they were in correcting it. In 1828 the visitors recommended the faculty "to consider and report to the board whether some change be not proper in the regulations concerning degrees." The faculty, after consideration, reported in favor of that title which has since been regarded in the South as the highest academical honor a man can wear, the title of Master of Arts of the University of Virginia. For this degree, which was adopted in 1831, graduation was required in the schools of ancient languages, mathematics, natural philosophy, chemistry (which seems to have taken the place of the old school of natural history), and moral philosophy. But the visitors, in adopting the degree, showed their wisdom further by recommending the faculty "to consider and report whether higher or other degrees ought not to be provided for, and whether proficiency in the modern languages, or any of them, should be essential to such degrees." This last recommendation would suffice to show us that the visitors were no ordinary men. A glance at the catalogue discloses the names of James Madison (Monroe's term expired in February, 1831, and he died just about the time this resolution was passed), of Joseph C. Cabell, of Chapman Johnson, of John H. Cocke, and of Thomas Jefferson Randolph. The faculty did not report on this, at least there is no record of their having done so; but in 1832 the visitors added "graduation in at least two of the languages taught in the school of modern languages" to the requisites for the master's degree. Since that date other changes have been made in the M. A., all tending to make it more difficult to obtain; but in 1884, owing no doubt to the increased difficulty of graduation in the several schools, graduation in the department of historical science ceased to be a requisite. This is one of the few backward steps the visitors have taken. To send out a master of arts who may be-and I think is, as a rule-comparatively ignorant both of history and of political economy, is hardly in keeping with the traditions of the University-is certainly not in keeping with the ideas entertained by Mr. Jefferson. The degrees subsequently added present points both for favorable and for unfavorable criticism. In the year 1840 the law school was permitted to give its full graduates the title of bachelor of law. This was a decidedly advantageous step. In 1848 the degree of bachelor of arts was authorized, but the requisites attached to it were such that it can scarcely be regarded as having served any definite purpose. A reference to the catalogues of the University will readily show the truth of the latter statement. The degree was generally, and with good reason, looked upon as a sop thrown to those who had failed to become masters; and it was entirely too difficult of attainment to answer the purpose which it serves in a curriculum college. Changes have recently been made with this last end in view, and the success of the innovation is to be hoped for. Since 1848

It must be stated here that the master's and the bachelor's degrees have no necessary connection with one another.

nine additional degrees have been authorized by the visitors, viz.: Bachelor of letters, bachelor of science, bachelor of philosophy, bachelor of scientific agriculture (shades of medieval Oxford defend us!), civil engineer, mining engineer, doctor of letters, doctor of science, and doctor of philosophy. The three last-mentioned degrees are post-graduate, and denote a departure from established custom pregnant with interest to the future of the University. Whether the first four degrees enumerated serve any very good purpose is, I conceive, an open question. It is necessary to add that no honorary degrees are ever conferred by the University; a rule originating, I doubt not, in the determination before alluded to, of providing the South with an institution whose degrees should be sure evidence of high merit.

We have thus seen the truth of the statement that the faculty and visitors have never been content with present standards, but have always aimed at higher things. We have found points to criticise, it is true, but such as do not affect the general conclusion. Now, it is at once plain that this striving after better results, being, as it were, part of the mental and moral atmosphere of the place, could not fail to affect the minds and characters of many of the students. It is impossible to fully trace the effects of this spirit of enterprise and thorough-goingness; it will be sufficient to remark that from 1830 the cause of secondary education in the South began to revive, and that this revival was largely, if not entirely, due to the graduates of the new institution who went forth as teachers. Another result of this constant improvement in method and scope of instruction is found in the fact that there is scarcely any college in the South which has not to a greater or less extent modelled its system of teaching after that of the University;1 and in the further fact that the University has always furnished these various colleges with a large proportion of their professors. But I have already dwelt too long upon this matter; the remaining heads can, however, be more summarily dealt with.

