from the title of his book will be led to expect. Those who look for a plea on behalf of the scientific, historical, and critical study of the English language, and English literature-who expect an argument for elevating English to a co-ordinate place with the classical languages, to be studied as they are studied, to exercise the judgment and cultivate the taste as they do-will be sadly disappointed. Mr. D'Orsey's idea of English in a "University Course" is something quite different from this. His lecture is essentially nothing more nor less than a loud and vehement denunciation of the faults in English grammar, composition, and elocution, that are displayed in our public speakers, but especially in the English clergy; and the remedies he suggests and enlarges upon have all reference, directly or indirectly, to the improvement of this class in the reading of the Church service, and in the composition and delivery of their sermons. No doubt the state of English in schools for the lower, middle, and upper ranks is referred to, but this is merely by way of "cumulative evidence," to overpower his readers and strengthen his main position. And, indeed, from the stress that is laid upon "the necessity of sending forth the young divine fully armed for his warfare;" and from the prominence that is given to the "powerful aid" of "the prelates of our church," it is painfully pressed upon us that Mr. D'Orsey's appeals to "the scholar and the patriot" are not unconnected with the position and prospects of the English lectureship at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. No doubt the proper education and equipment of the English clergy is a question of "national importance," but we confess that, in Mr. D'Orsey's pages, it assumes very much of a professional, not to say personal, complexion. In proof of this, take his own statement of the case :—

"If such are the attainments in English grammar and composition after a school and college course, are they greater in public reading? The Church Service is an obvious test. I appeal to your own experience, and ask how often you have heard our beautiful Liturgy really well read. Passing over the grosser faults of indistinct utterance, incorrect pronunciation, and provincial accent, how many are there who read in too high or too low a note, or use wrong emphasis, or lay undue stress on unimportant words, or drawl out the Service in a mouthing tone, or 'preach the prayers, or read too rapidly! The college chapels, instead of being normal schools for church reading, are practically the reverse; for the chaplains generally recite the prayers as if the object were to get the duty over in the shortest time; and the scholars, profiting by the example, read the lessons rapidly, indistinctly, with little attention to pauses or emphasis; and are seldom corrected for mispronunciation, monotony, provincial accent, or any error, unless indeed a false quantity should offend the ears of the classical tutor. Almost every bishop's charge refers to the importance of the study-we all know with what results. Such recommendations, however affectionately urged at ordinations, are practically inoperative; for, the standard of general and untested qualification being so low, each individual remains unconscious of his own shortcomings.

"We have now to advert to the second branch of the clergyman's duty in his church-the composition and delivery of sermons. There is no lack of piety, learning, zeal, and other essential endowments for the ministry, yet how rarely do we hear a good specimen of pulpit oratory! If a discourse is sound in doctrine, and earnest in tone, is it not frequently faulty in style- that is, defective in clearness, force, or elegance, sometimes in all three-the errors consisting in obscurity, from the use of latinized words and idioms-in feebleness, from involved construction and in awkwardness, from inattention to collocation, euphony and cadence? Many hard-worked clergymen, writing under great pressure, seize the words that first

arise. There is no time, even if there were skill, to remould a clause, insert a phrase, attend to links of connexion, or transition, to exchange a difficult for a simple term, or strike out an unnecessary word.

Admitting, however, that the matter is excellent, and the composition faultless, the manner is often most deplorable, involving not so much faults in pronunciation, as sameness in voice, look, and action-want of life, of earnestness, and energy. These characteristics, intensified, as they sometimes are, by constitutional nervousness, invariably produce the insipidity and dulness of which congregations so justly complain."

We do not need to be told of the neglect with which English is treated in our schools and universities. It is as discreditable as it is true, that of all subjects taught in our schools, English is that which has least justice done to it, and, that of all subjects taught in our national universities, the language and literature of England should be those most systematically disregarded. This, indeed, would be a noble cause for any one sufficiently informed, sufficiently judicious, and sufficiently carnest, to embrace and to advocate. The composition and delivery of sermons may be one indication of the necessity for some improvement. Some better plea, however, than the importauce bishops attach to "good reading" must be found for giving English its due place in the curriculum of a liberal education.

