The Press. — London, England, 1857-11-28 00:00:00

THE PRESS, NOVEMEtit 28,1857. --- we cannot help thinking of one of the best of all the famous " H.B's," in which, dining the Mulgrave fever at Dublin, the Marquis was caricatured as Mantalini turning the mangle, while O'CONNELL was, with arrogant air, hecto ring him as Madame Mantalini. That comic vision is in part realised. For nine years Lord NORMANBY has been manufacturing an enormous mangle for himself, and his disjecta inembra now crackle under ponderous rollers of his own fixing. commerce, and navigation." These terms - are clear. Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace also provides for the organisation of an armed " national force " for the defence of the fron tiers and for the duties of an internal police; and Article 27 forbids any " armed interven " Lion " in the Principalities without the con sent of the whole of the contracting P owers. Such is the relation of Turkey to these Principa lities, her suzerainty only, not her sovereignty, guaranteed by the great Powers, is now re cognised by the Moldo-Wallachs themselves. Those, therefore, who maintain that the poli tical union of these provinces under one head must abolish this suzerainty of the Porte, argue that Moldo- Wallachia if erected into one State would be false to its professions, and prove too powerful for the whole of Europe and Turkey combined ! Besides, how can it be supposed that the Western Powers of Europe, having solemnly bound themselves in '56 to preserve the integrity of Turkey, should in '57 be the first to adopt measures for the disintegration of the Turkish empire ? The object of Arts. 22 and 23 of the Treaty of Paris is clear. It is to restore to these pro vinces, under the suzerainty of the Porte, their ancient rights, together with the privilege of self-government, so as to ameliorate the condi tion of the people ; to reform existing corrup tions and abuses, and by insuring the prospe rity of the country so to consolidate the social position of the people as that in course of time they shall form a solid barrier against any aggression on Turkey. The only question, therefore, for consideration is how best to attain that desirable object. Experience has sufficiently proved within the last fifty years that the separation of these provinces has been a fertile source of weakness to Turkey. They have ever been the Belgian battle-field of the East. Turkey has never been able to give them that protection her rights of suzerainty impose, and by their defence lessness, weakness, and utter disorganisation, they have fallen an easy prey to every invader. These are facts in which the history of this century supports us, and it is incontestable also that this weakness arose from that sepa• ration of interests imposed on them by Turkey and foste red by other Powers. How then can we best establish such an order of things that, while we secure to Turkey her just rights, we give to the Principalities that organisation we have bound ourselves to pro vide by treaty, and which shall enable them to prove a future strength instead of feebleness to Turkey ? In the face of the obvious failure of the system of separation to effect this end, it is clear that system cannot be re stored with any hopes of success ; and it would be disgraceful to us and to France to leave these provinces and their people as bad, if not worse off, than they were before the war. We have no wish whatever to weaken Turkey, but that system of government which Lord PALMERSTON, out of conciliation to certain Powers, desires to re-establish in these pro vinces, is the one which has had a full and fair trial, and the one which has brought about the Treaty of Bucharest, the Convention of Akermarn, the Treaty of Adrianople, and the establishment of a Russian Protectorate. Its beneficial results are, moreover, to be seen in the misrule and corruption which has degraded the country and impoverished the people. Now, is this the form of government which we can conscientiously say is in accordance with the objects of the Russian war, with the Treaty of Paris, or with the wants and wishes of the people themselves ? We understand those peculiar influences which have weight at Constantinople, and we can appreciate the resistance of Turkey to any permanent reform of abuses, or to the organisation of the govern ment of these provinces on a healthier basis ; but we fail to discover the reason why England, under so sympathising a Minister with foreign nationalities, should oppose every obstacle to the establishment in these Principalities of that form of government which would restore rights and privileges to the people, give security to the country, encouragement to commerce, and tend to fully develop the vast resources of the finest agricultural plains in Europe. Lord CLARENDON, it is said, is desirous only of re forming the abuses of the present system. This is only an effete concession with a view 1147 to check the admission of incontestable rights• For his reforms to be effective they must commence at Constantinople. It is not at Bucharest nor at Jassy that reform is so much needed. Besides, to reform with a view to maintain the present system is impossible. There can be no effective reform without Union, and under a ruler untainted by the corruptions of Constantinople. That is the reform the Roumanians desire, and that we maintain is the sound solution of the Danubian question. DANUBIAN PROVINCES. THE objections by a certain clique in this country to the political union of the Danu bian provinces are neither numerous nor effective. They may be summed up under two heads. First, that England has no interest in the solution of the Danu bian question ; and, secondly, that the integrity of Turkey will be violated and the Treaty of Paris broktu if Union be decided on. These objections are inconsis