen when he began to lecture in Rhode Island. The\ngreat revival of 1857 was in full blast; and he showed its evils with\nan energy which called down much denunciation from the pulpit. He\nspoke from the first as an evolutionist, though Darwin had not yet\ndemonstrated the fact. To and fro through the Connecticut valley went\nthe young iconoclast, speaking wherever he could find hearers, asking\nonly for repayment of expenses, and sometimes failing to receive even\nthat. His work was interrupted by the war, in which he took an active\nand honourable part. When peace was restored, he studied thoroughly the\n_Origin of Species_ and the _Descent of Man_; and he began in 1868 to\ngive course after course of lectures on Darwinism in New England, New\nYork, and Pennsylvania. The new view had been nine years before the\npublic, but had received little or no support from any clergyman in the\nUnited States, or any journal except _The Investigator_.\n\nFor thirty years Mr. Underwood has been busily propagating evolutionism\non the platform, as well as in print. No other American has done so\nmuch to make the system popular, or has reproduced Herbert Spencer's\nstatements with such fidelity. He has taken especial pains to prove that\n\"evolution disposes of the theory that the idea of God is innate,\" as\nwell as of the once mighty argument from design. He has said a great\ndeal about the Bible and Christianity, but in a more constructive spirit\nthan either Bradlaugh or Ingersoll. He has discredited old books by\nunfolding new truth. Among his favourite subjects have been: \"What Free\nThought Gives us in Place of the Creeds,\" \"The Positive Side of Modern\nLiberal Thought,\" \"If you Take away Religion, what will you Give in its\nPlace?\" \"The Influence of Civilisation on Christianity.\" He has always\nshown himself in favour of the interests of working-men, and also of\nwomen's rights and other branches of political reform. During the twelve\nyears ending in 1881, he lectured five or six times a week for at least\nnine months out of twelve, often travelling from Canada to Arkansas and\nOregon. Occasionally he spoke every night for a month; but he has seldom\nlectured in summer, except when on the Pacific coast.\n\nHis lectures in Oregon in 1871 on evolution awoke much opposition in the\npulpits. Two years afterwards he held a debate in that State against a\nclergyman who was president of a college, and who denounced evolution\nas in conflict with \"the Word of God.\" Such views were then prevalent in\nthat city; but in 1888 it was found by Mr. Underwood to have become the\nseat of the State University, where the new system was taught regularly.\nUnderwood, like Bradlaugh, has always challenged discussion, and he has\nheld over a hundred public debates. The first was in 1867; and some have\noccupied twenty evenings. Most of his opponents have been clergymen;\nand a hundred and fifty of the profession were in the audience at one\ncontest in Illinois in 1870. How much public opinion differs in various\nStates of the Union is shown by the fact that nine years later the doors\nof a hall which had been engaged for him in Pennsylvania were closed\nagainst him, merely because he was \"an infidel.\" His friends broke in\nwithout his consent; and he was fined $70. The first lecture which he\ntried to give in Canada was prevented by similar dishonesty.\nAnother hall was hired for the next night at great expense; but much\ninterruption was made by clergymen; and when suit was brought for\ndamages through breach of contract, the courts decided that bargains\nwith unbelievers were not binding in Canada.\n\nBoth Bradlaugh and Underwood have usually spoken _extempore_, but both\nhave been busy journalists. The American agitator wrote as early as 1856\nfor both _The Liberator_ and _The Investigator_. His connection with the\nlatter paper lasted until the time when a serious difference of opinion\narose between those aggressive unbelievers who called themselves\n\"freethinkers,\" or even \"infidels,\" and those moderate liberals who\nbelong to the Free Religious Association, and formerly supported _The\nIndex_. This journal came in 1881 under the management of Mr. Underwood.\nHis colleague, Rev. W. J. Potter, was nominally his equal in authority;\nbut I know, from personal acquaintance with both gentlemen, that the\nreal editor from first to last was Mr. Underwood. It was mainly due to\nhim that much attention was given, both in the columns of the journal\nand in the meetings of the association, to efforts for secularising the\nState. He was in charge of _The Index_ until it stopped at the end\nof 1886. In 1882 he held a discussion in Boston with the president of\nWilliams College, and Professor Gray, the great botanist, on the\nrelations between evolution and \"evangelical religion.\" About four\nhundred orthodox clergymen were present. In 1897 Mr. Underwood was still\nin his original occupation. Early that year he lectured in Illinois,\nIndiana, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island,\nMassachusetts, and Canada. He now believes, like Emerson, in \"a higher\norigin for events than the will I call mine.\"\n\nV. The difference of opinion among liberals, just referred to, grew\nout of the agitation for a free Sunday, which had been begun by Frances\nWright in 1828. A call for \"an anti-Sabbath convention\" in Boston was\nissued by some Transcendentalists in 1848, when men had recently been\nimprisoned in Massachusetts for getting in hay, and in Pennsylvania\nfor selling anti-slavery books. Churches were closed on Sunday against\nlecturers for any reform, however popular; and even the most innocent\namusement was prohibited by public opinion. Only a moderate protest had\nany chance of a hearing; but Garrison and the other managers insisted in\nthe call that \"the first day of the week is no holier than any other,\"\nand refused to allow anyone who did not believe this to speak. Very\nlittle was said about what the Sunday laws really were; but most of the\ntime was occupied with arguments that the Sabbath was only for the Jews,\nand that keeping Sunday is not a religious duty. This last assertion\ncalled out an earnest remonstrance from Theodore Parker; but his\nresolutions were voted down. The Garrisonians insisted, as usual, that\nthe big end of the wedge ought to go in first; and their convention was\na failure. Twenty-eight years went by without any protest of importance\nagainst Sunday laws in America.\n\nMeantime the Free Religious Association was organised in Boston by\nUnitarian clergymen who were indignant at the recent introduction into\ntheir denomination of a doctrinal condition of fellowship. The first\npublic meeting, on May 30, 1867, called out an immense audience. Emerson\nwas one of the speakers; and he held his place among the vice-presidents\nas long as he lived. A similar position was offered to Lucretia Mott,\nbut she declined on the platform. Her reason was that practical work\nwas subordinated to theological speculation by the announcement in\nthe constitution that the association was organised \"to promote the\ninterests of pure religion, to encourage the scientific study of\ntheology, and to increase fellowship in the Spirit.\" These phrases were\naltered afterwards; but the association has always been, in the words\nof one of its leading members \"a voice without a hand.\" Free religious\nconventions have regularly increased the confusion of tongues in that\nyearly Boston Babel called \"Anniversary Week\"; and there have been\nmany similar gatherings in various cities; but not one in four of these\nmeetings has given much attention to any practical subject, like the use\nof the Bible in the public schools. A vigorous discussion of the Sunday\nlaws of Massachusetts took place in 1876, under peculiar circumstances\nto be described in the next section; but there was no other until 1887.\n_The Index_ started in 1870; but it was largely occupied with vague\nspeculations about theology; and its discontinuance in 1886 left the\nassociation without any organ of frequent communication among its\nmembers, or even an office for business. Dr. Adler, who became president\nin 1878, tried to awaken an interest in unsectarian education, and\nespecially in ethical culture; but he resigned on account of lack of\nsupport; and the Ethical Culture societies were started outside of the\nassociation. Comparatively few of its members took any interest in the\npetitions presented by its direction to the Massachusetts Legislature in\n1884 and 1885, asking for taxation of churches, protection of witnesses\nfrom molestation on account of unbelief, and rescue of the Sunday law\nfrom giving sanctuary to fraud. The president acknowledged in 1892 that\nthere had been a \"general debility for practical work.\" There seems to\nhave been a lack of energy among the managers; and some of the members\nwere too anxious to preserve their individuality, while others had too\nmuch regard for ecclesiastical interests. The Parliament of Religions\nnext year, however, showed what good the association had done by\ninsisting continually on fellowship in religion, and keeping its\nplatform open to Jews, Hindoos, and unbelievers, as well as to\nChristians of every sect.\n\nVI. Prominent among the founders of the Free Religious Association\nwas Francis E. Abbot, who lost his place soon after as pastor of an\nindependent society, because the Supreme Court of New Hampshire decided,\non the request of some Unitarians for an injunction against him, that\nhis opinions were \"subversive of the fundamental principles of\nChristianity. He was the first editor of _The Index_; and there appeared\nin April, 1872, his statement of what are generally recognised as\n\n\n\"THE DEMANDS OF LIBERALISM\n\n\"1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no\nlonger be exempt from just taxation.\n\n\"2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State\nlegislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all\nother institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.\n\n\"3. We demand that all public appropriations for educational and\ncharitable institutions of a sectarian character shall cease.\n\n\"4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the\nGovernment shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible\nin the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as\na book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.\n\n\"5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United\nStates, or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious\nfestivals and fasts shall wholly cease.\n\n\"6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other\ndepartments of the Government shall be abolished, and that simple\naffirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be\nestablished in its stead.\n\n\"7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the\nobservance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.\n\n\"8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of \"Christian\"\nmorality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the\nrequirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.\n\n\"9. We demand that not only in the Constitutions of the United States,\nand of the several States, but also in the practical administration of\nthe same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity\nor any other special religion; that our entire political system shall\nbe founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever\nchanges shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently,\nunflinchingly, and promptly made.\"\n\nHe knew how unlikely it was that the Association would agitate for\nanything; and in January, 1873, he published a call for organisation\nof liberal leagues, in order to obtain the freedom already asked. Such\nleagues were soon formed in most of the States, as well as in Germany\nand Canada. Among the members were Phillips, Garrison, Lucretia Mott,\nHigginson, and other famous abolitionists, Karl Heinzen and other\nradical Germans, several Rabbis and editors of Jewish papers,\nInger-soll, Underwood, the editor of _The Investigatory_ and other\nactive agitators, several wealthy men of business, Collyer, Savage,\nand other Unitarian clergymen. Hundreds of newspapers supported\nthe movement; and eight hundred members had been enrolled before a\nconvention of the National Liberal League met in Philadelphia, on\nthe first four days of July, 1876. The managers of the International\nExhibition in that city had already decided that it should be closed on\nSunday, in violation of the rights, and against the wishes, of the Jews,\nunbelievers, and many other citizens. The Free Religious Association had\nbeen requested in vain, at a recent meeting, to remonstrate against this\niniquity. The League passed a strong vote of censure without opposition,\nand appointed a committee to present a protest which had been circulated\nduring the convention. Resolutions were also passed asserting the right\nof all Americans to enjoy on Sunday the public libraries, museums,\nparks, and similar institutions \"for the support of which they are\ntaxed,\" and demanding \"that all religious exercises should be prohibited\nin the public schools.\"\n\nIt was under the influence of this example that the Free Religious\nAssociation held a special convention on November 15, 1876, to protest\nagainst the Sunday laws of Massachusetts. A Jewish Rabbi complained that\nmore than two thousand Hebrew children in Boston were prevented from\nkeeping holy the day set apart for rest and worship in Exodus and\nDeuteronomy, and many of them actually obliged by their teachers to\nbreak the Sabbath. This was the effect of the law commanding them to go\nto school on Saturday, which is that \"seventh day\" whose observance\nis required by the fourth commandment. Other speakers declared that\nno legislation was needed to ensure Sunday's remaining a day of rest.\nMention was made of the fact that \"any game, sport, play, or public\ndiversion,\" not specially licensed, on Saturday evening, made all\npersons present liable to be fined. This was already a dead letter; and\nthe theatres had announced with perfect safety twenty years before, in\ntheir playbills, \"We defy the law.\" A few months after this convention,\nits influence was shown in the opening of the Art Museum free of charge\nto the people of Boston, Sunday afternoons.\n\nThus the Association began to co-operate with the National League; and\nthe latter soon had the support of more than sixty local organisations.\nThe movement for establishing \"Equal Rights in Religion\" was uniting\nLiberal Christians, Jews, independent theists, Spiritualists,\nmaterialists, evolutionists, agnostics, and atheists. All were willing\nto call themselves \"Freethinkers\" and work together as they have never\ndone since 1877. Then the League felt itself strong enough to call\nfor \"taxation of church property,\" \"secularisation of public schools,\"\n\"abrogation of Sabbatarian laws,\" and also for woman suffrage, as well\nas compulsory education throughout the United States. Steps were taken\ntowards nominating Ingersoll on this platform for President of the\nRepublic.\n\nThese plans had to be abandoned; the agitation subsided; and the harmony\nbetween lovers of liberty from various standpoints was lost. A fatal\ndifference of opinion was manifest in 1878, in regard to those Acts of\nCongress called \"the Comstock laws.\"\n\nThese statutes forbade sending obscene literature through the mails;\nand there had been more than a hundred recent convictions. Some of the\nprosecutions were said to have been prompted by religious bigotry; and\nthere seems to have been unjustifiable examination of mail matter.\nThe most important question was whether the laws ought to be enforced\nagainst newspapers and pamphlets about free love and marital tyranny,\nwhich were not meant to be indecent but really were so occasionally. A\npublisher in Massachusetts was sentenced in June, 1878, to two years\nof imprisonment for trying to mail such a pamphlet; but he was soon\nreleased. More severe punishment has been inflicted recently for similar\noffences. The majority of people in America and England favoured the\nexclusion by law of indecent literature from circulation; and this\ncourse has been considered necessary on account of the known frailty of\nhuman nature. The members of the Free Religious Association were willing\nto have the Comstock laws changed, but not repealed; and they voted,\nearly in 1878, to take no part in what threatened to be an unfortunate\ncontroversy. The League, however, was divided on the question whether\nthese laws ought to be amended or repealed. Abbot, Underwood, and other\nprominent members declared that literature ought to be excluded from\nthe mails or admitted according as it was intentionally and essentially\nindecent, or only accidentally so. Thus Ingersoll said: \"We want all\nnastiness suppressed for ever; but we also want the mails open to all\ndecent people.