Europe from the Peace of Utrecht. 
conclusion, that whatever degree, of 
practicability it may be capable of, must 
be dependant upon the elements and 
principles, of, which, and by which the 
order of nobility is, composed, If the 
king can ennoble at his discretion, the 
the drudges of office, the flatterers of 
his person. ‘the upholders of his prero- 
gative, the ministers of his luxury and 
his pleasures—what is to prevent him 
from having always a subservient ma- 
jority.of noblesse, and practically con- 
centrating in, himself two parts, at least, 
of. this theoretically three-fold division 
of the supreme power. If territorial 
possession be the primitive basis of here- 
ditary nobility, and the titular patent 
of power once obtained, by whatever 
means, be inalienably entailed beyond 
the taint of imbecility, profligacy, and 
abuse, what wisdom or what integrity 
is to be expected from its councils, or 
what moderation in the exercise of that 
influence which rank and territorial pro- 
perty never fail to secure to their inhe- 
ritor ! what limits to the subserviency, 
by which the needy and bankrupted of 
such a class may be induced to eke out 
the wasted means of supporting. their 
ostentatious pretensions? The despo- 
tism of the throne and the despotism of 
the aristocrasy may have their fluctua- 
ations in the struggle of such elements, 
but what in either case is likely to be- 
comié’ of the theoretical share of the 
people in this three-fold division of the 
supreme power? Besides—who are the 
people in whom this pretended third of 
the, supreme, power is to be vested? 
Does his lordship include under this 
term, the entire whole of the adult po- 
pulation ? or, if not, (draw the line of 
distinction where we will), under what 
denomination are to be classed the rem- 
nant of two-legged beings, who are nei- 
ther to be ranked among people, lords, 
nor kings ?—must we consider them as 
mere political machines, as biped auto- 
matons, or class them with our beasts of 
burthen? Are we to understand, on 
the other hand, by the people, only those 
who may come into occasional associa- 
tion with the nobility, or who stand 
within the sphere of their immediate or 
incidental influence? If so—what are 
the people but the thralls and vassals of 
the noblesse ? and what is to become of 
the rights and interests of those who 
are’ excluded from’ the enumeration ? 
This interrogation may sound a little 
harsh’ and grating; but the solution of 
the enigma they ‘propose, is indispen- 
sably necessary ere the proposition be- 
| 
581 
fore us can be understood; and we 
must begito be excused from: assenting 
to any proposition till at least we can 
understand its terms. 
We will conceed, however, to his 
Lordship, that under the apparent aus- 
pices of a system, or. species of govern- 
ment explained by something like the 
phraseology of his Lordship’s theory, 
this country has hitherto happily main- 
tained, or rather, from time to time, has 
managed to work out for itself a degree 
of liberty which surrounding nations (less 
jealous, or less fortunate, in the defence 
of their ancient immunities), might well 
behold with envy: -But whether this 
is to be accounted for from the happier 
adjustment, or more “ equitable division 
of the supreme power between the king, 
the nobles, and the people,” at the time 
when the former general assault of royal 
usurpation, alluded to by his Lordship, 
was made upon the rights of the people 
is another question: 
His Lordship has, indeed, with a few 
brief strokes of his pen, correctly and 
ably described the characteristics of the 
the sovereigns of that day, and by whom 
such ‘mighty changes were suddenly 
wrought in the relative conditions and 
dependences of kings and people. 
** In considering the causes of the supre-- 
macy obtained by monarchs, much also is 
to be attributed te the personal qualities of 
the sovereigns who reigned towards the 
close of the fifteenth century. The kings 
of that day were more enlightened than 
the nobles of the country, and had much 
more knowledge of public affairs than the 
inhabitants of cities. Louis the XIth of 
France, Henry the VIIth of England, and 
Ferdinand of Arragon, most skillfully took 
advantage of the period when the nations of 
Europe were too much civilized to bear any 
longer the anarchy of former ages, but not 
sufficiently so to for a regular government 
for themselves.” —“‘ Lewis was the most 
remarkable for cruelty, Henry for avarice, 
and Ferdinand for perfidy. Each succeeded 
in his object, but Lewis most fully and com- 
pletely. The people of France had been. 
already subdued in the preceding reigns, 
and it only remained for him to oppress the 
nobles. The barons were more divided 
from the people in France than in Spain, 
and in Spain more than in England, 
The states-general of France were soon 
blotted out of her government; a mine 
was laid in Spain for the destruction of the 
Cortes; but neither the subtle artifice of 
Henry the VIIth. nor the joyial disposition 
of Henry VIIIth, could induce the people 
of England to part for ever with their Par- 
liaments.”’ 
All this is specious enough. . But most 
assuredly 
