The Evolution oj the State. 95 



the lower people in their revolt against the oppression of 

 the crown. Thus early, it becomes us to note that the 

 State was little more than a most inconvenient, though 

 necessary, burden upon the race, so long as it failed to 

 recognize manhood as the one indispensable ingredient of 

 successful political institutions. 



Such was the rule of petty kings; and whenever, by 

 conquest, numbers of petty sovereignties were reduced to 

 one dominion, there was developed a representation of each 

 small kingdom or tribe by its chosen head, which, under 

 such rulers as William the Conqueror, in England, grad- 

 ually came to form an aristocracy of nobles who were 

 destined to force the king to enlarge the freedom of the 

 masses, in order that he might himself escape destruction. 

 Meantime the powerful influence of the church, which 

 before the art of printing was discovered was the sole 

 vehicle of knowledge, was preparing the way for the voice 

 of the people to be heard in the councils of the State. So 

 that, four centuries ago, taking England as the most ad- 

 vanced example, the evolution of the State had reached a 

 point where the one man power of primitive times had 

 been largely circumscribed by the successful assaults of 

 the common people upon the strongholds of sovereignty. 

 And the chief agent of this result will be seen to be the 

 barbarous, exterminating, almost endless warfare of these 

 early centuries. Out of these rugged furrows of bloody 

 war has blown the consummate flower of modern civiliza- 

 tion, whose fruitage-time must still be placed in the cen- 

 turies which are to come. 



At this period, the king could levy no tax without the 

 grant of Parliament ; no law could be promulgated without 

 its assent, no man could be committed to prison but by 

 legal warrant, the fact of guilt or innocence was deter- 

 mined by a public court with a jury of twelve men, and 

 the oflB-cers and servants of the crown were subject to the 

 same tribunal ; and, for more than a hundred years pre- 

 vious, the kings of England had desisted from imposing 

 taxes without consent of Parliament. 



That which was at last coming to fruition was the share 

 of the governed in the policy of the government. True, it 

 was a sadly crippled share. Only within the present decade 

 has the agriculturist laborer of England taken a direct part 

 in the composition of Parliament. But, all through these 



