Britain has 'talent' - fertile recruiting grounds - Graduation: Livery Company needs talent - Huxley would be proud

Source: British History Online

City and Guilds College

From the late 1860's onwards there had been a growing opinion that the Livery Companies of the City of London should contribute more to the encouragement of technical education for industry, and increasingly this became an object with their critics. (ref. 49) In the large provincial cities colleges of science or technology were being established, and in 1876 some City Companies decided to combine their efforts to that end. An executive committee was formed. Its chairman was Lord Selborne, a past and future Lord Chancellor (and member of the Mercers' Company) and its deputy chairman (Sir) Frederick Bramwell. In 1877 it asked six prominent advocates of technical education to make suggestions towards a national scheme. Among other questions they were asked if a central teaching institution should be set up in London, and whether it should include a 'technical library, museum and laboratories . . . whereby the industrial improvements and advances of foreign countries may from time to time, as they arise, be made known in England'. All the advisers, including T. H. Huxley, (Sir) J. F. D. Donnelly and (Sir) Douglas Galton, thought the establishment of a central institution vital, but anything beyond classrooms a luxury. All were opposed to its giving direct instruction in specific trades. Huxley in particular saw its chief (though not sole) value in the training of teachers rather than of the personnel of industry, and warned against drawing the latter too much within its orbit and thereby 'substituting exhausted book-worms for shrewd practical men in our works and factories'. The committee, however, recommended to the Companies, in 1878, that the school should be established not only to supply teachers to 'local trades schools' but also 'superior workmen, foremen, managers and principals of manufactories'. This strikingly wide diversity of students, comprehending artisans and the sons of factory owners, would be instructed in applied physics, chemistry, mechanics and art: the inclusion of applied art showed how at that stage the scheme was linked backwards to the 'industrial university' of the Prince Consort as much as forward to the present Imperial College. The Committee followed Huxley in recommending that in the building, which might cost £35,000, 'regard should be had rather to what is wanted in the inside, than what will look well from the outside'. (ref. 50) (For the City and Guilds College see Plate 67; plans b, c between pages 54–5 and fig. 40.)

Roundell Palmer, 1st Earl of Selborne - First Chairman - City Company of schools for science and technology
(member of the Mercers Company)

Thomas Henry Huxley - Provided a study paper to the Livery Company's Society of Guilds on the scheme for technical education (1878)

Please see Life and Letters of Thomas Huxley 2 page 177

At first a site on the Embankment was in favour. (ref. 51) This was proving unobtainable, however, when in July 1878 the 1851 Exhibition Commissioners announced in their Sixth Report a determination to devote more of their resources to the encouragement of scientific education. An important part of their estate was then on offer to the Government for a science museum and laboratories. (ref. 52) But by the beginning of 1879 it became known that the Government was unlikely to take up the offer. Negotiations were therefore opened, largely between Lord Selborne and Lord Spencer (on behalf of the Commissioners) for the appropriation of a site on the estate to so mutually congenial a purpose. (ref. 53) From the first, however, many in the City were reluctant to see the technical institution go to South Kensington. The Companies' chief trade school was being established in Finsbury, and there was some feeling that the Commissioners' estate was ill-placed for artisan students. (ref. 54) Bramwell pointed out that it was 'within cheap railway distance of wholesome suburban lodging,' but admitted to sharing some of the 'instinctive repugnance' to 'South Kensington', which, personified in the officers of the Science and Art Department, 'has got the disposition or faculty of swallowing and assimilating that which comes within its grasp'. (ref. 55) Seen from the City the Commissioners and the Department had something of a common 'governmental' complexion that induced nervousness. This was not diminished when in the summer of 1879 the Commissioners required, before granting a lease, that the newly constituted City and Guilds of London Institute should be augmented by their own representatives and ex officio representatives of the Royal Society and other scientific societies. (The reinforcement was approved by Huxley, otherwise rather a sympathizer with 'City' sentiment.) The alternative use of Baron Grant's former house in the Kensington Road was considered, but by the end of the year the Institute reconciled itself to the ex officio members, and during the spring of 1880 the principle of a lease was agreed with the Commissioners. (ref. 56)


----------------------

Note: As we're considering the 'talent pool' from Britain, perhaps readers would like to recall some talent that was more plebeian in nature to break up the monotony of this bloody long post. Britain has talent, indeed, the kind of talent for the plebeian class when the real talent is not so easily recognized with such stunning spectacular fame.



