The University of Reading is justifiably proud of the award of a chair to Edith Morley in 1908; her Professorship of English language was a landmark in the history of women in academia, and she is celebrated as the first woman to be appointed Professor at a university or university college in the UK. The wording of the previous sentence is important because her achievement has been disputed.
In 2017, the BBC News website published this report from Scotland:
The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland has uncovered the story of Emma Ritter-Bondy, whom it believes was the first female professor of a higher education institution in the UK. The Glasgow Athenaeum School of Music, which is now the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, made her Professor of Piano in 1892.
The article goes on to point out that this was 16 years before Edith Morley’s appointment. This is true. I believe it is also true that there was a female Professor at a teacher training college in Cardiff before 1908 (Dyhouse, 1995).
Some may wish to defend Morley’s claim by referring to geography (England versus the UK) or the relative academic status of each institution, but it seems to me that to pit these pioneering women against each other, in a competition they never asked to enter, merely detracts from their achievements.
What makes Morley particularly interesting and worthy of recognition, however, is that the chair wasn’t handed to her on a plate; she had to fight for it – and that is something that is often overlooked.
Plaque on the London Rd Campus: the text is slightly ambiguous – her original appointment in 1901 was at the former site on Valpy Street; she was based at London Rd from 1905 until she retired in 1940.
Reading’s first Professorships
In 1907, as a step on the long journey to becoming a university, University College Reading founded the Faculties of Letters and Science, appointed their respective Deans, and established eleven professorships.
Thus, the title of Professor was conferred on the lecturers responsible for the following subjects:
Modern History (W. M. Childs, College Principal)
Philosophy (W. G. de Burgh, Dean of Letters)
Botany (F. Keeble, Dean of Science)
Geography (H. N. Dickson)
French Language and Literature (A. V. Salmon)
Mathematics and Economics (A. L. Bowley)
Physics (G. J. Burch)
Chemistry (J. K. H. Inglis)
Zoology (F. J. Cole)
Agriculture (J. Percival)
Fine Art (W. G. Collingwood)
It will come as no surprise that the subject missing from the above is English, nor that the professors were all men. The College Principal, W. M. Childs, makes no attempt in his memoir ‘Making a University’ of 1933 to explain this omission, nor to mention the struggle that ensued; he simply adds a footnote in small print to state that, ‘English language was added to this list in 1908.’ (p. 124). Edith Morley doesn’t even seem to merit the honour of an entry in the book’s index.
Morley’s Reaction
John Holt’s official history of the university also pays little attention to the affair, although he does refer the reader to Morley’s own ‘Reminiscences’. Holt’s single mention of Morley’s professorship is nothing more than second-hand gossip from a colleague claiming that she ‘pounded poor old Childs until he made her a professor’ (Holt, 1977, p. 89). Though Holt’s account is not entirely negative, the tone of this is in keeping with several other of uncomplimentary descriptions of her, such as ‘provocative, disturbing, aggressive, intransigent’ (p. 89) and a ‘rogue professor’ (p. 276).
It was statements such as these that prompted the social historian Carol Dyhouse to treat Edith Morley’s time at Reading as a case study in her history of women in British universities (Dyhouse, 1995, pp. 156-161: ‘Difficult careers: the case of Edith Morley’).
Originally, Morley had been led to believe that a smaller number of ‘outstanding’ heads of department would receive professorships. So she had no great expectations for herself. In fact, in her memoir, and elsewhere, she seems to doubt, or at least downplay, her own capabilities:
‘[I] had no illusions about my own merits.’
‘I possessed the makings of a tolerable scholar’
‘I knew that I had no claim to outstanding intellectual gifts and that it was beyond my power to produce original work of a high order.’ (Morley, 1944/2016, p. 115).
It was only when she realised that she was the sole lecturer responsible for an academic discipline who had not been given the title that she resolved to fight the decision. She was particularly incensed by what she perceived as the underhand and tactless way in which the whole business had been conducted, and believed she had a stronger case for a professorship on the grounds of both teaching and scholarship than some of the male heads of subject.
My next post will document Morley’s interactions with the Principal in pursuit of her claim for equality with her eleven male colleagues.
Sources
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Dyhouse, C. (1995). No distinction of sex? Women in British universities, 1870-1939. London: UCL Press.
Holt, J. C. (1977). The University of Reading: the first fifty years. Reading: University of Reading Press.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
The first female professor in the UK. BBC News (2017), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39191297 (retrieved 13/5/2023).
University College, Reading. Calendar, 1907-8 & 1908-9.
University College, Reading. Report of Council, 1906-7.
The name Mary Bolam (1861-1949) has figured prominently in this blog thanks to her roles as Censor and Warden of St Andrew’s. She had moved from Cheltenham Ladies’ College to Reading in 1900 where her job description was ‘Assistant to the Vice-Principal, and Censor of Women Students in Licensed Lodgings.’ She held the position of Censor until 1911, but continued as Warden until her retirement in 1927.
In his memoir W. M. Childs wrote that:
‘Miss Bolam had passed through Somerville College, Oxford, and she had also come under the spell of Miss Beale at Cheltenham. But no one who knew her ever troubled about her academic antecedents, for Miss Bolam was a personality on her own account. She had strong organizing genius, strong will, clear purpose, north-country toughness under trial, and benevolence at heart.’ (Childs, 1933, p. 182)
Praise indeed! But is there a note of scepticism in the references to Miss Beale and to Miss Bolam’s ‘academic antecedents’?
Cheltenham Ladies’ College
Dorothea Beale (1831-1906) was a suffragist and pioneering educationalist who became head of Cheltenham Ladies’ College in 1858. Edith Morley described her and her colleague Frances Buss as having ‘revolutionised girls’ education’ (Morley, 2016, p. 43). It would therefore seem a laudable achievement that Miss Bolam had worked there as a teacher educator. The Ladies’ College Magazine recorded her appointment like this:
‘Miss Bolam, L.L.A. who passed the Honours History School from Somerville College, Oxford, and has since been Mistress of Method at the Durham Training College, joins the staff of the Training Department.’ (Cheltenham Ladies’ College Magazine, Autumn, 1897, p. 296).
Letter from Cheltenham Ladies’ College to Mary Bolam about her salary, October 1897.
The above letter gives her salary as £65 per annum, although Council minutes for the same month state a figure of £150 plus board. A further letter of July 1899 shows that this was increased to £195 per annum plus a £2 capitation bonus for every student above 10 who was enrolled in the Government Training Department of which she was Head Mistress.
The College’s extensive archive has preserved past copies of the College Magazine, and several accounts of Bolam’s work at Cheltenham have been tracked down in them by Mrs Rachel Roberts, the College Archivist:
In the Kindergarten Training Department she gave lectures and model lessons (College Magazine, 1898, 37, p. 156).
