perhaps the most remarkable sentiment ever uttered even by a young man. It is fair to Lord John Manners to add that he was a fairly successful Minister of Public Works under two administrations, showing indeed a good deal of taste and no contempt at all for the arts. Another Manners was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1805 to 1828; but beyond having an income of something like $130,000 punctually during nearly a quarter of a century, this prelate cannot be considered to have done anything noteworthy. The Archbishop's son was Speaker of the House of Commons from 1817 to 1834, and was raised to the peerage in 1835 as Viscount Canterbury—a peerage being the invariable termination of a modern Speaker's career. The present Lord Canterbury (his son) has been Governor of Victoria and two or three other colonies; for men do not belong to a ducal family for nothing.
There are but eleven Dukes of England properly so called; that is, Dukes sitting in the House of Lords as such, and deriving their titles from creations before the union with Scotland. The Duke of Norfolk, as before stated, is the first of these, and the Duke of Rutland the last in order of precedence. The patent of the latter as Duke bears date March 29, 1703. There are also Dukes of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, as well as of Scotland and Ireland; but those of the two sister kingdoms sit by inferior titles among their peers, and all the Dukes not of England take precedence among each other by somewhat intricate rules of precedence, into which it is not worth while to enter. The dukedoms are twenty-eight in all, exclusive of those held by princes of the blood royal. The honor has been very sparingly bestowed in late years. The last conferred by George III. was that of Northumberland, the King refusing to make any more creations, except in favor of his own descendants. The Prince Regent made Lord Wellington a duke, and after his accession to the throne raised Lord Buckingham to the same dignity. William IV. made two more, and her present Majesty has added an equal number to the list.
The history of one ducal family is the history of all. They generally boast a founder of some abilities, and produce one or two men, seldom more, who leave their mark on the annals of their country. It would be strange if it were otherwise, considering the enormous opportunities which a title, joined to fair means, gives to its possessor in England. The privileges with which acts of Parliament and courtly lawyers in bygone ages invested the nobility have long since become nominal. A peer has now no right as such to tender advice to the Queen. If libelled, he can no more terrify the offender with the penalties of scandalum magnatum, but must content himself with the same remedies as do other folk; if he cannot be arrested for debt, he shares that privilege with all the Queen's subjects; and if he continues to be a hereditary member of the Legislature, it is because the chamber in which he sits has been reduced to a moderating committee of the sovereign assembly. But the nameless privileges of persons of rank are great indeed. The army, the navy, the Church are filled with them or their dependents. Till within the last few years, the diplomatic service was regarded as their peculiar property. In the present House of Commons, the second elected by household suffrage, fully one-third of the members are sons of peers, baronets, or closely allied by marriage, or otherwise, to the titled classes. A fair proportion of these are Liberals; the Queen's son-in-law, Lord Lorne, member for Argyllshire, being a professor of "Liberal" opinions, as also Lord Stafford, son of the Duke of Sutherland, and Lord de Gray, son of the Marquis of Ripon. Such Liberals serve the useful function of "watering" the creed of their party, which might otherwise prove too strong for the Constitution. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright would doubtless have gone much further in the path of reform if unfettered by ducal retainers.
And yet, though England is still very far from the realization of that political equality which American citizens enjoy among themselves, and which is perhaps one of the few ascertainable benefits Frenchmen have derived from the revolution, there can be no doubt as to the direction in which England is advancing. Democracy is the goal of the future, and it is even in sight, though a long way off. For instance, considerable as is the parliamentary influence of certain noblemen in the present day, it is influence and no more. Before the Reform act of 1832, the parliamentary "influence" of a peer, as it was euphemistically termed, meant that he had the absolute disposal of one or more seats in the House of Commons. The Duke of Norfolk, as before mentioned, returned eleven members, the Duke of Richmond three, Lord Buckingham six, the Duke of Newcastle seven. In the year 1820, out of the twenty-six prelates sitting in the House of Lords, only six were not directly or indirectly connected with the peerage; while the value of some of the sees was enormous. Now public opinion is too formidable to allow of jobbery that is not very discreetly managed, and a great deal no doubt is thus managed. But appearances must be kept up.
E. C. Grenville Murray.
[ [A]"Did your Grace ever try a clean shirt?" Abernethy is said to have asked the Duke, who had consulted him on some ailment.
MISS MISANTHROPE.
By Justin McCarthy.