166
7
(35)
5.
mein
commendation.
In the light of the foregoing, Sloss
has discussed with us your telegram to him,
No.612 of the 18th July, about the provisional
date for re-opening the University. As
indicated in the telegram which he has sent
you in reply, he is not in favour of re-
opening in October. He considers that not
only will the necessary equipment not now
•be available by that date, but that, if the
University were formally reconstituted then,
it would be prejudicial to consideration of
the Committee's recommendationg, which are
based on the two alternatives mentioned above,
namely that, unless the University can be
reconstituted on the wider basis, it would be
better that it should not be re-established
at all.
The University is
+
I
6." Sloss argues that once re-opened it...
would' in fact be impracticable to close it
again; that the admission of students to long
courses would create locally expectation of
continuance; and that, therefore, in order to
avoid the risk of a possible breach of public
faith, it would be necessary to indicate that
not only the future of the University but even
its continuance is under consideration.
7. A further point on which he feels strongl;
is that, were the University reconstituted in
October, the University staff would have very
inadequate representation on the Council and
on the other University bodies. At the same
time both he and the Advisory Committee are
emphatically of the opinion that it would. be
"both