The Sun.
London, England, 1829-08-27 00:00:00

FRENCH AND ENGLISH ARISTOCRACY• ;

The Constitutionnel laughs heartily at the
notable project of creating an English Aristocracy
in France :—" If the Ministry (says that Journal)
will not have a legal r(!ginze, what will they then
have ? An Aristocracy after the English
fashion ! This is what the Quotidienne in-
sinuates without many oratorical precautions.
M. de Polignac is to be the Wellington of the
grand Emancipation of the Nobles. There is
but one little difficulty—the Aristocracy exists
in England—it exists strong in its antiquity, its
ability, its popularity even ; it possesses a great
part of the territory ; it is connected by its in-
terests with industry, with the people by its
habitual relations, and the services which it has
rendered to the liberty of the country ; it exists
in fact and in law; it exists in the national
habits—it is national. The little difficulty in
our case proceeds from quite a contrary situation.
. . . The resurrection of a caste abolished
by our habits and by the laws is the most difficult
and the most hazardous of counter-revolutions.
The Quotidienne declares that our liberties will
be much safer in the hands of the Aristocracy
than in those of Radicalism. This is nonsense.
There is no Radicalism in France, precisely be-
cause there is no Aristocracy, as in England ;
because there is not a vast corporation which
divide among themselves the soil, and attribute
to themselves the privileges of it ; because there
is, with a very small number of exceptions,
equality of right, and thence a possibility for
every one to reach the highest ranks and the
highest honours." Our French Contemporary
gives, probably, a correct description of the state
of things in France, as far as relates to the
materials of an aristocracy. There are no Radicals
in France, because all are equal, and wish, there-
fore, to preserve what is already established ;
just as there can be no servile war in a country
where there are no slaves. We could only have
wished our Contemporary had known a little
more of our Aristocracy, and the benefits it
confers on the nation, befbr,.; praising it. As to
the idea of its being strong on account of its an-
tiquity, it is quite erroneous ; there is no Aris-
tocracy in Europe so generally modern, and this
is the source of its strength. Riches in England
are the only measure of respect ; and the titles
are merely respected, because wealth is generally
associated with them. The French Aristocracy,
before the Revolution, lost themselves by setting
up antiquity against wealth, which united all the
rich men, without claim to antiquity, against
them. But in England the Aristocracy is
opened regularly to all the rich ; so that any man
who makes a fortune as a gambler, as a fraudu-
lent contractor, as a speculator upon 'Change,
knows well that, though he himself may not re.
ceive a title, in a generation or two his descend-
ants will receive it. Our Peerage and Baronet-
age contain even Christian Jews, elevated im-
mediately, and not in their descendants. If Ikey
Solomons had not been cut prematurely short in
his career,
.and a rich receiver of mail-coach
parcels bad not been blown upon in the evidence
before the Police Committee, they would pro-
bably have worked their way up to the Peerage.
It is this which makes the English Aristocracy
so much stronger than any Aristocracy ever yet
known in the world, possessing, as it does, so
large a share of what, in modern times, is of all
powerful efficacy. The Dukes of Northumber-
land and Buccleugh are powerful, not because
they are Dukes (for a poor Duke will, in this
country, be a standing joke to every waiter at an
inn), but because the one has 250,0001. a-year,
and the other nearly 200,0001. The French may
thank their stars that the Revolution has rescued
them from a class similar to that to which we
owe such a debt of gratitude.—Morning Chron.