King's College London
Deputation from King's College.
The following Gentlemen attended as a Deputation
from King's College, London:—
The Principal (The Reverend Canon Barry,
D.D.).
The Treasurer (Mr. C. P. Serocold).
The Secretary (Mr. J. W. Cunningham), and Professors Adams, F.R.S., Shelley, M.I.C.E., and
Wiltshire, M.A.
1773. (Chairman to the Reverend Canon Barry.)
I need not ask you whether you are the Principal of
King's College. We understand that your object in
coming here is to put forward the claim of King's
College to some share in the funds which are now in
possession of the city companies; is that so ?—Yes: in
the event (that is) of their being devoted to the work
of education in any form.
1774. Probably it would be more convenient that
you should make a statement in your own way ?—
Perhaps I may explain to the Commission that, in
order to economise their time, we have thought it
better to divide the work of the deputation. It is to
be my duty to make a general statement on the
work and character of the College which we represent. Our treasurer, Mr. Serocold, and our secretary,
Mr. Cunningham, will lay before the Commission the
financial aspects of our requirements. Professor Shelley,
who is the head of our engineering department, will
refer more particularly to the difficulties of technical
education due to the want of funds. Professor
Adams will take the same course with regard to physical science; and Professor Wiltshire will bring
before the Commission the work of the evening
classes. I will drect my evidence to three points.
(I.) The Commission has already had before it the
memorial which states generally our constitution and
work; but it may be well briefly to summarise this
statement. King's College, as some members of the
Commission will be aware, is now 50 years old, about
the same age as University College; and like University College, it developed, first, one School of Liberal
education which we commonly call our General Department, to which the school for boys is a junior appendage, and one great Technical school, the Medical
Department. To these by degrees three other technical
schools have been added—one which we call the Department of Applied Science, which trains chiefly for
engineering and cognate professions including metallurgy; another the theological school, and the third a
school of practical art and practical fine art, which
has been recently founded with the assistance of the
City and Guilds Institute, who grant us (during pleasure) the sum of 200l. a year towards that department
of our work. Besides these we have a large organisation of Evening Classes carrying on at exceedingly
low fees almost the whole of the work of the college in
the evening for the benefit of those who are engaged
in professions during the day—a very interesting but
I am sorry to say wholly unremunerative work; and
lastly we are endeavouring with some success to extend
our work from the higher education of men to the
higher education of women, and we have made some
considerable progress towards the opening of that new
department. This is our work, and in these various
departments I suppose, that speaking roughly, we
educate in different degrees about 2,000 persons,
either students or boys in the school. In those respects our College is not unlike University College,
and, as I know that the Commission has had before it
the claims of University College, it will be perhaps
convenient for me to refer to the points in which
King's College differs from University College rather
than to those in which it agrees with it. The first
point in which we differ is in the matter of our large
system of Evening Classes. University College attempted that work some years ago, but for some reason
relinquished it; and the large system of evening
classes, which are carried on at low fees for the benefit
of those engaged during the day, is therefore relatively
peculiar to King's College. Another peculiarity of
King's College is the foundation of the theological
school, which by the nature of the case cannot possibly exist at University College. Those are the two
chief points of distinction in the constitution of the
two colleges. There is a third difference in system,
that is that at King's College we rather incline to
courses of education, although we admit those who
take up only a few subjects, who are called "Occasional students," whereas at University College I
believe that most students take up whatever subjects
they please, and that comparatively few (of course,
with the exception of the great medical school) enter
upon systematic courses. In most other respects the
constitution and work of the colleges are very largely
the same. There is, however, as the Commission will,
of course, be aware, one most important difference.
In one point our system of instruction is more extensive than that of University College, because in all
our departments we introduce the element of religious
knowledge. I need hardly tell the Commission that
our college is connected with the Church of England,
and that, in accordance with the principles of the
Church, the study of religious knowledge is mainly
Scriptural. We hold that, to say the least, religious
knowledge is the most important branch of knowledge,
and the most important instrument of education. I
believe that in this respect we are very distinctly
akin to the old constitution of the city livery com
panies. Over and above their directly technical
work, they have always recognised, not merely education, but the promotion of religious worship and
knowledge and religious education. Therefore we
may claim for our college a peculiar similarity to
the institutions with which the Commission is mainly
concerned. It should, however, be understood—I do
not know whether it is understood by the Commission—that there is at King's College no religious
test of any sort or kind for the admission of students.
We have there students who are not churchmen, some
students who are not Christians. Not only is there
no religious test of any sort or kind, but there is no
disability which depends upon the presence or absence of religious profession. It should also be understood that in all the departments religious worship and
knowledge are offered to all, but are compulsory upon
none. With regard to "Occasional students" the question does not even occur. With regard to the matriculated students, under the discretion given me by the
Council, a kind of Conscience clause is most freely
worked. As a matter of fact I have found it claimed
mainly by three classes of students—by Roman Catholic,
a few (comparatively few) Jews, and some Eastern students, who are neither Jews nor Christians. As a rule,
those students who belong to various Protestant Nonconformist bodies rarely or never decline the religious
instruction, which it is my privilege to give. In
that respect then it should be understood that King's
College opens its doors to all. The Commission are
no doubt aware that with regard to the teachers of
the college there is this condition, that, with one or
two exceptions, they must be "members of the Church
of England," whatever that phrase may legally imply.
