elevate him to the knowledge and contemplation of the worlds beyond and around him. With this admission, cordially and willingly made, no man can fairly accuse me of depreciating or undervaluing the importance of mathematical studies, although I may still make it a question why they should be so exclusively pursued. Let us come at once from speculations to facts."

Surely there is no vehemence of condemnation in a simple question, which the first of these paragraphs contains, or in the praise freely given to mathematical studies in that which follows.

In turning to your own pamphlet, p. 20, I find much the same sentiments; and, though your language is undoubtedly temperate, I do not see that it is in any respect more so than mine.

You then state," that, after having settled, that not above twelve or fifteen of the graduates of each year pursue their mathematical studies after they have taken their degree, I decide that, to all the remainder of the young men, their total acquirements, and the whole of their University education, are absolutely useless."

This, Sir, to use one of your own expressions, is "an unparalleled misrepresentation." My words are," their University examination (and these two words are purposely printed in italics) for their degree is in mathematics," &c.; meaning, thereby, that whatever they may have got in their private Colleges, in classics, divinity, &c. is not brought to bear in their University examination, and that all from which the University judges-all in which it examines (with the exception stated in the paragraph), all for which it awards honors, all of which it takes cognizance, and all it professes to reward with a degree, is mathematical science. Now, Sir, is not this fact? And if it is, why have you made me say that which I pointedly have not said? When the words thus printed in italics, in my pamphlet, are coupled with the context there, it appears impossible to misunderstand them without design. You appear to blame me for calculating each man's expenses of education at an average from 700l. to 8001. You call yourself a tutor and examiner, and though you have not printed your name in your title-page, yet you have, in the body of your pamphlet, sufficiently declared yourself, and given a description which nobody can mistake; you own yourself to have had long and great experience as a tutor and examiner. Now, Sir, let me ask you, on the faith of that experience, have I over-rated the expense? If I have, tell us how much, and you will rejoice the heart of many an anxious parent. But I think, Sir, in common candor, you ought to go somewhat farther, and tell us if I have under-rated the amount. Sir, will you honestly and fairly do this?

I have stated, Sir, that from twelve to fifteen individuals annually may be supposed to pursue their mathematical studies to a con

.

siderable extent after they have taken their degrees. I may have under-rated this, but certainly not intentionally, and I do not think I have. You are a tutor and examiner of long experience. Tell us honestly and fairly what is the result of it.

If this calculation is true, then the deduction from it, that all the benefit of this expense is concentrated in from twelve to fifteen individuals, is true also. Would it not be more satisfactory, Sir, to refute my statements by proofs than by sneers?

You proceed, Sir, to say, that " I am pleased to style the unhonored class, the roof!" Surely, Sir, no fair critic would fasten upon this term to upbraid me with. Sir, I ask, if you, if any member of the University, from the Vice-Chancellor to the lowest under-graduate, does not understand the term,-if it is not familiar in the mouth of every one,-if there is any so usual designation of "the unhonored class," as you are pleased to phrase them, any term by which they are so continually, I had almost said so invariably, spoken of? You might also have remarked, Sir, that, in speaking of this phrase, and some other expressions, in a note, I have said that, "by the use of these plain terms, I mean to convey no reproach."

Sir, do you think that this criticism of your's will be much attended to by men of candid minds? will it give them a high opinion of your own candor and sincerity? and if it does not, will the criticism do your own pamphlet any good?

You then recur to the charge with which you set out, namely that of my depreciating or misapprehending the value of mathematical studies, and being "incredibly ignorant" of the real pursuits of the place. Perhaps, Sir, I am an older member of the Seuate than yourself. My residence in the University has not been short, and I have taken some interest in its "real pursuits;" so that although I grant no man better qualified to speak of them than an experienced tutor and examiner," who has had long and intimate acquaintance with them;" yet still I cannot be so incredibly ignorant about the matter as you imagine.

It is true, I cannot reply to this part of your observations, because they do not at all concern my pamphlet. You have set up a man of straw, to knock down for your own amusement. I have used no such arguments as you are pleased to put into my hands. Indeed, I must say, you have not treated me much better than Commodus did his unfortunate victims, whom he used to dress up as monsters, and furnish with sponges to throw at him instead of stones. I have never said, that "such a thing as education did not exist in the respective Colleges." My whole argument turns on the University examination for degrees being in mathematics exclusively. I have printed this in italics, as I said before, to guard

against misapprehension; and with a farther view to the same end, I have said, "except the short examination of one day, in Locke, Paley, and Butler, in the Senate House, the University must be supposed to know nothing of their progress in these things." I have printed the word University in italics; I have said, their short examination in the Senate House, which last words I added, to prevent the possibility of mistake; and instead of noticing this, you affect to infer, that I am totally ignorant that there exists such a thing as education in the respective Colleges," (as if I knew nothing of College Lectures,) and "that I have not the slightest suspicion" of the effect of mathematics upon the reasoning powers, when I have, in the passage already quoted, stated those effects, if not in the same words, perhaps, at least, as unequivocally, and to the same purport, as you have yourself.

You then, without quoting the context, select, as a specimen of my pamphlet, a passage which you think suited to your purpose. Now, Sir, in common fairness, should you not have quoted the four preceding paragraphs; should you not, if you merely wished to show the intentions of the writer whom you are attempting to refute, have quoted the following passages, immediately preceding your extract?

