Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

</pre>

Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Carol Ann Brown, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

THE

AMERICAN

QUARTERLY REVIEW.

No. XVIII.

JUNE, 1831.

PHILADELPHIA:
CAREY & LEA.

SOLD IN PHILADELPHIA BY E. L. CAREY & A. HART.
NEW-YORK, BY G. & C. & H. CARVILL.

_LONDON_:--R. J. KENNETT, 59 GREAT QUEEN STREET.
_PARIS_:--A. & W. GALIGNANI, RUE VIVIENNE.

AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW.

No. XVIII.

JUNE, 1831.

ART. I.--COLLEGE INSTRUCTION AND DISCIPLINE.

1.--_Journal of the Proceedings of a Convention of Literary
and Scientific Gentlemen, held in the Common Council Chamber
of the City of New-York_. October, 1830. New-York: pp. 286.
8vo.

2.--_Catechism of Education, Part 1st, &c_. By WILLIAM LYON
MACKENZIE. _Member of the Parliament of Upper Canada_. York:
1830. pp. 46. 8vo.

3.--_Address of the State Convention of Teachers and Friends
of Education, held at Utica_. January 12th, 13th, and 14th,
1831. _With an Abstract of the Proceedings of said
Convention_. Utica: 1831. pp. 16. 8vo.

4.--_Oration on the advantages to be derived from the
Introduction of the Bible and of Sacred Literature as
essential parts of all Education, in a literary point of
view merely, from the Primary Schools to the University:
delivered before the Connecticut Alpha of the Phi Beta Kappa
Society_. On Tuesday, September 7th, 1830. By THOMAS SMITH
GRIMKE, of Charleston, S. C. New-Haven: 1830. pp. 76. 8vo.

5.--_Lecture on Scientific Education, delivered Saturday,
December 18th, 1830, before the Members of the Franklin
Institute_. By JAMES R. LEIB, A. M. Philadelphia: 1831. pp.
16. 8vo.

The subject of practical education has always been one of intense interest with every reflecting individual in this Union. It is a universally received axiom, that the foundation of a republic must be in the information of its people; and that whilst the monarchical governments of other countries may be successfully administered by an oligarchy of intelligence, a government like our own cannot be carried on without an extensive diffusion of knowledge amongst those who have to select its very machinery. The political circumstances of a country will also modify, most importantly, the course of instruction; and that system which is adopted in the old Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, in a nation in which the law of primogeniture exists, where wealth is entailed in families, and where the colleges themselves are richly endowed, may be impracticable or impolitic in a country not possessing such incentives. Education must, therefore, be suited to the country; and a long period must elapse before we can expect to have individuals as well educated as in those universities, although the mass of our community may be much more enlightened. We have no benefices, no fellowships with fixed stipends, to offer for those who may devote themselves to the profound study of certain subjects. In England and Ireland, it is by no means uncommon for a student to remain at college until he is twenty-two or twenty-three years of age, in the acquisition of his preliminary education, or of those branches that are made to precede a professional course of study--the whole period of his academic residence being consumed in the study of these departments. In this country, such a course would be as unadvisable as it is generally impracticable. The equal division of property precludes any extensive accumulation of wealth in families. The youth are compelled to launch early into life: the more useful subjects of study have to be selected, and the remainder are postponed as luxuries, to be acquired should opportunity admit of indulgence.

In no country are the colleges or higher schools so numerous, in proportion to the population, as in the United States.

In France there are three universities; in Italy, eight; in Great Britain, eight; in Germany, twenty-two; and in Russia, seven: whilst in the United States, we have thirteen institutions bearing the title of universities, and thirty-three that of colleges; making in all forty-six higher schools capable of conferring degrees: yet a very wrong inference would be drawn, were we to affirm that the education of a nation is always in a direct ratio with the number of its higher schools. Such would be the fact, did these institutions assume an elevated standard in the distribution of their highest honours, and were the condition of the intermediate schools such that the youth could be sent to the university so prepared as to be able to cultivate his studies there to the greatest advantage. Unfortunately, in many parts of the United States the condition of the intermediate schools and academics has been grievously neglected; and the authorities of the universities have been compelled to lower their standard, and to admit students totally unprepared for more advanced studies. In this way many of the higher schools have degenerated into mere gymnasia, or ordinary academies. This circumstance, with the multiplication of institutions capable of conferring degrees, has been attended with the additional evil, that, in some, the highest honours have been, and are conferred for acquirements, which would scarcely enable the possessors to enter the lowest classes in others.

It seems, indeed, that the real or fancied insufficiency of most of our existing institutions, gave occasion to the proposition for establishing a university in New-York, and to the Convention, a review of whose proceedings will enable us to offer some practical considerations and reflections, deduced from some experience and meditation on this momentous subject. "Much as our country," observes the Rev. _Dr. Mathews_, in his opening address in behalf of the committee of the university, "owes to her excellent colleges, the sentiment seems to be general, that the time has arrived when she calls for something more; when she requires institutions which shall give increased maturity to her literature, and also an enlarged diffusion to the blessings of education, and which she may present to the world as maintaining an honourable competition with the universities of Europe." p. 14.

