of the service, like the army. As soon as the convocation revives, a new era will commence for England.

The great reign of policy, however, was the reign of George III., which exhibited the system in full perfection. The policy of this reign appears now to be remarkable; but to the actors themselves appeared no doubt very wise and clever, and quite as indubitably right as war or pleasure had appeared to Richard I. or Charles II. The first great exhibition was the attempt to coerce the American colonies, "the deluded and unhappy multitude," as the inhabitants of America were termed in the king's speech of 1777. This was a policy war; and it cost Britain about one hundred and thirty millions sterling, the interest of which is now taken from the profits of the present laborers. And the policy of the war may be inferred from the fact, that the advantages derived by Britain from a trade with free America increased continually from the moment the transatlantic Britons were allowed to make their own political arrangements. The next piece of policy was the great French war, or series of wars, which was at first a war against popular democracy, and latterly a war against imperial despotism. The policy rulers of Britain carried on this war at an expense of about six hundred millions sterling; and, to defray the charge, the revenues of this and future generations were sold in perpetuity to Jews and money dealers.

Another piece of policy was the union with Ireland without Catholic emancipation, and the union of the Protestant Episcopal church of that country with the church of England. The reign of policy, however,

has culminated, and a new system may reasonably be expected to supplant it. Catholic emancipation, the reform bill, the emancipation of the negroes, and the repeal of the corn laws, are certain evidences that the reign of mere policy is dying away. Changes of this character, however, do not take place at once; but as new generations grow up in different circumstances, and with different associations, new credences supplant the old, and those new credences grow gradually into realization. The policy system is not dead, only dying. It still retains its power with regard to Russia, the great bugbear of the policy gentry, as if God intended the nations of the earth to progress only as the rulers of Britain would allow them. The Russians are the progressors, the centralizers, the generalizers, the reducers to rule and system; and the Russians are doing that greatest of all state services destroying the power of the nobles, and subjecting men to the laws of the state. Of course, Russia is a despotism, and cannot be otherwise without falling into confusion. There is a period in the history of civilization when the ruler is necessarily despotic, as there are evils which can give way only before the influence and beneath the hand of despotism. Despotism alone, whether democratic or autocratic, appears capable of destroying the superstitious ecclesiastical institutions which have descended from darker ages. Henry VIII. was a despot, and, had he not been a despot, he could not have uprooted the papal church and taken away its lands. The French democrats were despots, and they also uprooted the state superstition, and took away its lands. And who

knows how soon a Russian despot may destroy the Greek church, and emancipate 'the whole of the serfs? Organization by all means, and at all hazards, appears the only mode by which barbarous nations can be civilized; and the real evil lies not in despotic power, but in the legal or parchment perpetuation of that power beyond the circumstances that make it arise spontaneously.

And yet of this progressing Russia, (which has already collected the laws of the empire, thereby laying the foundation of the ultimate supremacy of law, and not of man,) the policy rulers of Britain consider themselves bound by policy to entertain vague apprehensions, and in consequence to prop up the Mahomedan despotism, which does not progress. It would have been much more rational if England and France had driven the Turks out of Europe altogether. To allow the first geographical position in eastern Europe to remain in the hands of Mahomedans, is perfectly absurd; and if Russia can take possession of it, surely England, with Gibraltar, Malta, the Cape, &c., &c., can have no just ground of interference, except to make sure that the seas are kept open for her merchants. The seas are "the highways of the world," and every nation has a right to require that they shall never be obstructed. Britain has already had two lessons in policy wars, and these might suffice to show their total inefficiency to produce even the end required, setting aside the question whether the end was desirable. Notwithstanding the efforts of Britain, America did become independent; and all that Britain obtained was her debt. And, notwithstanding all the

efforts of Britain, France rejected the Bourbons, old and young; and all that Britain obtained was a much larger debt. And if the latter effort, which cannot reasonably be expected to be surpassed on any future occasion, was so utterly powerless to arrest the progress of advancing credence, surely the policy system may be laid aside as a mere superstition, destructive to those who act upon its dictates, and proven beyond dispute to be not the rule that should guide statesmen in their labors.

But the reign of policy is fast drawing to a close; and we must endeavor to estimate its logical successor. Looking to the past, what may we expect the future to be? This is the question for which we have endeavored to exhibit the principles of the past; and out of those principles we think there flows a future scheme of progress.

What have been the occupations of the ruling classes of Britain?

1st. War, which was barbarous war so long as the Northmen were afloat.

Knightly war, consequent on the Norman conquest. William was partly a barbarous leader, partly a great baron with his retainers, and partly a knight; or a war leader beginning gradually to grow into a knight. Richard I. was a knight, Henry V. was still a knight with a considerable degree of the court, and Richard III., the last warrior, was more of the courtier than the knight. These are the types or representatives of the war period of society. The nobles, or ruling classes, followed the same kind of development; first, barbarous warriors, then knightly warriors, then barons

with retinues, who fought for causes, and then courtiers.

2d. Pleasure.* The nobles, from knightly war progressed to knightly courtesy in the former period, and the warlike pastimes at which ladies were present, prepared them for the court pleasures. Queen Elizabeth was a court lady, (still, however, with a smattering of the war system,) and in her court the nobles exhibit the feeble remains of knighthood, and the rapid growth of courtiership. In Charles II.'s time the war knight had become supplanted entirely by the court knight. Court pleasures were the summit of human aspiration for the rulers of the state.

3d. Policy. The introduction of a foreign ruler necessarily introduced foreign politics, and the cổurtiers naturally became schemers and intriguers. The court of Anne presents the pleasure courtier defunct, and the policy courtier assuming the first importance. In George III.'s reign, the policy system had arrived at full perfection; and, if it could have been carried on without costing money, might have gone on perhaps much longer.

Between war, knightly war, courtly pleasures, and courtly policy, there is a natural connection. The one grows out of the other. Their order is not accidental. Courtly pleasures could never have succeeded imme

* The question is, What pursuit was esteemed as the highest pursuit in which men could engage? and though pleasure expresses imperfectly the meaning, there can be no doubt that during this period court pleasure held the very first rank, as war had previously done, and policy did at a later period.