have an organization by which we reach the farmer; we know his
wants; and the University has supplied us with well-qualified
teachers of applied science. If we were in possession of suitable
laboratories, properly equipped for research, we should find
competent investigators and willing assistants among the younger
members of the University who are always ready to engage in
original work, either with the view of gaining knowledge or in
order to qualify themselves for appointments.’
In considering the development of all these departments, and the
foundation of the chairs and other teaching posts made necessary by
them, it must be remembered that the professorships already existing
before 1850 included, among others, those of chemistry, anatomy,
botany, geology, mineralogy, medicine, physic, political economy, moral
philosophy, modern history, Arabic, and music; that these chairs had,
before the Commission of 1850, no very important duties attached to
them; and that in the last fifty years each has been adapted to its
place in the University system, and each has in turn become a new centre
of activity round which, to use a convenient term unfamiliar in
Cambridge, a ‘faculty’ has crystallized. To many important developments
it has been possible to allude only in the most cursory manner. The
merest mention must suffice for the diploma in geography; the diploma in
mining engineering, with its provision for practical experience in mines
in this country or abroad; the diploma in forestry, which is a logical
outcome of the development of the botanical and agricultural schools;
the provision for military studies, and the Day Training College for
teachers. The latter has both a primary and a secondary department, and
the certificate given by the University in the theory, history, and
practice of education, and for practical efficiency, attracts teachers
in great numbers from all parts of the country.
* * * * *
Development so wide and so rapid as that which we have sketched has been
of necessity costly. The expenditure since 1862 on buildings devoted to
science alone must have considerably exceeded £300,000, the greater part
having taken place in the latter years of the period; and it must be
remembered that the University has had also to equip and maintain the
observatory, the cost of which is not included in the amount just
mentioned, and to spend large sums on the University library. Except in
one or two cases, in which a special benefaction fund had been
appropriated to adornment by the desire of the benefactor, these
buildings have been erected with the strictest regard to economy. The
amount expended cannot be said to be an inordinate sum for a modern
University to have spent on scientific buildings and equipment. Yet even
this expenditure would have been impossible without external help.
The cost of the maintenance of the buildings erected and of the very
inadequately paid staffs, now presses on the limits of the available
income; and it is contended that but little more can be attempted for
many years, if ever, without external aid. We will proceed, then, to a
rough analysis of the resources of the University and colleges, and of
the allotment of these resources. Before doing so, however, it may be
well to state that the colleges provide adequately, but not
extravagantly, for the teaching of classics and mathematics, for
elementary teaching in many other subjects, and for individual
assistance to the student and supervision of his work in the subjects
taught in the University. The collegiate system also ensures a close
contact and intercourse between teacher and student not otherwise or
elsewhere attainable. The University, in its teaching aspect, may be
regarded as an organization for providing instruction in all those
branches of knowledge the teaching of which cannot be economically
undertaken by the colleges. Thus, for the teaching of science, and for
the provision of costly laboratories, the University is responsible; and
the higher and more specialized teaching in most other departments is
also provided by the University. The ancient endowments are, in the
main, college endowments; but the history of the development of modern
subjects is also the history of the development of the University; and
it is the University rather than the colleges which is at present in
need of substantial financial help. But to suppose that the colleges do
not heartily co-operate in the University teaching would be erroneous;
at the present time one college may be better organized than another
for this particular purpose, but the colleges may safely be trusted soon
to come into line.
The corporate income of the seventeen colleges is, roughly, £310,000 per
annum. This, with a sum of about £52,000 (called the Tuition Fund),
received annually from the lecture and laboratory fees of the 3,200
students, and £30,000 received annually by the University for degree and
other fees, constitutes the whole available income for college as well
as University purposes, if we except certain Trust Funds for the
endowment of some professorships, and those funds of the nature of
charities of which the colleges are merely administrators.
The corporate income of the colleges consists of (1) endowments, usually
in the form of estates, which bring in £220,000 a year; (2) fees, rent
of rooms, profits on kitchens, and so forth, which bring in £90,000. But
the colleges are great landowners and have the outgoings of landowners.
Though the expenses of the estate management are only about 7 per cent.
of the revenues arising from the estates, yet £130,000 a year are spent
on management, repairs, and improvements on the estates, rates and
taxes,[17] interest on loans, and the maintenance of the costly college
buildings in Cambridge. Many of the latter are national monuments of
surpassing interest, the proper care of which is a duty to the nation.
