i68 



NATURE 



[November i, 1917 



of early maturing breeds and killing- off at an earlier 

 stage of fattening than has been customary, the 

 result will be a great economy in concentrated 

 feeding-stuffs, and such a reduction of the head of 

 cattle can be effected as will equalise the demand 

 for feeding-stuffs and the supply. When the total 

 reduction in live stock becomes such that the 

 normal meat supply can no longer be maintained, 

 recourse must be had to increased importation. 

 Should this step prove necessary, it will obviously 

 save tonnage to im|x>rt meat rather than fodder. 



Agriculturists will find many points for criti- 

 cism in the details of Prof. Wood's estimates, 

 which are admittedly and of necessity only rough 

 approximations in many particulars, but such criti- 

 cism can scarcely shake the soundness of his 

 general conclusions. 



Too much importance cannot be attached to 

 Prof. Wood's appeal for a careful examination of 

 the results of the methods which have been used 

 in Germany for carrying out a policy framed on 

 similar lines, so that we may avoid the mistakes 

 which have been in a great measure the cause of 

 the food troubles of Germany. It is suggested 

 that the essential features of a successful policy 

 must comprise, first, the prohibition of the use 

 of sound potatoes and cereals for any purpose 

 other than human food, with certain limited excep- 

 tions ; secondly, the settmg up of maximum prices, 

 rather than fixed prices, for all agricultural com- 

 modities, such prices to be fixed in due relation 

 to one another to ensure maximum production of 

 indispensable products ; and lastly, the rigid 

 enforcement of such regulations by the infliction 

 of penalties which none could afford to risk. Prof. 

 Wood is to be congratulated on the clearest 

 exposition of the food situation that has yet been 

 submitted to the lay public, and the widest pos- 

 sible circulation of his views is eminently to be 

 desired. C. C. 



UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATION IN 

 PARLIAMENT. 



THE provisions of the Franchise Bill as regards 

 the representation of Universities are based 

 on the recommendations of the Speaker's Con- 

 ference on Electoral Reform, issued early in the 

 present year, under which Oxford and Cambridge 

 retain two members each, London is grouped 

 with Durham, Manchester, Birmingham, Liver- 

 pool, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, and Wales to form 

 a constituency returning three members, and the 

 Scottish Universities are to form a single constitu- 

 ency returning three members. The degree is to 

 be the basis for electoral qualification. In view 

 of the attacks to which the University franchise 

 has been subject in recent years, this full recogni- 

 tion of the principle of University representation 

 will be gratifying to those who believe that it con- 

 stitutes a valuable element in our electoral system. 

 As Mr. Balfour said in the House of Commons 

 in July, 191 3, the representation of Universities is 

 an honour paid by the country to the cause of 

 higher education, which gives the power of 

 getting into the House of Commons men of 

 NO. 2505, VOL. 100] 



science, men of scholarship, men of special and 

 peculiar gifts quite alien from the ordinary work- 

 ing politician. It is, both in theory and practice^ 

 a form of proportional representation, enabling 

 men and women of special training and experience 

 to form themselves into constituencies and to 

 return to Parliament representatives qualified to 

 promote higher education and the advancement 

 of science and learning, aspects of our public life 

 which are least likely to secure representation 

 through the ordinary channels. 



The recommendations of the Speaker's Con- 

 ference, while extending the University franchise 

 to the newer Universities, articulate well with the 

 present system of University representation, save 

 in one particular, viz. the proposal to deprive 

 the University of London of the separate repre- 

 sentation which it has enjoyed since 1867. Nature 

 is not concerned with party politics, but there 

 can be no' doubt that the reason for this proposal 

 ■ — though no explanation is offered in the report 

 of the Conference — was to form a large University 

 constituency (by grouping London with the newer 

 Universities), which might confidently be expected 

 to return one, or possibly two Liberal members. 

 In the earlier years of its Parliamentary- repre- 

 sentation London returned three Liberal members 

 — Robert Lowe, Sir John Lubbock, and Sir 

 Michael Foster. At the present time, however, 

 all the University members in Parliament are Con- 

 servative or Liberal Unionist, a state of things 

 which is probably responsible for the proposed 

 adjustment. It is most unfortunate, however, 

 that for party reasons the University of London 

 should be victimised by being deprived of its right 

 of separate representation, and this at a time 

 when thousands of its graduates on active service 

 are unable to make their influence felt on the ques- 

 tion. If the principle of grouping is sound, it 

 should have been applied to Oxford and Cam- 

 bridge, which not only retain separate representa- 

 tion, but are also to return two members each. 



On the basis of the number of their graduates, 

 neither Oxford nor Cambridge has a stronger 

 claim for two members than London. To secure 

 the representation of the smaller Universities 

 some method of grouping is inevitable ; but the 

 result of joining London, with its roll of graduates 

 many times longer than that of any of the other 

 Universities of the group, will be to form an un- 

 wieldy and heterogeneous constituency, domi- 

 nated by the London vote. 



The Times Educational Supplement has sug- 

 gested in a leading article that, ' ' had 

 the history of the University [of London] 

 l>een less chequered, it may be that it 

 would have retained separate representation." 

 Those who know anything about the University 

 of London will be disposed to think, on the con- 

 trary, that the University would be held in higher 

 respect if its history had been more chequered, if 

 it could show more of the scars of battle against 

 ignorance and obscurantism. However that may 

 be, the English system Is to build on tradition, and 

 to preserve principles and Institutions which, as 



