CORRESPONDENCE, 1846-55, 223 



to the time when the graduates of the University would them- 1853. 

 selves feel that their Alma Mater will not take its proper place 

 among the Academies of Europe until its requisitions are based 

 upon higher views of education than appear to have prevailed at 

 its foundation. I say at its foundation, not among its founders ; 

 for the first institution preceded by several years that revival of 

 serious thought upon mental subjects in which we now live, and 

 which is far from having attained its full development. 



With great respect for many who have been and are mem- 

 bers of the Senate, I do not feel the slightest diffidence in 

 opposing my opinion to the results of their collective delibera- 

 tions. No man who has thought on a subject for a quarter of a 

 century, with daily power of testing his opinions, need fear to 

 oppose himself to a system which has not emanated from one 

 mind. Solomon said that in the multitude of councillors there 

 was safety ; safety, not wisdom. A numerous body always 

 compromises, and never works out a sound principle without 

 limiting its application by considerations drawn from the ex- 

 pediency of the moment ; practicability is the word, freedom 

 from present difficulty is the thing. 



The plan of the Universities of the Middle Ages, to which in 

 a great degree we owe both the thought and the operative ability 

 of the last two centuries, rested on a simple principle, which 

 stood ready for any amount of development which its own good 

 consequences might make possible. All existing knowledge, the 

 pursuit of which could discipline the mind for thought and 

 action, was collected into one system, and declared to be avail- 

 able for the purpose of a University. And in this manner reason, 

 language, and observation were cultivated together. Every 

 means was employed for forming the future man in his relation 

 to himself, to other men, and to the external world. The worst 

 thing, if not the only thing, that can be said against them is, 

 that at some periods they thrashed the chaff after the corn had 

 been beaten out. The worst thing that can be said against their 

 successors in England is that they have not sufficiently allowed 

 the development of the old principle in reference to branches of 

 knowledge which progress has converted into disciplines, and 

 that, each in its own way, they have given undue prominence to 

 one of the ancient disciplines. 



The sciences of observation occupied rather a subordinate 

 place, because in the disciplinatory sense they had attained but 

 little efficacy. To which it is to be added, that the very wants 



