ISSN 1881-6436
Discussion Paper SeriesNo. 12-02

Crises in the Economics Tripos in the 1910s:
Keynes’s ‘Transformation’ between Moral Science and Modern
Economics

Atsushi KOMINE
August 2012

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

7 August 2012

Crises in the Economics Tripos in the 1910s:
Keynes’s ‘Transformation’ between Moral Science and Modern
Economics

Atsushi KOMINE*
Provisional Version: 3.0

Section 1 Introduction: An Establishment of the Economics Tripos
Section 2 Marshall’s Curriculum
2-1 Complex Intent
2-2 Schedule of Subjects
Section 3 Five Phases of the Revisions
3-1 Four Examiners
3-2 Sub-Committee: Round 1
3-3 Sub-Committee: Round 2
3-4 Sub-Committee: Round 3
3-5 Final Report
Section 4 Concluding Remarks
4-1 Keynes’s Own Design
4-2 Summary
4-3 Succession or Escape?
* Thanks are due to Dr Norikazu Takami for suggesting some of archival documents

and to Dr Naoki Matsuyama for valuable comments on the previous versions. This
research was supported in part by grants from (A) Joint Usage and Research Center,
Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University, and (B) JSPS KAKENHI(24530220, 24220066, 223300064, and 21243017).
2

Section 1 Introduction: An Establishment of the Economics Tripos
Alfred Marshall (1842–1924), the Chair of Political Economy at the
University of Cambridge since 1884, finally established the Economics
Tripos in 1903, following a long struggle against internal opponents,
including Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900) in particular. This was a new start
for modern economics, making a sharp demarcation from moral sciences.
However, since Marshall was planning to retire his professorship to free
more time for his writings, it was envisaged that his pupils (Pigou, Keynes,
Fay, Clapham, and Layton) should carry on subsequent operations and (ifany) revisions of the Tripos after 1908.
Here, we have vital questions: did they take over from their mentor his
initial intent? Or, did they make a slight (or serious) change to the Tripos?
Behind these questions, we are much concerned with theprofessionalization of economics: Marshall had pressed forward with atransformation from political economy—or one of moral sciences—into
economic science, or economics, since his inauguration as professor in
1884; meanwhile Hicks and Samuelson, among others, advanced ‘modern
economics’, based on (in part at least) Robbins’s ‘scarcity’ definition of
economics, which has long been the central stream among professional
economists after WWII. Nevertheless, we have not yet created a detailed
picture of the transitional period between the two movements. What
happened in economics education after Marshall? This is why we shallfocus on the Cambridge economists, the centre of economic studies at thattime, after 1908 but before the Keynesian Revolution.
This paper targets the relationship between Marshall’s original designof the Economics Tripos and the revision(s) by his pupils, including
Keynes, around 1910. The most effective method of fulfilling its purpose is
to investigate the minutes of the Special Board for Economics and Politics.
The Board, consisting of several members—including the Chair, theSecretary, ordinary members (professors and lecturers), and special
members (Tripos examiners)—was an autonomous body that managed the3curriculum and examinations. The minutes of this Board clarified internal
information, especially when the Secretary was Keynes (1910–1915).
The target period is roughly confined to several years between 1905
and 1911: from the starting year of the Tripos to the actualized year of therevised one. From 1908 onwards, new dons joined the economics group in
Cambridge: Pigou, Keynes, Fay, Clapham, and Layton. It was they whoneeded to have the initiative to manage or change the economics course.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses
Marshall’s multiple intents to establish the Economics Tripos; to this end, it
references actual exam papers. Section 3 outlines the five stages of therevisions in the ‘regulations’ regarding the Tripos subjects. Section 4 draws
conclusions by considering Marshall’s pupils’ conscious or unconscious
thinking.
Section 2 Marshall’s CurriculumThis section deals with Marshall’s initial design for the Economics
Tripos. The Tripos, typically divided into Parts I and II, is a University
examination leading to an honours B.A. (Bachelor of Arts). We shall
examine his complex intent, sometimes by referencing actual examinations.
2-1 Complex Intent
Marshall, who had succeeded in establishing an academic society and ajournal for economics from 1884 onwards, attempted to give the disciplineof economics independence from moral sciences and history in Cambridge.
According to his documents to proclaim reform, Marshall claims that in histime, “economic and social considerations [were] acquiring anever-increasing influence over thought and action” (Marshall 1902: 4).
Since legislative, executive, and diplomatic bodies came to concern
themselves so heavily with economic issues, the study of the causes of thewealth of nations was necessary in relation to not only political stability but
also the quality of life. As he put it,4We need to study how growing wealth and opportunities may best be turned toaccount for the true wellbeing of the present and coming generations. (Marshall1902: 7)

