when the relative eminence of its Professors had, from a vicious patronage, (partly in the hands of the Academical, partly in the hands of the Municipal, body,) declined beneath the level, more especially of the Dutch and Italian Universities. For these Universities, while sedulous and successful in filling their Chairs with the most illustrious teachers, were always unfortunately remiss in the bestowal of their academical honours.* * In the scattered biographies of the distinguished alumni of Louvain, I find it almost uniformly recorded, what was their rank in the graduation list of Arts. Of these I chance to have noted a few, which I may give in chronological order.— In 1478, Pope Hadrian VI. is Primus; in 1504, M. Dorpius is 5th; in 1507, R. Tapperus is 2d; in 1522, H. Triverius is Primus; in 1527, F. Sonnius is Primus; in 1529, C. Jansenius is Primus; in 1542, H. Elenus is Primus; in 1556, H. Cuyckius is Primus, and H. Gravius is 5th; in 1558, J. Molanus is 6th; in 1561, M. Hovius the canonist is only 46th, and G. Estius, the great theologian, 7th; in 1572, however, the greater L. Lessius is Primus; in 1575, P. Lombardus, Archbishop of Armagh, is Primus; in 1599, Du Trieu the logician is Primus; in 1604, C. Jansenius (from whom the Jansenists) is Primus; in 1606, the philosopher Fromondus is 3d, &c. &c. &c. APPENDIX III. EDUCATIONAL (C.) ON A REFORM OF THE ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES, WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO OXFORD; AND LIMITED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS. ANY project for the reform of old and wealthy schools, like the great English Universities, is beset with difficulties, if practical possibility is to be combined with theoretical (not to say perfection, but) improvement. It is comparatively easy to devise the scheme of a faultless University, if we are allowed to abstract from circumstances. It is easy, even, to discover and to expose defects. Nor is it difficult to trace,-how an ancient institution may gradually degenerate,-how certain private interests may succeed in gaining a preponderance over the common good,-how these interests, if left unchecked, may introduce, foster, and defend the most calamitous abuses,-until, at length, the seminary may be, de facto, the punctual converse of itself, de jure. And such, in truth, is the condition of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; for no greater contrast can even be conceived, than are exhibited by these venerable schools, in what they actually are, and in what they profess, and, as controlled by statute, must profess themselves to be. In two of the preceding articles, (pp. 397-472,) I have endeavoured to signalise and to explain, how these Universities, as seminaries of education, present an almost diametrical opposition between their actual and their legal existence. By statute, they are organised as schools of Theology, Law, Medicine, and (as a preliminary of all liberal professions) of the liberal Arts; but, in fact, the only instruction which they now afford, is in the lowest department of this last faculty alone. Intra-academical study is now illegally commuted with extraacademical standing. Degrees,-privileged certificates of competency, evacuated of all truth, are now lavished without the legal conditions of university instruction and university exami nation. In short, the public incorporation and its public instruction are now illegally extinguished; illegally superseded, but not reasonably supplied by the private Houses and their private tuition. In fine, the statutes of the institution are now only performed through a system of perjury, disgraceful to the school, disgraceful to the country, and as pervasive in these Universities, as it is, fortunately, elsewhere unexampled. So much I have alleged, because so much, I am convinced, is true. But I would not assert, that what has been irregularly abolished, is all deserving of restoration, nor, that what has irregularly sprung up, is all deserving of abolition. On the contrary, the very fact, that a state of right could have been so totally, and yet so quietly, reversed, affords a presumption that what was passively abrogated, was itself but feeble; and though, with proper fostering, the feeble might have ultimately waxed strong, still it would be a rash conclusion, that in the old and legal there was nothing but good, in the new and intrusive nothing but evil. At present, waiving all discussion in regard to the professional Faculties, and limiting our consideration to the school of liberal, or general education,—to the fundamental Faculty of Arts alone; it will more than suffice for what we can at present even perfunctorily accomplish, to inquire:-How do the English Universities, how, in particular, does Oxford, the principal of these, execute its one greatest, nay, now, its one only educational function,-cultivate, in general, the mental faculties, prepare its alumni for any liberal pursuit in life, by concentrating their awakened efforts, in studies (objectively) the most important, and (subjectively) the most improving? In attempting an answer to this question, it is requisite to follow out a certain order. For, it is evident, that before proceeding to consider what ought to be, we should have previously ascertained what is, accomplished. I shall, accordingly, inquire and endeavour to determine,-first of all, what Oxford, as an instrument of education, does actually perform,-Oxford as it is; and thereafter, how, in consistency with its institutions, it may, in this respect, be improved,-Orford as it might be.. I. Oxford as it is.-It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine, with sufficient accuracy, the general efficiency of Oxford, as compared with any other University. But Oxford, as it now exists, is not a single educational organ. It is a congeries of such organs; each of its twenty-four private Houses constitut ing one; and, at the same time, the public University, in its Examination for the primary degree, affords an irrecusable standard by which we may very accurately measure the relative efficiency of these several organs. If, therefore, we find, that these, compared among themselves, afford, in the Examination, for a series of years, very different and still very uniform results; we shall be entitled to infer, that one House is comparatively a good, another comparatively a bad, instrument of education;-be warranted to determine, even on an Oxford standard, what every Oxford House does, may, and should accomplish ;-be enabled, in fine, to generalise the circumstances, by which such accomplishment is there furthered or impeded ;-and, consequently, to judge what are the most feasible measures, for the reform and improvement of this University. The same comparison, with the same results, may also, it is evident, be instituted between the efficiency of the same House at one period, and its efficiency at another. Taking, therefore, as the standard of academical proficiency the public Examination in its two Departments, and its four Classes of Honour; I proceed to apply this to the several Houses. And (as shewn in Table, pp. 744, 745) in two different ways: the one giving the comparative eminence of those educated in each House, (there I.); the other, the comparative eminence of those who in each House act as educators, (there II.) In reference to the Instructed: The Table shews of each House the number of its undergraduates (a); then the absolute number of the honours obtained by them in each department and in every class (b, c); then the absolute number of Double Firsts (d); lastly, the number of First Class Honours in either department in proportion to the number of competitors (g, h); but previously, by the same relation, the classes of each department valued from lowest to highest, as 1, 2, 3, 4 (e, f). On this proportion in L. H., proceeding only to the first decimal, I have arranged the Houses; when equal in L. H., their difference in D. M. has then determined the order. I have taken, as a sufficient period, the ten years ending with 1847; (the Calendar of 1848 being the only one within my reach when the Table was abstracted;) and I was compelled (for the same reason) to make the number of undergraduates of the last year stand for an average of the whole ten. [(1853.) This part has been revised and corrected.] In reference to the Instructors: The Table shows, in each |