20001. and 90001. It is found that though several of these institutions are doing excellent work as "colleges," it is practically impossible for a "university" to exist and do good work under 9000l. a year. The scholarly atmosphere maintained at some of the smaller institutions is in direct relation to the relatively high salaries they pay their teachers.

There are very few large prizes in the teaching profession. In only two or three colleges does the salary rise above 1000l., and it would appear that in several instances those drawing this salary have been appointed under conditions which have since been modified.

Mr. Pritchett is keenly alive to the need for bettering the position of the university teacher. It is pointed out that the professor can never expect to earn the large income which is the reward of enterprise and ability in such learned professions as medicine and law. The attraction which leads able men into the teacher's calling springs from two sources, first, the sense of power and responsibility which the true teacher feels; secondly, the love of study and of the scholar's life. Held in a position of highest dignity by those about him, he lives a life of frugality, of simplicity, of influence, and above all, of happiness. He lives, as Mr. Lowell observed, in the only recognized aristocracy in America. A man who chooses this calling should be freed from financial worries. A salary below the line of comfort means a struggle to live and educate the children of

the family. Probably there are very few professors in any country who do not utilize their salaries to the best advantage by living the simple life, so that when the financial worries come the sacrifice takes the form of abandonment of research and the undertaking of outside work, often remunerated at a rate which makes but a poor return for the demands it imposes on the professor's time. The need of opportunity for research is strongly emphasized by Mr. Pritchett. Another cause which is detrimental to scholarly productiveness is the large amount of administrative and routine work frequently devolving on the teachers.

The second part of the report deals with Germany. The committee finds that the German professor may expect in time a far greater financial and social reward than comes to his American colleague. He has, furthermore, a place of far greater security, and with full protection for his old age and for his wife and children. On the other hand, he has to go through a longer period of probation than the American before attaining the coveted chair. A German who possesses such ability that he may expect in due time to become a full professor, and who prepares himself for university teaching, must expect to study until the age of thirty with no financial return, to study and teach as a privat-docent until nearly thirty-six, with an annual remuneration of less than 401., and to teach from thirty-six to forty-one with an annual remuneration of from 120l. to 400, by which time he may become a full professor and will continue to receive his salary until his death.

The committee is very strongly of opinion that the low scale of salaries of American professors is in no small measure due to the multiplication of weak and unnecessary colleges, and also to the tendency to expand the curriculum over an enormous variety of sub

jects without regard to thoroughness. A college of ten professors who are strong teachers, commanding fair compensation and teaching only such subjects as they can teach thoroughly, is, as Mr. Pritchett points out, a far better centre of intellectual life than a college which seeks with the same income to double the number of professors and to expand the curriculum to include in a superficial way the whole field of human knowledge. In many instances given in this bulletin the low grade of college salaries is due to the attempt to maintain a university with an income which is adequate only to the maintenance of a good college.

In regard to the multiplication of classes, it is pointed out, in so many words, that as a rule neither the professors nor the president of a university college are fighting business men. When it comes to a question of asking for more money, they are by nature diffident of placing their own personal claims in the foremost position, and they adopt the "path of least resistance" by associating their demand with some desirable extension of the teaching work of their institution. They hope all along that their own candle will be relieved from the pressure of the bushel which dims its luminosity. But, unfortunately, they too often adopt a course which has the reverse effect by exhausting the funds which might be theirs if they only asserted themselves with a little more push. It is this fact which has led to a result, not peculiar in any way to American universities, that the salaries of professors often decrease in direct measure as the success of their college or university increases. If Mr. Pritchett had carefully studied the universities of Great Britain he might have found some notable instances in our own country. Meanwhile the professor himself makes strenuous efforts to reduce his butcher's or tailor's bill, and if he succeeds it too often

happens that his influence as a leader of thought is impaired in consequence. As the committee puts the matter, he does not feel quite justified in demanding a greater salary for himself, even though he is wasting the university's energy in copying quotations, building fires, and hunting about the town for a cheap tailor. A course is given, though only five out of a thousand students take it, and though these five would probably be as much profited by some other course already offered. Yet to give that course is to withhold an increase of twenty or twenty-five per cent. to some individual's salary. It is pointed out that in many things institutions might profitably cooperate. There does not seem, for example, any necessity for two universities in the same city to give courses in Syriac.

