UNESCO and a World Society (1948)

This pamphlet set out Britain's response to the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, whose constitution was adopted in London on 16 November 1945.

The complete document is shown in this single web page. You can scroll through it or use the following links to go to the various sections.

Preface (page 4)
I Introduction (7)
II The history and structure of UNESCO (10)
III National organisation (13)
IV The division of the programme (17)
V UNESCO's programme in Britain (25)

Appendices

I Committees, Sub-committees and National Co-operating Bodies (29)
II Donors of Unesco Fellowships in the UK (46)

The text of UNESCO and a World Society was prepared by Derek Gillard and uploaded on 9 June 2022.

UNESCO and a World Society (1948)
Ministry of Education Pamphlet No. 12

London: His Majesty's Stationery Office 1948
Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.


[cover]


[title page]

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND THE
SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT



UNESCO

and a World Society





Ministry of Education Pamphlet No. 12





LONDON
HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY 0FFICE
1948


[page 3]

CONTENTS

PREFACE4

I INTRODUCTION
7

II THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF UNESCO
10

III NATIONAL ORGANISATION
13

IV THE DIVISION OF THE PROGRAMME
17

V UNESCO'S PROGRAMME IN BRITAIN
25


APPENDICES

I. Committees, Sub-committees and National Co-operating Bodies
29

II. Donors of Unesco Fellowships in the United Kingdom
46


DIAGRAMS

Figure 1. Position of Unesco among other organs of the United Nations

facing page

10

Figure 2. Organisation of the Central Unesco Secretariat in Unesco House, Paris, 1947
12

Figure 3. Organisation of the Committees for Co-operation with Unesco in the United Kingdom
15


[page 4


PREFACE

Extract from the Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

"LONDON, 16th NOVEMBER, 1945

THE GOVERNMENTS of the States parties to this Constitution on behalf of their peoples declare,

that since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed;

that ignorance of each other's ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war;

that the great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races;

that the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern;

that a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the world, and that the peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.

For these reasons, the States parties to this Constitution, believing in full and equal opportunities for education for all, in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, are agreed and determined to develop and to increase the means of communication between their peoples and to employ these means for the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of each other's lives.


[page 5]

In consequence whereof they do hereby create the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for the purpose of advancing, through the educational and scientific and cultural relations of the peoples of the world, the objectives of international peace and of the common welfare of mankind for which the United Nations Organisation was established and which its Charter proclaims.

ARTICLE I

Purposes and Functions

1. The purpose of the Organisation is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations.

2. To realise this purpose the Organisation will:

(a) collaborate in the work of advancing the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication and to that end recommend such international agreements as may be necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image;

(b) give fresh impulse to popular education and to the spread of culture;

by collaborating with Members, at their request, in the development of educational activities;

by instituting collaboration among the nations to advance the ideal of equality of educational opportunity without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic or social;

by suggesting educational methods best suited to prepare the children of the world for the responsibilities of freedom;

(c) maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge;
by assuring the conservation and protection of the world's inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science, and recommending to the nations concerned the necessary international conventions;

[page 6]

by encouraging co-operation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity, including the international exchange of persons active in the fields of education, science and culture and the exchange of publications, objects of artistic and scientific interest and other materials of information;

by initiating methods of international co-operation calculated to give the people of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them.

3. With a view to preserving the independence, integrity and fruitful diversity of the cultures and educational systems of the States Members of this Organisation, the Organisation is prohibited from intervening in matters which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction."




[page 7]


I. INTRODUCTION

THERE have always been many reasons for feeling that it is an unfortunate thing that none of us lives for very long. Mr. Bernard Shaw, as well as doing his best to break the rule, has made the most convincing case for the need for longevity if wisdom in human affairs is to be achieved. Doubtless this will come, but meanwhile our generations are like the tiny dots that make up a photographic reproduction, and we ourselves cannot stand back to see the whole picture. If we could, the League of Nations, the United Nations and their now bewildering progeny of which Unesco is one, would probably appear as a part of a long irresistible movement, one of those movements like the ridges of an Atlantic swell that, running almost too large to be seen among the choppy surface waves, have the power to toss the Queen Elizabeth.

Presumably these attempts at world co-operation will in time become visible, side by side with world creeds such as Marxism, as part of the reaction from a period of extreme nationalism. The reduction of the size of the globe by modern transport and communications, its unification through economic interdependence, are ideas already worn bare. This other change is something far more profound and difficult to detect. Transport and communications were considerably worse in the early Middle Ages than in the 17th century, yet Christendom was a mighty reality in human life within which scholars moved freely and as a matter of course from university to university and had Latin to enable them to talk and dispute with their brothers. By the 17th century a strong individualism had been effected by the strengthening of national boundaries and a great weakening of wider loyalties. Latin though still used, for example by Sir Isaac Newton, was dying as the universal tongue of learning, and by its neglect scholars and scientists were cutting themselves off from one another. So by the 19th century there was a tendency for men to be neatly stowed in national boxes and to be Englishmen and Frenchmen before they were Christians or scholars or scientists.

No, transport and communications and even economics are secondary to deeper and less mechanical forces. When, however, the tide has turned at these deeper levels, then modern developments do, of course, become important. They mean that the whole earth must


[page 8]

be involved, nothing so limited as medieval Christendom will do. Steppes, deserts and the Seven Seas need no longer be of any account once something in the heart of human society has changed. It may be that the widest view of all is this: that whereas in the beginning tribesmen were very much a part of one another and of nature, after the most intense isolation of man at the Renaissance, we are now in process of becoming members of a world society conscious of the singleness of man and of the universe.

But this is a pamphlet about Unesco, and if none of these generalities is irrelevant, they have gone on long enough. Unesco has been placed as a small element in some movement that is still only partially visible, yet already sufficiently evident to claim the loyalty of the most perceptive. For them the clue phrase may be this one of a world society. Certainly there are members of the Unesco Secretariat who are denying themselves the assured happiness of a creative life within their own subjects and instead are enduring the difficulties and thwarts of administration for no other reason than this, that they feel they must work towards the achievement of the world society. They hold to the belief that even if this particular attempt is defeated and Unesco falls, the idea will go on and their efforts will be incorporated in later ones even as, on the material plane, the books collected by the old International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation are now on the shelves of the library in Unesco House.

As a first step along a narrower path, it may perhaps be useful to consider Unesco's place among other United Nations Organisations. So far as structure is concerned, it is so clearly shown in the diagram that few words are necessary. Unesco is one of the eleven Specialised Agencies which, though largely autonomous and of independent membership, are recognised as stemming from the Economic and Social Council, side by side with its own nine Commissions. Naturally, Unesco has an established relationship with the other Agencies whose work must sometimes overlap its own, and plays its part also in undertaking tasks for the special Commissions. For the present, however, we are not concerned with questions of structural relationship but rather with an attempt to compare Unesco's nature with that of the other Organisations in order to get some understanding of its distinctive difficulties and opportunities.

The first distinction that must strike anyone meditating on the line of names is the relatively vast range of Unesco's responsibilities. How simple, how manageable telecommunications and civil aviation look beside education, science and culture, and even labour, food and agriculture, and trade, though obviously vast, are at least more or less homogeneous, have their boundaries even if they are long ones. It


[page 9]

would hardly be untrue to say that there is no end to education, science and culture. Another striking difference is that while every other Agency deals with material things, or the symbols of material things, whether they are men, corn, credits or microbes, Unesco alone must manage a flock of spirits, spirits that can produce practical results certainly, but are themselves the elusive things that live in the minds of men. These spirits are black and white; the first the Devil's party of hatreds, prejudices and ignorance that have to be exorcised, the second the sympathies, common interests and enjoyments that are of Unesco's party.

Responsibility for immaterial forms ranging an unbounded territory certainly gives Unesco a more elusive task than that confronting any other Agency, but it also has one great compensating advantage. This is the long tradition of internationalism that already exists over a large part of Unesco's range. No other Organisation can command the spells that lie in names like Socrates or Beethoven, spells which wherever they are heard melt men into a sense of unity through time and space. They have nothing like the communion of artists, teachers, scholars and scientists throughout the world. No diplomats or statesmen can speak so many languages as a great painting or a symphony.

