clusions! How greatly do they elevate the Beneficent Creator above the position accorded to Him in the old theory that there exists a radical antagonism between self-interest and duty-between all men-all classes-all communities-all nations!

Let us now examine the principles of Government, keeping constantly in mind the natural laws that control man.

It

Government has, evidently, heretofore been based entirely on the idea of the radical antagonism between nations, communities, classes, and men ;* and between self-interest and moral duty; on the idea that war is the normal condition of man; whereas, in truth, there is perfect harmony between the interests of all humanity; and were it not for Governments, and the power conferred on them by human laws, wars would have ceased long ago: for it is a long time since men have waged war of their own free will, for their own account. is invariably at the bidding, and for the supposed benefit of the governing classes alone, that the wars, which devastate the world and impede the well-being and progress of humanity, are commenced and carried on. In fact, war only accords with the nature and condition of a savage. A civilized man depends on industry and commerce for his well-being and happiness, and war is inconsistent with both industry and commerce. War, by destroying life and the results of labor, diminishes the well-being and progress of humanity more than any other act of man.t War has been condemned as

* The merchant cannot manage his business but by corrupting of youth; the husbandman does his by the dearness of corn; the builder by pulling down of houses; the officers of Justice by lawsuits and quarrels; the grandeur and calling of the clergy by men's deaths and vices; no physician is much pleased with the health of his friends, as an ancient Greek comedian says; nor a soldier with the peace of his country; and so of the rest. And, what is worse, if every one would search himself, he would find his inward wishes are, for the most part, raised and supported at the expense of others; which being considered, it arises into my mind that Nature does not in this swerve at all from her general course; for physicians hold that the original growth and increase of everything is the alteration and corruption of another; for, as Lucretius says (lib. ii., ver. 752, 753):

Nam quodcunque suis mutatem finibus exit,
Continuò hoc mors est illius, quod fuit ante.

-(Montague's Essays, 1. i., ch. 20.)

Favonius said: "A civil war is worse than any tyranny;" and Cicero: "Any peace is preferable to a civil war."-(Grotius, book i., ch. iv., p. 207.)

injurious for centuries upon centuries, and yet it is still of constant occurrence. Why is this so? Simply because powerful nations still suppose they can profit by war, whatever be its effects on other nations; because the governing classes suppose they are rather benefited than injured by a war, whatever be its effects on the other classes of the community; because men constantly excuse the means for the sake of the end.*

The sole proper object of Government and human laws is, undoubtedly, the well-being of the governed.† To that end Government and human laws should especially protect the weak and the ignorant, and dispense strict and even-handed justice to all. The strong and the intelligent can easily protect themselves. But has any Government, at any time, anywhere, efficiently protected the weak and the ignorant against the strong and the intelligent? Let history answer. Slavery, oppression, class privileges and class legislation, are entirely due to human laws and Governments. How long would slavery have existed in this world, had not human laws legalized and perpetuated that most ini

*

*

*

* Prudence will never advise the use of unlawful means towards a just and praiseworthy end. The very safety of the people, the common safety of nations, interdicts the use of means contrary to justice and probity. Why are certain means unlawful? If we closely answer the point, if we trace it to its first principles, we shall see that it is purely because the introduction of them would be pernicious to human society, and of ill consequences to all nations. * * * It is, therefore, for the interest and even safety of nations to account it a sacred maxim that the end does not legitimate the means. (Vattel, Law of Nations, book iii., p. 16.)

Who will dare to maintain that good can be attained through evil? That it is possible to deny a law of God for some miserable idea, the creation of our brain? (Jules Simon, Le Devoir, p. 364.)

In the pursuit of some useful end, what constitutes a violation of the law of God? It is the substitution of our judgment, possibly our passion, for the eternal oracle of Divine Wisdom. What man will dare thus to replace the Law by his own ideas-to substitute his own ideas in the place of the law of God? -(Ibid., p. 362.)

Vattel very correctly says, "that Government is established only for the sake of the nation, with a view to its safety and happiness. That the end of civil society is procuring for the citizens whatever their necessities require, the conveniences and accommodations of life; and, in general, whatever constitutes happiness, with the peaceful possession of property, a method of obtaining justice with security; and, in short, a mutual defence against all violence from without.-(Law of Nations, p. 12.) Government is established only for the sake of the nation, with a view to its safety and happiness.-(P. 17.) It is evident that men form a political society and submit to laws solely for their own advantage and safety. The sovereign authority is, then, established only for the common good of all the citizens." (P. 19.)

quitous and unnatural institution? Would not the brute force which established slavery have been overcome by brute force, as soon as the slaves became more numerous than the masters, had not the latter been protected by human Governments and human laws? Would not man, from natural impulses, have attempted to overcome every evil as soon as seriously felt, had he not been constantly prevented by human laws, and by Governments, whose powers were obtained under the plea of benefiting the masses, whilst they have generally been used to oppress and injure them? The fact is, there is not a single proper object or result that is sought to be attained through Government or human laws, that is not better, more fully, and more certainly attained by the mere action of the natural laws, forces, or impulses that control man. And, on the contrary, there is not a single improper object now attained by means of human laws and Governments, that could be obtained were natural laws not interfered with by human laws and Governments. This must be so; for is it not the natural laws and impulses alone that induce man to overcome, not only his own evil or erroneous impulses and actions, but also all the evil effects of Governments and human laws?

