242

constitutes an "outbreak" for the purposes of the Order

relating to his duties. 2. No duty attaches to a medicalcfficer of health to "visit ......the spot " in every case ofnotified disease. 3. When he deems it his duty to paysuch a visit he should remember that, apart from a

magistrate’s order, he cannot claim a right of entry toany premises, and that both as regards the occupier and themedical practitioner in attendance their voluntary coöpera-tion should be sought. 4. That the existence of a case ofinfectious disease in a given apartment cannot be deemed tomean the probable existence of a nuisance in that apartment ;and that a medical officer of health should not thereforeclaim a right of entry on such grounds. 5. That themedical officer of health has no right to inspect patients,that such inspection is as a rule very undesirable, andthat it should not be contemplated, even when it is

necessary, except after communication with, and if possiblein co-operation with, the medical practitioner in attend-ance on the case.

(To be continued.)

A TEACHING UNIVERSITY FOR LONDON.

ON Tuesday last the Prime Minister received three deputa-tions, who laid before him their views on the Gresham

University scheme. One, the first, was composed of the

representatives of the bodies within and without the existingUniversity of London not in favour of the adoption of thescheme, and it will be seen that King’s College has comeinto line with the other important educational bodies ofLondon. The other two deputations represented thegraduates of London University desirous of maintaining the Imperial characters of the University," and the GreshamScheme Amendment Committee. These two deputationswere received together as jointly opposing the Greshamscheme, though upon several grounds.

The Depuatation in favour of the Scheme.The deputation included the Right Hon. T. H. Huxley,

Professor Rucker, and Sir Henry Roscoe (representing theProfessorial Association) ; Sir John Russell Reynolds, Bart.,and Dr. Allchin (representing the Royal College of Physiciansof London) ; Mr. J. Whitaker Hulke (representing the RoyalCollege of Surgeons of England) ; Sir John Eric Erichsen,Bart., and Sir George Young. Bart. (representing UniversityCollege) ; Rev. Prebendary Wace and Sir William Priestley(representing King’s College) ; Sir Julian Goldsmid, SirWilliam S. Savory, Bart., and Mr. Anstie, Q.C. (representingthe Senate of the University of London) ; Professor SylvanusThompson (representing the Committee of Graduates) ; andDr. Frederick Taylor (Guy’s Hospital), Dr. Sidney Coupland(Middlesex Hospital), Mr. Hutchicsoo, jun. (London Hos-pital), Dr. Payne (St. Thomas’s Hospital), Mr. Herbert Page(St. Mary’s Hospital), Mr. Spencer (Westminster Hospital),Dr. Isambard Owen (St. George’s Hospital), Dr. Shore (St.Bartholomew’s Hospital), and Mr. Stanley Boyd (Charing-cross Hospital). Representatives of other educational andscientific institutions of the metropolis were also present.

Professor HUXLEY, in introducing the deputation, said thatin a matter of this kind the general feeling on educationalmatters in London would naturally be led by the Universityof London. The deputation represented the University,its Senate, Convocation, and graduates ; in addition, all theprincipal London colleges, the great medical corporations,the medical schools, and several important provincialinstitutions were also represented. Finally, an associa-tion including practically all those engaged in science(of which he had the honour to be president) was alsorepresented there in his person. He then referred sympa-thetically to the domestic reasons which bad prevented theVice-Chancellor of the University, Sir James Paget, fromintroducing the deputation. The ideal of a university, Pro-fessor Huxley considered, ccu1d not be subject to more

divergent views than must the best nractical manner of givingreality to any ideal under the circumstances which obtainedamong the educational institutions of the metropolis, whichbad grown up, as it were, spontaneously and without plan.This was not the fint time that some attempt had been

made to introduce order into what, without disrespect, bethought he might almost term chaos. Sixty years ago theattempt was made, and although what the projectors ofthat scheme desired was not eventually granted to them

they obtained a something, which had undoubtedly provedto have had an immense influence upon the progress of

