The Press. — London, England, 1854-05-06 00:00:00

// MnRI! w"rmlMOrgar mum mounounimumo NM= rt,6l + No. 53.—VoL. 11. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 6, 1854. PRICE SIXPENCE. Vrtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 0, 1854. WE receive with hearty gratification the intel ligence of the bombardment of Odessa, con firmed in both Houses of Parliament last night. At last the thunder of ourguns has been heard, and, if we do not greatly mistake, it will pos sess infinitely greater power of persuasion for the Emperor NICHOLAS than the slavish defer ence of Lord ABERDEEN, or the gentle amenity of our Foreign Secretary. Whether it will be possible to carry on the war with that respect for private interests and property which has been manifested thus far is questionable ; but it is extremely satisfactory to learn that, while the Russian fortifications and ships-of-war at Odessa have been destroyed by the fire of our ships, with very inconsiderable loss on our side, the town of Odessa has been scrupu lously respected. When the advices left the allied fleets had sailed for Sevastopol ! On the Danube the masterly dispositions of OMER PACHA seem to have been attended with considerable success; and it is now apparent that, had we in a high-principled spirit engaged in the war at an earlier period, Russia would at this time have been an eager suppliant for peace. Our power requires only to be wielded by a vigorous hand to bring the contest to an honourable and speedy conclu sion ; but, as timidity and vacillation have led to it, only courage and firmness can bring it to a successful conclusion. THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. JESUITISM itself never took advantage of a popular cry to crush liberty with more adroitness than the framers of the Oxford Bill have attempted to destroy the free character of the University by pretended zeal for its reform. The main principle of the measure is so insidiously enveloped in a multitude of details apparently unimportant that we are not surprised at its having hitherto failed to attract much notice. A waggish politician once said that the line of succession to the Crown might be changed by the introduction of a slily-framed clause in a turnpike act. The authors of this bill hope to revolutionise our character and Church by a new mode of electing the Hebdomadal Board. Names are to be altered as little as possible ; the object to be attained is to be approached by stealthy steps ; and the " advancement of religion and learning " is to be made a pretence for corrupting one and narrowing the other. If the success of our University Reformers should not be equal to their hopes, it will be because there is in Par liament a body of independent opinion too acute and too honest to be influenced by any of those fraudulent motives which are arrayed in support of the measure. It was in the committee of Monday that the true aim of the bill was exposed. We must glance at some of its details to explain the proceedings of that sitting. The governing body of the University, the Hebdomadal Board, is to be changed to an Hebdomadal Council, and, instead of consisting as at present of the heads of houses, it is to con sist of heads of houses, professors, and members of Convocation. The constituency electing the Council is to be reconstituted also, and for this purpose one of those "revivals" is to be accom plished of which a certain party in our Church is so fond. The body of Congregation is to be restored, but with the number of its members increased, and its powers greatly augmented. This Congregation is to be mainly composed of heads of houses, professors, and college tutors ; but, while it seems to be made up of mixed elements, one only would prevail in it. The tutors would have a preponderating in fluence. For these changes there is no warrant in that report of the Commission on which the bill professes to be founded. The system to be subverted was not felt as a grievance. To the new body of Congregation is to be transferred not only the election of the govern ing council, but in effect all that control which has previously been exercised by the whole body of Convocation. The three or four thou sand members of the University who form a varied, enlightened, and really national body of voters are to be set aside that a purely clerical oligarchy may be established. Mr. GLADSTONE denies that " Convocation was " to be deprived of any power which it pos " sessed." But what, then, becomes of the arguments in favour of the change? Why is it so strongly urged that Convocation is unfit to be entrusted with the powers it now exer cises ? Why is its intelligence run down and its opinions sneered at? Why is it proclaimed from the Treasury bench that Convocation is often " made a tool of in the most shameful " manner," and that nothing can be more ab surd than that " gentlemen should be gathered " from all the four points of the compass, and " obliged to travel four hundred or five hun " dred miles, to record their votes upon a " question on which they scarcely knew any " thing whatever ?" One supporter of the change asserts that it is necessary to abridge the power of Convocation, while another denies that its power will be abridged at all. The practical effect of the new system would be that Convocation would fall into dis use. It is of too popular a character to suit Mr. GLADSTONE and his friends, and its action inconveniently prevents the realisation of their ideas. They would destroy it because it is acted on too strongly by " external or worldly influences," and Lord JOHN RussEtt. because CHATHAM accused it of Jacobitism, and be cause it had in later years shown a Conserva tive spirit, which Lord JOHN himself could not admire. Both charges may be just : it may not be monkish enough for Mr. GLADSTONE, not Whiggish enough for Lord JOHN. But, never theless, it is to its connection with the whole body of Convocation that the University, though not free from those impulses which disturb and must disturb every free institu tion, has never ceased to maintain a strong hold on the mind and affections of the coun try, and to sympathise, to a greater or less extent, in the principles which animate it. The tutors, who must, from the constitution of the Congregation, bear sway in it, may be not unfairly described as a body of young an d ambitious sciolists. We speak of the class; It has learning, it has sincerity, it has talent' but it is destitute of experience, and totally wanting in knowledge of the world, and of those sympathies which only commerce with the world can give. As a class it is peculiarly susceptible to class influences, liable to fall under the domination of particular and local ideas, apt from its pursuits to receive an im pression of its infallibility, and to be uncon sciously actuated by intolerant notions. Its intellect is active, but that activity is restrained within narrow limits. As its mind is rather in course of formation than fully formed, its principles are often fluctuating : in one age it may incline to Tractarianism, in another to Rationalism, in another to Methodism ; but it never loses a high sense of its own importance, and seldom extends its vision beyond Uni versity confines. At present we believe the majority is Tractarian, though there is a strong Rationalistic party. We are satisfied that the triumph of such a body would be but a prelude to the fall of the institution it con trols. England would never submit the mind of its youth to such exclusive guidance. It would be overthrown as soon as its tendency became manifest, or it would sink the Univer sity in public estimation till its great publio and beneficent uses were lost, and it existed only as a seat of narrow Sectarianism. It is not our fault that we are painfully forced to consider the effect of that pedagogal government which it is proposed to establish. We dislike exclusive domination of any kind. We are content to have eminent lawyers in our Parliament to assist in legislation, but we should be very reluctant to have both Houses composed of lawyers only., Who would ap prove a council of education composed en tirely of schoolmasters ? Freedom results only from the antagonism of opposing forces. Music is made up of discords : life itself is but the ceaseless agitation of struggling atoms. That the tutors should be fairly represented in the University is but reasonable—that they should be entrusted with its entire govern ment would be fatal to their usefulness. _ Mr. Wm.pbues amendment on Monday to the clause which established this system of govei nment was to the effect that, instead of all the members of council being elected by Mr. GIADSTONE'S favoured Congre gation, the six or seven heads of houses should be elected by heads of houses, and the pro fessors by professors. The amendment did not seem great, but it involved a great prin ciple. It resembled the famous question of how the Tiers Etats should vote. If they voted together, the three estates would be all merged in the third estate. If the members of the Heb domadal Council were elected by Congrega tion—that is, by the heads of houses, the professors, and the tutors, massed together— they would be elected by the tutors merely, and the constitution of the University would be purely tutorial. Newspaper reports can seldom exhibit the spirit of a discussion in committee. The points in debate are too technical to be easily intelligible, and in this instance the magni tude of the principle at stake and the impor tance of the decision can be hardly under stood from the published accounts. Mr. WAL POLE stated the nature of his amendment with admirable distinctness, and the House became attentive. It was felt that his disciplined acuteness had touched what was at once