The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-08 00:00:00

BYRON and Mr. MURRAY, between the great poet I
and the eminent publisher.
We have thus recalled to recollection these still
painful and discreditable particulars, because it
has occurred to us that the afterthought of those
Ministers of the Crown, might perhaps be

judiciously borne in mind at this moment by the
Dii Majores of the Dublin University—meaning
thereby that mysterious collective entity which
appeared even when no more than merely paro-
chial, so singularly formidable to the unsophisti-
cated young OLIVER.TWIST--" THE BOARD"—Con-
sisting in the instance of Trinity College, Dublin,
of the Provost and the Seven Senior Fellows of
the University. We remember that now more
than two years ago we had occasion in these
columns, in our capacity as one of those extra-
official public censors known as the Daily Jour.
nalists, to direct attention to what appeared to us
then, upon the instant, as it still appears to us at
present moment of writing in the retrospect
a most arbitrary proceeding on the part
of the Dublin University Board, on the
part that is of the Provost and seven Senior
Fellows of Trinity College. The circumstances—
which yet remain ufialtered apparently (judging
from the non-appearance of the original publishers'
names at the bottom of the outer cover of the
Dublin University Magazine)—the circumstances
of the case here referred to may in two or three
sentences be very readily recapitulated.
An anonymous article, written by we know not
whom, appeared in the pages of the Dublin Uni-
versity Magazine, now considerably more than two
years back—a critical, analytical, argumentative
paper, directing public attention to the simple fact
that the Board of Trinity College, Dublin, had not
yet at that period carried into effect divers of the
vary wholesome recommendations embodied in the
elaborate and carefully considered report drawn up
by the Royal Commissioners. Although bearing
vividly enough in remembrance the outline of the
facts here reverted to—which facts, as we have
said, we ourselves commented upon at the
time of their original occurrence—we have now
but recently turned back to the very number of
the magazine containing the contribution, and we
find the paper, upon a dispassionate re-examination
of it (the number of the magazine, by the way, is
that published in May, 1858), we find it now,
after two years and a half have gone by, a strictly
logical argument most calmly reasoned through-
out : not one certainly in any way calculated
to excite an outburst of indignation on the part
of the Board, on the part of the Provost and
Seven Senior Fellows, an outburst of indigna-
tion that still seems to be, what we trust, never-
theless, it will yet prove not to be, implacable.
According to this anonymous critic, of whose
identity we have not the smallest knowledge in
the world, nor yet, for that matter, have we the
slightest atom of curiosity to discover it—
according to this unknown and unrecognizable
critic in the Dublin University Magazine, the
Board of Trinity College was then (May, 1858)
still despotic in its character ; it still governed in
its own interests exclusively; it still audited its
own accounts; it still shirked or evaded anything
like compliance, direct or indirect, with any of the
just and reasonable reforms suggested—all this in
defiance of the propositions for reform advanced
in the report of the Royal Commissioners ! The
anonymous critic in the Dublin University Maga-
zine added that there had already doubtless (still,
recollect, May, 1858) been carried out, rather
ostentatiously sundry educational improvements
urged upon the acceptance of the Board by the
Royal Commissioners. In startling contrast to
which, however, not one of the proposed financial
changes had, to all appearance, ever been taken even
into consideration ! Several distinct grievances were
after this frankly particularised and succinctly
enumerated. The misprahly impoverished con-
dition of the non Tutor Fellows was
strikingly contrasted afterwards with the overflow-
ing abundance of the emoluments poured into the
purses of the Seven Senior Fellows. And so forth
—and so forth; what we have said being the gist
and gravemen of the whole argument. It may be
in the recollection of some among our readers,
among those at least who are in any way as sensi-
tively alive as we are ourselves, professionally,
to the vindication of the sacred rights
of a perfectly free and unfettered press
—it may be in the recollection of those at least
among our readers that forthwith—in May, 1858
—immediately upon the appearance of the maga-
zine containing this article the Board inti-
mated to the publishers that they (the Messrs.
HODGES, SMITH, and Company) could not in
consequence of that article remain publishers
of the magazine, and at the same time
the College Booksellers ! Messrs. HODGES and
SMITH, as men of business, had, of course, only one
hing to do—they ceased abruptly to be the pub

lishers of the Magazine ! In compliance with the
arbitrary mandate of the Board they announced
their resignation as publishers of the Magazine,

