xxv.ii LONDON UNIVERSITY 49 



the other side by those who wished to maintain 

 the existing order of things, and were afraid that 

 he sympathised too much with the other side. 



Sir Michael Foster was one of his friends who 

 urged him to modify his original address to the 

 electors and not to make so strong a point of 

 giving to Convocation the veto on any proposal 

 of the Royal Commission which had been 

 appointed to look into the whole question of 

 reconstitution of the University. 



Sir John did not feel, however, that he could 

 depart from the terms of his address, and Sir 

 M. Foster, true to his promise, supported him 

 loyally, as also did Sir J, Fitch, and indeed all 

 the Vice-Presidents of his Committee. 



Some of his other old supporters and friends 

 were less amenable. Every effort was indeed 

 made, but ineffectually, to find some rival Candi- 

 date. Sir W. Thiselton Dyer and Prof. S. 

 Thompson were especially keen in opposition. 

 Both attacked his view in Nature, and the 

 latter also in the following letters. 



MORLAND, ChISLETT RoAD, 



W. Hampstead, N.W., July 2nd. 



Dear Sir John Lubbock — I have received to-day 

 a copy of your Election Address, and am glad that you 

 take the reasonable view that the Gresham Scheme, with 

 safeguards, will meet every reasonable requirement 

 without injuring the present work of the University. 



But I am, I must confess, amazed that you should 

 ■without qualification, have indicated your disposition to 

 oppose the Reconstitution Bill, unless it contains a 

 clause which would obviously prevent any independent 

 or self-respecting man from serving on the Royal Com- 

 mission. 



Do you suppose any first-rate man would serve on a 

 Commission, to hear and weigh claims and settle con- 



VOL. 11 E 