tent in principle and untrue in fact. If England has not the " slightest in terest " in the solution of the question—and one solution leads to a violation of the in tegrity of Turkey and an infraction of the Treaty of Paris—those who maintain this argument must be prepared to admit that the Russian war was " an accident," and that our Eastern policy is "a farce." In a general sense that may be a matter of opinion, but, at least, we entered into the war with Russia for definite objects, and we concluded the Peace of Paris with a distinct purpose. That was to protect Turkey from unjust aggression, and to annihilate the supremacy of Russian influence in the Danubian provinces. The folly, there fore, of asserting that the solution of this Da nubian question—a question which involves within itself the whole principle of action, which plunged us into war, and the essence of the terms upon which ire consented to make peace—is not of the " slightest interest " to England is self-evident. We speak of poli tical, not of commercial or material interests ; for if we consider those in reference to that trade which the free navigation of the Danube and the free government of these provinces will offer to us, we have a mass of irresistible evidence to prove that our material as well as our political interests arc deeply involved in the right solution of this simple question. The second objection, that by the political union of these provinces the integrity of Turkey will be violated and the Treaty of Paris broken, is equally weak and fallacious. In order to comprehend the value of this objection we must necessarily understand the position of Turkey towards these Principali ties as recognised by the Treaty of Paris. Articles 22 and 23 of that Treaty are as fol lows : ARTICLE '2'2. The principalities of 11 : aliachiaand Moldavia will con. tinue to enjoy, under the suzerainty of the Porte, and under the guarantee of the contracting powers, the privi leges and immunities of which they are in possession. No exclusive protection shall be exercised over them by any one of the. guaranteeing powers. There shall be no private (parliculter) right of interference with their in ternal affairs. ARTICLE 23. The Sublime Porte engages to preserve to the aforesaid Principalities an independent and national administration, as well as full liberty of worship, legislation, commerce, and navigation. By these articles it is clear that the suzerainty of the Porte is guaranteed by the contracting Powers, aid that is the only right Turkey is entitled to. The Porte, on the other hand, is bound to preserve to the Pfincipalities "an " iniependent and national administration, as " well as full liberty of worship, legislation, MIDDLE-CLASS EXILMINATIONS. IT will doubtless be iu the recolleztion of our readers that when this question was first agitated, we drew a comparison between the Universities of Oxford and London, comment ing on the singular fact that the former was seeking to become more liberal, and the latter to become more exclusive. Now, doubtless at first sight it might appear that this was the very thing wanted. And many persons might wonder what objection could possibly he raised to so desirable a proceeding. What we said then, however, we repeat now—that the excellence of an institution, as of an individual; must be sought in accordance with its own nature, and not by running counter to it. Oxford had a course plainly marked out before her, and so had the London University— widely divergent from each other, but both honourable. And we cannot help fearing that if the one abandons her true functions to exer cise those of the other, the results will be dis astrous to both. If of the half-dozen branches of knowledge which constitute a liberal education there is one which can be taught better at Oxford and Cambridge than at any other University, and five which can be taught as well at any other University as at Oxford and Cambridge, the conclusion to us seems obvious—i.e., that Oxford and Cambridge should not sacrifice a tittle of the one subject for the sake of the other five. The worst of it is, too, that a change in this respect involves not only the amount taught, but the method of teaching it likewise. Owing to the recent reforms at Oxford, not only is less classical knowledge imparted, but it is imparted with less sound ness than heretofore. College and University scholarships and prizes are awarded to less proficient candidates, and the ordinary student knows lees of the ordinary grammar. Their reading spreads over a wider area, but do its roots lay hold of the soil? We fear, in many cases, not. Can the young scholar who talks so glibly about BUNSEN and DONALDSON always conjugate the verb vivvw. , ? Can the college fellow who will prate of aesthetics by the hour turn out a piece of Latin prose or a copy of Latin hexameters in the old style? If all accounts which reach us from the University are true, such is very far from being the case. Yet, after all, wherein consists the value of this so-called " classical education," if not in those habits of laborious study and in cessant repetition of which such per formances are the test? Even were our study of modern languages pushed to the same extreme, they would not yield the same fruit. But it is not. A man learns just as much French as is requisite for a particular purpose. He acquires by formal study as much as will enable him to enjoy the literature of the country, or to make himself understood by the inhabitants if he travels there. The rest he leaves to time and chance ; he will pick it up as he goes along. Latin and Greek are the only two languages studied for themselves, and which, on account of their fixedness, admit of complete mastery. They are, in con sequence, the only two which can bring home to a man's mind what completeness of learning IR' .] •-~ 4