tures greatly to be preferred to an examination; and when we further reflect upon the amount of instruction thus communicated, it appears to us all-important to induce the student to prefer the former mode of performing the exercises requisite for the attainment of his degree.

The principle might, we think, be advantageously extended by requiring from students no more than two term examinations, viz., at the close of the second and fourth years, and permitting them to commute all the rest for attendance upon courses of lectures, and we have little doubt that this will ultimately be done.

Having thus given a rapid sketch of the several improvements which have been recently effected in the University of Dublin, we would now proceed to notice the defects which, in our opinion, still exist in that institution, defects which are few, indeed, in number, yet whose individual importance it is impossible to deny. These defects are, with very trifling exceptions, of such a kind, that the Board, unaided, have not power to remove them, and it is precisely here that the exertions of a commission might be employed with advantage, to assist those who have long laboured in the cause of reform. The defects to which we allude are to be found in the principles upon which the fellowship examination, the most important of all, is at present conducted. As these defects are most severely felt in the departments of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, we shall, for the present, confine our attention to this part of the subject.

It is impossible to read the statutes by which this examination is regulated, without being struck by the fact, that they were adapted to a state of knowledge, especially in the mathematical and physical sciences, which is, in comparison with its present condition, limited and imperfect; and these sta. tutes have been drawn up with such strict minuteness of detail, that so long as they continue unmodified, the Board are utterly powerless to effect in this examination any valuable reform. In each of the important branches to which we have alluded, the examiner is expected to ascertain with accuracy the relative merits of a number of candidates, varying from six to twelve, in the short space of two hours, and by an oral examination. Now the veriest tyro in mathematics knows that this is

generally impossible. Doubtless there are cases in which the superiority of one or two of the candidates is so decided, that any examination, no matter how cursory or superficial, will suffice to display it. But in general it is impos. sible to rely upon the results of any examination, which does not include the following requisites:-1. A considerable number of questions. 2. The use of paper. 3. Sufficient time to permit the analytical ability of the se veral candidates to show itself in the solution of the proposed questions. Without the first and third of these, the examination is little more than a matter of chance; the want of the second will tend to render it a test of mere memory; and both these defects are combined in the fellowship examination. Such an examination may have been well suited to a time when analysis was almost unknown in the University of Dublin, when Hamilton's "Conic Sections" occupied the most prominent place in the mathematical course; but considered as the means of recruiting the numbers of a school which has now, we are proud to say, a European reputation, it is obviously inadequate. So long, how. ever, as the time allowed for the examination is limited to two hours, the use of a rapid oral examination, which allows a large number of questions to be proposed to each candidate, is perhaps to be preferred. It is better that the result should depend upon memory than upon chance.

We are well aware that it is often said, in reply to these objections, that the result of the fellowship examination has, invariably, been the selection of the best among the candidates, and that therefore the examination cannot be thus defective. To test the accuracy of this statement, by a reference to particular cases, would be a useless and invidious task-those who are conversant with the history of fellowship ex aminations, know well that it is far from being universally true. But even if we were to admit its truth, the object of an examination is but half attained. No system of examination is perfect, which does not both provide a sure test for proficiency, and also secure to the candidate, in the preparation which it requires, that discipline which is best fitted to strengthen his powers in the department to which the examination is devoted-and many systems may comply with the first requisite which

utterly fail in the second. Doubtless, it is often true that the strongest memory is found united to the most vigorous reason; it is always true that he who is most deeply acquainted with a subject will acquire with greatest facility its language and formulæ ; but it is never true that the discipline which the mind undergoes in the preparation for such a test as the present fellowship examination, is that which is best fitted to develope its powers; it is never true that a mathematician is best educated under a system, whose inevitable tendency is to promote the cultivation of mere memory, rather than of real analytical skill.

There is another objection to which the present system of election to fellowships is, as we think, justly liable, namely, the great diversity of subjects which every candidate is, theoretically at least, required to prepare. Here, again, we trace the effects of the limited state of knowledge at the time when that system was founded. So long as the study of the exact sciences was confined within a very narrow range, the candidate for fellowship would find no great difficulty in mastering the small amount which was required of him, without any serious diminution of the time which was demanded by the other, and (then) more important parts of the course, logics, ethics and classical literature generally; and that such a division of his time was contemplated in framing the statute, appears probable from the fact that only four hours, or one-fourth of the whole examination, is assigned to those branches which now in most cases decide the fellowship. To infer from this, as many persons are ready to do, that the University of Dublin is thereby bound to adhere strictly and perpetually to the same division, is to argue illogically. All such measures of importance must be viewed with reference to the state of things at the time when they were established. Even were we to adhere rigidly to the rule, which prescribes obedience to the intentions of the founders, these intentions must be judged according to the spirit, not according to the letter of their acts, and when we find ourselves placed in new circumstances, it is our duty to consider how they would have acted if similarly placed; and it is no more than reasonable to infer, that the same motives which gave to the mathematics of the seventeenth century one-fourth of the fellowship examina

