UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS.
THERE is no doubt that University elections have not been 1 hitherto the illustrious things which were expected. The effect of education on the majority of average men seems to be rather to make them impatient of independence and origi- nality, and to throw them into an attitude of resistance to the vague and often, no doubt, incoherent impulses of reformers. With most men, especially if they belong to the comfortable classes, education scarcely gets beyond the point where it dis- poses men to criticize the inconsistencies of raw opinions and sneer at the sanguine temper of rash innovation. No small borough could produce a much tamer list of respectabilities than,—with the two great exceptions of the brilliant men whom Oxford adopted only to discard, —Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone,—Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin have sent to Par- liament during the last few years,—Mr. Wigram, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Selwyn, Sir William Heatheote, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Lefroy, Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Walsh. Mr. Gathorne Hardy, indeed, has shown a certain amount of nerve and tenacity, and Mr. Whiteside was an able debater after the coarse and glaring type of the least cultivated part of the Irish Bar. But not one of these men can be said to have the least claim to represent the forward movement of thought in either political or intellectual life ; not one of them,—except the two great rejected ones,—ever betrayed a sympathy with the vivid spirit of modern science, art, criti- cism, or faith ; not one, except these two, can even be said to have treated politics in that large and reflective manner which marks a mind that can look beyond the system in which it is brought up ; and if any of them had acted other- wise, it is all but certain that, with such constituents, he would have shared the same fate as Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Glad- stone. Look at the contest which is just impending with regard to the University of Cambridge. On one side is Mr. A. J. Beresford Hope,—late M.P. for Stoke-upon-Trent,—a gentleman better known for his riches than for his political abilities, for his steady support of the High-Church party than for his riches, for his relation to the Saturday Review (which has, by the way, done more by its clever worldly scepticism to undermine the Church than all Mr. Hope's wealth to support it) than for his Church principles,— and just at present best known of all for his grotesque campaign against Mr. Disraeli last session under the standard of Lord Cranborrte, and for being reminded by his accomplished opponent that his style of invective was highly "ornamental to debate," and the sting taken out of it by his " Batavian grace." He fights, of course, as the representative of the true Conservatives against Mr. Disraeli. On the other side, —the side of Mr. Disraeli and the Ministry,—is Mr. Cleasby, a tolerably successful barrister of no eminence. And be- sides these there is no one,—not a single man even claiming to represent the large and liberal faith which, we are too apt to suppose, must animate a learned body that looks back on the vast advance made by the present on the past, and tries to take account for the future in the spirit of that lesson. The University of Cambridge has the great privilege of choosing between a stirring professional man of no note, and a grotesque specimen of eccentric Conservatism whose special repute amongst the other notabilities of the House of Commons may be likened to the repute borne by one of the old china lions that you sometimes see standing in the hall of a country house, in relation to that of such modern works of art as Landseer's royal beasts.
It is clearly not satisfactory,—scarcely ereditable,—that University elections should be remarkable only for furnishing cases of vehemently fought struggles between the finer shades of Conservatism and reaction,—between the common-place prudence of to-day, and the stiff " Batavian " immobility of yesterday. True learning has vastly more sympathy with movement than such alternatives as these would suggest. It is because the great majority of University constituencies have no learning,—only enough education to help them to see the vagueness and hollowness of many popular cries,—not enough to help them to see the narrowness and hollowness of still more conservative traditions,—that they ring the changes as they do on safe mediocrities, or launch into a bolder policy now and then, only to show the cravenheartedness and pusillani- mous ingratitude which Oxford has displayed towards her only famous representatives. It is truly marvellous that education should succeed in inspiring timidity so much more easily than courage,__should teach mistrust of a rash and sanguine temper so much more easily than mistrust of a selfish and obstruc- tive fear. If we understand anything of the lessons of the past, history contains even more and more signal warnings against the latter than against the former. What we might well hope to see illustrated in a University election, is that true combination of generous ardour in progress with rever- ence for all the nobler elements of the past, which would be represented by the spirit of such a man as the Dean of West- minster,—who perfectly combines the spirit of historical reverence with that of bold reform. In mentioning Dr. Stanley, we advisedly abstain from naming any eligible candi- date, as we wish to indicate a spirit, not to plead a cause. And we must say that it does appear to us a very unfavour- able symptom of the University system, that at present neither at Oxford, Cambridge, nor Dublin would such a man have a chance of polling one-tenth part of the votes.
