NATURE 



12 



THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1892. 



THE NEW UNIVERSITY QUESTION. 

 a" HE correspondence between Prof. Huxley and Prof. 

 Pearson which has appeared in the Times is not 

 pleasant reading. With infinite pains and trouble an 

 Association had been formed to support the foundation 

 in London of a university of a certain type. A nucleus of 

 the most eminent teachers or ex-teachers in London had 

 collected around them a powerful body of supporters 

 from the provinces. In Prof. Huxley as President, and 

 Sir Henry Roscoe as Vice-President, the Association 

 secured the services of two men distinguished both as 

 professors and for their knowledge of affairs. It appears 

 to have been less fortunate in its secretary. Prof. Karl 

 Pearson had some difference with his fellow committee- 

 men on a question of procedure. He himself has 

 described the divergence as not fundamental and has 

 publicly stated that he believes that the other members 

 of the committee were aiming at securing the establish- 

 ment of a university of the type which he himself 

 approves. So comparatively trifling was the issue, that, 

 according to Prof Huxley, Prof. Pearson himself pro- 

 posed that the reason to be given for his resignation 

 should be " pressure of work." No doubt can therefore 

 exist as to the cogency of this motive. His position was 

 apparently even more clearly defined by his not voting 

 against the course of action proposed on the occasion of 

 a meeting which was shortly to take place between the 

 Senate of the University of London and the Committee 

 of the Association, and by his spontaneously pledging 

 himself "to say nothing as a member of the deputation, 

 contrary to what was then agreed to." 



It is therefore no wonder that Prof. Huxley was 

 surprised, when on the very next day Prof. Pearson 

 wrote to the Times, discussing resolutions which 

 Prof Huxley regarded as confidential and accusing 

 his colleagues of various ofifences, of which the 

 day before he thought so little that he had voluntarily 

 stated that " pressure of work " was the reason to be 

 given for his resignation. 



One good result may perhaps follow from Prof. 

 Pearson's action. Owing to the sense which has unfor- 

 tunately been attached to the word " absorb," and to 

 the assumption that the title " Professorial University " 

 meant a University governed solely by Professors, an 

 opinion has got about that the members of the As- 

 sociation are impracticable persons, who have pro- 

 pounded an unworkable scheme. It is true that both 

 accusations are directly met by the published programme 

 of the Association. It is there made clear that a 

 voluntary absorption is all that is aimed at, and that 

 laymen as well as experts are to have a share in the 

 management of the University. Prof. Pearson's defection 

 has made it still more obvious that the Association 

 scheme is intended, not to gratify theorists, but to sup- 

 port a policy which is capable of realization. 



Prof. Pearson declares that he desires a University on 



the model of Berlin ; but the question at once arises. Is the 



model to be followed exactly, or aremodificationstobeintro- 



duced .^ Is the University to be free from all State control .? 



NO. I 206. VOL. 47I 



Prof. Huxley desires that it shall be free, and under exist- 

 ing circumstances we cordially agree with him. Let the 

 State, if it will, nay as it must, support and subsidize the 

 new University as it supports the British Museum, but let 

 the control of the one, as of the other, be in the hands of 

 an independent Governing Body. But, if this condition 

 is realized, there is at once a fundamental difference be- 

 tween the actual University of Berlin and the possible 

 University of London. The external element furnished 

 in Germany by State control must in England be supplied 

 by lay members of the Governing Body, and the differ- 

 ence thus established will run throughout the whole of 

 the constitution. 



Prof Huxjey publishes in his letter to the Times an 

 outline of a scheme for the organization of the University 

 which is too interesting to be omitted here. He explains 

 that he gives the rough notes on which his evidence 

 before the Gresham University Commission was based. 



The scheme is as follows : — 



" Do not venture to ask for all I want, but for as much 

 as it seems possible to get on the way to that. 



" Suggestions tentative and open to modification. 



" {a) Retain title and prestige of University of London ; 

 reorganize it in such a manner as to secure general uni- 

 formity and efficiency of work with freedom and elasticity. 

 In short, unify without fettering. 



" {b) Make the institutions which contain technical 

 schools of theology, law, medicine, engineering, and so on 

 into colleges of the University. Let these examine their 

 own candidates for degrees, under conditions determined 

 jointly by them and the Senate of the University ; and 

 present such as they declare fit to the University for ad 

 eufidem graduation. 



" {c) Deal in the same way with institutions giving 

 adequate instruction in the other categories of University 

 work — if they so please ; or let the University examine. 



" id) Provide ample means for instruction in the modes 

 of advancing natural knowledge and art, either in material 

 connexion with the existing University or in particular 

 colleges. 



" {e) Professoriate to have large but not preponderant 

 representation in Senate, and wide, but not exclusive, 

 influence in regulating instruction and examination in 

 accordance with the general aim at unification. 



" (/) All state and municipal contributions, private 

 endowmentsand University fees for instruction and exam- 

 ination to be paid into a University chest. All professorial 

 staff and current expenses (save in cases that may be re- 

 served) to be paid out of theUniversity chest; also building 

 and fitting expenses where there isnosufificient endowment 

 of a college. The payment of the professorial staff to be 

 primarily regulated by the kind and amount of the work 

 done for the University, not by number of students. 



" {g) No bar to be placed in the way of any one who 

 desires to profit by any description of University instruc- 

 tion. If, after trial, he does not profit, time enough to 

 exclude. Value of exclusion as disciplmary measure." 



Any one who takes the trouble to compare this scheme 

 with the original programme of the Association will see 

 that they are in close accord. It is true that the Asso- 

 ciation put forward the complete voluntary absorption of 

 the colleges as the result most to be desired, but it dis- 

 tinctly contemplated the possibility of relations between 

 the University and institutions or colleges which were 

 not completely absorbed, and it will be seen that the 

 only terms on which Prof Huxley will permit relations 

 to be established between the University and the colleges 

 secure to the former a very large measure of authority. 



