Lan-gorlag wrog, Le Brun asserted that an author loses

T

By quaffing with the water-drinking Muses,
Wherefore he held in small account
Castalia's fount,

"And not a solitary sip he

! Ever quaff'd from Aganippe,

Maintaining that champagne and other wine,
With, now and then, a draught of liquor
Produced an inspiration quicker,

As well as more delightful and divine.
If to his cups his couplets he had suited,
They must have sparkled-and 'tis strange to me
That want of life should ever be imputed

To poetry inspired by Eau de vie.

But so it was his poems, every one,
Were like a flintless gun,

Which wont go off for want of fire;

And

poor Le Brun, who took to deeper drinking,
Instead of thinking,

Sunk daily deeper in Oblivion's mire.

While swallowing compound spirits, still the faster,
He lost his own, till he became a prey

To hypochondria; and one disaster

Another following, his health gave way.

His stomach, it was said, had lost its coat,
Or thrown it off, perhaps, from being hot;
For his old trick he never had forgot,
Of pouring ardent spirits down his throat;
Which daily system of potation,

Most deleterious,

Brought fever first, then inflammation,

When his poor wife, so much his aspect shock'd her,
Call'd in the Doctor,

And now the case grew serious.

Bolus, a man of fees, not feeling,

Finding his purse was low, though high his fever,
Bolted, but sent a priest, who kneeling,

Thus comforted the Bibulous believer-
"My son, 'tis clear you have not long to live,
So you must quickly use this unction,
Confess your sins with due compunction,
And freely all your enemies forgive-
Bestowing on them, if they 're nigh,
The kiss of peace before you die!"

"Kiss what I hated most-my deadliest foes!
Surely, good Father, you impose

A penance too revolting to be just,

'Tis ten times worse than fasts, hair shirts, and whips; However, if I must, I must

So put a glass of water to my lips!"

H.

་་་

MONTHLY COMMENTARY,

PROFESSOR PATTISON AND THE LONDON UNIVERSITY.-IN a former number we alluded to the question between Professor Pattison and the Council of the London University. We did not follow up our remarks in the succeeding publication because we thought it possible that some proceedings, then in contemplation, might bring to light new facts which might modify or alter our, opinion of the affair. The whole case is now before us, and our first impression is completely confirmed.

ה !

The short statement of the matter is this: the Council broke down the autho rity of the Professor, and dismissed him because he had lost his authority. We say that the Council broke down the authority of the Professor, because the, refusal of the governing body to support it, when support was claimed, had the effect of most completely destroying it. Professor Pattison had not the rare fortune to please his pupils; the young gentlemen did not approve of his method of lecturing upon anatomy; they accordingly entered into a cabal against him which was headed by persons who have not the apology of youth for such dis graceful conduct; they impeached the qualifications of the Professor, of which the Council had had abundant assurance on his appointment; they called for his dismissal; the Council treated their impudent applications with a degree of respect that must have been vastly encouraging, and the Professor's appeals and remonstrances on the other hand with insulting indifference. An officer who is not supported in his just and necessary authority is surrendered up to mutiny. He is in a worse condition than a man who depends only upon his own character and conduct to command respect, for the governing body to which he appeals, in failing to support him, disgraces him with all the weight of influence and authority which it could and should have lent to his service. Of all rubs a neglected is the sorest.

We pass over the quarrel between Professor Pattison and his demonstrator Mr. Bennett, and the question whether the demonstrator should have been independent of the lecturer as it was so ordered in the London University, we think it probable that it should not have been so, for the genius of misrule seems to preside in this institution. We shall take up the history where the young gentlemen commence their seemly proceedings.

