The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

r • 578 But the question of what has become of Mr. COBDEN'S political capital is secondary to what has become of the Honourable Gentleman him self. His exact whereabouts in the parlia mentary world is as iprisible as the tow; residence of some of the Irish allies of tb.. Coalition. The suggevtive topics of the Czar, of Canada, of church rates, fail to bring him out. His old views s oh politics e, by expe rience, found td Idtten and for ex. posure to sound English arguments. True to his Russian sympathies, he follows the Baltic precedent set by the Czar ; and our " great un-Englishman ' keeps out of the ruaCh of attack. This would not be the time' to have flaunted before his eyes his pamphlet on "1708 and 1853," or to have his memory awakened to the recollection of his tirades on the ab surdity of large armaments. His sneers at the Duke of WELLINGTON, and his allusions to " dotage " and " infantine alarms," are not yet forgotten. The Manchester policy has been scouted by the nation, and the bagman has been compelled to surrender to the militia man. The career of the member for the West Riding as a parliamentary leader is felt to be at an end. His mind, suitable for provincial politics, cannot expand with imperial exigen cies. His attainments have been found egregiously defective, and no public man ever committed himself so grievously as Mr. COBDEN in his derision of the Turkish power. On his reading the last news from Silistria he must have experienced similar sensations to those of the Whig statesmen of other days when they heard the joybells chiming for " Talavera ' and " Vittoria," and the other victories of the warrior whom they had covered with Scorn. Mr. WHITBREAD had the manli ness to apologise to "the Duke" for the len giage employed by him in ignorance of WELLESLEY'S merits, and Mr. COBDEN might feel that even more is due from him to the Turks than from Mr. WHITBREAD to the Duke of WELLINGTON. Apology might be received from the defamer of a gallant people, as peni tent conteiMions are accepted as atonements from the assaulters of private reputations. On the whole, possibly, silence is just now the best policy for Mr. COBDEN, and the history of the session shows that he really possesses a most remarkable talent for it. He has found that the current events of history do not take place according to Poor Richard's Alston**. Instead of " crumpling up " the Czar, Mr. COBDEN finds that he has performed that operation on himself. Even the Peelites h& forgotten him, and never troubled themselred about him in the case of reconstruction of the Cabinet. He has lost his popularity and his power of regaining it, for his ignorance now appears positively marvellous. He has still, however, the contemplation of seventy-four thousand pounds ; and the sensations of a Brummagem demagogue, when he is rich, are never very miserable. This, as the actual cash, compensates for absent cheers. He follows the example of the Secretary for the Admiralty, and improves his s hallow style by the study of " all the works ".--not of " Thucy dides "—but Tacittis. Oh the stage of West minsterhe is not likely to have an opportunity of crying amidst applause " Richard's himself again !" His provincial method of playing great British parts #its metropolitan public. . 1' GQVEPTMENT DEFEATS. So far from possessing a Government, England has not now even an Administration. In our parliaMentary 'practice it has always been held the custom that every measure of importance, with scarcely an exception, should originate with, or at least be introduced and passed by the sanction of, the Minister of the day. The present House of Commons has virtually taken this power out of the hands of the Executive, not from factious motives, or jealousy of administrative authority, but be cause the occupants of Downing-street, while retaining their salaries, have abdicated their ‘ounced SATURDAY, Precisely similar was the Ministerial con duct on Mr. HEYWOOD'S motion for the admis sion of dissenters to Oxford. The Cabinet strove hardto gain credit tritli both sides, and earned no Wing except ridicule for their pains. Mr. SIONIrc • HERBERT laboured to show th at the bggt wAly to support a motion was to vote againgfit. Mr. Gr.orroNE tood forth to de fend the Independence of the University which to bad hiinserr igoisted to destroy by consenting - to the ebmilission of 1850 ; and Lord JOitE RUSSELL, for various unexplained reasons, consented to the rejection of a clause of which in princinle he thoroughly approved. It Is nit often' 'Mat the Howie 'of Ctunmons witnesses such an inaroglio, or that Parliament is left in a state of such complete practical anarchy. Factions have superseded parties. The strife of parties is but another name for the contest of principles, and may prove of signal advantage in a free country by cherish ing public spirit and advancing the public welfare. But, when principles are openly re nounced, and Ministers speak in favour of a measure, yet vote against it, parliamentary Government is little more than a delusion employed to mask the motives of factious intrigue and interested ambition. SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. I. THAT portion of the Oxford Reform Bill which concerns the relation between certain schools and colleges has at length been brought under the consideration of Parliament. Mr. Rous t:Mu. Euxxx's amendment is a sort of admis sion that these foundations are not, after all, the abuses which certain parties have endea voured to make them out; but, pending any definitive arrangement, it is important that the public should bear in mind what is the precise state of the case, and be in a position to put a right construction upon facts of which the bold statement is sometimes not less decep tive than the elaborate perversion. In proof of this we need go no farther back than the Times of Tuesday last, which, in an article written throughout with perfect accuracy, nevertheless points to conclusions which are wholly unjustifiable. It is perfectly true that the scholars of King's College, Cambridge, and of New College and Christchurch, Ox ford, have failed to distinguish themselves in the academic arena ; 'and it is also the fact that they