NINTH DAY. Wednesday, 14th June 1882.
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable the EARL of DERBY in the Chair.
His Grace the Duke of Bedford, K.G.
The Right Hon. Lord Coleridge.
The Right Hon. Sir Richard Assheton Cross,
G.C.B., M.P.
Mr. Alderman Cotton, M.P.
Mr. Pell, M.P.
Mr. Joseph Firth, M.P.
Mr. Thomas Burt, M.P.
Mr. H.D. Warr, Secretary.
Deputation from University College.; 14 June 1882.
The following Gentlemen attended as a Deputation from University College:—
Sir George Young, Bart., Member of Council and
President of the Senate.
Frederic J. Wood, LL.D., Barrister - at - Law,
Member of Council.
Alexander W. Williamson, LL.D., F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry.
Henry Morley, LL.D., Professor of English
Language and Literature.
1600. (Chairman to Sir George Young.)—I understand you have done us the honour of coming here
for the purpose of laying before us the claims of University College to assistance from the companies; is
not that so?—It is.
1601. I think it would be most convenient if you
will state, in such manner as you think best, the
ground upon which this claim is put forward?—We
start with the recognition which has already been given
in principle, and in some important details, by the city
livery companies to education, and in particular to
university education, as a fit subject for assistance
from their resources. Upon this subject, my friend
Dr. Wood, will have (among other things) some facts
to submit to you. We desire that this Commission
should be the means of bringing to the notice of the
administrators of those funds, in a more influential
way than has hitherto been found possible, the present
position and the needs of university education in
London. Upon this subject I may refer to the statement of our committee (a committee appointed for
the purpose, consisting of members of the council or
governing body of University College, and of professors or members of the Senate, a consultative body of
the same college), which has been communicated to
the secretary of the Commission; and I may further
refer to the evidence which I trust will be given by my
friends, Professors Williamson and Morley. I may
sum up our position in few words, by saying that
University College, originally founded as a place of
university education for those who were excluded by
religious opinions from the benefits of the older universities, must in the altered condition of things at
the present time, be looked upon rather in the light
of an institution of university rank charged (together with King's College) with the interests of university education for London; and we desire in the
first place to call your attention to the waste, and I may
even say mischief, arising from the great dissipation
of energy in the work of foundation and endowment
in regard to university education. That which has
been done in this respect, and more especially in
London, has been done piece-meal: not of course that
we object or that anyone would object to work being
done by degrees, brick on brick; but what has been
done has been done in the way of a brick here and a
brick there; an institution has been founded to meet
a special need and for a special purpose, without
reference, or without sufficient reference, to institutions already in existence, and to the way in which
one institution should co-operate with and work into
another. That this is so, is due of course partly to
the size of London, and to the conditions in which
Londoners live; partly also to defective municipal institutions; but chiefly, perhaps, to the absence of what
I may call a common forum for educational purposes,
such as the existence of a real University supplies;
for in fact we have no University of London. That
which is known by the title is, as you are aware, an
examining board merely, and as such absorbs the
Government aid, that is, the grant which is made for
university purposes year by year from public funds,
and directs it to the expenses of examination merely,
and of prizes: whereby teaching suffers. We have
University and King's Colleges, which are not
colleges, of course, in the sense of a college at Oxford
and Cambridge, or in the sense in which the word is
usually accepted by the public, that is to say, they are
not boarding houses; they are in fact universities, but
universities in a state of arrested development, without
the privilege of granting degrees, without the public
position which comes from public recognition, and
without therefore the claim upon private benevolence
and the popularity which attach to a public institution.
There are other institutions in London, such as
Gresham College for instance, of which, perhaps, it is
not necessary to take very much account, for up to the
present time they have not had any very great influence
upon university education. Now it may be said,
perhaps, do we advocate the limitation of private
charity in such a matter as this? Of course not, but
we desire to influence the minds of those who are
the dispensers of public or of corporate funds. We
consider that mistakes have been made, more especially during the past generation, in ignoring the
agencies already in operation. I may refer, by way of
instance merely, perhaps, to the institutions which
have been set up by Government for special purposes,
such as the Government School of Mines, the Government School of Science and Art, and the Cooper's
Hill Engineering College. These are all institutions
useful in their way, and likely to have a useful
career, but they have all been founded to meet special wants without much consideration of the way
in which those special wants are mingled with the
other more general needs of an educational kind,
which are supplied by an institution for university
purposes generally. In the result it has repeatedly
happened that institutions of this partial character
have found themselves compelled to develope in various
directions; sometimes by introducing the more
general subjects of education, sometimes by opening
their doors, not merely to the class for whom they
were originally founded, but to the world at large;
and in this way they have come, contrary to the intention of their original founders, to operate with
serious consequences upon the position of institutions already in existence which were doing useful
work. To come rather nearer to our present subject,
I may refer, perhaps, to the School of Law which has
recently been founded by the Inns of Court. Here is
an institution which no doubt fulfils a useful purpose,
and supplies a want, but the School of Law founded
by the Inns of Court can hardly be said to supply
London with a philosophical or even a scientific school
of law.
1602. (Sir. R. Cross.) May I ask you to explain
the term "School of Law" to us, as you use it?—I
mean the lectures founded of late years.
