Let us now see how many and what kind of institutions there are in England devised so as to promote the making of new knowledge in biological science. Most persons are apt to be deceived in this matter by the fact that the terms university,' 'professorship,' and 'college' are used very freely in England in reference to institutions which have no pecuniary resources whatever, and which, instead of corresponding to the German arrangements which go by these names, are empty titles, neither backed by adequate subsidy of the state nor by endowment from private sources.

In England, with its 25,000,000 inhabitants, there are only four universities which possess endowments and professoriates; viz., Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, and the Victoria (Owens college). Besides these, which are variously and specially organized each in its own way, there are the London colleges (University and King's), the Normal school of science at South Kensington, and various provincial colleges, which are, to a small and varying extent, in possession of funds which could be or are used to promote scientific research. Amongst all these variously arranged institutions, there is an extraordinarily small amount of provision for biological research. In London there is one professorship only, that at the Normal school of science, which is maintained by a stipend paid by the state, and has a laboratory and salaried assistants similarly maintained, in connection with it. The only other posts in London which are provided with stipends intended to enable their holders to pursue researches in the domain of biological science, are the two chairs of physiology and of zoology at University college, which, through the munificence of a private individual,1 have been endowed to the extent of £300 a year each. To these should be added, in our calculation, certain posts in connection with the British museum of natural history and the Royal gardens at Kew, maintained by the state; though it must be remembered that a large part of the expenditure in those institutions is necessarily taken up in the preservation of great national collections, and is not applicable to the subvention of investigators. We may, however, reckon about six posts, great and small, in the British museum, and four at Kew, as coming into the category which we have in view. In London, then, we may reckon approximately some fourteen or fifteen subsidized posts for biological research. In Oxford there fall under this category the professorship of anatomy and his assistant, that of physiology, that of zoology, that of botany. The Oxford professorships are well supported by endowment, averaging £700 or £800 a year; but they are inadequately provided with assistants, as compared with corresponding German positions. Whilst Oxford has thus five posts, Cambridge has at present the same number, though the stipends are of less average value. In regard to Durham, it does not appear that the biological professorships (which have their seat in the Newcastle college of science) are

1 Mr. Jodrell.

supported by stipends derived from endowment: they fall under another category, to which allusion will be made below, of purely teaching positions, supported by the fees paid for such teaching by pupils. The Victoria university (Owens college, Manchester) supports its professors of physiology, anatomy, zoology, botany, and pathology, by means partly of endowment, partly of pupils' fees. By the provision of adequate laboratories, and of salaries for assistants to each professor, and of student-fellowships, Owens college gives direct support to orginal investigation. We may reckon five major and eight minor posts as dedicated to biological research in this college. Altogether, then, we have fifteen positions in London and twenty-three in the provinces (taking assistantships and professorships and curatorships together), a total of thirty-eight in all England, with its 25,000,000 inhabitants, as against the three hundred in Germany, with 45,000,000 inhabitants. In proportion to its population (leaving aside the consideration of its greater wealth), England has only about one-fourth of the provision for the advancement of biological research which exists in Germany.

It would not be fair to reckon in this comparison the various biological professorships in small colleges recently created, and paid to a small extent by stipends derived from endowments in the provincial towns of England: for the holders of these chairs are called upon to teach a variety of subjects; for instance, zoology, botany, and geology combined. And not only is the devotion of the energies of their teaching-staff to scientific discovery not contemplated in the arrangement of these institutions, but, as a matter of fact, the large demands made on the professors in the way of teaching must deprive them of the time necessary for any serious investigation. Such posts, in the fact that neither time, assistants, nor proper laboratories are provided to enable their holders to engage in scientific research, are schoolmasterships rather than professorships, as the word is used in German universities.

