S C I E N T I S T S A N D C I V I L S E R V A N T S : T H E S T R U G G L E

O V E R T H E N A T I O N A L P H Y S I C A L L A B O R A T O R Y

I N 1918

ERIC HUTCHINSON

THE National Physical Laboratory (NPL) was founded in 1899 in accordance with the recommendations made by the committee of inquiry set up under the chairmanship of Lord Rayleigh 1 in 1897 and settled in a house at Bushy Park, Teddington, donated by the Crown. The expenses of the laboratory were originally met partly by private philanthropy, partly by grants from scientific and technical bodies and partly by an annual Treasury grant. 2 The original foundation of the laboratory vested the property and the responsibility for managing the scientific and financial programme in the Royal Society, which chose the director and oversaw the operation of the laboratory through an executive committee. The members of the executive committee were sdlected from fellows of the Royal Society in such a way as to reflect the interests not only of the Royal Society but also of various professional bodies such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, etc. 3

The purposes of the laboratory were twofold: to provide reliable physical standards and methods of testing scientific instruments, and to carry out original research in physics. Fellows of the Royal Society serving on the executive committee without remuneration appear to have taken their duties seriously and to have kept a critical watch to maintain a very high level of quality in the research carried out at the laboratory. Within a decade the National Physical Laboratory was recognised as one of the leading institutions in the world for research in physics.

The quality of research at the laboratory reflected the ability of the scientific staff. The director and many of the superintendents were fellows

1 John William Strutt, third Baron Rayleigh (1842-1919), became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1874 and was Cavendish professor of experimental physics in the University of Cambridge from 1879 to 1884; he won the Nobel prize for physics in 1904 and was president of the Royal Society from 1905 to 1915 and chancellor of the University of Cambridge from 1908 to 1919. He was a co-discoverer of argon, and an extra- ordinarily imaginative worker in nearly all areas of physics, especially physical optics, and combined unusual clarity of theory with elegance of exposition.

2 Cardwell, D.S.L., The Organisation o/ Science in Britain (London: Heinemann, 1956), pp. 148-150.

3 Thus Sir William Ellis, FRS, served as a member of the executive committee not only because he was a fellow of the Royal Society but also as a representative of the Institution of Civil Engineers, of which he was president from 1914 to 1916.

374 ERIC HUTCHINSON

of the Royal Society, while a number of the superintendents were later appointed to university chairs of physics." The academic atmosphere at the NPL was fostered by the Royal Society in as much as the research at the NPL was directed at fundamental problems in physics and publication of results was encouraged in the Society's Philosophical Transactions and Proceedings. Terms of employment at the NPL were similar to those for academic posts: "The higher grades . . . correspond to lecturers and junior professors in universities, while it is felt most important that super- intendents should rank with professors in charge of sections or departments in universities. ''5 Transfer of NPL staff to and from academic life was facilitated by the fact that the pension scheme for the laboratory was part of the Federated Superannuation Scheme for Universities (FSSU) and remained so until 1964, when the NPL was taken over by the Ministry of Technology. The executive committee had an enlightened employment policy which permitted able young scientists to be promoted rapidly to senior posts.

The NPL in the Orbit of Government: The Impact of War

The First World War greatly increased the work load of the NPL. Essential research was undertaken fox the government, particularly in aerodynamics, and at the same time an almost crushing burden of testing was thrust on the laboratory by the needs of the defence industries for accurate instruments, notably engineers' gauges, certified by the NPL metrology department. Most of this work was carried out under what we now recognise as the contract system, but in 1915 neither government departments nor research laboratories were experienced in estimating the cost of applied research services, nor had the "cost-plus" contract been invented. Most members of the executive committee were untrained in financial management, and as the war progressed it became increasingly obvious that, should the laboratory's involvement with the government continue after the war, a radical change in management policies would be needed. ~ It was equally clear that the government would indeed be involved with scientific and industrial research, because the First World War had emphasised, and not just disclosed, the obsolete character of much

For example, George W. O. Howe became ]tames Watt professor of engineering in Glasgow University in 1922; Richard Vynne SouthweU, superintendent of the aero- dynamics department of the NPL from 1920 to 1925, became professor of engineering science in Oxford University in 1929 and rector of Imperial College in 1942. Thomas (later Sir Thomas) Stanton, who did distinguished work in fluid mechanics, had occupied the chair of engineering at University College, Bristol, before becoming a superintendent at the NPL. Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (22 January, 1918). Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, " Report of the Executive Committee of the NPL" (1917).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 375

of British industrial technology; to permit the situation to continue in post-war years would jeopardise the nation's economic competitiveness. 7

To ensure that the scientific needs of the armed services were met, the government had established in 1915 a naval Board of Invention which later developed into the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). The department was initially organised within the Board of Edu- cation, but by early 1917 it was a separate establishment, learning to coordinate applied research being carried on in a number of separate armed forces establishments and persuading university and college science departments to undertake research for the government? No one doubted that in view of the necessary involvement of the NPL in the nation's scientific problems there would have to be a close relationship between the NPL and the DSIR. Nor is there any reason to doubt that from the stand- point of the DSIR the tidiest policy would have been for the government simply to take over the laboratory and run it as a government institution. This course was not possible because of the active interest of the Royal Society in the NPL. The compromise which emerged made the NPL into a subdivision of the DSIR in financial and administrative matters but left responsibility for the management of its scientific policy with the executive committee. Negotiations were begun in 1917 but there was an acrimonious struggle for nearly two years before the main issues were settled.

Heath and Glazebrook

The battle for control of the National Physical Laboratory concentrated on a few very specific points about salaries and numbers of posts but it expressed more general attitudes of distrust between civil servants and academic scientists. Issues of principle and differences in outlook were complicated by clashes of personality; strong feeling was not limited to the main antagonists, Sir Frank Heath and Sir Richard Glazebrook. An understanding of the trouble requires some knowledge of the NPL and the DSIR as institutions and of Heath and Glazebrook as individuals.

In 1917 the DSIR was barely two years old. Its staff possessed little experience and lacked even the most elementary scientific competence. It had begun its life in the Board of Education, yet it is noteworthy that its

7 , , . . . With a view especially to the application of science to trade and industry . . . many of our industries have since the outbreak of war suffered through our inability to produce at home certain articles and materials required in trade processes, the manufacture of which has become localised abroad, and particularly in Germany, because science there has become more thoroughly and effectively applied to scientific problems bearing on trade and industry . . ." A Scheme for the Organisation and Development of Scientific and Industrial Research. Cd. 8005 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1915), p. 2.

8 Melville, H. W., The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1962), pp. 23-24.

376 ERIC HUTCHINSON

two major officials, Sir Frank Heath and Sir William McCormick, who were drawn from the board's staff, had no familiarity at all with science. (This is the more surprising in that the First World War had brought to the fore men of the calibre of William Bragg and Richard Threlfall, who were both scientists and men of the world and could easily have learned enough of the art of administration to have headed the DSIR.) Parlia- mentary responsibility for the DSIR was vested in the Lord President acting with the consent of a committee for scientific and industrial research attached to the Privy Council, of which Heath was secretary. The prin- cipal source of scientific expertise of this committee was an advisory council, of which McCormick was administrative chairman and Heath administrative secretary. The advisory council members were drawn from the Royal Society and included such distinguished scientists as Lord Rayleigh, Sir George Beilby 9 and Bertram Hopkinson. 1~ The advisory council was instituted to advise the committee of the Privy Council on the initiation of particular schemes of scientific research, the establishment of laboratories and institutions to meet industrial and scientific needs and the establishment of a system of grants for the support of research and research training.

