college discipline, even if it extend not beyond college
duties, is a perpetual remembrancer of the high moral
end for which the student is placed within its precincts.
His only allurement to extravagance is the desire
of vying with those who make a greater display than
himself, or else it arises from, if possible, a less
defensible motive, namely, that of becoming himself
an object of emulation to others. It is not the
duty of the college authorities to compensate by their
watchfulness the effects of a weak understanding,
or that lax principle, or the want of self-command,
of which the neglect of the parent or guardian has
been the cause. If the freshman is destitute of
self-dependence and self-restraint he must suffer from
the consequences. Not only in the navy and army
is youth exposed to temptations very far beyond the
collegian, but in the inns of court young men are
left to take care of themselves, in the midst of a
great capital, without any surveillance whatever.
From these youths arise excellent men of business.
Most assuredly under the surveillance of a college
in smaller cities, and where many heads of expense
are from the nature of their position wholly out of
the question, it does seem singular that such complaints
should arise. It is true, display is the vice
of modern society among the old as well as the young,
and in both cases most dishonest means are had recourse
to sustain those appearances, which are all the world
looks to. It is possible, therefore, that little
efforts have been made to initiate youth, prior to
entering the universities, in that path of self-denial
and high-mindedness which are the safeguard from vicious
prodigality. They bring with them the vices of
their caste, whatever that caste may be. Youth
is imitative, and seldom a clumsy copyist, of the faults
of its elders, provided those faults are fashionable
faults, however unprincipled. However this may
be, I must protest against the universities being
made answerable for these doings. Attempts have
been made, and failed, in respect to manners and to
credit; and have failed clearly because they were
impracticable, and, more than that, better left alone.
The university ought not to be answerable in such
cases, any more than the benchers for the Temple students.
It cannot be expected that the noble quadrangles of
our colleges are to become something like poor-law
prisons, and the regulations of the night be extended
over the day. The very existence of the collegian,
as such, implies something like freedom, both mental
and bodily. Learning that is converted into a
tyranny will never bring forth good fruit. It
is the duty of parents and schoolmasters to impress
upon the mind of youth that a seat of learning is
the home of an easy frugality rather than of prodigal
rivalry; that the university will only give degrees
and honours where there is industry and good moral
conduct. It is to be feared that youth, quitting
the discipline of the school, looks upon the university
as the place where he may indulge in his own wayward
will, and be as idle and indolent as he please.
If this be the case the university is not to blame
for such lapses, but a bad prior apprehension of duty,
and a defective, ill-directed education.