I am delighted to say that Paget [Sir James Paget, Vice-Chancellor of the University.] has taken up the game, and I am going to a committee of the University this day week to try my powers of persuasion. If the Senate can only be got to see where salvation lies and strike hard without any fooling over details, we shall do a great stroke of business for the future generations of Londoners.
[And by the end of the year he writes:--]
I think we are going to get something done, as the Senate of the University of London has come into line with us, and I hope University College will do the same.
[Meanwhile he was asked if he would appear before the Commission and give evidence--to "talk without interrogation" so as to convince the Commission of the inadequacy of the teaching of science in general and of the absence of means and appliances for the higher teaching. This he did early in January 1893, representing partly his own views, partly those of the a.s.sociation, to whom he read what he proposed to say, before being authorised to speak on their behalf.
His position is finally defined by the following letter:--]
February 9, 1893.
Dear Professor Weldon,
I wish anything I have said or shall say about the organisation of the New University to be taken in connection with the following postulates which I conceive to be of primary importance:
1. The New University is not to be a separate body from the present University of London.
2. All persons giving academic instruction of a certain rank are to be "University Professors."
3. The Senate is to contain a large proportion of representatives of the "University Professors" with a limited term of office (say five years).
4. The University chest is to receive all fees and other funds for University purposes; and the Professors are to be paid out of it, according to work done for the University--thus putting an end to the present commercial compet.i.tion of teaching inst.i.tutions.
5. In all questions of Teaching, Examination, and Discipline the authority of the Senate is to be supreme--(saving appeal to the Privy Council).
Your questions will be readily answered if these postulates are kept in view.
In the case you put, the temptation to rivalry would not exist; and I should imagine that the Senate would refuse funds for the purpose of duplicating an existing Inst.i.tution, unless very strong grounds for so doing could be shown. In short, they would adopt the plan which commends itself to you.
That to which I am utterly opposed is the creation of an Established Church Scientific, with a hierarchical organisation and a professorial Episcopate. I am fully agreed with you that all trading compet.i.tion between different teaching inst.i.tutions is a thing to be abolished (see Number 4 above).
On the other hand, intellectual compet.i.tion is a very good thing, and perfect freedom of learning and teaching the best of all things.
If you put a physical, chemical, or biological bishop at the head of the teachers of those sciences in London, you will do your best to destroy that freedom. My bar to any catastrophe of that sort lies in Number 3. Let us take the case of Biology. I suppose there will be, at least, half a dozen Professoriates in different branches of this subject each Professor will be giving the same amount of time and energy to University work, and will deserve the same pay. Each, if he is worth his salt, will be a man holding his own views on general questions, and having as good a right as any other to be heard. Why is one to be given a higher rank and vastly greater practical influence than all the rest? Why should not each be a "University Professor" and have his turn on the Senate in influencing the general policy of the University? The nature of things drives men more and more into the position of specialists. Why should one specialist represent a whole branch of science better than another, in Council or in Administration?
I am afraid we cannot build upon the a.n.a.logy of Cambridge. In the first place, London is not Cambridge; and, in the second, Michael Fosters do not grow on every bush.
The besetting sin of able men is impatience of contradiction and of criticism. Even those who do their best to resist the temptation, yield to it almost unconsciously and become the tools of toadies and flatterers. "Authorities," "disciples," and "schools" are the curse of science; and do more to interfere with the work of the scientific spirit than all its enemies.
Thus you will understand why I have so strongly opposed "absorption."
No one can feel more strongly than I the need of getting the present chaos into order and putting an end to the absurd waste of money and energy. But I believe that end may be attained by the method of unification which I have suggested; without bringing in its train the evils which will inevitably flow from "absorptive" regimentation.
What I want to see is such an organisation of the means and appliances of University instruction in all its branches, as will conduce to the largest possible freedom of research, learning, and teaching. And if anybody will show me a better way to that end than through the measures I have suggested, I will gladly leave all and follow him.
I am yours very faithfully,
T.H. Huxley.
