January 25, 1900] 



NA TURE 



299 



THE LONDON UNIVERSITY ELECTION. 



SINCE the appearance of last week's Nature, the 

 course which we ventured to foreshadow in refer- 

 ence to the impending election has fortunately been 

 found practicable. It was announced on the 17th inst. 

 that a committee of graduates unconnected with either 

 of the two party organisations had invited Sir Michael 

 Foster, K.C.B., to contest the seat, and that he had con- 

 sented to be put in nomination. This fact ought to re- 

 assure all those graduates who desired to see the Uni- 

 versity do itself honour by selecting a fitting successor 

 to Sir John Lubbock. And a passage in Dr. Benson's 

 letter to the Times led to a general belief that at least 

 one of the candidates now before the constituency would 

 be willing to retire before a man of really distinguished 

 position and qualifications. Unfortunately, however, it 

 appears that up to the present time neither of them has 

 evmced any readiness to withdraw his personal pre- 

 tensions. 



The only reason assigned by their friends appears to 

 us wholly untenable. They have both presented them- 

 selves to the constituency as the special friends of the 

 country graduates. Both of them objected to the report 

 of the Cowper Commission on the ground that in some 

 way or other — not very clearly defined — the interests of 

 the general body of graduates, particularly those who 

 lived at a distance from the metropolis, would be sacri- 

 ficed to the wishes and the influence of a body of pro- 

 fessors connected with the London Colleges. Each of 

 them has secured the adhesion of some of the members 

 of Convocation by conveying the impression that the 

 development of the University, on one of its two sides, 

 as an institution capable of aiding and controlling the 

 higher education of the metropolis, and <jf bringing 

 the more eminent of the London teachers into vital 

 connection with its governing body, would entail some 

 possible injustice to the older graduates, and cause the 

 value of their degrees to be lowered. 



There is not, and never has been, any justification for 

 a fear of this kind. The status of the existing graduates 

 has not been affected, or indeed threatened, by any of 

 the proposals of the Commission or by the subsequent 

 legislation. Nothing has been done to lower the 

 character of the degrees possessed by the present 

 members of Convocation, or to put in peril any of their 

 privileges. 



Nor is the principle of external graduation in the 

 future in any way at stake in this election. That prin- 

 ciple has been emphatically endorsed in the recommend- 

 ations of the Royal Commission, constantly restated and 

 enforced in all the resolutions of the Senate as well as of 

 Convocation, and finally safeguarded by the explicit terms 

 of the Act of Parliament. It is difficult to see how a 

 champion of that principle is needed in the House of 

 Commons, or what a member of that House could now 

 do to give to that principle increased strength and 

 permanence. 



The fact is that when the statutes of the reconstituted 

 University shall have been framed and have received the 

 Royal Assent, all the controversy which has been rife 

 within the University itself will be at an end. And it is 

 to be observed that in formulating those statutes Sir M. 

 Foster and Mr. Busk have taken an equal share of 

 responsibility, so that both are presumably well equipped 

 with knowledge of the internal constitution of the 

 University and its wants in the future. The domestic 

 politics of the University, even were they far more im- 

 portant than they are, ought not to be uppermost in the 

 consideration of any graduate who has in view the true 

 reputation and influence of his University, and the pur- 

 pose which ought to be served by the choice of a 

 University member. Ordinary constituencies may be 

 safely trusted to send to Parliament a sufficient number 

 of members who will promise to obey the party Whip, 



NO. 1578, VOL. 61] 



and to look well after local affairs. But the claims of a 

 University to representation rest on other grounds. Such 

 a constituency is bound first to have regard to the national 

 interests in respect to the promotion of learning and 

 science, and to the exposition, when occasion requires, of 

 the views of learned men. A University constituency 

 fails wholly in its duty to the nation if it cannot enrich 

 Parliament by sending to it men of recognised authority 

 and large intellectual influence. 



Much stress has been laid upon the voting at recent 

 senatorial elections, as if it furnished a test of the views 

 of the electorate. But any inference thus drawn is 

 wholly unwarranted, and might be seriously misleading. 

 The cases are not parallel. When the graduates are 

 called on to select one of their own number to become 

 one of the Senate, it is reasonable that what are 

 called domestic politics should occupy a large share of 

 attention. For the Senate is the executive body of the 

 University, and is solely concerned with its internal 

 affairs. But when the graduates are invited to choose a 

 burgess in Parliament, their responsibility is of a wholly 

 different character, and their choice should be determined 

 by higher, larger, and more permanent considerations. 

 What are the needs of the community in regard to 

 national education, how far it is desirable or possible for 

 the State to supply these needs, what should be the action 

 of the Government in relation to matters in which the 

 interests of science, literature, art, the higher professions, 

 or the encouragement of research are concerned ; — all 

 these are grave questions requiring for their solution 

 men of affairs, and of practical knowledge, and of ac- 

 quaintance with other Universities than their own. And 

 from this point of view it must be evident that the 

 claims of Sir Michael Foster, who, in addition to his 

 other distinctions, is known as a former student and 

 professor in University College, and a graduate of London 

 chosen by Cambridge to become one of its foremost 

 professors, far outweigh the claims of any competitor 

 whose name is before the constituency. 



It is important that those members of the University 

 who take this view of the public duty which is cast upon 

 them at the present election will lose no time in making 

 known their willingness to serve on Sir Michael Foster's 

 committee. Pending the publication of a formal address, 

 which is expected to appear immediately, graduates 

 would do well to send in their names to Sir John F. 

 Rotton, 3, The Boltons, S.W. 



AMERICAN HIGHER TECHNICAL 

 EDUCATION. 



IN dealing with the question of American higher edu- 

 cation, we must not lose sight of the fact (due to 

 various causes) that any system of education in a young 

 country like America would probably require certain 

 modifications if adopted in an old world country. The 

 latter would probably be steeped in traditions, many of 

 which are doubtless of great value, yet unsuitable to the 

 requirements of a new country. Americans have derived 

 their fundamental principles of educational methods 

 from us, and have formed them into a system adapted to 

 their special needs. The question which naturally arises, 

 however, after studying the American system, is whether 

 in a modified form it might prove a success in our own 

 country. 



In order to more thoroughly understand this system, 

 it will be necessary to explain their methods of working. 

 It is intended to deal only with the course of training 

 undertaken by an engineering student in America, as 

 the same thoroughness characterises the work done by 

 those qualifying for other professions. 



The system is nearly the same in all the important 

 American colleges. The student enters at an average 

 age of about nineteen, after passing a severe entrance 