Her first report on the work of the ‘Government Department’ appeared in the Magazine in 1898 (37, pp. 157-58): this was a new department but already had seven students in training. Bolam stated that ‘the Ladies’ College has now a recognised position under Government inspection’ (p. 157).
She wrote a report on the ‘Elementary Training Department’ that appeared in the Magazine In 1899 (39, p. 71): there were now eleven women trainees and they were able to use All Saints School for practical experience.
In the same issue, it was announced that a paper on ‘Story-telling to Little Children’ that she had delivered in Cardiff at a conference on Kindergarten Teaching had now been published. It was stated that ‘The little pamphlet will be found to contain many interesting observations on Child nature and child growth.’ (39, p. 92)
In spring 1900 the Magazine recorded that she had been assisting in the Secondary Training Department (41, p. 83).
In the same issue her final report on the Elementary Training Department appeared: the number of trainees was now up to nineteen. She noted that, ‘The weekly criticism lessons are greatly enjoyed by the children who consider themselves severely punished if they are excluded.’ (41, p.85) (see my earlier post for an account of the criticism lesson at Reading).
She left the College in 1900 (42, p. 299).
Reading College and Unversity College, Reading
Mary Bolam’s name doesn’t appear in the Reading College Calendars until 1901-2 when her membership of the Tutorial and Residence Committees is recorded. She is listed as Assistant Lecturer in Geography and her address given as St Andrew’s Hostel, Reading. Two years later she had been moved from Geography to Tutor in Preliminary Studies.
Given her previous experience training teachers it seems surprising that she hadn’t been recruited immediately into the Education Department. According to Holt (1977), it was why she had come to Reading, but I can find no evidence of this until 1911 when she appeared in the Calendar as Lecturer in Education (Primary Division).
There is, however, evidence from the Reading press that she was actively involved with schools and teacher education from the very beginning. The Reading Mercury, for example, recorded that in 1901 she gave a lecture on ‘Teachers and Teaching’ at a Pupil Teacher Centre in Basingstoke to managers and trainees from 14 schools in the district. She also presented a paper on ‘Telling Stories to Little Children’ at a meeting of the Parents’ National Education Union at Reading in 1903 (the report in the Reading Mercury referred to her as ‘Assistant Lecturer in History and Literature’). Similar reports of lectures on subjects such as child rearing, and speeches at prize-givings continued throughout her career.
By her retirement in 1927, Mary Bolam was a member of the University Court and the Senate, and had been a member of the Academic Board and Academic Governors of the University College. As Holt put it in his history of the University’s first 50 years, ‘… Miss Bolam in her last year had become a living legend.’ (Holt, 1977, p. 66).
Mary Bolam (undated; University of Reading Special Collections)
My next post will give a brief summary of Bolam’s qualifications and career, followed by events after her retirement.
Thanks to:
Mrs Rachel Roberts, College Archivist, Cheltenham Ladies’ College, for searching College Magazines, Staff Indexes and Correspondence for references to Mary Bolam.
Dr Rhianedd Smith (University Museums and Special Collections Services) for passing on material about Mary Bolam from the British Newspaper Archive and for retrieving census data.
Sources
Cheltenham Ladies’ College. Letters to Mary Bolam, Letter Book, pages 119 &227.
Cheltenham Ladies’ College Magazines, 1897 to 1900.
Cheltenham Ladies’ College. Council Minutes, October 1897
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Holt, J. C. (1977). The University of Reading: the first fifty years. Reading: University of Reading Press.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Parents’ National Education Union: Meeting at Reading. (1903, January 31). Reading Mercury, p. 7.
Pupil Teacher Centre. (1901, June 8). Reading Mercury, p. 6.
Pupil Teachers’ Gathering at Basingstoke. (1901, June 15). Reading Mercury, p. 6.
Reading College. Calendars, 1900-1902, 1925-6.
University College, Reading. Calendar, 1903-04, 1926-27.
Following the previous post by Professor Viv Edwards about Rag Week, Reading University’s Rag Magazines deserved a mention. They appeared under a number of different titles between 1927 and 2000; copies can be accessed from the University Library’s off-site store.
The earliest issues (1927-1931) went under the title of ‘The Rattler. The Unofficial Organ of the Students’ Union’. It sold for 6d and was easily recognisable from the colourful design on the cover. There may have been an issue of a rag magazine in 1926 when the rag started, but no copies are available.
Judging by an editorial inTamesis (the official organ of the Students’ Union) The Rattler was ‘an undeniable success’ (Autumn 1927, p. 2) and achieved a circulation of over 20,000 in 1927. No doubt this made a substantial contribution to the increase in receipts in comparison with the previous year.
The University’s annual report for 1925-26 recorded that all the takings were donated to the Royal Berkshire Hospital which is still a major beneficiary today.
Content of The Rattler
By today’s standards, the jokes, cartoons, poems and articles seem rather feeble (see below) and sometimes almost incomprehensible. In their day, they might have been more amusing; it was certainly an achievement to sell so many copies!
Cartoon reproduced in Tamesis, Autumn 1927, p. 6.Limerick reproduced in Tamesis, Autumn 1927, p. 5.
More interesting is an item that was included in October 1930 (p. 13) in the form of a letter from an apparently working-class student called Dave to his friend Bill. Allegedly Dave, despite having no qualifications, had accidentally obtained a scholarship to Reading University and a place in Wantage Hall after meeting someone at the Black Boy pub.
This one-page satire of university life attempts to represent imagined differences in language and everyday experience of the academically less privileged. Here’s part of how Dave describes the experience:
‘Seeing’ ‘as ‘ow there wornt nothin’ ter pay, up I goes. Yer never see such a daft show in orl yer life. They expects yer to ‘ang a yard or two o’ black clorth on yer shoulders an’ calls it a gown – as if yer wudent catch yer deff o’ chill if yer did wear it a’ nights. An’ Lumme Bill, yer did orter see the ‘ats – Morter Bords they call ’em – gawd knows why – cos ther ain’t no morter in ’em, nor bords neither. I don’t arf look a mug in mine …. Then there’s wot they calls Leckchures – you all sits in a room and an old bloke torks away like a plaguey millstream …’
Presumably, some of the revenue from the rag came from advertisements at the back of magazine. Sometimes the businesses who had paid for these entered into the spirit of things:
PostScript
For all the emphasis on academic lectures and caps and gowns in the spoof letter above, the new University was far from being an ivory tower. It continued to offer the technical and practical courses and training that had once been a central part of the work of the College. This was in addition to its joint commitment with the Workers’ Educational Association to provide tutorial classes, to which Prof Edith Morley and her colleagues were enthusiastic contributors (see Morley, 2016. pp 124-8, for an inspiring account of her personal experiences).
