he possess it. The variety of the powers that are exercised in this stage by the ruling authority is not, in actual practice, so great; but the rules that define the scope and manner of exercise of this authority are so general and indefinite in character that in almost no direction does the individual possess any guarantee against State molestation.

As civilization advances, however, not only does the orderly habit of the people increase, but their moral qualities become more developed. The distinction between right and wrong becomes more clearly recognized, and principles of justice are more frequently followed without reference to the sanction of the State. The feeling of self-dependence arises, the desire for a certain latitude of action uncontrolled by the powers of the State comes into being, and thus, by degrees, the arbitrary and extensive control of the State becomes irksome. Thus arises a struggle between authority and liberty a struggle that has continued and will probably continue throughout all history.

This struggle, it is to be remarked, is of a twofold nature: First, to secure to the individual a certain field in which he shall be free to act as he will, without interference either by the political power or by private individuals. Secondly, to establish general rules according to which the functions that are given to government shall be exercised; that is, to substitute for the arbitrary and uncertain action of government a more or less certain and uniform regulation of public affairs. Neither one of these aims is necessarily bound up in the other. Each is separately obtainable. We thus distinguish between political freedom and individual freedom. The former refers to the extent to which the people participate generally in the management of the State, or at least dictate the manner in which its powers shall be exercised. The latter has to do with the extent to which private rights of life, liberty and property are secured.

113. The evolution of liberty. A brief summary of the contributions of various periods to the idea of modern liberty follows: In the despotisms of the Orient personal liberty was entirely unknown, the life, actions, and property of the individual being completely at the mercy of the ruler.

The Greeks were familiar with the idea of liberty, but they confounded liberty with popular sovereignty. They possessed political liberty but lacked personal freedom in the modern sense. In the Greek city republics the citizens (excluding of course the slaves, who had no legal rights of any sort) made the laws, decided upon peace or war, elected magistrates, served as judges, and performed the duties resting upon them as partakers of the sovereignty of the State. But there was no sphere of life to which the interference of the government might not be extended.

The despotism of the State prevented the growth of private rights. The Greek was primarily a citizen. He existed for the State, not the State for him. The family life, the religion, the property, the time, yes, all actions of the individual, were under the control of the State. The Greek State ostracized Aristides and put Socrates to death.

To the Roman jurists we owe the distinction between public and private rights. Public Right," they said, "serves the Roman State, Private Right, the interests of individuals."

But among the Romans as among the Greeks we notice the same despotism of the State, the same confusion of sovereignty with liberty, which left the individual at the mercy of the State. The Roman citizen could not choose his own religion, as the persecution of the Christians shows. His speech, dress, manners, and actions were regulated by the censors. The feudal system of the Middle Ages obliterated the distinction between public and private rights by associating the possession of property with the exercise of sovereignty. Government was regarded, not as a public trust, but as private property. The possession of land carried with it jurisdiction over those dwelling upon the land. Each baron was lord over his domain. The State no longer existed. There were now only rights and duties between lord and vassal, which were based upon contract and were founded upon personal, not political, relations.

In modern times the distinction between private and public rights has again been emphasized. The results of this separation have been beneficial to both. While public rights and duties have become more majestic and authoritative on the one hand, private rights and duties on the other have become more sharply defined, and have been more widely extended and more effectively secured. . . .

The desire of personal freedom which is so characteristic of modern times is the product of two factors mainly; namely, of Christianity and of the nature of the modern, as distinguished from the ancient, State. While the religions of the ancient world were State religions, Christianity is the world religion. It appeals to the individual as a man, not as the member of a particular State or people.

Then, also, the relation of the individual to the government is necessarily entirely different in the modern State which comprises a large territory, often with many millions of inhabitants - from what it was in the ancient city state. In the latter a greater unity was possible and consequently the control of the community over the individual was greater. The immediate control of the State over its citizens is likely to diminish as the extent of territory increases. Since it is impossible in a large State that the people exercise their sovereign power directly in a popular assembly, as they did in the city state of antiquity, the powers of government must

be delegated to one or a few persons who represent the State. This makes the distinction between the government and the people more evident.

