being and working of both Universities, is the gradual absorption of the properly Academic body, by the Colleges which were originally subsidiary to it. An University is properly an incorporated body of teachers invested with the power of giving a license to teach, and as such may exist, like the University of Edinburgh at this moment, without any provision for the accommodation of students. The establishment of that of London has pared away still further the notion of an University, and shown that it may exist for the mere purpose of conferring degrees even without an incorporation of teachers. But wherever an University arose in the Middle Ages there commonly arose also colleges, in which at first poorer students received gratuitous support, and others were subsequently placed that they might be safer from the dangers which attended promiscuous lodging in the cities in which Universities were established. The Halls differed from the Colleges by not being endowed with any revenues for gratuitous maintenance, and being more immediately dependent on the University. From this circumstance, the Halls were naturally far more numerous than the Colleges; and at the beginning of the 14th century, when there were 300 of the former at Oxford, there were only three of the latter. Two centuries later the Halls had been diminished to little more than fifty, while the Colleges had risen to twelve, and the same tendencies continuing on both sides, the Halls became almost extinct, while the colleges went on multiplying their numbers and increasing their wealth. The diminution in the numbers of students in the University coincident with the decay of the Halls, is attributed to the decline of the scholastic philosophy which had attracted such crowds in earlier times, as well as to the political condition of England during the 15th century. The Colleges had not originally been establishments for instruction, and in this respect differed from the Colleges of Paris for example, which were Universities in miniature; and while the University instruction continued to flourish, the Fellow was under no compulsion to teach the under-graduates. Huber thinks that the great increase in the relative importance of the Colleges, the first decided step towards their drawing to themselves the whole system of education, leaving nothing to the University beyond the conferring of degrees, was occasioned by the revival of classical learning and philological study. This is not very clearly made out, for there seems no reason why this taste should not have manifested itself in eagerness to hear the lectures of public professors. In fact a number of new professorships were instituted in the end of the 15th, and beginning of the 16th centuries; yet the relative importance of the University was not recovered, and through all the vicissitudes which have since occurred, the same process has steadily gone on. The state, which by the Reformation acquired a steady control over the Universities, perceived how favourable the oligarchal dominion of the Colleges was to the maintenance of its authority, and the suppression of all democratic movement. New regulations were therefore made, by which all University discipline, and even the exercise of the literary functions of the University was transferred to the heads of Colleges. The University had always been powerless in regard to the Colleges, which were subject to direct control only from their own visitors: it now lost even its indirect influence upon them, and became virtually a mechanism moved by them. The Colleges themselves grew more oligarchal in their constitution; the Head, properly only primus inter pares, became in fact almost absolute in the meetings of the Fellows; the Fellows took to themselves exclusively the office of College Tutors. And the Board of Heads at Oxford and the Caput at Cambridge acquired by law the complete management of University affairs, and even the controul of legislation, by their negative before debate, on all matters to be discussed in Convocation or Senate.

For this assumption of power, the Colleges and their Heads have been most vehemently assailed (see Ed. Rev. 1831, p. 384, foll.), as if it were an act of mere usurpation. It has certainly encouraged the ruling body to consider itself as irresponsible, and it opposes the strongest possible barrier to the influence of the public mind upon them. But we think that Huber is right in considering it rather as the slow result of circumstances, and as justified by the immediate effect, internal harmony, discipline and order. It is in analogy with the course which the political institutions of the country followed during the corresponding period; but it has lasted longer than political and municipal oligarchy, because it comprehended the power to stifle dicussion, as well as to controul action. And we may add that it is so perfectly adapted to self-perpetuation, that here above all, external interference is needed, to give a beginning to a better system. To give increased efficacy to the University Lectures as distinguished from the College lessons, has been the wish of the reforming party; new Professorships have been established for the more modern and popular branches of knowledge, and Huber thinks that these lectures assume a much greater prominence than they had before. (ii. 355.) Mr. Newman thinks otherwise, and the probability of the case appears to be with him. University honours are to be attained only by proficiency in College study, and these honours will attract the

[ocr errors]

most energetic minds, whether their ambition be academical or secular.

The most interesting part of this work is th esecond division of the eleventh chapter p. 282-418, in which the author treats of the Intellectual and Moral State of the Universities after the Revolution and through the eighteenth century, and in the most recent times. With a single exception, which we shall notice hereafter, its tone is apologetic and laudatory. He thinks lightly of their alleged immoralities; rejects, as proceeding from simplicity or cant, the statement of their present high condition of moral purity; and is quite satisfied that the little world of a College should, in this respect, be about upon a level with the great world in which its members will soon bear a part.

His editor takes much higher ground:

“ If ever they are to deserve veneration, their moral atmosphere must be purer and more healthy than that of the mixed world---not by any formal restraints, but by higher influences and sympathies; and Professor Huber's defence of them, because they are (or were ?) only something worse than the world, is to me highly offensive. With the great advantages which they enjoy in England, I believe they ought to be eminent alike in a moral and in an intellectual view; and if they are not, it is to the discredit—not perhaps of any one individual who can be named—but of the whole system. To inculcate the necessity of their corruption is to paralyze all efforts at improvement. Rather let every person in official power there count that nothing is done, until he is able to invite his friends (cordially, and without · Cant') to send their sons to the Universities as to Schools of Virtue, if not of piety : and those who with simplicity of heart, and without mawkish or false morality, aim at this end, will have all the aid which Parents or the Legislature can give them ;—will be acceptable to God and approved of men.'”. ii. pp.

