university, with the other nine universities left out in the cold. They all recollected that the Civil Service of India was promised to be opened up in such a manner that "No part of the kingdom and no class of schools should exclusively furnish civil servants to India, and with an anxious desire to deal fairly by all parts of the United Kingdom and all places of liberal education." These conditions are so wise and fair that, though the original purpose of Lord Salisbury probably was to limit the training to a single college in Oxford, the notion has been abandoned, at least nominally, and now all universities and colleges are invited to co-operate in the training of probationers. Yet this is practically impossible under the new conditions. We may assume by the experience of the past, that the great majority of the successful candidates will be close on the maximum age of nineteen, for age tells in a keen intellectual competition, just as weight does in a boat race. Doubtless, a few clever boys will be immaturely forced at younger ages. Forty probationers yearly, or eighty during the two years of probation, will be the supply for which the ten universities of the kingdom are to organize schemes of technical instruction. If the co-operation were general, we may assume that Oxford and Cambridge would, from their superior resources, get forty, or one-half of the probationers, and that the remaining forty might be scattered about the other universities at the rate of four to five for each. But even in the case of Cambridge and Oxford, each with twenty men distributed through their numerous colleges, how are the esprit de corps and the benefits of association to be fostered? The probationers, under such a system, might acquire university feeling, but they could not enjoy the old Haileybury advantages of being brought into close personal contact. But no doubt any one university, if it specially devote itself to the work with adequate resources, may secure a practical monopoly of technical training. Oxford has already appointed four readers, in Hindostanee and Persian, in Telegu, in Indian history, and in Indian law, and has made their salaries a charge on the university chest. Its enterprise will doubtless be crowned with success, and we may assume that it will certainly attract at least forty out of the eighty probationers. If Cambridge follow suit by the aid of its poorer university chest we may credit it with securing at least twenty of the remainder. The remaining twenty may be scattered through the other eight universities. But in them no professoriate of special Indian subjects could be organized for three or four students in each. Hence Lord Salisbury would be fully justified in refusing to sanction them as places for study, and thus he throws all probationers upon Oxford and Cambridge, and renders illusory the promise "to deal fairly by all parts of the United Kingdom, and all places of education."

Association, after probation, is only possible under a monopoly

conferred on a single university. The general co-operation of all universities would defeat the purposes of the change by disassociation. Practically the scheme will work in favour of Oxford only, as always has been intended. I do not, however, believe that Oxford will succeed in keeping a permanent hold on these probationers. The bribe of £150 a year is not sufficient for at least a pleasant university life in Oxford, which at a moderate computation will cost £200. Nor do I believe that Oxford students can ultimately compete with the probationers who choose to continue under special preparation in London with the view to earn the money prizes of the examinations. If London beat Oxford, as is quite possible, in these prizes, the bribe of £150 will break down, and Oxford training will be less and less sought for. The other universities are practically driven out of the field by the new system, and need not be discussed. I also disbelieve in these probationers, alien to the ordinary studies of Oxford, benefitting much by the discipline of the colleges; while, with a secure future before them in the way of income, which they may discount for the pleasures of the present, they will be sadly tempted by the sharks of money-lenders who infest our higher universities.

The policy of devoting £12,000 a year of Indian money for aiding the education of young.men for the Civil Service, is in itself very doubtful. By lowering the age to a maximum of nineteen, the public service undoubtedly will get imperfectly educated youths, but still that is no reason why their education should be completed at the public expense. In all other professions, parents, and not the public, are responsible for training their children in technical knowledge. And generally the ordinary professions hold out far less certain conditions of success than the Indian Civil Service. When a young engineer succeeds in competition for the Indian College at Cooper's Hill, he has still to pay for his technical education at that institution. But when the Civil Service probationer, usually the son of more wealthy parents than the class which supplies men to the department of public works, is stimulated to go to Oxford or Cambridge, he must carry with him £150 a year of public money, in order to bribe these wealthy universities to provide for him a technical instruction.

There is much in residence at Oxford and Cambridge to benefit students in a social point of view, and to give a top-dressing to their manners, but, as Lord Northbrook aptly points out, they are not the only agencies at work:

"For manners are not idle, but the fruit

Of loyal nature, and of noble mind."

The experiment is a new one, and its result uncertain, in regard to a system of special training which must have the effect of

universities in favour of a monopoly of the English universities, and practically of Oxford alone. I have shown that this is against the principles of free competition, on which the scheme was originally arranged by Lord Macaulay and his coadjutors. At the same time it is thoroughly detrimental to the Indian service, which ought to be recruited from all parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland and Ireland, in proportion to population, have hitherto been more successful than England in the supply of successful candidates. In the nineteen years ending 1874, Scotland supplied eighty-nine, Ireland one hundred and fifty-six, England three hundred and fifty. According to population, Scotland should have sent fifty, and Ireland only seventy-seven. The Scotch universities, in proportion to population, have hitherto trained twice and a half as many successful candidates as the English universities: indeed, they have supplied up to 1876, ninety-seven out of the nine hundred and two successful candidates, or one-tenth of the whole. Yet the Scotch universities are obliged to throw up the sponge, and acknowledge that they can be of no further use under the new regulations. But what does Lord Salisbury say as to the past? "It was undoubted that most of the great men to whom the Indian Empire was owing were Scotchmen, and that the Scotch universities had done a noble and splendid work in preparing the civil servants for the administration of India." Then why, in the face of a universal testimony that the present system has answered well, change it for a scheme which must shut out Scotland from future co-operation in Indian administration. The early age of competition renders it impossible for the Scotch universities to prepare students for it, or to take part in the technical training, after competition. Oxford alone can succeed. But this is not the only evil. The new scheme favours the rich as against the poor candidates. Formerly Scotchmen, with a view to the Civil Service, could, in spite of their poverty, acquire a sound academic training at their universities. But Scotland possesses no Etons or Rugbys, and cannot pay the high fees for a long course of special preparation, which Lord Salisbury admits will be essential for future success in competition. So the poor in Scotland will in future be shut out by the rich in England. The past history of India, as recited by Lord Salisbury himself, points to this as a deplorable mistake.