One result of the exceedingly small provision of positions in England, similar to those furnished by the German university system, and of the irregular, uncertain character of many of those which do exist, is, that there is an insufficient supply of young men willing to enter upon the career of zoologist, botanist, physiologist, or pathologist, as a profession. The number of posts is too small to create a profession, i.e., an avenue of success; and consequently, whereas in Germany there is always a large body of new men ready to fill up the vacancies as they occur in the professorial organization, in England it very naturally does not appear to our university students as a reasonable thing to enter upon research as a profession, when the chances of employment are so few, and far between.

Before stating, as I propose to do, what appears to me a reasonable and proper method of removing, to some extent, the defect in our national life due to the want of provision for scientific research, I will endeavor to meet some of the objections which are

usually raised to such views as those which I am advocating. The endowment of research by the state, or from public funds of any kind, is opposed on various grounds. One is, that such action on the part of the government is well enough in continental states, but is contrary to the spirit of English statecraft, which leaves scientific as well as other enterprise to the individual initiative of the people. This objection is based on error, both as to fact and theory. It is well enough to leave to individual effort the conduct of such enterprises as are remunerative to the parties who conduct them; but it is a mistake to speak of scientific research as an 'enterprise' at all. The mistake arises from the extraordinary pertinacity with which so-called 'invention' is confounded with the discovery of scientific truth. New knowledge in biological or other branches of science cannot be sold: it has no marketable value. Koch could not have sold the discovery of the bacterium of phthisis for as much as sixpence, had he wished to do so. Accordingly, we find that there is not, and never has been, any tendency among the citizens of this country to provide for themselves institutions for the manufacture of an article of so little pecuniary value to the individual who turns it out as is new knowledge. On the other hand, as a matter of fact, the providing of means for the manufacture of that article is not only not foreign to English statecraft, but is largely, though not largely enough, undertaken by the English state. The Royal observatories, the British museum, the Royal gardens at Kew, the Geological survey, the government grant of £4,000 a year to the Royal society, the £300 or £400 a year (not a large sum) expended through the medical officer of the privy council upon the experimental investigation of disease, are ample evidence that such providing of means for creating new knowledge forms part of the natural and recognized responsibilities of the British government. Such a responsibility clearly is recognized in this country, and does fall, according to the present arrangement of things, upon the central government. What we have to regret is, that those who temporarily hold the reins of government fail to perceive the lamentable inadequacy of the mode in which this responsibility is met.

A second objection which is made to the endowment of research by public funds, or by other means, such as voluntary contributions, is this: it is stated that men engaged in scientific research ought to teach, and thus gain their livelihood. It is argued, in fact, that there is no need whatever to provide stipends or laboratories for researchers, since they have only to stand up and teach in order to make income sufficient to keep them and their families, and to provide themselves with laboratories. This is a very plausible statement, because it is the fact that some investigators have also been excellent lecturers, and have been able to make an income by teaching, whilst carrying on a limited amount of scientific investigation. But neither by teaching in the form of popular lectures, nor by teaching university or professional students who desire, as a result, to pass some examination

test, is it possible, where there is a fair field and no favor, for a man to gain a reasonable income, and at the same time to leave himself time and energy to carry on original investigations in science.

