Revolution; but the good effects of it will soon be lost, if no * care is taken to regulate the Universities." On the other hand, were we to address the Senators of England, as the reformers of all abuses both in church and state; though it needs, certainly, no wizard to expose the folly of waiting for our reformation of the English Universities from the very parties interested in their corruption; it would be impossible to do so in weightier or more appropriate words, than those in which the wise Cornelius Agrippa exhorts the Senators of Cologne, to take the work of reforming the University of that city exclusively into their own hands:- Dicetis forte, quis nostrum ista faciet, 'si ipsi scholarum Rectores et Præsides id non faciunt? Certe 'si illis permittis reformationis hujus negotium, in eodem semper luto hærebitis; cum unusquisque illorum talem gestiat formare Academiam, in qua ipse maxime in pretio sit futurus, ut ' hactenus asinus inter asinos, porcus inter porcos. Vestra est Universitas, vestri in illa præcipue erudiuntur filii, vestrum 'negotium agitur. Vestram ergo est omnia recte ordinare, prudenter statuere, sapienter disponere, sancte reformare, ut vestræ civitatis honor et utilitas suadent; nisi forte vultis 'filiis vestris ignavos, potius, quam eruditos, præesse Magistros, atque in civitatem vestram competat, quod olim in Ephe'sios ;-Nemo apud nos fit frugi, si quis extiterit, in alio loco et apud alios fit ille. Quod si filios vestros, quos Reipublicæ vestræ profuturos genuistis, bonarum literarum gratia ad 'externas urbes et Universitates peregre mittitis erudiendos, 'cur in vestra urbe illos his studiis fraudatis? Cur artes et literas non recipitis peregrinas, qui filios vestros illarum gra'tia emittitis ad peregrinos? - - - Quod si nunc prisci illi urbis ' vestræ Senatores sepulchris suis exirent, quid putatis illos dicturos, quod tam celebrem olim Universitatem vestram, magnis sumptibus, laboribus et precibus ab ipsis huic urbi comparatam, 6 vos taliter cum obtenebrari patimini, tum funditus extingui 'sustineatis? Nemo certe negare potest, urbem vestram civesque ' vestros omnibus Germaniæ civitatibus rerum atque morum magnificentia anteponendam, si unus ille bonarum literarum 'splendor vobis non deesset. Polletis enim omnibus fortunæ

6

6

*This anecdote is told by Sergeant Miller, in his Account of the University of Cambridge, (p. 188,) published in 1717. It is unknown, so far as we recollect, to all the biographers of Locke. And William, we may notice, probably thought, like Dr Parr, that the English Universities stood in need of a thorough reformation,' only, that as seminaries of the church, it was the wisest thing for Parliament to let them alone, and ise a nest of hornets about their ears.'

bonis et divitiis, nullius, ad vitæ et magnificentiæ usum egetis; 'sed hæc omnia apud vos mortua sunt, et velut in pariete picta: 'quoniam quibus hæc vivificari et animari debeant, anima care'tis, hoc est, bonis literis non polletis, in quibus solis honor, dig'nitas, et immortalis in longævam posteritatem gloria continetur.'-(Epist. L. vii. 26. Opera, II. p. 1042.)

The preceding statement will enable us to make brief work with our opponent. His whole argument turns on two cardinal propositions: the one of which, as maintained by us, he refutes; the other, as admitted by us, he assumes. Unfortunately, however, we maintain, as the very foundation of our case, the converse of the proposition he refutes as ours; and our case itself is the formal refutation of the very proposition he assumes as conceded. The proposition refuted is, That the legitimate constitution of the University of Oxford was finally and exclusively determined by the Laudian Code, and that all change in that constitution, by subsequent statute, is illegal.

The proposition assumed is, That the present academical system, though different from that established by the Laudian Code, is, however, ratified by subsequent statute.

(This refutation and assumption, taken together, imply the conclusion, That the present system is legal.)

