May 21, 1891] 



NATURE 



55 



•way of London possessing the educational advantages of a 

 German University town. 



I venture to offer some facts and considerations which may 

 modify this view, and perhaps aid in forming a juster conception 

 of the real nature of the University question than is commonly 

 entertained. 



Much more important matters are involved .in the question 

 than the maintenance or extension of existing institutions, 

 though these are quite legitimate subjects of discussion and de- 

 fence ; and in the columns of Nature it is only upon the broad 

 ground of the advancement of science and learning that the 

 question can be dealt with. 



The epithet " Imperial" is intended to imply some unfitness 

 on the part of the present University for other than " Imperial " 

 functions, whatever these may be. But the University has not, 

 and never has had, the least claim to any such title. It has 

 never at any time held colonial examinations of its own motion. 

 It has never at any time held any colonial examinations what- 

 ever in the faculty of science, or in the faculty of medicine, or 

 for honours in any faculty, or for any of the higher' degrees. 

 What examinations it holds in any colony are held only at the 

 request of the Governor of the colony, transmitted through the 

 Colonial Office, and are practically confined to matriculation and 

 the intermediate examination in arts. Occasionally, but very 

 rarely, an examination in laws or for the Bachelor of Arts is 

 held in some colony. In 1890, 16 candidates matriculated in the 

 colonies, and 5 passed the intermediate examination in arts 

 out of a total of some 5000 candidates. Not a single degree ex- 

 amination was held in any col >ny. In fact, these colonial 

 examinations, which, few as they are, yearly diminish in number, 

 never foraied part of the University scheme. They were 

 instituted about 1864 at the request of the colony of 

 Mauritius, but were extended and have been maintained 

 chiefly to facilitate the award of the scholarships at the 

 disposal of the Gilchrist Trustees. Not only is the Uni- 

 versity of London not an Imperial University, but it is even 

 less British in character than probably either of the older 

 Universities. Very few of its candidates come from Scotland, 

 fewer still from Ireland, and my strong impression is that the 

 great majority come from midland and southern England. I 

 should not be surprised even to find that a considerable majority 

 are now drawn from an area having London for its centre with a 

 radius of not more than 100 miles. The probable establishment, 

 at no very remote period, of provincial Universities will 

 practically give a still more exclusive sense to the name Uni- 

 sity of London. 



It may next be asked what precisely is meant by a " teaching 

 University in and for London," the creation of which is con- 

 stantly put forward as the principal educational need of the 

 metropolis. Is the proposed University to be "for" London 

 in some sense in which the University of Oxford is not " for" 

 Oxford, or that of Edinburgh not "for " Edinburgh? I know 

 of no University, British or German, which is " for " the par- 

 ticular town or district in which it has its local habitation. Or 

 is the proposed University to be " for" London in some sense 

 in which the existing University is not "for" London as well as 

 the rest of the country ? The words seem mere surplusage, unless 

 intended to impose local limitations which no University has 

 €ver yet imposed upon itself. 



The expression "teaching University," too, stands in need of 

 exacter definition. The University of Edinburgh is a teaching 

 University, so is that of Dublin, so are the German Universities. 

 Oxford an(i Cambridge are only in part teaching Universities ; 

 the greater part of the teaching is done by the Colleges. The 

 Victoria University is not, in fact, a teaching University at all ; 

 the teaching is the work of its Colleges, and the proposed 

 * teaching University in and for London " would, as far as 

 actual teaching is concerned, resemble the Victoria University 

 rather than a Scotch or German University, At this point the 

 iriix of the whole question reveals itself. The really distin- 

 guishing feature of the new University as contrasted with the 

 Univer-ity of London would be the examination of collegiate 

 candidates (and those only) by their teachers in alleged con- 

 formity with the principle that examination should follow 

 teaching. But it may be admitted that teaching ought to be 

 adapiel to examination, or examination to teaching, without ad- 

 mitting any advantage in the systen of teachers settling the 

 examination of their own students, collegiate or not. The com- 

 bined teacher-examiner system is not wholly trusted by its sup- 

 porters. At the older Universities the examiners are by no 



NO. 



