6 fees, but out of collegiate revenue. Or, on the other hand, is the new professor who is to be created, to be the master of his science and its representative before the world, the man in whose person the endowment of research' is only veiled from the sneers of Philistinism by the thin disguise of setting him to deliver a terminal course of lectures to empty benches? Thus it is, that the commission is set to adjudicate, and Oxford is called upon to decide, in a moment of time, and in a crude state of opinion, upon the momentous issue between a prize-system and disinterested knowledge. What on the surface seems only a money bill, and to regard nothing but the surplus revenues of the colleges, does really raise one of the most difficult problems of educational practice. What is done with Oxford in the next two years will give the tone and set the example, for the whole country for generations to come. Shall we have a university to which free science, and liberal letters attract, by their own lustre, only such ingenuous youth as have a true vocation; or shall we have a great national lycée through the routine of which we shall attempt to force willing and unwilling, apt and unapt alike, by the stimulus of emulation, of honours, prizes, and rewards? Ꮴ II. THE INTENTIONS OF THE FOUNDERS OF By JAMES SUTHERLAND COTTON, B.A., Late Fellow and Lecturer of Queen's College, Oxford. To study, not to teach, was the business of the Fellows.-GOLDWIN SMITH. DURING the last few years there may have been observed, by those who are interested in the subject, a growing tendency in the public mind in favour of the endowment of scientific research. The interests of the mature student, as complementary rather than as antagonistic to those of educational establishments, are beginning to be recognised, and have obtained the patronage of certain powerful supporters. The thorough-going recommendations of the Commission on the Advancement of Science presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, when read by the light of the evidence on which 1 This essay was written before Lord Salisbury introduced the 'Oxford University Bill' into the House of Lords, and at a time when it was not certainly known that the Government were prepared to deal with the subject. But the writer is not aware that the discussion, which has subsequently arisen, is of such a nature as to modify his positions on any material points.-J. S. C. they were based, have done much to open the eyes of the public. So long as the project for maintaining scientific investigators at the national expense continued to be only the hobby of individuals, who were always exposed to the imputation of self-seeking, it was but natural that it should be sniffed at by the press as a wild dream. But the project is now issued with the sanction of a Royal Commission, and is found to have met with the enthusiastic approval not only of many of the most eminent men of science in this country, but also of such coolheaded statesmen as the Marquis of Salisbury and the Earl of Derby. The subject must be regarded as having passed within the limits of practical discussion when the former of these noblemen, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, advocates the creation of 'scientific deaneries; and when the latter, in his address to the students of Edinburgh as their Lord Rector, declares that more liberal assistance in the prosecution of original scientific research is one of the recognised wants of our time.' It is not the purport of this essay to expand the meaning of the above declarations by expatiating on the needs of science, or even to elaborate a scheme by which these needs might be satisfied. It is enough for the present purpose to assume the supreme importance of the matter, as evidenced by the mass of testimony upon which it rests. The chief object of these pages is rather to attempt to remove one of the difficulties which appears now to obstruct the practical realisation of the scheme. The necessity for such an attempt has been partly suggested by the particular mode in which Lord Derby himself, in the address already quoted, has approached the question. He appears to regard it as beyond the possibility of dispute, that scientific research, as being of national value, and in itself unremunerative, ought to be endowed by the public. He did not confine himself to this abstract assertion, but gave in his own personal adhesion to the opinion that the funds for this purpose should be directly provided by the State. It is to be observed, however, that Lord Derby, with characteristic caution, did not insist upon this corollary to his argument. The objections to the interference of the State in the matter are patent and numerous, though, perhaps, not insuperable. It would not have been politic on Lord Derby's part to awaken prematurely the suspicions of the taxpayer, or to have involved himself in the perplexity of ill-considered details. It would have been sufficient for him to indicate to the class of public benefactors that the promotion of scientific study is the one object which, at the present day, affords the most promising return to their munificence. But he proceeded to take one step further; and it is this further step which supplies the main motive for this essay. He suggested, in words that immediately follow the passage that has been quoted on the preceding page, that much may be expected from the modification of already existing endowments. He did not descend into particulars, but he used language wide enough to show that he looked to the revenues of the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges as the source from which some part at least of the required funds might legitimately be drawn. He maintained, as an abstract principle, the inherent right of the State to divert ancient endowments from one purpose to another, but he insisted with equal force upon the inexpediency of disregarding altogether the primary intentions of founders: Respect the founder's object, but use your own discretion as to the means; if you do not do the first, you will have no new endowments; if you neglect the last, those which you have will be of no use.' There can be little doubt that on this point, as on so many others, the common sense views of Lord Derby coincide with those of the majority of his countrymen. It cannot, at any rate, be a great mistake to accept them as furnishing a safe standard of popular opinion, by which to gauge the probability whether any scheme of academical reform will offend the moderation of the ordinary Englishman. For the purposes of this essay it will be enough if the converse of Lord Derby's proposition be granted. It must follow a fortiori from his premises, that the predominant intentions of founders, when they have been wantonly ignored, ought to be brought back into operation, so far as is consistent with the altered condition of modern circumstances. The common opinion with regard to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is something of this sort. The University is regarded as a kind of indeterminate |