The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-29 00:00:00

388 rEt6illg'S in V arliantent. CONDUCT OF THE WAR. Several questions referring to recent accounts from the Black Sea, and the head-quarters of the British forces in the East, were urged in the House of Lords on Thursday. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH called attention to the neglect evinced with regard to the British forces at ; no preparation having been made, accord ing to the letters published in different newspapers, for the arrival of the troops, and very insufficient pro vision made for their accommodation, either in health or sickness. The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied the truth of the statements on which the accusation of neglect was founded. The troops had been received by the in habitants of the place in the most friendly spirit, and accommodated as well as the locality rendered possi ble. The noble duke complained of the recklessness with which statements impugning the conduct and care of the executive departments had been written from the spot and circulated in England : "We were told that the French, having first come to Gallipoli, were first served. Considering that Toulon was nearer to Gallipoli than was any port of Great Britain, it would not have been remarkable if the French had been there first. But such was not the case ; for our commis saries had been in Turkey for several weeks before any French ones went there ; and, as regarded Gallipoli, the French and English commissaries-general met there, the former coming from France and the latter from Constan tinople, and concerted together the arrangements for the arrival of the troops. On this occasion, he was happy to say, the same harmony prevailed between the inferior as between the superior officers. There was no quarrelling or disputing, but they made an amicable arrangement. It was said that the French had been located in the Turkish quarter of the town, while our troops had been driven into the Greek quarter, which was represented as being less advantageous, in consequence of the supposed enmity of the Greek population to us. Ho had, however, received a letter from Sir George Brown, expressing his extreme satisfaction that the Greek quarter had been allotted to the English troops; and he had also seen a private letter, which was to the same effect, and added, that had they to choose their situation afresh they should choose this quar ter. After what he had thus advanced, he thought he was jus tified in doubting the details to which his noble friend had referred ; and must say that it was unfortunate that a gentleman, habituated to the luxuries of London life, miss ing his club and his glass of wine—he even al.uded to the absence of butter—really he (the Duke of Newcastle) hoped that oar brave officers and soldiers did not imagine that they would be fed on the sweetest of butter and the best of fowl—it was a pity that this gentleman, habituated to the luxuries of English life, and not over wellinclined to going out to Turkey, should not have waited until he had time to make inquiries and ascertain facts, but should have written accounts which were not fair to the persons concerned in the service about which he wrote. Her Ma jesty's Government were fair game, let them be attacked ; but the commissariat department ought not to be discou raged by undue and unfair misrepresentation. He did not wish that any neglect should be concealed, or that any im perfections should be slurred over. It was not his inten tion, nor was it the desire of her Majesty's Government, that such should be the case; but he did say that, upon the eve of the great operations upon which we were enter ing, it was only fair to those concerned in them that no one should publish his first impressions without being satisfied that they were confirmed, and that what on his first arrival at any place seemed to bim to be facts, actually were so." The Earl of HARDWICKE having afterwards referred to the reported evacuation and destruction of some forts on the Circassian coast by the Russians, The Earl of CLARENDON gave some explanations on the point : " The Russian fleet, to the best of his knowledge, had not come out of Sebastopol, and it did no% at the time of the report convey troops from one part of the Russian territory to another. What did take place, and what he subsequently heard, was that one vessel (an English steamer) was sent to survey the Circassian coast. During that time they saw five small steamers that had been em ployed in removing the troops that were placed in the different fortresses along the shore, which had all been destroyed; and he must say that the Russians having, of their own accord, and before the declaration of war, evacuated and destroyed these fortresses, which had for so many years been occupied by them, was some proof that we, and not they, were masters of the Black Sea. The steamers alluded to were small steamers, and not war steamers, and were employed from Odessa to Sebastopol. Immediately on seeing the English steamer they made for their port, but a transport was hoarded and ordered to re pair to the nearest Russian port, in pursuance of the in structions sent out in December last. The occurrence happened on the 18th of