NA TURE 



[July i, 1922 



no real reduction of the amount of parliamentary 

 money placed at the disposal of the universities this 

 year. The explanation is to be found in the fact 

 that the grants to the universities are made in respect 

 of the academic year ending on July 31, while the 

 parliamentary votes are for the year ending on March 

 31. Thus the grants for this present academic year 

 are based on the parliamentary vote for the financial 

 year which came to an end on March 31 last, and that 

 was the year in which the vote was at its maximum. 

 The grants for this academic year naturally show no 

 reduction. On the contrary, they have increased 

 because they are based on the increased vote. 



The fall in the grants to universities will, of course, 

 occur in the academic year ending in July 1923, and 

 will be the direct and inevitable result of the reduction 

 of the parliamentary vote for the financial year ending 

 in March next. The reduction in the grants assigned 

 to the various institutions in the, financial year 

 1922-23 is seen to be no less than 113,905/. ; but 

 the loss in the academic year 1922-23 will be much 

 greater than this, the difference being due to the fact 

 that the amounts of grant shown in the estimates for 

 1921-22 are a good deal less than the sums actually 

 received by the universities in the academic year 

 1921-22, being made up of three parts, namely : 



(a) " Annual grant " for the second half of the 

 academic year 1920-21 (before the vote had been 

 increased by 500,000/.). 



(b) " Annual grant " for the first half of the academic 

 year 1921-22 (after the increase in the vote). 



(c) What has been called a " non-recurrent grant," 

 but might more correctly be termed a recurrent grant 

 of variable amount. 



It is obvious that, as the first of these three factors is 

 based on the earlier low rate of grant, the total of the 

 three will be considerably less than the aggregate of 

 the grants received by the universities in the academic 

 year 1921-22. Although exact figures are not avail- 

 able, there is reason to suppose that the actual fall 

 in the academic year 1922-23, as compared with the 

 present academic year, will be not far short of 250,000/. 



If the smaller vote proposed for the current financial 

 year is approved by Parliament, a large reduction 

 in the university grants next academic year is a result 

 which cannot be avoided. But even so, it may be 

 urged, the universities will still receive considerably 

 more than in 1920-21. This view, however, ignores 

 two important considerations. First, the increase 

 in the vote in 1921-22 was justified by the pressing 

 need of the universities for additional aid, and the only 

 reasonable ground for criticising it was that it was on 

 too small a scale. Second, the increased vote en- 

 couraged the University Grants Committee to add 

 NO. 2748, VOL. I 10] 



to the grant list certain institutions — notably Oxford 

 and Cambridge Universities and the clinical units 

 of the London Medical Schools — which had not previ- 

 ously figured on the list. These new commitments, 

 totalling approximately 120,000/., undertaken on the 

 strength of the enlarged vote, remain a permanent 

 charge on the reduced vote. 



The statement which has been made, and has given 

 rise to some misconception, that the annual grants 

 to the universities will be maintained at their present 

 level, depends for its truth on what is little more, in 

 fact, than a technicality. 



In allocating to the universities the money voted by 

 Parliament, the University Grants Committee has 

 adopted the practice of giving only part of the money 

 in the form of " annual grants " and the remainder 

 (except what is kept in reserve) in the form of grants 

 (called " non-recurrent "), the amount of which is 

 decided in the case of each university each year. What- 

 ever may be thought of this method of allocating the 

 money voted by Parliament, and whatever these 

 grants may be called, the fact remains that they have 

 been made this year and in previous years, and that 

 they will not be made next year. A reduction of a 

 quarter of a million in the income of the universities 

 is no less a reduction of a quarter of a million because 

 the money lost has not been technically called an 

 "annual grant." It must also be understood that it 

 is not because the universities have not needed the 

 whole of the money voted by Parliament that some 

 of it has been treated by the " non-recurrent " method 

 and some kept in reserve. The whole of the money, 

 and much more than the whole of it, is sorely needed 

 by the universities, and no amount of discrimination 

 between grants of one denomination and grants of 

 another denomination can alter the fact that the 

 amount coming to the universities next year will be 

 about a quarter of a million less than the amount 

 received this year. Such a reduction must deal a very 

 serious blow at the efficiency of university education 

 in Great Britain. 



The New Astronomy. 



The New Heavens. By Prof. G. E. Hale. Pp. xv + 88. 

 (New York and London : C. Scribner's Sons, 1922.) 

 75. 6d. net. 



IT is impossible not to be impressed by the wonder- 

 ful story of astronomical achievement told by 

 Prof. Hale in felicitous language in .this little volume. 

 Before the invention of the telescope not more than 

 about six thousand stars had ever been seen by human 

 eyes, and less than half this number at any one time. 

 The small telescope, with an object-glass an inch or 