When allowance has been made for the inevitable expenditure under these
heads, there is left only £180,000 for all other purposes. The
fellowships and the stipends of the heads of houses absorb £78,000; and
the contributions of the colleges towards scholarships, as determined in
the main by statute, and as distinct from any separate endowment,
account for £32,000.
An analysis of the distribution of the fellowship money may
conveniently be deferred for the moment; but it may be stated that the
sum spent on scholarships finds, inside the University at least, many
critics. The expenditure on scholarships is undoubtedly, however, in the
main, a fulfilment of the intentions of their founders, and, if we may
judge by the recent expenditure of County Councils, is in accordance
with public feeling. After deduction of fellowships and scholarships,
there is left of the corporate income a sum of £70,000. Of this sum,
£32,000,[18] or nearly one-half, is paid as a direct contribution to the
University; but, as will be seen immediately, the colleges contribute to
the University in many other ways. Of the £38,000 remaining, £4,000 goes
to supplement the Tuition Fund of £52,000 received from the students as
fees; the sum of £56,000 so obtained is applied to the provision of
college and University lecturers. A large proportion of these fees is
paid to the scientific departments of the University; and of the fees so
paid the greater part is assigned as a contribution to the maintenance
of the several departments, and not, directly at least, to the payment
of lecturers.
Deducting the sum of £4,000, contributed by the colleges to the Tuition
Fund, we have left over of the corporate income a sum of £34,000, or
about £2,000 per college, available for the payment of college officers
and servants, the expenses of the college libraries, printing, and other
expenses. If, then, it can be shown that the £78,000 spent on the
fellowships is not extravagantly allotted--and of this more below--it is
clear that the colleges can contribute but little more than they do at
present to the University teaching.
An idea of the serious effect of the fall of agricultural rent on the
college incomes may be gathered from the fact that one of the larger
colleges has in the last thirty years suffered a loss of revenue
amounting to £10,000 a year.
We now turn to the question of the fellowships. The sum of £78,000 was
in 1904 divided among seventeen heads of houses and about 315 ordinary
fellows. Of this sum the heads of houses received among them, as far as
can be ascertained, the not excessive amount of £15,000, very unequally
divided. The average stipend of a fellow is thus about £200 per annum.
When the last Commission sat, the maximum stipend of a fellow was fixed
at £250; and it was thought that this sum would usually be reached. But,
except in the case of one or two colleges, which are the fortunate
possessors of town property, the maximum is now never reached; and in
certain cases the value of a fellowship has fallen to less than £100 per
annum. Of the 315 fellows, some 245 were in 1904 resident and some 70
non-resident. Of the residents, about 225 were holding some University
or college office, educational or administrative. Of the non-residents,
and of the residents who were holding no office, the greater number had
earned their fellowships by holding some qualifying position, such as a
lectureship for a given number of years, usually twenty. Among the
non-residents, in addition to fellows who hold their fellowships as a
pension, were to be found students who are prosecuting research away
from Cambridge; such students are, as a rule, liable to be summoned to
reside, as college exigencies may demand. Several other non-residents
are fellows who have but recently received appointments away from
Cambridge; their fellowships will, under the new statutes, lapse in a
year or two.
The analysis shows that the number of ‘prize fellowships’ is small; and
it is believed that they are steadily vanishing. To assist the reader in
obtaining a general idea of what is done with the fellowships, the
combined result in the case of two colleges is here given. The two
colleges in question have been chosen because the writers happen to be
in a position to account for the occupant of every fellowship in each
college. As will be seen, the two colleges render most valuable
assistance to the University; and they have practically rid themselves
of the burden of prize fellowships imposed on them by the Commission of
1856. The two colleges dispose, according to the University calendar of
1905-6, of forty fellowships between them. Of these, five are pension
fellowships; five are held by professors in the University, as part of
their stipend; twelve are held by University lecturers, demonstrators,
or other University officers; eleven are held by college officers or
lecturers; five are held by research students in Cambridge; two junior
fellowships are held by non-residents. One of the latter was recently
appointed to a professorship in another University, and his fellowship
has just lapsed; the other holds a prize fellowship. It is unlikely
that, when his fellowship lapses, another prize fellow will be elected
in his place. There are in residence at each of the two colleges a
number of University lecturers and officers, and of college lecturers,
for whom no fellowship can be found. Speaking generally of the
fellowships allotted to college teaching, it may be said that, with the
help of a portion of the Tuition Fund, they enable the colleges to
provide the college lecturers with stipends on which an unmarried man,
occupying rooms in college, may comfortably live. When we turn to the
University lectureships, there is often another tale to tell.
