We wonder why democrats like examinations so much. The Radicals
have always upheld them for the public service ; they would like to forbid the scholastic profession to un- examined men, they write sometimes—though this is academic —as if journalists ought to be examined, and they are now proposing at Portsmouth that all election agents should be subjected to the same ordeal. The proposal, which was made in the Association of Election Agents, nearly caused a split, the most experienced rejecting it with some heat. But why is the system so popular? It is not democratic at all, its direct effect being to confine all posts to men who can pay heavily for early and special instruction, and it shuts out most of those who have influence with "the people." What does it signify if an election agent cannot write grammar, if he can win an election by fair means, and without breaking any law? We understand the argument for close professions, but its root is distrust in the general capa- city of the many to choose men, and that is not democratic. Will the Radicals consent to the examination of candidates for seats in Parliament ?
Previous page
