no

It

The existence or non-existence of an army makes change in the character or methods of our government. would be difficult to imagine a more unwarranted, and, to our American ear, more offensive statement than that "without the army the American people would be a mob."

The army and navy of the United States will be maintained in such strength as convenience, or the necessity of the government, shall dictate; and they will be held in the respect and honor due to valiant and faithful public servants; but there must be no confusion in the public mind as to the nature and proper theater of their duties, and their true relation to their fellow citizens.

If erroneous ideas on this subject are beginning to take shape and find expression among us, let them be quietly but effectually discouraged.

Military force is always to be regarded with jealousy by a people who would be free.

It is only by military force that usurped power can have its pretensions enforced.

All history tells us that those who aspire to extraordinary power and dominion seldom trouble themselves about anything other than armies to enforce their pretensions, always decided by the possession of the longest sword.

And here, almost in the shadow of Bunker Hill, what words so befitting this grave topic, and the words of what man so proper to be recalled and heeded, as those of the patriot Webster, uttered four-and-thirty years ago, upon the completion of the monument there erected to the valor of the citizen soldiers of America?

"Quite too frequent resort is made to military force; and quite too much of the substance of the people is consumed in maintaining armies, not for defense against foreign aggression, but for enforcing obedience to domestic authority. Standing armies are the oppressive instruments for governing the people in the ranks of hereditary and arbitrary monarchs.

"A military republic, a government founded on mock elections, and supported only by the sword, is a movement, indeed, but a retrograde and disastrous movement, from the regular and old-fashioned monarchical systems.

"If men would enjoy the blessings of the republican government, they must govern themselves by reason, by mutual counsel and consul

tation, by a sense and feeling of general interest, and by an acquiescence of the minority in the will of the majority properly expressed; and above all the military must be kept, according to our bill of rights, in strict subordination to the civil authority.

"Wherever this lesson is not both learned and practised, there can be no political freedom. Absurd and preposterous is it, a scoff and satire on free forms of constitutional liberty, for frames of government to be prescribed by military leaders, and the right of suffrage to be exercised at the point of the sword."

The grandeur and glory of our republic must have its base in the interests and affections of our whole people; they must not be oppressed by its weight, but must see in it the work of their own hands, which they can recognize and uphold with an honest pride, and which every emotion that influences men will induce them to maintain and defend.

They must feel in their hearts "the ever-growing and eternal debt which is due to generous government from protected freedom."

Silently and almost imperceptibly the generations succeed each other, and at the close of every third lustrum it is startling to mark what a new body of men have come into the rank of leadership in our public affairs.

How few of those who to-day guide and influence public measures did so fifteen years ago.

While it may not be in the power of leading men to control the decision of issues, it is in a great degree within their ability to create issues, by pressing forward subjects for public consideration; and herein lies much of the power of the demagogue, that pest of popular government, who, seeking only his own advancement, adroitly presents topics to the public calculated only to arouse their passions and prejudices, to the neglect of matters really vital.

Despite the almost perfect religious liberty in this country, the passions of sectarianism and the prejudices inseparable from such a subject are always to be discovered floating on the surface of society, ready to be seized upon by the shallow and unscrupulous.

The embers of such differences among mankind are never cold, and the breath of the demagogue can always fan them into flame, until the placid warmth of religion,

instead of gently thawing the ice around human hearts, and imparting a glow of comfort to the homes of a happy community, becomes a raging conflagration in which the peace and good-will of society are consumed.

In a country so vast in its area, and differing so widely in all the aspects of life and occupation of its inhabitants, antagonism of interest, rivalry in business, and misunderstandings are frequently and inevitably to be expected; and the constant exercise of conciliation and harmony is called for to accommodate differences and soothe exasperation.

It is in the power of unscrupulous self-seekers to raise such issues as shall involve, not the real interest and welfare of their countrymen, but their passions only, which are easily kindled, and can leave nothing but the ashes of disappointment and bitterness as the residuum.

The war between the good and evil influences in human society will never cease, and the champions of the former can never afford to lean idly on their swords, or slumber in their tents.

All around us we see successful men, vigorous and able, but unscrupulous and base, who have engraved success alone upon their banners, and as a consequence do not hesitate to trail them in the dust of low action, and stain them with disrepute, in pursuit of their object.

They keep within the pale of the written law, having its words on their lips, but none of its spirit in their hearts. Audacity and a self-trumpeting assurance are their charac teristics. They reach a bad eminence, and contrive to maintain it, by all manner of self-advertisement; utterly immodest and indelicate, but successful in keeping themselves in the public eye. To them politics is a mere game, in which stratagem and finesse are the means, and selfinterest and personal advancement the end. Great aid is given to such characters by the public press, whose columns too often laud their tricky, shifty action, or at least give it the publicity it desires, without accompanying it with the condemnation it deserves.

How shall such influences be overcome? How shall we purge places of public station of men whose open boast is that they may be proven to be knaves, but cannot be called "fools"?

Nothing can effect this but the unwritten law, which shall create a tone on national honesty, truthfulness, and honor, to which the people will respond, and which will compel at least an outward imitation of the virtues upon which it is founded.

The armor of the Roman soldier covered only the front of his body. The cuirass shielded his breast, but his back was left unprotected. Each man felt himself to be the representative of the valor and good fame of his legion and his country.

The unwritten law of honor forbade him to turn his back upon danger, and thus became his impenetrable shield.

Such is the spirit and such are the laws that constitute the true safeguards of a nation against dangers from within and without.

LORD

BEACONSFIELD

ON CONSERVATISM

[Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, an English statesman, twice premier of Great Britain, was born in London in 1804, being the son of the author of "The Curiosities of Literature." He was privately educated and trained as a solicitor, but turned to literature and produced at twenty his novel "Vivian Grey." His ambitions were mainly political, however, but he repeatedly failed to secure a seat in Parliament until he was thirty-two. His first speech called out the laughter of the House and he had to sit down, uttering his famous remark: "The time will come when you shall hear me." He at once began a careful study of the style and methods of successful orators, making few speeches, but listening attentively. It was several years before he became a really important figure in the House, but he finally, when leader of the protectionists in the Commons, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer. The summit of his ambition was attained in 1868 when he succeeded Lord Derby as premier, but he had to resign the same year, returning to power in 1874. Three years later he entered the House of Lords as Earl of Beaconsfield, but in 1880 he lost the elections and was forced from office. His administrations promoted suffrage extension and vigorous foreign policies. Among his literary works may be mentioned "Henrietta Temple," "The Young Duke," and "Lothair," the latter being very successful. He died in 1881. His speech on Conservatism" was made at Manchester in 1872.]

MR.

R. CHAIRMAN and gentlemen: I believe I may describe the position of this country as one of very great prosperity. There is no doubt that during the last three years prosperity has been generally acknowledged. There are some who suppose that it may have received a check at the time when I paid my visit to Glasgow. If it has received a check it will increase, I hope, our circumspection, but I must express my own opinion that no substantial diminution in the sources of the prosperity so apparent during the last three years has occurred. I think