Mr

structor's life, and the reward of our labours. Lyell has a very wrong opinion of us, if he thinks we should not desire to have the whole youth of England such as his imaginary pupils ;-such as, we are happy and grateful to say, a large proportion of our pupils are. But still, all are not of this kind, and the difficulties of Education arise from the difficulty of dealing with those who are of a different stamp:-the less intellectual, as I have already said, or the inert, or the frivolous. On the treatment of a body in which there is a large mixture of such characters, Mr Lyell throws no light whatever. Yet we require a system which shall produce some effect, even upon such: not, indeed, a system constructed for them alone; but a system which shall be best for all; bearing in mind, not only the best natures, whom it is so delightful to think of, and from whom every system brings out abundant good; but also, all the characters which that "all" includes, and the meaning of Education, which is, to bring out from all something good which they may have in common.

135 It is strange that Mr Lyell should, throughout his remarks on the Universities, speak as if it had never occurred to him to doubt that, if good lectures are given on the progressive sciences, and students are left at liberty to attend them, they will do so. We know that, whatever his American experience may have suggested to him, we have little reason to indulge ourselves in any such persuasion in England. The most admirable courses of lectures, containing views striking from their novelty and largeness, often fail in attracting an audience, even in populous and intelligent London; and it is to be supposed that in any University town, in which young men are collected, their love of lighter employments will prevent their crowding the lecture-room, as effectually as the occupations and apathy of the inhabitants of the metropolis. And, at

any rate, mere open lecture-rooms will not teach all students. When the lecture-rooms of the Professors in Oxford and Cambridge, a very few years ago, were filled with University students, these were still only the most intelligent and active-minded, and there remained a great majority quite insensible to the attractions of progressive sciences so treated.

136 The University of Cambridge, on account of the existence of this large class of pupils, and in order that they might receive some tinge, at least, of the University studies, instituted various Examinations. The remedy itself is not without its evils, as we well know. We should be glad to have any better measure pointed out to us: but, till that is done, we must endeavour to discover how the evil, to which the employment of examinations is subject, may best be avoided or alleviated.

137 Mr Lyell seems to have fallen into some confusion on another point. He speaks (p. 306), "of confining instruction to pure mathematics, or the classical writers; more especially if the latter are not to be treated in a critical spirit:" as if I had recommended such a course. Certainly if I had recommended that our classical teachers in this University should not treat their subjects in a critical spirit, I should have given advice at variance with their practice at all times up to the present, as recent publications proceeding from persons of that class most abundantly show. I said, indeed, not that our teachers should not treat ancient authors as critical scholars do, but that students ought not to treat their teachers in that critical spirit which is opposed to a spirit of respect.

138 Mr Lyell gives us, as his view of the office of an instructor of one of our young men, that he "shall teach him to weigh evidence, point out to him the steps by which truth has been gradually obtained in the inductive philosophy, the caution to be used in

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.