We accept simply a man's own statement that he
complies with that condition; and in relation to this
regulation, I may be allowed to remind the Commission that the roll of our teachers (I will take the science
department alone) in the past shows that our choice is
sufficiently wide. We can chronicle in science the names
of Sir Charles Lyell, Professors Phillips, Ansted,
Wheatstone, Daniell, Miller, Edward Forbes, and Rymer Jones, to say nothing of those who are at present
working in the college. In the department of medical
science such names as Fergusson, Watson, Bowman,
Todd, Ferrier, Rutherford, Garrod, Lister will show that
our sphere of choice is large enough to secure teachers
of the very highest order. This then is the general
character of our work, for which we venture to claim
not only that it is a work of general public usefulness, but also that it is akin to some of the objects
which are contemplated in the constitution of the City
Companies. (II.) The next question is for what purpose do we find, in the course of that work, that endowment is required. Our gross income is large, amounting to between 30,000l. and 40,000l. a year. But
almost the whole of this is, I am sorry to say, spent
every year; and after an experience of 14 years I
have come to the conclusion that the chief uses of
endowment to us would be the following.—First, that
we should be able to teach things which we ought to
teach, and which cannot possibly pay by the fees of
the students. This will be especially the case with
the higher branches of all education, which comparatively few attend, and will be most of all the case
with the exceedingly costly work of experimental and
mechanical science. If I have an educational development to propose to our Council, I am constantly
met by the difficulty that it cannot possibly pay, and
therefore cannot possibly be carried out with our
limited means. The second object, which I should
have in view is (as our memorial states) a considerable
lowering of the fees which at present we are obliged
to charge for education, in order to open our educational work more widely. We have to live upon our
fees, and (as at University College) our fees are not
inconsiderable. Allowing for the expenses of living
in London I should think to come to one of the great
London Colleges must cost a young man quite as much
(if not more) as to go to the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge, unless he should there fall into more
expensive habits of living. I should be very glad to
be able to lower the fees very considerably. In
some departments perhaps they might be lowered by
as much as a third; in others possibly more. The
third need of endowment lies in this—that the whole
of the staff of King's College (I know not how
it may be at University College), our teachers are
underpaid, in comparison with the payments that are
made at ordinary public schools, at the old colleges, or
at the new colleges which are being founded in the provinces. I may, perhaps, without impropriety take my
own case as an instance. I came to King's College from
a public school, not one of the wealthy sort; and in
so doing I had to sacrifice very nearly half my income
in order to accept a post which certainly ought to be
considered a more important one. My case is the case
of all my colleagues. My only wonder is that we are
able to secure such a staff as we have at such very
low remuneration. Those are the three main objects
I have in view. I should be very glad also to found
scholarships and exhibitions, but my experience is that
for education it is far more important to lower fees
than to have a large number of exhibitions. Both
objects are, no doubt, important, but the lowering of
fees would of the two be far more useful for the extension of education. The objects then of endowment
are (if I may venture to recapitulate) to teach what
ought to be taught and yet will not commercially pay;
to lower fees, and therefore to extend the scope of our
education; to maintain our teachers better; and to
provide still further for poor students by exhibitions,
although (as a matter of personal opinion) I lay less
stress upon that, than I believe is laid by many authorities upon this subject. (III.) The only other question which I think we are bound to answer is why
we venture to present ourselves to this Commission.
Our ground is simply this. We suppose it to be
not at least unlikely that as the city companies have
always in some degree recognised the promotion of
education as a portion of the duty that they were
desirous to do, the effect of the Commission may
be to extend this application of the funds of the city
companies—in what form we do not of course presume
to inquire. We find that the city companies have
always recognised not merely technical work, but both
technical and liberal education. We find that they
have been to some degree able to recognise the work of
King's College—by the grant to which I have alluded,
and by various other exceedingly liberal grants from
separate Companies—and we believe that there are
many city companies, which (if they are left free
to dispose in educational work of any funds committed to them) may probably not be unfavourable to
the principles and work of King's College, and may
prefer to assist existing institutions, rather than to
continue or to push further than has at present been
done the foundation of new ones. It is for these
reasons that we venture to present ourselves to the
Commission, and to this statement I will only add the
expression of my readiness to answer any question
that any member may please to put to me.
1775. (To Mr. Serocold.) I will now call upon
you to explain the financial position of the college?—
The part of this subject which is committed to me
is one of figures only, and is necessarily rather dull.
I will try to make it as short as I can, and I think
it will show you that the history of King's College
is one of continued struggle against financial difficulties from the very beginning, and they have been
not unsuccessfully contended with, I think. The
college was originally founded, as perhaps the Commission knows, in 1829. The grant from the Crown
was at no rent, but subject to the condition that
education should be carried on on the site and in
accordance with the principles of the Church of
England. If we failed to carry out those conditions
I apprehend that the building and site would revert
to the Crown. Originally the college was, no doubt,
by some people looked upon as a commercial speculation, and I find on going back into the accounts
that the capital raised for the building may be
divided into two heads—shares and donations. The
sum of 100,000l. was raised in shares, and a sum
of 46,800l. was given in donations. I ought perhaps
just to mention that though the shares and donations
were separated in the accounts it was expressly provided that the shareholders should have no advantage
over the college as regarded their portion of the
capital fund. If any dividend should be declared,
it was to be declared equally on the donations and
on the shares, and the dividend on the donations
was to remain the property of the college. However no dividend has ever been declared, and therefore that question does not arise. I then find that
up to 1854, which is a period of 25 years, you may
say the college not only spent the whole of this sum
in its buildings, but got into debt to the extent of
19,000l. The cash for that debt was partly owing to
private persons who advanced it on interest, and partly
to endowment funds which had not been invested.