1603. (Mr. Firth.) There is nothing known as a
school of law in existence is there?—I mean the
lectureships founded by the Inns of Court for the
purposes of legal education; I use the term school of
law in a popular sense. They do not, in fact, supply
the place of a scientific school of law; they rather
tend, indeed to make such a school impossible. The
Inns of Court possess the sole key of entrance to the
legal profession:—
1604. You mean the upper branches of legal education, do you not?—For the upper branch of the legal
profession, exactly, for barristers, I mean; and while
legal education is in their hands and they take that
interest in it which is represented by their present
staff of lecturers, it is found to render it, I believe I
may say, hopeless that a school of law such as we
wish to see established in London should ever be
founded. Recently the city livery companies have
taken up, very much to their credit, the subject of
technical education, and a college has been founded at
South Kensington; not, so far as appears at present,
upon lines which will conflict, or in any degree interfere, with the work of a university like this, of which
I am speaking; but it would be certainly an evil to
university instruction in London, if that school of
technical education were to develope in the direction
of scientific teaching rather than of what is strictly
speaking technical instruction. We do not deprecate
competition; our point is that the benefits of competition are only felt where the competing agencies
are fairly equipped. It cannot be said that at the
present time any of the agencies charged with university instruction in London are fairly equipped for
the purpose; therefore we think that the foundation
of new institutions for these purposes ought rather to
be relegated to the time when the existing agencies,
which have already earned public approval, or, if
necessary, others in their place, shall have been placed
in a position fairly to do their work. If the result
of this Commission should be that any funds are
found to be available for such purposes as we speak
of, it would no doubt be proper that an institution in the receipt of public funds, or of corporate
funds of a quasi public character, should admit the
principle of public control; and the last remark that
I have to offer is, that such control, under such circumstances would not be deprecated but rather welcomed by University College.
1605. Taking your last remark first, that is, in fact,
a fundamental change in the constitution of your
college, is it not?—It would be so.
1606. It started on an entirely voluntary principle,
did it not?—Yes.
1607. And with an absolute rejection of State systems or State interference, was not that so?—It was.
1608. Then, in that respect, you now look on matters
from a new point of view?—Speaking for myself,
I do. I do not wish in this respect to assume the
position of speaking for the Corporation or even for
the Council of the College, but I am entitled to say
that there has been a modification of view within the
minds of those who are managing this institution
since its foundation.
1609. You complained, as I understood you, that
there was no power of granting degrees conferred
either upon University College or upon King's College?—Yes.
1610. Then if you could arrange the matter as you
think fit, you would desire that each of them, and I
presume, therefore, any similar institution, should
have the power of granting degrees to their students?
—I would not go so far as that; I would not specify,
but I would merely point out the present misfortune
of university education, which consists in our being
[that is to say, University College, King's College,
and the University of London] not a university or
three universities but the disjecta membra of a
university.
1611. You are aware, are you not, that as a matter
of fact the principle adopted by the London University
has been that of separating itself more and more from
connection with any particular college?—Yes, it has
been so.
1612. Then do I understand that you wish that the
London University should reverse the policy upon
which it has gone of late years, and should re-establish
a closer connexion between itself and the various
disjecta membra, as you call them, of a possible
university?—Speaking for myself (you must understand that in a matter of this kind I am not entitled
to speak for others) what I look forward to is (without
dwelling upon the fact of the name, or on the circumstance that the University of London is called from
London) that there should be a local university in
London. The University of London is an imperial
university, and whatever its name, that is its position;
and I cannot doubt that it will always have a most
distinct position as such; but in what way the university that I desire to see (a teaching university) in
London is to be formed is a matter which I need
hardly perhaps enter upon at the present stage.
1613. (Sir R. Cross.) Do you mean a teaching
university, with a power of granting degrees?—Certainly.
1614. Independently of the present general University of London?—That is the question that I prefer
not to enter into, for it seems to me too remote for
practical purposes.
1615. (Chairman.) Putting it generally. I think I
may take it that the assistance you desire to receive
from the funds of the city companies, is not so much
assistance to University College, as at present constituted, as assistance given for the purpose of turning
University College into something different to what it
is now?—No, I cannot say that. It is quite true that
the receipt of such assistance would in my opinion,
and I think in the opinion of those for whom I speak,
necessarily entail a readiness on our part not to keep
our constitution, as it is at present, in the hands of a
private body; but we do not seek that assistance for
the purpose of turning ourselves into something else,
we seek the assistance because we need it; because, in
fact, as matters stand, and with the competition to
which we are subjected, we find it impossible to do our
duty as the first, or one of the two first, teaching
bodies in London.
1616. You do not put forward any special claim on
the property of the city companies, but you are
considering, as I understand you, the possibility of
some part of that property being diverted to other and
general uses?—Yes, and also we do not come here to
make an attack upon the city companies, and claim
that their funds should be diverted to our use, but
rather I may say to pursue the path upon which the
city livery companies have already entered, and to
recommend ourselves to them upon the same grounds
as those upon which we have hitherto recommended
ourselves to them, only, if possible, in a more authoritative manner, if it should so happen that an institution like this is found worthy of being commended in
your report to the managers of those institutions and
to the public.
1617. (Mr. Firth.) Do you suggest that there is
any claim that can be advanced on behalf of University
College, which could not be equally well advanced on
behalf of King's College?—Certainly not. I consider
that the claim, such as it is, which of course I do not
put forward as a claim so much as a recommendation,
is rather in favour of University College as an institution holding a certain position in London.
1618. That is not a claim, as against King's
College?—No.
1619. Because that also holds a position in London?
—Certainly.
1620. Is the point of your evidence directed to the
establishment in London of a university system analogous in its relations between central and subject bodies,
to that which exists at Oxford or Cambridge?—No,
I do not conceive it possible that a university like
Oxford or Cambridge can be founded.
1621. Then the suggestion is, that money of this kind
might be rightly applied to teaching bodies in London
that do send up students to the London Examining
Board of the University of London?—The suggestion
is that money of this kind, if it be thought proper to
apply any of it systematically to purposes of university education, might be advantageously applied in
supporting an institution like University College,
which is at present existing and doing good work.
1622. (Mr. Alderman Cotton.) What does the
college at present receive from the companies?—I
will refer that to Dr. Wood, who has the facts.
1623. Then I think you spoke of yourselves as a
private body. Is that really so; are you not a public
body?—We are an incorporated body.