Successive Lords President of the Privy Council varied greatly in the interest which they devoted to the DSIR. In the period in question, Lord Curzon delegated most of the responsibility to the Liberal historian, H. A. L. Fisher, who, as president of the Board of Education, was vice- president of the committee of council. Hence the relationship of the DSIR to the Board of Education was prolonged, albeit informally.

Sir Frank Heath (1863-1946), a graduate of University College London, had been professor of English literature and language at Bedford College from 1890 to 1896, when he moved into administrative work, becoming registrar and acting treasurer of the University of London in 1901. In 1903 he entered government service as director of special inquiries at the Board of Education, where he undertook various duties including that of advising the Government of India on education. Heath's work put him in close touch with McCormick, who administered the forerunner of

the University Grants Committee. Heath was appointed secretary of the DSIR by an order in council on 24 January, 1917. His successor in the DSIR, H. T. Tizard, who thought highly of Heath's administrative ability, wrote: " H e was never a scholar in the accepted sense . , . and . . .

9 George Thomas Beilby (1850-1924) was a distinguished industrial chemist who after graduating from Edinburgh University improved the process of distillation of oil shales. He was elected fellow of the Royal Society in 1906, knighted in 1916, and was a governor of the Royal Technical College, Glasgow, from 1907 to 1923.

10 Bertram Hopkinson (1874-1918) did outstanding work in engineering and in 1903 was elected professor of applied mechanics in Cambridge University. During the First World War he was responsible for many important inventions for the Admiralty.

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 377

rightly abandoned an academic for an administrative career. He wrote easily and clearly but without great distinction." 11 Though Heath's ability was undeniable, his scholarly achievements were not of an order to impress serious scientists.

By 1917 the NPL had a permanent staff of some 150; its seven depart- ments were headed by superintendents of high scientific attainment, men like Thomas Stanton 12 and Walter Rosenhain. 1~ It had behind it achieve- ments in all the traditional areas of physics--heat, optics, metrology--and was carrying out pioneering work in metallurgy and hydrodynamics. Leading the institution since its opening was Sir Richard Glazebrook, author of many research papers and a variety of standard physics texts. Glazebrook (1854-1935) graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, as fifth wrangler in 1876. Elected a fellow of Trinity in 1877, he remained in Cambridge as a university lecturer and assistant director of research at the Cavendish Laboratory until 1898, when he was appointed principal of University College, Liverpool. Glazebrook had scarcely settled into this last appointment when, in 1899, he was invited to become director of the NPL, a post which he occupied until he reached statutory retirement age in 1919, after which he became Zaharoff professor of aeronautics at Imperial College until 1923. Despite the friction which existed between him and Heath, Glazebrook served as a member of DSIR committees after his retirement, and in 1927 was still opposing a complete takeover of the NPL by the DSIR. 1~

At the time of the negotiations the chairman of the executive commit- tee was Lord Rayleigh, a physicist of monumental prestige; the committee included amongst its members not only active scientists like Arthur Schuster 1~ but public men like Lord Southborough. The president of the Royal Society, to whose lot it fell to assist in making peace between the committee and the DSIR, was Sir Joseph Thomson (J. J. Thomson).

The Application of Civil Service Principles to Scientific Research

There were practically no precedents to guide the DSIR in its dealings with the NPL. The department had set up a Fuel Research Station with

~1 Tizard, H. T., article on F. H. Heath, Dictionary o] National Biography (Oxford Uni- 7ersity Press, 1959), p. 372.

l~ Thomas Stanton did distinguished work in fluid mechanics, which had immediate application to the design of aerofoils.

1~ Waiter Rosenhain had broad interests in the mechanical and electrical properties of metallic alloys.

14 Clark, R. W., Tizard (Cambridge, Mass. : The M IT Press, 1965), pp. 75-76. ~s Arthur Schuster (1851-1934) was professor of applied mathematics and later professor

of physics in Owens College, Manchester, from 1881 to 1907; he was knighted in 1920, foreign secretary of the Royal Society from 1920 to 1928, and secretary of the International Research Council f rom 1919 to 1928. He was a very distinguished spectroscopist.

378 ERIC HUTCHINSON

a small scientific staff and it had provided financial support for a Food Investigation Board in Cambridge and other places, 1" but the scale of these operations was small. As a first issue in the negotiations, posts at the NPL had to be classified with respect to qualifications, responsibilities and salaries, after which the even knottier issue of the number of posts pro- vided for as "established" had to be resolved. The NPL already had a table of establishment, lr but the salary scales dated from 1904 and were clearly inappropriate to the situation of 1917. The position at the labora- tory was complicated by the fact that the number of employees had nearly doubled in consequence of wartime needs. Though the DSIR chose to regard nearly all the wartime appointments as "temporary ", the executive committee refused to accept such a distinction, arguing that most of the staff appointed during the war were first-rate scientists whom it was necessary to retain in expectation of a permanently increased research programme.

The laboratory was organised in seven scientific departments and a secretarial department. Departments were under the immediate charge of a superintendent and each of the divisions within a department was directed by a principal or senior assistant. The staff was grouped in four classes: scientific staff, observer staff, clerical staff and weekly wage staff (mechanics et aI.). The salary scales proposed by the committee for the scientific staff were as follows: superintendents s with occasional exceptions at the upper limit; principal assistants s senior assistants s 25-600; assistants (I) s assistants (II) s junior assistants s Since even junior assistants were expected to be graduates of a university or technical college and superintendents were men in their late forties or early fifties, mostly fellows of the Royal Society, it is clear that the proposed salaries were by no means lavish, even with FSSU contributions added on. For comparison it may be noted that Heath easily obtained Treasury sanction for a salary of s for L. S. Lloyd, who was the original assistant secretary of the DSIR at the age of 39.18

Early in the war the navy had established an Admiralty research department, while the army, at the research department at Woolwich and the signals research establishment, employed a considerable number of scientists. It might be thought that the salary scales used in these institutions might have provided a standard, but the DSIR appears never to have used such data as were freely available. The salaries of scientists

~s Melville, H. W., op. cit., pp. 1-20. 17 The NPL staff structure was given in the executive committee report which formed the

basis for negotiation. Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, " Report of the Execu- tive Committee of the N P L " (1917).

~s Public Record Office, File 18/18, DSIR, Establishment Minute No. 1 (3 April, 1917).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 379

in industry were very much higher than those proposed by the executive

committee.

With a few exceptions Glazebrook wished to include in the basic establishment all the staff employed at the NPL in 1917. The DSIR, on the other hand, proposed to underwrite an initial establishment limited to those members of staff who had held pre-war posts or who had been appointed to fill posts held by men who had died or retired in wartime, and then to increase the establishment when estimates of post-war needs could be made.