\" Other members held that the Comstock laws ought to be\nrepealed entirely, and no restriction put on the circulation of any\nliterature except by public opinion. This must be admitted to agree with\nthe principle that each one ought to have all the liberty consistent\nwith the equal liberty of everyone else; but this application of the\ntheory cannot be considered politic in agitating for religious freedom.\nThe _Investigator, Truthseeker_, and other aggressive papers, however,\ncalled for complete repeal; and a petition with this object received\nseventy thousand signatures.\n\nThe National League had voted, in 1876, that legislation against obscene\npublications was absolutely necessary, but that the existing laws needed\namendment. The question whether this position should be maintained,\nwas announced as the principal business to be settled in the convention\nwhich met at Syracuse on October 26, 1878. Mr. Abbot, the president, and\nother prominent officers declared that they should not be candidates\nfor re-election if the position assumed two years before was not kept.\nScarcely had the convention met, when its management passed into the\nhands of the friends of repeal. They allowed Judge Hurlbut, formerly\non the bench in the Supreme Court of the State, to argue in favour of\nclosing the mails against publications \"manifestly designed or mainly\ntending to corrupt the morals of the young.\" Much respect was due to the\nauthor of a book which declared, in 1850, that married women had a right\nto vote and hold property, as well as that the State \"cannot rightfully\ncompel any man to keep Sunday as a religious institution; nor can it\ncompel him to cease from labour or recreation on that day; since it\ncannot be shown that the ordinary exercise of the human faculties on\nthat day is in any way an infringement upon the rights of mankind.\" On\nSunday morning, October 27th, it was agreed that the question of repeal\nor reform should be postponed until the next annual convention; but\nthe decision was made a foregone conclusion that afternoon, when\nthree-fifths of the members voted not to re-elect Mr. Abbot and other\nchampions of reform. The defeated candidates left the convention at\nonce, as did Mr. Underwood and many other members, Judge Hurlbut taking\nthe lead. A new league was organised by the seceders; but it was not a\nsuccess.\n\nThe movement for amending, but not repealing, the Comstock laws was\ngiven up; and most of those who had favoured it took sides with those\nwho had refused to agitate. There was little interest in \"The Demands\nof Liberalism\" thenceforth among the Liberal Christians, Reformed Jews,\nTranscendentalists, and evolutionists. These and other moderate liberals\nrefuse to call themselves \"Freethinkers\"; and they make little attempt\nat collective and distinctive action. The Free Religious Association did\nnothing towards secularising the laws of Massachusetts between 1876\nand 1884. The agitation which began in the latter year ended on May\n27, 1887, when the Sunday laws were discussed at Boston in a large\nand enthusiastic convention. The Legislature had just passed a bill\nto legalise Saturday evening amusements, as well as boating, sailing,\ndriving, use of telegraph, and sale of milk, bread, newspapers, and\nmedicines on Sunday; the signature of the Governor had not yet been\ngiven; but it was agreed that these changes must be made, and for the\nreason that the old restrictions could not be enforced. Judge Putnam, of\nthe State District Court, told the convention that \"the Sunday law,\nso called, has not in a long, long time been enforced,\" except by\n\"a prosecution here and there\"; and that if it were to be enforced\nstrictly, the prosecutions would occupy nearly all the week. He opposed\nany restraint on \"entertainments not of an immoral tendency.\" Mr.\nGarrison, son of the famous abolitionist, declared that Sunday ought to\nbe \"the holiday of the week.\" Captain Adams, of Montreal, said: \"This\nis not a mere question how much men may do or enjoy on Sunday: it is\na question of human liberty, a question whether ecclesiastical\ntyranny shall still put its yoke on our necks.\" The tone was bold, but\nthoroughly practical from first to last.\n\nAn earnest protest against closing the Chicago Exposition on the\npeople's day of leisure was made by the F. R. A., in May, 1893; and\nan important victory in behalf of religious liberty was won in 1898 in\nMassachusetts. The Sunday laws of this State have been so improved as to\npermit what are called \"charity concerts,\" and are not made up entirely\nof ecclesiastical music, to be given for the pecuniary benefit of\ncharitable and religious societies on Sunday evenings. The Legislature\nwhich met early in 1898 was asked by representatives of the Monday\nConference of Unitarian Ministers, the Women's Christian Temperance\nUnion, and several other religious organisations to alter the law so as\nto prevent any but \"sacred music\" from being heard on the only evening\nwhen many people in Boston can go to concerts. The officers of the F. R.\nA. made a formal request to be heard by a committee of the Legislature\nthrough counsel, who proved that the \"charity concerts\" were really\nunobjectionable, and that the opposition to them was due entirely to\nzeal for an ancient text forbidding Hebrews to labour on Saturday in\nPalestine.\n\nThe injustice of stretching this prohibition so far as to try to stop\nconcerts on Sunday evenings in America was pointed out by\nrepresentatives, not only of the F. R. A., but also of the International\nReligious Liberty Association, which has been formed to protect\nChristians who have kept the Sabbath on the original day set apart in\nExodus and Deuteronomy, from being punished for not prolonging their\nrest from honest labour over an additional day, first selected by an\nemperor whose decrees are not worthy of reverence. This association has\noffices in Chicago, New York City, Toronto, London, Basel, and other\ncities; and its principles are ably advocated in a weekly paper entitled\nthe _American Sentinel_. Representatives of this organisation assisted\nthose of the F. R. A. in forcing the \"charity concerts\" question to be\ndecided on its own merits, independent of ancient texts. The members of\nthe legislative committee made a unanimous report against suppressing\nthese harmless amusements; and their opinion was sustained by their\ncolleagues. This victory was duly celebrated at the annual convention of\nthe F. R. A., in Boston, on May 27, 1898. Among the speakers that\nafternoon was the secretary of the I.R.L. A., who said: \"If any nation\nunder heaven has the right to confiscate one-seventh of my time, and\ntell how I shall and how I shall not use that, then the whole principle\nof inherent rights is denied, and it now is simply a matter of policy\nwhether it shall not confiscate two-sevenths, three-sevenths,\nor seven-sevenths, and take away all my liberty.\"\n\nSince 1878, the agitation for religious equality has been carried on\nmainly by materialistic atheists and agnostics, with some assistance\nfrom Spiritualists. These aggressive liberals continue to call\nthemselves to Liberty in the Nineteenth Century.\n\n\"Freethinkers,\" and to support the _Investigatory Truthseeker_, and\nother papers which have much to say against Sunday laws, religious use\nof the Bible in public schools, and exemption of churches from taxation.\nThey often reprint \"The Demands of Liberalism\"; and one of these\nrequests has been so amended in Canada as to ask for the repeal of \"all\nlaws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday or the\nSabbath.\" The attack on the Comstock laws has subsided; and no\nreference was made to them in 1897 in the call for a convention of the\norganisation which took the place of the whole system of national and\nlocal leagues in 1885. The name then chosen was \"The American Secular\nUnion.\" The words, \"and Freethought Federation\" were added in 1895,\nwhen two kindred associations were consolidated. It was under strong and\nconstant pressure from these aggressive liberals that the great museums\nof art and natural history in New York were thrown open on Sundays to\nlonging crowds. One of the petitions was signed by representatives of a\nhundred and twelve labour organisations. The trustees of the Art Museum\nwere induced to open it in the summer of 1891 by the contribution of\n$3000, which had been collected by some young ladies for meeting extra\nexpenses. Thirty-eight thousand people took advantage, in August, 1892,\nof their first opportunity to visit the Museum of Natural History on\ntheir one day of leisure; and these visitors were remarkable for good\nbehaviour. There has been a similar experience in the Boston Art Museum\never since the Sunday opening in 1877.\n\nVII. An exciting contest took place at Chicago in 1893. More than fifty\nnations were co-operating with the people of every one of the United\nStates in commemorating the discovery of America. Disreputable\npoliticians had persuaded Congress to pass a bill, by which closing the\nExposition on Sundays was made a condition of receiving aid from the\nNational Treasury. The people of Chicago had given three times as much,\nhowever, as Congress; and there was much dissatisfaction among those\ncitizens who had bought stock in the enterprise. The grounds had been\nkept open to visitors for some months, Sunday after Sunday, until the\nbuildings were formally thrown open on May 1st; and the receipts had\nbeen liberal enough to prove that continuance of this course would be\ngreatly to the advantage of these shareholders, while Sunday closing\nmight result in heavy loss. During the first three Sundays of May the\ngates were kept shut by order of the Board of National Commissioners,\nmade up of members from every State. Their action and that of Congress\nhad been sanctioned by petitions bearing millions of signatures; but\nit is a significant fact that the alleged signers in Pennsylvania were\nthree times as many as the entire population of the State. Many people\nhad been counted again and again as members of different organisations;\nand this fraud was committed in other parts of the country. No attempt\nto find out what the people really wished was made except in Texas;\nand there the majority was in favour of opening the gates. Sabbatarians\nacknowledged publicly that they got little support from the secular\npress; and much opposition was made to them by some of the great\ndailies, as well as by the organs of aggressive liberalism.\n\nSunday after Sunday in May the gates were surrounded by immense crowds\nwho waited there vainly, hour after hour. Many of them could evidently\nnot come on other days; and the number was so large that the local\ndirectors, who had been elected by the shareholders, voted on May 16th\nfor opening both gates and doors. This action was warmly approved by\nthe leading citizens of Chicago at a public meeting; but Sabbatarians\ndemanded that visitors be kept out by Federal bayonets. The National\nCommissioners, however, permitted the entrance of a hundred and fifty\nthousand people on the last Sunday of May. On Monday, the 29th, a judge\nof Hebrew race, in a State court, pronounced the contract with Congress\nnull and void, because the money had not been fully paid. He decided,\naccordingly, that there was no excuse for violating the Illinois law,\nwhich guaranteed the right of the citizens to visit on Sunday the park\nwhere the Exposition was held. This ensured the admission of visitors\non June 4th, and for twenty of the remaining twenty-one Sundays. The\nGovernment buildings and many others, however, were closed; numerous\nexhibits, for instance, one of Bibles, were shrouded in white; machinery\nwas not allowed to run; there were no cheap conveyances about the\nground; and there was little opportunity to get food or drink. No wonder\nthat the Sunday attendance was comparatively small; but there were one\nhundred and forty thousand paying visitors on October 22d and 29th.\n\nThis was a victory of the press rather than the platform. There has been\nno successor to the original Liberty League, and no rival to the Sunday\nSociety. The latter was organised in 1875 in England, where there has\nbeen constant agitation since 1853 for opening the British Museum,\nCrystal Palace, and other public institutions to their owners on Sunday.\nDean Stanley was president of this society; and among its members have\nbeen Herbert Spencer, Huxley, Tyndall, Charles Reade, Lecky, Miss Cobbe,\nMrs. Craik, and many prominent clergymen. The real issue was stated\nclearly at one of the public meetings by Tyndall as follows: \"We only\nask a part of the Sunday for intellectual improvement.\" The justice\nof this request has been so far admitted that on May 24, 1896, all the\nnational museums and galleries in London were opened for the first time\non Sunday. Among these educational institutions from which the\nowners are no longer shut out are the National Gallery and the South\nKensington, British, and Natural History Museums. Many libraries and\nmuseums in other parts of England were opened some years earlier.\n\nVIII. Nowhere has the platform done so much to regenerate the pulpit as\nin Chicago. Religious history has been largely a record of strife. There\nwas little brotherly feeling between clergymen of different sects in\nAmerica before 1860; but they were often brought into co-operation by\nthe great war. Even Unitarians were shocked to hear Emerson speak with\nreverence of Zoroaster in 1838; but he won only applause in 1869 when he\nspoke of the charm of finding \"identities in all the religions of men.\"\nThis was at a convention of the Free Religious Association, which has\npleaded from the first for \"fellowship in religion,\" and often made this\nreal upon its platform. The secretary, Mr. Potter, said in 1872,\nthat some of his hearers would live to see \"a peace convention\" \"of\nrepresentatives from all the great religions of the globe.\" Chicago\nwas so peculiarly cosmopolitan that the local managers of the Columbian\nExposition were glad to have products of the various intellectual\nactivities of mankind exhibited freely. Ample provision was made for\nconventions in behalf of education and reform; but what was to be done\nfor religion?\n\nAn orthodox citizen of Chicago, Mr. Charles Carroll Bonney, took counsel\nin 1891 with Rev. J. LI. Jones, a Unitarian, who has been preaching for\ntwenty years the essential oneness of all religions. Rabbis, bishops,\nand doctors of divinity were consulted also; and thus was formed the\ncommittee which invited \"the leading representatives of the great\nhistoric religions of the world for the first time in history,\" to meet\nin friendly conference and show what they \"hold and teach in common,\"\nas well as \"the important distinctive truths\" claimed for each religion.\nThus the Columbian Exposition offered an opportunity \"to promote and\ndeepen the spirit of human brotherhood among religious men of diverse\nfaiths,\" \"to inquire what light each religion has afforded or may\nafford to the other religions of the world,\" and, finally, \"to bring\nthe nations of the earth into a more friendly fellowship in the hope\nof securing a permanent international peace.\" Thus was announced the\n\"Parliament of Religions.\" All the members were to meet as equals; and\nthere was to be neither controversy nor domination. The Archbishop of\nCanterbury and some leading Protestants in America protested against\nabandoning the exclusive claims made for Christianity; and similar\nobjections were offered by the Sultan of Turkey. The Jews, Buddhists,\nand other believers in the ancient religions welcomed the invitation, as\ndid the dignitaries of the Greek Church, and also the Protestants on\nthe continent of Europe, and many members of every Christian sect in the\nUnited States. The Catholic archbishops of America appointed a delegate;\nand many Methodist and Episcopalian bishops agreed to attend the\nParliament.\n\nThe sessions were held in the permanent building erected in the centre\nof Chicago to accommodate the intellectual portion of the Exposition.