The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

290 but, public as they necessarily became, detec tion was inevitable. The dupes compared notes: each thought the other deceived: mutual explanations showed how both had been ricked. On such a plot only one denouement could follow. The honest and out raged official, first the tool, then the victim of his colleagues, resigned hie post; the Ministerial organ, eager to injure one member of a Cabinet which collectively it supports, approved Mr. ThusEs's conduct ; alarm spread in Downing-street ; cheap promises were once more resorted to ; and, for the present, the quarrel is patched up. But for how long ? Two Ministers are publicly at variance on the principles of a great measure, which, never theless, each stands pledged to carry through, according to his own sense of right, and that in the course of the present session. There is no choice. Mr. BAINES must sacrifice his character—which he certainly will not do—or his office ; or Government must sacrifice their bill. We think we can predict the more pro bable alternative of the three. Singly, this dispute and its results are a small matter : taken together with other cir cumstances of our present position, they de serve some consideration. Only the same thing has happened in this case which hap pened before on foreign policy—on education — on reform. Administration, for the first time in England, is carried on by an organised system of popular pledges, given without consideration, and broken without scruple. Backed by the authority of high names, such a system did for a time succeed. There exists a natural proneness to credulity in human nature, even in the nature of political men, who ought to know better. Truth is so much the best policy in the end, that we are slow to believe in the existence of systematic de ception. Yet what milder term can be ap plied to the conduct of those who never stick at giving any promise, however impossible to be redeemed, so long as it serves to stave off a hostile or troublesome motion? Sir JOHN SHELLEY sat rebuked amidst the shouts of excited Coalitionists for daring to doubt Lord JoaN Russzi.x.'s implied assurance that the Reform Bill would come on after Easter. Yet who now doubts that we have heard the last of that unhappy measure ? In like manner, there are some persons credulous enough to suppose that Mr. BAINEs will actually, on some night in April or May, bring on the second reading of his Poor law Bill. We think we know better ; and having pre cedent and probability on one side, with only a Downing-street declaration on the other, we venture to predict, with tolerable confidence, the indefinite postponement of the measure. UNIVERSITY REFORM. - - - Tna petition which was yesterday debated at Oxford contains a cogent objection to the pro posed legislative interference with the Univer sity. The petitioners deprecate as " unprece " dented and injurious, and as the commence " meat of a practice which, if once introduced, " may often be renewed to the great detriment " of the peace and studies of the University, the "interference of Parliament, without sqfficient "*awe, with the privileges enjoyed by the " University from the earliest period by ancient " prescription, and under the charters of sue " eessive Sovereigns, sanctioned and confirmed " by the Legislature." The question which is here raised involves ao igneratio elaiohi. The Legislature may, as it has done in numerous instanoes, especially of late years, proceed to exercise novel functions as new subjects arise requiring its superinten dence. But in the ease of an institution older even than that oombination of Estates of which the Legislature itself is composed, and oontri bulling to every sphere of elevated activity . . . _ ' moment, it /ea derelie iymptoms of to fatter it character. , upon tie %urposes to but a 00= - 4 opposed, novel as its tlthich exists in E L_ ngltutd at this n iftouki TRIM +apt** *at some provt iie* of • • , • iiiiirquivooal syt ti - • " % ' l ' tr l.l r • '. • ttempt ti *I ~,, i t ~Tif- i ct.r, , :m•ntsa i,,,,„. .:':-.14.' 4 '' . 4 ' ' , .. -- I) .fr 41 ferring "Oft 414 lip. -"I' ."1 AI I , • Atqw .... •-•, • ''Ti- " - '0111.06114:4 1 , f " r i . . ' g. 4 ~ ~,,....:, - ri ,, • ..., • nate, t v-.... )1 x i' .. . 11 . 44 rr a vise*. asd . c - ' . 4t‘ -- , is at nc • - . THE PRESS. scope is uncertain. The Cabinet are pressing a measure of which the only precedent is the notorious Visitation under the authority of the Long Parliament. They are infringing ancient rights and abrogating honoured privileges in a spirit which might be warranted by some great emergency, or otherwise irremediable grievance, but for whieh it would be difficult to show, and for which no one has yet shown, that there is " nifeeieiti cause" in any reasoner ble sense, as the petitioners allege. Assuming that it may be desirable in respect of the Colleges to declare " certain impolitic " oaths for the future illegal," there should be at least some neoessity of a most urgent nature to prescribe to those who have taken oaths, hitherto lawful, that they must act in opposi tion to these, or part of the revenues of their foundations may be confiscated. We require some better proof than we have obtained hitherto of the preamble of the bill—" that it " is expedient for the advancement of religion " and learning " that contributions for purpos es with which religion has little concern should be exacted by means which must shock the conscientious. No " sufficient cause " has yet been shown for putting a constraint even upon the Hebdomadal Board, who have already ex hibited a willingness to divest themselves of their exclusive hold on University legislation. The petitioners very properly refer to this among other evidences that the pressure of the present bill is at the present moment quite uncalled for. In that bantering fashion which can dis pense with proofs, it is implied by the contem porary to whom we are referring that there is such a " sufficient cause." If so, how comes it that it has never been stated in a manner in which its sufficiency can be tested ? If the education at present afforded at Oxford were grossly inadequate to the wants of English society, which no competent witness will be found to affirm, the cause would be patent. The petitioners can state with de