CO129-524-2 Hong Kong University- financial position- Chinese studies- future of the Chinese school and the Annual... 27-1-1930 - 12-8-1930 — Page 129

131

12

64. Looking at this question from a comprehensive point of view, it appears to us that it is of advantage to the University that members of its staff should keep in touch with business interests and professional practice in the Community; and practice in a consultative capacity, as we have defined it. produces this desirable state of affairs.

65. Furthermore, as the University is not in a position to pay the much more considerable salaries paid elsewhere to the scientific professors, it would not appear to

just, in the circumstances, to take the existing privilege from them.

66. We desire to express our appreciation of the great assistance given to us dur- ing the conduct of our Enquiry and in the preparation of this Report by our Secretary, Mr. W. J. Carrie. We are also indebted to Mrs. Pinguet who took down the evidence of the witnesses who appeared before us and di? the considerable amount of typewriting re- quired by us.

We are,

Sir,

Your obedient servants,

H. C. GOLLAN, (Chairman).

S. W. T'SO.

PAUL LAUDER.

His Excellency Sir Cecil Clementi, K.C.M.G, M.A., L.L.D., &c., Chancellor,

The University of Hong Kong,

Hong Kong.

-

- 13

Appendix I.

MEMORANDUM

ON

GRANTS IN AID BY PARLIAMENT & LOCAL AUTHORITIES

TO UNIVERSITIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

BY

PROFESSOR L. FORSTER,

(Professor of Education, University of Hong Kong).

The movement to include Universities in Government Grants began before the war, but did not gather its full strength till the war made it quite impossible to carry on without such aid. Before the year 1919, no state aid was given to Oxford and Cam- bridge, as such, though comparatively small sums were received by certain departments of both Universities, viz., from the Board of Education in respect of Engineering, Medical School work, the Training of Teachers, and Tutorial Classes. In November 1918 the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Education received a deputation from the newer Universities, applying for an increase in the sum of public money, voted for the universities, to meet the increased costs resulting from the war.

As a result of this deputation, in which representatives of Oxford and Cambridge appeared at the suggestion of the President, the applicants were asked to submit state- ments of their immediate needs, and as it appeared clear that Oxford and Cambridge had also been adversely affected by the war, they were invited to submit statements at the same time.

The desired statements, when submitted, showed that Oxford and Cambridge felt bound for the first time, to ask for grants of very considerable sums in addition to the smaller grants received by some of their departments. Parliament decided that such grants could not be made without a formal enquiry into the university resources.

A Royal While this com- Commission, presided over by Mr. Asquith, was appointed in 1919. mission was sitting an interim grant of £30,000 was made.

The financial recommendation of the Commission was that each university should receive an annual grant of £100,000 in addition to £10,000 a year for special purposes and a lump sum for pension purposes. The income of Oxford University in 1920 (the University must be distinguished in this respect from its constituent colleges) was £210,862, and of Cambridge University £253,015, so that the new government contribu- tion represented a very substantial percentage of the annual revenue.

Leaving Oxford and Cambridge, if we turn to the annual statement of the Univer- sity Grants Committee for 1924-25, the latest copy at my disposal, we find on page 15 of that report the amounts allocated to the newer Universities and Universities Colleges with which Hong Kong might reasonably be compared.

Birmingham received from Municipal sources £15,815 or 10.2% of its revenue. This has recently been considerably increased by the levy of a special rate of one penny in the £ for university purposes. From Government sources Birmingham drew £61,931 for the year 1924-25 or 40% of its revenue.

Bristol received from Government £60,144 or 53% of its revenue.

Armstrong College £42,272 or 45.8% of its total revenue.

Leeds obtained £63,706 from the local authorities or 30.7% of its revenue while from Government it received £59,689 or 28.8% of its revenue. That is to say from rates and taxes it obtained no less than 59.5% of its revenues, the rest being obtained from fees, endowment etc.

132