\nFour thousand people assembled on Monday, September 11, 1893, to see a\nRoman Catholic cardinal mount the platform at 10 A.M., in company with\nthe Shinto high-priest, an archbishop of the Greek Church, a Hindoo\nmonk, a Confucian mandarin, and a long array of Buddhists and Taoists\nfrom the far East. All these dignitaries wore gorgeous robes of\nvarious colours. With them were a Parsee girl, a Theosophist, a Moslem\nmagistrate from India, a Catholic archbishop from New Zealand, a Russian\nand an African prince, a negro bishop, several Episcopalian prelates,\nRabbis, and Jewesses, missionaries returned from many lands, doctors of\ndivinity of various Protestant sects, and the lady managers of the great\nFair. A prominent Presbyterian pastor took the chair, and cordial\ndeclarations of the brotherhood of religions were made by Catholic\narchbishops, the Shinto high-priest, a Buddhist delegate, and the\nConfucian sent by the Emperor of China. Full hearing was given in\nsubsequent sessions to advocates of the Jain religion, which is perhaps\nthe oldest, as well as of the Parsee, Jewish, Moslem, Taoist, and Vedic\nfaiths, besides a score of the leading Christian denominations. The\nParliament lasted seventeen days; and the audiences were so large that\nmost of the essays were repeated in overflow meetings. There were also\nsome forty congresses held in smaller halls for speakers who could not\nfind room on the great platforms. One of these meetings was held by\nJewesses, of whom nineteen spoke. Some of them were also heard from the\nplatform of the Parliament; as were many clergy women.\n\nMr. Underwood presided at the Congress of Evolutionists. There was also\na convention of the Free Religionists, in connection with the Parliament\nwhich they had made possible; but \"The Freethought Federation\" could get\nno chance to meet in the great building, or even to sell pamphlets. Mr.\nBonney had proposed a union of all religions against irreligion; and\nthis would have been in harmony with the policy adopted by many States\nof the American Union. Their Sunday laws and similar statutes show a\npurpose of encouraging all the popular sects alike, with little regard\nfor the rights of citizens outside of these favoured associations. Most\nof the speakers in the Parliament, especially the Buddhists, were so\nzealous for the brotherhood of man, that they protested against any\ndiscrimination on account of theology. The great audiences gave most\napplause to the broadest declarations; and the few utterances of\nProtestant bigotry were plainly out of place. The general tendency of\nthe Parliament was strongly in favour of recognising the equal rights\nof all mankind, without regard to belief or unbelief. All legislation\ninconsistent with this principle will be swept away, sooner or later,\nby that great wave of public opinion which broke forth during the\nParliament of Religions. There the golden age of religion began, and war\nmust give place to peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. THE EVOLUTIONISTS\n\nWE have seen how the Transcendentalists tried to suppress vivisection,\nin spite of all it has done for the health and happiness of mankind. The\nsanguinary intolerance of Robespierre and other disciples of Rousseau\nwas described earlier in this volume. And the notorious inability of\nCarlyle and Garrison to argue calmly with those who differed with\nthem further illustrates the tendency of confidence in one's own\ninfallibility. Only he who knows that he may be wrong can admit\nconsistently that those who reject his favourite beliefs may be right.\nThe Parliament of Religions showed that there has been a growing\nconviction of the equal rights of holders of all forms of belief and\nunbelief; this conviction has been promoted by recognition of two great\nfacts: first, that knowledge is based upon experience, and, second, that\nno one's life is so complete that he has nothing to learn from other\npeople. If they do not believe as he does, it may be merely because\nexperience has taught them truth which he still needs to learn. Each\none knows only in part; and therefore no one can afford to take it for\ngranted that anyone else is completely in error.\n\nI. This tolerant method of thought has gained greatly in popularity\nsince Darwin proved its capacity to solve the problem of the origin\nof man. The possibility that all forms of life, even the highest, are\nresults of a natural process of gradual development has often been\nsuggested by poets and philosophers. The probability was much discussed\nby men of science early in the nineteenth century; but it was not until\n1858 that sufficient evidence was presented to justify acceptance of\nevolution as anything better than merely a theory. Twenty-one years had\nthen elapsed since Darwin began a long series of investigations. In\nthe first place, he collected an irresistible number of cases of the\ninfluence of environment in causing variations in structure, and of the\ntendency of such variations to be inherited. Most men who accepted\nthese propositions admitted their insufficiency to account for the\nmultiplicity of species; but the explanation became complete when Darwin\ndiscovered that any plant or animal which is peculiarly fit for survival\nin the continual struggle for existence is likely to become largely\nrepresented in the next generation. A spontaneous variation which\nprolongs the life of its possessor may thus become not only more common\nbut more firmly fixed in successive generations, until a new species is\nestablished.\n\nTo this tendency Darwin gave the name \"natural selection\"; but this term\nliterally implies a deliberate choice by some superhuman power. Herbert\nSpencer proposed the phrase, \"survival of the fittest\"; but it must be\nremembered that the fitness is not necessarily that of greater moral\nworth.\n\nThere may be merely such a superiority in strength and cunning\nas enables savages to devour a missionary. Spencer says that \"the\nexpression, 'survival of the fittest,'\" merely means \"the leaving alive\nof those which are best able to utilise surrounding aids to life, and\nbest able to combat or avoid surrounding dangers.\" Weeds are fitter than\nflowers for natural growth; and Joan of Arc proved unfit to survive in\nthe contest against wicked men.\n\nThis discovery of Darwin's made it his duty to avow a view which was so\nunpopular that he felt as if he were about \"confessing a murder.\" He was\nmaking \"a big book\" out of the facts he had collected, when a manuscript\nstatement of conclusions like his own was sent him by Wallace, who had\ndiscovered independently the great fact of the survival of the fittest.\nDarwin wished at first to resign all claim to originality; but his\nfriends insisted on his taking a share of the honour of the discovery.\nAccordingly an essay, which he had written in 1844, was read in company\nwith that sent him by Wallace before the Linnaean Society, in London, on\nJuly 1, 1858. The importance of the new view was so well understood that\nthe entire first edition, amounting to 1250 copies, of Darwin's _Origin\nof Species_, which book he wrote soon after, was sold on the day of\npublication, November 24, 1859. Other editions followed rapidly, with\ntranslations into many languages. No book of the century has been more\nrevolutionary.\n\nII. Theologians still insisted on the supernatural creation of each\nspecies of plant or animal, and especially of the human race, in\nits final form. The inference that man had been developed by natural\nprocesses out of some lower animal, was easily drawn from the _Origin of\nSpecies_, though not expressly stated therein; and there was great alarm\namong the clergy. An Anglican bishop, who was nicknamed \"Soapy Sam\" on\naccount of his subserviency to public opinion, declared in a leading\nquarterly that Darwin held views \"absolutely incompatible\" with\nthe Bible, and tending to \"banish God from nature.\" Other prominent\nEpiscopalians called the new book \"an attempt to dethrone God,\" and\npropagate infidelity. Cardinal Manning denounced the \"brutal philosophy\"\nwhich taught that \"There is no God, and the ape is our Adam.\" Both\nCatholics and Protestants started anti-Darwinian societies in London,\nand, in 1863, Huxley saw \"the whole artillery of the pulpit brought upon\nthe doctrine of evolution and its supporters.\" The example of England\nwas followed promptly by France and Germany. America was distracted\nby civil war; and her men of science were so few and timid that the\ndenunciations of Darwinism which were prompted by the theological and\nmetaphysical prejudices of Agassiz were generally accepted as final\ndecisions. The position of the Unitarians and Transcendentalists may be\njudged from the fact that, during a period of nearly three years after\nthe publication of the _Origin of Species_, nothing was said about\nDarwinism in the extremely liberal divinity school where I was then\na student. Evolutionism had to look for advocates in America to\nSpiritualists like Denton or unbelievers like Underwood at that period.\n\nClerical opposition increased the general unwillingness of scientific\nmen to snatch up new views. As early as 1863, however, Darwin received\nthe support of the famous geologist, Lyell, as well as of a younger\nnaturalist destined to achieve even more brilliant success. Huxley has\ndistinguished himself in arguments against the scientific value of the\nBible. Among his other exploits was a demonstration that a chain, in\nwhich no link is missing, connects the horse with a small, extinct\nquadruped possessed of comparatively few equine peculiarities. In this\ncase, transformation of species is an undeniable fact. Other young\nnaturalists in England, as well as in Germany, gradually became willing\nto push the new view to its last results; and Darwin was encouraged\nto publish, in 1871, his elaborate account of the origin of our race,\nentitled _The Descent of Man_. The wrath of the churches blazed forth\nonce more; and Gladstone entered the arena. Englishmen ventured no\nlonger to say much about the differences between Moses and Darwin; for\nthe obvious retort would have been, \"So much the worse for Moses.\" A\nGerman Lutheran, however, bade his congregation choose between Christ\nand Darwin; and the infallibility of Moses was asserted so zealously by\na Parisian Catholic as to win formal thanks from the Pope.\n\nAmerica was now wide awake; irreligious tendencies were assigned to\nevolutionism by the president of Yale, as well as by some Princeton\nprofessors; and one of these latter warned believers in the development\nof man that they would be punished as infidels after death. The verdict\nof men of science has at last been pronounced so plainly as to be\naccepted by thoroughly educated people in the Northern States; but\nthe Southerners are more bigoted. Even so late as 1894, a professor\nof biology at the University of Texas was dismissed, in violation of\ncontract, for teaching evolutionism. A similar offence had been found\nsufficient, ten years before, by the Presbyterians of South Carolina,\nfor driving a devout member of their own sect from his chair in a\ntheological seminary. That popular writer on geology, Winchell, was\nrequested in 1878 by a Methodist bishop to resign a professorship at\nNashville, Tennessee, where he had expressed doubt of the descent of\nall men from Adam. The geologist refused to resign, and the chair was\nsuppressed.\n\nVoltaire's chief grievance was the intolerance of Christianity. Paine\nand Bradlaugh complained that there was much immorality in the Old\nTestament. The most damaging of recent attacks have been made in the\nname of science. Genesis and geology had been found irreconcilable\nbefore the appearance of Darwinism; but the new system widened the\nbreach. The most serious offence to the theologian, however, was that\nhe could not longer point without danger of contradiction to beneficial\npeculiarities in the structure of plants and animals, as marks of the\ndivine hand. The old argument about design was met by a demonstration\nthat such peculiarities were apt to arise spontaneously, and become\npermanent under the pressure of the struggle for existence. The\ntheologian has had to retreat to the position that Darwinism has not\naccounted for the soul, the intellect, and especially the intuitions.\n\nIII. Whether Darwin succeeded or not in this part of his work is not so\nimportant as the fact that, several years before he announced his great\ndiscovery, an elaborate account of the process by which the powers of\nthought and feeling have been developed gradually out of the lowest\nforms of consciousness was given by Herbert Spencer. The first edition\nof his _Principles of Psychology_, published in 1855, carried the\nexplanation so far as to show the real origin and value of the\nintuitions. Their importance had been almost ignored by thinkers who\nrelied entirely on individual experience, and greatly overrated by the\nTranscendentalists; but neither set of philosophers could explain\nthese mysterious ideas. The infallibility of conscience is not to be\nreconciled with such facts as that Paul thought it his duty to persecute\nthe Christians, or that Garrison, Sumner, John Brown, and Stonewall\nJackson were among the most conscientious men of the century. The\nancient Greeks agreed in recognising justice, but not benevolence, among\nthe cardinal virtues; precisely the opposite error was made by Kant\nand Miss Cobbe; and a tabular view of all the lists of fundamental\nintuitions which have been made out by noted metaphysicians might\nbe mistaken for a relic from the Tower of Babel. Emerson's religious\ninstincts were not so much impressed as Parker's with the personality of\nGod and immortality; but the difference seems almost insignificant when\nwe remember what ideas of theology arose spontaneously in New Zealand.\nHow widely the intuition of beauty varies may be judged from the\ninability of aesthetic Chinamen to admire the white teeth and rosy\ncheeks of an English belle. Intuition is plainly not an infallible\noracle; but is it merely a misleading prejudice?\n\nThe puzzle was solved when Spencer showed that intuition is a result of\nthe experience of the race. Courage, for instance, was so important\nfor the survival of a primitive tribe in the struggle against its\nneighbours, that every man found his comfort and reputation depend\nmainly on his prowess. If he fought desperately he gained wealth,\nhonour, and plenty of wives; but cowards were maltreated by other men\nand scorned even by the women. The bravest man left the largest number\nof offspring; and every boy was told so early and earnestly to be\ncourageous as to develop a pugnacious instinct, which has come down to\nthe present day in much greater strength than is needed for the ordinary\ndemands of civilised life. We love war too much, because our ancestors\nwere in danger of not loving it enough for their own safety. As courage\nceased to be the one all-important excellence, industry, fidelity, and\nhonesty were found so useful as to be encouraged with a care which has\ndone much to mould conscience into its present shape. Other virtues\nwere inculcated in the same way. The welfare of the family was found to\ndepend largely on the fidelity of wife to husband; and the result was\nthat chastity has held a much higher place in the feminine than in\nthe masculine conscience. So our religious instincts owe much of their\nstrength to the zeal with which our ancestors sought to avert the divine\nwrath. Thus we have ideas which were originally only vague inferences\nfrom primitive experience, but which have gradually gained such strength\nand definiteness, that they have much more power than if we had thought\nthem out unaided by the past. Spencer himself says, \"There have\nbeen, and still are, developing in the race certain fundamental moral\nintuitions\" which \"are the results of accumulated experiences of\nutility, gradually organised and inherited,\" but \"have come to be quite\nindependent of conscious experience.\" They \"have no apparent basis in\nthe individual experiences of utility\"; and thus conscience has acquired\nits characteristic disinterestedness.\n\nWhen we feel this inner prompting to a brave or honest action which\nmust be done promptly or left undone, it is our duty to act without\nhesitation or regard to our own interest. We are serving our race in\nthe way which its experience has taught. Suppose, however, that there is\ntime enough for deliberation, and that we see a possibility of harm to\nour neighbours, our family, or even to our own highest welfare. In this\ncase, we ought to compare the good and evil results carefully. We should\nalso do well to consider what was the decision of the consciences of\nthe best and wisest men under similar circumstances. If we neglect\nthese precautions, we may be in danger of following not conscience but\npassion. There is also a possibility that conscience may embody only\nsuch primitive ideas of duty as have since been found incorrect. This\nhas often been the case with persecutors and monarchists.