The Morning Herald gives its opinion, that " It may reasonably
be doubted whether men of more abstract science, or authors by profession, are calculated to snake useful members of Parliament ; while by deserting the posts for which they are qualified, they rob the world and themselves of the fruits of their real utility."
What is the object of a Parliament? To make laws, is it not? Who is most likely to discriminate between a bad law and a good one ?—those who possess knowledge, or those who want it? What does the Herald mean by mere abstract science? There is a science called Political Economy—is it unfit for the House of Commons? There is a science called Arithmetic, the most abstract of all—is it improper for a member? Authors by profession are, in general, masters of some small English—is such a possession injurious to a Parliament man? Would Alderman WAITET.• MAN harangue less convincingly on the Exports, if the worthy Alderman could spell'? We have had in the House of Commons, during the last fifty years, rogues innumerous, dunces innumerous, of orators many, of men of genius a few, of men of science two or three at most. The rogues remain, the dunces remain; no bill has put them into Schedule A. The orators are mostly, the men of genius entirely gone. It is humbly proposed to send into the House two men who are somewhat skilled in the exact sciences,—Mr. BABBAGE, and Mr. LUBBOCK; the latter, by the by, a plain, practical, London merchant as well as a philosopher; —and, forthwith, all the wiseheads in Gotham fall a wagging at the danger that will accrue to the Legislature from being so o'erinformed.
Previous page
