We admire the spirit of the Cambridge dons, but we
io not agree with this latter part of their proposal. In effect, it would do what in our opinion would be detestable. It would put the screw upon vast numbers of poor men, but would allow the " idle rich " to escape, and often in the -worst way—by forfeiting a University education. But even if the " idle rich " did not escape they would be thought to be escaping the rigours of military service by becoming cfficers while the poor man's sons were squeezed into the ranks. It would surely be much fairer to adopt the Swiss system and apply the pressure equally to all classes. We crust not, however, be supposed to object to the excellent principle that since it is the business of a University to turn out good citizens, its curriculum should of necessity include a bodily training which will make a man fit to defend his country in arms. Without such a training he is clearly an incomplete citizen. In order to obtain it the University might very properly, we think, stipulate that every man should join the Officers Training Corps. To stipulate for actual service in the Territorial Force is quite another matter, and appears to us ultra Tires for a University. The University ran dictate absolutely what a man is to learn or be trained in before he acquires a degree, but it cannot stipulate how he is to use his training, i.e., how he is to perform his service.
Previous page