The establishment of a university in the city of New-York having been determined upon, and "an amount of means" pledged to the object, which would place the institution at its commencement on a liberal footing, its friends, "believing it to be desirable, and that it would prove highly gratifying to all who feel an interest in the important subject of education, that a meeting should be convened of literary and scientific men of our country, to confer on the general interests of letters and liberal education," appointed a committee, with powers to invite, as far as practicable, the attendance of such individuals in behalf of the university. Accordingly, on the 20th of October last, a number of literary and scientific gentlemen assembled from various parts of the United States, when President Bates, of Middlebury College, Vermont, was appointed president of the convention; and the Honourable Albert Gallatin, and Walter Bowne, Esq. Mayor of the City, were named vice presidents. The convention sat daily until the 23d inclusive, when it adjourned _sine die_; but not without having provided for the perpetuation of its species at a future period.

In an assemblage so constituted, it was not to be expected that, excepting the notoriety occasioned by it, any great advantage could accrue to the university or to the public from its deliberations; the most discordant sentiments on almost all points of discipline and instruction;--the views of the experienced and inexperienced--the _experientia vera_, and the _experientia falsa_--of the contemplative and the visionary, were to be anticipated; but we must confess, that humble as were our expectations from the results of its labours, the published record of its proceedings proves that we had pitched them too high. The committee appear to us to have had no definite object--no system--in bringing many of the subjects before the convention; every discussion is arrested, without our being able to decide what was the conclusion at which the meeting arrived: and

"Like a man to double business bound,
They stand in pause where they shall first begin,
And both neglect."

Of these debates the "Journal" is, doubtless, a faithful record, so far as regards their succession; the brevity, however, of the minutes, published by the secretary, renders the work very unsatisfactory; and scarcely elevates it above the character of a log-book, if we make exception of one or two excellent addresses--such as that of Mr. Gallatin--which are reported at length; and of some (generally indifferent) communications transmitted by their authors.

The first topic presented for the consideration of the convention, was:--"_As to the universities of Europe; and how far the systems pursued in them may be desirable for similar institutions in this country_." On this subject, Dr. Lieber read a communication of interest in relation to the organization, courses of study and discipline of the German universities, which was referred to the committee of arrangements. Mr. Woolsey, of New-York, gave an account of the French colleges; their system of instruction and discipline; a few desultory observations are next made by Mr. W. C. Woodbridge. Mr. Hasler flies off at a tangent, and offers "a few remarks on the appointment of professors," and is followed by Professor Silliman on the same subject. Mr. Sparks presents a few observations and alludes to the organization of Harvard College. President Bates gives the plan of choosing professors adopted at the college over which he is placed; and Mr. Keating, of Philadelphia, puts a _finale_ to the proceedings of the day and to the question at the same time, by the expression of his views. After this, we hear no more of this "topic," and we are left in the dark whether the system or any part of the system of the universities of Europe be desirable for similar institutions in this country.

It is a mere truism to remark, that the success of an institution must be greatly dependent upon the character of its professors; hence, in all universities, the best mode of selecting them has been a point of earnest and careful inquiry. In some countries, they are appointed by the government; in others, the office is obtained _au concours_. The candidates being required to defend theses of their own composition, and the most successful receiving the office; whilst in others, the faculty have the power of supplying vacancies in their own body. In our own country, no uniformity exists on this point. Harvard, by the scheme of organization, is under the supervision and control of two separate boards, called the _Corporation_, and _Board of Overseers_. The former is composed of seven persons, of whom the president of the college is one, by virtue of his office; the other six being chosen from the community at large. The board of overseers consists of the governor and lieutenant-governor of the state, the members of the council and of the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, and the president of the college _ex-officio_; and, also, of fifteen laymen and fifteen clergymen, who are elected, as vacancies occur, by the whole board. This board has a controlling power, which, however, is rarely exerted over the acts of the corporation.

The professors are all chosen, in the first instance, by the corporation, or rather nominated for the approval or rejection of the board of overseers: "but as a case has rarely, if ever been known, in which such a nomination has been rejected by the overseers, the election of all the professors and immediate officers, may be said to pertain in practice to the corporation alone. It is probable, however, that this is seldom done without consulting the members of the faculty into which a professor is to be chosen." _Journal_, p. 82.

In the generality of our institutions, the appointing power is vested in a board of trustees, who have no controlling body placed over them. In almost all, however, we find from the Journal of the Convention--that the faculty are consulted--"that" according to Dr. Bates, "experience had proved the wisdom of consulting the faculty on any contemplated appointment of a professor; and that, in fact, though not professedly, yet in effect, professors are appointed by the instructers or faculty,--and thus by securing their good will towards the new incumbent, amity was enforced." P. 83.

