The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-12 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1870.

The Extinction of Pauperism is one of the many
fantastic day-dreams of a philanthropic character
indulged in by Lothair, according to the description
of the young patrician millionaire, given in the ex-
Premier's latest and most brilliant romance of the
English aristocracy. The idea of that dazzling day-
dream is not one of yesterday. It was defined—it
might be asserted, in so many words, that it was pro-
claimed—as a possibility more than a quarter of a
century ago, by a remarkable Prisoner of State, then,
in the May of 1844, incarcerated as the world thought
for the term of his natural existence, in a northern
fortress of France : now, in the May of 1870, seated
upon the most powerful throne upon the European
continent. " The Extinction of Pauperism " was the
title of the political work issued six and twenty years
ago, from the Fortress of Ham, by Prince Louis NA-
POLEON. Four years afterwards the humane
pamphleteer, who had indulged his fancy by penning
that beneficent but utterly impracticable disquisition
(having, in the meanwhile, escaped from durance by
a device as ingenious as it was hazardous) was sum-
moned from exile by the electors of the departments
of the Seine, of Yonne, of Sarthe, and of Charente
Inferieure. Half a year later he was called, by
5,434,226 suffrages to the supreme chair of the Pre-
sidency—since when, that is to say, for these two
and twenty years past, he has been, for the first five
years indirectly, for the last eighteen absolutely,
the ruler of the destinies of the 40,000,000 of
the French population. Yet the " Extinction
of Pauperism" that he mused over in the May of
1844 as a problem admitting, according to his argu-
ment, in some way of solution, is now, in the May
of 1870, as far removed from realization as ever,
though to the theory of the Fortress of Ham he has
so long been able—had he so pleased (or, in other
words, had his benign but most illusory scheme ad-
mitted seriously in any way of actual development
or of practical demonstration)—from his stand-point
in the Palace of the Tuileries, to apply to the pur-
poses of his design all the resources of his Govern-
ment ! When originally propounding his theory as
to the practicability of effecting the " Extinction of
Pauperism," how was it that the imperial
publicist expressed almost with the terse-
ness of an epigram the root-germ of this
one among his many idees fixes, beyond all doubt the
most arcadian of all the Ickes Napolioniennes? Why,
by observing in so many words at the close of one of
the few sentences of his brief explanatory or elu-
cidatory Preface —" if ease, instruction, and morality
are disseminated among the working classes, which are
the most numerousbody, pauperism is extirpated, if not
entirely at any rate in a great measure." Reading
those execedingly simple and perfectly comprehen-
sible phrases, the notion indulged in by the day-
dreamer almost ensures to itself the logical sequence
and irresistible force of a syllogism. Ease, instruc-
tion, and morality ! If disseminated among the
working classes! Then—in that event—Pauperism
would be extirpated Ah I that—lF. The theorist
has been all these years in supreme authority in
France, and yet the working classes iu France are as
far removed as ever from the solution of that grand
social problem, a solution then so readily cap-
able of being worked otP, according to the large-
hearted dreams (or shall we call them the beneficent
hallucinations ?) of the then State Prisoner. The
politico. social mirage he was then gazing upon, was
simply this—the associating together of the unem-
ployed labourers of the community, in the cultivation
of the waste lands of the State, upon a kind of joint-
stock principle, the lands thus occupied being formed
into colonies of a purely agricultural character. Mr.
DISRAELI'S Lothair now echoes the thought of
Prince Louis NAPOLEON. But the waste lands—here
and there—are still waste, are still unoccupied : and,
from beyond the distance of nearly two thousand
years, there comes another utterance, reminding us of
the poor who are always among us, indicative that
Pauperism, though it may no doubt be sensibly
ameliorated, is hardly likely to be ever extirpated
either by the fiat of an Emperor or by the gold of a
Millionaire.

Our Continental neighbours have not been slow
to inform us that, before too severely condemning the
Greeks for the disorderly and dangerous condition
of their highways, we should look at Ireland, along
whose main roads and public thoroughfares inoffen-
sive travellers do not alwags get safe to their jour-
ney's end. Their satire might have been yet more
caustic, their censure more just, had they restrained it
to the limits of England itself. Here, in the
second city of the empire, amidst all the eviden'es of
wealth, and civilization, and refinement, there are
bands of men who wage a perpetual war upon
society, who are bound together by a sacred corn,.
pact, who carry men's lives in their hands, and are
totally regardless of any consideration of jus-
tice, law, or humanity. Our Trades Union-
ists would, doubtless, he up in arms if
any one openly charged them with com-
plicity in the massacre which has set the country
aflame. But what are we to say of a system which
forbids a man in consequence of a mere business
dispute to sleep in safety under his own roof ? Could-
the brigands of Marathon do more than dog their
vie tim's steps, lie in wait for him in bye-ways, fire
his house, destroy his property, terrify his friends,
torture him into sabmission, and all for
what ? A question of momentary gain and
obedience to the rules of their fraternity !
Truly, Greece and England are not so very dis-
similar,

If the poet's often-quoted wish could be fulfilled,
and the working men of England could " see them-
selves as others see them," they might find that
oppression was not the exclusive privilege of despots.
Most men would.rather face a tangible enemy than
a nameless spectre, and a regiment in arms
would be less formidable than the unknown
mysterious adversary who p2a# be a mile off, but who
may be close in the rear or crouching at the side.
The boldest and most resolute spirit may well give
way under such silent pressure, and the records of
Trades Unions show its that they generally do. Mr.
JOHNSON, of Manchester, whose cane has just been
brought prominently forward in the columns of the
press and in the House of Commons, is a man of no
slight mental vigour. Re has resolutely withstood the
pressure of the Manchester Union for more than a
twelvemonth. lie has organized and encouraged the

efforts of others to resist a racial tyranny which in-
jures alike employes and I:Anvil:Teri , and the copse-
que.nee is that he is forced to codes in a letter to
a frieal that his life is a burden to Lim. His ser-
vants fear to remain in his service, his friends shrink
from his door. All dread some sudden catastrophe,
and the events of the last few weeks give very pain-
ful and convir,cing evidence that these apprehensions
are only two well founded.

