character too little sociable and too serious; and above all, political life too public and free.

ON THE COMPARATIVE MORALITY OF ENGLISH AND GERMAN

UNIVERSITIES.

At first sight it might appear, that our German follies are more harmless than those of the English Universities, precisely because the latter come nearer to the vices of the great world. Thus gambling and debauchery were, without a doubt, more frequent, especially at Oxford, than at any German University. Even duelling (except in the very worst abuse of this practice) is, most assuredly, a less moral evil, than the rough unsocial state of feelings,* which in England renders all collision less possible, or than the very coarse manner in which unavoidable conflicts were there carried on; nevertheless when we reflect upon the actual abuse that so often occurred of the system of duelling, of the secret societies, and of the atmosphere of beer and brandy that pervaded the German Universities, we should have some difficulty in finding any very essential difference between the moral ills and corruption in the two countries. Besides, English natures are able to bear upon the whole much more than German ones, and each separate constitution like the national one,† is much more vigorous there than with us. It is impossible to deny the great advantage possessed by the English, in their academic youth not being excluded from their national sports, (one of England's greatest blessings,) and the exercise of horse and hound, &c. Our German fencing schools make up but scantily for this advantage. There is no doubt that all such pleasures as these, like all other pleasures or follies in England, are excessively expensive and are shut out from the poorer class of students. The consequence is that the lives of the poorer portion of the academic youth approach in reality very near to the strictness ordained by the Statutes, and consequently, externally at least, meet almost all their demands; whilst the pleasures of our German students are so cheap, that the very poorest may take a part in them, for evil as well as for good.

There is, however, another side of the question which we must not omit. It may appear doubtful whether this sharply defined contrast between the ascetic and monastic rigour of the Statutes, (which is an official fiction,) and the real life at the Universities, is not likely to give the follies of the English students a much more dangerous character, by imbuing them with a tint of hypocrisy,-a —a vice of which we at least have had as yet no idea whatever. In general, however, this does not appear to be the case among the academic youth themselves. Their predominant feeling is that of youthful levity, which finds the zest of its pleasures only increased by the manoeuvring and trouble it costs to circumvent the antiquated restrictions of the Statutes, and does not pretend to be on that account either better or worse itself.

It is quite another matter, however, when those who have long ago been forced to abandon the excuse of youthful levity and thoughtlessness, and who now give their maturely-considered testimony to present and future generations upon such matters, choose (although otherwise most respected and estimable writers,) to affect entire ignorance of the simple truth, and to speak as if the strict moral and religious tendency of the Statutes necessarily inferred a similar state of things in the realities of academic life. They admit, perhaps, that the less strict customs and forms of more modern

[It is not our part to controvert either facts or opinions, such as are here implied; about which, Englishmen will think for themselves.]

+ I mean not only the political constitution, but still more the whole construction of social life in England.

t [We have no longer any national sports. Neither the long bow, nor wrestling, nor cricket, nor racing, nor swimming, nor any thing else that gives strength to the limbs and vigour to the spirit, can be habitually exercised by our townsmen, our peasantry, or by any but the higher orders.

times have suggested certain relaxations approved of by the wise heads of the University; relaxations however, which by no means imply that the moral and religious state of English Universities does not come very near to perfection, and offer hereby the most ample compensation for any little weaknesses that may be remarked in their state as seats of learning. Any comparison, consequently, with other Universities, such as those of Germany, which are looked upon as scenes of the most unbridled folly and licentiousness, would be regarded by persons of this opinion as highly insulting to these sanctuaries of morality and piety.

This view of the case has become a sort of stereotype tradition and partywatchword among a certain class of Tories; but unless we suppose that, in it, much habitual self-deception and much ignorance or forgetfulness are mixed up, we cannot acquit them of what in our language could scarcely be called anything but disgusting hypocrisy. As it is, however, this mixture of hypocrisy and self-deception, of not seeing and not choosing to see, is a part of that principle, with which English life is so thoroughly imbued, a characteristic of its own, for which the English language alone has supplied the appropriate term CANT. It is a characteristic feature, we say, of the national physiognomy, which, in spite of all that is excellent and admirable about it, one cannot but see; and scarcely anywhere has it less excuse on the score of real ignorance, than in the department of University life. In truth, the facts which concern the moral state of the English Universities, are so notorious, that we cannot but fancy that these University panegyrists must meet each other in their confidential moments, with the like inability to preserve their gravity, as the Roman Augurs of old.

From the same impure source, however, proceeded other manifestations with which we agree just as little as with the former. We allude to the bitter lamentations as to the immorality of University-life in England, that one hears on all sides, but more particularly with those who have always proved themselves the adversaries of the Universities, or at least the ruling party there. And this censure ought to be rejected as cant, no less than the phrase of which we have been speaking. Our own sincere conviction, founded, as it has been, upon the most conscientious investigation, and mature reflection; devoid also as it is of every prejudice or consideration foreign to the matter; is, that upon an average, and setting aside a few periods of very short duration, the immorality and folly at the English Universities is not greater than, considering the whole state of the nation, must be reasonably calculated on, as the price paid for the developement of character. It is the unavoidable loss by chips and spilnters, sustained by the native block, in hewing it up for service: it is an evil, but a necessary evil, and as such, not to he groaned over.