II. NATIONAL LIBERTY

114. National independence. Lieber considers national autonomy essential to liberty in its fullest sense.

It is impossible to imagine liberty in its fullness, if the people as a totality, the country, the nation whatever name may be preferred — or its government, is not independent of foreign interference. The country must have what the Greeks called autonomy. This implies that the country must have the right, and, of course, the power, of establishing that government which it considers best, without interference from without or pressure from above. No foreigner must dictate; no extra-governmental principle, no divine right or "principle of legitimacy," must act in the choice and foundation of the government; no claim superior to that of the people's, that is, national sovereignty, must be allowed. This independence or national self-government farther implies that, the civil government of free choice or free acquiescence being established, no influence from without, besides that of freely acknowledged justice, fairness, and morality, must be admitted. . . . On the other hand, it must be remembered that this unstinted autonomy is greatly endangered at home by interfering with the domestic affairs of foreigners.

115. The American Declaration of Independence. The national liberty of the United States of America was proclaimed in the following document:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of

Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.

116. The acknowledgment of American independence. In the opening speech before Parliament in December, 1782, the king of England, George III, acknowledged American independence in the following words:

My Lords and Gentlemen:

Since the close of the last session I have employed my whole time in that care and attention which the important and critical conjuncture of affairs required of me.

I lost no time in giving the necessary orders to prohibit the further prosecution of offensive war upon the continent of North America. Adopting, as my inclination will always lead me to do, with decision and effect, whatever I collect to be the sense of my parliament and my people, I have pointed all my views and measures, as well in Europe as in North America, to an entire and cordial reconciliation with those colonies.

Finding it indispensable to the attainment of this object, I did not hesitate to go the full length of the powers vested in me, and offered to declare them free and independent states, by an article to be inserted in the treaty of peace. Provisional articles are agreed upon, to take effect whenever terms of peace shall be finally settled with the court of France.

In thus admitting their separation from the crown of these kingdoms, I have sacrificed every consideration of my own to the wishes and opinion of my people. I make it my humble and earnest prayer to Almighty God that Great Britain may not feel the evils which might result from so great a dismemberment of the empire; and that America may be free from those calamities which have formerly proved in the mother country how essential monarchy is to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty. Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two countries: to this end, neither attention nor disposition on my part shall be wanting.

117. Recognition by the powers of Greek independence. Because of the general disorder in southeastern Europe caused by the revolt of Greece against Turkey, intervention by England, France,

and Russia compelled the Sultan to acknowledge Greek independence. In 1832 the powers announced to Greece their selection of Prince Otto of Bavaria as king for the newly formed Greek state. The proclamation follows:

Greeks:

Your new destinies are about to be fulfilled! The courts of France, Great Britain, and Russia have decided upon the choice of a sovereign, whose election the Greek nation had committed to their charge. Their coöperation, equally active and disinterested, had contributed to the independence of Greece. By the choice which they have now made, that independence will be consolidated under the scepter of Prince Otto of Bavaria. Greece is raised to the dignity of a kingdom, and obtains the alliance of one of the most ancient and illustrious of the royal houses of Europe, one which has supported Greece in her struggles, assisted her in her misfortunes, and encouraged her in her regeneration.

The king of Greece will hasten, in person, to bind himself to the nation by the most sacred ties. He brings with him the best founded hopes for territorial boundaries of increased extent and security, of great financial resources, every means of attaining gradually a high degree of civilization, all the elements of an enlightened administration, of a good military organization, and, consequently, every pledge for the peace and happiness of his new country. The three courts are persuaded that they would mistake the character of the Greek nation, if they could doubt the sentiments which the nation will, with one voice, proclaim on this event.

Greeks, indulge these feelings with confidence! Encircle your new sovereign with gratitude and affection. Faithful subjects! rally round his throne; aid him with true devotion in the work of giving to the State a definitive constitution, and of securing to it the double blessing of peace abroad, of tranquillity, the observance of the laws, and of order, at home. This is the only recompense which the three courts require of you for the services which they have had the means of rendering to you.

118. Bulgarian proclamation of independence. Bulgaria announced her independence of Turkey in the following manifesto issued by Prince Ferdinand on October 5, 1908:

By the will of our never-to-be-forgotten liberator and the great kindred Russian nation, aided by our good friends and neighbors, the subjects