of a final honour school of English, declined to bring the question of the new school before the University. But these facts only prove an opposition to the particular method of a special honour school in the final examination for a degree, and do not justify the charge that either the University or the Council refuses to encourage the study of English altogether. Moreover, they are not all the facts. Only last term, in answer to the memorial, the Council communicated to the Professor of English Language and Literature the following resolution:

'That the Council do not find it expedient at present to propose a new honour school in the final examination, but are willing to consider any proposal not involving the estab'lishment of a new school.'

Surely the friends of Oxford have a right to complain that while no reply has been received to this resolution, and nobody has either submitted any new proposal or even contended that there is no method of encouraging the study of English except a special honour school in the final examination, your six correspondents tell the public that the Council is blocking the way', without even mentioning the fact that it is willing to consider any proposal not involving the establishment of a new school'. Oxford, Jan. 6.

FROM The Times, FEBRUARY 4, 1892. The six distinguished graduates of the University of Oxford who addressed a joint letter to you on this subject (The Times, January 6) now assert that in my reply (January 9) I missed the point of their complaint. They say (February 1) that their contention was that, when 108 masters had petitioned for an Honour School of English, the Council ought not to have refused to bring the proposal before the University. If this had been all, I might have been

accused of missing the point. But they had also contended that the University is justly charged with making no provision for the study of English, that the way is blocked by the Council, and that the public should know where the responsibility lies for an omission in our course of study which is not creditable to the University. Further, they made this charge without mentioning the fact, which would have disposed of it, that in its answer to their petition the Council had expressed its willingness to consider any proposal not involving a new school. I did not miss these points. But what I do miss in their present letter is any admission or expression of regret that in their former letter they brought an untenable charge and omitted a fact of importance. How significant this omission was can be seen by supplying it. If they had written to you that the study of English is a burning question at Oxford, and that the Council had refused a school, but that it had invited other proposals, how could they have begun their letter with the charge that the University is neglecting, and ending it with the charge that the Council is obstructing, the study of English? To refuse a school is not to neglect a study: to invite proposals is to encourage that study.

I deeply regret that I have been driven into controversy with men whom I sincerely respect. But I must ask you to publish this letter in self-defence. Oxford, Feb. 2.

STATE AID FOR UNIVERSITY EXTENSION Sir Richard Jebb was Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge. He died in 1905.

FROM The Times, NOVEMBER 13, 1893. Professor Jebb says in his letter to you to-day that at Oxford the opinion has long been held that University Extension should be aided by the State.

Whatever may be the state of mind at Cambridge, where he is professor, I cannot imagine what evidence he can produce of the existence of this opinion, except among a few interested persons, at Oxford.

He further says that the Government might entrust each of four bodies-the Oxford University Extension Delegacy, the Cambridge Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate, the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching, and the Victoria University Extension Committee-with a few hundreds a year. What good could such a pittance do in comparison with the evil of giving the State a new right to interfere in the financial and other affairs of the University? He himself admits the condition that annual reports should be made to Government, and the possibility of Government inspectors. But Government, which nowadays has a tendency to become more and more Democratic, and even Socialistic, will not stop there. The few hundreds would be likely in the end to cost the University as many thousands.

Moreover, he says that by and by there will be young people who will wish for something higher, but will not be able to go to any English University.

But he does not seem to see that Democratic Government, once having got its fingers in the pie, will force the University to lower the curriculum so as to receive these ambitious young persons. I admit that the poor, as heretofore, should have facilities to rise to a University education. But the present danger is a degradation of a University education to the level of the poor. Nothing is so likely to project this fall as the reception by the University of money from the State, justifying constant interference by the State.

There are three main arguments against State aid to University Extension. In the first place, it is contrary to the interest of the University, because

the State will require a quid pro quo, partly in the shape of a slice from the endowments, and partly in the shape of a degradation of the teaching of the University to the capacities of the majority. Secondly, State aid means a charge on the taxpayers. Now, it is unjust to charge the taxpayers to give the lower classes the luxury of lectures on literature. It is also unwise because, thanks largely to the lower classes, the prosperity of this country is departing, and taxes will be more difficult to pay and wanted for necessaries. It is moreover imprudent, because over-taxation may ruin the State, as it has often done before in history. Thirdly, State aid is unnecessary on the scale of a few hundreds, when the sum could easily be collected by private subscription. Indeed, one cannot help suspecting that so small a grant is not an end in itself, but rather a means of giving the Ministry, and especially the Vice-President of the Council, a handle to interfere for the prosecution of further and more far-reaching designs. In short, State aid to the University on a small scale is unnecessary; on a large scale it would be a great danger; and the larger it becomes the more would the University, its sound learning and higher education, fall a prey to Democracy. Oxford, Nov 7.

THE NEEDS OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY This was probably the letter which, of all those which Case wrote, created the most stir, both inside and outside the University. The plan of establishing by public subscription an endowment fund for the University of Oxford was brought forward in the year 1907 and was given a great deal of publicity. Naturally it received an enthusiastic welcome, at any rate on a first impression, from many people, and especially from the official leaders of the University. Accordingly the refusal of one head of a house to sign the memorial in favour of the appeal for the fund created a profound impression, which was enormously increased by the vigorous letters following. People were surprised to learn of the large amount of money of which Oxford was already possessed.

The Endowment Fund eventually reached a total of £155,978 7s. od. It is administered by seven non-resident trustees, and by four resident

trustees.

T. A. Brassey, later the second Lord Brassey, was a graduate of Balliol College, and a very active friend both of the College and the University. He died in 1919.

As a result of contributions from the Endowment Fund, the Final School of Engineering was established, and various University institutions were assisted; but the University Press was not removed from its existing site.

FROM The Times, MAY 6, 1907.

An appeal this day appears in The Times, signed by the new Chancellor and by the Vice-Chancellor, who say that it is their duty to issue an appeal for that assistance of which Oxford stands so much in need. They proceed to recommend a scheme inaugurated by the Hon. T. A. Brassey, which involves the expenditure of £250,000 to be raised by subscription. They urge that this scheme was approved by the late Chancellor, Lord Goschen, and by the heads of colleges with scarcely an exception'. As I am that exception I should like to say why I did not sign the scheme, and why I still disapprove of this appeal being made to the public in forma pauperis.

i. A scheme signed by these distinguished persons could hardly fail to have the appearance of the authority of the University, without the reality. It could receive that authority only by passing the Council, Congregation, and Convocation of the University, which receives benefaction only by deciding whether proposed benefactions should be received for a proposed purpose. Without that authority, if signed by the Chancellor, the ViceChancellor, and the heads of colleges, it would be liable to be mistaken for an authoritative document. Seeing this danger, I refused to sign the scheme when delivered to me. My fears have been justified;