« PoprzedniaDalej »
of his son,---so regardless of the welfare of other students, and of the feelings of a hundred other parents,---as not to have immediately written to his son's Tutor to have the matter inquired into? ---Perhaps, however, the writer intended it only as an ingenious fiction, and meant it as a strong statement of a possible case,--that such a thing might be. Then, I say, the offender might be discovered; and so, the evil be arrested in its progress. On this point I will only add, that the college gatebill is, in some cases, a check upon the landlord's door-bill; because every student who passes the gates of his own college after they are shut, either to go in to his rooms, or out to his lodgings, has his name reported to the Tutor: if the report from the lodging-house, therefore, do not correspond with this, an immediate discovery of mal-practice follows.
companied with none of that “moral reprobation" of which he speaks? Was there no lecture addressed to the young offender--no threat of a heavier punishment for a next offence---no intimation, that the imposition was intended rather as an expression of displeasure than an adequate punishment of guilt? I could go into a hundred families and say, "This son of yours is a sad boy---you do not punish him with sufficient severity." But what would be the father's reply to such an interference?
It is not a fact that "students are seen reeling about the streets drunk." It is a fact, that "the gates of the college will open at all hours of the night for young men," rather than leave them to spend the night in the streets: but the names of all who enter after ten o'clock (in some colleges, nine) are reported to the master; and if the hour be very late, or the offence frequently repeated, they are subject to inquiry and consequent punishment.
The Westmoreland Yeoman's third charge, relating to our streets, I have already answered. There are no such facilities now afforded to offences of this kind, as there are to forgeries upon the Bank of England. From six o'clock in the evening, and sometimes earlier, frequently till one or two in the morning, one or more of the Proctors, and often all, are engaged at intervals in scour ing the streets and environs of the town.---With respect to "vile seducers" lodging in the vicinity of Cambridge, it is undoubtedly true: but how is this to be prevented? And if it be urged against our Uni
I have said this, Mr. Editor, to shew that the evil of lodging in the town is not so great as is imagined. I am still far from approving of the system, and wish it were abolished but in the mean time there are greater difficulties than my Westmoreland friend seems to think, in the way of building, though I do not think it important to enter into them. The colleges might build to a certain extent; and I wish with all my heart they would. Secondly, It is not true, that intoxication is at all a prevailing vice in the University. I believe that it is a rare thing to hear of an instance of it; and that when heard of by the superiors, it is invariably punished. But, "an imposition of a hundred lines," Clericus Ebora-versity, is our sister Oxford pure censis thinks an inadequate punish in this respect? I am unwilling ment and so do I. But can he say to make this comparison; but your that, because this was the punish- correspondent has provoked me ment in one instance, it is in all? to it. And must not the measure of punishment be left to the discretion of the person in authority? And is your correspondent prepared to say, that this punishment was ac
Fourthly, Young women are certainly employed within many of the colleges; but there is scarcely a single instance (I know but of one, and that a very peculiar case),
in which a young woman has been appointed to the office of bedmaker. They come, therefore, to assist their mothers, and are employed under the eye of their mothers, who have the opportunity of so parcelling out the work as to consult most effectually the safety of their daughters. I believe that this part of the system (though it is no farther a part of the system, than as it has grown upon it), has not been found in actual experience so pregnant with mischief as has been ap prehended. I confess myself utterly at a loss to know what college is referred to in the following passage of Clericus Eboracensis: "All the bedmakers in our old college, without one exception, are young women; and, with few exceptions, rather shewy in their persons."---I readily add, in the conclusion of this point, that I by no means approve of this violation of the university statutes; and I wish it were prevented.
The fifth charge is, That "cardplaying and gaming are practised among some of the young men." Perhaps they are---I have no reason to think that they are common ---nor do I see how they can altogether be prevented, as it is not the practice for the persons who possess authority, to visit the private rooms of the students in an inquisitorial capacity, unless there be some special ground of suspicion. It must be admitted that our young men visit Newmarket; and I should be glad if any of our Masters of Colleges would follow the example of the Oxford Dean. Be it observed, however, that they are only the idle and extravagant part of the University that frequent that scene of dissipation. Such men will, after all, be idle and extravagant in one way, if they cannot in another. This is a temptation, too, which is not brought home to the doors of the young men, but which they must seek out at a distance; and on that account it is not likely to ensnare such as
the Westmoreland Yeoman's son, for instance, or any but those whose minds are deliberately made up to habits of idleness.
