such a one was suspected. He that laid snares, if it took, was a wise man; but he that could find out the trap, a cleverer man than he; but he that had been so provident as not to need to do one or the other, was said to be a dissolver of fellowships, and one that stood in fear of his adversary. In brief, he that could outstrip another in the doing of an evil act, or that could persuade another thereto, that never meant it, was commended." The vivid description of that excellent historian goes on much farther, exhibiting to us the ripe fruits of those seeds which all of us carry within us, and if I have previously referred to the history of the jacobin club as instructive for every citizen, I do so with no less earnestness to this whole part of the Grecian chronicler; I do so urgently to my younger readers. (5) It is very true, indeed, that our danger is not so great as in ancient times, because our states are vaster, our race is less apt to be moved by masses, we value individuality higher, our religion, so long as unsullied by fanaticism, is of a tempering character, and above all, we act through representative governments. Where the democracy is absolute, and the state small, the one indeed requires the other, it is difficult, to see how any party can be secure against breaking out into passion. Let us, then, upon this ground among so many others, value and foster the more earnestly our representative system. Yet despite of all difference, the danger still exists, and will exist, so long as men on the one hand cherish freedom of action, and on the other, are, and in their nature ought to be, according to God's will, mental and moral individuals, differing therefore in their dispositions, and so long as they pursue with zeal what they hold to be true or right.

(1) There is hardly any danger which besets men in civilised life, and especially those in the higher classes, more constantly, than the mistaking of coterie talk for public opinion, coterie opinion for public judgment. Private individuals, authors, politicians, statesmen and monarchs, are equally exposed to it, and Charles X. lost his crown by mistaking a court coterie for the national party. Few men, indeed, have sufficient sagacity and elevation of mind to withstand the power of repetition, in their circle or to rise above it, and see life and reality untainted by it. Observe real life, and do not dismiss signs and clear tokens or proofs because they disagree with what you hear around yourself.

(2) Even so considerate and calm a man as Newton, it would appear, did not withstand party acrimony in his transactions with Flamsteed. This is not mentioned to justify us, inferior to him, but to serve as a still more significant beacon.

(3) His confessions on this head are given in Bromato Vita di Paolo IV., vol. ii, p. 369. The pope called upon Suleiman I. to give up his wars in Hungary, and to throw himself with all his power upon Naples and Sicily. This was done to strengthen himself against His Most Catholic Majesty of Spain.

(4) The distinction of party signs showed itself in the cutting of bread, in the wearing of the girdle, &c. Ranke, communicating it from a relatione, in his Popes, &c., vol. i, p. 432. The Chronicle of Cologne says that the two parties distinguished themselves even by their manner of husbandry. Biogr. Notices of B. G. Niebuhr, vol. ii, p. 381.

(5) Thucydides, iii, 70, 85. I recollect having seen, in a Madrid paper, of the year 1822, this passage in an account of some tumult in the Spanish capital: "The infamous cry, long live our country! was heard." - Archbishop Parker, "who had been reckoned moderate in his proceedings towards catholics, complained of what he called 'a Machiavel government;' that is, of the queen's (Elizabeth's) lenity in not absolutely rooting them out." Hallam, Const. Hist. i, p. 191. The note which Hallam appends to that page gives instances, if indeed they were needed, of the truth contained in the remarks of Thucydides respecting the subversion of language in times disordered by the fury of party, being but too applicable to all parties at the period of the reformation. In the first French revolution the words virtue, patriotism, consistency, had received entirely new meanings, as the word Thorough had between archbishop Laud and lord Strafford, and probably among their whole party.

XV. Ought a well-meaning citizen to attach himself to some party, and to act with it? If he joins a party how far ought he to act with it? When ought he to leave his party? These are questions of great moment, as all know who have practical knowledge of the politics of liberty.

The law of Solon, according to which a man who stands neuter in time of sedition is punishable with "atimia," confiscation and exile, has been called by Plutarch peculiar and surprising. (1) Solon, even though he erred in procuring the passage of this law, must nevertheless have had strong reasons. Undoubtedly he strove by this very law to prevent broils and tumults, which, it has been observed already, must be frequent in small democracies, if any excitement exists; on the other hand, he was probably aware of the fact, that nothing favors more positively, strife and political turbulence than when apathy or fear of mixing in the contest keeps the large mass of well-disposed citizens from taking part in politics. It surrenders the whole field to the restless and wicked, who certainly will try to occupy it, as they always have done. I do not know how it is now the crime of murder was greatly promoted in the Havana, by the circumstance that as soon as the cry of murder was heard in a street, every one hurried away as fast as possible, that he might not become a witness, and expose himself either to the revenge of the murderer's associates, or the dangers and sufferings of the badly conducted trials which were common in the Spanish colonies. We have spoken already of the general obligation of voting binding every one who has a right to vote. But the obligation of attaching one's self to a party is not so general, although I believe in contests of great political importance, it allows of but few exceptions. A man may be occupied with absorbing subjects, lying wholly out of the sphere of politics, or he may, as actually will happen, expose himself and his family to danger or loss by decidedly joining a party. Yet I repeat, these are but exceptions, and upon the whole it strikes me that the rule will hold, that a citizen ought, in times of great political danger, to attach himself to some party or other, if he can possibly find a party by the joining of which he does not do violence to his conscience, and if he have not very specific reasons for the contrary. There are, indeed, some men, naturally timid, both in mind and body. Their character is such that they may be useful members of society, if left alone; they are conscientious, and will not knowingly do wrong, but they become useless, and even dangerous, if they are forced out of their retired position, which is the element which the whole compound of their temperament requires. These two constitute exceptions.

(1) Plutarch, Solon, 20. Cicero to Att. 10, 1. Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, i, 2, c. 12: “Solon capite sanxit, si qui in seditione non alterutrius partis fuisset." I own this seems to me to be one of those many laws which express a principle or theory, and may be repeated for centuries, but of which a man acquainted with the practical part of civil liberty, cannot easily see the operation. One or the other party engaged in the sedition must be victorious; suppose it is that party which was opposed to the administration in power. Can we imagine the successful party to begin their administration with indicting all citizens who did not take up arms against them, or punish all who remained neutral, while they leave unpunished those who fought against them? But if it is expected that they will punish the neutrals, or passive, and all who fought against them, the law must needs work very mischievously. Indeed, it seems that the law of Solon would, if acted out, forestall every amnesty, with which peace must necessarily begin after civil commotions. The worst feature in the law is that it inflicts confiscation of property, a sure means to make the punishment serviceable for the worst ends, in periods of excitement, and, indeed, in any period. It presses avarice and infamy into the service of the state. I am not acquainted with a case of atimia having been inflicted for this offence of neutrality. When Emeric Tökeli was appointed commander of the Hungarian insurgents, against the emperor Leopold I., in 1678, he proclaimed that he would suffer no neutrals. Since he fought against the imperialists, it is evident, that he meant, every one should be bound to take up arms with him.

XVI. Respecting the relation in which citizens may stand to parties, they may be classified, I think, under the following heads: Apathists, neutrals or independents, party-members, partisans or zealots, factionists, and trimmers.

Of apathists, and their danger in free countries, we have spoken. If we understand by neutrals or independents, those citizens who do not attach themselves to any existing and exacting party, and do not consider themselves pledged, or in any way bound to vote with it on all those questions which in themselves are indifferent, but become important on party grounds only, and who consider themselves perfectly free and disengaged to vote, for whomever they think best-I speak of citizens at large-they form a highly valuable class of the community, and may contribute much to extricate their country from undue excitement and party action. But it must be well remembered that it is absolutely impossible for any person to have sufficient opportunity or