The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-30 00:00:00

1046 T H after having met their suggestions in the most liberal spirit, and anticipated them with com mendable promptitude, the University should, at the close of its negotiations, find itself in a position of uncompromising antagonism. The responsibility of this unhappy state of things rests wholly with the Commissioners. In their zeal to do something they have done too much, and will do well to retreat from their position with as good a grace as they can command. Their distressing aggression upon the Univer sity comes under the guise of a schema for the improvement of the statutes of Trinity and St. John's. But the principle involved is capable of application to all the colleges, and therefore be comes in the fullest sense a University question. It is not creditable to the Commissioners that they should have tried their reforming hand upon the college that probably least of all needed their advice. Under the existing system Trinity has grown and flourished to the fullest extent that its most ardent friends could desire. It is pre eminently the first college in the University. Its worst enemies—if it have any—cannot accuse its system of failure, its Fellows of incompetence, or its tone of impropriety. The vindication of that noble college is in its historical antecedents and its present fruits. It was founded by HENRY VIII. shortly before his death, and was endowed with the proceeds of some of the dissolved monas teries. Its foundation is therefore strictly Pro testant. Efforts were made by Queen MARY to impede its progress, and the college had its share in the struggles between Protestantism and Popery about that period. But in the reign of ELIZABETII the foundation was placed upon its present footing. The society is governed by a Master and eight Senior Fellows. Upon the vacancy of a Fellowship a competitive examina tion, confined to the scholars on the foundation, is held, and the most distinguished is ceteris paribus elected. The Scholarships are appro priated after a similar trial amongst the most dis tinguished of the non-foundation members. Nearly the same rule obtains at the great rival college of St. John. There is no room for favouritism in such a place, nor has the cause of learning suffered by confining the competition to the alumni of the college. On the contrary, a congruity has thereby become established be tween the system of instruction adopted and the examination for the highest honours. The vin dication of Trinity is in her great names. Only a dislike to string names together makes us for bear giving the illustrious list of prelates, doctors, judges, and men of literature and science who first learnt of her how to use their gifts, and then returned tenfold by their own great fame the debt of gratitude they had incurred. In the pre sent day neither Trinity nor St. John's need any advocacy from without; the names upon their rolls and the portraits in their respective halls are the standing witness of what they have done for learning and religion. When a system has worked well for many years, and continues to do so, a proposal to alter it comes with a bad grace. And certainly a scheme for throwing open the Fellowships of these two colleges to open compe tition among all graduates is an innovation which could only be justified by the clearest evidence that the existing system has not worked well. But the balance of evidence is all the other way, so that there is no appreciable benefit to be gained by the change. The burden of showing what good result is to be expected lies with the innovators, and on this point they are silent. We are far from saying_ that open fellow ships are not good things. We think that each college should have one or two. Probably Trinity and St. John's might beneficially have several. But we protest against compelling colleges to make them open in every instance, and we beg to suggest to the Commissioners that after the strong demonstration that has been made it would be well to contract their recom mendations within less objectionable limits. In Oxford the open principle is working well, but the restrictions that prevail are a material guarantee of success. Let Cambridge have some Fellowships as open as those of Balliol or Oriel. There can be :no objection to that; but let not the Commission wholly paralyze a college like Trinity by completely uprooting the system that bas confessedly worked so well. Our vote on this matter is entirely with the colleges and Against the Commissioners. The proposal to limit the occupancy of a Fellow ship to ten years is another piece of crudity and E PRESS, OCTOBER 30,1858. inexperience. Those who know what University life is are perfectly aware that the kind of free hold that is acquired with a Fellowship is one of its most powerful recommendations. We do not mean to say that some Fellows are not idle, or quite passe as far as aqy usefulness is concerned. But these were not always so, and where a case occurs of an octogenariaq Fellow—a very rare case, by the way—the college begs with it for the past's sake. hook at that veteran philosopher, Pro fessor SILRGWICK. In his old age he is going to resign his Professorship, in which he has so greatly distinguished hunselg and to retire upon his Fellowship, we presume, for life. This is a case in point. Had the Learned Professor been compelled to vacate his Fellowship thirty years aoo, as he would have had to do had the o Com missioners' recommendations been then in force, how desirable a man would have been lost to the University ! But this is only one of many pos sible and highly probable results of limiting the duration of Fellowships in the way proposed. On this point the Master of St. John's, in his able summary of objections, spoke with great force and fairness. But these two, though in our humble judg ment the most important, are not the only objec tionable recommendations. Two others were complained of at the meeting—one a scheme for enriching the University and remunerating Professors,tby a tax upon the distributable in comes of the colleges; the other, a proposal to dispense with the attendance at college chapel of persons not members of the Church of England. The former of these we strongly protest against, as subversive of the tutorial system of University teaching, and injurious to the prosperity of the colleges. The latter is more reasonable, since if—as is already settled—persons not members of the Church of England may become members of a college, it is only fair not to force upon them a worship they decline to attend. The mistake is in such persons being at the University at all. In conclusion, we earnestly press upon the Commissioners the duty of