A MODERN "SYMPOSIUM." 



109 



literature. But a large proportion of these have 

 no political training except the crude reflex of 

 their prejudices and their jealousies. Mr. Grant 

 Duff keenly dissects the trumpery nature of polite 

 education ; and the argument may be carried 

 much further. Many of those who have had con- 

 siderable training in literature are the feeblest 

 creatures in politics. They may have nothing but 

 vicious social theories like those of Mr. Wilson 

 Croker, or they may be stricken with a perfect 

 palsy for any practical action. A parliament of 

 savants or literati will often do little but wrangle 

 or drivel ; and everybody knows what an academic 

 congregation or a clerical synod can be like. Go 

 to a cooperative or trade-union congress of Eng- 

 lish workmen, and you will not seldom hear prac- 

 tical argument, a capacity for business, and a 

 sense of political realities. Go to a social science 

 congress or attend a deputation of alarmed pro- 

 fessors, and you will sometimes hear (in choice 

 English, it is true) a chaos of theories, and chi- 

 merical and daugerous proposals. 



On the other hand, when we say that ignorant 

 men will make bad politicians, we mean, or ought 

 to mean, ignorance of the social forces, of the na- 

 tional wants, of political facts and possibilities. 

 But when we speak of the " ignorant classes " we 

 too often lump together all those who have little 

 book knowledge and little grammatical training. 

 Many of these have picked up, chiefly by oral dis- 

 cussion, a great deal of political common-sense, and 

 even some knowledge of public affairs. We are 

 hence entangling ourselves in a purely verbal fal- 

 lacy, if we argue that because " ignorance " ought 

 not to rule, ergo workmen ought not to have votes. 

 Or again, if we argue that because the " culti- 

 vated " ought to govern, ergo people of property 

 ought to control elections. The question is, who 

 are the "cultivated," who are the "ignorant," in 

 a high political sense ? And is the possession of 

 a house or an estate of a certain value an ade 

 quate test of " cultivation " and " ignorance " in 

 this wide political sense ? The " cultured " classes 

 often dislike the political views of the workmen. 

 They call that " ignorance." The workmen often 

 dislike the political views of the cultured class. 

 They call that " selfishness." Who shall decide 

 a priori ? The idea that workmen are necessarily 

 ignorant, and the cultured (? the rich) necessarily 

 wise, crops up in most societies and in all Ian- 

 guages. The KaKoicayaBol, the opfimates, the bien- 

 pensants, the gens de bicn, the " higher orders," 

 have always assumed that " culture " embraced 

 all political virtue and sound political wisdom. 

 The has pcuple has steadily rejected this claim. 



And I doubt if a " new Symposium " will suffice 

 to decide this secular quarrel. 



This is not a discussion about a Reform Bill, 

 and I presume that we need not attempt to settle 

 the claims of popular or oligarchic government. 

 Every proposal to extend the franchise ought to 

 be dealt with on its own merits in the light of 

 particular experiences. I cannot see that a pri- 

 ori generalities can carry us far. But the cur- 

 rent a priori generalities against an extension of 

 the franchise are simply contradicted by facts. 

 It is argued that to give working-men a majority 

 of votes is to make them our masters. It is 

 found as a fact that it is not so. After two Re- 

 form Acts Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, 

 Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Hardy, are our 

 masters, and not the London Trades Council. It 

 is said that a majority of ignorant voters will 

 insist on carrying out economic fallacies. After 

 the popular changes in the constitution of the 

 last half-century not a single economic fallacy has 

 made way with the Legislature. On the con- 

 trary, many have been dispelled. It is said that 

 a popular suffrage will remove taxation from the 

 poor to put it on the rich. Yet the only finan- 

 cial changes which have followed our suffrage 

 extensions are hailed as triumphs of economic 

 wisdom, and have been strongly supported by the 

 enlightened thought of our time. In France 

 manhood suffrage prevails, and the rich classes 

 are far less powerful than they are here. And 

 yet almost the whole taxation is paid by the 

 poor. There is no income-tax, and protection is 

 kept up by wealthy manufacturers, as it is in 

 America. The facts contradict the syllogisms of 

 the alarmists. 



Mr. Hutton and Mr. Grant Duff have so fully 

 gone through the great questions of the last fifty 

 years that I will not rehearse the story. So far 

 from no instance being forthcoming of the just- 

 ness of the popular judgment, the burden of 

 proof is with those who deny it, and we wait for 

 an instance to the contrary. I would only sum 

 up these particular instances by one general re- 

 flection. Will it be denied that our actual legis- 

 lation of to-day is in a more healthy state than 

 the legislation of the time of Lord Castlereagh 

 and Lord Sidmouth ? Are not sounder political 

 theories more current ? Is not our social fabric 

 working more easily ? And will any one deny 

 that this vast change is due in the main to the 

 constant pressure of public opinion leading and 

 yet weighted by popular influence ? Lord Arthur 

 Russell will have it that it has been one long 

 effort of the " cultivated classes in favor of their 