Marshall’s intent to establish an independent Economics Tripos was byfar more complex than it had appeared. Here, by considering defensive andoffensive responses and layers superficial and deep, we shall classify four
elements vis-à-vis his intentions.
First, economics should be liberated from metaphysics (Intent A). In
old universities like Cambridge and Oxford, theology, philosophy, andethics had each had a role in integrating and dominating every otherdiscipline. Marshall, however, criticized these disciplines, saying things
such as “Philosophy is nearly where it was 20 years ago”, and “That is why
the Mo[ral] Sc[iences] Tripos has been ruined”. Historical economics ismore important than philosophical economics, but it still is not economics
itself. For Marshall, a scientific study was necessary, the “study of existing
economic facts and contemporary changes”1.
Second, economics should be developed so as to garner broad support
from outsiders, who are interested in higher education and ready to show
financial support (Intent B). There was “a tendency towards greater breadthand diminished specialization in the work of heads of business, of directorsof companies, and of the higher public officials” (Marshall 1902: 8). That
is to say, Oxford and Cambridge had to give a broad education, and not atechnical training, for the ‘Captains of Industry’. If the old universities did
not respond to the requests of business and public offices, their interest andmoney could move to newly established universities such as London
School of Economics and Political Science (1895) and the University ofBirmingham (1900). Of course, education in Cambridge was not intended
for practitioners of perfectly practical affairs such as accounting and1

All citations in this paragraph are from Whitaker (1996 II: 194; Letter 532), to John
Neville Keynes, 30 August 1897.
5

bookkeeping; rather, it was intended to bestow “an extensive knowledge offacts ie big facts”. The “most important equipment of an economist” was to“understand how a sense of proportion is” and to be realistic2.
Third, students in the economics course should develop their ‘faculty’(Intent C). Marshall defined a liberal education as one which,“trains the intelligence, gives elasticity to the faculties of the mind, humanizes thecharacter; and forms, not merely an expert, but an efficient man”. The curriculumin Economics and associated studies claims to do this. … it exercises the three great
faculties, observation, imagination, and reasoning (Marshall 1906: 6).
Thus then economics is a stringent discipline in seeking for causes and for results
which lie below the surface, and are not easily seen (Marshall 1903: 11)
Economic studies call for and develop the faculty of sympathy. … This sympathy
between classes is being developed by studies, which are becoming every day moreurgent … (Marshall 1906: 7).

.
His definition of a liberal education does not approach the classicalmeaning3; instead, it more closely resembles the definition of J. S. Mill4.
Marshall’s originality is in his combination of a liberal education with a
specified or professional education. Working together, economics and otherbranches work hand-in-hand and have a synergistic effect.
Four, students should master ‘economic organon’—i.e. methodologicalprinciples or machinery in economics (Intent D)—which “shows how toanalyze the motives at work, how to group them, [and] how to trace theirmutual relations” (Marshall 1925 [1885]: 164). Even after citing the2