A Mr. Eisdell, a student, addressed a letter to the Council declaring that Mr. Pattison was, in his opinion, incompetent to teach anatomy, and that he ought to be dismissed! Mr. Pattison asks what proceedings would have been adopted in any other academical institution in the world, had such a letter been received! The question is not difficult; but the proceeding which would have been consistent on the part of the Council of the London University, would have been the placing of the Chair of Anatomy at the disposal of Mr. Eisdell. As he was. competent to pronounce an opinion on the qualifications of the Professor, be was competent to fill his office, or at least to appoint to it a person properly skilled, in his opinion." The Council, however, did not pursue this course. They answered that they could not institute an examination into the conduct of a professor upon the representation of one pupil. This being interpreted, signified get more to join; in other words, "beat up for mutineers." A memorial, signed by fifteen, was thence got up, and answered, apparently, satisfactorily by Professor Pattison before the Council. Here, then, the Council was sitting as á high court of appeal on the science of anatomy. The student, Mr. Eisdell, pronounced the incompetence of Professor Pattison, and the Council judged at once of the criticism of Mr. Eisdell and his fourteen fellow-complainants, and of the skill of Professor Pattison. This was a beautiful reversal of the scale of judgment. Mr. Eisdell knew more of anatomy than the Council, and Professor Pattison than Mr. Eisdell, but the Council sat in judgment both on the strictures of the one and the fitness of the other. After this trial, a communication was made by the warden, Mr. Horner, to each of the memorialists, desiring that any additional charges or complaints which the parties had to prefer should be sent in. Mr. Pattison states that the addenda thus obtained were of charming va

riety, one student complaining of minuteness, and another of diffuseness. To such idle matter the Professor was however compelled to reply, and the Council came to the conclusion that he had completed his vindication.

At this stage of the affair they ought to have dismissed their Professor, if at all; that is to say, supposing the feelings and sympathies of gentlemen had been seconded by a sufficient portion of intelligence. They should then have perceived that they had utterly broken down the authority of the Professor, that they had sanctioned the presumption of his pupils, or to use the apter word, of his critics; and had shown a readiness to render him up to insulting inquiries and vexations which would not fail to encourage the petulance and forwardness of youth to fresh attacks. The sport of badgering the Professor was set on foot, and sure to be followed up to the death. This then was the period when the Council should have taken their last step of injustice. They had destroyed the utility of the Professor, they had stripped him of his respect, and to spare him, the consequent mortifications, they should have made his dismissal accompany as nearly as possible the causes of his dismissal. Humanity would have die tated that when the incapacity was created it should have been punished. When the creature is ham-strung, put the knife to its throat, in mercy, and don't wait the certain demonstration that it cannot walk or provide for its safety.

}

But thus the Council did not act, because though they had the power to do mischief, they had not the sagacity to see its immediate consequence. As a specimen of the spirit they had engendered, we may mention a memorial of students addressed to them at this stage of the affair, in which the following decorous language is held :

Should you neglect our prayer, we warn you, that we shall publish this very appeal shall lay bare the deep and unanswered malignity of the mis-statements attested by: Dr. Birkbeck-the mean, party-spirited, wilful duplicity, by which he, as the supporter of Mr. Pattison, tried to make the proprietors believe that one student only charged that gentleman, and that an ignorant student. Could Dr. Birkbeck, a member of the Council, a canvasser for Mr. Pattison, the head of the party against our Warden, and the cultivator of these cabals-could he say that he was ignorant of the seventeen pupils, including the great majority of the medalists, who, in a phalanx, charge Mr. Pattison with a palpable dereliction of duty, and urge his dismissal? If so, why is he retained in the Council? Did he know of these facts, why did he hide them? Because he had an end to serve. Why, then, we boldly ask, is he retained a proprietor of the institution? Why have his mis-statements regarding Eisdell's ignorance-an insult which we all consider personal to ourselves-not been officially contradicted," &c. &e.'

The ignorance of this is on a level with its impudence, and consistently, be it observed, the critics of Professor Pattison's fitness modestly require the removal of the proprietor Dr. Birkbeck! He doubtless was just as unqualified to be a proprietor as was Mr. Pattison to be a lecturer. If we may judge from events, this demand, however, for the dismissal of a Proprietor was not altogether without effect on the Council; for though they could not conveniently proceed to cashier Doctor Birkbeck, or any other shareholder, they have undoubtedly done their best to disband the whole body of subscribers.