receive at school a permanent provi• sion in the University; but he who argues that, therefore, all such provisions are the parents of idleness is bound to ascertain that there are no other elements of inference which he has neglected to notibe. Now, in the case before us there are such; and such, moreover, as we cannot very well suppose to have been unknown to the writer of the article in ques tion. At two out of the three above named colleges the scholars have been' till very lately forbidden by statute to compete for univer sity honours • while at the third they have never been subjected to that period of proba tion which j regularly enforced at the other two. What te totally different a4lect the case assumeil, according to our ignorance or know ledge of these circumstances, and how com pletely they invalidate the above deduction, it iv needless to show. But this is not all. What if there exist a ease by which such charges are positively disproved ? If there is a college where all the fellows are elected from school, of whom the great majority have been highly distinguished in the University? Yet such a college is St. John's, and the school which sends up thirty-seven and sometimes more out of its fifty fellows is Merchant Tay lors ; while the fact that, ever since the class schools were first established at Oxford, and under three successive bead masters of the school, this distinction has been maintained, is more than enough to negative the hypothesis that it is the result either of chance or per sonal influence and industry. Yet not onlY has all this been entirely passed over by the Times article, but Merchant Taylors has been actually singled out for especial disparage ment ; for, though not mentioned by name, it de that other can be meant by the retaining their salaries, have abdicated their Such a victory is a virtual defeat, and in this I meet ; tor, tnougu functions, until that which was announced as light it is regarded by all parties. lis clear that none other can be meant by a THE PRESS. a confederacy of statesmen has dwindled to an assemblage of clerks, representing their several departm,ents in Parliament. Is this language at variance with facts? Look to the history of the last week. Lord PALMERSTON announces a measure, framed with care, deli, berately matured, sanctioned by the approval of himself and el his colleagues. It professes to deal With nod smail matter —nothing less than tiis 'reorgAisation of our national polies on a new footing, in adeordance with the print ciple of centralisation." There arises an oppo sition to the measure - out of doors, an opposi tion net formidable, net vioicAt• mainly with the parties whose interes s were affected by the bill, and whose hostility must, therefore, have been anticipated. What does the Home Secretary do? He will not allow that he is wrong ; yet he succumbs without a struggle, earning thus, in the eyes of those to whom he yields, the double discredit of having attempted to injure them, and of failing in the attempt. This is the history of the Reform Bill repeated on a smaller scale. Lord JOHN RUSSELL condemned the small boroughs as unfit to exercise the electoral franchise. He has, notwithstanding, left that franchise in their hands, and thereby warned them of what they have to expect if they suffer him to re main in power. Lord PALMERSTON condemns the provincial administration of police affairs ; yet, surrendering his opinion to a slight ex ternal pressure, he leaves that administration untouched. Here are two classes arrayed in hostility against Ministers as a necessary consequence of their acts. How long can such a system last ? To unsettle without settling—to handle great questions with a feeble and hesitating grasp—to exasperate the enmity of contending interests without making one effort towards removing their causes of difference, is the acme of political folly or dishonesty—folly without the excuse of inex perience dishonesty without the popular palliation of success. Never have the Coalition tactics been more clearly exposed than in the debates of Wednesday and Thursday. On the first of these days the Church-rate question was dis cussed. Lord Jolts had in former years sup ported the dissenters in their attempts to get rid of an impost necessarily vexatious to them, and little profitable to the Church. He introduced one bill to that effect in 1834, another in 1837', both accompanied with ob jectionable provisions, and both of which failed accordingly. Since that time the ques tion has made progress in popular opinion. On both sides greater willingness is shown to accede to any arrangement which may put an end to degrading and profitless strife. Does Lord Joss seize the opportunity? So far from it, he holds language which the Con servative party in general repudiate, while it alienates the great bulk of his own supporters. He speaks of danger to the monarchy, to the aristocracy, and to the Church, if rates be abolished; forgetting that itis the Church itself which in most cases deprecates their reten tion, from the knowledge that a contested rate becomes a nucleus of nonconformist agitation. Mr. GLADHTONE'S language is,—we say it with due deference to his undisputed ability,—even more childish. He wants to draw a distinction between urban and rural parishes ; unaware, it should seem, that the limits of town and country, however easily defined in a purely agricultural district, are impossible to be fixed in such counties as Lancaster and York, where large tracts of country, for many Miles together, are little else than one continuous town. Again, he would distinguish between parishes where rates have been refused, and parishes where they have been granted without contest, as if any such difference could be embodied in a law, or as if the effect of it would not be to provoke a contest in every parish which contained a single nonconformist, and thus to multiply indefinitely the existing causes of dispute. The result of such argument was What might be expected. The Minister, sup ported by a large body of the Opposition, could barely command a majority : and, of the 209 Members who voted in his favour, probably not twenty agreed with his speech. Such a victory is a virtual defeat, and in this is regarded by all parties