tion of wealth will be more equal, the moral force of society will be better balanced, the means of recruiting the superior ranks from the classes below them will be more abundant than ever. Still all this may not be sufficient. It may be necessary for society to go backward, in order again to spring forward. For the dissolution of an old and worn-out society has sometimes the effect of breathing a new spirit into the whole population. All classes and conditions are then confounded together. The rich and the powerful are tumbled from their enviable position; they are brought down to the level of the obscure and humble, who now begin to run a new race for all the advantages of fortune. This is a provision inherent in the constitution of every community which has become effete with luxury and corruption. There may be no way of revivifying the elements of society, and of imparting fresh vigor to the population, but by passing them through the ordeal of a terrible adversity. But the experiment will be quite new, when any nation shall have traveled to the utmost limit of the third period. As the institutions will then have a sort of self-preserving faculty, and will contain powerful antidotes to the evils just indicated, we do not know whether any further revolution will be necessary. The high probability is that it will not ; and this is the last term-the final consummation of our hopes.

CHAPTER VI.

NOTICE OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.

ONE of the most remarkable properties of the English government, is the faculty which it possesses of accommodating itself to alterations in the structure of society. The theory of the constitution is pretty much the same as it was in the reigns of the Tudors; but its practical working is totally different. The social organization has undergone a great change during the last seventy years, and this has made a deep and lasting impression upon the political institutions. The king, the nobility, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, occupy the same relative position to each other; but they do not occupy the same position toward the people. This power of adapting itself to the altered condition of society, is one of the most valuable qualities which a government can possess. It is next in importance to positive changes in the composition of the government.

The revolution I have spoken of has been silent, but progressive. It has effected an entire change in the modes of thinking of all public men, and has wrought a corresponding change in the system by which public affairs are conducted. The prerogatives of the king and aristocracy are the same as formerly, but the people have been steadily advancing in strength and importance; and how is it possible to employ power against the powerful? As the general improvement of the population, and the consequent amelioration of the manners, has imparted a new character to the temper and dispositions of individuals; so the inability under which public men find themselves, of exerting even an acknowledged authority, renders that authority in great part merely nominal; and the administration of the government in practice no longer agrees with what the theory ¡mports.

There are only two ways of effecting alterations in the political

institutions. The one, is by sudden leaps; the other, by slow and insensible advances. The first is sometimes attended with so much violence and confusion, as to endanger the existence of the entire fabric. The second, although it avoids this evil, has, nevertheless, a tendency to postpone the most wise and salutary changes, to a period far beyond that when society is ripe for their introduction.

Montesquieu said, of the British government, that it was a republic in disguise; which shows what inadequate notions this eminent writer had formed of a republic. But it is not at all improbable, that it will become at some future day, not perhaps very distant, a republic in reality, and not one merely in disguise. When I perceive the great bulk of the people growing to the full stature of men; and when I observe that, in every contest between liberty and power, the advantages gained have been constantly on the side of the people, and never on that of the government; I see causes in operation which are not only sufficient to bring about this result, but which seem to lead straight forward to its accomplishment.

But how is it possible, without sudden leaps, to get beyond the point which has already been reached. How in other words, without creating an universal revolution, can the structure of the government be changed fundamentally. It is through the instrumentality of that invisible but powerful agent, which we term public opinion, that a spirit has been breathed into the institutions. But public opinion does not construct, it only influences and modifies. It may, step by step, and without noise and confusion, affect the working of the machine; but this is very different from taking the machine to pieces: very different from abolishing the royal power and the house of lords, and substituting in their place an elective chief magistrate and senate.

This is an obstacle, and a formidable one, in every attempt to alter the composition of an ancient government. Society, in Great Britain, is ripe for the introduction of free institutions, if there were no other system already in existence. The existence of that other system, with the vast patronage and influence appended to it, has a powerful tendency to counteract the force of public opinion, and renders it a work of infinite delicacy to make any radical alteration whatever.

But the process I have described may continue so long as to give rise to further changes of the same character; and, by molding the minds of men after a different fashion of thinking, may have power sufficient to overbear the influence of the throne and aristocracy. In this way, what would have been an abrupt and violent leap at an early period of society, may become an easy transition at a more advanced stage. Everything depends upon the shock which the mind receives. We do violence to the political institutions, only when we do violence to inveterate habits of thinking. But if old associations are broken in upon, there is no room for committing violence in any quarter. I think it cannot be doubted, that the footing on which the electoral franchise, parliamentary representation, religious toleration, and the freedom of the press, now stand in Great Britain, would, in the reign of Elizabeth, have been regarded as a much greater movement, than would at the present day the entire reconstruction of the executive magistracy, and the house of lords. Although the second appears to involve a more direct and positive interference with established institutions, it does not run counter to the genius and tendency of the age: it would therefore give much less shock to the understandings of men.

It is a remark of Mr. Hume, that there was, in his day, a constant tendency toward a diminution of the personal authority of the king. This fact has been still more observable since Mr. Hume wrote. And the reason why it is so is very obvious. The amount of real business which falls under the management of the executive, becomes so vast and multifarious with the advance of society, that no one man, much less a king, can attend to the one hundredth part of it. The consequence is, that the whole of this business has been gradually transferred to an executive board. So long as it was possible to conceal the cause of this change from general observation, the king continued to retain the dazzling influence which the vulgar apprehension ascribes to him. But now that this cause is apparent to every one, the royal and the executive authority have ceased to be even nominally the same. For not only is the king totally unable to discharge this huge mass of business; but ministers do not even hold their places at his will. The direction of public affairs was formerly a very simple concern. The gratification of the king's pleasures and ambition comprehended the whole. And although some share of business talent could not well be dispensed with, yet as public transactions consisted for the most part of war, negotiation and intrigue; the imaginations of the people very naturally figured the king as incomparably the most prominent actor upon the stage. But the case is very different now. Intellectual ability, extensive information, indefatigable industry, are all absolutely necessary to any tolerable success in the management of public affairs. The English statesman now a days has to deal chiefly with the interior interests of a densely peopled and highly civilized community. War, which formerly employed the whole attention of the state, is becoming a mere episode in its history. It is impossible for any monarch, however ignorant or bigoted he may be, to misunderstand the import and bearing of this great revolution in human affairs. With regard to the lords, I have in another chapter alluded to the process which seems destined to bring about the decay of their power and influence. Wealth constitutes the soul of an aristocracy. Other qualities may add lustre to the institution; but it is wealth, exclusive wealth, which gives it a firm hold, and a commanding authority, in society. But riches are now obtained by such a multitude of individuals, that they can no longer be the foundation of a privilege. What was once the chief element of an aristocracy, is now a great element of popular power. The same causes which conspired to create an hereditary order, are now at work to enfeeble it. The English nobility are no longer the haughty and powerful barons who formerly lorded it over the commons. They are simply among the most polished and affluent gentlemen of the kingdom: guarded for the present by a sort of conventional respect, but no longer wielding a formidable authority over the rest of the population.

The French have very recently made a fundamental alteration in the institution. The peerage is no longer hereditary. An event which seventy years ago would have startled the public mind throughout Europe, has been brought about with as much facility, and has created as little sensation, as an act of ordinary legislation. It is true, the English nobility are a much wealthier body than the French. But the English commons are wealthier than the French "tiers etat," in a still greater proportion. The materials for constructing an aristocracy are more near at hand in England than in France ; but the uses of the institution would seem to be more apparent in the latter than in the former country.

An aristocracy is of two kinds. It may be so numerous, and