THE QUARTERLY versus THE EXCLUSIVES.
THE Quarterly Reviewers have at length, it seems, found out, that the host of fashionable novels, with which the market has been re- gularly overstocked for some seasons past, have tended mightily to bring rank and fashion into discredit, among the more rational portion of his Majesty's subjects. Most men of common observa- tion, not inoculated with that superstitious reverence for rank which forms a leading point in the creed of a genuine Tory, made this discovery long ago. Lord BYRON, some years since, gave the world to understand, that "the life of a young noble" was gene- rally wretched and contemptible; that fashionable society was dull and profligate in the extreme; and that for ladies to be "married, unmarried, and remarried," was no uncommon occurrence in high life, however the uninitiated vulgarians of the middle and lower classes might be scandalized by such indecent proceedings. But Lord BYRON was known to have been sent to Coventry by the London Exclusives: his evidence, therefore, was partly disbelieved, and its virulence laid to the account of personal ill-humour and disappointment. Before his time, indeed, SRERIDAN had drawn no very favourable picture of the morals of the titled arid the fa- shionable; but although his sketches could hardly be termed cari- catures, still it was thought fair to make considerable allowance for the necessity under which a dramatist labours, of making his characters piquant and. amusing. It was reserved for the writers of the present day to lay bare the interior of fashionable life, and to receive full credit for the faithfulness of their description of it. It is not too much to assert, that every well-regulated mind in the Three Kingdoms has been disgusted with the exposure thus made : we say nothing of' such novels as the .Roue and the Oxonian, where vice stands out in the strongest possible relief. But the more refined and subdued works of such authors as Lord Mue- GRAVE and Mr. LISTER furnish abundant evidence of the laxity of morals, insufferable selfishness, and vacuity of mind, which cha- racterize the society and habits of the votaries of fashion par ex- cellence.
We think the article in the Quarterly a very good one indeed,— as far as it goes. There is nothing but truth in it. But has the writer told the whole truth touching the matter in question ? Certainly not. The review is evidently the work of a Tory ; who would fain persuade himself and his readers, that the fashionable novels have been main instruments in bringing the Aristocracy into contempt ; that gambling and adultery in high places have gene- rated the desire of Parliamentary Reform in low ones. The con- clusion which he wishes us to draw is, that if the Tories had been more correct in their morals, they might have still retained their rotten boroughs; and that, consequently, a reform in their private lives and conversation will enable them to retain and extend the power and the privileges which are still exclusively theirs—nay, possibly to recover a part of what they have lately lost. Now, we do not mean to deny that the recent exposures of aristocratical profligacy have had some influence in urging on the people an assertion of their political rights. It is extremely natu- ral to conclude, that men who shamefully break through private obligations, will not be very faithful in the discharge of public trusts. But, whether it tell for or against the moral character of our fellow-countrymen, we must always maintain, that the obtuse- ness of moral feeling and disregard of moral duties in the strictly Private lives of the Aristocracy, had comparatively little to do with the recent overthrow of their unconstitutional influence. For, who were more unpopular among the Tories than the Dukes of
NEWCASTLE, RUTLAND, and NORTHUMBERLAND ?—all of them, we believe, men of unimpeachable moral tharacter—moral, we
mean, in the usual acceptation of the term; for, mere strictly
speaking, oppressive conduct on the part of a landlord, and open Interference in elections, by threats and bribery, are acts which certainly imply a disregard of moral obligation. But still we are
not aware that these unpopular personages were ever Charged with any of those offences which the Reviewer considers to have been in a great measure instrumental in bringing the Aristocracy into contempt. No—it was the political conduct of these worthies— their perverse resolution to aide us, the People, like hacks, till we threw them out of their saddles into the mud—which disgusted the great hotly of the nation earthalient and with their order. This is the true and main cause of their discomfiture. The Lord John and Honourable Georges might have continued to spend their ow noble constitutions in gambling and debauchery till Doomsday, f. any thought which the people of England would have bestow& on the matter, if they had not, in their wisdom, combined publl extortion and profligacy with private wastefulness and ruin. It seems strange, that it should fall to our lot to defend th Aristocracy of this country against the aspersion of Quarter] Reviewers. But we cannot close these remarks without observing that the author of the article in question has been much too sweet ing in his censure. It answered his purpose, perhaps, to represet. the higher classes as generally trifling, unfeeling, and immoral- to exaggerate their private in order to extenuate their public mi conduct. But all the members of the nobility and higher classt in England are not fashionable, idle, or depraved. There is, a. know, a large and enlightened portion who despise the vicioi triflers of the day, and close their doors against them, notwitl; standing their titles and estates. Did the Reviewer ever read, i Madame DE STAEL'S works' the description of the family circle of Earl GREY and the Earl of HARROWBY ? or does he suppos that these noblemen, with their connexions and society, are singt lar among the Aristocracy as regards moral worth and intellactut. acquirements? If such be his belief, we rejoice in holding a cot. trary opinion. Among the various benefits which we fully expect will accrue t the nation at large from the passing of the Reform Bill, we hay by no means overlooked those which the Aristocracy will deris from it. Hitherto, the possession of illicit power has rendered large proportion of it blind to the necessity of cultivating othe and more legitimate sources of influence. They will now be thross more upon their own means ; and their future importance svi mainly depend upon their personal behaviour in public and pri rate life. Should their conduct be exemplary and virtuous, it vv derive vast additional lustre from their exalted rank and lare possessions : should the magnates of the land, on the contrar., neglect to cultivate these solid claims to distinction and respect, is perfectly clear that their rank and their riches will only serve t render them more conspicuously contemptible. And when once hereditary nobility becomes an object of contempt to the othe classes of society, it is easy enough to foretel the day which sha. behold their utter annihilation as a privileged body in the state.
Previous page