1624. I think your speaking of yourselves as a
private body was not correct?—It is private only in
this sense (I am using the words, you will understand,
in their popular meaning, and, in order to convey my
meaning, that term seemed to express it most exactly),
the college is governed by a corporation of private
persons, collected together in various ways; some are
the representatives of the original founders; some are
distinguished students who have been added to the
body, and others have been added for reasons connected with their services to education or to the
college. This body of persons is a public body in the
sense that it is incorporated, and they appoint a
council, and the council govern the college; but they
have no relation with the Government of the country,
and they have no relation with the municipality
of London, nor has the Government of the country
or the municipality of London any right of interference
in their proceedings.
1625. (Mr. Pell.) Is it incorporated by charter or
by Act of Parliament?—By Act of Parliament.
1626. (Mr. Alderman Cotton.) Do you know what
amount of capital you really require?—I may refer to
the paper that is before the Commissioners. I will
read a sentence from it, "To enable the two London
colleges properly to do the work that lies before
them as the teaching part of the University of
London, the present income would require to be
augmented to the extent of half its present amount
by endowment. Such increase may be estimated
at about 25,000l. annually for each college."
1627. You want 25,000l. per annum more for each
college?—Yes.
1628. You yourself seemed to think that the city
guilds did not quite understand what technical education was. Can you tell me what technical education
is, because I do not think anyone really understands
it, and I thought I would take the liberty of putting
that question to you?—Perhaps you will allow me to
refer that to Professor Williamson, who is better
qualified to speak upon the subject than I am.
1629. (Chairman to Dr. Wood.). You have heard
the statements that have been made by Sir George
Young, and we shall be very glad now to hear from
you anything which you wish to say in corroboration
of what he has stated or any explanation or modification of it?—In the first place, what I was requested
to state on behalf of the college was this, that there is
no intention on the present occasion to take up a
position at all antagonistic to the Corporation of
London or to any of the city companies. On the
contrary, I hope that, in the facts I shall state, I shall
be able to show that the Corporation of the city
of London took an active part in the foundation of the
University of London, and that the city companies
have been its most liberal supporters, and, therefore,
all that we come forward on the present occasion to
say is this, that if, as the result of the inquiries which
you institute, it should appear that there are funds
which may properly be devoted to educational purposes and particularly to the advancement of university education, then we think that with perfect
consistency with the wishes that have already been
displayed by the Corporation and the city companies,
and with the benefit of the public, there is no purpose
to which those funds could be applied that would
be better than to increasing the usefulness of the
two existing colleges, University College and King's
College. Having said that, I think it will enable
some who may not be as well acquainted as those
who have been brought up at the University of London necessarily must be, with the whole constitution
of it, if I very briefly state how the university
was founded. The university was founded in the
year 1826. It was then founded in Gower Street,
and consisted of the body now called University
College. It was founded, as Sir George Young
has stated, to meet two great wants, the one to
provide for the dissenters who were excluded from
the older universities (a want that has passed away by
reason of the opening of the older universities), and
the other was the general want of the inhabitants of
the metropolis of having collegiate education provided
at their own doors for their children. That want still
exists. That was in the year 1826. In the year 1835
a vote was carried in the House of Commons requesting the Crown to confer a charter upon what was
then called the University of London, empowering it
to confer degrees. That was carried against the
wishes of the Government of the day. It was carried
partly with the help of the city of London. They
presented a petition to the Crown in favour of this
charter being granted. After this vote had been
passed, negotiations took place between the Government and University College. I should say that at
that time the University of London, now University
College, was a mere company. It had shares. They
contemplated making profits and dividing those profits
amongst the shareholders. Then a correspondence
was opened up between the Government and the
authorities representing the body of proprietors.
The latter consented to give up the sort of claim that
they had under the vote of the House of Commons to a
charter making them a university and empowering
them to grant degrees, and to become instead a college,
to be called University College, the Government saying that it would then found a metropolitan university,
to which University College, and a body which had
been subsequently founded, and called King's College,
should be affiliated;—that nobody should be admitted
to come up to take a degree except he came from
one of those two colleges or from some other college which should afterwards, in virtue of a power
contained in the charter, be affiliated to the university. Various colleges were from time to time under
that power affiliated to the university, but after a
time it was thought that that did not work particularly well; and, at any rate, that the usefulness of the
university was impeded. It was then resolved that the
university should be thrown open to all, whether they
had been at colleges or not, and, therefore, although the
names of these affiliated colleges have not been struck
out of the list of those that are affiliated, they have,
excepting with regard to medical degrees, no special
privileges at all. With regard to medical degrees,
nobody can come up to take a degree unless he comes
from one of the recognised hospitals or large schools.
