June 4, 1891J 



NATURE 



05 



College students being compelled to meet elsewhere instead of 

 in the College on account of there being something of a religious 

 character connected with their meetings, while there are facts of 

 a different character in the history of King's College which may 

 be easily remembered. That a federal University consisting of 

 institutions so dissimilar would work harmoniously I very much 

 doubt. Probably the graduates of the existing University would 

 care but little, except on general public grounds, about Uni- 

 versity and King's Colleges having power to grant degrees, if as 

 a University they would assume a name not likely to be mis- 

 taken for that of the University of London. As yet the Victoria 

 University is not a conspicuous success, and the London Uni- 

 versity examinations are still held at Owens College. 



With the views set forth by Mr. Thiselton Dyer I should be 

 disposed in great measure to agree, though there are some 

 points on which I should have liked to make some remarks ; 

 but I fear, if I did so, I should trespass too far on your space. 



London, May 29, Thomas Tyler. 



Those who have taken part in the interesting discussion on 

 the University of London, in your columns, have all viewed 

 the subject from the academic standpoint. Would it not be 

 well to consider it also from another point of view, viz. that of 

 the educational needs of London? Prof. Ramsay contends 

 " that a University is primarily a place for the extension of the 

 bounds of knowledge." It is surely more accurate to say that a 

 University, under the conditions that now exist, has two main 

 functions— the one the extension of the bounds of knowledge 

 by research, and the other the wide diffusion of that knowledge. 

 The purpose of such diffusion should be to afford, as far as 

 possible, to every individual the opportunity of obtaining such a 

 training as would qualify him or her to take part in the develop- 

 ment of some branch of knowledge, or at any rate to follow 

 with appreciation and interest the advance made by others. 



It needs no argument to show that it would be for the advant- 

 age of research, and for the well-being of the community, that 

 real University training should be as widespread as possible. 

 Ability and bent for some special study may frequently not be 

 developed until somewhat late in life, after a business career 

 has been begun. There is scarcely a branch of science that does 

 not owe much to investigators whose researches were carried on 

 during hours spared from some bread- winning occupation. The 

 late Prof. John Morris was in early life a chemist in the 

 Borough ; Dr. James Croll was for years the janitor of the 

 Andersonian University, Glasgow ; even in the very number of 

 Nature containing Mr. Dyer's letter, the cas2 of M, Rouault, 

 one of the pioneers in the geology of Brittany, is mentioned, 

 who did his early work while carrying on the business of hair- 

 dresser. A University training would have been of inestimable 

 value to such students as these (and there are hundreds of such, 

 with capacity for good work, scattered over London and the 

 country), but no provision is made for them in our existing 

 system. 



Surely the important question therefore is, W^hat kind of 

 University would discharge most effectively for London the duty 

 of providing for the needs of every class of students ? The Uni- 

 versity should clearly recognize ail organized teaching of Uni- 

 versity rank, whether given within the walls of a specified 

 College or not. One of the most urgent needs of London is a 

 co-ordinating head for all its multifarious higher educational 

 agencies. The only University that will really adequately meet 

 the needs and stir the enthusiasm of Londoners will be a Uni- 

 versity in vital relation with and directing and controlling all 

 the higher teaching of the metropolis. This would, no doubt, 

 be a new type of University, but the changed conditions of 

 these timei necessitate large modifications in the coni-ti'.ution of 

 our institutions. This is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that 

 the University of London itself was a new type of University, as 

 also was the more recent Victoria University. 



The new teaching University for London should have as its 

 accredited professors and lecturers the staffs of University and 

 King's Colleges, the Royal College of Science, the various 

 medical schools, and any other institutions of equal rank, and in 

 addition a large staff of lecturers at work in different parts of the 

 metropolis at convenient centres. It would be possible, by an 

 extension of the principle admitted into the draft scheme for the 

 re-constitution of the University of London, viz. that of requir- 

 ing from every University teacher a syllabus of his course of 

 teaching, and further, by making such syllabus the basis of the 

 examination, to incorporate all the work done by the accredited 



NO. II 2 7, VOL. 44] 



teachers of the University into its curriculum for degrees. This 

 would make it possible to open up a University career to 

 evening students. While day students would complete their 

 course of study in three or four years, evening students would 

 take nine or ten, and the curriculum could without serious 

 difficulty be modified to meet the conditions. 