All citations in this paragraph except Marshall 1902 are from Whitaker (1996 II: 353),
to John Neville Keynes, 6 February 1902 (italics is original).
3 Until the late 19th century in Cambridge, a liberal education “did not imply breadth ofeducation since … one or two subjects was … the only way to secure the rigour anddiscipline required” (Sanderson 1975: 24).
4 “Their [Universities’] object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, orengineers, but capable and cultivated human beings” (Mill 1867: 4).
6

various aforementioned motives, Marshall must have placed moreemphasis on the cultivation of academic economists: he had to keep “thehead cool and clear in tracing and analyzing the combined action of many
combined causes” (Marshall 1925 [1885]: 171). The mastery of ‘economic
organon’ does not align with highly specialized and narrowly confinedstudies. Marshall preferred both simplification (towards the unifying
principle) and diversity (realistic phenomena). As he put it:[The economist] should learn how things, which seem alike and are called by thesame name, are often really dissimilar; and how those, which seem dissimilar andare called by different names, are often fundamentally alike. He should seek for the
Many in the One, and the One in the Many (Marshall 1902: 13).

Intents A and B are relatively passive or defensive elements, whereas
Intents C and D are rather positive or offensive ones. The complex
elements reflect Marshall’s twofold motivation: to articulate his ideal
education in economics, and to properly deal with counter opinions insideand outside the university.
Marshall’s desire for an independent Tripos seems to float between
classical and modern universities. On the one hand, it seemed to resemble aliberal education, which was by far remote from the practical profession
education as J. S. Mill proscribed in 1867. On the other hand, it considered
the requests from the business world—that is to say, to cultivate realistic
senses. Economics was one of the new disciplines, separate frommathematics, classics, or history; however, it was also distinguished from
more practical ones, such as commerce, accounting, public administration,
dental surgery, architecture, veterinary medicine, engineering, teacher
training, and mining (see Engel 1983: 298-299).
2-2 Schedule of Subjects
For our investigation here, it is more important to examine the practicalschedule of subjects, together with those regulations. Although Marshall7

retained a few plans, we confine our investigation to the final plan of 1903
(Marshall 1903: 30).
Part I

Part II

Subjects for an Essay.

1 paperc

The existing British constitution.

1 paperc

Recent Economic and General History.

2 paperscGeneral Principles of Economics.

3 paperscSubjects for an Essay.

1 paperc

General Economics.

3 paperscAdvanced Economics, mainly realistic.

2 paperssAdvanced Economics, mainly analytic.

2 paperssModern Political Theories.

1 papersInternational Law with reference to existing 1 paperspolitical conditions.
International Law with reference to existing 1 paperseconomic conditions.
Principles of Law as applied to economic questions.

1 papersSpecial subject or subjects.

1 paper eachs

Table 1: The Final Plan of Economics Subjects, 1903
Part I of the Tripos is generally allocated to the second year of studies. Allseven papers (four subjects) are compulsory; in addition, “A knowledge ofFrench or German is expected of all candidates” (Marshall 1903: 24).
‘Subjects for an Essay’ offers a list of a few short, question-style topics.
For instance, at the first Tripos held 30th May 1905, there were six
questions such as ‘The economic interpretation of history’, ‘The causes andeffects of the growth of large cities’, ‘Things are in the saddle and ride
mankind’, ‘Smithianisumus’, ‘The influence of finance on international
politics’, and ‘The future of the yellow races’ 5. Only one question had tobe answered during 13:30 to 16:30. The examiners were Neville Keynes,
5

Cambridge University Examination Papers [hereafter as CUEP], Michaelmas Term,
1904 to Easter Term, 1905, volume XXXIV, p. 417.
8

