The Aristocracy.

Almost imperceptibly to ourselves, we are drawn through the different departments of our undertaking in heraldic order: first, we explored the Church in all its ramifications; next the revenues of the Monarch; afterwards the monarch’s chief council, and his representatives in the persons of his ambassadors, envoys extraordinary, and ministers plenipotentiary; and now we come to the Aristocracy, which, according to the established rules of precedency, ought to follow the Clergy and the Crown.

Before entering on the more serious details of our present subject, we cannot help pausing a moment, on the threshold, to felicitate ourselves and readers on the triumphs already achieved by the progress of knowledge. Three centuries are only a step in the history of nations, yet, within that period, how many fictions of feudality and priestcraft have been dissipated, and which are now only reverted to as sources of amusement, like the delusions of witchcraft and demonology. Only think of the supremacy of the Clergy, in the fifteenth century, when they enjoyed almost impunity for every crime, by exemption from secular jurisdiction. It strikingly demonstrates the influence of mind over ignorance; for ecclesiastics, at that era, as much excelled the laity in mental attainments as in the magnitude of their possessions. Such pre-eminence is either lost or fast disappearing: in science and information they are manifestly behind other classes of the community; their moral influence is insignificant; the chief advantages they retain are their revenues, and the permanent enjoyment of these not being founded on any claim of right or social utility, public conviction has decreed against them, and the general verdict waits only to be carried into execution,

Among the fictions of Regality the most preposterous was the claim of divine right, which has become too common place a drollery even for mirth. Still it cannot be forgotten, that, so recently as the last of the Stuarts, this dogma had many disciples, and some remains of this singular faith are now to be found. An attempt has been made to erect a new idol in the pretensions of Legitimacy: but, in an age of discussion, imposture cannot long maintain its ground, and this was soon trampled under foot. Previously to the introduction of this idolatry, the English had shown their contempt for hereditary right by the transfer of the crown to the Prince of Orange; the French subsequently by the expulsion of Charles X. and the adoption of Philip I.; and the non-interference of the European powers in the mighty movement of 1830 has put an everlasting seal on this species of secular superstition.

Let us next advert to the fictions of the Third Estate: by some accident the English Aristocracy have contrived to retain a greater proportion of their ancient influence and endowments than any other privileged order of the community. The circumstances to which this may be ascribed appear principally the following. First, the English nobility had the good sense to give up in time a portion of their more revolting usurpations, by which they have been enabled to preserve entire, in a more palmy state of enjoyment and for a longer term, the remainder, than any similar class in Europe. Secondly, at an early period of our annals they obtained a hold on popular support, by aiding the people in resisting the encroachments of the clergy and the prerogatives of the Crown. Lastly, and latterly, the more enlightened portion of them have conciliated the favour of the influential classes by the adoption of liberal principles, and by impressing them with the belief that a conservative principle identifies the immunities of their ‘order’ with the general peace and welfare. Some of these sources of respect and power are manifestly losing ground in popular estimation. For what services the Aristocracy have rendered to civil liberty they have been amply remunerated by the long exercise of the political franchises of the People, by the receipt of enormous rents, and by the absorption of public taxes. The assumption of a community of interest with the People is partly belied by their own legislative acts, in which they obviously consider they have an interest different from that of other classes of society. In short, the time has arrived, when the power and institutions of the privileged orders may be fitly passed in review; they have already conceded many immunities, and it is not improbable the period has arrived when they will be called upon to make further concessions to the spirit of the age.

There was a time, as every body knows, when lords were petty despots on their-domains. They had their dungeon-castles, in which they could, at their own arbitrary will, torture, imprison, and even execute, their fellow-creatures. They could, when it suited their sovereign pleasure, sally forth on the public highways, and, with impunity, rob and maltreat whatever luckless traveller they happened to meet. They had even immunities still more revolting to human feeling. One, it is true, can hardly bring the mind to believe that such monstrous usages as those which gave rise to borough-English and child-wit ever existed; yet that they did is unquestionable, and the memorials of these customs, subsisting in the borough of Stafford, in the county of Essex, and other parts of the kingdom, place the facts beyond dispute. By the former usage the lord claimed the trifling perquisite, on the occasion of a marriage on his estate, of sleeping the first night with the bride; and the latter designates a penalty which a woman had to pay who had suffered herself to be begotten with child without the lord’s permission. Thank heaven our seigneurs have abated something of their ancient privileges; still the bare knowledge that such usages once existed—that they are associated with the name—is sufficient to make the mere titles of lord, baron, and duke, an offence—an insult to human reason—an abomination—which modern and civilized Europe ought no longer to tolerate.

Having adverted to a few of the ancient impostures and usurpations, chiefly to show to what a depth of degradation human nature may be reduced, we shall proceed to illustrate the immunities and advantages enjoyed by the Aristocracy, and which they have been enabled to arrogate and maintain by a monopoly of political power. It is a subject of vast importance, and one, we believe, when fairly placed before our countrymen, about which there will hardly exist diversity of opinion.

