ISSN 1881-6436

Discussion Paper SeriesNo. 11-02

Why did Keynes promote Grace I in 1921?
A Cambridge University Officer’s Attitude towards Conferring Degrees on
Women
Atsushi KOMINE
January 2012

Faculty of Economics,
Ryukoku University
67 Tsukamoto-cho, Fukakusa, Fushimi-ku,
Kyoto, Japan
612-85771

23 January 2012
Why did Keynes promote Grace I in 1921?
A Cambridge University Officer’s Attitude towards Conferring Degrees on
Women
Atsushi KOMINE

Provisional Version: 2.0

Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Three Steps in the Problem of Women’s Degrees
2-1 Step 1: Total Failure
2-2 Step 2: Compromise
2-3 Step 3: Virtual Victory
Section 3 Why did Keynes promote Grace I?
Section 4 Concluding Remarks
4-1 Summary
4-2 Three Lessons
Section 1 Introduction
Broad studies of Keynes’s economic thought have gathered momentum
as the ‘Counter Revolution’ against him has strengthened since the 1970s.
Thus, it is now necessary to return to the heart of Keynes’s visions as wellas theories in order to seriously consider the lessons they offer regarding
contemporary economic difficulties. Harrod (1982[1951]), Milo Keynes(1979[1975]), and Patinkin & Leith (1977) have attempted to determine
Keynes’s thoughts based on the testimonies of his contemporaries. In
addition, The Collected Writings of JMK (1971-1989) have enabled a2

deeper understanding of Keynes’s visions through the analysis of primary
documents. The fruits of this research are abundant, including studies by
Dostaler (2007) and Hirai (2008) and four biographies1. Among thesestudies, however, few have considered Keynes as a practical man as well asa theorist. Dostaler (2007: 2) considers Keynes “a man of action as much as
thought” and Nasu (1995: 3) argues that “the so called ‘Keynesian
Revolution’ could not have happened without his wide experience as a manof affairs”. Skidelsky (2009: 56) summarizes this aspect of Keynes’s
personality as follows:
Keynes was also extremely practical. ... His theoretical speculations issued into
compact plans of action, which could be slotted into the existing institutions ofgovernment, and which could therefore be made to happen without huge
convulsions in established practice ...

A number of researchers, then, have recognized that Keynes’s economic
thought and theories are inextricably linked to his practical behaviour.
Keynes’s role as a University Officer has not been the central theme forresearchers. Although biographies and other studies have touched on the
topic of the role2, more detailed research into this topic is lacking. For
example, Nasu (1995) refers to Keynes’s bursarship at King’s College but
not to his other efforts at the University of Cambridge as a whole. This
topic is, however, very important, particularly with respect to the issue of
women’s degrees in the early 1920s. It is said that as a young man Keynes
rebelled against Victorian virtues and became more conservative later inlife 3 ; this transition suggests that the young Keynes valued aesthetic
contemplation, love and friendship, whereas the older Keynes came toemphasize secular values, a public sense of responsibility and some types
1

Skidelsky (1992[1983]), Hession (1984), Moggridge (1992) and Felix (1999).
For example, see Harrod (1982[1951]: 304) and Moggridge (1992: 353).
3 Skidelsky (1992[1983]: 26) regards ‘the presuppositions of Cambridge civilisation’ as
more serious than ‘the presuppositions of No. 6 Harvey Road’. For discussions on theorigin of Keynes’s thought, see Bateman & Davis (eds.) (1991).
2

3

of tradition. The topic of women’s degrees in the early 1920s—when
Keynes was in his late thirties—provides an excellent window into thistransitional period of Keynes’s life, during which he was neither young nor
old and engaged both in private matters and in the public sphere. In
addition, as Keynes’s mentor Marshall had previously been involved inwomen’s issues, it should be helpful to identify differences between thetwo men’s thoughts on the matter.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines
three steps in the problem of women’s degrees in 1920-21; Section 3
discusses the three reasons behind Keynes’s actions; and Section 4 draws
conclusions and lists the lessons learned from this topic.
Section 2 Three Steps in the Problem of Women’s Degrees
This section deals with Keynes’s involvement in the issue of conferringformal degrees to women at Cambridge in the early 1920s. The course of
events is divided into three steps or terms: the first is before December
1920, during which Keynes did not play a central role; the second covers
November 1920 to October 1921, when Keynes became actively involved
as a Council member of the Senate; and the third is the aftermath of thepolling day results in October 1921.
2-1 Step 1: Total Failure
C. R. Fay (1884-1964), a historian and Keynes’s close friend andcolleague at King’s College and the faculty of economics, was a central
figure in the economics courses for Tripos and, like Keynes, was eager toreform the college and university system. Fay submitted a letter to theCambridge Review [CR] in June 1918, criticizing the popular argumentsthat full status should not be conferred to women because wartime was not
a proper time for reform and because an extended period of time would be
required for such extensive reform. According to Fay, the former argument
implied that all inequalities not directly related to the war should be4perpetuated, while the latter stance was representative of a general attitudeof apathy that prevented people from taking positive and bold action
against inequality. Taking this as his starting point, Fay argued that
immediate action was necessary4. At a congregation of the Senate on 30
October 1919, Fay expressed his opinion that the admission of womenteachers into full and equal membership would increase educational
efficiency in history, economics and modern languages 5 , and he wassubsequently appointed as a member of a syndicate for the issues faced by
women students at the University6.
The syndicate, consisting of 13 members, published its final report on 7
May 19207. The report was divided into two contrasting parts, A and B,
reflecting the conflicting opinions within the University. Six members
signed Report A, and the remainder signed Report B; the Vice-Chancellor(Peter Gilles, Emmanuel College) did not sign the report at all.
Report A proposed the admittance of women with full membership,with two caveats: the University reserved effective power over the numberof women students and over the conditions of their residence—that is, onlya small number of women could be matriculated at Girton or Newnham. In
contrast, Report B contained a detailed and strongly worded
counter-argument to Report A. The spiritual and material wealth ofCambridge, the report argued, was in possession of the colleges, even morethan of the University, and admitting women to such colleges would
destroy their traditions. Report B also expressed doubt that teaching andexamination systems developed by and for men were also adequate forwomen. The report admitted that men’s universities, women’s universities
and mixed universities each had their own merits, but thatthe educational system of the country should not be of one uniform type ... . The
4“Women’s Degree”, by C. R. Fay, CR, 6 June 1918, pp. 436-437.
“Discussion of a Report”, (held on Thursday 30 October 1919). Cambridge
University Reporter [CUR], 11 November 1919, pp. 253-254.
6 “Acta”, (dated on 6 December 1919), CUR, 9 December 1919, p. 354.
7 “Report of the Syndicate on the Relation of Women Students to the University”,(dated on 7 May 1920), CUR, 11 May 1920, pp. 935-943.
55

mixed university ... may be a very good thing. ... And yet to have all universities in
the country of this one type would diminish instead of promoting educational
efficiency and would impoverish educational ideals8.