Perhaps here I ought to mention that there was no
breach of trust in that, as there was no condition
that they should be invested, indeed permission in
some cases was given to use them. The Council
felt in 1854 that this burden of debt was intolerable, and that the college was not in a proper
state as long as it existed; and they took a step
which I think will prove to you the straits to which
we have been driven, and you can imagine how
painful it was. The Council said we will have an
annual reduction of 500l. a year off this debt until it
is wiped out, and it must come out of profit and loss.
If profit and loss will provide for it well and good; if
profit and loss will not provide for it we shall be under
the painful necessity of taxing the incomes of the
staff to make up the sum. I find that between the
years 1854 and 1873 we positively took out of the
pockets of the staff a sum of 5,000l. deducted in the
shape of a pro rata income tax as the occasions arose.
After 1873 we discontinued that system of a compulsory 500l. a year, but we still have a sinking fund for
the debt of the college which the college staff are
liable to make good, though not quite in the same
form. Since that time the college has been obliged to
do very many large and costly works, and I do not
trouble the Commission with the numberless small
things that were done, nor with the annual repairs for
the purpose of keeping up the building; but I take a
few items of large import. I find that we had a new
anatomical museum to build, costing 2,800l. We made
large alterations in the physical department, costing
1,500l.; then we had a great calamity in the dining
hall falling in one day, which we always thought was
owing to the Metropolitan Railway disturbing the
foundations. That cost us 1,700l. We then built a
new physiological laboratory, costing 3,000l. We
added at the top of the building new drawing rooms,
costing 3,000l.; and our last great outlay was the new
floor of class-rooms at the top of the college, costing
7,500l. That makes a total of 19,500l., which we have
spent. We have reduced this debt by various sums
out of profit and loss, and I am happy to say that we
paid, in various ways, 9,169l. off that debt; still there
remained a heavy debt to the bankers owing, as well
as the very disagreeable question of uninvested endowment funds, and in 1876 a great effort was made by
raising a special donation fund (which your Lordship may remember as you were kind enough to subscribe to it), and the total amount received from that
source was 11,700l. This enabled us to invest
the whole of our endowment funds, and we now
have standing in very good securities the sum
of 38,000l., of which I will give more particulars in a
minute. In addition to the endowment we ought to
acknowledge that we have had benefactions either by
legacy or gift from different people, amounting in all
to about 3,500l. The result of that is that the present
debt of the college may be called 12,000l. I will not
trouble the Commission with going over the exhibitions
we have had from city companies, unless they wish
it; but the Clothworkers' Company have been very
generous to us, so have the Salters' Company, and the
City and Guilds Institute, and we have small contributions of a similar nature from Sir Charles Freake,
who gives us 50l. every year. Then if I take the
profit and loss account I come to this that the principle upon which the college is worked is that one
fourth of the fees should go to the working expenses
of the college, and that three fourths should go to the
professors and masters. If I take last year (I do not
think it is an unusual one) as an instance, of 34,775l.
for students' fees we paid to our professors 26,833l. It
would not be an exact three fourths, because there are
certain things which make it vary, but it is not far out.
I find a difference therefore of 7,942l. for the college
share. Our expenses were 11,360l. Now we could not
possibly have carried on at all if we had not had our
outside profits. They are legitimate enough, I suppose,
but they are outside profits. They consist of the rent
of our students' rooms; we have a certain number of
students to whom we charge rent; and a profit is
also made upon our books and upon our dining hall.
Those items made up 3,418l., and without them it wil
be evident that we could not have paid our way at all
last year. Then there are one or two small things I
may mention. The Principal alluded to the very
small pay of our professors, but with some delicacy he
did not put his own case as strongly as I should do.
It will hardly want remark, when I say that we are
not able to guarantee our Principal the clear sum of
1,000l. a year. I may mention also that on the
average of the last three years our professor of mathematics has not received 450l. a year, while our professor
of classics has not received 300l. a year. I think
those figures speak for themselves. I would then
mention in addition that the endowment fund amounts
to 38,370l., and I have divided that into three items
to show to the Commission how it goes. The income
of 4,000l. is devoted entirely to prizes in medals and
books, of course of no pecuniary value to the students;
the sum of 18,225l. is devoted to scholarships and
exhibitions, while we only have three endowed professorships (one I need not count, as it is very small), the
Chinese professorship, that is 2,101l., the economic
science is 1,250l., and the Gilbert lectureship, 1,250l.
In addition to that we had a generous legacy from
Mr. Sambrook of 10,000l., which was left to be appropriated to exhibitions and scholarships at the discretion of the college. I have the particulars of that if
the Commission would wish to have it. I think I
have really nothing more to say, but I put the record
of the figures before you.
1776. May I ask in explanation of what you have
said, whether the buildings which you occupy are
held rent free?—Yes, entirely.
1777. They are, in fact, a grant from the Crown ?
—The land is a grant from the Crown. We built
them and paid for them, but only subject to the
condition I mentioned; and if we gave up teaching I
am afraid the Crown would take them.
1778. (Sir S. Waterlow.) I think two professor
ships have been omitted. I wish to ask whether it is
not a fact that a professorhip of 200l. a year for fine
arts and one for metallurgy of 200l. a year were
granted by the City and Guilds Institute ?—They are
not professorships in that sense. They are gifts at
will. They have given us 400l. a year, and I hope
they will continue to do so, but they are not endowed
professorships.
