Such are the negative tendencies of the Government measure, both for good and evil: it remains to consider its positive enactments. And to begin with the beginning,—that is to say, the heads, who here for the last time take the initiative. The Hebdomadal Board, it seems, is doomed. They are not to await, like other subjects of reform, the action of the University itself; on the 10th day of October next, if this act becomes law, their corporate existence ceases. Of all the sufferers by Government legislation, they, we fear, will find the fewest champions, and meet with the least commiseration. The Tutors, whom they unwisely neglected to conciliate, have been their bitter enemies from the first. They fall a sacrifice not to any cry from without, but to domestic unpopularity. The Commissioners would have mercifully retained them as an upper house of legislature, only placing by their side another body, with equal powers and greater influence—the “remodelled Congregation.” But the Tutors’ Committee would not hear of it. “Half shares” was the formal demand of the majority of this body, just beginning to feel their own power. And as this consciousness of strength increased, the hopelessness of the struggle on the side of the existing authorities became more and more apparent. A third party, however—but weakly represented, and jealously looked upon in the Tutors’ Association, made their claim for a share in the directory; and the Professorial interest, addressing themselves directly to the ear of the Government, succeeded in making the proposed Hebdomadal Council what it is in the bill as at present—one-third Heads of Houses, one-third Professors, and one-third Masters of Arts. We have no particular objection to the proposed partition—we believe that any tolerably fair form of representation would work sufficiently well—nor have we ever been the apologists of the Hebdomadal dignitaries. We have admitted their policy to have been at once weak and obstinate; slow to move at all, and undecided in action. With a hostile commission hanging over their heads, they at first affected to ignore the danger, and then wasted, in the most unaccountable manner, the time which might, wisely used, have in great measure averted it. They appointed a committee “to consider and report upon” the recommendations of the Commissioners on 16th June 1852; that report was presented on 1st December 1853. The Tutors’ Committee, appointed five months later, presented its first report in January 1853, its second in April, its third in November, and its fourth and last in March 1854. The Tutors had large demands upon their time besides legislation—the Heads should have made it their first and most earnest duty. Yet it was not until the 24th February, after the terms of the proposed bill must have been known in the University, that a new statute was proposed in Convocation, which must have been felt at the time to be mere waste paper. Nor do we think it was wise to summon Convocation