The problem which this consideration presents is thus stated on p. 52 of the Bulletin. Given a certain sum for salaries for a university or college of a given size, how much must be sacrificed in the quality of the teachers in order to have enough teachers? If all the conditions of the problem were capable of exact numerical representation, this would be a simple problem in maxima and minima, but in view of the difficulty of translating the data into mathematical language, we may be at least satisfied with the committee's recommendation that one 6001. man teaching a class of thirty-six students probably means better progress than two 3001. men each teaching eighteen of the thirty-six.

Turning to the question of multiplication of colleges, an important factor in America has been the' foundation of a large number of educational institutions associated more or less directly with certain Christian denominations. These colleges form the subject of Mr. Pritchett's address before the Methodist Episcopal Conference at Atlanta.

Colleges which are under the control of a sect, or which require their trustees, officers, or teachers to belong to a specified denomination, are excluded from the benefits of the Carnegie Foundation. Mr. Pritchett pays a high tribute to the work which many of these institutions have done in the pioneer days of American education, but points out the great increase which has taken place in recent years in the expense of maintaining a genuine college on efficient lines, and finds that during the last two decades Christian denominations have found increasing difficulty in meeting those obligations, and the colleges controlled by them have with few exceptions received a meagre and inadequate support. There are three positions which a Christian denomination may take up in regard to education. First, it may say that the maintenance of colleges is necessary for extending and continuing the influence and power of the Church in question. Under this view the responsibility of providing the funds rests with the Church itself. From the statistics given in the paper it is shown that the salaries which denominational colleges provide for their teachers even in the most favorable cases compare very badly with those prevailing in institutions under State or independent control. A further objection to the sys tem is the burden which it imposes on the ministry of begging money for the Church college. It is clear that under such a system burdens have been imposed on the churches which they cannot efficiently bear at the present time. The second view is that a church may claim the right and duty to control educational institutions on the ground of religious fitness. But it is pointed out that the maintenance of · sectarian tests does not, as a rule, conduce to the religious fitness of a college; indeed, it has often resulted in a serious lowering of standard, brought

about by competition between colleges of rival denominations. The third method is for a religious body to accept openly the view that colleges and universities are furthering the cause of religion generally, and that the cause can best be advanced by a Church if it exerts its best influences on higher institutions in general without reference to sectarian control. Mr. Pritchett considers that such a solution is not only theoretically but practically possible, and that the abandonment of the spirit of partisanship will strengthen the churches by enabling them to appropriate to their own use in the training of their own men the facilities for general education provided in colleges.

On reading these publications we naturally wish that there was some body in England corresponding to the American Carnegie Foundation, the more so as the operations of that body extend to Canada as well as to the United States. The very success of the higher educational movement in Great Britain has too often resulted in a lowering of the professors' salaries. This is particularly unfortunate in a country where a continual struggle for the upper hand occurs between the scholarly ideal and the examination (shall we say?) ordeal. Examinations are not altogether bad in themselves; they test the student's powers of English composition, of expressing lucidly and intelligibly in writing the ideas which he has learnt. They should also test his resourcefulness in dealing at short notice with difficulties which have not been anticipated by the teacher. But the teacher whose tenure of office is at all insecure cannot but feel that in many instances his means of livelihood are more or less dependent on the outside show which his classes make when the numerical results of examinations are compared with those of other institutions. Thus, instead of devoting his spare hours to

research, he is often led voluntarily to give private tuition to those members of his classes whose prospects of passing their examinations are doubtful. In other words, a premium is placed upon inferior scholarship. We have known

of professors whose careers have been ruined by their too rigid insistence on high scholarship in contradistinction to high records of examination passes. Again, the need of retiring allowances for professors was never and nowhere more acutely felt than it is in Great Britain at the present day. That it should be possible for a Fellow of the Royal Society to be reduced to extreme poverty without even a Civil List Pension, after devoting the best years of his lifetime to the interests of a Nature.

