Notes

Abstract

AT the meeting of the Convocation of the University of London on Tuesday, the University was saved from committing an act detrimental to its best interests. The report of the annual committee condemning the recommendations of the Gresham Commissioners as to the reconstruction of the University was under consideration. It was urged by the supporters of the report that the rapidly increasing number of candidates who present themselves for the University examinations, was a sufficient argument against any change of constitution. We agree with Dr. Hart, that the University has raised the standard of education, that it has encouraged the aspirations of persons unable to bear the expense of residence in University towns, and that it has done much for the higher education of women. But the time has arrived when the University must become more than a mere examining body, if it wishes to keep pace with the times. Members of Convocation who are jealous of the prerogative position at present occupied should look around, and then ask themselves whether London ought not to have a teaching University like those of other capitals in Europe. A mistaken idea as to the dignity of the University should not be allowed to stand in the way of the proposed developments. It would be far more dignified to accept the changes, unless, indeed, the University of London desires to find itself eclipsed by another with a charter more suited to the requirements of to-day. Some of the most eminent members of Convocation recognise the necessity of the old order giving place to the new. Prof. Sylvanus Thompson pointed out that when functions were, as in the case of London University, extremely limited, they should be extended. “Why should not,” he said, “the University perform all those great duties of encouraging research and learning and of teaching, which were an essential part of a true University. He hoped the matter would be approached in a temperate spirit, and that they would not stand on a mistaken notion of their dignity. There might be blots on the scheme which they should seek to remove, but was it wise to oppose the scheme in a thoroughly hostile spirit? Let them beware of showing such a spirit, for it might be that a new University would arise, discharging all the functions of a University, and the present University of London might be left in the cold. The substitution of a new charter for an old did not, as they knew from past experience, impair the continuity of their existence. It would be a great pity if two Universities should arise—one not called by the name of the capital, but doing all the work of a University, whilst that which was called the University of London was restricted to the narrow sphere of examinations.” Mr. Thiselton Dyer also supported the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, rightly remarking that the scheme would enable the University to develop its full powers, especially in the department of post-graduate study, in which lies the true glory of a University. The resolution of the annual committee, protesting against the withdrawal of the present charter, was eventually set aside by an almost unanimous vote. This is satisfactory as far as it goes, but it does not dispose of the matter in a very effective manner. A motion was afterwards proposed by Sir Albert Rollit, in the following form:—“That, with a view to the speedy and satisfactory reconstitution of the University, it is desirable to secure, if possible, the co-operation of the Senate and Convocation, and with this object Convocation refers the whole question of the reconstitution of the University to the annual committee, with power to nominate members of a joint consultative committee of the Senate and Convocation.” This was unanimously adopted; so the University is once more given the chance of reconsidering its policy, and of gracefully accepting the proposed changes before they are forced upon it.