The great difficulty exists in becoming acquainted with the qualifications of the candidate, especially if he has not been previously engaged in teaching. There can be no better mode of testing the capacity of a teacher, than in the class room; but if this be not available, the recommendation of _sufficient_ individuals, with us, has always to be taken; and in this, a certain degree of risk must necessarily be incurred. It is never, however, a matter of so much moment to procure a professor, who is pre-eminently informed upon the subject of his department, as one that is capable of communicating the knowledge he possesses, is systematic, has a mind that can enable him to improve and to take part as a member of the faculty in the management of the university, in which the greatest firmness, good sense, and ability are occasionally demanded. "A man," says the illustrious Jefferson, "is not qualified for a professor, knowing nothing but merely his own profession. He should be otherwise well educated as to the sciences generally; able to converse understandingly with the scientific men with whom he is associated, and to assist in the councils of the faculty on any subject of science in which they may have occasion to deliberate. Without this he will incur their contempt and bring disreputation on the institution."[1]

Young professors are, on the above accounts, _caeteris paribus_, preferable to old. They have not had time to acquire any bad system; are energetic in the acquisition of information, and become attached to the occupation. In institutions where the faculty live within the same walls, it is, likewise, important that the disposition of the individual should be taken into the account, in order that every thing may go on harmoniously. A kind, conciliating deportment, will also gain the respect of the student, and tend materially to discipline.

The best system for the appointment of professors, perhaps, would be--that the faculty should nominate, and the trustees approve or reject. It is improbable, that they would ever be guided by any feelings which would be counter to the prosperity of the institution; whilst they would generally have better opportunities of becoming acquainted with the qualifications of individuals than the board of trustees. This course appears to us less objectionable than any other; and we are glad to find that it was suggested by Mr. Sparks, in the convention.--

"No good policy," he remarks, "would introduce an efficient
member into a small body, where such a step would be likely
to endanger the harmony of feeling and action. For this
reason, it may be well worthy of consideration, whether, in
the scheme of a new constitution, it is not better to
provide for the nomination of a professor by the members of
the faculty, with whom he is to be associated. Such a body
would be as capable as any other, to say the least, of
judging in regard to the requisite qualifications of a
candidate, and much more capable of deciding whether his
personal qualities, traits of character, and habits of
thinking, would make him acceptable in their community. It
seems evident, therefore, that something is lost and nothing
gained by referring this nomination to another body of men,
who have no interest in common with the party chiefly
concerned. It is enough that the electing or sanctioning
power dwells in a separate tribunal." P. 83.

Much diversity of opinion has prevailed on the subject of remuneration to professors. In some universities they are paid entirely by fees from the students. The objection urged against this, is, that the professor is too much dependent upon the student, and that this feeling may materially interfere with discipline. To those who consider that there ought to be no discipline in our universities--and strange as it may seem, such views were expressed in the convention--this plan of remuneration can be liable to no objection. Nor to institutions in which there are no resident pupils, like the one proposed in New-York, would the objection apply. On the contrary, the mode in which the professor receives his remuneration entirely from the students, the stimulus which is thus excited, and the feeling that his emoluments may be proportionate to his energy and success in conveying instruction, may have the most beneficial effect upon his exertions. Accordingly, we find the most meritorious application on the part of the professors in our great medical schools; and a degree of enthusiasm aroused, which might not be elicited were the mode of recompensing them other than it is.

On the other hand, it has been maintained, that the professor should be in no wise dependent upon the student; that he should receive no fees, but be paid by a fixed salary. The objection urged against this system is, that there is here no stimulus, and that as the professor feels his income altogether independent of his exertions, he will relax in his efforts, neglect his duties, become inattentive to his own improvement, and uncourteous in his behaviour to the pupil. This is plausible in theory, and doubtless, has occasionally been found to be the fact. It is not likely to occur, however, if the professor be held rigidly responsible, and if the tenure of his office be on good behaviour, instead of for life. It is to be calculated, likewise, that every professor is a gentleman, and that the honour of the situation is a part of the emolument. These should be a sufficient guarantee that his duties will be performed energetically, and that his behaviour will be courteous. Should this not be the case, he is unfit for his situation, and the trustees should have moral courage enough to remove him. Experience, too, has, we think, sufficiently proved, that the evils of fixed salaries, under the tenure _dum bene se gesserit_, are more imaginary than real: some of the very best institutions are conducted upon this system, in various parts of Europe and of this country. On the whole, perhaps, where the students reside within the precincts, a combination of a fixed salary, of a sufficient amount to enable the professor to be, to a certain extent, independent of the student, with the payment of a fee from the student for tuition, is the most politic and satisfactory mode of remuneration. In this manner, he receives a certain stimulus to exertion, whilst other objections to both exclusive systems are obviated. Experience, however, shows, that although the zeal and industry of a professor may occasion a slight fluctuation in the numbers that resort to his school, this influence is very limited in its action. It is the character of the study which attracts followers; and whilst one department will be crowded to excess, independently of the merits or demerits of the professor, others will be almost entirely neglected. This will occur in all institutions in which professional, or extremely advanced, or unusual studies are taught. Every student, whether he may be intended for one of the learned professions, or for any other pursuit, considers it absolutely necessary to attend certain academical departments;--those of ancient languages and mathematics for example;--whilst comparatively few can be expected to attend the professional chairs, or the higher branches of study, notwithstanding the subjects may be taught in the most attractive and sufficient manner. Unless the manners of a professor are strikingly obnoxious, but little effect will be produced in the numbers frequenting his school: and if they are so, it is a sufficient ground for removal.

