ship, but its curriculum is based on, and indissolubly bound up, with the Classics. Its effect therefore-and let the blunt truth be admitted-will be to exclude from its course all but classical scholars. Now this, we shall be told, is monstrous. Is it not, it will be asked, a School of English Literature that is needed, and ought a School of English Literature to be other than what its name implies? Are our youth, it will be angrily urged, to be excluded from the study of Modern Literature, because they are not acquainted with the literatures of antiquity? Are they to know nothing of Shakspeare, of Burke, of Molière, because they know nothing of Sophocles, of Cicero, of Terence? Is the student to receive no instruction about the virtues and niceties of his own tongue, because he is ignorant of the Greek and Roman tongues?

Our answer to this is simple. The School which we are advocating, and the School for which any University when providing for the introduction of a new branch of study into its curriculum ought first to legislate, is an Honour School. And the function of an Honour School is to establish and maintain the highest possible standard of instruction and attainment in the particular subject represented in it, to base discipline, not on what is secondary and derived, but on what is original and typical. It is to teach those who are in their turn to become teachers, to educate those who are to educate others. We contend then, that no man should be entitled to the diploma of an Honour School of Literature whose education has not fulfilled these conditions-who has not traced what is best in Modern Literature upward to its source, who is not intelligently familiar with the literary masterpieces of the ancients, who has not received the impress of classical culture.

Whether in addition to an Honour School it would be desirable to establish a Pass School of Literature may be a matter for future consideration. For our own part we have little doubt that, whether desirable or not, it will sooner or later become necessary. In that case there is of course no reason at all why the great writers of one or more of the chief European Literatures should not be substituted, optionally, or absolutely, for the Greek and Roman Classics, and studied in conjunction with our own Classics. In that case there is no reason why such a school, as would meet the approval of Mr. Bright and the most advanced of the modern party, should not be founded. For the functions of a Pass School are not the functions of an Honour School. We are, however, of opinion that it would be desirable even in a Pass School to require a certain amount of classical knowledge from the students. It should not in any case be an alternative

school

school for the present pass Literæ Humaniores; for a smattering of Aristotle and Tacitus is certainly preferable to a smattering of Shakspeare and Goethe.

To conclude. Whatever may be the decision of the Council at Oxford, whatever may be the fate of this movement, we shall at least have the satisfaction of feeling, that we have done all in our power to admonish, all in our power to prevent misdirection. In the interests of Literature and in the interests of culture we have pleaded for an institution, which will be beneficial or mischievous, a blessing or an evil, according to its constitution. The effect of that plea has been to mature a crisis, the full significance of which is not discernible to the common eye, but which is in truth one of the most momentous that has ever occurred in the history of education. Let us not deceive ourselves. What is now at stake is nothing less than the future of the higher culture of our country, whether expressing itself practically in teaching or reflectively in Art and Letters.

Classical Literature can never, it is true, become extinct, but it can lose its vogue, it can become, what Mr. Bright calls it, a luxury, become the almost exclusive possession of mere scholars, become in short influentially disassociated from the world of Letters and from the world of Art and culture. Every step in the progress of this alienation is a step in the progress of its decline. Philology cannot save it. Technical scholarship cannot save it. It must be linked with life to live, with the incarnation of what it too is the incarnation to prevail. Associate it as Poetry with Poetry, as Philosophy with Philosophy, as Oratory with Oratory, as Criticism with Criticism, and it will be vital and mighty. The University of Oxford has now to decide, whether this is to be done or not, or whether so far from this being done the Classics are to be ostracized from those dominions, over which for so many centuries they have reigned supreme, and the Dii Minores of later and lesser dynasties set up in their place; whether in a School of Literature, in a School in which Poetry is represented, we are to look in vain for the names of Homer and Sophocles, of Virgil and Horace; whether the study of Criticism is to be divorced from the study of Aristotle and Quinctilian, and the study of Oratory from the study of Demosthenes and Cicero. This is the question-this and nothing less than this—now awaiting decision at the chief seat of English national culture.

ART.

ART. XI.-Public Journals for December 1886 and January 1887.