66

The agitation which led to these changes was one of public schools and universities against the training of crammers. Now what is cramming," as interpreted by the experience of the Civil Service Commissioners? The latter have given abundant proof that no special trainer succeeds by teaching many subjects superficially, but only by instructing in a few thoroughly. Yet that is the highest object of all true education. Cramming, as an art, is chiefly suc

cessful owing to two conditions: firstly, because the youths subject to it are not only willing but anxious to be taught; and, secondly, because the teacher knows the best method of teaching them. Lord Salisbury admits this when he says, "The crammers have succeeded in distancing all competitors simply by the excellence of their work." Hence the original grounds for the agitation have been proved to be wholly baseless.

Yet in spite of Lord Salisbury's own statements, and the opinion of the Civil Service Commissioners, who tell us that the existing system is working admirably, the new regulations take effect next year. They cannot fail to be prejudicial to the Indian Empire as well as to education in this country. They will inevitably have the effect of removing boys from school at a very early age. School life and school association are certainly as important to a future career as the association of probationers at Oxford. The latter might have been secured, as ninety-five of the one hundred and ten Indian witnesses intimated, without lowering the age of competition to nineteen. But I contend that there was no need even for this change, for the civil servants of India, sent out under open competition, have not failed to give proofs of competency and fitness. They have been trained in London, not to a narrow academic but to a many-sided life and experience. Thus, in addition to the advantage of being trained near the courts of law, they have acquired habits of independence and self-control which have stood them in good stead in their isolated posts in India. Dangers as to this mode of training have been asserted, but are disproved by the testimony of the Civil Service Commissioners, and by Indian experience of the success of the men who have gone out under this system. The former have no doubt on the subject, for they say, "Further reflection and observation have tended to confirm the Commissioners in the belief that with young men who have already given the best possible proof of steadiness and self-control by success in an arduous competition, a system under which they are left free to choose for themselves the place and manner of their studies, is a better preparation for the perfect liberty which they are so soon to enjoy in India than any supervision that the discipline of a college could supply." A discussion on this subject is, however, pending in the House of Commons, and perhaps new arguments for the serious changes made by the new regulations will be adduced; but in the debate of last year the only novel argument for transferring the probationers from London to Oxford, which the Under Secretary for India deigned to use, was that the water-supply of London was very bad, and that probationers might get better water in Oxford a statement even questionable in point of fact. This airy jauntiness of treatment is surely misplaced when the great interests of our Indian Empire are concerned. LYON PLAYFAIR.

A NEW POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.

Ir is probable that the true significance of Mr. Gladstone's visit to Birmingham has been seized by the great majority of those who are interested in the matter. The exceptions are certain persons who, having previously constructed out of their inner consciousness the theory of a deeply laid conspiracy between a statesman out of employment and Radicals in search of a leader, now profess disappointment because the Birmingham meetings have not fulfilled these somewhat absurd anticipations. According to some of these false prophets, Mr. Gladstone was formally to announce his adhesion to the views of the Liberation Society, and was to be invited to put himself at the head of the advanced Liberals, who were to take the opportunity of finally severing themselves from Lord Hartington and his colleagues. Of course nothing of the kind took place; Mr. Gladstone delivered a great speech on the Eastern Question, and no attempt was made to commit him to any public expression of opinion on the general policy of the Liberal party. The new federation was formed, and a constitution adopted which expressly precludes any thing like a formal programme, since the only qualification required from its members is that they shall be representatives freely chosen by the popular vote of all Liberals in their respective districts.

On the other hand, there is no reason to conceal the fact that it is the confident expectation of the promoters of the new organization that it will result in greater definiteness being given to the aims and objects of the party, and that Mr. Gladstone's presence and support has raised the hopes of all who are interested in its success. The ex-leader of the Liberal party, and the most popular statesman of our time, has expressed his cordial sympathy with the efforts of those who are striving to retrieve the fallen fortunes of the Liberal cause; and he has frankly admitted the claims of the Radicals-the men who are in earnest-to recognition and fair consideration in the party councils. After this we may hope at least that the persistent efforts of some, who call themselves Liberals, to rule out of the party as rebels and pariahs all who protest against the Fabian policy of inaction which has so long hindered union and stifled enthusiasm, will be discontinued; and that we may be permitted to remind our leaders that we are tired of marking time, without being accused of mutiny or even of unreasonable presumption. Surely we may strive to impress Lord Hartington with the necessity for giving direction to the labours of Liberals, without having imputed to us disloyalty to our chief, or a reckless eagerness to break up the party.

It will be admitted that the party is an instrument to achieve some more definite results than the return to office of a certain