there is no necessity for them." What ought the public to think of him and the other independent country gentlemen, as they call themselves, who have annually voted that ministers could not do without them? No fresh reason has arisen this session for their discontinuance they were equally unjustifiable appointments six years ago, yet he and those other mirrors of patriotism, whom we have often enough had occasion to name in this pamphlet, thought the relief of the country, as long as the landed interest was thriving, or likely to thrive, a very secondary consideration, to the keeping in of their own party:-were these men, we ask, actuated in their conduct on Friday last, by principle, or constrained to turn their backs upon themselves, by the combined influence of selfishness and shame? They cannot pretend that any new circumstances, before unperceived by them, are now exposed-and can they explain to their constituents why they have for six years obstinately supported all the extravagance of ministers? It is distressing to reflect on their conduct; and now we suppose they will argue that the House of Commons clearly represents the country, inasmuch as it has begun six years after an universal petitioning for relief, and when the personal interests of the majority in the house are vitally affected, to second the public voice by voting for a reduction in the Admiralty establishment. The impression the late divisions on Lord Althorp's motion, and on Mr. Calcraft's motion for repeal of Salt tax, have made upon the country, may be learned from the following resolution at a Cambridge county meeting.

2

I

"CAMBRIDGE COUNTY MEETING. A numerous meeting of the freeholders and inhabitants of Cambridgeshire was held on Thursday, pursuant to a requisition to the High Sheriff, to take into consideration the present disastrous state of the agricultural interest, and the propriety of petitioning parliament for relief.'-Mr. Pryme moved resolutions for a petition to Parliament for relief.— The Rev. G. A. Brown doubted the expediency of a petition without some mention of reform.-Mr. F. K. Eagle, after a short address, moved as an amendment to the original resolutions—

"That from what has taken place during the present and preceding sessions, it is the firm and decided opinion of this meeting, that any petition to the lower House of Parliament, as at present constituted, for relief from the difficulties under which the nation is sinking, would be entirely vain and fruitless.'

"Mr. Samuel Wells seconded the amendment.-Mr. Beals read

1 We must not be misunderstood. That the House of Commons represents the country, possibly might be ARGUED from other premises: but we deny that any such conclusion can be drawn from the division of Sir M. W. Ridley's motion.

2 Mr. Gooch and Wodehouse voted against the repeal of Salt tax,

a letter written by the Duke of Bedford, in which the noble Duke declared that it was useless to petition the House of Commons as it is now constituted, for their petitions were year after year disregarded, and thrown aside as waste paper. The High Sheriff put the amendment, which was carried by a considerable majority; consequently the resolutions for a petition fell to the ground. Thanks were voted to the High Sheriff, who returned his acknowledgments, after which the meeting was dissolved."

We have only just lighted on the following defence of his parliamentary behavior, made last session by Mr. S. Wortley, on the debate on the Agricultural Horse tax. Though it is out of place here, we cannot avoid presenting our readers with it.

. Mr. S. Wortley said, "he did not think himself liable to the charge of inconsistency which had been made against those who voted for the Estimates and not for the tax. The honorable member for Aberdeen made his propositions to the house founded on his own statements, which were contradicted by ministers. Now here were two parties whose statements were opposed to each other; and he (Mr. W.) and his friends had been in the habit of giving their confidence to ministers. This he took to be a very different case to the repeal of a tax, where every man exercised his own judgment as to its necessity.'

Was it not possible then to vote for economy and retrenchment without blindly confiding in Mr. Hume? Did it follow, as a natural consequence, that because Mr. Wortley preferred ministers to the member for Aberdeen, he must not "exercise his own judgment as to the necessity" for those large establishments, and that profuse expenditure, which were so universally complained of? Could he not of himself have proposed from time to time, some reductions on the Estimates? His constituents have long ago been satisfied, that an obstinate determination to gratify his own vanity, at the expense of their interests, by upholding ministers through thick and thin, has been the only cause which has incapacitated him from the performance of such a duty.

