recognise its vital importance, to comprehend the power it must exercise in strengthening and in restraining the yet untried forces of the future. And if this be so, it is a thing of no light moment to inquire how far it may be possible that the vast wealth, the noble associations, the humanizing influences of Oxford, may eventually find fitting scope in the education of the country. The subject is no new one. So far back as 1845, many gentlemen of mark, both lay and clerical, among whom were the names of Lord Sandon, Lord Ashley, and Mr. Gladstone, presented an address to the Hebdomadal Board, praying them to adopt measures which might render the University accessible to a larger class of the population. Pamphlets urging the same duty have, from that time to this, been periodically written and in due course forgotten. Few matters received more attention. from the Commissioners of 1852. It occupied a considerable space in their Report; and nearly all the eminent academics whose evidence was published, discussed the various schemes which had been suggested for the attainment of this end. Mr. Mansel was perhaps the only man worthy of mention who maintained that it was fitting the Universities should be, as they then were, and unhappily still are, chiefly a training school for clergymen, or for men of fortune who need no profession,'-a position which he endeavoured to support by some heavy jocularity directed against what he was pleased to style ' academical ptochogony.' But all this is based on misrepresentation. No real Reformer wishes that men should be encouraged to come to Oxford merely because they are poor. To have entertained this idea and acted upon it, is a lasting reproach to the Scotch University Commissioners of 1858. They actually preserved small bursaries in the hands of private patrons, with the avowed object that by means of them poor students might be sent up to the University. The English Reformers were misled by no such weak prejudice. On the contrary, they have been accused of disregarding the claims of indigence, because they opened the fellowships and scholarships to real merit, without any preference on the score of poverty.

Professor Rogers, for example, has of late been pressing this view with some urgency. Mr. Rogers would hardly, we think, propose that the University should retrace her steps; and we have no fear of such a disastrous result; but as we firmly believe that the Oxford ordinances throwing open the fellowships, etc., were not only in accordance with right, but also in the real interests of learning, and as different views touching the nature of academical endowments and the right mode of dealing with them appear to prevail even among intelligent men-witness the opinions expressed by the Scotch University

VOL. XLVI.-NO. XCI.

Р

Commissioners, we cannot think it superfluous to quote a few weighty sentences from the report of the Oxford Commission of 1852:

'Doubtless, Colleges were eleemosynary foundations, but their sole object was not, like that of an almshouse, to relieve indigence. They were intended no doubt to maintain scholars who were poor; and in an age when learning was regarded as ignoble by the great, and when nearly all but the great were poor, persons willing to enter the Unisity as students could hardly be found except among the poor. If, in modern days, those who impart or seek education in the Universities are not indigent, it must not be thought, therefore, that the poor have been robbed of their birthright. Rather the Universities, among other agencies, have so raised the condition of society, and mental cultivation is now so differently regarded, that persons intended for the learned professions are at present found only amongst the comparatively wealthy. Such persons, if elected for their merits to Fellowships and Scholarships, would most faithfully fulfil the main objects of Founders, namely, the promotion of religion and learning.'

Sound, however, as these views undoubtedly are, there can be no doubt that, as a matter of fact, many poor men who could have got to Oxford on the foundation,' as it is called, before the recent changes, are deprived of that privilege now. This is, as we have said, quite right; but, at the same time, it seems to entitle the claims of the poor to increased consideration in dealing with University Extension. Now, undoubtedly, under the present system, no poor man can hope, without a scholarship, to enjoy the advantages of Oxford. The question, 'What is the cost of an Oxford education?' is so frequently heard in society, that we think the following calculations by the Oxford Commissioners will be read with interest by many our readers. We may add, that we believe these calculations to be quite as applicable to the Oxford of the present day as to the Oxford of 1852:

'On the whole, we believe that a parent, who, after supplying his son with clothes and supporting him at home during the vacations, has paid for him during his University course not more than £600, and is not called upon to discharge debts at its close, has reason to congratulate himself. Those who allow their sons a private tutor should add proportionably to their estimate. Private tutors usually charge £10 a term, or £30 a year, for three hours a week; £17, 10s. a term, or £50 a year, for six hours a week. Private tutors of high standing expect £20 a term; £30 is usually paid by young men who join a reading party during the long vacation.'

Now, on behalf of poor scholars, the object to be aimed at

is, that all young men who can gain a scholarship, and that others who are not so successful, but yet have had a good academical training, should be able to enjoy an Oxford education, and obtain an Oxford degree at a cost within the reach of very moderate means. It is quite plain that the system which yields the above results must be considerably altered before this object can be attained.

