But Jacob was empty handed, and could not give. Still he lingered near and worked, until Laban, feeling that the labourer was worthy of his hire, said to him---"Because thou art my brother, should'st thou therefore serve me for nought: tell me what shall thy wages be? . . . And Jacob loved Rachel, and said, I will serve "thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter." To which Laban replied-"it is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man, "abide with me." Thus the bargain was closed, and our biblical critics are certain that it reflects discreditably upon Laban, showing him to be a very selfish man. I cannot read it so, for first, it was Jacob's own proposal, and it was a common custom in the East. When a man could not pay for his wife, he gave an equivalent in service, as David to Saul, who led forth an expedition against the Philistines as an equivalent for Saul's daughter. And personal service is accepted even now in lieu of a money-payment. Burchardt mentions a young man he met with near Damascus, who had served eight years, having only his food and his master's daughter at the end of the time. And the same traveller, in his account of Kerak, mentions that it was there common to serve six years for a daughter. In this case, however, a fraud was practised, for Leah was given in place of the beloved Rachel. A thing easily done, seeng that the brides are closely veiled. Cases have recently occurred very similar. Roberts mentions one at Smyrna, and the father assigned the same reason, that it was against the custom for the younger to go before the elder. In India the same custom prevails, so that when a man prefers a younger sister, he must labor diligently to obtain a husband for the elder, as her marriage is indispensable.

On the whole, then, and in presence of these customs, I am not disposed to treat Laban as so utterly unworthy. I say not that he was good, but only that the evil charged against him is not proven. Jacob, however, through a second servitude obtained Rachel, and, as Dr. Blakesly observes, "at last the youth obtained the "hand of her to whom his love had long been given." It detracts somewhat from this picture, when we remember that Jacob was at least seventy years old, and father Isaac has yet thirty years to live. It has been disputed by our critics whether Jacob served the second seven years ere receiving Rachel, some believing that he had her to wife, and then served the appointed time; but, I confess, this seems to be forced upon the text, and not to grow out of it. The reason why this is sought is in order to crowd the number of children born into the number of years assigned, which yet cannot be done, even if the seven years are granted. But I shall not enter into the matter, seeing that it is too filthy. They who choose to sift out the truth, can read quietly over the close of the twenty-ninth, and the first twentyfour verses of the thirtieth chapter of Genesis. Legitimate reasons can be assigned for Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham, which are wholly absent in the cases of Leah, Rachel, and Jacob, and yet both the wives give their servants to him. Certainly, this was not common in the age. But from these four came the twelve tribes of Israel. From Leah and Zilpah, her servant-from Rachel and Bileah, her servant these four were the mothers of the twelve tribes of Israel, a fact which men may meditate upon with not a little advantage. Purity and trust and truth are facts nevertheless, and we, too, are men who can form opinions upon such extraordinary insights into the domestic enocomy of this patriarch. Possibly, too, we may get to see some reasons why the whole story may be viewed as astronomical. Twelve tribes, yes, twelve constellations. Dan, is a serpent; Judah, is a lion; Issachar, is an ass; Benjamin, is a wolf; Joseph, is a bough; Zebulun, is a ship, and so on; each tribe being an astronomical sign, having Jacob, or the sun, as their father, and four mothers, or four seasons, through which they are produced. A man, I say, may read these chapters and wonder very much, asking himself how many ages have elapsed since they were really read as they were written. And reading them thus, the filthiness passes away; for we get into a clear atmosphere, where are the sun, and the stars, and real human thoughts.

But the literal, what does the text appear to relate? end of his term? He said to Laban, Give me my wives,

How acted Jacob at the and let me go. Laban,

however, desired him to remain, saying, "I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry; for I have learned by experience, that the Lord hath blessed me for 'thy sake. Appoint me thy wages, and I will give it." Again, Laban deals openly with him, and asks him to fix his own wages, doubtless believing he would do so under a moral restraint. Jacob offered to remain upon condition that in future all the ringstreaked and parti-coloured in the flock should become his property. Sheep, in the East, are generally altogether white, and goats altogether black; the mixed colours or spotted are an exception. For his hire, then, Jacob asked all these, and Laban consented. Jacob, also, suggested that all he now had thus marked should be removed, and, consequently, that all his were to be of the future. This was done, and Laban was doubtless satisfied, though his satisfaction was not of long duration. I have been asked the question, whether, physiologically speaking, the means Jacob adopted to obtain a large flock of parti-coloured lambs, can be admitted as likely to produce such results, and I must say, certainly not impossible. I may not here go into the subject; but can say, that from experiments I have seen, and otherwise know to have been tried, I have little doubt that in the hands of a skilful grazier and shepherd, some such result could be achieved, though scarcely to the extent here described. That when this story was written some such fact was known I hardly doubt, but the literal truth of what is related I wholly deny. But we are told that Jacob throve vastly. He adopted his peeled stick-plan to produce parti-coloured, and was careful "when the cattle were feeble he put them not in; so the feebler were "Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's." And the man increased exceedingly, so that his cousins, looking upon his daily increasing stock, and that of their father's decreasing, said, naturally enough, "Jacob hath taken away all that was our "father's, and of that which was our father's hath he gotten all this glory." To Jacob this was a cause of fear, and hence his resolve to go secretly away, with his wives, and his flocks, and his herds, and, if possible, to get back into Canaan without coming any more into contact with Laban. Thus it was that he became again a traveller, and had with his wives, and sons, and immense flocks, to recross the deserts.

