Minutes of evidence taken by the Royal Commissioners appointed to consider the draft charter for the proposed Gresham University in London ... / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons.
- Date:
- 1894
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Minutes of evidence taken by the Royal Commissioners appointed to consider the draft charter for the proposed Gresham University in London ... / presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.
1346/1410 (page 110)
![Appendix No. 58. Paper No. 2. PAPER No. 2. Letter and Statement of Mr. Stanley Boyd relative to his Evidence on behalf of the London Medical Schools. Dear Sir, I must apologise for the lateness of the accom- panying addition to my evidence, and also for its length. In it I have endeavonred to bring together scattered bits of evidence, to make clear answers which were evidently unsatisfactory, and to answer more fully and after careful consideration certain questions which were put to me, especially concerning the Professorial Scheme as it would apply to the medical schools. I have endeavoured to consider the various ways in which such amalgamation of medical schools as appears to me to be desirable might be effected. I have little more to say with regard to my suggestion concerning the medical degrees of the new University and a licence. I laid my scheme before a gentleman thoroughly acquainted with the views of the General Medical Council, and he expressed warm admiration of it; but the General Medical Council would not move in the matter, he said, as it was outside the sphere of action of the Council. It appears to me to be a subject upon which this Commission might well make a recommen- dation. In reading the evidence concerning the medical schools, I find the terms larger and 'smaller used in a luose way, and smaller seems often to imply inefficiency. Dr. Crosbie in his evidence referred by name to Charing Cross, as if it were the smallest school he could think of. The average daily attendance at this school is said by the secretary to be 240. The curriculum is now of five years' duration, and the largest classes contain the men of two years only. I have had the accompanying plans drawn for submission to the Commissioners in order that they may see how complete is the accommodation provided in one of the smaller schools. I am, Sir, Yours faithfully, Stanley Boyd, Dean, Charing Cross Hospital Medical School. To J. Lcybourn Goddard, Esq. Charing Cross Hospital Medical School, 62 and 63, Chandos Street, London, W.C., October 15, 1892. In support of my objection to the foundation in London of a second University, on the ground that competition ■would probably arise between it and the existing Uni- versity, I may refer to Mr. Busk's reply to Q. 716. which gives, authoritatively, the wishes of Convocation with regard to the establishment of a professoriate in connexion with the University of London. Next, circular letters of the Senate to the Royal College of Physicions and to the medical schools, dated June 4th and 16th, 1891, are doubtless before the Commission. In these the Senate express the view that, under the existing Charter, they will be able to carry out the arrangement with the Royal Colleges sketched in para. 17 of the Revised Scheme, and that they will be able also to establish consultative boards of teachers of various colleges and schools, London and provincial. Add to this that, to speak only of Medicine, certain medical schools expressed to the present Commission a distinct preference for the scheme of the Senate, and that others preferred the scheme of the Senate to that of the Gresham Charter; and it seems evident that the existing I'niversity will have the power to teach and to attach to itself certain of the medical schools— how many it is difficult to say. But, should the Uni- versity of London succeed in carrying out para. 47, loyalty to the Royal Colleges might cause certain schools, at present in favour of the Gresham Scheme, to desert it and go with the Royal Colleges. On the other hand certain medical schools regard para. 47 as a mistake, and these would adhere to a new Uni- versity. Some colleges in Arts would surely be glad to join the University of London upon the terms ottered ; and it might well be that the'Royal' School of Science would do so. Under these- circnmstances.thc University of London would have at least as great.a claim as the new University to State aid, municipal and private endowment, with the probable result that neither University would bo really well supported. Professor Schafer's statement that the University of London needs no endowment would have no weight if this University laid itself out for teaching. (Q. 11,113-11,119.) With regard to the medical repre- sentation in the Gresham Charter, which strikes many as excessive, but which is, apparently, not so regarded by the principal witnesses for King's and University Colleges, I shonld have pointed out that the reasons why each medical school insisted upon its right to a representative in the Council were :—(1) That the Uni- versity was to be a federation of institutions which were in many respects rivals, and it was therefore necessary that each should be able to guard its interests ; (2) that the medical schools, other than those of King's and University Colleges, felt bound to protect themselves from a possible combination against them of the repre- sentatives of King's and University Colleges with the representatives of the Faculties of Arts, Science, and Laws—Faculties in which King's and University were to be the only colleges ; (3) that the power of taxing the colleges was given to the Council, and taxation was held to necessitate representation. I am, therefore, inclined to believe that the medical schools would not be satisfied cither with a diminished representation or with an increased representation of other Faculties, although I notice that some of their witnesses either assented to, or even suggested, the latter change. As to the so-called Pkofessorial Scheme ; and, first, as to the suggested mode of government of the University. My answer to Q. 11,134 will have shown that I was not strongly wedded to that .portion of the scheme which vests the government of the University in the professors. I think that the University professors ought to have large influence in their respective departments, but that their power's ought to be carefully considered and clearly mapped out, so as to prevent any abuse which may reasonably be feared. I am not prepared to say whether or not a University professor should neces- sarily have a seat upon the Council; obviously all could not if each Faculty is to have the same number of representatives. But, I do think that, in any new University, all teachers should be organised in Faculties and Boards of Studies, that the professors si] iiM be members of these bodies, and bhal the Facul- ties shonld not be left without the means of supporting their views in the Council. Next, as to absorption. Why should not the medical schools be absorbed ; or, if not absorbed, amal- gamated into one or a few : or why should not a small one be tacked on to each large one ? were some of the questions asked. On reading Mr. Anstie's questions, I think—but am not at all sure of it—that he thought that the Commission would do well to propose that some of the schools should be closed. Absorption of medical schools seems to be impossible because the school buildings and sometimes the furniture (not the teaching apparatus) belong to the hospitals to which they are' attached; the funds of the charities are invested in the schools, and the teachers in the school pay either a fixed rent or a proportion of the school fees. Some- times a hospital committee is bound by the Charter of the hospital to maintain a school. Surely, under these circumstances, it is impossible that medical school buildings and their teaching plant should be placed at the disposal of the University. I believe that the only school buildings which could be thus handed over are those of University and King's Colleges ; but the hos- pitals to which these schools are attached could not be handed over. Therefore, even in these cases, the University could obtain nothing like complete control; and partial control would probably dislocate the arrange- ments between the school and hospital, and seriously damage both. Next, as to amalgamation of medical schools. Amal- gamation would not effect any improvement in a school in which the various classes are large enough each to retain the services of a teacher of the highest class, and to keep him fairly occupied ; ■ for, although a large number of students may listen to and profit by a lec- ture, it soon becomes impossible for the principal teacher to exercise his influence upon the individual students in their practical work, and it is most un- desirable that this influence shonld be lost by the hand- ing over of practical classes to a number of demon- strators. Certain, schools .assert that they are in the above-described position. Assuming the statement to be true, amalgamation of the less wealthy schools only would have to be considered. I believe that, to start with the preliminary sciences, the classes in these sub-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b24749436_1348.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