Now let me meet the last charge of your Westmoreland correspondent. The fact referred to is this: on occasion of a melancholy event, of which I need not repeat the mention, a gentleman wrote a pamphlet, calling upon the University to improve its discipline. The pamphlet gave offence---it was injudicious---it violated several of the laws universally acknowledged by grammarians---it jumbled several things together, when one ought to have been the beginning, middle, and end-it required the University to reject the splendid collection of paintings bequeathed by Viscount Fitzwilliam, because two or three of them displeased the writer, as most probably they did many other persons; in a word, the thing was not what it should have been; and, in defiance of the ridicule which the expression may call forth, I must take leave to say, that in order to produce the desired effect upon the University, the reproof administered ought to have been at once delicate and dignified.
But "these bad doings," it seems, when thus attacked, "were not denied, but rather defended, or at least palliated, and even joked about and laughed at, in other pamphlets, by persons whom our Curate called Fellows of Colleges. It was even stated, that the pamphlets of these Fellows were not disapproved by the great part of the other Fellows, and of the head men of the University. This is too bad to be believed." It is indeed; and who does believe it? Do they believe it in Westmoreland? We do not in Cambridge.-Let the world know the truth of the matter. ONE Fellow of a college, and he, a very young man, in statu pupillari, published a very silly pamphlet on the subject, which was about as cruel a mockery of the unfortunate
deceased, as if he had leaped over his grave, and exclaimed, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." But did the Fellows and "head-men,” approve of this? I can truly say, that the only feeling which I have heard expressed on the subject, in my intercourse with them, was that of decided disapprobation; and though, certainly, they did not like Mr. Maberly's pamphlet, they reprobated the unseasonableness, and impertinence, and unfeeling buffoonery of Mr. Lawson's. There were one or two other pamphlets written on the subject, but anonymously: and they do not auswer to your correspondent's description, as I understand they were very dull things.
I have endeavoured, Mr. Editor, fairly, to meet your correspondents
on this great question. I have acknowledged what I believe to be wrong in the discipline of the University. I claim no indulgence for vice of any kind: I wish most cordially that things were much better with us than they are: but I claim, on behalf of our illustrious University, a candid investigation and a fair hearing.
I cannot pledge myself to reply to any observations which this letter may call forth; for it occupies more time than I can always command, to enter into the controversies of the day. Nothing but a regard to truth. and a desire to vindicate Alma Mater from misunderstanding would have drawn this from me.
REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.
A Letter to Sir S. ROMILLY, M. P. from H. BROUGHAM, Esq. M. P. F. R. S. upon the Abuse of Charities. London: Longman. 1818.
Appendix to Mr. Brougham's Letter containing Minutes of Evidence taken before the Education Committee. pp. 104.
A Letter to the Right Hon. Sir W. Scott. &c. &c. in Answer to Mr. Brougham's Letter to Sir S. Romilly, &c.: to which is added, an Appendix, containing an Abstract of the principal Acts of Parliament relating to Charters, and likewise the late Act by which the Commission is appointed and empowered. London: Hatchard. 1818. pp. 76.
SOME chronologer reports, that our facetious monarch Charles the Second greatly perplexed the Royal Academicians by propounding to them the query, 66 why a dead fish weighs more than a living one." To
this problem, no adequate solution might have been discovered even by this time, had not some plain individual of that learned body suggested to his brethren the previous inquiry, whether it is the fact that the fish in the one state really does weigh more than in the other.
To apply the case, it cannot be doubted that, in many of the ques tions which perplex boards and parliaments, there is a certain previous question which, if adjusted, would leave the disputants nothing to dispute about. The case to which we are now about to call the attention of our readers supplies an illustra tion of this truth. Soon after the discovery of the new system of education, it became an anxious wish of the leading authorities of the country, to extend the benefits of this most important process of instruction to the whole of the population. Such an extension of these benefits, however, it was found, would involve a very con
political principles, being either supporters of ministry, or of the independent or neutral class.
