1.—13 a.

56

PROFESSOR GABBATT.

124. Those are the affiliated institutions? —Each Professorial Board would have, as now, to make its own time-table, but, of course, the lines of study would be to a great extent deter mined by the Board of Studies. 125. What do you mean by the " lines of study " that would be determined by the Board of Studies?— The curricula in the various subjects for degrees would be laid down by the Board of Studies. 126. And make them uniform in each university?—l do not know whether they should be more uniform than now. The curriculum is now laid down by the Senate in the same way. 127. Is there not a variation in the different colleges? Take your own subject : are yon all teaching mathematics in the same way?—l hope not. 128. If the question of teaching the mathematics curriculum is to be decided by the Board of Studies, will it not be brought more into uniformity in the four colleges I —No, I do not think so. 129. Well, what is the use of giving them the power to determine the ourriculum? —A reasonable measure of progress would be possible. We do not find it possible ai present. For example, when I came to New Zealand Professor Seager had been fifteen years in Auckland, and had never been to Christchurcli. I do not think he had met a single one of his colleagues. There could be no uniformity there. Each teacher would be allowed to go his own way while following the iii.i in lines of the degree syllabus, as lie has to now. 130. If Professor Seager and some other teacher of mathematics of sixteen years' experience were upon the Board of Studios, and the Board of Studies had to decide the curricula, would there not be a danger of their deciding a curricula that would be out of date?—We met for that purpose last year. Professors Seager, Richards, Picken, and myself met. and we were able to hammer out a new syllabus from beginning to end. 131. The Chairman.] How many professors are there in Canterbury College! —There are nine actual professors. There are five lecturers, four of them being part-time. 132. Your petition is signed by only six? —Yes. 133. Are we to assume that the others are not favourable to your petition I—Professor1 —Professor Hight last year signed the memorial in favour of Professor Laby's petition. He did not sign this year because he is a member of the Senate, and the Senate has set up a committee to deal with the question of the reconstitution of the University. Professor Farr, Professor of Physics, did not sign because he wanted more Englishmen on the Commission — he wanted two instead of one. Professor Scott is away. He also signed the memorial; he was one of the prime movers in the matter. The only other professor is Professor Chilton, who rather prefers not to make a frontal attack, so to speak, but he is as keen on some points of reform as any one could possibly be. For instance, he has been one of the prime movers in the suggested system of intermediate examinations. 134. In connection with the proposed Board of Studies would you leave the curriculum of the degree of faculties in the hands of that Board? I refer, for instance, to degrees in engineering in Canterbury and the degrees in medicine in Otago, and so on? — Well, of course, purely technical questions would have to be left in the hands of the professor of the subject, except in so far as the curriculum affected other subjects. For example, the engineering syllabus necessarily affects mathematics and physics. The professors of mathematics and physics would therefore have to be associated with the professor of engineering. 135. And you think that could be left to their respective faculties?— Yes, the technical side. 136. You realize, of course, that the conditions in New Zealand are quite distinct from that of any other university in the Empire, I think?— ln respect of distance? 137. The distance and difficulty of communication, to some extent? —Yes. 138. And which will still exist for years?— Yes, but that was one of our main reasons for proposing the annual professorial conference. 139. Yes, but your Board of Studies would have to meet several times a year, would it not?— Not necessarily so. 140. Would it not for degrees?—lt would have to meet to make recommendations for degrees, but I think it could probably do all its business at mie session. Of course, separate Boards would have to have some meetings about papers, but the whole Board of Studies need not meet more than once a year. 141. And the decision regarding the granting of degrees, could that be accomplished at the same annual meeting?— That was done in the federal Home universities. The examiners' reports were taken at the meeting, ami reports on degrees issued from the same meeting. 142. When you say the federal universities at Home you refer to Wales and Victoria? —Yes. It used to be done at Victoria, but Victoria is dissolved now. 143. But they are all within two or three hours of each other? —Yes. 144. And they could meet any day and at any time? —Yes. 145. The geographical difficulties are much greater here? —Yes. 146. Do you not think that there should be in connection with the whole University uniformity of remuneration for professors, lecturers, and demonstrators as far as possible?—l should think that would probably be a good thing. 147. At present the respective governing bodies fix their own fates I—Yes.1 —Yes. 148. That is a matter wliieli would have to be left still to the governing bodies unless that power were taken out of their hands? —Yes, presumably. That is a question I have not thought much about. It has been purely on the academic side I have done my thinking. 149. Do you think, if the suggestions you have made were carried into effect, that the bottom, as it were, would fall out of the agitation?—l think s<;. I cannot speak for the Wellington men. but I think it would so far as Christchurch is concerned.