In some universities, such as those of Scotland, the privilege of conferring degrees of pecuniary value to their possessors becomes a source of income to the professors of the university. They are, in fact, able to make considerable incomes, independently of endowment, by compelling the candidates for degrees to pay a fee to each professor in the faculty for the right of attending his lectures, and of presentation to the degree: consequently teaching here appears to be producing an income which may support a researcher. In reality, it is the acquisition of the university degree, and not necessarily the teaching, for which the pupil pays his fee. Where the teacher is unprotected by any compulsory regulations (such as that which requires attendance on his lectures, and fee-payment on the part of the pupils), it is impossible for him to obtain such an income, by teaching for one hour a day, as will enable him to devote the rest of the day to unremunerative study and investigation, for the following reason. Other teachers, equally satisfactory as teachers, will enter into competition with him, without having the same intention of teaching for one hour only, and of carrying on researches for the rest of the day. They will contemplate teaching for six hours a day, and they will accordingly offer to those who require to be taught, either six hours' teaching for the same fee which the researcher charges for one, or one hour for a sixth part of that fee: consequently the unprotected researcher will find his lecture-room deserted. Pupils will naturally go to the equally good teacher who gives more teaching for the same fee, or the same teaching for a less cost. And no one can say that this is not as it should be. The university pupil requires a certain course of instruction, which he ought to be able to buy at the cheapest rate. It does not seem to be doing justice to the pupil, to compel him to form one of a class consisting of some hundreds of hearers, where he can obtain but little personal supervision or attention from the teacher, whereas, if he had the free disposal of his fee, he might obtain six times the amount of attention from another teacher. This arrangement does not seem to be justifiable, even for the purpose of providing the university professor with an income, and leisure to pursue scientific research. The student's fee should pay for a given amount of teaching at the market value; and he has just cause of complaint, if, by' compulsory enactments, he is taxed to provide the country with scientific investigation.

Teaching must, in all fairness, ultimately be paid for as teaching; and scientific research must be provided for out of other funds than those extracted from the pockets of needy students, who have a reasonable right to demand, in return for their fees, a full modicum of instruction and direction in study.

In the German universities, the professor receives a stipend which provides for him as an investigator. He also gives lectures, for which he charges a fee;

but no student is compelled to attend those lectures as a condition of obtaining his degree. Accordingly, independent teachers can and do compete with the professor in providing for the students' requirements in the matter of instruction. As a consequence, the fees charged for teaching are exceedingly small, and the student can feel assured that he is obtaining his money's worth for his money. He is not compelled to pay any fee to any teacher as a condition of his promotion to the university degree. In a German university, if the professor in a given subject is incompetent, or the class overcrowded, the student can take his fee to a private teacher, and get better teaching. All that is required of the candidate, as a condition of his promotion to the doctor's degree, is that he shall satisfy the examination-tests imposed by the faculty, and produce an original thesis.

Unless there be some such compelling influence as that obtaining in the Scotch universities, enabling the would-be researcher to gather to him pupils and fees without fear of competition, it seems impossible that he should gain au income by teaching, whilst reserving to himself time and energy for the pursuit of scientific inquiry. It is thus seen that the necessity of endowment, in some form or another, to make provision for scientific research, is a reality, in spite of the suggestion that teaching affords a means whereby the researcher may readily provide for himself. The simple fact is, that a teacher can only make a sufficient income by teaching, on the condition that he devotes his whole time and energy to that occupation.

Whilst I feel called upon to emphatically distinguish the two functions, viz., that of creating new knowledge, and that of distributing existing knowledge, -and to maintain that it is only by arbitrary and undesirable arrangements not likely to be tolerated, or, at any rate, extended, at the present day, that the latter can be made to serve as the support of the former, I must be careful to point out that I agree most cordially with those who hold that it is an excellent thing for a man who is engaged in the one to give a certain amount of time to the other. It is a matter of experience, that the best teachers of a subject are, ceteris paribus, those who are actually engaged in the advancement of that subject, and who have shown such a thorough understanding of that subject as is necessary for making new knowledge in connection with it. It is also, in most cases, a good thing for the man engaged in research to have a certain small amount of change of occupation, and to be called upon to take such a survey of the subject in connection with which his researches are made, as is involved in the delivery of a course of lectures, and other details of teaching. Though it is not a thing to be contemplated, that the researcher shall sell his instruction at a price sufficiently high to enable him to live by teaching, yet it is a good thing to make teaching an additional and subsidiary part of his life's work. This end is effected in Germany by making it a duty of the professor (already supported by a stipend) to give some five or six lectures a week during the academical session, for which he is paid

