The Express.
London, England, 1860-12-13 00:00:00

M

EZfl-

" be usefuL" These writers

of the Proctorial system

•
i t•• being a philanthropic and Christian agency for
the reformation of fallen women. A weekly con-
temporary who ham from the fint championed the
exceptional power of the University authorities to
the uttermost, takes very much the same position.
An article on the subject which appeared* in last
week's Saturday Review, is mainly occupied
with illustrating the beneficial influence of the
system on the unfortunate clams against which it is
directed. On this ground the writer contends that
a similar agency would be • great advantage in
every large town if it could only be administered as
it is at Cambridge. In large cities, however, the
power would necessarily be entrusted to subordi-
nate officers, whose favouritiain and tyranny would
do more harm than good. " The powers claimed
"by the University," adds our contemporary,
" are naves emitted to subordinates, but are
" always exercised under the eyes of officials who
" are clergymen and gentlemen. Whatever mis-
" takes the Cambridge functionaries may commit,
" they are never guilty of favouritism, or cruelty,
"or corruption. They are sincerely anxious to
" reform where they punish."

This new defence of the Vics-Coaxemut's
summary jurisdiction is worth considering a little.
First of all, however, there is a matter cif fact to
be determined. What is the object of the Proc-
torial system ; is it Imply protective, or reforma-
tory t Were these extraordinary powers entrusted
to the University authorities for the benefit of the
undergraduates, or of the fallen women t We had
thought there could be no doubt at all on this
head. But Mr. 'brooms says, " The popular idea
" of our Proctorial system as a mere instrument
" for the coercion and imprisonment of prostitutes
"is palpably unjust." Is this popular notion,
however, ia reality either unjust or untrue I
Surely these powers are entrusted to the Univer-
sity for the very purpose of protecting the under-
graduates from temptation by driving these unfor-
tunate women from the town. The imprisonment
is designed to effect this primary object. But,
leaving this point, it is important to inquire into
the real validity and worth of this new defence
of the Proctorial system on philanthropic

grounds. We are told that the Proctors are
sincerely desirous to reform, as well as
to punish ; that the system is in fact a
philanthropic and Christian agency for the reform-
ation of fallen women ; and that on this ground it
is entitled to public support, and ought to be re-
tained in its integrity. We must confess we do
not feel the cogency of the argument. It seems
to us to proceed on a confusion of things distinct
in themselves, and which it is most important to
keep separate. Philanthropy is a very good
thing, very essential to the public weal, and so
also is justice legally administered ; but it does
not in the least follow that extraordinary judicial
powers ought therefore to be entrusted to the
hands of philanthropists. Indeed they are of all
others, perhaps, the very class who by tempera-
ment and mental constitution are least fitted to
judge impartially, and exercise large powers with
the greatest wisdom and discretion. Our ener-
getic social reformers are most frequently men of
strong wills and narrow intellects, of ardent
sympathies and few ideas ; and their benevo-
lent impulses confined to a few channels,
acquire an absorbing influence that is fatal to calm
judgment and dispassionate inquiry. They
become severe and exacting on behalf of their
own favourite schemes, and from the very best
motives are quite capable of harshness, severity,
and injustice towards others. The public has
recently been scandalised by an extreme instance
of the tyranny which a false and narrow idea of
education may exercise over the mind of its vie-
tim,
and the brutal cruelty which a perverted
notion of duty may produce. This is a rare
instance, but it illustrates the principle neverthe-
less. There are none more cruel and unjust than
those who, acting under a false sense of duty,
attempt to force on others their own narrow ideal
standard of virtue. And to entrust summary
judicial powers to those who by position or pro-
fession have a loftier standard of rectitude than
the majority of their fellow-men, is not the best or
safest method for securing the impartial admini-
stration of justice.
In our ordinary courts the judges are laymen—
men in all respects of like passions with ourselves,
and they judge the offences of criminals brought
before them according to the tenour of the law,
and the ordinary usages and maxims of society.
But in these University courts the judges are
spiritual persons--clergymen. They have a higher
standard than other men ; they naturally look not
simply to the guilt, but also to the sinfulness of

an action, and accordingly pronounce severer
judgments. We du not question the motives of
such judgment.. Those who pronounce and act
upon them are influenced by strong convictions
of duty. It is for the good of the culprit
they adopt a severe course, that may be,
and perhaps often is, painful to themselves. The
very fact that they have this notion of reformation
in view and feel bound to act not simply as magiii-
Ultimo but as missionaries, will almost of necessity
vitiate the exercise of their purely judicial powers.
In their zeal to effect the higher purpose of refor-
mation they will naturally enough neglect the
technicalities of the law. Our contemporary freely
admits this evil result of the peculiar jurisdiction.
" These academical functionaries," says the
Reforday Review, "who are universally clergymen,
" have evidently considered themselves as admi-
" nistering a paternal and patriarchal jurisdiction,
" but no harm will be done if henceforward they
" are compelled toobeerve certain prescribedrules."
The evils of this peculiar jurisdiction are however
far deeper and more essential than our contempo-
rary is disposed to allow. if it is true, as we are
told, that the University authorities are bent on
the reformation of fallen women, that is one of the
very strongest reasons why they should not be
entrusted with summary powers for judging and
punishing them. This kind of real on the judg-
ment seat will naturally lead to acts of harshness,
severity, and injustice. On the other hand, even
if deprived of these judicial powers, they would
still be *Me to carry on quite ea efficiently, Woad
far more efficiently, the work of reformation to
which they are so laudably devoted.

Ligon o x or CIAPLAIN OF THII CITY OF LONDON
Comm.—At the nand weekly neseling of the board of
guardians of the Cky of London Ueion, held in Um board-
mole is It. Mary Axe, on Taseday, Mr. Alderson Alibis'
presiding,
presiding, the eleetim of • chaplain of the asks io the most of
the Rev. Fmk:rick Pearce Pocock, was proseaded with. The
election excited the greatest interest arose( the guanines,
upwards of NO of whom were most at the wiersting. flare
Wire 21 candidates for the office, hot the number had pre•
stonily hem reduced to six by • committee of the whole
board. These six gentlemen were the Rev. Thomas
Appleby, late curet° of It. Botolpk, Aldipte, the Rev. F.
Hrtaley, the moot chaplain of the East Landon Usto4l.,
the Rev. E. Day, Rt. Anne, Linn/toms . , the Res. F. C. T.
Hobbies, curate of NC Bartholomew* Beth' hillimen, the Ray.
CI. MAsres, late curate of St. Andrews, St. hinarae, end the
Rev. Peter Prescott, estate of St. Mary's, Peckham.
Shows of heads were taiso foe the several candidates, end
ultinately the contest was left to be decided by poll
two,' the Rev. Mr. Hodges and the Rev. Mr. Prescott. At
the c 1.4., of the poll the u..nobers were fur Mr. Prescott, 40,
for Mr. Hodges, 39. Mr. Prescott wo declined elected,
reel h.• thnuirrl the guard's'. for the appointment. The
. heard thou adjuttrued.