It would be an interesting experiment in psychology to try the effect which the articles of F. J. L. and "Rolla" would have upon an intelligent foreigner, totally unacquainted with our national institutions! What internal evidence would he discover, which would lead him to believe the one rather than the other? Could he conceive the possibility of our university towns being mere sinks of iniquity, as painted by "Rolla," and yet the pure seminaries of a "National Church based on essentially scriptural and catholic principles," as described by F. J. L.? Could he believe that “vast masses of the true Commonwealth of our land- --a number daily increasing a number that can boast of the greatest poets, authors, statesmen, and geniuses," are debarred (as "Rolla" avers) from these universities, and reconcile the statement with the assertion of F. J. L. that simply a few disqualified persons are excluded?" How can he dovetail together all these and many similar contradictions?with whom will he sympathize? with "Rolla," in his fierce onslaught on the moral character and mental attainments of Oxford and Cambridge, or with F. J. L., in his praise of the degrees and scholarship of Churchmen, and his undisguised contempt for the "cheap education" of Dissenters?"Rolla" has seen Oxford, and F. J. L. has been for the last four years an inmate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and within a few short months has been decked with the mystic letters "B.A." "Surely," our imaginary foreigner would exclaim, “it is the editors of the magazine who are in fault; they have injudiciously coupled the two universities together, and hence each writer mistook the subject: doubtless F. J. L. would admit the wickedness and worthlessness of Oxford; and "Rolla" will have never a word to say against Cambridge." But happily for the credit of our editors, a glance at the articles of H. D. L. and B. S. will explain the difficulty in another manner. The former writer, with manly candour, admits that the institutions are not perfect, and that some of their inmates are not men of the "strictest morality;" and the latter, with the generosity becoming one who has earned a foremost place amidst our band of controversialists, refuses "to cast any reflection on the uni

heard it said that "half the truth is a falsehood," and we fear the remark receives an unintentional proof and illustration from "Rolla." Alas! that writers should so forget that the garments of charity are better than the cloak of zeal, and should so frequently let prejudice usurp the seat of reason, till they strain at a gnat as though it were a camel, and swallow a camel as though it were a gnat.

Readers, when you meditate on the sentence we have already quoted from "Rolla," remember that Milton studied within our universities, and that Wordsworth has enshrined his gratitude to Oxford in "harmonious verse;" remember that Gladstone carried off the honours of Christchurch that Peel ranked high at Oxford; remember that Newton graduated at Cambridge-that Herschel carried off its wranglership - that Airey, Buckland, Sedgwick, Babbage, and Whewell, are sons of our universities; remember that Sir Edward Coke was educated at Cambridge, and Sir Matthew Hale at Oxfordthat not one of the long list of judicial greatness but commenced his career of preparation in the universities; remember the many almost sacred names of holy men who have ministered in the Church, and even among Dissenters, but who first studied in the universities.

Again, what shall we say to such language as the following?" While every true Dissenter is cut off from these so-called national institutions . . . there may be found within their precincts men of all religious and infidel principles; the sceptic, the atheist to all intents and purposes, the Puseyite, the Calvinist, the Arminian, &c., &c.; and, horribile dictu, men of the vilest morals, the gambler, the foxhunter, the legion of debauchery, the profane and dishonest!" Is not this a coarse picture of human nature in its worse aspects-of a small minority in the history of every institution? Has there not been a murderer amongst the peaceful Quakers? Have not the annals of the Dissenting ministry to record the shameful deeds of the drunkard, the suicide, and the adulterer? Nay, had not the primitive Church its Ananias and Sapphira?-did not Christ himself choose twelve, and yet one of them was devil"? What does "Rolla" mean? Are there no atheists and sceptics except univer

a

sity men? Does no Dissenter ever gamble? does the legion of debauchery gain no recruits beyond the walls of Oxford colleges?-is being Puseyite, Calvinist, or Arminian a deadly sin against history or science?-does the fact of having joined a fox-hunt disqualify a man for ever for the study of Greek or of mathematics? Are the inuendoes about Oxford streets by night untrue of London? Is the Fifth of November a quiet night on Tower Hill? Are German students, in their free and consequently irreligious colleges, innocent even of bloodshed and rebellion? Have the walls of Edinburgh University never been besieged by the civil power, and defended by a mob of desperate students? Are the students of our medical institutions famed for high moral character, with the solitary exception of the M.D.'s of Cambridge and Oxford? O friend "Rolla"! if all springs of generous forbearance have been dried up-if all remembrance of Him who said, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone," has faded from your mind; yet think of the common civilities and ordinary courtesy of social life.

We have one more remark to make, and then we part, in sorrow not in anger, from "Rolla." Suppose all his assertions be allowed, and that the inmates of our universities are condemned as the dregs of humanity; it yet remains to be shown why their property should be taken from them. Have I a right to enter my neighbour's shop, and share its profits, because he neglects or abuses it, and often becomes intoxicated at noon-day? May I confiscate my brother's farmsteads, because he leads a grossly immoral life; or seize upon his railway shares, because he is an atheist. "Rolla" has asserted the nationality of the universities, but has forgotten to prove it; he denies the nationality of the Church, because he hates its regimen, and disbelieves its doctrine: how can he honestly maintain the nationality of the universities, simply because he would wish to share in their advantages? Is such reasoning worthy of him?