The members of the executive committee were in an awkward position. They wished to retain full power to direct the scientific programme of the laboratory, but since scientific research often requires its practitioners to follow unplanned and unbudgeted leads, they needed money for unpre- dictable research programmes and had to argue for such sums with civil servants to whom unplanned spending was a deadly sin likely to call down the wrath of the public auditor. Except for the small annual grant which it made to the NPL, the Treasury had no experience of supporting basic research in a government laboratory. 19 As accounting officer for the DSIR, Heath was in a strong position to deny the executive committee the very freedom which makes basic research possible, and nothing in his career equipped him to be sensitive to the committee's conviction that freedom was essential to the effective working of the laboratory.

Glazebrook's role in the battle deserves special notice. With a distin- guished scientific career behind him, Glazebrook was not awed byHeath, nor was he a political innocent. His efforts were designed to protect the splendid laboratory which he had built and to provide his successors with the best conditions for scientific research that he could extract from the government. Glazebrook's fight was in no way self-serving (he was due to retire soon after the transfer of the NPL to the DSIR), whereas Heath had a substantial empire to gain if he could obtain control of the NPL.

Although there are indications that Sir Joseph Thomson was prepared to

be more conciliatory than Glazebrook, the latter had the steady support of

his executive committee. The fundamental issue was whether research

:9 When the NPL was opened in 1899, the original Treasury grant was a sum of s for buildings and capital equipment, with an annual grant of s for five years to cover operating costs. In reporting to Lord Curzon, Glazebrook noted that for the period 1899-1919 (i.e., f rom the foundation to the takeover by the DSIR), the total resources were as follows: Capital account: Treasury s private donations s Operation account: Treasury s private donations s work for government departments, pro- fessional organisations, etc., s The value of the capital equipment and build- ings at the time of the takeover by the DSIR was estimated by Glazebrook to be nearly s the figures above suggest that the exact value was s Over the 20-year period the average annual Treasury grant (capital and operation) was almost s compared with the average annual total of nearly s

3 8 0 ERIC HUTCHINSON

policy should be in the hands of an independent committee rather than in those of civil servants who had little appreciation of the problems of providing conditions appropriate to scientific discovery.

Heath the Stonewaller

Glazebrook formally conveyed the report of the executive committee to the DSIR on 29 November, 1917. Heath replied on 3 December ~~ " L l o y d has explained to you, I think, that we shall need a statement as to the actual salaries now being paid at the laboratory, and the number of

officers in each g r a d e . . , before 1 can put the report of the executive com- mittee before the advisory council." I have emphasised this last remark because before long Heath complained that the advisory council was improperly concerning itself with N P L salaries. Glazebrook wrote to Heath, 21 giving a tentative estimate of staff needs: " I n addition to the 50 assistants there will be some 30-40 junior assistants and some 50-60 observers, say a staff of 150 excluding clerical and office staff, all junior to

the 20 senior assistants . . . . " On 2 February, 1918, Heath reported ~- that the advisory council had discussed the salary question and that:

There was general agreement that the salary schedule must be arranged to provide a number of "plums " in higher posts . . . . It was also agreed that the schedule must as far as possible assist the director in preventing men of quite moderate value reaching the highest posts by mere automatic promotion . . . .

It was also thought that the general plan of the salary schedu le . . , should be as follows: deputy director s superintendent staff s senior staff s s junior staff s temporary staff s

Glazebrook replied on 3 February, 2~ arguing that the executive commit- tee should enjoy some freedom in grading and promotion. The arguments were repeated in a letter from Rayleigh to McCormick 24: , . . . I see that you have on the programme the scale of NPL salaries . . . I certainly hope that you will be able to accept these without diminution. The matter was fully discussed and I think complete unanimity arrived at . . . . "

Meanwhile, on 5 February, 1918, Glazebrook suggested to Heath ~5 that eight or nine superintendents, 11 principal assistants, and 17 senior assist-

ants would be needed.

2o Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Glazebrook (3 December, 1917). 21 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (30 January, 1918). 2~ Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Glazebrook (2 February, 1918). e~ Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (3 February, 1918). ~4 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Raylelgh to McCormick (4 February, 1918). 25 Public Record Office, File I0/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (5 February, 1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 381

The advisory council met on 6 February. Minute 127 of that meeting

was to be quoted many times in subsequent disputes 26.

�9 . . The budget committee had unanimously reached the conclusion that in view of the large developments taking place and likely to take place at the laboratory itself, and of the intimate bearing that any scale of salaries adopted for the NPL must have upon scales to be adopted at the National Fuel Research Station and any other research institutions for which the department might become responsible, it was impossible for council to express an opinion on the proposed scale without further inquiry and consideration�9 The council were in complete agreement with the aims of the executive committee as expressed in the last paragraph of page four of the report of their subcommittee and they considered it of the highest importance that the financial position of the laboratory staff should be improved and that scientific workers should be well remunerated, but it must be remembered that any scale adopted would influence and might determine the future conditions under which men of science would take service under government for many years to come and for this reason alone a right decision is of grave importance. Accordingly the council recommended that the chairman and secretary should be asked to confer with Lord Rayleigh and if possible Lord Southborough with a view to meeting with the subcommittee at a later date when the whole position could be discussed. The council recognised that this procedure might entail certain temporary arrangements. The advisory council unanimously approved the report.

A tactic of delay came into operation. The transfer date had been set

for 1 April, 1918, and there was a need to move with some speed. Heath

soon found out from Glazebrook that the erosion of morale caused by this

delay on questions of salary might well discourage beyond remedy the adoption by scientists of a career in government service. (Only a year

before, in pressing for a permanent establishment for his own headquarters

staff, Heath had vigorously urged the Lord President to avoid the problems caused by temporary appointmentsY 7)

On 7 February, McCormick replied to Lord RayleighY 8

�9 . . In your absence yesterday [from the meeting of the advisory council] it was a g r e e d . . , that it would be best to delay coming to a decision as to the NPL salary scale till we had an opportunity of a talk with you and possibly Lord Southborough. Meanwhile I can assure you that every member of the council is at one with you and Glazebrook as to the object you have in mind. The raising of the salary standards of the scientific

26 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, advisory council meeting minute 127 (6 February, 1918).

2r Public Record Office, File 18/18, DSIR, Heath to Curzon (17 August, 1917). ~8 Public Record Office, File 10/32. DSIR. McCormick to Rayleigh (7 February, 1918).

382 ERIC HUTCHINSON

worker was one of the points specially emphasised in our annum report and we must fight for it with the Treasury through thick and thin . . . . We feel that if we are to fight the Treasury successfully we had better not try to rush it through without due deliberation but to take steps to assure ourselves (1) that the schedule is presented in a shape that is as little offensive as possible to Treasury practice and prejudice, and (2) that the schedule is one that will be applicable to the NPL not only as it exists at present but with its probably large developments in the future . . . .

This was somewhat disingenuous. The executive committee was a

committee of fellows of the Royal Society, responsible to the president and

council of the Royal Society--a body with a long tradition of advising

the government on scientific matters and with an older claim to perform

that function than the advisory council, which was in fact obliged to draw

on the personnel of the society. By any standard, the executive committee

was professionally and constitutionally the fittest body available to advise

on the salaries of physicists and on the machinery by which grading and

promotion at the NPL ought to be achieved. As events were to show, to

interpose Treasury prejudice as an excuse for delay was merely a smoke

screen: as it turned out, the Treasury accepted the salary schedules. One

may be pardoned for presuming that Heath and McCormick had overstated

Treasury prejudice in the matter to the advisory council; the Treasury had

no precedents to cause it to deny the claims of the executive committee of

the NPL.