In those universities in which the professors are remunerated by a fixed salary, this inequality of attendance is not felt; but it is a serious evil, where the emolument accrues wholly or in part in the form of tuition fees. The greatest inequality may prevail in the compensation; and those teachers who are engaged in the most abstruse departments, will necessarily be worse paid than those who are engaged in superintending the elementary branches. Suppose the department of mathematics to be divided into the elementary and transcendental: if each be remunerated by an equal fee from his students, the latter cannot expect to have an income of more than one-twentieth part of that of his colleague. This we know is a ground of much dissatisfaction in many institutions, and attempts have been made to obviate it. Meiners,[2] a reflecting writer on the subject of universities, thinks it would be proper to correct this inequality by making a portion of the fees received common stock: but if we admit that the abilities and attention of the professors are equal, and that the same number of hours is employed in teaching the various branches, there seems to be no reason why the remuneration of one professor should be permitted to exceed that of his colleague. On this subject, some pertinent remarks were made by Dr. Lieber, in which he agrees, in many respects, with his countryman, _Meiners_.

"Now I ask," says he, "how much even Professor Gauss, _le
plus grand des mathematiciens_, as _La Grange_ called him,
has realized from his lectures? Mathematics, at least the
higher branches of them, never can be very popular; I mean,
it is impossible that they should be generally studied, and
it would be to consign a professor to absolute indigence, if
government should leave professors of mathematics dependent
on the honorarium paid by their students. I studied
mathematics under the celebrated Pfaff at Halle, whom _La
Grange_ called _un des premiers mathematiciens_, and we were
never more than twenty in his lecture room, of whom I fully
believe not much more than half paid the _honorarium_, which
was very small." P. 58.

And again,--

"Yet I believe, that generally speaking, it is better for
professors and students to have fees paid for their
lectures, for various reasons, although it would be unsafe
to let professors be solely or chiefly depending upon them,
for it would be unsafe to settle such annuities upon persons
intended to live for science, or guarantee them, forever, an
easy life. It has besides been found, that generally,
students attend those lectures more carefully for which they
pay. With the different branches of instruction, the
principle upon which professorships are to be established,
ought to vary. In a city, in which many students of medicine
always will be assembled, it may be safe to let the
professor greatly depend upon the fees of the students,
whilst a professor of Hebrew ought to be provided for in
such a way, that he may follow the difficult study of
Oriental languages, without the direct care for his support,
in case the number of students would be too small for this
purpose, as it generally will prove." P. 65.

In most of our colleges, the president has some control over the course of education in the schools of the institution; and, consequently, over the professors. Such a plan is, however, impolitic. No control whatever ought to be exerted over the teacher. If qualified--and if not he is not fitted for his situation--he ought to be left to himself, and to follow that system which he conceives best adapted to develop the intellect of his pupils; at the same time he should be held rigidly responsible for his free agency. In the University of Virginia, as well as in other of the higher schools of the country, the professor is required to send in a weekly report of the number of lectures he has delivered; the daily examinations instituted; the length of time occupied in each; and this report of the mode in which his duties have been executed, is laid before the board of visitors at their next meeting. In this manner delinquencies can be detected, and the appropriate corrective be applied.

Occasionally, however, it may happen, that a professor may be indolent, and inaccurate in his reports; and it may be a question, whether it is not advantageous that the presiding officer should have authority to attest how often a professor really does meet his class, with the length of time expended, and the precise course of instruction adopted; and then to report to the trustees, but not to interfere himself in the rectification of abuses.

In the discussion of this subject in the Convention, Mr. Keating has committed a blunder, regarding the University of Virginia.

"He would like to see the president, in truth, the head of
the university, occupying a distinguished station in the
board of trustees, controlling all the faculties,
superintending all the departments. It should be a situation
such as an experienced and retiring statesman would be proud
to fill. A good example had been set by the new University
of Virginia." P. 86.

Now, the rector of that institution is merely a member of the board of visiters, chosen from out the body to preside over them, has no delegated authority, but meets the other visiters once a year, and presides over their deliberations, without, however, having a casting vote. The chairman of the faculty, chosen annually by the board of visiters, from amongst the professors, is the real president, and possesses the powers usually granted to the presidents of colleges. We are surprised, by the bye, to observe from the journal of the Convention, that the University of Virginia was entirely unrepresented there. It has now been established six years, and has been proceeding on a tide of successful experiment. It is the first effort that has been made in this country to cast off the trammels that have fettered practical instruction; to suffer each to take the bent of his own inclination in the selection of his studies, requiring for the attainment of its highest honours, _qualifications_ only, and rejecting _time_ altogether. Although the first attempt in this country on a large scale, the plan has been long adopted in other countries, particularly in Germany, which has been so justly celebrated for the novelty and excellence of its academic instruction; yet in no country can such an experiment be regarded with more interest than in the United States, where, for the reasons already assigned, the youth are compelled to attain, if practicable, the strictly useful, and to strive for their own support at a very early period of their career.