\n\nGenerosity is still too apt to take an impulsive and reckless form which\nperpetuates pauperism. Spencer has taught us that conscience is worthy\nnot only of obedience, but of education.\n\nSpencer's attempt to substitute a thoughtful for a thoughtless\ngoodness of character has been much aided by his protest against such\nundiscriminating exhortations to self-sacrifice as are constantly heard\nfrom the pulpit. Good people, and especially good women, welcome the\nidea of giving up innocent pleasure and enduring needless pain. The\nglory of martyrdom blinds them to the fact that, as Spencer says in his\n_Psychology_, \"Pains are the correlatives of actions injurious to the\norganism, while pleasures are the correlatives of actions conducive\nto its welfare.\" In other words, \"Pleasures are the incentives to\nlife-supporting acts, and pains the deterrents from life-destroying\nacts.\" Abstinence from pleasure may involve loss of health.\nSelf-sacrifice is scarcely possible without some injury to mind or\nbody; as is the case with people who make it a religious duty to read\nno interesting books and take scarcely any exercise on Sunday. It is\nfurther true that \"The continual acceptance of benefits at the expense\nof a fellow-being is morally injurious\"; as \"The continual giving up of\npleasures and continual submission to pains are physically injurious.\"\nBlind self-sacrifice \"curses giver and receiver--physically deteriorates\nthe one and morally deteriorates the other,\" \"the outcome of the policy\nbeing destruction of the worthy in making worse the unworthy.\" No wonder\nthat men are stronger, and also more selfish, than women. Almost all\nself-sacrifice involves loss of individual liberty. The subjection of\nwomen has been deepened by their readiness to sacrifice themselves to\nthose they love; their fondness for martyrdom often leads them into the\nsin of marrying without love; and generosity of heart facilitates ruin.\nWomen would really be more virtuous if they felt less obligation to\ntheir lovers and more to their race.\n\nIV. Spencer's psychological discoveries were corollaries to that great\nprinciple of evolution of which he made the following announcement as\nearly as 1857 in the _Westminster Review_. After declaring his belief in\n\"that divergence of many races from one race which we inferred must have\ncontinually been occurring during geologic time,\" he stated that \"The\nlaw of all progress is to be found in these varied evolutions of the\nhomogeneous into the heterogeneous,\" or in other words, \"out of the\nsimple into the complex.\" The discoveries of Darwin and Wallace were\nnot announced before 1858, but Spencer avowed in 1852 his belief in \"the\ntheory of evolution\" or \"development hypothesis,\" according to which\n\"complex organic forms may have arisen by successive modifications out\nof simple ones.\" It was without any aid or suggestion from Darwin that\nSpencer's statement of the law of evolution was brought into the final\nform published in 1862. Evolution was then described as change, not\nonly from the simple to the complex, but also from the chaotic to\nthe concentric and consolidated, or, in Spencer's own words, \"from an\nindefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity.\"\nProgress, he says, consists in integration as well as differentiation.\nThere is an increase in permanence and definiteness as well as in\nvariety. Higher forms are not only more complex and unlike than lower\nones, but also more stable and more strongly marked.\n\nSpencer has been represented by some Transcendentalists as Darwin's\npupil; but the whole system just described would, in all probability,\nhave been built up in substantially its present form, if both Darwin and\nWallace had kept their discoveries to themselves. The only difference\nwould have been that Spencer could not have been sustained by such a\ngreat mass of evidence. All these facts were collected by Darwin merely\nto prove the physical development of men and other animals from lower\nforms of life; but Spencer showed that all the phenomena of thought and\nfeeling, as well as of astronomy, geology, and chemistry, are results of\nthe great laws of integration and differentiation. All human history and\nsocial relations can be accounted for in this way. And if this extension\nhad not been given to the principle of evolution, Darwin's discoveries\nmight soon have ceased to have much interest, except for students of\nnatural history. Each of the two great evolutionists helped the other\ngain influence; but their co-operation was almost as unintentional as\nthat of two luminaries which form a double star.\n\nV. Spencer has done much to diminish intolerance, by teaching, as early\nas 1862, that all religions are necessary steps in the upward march of\nevolution.\n\nHe has also attempted to reconcile religion and science, by teaching\nthat the one all-essential belief is in a great unknowable reality,\nwhich is not only inscrutable but inconceivable. In writing about this\nsupreme power, he uses capitals with a constancy which would look like\nan assumption of knowledge, if the same habit were not followed in\nregard to many other words of much less importance. He admits that \"We\ncannot decide between the alternative suppositions, that phenomena are\ndue to the variously conditioned workings of a single force, and\nthat they are due to the conflict of two forces.\" \"Matter cannot be\nconceived,\" he says, \"except as manifesting forces of attraction and\nrepulsion\"; but he also says that these antagonistic and conflicting\nforces \"must not be taken as realities but as our symbols of the\nreality,\" \"the forms under which the workings of the unknowable are\ncognisable.\" This creed is accepted by many American evolutionists.\nIt is the doctrine of one of Spencer's most elaborate and brilliant\ninterpreters, Professor John Fiske, of such popular clergymen as Doctors\nMinot J. Savage and Lyman Abbott, and of many of the members of that\nenergetic organisation, \"The Brooklyn Ethical Association.\" _The Open\nCourt_ of Chicago and other periodicals are working avowedly for \"the\nReligion of Science\"; but that is not to be established without much\ncloser conformity to the old-fashioned creeds and ceremonies than\nhas been made by Spencer. His later works seem more orthodox than his\nearlier ones; but his final decision is that \"The very notions, origin,\ncause, and purpose, are relations belonging to human thought, which are\nprobably irrelevant to the ultimate reality.\" He has also admitted that\nthe proposition, \"Evolution is caused by mind,\" \"cannot be rendered into\nthought.\" And he is right in saying that he has nowhere suggested\nworship.\n\nWhether he has proposed a reconciliation, or only a compromise, whether\nevolutionism will ever be as popular in the pulpit as Transcendentalism,\nand whether there is not more reality in the forces of attraction and\nrepulsion than in Spencer's great unknowable, are problems which I will\nnot discuss. Darwin was an agnostic like Huxley, who held that \"We know\nnothing of what may be beyond phenomena,\" and \"Science commits suicide\nwhen she adopts a creed.\" Huxley pronounced the course of nature\n\"neither moral nor immoral, but non-moral,\" and declared that \"The\nethical progress of society depends not on imitating the cosmic process\nbut on combating it.\" The severity of his criticism of the Gospel\nnarratives called out threats of prosecution for blasphemy. He avowed\n\"entire concurrence\" with Haeckel, who holds that belief in a personal\nGod and an immortal soul are incompatible with the fundamental\nprinciples of evolution. The German scientist argues in his elaborate\nhistory of the development of animals, that life is no manifestation of\ndivine power, working with benevolent purpose, but merely the necessary\nresult of unconscious forces, inherent in the chemical constitution\nand physical properties of matter, and acting mechanically according\nto immutable laws. The position of Haeckel and Huxley is all the more\nsignificant because Frederic Harrison knows of \"no single thinker in\nEurope who has come forward to support this religion of an unknown\ncause.\"\n\nVI. A much more important controversy has been called out by Spencer's\ntheory of the limits of government. As early as 1842 he proposed \"the\nlimitation of state action to the maintenance of equitable relations\namong citizens.\" His _Social Statics_ demanded, in 1850, as a necessary\ncondition of high development, \"the liberty of each, limited only by the\nlike liberty of all.\" His ideal would be a government where \"every man\nhas freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal\nfreedom of any other man.\" These propositions are repeated in the\nrevised edition of 1892, which differs from the earlier one in omitting\na denial of the right of private property in land, and also a demand for\nfemale suffrage. How far Spencer had changed his views may be seen in\nhis volume on _Justice_. Both editions of _Social Statics_ deny the\nright of governments to support churches, public schools, boards of\nhealth, poorhouses, lighthouses, or mints. Spencer would have titles\nto land guaranteed by the State, and property-holders protected against\nunjust lawsuits; but otherwise the government ought to confine itself,\nhe thinks, to managing the army, navy, and police.\n\nThis position is defended by an appeal to the fact that the citizen is\nmost energetic and intelligent where he is most free to act for himself.\nNo American is as helpless before pestilence or famine as a Russian\npeasant, or as afraid to go to a burning house until summoned by the\npolice. A despotism may begin with a strong army; but it ends, like the\nRoman Empire, in the weakness which it has brought on by crushing the\nspirit of its soldiers. Strong governments make weak men. Never was\nthere a mightier army than was given by the French Republic to Napoleon.\nIndustrial prosperity depends even more closely than military glory\non the energy of men who have been at liberty to think and act freely.\nPeople develop most vigorously where they are least meddled with. The\naverage man knows much more than his rulers do about his own private\nbusiness; and he is active to promote it in ways which secure the\ngeneral welfare.\n\nGreat stress is laid not only in _Social Statics_ but in Spencer's book\non _The Man versus the State_, and in several essays, on the many times\nthat the British Government has increased an evil by trying to cure it.\nWhat is said about its extravagance will not surprise any American who\nremembers what vast sums are squandered by Congress. The post-office is\noften spoken of as proof that our Government could run our railroads;\nbut one of Boston's best postmasters said, \"No private business could be\nmanaged like this without going into bankruptcy.\" The British Government\nhas a monopoly of the telegraph; and introduction of the telephone was\nvery difficult in consequence. In Victoria, the Postmaster-General\nhas abused his privileges so much as to appoint a \"sporting agent\"\nto telegraph the results of a horse-race; and this same highly\nprotectionist colony has had laws forbidding any shop to be open after\n7 P.M., except on Saturday, and any woman to work more than forty-eight\nhours a week in any factory. How governments interfered in former\ncenturies with people's right to feed, clothe, employ, and amuse\nthemselves, seems almost inconceivable at present.\n\nPersecution was one among many forms of mischievous meddling. Locke, in\narguing for toleration in 1689, was obliged to take the ground that \"The\nwhole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only\" to securing unto all\nthe people \"life, liberty, health,\" and also \"outward things such as\nmoney, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.\" \"Government,\" he said,\n\"hath no end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right\nto destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subject.\"\nClearer language was used by those French patriots who declared in the\nConstitution of 1791 that liberty consists in ability to do everything\nwhich brings no harm to others; and, two years afterwards, that the\nliberty of each citizen should extend to where that of some other\ncitizen begins. Nearly fifty years later, a theory very like Spencer's\nwas published by Wilhelm von Humboldt, brother of the great naturalist.\nAmong the many writers who have held that government ought not to be\nmerely limited but repudiated totally was Thoreau. It was in 1854 that\nthis zealous abolitionist publicly renounced his allegiance to a great\nanti-slavery commonwealth, and that he asserted, in _Walden_, the\nnecessity of preserving individual liberty by conforming as little as\npossible to any social usages, even that of working regularly in order\nto support one's self and family in comfort. That same year, Spencer\nshowed in his essay on _Manners and Fashion_ the difference between a\nregulation by which public opinion tries to prevent rude people from\nmaking themselves unnecessarily disagreeable to their neighbours, and\none which encourages dissipation by arbitrarily check-ing innocent\namusement. Even in the latter case, however, there is, as he says, but\nlittle gain from any solitary nonconformity. Reform must be carried on\nin co-operation.\n\nThat powerful assailant of Transcendentalism, John Stuart Mill, was\nnot an evolutionist; but it was largely due to his liberal aid that the\nsystem of differentiation and integration was published. This generosity\nwas consistent with his own position, that all opinions ought to have\na hearing, and especially those which are novel and unpopular, for\nthey are peculiarly likely to contain some exposure of ancient error or\nrevelation of new truth. This fact was set forth with such ability in\nhis book, _On Liberty_, in 1859, that several long passages were\nquoted in the public protest, delivered in Ohio five years later by\nVallandigham, against the war then carried on for bringing back the\nseceded States. Mill holds that neither government nor public opinion\nought to interfere with any individual, except \"to prevent doing harm\nto others.\" He says, for instance, that there would be no tyranny in\nforcing parents to let their children have education enough to become\nsafe members of society. Such a law could scarcely be justified by the\nprinciple of giving all the liberty to each compatible with the like\nliberty of all. Among the restrictions which Mill mentions as oppressive\nare those in England and America against selling liquor, gambling, and\nSunday amusements. He admits the difficulty of deciding \"how far liberty\nmay be legitimately invaded for the prevention of crime.\"\n\nVII. It was in full conformity with the principles of Mill, Spencer, and\nLocke that the Constitution of Louisiana, as revised in 1879, declared\nthat the only legitimate object of government \"is to protect the citizen\nin the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. When it assumes other\nfunctions, it is usurpation and oppression.\" Similar sentiments have\nbeen occasionally expressed in political platforms. Such narrow limits\nhave not, so far as I know, ever been observed in the United States or\nin any other civilised land. Few people love liberty so much as not to\nbe willing that the state should give them security against\nconflagration and contagious disease. There is also a general demand for\nsuch safety as is given by roads, streets, bridges, lighthouses, and\nlife-saving stations. The necessity of hospitals, asylums, and\npoorhouses is manifest. If all this expense had to be met by\npublic-spirited individuals, it is probable that their wealth would prove\ninsufficient. It is further necessary for the public safety that there\nshould be compulsory vaccination during epidemics of smallpox,\nconfinement of dangerous lunatics and tramps, rescue of children from\nvicious parents, and maintenance of what ought not to be called\ncompulsory but guaranteed education. Marriage has to be made binding for\nthe protection of mothers as well as children. The thirst for drink\nneeds at least as much restraint as is kept up in Scandinavia. And the\ntendency of bad money to drive out good is strong enough to justify laws\nagainst circulation of depreciated currency.