 May 30. R. D. Roberts. 



I WOULD ask whether it is quite fair to assume that, because 

 Convocation has rejected the Charter proposed for the Uni- 

 versity of London, it therefore follows that that body is out of 

 sympathy with the attempts that are being made to esla'ilish a 

 "real University," whatever that may mean. Is it not possible 

 that a large proportion of those adverse votes were recorded 

 because there were elements in the scheme which were felt to 

 be impracticable or open to serious objection ? At all events, 

 I feel sure that there are many who would refrain from regarding 

 the vote as being an expression on the main issue. 



The views so well put forward by Prof Ray Lankester as to 

 the undesirability of establishing what he terms federal Uni- 

 versities fully enlist our sympathies ; but are we not sailing very 

 near the wind in the suggestion that University and King's 

 Colleges and "other institutions" should be incorporated on 

 University lines ? 



I say, by all means avoid centralization and beware of the 

 "never-ending Committees and schedules of such clumsily- 

 organized Universities." But what of value is then left that 

 University College does not already possess? Would the 

 appropriate definition and allotment of degrees of all shades and 

 grades have contributed one iota to the work and influence of 

 Graham, Sanderson, Sharpey, Foster, Williamson, and Prof. 

 Lankester himself, or have added to the benefit they have con- 

 ferred upon University College ? One does not surely regard 

 the granting of degrees as an important element in the German 

 University : its distinguished professors are not Berlin men or 

 Strassburg men— they are pupils of Liebig, of Wohler, of 

 Bunsen, and the like ; and its students are not regarded as 

 graduates of Heidelberg or Giessen, but in like manner as pupils 

 of so-and-so. And University College is, I take it, much more 

 nearly in function a German University now than ever it is 

 likely to be as a federal University. I verily believe that such 

 is the taste of the so-called properly ordered English mind for 

 schemes, plans, and organizations, that a governing body, even 

 though largely composed of the most uncrystallizable elements, 

 would shortly be found carefully hedging itself round (and the 

 students) with that beautiful machinery which Prof Lankester 

 so heartily detests. Prof. Ramsay's association of "examina- 

 tion on the brain " with the London University undergraduate I 

 fear does the said undergraduate an injustice, if it is meant to 

 differentiate him from his fellows of the "real Universities." 



The men who regard the College Calendar with its traditional 

 questions as their vade mcciim, and whose only other study is 

 the idiosyncrasies of the examiner, are ubiquitous, and their 

 name is legion. If I could think they were confined to the 

 "Burlington Gardens University," I, for one, would vote 

 against the alteration of one jot or tittle of the present organiza- 

 tion, if only lest they might be disturbed from their resting- 

 place there. G. H. Bailey. 



May 30. 



Quaternions and the Ausdehnungslehre. 



Prof. Gibbs' second long letter was evidently written before 

 he could have read my reply to the first. This is unfortunate, 

 as it tends to confuse those third parties who may be interested 

 in the question now raised. Of course that question is naturally 

 confined to the invention of methods, for it would be preposterous 

 to compare Grassmann with Hamilton as an analyst. 



I have again read my article " Quaternions " in the Encyc. 

 Brit., and have consulted once more the authorities there 

 referred to. I have not found anything which I should wish to 

 alter. There is much, of course, which I should have liked to 

 extend, had the Editor permitted. An article on Quaternions, 

 rigorously limited to four pages, could obviously be no place for 

 a discussion of Grassmann's scientific work, except in its bearings 

 upon Hamilton's calculus. Moreover, had a similar article on 

 the Ausdehnungslehre been asked of me, I should certainly have 

 declined to undertake it. Since i860, when I ceased to be a 

 Professor of Mathematics, I have paid no special attention to 