The letter which stands first in the list of publications now under review, and which is addressed by Mr. Brougham to a distinguished individual, whose melancholy end we had occasion, in our last Number, to lament, contains an account of the exertions of this Committee to provide the means of effectually pursuing, under the authority of Parliament, the inquiry, of which Parliament itself had admitted the necessity; together with the history of what he considers to be nearly the com
siderable expense; and the question arose how this expense was to be met. Large subscriptions had, indeed, been raised by various distinguished friends of general education. But as private generosity soon reaches its maximum, and even at that point is incompetent to the supply of the public necessities, it became essential to provide some more adequate means for the accomplishment of this admirable object. Accordingly, politicians began to speculate and debate on the best mode of creating the requisite resources. At this moment up rose Mr. Brougham, and some powerful coadjutors in the House of Complete frustration of those exertions mons, with an inquiry to the follow ing effect:-"While we are questioning how to raise new funds for education, will some one be pleased to tell us what have become of the old? We vaunt much of the generosity of our ancestors-we see many of their school-houses frowning upon us in antiquated majesty in our country towns and villages -we see little urchins in blue stuck upon porches and gate posts to teach us that there should be masters, and mistresses, and horn books within what then is the fact? Are these masters and mistresses provided? Are the scholars properly taught? Are the funds provided for their education regularly applied to the objects for which they were originally designed?" These questions at once approved themselves to the common sense of the nation. There could scarcely be found an individual, except among those who had a peculiar interest in the misapplication of these funds, who was not anxious for inquiry.
In consequence of these suggestions, a parliamentary committee was appointed to investigate this momentous subject. Mr. Brougham was appointed its chairman; and it comprehended a number of individuals of the highest moral respectability, but many of them dif. fering widely from himself in their
by the changes introduced into the bill, which he, as the chairman, brought into Parliament on that subject. The second work at the head of this article, is an Appendix to that Letter, and contains a part of the evidence laid before the same Committee, including a few of the more striking cases that came under its investigation. The third pamphlet is anonymous, and is designed as a reply to the statements and reasonings contained in Mr. Brougham's Letter. We consider the controversy which is conducted in these pamphlets as so intimately connected, not merely with the political and economical, but also with the moral and religious, interests of society, that we shall not hesitate to give our readers a detailed view of its leading points.
Mr. Brougham begins by speaking of the deliberation with which the Committee that prepared the bill for the appointment of a Commission, to inquire into the Abuse of Charities, proceeded in every step of their career. The Education Committee, which sat in 1816, having perceived the existence of many such abuses, had recommended a Parliamentary Commission for the purpose of examining them. In 1817 that Committee again met; but, chiefly in consequence of Mr. Brougham's illness,
did little more than repeat the recommendation for the appointment of such a commission. In March, 1818, it was again appointed; and, in April, Mr. Brougham moved, in Parliament, for leave to bring in the proposed bill. This bill he describes as constructed with much care, by the most skilful professional men. It was afterwards com
municated to his Majesty's ministers, and the law officers of the Crown, and particularly submitted to the consideration of the Lord Chancellor and of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was repeatedly discussed in the House; and after being printed no less than six times, in consequence of the various amendments proposed in its progress through the House, was finally, though with numerous, and, as we shall see, most important alterations, passed into
troduces into his pamphlet on the
Mr. Brougham states, that such was the unanimity with regard to this bill in the Committee, that, although constituted of men of all parties, they never once came to a division upon a single point. He appeals to the members of his Majesty's government in proof of his own disposition, and that of the Committee in general, to listen to any suggestion or correction proposed by them. He then goes on to state some of the changes which have been introduced into the bill.
As the bill originally stood, the Commissioners for the inquiry were to be named in it. The ministers, however, required that the appointment of the Commissioners should be vested in the Crown. To this important change, the Committee, though with acknowledged reluctance, acceded, because they "found that the ministers were determined to oppose the bill, unless they were allowed to name the commissioners."
We cannot say that we are disposed to concur with Mr. Brougham in the severe remarks which he in
One addition to the bill was proposed by ministers, which the Committee cheerfully adopted, regarding it as an improvenient. It was the appointment of six honorary commissioners who might form a superintending and central body to advise and to regulate the proceedings of the whole.
The bill underwent many changes in its passage through the House