1 Mr. S. W. Powell, in an article entitled "Schools in Dixie," which appeared in the Independent for August 18, 1887, gives the number of these colleges as thirty-five. He also adds a statement which is perfectly true: "A scholarly Northern man, who has taught many years in the South, told me that when he met a graduate of this institution (University of Virginia) he generally could count on finding him a man of exact knowledge and opposed to all shams." I may mention here that a member of our historical seminary at the Johns Hopkins, who is also an alumnus of Vanderbilt University, told me that at the latter institution it is a common thing to hear men say, "Oh, if we can just get our standard up to that of the Virginia University we shall be all right." Such praise from a progressive university like Vanderbilt is very gratifying, and shows that rivalry grows there like a flower and not like a weed. * In reviewing my work, I find it necessary to call attention to the fact that the University is leading in the South along new lines of education as well as along the old. Since Professor Mallet began to teach industrial chemistry in 1868, the University has sent out over a dozen professors of chemistry, all of whom have their own laboratories. The great success of the Miller Manual Training School has been largely due to the fact that all the principal teachers, and nearly all the subordinate ones, have been University men; and the best school of the kind in Maryland has been since its foundation in the hands of an alumnus of the University.

SUBSTITUTION OF ELECTIVE FOR CURRICULAR SYSTEM.

To enter into a discussion of the respective merits of the elective and curricular systems, though logically not out of place here, would scarcely harmonize with the promise just made. I can dwell on only one point of advantage which the elective system offers, naturally the one which in my opinion has most increased the influence of the University upon the South, viz., the fact that under the elective system poor men who desire to become proficient in one study can come to the University at a moderate expense, and in one year by hard work fit themselves as thoroughly in that special study as they can under the ordinary college system in three or four years. It is easy to see what a powerful lever this has been for raising the poorer classes throughout the South; nor is the beneficial reaction upon the wealthier classes less apparent or important. When we come to the statistical part of our work, we shall see that the above reasoning is in no sense fanciful.

HONOR SYSTEM OF DISCIPLINE.

I shall be equally brief with regard to the third cause mentioned, viz., the confidence reposed in the students in allowing them to exercise college discipline by means of the honor system. To argue at length as to the merits of this system would be superfluous. College spies are as odious as those of government, and have not as much excuse for their existence. All the best principles of paternalism have been present at the University, but the worst principles have been banished since its foundation. The history of the institution itself furnishes the best commentary upon the workings of the honor system. Only one instance is recorded of any serious insubordination, and the cure for that insubordination was found in an appeal to the honor of the guilty parties. The effects of such training are not doubtful. Self-reliance, love of truth, jealousy for the good name of all with whom one is intimately connected-these are qualities which were inculcated in every student, and which went to form that type of Southern manhood which has had so many noble exemplars.1

1 With regard to the honor system as extended to examinations, it may be interesting to note that such a thing as cheating is almost unheard-of, although the fullest freedom is allowed to the students during the hours set for the examination. The few instances that occur of a student's taking unfair advantage of this confidence reposed in him furnish further proofs of the excellent results of the honor system; for it is the students who practically expel the culprit, the faculty's power of expulsion being rarely exercised. An interesting letter upon this subject, addressed to the Hon. N. H. R. Dawson, Commissioner of Education, by John T. Harris, Jr., of Harrisonburg, Va., now lies before me. I cannot do better than quote his closing sentence: "It [the principle of relying upon a student's honor during examinations] is now a part of the life of the institution, and there are none of her alumni who do not remember with feelings of intense satisfaction that the honors of their alma mater are all the more worth the wearing, because they are not only testimonials of mental attainments, but evidence as well the fact of their having been fairly and honorably obtained."

BALANCE HELD BETWEEN THE SECTS AND PARTIES.