1779. It is money given for that particular chair?
—Yes. I mentioned them incidentally as I passed on,
but the question you put to me relates to endowed
professorships only, and I say that we have only three
endowed professorships.
1780. (Chairman to Mr. Cunningham.) The Commission will be glad to hear any remarks that you may
desire to add?—I only wish to say a few words to
show you how extremely badly our staff are paid.
That is one point to which I wish to refer. We have
six departments at work. The staff of our general
literature department consists at the present moment
of 19 men. Last year the whole of those 19 men
only received 2,016l. as their salaries. In our applied
science department we had last year 15 men at work,
and they received 1,990l. divided amongst them. In
our theological department there were 14 men at work,
and they received 1,926l. Our medical school consisted of 24 members of the staff, and they received
3,461l. for the whole of their work at King's College.
Our evening class staff consists of 35 men, and they
received for their whole remuneration 1,117l., and
our school staff consisted of 36 men, and they received
very nearly 12,000l. for their work. In this number
of our staff some are counted twice over, but there are
109 separate men who are receiving pay from the
college at the present time. Then I should also like
to say that I do not think there is the smallest hope
of our fees being at all added to. They are now at the
present time quite as high as we can by any posbility make them, and complaints are made continually
every day that the fees are too high. The students in
the General Literature department pay 42l. a year,
in the applied science department the same in the
theological department 37l. 16s. Our medical students
pay 30l. a year, the school pay 24l. a year, and the
evening classes pay for the year about 2l. 12s. 6d.
for each class. You may think that a very small
sum, but it is nearly six times as large as other institutions of the same kind, so that I am afraid our
fees could not by any possibility be any larger.
Then as to the individual men and individual work
that we do, we have four men engaged at King's College in the teaching of mathematics. They work
during the week 15 hours each, that is 60 hours in
all, and the whole of those four men for their work
for the year receive under 1,000l. We have two
classical men; they have 30 hours a week work in
classics, and they get 400l. a year between them. Our
English professor has four hours' work in the week
and he has under 150l. Our History professor has
four hours' work in the week and he gets about 135l.
Our French professor has four hours' work in the
week and he gets 120l. Our German professor has
four hours' work in the week and he gets 108l. Our
geological professors have four hours' work in the
week and they get 147l. In Professor Adams' departments—there are two engaged in teaching mechanics
and physics—they have 56 hours' work in the week
with about 650l. a year between them. I might go
through the whole list in the same way, showing
how extremely badly our men are paid, and what
urgent need we have for help.
1781. (To Prof. Adams.) Will you be kind
enough to state what I believe you have come to
prove?—I have to speak particularly with regard to
the general and the scientific education given in the
college. King's College is one of the two London
colleges which supply a university education, and
claims the support of the city companies, both on the
ground of the general education as well as the practical or technical education given in the college. At
King's College we aim at carrying the education of
students in special branches of study to the highest
pitch to which it can be carried, and we encourage
original investigation in scientific branches. In order
to do that special work in the more advanced
branches of science it is necessary that we should
have assistance, and, in fact, we want, especially
in these days of keen competition, to be liberally
supplied with funds. From the account which has
already been given it will be seen the staff is very
much overworked. The time devoted to actual teaching in the college is very great, and as science
advances this is more and more felt, so that the
college must fall behind other institutions which have
the means of progress if we cannot be supplied with
the necessary funds. Also the professors are in want
of further assistants, so as to give them time for
original research, so that in the progress of science
our English colleges may not fall behind the German
and other universities. Students come to us to obtain
instruction in chemistry and in physics with a view
to future service under the Government, and in many
cases men who are already in active service abroad
have obtained leave to come home, and spend their
time in coming to our laboratories to enable them to
do their work for the Government more efficiently;
many men of that class have come to us who have
been in India in the Indian Telegraph Service.
Then again, some of our students have obtained
appointments in the Indian Telegraph Service, and in
the Public Works Department in India, after leaving
us. During the last two years, before the foundation
of Cooper's Hill College, our students had 10 out of
35 appointments which were filled up in the Indian
Public Works Department. The principle of endowment has been recognised by the Government.
