March 23, 191 1] 



NATURE 



115 



RECONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY Of 



LONDON.^ 

 'j^HE period covered by Part ii. of Sir William 

 -*■ Allchin's account of the reconstruction of the 

 Jniversity of London^ is comparatively short— three 

 ears, but it was an important period, that included 

 ttempts and failures that should afford valuable in- 

 srmation to the Commission now sitting for the 

 ■urpose of offering advice towards the further pro- 

 ress of reconstruction. The portion of Sir William 

 LUchin's account novi^ before us occupies, with the 

 jppendices, upwards of 500 pages; it presents the 

 dvantages, as well, perhaps, as the disadvantages, of 

 compendious Blue-book, containing numerous quota- 

 Ions from original documents, together with a de- 

 ailed account from the point of view of a highly 

 jualified witness of events in the order in which they 

 developed, while, as indicated by the author himself, 

 ihe account is substantially a compilation of actual 

 documents ; and although the period dealt with is very 

 short, the compendious character of some of these 

 documents is such that Part ii. by itself contains a 

 reasonably intelligible, as well as a very authoritative, 

 iiccount of the process of reconstruction up to the 

 date of the Selborne Commission of 1888. Although 

 in some respects the difficulties of reconstruction have 

 altered since 1891, the nature of the problem to be 

 solved by the Commissioners remains the same, while 

 the conditions to be fulfilled have become more 

 apparent. 



It is as clear to-day as it was twenty j^ears ago 

 that a real university is required in London ; a uni- 

 versity in which examination is not divorced from 

 teaching, in which the teacher who has been the 

 examiner of his pupils during their whole curriculum 

 shall, with the cooperation and consent of an inde- 

 pendent authority, "brand his own herrings." It is 

 equally clear from the extension and development 

 imposed by the force of circumstances upon the Uni- 

 versity of London — the examining body — when it was 

 separated from University College — the teaching body 

 — that upon the university of the metropolis devolves 

 the duty of holding up to the British Empire the 

 standard of excellence. There must be a university 

 belonging to the great province of London, as there is 

 a University of Manchester and a University of Liver- 

 pool, and there must be a university in London be- 

 longing, not only to London, but also to York or 

 Toronto or Melbourne, and there must be in London, 

 not two universities, but one university. On its 

 metropolitan side, by force of geographical circum- 

 stance, it must include many colleges variously 

 situated but under one common government. On its 

 Imperial side it must say, ''Come and be tested," not 

 only to the student at the end of his first few years 

 of pupilage, but to the perpetual student, to the 

 ]>rofessor who has succeeded in learning something 

 from Nature at first hand. 



It is as true now as it was in 1888 to say that "it 

 would be a mistake to constitute a local teaching 

 university in London as a mere branch of a great 

 (Kumining body," and it would be an advantage now, 

 :is in 1888, if the title " London " were held by the 

 leaching university, whilst the existing University of 

 London should be styled " Imperial " (p. 32) ; and 

 while it is probable that the new University of London 

 would feed the old university, it is hardly less probable 

 that the Imperial University of London would play 

 iis natural part in the intellectual commerce of the 

 Empire. 



' "An Account of the Reconstruction of the University of London." 



< fimpiled by Sir W. H. Alichin. Part ii. From the Appointment of the 



' rst Royal Commission to the Rejection of the Scheme of the Senate by 



evocation, 1888 to iSoi. Pp. vii+449+c. (London: H.M.S.O., Wyman 



id Sons, Ltd.; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; Dublin: E. Ponsonby, 



Ltd., n.d.) Price 5.?. 



NO. 



2160, VOL. 86] 



No one is better qualified than Sir William Alichin 

 to present us with a clear account of the complication 

 of causes to which the gradually progressive depletion 

 of the London medical schools was attributable, and 

 to the share in that depletion for which the University 

 of London was responsible by reason of its high 

 standards (p. 89). But recent history, and especially 

 the comparative failure of the movement for the con- 

 centration of preliminary and intermediate medical 

 studies, do not fall within the period dealt with. 



Much water has, indeed, flowed under the bridges 

 since 1891, and the final failure of the two teaching 

 colleges on the one hand, arid of the two royal colleges 

 on the other, to produce, either separately or con- 

 jointly, any generally acceptable scheme of university 

 organisation, are now matters of ancient history. 

 Reconstruction has taken place under the advice of 

 the Cowper Commission of 1892-4, and of the Statu- 

 tory Commission of 1898, and the university recon- 

 structed by the Commissioners appointed under the 

 University of London Act, 1898, is now eleven j-ears 

 old ; but it may be doubted whether the present struc- 

 ture can be regarded as possessing its definite and 

 permanent form. The doubt expressed by the 

 academic moiety of the Selborne Commissioners as to 

 the possibility "of effectually combining the functions 

 of an examining body, and of a teaching as well as an 

 examining body, in the University of London," 

 appears to have been verified by the progress of events, 

 and advantage has been taken of the new fact of 

 the foundation of the Imperial College of Science and 

 Technology to bring the whole question of university 

 reorganisation in London under the scrutiny of yet 

 another Ro5^al Commission. 



The report in 1906 of the Departmental Committee 

 on the Royal College of Science, suggesting that a 

 Royal Commission should be appointed to consider 

 what changes should be made in the character and 

 constitution of the university, which would make it 

 desirable to amalgamate an imperial college with the 

 university, succeeded in the following year by the 

 foundation of the " Imperial College of Science and 

 Technology," and a year later by the request that 

 a Royal Commission should be appointed for this 

 purpose — have led to the appointment of the Commis- 

 sion of 1908, with terms of reference which have set 

 before it a task of far greater scope and complexity 

 than was allotted to either of the two previous Uni- 

 versity Commissions. Lord Selborne's Commission 

 was Instructed 



to inquire whether any, and what, kind of new university 

 or powers are required for the advancement of higher 

 education in London. 



The terms of reference to Mr. Haldane's Commis- 

 sion, now sitting, are as follows : — 



To inquire into the working of the present organisation 

 of the University of London, and into other facilities for 

 advanced education (general, professional, and technical), 

 existing in London for persons of either sex above 

 secondary-school age ; to consider what provisions should 

 exist in the metropolis for university teaching and re- 

 search ; to make recommendations as to the relations 

 which should in consequence subsist between the Uni- 

 versity of London, its incorporated colleges, the Imperial 

 College of Science and Technology, the other schools of 

 the University, and the various public institutions and 

 bodies concerned ; and, further, to recommend as to any 

 changes of constitution and organisation which , appear 

 desirable. . In considering these matters, regard should 

 also be had to the facilities for education and research 

 which the metropolis should afford for specialist and 

 advanced students in connection with the provision exist- 

 ing in other parts of the United Kingdom and of his 

 Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas. 



