there was a very large and a very strong common element.  By their commanding influence in many boroughs and counties the Lords nominated a considerable part of the Commons; the majority of the other part were the richer gentry—­men in most respects like the Lords, and sympathising with the Lords.  Under the Constitution as it then was the two Houses were not in their essence distinct; they were in their essence similar; they were, in the main, not Houses of contrasted origin, but Houses of like origin.  The predominant part of both was taken from the same class—­from the English gentry, titled and untitled.  By the Act of 1832 this was much altered.  The aristocracy and the gentry lost their predominance in the House of Commons; that predominance passed to the middle class.  The two Houses then became distinct, but then they ceased to be co-equal.  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 change which might have been expected from the Act of 1832 was held in suspense, and did not begin till that measure had been followed by another of similar and greater power.