IT is high time that the thoughtful attention of our readers should be directed to the condition of Trinity College, Dublin. The quickening and purifying influence of public opinion is far more needed in the case of that institution than it is in either Oxford or Cambridge; for those great universities have been thoroughly reformed: the governing power has been taken out of the hands of the irresponsible and obstructive cliques that so long abused it, and lodged in those of elective councils, by which every university interest is represented, protected, and advanced. But nothing of this kind has been done for the University of Dublin. She has still her hebdomadal Board, her provost, and seven senior fellows, governing in their own interest, auditing their own accounts, evading the most just and reasonable demands for reform, and witnessing with apathy the decline of every other college interest but their own. A parade, indeed, is made of carrying out the educational improvements recommended by the Royal Commissioners; but the financial changes which can alone give those any efficiency are studiously neglected. An elaborate scheme for enlarging and improving the fellowship examination is devised; while the value of a fellowship itself is allowed to fall to such a point that no undergraduate of promise now regards it as a prize. New scholarships are made out of old exhibitions. The calendar is decorated with new professorships, lectureships, studies, and prizes; but the "common chest" on which all these improvements must be charged is not replenished, but impoverished, on every opportunity, to the benefit of the governing body.

Grave charges these; but before we lay down our pen our readers will judge whether they are unfounded. It is not without reluctance they are made; but the title which this Magazine bears forbids us to pass over evils that imperil the interests and

compromise the character of the University of Dublin. Nor, even if we were willing to do so, would such reticence on our part be now of any avail. The scandals have got abroad, and are not to be hushed up. Complaints of misgovernment, and of selfseeking in high places, are rife within the walls and without. A general relaxation of discipline is witnessed, which argues a want of moral weight on the part of the constituted authorities. At the parliamentary election of 1857, and again at the election of 1858, university professors and junior fellows bring the internal affairs of the College under the notice of the constituency, and their statements are received with the most marked approval. The meeting of the senate at the spring commencements reveals an organized opposition to the proceedings of the Board; an opposition headed by the most conservative and the most influential men among the junior fellows. A reverend professor preaches before the University for his doctor's degree; and in doing so administers a solemn castigation to the Board. The Board demands a copy of the sermon; but, having perused it, with the note which accompanied and enhanced it, they do not venture to punish the preacher even to the extent of withholding his degree. The public press enters the arena, and unanimously and menacingly demands reform. In vain the Board attempts to silence, by their official reprimand, two junior fellows for connecting their names with the agitation; two of their colleagues come forthwith before the public, and clain the same censure as an honour and the Board, seeing how the tide of opinion runs, overlooks their offence.

The Board have entirely mistaken the remedy for the existing evils. They have endeavoured to suppress complaint instead of removing the grievances complained of. The true policy for persons in their situation is quickly, willingly, largely, to redress

the wrongs they have permitted and profited by, and to surround their future government with such a light of publicity that neither will abuses be possible on their side, nor misconception on the part of others. The strong pressure of extern opinion will soon set their government to rights for the present; but measures should be taken that this opinion should be as permanent as the evil tendencies which it has to control. Publicity, in a word, must be henceforth the rule in all educational endowments; and if, on the one hand, the discipline of a university is to prevent the juniors from bringing their grievances before the bar of public opinion, on the other, a system of secrecy must not be tolerated, which shields selfseeking and maladministration from the criticism of the press. Convinced that this system of secrecy and irresponsibility lies at the root of all the present discontent, we shall address ourselves, firstly, to the question of a public audit of accounts, and then make a few remarks on the grievance which is most complained of, and the existence of which certainly reflects most discredit on the government of the Board: we allude to the insufficient salaries of the non-tutor fellows. The Board, indeed, affect to have no real objection to publicity, and only to resist it on the grounds that the demand implies an affront. The public, however, have learned enough of boards by this time to know that, however plausible such statements may be, they are not to be relied on. Conscious fraud is, of course, very rare among respectable men. But what can be more common than onesided views and exaggerated estimates of one's own claims and when those are accompanied by the opportunity of satisfying these supposed claims, serious abuses will not be slow to arise. It is idle to object that the Board is not irresponsible-that an appeal to the visitors will obtain redress for misappropriation of college revenues. If the misappropriation escape notice for a few years, usage is pleaded in its defence; and it is certain to escape notice under the present regime if introduced gradually. The Royal Commissioners of 1851 had excellent means of judging whether such an audit was requisite or not; and we find them laying a greater

stress on this reform, and recurring to it more frequently than to any other of the measures which they recommend. We find them, first, asking the questions (Evidence, page 270):

"By what officer are the accounts examined? By whom is the auditor appointed, and from what body is he usually selected?

