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

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 purposes
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, though 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