\n\nPublic schools are particularly important in America, where presidential\nand congressional elections are apt to turn on financial issues which\ncan scarcely be understood by men not thoroughly educated. Spencer's\nobjections apply more closely to the European system, that of\ncentralisation of management, than to the American. It is well to know\nalso that he was misled by a hasty reference, perhaps by some assistant,\nto an English statistician named Fletcher. This high authority\ndid admit, in 1849, that he found \"a superficial evidence against\ninstruction.\" He went on, however, to say much which is not mentioned in\n_Social Statics_, and which proved the evidence to be only superficial.\nBy classifying crimes according to enormity, he showed that the worst\nwere most frequent in the least educated districts. He also discovered\nthat those counties in England where ability to sign the marriage\nregister was most common were most free from paupers, dangerous\ncriminals, and illegitimate children. \"The conclusion is therefore\nirresistible,\" says Fletcher, \"that education is essential to the\nsecurity of modern society.\" Most of the other testimony brought forward\nin _Social Statics_ is invalidated by Fletcher's method; and Spencer\nadded nothing in the second edition to the insufficient statements in\nthe first.\n\nBritish education has improved greatly in both quality and quantity\nsince 1876; but the prisons of England and Wales had only two-thirds as\nmany inmates in 1890 as in 1878, and only one-half as large a part of\nthe population. The most dangerous prisoners were only one-third as\nnumerous in 1890 and 1891 as forty-five years earlier; and the\npercentage of forgers only one-tenth as great as in 1857. We ought\nfurther to remember the almost complete unanimity of opinion in favour\nof free education wherever it is universal.\n\nPublic schools in America are all the more useful because they are\nsuperintended by town and city officials, elected in great part by\nmen who know them personally. This is also the case with the boards of\nhealth, and the managers of poorhouses, cemeteries, public libraries,\nand parks. Among other subjects of local self-government are the\nroads, bridges, streets, and sewers. Our large cities are notoriously\nmisgoverned, but it will be easier to raise the character of the\nofficials than to contract their powers. Much is to be hoped from civil\nservice reform, proportional representation, and nonpartisan elections.\nTown affairs are usually so carefully looked after by people not in\noffice as to be managed for the public welfare. Both in towns and cities\nthe tendency is to enlarge rather than contract the functions of the\ngovernment. A proposal that any city should let tenements or sell coal\nmore cheaply than is done by individuals, would seem to be for the\nadvantage of everybody except a few payers of heavy taxes. The majority\nof voters would care little about increase of taxation, in comparison\nwith the prospect of more demand for labour and greater activity in\nbusiness. It is easy to make extravagance popular where the majority\nrules. Our State constitutions would probably make it impossible for\ncoal to be sold or tenements let by cities and towns; but these latter\noften carry on gas-works, water-works, electric roads, and other highly\nbeneficial industries. This may be necessary to check the rapacity of\ncorporations; but otherwise there is too much danger of extravagance,\ndiscouragement of individual enterprise, and delay in improving the\nprocesses monopolised by the municipality. Some evils would be lessened\nby a transfer of the control of lighthouses and life-saving stations\nfrom the national Government to that of the nearest cities, or else of\nsingle States.\n\nOur people are much better able to judge of the success of State than\nof Federal legislation and management. Of course the chief duties of the\nState are to pass laws for the protection of life and property\nagainst crime, and to manage such indispensable penal, charitable, and\neducational institutions as are not provided by the municipalities. It\nis still necessary for the States of our Union to keep up the militia;\nbut perhaps the best thing that could be done for the public safety\nwould be to have tramps kept from crime, and assisted to employment by\na State police. Ownership of real estate would be more secure, and sale\neasier, if titles were guaranteed by the State; and it would also do\nwell, as Spencer suggests, to help people of moderate means resist\nlawsuits brought to extort money. It seems, at all events, well that our\nStates keep up their boards of health, and their supervision of banks,\nrailroads, steamboats, and factories. There are a great many unnecessary\nlaws, as, for instance, was one in Massachusetts for selling coal below\nmarket price. This was fortunately decided to be unconstitutional; but\nwhether this commonwealth ought to continue to supply free\ntext-books, especially in high schools, seems to me questionable. Many\nindividualists object to laws against gambling, selling liquor, and\nother conduct which does no direct injury except to those who take part\nvoluntarily. There are vicious tendencies enough in human nature, I\nthink, to justify attempts to keep temptation out of sight.\n\nNo advantage of this kind can be claimed for the Sunday laws in our\nEastern and Southern States. It is certainly desirable to have one day\na week of rest from labour and business; but it is equally true that a\nman's ploughing his field or weeding his garden does not infringe on\nthe liberty of his neighbours, diminish their security of person and\nproperty, or encourage their vicious propensities, even on Sunday. It\nis setting a bad example to break any law; but I do not think that\nany citizen of Massachusetts was seriously corrupted by resisting the\nFugitive Slave Act; and I doubt if any Vermonter was morally the worse\nfor breaking the law in that State against Sunday \"visits from house\nto house, except from motives of humanity or charity, or for moral\nand religious edification.\" It is better to have the laws obeyed\nintelligently than blindly; and those really worthy of respect would\nhave more authority if every prohibition which is never enforced, except\nout of malice, were repealed. Much aid is given to morality by such\nreligious observances as are voluntary and conscientious; but compulsory\nobservance breeds both slaves and rebels.\n\nHow far our Sunday laws are meant to encourage the peculiar usages\nof the popular sects is seen in the fact that, since 1877, about 150\nprofessed Christians, who had kept the Sabbath on the day set apart in\nthe Bible, were arrested on the charge of having profaned Sunday by such\nactions as ploughing a retired field, weeding a garden, cutting wood\nneeded for immediate use, or making a dress. They refused to pay\nany fine; most of them were imprisoned accordingly; in one case the\nconfinement lasted 129 days; two deaths were hastened by incarceration;\nand in the summer of 1895 eight of these \"Saturdarians,\" as they were\nnicknamed, were working in a chain-gang on the roads in Tennessee. One\nof the eight was a clergyman. Among the commonwealths which prosecuted\nobservers of the original Sabbath as Sabbath-breakers were Georgia,\nMaryland, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and\nseven other States. Such prosecutions were too much like persecutions;\nfor people who kept neither Saturday nor Sunday were not so much\nmolested. If the Sunday laws were really meant for the public welfare,\nevery citizen would be allowed to choose his own Sabbath, and no one\nwho kept Saturday sacred would be required to rest on Sunday also. Such\nliberal legislation has actually been passed by Rhode Island and many\nother States.\n\nHow strict the law is against doing business on Sunday may be judged\nfrom the fact that in 1896 a decrepit old woman was sent to jail in\nNew York City for selling a couple of bananas, and a boy of fifteen was\narrested for selling five cents' worth of coal in January. Three men\nwere fined for selling umbrellas in the street on a rainy Sunday in\n1895, and others were arrested for selling five cents' worth of ice.\nPeople who have no refrigerators suffer under the difficulty of buying\nice, fruit, and meat on a hot Sunday in our Eastern cities.\n\nSunday laws and customs differ so widely in our various States, that\nthey cannot all be wise and just. Rest from labour and business is\nsecured in Southern California, without State legislation, by the\naction of public opinion; and were this to become too weak, it would\nbe reinforced by the trades-unions. Personal liberty is not necessarily\nviolated by laws prohibiting disturbance of public worship; but it would\nbe if anyone were compelled to testify in court, or sit on the jury, or\ndo any other business elsewhere, on any day set apart for rest by his\nconscience and religion. There seems to be little necessity for other\nlegislation, except under peculiar local circumstances to which town\nand city magistrates are better able than members of State and national\nlegislatures to do justice. The question, what places of business that\nhave no vicious tendencies ought to be allowed to open on Sunday, might\nsettle itself, as does the question how early they are to close on other\ndays of the week. There needs no law to prevent business being done at\nnight. Stores which could offer nothing that many people need to buy\non Sunday, would have so few customers that the proprietors could ill\nafford to open their doors. Where the demand is as great and innocent\nas it is for fresh meat and fruit in hot weather, the interest of the\nproprietor is no more plain than is the duty of the legislator and\nmagistrate. People employed in hotels, stables, telegraph offices,\nlibraries, museums, and parks, can, of course, protect themselves from\noverwork, as domestic servants do, by stipulating for holidays and\nhalf-holidays.\n\nWhatever may be the gain to public health from cessation of labour and\nbusiness on Sunday, there is no such advantage, but rather injury,\nfrom the prohibition of healthy recreations and amusements, which are\nacknowledged to be perfectly innocent on at least six days of the week.\nSunday is by no means so strictly observed, especially in this respect,\non the continent of Europe as in the United States. Sabbatarianism is\npeculiarly an American and British institution; and this fact justifies\nthe position that it is by no means a necessary condition of the\nsecurity, or even the welfare, of civilised nations. If our Sunday\nlaws cannot be proved to be necessary, they must be admitted to be\noppressive. Over-taxation is but a slight grievance compared with the\ntyranny of sending men and women to jail for inability or unwillingness\nto pay the fines imposed in 1895 by the State of Tennessee for working\non their farms, or in Massachusetts soon after for playing cards in\ntheir own rooms. Further consideration of the question, what amusements\nshould be permitted on Sunday, will be found in an appendix.\n\nSuch problems are peculiarly unfit for treatment by our central\nGovernment. Its chief duty, of course, is protection of our people\nagainst invasion and rebellion; and the authority of the President and\nCongress ought not to be weakened by vain attempts to settle disputes\nwhich would be dealt with much more satisfactorily by the cities and\ntowns. A Sunday law too lax for Pennsylvania might be too strict for\nCalifornia. The system of post-offices is too well adapted for the\ngeneral welfare to be given up hastily; but the Government ought to\nsurrender the monopoly which now makes it almost impossible for citizens\nto free themselves from dependence on disobliging or incompetent\npostmasters. I have nothing to say against the Census, Education,\nHealth, and Patent Bureaus, nor against the Smithsonian Museum, except\nthat our citizens have a right to use their own property as freely on\nSunday as on any other day of the week. I do not see why our Government\nshould have more than that of other nations to do with the issue of\npaper money; but I leave the bank question to abler pens.\n\nThe tariff is a much plainer issue. We are told in _Social Statics_ that\n\"A government trenches upon men's liberties of action\" in obstructing\ncommercial intercourse; \"and by so doing directly reverses its function.\nTo secure for each man the fullest freedom to exercise his faculties,\ncompatible with the like freedom of all others, we find to be the\nstate's duty. Now trade-prohibitions and trade-restrictions not only\ndo not secure this freedom, but they take it away, so that in enforcing\nthem the state is transformed from a maintainer of rights into a\nviolator of rights.\" The obstacles to importation deliberately set up by\nAmerican tariffs, indirectly check exportation; for unwillingness to\nbuy from any other nation diminishes not only its willingness but its\nability to buy our products in return. The United States are actually\nexporting large amounts of cattle, wheat, and cotton, as well as\nof boots and shoes, agricultural implements, steel rails, hardware,\nwatches, and cotton cloth. These commodities are produced by Americans\nwho can defy foreign competition. In some cases the tariff enables them\nto raise their prices at home, to the loss of their fellow-citizens.\nPrices abroad cannot be raised by our Government. What it can and does\ndo is to burden both farms and factories by duties on lumber, glass,\ncoal, wool, woollen goods, and many other imports. The rates are\narranged with a view to increase, not individual liberty or public\nsecurity, but the profits of managers of enterprises which would not pay\nwithout such help. Men who are carrying on profitable industries have to\nmake up part of what is lost in unprofitable ones. In fact, the cost\nof living is increased needlessly for all our citizens, except the\nprivileged few.\n\nThere would be less injustice in aiding new enterprises by bounties; but\nthe proper authorities to decide how much money should be voted for such\npurposes are the cities and towns. Some of the makers of our national\nConstitution wished to make tariff legislation in Congress impossible\nexcept by a majority of two-thirds; and this might properly be required\nfor all measures not planned in behalf of individual liberty or the\npublic safety. Much of the business now done by the nation ought to be\ntransferred to the States. They took the lead between 1830 and 1870 in\nimproving rivers and harbours, building railroads, and digging canals.\nThe result of transferring such work to Congress was that in 1890 it\nvoted $25,000,000 to carry on 435 undertakings, more than one-fourth of\nwhich had been judged unnecessary by engineers. Two years later, four\ntimes as many new jobs were voted as had been recommended by the House\ncommittee. Among these plans was one, in regard to the Hudson River,\nwhich was the proper business of the State of New York. The extravagance\nof our pension system is notorious. If the restriction proposed by\nSpencer is applicable anywhere, it is to central rather than local\ngovernments.\n\nVIII. Great as are the evils of unnecessary laws, Spencer's remedy\nis too sweeping to be universally supported by evolutionists. Huxley\nprotests against it as \"administrative Nihilism,\" and declares that if\nhis next-door neighbour is allowed to bring up children \"untaught and\nuntrained to earn their living, he is doing his best to restrict my\nfreedom, by increasing the burden of taxation for the support of gaols\nand workhouses which I have to pay.\" His conclusion is that \"No limit is\nor can be theoretically set to state interference.\" The impossibility\nof drawing \"a hard and fast line\" is admitted even by so extreme an\nindividualist as Wordsworth Donisthorpe, who complains that \"Crimes go\nunpunished in England,\" while the \"Great National Pickpocket\" is busy\n\"reading through all the comedies and burlesques brought out in the\ntheatres,\" \"running after little boys who dare to play pitch-farthing,\"\nor \"going on sledging expeditions to the North Pole.\"\n\nLecky agrees so far with Spencer and Mill as to say, in _Democracy and\nLiberty_, that punishment should \"be confined, as a general rule, to\nacts which are directly injurious to others,\" and accordingly that\n\"With Sunday amusements in private life, the legislator should have\nno concern.