again, at four days’ notice, to divide upon a petition which the previous voting must have told them could only be carried by a narrow majority, and would therefore lose the only weight which could have attached to it as a collective protest. Nor do they seem to us to have well consulted their own dignity in the terms of that petition, after having questioned the authority of Parliament to interfere at all. Yet, in spite of all this, we confess we think the Heads have been harshly treated in this measure. There seemed to be no valid objection to a more numerous Board, in which, while the Heads retained their seats, a fair proportion of the popular element might have been infused by election. The scheme of the Commissioners was less offensive, and would have been quite as effectual. We could never see the force of the objections raised to their separate existence as an honoured estate, whose years and experience, together with the large stake which they would always hold in the prosperity of the University, would perhaps often have tempered the rash enthusiasm of younger, more energetic, but not always abler men, and whose deliberate opinion would perhaps have carried more weight, when it had ceased to be the only source of academical legislation. The very antagonistic position of two chambers, constituted on different principles, to which the Tutors object, has ere this been found conducive to good government. At all events, we can never cordially agree with any act which disfranchises—except for proved abuse, which in this case cannot be urged—any individual, or any body of individuals; and we think the present Heads might have retained their seats at the Board for life, even had it been thought expedient to diminish those seats in number for the future. We shall part from our old governors, if we must part from them, with regret; not the less because we have not implicit confidence in those who may succeed them.