We thus find Mr. D'Orsey's subject to be a much narrower one than his title leads us to expect. It is virtually a plea for the study of English composition, and the practice of elocution, by divinity students. That should have been the title of his brochure; and such being the case, we come to ask, ought this to form "an essential part of a university course?" We hardly think that it should, because universities never can be required to perform the functions of schools, and to the schools primarily and essentially-to Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and Rugby-does the duty belong of teaching such elementary subjects as the above. If they neglect this duty, then there should Mr. D Orsey's plea be put in; and one of his "remedies"-the only one, indeed, which touches the question-is:

"The foundation in every public school of an English department, with its staff of teachers. The head-master to be not simply a classical scholar, but a man of thorough education, completely imbued with large views of the philosophy of speech; and acquainted not with those modern languages only which throw light on our own, but also and chiefly versed in ancient, Teutonic and Scandinavian lore. He should be well read in our literature, especially from the Elizabethan period to recent times. He should write the clearest, chastest English, and teach his pupils to clothe their thoughts in terse, simple, and manly prose. His own spoken language must be plain but copious; free of affectation, yet scrupulously correct; his written lectures so naturally read, as to sound as if spoken; his extemporaneous addresses so accurate in style, as to seem precomposed. His accent ought to be simply that of an English gentleman, without any distinctive trace of local intonation, London or provincial, Scotch or Irish; so that no one from his pronunciation could tell the country or county from which he came. And as the natural tribute to such attainments, he should hold an equal place with the other masters; while his work should have an adequate share of every boy's time and attention, not treated [? should not be treated] as subordinate and supplementary.

"Can such masters at present be found? Not many, but yet I fully believe, that if, next week, Eton, or any great school, would lead this reform by offering £500 a year, some respectable approximations to our ideal master would present themselves; and in a few years the new officer would not only render himself com

petent by study and practice to his duties, but set an example that would be quickly followed by every public school in the kingdom."

But it is the reverse of complimentary alike to the English language and to Oxford and Cambridge, that "the study of the English language” “in a university course should be explained to consist in the teaching of candidates for holy orders, "the art of reading, writing, and speaking their native tongue."

So much for the principle involved in Mr. D'Orsey's plea. We must add that the method and style of his brochure have caused us some disappointment. The pretentiousness of the opening paragraphs led us to expect an interesting philological discourse. The history of the language, however, is compendiously treated in less than five pages, illustrated by as many "glosso-graphic" maps, tables, and diagrams. This, moreover, turns out to be merely a "preliminary flourish," for throughout the rest of the lecture there is hardly a passing reference to the subject. We should have expected, too, that the style of one who so authoritatively lectures the clergy of England on their shortcomings in this respect, would have been more temperate and less spasmodic, more exact and less verbose than the specimen before us. Even in the matters of grammatical accuracy and punctuation, on which Mr. D'Orsey lays so much stress, he is somewhat in the position of a dweller in a glass house.

At the same time, Mr. D'Orsey deserves credit for the enthusiasm with which he advocates his cause; and the numerous letters from bishops in support of his views, while they corroborate our account of what that cause is, also attest the perseverance and persistence with which it is being prosecuted.

We conclude by repeating, what we have already hinted, our belief in the vast importance of the subject indicated in Mr. D'Orsey's title, and our hope that he may not have damaged a good cause by his somewhat injudicious advocacy of a very small corner of it.

XIII. NOTICES OF BOOKS.

The Popular Education of France, with Notices of that of Holland and Switzerland. By Matthew Arnold, M.A. London, Longman. 1861. 8vo, pp. 294. THIS is a volume which will well pay for a careful perusal;-first, because it is particularly well written; and secondly, because it treats of subjects that cannot fail to interest those who watch with any degree of care the movements of modern society. The volume itself has none of the dryness which we generally expect to find in a commissioner's report. It does not at all bristle up with statistics, except so far as is absolutely

necessary to convey a just idea of the topic on which it is treating, and is relieved by many a terse remark and many a well-turned sentence, which render what might appear dull to many, light and pleasing.

The contents of the volume (which is a reprint of the Report laid before the Education Commissioners, with sundry additions) may be briefly epitomised. First of all, we have a short historical sketch of the rise and progress of popu lar education in France,-a separate chapter being devoted to each of the following six periods:-1. That before the Revolution. 2. Under the Revolu