To which the registrar answers:— "The provost and senior fellows usually select the auditor from their own body, in conformity with the powers vested in them by the statutes.'

registrar means invariably; as the By the word usually we opine the office of auditor, with its salary attached, travels round the circle of senior fellows, like the senior lectureship, the proctorship, the bursarship, &c. It would have been satisfactory to hear from the registrar what exceptions ever occurred to the rule of the auditor being selected from the Board. But the registrar's answer is peculiar in another respect. He volunteers the observation, "in conformity with the powers vested in them by the statutes." This strongly suggests the thought, qui s'excuse, s'accuse. The have been held good by the Commisexcuse, however, does not seem to sioners; for in their report (page 9) they observe:

"The office of auditor has been also

usually held by a senior fellow, although the Board seem to have been empowered by the statutes to elect any one to that office; and it appears to have been the intention of the framers of the statute that the auditor should not be a member of the Board."

Indeed, on looking into the statute in question, one is at a loss to understand how the registrar could have so entirely misconceived its intention. To return, however, to the evidence, the Commissioners ask (page 271):—

"Is the annual balance sheet and statement of the income and expenditure of the college published to any officers or members of the college or the university, except the provost and senior fellows?

Answer." The annual statement of accounts is not published. No information on this subject is ever withheld when applied for on proper grounds."

Another rap on the knuckles to the prying Commissioners. The registrar might have informed them, however,

what the Board considers "proper grounds" on which one might apply for information. Is a natural curiosity to know what is done with the public money an admissible motive? Or suppose an honor lecturer humbly represented to the Board that £20 Irish was too slight a remuneration for his labours, and was answered that there were no funds available to raise the salary, would he be entitled to ask, what, then, becomes of the moneys in the common chest? or of the moneys not in the common chest, but which ought to be there? Would he be considered to be on "proper grounds" in putting this question? We fear not.

Under the head of "Expenditure from the Funds of the College" (page 88), the Commissioners remark that

"The management of the greater portion of the expenditure is intrusted to the provost and senior fellows, which large powers," they advise, "should be continued in the Board, provided that publicity be secured as to the manner in which they are exercised. For this purpose we recommend that the office of auditor should be placed on a new basis; and instead of that officer being a member of the Board, or appointed by them, that the visitors of the College should be empowered to appoint an auditor, who should annually examine

the College accounts in detail. The

balance sheet and statement of income

and expenditure, when audited by him, should be published. The Board have given such full information with respect to the College revenues, in answer to our inquiries, that the continuous publication would not lead to any greater disclosure of the affairs of the College, whilst it would mark, in a very distinct manner, any progress that was from time to time made in the improved management of its financial arrange

ments."

This last passage is worthy of attention; but the full force of it only appears when we come to look into the disclosures that were made, from which we will also see what great room there was (and still is) for improvement in the management of the finances. We cannot help thinking, however, pace the Commissioners, that the proposed audit would be still more useful in marking a retrograde movement in the financial arrangements than in signalizing improvements. We admire the courteous tone uniformly

adopted by the Commissioners; but courtesy sometimes may interfere with sincerity.