Once, at a meeting of the History Committee of the former Inter-Allied Ministers Conference that was the precursor of Unesco, the Chairman, that stout North Countryman Sir Ernest Barker, gave it out that a certain well-known and loved scholar, a member of the Committee, had had to resign. Immediately a curious sigh of regret ran round the table where the representatives of a dozen nations sat. When, however, the news was given them that a distinguished French savant had agreed to take his place, the sigh was followed by a quick exclamation; everyone spontaneously smiled or laughed with pleasure. This kind of emotion, it may be said, is limited to the few for whom their education and culture have done most. But there is the experience of innumerable societies and congresses to prove that a strong common emotion can also unite students and young people, an emotion based on a sense of a shared inheritance and a future to be shared. Unesco's task is both to keep open the sources of education, science and culture by helping the work of those individuals from whose minds and hands they must perennially flow, and to spread the stream as widely as possible. This spreading can be achieved through the best teaching of the rising generation and also of adults throughout the world who have been denied early education; by the use of newspapers, books, cinemas and wireless to reach all those who will read, look or listen.


[page 10]

If, with Unesco's help, the other United Nations Organisations with their responsibility for the material and political bases of life, can secure a prosperous peace, then to Unesco will come the good fortune of increasing the flowers of human existence. It is these flowers, all the incredible variety of creative expression, springing alike from tribes hidden in the jungle and from empires covering half the known world, that make the true unity of mankind as buttercups, put out by thousands of individual plants, make a yellow summer meadow.

II. THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF UNESCO

An attempt has now been made to explain what Unesco is about, and it is time to give a more straightforward account of what it is. Britain has a very special place in its history, for it was the initiative of Mr. R. A. Butler as Minister of Education and his officials that led to the setting up of the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, the modest forerunner of Unesco. This Conference was established as early as 1942 and was an act of faith in a return to peace and civilisation. It had ten original Member States, and eight States, including Russia, were represented by observers.

No better account of the next phase can be given than that contained in the Report of the Director-General of Unesco for 1947:

"The germinal idea behind Unesco arose from the Council of Allied Ministers of Education and contemplated an international educational agency. It speedily became clear that education should not be separated from the culture which it is designed to transmit, and the provisional title proposed to the Constituent Conference in London in November 1945 was the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organisation - UNECO. At that Conference, however, it was pointed out that only in a loose and broad sense could culture be taken to include science, especially applied science; and UNECO thus became UNESCO. It was also pointed out that if UNESCO were to exert a more powerful and more extended influence than its forerunner, the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, and become an organisation of peoples instead of one

[foldout sheet facing page 10]

[click on the image for a larger version]


[page 11]

only of Governments and intellectuals, it must also concern itself with the methods which alone can ensure the wholesale spread of information and culture and exert a mass influence on opinion - modern printing, wireless and cinema; and the whole field of Mass Communications was accordingly added to its territory".
So Unesco was conceived, but, in the course of nature, could not be immediately brought to birth: 1946 was occupied by the work of the Preparatory Commission, Unesco's life opening only in December of that year when the First General Conference was held in Paris to the accompaniment of a feast of the arts and intellectual discourse such as only that city could have provided. Forty-one states signed the Final Act of Unesco* and since that time applications for membership have been welcomed from four neutral or ex-enemy countries, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Hungary. Russia has declined to join on the grounds that such a body as Unesco should not be semi-independent and autonomous but an integral part of the United Nations Organisation. Not very long before the Paris Conference the central Secretariat had moved from London to Paris to take up its permanent quarters in what had been the Hotel Majestic in the Avenue Kleber.

No Preparatory Commission is ever likely to prepare everything, and the First General Conference had to work exceedingly hard to set the Programme of Work in order. Delegates and their advisers seldom went to bed for more than a few hours, and there was an unusual atmosphere of excitement. It was at this time that the vital decision was taken that Unesco should immediately undertake some activity in as many as possible of the innumerable divisions of education, science and culture, as well as in the field of mass communication. Many people consider this decision to have been the right one, but for better or worse it was taken and, as an expression of the will of all the Member States, it should not be ignored by those educationists in this country who still complain that Unesco is diffusing too widely the energies and resources which they would like to see concentrated on their own more narrowly educational interests. Unesco has accepted the challenge that education, science and culture are indivisible and in so doing has accepted great difficulties and great possibilities.

The delegates to the Conference established the general line of policy, and left the Programme in far better shape than they found it, yet inevitably they broke up leaving a vast amount to be done, more

*Documents Relating to the Second Session of the General Conference of Unesco, Mexico City. H.M.S.O. Price 1s. 6d.


[page 12]

[click on the image for a larger version]


[page 13]

particularly the trying, unspectacular work of fitting the Budget to the demands that were made upon it. This final ordering and budgeting of the Programme, together with the labour of designing an administrative machine and finding suitable staff, fully occupied the Secretariat, and it would indeed be amazing if it had not done so, for the early months of 1947. It was not until April when the results of the work could be approved by the Executive Board that Unesco can be said to have become a living body ready for action.

Only six months later, the Secretariat had to throw itself into preparations for the Second General Conference to be held on the other side of the globe at Mexico City. This Second Conference, a memorable affair for all who took part in it, worked with good will to comb the still somewhat dishevelled Programme that had emerged from Paris and its immediate aftermath. In large measure it succeeded. The *Programme for 1948, though so wide that it will evidently have to be developed piecemeal, is a workable one and gives the Secretariat and all the Member States a clear objective. It is to be hoped that future General Conferences will not have to make such drastic revisions, but merely guide and correct a steadily developing Programme. The total budget allowed by the Conference for expenditure in 1948 is a little less than 2,000,000.

The structure of the Unesco Secretariat is shown in the second diagram which again needs little explanation except for the distinction between the Programme Section and the General Programme Projects. The Programme Section is made up of groups dealing with working subjects, art, museums, education and so on. Men are trained to work in these fields, and it is within them that they know their job and are in touch with professional colleagues in other countries. On the other hand, Unesco has accepted certain large duties to which all these special subjects can contribute, and the most important of these, fundamental education, international understanding, and reconstruction, are distinguished as General Programme Projects and each is looked after by its own branch within the Secretariat.

III. NATIONAL ORGANISATION

This then is the design of the Secretariat which, under the guidance of Dr. Julian Huxley, the Director-General, works in Paris to develop the Programme laid down by the sovereign body, the General Conference and its Executive Board. At present the staff numbers about

*Documents Relating to the Second Session of the General Conference of Unesco, Mexico City. H.M.S.O. Price 1s. 6d.


[page 14]

600 and of those some 150 are in the executive and administrative grades. But it would be quite wrong to suppose that the Paris Secretariat is Unesco. If it were, with its unlimited responsibilities and severely limited funds, its position would be weak indeed.

Each Member State, in addition to paying its due contribution to the central budget, is required by the Constitution to make arrangements at home to draw the full force of its national energies into Unesco's service. Such arrangements have now been made in a large number of Member States, although not by any means in all. Generally these National Commissions consist of a central committee representing the educational, scientific and cultural life of the country, but they vary considerably in plan, especially in the degree of official control. In some States the duties are discharged very largely by a Government Department, in some others, and most conspicuously in the United States, the National Commission may possess a vigorous life of its own.

In Britain, perhaps characteristically, the scheme is quite unlike that in any other Member State (see Fig. 3). It was felt that the educational, scientific and cultural life of this country was so diverse and so variously organised that it would be difficult to form a single Committee which could be even approximately representative. It was, therefore, decided, from the first, to try the experiment of having a separate committee approximately corresponding to each of the Programme Sections of the central Organisation. Committees, or, as they are called, Co-operating Bodies, were set up during 1946-1947 for education, mass communication, natural and social sciences, arts and letters, libraries and museums. Humanistic studies were made the responsibility of the British Academy, but are now being reorganised on lines similar to the others. The Royal Institute of British Architects have a special concern in the Architecture and Town Planning aspect of Social Studies.

Those who designed the British system of Co-operating Bodies were not blind to the obvious danger of their scheme, the danger that not even a common Secretariat could keep such a great number of Committees in intimate contact with one another. "Co-ordination" has become an unpopular word, but it was clear that co-ordination was needed. It was partly for this reason that the United Kingdom Committee for Unesco was formed. Membership of this Committee is not representative, but is made up of outstanding individuals interested in Unesco's work, particularly delegates to the General Conferences. The United Kingdom Committee is not set over the Co-operating Bodies, but it is in a position to see that their work is coherent, and to take charge of any part of the Programme that may


[page 15]


[page 16]

fall between all their stools. More than this, its members can give an energetic lead in general policy and provide a force to carry on the momentum from General Conference to General Conference. Both National Co-operating Bodies and the United Kingdom Committee are charged to advise the Minister of Education and the Director-General of Unesco on matters within their various fields, but, far more important than this, it falls to them to help to develop Unesco's many activities in this country, to take the initiative when they see it is lacking. The lists given in Appendix I show that the members of the Committees represent almost all the leading organisations in this country whose concerns fall within Unesco's province.

