able system of corruption could not, in Oxford, find any scarcity of, at least, willing champions. At the same time it is always better, in speaking to the many, to say something, should it signify nothing, than to be found to say nothing at all. Add to this, that the partisans of the actual system had of late years shown themselves so prompt in repelling the most trivial objurgations, that silence when the authors of that system were accused of the weightiest offences, and the system itself articulately displayed as one glaring scheme of usurpation and absurdity, would have been tantamount to an overt confession of the allegation itself. If our incidental repetition of the old bye-word of 'Ox'onian Latin' brought down on us more than one indignant refutation of the calumny;' our formal charge of Illegality, Treason, and Perjury could not remain unanswered, unless those who yesterday were so sensitive to the literary glory of Oxford, were to-day wholly careless not only of that, but even of its moral and religious respectability;- Diligentius studentes 'loqui quam vivere.' But how was an answer to be made? This was either easy or impossible. If our statements were false, they could be at once triumphantly refuted, by contrasting them with a few short extracts from the statutes; and the favourable opinion of a respectable lawyer would have carried as general a persuasion of the legality of the actual system, as the want of it is sure to carry of its illegality. In these circumstances, satisfied that no lawyer could be found to pledge his reputation in support of the legality of so unambiguous a violation of every statute, and that, without such a professional opinion, every attempt, even at a plausible reply, would be necessarily futile; we hardly hoped that the advocates of the present order of things would be so illadvised as to attempt a defence, which could only terminate in corroborating the charge. We attributed to them a more wily JULIUS CESAR SCALIGER De Subtilitate, Exerc. xvi. 2- Loquar ergo meo more barbare, et ab Oxonio;' and honest Anthony admits that Oxoniensis loquendi mos was thus proverbially used.-Speaking of Scaliger and Oxford, we may notice that, from a passage in the same work, (Exerc. xcix.) it clearly appears that this transcendant genius may be claimed by Oxford as among her sons. 'Lutetiæ aut Oxonii modica induti togula hyemes non solum ferre, sed etiam frangere didicimus.' The importance of this curious discovery, unsuspected by Scioppius, and contradictory of what Joseph Scaliger and all others have asserted and believed of the early life of his father, will be appreciated by those interested in the mysterious biography of this (prince or impostor) illustrious philosopher and critic. tactic. The sequel of our discussion (in which we proposed to consider in detail the comparative merits of the statutory and illegal systems, and to suggest some means of again elevating the University to what it ought to be) might be expected to afford a wider field for controversy; and we anticipated that the objection of illegality, now allowed to pass, would be ultimately slurred over, a reply to our whole argument being pretended under covert of answering a part. We were agreeably mistaken. The bulky pamphlet at the head of this article has recently appeared; and we have to tender our best acknowledgments to its author, for the aid he has so effectually afforded against the cause he ostensibly supports. This Assertion (the word is happily appropriate!) of the legality of the academical system of Oxford manifests two things: How unanswerable are our statements when the opponent, who comes forward professing to refute the new and unheard-of calumny,' never once ventures to look them in the face; and, How intensely felt by the Collegial interest must be the necessity of a reply-a reply at all hazards-when a Member of the Venerable House of Convocation could stoop to such an attempt at delusion, as the present semblance of an answer exhibits. It may sound like paradox to say, that this pamphlet is no answer to our paper, and yet that we are bound to accord it a reply. But so it is. Considered merely in reference to the points maintained by us, we have no interest in disproving its statements for it is, in truth, no more a rejoinder to our reasoning, than to the Principia of Newton. Nay, less. For, in fact, our whole proof of the illegality of the present order of things in Oxford, and of the treachery of the College Heads, would be invalidated, were the single proposition, which our pretended antagonist so ostentatiously vindicates against us, not accurately true. We admit, that if we held what he refutes as ours, our positions would be not only false, but foolish; nay, that if we had not established the very converse, as the beginning, middle, and end of our whole argument, this argument would not only be unworthy of an elaborate answer, but of any serious consideration at all. It is a vulgar artifice to misrepresent an adversary, to gain the appearance of refuting him ; but never was this contemptible manœuvre so impudently and systematically practised. In so far as it has any reference to our reasoning, the whole pamphlet is, from first to last, just a deliberate reversal of all our statements. Its sophistry (the word is too respectable) is not an ignoratio but a mutatio, elenchi; of which the lofty aim is to impose on the simplicity of those readers who may rely on the veracity of A Member of Con • vocation,' and are unacquainted with the paper, the arguments of which he professes to state and to refute. Under so creditable a name, never was there a more discreditable performance; for we are unable even to compliment the author's intentions at the expense of his talent. The plain scope of the publication is to defend perjury by imposture; and its contents are one tissue of disingenuous concealments, false assertions, forged quotations, and infuriate railing. In its way, certainly, it is unique; and we can safely recommend it to the curious as a bibliographical singularity, being perhaps the only example of a work, in which, from the first page to the last, it is impossible to find a sentence, not either irrelevant or untrue. But though a reply on our part would thus be-not a Refutation but an Exposure; a reply, for that very reason, we consider imperative. It forms a principal feature of the Assertor's scheme of delusion to accuse us of deceit, (and deceit, amounting to knavery, must certainly adhere to one party or the other ;) yet, though he has failed in convicting us even of the most unimportant error, many readers, we are aware, might be found to accord credence to averments so positively made, to set down to honest indignation the virulence of his abuse, and to mistake his effrontery for good faith. Were it also matter of reasoning in which the fallacy