Report B proposed the creation of a new women University based on
Girton and Newnham Colleges. The new University would share libraries
and laboratories with Cambridge University, but its examinations anddegrees would be separate. Report B thus reflected the viewpoint of ‘men’scollege supremacists’ who attached importance to intimate communities
that excluded outsiders and eschewed external standards.
Will Spens (1882-1952), who signed Report B, also propounded analternative, ‘a possible federal scheme’, with the aim of satisfying bothmale traditions and female requests. In Spens’s scheme, the Senate would
consist of two houses, one comprised of men and the other of women. Eachhouse would have autonomy regarding their own matters, and a joint
meeting would be held to decide on matters concerning both houses.
Degrees would be given in a congregation including both houses. The
problem was how to pass Graces9; when Graces concerned both male andfemale students or members, they would be submitted first to the men’shouse. After they had passed with or without amendment, they would besubmitted to the women’s house. In the event of disagreement between thehouses, a two-thirds majority in a joint congregation would decide thematter. McWilliams Tullberg (1998[1975]: 138) describes this scheme as“distinctly disadvantageous to women”, as the ratio of male to female
students at that time was 10 to 1. However, despite its flaws, Spens’s
scheme is notable for its effort to create a more effective way tocompromise between both camps.
A number of economists at Cambridge were eager to discuss the tworeports, and in October 1920, a congregation was held at the Senate for that

8

CUR, 11 May 1920, p. 939.
A formal motion submitted to the Senate, with the sanction of the Council. See
Stubbings (1995[1991]: 57).
96

purpose10. The Cambridge University Report [CUR] recorded the opinionsof 17 members on the matter11; among these, two economists supported
Report A. Dr. Clapham (1873-1946), who would go on to become first
Professor of Economic History at Cambridge, pointed out that “men andwomen worked in perfect harmony in the mixed University”12. Fay argued
that, after being granted equal partnership, female teachers would benefit
more than female students from being formal members of their Special
Boards13.
The vote began at 9 a.m. on 8 December 1920. Report A was defeated,with 712 votes for Report A and 904 against it (total 1616)14. However,resident members of the Senate were, as a whole, for equal membership(See Chart 1). The total number of active University Residents, including
not only residents at Cambridge but also those teaching at the University ora College and others employed directly by the University, was 491 at thattime; of these, 86 abstained from voting, 214 voted for Report A, and 191
voted against Report A. Among professors, 27 were for Report A and 15
were against it 15 . About 59% of non-resident members voted against
women’s formal membership.

Total
Teaching Residents
OthersPlacet712 (44.1%)
214 (52.8%)
498 (41.1%)

Non-placet
904 (55.9%)
191 (47.1%)
713 (58.8%)

Total
1616
405
1211

Chart 1. Outcome of vote on Report A (December 1920)

10

Cambridge Review reported that it was “quite an unusual spectacle” and that “chairs
and benches were filled with listeners”. “Senate Debate on Women’s Degree”, CR, 22
October 1920, p. 22.
11“Discussion of the Report of the Syndicate on the Relation of Women Students to the
University”, (held on 14 and 15 October 1920), CUR, 28 October 1920, pp. 190-207.
12
CUR, 28 October 1920, pp. 193-194.
13
CUR, 28 October 1920, pp. 201-202.
14 “Acta”, CUR, 10 December 1920, p. 395.
15 “Analysis of the Vote of Dec. 8, 1920”, CR, 18 February 1921, p. 248. “Vote of Dec.
8, 1920 -Corrigenda”, CR, 25 February 1921, p. 263.
7

Undergraduates spontaneously organized a poll amongst themselves, as
they were not members of the Senate. A total of 3213 (67% of resident
undergraduates) voted, 884 for and 2329 against Report A16. This figure
indicates that male students were generally more strongly opposed to theadmittance of women than teachers. The Union Society, a famous debatingclub of which Keynes was the President in 1905, had proposed a motion
several times that welcomed the equal admission of women to all privilegesof the University; the motion was accepted in May 192017, but was thenretroactively rejected in November of the same year18. Thus, while sociallyaware students were likely to accept gender equality, the majority ofstudents showed overt hostility towards equality as voting day approached.
Essentially, then, teachers’ respect for women was defeated by the hostilityof students and conservative graduates.
Both camps were ultimately defeated when Report B was also rejected
on 12 February 1921 19 . With this defeat, the problem of women’s
admittance reached an impasse, with only two viable solutions: a scheme
granting full membership to women or the creation of a new Women’s
University. However, as the matter was extremely complicated, it was
impossible to satisfy the majority simply by selecting one of these two
extremes. Naturally, another approach—compromise—was necessary.
2-2 Step 2: Compromise
Just one month before the polling day in December 1920, half of theCouncil members were elected. The maximum number of members was

16“University Journal”, Cambridge Chronicle [CC], 8 December 1920, p. 3. CC
described the voter turnout as 69%, but 67% is the correct figure based on the total
number of undergraduates (4789). See “The Residents List”, CR, 22 October 1920, p.
23.
17 365 votes in favour versus 266 against (total: 631). “The Union Society”, CR, 21
May 1920, p. 342.
18 337 votes in favour versus 423 against (total: 769). See McWilliams Tullberg(1998[1975]: 149).
19 50 votes in favour versus 146 against Report B. “Acta 12 February 1921”, CUR, 18
February 1921, p. 660.
8

fixed at 18 according to the Cambridge University Act 20 , but the
Chancellor did not typically attend meetings and the Vice-Chancellor(Giles) at that time was elected from the representatives of Heads ofColleges. Thus, a total of 16 members discussed general mattersconcerning the University as a whole. Neville Keynes had been a memberof the Council since 1893, when he became Secretary, and he had acted as
Registrary since 1910. Sir E. Rutherford, J. M. Keynes and Mr Spens, allnewly elected, played a crucial role in women’s issues on the Council.
The central Government, deciding that considerable “grants could not
be made without an enquiry sufficient enough to satisfy Parliament”21,
established the Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge Universities
on 14 November 1919. With the main goal of inquiring into four issues22,
the Commission, consisting of 23 members23, made a business trip toCambridge in August 1920 and took evidence from numerous resident
members (Evans 2010: 30). Among others, Keynes also testified to theCommission (Harrod 1982[1951]: 304).
Keynes played a vital role in dealing with women’s issues from themoment of his election as Council member. According to the Council
minutes for 6 December 1920, the Secretary of the Royal Commission
expressed a desire to receive the written views of a few representative
members of the University. The Vice-Chancellor requested members tosuggest the names of suitable persons24. The suggested names are notrecorded in the minutes; however, judging from correspondence in the20

See Articles 6 and 9 of the Cambridge University Act (1856). The Registrary of the
University (ed.) (2009[1914]: 145-146).
21 Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge Universities: Report, Cmd 1588,
London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1922, p. 7.
22 The four issues were: financial resources and their administration within the
University, the government of the University, and the relations of the Colleges to the
University. See Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge Universities: Report, p.
5.
23 The Chair was Asquith and the Deputy Gerald Balfour. B. Athena Clough, theVice-Principal (later Principal) of Newnham, joined as one of the two female members.
24 Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), Manuscript Room,
University Library, University of Cambridge, 6 December 1920, p. 83, Section 13.
9Keynes Papers of King’s College, Cambridge, it was evidently Keynes,
among others, who was in charge of answering the Royal Commission’srequest:The Royal Commission ... are anxious to supplement the memoranda ... byobtaining representative local opinion ... with regard to the government of the
University. / ... the Commissioners have not yet arrived at definite conclusions25.

The last sentence shows that the Commission was prepared, at least partly,
to be persuaded by university teachers.
Keynes not only replied to the questionnaire from the Commission,
which comprised 10 questions26, but also seemed to make out a draft of theformal University reply27. Keynes then exchanged views with Spens andredrafted28. Keynes’s response included the following points: he was infavour of the creation of a Resident Body consisting of University teachers
or officers29; he was in support of the existing system used to elect theVice-Chancellor, the order of rotation of the Heads of the Colleges,
because the Heads system embodied the hospitality and dignity required of
the Vice-Chancellor 30 ; and he opposed the appointment of outside
representatives to supervise internal organizations such as the General
Board of Studies and the Financial Board, as external members could rarely
attend meetings and were useless in practice31. Instead, Keynes suggested
that a periodical Royal Commission should supervise the University and25

From C. H. Stocks (Secretary of the Royal Commission) to J. M. Keynes, 15
December 1920, UA/5/1/94, the Keynes Papers [KP], Modern Archives, King’s College,
University of Cambridge.
26 “Universities Commission: Questions about University Government, Cambridge”,
UA/5/1/97-99, KP.
27 [A reply to University Commission], undated [December 1920], typed with MA, by
Keynes, UA/5/1/100-105, KP.
28 From Will Spens to J. M. Keynes, 1 January 1921, UA/5/1/95-96, KP.
29 Keynes’ reply to Questions 1, 2 and 3, UA/5/1/100, KP.
30 Keynes’ reply to Questions 4 and 5, UA/5/1/101, KP.
31 Keynes’ reply to Question 9, UA/5/1/104, KP.
10

report ex-post facto32.
Keynes, who might have been irritated by conservative members in
the Council such as Professor Sorley and Mr Gray33, appealed to public
sentiment in the University as well. In February 1921, he expressed his
opinion in the Cambridge Review34. This letter35 revealed Keynes’s basic
thoughts on women’s issues:
Quite apart from the right to vote in the Senate, it is, in the opinion of mostmale teachers in the University, a grievance that a woman, however well qualified,should be debarred on the sole ground of sex, from eligibility for University prizes
and studentships and from University lectureships, Readerships and Professorships,
which are the reward and encouragement of sound learning. It is also a grievance,
for the men teachers in the University as well as for the women, that we should be
debarred from electing our women colleagues on Boards of Studies, however useful
we may deem the assistance of particular individuals to be.