That is the state of things under which University
College now exists. It has ceased to be a university;
it has ceased to be a proprietary body; it is simply a
college in a university,—in the university of London,—
confining itself to teaching. It has received help, as I
have already stated, from the city and from the different large corporations—the companies. I may mention
as proof of this that when the university was first
founded in the year 1825, amongst the shares that
were taken the Fishmongers' Company took five shares
of 100l. each. Of these shares they subsequently
ceded three shares for the express purpose of enabling
the college to found certain fellowships. They were
fellowships without pecuniary emolument; but as it
was then necessary, in order that a person should
be a member of the Corporation, that he should be
the possessor of a share, so these shares were ceded in
order that the college might be enabled to confer one
of those shares upon a distinguished student for
life, thus giving him the right of attending the
meetings and taking part in regulating the proceedings
of the college. That was done by the Fishmongers'
Company at the commencement. Then subsequently
there has been,—quite recently,—an extension of the
buildings of the college. A very large sum was spent,
chiefly with a view to providing for the Slade School
of Art (the teaching of art), and amongst the subscriptions that were given during the last year, 1881, I find
these sums:—The Clothworkers' Company subscribed
210l.; the Fishmongers' Company subscribed 1,000l.;
the Corporation of the city of London itself subscribed 210l.; the Mercers' Company subscribed
105l.; the Merchant Taylors' Company subscribed
31l. Then in addition to that I may mention that the
Fishmongers' Company have occasionally given scholarships tenable at University College, and that the
Clothworkers' Company have founded two exhibitions
for chemistry and physics of 50l. each, tenable for two
years. The only difference in position between King's
College and University College is simply this, that, as
I have stated, University College when it was the
University of London had under that vote which was
passed in the House of Commons acquired a sort of
right to have a charter granted to itself, and that in
consequence of the correspondence that took place between it and the Government, there was a sort of contract entered into, that if it would surrender that sort
of right that it had to be made a university, it should
have certain privileges (these collegiate privileges)
secured to it. Therefore King's College was not in
the same position as regards the contract; but apart
from that we consider that the claims of the two
are identical, and we do not wish at all to take
up any position claiming more for ourselves than
we should ask should also be extended to King's
College. The only other matter I would mention
is just this, that amongst the different endowments
that exist in the city there is one which seems to
show that the founder had a special design to promote collegiate education—I mean the Gresham College. If the Commissioners are not aware of the
facts with regard to that, I can state them shortly.
The will of Sir Thomas Gresham was dated in 1575,
and by it he bequeathed the Royal Exchange and some
adjoining hereditaments subject to a life interest to his
widow in two moieties, one to the corporation of
London, and the other to the Mercers' Company, on
the condition amongst others that the former body
should pay 50l. a year each to four persons to read
lectures in divinity, astronomy, music, and geometry,
and the latter the same stipend to three lecturers in
law, physic, and rhetoric. Then he left his house in
Bishopsgate Street for every one of the lecturers there
to inhabit, to study and read. Gresham House was
sold by authority of an Act of Parliament, and the
lecturers were compensated by having their funds increased, and then there was an inquiry in 1857
ordered by the Charity Commission, and their inspector, Mr. Martin, heard evidence and presented a
report, but no action was taken upon the report.
Amongst the witnesses who were examined, the
present Dean of Manchester, then and now the Gresham lecturer in geometry, stated that he "thinks that
Sir Thomas Gresham's foundation was intended to
be the nucleus of a university, and was so treated
by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge."
The Rev. J. Pullen, Gresham lecturer in astronomy, stated that if Gresham College was to be restored to its original dimensions and formed into a
college affiliated to the London University, it might
be made of value for educational purposes in the city.
Then in 1876 the Common Council of the city of
London approved a resolution which had been passed
by the Gresham committee, "that it is desirable that
the Gresham lectures and the funds applicable for
their support should be placed with the assistance
of the Charity Commissioners on a more satisfactory
footing," but nothing has been done. Then there
is some interesting evidence of a contemporary character as to the views of Sir Thomas Gresham. There
are three letters which were written in 1575 by the
vice-chancellor and senate of the University of Cambridge, and which are printed in the appendix to
Ward's Lives of the Professors of Gresham College.
The first is to Sir Thomas Gresham expressing the
delight and gratitude of the senate with some reports they had heard of his intention to build at
Cambridge a college. They found out their mistake
a few days afterwards, and wrote to express their
dismay and to urge that it should not be at London,
but rather at Oxford, but better still that it should
be at Cambridge because Sir Thomas was one
of their own men. Then there was a third letter,
which was written to Lady Burleigh, thanking her
for her efforts, and entreating her to try and get the
foundation given to Oxford rather than to London,
and to Cambridge rather than to Oxford. Under
those circumstances it did seem to us that there at
any rate, was a fund which does not seem ever to
have been made very useful, which was evidently intended by the founder to promote university education, and therefore we conceived that that might very
properly and in accordance with both the wishes of
the founder and the views of the city itself be applied
in promoting university education, and that that could
not be done better than by assisting the college already
in existence and in full working. I may say that I
do not think that the body of the graduates of the
university, or, so far as I know, those in connexion
with the college itself, do at all contemplate seeking
to have their college again turned into a university. Speaking, certainly for the body of graduates,
I should say there is not the slightest doubt that we
are perfectly content to go on as a college in connexion
with the University of London. All we desire is that we
may have better means of giving the education which we
give at University College. We consider that we have
a very full curriculum. We know that we have a staff
of most distinguished professors, second to none in
the kingdom. It is lamentable to see the sacrifices
that they are compelled to make in order to further
the cause of education. With regard to our medical
professors, for a long time all the services in connexion with our hospital were performed entirely gratuitously. It is only within a few years (two or three
years, I think) that they have accepted any pay for
the most invaluable services they have given. I might
mention the names of Sir William Jenner, Professor
Erichson, and a considerable number of others, who
have been the leading men in the medical profession,
and really the value of the services they have rendered
is perfectly inconceivable. Our only desire is that
we should be enabled to go on in the way that we
have gone on, and to perfect the work which we have,
to the best of the means entrusted to us, hitherto done.
We believe fully that, had we anything like the endowments possessed by some of the older universities
(take, for instance, Edinburgh), and even some of the
newer universities, we should do an immensely greater
work than we are doing at present, and we believe
that London is almost the only metropolis in the civilised world which is without a great active university
and colleges.
1630. Then, as I understand it, you are not advancing any claim as of right to any part of this property of the companies?—Oh, no.
1631. You are only contending that if Parliament
should think fit to apply any part of that property to
educational purposes your claim is one which ought
not to be passed over?—Yes, or if the companies
should so think fit.
1632. (Sir R. Cross.) Irrespective of any legislation?—Yes.
1633. (Chairman.) And, as a matter of fact, you
consider that you have been liberally assisted by the
companies heretofore?—Yes.