The advisory council met again on 20 February, 1918, to consider a long report ~ detailing the proposed salaries and qualifications for NPL posts. Its minute read as follows 30:

�9 . . The council agreed :-- that in view of the decision reached by the [advisory] council at their last meeting the secretary be instructed to write to Sir Richard Glazebrook assuring him that the council intend to recom- mend a scheme of salaries for the scientific staff of the National Physical Laboratory which will be no less advantageous than that proposed by the executive committee; and that meanwhile they will recommend the com- mittee of council to approach the Treasury for temporary increases of salary to present members of the staff.

Heath transmitted the general content of this minute to Glazebrook on 21 February? 1

This minute, like minute 127, was to be the subject of much controversy

at a later date. It is hard to understand just what the advisory council had

~9 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, unsigned document (18 February, 1918). 30 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, confirmed minutes of the advisory council

(20 February, 1918). 31 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Glazebrook (21 February, 1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 383

in mind as an ultimate goal. There is no reason to suppose that the execu-

tive committee thought their own salary scale too ungenerous. Neither is

there any evidence in the files that the advisory council ever took a single step to obtain a scale which was more generous. The phrase " a scheme

no less advantageous" has a hollow ring in the light of the evidence. If

the advisory council really believed that better terms could be secured from

the Treasury, and that it would be a poor strategy first to present the

executive committee's scale and then to attempt to improve its conditions,

their hesitation would be intelligible, but there is nothing to suggest that

they intended to press for better conditions. On 23 March, 1918, Heath wrote to the Treasury 32 regarding temporary

increases in salary for the scientific staff of the NPL.

I am to state . . . that the executive committee have submitted to this department a comprehensive scheme of revised salaries and wages to be paid to the staff of the laboratory on its transfer to the committee of the Privy C o u n c i l . . . on 1 April next. The proposals . . . have been submit- ted to the advisory council, who have given very careful consideration to the questions involved. In the result they have submitted to the committee of council a recommendation that the committee should approach the Treasury for temporary increases of salary to the present members of the scientific staff pending the settlement of a more permanent scheme . . . . In view of the importance which will attach to [the executive committee's] proposals if adopted, and of the relatively large expenditures involved, the committee of council are c/ear that no decision in the matter is possible before the actual transfer of the laboratory on 1 April . . . . In order therefore that the staff may be assured as far as possible that their claims will receive just treatment on the transfer of the laboratory to the govern- ment, I am to ask that their lordships will authorise the committee of council to issue a statement to the executive committee of the laboratory before the end of the current financial year that any increases in salaries and wages which may hereafter be sanctioned by their lordships on the transfer of the laboratory will take effect as from 1 April next.

This letter expresses the uncompromising intention of the committee of

council--which in practice meant Heath and the advisory council--not to

negotiate a salary scale until after the transfer and the enrolment of the staff as government employees. To an already suspicious employee such

an intention could have been interpreted as indicative of something less

than good faith on the part of the DSIR. The letter makes no mention

whatever of the asserted intention of the advisory council to secure salaries at least as advantageous as those proposed by the executive committee. On the contrary, the letter refers to the hope of reaching agreement " i f

z2 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to H.M. Treasury (23 March, 1918).

384 ERiC HUTCHINSON

possible" with the executive committee and draws attention to the "relat ively large expenditures ". I t is inconceivable that the executive committee would object to any proposals which were as advantageous as their own, and the use of this language in the letter to the Treasury may be interpreted as an intention to undercut the executive committee's pro- posals. There is no doubt that Glazebrook questioned the department 's professed intentions and that this let ter--which did not even contain any specific proposals about temporary salaries--could serve only to darken his suspicions.

Three days later Sir Thomas Heath of the Treasury replied. 33 " . . . I

think it would be unusual and rather inconvenient that the Treasury should write officially (before they have seen a proposal) that whatever they sanction under it should have effect from a certain d a t e . . . "

For about a week there was a flurry of correspondence between the NPL and the DSIR, arising from an observation made by Lloyd that some of the current N P L salaries included overtime payment for war work, making it difficult for the DSIR to discover what the basic salaries of the N P L were. This claim prompted Heath to complain to the advisory council about the unbusinesslike practices of the laboratory, but the real bombshell took the form of a minute from Heath to Fisher, 3. dated after the transfer.

�9 . . The Lord President . . . endorsed the suggestion . . . that the whole question of salaries for the scientific employees of the government should be remitted to a carefully selected committee for consideration and report. If you were to agree to this suggestion it would perhaps be wise for it to be endorsed by both the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Reconstruction so that I could write to the Treasury informing them that the committee of council in consultation with the Ministry of Reconstruc- tion had reached this conclusion and that it was proposed to establish a committee accordingly. You will wish to consider, no doubt, whether you think it well to mention the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before an official letter is written and further whether it would not be wise to include some member of the Treasury upon the committee. I should think that if he is well enough, we could not find a better chairman than Lord Southborough, who is presumably less pressed now that the Irish Convention have concluded their sittings . . . .

This is one of the most remarkable minutes written by Heath. In the first place it completely avoided any reference to the N P L budget committee, which was a committee of the advisory council�9 I t shows that Heath had no hesitation in proposing to discard entirely the recommendations of the

33 Public Record Office, File 10132, DSIR, T. Heath to F. H. Heath (26 March, 1918). 3~ Public Record Office, File 10[32, DSIR, minute from Heath to Fisher (10 April, 1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 385

executive committee, to which, at least on paper, the advisory council was now morally committed as representing the minimum to be achieved. This came extremely close to bad faith on the part of Heath and expressed his barely concealed contempt for the defective business sense of the eminent scientists on both the executive committee and the advisory council. In the matter of honest procedure--and when it suited him Heath could be most punctilious about procedure--it seemed hardly proper to suggest that, by dragging in the President of the Board of Trade, the decision to refer the salary question to a committee of inquiry could be termed an act of the committee of the council: the committee comprised also the Secretary for Scotland, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lords Haldane, Gainsford and Ackland. Heath's attempt to bypass not only the advisory council but the majority of the committee of council, too, was high-handed, if not unconstitutional. Finally, in proposing that the committee of inquiry should have Lord Southborough as chairman, Heath may have intended to spike the executive committee's guns, for Southborough was a member of that committee. Southborough, a skilled politician, declined the bait: the record indicates that he fully supported Glazebrook and the Royal Society.

In the outcome none of Heath's suggestions was adopted. The Chan- cellor of the Exchequer decided against a committee of inquiry.

Throughout the months of negotiation, Glazebrook experienced diffi- culty in retaining a number of members of the scientific staff who were being offered higher salaries elsewhere. This was especially embarrassing in that the scientists in question were mostly members of the aeronautics department which was constantly being asked to take on more research for the Air Ministry. Heath showed little sympathy for Glazebrook's prob- lem, even going so far as to address a circular to the NPL staff laying the entire blame for delay on the salary scale at Glazebrook's door. 35 The patience of the executive committee was wearing thin and at the advisory council meeting of 24 April, 1918, Rayleigh pointedly raised the issue. ~6

Lord Rayleigh as chairman of the executive committee of the National Physical Laboratory submitted the following resolution passed by the executive committee on 18 April: The executive committee has learned with satisfaction of the decision of the advisory council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as conveyed to the director in Sir Frank Heath's letter of 21 February to the effect that it was their intention to recommend in due course a scheme of salaries for the scientific staff of the National Physical Laboratory which would not be less advantageous

3n Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, mimeographed document signed by Heath, undated.