Keynes first emphasized two practical grievances: unequal opportunities
that discouraged women from studying and closed job appointments thatdiminished educational efficiency.
Keynes continued, calling the fact that the name of a female Girton
lecturer (Mrs Wootton) was advertised not in the main body of the lecture
list but in a tiny footnote to a title entered under the name of a male lecturer(Hubert Henderson) “disgraceful” and an “injustice” indicating that female
lecturers were not considered to be formal staff members. Keynes
32

Keynes’ reply to Question 10, UA/5/1/105, KP.
Professor Sorley and Mr Gray put forth a motion that only Girton and Newnham
should be incorporated into a new University; the motion was rejected in January 1921.
Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), 17 January 1921, p. 84, Section
5.
34 This weekly magazine, which published club activities, poems, book reviews andletters to the Editor, was introduced in 1879 and ceased publication in 1998. The
purpose of the magazine was to communicate the life and thoughts of students and staff
at the University.
35 “Correspondence: Women’s Degrees”, CR, 42, 21 February 1921, pp. 273-274,
Emphasis added.
33

11

described the Master of St. John’s (R. F. Scott), who pretended to hold amoderate position with respect to this issue and attempted to conceal thefull extent of the problems, as “obviously untruthful” 36 . Keynes also
pointed out that an “action by the Commission would be improperinterference from outside on a domestic matter” and if a House of
Residents could not accomplish much-needed reforms on its own, theRoyal Commission would go further to intervene on a larger scale37.
In February and March 1921, larger steps were taken towards normality
within the Council: “the Vice-Chancellor was requested to take steps toascertain whether a compromise between the different parties was possibleon the question of Women’s Degrees” 38. After conferring with members of
the Council, the Vice-Chancellor decided to invite the signatories of a
proposed paper to the Council. Twelve members, including Keynes, Spens,
Clapham and Rutherford39, unanimously resolved the following points inthe paper: (1) women students shall be matriculated at women’s colleges
with a distinct disciplinary body; (2) women shall be eligible for all degrees
except membership of the Senate; (3) the number of resident women instatu pupillari shall be within 500; (4) a Professor elected from the body of
Women Graduates shall not be ex officio Head of the Department; and (5)women shall be eligible for all Scholarships and Prizes, and for all
Professorships, Readerships, Lectureships, etc. and for memberships ofBoards and Syndicates. As discussed later, these points closely reflect
Keynes’s personal opinions on the matter.
It was Keynes who seized the initiative when this paper was discussed
at the Council on 7 March 1921. Keynes first moved, Professor Rutherford
36

Keynes later cut these aggressive expressions from the draft. From J. M. Keynes tothe Editor of the Cambridge Review, 21 February 1921, UA/5/2/2-4, KP.
37 A local newspaper reported that “Mr. J. M. Keynes breathes out fire and threateningsof short and quick shrift from the Royal Commission”. “University Journal”,
Cambridge Chronicle [CC], 2 March 1921, page 5.
38 “Women’s Degree Committee: 1 March 1921”, Council of the Senate Minutes,
Min.I.20B (1920-1921), annexed, 7 March 1921, between p. 91 and p. 92.
39 The other members were Peter Giles (Vice-Chancellor), H. G. Comber, E. C. Pearce(the next Vice-Chancellor), Walter Durnford, H. F. Stewart, H. A. Holland, H.
Hamshaw Thomas and T. Knox-Show.
12

seconding40, that “the Council appoint a Committee to draft a Report to the
Senate containing Graces for carrying out the proposals of this Report”.
Professor Sorley immediately moved as an amendment, Mr Gray seconding,that a syndicate should be organized to discuss the memorials alreadycirculating for and against the women’s degree issue. Sorley and Graydesired to follow the normal procedures of forming Graces, as they thoughtthat the Council members, a majority of whom supported compromising,desired to find a solution by themselves. The amendment was rejected with
11 votes to 3 (1 not voting) and the original motion passed with 13 votes (2not voting). As a result, Keynes, Spens, Innes and Sir W. Dunford wereappointed members of the first Committee to draft a report and Sorley andGray were appointed to the second Committee41.
A series of memorials were published one after another. On 8 March
1921, two memorials were published: the first, which was signed by 113
members, including C. W. Guillebaud, a nephew of Alfred Marshall, wassimilar to the report with 12 signatories described above, while the second,with 102 signatories headed by R. F. Scott, claimed that “the University
ought to remain a University for men’s education directed by men” and that
only titular degrees should be awarded to suitable women 42 . Further,Knox-Show, a member of the Council, announced that he would publish amemorandum in agreement with a compromise plan43; 187 members signed
the memorandum. Of these 18744, 115 had voted placet on Report A in
December 1920, 50 had voted non-placet, and 22 had not voted 45 .
Regardless of their previous voting action, then, many members were40

In the Council, a motion was to be followed by a seconding motion. Decisions weremade on a relative majority system.
41 Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), 7 March 1921, p. 91, Section
7.
42 “Memorials to the Council of the Senate on the Relation of Women-Students to the
University”, (dated on 7 March), CUR, 8 March 1921, pp. 710-712.
43 See also Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), 2 May 1921, p. 94,
Section 10.
44 The figure given by McWilliams Tullberg (1998[1975]: 158), 177, is incorrect.
45 “Memorial to the Council of the Senate on the Relation of Women Students to the
University”, (dated on 28 April), CUR, 3 May 1921, pp. 902-903.
13

deeply concerned with finding a solution to the issue. Women’s colleges,
responding to this movement, welcomed the proposal to confer titulardegrees and vowed that they “would not take steps to appeal to theCommission”46.
On 25 April, two reports, prepared by the two Committees appointed
on 7 March, were laid before the Council, and after some amendments, it
was resolved that the Registrary was requested to prepare a combined
report including an introduction and concrete statutes, and that the report
should be published on 3 May, discussed on 12 May, and voted upon on 16
June47.
The two proposals were called Grace I and Grace II48. The former, ‘thecompromise’, consisted of three elements49: the number of women students
was to be limited to five hundred (a Grace could change this limitation); allprivileges except membership of the Senate were to be conferred on
women students and teachers, but this condition was also subject toexisting special rights of particular Colleges; and the discipline of men andwomen students was to be kept entirely separate. Grace I took a step
towards realizing gender equality in the fields of study and research, while
giving sufficient consideration to the traditional concerns held byprotectors of the (men’s only) college system. This idea “undoubtedly
contain[ed] the most acceptable suggestions since Report A was voted
down”50. Grace II, in contrast, simply proposed titular degrees for women.
The process of drafting these two Graces was extremely unusual forthree reasons. First, the Council formed its own committee to consider the
46“The Women’s Question”, by K. Jex-Blake (Mistress of Girton College) and B. A.
Clough (Principal of Newnham College), (dated on 4 May 1921), CR, 6 May 1921, p.
351.
47 Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), 25 April 1921, p. 93, Section
10.
48 “Report of the Council of the Senate on Degrees for Women Students” (dated on 2
May 1921), CUR, 3 May 1921, pp. 907-911 and 3 October 1921, pp. 46-50.
49 See Leedham-Green (1996: 192), McWilliams Tullberg (1998[1975]: 158) and
Sutherland (2006: 176-177). See also “Women’s Degree”, CC, 12 October 1921, page
5.
50 “The Women’s Question”, CR, 29 April 1921, p. 327.
14

