after taking their degree and to pursue advanced courses of study, mainly in Arts subjects (paragraphs 110 and 111). We consider it a matter of primary importance to introduce this scheme to a limited extent without delay. In addition, some provision is required for a fund for travel (paragraphs 108 to 111. See also pages 30 and 51) and for Faculty rooms and material equipment for research (paragraphs 116 and 117).

(f) The Universities need funds for granting assistance to the Non-Collegiate Bodies (paragraphs 176 to 179).

(g) Special grants of £4,000 a year at each University are necessary for women's education (paragraph 192), to enable the Colleges to pay higher salaries, to provide pensions and to meet other needs.

(h) New grants of £6,000 a year at each University are required for extra-mural education and adult students (paragraphs 151 and 182 (v) ); and of £1,500 to £2,000 a year for an expert catering adviser (paragraph 170).

(i) Apart from the needs summarised above, we have received from the various Faculties and Departments of each University applications for grants for different purposes. At our request the Universities have scrutinised and sifted these applications officially. As a result, the Universities have recommended the grant of assistance considerably less than that originally requested by the Faculties and Departments, and have asked for the following grants, over and above the existing Emergency Grant, and in addition to the grants suggested for the Libraries and Museums in sub-section (c) above:

These claims are set out in detail in Appendix 18, together with statements as to the allocation of the existing Emergency Grant. Except for the fact that the claims include provision to some extent for the increase in the number of teaching posts recommended by us in sub-section (d) above, the schemes contemplated are, broadly speaking, additional to those referred to in sub-sections (a) to (h). It will be observed that, owing

mainly to the greater extent to which scientific requirements have already been met at Cambridge than at Oxford, Oxford has more need at the present time of capital for new buildings and equipment, and Cambridge of grants for salaries and maintenance.

250. Though we have set out in detail in the preceding paragraph the various purposes for which new grants have been asked for, and, where possible, the approximate cost under each head, we do not propose that these claims should be met in full or that a large number of separate grants should be made for the several purposes mentioned. In arriving at our conclusions on the question of the new grant or grants to be recommended, we have been guided by the following principles :

(i) Generally speaking, the grant should take the form of a round sum payable annually, and the Universities should be left to apportion it in detail, paying due regard to the views which we have expressed in paragraph 46 above on the question of priority of claims.

(ii) Separate grants should be made to the Universities for (a) the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the University Library, Cambridge; (b) the Women's Property Committee at Oxford. and the corresponding Board at Cambridge when formed; and (c) the Extra-Mural Boards.

(iii) It would possibly encourage hasty expenditure if a capital sum were granted for the erection of buildings. Provision for this purpose, and for the acquisition of sites, to which we attach great importance (see paragraph 275 below), should be made from the total round sum annually granted.

(iv) No grants should be given to Colleges

(v) The Departmental grants now made for specific purposes out of various Parliamentary votes, as summarised in paragraph 228 above, should continue to be paid to the two Universities, so far as earned under the regulations governing their distribution, in addition to the grants recommended in the next paragraph.

(vi) In granting aid in the past to other Universities, the State has usually attached conditions with regard to the supply of funds from private benefactions or from other sources to supplement the grant from Public Funds. Oxford and Cambridge can in our view claim that any such conditions have already been met by the existence of the endowments provided by generous benefactors in the past and by the very large sums already raised in fees, which have recently been increased. But, though we consider that such a claim is fully justified, we recognise the special need for economy which now exists, and we have decided to recommend such a grant only from the State as will meet the most urgent needs of the Universities at the present time, leaving it to future benefactors to provide for the less urgent needs and for further developments from time to time in future years. It was with this end in view that we requested the two Universities.

to scrutinise and sift the demands originally made by the various Faculties and Departments. The demands now made officially by the two Universities, as summarised in paragraph 249 (i) above, represent a rigorous curtailment of the total of the original claims. The grants which we recommend below will give but limited aid to the Universities, and we earnestly hope that generous gifts and bequests will be forthcoming to meet the hardly less urgent needs which will still remain unsatisfied after the receipt of the grants now recommended. We draw attention to the observations on this question in paragraph 43 of our report.

