vigilant and discreditably intolerant. nature est odisse quem læseris.

Proprium human@

An Act passed 31 George III. (1791) for 'relieving Papists 'from certain penalties and disabilities,' contains a proviso, 'that no person professing the Roman Catholic religion shall 'obtain or hold the mastership of any college or school of 'royal foundation, or of any other endowed college or school 'for the education of youth, or shall keep a school, in either 'of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.'*

Two examples of small-mindedness which would now justly raise a smile were shown in 1771, in opposing the M.A. degree of John Horne Tooke, for that he had in his correspondence with Mr. Wilkes spoken disrespectfully of the episcopal character;' (!) and, in 1793, in the prosecution of the Rev. William Frend, M.A., Fellow of Jesus College, for having published a pamphlet in which, among other things, 'religion as established by public authority within this realm, and also all ecclesiastical ranks and dignities were impugned.' In this latter case, the accused was banished from the University, after vainly appealing to the Court of King's Bench as well as to the visitor, the Bishop of Ely.†

In 1807 the University voted a petition to the House of 'Commons against the Bill for the relief of Roman Catholics.' This was on March 21st; and on April 8th 'the Senate voted 'an address thanking the King for his firmness in supporting the Protestant religion.'

In 1812, April 20th, the Senate voted petitions to both 'Houses of Parliament against the Catholic claims.' § The same was repeated on November 18th of the same year; this time, however, not without much opposition.

In 1817, May 14th, the University again 'voted a petition 'to the House of Lords against further concessions to the 'Roman Catholics.' T

In 1818, 'eighteen tutors of colleges intimated to the ViceChancellor that they decidedly disapproved of their pupils attending the public lectures of any person who was neither a member of the University (!) nor a member of the Church

Cooper's 'Annals of Cambridge,' iv. p. 441. This clause, of course, was due to direct University interference. +Ibid. pp. 362, 449. Ibid. p. 517.

Ibid. p. 486.

§ Ibid. p. 501.

Ibid. p. 504.

Religious Intolerance Maintained.

of England.'* must have been!

111

What enlightened men these eighteen tutors

In 1819, April 23rd, 'a grace passed the Senate by a con'siderable majority, for presenting petitions to both Houses 'of Parliament against further concessions of political power 'to Roman Catholics.' †

In 1821, March 12th, the Senate, by considerable majori'ties, voted petitions to both Houses of Parliament against 'the Roman Catholic Relief Bills.'

In 1822 the academic wrath was again hurled, in the shape of a petition to the Lords, 'against the Roman Catholic Peers' 'Bill.'S

In 1823 the Senate, by a considerable majority, voted a petition to the House of Commons against admitting the Roman Catholics to political power.'

In 1825 the same was repeated, and in 1829 against the Catholic Relief Bill becoming law. But on February 11th of the same year a like petition was rejected by 52 to 43.¶

As late as 1833 'the Senate voted petitions to both Houses ' against a Bill for the Relief of His Majesty's subjects profess'ing the Jewish religion,** and also to the Commons against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.

Let history record for all whom it may concern that, in the year of grace 1834, both Oxford and Cambridge petitioned the king to be heard by counsel before the Privy Council, to oppose the grant of a charter to the University of London. ++

In 1834 a counter petition, signed by 258 members of the Senate, against one to the contrary purport which had been signed by 62, sets forth their fear that the abolition of religious tests before taking degrees must have the effect of admitting into the several colleges persons whose religious opinions

4

' are avowedly adverse to the tenets of the Established Church, and possibly opposed to the truth of Christianity itself.'‡‡ In 1837 the Senate 'voted a petition to the House of Commons ' against the Bill for abolishing Church Rates.'§§ The same year St. John's and King's colleges, and also Oxford and

several of the colleges there, petitioned against the Earl of Radnor's Bill that a commission should be appointed with a view to ascertaining how far the estates and funds might be 'made more conducive to the objects intended by the founders 'and benefactors.'*

In 1847, the 17th of November, the Senate 'voted a petition 'to the House of Commons expressive of alarm and consternation (!) at the prospect of a law allowing Jews to sit in 'Parliament.'t

In 1848, the 8th of March, the Senate 'voted petitions to both 'Houses of Parliament against a Bill for the further repeal 'of enactments imposing pains and penalties on Roman 'Catholics.'

