The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-07 00:00:00

.82XTAIt1LL

Tr!, EvENIN,:.I.), IletlirTihri;eActs fir HAMLET. Met.4r..
Howe: I: v ..1.14. : Coven :y it Nlararthe.
the:dere, Hr. C. Worelinen, Little Leritte, Jotsk
earl Mr. liumptuu. —Anal THE iilltatiONOl rAltri.

DIOR WATIII AT LONDON ENDOGL

TIM TAT —Th.ming. 6b. 665......Atken00n, 7b. Sin.
To.Slonnow—llorning, Tb. 14ts.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7.

ONE of the most unfortunate changes in the
last draft of the Reform Bill is that by which
undergraduates at the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge are permitted to vote for the borough
members. The unprincipled way in which the
Government first supported the clause excluding
these young gentlemen, and within a few days
afterwards supported a clause having precisely
the opposite effect, is perhaps the most glaring in-
stance of inconsistency for which the present
Ministry has mule itself notorious. It is vain to
pretend that any man who has the interests of
learning at heart can seriously believe that those
interests will be advanced by allowing the
members of the University to interfere with
the elections for borough members. It is no
doubt very easy for Lord DERBY to find one
head of a house ready to declare that " the argu-
" manta brought forward against" the under-
graduates voting for the borough " have no real
" weight or value." If Lord DERBY had said
that such was the opinion entertained by " one of
" the oldest of the heads of colleges in Oxford,"
nothing would have seemed more natural ; but
when he says that the old gentleman who
hazarded this assertion is one of " the most
" distinguished" of those heads, few indeed
who know Oxford would have expected
to hear that the Chancellor's confidential
friend is Dr. WYNTER, the President of St. John's
College. To vouch one of the most notorious Tory
partisans of one of the least distinguished colleges
in the University may be an ingenious way of
avoiding Lord Gaaievizr.e's challenge to ascertain
the opinion of Oxford on the subject, but it is
really no answer to the challenge at all. As well
might Mr. SPOFFORTH be asked whether he ap-
proved of Mr. DISRAELI'S Reform Bill—with its
thousand and one amendments. If the Bishop of
LONDON had been able to attend in his place and
argue this question, we cannot believe that Lord
DERBY would have ventured to persevere in his
ill-advised attempt to override the borough voters.
It is true that the Lords, following the House
of Commons, have resolved to admit the members
of the University to vote for the borough members,
and that Lord Gite.svirte failed on Monday night
in his attempt to alter this resolution. Butwe trust
that it is not yet too late to introduce once
more the clause suggested by Mr. CARDWELL.
There is the more reason to indulge in this hope
bemuse it must be admitted that the amendment
originally proposed on Monday night by Lord
GRANVILLE was liable to serious objections. Ac-
cording to his original draft, the only under-
graduates who would have been excluded from
voting for the borough members were under-
graduates living in college, while those who lived
in lodgings in the town would have been admitted
as borough voters. It is well known that the
number of undergraduates above 21 who live in
college is infinitesimally small, and therefore Lord
GRANVILLE:3 motion was exposed to the un-
answerable criticism, that while an insignifi-
cant number of undergraduates would be
excluded, a much larger number would
be included among the borough voters.
Lord GR►NVILLE, indeed, acknowledged the jus-
tice of this criticism, and altered his amendment
so as to exclude all members of the University
who were ;it state pepalari. But it was too late ;
the argument had been conducted upon a different
policy, and, as might have been expected, Lord
Ga tNVILLE'S motion was negatived.
In these circumstances it may be said that the
whole subject is still open to discussion, and it is
to be hoped that the opportunity will not be
lost of settling the question in a satis-
factory way in the Howe of Commons.
No one, probably, who considers the matter
without reference to party politic, would hesitate
to concur with the opinion of Lord CRANwORTE
that neither at Oxford nor Cambridge is it de-
sirable that the members of the Universities
should have anything to do with the town elec-
tions. There is surely nothing more important
than that the old antagonism between the town
and the University, which has now happily almost
ceased, should not be revived ; and it is difficult to
imagine any means more admirably fitted to revive
this jealousy and ill-feeling in the most malignant
form than to allow the members of the Uni-
versity to interfere with the town elections.
Any such interference would be completely
novel, and if the votes of the Uni-
versity men turned the scale, the sense of
injury and heartburning would rankle deep in the
breast of every borough elector. Nor would this
bitterness of feeling be allayed by the fact, which
is notorious, that there is no sort of sympathy
between the members of the University and the
townspeople. They have scarcely any interests in
common ; they have no social relations with each
other. The University is in fact, as Lord CRAN-
WORTH said, an insperium in imperio. There is
nothing which the present Ministers have opposed
with more determination than the plan of grouping
boroughs, on the ground that any borough which