I have studied the animal. That's his view of it, depend upon it! He will not be convinced. He will not even "argue the point," nor listen to a word said on the side contrary to that which he espouses. He has _his_ opinions, he says; and will stick to them, right or wrong-- notwithstanding the home truths that may lie in those of others opposed to him. Dogged, certainly:--liberal, no! Do you doubt what I say?--Let us go to particulars then. Your candid disestablishers, for instance,--will they meet your outspoken churchmen, who stand up for the old faith in the constitution, on an open platform; and discuss the question of a national church on a common footing, where both its opponents and its supporters can be heard? Will your would--be--republican, foregathering at some Hole-in-the-Wall meeting, allow a conservative speaker to say a word in opposition to his progressive puerilities? Your teetotal-alliancer, in a quorum of water- drinkers, will he _let_ a licensed victualler utter a protest against his scheme for universal abstinence? No. Each and all of these several cliques are, in common with all cliques, narrow-minded and intolerant. They prefer being kings of their respective small companies and enjoying the mutual admiration of a packed assembly, to coming out boldly like men and letting the pros and cons of their schemes be ventilated in free discussion at genuine meetings, composed of diverse elements.--Do you want any further proof? I confess, I don't like republics or republicans. Once upon a time, before seeing how they worked, I undoubtedly had a leaning towards the "liberalism," as I thought it, of this school; but a thorough exposure of the "institution" and the character of its partisans in America and in France have completely opened my eyes to their real nature. Were I asked, now, to define a republic, I should say that it was a general scramble for power and perquisites, by a lot of ragged rascals with empty pockets, who have everything to gain by success, and nothing to lose by failure.--A sort of "rough and tumble" fight, in which those with the easiest consciences, the loudest tongues and the wildest promises, come to the fore, letting "the devil take the hindmost!" It is a so-called commonwealth, wherein the welfare of the mass is subordinated to party spirit; and in which each aspirant for place and power, well knowing that his chief ambition is to "feather his own nest" without any afterthought of patriotism, kicks down his struggling brother--likewise on the lookout for the loaves and fishes of office-- ostracising him, if he doesn't put up with the treatment quietly!