:

not often brought, and no doubt may easily be disproved. But when that is done, little advance is made towards defending the present system. If we are active as college tutors or private tutors, we are paid for it as in any other profession if we become assistant-tutors, we are not much paid, but then we need not do much work, and the post is coveted as an honour: if we act as bursars or deans, it is because we are resident, and are willing to add to our income without giving up much of our time; or if the labour be more considerable, we at once receive more payment: in none of these cases are we working in virtue of our fellowship emoluments, for the emolument is in no way dependent on the work: we may give up one and yet retain the other. If we publish books, it is just as other men do who are not holders of fellowships if more than they, the excess may fairly be attributed to the general intellectual stimulus afforded by a University. If we sit on Syndicates, it is only as men serve on committees, parish boards, town councils, taking the natural interest of residents in local affairs. If we are studying for the bar, or medicine, we are making our own way in the world; if we are clergymen in parochial work, we are only pursuing a usual occupation in greater comfort until we obtain a college living. I do not find fault with any of this: I only say that it does not confer a title to a non-terminable annuity derived from charitable funds.

Surely a fellowship tenable for ten years is enough to hold out as a prize: it is enough to give a man a very advantageous start in a profession, but not enough to make him listless in his employment. I am very far from looking on fellowships held by non-residents, say young barristers or young clergymen, as an evil which requires correction. In the former case they secure a leaven of higher than mere special education in the ranks of an engrossing profession: in the latter they have the additional advantage of preventing poverty impairing a minister's usefulness. But neither seems to me a sufficient reason to justify more than a limited tenure.

But there are exceptions to be made, which I think will

illustrate and vindicate the principle. The first is, that of men really devoted to literature and science, and proving their devotion by lectures or publication. The second is of clergymen in large parishes either as incumbents or curates upon insufficient stipends. It would be most entirely in accordance with many of our ancient statutes, and most beneficial in its effects, if by colleges giving increased privileges to persons thus employed, they were to encourage men of earnest minds, fresh knowledge, and proved ability, to seek their field of duty in the centre of our important cities, and amid the illtaught masses of our populous districts. I know not how a fellowship can possibly be put to better use.

Both these two classes of fellows had better, I think, be furnished by small colleges as I shall mention shortly. But for the ordinary fellowships, ten years from the date of election would be a sufficient duration. Ten years from the M.A. degree, which is the period proposed by the Commissioners, would be rather too long for a proper number of vacancies. I calculate that in my own college, with the arrangements for lecturers that I have suggested, and with the restrictions of celibacy and holy orders removed from the others, there would be at least three vacancies a-year. present, rather above four I imagine to be the average. if fellowships were open to public competition throughout the University, this diminution would be compensated.

At

But

It may be disputed whether there is any ground for removing the restrictions from ordinary fellows. As regards holy orders, I believe the chance of obtaining a college living would do all that is wanted without introducing unnecessary evils. As regards celibacy the case is more doubtful: the present restriction, as Mr. Latham well remarks, answers without trouble the purpose of a disqualification upon the possession of a certain income; and by retaining the obligation we gain an increase in the number of vacancies. But on the other hand we ought not to overlook the social dangers of a highly bribed celibacy; and if we limit the period of tenure, it is more important to extend the privileges. If the number

of vacancies throughout the University should appear likely to be large enough, (and I think it would,) the balance of the argument is considerably in favour of permission to marry.

Before I leave the special discussion of the large colleges, a few words must be said about their government. At St. John's and Trinity the master and eight senior fellows in residence are the supreme governing authorities. In ordinary business the master has an absolute veto: in elections it requires the agreement at St. John's of seven seniors, at Trinity of the whole eight, to oppose the master's choice successfully. The general body of fellows have no voice in the government whatever, except at St. John's, in the election of their master. In King's college the master is assisted by thirteen senior fellows, or in some cases by six senior fellows and certain high officers: but in important business, such as granting leases, presenting to benefices, &c., the statutes require all the fellows to be consulted. A similar provision to this last existed in Bishop Fisher's statutes for St. John's college; and they also had the merit of not including mere seniority among the qualifications for the governing body.