In the debates of the Convention, we find few allusions to that institution, and wherever it is referred to, the most lamentable ignorance of its economy is exhibited, and the greatest errors are committed. In it there is an entire separation of the legislative from the executive power; the board of visiters exercising the former--the board of professors, or faculty, the latter. This has its advantages and inconveniences. In many of our colleges for resident students, the president is, _ex officio_, presiding officer of the board of visiters, so that he forms a part of the two _powers_. Where the president is at the same time a professor this is apt to create heart burnings and jealousies, and gives him a decided, and often unfair preponderance in any dispute with his brother professors, in which the decision of the board of trustees may be requested; whilst, if the executive power have no voice in the deliberations of the superior board; and especially if the visiters reside at a distance from the institution, laws are apt to be enacted, which create great dissatisfaction and confusion, which have not been suggested by experience, and which, consequently, are either wholly inoperative, unfeasible, or impolitic. To obviate these evils the executive might have a delegate at the meetings of the legislative body, who, even if he had no vote, might be expected to take part in those deliberations which regarded the rules and regulations of the university, or the interests of the body to which he belonged; but in the discussion of other topics, his attendance might be dispensed with. In this manner, the legislative body would have the advantage of the voice of experience, and the faculty, by choosing their own delegate, could always be represented, should discussions arise between them and their presiding officer. Nothing is more certain, than that laws which seem easy of execution, and admirably conceived, are often found, in practice, to be wholly unavailable and injudicious. But the mischief does not end here. The respect of the student is any thing but increased towards the board that conceives, or the executive which attempts to fulfil such regulations. By the enactments lying before us, of almost all the well regulated institutions of this country, we find, that the board of professors are requested by the trustees to suggest to them such laws as experience may indicate; this is wise; the faculty are unquestionably the best judges, and no non-resident can possibly have the necessary experience.

Well adapted rules are the best safeguards for the success of any university, where the students reside within the precincts especially. They should be simple, yet not trivial; efficient, yet not unnecessarily rigorous, and should be drawn up, if not perspicuously, at least intelligibly. What shall we say to such cases as the following, which we copy from the published laws of one of the oldest colleges of this Union?

"No person, other than a student or other member of the
college, shall be admitted as a boarder at the college
table. No liquors shall be furnished or used at table,
_except_ beer, cider, toddy, or _spirits and water_!"

"No student shall be permitted to lodge or board, or without
permission from the president or a professor, go _into_ a
tavern."

And again,--

"If offences be committed in which there are many actors or
abettors, the faculty may select _such of the offenders for
punishment as may be deemed necessary to maintain the
authority of the laws, and to preserve good order in the
college_, &c."

It is always found more easy to make laws, than to have them well executed. This is, in fact, usually the great difficulty, and formed, very properly, a subject of deliberation in the Convention. No light was, however, shed upon it, and the most visionary sentiments were elicited, denying the necessity of any discipline whatever in the higher schools. Whenever a number of youths are thrown together within a small compass, other rules become necessary besides those of the land. The _esprit du corps_, the influence of bad example afforded by a few, lead to the commission of offences that demand interposition; accordingly, in every intelligent and sound thinking community, certain transgressions, such as gambling, drinking, disorderly behaviour, habits of expense and dissoluteness, and incorrigible idleness, have been esteemed to merit serious collegiate reprehension.

Of the different kinds of government adopted in universities, we shall mention those only which prevail in the United States. The authority is generally vested in a president and faculty, the former having the power of inflicting minor punishments; the major punishments requiring the sanction of the latter. With the president the power is vested of deciding whether any case is deserving the one or the other. An objection has been urged against this system, that if the president be of a timid, vacillating disposition, he may keep every case from the faculty, and in this there is some truth; he is, however, responsible to the trustees, and hence it can rarely happen that he will exercise ill-judged lenity; this danger too, is greatly abated, provided the faculty be allowed collateral jurisdiction, and can act on cases of which he has not taken cognizance. If he has already acted, it would be obviously improper that any additional jurisdiction should be exercised--in accordance with the common law maxim--that no man can be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence.

If such discretionary power be not granted to the presiding officer, he will have to carry every case before the faculty; and thus his office will be merely nominal, for it would be utterly impracticable to define, with any accuracy, the cases that must fall under his dominion, distinctly from those to be assigned for the animadversion of the faculty.

It has been fancifully presumed, that the students themselves might be induced to form a part of the government--to constitute a court for the trial of minor offences, and to inflict punishment on a delinquent colleague; and, further, that their co-operation might react beneficially in the prevention of transgressions. The scheme has a republican appearance, but experience has sufficiently shown that it is impracticable. In the first printed copy of the enactments of the University of Virginia, (1825) we find the following.