n the public journals of the following morning
—under penalty (had they not done so) of being
summarily dismissed from their post of College
Booksellers. Since then the Magazine, if we re-
member rightly, has passed from one publishing
house to another, even at one time crossing over to
this side, and at another goingiback again to the
other side of St. George's Channel. All—manifestly
—to the grievous inconvenience of the proprietor or
proprietors of this distinguished periodical ; a
publication which one might have thought
the authorities of Trinity College would have been
proud of if only on account of its name, style, and
title, combined with its indisputable abilities as the
worthy exponent of the more enlightened views
of Irish polities and Irish literature. Gladly shall
we see, what we yet confidently hope to see, the
reconciliation of the Dublin University Authorities
and the Dublin Umversity Magazine. A quarrel,
this two years and a half of estrangement, can
scarcely be designated. For " a quarrel"
requires two parties to make it—and as
yet we have failed to recognize where the
organ itself has in any way offended beyond the
reach of reconciliation with the Board of Trinity
College. For the sake of the dignity of the Board
itself—for the sake of the interest of the Magazine
—for the sake of the great principle of the liberty of
the Press—we do yet sincerely hope that we shall

again read, " Published by Messrs. HODGES, SMITH,
and Company," printed, as of old, at the bottom of

he old; familiar straw-coloured cover of the

Dublin University Illagazine.

The Duke of ARGYLL has given us his views on

National Education. The occasion was the Annual
Congress of the Mechanics' Institutes of Lancashire

and Cheshire, and as a part of its proceedings the
distribution of prizes to the successful competitors,
at the examinations of the Institutes.

Amongst many excellent remarks made by the
DuKE, none, we think, were more practical and
judicious than those on the religious question in
Schools. The difficulty, or one difficulty at least
is, to reconcile grants of Government money to
sectarian bodies, and amongst the sects, we, of
course, include our State Church, for edu-

cational purposes. It is unanswerably urged
that money contributed by all ought to be
so used as that all may receive the benefit of it.
The Roman Catholic is not spared by the tar-
gatherer, why should the poor child of his poor co-
religionist be excluded from the instruction for
which Roman Catholics have helped to pay. The
reply, that Roman Catholic schools are also aided,
does not meet the difficulty, since Catholics are
not everywhere located in sufficient numbers to
establish a school of their own. And in England
especially, so scattered are the adherents of diffe-
rent creeds that in hundreds, perhaps thousands
of places," the alternative for a poor parent is,
education for his child where his religious views,
which to him are a sacred inheritance, will be
contravened, or no education at all,
The DUKE strongly advises all the sects
to adopt the rule which has.been successfully acted
on in many places, of " affording secular education
to every child whose parents object to their pecu-
liar religious teaching, without forcing the child
to go through their religious education." The ob-
servation was received wish cheers by the intelli-
gent assembly at Manchester, and We think it
would be so received by almost every intelligent
assembly of laymen throughout the country. The
difficulty is to get over the clergymen, They live
in such a peculiar atmosphere, and are so accustomed
to lecturing us all on the subject of religion, that
they often acquire, insensi)ly perhaps, a kind of
Popish infallibility on religious subjects; prac-
tising unconsciously what they indignantly refuse
to his Holiness at Rome. lle the cause what it may,
the obstacle to thorough liberality such, as
the DUKE pleads for in our State-aided
schools, is commonly the clergyman, and
we must only hope that the pleadings of
the DUKE will go further with them than those
of us—the untitled herd

We have no doubt, as the DIME observes, that libe-
rality would be good policy—good sectarian policy we
mean; these are just the days iniwhich, if ever con-
ciliation will go further than coercion, and libe-
rality than infliction of social penalties. We think
it most likely, as the DUKE says, that in schools
where the parents were freely allowed to decline
the religious teaching, ninety-nine out of a hundred
would not do it. It is the compulsion which creates
the resistance and the sense of hardship. A sturdily
sectarian, or even infidel parent, would generally
prefer that his child should get the full benefit of
the common religious principles and duties which
all sects teach, and would rely on his home
instruction to counteract what he did
not like. But, better even than that,
the effect of religious liberality would
he most happy on the mind both of parent and
child. It would teach the former that his theolo-
gical antagonists are not the ungenerous bigots
whit} the opposite course would lead him to suppose,
and vould conciliate his goodwill through his
parercal affections ; while ths child would grow up
to regard his schoolmates with as genial senti-
mews as if their fathers had all held the same creed
as h s own.

As there is little likelihood that the grant in aid
of the system will be ever abolished, as the object is
to mike it work smoothly, and as the services of
the different religious sects in education cannot
easily now be dispensed with, we think the
DUKE has done very wisely in inviting the attention
of all sects to the duty and advantage of liberality.
That the course he recommends is the most Chris-
tian one we are quite certain. Whatever some
clergymen may think, it is certain that the minister
who is willing to give freely useful instrmtion to all
is thereby fulfilling the first Christian duty—that
of Charity.