« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
milar remarks apply to other means by which a tutor may gain popularity among his pupils, such as procuring their exemption by some excuse or other from all troublesome duties; obtaining for them remission from all punishments; and in fine, acting towards them on all occasions the part of an advocate, rather than that of a judicious friend and adviser."-Correspondence, pp. 380, 381.
We are not friendly to any interference with the tutorial system. We object to such interference as a hazardous experiment-as the destruction of an arrangement which has confessedly worked vast benefit, to replace it by another, untried, necessarily imperfect, having the weakness of the tutorial system without its strength. We object to such interference, because the system which the Commissioners desire to remove is supported by those whose testimony is rendered valuable by long experience in the task of education - doubly valuable by the fact, that they are pecuniary losers by the present mode of dividing the tutorial income.† Lastly, we object to such interference, because we believe that any attempt to revive, even partially, the old system, would introduce all the favouritism and jealousies which existed once, and which are now extinct, not because men are better, but because the temptation which brought these feelings into life has passed away.
We have, in the next place, to direct the attention of our readers to a point of paramount importance in the eyes of all those who, like ourselves, value the prosperity of the Established Church of Great Britain and Irelandwe mean the proposal to open the Divinity school to persons who are not students of Trinity College. That the rapid advance made by this school
within the last twenty years, its admirable system of teaching, its high and deserved reputation, should have excited, in the friends of other institutions, a desire to obtain for them a share of these advantages, is, of course, but natural; and accordingly we find, that as early as February, 1852, the Bishop of Down and Connor addressed a letter to the Commissioners, urging upon them the propriety of admitting graduates of the Queen's University to the privileges of attending the Divinity lectures, and obtaining the Divinity Testimonium of the University of Dublin. As the particular plan suggested by the Bishop has not been approved of by the Commissioners, it is not necessary that we should comment upon it at any length. But our readers will, perhaps, be surprised to learn that a prelate of the Established Church has seriously proposed that the Board of Trinity College shall accept the lectures of the dean of residences (an officer whose duties somewhat resemble those of the junior dean in Trinity College) as an equivalent for one-half of the Divinity course, together with all the preli minary religious education in the shape of catechetical lectures, term examinations, and lectures in ethics, evidences of Christianity, &c., which they require their own students to receive. We were at first disposed to regard this proposal as a grave joke or hoax, intended to try the tempers of the reverend gentlemen who were called on to accede to it; but, upon reflection, we really believe that his lordship is in earnest, and that he seriously considers the lectures of the dean of residences to be equal in value to the various lectures and examinations to which we have referred.
The Provost ("Suggestions," p. 290) appears to think that the dependence of the tutor on his pupils for his income generated between them a species of parental feeling. As it is ordinarily the parent who supports the child, this analogy seems to imply that under the former system the tutor felt as though he were the son of his entire chamber. A curious and complicated sensation.
†The Bishop of Cork ("Correspondence," p. 382) is disposed to assign little weight to the opinions of the tutorial committee, because they are pecuniary losers by the system which they recommend. He seems to regard them as specimens of a class of men so disinterested as to "lean against the evidence that would make for their private interests." If the existence of this class be with the Bishop a matter of experience, we cannot, of course, contradict him, although to our limited intelligence it seems sufficiently startling. We can imagine that a man may support a bad system because he gains by it, or a good one although he loses by it; but that any one out of Bedlam should advocate a measure injurious to the public, because it is also injurious to himself, is, we should have thought, new to psychology.
