UNIVERSITY OF LONDON REFORM
THE Report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Education on the University of London* is short, readable, and to the point. The task of Mr. Hilton Young, the Chairman, and of his seven colleagues was to review the recommendations of the Haldane Com- mission which sat from 1909 to 1918, and " having regard to present circumstances " to indicate the " principal changes now most needed " in the existing constitution of the University.
The Departmental Committee, set up in 1913 to report on the steps to be taken to give effect to the Haldane Report, abandoned their work owing to the War. In the view of the new Committee a material change in circum- stances has since taken place, and they think that the grounds for some of the main recommendations of the Haldane Commission, who wished to reconstitute the University on an entirely new basis, have disappeared. The Committee prefer " evolution " to " revolution."
In spite of this change of the official attitude, it would be a mistake to suppose that the Haldane Commission worked in vain. Their trenchant criticisms did not a little to diminish the old feuds on minor points and in- directly to create the better relations now existing between the " External " and " Internal " sides of the University. But they would have been wiser had they been less con- temptuous of the External Examinations, which, though faulty (like most other examinations), serve a real need of the community. The new Committee make it clear at the outset that they do not wish to interfere with the External side. They leave untouched the sixteen repre- sentatives of the graduates on the Senate who form the majority of the Council for External Students. Similarly, they leave untouched the sixteen representatives of the teachers who form the majority of the Academic Council.
* Board of Education: Report of the Departmental Committee on the University of London (8vo, pp. 76). Cmd. 2612. is. 3d. They add to these nine representatives of the Colleges (including two representatives of the Medical Schools) and five co-opted members, and, including as before the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Chairman of Convoca- tion, they produce a Senate of forty-nine members as against the present number of fifty-six. The Inns of Court, who have their own Law School, as well as some other bodies, will lose their representation.
The main problem, both of the Haldane Commission and of the new Committee, was to constitute a body cap-. able of devising a broad policy for higher education in London, ensuring development without undue over- lapping, and of carrying that policy into effect by means of financial control. The sums involved are large. In 1928-4, the total recurring expenditure of the incor- porated Colleges and Schools of the University amounted to nearly £1,000,000, of which about £860,000 represented recurrent grants from the University Grants Committee of the Treasury, and - £70,000 aid from the London 'County Council. The.grants for 1924-5 from these latter bodies were larger still: Yet both bodies have expressed their regret that they could not make block-grants to the University, and allow it to allocate them to- its various institutions ; and both bodies have indicated that such powers could not be entrusted to the present Senate with any confidence. In . order to remedy the defect in the present constitution the Committee propose to set up a new University Council which would have supreme control over the funds at the disposal of the Senate and would further receive and allocate the whole of the grants to the Colleges and Schools of the University made by the public grant-giving bodies, with whom it would also be empowered to negotiate ; but, -on the other hand, the Council would be required to consult the Senate on financial matters involving educational policy. The Council would consist of the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Chairman of Convocation, of six members of the Senate appointed by the Senate, of four persons ap- pointed by the Crown and two by the London County Council, with one co-opted member. The Committee hope that all the members of the Council so selected would be persons of " outstanding ability, able and willing to devote themselves wholeheartedly to the interests of the University."
Mr. Lees-Smith, the sole signatory of the Minority Report, regards the present constitution of the Finance Committee of the Senate as " indefensible " ; but he is obviously shocked by the proposal (without parallel) to leave a " large formal body " the responsibility of for- mulating programmes and policy for approval by a " small informal one." He recommends instead the creation of a Finance Council, with the same constitution as the general Council of his colleagues, but he wishes it to have only advisory powers, and regards it as inconceiv- able that a combination of selfish interests . on the Senate should often, if ever, upset the findings of his im- partial Finance Council. But if the new proposals are without parallel, so is the University of London itself, a body of extraordinary complexity situated in the greatest city in the world.
Moreover, Mr. Lees-Smith knows the Senate only from the outside ; the majority, who obviously disagree with his forecast, include the names of Sir Henry .Miers, a, former Principal of the University, of Mr. H. L. Eason, sometime Chairman of the Finance Committee, and of Professor Pollard, who was. for long a member -of the Senate, besides those of Sir Robert Blair and Miss Wallas; who have been concerned in educational negotiations be- tween the L.C.C. and the University for many years.
Experience has shown that the .present .Senate has educational virtues, and some great virtues, -but that it is unwilling to delegate important powers of negotiation and control to any other body, and that it cannot be trusted to pursue a clear and steady and unselfish policy, when the interests of rival institutions are involved. A few years after the reconstruction of 1900 it launched, rather hastily, a scheme for a new centre of preliminary and intermediate medical studies at South Kensington.; some of the medical schools were alarmed, and the Senate promptly reversed -its policy and returned to the donors or :their legatees the sum of £70,000 or £80,000 which had been 'subscribed towards the scheme. The efforts made by Lord Haldane to secure donations for a site at BloomS- bury proved unfruitful largely, though not wholly, through absurd fears of its proximity to -University College ; there was no semblance of reasonable negotia- tion to smooth over difficulties ; and the promises, to the amount of several hundred thousand pounds, were with- drawn. Had the money then offered been secured at once the present position of the Bloomsbury site question, which is still agitating the University, would have been very different. If the existing Senate is to be preserved in -its main outlines with approximately the same kind of personnel and what may be called " institutional " psy- chology, the arguments in favour of creating a small power- ful body to settle questions of policy and finance and to negotiate with other bodies seem to be overwhelming. We only doubt whether a Senate so constituted should possess a clear majority in the smaller body, as the Hilton Young committee propose.
In educational matters 'not involving institutional jealousies or finance the Senate have shown real capacity for progress, and that -is the justification for their con- tinuance. We regret that space does not allow us in the present article to discuss the other proposals made with a view still further to improve their efficiency.
In order to give effect to the proposals of the Com- mittee an amending Act and a Statutory Commission will be necessary. The Committee admit that they have left a good many points to be settled by the Statutory Commission. But the amending Act, which must deal not only with the University of London Act, but also with the Acts incorporating University and King's Col- leges, will not be without its difficulties.
Previous page