The University income, which has to bear almost the whole cost of modern
developments, is made up of the following items: matriculation, degree,
examination, and other fees, £30,000; direct contributions from
colleges, £32,000; income from endowments, £2,000--£64,000 in all.
In 1904 the University, in the course of its ordinary work, expended
£65,300, distributed roughly as follows:
£
Officers, secretaries, and servants 4,100
Maintenance of business offices, registry,
senate house, and schools 1,300
Rates and taxes 3,400
Obligatory payments from income 1,300
Stipends of professors 12,400
Stipends of readers, University lecturers,
demonstrators, and other teachers 9,100
Maintenance and subordinate staff of scientific
departments (including the botanic garden
and observatory) 9,600
University library, staff, and upkeep 6,300
Examiners’ fees, etc. 5,900
Debt on buildings, sites, sinking fund, and
interest on building loans 8,500
Printing and stationery 2,600
Pension funds (professors, £200; servants, £150) 350
Miscellaneous expenses 450
-------
£65,300
There are forty-four professors, very few of them receive £800 or more a
year (including fellowships), while the lowest limit of a professor’s
stipend, unless he holds a fellowship, is about £90 a year. The average
annual income of a professor is not more than £550, and of the yearly
revenue of £24,000 required to produce this average, £7,000 are paid in
the shape of fellowships by the colleges, and about £4,600 from the
income of special trust funds and other benefactions, one payment of
£800 a year being for a term of years only. One or two professors at
most receive a proportion of the fees paid for lectures and
laboratories in their respective departments. There are twelve
University readers (or sub-professors). The new statutes contemplated
for a reader the salary of £400 a year, but, owing to the inadequacy of
the University income, none receives more than £300, and in several
cases only £100 is paid. There are fifty-three University lecturers
whose stipends range from £200 a year to £50, and it is melancholy to
note how many of these receive the lower sum, without any assistance
from endowments, such as fellowships or the like. There are thirteen
University teachers, almost all of them appointed by the Board for
Indian Civil Service studies, and occupied, in the main, in teaching
eastern dialects; and there are forty-four demonstrators, curators, and
superintendents of museums, whose stipends range from £200 a year to
nothing at all.
The incomes of some of these gentlemen are supplemented by fellowships,
of others by a share of lecture fees; a few, too, may hold two such
offices as curator and lecturer simultaneously. But, when the addition
from all sources (about £8,000 from fees or special funds, and £13,000
from fellowships) has been made to the annual sum (£9,100) which the
University has to give, we arrive at a total of about £30,000, giving
the surprisingly low average income of £250 a year for any University
teacher other than a professor. A few of the older teachers may hold
some college office which adds a little to their income, but these are
rare exceptions. There are no resources from which these incomes may be
increased according to the service of the holder, and there is
practically no provision for pension, except in the case of those
teachers (less than one-half of the whole number) who hold fellowships,
and may expect, after many years of service, to earn the right to retain
them permanently.
In these circumstances it is not surprising that the University finds a
difficulty in retaining many of its abler teachers. At the beginning of
1904 it was estimated that over two hundred professors and lecturers at
other Universities (as distinct from University colleges) in the United
Kingdom had been educated at Cambridge, and, though that is by no means
a matter for regret, yet it is not too much to say that, in supplying
this demand for teachers, the University has done a great national work
for which she is poorly requited by her difficulty in retaining a
sufficient staff for herself. Fortunately, when all other funds are
exhausted, the fund of patriotism remains inexhaustible. It is not known
how many fellows, possessed of some private means, and attached to the
University through sheer love of their work, return their stipends to
their colleges to be employed for the general good; such men are always
anxious that their names should be concealed, but the present writers
know of three in the restricted circle of their immediate personal
friends. The special correspondent of the _Times_ writes, on the
occasion of the royal visit in 1904:
‘I may be permitted to say, as the result of my personal inquiries,
that the amount of work done either gratuitously or for very
inadequate remuneration by professors, readers, lecturers,
demonstrators, and other teachers in many departments of study and
instruction, really constitutes a very substantial endowment,
freely contributed by men who have no worldly goods to give, but
who give lavishly of their time, their energy, their intellectual
capacity, their acquired knowledge, and their disinterested
devotion to the advancement of learning. If this asset were
evaluated in pounds, shillings, and pence, the University
balance-sheet would wear a very different aspect.’
On a consideration of the analysis just made, and of the additional
facts that the Reserve Fund set aside by the University for building and
equipment during the years of her development is now exhausted, and
that her borrowing powers have been seriously reduced, it would appear
that further progress is almost entirely dependent on an increase of
endowment.