Dickinson, Clapham, and Pigou6. Judging from these questions, this subject
was intended to test the general faculty of candidates.
‘The existing British constitution’ deals with the contemporary politicaland administrative organization (central and local) of Britain. ‘Recent
Economic History chiefly deals with Britain and the 19th Century. ‘Recent
General History’ deals with the British Empire, continental Europe, and theUnited States, and chiefly with the 19th century. ‘General Principles of
Economics’ was divided into three papers, I, II, and III. In the case of 1905,
each paper had 10 questions, of which the candidates needed to answer
seven. Paper III was divided into two groups (A and B) and the questions
in group B included citations in French or German. The Tripos continued
for five days from 27th May 1905 to 1st June 1905, lasting a total of 21hours.
Part II of the Tripos began for the first time on 28 May 1906. ‘Subject
for an Essay’ in Part II was the same as that in Part I. General Economics I,
II, and III were compulsory. For those who had taken another Tripos, these
papers were necessary to secure a sound knowledge of economics at large.
Those who had taken Part I of the Economics Tripos “should not specialize
even their later studies too narrowly” (Marshall 1906: 10). In those papers,
special attention was paid to public finance and the economic functions ofgovernment, at both the local and the national level: “The papers shall also
include questions on the ethical aspects of economic problems” (Marshall
1903: 32). A variety of questions actually derived from this subject:difficulties in defining wealth and capital (I-1.), the advantages ofco-operative production (I-2.), the theoretical assumptions when thedoctrine of consumers’ surplus can be applied to practical problems (I-4.),
the meaning of ‘long period’ (II-1.), the value of the precious metals (II-6.),“What do you regard as the fundamental economic characteristics of adeveloped society?” (II-10.), and “What is a ‘fair’ tax?” (III-A-1.), among
others7.
6
7

Cambridge University Reporter [hereafter as CUR], 15 November 1904, p. 241.
CUEP, 1905 to 1906, volume XXXV, pp. 419-434.
9

In addition to the four compulsory papers, ‘Advanced Economics I andII’ were what Marshall had elaborated as being part of a proper curriculum.
There were two standards for the subject. The first standard was todistinguish ‘realistic’ from ‘analytic’: the former aspects were necessary to
those who were preparing for public or private business; the latter, a moreacademic character, was needed to be a professional economists. The
analytic questions should include (a) the more entangled problems of value,(b) the history of economic doctrines8, and (c) mathematical problems ineconomics and statistics (Marshall 1903: 33; Marshall 1906: 11). The
second standard was to proportionally cover the following four areas inboth categories: A. Structure and Problems of Modern Industry, B. Wages
and Conditions of Employment, C. Money, Credit and Prices, and D.
International Trade and Its Policy. In reality, there were a variety ofquestions: the method of determining the ‘poverty line’ (I-4.), the exchange
value of the rupee (II-1.), the normal excess of exports in America and in
Russia (II-3.) and others were categorized as ‘realistic’; the history of thetheory of value, with special reference to J. S. Mill, Walras, andBohm-Bäwerk (I-A-1.), “Ought municipal undertakings to aim at making a
profit?” (I-A-2.), determining the elasticity of the British demand for tea(II-2.), the average level of prices and the rate of interest (II-13.) and others
were categorized as ‘analytic’.
Regarding ‘Advanced Economics’, mainly realistic or mainly analytic,“no candidate shall take one of the two papers …, unless he also takes theother paper” (Marshall 1903: 31). This means that candidates could notselect one paper as realistic and another as analytic. Thus, a student’s“studies need to be broad: but he may reasonably specialize to some extent
on any one, or even any two of the four” (Marshall 1906: 12). The intentionof this specification was to secure some specialized studies based on abroader knowledge.
Other subjects were optional. ‘Principles of Law’ as applied to“The history of economic doctrine should be another optional subject” (Marshall1902: 16).
8

10

economic questions had not been in effect for four years but was again in
effect in June 1910. ‘Modern Political Theories’ dealt with the latter half ofthe 18th century and with the 19th century. Concrete questions touched
upon social organizations that override individual wills (Herbert Spencer)(A-1.), the Utilitarians and individualism or democracy (A-3.), and “Howfar does the economic theory of German socialism lead logically topolitical democracy?” (A-7.) 9 . ‘International Law with reference toexisting political, or economic, conditions’ is not referenced in the
supplemental regulations and was not in effect until 1907. ‘Special Subject
or Subjects’ deals with the recent economic and general history, or with theexisting political and administrative organization. The Special Board had toannounce a special topic in advance—say, one year previous10. In 1906, thetopic was ‘The causes and remedies of Indian famines’, and it included 10questions11.
The schedule of subjects was actualized in this manner. Law subjects
were considered less important, despite of their number. While some ofthem were not in force, others were in effect at the same time as economic
subjects12.
Section 3 Five Phases of the Revisions
This section discusses the five stages of revising the Economics Tripos.
We shall divide the period of November 1910 to May 1911 into fivephases.
3-1 Four Examiners
The four examiners of the Economics Tripos in 1910 were appointed
by the Senate on the nomination of the Special Board, on 25 November
9