"The major punishments of expulsion from the university, temporary suspension of attendance and presence there, or interdiction of residence or appearance within its precincts, shall be decreed by the professors themselves. Minor cases may be referred to a board of six censors, to be named by the faculty, from among the most discreet of the students, whose duty it shall be, sitting as a board, to inquire into the facts, propose the minor punishment which they think proportioned to the offence, and to make report thereof to the professors for their approbation or their commutation of the penalty, if it be beyond the grade of the offence. These censors shall hold their offices until the end of the session of their appointment, if not sooner revoked by the faculty." But in the next edition of the enactments, (1827) we find that no such law exists; hence we conclude, that the experiment had met with the usual unsuccessful issue. So long, indeed, as the _esprit du corps_ or _Burschenschaft_ prevails amongst students, which inculcates, that it is a stigma of the deepest hue to give testimony against a fellow-student, it is vain for us to expect any co-operation in the discipline of the institution from them. This "loose principle in the ethics of schoolboy combinations," as it has been termed by Mr. Jefferson, has indeed led to numerous and serious evils. It has been a great cause of the combinations formed in resistance of the lawful authorities, of intemperate addresses at the instigation of some unworthy member, and to repeated scenes of commotion and violence, and cannot be too soon laid aside. Sooner or later, it must yield to the improved condition of public feeling; and we cannot but regret to see the slightest and most indirect sanction given to it in the regulations of a university, which has made so many useful innovations in systems of instruction and discipline, that have been perpetuated by the prejudices of ages. The law to which we allude is the following:--"When testimony is required from a student, it shall be voluntary and not on oath, and the obligation to give it, shall be left to his own sense of right."

No youth hesitates to depose in a court of justice touching an offence against the municipal laws of his country, committed by a brother student. The youth and the people at large, are, indeed, distinguished for their ready attention to the calls of justice. Yet it is esteemed the depth of dishonour to testify when called upon by the college authorities, against the grossest violator not only of collegiate but municipal law, as if it could be less honourable to give the same testimony before one tribunal than another; or the morality of the act differed in the two cases.

This erroneous principle, which leads to the separation of so many promising individuals from the universities, threatens their reputation and prosperity, injures the cause and saps the very foundation of education, prevails in some countries, and in some portions of this country more than in others. In some of the most respectable of our own colleges, it is made a duty to give evidence under pain of the highest punishments; and in some of those in which the _esprit du corps_ has prevailed to the greatest extent, it has given occasion to the adoption, by the faculty, of the monstrous alternative of selecting persons on bare suspicion, or at random, and punishing them under the expectation that the real delinquent might exhibit himself. A law of this kind prevails in the college of William and Mary, in Virginia. "In any case of disorderly conduct within the college, in which students are concerned, every student in college at the time, whether he be a resident therein or not, shall be considered as a principal and treated accordingly, unless he can show his innocence." It has also been proposed to get over this difficulty, with regard to testimony, by establishing a law court at the university, of which the law professor, for example, might be judge, and the jury be constituted of the inhabitants of the vicinity. This tribunal to possess the ordinary jurisdiction of courts of law, and of course, empowered to require testimony on oath from the student. Such might be a valuable adjunct to the powers ordinarily possessed by the faculties of our colleges.

The majority of the convention, seem manifestly to have been in favour of what they term _Parental Discipline_; but we are left to conjecture how much this embraces. If it be meant, in the language of Meiners, that "the academical authorities should bear to the students the relation of fathers as well as of judges; that they should not only punish, but entreat, admonish, advise, warn, and reprove"--no one will dispute the propriety of the system. It is, in fact, that which is introduced into our best institutions.

"The governors and instructors," say the laws of Harvard, "earnestly desire that the students may be influenced to good conduct and literary exertion, by higher motives than the fear of punishment; but when such motives fail, the faculty will have recourse to friendly caution and warning, fines, solemn admonition, and official notice of delinquency to parents or guardians; and where the nature and circumstances of the case require it, to suspension, dismission, rustication, or expulsion." But important as may be the reformation of an offender, and interesting as it is to see the wild and the thoughtless restored to the paths of rectitude, it is obvious, that the prime object of discipline is less such reformation than the advantage to others; and if in the collegiate, as in the corporeal economy, an offending member should endanger the safety of the whole fabric, it will have to be removed. A man is not sent to the penitentiary merely because he has stolen a sheep, but in order that sheep may not be stolen. The term parental discipline, in fact, is most undefined; it includes the most discrepant and the most heterogeneous modes of correction. Solitary confinement, sitting in a corner, whipping, are used according to circumstances; but we presume none of these punishments were contemplated by the Convention.

Most of the speakers seem to have been of opinion, that the parental system of intercourse, such as a wise father would maintain with his son, is best adapted for instruction and discipline in our colleges. Such a course would be manifestly impracticable where the number of students is considerable, and is of doubtful policy in all. The professor should, indeed, be kind, courteous, and affable; conciliating and ready to afford every information; but we doubt whether either discipline or instruction is aided by constant and familiar intercourse. There should be a certain distance maintained between pupil and preceptor; but no presumption, no affected dignity on the part of the latter; and under such circumstances every thing will be better effected than where the communication is closer and less unrestrained.

