1893 LONDON UNIVERSITY REFORM 335 



4. The University chest is to receive all fees and other funds 

 for University purposes; and the Professors are to be paid out 

 of it, according to work done for the University thus putting 

 an end to the present commercial competition of teaching insti- 

 tutions. 



5. In all questions of Teaching, Examination, and Discipline 

 the authority of the Senate is to be supreme (saving appeal to 

 the Privy Council). 



Your questions will be readily answered if these postulates 

 are kept in view. 



In the case you put, the temptation to rivalry would not 

 exist; and I should imagine that the Senate would refuse funds 

 for the purpose of duplicating an existing Institution, unless 

 very strong grounds for so doing could be shown. In short, 

 they would adopt the plan which commends itself to you. 



That to which I am utterly opposed is the creation of an 

 Established Church Scientific, with a hierarchical organisation 

 and a professorial Episcopate. I am fully agreed with you that 

 all trading competition between different teaching institutions 

 is a thing to be abolished (see No. 4 above). 



On the other hand, intellectual competition is a very good 

 thing, and perfect freedom of learning and teaching the best of 

 all things. 



If you put a physical, chemical, or biological bishop at the 

 head of the teachers of those sciences in London, you will do 

 your best to destroy that freedom. My bar to any catastrophe 

 of that sort lies in No. 3. Let us take the case of Biology. I 

 suppose there will be, at least, half a dozen Professoriates in 

 different branches of this subject; each Professor will be giving 

 the same amount of time and energy to University work, and 

 will deserve the same pay. Each, if he is worth his salt, will 

 be a man holding his own views on general questions, and hav- 

 ing as good a right as any other to be heard. Why is one to be 

 given a higher rank and vastly greater practical influence than 

 all the rest ? Why should not each be a " University Professor ' : 

 and have his turn on the Senate in influencing the general policy 

 of the University? The nature of things drives men more and 

 more into the position of specialists. Why should one specialist 

 represent a whole branch of science better than another, in 

 Council or in Administration ? 



I am afraid we cannot build upon the analogy of Cambridge. 

 In the first place London is not Cambridge ; and, in the second, 

 Michael Fosters do not grow on every bush. 



