Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, and particularly after 1870, technical education, technical instruction, and the teaching of science as an academic and applied discipline became the subject of debate and finally of legislation in Britain. During these years a precise definition of technical education was never arrived at, and the terms "technical instruction" and "technical education" were used indiscriminately. The commonly used term was scientific instruction, by which was meant the teaching of the principles underlying a subject and excluded any teaching of their application to industry. It was not until the 1880s that technical education had come to mean instruction of both a specific and a general nature (1).

In fact, technical education became synonymous with "modern" as opposed to "traditional" education. To some, it implied sophisticated research work which would advance the new science-based technology of the 1870s. Innovations in steel, electricity and chemicals, based on the scientific advances of the previous one hundred years, heralded vast economic potentialities. Through these key industries science began to affect the whole economy, and from about 1870 science, previousIy peripheral to technology and industry, became central to them (2). To others, technical education embraced everything from bee-keeping to typewriting, from embroidery to commercial arithmetic, as these subjects and many others which at first sight seem far removed from the concept of technology were sanctioned by the Science and Art Department as late as 1900 under the terms of the 1889 Technical Instruction Act (3).

(1) P W Musgrave, "The Definition of Technical Education, 1860- 1910", on The Vocational Aspect, May 1966, pp 105-11

(2) E J Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire, pp 172-4

(3) Middlesex County Council Technical Education Committee (TEC) Minute Book 1, p 3

[page 2]

Sir Philip Magnus, writing in 1888, considered the need for technical education in the following terms:

The cry for technical education, which has been called 'a vague cry', but which is daily growing stronger and more definite, is mainly a demand that the education which our children receive shall be such as to fit them for the work in which they are likely to be engaged, and that the subjects and methods of instruction adopted in our schools shall be determined with a view to this end. The cry for technical education is 'vague' because it has a different significance according to the source from which it emanates. It means one thing to the workman and another thing to the foreman, and again, something different to the manager or manufacturer (1).

to provide instruction in the principles of art and science applicable to industry and in the application of special branches of art and science to specific industries and employment (2).

(1) Sir Philip Magnus, Industrial Education, pp 16-17

(2) C T Millis, Technical Education, Its Development and Aims, p 2

[page 3]

Speaking at the inaugural address delivered at the opening of Finsbury Technical College in 1883, Philip Magnus, then Secretary of the City and Guilds of London Institute, explained the growing need for technical education in the following terms:

If I were asked to say what has given rise to the necessity of technical education in its narrower signification, as commonly understood, I should answer, the invention of the steam engine ... We might, if time served, trace back to the steam engine many of the changes which have been creeping over the beginning of a revolution that promises to sweep away much that is time-honoured in our methods of instruction (1).

To those who saw Britain's industrial might displayed at the Great Exhibition in 1851 it seemed impossible that she should ever be other

(1) Magnus, op. cit., pp 233-4

(2) M Gowing, "Science, Technology and Education: England in 1870", Records of the Royal Society, 1977, Vol 32, pp 71-90

[page 4]

than the foremost industrial nation. Britain was acclaimed the 'workshop of the world', the world's most advanced nation in terms of industrial technology. But to retain that position, those with foresight realised that changes would need to take place in the educational system if Britain was to hold her place in an increasingly competitive market. Even the austere and traditional Times recognised, in a leader published at the closing of the Exhibition, that:

Some think that we must effect a radical change in our educational system, that we must substitute a living science for dead literature, and distribute the honours and rewards of life in channels where they may fructify to the use of the nation instead of being limited to the learned professions , the military and naval services, and the residents of our universities (1).

The Paris International Exhibition of 1867 (3) was the alarm bell which first awoke the British Government's interest in technical education: the

(1) The Times, 13th October 1851

(2) Gowing, op. cit., p 75

(3) See Chapter II, pp 20-21

[page 5]

country's self-confidence wavered, arousing fears of vanishing supremacy based on hard facts which could no longer be ignored. Out of ninety classes at the Exhibition Britain was prominent in scarcely a dozen. The evidence was indisputable and the advocates of technical education became increasingly vocal, but the Government's response was tardy and cautious. It was not until twenty-two years after the Paris Exhibition that the Government passed a BiII which enabled the newIy created county councils to raise a 1d rate [one penny in the pound] for technical instruction. With hindsight, the 1889 Technical Instruction Act seems but a small concession to the educational requirements of a country whose technology was rapidly becoming more sophisticated and scientific: the Act came too late and made provision for too little.

In 1885 Lyon Playfair, then Secretary of Science at the Science and Art Department, posed the question:

How is it that we find whole branches of manufactures, when they depend on scientific and technical knowledge, passing away from this country in which they originated, in order to engraft themselves abroad, although their decaying roots remain at home? (1).

(1) Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1885, cited in Gowing, op. cit., p 86

It is difficult to talk about the 'organisation' of technical education in the nineteenth century: until the foundation of the City and Guilds Institute in 1878 there was no truly professional central agency devoted exclusively to the provision of technical education. Contemporary commentators and current historians surveying the development of technical education draw particular attention to the 'patchwork' growth of various independent movements who took upon themselves the initiative to provide for a vast area of theoretical learning and practical instruction which was largely ignored by the State (1).

Each succeeding movement throughout the nineteenth century was generally a development or an extension of the last, and for the most part where and when developments happened was left largely to chance and local enterprise. Until the 1880s technical education, under a variety of titles, resulted solely from the endeavours of individuals, or groups of enthusiasts who anticipated needs and responded to demands.

The Mechanics Institutes are generally recognised as forerunners in the field of technical education. Their originator and inspirer, Dr George Birkbeck, was appointed Professor of Natural Philosophy and Chemistry at the Andersonian Institute, Glasgow, at the age of 23. Requiring apparatus for his lectures, Birkbeck went to a tinman's shop in Glasgow and explained to the workmen the principles of the action of the models he needed. He found the workmen so eager to learn that he invited them to his lectures, and later opened a mechanics class on Saturday evenings, extending the invitation to all who wished to attend. 75 workmen came to the first lecture, and in only three weeks the lecture hall was filled with over 300 people (2). Birkbeck had recognised the potential and enthusiasm

(1) The following authors draw particular attention to this point:

M Argles, South Kensington to Robbins, Millis, op. cit., P W Musgrave in Constant Factors in the Demand for Technical Education 1860-1960, British Journal of Educational Studies, May 1966, pp 173-187

(2) Millis, op. cit., pp 13-14

[page 7]

of the working class labour force and for a while at least this enthusiasm was harnessed and encouraged. This was no mean achievement at a time when class consciousness, and the rigid division between the classes, positively discriminated against the worker rising above his station in life.

By 1823 the Mechanics Institute idea was widespread in the country, and by 1850 there were 620 Institutes in England and Wales providing education for half a million people. However, their initial success was not to continue, for the lack of sound elementary education proved an insuperable barrier to relatively advanced instruction (1). What commenced as an essentially working class, trade-oriented form of education was taken over by clerical workers and the middle classes. Millis describes the Institutes' decline in the following words:

The ideas which the founders of the Mechanics' Institutes had in view were sound, but there were difficulties in making them successful for working men whose needs and educational limitations were not understood. Apart from the vital need of State aid for the upkeep of the Institutes, the bulk of working men were not sufficiently prepared by education to profit by the instruction, which consisted more of popular lectures than of definite class instruction. This want of education made the workmen diffident and shy, and they felt they were not wanted (2).

(1) Argles, op. cit., Magnus, op. cit., and Millis, op. cit. specifically draw this conclusion.

(2) Millis, op. cit., p19

(3 ) ibid, p 21

[page 8]

those who sought to further, or indeed to commence, their education at a later stage. Teaching was for the most part undertaken in schools run by the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society, where religious instruction and the 'three Rs' dominated the curriculum. The census returns of 1851 revealed that only about two-thirds of English and Welsh children entered a school at all, and even then absenteeism was a major problem (1).

Aside from the limitations of elementary education, the teaching of science and technology in institutions outside the elementary sector was also neglected. Augustus de Morgan, writing to The Times in 1832, stated that:

Among a people who depend for their political greatness on trade and manufactures there is not, generally speaking, in the education of their youth one atom of information on the products of the earth ... nor any account of the principles whether of mechanics or chemistry which when applied to these products constitute the greatness of their country (2).

Even at university level the disciplines of science and technology failed to receive the respect which they deserved. These "educational finishing schools" (4) which in any event were few and far between, concerned

(1) J J and A J Bagley, The State and Education in England and Wales, 1833-1968, p 16

(2) Cited in Sir Eric Ashby, Education for an Age of Technology, Vol V, p 728

(3) Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission (Taunton Commission) 1868

(4) Gowing, op. cit., p 74

[page 9]

themselves primarily with "the liberal education of men of a privileged class who would later adopt suitable professions or else follow a life of leisure" (1). There was one exception - Cambridge with its mathematical tradition was the first university to pioneer the teaching of science and technology. The Clarendon and Cavendish laboratories were opened in 1870 and 1871, and in 1875 a Chair of Engineering was established. However, for the most part the educational ideal was the Christian gentleman; if he was a scholar then so much the better, but the predominantly classical tradition in the university sector determined the interpretation of scholarship. Private and public secondary education was trapped: the universities did not reward science and technology because they were not taught in schools, and the schools did not teach these subjects because they were not rewarded in the universities (2).

The first government support for technical education - as we now understand the phrase - had come in 1837, for art, not science. At the time no distinction was drawn between 'technical' and 'scientific' and the two closely related subjects were seen as a part of the same wide spectrum. Thus when the word 'science' or even 'art' is used, 'technology' is often implied but rarely stated (3).

In 1835 William Eward, a Liverpool MP, chaired a Select Committee "to inquire into the best means of extending a knowledge of the Arts and the principles of design among the people of the country" (4). The result was the foundation of Schools of Design in London and certain provincial cities, initially administered by the Board of Trade.

(1) D S L Cardwell, The Organisation of Science in England, p 46

(2) Gowing, op. cit., p 75

(3) J Blanchet, Science, Craft and State 1867-1906, pp 4-7

(4) Argles, op. cit., p 18

[page 10]

Eventually in 1852 a Department of Practical Art was established by the Board of Trade, and the following year science was tacked on to it. From 1856 this Department of Science and Art, based at South Kensington, came under the Privy Council Committee on Education. The Department's main object was industrial education for artisans, but it achieved almost nothing until 1859 when it launched a payment by results scheme to teach not technical skills but scientific principles. Localities were to establish science schools and teachers would receive a government payment for every paper passed by every artisan-class pupil in a national examination. Middle-class students could attend classes and take examinations but no payments were made on their results (1). The Department promoted art schools more actively than science schools and gave them a teacher training college and building grants long before science schools had them. Art, it was said, needed special accommodation, whereas anyone might teach science "in a garret or a cellar" (2).

Art classes were held mainly in the day, and were attended largely by "middle class ladies" (3) but most science teaching took place at evening classes after the students had engaged in a full day's work. Furthermore, the subjects taught under the payment by results scheme were rigidly defined by the Science and Art Department. At the outset, only six science subjects were sanctioned: practical plane and solid geometry, with mechanical and machine drawing; mechanical physics; experimental physics; chemistry; geology and mineralogy; natural history, including zoology and botany. Within ten years the total list of approved subjects increased to twenty-five, and attendance at Science and Art classes rose from 500

(1) Blanchet, op. cit., pp 57-62

(2) Samuelson Commission on Scientific Instruction, pp 1877-68, Vol 15, p 158, cited in Gowing, op. cit., p 73

(3) Blanchet, op. cit., p 63

[page 11]

in 1860 to 57,000 in 1880 (1). However, Professor Gowing is quick to point out that in 1868 only 15,000 students attended science classes - the remainder opted for art. She continues:

They (the classes) were most unevenly distributed both geographically and by subject. Most classes were in London, Lancashire, Edinburgh and Glasgow, with very few in Yorkshire and almost none in the North-East and the Black Country. Leeds, with a population of quarter of a million, had only one science class with 30 pupils. Geography was far more popular than chemistry (2).

Throughout the forty years' existence of the science classes and examinations the syllabus did not include anything like manual training, and most of the syllabus was theoretical in character (5).

(5) Argles , op. cit., p 21

[page 12]

Improbably, a network of publicly financed secondary schools based on science and technology grew out of the Department of Science and Art (1). The Department wished in 1871 to sponsor not only the haphazard evening classes which remained its stock-in-trade, but also day science schools with integrated courses. A three-year course was planned which would give so-called organised science schools not only payments by results but also capitation and apparatus grants. SimultaneousIy, the new elementary school boards which followed the 1870 Education Act provided higher grade schools for children staying on beyond the normal age. They quickly saw the advantages of the science grants and higher grade schools frequently became synonymous with organised science schools. For years the number of organised science schools was very small - only three in 1885 - but by the late 1890s there were around 200 (2).

That an eagerness to learn existed amongst the working classes cannot be denied: Birkbeck had witnessed it at the beginning of the century. But the provisions made by the Science and Art Department appear to have been both inadequate and inappropriate for the industrial working classes. The dilemma which existed between teaching the theory of science and the practice of technology was to manifest itself later in the nineteenth century, when the seemingly inbuilt prejudice against State-aided practical, craft or trade-oriented training and instruction became increasingly apparent.

(1) Blanchet, op. cit., chapter 6

(2) Gowing, op. cit., pp 76-7

[page 13]

Whilst the Science and Art Department concerned itself almost exclusively with the teaching of theory rather than practice, further developments were taking place, independent of any form of State support, which encouraged and financed technical instruction, that is technical instruction as we would understand the term today. Reading about these movements, one gets the impression that they were more relevant, more dynamic and certainly more practically oriented than the science class schemes which originated in Whitehall. They had been founded of necessity by people with first-hand experience of industry; they were created to meet a growing demand; they were not tied down by stringent Government rules and procedures. Altogether, in the view of the writer, although far from perfect, they provided the nearest thing to 'technical instruction' that could be achieved within the context of nineteenth-century Britain.