It is here that the British organisation with its complexity and its danger of division justifies itself. These members have access to everyone, from the young child to the most distinguished scholars, scientists and artists. They can help them to serve Unesco's purposes and, which is no less significant, make them demand that Unesco shall serve theirs.

The United Kingdom Committee and the Co-operating Bodies are looked after by a small Secretariat which, while it remains an integral part of the Ministry of Education, has now its own premises at 23, Belgrave Square. There it is trying to build up a centre where people can apply for literature, for speakers and information of all kinds, a place, in fact, where Unesco may be said to be at home. To the Secretariat also falls the difficult, the subtle task of maintaining a harmony between the official and the unofficial sides of Unesco, the two sides that must be maintained if it is indeed to be an organisation both of peoples and of governments. It should be possible for any Co-operating Body to call a meeting to protest against Government policy of which it disapproves, and for the meeting to make itself felt. At the same time the Secretariat must see to it that nothing is put forward to Unesco which has not won official support. They must neither be irresponsible rebels storming strongholds nor officials entrenched against the outer world. Not that, in fact, their position is as difficult as this contrast suggests - among a people more conditioned to commonsense and empiricism than to idealism and logic, conflict is reduced.

This then is the whole Organisation - the Secretariat of International Civil Servants in Paris, the National Commissions, the participating Governments and the countless ordinary individuals in every country. The Secretariat exists to carry out the wishes of the States as expressed at the General Conferences, but it must also initiate plans and stimulate the activity of its members: ideas and energy must course continually between the two.


[page 17]

IV. THE DIVISION OF THE PROGRAMME

The history of Unesco was left at the Second General Conference held at Mexico City at the end of 1947. It is now necessary to analyse in some detail the Programme that was the outcome of that Conference for it is the ground plan of all Unesco activities during the next few years. It may be wise, however, before going on to describe the general Programme in detail to expose quite frankly two issues which have divided public opinion on Unesco's work, perhaps particularly sharply in this country.

The first might be described as an aristocratic versus a democratic controversy. On the one side there is a relatively small band, defenders of the Tower on the Rock. For them Unesco should be limited and concentrated, a more powerful version of the former Institute for Intellectual Co-operation, its main duty to help the scholars, scientists and artists for it is with them that the genuine internationalism of an age-long community of interests is found. It is by them that culture is created - help this creative, this specialist minority and the rest will follow. To try directly to reach the people is to cheapen, become a selling agency and anyhow to attempt the impossible.

The second party, taking its stand on the ground, cries out that to help the few is not the way to save peace. Unesco is not for the pedants but for the people. Unesco's message and ideal must at all costs be got into the minds of the people and Unesco's first duty must be to use all the means of education and mass communication to this end.

The point of view of both positions, in the Tower and on the ground, has been deliberately exaggerated to reveal each as untenable, as in fact Unesco has done in designing a Programme which strikes a fair balance between the two.

The second controversial issue, and this too has already been largely settled in practice, concerns that phrase in Unesco's Constitution which says that the purpose of Unesco's Programme is to contribute to peace and security. There have been voices urging that Unesco should undertake nothing that cannot be demonstrated on the blackboard to contribute directly to peace. It is very difficult to know what this means, what it is to sell peace, but if the doctrine itself is obscure it is easy to see to what it is opposed. Its supporters


[page 18]

say that it cannot possibly help peace to enable entomologists or archæologists to meet, to exchange the work of artists, to produce films on the ballet. These are too limited, too specific. Unesco should simply find out what it is that causes wars and then use education and propaganda to prevent it. Again, in practice, good sense has prevailed and implicit in the Programme is the belief that everything contributing effectively to human sympathy through intellectual and spiritual forces is Unesco's business.

We come now to a general account of the Programme that was formulated at Mexico City, and which is to be implemented during the coming years. Nothing is more difficult to present. It is hard to make it readable and comprehensive, very hard to give unity to its many parts. There is a well-known game called Kim's game in which the players stare at a tray-load of oddly assorted objects and then write down as many of them as they can remember. That is what the most conscientious exposition of Unesco's Programme is inclined to resemble. On the other hand, there is another game in which the players use their pencils and paper not to make a list but to work a number of apparently disparate objects into one convincing picture, and this is what a proper exposition of the Programme demands.

Many such attempts have already been made, none of them without merit. First the Programme was generally divided by working sections - museums, art, natural sciences and so on - the straightforward divisions in which men do in fact work, but which may still have a sterilising effect on the presentation of a Programme to those who are not specialists. After this, there followed two essays to divide the various projects on a more human basis, and there finally emerged from the Mexico City Conference the six divisions of the Programme, namely reconstruction, communication, education, cultural interchange, human and social relations and natural sciences.

Perhaps the simplest way is not to attempt any division but to approach the Programme as an effort to ease the birth of the educational, cultural and scientific life of a world society. Such a conception, and it is strongly stated in the Constitution, must mean that Unesco's first object is to weaken national boundaries, the walls that we have been steadily heightening for the last three or four hundred years. This does not mean any attempt to bring about cultural uniformity any more than in a national society we, in Britain, for instance, would try to stamp out Cornish cream or the bagpipes. Unesco is on the contrary concerned to preserve the intricate variety of human culture, that richness of texture that provides much of the


[page 19]

savour of life. No, Unesco must strive to initiate for the world at large the conditions and services that are taken for granted for the within a national society. Within such a society it is assumed, to begin with, that the citizens can move freely about and keep in touch with one another through their wireless and newspapers; that they are able to develop their own research, writing, painting through having access to one another's journals, books, pictures, and freedom to join together in associations based on such common concerns. It is assumed, too, that they can give their children an education fitting them reasonably well for living in the society. Finally, if there is evidently something amiss with some part of the national life, they can hope for a commission of enquiry that would at least let in some light. To provide conditions a little like these, between state and state, is the desire behind Unesco's Programme.

First of all it is necessary to supply the information which citizens get from their press, journals and specialist societies or absorb naturally as part of their everyday life. Unesco House must become, and is already becoming, a storehouse of information which may be supplied by Member States or obtained by planned enquiries conducted either on paper or in the field. This is a universal obligation for Unesco, but a few individual instances will illustrate the principle. The Libraries Section publishes a Bulletin which, in addition to information on all library matters, gives details of books that are being offered or are needed by libraries or other organisations all over the world. For museums, a reference collection of photographs and publications on museum methods is being amassed. The Film Section has a store of information on the world's films while the Natural Sciences has accepted it as one of their most important duties to make Unesco a world centre of scientific liaison which, to drop suddenly into the formal language of the Programme, "will include such activities as a scientific apparatus and information service, world register of scientists and institutions, abstracting and other scientific documentation". This centre of scientific information will have its necessary outposts. Field stations are being established in regions where scientific method is most backward to act as secondary points for the collection and spread of information. They will, of course, be specially concerned with the problems of their own regions, the better development of their natural resources and the welfare of their people. Such stations are already in being in the Middle East, in China and Latin America, while a fourth is now to be set up in Southern Asia.

Next comes Unesco's obligation to enable the citizens of the world to move freely about it, to see and, if they will, to exchange their


[page 20]

cultural goods, in other words to step across the national boundaries that are being built irresistibly, slab by slab - currency restrictions, immigration control, quotas, customs - slab raised on slab by the very States who with another hand have put their signature to the Constitution of Unesco. Here is another purpose to which all sections are equally devoted. The Arts and Letters Section, naturally, wishes to help artists and writers to be able to travel and to meet for the variety of experience and stimulus which they need. Natural and social scientists cannot know one another's minds by the written word alone. They must talk. Archæologists and anthropologists cannot work without handling the materials of other cultures; curators and librarians need to study one another's methods; teachers, at whatever level, have everything to discuss. In its efforts to lower the invisible walls that turn travel into something like warfare, Unesco has decided to give first care to specialists such as these because it is they who can do most to put together the framework of a world society. Nevertheless, the need for a more general mingling, and particularly the visits of school children and students to one another's countries, is well understood and several Member States (and Britain, as we shall see, is among them) are making plans to secure it.

As well as this work of removing obstacles that men in their present confusion have raised against one another, Unesco has a more positive part to play. One means is by encouraging Member States, generally acting through their public corporations and private citizens, to endow fellowships to enable foreign students, particularly technicians and specialists, to live for a time in their countries to study and observe. These fellowships are at present being awarded to countries that have suffered most severely from the war and are indeed a part of Unesco's work of reconstruction which is more fully described at the end of this section.