The first Annual Report published by the University (1925-26) recorded 710 Evening Students whose most popular courses were in commercial subjects and fine art. Their occupations varied widely, some of the most common being engineers and draughtsmen, carpenters and joiners, clerks, shop assistants, shorthand-typists, grocers, printers, gas fitters, teachers, gardeners and domestic servants. At this stage of the University’s history, Evening Students still outnumbered those studying for degrees, certificates or diplomas (see Holt, 1977, pp. 23-5).
Sources
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Holt, J. C. (1977). The University of Reading: the first fifty years. Reading: University of Reading Press.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Tamesis, Vol. XXVI. Autumn Term, 1927. No. 1.
The Rattler, the Unofficial Organ of the Students’ Union. Issues from 1927 to 1931.
University of Reading. Proceedings of the University, 1925-26.
In December 1915, the College Review reported a speech about opportunities for women in which University College, Reading was singled out for a special pat on the back.
The speech was given by Sara Burstall, Head of the Manchester High School for Girls from 1898 to 1924, and the second headmistress of the independent school that had been founded in 1874. As can be seen from the text of her speech below, she was a champion of women’s education. She was also a strong supporter of women’s suffrage. Details of her life and career can be found here in the school’s digital archives.
Opening section of the article in the Reading University College Review, December 1915.
In her address, Miss Burstall stressed that any reduction in the government grant would have a direct impact on women students in the newer universities . She continued:
‘In these centres of higher education women enjoy full rights, and to maintain and increase the efficiency of these institutions is one of the most important needs of women’s education. We have only to study what is being done for women at University College, Reading, to see an example of what is needed, and what deserves public support and credit.’ (pp, 20-21).
These words raise three questions. What was it about Reading that stood out? What was life really like for women students? How did Sara Burstall know so much about University College, Reading?
What was it about Reading that stood out?
Several factors may be relevant:
University College, Reading was a pioneer in the provision of student hostels and halls of residence, especially for female students. Even as early as 1907, two such hostels provided for 80 women (Childs, 1933). It seems to have been assumed that women from outside the area would be provided with accommodation — in the mid-1920s, the novelist Elspeth Huxley had no choice but to accept an ‘approved lodging’ in a hostel, having applied too late for a place in a hall of residence.
Wardens of women’s halls and hostels, for example Mary Bolam at St Andrew’s, were very protective of their charges and were concerned with both their personal and academic well-being.
Universities and colleges that established a senior position dedicated to the welfare and discipline of female students tended to be favoured by parents and the headteachers of girls’ schools (Dyhouse, 1995). In 1915 this post, officially known as the Censor of Women Students, was occupied by Lucy Ashcroft, herself a former Maths teacher in high schools for girls.
The College already had a high proportion of women students, especially in subjects such as dairying, teacher education and horticulture. The trend towards equal numbers of men and women would continue once the College had become a University in 1926 (see Dyhouse, 2006).
It was claimed that women and men at Reading had equal access to all classes and College societies (Dyhouse, 1995).
In 1908 Edith Morley had been made Professor of English Language, the first woman in the UK to obtain a chair at a university or a college of similar academic standing.
I wondered whether Reading offered funding that was exclusive to women. Thanks to the diligence of Professor Edith Morley, this information is readily available: Morley’s edited volume ‘Women workers in seven professions’ (1914) contains a table listing details of the first degrees at all universities and university colleges in the UK, together with the availability of scholarships, bursaries and prizes. Those reserved for women are clearly identified.
An example of how Edith Morley collated information about Higher Education costs and funding. The entries in italics were for women only.
Reading was indeed one of the institutions that set aside financial assistance for women, particularly for students in St Andrew’s Hall. However, these were no more generous or numerous than those at many other institutions.
What Was life really like for women students?
With regard to the bullet points above, Reading seems to compare well with other colleges and universities. I have found no accounts of women having to pay for chaperones in order to attend classes, or being unable to attend meetings or access the library such as those reported In Carol Dyhouse’s (1995) history of women in higher education.
Nevertheless, as Dyhouse points out, there was a great deal of separation between male and female students at Reading, as well as a tendency to study different subjects. There were separate students’ unions, common rooms, sporting activities and separate rules of discipline in halls and elsewhere that often placed tighter restrictions on women than on men.
Such divisions were reported by no less a figure than Albert Wolters, the founder of Reading’s Psychology Department. He recalled that, when he was an education student in 1902, the men were outnumbered by two to one, and that:
‘The present-day student would be astonished at the way in which the men and women held to their own communities … We, the small body of men, were completely integrated, and we dominated the student body ruthlessly and objectionably. But at the end of the year we, who would have been the new oligarchy, saw the folly of our ways and threw our strength into the foundation of the Men Students’ Union..” (Wolters, 1949, p. 18).
The pages of Tamesis, the College Magazine, bear witness to the patronising attitudes, mockery and even contempt to which women were subjected. Some of the articles are quite offensive, but the women showed themselves quite capable of responding in kind.
Probably the most repugnant attack on the female student body was contained in a spoof edition of Tamesis that was compiled (presumably by male students) in 1927. This so-called ‘Scandal Supplement’ with its feeble and sometimes incomprehensible humour includes a poem titled ‘Some Views on Women’ that is declared to be the leading article and dominates the front page. The image below gives an indication of the tone of its content.
Front cover of the spoof edition of Tamesis (University of Reading Special Collections). It was damaged and fragile but is now being repaired and protected by Victoria Stevens, Paper Conservator at the University Museums and Special Collections Services.
What was Sara Burstall’s connection to Reading?
I can’t be certain, but I believe the link to be Caroline Herford who has been the subject of two previous posts on this blog (her portrait can be seen below). Born and educated in Manchester and a former headteacher, Herford became Reading’s first Lecturer in Secondary Education in 1909. She left after only six terms, but the notice of her resignation in the College Review is full of praise for her impact on the college and for her expertise and professionalism. She returned to her roots in Manchester in 1910 for a post as Lecturer in Secondary Education at the University where it is likely that she came into contact with Sara Burstall.
It is also likely that they already knew each other as headteachers — when Herford had been the Head of Lady Barn House School, the period of her headship overlapped with that of Burstall: Herford’s from 1886 to 1907, and Burstall’s from 1898 to 1924.
Manchester High School for Girls would almost certainly have been a destination for at least some of the girls leaving Lady Barn House, just as it still was in September 2022!
Archivists at the Manchester High School for Girls have found three mentions of the Herfords in their paper records. The first refers to May Herford who taught Classics from 1915 to 1916; the second is Charles Herford, Caroline’s cousin, who was Professor of English at Manchester University and whose tribute to a former teacher at the school was published in the School Magazine in 1917; the third refers again to Charles Herford who, as well as Sara Burstall, attended the funeral of Margaret Gaskell (daughter of Elizabeth Gaskell), one of the school’s founders. I think, therefore, that we can be confident of a connection between the school and the Herford family.