The fourth cause of the University's influence was stated to be the even balance held between sect and sect, party and party. Somewhat before the foundation of Mr. Jefferson's ideal college a reaction had set in against the religious indifference of the preceding generation. The history of the colonial church in Virginia is not a bright one, and after the Revolution the gloom deepens. French thought seems to have played an important part in strengthening the general opposition to religion; but that opposition had long been at work in the form of indifference-a form which, though it may be called weak from a philosophical stand-point, is in its effects upon the lower classes of society most subtle and dangerous. It is a mistake to suppose that the gentry alone were irreligious; the clergy and the common people were equally so. Here and there a man like Devereux Jarratt would succeed in arousing some religious enthusiasm; but one has only to read his letters of 1794 and 1795 to see the truth of the statements made above. Indeed, he gives as his reason for writing his life that he must be doing something, for, work as he would, his clerical duties left him ample time for bitter reflection. It is not my intention to describe the manner in which the revival was conducted. By 1825 its effects were very mauifest.' That Mr. Jefferson was foolish enough to believe that he could establish, in the face of this reaction (to say nothing of the total inutility of the project), a university to be conducted on atheistical principles, I, at least, can never be brought to believe. That such a report was long current is true; but in view of the statistics I am about to present, I cannot think that it did the University any great harm. The opinion that the new institution was to be a seminary for atheists has left its evil fruits, as everything that is false must do; but it is a com fort to think that the holders of the opinion gathered the crop. It has not even yet wholly died out; but sensible people are at last becoming a little ashamed to express it—a proof of the truth of the assertion I am about to make, that this principle of holding an even balance between the sects (and the same is true to a less degree of parties) has liberalized Southern. thought to a most gratifying extent. If any of my readers' are opposed to such liberalizing influences, the argument may as well be dropped here; to those who appreciate the necessity of such influences, any further discussion of the point will seem superfluous.

1For an account of the condition of the early church in Virginia, see Henshaw's Memoir of Bishop Moore, Chapter IV (Philadelphia, 1843); see also Bishop Meade's Old Churches, etc., Article I; but the best source of all is the "Life of the Reverend Devereux Jarratt, Rector of Bath Parish, Dinwiddie County, Virginia, written by Himself, in a series of letters addressed to the Rev. John Coleman," etc. Baltimore: printed by Warner & Hanna, 1806. This book, in addition to its historical value, is as interesting as a novel. But for certain obvious considerations one might imagine Defoe had written it.

HIGH QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PROFESSORS.

In considering the fifth cause mentioned, viz., the high qualifications, both mental and moral, of the men chosen as instructors, I shall endeavor to avoid prolixity; but, when one is describing character, details are often invaluable, and I may have to employ them, even at the risk of some impatience on the part of my reader. It can hardly be doubted that the influence of a few fine teachers upon their scholars will be felt over almost the whole territory from which those scholars are drawn. Indeed, this will be readily admitted in the case of men of genius; such names as that of Coleridge, or, if a teacher in the professional sense of the word must be chosen, of Dr. Arnold, will at once recur to every mind. Nor must the proposition be essentially modified when we speak of men below the rank of genius; probably the influence they exert will not be so great, but even this is by no means certain. It remains then for me to show as briefly as I can that the faculty of the University of Virginia has been composed of men whose influence has been great and for the good. To avoid the invidiousness inherent in such an undertaking, is by no means an easy task; but the attempt must be made. I need hardly state that I do not intend to refer here to any professor who is still living.

Mr. Jefferson, determined that his pet institution should not start handicapped, had to look to Europe for a majority of the first faculty. "Only the two professorships of law and moral philosophy," says Prof. Schele De Vere, "Mr. Jefferson, with his usual tact and intuitive justness of perception, determined to bestow at all hazards upon natives, as the subjects here to be taught ought to be national in the highest sense of the word. He even suggested that the text-books to be used by the professor of law should be prescribed, so that orthodox political principles' might be taught and the vestal flame of republicanism' be kept alive." This last is not exactly what we should have expected from a statesman so far ahead of his age. Possibly he was not serious. Certain it is that, had his suggestion been adopted, the Andover coutroversy would have had its parallel in politics. The two native professors were George Tucker in the chair of moral philosophy, and John Tayloe Lomax in the chair of law. We shall speak of these before turning our attention to the distinguished foreigners whom Mr. Jefferson invited over to Virginia.

GEORGE TUCKER.

George Tucker was a native of Bermuda, but was educated at William and Mary College, and for the rest of his life was a resident of the State of Virginia. He engaged at first in the practice of the law, and such was his success, that he was chosen a member of Congress in 1819, and held his seat until called to the University in 1825. In Congress he won deserved recognition as a debater and a constitutional lawyer. He had been known as an author before Mr. Jefferson's choice placed