But there are stronger reasons than the claims of indigence why a change in the present system is to be desired. Many men who would profit by Oxford, and do honour to it, are kept away, not because of the expense, but because of the tone of the society in which they would mix. Now, the surest way to improve this tone, to make it more rational and less prejudiced, is to extend and diversify the society. We are glad on this point to cite the convincing testimony of Sir Charles Lyell :

'I speak,' he says, 'from personal experience of what has happened within the circle of my own friends and acquaintances, when I affirm, that parents possessing ample pecuniary means are often deterred from sending their sons to Oxford by a well-grounded apprehension, that after a residence of a few years, they will contract from the social atmosphere of the place, notions incompatible with the line of life to which they are destined, although that professional line may be one peculiarly demanding a liberal education. They wish, for example, to bring them up as attorneys, publishers, engineers, surgeons, or as merchants in some established house, and naturally turn their thoughts to Oxford as a safe and good training place, till they are warned by those who know the working of the system, that the youth, however well satisfied with the honourable calling proposed for him (which, perhaps, he has chosen himself), will discover at the end of a few terms, that such occupations are vulgar and beneath his dignity. How much vulgarity of feeling and want of true independence of mind may lie at the bottom of such fine notions, it is superfluous to inquire here. The remedy is, I think, as obvious as the cause; a large accession to Oxford of the representatives of the professions alluded to, would make such class-prejudices disappear at once, without the accompaniment of an evil so much dreaded by many advocates of the state of things as they are, namely, a diminished attendance of men of rank and fortune.'

Moved by such considerations, the Oxford Commissioners of 1852, rejecting all half measures, such as founding halls affiliated to colleges, or independent halls, recommended that the requirement of residence within college walls should be abolished, and (1.) that students should be allowed to live in lodgings connected with colleges; and (2.) that students should be allowed to live in lodgings unconnected with any collegeas students of the University alone. Neither of these plans

was carried out. What was attempted was the institution of private halls, by a Statute passed in 1855, which has proved, as might have been foreseen from the first, a miserable failure. Awaking at last to a sense of their obligations, sundry graduates of Oxford met in Oriel College in November 1865, in order 'to consider the question of the extension of the University, with a view especially to the education of persons needing assistance, and desirous of admission into the Christian ministry.' committee was formed, and six sub-committees were appointed to consider various schemes for this end, and to report. Their reports have been made, and four of them at least raise academical questions of very great interest.

Readers may be curious to learn what has led to this sudden movement. Zealous Reformers have long been urging this question, as we have already shown; for at least twenty years they have been crying in the wilderness, and crying in vain. Whence this sudden stirring of the sluggish academic waters--this quick awakening of the torpid academic conscience? The cause is not hard to find. One thing is near to the hearts of those who at present form the governing power at Oxford-the fortunes of the English Church, and the connexion between that Church and Oxford University. That connexion is at present in serious peril. A disinclination to take orders is growing among Oxford men. The first sub-committee give figures showing that the number of graduates who take orders has been for the last eight years steadily decreasing; while the number of literates, that is, of men who have never been at the University at all, is steadily increasing. We think we could suggest other causes for this than the cost of an University education; but that cause has been recognised as sufficient by two at least of the sub-committees, and they have devised their remedies by this light. It is unfortunate in many ways that the inquiry has taken this direction; but we must be thankful for what we can get, and had not the growing scarcity of well-educated clergymen given it this direction, it would never have taken place at all.

The first sub-committee claims especially to represent the sentiments of those who first began this present movement, that is, the view we have above expressed. It rests the right of the Church of England to govern the Universities of England on the fact that they are, or ought to be, the great seminaries of her clergy;' and therefore very naturally sets forth the duty of providing for the education of the clergy as the most obvious and pressing' ground of University extension. The second sub-committee, though less explicit in its language, treats the subject not less manifestly from the same point of view.

One is not surprised to find that in committees animated by these opinions, and working with such objects, the clerical element prevails largely. All the members of the first sub-committee are clergymen, with the exception of the two Chichele Professors, who are as good,-and as bad; and all the members of the second sub-committee are clergymen, without any exception. As might be expected, they have not addressed themselves to the consideration of University extension in any comprehensive sense they have considered solely what Mr. Mansel would call clerical ptochogony; and the scheme of the first sub-committee is the institution of a poor-hall, of the second the foundation of poor-exhibitions. Both schemes are open to serious objections.

In the first place, we distrust the calculations on which they are based. We should suspect greatly the permanent quality of tuition at £4 a term; nor do we see how board, lights, firing, and above all attendance (keeping in view that the servants in a college must be men of character, and therefore well paid), could be supplied at £10 a term. Oxford calculations on money seem often inspired by considerable ignorance. Thus the present Master of Balliol gave evidence in 1852 to the effect that 'it is a mistake to speak of the expenses incident to connexion with a College or Hall. There are expenses (sufficiently extravagant in many cases), incident to the residence of a young man in Oxford; but cæteris paribus the expenses are less within College walls than beyond. them. This is too plain to need proof.'

The extreme silliness of this might have escaped notice had it been the opinion of one individual; but here we have the second sub-committee, as we understand them, adopting this view, and stating as a certain fact that nowhere is board much cheaper than in the University.' And yet some of the members of that committee-as Professor Wall-are reputed to be men of sense. Men who can write thus show themselves utterly ignorant of what living in lodgings may be,-of what, among large classes of the community, it actually is. They must be little competent to originate a scheme of University extension who know so little of the habits of those whom any good and sufficient scheme would endeavour to embrace. And their ignorance must be wilful. The Commissioners of 1852 gave quotations from the Reports of previous Scotch Commissions, whereby it appeared that the average cost of living among the students at Aberdeen, including everything, was from £20 to £25, for more than five months! And, indeed, is not the thing plain, without any such instances?

Setting aside the direct expenses of a college, tuition, caution