THE

HERE is nothing much more uncertain in this world than politics, but even those who are fully alive to the fact were not prepared for the startling events which marked the close of 1886 and the opening of 1887. Who, at the beginning of the Christmas week, would have ventured to predict that, before many days had passed over, Lord Randolph Churchill would be out of office, and that Mr. Goschen would be appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer? Nothing whatever had been made known to the public, which could in the slightest degree prepare them for such a change as this. A change of great import it must necessarily prove, but at the same time we do not believe that it involves danger to the Union party. We cannot pretend to agree with those who assert, that the loss of Lord Randolph Churchill to the Ministry is one of so little consequence that it can be instantly made good. It must be an extremely partial and superficial view of the circumstances now surrounding us which can inspire such an off-hand settlement of the difficulty as that. We do not propose to pronounce judgment on the course of action pursued by Lord Randolph Churchill. Before that can be done consistently with fairness, or even with common-sense, we ought to have before us Lord Randolph's own account of his reasons for resigning. It is true that most of his critics have thought proper to dispense with that formality. They have set an example which has nothing to recommend it. It is perfectly well known that, by long established usage and etiquette, a retiring Minister cannot make any statement of the motives which have actuated him, until he receives the Queen's permission to do so. This permission cannot be accorded to Lord Randolph Churchill before the meeting of Parliament. He has therefore been placed under a manifest disadvantage, for while the press of the country and the whole body of his enemies, and not a few friends, have been free to denounce him, a seal has been placed upon his lips. It is not for us to attempt to make out a case for his defence; that task he, and he alone, is competent to undertake. But we cannot but feel a decided conviction, that his past services entitled him to a much larger measure of fair play-we will not say of generosity— than he has been accorded by many Conservatives who, in striking at their late leader in the House of Commons, do not seem to have realized that they were doing the work of the Parnellites and the Gladstonians. We decline to join in this work, though if it should appear that Lord Randolph Churchill

Churchill had no graver cause for his resignation than a mere difference of opinion with his colleagues on matters of detail, we shall have as little to say in his behalf as any of his enemies could desire. We have no right, in any case, to pretend to forget his great services to the country, or the immense labour and ability he has brought to bear upon his work in Parliament. During the Session in which he acted as Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Randolph Churchill displayed a quickness of decision, a readiness of wit, an alertness in reply, combined with a sagacity and firmness, which extorted the admiration of his bitterest enemies, and won the confidence of doubters on his own side. As a debater, there are not more than two or three men in the house who can enter for a moment into

comparison with him. His industry is simply marvellous, and all his faculties are brought into active service in an instant. These are qualities which are not so common as many worthy persons appear to suppose.

It is obvious that the position of Lord Salisbury was rendered extremely difficult by the resignation of his ablest colleague. He was so placed that any course which he took was certain to expose him to much criticism. But most of this criticism must necessarily be ill-directed and ill-informed, for no one can possibly know all the circumstances so well as the Prime Minister. Nothing has occurred to shake the public confidence in him on the contrary, the general faith in the stability of his character, and the purity of his aims, gave assurance to all classes throughout the country, that he would endeavour to do what was right, and to prevent any injury befalling the public interests. That he was ready to resign his office to Lord Hartington is perfectly well known, but this would have been a sacrifice which the Conservative party would have regarded with anything but equanimity. That he did right, however, in calling Lord Hartington at once to his side cannot be for a moment doubted. It is not only wise, but it is an imperative duty on the part of Lord Salisbury, to consult with Lord Hartington, in the present state of parties, before any policy or question of the first magnitude is decided. Lord Hartington is entitled to this on all grounds, among others on the ground of his high character and his entire freedom from anything like unworthy motives or sly intrigue. There is no one in whom Conservatives and Liberals alike ought to have greater confidence. Compared with him, the band which is left supporting Mr. Gladstone presents the most despicable figure ever cut in this world by men calling themselves politicians. But Lord Hartington is not a dreamer, and he must have known long

before

before he reached England, that his own party would object to his being made Prime Minister in a House where the Conservatives have a great majority over all sections combined, omitting only the Parnellites. If he could have been induced to accept the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House, it would have been, under all the circumstances, an ideal arrangement, but that was just the difficulty-it was purely ideal. Lord Hartington doubtless saw the same objection to his accepting the second post, as there was to his taking the first; but his support of the Government, and his loyalty to his principles, shone out clearly through all the mists which surrounded the situation. He felt himself obliged, however, to decline to join the Ministry in any capacity, and we are not prepared to question the wisdom of his decision. The views of his followers have to be considered. In every community, there is a strong party feeling which is partly local and partly national. The local party can never be left out of consideration. The dissentient Liberals are not yet prepared to see their leaders enter into a formal junction with the Conservatives. If Lord Hartington had joined us, at this particular moment, the Gladstonians would have declared that be had merely cast off all disguise, and gone to his proper place. He can serve the Union cause where he is much more effectually, than if he were in a Conservative Ministry. That a true and permanent coalition may be effected before very long, we heartily hope, but the time for it does not appear to have yet arrived, and to attempt to precipitate a movement of that kind is only to precipitate disaster.

Failing Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen was put in Lord Randolph Churchill's place. That, however, is not by any means the same thing. Lord Hartington holds a position, both in his country and his party, to which Mr. Goschen has no pretension. We must all hope that the experiment for as an experiment it must be looked upon-will succeed. One thing, we believe, is clear-Lord Salisbury has acted throughout with entire unselfishness, and with an earnest desire to study the public welfare, apart from any personal considerations whatsoever. We hope to see the temporary misunderstanding between our leaders disappear, for we need the services of both. Meanwhile, it cannot be questioned that we retain the statesman of long and varied experience at the head of affairs, and therefore there is not, and has never been, the slightest occasion for disquietude. The cause of the Union, we must emphatically repeat, has never been for a single moment in danger, for Lord Randolph Churchill may safely be trusted to fight with all his strength for

that,