Hope everyone enjoyed the bloody show.
---------------------


The site was to be less extensive than that which would have been made available for a governmental scientific foundation, and would compare ill with such imperial projects as the Berlin Technical High School, begun the previous year on a spacious suburban site at Charlottenburg. In essentials, however, the project was kept abreast of the best foreign practice, and this was further ensured when, early in 1880, the Institute acquired as Organizing Director (Sir) Philip Magnus, whose membership of the Samuelson Royal Commission on Technical Instruction (1881–4) strengthened the Institute's knowledge of Continental progress in that field.

Initially the site at South Kensington was to be on the northern corner of Exhibition Road and the new (Imperial Institute) Road. The City and Guilds Institute then aspired to an imposing site in Queen's Gate, looking along Queen's Gate Terrace. (fn. c) The Commissioners refused, because an institution 'having something of the nature of a school' would depreciate land values there, and in May shifted the intended site away from the impressive corner position in Exhibition Road to another further north (plan be between pages 54–5). (ref. 58) This was granted to the Institute, by a lease dated in November, for 999 years at 1s. a year. The amount that the Institute was willing to spend on the building had risen to £50,000, and the Commissioners required it to be completed for this minimum outlay in the years 1881–4. (ref. 59)

In August 1880 the Institute's executive committee chose Alfred Waterhouse as architect, from a short list of three, the other two being Norman Shaw and G. E. Street. (ref. 60) The committee's chairman, Lord Selborne, was not present, but it may be, as a student of Waterhouse has suggested, that the latter was chosen by the influence of this patron of his elsewhere. (ref. 61) Twelve days later Sir Henry Cole, the former head of the South Kensington Museum, then in retirement, congratulated Waterhouse on the proposal, of which he had heard, to give the building a porte cochère—'So convenient but uncommon'. (ref. 62) Unless this was a large misapprehension it suggests that the process of appointment regularized a fait accompli. Waterhouse's experience as architect of similar buildings (for example, Owen's College, Manchester, and the College of Science, Leeds) was considered a recommendation. (ref. 63) The trouble that he was encountering over the cost and progress of the Natural History Museum may (if it was known to the Institute) have generated doubts, but the speed of the work for the Institute proved satisfactory and the control of cost reasonably so.

In November Waterhouse was instructed to provide accommodation for 200 non-resident students, and a specified number of classrooms, laboratories (four for physics and one each for chemistry and mechanics), lecture rooms, art rooms, a library, space for 'collections', and offices. Bramwell apparently proposed an inspection of comparable buildings at Zurich, and although it is not clear whether this took place, Waterhouse, Bramwell, Magnus and Professor Roscoe of Manchester arranged to visit J. A. Cossin's Mason's College building at Birmingham, as other supporters of the scheme had done. (ref. 64) In January 1881 Waterhouse submitted sketch-plans. What they were like is not known but if Cole was well-informed they may have differed considerably from the final version. He was told to revise them and in February and March produced sketch-plans and finished drawings that in essentials correspond to the building as erected. (ref. 65)

In his report he estimated that the cost would be about £66,000. This excess over the £50,000 maximum was partly caused by the inclusion of more administrative accommodation. The Institute accepted its Council's advice to proceed on this basis, mindful 'of the large sums of money that are being spent abroad and especially in Germany, on technical education, and how materially the trade of this country is being affected for the worse by the absence of those facilities for technical instruction which other countries possess'. (ref. 66)

A reduction of height in the upper part of the rear of the building was, however, insisted on by the Commissioners' secretary, Henry Scott, and their surveyor, Henry Hunt, to prevent the obstruction of light to their Eastern Galleries. (ref. 67) (As it happened, Scott had himself been the responsible architect for that building, while Hunt, as consultant surveyor to the Office of Works, was clashing with Waterhouse over his work at the Natural History Museum.) It was presumably to accommodate this change that Waterhouse introduced dormer windows into the front slope of his roof.

