tame.  They are still thought to be greater and better.  They are decords; they have a little red on the left breast of their coat, and no argument will answer that.  In England, by the odd course of our society, what a theorist would desire has in fact turned up.  The great offices, whether permanent or Parliamentary, which require mind now give social prestige, and almost only those.  An Under-Secretary of State with 2000 pounds a year is a much stronger man than the director of a finance company with 5000 pounds, and the country saves the difference.  But except in a few offices like the Treasury, which were once filled with aristocratic people, and have an odour of nobility at second-hand, minor place is of no social use.  A big grocer despises the exciseman; and what in many countries would be thought impossible, the exciseman envies the grocer.  Solid wealth tells where there is no artificial dignity given to petty public functions.  A clerk in the public service is “nobody”; and you could not make a common Englishman see why he should be anybody.  But it must be owned that this turning of society into a political expedient has half spoiled it.  A great part of the “best” English people keep their mind in a state of decorous dulness.  They maintain their dignity; they get obeyed; they are good and charitable to their dependants.  But they have no notion of play of mind:  no conception that the charm of society depends upon it.  They think cleverness an antic, and have a constant though needless horror of being thought to have any of it.  So much does this stiff dignity give the tone, that the few Englishmen capable of social brilliancy mostly secrete it.  They reserve it for persons whom they can trust, and whom they know to be capable of appreciating its nuances.  But a good Government is well worth a great deal of social dulness.  The dignified torpor of English society is inevitable if we give precedence, not to the cleverest classes, but to the oldest classes, and we have seen how useful that is.

The social prestige of the aristocracy is, as every one knows, immensely less than it was a hundred years or even fifty years since.  Two great movements—­the two greatest of modern society—­have been unfavourable to it.  The rise of industrial wealth in countless forms has brought in a competitor which has generally more mind, and which would be supreme were it not for awkwardness and intellectual gene.  Every day our companies, our railways, our debentures, and our shares, tend more and more to multiply these surroundings of the aristocracy, and in time they will hide it.  And while this undergrowth has come up, the aristocracy have come down.  They have less means of standing out than they used to have.  Their power is in their theatrical exhibition, in their state.  But society is every day becoming less stately.  As our great satirist has observed, “The last Duke of St. David’s used to cover the north road with his carriages; landladies