by the fees of his hearers. The fees are low, but are sufficient to be an inducement; and, inasmuch as the attendance of the students is not compulsory, the professor is stimulated to produce good and effective lectures at a reasonable charge, so as to attract pupils who would seek instruction from some one else, if the lectures were not good, or the fees too high. Indeed, in Germany this system works so much to the advantage of the students, that the private teachers. of the universities at one time obtained the creation of a regulation forbidding the professors to reduce their fees below a certain minimum; since, with so low a fee as some professors were charging, it was impossible for a private teacher to compete. This state of things may be compared with much advantage with the condition of British universities. In these we hear, from one direction, complaints of the high fees charged, and of the ineffective teaching given by the professoriate; and in other universities, where no adequate fees are allowed to the professors as a stimulus to them to offer useful and efficient teaching, we find that the teaching has passed entirely out of their hands into those of college tutors and lecturers. The fact is, that a satisfactory relation between teaching and research is one which will not naturally and spontaneously arrange itself. It can hardly be said to exist in any British university or college, but the method has been thought out and carried into practice in Germany. It consists in giving a competent researcher a stipend, and a laboratory for his research work, and then requiring him to do a small amount of teaching, remunerated by fees proportionate to his ability and the pains which he may take in his teaching. If you pay him a fixed sum as a teacher, or artificially insure the attendance of his class, instead of letting this part of his income vary simply and directly with the attractiveness of his teaching, you will find as the result that (with rare exceptions) he will not give effective and useful teaching. He will naturally tend to do the minimum required of him in a perfunctory way. On the other hand, if you leave him without stipend as a researcher, dependent on the fees of pupils for an income, he will give all his time and energies to teaching: he will cease to do any research, and become, pro tanto, an inferior teacher.

A third objection which is sometimes made to the proposition that scientific research must be supported and paid for as such, is the following: it is believed by many persons that a man who occupies his best energies in scientific research can always, if he choose, make an income by writing popular books or newspaper articles in his spare hours; and, accordingly, it is gravely maintained that there is no need to provide stipends, and the means of carrying on their work, for researchers. To do so, according to this view, would be to encourage them in an exclusive reticence, and to remove from them the inducement to address the public on the subject of their researches, by which the public would lose valuable instruction.

This view has been seriously urged, or I should not here notice it. Any one who is acquainted with the sale of scientific books, and the profits which either

author or publisher makes by them, knows that the suggestion which I have quoted is ludicrous. The writing of a good book is not a thing to be done in leisure moments; and such as have been the result of original research have cost their authors often years of labor, apart from the mere writing. Mr. Darwin's books, no doubt, have had a large sale; but that is due to the fact, apart from the exceptional genius of the man who wrote them, that they represent some thirty or more years of hard work, during which he was silent. There is not a sufficiently large public interested in the progress of science to enable a researcher to gain an income by writing books, however great his literary facility. A schoolbook or classbook may now and then add more or less to the income of a scientific investigator; but he who becomes the popular exponent of scientific ideas, except in a very moderate and limited degree, must abandon the work of creating new knowledge. The professional littérateur of science is as much removed by his occupation from all opportunity of serious investigation as is the professional teacher who has to consume all his time in teaching. Any other profession -such as the bar, medicine, or the church - is more likely to leave one of its followers time and means for scientific research than is that of either the popular writer or the successful teacher.

We have, then, seen that there is no escape from the necessity of providing stipends and laboratories for the purpose of creating new knowledge, as is done in continental states, if we are agreed that more of this new knowledge is needed, and is among the products which a civilized community is bound to turn out, both for its own benefit and for that of the community of states, which give to and take from one another in such matters.

