237 

 THE BRITISH ARISTOCRACY. 



" Non sum qualis eram." 



ON two former occasions we endeavoured to impress upon the readers 

 of this publication, the outlines of what we believe to be the true theory 

 of the prevailing dissatisfaction of the nation with its aristocracy. We 

 endeavoured to trace the comparative insignificance of modern nobility, 

 to its origin amongst the principles of abstract and universal truth : to 

 show that the pretensions of our wealthy and titled fellow countrymen 

 to direct the national mind, and controul the national energies are 

 become inadmissable, not so much because of any incomptency on their 

 part, only of late discovered ; as, because, since the first institution of 

 nobility, the relation between it and the rest of society has been con- 

 tinually changing its character; because this change is a necessary 

 consequence of the progress of civilization, and, therefore, to be acquiesced 

 in as the ordination of Providence -and because this charge has now 

 in our country reached a crisis, at wmch the old ascendancy of a nobility 

 is become positively and insufferably mischievous, a crisis, when we are 

 no longer at liberty to indulge noble lords, from a sentiment of refined 

 humanity, in the belief that they are of vital importance to us ; but are 

 called upon, in the discharge of our duty to humanity in general, and 

 our own country in particular, to let them know, that we are conscious 

 of the elevation to which time and circumstances have raised us ; that 

 we cannot, and therefore do not regard them with the same degree of 

 respect, with which our ancestors could and did regard them. 



Our chief objects, in the articles alluded to, were to vindicate the 

 thorough reform party from the charge of wanton and impatient inter- 

 ference with existing politics, by pointing out the purely providential 

 incompatibility of the old claims of one class of society, with the new 

 acquirements of the rest of it; and to lend our little aid in recom- 

 mending, in common fairness to lords themselves, the positive duty, in 

 the middle ranks, of indicating to great men and their abettors, by a 

 diminished subserviency in the intercourse of private life, the great 

 truth of their diminished importance. 



No doubt, one of the lordly party would consider us to have written 

 with the sole intention of exasperating the popular party against them. 

 From what we observe of these high and mighty persons, nothing less 

 than downright approval and partizanship will satisfy them ; their motto 

 seems to be, " He who is not for us is against us." Least of all can 

 they stomach the deliberate insolence of affecting to oppose them on 

 philosophical and moral grounds, and with the method and tone of 

 dispassionate argument. We are quite sure there are not many aristo- 

 crats, who would not rather excuse a ruffian for half fracturing their 

 skulls with a brick-bat, merely because they were called lord, than 

 they would forgive such as ourselves, for maintaining that other men 

 are, now a-days, more like lords than they used to be; and that 

 it would be better for lords, if they would open their eyes to, and 

 candidly admit the fact. 



Be this as it may, however, we certainly had no wish to add to the 



