JULV II. 1895] 



NA TURE 



245 



on a hush, and very frequently some are wholly red and some, 

 perhaps, wholly white, though I am not sure on this point. 

 Many other cross-bred plants exhibit this inconstancy, which is 

 supixised to be due to an imperfect blending of the elements of 

 parentage. That the sporting is irregular and inconstant is not 

 to be wondered at, when we consider that a plant is not an 

 individual in the sense of possessing only one set of organs. 

 Any vegetative bud of a plant is capable of producing any and 

 all of the organs of the whole plant, or, if detached from the 

 li.irent plant, to develop into a similar organism, with all its 

 attributes. tJiven, then, a cross-bred variety, which is not con- 

 stant, or "fixed," as florists term it, any vegetative bud may 

 give rise to the cross or to one or the other of the parents. 



W. BOTTINO Hemsi.ev. 



Mineralised Diatoms. 



Nearly twenty years have elapsed since you allowed me to 

 announce in Natike the unexpected discovery of mineralised 

 diatoms in the I^ondon clay of Sheppey. 



Subsequent investigations demonstrated the existence of these 

 unique microscopic fossils on the same geological horizon at 

 several widely separated localities in the south-east of England : 

 leading to the assumption that the band of diatomiferous earth 

 was continuous throughout the formation. 



Heme Hay was one of the places at which, in accordance with 

 experlation, search was followed by success. Revisiting this place, 

 .1 few days ago, for the first lime since the discovery, I readily 

 found the fossil diatoms as abundant as before in some recently 

 fallen blocks of clay about half-way between Heme Bay and Old- 

 haven Gap. .\s there has been much waste of land at this spot 

 <iuring the interval, it is interesting to observe the presence of these 

 • liatoms in the newly exposed clay, giving support, as it does, to 

 (he hypothesis of their general distribution at a definite level 

 throughout the London clay. 



I'erhaps some readers of Nature may be going to that part of 

 the coast before long, and will then take the opportunity of 

 verifying my observations. W. H. Shrubsole. 



SIR Ji)flN LUBBOCK AND THE TEACHING 

 UNIVERSITY FOR LONDON. 



'PHE address in which .Sir John Lubbock solicits the 

 *■ suflTrages of the Electors of the University of London 

 has aroused feelings of surprise and regret among the 

 friends of higher education in London, owing to the un- 

 fortunate nature of the references made to the Teaching 

 L'nivcrsity question. Six paragraphs out of tei. are 

 devoted to this important subject, and it seems almost 

 incredible that so far from recognising that the Gresham 

 Commissioners' scheme has enlisted a considerable 

 measure of support in the University \cf. vol. 1. 269 ; li. 

 298), Sir John Lubbock refers only to the views of its 

 opponents, and, in accepting them, makes the remarkable 

 statement : 



" Keeling that Convocation ought to be consulted on a 

 matter so vitally affecting the L'niversiiy, I would strongly 

 urge, and do my best to secure, that the scheme when 

 arranged should be submitted to Convocation for their 

 approval, to be signified as at a Senatorial Election, and 

 would oppose the Bill unless this were conceded." 



Now it must be borne in mind that the Report of the 

 <^resham Commissioners has met with a degree of ap- 

 proval from educational authorities and institutions, which 1 

 not only far exceeds that extended to any previous 

 attempt to solve the vexed question of L'niversity 

 reform in London, but has been sufficiently unanimous to 

 lead to the introduction of the " University of London 

 .\ct, 1895.' '" 'he House of Lords by the late (lovcrn- 

 mcnt. This IJill, in accordance with the general tenour 

 of the resolutions passed by the various institutions 

 named in the Report as constituent colleges of the teach- 

 ing l'niversity, enacted clause iii. para. 1,1: 



"The Commissioners will have power to make statutes 

 and ordinances for the L'niversity of London in general 

 accordance with the scheme of the Report hereinbefore I 



NO. 1341, VOL. 52] 



referred to, but subject to any modifications which may 



appear to them expedient after considering any repre- 

 sentations made to them by the .Senate or Convocation 

 of the University of London, or by any other body or 

 persons affected." 



.A.nd further pmra. 2; : 



" In framing such statutes and ordinances, the Com- 

 missioners shall see that provision is made for securing 

 adequately the interests of non-collegiate students." 



Convocation in January last had the opportunity of ex- 

 ercising its veto in meeting assembled as provided by the 

 Charter of the L'niversity on the scheme of reconstitution 

 proposed by the Commissioners, which had previously 

 received the general approval of the Senate. Instead of 

 insisting on this right, it preferred to bring itself into line 

 with the other institutions affected by the scheme, by 

 adopting a resolution in terms almost identical with those 

 employed in the Bill. Only so recently as May, it de- 

 clined to reconsider this attitude by a majority of two to 

 one, yet it is clear that the Bill, if again brought forward, 

 is to meet with opposition from Sir John Lubbock, if re- 

 elected, unless an amendment is inserted providing that the 

 completed scheme shall be submitted to Convocation for 

 approval in a manner expressly excluded under the tenns 

 of the present Charter, viz. by means of a referendum. 



It is difficult to imagine by what process of reasoning 

 this seemingly gratuitous proposal can be reconciled with 

 the functions of a statutory, that is a judicial and execu- 

 tive, Commission. Convocation is but one of the bodies 

 affected by the scheme, and in common with the others, 

 it can, under the terms of the Bill, present its case for 

 modifications in the scheme to the Commissioners before 

 the statutes are framed, and like them can appeal against 

 the statutes dunng the forty days they must lie on the 

 table in both Houses of Parliament before they become 

 operative. Such an amendment could only have the 

 effect of wrecking the latest and most satisfactory scheme 

 of University reform, since no other institution affected by 

 the scheme could be expected to agree to such an un- 

 precedented proposal. S'or is it likely that any person 

 fitted to occupy the position would consent to serve on 

 the Commission, and devote his time and best energies 

 to the difficult and deliaitc work of adjusting the relations 

 between these institutions, with the knowledge that the 

 statutes and ordinances eventually framed would be 

 subject to the approval of any irresponsible, non-judicial 

 body, let alone one of the institutions closely affected. 



For the most part, .Sir John Lubbock has held aloof 

 from the controversy on the Teaching University 

 question. Once only does he seem to have taken sides. 

 It is on record that he voted with the majority when the 

 Senate in June of last year passed a resolution expressing 

 general approval of the proposals of the Gresham Uni- 

 versity Commission, with which action his present attitude 

 is wholly inconsistent. It would be interesting to know 

 whether his descent on the other side of the fence is in 

 any way connected with the absence of opposition to his 

 candidature on the part of the opponents of the scheine. 

 Be this as it may, this uncalled for proposal to subordinate 

 the interests of higher education in London to the 

 pleasure of Convocation, ascertained not after debate, 

 but by a referendum, is not to pass without protest, and 

 we are glad to note that the following letters have already 

 appeared in the press. The .first is from Prof Michael 

 Kostcr, Sec.R.S., and President of Sir John Lubbock's 

 Parliamentarv Election Committee. 



"Shelford, Cambridge, July 4, 1895. 

 " Dear Sir John, — .As you know, I am wholly opposed 

 to your view that the scheme for the University of London 

 to be proposed by the Statutory Commissioners ought to 

 be submitted to Convocation for approval. Vou also 

 know that this difference of opinion, important as 'it is, 

 does not prevent my desiring that you should continue to 



