The Duke of Wellington, in a most remarkable paper, has explained
what pains he took to induce the Lords to submit to their new
position, and to submit, time after time, their will to the will of
the Commons.

The Reform Act of 1867 has, I think, unmistakably completed the
effect which the Act of 1832 began, but left unfinished. The middle
class element has gained greatly by the second change, and the
aristocratic element has lost greatly. If you examine carefully the
lists of members, especially of the most prominent members, of
either side of the House, you will not find that they are in general
aristocratic names. Considering the power and position of the titled
aristocracy, you will perhaps be astonished at the small degree in
which it contributes to the active part of our governing assembly.
The spirit of our present House of Commons is plutocratic, not
aristocratic; its most prominent statesmen are not men of ancient
descent or of great hereditary estate; they are men mostly of
substantial means, but they are mostly, too, connected more or less
closely with the new trading wealth. The spirit of the two
Assemblies has become far more contrasted than it ever was.

The full effect of the Reform Act of 1832 was indeed postponed by
the cause which I mentioned just now. The statesmen who worked the
system which was put up had themselves been educated under the
system which was pulled down. Strangely enough, their predominant
guidance lasted as long as the system which they created. Lord
Palmerston, Lord Russell, Lord Derby, died or else lost their
influence within a year or two of 1867. The complete consequences of
the Act of 1832 upon the House of Lords could not be seen while the
Commons were subject to such aristocratic guidance. Much of the