"live orderly," but that of planting cannon in each university. Whether the subject is sufficiently important to require such an arrangement, it is for the respective governments to decide,

It is next said that "nothing is more ridiculous and silly, than the assertion, that by the abolition of academical liberty (we call it unbridled freedom,) genius would not have room to expand." With due deference to the editor of the Literary Journal, I do not think he has made a more ridiculous observation than the above; for does not true genius burst all restraint? Shall our institutions for the forming of youth be only suitable to the rarity of genius, which so often disappoints expectation, or shall we make them fit for ordinary talent? "The school at Naumberg," continues M. Kotzebue,"was remarkable for an almost monastic severity, and yet the genius of Klopstock expanded there." How comes the word school to be introduced here? We are speaking of universities! But did not Klopstock, after leaving the monastic school, which I shall ever recollect with gratitude, study at Leipsic? Here, where academical liberty was infinitely greater than it is at present. This, therefore, becomes a strong argument against the Literary Journal. Such exam

ples as the foregoing ought to be left in the back ground, by those who wish to prove the necessity of curtailing academical freedom.

"In the English universities, the students experience considerable privations, yet many men of great genius have issued from them." This I can readily believe if they went in! for the university never begets either a man or his genius: but what means this eternal recurrence to genius, as if its possessors were as numerous as the sands on the sea-shore? Does the editor of the Literary Journal wish to place our universities on the same principle as those of England? If so, let Germany have the privileges accorded by the British constitution in its purity, and I venture to assert the students will gladly embrace the change.

But with all the superiority of college discipline in England, how do those sciences which do not refer to the immediate uses of life, or mere amusement, flourish? How, for instance, is it with philosophy and metaphysics in that country? Has the mighty stream, whose source may be traced to the days of Locke, continued to run with equal force since his time? Has there been a Kant, a Reinhold, a Schelling, or Jacobi to refresh it? And even classical philosophy, in which Britons formerly shone so resplendent, is doubtless much more flourishing amongst us, as many highly distinguished names might be cited to

prove. It is true that England is rich in novelwriters, critics, and poets; but these are secondary branches of literature, and like painting they have been latterly cried up far above their proper level. Let us, however, not envy the English their liberties; on the contrary, may those liberties rather increase than diminish, though what is left of them, must tend greatly to soften the restrictions of their university system, which, if I am rightly informed, does not prevent many excesses, though of a different description. We have always enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, in our own universities, and this we hope to retain, until a better system is obtained.†

Surely the Professor is not acquainted with the poetry of Lord Byron, Mr. Moore, and a few others, who also shine in the constellation of which they form such brilliant luminaries?

+ It is by no means difficult to anticipate the reception which this allusion to the universities and learning in England will experience, particularly amongst those who derive so many good appointments, and such large emoluments from them. That there are abuses, and of a very formidable kind in those glorious institutions, as well as in every other of a similar nature, the representations and opinions of many authentic writers are on record to attest. It would also be a very curious subject of inquiry, if any one competent to the performance of such a task, were to attempt ascertaining how far such opulently endowed establishments, in which a desire for patronage and place must influence so many, are calculated either to promote public liberty, or learning and the sciences? Without any wish of depreciating the benefits civilization has derived from these seats of wisdom, much less to put those of Germany in competition with them, the prodigious ad

"The military schools and cadet corps, keep their pupils in strict subjection, and yet furnish many a hero, many a man of strong mind and rich understanding." They do not furnish, they receive them from the nation; and cannot, therefore, prevent him, who is destined for a hero, or a strong-minded man, from becoming one, as far, at least, as education goes. But why adduce this instance? Universities ought not to be conducted on the principle of schools, and least of all military ones. Even the editor himself, has, according to a former quotation, admitted that school restraint is not suited for a university. Truly every father," adds M. Kotzebue, "who casts an anxious look on his son, would thank that government, which set the example of banishing

4

66

is

vancement made by that country, especially in the higher branches of human knowledge, during the short space of fifty or sixty years, unaided by any such wealthy resources or external support; not only a most striking fact, but must tend materially to assist him who undertakes to form an estimate of the comparative advantages accruing from two systems so diametrically opposite.

With respect to the point of restrictions, it is a well known fact, that the greatest excesses committed by the youth of England, occur at schools which are remarkable for the severity of their discipline and restrictions, and not at our colleges. As to the violence attributed to the German students, without pronouncing any opinion on the subject, surely it is not for Englishmen to find fault with them, for joining the great body of their countrymen in the-wish of obtaining that representative system to which we are indebted for all our own prosperity and greatness! ED.

from its universities the unbridled and capricious will of the students." I admit that all "unbridled and capricious will," is pernicious, whether adopted by the student of a college, or exercised by a sovereign and his ministers. So that whatever government of Europe sets the laudable example of rooting it out, both from the universities and other places, may calculate on the heartfelt gratitude of all its subjects.

"For in this so-called academical liberty," proceeds M. Kotzebue, "it is but too true, that more good heads and hearts are lost, than have been thereby expanded." Now upon what this "too true," is founded, I am totally at a loss to conceive, as experience, which can alone decide in such a case, amply falsifies the whole assertion. Will any one take the trouble of making out a list of all those good hearts and heads that have been lost in the universities? Without such a list, how vain to deplore a loss that is unsupported by any proof. But such compassion as this passage contains, did not cost the Editor of the Literary Journal much exertion: he once energetically deplored that he was not the author of Doctor Bahrdt with the iron forehead! and on another occasion, lamented in equally passionate language he had not written Expektorazionen !*

* The first of these two works has been already mentioned.