251. In round figures we estimate that the total amount involved by the various items referred to in paragraph 249 above, including the reduced claims of the Universities, set out in Appendix 18, is about £120,000 a year at each University, in addition to the Emergency Grant of £30,000 a year, which is already expended on other services. The total grant payable, therefore, if, all the items mentioned were fully provided for in addition to existing services, would be about £150,000 a year in each case, including the Emergency Grant. Applying to these claims the principles referred to in the preceding paragraph, we recommend that annual grants be paid forthwith by the State to each University as follows (representing an increase of £70,000 over and above the existing £30,000) :

£

For general purposes

90,000

For the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the
University Library, Cambridge

10,000

£100,000

In addition, we recommend payment of such a lump sum grant as may be necessary for pension arrears (see paragraph 225 above) and of special annual grants on the following basis:

For the Women's Property Committee, or
similar body, at each University (for a
limited period of ten years, as proposed in
paragraph 192)

...

For the Extra-Mural Board at each Univer-
sity, in respect of extra-mural instruction
and adult students

...

...

£

4,000

6,000

252. In conclusion, we desire to express our concurrence in the recommendations of the Estates Committee, as set out in Part C of the report below.

253. We cannot conclude our report without an expression of heartfelt gratitude for the invaluable help which we have received throughout, in the organisation and conduct of an exceptionally complex and difficult inquiry, first and foremost from our

Secretary, Mr. C. L. Stocks, and also from our two Assistant Secretaries, Mr. Tod, of Oriel College, Oxford, and Mr. Bullough, of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. If our work has been thoroughly done, it is to Mr. Stocks and his assistants that the credit is largely, and even mainly, due.

PART C.-REPORT OF THE ESTATES COMMITTEE.

254. The terms of reference instruct the Estates Committee to enquire into the financial resources of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and of the Colleges and Halls therein.

The internal sources of revenue (fees, dues, room rents, etc.) are a question for the General Commission. There remain the external sources of income, viz. : (1) investments other than land, (2) land.

Of these two sources, the first is controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, whose approval is necessary in any selection or change of investment. We have therefore confined our attention to the financial resources derived from land.

255. Tables are appended in Appendix 19, showing :— (i) The gross income, trust as well as corporate, derived in 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1918 from the different categories of property in land held by the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge respectively.

(ii) The necessary outgoings on these properties in 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1918 in respect of rates, taxes,

insurances, tithe rent charge, repairs, legal expenses, costs of management, etc.

(iii) The geographical distribution of the estates in the Counties of England and Wales in 1918.

(iv)-(a) Total net income derived from the estates in 1918, 1919 and 1920, and (b) total income derived in the same years from investments other than land.

As educational bodies, the Universities and Colleges are exempt from income tax on their corporate and trust incomes, whether from investments other than land, or from land.

Discrepancies may be noticed between the figures in the returns rendered to the Committee and those in the accounts published in the University Gazette and the University Reporter. These differences have been carefully investigated. They are more apparent than real. Broadly speaking, they are due to the different principle on which the two sets of figures are prepared. The published accounts show, for University purposes, a taxable income based on the actual receipts and expenditure in a given year. The returns show the gross annual revenues from specified sources, whether actually received within the current year or not. 256. We divide our remarks on the landed property of the Universities and Colleges into three heads :

1. General Policy.

2. Management.

3. Specific recommendations.

I. GENERAL POLICY.

257. The external revenues derived from land have been considered exclusively from the business and financial point of view. No opinion is expressed on the weight which should be attached to sentimental reasons for the retention of particular properties. The object of enquiry has been whether and how the net incomes can be increased.

It is plain that, for the sake of an immediate gain in income, it would be unwise to part with land which may possibly be required for the expansion of the Universities and Colleges, or land which may reasonably be retained for the development of the Schools of Agriculture in the two Universities. In many cases it may be unwise to part with land which has a potential value for building or mineral development. On the other hand Licensed Houses, the value of which puzzles even professional experts, might be disposed of with advantage, except where there is a particular reason for their retention. Fixed incomes, realised from the proceeds of the sale of these properties, would be preferable to and probably larger than rents dependent on the circumstances of a necessarily fluctuating trade.

Outside these exceptions, there remains a large acreage of land, mainly agricultural. We do not recommend the sale of the whole of this property. Land is a suitable investment for the money