May 28, 1891] 



NATURE 



77 



either for the reason that they consider the withdrawal of the 

 Colleges from the sphere of the operations of the Burlington 

 Gardens examining board a reflection upon that body, or be- 

 cause they are unwilling that a privilege should be conceded to 

 Colleges, however well fitted to receive it, which their own local 

 or provincial college is not yet important enough to claim. A 

 further incident of the movement has been that the just demands 

 of London medical students and their teachers for a University 

 degree in medicine, as readily attainable by London students as 

 are the medical degrees of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin, Aber- 

 deen, St. Andrews, Durham, and Cambridge, by the students 

 of those places, have been formulated and generally approved. 



Neither of these accompaniments of the request for University 

 powers made by University and King's Colleges seems to me to 

 touch the question as to whether it is right on grounds of public 

 policy to accede to that request. Sir William Thomson, Sir 

 George Stokes, and Mr. Weldon after an exhaustive inquiry 

 were in favour of granting the privilege asked for. Three 

 lawyers, namely Lord Selborne, Sir James Hannen, and Sir 

 James Ball, were not persuaded. The commission composed of 

 these six gentlemen agreed to ask the Burlington Gardens 

 authorities to try to devise such alterations in their " University " 

 as would satisfy the aspirations of University and King's 

 Colleges. Burlington Gardens has absolutely and hopelessly 

 failed in this attempt — as anyone conversant with the conditions 

 of the problem could foresee must be the case. They have 

 proposed a scheme which has not been accepted by the Colleges, 

 and has also been rejected by their own provincial graduates. 

 Why should more time be wasted about the attempt to put 

 three pints into a quart bottle ? Let the Burlington Gardens 

 University continue to exercise its function of examining for 

 schools and colleges which are not strong enough to examine 

 for themselves, and let them continue so to do only until the 

 colleges are fit to receive independent University powers ; let 

 the Senate reform itself if it can, and if the absurd dead-weight 

 of graduates tied round its neck and called Convocation will 

 permit it to do so. But do let us have in the meanwhile a 

 genuine professorial University set on foot in London, not 

 because it is London, but because Universit} and King's 

 Colleges are there, and respectfully petition Her Majesty to do 

 for them what the monarch has done (not unwisely, it must be 

 allowed) in past days for the Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh, 

 of Aberdeen, of Leyden, of Berlin, Bonn, Leipzig, and other 

 cities. 



What the two Colleges ask for is a privilege — a special favour. 

 To include other institutions as co-recipients of the privilege 

 would destroy its character and its value. As Mr. Dyer points 

 out, we do not want a federal University, such as are Cambridge 

 and Oxford and the Victoria. We have seen enough of the 

 friction and never-ending committees and schedules of such 

 clumsily organized Universities. By limiting the charter to 

 University and King's Colleges, a professorial University can be 

 established in which the professors shall be — as in the Scotch 

 anrl the German Universities— at once the teachers, the ex- 

 aminers, and the governing body. I cannot perceive what good 

 can be attained by joining a series of rival teaching bodies 

 together, calling them a University, and setting them to waste the 

 lives of their lecturers in committees and boards and the drawing 

 up of schedules. The only persons who gain by such wasteful 

 arrangements are the busybodies and bureaucrats, who either 

 acquire importance by their intermediation in the disputes of 

 rival teachers, or gain a livelihood by pompously conducting the 

 affairs of the committees and boards in which what is good and 

 strong in each member is counteracted, whilst only what is 

 feeble, worthless, and emasculate survives. 



The professorial University formed by a union of King's and 

 University would be of modest dimensions, and rightly so. It 

 would in virtue of its charter be able to grow. This I regard as 

 the most important feature in the proposal. Instead of hastily 

 bringing together a variety of teaching bodies, we should leave 

 it to the new University to assimilate them, make terms with 

 them, in the course of time. 



Though they are modest bodies compared with the Imperial 

 centralizing institution, from the thraldom of which they seek to 

 escape, yet King's and University Colleges can show figures 

 stating the property and the number of students which they would 

 bring to the new University, which are far larger than the cor- 

 responding figures for many other Universitie« both in the United 

 Kingdom and abroad. Their buildings and land are worth half 

 a million sterling. Their annual receipts exceed ;i^30,ooo ; their 



annual attendance of students is as great as that of the University 

 of Oxford. This is an ample basis ; with this start the new 

 University would without any doubt be able to ensure a steady 

 growth, increase of its property and of its teaching capacities, 

 by a healthy and gradual development. 



