294 



NA TURE 



[July 25, 1S95 



^\^lat Sir John praclicallysays to us is this : " You may do as you 

 like, but I am taking the management of this business into my 

 own hands." Now, we are untloubtedly prttud of having a 

 representative in Parliament : but I am ver)' iloublAil whether 

 Convocation is preparetl to accept that representative as its master. 



The resolution of January 22, as it happened, owing to the 

 prolongation of the debate, was not carried by a large majority. 

 The question was therefore brought up again on May 14, and 

 reaffirmed by more than two to one. 



The present position then is this : Convocation has accepted 

 the Report of the Commission in principle ; awaits the appoint- 

 ment of the Statutory Commission : and has delegated to a 

 Committee of men representative of various views the duty of 

 conferring with it. This Committee, which has already held a 

 preliminary meeting, can be in touch at any time with Convoca- 

 tion, and it is difficult to see what better machinerj- Convocation 

 could provide to bring about the result which all reasonable men 

 desire. .\nd all this. Sir John, who is not a member of Convo- 

 cation, and who has not api»rently taken the trouble to acquaint 

 himself with its proceedings, calmly sets aside for a new-fangled 

 and unheard-of plan of his own. 



(iii.) Sir John, in what I suppose I may call his defence, says 

 " the University is the only liody whose constitution it is proposed 

 to change." I do not know, I am sure, how he arrives at this. 

 But we, who have had to consider the point, have l>een advised 

 very differently. It has been jwinted out to us by ver)' high 

 legal authority, that some at least of the bodies which it is 

 desirable to bring into closer co-operation w ith the University may 

 be impeded by disabling enactments. And one of the strongest 

 arguments brought l)efore us in favour of a Statutory Commission 

 was the fact that it is a legislative solvent, and could, subject of 

 course to the approval of Parliament, remove any legislative 

 impediment which stood in the way of its ordinances. 



(iv. ) What I have stated above is sufficient, I hope, to show 

 that Sir John's interference really amounts to a grave invasion 

 of the prinlcges of Convocation, and I am utterly at a loss to see 

 by what considerations it can be justified. The principle of a 

 referendum which it is proposed to force upon us, is one which 

 can only be accepted after the most serious examination. 



Let us consider what it involves. At present, on any que.stion 

 of moment. Convocation only proceeds to a decision after a 

 prolonged debate. And I venture to say that in ability, and 

 certainly in earnestness, the dcljales in Burlington Gardens will 

 compare not unfavourably with those at Westminster. The 

 divisions, it may be inferred, are the outcome of reasoned con- 

 viction. A referendum is a very different matter. It is only 

 theoretically applicable when the issue is of the sharpest, and 

 can be stated on the most explicit terms. For anything short of 

 this it would be necessary to organise for and against any proposal 

 a costly machinery in order to pul before each voter a reasonetl 

 statement on one side or the other. But the .Slalulory Com- 

 mission, from the nature of things, will have to deal willi matters 

 of the most delicate compromise, affecting, as I have shown, 

 other institutions besides the University. To subject these to 

 the accidents of a r^/trrt'W////;, is, I venture to say, one of the 

 maddest pcjlitical expedients ever proposed. 



I cannot refrain from adding one more remark. I deeply 

 regret that Sir John, in addressing the President and other 

 Kellows of the Koyal .Society, thr>ught It worth while to point 

 out to them that some of them were not his constituents. There 

 are many students of practical ixilitics who find it difficult to 

 justify lite existence of University Members at all. I take it 

 that the only defence that can be made for them is that they are 

 sf)mething more than the mandatories of merely local interests, 

 such as may exist, say, in a lxjr<»ugh. They stand In Parliament, 

 if they have any claim to Ix: there at all, as the repre- 

 sentatives of those interests remote from party which ennoble 

 and dignify (he life of a nation. Universities m.iy select and 

 return such .Memljers. But that duty [x-rformed, theirs begins. 

 If Sir John really seriously thinks thai it is inappropriate that a 

 Ixxly of Kellows of the Koyal Society should address the 

 .Mcmtx-r f>ir Ihe University of I»ndon on a matter of supreme 



rublic Inleresi, then I can only say with the ilee|>esl regret that 

 hope that the day Is not distant when our choice may fall on a 

 man of larger sympathies with the Interests of the higher 

 education and learnii^. W. T. TlIISELTON-DvER. 



Kcw, July 20. 



