a political economist would class them, rush to worship those who
possess the IMmaterial distinctions. Nothing can be more politically
useful than such homage, if it be skilfully used; no folly can be
idler than to repel and reject it.

The worship is the more politically important because it is the
worship of the political superior for the political inferior. At an
election the non-titled are much more powerful than the titled.
Certain individual peers have, from their great possessions, great
electioneering influence, but, as a whole, the House of Peers is not
a principal electioneering force. It has so many poor men inside it,
and so many rich men outside it, that its electioneering value is
impaired. Besides, it is in the nature of the curious influence of
rank to work much more on men singly than on men collectively; it is
an influence which most men--at least most Englishmen--feel very
much, but of which most Englishmen are somewhat ashamed.
Accordingly, when any number of men are collected together, each of
whom worships rank in his heart, the whole body will patiently hear-
-in many cases will cheer and approve--some rather strong speeches
against rank. Each man is a little afraid that his "sneaking
kindness for a lord," as Mr. Gladstone put it, be found out; he is
not sure how far that weakness is shared by those around him. And
thus Englishmen easily find themselves committed to anti-
aristocratic sentiments which are the direct opposite of their real
feeling, and their collective action may be bitterly hostile to rank
while the secret sentiment of each separately is especially
favourable to rank. In 1832 the close boroughs, which were largely
held by peers, and were still more largely supposed to be held by
them, were swept away with a tumult of delight; and in another
similar time of great excitement, the Lords themselves, if they