The former proposition, as we said, is not ours; we not only never conceiving that so extravagant an absurdity could be maintained, but expressly asserting or notoriously assuming the reverse in almost every page, nay establishing it even as the principal basis of our argument. If this proposition were true, our whole demonstration of the interested policy of the Heads would have been impossible. How could we have shown that the changes introduced by them were only for the advantage of themselves and of the collegial interest in general, unless we had been able to show that there existed in the University a capacity of legal change, and that the voluntary preference of illegal change by the Heads, argued that their novelties were such as, they themselves were satisfied, did not deserve the countenance of Convocation, that is, of the body legislating for the utility and honour of the University? If all change had been illegal, and, at the same time, change (as must be granted) unavoidable and expedient; the conduct of the Heads would have found an ample cloak in the folly-in the impossibility of the law. Yet the Venerable and Veracious Member coolly asserts' that this, as the position which we maintain, is the position which he writes his pamphlet to refute. With an effrontery, indeed, ludicrous from its extravagance, he even exults over our 'luck'less admission,'-"that Convocation possesses the right of re

VOL. LIV. NO. CVIII.

2 K

"scinding old, and of ratifying new, laws," (p. 25); and (on the hypothesis, always, that we, like himself, had an intention of deceiving) actually charges it as one of our greatest blunders' -a blunder betraying a total want of common sense,'' to have referred to the Appendix and Addenda to the Statute'book,' (p. 86,) i. e. to the work we reviewed, to the documents on which our argument was immediately and principally founded ! *

In regard to the latter proposition, it is quite true, that IF the former academical system has been repealed, and the present ratified by Convocation, the actual order of things in Oxford is legal, and the Heads stand guiltless in the sight of God and man. But, as this is just the matter in question, and as instead of the affirmative being granted by us, the whole nisus of our reasoning was to demonstrate the negative; we must hold, that since the assertor has adduced nothing to invalidate our statements on this point, he has left the controversy exactly as he found it. To take a single instance;-has he shown, or attempted to show, that by any subsequent act of Convocation those fundamental statutes which constitute and regulate the professorial system,

6

* It may amuse our readers to hear how our ingenuous disputant lays out his pamphlet, alias, his refutation of the Medish immutability of the Laudian digest.' This immutability he refutes by arguing

From the general principles of jurisprudence, as they relate to the 'mutability of human laws. (Sect. II.)-From the particular prin'ciples of municipal incorporation, as they relate to the making of by-laws. (Sect. III.)-From the express words of the Corpus Statutorum. (Sect IV.)-From immemorial usage, that is, the constant practice of the University from 1234 to 1831. (Sect. V.)-From the principle of adaptation upon which the statutes of 1636 were 'compiled and digested. (Sect. VI.)-From Archbishop Laud's own declarations in respect of those statutes. (Sect. VII.)-From his instructions to Dr Frewin, in 1638, to submit to Convocation some ' amendments of the statute-book, after it had been finally ratified and 'confirmed. (Sect VIII.)-From the alterations made in the statutebook after the death of the Archbishop, but during the lives of those who were his confidential friends, and had been his coadjutors in the work of reforming it. (Sect. IX.)-From the alterations made in the statute-book from time to time, since the death of the Archbishop's coadjutors to the present day. (Sect. X.)-From the opi'nion of counsel upon the legality of making and altering statutes, as delivered to the Vice-Chancellor, June 2, 1759. (Sect. XI.)'-p. 16. This elaborate parade of argument (the pamphlet extends to a hundred and fifty mortal pages) is literally answered in two wordsQuis dubitavit?

