quiver of arrows, were of right the property of this savage who has made them? They are the product of his toil, his ingenuity, his sacrifices. Common sense tells us that they are his. That a man is entitled to the productions of his own industry and skill, is a point as clear and as natural, as that two and two make four. But, among savages, if absolute liberty prevails, the first Indian who sees the bow and arrows made by another, may take them away and appropriate them to his own use. If he may not, then absolute liberty does not prevail. If he is restrained by any rule, or custom, or sense of justice, then there is a restraint upon his natural or absolute liberty.

But let us look a little further into society. One of the savages builds a hut, or wigwam. Is it his, or not? If absolute liberty prevails, it is his, for surely freedom implies a right to the free enjoyment of what a man produces by his toil. But we see that all things are held in common with these savages. Of course, then a man has not a legal right to the possession and enjoyment of what his labor creates. Here, then, at the outset, is a blow at the very foundation of liberty, for what a man himself produces is taken away, and made the property of society. The first principle of such a society seems to be wholesale robbery.

Let us examine further. We shall see that, in point of fact, even in this rude state of society, there are various rules, customs and opinions, which have the force of law, and which do impose restraints upon the actions of men. But we shall notice one thing, that, as the laws are few, imperfect, or ill administered; just in that proportion our life, property, house, home, and character are inse

t

cure; and if these things are insecure-if life, the property acquired by industry, the house, the home, the fireside, the wife and children, domestic comfort, character-all that we love and cherish and toil for-if these are liable to be taken away by the strong or the violent, of what value is liberty? Is there such a thing as liberty, where these rights are insecure?

Is not society thus situated, subject to the despotism of force? and do we not see that in rude and savage tribes, where at first view we might say there was most liberty, in point of fact, there is the least liberty? And does not this prove that the members of civilized society, in giving up some rights to secure the rest, do, in fact, enjoy more liberty than the tribes where the laws are few, and where liberty might seem least abridged? In short, does it not appear that a member of civilized society makes a good bargain in giving up a few rights, by which he obtains security to life, property, and character? And does it not appear that it is wise and right to submit to the laws of civilized society?

CHAPTER XII.

Illustrations, showing that Government pro motes Practical Liberty.

In order to show that the amount of liberty actually realized and enjoyed by society, is greater where there is a complete system of laws, than

where there is no law, or but little law, let us suppose a few cases.

In our own country, we have numerous laws. Whenever any evil arises, or any great good is desired, the law-makers seek to avert the one and secure the other by legislation, if it is within their proper reach. The consequence is that almost every transaction of life, is regulated by laws. Now let us see if these, which are restraints or abridgments of theoretical liberty, do not actually increase the amount of practical liberty.

We have defined civil liberty to be freedom to think and act as we see fit, having due regard to the good of society. Now where would you think or act most freely, in Massachusetts, or among a savage tribe? Here in Massachusetts, you travel about in safety, for robbers are punished 1; you sleep in security at night, for the thief and house-breaker are punished. You think as you please, for no man dares to tyrannize over another's thoughts. You can do what you please with your time and your property, for he who would interfere with these, is deemed a trespasser, and punished by the law.

.

Now suppose you were among the western Indians, where natural liberty prevails; where there are no written laws, and few laws of any kind which impose restraints upon society-should you there enjoy more actual freedom than in Massachusetts? On the contrary, would not your life be in constant danger-would not you be a slave to fear? Could you travel about in safety? Would not your property be exposed to robbers, your person to captivity?

Does not this comparison show that where

there are numerous laws, the people enjoy most liberty? But let us look at particular statutes, and see how these promote practical liberty. There is a law that no man shall keep and sell gunpowder, unless he is licensed. The object of this is, to prevent quantities of gunpowder from being in the hands of careless people, where it might explode, and destroy lives and property. Now as this law protects life and property, it promotes liberty, which consists, to a great extent, in the possession and security of these.

So the law which requires dealers in wood, fish, flour, &c., to have these articles inspected before they sell them, as it is designed to prevent people from being cheated, and unjustly deprived of their property, tends to secure to a man his rights, and therefore promotes civil and rational liberty.

Thus it appears that every law tending to make Life, property, character, and the pursuit of happiness secure to man, though it restrains absolute liberty, actually increases the amount of practical liberty enjoyed by society. Does not this show that it is the interest as well as the duty of every man to support good laws?

CHAPTER XIII.

Recapitulation.

FROM the preceding observations we deduce the following propositions. 1. Liberty is freedom. from restraint. 2. Absolute liberty is freedom to think, act and speak as we please, without hin

drance or control. 3. Natural liberty is substantially the same thing as absolute liberty: but such kinds of liberty can only exist in theory, or where one man lives alone, entirely cut off from all connection with his fellow-men; for, in the first place, moral obligation to be just, to do to another as we would have another do to us, rests upon all, and is enforced by conscience, prior to the passage of laws by society.

And in the second place, in rude or savage society, where there seem to be the fewest laws, and the nearest approach to natural or absolute liberty, there is, in fact, the least practical liberty, and the most thorough despotism. The very first principle of liberty is grossly violated by the elcmentary law of savage society-a community of property-which confiscates to the use of the whole, what a man obtains or produces by his own industry and skill.

In civilized society a man gives up some of his rights, or a portion of his liberty, to ensure the free enjoyment of the rest: he pays a tax, for instance, to support the government; in consideration of which, the government is bound to secure to him the enjoyment of his life, his thoughts, his property, his home, and his character.

Every law is a restraint and an abridgment of absolute or natural liberty. A law against murder, imposes the restraint of not killing a fellow : man. Thus laws against stealing, wounding maiming, cheating, swindling, setting houses or fire, defaming a man's character, breaking into house with intent to steal, robbing on the highway or the high seas-all these impose certain restraints on natural liberty. In these cases, the laws