As, however, the Board of Trinity College have been (very stupidly) unable to perceive the truth of this equation, and as the Bishop seems to apprehend that this obstinacy on their part may oblige him to admit into the ministry imperfectly-educated candidates, we trust that his lordship will pardon us if we venture, with all becoming modesty, to lay before him a proposal of our own. This we do with the more confidence, because, although we call the proposal ours, it is in fact a very obvious deduction from principle laid down by the Bishop himself. We frankly admit that our share in the discovery (we can call it nothing less) is purely arithmetical. Let us see how the matter stands. The Bishop of Down and Connor is anxious to provide efficient theological instruction for the graduates of the Queen's University. Trinity College is SO bigotedly attached to her own system, that she refuses to accept his estimate of the theological instruction already given in the new colleges. Very disgraceful to Trinity College, certainly; but we do not see why it should cause any perplexity to the Bishop. Why not extend the admirable machinery which the Queen's Colleges already possess? Why not have two deans of residences? It is plain that this will more than effect the Bishop's object; for, if the lectures of one dean of residences be equal to half the divinity course of Trinity College, plus all the instruction given to her undergraduates in the Scriptures, ethics, evidences, &c., it follows from the everlasting laws of Cocker, that the lectures of two deans of residences will be equal to the entire divinity course, plus double the amount of instruction given by Trinity College in ethics, &c., as aforesaid. Thus, as our readers will perceive, the new divinity school would not only be as good as that of Trinity College, but would have, in fact, a very considerable balance in its favour. Neither is the plan which we propose altogether unsupported by precedent. Trinity College has a senior and junior dean: why should not the Queen's Colleges have the same? Besides, as deans of residences receive no salary, the development of this fertile conception would not cost one farthing.
We have thus ventured to present to
the Bishop, a scheme deduced by common arithmetic from his own principles simple, efficacious, cheap-which will enable him, at the same time, and without the outlay of a shilling, to provide for the graduates of the Queen's University all, and more than all, that he now requires, and to punish Trinity College for her stupid and presumptuous bigotry. What could his lordship desire more? In fact, the merits of this plan are so obvious, that we cannot believe that a man of his lordship's acuteness should have failed to discover it. Why, then, did he hesitate to carry it into execution? Could it have been that his lordship doubted the truth of his own principles?-or that he felt a twinge of compassion for the besotted and eclipse-doomed University of Dublin? Surely it could not have been, that what his lordship sought from Trinity College was, not Divinity education, but the Divinity Testimonium, and that, provided he could obtain the Hall mark, he was careless whether the article itself was gold or pewter.
Passing, however, from the bishop's proposal, which has disturbed our wonted gravity, we come to sider a more important document, namely, the recommendation of the Commissioners. After effecting a considerable reduction in the bishop's estimate of deans of residences by the expressed opinion, that "it can hardly be expected that the lectures of the deans of residences will become more than equivalent to the catechetical lectures or examinations in Trinity College" ("Report," p. 27), they recommend "that graduates of the Queen's University, who are recommended by the bishop, in whose diocese the Queen's College, where they have been educated is situated, should have an opportunity of pursuing theological studies in the Divinity school of the Dublin University, and should be entitled to receive such certificate as the Board might think proper to give of their having completed the two years' course in Divinity" (Ibid). The objection made by the Board, "that a certificate given by the College, in connexion with the Divinity courses, must convey the judgment of the governing body of the College respecting the completeness of the education received by the person
obtaining the certificate-its completeness in artibus, as well as in sancta theologia"-they propose to obviate, by establishing two classes of certificates; one, the present testimonium, to be given only to those who have graduated in the University of Dublin; and another, differing from the testimonium in form, to be given to graduates of the Queen's University. This recommendation is undoubtedly free from the obvious objections which may be made to the proposal of the Bishop of Down. It does not attach the same absurd over-estimate to the lectures of the deans of residences, nor does it require Trinity College to state that a year passed in attendance upon lectures, of which she knows nothing, has been passed in the sedulous study of theology. Neither does the recommendation of the Commissioners, professedly at least, require Trinity College to place the graduates of the Queen's University upon a par with her own students. Still it appears to us that this proposal, under any form, is open to very grave objection, and we have the less scruple in expressing our dissent from it, because upon this point the Commissioners themselves are not unanimous. Mr. Cooper has not only refused to agree to the recommendation of his colleagues, but has thought it right to place on record his disapproval of it, and the reasons upon which that disapproval is founded. These reasons, which appear to us to possess very great weight, are as follows:
"1. That in the act 8th and 9th Vict., c. 66, establishing the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, no allusion whatever is made to the University of Dublin or Trinity College; and that in the patents of incorporation of the Queen's Colleges, it is stated that they are to be established 'for students in arts, law, physic, and other useful learning,' and excluding the duty that the students 'ad colendam virtutem et religionem adjuventur,' as in the charter of the Dublin University, thus showing that no connexion was contemplated between the Queen's University and the University of Dublin.