In May 1881 the Commissioners accepted the design, after submitting the elevation to the President of the Royal Academy, Leighton. (ref. 68) To comply with the lease and to permit inauguration that year, a separate foundation contract was made (with George Munday), (ref. 69) and in July the Prince of Wales set up a founding column at a ceremony where his and Lord Selborne's speeches referred to the Prince Consort's vision and the current rivalry from other industrial nations. The total cost including fittings was expected to be £75,000. Where exactly between practical and theoretic teaching the institution's aim lay was clear to The Builder, which commented that 'it is not an easy matter for any one to obtain a distinct idea of the exact drift of either of these speeches'. (In its own opinion the chief need was for industry to learn economy in the use of labour.) But most agreed the occasion was historic. (ref. 70)

Figure 40: City and Guilds College, ground-floor plan in 1888

1 Optical Laboratory
2 Physics Professor
3 Physics Classroom
4 Engineering Lecture Room
5 Hall
6 Engineering Professor
7 Storeroom
8 Lecture Room (Mathematics and Mechanics)
9 Professor
10 Classroom (Mathematics)
11 Mathematical Drawing
12 Preparation Rooms
13 Chemical Lecture Theatre
14 Physics and Mechanics Lecture Theatre

Waterhouse had already conferred with the teaching staff at the Institute's Finsbury college about the arrangement and equipment of the building. Professor Roscoe and others were also consulted. (ref. 71) An active member of the Institute, and a friend of the South Kensington undertaking, was E. C. Robins, himself an architect of technical and other schools. Although not on the South Kensington sub-committee he gave Waterhouse's building favourable publicity and was perhaps a helpful influence. (ref. 72) At least, the directives given the architect were not such as to delay the progress of planning and construction. In dealings with the staff at South Kensington, however, Magnus seems usually to have been an intermediary. This caused discontent and perhaps some failure to meet the teachers' requirements: structural alterations (though possibly of no great extent) were needed in the last stages of building. (ref. 73)

From 1883 Waterhouse had the help in fitting up the building of a committee of experts—Sir Frederick Abel, Bramwell, George Matthey, (Sir) William Perkin and Sir William Siemens. (ref. 74) The professors at South Kensington, W. E. Ayrton, O. Henrici, W. C. Unwin and (especially) H. E. Armstrong, were closely involved in the protracted equipping of the laboratories. (ref. 75)

In October 1881 Waterhouse produced more drawings, to obtain tenders for the main contract. Apart from the dormers the chief architectural change was the substitution of a more modest doorway. Waterhouse now thought the main contract should be obtainable for £66,000. (ref. 76) Of the 16 builders invited to tender at least four were provincial, and it was one of these, Henry Lovatt of Wolverhampton, who was successful, in December 1881, at £68,518. (ref. 77) Economical changes (chiefly in cheaper internal finishings, with plaster instead of some of the terra-cotta) reduced this to about £65,000, and work on the superstructure began in March 1882. (ref. 78) The contract was made in May. By November 1883 the Institute, running short of funds, was asking Waterhouse if the rate of progress could be slowed down. He replied: 'It is somewhat unfortunate that Mr. Lovatt is about the first contractor I ever met with who seems likely to have his work properly finished before the appointed time, whilst this work is the only one I have been engaged upon in which the Committee have requested it to be delayed! (ref. 79)

On 25 June 1884 the building, not yet finished or fitted for use, was formally opened by the Prince of Wales, President of the Institute. He spoke of the disproportionate attention hitherto given in national education to 'literary training' compared with 'scientific instruction'. Like Lord Selborne he saw the Institute's main role as teachertraining. (ref. 80) The Times reported that the full cost was now expected to be £100,000. (ref. 81)

The exterior was in Berkshire red brick and red terra-cotta, the latter provided by Gibbs and Canning of Tarn worth, Staffordshire—apparently with less interruption than in the supply for the Natural History Museum. Virtually the only ornamental accents were the coats of arms, chiefly of manufacturing towns, which were evidently substituted for those of the contributing Livery Companies for 'diplomatic' reasons. These were designed and supplied for £923 by James Gamble, formerly of the Science and Art Department, whose preference for Messrs. Doulton as manufacturers was overruled by the architect (Plate 67d). (ref. 82) (Gamble, in straitened circumstances since Henry Scott's discontinuance of his work for the Department, had been employed by Waterhouse on the recommendation of his chief patron, Sir Henry Cole—'His work would suit any style, Mediaeval or Renaissance'. (ref. 83) )

