THE REPRESENTATION OF OXFORD. TOPICS OF THE DAY.
WHILE the Catholic Bill was in progress, and while opposition to its principle or details was hopeful, it was also just. Many, we can hardly say enlightened, but assuredly honest and conscientious men, ranked as its enemies. Doubts might have been entertained how far persistence in the contest was wise or right after the overwhelming majorities in the Commons, and yet more after the majority on the se- eond reading in the Lords, had declared the feelings of Parliament. We are not, however, inclined to split hairs on such a question ; we are willing to give to the Marquis of CHANDOS and the Duke of Rime- Morin all the credit due to a battle waged to the latest moment of possible success. But the Royal sanction once given—the Bill once passed into a law—all attempts to perpetuate differences which it was the object of the bill to reconcile, must be deemed factious, whether made by the high or by the low. The writers who are opposed to Ministers are unceasingly calling for proofs of the kindly fruits of Emancipation among the Catholics of Ireland. But if these fruits be not so abundant as men who hate strife and love their country would desire, to whom is the scantiness of the crop more truly to he attributed than to those who, now that in matters of poli- tical privilege all members of the community are equal, yet make it their daily endeavour to keep up the substance of distinctions of which the form has been abolished ? Is it not matter of notoriety, that ever since the law of last session placed the Catholic on the same footing as the Protestant, and rendered the very name of these two religious denominations in political discussions a sound of no meaning—that ever since that period, the violence of the journals which not improperly opposed the Catholic claims while opposition was available, has, instead of abating, increased tenfold? If any man would come forward with a proposal to repeal the Emancipation bill— if any man, not having the fear of a writ de lunatico before his eyes, would assert that there existed the most remote hope of such a pro- posal being adopted—then we should say to our zealous contempo- raries, belabour the Pope till you are wearied;
" Pinch him, and burn him, and turn him about, Till candles, and starlight, and moonlight be out."
But if, on the contrary, the law must remain, in Heaven's name be- think you of the old adage—" levius fit patientia ; " and bear with temper what you cannot mend. We have been led to these observations at this moment, by a rumour that some of the more moderate friends of the Church have expressed a wish to see the Home Secretary once more member for Oxford. We spoke our sentiments freely on the claims which he and his respectable antagonist had on the suffrages of that learned body, at the time of the election. That his classical attainments, the purity of his private life, his great moderation, his extreme industry in his high office, rendered Mr. PEEL a most worthy and fitting candidate for the representation of the University—that his constant, zealous, and kind attention to its least behests, rendered him when elected a most worthy and fitting representative—is admitted by his bitterest enemies. When we have said of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, that in common with two hundred more, he voted against the Emancipation Bill, we have said all that his best friends can allege in his behalf. We do not wish to underrate the solitary virtue of Sir ROBERT ; nor do we say, that, under the very peculiar circumstances in which it was presented to the consideration of the University, it was wonderful that it should be accepted instead of all others. Oxford has ever gloried in being the authorized conservatrix of the Church established by law. When a measure was about to be pressed that was to place the Church in a different position from what it had previously occupied, it was natural that Oxford should, with very little consideration of the advantages or disadvantages of the measure, oppose it. But the bill once carried, the new position taken up, Oxford, if it would be true to the principles on which it has always acted, is as much called on to defend that position as the one which has been abandoned because it was no longer tenable. When Mr. PEEL'S name last appeared in the list of candidates for Oxford, with that of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Pro-Catholic and Anti-Catholic were intelligible terms ; but now they have lost their significancy. Sir ROBERT INGLIS at the present moment is as much a Pro-Catholic as Mr. PEEL, for the worthy baronet is as honestly obedient to the law of the land as is the Right Honourable Secretary. The University, therefore, is no longer called to decide on the merits of two men by an isolated feature in their political character, but can compare the whole of the qualifications of the one with the whole of the qualifica- tions of the other;—and when it does so, who is so sceptical as to doubt the issue ? The Standard, whose opposition to Mr. PEEL has been all along of the keenest, has yet, though somewhat tardily, borne an honourable testimony to his excellent qualities. The ingenious editor, at the same time, ridicules the notion that Sir ROBERT INGLIS has any intention of resigning. On this point we possess no information, but we cannot consider the .reported resignation to be so very absurd as the Standard seems to. do. Sir ROBERT must know, that but for the Emancipation Bill, he never could have entered the lists with Mr. PEEL. He must know, that so far as the Catholic question is considered, the University has now no need of his advocacy or his vote. Why, then, if he really de- sire its welfare—(and that he does so we firmly believe)—why should he keep the University from profiting by the services of one who is so much more able to subserve its welfare . We have no wish to advise Sir ROBERT INGLIS; but if he were at this moment to return into the hands of the University the trust that she delegated to him under cir- cumstances so very different from the present, he would only act in the same highly honourable way in which Mr. PEEL did when he ten- dered his resignation. Mr. PEEL was elected for purposes which his better convictions rendered him unwilling to fulfil; Sir ROBERT, for purposes which the progress of events has rendered him incapable of fulfilling. The retirement of the one was not more called for than is the retirement of the other.
Previous page