Cooper's Hill College was endowed and established
with the view of educating all students preparing to
enter the Public Works Department, and in the last
two or three years its work has been extended to
telegraphy as well. In addition to this, the Cooper's
Hill College, which is able to offer appointments
to its best students, directly competes with our engineering department by becoming an engineering
school for the education of students for the engineering profession at home. Then again, the Government has improved the education of the Royal School
of Mines, and under the name of the Normal School
of Science has set up a scientific school which
directly competes with us, so that the principle of
endowing the teaching of science has been fully admitted and acted upon by the Government, and, indeed,
colleges have been established which directly compete
with our unendowed colleges. We ask that we may
be placed in the same position as these colleges with
regard to endowment, in fact, that the competition may
be a fair one. The Royal Commission on Scientific
Instruction and the Advancement of Science, after
examining into our system very completely, reported in
1874 that the two London colleges and Owen's College, Manchester, had established their claim to endowment from the State, and recommended that annual
grants in aid of the income of the colleges should
be appropriated to definite purposes, namely, first, the
augmentation of the stipends of the professorships;
second, the payment to demonstrators and assistants;
and third, the payment in aid of laboratories and
establishment expenses. We include in our scientific
teaching at King's College, not only the theoretical
principles of science, but also their application; and,
wherever it is possible, as in subjects like chemistry,
physics, and physiology, we carry that practical education to as great an extent as possible. The endowment of Owen's College, or of the Victoria University,
not with money but with the power of granting
degrees, has stamped the education given by that
college, and, by implication, the education given by
our London colleges as university education, which
deserves recognition. We have had among our laboratory students at King's College men who have taken
high degrees at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Some who are preparing to be teachers in
schools come to us, after taking their degrees at the
old universities, to get a practical knowledge of subjects, such as physics, or chemistry, or physiology;
also teachers from schools frequently come to us to
be instructed. Several of the leading engineers and
manufacturers recognise the value of our practical
teaching and are glad to get our students into their
works. In the last few years seven or eight of our
students have entered Messrs. Easton and Anderson's
works, and about the same number have entered the
electric works of Messrs. Siemens, and at the present
time there are at least six of our students who are
engaged in Messrs. Siemens' works; among them,
one of the chief electricians in the cable testing department, and one of their chief engineers on board the
cable ship "Faraday," and another who had the
entire charge of Messrs. Siemens' exhibit at the Crystal
Palace electrical exhibition. The subjects which are
taught at the City and Guilds of London Institute,
viz.: theoretical and applied chemistry, theoretical
and applied physics, and the first principles of mechanical engineering, have for many years been taught
at King's College, and can be as fully taught there as
may be required, provided funds are supplied for
developing the work as the demand for it or the progress of science requires. King's College has stood
well to the front in supplying practical laboratories
in chemistry, in physics, in photography, in metallurgy, and in mechanical engineering. The King's
College physical laboratory was founded in the year
1868, when as yet there was no physical laboratory
at either of the universities of Oxford or Cambridge,
or at Owen's College, Manchester, and before the
year 1870 there were no physical laboratories for
students in England, except at our two London colleges. Some 10 or 12 years ago, the German universities were beginning to found physical laboratories,
and now they have the magnificent physical laboratories which have mostly been built within the last
five years; but they had not begun to establish
physical laboratories at the time that ours was established. Now so much money has been spent on
the teaching of science in Germany that, both in
chemistry and in physics, and also in physiology, the
German universities must take the lead, unless our
colleges in England are supported by aid from without, and we are anxious that, as regards efficiency, our
London colleges should be put on something like the
same footing as the German universities. Great
advantages result from carrying on the study of science
side by side with other studies, and experience has
shown that technical or practical science cannot be
taught as effectively apart from a general education
in the branches of pure science on which it depends.
Where such teaching has been tried the system has
not succeeded. At King's College we sketch out the
course of education which we regard as the best for
those who are to be engineers or manufacturers, or
who are to be engaged in technical pursuits; at the
same time we admit for part of the course, or for
separate subjects, students who do not wish to take
our full course in the applied science department.
We believe that with a good knowledge of the theoretical work, and of such practical work as we can give
him, a man will afterwards pick up his practical
knowledge much more rapidly in the manufactory or
in workshops. When the theoretical and practical
instruction are carried on in the same college they
act and re-act on one another; thus, if a student is
making a model of a roof when I am lecturing on the
mechanical principles of frameworks, or if he is visiting workshops and attending Professor Shelley's
lectures on the details of machinery, and at the same
time is attending my lectures on practical mechanics,
he will take far more interest in and get a better
knowledge of the subject of my lectures, because he
sees more clearly the direct relation which they have
to his practical work. There is now an increasing
demand for scientific education of the highest kind,
and colleges which can give it should be placed in a
position so as to do it efficiently. In addition to endowments for the general and practical teaching,
there is also endowment required at King's College
for keeping up our museums and libraries. It is
impossible for a college living entirely upon the fees
of its students to keep its museums in a proper state
of efficiency without a regular fund for the purpose.
Our museum of philosophical apparatus contains a
very interesting historical collection, the nucleus of
which, being the collection of apparatus which belonged to King George III., was presented to the
college by Her Majesty the Queen. From time to
time the Council have granted sums of money to
prevent the museum from falling entirely out of date,
and Sir Charles Wheatstone bequeathed his extensive collection to the college, and gave us a legacy of
500l., which has been spent in the purchase of apparatus. In the experimental sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and physiology, it is quite impossible
that the more advanced work, consisting principally
of laboratory practice, can be made remunerative, for
the classes get smaller and smaller as they are more
advanced, and the individual teaching in the laboratory takes the time and energy of the Professor. It
is impracticable to raise the fees, for that would
exclude the students. Hence, in laboratories especially,
there should be endowment for the Professors and
for the teaching staff, as well as for the equipment
and keeping up of the laboratories. The scale of
endowment should not be inferior to that already
existing in the City and Guilds of London Institute,
or that in the new Technical University to be established at South Kensington. At the present time
in connexion with my own subject we require appliances for the practical teaching of students who
intend to be electrical engineers, and we hope shortly
to be in a position to say to a student, we can teach
you not only the principles of electricity, but the
methods of electrical measurement as applied to
Dynamo machines. Scarcely any branch of mechanical engineering can now be said to be independent of electricity, and this is one of the directions
in which we hope to extend our work.