Blanchet states that in many industrial towns throughout the country, technical classes were springing up largely as the result of local enthusiasm and enterprise. Woodwork, carpentry, turning, milling and many other craft-related skills were being taught to eager groups of workmen, usually in makeshift accommodation, with machinery which had been discarded by local factories (1).

Meanwhile, in London a Trades Guild of Learning was established in 1873, and in 1878 the City and Guilds of London Institute was formed. The Trades Guild of Learning, based at the Artisans' Institute in St. Martin's Lane, London, was founded in order to aid:

the systematic instruction of apprentices and workmen in the principles of art and science forming the basis of various handicrafts, and in the technical application of those principles to actual work (2).

(2) Millis, op. cit., p 41

[page 14]

Both theory and practice were to be taught, and whilst the Government did not outrightly condemn this venture, it offered little support. In 1878 a series of letters passed between the Science and Art Department and the Artisans' Institute. The correspondence was prompted by the request of about 100 students from the Institute for financial assistance from the Department. The Department's reply states in no uncertain terms their attitude towards State aid for job-oriented instruction. In reply to the students' request, the Department wrote:

It is a question of whether such instruction should be afforded at the expense of the State, or defrayed by the workmen whose immediate interests and advancement in life are so directly concerned ... It has not hitherto been considered the function of the Science and Art Department to teach the practical application of science and art to industry ... Its aim has, on the contrary, been to aid the industrial classes in obtaining a sound and thorough knowledge of those branches of science and art which may be so applied, leaving it to the student to specialise his knowledge and to obtain his practical skill in the workshop or in the trade (1).

(1) Letter from the Science and Art Department, 21st March 1878, cited in Millis, op. cit., p 23

(2) Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, (RCTI) PP 1882, Vol 27 and PP 1884, Vols 29-31

(3) Ibid, 1884, p 514

[page 15]

After public pressure to apply their wealth to technical education, the City Livery Companies founded the City and Guilds of London Institute for the Advancement of Technical Education in 1878. The Institute's origins date back to the 1850s when, following the Great Exhibition, moves had been afoot to force the Livery Companies to take up the cause of technical education (1). Gladstone had suggested in 1872 that they should -

consider whether it was not in their power to make themselves that which they certainly are not now - illustrious in the country - by endeavouring resolutely and boldly to fulfil the purposes for which they were founded (2).

The guilds responded to this pressure. As a first step, prizes were offered to the top candidates in the Science and Art Department's examinations. Later the Goldsmiths Company made an annual award of two exhibitions and six travelling scholarships to the value of £100 each. It was the Clothworkers' Company which took the effective lead in promoting technical education. In 1874 the Company voted the sum of £10,000 to the recently founded Yorkshire College of Science in Leeds (now the University of Leeds) in order that a Department of Textiles could be built. Similar grants were later made to technical institutes at Bradford, Huddersfield and Keighley, all with the object of promoting textile education (4).

(1) F Foden, Philip Magnus, Victorian Educational Pioneer, pp 128-140

(2) cited ibid, p 128

(3) ibid, p 128

(4) ibid, pp 136-8

[page 16]

Following the Clothworkers' example, a committee of the twelve largest companies was formed in 1874 to discuss the possibilities of joint action. The committee resolved:

That it is desirable that the attention of the Livery Companies be directed to the function of education not only in the Metropolis but throughout the country, and especially technical education (1).

The Institute established classes on a nation-wide basis, but regional figures cited in the first report of the National Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education (2) indicate that, unlike the Science and Art classes, City and Guilds classes flourished in the large industrial centres of the country. In 1880, 24 subjects were offered for examination by the Institute, with 515 successful candidates. By 1900 the number of subjects had increased to 64, and 14,105 candidates were successful in examination (3). The Institute insisted on high standards of teaching, and a payment by results system was introduced.

(1) Foden, op. cit., p 141

(2) First Report of the National Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education in England and Wales, 1889, pp 40-41

(3) Foden, op. cit., p 138

[page 17]

In 1881 the Institute founded Finsbury Technical College in the City Road, London, where both full-time and part-time courses were offered, and in 1884 a higher level Central Institution, intended for the education of works managers, technical teachers, engineers and architects was established at South Kensington (1).

The work of the City and Guilds Institute had proved beyond all shadow of doubt that a national system of technical education was both possible and necessary. The education provided for by the Institute was both theoretical and practical, placing particular emphasis on trade and craft instruction. Philip Magnus, a lifelong advocate of technical education, and Organising Director and Secretary of the Institute from 1880 to 1888, vigorously defended the work of the City and Guilds, whilst taking the opportunity to attack the State for its lack of encouragement and cooperation:

The tenets of Free Trade were so scrupulously held and practiced that the schemes drafted by the Education Department avoided, as far as possible, all reference to the particular trades which they were undoubtedly intended to assist. The function of the State was restricted to the encouragement of the teaching of pure science, as equally applicable to all industries, and it was left to the Livery Companies of London, by their contributions to the City and Guilds Institute, to prepare courses of instruction directly applicable to the different trades in which artisans were engaged. This pedantic refusal on the part of the State to give trade teaching was one of the causes of our belated efforts to organise for this country a system of technical education; and to this cause is partly due the fact that the direction of technical education remains very largely in the hands of a body receiving no direct help from the State ... History will award no small measure of praise to the patriotic efforts of the Corporation and the ancient Livery Companies of London (2).

(2) Magnus, op. cit. pp 107-108

[page 18]

Up to this point, it appears that the aims and objectives of technical education on a national basis remained open to various interpretations. The fact that technical education was a growing national problem had been recognised by groups of individuals, who, through independent efforts and funding had promoted schemes of such education at a variety of levels. But a cohesive, State-aided national system had not emerged.

The letter from the Science and Art Department to the Artisans' Institute (page 13) provides the key to the Government's attitude: "it has not hitherto been considered the function of the Science and Art Department to teach the practical application of science and art to industry". Practical skills should be obtained "In the workshop or in the trade". At this juncture the State categorically refused all responsibility for practical training, leaving it to individual enterprise on the part of employers and individual enthusiasm on the part of employees. It offered no guidelines or recommendations on how practical skills and crafts should be taught.

The attitude of some employers further discouraged groups of workers from joining together to share the benefits of technical education. Professor Gowing states that British industrialists "disliked their workers meeting and swopping secrets" (1), a somewhat insular attitude at a time when the country needed to pool its expertise and resources in the face of growing competition. Workers themselves could be restrictive - for example, a class of plumber artisans compelled Finsbury Technical College to expel a labourer who had joined a class hoping to become an artisan (2).

(1) Gowing, op. cit., p 77

(2) Blanchet, op. cit., p 154

[page 19]

The aid given to the industrial classes in obtaining "a sound and thorough knowledge of those branches of science and art which may be so applied" was by definition theoretical, but because of the limitations of elementary education at the time, the industrial classes were frequently disadvantaged by not having the basic education which would equip them to understand the theory. Even when theoretical classes were available, many were "taught by a teacher who only knew the theory to pupils who had never seen a machine" (1).

The success of the City and Guilds Institute was due in no small part to the failure of the State to provide a practical alternative. Magnus' critical analysis of the situation (see page 16) reflected the view of those who, in spite of non-State aid, had forged ahead independently to ensure that not only the theory, but the applied practice of a skill or craft were taught outside the confines of the factory or workshop. Even so, much remained to be achieved in the field of technical education.

In determining why technical education was so neglected in the nineteenth century, three fundamental reasons emerge: laissez faire, self-help and Britain's confident but-short-sighted perception of herself as the world's leading industrial nation.

The doctrine of laissez faire is the commonly offered reason for non-Government intervention, but the concept implied an overall improvement rather than a general decline in standards and progress. In the case of technical education, the doctrine of laissez faire was positively working against progress. Individuals could do only so much, but not enough to meet the country's real needs. Self-help was an attitude of mind which Government used to its advantage in neglecting technical education, but

(1) National Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education in England and Wales, op. cit., p 22

[page 19a]

even the most enterprising and resourceful individuals needed encouragement and recourse to expertise in order to achieve their ends. Self-help becomes a limiting and restricted concept if it is assumed that the individual will achieve his ends independently of any form of professional help or guidance. Whilst the work of committed philanthropists and individuals cannot be ignored, the provision they afforded was small by comparison with what could have been achieved had the State acknowledged some responsibility for technical instruction.

The nineteenth-century concept of education involved books and learning; technical education and instruction implied a totally new approach to education. This form of learning involves working both with the mind and with the hands, and from the outset there appears to have been an inbuilt prejudice on the part of Government against assisting a mode of education which involved manual instruction. Technical education was relegated to an inferior status, if indeed it had a status at all. Government refused to acknowledge that technical education involved a national investment, an investment which in the long term would have paid dividends. In retrospect this attitude seems alarmingly short-sighted. Whilst educating the mind was acceptable, training the hands to accomplish work which would in the long term benefit the national economy seemed grossly improper.

In short, Government's attitude was at best short-sighted, at worst smug and conceited. The nation was living on its past glory, and giving little thought either to present needs or future potential.

It was during the second half of the nineteenth century that Parliament, through the deliberations of Royal Commissions and Select Committees, became concerned with the teaching of science in secondary schools. The need for sound instruction in the discipline of science, with technology as a related discipline, gradually became linked through State inquiries over the twenty-five year period between 1864 and 1889. Recommendations for technical education evolved slowly, and for the most part arose as an offshoot of investigations by those concerned with the instruction of science in schools.

In 1864 a Schools Inquiry Commission (the Taunton Commission) was established with the purpose of looking at the work being undertaken in grammar schools. The Commission established a sub-committee appointed specifically to survey the nature of technical education in the country (1). On 15 May 1867, immediately after the Paris Exhibition, the sub-committee received a letter from Lyon Playfair. Playfair, who had been a juror at the Exhibition, expressed grave concern at "the position which England occupied in this great industrial competition"(2). Only sixteen years after Britain had been acclaimed the workshop of the world Playfair's account of the country's performance at the Exhibition indicates that Britain' s industrial supremacy had been short lived. His letter states:

I am sorry to say that, with very few exceptions, a singular accordance of opinion prevailed that our country had shown little inventiveness and made but little progress in the peaceful arts of industry since 1862. Out of 90 classes there are scarcely a dozen in which pre-eminence is unhesitatingly awarded to us. The one cause upon which there was most unanimity of conviction is that France, Prussia, Austria, Belgium and Switzerland possess good systems of industrial education for the masters and managers of factories and workshops, and that England possesses none (3).

(3) ibid p 268

[page 21]

Playfair's letter was circulated to 'competent observers' asking for their views. Sixteen replies were received from industrialists, academics and politicians, and without exception the respondents expressed strong, and often emotional support for Playfair's sentiments (1). Typical of these replies is a long letter from James McConnell, a locomotives manufacturer of London, who concludes:

it requires no skill to predict that, unless we adopt a system of technical education for our workmen in this country, we shall soon not even hold our own in cheapness of cost as well as in excellence of quality of our mechanical productions (2).

The Taunton Commission reported in 1868. Its major recommendation was for a national system of secondary schools. It suggested an imitation of the Prussian school system: a classical Gymnasium for those proposing to go on to Oxford or Cambridge, and a Realgymnasium for the middle and lower middle classes, with science as an integral part of the curriculum. "We cannot consider any scheme of education complete which omits a subject of such high importance" the Commissioners concluded (3). The Commission further recommended that trade schools should be attached to Realgymnasium, where boys could be taught skills and trades as part of the curriculum.

(1) SICTE, op. cit., pp 271-5

(2) ibid, p 274

(3) Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission, 1868, vol 28, p 240 cited in W H G Armytage, Some Sources for the History of Technical Education in England, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol 6, 1957

[page 22]

The recommendations were far-sighted, but totally unrealistic within the context of the British educational system of the 1860s. How could a national system of secondary schools exist when a similar elementary system had not yet been provided for? The Prussian system had developed many years previously: it was thoroughly pragmatic and geared to the economy of the country. Taunton's recommendations were both idealistic and premature. However, the Commission's conclusions reflect the growing concern for scientific and technical education, and whilst the recommendations did not result in government legislation, they at least prompted others to look further into the problem.

Following the work of the Taunton Commission, pressure was brought to bear on Parliament by Bernhard Samuelson, Liberal Member of Parliament for Banbury, who had also visited the Paris Exhibition. Armed with supporting evidence from the Taunton Commission, Samuelson persuaded Parliament to set up a Select Committee, with himself as Chairman, "to inquire into the Provision for giving Instruction in Theoretical and Applied Science to the Industrial Classes" (1).

The evidence given to the Committee brought out two points. The first was that lower wages and absence of industrial unrest on the continent enabled manufacturers to compete successfully with Britain for markets; the second, that in some industries this successful competition depended on a grasp of applied science among managers which had no parallel in England (2). In conclusion, the Committee stated that Parliament should "be urged to proceed without delay" in implementing the following recommendations:

(1) Report from the Select Committee on Scientific Instruction, July 1868, p 1 (SCSI), cited in Armytage, op. cit.

(2) ibid, pp 58-62, cited in Armytage, op. cit.