A third point of contact could have been the Lancashire Red Cross during World War I. According to the digital archives of Manchester High School for Girls, Sara Burstall was on holiday when the war broke out in 1914, but returned immediately and, with advice from the Red Cross, set up a Centre for making clothes and hospital supplies at the school.
At the same time, and in addition to her academic duties, Caroline Herford was a Commandant of the Lancashire Red Cross, a position she held until 1918 and for which she was awarded the MBE. It’s sheer speculation, of course, but could it have been Caroline Herford who advised Sara Burstall on establishing the centre at the High School?
The back of the photograph of Caroline Herford contains the following handwritten details of the work of her students and colleagues in Manchester:
‘Squads of University Students met Ambulance Trains at all hours of the night, and gave hot tea & coffee to the wounded, which were prepared in the Porters’ Room. Between 11 May 1915 and 11 May 1919 they met & [illegible word] 866 trains.’
Thanks
To the Imperial War Museum for permission to use the image of Caroline Herford.
A very special thanks to Gwen Hobson and Pam Roberts, archivists at the Manchester High School for Girls who searched School Magazines, School Reports, Governors’ Minutes, letters and newspaper articles for references to the Herford family and to Sara Burstall’s talk.
Another special thank-you to Dan Slade, Deputy Head of Lady Barn House School, for further information and documentation about the Herfords.
Sources
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Dyhouse, C. (1995). No distinction of sex? Women in British universities, 1870-1939. London: UCL Press.
Dyhouse, C. (2006). Students: a gendered history. Abingdon: Routledge.
Herford, C. H. (1917). Annie Adamson. In S. A. Burstall (Ed.), Memorial Number of the Manchester High School for Girls (pp. 18-22) [Originally published in the Modern Language Quarterly].
Huxley, E. (1968). Love among the daughters. London: Chatto & Windus.
Morley, E. J. (Ed.). (2014). Women workers in seven professions: a survey of their economic conditions and prospects (pp. 11-24). London: Routledge. [Edited for the Studies Committee of the Fabian Women’s Group].
The appendix to J. C. Holt’s history of Reading University helpfully names all its officers, professors and librarians who were in post between 1926 and 1976 (pp. 331 ff.).
The first four Vice-Chancellors are listed like this:
1926-9 W. M. Childs
1929-46 Sir Franklin Sibly
1946-50 Sir Frank Stenton
1950-63 Sir John Wolfenden
Top row: Childs & Sibly; bottom row: Stenton (c.1908) & Wolfenden (Images of Childs, Sibly & Wolfenden: University of Reading Special Collections; Wolfenden: University of Reading Imagebank)
Ever since I first came across Holt’s book almost a decade ago, I wondered why William Macbride Childs, Reading’s first Vice-Chancellor, was never knighted.
Out of Reading’s ten Vice-Chancellors, five have received knighthoods, though not always solely for their academic leadership, and David Bell was already ‘Sir David’ on his appointment.
Nevertheless, Childs would seem to have been a prime candidate. After all, it was largely thanks to him that a relatively obscure College developed sufficiently to receive the Royal Charter (even Edith Morley had never heard of the College before she was invited for interview in 1901).
Childs’s relatively short tenure as V-C was the culmination of a much longer association with the College. It began inauspiciously in 1893 with a part-time position teaching history to pupil teachers, some coaching and giving University Extension lectures. In a parallel with Morley’s experience 8 years later he explains that;
‘I knew nothing about this new College, nothing about Reading ….’ (W. M. Childs, 1933, p. 1).
University of Reading Special Collections
By 1903, however, Childs had become the Principal of what had recently become University College, Reading, and he soon developed a vision for achieving full university status. Here’s how Professor Holt recounts his achievement:
‘From the moment in 1906 when he first announced it, he pursued the objective of university status with a methodical and relentless intent. He was personally responsible for some of the most characteristic features of the University College: the emphasis on residence and the importance of agriculture. He was the inspiration behind the movement for the Charter.’ (Holt, 1977, p. 28).
Not that Holt was blind to Childs’s faults and errors; he documents these in some detail and concludes:
‘He was a man to found a university. He was not equally a man to develop one once founded’ (Holt, 1977, p. 28).
Following Childs’s retirement in 1929, the issue of a knighthood was a matter of concern for family, friends and fellow academics. Writing of the accolades his father had received, Hubert Childs wondered:
‘…. why was it that in all the eagerness to pay my father honour and to mark his achievement by words and action worthy of it, there was, seemingly, no recognition by the State of what he had done and stood for? The omission caused him little personal concern, for he attached no great importance to such things; but it perplexed his friends who expected a knighthood to be conferred upon him, both in honour of himself and the new University.’ (H. Childs, 1976, pp. 145-6).
One possibility was that the political instability following the General Election of 1929 and a change of Government were the explanation, but this idea was rejected by Hubert Childs.
More likely, in his opinion, was that, on separate occasions, his father refused to accept both the Freedom of the Borough of Reading and a knighthood unless Alfred Palmer, his friend and benefactor received the same honour.
W. M. Childs with Alfred Palmer, c.1925 (University of Reading Special Collections)
As Hubert Childs concluded:
‘Those who attempt to apply conditions to the acceptance of honours inevitably run the risk of falling foul of unrelated and unthought-of considerations, and this may be what happened in this case.’ (H. Childs, 1976, p. 147).
J. C. Holt, Professor of History 1966-78, and author of ‘The University of Reading: the first fifty years’ (University of Reading Special Collections).
Sources
Childs, H. (1976). W. M. Childs: an account of his life and work. Published by the author.
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Holt, J. C. (1977). The University of Reading: the first fifty years. Reading: University of Reading Press.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
The Magazine of University College Reading, 1904, Autumn Term, Vol IV, No. 1.
University of Reading Special Collections: University History MS 5305 Photographs – Portraits Boxes 1 & 2.
In a discussion of changing social customs and forms of address, Edith Morley recalls that:
‘In my undergraduate days, women – even students and colleagues – carefully ‘miss-ed’ each other in public unless they resorted to nicknames. Christian names were used only in private and then only between close friends. Men called each other by their surnames, and little boys at prep schools forbade their parents to address envelopes with their Christian names ….’ (Morley, 1944/2016, p. 94)
I had never encountered the verb ‘miss’ in this sense. I imagined that Morley had coined it herself. After all, who better than the Professor of English Language to do this? A check in the Oxford English Dictionary, however, turned up citations from 1824 and 1863 with the meaning ‘To address as ‘Miss”. The usage is described as ‘obsolete‘.