If it is hard for people to go from one country to another, everyone who has struggled at the customs tables at Southampton, Liverpool, Dover or the other places where Britons are welcomed home or welcome their visitors, knows that the movement of objects is still more effectively obstructed. Unesco, recognising of course the present inevitability of such restrictions, is seeking first of all to discover exactly what they are in all their widespread and intricate variety. Later it will attempt to alleviate them. Britain is a member of Unesco and has some reputation for freedom of expression, yet we have difficulties in buying the books we want or the books we need. We will not allow a living painter, a painter, say, from France, that historic quickener of our own genius, to sell his work to us. Unesco must enable its Member States to convince one another that books


[page 21]

and works of art of all kinds, the expression of the highest faculties of mind and imagination, are not comparable to motor-cars and concrete-mixers, or even to silk stockings, wines and cigars.

Meanwhile, palliatives are being attempted. There is, for example, the international book token scheme, to enable soft currency countries to buy hard currency books; plans for the interchange of paintings and exhibitions of all kinds; national book centres to direct books from places where they are unwanted to places where they are wanted. Again, turning to less simply material things, an International Theatre Institute working through national centres will make it easier for players to go from country to country and for information on all theatrical matters to be exchanged, while in time a similar organisation may be set up to undertake the same services for music.

Unesco, then, is doing what it can to remove obstacles to intercourse which have been mounting year by year, and to go far beyond that in promoting schemes to make communication easier than it has ever been. It is as a part of this latter positive policy that Unesco's greatest single effort is being made. This is an attempt to mobilise those tremendous new means of communication, those highly complex modern instruments of the press, film and wireless, in the ancient cause of charity. Charity not, of course, in that modern usage which has made it almost a term of abuse, but in the simple sense of love or, to quote the Oxford Dictionary, "a disposition to judge hopefully of men and their actions, to make allowance for their short-comings". Unesco is setting aside a daringly large part of its tiny income to strengthening this disposition. Money will largely be spent on making it possible for some of the most able minds and skilled talents to work on the diffusion of ideas of human charity among all the nations who are ready to listen. They will, on the one hand, be vigilant for happenings which even in the present world are always tantalising us with their promise of the underlying sympathy of mankind. It might be the story of how half the men of a village risked their lives to take a boat to the rescue of unknown sailors who happened to be wrecked on their piece of the world's shoreline. Or some larger narrative such as the steady maintenance by men most deeply devoted to their country of opposition to that country's policy when they believe it to be wrong. Such stories as these, with their profound undertones, Unesco will seek to have broadcast by film, radio, papers and books to oppose hatred in its many guises.

Then again it will encourage its Member States to use these same powerful instruments, particularly the cinema, to show what


[page 22]

might be quite simply described as man at his best. There will be films to illustrate such great undertakings as T.V.A., the discovery of life-saving drugs, the training of a great ballet company, and here there will be no limitation to Member States, but recognition of virtue wherever it is found, as much in the Arts Theatre of Moscow as in our own Old Vic. This, then, is the idea that underlies a bold plan. Unesco will use the best ability it can command to pump an awareness of the range of human virtue through all the great channels of popular communication. It will be a kind of heart stimulus to make the blood flow more strongly through the limbs. At this point we may well remember that Bacon once wrote "Deferre not Charities till death".

Now follow those benefits that the citizen of a society can expect to enjoy which have just been described as the ability to join together in associations based on common interests. Perhaps this is the easiest of Unesco's tasks for, as has already been said, it represents a natural urge in mankind which has already been finding its satisfaction for thousands of years. Artists have always felt a communion with other artists, astrologers must have known it for astrologers, scientists feel it among themselves, and so, always, do children. Only perhaps now with our greater numbers, complexity and specialisation there is a new tendency to organise. In this the scientists were, when Unesco came into being, already well ahead. Not only had each of many subjects its own international organisation, but all these specialist groups were in turn knit together into the International Council of Scientific Unions. Acting through this Union it has been easy for Unesco to make grants with the certainty of their being well spent. At the Second General Conference, scientists from all over the world insisted that Unesco's grants had been of the greatest benefit to members of the international associations, enabling them to meet and to enjoy the stimulus of talk and the interaction of new thought which otherwise they must have foregone.

The humane spirit is more elusive, more wanton, and rightly so. Yet Unesco is already able to help some of the international associations of the arts and humanities, for example the International Council of Museums and the Committee on Historical Sciences, and it hopes to encourage the formation of a wider federation parallel to the International Council of Scientific Unions. It will, of course, be understood that in all its efforts to develop these associations within a world society, Unesco is not only helping, but using them. Unesco primes them; they serve the purposes of Unesco. It is a return to the analogy of the blood stream with its outward and inward flow.


[page 23]

In one venture in international association, Unesco is pioneering on its own account. This is the International Institute of the Hylean Amazon. That vast tropical spread of the Greater Amazon basin is one of the least known, most secret regions that remain on earth. Unesco, by conducting preliminary surveys and conferences, is preparing the way for an international institute to study the people and creatures of the Hylean, the whole structure of the land and its vegetation. The Institute will itself be financed and administered not by Unesco but by a group of countries directly interested in its researches, particularly, of course, those Latin American states whose lands are involved, and colonial nations, including Britain, that are interested in the development of tropical studies.

Education. Here is the most difficult, the most controversial of Unesco's activities. Unesco, as we have said, must make it possible for the citizens of the world society to fit themselves for life in that society. There is certainly one part of Unesco's educational programme that is not controversial although often difficult. This is the part which is concerned with encouraging each nation to improve its own educational practice, partly by internal effort, partly by contact with other nations. In this field Unesco has many plans; it will encourage teaching about the United Nations, it will bring teachers together in special conferences to consider common educational problems, it has accepted the difficult work of improving the influence of textbooks. Always the endeavour will be not only to improve the education of the individual but also, and of course it is largely the same thing, to widen his understanding far beyond national boundaries.

It is the other half of the educational programme that raises issues so controversial that it would be dishonest to suggest that it may not arouse the genuine opposition of a few men of good will, even though it commands the enthusiastic support of a far larger number. Unesco is pledged to raise the standards of education in the so-called backward regions of the world. It is in fact the field of responsibility which is covered by the term Fundamental Education, or, as it was previously named in a report by our own Colonial Office, Mass Education. It is a deliberate attempt by those who believe that they enjoy the benefits of an advanced education to give them to those who do not. To this end, Unesco is planning to mark out certain small areas (they happen to be in Nyasaland, Haiti, and China) where a concentrated effort can be made among a few thousands of people, not only to make them literate but equally to raise their standards of hygiene, agriculture and general economic productivity.

Now there will be many who will protest against this. In the first place they may claim that it cannot be said to serve Unesco's main


[page 24]

objective of defending peace, and indeed may even run counter to it, No honest eye regarding the history of recent centuries can say that wars begin among the backward and illiterate populations. Poverty, lack of vitality and a high death rate have, on the whole, kept them peaceable. Again it can be asked: Is this a time when the so-called civilised peoples can have enough confidence to approach societies that may be illiterate, unproductive and inclined to prefer magic to hygiene but who do have their own culture, the security of tribal structure and their own ways of happiness? These are real doubts and Unesco accepts them; the answers must be equally real and more forceful. It must be replied that it cannot be right, still less good, that millions of people should suffer unnecessary illness or early death, should produce less food than they need or be denied access to the refinements of thought and feeling which, in spite of vast differences of ideal, men have at all times accepted as representing true civilisation. It can be answered, too, that it is in any case impossible to prevent the spread of Western ideas and material culture and the gradual erosion of simple societies. That on the positive side.

On the other, the reply must be that Unesco is intensely aware of the dangers, particularly of giving an ugly veneer of Western materialism in the place of a simple but living culture. In all experiments in fundamental education, Unesco is pledged to work within the framework of local tradition and to serve local needs. Diversity and culture will always be fostered while Western ways will be introduced only to increase health and productivity. Those who fear and criticise may take comfort in the thought, also, that Unesco is not by any means motivated only by scientific humanism with its tendency to fall into materialist traps. It has a powerful Christian element and the point of view of the Eastern hemisphere makes itself felt in all its councils. There is no danger that Unesco will assume that the world can be saved by toothbrushes, tractors, vitamins and film strips.

Last of all, on page 19, it was suggested that citizens might expect that if something was amiss with their social life it would be investigated. Unesco is boldly attempting this formidable duty for the world society. It is attempting to make the philosophers use philosophy, the social scientists sociology, to investigate the maladjustments existing within individuals and between nations that make wars possible. It has even undertaken a special project, an essay in self-criticism, to study the difficulties confronting international organisations. These are long term plans and they may well be fruitless. That they should be attempted at all is a most significant historical fact which seems to represent the growth of universal self-consciousness akin to that which psychology has developed in the individual. It may help to foster a similar tolerance.


