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

410 the cardinal principle and the vulnerable point of the measure. He fronted the impos ture, but rather indicated its mask than tore it from its face. Mr. GLADSTONE rose to defend his favourite provision, and, in the eagerness of his advo cacy, allowed its real nature to be discerned. We entreat the reader to follow his remarks By the present meastus they were going to assign to the resident body of the University, through the medium of a representative organisation, a very much greater power to be exercised by them, as apart from the external influence on the education of the country, than they had heretofore pos sessed. • * • • He was bound to say that Govern ment resisted any proposal to make Convocation the elect ing power instead of the Congregational. Then, to qualify the alarm which wouldibe excited by the announcement that it was pro posed to turn the University into a mo hastic institution, he dwelt on the amount of " external influence " which would still be exercised by the Chancellor of the University being allowed to nominate two members of the Council, though it had been expressly stated by Mr. WALPOLE that this was a power which the Chancellor would be very unwilling to ex ercise : Nevertheless the) Government thought it desirable to maintain, if possible, in the electing body some of those relations between the University and the external world which (Mated in other respects, and the odioe of Chancellor suggested itself as the obvious means of doing this. The Chancellor was invariably a person of great eminence, almost universally a layman, and an individual of high station, deriving his influence from the outward world. These were the main considerations which recommended the insertion of the provision in the clause giving the Chancellor the nomination of two members of the Heb domadal Council. 'ln plain speech, Mr. GLADSTONE is not un willing to provide the University with a grating. It must have such a degree of com munication with "the outward world" as will enable it to impose on society by a show of its concern in worldly matters. But, con tinues Mr. GLADSTONE, he did not hesitate to say that to the resident body of Oxford it would be a very unacceptable change if Parlia ment were to adopt this sectional mode of election. Why so much anxiety for the resident body ? Is it because that body secures to Mr. GLAD STONE his seat, while a large majority of the non-residents are opposed to him? This was the explanation suggested by Mr. NEWDEGATE, who placed the question in its true light, when he traced the animus against the Hebdomadal Board pervading the bill to the vigorous efforts made by that body to condemn the " Tracts for the Times." Never did sound sense and honest purpose produce a happier effect. The House listened, then sympathised, and cheered. The glib sophistry and feeble Macaulayism of Mr. LowE could not weaken the effect produced. Mr. HENLEY was felt to embrace the whole case in his statement that if they gave this proposed power to the tutors it would be in the hands of an oligarchy of about 100. Instead of an open constituency of 3,600, those 100 gentlemen who would constitute the majority of class No. 9 would carry everything before them. On a division the Government, in a House of 311 members, were left in a minority of thirteen ; and on Thursday, by a strenuous whip, they just escaped another defeat on the amendment that the remaining third part of the Hebdomadal Council should be elected by Convocation, which would have gone far to put an end to the Congregational revival altogether. It seems almost incredible that a Ministry professing liberal principles should have com mitted itself to a measure which has for its express object to hand over the government of the University to a close and exclusive corpo ration. The reason is to be found in that com pact which first brought and stillholds, though barely holds, them together. The public good was to be sacrificed to individual ambition. Each chief, as in the old Roman triumvirates, -led good in his own eyes ,drance from his colleagues. s to be allowed to revolu loud representation that at liberty to traetarianise rhile less active spirits were the Treasury bench of opposite tendency. So .iAVTIIB, BO many for ANTONY, iPIDVS. The mercenaries re- . orders and their pay, and the publics groans and suffers. Was to do what seemec 'ltithout let or hindrai 'One Minister was to ''ionise the nations another might be at the University ; while to nod approval from measures of the most many heads for OcrrAv so many for LEMMA &AV* their orders a, T Wri 2 1 3 ErStY That the Government will still endeavour to go on with this bill we do not doubt. It is now the last of all those measures of Reform which were so boastingly promised ; and there must be a cheer for "No surrender" in the midst of a series of the most ignominious de featEi which any Ministry ever sustained. Besides, the bill, though much shorn of its mischievous proportions, will still tend to strengthen Mr. GLADSTONE'S party, and develop Tractarian influence. To destroy the action of Convocation—to exclude " external influence " from the University—and practi cally to throw all power into the hands of the "resident body," are objects worth striving fbr ; and as such politicians as Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTII ii.ro at Mr. GLADSTONE'S beck, it is possible those objects may be accomplished, unless the gentlemen of England discern in time the insidious pur pose of the measure, and protest against their old and honoured Alma Mater being given over to the influences they have so much reason to mistrust. RAILWAY GRIEVANCES. MR. CARDWELL has shown that kind of wisdom which consists in making an inevitable con cession with a good grace. In our last number we expressed the general opinion of the public on his project for the confiscation of railway property. We are happy to find that the arguments used by ourselves, as by many others, have not been without their weight. The bill is withdrawn, and a new one substi tuted, of which we have nothing better or worse to say than that it is a waste of paper and print. Enforcing nothing—not adding in any respect to the stringency of already existing enactments—it merits neither