On the award of her professorship in 1908, her correct title became one of many sources of friction:
‘…. for months after its conferment some of the College clerks, probably with the connivance of their superior officer, persistently refused to use the title on official communications sent to me, until I was forced most reluctantly to take note of the omission.’ (p. 118).
Like all women on the staff, she appeared in the College Calendar as ‘Miss’. This continued even after she became Professor Morley, using ‘Professor’ more as a job description for a Head of Department than a title:
University College, Reading Calendar 1910-11
The ‘Miss’ was dropped from the Calendar from 1914-15 onwards, but, unlike male colleagues, her initial was replaced by her first name:
University College, Reading Calendar 1914-15
In spite of the change of policy for the Calendar, however, the use of ‘Miss’ continued erratically elsewhere in official documents. For example, in 1940 the University Gazette announced her impending retirement, describing her as ‘Miss Edith J. Morley, M.A., Oxford; F.R.S.L.; Professor of English Language.’ (p.11).
It was Edith Morley’s retirement and inconsistencies in the report in the Proceedings of the University, however, that provoked this post in the first place. Note the differences between these two ‘tributes’, both of which are contained in the same volume for 1939-40.
From the Report of the President of the Council (Proceedings of the University, 1939-40, p.2)From the Annual Statement by the Vice-Chancellor (Proceedings of the University, 1939-40, p.34)
The first, by George Mowbray, President of Council, uses her professorial title and is a brief, but glowing tribute to Morley’s contribution to the growth of the College and University, her teaching and her ‘researches’ (see note below).
The second, by Franklin Sibly, Vice-Chancellor, is even briefer; her title is ‘Miss’ and it focuses on her length of service with no mention of her academic achievements. It has a distinct air of ‘faint praise’.
I know of no acrimony between Sibly and Morley. In fact, Morley is warm in her praise of him; of Sibly’s retirement in 1946 she wrote, ‘His wise council and genial personality will be sorely missed.’ (p.124).
Nevertheless, retirement was an uncomfortable prospect for Morley and probably caused some friction, particularly as she was aware that her Chair of English Language was to be abolished, and both Language and Literature placed in a unified English Department under Professor Dewar. The extent of her distress at this prospect is expressed in her ‘Reminiscences’:
‘It was a galling and unhappy result of my insistence on my position and one which I could never forget.’ (p. 117).
Postscript
Following her retirement, the University’s Proceedings of 1940-41 recorded that Morley had been awarded the title of ‘Professor Emeritus … in virtue of the conspicuous services rendered by her to the College and University as Professor of English Language.’ (p. 1).
Calendar 1941-42, p. 29.
A Note on ‘Researches’
The plural ‘researches’ in the first tribute caught my attention. Its occurrence as a count noun in formal written contexts is rare nowadays; its use by our international students is often corrected and, together with words like ‘informations’, is a common feature of English in multilingual contexts (English as a Lingua Franca) and of second-language learners of English.
Nevertheless, it is nothing new; the Oxford English Dictionary has citations of the plural from 1748 onwards, two of which are from the 20th and 21st centuries.
Sources
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
In my post about the opening ceremony of the Great Hall, I expressed surprise that Edith Morley treated the exclusion of women, including herself, with amusement rather than anger.
Another of these ‘lighter incidents’ that was given similar treatment in her ‘Reminiscences’ (p. 143) concerns her first letter to The Times. Here’s how she starts the story:
‘Nor must I forget ‘my’ first letter to The Times. Mrs [Emmeline] Pankhurst wanted publicity for some aspect of the suffrage question and wrote a letter which she thought my title might get accepted. So signing it with my initials only, I obediently copied and sent it off.’
As a result, on the day of publication a Times journalist turned up at the London Road Campus wanting her opinion on the issue in question. The interview never took place however:
‘When he heard that I was the Professor Morley he had taken so much trouble to track down, his language was not exactly parliamentary: ‘Sold again’ and a bang on the table were his parting shots as he stormed out of the room without troubling to elicit my opinions.’ (p. 143).
Title page of the most heavily annotated of Morley’s three original typescripts of her memoir. On this one she has added the subtitle by hand (University of Reading Special Collections)
As well as the way this incident is treated so lightheartedly, it is one of several occasions in the memoir where I am surprised by what Morley neglects to tell us. Even though she insists that her memoir is not an autobiography, and self-deprecatingly refers to it as ‘these rambling reminiscences of my activities’ (p. 182), I would have expected her to say something about the details of the letter, the year of publication, the precise topic, and (if I have identified it correctly) the reaction that it provoked.
The Times Digital Archive contains all the letters addressed to the editor of The Times during Edith Morley’s lifetime, but I was puzzled by her statement that she had signed it with her initials only. If the published letter only ended with E.( J.) M., how had the journalist identified her so quickly? I searched the archive using both her name and her initials, and the earliest letter that I could find was published on 2nd May 1914. It concerned the Home Secretary’s proposals in The Criminal Justice Administration Bill and it ended with Morley’s full signature:
‘E. J. MORLEY (Member of the Penal Reform Association). University College, Reading, April 30.’
The letter draws attention to alleged flaws in four clauses of the bill. These raised issues concerning women in general and for militant activists in particular. It is, therefore, exactly the kind of topic that Emmeline Pankhurst might have asked Professor Morley to give her name to.
The claims by Morley/Pankhurst are these:
Clause 10 enabled fines to be paid from the sentenced persons’ belongings, or from money they had on them at the time of arrest. It was therefore ‘aimed at passive resisters’ because they would be ‘deprived of the right to refuse to pay a fine, the imposition of which they consider to be unjust.’ (NB The numbering of this clause was an error; In the final Act of Parliament Clause 10 dealt with Borstal Institutions; the relevant clause was Clause 4).
Clause 13 would allow prisoners sentenced to jail terms of 10 days or less to be held in police cells rather than a prison. The letter argues that such cells were often ‘dark, unventilated, insanitary, and verminous.’ Furthermore, there were rarely women attendants on duty at night, and male officers were in the habit of entering women’s cells, allegedly to prevent suicide.
Clause 14 would allow magistrates to deal with malicious damage to property up to the value of £20 (instead of the previous £5), thus depriving many of those charged of the right to trial by jury.
Clause 17 would give the Home Secretary the power to have prisoners subjected to surgical operations without their consent. This had the potential for serious abuse.
