NOTES 497 



mainly derived from the second Carnegie million, administered under Clause B — 

 alone, without counting an equivalent proportion of examination and degree 

 fees, more than paid the total salaries of the Geology staff, .£475. If the examina- 

 tion and degree fees are included and the external examiner's salary deducted, 

 there remains a balance of £173, which is more than enough to wipe out the item 

 of ^128 which the department is credited with receiving from the Carnegie Trust 

 out of the annual grant of ,£1,000 for equipment. Thus so far as the main provision 

 for science by the Carnegie Trust in Aberdeen is concerned, the money is diverted 

 to other purposes. 



The Chemistry Department, when the writer was appointed to the Professor- 

 ship, was credited in the 1913-14 accounts with the receipt of ,£534 of public 

 money — that is, ,£149 from the Carnegie Trust out of the annual .£1,000 grant for 

 equipment, and ,£385 from the Exchequer. Nevertheless, counting in an old 

 endowment which brought in .£194, it was entirely supported by the class and 

 examination fees paid by the students taught, without this .£534, which was 

 diverted to other purposes. 



By the Act of 1889 all financial control and responsibility was taken out of the 

 hands of the Professors, and vested in the University Court, who were enjoined 

 by Ordinance 26, Clause V, to keep a separate account of the fees, distinguishing 

 those drawn from each class, and by Clause XI, in providing for the educational 

 needs of the several Faculties, to have due regard, inter alia, to the contributions 

 made by the Faculties respectively to the funds of the University. 



Latterly the accounts have ceased even to attempt to conform with the first of 

 these obligations, and for lack of this information it is impossible to say where the 

 moneys nominally given to Chemistry and Geology really go. It is not suggested 

 that they go to Arts or Law, or any particular Faculty, specially. The Court alone 

 can give the necessary information. 



A questionable system seems to be in vogue, euphemistically known as "saving 

 the General Fund," whereby grants of public money are given not directly only to 

 such departments as are spending moi - e than they earn, but even to those like 

 Chemistry, which are earning what they spend. The Court is under obligation to 

 report to the Government and the Carnegie Trust annually the manner in which 

 the grants have been expended, and the nominal purpose reported is not in all 

 cases the real one. It is not a question of principle, whether a flourishing depart- 

 ment ought to support one that is not, but of straightforward bookkeeping. Moneys 

 are given to a department A, the effect of which is to transfer the equivalent 

 amount of fees to another department B. A is credited in the annual statements 

 with the receipt of the money, but B gets it. Why is not B given the money 

 directly instead of A, and the transaction recorded in the accounts ? The answer 

 is that though A, by the terms of the gift, is necessarily a proper recipient, B may 

 or may not be. 



Whatever may have been the abuses of the regime before the Act of 1889, the 

 fact that such a subject as Chemistry at least would have been better off, if it had 

 been left as it was, in spite of all the wealth from the Government and the Carnegie 

 Trust, which has since come to the coffers of the University, is a sufficient indict- 

 ment of the present system. 



Enough has, perhaps, been said to show that some inquiry not only into the 

 Carnegie Trust, but also into the manner the financial system of the Scottish 

 Universities is operating, is called for. It is not mainly a question of money. 

 Money is merely the measure. Here is a department, original investigation in 

 which, it has been shown, is vital to the future prosperity of the country. It 



