the State will require a quid pro quo, partly in the shape of a slice from the endowments, and partly in the shape of a degradation of the teaching of the University to the capacities of the majority. Secondly, State aid means a charge on the taxpayers. Now, it is unjust to charge the taxpayers to give the lower classes the luxury of lectures on literature. It is also unwise because, thanks largely to the lower classes, the prosperity of this country is departing, and taxes will be more difficult to pay and wanted for necessaries. It is moreover imprudent, because over-taxation may ruin the State, as it has often done before in history. Thirdly, State aid is unnecessary on the scale of a few hundreds, when the sum could easily be collected by private subscription. Indeed, one cannot help suspecting that so small a grant is not an end in itself, but rather a means of giving the Ministry, and especially the Vice-President of the Council, a handle to interfere for the prosecution of further and more far-reaching designs. In short, State aid to the University on a small scale is unnecessary; on a large scale it would be a great danger; and the larger it becomes the more would the University, its sound learning and higher education, fall a prey to Democracy. Oxford, Nov 7.

THE NEEDS OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY

This was probably the letter which, of all those which Case wrote, created the most stir, both inside and outside the University. The plan of establishing by public subscription an endowment fund for the University of Oxford was brought forward in the year 1907 and was given a great deal of publicity. Naturally it received an enthusiastic welcome, at any rate on a first impression, from many people, and especially from the official leaders of the University. Accordingly the refusal of one bead of a house to sign the memorial in favour of the appeal for the fund created a profound impression, which was enormously increased by the vigorous letters following. People were surprised to learn of the large amount of money of which Oxford was already possessed.

The Endowment Fund eventually reached a total of £155,978 7s. od. It is administered by seven non-resident trustees, and by four resident

trustees.

T. A. Brassey, later the second Lord Brassey, was a graduate of Balliol College, and a very active friend both of the College and the University. He died in 1919.

As a result of contributions from the Endowment Fund, the Final School of Engineering was established, and various University institutions were assisted; but the University Press was not removed from its existing site.

FROM The Times, MAY 6, 1907.

An appeal this day appears in The Times, signed by the new Chancellor and by the Vice-Chancellor, who say that it is their duty to issue an appeal for that assistance of which Oxford stands so much in need. They proceed to recommend a scheme inaugurated by the Hon. T. A. Brassey, which involves the expenditure of £250,000 to be raised by subscription. They urge that this scheme was approved by the late Chancellor, Lord Goschen, and by the heads of colleges with scarcely an exception'. As I am that exception I should like to say why I did not sign the scheme, and why I still disapprove of this appeal being made to the public in forma pauperis.

1. A scheme signed by these distinguished persons could hardly fail to have the appearance of the authority of the University, without the reality. It could receive that authority only by passing the Council, Congregation, and Convocation of the University, which receives benefaction only by deciding whether proposed benefactions should be received for a proposed purpose. Without that authority, if signed by the Chancellor, the ViceChancellor, and the heads of colleges, it would be liable to be mistaken for an authoritative document. Seeing this danger, I refused to sign the scheme when delivered to me. My fears have been justified;

for the scheme has lately been published by the Daily Mail as that of Oxford University' and the 'University authorities'. Similarly, writing as Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University', the authors of the appeal appear as if they were speaking with full authority; and you, Sir, give some colour to this appearance in saying that this appeal is now made on behalf of Oxford by the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University'. Neither scheme nor appeal has the authority of the University of Oxford.

2. The scheme contemplates a general fund for subscriptions, and a body of trustees, of whom twothirds are to be non-residents; and this part of the scheme is also adopted in the appeal. I felt and feel that this proposal involves an external pressure which threatens the independence of the University. It would enable the Vice-Chancellor or any other powerful member of the body to come forward all at once with so large a sum for a number of objects as to tempt Convocation into accepting all the money without approving all the objects. In the present case, Mr. Brassey appears to have started with an intention of making a benefaction for scientific engineering. Why then has not that benefaction been brought before Convocation and discussed on its own merits?

3. Neither the scheme nor the appeal contemplates such an inquiry into the economy of the University as would alone justify an appeal in forma pauperis. There are two ways of being poor: one by having no money, and the other by wasting it. In the complex system of modern Oxford there is considerable waste. Through the attempt of Commissions to rear up a professorial by the side of a tutorial system, professors and tutors are largely doing the same work. Piecemeal legislation in Oxford has added professor after professor, building

P

after building, grant after grant, examination after examination, without much attempt at co-ordination and system. Learning and teaching have been cut in twain. There are some professors without pupils. Income is sometimes lost in teaching and examining people outside the University. But, even so, the University as a whole can hardly be called poor, consisting as it does of the independent colleges, as well as of the abstract University. The accounts of the colleges of the University show, after deducting external expenses, an income for 1905 of more than £350,000. The abstract University for the same year has £70,000. This sum, amounting on the whole to £420,000, gives for each of 3,500 undergraduates (apart from his keep) £120 a year. It shows a somewhat splendid poverty. Moreover, things have been improving. Finally, benefactors come forward in the ordinary statutable way; such as Charles Oldham and Dr. Schorstein. In these circumstances, until real poverty pinches and spontaneous charity ceases, it would be undignified for the University to allow itself to be dragged forward as a beggar.

4. The scheme begs the question of needs, which it divides as follows: Bodleian Library, £50,000; science, £100,000; additional buildings, £50,000; modern languages, £30,000; history, &c., £20,000 -total capital required, £250,000. No doubt, some of these so-called needs are real requirements, which may perhaps be met by internal economy and spontaneous donations. But some seem little more than demands; for example, under science, scientific engineering. In 1904 the University established a post-graduate diploma in this subject under a committee, which in its report of February 27, 1906, said that the examination announced for June 1905 was not held, as no candidates offered themselves'; nor since that time has there been any report of

candidates for diplomas in scientific engineering. Another so-called need is more like a greed. Under the head of additional buildings, the scheme proposes to seize the building erected in 1830 for the University Printing Press out of its own profits, on a convenient site of 5 acres, and to hand it over to scientific engineering, &c. It recommends this proposal to remove the Press on the ground that the building is unsuitable for a modern printing establishment', and it talks of erecting a modern onestoreyed building on a new site, at £40,000', but without acknowledging either that a one-storeyed building can be erected on the existing site at a much less cost, or that no new site' has been found or is likely to be found, to compare with the old site of the Press. Curiously enough, the appeal, while mentioning other parts of the scheme, omits this audacious proposal to turn one of our most beneficial institutions out of doors. Nevertheless, the proposal remains an integral part of the scheme, for which signatures and subscriptions have been solicited. Is it to be supposed that it would have had any chance, if it had been put, as it ought to have been put, before the University?

5. The whole question, whether the University of Oxford should condescend to appear before the world in forma pauperis, is a question for the University itself. The scheme, therefore, inaugurated by Mr. Brassey, ought not to have been handed about marked "strictly confidential' for six months, so as gradually to ooze out, and finally to acknowledge itself in an appeal of the Chancellor and ViceChancellor with an appearance of authority. The Masters of Arts in Convocation, who alone could give the requisite authority, should long ago have had before them the needs of Oxford University', and decided these questions:

1. How far are the so-called needs requirements?