TWENTY-FIVE years ago an Act was passed instituting a Scotch Universities Executive Commission, and setting the Scotch universities on a new and improved footing. That Act has resulted in great benefits. It has doubled the attendance of students. At present, there are about 6,500 students in Scotland, of whom Edinburgh has about 3,300, Glasgow about 2,200, Aberdeen about 700, and St. Andrews about 200. The average age of these students is about twentyone years. Except in the faculty of Medicine, where the General Medical Council requires a preliminary examination in general education, access to the universities is open to all, and the fees for instruction amount to about 401. for a complete four years course, or 301. for a three years course, which suffices when a certain standard of knowledge is shown to exist at entrance. These courses end in the degree of master of arts. Besides students who intend to graduate, there has always been a large number, especially in Glasgow, who content themselves with attendance for a session or two on classes of their own selection. The question was raised five or six years ago, whether the increase of students had been met by corresponding improvements in the teaching staff whether there were sufficient assistants-whether certain new chairs were not necessarywhether options ought not to be provided for persons wishing to obtain degrees through special excellence in one class of subjects-whether the appliances of the science chairs were adequate to modern requirements. An Inquiry Commission was appointed which reported upon these subjects five years ago. It was one of exceptional weight and character, and a great deal of good was expected to result from its labours. Several of the most eminent and experienced Scotchmen, such as the Lord JusticeGeneral, the Lord Justice-Clerk, and the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell, served upon it, and Mr. Froude and Professor Huxley were specially added as distinguished non-Scotchmen to represent the general interests of literature and of science. The commissioners sat for two years, and published four volumes of evidence and a report. Their recommendations were mainly of two kinds. In the first place they invented, I think, ten new ways of arriving at the ordinary goal of academic life-the degree. voices, however, were raised at the time-hardly a whisper has been heard since-pointing to any change so large as these theoretical suggestions. Their other recommendations were more modest and practical. They suggested an assistantship here, a professorship there some organised effort to raise the income of every professor to 6007. a year-money for museums and laboratories, and so on. These practical proposals needed only one thing money; Few and in order to enable Government to decide whether it was reasonable to adopt all or any of them, and to issue a treasury order or to legislate accordingly, they drew out their recommendations in detail. But Governments need to be invited to draw on the treasury with a good deal of urgency, and the practical recommendations of the commissioners were neglected. About eighteen months ago, however, there was a sudden revival of the Scotch university question. The financial condition of St. Andrews had become more than alarming, and after a good deal of hesitation, the Government promised to introduce a Bill pro viding for the wants of the universities and creating an Executive Commission. But the business of last session was terribly congested; and the Bill was dropped. Lord Rosebery, supposed to be the minister chiefly charged with it, declined, I thought unwisely, even to lay the measure before Parliament, in the belief that to do so would only enable its opponents to organise for its rejection. The secret of his ideas was kept with unusual fidelity and completeness till the present Bill was introduced and read a first time, without a word of explanation, in the small hours of the morning of Wednesday, the 4th of April. If the first draft of the Bill had been laid before Parliament last year, or if the Bill had been introduced in February instead of in April, public opinion would have had time to familiarise itself with its provisions, and a judgment would have been formed upon them at leisure. No doubt it was brought in as early as it was to enable the universities to take it into consideration before the close of their winter sessions. To secure that object, however, it ought to have been laid on the table within a fortnight of the meeting of Parliament. The halfyearly meeting of Council at St. Andrews, of which the Bill suggests the abolition, had already taken place, and they were within an ace of passing a resolution in approval before they had seen it. The Council in Aberdeen had to send it to a committee, to report to the next meeting, which cannot be held till six months after this, when Parliament must have finally disposed of the matter. The University of Edinburgh was in the very act of closing its session-it was only in Glasgow that three weeks were still left for consideration. I do not propose to analyse the Bill in detail, but I may explain its principal provisions. These are: 1. The Creation of a University Commission with absolute powers and with no guiding directions. 2. The removal of all payments now made to the universities from public money from the votes of Parliament to the Consolidated Fund, a sum of forty thousand pounds per annum being set down for their future main tenance from this source "in full discharge of all claims, past, present, and future." 3. The abolition of St. Andrews, if the Commissioners shall, before 1st November, 1884, declare that in their opinion, "in consequence of the want of sufficient endowments, it is no longer possible for the university to perform its functions with advantage," with a general direction to them, in that event, to make " 'suggestions" for the creation of a new 66 corporation to which the whole or a part of the funds of St. Andrews may be transferred "the corporation being meant (presumably) to include one college (at Dundee), which has several professors, but which otherwise has not yet come into operation, and perhaps a Scottish college for women, who are not, however, mentioned anywhere in the Bill. 4. A double provision affecting the theological chairs which at present exist in all the universities, and are held only by clergymen of the Established Church of Scotland. (i.) That they shall cease to be so connected, and that no test of any kind shall be imposed on the holders, who may apparently be clergymen of any Church, or laymen of none. (ii.) That they shall never have any claim to any increase of endowments from any public source. 