two ideas rather than appointing a syndicate to draft a report. This special
treatment was necessary for the Council to take the initiative in reversing
the result of the big issue settled just a half year previously. Second, thetwo ideas were not signed separately but were combined into a single
report consisting of two parts with the signatures of 14 Council members51.
This format was also necessary to dramatize the united effort by theCouncil to reach a solution. Third, the method of voting was irregular;
votes on the two proposals should have been taken simultaneously, but inthe event that Grace I passed, Grace II was to be withdrawn52. Although
this strategy invited harsh attacks53, the Council overcame the opposition54
and wanted to avoid a situation in which support for Grace II surpassed thatfor Grace I, even if both received a majority vote.
Keynes took a firm stance in support of Grace I in a discussion at a
Senate congregation55. He began by blaming “the gallant die-hards fromClare” for speaking “lightly of the evil results of external interference”.
Keynes opined that most of those who had voted against Report A had
been afraid that either (i) men would lose final authority over men’s
education, or (ii) University facilities would be overcrowded by increased
numbers of women. Keynes expected Grace I, the compromise, toeffectively address these concerns. The important thing, Keynes concluded,
was that the University itself needed to find a solution to the issue56.
The polling day was postponed from 16 June to 20 October57 due to51

Sorley and Gray refused to sign.
“Report of the Council of the Senate on Degrees for Women Students” (dated on 2
May 1921), CUR, 3 May 1921, p. 907.
53 A letter from W. L. Mallison (Chairman, Master of Clare College) et al. toVice-Chancellor (dated on 13 May 1921), Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B(1920-1921), annexed, 16 March 1921, between p. 96 and p. 97.
54 Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), 16 March 1921, p. 96,
Section 6.
55 Apart from Keynes, Spens, Fay and Clapham remarked. “Discussion of the Report”(dated on 12 May 1921), by Mr Spens, Mr Fay and Dr Clapham, CUR, 24 May 1921, p.
1031, p. 1035 and p. 1036.
56 “Discussion of the Report” (dated on 12 May 1921), by J. M. Keynes, CUR, 24 May
1921, p. 1038.
57 Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), 4 June 1921, p. 99, Section52

15

possible transportation difficulties caused by a coal miners’ strike andrelated strikes 58 . Because non-resident members needed to come to
Cambridge in order to vote, the Council, considering an equal opportunity,
decided to postpone the polling day. This postponement, by chance, gave
both camps more time to contemplate their positions.
During this period, Keynes exchanged important letters with Spens in
September 1921. Spens was very worried about the situation, stating that
“if the University did not accept a compromise which the women accepted,
there would almost certainly be interference by Parliament”. Spens wrote
to Keynes that it would be desirable for influential graduates such asAusten Chamberlain to say something about the situation:
Unfortunately I do not know Chamberlain personally, ... I cannot approach him
myself. ... but I fancy you will know him pretty well, and if so and if you at all
agree with my view of the situation, I think much the best plan might be for you tomake or take some chance of discussing the whole situation with him and making
some such suggestions as the above59.

Keynes, on his holidays in Charleston, replied quickly with the words,“Your letter of the 2nd September is very interesting, though I hope you are
unduly pessimistic. I believe we shall win without much doubt, if only we
can get our supporters to vote”. He continued:
However, last night I happened to be staying with Asquith and discussed thesituation with him. He was horrified to learn that there was any doubt as to a
successful issue of the October Vote. He told me that the Commission will not bereporting before the end of the year; that is to say, sometime after the Vote. If, hesaid, the Non-Placets were to win, that would certainly make a profound difference

8.
58

See McWilliams Tullberg (1998[1975]: 160). Once in May 1897 special trains ran
between Kings-Cross London and Cambridge for non-resident members of the Senate.
“To the Editor of The Times”, The Times, 21 May 1897, p. 14.
59 From Will Spens to J. M. Keynes, 2 September 1921, UA/5/2/5-7, KP.
16

to their report. He was also very decidedly of the opinion that the Non-Placets
would not obtain the faintest degree of Parliamentary support; but the report of theCommission would necessarily bring the issue into the political arena; and that inthat event the opponents of the women could not possibly hope for success.
Of course this was confidential. But I do not think there would be any harm inyour letting it get round privately to the opposition that the Commission will not bereporting until after the Vote; ... They will therefore be doing a great injury to the
University...
... our right tactic will be to circulate a fly early in October bringing right out
into the open the threat of external interference. We could point out that in thatevent the compromise would fall to the ground, and in all the general turmoil which
would follow the interests of the University would certainly suffer. ... Even if thethreat of interference enrages the opposition I do not think that this matters. Our
business is not so much to attend to them as to attend to our own supporters60.

This letter reveals three basic elements of Keynes’s way of thinking.
First, Keynes’s ultimate target was not constraints related to old colleges or
preposterous conventions, but University interests associated with research
and advanced education. Second, his concrete measures were practical: thetactics were to stimulate moderate members to take action by suggesting
the threat of external interference. Third, he was optimistic about the near
future.
Keynes’s suggestions in the letter were possible thanks to his deep
connections in the inner circles of government. Chamberlain, thenChancellor of the Exchequer, placed his trust in Keynes, stating that “in myabsence he will be received on the same footing as I should be if I were
present”61. Keynes, on the other hand, was close to the Whigs rather than
the Tories. In autumn of 1915, Keynes became friendly with the Asquiths
60

From J. M. Keynes to Will Spens, 8 September 1921, emphasis added, UA/5/2/8-9,
KP.
61 Keynes (1971 vol. 16: 415) and Dostaler (2007: 143).
17

and the McKennas among other elite circles. He recalled as follows:
Asquith’s “temperament was naturally conservative. ... he was the perfect
Wig for carrying into execution those Radical projects ... which were welljudged” (Keynes 1972 vol. 10: 38-39). Asquith had refused to hear demands
from suffragists (Strachey 1928: 315). However, in August 1916 he at lastgave up his opposition to women’s right to vote after crediting women’s
direct and indirect achievements during the War (ibid.: 354). Keynes might
have favoured this pragmatic temperament 62 . His honeymoon withhigh-ranking statesmen enabled him to access confidential information,
which in turn strengthened his confidence to persuade others to join his
cause.
The members’ poll was held on Thursday, 20 October 1921. It had beendifficult to forecast which camps were predominant 63 , with numerous
fly-sheets for and against being circulated about. Just as the bells at St.
Mary’s, the University church, began to ring at half past 8 a.m., it was
discovered that Grace I had failed, with a vote of 694 to 908 (total 1602)
and Grace II had passed with a vote of 1011 to 369 (total 1380)64. In thatmoment, Keynes’s efforts to pass Grace I seemed to have come to nothing,despite the marginal accomplishment of securing titular degrees for
women.
2-3 Step 3: Virtual Victory
The failure of Grace I in 1921 does not indicate that Keynes was
defeated in the long run—in fact, the reality is quite the opposite.
62

Nevertheless, the honeymoon period ended in 1926, when the General Strike arose.
For the first time, Keynes approved of Lloyd George, who was positive about the Strike,and criticized Asquith, who blamed union leaders for illegal actions. Keynes neverreconciled with Asquith, who was infuriated by Keynes’s article (Dostaler 2007: 114).
63 “No one seems to be very confident how the vote will go. If the non-residents abstain
from voting Scheme I. is almost certain to be carried”. “Women’s Degree”, CC, 12
October 1921, page 5.
64 “Acta” by John Neville Keynes (Registrary), CUR, 25 October 1921, p. 171. See thefollowing: “No Women Members at Cambridge: Grace I. Defeated”, The Times, 21
October 1921; “University Journal: Grace I. and II.”, CC, 26 October 1921, page 3;
McWilliams Tullberg (1998[1975]: 165), Leedham-Green (1996: 192).
18

