OCR Text |
Show 22 LIBERTY AND SLAVERY. sionately, not to say so madly, fond of freedom, for a repetition of those tremendous conflicts and struggles beneath which the foundations of society have so often trembled, and some of itq best institutions been laid in the dust 1 In one word, is it not high time to raise the inquiry, Whether there be, in reality, any such opposition as is usually supposed to exist between the Jaw of the land and the natural rights of mankind 1 Whether such opposition be real or imaginary 1 W11ethcr it exists in the nature of things, or only in the imagination of political theorists? § III. No good law ever limits or abridges the natural liberty of mankind. By the two great leaders of opposite schools, Locke and Burke, it is contended that when we enter into society the natural right of self~defence is surrendered to the government. If any natural right, then, be limited or abridged by the laws of society, we may suppose the right of self-defence to be so; for this is the instance which is always selected to illustrate and conftrm the rea)ity of such a surrender of our natural liberty. It has, indeed, become a sort of maxim, that when we put on the bonds of civil society, we give up the natural right of self-defence. NATURE OF CIVIL LIBERTY. 23 But what does this maxim mean 1 Does it n.ean that we transfer the right to repel force by force 1 If so, the proposition is not true; for this right is as fully possessed by every individual after he has entered into society as it could have been in a state of nature. If he is assailed, or till·eatened with immediate personal danger, the law of the land does not require him to wait upon the strong but slow arm of government for protection. On the contrary, it permits him to protect himself, to repel force by force, in so far . as this may be necessary to guard against injury to himself; and the law of nature allows no more. Indeed, if there be any difference, the law of the land allows a man to go farther m the defence of self than he is permitted to go by the law of God. Ilence, in this sense, the maxim under consideration is not true· and no man's natural liberty is ab1~dged by th.' State. Does this maxim mean, then, that in a state of nature every mau has a right to redress his own wrongs by the subsequent punishment of the offender, which right the citizen has transferred to the government 1 It is clear that this must be the meaning, if it have any correct meaning at all. But neither in this sense is the maxim or proposition true. The right to punish an |