5. Provision for a first examination to be made obligatory on all students who intend to graduate in arts or any other faculty. 6. That after the commissioners have ceased to exist, in 1886 or 1887, the university courts may make ordinances at any time, re-distributing the whole amount of public money payable to their university; but that they shall have no power to disturb the proportions of the total sums allocated from the 40,000l. to each university, as settled by the commissioners. The first of these features of the Bill is emphasised by a very remarkable omission. The Inquiry Commissioners of 1876-1878 are so absolutely forgotten that they are not even referred to, and I have scarcely discovered a suggestion of theirs which is either approved or condemned in the Bill. The new commissioners are, of course, to have full powers to make their own inquiries, and they will naturally consider how far the labours of their predecessors relieve them of the duty of taking further evidence. But after their inquiries, or without making any, they are to have absolute power to do anything they choose with the Scotch universities. The clause which contains this provision is the clause of the new measure. It runs thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, and in such particulars as it may be found necessary to amend the regulations presently in force, to regulate by ordinance the powers, jurisdictions, and privileges of chancellors, rectors, assessors, professors, and all other members, or office-bearers of said universities and colleges, as also the CONSTITUTION, powers, jurisdictions, and privileges, of the Senatus Academicus, the general council, the university court, and in the university of Edinburgh, the court of curators." The words of this clause, with the exception of those in italics and the word "constitution," are copied from the Act of 1858. But there are two differences, and these differences are vital. Both clauses run: "Subject to the provisions of this Act"-but the Act of 1858 contained elaborate provisions defining who were to be chancellors, assessors, court, council, and what were to be the main functions of these bodies, and of the senate. The clause of 1858 enabled the commissioners to carry out the provisions enacted by Parliament, and to adjust them in practical detail. "This Act" of 1883 has no provisions of the kind, and the commissioners may, under it, change every portion of the university, altering the constitu tion and the functions of every university authority. Of course no commissioners could or would do anything so absurd, but it seems strange that a proposal giving such absolutely unregulated powers should appear in a Bill introduced under the responsibility of Government. The word CONSTITUTION, which is the only other novelty in the clause, makes it certain that nothing less is intended or involved. Such powers were never, I believe, given by Parliament over any such institutions. The Inquiry Commissioners of 1878 do not seem to have found the Scotch universities either paralysed or negligent of their national duties. Yet in the exercise of their powers, the commissioners are to be hampered by no directions, or indications of the views of the framers of the Bill. There is the ordinary formal reference to Parliament, and an appeal to Her Majesty in Council. The reference to Parliament scarcely ever leads to any result, unless when something has been done to provoke strong party feeling. The ordinary work of Parliament is enough to overwhelm it, and it never willingly returns upon anything. The appeal against ordinances is hampered by conditions borrowed from the former Act, and of which people have consequently had ample experience, such as to make it extremely expensive. Any aggrieved person who may petition Her Majesty in Council against an ordinance, is usually informed that he will be heard by counsel on the subject. The Privy Council may, if he persuades them to that effect, order the commissioners to hear him, again "by counsel," and they may afterwards, if they think fit, re-hear him themselves. Such an appeal is scarcely ever taken, I understand, at a less expense than 1,000l. In the Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1877, the appeal is given to the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, who are directed to hear the complainants, "by themselves or by their counsel." Such a provision would be most valu able. Persons interested in university questions are often able to state a case, though they may be unwilling to incur a probable expense of 1,000l. to get it stated by counsel. The English University Act, to which I have referred, is in very marked contrast as to the powers given to the commissioners and the treatment of the universities. In the English Act, colleges are empowered to make statutes for themselves, which become law if the commissioners approve of them. If the college and the commissioners do not agree, the former chooses three members of its body to be consulting and voting assessors for the purpose of framing statutes for the college-the original commissioners being seven in number. The statutes so arrived at may be appealed against to the universities committee of the Privy Council. These provisions effectually reserve all rights of colleges, they compel careful attention to their statements, and in the end they leave the original commissioners power to carry out a scheme even when the college is anxious to obstruct it. The present Bill would be vastly improved, and the objections to the arbitrary discretion conferred on the commissioners would practically disappear, were provisions like those of the Oxford and Cambridge Act of 1877 adopted. In The second main feature of the Bill is the money clause. Unlike the English, the Scottish universities have always depended to a considerable extent on parliamentary grants. In England the colleges