[page 23]

to organise secondary education;

to recognise instruction in natural science as an indispensable element in such education;

to provide for the central, provincial and local administration of existing funds, with due regard to the wants and capabilities of each branch of industry;

to press forward further measures for primary education. (1)

This picture compared most unfavourably with the evidence about scientific and technical education in Europe. Most advanced were the German States, and "tiny, poor, barren Switzerland" (3). They had universal elementary education, thorough systems of secondary education and universities, often side by side with polytechnics - and all publicly financed. The canton of Zürich had one university, one polytechnic, one training school, one school for the deaf and dumb, one veterinary school, 66 secondary schools

(1) SCSI, op. cit., pp 272-4, cited in Armytage, op. cit.

(2) Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science, 6th Report, 1875, cited in Armytage, op. cit.

(3) Letter from B Samuelson to Lord Montagu, 16.11.67, PP 1867- 1868, Vol 54, Cited in Gowing, op. cit., p 76

[page 24]

and 370 elementary schools. All this for a population of 239,000 - about the same as Leeds, which had so little (1).

The evidence about education abroad made the Samuelson and Devonshire reports urgent and cogent. Together their recommendations on education were not dramatic, but they were systematic, ranging from elementary to higher education. Yet Parliament debated neither inquiry and the Government's promised statement on the Devonshire proposals was never made (2).

An interesting point which emerges from these government enquiries is the pre-eminence given to the study of science by the middle and upper classes. It appears that the main concern was with the education of potential managers, rather than with the training of skilled workers. The need for technical instruction had surreptitiously entered into the debate, but the State's role with regard to this need remained ambiguous. Whilst the Government had sponsored science education through the channels of the Science and Art Department, no effort had been made to make a similar provision for technical instruction - government refused to accept that technical instruction should be paid for by the State.

Other countries bore nearly all their education costs from central or local government. Britain was much richer than all of them until nearly the end of the nineteenth century, yet more parsimonious than any. In 1870 government expenditure was a much lower percentage of gross national product than in 1850; and in 1890 it was lower still(3). But collective expenditure was unpopular, and technical education, despite the pressure groups, had little appeal.

(1) Letter from Samuelson to Montagu, op. cit.

(2) Blanchet, op. cit., p 139

(3) A J Taylor, Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth Century Britain, p 62

[page 25]

Finally, in 1881, a Royal Commission was appointed with a specific brief:

to inquire into the Instruction of the Industrial Classes of certain Foreign Countries in Technical and other subjects, for the purpose of comparison with that of the corresponding classes in this country; and into the influence of such Instruction on manufacturing and other Industries at home and abroad (1).

The setting up of the RCTI seems to have been a rather haphazard affair. The matter was first raised in the House of Commons on 1 April 1881 by Anderson, a Glasgow MP, who pressed for a Royal Commission to visit Continental countries to study their technical education. Mundella, the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, was surprisingly unenthusiastic. He replied that "to appoint a roving Commission to travel all over Europe would be a very expensive and, I think, a needlessly tedious process" (3). He suggested that Bernhard Samuelson (who had chaired the Select Committee on Scientific Instruction, and sat on the Devonshire Commission) should, with some of his colleagues, undertake a free-lance enquiry.

(1) RCTI, op. cit., p 652

(2) M Argles, The Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, 1881-4, Its Inception and Composition, Vocational Aspect, June 1968, p 98

(3) Hansard, 1881, cited ibid, p 98

[page 26]

Argles concludes that the RCTI was "an ad hoc committee engineered by Samuelson and his friends in the House, with Magnus as a minor éminence grise and Mundella as an (outwardly) doubting accomplice" (1), and that the Commission was in fact what Mundella originally announced it would be: a free-lance enquiry by a small pressure group.

The members of the RCTI were Bernhard Samuelson (Chairman), Henry Roscoe, Philip Magnus, John Slagg, Swire Smith and William Woodall. Its secretary was Gilbert Redgrave. What had these six men in common? Three of them were Liberal MPs, and two of the other three became so at a later date. Four were enlightened and progressive industrialists, two (Roscoe and Magnus) were academics or educationists. All were passionately concerned with education, and some had had actual experience of educational administration (2). Thus the talents of the Commissioners combined first-hand industrial experience, academic excellence and political influence. Most importantly, they were, without exception, committed to the cause of technical education.

At the same time that the RCTI was collecting evidence, Britain was in the middle of the period which has posthumously been called the Great Depression. Although the debate surrounding the precise nature of the depression continues to this day (3), there can be no doubt that the threat which industrial competition from overseas markets presented to Britain's economy was a crucial factor in the minds of the Royal Commissioners (see pages 32-3).

(1) Argles, op. cit., p 99

(2) ibid, pp 99-102

(3) S B Saul, The Myth of the Great Depression

[page 27]

The precise relationship between the 'great depression in trade and industry', conventionally dated between 1873 and 1896, and the setting up of the RCTI in 1881 remains unclear. The Government's official inquiry into Trade Depression reported in 1886, and was initiated a year after the Commissioners on Technical Instruction issued their final report in 1884. A leading historian has written: "all the evidence agrees on the technological backwardness of much of British manufacturing industry - on leads lost, opportunities missed, markets relinquished that need not have been" (1). Most economic historians seek objective, primarily economic, explanations ranging from markets and tariff policy to the complexity of Britain's inherited industrial structure to explain the country's relative industrial decline (2). In this interpretation, education is scarcely mentioned, and it is impossible to draw a simple cause and effect line between education and economic strength. However, nineteenth-century advocates of technical education had consistently stressed the importance of the relationship between technical instruction and a healthy industrial economy (3).

For the purposes of their first report; the Commissioners limited their survey to technical instruction in France and Northern Italy. The Report gives little detailed information on technical education in Italy, but the Commissioners gave considerable attention to developments in France. The Commissioners noted that the rudiments of trades were taught

(1) D S Landes, The Unbound Prometheus, p 332, cited in Gowing, op. cit.

(2) Saul, op. cit.

(3) Magnus, op. cit., Millis, op. cit.

[page 28]

in French primary schools, so that all the children became accustomed to working with tools from a very early age. The Report states:

The instruction in the use of tools during the elementary school age, besides being of service to every child, whether destined to become a mechanic or not, will tend in the former case to facilitate the learning of a trade, though it may not actually shorten the necessary period of apprenticeship ... we should be glad to see this kind of manual instruction introduced into some of our own elementary schools (1).

The French also operated a system of Apprenticeship Schools, which combined advanced elementary education with technical instruction. The objects of these schools was to train workmen as distinguished from foremen or managers. Boys (and in two instances girls also) entered these schools at 15, and aside from being taught general subjects (see Appendix 1) the pupils were also taught specific trades such as bookbinding, typesetting,

(1) RCTI, op. cit., p 666

(2) Magnus, op. cit., pp 145-8

[page 29]

optical instrument making, printing and engine fitting (1). The Commissioners noted particularly that all manual instruction was supported by relevant theoretical study, and this is evident from the timetable set out in Appendix 1:

No apprentice is allowed to commence any work whether complete in itself, or a part of a machine, without having previously made a sketch, or a drawing of it to scale, so that the pupil must necessarily acquaint himself with its proportions and connections, and understand fully the nature of what he is doing (2).

Although the French were not renowned for their progressive attitude towards State-aided education (3), the RCTI's first report gives details of educational expenditure in various French towns (4) which indicate that the French government was certainly more generous in this connection than their English counterparts. An interesting comparison is drawn between the

(1) RCTI, op. cit., pp 665-670

(2) ibid, p 670

(3) Gowing, op. cit., p 82

(4) RCTI, op. cit., pp 657-8

[page 30]

educational budget of the Municipality of Lyon, which had a population of 342,815 in 1881, and Manchester, with a population of 393,676 in the same year. The Commissioners state that these figures represent the allocation of government funds to education. The following table has been extracted from the Report:

The Commissioners noted that in Lyon money was allocated by the Ministry of Public Instruction, whilst the State also loaned 'huge sums' to advance education (1).

These figures are interesting, but are open to various interpretations. In essence they suggest that in two industrial towns with a similar population (Manchester's population being 14% higher than that of Lyon) over three times as much money was being allocated to primary and secondary education in Lyon as was being expended in Manchester in 1881. However, several facts are not made clear: for example, the comparative cost of living; the extent to which Manchester was receiving grants from the Science and Art Department; and the role of non-state education in both Manchester and Lyon.

(1) RCTI, op. cit., p 658

[page 31]

Nevertheless, what is immediately apparent is that the Ministry of Public Instruction in France allocated specific sums for 'technical or professional instruction, higher instruction and municipal drawing schools'. Manchester did not receive similar state aid for technical education.

The first Report of the RCTI was issued in February 1882. The Report took the form of a survey based on French education, and the Commissioners explained that they did not feel "sufficiently informed to present trustworthy conclusions as to the value of the institutions we have seen" (1). They continue:

We wish it to be distinctly understood that if we have not in this Report made any recommendations for the improvement of the instruction of our own artisans, beyond that of the introduction of manual work in some of our ordinary elementary schools (see page 28), it is not because we are not fully alive to the need of greatly improving their general and technical training, but because we are at present only at the outset of our mission (2).

(1) RCTI, op. cit., p 681

(2) ibid, p 682

[page 32]

The second Report of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, published in 1884, surveyed a wider area (1). The Commissioners visited secondary and evening schools in France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Italy and the United States. They also inspected trade and technical schools (sometimes known as polytechnics) and technical universities in Germany and Switzerland. The work of Continental industrial establishments - cotton spinning and weaving, the woollen industry, the silk industry, engineering and dyeing works, paper mills and printing factories - was investigated in some detail. The Commissioners also took evidence in various centres in Great Britain. (A list of institutions and towns in Great Britain visited by the Commissioners is given in Appendix II.)

The Commissioners include in their conclusion to the Report a brief but perceptive account of why, in their opinion, England was leading the world in industry at the time of the Great Exhibition, and how continental countries were later able to compete successfully with England: (2)

The beginnings of the modern industrial system are due, in the main, as we have indicated, to Great Britain. Before factories founded on the inventions of Watt, or Arkwright and Crompton, had time to take root abroad, and whilst our own commerce and manufactures increased from year to year, the great wars of the early part of this century absorbed the energies and dissipated the capital of Continental Europe. For many years after the peace we retained almost exclusive possession of the improved machinery employed in the cotton, woollen and linen manufactures. By various acts of the last century, which were not repealed until 1825, it was made penal to enlist English artisans for employment abroad; the export of spinning machinery to foreign countries was prohibited until the early years of Your Majesty's reign. Thus when less than half a century ago, Continental countries

(2) ibid, pp 506-7

[page 33]

began to construct railways and to erect modern mills and mechanical workshops, they found themselves face to face with a full-grown industrial organisation in this country, which was almost a sealed book to those who could not obtain access to our factories.

To meet this state of things, foreign countries established technical schools like the Ecole Centrale of Paris, and the Polytechnic Schools of Germany and Switzerland, and sent engineers and men of science to England to prepare themselves for becoming teachers of technology in those schools.

Technical High Schools now exist in nearly every Continental State, and are the recognised channel for the instruction of those who are intended to become the technical directors of industrial establishments. Many of the technical chemists have, however, been and are being trained in the German Universities. Your Commissioners believe that the success which has attended the foundation of extensive manufacturing establishments, engineering shops, and other works on the Continent, could not have been achieved to its full extent in the face of many retarding influences, had it not been for the system of high technical instruction in these schools, for the facilities for carrying on original scientific investigation, and for the general appreciation of the value of that instruction, and of original research, which is felt in those countries.

The Commissioners devoted the largest section of their Report to events on the Continent - the section on English educational establishments is only one-third the length of that on continental establishments. At the outset of the section on institutions in England, the Commissioners state: (2)

(1) Ashby, op. cit., p 723

(2) RCTI, op. cit., p 393 (2nd Report)

[page 34]

We now proceed to notice some of the more important kindred institutions which we have inspected in the UK. As most of these are sufficiently well known, we have dealt briefly with this branch of our subject.

In nearly all the great industrial centres ... flourishing schools of science and art of various grades, together with numerous art and science classes exist, and their influence may be traced in the productions of the localities in which they are placed (2).

The Commissioners made particular mention of a workshop school, run by Messrs. Mather and Platt in Manchester. This "unique institution" was a private evening technical school, established and supported by the firm for the benefit of their apprentices (3). After the apprentices had spent a day in the factory, they were offered the opportunity of attending evening classes on the factory premises, where both practical and theoretical subjects were taught. All the instruction was related to the type of work being undertaken in the factory, and the idea of bringing the school to the workshop,

(1) RCTI, op. cit., pp 400-402 (2nd Report)

(2) ibid, p 401

(3) ibid, p 429

[page 35]

where lessons were provided free of charge, was a 'major innovation' in the view of the Commissioners.

However, it would appear that Mather and Platt's enlightened attitude was the exception rather than the rule. According to Professor Gowing (1) British industrialists and entrepreneurs wanted neither to "pay rates nor dip into their own pockets" to provide training for their employees. She gives two main reasons for this: firstly, and simply, a meanness on the part of industrialists; secondly the inbuilt fear of workers rising above their station in life. She further states that British industrialists lacked the true entrepreneurial enterprise which their continental counterparts successfully cultivated. Imagination and foresight were qualities rarely found in British industrialists of the late nineteenth century.

The RCTI inspected the work of the Mechanics' Institutes, some receiving small grants from the Science and Art Department, and others existing entirely on voluntary subscriptions. The nature of the facilities offered by the Mechanics' Institutes varied greatly from town to town, but a common feature was the provision of a library and reading room. Writing about the Institute at Kendal, the Commissioners observed:

The Mechanics' Institute has 130 members, a reading room, and a library of 7,500 volumes. Musical entertainments are given in the winter months, and classes are held in singing and French (2).