1782. (To Prof. Shelley.) We understand that
you desire to speak with reference to technical
science, and we shall be glad to hear any remarks you
have to make?—In order to save the time of the
Commission I have drawn up a statement, and I
propose to read that as being the shortest way of
dealing with my evidence :—"I, the Professor of
Manufacturing Art and Machinery in the Department of Engineering and Applied Science in King's
College, London, having conferred with my colleagues, Professors Kerr, Robinson, Huntington,
Glenny, and Mr. Walker, who are connected with
more particularly the province of practical technical
engineering, under the heads of (1) machinery and
manufacturing art, (2) the arts of construction, (3)
land surveying and levelling, (4) metallurgy, (5)
engineering drawing, (6) the workshop, have carefully considered the question whether within the
limits of our peculiar province there could be offered
sufficient encouragement for the institution of an
endowment of the college in the public interest of
technical education, and on behalf of myself and
my colleagues I beg leave to make the following
statement:—(1.) We are clearly of opinion that
the organisation of King's College is capable of
undertaking the furtherance of the technical education of the middle classes in a practical sense with
very great promise of success; and this more especially on account of the convenient locality in which
the college buildings are situated, the completeness
of the staff, the old established and specially recognised association of the college with engineering
work, and the highly influential connexion of the
college; (2) Taking a broad view of the matter in
hand, and ignoring on principle all such questions
as personal remuneration we have to say certainly
that in our province the work of technical education
is very much impeded for want of appliances, a
library and the aid of subordinate officers. The
fees charged to students, although many would
desire to see them reduced, seem to be scarcely
sufficient, even with the most careful management,
to keep the machinery of the college going, as the
secretary will no doubt be able to show. Although
there is, we believe, little or no expenditure incurred, except for work which is actually being
done there is much that has to be done in our
province con amore. We, therefore, regard it to
be quite correct to say within our province that
the college is very poor and indeed embarrassed,
and that it might be of much more service to the
public if it were endowed as some other colleges
are. (3.) In respect of (1) machinery and manufacturing art, we submit that an evening class or
classes with very small fees for the instruction of
students of the more practical order who cannot
attend during the day, or pay more liberally, might
be instituted with great advantage. Perhaps it
would be also practicable to establish occasional or
special courses of instruction for particular trades,
under teachers to be specially procured from time
to time. Models and diagrams are also urgently
wanted; indeed an engineering museum might be
most advantageously established; and additional
officers would obviously be required. In this section
alone the importance of which to the national
prosperity cannot be over-rated, we are of opinion
that a large sum might readily be expended to the
great benefit of the cause. (4.) In respect of (2)
the arts of construction. We are of opinion that
evening instruction for civil engineers, architects,
builders, and various supplementary orders of
artizans and others connected with constructive
design, might be set on foot with advantage, and
that the department in the college museum,
which represents such business might be largely
improved. The fine art of architectural design also,
which at present is not dealt with at all in King's
College (it is so in University College), might perhaps be included in the work. (5.) In respect of
(3) land surveying and levelling, the professor
finds himself much embarrassed for want of the instruments and appliances which are required for
sound instruction. Here also evening instruction,
if only for office work, might be introduced. (6.)
In respect of (4) metallurgy, we have to say that
the existing professorship of this exceedingly important practical subject has been established only
quite recently under a grant from the Guilds Institute of the City of London. The endowment is
only 200l. a year, and is held at the pleasure of the
Guilds Institute. This must obviously be an expensive department if it is to be commensurate with
the growing importance of the subject; and we are
of opinion that King's College might well undertake the duty at once of expending a considerable
sum per annum beyond the present endowment.
(7.) In respect of (5) engineer drawing, a subject
of great importance as a branch of technical education, we are of opinion that its usefulness might be
greatly extended by the purchase of models and examples, from which sketches and drawings could be
made with a view of inculcating correct ideas of
proportion and a full knowledge of detail. (8.) In
respect of (6) the workshop, which is in reality a
school of manual workmanship in iron, wood, and
like materials, in connexion with the subjects of
machinery, manufacturers, and general construction,
and which is both largely popular with the students
and exceedingly useful to them, additional assistants
and appliances are much wanted. The college has
recently been presented by the Clothworkers' Company of London with a valuable testing machine for
experimenting upon the strength of materials. We
should be glad to see this machine placed in a more
convenient chamber, which would have to be built
for it, and its use fully developed by the provision
of proper attendants. As regards new professorships we are in considerable doubt; but in view of
the rapid progress of physical science at the present
day we may be permitted to suggest that, if it were
found practicable to establish special classes for engineering, physics, practical electricity, and possibly
some other kindred subjects, a considerable sum
might be expended with much advantage. The
class of practical fine art, also recently established
under our advice, we pass over, on the ground that
it will be taken up by another department. The
application of endowment funds for the library for
the reduction of students' fees, or for supplementing
the revenue of the college in other respects, we
leave to be discussed by other authorities.—C. P. B.
Shelley, M. Inst. C. E., Professor of Manufacturing Art and Machinery, King's College, London."
1783. (Sir Sydney Waterlow, to the Reverend Canon
Barry.) One of the gentlemen told us that the income
of the college was supplemented by grants from a
number of the livery companies, but he did not give
us any idea of the extent to which these companies
make the grant. Do not the Clothworkers' Company
give you 10 exhibitions and four prizes, amounting to
280l. a year ?—The Clothworkers' gave us each year
four exhibitions valued at 115l. for two years, two
exhibitions amounting to 20l. for one year, and four
prizes of the value of 30l. The total amount of their
gifts is 280l. per annum.
1784. Have you a branch for the education of
women in higher education at Kensington ?—Not as
yet. We are endeavouring to establish it. At present we are doing tentatively the work, but doing it
independently of the college. It is done through the
staff of the college, but at present it is an altogether
independent enterprise.
