ON NEW ZEALAND UNIVERSITY.

5

H.-No. 2.

The acting Chairman laid on the Table the following letter, which had been sent to him by the Rev. Mr. Stuart just as that gentleman was returning to Otago : — The Eev. D. M. Stuart, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago to the Hon. Major Richabdson, Chancellor of the University of Otago. " Sib,— " Wellington, lGth September, 1871. " I think it right to inform you that the views respecting University functions which came out at our meetings with the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the New Zealand University, seem to me to be so much at variance with those which are generally held on that subject in Otago, and which I also in effect hold, that I fear I could not warmly counsel that our University should vacate its present position, and assume that of a mere college in affiliation with the New Zealand University. " If it is deemed necessary, in consequence of change of opinion about University matters, to amend ' The University Act, 1870,' I would venture to suggest that the amendment might, as a fair compromise, take the direction of giving to the Otago University a participation in the grant made by Parliament for University purposes. " Had the Committee called me on Friday, I would have asked leave to make the statement, and not troubled you with it. " D. M. Stttabt, " Vice-Chancellor of University of Otago." Copy of Letter from the Chancellob of the Univebsity of New Zealand to the Chairman. " Sir,— " Wellington, 18th September, 1871. "I have the honor to enclose a memorandum which expresses my views upon one of the points adverted to in my evidence before the Committee more at length than as contained in the answers to the particular questions put to me. Should you think that it is desirable, I should be glad if you would submit this memorandum to the Committee. " I have, &c, " To the Chairman " Henbt Jomr Tanceed, " of the University Committee." " Chancellor, University of New Zealand." Memorandum. The Committee having, it is understood, had before it a series of proposals agreed to by the respective Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of New Zealand and Otago, requested those functionaries to draw up a Bill embodying the proposals so agreed to. In accordance with this request, the Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors met for the purpose of drawing up instructions to the draftsman of the Bill for effecting the object in contemplation. During the discussion as to the terms in which their views should be expressed, a question arose as to the expediency of prescribing by Act a curriculum of study for affiliated institutions. The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago, insisted (as an indispensable condition of their concurrence in the proposals previously agreed upon,) that the following curriculum should form part of the Act, and should be enforced in all such institutions, namely, Classics, English, mathematics, natural philosophy, mental and moral philosophy and one branch of the physical sciences, and that every University scholar should receive instruction in all these subjects. The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University of New Zealand objected to this on the following grounds:— Ist. Because it was not included in the terms originally agreed to. 2nd. Because it deals with matters which would be more conveniently left to the consideration of the Council. 3rd. Because practically, by monopolizing the whole of the student's time, it has the eifect of forbidding the study of any other subjects, possibly of greater importance. I need not make any remark on the first of these objections, because a perusal of the original proposals will make it at once apparent that they contain no reference to a curriculum of study. As to the second, I would observe that the question of a curriculum is one which demands the most careful consideration, and requires the undivided attention of those whose special duty it is to make themselves familiar with the wants of the Colony, and to devise the best means of promoting higher studies. This, as it appears to me, is the view of those who have, in other countries, taken part in founding universities; for Ido not find, in the constitution of any of the Universities in the Australian Colonies or elsewhere, that the curriculum of study has been prescribed by the Legislature. As to the third point, my objection to the above curriculum, or indeed to any other, being fixed by Act, is that it imposes a rigid rule upon the whole Colony, which in many cases may not meet the real wants of the people. It is to me very doubtful whether a young man could, during his college course, thoroughly master all the subjects enumerated, or whether, in attempting to do so, he would obtain a competent knowledge of any. In any case it is clear that his time would be fully occupied, and that he would not be able to devote his attention to any other subject. I think it will be found on inquiry that the course of study in the German gymnasia,—institutions corresponding to those which it is proposed to affiliate, —does not comprise so wide a range of subjects as that proposed; but that, in order to insure proper instructijn in the subjects taught, and to discourage a superficial habit of mind, only a limited number of subjects is prescribed. If it is thought desirable to fix a curriculum by Act, I would recommend that it should be framed so as to allow of considerable power of variation, to suit particular cases; so as not to make it imperative that the students in every part of the Colony should observe a rigid uniformity in their studies. It might, for instance, be found desirable in some cases to omit from any curriculum one subject, with a view of substituting another, but this would be impossible if one fixed unalterable formula were established.