March, and was not declared in England until the 29th. It was impossible for them to have done other than they did and obey their instructions. (Hear, hear)." The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished for more full explanation, and hoped that the Government would produce the official despatches relating to this transaction. The Earl of CLARENDON expres 'Lei Lis readiness to lay the required papers on the table. The subject then dropped. THE PRESS. OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. The first night's sitting of the Commons after the Easter recess (Thursday) was occupied with a debate upon the bill for reforming the University of Ox • ford. The discussion sprung up upon the motion for going into committee on the bill, to which an amendment was moved by Mr. Heywood, who pro posed to refer the measure to a select committee. The following debate assumed a rather cursory character, arising from the indirectness of the amendment placed before the house to the objects which were kept in view by its supporters on dif ferent sides. The proposers and many other speakers from the Ministerial section of the mem• hers wished the bill to pass before a select com mittee for the purpose of invigorating it, and especially in the hope that some provision would be introduced for the admission of dissenters and the abrogation of all religious tests. On the other hand, the amendment found many advocates who avowedly designed to delay, and, if possible, frustrate, the bill altogether. in introducing his amendment, Mr. HEYWOOD contended that the existing university system con tained a multiplicity of evils, some of long standing, others of gradual growth, and arising from the changes in the social and educational condition of the country, which demanded a much more exten sive reform than was contemplated in the present measure. Mr. NEwrEoATE expressed his willingness to sup port the amendment, because he believed that the bill required reconsideration, in order to modify its harsher features, and prevent it from interfering unjustly and inexpediently with the self-action of the university authorities. Mr. EWA.RT would not consent to embarrass the progress of the Government measure, of whose general tendency he expressed a warm approval, although he regretted that it did not offer any con cession of equal rights to the dissenting body. Mr. HORSHAM dilated upon the vast importance of the question at stake, and insisted on the neces sity of giving it a deliberate consideration. At present he feared that neither the house nor the country sufficiently understood the university sys tem; and that the measure before them had been framed without a due appreciation of all its evils or capabilities. These he exhibited by tracing the career of an university student, and argued that the results showed how deplorably the opportunities afforded by those institutions were misused or left unimproved. The knowledge obtained therein, whether relating to classical, philosophical, or theo logical subjects, was of the most inefficient descrip tion, insomuch that England produced no text books upon any one of those branches of study, but was forced to derive them from Germany. Nevertheless, he admitted that the bill promised to do much good, even though it left much more undone. If it had been possible to save the bill for the session, and yet subject it to revision by a select committee, he should have preferred that course, but would not vote for amendment of it, which seemed likely to throw over the measure for another year. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the universities, whose shortcomings, he argued, had been much exaggerated, while the erudition of their members was equally undervalued. The practical defects of the system were of a far less aggravated character than had been alleged, and, as he con tended with considerable detail, were to be dealt with by the bill in a manner that promised to provide practical remedies for each of them, Altogether, he submitted that the principle of the measure was sound, and that no reason had been shown for delay ing its progress into committee. The inevitable con sequences of the amendment must be to suspend the bill altogether for the present session. Mr. HADFIELD thought the denial of justice to the dissenters a fatal defect in the bill. Lord JoaN RUSSELL, replying to Mr. Hadfield, ex postulated with him upon the illiberal spirit in which he had denounced the alleged illiberality of the Church and the Government. He repeated his individual conviction that the dissenting body had a just claim to admission into the universities, but pointed out the prudential considerations which had prevented his including that provision in the bill. The concession was, however, in all probability, only delayed. Mr. HENLEY concurred in recommending that the bill should be sent before a select committee. Mr. MIALL condemned the measure of the Govern ment, urging that it evinced a narrow and timid sub; servience to the prejudices of the episcopal bench, and the upper branch of the Legislature. Parlia ment was asked to legislate for national institutions in a sectarian spirit. If the bill were sent before a select committee, the just claims of the dissenters would obtain a