1785. Have you any grant for the purpose of helping in that work ?—None, except that we have had
some donations towards our building fund from the
city companies to the amount altogether of about
1,000l., 500l. from the Clothworkers' Company and
500l. from other city companies.
1786. Is it intended that it should be worked under
the surveillance and control of King's College ?—
Hereafter we trust to make it an integral part of the
work of the college. At present, although it is carried
on under my superintendence, and with the assistance
of many of my colleagues, our council is in no respect
responsible for it, except in giving us permission to
carry out in the name of King's College.
1787. (To Mr. Serocold.) Did not the City and
Guilds Institute make a grant of 1,000l. for apparatus
to one of your departments very recently ?—The gifts
from the city companies altogether amount to 1,470l.
1788. My question did not refer to the city companies. I asked whether 1,000l. had not been given
for apparatus in connexion with some of your classes
by the City and Guilds of London Institute ?—(Mr.
Cunningham.) No, only 300l.
1789. (To the Reverend Canon Barry.) May I
ask you whether the classes generally are full, that is
to say, whether there are as many students as can
reasonably well be taught at the different professors ?
—In some cases they are, and in other cases they are
not. In some departments we have as many as we
can reasonably teach; in others we could increase our
classes without increasing our staff. As a rule, in
lectures (properly so called) we could make this increase easily enough. In classes especially of practical
construction it would be difficult or impossible. It
would be impossible to give a general answer to that
question.
1790. The payment to the professors is really a
capitation payment?—A capitation payment.
1791. Of three fourths of the fees ?—Speaking
roughly of about three fourths. There is occasionally
an arrangement by which the professors bear a portion
of the expenses, and this diminishes the three fourths
ordinarily paid to them.
1792. I presume if the classes were really full, the
payment to the professors would be proportionately
increased ?—No doubt that would be the case unless
it were necessary porportionately to lower our fees.
There would be also in the scientific classes an increase
of expenditure.
1793. I think one gentleman stated that the fees
were generally as high as they could be ?—As high as
they could be with advantage.
1794. (To Mr. Cunningham.) I think you stated
that the fees paid by medical students were 30l. a
year?—120l. for four years. I divide the amount
over the four years, and that makes it 30l. a year.
1795. Is not that very much less than is paid at
some of the other medical schools in the metropolis?
—No, it is the highest payment that is made at any
medical school.
1796. Do you know the fees paid by medical
students at the St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical
Schools?—They certainly are not higher than the
fees paid to us, because four or five years ago the
principal schools met and determined that the same
fees should be charged.
1797. (To the Reverend Canon Barry.) Can you
tell me whether the medical school, taken by itself,
at King's College is not practically self supporting,
the building having been paid for ?—In some sense it
is self-supporting, because there is no endowment by
which to support it; but the medical school pays next
to nothing to the general funds of the college, on
account of the great expenses that are connected with
it. It has been already stated that our general principle is to divide our fees into four parts, and to give
three parts to the teachers and one part to the college,
In the medical department the one part which is
given to the college is almost (and in some years has
been entirely) eaten up by expenses. Hence when
we have paid our professors, though I must own by
no means adequately, we have had no funds whatever to keep up the college with.
1798. Do you consider that the staff generally are
not at all in excess of the numbers, having regard to
the number of pupils attending ?—I think not, because
our principle at King's College, as at University
College, is to commit each subject to a man who is
supposed to be an expert in it. The result, therefore,
is that many members of our staff do not devote to
the college anything like the whole of their time. I
myself and a few of my colleagues in the college, and
the masters of the school generally, give our whole
time.
1799. I presume the anxiety of those connected
with King's College is to secure some endowment of
the character of that by which Owen's College was
founded ?—I do not quite know what that endowment
was.
1800. An endowment by private contribution ?—
We should be very glad to secure such an endowment; in fact, we should be very pleased to have any
endowment that we could get honestly.
1801. May I ask you then whether you consider
that King's College is doing the kind of work which
should entitle it to some State endowment ?—We put
that view before the Science Commission in evidence
some years ago, and from that evidence I should certainly not wish to depart.
1802. You are still of the same opinion that you
were when you gave that evidence ?—Yes.
1803. (Mr. James.) Can you tell us what is the
average age of the students?—Practically, our
minimum age of admission is about 17. But the
exact average it would be rather difficult to give,
because in different departments it so greatly varies.
In the medical department, for instance, it is higher
perhaps than in the General or Applied science department, and in the theological department higher again
than in the medical department. If I were to put it,
speaking roughly, between 18 and 19, I should not be
far wrong.
1804. What is the longest period that any student
remained at the college ?—In the medical department
four years in the college and hospital, in other
departments two or three years, and certainly that is
the longest period, I think, in any department.
1805. What is the average expense should you say
for a young man who is a student at King's College
who is residing in London, including living expenses;
in fact, including the whole cost of his maintenance;
what do you think he can reside in London for and
attend classes ?—Do you mean, if he is living in lodgings or rooms, and not with his parents?
1806. I mean comparing his position to that of an
unattached student at a university ?—I should think
he could not certainly do with less than 150l. to 200l.
a year, allowing for the whole expenses. I have not
calculated the cost, but his college expenses, allowing
for books and other necessaries, will probably be not
less than 50l. a year. We may put 100l. for his
general maintenance, and I think it would be hardly
safe to put it much lower.
1807. (Chairman.) The general tendency of your
evidence, I think, has been to show that you will not
be able to carry on the college as you would desire to
do without some endowment from public sources?—
Without some endowment, from public or private
sources, as the case may be.
