of determining 'de literis ad regiam maiestatem, praelatos, proceres ac iudices, sive alios quoscunque conscribendis' (Statutes of the University of Oxford, 1906, p. 280).

Nothing can be clearer than the statutable process of the Chancellor or his deputy writing a letter with the authority of the University in declaration of its needs, its poverty, and its appeal for charity-an authority which the University has not given to the present appeal and scheme headed The Needs of Oxford University'. C.C.C., Oxford, May 12, 1907.

FROM The Times, JUNE 5, 1907.

On the second inst. you published the appeal of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University on this subject, and on the 6th my first letter pointing out that the appeal had not the authority of the University. On the 12th I wrote a second letter, which you published on the 15th, pointing out how the statutes of the University provide for letters written under its authority. Meanwhile, on the 9th the Chancellor and the ViceChancellor did me the unexpected honour of writing an answer to my first letter; and on the 13th you published their answer.

My first letter was not without result: it produced the admission that neither the scheme of Mr. Brassey, nor the appeal of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor approving that scheme, had received the authority of the University. It is said indeed that the Oxford Chancellor was following the example set by the Cambridge Chancellor in 1897. But, while the latter confessed from the first that he had not the authority of the Cambridge Senate, the former has only admitted in consequence of my first letter that he had not the corresponding authority of the Oxford Convocation. This tardy admission, however, is a great gain: it is an ad

mission that the University of Oxford has not itself come before the public as a beggar.

On the 16th followed the meeting in London. The Chancellor presided. He and the Vice-Chancellor spoke. The meeting carried some remarkable resolutions:

1. The formation of an Oxford University Appeal Fund, in accordance with the letter of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, published on the 2nd (on the motion of the Chancellor).

2. The establishment of a body of trustees, onethird resident to be appointed by the Council of the University at the request of the Chancellor, and two-thirds non-resident to be appointed after consultation of the Vice-Chancellor with the subscribers (on the motion of the Primate).

3. The appointment of a committee, headed by the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, for raising subscriptions, and for consulting the colleges on the formation of a committee in each college (on the motion of the Vice-Chancellor).

I hope, Sir, owing as I do almost everything to the University in which I have resided continuously since 1870, that I may be allowed to add to my former letters a few words of comment on the effect of these resolutions, which seem to be the work of men who aspire not only to help, but still more to govern, the University of Oxford.

There is all the difference in the world between an unofficial body of intending benefactors meeting together and the chief officers of the University sanctioning that meeting apart from the University. The unofficial benefactors have a right, which I have never been foolish enough to contest, to make what funds, trustees, and committees they please; and when they are ready with their subscriptions, to come in the last resort to the University. But the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the Uni

versity cannot mix themselves up with this complicated process from first to last without putting themselves into a most ambiguous position (1) as collectors of money for specific purposes without any authority of the University; and (2) as the official head and the official chairman of the University having to consider whether the very purposes for which they have been collecting money are good. Moreover, they will be putting the University itself into a constant dilemma. If it accepts their subscription, it gives the Chancellor and his deputy too much power; if it rejects their proposals it gives its highest dignitaries a painful

rebuke.

Worse still, the resolutions contemplate so intimate a connexion between the proceedings of the benefactors and various University institutions, all under the patronage of the Chancellor and the ViceChancellor, but all without the authority of the University, that the inevitable consequence must be to establish a double constitution:

1. A new de facto government under the patronage of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, consisting of (1) a body of trustees mixed up with them and with the Council of the University; (2) a committee headed by them and mixed up with sub-committees in each college of the University.

2. The old de iure government of the University, under the presidency of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, consisting of (1) Council, (2) Congregation, (3) Convocation.

In judging of the power of this new de facto government it is necessary to notice that it will be a financial power; that it will tend to become permanent because it is proposed to spread subscriptions over a period of years; and, above all, that it will have the initiative. The Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor say in their letter of the 13th that

'the trustees can only propose; the University will dispose'. But when the trustees come, money in hand, and with their proposals backed by the nominees of the Council, by the general committee, and by the special committees of colleges, all under the aegis of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, it is to be feared that the last word' of the de iure government of the University will have little chance of disposing of anything except of itself. The danger of such a de facto initiative lies in its irresponsibility. Too little care has been taken in concocting Mr. Brassey's scheme, approved directly by the Chancellor's appeal, and indirectly by the meeting over which he presided. It was left, for example, to me to point out on the 6th how unjust is the proposal to turn the University Press out of doors into the street and locate a school of engineering on its site. In their answer of the 13th the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor replied that this proposal about buildings had formed no part of their appeal of the 2nd. But it had; for, under the head of additional buildings, it formed an integral part of the scheme, to the tune of £40,000 for the removal of the Press out of £250,000, the total sum solicited; and in their appeal of the 2nd the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, without excepting the buildings, accepted and recommended the scheme and the total of £250,000. Moreover, even in their letter of the 13th in answer to me, they did not withdraw the removal of the Press, but left it to the body of trustees to propose it or not to the University. Finally, the meeting approved the appeal approving the scheme, and the total sum of £250,000; and, further, Mr. Brassey himself said that they were now in a fair way of having £1,000 a year guaranteed for five years, which would justify them in starting the engineering school; but without saying where the school would be located, or that

Q

it would not be located on the site of the University Press. Thus this irresponsible de facto government has left the fate of the University Press in an indefinite haze to be somehow cleared up by the initiative of a body of trustees which forms no part of the constitution of the University.

The University of Oxford is a truly great institution; for that very reason it cannot afford to let its business pass out of its own hands, to be mismanaged by others who cannot hope to know so much as it knows about its internal affairs. It is for the University to decide whether the inanition of the present engineering diploma justifies it in starting an engineering school. It is for the University to decide whether there is a 'pressing need' for a school of engineering to play the cuckoo in the nest of the University Press. It is for the University to decide whether it is safe to submit itself to the initiative of an unofficial government in connexion with the chief officers, the Council, and the colleges of the University, and yet apart from the constitutional government of the University.

The University ought to decide whether it will found the proposed school of engineering, whether it will remove the University Press, and whether it will pass the rest of the proposals of the scheme, the appeal, and the meeting; and it ought not to wait till its deliberations on the merits of those proposals are prejudiced by the temptations of money. At any rate, it should look first at its own resources. In my first letter I pointed out that the income of the colleges in 1905 as compared with 1902 had increased £15,000. The accounts for 1906 are now published, and show a further increase of £10,000; while the University had a balance of £4,000. There is a hope then that Oxford may both decide and provide its own needs. But, should it fail,