THE CONTEST IN CAMORIDGE UNIVERSITY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
London, 4th March 1847.
SIR—I have been for some time past in the habit of reading your paper, with a deKree of attention very different from that which I generally bestow upon the periodical press. I was therefore, as you may suppose, a little hurt when, in the very height of the late Cambridge contest, I found you had dismissed the subject with a simple contemptuous sentence, as "a public scandal." At the time, in the fall heat of the election fever, I probably over-estimated its importance; but novr, being calmer, I still think it a sign of public opinion. I remember to have heard that a great statesman declared that Catholic Emancipation must be carried, be- cause he found that the young men from the Uhiverstues were in its favour, and that in a few years they would form the governing body in the country. Surely such a proof of the feelings of the same class as you have just seen is worthy of attention.
You are mistaken in thinking this was a matter originating in the jealousy between St. John's and Trinity. Doubtless that narrow feeling (for which I have as much contempt as you can have) may have had its share in the earlier stages of the proceeding ; but no step whatever was taken in London until the proceedings of the heads of houses became public. There was then an outbreak of feeling amongst the younger members of the University, such as I never witnessed before. A very few young men—no one of them, I believe, above five-and-thirty years of age—agreed to do their best to direct and manage this enthusiasm, and to rescue the University from what was conceived tobar disgrace of servility. I was one of them, and I do not think that, at first, there was a member of St. John's College amongst them. Neither had Church politics much to do with the matter. One or two of them were of the very High Church party; but I do not think that Lord Powis was at all the candidate they would have selected; and though most (not all) of the active members of the Committee were zealous supporters of the policy indicated by the Maynooth grant, yet this had so little to do with the matter, that when the first letter came demanding to know how Lord Powis bad voted on that occasion, no one of the Committee then present was able to answer the question. The leading men on the other side, I believe, were aware that the learned Judges whose names appeared on the Committee were too busily engaged to do more than sanction the proceeding; and, judging of the strength of the cause by the personal weight of the more active leaders, they are said to have represented. to Prince Albert, and I have no doubt with perfectly sincere belief, that it was impossible that Lord Powis could go on, as his supporters were a few rash young men who could by no possibility muster a hundred votes. The consequence was, that the presentation of the address was, on Friday, delayed for four-and-twenty hours, in order that the bubble, as they supposed it, might burst, and that Lord Powis, who had during all this time been travelling, and was to come to town on that night, might be Induced to withdraw his name. I believe there is no one of the earlier members of the Committee who is not grateful to Lord Powis for his conduct on his arrival in town. He might have thrown them over at once, and no one could have blamed him. He probably thought them rash and ill-informed, and that he ran the risk of being left in a. ridiculously small minority; and ho knew that he was offending the Court. Till this canvass, I was by no means aware what weight this last consideration has with those whose rank brings them in personal contact with Royalty. But he felt that, in consequence of his letter, his supporters had committed themselves; and he supported them as they had done him. The result you know. The Prince has, in an official answer, stated that the proceedings were we" without his privity and sanction." I suppose it is so; but this is certain, that both his name and that of her Majesty were freely used upon the occasion. Every Cabinet Minister belonging to the University was placed upon their Committee. The Bishop of London also was on it; and Lord Lyndhurst and Mr. Goulburn, though not on the Committee, canvassed actively and success-, fully on the same side.
The result of the first day's poll was to place Lord Powis in a majority of 8; and then the influence of those great men was brought to bear unscrupulously. Many who had pledged themselves to vote for Lord Powis were induced on the
second and last days to vote for the Prince; and it is quite certain that they be- lieved that nothing but the express command of the Queen would have united the late and present Cabinet in such a contest. Yet all this influence would have been in vain, had not the Low Church party thought the contest one of Church politics. The High Church naturally were on our side; but I believe, if all who were influenced by Church polities on either side had been struck off, the majority
would have remained for Lord Powis. There were several bigots, too, who voted to testify their determination to persecute those who had in any way favoured Popery. The most ludicrous case was that of a gentleman who actually was on
Lord Powis's Committee, but changed on account of a speech of Smith O'Brien in the House of Commons! He could not reconcile it to his conscience to act with a Committee containing such a horrid Papist. Now, Stafford O'Brien, who was on the Committee, had divided against his namesake on the occasion when the speech was made; but even if he had made the speech, it is hard to see how it bore on the merits of the election.
Now, Sir, I have frankly stated to you what I believe to be the facts. You will make due allowance for my natural bias as a hot partisan; but I think yen may rely upon them as accurate: and that being so, do you not think that this is
a noticeable fact? I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
A MEMBER OF THE SENATE.
I give my real name and address in a separate note, but not for publication. [A correct reading of what we said last week would show, that any censure
implied was not addressed to Lord Powis's supporters. The "scandal " originated with those who dragged Prince Albert into a contest without any certainty of success: it required the utmost exertion, the whole weight of Royal and high aria-. tocratic influence, to prevent the defeat to which they had exposed their candidate; and after all, defeat was escaped through not a very large majority. The assertion of independence on the other side will be useful, even to the successful candidate; who will learn from it, that in seeking honours not directly within the gift of the Crown, he must take his chance equally with any other English gentleman.—En.]
Previous page