Now it is nothing short of absurd to discuss the morality of his conduct, because the man who undertakes to defend it has evidently closed his eyes to all moral principles. For look at the facts; there is the owner impoverished, and the servant enriched. And if it is urged that Laban was a party to the bargain, should it not also be urged that Jacob was master of a secret, which when he bargained he knew he could unduly turn to his own advantage? And if a man can honourably bargain with his fellow-man while hiding away part of the facts, then I certainly am not acquainted with the principles of morality. And they who condemn the uncle for selfishness, should remember that a man will naturally grow angry when his flock, beside diminishing, becomes feeble also, while that of his shepherd increases. And was not Jacob selfish? Say the worst for Laban, can it be worse than we should say of Jacob? If Laban was sinful, and keen, and selfish, why Jacob was no better, and it was Jew selling Jew. There is an old saw about diamond cutting diamond, or rogue cheating rogue; and really if Laban is to be viewed as the rogue, then the whole of this history is of a rogue cheating a rogue. The painful part is the foolish saying, that "God was with Jacob;" were that left out then the whole story explains itself. But, to go on with the story, when they have gotten away, Laban hears thereof, and resolves to follow. Nay, he must do so, for have they not carried away his Gods, his images? Yes, Rachel, the beloved and the pious, who is held up before the eye of Christian maidenhood as all piety, strangely enough it is she who has stolen them, and it is she who lies about them when overtaken by Laban.

(To be continued.)

LONDON: PUBLISHED BY JAMES PATTIE, 31, PATERNOSTER ROW, and George GLAISHER, 470, NEW OXFORD STREET.

Printed by W, Ostell, Hart-street, Bloomsbury,

THE PATHFINDER,

A

JOURNAL OF INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS REFORM, CONDUCTED BY P. W. PERFITT.

No. 34.]

SEPTEMBER 3, 1859.

[PRICE 2D.

THE SUFFRAGE QUESTION AND LEARNING.

THE honourable members of both Houses are scattered far and wide over England, and Southern Europe, and fancy says, they are busy studying what shall be conceded to the people in the New Reform Bill, which, without fail, is to be introduced into one House and thrown out in the other in the next Session. The great point in dispute will be the nature of the suffrage. Shall it be a £6. tenancy, household, or manhood? Shall we not do well to settle the matter out of doors in some decent shape before the new session commences? Is it not our duty to assemble and discuss all the propositions as calmly as possible, so that when the debate, commences within the House, the attitude of outsiders shall be unmistakeably known? True, indeed, just now, with the thermometer so high, there is little chance of getting up any excitement-still we may prepare the way for the stir which must be, and thus make the work lighter when the hour for action arrives.

We turn to the Registered Manhood Suffrage, which claims that every man 21 years of age, who is under no legal bar, and who has taken the trouble to have his name placed upon the register of his district, shall be recognised as an elector. This form enjoys the advantage of simplicity, and, if, as scientific men inform us, that is one of the best tests of truth, we must acknowledge it as an elementary proof. But such a proposition needs to be more than stated, for either its essential superiority to all other forms should be proved, or it must be abandoned as untenable. The proof, however, is naturally difficult, for what we all see to be right is sometimes the most difficult to maintain in argument, so that in such cases we are forced to prove our own point by disproving what is urged against us. And what is it that is

advanced against this Registered Manhood Suffrage? The strongest argument we have heard, is, that it would introduce a body of men whose ignorance, whose recklessness of character, and whose habits totally unfit them for selecting the gentlemen who should represent the people in Parliament, hence that a body of men would be introduced into the House whose aims and conduct would be inimical to the interests of England. The patriotism of men has been appealed to, to arise and act against such a proposal; they are not to act as men of a privileged class, but as members of a community, who are solemnly bound to preserve its honor and interests. This is but the old story VOL. II,

L

of ruin following hard upon the heels of change. Men in their weakness fear that the slightest motion will be followed by destruction, and thus they would stand still until the whole edifice fell through decay, rather than incur the danger of changing the damaged portions for new. But what reason is there for the fear? Introduce a class of ignorant men !" And would that be new ? Are they all wise who now have the franchise? None ignorant, but all skilled? The men of Buckinghamshire and of Thetford; of Abingdon and Berwick; of Aylesbury and Calne; of Ashburton and Horsham; are these all wise men, who know well the proper qualifications which fit a man for becoming a member, and who are skilled in human nature sufficiently to detect the real Simon Pure amid the gross mass presented to their notice? The man who should affirm this would thereby prove one of two propositions, either that he was ignorant of the real condition and culture of these people, or that he was knowingly publishing an untruth!