There are some who would finally attack our contention by denying that new knowledge is a good thing, and by refusing to recognize any obligation, on the part of England, to contribute her share to that common stock of increasing knowledge by which she necessarily profits. Among such persons are those who would prohibit altogether the pursuit of experimental physiology in England, and yet would not and do not hesitate to avail themselves of the services of medical men whose power of rendering those services depends on the fact that they have learned the results obtained by the experiments of physiologists in other countries or in former times. In reference to this strange contempt and even hatred of science, which undoubtedly has an existence among some persons of consideration even at the present day, I shall have a few words to say before concluding this address. I have now to ask you to listen to what seems to me to be the demand which we should make, as members of a British association for the advancement of science, in respect of adequate provision for the creation of new knowledge in the field of biology in England.

Taking England alone, as distinct from Scotland and Ireland, we require, in order to be approximately on a level with Germany, forty new biological institutes, distributed among the five branches of physiology, zoology, anatomy, pathology, and botany, —

forty, in addition to the fifteen which we may reckon (taking one place with another) as already existing. The average cost of the buildings required would be about £4,000 for each, giving a total initial expenditure of £160,000; the average cost of stipends for the director, assistants, and maintenance, we may calculate at £1,500 annually for each, or £60,000 for the forty, equal to a capital sum of £2,000,000. These institutes should be distributed in groups of fiveeight groups in all throughout the country. One such group would be placed in London (which is at present almost totally destitute of such arrangements), one in Bristol, one in Birmingham, one in Nottingham, one in Leeds, one in Newcastle, one in Ipswich, one in Cardiff, one in Plymouth, in fact, one in each of the great towns of the kingdom where there is at present, or where there might be with advantage, a centre of professional education and higher study. The first and the most liberally arranged of these biological institutes - embracing its five branches, each with its special laboratory and staff - should be in London. If we can have nothing else, surely we may demand, with some hope that our request will eventually obtain compliance, the formation in London of a College of scientific research similar to that of Paris (the Collége de France). It is one of the misfortunes and disgraces of London, that, alone amongst the capitals of Europe, with the exception of Constantinople, it is destitute of any institution corresponding to the universities and colleges of research which exist elsewhere.

Either in connection with a properly organized teaching university, or as an independent institution, it seems to me a primary need of the day that the government should establish in London laboratories for scientific research. Two hundred and fifty years ago Sir Thomas Gresham founded an institution for scientific research in the city of London. The property which he left for this purpose is now estimated to be worth three millions sterling. This property was deliberately appropriated to other uses, by the Corporation of the city of London and the Mercers' company, about a hundred years since, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. By this outrageous act of spoliation these corporations, who were the trustees of Gresham, have incurred the curse which he quaintly inserted in his will in the hope of restraining them from attempts to divert his property from the uses to which he destined it. Gresham's curse runs as follows: "And that I do require and charge the said Corporations and chief governors thereof, with circumspect Diligence and without long Delay, to procure and see to be done and obtained, as they will answer the same before Almighty God; (for if they or any of them should neglect the obtaining of such Licenses or Warrants, which I trust cannot be difficult, nor so chargeable, but that the overplus of my Rents and Profits of the Premisses herein before to them disposed, will soon recompense the same; because to soe good Purpose in the Commonwealth, no Prince nor Council in any Age, will deny or defeat the same. And if conveniently by my Will or other Convenience, I might assure it, I would not leave it

to be done after my death, then the same shall revert to my heirs, whereas I do mean the same to the Commonwealth, and then THE DEFAULT THEREOF SHALL BE TO THE REPROACH AND CONDEMNATION

OF

THE SAID CORPORATIONS AFORE GOD"). I confess that I find it difficult to see how the present representatives of the corporations who perverted Gresham's trust are to escape from justly deserving the curse pronounced against those corporations, unless they conscientiously take steps to restore Gresham's money to its proper uses. Let us hope that Gresham's curse may be realized in no more deadly form than that of an act of parliament repealing the former one which sanctioned the perversion of Gresham's money. Such a sequel to the report of the commission which has recently inquired into the proceedings of the corporation and companies of the city of London is not unlikely.