(1) Gowing, op. cit., pp 81-2

(2) RCTI, op. cit., p 483 (2nd Report)

[page 36]

into the provision of library facilities, and a middle-class orientated "leisure centre". Singing and French would certainly not have fitted into Birkbeck' s scheme of things.

The work of the prototype English polytechnic, Quintin Hogg's Young Men's Christian Institute in Regent Street, London, is detailed at length in the RCTI's second report (1). The polytechnic, incorporated in 1838, had originally served as a gallery where the public could view scientific and technical equipment (2). By the 1860s public lectures were held at the polytechnic, but its development as a trade school did not commence until 1882 when Quintin Hogg took over the premises. Hogg had for many years previously run a ragged school in London, which because of its growing size was forced to move into new buildings. He was essentially a philanthropist, whose aims were more humanitarian and Christian than pragmatic. The biography of Hogg, written in 1904 by his daughter, states (3):

He entered education as a form of philanthropy ... It must be remembered that education always played a very prominent part in Quintin Hogg's philanthropy. He realised the comparative uselessness of trying to develop the spiritual side of his lads alone, and felt very strongly that for any permanent good to be accomplished, their physique and minds must also be cultivated.

(1) RCTI, op. cit., pp 409-414 (2nd Report)

(2) E M Wood, A History of the Polytechnic, p 19

(3) E M Wood, Quintin Hogg, A Biography, pp 128-9

(4) Wood, op. cit., A History of the Polytechnic, p 39

[page 37]

In 1883 the Polytechnic Young Men's Christian Institute had 2,000 members, with 1,200 applicants awaiting admission. It appears that the Institute was as much a boys' social club as an institution of learning, where a certain number of trade classes were offered as activities (1). Quintin Hogg gave evidence before the RCTI (2):

He explained that one of the great attractions of the Institute was the gymnasium, which was largely patronised, and for which members paid an additional fee of 6d per quarter year. He encouraged them to come in their working clothes directly after leaving work, and to spend the whole of the evening at the Institute ... In addition to the teaching in the weekdays, the largest adult Bible Class in the world (Mr Hogg believed) is held on the Sunday when he has an average attendance of 650 young men in one class.

In England it (the word Polytechnic) was first applied to a peculiar type of institution that endeavoured to combine recreation and the development of an interest in popular science (3).

(3) Wood, op. cit., A History of the Polytechnic, p 21

[page 38]

The sharp contrast between the thinking behind the English educational system and that which existed in many continental countries can further be illustrated by reference to what the Germans called 'Schulwesen' - the school idea. Schulwesen illustrates that the Germans had a highly structured overall conception of the purpose and function of education at all levels. It presents a clearly defined system, with alternative routes for specialist education and training, and displays a high degree of State involvement with education (1).

Dr Bauernfeind, Director of the Munich Polytechnic, provided the RCTI with a diagram of the Bavarian educational system (see page 39) which shows how the scheme was thought through. It illustrates the comprehensive provision for all stages and grades of education for children and young people from the ages of six to twenty-two (2). There was a ladder from the elementary schools into secondary schools, on to the university or polytechnic. Fachschulen, or special training schools, Baugewerschulen for the training of workmen and apprentices in the building trades, and lndustrieschulen, all provided further education for those who could benefit. For those children who left school at thirteen there were in the State 244 continuation schools, which provided a part-time compulsory three-year course of general and commercial education.

On page 39a is a somewhat idyllic diagram published in 1920 by Middlesex County Council's Education Committee (3). The 'map' illustrates the scheme of education for Middlesex under the 1918 Education Act. This was produced some thirty-five years after Dr Bauernfeind presented the chart of the Bavarian system to the Commissioners. The theme behind the Middlesex

(1) RCTI, op. cit., p 423 (2nd Report)

(2) ibid, p 414

(3) Middlesex County Council Education Committee, Scheme of Education for Middlesex under the Education Act, 1918, published 1920, Vol. 21, p 72

[page 39]

Middlesex County Council was created in 1889 following the Local Government Act of 1888. The former geographical County of Middlesex had included the whole of London north of the River Thames, and the County was administered from Clerkenwell. From 1889 the seat of County administration was situated at the Middlesex Guildhall, outside the administrative County boundary in Parliament Square, Westminster (1).

The administrative area of the newly created London County Council (LCC) included parts of the geographical counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent. The area of Middlesex administered by the LCC was also the area with the highest concentration of population, industry and commerce. Thus under the 1888 Act, both the size and the character of the County changed significantly. Previously an area which included growing industrial and commercial centres, it was transformed into a County existing very much in the shadow of London. In the last decade of the nineteenth century, Middlesex, with no significant industry and an inadequate internal transport system, was largely dominated by London. Middlesex, and the east of the County particularly, became a service County to the capital, supplying both labour and materials (2).

Until 1903 there was no significant industrial development in the area covered by the newly created County. The County's productions were almost entirely agricultural, not manufactured. Only small local industries had developed in the County in the nineteenth century. For example, there

(1) C Radcliffe, Middlesex, pp 74-5

(2) M Robbins, Middlesex, pp 43-58

[page 51]

was a wax candle factory at Teddington, a tannery and glue-boiling plant at Brentford, and a small-arms factory at Enfield, but the only useful raw material to be found in the county was brick earth, and the brick and tile industry based in Willesden supplied London with basic building materials (1).

In spite of slow industrial development in the county, the population increased by nearly 36% between 1891 and 1901(2), whilst the overall population of England and Wales increased by only 12% (3):

During this decade, Middlesex was providing an overspill area for the population of London, with large numbers of people moving out to the urban districts of Tottenham, Willesden, Ealing and Edmonton in the east of the county (4). However, in spite of the large number of people travelling daily into London to work, the census statistics for 1901 indicate that the largest category of employees in the county were females engaged in domestic work; the second largest category were males employed in the building trades (see Appendix IV).

(1) Robbins, op. cit., p 51

(2) Figures taken from Middlesex County Yearbooks for 1891 and 1901

(3) A Wood, Nineteenth Century Britain, p 449

(4) Robbins, op. cit., p 50

[page 52]

Transport in Middlesex at the end of the nineteenth century made it easier to travel from Middlesex into London than from one part of the county to another. The arterial road system had not been developed, but seven major railway lines ran through the county, and a system of workmen's trains, running from various centres in the county into London, provided cheap and efficient transport. By the end of the century there were fifteen 2d return trains running from Middlesex into London (1).

Such was Middlesex at the end of the nineteenth century: a newly created county council, overshadowed by London, and certainly with no immediate or pressing incentive to make large-scale provision for technical instruction. The problems Middlesex faced in interpreting and implementing the Technical Instruction Act were succinctly expressed by Benjamin Gott, the Organising Inspector of Technical Education in Middlesex, when in 1898, he made the following observations about developing the provision of technical instruction in the county:

Large numbers of the working male population go to London for business, having often to travel considerable distances to and from work.

The difficulty of travelling in Middlesex, except to and from London, is considerable.

There are few important industries in the county.

A considerable proportion of the population are engaged in commerce, i.e. the distributing rather than the manufacturing of goods (2).

(2) Middlesex Technical Education Committee (TEC) Minute Book 7, p 9

[page 53]

Middlesex County Council's Technical Education Committee (TEC) held its first meeting on 28th April 1892, three years after the Technical Instruction Act had been passed by Parliament. The time lapse between the passing of the Act and its implementation at a local level was not unusual: London County Council, for example, did not establish a similar committee until 1893, and still other counties were forming such committees as late as 1895 (1). The Act came at a time of national administrative reorganisation; each newly created county council was concerned with establishing the machinery necessary for the effective administration of their county's affairs. Technical instruction was but one of many aspects of council administration.

The Technical Instruction Acts and the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act were noted by Middlesex County Council shortly after they had been passed by Parliament (2). No comments are minuted, and no action was taken until the Council received its first payment of the whisky money in 1891. Thus whilst the Council were prepared to ignore the provisions made by the 1889 Act, immediately they received £20,300 whisky money, they were forced to acknowledge some responsibility for technical instruction.

In the first instance, matters relating to technical education were referred to the Council's Finance Committee. No specific reason is given as to why the Finance Committee assumed this responsibility: certainly they were no more and no less qualified to plan the provision of technical instruction than any of the Council's standing committees. In fact it appears

(1) NAPTSE Yearbooks, 1893 and 1895

(2) Middlesex County Council (MCC) Minute Book 2, p 89; MCC Minute Book 3, p 18

[page 54]

that the initial responsibility for planning a scheme of technical instruction for the County became theirs only by default. Part of their function was to advise the Council on the allocation of the County's resources. As, from 1891, the whisky money became a part of those resources, so by extension technical instruction became a part of their responsibilities.

Whilst the Council remained complacent, government legislation had not passed unnoticed by those already involved with technical instruction in the County. Indeed, it would appear that the Council responded more to the pressure of local demand than to the Act itself. The Finance Committee noted that between November 1890 and October 1891, 23 applications for grants in aid of technical instruction had been received by the Council (1). The applications came from a wide variety of bodies, and provide evidence of the broad spectrum of subjects which - at least for Middlesex - could be defined as technical instruction.

Letters were submitted by the Middlesex Dairy Farmers Association, the County Museums Association, school boards, local boards, the British and Foreign School Society, the Middlesex Bee-Keeper's Association and the Middlesex Horticultural Association. The letters were acknowledged but applicants were informed that grants would not be made available until the Council had formulated an official policy on technical instruction (2). It may be expected that those directly concerned with education would be eager to lay claim on the whisky money, but the applications received from outside the traditional education sector - bee-keepers, dairy farmers and the Horticultural Association - suggest a long-established and well-organised rural community, concerned to improve its standards of training.

(1) MCC Minute Book 3, p 253

(2) ibid, p 254

[page 55]

Significantly, the small industrial community made no claims at this stage, and no mention is made of them in the early minute books.

In February 1891 the County Council formally acknowledged the need to consider the implications of the Technical Instruction Acts. It was resolved that the Finance Committee should report "as to the best means of dealing with any future grant arising out of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act", and that they should further consider:

the best means of affording instruction in agriculture, horticulture, and fruit culture to males, and plain cooking, sewing, house cleaning and nursing to females within the county (1).

Most significantly, the list of subjects suggested for instruction reflects the Council's perception of technical education as required by Middlesex. Although industry was scarce in the County, needs and demands could have been sought out at a local level. Furthermore, the County accommodated a large number of people who were actively engaged in commerce and industry in London. Yet the Council's interpretation of the situation reflects only the rural aspect of the County, whilst also recognising the number of females employed in domestic service.

(1) MCC Minute Book 3, p 226

(2) ibid, p 227

[page 56]

It is evident from the Finance Committee minutes that some members were more eager than others to forge ahead with a plan for technical instruction. In July 1891 County Councillor Garrett proposed a motion that a circular letter should be sent to all school boards, institutions offering science and art classes and all local boards requesting information on the nature of the demands for technical instruction. The circular was to include a list of possible subjects - including carpentry, printing, typewriting and electrical engineering - and respondents would be asked to state what other subjects they thought would be most suitable to the needs of their locality (1). The motion further suggested that respondents should put forward:

the names of a few ladies and gentlemen who, if requested, would be willing to serve on local committees under the Council, and whether any voluntary financial aid can be obtained (2).

Whilst Councillor Garrett's proposals in this respect reflect the Council's attitude, the general theme of his motion, suggesting immediate and positive action, ran counter to the Council's approach to technical instruction. His motion was defeated unanimously (3).

(1) MCC Minute Book 3, p 221

(2) ibid, p 222

(3) ibid, p 224

[page 57]

In October 1891 the Finance Committee presented its first full report on technical instruction to the County Council. It was noted that 35 institutions, schools or classes in Middlesex offered technical instruction, but no information was given on the nature of the demands for technical instruction (1). The report continues with pessimistic caution:

Your Committee are informed that, in many other counties where schemes for technical instruction have been adopted, the results which have attended the operations, and the expenditure of considerable sums of money, have not been satisfactory, or fulfilled the anticipations of the Council promoting the schemes ... Your Committee are extremely desirous that, in the event of any sums being appropriated for technical instruction in Middlesex, the money should be carefully and wisely expended, and that large sums should not be frittered away in some scheme of distribution which may not be productive of any practical good (2).

The most positive recommendation to come from the Finance Committee was that a sub-committee should be established, comprising the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of both the County Council and the Finance Committee, together with representatives of each parliamentary division, whose sole purpose was to propose a scheme of technical instruction -

(1) MCC Minute Book 3, p 256

(2) ibid, p 257

(3) NAPTSE, op.cit., 1891 Year Book, pp 5-7

[page 58]

which will be likely to meet any requirements of the County, to produce the best results, and to involve an economical expenditure of the funds which the County has power to apply for the purpose (1).

no part of the proceeds of the Beer and Spirits duties to which the Council is entitled in respect of the current year be apportioned to technical instruction (3).

(1) MCC Minute Book 3, p 259

(2) ibid, p 261

(3) ibid, p 262

(4) ibid, Book 4, p 23

[page 59]

The recommendations of the sub committee were accepted by the Council, and a letter was immediately sent to the Science and Art Department requesting that the subjects listed below be sanctioned under clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act as being "required by the circumstances of the district" (1).

In the following month, the Council received confirmation that all these subjects had been sanctioned (2).

Within only a year, the concept of technical education in Middlesex had expanded to include commercial subjects, craft skills, and engineering. Whilst the need for training in 'domestic subjects' had been acknowledged from the outset, the simplistic notion that "agriculture, horticulture and fruit culture" (see page 55) would form the basis of instruction for the working male population of the County had been proved wrong. Although bee-keeping, poultry keeping and horticulture were included in the list, they are outnumbered by the emphasis on commercial subjects. A true picture of the needs of the working population of Middlesex was beginning to emerge.