CUEP, 1905 to 1906, volume XXXV, p. 427.
CUR, “Economics Tripos, Part II, Special Subject”, 6 June 1905, p. 984.
11 CUEP, 1905 to 1906, volume XXXV, pp. 433-434.
12 For instance, ‘Advanced Economics, mainly analytic’ and ‘International Law’ were
held at the same time on Thursday. CUEP, 1906 to 1907, volume XXXVI, pp. 423-438.
1011

1909: H.W.V. Temperley (Chairman13), J.S. Nicholson, C.P. Sanger, andC.R. Fay. They automatically belonged to the Special Board14, although
Temperley and Fay were originally insiders who had taken some office inCambridge. The other two were outsiders, but pupils of Marshall’s.
In November 1910, the four examiners made a printed report (private
and confidential) to the Special Board, after they fulfilled their own
examination duty in May and June 1910. They highlighted approximately
three shortcomings of the Tripos. First, students tended to read too much ina superficial manner and not to study the texts deeply and critically; for thisreason, it was recommended that the total number of recommended books
should be reduced. Second, it is seriously inadequate both to draw a sharpboundary between analytical and realistic economics, and to divide fourareas (A., B., C., and D.) in economics. Regrouping was necessary. Third,
students tended to be disturbed by French or German questions; it wasrecommended that the translation questions should be abolished. In
addition to these three points, they advocated various minor points: withregard to ‘Recent Economic and General History’, the paper in Part I
should deal exclusively with the recent events of the United Kingdom.
Rather, first hand documents such as the Poor Law Report of 1834 or
Gladstone’s financial statements should be referred to. As to ‘General
Principles of Economics’ in Part I, as well as ‘General Economics’ in Part
II, the title and subject matter should be reconsidered. Regarding‘Advanced Economics’, “a regulation should be drafted that the subjects ofthe papers in Advanced Economics should include questions both on
realistic and analytic subjects” 15.
This report was significant with regard to the revisions to the Tripos. It
was the starting point of subsequent discussions that resulted in changes in1913 to the schedule of subjects and its regulations. What is more, the basic
13

CUR, “Chairman of Examiners appointed”, 7 December 1909, p. 326.
The office begins 1st January and ends 31st December of the same year. CUR,
“Special Boards of Studies”, 1 October 1910, p. 17.
15 Min.v.114, “Recommendations of the Examiners of the Economics Tripos of 1910”(no date) by H. W. V. Temperley, J. S. Nicholson, C. P. Sanger, and C. R. Fay, Printed,
annexed between p. 148 and p. 150.
1412

ideas of the report including the above three points were accepted by theother members and ultimately remained unchanged. Among the four
examiners, it was probably Fay who took the initiative to reform, because
only Fay—one of the insider dons in Cambridge, unlike Nicholson andSanger—taught both economics and history to candidates of the Tripos16
and had been an ardent reformer of university matters, including thewomen’s degree17. Temperley, a liberal historian of 18th and 19th-century
British constitutional history, did not teach any subject in the Economics
Tripos when the report was published, though he was the Chair of the
Examiners18. Sanger, “a brilliant student of Marshall” (Groenewegen 2012:38), made an independent memorandum on the Principles of Law, but notin economics terms, because his interest had shifted into legal affairs.
Nicholson’s role is not clear: he had been a pupil of Marshall, but later
became very critical (Groenewegen 2012: 22).
The Board discussed this report seriously. Keynes, Secretary of theBoard at that time, recorded as follows:
The Recommendation of the Examiners of 1910 regarding to the Economics Tripos,
and Mr Sanger’s memorandum regarding to the papers on Principles of Law in Part
19

II were received and discussed .