"2. That I do not conceive that, under the terms of our commission, we have any authority to recommend changes not strictly within the limit of the 'state, discipline, and revenues of the University of Dublin, and the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity therein, and of all and singular the colleges and schools in said university.'
"3. That should I be in error in my se
cond objection, I do not think it prudent, nor conducive to the welfare of the United Church of England and Ireland, that two distinct classes of candidates for the ministry should issue from the Dublin University."Report, p. 28.
With regard to the first two of Mr. Cooper's reasons, we shall content ourselves with briefly expressing our concurrence in them. We believe that this recommendation is inconsistent with the principles upon which the Queen's Colleges were founded, and that it does not fall within the proper province of the University Commission. But although we fully admit the truth and importance of these reasons, they are, of course, very inferior in general interest to the third. The public are more likely to inquire whether the recommendation itself be good, than whether it be consistent with the principles of any other institution, or whether the Commissioners had any right to make it. Nor is it desirable that so grave a question should be discussed upon grounds which have even the appearance of technicality. But we dissent from the recommendation of the Commisioners, because we think, with Mr. Cooper, that it is prejudicial to the welfare of the Established Church, and because we think further, that it is unjust to the University of Dublin.
We have not the slightest inclination to undervalue the system of teaching pursued in the Queen's Colleges, or to think lightly of the benefit which the country may derive from their institution. We believe that they are calculated to serve many important purposes, and we wish them every success in so doing; but we candidly confess that we do not think the education of the clergy to be one of the ends, to the accomplishment of which their system can be very successfully directed; and believing, as we do, with Mr. Cooper, that it was no part of their original design, we cannot view the reservation which we have made as in any respect It is not necessary to consider whether the education given at the Queen's Colleges be or be not, on the whole, inferior to that given in Trinity College. Perhaps we may have our own opinions on that point; but having the fear of the Bishop of Down and Connor before our eyes, we shall not bring his lordship's wrath upon our
heads by any "unmerited" or provoked observations."-Correspondence, p. 373.
It is sufficient that the education is different, and it may therefore be reasonably expected that it will not be found equally well adapted to every one of the ends which Trinity College professes to carry out. Thus in the Queen's University a degree may be obtained by a person who never saw a Bible, who never heard of such a thing as moral philosophy, and with whom Christianity, nay, Theism itself are, not exactly "open questions," but questions about which he has never thought at all. Nay more, if he be unfortunately encumbered with any information on these subjects, the degree examination in the Queen's University affords him no opportunity for making use of it.
We do not censure this arrangement, which, so far at least as regards the knowledge essential to the obtaining a degree, was rendered necessary by the circumstances of the case; but, between a system which renders a certain amount of religious knowledge necessary, and another which renders that knowledge useless, to the attainment of a degree, there can be, we suppose, but little difficulty of choice as to the fittest school for the education of a Christian minister. Without, therefore, instituting any general comparison between the system of the Queen's University and that of the University of Dublin, we say without hesitation that, considered as the groundwork of a clerical education, the undergraduate course of the former is decidedly inferior to that of the latter; and for this reason, we think that the recommendation of the Commissioners is open to the objection urged by the Board against the proposal of the Bishop of Down :
"If we agree to such a proposal, we should become instrumental in sending forth a class of students who had received an education very inferior to that now given."Correspondence, p. 366.
Again, we have said that the recommendation of the Commissioners is unjust to the University of Dublin; for it, in fact, requires them to give up a large portion of the inducement which they now offer to the student to receive his education in Trinity College. The existence of some such
We do not know what precise meaning the Bishop attaches to the word "rivalry," but if he means to assert that there is no competition between two institutions whose duties are to a great extent identical, and whose income depends very largely upon the manner in which those duties are performed, we must take leave to tell his lordship that such a principle is opposed to the very alphabet of economical science. There must be such competition, and it would be very injurious indeed to the public if there were not; and such being the case, it is manifestly unjust to compel one institution to share with another, advantages acquired by long years of unremitting exertion. Trinity College claims no monopoly of education; but she may object, and fairly object, to a change which would oblige her to share with an institution of yesterday the reputation which the labours of three hundred years have conferred upon her.
