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

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 EL_ngltutd at this n
iftouki TRIM +apt** *at some provt
iie* of • • , • iiiiirquivooal syt
ti - • " % 'l' trl.lr • '. • ttempt ti
*I ~,, it ~Tif-ict.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" ri
. . ' g. 4
~ ~,,....:, - ri,, • ..., • nate, t
v-.... )1 xi'
.. .11.44 rr a vise*.
asd . c - ' . 4t‘ -- , is at nc

•
- .

APRIL 1, 1854.

" to know in what position those venerable
" men (the monks) would be placed if they
" were called before a committee ?" Does
Mr. BOWYER claim for Roman Catholics
exemptions from liabilities to which other
classes are subject? Unless he claims for
Roman Catholics such privileges, we answer
his question specifically, " those venerable
men" will stand in the same position as the
Corporation of the city of London, the venal
voters, and the Irish members.
It may indeed be questionable how far
these " Schools for Scandal" sitting en per-
manence may be desirable, but our present
impression is that each must depend upon its
particular circumstances, and that a strong
and general belief that an abuse exists is
sufficient to warrant inquiry, when to bring a
specific accusation may be difficult and ex-
pensive. That such a belief does exist in the
case of monasteries and convents no one has
ever denied; but the noblemen and gentle-
men who signed the protest say, " The
" charges against the convents of women
" have long since been satisfactorily re-
" futed ;" but even if that were so, and if the
statement by Colonel NORTH of the occur•
rence at Banbury was founded on erroneous
information, still the facts would remain that
the Rev. Mr. WiLsow, the vicar, received a
letter purporting to come from a Miss
FITZALAN, the inmate of a nunnery, alleging
that she gas about to be taken to Belgium
against her will ; that the vicar applied to
Colonel NORTH as a magistrate to interfere ;
that Colonel NORTH, on consulting lawyers
found that the writ of habeas corpus was
useless and inoperative ; that he then wrote
to the Home Secretary on the subject, and
that Sir GEORGE GREY told him he could do
nothing !
The nun may not have been confined, the letter
received by the clergyman may have been ficti-
tious, the whole tale may have been one of the
class pleasantly called by Lord JOHN RUSSELL
" des contes du coq d rune ;" but the acts of Colonel
NORTH remain, and the letter of Sir GEORGE
GREY is genuine. From these it follows that
in England, if the inmate of a convent is de-
tained. there against her will, no effectual
legal agency exists by which she can be
released ; and this we say is a condition in
which no subject should be left. It is the
duty of the State to protect those who cannot
protect themselves. We do so in the case of
factory children, and we do so in the case of
lunatic asylums; not because we believe that
many iniquities occur, but because it is pos-
sible that some would occur if no protection
were thrown around the helpless.
Many other reasons we might advance in
support of the inquiry, but this is the chief, that
the inmates of nunneries are practically deprived
of one of the main safeguards of that personal
freedom which is the birthright of Britain. And
when Mr. BOWYER talks of " every English-
" man's house being a castle," he forgets that
against private " castles " the writ of habeas is
efficacious, that against nunneries it is not,
and that there is sometimes a striking resem-
blance between a castle and a prison.
As the noblemen and gentlemen who signed
the protest expressly refuse "to argue the
" point," we presume it is because they
think that Mr. BOWYER has exhausted all
the objections that can be urged against
the inquiry ; and if they, without argu-
ment, believe that "there are sufficient
" constitutional and legal reasons for the re-
" jection of this proposal, without calling upon
" Catholics to deal with it as a religious ques-
" tion," we trust that we, after argument, and
equally omitting the religious element, have also
given some constitutional and legal reasons for
its adoption. Whatever be the ultimate fate
of the proposal, Mr. BOWYER'S amendment was
negatived by a large majority, notwithstanding
the characteristic support it received from the
Irish members, who, from seven till eleven,
clamoured for a division, and, during the rest
of the night, for an adjournment of the
debate.