Reform of Harvard College.

(For the Titles, see No. 6, Vol. 2. of this Gazette.)

[CONTINUED.]

WE come now to the consideration of the memorial of the resident Professors and Tutors, relative to the mode of constituting the Corporation of the University. This memorial was brought forward at an unseasonable moment. It found the friends of the College, particularly the two boards of the Corporation and the Overseers, engaged on the various subjects. detailed in our preceeding articles. Considering the nature of the questions agitated in the memorial, it is also unfortunate that those who preferred it, did not have recourse to the professional assistance of legal counsel. It is not possible, in the present organization of our tribunals, public or private, that a question can be equally argued by lawyers on one side and laymen on the other. We think it would be highly inexpedient now, and particularly in this place, to revive this controversy; we were about to say this settled controversy; settled however we do not regard it. The circumstance, which we have just mentioned, that it was not professionally argued on the side of the memorialists, and the caution of the overseers in the form of their decision, have left the question still open; and we regard nothing as more probable, if the doctrines of the memorial are not put in practice sub silentio, in future elections to the Corporation, than that they will be revived under auspices favourable to their thorough consideration; and in that case we are strongly inclined to think it will prevail.

The Corporation at present consists, and for about twenty years past has consisted, of the President of the College, residing at Cambridge, and six gentlemen, one of whom is ex officio the treasurer, the remaining five bearing the name of Fellows, but receiving no stipend from the College nor living in Cambridge. Of these five Fellows, two have usually, since 1806, been settled clergymen, of high standing in the profession, and three have as usually been lawyers or civil characters of eminence. The efficient government of the College, till the late changes, was exclusively in the hands of this Corporation, subject to the concurrence of the Overseers. No law or order not purely executive could be passed by the President, Professors, and Tutors; but every thing of great or small mo

ment, the arrangement of studies, the selection of books, the assignment of degrees, the appointment to all offices, and in short the entire government of the institution, was in the hands of this board, acting in concurrence with the Overseers; but in some important articles claiming the exclusive right of originating measures. The objections to such an organization are numerous and evident. That of locality was obvious. States of college affairs have often existed and will often exist, when the Corporation needs to be in almost perpetual session; or at least in condition to be promptly convened. But residing in different towns, its meetings are necessarily by previous appointment and comparatively infrequent. Add to this, that a majority of its members have been men, who had other official duties, numerous and arduous, to perform. And the very best authority, that of more than one of these gentlemen candidly expressing themselves since the subject has been laid to sleep, might be quoted in proof of the proposition, that the duties of the Corporotion are of a nature not to be punctually and comfortably discharged by non-resident gentlemen in the busy and laborious professions. These were previous objections. Besides it could not but continually occur that the questions presented to the decision of the Corporation were such as that body was not competent to decide, composed as it necessarily was of men, who were not practically conversant with the government and instruction of literary institutions. This produced irresolution and delay in some cases, and when delay could not take place, it threw the sole decision of questions upon the President, as being the only member of the Corporation, who was intimately acquainted with the business of the College. There was further a manifest incongruity and want of fitness, in carrying the efficient government of an institution away from its walls or from immediate and convenient access to them. The true principle of organizing any government, partaking the nature of a trust, is to unite the greatest energy and responsibility, on the part of the active governors, with the most perfect accountableness to a suitable board of Overseers. The present constitution of the Cor: poration singularly defeats both ends, without substituting any thing valuable-no valuable substitute could be made-in their place. As the President, Professors, and Tutors have no final power, they have of course no responsibility for the wisdom. of the college system. They are purely executive officers. On the other hand, the board of Overseers being a numerous

and to a considerable extent an ex officio hoard, and beholding between themselves and the College another non-resident body, viz. the Corporation, acting as a more direct check on the Immediate Government, felt a very relaxed zeal in the discharge of their office as visitors, and had become and in fact are still merely so in name. Thus of the three college boards, the Immediate Government wants power and responsi bility, and the Overseers visitatorial interest; and both of these effects take place, because the Corporation have in some degree combined the functions of the two other academic bodies.

These were some of the objections alleged to exist against the present organization of the Corporation. We have not stated them in detail, nor illustrated them with facts and instances. Opinions will be divided as to the strength of these objections. What seems an evil to one will seem only a trifling inconvenience to another, and those who agree in the evil, will differ in the remedy. In our judgment the best remedy, though not at first view that proposed by the memorial, would eventually flow from putting the principles of the memorial in operation; viz. a complete division of the powers now exercised by the Corporation between the two other boards, the Immediate Government on the one hand, and the Overseers on the other. Strong objections have been made to giving the Immediate Government the choice of officers and the appointment of salaries. If this could not safely be commit ted to them, under the check of the concurrence of the Overseers, give these powers to the Overseers exclusively, or what would amount to the same thing, let the Overseers and Corporation according to the letter of the charter, and the original practice under it, meet in convention on all these subjects.