general and professional education and to have done a vastamount of good work. But it was not what the original pro..posers wanted, which was to have a teaching and learningcorporation; that which was eventually established was a,purely examining body-the present University of London.The question of the position of educational affairs in Londor.,had been under much discussion. Since 1888 two Royal Commissions had occupied themselves with it. They had devotedan immense amount of labour, time, and acumen to thc-consideration of enormous masses of evidence, and he thought.that it would be probably impossible to devise any opinionupon that topic which had not been before the CommissionsThe report of the second Commission was admitted to bL-thoroughly comprehensive, well matured, and weighty, and.their principal business there that day was to say that, inprinciple, they accepted the recommendations of that Com-mission, and asked that they might be carried into effectwith as little delay as possible. At a full meeting of the-’University of London, held in July last, it was resolved to.be desirable to memorialise Government to take immediatesteps for the appointment of a Statutory Commission taframe statutes in accordance with the representation of-’the Gresham Commission, with power to make such modi-.fications as may seem to them expedient after considering-any representations made to them by the Senate, Convoca.tion, or any other bodies affected ; and that resolution was.not only carried in a very full meeting with only two dis-sentients, but similar resolutions had been passed by the.body of delegates referred to in the report of the Commission.and by the association of which he had the honour to bepresident. Whatever modification a particular body mightdesire, all were of one mind in desiring two things : (1) hbe-formation of a University of London as an organic wholeby the voluntary cooperation of the various institutions forlearning, teaching, and examining, and (2) the appointmentof a statutory authority as the indispensable instrument for

‘

effecting the organisation.Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID briefly supported Professor Huxley

and said that under the Gresham scheme the existing,standards would not be lowered.

Dr. ALLCHIN said that the Royal College of Physiciansin London cordially concurred in the recommendations ofthe Gresham Commission, and earnestly hoped that a

Statutory Commission would be appointed forthwith to giv&Effect to them. At the same time the College fully sym-pathised with the desire expressed by the various institu-tions referred to in the scheme, and who had signifiedapproval of it, that the Statutory Commission shouldbe empowered to make such modifications in detailas might appear desirable after hearing the representa--tions of the bodies concerned. The College was im-pressed with London’s need for a teaching university,in which the teachers should have a direct and considerableshare in the management, so that the higher instruction might,be coordinated and brought into line with the examinations.The Royal Colleges of Physicians of London, and of Surgeonsof England, were not primarily educational bodies, and thesuccess of the new University on the lines proposed wouldbring them disadvantage in pecuniary position and in.influence within the medical profession, for at present theyexamined and qualified the great bulk of the practitionersof England and Wales, while if the new University were con-stituted a far larger number of medical students would take-University degrees, and consequently fewer would take thediplomas of the Conjoint Board. Nevertheless, so impressed.were they with the necessity for the new University that theyurged his lordship to consider it pressing. In one otherrespect the College occupied a peculiar position. In view oftheir long experience and perfection of arrangements forconducting highly technical examinations they claimed to be-associated for examination purposes with the new University.The claim had been recognised by the Senate of the LondonUniversity and by the late Royal Commission. He was.

instructed further to submit that if the Government con-

sented to the appointment of a Statutory Commission some-one thoroughly conversant with the relations of the Collegesto each other, to the medical schools, and to medicaleducation generally should be appointed to the Statutory

243

Commission. The Colleges and all the medical examiningand teaching bodies in London showed with regard to thesea remarkable unanimity.

Mr. HULKE agreed with the foregoing speakers, and

briefly stated the grounds,upon which the Council of theRoyal College of Surgeons of England, endorsed by meetingsof the Fellows and Members, had concurred in the scheme.The Reverend Dr. WACE, while also supporting on behalf

of King’s College the appointment of a Statutory Commission,drew attention to the fact that in more than one detail the

position of that College was compromised.Dr. FREDERICK TAYLOR said :—"I I am here on behalf of

ten medical schools in London, and have to express the

general concurrence of those schools in the views expressedby previous speakers. They generally approve the proposalscontained in the report of the Royal Commission on theGresham University, and desire the appointment of a Statu-tory Commission to carry it into effect, but with full powersto make such modifications in details as may seem to themdesirable after hearing the wishes of the various institu-tions concerned. On that Commission it is desirable fromthe important position the faculty of medicine holds in thepresent University that one of the members should belong tothe medical profession. I should like to point out to yourlordship that the institutions which we represent, commonlyknown as medical schools, are practically colleges in thefaculty of medicine, that they have been affiliated as

teaching institutions to the present University of London,and that in fact they very largely serve the purpose ofcolleges in medicine to the older universities in England,since by far the greater number of the medical students ofthese older universities pursue their studies for one, two,or three years at the London medical schools before theytake their medical degrees. Further, I would point out that,in respect of their ’systematic teaching, their equipment, theinevitable influence from constant association of the teachersover the students, the length of that association for a

