4.  The University chest is to receive all fees and other funds for University purposes; and the Professors are to be paid out of it, according to work done for the University—­thus putting an end to the present commercial competition of teaching institutions.

5.  In all questions of Teaching, Examination, and Discipline the authority of the Senate is to be supreme—­(saving appeal to the Privy Council).

Your questions will be readily answered if these postulates are kept in view.

In the case you put, the temptation to rivalry would not exist; and I should imagine that the Senate would refuse funds for the purpose of duplicating an existing Institution, unless very strong grounds for so doing could be shown.  In short, they would adopt the plan which commends itself to you.

That to which I am utterly opposed is the creation of an Established Church Scientific, with a hierarchical organisation and a professorial Episcopate.  I am fully agreed with you that all trading competition between different teaching institutions is a thing to be abolished (see Number 4 above).

On the other hand, intellectual competition is a very good thing, and perfect freedom of learning and teaching the best of all things.

If you put a physical, chemical, or biological bishop at the head of the teachers of those sciences in London, you will do your best to destroy that freedom.  My bar to any catastrophe of that sort lies in Number 3.  Let us take the case of Biology.  I suppose there will be, at least, half a dozen Professoriates in different branches of this subject each Professor will be giving the same amount of time and energy to University work, and will deserve the same pay.  Each, if he is worth his salt, will be a man holding his own views on general questions, and having as good a right as any other to be heard.  Why is one to be given a higher rank and vastly greater practical influence than all the rest?  Why should not each be a “University Professor” and have his turn on the Senate in influencing the general policy of the University?  The nature of things drives men more and more into the position of specialists.  Why should one specialist represent a whole branch of science better than another, in Council or in Administration?

I am afraid we cannot build upon the analogy of Cambridge.  In the first place, London is not Cambridge; and, in the second, Michael Fosters do not grow on every bush.

The besetting sin of able men is impatience of contradiction and of criticism.  Even those who do their best to resist the temptation, yield to it almost unconsciously and become the tools of toadies and flatterers.  “Authorities,” “disciples,” and “schools” are the curse of science; and do more to interfere with the work of the scientific spirit than all its enemies.

Thus you will understand why I have so strongly opposed “absorption.”  No one can feel more strongly than I the need of getting the present chaos into order and putting an end to the absurd waste of money and energy.  But I believe that end may be attained by the method of unification which I have suggested; without bringing in its train the evils which will inevitably flow from “absorptive” regimentation.