JUNE l6, I 



NATURE 



155 



objection to the present scheme, I do not kno\v why the 

 personal feelings of London graduates should stand in the way 

 of a great national reform— of a national development of higher 

 education— when in the scheme, as I shall presently show, their 

 rights and interests, such as they are, are most carefully and 

 most securely preserved. There is a further objection brought 

 forward which we shall no doubt hear of from the right hon. 

 baronet, the member for the University of London, and that is 

 a claim that the Convocation of London should have a veto 

 upon any scheme which Parliament may- enact for the purpose 

 of developing the University of London. That claim is based 

 upon Article 21 of the charter, which says that if a new or 

 supplemental charter is given by the Crown to the University of 

 London, the power of accepting it shall be exercised by the 

 Convocation of the University. The answer to that is, first of 

 all, that this is a restriction which applies to the charter and 

 not to the action of this House. The Crown may very ^jroperly 

 restrain its own power of granting any further charter, but it 

 cannot restrain the power of the Houses of Parliament." 



Sir John Gorst proceeded to point out how carefully the 

 objections and fears of those who are opposed to this Bill have 

 been met in the scheme which has been laid before Parliament. 

 He said : — 



"I am informed that there is a genera agreement among 

 learned and scientific men, not only in this country, but in the 

 whole of the civilised world, that in the highest parts of pro- 

 gressive science the attainments of students cannot be tested 

 unless the teachers have some voice in setting the subjects of 

 examination. That being the danger to be guarded against, the 

 Bill appoints seven Commissioners by whom the statutes of the 

 new University are to be framed. The Commissioners are Lord 

 Davey ; the Bishop of London ; Sir William Roberts, a medical 

 doctor and a Fellow of the University of London ; Sir Owen 

 Roberts, who is well known as having taken an active part in 

 the spread of modern education ; my hon. colleague the senior 

 member for Cambridge University (Prof. Jebb) ; Michael Foster ; 

 and Edward Henry Busk, chairman of Convocation of the Uni- 

 versity of London. These Commissioners are constituted to 

 frame the statutes for the purpose of carrying out the general 

 scheme of the commission — that is, to so modify the existing 

 University of London that it may fulfil the functions of a teaching 

 University. I think the House may very well trust men like 

 those I have named to frame statutes that will be in accordance 

 with the best interests of education." 



" The Government recommend this Bill to the House. It is not 

 their scheme ; it is a scheme which is the result of very long 

 controversy and of a great deal of compromise, of give-and-take 

 on the part of the various bodies, and they think it is a satis- 

 factory conclusion of a very long discussed question. It will give 

 a teaching University to London in the only way in which it can 

 be given — namely, by the modification of the constitution of the 

 existing University, and, in doing this, so far from injuring the 

 existing University, it will increase its utility and its reputation." 

 Mr. Harwood moved an amendment for the rejection of the 

 Bill, and Mr. Voxall seconded it, but their views received little 

 sympathy. 



In speaking against the bill. Sir John Lubbock said those who 

 liad opposed the Bill had done so on four main grounds : first, 

 that the result might be to imperil the position of science ; 

 secondly, that it might put the country colleges and private 

 students at a disadvantage as compared with the candidates 

 from London colleges ; thirdly, that it might tend to lower the 

 standard of the degrees ; and, fourthly, that it took away the 

 right at present possessed by his constituents to veto any change 

 which in their judgment would interfere with the great work 

 being carried on in the University. His objections were fully 

 answered by Mr. Bryce, who, in the course of his remarks not only 

 reminded his right hon. friend that Convocation had approved 

 of the scheme, but also siid that he should deny that Convoca- 

 tion had any more moral right than legal right to say what 

 should be done with the University of London. He appealed 

 to hon. members present who knew something both of the 

 University of Oxford and of Cambridge, and he did not hesitate 

 10 say that the reforms which were passed some forty years ago 

 with the greatest possible benefit and advantage both to the 

 country and those Universities would never have been passed at 

 all if the decision had rested with Convocation. His right hon. 