[page 25]

Perhaps it seems odd to end this account of Unesco's Programme with what is in fact Unesco's first commitment. This is the work of making good the appalling damage, spiritual and material, caused by the war. The justification for such an arrangement is that although at present Unesco is approaching reconstruction as a distinct problem and has a section of the Secretariat devoted to it, it is clear that as time passes, and probably quite quickly, this work will merge imperceptibly into the development of the Programme as a whole. The strenuous efforts both to survey the needs of devastated countries and to meet them by the collection of money and goods and the provision of travel grants and the endowment of fellowships will inevitably soon appear as merely the first steps of Unesco's journey.

These, then, are the general purposes underlying the Programme, all of them concerned to bring nearer a world society by extending across the national boundaries the immunities and services at present enjoyed by the citizens of a national state. In the printed Programme will be found the many specific projects of the agreed Programme in which these general purposes are embodied. It is clear enough that some will fail and some succeed, but we can be confident that much will be accomplished that will never be destroyed or lost.

V. UNESCO'S PROGRAMME IN BRITAIN

A description has already been given of the organisation which has been set up to enable this country to join fully in Unesco's work. It has been made clear, too, that the strength of Unesco must lie largely in the energy and sincerity of its members. It will be fitting to end this pamphlet with some account of what Britain is doing to give life to Unesco's Programme, an account which will also serve to give particular illustrations of some of the general notions contained in Section IV.

First of all come the various schemes under which States must set up their own national centres to work through an international centre provided directly or indirectly by Unesco. The British National Book Centre deserves first place by virtue of seniority, and, indeed, it is in a sense older than Unesco itself for it has grown directly out of the Inter-Allied Book Centre which was set up by the ancestral body of Unesco, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education. It has already despatched 460,000 books to war devastated


[page 26]

countries and now, as a section within the National Central Library, has become the officially endowed National Centre for the interchange of books.

The Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges will make foreign travel easier for school children, teachers and students of all kinds, not neglecting those covered by adult education at its widest extent. There are in this country a great range of bodies from the British Council to the most modest of agencies who are already engaged in this work. The new Bureau, which is to be a going concern by the summer of 1948, is intended only to prevent confusion and waste of effort and to fill the gaps that exist, particularly in the present arrangements for the exchange visits of school children. It will have the benefit of information and help from the central Unesco office.

The third of these national centres which, like the Bureau, is being given a modest start in 1948, is the national Theatre Centre, the British branch of the International Theatre Institute. The Centre will help to arrange for foreign companies to come here and for British companies to go abroad. It will keep the International Institute posted on the latest developments in the British Theatre and will seek information in return.

So, between them, these three national centres, all to be in being within eighteen months of Unesco's own birth, do something to reduce our isolation, to increase the inward and outward movement of people and their ideas. These centres, and others that will surely follow (a Music Centre, for example, is already mooted) will soon be independent growths. Something must be said of all the co-operative work which the various British Committees will undertake on Unesco's behalf, work which will be continuous but changing as the Programme advances. It is not unduly complacent to say that this country has much to give to Unesco. There is still high originality rooted in tradition and good sense coming from matured experience. Much of this, a form of national wealth that never appears in balance sheets, has been put at Unesco's disposal through the National Cooperating Bodies. In their advisory capacity, these Bodies can recommend the inclusion of new items in the Programme or can advise that in their opinion projects are useless and should be dropped. Nobody who studies the list of members in Appendix I will expect foolishness to be gladly suffered among them.

On the other hand, once the Programme has been accepted then the Committees must do all that they can to help to carry it out. It would be tedious to describe all the activities of this kind in which


[page 27]

they are concerned. They have undertaken to select books to be translated, to list reproductions and recordings of British works of art and music, to arrange for the conduct of Unesco conferences in Britain, to supply information on a number of subjects in which Britain's position is outstanding, including school broadcasting and museum methods. Guidance will be given in the planning of the Seminar on the Training of Teachers which will be held in this country during 1948. Expert Sub-Committees are planning to see that the channels of our newspapers, cinema and broadcasting shall diffuse Unesco's ideals as widely and intelligently as possible.

For the immediate task of reconstruction, this country in its present economic plight is evidently not in a position to contribute very heavily either in money or materials. Nevertheless, Unesco will have its share of the funds raised by the great United Nations appeal for suffering children which has been launched during 1948, valuable scientific war surplus equipment has already been purchased, and separate arrangements are being considered for the collection of gifts in kind, books, pencils, scrapbooks or magazines, postcards and so forth. Equally notable is the generosity that has been shown by a number of newspapers and film groups (Appendix II) in endowing fellowships which will enable young specialists in press and film work from countries either backward or set back by the war to come to this country to study our methods and ideas. This is a most valuable form of service to Unesco which it is hoped others will follow.

These are a small selection of the things which will be done during 1948 to fulfil Britain's obligations. It would, of course, be out of proportion to put them forward without any mention of the contribution to the general purposes of Unesco that are made by organisations such as the British Council, the Arts Council and the B.B.C., and the innumerable voluntary organisations in which this country is so rich.

This is all very well, critics are saying, quite a lot seems to be being done, but what is the good of it if it is limited to a few? Most people have never even heard of Unesco, hardly any really work for it. It has not become a living force in the country. There are two main answers. One is that Unesco's ideals may be spread without a wearisome insistence upon Unesco's name - the whole programme for popular communication described on page 21 falls within this category, but it is the present intention of those responsible that the public shall now be told more for the good reason that there is more, far more, to tell them. One of the most tiresome of tendencies in modern society is that of attaching more importance to publicity


[page 28]

than to the thing publicised, of first holding meetings and rallies, issuing pamphlets, then, if there is any time or energy left, of doing a little creative work. It was, during 1947, deliberate policy to avoid this. Unesco is not a patent medicine or a political stunt. The preparatory work has now been done and it is time to rouse interest in an agreed programme. Literature is being prepared, writers and speakers enrolled. A demand for information is indeed growing spontaneously and fast.

The second answer is that one remedy is already in the critics' hands. The Organisation really is democratic. If anyone has either a constructive idea or a sound complaint, he can arrange to have it put before one of the Co-operating Committees through the representative of any appropriate agency. The trouble at present is, frankly, that this is not done enough. The Committees are too much bodies of experts, too little vehicles for the expression of wider needs and opinions. Similarly, if anyone really wants to learn more about Unesco or to see it more generally appreciated, he can himself write for information, arrange for meetings and the publication of articles. The United Kingdom Secretariat at 23, Belgrave Square is still very small, but already it is growing and it will do its best to meet all demands.




[page 29]


APPENDIX I

UNITED KINGDOM COMMITTEE

[Note: in the original this Appendix was presented in two or three columns to a page. I have not reproduced that layout here.]

(Secretary: Mr. F. R. Cowell)

Rt. Hon. George TOMLINSON, M.P. (Chairman)
Minister of Education, Curzon Street House, Curzon Street, London, W.1.

Mr. D. R. Hardman, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education.

Sir John P. R. Maud, K.C.B., C.B.E.
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education.

General Sir Ronald Adam, Bt., G.C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
Chairman, British Council, 3, Hanover Street, London, W.1.

Dr. W. P. Alexander
Secretary, Association of Education Committees, 10, Queen Anne Street, London, W.1.

Professor P. M. S. Blackett, F.R.S.
Physical Laboratories, The University, Manchester, 13.

Mr. R. S. Brownell, C.B.E.
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Netherleigh, Massey Avenue, Stormont, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Rt. Hon. R. A. Butler, M.P.
Stanstead Hall, Halstead, Essex.

Mr. R. Gould, J.P.
General Secretary, National Union of Teachers, Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, London, W.C.1.

Dr. W. A. F. Hepburn, O.B.E., M.C.
Director of Education, Lanarkshire House, Ingram Street, Glasgow, C.1.

Dr. H. W. Meikle, C.B.E.
H.M. Historiographer in Scotland, 23, Riselaw Road, Edinburgh.

Sir Philip Morris, C.B.E.
Vice-Chancellor, University of Bristol, Bristol, Glos.

Dr. Margaret Read
Head of the Colonial Department, Institute of Education, University of London, Malet Street, London, W.C.1.


[page 30]

Sir Ernest Pooley, K.C.V.O.
Chairman, Arts Council of Great Britain, 4, St. James's Square, London, S.W.1.

Mr. J. B. Priestley
B.4 Albany, Piccadilly, London, W.1.

Sir Robert Robinson, P.R.S.
President, The Royal Society, Burlington House, London, W.1.

Mr. B. B. Thomas
Permanent Secretary, Welsh Department, Ministry of Education, Curzon Street House, Curzon Street, London, W.1.