But upon this point audi alteram partem, and listen to a note of Professor Newman:

REMARKS ON THE MORALITY OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

If it were not clear that our worthy Author always looks with an evil eye at would-be-University Reformers, whatever their class or complaint; it might seem truly extraordinary that he should ascribe to the same spirit of Cant, and treat as equally unjustifiable, both the "hypocrisy" (as he says it should be entitled) of ascribing a high moral excellence to our Universities, and the outcry against their immoralities. Is it possible that he can be so unjust, as to shut his eyes to the substantial merits of a cause and a claim, because many

*This simile, imperfect as it may be, must serve to explain my opinions on this important question. As to the whole matter, I may farther refer to what Leo has said in his usual bold manner; in his well known work against Diesterweg.

voices which swell its cry, come from hearts full of bitterness and ignorance? or can he be so ignorant himself of English feeling, as not to know the disgust, with which tens of thousands of sober (for I need not say, pious) people, regard the immoralities of youth in those Universities, which are held up (to use our Author's words) as "holy asylums," not to be profaned by an unbelieving or Dissenting foot? True; things are altered now: the rake is reformed! but, alas, it will be long before he can earn a new character. News of this sort travels but slowly; and when the temptation to hypocrisy is so great, and occasional instances of it notorious, much incredulity on the part of the public is inevitable. Indeed perhaps universally, the popular reputation of all national institutions of a moral and religious intention is borrowed from a past time, both veneration and disgust, under ordinary circumstances, outlasting their causes at least half a century.

The great moral improvement in Oxford and Cambridge to which our Author bears witness, itself shows how unjust is his censure of those who have cried out for it loudly, and, be it granted, rudely: and it likewise forms an adequate a priori ground for maintaining that these Universities have not, even yet, attained to the greatest height of possible human perfection in this matter. It may be conceded to our Author, that the existing evil, so far as it is inevitable, is not to be groaned over: but what proof does he bring that it is inevitable? None but his own "sincere conviction founded on investigation," &c. and on the ground of this he ventures to accuse of Canting those who complain. At the same time, no voices from without would be raised to reproach the University-authorities with these things, if the general system of decent panegyric, which he stigmatises, did not diffuse far and wide a belief, that those authorities are thoroughly satisfied with the state of things, and indisposed to aim at farther improvement. It is not at all uncommon to hear from persons officially active in our Universities, the sentiment which our Author ascribes to one very eminent man; that "whatever defects these institutions have in comparison with those of Germany, on the score of erudition, are amply compensated by the moral and spiritual influences which ours diffuse." In short: as long as the advocates of the Universities insist on claiming for them far greater purity than is found in the mixed world, the public of course will carp and rail at follies or sins within the Universities, which would seem natural enough out of them.

But when we ask how the modern improvement has been brought about, we learn yet more distinctly that the academic authority is by no means so helpless in this matter, as our author's statements might imply. The intellectual reform, as far as it has proceeded, has drawn after it a moral reform. Whatever occasional anomalies may be quoted to the contrary, it is certain that the active pursuit of knowledge generally operates to improve the moral character of the individual, and the spiritual character of the age. Doubtless, the young men who carried off the various University and College prizes from the year 1801 to the end of the War, were morally superior to the mass; yet of these but few can have become permanent residents in Oxford, as so few Fellowships were as yet thrown open to any sort of fair competition. The first College which in this respect became celebrated, is Oriel; and to two successive Provosts,-of whom the latter still lives, Dr. Coplestone, now Bishop of Llandaff,-the University is deeply indebted, for the energy with which they carried out the principle of electing to the Fellowships the ablest candidate. The Oriel doctrine established under Dr. Coplestone, was, that though moral reasons might in strong cases become an adequate preliminary objection to admitting a name into the list of competitors; yet, after permission to compete had once been given, the decision should depend, singly and solely, on the literary ability displayed in the examination. The result was, that Oriel College became celebrated for its body of accomplished Fellows; men differing in tempers, pursuits, genius, religious and political views, but