 friend had set up, on behalf of the London University, a claim 

 which was never listened to for a moment in that House in the 

 case of the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He 



NO. 1494, VOL. 58] 



submitted that they were not injuring the existing graduates. They 

 were going to make the University a far more powerful and digni- 

 fied body, and, incidentally, to enhance the value of her degrees^ 

 On a view of the whole matter it could not be shown that any 

 injury at all would be done to the ejtisting University. The 

 work of teaching was incomparably more important than the 

 work of examining. Much superstition attached 10 the degree j. 

 it was not so important as many people were inclined to believe ;: 

 its value was as a test of teaching and stimulus to study, and the 

 more it was made subordinate to teaching the better for educa- 

 tion. For a long time the Bill had been wanted, for many 

 schemes had been tried and had failed, and this scheme had) 

 received almost unanimous support from the teaching bodies 

 and the approval of leading scientific men anxious to have a 

 teaching University in London. He could not conceive that 

 there was any foundation for the fear that science teaching or 

 science examination would suffer ; that was the last danger into 

 which the new Senate would be likely to fall. All who had the 

 well-being of University teaching at heart, who desired the 

 extension of technical education with better facilities for the 

 humbler classes of the community should unite in support of the 

 scheme, which was approved by both political parties^ and he 

 earnestly hoped the House would accept it. 



After other speeches the amendment was by leave withdrawn,, 

 and the Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Standing: 

 Committee on Law. 



THE ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS AT 

 SOUTH KENSINGTON. 



THE agitation against the new departure of the 

 Government in relation to the proposed extensions 

 of the Science and Art Buildings at South Kensington 

 grows apace. 



Following upon the Report of the Select Committee 

 of the House of Commons, and the Memorial addressed 

 to Lord Salisbury by the President and Council and 

 many Fellows of the Royal Society, comes still another 

 Memorial, this time from the Royal Academy, and 

 already signed by the President and Council and many 

 members of the Royal Academy, with other representa- 

 tives of Art, strongly urging that the policy stated in 1890- 

 should be adhered to. 



The Royal Academy memorial runs as follows : — 



Memorial to the Most Honourable the Marquis of Salisbury, 

 K. G. , F.K.S. , Premier and Secretary of State for Foreign 

 Affairs. 



Whereas in 1890 Parliament voted 100,000/. for the purchase 

 of a site at South Kensington upon which to erect suitable- 

 buildings for the Science Museum of the Departnienrt of Science 

 and Art, and for the extension of its science schools, in accord- 

 ance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, over 

 which the Duke of Devonshire presided in i874r as well as of 

 various committees and other high scientific authorities^ and of a 

 Treasury committee appointed in 1889. 



And whereas when in 1891 the Government had proposed to- 

 erect an art gallery on the site, a memorial, sig.ned by the 

 president and officers of the Royal Society and representatives of 

 the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and of many other 

 learned bodies both in London and in the provinces, was ad' 

 dressed to your lordship, showing cause why the site should not 

 thus be allocated. 



And whereas the scheme was withdrawn, and it was stated 

 by the late Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P., in the House of 

 Commons on April 16, 1891, that the " Government has at 

 disposal more than three acres of vacant land facing the 

 Imperial Institute, and considerable areas beyond to the south, 

 of the present Southern Galleries. A portion of these vacant 

 lands can be utilised for the extension Oi the College of Science- 

 and for the future growth of the science collections. Additions- 

 to the College of Science must, in any case, take the form of 

 a separate building divided from the present building by Exhi- 

 bition Road " ; while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the 

 Right Hon. G. J. Goschen, informed the deputation which 

 waited on the Lord President of the Council in May 1891, that 

 " we hope to bring science into one centre fronting the Imperial 

 Institute." 