The Commissioners' proposals respecting masters of colleges will probably be accepted, agreeing as I believe they do with the views of most of the fellows. But is it really advisable to make seniority (with residence) the sole criterion of fitness for membership of the college council? It has one great advantage over any elective system, that its members are not dependent on passing favour, and cannot be removed because they have boldly performed an unpopular duty. But in saying this, one says also that they are irresponsible: and however much abler, however much more active and practical may be fellows lower down on the list, yet we have no power of putting the government in their hands, until their seniors think proper to vacate their fellowships, or go out of residence. I can see no more ground for adhering to college government by seniors than there was for University government by Caput and Heads: there are no doubt differences in the two cases in other respects, but both were, and one still is, open to the fatal

objection, that no attempt is made to choose governors on the ground of their fitness for that work. And in the case of the college governments there is the additional inconvenience that they are exposed to the risk of, either not including even such an important officer as the bursar, or of choosing one who is not the best adapted to the place. As the independence of the present mode of government would come most into play in any proposal for diminishing the dividend to effect the improvement of the college lectures or buildings, an arrangement which should substitute a certain maximum payment to the master and fellows for their present share of the general overplus, would remove any supposed need for a non-elective government. I have already expressed an opinion that such a fixed maximum is desirable.

I should propose, then, that the college council consist one half of official members, and the other half of elected members. The official members would be the bursar, senior dean, and possibly two head lecturers: but that would depend upon the exact footing upon which the tutors and lecturers were eventually placed. The other members should be elected annually, either by the resident fellows only, i. e. those who had been resident the greater part of one term in the preceding twelvemonth, or by all the fellows, in which case the nonresidents might perhaps be allowed to vote by proxy. But there would be some advantage in requiring all the fellows to meet once a-year in college for this and other business, such as auditing the accounts, &c.

To the master and this council, deciding by a majority, might I think be entrusted all the ordinary business of the college, as well as the elections of officers, excepting that of the lecturers. These ought to be chosen by a smaller and more independent board. The master and the two senior lecturers would perhaps be the best body for the purpose. * The lecturers should be chosen at first only for two years,

* I may safely refer to Mr. Latham for arguments against the Commissioners' scheme, which vests the power of continuing a lecturer's fellowship in two-thirds of the whole body of Master and Fellows.

Re

and then reappointed permanently if found worthy. peated reelections would, I fear, if not merely a form, remove the sense of security.

The measures which I have ventured to recommend will, if eventually passed, place in Cambridge three staffs of lecturers superior to any at present to be found. It is most desirable to turn to the best advantage the generous spirit of rivalry which even now acts upon the colleges; and not by massing all the students together to make the number under a body of lecturers larger than could be handled with thoroughness and success. It is these considerations (amongst others) which make me prefer this plan to that of University lecturers, proposed by Mr. Hopkins and the Commissioners. There is a great deal of Mr. Hopkins' pamphlet which coincides with what I have urged, and but little which will militate against it. I only hope that those who take an interest in the matter, will weigh well what has been said by one so well qualified to judge. In the comparative facility of bringing such reforms into play, I think the separate action of the colleges is very important, and this is regarded in the foregoing arrangements.

Now the smaller colleges, in order to enter into complete rivalry with the large colleges under such a system, ought to combine in two or three groups, each group having common lecturers instructing the undergraduates of the colleges composing it. And I believe this might be done with fair chances of success, although I doubt greatly whether it is the best thing for the University. We should not, if the three large colleges did their duty, require any more large staffs of educators, all teaching the ordinary curriculum, and all presenting the same features of attraction. But there are some functions the due discharge of which is really required, and for which the smaller colleges are exceedingly well adapted.

First, I will take specialities, and here I am glad to have, in part at least, Mr. Latham's authority in my favour. He says, "It is most desirable that professional specialities should