But whatever may be the best way of pro viding for the interests of the Bar, it seems clear that the allotment of L3OO a year apiece to all the successful competitors in University examinations, of whom about sixteen per cent, go to the Bar, is not a good adaptation of means to this end. And we have seen that in the case 'of the great majority of Fellows no similar need exists for giving this eleemosynary support after their education is completed. I pass, therefore, to consider the other argument by which these gifts are defended— that, namely, which points to the attractive and stimulative influence which they exercise as prizes for study. This argument, lam aware, appears Btrong to many ; but I must confess that twenty years' experience of University life has gradually led me to regard it far more unfavourably than the one just discussed. Con sidered as a means of support after education has tbeen completed, the prize-fellowship has (as we have just seen) a partial justification, though within a very limited range. In a small number of cases, it does meet a definite need, and there is at least a probability of its produc ing a certain amount of gain to the community; and even In the great majority of cases, where there is no such need, we have little ground for attributing to the institution any positively bad effects. There is no reason to believe that the pension drawn from academic endowments a' r (e.g.) a young schoolmaster at Eton or arrow is spent in any worse way than any other portion of the superfluous wealth of the community. But as a prize by which students may be attracted to the University, and sus tained in their industry when there, the Fellowship operates in a manner which must, Ithiiik/be pronounced positively pernicious. It places the University in a radically false le lationtnthe community, and seriously impairs its performance of its proper functions as a centre of intellectual life. 