The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-26 00:00:00

which ALISON has designated " one of the most
glorious in the Russian, one of the most
disastrous in the Turkish, annals." We shall not
"`do amiss." if we close the present contest by
securing a quarter of a century of peace, a peace
like the 25 years which have intervened between
the present time and the date of the Treaty of
Adrianople—that treaty which my Lord ABER-
DEEN at the same time reminds us (rather
blunderingly) was dictated by Russia when
her army was "at the gates of Constan-
tinople."

It is true that, just now, the position is some-
what different from that which closed the cam-
paign of 1829. The Russian army has not passed
the Balkan, has not reached Adrianople, has not
arrived before the gates of Constantinople. True,
also, that hitherto it has been worsted by the
Turks alone, or aided only by the Egyptian con-
tingent, in almost every successive engagement—
at Oltenitza, at Citate, under the walls of the
gloriously defended stronghold of Silistria, !
True, moreover, that Turkey in 1854, unlike
her position in 1828 and 1829, is backed by
England and by France, as well as sustained by
the enthusiasm of her own gallant population !
No matter—set every other consideration aside—
my Lord ABERDEEN has spoken—we shall not
"do amiss" if we secure peace for twenty-five
years more by some such another arrangement as
the Treaty of Adrianople ! That was the argu-
ment addressed to the House of Lords on this
very day se'nnight, Monday, the 19th of June,
1854, by the Earl of ABERDEEN, Prime Minister
of England, and that is what my Lord ABERDEEN
is about to explain to the House of Peers, and
through the House of Peers to the country, on
this very evening, Monday, the 26th of June,
1854—exactly a week having elapsed between the
declaration and (we venture to hint) the rather
needed explanation.

Perhaps the public generally will take more in-
terest in the University debate of Thursday night
than in most of its wearisome predecessors. The
proposed substitution of an Elective Council for
the old close Hebdomadal Board was pretty com-
monly understood and relished, but all the minor
points over which the initiated squabbled, and
the Government were generally defeated, nobody
comprehended, and nobody cared to comprehend.
Mr. HEYWOOD'S proposal, on the contrary, is int el-
ligible to alinost every man who has heard of
Oxford. All the worshipping portion of the
c )mmunity, at least, fully understand it ;
both the larger half, according to the reli-
gious census, which now are forbidden to
learn Latin and Greek, or anything &se at
Oxford, and who almost to a man resent the
exclusion as an indignity, and the moiety of
church-going persons, nearly as large as that of
Nonconformists, who are divided into two sec-
tions on this question—all of these feel a deep in-
terest in the subject of Dissenters' admission to
the Universities. There can be little doubt which
1 is the popular view with electors, and which must
therefore sooner or later become law, whether
the Lords be restive or not. Adding the
vast numbers of liberal and intelligent
Churchmen to the entire body of Dis-
senters, the real majority against exclusive-
ness must be very large. Indeed, not only on this,
but on almost every question of the retention or
abolition of religious distinctions in public and
national institutions, the tide of conviction and
feeling is flowing strongly in the right direction.
We trust it will continue to do so, until in all
matters touching the relations between Man and
his MAKER, the profane demarcations originated or
upheld by law will be swept away for ever. We
are not surprised that many liberal hearts and en-
larged minds should be slow to see the full and
fair application of their warmly-cherished opinions,
but they will rapidly learn. A right heart is a
most successful teacher ; and we quite expect that
the pleasing symptoms of religious liberality, con-
spicuous in some of our younger senators, where
it was not much looked for, will expand into
something much more genial than the timid
finality of the old school of Whig Constitution-
alists.

The debate itself must be considered to have
been as triumphant as the division. A majority
of 91, in a house of 413 members, to abolish all
requisitions but the oath of allegiance at entering
Oxford University, was indeed one of the noblest
votes of the House this year. Flagrant as is the
absurdity of lads signing three or four hundred
abstruse theological propositions as a passport to
education, it is yet a marvel how 252 Members
were got together to vote against a Cabinet,
against any antiquated absurdity, and for a clean
sweep of a venerable nuisance. Indeed, the House
seemed a little frightened at itself, for good Mr.
WALPOLE having raised up some bugbears about
the horrible consequences of Dissenters obtaining
literary and scientific degrees, and the vote being
taken on the spur of the moment, a majority of
nine was gained, in a much thinner house, to
exclude Dissenters, as at Cambridge, from the
honours of learning, although they might get the
learning itself—an exclusion of little consequence
except at the University itself, since the tripos
would always show the standing of the successful
student. Thanks to the honest and stringent
examination, literary acquirements and mental
power can secure their record. This last vote, too,
may yet bo reversed.

The debate, however, was the great triumph ;
it shewed that the vote was given from a pre-
dominant conviction of its rectitude. Hardly a
speaker denied_the impolicy of exclusion, or the
unreasonableness of youths taking theological
oaths. Dissenters have rarely got so many soft
words in the House of late. They were, even with
the " Noes," moral and influential, and educa-
tionally useful—in short, almost everything but
suitable companions for Churchmen at Oxford.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord
President, while obliged, as they thought, to vote
them out of- this bill (the latter in rather awk-
ward inconsistency with his promise), yet gave
them the most honied words. As in the Church
Rates debatethe opponents of liberali tyseemed cowed
by the consciousness of an indefensible principle,
and their only arguments were the House of Lords,
and the independence of Oxford ; both admitting
of very obvious answers, and both actually an-
swered to the full satisfaction of the House and
the country. Great stress was laid by some speak-
' ers on the Universities being schools for the
Church, and on the importance of a religious edu-
cation, which it was assumed could be given by
the Church of England only. But the Church
will be as free as ever under any arrangement to
give its own theological instruction. In Scotland,
the Free Church and some bodies of Dissenters
have their theological institutions in voluntary
connection with the national Universities, and we
never heard it pretended that the Scotch youth
were less religious than those of England, or the
Scotch clergy inferior in theological knowledge to
our own. Sir JOHN RAMSDEN, in his highly
promising and beautiful maiden speech, most tho-
roughly exposed the irreligion generated by the
compulsory religious worship at Oxford, and
must have carried conviction on that point
to the minds of even his opponents. Indeed,
there is but one word, though we decline
to use it, by which all this cant about religion in
the business deserves to be designated. With the
exception of a few stupid old High Church pa-
triarchs, every one knows that the contention is
not for religion itself but for an ecclesiastical sys-
tem, which, as Mr. Fox observed, those who now
profit by its good things wish to keep unchanged,
upon the well-known " good old rule and simple
plan." Dissenters of every class, so far as we
can gather their sentiments from their own jour-
nals, have no wish whatever to place their sons in
the present Colleges. Some of their prominent
men, however, think that they might advan-
tageously have one of the New Private Halls
conducted on their own religious principles,
and connected with the University, not with the
College. We entirely agree with Sir JOHN RAMS-
DEN, that such a union in education might do
very much to engender mutual respect, and often
attachment, between parties who are uow but too
much trained to mutual antagonism. On the
we feel assured that the vote must do
good, The Liberal party at Oxford, so far from