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?

2. How far can the University provide for its own requirements?

3. Is the Chancellor or his deputy to be charged with authority (1) to beg for money; (2) to

assist in the formation of an external body of subscribers?

The appeal states that on the 16th a public meeting is to be held on the needs of Oxford University at which the Chancellor is to preside and the ViceChancellor to be present. It is significant that the meeting is to be held in London, and not in Oxford, where there has been no public meeting. The meeting in London will be an informal gathering without the authority of the University of Oxford; and therefore it is to be hoped that nobody will take upon himself to say that the University is asking for money. C.C.C., Oxford, May 2, 1907.

FROM The Times, MAY 15, 1907. I have to thank you for your courtesy in publishing my letter of the 6th inst. To the letter itself I have nothing to add except that I wrote, not that there are some professors', but more generally that there are some 'positions' without pupils. I should not have ventured to trouble you again if I had not heard it commonly contended that there is no precedent for bringing a scheme asking for money before the University. There is a precedent which I kept carefully before me in writing to you; but I refrained from quoting it in order not to lengthen an already lengthy letter.

The precedent to which I refer is the celebrated rebuilding of the nave of the University Church in the reign of King Henry VII, described in Anthony Wood's City of Oxford (ii. 19, ed. A. Clark) as follows:

'In the said King's raigne, as I have said, when through age ' and want of reparation it could noe longer stand and noe

.

body for a time would owne to support and repaire it, the University at length, in a Congregation in the month of February, 1486/7 (John, bishop of Lyncoln, being then cancellor) appointed one Mr. Stephen Browne to be their proctor to intercede and make way to the reverend bishops and other wealthy spirituall persons for a collection of moneys to performe the same.

The general letter of the Chancellor, John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln, embodying this decision of the University, may be quoted from A History of the Church of S. Mary the Virgin, Oxford, by Ffoulkes, as follows:

'To all sons of holy mother church to whom the present 'letters may come, John, by divine permission Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and the 'whole assembly of Regents in the same, greeting in the Saviour. Whereas we, the Chancellor and the aforesaid 'Regents in our house of Congregation specially assembled for diligently taking in hand the construction of S. Mary's, where from antient times and now daily solemn assemblies are held: and whereas the means at our disposal would not suffice for performing those works, we appoint our well'beloved in Christ, master Stephen Browne, our proctor by 'the presents to entreat and importune our benefactors, and 'petition and receive for us whatever our benefactors shall 'deign to bestow for the same. We therefore supplicate you, 'who sympathize with our poverty, that you would admit 'him to declare our wants to you; and that you would deign 'to assist us in a work of such importance, for charity's sake. 'Given at Oxford, in our house of Congregation under our 'seal 26 Feb. 1486.'

Letters then followed to Stephen Browne, to the King, and to others, 48 in all, of which Ffoulkes gives a most interesting account (see pp. 201-27. The Congregation which determined that the University should thus appeal for the money was the Congregation of Regents (i.e. teachers), which at that time managed the ordinary finances of the University. This financial power afterwards passed to the Great Congregation or Convocation of Masters Regent and Non-Regent, which has also the power