1634. What you are really asking is not so much
that a new departure should be taken in this matter,
but that in any new disposition that may be made, if
any such disposition is made of the property of the
companies, you should not suffer by its being placed
in hands which might be less friendly?—Yes.
1635. (Mr. Firth.) You say that you received from
companies 1,596l. last year. Was that by way of
subscription or donation?—A fund was raised, and
they subscribed to the fund.
1636. Was that for an endowment?—No, for building.
1637. Can you tell me whether you received anything, and if anything, how much, ten years ago from
the whole of the city companies?—I do not remember
that there was any particular sum ten years ago.
1638. You cannot say whether any sum, either in
the way of subscription or donation, was received from
the livery companies of the city ten years ago?—There
were the two exhibitions of the Cloth-workers' Company; they gave 50l. a year for each; those were in
existence then, and we had, as I stated at the commencement, received from the Fishmongers' Company
their subscription for the five shares of 100l. each.
1639. Those were exceptions?—Yes.
1640. With respect to Gresham College you are
aware that the money left by Sir Thomas Gresham
was left to the Mercers' Company and the Corporation
equally?—Yes.
1641. Therefore they are equally interested in it?—
Yes.
1642. Have you ever applied to the Corporation of
the city with respect to the re-appropriation of their
moiety towards university purposes?—No, I think we
have never made any application of that sort.
1643. I of course quite recognise the propriety of
that claim, but I should like to ask you this. You are
aware that Sir Thomas Gresham, in addition to the
provisions he made with respect to students living and
studying in his proposed college, provided that there
should be lectures read on a certain number of subjects?
—Yes.
1644. Would you propose that, if the moiety held
by the Mercers' Company were re-appropriated, those
lectures should be continued?—Not separately.
1645. I mean separately, that is the point of my
question?—No, I think not, because the past history
proves that that has been a failure. There have been,
I know, good lecturers there. I recollect one, Professor Abdy, who was formerly the Regius Professor
of Law at Cambridge.
1646. He is a reader there still, is he not?—I am
not quite sure whether he is or not. I recollect
his speaking to me many years ago, when first appointed; he took great interest in it, and was very
anxious indeed that there should be a good class there,
but I do not think that it has ever answered. It has
never been possible to get a sufficient number to make
it really efficient.
—1647. You are aware, probably as a matter of fact,
that the readings which are continued in geometry,
astronomy, divinity, and music, and so forth, at the
Gresham College are practically useless?—Yes, I
believe they are.
1648. (Mr. Alderman Cotton.) Following up a
question put to you by Lord Derby I suppose your
object is this, that in the event of the Commission
determining to leave the guilds as they are, and to
recommend certain institutions to them to be assisted,
you would like to be one of that number?—Quite so.
1649. (Chairman) (To Professor Williamson).
We will now ask you if you have anything to state in
corroboration of what you have heard said, or if you
wish in any way to modify the argument we have
listened to. I believe that you are prepared rather to
speak upon the technical side of education?—The
scientific part of our work is more intimately known
to me than the rest, so that I may perhaps chiefly refer
to that with your permission.
1650. Exactly?—It has seemed to many that in
the interests of higher education it is of considerable
importance that in London (the real metropolis of the
kingdom) there should be some institutions of efficiency
commensurate with the importance of the capital. At
present I think it is a matter of notoriety that the
scale on which the higher academic work is done here
is out of proportion smaller for London than what
exists in the leading capitals of Europe, and I may say
that when foreigners who are cognizant of the state of
things in the leading French and German universities
come here and learn the conditions under which we
work in the two London colleges, and whilst they
compare those conditions with what they know of
London, and I may be permitted to add what they
know of the quality of the work which is done here,
they are almost incredulous that things can be on
such a footing as that which actually exists. Now
I conceive that it would be right to ask that further
monies should be given in aid of such work as is
being done by these two colleges if it can be shown
that they would be of distinct and definite use in a
public point of view. In other words, if the colleges
have successfully turned to account such opportunities
as they have enjoyed, and if there is room for considerably more work of the same kind as that which
they have been doing, it might then reasonably be
expected that under the conditions which are requisite
for doing more of such work they would be able to do
it. Perhaps, it would be most to the point if I were
to refer more particularly to the higher general education which is now given with considerable care,
I believe with no inconsiderable success at University
College and also at King's College, to those who are
destined for the medical profession, I ought rather to
say for the higher class students who are destined
for that profession. It has come to be recognised as expedient for the training of young men
to the highest efficiency in that branch of applied
science that they should devote a certain period of
time at the beginning of their university career to
the study of pure science. In this preliminary
scientific training they are taught to observe accurately,
to record observations accurately, to reason accurately,
and in a trustworthy way upon facts established by
their own observations. They are taught also to use
scientific instruments and apparatus of various kinds
for the purpose of making observations which are
beyond the reach of the unaided senses. In fact, this
preliminary scientific training may be described as
serving to develope not merely the power of reasoning
accurately upon given premises so as to arrive at a
conclusion which is consistent with those premises;
but also the power of establishing the premises by
experiment, and of checking by experiment the truth
of conclusions which have been propounded. It serves
also to store the mind with a knowledge of some of
the simplest and most fundamental truths which have
been established by experimental research, truths
which underlie the common phenomena of nature,
and of which a knowledge is requisite for all technical
pursuits, and, indeed, for most pursuits involving more
than mere verbal questions.
There has grown up among the students who follow
this course of scientific training a spirit of earnest
devotion to such work, which could not have been
attained if they had not felt it to be not merely interesting in itself and improving to them, but also
calculated to qualify them for far more efficient and
successful professional studies than would otherwise
have been possible. Each of them is encouraged by
the sympathy of others around him who are engaged
in similar pursuits, and at the same time aided and
stimulated by intercourse with earnest and able students, and by the successful results of their studies.
The intercourse between one another of students
with such traditions of earnest work is one of the
conditions, and probably one of the most important
conditions, of the progress which they make in our
colleges.
