collecting facts and drawing conclusions, the prejudices which are hostile to a fair inquiry; and while the pupil is interested in the works of the ancients, shall remind him that as knowledge is progressive, he must avail himself of the latest acquisitions of the age in order to attain views more comprehensive and correct than those enjoyed even by predecessors of far superior capacity and genius." Having myself constantly tried, in various ways, to inculcate these lessons, and having published, with that view, works of considerable labour and extent, I trust I shall not be deemed insensible to the value of such maxims. But I must confess that I much doubt whether they produce any great effect by being uttered to young men as maxims. I think the order of dependence according to which these maxims become truths realized in the mind is the reverse of this. They are the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Science cannot be learnt without the History of Science. The History of Science cannot be understood without a knowledge of Science itself. The wider Sciences cannot be followed without a knowledge of Mathematics. Therefore I would teach, first, Mathematics; then, the Inductive Sciences; then, the History of Science; and then I should hope to be able really to impress upon my pupil those philosophical monitions which Mr Lyell desires him to receive.

139 Mr Lyell thinks that students at the University ought, without loss of time, to be acquiring habits of thinking and judging for themselves. I think so too. I think also that the only true preparation for thinking soundly and judging rightly, on points of progressive science and literature, is to be found in a thorough acquaintance with the Permanent Studies of which I have spoken, and which I have recommended on that very ground. But Mr Lyell seems to think that the respect which I recommend as the proper feeling of Pupils towards Tutors may interfere with

the formation of such habits, of men thinking and judging for themselves. This would be intelligible if Mr Lyell were one who thought it an essential requisite to men's thinking and judging for themselves, that a large portion of them should think Sophocles and Thucydides poor writers, and Euclid and Newton weak reasoners; for those who so thought and judged for themselves, would probably not have much respect for their Tutors who might try to explain to them the beauties of classical or the reasoning of mathematical writers. But Mr Lyell does not, I think, desire this kind of freedom of thought and opinion, as an evidence of the soundness of our education. And on the other hand, I agree with him, that in sciences rapidly progressive, and therefore varying from time to time in their current doctrines, the hearer (whether he attend lectures on such subjects in the educational period of his life, or after it is concluded,) should judge for himself, as far as he is fit to do so. But because such subjects are mutable from time to time, and doubtful, at least in some points, I think them unfit to form the basis of our education. I do not know how far Mr Lyell differs from me in this; but at any rate my opinion is quite consistent with a strong wish that the Progressive Sciences should hold a prominent place in our university teaching when a due proficiency in the Permanent Educational Studies has been secured. This I desire as strongly as Mr Lyell himself; and I had tried to say it strongly, in the little book which Mr Lyell has chosen to criticise for saying the contrary. I shall hereafter offer some suggestions as to the manner in which this object may be forwarded.

140 I see no reason to believe that the introduction of a proper portion of progressive science into the university system may not be effected in the University of Cambridge, by the Senate of the University, acting in the same spirit and in the same manner in which it

has, in recent years, introduced so many important changes into its educational system. Mr Lyell thinks, with regard to his own university of Oxford, that such a result is to be despaired of; and he desires a Royal Commission to be sent thither as a counterpoise to the vis inertia of the colleges (p. 311). Such an interference from without, with the legislation of the universities, would, I am fully persuaded, be productive of immense harm. It might destroy all the advantages of the existing system: but that any thing so thrust into the structure of these ancient institutions would assimilate with their organization, or work to any good purpose, I see no reason to hope. Such a measure could hardly be attempted without producing a sentiment of being wronged in the majority of the existing members of the University, which would deprive the new scheme of all co-operation on their part. Mr Lyell (p. 312) says that such a Commission might undertake university reform in the temper which I have recommended, "bringing to the task a spirit, not of hatred, but of reverence for the past, not of contempt, but of gratitude towards our predecessors." But I see little

augury of such sentiments in Mr Lyell's own statements of the kind of reform which he thinks needed; and still less, in the language in which the like measures are urged by other persons.

