be offered them by one of the colleges for ordinary rooms in it . . . during July, August, and September,' is to forget that, in most cases, the furniture, pictures, photographs, books, manuscripts, plate, crockery, and linen in those rooms belong to the undergraduates, who might not unreasonably object to their property being placed at the disposal of these strangers. The plan of billeting workmen on the colleges might have been specially designed to drive the rich and wellto-do away from Oxford; a contingency boldly faced by the Bishop of Birmingham. After Mr. A. E. Zimmern at Toynbee Hall had explained the report to the delegates of the trade unions and other working-class organisations, his Lordship spoke as follows:

He desired [he said] a system in which it would be clearly understood and effectively brought about that persons who did not at once show that they came to the university because they wanted to be students would have to go elsewhere. He was sure that was a reasonable request. If carried out, it would produce a tremendous change. There would be a great displacement of rich or well-to-do young men, who wanted to have a good time, by serious students, who would come equally from all classes, but in large measure from among the workers.

THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE SCHEME

'In 1907,' we are assured (p. 30), the expenditure of the University and colleges exceeded the receipts from endowments by 177,2177. 108. 91d.' This deficit was covered by the sums collected from graduate and undergraduate members of the University and colleges.' If the rich and well-to-do graduates and undergraduates were expelled, who would be expected to supply the bulk of this deficit? The workmen who replaced the rich and well-to-do undergraduates would be unable to do so. Moreover, the deficit would be very largely increased. Several of the colleges own house property in Oxford. If the rich and well-to-do undergraduates departed, the tradespeople and lodging-house keepers could not possibly pay the high rents which they are at this moment paying, and the private residents, especially in North Oxford-a large part of which is college property-would speedily vanish if Oxford ceased to be a fashionable university. It is unnecessary to press the point, but one may be permitted to urge that the City of Oxford would have a reasonable ground for complaint if it were materially affected by a scheme which had not been sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament. Was it, too, Mr. Rhodes's intention that his scholars should graduate at the Bishop of Birmingham's university of students? He directed that, in choosing a Rhodes scholar, the candidates' athletic attainments and qualities of leadership should be taken into account.

I submit, therefore, that the proposals of the informal committee who have produced Oxford and Working-class Education are very visionary. The reforms which are urgently needed in Oxford are reforms in the curriculum' and the examination system. My

own opinion-and I have had considerable experience is that the mass of the undergraduates, while anxious to learn things which have a bearing on their after-life, refuse to treat seriously the subjects which they are at present taught and in which they are at present examined. Is it not extraordinary that to-day in the chief university of the British Empire the degree of Bachelor of Arts can be obtained by a man who has not been obliged to study any of the following subjects:

(a) English composition and literature,

(b) The history of the British Empire, (c) Geography,

(d) The scientific discoveries and inventions which have altered the conditions of modern life,

(e) Any of the laws of England, or the rules which guide the Law Courts in estimating the value of human testimony,

(f) The art of government,

(g) Economics,

(h) Business methods,

(2) The art of war, and

(j) French, German, or any modern language?

The methods of examining students are also unsatisfactory. Too much value is attached to a powerful memory.

The Nation and the Empire have a right to demand that Oxford should be reformed. The University has been one of the two chief finishing schools for those who are going into politics, for the sons of the rich, for the landed gentry, for the Indian, Egyptian, and Home Civil servants, for barristers, for the clergy of the Church of England, and for public schoolmasters. It has trained, and is training, Eastern princes, rich Colonials, and the Rhodes scholars. If, then, it provided members of the above classes with a liberal education, fitting them to perform their duties, it is difficult to see what more ought to be expected from it. The chief grievance which the poor have against the University is that it has not in the past educated sufficiently the de facto rulers of the Empire. Economics, statecraft, and geography have been either neglected or till recently taught by academic theorists. Appendix VIII. to Oxford and Working-class Education shows how divorced from realities is a typical Don. The text-books for political science in the Modern History school are Aristotle's Politics, Hobbes's Leviathan, and Maine's Ancient Law. It would be more advantageous to the nation if the Oxford authorities set their house in order before inviting workmen to reside in it.

If, however, that is not an aim ambitious enough for them, they might at least be more cautious in their experiments on the University. They might first ascertain whether workmen removed from their trades and families will in fact fraternise at Oxford with bachelors of

the upper and upper middle classes considerably younger and less matured than those workmen. Would it not be better that a few Fellowships should be awarded to workmen who have won distinction in practical economics and politics? If that innovation-and there would not be the discrepancy of age between the new and the old Fellows that there will probably be between workmen scholars and youths of eighteen or nineteen-was a marked success, a further step in democratising the University might be taken. Meanwhile some of the scholarship and exhibition money could be handed over to the Universities of London and Birmingham, or to similar institutions more in touch with members of the working classes.