520-1. Huber's answer to the most common charge against the Universities, that they have neglected to afford the means of instruction to those whom they have enjoyed a monopoly of training, we must give in his own words:

'On the whole, it appears that the English Universities in the last century, without aspiring to any high or ideal standard of literary eminence, sufficed for the age and people. Whatever may have been their deficiencies, the reproach and the responsibility must fall principally upon the whole national state. Had not the two, in all essential points, been in close sympathies, it would have very speedily evinced itself in a country as free as England. We can find no trace, however, of such symptoms at that period; for the censures of a few individuals, however just, cannot be taken into account. If people choose to reject the whole national condition, as indefensible and bad, either absolutely or in comparison with others, nothing more can be said, except to protest that such an

opinion cannot be justified by the facts of the case. We, at least, cannot admit the justice of this opinion. It is very true that a portion of public opinion, both in England and on the Continent, has lately been taking a direction which certainly tends to a thorough contempt of England as she was; but certainly at that time none looked at her from this point of view, but the tendency was to overvalue her general and public state. Even the most violent of the opposition party, in their attacks, did but vent the spleen in which men think they have a right to indulge towards those nearly attached to them: nor did either Whigs or Tories mean to attack old England as a whole and fundamentally, or to breathe a doubt of her high pre-eminence among civilized nations. When not only England itself, but all Europe, looked upon the state of England,—especially those higher departments which are so much influenced by the Universities, -as most gratifying and honorable, or even as the very noblest fruit of European civilization, how can we make the English Universities responsible for not coming up to the demands of after-times, made among other nations, and under a perfectly different state of things ? With all his defects, foibles, and faults, the Old English Gentleman was one of the most striking and admirable forms of civilized national education in any period of time, or in any nation ; and it was, in fact, this race which ruled and represented England in the last period. To them she principally owes her power, her glory, and her importance; and they were essentially the production of the University education, University studies, and University life of that period. This is fully sufficient to prove the English Universities to have been, upon the whole, excellent organs for influencing the development of the nation, and thereby of the whole human race.”-ii. pp. 345—8.

We add Mr. Newman's comment:

If this proof is addressed to that part of our nation which desires an extensive enlargement of the sphere of University teaching and whom, on that account, our Author invidiously and unjustly names Enemies of the Universities), there is not a passage in his work which will be to them so unsatisfactory as this. The country is at this moment suffering unparalleled distress (May 1842), after twenty-six years of peace. Nor is there a question, among inquiring men, that it is produced through the neglect and ignorance of former Legislators. What is the right remedy, is much debated, and I am not about to assume here that any one party takes the right view. One says, that the Church has not received due development and due pecuniary help; another, that our Commercial Code has been iniquitous and pernicious; a third, that laws for the regulations of Factories and Mines ought to have been passed : a fourth, that the Poor Laws have been ill contrived :—-all however agree, that the past generations of Legislators have, by ignorance or neglect, left us an awful load of misery and consequent vice; threatening the country with results, which are most deprecated by that party which was in power while they were being generated. To appeal to such results in proof of the success of the University system of the last century, would be, in a native Englishman, nothing short of infatuation; in a German it is pardonable. That to the example of our aristocracy, our soldiers and sailors owe no small part of their bravery, will be cheerfully admitted ; but our farmers, our merchants, our manufacturers, our shopkeepers, owe no part of their wealth to the legislative sagacity of our parliament: and for what have our peasants and operatives to thank English legislation?"-p. 347, note.

Elsewhere Huber says (p. 320), “The English Universities content themselves with producing the first and most distinctive flower of the national life, a well educated Gentleman."" Now certainly if this be the vocation of the Universities, it is one to which they have been self-called. The deeds of their founders, their charters and statutes, express plainly enough the purposes for which they were established and endowed. They are, the advancement of religion, learning, and morals, not the production of squires. He adds also, the formation of schoolmasters. It is true that the Universities have supplied masters to our public schools, and that in the Southern part of the island, scarcely any scholastic instruction was for a long time valued, except that which was given by University men. It is not less true, that we owe to this very circumstance the deficiencies of the school education of England, even in its most splendid establishments, and the obstinacy with which every attempt to improve and enlarge it was long successfully resisted. The Universities may be said to form our Schoolmasters, because, partly from the restrictive stipulations in the deeds of foundation of our Grammar Schools, partly from the preference given to the clergy of the Established Church, it is almost necessary to graduate there in order to become a schoolmaster. But what has the University done to qualify the schoolmaster specifically for his office, which is commonly included in the idea of forming ? Nothing whatever. It has been content to send him forth to learn his art as he best could.

The extreme defectiveness of the instruction in Theology at the Universities, Professor Huber does not deny or palliate, and he proposes a singular theory to explain it. (Vol. ii. p. 67.) According to him, the complete abolition of scientific Theology, which is to this day so deeply marked a feature in them, was owing to the difficult position in which Laud and the High Churchmen of his day felt themselves; they were really Arminians, yet had to pay deference to Articles which were Calvinistic, and to prevent that freedom of controversy which must have exposed the hollowness and inconsistency of their system, and destroyed the superficial unity of the Anglican Church. Hence they set the example of discountenancing all

« ForrigeFortsett »