the contrary, the groups will sometimes oppose each other furiously
at elections, and perhaps the more simple-minded of them really think
that it is a matter of importance to the nation which section of them
may be in power; but they may always be reckoned upon to be in their
places and vote against any measure which carries with it a real
attack on our constitutional system; surely very naturally, since
they are there for no other purpose than to do so. They are, and
always must be, conscious defenders of the present system, political
and economical, as long as they have any cohesion as Tories, Whigs,
Liberals, or even Radicals. Not one of them probably would go such a
very short journey towards revolution as the abolition of the House
of Lords. A one-chamber Parliament would seem to them an impious
horror, and the abolition of the monarchy they would consider a
serious inconvenience to the London tradesman.

Now this is the real Parliamentary Party, at present divided into
jarring sections under the influence of the survival of the party
warfare of the last few generations, but which already shows signs of
sinking its differences so as to offer a solid front of resistance to
the growing instinct which on its side will before long result in a
party claiming full economical as well as political freedom for the
whole people.

But is there nothing in Parliament, or seeking entrance to it, except
this variously tinted Whiggery, this Harlequin of Reaction? Well,
inside Parliament, setting aside the Irish party, which is, we may
now well hope, merely temporarily there, there is not much. It is
not among people of "wealth and local influence," who I see are
supposed to be the only available candidates for Parliament of a
recognized party, that you will find the elements of revolution. We