But the great dread entertained by these gentlemen, has been towards the infliction of disgrace; yet no punishment, whatever, can be awarded, without more or less of this. It is a disgrace to an offender to be reprimanded; to be dismissed from the schoolroom for a time; to be sent away from the institution; the good, however, of the rest requires it, and it is pseudo-philanthropy to repine. One point canvassed in the Convention and connected with this subject, requires notice. "Whether a student who has been dismissed from one institution ought to be refused admittance into any other? There is a general understanding amongst the colleges of the United States, that no student thus separated from one, shall be received into another, unless he be so far restored to favour as to be able to obtain from his college what is termed a regular dismissal." (Journal, p. 145.) Unconditional refusal to admit, appears to us to be a rule which can allow of but little justification. Meiners observes, that "those who come from other universities ought to bring certificates that they have not been expelled. If merely dismissed, they may be admitted,--but then they should be narrowly watched." It would, however, be barbarous to exclude even an expelled student, provided he could produce satisfactory evidence of his return to rectitude. It is a good practice to make the matriculation, under such circumstances, difficult; and to require a sufficient period of probation before he is permitted to join the university. The University of Virginia, has no comity in this respect with the other institutions of the Union. It has followed the only rational plan; ordaining--"that no person who has been a student at any other incorporated seminary, shall be received at that university, but on producing a certificate from such seminary, or _other satisfactory evidence_, to the faculty, with respect to his general good conduct." A no less important regulation would be, to exclude those of notoriously idle or dissolute habits, and yet who had never been at any incorporated seminary.

But Mr. Hasler is of opinion, and in this he is joined by Dr. Wolf, and, so far as we can judge, from the published speech of Mr. Woodbridge, by that gentleman also,--that little or no control is necessary over the students who resort to universities. The paper from the pen of that gentleman, in the Journal before us, bears the stamp of visionary enthusiasm; exhibits, we think, clearly a total deficiency of experience, and is

"A fine sample, on the whole,
Of rhetoric, which the learn'd call rigmarole."

"Against this liberal discipline," he remarks, "the example
of the Virginia university has very erroneously been alleged
by way of disapprobation, or as a failure: it affords no
proof of that kind. The erroneous system of collegiate life
has been preserved in it. The locality is insulated, and the
constant sameness of the company, of fellow-students only,
produces the bad results of tedious and too close influence
between the student, even with the professors. Besides that,
the architect of that building, the well informed,
philosophical, and amiable Jefferson, died before it was
finished; for the construction of such an institution is not
finished, with the walls that enclose its lecture rooms, or
the dwellings; the organization can only be the result of
several years actual activity of the institution,
particularly when the plan is novel in the place where it is
established. To this is still to be added, that the
professors appointed there, were all accustomed to the
collegiate life, and therefore not likely of such
dispositions as to be proper secundents to the liberal plans
of the original founder." P. 265.

Without pointing out the numerous minor errors that pervade this paragraph, we may remark, that Mr. Hasler is manifestly uninformed regarding the condition of the institution to which he alludes. We have every reason for believing, that the discipline of the University of Virginia, is equal to that which prevails in any institution of the Union. The evils of bad discipline, occasioned by the want of sufficient and efficient rules, were speedily experienced there. The objections felt by the board of visiters to over-legislation, led to an opposite error; whilst undue dependence was placed upon the effect that might be produced from the participation of the students themselves in the judicial power. Accordingly, we find, from the supplement to the printed enactments, that it became necessary to tighten the reins of authority during the very first session.

It has often been remarked, that owing to the feeble domestic discipline which ordinarily prevails in the United States, the youth, particularly of the southern parts of the Union, require a different mode of management from those of other countries. There does not appear to be the slightest foundation for this vulgar error. Young men, as well as adults, are much alike over the whole civilized globe; and if it be found that mild measures are ineffectual, recourse must be had to more severe every where: and in all cases, the laws, where needed, must be executed temperately, unhesitatingly, and firmly.

It has been said, that certain offences are esteemed as such in all institutions: of these, perhaps the most fatal are gambling and drinking. Both exert their baneful effects upon the morals, habits, and application of the student; and it is difficult to say, which is the most to be deprecated. The general evils produced upon society by their indulgence, it is as unnecessary as it would be out of place, to depict. It is only as regards their influence on college life and discipline, that they concern us at present.

Habits of gambling should lead to immediate separation of the offender; they are rarely abandoned; whilst they are as pernicious to the student himself, as they are likely to be by evil example to others. Gaming is one of the offences that require a collegiate, in addition to the municipal law. Under this head are included all those, which, from their seductive character, are apt to engross the time of the student, or to lead to parental loss and inconvenience, as cards, dice, billiards, &c.

Serious, however, as we must necessarily esteem the offence of gambling, it is, if possible, less so than habits of drinking. The latter is not an evil which entails with it so much pecuniary difficulty, but it is apt to lead to the former, and to every other loathsome vice. Few professed drunkards are reclaimed; and even should they be, the valuable time lost in youth in these indulgences, renders the youth subsequently unfit for the reception of moral and intellectual culture; hence he remains in after life debased and vicious, exhibiting merely the wreck of his previous intellect. Both these weighty offences may, in some measure, be checked by wisely devised sumptuary laws. In all well regulated universities, such endeavours have been directed to restrain the expenditure of the students.