The Report of the Royal Commission published in March 1922 was asKeynes predicted based on the information secretly provided by Asquith.
Fortunately, the Report did not adopt a hostile attitude towards the
University. In fact, it recommended nearly the same contents as Grace I,
though more conservative. The Report specified that a grant of £4,000 ayear to support women students continue for ten years. According to theReport, the most serious practical grievance of women at Cambridge wasthat the teachers, regardless of their qualifications, were not eligible forposts or offices in the University, and were excluded from teachingorganizations. However, attempts to address this problem were repeatedly
rejected by non-resident voters. On the other hand, the Report also
maintained that Cambridge should remain predominantly a ‘men’s
University’—that is, that the offices of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor andProctor should not be open to women. The Report allowed for a limited
number of women undergraduates (500) to matriculate at Girton or
Newnham, and specified that some would be required to live with theirparents. The Report thus effectively accepted the major elements of Grace I
and held non-resident rather than resident members responsible for the
failure of Grace I. In addition, the Report took conservative teachers (someCollege fellows) into account when recommending the preservation ofsome aspects of men’s power.
The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act was enacted on 31 July
1923. Clause I of the Act provided that the University of Cambridge
Commissioners (11 members) should be established. Clause 6 provided
that the Commissioners should make statutes for the University inaccordance with the Report of the Royal Commission (1922), after giving
careful consideration to the admission of poorer students. The Act did notrefer directly to female students and teachers; however, the Report served
as an adequate guide on these matters.
In advance of this legislation, the economics group in Cambridge had
embarked on reform targeting women’s issues. In 1903, when the
Economics Tripos was launched, the group organized the Special Board for19

Economics and Politics, in a manner similar to other groups. Within theSpecial Board, several elected members dealt with practical business suchas courses of study, examinations and studentships. The chairman and thesecretary were elected from among the members of the Board each year.
The secretary recorded minutes autographically. The chairman approved
the previous minutes by signing next time. A search of the minutes ofBoard meetings reveals that the first meeting to which a woman admitted
was held on 8 December 1920 (by curious coincidence, this is the same daythat the polling was held for Report A): “It was decided to invite Miss [sic,Mrs] Wootton65 to deliver the causes of […, unreadable] on the Economic
Functions of Government in place of Mr Henderson, and actualise thelectures in any way that might be possible” 66 . At the Conference ofLecturers, which started on 25 May 1923, the scheme for an Economics
Department Fund and the lecture list for 1923-24 were approved.
Previously, there had been a Degree Committee that consisted only of
economists to discuss economic matters, unlike the Special Board, which
included scholars in law and politics and discussed general matters.
Three years later, the formal faculty system was launched. The firstmeeting of the Faculty of Economics and Politics was held in the Marshall
Library at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 October 1926. A woman teacher, Miss
Tappan, attended the first meeting67. One month later, the Faculty Board
for Economics and Politics, consisting of 8 male members68, was formallyorganized. The minutes reported that “Miss Tappan was coopted [as] an
Additional Member of the Board” 69 . Miss Tappan, along with maleteachers such as Lavington and Dobb, were nominated as examiners for the65

Barbara Wootton (1897-1988); married in 1917, but her husband died during WorldWar I. She studied economics at Griton.
66 Minutes of the Special Board for Economics and Politics, Min.v.115 (1911-1923),
Manuscript Room, University Library, University of Cambridge, 100th Meeting, 8December 1920, p. 129, Section 1.
67 Minutes of the Special Board for Economics and Politics, Min.v.116 (1923-1929),
Faculty Meeting, 26 October 1926, p. 82.
68 Butler, Guillebaud, Yule, Clapham, Shove, Lavington, Keynes, and Alston.
69 Minutes of the Special Board for Economics and Politics, Min.v.116 (1923-1929),
1st Faculty Board, 16 November 1926, p. 86, Section 3.
20

qualifying examination. On 15 November 1927, it was agreed that “womenought to have equal eligibility with men as conditions for the Adam Smith
Prize and other University Prizes”70. The Prize was a triennial essay prizeof £60, founded by Marshall in 1891. The application was open to womenin line with Keynes’s 1921 letter to the Cambridge Review. In short, theeconomics group restructured its organization and rules to formally accept
women students and teachers.
The new Statutes were published in January 1926, approved by theKing in May, and put into practice in October. The pillars of the reformroughly comprised three points: first, the governing body was no longer the
Senate, which included non-residents, but the House of Residents only
(Evans 2010: 30). Residents directly connected with the University were
granted autonomy, except in elections for Chancellor and burgesses for
Parliament. Second, the University was re-organized to ensure a highstandard of education and advanced research. In particular, middle-units orintermediaries (faculties and laboratories) between colleges and the
University were established and were self-governed to some degree. Third,
the position of women was drastically improved71; women could now holdteaching offices, and 11 of the 183 University Lecturers appointed by the
new Statutes were women72.
The actual results of the reform came to strongly resemble the defeatedGrace I, while at the same time including Grace II. Consequently, as
Bradbrook (1969: 70) points out, after 1926 the distinction between full
membership in the University and membership in title only became very
difficult to discern. The economics group had anticipated this trend andestablished itself at the head of the movement by pushing throughnumerous reforms, including those aiming to improve the status of women.
Although Clapham, Fay, Robertson, and Guillebaud were all key players in
70

Minutes of the Special Board for Economics and Politics, Min.v.116 (1923-1929),,
7th Faculty Board, 15 November 1927, p. 116, Section 7.
71 See Statute B Chapter IV-1, Statute D Chapter VII-8 and Statute E Chapter I-8. The
Registrary of the University (ed.) (1928: 15, 41, 58-59).
72 The Historical Register of the University of Cambridge Supplement, 1921-30,
Cambridge: University of Cambridge, p. 7.
21

these reforms, the core of the reform movement was Keynes himself.
It took more than 20 years for true gender equality to finally be realized.
As of September 1946, 2 women were Professors, 20 were University
Lecturers, and 2 were Heads of Department (McWilliams Tullberg 1998[1975]:
180). A syndicate to examine women’s issues established in January 1947
published its report in June of the same year. The report recommended thefull membership of women on the same terms as men. The Grace was put
to the vote on 6 December 1947; this time, the Grace passed without hitch.
When the Proctor pronounced the word ‘Placet’, his cap was lifted andreplaced again, bringing to an end the long struggle for equality.
Section 3 Why did Keynes promote Grace I?
This paper takes up three reasons for Keynes’s support of Grace I in
1921: his personal philosophy, his central reasoning, and a profoundelement below the surface.
The first reason, which forms a background for much of Keynes’s work,
is Keynes’s personal philosophy, particularly as it related to women. At
Cambridge, Keynes was constantly surrounded by progressive pioneering
elder women and promising female students. Mary Paley Marshall(1850-1944) and Keynes’s mother, Florence Ada Keynes (1861-1958),
were pioneers who studied economics at Cambridge. Mary, one of the first
five women to enter Newnham College, read moral sciences (including
economics) (Marshall 1950: 14) and obtained a first class at the Tripos. She
became the first woman lecturer of economics at Cambridge and published
the book The Economics of Industry (1889)73 with her husband. However,later in life her potential did not manifest in the field of economics per se
but found an outlet in helping others. She inspired numerous girls,
including Florence and Eglantyne Jebb (1876-1928). Mary was also incharge of developing the Marshall Library of Economics, a library wherestudents could borrow books for lectures on economics. Keynes expressed
73