36 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, advisory council minute 181 (24 April, 1918).

386 ERIC HUTCHINSON

than that proposed by the executive committee, while in the meantime they would recommend the committee of council to approach the Treasury for temporary increases in salary to present members of staff. At the same time the [executive] committee desire to put on record their considered opinion that it is of the utmost importance for the future of the laboratory that the action indicated should be taken without further delay, and that they request the chairman [Rayleigh] to use his influence with the advisory council to secure this in justice to the staff and in the interest of their national work.

Rayleigh's political skill in writing into the record a barbed compli-

ment t o the advisory council reminding them of undischarged promises

bore fruit. On 26 April, Heath wrote to the Treasury indicating the inten-

tion of the DSIR to submit a provisional salary schedule and requesting that abnormal increments, required to retain certain of the NPL staff, be

approved a priori�9 Under pressure he had no difficulty in formulating an

argument which the Treasury accepted. Yet, even at this stage, Heath

delayed. He and Lloyd proposed to the executive committee an unwork- ably complicated and totally irrelevant system for calculating NPL salaries

as if the laboratory had been taken over by the DSIR at the outbreak of

war. Glazebrook would have none of this tortuous and artificial scheme:

he insisted that the DSIR recognise the empirical situation and accept the

salaries which were in force in June 1917. ~

Even Heath realised that the patience of the executive committee was

fast reaching its limits, for he found it necessary to warn Fisher of impending scandal, a8

�9 . . There may be an agitation in the Royal Society and in these circumstances I think you, and probably the Lord President also, should be forewarned and as far as possible forearmed . . . . Incidentally, it would also greatly help matters if you could lead him [Rayleigh] to see that these questions of salary are matters for the committee of council �9 . . and not for the advisory council . . . . It cannot properly give direc- tion to officers of the department in matters of this kind . . . . [However,] the position of the advisory council is a rather delicate one because, in strict order, the resolution of the executive committee ought not to have been addressed to the advisory council and would not have been so addressed if the executive committee had fully understood the constitu- tional position. For this mistake Lord Rayleigh is of course technically responsible.

Heath was obviously ready to fall back on constitutionality when it suited his convenience and to ignore it on other occasions. Although the

3~ Public Record Office, File 10[32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (27 April, 1918). z8 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Fisher (2 May, 1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PITYSICAL LABORATORY 387

committee of council did have the responsibility " t o direct, subject to such conditions as the Treasury may from time to time prescribe, the application of any sums of money provided by parliament for the organisation and development of scientific and industrial research," 39 in fact the ministers on the committee of council were far from assiduous in attending to this responsibility. However, their failure to pay close attention to the details of the science policy which was taking shape was partly excused by the valid constitutional provision, made by order in council, that " f o r the purpose aforesaid, there shall be an advisory council (consisting of such number of persons holding oftice for such terms as the committee shall from time to time determine) to which they shall stand referred, for report and recommendations, proposals (i) for instituting specific researches (ii) for establishing or developing institutions or departments of existing institutions for the scientific study of problems affecting particular indus- tries and trades . . ." ~0

As Melville points out, 41 it was essential that the committee of council should have the benefit of reports and recommendations because the members of the committee lacked the skill to deal with complex scientific problems. The order in council recognised this difficulty in making provision that : '~ The said council may initiate such proposals and may advise the committee on such matters, whether general or particular, relating to the advancement of trade and industry by means of scientific research . . . . ,, 4z

Heath's argument that the advisory council had no constitutional authority to concern itself with the salary question involved in the estab- lishment of the NPL was tendentious; no less so was it for Heath to argue that the council had no function to perform, since he and McCormick had set up the NPL budget committee as a subcommittee of the council. The executive committee had acted quite properly in addressing its resolution to the parent body to which the budget committee reported. Lord Ray- leigh subsequently met with Fisher, who loyally supported Heath, but Fisher's charms failed to convert Rayleigh to the official viewpoint.

In the interval Heath corresponded with Glazebrook regarding the desir- ability of instituting an involved scheme of war allowances and war bonuses in place of the simple NPL practice of paying overtime for work in excess of 42 hours per week. 4~ To this Glazebrook replied 44 that the executive

89 A Scheme ]or the Organisation and Development of Scientific and Industrial Research. Cd. 8005 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1915).

~0 Order in Council, 28 July, 1915, Quoted in Report of the Privy Council Committee for Scientific and Industrial Research for the year 1915-16. Cd. 8336 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1916), Appendix I, p. 45.

41 Melville, H. W., op. cit., p. 25. a2 Order in Council, 28 July, 1915. 4~ Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Glazebrook (16 May, 1918). 44 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (29 May, 1918).

388 ERIC HUTCHINSON

committee thought poorly of the scheme, and added that the executive

committee was receiving formal expressions of disquiet and unrest among

the scientific staff. Word of the committee meeting had reached Heath's

ears and he informed Fisher ~5.

The executive committee of the National Physical Laboratory met yes- terday afternoon as you know and I heard . . . that the meeting was a pretty lively one and ended as a kind of indignation meeting. A memo- randum was read to the committee by the director which amongst other things contained a statement to the effect that he had ascertained from the department that it would be impossible for the executive committee to conduct any research or to expend any funds without the approval in detail of the department even though the department might have pre- viously approved the programme of research and estimates of the cost. In the absence of Lord Rayleigh, Lord Southborough was in the chair. At the close of the meeting, it was understood that Lord Rayleigh would be asked to nominate members of the executive committee to come as a deputation to the committee [of council]. In the circumstances I thought it could do no harm to send Lord Southborough a copy of the letter, a copy of which is attached.

The attached letter read as follows:

I had been hoping to have a letter from you confirming Mr. Fisher's hopes and my own that you would be able to take the chairmanship of the new government committee on salaries when the news reached me that you were able to be in the chair at the meeting of the executive committee of the National Physical Laboratory. This was very good news and encourages the anticipation of a favourable reply. From what I have heard of the proceedings of the meeting yesterday, there is some very grave misunderstanding as to the attitude of the department towards the laboratory and its work. I only want to say this, that I am sure you yourself will postpone coming to a conclusion until you have had an opportunity of hearing what our attitude really is. I should greatly welcome the opportunity of a talk with you about the whole matter if this were possible.

I t is not clear exactly what Glazebrook may have said to the executive

committee, for the record contains only Heath's rendering of a second-hand

account. What Glazebrook may have had in mind is the very real fact that

it was proposed, as a measure of normal government operation, that the

director of the NPL should seek approval on an individual basis for the

purchase of equipment and the expenditure of monies even though these

items and their estimates had been approved in principle in drawing up the

annual estimates. There is, of course, nothing sinister in this requirement

45 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Fisher (30 May, 1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 389

as it stands, but in the situation which was pervaded by mutual suspicion no doubt Glazebrook could readily bring himself to see evil intentions; equally, it is easy to imagine that the members of the executive committee could construe the requirement of piecemeal approval as infringing on their own responsibilities and prerogatives.

