systems are obviated. Experience, however, shows, that although the zeal and industry of a professor may occasion a slight fluctuation in the numbers that resort to his school, this influence is very limited in its action. It is the character of the study which attracts followers; and whilst one department will be crowded to excess, independently of the merits or demerits of the professor, others will be almost entirely neglected. This will occur in all institutions in which professional, or extremely advanced, or unusual studies are taught. Every student, whether he may be intended for one of the learned professions, or for any other pursuit, considers it absolutely necessary to attend certain academical departments;--those of ancient languages and mathematics for example;--whilst comparatively few can be expected to attend the professional chairs, or the higher branches of study, notwithstanding the subjects may be taught in the most attractive and sufficient manner. Unless the manners of a professor are strikingly obnoxious, but little effect will be produced in the numbers frequenting his school: and if they are so, it is a sufficient ground for removal. In those universities in which the professors are remunerated by a fixed salary, this inequality of attendance is not felt; but it is a serious evil, where the emolument accrues wholly or in part in the form of tuition fees. The greatest inequality may prevail in the compensation; and those teachers who are engaged in the most abstruse departments, will necessarily be worse paid than those who are engaged in superintending the elementary branches. Suppose the department of mathematics to be divided into the elementary and transcendental: if each be remunerated by an equal fee from his students, the latter cannot expect to have an income of more than one-twentieth part of that of his colleague. This we know is a ground of much dissatisfaction in many institutions, and attempts have been made to obviate it. Meiners,[2] a reflecting writer on the subject of universities, thinks it would be proper to correct this inequality by making a portion of the fees received common stock: but if we admit that the abilities and attention of the professors are equal, and that the same number of hours is employed in teaching the various branches, there seems to be no reason why the remuneration of one professor should be permitted to exceed that of his colleague. On this subject, some pertinent remarks were made by Dr. Lieber, in which he agrees, in many respects, with his countryman, _Meiners_.