representatives of the public, whether nominated by the Board of Education or otherwise, in order to secure 66 continuous control," instead of spasmodic control by Royal Commissions, or as another witness expressed it, in order to I ensure 66 the protection of public interests in the formulation of University policy. One suggestion is that a considerable proportion of the seats on the administrative bodies of the Universities should be filled by the Board of Education from representatives of the principal organisations-including Trades Unions-interested in education. Other suggestions have been that the outside members should consist of representatives of the National Union of Teachers, the Headmasters' Conference, the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, Women's Organisations, the Board of Education, the Association of Education Authorities and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research' (p. 72).

The Commissioners, with these facts before them, have the effrontery to state that 'the ways of thought and feeling of the modern British community are hostile to any development in the direction of State control of the Academic spirit' (p. 14). Yet did any absolute monarch or Commonwealth Puritan ever make a more dangerous attempt to interfere in the formulation of University policy' and thereby with 'the Academic spirit'?

We will be told that when once the recommendations of the Report have been approved by Parliament all danger of interference will be gone. But as the sums to be allotted to Oxford and Cambridge are to be 'annual, recurrent grants' they will be included in the Annual Estimates for Education (English Universities), and any member of the House of Commons may move that the vote be reduced by a sum equivalent to the whole or part of the grant to be assigned to Cambridge, unless that University be placed under the continuous control of the State,' or unless representatives of the above or any other organisations be given seats on its 'Governing Body.' It might even happen that if a Professor published a work not in accordance with the 'ideals' of some political section, there might be a motion to reduce the University grant by a sum equivalent to his salary: Opportunities would be infinite. Thus 'Liberty of Prophesying-that great heritage of Oxford and Cambridge -would be endangered.

The only possible way of saving the Universities (should they accept the grant) from being continually harassed, both in and out of Parliament, and being eventually brought under the Board of Education, would be to charge the grants on the Consolidated Fund. For this course ample precedents will be found in the case of grants for the Scottish Universities and the former Irish Queen's Colleges. In this way, and in this only, can State aid be accepted with safety, and our autonomy preserved. State control is, however, not our only danger; the changes proposed in the Constitution and powers of the Senate and of the General Board of Studies are calculated to consign the control, not only of administration but of studies and research, to a narrow bureaucracy not necessarily composed of the ablest members of the University.

Before dealing with these vital changes, we may make some remarks on minor suggestions. The release of the Vice-Chancellor from some of his burdens will be a distinct benefit to several Boards of which he is ex-officio chairman. Some of these have suffered in the past from having a president who has no familiarity with their studies, instead of one of their own body. The want, too, of a proper University Secretariate with the Registrary as its head, has long been felt; whilst many of us have for years desired the establishment of Boards of Faculties. Finally, the proposal to apply a graduated scale of taxation is an act of justice to the smaller colleges forty years overdue. On the other hand, the proposal to appoint 'an University resident catering and buying expert with outside trade experience' to advise and to supervise the College kitchens, to buy for them ' in quantities,' etc., and another potentate, also ‘an outside man in the business world,' 'to consider the reports of the former and to consult with him' amuses and amazes. Whilst there might be no objection to a uniform system of kitchen accounts, the elaborate machinery for collecting and tabulating kitchen statistics from all the Colleges would probably cost more than it would save. There will be a glut of candidates for these two great University prizes-for in addition to salaries of from 1500l. to 20007. there would be great 'possibilities.' Each of these supermen would have little

I difficulty in making from 10,000l. to 15,000l. per annum, in recognition of 'his valued patronage.' That the Commissioners, in face of the notorious waste and charges of corruption, true or false, against 'business-managed '’ Government Departments during the War, should make such a proposal shakes confidence in their sanity.

We now come to the proposed changes in the constitution and government of the University. In almost every particular these seem designed to destroy the old democratic forms, and to set up in their place a new bureaucracy hardly less dangerous to the Academic spirit' than State control. This is to be effected by destroying the powers of the Senate, by replacing the General Board of Studies by a new Board of Studies and Research, by augmenting the administrative powers of the Council, and giving it a preponderating control over the teaching and research of the University.