Whilst we should, I think, especially press upon public attention the need for an institute of scientific research in London, and indicate the source from which its funds may be fitly derived, we must also urge the foundation of other institutes in the provinces, upon the scale already sketched; because it is only by the existence of numerous posts, and of a series of such posts, some of greater and some of less value, the latter more numerous than the former, - that any thing like a professional career for scientific workers can be constructed. It is especially necessary to constitute what I have termed 'assistantships,' that is, junior posts, in which younger men assist, and are trained by, more experienced men. Even in the few institutions which do already exist, additional provision of this kind is what is wanted more than any thing else, so that there may be a progressive career open to the young student, and a sufficient field of trained investigators from which to select in filling up the vacancies in more valuable positions.

--

I am well aware that it will be said that the scheme which I have proposed to you is gigantic and almost alarming in respect of the amount of money which it demands. One hundred and sixty thousand pounds a year for biology alone must seem, not to my hearers, but to those who regard biology as an amusing speculation, that is to say, who know little or nothing about it, an extravagant suggestion. Unfortunately, it is also true that such persons are very numerous, in fact, constitute an overwhelming majority of the community; but they are becoming less numerous every day. The time will come, it seems possible, when there will be more than one member of the government who will understand and appreciate the value of scientific research. There are already a few members of the House of Commons who are fully alive to its significance and importance. We may have to wait for the expenditure of such a sum as I have named, and possibly it may be derived ultimately from local rather than imperial sources, though I do not see why it should be; yet I think it is a good thing to realize now that this is what we ought to expend in order to be on a level with Germany. This apparently extravagant and unheard of

appropriation of public money is actually made every year in Germany.

I think it is well to put the matter before you in this definite manner; because I have reason to believe that even those whom we might expect to be well informed in regard to such matters are not so, and, as a consequence, there is not that keen sense of the inferiority and inadequacy of English arrangements in these matters which one would gladly see actuating the conduct of English statesmen. For instance: only a few years ago, when speaking at Nottingham, the present prime-minister, who has taken an active part in re-arranging our universities, and has, it is well known, much interest in science and learning, stated that £27,000, the capital sum expended on the Nottingham college of science, was a very important contribution to the support of learning in this country, amounting, as he said he was able to state from the perusal of official documents, to as much as one-third of what was spent in Germany during the past year upon her numerous universities, which were so often held up to England as an example of a well-supported academical system. Now, I do not think that Mr. Gladstone can ever have had the opportunity of considering the actual facts with regard to German universities: for he was in this instance misled by the official return of expenditure on a single university, namely, that of Strasburg; the total annual expenditure on the twenty-one German universities being, in reality, about £800,000, by the side of which a capital sum of £27,000 looks very small indeed. I cannot but believe, that if the facts were known to public men, in reference to the expenditure incurred by foreign states in support of scientific inquiry, they would be willing to do something in this country of a sufficient and statesmanlike character. As it is, the concessions which have been made in this direction appear to me to be in some instances not based upon a really comprehensive knowledge of the situation. Thus, the tentative grant of £4,000 a year from the treasury to the Royal society of London appears to me not to be a well-devised experiment in the promotion of scientific research by means of grants of money; because it is on too small a scale to produce any definite effect, and because the money cannot be relied upon from year to year as a permanent source of support to any serious undertaking.

The Royal society most laboriously and conscientiously does its best to use this money to the satisfaction of the country, but the task thus assigned to it is one of almost insurmountable difficulty. In fact, no such miniature experiments are needed. The experiment has been made on a large scale in Germany, and satisfactory results have been obtained. The reasonable course to pursue is to benefit by the experience, as to details and methods of administration, obtained in the course of the last sixty years in Germany, and to apply that experience to our own case.

It is quite clear that the voluntary principle' can do little towards the adequate endowment of scientific research. Ancient endowments belonging to the country must be applied thereto, or else local or imperial taxes must be the source of the necessary support.