\" As a check to over-legislation, he recommends biennial\nsessions, instead of annual; and he protests against the despotism of\ntrades-unions. His strongest point against Spencer is that sanitary\nlegislation has added several years to the average length of life in\nEngland and Wales, prevented more than eighty thousand deaths there in a\nsingle year, and actually reduced the death-rate of the army in India by\nmore than four-fifths.\n\nIX. Spencer has succeeded in increasing the number of individualists so\nmuch, that Donisthorpe says they can be counted by the thousand, though\nthere were scarcely enough in 1875 in England to fill an omnibus.\nTranscendentalism had made individualism comparatively common long\nbefore in America. The principle of not interfering with other people,\nexcept to prevent their wronging us, is fully applicable, as Spencer\nsays, to the relation of husband with wife, and also to that of parent\nand teacher with child. It could also be followed with great advantage\nin the case of domestic servants. There can be no doubt of the\ncorrectness of the position, taken in the _Principles of Sociology_,\nthat delight in war has a tendency to stifle love of liberty. Sparta,\nRussia, and the new German Empire show that where the ideal of a nation\nis military glory, \"The individual is owned by the State.\" The citizens\nare so graded, that \"All are masters of those below and subjects of\nthose above.\" The workers must live for the benefit of the fighters,\nand both be controlled closely by the government. Armies flourish on the\ndecay of individual rights. How difficult it was to avoid this, during\nsome bloody years, even in America, has been shown in Chapter IV. A\nnation of shopkeepers is better fitted than a nation of soldiers to\ndevelop free institutions.\n\nOne of Spencer's objections to Socialism is that it would \"end in\nmilitary despotism.\" Nothing else could replace competition so far as\nto keep a nation industrious. Spencer is right in saying, \"Benefit and\nworth must vary together,\" which means that wages and salaries should\ncorrespond to value of work. Otherwise, \"The society decays from\nincrease of its least worthy members and decrease of its most worthy\nmembers.\"\n\nThese facts are so generally known already, that there is less danger\nthan is thought by Spencer, of either the national establishment of\nSocialism or of a ruinous extension of governmental interference.\nThe average American is altogether too willing to have his wealthy\nneighbours taxed for his own benefit; but he knows that he can make\nhimself and his family more comfortable by his own exertions than his\npoor neighbours are; and he is not going to let any government forbid\nhis doing so. He does not object to public libraries, and perhaps\nwould not to free theatres; but he would vote down any plan which would\nprevent his using his money and time to his own greatest advantage. He\nis sometimes misled by plausible excuses for wasting public money,\nand arresting innocent people; but he insists on at least some better\npretext than was made for the old-fashioned meddling with food,\nclothing, business, and religion. He may not call himself an\nindividualist; but he will never practise Socialism.\n\nThis sort of man is already predominant in Great Britain, as well as in\nAmerica; and multiplication of the type elsewhere is fostered by mighty\ntendencies. The duty of treating every form of religion according to\nethical and not theological standards is rapidly becoming the practice\nof all civilised governments; and persecution is peculiar to Turkey\nand Russia. These two despotisms form, with Germany, the principal\nexceptions to the rule that political liberty is on the increase\nthroughout Europe, especially in the form of local self-government. The\nnineteenth century has made even the poorest people more secure than\never before from oppression and lawless violence, as well as from\npestilence and famine. Destitution is relieved more amply and wisely,\nwhile industry and intelligence are encouraged by opportunity to enjoy\ncomforts and luxuries once almost or altogether out of the reach of\nmonarchs. The fetters formerly laid on trade of cities with their own\nsuburbs have been broken; and the examples of Great Britain and New\nSouth Wales are proving that nations profit more by helping than\nhindering one another in the broad paths of commerce. Industrial\nefficiency has certainly been much promoted by the tendency, not only of\nscientific education but of manual training, to substitute knowledge of\nrealities for quarrels about abstractions. All these changes favour the\nextension of free institutions and also of individual liberty, wherever\npeace can be maintained. Industrial nations gain more than warlike ones\nby encouraging intellectual independence; but the general advantage is\ngreat enough to ensure the final triumph of liberty.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX: SUNDAY RECREATION\n\nTHIS is much more common in New England and Great Britain than it was in\nthe eighteenth century. The dinner has become the best, instead of the\nworst in the week. Scarcely anyone rises early; and nobody is shocked\nat reading novels. There is an enormous circulation in both English and\nAmerican cities of Sunday papers whose aim is simply amusement. There\nis plenty of lively music in the parlours, as well as of merry talk in\nwhich clergymen are ready to lead. People who have comfortable homes can\neasily make Sunday the pleasant-est day of the week.\n\nFor people who cannot get much recreation at home, there are increasing\nopportunities to go to concerts, picture-galleries, and museums. Among\nthe reading-rooms thrown open on Sunday in America about 1870 was that\nof the Boston Public Library; and no difference is now made in this\ngreat institution among the seven days, except that more children's\nbooks and magazines are accessible on Sunday. What important museums are\nnow open in London, Boston, and New York have been already mentioned\nin Chapter VI. These opportunities are still limited; but there is no\nobstacle, except that of bad weather, to excursions on foot or bicycle,\nbehind horse or locomotive, in electric car or steamboat, to beaches,\nponds, and other places of amusement. The public parks are crowded all\nday long in summer; and people who go to church in the morning have no\nscruple about walking or riding for pleasure in the afternoon. These\npractices were expressly sanctioned by Massachusetts in 1887, and by New\nJersey in 1893; and the old law against Sunday visiting has been\nrepealed since 1880 in Vermont.\n\nThe newer States have taken care not to pass such absurd statutes. I\nbelieve that the majority of our people were willing, as for instance\nwas that prominent Episcopalian, Bishop Potter, to have the Chicago\nExposition open on Sundays. Theatres and baseball grounds attract crowds\nof visitors in our cities, especially those west of the Alleghanies.\nWhatever changes are made in the East will probably be in the\ndirection of greater liberty. The only question is how fast the present\nopportunities of recreation ought to be increased.\n\nNo one would now agree with Dr. Chalmers in calling the Sabbath \"an\nexpedient for pacifying the jealousies of a God of vengeance.\" Good\npeople have ceased to think, as the Puritans did, that \"Pleasures are\nmost carefully to be avoided\" on every day of the week, or that \"Amity\nto ourselves is enmity against God.\" Preachers no longer recommend\n\"abstaining not only from unlawful pleasures, but also from lawful\ndelights.\" Popular clergymen now say with Dr. Bellows: \"Amusement is not\nonly a privilege but a duty, indispensable to health of body and mind,\nand essential even to the best development of religion itself.\" \"I put\namusement among the necessaries and not the luxuries of life.\" \"It is\nas good a friend to the church as to the theatre, to sound morals and\nunsuperstitious piety as to health and happiness,... an interest of\nsociety which the religious class instead of regarding with hostility\nand jealousy, ought to encourage and direct.\" \"There is hardly a more\nbaleful error in the world than that which has produced the feud between\nmorality and amusement, piety and pleasure.\"\n\nThe fact is that pleasure means health. As I have said in a newspaper\nentitled _The Index_: \"It is a violation of the laws of health for\nanyone, not absolutely bed-ridden or crushed by fatigue, to spend\nthirty-six hours without some active exercise in the open air. Trying\nto take enough on Saturday to last until Monday, is dangerous, and most\npeople have little chance for healthy exercise except on Sunday. The\npoor, ignorant girl who has had no fresh air for six days ought to be\nencouraged to take it freely on the seventh. And we all need our daily\nexercise just as much as our regular food and sleep. The two thousand\ndelegates who asked, in behalf of ninety thousand working men, in 1853,\nto have the Crystal Palace open on Sundays, were right in declaring\nthat 'Physical recreation is as necessary to the working man as food and\ndrink on the Sabbath.' The fact is that pleasure is naturally healthy\neven when not involving active exercise. Dark thoughts breed disease\nlike dark rooms. The man who never laughs has something wrong about\nhis digestion or his conscience. Herbert Spencer has proved that our\npleasant actions are beneficial, while painful ones are injurious both\nto ourselves and to our race.  (_Principles of Psychology_, vol. i., pp.\n278-286; Am. Ed.). Thus Sunday amusements are needed for the general\nhealth.\n\n\"They are also necessary for the preservation of morality. This consists\nin performing the actions which benefit ourselves and our neighbours, in\nother words, pleasant ones, and abstaining from whatever is painful and\ninjurious. It is only in exceptional cases that we can make others\nhappy by suffering pain ourselves. Now and then the paths of virtue and\npleasure diverge; but they always come together again. As a rule, they\ntraverse precisely the same ground and in exactly the same direction.\nThis is very fortunate; for if pleasure were always vicious, virtue\nwould be hateful and impossible. The most blessed of all peacemakers is\nhe who keeps virtue and pleasure from falling out. There is no\nbetter text than that which the little girl said she had learned at\nSunday-school: 'Chain up a child and away she will go!' Even so strict a\nman as Dr. Johnson said: 'I am a great friend to public amusements, for\nthey keep people from vice.' Is there no need of them on the day when\nthere is more drinking, gambling, and other gross vice than on any\nother? Need I say what day keeps our policemen and criminal courts most\nbusy, or crowds our hospitals with sufferers from riotous brawls?\nHas not the experience of two hundred and fifty years justified those\nEnglish statesmen who showed themselves much wiser than their Puritan\ncontemporaries in recommending archery, dancing, and other diversions\non Sunday, because forbidding them 'sets up filthy tippling and\ndrunkenness?' To keep a man who does not care to go to church from\ngetting any amusement, is to push him towards the saloon. And not only\nthe laws against liquor selling, but others even more necessary for\nour safety, would be much better enforced if we did not encourage\nlawlessness by keeping up statutes which our best men and women violate\nwithout scruple and with impunity, or which actually prevent good people\nfrom taking such recreation as they know they ought to have. Outgrown\nordinances should not be suffered to drag just and necessary laws down\ninto contempt. \"Nobody wants to revive those old laws of Massachusetts\nBay which forbade people to wear lace, or buy foreign fruit, or charge\nmore than a fixed price for a day's work. No more Quakers will ever\nswing from a Boston gallows merely for preaching. But our laws against\nSunday amusements are in the same spirit as that which hung Mary Dyer.\nIn old times, government kept continually telling people what to do, and\ntook especial pains to make them go to church on Sunday. If they stayed\naway, they were fined; if they did not become members, they were not\nallowed to vote; if they got up rival services, they were hung; if they\ntook any amusement on Sunday, they were whipped. All four classes of\nlaws for the same unjust end have passed away, except that against\nSunday recreation. This still survives in a modified form. But even in\nthis shape it is utterly irreconcilable with the fundamental principles\nof our government. All American legislation, from the Declaration of\nIndependence, rests on the great truth that our government is founded in\norder to secure us in our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the\npursuit of happiness. Our State is a limited partnership for mutual\nprotection. We carry it on in order to make our freedom more complete;\nand we tolerate no restrictions on ourselves except such as are\nnecessary conditions of the greatest possible liberty. These principles\nare already fully acknowledged on six days of the week, but only partly\non the seventh. Still, there is a growing recognition of the likeness\nbetween laws against Sunday amusements and such prohibitions of eating\nmeat in Lent as once caused people to be burned alive.\"\n\nA weekly day of rest is a blessing; but David Swing is right in saying\nthat \"Absolute rest, perfectly satisfactory to horse and dog, is not\nadequate to the high nature of man.\" Complete torpor of mind and body is\nmore characteristic of a Hindoo fakir than of a Christian saint. Should\nthose who wish to rest as much as possible on Sunday sleep in church?\nThere is nothing irreligious in fresh air. The tendency of outdoor\nexercise to purify and elevate our thoughts is so strong that Kingsley\nactually defended playing cricket on Sunday as \"a carrying out of the\ndivineness of the Sabbath.\" If there is no hostility between religion\nand amusement on six days of the week, there cannot be much on the\nseventh.\n\nNo Protestants are more religious than the Swedes and Norwegians.\nEverybody goes to church; there is theological teaching in the\npublic-schools; and advocacy of liberal religious views was punished in\n1888 with imprisonment. No Scandinavian objects, so far as I know, to\nindoor games, croquet, dancing, or going to the theatre on Sunday; and\nthese amusements are acknowledged to be perfectly proper throughout\ncontinental Europe. No one who allows himself any exercise or recreation\non Sunday has a right to say that his neighbours do not need more than\nhe does. Lyman Beecher could not preach his best on any day when he did\nnot work hard at sawing wood or shovelling sand in his cellar. There\nwould be less dyspepsia on Monday if there were more exercise on Sunday.\nHerbert Spencer tells us that \"Happiness is the most powerful of\ntonics. By accelerating the circulation of the blood, it facilitates\nthe performance of every function; and so tends alike to increase health\nwhere it exists, and to restore it when it has been lost. Hence the\nessential superiority of play to gymnastics.\"\n\nA Bible Dancing Class is said to have been organised, in deference to\nsuch facts, in New Jersey by an Episcopalian pastor, who perhaps wishes\nto accomplish Jeremiah's prediction of the Messianic kingdom, \"Then\nshall the virgin rejoice in the dance.\" Among other liberal clergymen is\nBrooke Herford, who says: \"We want Sunday to be the happiest day in all\nthe week. Keep it free from labour, but free for all quiet, innocent\nrecreations.\" Rev. Charles Voysey wrote me in 1887, lamenting the\nimmorality arising \"from the curse of having nothing to do or nowhere to\ngo on Sunday afternoons and evenings.\" \"Young persons especially,\" he\nsaid, \"would be better, and morally more safe, for greater opportunities\nof innocent pleasure and games at the hours of enforced idleness on the\nSunday.\"\n\nThe spirit of the legislators is changing like that of the clergy. The\nfirst laws against Sunday amusement were passed by men who thought all\npleasure vicious on every day of the week. Our present statutes are kept\nin force by people who like amusement, and get all they want of it; but\nwho make it almost impossible for their poor neighbours, in order\nto conciliate ecclesiastical prejudice. \"They bind heavy burdens\nand grievous to be borne and lay them on men's shoulders\"; but they\nthemselves do not feel the weight.