NATURE 
41 
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1873 
A VOICE FROM CAMBRIDGE 
is 
A ger questions raised by the Cambridge Memorial to 
which we referred last week are so important that 
no excuse is necessary for recurring to them. In the 
first place it may be remarked that the answer of 
Mr. Gladstone to the Cambridge memorialists, is quite 
such as any reasonable man might have looked for. 
University reform is not at present a political question 
in the vulgar sense of that word. The heart of the 
masses is not stirred by proposals concerning the tenure 
of fellowships. The religious element, or rather the sec- 
tarian element, has now been largely eliminated from the 
matter; there remains scarcely anything at stake save 
the interests of learning and science; and these, as we 
know, are things of very little value in the eyes of the 
present Government. 
The more one looks at the matter the more it is 
difficult to see what good the Cambridge Reformers 
expected to result from their respectable document. 
No fault can be found with the propositions of the 
memorial so far as they go. They are just such sound 
steady-going sober proposals as would naturally come 
from a body of quiet moderate officials who, on the 
whole, content with the general state of things, desired 
to see some practical amendments introduced, but 
dreaded to agitate, had a wholesome fear of radical | 
changes, and above all, were not clear about the broad 
features of the necessities which have to be met, or of | 
the changes which have to be brought about. 
Until the public mind, to say nothing of the Univer- 
sity mind, has gained some clear definite notions about 
the functions of a University, all attempts at reform must 
be partial or complete failures. : , 
The prevalent theories concerning the office of a Uni- 
versity may be put in three categories. 
The first regards the University as an ecclesiastical 
nursery. This was the original view, but now-a-days is 
passing out of mind, though tenaciously clung to by some 
resident members at either University. It only needs to 
be mentioned to be dismissed. 
The second looks upon Oxford and Cambridge as 
places where the young Tartars of modern English society 
are covered with a varnish of “culture,” and polished 
into gentlemen. Dr. Lyon Playfair said in the House 
the other day that the Scotch University taught a man 
how to make a thousand a year, the English University 
how to spend it; and in saying this he simply put into 
forcible language the ideas which are prevalent among 
many members of the Universities. They distinctly and 
emphatically discard the idea that it is the duty of the 
University to equip a man for the struggle for a livelihood, 
to train him for business, for the arts, for the professions. 
Their token is “culture,” not culture in the sense of 
higher learning, but in the sense of personal varnish, in 
the sense of a mental equipment which does not pay, and 
which is of no use to the owner in practical life, which is 
a luxury and not a need, a sort of evening dress of the 
mind, which may be ornamental under the artificial lights | 
No, 185—Vot, vu. 
| in the way. 
of society, but is ill suited for every-day work. Now this 
Sort of culture is not much sought after ; for by hard- 
headed fathers whose sons have to get or to keep their 
living by their own exertions, it is sought for less and less 
year by year. The advocates of the view we are dealing 
with see this very clearly, and accordingly they contend, 
very logically, that since the world does not care greatly 
for this kind of culture, and will not send its sons to a 
University for that only, some other inducements must be 
provided. And these are found in the prize fellowships, 
more especially in the non-resident fellowships. A lad of 
parts whose friends would not send him to Oxford simply 
to gain that liberal education, “which softens the cha- 
racter and prevents its being strong,” goes there because 
by show of possessing that culture which he despises or 
even hates, he gains a good round sum of money which 
it is worth his while to waste three or four years in 
getting. 
The third view, which at present has but few advocates, 
teaches that the University is a place where anyone and 
everyone may be trained for any and every respectable 
path of life, and where at the same time all the interests 
of higher learning and science are cared for. The advo- 
cates of this view say, Do not bribe men by fellowships to 
come to a University from which they will go carrying 
with them a very little learning, and that for the most 
part useless, and an artificial culture of doubtful value. 
Make it worth their while to come to the University, teach 
them there what they want to be taught, train them there 
as they desire to be trained, and there will be no need to 
bribe them with fellowships. They will then come to 
Oxford and to Cambridge as they are now going to 
Owens College, to London, to Newcastle, and to Ger- 
| many. Take care at the same time that the teaching be 
not narrow and professional, broaden it with the diligent 
nurture of higher learning and science, and thea there 
will be every hope of seeing true culture and useful edu- 
cation going hand in hand. Let the youth of the 
University have the opportunity of seeing the master- 
minds of the age at their work, so that they may be 
inspired by them to the highest reaches of thought. 
It appears to us that many of those who signed the 
Cambridge memorial had no clear ideas as to which of 
the above views they adhered ; and hence the uncertain 
sound of their trumpet. Apparently the document was 
so loose that supporters of all three views signed it con- 
scientiously ; no wonder it fell without effect. 
It is unnecessary for us to say that the third view we 
have mentioned is one which we ourselves support. The 
real difficulty lies in this, how to change the old Univer- 
sities to suit these new views, how to ring out the old 
ecclesiasticism and false culture and ring in useful training 
with high science and deep active learning and re- 
search. The difficulty of this task cannot be exaggerated. 
Long years of misrule have left suckers of jobbery, like 
bindweed in an old garden, which come up refreshed 
with every stirring of the soil. There is a mass of power- 
ful conservatism which has to be striven against. There 
is a careless public and a still more careless Government 
which has to be roused. There are plenty of difficulties 
If the memorialists really have the reform 
of the old universities at heart, they will cease to memo- 
rialise feebly a feeble administration, and search dili- 
D 
