THE OXFORD LIBERALS AND MR. OLA.DSTONE.
Oxford, 7th June 1852.
Sim—I think I have some reason to complain of the tone assumed by your correspondent X. Such expressions as "miserable party vulgarism," " dis- gust," "heartless sneer," "make themselves and their pretensions ridicu- lous," are surely uncalled for and offensive—calculated to stop public as well as private discussion, and especially questionable in a writer whose main object seems to be to set the moral aspect of the question in its true light. I cannot charge myself with having said anything which could justify such a departure from the rules of common courtesy, though possibly the convictions under which I wrote were as strong as your correspondent's own.
Besides this, I must take leave to protest against one or two of his state- ments. He talks of "those members of diferent Colleges" (what does this expression mean ? is it meant as a reflection on the isolation of the resident Reformers ?) "who maintain even with scone vehemence and pertinacity that no reform can be good or practical which does not originate with Parliament and receive its sanction." On the contrary, we have no abstract preference for reform by Parliament as against self-reform. But we find that measures of self-reform are talked of rather than realized—if granted at all, granted grudgingly and under pressure, and almost inevitably spoiled in the working : we find, too, that some of the most important amendments can only be ef- fected by legislative power; and therefore we are anxious to invoke the in- terference of Parliament.
But lain guilty of a "heartless sneer" in having said that we might re- joice to see Mr. Gladstone Ambassador at Naples. Allow me to refer to my own words. "They (the Liberals) do not deny that he is one of the orna- ments of our Legislature. They might rejoice to see him Colonial Minister, or perhaps Ambassador at the Court of Naples." Of course, then, my ac- knowledgment of Mr. Gladstone's legislative eminence, and his services as a Colonial Reformer, are part of the same "heartless sneer." "If I know myself," however, I meant nothing of the kind. My meaning simply was, that we should wish to see Mr. Gladstone employed on matters where he is a genuine reformer, not where he is conservative and reactionary. But I cannot agree that we are bound to return him for the University lest the Italian sufferers for whom he has pleaded should mistakenly suppose that his rejection is owing to his zeal for them ; a ground which no one of his opponents has ever dreamed of taking against him. My argument was simply this : on University questions Mr. Gladstone is (intentionally or not) neither more nor less than a powerful special pleader against reform : therefore it would be suicidal in Reformers to assist in his return, especially at a crisis like this. The suggestion that we ought to sup- port his opponent was expressly stated to be my individual opinion : so that it is hardly fair to other Reformers to placard it as "the Newest Light at Oxford." Into the general question I do not wish again to enter : I will merely remind you, that if I have erred in my, estimate of Mr. Gladstone's Commission speech, I have at least erred in good company. In the "News of the Week" in the Spectator for July 20, 1850, I find the following words : "Mr. Gladstone and his friends resist all inquiry or med- dling; for they insist that, as occasion offers, the Universities are making every reform that is needed to bring their systems into harmony with the advanced state of knowledge." This in the preceding sentence is character- ized as "a feeble movement,"—a description possibly inapplicable to it as an intellectual effort, but at any rate showing the moral estimate which the Spectator at that time was willing to form of it. Yet we are now informed that the notion that Mr. Gladstone has "made an adverse pledge" can only be supported from the speech of 1850 by "the grossest possible misrepre- sentation." Even at the risk of being told that I "identify the University with the Universe," I must respectfully submit that nothing has occurred since July 1850 to justify us Oxford residents in rejecting the view of Mr. Gladstone's anti-Commission advocacy, which was recommended to us at the time by an independent, and, I presume, unprejudiced witness. lain, Sir, your obedient servant, M. A.
[Our esteemed correspondent, by a not unusual licence in controversy, selects words, and places them in a collocation which misrepresents our argu- ment. The proposition we maintained last week was, that Mr. Gladstone's speech of 1850 did not pledge him now to oppose University Reform : what we said in July 1850 was, that he then resisted "all inquiry or meddling," —not that he even then resisted reform : the very passage quoted by our correspondent implies the contrary ; other parts of his speech showed how reforms could be inaugurated by the Crown visitorially ; and in one passage to which we alluded he declared in favour of "careful and well-considered, but extensive and early changes." Therefore, we maintained, though he op- posed the inquiry by Royal Commission, suddenly started by Lord John Rus- sell in the middle of a debate on the motion of another Member, he was not pledged against Reform even in 1850—still less is he pledged against it now. In our brief notice of the debate of 20th July 1850, the veritable text of the Spectator ran thus—" Ministers had the advantage of being opposed by feeble movements, which, coming on both sides, [the wide declaratory mo- tion for inquiry, and the resistance to all inquiry,] tended to aid the balance of the juste-eu." This says nothing about the speech in question. Our correspondent, however, is welcome to the admission that we have always regarded the resistance to inquiry as morally feeble. A Parliamentary Com- mission would have been preferable to a Royal Commission, because of its greater powers and unquestioned authority ; but we have supported the Royal Commission thus far, and we heartily hope its labours will issue in "well-considered, extensive, and early" retoi ms.—En.]
Previous page