was attempted, we might leave its detection to the sagacity of the reader; but it is in matter of fact, of which we may presume him ignorant. Aggressors, too, in the attack, the present is not a controversy in which we can silently allow our accuracy, far less our intentions, to be impugned by any. To establish, likewise, the illegality and self-admitted incompetence of the present academical system, is to establish the preliminary of all improvement--the necessity of change. While happy, therefore, to avail ourselves of the occasion to add to our former demonstration of this all-important point; we are not, of course, averse from manifesting how impotent, at once, and desperate, are the efforts which have been made to invalidate its conclusions. These considerations have moved us to bestow on the subject of this pamphlet an attention we should not assuredly have accorded to its merits. And as our reply is nothing but a manifestation of the contrast between the statements actually made by us, and those refuted, as ours, by our opponent; we are thus compelled to recapitulate the principal momenta of our argument, of which we must not presume that our readers retain an adequate recollection. Necessity must, therefore, be our excuse for again returning on a discussion, not less irksome to ourselves than others; but we are reconciled to it by the consideration, that though we have no errors to correct, we have thus the opportunity of supplying, on this important subject, some not unimportant omissions. Our former paper was intended to prove three great propositions:-I. That the present academical system of Oxford is illegal. II. That it was surreptitiously intruded into the University by the heads of the collegial interest, for private ends. III. That it is virtually acknowledged to be wholly inadequate to accomplish the purposes of a university, even by those through whose influence, and for whose advantage, it is maintained. I. In illustration of the first proposition, we showed that the University of Oxford is a public instrument, privileged by the nation for the accomplishment of certain public purposes; and that, for the more secure and appropriate performance of its functions, a power of self-legislation is delegated to the great body of its graduates, composing the House of Convocation. The resolutions of this assembly alone, or with concurrence of the Crown, form the academical statutes, and the statutes exclusively determine the legal constitution of the University. The whole academical statutes now in force, (with one or two passed, we believe, since 1826,) are collected and published in the Corpus Statutorum with its Appendix, and in its Addenda; the subsequent statute, of course, explaining, modifying, or rescinding the preceding. Looking, therefore, to the statutes, and the whole statutes,* we showed, that there were two academical systems to be distin *As not sanctioned by Convocation, the illegality of the present system is flagrant. But had it been so sanctioned, it would still be fundamentally illegal; as that body would have thus transcended its powers, by frustrating the ends, for the sake of which alone it was clothed with legislative authority at all. The public privileges accorded (by King or Parliament, it matters not) to the education and degrees of a University, are not granted for the private behoof of the individuals in whom the University is realized. They are granted solely for the public good, to the instruction of certain bodies organized under public authority, and to their certificate of proficiency, under conditions by that authority prescribed. If these bodies have obtained, to any extent, the right of self-legislation, it is only as delegates of the state; and this right could only be constitutionally exercised by them in subservience to the public good, for the interest of which alone the University was constituted and privileged, and this power of legislation itself delegated to its members. If an academical legislature abolish academical education, and academical trials of proficiency in the different faculties, it commits suicide, and as such, the act is, ipso facto, illegal. In the case of Oxford, Convocation is not thus felo de se. guished in Oxford-a legal and an illegal; and that no two systems could be more universally and diametrically opposed. In the former, the end, for the sake of which the University is privileged by the nation, and that consequently imperatively prescribed by the statutes, is to afford public education in the faculties of Theology, Law, Medicine, and Arts, (to say nothing of the science of Music,) and to certify-by the grant of a degree that this education had in each of these faculties been effectually received. In the latter, degrees are still ostensibly accorded in all the faculties, but they are now empty, or rather delusive, distinctions; for the only education at present requisite for all degrees, is the private tuition afforded by the colleges in the elementary department of the lowest faculty alone. Of ten degrees still granted in Oxford, nine are in law and reason utterly worthless. In the former, it is, of course, involved as a condition, that the candidate for a degree shall have spent a sufficient time in the university in prosecution of his public studies in that faculty in which he proposes to graduate. In the latter, when the statutory education in the higher faculties, and the higher department of the lowest, was no longer afforded, this relative condition was converted into empty standing. The former, as its principal mean, employs in every faculty a co-operative body of select Professors, publicly teaching in conformity to statutory regulation. The latter (in which the wretched remnant of professorial instruction is a mere hors d'œuvre) abandons the petty fragment of private education, it precariously affords, as a perquisite, to the incapacity of an individual, Fellow by chance, and Tutor by usurpation. To conceive the full extent of the absurdity thus occasioned, it must be remembered, that no universities are so highly privileged by any country as the English; and that no country is now so completely defrauded of the benefits, for the sake of which academical privileges were ever granted, as England. England is the only christian country, where the Parson, if he reach the university at all, receives only the same minimum of Theological tuition as the Squire; the only civilized country, where the degree, which confers on the Jurist a strict monopoly of practice, is conferred without either instruction or examination ;-the only country in the world, where the Physician is turned loose upon society, with extraordinary and odious privileges, but without professional education, or even the slightest guarantee for his skill.* * We doubt extremely, whether the Fellows of the London College |