The existing Council is elected by the Electoral Roll (members of the Senate who have resided fourteen weeks in the year) and consists of the Chancellor, ViceChancellor, four Heads of Colleges, four Professors, and eight other members of the Roll. The Heads naturally represent the interests of the Colleges, whilst the Professors help to safeguard those of learning and research. The Council always contains a considerable element of men-commonly termed business men'-who have greater turn for administration than for the advancement of knowledge. There has always been a certain jealousy of the Professoriate on the part of this type of men and on the part of the College staffs as a whole; and for many years there have been efforts to oust the Professors. In 1910 the Council made a proposal to abolish the Classes, but criticism caused its withdrawal. Lately, it has proposed to retain the Heads, and that not less than four elective members should be Professors, Readers, or University Lecturers; whilst in 1920 the Younger Graduates proposed that there should be not less than four Heads, four Professors or Readers, and two University Lecturers. The Report purports to abolish the Class system; but as the Vice-Chancellor, his predecessor, and his successor will be ex-officio members, there will be always at least three Heads, and thus a blow is aimed at

the Professoriate, for which no seats are reserved. The result, if not the object, of the proposals is to strengthen the Collegiate as against the University element on the Council. Politics, public as well as Academic, play a considerable part in Council elections, and as it nominates the members of all Syndicates, politics play too great a part in the nominations also to those bodies. A body like this is not fit to control higher education and research, which at present are under a body of a very different type-the General Board of Studies.

This Board is composed of the Vice-Chancellor, fourteen representatives of the Special Boards of Studies, and eight members nominated by the Council, many of whom (sometimes even all) are members of that body. To this General Board is committed everything relating to studies and examinations, the maintenance and improvement of existing, and the establishing of new institutions and the control of Professors, Readers, and University Lecturers; whilst its not least important duty is to approve or reject the applications for the higher Doctorates sent up by the Degree Committees of the fourteen Special Boards. As each of these is represented on the General Board the correlation of the various studies and the maintenance of a proper standard for the Doctorates in all subjects is now properly maintained. The Report says: 'There is a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the General Board of Studies. It is regarded as too unwieldy, and yet not wholly representative of all branches of study, and its co-ordinating functions appear to be impeded to some extent by the fact that it is composed largely of specialists' (the italics are mine). The animus against 'specialists' is the key. Ever since 1882 the business men' have carried on propaganda against the General Board because they are not able to prevent the Special Boards of Studies from placing on that Board their leading men, no matter how distasteful some of them may be to the 'administrators.' The power of dictating to the teachers and researchers, on whom depends the advancement of knowledge in the University, ought not to be handed over to the men whose qualification is 'business.'

No definite charge of inefficiency is brought against the General Board. It is condemned as 'too unwieldy.'" But as its number (twenty-three) is that of the Oxford

4

Hebdomadal Council, which is to remain unchanged, why should twenty-three be right at Oxford and 'unwieldy' at Cambridge? I have served on both the Council and the General Board, and, like many others, I had heard much about that wretched General Board,' and went on it with some suspicion, but soon found that it did its work remarkably well-better in fact than the Council did-and yet the work of the Board, involving as it does the duty of correlation, is far the more difficult. The Council does not always perform properly even its routine work. This year it had to get rescinded two Graces for matters not within its province which it had induced the Senate to pass. The General Board deals far more wisely with educational matters than the Council. In 1894, the latter took upon itself to draw up a scheme for Advanced Study,' which was not confined to research but allowed graduates of other Universities to enter for Parts of Triposes, on condition that in certain subjects they should get a First Class. Not a few older men were thus tempted to spend their savings in trying to improve their careers by gaining the Cambridge B.A. degree. As, however, they frequently failed to obtain a First Class they could not get a degree and went away soured. In 1901, a powerfully signed memorial was sent to the Council asking for the abolition of the Examination part of 'Advanced Study'; but the Council was obdurate. Later, the matter was brought before the General Board, and the crying abuse created by the Council was soon abolished. Respecting a like attack on the Oxford General Board, Dr Headlam, who is a member of both the Council and the Oxford General Board, writes:

...

'On all subjects connected with curriculum, the General Board deals with them wisely and properly, and the Hebdomadal Council deals with them badly. . The interests of the Council are administrative, and when once learning and teaching are subordinated to administration, things will go badly. Administrators like to manage things in a bureaucratic way.'

Yet our efficient General Boards are to be replaced by new Boards of Studies and Research! The Report proposes to replace the General Board by what it terms