Now, whilst such efficient and good work is being
done in those departments of science which are
required by the great majority of the students, we are
unable to provide adequately for the higher scientific
instruction which is required by some of the ablest of
them. These most able students are never very
numerous in any college, but the importance of pro
viding for them the higher intellectual training which
which they desire and need can hardly be over-estimated. It is not merely that their usefulness in after
life would be greatly increased by a higher training
proportioned to their capacity, it is even more important for the sake of developing and maintaining a really
earnest enthusiasm for learning, and a habit of efficient
and good work among the great body of college
students that these best and most earnest students
need to be kept among them while pursuing their
higher studies.
I have referred to the elementary scientific training
as provided for future medical students, but amongst
those who attend these classes in the college there is a
considerable number who resort to what I may call
preliminary scientific training for the purpose of
working at some other technical pursuit, some other
branch of applied science that medicine; and it appears
from the results of experience that the general system
which has been worked out, and which is now established for the preliminary scientific training of
medical students before they enter on their professional
studies, is suitable (with certain modifications and
improvements which will doubtless arise in future)
as the best preparation for young men who are
destined to work at many other pursuits involving
a knowledge of scientific principles, pursuits which one
may describe as applied science. Now the city
companies have begun at what I may call the material
end of this work. They have naturally, and perhaps
usefully, had in view chiefly the special working
details which need to be practised by workmen in
their respective trades, and it seems unlikely from
what one knows of the results of similar institutions
which are founded specially for purposes of technical
and special instruction that they would ever develope
that system of work in pure science which experience
has shown to be the most effective preparation for
young men destined for the highest functions in any
technical career.
We have begun at the other end by establishing
in the first instance a college for the study of pure
science, and by developing, as far as possible, the
conditions requisite for the best success in that work,
and I believe there is ample evidence (an outline of
which is given in the memorandum which has been
submitted to your Lordship by the college) that
University College and King's College have done good
and substantial work in scientific instruction with
exceptionally limited resources, and that they are only
prevented from doing still more such work by the
want of such funds as are furnished to similar colleges
in every other civilised country.
All more modern colleges which have been founded,
Owen's College, and the more recent ones, have
acted upon the results of our experience, which have
shown that the first thing to do to form a college
is to have the means of placing some men who will
do the work of the college in a sufficiently independent position to be able to do the work properly, in
fact, to endow chairs reasonably and moderately. Up
to the present time most of the chairs in our University College are unendowed, yet such is the spirit
which prevails there that more than one of our past
professors might be named whose reputations were
amongst the highest in their respective branches of
learning, yet who worked for the greater part of their
lives under financial conditions which would hardly
be deemed credible. The dispersion of resources is a
matter which ought to be regarded purely from a
national point of view; it would be unreasonable, and
I think undignified, if we were to object to new and
independent institutions being founded instead of aid
being given to us if the public interest could thus
be best promoted; nay we ought to wish that it
should be done, and I have no doubt most of us
would wish it; but if it be true, as has been often
stated by independent observers, that general preliminary scientific work in London is done less
effectually, and that the competition between the
schools, which is so important for the due development of their efficiency, is less vigorous and less
effective with the existing over-dispersion of resources
than they would be if there were a smaller number
of schools duly provided, as nearly all continental
schools are with the resources requisite for their
functions, and if in like manner the efficiency of the
work in higher education would not be increased but
diminished by a further dispersion of resources, then
I conceive that such a system of effective preliminary
scientific training as is requisite for the due promotion
of technical education can be best obtained by developing the existing resources of the chief academic
institutions of the metropolis.
1651. The point I understand you to make is this,
that you think there is a danger of too great a dispersion of educational funds?—It has occurred in the
past certainly, and it is my opinion that that is so.
1652. In the event of any portion of the funds of
these companies being applied to educational purposes,
you think that the object should be rather to concentrate than to disperse such assistance?—That is so.
1653. (Mr. Firth.) If public money was given to
these two colleges, what form of public control would
you-suggest over the colleges?—That is a matter
which it might be somewhat hazardous for me to
venture a precise suggestion upon; but there are
various forms which might reasonably be considered
for control. I conceive that it might be safest, perhaps, if any one mode of control alone were not
adopted, but if several tests were applied more or less
simultaneously. The number of students attending
classes, I conceive, would naturally be one of the
circumstances to be noted in connexion with the
measure of the efficiency of the work, but not alone
that, certainly. In some of the highest work there
might be only very few students. Then the number
of students who pass from the college to the higher
degrees of the London University, or to other such
public examinations which are of acknowledged merit,
should be taken into account.
1654. My question rather was this, this being a
grant, either in the form of donation or endowment,
of public money which you suggest, what control
would you vest in the public, and, if any, what form
of control over the expenditure of the public money
which you are asking for? Have you considered
that? At present I understand it is a quasi private
corporation, and there is no public control of any
kind?—I do not know that I could safely say what
form it could best assume; in principle I assume there
can be no difference of opinion that some proper
means of seeing that it was rightly used, or of checking it within certain limits, ought to be vested in those
who give it.
1655. You would scarcely vest that in the livery companies, of course, would you?—I think some gentlemen
on those bodies have been made governors of the college
The governors of the college are, as Dr. Wood has
explained, the body to whom the college, I may say,
belongs, and some of them are elected on the council
from time to time, and perhaps in that manner a control might be properly arranged.