Power attained by individuals as individuals, by the voluntary but revocable assent of the community, is invariably beneficial; for, whenever it ceases to be beneficial, it is withdrawn; whereas power obtained by Governments through human laws, is invariably retained and exercised long after it has ceased to be beneficial to the community. In fact, such power is never relinquished or destroyed except by a more or less violent struggle, after its injurious effects become unendurable.

The beau ideal of the possible results of governmental action is well expressed in that axiom of the pure, high-minded and honest Jeremy Bentham-"The greatest good of the greatest number." This is really the utmost result that can be obtained from human laws and Governments. But does not this axiom acknowledge that the State can only protect a majority; and that, to do this, it may oppress and injure the minority? Does not this axiom give an apparent sanction even to slavery, as long as the slaves are in the minority?

How much more beneficial, how far more desirable, are the results produced by the action of natural laws, which, when uninterfered with by man, protect minorities as well as majorities. For, under their unimpeded sway, each man will find means to protect himself, by some means or other, for, as men become more intelligent, they perceive more and more clearly that to permit the attack of the weakest, soon leads to the attack of others; that to sanction the attack of unimportant rights, soon leads to the attack of the most important. The same principle that permits the attack of one, permits the attack of all.

Governments are created by the delegation or absorption of some of the rights of the individuals, which, it is supposed, can be better or more economically exercised by the few than by each and every member of the community. The Government or State thus represents and administers certain interests of the individuals who compose the community or nation. It therefore follows that the Government, deriving its authority from the individual, can only properly do, should only do, under any and every circumstance, what an individual could properly do under similar circumstances. No other rule can be found by which to judge the actions of Governments, than to examine the propriety and the effect of similar actions, under like circumstances, on the part of individuals. Whatever is wrong or injurious when done by an individual, must be wrong and injurious when done by a Government, although sanctioned by law. But how different the general practice from this undoubtedly correct principle! It is generally supposed, and all Governments act more or less on the supposition, that what is wrong, improper, or injurious, when done by an individual, may be proper and beneficial when done by a Government.* Hence, a different code of action, as well as of morals,

* Euphemius, in Thucydides (book vi.), says: "To a king or city imperial nothing is unjust that is profitable."

Grotius says, in the Preface to "The Rights of Peace and War:" "It is a saying that no Commonwealth can be governed without injustice (p. 8). One thing may be just in respect of those who live together on an equal footing, and another so in respect of the governor and the governed."—(P. 40, London Ed., 1715.)

Seneca complains that we can punish homicides, and yet smile at the destruction of a whole nation: ambition and tyranny have no limits; by the authority of Senate and people barbarities are acted, and what is condemned in private persons, is enjoined by the public."-(Grotius, book ii., ch. i., p. 3.)

is established for Governments and for individuals. Thus individuals are prohibited from being judges and redressers of their own wrongs; but Governments, it is held, are the only proper judges and redressers of national wrongs. Hence, wars have ever been rather the rule than the exception. Why this dif ference in cases perfectly analogous? Why cannot, why should not, nations leave their wrongs to the judgment of tribunals as advantageously as individuals do theirs? Is there not the same danger of an unjust or an erroneous decision in the case of an individual, as in the case of a nation? and are not the consequences of the decisions relatively as important, nay, most frequently, more important, to an individual than to a nation? Can it be right, even for a nation, to redress a wrong by committing infinitely greater wrongs against innocent parties? And what is war but the destruction of the property of innocent individuals, and the infliction of death on parties in no way properly responsible for the wrongs attempted to be redressed by these ruthless means? Suppose, for example, that the Trent affair had involved this country and Great Britain in a war, who would have been the sufferers by the attempt of Great Britain to maintain the honor of her flag? Certainly not the Queen of Great Britain and the President of the United States; nor the members of the Governments of both countries; but innocent men, of both nations, who had nothing to do with the transaction which caused the war, and who yet would have been made to lose their lives or their property that the honor of the countries might be unsullied! But can the wanton spilling of innocent blood, and the destruction of property, reflect honor on any flag? Is it not a crying shame, a disgrace to the civilization, to the intelligence, to the spirit of justice, of the 19th century, that such gross wrongs are still permitted to be perpetrated in the sacred name of justice and equity, and that, on the plea of benefiting humanity!

Every human law must be based on one of the following hypotheses:

First. That there exists something not governed by natural laws, which, therefore, requires to be governed by man; or, Second. That human laws can improve on, or supersede, or control, natural laws.