ページの画像
PDF
ePub

SECT. 3.-OF COLLEGE PUNISHMENTS.

THE subject of punishments in education is one of extreme difficulty. Even in the earlier stages of

youth, how hard it is to find any infliction which represses faults, without exciting a spirit of evasion and hostility. And when we have to do with youths who have acquired, in a great measure, the character and the privileges of manhood, how shall we invent a punishment, which they will feel sufficiently to make it effective, and to which they will submit? By what severities shall the teacher repress and constrain those who almost feel in themselves a right to independence, without introducing extreme punishments for those small offences which must often occur? Corporal chastisement, though habitually referred to in the statutes of English universities, constructed when the age of students was different from what it is now, is of course out of the question. Personal restraint, though not so utterly disused, is not favourable to health of body or mind, and is not easily enforced with rigour, except by a force organized for the purpose. Tasks for the memory vary much in their efficacy, according to the habits of him who performs, and of him who imposes them; besides being a serious infliction on the latter, as well as the former. Moreover, except supported by some possible ulterior punishment, they are evaded or neglected. The same may be said of tasks for the pen, which, besides, offer additional modes of evasion. Fines are felt little by

the son of a rich parent, or by the thoughtless son of any parent. Taking away days or weeks, as it is technically called, that is, not allowing them to be reckoned to the student's requisite residence, besides sharing the inconveniences of other punishments, leads to procrastination, and to a habit of speculating on the chances of the future; since the evidence of residence is only examined at certain epochs of the student's career. Temporary banishment may be useful in some cases, but it is not applicable to small offences. And final extrusion is a sharp sword, which cuts, but does not untie, the knot; which must be considered as sacrificing one to many, and therefore must not be lightly brought into play.

Moreover, how shall we induce the teacher to inflict these punishments?-to incur ill-will and anger from those who are almost his equals; with whom, perhaps, he is living on terms of familiar intercourse; and with whom, at any rate, such a hostile position must impair confidence and regard? And this too, perhaps, for some neglect of what appears a mere form; for if forms be not insisted on, rules crumble away. It is as difficult to find a hand to hold the rod, as it is to construct the rod itself.

How have our colleges attempted to deal with this difficulty, and how have they succeeded? It appears to me, that they have devised a plan, which, if faithfully and consistently acted on, would produce the true results of punishment, all so desirable, yet so difficult to reconcile ;—which would repress small offences without extreme severity, and would be

severe, when necessity was, without forfeiting respect and regard.

This plan has already appeared in the quotations which have been made from college laws. Its general character may be briefly stated: it is this:-Every college punishment is an expression of the disapprobation of the college; this disapprobation is increased by every successive offence; and, carried to a certain point, makes removal from the college necessary.

Thus, we have seen in the above extracts;—for the first offence, let him forfeit one month's commons; for the second, three months'; for the third, let him be expelled the College:—and the same kind of formula is used in almost every penal appointment. It will easily be seen, that in this manner, punishments, which are slight as inflictions, are serious as warnings. A small fine, or the forfeiture of a college allowance, or some restraint on the pupil's motions, or an exercise of the memory, or of the pen, which in themselves might be thought lightly of, receive efficiency from the consideration of their possible consequences. They do not, when gone through, leave the delinquent where he was before: there is a shade on his prospect; he has to re-establish a character, without which, he is in a situation of increased danger. He may dispel the shade; he may resume his original position of safety; but that must be by showing the will to avoid further offence. Without this, the frown of the body, under whose regard he is, becomes continually darker and darker, and at last the sentence of rejection is uttered.

Such appears to be the intended spirit of College punishments. Their efficacy in fact, will depend upon their being administered in this spirit. If any penal process is ever put forward as an intended infliction of so much inconvenience for so much transgression, the general meaning of the proceeding is changed, the language of College law is misconstrued, and its words lose their force and significance. The purpose of the college was, not retribution, but warning; the demand was, not pain, but amendment; the process was intended to operate, not on the passive, but on the active powers of the offender; not to task his patience, but to teach his will.

And hence, in estimating transgression, the will is mainly to be attended to. For instance, in reference to the neglect of any formal rule, the question is not so much, Did the pupil exactly conform to the rule? as, Did he endeavour to conform to it? Did he make regularity an object, among the things which are really his objects? Did he allow himself no intentional omissions; nor any deviations arising from obstacles which he would have overcome, or thoughtlessness which would not have occurred, on a matter in which he was in earnest? If he was thus blameless in purpose, the violation of the rule in form need not be insisted on. In such a case, impunity will lead to no bad consequences.

It becomes necessary, on this view of the case, that the infliction of punishment should be usually accompanied with personal intercourse between the officer and the culprit, for otherwise the character of the

offence cannot be rightly judged of. And this intercourse, to a considerable extent, is absolutely requisite to the efficacy of College punishments. It is important, not only in order to enable the officer to ascertain that temper of the offender on which the amount of the transgression depends, but still more, on another account; namely, to give him an opportunity of explaining its meaning and tendency according to the principle above laid down, and of enforcing its influence by such remonstrance, rebuke, and warning, (or encouragement if necessary,) as the situation of the pupil and of the officer may give opportunity for. The occasion which the institutions of our Colleges afford for intercourse of this kind, is among the most valuable parts of the structure, and must be a main source of their beneficial influence, till their principles are utterly changed, and English University education entirely subverted.

Undoubtedly such intercourse as this is often very distasteful and irksome, both to officers and to students; and especially to those who have never been led to consider, that the whole usefulness and importance of the Colleges, as distinguished from the University, resides in the relations between the College officers and the students; from which relations the duty of remonstrance and warning necessarily flows. Instead of this plan, which unavoidably produces solicitude, and often very unsatisfactory conversations and feelings, many persons would doubtless much prefer a system in which certain fixed punishments should be applied according to certain fixed rules; and

F

« 前へ次へ »