We think that the foregoing remarks, coupled with the remarkably able reply of H. D. L., completely annihilate "Rolla's" article; we therefore proceed to one of a far different character. We naturally hesitate to attack an article bearing the signature

B.S.; for not few are they who have suffered signal discomfiture at his hands; and were we obliged to meet the foe face to face, we might probably decline the combat. But we imagine that our friend has entrenched himself above a hidden mine, and we hope, by springing the same, to destroy his forces and fortifications without the danger of personal combat. B. S. has proceeded to argue on the principle that the universities are national public institutions; if that assumption be found to be groundless, his article immediately falls. The idea is, I regret to say, fostered and countenanced by the Church; hence Dissenters generally maintain that the universities are national, civil, and secular educational machines, which have been restricted and diverted from their proper end by clerical machinations. Now to this we oppose the assertion that the universities are trust property-the private possessions of the Church of England, not as a State Church, but as a religious denomination, and that they stand in the same relation to the Church as New College does to the Independents, and Stonyhurst to the Roman Catholics. This opinion is based upon careful research and study of the history and origin of these ancient institutions; and, in consequence, we have felt bound, in conformity with those precepts of Jewish morality and Christian duty placed at the head of this article, to enter in the pages of the Controversialist a protest against parliamentary interference.

According to certain authors, this island was colonized by a son of Japheth, the son of Noah, exactly two hundred years after the flood. In like manner, we are told that Brutus, the grandson of Æneas, came over with an army of Trojans, conquered the country, and, being struck with the advantages of education, founded the University of Oxford, in the twelfth century before Christ, while Eli was high-priest of the Jews. We are not informed whether "morning chapel," and caps and gowns, were a part of the then customs; we have no particulars of the dinners in hall, or the wine parties in the evening; and are left quite in the dark as to the text-books and subjects of study. Of course, it is quite evident that Cæsar's account of certain shaggy, painted, and half-naked savages, armed with clubs, and subsisting on the produce of the chase, or the acorns and

berries of the forest, is a mere ebullition of spite. Oxford was then in its primitive glory: Dissenters were freely admitted into its class-rooms; and no signs of its present mental stagnation and moral degradation appeared looming in the future: the ancient Britons were gentlemen both in mind and manners. Readers, will you believe these visionary tales? They are as true and as circumstantial as those of the revival of Cambridge by Sebert, King of the East Angles, and the re-modelling of Oxford by Alfred. Away with all such follies!

Perhaps none of the antiquarian figments mentioned have gained much credence, except that which attributes the foundation of Oxford to Alfred; and it is only a specimen

of the genus of vulgar errors.' It is

handed from writer to writer, and re-echoed by peer and peasant, by young and old. It is, however, without any rational proof. Mr. Malden, in his work on universities, desig nates it a "vulgar tradition." Mr. Hallam, in his latest work ("The Literature of Europe," vol. i., p. 21) declares it unworthy of credit. Mr. Ferguson declares that the opinion is now generally abandoned;" and Mr. Chalmers ("History of Oxford," p. 11) maintains that Alfred had really no share whatever in the foundation of Oxford.

The earliest trace of Oxford as a seat of learning occurs in the reign of William the Conqueror. Ingulfus, Abbot of Croyland in that reign, tells us that he received his education partly at Westminster and partly at Oxford. These two places were the seats of monastic establishments-in those days the only depositaries of learning. Relieved from earthly cares, and debarred from the prevalent modes of passing the time, the monks must of necessity have become students; and it is to them, doubtless, that we owe the preservation of the lamp of knowledge, whose feeble beams were well nigh quenched in the convulsions consequent on the downfall of the Roman empire. The colleges of our universities are the result of the free schools attached to the religious houses of early days. The "University" was the corporate body of teachers-those who had obtained the title of Doctor (teacher) or Master; the "Colleges" were the private lodgings of the students, built by benevolent men, and endowed by them, in order that

the students might be saved from extortion or want, and might be under religious supervision and control. University College, Oxford, the oldest educational foundation in the kingdom, was endowed by an Archdeacon of Durham, in 1280; and with the one exception of Trinity College, Cambridge, every college in the two ancient universities has been built by members of the National Church, either during its communion with, or since its separation from, the Papal See. The Reformation was not the establishment of a new church, but an internal revolution of the ancient Church of England. There was no transfer of church property, no change even in the dignitaries of the Church, at that eventful period. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury, and had shown his tendency to reform by marrying the daughter of an eminent German Protestant divine, before Henry quarrelled with the Pope; and he remained in the same post when Edward the Sixth was casting out the remnants of popish doctrine. The Reformation was simply a throwing off of the Romish yoke of usurpation,-a migration of the National Church, with all its effects, from the Pope's Head to the King's Arms. It was a change analogous to that which placed Bacon in the room of Aristotle in the class-rooms of Oxford. When B. S. quotes the latter change as justifying the admission of Dissenters, he ought to have remembered that it was voluntary and internal; there was no act of parliament to compel and to force the new philosophy into the colleges. The true analogy to the interference which B. S. advocates would be to bring into Parliament a bill to compel "the Savilian Professor of Geometry" to use and adopt no text-book but Colonel Thompson's "Geometry without Axioms;" or to make Dr. Whewell teach the doctrine of a plurality of worlds in opposition to his own convictions. Philosophers are divided as to whether the Newtonian or the undulatory theory of optics be true; then why not compel the university to teach both or to refrain from teaching either? What is good in religion is not less so in science.

We hope that we have said sufficient to show that Oxford and Cambridge were, in their origin, private institutions belonging to the Church; and we have pointed out that the Reformation produced no change in this respect. Since there has been no subsequent