appears to me a great waste of money and a great waste of energy; and the idea of treating fellowships and scholarships as articles which we may offer at a lower cost of intellectual exertion in order to draw men to our particular establishment, is to my mind a very painful one. If we offered different intellectual advantages suited to different orders of minds, there would be no objection to our adjusting the conditions of fellowships so as to draw men to their own good: but to underbid one another by offering such a position as a fellowship on cheaper terms, as the reward of inferior deserts, is in my opinion an unjustifiable course. Mr. Latham speaks most truly when he says that "we should endeavour to organ"ise the existing variety, so that persons with different objects "and looking to different studies or professions, might find "some college specially suited to their case." What and where are Mr. Latham's provisions for effecting this object? He seems so daunted by the bugbear of open competition, and so unwilling to bind the colleges by statutes, that he only seizes the topic of specialities in order to drop it again at

once.

I agree with Mr. Latham that the college lectures are not at present the main attraction to undergraduates to enter at that particular college. But as soon as they deserve to be so, by decided superiority to those of other colleges, I think, even under the present most imperfect arrangements, they become an attraction at once. Am I wrong in ascribing in some degree to this cause the set of the Classical tide to Trinity, and of the Mathematical tide to St. John's? Did Hare and Thirlwall contribute nothing to the fame and the attractions of the former? and have there not been others since, whose lectures have materially helped to keep up the stream? Has there been in the latter no connection between the distinguished Wranglers constantly on the staff of tutors and assistant tutors, and the inducements to future Wranglers to resort to the college? But that this has not been the case as much as it ought to be, the whole purpose of my pamphlet is intended to show. It is the skill and abilities of the lec

turers on the one hand, and the opportunities which each college affords for the prosecution of special studies on the other, which ought chiefly to determine the undergraduate selection of a college. Mr. Latham says (Considerations, &c., p. 18), "I certainly consider that the fellowships of a college "are to be regarded in the first instance as the means whereby "that particular college is to be made an efficient place of edu"cation: for such efficiency a certain number of able students "is the first requisite, and this can only be supplied by each college having its own rewards." So far as the fellowships are looked upon as the material of lectureships, I quite agree with this statement; and I believe the more open the election the better for the college: but when the tenor of Mr. Latham's whole pamphlet shows that by the peculiarity of the rewards, he looks not merely to difference of tenure in fellowships, or to their devotion to special sciences, but to lowering the qualifications necessary for obtaining them, I am compelled to deny the statement as a fact, and protest against it as a theory.

And I am not a little encouraged to do this by a consideration of the analogy with which Mr. Latham follows up the passage I have quoted, the analogy of school exhibitions. It cannot well be disputed that where the prospect of obtaining a good exhibition induces parents, as I fear it often does, to send their sons to a bad school, or even to a small school, the existence of such exhibitions is a simple calamity. The only justification of such endowments is that they increase the chance of obtaining a good school in the particular town, and thus bringing education within a more tempting distance of the inhabitants: but in many cases it would be infinitely better to commute the exhibitions into payments to masters. Now it is obvious that this justification of exhibitions does not apply to fellowships in Cambridge. All the colleges are in the same place, and there is no greater difficulty in sending a youth to one college than to another. It is only the existence of private tuition which saves some small colleges from being open to the objections under which some small

E

schools lie. It is Mr. Latham, not myself, who is responsible for this ungracious comparison.

I accept heartily the Commissioners' proposal to make "fellowships open to public competition after public notice," and believe it to be the true touchstone of a sound system. Mr. Latham applies it to our present system, and the test gives an unfavourable result. He rejects the test: I desire to reform the parts proved unsound.