I'.S. — I think it ini|K>rtant to atld from the Bill a. portion of 

 Clause 3: "(I) The Commissioners shall make statutes and 

 ordinances for the University of Lrmdon In general accordance 



with the scheme of the report hereinbefore referred to, but subject 

 to any modifications which may appear to them expedient after 

 considering any representations maile to them by the Senate or 

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

 or persons affected." It will l)e seen (i.) that it practically 

 accepts the procedure of Convocation and (ii. ) gives a locus 

 standi to other bodies beside the University which may be 

 affected.— W. T. T. D. 



NO. 1343, VOL. 52] 



Sir John LtJBBOCK seems to have a mistaken conception of 

 the nature of the right of veto possessed by the Convocation of 

 the University of London. The Charter of that University 

 provides that Convocation shall have " Ihc pnver of accepting 

 any new or supplemental Charter for the University or consenting 

 to the surrender of this our Charter." But such provisions 

 cannot limit the action of Parliament. The provision is similar 

 to the reference to Convocation at both Oxford and Cambridge 

 of new statutes and of all alterations in old statutes proposed by 

 the Council of the University. Our statutes take the place of 

 the Charier of the University of London in many respects. 



When Parliament h;vs overhauled the Universities of 

 Oxford and Cambridge by means of a Royal Commission, it 

 has never occurred to any one that it would be proiier to refer 

 the statutes jiroposed by such Commission to the Convocation 

 of Oxford or Cambridge. .Sir John Lubbock's proposal to do 

 what Is parallel to this in (he case of the University of London 

 is a new departure. Whether he is aware of the customary pro- 

 cedure in dealing wi(h universilies, and thinks it objectionable, 

 or whether he supposes that the plan he suggests is according to 

 precedent, or, again, whether he is merely anxious to claim for 

 his constituents an exce|)tional privilege by demanding which he- 

 will be giving effect to their wishes and justifying their selection 

 of him as Parliamentary representative, does not appear. 



For my own part, (hough no( a graduate of the University of 

 London, I have been most closely associated wilh its work anil 

 organlsiition — as professor in University College and .is examiner 

 in the University — during twenty years. .My conviction is that 

 there is a large body of graduates, members of Convocation, 

 who do not at all approve of Sir John's too flattering claim on 

 their behalf ; they do not desire that the Convocation of London 

 should be gi\'en exceptional jjowers possessed by no o(her body 

 of Universi(y graduates in (his or anycoun(ry. They are deeply 

 concerned for the progress and developmen( of (he University 

 of London in its true characler of the University in (he greatest 

 city in the greatest emjiire of (he world. .\nd they arc prepared 

 to forego (he gradficatlon of ]iersonal vani(y offered liy Sir John 

 Lublock, In order thai an executive Commission may carry out 

 wi(houl delay the important develo]mient of ihe University ])ro- 

 jiosed by the dresham Commission. These proposals have been 

 already a|)prove<l of by a majority of vo(ers in meedngs of Con- 

 vocadon a( which ihey were considered and tliscussetl ; the 

 plan of again submitling the ma((er to Convocation after a 

 Statutory Commission has embodied the Circsham Conmiis- 

 sloners' proposals in delaile<l enactments, Is one which can have 

 no o(her object (ban (hat of defeating or, at any rate, delaying 

 the whole scheme. 



.Sir John Lubbock has adopted, .and made himself (he 

 leader of (his exlraordinary and fan(as(ic pcilicy. I( seems 

 (o me thai he has by his action shown an unfavimralile estimate 

 of the intelligence of his constituents, and (hat (he (ime may 

 come when the Convocadon of the University of London will 

 require from i(s represen(a(lve .active co-operadon in the task of 

 organising the University, ami single-minded devodun (o (he In- 

 terests of science, learning, and education, together wilh a(lenlioI> 

 to those interests in Parliament, in place of the eniply (la((ery 

 itf an Impossible proposal to confer on Convocadon powers 

 rendering the customary Parliamentary control of the University 

 Impossible. IC. Ray LANKKStKK. 



July 20. 



Wii MoiT eiKerlng ln(o (he vexed queslioii of (he (Iresham ■ 

 scheme, will you allow me to explain, in a few wiirds, (he 

 grounils on which so many of .Sir John Lubbock's old friends 1 

 and suppor(ers join issue with him endrely on (he attitude he 

 has t.aken up in his le((er (o Dr. Fos(er. , 



We objec( (o Ihe proposed referendum (o (he gr.aduates, and to j 

 the mode In which he suggests (ha( l( should lie exercised. 



First, as lo (he mode. If Sir John Lubl>ock insls(s on the | 

 mauKenance of (he rlgh( of ve(o according lo (he Cliar(er, this I 

 should clearly be exercised In Ihe only melhod provided liy the 1 



