years have been afterwards suffered to elapse, before they could be prevailed upon to apply the remedial measures in their power! They may, at times, have prevented rash and improvident innovation; but, more frequently, the delays they interposed, have led to more extensive changes, or retarded the remedy, till it was too late to produce the desired effect. They defended with pertinacity every corrupt and rotten borough brought before them, till the torrent of Reform swept away at once all they had for years been contending for. They resisted Catholic Emancipation, till Ireland had been arrayed against England by the agitators. They refused to abolish the Slave Trade, till the extension of sugar cultivation, by the introduction of fresh negroes from Africa, had ruined the Colonies. When they passed the Nullum Tempus Act against the Crown, nothing could induce them to extend its provisions to the Church; and when they yielded at length, they inserted a mischievous, though plausible, clause, which has tempted many a parson into an unprofitable and unpopular warfare with his parishioners. It was but the other day that they rejected an ample provision for the Irish Clergy, at the risk of leaving those venerable persons to starve, or of being compelled to provide for their necessities. Yet, with all these faults and deficiencies, it must, in candour, be owned, that, as a legislative body, the House of Lords has been, on the whole, a faithful and useful servant of the public. It remains for us to consider, what has been the conduct of the Peers, and what weight belongs to them as Hereditary Counsellors of the Crown.

In ancient times, the Barons of England are honourably distinguished for the services they rendered to public freedom. In the contests with prerogative, their names are usually conspicuous on the popular side. They were the chief instruments in extorting from King John the great charter of our liberties. Under his fickle and unprincipled son, they maintained a constant, and, on the whole, not an unsuccessful opposition to the foreign minions, who engrossed and abused his favour. From his able and imperious grandson they obtained those confirmations of the Charters, which served in all future times as a beacon to direct the people in their struggles for constitutional freedom. It would be endless to recapitulate the services of the great lords in the subsequent periods of our history. Till the extinction of the ancient nobility, in the civil wars of York and Lancaster, they took a leading part in all the political revolutions of the state. As a council of advice in the administration of the kingdom, the House of Lords was of paramount importance. During the calamitous reign of Henry VI., it was repeatedly admitted in Par

liament, that in case of a suspension of the royal functions by the nonage or imbecility of the King, it was the right and duty of the Lords to assume his authority, and make provision for the politic rule and governance of the land.

nent.

But, though the English baronage was distinguished from the nobility of France by the support its members gave to public liberty, it must not be supposed, that in character and disposition they were altogether dissimilar from their brethren on the contiWe have only to consult the annals of Stephen to learn the horrible excesses of which they were capable. But, holding less extensive regalities, and having less inherent power than the Peers of France, they were compelled, in their contests with the crown, to look to the people for assistance. The French nobles fell, one after another, unsupported by their fellows, and unpitied by their countrymen, whom they slighted and oppressed. The English nobility, less confident in their strength, were induced to confederate together, and by espousing the cause of the people, to engage the people on their side. It was no respect for the rights of their inferiors, but the want of power to do otherwise, that inspired them with moderation and regard to others. When successful, they were not indisposed to abuse the advantages they had gained; but in their wildest schemes of ambition, they acted with such respect for popular opinion, that when vanquished, they were lamented by their countrymen as the martyrs of public freedom. Ballads were composed in honour of the Earl of Leicester, after his fall; and Thomas of Lancaster, though a more ambiguous character, was venerated as a saint, and miracles were long performed at his tomb.

Under the Tudors, a new nobility started into life. Favourites or servants of the crown, and indebted for their existence to its bounty, they were ever ready to obey its orders; and unless when spirited to resistance by religious zeal, or entangled in dangerous machinations by their mutual rivalities and ambition, they were as submissive to their prince as the lowest and humblest of his subjects. Towards the end of Elizabeth, the Commons began to rise into permanent importance; and in the memorable civil war that followed, though some of the great nobility espoused the popular cause, the struggle for liberty was chiefly maintained by the Commons. The ingratitude of Charles II., and the bigotry of James, alienated many noble families from the House of Stuart; and for some time after the revolution, the principal strength of the Whig party lay in the House of Lords. The Church of England had, in self-defence, taken part against James; but, when secured from immediate danger, the Clergy relapsed into their ancient Tory prejudices and

hatred of Presbyterians and other Dissenters. Haunted by their recollections of the Commonwealth, and priding themselves on the consistency of their opinions, they became the bitter enemies of the settlement effected by the Revolution, and drew after them the more ignorant and prejudiced of the country gentry-the Squire Westerns of those days. It required all the weight of the great Lords, and of the commercial and monied interest, to withstand this combination. The principles of liberty were sufficiently understood to make it impossible to govern by mere prerogative, but were not sufficiently disseminated among the middling classes of society, to enable ministers to govern by a just confidence in the strength and soundness of public opinion. It was found necessary to gain the electoral body by bribes to support the friends of their liberties and religion, and corruption became, in this manner, the auxiliary of freedom. The result was, the preservation of the Protestant succession, under an oligarchy composed of great Lords and trading politicians.

