A MODERN "SYMPOSIUM." 



303 



things to say, but it is perhaps time they should 

 be said." 1 



The discussion in this Symposium has led me 

 to reperuse Mr. Lowe's testimony to the lowered 

 tone and character of the actual House, so strik- 

 ingly corroborative of Mr. Gladstone's, though 

 dwelling upon different points, and ascribing the 

 degeneracy to its more obvious causes: 



" No one but the most bigoted partisan will 

 deny that after four sessions the Government is 

 just as strong in the House as it was when it be- 

 gan. This has been achieved by consulting the 

 wishes of the House ; that is, by a lavish expendi- 

 ture of public money, by a studious deference to 

 all powerful interests, by a dexterous use of com- 

 mittees and commissions to stave off troublesome 

 subjects, by a copious use of permissive legisla- 

 tion, and by never carrying or even proposing a 

 single measure or broaching a single idea which 

 soars above the level of the dullest and most self- 

 satisfied mediocrity. As was said the other day 

 by a gentleman who did not appear to be aware 

 that he was passing the most crushing sentence 

 on the existing state of things, the duties of the 

 Plouse of Commons now resemble those of a mu- 

 nicipal council or a board of guardians rather than 

 those which the House used to discharge. Most 

 true they do so, but why is it ? Not because there 

 are no problems in the higher regions of states- 

 manship unsolved and earnestly craving a solu- 

 tion. Four millions of persons in London are left 

 without the powers of self-government which are 

 granted to most towns with ten thousand inhabi- 

 tants and to many with much less ; the govern- 

 ment of the counties is left to a number of inter- 

 secting boards— that is to say, is abandoned to a 

 state of the most hideous confusion ; the law in 

 all its branches requires revision and codification ; 

 the state of the navy is to all thinking persons a 

 subject of the deepest anxiety ; and the whole 

 question of the higher education requires a com- 

 plete and searching revision. If it be asked, Why 

 do not these things and many others, of which 

 these arc only a specimen, occupy the attention of 

 Government ? the answer, if given candidly, would 

 doubtless be, that these things do not pay. They 

 require a great <}eal of trouble and research, they 

 inevitably give much offense to the influential per- 

 sons immediately concerned, and there is no 

 popularity to be got by them. Those who elect 

 the House which virtually appoints the Govern- 

 ment, care for none of these things, and so very 

 naturally none of these things are cared for. Poli- 



1 Nineteenth Century, November, 1877, p. 555 et seq. 

 " Two new articles, pretty closely associated to- 

 gether, have lately been added to the Tory creed, not 

 by a general council, but by silent consent— faith in 

 the long purse, and faith in what Mr. Bright in one of 

 his many happy phrases dubbed the residuum" (p. 

 557). 



tics, in the higher sense of the term, are almost 

 banished from the House of Commons, and no 

 one seems to regret their loss." », 



Certainly, whether we attribute the fact to the 

 Irish Home-Rulers, to a government unable to 

 control or guide its supporters, or to the per- 

 verted views and passionate temperament of the 

 bulk of those supporters, is it too much to say that 

 the least noble-minded and the worst-mannered 

 House of Commons we have known has been the 

 one chosen by the most popular and broad-based 

 electorate that has ever crowded round the hus- 

 tings or expressed its wisdom and judgment at 

 the poll ? Nor, I fancy, would Mr. Gladstone at 

 all deny the description, however he might ques- 

 tion the explanation I suggest. 



Mr. LOWE.— I see no difficulty in Mr. Glad- 

 stone's statement. He is arguing in form in fa- 

 vor of household suffrage for the counties, but in 

 substance in favor of universal suffrage. He 

 prefers the judgment of the lower classes to 

 that of the higher ; that is, of those who have 

 not the franchise to those who have. He is not 

 alone in his opinion. Aristotle, in the third book 

 of his " Politics," announces, though with more 

 hesitation, a similar view. These are the words 

 of " the master of those who know : " 



" That the multitude ought to be more power- 

 ful than the best is perhaps true. . . . for it is 

 possible that the multitude, each of -whom is not 

 a good man, when gathered together to be better 

 than they, not individually, but taken altogether, 

 as dinners where each guest contributes a dish arc 

 better than those contributed by a single purse, 

 for they being many each has a share of virtue 

 and prudence, and. the multitude when brought 

 together become as one man with many feet and 

 many hands, and having many senses, and so 

 concerning their morals and their intellect." 



Had this dictum proceeded from any one except 

 the author of logic himself, I should have said 

 that it was an instance of the fallacy of compo- 

 sition, of joining together that which ought to 

 be kept separate ; but I do not doubt that the 

 fallacy has its effect, and that many people are 

 perhaps unconsciously induced to believe that 

 there is something more in the agreement of a 

 number of persons assembled together than 

 there is in the opinion of each taken separately. 

 The human mind is overwhelmed with great 

 numbers, as it is with the phenomena of Nature, 

 and is content to cry, " Vox populi, vox Dei," in 

 deference to numbers, to the opinion of each 

 unit of which it would pay no respect whatever. 



1 Fortnightly Review, October, 1877. 



