THE G-RESHAM UNIITERSITY.
THE announcement that the Joint Gresham Committee has consented to co-operate with the promoters of the intended Albert University introduces a new and im- portant factor into a problem of some difficulty. The concession was tardy and wholly unexpected, and. it has been made on the eve of a Parliamentary Session in which, as it appears, the scheme for the so-called "Albert University" is to be definitely accepted or rejected. Prima facie, this belated proposal is of happy augury. It at least promises to the new institution an appropriate and historical name. If it implies that the resources, the government, and all the interesting traditions con- nected with Sir Thomas Gresham's foundation are also to be incorporated with the "Teaching University," the fact is highly important. Still more important is it if it indi- eates that the citizens and Guilds of London are being awakened to a sense of their intellectual responsibilities, and are anxious to devote some of the great wealth and in- fluence of the " City " to the purpose of creating a real Metropolitan University worthy of the largest urban com- munity in the world. But, at present, nothing is known on this subject. We are not made aware of the terms of the "concordat," if any, between the City and those active friends of University and King's Colleges who have framed the new Charter ; and until something more is known, the mere announcement that the name " Gresham" is to be sub- stituted for "Albert," so far from simplifying the question, only brings into stronger prominence the essential narrow- ness and incompleteness of the draft charter now to be submitted to Parliament, and renders it more necessary than before to call public attention to the very grave objections to that scheme.
It happens, however, that some of the objections which have been most loudly urged are precisely those which have the least real validity. The Nonconformist objection, on the ground that King's College is a distinctly religious institution, and that its professors are members of the Church of England, would have undoubted force if it were proposed to make King's College a University with power to confer degrees. But by the scheme, that institution is only one of several named in the Charter as constituents ; and there is nothing in its provisions to forbid the future incorporation of some great Nonconformist College, if of suitable academic standing. The University which it is proposed to create is entirely undenominational, and its degrees are to be given on conditions which absolutely exclude the possibility of religious test or theological examination. Hence, any of the Professors of King's College who may, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, become members of its Senate or supreme Council, will take office subject to the conditions of that Charter, whatever may have been the terms of their appointment as College—not University—Professors. We fail to see the Dissenting grievance here. In the sphere of elementary education, the State accepts, and even invites, the aid and concurrence of religious bodies, and so long as they are successful in imparting that secular instruction which all classes of the community agree in desiring for their children, leaves them free to impart the special religious instruction to which the several Churches attach most value. There seems to be no good reason why the same principle should not, mutatts mutandis, apply in the higher sphere of academic education ; or why Colleges with a distinctly religious character should not be affiliated to a wholly undenominational University, and exercise a substantial though not a dominant influence over its government. Nor do we attach so much importance to the protest made by the London Society for promoting "University Extension " lectures, as is claimed for it by Lord Ripon and -Dr. Roberts. Their contention is, from the point of view _ of that Association, not unreasonable. But whatever may be the future of their very valuable enterprise, it can hardly be admitted that the local lecturers employed by the Association are now giving instruction" of a University character," or that attendance at their evening classes is entitled to count, in any sense understood in the academic world, as a substantial part of a qualification for a degree. Any distinction which may be won by a diligent " Exten- sion " student must be awarded as the result of attain- ment alone, as measured by a series of good examinations, such as will not require a new London University to place within the learner's easy reach. The Committee of the Association, however, have a right to claim that any local scheme which undertakes to guide and control the higher education of the Metropolis, shall recognise their work. In other places, this has been done with great advantage. For example, the Firth College, Sheffield, though not a University, and not even affiliated to the Victoria Univer- sity, has through its professors organised with remarkable success a series of popular lectures in the town and its suburbs, and has practically taken the whole of the University Extension mission into its own hands, so far as concerns that district of which Firth College is the centre. But nothing of this kind has ever been done by the authorities of King's and University Colleges, or is even contemplated under the terms of the proposed Charter. That charter is, therefore, justly disliked by the Univer- sity Extensionists, not only because it excludes them, but because it has been framed in a manifestly hostile spirit. The more serious objections to the scheme are of another kind. It is obviously promoted in the interest of two institutions, and not in the larger academic interests of the Metropolis. Its framers have made no terms with the heads of the legal or medical professions. It furnishes no new teaching apparatus, creates no University professor- ships, and provides for no economy or division of labour among the several constituent Colleges. It has secured the adhesion of some medical schools, not by any promise to improve or regulate their work, but, according to the frank avowals of its chief advocates, by offering to medical students an easier Doctor's degree than is now accessible. It completely leaves out of view the claims of the women's colleges. It has apparently not elicited from London citizens, or from any public body concerned with learning, science, or the liberal professions, any evidence of sympathy, or any promise of pecuniary aid. It is opposed even by the more eminent representatives of the professorial class itself, on the ground that it does not establish that relation between teaching and examining which, in the highest interests of education, they desire to secure. The letter of protest in the Times of Thursday, signed by three of the most distinguished professors of University College, is con- clusive evidence on this point.
All these and other very weighty objections, of an academical and wholly non-political kind, have been set before the public in considerable detail, notably in a recent speech by Sir John Lubbock, in an article in the current Quarterly Review, and in a well-reasoned memorial from the Victoria University. They are summarily dismissed by the Bishop of London in a letter pub- lished in the Times of the 16th inst., as "utterly without substance." But they have not been answered. Nor are they appreciably diminished by the hasty resolution arrived at a few days ago in a small committee in the City. That Gresham College, after a somnolent and compara- tively useless existence for over three hundred years, should suddenly rouse itself in order to come at the last moment to the rescue of such a scheme as that of the Albert University, is, to say the least, a curious fact. But it is one well calculated to make the Government, and all the best friends of improved academical organisation in London, pause awhile. It at least shows the need of some larger and more comprehensive review of the teaching re- sources of London than has yet been attempted. It opens out possibilities of a kind, not contemplated by those who, in their desire to give much-needed support to the two London Colleges, have framed the clumsy and ill-conceived draft now presented to Parliament. It is obvious that this draft ought to be withdrawn, and either submitted again to the Royal Commissioners in accordance with their own suggestion, or made the subject of much fuller and more deliberate investigation than it has yet received.
Previous page