(1) MCC Minute Book 4, p 45

(2) ibid, p 63

[page 60]

The Technical Education Committee was appointed in March 1892, and the Committee were entrusted with:

the completion of a scheme for Technical Education, and the control and supervision of the working of such a scheme as the Council may approve (1).

No further terms of reference were issued to the TEC, and the outline of its work, as stated in (1) above, seemingly gave the Committee carte blanche to innovate, implement and control technical education within the County. The only restriction was that their scheme should meet with the approval of the County Council. No apparent limitations were placed on the Committee in terms of expenditure, the nature of the technical education to be provided, or the machinery which they were to establish to ensure effective control of their scheme.

The Science and Art Department had sanctioned the teaching of nineteen subjects "required by the circumstances of the district" (3) without question, although it is important to note that thirty-five subjects of a more general nature had already been granted a similar sanction and were being offered by schools and other institutions throughout the country (4).

(1) MCC Minute Book 4, p 65

(2) ibid, p 67

(3) Technical Instruction Act, 1889, clause 8 (see Appendix lII)

(4) Blanchet, op. cit., p 245

[page 61]

There was no reason why Middlesex should not apply for additional subjects to be sanctioned as demands arose: the fact that the Science and Art Department approved all nineteen of the subjects initially requested suggests that the Department would have been generously amenable to further proposals. Middlesex patently failed to take full advantage of this fact.

The TEC met for the first time on 28th April 1892, and held monthly meetings until it became a part of the MCC Education Committee in 1903, following the 1902 Education Act (1). For the first five years, the Committee did not appoint a permanent official, advising, planning and directing technical education within the County. This role was performed jointly by the fourteen county councillors elected to the TEC, and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council. No matter how well-intentioned the members of the TEC were, their commitment to technical education was not necessarily either an informed or a full-time one. Membership lists of the various Council standing committees show that most TEC members also served on other committees (2), and they undoubtedly had personal business matters, or even full-time employment to attend to. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that the TEC sought advice from other counties who were undoubtedly faced with problems akin to those confronting Middlesex with regard to technical instruction.

It was not until 1898 that the TEC subscribed to the NAPTSE (3), by that time a nationally recognised source for information on English technical education. After the appointment of Benjamin Gott in the same

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 1 and TEC Minute Book 15, p 160

(2) MCC Minute Book 4

(3) TEC Minute Book 6, p 207

[page 62]

year (see pp 67-70) the Committee's approach became more expansive, but for the first five years the TEC's attitude towards its work was predominantly parochial and insular.

Middlesex County Council were empowered to reject the TEC's recommendations, but not once did this happen: the composition of the TEC ensured that a

moderate line was adopted at all times. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the County Council, together with county councillors serving on other Council committees, were fully aware of the Council's overall attitude, and would therefore be unlikely to recommend schemes which their Council would reject. Thus it can be seen that whilst ostensibly the TEC were given almost total freedom, in reality that freedom was limited by the nature of the Committee's membership.

The committee structure of the TEC, and the relationships between the various committees, is illustrated in diagrammatic form on page 63. The structure changed in 1898, with the general sub-committee assuming increased responsibility.

During its ten-year life-span, the work of the TEC falls into three main categories: introducing and administering a scholarship scheme; aiding and modernising endowed secondary schools within the County; and providing a system of part-time day and evening classes in subjects approved by the Science and Art Department. In fact, the provision of technical and manual instruction per se formed only part of the Committee's work: in the broadest possible terms, technical instruction became a method by which a diverse range of post-elementary education could be improved and extended.

[page 63]

[page 64]

The Committee set out to achieve these objectives by spending a portion of the annual whisky money allocated to the County, and by keeping their power to levy a penny rate for technical instruction strictly in reserve. The frugality with which the whisky money was spent, and the caution with which the TEC always kept well within their estimated annual expenditure, can be seen from the table on page 66. At no stage was more than two-thirds of the whisky money spent on technical instruction, the remainder being applied to rate relief. Whilst at a national level the government's attitude towards technical instruction can, in part if not in whole, be ascribed to the widely held doctrine of laissez faire, a similar explanation was no longer valid at a local level. Money had been made available, and with or without the 1d levy, Middlesex was fully entitled to spend that money on technical instruction. Instead the County chose to apply the money both to technical instruction and rate relief.

In 1898 Benjamin Gott, the Organising Inspector of Technical Education, presented a report on the present provision of technical instruction in the County with suggestions as to how the work should be extended (1). Here, for the first time, a representative of the TEC outlined precisely how much whisky money had been allocated to Middlesex, and how much was in fact being spent on technical instruction.

On a national level it appears that Middlesex was one of the least generous authorities. In 1897, £827,000 had been allocated to all county councils from the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Fund, and a total of £752,000 had been spent across the country on technical education.

(1) TEC Minute Book 6, pp 189-195

[page 65]

The amount allocated to "general county purposes" (rates, etc) in the whole of England was £75,000, and the greater part of this was confined to only three counties: London, Middlesex and Gloucester (1).

By 1898, 94 of the 100 counties and county boroughs were devoting all their whisky money to technical education (2). The figures on page 66 indicate that Middlesex did not conform to the national norm, and at no stage did the Council expend all the available money on technical education. In the same year 70% of all authorities were levying a 1d rate in aid of technical education: Middlesex was never included in this number (3).

The penny-pinching attitude adopted by MCC in 1891 (see pages 57-8) was reflected by the parsimonious attitude of the TEC. It is difficult to determine precisely why this attitude prevailed. A possible reason is that membership of the TEC comprised elected county councillors: representatives of local districts elected largely by ratepayers. To be successful in re-election, they were obliged to adopt policies which would please their electors. Under the circumstances, any outright recommendation that the total amount of whisky money should be spent on technical education would have proved inauspicious; it was politically expedient to support the policy that a portion of the whisky money should be applied to rate relief. Even so, Gott's figures suggest that the majority of other councils did not have this problem, or that if the problem existed they chose to come down firmly on the side of technical instruction.

(1) TEC Minute Book 6, p 190

(2) ibid, p 192

(3) ibid, p 193

[page 66]

Estimated and Actual expenditure figures extracted from TEC Annual Reports to MCC (TEC Minute Books for appropriate years).

Whisky money figures taken from Annual Report of MCC Finance Committee (MCC Minute Books for appropriate years).

[page 67]

Reference has already been made to Benjamin Gott, the man appointed as Organising Inspector of Technical Education in Middlesex in 1898. His influence can be seen from the date of his appointment, and before looking in detail at the TEC's work, the implications of Gott's appointment will first be considered. In July 1897 the Special Sub-Committee recommended that:

steps be taken with a view to obtaining the services of a competent educational expert, with experience in the work of organisation, with a salary of £300 per annum, and that it be referred to the Scholarship Sub-Committee to draw up a list of his duties (1).

The post of Technical Education Organising Inspector was advertised in The Times, The Athenaeum, Nature and the County Council Times in October 1897. Applications were invited from candidates who were to be qualified -

as regards all questions connected with technical and secondary instruction, and who must have had experience in educational training and the work of organisation (2).

(2) ibid, p 230

[page 68]

Eighty-two applications were received from all over the country. Applicants ranged from those holding similar posts with other councils to teachers, instructors and university lecturers (1). Benjamin Gott was chosen from eight short-listed candidates. Aged 32, Gott gained a first class Science Tripos from Cambridge in 1886. He taught in board schools in Bradford, and after working for three years as senior science master at Cheltenham Grammar School, was appointed headmaster of Science and Technical Schools in Cheltenham (2).

Gott took up his post with MCC in January 1898, and was made responsible for overseeing the work within the purview of the TEC (3). Although he was required to "carry out the directions of the TEC" (4), the indications are that Gott did not wait to be directed, but took upon himself considerable initiative, anticipating events rather than awaiting instruction.

The most notable evidence of Gott's presence appears in the form of reports, summaries and recommendations in the minute books. Up to December 1897 there is one TEC minute book for each year. After Gott's appointment minute books cover six and sometimes only four-month periods. The quantity of minutes and reports produced by the TEC at least doubled after January 1898, and the additional contents stem largely from reports initiated by Gott.

Only a month after his appointment, Gott presented reports on five areas of the TEC's work, together with a general policy paper on centralisation and the appointment of lecturers (5). The keynote throughout is uniformity:

(1) TEC Minute Book 5, pp 235-7

(2) ibid, P 235

(3) ibid, p 239

(4) ibid

(5) TEC Minute Book 6, pp 28-56

[page 69]

uniform methods of teaching, uniform rates of payment for teachers, uniform fees and uniformity of local committee administrative procedures. Whilst he recognised that the nature of technical education within the County was necessarily diverse from district to district, he sought to introduce systems which would encourage professionalism and efficiency. The general policies which he proposed would help to unify the work of otherwise disparate groups of people, functioning largely in isolation.

Aside from his regular monthly reports to the General Sub-Committee, Gott was responsible for producing the first Technical Instruction Directory for Middlesex in 1899 (1). The Directory, thereafter published annually, set out the aims and objectives of technical education under the 1889 Act. It listed the facilities offered at various centres and gave comprehensive coverage of all the work within the purview of the TEC.

As an employee of the County Council, Gott was delegated to attend meetings and conferences outside the County, representing the County' s interests and reporting back on developments in technical education at a national level (2). He therefore operated at both a local and a national level, on the one hand visiting classes, inspecting equipment and looking in detail at specific areas of local work, on the other attending national conferences on behalf of the TEC. The range of his work was enormous, and he undertook each task with informed enthusiasm and expertise.

(1) TEC Minute Book 6, pp 87-96

(2) ibid, Book 7, pp 367-9; Book 10, pp 231-2; Book 12, p 101

[page 70]

Such was the volume of work generated by Gott that in 1899 a full-time assistant was appointed (1), and in the following year a shorthand typist was also engaged (2). When, in 1901, the General Sub-Committee proposed that Gott's salary should be increased to £400, it was reported that Gott "has been continually occupied in his work from nine in the morning until ten and eleven at night" (3). That Gott was appointed Secretary to the County's Education Committee in 1903 confirms the Council's confidence in this remarkable man (4). However, it must be remembered that no matter how enthusiastic and professional was Gott's attitude, he was confronted with a group of essentially cautious people who did not share his enthusiasm for technical instruction. Ultimately he was responsible to the TEC, and time and again they proved the major stumbling block in implementing his proposals.

(1) TEC Minute Book 8, p 241

(2) ibid, Book 10, p 303

(3) ibid, Book 12, p 89

(4) MCC Education Committee Book 1, p 1

The TEC's first major task was to consider the most appropriate means by which the working population of the County could be given the opportunity to receive instruction in the subjects sanctioned by the Science and Art Department. It has already been seen that Middlesex covered an area where people were engaged in a variety of occupations ranging from agriculture to industry (see pages 50-51). To the east of the County were the densely populated areas of Willesden, Acton, Hornsey, Tottenham and Enfield where, aside from local industry, the working population travelled to London and were employed mainly in commerce or industry. The west of the County remained predominantly rural. Thus technical instruction had a different significance for individual areas: many subjects relevant to Tottenham and Willesden would have been inappropriate in rural Staines or Uxbridge.

Classes would, of necessity, be offered on a part-time basis, mostly in the evenings, and the sixteen TEC members could not realistically assume total responsibility for the detailed organisation and administration of technical instruction at this level across the County. It was clear from the outset that if such provision was to be made, the Committee would be required to delegate a large amount of work. This had already been hinted at when the Council's Finance Committee were considering the case for technical instruction (1).

The TEC decided that the most efficient means of providing technical instruction at a local level would be achieved by dividing the County into districts, and enlisting the assistance of local representatives who were to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of classes (2).

(1) MCC Minute Book 3, p 220

(2) TEC Minute Book 1, pp 5-11

[page 72]

It was agreed that the County' s Urban and Rural Sanitary Authorities should be grouped together within the seven parliamentary divisions of the County. Fifteen local committees were formed: three within the Enfield parliamentary division, and two in each of the remaining six parliamentary divisions (1). The table on page 73 illustrates how this was achieved.

The TEC resolved that the membership of each local committee should comprise the County Aldermen and County Councillors residing within the district who were not members of the TEC (usually four on each committee) plus an apparently unrestricted number of "other suitable persons" whose names were put before the TEC for consideration (2). In 1894, members of the TEC were also made ex-officio members of their local committee (3).

Two points emerge from the composition of local committees. Firstly, the central core of each committee comprised County Council members who were bound to represent the interests of the Council. Thus the Council's influence and interests percolated right down to grass roots level. The second point concerns the "other suitable persons" chosen to serve on local committees. The TEC clearly made the point that local committees should be thoroughly representative in character (4). Here was an excellent opportunity to bring a degree of expertise, enthusiasm and commitment to the work of the TEC.

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 6

(2) ibid, p 9

(3) ibid, Book 3, p 298

[footnote 4 is missing]

[page 72a]

Whilst the classes organised by local committees provided facilities for part-time technical instruction for the working population of the County, the 1891 Technical Instruction Amending Act (see page 48) enabled technical education committees across the country to offer full-time scholarships at secondary and other post-elementary institutions within or outside their county. Scholarship holders were expected to follow courses with a scientific or technical bias, but as technical education had been so widely interpreted, it was possible that scholars could follow the normal secondary school curriculum, providing that it included science subjects. Although it is not directly stated, it appears that this section of the Act was designed more to encourage the study of science in secondary schools than to aid technical or manual instruction.