The letter ends:
‘Thus under cover of some very necessary reforms, an attempt is being made to smuggle through certain dangerous innovations in what is miscalled “criminal justice administration.”‘
The Home Secretary of the time, Reginald McKenna, was sufficiently provoked by the Morley/Pankhurst criticism that he immediately arranged for a certain S. W. Harris of the Home Office to issue a rebuttal. It is worth noting that women prisoners were a sensitive matter for McKenna; only the previous year he had been savagely mocked by a gruesome cartoon in The Daily Herald that depicted him force feeding an unnamed, bound and blindfolded suffragette, referring to him as ‘Forcible-Feeder-in-Chief to the Cabinet’.
The Harris/McKenna letter appeared in The Times on 6th May 1914, four days after the one signed by Morley. It addresses each of the four points in turn, and accuses Mr. E. J. Morley of having ‘misread the clauses he discusses.’ The letter asserts that:
the provision would not apply to “passive resisters” (Clause 4);
allowing money to be removed from someone’s person to pay a fine merely corrected a legal anomaly (Clause 4);
that imprisonment would not be in ordinary police cells but in specially certified accommodation like the Liverpool Bridewell with female attendants for women prisoners (Clause 13);
the magistrates’ jurisdiction over wilful damage up to the value of £20 was an extension of existing powers and terms of imprisonment for such offences were to be reduced (Clause 14).
with regard to non-consensual surgical operations, the claim was denied, stating that the Home Secretary would have no more than the power to authorise removal to a hospital where an operation could be carried out more efficiently .
It will come as no surprise that Morley and/or Pankhurst were less than impressed by these statements; five days later on 11th May 1914, their second letter appeared, again signed E. J. Morley of University College, Reading. I am not aware of the extent of Pankhurst’s involvement, but their arguments were that Harris/McKenna has adopted a much too narrow definition of ‘passive resister’ and the provision would indeed apply to them; that police cells were not ‘suitable places’ for prisoners detained for more than one or two nights; that there was no explicit requirement in the bill for the availability of female attendants; that Harris/McKenna had failed to respond to the matter of trial by jury – furthermore, prisoners in magistrates’ courts received convictions based on unreliable police evidence; and that if the Home Secretary was not empowered to authorise operations on prisoners, why weren’t the words ‘with the consent of the prisoner’ included in the bill?
I have been unable to find any further correspondence on the legislation either from Morley, Pankhurst, or Harris. There are, however, letters about the arrest, imprisonment and maltreatment of Sylvia Pankhurst, and in June of the same year S. W. Harris submitted another rebuttal on behalf of the Home Secretary with the title: ‘The militants: the motive of suffragist crime.’ This again concerned women prisoners and the matter of force feeding. It contained a denial that prison doctors were not willing to do everything possible to prevent the death of suffragettes from starvation.
Post Script
The Criminal Justice Administration Act was passed in August 1914. The introductory text describes it as:
‘An Act to diminish the number of cases committed to prison, to amend the Law with respect to the treatment and punishment of young offenders, and otherwise to improve the Administration of Criminal Justice.’
I have not been able to access earlier drafts of the Bill and cannot therefore give precise details of any changes that were included in the final Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, I can confirm that in the final version, Clause 13 allowed detention in police cells, bridewells and other places, ‘Provided that no place so certified shall be used for the detention of females unless provision is made for their supervision by female officers.’
In addition, Clause 17 appears to presuppose the prisoner’s agreement to hospital treatment or surgical operation by the inclusion of the word ‘consent’.
Thanks
To Charlie Carpenter, Academic Liaison Librarian, who discovered Edith Morley’s second letter and helped me negotiate the Times Digital Archive.
Harris, S. W. (May 6, 1914). Criminal Administration: Home Secretary’s reply to criticisms of the Bill [Letter to the editor]. The Times, Issue 40516, p. 4.
Harris, S. W. (June 17, 1914). The militants: the motive of suffragist crime [Letter to the editor]. The Times, Issue 40552, p. 10.
Lawson, M. (June 18, 1914). The case of Sylvia Pankhurst [Letter to the editor]. The Times, Issue 40553, p. 15.
Morley, E. J. (May 2, 1914). The Criminal Justice Administration Bill: the Home Secretary’s proposals [Letter to the editor]. The Times, Issue 40513, p. 4.
Morley, E. J. (May 11, 1914). The Criminal Justice Administration Bill: the Home Secretary’s proposals [Letter to the editor]. The Times, Issue 40520, p. 3.
Morley, E. J. (1944). Looking before and after. Reminiscences of a working life. Original Typescript, University of Reading Special Collections, MS 938/7/4, Folder 3.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Murray, F. & Schutze, H. (March 19, 1914). Mrs. Pankhurst’s imprisonment: a medical statement of injuries [Letter to the editor]. The Times, Issue 40475, p. 5.
Lord Haldane, Secretary of State for War, performed the official opening of the Great Hall on the 27th October 1906. Most women were banned from attending for fear of disruption by suffragettes.
In an account of women’s suffrage, The Fabian Society and her own feminism, Edith Morley explains her position on acts of violence and illegality. While she disliked these on principle, she concedes that, without them, the struggle would have taken much longer. She points out that the violence was not one-sided and that women ‘suffered much worse than they inflicted or could inflict‘ (‘Reminiscences, p. 142).
Having dealt with serious matters of such significance, it seems strange that the following paragraph labels her exclusion from the opening ceremony of the Great Hall as one of ‘Several lighter incidents‘ instead of railing against the injustice of it. This is all she has to say on the topic:
‘In the thirty-nine years of my active connection with Reading College and University, once – and only once – was I absent on an important ceremonial occasion. This was when Lord Haldane, the Secretary for War, came to open the Hall in October 1906. He consented to officiate on condition that no woman, whether staff or student, was present at the ceremony; for no Minister at that time felt safe from suffragette interruptions.‘ (p. 142).
In fact, not all women were excluded, but those who did attend belonged to a certain level in society or were connected by marriage to the college – among others: Lady Wantage, Lady Saye, Lady Elliott, Mrs G. W. Palmer and Mrs Childs. A lowly English lecturer, or run-of-the mill members of staff or the student body were clearly too much of a threat!
Extract from a map published in the Students’ Handbook (1907-8) showing the location of the Hall
The occasion was reported at length in The Times in an article that runs to well over 2,000 words. Haldane’s speech praised the College, the Hall and the new London Road site. Much of it was reproduced verbatim. Major themes were the inter-relationships between science and industry, wealth and the humanities. Speaking as a Minister of the State, he was concerned with the ‘Educational Needs of the Army‘.
Following his speech Haldane was presented with an inscribed silver inkstand by the architects, Messrs Ravenscroft and C. S, Smith. This was followed by a vote of thanks from the Principal, W. M. Childs, during which he announced to cheers that Lady Wantage had agreed to supply a Hall of Residence for male students.
