Translate in writing the extract into Russian

The Age Of “Compromise”

The term “compromise” is an early concept in any study of Victorian England. The society of these years (the 1850s) represents a series of com­promises. There were of course many protests against this society, but dur­ing this decade no really important changes were made: these came later. The principle of “Live and let live” was at work, even if only within certain well-defined limits. It encouraged a decent piety and, failing that, at least an obvious respectability. The upper class and the middle class (especially if it had money) came closer together. The Reform Bill, dating back to 1832, leaving five men out of six without a vote because they were not £ 10 householders, was already out of date, but there would not be another Reform Bill, enlarging the franchise, until 1867. The new oligarchy the old Bill had helped to create had settled down and felt quite comfortable. The English system avoided revolution or indeed any startling radical changes by opening the Establishment to any new powerful class. In poli­tics and actual government, as distinct from the general tone and style of society, the upper class in the 1850s was still surprisingly dominant. The foreground in the Westminster scene was filled with Lords. Room had to be made for a few commoners, notably Disraeli, and Gladstone who became Chancellors of the Exchequer, but it was the Lords who took over most of the chief ministries, no matter how often cabinets were formed. It would be many years before a popular wit like W. S. Gilbert could raise a laugh by saying that the House of Lords did nothing in particular and did it very well. In the 1850s the House of Lords did a great deal, though not always very well. Quite apart from accepting or rejecting bills already passed by the Commons, this ‘other House’ still had a considerable in­fluence on the actual composition of the Commons. In the country elec­tions a local peer, a great landowner who was important both in his econo­mic patronage and his social pull, might easily decide what safe men should represent the constituency. Many men who resented his patronage and pull might not have had any vote, or, if they had, would find it hard to influence other voters. These might know only well how their bread could be buttered or might act out of downright snobbery. For one result of the upper class and the more affluent middle class coming together, no longer glaring at one another across a barrier, was the rapid spread of social snobbery.