Mr. W. E. F. Ward, C.M.G.
Deputy Educational Adviser, Colonial Office, Palace Chambers, Bridge Street, London, S.W.1.

Professor E. D. Adrian, O.M., F.R.S.
Foreign Secretary, The Royal Society, Burlington House, London, W.1.

Sir Henry L. French, G.B.E., K.C.B.
British Film Producers Association, 49, Mount Street, London, W.1.

Alderman Wright Robinson
Education Office, Deansgate, Manchester, 3.

PUBLIC RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COMMITTEE

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Mr. J. B. PRIESTLEY (Chairman)
B4, Albany, Piccadilly, London, W.1.

Mr. Ritchie Calder, C.B.E.
The "News Chronicle", Bouverie Street, London, E.C.4.

Mr. R. A. Rendall
Controller, Talks Department, B.B.C. Broadcasting House, London, W.1.

Mr. Tom Hopkinson
Editor, "Picture Post", Shoe Lane, London, E.C.4.

The Hon. Arthur Gore
Central Office of Information, 83, Baker Street, London, W.1.

Miss Helen de Mouilpied
Central Office of Information.

Mr. W. E. Williams
Director, Bureau of Current Affairs, 117, Piccadilly, London, W.1.


[page 31]

NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR THE ARTS

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Sir Ernest POOLEY, K.C.V.O. (Chairman)
Chairman, The Arts Council of Great Britain, 4, St. James's Square, London, S.W.1. (Nominating Body: Arts Council)

Miss M. C. Glasgow, M.B.E.
Secretary General, Arts Council of Gt. Britain. (Arts Council)

Mr. Stephen Thomas
The British Council, 3, Hanover Street, London, W.1. (British Council)

Mr. Francis Watson
The British Council. (British Council)

Mr. John Hampden
The British Council. (British Council)

Miss Seymour Whinyates
The British Council. (British Council)

Mr. B. Kennedy-Cooke
The British Council. (British Council)

Sir Leigh Ashton
Director, Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, London, S.W.7. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galleries)

Sir Henry M. Hake, C.B.E., F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S.
Director, National Portrait Gallery, St. Martin's Place, London, W.C.2. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galleries)

Mr. Philip Hendy
Director, The National Gallery, Trafalgar Square, London, W.C.2. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galleries)

Sir Walter R. M. Lamb, K.C.V.O.
Secretary, Royal Adacemy of Arts, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W.1. (Royal Academy)

Mr. H. Rushbury, R.A.
8, Netherton Grove, London, S.W.10. (Royal Academy)

Mrs. C. G. Tomrley
Council of Industrial Design, Tilbury House, Petty France, London, S.W.1. (Council of Industrial Design)

Mr. Charles Holden, F.R.I.B.A.
Adams, Holden & Pearson, University of London, London, W.C.1. (Council of Industrial Design)

Mr. F. Lambert, C.B.E., F.S.A.
Director, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. (Museums Association)


[page 32]

Mr. S. D. Cleveland
Deputy Curator, City Art Gallery, Manchester. (Museums Association)

Sir Stanley Marchant, C.V.O.
Principal, Royal Academy of Music, Marylebone Road, London, N.W.1. (Royal Schools of Music)

Mr. R. J. Forbes
Principal, Royal Manchester College of Music, Ducie St., Oxford Rd., Manchester. (Royal Schools of Music)

Dr. Frederick G. Shinn
21, Lawrie Park Avenue, Sydenham, London, S.E.26. (Incorporated Society of Musicians)

Mr. F. Eames
19, Berners Street, London, W.1. (National Federation of Music Societies)

Mr. D. Haydn Davies
B.B.C., 39, Park Place, Cardiff. (National Eisteddfod)

Mr. Geoffrey Whitworth, C.B.E.
Chairman, British Drama League, 9, Fitzroy Square, London, W.1. (British Drama League)

Mr. Gordon Sandison
General Secretary, British Actors Equity, Imperial Buildings, 56, Kingsway, London, W.C.2. (British Actors Equity Association)

Sir Frank L. C. Mears
President, Royal Scottish Academy, Edinburgh, 2. (Royal Scottish Academy)

Mr. J. Arnold Flemming
Locksley, Hellensburgh, Scotland. (Royal Scottish Academy of Music)

Dr. Colin Sinclair
St. Margaret's, Ralston Avenue, Glasgow, S.W.2. (An Comunn Gaidhealach (Highland Association))

Miss Sadie R. Aitken
19, Perth St., Edinburgh. (Scottish Community Drama Association)

Lt.-Col. A. P. Middleton
Scottish Committee of the Council of Industrial Design, 75, Bothwell Street, Glasgow, C.2. (Scottish Committee of the Council of Industrial Design)

Mr. C. Day Lewis
c/o Chatto & Windus, 40-42, William IV Street, London, W.C.2. (National Co-operating Body for the Arts)

Mr. V. S. Pritchett
36, Parkhill Road, London, N.W.2. (National Co-operating Body for the Arts)


[page 33]

NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR EDUCATION

(Secretary: Mr. W. D. Pile)

Mr. D. R. HARDMAN, M.P. (Chairman)
Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Education, Curzon Street House, Curzon Street, London, W.1. (Nominating Body: Ministry of Education)

Mr. Evan T. Davis
Director of Education, Education Office, County Hall, Chichester. (County Councils Association)

Mr. F. Stephenson
Director of Education, Education Offices, S. Parade, Nottingham (Association of Municipal Corporations)

Dr. W. P. Alexander
Secretary, Association of Education Committees, 10, Queen Anne Street, London, W.1. (Association of Education Committees)

Mrs. H. C. Bentwich
Chairman, Education Committee, County Hall, Westminster Bridge, London, S.E.1. (London County Council)

Principal Joseph Jones
Principal, Memorial College, Brecon. (Federation of Education Committees of Wales and Monmouthshire)

Dr. C. F. Strong
Education Officer, Education Offices, Philip Lane, South Tottenham, London, N.15. (Association of Education Officers)

Mr. J. W. Lawton
10, Victoria Road, Barrow-in-Furness. (National Union of Teachers)

Mr. H. W. Hale
Grammar School House, Plympton, near Plymouth. (National Union of Teachers)

Mr. R. Gould
General Secretary, National Union of Teachers, Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, London, W.C.1. (National Union of Teachers)

Mr. G. R. Parker
21, Cherry Garden Lane, Folkestone, Kent. (Joint Committee of the Four Secondary Associations)


[page 34]

Dr. P. F. R. Venables
Principal, Royal Technical College, Peel Park, Salford 5, Lancs. (Association of Technical Institutions; Association of Principals in Technical Institutions)

Mr. C. Jameson
Director, Training College for Technical Teachers, North Western Polytechnic, Prince of Wales Road, London, N.W.5. (Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions)

Mr. J. Hudson
31, Hoodcote Gardens, Winchmore Hill, London, N.21. (National Special Schools Union)

Sir Philip Morris, C.B.E.
University of Bristol, Bristol, Glos. (Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals)

Lord Chorley
London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, W.C.2. (Association of University Teachers)

Dr. R. W. Rich
Principal, City of Leeds Training College, Beckett Park, Leeds, 6. (Association of Teachers in Training Colleges and University Training Departments)

Professor D. Hughes-Parry
University of London, Senate House, Malet Street, London, W.C.1. (Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations)

Miss M. Curwen, C.B.E.
National General Secretary Y.W.C.A., National Offices, Central Buildings, Gt. Russell Street, London, W.C.1. (Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations)

Mr. W. R. Hecker
Headmaster, St. Dunstan's College, Catford, London, S.E.6. (National Co-operating Body for Education)

Miss L. Charlesworth
Headmistress, Sutton High School for Girls, Cheam Road, Sutton, Surrey. (Council for Education in World Citizenship)

Mr. D. L. Lipson, M.P.
House of Commons, London, S.W.1. (United Nations Association)

Mr. H. Bullock
National Union of General and Municipal Workers, 5, Endsleigh Gardens, London, W.C.1. (Trades Union Congress)


[page 35]

Rev. D. E. Taylor
British Council of Churches, 56, Bloomsbury Street, London, W.C.1. (British Council of Churches)

Rev. Dr. M. Lew
27, Vivian Way, Hampstead Garden Suburb, London, N.2. (Chief Rabbi)

Mr. E. M. Hutchinson
Secretary, National Foundation for Adult Education. 79, Wimpole Street, London, W.1. (National Foundation for Adult Education)

Sir Peter D. Innes, C.B.E.
Director, National Foundation for Educational Research, 79, Wirnpole Street, London, W.1. (National Foundation for Educational Research)

