1826.] The London University. 157 



to spend their days, perhaps, in offices ? The satisfaction which know- 

 ledge gives : that alone is enough to those who desire it, and is answer 

 enough. But such superiority will only disgust them with tlicir des- 

 tinies ; it will make them conceited, ambitious, presumptuous ; it will 

 give them a hankering after gentility. Nonsense ; look to facts ; how 

 many of the connexions of the first houses in the city have, of late 

 years, received not merely the education of gentlemen, but even that 

 of Cambridge or Oxford ; and yet are found to stick to the desk, and 

 pursue the business of accumulation with the plodding diligence of the 

 most unenlightened and unlicked ? How many are there in our public 

 offices, who are distinguishing themselves in the ranks of literature, and 

 yet were never charged with neglect of duty — at least, not beyond their 

 less-informed compeers ? 



But there lurks under this objection what is the real basis of it, an 

 alarming apprehension, tliat more scholars will be made — more accom- 

 plished persons, than the lick-spittles of power consider safe for secur- 

 ing the ascendency of aristocratic dominion. This apprehension, how- 

 ever, is of too invidious a cast to be openly or immediately avowed ; 

 and their fears are veiled under an aflFected concern for literature and 

 its professors, while they foretell not of scholars, but of authors, multi- 

 plied beyond all readable bounds, to their own ruin — to the confusion 

 of publishers and readers — and, too probably, to the disturbance, or 

 even, ultimately, the " subversion of social order." It is sufficient to 

 reply, if scribblers multiply beyond the demand, as the phrase is, the 

 evil will eventually cure itself. The public need neither buy nor read ; 

 and writers, whose books are neither bought nor read, will soon cease 

 to write. Smile, as we will, at the cacoethes scribendi, the conviction is 

 strong upon us, that the numbers who spontaneously " rush into print" 

 are small indeed. The labour of composition requires generally, we 

 believe, a stronger stimulus than mere vanity. 



But these are trifles ; objections of far more formidable strength are 

 yet behind. Religion is absolutely shut out of this new institution ; 

 and the names of the council, and of those who are known to have been 

 most active in originating and propelling it, give but too much reason 

 to fear it will prove a hot-bed of radicals. One at a time. The Lon- 

 don University will have nothing to do with the subject of religion. 

 True ; but is it, then, we ask, necessarj' it should ? Will the students 

 be left without the means of spiritual instruction ? Will they not be 

 with their parents ? Will they not still be under their care and con- 

 trol, and not of the professors, by far the greater share of their time ? 

 Are there no churches, no pastors, no sermons, no prayers ? Is access 

 to all tliese to be suddenly shut against them ? If religion be not to 

 form a subject of instruction, it is for good reasons — reasons well under- 

 stood, and which, we believe, are generally considered as sound. Re- 

 ligion will not, indeed, be taught, but then it will not be professed to 

 be taught ; and thus, no fond parent will be led to suppose his own 

 anxieties are superseded by the promised exertions of others. But 

 shall this well-considered omission stamp degradation on the establish- 

 ment, or warrant a suspicion of irreligion ? Surely not. Look to the 

 practice of our public universities. How is religion taught there — 

 there, too, where young men are supposed to suffer long absences from 

 parental superintendance and domestic praj^er ? We will state the fact ; 

 and we appeal for the correctness of our statement to the knowledge of 



