The advocate., 1895-08-07

while the prevailing ideas and sentiments of the
people remain unchanged. There was time when
the King of England was absolute. Parliament
itself created by the King as an assistance and
was his instrument, not his master. Did not even
Elizabeth send members Of the Commons to the
Tower for speaking too boldly in debate? That was
not so very long ago. yet to-day, the leader of the
majority in the House of Commons is the actual
ruler of England. The law is the same as it was in
EliZabeth's time. 1t has never been formally de-
cared that the King is not to be master any longer
but it would Startle the nation were George Ill to
attempt some day to exercise the prerogatiVes
Charles IL. exercised within the lifetime of our
grandfathers. What has produced this change,
which will after awhile completely eliminate the
Crown The agitation of the Radicals during and
after the conflict which elevated Cromwell to more
than royal power. LOCkes writings and Millions
were more destructive of monarchy than could have
been half score of bloody revolutions. On the
other hand look at your own America. A people
absolutely free after July, 1776, pulled over them
selves State governments Of the rich over the COM
mon people; such governments as you, my dear
Sydney, tried so impetuOusy to overthrow in Massa.
Chusetts; and to-day, the same people have set up,
under the title of President, King with dangerous
powers which EDglishmen would not now entrust to
their sovereign Why is this? Because your great
orators and writer's have not been educating the
people; they have not been alrmativey inculcating
sound political and social philosophy, but have
spent their great energies in neg0tjCe cOmbat-in de
nouncing the eUjting state of things instead of hold
ing up the picture Of the state of things Ohcb ought
tOand might pre0Gj YOu went to war over the right
OF England to govern America How much better
it would have been to spread the doctrine that no
man should be allowed to govern another man; that
not even majority has that right, but that every
reasonable being should govern himself and recog-
nize no master but Godl
"We speak learnedy of natures laws. DO we
ever presume to m0ke laws for the government of
electricity or of graVitation? Knowing full well
that natures laws for the government
Of the physical universe are already
made and are unChangsble by any puny eff
forts of ours to be gOds set ourselves to discOoer
those laws that we may obey them, because it is
better for us. Are there then no social laws pre-
scribed by nature for the government of society?
Are the movements of even ifeless leaf that hut-
ters from tree in Autumn guided by natural laws,
and is mans conduct as social being left to blind
chance or to his ignorant WillP Not so. Society is
natural institution and must therefore, be subject
to natural laws, obedience to which would result in
social happiness where social misery now abounds.
Yet, which of your statesmen has ever proposed
that shall seek to djScOUer those natural laws of
society, instead of making laws as if we were
wiser than the good God that holds the universe in
his omnipoent graspP Were a legislator to propose
statute to regulate digestion the action of the
heart, he would be thought insane; yet his proposal
would be not whit more absurd than the actual
practice of making laws for the regulation Of
society"
"Why, sir you put forth an astonishing thought!
AS live, sir it is true society must have its natural
laws If it is a natural institution and we cannot
change them. 1t must be our laws, then, try to
combat nature and we simply get hurt for it. A
tries to get out of the way of stroke of light
ming, and the law sends Sheriff to make him stay
and get struck. A man starts to build his chimney