period of five or six years, the fact of residence at least inthe case of a small proportion of students, these institu-tions are as valuable for the purposes of education, inits wider sense, as any other colleges forming part of auniversity. What is wanting to us is this, that with allthese qualifications it is nevertheless only a small proportionof our students who attain to a university degree. Unfor-tunately, the majority, for various reasons, only study for thediplomas which qualify them to practice their profession, which,valuable as tests of medical knowledge. have not the prestigeof a university degree. The establishment of a universityaccording to the scheme of the Royal Commission, in whichthe medical schools were incorporated as constituent colleges,would not only be an inducement for every student to aspireto a university degree, but would also bring the universitydegree within reach of a much larger number than now attainto it. The student entering upon a profession like that ofmedicine would then, as he should, look to a universitydegree as the end of his studies. Farther, the association ofthe schools together in one university would tend in themedical schools as a whole to raise the teaching to a higherstandard even than it has at present. "Lord RosEBERY, in reply to the deputation, said :—"Pro-

fessor Huxley and Gentlemen, -I am not in a position to-dayto make you a definite announcement of the position of theGovernment, but I may say this much-that the Governmentattaches great importance to the report of the Commissionpresented last year, and is fully sensible that the presenttime offers a favourable opportunity for the appointment of aStatutory Commission in the sense in which you wish for it.il’e have here to-day the representatives of various educa-tional associations announcing to us their earnest wish that aquestion which has caused much controversy and some ill bloodshould be put an end to speedily, and that in the interestsof the metropolis we should not any longer be subject to theï:eproach that London is without a teaching university. Ihave agreed to receive the objectors to the Gresham schemethis afternoon, and it would be disrespectful to them to replydefinitely to you. It would be to declare myself to have ameconceived opinion. The Convocation of the University ofLondon also meet this afternoon, and no doubt their decisionon the matter will be made the subject of Governmentrepresentation. But I will later, and without loss of time,inform you of the position of Government in regard tcthe matter. But the proposed Statutory Commissiorhas one condition which has been unanimously laid down;though insisted upon more in some directions than others-that while it should be guided in its principles by the report

of the Commission, it bhould be to a large extent unfetteredin respect to details. Government will, I think, take fallheed of that view. But if the Government is able toannounce that it will proceed with the legislation requiredfor the appointment of a Statutory Commission it mustmake a demand in its turn. It will be absolutely necessary,in view of the work of the session, that legislation on thispoint should not meet with any long or obstinate Parlia-mentary resistance. I do not know what emollient facultiesthis deputation may possess with respect to the Parlia-mentary powers which may be exercised in respect of anyproposals we may make ; but I would earnestly beseech themto exercise such powers as they may possess if we are finallyto be able to announce that we are able to comply with theirpraner."

Professor HUXLEY thanked the Prime Minister for re-ceiving the deputation and for his reply. The deputationthen withdrew.

The Deputations against the Scheme.In the afternoon of the same day Lord Rosebery received

two deputations introduced by Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Q.C.,M.P., which included Dr. W. J. Collins (representing theGresham Scheme Amendment Committee). Mr. Bompas,Q.C. (representing 900 graduates of London University),Mr. T. B. Napier, LL.D., Dr. Sansom, Mr. Heber Hart,LL.D., and others.

Mr. FLETCHER MOULTON, in introducing the deputations,said that he had been chosen to say a few words because hehad not taken an active part in the special efforts whichhad been made in this matter although he had a close con-nexion with London University. The scheme for the GreshamUniversity, with respect to which they had met, was broadlydescribed as a proposed union between a teaching universityto be formed in London and the old London University.There was no doubt that the scheme had been mainlysupported by the school of educationist3 who considered thechief value of education consisted in the actual teachingderived from teachers, believing that test3 by examina-tion merely testified to successful cramming. He feltstrongly that those who urged that a teaching univer-sity was a good thing forgot that it was unattainableby the bulk of those who had graduated at the LondonUniversity in years past, the same class as would, he hoped,go through its examinations in the future. In a teachinguniversity it was necessary that the teachers should be theexaminers either personally or constituting the board whichdirected the examinations. Therefore there must be separateexaminations for those who resided and those who did notreside ; and in the latter case it would be better to leave thework in the hands of those who had already done so well.For if there were only one examination there would beunfairness observed to the two classes of students, or whatwas of more importance, the reputation for unfairness,for it was impossible to hold for resident students anexamination which turned on what they had been speciallytaught, and with fairness hold the same examination fornon-residents. He maintained that the adoption of theGresham scheme would cripple the University, and thatwithout addition to its teaching efficiency its cosmopolitancharacter and reputation would be destroyed.

