continues to this day) a sort of existence under the name of the "Ecclesiological, late Camden;" but its meetings were no longer held in Cambridge, and it soon ceased to hold any public meetings at all.

The Master and Fellows of Trinity fired a last shot after the retreating enemy, by refusing to give testimonials for orders to a leading member of the Camden Committee, who had advocated in his writings a scarcely disguised Romanism. This kicking out a traitor who was preparing to desert, and only waiting to do a little. more mischief, was a surprise and discomfiture to both Puseyites and Romanists; it had probably the effect of hastening the entire perversion of some of the former, whom the English church decidedly gained by losing.

The decline of Puseyism throughout England was nearly simultaneous with the blow it received in Cambridge. True, it still exists, but with greatly diminished influence and power of mischief. The numerous perversions to Romanism which took place during the years '46 and 47, though they gave the impression that the Tractarian heresy was spreading, were in truth signs of its losing ground. Some ultras of that school, finding that they could do nothing more in the Church of England and were rapidly becoming more and more insignificant there, went openly over to that communion to which they had virtually belonged for some time previous. With the exception of Mr. Newman, they were no loss in the way of talents, and generally they were no loss at all, except for the wealth which, in some instances, they transferred to the enemy. The old lady of Babylon always keeps a good look out after the sinews of war, and in this respect the apostasy of some titled members of the English Church is certainly to be re gretted.

INFERIORITY OF OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN SCHOLARSHIP.

ἀλλ ̓, ὦγαθ', οὐδὲ μουσικὴν ἐπίσταμαι.—ARISTOPH. EQUIT. V. 188.

IN. comparing University education-that is to say,

the highest and most liberal style of educationin England and in our own country, it is but natural, since Classical studies professedly lie at the foundation of it in both, that we should begin by contrasting the pupils' proficiency in such studies. What English scholarship is, the reader may have had some opportunity of judging from the preceding pages. What American is we shall now proceed to examine.

As I am about to say a great deal that is unusual, unpopular, and pretty sure to give offence, it may be as well, by way of preliminary, to anticipate a summary way of disposing of all my remarks, likely to be adopted in certain quarters. It is a stock argument against any man, possessing, or supposed to possess an independent property, and having ever travelled or resided abroad, when he makes any assertion not flattering to the popular vanity-an argument which may be briefly expressed thus: This man cannot give any valuable information to American citizens, because from his position and associations he does not know what the duties of an American citizen are. It is imputing voluntary or involuntary incivism to every well-educated and travelled gentleman, and thence deducing the conclusion that

nothing which he may say on any question of practical importance is entitled to consideration.

People who reason thus, overlook one very important element of the question. The probability of a man's giving important information or valuable advice on any point, depends not merely on his opportunities to know and understand the truth concerning it, but also on his being free to tell so much truth as he does know. If he is under any strong bias of personal interest; if his pecuniary resources or his prospects of political advancement are likely to suffer by his telling unreservedly what he believes to be the truth, then his witness will be worth less than that of a man with less knowledge but more independence. An editor is certainly not in the position most favorable to the promulgation of unpopular truth, neither is a politician. The circulation of his paper or his availability as a candidate are considerations that will continually interfere with the convictions of his reason. No one who is directly dependent on the public for support dares to tell it the truth at all times. He who is indirectly dependent, like the man of business or the professional man without private means, is more at liberty, but not completely so. And when a man of either class has, by the exercise of his talents and industry, gained fortune and reputation, so, that he may say what he thinks without danger and with a chance of effecting something, the probabilities are that, if a public man, he has so long habituated himself to the promulgation of the popular rather than the true, that his mind will continue to work in the same track; and that if a private citizen, he will be principally inclined to indemnify himself by the material comforts which wealth affords for the trouble he took to attain it, and will prefer a quiet life to the trouble of communicating his conviction to others.

In short, a man who has nothing to expect or fear from the public, who never intends to depend on their suffrages for anything, who does not practise politics or literature for a livelihood, who is not in danger of injuring his business by uttering unpopular opinions, who is not struggling for a place in fashionable society, and therefore not obliged to toady any individual or any set-such a man is almost the only one who can afford to speak the truth boldly, and is more likely than any other man to tell the truth, supposing that he knows it.

But why should he not know it? Is it on account of his wealth? Does that disqualify him from understanding republican institutions and what is good for republicans? I fancy there are too many men making or expecting to make fortunes for such a doctrine to be universally or very generally admitted. Moreover, if it be true, the Republic is not only certainly in danger, but must have contained the seeds of dissolution from its commencement, since the number of rich men among us has constantly increased and is increasing, in spite of laws, customs, and sentiments most favorable to the distribution of wealth. Is it because he has travelled and lived abroad? Let us take the extremest case. Suppose an American boy to have been left at a foreign school, to reside there during seven of the most important years in his life, to have partially forgotten his native language, so that he speaks a foreign tongue habitually and from preference, and has acquired the habits of his foreign schoolfellows and teachers. It may be urged with some plausibility that his education has not helped him to become the best kind of American citizen. But look a little further. A foreigner comes hither one from the same country where this boy was educated; all these disqualifications exist in him to a

much greater degree, yet after a few years' residence he is admitted to all the privileges of a citizen, and may hold any office except that of President. How thrice ridiculous to maintain that a portion of the American's previous life spent abroad incapacitates him more than the whole of his does the foreigner. It is worth noticing, too, that the persons most zealous in suggesting the incivism of wealthy and well-educated men among their own countrymen, are usually those most patronizing of emigrant foreigners, are Democrats first and Americans afterwards, and value their country chiefly as a refuge for the radicalism of the world. Suppose an American, from living or travelling abroad, has even acquired some foreign habits, that he drinks coffee when most of his countrymen take tea, or vice versa, or wears a hat of a slightly different shape from the ordinary, is he therefore unable to sympathize with his fellow-citizens, or to understand what is for their advantage? Have our adopted fellow-citizens no foreign habits? Do not some of them get drunk and riot, and abuse Englishmen and Protestants, and lie and cheat at elections here, exactly as they did at home? If we reject all reference to our naturalization laws, on the ground that they are a fait accompli and do not prove any principle, then we have the broad question-Does personal knowledge of another country disqualify a man for giving an opinion on the affairs of his own? Now I should be far from maintaining the opposite extreme to the opinion I have been combating, by admitting that foreign travel is necessarily a benefit to an American. There is a common-place of a certain class of men-two or three certain classes indeed-I heard it so often from countrymen whom I met abroad, and during the period immediately succeeding my return home, that I could calcu