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

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