In contemplating the English government, one peculiar feature may be remarked in every branch of our civil and ecclesiastical polity: in each branch there is an entire departure from the original object of its institution. In the ecclesiastical state, no such abuse as clerical sinecurists was formerly known; every order had some duties to discharge, for which they received their incomes: but now we find that the episcopal, dignified, and one-third of the parochial clergy receive four or five millions annually, for which it is hard to say any service whatever is rendered to society. The House of Commons, originally intended to represent the property, intelligence, and population of the state, has become the mere organ of the Aristocracy; who, according to the constitution, ought not to have the least influence over its deliberations. The executive, by the delegation of its powers to ministers and judges, exhibits a similar dereliction from civil and military duties: and, lastly, in the House of Peers we find a corresponding abandonment of civil functions; the dukes, earls, and barons had all, formerly, as their names import, important duties to discharge in the commonwealth.

The object of reform is not to destroy the established church, pull down the two houses of parliament, nor invade the rights of the Crown; but to restore, as far as the altered state of society will allow, those different orders to the exercise of their legitimate authority.

Of the different innovations on the ancient system, there is none more flagrant than those of the Aristocracy: it has swallowed up not only the rights of the people, and the prerogatives of the Crown, but also the immunities of the church. At no former period of history was the power of the Aristocracy so absolute, nor did they enjoy a tithe of their present advantages. During the Norman Kings, and the first kings of the house of Plantagenet, down to the passing of Magna Charta, though the power of the Crown, in many instances, proved but a feeble barrier to the encroachments of the barons, yet, when united with the influence of the clergy, it was at all times able to set some bounds to their authority. After the passing of the Great Charter, the growth of manufactures, and the diffusion of knowledge among the people, gave rise to the Commons. This order, unknown to the preceding period, gradually rose into great importance, and ultimately became able not only to prescribe bounds to the Aristocracy, but also to the Monarch. Under the tyranny of the Stuarts, the Commons brought one monarch to the block, and abolished the House of Peers. But its ascendancy was of short duration. The return of Charles II.—the restoration of the rotten boroughs, which had been struck out of the representation during the protectorship of Cromwell, to the right of returning members of parliament,—the introduction of parliamentary corruption in the reign of Charles II.—more systematically and openly practised under William III. and perfected under the administration of Walpole, in the reign of George II.—completely annihilated the powers of the Commons, and gave to the Aristocracy its uncontrolled and irresponsible ascendancy.

Having obtained the power, the Aristocracy have exercised it as uncontrolled power usually is exercised, namely, solely for their own advantage: they have rid themselves of what duties were anciently annexed to their order, and monopolized nearly all the honours and emoluments of society.

The ancient nobility had not only to provide a sufficient military force for the defence of the kingdom, but they had also the administration of justice, the coining of money, and, in short, the whole internal government of the country committed to their care. On such conditions, their estates were originally granted: these they retain; but as to the duties annexed, they have placed them on the shoulders of the other classes of the community. It is the Commons now, who either discharge, or pay for being discharged, all the duties of the state. If we only examine the list of taxes, as we shortly intend to do, we shall find that the aristocracy have, comparatively, exempted themselves from impost, while the burthen falls exclusively on the people. The duties imposed by the corn-laws are a tax paid directly for the support of this order; while, with the exception of the land-tax, a trifling impost, all other duties, the assessed taxes, excise, customs, stamps, post-office duties, fall with disproportionate weight on the middling and working classes, and scarcely touch the massive incomes of the nobility.

This is one of the great evils resulting from the political supremacy of the peerage. Instead of bearing the burthen of taxation, which, in fact, is the original tenure on which they acquired their territorial possessions, they have laid it on the people. Nothing can be more unjust and oppressive. The comforts of one class ought never to be encroached upon, while another class remains in the enjoyment of redundant luxuries. It is the legitimate object of good government to prevent the extremes of wealth and indigence, and diffuse equally, through all classes, the bounties of nature. But the aristocratic system is the reverse of this principle. It weighs chiefly on want and penury; it tramples on those already depressed; and crushes, almost to annihilation, the most useful classes by its unceasing exactions.

It is not our purpose to investigate the utility and origin of an hereditary privileged class. It is, no doubt, a questionable hypothesis—not supported at least by the cotemporary illustration of many noble families—that wisdom and fitness for the administration of national affairs are inheritable endowments. Besides which, men seldom take pains to cultivate superfluous acquirements: consequently, it is a strong objection to hereditary honours, that those born to them have no necessity for cultivating the virtues by which, perhaps, they were originally acquired. A principal motive for the institution of hereditary right has ceased to be of weight. Originally it was intended to guard against disputed succession, and prevent the division of powers essential to the security of communities and property. But the introduction of the representative principle in governments, the more general diffusion of intelligence, of habits of order, of respect for individual claims, has rendered these precautions no longer essential to the maintenance of social institutions. Leaving, however, the general discussion of the question, we shall proceed to notice, categorically, the real and practical grievances entailed on the commons of England by the advantages and immunities of the Aristocracy.