II.] THE HISTORY PRIZES. 41 and the connexion between legal and constitutional growth, are, as well as international law, a common ground between the two studies ; and I am not inclined to surrender the rights of my School in them any more than I should wish the lawyers to leave them wholly to us. T o some extent the relation of the studies is the same as that which subsists between Ecclesiastical History and Theology ; each is a very maimed affair without the other. It will not be our fault if the common ground is altogether lost. Next, to descend from the higher regions to the lower, I would say a word about the Historical Prizes. And in what I have to say, I hope I shall not bé understood to cast any slight on the very meritorious essays which have in the last few years received the Arnold, Stanhope, and Lothian Prizes. I have been on each occasion a judge, and have very carefully and anxiously observed the character of the productions sent in. The fact that in several instances the Prizes have not been awarded is a proof that where they have been awarded they have been, in the opinion of the judges, thoroughly well merited. But the experience of these years has not, on the whole, been encouraging. Of the Stanhope I need say little : it is intended to be an undergraduate prize ; the style of writing is scarcely of less importance in the estimation of the judges, as guided by the intention of the donor, than is the matter of the essay. For the Stanhope, too, there have always been plenty of competitors and no lack of creditable, very creditable, essays. But for the Arnold, which is a graduates' prize, and for the Lothian, which is common to both bachelors and undergraduates, I am sorry to say that there has not been lately good competition. I speak primarily of the modern side of the Arnold Prize ; the ancient side has been still more unproductive of good work. This lack of competition is not, I am sure, a sign of flagging interest in these studies. It is to be explained by a very