P.S.--Will you be so kind as to let Professor Lankester see this letter, as I am writing to him and shirk the labour of going over the whole ground again.
[His last public activity, indeed, was on behalf of University reform, when in January 1895 he represented not only the a.s.sociation, but, in the enforced absence of Sir James Paget, the Senate of the University also, on a deputation to Lord Rosebery, then Prime Minister, to whom he wrote asking if he were willing to receive such a deputation.]
Hodeslea, Eastbourne, December 4, 1894.
Dear Lord Rosebery,
A number of scientific people, in fact I think I may say all the leading men of science, and especially teachers in the country, are very anxious to see the University of London reorganised upon the general principles set forth in the Report of the last Royal Commission.
To this end nothing is wanted but the inst.i.tution of a strong Statutory Commission; and we have all been hoping that a Bill would be introduced for that purpose.
It is rumoured that there are lions in the path. But even lions are occasionally induced to retreat by the sight of a large body of beaters. And some of us think that such a deputation as would willingly wait on you, might hasten the desired movement.
We proposed something of the kind to Mr. Acland months ago, but nothing has come of the suggestion--not, I am sure, from any want of good will to our cause on his part.
Within the last few days I have been so strongly urged to bring the matter before you, that in spite of some doubts as to the propriety of going beyond my immediate chief the V.P. [The Vice-President of the Committee of Council, Mr. Acland.] even in my private capacity I venture to make this appeal.
I am, dear Lord Rosebery, faithfully yours,
T.H. Huxley.
CHAPTER 3.10.
1892.
[Several letters of this year touch on educational subjects. The following advice as to the best training for a boy in science, was addressed to Mr. Briton Riviere, R.A.]
Hodeslea, June 19, 1892.
My dear Riviere,
Touching the training of your boy who wants to go in for science, I expect you will have to make a compromise between that which is theoretically desirable and that which is practically most advantageous, things being as they are.
Though I say it that shouldn"t, I don"t believe there is so good a training in physical science to be got anywhere as in our College at South Kensington. But Bernard could hardly with advantage take this up until he is seventeen at least. What he would profit by most as a preliminary, is training in the habit of expressing himself well and clearly in English; training in mathematics and the elements of physical science; in French and German, so as to read those languages easily--especially German; in drawing--not for hifalutin art, of which he will probably have enough in the blood--but accurate dry reproduction of form--one of the best disciplines of the powers of observation extant.
On the other hand, in the way of practical advantage in any career, there is a great deal to be said for sending a clever boy to Oxford or Cambridge. There are not only the exhibitions and scholarships, but there is the rubbing shoulders with the coming generation which puts a man in touch with his contemporaries as hardly anything else can do. A very good scientific education is to be had at both Cambridge and Oxford, especially Cambridge now.
In the case of sending to the university, putting through the Latin and Greek mill will be indispensable. And if he is not going to make the cla.s.sics a serious study, there will be a serious waste of time and energy.
So much in all these matters depends on the x contained in the boy himself. If he has the physical and mental energy to make a mark in science, I should drive him straight at science, taking care that he got a literary training through English, French, and German. An average capacity, on the other hand, may be immensely helped by university means of flotation.
But who in the world is to say how the x will turn out, before the real strain begins? One might as well prophesy the effect of a gla.s.s of "hot-with" when the relative quant.i.ties of brandy, water, and sugar are unknown. I am sure the large quant.i.ty of brandy and the very small quant.i.ty of sugar in my composition were suspected neither by myself, nor any one else, until the rows into which wicked men persisted in involving me began!
And that reminds me that I forgot to tell the publishers to send you a copy of my last peace-offering [The "Essays on Controverted Questions."], and that one will be sent you by to-morrow"s post. There is nothing new except the prologue, the sweet reasonableness of which will, I hope, meet your approbation.
It is not my fault if you have had to toil through this frightfully long screed; Mrs. Riviere, to whom our love, said you wanted it. "Tu l"as voulu, Georges Dandin."
Ever yours very faithfully,