Other classes sid ing with the aristo cracy. Wealth to the aris Peg Nicholson's order" became a by-word. The degradation of knighthood by the indiscriminate liberality of the Crown in granting it, continued until a recent time. Still there were not knighthoods enough; and in 1783 the king instituted the Order of St. Patrick. Scotland had its most ancient Order of the Thistle: but no order of knighthood had, until that time, been appropriated to Ireland. The Hanoverian Guelphic Order of Knighthood had also been opened to the ambition of Englishmen; and William IV., during his reign, added to its roll, a goodly company of English knights. The Order of the Bath, originally a military order, was enlarged in 1815; and again in 1847, the queen added a civil division to the order, to comprise such persons as by their personal services to the Crown, or by the performance of public duties, have merited the royal favour.1 Besides these several titled orders, may be noticed officers enjoying naval and military rank, whose numbers were extraordinarily augmented by the long war with France, and by the extension of the British possessions abroad. Men holding high offices in the state, the church, the law, the universities, and other great incorporations, have also associated their powers and influence with those of the nobility. The continual growth and accumulation of property favourable have been a source of increasing strength to the British tocracy. nobles. Wealth is, in itself, an aristocracy. It may desire to rival the nobility of a country, and even to detract from its glory. But in this land of old associations, it seeks only to enjoy the smiles and favours of the aristocracy, craves admission to its society,- aspires 1 Letters Patent, 24th May, 1847; London Gazette, p. 1951. to its connection, and is ambitious of its dignities. The learned professions, commerce, manufactures, and public employments have created an enormous body of persons of independent income; some connected with the landed gentry, others with the commercial classes. All these form part of the independent "gentry." They are spread over the fairest parts of the country; and noble cities have been built for their accommodation. Bath, Cheltenham, Leamington, and Brighton attest their numbers, and their opulence.1 With much social influence and political weight, they form a strong outwork of the peerage, and uphold its ascendency by moral as well as political support. The professions lean, as a body, on the higher ranks The profes of society. The Church is peculiarly connected with sions. the landed interest. Everywhere the clergy cleave to power; and the vast lay patronage vested in the proprietors of the soil, draws close the bond between them and the Church. The legal and medical professions, again, being mainly supported by wealthy patrons, have the same political and social interests. How vast a community of rank, wealth, and intelligence do these several classes of society constitute! The House of Lords, in truth, is not only a privileged body, but a great representative institution,- standing out as the embodiment of the aristocratic influence, and sympathies of the country. 1 Bath has been termed the "City of the Three-per-cent Consols." 272 CHAP. VI. TO MEM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: NOMINATION BOROUGHS: VARIOUS AND Unfaithfulness of of Com mons to its trust. IN preceding chapters, the various sources of political the House influence enjoyed by the Crown, and by the House of Lords, have been traced out. Their united powers long maintained an ascendency in the councils and government of the state. But great as were their own inherent powers, the main support of that ascendency was found among the representatives of the people, in the House of Commons. If that body had truly represented the people, and had been faithful to its trust, it would have enjoyed an authority equal at least, if not superior, to that of the Crown and the House of Lords combined. Its dependence and corruption. The theory of an equipoise in our legislature, however, had been distorted in practice; and the House of Commons was at once dependent and corrupt. The Crown, and the dominant political families who wielded its power, readily commanded a majority of that assembly. A large proportion of the borough members were the nominees of peers and great landowners; or were mainly returned through the political interest of those magnates. Many were the nominees of the Crown; or owed their seats to government influence. Rich adventurers,-having purchased their seats of the proprietors, or acquired them by bribery, supported the ministry of the day, for the sake of honours, patronage, or court favour. The county members were generally identified with the territorial aristocracy. The adherence of a further class was secured by places and pensions by shares in loans, lotteries, and contracts; and even by pecuniary bribes. The extent to which these various influences preyailed; and their effect upon the constitution of the legislature, are among the most instructive inquiries of the historian. the sentative The representative system had never aimed at theo- Defects of retical perfection; but its general design was to as- represemble representatives from the places best able to system. contribute aids and subsidies, for the service of the Crown. This design would naturally have allotted members to counties, cities, and boroughs, in proportion to their population, wealth, and prosperity; and though rudely carried into effect, it formed the basis of representation, in early times. But there were few large towns-the population was widely scattered :-industry was struggling with unequal success in different places; and oppressed burgesses,-so far from pressing their fair claims to representation,—were reluctant to augment their burthens, by returning members to Parliament. Places were capriciously selected for that Nomination boroughs. honour by the Crown,-and sometimes even by the sheriff',-and were, from time to time, omitted from the writs. Some small towns failed to keep pace with the growing prosperity of the country, and some fell into decay; and in the meantime, unrepresented villages grew into places of importance. Hence inequalities in the representation were continually increasing. They might have been redressed by a wise exercise of the ancient prerogative of creating and disfranchising boroughs; but the greater part of those created between the reigns of Henry VIII. and Charles II. were inconsiderable places, which afterwards became notorious as nomination boroughs.2 From the reign of Charles II.,-when this prerogative was superseded, -the growing inequalities in the representation were left wholly without correction. From these causes, an electoral system had become established,-wholly inconsistent with any rational theory of representation. Its defects, originally great, and aggravated by time and change,-had attained monstrous proportions in the middle of the last century. The first and most flagrant anomaly was that of nomination boroughs. Some of these boroughs had been, from their first creation, too inconsiderable to aspire to independence; and being without any importance of their own, looked up for patronage and protection to the Crown, and to their territorial neighbours. The influence of the great nobles over such places as these was acknowledged, and exerted so far back as the fifteenth century.3 It was freely discussed, in the reign of Elizabeth; when the 1 Glanville's Reports, Pref. v. tween the reigns of Henry VIII. and Charles II. Glanville's Reports, cii. 3 Paston Letters, ii. 103. |