East vs. West

I find it interesting that in the poems East London and West London, both pain bleak pictures, yet East London comes with a ray of hope in the preacher's outlook despite himself being ill and overworked.  What is more interesting is that East London was the working-class area of the city whereas West London was the wealthy end of the city.  The working-class, a people who had it rougher than the wealthy, are shown to have a brighter outlook due in part to their faith in religion.  One would think that the wealthy portion of the city would be home to the most uplifted attitudes and cheery outlooks considering how much they have over the working-class.  However, their lives seem much more bleak in comparison.  It would seem as if whatever gains the wealthy achieved came at the price of their souls, considering the lack of a religious figure shown.  In fact, the only person shown is a prostitute, a sinner.  If anything, there's an absence of religion in West London.   

From class, we know that around this time, people are starting to question religion with logic.  What does it say about the working-class to cling to religion at this point in time?  It seems to give them happiness and hope.  On the other side of the city, however, the wealthy don't seem to have anything to cling to for their happiness.  Are they even happy at all?  Both sections of the city are depicted in equally bleak means, yet the working class have religion but the wealthy aren't shown to have anything.  If we are questioning religion using logic, then isn't ignorance bliss if it helps you get through the day?  Should we question it at all?  I have no idea.  I'm just throwing ideas out there at this point because this comparison is fairly interesting.