336 ARISTOCRACY ALWAYS PARAMOUNT. a noble modesty; but to please you, my dear friends, the crafty orator only talks of the to kalon of cotton-spinning, and the to prepon of money-making. Believe me, then, that if you were to institute a republic tomorrow, it would be an aristocratic republic; and though it would be just as bad if it were an aristocracy of shopkeepers, as if it were an aristocracy of nobles, yet I believe on the whole it would be an aristocracy very much resembling the present one (only without the control which the king's prerogative at present affords him). And for one evident reason—namely, the immense property of our nobles and landed gentry! Recollect, that in this respect they differ from most other aristocracies, which are merely the shadows of a court and without substance in themselves. From most other aristocracies, sweep away the office and the title, and they themselves are not; but banish from court a Northumberland, a Lonsdale, a Cleveland, a Bedford, or a Yarborough; take away their dukedoms and their earldoms, their ribbons or their robes, and they are exactly as powerful, with those broad lands and those mighty rentrolls, as they were before. In any republic you can devise, men with this property will be uppermost; they will be still your rulers, as long as you yourselves think that property is the legal heir to respect. I always suppose, my friends, in the above remarks, that you would not take away the property, as is recommended by some of the unstamped newspapers, to which our Government will permit no reply, and which therefore enjoy a monopoly over the minds of the poor; I always imagine, that, republican or monarchical, you will still be English; I always imagine that, come what may, you will still be honest, and without honesty it is useless to talk of republics. Let possessions be insecure, and your republic would merge rapidly into a despotism. All history tells us, that the moment liberty invades property, the reign of arbitrary power is at hand; the flock fly to a shepherd to protect them from wolves. Better one despot, than a reign of robbers. If we owe so much of our faults and imperfections to the aristocratic influence, need I ask you if you would like an unrelieved aristocracy? If not, my friends, let us rally round the Throne. CHAPTER III. The Monarchy shown to be less expensive than is believed.-An excuse for defending what Whigs say no one attacks. BUT the Throne is expensive. Ah! hark to the popular cry: "That's the wavering Commons; for their love The belief that the Throne costs something quite enormous is generally received in the manufacturing towns-thanks again to the unstamped publications, to which Lord Althorp (desiring a republic, I suppose) compels the poor-never will I be weary of urging the Government on that point!-And men, afraid to avow that republicanism is a good thing, delicately insinuate that it is an exceedingly cheap one. Let us see how far this is true; let us subject our constitution to the multiplication table; let us count up, my friends, what a King costs us. The whole of our yearly expenditure, including our National Debt, is somewhat more than fifty millions; out of this vast sum you may reckon that a King costs as follows: Civil list 411,800 These are the main expenses of royalty; I cannot find, by any ingenuity, that we can attach to it a much larger sum; * Richard II. 338 EXPENSES OF ROYALTY. but let us be liberal, and reckon the whole at a million. What then? Why the King would only cost us just one fiftieth part of our yearly outgoings, or one twenty-eighth part of our National Debt! I think, indeed, the royal expenditure might be somewhat lessened without diminishing the royal dignity. I see not why we should have three regiments of Horse Guards; but let this pass. Suppose we do not cut down a shilling of the King's expenses, is it not idle to talk of the oppressive cost of a King when it amounts only to a fiftieth part of our yearly incumbrances ? Ah, say some, but supposing the King were not, we should be better able to cut down the other expenses. I fancy they are very much mistaken; those expenses are the expenses that have no connexion with Monarchy-expenses that are solely for the convenience of the aristocracy. Do you find that the King himself resists retrenchment? on the contrary, was not retrenchment the very principle established between himself and his ministers? Republics, I allow, are generally cheap: but then Republics have not generally run into debt as you have. I suppose, by being Republicans, we should not get whitewashed, and that we should be equally obliged to discharge our pecuniary obligations. But how was that debt incurred? My dear friends, that is quite another question; I am not arguing whether you might not be richer had you established a Republic a century ago (though I doubt it exceedingly, for I could prove your aristocracy, more than your monarch, to blame for your debt), but