The printer will not give us time to do justice either to Dr. Phillimore or Mr. C. W. Wynn. The Times newspaper has called the public attention to the consistent vote of the former against the repeal of the salt tax, and we shall have something to say in our next number on the absence of the latter from the debate on Sir M. W. Ridley's motion.

In the mean time, we take leave of our readers, and fondly indulge in the pleasing persuasion that we have undertaken a work not unworthy of their patronage.

&c.

THE return of the annual season for taking A. B. degrees, has led me into a train of thinking, productive of so strong and forcible conviction to my own mind, that I wish to lay the result before others also. In so doing, I am aware that I am adopting a measure, pregnant perhaps with important consequences, likely to excite clamour and ill-will from some, and to be received with jealousy by others; to be railed at by the violent, and deprecated by the timid; which must encounter the prejudices of some, the distrust of others, and the criticisms of all. For all this I am perfectly prepared; because I know that this collision of opinions is most advantageous to the cause of truth, and because, having myself no end to gain, no party to serve, and no ambition to gratify, I consider free, public and unrestricted discussion, as advantageous and even necessary to the objects of my inquiry. That inquiry, I hope myself to pursue with temper and moderation, and if it should excite anger or asperity on the part of my antagonists, I trust I shall neither resent nor retaliate. Indeed it is not very likely that I shall reply. I am too much engaged with other concerns to take an active part in controversy, and the end I propose will be sufficiently answered in having thus opened the way to discussion. Others may carry it on, and in an University containing so great a number of able men, it is not very probable that the question will soon be suffered to fall asleep.

The inquiry which I wish to make, and to see pursued, is this, Why is the examination for degrees, why are the honors, and, generally speaking, the rewards and patronage of the University, confined so exclusively to mathematical pursuits?

Mathematics are, no doubt, a high and important branch of study. They are a science closely concerned in the investigation of abstract truth, requiring intensity of attention, accuracy of research, acuteness of application, and severity of judgment; they are intimately connected with the most useful arts, and with the sublimest speculations; with those inventions which give man power over the world in which he is placed, and with those discoveries which 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.

On an average for the last three years, 146 men enter the senatehouse annually, at the usual degree time.'

Of these, 52 obtain honors: of whom 19 are wranglers, or proficients in mathematics; 19 are senior optimés, or second-rate2 mathematicians; 14 are junior optimés, or smatterers.'

What are the remaining 94? What have they to show for an education of three years and a quarter, at an expense which cannot be short of 700l.? What have they got in religion, ethics, metaphysics, history, classics, jurisprudence? Who can tell? for, 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. Their University examination for their degree is in mathematics, and if they have got four books of Euclid (or even less), can answer a sum in arithmetic, and solve a simple equation, they are deemed qualified for their degree, that is, the University pronounces this a sufficient progress, after three years and a quarter of study.

So much for the Пoλλol, the vulgus ignobile of the mathematical students, among whom I include what are commonly called gulph men-that is, men who can answer and will not, and who are therefore entitled to no distinction in the view now taken of an University examination.

Let us look back to those distinguished with academic honors. Of the junior optimés, do any bring their reading in mathematics to after use?

Of the senior optimés, do any two in each year keep up or pursue their mathematical learning, so as to make farther proficiency in it after they have taken their degree?

Of the wranglers, do many of the lower wranglers, and all, or nearly all the higher, pursue their mathematical studies farther than to qualify for fellowship examination, which at some Colleges, as at Trinity for instance, is partly mathematical? In fact, do more than two-thirds of the wranglers pursue their mathematical studies after they have taken their degrees?

If they do not, then all the fruits of three years and a quarter's study, and all the expenses of 146 men, amounting to above

It is evident, that if I had taken into account either the year 1818, or the present enormously large year, the result of these calculations would have been far more striking in my favor; but I seek truth, and do not wish merely to make out a case.

2 I use plain terms, without intending to convey any reproach. In an inquiry of this sort, we must look to facts, not compliments.