Mr. R. J. Thom
Secretary, National Committee for Visual Aids in Education, 79, Wirnpole Street, London, W.1. (National Committee for Visual Aids in Education)

Mr. E. Green, J.P.
Secretary, Workers Educational Association, 38A, St. George's Drive, London, S.W.1. (Workers Educational Association)

Mr. G. E. Haynes
Secretary, National Council of Social Service, 26, Bedford Square, London, W.C.1. (National Council of Social Service)

Mr. R. N. Armfelt
School Broadcasting Council in the United Kingdom, 55, Portland Place, London, W.1. (National Co-operating Body for Education)

Lady Allen of Hurtwood
Hurtwood House, Albury, Guildford, Surrey. (Nursery Schools Association of Great Britain)

Mr. T.J. Rees, C.B.E., J.P.
30, Eaton Crescent, Swansea. (University of Wales)

Rev. Gwilym Davies
8, Marine Terrace, Aberystwyth, Wales. (Welsh Association for Education in World Citizenship)

Mr. R. King
Headmaster, Wandsworth School, Sutherland Grove, Southfields, London, S.W.18. (National Co-operating Body for Education)


[page 36]

NORTHERN IRELAND -

Mr. Peter Gilchrist
Principal, Technical School, Bangor, Co. Down. (Federal Council of Teachers of Northern Ireland)

Dr. J. S. Hawnt
Director of Education, Education Offices, Belfast. (Association of Education Committees of Northern Ireland)

Mr. L. Arndell
Ministry of Education, Netherleigh, Massey Avenue, Belfast. (Ministry of Education, Northern Ireland)

SCOTLAND -

Miss M. J. Pringle, J.P.
13, Strowan Street, Sandyhills, Glasgow, E.2. (Educational Institute of Scotland)

Mr. James Porter
Rector, Royal Academy, Irvine, Ayrshire. (Association of Headmasters of Senior Secondary Schools and Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association)

Councillor Michael Scanlan
254, Bath Street, Glasgow, C.2. (Association of Councils of Counties and Cities in Scotland)

Mr. J. Forde, J.P.
11, Millhill Road, Stevenston, Ayrshire. (Association of County Councils in Scotland)

Miss F. D. Mackenzie-Whyte
Secretary, Scottish Council of the Y.W.C.A. of Great Britain, 7, South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh. (Scottish Standing Conference of Voluntary Youth Organisations)

NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR LIBRARIES

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Mr. R. H. HILL (Chairman)
Librarian, National Central Library, Malet Place, London, W.C.1. (Nominating Body: Trustees of National Central Library)

Mr. C. B. Oldman
Principal Keeper, Dept. of Printed Books, The British Museum, London, W.C.1. (Trustees of British Museum)


[page 37]

Miss E. M. R. Ditmas
Director, Association of Specialist Libraries and Information Bureaux, 52, Bloomsbury Street, London, W.C.I. (Association of Specialist Libraries and Information Bureaux)

Mr. Charles Nowell
Librarian, Central Library, Manchester. (Library Association)

Mr. L. R. McColvin
Librarian, City of Westminster Public Library, St. Martin's Street, London, W.C.2. (Library Association)

Mr. R. Irwin
Director, School of Librarianship, University of London, Gower Street, London, W.C.1. (Library Association)

Mr. E. W. Woodhead
Chief Education Officer, Education Offices, "Springfield", Maidstone, Kent. (County Councils Association)

Mr. M. C. Pottinger, D.S.C.
Librarian, Scottish Central Library for Students, Comely Park House, Dunfermline, Fife. (Carnegie U.K. Trust)

Mr. A. B. Paterson
City Librarian, The Mitchell Library, North Street, Glasgow, C.3. (Scottish Library Association)

Sir William Llewelyn Davies, F.S.A.
Librarian, National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth. (National Library of Wales)

Mr. F. Seymour Smith
Chief Librarian, North Finchley Public Library, Ravensdale Avenue, London, N.12. (National Book League)

Alderman Wright Robinson
Education Offices, Deansgate, Manchester, 3. (Association of Municipal Corporations)

Mr. H. T. Pledge
Librarian, Science Museum, London, S.W.7. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galieries)

Mr. Hilary Jenkinson
Deputy Keeper, Public Records Office, Chancery Lane, London, W.C.2. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galieries)


[page 38]

NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR MASS COMMUNICATION

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Sir Henry L. FRENCH, G.B.E., K.C.B. (Chairman)
British Film Producers' Association, 49, Mount Street, London, W.1.

Mr. H. L. Beales
London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, W.C.2.

Mr. Ritchie Calder, C.B.E.
"News Chronicle", Bouverie Street, London, E.C.4.

Miss Mary Field
Childrens Entertainment Films, G.B. Instructional, Ltd., Oxendon Street, Haymarket, London, W.1.

The Hon. Arthur Gore
Central Office of Information, 83, Baker Street, London, W.1.

Mr. Tom Hopkinson
Editor "Picture Post" 43-44, Shoe Lane, London, E.C.4.

Mr. R.J. Thom
Secretary, National Committee for Visual Aids in Education, 79, Wimpole Street, London, W.1.

Mr. R. D. Marriott
Head of European Liaison Office, B.B.C., Broadcasting House, London, W.1.

Miss H. de Mouilpied
Central Office of Information, 83, Baker Street, London, W.1.

Mr. Paul Rotha
Rotha Films, 97, Cliffords Inn, Fetter Lane, London, E.C.4.

Mr. John Trevelyan
c/o British Families Education Service Control Commisssion for Germany, Hammersmith Barracks, Herford, B.A.O.R.

Sir Stanley Unwin
Messrs. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 40, Museum Street, London, W.C.1.

Sir William D. Robieson, J.P.
"Glasgow Herald", Glasgow, C.1.

Mr. Edgar Anstey
Film Centre, 34, Soho Square, London, W.1.

Mr. Oliver Bell
British Film Institute, 4, Great Russell Street, London, W.C.1.


[page 39]

FILM SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR MASS COMMUNICATION

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Sir Henry FRENCH, G.B.E., K.C.B. (Chairman)
British Film Producers Association, 49, Mount Street, London, W.1.

Dr. Roger Manvell
Secretary-General, The British Film Academy, 117, Piccadilly, London, W.1.

Mr. Ralph Bond
World Wide Pictures, 10A, Soho Square, London, W.1.

Mr. F. A. Hoare
Merton Park Studios, 269, Kingston Road, Merton Park, London, S.W.19.

Mr. Sinclair Road
Scientific Film Association, 34, Soho Square, London, W.1.

Mr. Edgar Anstey
Film Centre Limited, 34, Soho Square, London, W.1.

Mr. Paul Rotha
Rotha Films, 97, Cliffords Inn, Fetter Lane, London, E.C.4.

Mr. J. B. Frizell
City Education Officer, Education Department, St. Giles Street, Edinburgh.

Professor H. R. Hewer
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, S.W.7.

Mr. P. R. Noakes
Information Department, Colonial Office, Palace Chambers, Bridge Street, London, S.W.1.

Miss E. R. Ward
Board of Trade (Films Division), Millbank, London, S.W.1.

Miss H. de Mouilpied
Central Office of Information, 83, Baker Street, London, W.1.

Mr. J. Taylor
Central Office of Information.

Miss C. Middleton
British Council, 3, Hanover Street, London, W.1.

Mr. Stephen Watts
"Sunday Express", Fleet Street, London, E.C.4.

Dr. O. H. Mavor
Finnich Malise, Drymen, Stirlingshire, Scotland.

Mr. Julian Trevelyan
Durham Wharf, Hammersmith Terrace, London, W.6.


[page 40]

Mr. Forsyth Hardy
Scottish Home Department, St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, 1.

Mr. George Archibald
Independent Producers Limited, Empire House, 117-119, Regent Street, London, W.1.

Mr. R. J. Thom
Secretary, National Committee for Visual Aids in Education, 79, Wimpole Street, London, W.1.

RADIO SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR MASS COMMUNICATION

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Mr. George BARNES (Chairman)
Director of the Spoken Word, B.B.C., Broadcasting House, London, W.1.

Mr. R. A. Rendall
Controller, Talks Department, B.B.C., Broadcasting House, London, W.1.

Mr. E. A. F. Harding
Director of Staff Training, B.B.C., 27, Marylebone Road, London, W.1.

Mr. L. W. Hayes
Head of Overseas and Engineering Information Department, B.B.C., Broadcasting House, London, W.1.

Mr. Tangye Lean
European Service, B.B.C., Bush House, Aldwych, London, W.C.2.