An order had been issued for the exclusion of a refractory student from the University. Mr. Horner, the warden, in defiance of it, directed that the gentleman should be admitted, and gave him a license to enter Professor Pattison's theatre. The mutiny did not languish under these circumstances. Mr. Pattison niade vain efforts to establish his authority and the proper discipline. Among other convenient regulations, he required that the students should take their seats in the body of the theatre-an arrangement accordant with a decent disposition to attention. The mutineers sat aloof on back seats, and contemptuously refused obedience to the rule. The Professor appealed to the Council, who approved of the regulation, and required him to insist on compliance. Mr. Bingham Baring indeed directed Mr. Pattison to call in the beadles of the Institution, and cause them to drag down the persons who refused to take their places in the body of the theatre. Mr. Bingham Baring has signalized his disposition to dragging, and it is not a little curious that the mild gentleman who recommend

ed recourse to this extreme of violence against the students, was the very person ultimately to move the dismissal of the Professor, whose authority had been so shamefully defied. Mr. Pattison did not avail himself of the constabulary force thus placed at his disposal. He pursued the gentler course of stating the directions of the Council, and taking down the names, instead of dragging down the bodies, of those who persisted in disobedience. The delinquents were excluded from the class. A special Council was held shortly afterwards, and after a deliberation of two hours the Professor was informed " that the students who had been suspended should be again admitted to his lectures on the condition of their making an apology to" Whom? the insulted Professor ?-No-"Mr. Horner the warden!" The youths whose riotous conduct had in the opinion of the gentle Mr. Bingham Baring warranted the rough handling of the beadle, were again loosed into the Lecture-room without even the condition of an apology to the insulted gentleman whose hard duty it was to preside in it. Have we not already abundantly proved our statement, that the Council broke down the authority of Professor Pattison, and then dismissed him for having lost the authority essential to his utility? But we are not half-way in the recital of the conduct of that despicable body-a body that seems to have been alike destitute of sense, spirit, and gentlemanly feeling, and which, yet strange to say, is composed of individuals distinguished for the possession of one or other of these qualities. But thus it often is, that in bodies of men, the good properties of component parts are lost or neutralized, and unsuspected vices are developed. To timidity all the errors, the cruelty, and injustice of this Council are referable. Mr. Bingham Baring's invocation of the beadle, illustrates the extremities to which the Council tended from want of firmness. It was easier to betray the Professor than to coerce the boys, and therefore the Professor was betrayed.

Mr. Pattison had annexed certain conditions to the granting of certificates of attendance-that is to say, he required attendance for the certificate of it, and the submission to weekly examinations as proof of study. One of the students, who had not complied with the rule, demanded a certificate; it was refused; he followed the Professor into his private room, and said to him, " You are no gentleman;" then returned to the class-room, and, in answer to inquiries, proclaimed that he had told Pattison he was no gentleman, but that he did not resent it. For any establishment above the vilest pot-house, this was pretty strong in indecency, and let us see how it was treated. The facts were reported to the Council, and it was at first determined that the party and his abettors should be expelled; but Mr. Warburton-Mr. Warburton, of all men in the world, the much-professing, nothing-doing Mr. Warburton, succeeded in getting the expulsion postponed on a point of form, and afterwards urged in palliation of the offence, that the student had told the Professor he was no gentleman, in his private room, and not in the class-room. This sapient distinction prevailed, and the offender was merely interdicted from attending the lectures for the remainder of the season. In this review of a tissue of disgraceful conduct we must here stop to declare that Mr. Warburton's part is pre-eminently distinguished. In his interference with the only just resolution which the Council had formed, there was every sort of error-error of judgment, and error of feeling. It is said of a retired Northumbrian Advocate, that he never but once spoke a sentence of correct grammar at the Bar, and that he immediately went over it again, and disordered the construction. The Council of the London University seem, in the whole course of this affair, to have arrived only at one proper judgment, and at the instance of the sage patriot, Mr. Warburton, they retracted that slip into rectitude, and recovered their consistency in wrong. After the doctrine of Mr. Warburton had been broached, our only surprise is, that the Professor escaped with simple ruin,-with the loss of his bread only-we are astonished that he was not made a foot-ball of-in his private room that he was not kicked and whipped, and that his nose was not wrung by his pupils when he had the misfortune to give them dissatisfaction. Certainly the malcontents must have had more gentlemanly feeling in refraining from indulging in the outrages to which they seem to have been all but invited, than Mr. Warburton had in finding a

quibbling palliation of an insult to a gentleman, whose character, conduct, station, and circumstances, all alike entitled him to the most scrupulous protection, It was not, however, Mr. Pattison only who was concerned, the discipline, and with it the prosperity of the Institution, was bound up in his quarrel. The sentence of his insulters (the exclusion from the lecture-room for the session), forbearingly observes Mr. Pattison,