A mechanic in Magdalen or Christ Church would feel as out of place as he would at a dining-table in the Carlton Hotel. If an Act of Parliament were passed compelling the Reform Club to elect ten workmen a year, what would be the inevitable result?

Oxford.

J. B. RYE.

1909

IRELAND 'IN EXTREMIS'

It is impossible to envy the condition of mind of those Unionists, and there are many of them, who for the past three years have closed their eyes and ears to the rapid declension of two-thirds of Ireland from a state of admitted peace to one of almost incomparable anarchy. For reasons many and various the Unionist party has, with a few notable exceptions, devoted the whole of its time to problems involved in the Fiscal, Licensing, and Educational controversies; it has been almost impossible to arrest the attention of a British audience, even for a moment, and to get their sympathy for fellow-loyalists living in misery and terror about twelve hours distant from the metropolis of the Empire. At last the truth is dawning upon them and they are sickened at the news; they cannot but feel that, if they had attacked the present Government on the maladministration of Irish affairs with anything like the concentration and courage which distinguished their onslaughts upon the Licensing and Education Bills (since deceased), fewer families would be living in jeopardy of their lives by day and night, fewer tradesmen would be ruined by the 'boycott,' fewer farmers reduced to penury by cattle-driving, fewer postmen and process-servers maltreated when engaged on the King's business, fewer cattle maimed and mutilated in the country districts of Ireland.

But if recent disclosures have aroused the deepest feelings of Unionists, what must be the sensations of Liberals and Labour men who have not sunk to the level of being but stipendiary or voluntary echoes of their party leaders? What must those men and women feel who observe the appalling figures of crime and outrage, of tyranny by boycott and agrarian offence, reeled off by Mr. Birrell in answer to questions in the very first week of the new session? These things are not denied by the Government, nor by the United Irish League, which is responsible, directly or indirectly, for most of them. On the contrary, they are admitted and scarcely palliated, except by one or two inexperienced politicians in the House of Lords.

But when it comes to the question of punishment or preventionaye,' there's the rub.' Every conceivable excuse that human ingenuity can evolve for the utter failure of the law is offered by those in authority, from the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor downwards. The

latter gentleman assured the House of Lords that 'in about one-third of Ireland there is a deplorable state of things that ought to be punished, that ought to be stopped, and we try and have tried to stop it.' And how have they tried' in the matter of cattle-driving, a cursed invention which the Bishops have condemned almost without exception? They have invoked an ancient Act of Edward the Third (the ordinary law' forsooth!), and have bound some one thousand people caught in the act to keep the peace.' But they have in truth thereby stamped the delinquents as prominent agitators, and have so ensured them getting the largest and best slices of land when a property in the neighbourhood has to be purchased and divided by the Estates Commissioners! There is no penalty in this; it is no punishment, for I could tell of many men who have gone to the police to demand the reason why they were not arrested and bound, declaring that they had been engaged in cattle-drives which they named. Sometimes they are told to give bail for good behaviour, and if they refuse they are sent to gaol for a short term. Mr. Birrell asks us to consider that a penalty. How can we oblige him, when we know that in gaol they are treated as untried prisoners, wearing their own clothes, seeing their friends, receiving newspapers and writing letters, and being fed from outside at the expense of the League funds? No wonder they prefer gaol to bail; but it would be a different story if the Crimes Act were enforced, and if the sentence before two resident magistrates was one of imprisonment with hard labour for such term as the gravity of the offence demanded. A few such sentences would close the cattle-driving campaign in Ireland once and, probably, for all. And this, of all sections of the Crimes Act, is the easiest to put into operation; for it can be used-unlike the rest of the Actwithout proclaiming a district. This section (sub-section 3 of section 2) was actually proposed by a Nationalist member of Parliament, Mr. O'Doherty, on the 18th of May, 1887, in the following language:

This is an extension of the Crimes Act to all Ireland, and it exempts the Government from the necessity of proclaiming' any part of the country in order to punish offences against public order. . . . What I want the Government to do is to state that, when this particular offence of holding unlawful assemblies and rioting occurs, the offenders may be tried in a summary way without the stigma of Proclamation being put upon the district.

Mr. T. P. O'Connor, M.P., seconded the amendment, which was accepted by Mr. Balfour and became part of the ordinary law'; but it is never used by the present Government, though when cattledriving is indulged in by two or more persons it constitutes an unlawful assembly, and may be dealt with as the Nationalists themselves proposed.

With such a weapon in their hands, it is idle for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to bewail the difficulty of getting evidence. Of course they cannot get it when every possible witness knows full