nominal purpose reported is not in all cases the real one. It is not a question of principle, whether a flourishing department ought to support one that is not, but of straightforward bookkeeping. Moneys are given to a department A, the effect of which is to transfer the equivalent amount of fees to another department B. A is credited in the annual statements with the receipt of the money, but B gets it. Why is not B given the money directly instead of A, and the transaction recorded in the accounts? The answer is that though A, by the terms of the gift, is necessarily a proper recipient, B may or may not be.

Whatever may have been the abuses of the régime before the Act of 1889, the fact that such a subject as Chemistry at least would have been better off, if it had been left as it was, in spite of all the wealth from the Government and the Carnegie Trust, which has since come to the coffers of the University, is a sufficient indictment of the present system.

Enough has, perhaps, been said to show that some inquiry not only into the Carnegie Trust, but also into the manner the financial system of the Scottish Universities is operating, is called for. It is not mainly a question of money. Money is merely the measure. Here is a department, original investigation in which, it has been shown, is vital to the future prosperity of the country. It supports itself by hard teaching. It is stated in the published accounts to receive sums which it in fact does not receive, and which if it did receive would enable the teaching staff to be increased and some time allowed for research. It is idle for any public or private benefactor to give money for a specific object, such as the improvement and extension of the opportunities of scientific research, until the system is overhauled which makes it possible for moneys so given to be diverted.

The University fees go almost wholly into the one "General Fund" created by the Act of 1889. The departmental expenses are borne by grants from this fund, from

CRITICISM OF THE CARNEGIE TRUST 217

the public money provided by the Exchequer, and by the Carnegie Trust. Hitherto the giving of a grant to a department has often meant merely the diminution of its grant from the General Fund. If the departments are all stereotyped as regards the amount of tuition performed, it is obvious that the simultaneous gift of public money and the withdrawal of the same amount of fees would not benefit the department in the slightest, nor lessen its burden of tuition. But if, as is the case with a subject like Chemistry, the fees earned and burden of tuition, of which they are to some extent the measure, are rapidly growing relatively to the rest of the University, each year must increase its burden and lessen its power of original production, its increased earnings all the time going to make up corresponding losses of fees in other departments. This has got to the point with the Chemistry Department of Aberdeen that it has actually become self-supporting, though nominally receiving large grants of public money. It would be better off if it had been left as it was before 1889 in possession of its own earnings, and without the sort of assistance it receives from the Carnegie Trust and the Government. Until this matter is looked into, it is useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Carnegie Trust to grant further moneys to the universities if their object is to foster those departments which are becoming of increasing national importance, and for which there is growing up an increasing demand.

APPENDIX B

REPORT OF A COMMITTEE OF THE BRITISH SCIENCE GUILD UPON THE CARNEGIE TRUST AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.1

THE Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland was founded by Mr Andrew Carnegie in 1901, with a gift of two million pounds. One-half of the annual income from this fund has to be devoted to the payment of students' fees in Scottish Universities, and the other half is to be applied "towards the improvement and expansion of the Universities of Scotland, in the Faculties of Science and 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 and commercial education as can be brought within the scope of the University curriculum."

The annual income of the Trust has amounted in the past to rather more than £100,000; and after defraying the expenses of administration there has been left about £99,000 as the net revenue available for distribution under the two main heads of the scheme, or £49,500 for the part of it referred to above. In the future a very appreciable increase of revenue is to be anticipated.

In the article contributed to Science Progress for January 1917, Prof. F. Soddy, Professor of Chemistry in the University of Aberdeen, analysed the operations of 1 Published in the Journal of the British Science Guild, December 1917.

218

REPORT OF THE BRITISH SCIENCE GUILD 219

the Trust, particularly as regards the promotion of scientific study and research. Prof. Soddy pointed out that, by a reasonable interpretation of the Trust Deed, the primary purpose of the income from one-half of Mr Carnegie's gift was the encouragement of scientific study and research, including medicine, and that history and other subjects cognate to a commercial and technical education were to be regarded as ancillary beneficiaries; while the other subjects of a classical education were entirely excluded from participating in the fund. He showed, however, that in the case of the University of Aberdeen only 23 per cent. of the grants made had been allocated to the primary object, while 46 per cent. had been devoted to the ancillary object, and 19 per cent. to the objects which, in so far as they are not illegitimate, are ancillary. Up to September 1913, the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow had each received more than 60 per cent. of the total sums for the primary purpose of the fund, but the quinquennial distribution since then had been allocated to buildings chiefly for Arts accommodation, as well as for departments of science. As regards St Andrews and Dundee, the position of the allocation of funds in the main has been between that of Dundee on the one hand and Edinburgh on the other. Of the total amount spent by the Trustees up to the end of September 1915, about 14 per cent. has been expended on a research scheme independently of the grants made to the Universities. This has been spent mainly in providing Research Scholarships and Fellowships, and grants for research instruments-objects excellent in themselves, but more or less preliminary to the fostering of research.

The main point put forward by Professor Soddy is that the funds of the Trust are not in general being applied to the specific purposes for which they were intended, and are used for general University needs, and to provide buildings and endowments for Arts subjects, instead of the promotion of scientific study and research. In support of this contention, definite facts were stated which seemed

to demand an equally definite answer if they are contested. The Guild therefore sent Professor Soddy's article to the principals and representative professors of scientific subjects in the Scottish Universities, and asked for an expression of opinion on the matter. Nine replies were received, but no attempt was made by any of the correspondents to refute the particulars given by Professor Soddy as regards the allocation of the amounts received from the Fund. The general opinion expressed was of a laissez-faire kind, with the addition of the following individual views :-(1) That the Board of Trustees should consist much more largely of men who are professionally and actively engaged in scientific work and have had experience of research; (2) that commercial education on a large scale should be taken in hand by the Trustees; (3) that a case had been made out for careful investigation, and that the matter should be considered by the British Science Guild to see what action, if any, is justifiable and practicable.

As the chief object of the British Science Guild is to safeguard the interests of science and promote the application of scientific knowledge to national welfare generally, the matter is one to which the Guild is bound to give attention. After careful consideration of the material placed before it, the Guild has come to the conclusion that Professor Soddy's serious charges should not be left unanswered, and that the diversion of the funds from their main purpose, as defined by Clause A of the Trust Constitution, and their use to strengthen the general finances of the Scottish Universities, deserve the attention of those to whom has been entrusted the future of science in national reconstruction.

The Guild is glad to note that three well-known men of science-Sir J. J. Thomson, O.M., President of the Royal Society; Sir David Prain, F.R.S., Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and Sir George Beilby, F.R.S.-were appointed at the last Annual Meeting of the Trust to fill the vacancies on the Board of Trustees,