A few years ago certain of the University authorities, foreseeing the
approach of a financial crisis, put away their pride, and, with the
countenance of the chancellor, boldly begged for help. Their appeal
resulted in the collection of about £100,000, which has been expended on
the erection and equipment of various buildings devoted to science, such
as the museum of geology and the botany school, the University itself
contributing a large proportion of the expense incurred. In the list of
contributors occur the names of no fewer than 500 Cambridge men, past
and present, out of a total of 620 names. This number is a sufficient
retort to the suggestion which has been made that Cambridge does not
help herself. It must be remembered, too, that a sum of about £14,000 a
year is contributed by members of the Senate to the funds of the
University and of the colleges for the privilege of continued
membership, and that these fees are often paid out of very slender
incomes on grounds which are, as a rule, purely patriotic.
* * * * *
In enumerating the needs of the various departments it is fitting that
the older studies and their modern developments should be first passed
in review, for, though in certain respects these studies are well
equipped, and though the provision of what is necessary would not be so
costly as in the case of science, yet, in the deficiency of income
available for development, there is real danger that the humanities may
be starved.
Theology is well endowed by the piety of former generations. Yet the
present Bishop of Winchester, when Hulsean Professor of Divinity,
pleaded for an increased stipend for the professors which would permit
them to save enough to retire upon; and, in view of the small sum, £200
a year, which the University is able to pay to its pension fund, such an
increase cannot be said to be unreasonable. In law, a new post for the
teaching of jurisprudence, or of jurisprudence combined with Roman law,
is the chief requirement. The teaching of Latin and Greek is largely and
effectively supplemented by the provision made by the colleges, but the
demand for a professorship instead of a readership in classical
archæology cannot be called extravagant, while it is little short of
scandalous that the University possesses no professor, and can make no
permanent provision for the study of ancient philosophy.
The teaching of Oriental languages is perhaps more dependent than that
of any other subject on the self-sacrificing generosity of the staff.
Though but a nominal stipend and a nominal duty attach to his chair, the
Lord Almoner’s professor of Arabic voluntarily undertakes a large share
of the teaching. The payment of the Talmudic reader, depending mainly on
the generosity of a private person, is guaranteed only during the tenure
of the present reader. The cost of the colloquial teaching of spoken
Arabic, Turkish, and Persian by native instructors is guaranteed, and
sometimes in part provided, by the Sir Thomas Adams professor of Arabic.
The professor of Chinese has the inadequate stipend of £200; and the
professorship terminates with the tenure of the present holder. Apart
from the necessity of providing teaching for practical students, the
proper care of the Chinese library alone renders the permanence of the
professorship a necessity. There is no professorship or readership of
Japanese. The stipend of the present lecturer in Persian is inadequate.
Egyptology is not provided for, although there is a fine collection of
mortuary objects in the Fitzwilliam Museum; and Assyriology, although
the professor of Assyriology at King’s College, London, lives in
Cambridge, is wholly unrepresented. No provision is made for the
teaching of the Iranian dialects. Altogether some £2,000 a year could
well be spent in Oriental languages alone.
There is no chair of English literature in the University. The
professorship of Anglo-Saxon is a recent endowment. By the exertions of
the occupant of that chair a sum of £2,100 has been collected, which
yields an endowment of £60 a year for an English lectureship. To this
small stipend the University adds £50 a year. It is not surprising that
the distinguished student who has so long occupied the post should at
last have been attracted to London by a higher stipend.
French and German are represented by two readers, who in the last twenty
years have taken a large share in the development of a sound and growing
school. In the provision for the teaching of modern languages, Cambridge
ought not to be behind the northern Universities; and it is most
desirable that professorships should be established in at least French
and German. The University is indebted to a private fund for a small
endowment for the lectureship in Russian and other Sclavonic tongues.
This lectureship should be made permanent; and lectureships should be
established in Spanish and Italian.
As in the case of classics and mathematics, the University teaching in
history is largely supplemented by the colleges; but the Regius
professor pleads for an additional reader and two lecturers. A central
building with professors’ rooms and lecture-rooms and accommodation for
the professorial library is urgently required.
The newly-established school of economics and politics is in urgent
need of three or four lectureships, to which definite duties in research
should be attached, in order to extend the present range of economic
study, and to bring it close to the great problems of modern industry.
While in the Universities of Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Leeds, North
and South Wales, and Montreal, political economy is taught by economists
trained at Cambridge, their _alma mater_ is starved of the means
necessary to produce their successors.