March 15, 1877] 



NATURE 



429 



professor is a very awkward title. Professor adjunct, or 

 assistant professor is distinctly objectionable. It seems 

 to me that there is much to be said in favour of calling 

 the new professors by the simple title of professor, and of 

 inventing for the higher and more select posts some such 

 style as professor director, or professor rector ; indeed, 

 the duties of a member of this class would probably in 

 many cases consist largely in a general guidance and 

 supervision of the studies carried on in his ownparticular 

 science. 



His plans also provide assistants both for teaching 

 and research, demonstrators, &c., and include the estab- 

 lishment of what he proposes to call " senior scholar- 

 ships," z>., posts to be filled by able young men at the 

 close of their student career for the purpose of enabling 

 them to devote themselves free from all trammels, for two, 

 three, or more of their best years, to learning research. 

 This is, indeed, at present, prrhaps the most crying want 

 of the university, a want most imperfectly met or not met 

 at all by fellowships as now administered. 



The scheme by which Mr. Trotter proposes to unite the 

 university and the colleges in the function of appointing 

 and regulating this professoriate requires development ; 

 but it has the great merit of strengthening the hands of 

 the various "boards of studies," and if adopted would 

 soon grow into a natural and healthy form of govern- 

 ment under which the hiring, by candidates for university 

 posts, of special trains for the conveyance of their out- 

 lying voters, would become a grim and a grotesque 

 reminiscence of the past. It must be remembered, how- 

 ever, that no artificial scheme will secure purity of 

 election, unless the electors be thoroughly leavened with 

 the leaven of loyalty to learning ; and that such loyalty will 

 only be found where research, rather than teaching, is 

 regarded as the great aim of university life, where 

 Leah is woo'd chiefly in the hope that Rachel may be 

 won. 



All these proposed changes, to say nothing of univer- 

 sity laboratories, museums, &c., require money ; and in 

 the second part of his pamphlet Mr. Trotter discusses 

 the methods by which the wealth of the colleges may be 

 rendered available for university purposes. Here two 

 plans present themselves. There is, first, what may be 

 lied the " social" plan. In this the colleges are sup- 

 sed to undertake the care and protection of certain 

 Diversity posts or institutions, this college, for instance, 

 applying the funds, in the shape of fellowships or other- 

 wise, for this professorship, or taking the charge of that 

 laboratory. It may be regretted that Mr. Trotter has not 

 entered more fully into the discussion of this plan, which 

 is sure to find ardent supporters in the colleges. It offers 

 the college a quid pro quo, and promises to strengthen 

 rather than weaken " college life." The difficulties of the 

 plan lie in the question of election. If the university 

 elects, the college may have to receive into its bosom a 

 man whom it detests ; if the college elects, it may not 

 unlikely choose the very man the university would seek 

 to avoid. Such a scheme cannot be made to work satis- 

 factorily even with the help of elaborate checks and 

 counter-checks, unless the actions of both colleges 

 and university are directed by thorough loyalty to 

 learning. 



The second plan is that of " taxation," or as a small 

 but prominent party prefers to call it, " confiscation," by 

 which the colleges are called upon to contribute, in pro- 

 portion to their wealth, to the common university funds. 

 And on this point Mr. Trotter's suggestion that the con- 

 tributions " should be variable within limits, and fixed 

 from time to time, in accordance with the wants of the 

 university, by some competent authority representing the 

 colleges," is worthy of consideration as an improvement on 

 the older scheme of a fixed contribution in the form of a 

 definite percentage tax on the collegiate divisible revenues. 

 At the same time it is difficult to overlook the possible 

 occurrence of bitter and frequent discussions as to what, 

 at any given time, are to be considered the actual needs 

 of the university. 



The money which the colleges are in the one way or 

 another to be called upon to devote to the university 

 must come from the pockets of the scholars, or the 

 fellows, or the heads of houses ; and the third part of the 

 pamphlet is devoted to a consideration of these three 

 classes. 



Concerning the fellows, Mr. Trotter, with a boldness 

 which will undoubtedly prevent many Conservatives from 

 recognising at first how moderate a compromise his whole 

 plan of reform really is, writes as follows : — " On the 

 whole, I am disposed, mainly for the reasons put forward 

 by Mr. Sidgwick in the Contemporary Review (April, 

 1876), to advocate the abolition, or at any rate the restric- 

 tion within very narrow limits, of the class of fellowships 

 held purely as prizesP Such a proposal will be opposed 

 tooth and nail by many both within and outside the 

 university who have never attempted to answer Mr. 

 Sidgwick's arguments ; and Mr. Trotter himself states 

 that he imagines " public opinion " is not at present pre- 

 pared to support so extreme a measure. 



In the matter of the scholars Mr, Trotter proposes no 

 marked innovation, though he seems to think changes 

 of some kind are desirable. To his general approval of 

 present practices he will find few demurrers either within 

 or outside the university ; and yet the evil influences 

 which the system of scholarships is secretly exercising 

 on both education and learning are well worth considera- 

 tion ; mutatis mutandis^ many of the arguments against 

 prize fellowships might be well applied to prize scholar- 

 ships. 



The heads of houses form the last topic on which 

 Mr, Trotter dwells, and those who know university life, 

 whatever their opinions, must award to him the praise of 

 having brought forward into open and plain-speaking dis- 

 cussion a subject on which, for many reasons, it is diffi- 

 cult for any fellow of a college to say his mind. That 

 he boldly advocates the abolition of heads of houses is 

 perhaps less important than that the question should be 

 thoroughly considered. At the same time his argu- 

 ments seem irresistible j he says all that can be said in 

 favour of maintaining these ancient offices, but concludes 

 that all the advantages they offer might be secured by 

 other arrangements which would bring to the university 

 at the least an annual income of 15,000/., and yet even- 

 tually be felt by no college as a burden— by some, possibly, 

 as a relief. 



M. Foster 



