Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Portraits
- Acknowledgements
- Sources
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- I The Political Arena
- II An Uneasy Beginning
- III Degrees for Women
- IV The Parliamentary Seat to 1886
- V The University and Secondary Education
- VI Examining and Teaching – the Long and Crooked Road to Compromise
- Appendix
- Index
35 - A Compromise Refused
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2023
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Portraits
- Acknowledgements
- Sources
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- I The Political Arena
- II An Uneasy Beginning
- III Degrees for Women
- IV The Parliamentary Seat to 1886
- V The University and Secondary Education
- VI Examining and Teaching – the Long and Crooked Road to Compromise
- Appendix
- Index
Summary
Exactly fifty-one weeks after Sir Richard Webster announced the withdrawal of the Bill of 1896, the same fate befell its successor. But the London University Bill of 1897 was a substantially different piece of potential legislation, its content reflecting major shifts of attitude among the interested parties. In the tortuous negotiations which preceded its introduction into the House of Lords, the possibility of compromise was more pervasive than ever before.
That possibility, unsurprisingly in retrospect, was due to a recognition by some of those most opposed to the Bill in its existing, though recently rejected form, that the Government had no intention of allowing the restructuring of the University to disappear from their agenda. Busk realized
. . . that the opponents [of the Bill] cannot maintain their opposition for an indefinite period. Money runs short and enthusiasm cools. Meantime authority is always urging the Government to pass the Bill recommended by the Commission and it seems to me that unless we can take some decided step an Act of Parliament somewhat similar to that already introduced will be passed, and a Statutory Commission forced upon us . . .
Lubbock, Busk and Napier saw the desperate need to produce a viable alternative proposal, and decided to go back to the idea of pressing for a new Charter, and to try to persuade the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor to support them. Busk told their ally, Collins, early in October, 1896, that
. . . we must be stirring if we wish to avoid a Statutory Commission. Will it not be best to prepare certain heads for a draft Charter and confer on them with Herschell, Roscoe and Lubbock? Lubbock will assist in preparing the heads . . .
If it were possible to agree with Herschell and Roscoe we might obtain a majority on the Senate and it would at any rate be worthwhile to prepare a draft Charter . . . and . . . to secure the consent of Convocation before laying the matter before the Senate.
Unless Herschell would support in the Senate, I am afraid our labour would be lost; but it might be worthwhile to get the draft Charter prepared and approved by Convocation notwithstanding.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The University of London, 1858-1900The Politics of Senate and Convocation, pp. 418 - 429Publisher: Boydell & BrewerPrint publication year: 2004