There were no organised science schools in Middlesex (1): had this been the case, the County's scholarship scheme could have been based on providing scholarships to these schools, where the curriculum was oriented towards the sciences rather than the arts. In fact, it appears that the County's scheme, as originally conceived by the TEC, basically provided a means by which boys, some of whom would otherwise have completed their education at the elementary stage, could continue their studies at secondary or grammar schools. In 1893 fifteen County scholarships were offered for competition to boys wishing to attend selected secondary schools. By 1902, Middlesex supported a total of one hundred and twenty eight scholars, the scheme having been developed to include teacher training, modern language and gardening scholarships. The scholarship scheme expanded, but in so doing it moved further and further away from manual or technical instruction.

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 351

[page 96]

Responsibility for organising the scholarship scheme was given, in the first instance, to the Special Sub-Committee (1). By the end of 1892 a Scholarship Sub-Committee was appointed, and in 1898 scholarships became the responsibility of the General Sub-Committee (2). The Special Sub-Committee's first task was to survey secondary and grammar schools within and outside the County in order to establish which schools provided the most appropriate facilities for the proposed Middlesex County Scholars. School headmasters were to be interviewed, in order to ascertain:

whether it would be feasible to found at these schools scholarships for the benefit of the children in aid of whose advancement the technical instruction grant ought to be applied (3).

Whilst the teaching of the theory of science and the principles of sound, light and heat is generally of a high standard, laboratories and workshops consist of classrooms, many of which have not been properly converted, with inadequate apparatus and unsuitable equipment (4).

(4) ibid, p 111

[page 97]

Thus it would appear that although science had entered the school curriculum, emphasis was still placed on theory rather than practice: a reflection of earlier nineteenth-century attitudes towards practical instruction outlined in Chapter 1.

Overall, the Committee's report is pessimistic. The general standard of science and technical education was low, and the Committee were only able to recommend five schools - one outside the County - where scholarships might "with advantage " be founded. Each of these schools was given a grant to improve laboratory and workshop facilities, and the TEC reserved the right to withdraw the scholarships if the money was not appropriately used within the following year (1).

The TEC faced a dilemma. Having decided to institute a scholarship scheme, it found that there were few suitable schools within the County at which scholarships could be founded. At this point, another aspect of the TEC's work becomes relevant. Under section 1(d) of the 1889 Act, technical education committees were empowered to make grants to secondary schools and other institutions in order to "aid the supply of technical instruction" (see Appendix III). In order to operate the scholarship scheme, the TEC had, perforce, to make grants to schools. Whether or not this would have happened independently of the scholarship scheme cannot be surmised, but is is clear that in proposing such a scheme the TEC, by accident rather than design, committed itself to aiding science and technical instruction in secondary schools. Before looking at the detailed provisions of the scholarship scheme, it would seem pertinent to look briefly at this aspect of the TEC's work.

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 113

[page 98]

The TEC made its first direct payments to secondary schools in 1893. Five schools (Latymer School, Edmonton, Enfield Grammar School, the Lower School of John Lyon, Harrow, Tottenham Grammar School and Tiffins School, Kingston, Surrey) were each given £100 for the immediate improvement of their workshop and laboratory facilities, and it was further agreed that an annual sum, not exceeding £200, should be paid to each school for the general improvement of workshop and teaching facilities (1).

In accordance with section 1(e) of the 1889 Act, the TEC were entitled to be represented on the governing bodies of all schools and institutions to whom they allocated grants. Here was an opportunity for the Committee to become instrumental in formulating the policies of secondary schools and other educational establishments in the County. TEC members could make themselves, and the work of the Committee, known to headmasters and other governors who were largely to determine the nature of post-elementary education in Middlesex. However, the appointed TEC governors made neither written nor oral reports to the Committee. Where they could have been innovating development, the absence of reports suggests that they performed only the basic duties required of them.

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 113

[page 99]

Over the course of the next ten years similar grants were made to other schools and institutions, sometimes in the form of a block grant for a specific purpose, and on other occasions in the form of a regular annual sum (1). A significant feature of the 'grants in aid' scheme is that at no stage did the TEC actually suggest to an institution that it might profitably benefit from financial assistance. In all cases grants were received only after the institution or school made a written application to the Committee requesting, and on occasion demanding, help. Assistance was not always forthcoming. Following the initial application, TEC representatives inspected the institution, and recommendations were subsequently made to the main Committee.

All the evidence indicates that, in this respect at least, the TEC were responding to pressure rather than directly influencing change. The Committee's illiberal attitude, its outright meanness, and its unimaginative approach is nowhere better exemplified than in the way it failed to promote technical instruction in schools and other institutions. All manner of alternatives present themselves. The Committee could have allocated a portion of its annual grant to such work, and circulated appropriate institutions informing them that this money was available. Using their discretion (which they undoubtedly had, according to the apparently informed way in which they selected scholarship schools), funds could have been apportioned to deserving institutions. They could have actively sought out and encouraged institutions to provide efficient technical instruction. Instead, they sat back and waited.

(1) Figures given in TEC Annual Reports to MCC

[page 100]

Many applications were received between 1893 and 1902, the most persistent coming from St. Peter's Institute, Staines. In December 1893 the Institute made an application for a grant of £100 (1). Committee members visited the Institute and subsequently reported that there were approximateIy 300 students on the roll, most of whom worked at a large factory in the area. The work of the Institute was both social and educational, run much along the lines of Quintin Hogg's Polytechnic (see pages 36-7):

There is a gymnasium, a band, football and boating clubs ... the existence of these induces a large number of youths who would not otherwise do so to attend the classes. The subjects vary from session to session and include drawing and chemistry. The application is to enable additional classes to be started ... in metal working, steel turning and brass finishing ... for the benefit of youths working in a neighbouring factory (2).

Four years later, in 1898, the TEC received a petition, signed by over 200 "leading figures" in Staines. The petition demanded a grant of £500

(1) TEC Minute Book 2, p 189

(2) ibid, p 190

(3) ibid, p 408

[page 101]

to effect modifications and additions to the buildings which would enable the Institute to offer a wider range of subjects (1). The focal point of the petition - that more technical classes should be provided - was largely ignored by the TEC, who felt that the £100 annual grant was "adequate for the circumstances of the district" (2). It appears that events at St. Peter's Institute did not receive Gott's attention, possibly because he had only been in post for two months when the petition was received, but in the light of his general attitude towards technical instruction, it seems unlikely that Gott would have supported the TEC's action on this issue.

Overall, the grants in aid scheme is the least satisfactory of the provisions made by the TEC. Although expenditure in this area increased from £800 in 1893 to approximately £9,000 in 1902 (3), there is little evidence that much thought was given to the way in which the money was being used. Of the £9,000 allocated in 1902, over £6,000 was received by the three polytechnics in the County, and there is no doubt that the TEC, and Gott in particular, encouraged the work and expansion of these institutions. But whilst the polytechnics were expanding, secondary schools and smaller institutions were largely neglected.

At the outset, the underlying purpose of these grants was to ensure that the County could offer scholarship places at schools mainly within Middlesex. With this objective in mind, the TEC sought in ensure that selected schools were suitably funded. Decisions on grants other than

(1) TEC Minute Book 6, p 33

(2) ibid, p 34

(3) ibid, Book 2, p 70; Book 14, p 285

[page 102]

those made to polytechnics and secondary schools were made in an arbitrary fashion depending, it seems, very much on the mood and inclination of the Committee, and the persistence of those requesting grants.

In 1893, the first County Scholarship examinations were held. Fifteen scholarships were offered, through open competition, to boys aged between eleven and thirteen (1). The scholarships, tenable for three years, included school fees, the scholar's railway fare to and from his school, and £10 a year maintenance. It was specified that candidates must have resided in the County for three years, and should have achieved the 5th standard in the Education Code.

Mr George Buckle, a master at the Borough Road College, Isleworth, was appointed examinations officer, and was required both to prepare and mark papers (3). As a condition of employment, Buckle submitted annual reports to the TEC on the outcome of the scholarship examinations. He performed this task with meticulous detail, analysing results by subject and by geographical area, giving harsh criticism where he considered appropriate, and always presenting a thorough and comprehensive report. Examinations were held annually at a centre in each of the seven parliamentary divisions of the County. Notices giving details of the scholarships and dates of examinations were sent to all school boards, elementary schools and school attendance committees in the county (4).

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 315-17

(2) ibid, p 315

(3) ibid, p 188

(4) ibid, p 315

[page 103]

Aside from the work of local committees, it appears that this was the chief means by which the public in Middlesex learnt of the TEC and its work. Scholarships were very much the prestige part of the Committee's work: a disproportionate amount of time, effort and expenditure went into a scheme which, initially at least, provided only fifteen scholarships.

The most significant point to emerge from the first scholarship examinations is the candidates' choice of subjects and the subject groupings. Freehand drawing and arithmetic were compulsory, but there was a choice between geography or history, and English grammar or elementary science. Geography and English proved by far the most popular subjects (1):

That history and geography should be offered as alternatives seems quite logical. Under the payment by results system geography had been more widely taught than history: it was an easier subject in which success could be calculated in advance, for it comprised mostly rote learning in the form of memorising maps, names of towns and cities and other material which did not involve the application of written skills. History proved a more difficult subject to teach under the payment by results system: it involved a more thoughtful approach to learning, and the application of written skills. However, it is more difficult to understand why candidates

(1) TEC Minute Book 1, p 375

[page 104]

were given a choice between English grammar or science. The former had been a standard subject on the elementary school curriculum for many years, the latter was a relatively new subject. One was a science, the other an art subject. Whilst scholarship holders were to attend schools where the teaching of practical science and technology formed an important part of the curriculum, the indications are that science was much neglected both in elementary and secondary schools. Scholars were selected on their general ability rather than on their aptitude for science and technology.

When the scheme was first introduced, teachers were eager to enter as many candidates as possible. However, in 1896 the number of candidates had dropped by 92, and Buckle commented that:

In former years the work of a large percentage of the boys showed that their attainments were not of a kind to enable them to benefit by the secondary education offered through the scholarships. In recent examinations the proportion of incapables is very small, and the candidates as a body show both greater knowledge and increased power in expressing it ... Teachers now calculate more closely the chances of success of their pupils, and those whose fortunes are desperate are discouraged from entering (1).

(1) TEC Minute Book 7, p 221

(2) ibid, Book 1, p 375; Book 10, p 239

(3) Figures extracted from Buckle's reports to the TEC for the appropriate years

[page 105]

It is interesting to note that the two compulsory subjects, Drawing and Arithmetic, averaged the highest and the lowest marks respectively. Drawing in fact comprised mostly drawing from objects and technical drawing, and again was a subject well taught under the payment by results system. However, the same theory should apply to the teaching of mathematics: an answer was either right or wrong, and although Buckle consistently emphasised the overall low standard of mathematics, it is difficult to understand why this was so. A further point of interest is that the average marks for the two least popular subjects, science and history, are higher than the alternative subjects, English grammar and geography. Whether a sliding scale had been adopted to encourage children to take these subjects is not known, as at no stage does Buckle clarify how "standards" were arrived at. Thus whilst one can speculate about the significance of these figures, it is difficult to draw any specific conclusions.

[page 106]

At first sight the figures suggest an overall improvement in the standard of elementary school teaching in Middlesex in the last decade of the century, but this impression could be misleading. It has already been noted that teachers were becoming more selective in entering candidates, thereby improving the average marks. Also, it was suggested by Gott that the more enthusiastic schools in the County were training their pupils specifically for the scholarship examination (1).

Little information is available about the boys' backgrounds, or their subsequent careers. However, in 1894 Buckle listed the scholars' parents' occupations, and from this list it is clear that the boys came from both working and middle-class homes (2). Although a letter from one grateful father in 1896 indicates that his son would have left school at twelve had it not been for the "kind generosity of the County Council" (3), it is not possible to draw the conclusion that scholarship boys came exclusively from poor families. At no stage was it stated by the TEC (or indeed by the 1889 Act) that the parents' income should be below a certain level, and it may well be the case that scholarships were as much a subsidy to middle-class children's schooling as the only method by which boys from poor homes could enter secondary education. In this instance, the Act clearly failed to include a general incomes policy in its scholarship provisions. Although it was the case that scholarships provided an incentive for some working class children, equally they were providing a subsidy for post-elementary middle-class education.

(1) TEC Minute Book 9, p 71

(2) ibid, Book 2, p 249

(3) ibid, Book 4, p 86

[page 107]

In 1896, when the first group of scholars were in their final year at secondary school, the scholarship scheme was extended to include a higher scholarship. The scholarship, offered by a competitive examination to all final-year county scholars, was tenable for two years at the City and Guilds of London Institute (1). The immediate fate of the first higher scholarship boy on completion of his course was not a happy one, and highlights the peculiar difficulties at this time of entering the engineering profession on the strength of educational achievements at non-graduate level (2). The scarce distribution of industry in Middlesex compounded the difficulty.

In October 1898 the City and Guilds Institute wrote to the TEC requesting that they extend Walter Jeffrey's scholarship to a third year. Their letter states that Jeffrey had qualified at eighteen as a mechanical engineer, but could not find employment in Middlesex. The Institute wished him to qualify as an electrical engineer, for which it was claimed they could guarantee employment. Jeffrey's father also wrote to the TEC stating that his son could not get a mechanical engineering apprenticeship without payment of a large lump sum as a premium, and that he would receive practically no wages during his apprenticeship. It appeared that his son would be forced to take a job as a clerk, for which the Board School 7th Standard, attained before Jeffrey took up his first scholarship, was an adequate qualification. The TEC adopted an uncharacteristically generous attitude, granting Jeffrey £25 (half the sum of the higher scholarship award) which allowed him to continue his studies for a further year (3).