In treating of the law school of Dublin, the Commissioners have made a recommendation in which we most heartily concur-namely, that the act of Parliament which requires candididates for admission to the Irish Bar to keep terms in London, should be repealed ("Report," pp. 31, 94). This recommendation appears to have been adopted at the suggestion of a committee of the Board, and has the sanction of the Right Hon. Francis Blackburne, Dr. Longfield, and Dr. Anster. That the act referred to occasions to the Irish law student a large expenditure of time and money, which might be more profitably bestowed, and thus interferes most injuriously with the formation of an efficient Law School in Dublin, seems to be denied by nobody. One, and only one argument has been, as far as we are aware, urged in defence of it. This we give in the words of the Provost, who seems to consider it decisive against the repeal of the existing law.
"One change I should deprecate, namely, the making the professional law education
here independent of attendances at the offices and the Inns of Court in England. Such a measure would tend most seriously to keep the two countries separate."-SuggesP. 292.
With respect to this argument, we have merely to say that the Provost entirely misstates the effect which such a change would have. The tendency of the measure recommended by the Commissioners would be, we readily admit, to keep the Bar of this country distinct from that of England. Does the Provost wish to amalgamate them? Is he one of those who would approve of a transference of our superior courts to Westminster-or, retaining the courts, would he centralise the benchers, and give to one authority (in London of course) the right of admitting candidates to practise at either bar? We trust not. But if he does not advocate either of these most ruinous measures, what becomes of the force of his argument? For, as long as the Bar in Ireland is distinct from the Bar in England, there is no more reason that the Irish law-student should keep terms in London, than that the English law-student should be compelled to devour a certain quantity of beef and mutton in Henrietta-street. And the imposition of a rule upon one class from which the other is free, can generate no friendly union, but does, indeed, tend to produce the effect which the Provost expects from an opposite course, reminding, and most painfully, the Irish student of his own inferior position, distinct, yet not independent. Such a rule may indeed well be said "to keep the two countries separate.'
Many other recommendations of great importance have been made by the Commissioners: of these, we may mention the proposals
"That the royal statutes should undergo a complete revision, with the view of removing much that is obsolete, and enlarging, in some respects, the powers of the governing body of the university-that no distinction should be made between noblemen, fellow-commoners, and pensioners, with respect to the course of education required for the degree of Bachelor of Arts; and that the general obligation to enter holy orders, now imposed on fellows, should be abolished.". Report, pp. 92-93.)
concur, as indeed we do with nearly all which has emanated from the Commissioners, except where we have expressed our dissent. Obsolete laws admit of no defence they are simply and purely mischievous. Too great strictness in the rules imposed upon an institution, is a fatal bar to improvement; and, with regard to distinctions of rank, we think that the domain of science and literature should be governed upon principles absolutely republican. But the third of the recommendations which we have enumerated involves questions of very great difficulty; for while we fully admit our dislike to any system which has the effect of forcing any one into the sacred office of the ministry, we cannot conceal from ourselves the strong probability that the removal of this restriction would cause very considerable difficulties in the working of the Divinity school. Perhaps these difficulties would be removed, or at least greatly diminished by the adoption of another suggestion of the Commissioners, namely, that there should be established a number of septennial fellowships, to be elected to after an examination similar to the present, with one exception, namely, that a course of divinity should be substituted for the mathematics and physics of the present course. Into this very difficult question our limits will not permit us to enter, and we can only express a hope that, in a matter which so deeply concerns not the University only, but also the welfare of the Protestant Church, we may not have to regret any rash or hasty legislation.
Before we conclude, we must make a few remarks upon a general tendency which pervades the Report before us, and which we cannot but regard as indicating a false and dangerous policywe mean, a tendency to render the constitution of the College and University even more oligarchical than it is, in practice at least, at present. This tendency appears in several passages of the Report; we shall quote one or two of the most remarkable. We do not lay much stress upon the proposal to transfer to the Board the powers at present nominally possessed by the University Senate, inasmuch as this transference would give to the Board no power which
With the first two of these we heartily they do not, in fact, possess; at the