monstrable truth that, " far from there having " been of late years an indisposition on the " part of the University to reform and improve "her institutions, there has never been a " period in her history which has witnessed " such continual and progressive legislation, " with a constant endeavour to adapt her sta " Lutes to the exigencies of the times, and the " progress of learning and science, as the " period of the last fifty years." The suc cessive stages of this progress are neces sarily detailed in the Commissioners' Report, but without emphasis, and as a subor dinate consideration ; while the tendency to further improvement is insisted on with less prominence than the antiquated reminiscences of Dr. VICESIMUS KNOX. The most important part of the Commissioners' recommendations was the development of an examination statute recently passed by these obstructive authori ties whom it is now so necessary to drive along the path of reform. Do those of their recom mendations with which prudent advisers would agree, and most of which would have been carried if the Commission had never been issued, or do all the recommendations of the Commissioners, crude or otherwise, together constitute a sufficient cause for this extempore violence to an ancient corporation, which has hitherto so conducted itself as to secure general respect? Lord JOHN RUSSELL thinks that ARIS TOTLE receives from it more than his due. Mr. GLADSTONE may think that St. THOMAS AQUINAS receives less. Dr. VAUOHAN believes it possible to grow future GIBBONS at the contemplated cost to its Christian foundations of Wykeham or Waynflete of 1,0001. per annum for each embryo philosopher. A correspondent from Wells regards a light professorship as an appro priate introduction to a eonvenient deanery. Mr. MiALLholds that the Westminster Catechism should supersede the Thirty-nine Articles. Mr. HEYWOOD becomes even " melancholy" at hearing an M.A.'s French, and desires to see the fellows' babies sporting in a college quad rangle. But are all these separate notions, taken together, a sufficient cause for a second parliamentary invasion of Oxford, and a fatal infringement of her academie independence ? The fact is, there exists, mingled with some real occasion for improvement on the part of the authorities at Oxford, a vast amount of sciol ism in and out of the University, either of a Ger- SATURDAY, man or mediaeval complexion, coupled with a remnant of the school which was once popular in connection with the confusion of useful know ledge. These various contingents have swelled a cry for University reform under favour of a report voluminous and vague, which faggotted the inferences of partisans from exparte evi dence. The Commission which issued this Report was not not empowered to inquire, and did not inquire, into the connection of the University with the religion of the State. It was empowered to take, but did not take in any large sense, a view of the functions of a University, irrespective of religion. Its con elusions were thus limited, and, at the same time, indefinite. The bill founded on this Report, introduced by a Ministry some of whom objected to the Commission in toto, others of whom would willingly have extended the sphere of its inquiries, reflects the limited agreement and uncertain purpose of its authors. At the same time it certainly proposes to plunder the Colleges, in order to forestal the capacity of the University to provide for its own requirements; and for this we say no " sufficient cause " has been shown, unless it be that her Majesty's Ministers, in their inability to pass other measures, press forward this, to signalise their consistency by an act of confiscation. MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS. ON Tuesday last, when the order of the day for the nomination of the committee of in quiry into the state and condition of monastic and conventual institutions was read, Mr. Bowl'Es moved the House to rescind the resolution which it had deliberately adopted by a great majority after a debate in which leading members on either side had taken part. The Honourable Member ad mitted that the course he took was unusual, as well he might, seeing that Sir ROBERT PEEL, in the plenitude of his despotic power, only once insisted on such a degrading act of stulti fication. The reasons by which Mr. BOVrYER attempted to support his motion were not less strange than the motion itself. " When the " resolution was adopted we were not at war ; " now we are ; therefore don't at such a crisis " insult and alienate the Roman Catholics of " England and Ireland." Insult! Alienate ! We disclaim the one and do not apprehend the other. In a recently-published protest against the inquiry we recognise names of which England is proud, for those who bear them have hereditary and historical claims to her respect. A Howard may sign the protest, but we have not forgotten that in another reign which future historians may at a distant period deem not more glorious than the present—when, as now, a Queen sate on the English throne, and Roman Catholics had to choose between allegiance to Rome and their country, the Supreme Pontiff or their native Sovereign—to a man they were true to England and ELIZABETH. An Earl of Arundel may profess the Roman Catholic faith, but so did a Howard of Effingham, who led our fleets against the Armada of Spain ; and God forbid that, whether in peace or war, we should insult our Roman Catholic fellow• subjects either by our legislation or by ques tioning their fidelity to the Queen and their country. Even Lord JOHN RUSSELL , thou g h he sup haticall ported Mr. Bovryzit's motion, empy disclaimed his reasoning, and, without illus trating it by his own course on the Reform Bill, admitted that our policy should not de pend on temporary and accidental circum stances, such as peace or war, but on consi derations of justice and expediency. The Honourable and Learned Member having thus placed the Roman Catholics in an advanta geous light before the House, by insinuating that their loyalty might be shaken if members did their duty and voted according to their convictions, next addressed himself to the real question at issue, viz., is inquiry into these institutions just and expedient? Assum ing that a committee would be nominated, " as a matter of constitutional law he wanted