constituencies. I wish to have as great and as compact a power as
possible to resist it. But a dissension between the Lords and
Commons divides that resisting power; as I have explained, the House
of Commons still mainly represents the plutocracy, the Lords
represent the aristocracy. The main interest of both these classes
is now identical, which is to prevent or to mitigate the rule of
uneducated numbers. But to prevent it effectually, they must not
quarrel among themselves; they must not bid one against the other
for the aid of their common opponent. And this is precisely the
effect of a division between Lords and Commons. The two great bodies
of the educated rich go to the constituencies to decide between
them, and the majority of the constituencies now consist of the
uneducated poor. This cannot be for the advantage of any one.

In doing so besides the aristocracy forfeit their natural position?-
-that by which they would gain most power, and in which they would
do most good. They ought to be the heads of the plutocracy. In all
countries new wealth is ready to worship old wealth, if old wealth
will only let it, and I need not say that in England new wealth is
eager in its worship. Satirist after satirist has told us how quick,
how willing, how anxious are the newly-made rich to associate with
the ancient rich. Rank probably in no country whatever has so much
"market" value as it has in England just now. Of course there have
been many countries in which certain old families, whether rich or
poor, were worshipped by whole populations with a more intense and
poetic homage; but I doubt if there has ever been any in which all
old families and all titled families received more ready observance
from those who were their equals, perhaps their superiors, in
wealth, their equals in culture, and their inferiors only in descent
and rank. The possessors of the "material" distinctions of life, as