This is how the article refers to the Great Hall:
‘The scheme of the new college embraces buildings both old and new. The principal feature of the new buildings is the great hall, the foundation-stone of which was laid by Lord Goschen last year. It was in this hall that the ceremony took place on Saturday. It is a handsome building, and will hold 1,000 people. A range of seven cloister buildings, which will later on be connected with the hall by other buildings, has also been erected.’
The south side of the Great Hall (University of Reading Imagebank)
Two things are missing from The Times report – any mention of the exclusion of women, and Haldane’s predication that in fourteen years time the College would become the University of Reading.
Notes
1. Wantage Hall was opened in 1908 and provided accommodation for 76 male students. In their book ‘Reading’s Influential Women‘ Terry Dixon and Linda Saul inform us that Lady Harriet Wantage was ‘a prominent anti-suffragist, active as president of the North Berks Anti-Suffrage League.‘ Of Lady Wantage and Edith Morley they note that, ‘We assume they weren’t friends.‘ (p. 16).
2. This wasn’t Haldane’s only visit to the campus. He returned on 30 April 1909 in his official capacity as Secretary of State for War in order to address the male students about forming a College branch of the Officer Training Corps (more about this in a future post).
Sources
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Dixon, T. & Saul, L. (2020). Reading’s influential women. Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
The Reading University College Review, Vol. I, 1908-9, pp. 154-7.
University College Reading, Annual Report and Accounts, 1905-6.
University College, Reading. Calendar, 1910-11.
University College, Reading. Speech by Mr Haldane. (1906, October 29). The Times, p. 3.
University College Reading (1907). Students’ handbook. First issue: 1907-8. Reading: UCR.
On the 7th June 1905 Viscount Goschen, Chancellor of Oxford University, laid the foundation stone of the Great Hall. The event was attended by the dignitaries of the town as well as the Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire and the High Sheriff. It is no exaggeration to describe the ceremony as an extravaganza.
It is also possibly the first event of the College or University that involved the use of electric vehicles!
Why start the new campus with the hall?
Resources had been limited when the move from Valpy Street to London Road began. There were ambitious plans for the site (see Architects’ sketch below), but the Principal gave priority to building a ‘hearth and home‘ in the form of the Great Hall. His reasoning was as follows:
‘Should it [the hall] be built now or later? The answer depended upon our conception of our undertaking. If the College was to be no more than a mechanism to produce teaching and research, it could do without a hall. If it meant to be a real society, an association of comrades, a hall was a necessity.‘ (Childs, 1933, p. 56)
The decision was not universally popular, as shown by Edith Morley’s account:
‘Money was, as always, very short, and it was necessary to balance conflicting claims. To many it was an unexpected decision to begin with a Great Hall which could become a central meeting place for the whole college. There were many criticisms from disgruntled teachers in cramped and unsuitable quarters, but there can be little doubt that the plan of campaign adopted showed strategic wisdom.‘ (Morley, 2016, p. 109)
The architects’ ambitious concept of the future campus including a driveway for carriages opening onto London Rd
The Order of Proceedings
The booklet containing the programme for the ceremony was in keeping with the extravagance of the occasion itself.
Among its contents were:
The architects’ drawing shown above.
A map of the best route from Valpy Street to the new site.
A detailed plan of the seating arrangements.
The programme of events.
A note on the buildings, the Palmer family and the design of the Hall.
Train timetables to and from Reading.
The Sequence of Events
In total, activities lasted for over four hours. They were planned with military precision, beginning with the arrival of Viscount Goschen:
1.08: Official reception at the railway station.
1.00-1.30: Reception in the town hall.
1.30: Luncheon at the invitation of the Mayor and Mayoress accompanied by a programme of musical items performed by the Scarlet Viennese Band (Conductor R. S. Coates). Toasts and speeches follow.
Following luncheon, guests progress to Broad Street where ‘special Electric Cars‘ are waiting to take them to London Road.
3.30-3.55: THE ASSEMBLY – Guests take their places according to the colour of their tickets.
3.55: Procession of the dignitaries from the Main Entrance to the Academic Platform.
Trumpets.
4.00: THE CEREMONY
Speeches.
The architects (Messrs.Ravenscroft & Smith) hand the Chancellor the Trowel and Mallet.
The Registrar reads out the inscription on the stone.
The College Treasurer deposits a vessel containing Records.
As the stone is lowered, the Students’ Choir sings ‘O God, our help in ages past‘ (conducted by J. C. B. Tirbutt).
The cement is borne by the builders (Messrs. T. H. Kingerlee & Sons).
The Chancellor sets the stone, ‘testing it with the Level and Plumb Rule‘.
The Chancellor declares ‘the Stone to be well and truly laid.’
Prayers, speeches, signing of the Record of Proceedings.
The Chancellor and his Procession leave.
Trumpets.
4.45-5.15: THE GARDEN PARTY
Reception on the lawn of the College Garden.
The Reading Temperance Prize Band performs a selection of music.
GOD SAVE THE KING
Guests are invited to view the Horticultural Gardens, the College Library in the Acacias Building, and the Old Red Building.
The Ceremony (University of Reading, Special Collections)
Did all this go according to plan? I was only able to find one eye-witness account of the ceremony – an anonymous article in the College Magazine. In spite of bad weather, the ceremony was clearly a success and a milestone for the College:
‘When Viscount Goschen laid the foundation stone of our new buildings he did not merely inaugurate a new home for the College, but also wrote the opening words of a new chapter in its history.’ (p. 4)
And:
‘The heavy stone was raised to allow of the mortar being spread beneath it, then re-lowered to the place it is to occupy for so long, covering and guarding the vessel containing the records of the ceremony. Lord Goschen tested it and declared it to be “well and truly laid.”‘ (p. 6)
The foundation stone on the north wall in 2022
While preparing this post I couldn’t help reflecting on the contrast between the magnificence of this event – the obvious importance of the College to the town of Reading – and Edith Morley’s comment about the College on arriving for her interview at Valpy Street:
‘When I arrived at the station no-one was able to direct me to the College, so insignificant and unknown it still was to the man in the street.‘ (p. 97)
So either the College had come a long way in the four years since Morley’s arrival, or her account was tainted by the embarrassment of arriving late for her interview. Maybe a little of both. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that when the extension to the buildings in Valpy Street were completed in 1898, they had been opened by the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) to the accompaniment of much street decoration and flag waving.
Post Script
The booklet of the Order of Proceedings is held by the University Library. It is available on request from the off-site store (R.U. RESERVE–378.4229-UNI).
Sources
Childs, W. M. (1933). Making a university: an account of the university movement at Reading. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Smith, S. & Bott, M. (1992). One hundred years of university education in Reading: a pictorial history. Reading: University of Reading.
University College, Reading. The Magazine. 1905, Vol IV, Spring Term. no. 3.