The accession of George III. opened a new scene. It was resolved to emancipate the King from what was called aristocratic thraldom. The clergy and gentry, in hatred of their ancient enemies, lent their aid as soon as they perceived the drift of the court. The scheme was conducted with art, and pursued with perseverance. Advantage was taken of jealousies and divisions in the ministry, to discard some and seduce others from their former connexions. Some persons were gained, others were dismissed, and new men introduced in their place. Repeated changes and desertions destroyed all confidence among public men-never was a period more disgraceful to politicians, nor more injurious to the country. The court obtained at length an inglorious victory, followed by a most calamitous war. In the political struggles that ensued, both parties were alternately successful; but the court, pursuing its course with steadiness and dexterity, and occasionally yielding to adverse circumstances, triumphed in the end. From 1784 to 1792, it resisted the most powerful combination of wealth and talent ever arrayed in opposition.

In this state of things, the French revolution came like a thunder-storm, to terrify the timid, and purify the atmosphere. The real or feigned alarmists crowded to court, and in return for the support they gave, had peerages showered on them to allay their fears; as if coronets were a protection against popular violence. The consequence has been an entire change in the character of the House of Lords. It no longer consists of a small number of persons, possessed in general of large fortunes, and either attracted to the court by the allurements of interest and gewgaws of vanity, or attached to the people by family recol

lections and popular principles. It is now composed of a vast multitude, recently ennobled, with estates not superior to the country gentlemen who surround them, with no ancient prejudices in favour of the crown, and no recollections of ancestry to connect them with the people. Having little to expect from the court, and nothing to ask from the people, they are independent of both. The people have no direct influence over them, and the crown cannot add to their number without increasing the chances of future opposition to its measures.

If the Lords, independent alike of prince and people, retained the political weight which they enjoyed in the early periods of our history, they would be the masters of the State. To say that they have no longer any political influence would be incorrect. They derive authority from their rank, and from the respect which all classes are disposed to extend to them. They have more legitimate claims to consideration from the talents many of them possess the experience they have acquired-the services they have rendered their country-the knowledge and ability they exhibit in debate; but the sinews of their power are gone. The ancient Barons drew their importance from their immense landed possessions, and from the numerous retainers and dependents at their beck. A large portion of the territorial surface of England was in their hands. Their estates were vast, and all who lived on their lands were attached to them from kindness, or obedient to them from fear. The landed property held by the present House of Lords, though considerable, is comparatively small. Some ten or twelve of the Peers have large estates, but the greater part of them are gentlemen of small or moderate fortunes, with no influence beyond the farmers and labourers who cultivate their lands. Not only is the landed property of the Lords much less considerable, and much more minutely subdivided than it was in former times, but it is encumbered with debts and mortgages which take from its value. Nor is this all. The landed perty of England was formerly the chief part of its wealth. At present, it is far exceeded in amount by the personal property embarked in trade, manufactures, and agriculture, or vested in the funds. Of personal property, the Lords have wondrous little, in comparison with the other members of the community; and it so happens, that a large portion of this newly created property has accumulated in remote villages and distant parts of the kingdom, where the aristocracy seldom reside, and have therefore no means of acquiring personal influence to counterbalance their deficiency in wealth. But property either gives power, or power plunders property; and as the latter is not yet the condition of England, the distribution of property, as it exists amongst us at

pro

present, shows how little political weight can belong to the House of Lords.

The declension of the Lords in wealth is irremediable, and must go on increasing every day. Their position in society precludes them from adding to their fortunes by their industry, and every succeeding generation must lessen the means they at present possess. The economical reforms in the state must leave their younger children burdens on the heirs to their title. The time is gone by when a father could bequeath to one of his younger sons an annuity, to determine when his elder brother could procure for him an equivalent place or pension from the Government. Few fields of adventure are left open to the younger sons of the nobility. The church, which was their richest harvest, is about to be reformed. The army and navy are honourable professions; but to those who have been educated in luxury they afford a slender resource without some other means of subsistence. Diplomacy creates habits of expense and indulgence, and then leaves the unhappy victim to vegetate on some miserable pension, if he is fortunate enough to obtain one. The law indeed is accessible to all, but how few are the children of the aristocracy who have risen to eminence at the bar. Some splendid exceptions might indeed be cited, and several instances of moderate success might be adduced; but, compared with the number of miscarriages, they are not many. Sundry attempts we have witnessed that ultimately failed of success, not from defect of talents or application in the parties, but from the distrust of attorneys in the diligence of persons who frequented fashionable assemblies, or from want of patience and perseverance of the young men themselves in what they found for years to be unprofitable labour. The only resource left for aristocratic youth is some mercenary marriage with a city heiress, whose parents are willing to exchange their wealth for the appellation of honourable, or the title of my lady, obtained for their daughter.

In this state of the House of Lords, a learned gentleman proposed some years ago to the Duke of Wellington, then First Commissioner of the Treasury, to revive the ancient practice of creating Peers for Life. Less attention has been given to this suggestion than it deserved. All persons confess that the peerage is too numerous, and all must admit that it is necessary at times to add to its number. All persons must agree with the author of the pamphlet before us, that, while the judicial business of the Lords is conducted on its present footing, it is desirable that the country should have the benefit of every description of talent in that assembly calculated to ensure the