Mr. R. D. Marriott
Head of European Liaison Office, B.B.C., Broadcasting House, London, W.1.

Mr. Grenfell Williams
Director of Colonial Service, B.B.C., 200, Oxford Street, London, W.1.


[page 41]

Mr. W. E. Williams
Director, Bureau of Current Affairs, 117, Piccadilly, London, W.1.

Dr. C. F. Strong
Director of Education, Education Offices, Philip Lane, South Tottenham, London, N.15.

Dr. Margaret Read
Colonial Department, Institute of Education, University of London, Malet Street, London, W.C.1.

Sir Charles Darwin, F.R.S.
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex.

PRESS SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL CO-OPERAING BODY FOR MASS COMMUNICATION

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Mr. Gerald BARRY (Chairman)
19-22, Bouverie Street, London, E.C.4.

Mr. Ritchie Calder, C.B.E.
"News Chronicle", Bouverie Street, London, E.C.4.

The Hon. Arthur Gore
Central Office of Information, 83, Baker Street, London, W.1.

Mr. H. Paniguian
J. Walter Thompson, 40, Berkeley Square, London, W.1.

The Hon. Harold Nicolson, C.M.G.
10, Neville Terrace, Onslow Gardens, London, S.W.7.

Mr. Richard Dimbleby
Editor, "The Richmond and Twickenham Times," Richmond, Surrey.

Mr. Frank Singleton
Editor, "The Bolton Evening News", Mealhouse Lane, Bolton, Lancashire.

Miss Jean Lorimer
Editor, "Woman's Own", George Newnes, Ltd., Tower House, Southampton Street, London, W.C.2.


[page 42]

NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR MUSEUMS

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Sir John FORSDYKE, K.C.B. (Chairman)
Director and Principal Librarian, British Museum, London, W.C.1. (Nominating Body: Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galleries)

Sir Leigh Ashton
Director, Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, London, S.W.7. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galleries)

Mr. W. G. Briggs
Director of Education, St. Mary's Gate, Derby. (County Councils Association)

Dr. D. A. Allan
Director, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. (Royal Scottish Museum)

Sir Cyril Fox, F.B.A., P.S.A.
Director, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. (National Museum of Wales)

Dr. F. J. North
National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. (Museums Association)

Dr. F. S. Wallis
City Museum, Bristol. (Museums Association)

Alderman J. Mitchell, J.P.
97, Station Road, Woodhouse, nr. Sheffield. (Association of Municipal Corporations)

Mr. Phillip Hendy
Director, The National Gallery, Trafalgar Square, London, W.C.2. (National Gallery)

Mr. H. B. Kinnear, C.B.
Director, British Museum (Natural History), South Kensington, London, S.W.7. (Conference of Directors of National Museums and Galleries)

BRITISH COMMITTEE FOR CO-OPERATION WITH UNESCO IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES

(Joint Secretaries: Dr. D. C. Martin and Mr. W. D. Pile)

Professor E. D. ADRIAN, O.M., F.R.S. (Chairman)
Foreign Secretary, The Royal Society, Burlington House, London, W.1.

Dr. C. H. Desch, F.R.S,
Iron and Steel Institute, Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1.


[page 43]

Mr. T. Dewhurst
128, Norfolk House, Highlands Heath, Putney, London, S.W.15.

Professor H. R. Read, F.R.S.
Professor of Geology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, S.W.7.

Sir Harold Spencer Jones, F.R.S.
Astronomer Royal, Royal Observatory, Greenwich, London, S.E.10.

Professor C. N. Hinshelwood, F.R.S.
Professor of Chemistry in the University of Oxford, Trinity College, Oxford.

Professor H. M. Fox, F.R.S.
Professor of Zoology in the University of London, University of London, London, W.C.1.

Professor J. Proudman, J.P., F.R.S.
Professor of Oceanography in the University of Liverpool, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Lancs.

Professor H. J. Fleure, F.R.S.
Emeritus Professor of Geography in the University of Manchester, 275, Church Road, Upper Norwood, London, S.E.19.

Professor N. F. Mott, F.R.S.
Melville Wills Professor of Theoretical Physics in the University of Bristol, H. H. Will's Laboratory, Royal Fort, Bristol, 8.

Sir Robert Watson-Watt, C.B., F.R.S.
287, Sheen Lane, London, S.W.14.

Dr. E. Hindle, F.R.S.
Scientific Director of the Zoological Society, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London, N.W.3.

Dr. O. J. R. Howarth, O.B.E.
Downe House, Downe, Farnborough, Kent.

Mr. E. Bolton King
British Council, 3, Hanover Street, London, W.1.

Miss N. Parkinson, C.B.E.
British Council.

Professor J. D. Bernal, F.R.S.
Professor of Physics, Birkbeck College, 20, Breams Buildings, London, E.C.4.

Mr. J. P. Stephenson
City of London School, London, E.C.4.

Sir Edward Appleton, K.C.B., C.B.E., F.R.S.
Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 142, Piccadilly, London, W.1.


[page 44]

Sir Edward Mellanby, KC.B., F.R.S.
Secretary, Medical Research Council, 38, Old Queen Street, London, S.W.1.

Sir John Fryer, KB.E.
Secretary, Agricultural Research Council, 6A, Dean's Yard, London, S.W.1.

Mr. J. F. Foster
Secretary, Universities Bureau of the British Empire, 24, Gordon Square, London, W.1.

Sir Robert Robinson, P.R.S.
President, Royal Society, Burlington House, London, W.1.

Professor F. J. M. Stratton, D.S.O., O.B.E., D.L., F.R.S.
Emeritus Professor of Astro-Physics in the University of Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

Mr. Ritchie Calder, C.B.E.
"News Chronicle", Bouverie Street, London, E.C.4.

Mr. R. A. R. Tricker, H.M.I.
87, Leicester Road, Shepshed, Loughborough, Leicester.

Mr. H. B. Kinnear, C.B.
Director, British Museum (Natural History), South Kensington, London, S.W.7.

Sir Richard Southwell, F.R.S.
Rector, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, S.W.7.

Professor E. N. da C. Andrade, F.R.S.
Quain Professor of Physics in the University of London, London, W.C.1.

Professor Sir Lawrence Bragg, F.R.S.
Cavendish Professor of Experimental Physics in the University of Cambridge, The Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.

NATIONAL CO-OPERATING BODY FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

(Secretary: Mrs. J. J. Hawkes)

Professor Sir Charles K. WEBSTER, K.C.M.G., F.B.A. (Chairman)
London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, W.C.2. (Nominating Body: Royal Historical Society)

Professor R. G. Hawtrey
Chatham House, St. James' Square, London, S.W.1. (Royal Economics Society)


[page 45]

Sir Alexander M. Carr-Saunders, F.B.A.
London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London,W.C.2. (British Academy)

Dr. David Heron.
2, The Orchard, Bedford Park, London, W.4. (Royal Statistical Society)

Professor H. J. Fleure, F.R.S.
Royal Anthropological Institute, 21, Bedford Square, London, W.C.1. (Royal Anthropological Institute)

Mr. L. P. Kirwan
Director and Secretary, Royal Geographical Society, Kensington Gore, London, S.W.7. (Royal Geographical Society)

Professor Sir Alexander Gray, C.B.E.
8, Abbotsford Park, Edinburgh, 10. (Royal Society of Edinburgh)

Mr. J. G. Kyd, C.B.E., F.R.S.E.
35, Ravelstone Gardens, Edinburgh, 4. (Royal Society of Edinburgh)

Sir Cecil T. Carr, K.C.
Athenaeum, Waterloo Place, London, S.W.1. (Society of Comparative Legislation)

Professor V. Gordon Childe, F.B.A., V.P.S.A.
Institute of Archaeology, Inner Circle, Regents Park, London, N.W.1. (Council for British Archaeology)

Professor T. H. Marshall
20, Princes Road, Regents Park, London, N.W.1. (Institute of Sociology)

Dr. H. V. Dicks
26, Frognal Lane, Hampstead, London, N.W.3. (British Psychological Society)




[page 46]

APPENDIX II

DONORS OF UNESCO FELLOWSHIPS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM


Film Fellowships

J. Arthur Rank Organisation3 Fellowships
Sir Alexander Korda Group of Companies3 Fellowships
The Archers1 Fellowship
Associated British Picture Corporation1 Fellowship
Ealing Studios1 Fellowship
Shell Petroleum Company2 Fellowships


Press Fellowships

Daily Telegraph and Morning Post
Westminster Press Provincial Newspapers
Hulton's Press
Odham's Press
Liverpool Daily Post and Echo
The Observer

NOTE: The Press Fellowships are of the same value but differ to some extent in conditions, length of tenure, etc.