University College, Reading (1905). Order of the proceedings at the laying of the foundation stone of the new buildings of University College, Reading, by the Right Hon. Viscount Goschen, D.C.L., F.R.S., Chancellor of the University of Oxford, 7 June, 1905.Reading: Holybrook Press.
In my post about the Normal Department I noted that the origins of Teacher Education at Reading University could be traced to the founding of the University Extension College in 1892. In 1898 this became Reading College, soon followed by recognition as a Day Training College. This extended its field of operations and laid the foundations for what would eventually become today’s Institute of Education.
According to Carol Dyhouse’s ‘Students: a gendered history‘, day training departments in colleges and universities were introduced by the government in 1890 and were responsible for a significant increase in student numbers, particularly of women. Reading and Southampton followed in the steps of 13 other institutions in gaining recognition in 1899.
Reading College Calendar 1899-1900: Childs was still Lecturer in History & English Literature; he became Vice-Principal in 1900, Principal in 1903 and Vice-Chancellor of the University in 1926
By the time of Edith Morley’s appointment in November 1901, the Day Training College was preparing 80 full-time students for the Elementary Teachers’ Certificate on a course lasting two years. These students formed the bulk of full-timers in the arts and sciences.
The provision was innovative in at least two ways. First, from the outset most students were accommodated in halls of residence (rendering the phrase ‘day training’ inappropriate). And second, thanks to the cooperation of heads of the other departments, they were admitted to degree courses. The latter initiative raised some eyebrows in Whitehall but it seems to have been a success in as far as the trainees became fully integrated members of the student body and helped to secure the future of a group of subjects that became the nucleus of the Faculty of Letters. In other words, Education was at the very centre of academic activity.
A half century later, in 1949, Sir Frank Stenton, the University’s third Vice-Chancellor, paid tribute to the role of this early Education department in helping to overcome fears that the College was doomed to provide little more than technical instruction:
‘For this, all who are interested in the University of 1949 owe gratitude to the little group of teachers and students who formed the miserably housed and infelicitously named Day Training College of fifty years ago.‘ (p. 4)
Admission to the Day Training Department
Those eligible for admission were:
Candidates who had obtained a first or second class pass in the Queen’s Scholarship Examination;
Certified teachers who hadn’t received 2 years training;
Graduates;
Candidates over the age of 18 who had passed an examination approved by the Government Education Department.
Candidates in categories 2 and 3 only had to complete one year of the course.
Acceptance was subject to a health check conducted by the Medical Officer, Dr J. B. Hurry, and a declaration that it was the candidate’s bona fide intention to teach in a state school.
The College received £20 per student in fees (£10 from the student and £10 from the Government Education Department). Grants for maintenance for Queen’s Scholars consisted of £20 for women and £25 for men. Students not living at home paid a maintenance fee of £15 (women) or £12 (men).
The Course
As the first-year timetable below suggests, students were kept busy six days a week with a combination of subject knowledge and lectures on teaching method. These were interspersed with just four short slots for private study or tuition.
The first published timetable for the Day Training Department (Reading College Calendar 1900-01, p. 119)
The Master of Method
The creation of the Day Training Department also marked the appointment of the first official Lecturer in Education. As can be seen from the first Calendar extract above, this was J. H. Gettins who served as ‘Master of Method‘ until 1907 when he was succeeded by H. S. Cooke.
Professor Albert Wolters, the subject of a previous post on this blog, had been a student in the Day Training Department in 1902. Nearly half a century later, he still had fond memories of Gettins:
‘The staff consisted of Mr. J. H. Gettins, who, harassed but cheerful, worked from morn to night, giving lectures and supervising school practice, knowing all the time that by reason of the training being concurrent with academic studies his Department was a nuisance.‘ (p. 18)
During Wolters’s time as a student, teaching practice was a mere three weeks per session and took place at the Swansea Road Board School. Further schools became involved later, including Redlands.
The Next 50 Years
In the half century following its establishment as a Day Training College in Valpy Street, the Education Department went from strength to strength and was responsible for a number of key innovations. A previous post has already mentioned the Department’s early contribution to educational research and to the schooling of evacuees during World War II, following which it was fully engaged in the government’s Emergency Training Scheme.
One particular initiative excited wide interest. This was the University College’s ‘Farm School‘ at Shinfield, an experiment that took place between 1912 and 1926. It was attended by as many as 120 children annually from the borough including pupils from Redlands School (by then the Department’s ‘demonstration school’). Sadly, the scheme was abandoned as priorities changed when the University College became the University of Reading, but the tradition of Outdoor Education is still maintained today through the work of Dr Helen Bilton, Professor of Outdoor Learning at Reading’s Institute of Education.
Post Script
There were Mistresses of Method as well as Masters, though none of the lecturers in education at Reading ever had the title.
In Edith Morley’s chapter on women at universities, she includes training teachers as one of four kinds of opening available to women:
‘These posts, which are remunerated on about the same scale as other University lectureships are well suited to those whose interest lies mainly in purely educational matters. Girls who have obtained good degrees, but do not wish to devote themselves entirely to scholarship, will find here an attractive and ever-extending sphere of influence.’ (p. 19)
And:
‘Mistresses of Method are well aware that the ideal type of training has not yet been evolved: they are seeking new ways of carrying on their work and experimenting with new methods at the same time as they are guiding others along paths already familiar to themselves.‘ (p. 19)
During the 50 years between 1899 and 1949 there were 32 full-time Education staff at Reading. Seventeen were women (these figures omit academics such as Edith Morley who were in other departments but contributed subject-specialist expertise to Education courses).
Sources
Armstrong, H. (1949). A brief outline of the growth of the Department. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 9-17). University of Reading.
Barnard, H. C. (1949). A note on the term “Day Training College. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (p. 8). University of Reading.
Campbell, I. E. (1949). The farm school, 1912-1926, and the development of courses in rural science for intending teachers. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 33-6). University of Reading.
Dyhouse, C. (2006). Students: a gendered history. Abingdon: Routledge.
Morley, E. J. (2014). Women at the universities and university teaching as a profession. In E. J. Morley (Ed.), Women workers in seven professions: a survey of their economic conditions and prospects (pp. 11-24). London: Routledge. [Edited for the Studies Committee of the Fabian Women’s Group].
Morley, E. J. (2016). Before and after: reminiscences of a working life (original text of 1944 edited by Barbara Morris). Reading: Two Rivers Press.
Reading College. Calendar, 1899-1900 & 1900-01.
Reading College. Report of the Academic Board, 1898-9 & 1899-1900.
Stenton, F. (1949). Vice-Chancellor’s foreword. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 4-6). University of Reading.
Wolters, A. W. (1949). Early days. In H. C. Barnard (Ed.), The Education Department through fifty years (pp. 18-20). Reading: University of Reading.