The evils which we have enumerated in the present constitution of the Corporation, whether real or imaginary, were likely to be felt or fancied, more directly and strongly by the Immediate Government, than by any body else. Of whatever kind the evil, whether the loss of power, of responsibility, of trust, of honour, of public confidence, they were the first and the greatest sufferers. If the college did not thrive, it was of no consequence to the Overseer, who as a senator or a counsellor would cease, perhaps, in a year to be connected with the institution; and it was of comparatively little consequence to the member of the Corporation, who, on the bench, at the bar, or in one of the most conspicuous parishes,

had other more important connexions with society. But on the prosperity and adversity of the college, the interests, honour, and happiness of the Immediate Government must almost always be exclusively dependant. Many of the objections above urged are, moreover, such as connect themselves with the daily administration of their duties.

In this state of feeling, it could not but occur to men anxious for the improvement of the system, to which their existence is so closely pledged, that this organization was comparatively a new thing. It was in the recollection of all of them, that it is only since 1806, that the Fellows (so called) have been exclusively non-resident, Dr Pearson having been the last Professor admitted to the Corporation. Those whose memories ran farther back, recollected when, besides the President, there were two of the Immediate Government in the board of Corporation. They remembered it as a sort of maxim, that one Professor, commonly the Professor of Divinity, and the oldest Tutor, at a time when the Tutorships were permanent, were members of the Corporation. Finally, those acquainted with the foundation and history of the college knew that the constitution of the Corporation had been a question of construction of the charter, keenly agitated, never decided, compromised between the parties, and still open to investigation.

Under these circumstances "the memorial" was drawn up, subscribed by a large majority of the Immediate Government, and presented to the Corporation. That body inofficially declined acting upon it, on the ground that it went to their own membership. It was then submitted by the memorialists to the Overseers, and, in consequence of the size of that body, in a printed form. It was presented to the Overseers at the close of a long and fatiguing day, spent in debating another subject, and, without being read, was committed to the same committee, which had been raised to take into consideration the report of Mr Justice Story, upon which we have made some remarks in the former numbers of this articles. The chairman of that committee was John Lowell Esq., a gentleman deeply versed in college affairs; but who in the sequel declined acting as chairman of the committee on the subject of the memorial, in consequence of having already formed and expressed opinions on the subject, unfavourable to the memorial. Considering the amount of duty already in the hands of the committee connected with Mr Justice Story's report, it is to be

regretted that the memorial had not been referred to a separate and special committee. In the month of August a pamphlet was published against the memorial, being No. 6, of our list in Vol. ii. No 6, of this Gazette. This pamphlet was anonymous, but being distributed by Mr Lowell, was understood to have proceeded from his pen, and has not been disavowed. Shortly after its appearance, a reply was published by Mr Everett, with the title of "A Letter to John Lowell Esq." To this a short anonymous rejoinder was published by Mr Lowell, with which the controversy, in the pamphlet form, closed.

At the last January session of the General Court, the overseers had their semi-annual meeting; when the committee above mentioned made their reports, one a very voluminous. one growing out of the subject of Mr Justice Story's report, the other, on the subject of the memorial, and decidedly hostile to its claims. The former of these reports was briefly supported by Mr F. C. Gray, a member of the senate, and of the committee who drafted the report, and understood to be the gentleman by whom it was drawn up. At an adjourned meeting of the Overseers a very masterly, elaborate, and eloquent speech was made by Mr Justice Story against the doctrine of the memorial, considered as a legal claim.

In this powerful speech, Judge Story confined himself chiefly to the first branch of the argument, which will hereafter be specified; it being understood, however, that he was equally prepared to go through with the other topics, and was only prevented by want of time. In the afternoon of the same day, some remarks were made by Mr Richardson, of the senate, in favour of the memorial, closing with a motion, that an opportunity should be offered to the memorialists of being heard in its support. This was opposed by some members of the board, on the ground that the memorialists had been offered, and had declined a hearing, before the committee. The hearing, however, was finally granted, rather as an indulgence than a right; and, on motion of Mr Lowell, was assigned for the then next semi-annual meeting of the overseers, in the month of June. At a meeting of the overseers the next week, a motion was made by Mr Lowell, to reconsider this vote assigning the month of June for the hearing; and proposing to fix it at a period of two or three weeks. In the debate on this motion, the memorialists were handled very severely, for asking a hearing before the board in that state of the pro