4

I speak with some degree of confidence on this subject as I
am conscious of being free from any bias of judgment having
its origin in my own personal feelings. My instinctive love of
order & discipline is so strong that I have many times
felt disposed to purchase them at the sacrifice of the
independence of the several schools of this institution. The
opinions I now entertain and have just expression are
in no degree, therefore, the product of prejudice but are
based on an attentive observation of the workings of the two
contrasted systems and are at variance with my original
prepossessions. Do you ask whether official delinquency on
the part of the Professors should be entirely overlooked ?
Certainly not. While I would allow to each Professor entire
independence in his own department as far as might be
consistent with the statutes I would hold him responsible
to the Trustees for the faithful discharge of his duties. The
Vice Chancellor should be required to report to the Board
of Trustees any alleged delinquency which might come
to his knowledge by means of rumour or otherwise, but
I would not charge him with the incidious duty of super-
vising the lecturing department as if in search of subjects of
report. The love of power is so inherent in the human heart
that not one man in a thousand could be expected to
exercise so delicate a trust with prudence & discretion.
Depend upon it the regulation in question contains the power
of great mischief. I would strongly urge you to make further
inquiries on this subject.

(2) . The plan of limiting the tenure of office in the case of the Profes-
sors to a term of five years with the condition of reeligibility
is, to me, entirely novel & I should think very objectionable.
The practice is to appoint for one year on trial and then the
appointment is made for life or rather on the good behavior
tenure. Your proposed plan is obnoxious to some of the
objections which apply to the radicalising system of an
elective judiciary on short tenure, as encounters a