In a letter to Heath declining the proffered chairmanship, 46 Lord South- borough wrote: " . . . The whole point will be how much control you can leave in the Royal Society. The pundits are beginning to think that the Society should 'ge t o u t ' and leave the laboratory to become a 'govern- ment department '. I should deplore this." In reply, 47 Heath expressed regret that Southborough could not serve, and told him that after the take- over he had given Glazebrook a memorandum on the director's financial responsibilities but had not thought it necessary to circulate the document to the executive committee since it concerned " a pure question of machinery"

On 27 May, Heath had written to the Treasury regarding his proposed scheme of war allowances and bonuses. The scheme raised doubts in the minds of Treasury officers who replied 48 that many of the proposals "besides being nove l " raised a lot of difficult questions. The letter pointedly remarks: " W e do not even know how your department regards the executive committee's rates. If they seem to you to be anywhere near reasonable as a permanent solution, this would give us a little more to go on." As regards the true role and motives of the DSIR in this affair it is difficult to be certain, but it is surely significant that in spite of the advisory council's statements that they regarded the executive committee's scheme as being the minimum to be aimed for, Heath's dealings with the Treasury were such as to leave the latter with two distinct impressions: that the DSIR was not " a t present prepared to accept the executive committee's scheme ", and that there was no indication whether the department regarded the executive committee's rates as too high or too low. The Treasury interpreted the department's attitude as being far from enthu- siastic in representing to the Treasury the views of either the executive committee or the advisory council. Since the first body had considerable experience in both science and the employment of scientists, while the second had a constitutional duty to advise on the employment of scientists by the government, it is hard to see on what grounds Heath refused to affirm the considered judgements of these bodies. The alternative con- clusion is that Heath was privately determined to call the tune.

McCormick was hoping to avert an open rupture by bringing together

d~ Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Southborough to Heath (2 June, 1918). 4z Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Southborough (8 June, 1918). 4s Public Record Office, File I0/32, DSIR, Treasury memorandum (7 June, 1918).

390 ERIC HUTCHINSON

Fisher and Rayleigh. Glazebrook appears to have been in no mood for

bringing about a "p r iva t e " accommodation: he wrote to McCormick as

follows 40. , , . . . You have somehow to reassure us that the management of

the laboratory by the executive is to imply real power. You have also to

reassure the staff that they are to be no worse off than indicated in the scheme of the e x e c u t i v e . . . "

This letter, combined with the nearly public dissatisfaction in the

executive committee, caused Heath to write to Fisher, 5~ warning him that

certain members of the executive committee might resign unless they received the assurances they required.

Heath frustrated

The threat of action by the Royal Society, by raising questions in

parliament 51 and the press, coupled with the resignation of executive com- mittee members of the stature of Sir William Ellis, FRS, led Heath and

McCormick to seek an interview with Sir Thomas Heath of the Treasury, as the following memorandum records2 2 " . . . Sir Thomas Heath . . .

said that he had considered the salary question at the NPL, that the

Chancellor of the Exchequer was strongly opposed to the appointment of a committee [of inquiry] and that accordingly he [Sir Thomas Heath]

recommended the department to accept the proposals of the executive

committee as they stood, together with the interpretation as to the payment

for additional hours and overtime subsequently modified by Sir Richard

G l a z e b r o o k . . . " This was a serious defeat for Heath, the worst he ever

sustained. The Chancellor had refused the diversionary tactic of a com-

mittee and the Treasury supported the executive committee in the matter of overtime pay.

Shortly before the, for Heath, disastrous interview at the Treasury, he

had written to Glazebrook congratulating him on the award of an honorary

degree. Before he had learnt that Heath had lost the battle, Glazebrook replied 58:

Thanks for your letter of congratulation . . . . And now I am going to write to you frankly about the laboratory and the recent meeting of the executive committee. I hope you will not misunderstand me, but in view of the interview on Tuesday it is better to write. We both, I think I may presume, have the interests of the place at heart though possibly at

~0 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to McCormick (7 June, 1918). 5o Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Fisher (10 June, 1918). 51 On 19 June, 1918, Heath prepared a long memorandum for Fisher dealing with these

matters and attempting to provide Fisher with answers in the event that questions were asked in the House of Commons. The memorandum is given in full in Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR.

52 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, memorandum of Treasury interview (15 Jurte~ 1918).

s3 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Glazebrook to Heath (16 June, 1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 391

present we are no t of the same opin ion as to the proper way it is to be

managed in accordance wi th the es t imates by the executive committee w h i l e t h e a r rangements for f inance are to be those of a government department . The executive commit tee are a no t undis t inguished body of m e n : they have managed the labora tory with marked success for some 20 years and whatever may have been my share in the work it could not have been carried on without their cordial cooperat ion and help. N o w try to pu t yourself into their posit ion when they heard your letter to Lord Rayleigh and to the Treasury [of 27 May, 1918]. In the first par t of your letter to the Treasury you put the facts as to the emoluments accu-

rately enough; you make no reference, however, to the regulation which states tha t overt ime is no t paid ordinar i ly and you offer no explanat ion of the very special condi t ions that led the commit tee to pu t aside that rule temporar i ly or to the fact that that act ion cost us practically noth ing as near ly all the expendi ture is recovered f rom fees and thus you do not represent the posi t ion fully. Again, a very strong commit tee reported last a u t u m n as to the salaries on a pre-war basis : you pu t that recom- mendat ion aside wi thout consult ing the execut ive, and advise the Treasury

to grant approximately half the increment they recommended a nd in your letter to Lord Rayleigh you state that Mr. Fisher is no t prepared to make any alterations in this proposal. The commit tee natura l ly asks how is this consistent with our m a n a g e m e n t of the labora tory? They know the full a m o u n t required to pay the salaries appears in the es t imates- -outs ide of official circles the Treasury at t i tude with regard to salaries is not appre-

c i a t e d - a n d they are ind ignan t that their own carefully considered recommenda t ions should be set aside by one who can have no means of judging the value of t he men's work or of the remunera t ion suitable for it. I t is recognised of course that the commit tee of Counci l must have the final say in the matter. The act ion taken however appears arbi t rary with the result that a n u m b e r of those present said that if that were the m a n n e r in which the depar tment treated them they would have no more

to do with the laboratory. They unders tand what managemen t means and they in tend to manage. You will agree it would be disastrous if the executive committee resigned and stated that they did so because it was clear that the depar tment in tended to manage the labora tory and that they did no t care to have the responsibil i ty of a purely o rnamenta l position.