It might be supposed, however, that in the above extracts, and in others which we might make from the Blue Book before us, the Commissioners were influenced by a pedantic desire to assimilate the financial affairs of the College to those of ordinary public companies, or, perhaps, by an over-solicitude to guard the members of the Board from undeserved imputations, rather than by any conviction that a public audit was really necessary to secure an honest or a useful distribution of the funds. This hypothesis, unfortunately, has nothing but its amiability to sustain it. The broad fact which stared the Commissioners in the face throughout their inquiries was, that the emoluments of the members of the Board had steadily and rapidly increased through every fluctuation of public and College affairs, and had even done so at epochs of national calamity, and when every other College interest was retrograding. Less than a century ago (1761), a senior fellow, named Brabazon Disney, resigned his fellowship for the professorship of divinity, worth then £500 a-year. In 1790, another senior fellow, named James Drought, resigned his office for the same professorship. As the senior fellowship had increased in value during the interval, great difficulty was experienced on the latter occasion in filling up the professorship, which could only be held at that time by a senior fellow. The Board got over the difficulty by adding about £200 to the professorship. This clearly determines the value of a senior fellowship in 1790 to have been not much over £700. Now, it is matter of history that the interval between this date and 1814 was one of public trouble and private suffering. In this Trinity College had its full share. The election for fellowship in 1798 was postponed, with the concurrence of the visitors, until the rebellion should be quelled. Then succeeded the French war. Perhaps the very darkest period of this calamitous series of years was the year 1813. Well, in this year, the professor of divinity was superannuated; and we learn from the evidence in the Blue Book (p. 15), that in 1814 the emoluments of the office were

increased, and the office was thrown open to junior fellows. It will be interesting to learn that this increase, which failed to induce any of the senior fellows to resign his place on the Board, was one which raised the professorship to £1,200 a year. The professor appointed was the eminent Richard Graves, afterwards Dean of Ardagh. A living was subsequently conferred on him, but whether it was a College living or not we cannot say. In 1850, however, when the professorship of divinity fell vacant, the Board were desirous that it should be accepted by Dr. Singer, then as now one of the most popular men in the Irish Church. Dr. Singer was, how ever, a senior fellow, and could not be expected to resign his place on the Board for so small a prize as £1,200 a-year. The living of Raymochy was accordingly thrown in, being an addition of £500 a-year. Even in accept ing £1,700 a-year, Dr. Singer was considered to have made a sacrifice. It was not so, however, in reality, as the position of professor of divinity was justly regarded as materially improving his prospects of being placed on the episcopal bench. This event took place in less than three years afterwards; but notwithstanding the encouragement thus afforded, no senior fellow could be induced to accept the professorship on equally advantageous terms. It was given to its present respected occupant, Dr. Butcher, who was at that time five steps distant from the enjoyment of a seat on the Board. While the emoluments of the senior fellows were thus advancing by rapid strides, it has been otherwise with all other College incomes. These have, with few exceptions, fluctuated according to the circumstances of the College, and in cases of any permanent increase in the revenues, additional offices have been (and very properly) founded out of the increase. A remarkable example of the first-named law occurred within the short period occupied by the labours of the Commission. The three years, 1850, 1851, 1852, were years of great distress in Ireland. In this short period, the tutorial fund, out of which the bulk of the incomes of the twenty tutor fellows is paid, decreased no less than 10 per cent. (vide Report, p. 89). As to the increase that has taken place from

time to time in the number of junior fellows, we need only remark that these offices are now twenty-eight in number, instead of nine, the number existing in the time of Charles I., and down to 1698-the senior fellows being then as now seven in number. The scholars of the house are allowed, at the present day, exactly the salary enjoyed by the thirty native scholars in 1758-an epoch at which £20 (Irish) probably went a long way in maintaining a young man and furthering him to his profession. There has been, we admit, a considerable increase in the number of these prizes, but this might have been accompanied, we think, with an increase in the value of each place without overtaxing in any degree the revenues of the College. Besides, the Board ought to remember that a just and liberal consideration of the scholars' interests would lead to large bequests and benefactions, while the evidence of a monopolizing policy on the part of the governing body chills the fire of charity and shuts the purse of the munificent. Again, several professorships, once well paid or overpaid, have been from time to time considerably cut down. The late Dr. Whitley Stokes had a salary of £900 a-year as lecturer in natural history. This excessive remuneration has been duly diminished. The professorship of botany was worth £600 a-year in the time of Dr. William Allman, while his successor, a most eminent man in his science, received but £200 a-year, and a Scotch university now enjoys the benefit of his high talents and reputation. The professorship of oratory was £100 a-year in 1762, but was reduced in 1847 to £60, and in 1850, to £35 (Irish). Its salary was, indeed, somewhat restored in 1855, in consequence of the great increase in its duties; and the same must be said for the professorships of Greek and experimental physics, while some new lectureships and professorships have been founded. In a word, the professorships like the tutorships have risen and fallen, multiplied or died out, according to the wants of the age and the circumstances of the College. But the seven senior fellows have held their ground. The College estates have vastly increased in value, but they support no eighth senior fellow.