Was a moderate one for the offence; but the Council seemed to consider it too severe, and about a week afterwards, having sent for Messrs. Bree and Peart, and having induced them to offer a sort of apology to the Council, an order was sent to my beadle for their re-admission to my lectures. The intimation which conveyed the information to me, contained a direction to grant Mr. Peart his certificate, to which his attendance did not entitle him, and to force me to give him which, he had told me I was no gentleman, and had a writ served on me in the University, and which writ has never been withdrawn.

"This last act of the Council, as it was easy to foresee, gave a complete coup de grace to any little authority which might have remained to me as a Professor, and the scenes which followed in my class-room were so outrageous and disgraceful as to defy description. A Committee of the insubordinate pupils, who had, previously to this last act of the Council, met irregularly, now held their sittings daily in the University, and decided every day whether the Professor of Anatomy and Surgery should, or should not, be allowed to lecture.

"On the next lecture-day, after the order had been issued for the re-admission of Messrs. Bree and Peart, when I entered my class-room I found the pupils divided into two parties. The larger body, consisting of the well-disposed, were ranged below, and the insubordinates, who had received every encouragement from the acts of the Council, had taken possession of the forbidden bench, and were, in part, seated on it, and in part ranged on the space behind it. The last party were accompanied by a considerable number of the young gentlemen of the general school, who came, as they themselves expressed it, to see the fun'-the fun of seeing a Professor of the University of London insulted! I was greeted with the most discordant yells. My friends below were loud in their expression of approbation, and my enemies above were equally vociferous in their howlings and cries of Off, off! you won't be permitted to lecture.' After attempting, in vain, for about ten minutes to proceed with the lecture, I paused until a partial silence was restored; but, on again making the attempt, the hisses and yells commenced, and one of the pupils in the back bench got up and bawled out, 'If you wish to lecture, you must make an apology to the students.' As I was not disposed to do so, the clamour continued, and I was, at last, obliged to retire without being able to lecture."

These decent facts were reported to the Council, and a commission was appointed, consisting of Lord King, Mr. Macauley, and Mr. Sturch, to visit the Anatomical Theatre and compel discipline. We shall see how they fulfilled their mission. The account is from the Medical Gazette:

"On Mr. Pattison making his appearance, he was received by those present with sounds of the most opposite description. His friends were ranged below, his foes above, and a regular contest for the mastery ensued. The former applauded, the latter hissed; and for a moment the cheering seemed to preponderate, till the opponents of the Professor, abandoning their inarticulate mode of denunciation, began to utter cries of Off, off! no lecture,' &c.; when their superiority over his supporters soon became manifest, both as to numbers and zeal. A more extraordinary performance than that which followed, was, probably, never before witnessed within the walls of any establishment devoted to science. The Professor bowed, and was about to commence his lecture, but Off! off!' resounded from all sides, and his voice was drowned in the din. The subject' for demonstration was then brought in; but the dead and the living were treated with equal disrespect, and it seemed as if nothing could have increased the uproar, till at length a side-door opened, and Mr. Horner, the warden, entered. His office having for its especial object the maintenance of order, he proceeded, in the discharge of his duty, to address the students. It was now confusion worse confounded; the noise and clamour, and determined purpose of overwhelming his voice, became deafening. He attempted by every means to gain a hearing; but the attempt was in vain; the opposition to him appeared, if possible, more violent than that directed against Mr. Pattison. The drama was not yet ended; for behold! the door opened once again, when three members of the Council, headed by Lord King, presented