country are of the greatest possible consequence to the interests of the
Marquis of Castleton.' Thus, the state of the Continent, the policy of
Metternich, the condition of the Papacy, the growth of Dissent, the
proper mode of dealing with the spirit of democracy which was the
epidemic of European monarchies, the relative proportions of the
agricultural and manufacturing population, corn-laws, currency, and the
laws that regulate wages, a criticism on the leading speakers in the
House of Commons, with some discursive observations on the importance of
fattening cattle, the introduction of flax into Ireland, emigration, the
condition of the poor: these and such-like stupendous subjects for
reflection--all branching more or less intricately from the single idea
of the Castleton property--the young lord discussed and disposed of in
half a dozen prim, poised sentences, evincing, I must say in justice, no
inconsiderable information, and a mighty solemn turn of mind. The
oddity was, that the subjects so selected and treated should not come
rather from some young barrister, or mature political economist, than
from so gorgeous a lily of the field."

But to all these preëminent advantages of early education and training
there must be added the invaluable opportunities of enlarged and
extended legislative experience in the House of Commons. If we examine
the antecedents of some of the most prominent men now in the House of
Lords, we shall discover abundant evidence of this fact. Earl Russell
was a member of the House of Commons for more than thirty years; Earl
Derby, more than twenty-five years; the Earl of Shaftesbury, for about
twenty-four years; the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the
Duke of Rutland, for about the same period. And of the present House of
Commons more than fifty members are heirs apparent or presumptive to
existing peerages.