The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-01 00:00:00

602 THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. Tuis bill, introduced to the Commons by Lord JOHN RUSSELL on the 17th of March, went through its last stage in that House on the 29th of June, upwards of three months being employed in remodelling it. Probably no Government bill ever underwent so much alteration before. The queStion now is—How will it fare in the Lords ? When it was first proposed that the matriculation test should be abolished, Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the clause, on the ground that, if successful, it might cause the rejection of the bill by the Peers ; yet, when it was proposed that no test should be required on taking a B.A. degree, he altogether lost sight of that fear, and gave the proposal his support. These alterations are certainly not worth the importance which has been attached to them : the first very properly dispenses with that declaration being required at the commencement of a course of univer sity study which forms an appropriate conclu sion to it and the second is to be regarded only as a sign of academical proficiency. It confers no powers of any kind. It is an honourable distinction, no doubt ; but it is no more, and does not in any degree entitle those who win it to take part in the government of the university. Should the relaxation attract dissenters to Oxford, we really think that the Church would be the gainer. We do not, therefore, imagine that the bill will be rejected by the Lords on account of these clauses, or even that the clauses themselves will be struck out. The great amendment it has received at the hands of the Conservative party in the Commons will probably have the effect of securing its adoption by the Upper House. TIIE COALITION MINISTRY AND ITS EFFECTS. A strong Government and a vigorous Oppo sition we hold to be essential to the healthful and safe condition of our great representative assembly. A strong Government exist 3 never, a vigorous Opposition seldom, with a Coalition Ministry. In the House of Commons, as in the country, parties should be divided by strong and well-recognised lines of demarca tion, and these lines of demarcation should rest upon conscientious differences, upon great and constitutional principles, or ques tions of policy. When this is not tho case the House of Commons acquires a tendency to run riot. There was a time in Israel when every man did that which was right in his own eyes ; and it was a time of internal confusion and disorder. There are many instances we might adduce as illustrations of these remarks. Let us take, for example, the proceedings last Monday on Mr. COLLIER'S motion respecting the law of partnership. The question is a very im portant one. It involves great commercial principles, respecting which a Government nught to have, and to be in a condition to state and to maintain, an opinion, one way or the other. Mr. COLLIER had a strong opinion, and urged it with ability and earnestness. The Cabinet, probably, on this as on other questions, is divided and quarrelsome. Mr. CARDWELL, accordingly, was unintelligible. His speech was hesitating, but indicated, how ever faintly, an opinion adverse to Mr. COL LIER'S motion. Mr. COLLIER was ably supported by Mr. COBDEN, Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. MALINS, and there were decided manifestations in the House favourable to the views of that gentle man. A report from commissioners—princi- pally judicial personages of high repute—had recently been laid on the table of the House. It was stated on both Bides—by Mr. NAPIER on the part of the Opposition, and by the Arrow- Nit-GENERAL on the part of the Government— that it was inexpedient to come to an abstract resolution on a subject scarcely matured for legislation. Lord PALMERSTON, the Home Secretary, appealed almost pathetically to the THE PRESS: House and to Mr. COLLIER. He signified an opinion, hesitating certainly, but as favourable to the motion as Mr. CARDWELL'S hesitating opinion was adverse to it. He promised full consideration on the part of Government, but, abuve all things, depreligtikl a division. It wag in vain. Every man di it that which was right in his oivn eyes. The Muse became a scehe of confttsion and disorder, and the abstract fesolution, deprecated on all sides, was unani mously passed to save a Coalition Government the ignomony of anothir defeat. Again we repeat that the disorganising effect upon the House of Cbmmons of a Coali tion Government without a policy and with out principle if; one of its worst and most dangerous characteristics. SERVILITY OF RADICALISM. THE singular position occupied by the Radical party in Parliament is certainly very strange. Sustaining the Cabinet in office, and with a large numerical following, the Radicals are content with a few subordinate posts being assigned to them and a single Cabinet Minister being selected from their body. Opinions differ widely as to the mode of view ing such remarkable abnegation. Some, like Mr. BRIGHT, deem it very " absurd ; " others, like Mr. OSBORNE, think it convenient, and say nothing. The simplicity with which inno cent Radicalism believes itself to be repre sented in the Government has something in it almost Arcadian. If the whipper-in appeared on the walls of the Royal Academy this season the artist should have painted Mr. HATTER with a shepherd's crook, surrounded by the bleating flock of woolly Radicals patiently waiting to he shorn. Many, however, whisper that there is something too contemptible in a large parliamentary party practically abjuring its principles, lowering its flag, and succumb ing tamely to an official clique. The traditions of parliamentary Radicalism are not very animating to its more ambitious upholders. It has been obliged to tolerate more official rebuffs than any preceding or contemporary party, equalling its wealth and numbers, ever endured. Just