141 Mr Lyell seems to make it one of his objections to the existing system of the English Universities, that it is of modern origin. He appears to hold, with a writer in the Edinburgh Review, that the ancient system of the Universities was one in which Professorial Lectures were the main instrument of teaching; and he has given a long detail of facts the object of which appears to be to show this. In all this history, it appears to be forgotten that the main exercises of the University, in the ancient times, were Public Disputations upon certain points of the established doctrines.

These Disputations were the evidence which the University required of the student's attainments: and his main employment was, I conceive, to acquire a skill in such Disputations by similar exercises, performed in his own College, or at least among his fellow-students. These College Disputations held the places, in a great measure, of the College Lectures of later times, which are also preparations for University Exercises. The Professorial Lectures must, in the more ancient, as well as in the modern times of the English Universities, have formed a small part of the student's University employments.

142 But I suppose Mr Lyell would not himself attach much weight to this argument of his, from the asserted practice of a remote antiquity. The College system has, as he allows, prevailed in the English Universities from the time of the Reformation, which is surely antiquity enough, if antiquity is to guide us. The defenders of the College system have never, so far as I am aware, rested its defence mainly upon its remote antiquity. They have spoken of its advantages; and these are of a kind on which Mr Lyell himself appears to look with approbation, when he finds them in America. If we can secure these advantages, we shall not readily consent to part with them in order to go back to the condition which he represents as existing before the Reformation.

143 A return to an obsolete state of things on the ground of antiquity is generally a mischievous innovation. The College system in the English Universities has that support from antiquity which is really important; namely, the authority of the Statutes by which the Colleges have been governed for three centuries*.

* I insert here the chapter in the Statutes of Trinity College which establishes College Tutors. I believe the principal of the other Colleges have the like laws.

[PT. I.]

10

144 It is true, that in most cases the statutes contemplate the resident fellows in general, and not

"CAP. 10. De Tutorum et Pupillorum officio.

"EST ea quidem ineuntis ætatis imbecillitas, ut provectiorum consilio et prudentiâ necessariò moderanda sit; et propterea statuimus et volumus, ut nemo ex baccalaureis, discipulis, pensionariis, sisatoribus, et subsisatoribus Tutore careat: qui autem caruerit, nisa intra quindecim dies unum sibi paraverit, è Collegio ejiciatur. Pupilli Tutoribus pareant, honoremque paternum ac reverentiam deferant, quorum studium labor et diligentia in illis ad pietatem et scientiam informandis ponitur. Tutores sedulò quæ docenda sunt doceant: quæque etiam agenda instruant admoneantque. Omnia Pupillorum expensa Tutores Collegio præstent, et intra decem dies cujusque mensis finiti æs debitum pro se et suis omnibus Senescallo solvant: Quod ni fecerint, tantisper commeatu priventur, dum pecunia à se Collegio debita dissolvatur. Cautumque esto ne Pupillus quispiam vel stipendium suum à Thesaurariis recipiat, vel rationem pro se cum eisdem aliquando ineat, sed utrumque per Tutorem semper sub pœnâ commeatûs menstrui à dicto Tutore Collegio solvendi fieri volumus."

These Statutes have recently undergone a revision, with the view of removing discrepancies between the letter of the law and the modern practice. The only alteration which was introduced into this chapter (except the omission of the last sentence, now superfluous), was the addition of the following clause:

66

Singulis autem Tutoribus permittimus unum pluresve a Sociis Collegii idque ex nominatione magistri sibi adsciscere, qui opem illis ferant in exercitationibus quotidianis habendis atque in Pupillis ad eruditionem bonosque mores instituendis."

This clause recognizes the liberty of a Principal Tutor to engage some of the other Fellows as Assistant Tutors, which has commonly been the practice for some years, the Assistant Tutors being generally selected on account of their attainments and reputation in the subject, Classics or Mathematics, on which they are intended to give Lectures.

There is nothing in this Statute, either in its original or present form, inconsistent with the practice of having only two or three Principal Tutors in the College. On the other hand, there is nothing which would prevent a greater number of the Fellows acting as Tutors, according to the Statutes, if circumstances should render such a change desirable.