1656. (Mr. Alderman Cotton.) I want you to
answer this question for Mr. Firth, if I may put it for
him; in the event of your receiving, say, 25,000l. per
annum for the management of your college, what
body ought to look after you in the expenditure of
that money? Would you consider that your own
body would be quite sufficient, after a publication of
accounts, to spend that money?—By control you
probably mean one or both of two things; namely,
deciding to what special purposes the funds should be
devoted, and also ascertaining whether they have been
so devoted as to produce good results. I should think
it might be difficult to get any body of gentlemen
who are, in the first place, more thoroughly impartial,
and, at the same time, more able and painstaking than
the council who govern the college. Their attendance
is singularly regular, and really if any suggestions
were made for other control I have no doubt it would
be considered, but for my own part I could not con
ceive anything better than the way in which our
council attends to these matters.
1657. (Chairman to Professor Morley.) We shall
be happy to hear anything you have to add to what
has already been said ?—I would only add to what
has been said by Professor Williamson on behalf of
the scientific side of the college, a very few words as
the result of my experience of the endeavour of the
college during the time I have been connected with it,
for 17 years, to make itself a centre of university education. The present relation of the college to the
university we are entirely content with. We look
upon the University of London, as Dr. Wood's history
will show, as really our eldest daughter. We are the
original institution, and the eldest birth of University
College was the University of London. We received
our charters on the same day, and then the work of
examining was divided from the teaching; then we
undertook to teach, and King's College joined us;
and I agree with what has been said, that we in no
way separate ourselves from King's College in this
application. We look upon King's College as a
fellow worker with us now, and as representing
the general education of London as apart from
special colleges that are established for special
purposes. Now I find in looking at what University
College has been doing in the direction of university teaching during the last 17 years, that in the first
place its work has been recognised by the public, by
public support in the sending of students. Seventeen
years ago the number of students in the faculties of
arts and of science (which are making this application) was 226; in the last year it was 834. We have
in 17 years very nearly quadrupled the number of
students who were in attendance, and the course of
work that has had that result has throughout aimed
at university teaching. At the beginning of the period,
when our numbers were small there was an experiment
in holding evening classes; we had had schoolmaster
classes in the evening that were not very successful.
In 1866, I think, some influential friends of the college were very anxious that we should endeavour to
do what King's College had done with great success,
that we should have evening classes, and evening
classes were tried—a little against the judgment of
the professors—for some years. The opinion of the
professors was that King's College was doing that
work thoroughly; that it was work worth doing, and
worth doing by a body with university pretensions;
that the teaching of those who came in the evening—
of clerks and others—should be thorough; but at the
same time we did not think that it was work in which
we should share, and our experiment failed, as it deserved to fail. There were 83 students in the evening
classes attending in one year, and 107 in the next;
but when the evening classes were dropped the general
work of the college, which was distinctly university
work—higher teaching—had so far advanced that
there was no loss of numbers whatever, but a continued increase in the numbers of the college. Then
when there was the bequest of Mr. Felix Slade of money
for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and for
University College for fine art professorships, University College interpreted that as for work that must be
done in direct teaching, and there was a fine art school
established, and not simply a professorship. That, of
course, brought additional students, and that was one
cause of the increase of numbers. Then also during
the same interval there has been a development of the
education of women. We thought that we ought to
lead in that, and we have endeavoured, as representing the teaching body, to lead in the course of education. We established, apart from the college, experimentally, classes for women; they were gradually
allowed to be held in the college; and we had so entirely prepared the way when the University of London opened its degrees to women that we were ready
to open our classes to women without meeting any
difficulty. Not only was the way so well prepared
that no doubts were expressed, but I find, on comparing the numbers, that the influx of women was
accompanied by a considerable addition to the number
of men studying at the college. The opening of the
college to women caused a leap in the number of students in the arts and science classes from 470 to 731,
but that included an increase of 70 or 80 in the number of men; so that meeting the requirements of the
public in that respect only made our general work to
be more completely recognised. In that way our
progress has been made, and so large an increase in
the number of students has brought with it a strong
sense of the need of material aid to enable us to go on
with our work. The work is continuing, and continuing very rapidly. We can hardly follow the work
that is leading us, and we feel everywhere the need of
space. During the 17 years, two wings have been put
out from the college. The north and south wings
did not exist 17 years ago. They have both been
built chiefly by aid of private friends of education.
It was impossible to obtain more than very slight support from the college funds, the fees from students
being entirely unable to meet charges of that kind.
The evidence of the firmness with which we have
maintained at University College our connexion with
the University of London, and our position as a body
representing university teaching in London, shows
that if this College developed it will only develope
more and more completely into a teaching university.
I will only add a note or two of the number of
graduates from University College who have taken
their degrees at London. We have on our list 1,152
students of our College who are graduates of the
University, or have been graduates of the University
of London. We find that they go on to the higher
degrees. Taking the numbers as they stood last
year, out of 1,720 bachelors of arts at the university, 495 came from University College. That is
about a fourth. But when one passes to the masters
of arts it is found that out of 281, 135 of them are
from University College; the proportion is about one
half, a fourth of the bachelors and one half of the
masters of arts. This shows that the tendency of our
work is to lead men on to the higher degrees, to attach
them to us, and not to make ourselves an institution
as an intermediate between schools and Oxford and
Cambridge. We have aimed at being a teaching university, and we have looked to the University of
London as crowning our work with its degrees. We
still wish to do so; and at present we have no thought
of asking for in any separate right of conferring degrees. We would go on in the old way with power to
enlarge our work, as it promises to enlarge if we have
the means to enable us to keep pace with it.
1658. (Mr. Pell.) Might I ask what office Lord
Kimberley fills with reference to University College ?
—He is President.
1659. He is responsible then, I suppose, for this
statement put before us ?—Yes, it is signed by him as
president of the college.
1660. Then he represents your wish, I suppose,
distinctly, in asking for this endowment of 25,000l.
annually?—Yes.
1661. You have considered how this fund might be
distributed if granted ?—Yes, that has been carefully
considered.
1662. Have you not also considered, or has not
Lord Kimberley considered, what the nature of the
governing body should be, because you expressly omit
any reference to that?—There is no reference whatever
to it. We did not contemplate any change in the
governing body. The college has been sufficient for
its work thus far, and is sufficient to continue its work,
and there has been no thought of a change.
