But now, it is customary for many of our youth' to enter the former at the age of twelve, these seldom stay till the seventeenth, finally quitting the universities at twenty.

It may also be noted amongst other defects, for I rather wish to remove than perpetuate abuses, that instead of the pupils being under that strict discipline necessary at an early age, or of forming their minds by a close application to the best authors, they are now often suffered to attend the lecture room of the professors too soon; and are thus released from salutary restraint when they are not yet sufficiently formed to be able to regulate either their studies or conduct. Can it be possible for such a revolution to have taken place in the human mind, that a youth of seventeen is as fit for the university now, as one of twenty was two hundred years ago? This may be justly considered as the reason why academical liberty, without which a university cannot be regarded as an institution for forming the character and expanding the mind, is by no means suited to the extreme youth of some collegians; and also, why this liberty is somewhat more abused than formerly. But in this case the universities are not so much to blame as the governments. The parents, who feel anxious to get their sons settled early in life, as it is called, and therefore fancy they cannot attend the university soon enough,

are also to blame. Perhaps many are led into the above error, by the expences now attendant on education: these have unfortunately increased, while the means of defraying them daily diminish all over Germany.

Is

But should the young pupils fail in the degree of their advancement, waste their time and money; if they misunderstand, or abuse academical liberty, and commit foolish excesses, then do the parents join in the outcry against the universities; whereas it is they alone who deserve censure. the above course either just or equitable? Should we attribute the evils we have brought on ourselves, to those who have no power to avert them? Ought we to forget all the benefits arising from our universities, because the abuses I have mentioned, are connected with their present administration? It should also be kept in mind, that when the head of a school dismisses a pupil as efficient, the university dare not turn him back.

And is it true, as asserted in the Literary Journal, that in accomplishing the only object, M. Kotzebue will allow the universities to have in view, viz. the learning, "nothing farther is done, than for the professor to stand up and read, perfectly indifferent whether he is heard or not?" I confess there is some difficulty in preserving the language of moderation on the perusal of such a palpably unfounded assertion; yet I will be

calm, and reply to the calumny by an undeniable fact. It is well known, then, that every newcomer, at our university, amongst other injunctions received on his first entrance, is earnestly admonished to be diligent; and also spurred on to emulation. That no professor of integrity and honour, (for if there be any without either, it is the fault of the government which appoints them) can be indifferent on such occasions, or careless whether the students hear him or not. It is the duty and interest of every teacher to arrange his lectures in such a way as that they may ensure not only a willing but attentive hearing: because even in universities, there exists no actual power of compelling the auditors to pay attention. None but the most pedantic and inefficient dispensers of learning could desire such a power; like those wretched and drawling preachers, who wish the people to be driven to church as a flock of sheep to fill the otherwise empty benches, and condemned to hear interminable sermons.*

* Nil sub sole novi! exclaimed the wisest man of antiquity! So would the professor, if he had been in the habit of attending divine service in the British metropolis; where, even the advocates for building new churches, cannot deny that both reading and preaching is in a most lamentably backward state: nor is it saying too much to add, that it would be of infinitely more importance to the established religion, to remedy this evil, than by adding to the number of our temples.-ED.

Should half-yearly examinations be instituted, for the purpose of promoting assiduity and perseverance amongst the young men? If so, let that method be adopted; but we may assure ourselves before hand, that the students will not thereby learn a particle more of the sciences, if they have no natural talents, or a desire to do so: besides, there are already such examinations, without any particular advantage being derived from them. In Konigsberg it was formerly (and may be still) a rule, that all the professors in the public lectures, should thus examine their pupils at the close of every six months; I can, however, truly aver, that the Konigsberg students were not an iota more advanced than those of Wittenberg, Frankfort, or Leipsic; nor have I ever heard that the university of the first named city, can boast of lectures that could claim any superiority over her rivals; on the contrary, it may be ranked far behind many, where no such examinations take place. I am led to believe these periodical examinations are instituted at all the Catholic universities; but are they on that account superior to the Protestant ones? Do they produce more profound scholars or learned men than others? This is a question which it is not for me to decide !*

* This opinion of the author with respect to the unimportance

F

The next passage worthy of notice in the Literary Journal, runs as follows: "It therefore entirely depends on the first good or bad education of a youth, upon his disposition, diligence, or idleness, whether he yields to, or resists temptation, and finally whether he fulfils the future hopes of his parents or not." Here, as it sometimes happens, the imperial Russian Counsellor is perfectly right; but in his general anxiety to condemn the universities, he must have forgotten that the above passage contains the best apology their warmest advocates could devise. For admitting the truth of M. Kotzebue's position, and I am not disposed to deny its validity, it is not the uni versity, but partly human nature, and partly education, that should be censured for the failures of this or that individual, who leaves it without having accomplished the wishes of his family and friends. So that it is only for parents and teachers to send good subjects, in which case they may safely calculate on their success. Let the materials be only good, and I can assure those who coincide with M. Kotzebue's strictures, that they will not be spoiled at the universities. But having advanced this notable truism, what conclusion does the writer draw from it? "He,"

of periodical examinations, will not find many advocates in this country, where they form so striking a feature in our system of education.-ED.