Mr. BOMPAS said that he represented 900 graduates ofLondon University who had expressed their views by mouthand postcard, saying that if a teaching university wererequired it should be separate from the existing institutions.Most of those whom he represented were in favour of ateaching university in London, but not of the Greshamscheme, which would detract from the position alreadyenjoyed by the holders of the London University degree.There was no pass degree in the world which could comparewith that of London. The new institution would be governedby a senate appointed on different principles, and would havefor its object local teaching instead of Imperial examina-tion. It would grant degrees for other considerations thanexamination. In time the examinations would have cha-racters which would make them more suited to the student atLondon University than to others. It would also cause greatdelay ; for the opponents of the scheme, many of whomwere Members of Parliament, would strive to the lastagainst it. London University had no right to object to theestablishment of a teaching university in London, butwithin the last twenty years the Queen had declared that thedegrees of London University should not be interfered withwithout the consent of those who had taken them, and now

, it was urged that the Queen ought to take advantage of an

244

Act of Parliament to break that promise. That would notbe a right or an honourable course.Lord ROSEBERY : How many graduates of the University

are there 1Mr. BOMPAS: Three thousand, seven hundred. He appeared

on behalf of the Imperial character of the University againsta scheme which was desired by London only.

Dr. W. J. COLLI-NS said that he represented the GreshamScheme Amendment Committee and objected to the schemefrom no narrow vested-interest point of view, but because itwould tend to make the influence of the University more localin character. He said, in answer to the Prime Minister, thathe could not tell how many graduates were members of thesociety, but that his views had procured him election to thesenate of the University.

Mr. HEBER HART, LL.D., considered that a teachinguniversity in London would be essentially local, just as anexamining university was Imperial, and he considered thattheir functions could be kept as distinct as those of theLondon County Council from those of Imperial Parliament.Of the 3700 members of Convocation at least 1000 did nottrouble to give notice of their addresses and so could not becommunicated with and might be considered non-effectivemembers altogether, but he knew that the new institutionmight be popular in London, but it would be intenselyunpopular in the country at large.

Dr. SA.Nsoisi and Mr. NAPIER, LL.D., also spoke.The Earl of ROSEBERY, in his reply, expressed his obligations i

to the members of the deputations for their consent to mergethe two deputations into one for his convenience. He said :"I quite understand that there are two schools of thoughtbefore me. First, that school represented by Dr. Collins, whoseobjections did not seem to be insurmountable. Dr. Collinsfelt that the standard of examination might be lowered in theUniversity of London by any association with teaching. Butit appears to me that he feels that that objection could bemet, if in any way he could obtain some guarantee that thestandard would not be lowered. There is nothing in thereport of the Commissioners which would prevent the Statu-tory Commission, if it should ever exist, from foundingan examination of a separate kind for those studentswho are not under the teaching of the University. Ican conceive the possibility, which seems inconceivable tothe members of this deputation as a whole, that there mightbe some such separate extension framed for external appli-cants for degrees to the University of London, which shouldfully maintain, even if the new University did not itselfmaintain, the standard of examination on which thesedeputations set such value. This seems to me the common

ground on which the two deputations meet. But the secondschool of thought, represented by Mr. Bompas, goes a gooddeal further than this. Mr. Bompas has touched on theessential incompatibility between a teaching and an ex-amining university. I find a difficulty in accepting thedoctrine that there is such an incompatibility. Mr. Bompashas shown himself much more antagonistic than Dr. Collins,and attentive consideration will be given to his views.You speak of this as a mere London or local matter,but your contention is based largely on Imperial interests.Well, London is the metropolis of the Empire, and nothingin regard to London can be considered local. If we, byobtaining some standard of examination which shall notlower the standard as hitherto known, and which shall at thesame time provide a teaching university for London, we shall,I believe, have done the best for London and the Empire ;and I am bound to say, what I did not say to the deputationthis morning, that our convictions rather point in the direc-tion of the appointment cf a Statutory Commission for

framing such a scheme which should at the same time beable to receive full representation from you or from any otherinterests involved enabling them to arrive at a scheme notunsatisfactory both to the London University as it at presentexists and to the empire at large. I have spoken to you quitefrankly and have no time to say more. What you have saidhas interested me very much, and I am only sorry if in whatI am saying I am not stating what ia wholly satisfactory toyou."The deputations then withdrew.