as the one essential organ of all academical education, have been repealed?-nay, that the statutes of the present century do not on this point recognise and enforce those of those preceding?(Add. p. 129-133, pp. 187, 188, et passim.) If not, how on his own doctrine of the academic oath, (in which we fully coincide,) does he exempt the guardians of its statutes, to say nothing of the other members of the University, from perjury? It' (the academic oath) is, and will always be, taken and kept with a safe conscience, as long as the taker shall faithfully observe the academic code, in all its fundamental ordinances, and according to their true meaning and intent. And with respect to other matters, it is safely taken, if taken according to the will of 'those who made the law, and who have the power to make or unmake, to dispense with or repeal, any, or any parts of any, laws educational of the University, and to sanction the administration of the oath with larger or more limited relations, '[i. e. ?] according to what Convocation may deem best and fittest 'for the ends it has to accomplish.'-P. 132. In the case adduced, the unobserved professorial system is a 'fundamental ordinance,' is exclusively according to the will of those who made, make, and unmake the law,' exclusively according to what Convocation deems the best and fittest.'* Consequently, &c.

In the propositions we have now considered, the assertor's whole pamphlet is confuted. We shall however notice (what we cannot condescend to disprove) some of the subaltern statements which, with equal audacity, he holds out as maintained by us, and some of which he even goes so far as to support by fabricated quotations. Of these, one class contains assertions, not simply false, but precisely the reverse of the statements really made by us. Such, for instance-That we extolled the academic system of the Laudian code as perfect, (pp. 95, 96, 144, &c.);-That we admitted the actual system to be not inexpedient or insufficient, (p. 95); and, That this system was introduced in useful ac

*See SANDERSON De Juramenti Obligatione, Prael. III. § 18.-too long to extract. The Assertor avers, but without quoting any authority, that Sanderson wrote the Epinomis of the Corpus Statutorum. If true, which we do not believe, the fact would be curious. It is unnoticed by Wood, in his Historia, Annals, or Athena-is unknown to Walton, or to any indeed of Sanderson's biographers. It is also otherwise improbable. Sanderson left the University in 1619, when he surrendered his fellowship, and only returned in 1642, when made Regius Professor of Divinity. The Statutes were compiled in the interval; and why should the Epinomis be written by any other than the delegates? We see the motive for the fiction;-it is too silly to be worth mentioning.

commodation to the changing circumstances of the age, (p. 95.) Another class includes those assertions that are simply false. For example-That we expressed a general approbation of the methods of the ancient University, and of the scholastic exercises and studies, beyond an incidental recognition of the utility of disputation, and that too in the circumstances of the middle ages; and we may state that the quotation repeatedly alleged in support of this assertion is a coinage of his own, (pp. 6, 11, 83, 96, 97, 138, 139);-That we reviled Oxford for merely deviating from her ancient institutions, (pp. 5, 11, 12, 95, &c.) ;That we said a single word in delineation of the Chamberdeckyn at all, far less (what is pronounced one of the cleverest sleights of band ever practised in the whole history of literary legerde'main') 'transformed him into an amiable and interesting young 'gentleman, poor indeed in pocket, but abundantly rich in intel'lectual energies, and in every principle that adorns and digni'fies human nature!' (p. 113.) Regarding as we do the Assertor only as a curious psychological monstrosity, we do not affect to feel towards him the indignation, with which, coming from any other quarter, we should repel the false and unsupported charges of depraving, corrupting, and mutilating our cited passages,' (p. 24);—of 'making fraudulent use of the names and authorities of Dr Newton and Dr Wallace, of Lipsius, Crevier, and Du 'Boullay,' (p. 142); and to obtain the weight of his authority, of fathering on Lord Bacon an apophthegm of our own, though only alleging, without reference, one of the most familiar sentences of his most popular work. To complete our cursory dissection of this moral Lusus Naturæ, we shall only add that he quotes us just thirteen times; that of these quotations one is authentic; six are more or less altered; one is garbled, half a sentence being adduced to support what the whole would have overthrown, (p. 20); and five are fabrications to countenance opinions which the fabricator finds it convenient to impute to us, (pp. 9, 10, 11, 110, 141.)

We might add much more, but enough has now been said. We have proved that our positions stand unconfuted-uncontroverted untouched; that to seem even to answer, our opponent has been constrained to reverse the very argument he attacked; and that the perfidious spirit in which he has conducted the controversy, significantly manifests his own consciousness of the futility of his cause.