Lear, a Midsummer's Night's Dream, of Wordsworth and Tennyson, so exceeding rare ?

To refer to minor points :

Page 52.-"Words of number are essentially adjectives; as 'one,' 'two,' 'each,'' many,' that is one man,' 'two men,' 'animals,' &c.; though not unfrequently they appear to be used as pronouns; as 'Many did it; Two were taken;' 'Each went his way.' However, in all these and similar instances the noun qualified is understood." But how does " many appear to be used as pronoun "—that is, according to Mr. Thring's definition (the ordinary one) of a pronoun-in the phrase "Many did it?" It appears to be a noun, if anything but what it is. Mr. Thring is evidently being tempted here by a nymph who has led many an English grammarian to perdition. She has been wont to inspire in the minds of her victims a phantasy which confuses words that stand in the place of nouns with words that can stand without them. Mr. Thring resists the temptation; but seemingly he concedes that the temptress has appearances in her favour.

Page 68. "How little the word if of necessity implies a conjunctive mood may be seen from the fact that if is a shortened form of gif, i.e. give, and is therefore equivalent to grant this statement or fact,' a decided indicative case." This is, of course, a notorious old etymology; it must go the way of most old etymologies. "Goth. iba num, whether? jabai, if: OHG [Old High German] iba, uba, oba, ob, if, whether; hence condition doubt... Du. [Dutch], of, oft, if, whether, or &c. &c.," says Mr. Wedgwood in his "Dictionary of English Etymology."

Correspondence.

LETTER FROM OXFORD.

So much public attention has been directed to Oxford affairs of late, chiefly in connexion with Mr. Coleridge's Test Bill, but partly also in reference to questions of university extension, that every one who takes any interest in educational matters is fully aware that very considerable changes are impending over Oxford. But the course of opinion indicated by the public press, of whatever party, whether advocating or deprecating the proposed innovations, leads an Oxford resident to the conclusion that our affairs are not really understood, and that our friends

are likely to damage us quite as much by their ill-informed zeal as our enemies by their thorough-going hostility. How indeed can it be otherwise?

Even an Oxford man scarcely ever has a complete and accurate knowledge of Cambridge, similar in their main features as the two universities are: much less can a London student thoroughly comprehend institutions so peculiar, so complicated, so unlike what his own experience presents, as the two ancient universities which share the chief praise and the chief blame for English education being what it is. The Oxford or Cambridge man can understand more readily the comparatively simple forms which university systems have assumed elsewhere. Familiarity with a machine which comprises all manner of cogs and compensations will enable a man to understand one which does the same general work by means of two or three simple wheels and levers, if he has only the clearness of vision to separate the essential from the accidental components of his own machine. Thus, an Oxford or Cambridge man ought to be best able to comprehend the difference between the two old English universities and the more common type, as regards their proper sphere, and to see how the two systems have somewhat different duties, and must therefore be regulated on somewhat different principles. There is good in both. Each does, or may do, its own work without interfering with the other; and it is as absurd to attack Oxford because it does not follow the lead of the London University, or London because it does not model itself on Oxford, as to quarrel with an orange because it is not an apple. The business of the old universities is to educate, in the widest sense; to bring young men under discipline; to keep them for a period under some moral control, while at the same time furnishing them with instruction. Universities in general do nothing but teach; of course we must be understood as setting aside for the present all consideration of learning or study apart from teaching (though that is, both in theory and in practice, a part more or less important of the functions of all universities alike), and as limiting our observations to the relations of universities to education. The mere teacher need not, however much he practically does, have any intercourse with his pupils outside the lecture-room. At any rate, no moral control is implied in his office; the pupil is left free to live where he pleases, and do what seems right in his own eyes. The one system suits some students; the other suits others. The two are, in fact, complementary one to the other; none the less essentially so, because in London control over the students is not absolutely unknown, and in Oxford a plan is in preparation for admitting those who desire to provide for themselves.

Mr. Goldwin Smith, in the little book he has lately published on the reorganization of the University of Oxford, expresses the decided conviction as well as the desire that Oxford will continue practically, however in theory her scope is enlarged, an university of colleges, that the dream of thousands of free students, on which fervid writers are apt to dilate, is a mere delusion. It is probable that not a few Liberals have been surprised at reading this opinión from the pen of a man who is so fearless in his advocacy of thorough-going measures, and have begun to wonder why, if this be so, the Liberals among Oxford residents are so zealous for change. And perhaps the most useful function which an Oxford Correspondent can begin by performing, is to endeavour to explain what is really the attitude of the teaching body in the university on this question, which brings Oxford into especial contact with the general educational interest. In the first place, then, there is a party who desire to "Germanize" Oxford, to use the term of opprobrium employed by the obstructive party-that is to say, who disbelieve in the special function of controlling youth which Oxford and Cambridge, alone among universities, regard as their primary business, and would like to remodel Oxford on the principle of doing nothing for the students but instruct them. It is, of course, a fairly arguable question whether this is a desirable course; at the least, it must be granted that the onus probandi presses with unusual weight on those who would destroy the special character of institutions so venerable, so peculiar, and so successful on the whole. There is also a strong party who care very little for education as compared with the Churchor rather with their own party in the Church—who regard Oxford as the private property of the Establishment, and do their best to make it serve ecclesiastical interests. But between these lies the largest party, which has education for its first object, but education after the existing type. This section comprises very diverse elements, ranging from the men who adhere very firmly to the Anglican connexion, but still are anxious primarily about education, to those who think the best method of working and improving the traditional type of education is to conform very nearly to the German pattern;-but all alike adhere to the belief that Oxford had better develop her existing system than cut adrift from the past altogether. To such a development Oxford has for many years been advancingvery slowly, inasmuch as the defective constitution established by the University Reform Act has given great power to the party of obstruction; and gradually, because reformers have never had strength to carry all they desired, but have been obliged to compromise with their opponents. Meanwhile out