\n\nWhatever may be the advantage of keeping Sunday, it cannot be kept\nreligiously when it is kept compulsorily. Rest from unnecessary labour\nand business on one day every week may be for the public welfare; but\nthis rest is not made more secure by indiscriminate prohibitions of\namusement. The idlest man is the most easily tempted to disturb his\nneighbours. No man's property is more safe or his personal liberty more\nsecure because his neighbours are liable to be fined for playing golf.\nLaws against Sunday recreation do not protect but violate individual\nliberty. A free government has no business to interfere with the right\nof the citizens to take healthy exercise and innocent amusement whenever\nthey choose.\n\nThese considerations would justify a protest, not only against the\nSunday laws made by Congress for the District of Columbia, but also\nagainst the statutes of every State in the Union, except Arizona,\nCalifornia, Idaho, Louisiana, and Wyoming. \"Whoever is present at any\nsport, game, play, or public diversion, except a concert of sacred\nmusic, or an entertainment given by a religious or charitable society,\nthe proceeds of which, if any, are to be devoted exclusively to a\nreligious or charitable purpose,\" on what is called \"the Lord's day\"\nin Massachusetts is liable to a fine of five dollars; the penalty for\ntaking part may be fifty dollars; and the proprietor or manager may be\nfined as much as five hundred dollars. New Jersey still keeps her\nold law against \"singing, fiddling, or other music for the sake of\nmerriment\"; and express prohibitions of \"any sport\" are still maintained\nby Connecticut, Maine, and Rhode Island. Prominent among other States\nwhich forbid amusements acknowledged innocent on six days of the week,\nare New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Many of\nour States show particular hostility to card-playing, dancing, and\ntheatre-going. The fact that fishing was practised by some of the\nApostles on Sunday has not saved this quiet recreation from being\nprohibited by more than twenty commonwealths.\n\nIf every Sunday law were a dead letter, it ought to be repealed, because\nit tends to bring needed laws into contempt; but among recent results of\nSunday legislation are the following. In 1876 some children were fined\nfor playing ball in Rhode Island; so, about this time, in Massachusetts,\nwere a boy for skating, a young man for playing lawn-tennis, and a\nmerchant for fishing with his little son. In 1894 two men were fined\n$10 each for playing golf on a lonely hill, in the commonwealth just\nmentioned; five boys under fifteen arrested for playing marbles in New\nYork City; and every member of a baseball club in Pennsylvania fined. In\n1895 a man and a boy of fifteen were fined $20 each for fishing in New\nYork; and the attempt of some clergymen, aided by police, to break up\na show in Missouri, caused a tumult in which men's heads were broken by\nclubs, while women and children were trampled underfoot. On the first\nSunday that the London galleries and museums were thrown open to their\nowners, May 24, 1896, two men were shot dead in Attleboro, Mass., by a\npoliceman who had been ordered to break up a clambake. In that same year\nand State, a manager was fined $70 for allowing _Yankee Doodle_ to be\nperformed in the Boston Theatre; three men were arrested for bowling;\nhalf a dozen Jews who had been playing cards in a private house were\nfined $10 or $20 each, and those who could not pay were sent to jail.\nAmong the Sabbath-breakers arrested in 1897 were a number of newsboys\nat the national capital, nine golfers in Massachusetts, a young man for\nholding one end of a rope over which some little girls were skipping in\nNew York City, and also the manager of a show in New Jersey, who\nspent ten days in jail. Fines were levied in 1898 for playing golf in\nConnecticut, and twenty-five fishermen were arrested on one Sunday in\nBuffalo, N. Y. Such are the risks which still accompany innocent and\nhealthy amusements in the Eastern States. Many such arrests are made in\norder to collect fees, or gratify malice; and neither motive ought to be\nencouraged by the friends of religion.\n\nSome magistrates in Long Island, N. Y., are believed, while still\nholding that baseball breaks the Sabbath, to have discovered that golf\ndoes not. It is further said that on July 9, 1899, some baseball men who\nhad been playing a Sunday game to a large crowd saved themselves from\narrest by using their bats and balls to imitate golfing as soon as a\npoliceman appeared in their grounds.\n\nNone of the Sunday laws is so mischievous as the decree of Mrs. Grundy\nagainst all forms of recreation not practised by the wealthy and\nfashionable. These people have so much time on six days of the week for\nactive outdoor sport and indoor public entertainments, that they make\nlittle attempt to indulge in such recreations on Sunday. People who\nhave only this one chance of playing ball, or dancing, or going to\nstereopticon lectures, concerts, and operas, suffer in health by having\nthese recreations made unpopular as well as illegal. The climate of\nNew England and New York, as well as of Great Britain and Canada, has\nunfortunately been so arranged that there are a great many cold and\nrainy Sundays, when much time cannot be spent pleasantly in walking or\nriding. This matters little to people who get all the amusement they\nwant in their parlours. But what becomes of people who have no parlours?\nFor instance, of servant-girls who have no place where they can sing or\neven laugh? Shop-girls and factory-girls find their little rooms, Sunday\nafter Sunday, too much like prisons. Young men are perhaps even more\nunfortunate; for they go to the saloon, though this is often closed\nwithout any better place of amusement being opened. Why should every\nweek in a democratic country begin with an aristocratic Sunday, a day\nwhose pleasures are mainly for the rich?\n\nLibraries and museums are blessed places of refuge; but \"What are\nthey among so many?\" The residents of the District of Columbia are\nparticularly unfortunate, as the Smithsonian Museum, National Library,\nand other buildings, which are open during six days, are kept shut on\nSunday. Congress seems to be of the opinion that working people need\nno knowledge of natural history, except what they can get from sermons\nabout Jonah's whale and Noah's ark. Washington is not the only\ncity whose rich men ought to remember the warning of Heber Newton:\n\"Everything that tends to foster among our working people the notion of\nclass privilege is making against the truest morality in our midst.\nAs they look upon the case, it is the wealthy people, whose homes are\nprivate libraries and galleries of art, who protest against the opening\nof our libraries and museums to those who can afford no libraries\nand buy no pictures. Sabbatarianism is building very dangerous fires\nto-day.\"\n\nWe should all be glad to have more intellectual culture given on\nSunday. One way of giving it would be for the churches to open public\nreading-rooms in the afternoon. This would be decidedly for their own\ninterest; and so would be delivery of evening lectures on history,\nbiography, and literature. The Sunday-schools in England found it\nnecessary, even as late as 1850, to give much time to teaching reading\nand writing as well as the higher branches. Sunday-school rooms in\nAmerica, which now are left useless after Sunday noon, might be employed\nin teaching English to German, Italian, and Scandinavian immigrants\nduring the afternoon and evening. Classes might also be formed in vocal\nmusic, light gymnastics, American and English history and literature,\nphysiology, sociology, and political economy. Such changes would make\nour churches all the more worthy of the founder, who \"went about doing\ngood.\"\n\nThe observance of Sunday as a day of rest from labour and business will\nbe all the more popular as it is made precious to irreligious people.\nThey are numerous enough to have a right to ask that the public\nschool-houses be opened for free classes in French, German, drawing,\nand modelling; botany, chemistry, and bird-lore; cooking, sewing, and\nwood-work. If teachers of these branches were employed on Sunday by our\ncities, less money would be needed for police. Our industrial interests\nwould certainly gain by having this system carried out as far,\nfor instance, as is done by Lyons and Milan, which have special\nSunday-schools for teaching weaving. Goldsmiths are instructed by\nsimilar schools in Austria, and blacksmiths in Saxony. The full\nadvantage of Sunday classes of the various kinds here suggested might\nnot perhaps be seen until a taste for them could be made general, but\ndoing this would go far to diminish the taste for saloons.\n\nThe first step, however, which ought to be taken by our legislatures\nis the repeal of all laws hindering the sale of tickets on Sunday to\nexhibitions of pictures or curiosities, concerts, stereopticon lectures,\nor other instructive entertainments which are acknowledged inoffensive\nduring the rest of the week. How far dramatic performances and other\nvery attractive forms of public amusement should be permitted to take\nplace on Sunday is a question which ought to be settled by municipal\nauthorities, with due reference to each special case. The people whose\nfeelings ought to be considered are not those who wish to stay away from\nsuch places. They can easily do that without help from the police. The\npeople who ought to be heard, first and last, are those who wish to get\ninnocent amusement on their one day of leisure; and the only thing which\nthe police need do is to see that they do get it without being defrauded\nor tempted into vice. Only the actual existence of such temptation can\njustify interference with dancing or card-playing in a private house.\nThe Sunday reforms most needed, however, are those which will promote\nout-door exercise and mental culture.\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF DATES\n\n1776. Declaration of American independence, July 4th.\n\n1780. Emancipation in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.\n\n1783. Peace between IL S. A. and Great Britain, September 3d.\n\n1785. Great prosperity of British factories about this time.\n\n1787. Slavery prohibited north of Ohio River; slave-trade opposed in\nEngland; Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation published.\n\n1788. Constitution of U. S. A. ratified by a sufficient number of\nStates, June 21st.\n\n1789. Bastille taken, July 14th.\n\n1791. Paine's Rights of Man, Part L, published, March 13th; Louis XVI.\naccepts the new constitution, September 14th.\n\n1792. France a republic, September 21st.\n\n1793. Slavery abolished in French colonies, February 4th.\n\n1795. Insurrection in Paris crushed by Bonaparte, October 5th; free\npublic schools founded throughout France.\n\n1796. Bonaparte commander of army of Italy, March 4th.\n\n1797. French Directory makes itself absolute, September 4th; Venice\nceded by France to Austria.\n\n1798. Irish rebellion, May 23d.\n\n1799. Usurpation by Bonaparte, November 10th.\n\n1800. Election of Jefferson; Schelling's Transcendental Idealism\npublished.\n\n1801. Inauguration of Jefferson, March 4th.\n\n1802. Birth of Victor Hugo, February 26th; Lamarck's Recherches\npublished.\n\n1803. Hayti declares herself independent, January 2d; death of\nToussaint in prison, April 27th; birth of Emerson, May 25th; Emmet's\ninsurrection in Ireland, July 23d.\n\n1804. The Code Napoleon announced, January; Napoleon pro-Liberty in the\nNineteenth Century claimed Emperor, May 18th; crowned, December 2d;\nSchiller's William Tell published.\n\n1805. Battle of Austerlitz, December 2d.\n\n1806. Death of Schiller, May 9th; birth of J. S. Mill, May 20th; battle\nof Jena, October 14th; Berlin decree of Napoleon against commerce with\nGreat Britain, November 21st.\n\n1807. Slave-trade prohibited by Great Britain, March 25th; Peace of\nTilsit, July 7th, raises Napoleon to height of power; embargo laid by U.\nS. A., December 22d; Oken announces the vertebral analogy of the skull;\nHegel's Phaenomenologie des Geistes published.\n\n1808. Rebellion of Spaniards against French rule; witchcraft mob in\nEngland; Goethe's Faust, Part L, published.\n\n1809. Birth of Darwin, February 12th; revolt of Tyrolese under\nHofer, April 8th; states of the Church annexed to France, May 17th;\ndeath of Paine, June 8th; Pope imprisoned, July 6th; divorce of\nJosephine, December 15th; Lamarck's Philosophie Zoologique published.\n\n1810. Hofer shot, February 20th; marriage of Napoleon with Austrian\nArchduchess, April 1st; post-offices required to open every Sunday in U.\nS. A., April 30th; revolt against Spanish rule of Buenos Ayres, May\n25th, and of Chili, September 18th.\n\n1811. Nottingham riots against machinery, November.\n\n1812. Birth of Dickens, February 7th; war against Great Britain declared\nby U. S. A., June 18th; Wellington enters Madrid, August 12th; Moscow\nburned, September 14th; Byron's Childe Harold, Coleridge's Friend, and\nHegel's Logik published.\n\n1813. Wellington invades France, October 7th; battle of Leipsic, October\n16th, 18th, and 19th; Francia ruler of Paraguay; Unitarian disabilities\nremoved in England; Shelley's Queen Mab and Owen's New View of Society\npublished.\n\n1814. Napoleon is deposed by Senate, April 1st, and abdicates, April\n11th; liberal constitution introduced by Louis XVIII., May; Washington\ntaken and burned by British, August 24th; Peace of Ghent between U. S.\nA. and Great Britain, December 24th; Congress of Vienna opens November\n3d; graves of Voltaire and Rousseau violated.\n\n1815. Battle of New Orleans, January 8th; Waterloo, June 18th;\ncontroversy of Unitarians and Trinitarians in U. S. A.; last heretic\nburned in Mexico; Lamarck publishes the first volume of his Histoire\nNaturelle.\n\n1817. Shelley's children taken from him on account of his opinions,\nMarch 26th; demonstration at the Wartburg, October 18th; unusual poverty\nin England; her authors and orators made liable to imprisonment without\na trial; Ben-tham demands suffrage for men and women not illiterate;\nShelley's Revolt of Islam published.\n\n1818. Chili liberated by battle of Maipu, won by San Martin, April 5th;\nreligious tests abolished in Connecticut; Hannah M. Crocker's Rights of\nWomen published.\n\n1819. Assassination of Kotzebue, March 23d; Carlsbad Conference, August\n1st; \"Peterloo\" massacre at Manchester, August 16th; Shelley's\nPrometheus Unbound published.\n\n1820. Revolution in Spain, January 1st; and at Naples, July 2d;\nassassination of French princes, February 13th, causes reaction against\nliberalism; birth of Herbert Spencer, April 27th; Owen's plan of\nSocialism proposed, May 1st; conference of Troppau, December 8th;\nMissouri Compromise; Sydney Smith asks, \"Who reads an American book?\";\nIrving's Rip Van Winkle and Legend of Sleepy Hollow published.\n\n1821. Brazil begins a revolt, January 1st, as do Greece and Sardinia\nin April, and Peru in July; death of Napoleon, May 5th; Venezuela and\nColombra made free by battle of Carabolo, won June 24th, by Bolivar;\nAustria supreme in Italy; Lundy begins his Genius of Universal\nEmancipation.\n\n1822. Death of Shelley, July 8th; independence of Brazil proclaimed,\nSeptember 8th; massacre at Scio; Fourrier's book on Association\npublished.\n\n1823. Spanish patriots crushed by French army, April; Monroe Doctrine\nannounced, December 1st; British Anti-Slavery Society formed; Victor\nHugo's Odes and Ballads published.\n\n1824. Mexico a republic, January 31st; Bolivar, dictator of Feru,\nFebruary 10th, defeats Spaniards at Ayachuco, December 9th; death of\nByron, April 19th; accession of Charles X., September 16th; repeal\nof statutes forbidding English labourers to combine or emigrate;\nWestminster Review founded.\n\n1825. Much opposition to slavery in Kentucky, Maryland, and North\nCarolina; many socialist communities founded in U. S. A.; elective\ncourses of study at Harvard College, and also at the University of\nVirginia, where attendance at religious exercises is made voluntary;\nColeridge's Aids to Reflection published.\n\n1826. Citizens of New York petition for repeal of Fugitive Slave\nLaw, and for emancipation in the District of Columbia.\n\n1827. Battle of Navarino, October 20th; Taylor sent to prison for\nblasphemy, October 24th.\n\n1828. Test Act repealed; Frances Wright lectures against clergy.\n\n1829. Jackson inaugurated March 4th; Catholic Emancipation Act signed,\nApril 13th; Miss Wright opens a Hall of Science in New York City on\nSunday, April 25th; James Mill's Analysis and Fourrier's Industrial New\nWorld published.