It is natural to inquire, after reading this story,
what Mr. JOHNSON'S offence has been. In what way
has he put himself under a social ban which our Eng-
lish law seems powerless to remove ? The answer is
that he endeavoured, though probably as a matter of
commercial enterprise rather than as a philanthropic
design, to supply one of the most crying wants of
the poor. He wished to make bricks by machinery
instead of by hand, and consequently to render
house-building cheap and easy. Working men, who
are themselves hampered and crippled by an exorbi-
tant weekly rent, or are huddled in wretched, un-
healthy hovels, call down blessings on the name of Mr.
PEABoDv for his noble gifts t o their order. At the same
time they are doing their best to perpetuate the evil
they are groaning under, by checking enterprise and
fettering commerce. They applaud the doctrines of
RICHARD COBDEN, and are ready to canonise JOHN
BRIGHT, but let the Free-Trade doctrines extend from
the cheap loaf to the cheap brick, and nothing short
of capital punishment will suffice for the offence.
Our working classes are not yet perfect in the lesson
of political economy, and we fear the study of Trade
Unionism is not calculated to enlighten them.

Yesterday a somewhat quiet, but important and
imposing Royal ceremony took place. It was not a
people's display, for the company was very select,
and the general public had to be satisfied with as
much of the spectacle as could be seen on
the outside of the building in which the
business of the day was transacted. But as
bearing upon the general intellectual welfare of the
people, and more particularly of the poorer classes,
no royal pageant of late years more justly merits
attention. Yesterday the University of London,
atter many years of existence without a local habita-
tion, and almost without a name, removed to a per-
manent residence worthy of its great importance ;
and the Queen, with some of her children and the
magnates of the kingdom, assisted at the opening
ceremonial. The occasion was a great one. The London
University is emphatically a great institution, its
past career has been one of rapid prosperity, and,
if it lose not the spirit of its old principles,
it cannot fail to command a splendid future. It is an
institution after its own kind, for its one great merit
is not shared at present by any other University,
In antiquity London is decidedly deficient; its deed of
settlement is dated only 1828, and it is, therefore,
in the opinion of many a new-fangled and an upstart
establishment. It possesses none of the splendid
buildings and ample libraries of Oxford and Cam-
bridge. In resources generally, indeed, London
cannot compare with the older establishments. It is
comparatively poor, and eia mall me tO have no
palpable existence beyond the building in which it
has just taken up its quarters,.
The University of London► bases its claim to the
favour of the English nation on the thorough accep-
tation and enforcement of one simple principle—
liberality. It is unsectarian, and unfettered by any
of the restrictions imposed upon the students of other
universities. No matter what may be the religion of
the London University man (or woman, for the
" subjected " sex are now admitted to certain exami-
nations), no matter what his or her condition in life,
no matter whether a resident in a college or not, the
welcome is the same for all. The Senate prescribes only
that the aspirant shall be equal to the required
standard, which is always high, sometimes exces-
sively so. Any perscn who is over sixteen years of
age, and who can produce a certificate of character
and pay a fee of two pounds, can matriculate if he
satisfies the examiners. For five pounds he can be
admitted to most of the advanced examinations—ten
pounds being charged only for a few of
the highest ordeals. These are all the
conditions imposed. The London University is in
fact nothing more than an examining board. The
members may study where they like, and how they
like. All that is required of them is
that they should be equal to the tests
prescribed. Other universities provide facilities for
teaching, as well as for examining—indeed, they will
not give their degrees to students who have not
resided at one of their colleges. The metropolitan
institution deals only with the inspectorial part of
academical training.

In the opinion of many eminent authorities this
is a great disadvantage. The new university
has none of the social training—whether in gentle-
manly manners, in cricketing, or in betting and
policeman bonneting—which the older institutions
can offer. But, on the other hand, the liberty of
taking a degree without passing several terms in col-
lege is the one great advantage which the parvenu
foundation possesses. A degree at Oxford or Cam-
bridge costs several hundred pounds. It is only
within the reach of the moderately well-to-do, for
besides the actual outlay, the residence in
college is of course incompatible with atten-
tion to any business. The London University
man need spend very little, and he can, and often
does, study after a day's ordinary labour is over.
Hence the younger academical centre is particularly
valuable as the university of the poor, as the univer-
aity of a busy age, in which all men cannot spare
several years of their life exclusively to culture.
University study now takes a wider range. For•
merly confined only to the rich, there is now
scarce any so poor as to be beyond hope of distinc-
tion in learning. The old monopoly is broken down
and it is the unpretending institution in London
which has accomplished this good work. Surely this
great boon more than counter-balances the loss of
the refinements of Oxford or Cambridge. It is
better that learning should be given to the whole
nation than that it should be confined to a privileged
class, even if something be lost by the widening of
4lagb