Inside, the terra-cotta of the principal staircase (Plate 67b) was Burmantoft's. The internal woodwork was generally painted deal: (ref. 84) in the Council Chamber the carving of the coats of arms in oak was by Farmer and Brindley. (ref. 85) The detailing and equipment of the interior, down to the laboratory stools, is shown with great precision in Waterhouse's drawings. (ref. 86)

The ironwork was provided by W. H. Lindsay and Company. The clerk of works was T. Streeter. (ref. 84)

This sober building (Plate 67c), whose only external oddity was the traceried, window-like openings between the linked chimney-stacks, was respectfully received. When the elevation had been exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1881 the Companion to the British Almanac thought it important, simple, and perhaps rather heavy. The finished structure had, it thought, like all Waterhouse's work, 'the general character... of common sense and good building, not excluding picturesque effect'. (ref. 87) In 1884 H. H. Statham dwelt upon it in a review of English architecture in The Builder, finding its 'common-sense and propriety' a more admirable type of eclecticism than the fashionable 'Queen Anne' of Norman Shaw: it was an exemplar for English architecture 'in its every-day aspect'. (ref. 88) (fn. d) The British Architect praised Waterhouse's grasp of practicalities in the 'admirable internal arrangements' of the building. (ref. 89) Symmetrically disposed, a central entrance led to a long corridor running transversely and a staircase compartment at the rear: the smaller and moderate-sized apartments were ranged along the forward side of the corridor, on the street frontage, while the larger apartments were placed behind. Conditioned partly by the rather narrow site, his plan evidently became influential on Aston Webb's science buildings nearby (fig. 40 and figs. 41, 42 on pages 242, 244).

At the time of the formal opening it was still proposed that the courses should include applied art (and architecture), and the main room on the second floor was 'intended for an Art Museum'. (ref. 90) These studies were, however, already postponed, (ref. 91) and, despite an offer by Banister Fletcher to found a chair of architecture in 1888, (ref. 92) were never reinstated.

Building work under the main contract evidently continued into 1885. (ref. 93) When the final account, including the foundations but not the cost of fittings or Waterhouse's commission, was made in that year it totaled £73,356. (ref. 94) The cost of fittings had been estimated at £17,195 in 1883. (ref. 95) Partly because of attempted economies, their provision was very slow, and it was summer 1885 before the building was used. (ref. 96) The final total cost was stated as £100,000 in 1889. (ref. 97)

Already in 1885 the institution was, as Donnelly, the secretary of the Science and Art Department, told Huxley, in 'a bad way'. (ref. 98) Both prospective students and firm support from the City were wanting. Donnelly admitted to ambitions to take it over, but this ignored the aversion to South Kensington that caused some of the City's coolness towards its new institution. (ref. 99) These early years were very difficult, but in 1899 it was constituted a 'school' of the University of London in the faculty of engineering, and in 1907 the City and Guilds College of the new Imperial College of Science and Technology. (ref. 100) Henceforward its fortunes prospered with those of Imperial College, although as a school of engineering only, not of wider applied sciences. By 1901 the problem of overcrowding had caused it to hire accommodation in the new school of needlework next door, (ref. 101) and in 1909 the building of the large northern Goldsmiths' Extension (paid for by that Company) was initiated in conjunction with a. new building for the Royal School of Mines (see page 245). The Waterhouse building was demolished in 1962 in the course of the rebuilding of Imperial College.

Figure 41: Royal College of Science, ground-floor plan in 1907

1 Apparatus Room
2 Tutorial and Physical Chemistry Lecture Theatre
3 Chemical Library of Reference
4 Research Laboratory
5 Astrophysics Lecture Room
6 Dark Room
7 Professor's Room
8 Professor's Laboratory
9 Upper Part of Main Chemical Laboratory
10 Upper Part of Chemisery Lecture Theatre
11 Upper Part of Physics Lecture Theatre
12 Diagram Room
13 Senior Physics Laboratory
14 Staff Common Room
15 Cloaks
16 Lavatory

In 1907 the most recently built premises (now being demolished) were those into which the chemistry and physics departments of the Royal College of Science were then about to move from the Huxley Building.