agreeing in ability, moral worth, and (to say the least) religious respectability. Other Colleges were at first jealous of the superiority, and angry at the supposed claims of the Oriel men; but in time, first one and then another, began to imitate their proceedings. It was gradually found, that to have a high reputation, a College must stand high in the Class List: but this could not be, unless it had good tutors; and as the tutors are taken from the Fellows, it needed an able body of Fellows permanently to afford competent tutors. Thus, in spite of crippling Statutes and (very often) unworthy executors of them,-in spite of old habit and dread of innovation,the leaven, which had once begun to work, has already to no small extent leavened the whole lump. The present generation of resident Fellows, taken as a whole, is beyond a doubt very superior in moral worth to those of thirty years ago; and the same causes which have made them so, are more actively than ever at work among the Undergraduates,-viz., a greater opening of the eye to what is true, beautiful, and instructive, and a profitable filling up of that time and application of that energy, which would else have been spent in the company of grooms and jockeys,-perhaps in hunting, and in the immoderate banquets which naturally followed a diversion alike exciting and exhausting. Our Author's opinion that the opportunity of hunting at the University is a great benefit, and his calling the sport itself "one of England's greatest blessings," may be lawfully smiled at, as the mistake of a foreigner. Even when enjoyed by some old squire, with the parson at his side, it was always difficult enough for English natures to separate the sport from scenes of odious intemperance: but at the Universities, where a body of young men were associated in it with one another, and with lacqueys, grooms, and huntsmen, ready to become ministers of every vice for lucre's sake, without the restraint of father or senior friend,-it cannot be doubted that the results were peculiarly mischievous. It is however notorious, that at many Colleges in old days, and at some to quite a recent period, the moral character of the ruling body was far too low to have any beneficial influence on the Undergraduates: and private reproof or a public sermon on any of these practical questions must inevitably have aggravated the evil. Personal interest and loving counsel must very rarely indeed have been possible.

Another society, Christ Church, bore also an eminent part in the intellectual Reform. Whether indeed to its celebrated Dean, Cyril Jackson, or to Dr. Eveleigh, Provost of Oriel, the University is more indebted for the introduction of the new system of examinations, it may be very hard to say. In his large community, Dean Jackson succeeded in finding energetic men to fill the office of tutor, who would not endure that their Undergraduates should be less successful than those of Oriel in obtaining the honours of the public schools and probably the rivalry of these two bodies, more than any thing else, secured the steady advance of the new Class-system. Yet,-since even to this day the Studentships of Christ Church are given away by a direct nomination,-honourable as is the use generally made of that power,-it could not be a pattern to other societies; nor do I believe that it has had any influence on the rest to compare to that of Oriel. Oxford appears to stand alone in the midst of England in one respect: viz., it has been so little influenced by the great Evangelical movement which began from Whitfield and Wesley. Its regeneration (such as it is) has been wrought out from within, and in no small degree in hostility to the Evangelical party of the Church; a fact which throws some light on its existing state.

The fact is this; the Universities are not a bit more immoral than any other places to which young men in the middling and higher classes of society can be sent; on the contrary, we believe that, take them all in all, a young man's wild oats may be sown there rather more safely than elsewhere. What will you do to make a young man moral? will you

put him into the army or navy?-will you send him to the Horse Guards or to Portsmouth ?—or will you make a doctor of him, and let him take his chance among the medical students of London, Edinburgh, or Paris?—or will you devote him to the gravities of the law, and send him to see how quietly they live in the Temple or Lincoln's Inn ?— quiet innocent lambs, those young barristers !-or shall we make a merchant of the mother's hope and father's joy, and confide a youth to the moralities of the London streets, theatres, saloons, &c. ?-or trust him to the kindly influences of those very moral places, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, &c.?-Alas, no! many a tender-hearted mother will say and yet, is a young man to be tied to his mamma's apron string? If no place of English professional training offers sufficient guarantees for a young man's virtue, let us make a gentleman of him at once, and send him on the grand tour,-to Paris, to Vienna, or to Rome,-and any of these alternatives adopted, let us compare him with one of our English University men :-we are not afraid of the result.

(To be continued.)

IRELAND.

The subject of Ireland has again attracted the attention of the English public. The hoarse tones in which Irish agitation loves to express itself have again reached the ears, and excited the alarm of thinking people on this side of the Channel. This time the object which is sought to be attained is no less than the Repeal of the Union, and the establishment of an independent Legislature in Ireland. It is a source of great sorrow to the well-wishers of the permanent connexion between the two countries, to find that so far is time from softening down the asperities that existed at the time of the Union, and reconciling the people of Ireland to the merging of their Legislature in that of Great Britain, that in the 43rd year after that event, the severance of the bond then knit is demanded with greater fierceness, and by greater numbers than were ever before enlisted in the quarrel. It is worth our consideration what are the causes of this strange political phenomenon. It will not do to ascribe it to popular delusion or to the influence of O'Connell and the Priests, the sources must lie deeper, and the causes be more substantial, of a movement so extensive. We have too much faith in the people to believe that in any country they can be roused into action against their government without an adequate cause. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, deception, may exist on the part of the leaders, but the mass of the people must be in earnest, and when they are so there is some substantial cause for their quarrel with their governors; upon every party-banner there is always some rallying cry inscribed, which those ranged behind it must comprehend; every party leader must utter words which reach the hearts of his hearers; there is always some reality symbolized, (it may be vaguely and mysteriously,) by those