103
advocated a wide extension of the training of teachers for Anglo-Chinese and Chinese schools in which, it is contended, co-operation between the University and the Government Education Department will increase the responsibility and the volume of work to be done by the University Depart- ment of Education.
19. I invite particular attention to the Court's resolution No.III. This resolution was moved in the Council by the Honourable Mr. M. K. Lo and was passed unanimously. The Council and the Court deliberately ab- stained from expressing opinions on any resolution of the Senate which did not call for specific action by the Council or the Court. In effect, this meant that the Council gave its attention in the main to the Senate's resolutions calling for action and these resolutions were taken in con- junction with motions proposed by the Vice-Chancellor which in almost every case dealt with the same issues. The chief exception to this is in the resolution now under consideration in which the Council (a) repudiated criticism of committee's procedure made by the Senate and (b) asserted its view that comments interpreted as "derogatory of the pro- fessional status" of members of the University staff had been read in a sense not intended by the committee. The members of the committee, who were all present at the Council meeting, supported this motion which was accepted on behalf of his colleagues by Professor Ride, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. The resolution has had the effect of removing the sense of grievance under which a number of the members of the staff have suffered. It is significant that, at the Court meeting, dissent from the resolutions of the Council was expressed by only a minority of the senior members of the University staff. The same group dissented from the proposal to limit the area of engineering teaching and from the contingent proposal touching the future of the Departments of Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics. Among the rest, I gather, the resentments expressed against the report when it was first published are no longer heard, and in general the senior members of the staff with four exceptions have actively supported the proposed changes. This disregards the opinion of two men absent on leave, one of whom would have supported, the other probably would have opposed.
20. It may, I think, be safely claimed that the reforms advocated by the Court, which are derived almost entirely from the able and penetrating report of Mr. N. L. Smith's Committee (1937), go far towards the right adjustment of the University's aims and methods. Inter- dependent as many of them are, I trust that they will succeed in obtain- ing your complete concurrence.
21. I am aware of the suggestions which were made in 1937 that an independent academic commission should be invited to study the problems now in question. Sir Andrew Caldecott in his Congregational Address of 4th of January 1937 mentioned such a possibility and the Questions and Answers in Parliament on the date 26th of May 1937 which accompanied your note of 3rd of June 1937 were also concerned with this.
I have no hesitation in advising you that the conclusions now reported render it unnecessary for such a proposal to be further considered at the present time and I trust that that view will have your con-
currence.
22. I should take this opportunity of paying a tribute to Mr. D. J. Sloss who from the moment of his arrival as Vice-Chancellor at the very end of October, 1937, has worked whole-heartedly towards finding solutions for the many and difficult problems which the Report in question raised. That a conclusion should have been reached on the various issues raised which is practically unanimous is due very largely to his energy, tact and personality.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
J. A. S. NORTHCOTE
Governor.
сл
5