The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-31 00:00:00

the ex igencies of his official opposition than to his
own individual convictions. No man is more likely
to estimate education at its rightvalue, as no man is
better qualified to give an opinion on any educational
question. The Leader of the House, however, is
not entirely free to accept to follow his own inclina-
tions. The Cabinet have accepted the Reform Bill
as it now stands, and any attempt to add so con-
siderable an improvement would find plenty of op-
position among the members of the Government
itself. I,lr. GLADSTONE'S arguments were laboured
and inconclusive, and although the task of
opposing the bill fell almost entirely upon him,
he. failed to show his usual animation and
energy. The fact is he was arguing in a bad
cause, and one manifestly inconsistent with the
principles which he has recently upheld. Re-
formers will, perhaps, be astonished to find the
member for Biriningham, after all his diatribes,
resolutely opposing a measure so well calculated to
elevate the people, so readily adapted to admit to
the franchise intelligent men of all classes, and
offering safeguards against ignorance and intole-
rance which no other system can supply. Mr.
BRIGHT'S objections to an educational franchise are
quite inconsistent with his theories about the
rights of the people. Every one knows the differ-
ence between a person who has acquired even the
rudiments of education and a totally illiterate man.
The teachers of adult schools are continually sur-
prised at the contrast offered by even their most in-
telligent scholars to children of mediocre ability
who have been taught the elements of knowledge.
In every sphere of life in business, in domes-
tic service, among artisans and agricultural la-
bourers, we can at once see the difference
between the man who can read and write and
[ the man who is absolutely illiterate. Education
is the great leveller and the great barrier. Two
well-educated persons can meet on equal
ground, whatever the difference of rank or
fortune. -An ignorant or uncultivated man,
whatever his means or position, is inferior to
all. No one /expects the working classes td
attain great proficiency in elaborate studies, but it
is tot too much to demand that they shall be able to
read, write, and cipher before they take part in influ-
encing the affairs of the country. If a man cannot
read his newspaper, how is he to form an opinion on
foreign affairs? How is he to weigh the relative
merits of the candidates for election, to examine
the speeches, the votes, the policy of his member.
If it is urged that a labouring man has no need
to study politics before he gives a vote, we can only
reply that if politics are a matter of indifference
to him the possession of a vote is worse than useless.
It lays him open to influence and intimidation. He
is at the mercy of every demagogue ; he is able,
even if interested in public affairs, to hear only one
side of a question. " Fair play" is always the Eng-
lish watchword, but how can a man give a fair con-
sideration to a question if he only hears one-half
of it ? Let us encourage the working classes to
educate themselves, and then they will be able to
think for themselves, to judge fairly and calmly, not
carried away by declamation, not blinded by preju-
dice, not misled by interested partisans. Intolerance
'a
figrnondmoraa nvoice
i,c prejudicee a
and
iin our
re two
oiutr u
is
re
these
ieel
ssf aee inl tinag t
thati
01n,,.e.
Iwish
sthooaccompanimentseuxldelliu
lido
eef
to know to what the gentlemen who oppose this bill
attribute the marvellous alteration inthe condition of
the working classes in the last 30 or 40 years? If
our masses are to be trusted to uphold the laws, to
maintain order, to submit themselves to civil autho-
rity as no other people in Europe can be trusted, to
what is it owing ? It is to education and to civil
freedom. We do not hear now of machinery broken,
of bread riots, and public disturbances, such as half
a century ago attended any time of public distress
and trial ; and it is because men have learned to
think and to reason, to understand cause and
effect, not to attribute the blame of any tem-
porary trouble to the person nearest at hand.
No one pretends to deny the wonderful pro-
gress made by our working classes, and
it is the men who have made this progress that we
are anxious to admit to the franchise. Mr. GLAD-
STONE says that if a labouring man at one-and-
twenty can pass an examination in the rudiments
of learning, he will forget all he has learned in a life
of labour, and at 40 or 50 will retain the privilege
without the qualification. But does Mr. GLAD-
' STONE pretend to say that such a man will be on a
level with the totally ignorant ?
Mr. GLADSTONE may turn for an example to that
i University of which he is one of the chief boasts.
How many men who attain a creditable degree at
Oxford or Cambridge keep up their proficiency in
1 the dead languages or abstruse mathematics in after
life? Yet would he have us believe that early study
does not leave its traces all through life ? that the
enlargement of the mind, the ripening of the facul-
ties, the strengthening of the judgment, the cultiva-
tion of the taste, do not remain when 'Escin-Lt's
and HoRAeE are left unread, and .the problems of
EUCLID are forgotten in the practical cares of life?
There is no need for the working man to do a
sum which Mr. GLADSTONE does not believe thirty
members of the House could do ? He must be hard
up for an argument when he resorts to such logic.
Does he mean to say that members who could not
read would be equally fit representatives ? His
inference would imply it, though he can scarcely
wish to carry his theories so far. It is, moreover,
very much to be doubted whether a man of twenty-
one, who takes the trouble to secure a vote by
passing an examination, would forget all he
had learned. He would naturally read the
papers, and thus keep up his reading, and the sense
that he had acquired the franchise by individual
effort would stimulate him to further exertion. As
for the objection that young men may vote when
their fathers may not that has no weight. If the
sons are qualified, and the father is not, it is right
they should have the privilege. How many sons of
ability or good fortune attain a position which their
fathers never reached ? The Constitution does not
re3ognise such theoretical obstacles; but, in fact,
the objections to Mr. CLAY'S measure are more cor-
rectly "fancy" objections than the bill is a "fancy"
measure.