This marks the beginning of the discussion. Keynes again records on 11
November 1910:
The following Committee was appointed to consider a general scheme of revision
16

Fay was in charge of Economics (three terms) and English Economics History
during the 19th Century (Michaelmas and Lent Terms), both for the first-year students.
CUR, Lecture List, 10 April 1910, p. 814.
17 See Komine (2012). Marshall’s personal supervision had a great impact on him.
Groenewegen (2012: 148).
18 See Simms (2010 [2004]). Temperley began to lecture Papers on the existing British
Constitution from Lent Term 1911. Min.v.114, “Lectures proposed by the Special
Board for Economics and Politics, 1910-11”, annexed between p. 170 and p. 172.
19 Min.v.114, 39th Meeting, Section 4, MS [Keynes’s own handwriting], 11 November
1910, p. 150.
13

for Part II of the Tripos: Prof. Pigou
Mr Dickinson
Mr Clapham
Mr Fay20

Mr J. M. Keynes

3-2 Sub-Committee: Round 1
The appointed five members made a report dated 26 November 1910.
This report was exclusively important, because the revised schedule ofsubjects were revealed for the first time, and became open for discussion.
1. Essay.

c

2. Economic Principles.

c

3. Structure and problems of modern industry, national and international.

two

4. Distribution and Labour.

papers

5. Money, Credit and Prices, national and international.

from

6. Economic functions of government (central and local) and of philanthropic 3/4/5/6
bodies.
7. History of English economic theory with special reference to specified s
authors.
8. Political Science.

s

9. The law of contract in English.

s

10. The law of real property in English.

s

Table 2 Revision (1), 26 November 1910
Papers 1 and 2 were compulsory. Candidates also needed to compose fourother papers, of which at least two papers had to be chosen from among
papers 3, 4, 5, and 6. Papers 9 and 10 were a pair: it was impossible toanswer only one of the two papers. Papers 3, 4, and 5 were intended to20

Min.v.114, 39th Meeting, Section 5, MS [Keynes’s own handwriting], 11 November
1910, p. 150.
14

cover the areas A., B., C., and D. of the existing ‘Advanced Economics’.
Only D. (international trade) seemed to disappear, but its contents had been
distributed between Papers 3 and 5. The three papers were intended toinclude both analytical and descriptive characteristics, and containquestions on statistics. Paper 2 in particular was intended to secure from all
candidates a sound knowledge of the machinery of economics21.
The report seemed to make Marshall’s curriculum clearer by applying
concrete names to the subjects, such as industry, labour, and money. The
economic functions of government and history of economic theory became
more explicit, which were also his original subject-areas meant to prepare
for either the business or academic worlds—although the history of
economic theory was merely optional, as was political science or law. Notealso that the objects within which candidates needed to consider economic
functions comprised not only government but also philanthropic bodies.
These changes imply Marshall’s attitude: he regarded the COS as importantbodies that support workers’ physical and mental fulfillment.
This report was discussed on 2 December 1910. During the meeting, an
important amendment was suggested:
The Report of the Committee on a general scheme for Part II of the Economics
Tripos was received; and after comments on the report from Prof. Nicholson, Mr
Sanger, and Mr Layton had been communicated to the Board, the Report was
accepted with the following amendments: Paper 9

Public International Law

Paper 10A Special Subject or Subjects on Economic History or Political Science22

in place of the two papers on English law proposed by the Committee .

