e mature one of six-and-twenty--filled it with wine, and
handing it round, used the sacred words, 'Drink this in remembrance of
me.' This was a blasphemous parody of the most sacred rite of the
Church. All Selwyn could say for himself was, that he was drunk when he
did it. The other plea, that he did it in ridicule of the
transubstantiation of the Romish Church, could not stand at all; and was
most weakly put forward. Let Oxford Dons be what they will; let them put
a stop to all religious inquiry, and nearly expel Adam Smith for reading
Hume's 'Essay on Human Nature;' let them be, as many allege,
narrow-minded, hypocritical, and ignorant; we cannot charge them with
wrong-dealing in expelling the originator of such open blasphemy, which
nothing can be found to palliate, and of which its perpetrator did not
appear to repent, rather complaining that the treatment of the Dons was
harsh. The act of expulsion was, of course, considered in the same light
by his numerous acquaintance, many of whom condoled with him on the
occasion. It is true, the Oxford Dons are often charged with injustice
and partiality, and too often the evidence is not sufficiently strong to
excuse their judgments; but in this the evidence was not denied; only a
palliative was put in, which every one can see through. The only
injustice we can discover in this case is, that the head of Hart Hall,
as Hertford College was called, seemed to have been influenced in
pronouncing his sentence of expulsion by certain previous _suspicions_,
having no bearing on the question before him, which had been entertained
by another set of tutors--those of Christchurch--where Selwyn had many
friends, and where, probably enough, he indulged in many collegian's
freaks. This knack of bringing up a mere suspicion, is truly
characteristic of the Oxford Don, and since the same Head of this
House--Dr. Newton--acknowledged that Selwyn was, during his Oxford
career, neither intemperate, dissolute, nor a gamester, it is fair to
give him the advantage of the doubt, that the judgment on the evidence
had been influenced by the consideration of 'suspicions' of former
misdeeds, which had not been proved, perhaps never committed. Knowing
the after-life of the man, we can, however, scarcely doubt that George
had led a fast life at the University, and given cause for mistrust. But
one may ask whether Dons, whose love of drinking, and whose tendency to
jest on the most solemn subjects, are well k