are corporations, existing in many cases before the Reformation, with large estates adequate to maintain numerous fellows devoting their lives to study and research as well as to teaching. I believe that the income of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge exceeds half a million annually. In Scotland the estates of the universities are small. In comparison with England they have few scholarships and hardly any fellowships, and they have had to depend to a considerable extent upon grants under the control of Parliament. By the Bill this sum is to be fixed for ever at 40,000l. per annum in lieu of "all claims, past, present, and future.' At first one imagines that if these prodigal children are to be finally dismissed to their far country, and asked never again to worry the Treasury, they are not to be sent away empty. Forty thousand pounds a year is a handsome sum. It would certainly enable Parliament to found a considerable number of new chairs, and to make many additions and improvements. But of course the 40,0007. is not a new sum. It is inclusive of the sum now paid, and it is to be taken so as to prevent all conceivable increase of that sum beyond the fixed amount. Dr. Lyon Playfair has moved for а return showing precisely how much the universities now receive. The calculations I have made put the sum now paid to the universities and to the Royal Observatory and Botanic Garden, which are to be transferred to the University of Edinburgh, at between 32,000l. and 33,000l. Paragraphs in some of the Scotch newspapers, obviously founded on direct information, say that the Treasury calculate that after providing for the charges as they stand at present, there will be a margin of about 8,000l. a year under the Bill for the better endowment of the Scotch Universities. The 32,000l. now paid include 19,0327. for ordinary university purposes, and 7,4737. for retiring pensions to aged and infirm principals and professors. These two sums, 26,500l., are now on the Civil Service Estimates and are annually voted by Parliament. There is a sum of 3,300l. paid out of the Consolidated Fund-2,2001. of which is compensation for copyright privileges commuted in 1835. There is a further sum which last year seems to have amounted to about 2,500l. for the upkeep and occasional extension of university buildings in Aberdeen and St. Andrews and the Observatory at Edinburgh. These buildings are now maintained by the Board of Works, and Edinburgh receives 5007. a year, Glasgow alone receiving nothing for maintenance. the It is thus clear that the margin of say 7,500l. is to bear the charge of everything new that may ever be proposed. It is in view of the urgency of many university requirements that Government have been pressed to legislate or to create an Executive Commission with money and powers. The Inquiry Commissioners recommended extensions and improvements for Glasgow alone, independent of the maintenance of her buildings, which were estimated to cost between 4,0007. and 5,000l. annually, so that it is plain that the margin of 7,500l. in satisfaction of "all claims, past, present, and future," would not go far to supply what the Inquiry Commissioners, five years ago, considered to be urgent wants. But the worst objection-to my mind the fatal objection to the scheme is that it removes these charges from the Estimates, and places them on the Consolidated Fund. When a charge is fixed and cannot be either increased or diminished-such, for instance, as the charge settled once and for all as the compensation for copyright privileges the Consolidated Fund is its proper place. There are other portions, probably considerable portions, of the ordinary sums now paid to the uni versities, which are equally fixed, and might be so charged with equal propriety. For whatever is not so fixed, wherever the principle of the charge is all that is settled, while the amount may vary, the Consolidated Fund is altogether unsuitable. Practically, to place a charge upon it is to remove it from the review of Parliament. The pension fund for aged and infirm principals and professors was created by the Act of 1858, and the Commissioners and the Treasury were directed to settle its conditions. In the end they decided that no professor retiring, except when disabled by age or permanent infirmity, should have any pension that even when so disabled he should have no right to a pension except after ten years' service that his retiring pension should never rise above two thirds of his income, a maximum which can only be reached after thirty years' service-that it should be less proportionally for a shorter term of service, and that in view of these provisions the university courts could compel the retirement of a principal or professor if they saw cause. It was brought out in evidence that the average age at which a professor is appointed in Scotland is thirty-eight or thirty-nine, so that the average age of retirement with the maximum twothirds of salary is sixty-eight or sixtynine. The arrangements for retirement are in effect the same as those for sheriff-substitutes, who discharge functions very much like county court judges in England. The advantages to be anticipated were vividly illustrated at St. Andrews where the Commissioners found that three out of the fourteen professors had not for years been teaching their classes, but had been paying a deputy half the income to do the whole of the work. One of these gentlemen, who was above eighty, died before the Commissioners and the Treasury could settle his retiring allowance. The benefit of these provisions has been universally acknowledged in Scotland. With the Scotch system of lecturing, it is essential to the efficiency of his classes that a professor should be alert and vigorous, and that he should be willing and able to devote the whole energies of his life to his work, even, at times, at serious risk to health. In England the Act of 1877 adopted the Scotch system and took the same powers of making provision for pensions to professors in Oxford and Cambridge. Such a system obviously necessitates a varying and uncertain charge, not only in the total amount but in each of the universities. Two years ago I believe it amounted to 5,500.; this year it is 7,500%. Five years ago the charge on it from Glasgow was |