Extraordinary Meeting nf the Convocation of LondonUrioeirsity.

Ax extraordinary meeting of Convocation of the Universityof London, adjourned from May 8th, 1894, was held atBurlington-gardens on the 22nd inst. The proceedings

occupied not much less than four hours, and the discussionswere occasionally somewhat heated. Mr. E. H. Busk,Chairman of Convocation, presided.

Before proceeding to business Professor Sylvanus Thomp-son expressed the condolence of the University with theVice-Chancellor, Sir James Paget, in his recent bereavement.The report of the annual committee having been adopted,

Professor THOMPSON moved a resolution to the effect : "ThatConvocation is of opinion that there should be one universityin London and not two ; and that the interests of highereducation will be best served by such an enlargement andreconstruction of the existing University as will (whileretaining its existing powers and privileges, and withoutinterfering with the efficient discharge of its present dutiesas an examining body for students from all parts of theBritish Empire) enable it to promote learning, scholarship,and research as a Teaching University for London." lc

support of his motion Professor Thompson said that thematter resolved itself into the question whether there shouldbe in London two universities or one. Most of the authoritiesconcerned, including King’s College, had now acceded to therecommendations of the Gresham Committee. The truefunction of a university was to provide means and oppor-tunities of education, and not to restrict itself to the meretesting of the knowledge possessed by candidates seekingits degrees. Professor Thompson alluded to a certain class ofcandidates for the London degrees as "village cobblers."

Dr. ALLCHIN seconded the resolution.Mr. BOMPAS, Q.C., moved the following amendment: o

"That in the opinion of Convocation it is essential that inany enlargement or reconstruction of the University ofLondon its existing powers and privileges should be retainedunimpaired, the efficient discharge of its present dutiesshould not be interfered with, and the high standardof its degrees should be maintained." He consideredthat the proposals of the Gresham Committee would destroythe high and almost unique character of the London

University degree. He considered that the creation of asecond university would be preferable to the scheme ofreconstruction.

Mr. T. B. NAPIER, LL.D., seconded the amendment.Dr. SISLEY and Mr. FLETCHER MOULTON, Q.C., havingspoken in support of it, Convocation divided, with theiesultthat 206 voted for Professor Thompson’s resolution and 175for the amendment. There was, therefore, a majority of 31in favour of the resolution.

Professor THOMPSON then moved the second resolution: u"That Convocation, while desiring to express generally itsapproval of the proposals contained in the report of the RoyalCommission, is of opinion that power ought to be given to,the Statutory Commission to vary the details of the scheme,and that it ought to be made an instruction to the Commis-sioners, before framing the statutes and regulations, to conferwith duly accredited representatives of the Senate and otConvocation as to the modifications which may be desirable."Mr. COZENS-HARDY, M.P., seconded the resolution.Mr. MOULTON, Q.C., moved an amendment condemning

the Gresham scheme, which was seconded by Dr. CoLLixsand lost, the numbers being 157 to 133.

Professor THOMPSON then moved the third resolution :"That a special committee of nine members, including theChairman of Convocation, be nominated to prepare for pre-sentation to the Statutory Commission, when appointed, amemorandum of points in the scheme of the Royal Com-mission in which modification is desirable, and with power toconfer with such said Statutory Commission and with anycommittee of the Senate."Mr. NAPIER, LL.D., seconded the resolution, which was,

agreed to, and the business of the extraordinary meetingwas shortly afterwards completed.

AN ALLEGED " OYSTER EPIDEMIC" OFTYPHOID FEVER.

IN a sense it is to be deplored that side by side withthe perfecting of etiological methods the delicacies of ourdaily lives should be coming one by one beneath strongsuspicion as being at times vehicles by which disease maybe communicated ; and, if these suspiciors should ripeninto certainties, some of our daintiest morsels must needssuffer sterilisation in the cooking pot before they can beconsumed in a spirit of equanimity. That the process