Keynes described it as “an extremely good book” (Keynes 1972 vol. 10: 239).
22his high opinion of Mary in her biography while implicitly criticizing her
husband and Keynes’s mentor, Alfred Marshall, who, according to Keynes,“came increasingly to the conclusion that there was nothing useful to bemade of women’s intellects” (Keynes 1972 vol. 10: 241). Referring to Alfred’s
father, who was known to treat his wife poorly, Keynes also wrote,“Heredity is mighty, and Alfred Marshall did not altogether escape theinfluence of the parental mould” (ibid.: 162). These comments suggest that
Keynes completely rejected his mentor’s philosophy about women.
Keynes’s mother, Florence Ada Keynes, also matriculated at Newnham
and studied for the Higher Local Examination. When she and her husband
Neville moved to Harvey Road, the University was still clinging to anumber of old traditions, but progressive elements, including the admissionof women, were beginning to become apparent as well. Numerous female
students and elderly graduates were fascinated with the Charity
Organization Society started in London. Florence served as Secretary of the
COS Cambridge for many years. She also served as chair of the public
service and magistrates committee of the National Council of Women for
11 years, and as President during 1930-31. She became the first woman
Town Councillor in Cambridge in 1914 and Mayor during 1932-33. She
embodied the new spirit of social reformers.
Keynes was also fortunate to have excellent female students andcolleagues. He served as an Elector to the J. E. Cairness Scholarship ofGirton College from 1909 to 1915 and taught a sizeable number of capablefemale students. He demonstrated his familiarity with and confidence in his
students in a recommendation letter for one of them, stating that “I am
fairly well acquainted with Miss M. Nicholson’s work in Economics ... andI have no hesitation in recommending Miss Nicholson in the above
terms” 74 . In addition, Keynes regarded Dorothy Jebb 75 (1881-1963),
Eglantyne’s sister, as “amongst the very ablest of the economic students
74

From Keynes [no signature] to unknown, 1 June 1912, emphasis added, UA/14/1/51,
KP.
75 During WWI, Dorothy and Miss Elkin worked for the Board of Trade under Layton,
who had been temporarily hired by the Government.
23

who have taken the Economics Tripos” (Skidelsky 1992[1983]: 212), and hesupported Lynda Grier’s (1880-1967) promotion to lecturer of economics
at Newnham. Grier had been inspired by Mary Marshall and took Part II of
the Economics Tripos. In 1915, Katherine Stephen, the Principal, consulted
Keynes regarding Grier’s promotion. Based on other correspondence76, his
assessment must have been positive.
Keynes also recommended Miss Hélène Reynard (1875-1947) for apost in economic affairs. From “the work she has done for the Economic
Journal”, Keynes wrote, “I should judge her well suited for the post of
Lecturer in Economic and Business Affairs at King’s College for
Women” 77 . In contrast, he assumed an ambivalent attitude towards
Marjorie Tappan Holland (1895-1977), the first member of the Faculty of
Economics. On the one hand, he “was grateful for her help” and intimate
knowledge of the American banking systems78 (Patinkin and Leith 1977: 27).
On the other hand, however, he “seems to have regarded her credentials as
pedestrian and in 1932 voted against her reappointment to a university
lectureship” (Aslambeigui & Oakes 2009: 31)79. After Keynes praised a paper
by Joan Robinson as “excellent – most beautiful and lucid” (Marucuzo &Rosselli eds. 2005: 174-175), in 1931 the Faculty Board permitted Robinson to
give eight lectures based on her draft on imperfect competition. Robinson
also engaged in discussions with Kahn and Sraffa among others on
Keynes’s Treatise on Money and provided Keynes with beneficial
suggestions. If anything, these episodes demonstrate that Keynes espoused
a meritocratic attitude towards his students and colleagues, irrespective ofage and sex. Keynes apparently eschewed the prejudiced view that women
were good only at examinations and had little originality in advanced
The “men should be sent to Miss Grier’s lectures at Newnham, which are, I hear,quite good and cover the same ground as Fay’s. I am in communication with Miss Grierabout it”. From Keynes to Pigou, 9 January 1915, UA/5/1/32, KP.
77 From Keynes to unknown, 25 May 1922, UA/14/1/101, KP.
78 This testimony was Austin Robinson.
79 Tappan was fellow (1924-1963) and Vice-Mistress (1940-1941) at Girton. Girton
College Resister says that she kept lectureship in economics at the University from
1923 to 1963. Therefore, Keynes’s vote against her must have been dismissed.
76

24

research. In other words, he was, unlike his mentor Marshall80, convincedthat women had no intellectual obstacles barring them from fully
participating in economics research and policy.
The second reason for Keynes’s support of Grace I is that, as a personof affairs, he attempted to do away with unreasonable conventions. His
criteria were clear: to allocate money and human resources efficiently
within the limit of the University fund; to establish a just reward structure
based on teachers’ efforts in order to attract talented researchers; to clarify
the process of personnel affairs; and to grant a certain degree of autonomy
to the inner organization of teaching and research while at the same timeallowing for control by outside organizations to some extent.
For Keynes, who confessed that Cambridge was “pretty inefficient”(Fay 1979[1975]: 38) in the year of his matriculation (1902), Cambridge inthe 1910s became “more and more as a sort of machine, like the India
Office”; however, he nevertheless committed himself to “inevitably go on
and on improving it” (Skidelsky 1992[1983]: 270). From 1908 onwards, heengaged in drafting reform plans and discussing them with other reformers.
In 1911-12 he joined the Reforms Committee to discuss the governance of
the University and “the relating of the University to women students”81,
finances, and the organization of teaching and research. His stance was towiden the University Common Fund in proportion to Colleges’ teaching
contributions to the University and to the movements of the business cycle.
That is, Keynes intended to create a new system of taxing colleges
progressively and redistributing the money to necessary units82. Teachers’
stipends should, Keynes wrote in 1920, “be fixed by the Faculty on elastic
principles”, not “through a centralised authority on inelastic principles”83.
80

Groenewegen (1995: 526) describes him as the feminist manqué, meaning thatMarshall could not escape from “unscientific prejudice” when supporting “the sexual
division of labour” (ibid.: 525).
81 “Reforms Committee, Private for Members Only”, MA, signed by R. K. J. P., 11
March 1911, UA/13/1, KP.
82 “Proposed Scheme of College Contributions to the Common University Fund”, April
1911, by J. M. K., UA/13/32-42, typed, KP.
83 From Keynes to the Master [Giles?], 13 November 1920, UA/5/1/89-91, KP.
25

Incentive was another important factor. To exclude women fromscholarships and teaching offices was against “the reward andencouragement of sound learning” 84 . Keynes’s 1925 correspondence
summarized his points:
I am very strongly opposed to any fixed scheme of the stipend ... . I shouldlike to keep the division of the Faculty Funds between these members as fluid as
possible. I am opposed to the variation of stipends depending merely on seniority. ...
If a man has not been promoted to the first grade by the time he is 36 to 40 years ofage, it is much better that there should be some slight pecuniary pressure on him toseek a job elsewhere85.

In short, Keynes called for the optimum use of financial and humanresources within limited funds. It was therefore very logical for him toinclude capable women in these human resources, especially as he had
eschewed the common prejudices regarding women’s abilities.
Keynes also attempted to reconcile economic efficiency with public
sentiments such as ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’. He argued in the following:
women lecturers were permanently excluded from the lecture list anddebarred from emoluments, calling the situation “disgraceful” and assertingthat “these injustices” must be rectified86. Keynes called for a new General
Board of Studies to coordinate the proper apportionment of teachers
between different subjects. The Council would nominate the members of
the Board, as, according to Keynes, this method was “the fairest and mostpractical”87. This indicates that the Keynes had confidence in the ability of84

