But, to return to “liberty.” We have seen, that the Constitutional meaning of this term in our Charter or Bill of rights is limited to the single and simple claim to a voice by representation in the power of making law, and that laws are made for our _subjection_. All the rest beyond this is _duty_, _obedience_, _not_ liberty. Law limits and circumscribes us at all points, in the house and out of it, every where, in relation to every body, and to every body’s rights. All the rights of our fellow beings, as secured by law, are an abridgment of our liberty. The higher the degrees of civilization, which add to the multiplication of laws, so much greater is the abridgment of liberty. That is, the more perfect society is made, so much less of liberty do we have; and, as good citizens, we are not only contented with it, but we prefer it. For the advantages of society, we enter into terms of mutual concession; and every degree of concession cuts us off from liberty. Now for the romance of “Equality”--“that all men are created _equal_.” And what is the meaning of this in the Charter of our rights? Simply, that royal blood, and noble blood, is no better than any other blood; and therefore, that we will have no king, and no aristocracy. The hereditary and divine right of kings, and the hereditary right of nobles, are here barred, and the _people_ are enthroned in their place, with all the chances open before them of _rising_ in society, according to their merits, even to the highest honors of the Republic. This, we think, is the exact meaning of equality in this place, and that it goes no farther than to cut off the hereditary claims of kings and nobles, and of privileged orders in the community--that is, of orders privileged by the enactments of Constitutional law. But this principle, obviously, was never intended to apply practically to general society, nor to any ranks of society below these degrees. In this sense of the term the whole community is reduced fairly to what is generally understood by the republican level: that all may have a chance to rise according to their merits. But who will say, that it was intended to make a President of the United States of a man, who has no sort of qualification or claim to that office? Or to raise any man to an honor or office, to which he is not judged to be entitled by a majority of those voices appointed by law to determine such a question? Who will say, that it was intended to annihilate those grades of society, which the use of common rights necessarily creates, because one man is more industrious, or more virtuous, or more fortunate than another? Who will say, that it was intended to establish the Agrarian principle, that because the industry of one man has built him a good house, the lazy, idle, and worthless man has a right to claim a part of it, and a part of the wealth of its owner? Or, that all inequalities of wealth and condition in life, produced by