« AnteriorContinuar »
REPLY OF CARNEGIE TRUST
be assorted into 'primary' and ancillary. The direction in the Trust Deed as to the application of the half of the Income under Head A. is quoted in the Report of the Special Committee of the Guild; and it only requires to be read with care to show that the idea of any distribution between subjects to be favoured and subjects to be subordinated is wholly without warrant. The Executive Committee regret that the Special Committee of the Guild commit themselves to the statement that there has been a 'diversion of the funds from their main purpose.' The Executive Committee can see no justification for this statement.
“(2) The other criticism is to the effect that the Trustees are not men who are professionally and actively engaged in scientific work, or have had experience of research. The Guild may be reminded that the members of the Trust were chosen by Mr Carnegie himself; and it is therefore obvious that they are men whom he considered capable of interpreting his wishes. In so far as vacancies in the Trust have occurred, consequent on deaths among the Trustees, it is the fact that these have been for the most part supplied by the appointment of men eminent in various branches of Science."
On the 28th February 1918, in reply to this, the following Resolution was sent to the Board of Trustees by the Guild :
“The Executive Committee of the British Science Guild notes with regret that the Excerpt from the Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Carnegie Trust on the 7th January 1918, shews some misapprehension, which need not be pursued at the present time, of the position of the Guild in putting before Mr Carnegie's Trust the communication from Prof. F. Soddy. The Guild, however, cannot accept the views of the Carnegie Trustees indicated in the Minute which seem to involve self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of their powers and discretion, with respect to the promotion of scientific education."
The following is a further communication from Prof. F. Soddy, regarding the “Excerpt" from the Minutes of the Board of Trustees :
Remarks by Professor Soddy on the Minute of the Executive
Committee of Carnegie Trust for the Universities of
I merely suggested as a reasonable interpretation of the Trust Deed of Mr Carnegie that the subjects included could be divided into primary and legitimate ancillary, those not included being for the purpose termed illegitimate. The interpretation may or may not be capable of strict defence. By concentrating on this single
point the Executive Committee of the Trust seek to evade the real criticism, fairly summed up and endorsed by the British Science Guild.
Substantial and undenied examples were brought forward of just the same neglect of, contempt for, and unfair discrimination against, science, which, operating during the past century mainly through educational channels, have now brought about the position of national insecurity and peril, manifest to all, and which the founder of the Trust himself stigmatised in the heartiest manner in 1906.
In an address entitled “Modern Needs in Universities," delivered at the opening of the new Carnegie buildings of the Natural Philosophy and Engineering Departments of the University of Edinburgh (Nature, 1906, 74, 648), Mr Carnegie, after referring to the millions being devoted to science and practical studies and the progressive influences at work in the universities of America and Canada and of the five principal English cities, continued :
“Scotland has to keep marching on. The progress of scientific departments in British Universities, considerable as it has recently been, of which the schools we are about to open here to-day are gratifying evidence, yet has not kept pace with the startling progress of science itself and
REMARKS BY PROFESSOR SODDY
the wonderful discoveries that threaten to revolutionise human conceptions."
"The older branches of learning in our Universities may well welcome the newer branch, cap in hand, not only as the foundation of material progress, but also as one of the very highest agencies in the imaginative domain.”
“This mighty force of our day-science-has hitherto been the Cinderella of the sisterhood of knowledge, but the Prince has appeared at last and taken her by the hand. It is now the turn of the elder sisters to greet the once neglected princess. She will more than justify the millions that are being showered upon her in most progressive lands. Thus has the University developed to the present all-embracing type through the successive reigns of scholasticism, theology, and ancient classics, always behind the age, conservative in the highest degree. Science has arisen and established her claim to equality. We have long had the Republic of Letters; we now hail the Republic of Knowledge.
These quotations do not appear to admit of much doubt as to what the founder's own view of the
of his benefaction was. They are refreshingly clear and frank, with a point capable even of penetrating the admitnothing, dispute-everything defence which the advocate unable to face facts invariably puts up. It is an especially curious commentary on the cry that it is now the turn of Arts, heard at the last quinquennial distribution, and which, in the University of Aberdeen, has been the interpretation of the gift from the beginning, that what Mr Carnegie actually said was: “It is now the turn of the elder sisters to greet the once neglected princess."
If the legal instrument, which Mr Carnegie signed to give effect to his intentions, were being administered by a body of men of like mind to himself, in a broad and sympathetic spirit, without any desire to strain it beyond its natural interpretation and twist it to serve ends not intended, legal questions as to its exact meaning could scarcely arise.
But if, unfortunately, at any time that should not be the case, and it should become necessary to consider the deed as an instrument to ensure that the purposes of the founder, whatever they were, shall be permanently respected without regard to the outlook and sympathies of those administering it, it will be found to be curiously impotent. Although, among the intentions of the founder as set forth in the preamble of the Trust Deed, only two objects are referred to, the encouragement of scientific study and research and the payment of students' fees, in the operative part, which embraces the Trust Constitution, a new and totally distinct purpose, technical and commercial education, not mentioned in the preamble, is added on to share with scientific study and research, without any specific instruction of the apportionment of the funds for each, this being left to the discretion of the Trustees, the share of the payment of fees purpose alone being strictly defined. So that by concentrating entirely on the new purpose, scientific study and research could be effectively excluded and the first of the two intentions of the founder frustrated. Whether, however, the Trustees could justify doing this on a narrow construction of the deed or not, no reasonable beings could claim that they were thereby carrying out the declared intentions of the founder, as set forth in the Trust Deed. Apart, therefore, from a second Mr Carnegie, willing to take the deed into Court to get it interpreted, the question of the relative share of the different objects set forth must remain more or less open.
Admitting this, and allowing to the Trustees the most absolute power of discretion, it is still extremely difficult to see how the current uses to which the moneys are being put can be defended. The clause to which the Executive Committee refer does not exactingly or convincingly convey the particular construction which they put upon it, and therefore had better be re-quoted :
“ One-half of the net annual income shall be applied towards the improvement and expansion of the Universities of Scotland, in the Faculties of Science and
REMARKS BY PROFESSOR SODDY
Medicine; also for improving and extending the opportunities for scientific study and research, and for increasing the facilities for acquiring a knowledge of History, Economics, English Literature, and Modern Languages, and such other subjects cognate to a technical or commercial education as can be brought within the scope of the University curriculum. ...
The word “other” shows that the specified Arts subjects are included as cognate to a technical or commercial education, but the Faculties of Science and Medicine, and scientific study and research, participate on their own merits independently, and not as subserving or ministering to a technical or commercial education. It is recognised by the clause that technical or commercial education can only to a limited extent be brought within the scope of the present university curriculum. That it is technical and commercial education rather than the subjects of the present university curriculum that are to be benefited is further shown by the concluding paragraph of Clause B, which deals primarily with the payment of students' fees :
“ In the case of Schools or Institutions in Scotland established to provide Technical or Commercial Education, the Committee may recognise classes which, though outside the present range of the university curriculum, can be accepted as doing work of a University level, and may allow them and the students thereof to participate under both A and B to such an extent as the Committee may from time to time determine."
It is thus natural to inquire in the cases to which I directed attention in which scientific and medical studies had not received a due share of the moneys, whether technical or commercial education has received it. It is only necessary to reiterate a specific instance. In the University of Aberdeen the scientific and medical subjects -Chemistry, Inorganic, Organic, Physical, Agricultural, Physiological, and Technological; Physics, Mathematical and Experimental; Mathematics; Astronomy; Engineer