The _Credit Gesetre_ of Goettingen occupy a space of twenty-two octavo pages in the work of Meiners. At Harvard, (and we take this in our references to institutions on the old system of instruction, as being one of the longest established of those that receive resident students,) every student who belongs to places more than one hundred miles distant from Cambridge, is compelled to have a patron, appointed by the corporation, who has charge of all his funds, and disburses them under the regulations of the establishment. For this duty, he receives from the student six dollars a year as a compensation. In the University of Virginia, the proctor is the patron; and it is enacted, that "no student, resident within the precincts, shall matriculate, till he shall have deposited with the proctor all the money, checks, bills, drafts, and other available funds, which he shall have in his possession or under his control, in any manner intended to defray his expenses whilst a student of the university, or on his return from thence to his residence." On this the proctor is allowed a commission of 2 per cent. To ensure a more faithful compliance with this and other enactments on the subject, each student, about to leave the university, is required to sign a written declaration that he has made such deposit; or if not, to state the sum withheld, and the proctor is entitled to the same commission upon that sum as if it had been deposited. But if the student refuses to give such written declaration, the proctor is entitled to demand and receive from him so much as, with the commission on the money actually deposited, will make the sum of twelve dollars. Moreover, in all cases in which the student fails to make such written declaration, or in which it may appear that he has not deposited the whole of his funds with the proctor, that officer is required to report the fact to the chairman of the faculty, in order that it may be communicated to the parent or guardian of the student, be laid before the faculty and visiters, and otherwise properly animadverted upon.

The contraction of debts by students has, also, been made liable to the severest collegiate penalties; but, notwithstanding, the offence is always committed to a greater or less extent. The tradesman will give credit, and the student escape detection. The last and best resource is in the public spirit of the parent or guardian, who ought, unhesitatingly and firmly, to refuse to discharge any debt of an unauthorized nature, which his son or ward may have contracted, and especially those of the tavern-keeper or confectioner. The censures which he may incur from the exercise of his public spirit, can proceed only from the interested and sordid; whilst he will receive the applause of all those, whose favourable opinion it is desirable to possess. He will, moreover, have the gratifying conviction, that, by such a course, he is contributing to the annihilation of a system which is the cause of much public and domestic mischief.

The legislature of Massachusetts, to aid in the prevention of expense and dissoluteness, have patriotically enacted "That no inn-holder, tavern-keeper, retailer, confectioner, or keeper of any shop or boarding-house, for the sale of drink or food, or any livery-stable-keeper, shall give credit to any under-graduate, of either of the colleges within the commonwealth, without the consent of such officer or officers of the said colleges, respectively, as may be authorized to act in such cases, by the government of the same, or in violation of such rules and regulations as shall be, from time to time, established by the authority of said colleges respectively."

The example might be advantageously followed in other states. The objection, that, in a free country, every one ought to be protected in the exercise of his avocation, provided it be honest, is nugatory. They who are receiving their education at our universities, are to form the future strength,--and, in many cases, the pride and ornament of the state; and the pecuniary detriment that might accrue to a few individuals by the enactment of such a law, must be reckoned as nothing, compared with the overwhelming evil which results where unlimited indulgence is permitted.

One of the most prevalent sources of expense is in the article of dress. They, whose pecuniary means will admit of ostentatious display, will frequently attempt to exceed others in this fancied evidence of superiority. This excites a spirit of emulation in such as are but ill able to afford it, and is the origin of much idle extravagance.

To rectify this evil, as well as to aid in the more ready detection of offences, a uniform style of dress has been adopted in many of the universities of this country, and of Europe.

In some, this consists merely of a gown thrown over the clothes: which latter may be as costly as the wearer chooses.

In others, as in the universities of Harvard and Virginia, cloth of the cheapest colour, and of a determinate quality, has been selected; and the uniform dress, made from this, has been directed to be worn, whenever the student is out of his room. The plan pursued at those colleges, is the most advantageous, both in a sumptuary and penal point of view: the fashion of the dress being such as to distinguish readily the student from others, and thus to admit of the discovery of transgressors.

As a general system, the adoption of a uniform is attended with the most beneficial results: although, in particular cases, it may clearly and necessarily add to the expenditure, where, for instance, the student purposes to remain at an institution for a single session only. He leaves home provided with his ordinary apparel, which he is compelled to abandon, on becoming a matriculate. The prescribed uniform must, of course, be laid aside, on his quitting college at the end of the collegiate year; and, by this time, his ordinary apparel has become too small for him. For this reason, a law requiring a uniform dress, is obviously more beneficial in such institutions as prescribe a particular course and term of study, than where no such regulations exist. In the laws of the University of Virginia, we find that boots are proscribed, and this may seem to be descending to unnecessary minutiae; but they who are practically conversant with university discipline, are aware that this article of dress is objectionable on other grounds than expense. It is one of the contraband methods, often had recourse to, for the introduction of forbidden liquors. The boot is sent apparently to the shoemaker, containing an empty bottle, which returns, by the same conveyance, filled with the prohibited article.