1663. I do not know whether you are aware that—
I will not say one of the accusations, but one of the
points which have perhaps given rise to the present
inquiry with reference to the city guilds is that they
are possessed of very large sums of money, and have
the disposal of them, with no adequate control over
them by the State; are you not asking to be put in
exactly the same position as the city companies ?—The
position in which we stand is that we are answerable
to our constituency, that is, to our whole corporation;
our accounts are minutely published; they are printed
every year and audited. There is a statement of
accounts of the minutest detail, and it is submitted to
the man body of the corporation. We are responsible
to our corporation and to the Charity Commissioners.
1664. Then in that respect there is really very little
difference between you and a city company ?—I do
not know what the position of the city companies is.
We do not come here as complainants against the city
companies.
1665. Are we to understand that the University
College really contemplates the legislature bestowing
so large an income as 25,000l. a year upon them, or
nearly half a million of money, without making any
provision for control and periodical inquiry into the
application of that money; has that never occurred to
you ?—We leave that to be suggested to us when the
grant is made. Any fair condition of inspection and
control we should of course not object to.
1666. Does it not seem rather inconsistent to
suggest how the money should be applied (which you
have done here in print with Lord Kimberley's name
attached to it) without at the same time assisting us
upon the point of who is to be the governing body ?—
The reply to that is that we should look to have the
grant with the conditions upon which it would be
conceded to us; the conditions should come together
with the grant.
1667. So long as you got the money you would
submit to almost any condition, would you ?—No,
certainly not.
(Dr. Wood.) What we really always have felt has
been that our history in the past is a guarantee for
the future. We have raised this enormous sum of
money (for it is an enormous amount that has been
raised by the college), and with that we done a great
work, and we consider that what we have done in the
past is a guarantee for what we shall do in the future,
in other words that we have earned a right to be
trusted.
(Mr. Pell.) You have earned the right, but have
you not failed in earning an adequate income; your
students have increased very much in number, I think
Professor Morley said, but still he said that that
justified your asking for more material assistance from
the outside.
(Prof. Morley.) We need more enlargement and
the money; we are asking the public now for 100,000l.
to enable us to complete our buildings.
(Dr. Wood.) I do not know whether the Commission are aware of what the constitution is. Under
the present Act of Parliament there is a large body
of governors.
(Mr. Pell.) I think I gathered that from your
evidence.
(Dr. Wood.) Every year there is a general meeting
of the governors; then the accounts are audited and
submitted to them; they elect the governing body,
the council, year by year.
(Mr. Firth.) Are all your funds under the control
of the Charity Commissioners ?
(Prof. Morley.) All except the students' fees.
(Mr. Firth.) How did they come under the control
of the Charity Commissioners ?
(Dr. Wood.) As a lawyer I know, perhaps, more
about that, if Professor Morley will allow me to
answer. It is only the special funds that are under
the control of the Charity Commissioners, not, of
course, the general funds.
1668. (Mr. Firth to Dr. Wood.) Of course the
special funds come under their control; those bear
but a small proportion to your income, do they not?—
Yes.
1669. Would you suggest that those funds if given
to you should be under the control of the Charity
Commissioners ?—If that were made a condition; if
we are not thought worthy of more trust than that, we
should not refuse it I have no doubt.
1670. The guarantee that would be wanted would
be that of a continuous proper application ?—Quite so.
1671. Nobody doubts the proper application now,
but three generations hence it. might not be so ?—I
have no doubt we should not object to that.
(Sir G. Young.) I would add one remark. I
think it would be only proper in this connexion that a
special reference should be made to the endowment
which we are at present enjoying from the City and
Guilds of London Institute to the extent of 200l. a
year paid in support of each of two chairs for the
purpose of extending our chemical and engineering
teaching in the technical direction. Two chairs have
been founded, which are called the Chairs of Chemical
and Mechanical Technology, which have had considerable success and are very well attended.—With
respect to the point which has just been the subject
of inquiry I, myself, made a remark upon it. I do
not know that it is necessary for me to sever myself
from those present here with me; but so far as I am
concerned, and I think I speak the general impression
on the part of the Council, I may say that where
public funds are paid, public control of an effective
kind must be contemplated; and that if, as appeared
to be Mr. Pell's opinion, our statement is defective
in not containing anything as to the express mode
in which that control should be exercised, that must
rather be ascribed to the uncertainty we at present
labour under, from what quarters we are to contemplate
any such large increase to our funds. Although we
have asked for 25,000l. a year, and although we are
at present receiving support from the livery and city
guilds, we hope to obtain large sums as we have
done in the past from the public generally. It is,
moreover, quite possible that we may yet obtain
funds from the State. Therefore I conceive that it
would be quite premature for us to suggest any plan
for the exercise of that control. If we obtained large
subsidies from the city and livery companies, then, no
doubt, some control should be exercised on their part;
if we obtain them from the State there should be
State control. If we continue to obtain the funds
that we require, as we require them, from the public
at large, then some such control as we are at present
subject to, namely, the control of public opinion,
would probably be sufficient.
1672. (Chairman.) Let me ask you just one question upon that last remark of yours. In the event of
your receiving large assistance from the State or from
funds that formerly belonged to the companies do you
not think that the effect of your being so provided for
would be very much to diminish the flow of subscriptions and donations from the general public,
would it not be thought that you were well enough off
to do without them?—Quite the contrary. I am
convinced that the position in which we should then
be placed as a public institution,—I am not saying
the fact that we were supported by public funds, but
the public recognition which would be given to us—
would at once enable us to surmount the great
difficulty which has beset us since our foundation,
namely, that we have to a certain extent the colour of
a private institution.
Adjourned to Wednesday next at 4 o'clock.