From J. M. Keynes to the Editor of the Cambridge Review, 21 February 1921,
UA/5/2/2-4, KP.
85 From Keynes to the Master (Gonville & Caius), “Faculties Finance”, 13 March 1925,
UA/5/2/42-54, typed, KP.
86 From J. M. Keynes to the Editor of the Cambridge Review, 21 February 1921,
UA/5/2/2-4, KP.
87 “Organization of Teaching and Research in the University and Colleges”, 25 October
1912, by J. M. K., UA/13/121-122, KP. Keynes also questioned “whether we should
begin to limit the freedom of those [laissez-faire] forces by reference to what is ‘fair’and ‘reasonable’ having regard to all the circumstances”. See “Am I a Liberal?”, 1
26

the Council members, with their broad wisdom, to handle expeditious
processing.
Keynes was always a University reformer. In the process ofmodernization, it was absolutely necessary to admit women to full
membership, including not only titular degrees but also full access tostudentships, scholarships, prizes, teaching offices, and Board membership.
Keynes’s intention was to abolish absurd conventions in the University,
which followed the development of both economics and gender equality.
The third and final reason that Keynes supported Grace I is deeply
embedded in the specifics of his actions and his basic economic
philosophy: to solve women’s issues required the creation of a middle
unit—idealistic autonomous organizations that coordinate tradition andenterprise, freedom and control. The problem involved more than merely
gender equality, but extended to autonomy in the University. For Keynes,
the elimination of absurd conventions did not necessarily deny establishedtraditions of their merit; in fact, Keynes proposed “a return towards
medieval conceptions of separate autonomies” 88 . In the case of thewomen’s degree issue, he first and foremost saw the need to prevent theRoyal Commission and non-residents from intervening in the matter.
Nonetheless, at the same time he appealed to outsiders and persuaded
insiders to accept a compromise, the plan seemingly better than a strong
intervention.
Keynes attempted to establish the renewal of ‘separate autonomies’
with new measures and with flexible ideas. First, he pushed for theestablishment of new middle or intermediary units (faculty and laboratory)
to advance the sciences (including economics). He maintained that teaching
and research staff, regardless of whether they were fellows at a College,
should be appointed by a Faculty member and fulfill their responsibilities
with respect to the curriculum. He insisted that the Faculty be mostly
self-governed, but should be supervised (so as to point to public aims) by
August 1925, Keynes (1972 vol. 9: 303).
88 “The End of Laissez-faire”, 1926, Keynes (1972 vol. 9: 289).
27other autonomous organizations such as the General Board of Studies, theFinancial Board, or the Council of the Senate. Second, and more flexibly,
Keynes promoted the calculation of costs and benefits in the face of limited
financial and human resources while giving due consideration to thefairness and desirability of the situation.
In the mid 1920s, Keynes produced writings placing a high value on
University autonomy. “The Universities are another example of thesemi-independent institutions divested of private interest which I have inmind”89. He continued to discuss:
the ideal size for the unit of control and organization lies somewhere between
the individual and the modern State. ... progress lies in the growth and therecognition of semi-autonomous bodies ...
It is easy to give examples ... of separate autonomies ... the universities, theBank of England, the Port of London Authority, even perhaps the railway
companies90.
the real problems of the next ten years is ... a deliberate and persevering attempt
to discover how to run the best enterprises which are already public concerns
efficiently and to the public advantage. ...
the running of these public services ... by boards whose members, chosen solely
for their business capacity, were adequately remunerated. ... in that way theadvantages of public ownership and responsibility would be combined ...91.

Keynes gave a few examples of public concerns: the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, the Charity Commissioners, building societies,
co-operative societies and colleges, school and universities. He always
insisted that colleges and universities, the best example of self-government,
should be efficiently managed for the sake of public purposes.
89

From Keynes to the Editor of The Times, 25 March 1925, Keynes (1981 vol. 19:
348).
90 “The End of Laissez-faire”, 1926, Keynes (1972 vol. 9: 288-289).
91 The Manchester Guardian, 1 August 1927, Keynes (1981 vol. 19: 696).
28

Keynes’s most profound reason for promoting Grace I, then, was not a
direct movement for gender equality per se—although that was achieved asa result—but rather his desire to embody an idealistic autonomy within the
University.
Section 4 Concluding Remarks
This section provides a brief summary and conclusion and offers threelessons that can be learned from this topic.
4-1 Summary
Keynes’s reasons for promoting Grace I, a compromise oriented
towards gender equality, can be explained in three ways. First, he had
eschewed the prejudiced view that women were good only at routine workand should care for others rather than pursuing their own careers.
Pioneering women, including his mentor’s wife and his own mother, as
well as promising female students, were perhaps partly responsible for his
ability to discard old-fashioned attitudes. This philosophical attitude lies at
the heart of Keynes’s actions with respect to women’s issues. Next, Keynes
aimed for the optimum use of financial and human resources to encourage
the development of modern academic subjects, including economics. For
that purpose, he found that it was absolutely necessary both to abolishabsurd conventions in colleges and the University and to actively promotewomen lecturers. Lastly, he attempted to realize in the University his
idealistic organization, a semi-autonomous body. Keynes’s actions thus
embody two mixed visions: a fairness in fighting to protect minority
rights92 and economic viewpoints to consider pecuniary incentives andbudgetary constraints. Thus, for Keynes, the issue of women’s degrees wasplaced on a level equal to that of his overall vision of economic
management in a free society. Although his efforts in women’s issues were
92

Dostaler (2007: 23) appreciates “Keynes’s struggle for women’s equality, for theright to contraception and abortion, for the recognition of homosexuality”.
29not directly related to radical feminism per se, they represent a significant
contribution toward the eventual achievement of gender equality.
4-2 Three Lessons
Three important lessons can be extracted from the battle over Grace I.
The first is that gender is a persistent issue in education. Marshalloffered the opinion, echoed in Report B, that “there is a question
concerning the intellectual aptitudes of men and women ... The women are
better at routine work but less original”93. This was an extreme opinion, but
in less extreme cases, some teachers claimed that men and women required
separate education systems, including separate accommodation, classrooms
and degrees. It is necessary to study this issue using an empirical approach.
Second, the purpose of universities has emerged as a significant
problem: Who governs a university and how? Are the main providers ofautonomy those inside the university (teachers only, staff including officers,
or all members including students)? Or is it necessary for third parties tosupervise or intervene in universities? How and to what extent should
public subsidies be introduced into universities? Does a universities’
financial basis depend exclusively on tuition and fees, public aid from thenational treasury, or voluntary donations? And finally, what social
responsibilities do universities have? Faced with all of these pressing
questions, it is necessary to identify a new mission for universities—not forreligious and political elites, but for ordinary people. These issues remain
open questions and will be discussed repeatedly.
Third, Keynes’s economic thought is itself relevant and suggestive.
From 1908 onwards, and in the early 1920s in particular, Keynes, also aman of practice, had been engaged in reforming the University, sometimes
gradually and at other times drastically, calling upon his excellent practicalsense (drafting and planning), persuasive ability (eloquent writing style)and human resources (network of intellecuals). His solutions for the issueof women’s degrees included multiple visions involving not only university
93

CUR, 4 October 1920, p. 64.
30

reform and gender equality movements, but also autonomous control in afree society with the goal of realizing economic efficiency, social justiceand individual liberty94.
Bibliography(A) Primary literature including archival documents
CUR: Cambridge University Reporter, Cambridge: University of Cambridge
CR: The Cambridge Review: A Journal of University Life and Thought
CC: Cambridge Chronicle, Microfilm.P.94, Macroform Reading Room, University
Library, University of Cambridge
Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920-1921), Manuscript Room, University
Library, University of Cambridge
Minutes of the Special Board for Economics and Politics, Min.v.114 (1903-1911),
Min.v.115 (1911-1923), Min.v.116 (1923-1929), Manuscript Room, University
Library, University of Cambridge
KP: the Keynes Papers, Modern Archives, King’s College, University of Cambridge
UA/5 ... General Correspondence on Academic Matters, 1909-1946
UA/13 ... Papers concerning the Reforms Committee of Cambridge University,
1911-12
UA/14 ... Testimonials, Reports on Fellowship Dissertations and University Theses,
1909-46
A letter from J. M. Keynes to Duncan Grant, 16 February 1909 and 20 October 1909.
Add. 57930, British Library Manuscript Collections, London
Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge Universities: Report, Cmd 1588, London:
His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1922.
(B) Secondary literature
Anderson, R. D. 1995 [1992]. Universities and Elites in Britain since 1800, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ashby, E. 1958. Technology and the Academics: An Essay on Universities and theScientific Revolution, London and New York: Macmillan.
94

