be of considerable size ;-perhaps thirty, or even forty, is not too large a body. The extended feeling of a common interest in the subject; the manifestation of the varieties of intellectual character and habits among the pupils; the larger stock of knowledge which they probably possess among themselves, are advantages which may be set against the disadvantage obviously belonging to a large class; namely, the smaller share which each pupil must have of the Teacher's attention and of the work to be publicly done in the lecture

room.

126 Though College Lectures are, as we have seen, quite necessary in order to keep up and carry on that real knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Mathematics, which are essential parts of a Liberal Education, lectures of another kind, which we have distinguished as Professorial Lectures, have also their place, and a very important place, in such an Education. In such lectures the Lecturer presents his subject in some form which aims to be instructive or striking, by containing the results of extensive reading and careful thought, or by exhibiting lucid arrangement, or difficulties solved, or new views; or, in the material sciences, by presenting experimental exemplifications and illustrative apparatus. Such lectures tend to make the hearer feel that he is a sharer in the present as well as the past progress of literature and science;-that he is a citizen of an intellectual republic, which has the advancement of knowledge, and the discovery of truth for its constant aims. The charm which belongs to such lectures, when they are delivered by able and diligent professors, will very often take a strong hold upon the mind of the intelligent student; and impart to him a fervour of thought and a largeness of comprehension, which cannot be communicated in any other manner. Such, for instance, appear to have been the lectures of Niebuhr upon Roman History and Antiquities. To attend such

lectures, is an event which stimulates and expands, in an extraordinary degree, the minds of the more intelligent students: and to have the opportunity of attending such, is a very happy circumstance in any one's university education.

127 The defects of Professorial Lectures, are, that courses of such Lectures, delivered by any, except very able and diligent professors, can convey no knowledge which is not to be found, and in many cases in a better form, in published books; and that they convey little knowledge to unintelligent or inattentive students, such as must occur in every large body of young men. The first defect is in a great measure compensated by the feeling of sympathy in a common intellectual object, which a large lecture-room inspires, and by the advantage of receiving that view of the subject which a thoughtful man has derived from all that has been done up to the present time. The possibility of those who profess themselves students not profiting by instructions so given, universities have sought to guard themselves against by instituting examinations which shall test the student's proficiency in the educational studies to which he is directed.

Of examinations, and their conditions, I must speak at some length; but I find myself previously called upon to make a few further remarks upon College Lectures and Professorial Lectures.

SECT. 2. Of Mr Lyell's Remarks on the English Universities.

128 The preceding pages express opinions, upon the subject of College and University teaching, which I have, for the most part, already published. When these pages were already written, I found that the opinions, as formerly published, were assailed in a work in which I had never imagined I should find them discussed, Mr Lyell's Travels in North America. Having

accidentally stumbled upon this attack, in a work so popular in its form and matter, and giving in its title so little warning of its controversial character, it may serve to illustrate the subject if I briefly notice Mr Lyell's criticisms.

129 Mr Lyell refers to that part of my former publication in which I gave, as appeared to me, strong reasons why Permanent Studies (as I have here termed them) should occupy a prominent place in a university system; and why College Lectures, as the best modes of teaching these studies, are highly valuable parts of our education. To my arguments in favour of Classical and Mathematical Studies, he gives his assent and applause; but he blames me, because I have, as he says, "defended the exclusive monopoly enjoyed by these subjects, in the education of young men at Oxford and Cambridge, from the ages of eighteen to twenty-two." In support of this charge, he quotes passages in which I have argued that "philosophical doctrines" cannot supply the place of mathematical and classical studies in University Education; an opinion which he had seemed himself to adopt in the preceding page, when he said that my arguments on this subject are "unanswerable, and enforced with great eloquence and power." I am sorry that my powers so inadequately responded to my intentions, when, a few pages earlier (p. 41), I tried to show, what I asserted, that though the progressive sciences "cannot do the work of mental cultivation, they are highly valuable acquisitions to the student, and may very beneficially engage his attention during the later years of his University career." I urged, in support of this view, arguments of the same kind as those which I have already employed in the present volume. I said, "A considerable general knowledge of the modern progressive sciences is as requisite to connect the educated man with the future, as a thorough acquaintance with ancient literature is

to connect him with the past. Except he knows what has been done and is doing, in the way of extending our knowledge of the earth, its elements, and its inhabitants, how can he judge what are the probable prospects of our knowledge? And if he be indifferent to this, how can he feel that interest in the future fortunes of his race, which becomes a person of his lofty extraction?" This, and more to the same purpose, I have said, in passages close to those to which Mr Lyell refers, when he charges me with defending the exclusive monopoly enjoyed by Classics and Mathematics in the education of young men at Oxford and Cambridge. Such passages in my book may very easily, and I dare say, very truly, appear to Mr Lyell too feeble and narrow for the dignity of the subject: but such passages, I cannot but think, ought to have prevented Mr Lyell from accusing me of writing to the very opposite effect. However inadequate these arguments in favour of including the progressive sciences in University Education, may have appeared to him, they were at least arguments for such inclusive system, and not for a monopoly which excluded those elements. Yet it would seem that I have written so ill on this subject, that, not only I have not satisfied Mr Lyell, but have even failed to make him comprehend what it was that I wished to prove.

130 Still I cannot but think that Mr Lyell should have included in his notice such passages as the above, when he was collecting passages which, he says, "may lead us to infer that the optimism of the Master of Trinity is not of that uncompromising kind which should make us despair of his co-operation in all future academical reforms." Mr Lyell perhaps could not be expected to know that during the whole of my long residence in the University, I have been constantly engaged in urging and attempting reforms (of course in conjunction with many other persons); and that

many of these reforms, of very important kinds, have been carried into effect. But if he wished to say anything about my views with regard to the improvements of English Education, he might reasonably, I think, have been expected to give some attention to what is said on the subject in the pages from which he was quoting. And if he felt any disposition to pursue further an inquiry so unimportant to him, he might have referred to what I have written in the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, in the chapter On Intellectual Education. (B. XIII. c. 3.)

131 In trying to divine what it is that has so completely prevented Mr Lyell from apprehending my meaning and purpose, I can only conjecture that he has in some way established in his mind an opposition between a College System which he supposes to exist at Oxford and Cambridge, and an ideal Professorial System, which he thinks ought to be substituted in its place; and that he has selected me as the assumed champion of the side which he is resolved to assail. I can no otherwise account for the polemical attitude which he has chosen to assume towards me. For the College System which I defend, agrees with the Professorial System which he recommends, in the feature which he thinks most important, the division of departments. This division has long existed at Cambridge. The Private Tutors, and, for the more advanced students at least, the Public Tutors also, have their separate subjects. The Tutors each confine their lectures to their separate provinces, in which their favourite studies have lain; and to these they give their labour, as especially as if they were Professors of their selected subjects. We have, in this respect, nothing to prevent our realizing all the advantages which Mr Lyell anticipates (p. 221) from a "Professorial System" of which this is the essential character.

132 And, on the other hand, I cannot believe that