Court, or in one or two instances even in the Council of the University; but owing to the circumstances of their foundation, those Universities have usually had a number of outside representatives, not only Government but also Municipal and private, on their Governing Bodies from very early days, and we see no sufficient reason for extending the system to Oxford and Cambridge.

On the other hand, we consider it most desirable that contact with outside opinion should be secured in other ways, and under the proposals in paragraph 71 of our report such opinion will be represented in the University Chest (Financial Board) and in various Delegacies, Syndicates and Boards. These are, in our opinion, the bodies on which outside representatives should be appointed.

(6) THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE FACULTIES (STUDIES); THE UNIVERSITY CHEST (FINANCIAL BOARD); AND THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THESE BODIES AND THE COUNCIL.

68. The present composition of the General Board and of the Chest (Financial Board) is as follows:

The Court is a large, representative Assembly, consisting of a hundred or more persons, most of whom are neither teachers nor, necessarily, graduates of the University. It is the supreme Governing Body of the University, and is charged specially with the duty of making Ordinances under the University Statutes, of recommending changes of Statutes and of conferring Honorary Degrees, &c. It only meets two or three times a year, and it takes no part in the ordinary administration of the University.

University Chest, Oxford.

Ex-officio members (3). The Vice-Chancellor and Proctors.

Elected members (9). Nine members of Convocation, viz. :-three by nomination of the Chancellor, three members of the Council elected by the Council, and three members of Congregation elected by Congregation.

Total 12.

Financial Board, Cambridge.

Ex-officio member (1). The Vice-Chancellor.

Elected members (10). Two members of the General Board elected by that Board, four members of the Senate elected by Colleges in common, four members of the Senate elected by Grace on the nomination of the Council. Total 11.

The composition of both these Boards at Cambridge remains as fixed in the Statutes of 1882, approved by the Statutory Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1877. The General Board of the Faculties at Oxford was created in 1913 in order to relieve Council of the greater part of the business connected with curricula and examinations, and to exercise some control over the policy and administration of the several Boards of Faculties. The University Chest at Oxford is a still more recent creation in its present form, and was constituted in 1920 to take the place of the old Chest and Board of Finance, which had for some years existed side by side, performing different functions in connection with the finance of the University.

69. While the General Boards and the Finance Boards at Oxford and Cambridge correspond roughly to one another, there are many points of difference between the two Universities as regards the scope and powers of each Board, in addition to the differences of composition noted above. E.g., the Oxford General Board, while relieved by the individual Faculties or Boards of Faculties of certain duties which fall to the General Board at Cambridge, differs from that Board in being responsible for the administration of a Faculties Fund (£7,100 a year). The Cambridge General Board is empowered to present reports direct to the Vice-Chancellor, to be published by him to the University. The Oxford General Board has the power of sending proposals to Congregation through the Council (who must pass them on without alteration, though it can move amendments in Congregation, and can submit to Congregation its own form of Statute in the matter) on matters connected with the studies and examinations of the University which require to be dealt with by Statute. Cambridge the main financial responsibility rests, not with the Council, but with the Financial Board, which reports to the Senate (though the report goes through the Council). At Oxford, the Chest reports to the Council, but it is nevertheless in a strong and semi-independent position: the Council is definitely directed by Statute to refer to the Chest all applications for specific. expenditure and all questions of financial provision for any proposal which it is contemplating, and if the Chest's recommenda

tions are not approved by the Council, provision is made for a conference between the Chest and the Council, and thereafter, if the recommendations are re-affirmed by nine or more of the Curators of the Chest, for their adoption by the Council for submission, if necessary, to Congregation and Convocation.

70. There is a general feeling of dissatisfaction at Cambridge. with regard to the General Board of Studies. It is regarded as too unwieldy on the one hand, and yet on the other hand as not wholly representative of all branches of study, and its coordinating functions appear to be impeded to some extent by the fact that it is composed largely of specialists. As a reduction in the size of the Board is impracticable so long as an attempt is made to maintain the separate representation even of the bodies now represented on it, the Council of the Senate proposed in a report of February, 1910 (subsequently withdrawn" for the present" in June of the same year, pending consultation with the Board) that the Board should consist in future of the ViceChancellor and sixteen members of the Senate, four at least of whom should be Professors, to be elected on the nomination of the Council with due regard to the representation of studies. The reconstituted Reforms Committee of 1911 expressed the view that this proposal was "a good one and of great importance,' and it accordingly included the proposal in its recommendations. The new Committee of Cambridge Graduates has submitted to us a similar proposal, reducing the elected members from sixteen to twelve, and providing that four of those members at least shall be Professors and four of them Readers or Lecturers; the view taken by the Committee is that the Council should be the supreme administrative body of the University, but that the responsibility for initiating and guiding educational policy should rest entirely with the General Board. Dr. Giles, when giving evidence before us at Cambridge as Vice-Chancellor, agreed that the Board has become too large, and expressed the view that if some of its functions could be delegated to the Special Boards, the Council might itself assume the function of directing educational policy, possibly through a Committee corresponding more or less to the present General Board.

