66 



NATURE 



[March 17, 192 1 



tion, the Report emphasises three principles from 

 which few will dissent — the preservation of the 

 autonomy of the Universities, the free interchange 

 of teachers among educational institutions, and 

 a wide choice of benefits for the beneficiaries ; but 

 it carefully omits to state, let alone to emphasise, 

 another important principle, viz. that University 

 teachers should have superannuation benefits at 

 least equivalent to those given by the State to 

 other teachers. Why the autonomy of the Uni- 

 versity should be emphasised in connection with 

 the question of superannuation is a mystery to 

 the plain man. No one suggests that an annual 

 grant from the Treasury of 1,500,000!. is going 

 to limit the autonomy of the Universities ; but 

 when University teachers ask that the School 

 Teachers (Superannuation) Act should be extended 

 to the Universities at an estimated additional cost 

 of no more than 70,000!. or 8o,oooL per annum, 

 the bogey of loss of autonomy is immediately 

 raised, and one wonders why. Again, it is one 

 thing to enunciate principles ; it is another to 

 carry them into practice. It is all very well for 

 the Committee to talk of the free interchange of 

 teachers and to express a pious hope that it will 

 materialise ; but the fact is, there exists at the 

 present moment a distinct barrier in the Super- 

 annuation Act to the free interchange of teachers, 

 and there is no guarantee that this barrier will 

 be removed. Further, while the sympathetic atti- 

 tude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the 

 senior members of the staffs who are precluded 

 from profiting by the full benefits of the federated 

 superannuation system is commendable, it is im- 

 portant to note that the capital sum necessary to 

 meet these grievances would amount to some- 

 thing like one and a half millions. Unless we 

 are greatly mistaken, Mr. Chamberlain has no 

 intention of asking the Government for any such 

 amount. The sum of half a million has been sug- 

 gested, which means that only about a third 

 of retrospective benefits will accrue to those in 

 the federated system. Under the Teachers Act 

 full benefits would accrue. Such distinctions as 

 these do not conduce to harmony, and University 

 teachers cannot be expected to remain content 

 under them. 



One or two other points may be noticed. The 

 observations on the tenure and status of teachers, 

 on equipment and accommodation, and particu- 

 larly those on libraries and special national needs, 

 are interesting and informative, but the suggestion 

 that the three University colleges — Reading, Not- 

 tingham, and Southampton — should each look out 

 NO. 2681, VOL. 107] 



for a patron University under the aegis of which 

 they might continue their present activities is not 

 alluring. We dislike the principle of a patron 

 University appointing representatives to approve 

 courses and curricula and nominating external 

 examiners. It smacks too much of educational 

 bureaucracy. Why should not these three col- 

 leges together constitute a new University and 

 work out their own destinies? In course of time, 

 when the financial position became easier, no 

 doubt they would hive off from one another as 

 full-fledged Universities. 



In a paragraph on finance the Report gives 

 some important facts and figures. In his letter 

 of July 16, 1920, Mr. Chamberlain states that, 

 subject to the overriding necessities of national 

 finance, he will submit to Parliament an increase 

 in the vote from one million to one and a half 

 millions in the estimate for 1921-22. While this 

 will make an appreciable difference, it will not meet 

 the needs of the present; other sources will have 

 to be drawn upon. It would be unwise to expect 

 much from a greater increase of fees — already the 

 fees are two or three times greater than they are in 

 America. Apparently little can be expected from 

 private benefactions. There remains, therefore, 

 the local authorities. The principle of a uniform 

 \d. rate throughout the country for University 

 education is sound, but the allocation of the vari- 

 ous areas to their respective Universities would be 

 difficult. All the same, looking to the future, the 

 Government might reasonably ask the University 

 Grants Committee to prepare a scheme of areas 

 for the purpose of a possible rate of this kind. 

 If such a scheme of rate aid were adopted, it 

 would naturally form a new basis for estimating 

 the Treasury contribution in the futuhe. 



Meteorological Physics. 



Physics of the Air. By Prof. W. J. Humphreys. 

 Pp. xi-l-665. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott 

 Co., 1920.) 5 dollars. 



STUDENTS of the science of the atmosphere 

 have read with interest and appreciation the 

 articles by Prof. W. J. Humphreys, of the 

 Weather Bureau of the United States, on various 

 aspects of the physics of the atmosphere which 

 appeared from time to time in the Journal of the 

 Franklin Institute of Philadelphia during the years 

 1917-20. The reproduction of these articles, re- 

 vised and collected into a book for publication by 

 the institute, is a notable and welcome event in 

 the history of the study of the air. 



