Wilberforce, the venerable champion of negro emancipation, and Grote, the future historian of Greece, went to Birmingham to inspect the school. Grote heard the boys construe Homer. Even at that time enough was known of his studies in Greek to make the young master who was taking the class feel not a little nervous. Two of Mrs. Grote’s nephews were removed from Eton and placed at Hazelwood. Five years later Grote, writing to Rowland Hill to introduce a friend, says, “I have taken the liberty of mentioning to him the high opinion which I entertain of the Hazelwood system.” The elder of the two nephews on leaving Cambridge went over to Stockholm as a kind of apostle of the new learning. “Public Education” had been translated into Swedish by Count Frölich, and a company was formed in Sweden to found a “Hillian School.” Professor Säve, of the University of Upsala, stayed a month at Hazelwood, carefully studying the system. But even a Professor could not master such a system in a month, and aid was called for from England. The young Cambridge man offered himself as a volunteer in the great cause. He went over to Stockholm, and for many a year helped to keep the faith pure and undefiled in the _Hillska Skola_. Lord John Russell sent Dr. Maltby to inspect the school, and Dr. Maltby some years later on, when Bishop of Durham, gave out the prizes. “The number of visitors here,” wrote Mr. M. D. Hill when on a visit to his father’s house, “is immense. It is quite a nuisance. They sometimes have three or four parties at a time, and not a day passes without some.” The Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Clarendon, Lord Auckland, Lord Kinnaird, Sir George Napier, Sir George Pollock, Brougham, De Quincey, Roscoe, Malthus, Joseph Hume, Nassau Senior, Robert Owen, W. J. Fox, Basil Hall, Babbage, and Lardner were all interested in Hazelwood, and not a few of them sent pupils there. Some of them even wished to reform the constitution. “We have had, on the whole,” wrote old Mr. Hill to his son, “a pleasant interview with Mr. Hume and Dr. Gilchrist. They wish to set us right in two important particulars. First—That we should compel all to remain when the Committee comes to be chosen. Second—That the votes be all secret on that and all other occasions. We are quite obstinate on both questions, and, in conformity with usage, persist in old ways. You will be most highly amused with the honourable gentleman’s penetrative inspection, when it shall become safe to tell all. He is, however, a right good fellow. The Doctor set out with a grammatical examination, but presently delapsed into an etymological disquisition and lecture, exquisitely amusing and, as I maintain, highly instructive.” In January, 1825, “Public Education” was criticised in the “Edinburgh Review,” and criticised in the most friendly spirit. The “London Magazine” followed a year later with a long, and a still more friendly, article by De Quincey. M. Jullien, the editor of the