whether you would be much richer now by establishing a Republic? It is cheaper to build a plain house than a fine one; but having once built your fine house, it is a false economy to take it down for the purpose of building a plain one. Some one pulls me by the arm and asks me, why I defend a Monarchy which the Whigs assure us that nobody attacks. Hark you, my good friends, the reason is this-I see much farther than the Whigs do, and I speak more conscientiously,-l hate the policy that looks not beyond the nose of the occasion. I love to look far and to speak boldly. I have no place to gain, no opinion to disguise-nothing stands between me and the Truth. I put it to you all, whether, viewing the temper of the age, the discontent of the multitude, the example of foreign states, the restlessness of France, the magnificent affluence of North America, the progress of an unthinking liberalism, the hatred against ostensible power-I put it to you all whether, unless some great and dexterous statesman arise, or unless some false notions are removed, some true principles are explained, you do not perceive slowly sweeping over the troubled mirror of the Time the giant shadow of the coming Republic ? CHAPTER IV. The House of Lords not to be confounded with the Aristocracy-Caution against the advice of Journalists-Objections to a numerous creation of Peers-The people proved to be less strong than they imagine-The abolition of the House of Lords proved to be dangerous to the safe working of the Commons-A third mode of reforming a second chamber, but the people are not prepared for it. BUT since it seems that our jealousy must be directed mainly against the aristocratic power, how shall we proceed in order to resist and diminish it ? That is a question not easily answered. Do not, my friends, do not let us confound a House of Lords, which is but a part of the aristocracy, with the aristocracy itself: there is just as much aristocracy in the House of Commons as there is in the House of Lords, only at this moment you are very justly displeased with the Lords. If you were to destroy that assembly, it would not be long before you would be quite as much displeased with the House of Com mons! Could I persuade you to take my advice, you would look with considerable suspicion on the leading articles of newspapers; especially when their writers seem very earnestly to take your view of the question. You know it is a common trick among thieves, when they see a green-horn engaged in a broil, to affect to be all on his side; so in Roderick Random, an ho 340 AN INCREASED PEERAGE nest fellow offers very good-naturedly to hold Strap's coat for him while Strap enjoys a comfortable round or two at reciprocal fisticuffs. When the battle is done, Strap's coat has disappeared! My dear friends, there are certain journalists who seem passionately in your favour-all willing to pat you on the back, and give you a knee, while you show your manhood on the House of Lords! but recollect poor Strap, and keep your coats on your shoulders. This is the homely advice of your friend and neighbour. : Yes! I see certain journalists strongly recommending a numerous creation of peers.. Somehow or other, those journalists are very fond of the ministers it is true they scold them now and then in a conjugal way; but they make it up on a pinch, because, like man and wife, the journalist and ministers often have an interest in common. There was a time when I advocated a numerous creation of peers-a creation that should bring the two Houses of Parliament into tolerable concord; but that time is past. New objections have arisen to such a policy, and I confess that on my mind those objections have considerable weight. Are you willing, my compatriots, to give the Whig ministers such a majority in both houses, that you will never be able without revolution to have any other administration ? If so, then go on, clap your hands, and cry out with the Morning Chronicle for new peers! Do not fancy that measures would be more liberal if this creation were made! it is a delusion! What would be this creation ? it would be a Whig creation! Ah! I see that, sooner than such a creation, you would consent to have chaos a little longer! You are right. Measures would not be more liberal; on the contrary, it is from the despair of pleasing the Lords that the only really liberal measure of the Whigs (the Reform Bill) was insisted upon! Do you not observe, the moment the two Houses may brought pretty nearly to the same temper, that the Whigs are willing to pare down and smooth away any popular proposition, so that it may glide quietly from one House through the other? If there were but little difference between the two chambers, depend upon it, in that little difference the people would invariably go to the wall. Do you not mark, that as the ministers now cannot govern by the House of Lords, so they must govern somewhat by the people? But suppose they had secured the be |