"is not only a private blessing of the first order, but the vital spring or energy of the State itself, which has just so much life and vigor as there is liberty in it."

To protect liberty, the streams of legislation, administra tion, and justice must be kept clear, from the fountain-head even unto the mouth. Usurpations and encroachments upor the rights and liberties of the citizen are as deleterious to the tranquillity and welfare of the State as the unbridled, unrestrained, and licentious abuse of them by the citizen.

These prefatory remarks are made merely to remind the general reader of his constitutional rights. Of late, the civic rights of the citizen have been abridged. It remains to be seen whether he will maintain them. The permanence and stability of the government rest entirely with the citizen. It is for him to say how long free government will exist in our country.

Although free government may be traced back to a period of about three thousand years, it is not my intention to allude to the experiments in establishing it beyond the adop tion of Magna Charta, in which may be found the vital principles on which it is based. The political rights which we enjoy under our Constitution may be said to be derived directly from that document.

Yet, it is proper to say here, that the principles of liberty enunciated and the privileges granted by the Magna Charta, many of which had been digested in a code of laws by Alfred, were not confined exclusively to the Anglo-Saxons; for almost at the same era, upon the election of King Christopher II. of Denmark, he was obliged to sign a charter granting nearly the same privileges and immunities as were con tained in the Magna Charta, among which were that no man

should be imprisoned, or deprived of life, liberty, or property, without public trial and conviction according to law; and that no law should be made or altered without the consent of the Parliament, composed of the best men of the kingdom, to be held annually at Wyborg.

And it may be said, that in Northern Europe, as well as in England, at the time of the granting of the Great Charter, the German tribes generally, and the Danes, were inspired by the same spirit of liberty which was enkindled in the hearts of the Anglo-Saxons, their descendants.

From the time of the granting of the municipal privileges and personal rights, as contained in Magna Charta, signed by King John on the 15th of June, 1215, but which was not really established until "after the contests of near a whole century," for during that time, "it is computed," says Hume, "that about thirty confirmations of the charter were at dif ferent times required of several kings, and granted by them in full Parliament," the people of England have been jealous of their personal liberties and watchful of their civic rights.

Since that period, the genius of the English people has been strongly and invariably in favor of liberty, while royal prerogative, until the accession of William and Mary, inclined as violently towards arbitrary power.

The Magna Charta laid the foundation for a Constitution, which has engrafted in it all the attributes and securities of personal liberty, and stands a monument of enlightened statesmanship, worthy the pride and admiration of the English people; while the Great Charter itself denotes an epoch be tween despotism and liberty-semi-barbarism and civiliza tion-rudeness and refinement.

The struggles to maintain the chartered rights of the peo ple against the encroachments and usurpations of kingly prerogative, have been many, great, and even revolutionary. It has only been by an unconquerable will, and severe contests, that they have again and again been reasserted and re-established, enlarged and secured.

Encroachments upon the rights and liberties of the people by Charles I., who caused the arbitrary imprisonment of his subjects, gave birth to the enactment of the Petition of Right, and also brought the head of that unhappy monarch to the block.

To enforce the provisions contained in the Magna Charta and Petition of Right, for securing the subject in his personal rights and personal liberty, against arbitrary imprisonments by command of the King or the Privy Council, the Habeas Corpus Act was passed, in the 31st Charles II. It may be called the bulwark of English liberty.

For nearly five centuries, the contests between sovereign and people, the one for royal prerogative, the other for the rights of personal liberty, were many and violent..

If the King would threaten with the Star Chamber, the people would point to the Magna Charta. If the King would commit by the High Commission Court, the people would unfold the Petition of Right. If the King would imprison by the Privy Council, the people would release through the Habeas Corpus.

In 1688, these struggles culminated, and ended in the adoption of the Declaration of Rights and the Act of Settlement, in the dethronement of James II. and the establishment of William and Mary, by a Civil Revolution, in which "not

a single new 1 ght was given to the people or a single flower of the crown was touched."

Since then, wise and sagacious legislation may have added strength to the perpetuity of the Crown; but at the same time, it has maintained and enlarged the rights and liberties of the people. It has firmly established a triune govern. ment-a monarchy, an aristocracy, and a democracy—in which, happily, democracy is the controlling element and monarchy a mere formality, while the aristocracy leans towards the democracy for protection.

The acts of the Sovereign are dependent on a ministry responsible to the Parliament, which has grown so much in power, especially the Commons, that it may be said the safeguards of personal liberty, under the English Constitution, repose in the breasts of the English people.

After the expulsion of the kings, the Romans, being careful of their liberties, erected and dedicated a temple to the Goddess of Liberty, and it was then esteemed an honor to call oneself a Roman citizen-Civis Romanus.

In our own country, there was a time when the proudest appellation a man could bear was that of American citizen. “I am an American citizen," implied liberty and safety protection and justice. Then, the national shield was, indeed, a shield with arms a shield which defended the citizen against every act of tyranny and usurpation—a shield which guarded him on land and sea, at home and abroad. Then, personal liberty was a citizen's birthright. Then, free speech was unshackled. Then, Mr. Webster could exclaim: "It" (free speech) "is a homebred right—a fireside privilege. It has ever been enjoyed in every house, cottage, and cabin in the nation. It 's not to be drowned in controversy It is as

undoubted as the right of breathing the air and walking on the earth. It is a right to be maintained in peace and in war. It is a right which cannot be invaded without destroying constitutional liberty. Hence, this right should be guarded and protected by the freemen of this country with a jealous care, unless they are prepared for chains and anarchy." What are the protections of the law now?

When the arteries which convey the life-blood from the heart of the constitution to all parts of its body once become paralyzed, the most skilful treatment can never restore it to its original vigor and healthful condition. A partial recovery may be effected, but the disease remains.

Oppressive and illegal acts by one Administration may be adopted as established precedents for similar encroachments by succeeding ones; and who can gainsay the right? Surely, not the people, when they not only encourage, but are accessories in the wrong. Therefore, without a proper and conscientious regard for the majesty of the law, and the observance of personal rights, there is no security for permanence in free gov

ernment.

From the organization of the Government, until the administration of the late Mr. Lincoln, we know of no case in which an American citizen was arrested without warrant, imprisoned without charge preferred, and released, after months and years of incarceration, without trial; although he who will take the trouble to turn over the leaves of American history will discover that, in many cases, there was not only imaginary, but real "disloyalty" among citizens, dangerous to the common interests of the Government, during former Administrations.

Educated in the principles of republicanism, intelligent