bile; and all I have for it, is to understand and cure its defects. I felt growing out of humour from a two-days' laziness; and therefore endeavour to make a little business, in order to be obliged to ride. The remedy has done wonders already; and to complete my cure, I came to my friends, the practical philosophers here.' Just at these words, the rooks, at a seeming signal from a distant sentinel who was flying aloof, became particularly clamorous, till all flew off in several divisions to a neighbouring field, where they landed, and seemed (having first again planted sentinels around them) engaged in busy conclave, which lasted several minutes.

'I would give something to make them out,' said Evelyn.

And I to make you out,' observed Tremaine, for in truth, such a compound of wisdom and trifling (excuse me) I never knew.'

Why, the trifling of a wise man is always respectable you know,' said the Doctor; I only wish you would make out your first proposition, and prove my wisdom. But suppose this a mere bagatelle; one of the most acute of understandings once relied for happiness upon his famous maxim of vive la bagatelle. Another, almost as shrewd, and full of wit and high breeding, spent at least an amused life, professedly in trifles. It is at least as good as counting the waves, after the manner of Cicero, when he was out of humour, like other patriots, because the state would not do as he would have it.""

We observed that the passages from Shakspeare were occasionally misquoted; but this is possibly the error of the printer, and we therefore pass it by.

Reform of Harvard College.

[Continued from page 95.*]

THE argument to prove that non-residence was, in the intention of the founders, permitted to the English fellows, drawn from frequent instances of non-residence, proves too much. We are told, for instance, that Sir William Jones, though a fellow at Oxford, remained in the temple for years, studying law. But the statutes of his college required him to study divinity, and in

* Erratum.-In our article on this subject, in the last number of the Gazette, p. 93, fourth line from the bottom of the text, for "University College," read "New College."

due time take orders at Oxford. He was not only studying law, but, as he owns himself, was, at that period of his life, a sceptic. Does dispensation go so far? Again, we are informed in Mr Ticknor's pamphlet, that a gentleman, many years resident in Maine, has continued a fellow, in the constant receipt of his stipend as such; and that there is a professor in the University of Virginia, who was elected to a fellowship with a large income, after it was known he was going to reside in the United States. Now if the rules admit of one fellow living in Maine or Virginia, it does not appear why they might not all cross the Atlantic, by virtue merely of a dispensation from residence. Whether such instances can be quoted, as illustrating the nature of fellowships in their original intention, and not rather as very glaring cases of what the Quarterly Review calls a "defeat of the founder's object," we need not say.

Farther, it is maintained, in a note to Mr Ticknor's pamphlet, not only that the fellows may be non-resident, but that

"They lose no rights by non-residence,-that when any important business is to be transacted, notifications are sent to the nonresidents, that they may come to the meeting and exercise their powers. This they often really do. Indeed, in some instances, it is inevitable, that the non-residents should act. Take the case of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. This corporation consists of a master and twelve fellows. But for many years, and I believe, for many generations, the master and ten of the fellows have been constantly non-resident. The consequence is, that non-residents always receive notice when business is to be transacted; and, de facto, important affairs of this corporation are frequently transacted at meetings held in London, where the master and a majority of the fellows reside."

And now for the ample inference from this solitary alleged case. "Of course, the non-resident fellows in the English colleges have just as much control and power over their respective institutions as the non-resident fellows of Harvard College, and the argument founded on an opposite statement of facts entirely fails."

We have quoted this statement at length, because this case of Trinity Hall, and those of the fellows of English Colleges now actually resident in Maine and Virginia, are the new facts introduced by Mr Ticknor into this discussion. We would remark then,

First. That it is declared by the Quarterly Review, in a

passage adopted by Mr Ticknor as expressing some of his own views, that non-residence is a "breaking in upon the rules," a "defeat of the object of the founders" of the fellowships. This is all the memorialists ever contended for.

Secondly. This non-residence is avowedly but a dispensation. It is not asserted that the laws prescribing residence are repealed. Where those laws were part of the foundation, there is of course no power to repeal them, unless expressly given, which has been alleged only of one college; and in strict law the fellowships are forfeited, because this dispensation" defeats the object of the founder." No principle in law is more familiar than the destruction of a Corporation "by the forfeiture of its charter through negligence or abuse of its privileges, in which case the law judges that the body politic has broken the condition on which it was incorporated, and thereupon the corporation is void."*

It is not alleged that the Statutes, as well of Trinity Hall, as of the Colleges to which the non-resident fellows in Maine and Virginia belong, do not prescribe residence. They probably do; nor can any use be made of these examples, till the statutes of the founder, and the law dispensing from them, are cited. Till this is done, we are the prey to all manner of misconception; as when Sir W. Jones, a lawyer, professing unbelief of Christianity, is cited as an instance of nonresidence, and turns out to have been on a foundation, requiring the fellows to study divinity and take orders.