as in former days Mr. MILNRR GIBSON was taken up and put down again, so in the present session Mr. &rat= is raised to the heights of office only to be dashed down to a lower level than that from which ho ascended. So in the nursery tale the giant always amused his victim with the splendid prospects from the top of his castle preparatory to hurling him from the battlements. How the Radicals en dure such treatment is really surprising. They have placed their old principles in abeyance; they think of " progress " as a walk to a supercilious interview at Downing-street, where their memorials are received with the condescension that borders on contempt, and forgotten with the carelessness that implies an intentional neglect. Some of the more pre tentious in their body recollect how PotmErr Therms became a peer and a colonial governor; but their dreams are dissipated when they think with a shudder of Mr. STRIITT. Recollecting the composition of the present Cabinet, we are astonished at the servile ac quiescence shown by the Radicals to the sys tem which ignores their principles and insults their personal pretensions. We can, of course, understand how the Member for Middlesex is perfectly satisfied with the ample slices of official pudding bestowed on him. Corn• pulsory taciturnity may, indeed, be galling to one with such an ambition for notoriety : he may long to make another raid upon the dusty farces of the obsolete FOOTE, and compose an impromptu harangue with jokes from GEORGE SELWYN, and historical knowledge from the philosophic HANSARD. The obscurity of a salaried subordinate may mortify a taciturn official who fancied that speaking was his strong point, as the grammar of some of his official correspondence showed that writing was his weak one. But fraternal affection is delightful, and a consulship for a brother can console a mute orator. The Gazette recording the promotion of a kinsman will atone for the SATURDAY, want of a newspaper with a speech interspersed with rhetorical traps for "cheers and laughter" of the best Brummagem pattern, with Osborne, maker, stamped upon them. The disuse of such speeches may, however, be attributed to the improvement in the Selretary for Ad miralty's licowledge. Another of these silenced Radicals, ihe Attorney-General, may have in• formed hifn that "trying , to inflict wounds " with blunt histruments " has long been a statutab le offence. ; It is certainly very strange that a' Cabinet so exclusively aristocratic in its constitution should be so submissively followed by gentle. men who proclaim themselves as representa tives of the democratic principle. Now that Mr. STRUTT has been extruded, there is not ( with the single exception of the LORD CHANCELLOR) one member of the Cabinet who is not the son of a titled person. Even Mr. GLADSTONE, the solitary " Mr. " of the Ministry, is the son and brother of a baronet, besides being regularly trained for statesmanship. We can fancy some apologist for absolutist government sar castically deriding our British Constitution as one in which everything but the Executive Department is open to untitled talent, and quoting the Coalition as an illustration , of his argument. It is clear that if Mr. HAMPDEN, Mr. PYM, Mr. SELDEN, or even Mr. SIDNEY, flourished in our days they would have been deemed plebeian intruders on the Whig pre sences, on which all but Peelites must be held to be poachers. It would be no use for them to grow hoarse in citing Lord &micas or Mr. BURKE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would quote a French proverb as well as he could, and laugh in their faces. Whether such great men, if now alive, would allow themselves 'to be called " Radicals " we need not speculate. In any age they would desire to be known as English men, and in that character they never would tamely endure a tithe of the contumely courted by the Radicals. For it is evident that either the principles of Radicalism are fallacious and impracticable, or its parliamentary upholders must be men of inferior talents and lowly de • sires. Such is the disagreeable dilemma sug gested by the sight of the most obsequious party that ever arrogated to itself the title of " Liberal." Whether their principles be false or their talents be feeble would be too invi dious to inquire. In former days they were obnoxious to the imputation of living in the future, but, judging them by their present tactics, the Radicals belong to the past tense —a consummation desirable on many grounds, if it could have been less ignominiously at tained. NATIONAL EDUCATION, IRELAND. So long ago as the 25th of February last, in reviewing the petition of the patrons of national schools in Ireland, and in adverting to the position of the education question in that country, rendered so remarkable by the secession of the Archbishop of DusuN, the ex-Chancellor (Mr. BLACKBURNE), and Mr. Baron GREENE from the National Board, we expressed our satisfaction that a committee of inquiry had been proposed by the Earl of EGLINTON in the House of Lords, and we promised to keep our eye on the inquiry. It would be premature and improper, while the inquiry is in progress, to comment upon the evidence adduced before the committee. We shall only state that the inquiry has been prosecuted with the greatest assiduity and impartiality; that the Archbishop of DUBLIN, Mr. BLACIBURNE, and several of the present commissioners, the secretaries, several of the inspectors, and a number of gentlemen and clergymen of all vie ws and denominations, have been examined. We are, therefore, warranted in believing that the actual state of things, under a system which costs the country nearly 200,0001, a year, will be fully and fairly exhibited. Our object now is to invite the attention of our readers to a petition (of which we subjoin a copy) presented last week by his Grace the Archbishop of CorrEasuar, and referred by the House of Lords to Lord EOLINTON'S com mittee.