Steps must in our opinion be taken to constitute the General Board of Studies at Cambridge on new lines. At Oxford, the General Board of the Faculties is a more recent creation which has not yet had time to show its powers; but though-possibly for that reason-Oxford opinion is more divided than Cambridge opinion on the question of reconstituting the General Board, we consider that some changes must be made in it. Owing to its size and composition, it must tend, almost inevitably, to develop the same characteristics as the General Board at Cambridge, and to become a collection of individuals representing special interests, rather than an organic Board with a corporate judgment and a common interest in the educational needs of the University as a whole.

71. Apart from the points of criticism already referred to, it seems to us that at both Universities the relations between the Council on the one side and the General Board and the Finance Board on the other call for some modification. While it is desirable that the Boards should continue to be responsible bodies, and should relieve the Council at least to the same extent as at present, we think that unity of policy will best be secured if the position of the Council is emphasised more definitely by providing for the appointment of members of the Council on each Board, in addition to the ex-officio members already included, and by requiring both the General Board and the Finance Board, or the two bodies which we propose should be substituted for them, to report to the Council, subject to the rules suggested in paragraph 73 below, and not to Congregation, the Senate (in future the House of Residents) or the Vice-Chancellor. We recommend that the existing Boards should be abolished, and replaced in each University by two Boards, which we here for convenience call a Board of Studies and Research and a Finance Board, constituted on the following basis :

Board of Studies and Research.

Ex-officio members. The Vice-Chancellor, and (at Oxford only) the two Proctors.

Elected members (12). Three members of the Council appointed by the Council; three members of Convocation or the Senate nominated by the Council subject to the approval of Congregation (the House of Residents); and six members of Convocation or the Senate appointed by the Faculties, viz., three by the Faculties of Natural Science (including Mathematics) and three by the other Faculties, acting in each case as a whole.

We attach importance to the appointment of the Faculty representatives in the manner suggested, so that literary and scientific studies may, as the two main branches of work in the University, have an equal number of Faculty representatives, rather than representation according to numbers.

The Faculties should not be debarred from electing among their representatives persons who are members of the Council.

Finance Board.

Ex-officio members. The Vice-Chancellor, and (at Oxford only) the two Proctors.

Elected members (12). Three members of the Council appointed by the Council; four members appointed by the Colleges in common-each College having one vote; three members of Convocation or the Senate nominated by the Council subject to the approval of Congregation (the House of Residents); and two additional members-who may or may not be members of the University-nominated by the Council to represent Finance generally.

The Colleges should be permitted, if they see fit, to appoint among their representatives members of the Council.

There should be special meetings each year for the consideration of the finance of the University in its broader aspects, and we anticipate that the additional members of the Board would usually attend these meetings only.

Note. (a) College representatives have already been found to be valuable members of the Financial Board at Cambridge. Having regard to this experience, to the importance of College contributions to the revenue of the University, and to the responsibility which is thrown upon the Finance Boards for the assessment of College contributions, we think College representation should be provided for at both Universities alike.

(b) It will be observed that under our proposals the Council will be represented by three of its members on each Board. This principle has already been adopted in the formation of the University Chest at Oxford, and its adoption was recommended in the case of the Financial Board at Cambridge in the reports of the Council of the Senate in February and June, 1910. In our opinion the principle is sound and should be applied to both Boards at Oxford and Cambridge alike.

(c) We have carefully considered the proposal which has been made that the Government should appoint representatives on the two Boards, but we are strongly of opinion that, for the reasons referred to in paragraph 67 above, it is undesirable to impose such representatives on the Universities from without. On the other hand, we are confident that the University will often derive great benefit from the presence on the Finance Board of persons with outside financial experience, and we have therefore made provision, in the scheme outlined above, for the appointment of two additional members of the Board who may be non-residents. We are, however, convinced that it would be inadvisable to provide for the appointment of outside members on the Board of Studies and Research. That Board will be dealing constantly with questions on which expert local knowledge is required, and in our opinion external representatives would not often be very valuable. But we have been strongly impressed by evidence received as to the value of the outside representation already provided for on certain Delegacies, Syndicates and Boards, and we recommend the inclusion of outside representatives on any such bodies, other than the Board of Studies and Research and the Finance Board, when their presence would be of obvious advantage.

72. If the proposed new relations between the Council, as the chief administrative body, and the two Boards are to work satisfactorily, it will be necessary to relieve the Council of some of its present duties by giving the two Boards power to settle certain questions and by leaving routine business as far as possible to the Secretariat. Similarly, arrangements should be made for