1808. But nevertheless you never have had any
endowment except that original sum with which you
started ?—Little or none.
1809. And for 50 years you have continued to
teach, and the position of the college in all except its
finances may be considered flourishing ?—I think so;
except that its fees prevent its reaching as I should
wish those classes of the community who are of comparatively narrow means. But I ought to say that
the constant increase of the element of physical science
in teaching involves an immense increase also in
expense and difficulty of working, and therefore with
the tendency to introduce more of physical science
into education our position becomes more and more
difficult. In fact, if we had not departments which
are generally speaking literary departments and cost
us nothing in the way of expense, I imagine that we
could not go on at all. The two scientific departments contribute least to the general funds of the
college; and those that are not scientific in the ordinary sense of the word really float the college.
1810. Something was said in the course of the
evidence given as to your being put into competition
with other institutions which receive direct assistance
from the State ?—Yes.
1811. Do you consider that that takes place to any
considerable extent?—Very largely, I think, in the
engineering department, since the foundation of
Cooper's Hill College, and the large amount of work
done at the School of Mines. Besides the institutions
endowed by the State there are those otherwise
endowed, such as the new Normal School of
Science, and the Cowper Street College; and we have
also in some degree to compete with such colleges as
have been founded at Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds,
Bradford, and elsewhere, all of which are endowed.
1812. When you say that they are endowed, do you
mean that they are endowed by the State ?—No, not
by the State, but by private means.
1813. Therefore, in that respect you are on equal
terms, because there is nothing to prevent your
receiving private endowment as well as those colleges ?
—There is nothing to prevent it, but unfortunately it
does not happen.
1814. (To Prof. Wiltshire.) I think there is some
information you wish to give us on the subject of
the evening classes. We shall be glad to hear what
you have to state upon that point ?—My object is to
show both the work that is done in the evening classes,
and the persons who come to those classes. The instruction that is given in the evening classes may be
classified under the four following groups: first, sets
of lectures intended for imparting information on very
many branches of human knowledge; secondly, sets
purely theological intended for persons preparing for
Holy Orders. These two sets are special to the
college. In addition there are two other groups; a
course of lectures on banking, free to all persons
introduced by bankers, and intended for bankers and
accountants, and there is a fourth set of lectures for
persons preparing for the examinations of the Civil
Service. In the first group, 37 subjects are taught,
comprehending divinity and the Greek Testament;
ancient and modern languages, comprising Latin,
Greek, French, German, English, Italian, and Spanish;
the sciences, comprising botany, chemistry, practical
and theoretical, comparative anatomy, zoology, and
physiology, physics, experimental and applied, geology,
mineralogy, and metallurgy; mathematics, pure and
applied, comprising arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry,
statics, dynamics, conic sections, and differential and
integral calculus; jurisprudence and commercial law;
ancient and modern history; harmony, drawing,
painting, and engraving; public speaking and shorthand; the application of tools, comprising turning,
smiths' work, and the casting of metals. In the second
group the instruction given refers to eight subjects,
comprising dogmatic and pastoral theology, Hebrew
and the Old Testament, Greek and the New Testament, Latin, vocal and church music, and public reading. A very large number of students attending the
classes. During the last five years, in the winter
session (from the commencement of October to the
end of March) the average number of tickets for
admission to the lectures of the first group was 1,102,
whilst the average number of students attending was
473. In the second group the average attendance of
students was 14. In the third group, the banking
lectures, the average attendance was 325, and in the
fourth group the average attendance was 499. The
average attendance therefore in the first and second
groups was 487, or in all four 1,311. In addition to
the winter session there is a summer session of about
eleven weeks, when 19 subjects are taught, and when
the attendance at the classes is about half that of the
former. The average for the two first groups on the
five years, the winter and summer sessions, was 644.
Then I may speak of the class and rank of the
students. Those who come to the lectures are
chiefly persons engaged during the day in the city,
that is, they are clerks, though occasionally professional men, merchants, and military officers, and
schoolmasters desirous of acquiring an acquaintance
with special subjects take out tickets. Fully one half
of the students attend the examinations, and display
very excellent answers. Some of the students come
for the sake of the associateship of the college, which
can be only obtained by their taking more than half
marks in all examinations, and by their having gained
at least two prizes. The students must have attended 12 courses of lectures. You will observe
that this is equivalent to the work required for
a university degree. With regard to the fees payable. these vary for the winter session from a guinea
and a half to two guineas for each subject; of course
the amount offers a very small remuneration to the
teachers who are engaged. For instance, the secretary, I think, mentioned that the sum of 1,117l. was
divided amongst 37 persons, and that they were paid
pro ratâ; as in some of the classes, such as those
of zoology and botany, only a very few attend, these
not being popular subjects, the amount paid to many
of the lecturers is extremely small. I should wish to
mention that more than half the teachers and professors possess university degrees, and therefore are
men fully qualified for their position, and that the
evening classes are of great use to the public. I
believe if a grant could be made to the evening
classes, it would be possible to extend their usefulness
to a very great extent; and also to open a series of
free lectures to the working men of London. The
latter might be made a main feature in connexion
with these classes. This is the chief evidence I wish
to give, namely, to call attention to the number of
subjects taught in the evening classes of the college,
and to the fact that the persons who attend these
classes are engaged during the daytime in various
employments.
Adjourned to Wednesday, July 12th, at 4 o'clock.