But when the Commissioners add to this proposal the condition of examination,' I share Mr. Latham's objections. To revise the University decisions in classics and mathematics is a task which few or no colleges can safely or easily undertake: and when men have become bachelors of arts, it is generally quite time that their reading should not be bound down to merely examinable qualities. I conceive then that the University honours ought to bear the really decisive weight in filling up our fellowships, except in those which are intended for the encouragement of special sciences; and these should be open to all graduates under a certain standing whether fellows already or not, supposing any extra privileges conceded to them which would make it worth while to the former to change their position. But for the great mass of fellowships I would certainly make no examination compulsory: the colleges ought to have full power to institute one, but should be perfectly free to dispense with it, or to change it as they think best. The requirement of an English Essay, (a choice of subjects being given), or answers to some general questions bearing on moral science, would not be open to the objection of compelling specific reading after the B.A. degree from those who had already proved their power; and would serve to distinguish the claims of men who were otherwise on an equal footing. But beyond this I believe an examination would be in most cases either nugatory or mischievous.

But while declining to bind down the electors to a strict examination instituted by themselves, I would take other steps to make the openness of the fellowships no mere form. Whenever a vacancy had to be filled up, whether directly on

their occurrence, or on a fixed day once a-year, notice ought to be sent to every college, and exhibited in the usual places of university notices; and the electors ought to make a solemn public declaration that they will elect the best men irrespectively of college or other connexion. The choice of men to fill lectureships should of course be equally free from restriction to fellows of the college.

As regards scholarships, I must think that the Commissioners' proposals for open competition are not desirable. The distraction to an undergraduate's ordinary studies seems to me quite certain, and likely to be most prejudicial. But there ought to be some scholarships or exhibitions open to candidates before residence in order to meet successfully the Oxford attractions. It is, I imagine, owing ultimately to the scholarships at Balliol being of high amount and open to all, whether in residence or not, that that foundation owes its preeminence. The fellowships were open also, but of course their scholars were as capable of obtaining open prizes in any field of competition as any other men in the University. It is true that the negative conditions under which this preeminence has been won have not existed in Cambridge, and will not for the future exist in Oxford: but one can scarcely repress a smile when one sees Mr. Latham making a reference to Balliol in vindication of our small foundations, when he has just been strenuously arguing against the adoption of the very means which have made Balliol what it is. (Considerations, &c. sub fine.) But Mr. Latham admits, though with regret, that some exhibitions must be given before residence.

A few words, before I conclude, about college benefices. The statutes or custom direct the fellows to have the option in order of seniority, unless there be some very weighty reason against it. Without instituting any comparison between the effects of our patronage and those of private persons, I think the colleges are bound to recognise some higher obligation in the exercise of their right than these directions imply. I should suggest, that two years' parochial work (not necessarily continuous) should be a necessary condition

before receiving a college presentation: and certainly a limit ought to be fixed to the number of benefices above a certain amount, of which a fellow should be allowed the option. This would save a parish from what is at least easily possible under the present system, of having a fellow thrust upon them who had grown old in very different pursuits. If marriage be allowed to either lecturers or ordinary fellows, the same option and restrictions should be continued to them. This would no doubt have the disadvantage of removing a clerical lecturer sooner from his useful post, but something is due to the parish as well as to the college. And the sense of permanency upon which I have laid so much stress, will, so far as it depends not upon marriage but upon continuance of tenure, not be much practically affected by the prospect of removal to a college benefice. Few of our benefices are in large parishes, even if that were an objection, and the cares of a small parish will leave sufficient time for the gratification of the literary or scientific tastes which have been fostered by the tenure of a lectureship. The restriction of the number of options (say four) would be a fairer method than that of a period of years which the Commissioners have proposed for terminable clerical fellowships.

I cannot conclude my remarks without saying, that throughout I have presumed the acquaintance of the reader with Mr. Latham's pamphlet. Otherwise, the brevity of the references, which want of space has compelled me to adopt, will give an unfair impression of his arguments. Indeed, few of them are directed against the precise propositions which I have ventured to propose, and a perusal of the context is therefore necessary to show how far Mr. Latham would carry his views. Notwithstanding my disagreement with many of them, I wish I could cherish the conviction, that my remarks may be as serviceable to others in suggesting improvements, as his have been to me in weighing the consequences of proposed reforms.

The duty which is imposed on the Commissioners and the colleges is one of the noblest that it is possible to have.