Thirdly. The statement concerning Trinity Hall is contradictory. It is said that the master, and ten out of twelve fellows, are non-resident, (leaving only two out of the thirteen, of which the corporation consists, resident); and that consequently, "non-residents always receive notice, when business is to be transacted." But the same sentence goes on to say that, "de facto, important affairs of this corporation are frequently transacted at meetings held in London, where the master and a majority of fellows reside." In this case, of course, the residents must receive notice to come to London and do College business. Besides, is it conceivable that a minority of two in a Corporation of thirteen should, by any other than gross abuse and connivance, be left at Cambridge with power to call meetings, on notice to the non-resident majority?

* Blackstone, I. 485.

Lastly. If these things are so, (and that they are, ought not to be admitted without express authority,) they are in gross violation of the Statute and Common Law of the English Colleges. To prove this, we will quote two competent authorities. The first is Dr Brown,* a lawyer and civilian of eminence. Treating expressly on the topic, he says, "As to discipline, the particular mode of it being ordained and regulated by the Statutes of each College, our principal inquiry must only be how, in general, it is to be enforced; and here, besides the ordinary power vested in the immediate and resident governors of the Colleges, there is incident to every College, and indeed to every Corporation, an extraordinary and visitatorial power." This is express to the point, that all the control, not visitatorial, is exercised by the immediate and resident governors.

But Dr Ayliffe, a civilian repeatedly cited with deference by the gentlemen who spoke against the Memorial last winter, is very full. Let it be remembered that he wrote expressly on the organization of Oxford. He says

"All collegiate acts ought to be sped and executed by consent of the fellows, given in common assembly, and not singulariter or separately."

"In calling together these assemblies, these things are to be observed, viz. 1st, There must be due notice and premonition given to the fellows, in order to their meeting together." "2dly, The time of assembling ought to be proper and seasonable for the dispatch of business, as in the day and not in the night-time, for the fellows are not obliged to meet for this end at all hours, the night-time being proper for sleep and not for business; nor are they bound to appear upon conventions at the usual times of meals. 3dly, The place, where the assembly meet, ought to be considered, which ought to be within the precincts of the College, and there too in the public places thereof, as in the common hall, chapter-house, and the like; and not in private chambers, &c. unless it be upon necessary and emergent occasions not concerning the whole body. 4thly, The ordinary and usual method of calling them together, after due notice given, ought to be observed and followed, as by the tolling of a bell, the sound of a trumpet, &c. And if any member shall wilfully or obstinately refuse to appear in the assembly after such notice and summons given, he may be punished for his contu

*Lectures on Civil Law I. 155.

† Ancient and Present State of Oxford, II. 14, 15, 16.

macy, either by the subtraction of commons, or by some other statutable method." It will be observed that Dr Ayliffe is not speaking of the customs of any single college, but of general academic usage. His authority is decisive.

There is one more point bearing on the subject of residence, which we will here touch, viz. that the fellowships were originally foundations, not for teachers but for learners; that in the ancient university charters they are included under the word schola es; that in Christ Church, the principal college at Oxford, they are called students. This, with a good deal more, was urged in the discussion last winter, and is revived by Mr Ticknor, to prove, against the Memorial, that the fellows could not have been intended to be teachers. But how does this bear on the point of residence? Mr Ticknor appears to have felt the incongruity of the two arguments, and has endeavoured to avoid it, by stating the object of the founders. in giving stipends to a fellow to be, in order that "he may have leisure to acquire knowledge, wherever he may be." be." We will not stop to urge that this is contradictory to the general admission, that non-residence is a dispensation, or as the Quarterly Review calls it, "a defeat of the Founder's object." But let us only regard the evident impossibility of the thing, that halls and colleges should be built and endowed, with foundations for learners, “ad studendum et orandum," and yet that the persons on these foundations should not be required, nay not intended, to live there. Wherefore, then, the buildings?the halls for assembly, the chambers for residence, the refectory for dieting? These accommodations are now, it is true, used for the pupils; but we are told that this is an innovation; that originally the fellows were the students, and in some colleges are still called so; and yet, in another portion of the argument, we are assured that their stipends were appointed to support them-not within these buildings, especially erected for their use, where, in the words of Blackstone, they "might read, pray, study, and perform scholastic exercises together," but to support them" wherever they might be," in London, in Maine, and in Virginia.—But the truth is, though the foundations were for students, they were for students of different ages and degrees of proficiency; and generally, though not always, were in name distinguished into fellowships and scholarships. The older, though still students, were competent to teach the younger, and the right to teach depended on the particular degree taken. The bache