siders have begun to take up Oxford questions, and to agitate for extensive changes, from which they seem to expect great results. The removal of tests will destroy an injustice, will open the university in theory to all the nation equally; but the practical result will be not a hundredth part of what ignorant friends or foreboding enemies anticipate. The sects, as far as they are sectarian in spirit, will continue to lean against sending their youth to a place where Anglican influence must be paramount; and even already the Nonconformists who are not particular on this head resort to Oxford. On the other hand, there is not the slightest prospect of the common rooms being speedily filled with Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics, while even the existing tests cannot keep out a few such. Almost the same thing holds good with regard to the plan now being matured for admitting students who shall not be necessarily members of any college, on the principle of Mr. Ewart's Bill of last session. Eager advocates of that measure talked as if it would bring again to Oxford the traditional thirty thousand students of the Middle Ages; it will probably not bring as many score, unless supplemented by other measures. The advantages, both social and educational, of belonging to a college will attract all who can afford the necessary expenditure; and even the poor man will probably be admitted freely to college lecture-rooms and chapels without sharing their social life. Men who come to Oxford late in life, especially if married, will doubtless avail themselves of the liberty conceded, but that will be nearly all. It may be asked, Why make so great a change if so small a result is to follow? But the answer is plain. Independently of the value of the principle that students shall be free to choose their own mode of life, as in almost all universities is already the case, which we desire to establish, though we believe that there will be no great diversity of choice, the colleges will obtain a much-needed stimulus. At present the best worked colleges, such as Balliol, have to reject crowds of candidates for admission, inasmuch as their capacity is limited by the extent of their buildings; and the rejected fill the inferior colleges, because otherwise they cannot go to Oxford at all. Once remove this restriction on the number of students each college can take in hand, and the badly taught colleges will be deserted unless they set their houses in order. But this brings us near to the complicated questions relating to the future development of the colleges, which are essential to the understanding of Oxford as it may be, but are far too large to be considered at the end of a letter.

127

News.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

WE hear that at the Matriculation Examination in January last, one-eighth of the candidates were between the ages of twenty-five and thirty; and that of these fifty-nine per cent. were rejected. The smallest per-centage of rejections occurred amongst those between the ages of sixteen and seventeen. Natural philosophy and chemistry were fatal to the largest number. More than a quarter of those rejected failed in at least six subjects.

We

may remind our readers that the Annual Meeting of Convocation will be held on the 12th instant. The principal subjects that will engage attention will, we believe, be Parliamentary Representation, the University Building, the Constitution of the Annual Committee, and the Preliminary Scientific Examination.

It is said that since the passing of the Reform Bill, the applications from graduates to be re-instated as members of Convocation have been very

numerous.

The subjects selected for the twenty-two statues required for the decoration of the north front of the university will be made known at the Annual Meeting.

We understand that a motion in favour of entirely dissociating the Preliminary Scientific Examination from the First B. Sc. Examination will receive powerful support from a large attendance of medical graduates.

The Senate of the London University have been engaged in preparing a scheme for the examination and certification of women, under the provisions of the Supplemental Charter granted on the 27th of August in last

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.

year.

THE Right Hon. Henry Austin Bruce, M.P., has consented to preside at the distribution of prizes to the students of the Faculty of Medicine, which will take place early in May. The precise date is not yet determined on, but will be announced in a few days.

Notice has recently been received of a bequest of 500l., duty free, to the college by the late Henry Waldron Watson, of Derby, M.D.

The principal entrance under the portico is about to be made available for the admission of visitors to the Flaxman Gallery by the erection of an inner screen and doorways, which will protect the interior of the gallery from draughts and dust. As soon as this improvement is effected, it is intended to admit the public to view the Flaxman collections on Saturday afternoons, and thus to carry out the wishes of the late Mr. H. C. Robinson, to whose liberality and indefatigable exertions the college is principally indebted for the possession of the Flaxman Gallery, with the casts and drawings of the great sculptor, as well as for the means of maintaining and improving the gallery.