Aga in tu rn ing to the latter par t of your letter you have put forward it is t rue the recommenda t ions of the commit tee bu t you have done so in a m a n n e r which indicates that you do not support them and you have done it in spite of the fact that I have more than once sugggested modificat ions since I learnt your serious object ion to them. I t is true the commit tee has no t modified them bu t you declined to let me make a report as to

your suggestions, telling me no statement could be made unti l an official

decision is reached. In your letter to Lord Rayleigh you say that Mr. F isher personal ly preferred the proposals in the earlier drafts, i.e., he

392 ERIC HUTCHINSON

wished to take into his own hands the appointment of the administrative staff, in spite of the agreement that the staff should be appointed by the executive committee. Natural ly the committee are upset. And now what is to be done? It is essential for you to regain in some way the lost confidence of the executive; you have got to find a way- -perhaps it is not ea sy - -o f leaving the management to them, interfering only when abso- lutely obliged and arranging the finance to effect this. My view is that the course from the beginning has been mistaken. There was something to be said no doubt for postponing a final scheme for the staff, but so far as temporary salaries and grading were concerned the wise course would have been to have accepted the proposals of the committee except as to the salaries of the clerical staff and to have put them en bloc before the Treasury. You had a strong case; they were the recommendations of a representative committee; they were strongly supported by the Air Board and if necessary as far as the gauge staff goes, you could have had the cordial backing of the Ministry of Munitions. You would have satisfied the staff even if the scheme had been rejected by their lordships, that you had their interests at heart and you would have gained the confidence of the executive; instead of this there is dislike and suspicion, the staff are upset at the delay and at sundry small restrictions of no great importance in themselves, the executive committee consider an attempt has been made to put them aside and manage without them. When advances in various directions are called for, progress has been stopped and everyone con- cerned upset. I heard last week that a man who can ill be spared is an applicant [for a university post] because he has no certainty here. I was informed yesterday that two men on the aeronautics staff are considering posts worth double their present pay and considerably more than is offered them under the new scheme. I have grave doubts if the proposals you have made to the Treasury will keep them; in any case I want to know what to say. You will reply, no doubt, that my action with regard to "addi t iona l hou r s " has been a contributory cause; if so, I regret it. You were told in January of these payments and in the estimates a sum of s was taken for overtime salaries and wages. I believed I had given you full information . . . . If you are really in earnest desiring the cooperation of the Royal Society and the executive I have no doubt a plan can be found. If on the other hand you wish to sever t he connection well perhaps the sooner the fact is made clear the better . . . .

The di rec tor and a deputa t ion f rom the executive commit tee had

a r ranged to meet F i she r on 18 June. P re sumab ly word of the Treasury

r ecommenda t ions on salaries had not l eaked out when Glazeb rook wrote

the above letter. The pol icy became official, however , a t the meet ing of

the advisory counci l on 19 June. 54 A s a safeguard agains t pa r l i amen ta ry

quest ioning, H e a t h p repa red a long m e m o r a n d u m on the salary dispute

54 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, advisory council minute 234 (1918).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 393

for Fisher's use. 55 The meeting with Fisher passed off peacefully but difficulty arose at the advisory council meeting on 19 June, when Rayleigh brought up the department's letter to the Treasury asking for sanction for temporary salaries. McCormick felt obliged to inform Rayleigh by letter on 20 June 56 that the agreements which had been reached covered only the " t e m p o r a r y " salaries and did not affect established posts. The execu- tive committee were not at all satisfied that Heath was moving fast enough or far enough, or that he was even following the Treasury recom- mendation. A meeting was arranged with Lord Curzon, who had so far managed to keep the dispute at some distance. There were two principal topics: the salaries for established, i.e., permanent posts, and the degree of freedom of the executive committee in the choice and conduct of its research programmes. Curzon tried without much success to smooth matters, and Southborough seized the opportunity to lecture Curzon on the history of the NPL and the nature of scientific research. 57 He told Curzon that unless the laboratory was allowed to retain the fullest measure of autonomy the Royal Society would lose interest, and the various scientific professional bodies such as the Iron and Steel Institute, the Institutes of Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers and Naval Architects which had made donations to the labora- tory, would withdraw their support. He suggested that the difficulty might be overcome if the estimates to be presented to parliament were to include " a good round sum to be used for scientific research on the advice of the Royal Society and the executive c o m m i t t e e . . , and parallel with that would be a sum which would enable the director to appoint people temporarily to carry out pieces of research as they arise ".

Action by the Treasury was not long delayed, as is shown by the following letter from Sir Thomas I-Ieath. ~ " . . . I am to inform you that my Lords sanction the scheme of salaries and emoluments set out in the printed paper [the executive committee report] accompanying your l e t t e r . . . " On 16 July the Treasury confirmed that the salary scale was to operate retroactively from 1 April, 1918, the date of the transfer of the NPL to the DSIR. Nearly a year had passed in gaining acceptance of the scheme.

.4 Temporary Setback for the DSIR and the Campaign against Glazebrook

The forces of the Royal Society appeared to have won the day: their

55 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Fisher (19 June, 1918). 56 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, McCormick to Rayleigh (20 June, 1918). 5r Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, formal notes of meeting with Lord Curzon (28

June, 1918). 58 Public Record Office, File 10[32, DSIR, T. Heath to F. H. Heath (9 July, 1918).

394 ERIC HUTCHINSON

salary scheme had been adopted without serious modification. DSIR headquarters had not permanently retired from the field, however. The matter of how many posts were to be established still had to be settled. Moreover at this point Glazebrook made a strategic error: he forwarded to Lord Curzon a letter asking for clarification of some principles dealing with insurance, long-term status, etc. ~9 Heath promptly complained to Fisher 60 that Glazebrook was violating protocol in going directly to the Lord President. At Heath's request, Fisher sent a formal reprimand to Glazebrook for this procedural impropriety, forbidding him to approach the committee of council in the future save through the secretary.

The DSIR prepared its campaign against Glazebrook with much care. One cause of complaint arose from a government requirement 61 that all clinical thermometers made for export must be certified by the NPL at a charge of threepence per thermometer. The Glassware Manufacturers' Association, representing finns whose scientific skill was so low that at one time Heath contemplated establishing a research association for the trade to assist them, complained to the Board of Trade that the cost of certification placed them at a serious disadvantage with their competitors for overseas markets. A committee of the Glass Trade Association in- spected the NPL testing facilities and claimed that the standardisation pro- cedures were wasteful and overlapping, leading to excessive overhead expenses. 6~ An implication which could be read into this complaint was that Glazebrook was an inefficient administrator.

The annual estimates for the NPL had to be laid before the advisory council for approval, and since no firm action had yet been taken to establish any posts except those which the DSIR chose to regard as permanent, i.e., those which had existed prior to 1914, Glazebrook was in the awkward situation of having to budget for an extensive research programme with a staff which was only about 60 per cent. established. The executive committee's estimates were indeed confused during the first

year after the transfer--the more so since the war had come to an end and the future of certain government research projects at the NPL was

uncertain. Glazebrook was unable to foretell with any accuracy the de- mands which might be made on the laboratory in the future. DSIR head- quarters chose to make an issue of the certification matter and the unclear estimates and proposed that the director of the NPL should be relieved of his title of sub-accounting officer. Heath proposed that the DSIR, not the

59 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, document E.53, NPL. 60 Public Record Office, File 10/32, DSIR, Heath to Fisher (23 October, 1918). 6x Ministry of Munitions Order (11 October, 1918). 62 Public Record Office, File 10/33, DSIR, memorandum of visit to NPL (10 February,

1919).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 395

executive committee, should appoint its own sub-accounting officer to pre-

pare the estimates and to administer the NPL. The proposal was eminently

reasonable but extremely tactless since Glazebrook was entering his

final year of service with the NPL. The advisory council, which had to

unravel the estimates, supported the DSIR in this proposal. Since the title "accounting officer" is an alternative to that of permanent secretary

of a department, the proposal to strip the director of his title of sub-

accounting officer denoted a genuine diminution of his prestige within the department.

