The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

1012 sentiments they have given utterance to, ex plaining with a clearness that is unrivalled the true causes of the rebellion in India—those causes being the very same that Lord Ellen borough in the House of Lords and Mr. Dis raeli in the House of Commons assigned. From every part of India letters are pouring in upon IN testifying to the same purport ; and if this he not evidence enough to convince the most sceptical, then we can only say that on such a one argument and proof must be alike thrown away. We have only in conclusion to thank Mr. Norton fin• this valuable contribution to the political literature of the country. His work is one that throws infinitely more light than many of vastly higher pretensions ou the past and present condition of our Indian Empire. THE PRESS, OCTOBER 24,1857. the accessibility of heaven to all men. We are surprised at such sentiments in the Quar terly. They are well enough in those who view the universe in a sort of warm 7& spirit, but from the pen of one who holds any creed approximating to orthodoxy they are as illogical as superficial. In other respects this paper does full justice to the able and interest ing work which it reviews (i.e , " Toni Brown's School Days "), and stands up boldly for the theo►y of education therein unfolded. In the paper on " The Parish Priest " it is rather the tone than any express statements that are objectionable. It is, we think, inclined to be captious; but it contains some very sensible remarks on preaching, and the necessity of learning in the clergy, with which we fully coincide. " Cornwall" is an extremely plea sant article, abounding in picturesque and striking descriptions. The following passage on Cornish family influence is cu►ious, as being somewhat at variance with prevailing opinion on the subject : It has been seen that the Norman families obtained, with few exceptions, but a slight and temporary hold of territorial power in Cornwall ; and, notwithstanding their secluded position and their love of long-descended pedi grees, the Cornish have been on the whole leas feudal in their notions, less led and swayed by aristocratic in fluences, than the inhabitants of most English counties. The bulk of the people rose against the Government in three several and very remarkable insurrections—twice under Henry VII. and once under Edward Vl.—and on neither occasion do we find that any leading family was engaged in the rebellion. And at the present day, if any political partisan were to seek to rouse the passions of the western population, he would find his purpose much better answered by enlisting in his cause a few Methodist teachers and a few mining " captains," than through the gentry of the district. This is not inconsistent with the exercise of great local influence, here and there, by indi vidual gentlemen who stand high in public estimation as benefactors of the county. No race estimate services of this kind more highly, or repay them more cordially, than the Cornish. Such men as the late Lord de I)unstanville and Mr. Tremayne—we might cite some equally remark able living names, were it not our purpose to avoid all personal allusion—exercised a kindly authority among them hardly surpassed by that of the Grenvilles and Tre lawneys of old times. But the homage was tendered rather to the was; xtti rcyrt9o;, as a Greek republican might have expressed it, than to the c:oyiin;. The main reason for this inferior force of the feudal principle was to be found, doubtless, in the commercial and self-relying habits of the people. Those habits, on which we shall have presently to dwell more at length, are rooted among them from an antiquity far exceeding that of the oldest family annals. The industry of our ports, our ma nufaeturing provinces, our coal districts, almost that of London itself, are mere products of recent ages, compared with the trade of the Cornish tinner. For it must be re membered that owing to the profound freedom from war and revolution enjoyed at all times Sy this secluded corner of the world, and its monopoly of an indispensable com modity, that industry has never been interrupted. Since Dicelorus Sictilus wrote hie account of the dealings in tin between the Britons and the traders from the Mediterra nean on that isle of Ictis which nothing but antiquarian perversity could place elsewhere than at St. Michael's Mount—a spot which answers the description alone and exactly—the ore has been raised, and wrought, and bartered without the intermission probably of a single generation. The tourist who reaches Falmouth by sea may look with respect on that bare, brown mountain which rises to the left, mangled as it is with the scars and seams left by the mining operations of successive ages; for Caru Menellis has neverrestei, we may believe, from the strokes of the miner's pick, nor its neighbouring creeks from the dash of the trader's oar, " since first the old Phtenicians came." This primeval subterranean corporation, with perpetual succession, is but slightly affected by changes in the ownership of the soil above ground, and reeks little of the revolutions of noble or gentle houses—things of yesterday. In the paper on the Suez and Euphrates routes that question is well argued out, in the course of which a most graphic and in teresting sketch of the Bedouins is intro duced. The article on George Stephenson is uncommonly well written, and so is that on India ; hut the latter is purely narrative, and does not attempt even an outline of remedial measures. The October number of the TVest►ninster Re view is neither above nor below its usual ave rage. The article on female dress is very sen sible, as all protests against extravagance can hardly fail to be ; yet writers on dress seem generally to overlook this one great fact—that the world uses dress as the author, whoever he may be, of a certain famous apothegm would have used language —not to utter, but to conceal his thoughts. Dress has now be come less the ornament of beauty than the screen of plainness ; and it is easier to account for the success of the present full skirt than to prophesy its extinction, when we recollect THE QUARTERLIES. THE Quarterly Review for October is a rather dry number, and contains one or two articles written in a somewhat unpleasant tone ; but on the whole its standard of ability is pre served. The articles to which we object are those upon Rugby and " The Parish Priest." On reference to our own columns, it will be seen that we have on numerous occasions referred to the late Dr. Arnold in terms of eulogy and respect. We believe him to have been a man of large mind, considerable scholarship, and rare honesty. We have always quoted his views upon Greek and Roman history as of the highest valuo. His success as an educator in the highest sense of the word was marvellous. But there are points, nevertheless, upon which our own opinions, and we should have fancied those of the Quarterly Review, are wide as the poles asunder from Dr. Arnold. We little thought to have met with a passage like the following in the old champion of Conservatism : He was not seldom misrepresented by the odium theo logicurn of powerful parties of every sect and creed, for— impartial in his dislikes—his hand was against all, and consequently all were