"Of these individuals I cannot be supposed to speak or think disrespectfully, when I ask, Of what use to them are their mathematics, without the walls of the University, in common life?

"How many Cambridge mathematicians distinguish themselves by bringing their mathematics to bear upon the useful arts?

"Is it true, that they, generally speaking, turn their mathematics to any account, except that of speculative amusement, or academic contention ?

"They may be, and no doubt they often are, very ingenious and acute men, but does that ingenuity and acuteness, for the most part, tell, to any great moral, or political, or social purpose?

"Are not, in fact, the greater number of calculations and combinations by which mathematics are brought to bear upon the arts, made by men who have not received an academic education ?"

Can any thing be more unjust, than first to attribute to the person you think proper to oppose, arguments he has never used, and deduce inferences he has pointedly guarded against, and then to give the conclusion of arguments he has used, without stating his premises? Sir, I pass by your contemptuous sneer, after the extract you have made; I will only answer gravely and truly, that I am really a graduate of the University, and one, too, who is not used to be treated contumeliously by any of its members, and who, perhaps, may be honored with as much respect and attention, by many of them, even as one "who has spent many VOL. XX. Pam. NO. XL.

Ꮓ

years in the University, in the constant occupation of a tutor and an examiner."

You say, Sir, that the tendency of my arguments is to show that mathematics ought no longer to be encouraged as a branch of our University studies. Such, Sir, is not the tendency of my argu ments; they go to show, what you, yourself, almost in the same words, wish to prove, that it is not reasonable that the honors, and, generally speaking, the rewards of the University, should be confined to mathematics alone; but that this exclusive preference should be laid aside. And when I still grant mathematics the precedence, in the course of academical honors, I do precisely what you advise yourself, and I do it, as I suppose you do, in the spirit of conciliation towards the advocates of those studies, and with a desire to make no innovation for the mere sake of change, but to admit such improvements as justice, the interests of the University, and the promotion of general literature, seem to require.

You then find fault with the scheme I propose, which, however, I find very much the same with one also mentioned with disapprobation in your pamphlet. But how different, Sir, is your language. There is, in fact, very little difference in the substance of the schemes. Each proposes to make the examination principally in divinity; each proposes to concede no honors, and to grant no exemption, but to make it imperative on all; there may be some difference in minor points, but the difference in fact is very inconsiderable, and this coincidence between two persons who had no communication with each other, only tends to show the propriety and reasonableness of this scheme. Yet how different is the treatment which these similar plans experience from you! The one, is sanctioned by a known and distinguished character in the University, the other, by an unknown individual; that of the unknown is sneered at with the most petulant contempt; that sanctioned by the known authority, is, indeed, dissented from, but in the most temperate and respectful terms. This is precisely the course which would be adopted by one who was inclined to fawn with servility on his superiors, and to be proportionably insolent where he thought he might be so with impunity.

You make yourself very merry with my use of the word examinant, to signify a young man under examination. I have already said what I think necessary on this head. The word appeared to me perfectly intelligible in the use I made of it; that it was so, is proved by your condescending rightly to interpret it, and in a pamphlet of the kind I was writing, the first word which, occurred, seemed quite sufficient; my business was not with words, but things.

You are next pleased to attack my scheme of honors, omitting, according to your usual practice, every explanatory and qualifying sentence. In my scheme of examination, for instance, you omit, "I do not pretend to dictate to the good sense of the University, but as a member of it, I may be allowed, without presumption, to state, that I think the Greek Gospels, Grotius de Veritate, and the first volume of Bishop Tomline's Theology, are sufficient for the proposed examination." Now every candid reader will acknowledge that I arrogate nothing dictatorial here, but that I state my sentiments with all that deference and respect to the wisdom of the University, which every individual of such a body ought to show. This, however, you have suppressed, and the inference you leave your readers to draw, from that suppression, is naturally unfavorable. Again, speaking of my scheme of honors, you say, "At the degree time, he (Eubulus) means to have one tripos, or list of honors, in each department, which is, on no account, to exceed forty;" which you call a Procrustean rule.

Now, you either can understand what you read, or you cannot. If you can understand it, and state that to be fact, which you understand and know not to be fact, I must leave the public to give you the name you deserve; I will not utter it. If you cannot understand what you read, you have no business to set up for a critic on the subject, though I am well aware that even our reviewers do not always attend to this point so much as they ought. However, this is my scheme, as stated by me, p. 9.:

"So much for this subject. I am content merely to throw out hints on it, because I have little time for more, and trust these will be sufficient for future exertions. Will it be allowed me to state my own view of the improved system, in the most general terms, leaving the detail and modification of them to the sense of the University.

"I would oblige every man, at the expiration of his two first years, to undergo the above-mentioned preparatory examination; and he should then be called upon to declare whether he intended to graduate in mathematics, or classics, which should not preclude him from offering himself for examination in the senate-house in both. In the senate-house-examination, the week for mathematics should proceed as usual. That for classics should follow, in which there should be a first, second, and third class, as in mathematics. Let the senior wrangler preserve his preeminence, and next to him the first of the first class classics; then the other wranglers, who, in most cases, should not exceed 15, and then the other first class classics, who should not exceed the like number. Next to these, mathematical senior optimés, not exceeding 14; and then second class classics, the same number.