giving every attention to the expression of opinion so powerfully made on Tuesday, and to desist from urging modifica tions utterly subversive of the very principle of collegiate life, and calculated only to promote confusion, awaken jealousies, and retard a satis factory winding up of the great business with which they are intrusted. THE CRIMINAL LAW AND ITS APPLICATION. IT is a cheering indication of an awakened public conscience that the duty of society towards its offending members is more and more fully recog nized, and the methods by which that duty may best be discharged are made the subject of fre quent and very general discussion. In some degree, no doubt, we arc indebted for this im portant stride in the development of our social life to the difficulties entailed by the reflux upon us of the crime generated amongst us, consequent upon the refusal of our colonies to serve any longer as cesspools for the reception of our criminal drainage. But, although this circum stance may have given a strong impetus to the spirit of inquiry as to the mode in which our criminal population should be dealt with, there is abundant evidence to show that a general im provement in the tone of public feeling, together with a more accurate perception of the principles of law and justice, and a more enlightened view of the mutual obligations between society and its individual members, has had a principal share in producing what, for brevity's sake, we may call the reformatory movement. But whilst it is impossible to observe with feelings other than those of sincere gratification the symptoms of widespreading interest in that movement, there appears to be some danger of that interest evaporating amidst a multiplicity of suggestions, many of them necessarily crude, neither based upon well-defined principles, nor supported by ascertained facts and the test of experience. Without going the length of sug • gesting that the task of collecting facts, verifying the results of experience, and defining principles for our guidance in this matter, should be handed over to Associations like that recently assembled under the name of a " Social I - Science Congress," we conceive that this i s one of the most proper and legitimate fields in which the good intentions of the founders of that Association may be made to fructify for the com mon benefit of all. But while philosophers not charged with any responsibility beyond that which their own philanthropy has imposed upon them may be thus usefully employed, care should be taken that none of the legitimate sources of information, as to the facts with which society has to deal, be stopped up, or the supply which they may yield in any way obstructed. This is so obvious, that we own we were not a little sur prised at the course pursued by a body of gentle men who from their position in the country might be expected to take a totally different line, at the late Michaelmas Sessions for the county of Surrey. When, in the regular order of pro ceedings, the Chaplain's report came to be read, that document turned out to be somewhat more extended in the range of its topics than was alto gether usual, or consonant with the ideas of some of the gentlemen on the bench, and an attempt was made to bring the reading of it to an abrupt conclusion. Had the length of the report, which was the first and ostensible ground of objection— on the plea of " waste of the public time "—been the result of a tedious diffuseness on the part of the Chaplain, the interruption would have been intelligible. But we have the testimony of the able Chairman of the Sessions, that, "although " the report was certainly a very long one, it was " very interesting"—an observation confirmed by several of the magistrates present, one of whom remarked that it " contained some very valuable " suggestions calculated to tend to the diminution " of crime," and that in his opinion " the Chap " lain was entitled to the thanks of the Bench for " the pains he had taken, and for the manner in " which he had discharged his duty." The dis cussion ended by the report being read through; but the objectors afterwards succeeded in obtain ing an expression of opinion from the majority of the Bench, which the Clerk of the Peace was directed to intimate to the Chaplain, that for the future he had better confine his report within the strict limits of his official duty—namely, to fur nish " a statement of the religious and moral " instruction of the prisoners, with his observa " tions thereon." `~7 As the document thus impugned has not as yet—though we trust it will be—given to the public, there is some degree of mystery hanging over the affair, as to the nature of the obnoxious matter contained in the report. Enough, how ever, oozed out in the course of the discussion to show that the objecting magistrates felt their amour propre wounded by some of the Chaplain's suggestions. It was not for the Chaplain, one of them observed, to " deal with Acts of Parliament, " and aim at teaching the magistrates their " duty." The truth appears to be, that the Chaplain in the course of his ministrations among the prisoners had become aware of a practice that has grown up, of exercising the summary powers conferred on magistrates by a recent Act, and intended to apply to persons charipd with a first offence, without proper discrimination, the result being that old offenders, ticket-of-leave men, and prisoners repeatedly convicted, were relieved from their punishment, and turned loose upon society. I lls observation of the effect pro duced upon the minds of the prisoners by this practice having led him to conclude, which it is not difficult to understand, that its tendency was most pernicious, calculated to encourage rather than to check crime, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the magistrates to the mistake which had been committed. Whether or not he did this in a tone sufficiently deferential, with a whole some fear of the dignity of the magisterial bench before his eyes, we have no means of ascertaining. But as regards the point on which issue was joined, and the decision of the Bench pronounced —the relevancy of the Chaplain's observations to the peculiar sphere of his duty—it would appear no more than reasonable that if in the course of his "moral and religious instruction of the prisoners" he discovered that a certain mode of administering the law acted upon their minds in a way directly opposite to that which is the legitimate object of prison discipline, it was his duty to bring his discovery under the notice of the magistrates ; and what method could he adopt for that purpose more proper than to troduce the subject into his re p o rt? have thought that upon such grounds o f We pereo shouuiad-