Influence of the Aristocracy.

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 Crown Under the tyranny of the Stuarts, the Commons brought one monarch to the block, and abolished the House of Peers. But its as cendancy 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 H.→ completely annihilated the powers of the Commons, and gave to the Aristocracy its present ascendancy.

Having obtained the power, the Aristocracy has 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 menopolized 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 these conditions their estates were originally granted. Their estates continue in their hands, but as to the duties annexed, they have placed them on the shoulders of another class of society. It is the Commons now, who either discharge, or pay for being discharged, all the duties of the state. If we only look over the list of taxes, we shall find that the Aristocracy have exempted themselves almost entirely from impost, while the burden falls exclusively on the people. The duties imposed by the Corn Laws, are a tax paid directly for the sup port of this order; while, with the exception of the land tax, a trifling im post, all other duties, the assessed taxes, excise, customs, stamps, post

Blackstone's Comment. B. IV. ch. iv. and v. and Smith's Wealth of Nations, B. III. ch, iv. where the nature of the ancient tenures is investigated.

Influence of the Aristocracy.

office duties, fall almost entirely on the middling and working classes, and scarcely touch the incomes of the nobility.

This is one of the greatest evils resulting from the usurpation of the Aristocracy. Instead of bearing the whole burden of taxation, which, in fact, is the tenure on which they hold their property, they have laid it entirely on the people. Nothing can be more unjust and oppressive. The comforts of one class ought never to be abridged by taxation, while another class remains in the enjoyment of luxuries. It is the legitimate object of good government to prevent the extremes of luxury and indigence, and spread equally through all classes the bounties of nature. But the borough-mongers' system is the reverse of these principles. It presses only on the weak points; it tramples only on those that are fallen; and crushes even to annihilation the most useful classes, by the weight of its imposts.

It is not our business to inquire into the utility and origin of an hereditary privileged class. It is, no doubt, an absurd supposition,-not supported, at least, by the example of many of the families ennobled during the present reign,-that wisdom and talents for government run in the blood. Besides which, men seldom take pains to cultivate unnecessary talents; 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. But we leave these subjects, to consider the present influence of the Aristocracy.

The influence of the Aristocracy is derived from four principal sources. First, church patronage; secondly, the rotten-boroughs; thirdly, their territorial possessions; and, lastly, from occupying the principal offices in the army, revenue, and navy, and almost in every department of the government. There are only two descriptions of offices,-namely, those requiring talents and industry, or those the duties of which cannot be discharged by deputy, that the borough-mongers deny themselves. Unfit for the higher stations in courts of law, they condescend to fill the lucrative situations of clerk, registrar, messenger, usher, or receiver, and carry bags and wands at the tail of those whose ability alone has made them their superiors, and to whom they are compelled to pay this homage, as a penalty for their own imbecility.

About 6000 church livings are in the gift of the aristocracy and gentry. The Aristocracy alone return about one-half the members of the House of Commons, which places at their mercy both the property and persons of the whole community.

Influence of the Aristocracy.

The incomes of this class, from their landed property, may be best estimated from the returns under the Income Tax. By returns to the House, made up to the 5th July, 1815, it appears, that the whole è taxable income

was £140,000,000, and that it arose from—

2

1.-Rental and profits of tithes, manors, mines, houses, &c. 2-Trade, professions, offices, &c..

£57,129,047 34,383,632

91,512,679

Probably, in the first of these items, the income from tithes, mines, houses, &c. may be taken at about £17,000,000, which would leave £40,000,000 as the income of the landed interest. Mr. Colquhoun estimates the income of the nobility, knights, baronets, and country gentlemen, at 58 millions a-year. We think there can be little doubt but the income of the Aristocracy, from rent, amounts to 36 millions a-year. This enormous sum, according to the above returns, is more than the income arising from trade, and all other professions together. If we add to this sum, derived from their landed property, the incomes received by different members of their families, from filling nearly all places in the church, army, navy, revenue, and government, we shall be able to form some idea of the share enjoyed by about 400 families, of the produce, honours, and emoluments of the country.