against one standing thus aloof. Not only did his opponents inveigh against many of his schemes as pernicious or Utopian, but Oxford became an absolute workshop of lies, romerrapoy 4.tuLiv, when set in action by theologians, who would have dealt with him as mercilessly as the only English Pope, Adrian IV., did with his namesake, the bold freethinker of Brescia. Arnold distinguished Christianity against all Churches that claimed to be chartered corporations and the privi leged channels of salvation. He did not limit his defini tion of the " Church" to the clergy alone, but inclailed the laity also in this " Congregation of Christians," of which be maintained that the true Ecclesia was consti tuted. He also upheld the authority of Scripture against the technical phraseology of Councils, Fathers, and Trac tarians, which he condemned as distorting the truth, tending to Popery and priestcraft, and substituting un realities for realities. Now, calling names will not alter the nature of things. What is the meaning of "a pri- vileged channel of salvation ?" The words are dexterously suited to catch the applause of latitudinarians; but what, we ask, do they mean? Clearly nothing more than some exclusive system by means of which it has pleased Providence that mankind shall work their way to heaven. Now, what is there in such an idea not thoroughly analogous with God's dealings towards the world, whether shown by revelation or in nature?, Or in what respect does the Church occupy towards Dissenters a position one whit more exclusive or " privileged" than Christianity does towards Paganism? The history of the Jewish Church shows how the Almighty sometimes chooses to carry out His own purposes. And who is to set limits to His will in this any more than any other direction? The question, therefore, is reduced to one of simple evidence ; and the balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of the Church theory. That is, that the distinction between Judaism and Christianity does not consist in the fact that the one had peculiar institutions which the other has not, but in this—that whereas certain blessings were then confined to one nation, they are now thrown ellen to the whole world. But if the world chooses to reject them on account of certain conditions annexed to their acceptance, it most take the consequences. None of God's gifts are un conditional, and the notion of a Church no more militates against the universality of the Gospel than the restraints of virtue against the proportion of bad figures to good, and how nearly this style of dress obliterates all dis tinction between them. Besides, however in convenient, we do not quite admit that the " stiff petticoat " is without a certain sort of attractiveness. " Political Priests" is a good article, though rather bitter. The review of Mr. Buckle's " Civilisation in England" is full of fetid cockneyism, which is excessively offensive. The review of " Aurora Leigh " is stale. A paper entitled " The Four Empires" is full of power, but dangerously extravagant, and, in our opinion, as much underrates the strength and stability of Austria as it exag gerates the popularity and moral excellence of the Russian regime. The paper on Mr. Conington's " Choephorce" is good and tem perate—written, we presume, by a sound scholar, but without dogmatism. The essay on " Representative Government" is a useful ana lysis of the subject ; but there our praise must stop. It is pedantic and priggish, and at page 469 directly contradicts an article in the West minster of last quarter on the political economy of the ancients, betraying at the same time a singular ignorance of the value of ancient his tory, so ably and lucidly explained by Dr. Arnold. The article on English jurispru dence is able, and paints in vivid colours the absurdities and complexities of our existing system. Tho notices of books at the end are, as usual, highly valuable. The London Quarterly Review contains a sub• stantial article on the University of London, in which the cause of the graduates, in their present dispute with the senate, is warmly advocated. The point at issue is whether degrees shall be conferred on candidates with out a certificate of college residence or not. The reasons alleged by the senate in favour of this proposal are as follows : I. The University, though increasing in usefulness, does not confer more than eighty degrees per annum; and it is expedient to widen the area of its operations. 2. The B.A. degree now represents two examinations, with two years of continuous study between them ; it is still desirable that it should do so, but evidence of such continuous study can be easily obtained without insisting on college residence. 3. There is a large number of persons educated pri vately, or by erudite parents, to whom the rewards of learning ought to be rendered accessible, and whose attainments as fully entitle them to the recognition of a university as those of persons educated at college. 4. The present system of the University of London does not guarantee effective collegiate instruction. Con sidering the number of the affiliated colleges, the smallest of many of them, and the diversity of their practce as to the granting of certificates of studentship, the evidence which such certificates afford is essentially inconclusive and fallible. _ 5. The sole function of the senate is that of examina tion. It is the only one which they have the power of per forming well, inasmuch as they have neither authority to prescribe or control the teaching of the c)lleges, nor opportunity to verify their superior educational competence and efficiency. They believe that mental proficiency and learning are to be satisfactorily tested by examinations alone; and they rely on the measures they habitually take in conducting their examinations to maintain undi minished the character and value of the University degrees. 6. It is the especial duty of the metropolitan University to proclaim, as far as possible, the principle of compre hensiveness in education; to cast away all needless re strictions ; and "no more to tie down the deserving student to a few privileged colleges than to a religious creed." Our own opinion on this subject we have ex pressed on more than one occasion We can not help thinking that the senate is funda mentally in the right. The peculiar constitu tion of the University of London precludes her members from the enjoyment of those advantages which a residence at Oxford or Cambridge undoubtedly confers, while it opens up to her a wide sphere of usefulness in which • the older universities can have little share. We hold the writer of the present article to be mistaken both in his remarks on this head as well as on the subject of cramming, which, to our certain knowledge, collegiate residence is powerless to prevent. Other• good papers aro those on " The Lives of the Lord Chief Jus tices" and " Tho Sepoy Rebellion in India." The former is a very severe castigation of the noble and learned author, and proceeding, we should presume, from an impartial pen. The National Review opens with an article which wears the appearance of conscientious ness, but evinces neither sustained thought upon the subject, nor any pondering of possibili ties The writer draws a plan for the manufac ture of good officers, as most educated men but