The consequence is what we see, an abnormal growth in the income of the members of the Board; an arrested development in the salaries of the scholars; a famine-fever among the non-tutor fellows.

Beside the evidence contained in this general state of things, the Commissioners brought to light certain particular incidents which rendered assurance doubly sure, concerning the necessity of a public audit of accounts. In the year 1828, the Board paid £14,000 out of the funds of the College for the advowson of the living of Clogherny. What the precise value of Clogherny was in 1828, we are not able to tell; but one thing is certain, it was better than a senior fellowship of that day. After all the reductions made on it, in the form of tithe composition, ecclesiastical tax, &c., it is still worth upwards of £1,000 a year. It may have been worth the purchase-money: that is not the question we care to raise; but was this the best thing that could be done with the college funds, or was it merely a job, the senior fellows purchasing a promotion for one of their own number with the funds of the institution? Suppose the Board could purchase the nomination to the next bishoprick, it might be very wise, as a commercial speculation, to pay £20,000 or £30,000 for it; but would it be tolerable that the college funds should be employed for the purpose? What would the junior fellows, and the professors, and the scholars say to it? What would a public auditor say to it? It is not every year we can have a Royal Commission to say: "When so much might be done for the advancement of education by the endowment of additional fellowships, professorships, scholarships, and exliibitions in the college, we think the purchase of advowsons an injudicious application of the college funds." (Report, p. 22.) The Commissioners wrote "injudicious," but they probably meant something more. In the case of Clogherny, indeed, it turned out an "injudicious" speculation in every sense; for the incumbent outlived all the speculators, and the senior fellowships had so thriven in the meanwhile, that Clogherny, itself reduced in value, fell to the lot of a gentleman high among the juniors.

But the Commissioners found some uglier spots than Clogherny. In page 12 of the Evidence, we find some very clear and compendious tables relating to the distribution of the fees on degrees, as this distribution existed in 1851. The information here supplied to the Commissioners saw the light for the first time in that year.

The amount charged for each degree was ascertainable by anybody, on looking into the calendar, or inquiring from the proctor; but how the fees thus received were apportioned among the different officers and departments of the university, the graduates, masters, and doctors who paid them had no means of knowing. Let us be thankful, however, that the information did come at last, and let us turn to the statute-book to see whether the distribution in 1851 is in accordance with that authority. On turning, however, to Mr. Hercules Mac Donnel's edition of the statutes, we are doomed to be disappointed. The information we seek is not given in it. There is a short table of the sums total; but these sums do not tally with those furnished to the Commissioners-the latter are in all cases higher. We have recourse to Dr. Lloyd's edition, and with as little success. We bethink ourselves of a certain scrubby little green statutebook presented to ourselves on the eventful day of our matriculation, and after a rummage among the top shelves of our library, we find it. But no table of distribution! "How stupid," we think, "of Mr. Hercules Mac Donnel and Dr. Lloyd, and all the other editors not to give us this interesting information, which was printed on the same page as the sum totals which these gentlemen present to us. At last we get a gleam of light. A statute-book of the date of 1741 turns up in the college library; another, dated 1791, is brought to us by a friend, and this book bears internal evidence of having been the property of James Wilson, who got fellowship in 1800, and who entered one or two trifling corrections in it in 1801. Both these editions contain the long-lookedfor table of distribution; and they agree with each other. Both disagree with the table printed in the blue book, and the disagreement deserves the marked attention of our reader,