UNIVERSITY REVENUES. T HE Times of Wednesday contained a statement of
very serious moment in reference to the financial condition of the University of Cambridge. Indeed, thcugh this is the nominal subject of the article, its real scope is wider still. Everything that is said in it about Cambridge is, we may be sure, equally true of Oxford. The sources and character of the income of the two Uni- versities are substantially identical. 'Where the one is pinched and straitened the other will be pinched and straitened also. The writer of the article is quite right when he speaks of the "traditional belief among English- men that Cambridge University is a very wealthy institu- tion endowed by the generosity of pious founders with resources which are more than ample for the prosecution of the great work it does in the world." The holders of this belief do not take into account two circumstances which greatly detract from its value. One is the in- creasing costliness of the work done by the University. The changes that have come over our conception of edu- cation have laid great burdens on the University as distinct from the Colleges. The ordinary demands of classical or mathematical teaching can be very well satisfied by the Colleges. They take the undergraduate in the rough and do their best to train him for the contests of the Tripos or the school. But what is possible and easy when all the apparatus that is wanted is a tutor, a pupil, and a few books is wholly impossible where the natural sciences are concerned. To teach these properly there must be a very costly plant. Obviously the Colleges have neither the space which laboratories require nor the means of filling that space with the appropriate buildings. The supply of these wants must come from the University, not only for the reason just given, but also because they are wants common to the whole University, not limited to particular Colleges. Consequently whenever a home has to be found in the University for some new science, or some new development of an old science, it is from the University chest that the money has to come.
How is the University chest filled? From three principal sources, — endowments, capitation tax and degree fees, and contributions from the Colleges. In the case of Cambridge the first item may be put at something like £7,000 a year, the second at about £40,000, while the contributions from Colleges ought to amount to 1-30,000. Of these three kinds of income the second is the only one that has not grown less in recent years. The endow- ments consist of tithe or of agricultural rent, and, as we know, these are both falling quantities. The decline in the price of cereals has told upon the tithe, the depression in agriculture generally has told upon the rents. Moreover, as regards new studies, the endowments are of little use. Only a seventh part of them are really at the disposal of the University. The remainder are appropriated to special objects fixed by the donors. The contributions from the Colleges are in the same boat with the University endowments. They come from the College revenues, and the College revenues are themselves largely derived from tithe and agricultural rents. In seventeen Colleges "the aggregate amount of corporate income divisible among the Heads and Fellows has been reduced to the extent of 35 per cent.," and out of the total number "only two Colleges are in a position to pay the maximum fellowship dividend fixed by the Statutes." Under these circumstances the calculations of the Commissioners of 1877 have been alto- gether upset. In 1896 they reckoned that the contribu- tions from the Colleges would attain a maximum of £30,000; as a matter of fact they only reached £22,000. The imposition of the maximum tax has been deferred till 1902, but even then the writer of the Times' article does not expect it to be much more than £24,000. Thus the "elements of the financial situation," as he sums them up, are these :—" The aggregate College revenues from endow- ments have diminished by one-third ; the increased revenue from more numerous annual entries does not nearly make up for the loss ; the Colleges have to contribute out of their dwindling incomes to the maintenance of University activity upon a scale formerly undreamt of ; the University itself has been struggling, ever since the movement of expan- sion began, to overtake educational demands which seemed to grow more rapidly than they could be satisfied ; and as a final result, while many of the College tt are in financial straits notwithstanding partial remission of their statutory University contribution, the University itself is hampered by insufficient equipment, by an inadequate professorial staff, and by imperious demands, reasonable enough in themselves and enforced by the competition of other teaching bodies at home or abroad, for further additions to the list of subjects taught." It is plain that something must be done ; unfortunately, it is very much less plain, what this something should be. Can the University revenue be increased by adding to any of its existing- parts ? The only direction in which such an augmenta- tion is conceivable is the capitation tax and the fees on degrees. But the writer in the Times says that any addi- tion to either of these payments is out of the question. To make a high charge for the B.A. degree in the case of' men who had undergone the prescribed examinations would have an appearance of breach of faith, while to exact it for the higher degrees might only lead men to do without them. As regards the capitation tax, some further increase might be possible ; but before resorting to it it would have to be remembered that the new place which natural science is taking in education tends to bring a new and poorer class of men to the Universities. It would be worse than useless to spend money in pro- viding education for this class, and then to raise this money by a charge which would prevent them from avail. ing themselves of the education provided. If this mode of raising the University revenue is put on one side, what remains ? So far as we can see, only the alternatives suggested by the writer of the article, State- aid or new endowments. From one point of view, the argument for State-aid is overwhelming. There are two great and ancient Universities which for centuries have provided for the higher education of the nation at their own cost. Now they are no longer able to do this. They have grown poorer, so that they have not the same income to spend, and the character of the education demanded has changed, and thereby has necessitated a larger ex- penditure than heretofore. If the Universities were as rich as they used to be they would still be too poor for the work expected of them, and, as a matter of fact, they are very much less rich. No one now denies the propriety of State contributions towards the higher education, and how can these contributions be better placed than among Universities with such a past and such a present as Oxford and Cambridge? Nowhere will the return be more rapid, because here the work has been begun long ago. The students are already in residence, the teachers are already at work, the apparatus already exists, and needs only to. be supplemented and extended. The writer of the Times' article objects to this obvious reasoning that State pay- ments must always entail State interference—which is true ; and that State interference "is always an evil in itself "—which is not to our mind quite so certain. That without proper precautions it may become an evil, we quite admit. We have no wish to see the independence of the Universities interfered with, or their freedom to try new educational experiments, and to encourage educational developments which promise no direct or immediate return in pay or position, subjected to the will of iv Minister. But is it inevitable that State-aid should carry with it these objectionable consequences ? All that is. needed is so much superintendence as shall insure that the money given is used for the purposes for which it is given, that a grant towards the building of a laboratory shall not be spent on some other educational object, still less on an object which is only partially and indirectly educationaL The present difficulty has its ()Hain in the fact that there are certain things which the Universities must provide if they are to give a special kind of educa- tion which is now called for. It would be easy, as it seems to us, so to limit the application of a State grant as to leave the Universities perfectly free as regards every other department of education, while as regards this particular expenditure it is so strictly defined by outside demands that the Universities could not use their liberty even if they retained it. We do not, therefore, share the fears of the writer of the Times' article as regards State- aid, though we desire as much as he does that "the more affluent portion of the public" may come forward and -create new endowments in a way that shall make any application to Parliament superfluous. The millionaires have a grand opportunity but when did they ever use one, and Mr. Passmore Edwards is not rich enough to endow a University.
Previous page