college, doing the work of perhaps five professors in a German university for a salary far below the line of comfort, is an occurrence of which our country cannot feel proud. To make things worse, this sad misfortune may not improbably have been the result of overwork in undertaking additional administrative duties for the college in a period of emergency. If the Carnegie Foundation does no more for America than prevent the occurrence of such cases its existence will be fully justified, but it would be a great relief to some of us on this side of the Atlantic if a similar institution could be charged with the interests of the higher teachers in Great Britain.

G. H. B.

I.

Miss Norman-Crudge, of 27a, Kensington Palace Terrace, to her newly-married niece, Mrs. Livesey, "Rosemount," Warwick.

April 17, 190—.

My dear Sarah,-I am not, as you know, by any means satisfied with your marriage, which I consider both imprudent and perilous. Mr. Livesey is not at all the husband I should have chosen for you myself. He is a weak although doubtless amiable man. whereas what you wanted was some one capable of correcting your foibles. He is also, I understand, a Radical and a vegetarian, and probably an Agnostic, and is therefore not in the least calculated to direct your mind as those who really love you would wish. However, since there is no use now in saying any more, I have decided henceforward to consider him as one of the family (although I hope that when you come here

Mrs. Vansittart to Mrs. Livesey.
April 19, 190-.

My darling Child,-Your letter came by the last post and I have not had a wink of sleep thinking about this terrible dilemma. Of course we ought always to tell the truth, but your Aunt will be so vexed, and just after she had come round too. On the other hand she is sure to find it out if you depart from the truth, because no one has ever taken her in. She has been like that ever since we were girls. I think you must be brave, dear, and say that it came broken, but doubtless owing to a fall in the Post Office and not at all because it was carelessly packed. Yes, I think that is best.

Your loving perplexed

IV.

Mother.

Mrs. Livesey to Miss Norman-Crudge.

April 20, 190—.

My dear Aunt Mercy,-How very kind of you! What a beautiful bowl! But I am exceedingly sorry to say that when we unpacked it it was found to be broken all to pieces. The packing was perfect, so it must have been the result of a fall on the way. We are greatly disappointed and distressed, and I am wondering if you can tell me where I could buy another like it. Your affectionate niece,

Sarah Livesey.

P.S.-Joseph, who spent hours last night putting the pieces together, and who joins with me in love and gratitude, says he never saw a more beautiful bowl.

V.

Miss Norman-Crudge to Mrs. Vansittart. April 21, 190-.

Dear Rhoda,-A most unfortunate thing has happened. I went to some self-sacrifice over my wedding present for Sarah-my motto being that it is absurd to cry over spilt milk, and now that she has definitely taken that very unpleasant man for her husband it is the duty of us all to make the best of it. It was one of my choicest cutglass bowls and of very unusual design. It left this house in perfect condition, very carefully packed by Yates; but Sarah tells me that when it arrived it was in fragments. Under the circumstances, especially considering how disappointed we all had been by this marriage, I think that had I been Sarah I should have held my tongue and merely have said thank you, leaving me in ignorance as to the catastrophe. she has been very oddly brought up. and that nice thought for other people's feelings which our dear mother did so much to teach you and me is no longer in fashion. I am, however, sending them another bowl, as I should not like them to be without any memento of Your loving sister

me.

VI.

But

Mercy.

Mrs. Livesey to Mrs. Vansittart.

April 25, 190-. My darling Mother,-What is to be done? I am so sorry to trouble you again, but you know Aunt Mercy so much better than I do. She very kindly sent another glass bowl, but by really extraordinary bad luck, that one came broken too. There seems to be a fatality about it. What can I say to her this time? How can I tell her such an awful truth twice running? seph says that it is old glass and cannot be matched; but don't you think he had better try? Do tell me.

Jo