See “Liberalism and Labour”, 1926, Keynes (1972 vol. 9: 311).
31

Ashby, E. 1971. Any Person, Any Study: An Essay on Higher Education in the UnitedStates, New York: McGraw- Hill.
Aslanbeigui, N. and G. Oakes 2009. The Provocative Joan Robinson: The Making of a
Cambridge Economist, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Bartley, P. 1998. Votes for Women 1860-1928, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Bateman, B. W. and J. B. Davis eds. 1991. Keynes and Philosophy: Essays on theOrigin of Keynes’s Thought, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Bennet, D. 1990. Emily Davies and the Liberation of Women 1830-1921, London:
Andre Deutsch Ltd.
Bradbrook, M. C. 1969. ‘That Infidel Place’: A Short History of Girton College
1869-1969, London: Chatto and Windus.
Cambridge University Student Union [CUSU] (ed.) 1997. Nasty Forward Minxes: A
History of Women at Cambridge University 1897-1997, Cambridge: CUSU
Women’s Campaign, in Rare Book Room, Cambridge University Library [Cam. b.
997. 74].
Clarke, P. 2009. Keynes: The Twentieth Century’s Most Influential Economist, London:
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Deacon, R. 1985. The Cambridge Apostles: A History of Cambridge University EliteIntellectual Secret Society, London: R. Royce.
Deane, P. 2001. The Life and Times of J. Neville Keynes: A Beacon in the Tempest,
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Deane, P. 2004. “Keynes, (John) Neville”, in Matthew and Harrison (eds.) Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 31, 498-499.
Dostaler, G. 2007. Keynes and his Battles, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Dyhouse, C. 1995. No Distinction of Sex?: Women in British Universities, 1870-1939,
London: UCL Press.
Evans, G. R. 2010. The University of Cambridge: A New History, London: I. B. Tauris.
Fay, C. R. 1979 [1975]. “The Undergraduate”, in M. Keynes (ed.): 36-38.
Fawcett, M. G. 1924. What I Remember, London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd.
Felix, D. 1999. Keynes: A Critical Life, Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood
Press.
Gardner, A. 1921. A Short History of Newnham College, Cambridge, Cambridge:
Bowes and Bowes.
32

Groenewegen, P. 1995. A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall 1842-1924, Aldershot, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Groenewegen, P. (ed.) 1996. Official Papers of Alfred Marshall: A Supplement,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Economic Society.
Harrod. R. 1982[1951]. The Life of John Maynard Keynes, London: W.W. Norton &Company (First Published by London: Macmillan).
Hession, C. H. 1984. John Maynard Keynes: A Personal Biography of the Man Who
Revolutionized Capitalism and the Way We Live, New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Hill, P. 1995. The Early Cambridge Women Students: The Sociological, Demographic
and Sexual Contexts and the Women’s Subsequent Careers, printed as manuscript,
in Rare Book Room, Cambridge University Library [Cam. b. 995. 7].
Hirai, T. 2008. Keynes’s Theoretical Development: From the Tract to the General
Theory, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Humphreys, R. 1995. Sin, Organized Charity and the Poor Law in Victorian England,
Hampshire and London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Howarth, J. and M. Curthoys 1987. “The Political Economy of Women’s Higher
Education in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Britain”, Historical
Research (University of London), 60(141), February 1987, 208-231.
Kagan, J. 2009. The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the
Humanities in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keynes, F. A. 1950. Gathering Up the Threads: A Study in Family Biography,
Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd.
Keynes, J. M. 1972. (vol. 9). Essays in Persuasion, The Collected Writings of John
Maynard Keynes, London: Macmillan and Cambridge University Press for theRoyal Economic Society.
Keynes, J. M. 1972. (vol. 10). Essays in Biography, The Collected Writings of John
Maynard Keynes, London: Macmillan and Cambridge University Press for theRoyal Economic Society.
Keynes, J. M. 1981. (vol. 19). Activities 1922-1929: The Return to Gold and Industrial
Policy.
Keynes, M. (ed.) 1979 [1975]. Essays on John Maynard Keynes, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
33

Leader, D. R. 1988. A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. 1, the University to
1954, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leedham-Green, E. 1996. A Concise History of the University of Cambridge,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maclure, J. S. (ed.) Educational Documents: England and Wales, 1816 to the Present
Day, London: Routledge.
Mahood, L. 2009. Feminism and Voluntary Action: Eglantyne Jebb and Save theChildren, 1876-1928, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marcuzzo, M. C. and A. Rosselli (eds.) 2005. Economists in Cambridge: A Study
through their Correspondence, 1907-1946, London and New York: Routledge.
Marshall, M. P. 1947. What I Remember, with an Introduction by G. M. Trevelyan,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWilliams Tullberg, R. 1993. “Marshall’s Final Lecture, 21 May 1908”, History of
Political Economy, 25(4), 605-616.
McWilliams Tullberg, R. 1998 [1975]. Women at Cambridge, revised edition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWilliams Tullberg, R. 2004. “Grier, (Mary) Lynda Dorothea”, in Matthew andHarrison (eds.) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 23, 905-906.
McWilliams Tullberg, R. 2006. “Women’s Education”, in Raffaelli, Becattini and Dardi(eds.) The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Moggridge, D. 1992. Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography, London: Routledge.
Mulley, C. 2009. The Woman Who Saved the Children: A Biography of Eglantyne Jebb
Founder of the SAVE THE CHILDREN, Oxford: A Oneworld Book.
Nasu M. 1995. Keynes, Man of Practice: The background in the Making of Keynesian
Economics, Tokyo: Chuko-Shinsho (in Japanese).
Patinkin, D and J. C. Leith (eds.) 1977. Keynes, Cambridge, and the General Theory,
London: Macmillan.
Pedley, R. 1977. Towards the Comprehensive University, London: Macmillan.
Power E. 1997 [1975]. Medieval Women, forward by Maxine Berg, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Purvis, J. 1991. A History of Women’s Education in England, Milton Keynes; UK:
Open University Press.
The Registrary of the University (ed.) 1928. Statutes of the University of Cambridge34

and Passages from Acts of Parliament Relating to the University, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
The Registrary of the University (ed.) 2009 [1914]. Statutes of the University ofCambridge with the Interpretations of the Chancellor and Some Acts of Parliament
Relating to the University, digitally reprinted, edited by John Neville Keynes,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robertson, H. M. 1983. “J. M. Keynes and Cambridge in the 1920s”, South African
Journal of Economics, 51(3), September 1983, 280-185.
Sanderson, M. 1999. Education and Economic Decline in Britain, 1870 to the 1990s,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, B. 1965. Education and the Labour Movement, 1870-1920, (Studies in the
History of Education, Vol. 2), London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Simon, B. 1974. The Politics of the Educational Reform, 1920-1940, (Studies in the
History of Education, Vol. 3), London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Skidelsky, R. 1992[1983]. John Maynard Keynes, Hopes Betrayed 1883-1920,
paperback edition, London: Macmillan.
Skidelsky, R. 1996. Keynes, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Skidelsky, R. 1997. “Keynes’s Concluding Notes”, in G. C. Harcourt and P. A. Riach(eds.) A ‘Second Edition’ of the General Theory, volumes 1, London: Routledge.
Skidelsky, R. 2009. Keynes: The Return of the Master, London: Allen Lane.
Strachey, R. 1928. The Cause: A Short History of the Woman’s Movement in GreatBritain, London: G. Bell & Sons Limited.
Stubbings, F. 1995 [1991]. Bedders, Bulldogs and Bedells: A Cambridge Glossary,
revised and enlarged version, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sutherland, G. 2006. Faith, Duty and Power of Mind: The Cloughs and their Circle
1820-1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M. S. 1989. Joan Robinson and the Americans, New York and London: E. E.
Sharpe, Inc.
The Registrary of the University (ed.) 1928. Statutes of the University of Cambridge
and Passages from Acts of Parliament relating to the University, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
The Registrary of the University (ed.) 2009 [1914]. Statutes of the University ofCambridge with the Interpretations of the Chancellor and Some Acts of Parliament35

relating to the University, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The University of Cambridge 1932. The Historical Register of the University ofCambridge Supplement, 1921-30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The University of Cambridge 2009. Statutes and Ordinances of the University ofCambridge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vicinus, M. 1985. Independent Women: Work and Community for Single Women
1850-1920, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Whitaker, J. K. (ed.) 1996. The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall Economist, vol. 3:
Towards the Close, 1903-1924, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36