In 1839, May 27th, the Senate 'voted a petition to the 'House of Commons against the Government scheme of 'national education.'‡

Said we not rightly, that the Universities have not been the leaders of public opinion? Every scheme they have opposed has passed the Legislature; even London University has obtained a charter, and has shown that it can use it for the national good and to its own high credit; even the dreaded Papists' and the detested Jews can sit in Parliament and are eligible to be elected as Fellows of colleges. Oxford has even seen a railway brought close to its walls, though it succeeded in diverting the intended course of the Great Western, and a 'Government scheme of education' has been carried, and has not proved so very wicked after all. The long and obstinate opposition to the abolition of tests and the admission of Dissenters to the benefit of a University education has been equally futile. Progress cannot be arrested even by University petitions. It is the old story of trying to sweep back the tide with a broom.

Of course, it will be said that these and similar exhibitions of the spirit of exclusiveness are not only natural to, but the duty of, those who regard themselves as 'defenders of the 'faith,' and whose watchword ever is the Church is in

Cooper's 'Annals of Cambridge,' iv. p. 606. A small amount of common sense, one would think, and the smallest desire that the Universities should really benefit the nation, would have suggested a petition for so important an object. + Ibid. p. 697. Ibid. p. 622.

Revenues must be Devoted to National Uses.

113

'danger.' To keep out the enemy, it is argued, is evidently the only course that can be conscientiously pursued by those who act on the defensive. Is, then, the age not yet passed when persecution was mistaken for religion, and injustice to others was considered the proper way of securing one's own rights? Is this the result of the sound learning and religious educa'tion' which the Universities profess to provide? It is impossible to contemplate the prominent part they have taken in vainly and foolishly opposing the progress of religious liberty, without feeling that a selfish love of exclusive possession has been the mainspring of their action. Most truly has Mr. Kennedy remarked that his own University has shown no great 'administrative capacity. Its decisions, whether on political 'or educational questions, are by no means famous for liberality 'or freedom.' It is this exclusive possession that must be no longer tolerated; this sole use, or misuse, of such enormous revenues on the sophistical plea that they belong to the Church. We insist that they belong to the nation, and that to the nation at large they must be, not in name only, but fully, handsomely, and impartially restored, if any scheme of University reform is to deserve the name.

The real friends of the Universities are the advocates of extensive reform. Those who oppose it seem generally conscious, nay, will sometimes admit, that the present system is indefensible. They secretly hope, however, that it will last during their time; and so all considerations of future public good are merged in the selfish interests of the present. We cannot expect that the holders of sinecures should be very strenuous in condemning them, or very ready to see that a strong Liberal Government may some day make short work in their total abolition. While such sentiments as the following prevail in the high places, we must expect opposition to all reform. For thus writes † the Master of one of the colleges at Cambridge:

'I have no faith in reforms based on unconstitutional changes. I have no approbation for the unjust and arbitrary extension of benefits to those for whom they were never intended, and especially when such etension is necessarily subversive of the principles which it was the sole object of those benefactions to cherish and confirm. I can yield no assent to it, 'Letter,' &c. p. 6.

University Reform,' p. 7.

still less can I voluntarily co-operate in effecting the sacrifice of the interests of one class in order to appease the malignant envy and hatred of another. I have nothing but scorn and loathing for such political ambition and greed as would induce me to concur in humiliating the highest and holiest of human associations [i.c., the Established Church]— myself a professed member of the same-in order to conciliate those of whose avowed principles I am ashamed [i.c., the Nonconformists], whose hostility I dread, but whose adhesion my exigencies demand, and the continuance of whose favour I must be ever ready to purchase, even by the violation of the convictions of my conscience,-if I have any.'

These words (which are unquestionably libellous as pointed. against a late eminent Minister) fall harmless from their very extravagance. The cause of University reform must be nearly ripe when such declamation as this is all that can be urged against it.

ART. IV. Sin and Madness from a Physician's Point of View.

Responsibility in Mental Disease. By Dr. HENRY MAUDSLEY.
Henry S. King and Co. 1874.

It is well sometimes to view a scene from a standpoint different from that which we are accustomed to occupy: fresh beauties will thus be seen, that we could not have noticed before. If for instance we have been enjoying the pleasures of a garden, the cool shady walks, the arrangement of the lovely flowers, the delicious aroma, and were to meet the gardener, he would give us quite a new aspect of the garden. He would take us to his hot-beds, where he rears the plants, and explain the influence of heat, light, moisture, manure, soil, &c., on them. He would show us how he was able to alter the tints, and even the forms of plants and flowers, and would tell us of causes at work spoiling his shrubs. Now this would be purely the materialistic aspect of the garden, and, without destroying our former enjoyments of its ethics, would give us much interest and instruction.

So with the study of the human mind, there is a materialistic aspect in which we can with profit and advantage regard it, without any danger of being carried away by the false doctrine of the materialist, that thought is only a form of physical force. For though it may be proved that the brain treasures