made a teacher simply because he can teach. If Mr. Mill were tomorrow made Professor of Logic at Oxford, or Mr. Grote invited to teach Greek history, the constant readers of newspapers who are supposed to constitute an intelligent public would feel probably as much displeasure as surprise, and the few persons who wish to see either Mr. Mill or Mr. Grote appointed to a professorship, probably wish for the appointment, not because the one was an eminent logician and the other a distinguished historian, but because they each represent certain political views popular with some portions of the community.

What, however, is far more astonishing than the existence of mere prejudice and ignorance, is that persons fully appreciating the claims of scientific excellence maintain and act upon the theory that when a post requiring special knowledge is to be filled up, the claims of friendship are to have at least as much weight as those of merit. The real question, therefore, for all reformers is, What are the best steps by which to change the existing condition of opinion, and convince the world that, in the seats of learning, knowledge and learning should receive exclusive honour ?

Mr. Pattison feels and acknowledges this more strongly than most writers, but he does not seem to perceive that his schemes are not fitted for bringing a sound public feeling into existence. It is indeed reasonably to be feared that the foundation of a body of richly endowed professors, who are expected to learn rather than to teach, would quench the very faint desire of the public for a better system of appointment. As long as professors are expected to teach, there exists a check, though not an efficient check, on the appointment of men utterly incompetent to be teachers. This check is at once removed by any scheme which encourages professors

to lead a life which might be a life of learned leisure, but which might also be a life of unlearned indolence. Let it be conceded that it is the tendency of a large body of zealous Oxford teachers to think too much of the fact that a man is zealous in teaching, and to think too little of the important question, whether he learns anything which it is worth while that his pupils should be taught. Still it ought to be remembered that it is possible to form a most exaggerated and artificial opposition between learning and teaching. Into this error, which lies at the bottom of much which seems unsound in an otherwise most valuable work, the author of the Suggestions appears again and again to fall.

Throughout the work there is a constant opposition, either openly insisted upon or tacitly assumed, between the work of a school and the work of a University, and it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the author's main fear is lest an illjudged reform should turn Oxford into an efficient school, and make it cease to be a University. This fear not only gives a bias to the book, but also conceals the strong ground on which many of the views propounded in it rest. If it once be granted that the public must either change the University into a good school,' or else make it mainly the home of learned and scientific men who will occasionally act as teachers, the nation will, it may be conceived, determine that it is after all better to secure a good school than to attempt to stimulate science and learning by an elaborate system of endowments. But is there after all any real or essential opposition between the interests of the University as a school, and the interests of the University as the home of science? A school is not a good school where pupils are induced to learn, by hope of prizes, that which is perhaps not worth learning, and which, at any rate, is

not learnt because it is worth learning. A school, again, is not a good school where the teachers are so occupied in teaching that they have not time to learn, or where teaching is so ill remunerated that men of first-rate ability will not as a rule remain teachers. On the other hand, learned leisure has not, as a general rule, been productive of results on which men of learning can look with satisfaction. It is quite possible to give a learned man too much as well as too little time for study, and it is very questionable whether, for the sake of the promotion of knowledge itself, it is not desirable that men who are enabled by endowments to devote themselves to study, should also be compelled to devote a large portion of their energies to teaching. If this be so, the opposition between the University as a good school and the University as the home of science vanishes, and the true object of reformers becomes to dedicate a large portion of the endowment fund to the support of science and learning, in order that the University may become a good school.

Attentive readers of Mr. Pattison's work can hardly fail to draw the conclusion that he is more successful as a critic than as a proposer of reforms. But it would be unjust to hold that his book is, on this account, not of high value. It suggests, if it does not establish, the following, among other, important principles.

The first is that prizes and ex

aminations have accomplished all the good of which they are capable, and that it is vain and worse than vain to hope for further improvements by means of increasing the number of scholarships or fellowships, or by doubling the number of questions put to students during their University career. A second conclusion, closely connected with the former, is that at least as much is to be done by improving the character of the teachers as by directly stimulating the activity of the learners. That, in short, pupils enough will be found, if men are appointed who can teach well what the world really needs to learn, whilst it is in vain to pay students, even by prizes, for acquiring know. ledge which has to them, at least, no value in itself.