hearing. Mr. DISRAELI did not think that the amendment was irrational merely because it delayed the progress of the bill. If the house and the Government could afford to delay the measure for Parliamentary Re form, there was no reason why the Oxford University SATURDAY, Bill should not be sent to the select committee. That proceeding would not necessarily involve its sacrifice, and promised to improve its texture. As it stood the bill threatened to destroy the freedom and self governing power of the university. Contending that the measure was unnecessary, and that the modifica tions it would effect must prove far less effective than was anticipated, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to denounce the prevalent fashion of tampering with great insti tutions, proposing change merely for the sake of change, or iu order to remove a few blemishes. It was far more dangerous to outrage the principle of prescription than to retain a few anomalies. The bill, he argued, contained an " appropriation clause," and, if successful, it might be drawn into a precedent for much more stringent measures. In a select committee such a danger may be guarded against. This was an attack of the same kind as that which was attempted upon the ecclesiastical revenues years ago, and which tailed through the good sense of the people. It was of the same class as the attempt to reconstruct the parliamentary constitution of the country. He defied the efforts of the German theolo gians to overturn the Christian religion. If they made the attempt, the fate which overtook the like effort in France would infallibly be theirs. Mr. BRIGHT condemned the bill as a compromise effected between two principles advocated by two separate sections of the Administration. The result had been to frame a very incomplete measure, in which whatever good was proposed by one clause was neutralised by another. Characterising the reform which it would finally produce as a " tinkering amend. ment," he urged that if the bill now passed the dis senters would lose all prospect of justice. It would be assumed that the university question was settled, and all further reform must stand over for an inde finite period. If the measure were postponed until next year the dissenting community would have a better chance. He denounced the pusillanimity of the Government in refusing to challenge a direct vote upon a question which involved, according to their own admission the rights of eight or nine mil lions of English subjects. Mr. VERNON SMITH declined to treat the alterna tive placed before the house as if it decided whether dissenters should or should not be admitted to the university. He should always advocate their admis sion ; but would not on that account adopt an amendment which practically threw over the proposi tion for university reform. The bill might be im proved in committee, or so changed as to become not worth adopting; but it should not be defeated by a sidewind. Mr. BLACKETT complained that the bill very ina dequately carried out the report of the Oxford Com mission. Especially were its shortcomings percep tible with regard to the provision for scientific educa tion and the non concession of equal rights to dissenters. He intended to vote for the amendment. Mr. W. J. Fox contended that the university re venues were designed for the benefit of the whole nation, and ought not be diverted to the purposes of a sect. Amendments removing the sectarian cha racterfrom those institutions were, however, proposed for discussion in committee, and he should therefore vote against referring the bill to a select committee. After a few words of explanation from Mr. GLAD STONE, in reference to a passage in Mr. Bright's speech, The house divided— For going into committee 172 For the amendment The question " that the Speaker should leave the chair" standing next in order, Mr. HENLEY inter posed with an expostulation against hurrying the bill into committee, at a time when few members knew precisely what were its exact provisions, or the tendency of the numerous amendments proposed upon its various clauses. The bill had undergone innumerable modifications at the hands of the Go vernment themselves, and the last edition had only been placed in the hands of hon. members that morning. He thought that the delay of a week for consideration and consultation would be only fair and right. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that the great majority of the alterations alluded to were merely verbal. Many nights of discussion would be required before the bill got through com mittee, and there was no reason why more time should be lost in commencing the work. Sir J. PAXINGTON enforced the plea for delay, to which Lord J. RUSSELL briefly replied, refusing to yield. Further appeals for time were made by Mr. New degate, Mr. Wigram, Sir H. Willoughby, and Mr. Disraeli. The Government, however, insisted on going on at once, and, without any reply from the Ministerial bench, a division was taken, and the reso• lution that the Speaker should leave the chair was passed by a majority of 160 to 101. The house then went into committee on the bill, but only pro formd. A brief conversation resulted in the chair man reporting progress, with leave to sit again on Monday next. 1 t_