But the fact is that wisdom has never been fixed as the basis of the electoral right, neither is it now proposed by any party to make it such. That as the ages roll, it will be both proposed and adopted, we are quite secure ; for this whole system of representation must and will undergo a change. It is not perfect, but is only one of the resting points on the high road to State perfection, and before we quit, we must exhaust it, learn precisely what it is worth, and then pass on to higher forms. That, however, is neither fitting work for this age, or worthy of a discussion, save in some essay upon the philosophy of history and politics. The work of our age is to make the best, and show the highest possibilities of the representative system. We must exhaust it, and leave to other generations the fruits of the experience thus produced, so that they may proceed to the establishment of the still higher and truer ideas. And to do this, we shall be compelled to widen our base without any great noise about the wisdom of the elements. For how, as we are now situated, are we to determine upon the point who are wise, and who are ignorant? Who shall be appointed as judges; and, still more important, who are to be the wisest of all to appoint the judges? Truly a difficult question, and one not soluble by any known means.

Then again, if we are to keep out the ignorant-and we ask the question under a solemn sense of its vital importance-is it not necessary that we exclude the graduates of all our Universities? Is it not essential, if the ignorant are to be excluded, that all these should be disfranchised until they prove themselves worthy of being registered? It is, as practical men, we ask this question, which in general would be met with contemptuous laughter. Let us see, however, who should laugh! What is meant by "the ignorant ?" Do they mean, the men who cannot read a page of Homer, or who cannot translate a passage out of Tacitus? Is it meant that they are the ignorant who cannot write upon Fluxions, or who are wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew vowel points? If so, then we may ask-how many of our electors can be retained upon the lists? Nothing so absurd is meant; but when it is said a man is too ignorant to be allowed to vote, it is meant that he is not sufficiently instructed with regard to the history, the policy, the relations, and the resources of England-that "he does not understand the class interests, the financial system, " and the constitution of the country;" and hence the inference, that such a man "is unfit to have the franchise, for knowing nothing of the fundamentals, "how is it to be expected that he can act wisely as an elector?"

Now we shall not argue, as might very conclusively be done, that these objections are such as could be successfully urged against a majority of the

present electors; but we ask whether every objection there named may not be forcibly urged against the great mass of University graduates? What are they taught in our colleges, either of England, its interests, policy, resources, or aims? Literally nothing! They learn deeply the Art or Science of Mathematics, and doubtless the majority of our Cambridge men could render us a great service if the quality of candidates could be discovered by the method employed to solve one of Euclid's problems. Or, if we required to know the Athenian state policy, the character of the Thirty, or the general relation of Plato's philosophy to that of Pythagoras, then doubtless they could render us aid of the most important character; but what have these to do with the resources and needs of Modern England? Our University education is based upon very false assumptions; and it is a well proven fact, that all who are thus educated, are considered to have gone through all the necessary studies, while as yet they are profoundly ignorant of the order of English kings, and the growth of English law. We engage to find in every street in our British cities, a body of working men who are better informed of English history and policy, who are better versed in the actual verities of our national life, and who have a clearer comprehension of the actual requirements of the age than can be said of an equal number of our college heroes, although they may have earried away the honors. And we say this, not insultingly to the men, but in sorrow for them. The fault is not theirs, for it lies in the system. Yet wherever the fault may lie, there are the results not to be denied, and we must recognise their existence; we urge then that when it is said we must not have universal suffrage, on the ground that it "would admit ignorant men," we are cheated with a show of words without practical value. These men are not ignorant of all things; they both know and can do to perfection, things which the classically-learned know not, or could not do, and if both are alike ignorant upon the points involved in our electoral duties, it is nothing short of a mockery to give the franchise to one, and withhold it from the other. Either we must at once acknowledge that constitutional learning is not necessary to fit a man for the exercise of the suffrage, or disfranchise nine-tenths of our present electoral body, and look in vain for an equal number to fill the void.

We shall not dignify by the name of argument, another bit of sophistry which has shone of late in several of our prints, to this effect, that we are not to ask for Manhood Suffrage, because, forsooth, if we obtain it, then a body of "fast young men will become electors," although they have not learned as yet to govern themselves. Is this a reason, or only a flimsy excuse? Are we to object to them as fast young men ? Because if so, then a moral principle will be established, which every good man must hail with great pleasure. But this is not even hinted at, for we are only to exclude those "fast men" who are not householders. A man may lead whatsoever life pleases him, and yet vote, providing he holds the house-qualification; and consequently his moral character has nothing to do with the matter. Why, then, is it so prominently put forward? Simply because it will catch a great number, who never reason but always jump to conclusions. The men who put it forth do so in order to entrap the unwary, but must be inwardly conscious of the trick they are playing. Let them honourably propose a moral standard, and we shall give our support; but to this trickery we cannot lend our assent. Indeed, if being "fast young men❞ is a reason why the parties should not vote, the reason must be valueless when we to turn to those who live steadily. But the denial of Universal Suffrage, because some young men are unsteady, involves that all young men who are steady are to be excluded. The many innocent are to be punished