January 4, 19 12] 



NATURl. 



2>^2> 



ithought that the extent to which this power could be 

 exercised under the present charter was one for a 

 court of law. 



I doubt," he said, ' if you could change it. You 

 could not change its nature substantially. It is a ques- 

 tion of substance. Minor modifications undoubtedly, but 

 anything which woula really change the nature of the 

 school you have no power to do, and it would be chang- 

 ing the nature of it, if chiefly occupied with pre-graduate 

 instruction — it would be a substantial alteration in my 

 view — if you changed it into a post-graduate system of 

 education '" (Question 7840). To this Sir William White 

 replied : "If it were considered desirable, on national 

 grounds, to make the change, that would mean an altera- 

 tion of the Charter." 



This important question is discussed elsewhere in 

 ithe evidence. Sir Arthur Rticker expressed himself 

 as strongly opposed to the policy. 



"If this policy were adopted at present," he said, " the 

 institutions forming the Imperial College would be ruined 

 financially. Then, again, it is more than doubtful if the 

 ideal of having none but post-graduate students can be 

 attained. The well-known case of Johns Hopkins Uni- 

 versity is in point. It started as a post-graduate institu- 

 tion, with the best professors that could be got, and it 

 was a most successful institution, but some five or six 

 \ears ago they had to give up their scheme, and the latest 

 statistics I have looked at showed that about one-fourth 

 of the college consisted of undergraduates, instead of being 

 wholly post-graduate. I do not think that what, under 

 'he most favourable conditions, failed there is likely to 

 iicceed in Londop, and, if it does succeed, success cannot 

 ■ ■ attained for a very long time. We have already had 

 (imething like 700 students; we are now spending just 

 111 a quarter of a million pounds on new buildings, and, 

 putting it at a very low figure indeed, could very easily 

 liave 1000 students. If there were none but post-graduate 

 students there, they would take up more room than the 

 ordinary undergraduates, but if we say only 700, I think 

 the ideal of having 700 post-graduate students in techno- 

 logical subjects concentrated in one institution in London 

 i> at present absolutely chimerical " (Question 9094). 



While, however, the witnesses for the Imperial 

 College maintained generally their claim to autonomy, 

 iliey discussed in a not entirely unfriendly way the 

 lK)ssibility of devising some faculty organisation in the 

 University which would meet their special require- 

 ments. Such an organisation they regarded as a 

 stcond-best alternative to the establishment of a dis- 

 tinct technological university, as to which, however, 

 not iTiuch encouragement was forthcoming from the 

 Commission. The chairman stated, early in the 

 ' vidence, that "The Commission feel, that if it can 

 !■ avoided, it is not desirable that there should be 

 Ao bodies of university rank in the London area " 

 (Ouestion 7727), and this question was not further 

 discussed. 



In the evidence of Prof. M. J, M. Hill, then vice-- 

 chancellor, some interesting information is published, 

 we l)elieve for the first time, on the proposals put for- 

 ward by the .Senate of the University before the issue 

 of the charter for the Imperial College, from which 

 il appears that the Senate was prepared to consent 

 to some alteration of its own constitution in the 

 direction of increasing the representation of technical 

 interests, and it advocated the government of the 

 Science College and the Technical College by distinct 

 ■committees. 



With reference to the organisation of medical educa- 

 tion in London, some very interesting evidence is pub- 

 lished by Mr. Abraham Fle.xner, of the Carnegie 

 loundation of New York, Prof. Friedrlch Miiller. of 



NO. 2201. VOL. 88] 



Munich, Sir William Osier, and others. There 

 appears to be general agreement as to the urgent need 

 for the reorganisation of the London medical schools 

 in order to promote in a more thorough way the 

 scientific study of medicine. It was admitted 

 by several witnesses tliat London students have 

 exceptional advantages in the amount and variety 

 of clinical material available in the hospitals, 

 but the system under which the clinical teach- 

 ing is almost entirely undertaken by physicians and 

 surgeons whose time is very fully taken up in the 

 practice of their profession was considered to be defec- 

 tive, though there was no strong feeling that even 

 the principal teachers should be rigidly barred from 

 professional work. The Continental and American 

 systems of hospital clinics are described in detail, and 

 the desirability of organising one or more of the 

 London hospitals and medical schools on similar lines 

 is considered, with reference both to the financial 

 aspects of the question and the difficulties arising 

 from vested interests. As, however, the medical 

 evidence is not at present complete, it may be well to 

 defer further consideration for the present. 



The fourth report of the Commission [Cd. 6015] was 

 published on December 23. This is substantially the 

 first report, for it is the first document which has been 

 issued in which the Commission gives expression to 

 its corporate opinions. On the whole the report must 

 be pronounced as reassuring, for it shows that the 

 Commissioners have risen above petty and sectional 

 jealousies, and have formed a high ideal of the 

 University which London should possess. The Com- 

 missioners evidently wish the University to put its 

 house in order in a physical sense as a preliminary 

 to a scheme of reorganisation in an academic sense, 

 for the report deals exclusively with the need for a 

 permanent building for the University, "appropriate 

 in design to its dignity and importance, adequate in 

 extent, and specially constructed for its purposes, 

 situated conveniently for the work it has to do, bearing 

 its name, and under its own control." 



The present building of the University at South 

 Kensington is condemned for various reasons, in 

 particular its situation, Government ownership, and 

 inadequacy. In adumbrating the form of new build- 

 ing required and the purposes to which it is to be put, 

 the Commission is forced to deal to some extent with 

 vexed questions of policy, but it lays special stress on 

 the need for a great hall and for suitable accommoda- 

 tion to promote the social interest of teachers, gradu- 

 ates, and students. Lecture halls and some library 

 accommodation would be required, but the Comrnis- 

 sion defer any definite judgment on the policy which 

 has been urged upon them from some quarters of 

 providing a series of research laboratories in direct 

 connection with the University. 



The Commission, in the last paragraph of its report, 

 appeals in eloquent terms to the generosity of bene- 

 factors in order that an endowment may be provided 

 for a reconstituted l^niversitv, and a new building 

 may be available which would be a visible sign of^ its 

 recognition and acceptance as a great public institu- 

 tion. "A great university is not self-supporting, and 

 ran never be so. .\s an institution for learning, in 

 which liberal education, instruction in the methods o' 

 advancing knowledge in a wide range of subjects, and 

 the highest professional training, are combined with 

 large scope for the free exorcise of thought and with 

 full opportunitv and encouragement for the systematic 

 prosecution of' research, it can never exist finanriallv 

 on the fees of its students." The report is dated 

 December 15. lOH. -^nd is signed by ail the Com- 

 missioners. 