tion, would have assigned a much larger proportion to the mathematics of the nineteenth. Still, it may reasonably be doubted whether, in the preponderance now given to the exact sciences, the University has not exceeded the limits which the intentions of the founders, even upon the most liberal interpretation, might be thought to impose. It cannot be denied that, while the state of the mathematical school has been for many years rapidly progressive, no similar advance has characterized the department of classical literature. The one school has now long enjoyed a European reputation-the other is unknown, inactive, scarcely existent. The founders of the University of Dublin could scarcely have intended this; and, if it were possible, without prejudice to the Mathematical School, to devise any means of elevating the present position of classics, such a measure would render Trinity College a vast service-would do much to take away the reproach of unfaithfulness to her trust, which persons, secretly or avowedly hostile to scientific pursuits, have not been slow to cast upon her.

Such means can only, we think, be found in the separation of the mass of subjects which constitute the present fellowship course, a certain number of fellowships being assigned as a reward to classical proficiency, with, perhaps, the addition of metaphysics and ethics. So long as mathematical ability forms a sine quâ non to the obtaining of a fellowship, so long must many be excluded, who, if admitted, would, by their labours in the field of classical literature, contribute much to the foundation and advancement of a classical school. Nor is the present system without disadvantage to the mathematician. Instead of being permitted to devote his undivided energies to that subject for which his genius best fits him, he is burthened by a mass of various studies, which cannot but diminish the vigour with which he would have followed his own peculiar branch, had he been allowed to follow it alone. During the existence of the old tutorial system, this was, perhaps, unavoidable. When each pupil received his education solely from his individual tutor, great deficiency in any subject would, of course, have so far unfitted the latter for his duty; and it may have been better to ensure to the tutor a respectable knowledge of all the branches of col

legiate study, than to provide for the development of great attainments, combined, as they must, in general, be with as great defects. But the introduction of the division of labour into the work of education has obviated this necessity. There is no longer any reason that the Fellows of Trinity College should be expected to know "something of everything;" and the idea that any system can render men allaccomplished is the wildest of dreams. Sidonia and Monte Cristo are picturesque objects enough in romance; but we must not expect to find them in reality.

We have thus endeavoured to lay before our readers a brief sketch of the principal improvements which the governing body of the University of Dublin have, within a short period, effected in that institution, as well as of some of the most prominent faults with which it is still chargeable. The limits of an article like the present must be our apology for doing but scanty justice to a subject which would require a much larger space. Many useful changes have been scarcely noticed; some blemishes have, probably, been allowed to remain uncensured. Enough has, however, been said to show, that the spirit which animates the present governors of our University is not opposed to judicious reform; that the object of a Commission should be, as we have before said, to aid, not to supersede them; and that there still exist important defects, which the Board have not, of themselves, power to remedy; and to the removal of which the power of the Crown might be advantageously applied. On the exact nature of the remedy to be applied to these defects, we desire to speak with more hesitation; not that we have ourselves any doubt as to the efficacy of the means which we have ventured to propose, but because we are well aware that it is a subject upon which, even among those who are best informed, and best qualified to judge, there yet exists very great difference of opinion. But it is with no such diffidence that we give our tribute of approbation to the changes which have been effected in the University of Dublin. To these changes, so far as they are generally known, public approval has been too freely accorded, to permit

us to doubt the correctness of our own estimate of their value; and success, not, indeed, an infallible criterion of merit, yet seldom found without it, has followed them rapidly and surely.

The University of Dublin has had to encounter much obloquy, both from those who are hostile to all change, and from those who think that change and improvement are synonymous. While the latter class accuse her of blind and obstinate attachment to old forms and old institutions, the others are not less forward to upbraid her with having gone too far with having betrayed her important trust, in not resisting what they term the utilitarian spirit of the age. How far these reproaches are just, we have endeavoured to give the impartial reader the means of deciding. Let him look upon her past history, and judge whether her career has been either bigoted or reckless. We do not, indeed, seek to persuade all. We are well aware that there is a class to whom the spirit of the nineteenth century is an utter abomina tion; who think modern science to be somehow or other, synonymous with infidelity, and would fain seek the model of an institution such as the University of Dublin, in the darkness of the middle ages. We do not write for them. We know, too, that there is another class who would sweep away overything that is old-Christianity, itself, perhaps, included—and in whose eyes long-tried service, so far from being a title to favour, is but a pass. port to destruction. Neither do we write for them. But we address ourselves to a third class, remote from these extremes-less noisy, perhaps, but far more numerous-who will try to judge of an institution according to its real merits, and by whom its antiquity will be admitted to be favourable evidence, presumptive, though not final. And if they have read the foregoing sketch in the spirit in which we have endeavoured to write it, not disposed to depreciate virtues, casting no veil over faults, we feel assured that they will agree with us in thinking, that the University of Dublin has not neglected the important duty of self-reform, and that her history for forty years has been the history of progressive improvement-temperate, but fearless.