ment. Political power has always been substantially vested either in the king, lords, or commons, and was never, I conceive, contemporarily and conjointly exercised by the three estates, each possessing an aliquot and independent portion of the national sovereignty.

Up to the period of the revolution of 1688, the power of the crown was absolute, or at least so far preponderated in the government as to leave nothing like co-ordinate authority in the other branches of the legislature. The circumscription of the royal prerogatives by the Bill of Rights caused a transfer of the political supremacy of the monarch to the aristocracy. The acts for the amendment of the representation have effected a new disposition of power, and the supremacy which had been exercised by the peerage through the medium of the nomination boroughs has been transferred to the commons of the united kingdom.

That such has been the progress of public authority might be established by reference to past history, and the character of the measures now in progress through the legislature. Of the former predominance of regality in the constitution, the history of the Tudors and the claims of the Stuarts are a sufficient confirmation. The subsequent aristocratic bearing of the government has been manifested not less decidedly in the public policy pursued since the Orange revolution. Without joining in the popular clamour against the aristocracy, or thinking that their conduct has been more selfish

and arbitrary than that of any other class would have been, possessed of like irresponsible power, it cannot be denied that they have evinced their political ascendancy in the control they have exercised over the crown in the choice of ministers-in the allocation of taxes-in the objects of the wars they have waged-in resisting the reform of judicial, ecclesiastic, and corporate abuses-in short, in conducting the government precisely in that way which has been most favourable to themselves, without regard to the wellbeing of the community. The measures in progress for the reform of public establishments in church and state testify to the new interests incorporated in the constitution by the reform acts, and show that the partial interests formerly predominant in parliament have been abased by the triumph of the democracy. The House of Commons has exchanged places with the House of Lords, and from being the subservient has become the controlling body; and it is only, I apprehend by the lords quietly submitting to move in this nether sphere, that its nominal position as one of the three estates of the realm can be permanently maintained. There is no general disposition in the people, I verily believe, to alter the frame of the government; they are too well informed to put all things to hazard-to have a sort of scramble, for the sake of getting rid of a little pageantry and ceremony, or to achieve some paltry savings: still, should the peerage unwisely become an obstacle to the popular will, concentrated, intelligent, and all

powerful as that will is, the result of a collision would most assuredly be fatal to "the proudest aristocracy in Europe," the programme of the days of the commonwealth would be rehearsed, and the House of Lords, as Mr. Burke observed of France, be "blotted out" of the political firmament. Such a catastrophe would be deeply to be deplored, as there is no foreseeing to what monstrosities in government it might give birth. Forewarned, forearmed, and as what has once happened may happen again, the following historical anomaly is subjoined:

"AN ACT FOR ABOLISHING THE HOUSE OF PEers, passed the 19th of March, 1648 (Old Style).

"The Commons of England assembled in parliament, finding, by too long experience, that the House of Lords is useless, and dangerous to the people of England to be continued, have thought fit to ordain and enact, and be it ordained and enacted by this present parliament, and by the authority of the same, that from henceforth the House of Lords in parliament, shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; and that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said house called the Lords' House, or in any other house or place whatsoever, as a House of Lords; nor shall sit, vote, advise, judge, or determine of any matter or thing whatever, as a House of Lords in parliament; nevertheless, it is hereby declared, that neither such Lords as have demeaned themselves with honour, courage, and fidelity to the commonwealth, nor their posterities (who shall continue so), shall be excluded from the public councils of the nation, but shall be admitted thereunto, and have their free vote in parliament, if they shall be thereunto elected, as other persons of interest elected and qualified thereunto ought to have. And be it further ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no peer of this land (not being elected, qualified, and sitting in parliament as aforesaid) shall claim, have, or make

use of any privilege of parliament, either in relation to his person, quality, or estate, any law usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."

Every one must see that government can only be carried on in accordance with public opinion; that is, in accordance with the opinion of the metropolis and great towns of the kingdom. What that opinion is may be derived by a more infallible test than even the composition of the House of Commons—namely, the tone of the public journals: they represent the national mind, and the direction of that mind unequivocally is to the substantial, not the illusive, removal of abuses. The giant power that created a reformed parliament will support it in carrying through those specific measures of general alleviation for which parliamentary reform itself was conquered.

One of the consequences of past misgovernment has been such as its authors did not calculate upon. The Tories, when contracting the monstrous debt, and infolding every one in their fiscal web, were not aware of the trap they were preparing for themselves; they were not aware that they were giving a greater political power to the people at large than they could possibly have done by the establishment of universal suffrage itself. A large revenue can only be collected from an intelligent people while they are willing to pay it, and they will only be willing to pay it so long as public measures are in accordance with the public sentiment. The people, therefore, may exultingly exclaim of their rulers as Cromwell

of his enemies,

"The Lord has delivered them

into our hands!" and government can only escape from this dilemma by the repeal of direct taxes, and by narrowing the circle of taxation; but these again are protective expedients, the adoption of which is next to impossible, in consequence of the pecuniary obligations in which they have recklessly tied themselves up!

*

CHAP. VI.

LAWS, MORALS, AND MANNERS.

PAINE truly observes, that a great part of that order which reigns among mankind has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connexion which holds it together. All classes and occupations prosper by the aid which each receives from the other and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms

* Some of my readers may feel surprised I should quote a proscribed author like Thomas Paine. The truth is, I have been lately looking over his political writings, and found more in them that is absurd than dangerous. Government, by wisely allowing them to be publicly sold, has deprived them of whatever potency they once possessed. They contain ingenious thoughts, but in the main are a jumble of conceits and impracticable dogmas, which the age has outlived.