\n\n1830. Independence of Greece acknowledged by Turkey, April 25th;\naccession of William IV., July 26th; revolution at Paris begins July\n27th; King's troops driven out, July 29th; he is succeeded by Louis\nPhilippe, August 9th; revolts in Brussels, Warsaw, and Dresden;\nindependence of Belgium acknowledged, December 26th; Hetherington sent\nto prison for six months for publishing The Poor Man's Guardian; Victor\nHugo's Hernani acted; Tennyson's Poems and Lyell's Principles of Geology\npublished.\n\n1831. First number of The Liberator\\ January 1st, and of The\nInvestigator, April 2d; Carlile sent to prison for his writings, January\n10th; Cobbett tried and acquitted, July 31st; massacre of fifty-five\nwhite men, women, and children by slaves in Virginia, Sunday, August\n21st; Warsaw surrenders to Russians, September 7th; Reform Bill defeated\nby bishops, October 7th; Jamaica insurrection, December 22d; free trade\nconvention in Philadelphia; Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris published.\n\n1832. New England Anti-Slavery Society founded in Boston, January\n1st (becomes Mass. A. S. in 1836); death of Goethe, March 22d; the\ninsurrection at Paris described in Les Miserables, June 5th and 6th;\nReform Bill passed and signed, June 7th; Jackson re-elected, November\n6th; woman suffrage lecture in London, December 2d; Jackson's\nproclamation against attempt of South Carolina to secede, December\n11th; bloody resistance to tithes in Ireland; Elliott's Corn Law Rhymes\npublished.\n\n1833. Gradual reduction of tariff voted by Congress, March 1st; death\nof Bentham, June 6th; Act of Parliament for emancipation in West\nIndies passed August 28th; American Anti-Slavery Society founded at\nPhiladelphia, December; pro-slavery mobs there and in New York City;\nmunicipal suffrage extended in Scotland; unsectarian public schools in\nIreland; first free town library in U. S. A. founded at Peterboro, N.\nH., and opened Sundays thenceforth; Emerson's first lecture; Carlyle's\nSartor Resartus published.\n\n1834. Emancipation in West Indies takes place, August ist; new poor law\nin England, August 14th; insurrection headed by Mazzini in Italy.\n\n1835. Death of Cobbett, June 16th; anti-slavery periodicals taken from\npost-office at Charleston, S. C, and burned by mob, July; convent at\nCharlestown, Mass., burned by a mob, August; Garrison mobbed in Boston,\nand other abolitionists in New York and Vermont, October 21st; extension\nof municipal suffrage in England; Tocqueville's Democracy in America\nand Strauss's Life of Jesus published.\n\n1836. Transcendental Club founded in Boston, September; Parker begins\nto preach; tithes commuted in England; taxes on newspapers reduced;\ndissenters permitted to marry without disobedience to conscience;\nEmerson's Nature and Dickens' Pickwick Papers published.\n\n1837. Discussion of slavery in House of Representatives suppressed,\nJanuary; Miss Grimke's anti-slavery lectures, June; Emerson's address\non The American Scholar, August 31st; Anti-Slavery Convention of N. E.\nMethodists, October 25th; Carlyle's French Revolution published.\n\n1838. Emerson's Divinity School Address, July 15th; Kneeland imprisoned\nsixty days, that same summer, for blasphemy; Pennsylvania Hall burned by\na pro-slavery mob; Irish tithe system reformed; daguerreotypes\ninvented; Atlantic crossed by steam; railroad from London to Birmingham;\nChanning's Self-Culture published.\n\n1839. Anti-Corn-Law League organised, March 20th; unsectarian common\nschools in England; great Chartist petition; Pope forbids attendance at\nthe scientific congress at Pisa.\n\n1840. Penny postage, January 10th; nomination of candidate for\nPresident, April ist, by Liberty party: quarrels in May among\nabolitionists; World's Anti-Slavery Convention at London, in June,\nrefuses seats to female delegates; local self-government in Irish\ncities; protest of American Catholics against sectarianism of public\nschools; The Dial begins; Carlyle's Heroes and Hero Worship published.\n\n1841, Hetherington imprisoned in England for publishing Letters to the\nClergy, and the editor of the Oracle of Reason for attacking the Bible;\nEmerson's first volume of Essays published.\n\n1842. Garrison calls on free States to secede, May; death of Channing,\nOctober 2d; Brook Farm started, as are many communties about this time;\nSpencer's theory of the limits of government published, 1844. Morse\nproves value of telegraph by announcing nomination of Frelinghuysen for\nVice-President by Whigs, May 1st; disunion banner publicly accepted by\nGarrison, June 1st; annexation of Texas and reduction of tariff decided\nby election on November 5th; rule against discussing slavery repealed by\nHouse of Representatives; Lowell's Poems published.\n\n1845. Parker begins to preach regularly in Boston, February 16th; potato\nrot in Ireland, August; Vestiges of Creation published.\n\n1846. Mexico invaded by U. S. troops, March; free trade established\nin England, June 25th, and bill to reduce American tariff signed, June\n26th; first volume of Grote's Greece and first number of Lowell's Biglow\nPapers published.\n\n1847. Mexicans defeated at Buena Vista by General Taylor, February 22d\nand 23d; death of O'Connell, May 15th.\n\n1848. Revolution in Paris, February 22d; King abdicates, February 24th;\ninsurrections in Munich, Vienna, Berlin, Venice, and Milan in March,\nafterwards in other cities; \"spirit rappings\" at Rochester, N.Y.,\nbegin March 31st; Chartist demonstration at London, April 10th;\nEmancipation decreed by French Republic, April 27th; socialist\ninsurrection at Paris, June 23d, 24th, 25th, and 26th; \"Woman's Rights\"\nConvention at Seneca Falls, N. Y., July 19th; revolt in Ireland, July\n29th; Buffalo Convention of Free Soilers, August 9th; Kossuth dictator\nof Hungary, September 25th; State constitution and town ordinances\nmade in October by citizens of California without Federal sanction;\npro-slavery defeat at election of Taylor, November 7th; flight of Pope\nfrom Rome, November 24th; Louis Napoleon president of France, December\n10th; Lowell's Vision of Sir Launfal, Fable for Critics, and Biglow\nPapers published, 1849. Defeat of King of Sardinia by Austrians at\nNovara, March 23d, prevents liberation of Italy; Rome captured by\nFrench, July 3d; Hungarian army surrendered to Russians by Gorgei,\nAugust 13th; Venice taken by Austrians, August 28th; Emancipation\nConvention in Kentucky.\n\n1850. Death of Wordsworth, April 24th, and of President Taylor, July\n9th; Fugitive Slave Bill signed, September 18th; first national\n\"Woman's Rights\" Convention at Worcester, Mass., October 23d and 24th;\nBradlaugh's first lecture; Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, Spencer's Social\nStatics, and Tennyson's In Memoriam published.\n\n1851. London Great Exhibition opens May ist; a fugitive slave rescued at\nBoston, Sunday, February 16th, another at Syracuse, N. Y., October ist;\nusurpation of Louis Napoleon, December 2d, 1851.\n\n1852. Uncle Tom's Cabin published, March 20th; death of Frances Wright,\nand accession of Napoleon III., December 2d; Herbert Spencer announces\nthe principle of Differentiation.\n\n1854. Repeal of Missouri Compromise proposed by Douglas, January\n23d; return of Burns, a fugitive slave, from Boston, June 2d; U. S.\nConstitution publicly burned by Garrison, July 4th; Kansas election\ncarried by border ruffians, November 29th; Thoreau's Walden published.\n\n1855. Spencer's Pyschology and Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass published,\n1856. Sumner assaulted, May 22d..\n\n1857. Disunion Convention, Worcester, Mass., January 15th; death of\nBeranger, July 16th, and of Comte, September 5th; tariff reduced twenty\nper cent, in U. S. A.; Buckle's History of Civilisation, vol. i.,\npublished.\n\n1858. Essays by Darwin and Wallace read in public, July ist; Jews\nadmitted to Parliament by act passed July 23d; death of Robert Owen,\nNovember 17th; Lincoln and Douglas campaign in Illinois.\n\n1859. Austrians defeated at Magenta, June 4th, and Solferino.\n\nJune 24th; Lombardy annexed to Sardinia by treaty of Villafranca, July\nnth; John Brown takes possession of Harper's Ferry, Sunday, October\n16th, and is tried November 2d; Darwin's Origin of Species published,\nNovember 24th; John Brown hung, December 2d. 1860. Split of Democratic\nparty, April 30th; death of Theodore Parker, May 10th; Garibaldi enters\nNaples, September 7th; election of Lincoln, November 6th; secession of\nSouth Carolina, December 20th; annexation of two Sicilies to Sardinia,\nDecember 26th; Mill on Liberty published.\n\n1861. Confederate States of America organised, February 8th; protective\ntariff passed, March 2d; Russian serfs emancipated, March 3d; Lincoln\ninaugurated, March 4th; Victor Emmanuel King of Italy, March 17th;\nFort Sumter bombarded, April 12th, surrendered, April 13th; Lincoln's\nproclamation, Monday, April 15th, calls all the North to arms; death of\nCavour, June 6th; Union defeat at Bull Run, Sunday, July 21st.\n\n1862. Paper money made legal tender in U. S. A., February 25th; return\nof fugitives from slavery by army or navy forbidden, March 13th; negro\nsoldiers, April; death of Thoreau, May 6th, and of Buckle, May 29th;\ndisastrous campaign of McClellan in Virginia ends by his retreat, July\n8th; Union victory at Antietam, September 19th; emancipation announced\nas a possible war measure by Lincoln, September 22d; Union defeat at\nFredericksburg, December 13th; Victor Hugo's Les Miserables published,\nalso Spencer's First Principles containing his full theory of\nIntegration and Differentiation.\n\n1863. Lincoln proclaims emancipation, January 1st; signs bills\nsuspending Habeas Corpus Act and establishing conscription, March 3d;\nUnion defeat at Chancellorsville, May 3d; Vallandigham sentenced, May\n7th; battle of Gettysburg, July 1st, 2d, and 3d, ending in a Union\nvictory; Vicksburg surrendered to General Grant, July 4th; Mississippi\nopened by surrender of Port Hudson, July 9th; Union victories at Lookout\nMountain, November 24th, and Chattanooga, November 25th; Fenian\nConvention at Chicago, November 25th; Darwinism much opposed by European\nclergy about this time.\n\n1864. General Grant takes command of all the Union armies, March 12th;\nundecisive battles in the Wilderness and at Spottsylvania, May 5th-10th;\nFugitive Slave Act repealed, June 23d; Nevada admitted, October 31st;\nLincoln re-elected, November 8th; Sherman marches from Atlanta, November\n16th, and enters Savannah, December 22d.\n\n1865. Death of Cobden, April 2d; Richmond entered by coloured cavalry,\nApril 3d; Lee surrenders, April 9th; Lincoln shot, Good Friday, April\n14th, dies April 15th; slavery abolished by Thirteenth Amendment,\nDecember 18th; Lecky's Rationalism published.\n\n1866. Prussian victory over Austria at Koniggratz, July 3d; Venice part\nof Kingdom of Italy, November 4th.\n\n1867. First convention of the Free Religious Association, May 30th;\nsuffrage extended in England, August 15th; Home Rule in Hungary.\n\n1868. Fourteenth Amendment in force, July 28th; Cuban declaration of\nindependence, October 10th.\n\n1869. Irish Church disestablished, July 26th; witnesses allowed to\naffirm in Great Britain.\n\n1870. Death of Dickens, June 9th; Napoleon III. defeated at\n\nSedan, September 1st; France a republic, September 4th; Rome part of the\nkingdom of Italy, October 9th; Inger-soll begins to lecture; Home Rule\nagitation in Ireland, 1871. Paris surrendered to Prussians, January\n28th; Communists supreme there, March 18th, suppressed, May 28th;\nemancipation in Brazil; Darwin's Descent of Man published.\n\n1872. Death of Mazzini, March 10th; secret ballot in England; Abbot's\n\"Demands of Liberalism\" published in The Index (which began January 1,\n1870).\n\n1873. Spain a republic, February 11th; death of J. S. Mill, May 8th;\nAmerican Liberal League, September 1st.\n\n1874. Military usurpation at Madrid, January 3d; death of Sumner, March\n11th; citizens of District of Columbia disfranchised, June 17th;\nAlphonso XII. king of Spain, December 30th; Mrs. Besant begins to\nlecture; Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three published.\n\n1875. Sunday Society organised at London.\n\n1876. Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia opens, May 10th, and\nconventiom of Liberal League, July 1st; disputed election for President,\nNovember 7th; Sunday convention in Boston, November 15th; vivisection\nrestricted in England; Cuban rebellion suppressed, 242 Liberty in the\nNineteenth Century.\n\n1877. Museum of Fine Arts in Boston open in and after March on Sundays.\n\n1878. Anti-clerical resolution passed by Woman Suffrage Convention,\nRochester, N. Y., July; split of Liberal League at Syracuse, N. Y.,\nSunday, October 27th; Professor Winchell obliged to leave Nashville,\nTenn., for evolutionism.\n\n1879. Specie payment resumed in U. S. A., January 1st; death of\nGarrison, May 24th; Henry George's Progress and Poverty published.\n\n1880. Bradlaugh refused his seat in Parliament, May 21st; many patriots\nbanished to Siberia.\n\n1881. Czar Alexander II. assassinated, March 13th, anti-Jewish mobs on\nand after April 27th; Bradlaugh excluded by force, August 1st.\n\n1882. Death of Longfellow, March 24th, of Darwin, April 18th, of\nEmerson, April 27th, and of Garibaldi, June 2d.\n\n1883. Foote and Ramsay, English journalists, sentenced respectively to\ntwelve and nine months in prison for blasphemy.\n\n1884. Death of Wendell Phillips; February 2d; Cleveland elected\nPresident, November 4th; Professor Woodrow dismissed from Presbyterian\nTheological Seminary at Columbia, S. C, for teaching evolution, December\n12th.\n\n1885. Death of Victor Hugo, May 20th, and of General Grant, July 23d.\n\n1886. Bradlaugh takes his seat, January 13th; railroad strike in\n\nMissouri suppressed by Federal troops, March; bloody conflict of Chicago\nanarchists with police, May 4th; statue of Liberty unveiled in New York\nHarbour, October 28th.\n\n1887. Chicago anarchists hung, November 11th.\n\n1888. U. S. tariff reduced by Mills Bill, July 21st; Cleveland defeated,\nNovember 6th; imprisonment in Sweden for blasphemy; Bellamy's Looking\nBackward published.\n\n1889. Brazil a republic, November 15th; death of Browning, December\n12th.\n\n1890. Australian ballot tried in Rhode Island, April 2d; U. S.\ntariff raised by McKinley Bill, passed by the 4 Billion Dollars\nCongress, and signed October 1st.\n\n1891. Death of Bradlaugh, January 30th, and of Lowell, August 12th; Jews\nexpelled from Moscow in April, and much persecuted this year and in\n1892; New York Museum of Art opened on Sunday, May 31st, to 10,000\nvisitors.\n\n1892. Death of Walt Whitman, March 26th, of Whittier, September 7th, and\nof Tennyson, October 6th; bill excluding Chinese from U. S. A. signed,\nMay 5th; Congress votes for closing Chicago Exposition on Sundays, July\n19th; Cleveland re-elected, November 8th; New York Museum of Natural\nHistory open Sundays; revised edition of Spencer's Social Statics\npublished.\n\n1893. Chicago Exposition formally opened May ist, first open\nSunday, May 28th; Parliament of Religions begins Monday, September nth,\n10 a.m.\n\n1894. Death of Kossuth, March 20th, of Holmes, October 7th, of\n\nLucy Stone, October 18th, and of Tyndall, December 4th; Debs, leader of\na riot in Chicago, enjoined by U. S. judges, July 2d, and put down by\nFederal troops; reduction of U. S. tariff, August 2d; Home Rule approved\nby House of Commons, September ist, refused by House of Lords, September\n8th; universal suffrage and extension of local self-government in\nEngland; a professor in University of Texas dismissed for evolutionism.\n\n1895. Death of Frederick Douglass, February 20th, and of Huxley, June\n29th; rebellion in Cuba; men arrested in New York City for selling ice,\numbrellas, etc., on Sunday; eight men who had worked on that day, after\nkeeping Saturday as the Sabbath, forced to labour in the chain-gang in\nTennessee.\n\n1896. British Museum, National Gallery, and other institutions opened\nto the public on Sunday, May 24th, and afterwards; two Sabbath-breakers\nshot dead that same day by a policeman in Massachusetts; death of\nWilliam Morris, October 3d; Democratic candidates defeated on a\nfree-silver platform, November 3d.\n\n1897. Dingley Bill to increase tariff, signed July 24th; death of\nHenry George, October 27th.\n\n1898. War declared by U. S. A. against Spain, April 21st; death of\nGladstone, Ascension Day, May 19th; independence of Cuba secured by\ntreaty, August 12th.\n\n1899. Death of Ingersoll, July 21st.","title":"Liberty in the Nineteenth Century","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":64966}