(1) TEC Minute Book 3, p 232

(2) C L Old, The Engineer and Society in Victorian Britain, pp 9-10

(3) TEC Minute Book 4, pp 231-32

[page 108]

In 1898 the boys' scholarship scheme was further extended in an attempt to encourage scholarship holders to enter teaching. Each junior scholar was given the opportunity of continuing his training at a teacher training college, subject to him becoming a teacher in Middlesex at the end of his training. The scholarships were of £30 a year, tenable for two years at "any suitable training college", and there is no indication that the boys were obliged to study technical subjects (1). It appears that in this instance the TEC were concerned with raising the number and standards of the County's teaching establishment: technical and scientific instruction were peripheral to the scheme, and the TEC were becoming increasingly concerned with other forms of post-secondary education.

The question of secondary school scholarships for girls was raised in 1893, but the matter was dropped on the grounds that no suitable schools were available for scholars (2). It was typical of the TEC's attitude that no suggestion was made to improve existing facilities at girls' schools in the County. However, an alternative proposition was agreed in the following year, when ten teacher training scholarships were offered to girls. The scholarships, £25 a year for two years, were tenable at "training colleges or other institutions supplying efficient technical instruction" (3). In this instance, technical instruction meant the domestic subjects, which were widely taught to girls in elementary schools, and the scholarship girls were obliged to teach in Middlesex elementary schools at the end of their training. Scholars

(1) TEC Minute Book 7, pp 25-6

(2) ibid, Book 1, p 110

(3) ibid, Book 2, pp 279-280

[page 109]

were selected from those who had been awarded the highest marks in the Queen's Scholarship Examination, and in 1894 ten "Middlesex girls" (as they are referred to in the Minute Books) took up places at colleges in Middlesex, London and Cambridge (1).

By 1900 the total number of scholarship places had more than doubled, and the total cost - £300 for fifteen junior scholars in 1893 - had increased to approximately £1,710 a year. The scheme had been extended to include girls, although "Middlesex boys" had the advantage over the "Middlesex girls", who were awarded £5 a year less than the boys. Whether this was positive discrimination or simple oversight is hard to say, but it seems unlikely to be the latter.

In 1900 the Middlesex scholarship scheme was revised. The origins of the changes made can be seen in a report presented by Gott in 1899 (2). In the introduction to his report, Gott states:

If all boys and girls are to have equal opportunity to obtain a sound general education, it becomes necessary to have a comprehensive system of scholarships offering an opportunity to any specially able boys or girls in elementary or other schools to equip themselves for their life's work, by obtaining a sound secondary education (3).

(1) TEC Minute Book 2, p 394

(2) ibid, Book 10, pp 71-79

(3) ibid, p 71

(4) ibid

[page 110]

Whilst it is worthy of Gott to pursue the issue of equality of opportunity, it is quite clear that total equality was impossible given the rigid class structure of nineteenth-century Britain: equality was an unrealistic concept at that time. Secondary education could be bought by those who could afford it; working class children had to be academically superior to their middle class counterparts in order to gain access to post-elementary education, and even then the provision was small and highly competitive. Gott also implies that there should be equal provision for both girls and boys, but in the event this was not to be the case.

The Report proposed that whilst the existing teacher training scholarships should continue, the scheme should be expanded to include twenty junior scholarships (12-16 years), twenty intermediate scholarships (16-18 years) and five senior scholarships (18-20 years). Gott made the point that such a scheme had been successfully initiated by the London Technical Education Board in 1896, and he saw no reason why Middlesex should not imitate their scheme (1).

The proposals were carefully costed, and presented to the General Sub-Committee, but they were immediately referred back to Gott for modification, on the grounds that the scheme was too costly (2). The original scheme was rejected at a time when over £13,000 of the available whisky money was being used for rate relief (see page 66). The proposed scheme would have cost £3,190; the modified scheme cost £2,244.

(1) TEC Minute Book 10, p 75

(2) ibid, p 97

[page 111]

Twenty-one junior scholarships were awarded (fifteen for boys and six for girls); there were seven intermediate scholarships (five for boys and two for girls) and the one higher scholarship remained (1). Only twenty-eight school scholarships were being offered throughout the County, and those were not exclusively for children who would otherwise have been denied the opportunity of secondary education. London had six hundred junior scholars, seventy intermediate scholars and five senior scholars in 1900 (2); Middlesex's provision was pitiful by comparison.

In spite of its meanness, the TEC made one small concession to local requirements. The County School of Gardening at Edmonton had written to the TEC requesting that a small number of scholarships should be made available to boys "who might otherwise be deprived of the opportunity of study" (3). Three scholarships of £15, tenable for two years, were granted and it was left to the Principal of the School to determine which students were to receive assistance.

In an effort to improve the standard of modern language teaching at a local level, Gott suggested that some form of scholarships should be made available to teachers employed by local committees. His recommendations had been rejected by the General Sub-Committee until 1902, when it was finally agreed that a maximum of three exhibitions should be awarded to modern language teachers (4). The exhibitioners, chosen

(1) TEC Minute Book 10, pp 170-71

(2) ibid, p 75

(3) ibid, Book 11. pp 393-4

(4) ibid, Book 14, pp 76-7

[page 112]

by Gott, were to reside at an approved centre in France or Germany for a period of not less than four weeks during the summer vacation. The exhibition took the form of payment of fares, plus £12 towards the cost of residence. It was hoped that "the language benefits derived from these visits will improve the standard of modern language teaching throughout local districts in the County" (1). That these exhibitions were finally awarded was no mean achievement - Gott had pressed for them for four years. But they were only awarded because one individual persistently badgered the TEC.

The TEC's scholarship scheme, and its grants to endowed schools and institutions, reflects a meanness and lack of imagination which was characteristic of the Committee's attitude towards technical instruction throughout. Whilst at a local level committees were prepared to take some initiative, at a County level, the TEC remained cautious and penny-pinching. By 1902 scholars and exhibitioners receiving financial assistance from the TEC numbered 128; in London the number of school scholarships alone amounted to nearly 700 in 1900. London was spending all its whisky money on technical instruction, and applying the 1d rate (2). Unlike the majority of County Councils, Middlesex was spending less than two-thirds of its whisky money, keeping its power to levy a 1d rate strictly in reserve. With Sidney Webb as its Chairman, the London Technical Education Board was both progressive and generous; Middlesex TEC was conservative and parsimonious by comparison.

(1) TEC Minute Book 14, p 17

(2) ibid, Book 10, p 75

[page 113]

Had Middlesex been more enterprising, the TEC would have taken advantage of the opportunities which existed in the LCC's secondary schools. Sidney Webb had encouraged the interchange of students in counties adjoining London (1), and the Act made full provision for scholars to attend schools outside their county. The TEC patently failed to exploit this opportunity.

The TEC were a group of novices in the field of technical education who worked for five years without expert and professional guidance. By the time Gott was in post, the foundations of their work had been laid. The most he could do was to build on ground prepared by amateurs who were concerned more with economy than with technical instruction.

Although the London Technical Education Board had been slow in implementing technical instruction under the 1889 Act (see page 53) between 1893 and 1895 their time was purposefully spent. The Board was formed in 1893, and for two years it met at regular intervals, discussing, debating and ultimately determining a scheme for London (2). This was their period of planning, researching and of formulating a long-term policy which could be effectively implemented after 1895. Middlesex TEC characterised the opposite approach, initiating a scheme with little foresight, with a degree of reluctance, and certainly with no overview of future growth and development. Until Gott's arrival in 1898 developments in Middlesex were haphazard and shortsighted. Even after this date far-sighted plans were tempered by the TEC's cautious attitude.

(1) TEC Minute Book 5, p 22

(2) Blanchet, op. cit., p 331-2

In 1903 the work of the TEC drew to a close. The Education Act, passed by Balfour's Government in 1902, required Middlesex County Council to re-structure and expand the provision of all levels of education, and particularly post-elementary education, in the County. Under the 1902 Act, school boards were abolished and their responsibilities were transferred to two kinds of local authority - Part II and Part III authorities. Part II authorities were the county and county borough councils that took responsibility for both elementary and secondary education; Part III authorities were those non-county borough and urban district councils that took responsibility for elementary education, but left the administration of their secondary education to the appropriate county council (1). Middlesex County Council was a Part II authority, and within the County there were twelve Part III authorities.

As the TEC had been the only Council committee concerned solely with education, they were charged with the responsibility of drawing up an overall plan for the development of elementary, secondary and technical education, and teacher training within Middlesex. The Committee welcomed the new legislation which finally recognised the need for a national system of secondary education, for so much of their work over the previous ten years had been restricted by the inadequate provision of post-elementary education. Indeed, from the enthusiasm and eagerness expressed by TEC members when discussions on the 1902 Act were taking place, it is difficult to imagine that it was largely the same group of people who had somewhat reluctantly generated a scheme of technical education in Middlesex over the previous ten years. Their attitude towards the 1902 Act suggests

(1) J S Maclure, Educational Documents in England and Wales, p 149

[page 115]

a group of people dedicated to the cause of education, who were prepared to go to great lengths to ensure that "the County of Middlesex makes the finest provision for education in the country" (1). Technical education, it would seem, had been a burdensome and uninspiring area of work; formulating an overall policy for education presented the TEC with a real challenge. Their ideal, that all education in the County should come under one single authority, was opposed by those who preferred to retain a degree of local independence for elementary education, rightly theirs under the Act. But in spite of this, the justification for a predominantly centralised County scheme of education could not be questioned.

The TEC were now to consider all forms of education, of which technical instruction was only a small part. Their immediate concern was not so much to produce a new scheme of technical instruction, but to structure elementary and secondary education in Middlesex with a view to improving general educational standards. By implication, the growth of technical instruction was an integral part of the overall plan, and because of their acquaintance with technical and science-oriented teaching in Middlesex schools, a large part of the Committee's discussions on the 1902 Act centre around ways in which this area of work could be improved. Technical instruction, which had previously developed in isolation, could now become an integral part of the elementary and secondary school curriculum.

(1) TEC Minute Book 15, p 50

[page 116]

In December 1902 the Board of Education issued Circular 470, which outlined the powers and duties of County Councils under the Act. It stated that Councils were to "promote the coordination of all forms of education", and with reference to higher (including technical) education, they were to:

consider the needs of the area and to take such steps as seem to them desirable after consulting the Board of Education to supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary (1).

The education authority should be in charge of primary and secondary education, because the greatest difficulty Middlesex County Council have had to contend with in connection with technical instruction is the inefficiency of elementary education. Our elementary schools are filled with students whose knowledge of elementary maths, science and drawing is not sufficient for them to properly benefit from a course of technical instruction (3).

(1) TEC Minute Book 13, p 101

(2) ibid, pp 137-142

(3) ibid, p 139

[page 117]

A meeting was convened between representatives of the TEC and borough councils. Its purpose was to convince Part III authorities that a centralised scheme of elementary education would be of greater benefit than a fragmented scheme. The meeting lasted for three hours, and from the outset it was quite clear that the Council were not to achieve their objective. Part III authorities remained unconvinced of the advantages of one single educational authority for Middlesex: they preferred local autonomy, and the freedom which that autonomy implied (1).

The scheme for Middlesex County Council Education Committee, including Part II and Part III authorities, was published in March 1903. The Education Committee was organised into sub-committees to administer the various branches of education within the County: Elementary Education, Higher Education (secondary, technical and further education and teacher training), Finance, and Sites and Buildings. Alderman Regester, the TEC's first Chairman, was elected Chairman of the Education Committee, and Gott was elevated to the post of Secretary (2). Robert Morant, Permanent Secretary at the Board of Education, and the éminence grise behind the 1902 Act, addressed a letter to the Clerk of Middlesex County Council informing him that the Education Act would come into force on 1st June 1903, and that local education authorities should carry out their duties from that date (3).

(1) TEC Minute Book 13, pp 78-109

(2) MCC Education Committee Minute Book 1, p 1

(3) TEC Minute Book 15, p 160

[page 118]

The work of the Technical Education Committee had come to an end, the Technical Instruction Acts had been repealed, and the TEC's function was to be carried out by the Higher Education sub-committee. Through local committee work, and through their scholarship and grants in aid scheme, the TEC had already become involved in secondary and further education and teacher training. This was how they chose to interpret the Technical Instruction Act, and although at first sight it might appear that technical instruction would be neglected amidst other forms of post-elementary education, in fact the 1902 Act defined and sanctioned work which the majority of technical education committees had already undertaken (1). Technical instruction had come to mean much more than the teaching of craft skills.

The TEC's influence did not die. The Higher Education sub-committee included eight members of the TEC (2), and the man largely responsible for laying the foundations of technical education in Middlesex continued to direct the pattern of education in the County until his retirement in 1928. He was knighted in 1926, and at a ceremony to mark his retirement, Sir Benjamin Gott reflected:

When I came I was put into a room with a table and a chair, and I do not think the officials knew what I had come for, but I knew (3).

(3) Middlesex County Times, 21st January 1928, p 3

[page 119]

In appointing Benjamin Gott Organising Inspector of Technical Education in 1898, the TEC had acquired the services of a man of vision who was to devote the remainder of his working life to promoting education in Middlesex. Mr J Fielding, a retired Principal of Kilburn Polytechnic, who was working in the MCC Higher Education Department in the 1920s, still has vivid memories of Benjamin Gott:

I recall Gott as a short, stout, bald man with a clipped moustache, rushing from office to office, with his jacket off and his shirt sleeves rolled up to his elbows. He came to the office to work, not to issue orders from on high. He spoke to everyone, junior clerks, office cleaners, and senior county officials, and always showed respect and concern for individuals. He would call meetings at a minute's notice, and would use anyone who showed the remotest interest in education as a sounding board for his latest idea.

