but we are not here concerned with the nature and existence of the aristocracy, but with the origin of its peculiar power, why is it the last of the true oligarchies of europe; and why does there seem no very immediate prospect of our seeing the end of it? the explanation is simple though it remains strangely unnoticed. the friends of aristocracy often praise it for preserving ancient and gracious traditions. the enemies of aristocracy often blame it for clinging to cruel or antiquated customs. both its enemies and its friends are wrong. generally speaking the aristocracy does not preserve either good or bad traditions; it does not preserve anything except game. who would dream of looking among aristocrats anywhere for an old custom? one might as well look for an old costume! the god of the aristocrats is not tradition, but fashion, which is the opposite of tradition. if you wanted to find an old-world norwegian head-dress, would you look for it in the scandinavian smart set? no; the aristocrats never have customs; at the best they have habits, like the animals. only the mob has customs.

the real power of the english aristocrats has lain in exactly the opposite of tradition. the simple key to the power of our upper classes is this: that they have always kept carefully on the side of what is called progress. they have always been up to date, and this comes quite easy to an aristocracy. for the aristocracy are the supreme instances of that frame of mind of which we spoke just now. novelty is to them a luxury verging on a necessity. they, above all, are so bored with the past and with the present, that they gape, with a horrible hunger, for the future.

but whatever else the great lords forgot they never forgot that it was their business to stand for the new things, for whatever was being most talked about among university dons or fussy financiers. thus they were on the side of the reformation against the church, of the whigs against the stuarts, of the baconian science against the old philosophy, of the manufacturing system against the operatives, and (to-day) of the increased power of the state against the old-fashioned individualists. in short, the rich are always modern; it is their business. but the immediate effect of this fact upon the question we are studying is somewhat singular.

in each of the separate holes or quandaries in which the ordinary englishman has been placed, he has been told that his situation is, for some particular reason, all for the best. he woke up one fine morning and discovered that the public things, which for eight hundred years he had used at once as inns and sanctuaries, had all been suddenly and savagely abolished, to increase the private wealth of about six or seven men. one would think he might have been annoyed at that; in many places he was, and was put down by the soldiery. but it was not merely the army that kept him quiet. he was kept quiet by the sages as well as the soldiers; the six or seven men who took away the inns of the poor told him that they were not doing it for themselves, but for the religion of the future, the great dawn of protestantism and truth. so whenever a seventeenth century noble was caught pulling down a peasant’s fence and stealing his field, the noble pointed excitedly at the face of charles i or james ii (which at that moment, perhaps, wore a cross expression) and thus diverted the simple peasant’s attention. the great puritan lords created the commonwealth, and destroyed the common land. they saved their poorer countrymen from the disgrace of paying ship money, by taking from them the plow money and spade money which they were doubtless too weak to guard. a fine old english rhyme has immortalized this easy aristocratic habit—

you prosecute the man or woman who steals the goose from off the common, but leave the larger felon loose who steals the common from the goose.

but here, as in the case of the monasteries, we confront the strange problem of submission. if they stole the common from the goose, one can only say that he was a great goose to stand it. the truth is that they reasoned with the goose; they explained to him that all this was needed to get the stuart fox over seas. so in the nineteenth century the great nobles who became mine-owners and railway directors earnestly assured everybody that they did not do this from preference, but owing to a newly discovered economic law. so the prosperous politicians of our own generation introduce bills to prevent poor mothers from going about with their own babies; or they calmly forbid their tenants to drink beer in public inns. but this insolence is not (as you would suppose) howled at by everybody as outrageous feudalism. it is gently rebuked as socialism. for an aristocracy is always progressive; it is a form of going the pace. their parties grow later and later at night; for they are trying to live to-morrow.