II 25. VOL. 44'! 



means usually the teachers of the candidates ; at the Victoria 

 University one of the examiners is always an "external " one. 

 I am not quite sure how the matter stands at the Scotch and 

 Irish Universities. To assert that such partial or semi-partial 

 modes of testing knowledge are superior to disinterested and 

 independent methods is merely to make an assumption, announce 

 an opinion. What comparison of the working of both systems 

 proves any superiority on the part of the first-mentioned of 

 them ? Do the pass degrees of Scotch or Irish Universities, or 

 even of Oxford or Cambridge, stand higher than those of 

 London ? 



Further, is it not misleading to characterize the University of 

 London as a mere Examining B lard ? Of the three functions 

 of such a teaching University as that of Edinburgh, it performs 

 two. It directs teaching by syllabuses and regulations (pre- 

 pared with extreme care, and not without .ample reference to 

 the best authorities on all matters of special knowledge), and it 

 tests teaching by absolutely impartial and disinterested examina- 

 tions, but it does not — without space, funds, and appliances it 

 could not — pretend to teach. Nothing, however, in its nature 

 or essence forbids its development, alone or in union or con- 

 junction with other institutions, into what would be an ideal 

 University of the non-residential order, neither coercive nor 

 exclusive — one that should offer proper University instruction 

 to all comers, and, at the same time, confer degrees upon open 

 examinations independently (save for obvious reasons in relation 

 to medical degrees) of place or mode of instruction. 



The part the existing University of London has played in the 

 advancement of learning may be indicated by the fact men- 

 tioned by the Vice- Chancellor in his Presentation speech, that 

 during the last thirty years— that is, since its examinations were 

 thrown open — the number of degrees conferred by the Univer- 

 sity has increased tenfold. This, however, is only one of the 

 ways in which its influence is shown ; the great advance in 

 scientific education the last fifty years have witnessed is almost 

 wholly due to the stimulus and example of the University of 

 London. But the subject is too large a one to be dealt with on 

 the present occasion, and indeed, from its nature, scarcely lends 

 itself to treatment capable of doing full justice to the University. 



The work of a University should not be confined to the edu- 

 cation of graduates. Its crowning function is the exposition 

 and illustration of the higher learning along the whole line of 

 advance. Such is the task so admirably accomplished by the 

 Sorbonne and the College de France, and to the world of science 

 and learning in London the University of London is peculiarly 

 well adapted, by its independence and impartiality, to render 

 similar services. Some years ago an attempt was made to work 

 out a scheme having this end in view, but, in deference to rea- 

 sons that no longer exist, it was found necessary to abandon its 

 further prosecution. Its resumption has now become, or may 

 shortly become, simply a question of means, and the time is at 

 hand when a strong effort ought to be made to afford scholars 

 and men of science in London some of the advantages their 

 brethren have so long enjoyed in Paris. 



Richmond, May 19. F. Victor DiCKiNS. 



Co-adaptation. 



Written letters remain. It is for anyone who may read 

 this correspondence through at one time to judge on which side 

 lie the " valid" distinctions, and on which the "invalid" con- 

 fusions — not to mention comparisons in respect of " verbiage " or 

 mere personalities. But I am obliged to write once more to 

 insist, for the fourth time, that my agreement with Prof. Mel- 

 dola does not extend to the " conclusion as to the nonexistence 

 of CO adaptation," but only to stating that co adaptation must 

 be proved not to exist, if " Mr. Spencer's argument " is to be 

 logically met. And if, as Prof. Meldola now says, any such 

 statement is to be found in his " review of Mr. Pascoe's book " 

 (which, I repeat, merely reproduces "Mr. Wallace's argument " 

 as to the accumulation of adaptations, without remarking that 

 this has no relevancy to the argument from co-adaptation), it 

 must be in that " language of their own " which the neo- 

 Darwinians find "to be intelligible among themselves." 



Christ Church, Oxford, May 15. George J. Romanes. 



A priori Reasoning, 

 I SEEM to have failed to make my contention clear lo Mr. 

 Cockerel), and will try once more. What I maintain is this : 



