the hereditary jurisdiction of the nobles over their vassals subsists, both in the kingdom of naples and sicily, in the full rigour of the feudal government. the peasants therefore are poor; and it depends entirely on the personal character of the masters, whether their poverty is not the least of their grievances. if the land was leased out to free farmers, whose property was perfectly secure, and the leases of a sufficient length to allow the tenant to reap the fruits of his own improvements, there is no manner of doubt that the estates of the nobility would produce much more. the landlord might have a higher rent paid in money, instead of being collected in kind, which subjects him to the salaries and impositions of a numerous[148] train of stewards; and the tenants, on their parts, would be enabled to live much more comfortably, and to lay up, every year, a small pittance for their families. but the love of domineering is so predominant in the breasts of men who have been accustomed to it from their infancy, that, if the alternative were in their choice, many of them would rather submit to be themselves slaves to the caprices of an absolute prince, than become perfectly independent, on the condition of giving independence to their vassals. there is reason to believe that this ungenerous spirit prevails pretty universally among the nobility all over europe. the german barons are more shocked at the idea of their peasants becoming perfectly free, like the farmers of great britain, than they are solicitous to limit the power of their princes: and, from the sentiments i have heard expressed by the french, i very much doubt, whether their high nobility[149] would accept of the privileges of english peers, at the expence of that insolent superiority, and those licentious freedoms, with which they may, though no english peer can, treat with impunity the citizens and people of inferior rank. we need be the less surprised at this, when we consider that, in some parts of the british empire, where the equable and generous laws of england prevail, those who set the highest value on freedom, who submit to every hardship, and encounter every danger, to secure it to themselves, never have shewn a disposition of extending its blessings, or even alleviating the bondage of that part of the human species, which a sordid and unjustifiable barter has brought into their power.

the court of naples has not yet ventured, by one open act of authority, to abolish the immoderate power of the lords over their tenants. but it is believed that the minister secretly wishes for its destruction;[150] and in cases of flagrant oppression, when complaints are brought before the legal courts, or directly to the king himself, by the peasants against their lord, it is generally remarked that the minister favours the complainant. notwithstanding this, the masters have so many opportunities of oppressing, and such various methods of teasing, their vassals, that they generally chuse to bear their wrongs in silence; and perceiving that those who hold their lands immediately from the crown, are in a much easier situation than themselves; without raising their hopes to perfect freedom, the height of their wishes is to be sheltered, from the vexations of little tyrants, under the unlimited power of one common master. the objects of royal attention, they fondly imagine, are too sublime, and the minds of kings too generous, to stoop to, or even to countenance, in their servants, the minute and unreasonable exertions, which are wrung at present[151] from the hard hands of the exhausted labourer.

though the neapolitan nobility still retain the ancient feudal authority over the peasants, yet their personal importance depends, in a great measure, on the favour of the king; who, under pretext of any offence, can confine them to their own estates, or imprison them at pleasure; and who, without any alleged offence, and without going to such extremes, can inflict a punishment, highly sensible to them, by not inviting them to the amusements of the court, or not receiving them with smiles when they attend on any ordinary occasion. unless this prince were so very impolitic as to disgust all the nobility at once, and so unite the whole body against him, he has little to fear from their resentment. even in case of such an union, as the nobles have lost the affection and attachment of their peasants, what could they do in opposition to a standing army of[152] thirty thousand men, entirely devoted to the crown? the establishment of standing armies has universally given stability to the power of the prince, and ruined that of the great lords. no nobility in europe can now be said to inherit political importance, or to act independent of, or in opposition to, the influence of the crown; except the temporal peers of that part of great britain called england.

as men of high birth are seldom, in this country, called to the management of public affairs, or placed in those situations where great political knowledge is required; and as his majesty relies on his own talents and experience in war for the direction of the army; neither the civil nor military establishments open any very tempting field for the ambition of the nobles, whose education is usually adapted to the parts in life which they have a probability of acting. their fortunes and titles descend to them, independent of any effort[153] of their own. all the literary distinctions are beneath their regard; it is therefore not thought expedient to cloud the playful innocence of their childhood, or the amiable gaiety of their youth, with severe study. in some other countries, where a very small portion of literary education is thought becoming for young men of rank, and where even this small portion has been neglected, they sometimes catch a little knowledge of history and mythology, and some useful moral sentiments, from the excellent dramatic pieces that are represented on their theatres. they also sometimes pick up some notion of the different governments in europe, and a few political ideas, in the course of their travels. but the nobility of this country very seldom travel; and the only dramatic pieces, represented here, are operas; in which music, not sentiment, is the principal thing attended to. in the other theatrical entertainments, punchinello is the shining character. to this disregard of literature among the nobles,[154] it is owing, that in their body are to be found few tiresome, scholastic pedants, and none of those perturbed spirits, who ruffle the serenity of nations by political alarms, who clog the wheels of government by opposition, who pry into the conduct of ministers, or in any way disturb that total indifference with regard to the public, which prevails all over this kingdom. we are told by a great modern historian[6], that “force of mind, a sense of personal dignity, gallantry in enterprise, invincible perseverance in execution, contempt of danger and of death, are the characteristic virtues of uncivilised nations.” but as the nobles of this country have long been sufficiently civilised, these qualities may in them be supposed to have given place to the arts which embellish a polished age; to gaming, gallantry, music, the parade of equipage, the refinements of dress, and other nameless refinements.

[6] vide dr. robertson’s history of the emperor charles v. sect. i.