The Times of Wednesday, after pointing to the timid Conservative spirit of the older Universities, acknowledges (oddly enough for the first time) that the University of London has already attained "a national character," —"we might almost say an imperial position." And after paying the new University this very new and unaccustomed compliment,—the Times has hitherto scarcely regarded it as. worthy of a place amongst the national Universities at all,— it goes on to admonish the graduates of that institution to despise all narrow conditions in choosing its members, and to- select the ablest amongst the candidates, without any shadow of exclusive feeling in favour of one of their own body. It. ridiculesthe notion that amongst a body of men united by no tie, except that of having undergone examination in common under- the same system, there can be any importance in the mere- fact of University membership, and it insists that the only point of possible agreement can be on the appreciation of the personal merit of the candidate proposed. The argument, although avoiding all mention of names, is obviously intended to support the claim of the distinguished man whose address appears in another column of the same paper,—Mr. Lowe. We- are far from denying that there is some force in the argument, although we cannot but deem Mr. Lowe perhaps the least fit of the several candidates proposed. But the Times is ignorant that there is one great and permanent bond of union amongst. the graduates besides that of having passed through the same examinations,—the deliberative popular body of the Univer- sity,—Convocation. This body now exercises a very important influence on the educational policy of the University, and it could not but be a great disadvantage to any Parliamentary representative for the University if he should not be qualified,— as only a graduate could be,—to be present at its debates, and thus to learn by habitual attendance something of its spirit. Unquestionably this, though we think it by no means the sole, scarcely even the leading consideration; is a con- sideration of considerable importance, which, apart from all prejudiced and exclusive feeling, ought to have and will have- its due weight. We are, however, very far, indeed, from saying or thinking that University claims of this kind ought to out- weigh still more important considerations,—ought to induce- honest Liberals to vote for a Conservative home-product, rather than a Liberal of foreign growth, or vice verscl. The- fit representation of the special interests of the University, though not without moment, is certainly It matter of less. moment than the choice of a man competent to contribute new force to the deliberations of Parliament. We hope, with the Times, to see the University of London far outstripping the older Universities in wise and liberal sympathy with those great intellectual movements which appear only to alarm. Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin. But we do hope that the University will show the courage and the self-respect to select a man who really represents its own widest and highest cul- ture,—without reference to that mere vulgar admiration of notoriety which often induces a young constituency to seize on the first distinguished name that offers, suitable or unsuitable, in order to have at least an established reputation to plead in favour of its choice. The exclusiveness which insists abso- lutely and as a sine qua' non on a London degree may be exag- gerated, but the timidity and self-distrust which abdicate- all careful or critical choice in favour of a distinguished name- is of far poorer origin. If there is one thing more than another of which any great University ought to be capable, it is of giving young men of remarkable ability or genius, which it- has the means of knowing, and which the world at large has. not the means of knowing, their fair chance in the political world. And if it postpones such a man who really represents its own highest and most liberal culture, to a mere celebrity whose whole tone of mind is incompatible with its convictions, it is guilty of precisely the same lack of dignity as an ordinary ten-pounder who waives his politics from no corrupt motives, but from sheer inability to resist the overpowering fascination of "a lord" for his pauperized imagination. Mr. Lowe is per- haps the very cleverest, as he is certainly one of the most distill- guished, members of the present House of Commons. But you might as well return a bull to represent a china shop, as Mr. Lowe to represent any University at all. He represents the contempt for Universities much more than any conceivable University feeling. His Oxford experience, and his violent reaction against it, have spoiled him utterly for the purpose of representing the earnestness, the judicial temper, the intellec- tual sensibility, the historical feeling, the scientific spirit which the London University, no less than all other Uni- versities, necessarily fosters. We have spoken of Dr. Stanley, the Dean of Westminster, for want of an equally well known layman, as a fair type of true University Liberalism. Of course, the ideal representative of a University should have more of the spirit of modern science, combined with his ethical, artistic, and scholarly liberalism than it has lain in the Dean of Westminster's way to attain. But what can be more opposed to the spirit of such a man as this, than Mr. Lowe's undiscriminating, ill considered, rough-and-ready anarchical sarcasm, aimed now at some monstrous abuse which deserves to fall, now at some vital principle of all true education ? A couple of years ago he wanted to erect a prac- tical art like Civil Engineering into perfect equality with the general studies of a University, and give degrees indifferently for ability to build bridges and for literary culture. Only the other day he was for giving "the parents of England the privilege and prerogative to direct the education of their children," i.e., as we understand him, for relieving the public schools of all right to direct the coarse of education of the pupils submitted to them. He declared against "grammar" as a fit study for the middle-class schools. The w'hole ten- dency of all his brilliant speeches on these subjects has been to panegyrize utilitarian studies directly tending to advance- ment in life, and discredit relatively those studies which only teach lads to understand themselves. No doubt, in taking this line he has made many brilliant hits,—and also many equally brilliant misses. But we must say we can conceive no active and vigorous mind better calculated than Mr. Lowe's to misrepresent any University, however Liberal, and cover it with obloquy for blunders which it never shared, and for which it would, nevertheless, have all the responsibility. Mr. Lowe admires information of all kinds, but has, as far as we can see, absolutely no belief in cultivation. Timon of Athens would have been as happy a representative of the Athenians, as Mr. Lowe of any true University which aims at developing equally all the faculties of man.
Previous page