The total number of Peers, who sit in the House of Lords, is 372, and are as follow :

Influence of the Aristocracy.

The title of Duke was first conferred by Edward III.; that of Marquis by Richard II.; and that of Viscount by Henry VI. The last is the only title originally merely honorary, and to which no duties were annexed.

An increase in the peerage has generally taken place on the accession of a new family, or when some unpopular measure was to be carried. On the death of Elizabeth the peers only amounted to 56. James, being the first of a new dynasty, raised the number to 105; and Charles I. to 135; Charles II. created 15 dukes, 6 of whom were his natural children, 1 marquis, 37 earls, 3 countesses, 2 viscounts, and 29 barons. At the Revolution of 1688, William III. to ingratiate himself with the great families, raised 8 powerful earls to dukedoms; created 18 earls, 3 viscounts, and 9 barons. Anne increased the peerage to 170. The accession of the Hanover Family rendered new creations necessary; George I. either created or elevated no fewer than 49 peers. George II. left 184. It is evident that the great increase in the peerage has been in the present reign; being more than doubled. In 1777 a batch of peers was drafted from the Commons into the Lords, to effect a ministerial majority. This expedient was frequently resorted to by Mr. Pitt. In 1797 ten peers were made. He nearly created the order of marquises; he made ten marquises in England where there was but one, and nine in Ireland where there were none--all men eminent of course for their services. Knighthood was still more profusely lavished. In short, he was as prodigal in wasting the honours of the Crown as the of the people, and for a similar purpose.

money

We shall now subjoin to this article a correct List of the House of Peers; particularizing their family connexions; their parliamentary influence; the places held by themselves or relations; distinguishing also those opposed to Catholic Emancipation, and those who voted for the late bills for destroy. ing the remaining liberties of the people. The last distinction is important; it will enable the reader, at one glance, to know the enemies, both of religious and political freedom.

It is proper to preserve the names and circumstances of such an assemblage, were it on no other account than because the memorable bill passed the Peers, for transporting to Botany-Bay those convicted of the indefinable offence of libel. Such a measure would have disgraced a Turkish divan, and rivals in Gothic barbarity, and contempt for literature, the conduct of Omar, the Saracen caliph, who ordered the magnificent library of Alexandria to be destroyed, because, forsooth, the barbarian was insen sible to its utility,

A

Influence of the Aristocracy.

LIST

OF THE

ARISTOCRACY,

With an account of their family connexions; parliamentary influence, the Places and Pensions held by themselves or relations; distinguishing also those opposed to Catholic Emancipation; and those who voted for the Seditious Meeting and Press Restriction Bills.

Those with a * voted for the New Bills.

Those with a + voted against the Catholic Claims, May 17th, 1819.

Peers of the Blood Royal.

GEORGE Augustus Frederick, Prince Regent of Great Britain and Hanover, and guardian of the duchy of Brunswick Lunenburgh, duke of Cornwall and Rothsay, earl of Chester and Carrick, baron of Renfrew, lord of the Isles, great steward of Scotland, high steward of Plymouth, colonel of the 10th regiment of dragoons, and captain-general of the Hon. Artillery Company, K.G. F.R.S. &c.

The income of the Prince Regent, to defray his personal expenses and for the support of his household, is about £500,000 a year.. Parliamentary influence: patron of the borough of Plymouth. +Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, earl of Ulster in Ireland, bishop of Osnaburgh, a field-marshal, commander-in-chief of all the land-forces, colonel of the 1st foot guards, of the 60th regiment, and of the royal Dublin regiment of infantry, keeper and lieutenant of his majesty's forests, parks, and warrens at Windsor, keeper of the king at Windsor, grand master of the Order of the Bath, K.G. D.C.L. F.R.S. &c.

Income of his royal highness about £100,000 per annum. Prince William Henry, Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews, earl of Munster in Ireland, admiral of the fleet, and ranger of Bushy Park, K.G. D.C.L. and F.S.A.

Income £25,298 9s. 8d.

}

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, earl of Dublin, a fieldmarshal, governor of Gibraltar, keeper and paler of Hampton Court, &c. Income £31,205 4s. 2d.