Mr. Dyer skilfully seeks to enlist support for the supremacy 

 of Burlington Gardens by asking the following questions (to 

 which he does not give the answers for obvious reasons) : " Why 

 should two out of many institutions be picked out for University 

 honours ? Why should Bedford College be left out? How can 

 the Royal College of Science be ignored ? Why ignore the City 

 and Guilds Institute ? " 



The^e questions are excusable only when we admit that Mr. 

 Dyer may for the nonce treat his defence of Burlington Gardens 

 as a lawyer may treat a shady case entrusted to his advocacy in 

 the courts. 



The reason why the Crown should pick out the two Colleges 

 for the L^niversity privilege is, firstly, that they and they alone 

 have asked for it ; secondly, that they and they alone possess 

 the property, professoriate, status, and historical purpose which 

 could warrant the privilege ; and, lastly, that University powers 

 are essentially a privilege fitted and intended to strengthen and 

 build up the institution to which they are granted above others. 

 Bedford College is cited by Mr. Dyer solely, I am afraid, with 

 the purpose of rousing the jealousy of its members. They are, 

 I hope and believe, too sensible to be led to imagine that their 

 excellent institution is at all comparable in magnitude or im- 

 portance to University and King's. As to the Royal College of 

 Science, the answer is different. It is a Government institution 

 under a special department founded and carried on with a special 

 purpose. It grants its own certificates and fulfils its objects. I 

 see no objection to its receiving the privilege of granting those 

 certificates in the form of University degrees ; but it could not 

 be associated with University and King's Colleges to form one 

 Senatus Academicus. To introduce it or the City and Guilds 

 Institute into the new University would necessitate the forma- 

 tion of what I am persuaded would be a pernicious and futile 

 organization — namely, a federal University. And, moreover, 

 it appears that both the Royal College or Normal School of 

 Science and the Guilds Institute were founded with public 

 money and are carried on for other purposes than that of train- 

 ing University students, and that their managers do not seek 

 the privilege of granting University degrees nor consider that 

 their public utility would be increased by any such federation 

 with the new UAiversity as Mr. Dyer suggests. There is 

 plenty of room in London for non- University Colleges as well 

 as for more than one University. The objectionable notion 

 which Mr. Dyer and some others entertain is that these institu- 

 tions can be made more useful by arbitrarily bringing them 

 under the control of some central government — such as is now 

 exercised by Burlington Gardens. 



The fact appears to me to be that centralization in University 

 matters is wasteful of time and energy, paralyzing and delusive. 

 Two Colleges like University and King's can unite and settle 

 their affairs together, and if granted such powers as other Uni- 

 versities possess they may in time take into their organization, 

 partially or completely, other institutions, or arrange methods of 

 co-operation with other institutions. Indeed they would, if 

 incorporated as a University, be sure to do this, and to do it 

 far more efficiently than could be the case were they abrupil) 

 associated with a variety of rival corporations, each with equa 

 rights and equal voice, and left to compromise and to vote 

 through endless committees, either as constituents of a reformed 

 Burlington Gardens University or of a new piece of federal 

 futility. 



Mr. Dyer has wisely avoided the question of the demand for 

 medical degrees. I confess that this is a very difficult problem 

 on account of the attitude of the medical profession. If the 

 medical profession is to be allowed to grant medical degrees, 

 the present significance and a good deal of the value of the 

 University privilege will be destroyed. It is, I believe, quite 

 useless to attempt to satisfy the demands of the medical pro- 

 fession in this matter. The thing to be aimed at is to remedy 

 an injustice ; it is necessary to provide a degree as accessible as 

 that of other Universities through whatever University or Uni- 

 versities may exist, hereafter, in London. 



In my evidence to the Commissioners I made some sugges- 

 tions on this matter. I am inclined to think that the following 

 steps are necessary for a satisfactory solution of the problem : 

 {a) the abolition of the medical faculties of University and 



NO. 



I I 26, VOL. 44] 



