Gresham College

Abstract

I CANNOT agree with Mr. Roberts that I have written under any important misapprehension of the nature and general objects of the organization of which he is secretary. I have expressed my conviction of the excellence of the courses of lectures given through its means. I object to its profession of bringing “University” teaching into London, and to its claim to represent either the University of the future or Gresham's University of the past. The fact that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and London have appointed members of a Committee to arrange lectures in London does not, in my opinion, constitute those lectures as parts of the teaching of those Universities, and the suggestion that this is the case—encouraged by the use of the term “University Extension”—is, in my opinion, greatly to be regretted. It is, perhaps, difficult to be sure as to the nature of the audiences contemplated by Gresham for his Professors. But supposing that his intentions could be realized in this special point by the delivery of lectures in the evening, I am at a loss to understand what public good can be served by the introduction of a new organization into London for the purpose of giving such lectures, when there are already two public institutions—viz. King's College and University College—which are not only ready to undertake such teaching if found desirable in the future, hut have actually carried on such teaching in the past. The Professors of King's and University Colleges are University graduates, they are provided with laboratories and libraries and lecture-rooms, they have numbered among them some of the most distinguished scholars and savants of the day, and they have produced both trained investigators and large additions to existing knowledge. They only require additional endowment and public sympathy to fulfill in every respect the ideal of a true University in and for London. Yet a certain number of gentlemen connected with Oxford and Cambridge have persuaded those Universities to nominate a Committee called a Joint Board to kindly undertake the introduction of “University” teaching into London. I cannot believe myself that this new body, competing for the support of Londoners as representing the great educational want of London, viz. a real University, will fail to do harm by dividing the support which London can give to University institutions. I cannot suppose—after observation of their proceedings—that those who form the active body of the London Society for the Extension of University Teaching are as anxious to promote a true University in London as they are to find employment for their lecturers. This is quite natural, and, if admisted, is not otherwise than creditable; but the assertion of a claim to be representatives of University teaching in London on the part of these gentlemen is not so creditable.