When we left the office at 6.00 in the evening, one light was always on, and it sometimes remained on till after midnight. It was the light in Sir Benjamin's office. His energy was boundless. He was a man of great integrity, and in spite of the mass of paper work which he had to deal with, he retained an imaginative and far-sighted approach to education (1).

(1) From a recorded interview with Mr J Fielding, 18th June 1977

In seeking to evaluate the success or failure of Middlesex County Council's Technical Education Committee, it is important to establish criteria by which the Committee's work can be judged. If time and space permitted, and if other sources of information were readily available, the generally pessimistic tone of the conclusions drawn throughout the second half of this special exercise might be modified. In the first instance, most of the information has been drawn from minute books, which are, by the nature of their language and the presentation of their material, restrictive and limited. How carefully were the minutes edited before they were presented for signature? how deliberately selective and biased are their contents? how much was debated which was never recorded? These, and many similar questions face the researcher when she is working from such sources of information.

Whilst a vast amount of the material contained in the minutes has necessarily been excluded from this text, even that which remains appears overburdened with administrative detail, much of which could be discarded as trivia. Yet this is the impression given by the minute books, and the constant emphasis on administrative detail reflects their tone throughout. Many fundamental questions remain unanswered: who were the teachers? did they have any part in formulating the curriculum in the early days of local committees? where were the industrialists, and why were they not more vocal? was the scholarship scheme really providing opportunities for poorer children? what type of employment did the scholars enter? Most importantly, where is a definitive statement on Middlesex's attitude towards technical instruction? Negative conclusions have (perhaps wrongly) been drawn in the absence

[page 121]

of further information. However, the justification for these conclusions rests with the overall impression of the TEC, as they are represented in their minute books. Their obsession for detail and their overriding concern for economy prevented them from perceiving technical instruction in its widest perspective. One is left with the impression that the TEC, with the exception of Gott, failed to get down to grass roots level: they remained detached and aloof from the reality of technical instruction in Middlesex. Here were a group of senior council officials, holding monthly meetings to discuss technical instruction at offices outside the County boundary in Westminster. The location of their meetings in itself removed them from the reality of Middlesex.

Various alternatives present themselves as a means by which the findings of this special exercise could have been further developed. By contrasting Middlesex with a similar county a more sympathetic interpretation may have evolved. Constant comparison with London in many ways presents an unfair picture, for London was beyond doubt the most progressive Technical Education Board. Yet London's influence cannot be ignored. A detailed study of the London Technical Education Board's minutes might have explained why Middlesex made such frugal provision for technical education: it could well be the case that many Middlesex people pursued courses of technical instruction in London before they returned home from work. Others who worked in Middlesex may have chosen to go into London for classes, knowing that the facilities were superior to those of Middlesex. Whilst it would have been injudicious for the TEC to commit itself to a statement to the effect that they were only too pleased to relinquish a large part

[page 122]

of their responsibility for technical instruction to the London Technical Instruction Board, the possibility that this attitude pertained must be borne in mind.

Looking to the future, a detailed study of the Higher Education sub-committee might also place the work of the TEC in a new perspective. The fact that Middlesex Polytechnic, now the largest polytechnic in the country, is situated in the east of the County with sixteen sites spread around the Boroughs of Hendon, Enfield and Barnet, is not without significance (1). The optimist could argue that the seeds of this Polytechnic were sown by the TEC. Likewise , Kilburn Polytechnic (which has now merged with Willesden Polytechnic) is a thriving centre of learning. Retaining the characteristics of the old-style polytechnics, it offers a variety of practically-oriented courses in technology and commerce (2). But no matter what generous reflective attitudes may be developed, the fact remains that in the last decade of the nineteenth century, Middlesex was one of the least ambitious, most conservative counties with respect to the provision it made for technical instruction. Synonyms for mean and cautious have been exhausted in attempting to describe the TEC's attitude.

If blame is to be apportioned on the basis of the material which has been researched, it would seem fair to start with the terms of the 1889 Technical Instruction Act. In the first instance, the Act was permissive rather than compulsory, and it may be concluded that Government had

(1) Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, Committee Papers, 1977/St/51

(2) Kilburn Polytechnic Prospectus, 1977

[page 123]

made a negative decision to acquiesce to the demands of a pressure group, and not a positive decision to vigorously encourage technical instruction. The Act in itself was a compromise, and Middlesex in turn made further compromises. At its crudest, the Technical Instruction Act had been formulated without plan or method, and Middlesex interpreted the Act likewise. Many attempts had been made to look at the nature of the problem of technical instruction, but after years of investigation and enquiry, Government proposed a scheme which, in the event, did little to cater for the problems which had been identified.

Government schemes are all very well, but in order to implement a scheme, effective machinery must be established. Bearing in mind that county councils had only been created one year before the Technical Instruction Act was passed, was it reasonable to assume that all county councils were either ready or sufficiently expert to implement the Government's scheme? Having delegated the responsibility for technical instruction to county councils, Government made no attempt to monitor their progress: whisky money was duly allocated, and from that point Government washed its hands of further responsibility. Newly-created county councils became self-monitoring, and it could be argued that Middlesex was not yet ready to assume this responsibility. It was left to an independent pressure group, the pressure group who were responsible for legislation on technical instruction, to monitor further developments. But the NAPTSE were essentially a group of spectators: they had no legal power to force county councils to take any action whatever.

[page 124]

The key to determining the success or failure of the Act rests with the interpretation of technical instruction. It has already been stated that the words 'instruction' and 'education' were used indiscriminately: the Act used the word 'instruction', yet county councils created technical 'education' committees. On one level, technical instruction could be interpreted as the application of science to industry - in this connection, Millis provides an adequate definition (see page 2). Much emphasis had been placed on the teaching of science, which was logically seen as a prerequisite to the application of technology. Yet the Technical Instruction Act permitted an entirely new definition of technical instruction.

In formulating the Act, Government faced two basic alternatives. On the one hand, it could have chosen to interpret technical instruction along the lines which the City and Guilds Institute had previously adopted, and in so doing promoted both practical and theoretical craft instruction. Instead, basing its interpretation on the work of the Science and Art Department, Government chose to offer a wider definition whereby technical instruction embraced the study of 'modern' as opposed to 'traditional' subjects. Although the word 'technical' was still used, its former meaning became largely redundant under the terms of the Act. 'Technical' now meant modern languages, commerce, science, teacher training, and where local demands so required, other subjects such as agriculture. It also embraced technology, but this was only a part of the new, 'modern' education.

It would be unfair to criticise Middlesex for misinterpreting technical instruction: an interpretation had already been implied by the wording of the Act. Although Middlesex can rightly be accused of meanness

[page 125]

and lack of enterprise, the nature of the education provided for under the Act was similar to the provisions made by other county councils: only the quantity of that provision can be questioned. However, the original definition of technical instruction, and the crying need for State support in this area remained pertinent. Government patently failed to make adequate provision for the teaching of craft skills, and Middlesex failed to compensate in any way.

Thus whilst criticism must be levelled against Middlesex, in the final analysis the TEC only reflected Government's ill-defined, tentative approach. Britain had achieved so much in the early nineteenth century with so little education that she felt no need to create the educational infrastructure which her potential competitors were building in advance of their industrialisation.

In her address to the Royal Society, Professor Gowing pointed to two fundamental reasons to explain why science and technology were so neglected in Victorian Britain (1). In the first place, the problem was quite simply that of money: neither the State nor industrialists were prepared to subsidise technical instruction. Even when the Samuelson Report of 1868 recommended that some money should be made available, they were quick to point out that State aid should be temporary, and that its complete withdrawal would best demonstrate its success.

The second reason cited by Gowing is England's obsession with social class. Whilst the importance of training artisans was finally acknowledged, those ranking below or above that status were largely ignored. No provision was made for either managers or workmen to be educated

(1) Gowing, op. cit., pp 80-86

[page 126]

and trained at the State's expense. The great public schools for the upper classes retained a strong bias in favour of the classical and literary culture, and when public or grammar schools introduced a 'modern' side, it was despised as inferior and commercial, a fit preparation only for the lower walks of life (1). Eminent engineers rapidly acquired high social positions and great influence, but as individuals, without raising the status of their profession. Gowing continues:

In some other European nations class divisions were as rigid, and in France, for example, much more bitter. But in no other Western country did the class differences prevent scientific and technical education from permeating national life (2).

(1) Royal Commission on Secondary Instruction, PP 1872, Vol 25, question 1734, cited in Gowing, op. cit., p 82

(2) Gowing, op. cit., p 84

(3) Bryan Davies MP, letter to The Times Higher Education Supplement, 28th January 1977

[page 127]

Technical education retains its advocates; the relationship between industry, education and the State is widely debated; industrialists continue to accuse educationalists of failing to produce people whose skills and knowledge equip them for life in an industrialised society. The pessimistic words of Dr Michael Fores of the Department of Trade and Industry appropriately conclude this special exercise:

To the aristocrat in all of us Britons, the market is really rather a nasty place, unless it deals in historical relics or obvious necessities like food. I still think that our culture is faulty because it biases a ranking of occupations, by esteem, too far away from making useful artefacts, and too near to the fine arts and science too.

Arnold Toynbee, in his last book, claimed, as a true upholder of British cultural assumptions, that feelings, thoughts, institutions, ideas and ideals are all "more important manifestations of human nature than technology". And so we slip from crisis to crisis (1).

(1) Dr M Fores , letter to The Times Higher Education Supplement, 9th March 1977

1. MS Primary Sources

Greater London Record Office, Middlesex Section:

Middlesex County Council Minutes, Vols 1-22, 1889-1902
Middlesex County Council Technical Education Committee Minutes, Vols 1-15, 1892-1903
Middlesex County Council Education Committee Minutes, Vol 1, June-December 1903

2. Printed Primary Sources

(a) Greater London Record Office, Middlesex Section:

Middlesex County Council Education Committee Minutes, Vol. 21, 1920
Middlesex County Yearbooks, 1891-1902
National Association for the Promotion of Technical and Secondary Education in England and Wales Yearbooks, 1892-1903

(b) House of Lords Records Office:

Report of the Samuelson Inquiry Commissioners on Technical Education, 1867, PP 1867, Vol 20
Reports of the Royal Commissioners on Technical Instruction, PP 1882, Vol 27, and PP 1884, Vols 29-31
Technical Instruction Act, Statutes at Large, 52 and 53 Vict., 1889
An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Technical Instruction, Statutes at Large, 55 Vict., 1891
Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Act), Statutes at Large, 53 and 54 Vict., 1890

[page 136]

(c) British Museum Newspaper Library:

The Times, 13th October 1851 and 16th May 1884
Middlesex County Times, 21st January 1928

(d) Polytechnic of Central London Library:

Magnus, P, Educational Aims and Efforts, London: 1910
Magnus, P, Industrial Education, London: Keegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1888
Wood, E M, Quintin Hogg, A Biography, London: Nisbet & Co., 1904

3. Secondary Sources

Books

Argles , M, South Kensington to Robbins, London: Green & Co., 1964
Ashby, E, Education for an Age of Technology, in Singer, C, et al, A History of Technology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958
Bagley, J J and A J, The State and Education in England and Wales, 1833-1968, London: Macmillan, 1969
Cardwell, D S L, The Organisation of Science in England, London: Heinemann, 1922 (revised edition)
Foden, F, Philip Magnus, Victorian Educational Pioneer, London: Valentine Mitchell, 1970
Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire, London: Penguin, 1977, (revised edition)
Jackson, A A, Semi Detached London, London, George Allan & Unwin, 1973
Maclure, J S, Educational Documents, England and Wales, 1816 to the Present Day, London: Methuen, 1973, (revised edition)
Millis, C T, Technical Education: Its Aims and Development, London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1925
Radcliffe, C, Middlesex, London: Evans Brothers Ltd., 1939

[page 137]

Robbins, M, Middlesex, London: Collins, 1953
Saul, S B, The Myth of the Great Depression, 1873-1896, London: Macmillan, 1969
Taylor, A J, Laissez-faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth-Century Britain, London: Macmillan, 1972
Van der Eyken, W, Education, The Child and Society, London: Penguin, 1973
Wood, A, Nineteenth Century Britain, 1815-1914, London: Longman, 1973 (revised edition)
Wood, E M, A History of the Polytechnic, London: Macdonald, 1965

Articles, Journals, Periodicals, etc.

(a) Published

Argles, M, "The Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, 1881-1884, Its Inception and Composition", in The Vocational Aspect of Secondary and Further Education, Vol XI, No 23, 1959, pp 97-104
Gowing, M, "Science, Technology and Education: England in 1870", in Records of the Royal Society, Vol 32, 1977
Kilburn Polytechnic Prospectus, 1977
Musgrave, P W, "Constant Factors in the Demand for Technical Education, 1860-1960", in British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol XIV, No 2, May 1966, pp 173-87
Musgrave, P W, "The Definition of Technical Education, 1860-1910", in The Vocational Aspect of Secondary and Further Education, Vol XVI, No 34, 1964, pp 105-11
The Times Higher Education Supplement, 28th January 1977 and 9th March 1977

(b) Unpublished

Blanchet, J, Science, Craft and State, 1867-1906 (PhD thesis)
Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, Committee papers 1977, St/51

[page 138]

Old, C L, The Engineer and Society in Victorian Britain, paper presented to the Council of Engineering Institutions, 1965

(c) Oral evidence

Interview with Mr J T Fielding, 18th and 19th June 1977