appro bation nor censure. In its present shape it would be useless ; but, as there is a practical grievance of recent growth, which, if not speedily checked, promises to be attended with many mischievous results, and as it is one, moreover, which admits of a very easy and effective remedy, we call attention to it. Within the last year or two the liability of railway companies has been restricted by a series of decisions in the courts of common law to an extent of which probably few of our readers are aware. In one extensive branch of business, viz., in the conveyance of cattle and other live stock, they seem to have suc ceeded in practically divesting themselves of all responsibility, even in the case of injuries arising from their own gross negligence. In the Court of Queen's Bench an action was brought, not long since, against the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company for the loss of certain cattle which had been conveyed by that line. They had been placed in a truck which was pronounced by a jury to be defective in construction, and unsafe for the conveyance of live stock ; and the consequence was that several of the animals leaped from the train while it was in motion and were killed. The defence to the action was, that previous to their departure the owner of the cattle bad signed a ticket in which it was stated that the company would not be responsible for any injury or damage occurring to live stook, "how ever caused." The court held that they were protected from liability by this notice. In a subsequent action brought against the same company for the loss of a horse, the Court of Exchequer arrived at a similar con clusion. In this case, too, the jury had found that the company had been guilty of gross, negligence, and had found a verdict for the: plaintiff for the 11111 value of the horse; but the Learned Barons held; like their brethren in the Queen's Bench, that by signing the notice of the company the owner of the horse had barred his right of action. This may be startling netvs to otir agricul tural readers, but they must not despair. By following the counsel of Baron PAXILE they may still set railway officials at defiance. " If," observed that Learned Judge, " the plaintiff " had meant to make the defendants liable as " common carriers, the course for him to take " was to tender them the price for the car " riage of the goods, and, on their refusal to ~ ~ ~~~~~ " carry, to bring an action against them for " not carrying." Here, then, we have the remedy, and the only one which the law at present provides. We are not obliged to sign a contract with a railway company which will protect them against any a'meunt of negligence on their part. Common law regards railway companies only as common carriers, and we arc entitled to bring an action to compel them to carry our property upon the same terms as public carriers. Bet did the very Learned Judge Whom we have last quoted consider the results of a practical application of his remedy ? Let us imagine the bewilderment with which a north-country tier hurrying off a lot of fat beeves for the Christmas show in Baker-street, or an Irishman with a score of pigs on the same errand, or a training jockey starting for Epsom with the favourite for the Derby, would listen to the alternative of Baron PARKE. That it is the only one is nevertheless a melancholy fact. We submit, with all deference to the Learned Baron, that this is an evil with which the Legislature alone can deal. We do not see Why a clause should not be inserted in the bill now before the House declaring that in no case shall railway companies in future be protected against the consequences of their own miscon duct or neglect. This would be but a simple act of justice to the public, and we cannot help thinking that it would prove in the end bene ficial to the companies themselves. FINANCE. THERE was a Chancellor of the Exchequer once whq, through modesty or egotism, pub lished through the town that no one had ever filled the office so contemptibly as himself. If he fbunded his hopes of fame on the per petuity of hie distinction this present year would witness their disappointment In financial failure Sir FRANCIS DASHNOOD must yield the pas to Mr. GLADSTONE. By what clever manoeuvring he has managed to repel the world of capital from even , send ing in tenders for his Exchequer Bonds we do not know. Strong, indeed, must be the distrust entertained of his wily management when his tempting proposals scarcely secured him a single ; hid. Two or three Dr. PRIM- KosEs seem to have been anxious,—doubtless from patriotic motives,—to assist the Exche quer in its distress, and sent in tenders at an extravagant rate. We hope that they may not, like the few persons who acceded to the conversion scheme, be made victims to their credulity. As he cannot obtain six millions the CHAN CELLOR of the Exenequen solicits two. The proceeding is too absurd for grave comment. It more resembles the petition of Jeremy Diddler, or il}e polite entreaty of that cha racter in Drbtans who, after vainly endeavour ing to obtain a good snm on loan, comes down to " the ridiculously small sum of eighteen " pence," than the policy of .a national finan cier. Every one is wondering what he will do with his two millions should he be' so fortu nate as to get them. Supplemental estimates have been prepared to the amount of 5,595,0001., and, „ea the necessities of the Treaury become greater, it is to be expected that the rate of motley will rise. The tefins he no* eflhrs Olt &Ohl to' interest at the rate of four per rent. What a comment' on the rashness which emptied the Treasury to pay off eight millions at three per cent! Another financial statement is to be made on 'Monday. Mr. G-LAnsToss must be singu larly constituted. One .vcmld almest think that be committOd blunders for no other pur pose than to furnish a lengthened commen tary on them. His failure' is not complete until he ban artiptinee it himself with a great flourish of trumpets. A history if his ad ministration would be but the detail of a long series of capital errors. In the financial debates in the Lcirdli this week his mismanagement has been searchingly exposed. When Mr. DISRAELI was in office, said Lord MONTE/out, he had succeeded in reducing the interest on Exchequer Bills to