The last and most important principle insisted upon in the Suggestions is, that the object of reformers ought to be, not to bribe men to learn, but to teach them to value learning. The book must, after all, be chiefly read for that in which it is strong, rather than for that in which it is weak. It contains criticisms which may be thought one-sided, and schemes which may be deemed impracticable, but it has the unspeakable merit of insisting on the principle that prizes, examinations, and endowments, will all fail to produce an University worthy of the name, unless the nation itself learns to value knowledge and science and learning.

YDNEY SMITH has left it on

en

member of the Cabinet, and had met his colleagues once a week to eat birds and beasts, and to talk over the state of the world, he would have begun upon Ireland before the soup was finished, and gone on through fish, turkey, and saddle of mutton. Most assuredly, although we have never suffered from the Irish Question through an tire dinner, in this year of grace 1869, we have had articles and reviews, and debates, and divisions, on the subject which might have sufficed for half-a-century. As it appears, however, that the topic. is inexhaustible, and is likely to continue so until some great social revolution overwhelms and absorbs even the affairs of the 'melancholy island,' we may at least claim the merit of variety for introducing to public notice a New Phase of the Irish Question.

Not that we intend to assert that convents are by any means a novelty in Ireland, for they have existed and flourished since the days when St. Bridget founded the famous house at Kildare, or the cell of the Oaks; but the work doing at present by Irish convents is little known in England, and it has important bearings on the social state of the sister country.

When Chichester was sent to Ireland to put down popery, he reported to the Government of his day that popery was inherent in the very air of Ireland, and could not be put down. There can be no question that every effort has been made to accomplish this end, and that all efforts have failed. It remains to be seen whether toleration and equality, the only plan which has not been tried as yet, will prove more efficacious.

That the conventual system flourishes in Ireland there can be no doubt, and it is a matter of considerable interest to thoughtful minds to study its resources and developments in a country where it has every exterior advantage. The Irish Catholic Directory for the year 1869 gives statistics of the number of convents in each diocese, and, in some instances, of the number of nuns in each convent. A personal inspection of a considerable number of these establishments, and the courtesy of the superiors, with few exceptions, has enabled us to give details of considerable importance.

We have also procured the last Report of the English Catholic Poor School Committee, and in it we found some curious and noteworthy points of difference between the state of Catholic Schools in England and in Ireland.

According to the Irish Catholic Directory there are at present 208 convents in Ireland. If we give to each convent an average of 20 nuns, which, as far as we can learn, would be rather below than above the probable number, we have a total of 4,360, the majority of whom are employed in giving instruction in Primary Schools. It is true that a considerable number of these religious houses have schools for the upper classes, but even where such education is the principal object, there are invariably poor schools also. It would appear, however, that the one acts injuriously upon the other, probably by dividing the attention of the religious. Those convent schools succeed best, if we may judge by the Reports of the Special Commission on Convent Education (1864), where the whole attention is directed to the Primary Schools.

The Catholic Directory for 1859

gives a total of 77 convents and 143 nunneries. The difference between a convent and a nunnery may be known to the initiated, but we must confess our entire ignorance on that subject. It is, however, clear that these figures show a total of 224, whereas the Directory for the present year gives only 208; and as the Sisters of Mercy have established twenty-five new convents in Ireland since the year 1859, it must be presumed that the total number of these establishments has not decreased. As far as we could learn, there is no instance on record of the failure of any convent which has been once established.

The Reports and Statistics of the National Board are clear and satisfactory. In the Appendix to the twenty-fourth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, we find that there were one hundred and fifteen Convent and Monastic Schools in connection with the Government on the 31st December 1857. In the thirty-fourth Report (1867) the total was one hundred and forty-two. This increase is significant, when the open opposition of some Irish Catholic prelates to the National Board is taken into consideration. The summaries of the provinces for 1857 and 1867 are given below.

The large increase, i.e. just a fraction more than fifty per cent. in schools and attendance, in Ulster, the most Protestant province in Ireland, is a remarkable feature in this summary.

In the year 1864 a special Report was addressed to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on the Convent Schools in connection with the Board. The Examiners appointed to report were of all religious denominations, and therefore they could not be supposed guilty of any

142 73,344 31,542

partiality collectively. How far the result of their inspection was in favour of Convent Schools, will be seen from the following analysis of their statement. Each inspector was provided with a series of questions, to which he was required to furnish replies. The questions were the same for all. It would be unnecessary to give them in detail; but the leading points were-1. to ascertain if convent teaching was efficient: this was tested by the series of questions from 1 to 9, No. 2 being-Efficiency