On 8 May, 1919, Heath wrote a long minute to Fisher, ~3 outlining the considerations relating to the appointment of a sub-accounting officer as

soon as possible. Glazebrook threatened to resign if such an officer were

appointed, and Heath remarked: ~ " T h e director might however secure

the suffrages of a good many scientific men, followers of the Royal

Society and others, who are ignorant of the situation and are predisposed

to look critically upon government methods." Heath pressed for early

action, citing the complaint about thermometer testing as an embarrass-

ment to the government and arguing that with a competent accountant in

charge either the testing costs would be lower or the government would

have sound knowledge of why they were so high. Heath went on:

I suggest that it would be possible, however, to meet all the difficulties outlined above if you were to see two or three of the principal members of the executive committee, for example, Sir Joseph Thomson, Dr. Schuster, Sir George Beilby, Sir Alfred Kempe, 65 and Sir William Ellis, and were to suggest to them that they should invite the director to close his period of service at the laboratory by taking a long leave of three months on full pay from 18 June next . . . . I suggest also in view of the director's complaint yesterday that his case has not been heard, that you should invite him to come and see you, that you should tell him that his case . . . had been before you and that at the request of your officers you had a judicial inquiry made into his statement with all the records of the department on the table. If he were to remark that he had not been heard at the inquiry, you could point out to him that similarly I had not been heard and that I did not even see the official who conducted it.

It might be convenient to mention that this report would if necessary be placed before parliament. In that way I feel sure that you would stop any public agitation, whilst the financial advantage to the director in taking three months' pay with war bonus would be very likely to

63 Public Record Office, File 10/33, DSIR, Heath to Fisher (8 May, 1919). 6~t Ibid .

65 Alfred Bray Kempe (1849-1922) was the treasurer of the Royal Society from 1899 to 1919 and the author of a number of texts and papers in mathematics.

396 EPIC HUTCHINSON

prevent his resigning, especially if pressure were put on him not by you but by the executive committee . . . .

Heath seemed to think that the scientists on the executive committee who had firmly stood behind Glazebrook during the battle over the salary scheme would now turn round and assist in his sacking; that three months of exile in disgrace was a fitting climax to Glazebrook's outstanding scientific career; that Glazebrook's pride and principle could be purchased for three months ' salary or the threat of parliamentary questions. The

threat of blackmail in the form of the report about which Glazebrook had been kept in ignorance and over which, in spite of his protestations, Heath undoubtedly had some influence, if only in calling on the solidarity of the

civil service, make this one of the most unworthy documents in the files of the department.

Fortunately for the department, Fisher rejected Heath 's suggestions; across the bottom of the minute he wrote : " I t is in my view desirable that no change should be made while the present director is at the laboratory in view of his strong objection." On 15 May, Fisher wrote 66 to Sir Joseph Thomson as president of the Royal Society:

The committee of council . . . propose to appoint to the laboratory staff an officer with such assistance as may be necessary to act as sub- accounting officer and that it be his duty to make all local payments for the laboratory, to direct the preparation of the laboratory accounts, to assist the director in putting the annual estimates in the proper form, and to be responsible for the machinery for dealing with all establishment matters . . . . I have so high an appreciation of the services [the director] has rendered to the laboratory and to the country and I am so anxious to avoid any action which he would deprecate that I am prepared to postpone the appointment whilst he is at the laboratory.

The Culmination of the Conflict

Glazebrook's remaining months at the NPL were occupied in two main tasks: (1) putting the N P L on a peacetime footing again and restor- ing the facilities which had deteriorated during the war and (2) increas- ing the number of established posts to the level considered necessary by the executive committee.

In the first action taken by the Treasury in June 1918, a total of 185 posts in all classes had been established. The executive committee sought to have an additional 111 posts established. Almost none of these posts had existed before 1914, but the increase in aeronautics research and in gauge-testing and metrology represented an irreversible increase in work

66 Public Record Office, File 10/33, DSIR, Fisher to Thomson (15 May, 1919).

THE STRUGGLE OVER THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY 397

load. Throughout the first round of negotiations Glazebrook and the executive committee had refused to draw any distinction between the pre- war staff and those appointed in wartime, though in most cases the latter appointments carried no superannuation rights. Thus while the executive committee rightly refused to recognise any distinction because the staff were all engaged in similar scientific work, the DSIR headquarters, also rightly, argued that a permanent post which carried superannuation rights was different from a temporary post which did not.

Headquarters staff found some difficulty in reconciling the staff needs as represented by the executive committee with the very tentative estimates of the probable demands of work to be conducted for government de- partments. The executive committee believed that four years spent almost entirely on defence research had resulted in a backlog of basic research which needed to be done to provide further advances in applied research, whereas the DSIR was much less interested in basic research: in asking Glazebrook for information on the number of additional posts that needed to be established, headquarters focused primary attention on the NPL's role as a service organisation for government departments. Much corre- spondence passed between Teddington and Whitehall dealing with the pure and applied aspects of the NPL research, and there were charges by Heath and Lloyd 6r that Glazebrook was supplying inconsistent and mis- leading figures of staff to headquarters. It was later found that the errors were in the headquarters' estimates as a result of out-of-date records.

On 21 June, 1919, Heath sent to the Treasury a letter proposing the establishment of the additional 111 posts requested by the executive committee. 6s The letter presented a long, well-reasoned case for this action, explaining, among other things, that a revised set of estimates was being submitted because the work load of the NPL in post-war con- ditions was becoming clearer. Heath pointed out that the increase in the establishment had the approval of the advisory council, subject to the condition that in the future a sub-accounting officer would handle NPL establishment business: the increase also had the approval of the Lord President. On this occasion the Treasury was slow in granting approval but on 26 July ~9 Sir Thomas Heath conveyed the rather grudging approval of the Lords Commissioners.

Governments rarely take over independent scientific institutions of the size and quality of the NPL in 1918: certainly the DSIR was never again involved in such a large operation. The very academic atmosphere of the NPL undoubtedly added to the difficulties inherent in the problem of

6z Public Record Office, File 10/33, DSIR, Heath to Glazebrook (2 June, 1919). 68 Public Record Office, File 10[33, DSIR, Heath to Treasury (21 June, 1919). 89 Public Record Office, File 10/33, DSIR, T. Heath to F. H. Heath (26 July, 1919).

398 ERIC HUTCHINSON

converting an autonomous, scholarly institution into a subdivision of a government department. No doubt, also, Glazebrook was a difficult person to deal with, and the members of the executive committee, like many scientists of that time, were deeply suspicious of civil servants. Their suspicions rested on their experience of the ignorance of science and scientists exhibited by the civil servants who were in charge of the DSIR. Glazebrook's insistence on retaining most of the original scientific character of the NPL and the Royal Society's insistence on retaining control of the laboratory's scientific policy were important, perhaps essential, for the future health of physics, both pure and applied, in Britain. Had the civil servants of the day had their way with the NPL staff, it is likely that its future scientific effectiveness would have been damaged.