21

Min.v.114, “Report to the Special Board for Economics and Politics of theCommittee appointed to consider a general scheme for the Economics Tripos” (dated 26
November 1910) by A. C. Pigou, G. Lowes Dickinson, J. H. Clapham, J. M. Keynes
and C. R. Fay, annexed between p. 152 and p. 154.
22 Min.v.114, 40th Meeting, Section 3, MS [Keynes’s own handwriting], 2 December
15

According to the minutes of that day23, Nicholson and Sanger were absent(they had a right to attend, as examiners), whereas Layton was also absent
because he was not a member of the Board. Nevertheless, the means ofdecision-making within the Board seemed to be democratic, since broadvoices were heard from outside the Board.
The Board decided to revise the schedule of subjects and its regulationsof the Economics Tripos, especially in Part II:
The following Committees were then appointed to consider the proposed changes
in proper [?] detailed: Committee (a) to consider papers 2-5, and 7 in Part II and the Economic papers inPart I
Committee (b) to consider papers 8 and 9 in Part II and the paper on the British
Constitution in Part I
Committee (c) to consider papers on General and Economic History in Part I,
the paper 6 of Part II to be considered by Committee (a) and (b) jointly;
Committee (a) Prof. Pigou, Mr Clapham, Mr J. M. Keynes
Committee (b) Mr Dickinson, Mr Temperley, Prof. Oppenheim
Committee (c) Mr Fay, Mr Clapham, Mr Benians

24

3-3 Sub-Committee: Round 2
The three sub-committees jointly made a report, dated 31 January 1911,
which was discussed at the 42nd meeting of the Board on 3 February 1911.
The schedule of subjects was the same as the previous one of the previous
November, except with respect to Papers 9 and 10. These names were1910, p. 154.
23 The attendants were 10 members: Dr Keynes (Chairman), Prof. Kenny, Prof.
Oppenheim, Prof. Pigou, Mr Benians, Mr Dickinson, Mr Fay, Mr Clapham, Mr
Meredith, Mr Temperley, and Mr J. M Keynes (Secretary).
24 Min.v.114, 40th Meeting, Section 4, MS [Keynes’s own handwriting], 2 December
1910, p. 156.
16

amended according the results of the previous meeting. The characteristicof this report was to give detailed contents regarding the proposed subjects.
1. Essay.

c

2. Economic Principles.

c

3. Structure and problems of modern industry, national and international.

two

4. Distribution and Labour.

papers

5. Money, Credit and Prices, national and international.

from

6. Economic functions of government (central and local) and of philanthropic 3/4/5/6
bodies.
7. History of English economic theory with special reference to specified s
authors.
8. Political Science.

s

9. Public International Law.

s

10. A Special Subject or Subjects in Economic History or Political Science.

s

Table 3 Revision (2), 31 January 1911
Papers 1 and 2 were compulsory, as was the case in the previous plans.
Every candidate had to choose at least two subjects from among Papers 3, 4,
5, and 6. Paper 2, entitled as ‘Economic Principles’, should cover a general
analysis of demand and supply with regard to the broader problems ofwages, interest, rent, foreign trade, money, prices, and taxation. Paper 3
was concerned with the organization and methods of modern industry, suchas joint-stock companies, trusts, cartels, cooperative societies, modern
methods of transport and marketing, and others. Paper 4 dealt with therelations between employers and the employed, unemployment, andindustrial fluctuations, labour exchanges, and other topics. Paper 5 should
cover monetary theory, as well as currency and banking systems. Paper 6
was concerned with the policy of central and local authorities (including
philanthropic bodies) in relation to industry, taxes, and rates, including
justice in taxation, state insurance, treatment of the poor, and others. Paper
7 should cover the history of economic theory, with special reference to17England: more specifically:In this paper a general knowledge of the development of economic theory shall be
required, together with some knowledge of the way in which its development has
been connected with contemporaneous history.

The report recommended that the following five books be read bycandidates, carefully and in detail: Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations;
Ricardo, Political Economy and Essays on Bullionist Controversy; Malthus,
Essay on Population; J. S. Mill, Political Economy; and Javons, Theory of
Political Economy.
It was unusual that the members of the Board did not reach within one
meeting a conclusion with regard to a received report. It was decided thatthe report would be returned and that the same sub-committees would
reconsider it25. Sub-committees (b) and (c) gave a further report soon, andtheir recommendations were accepted with minor amendments on 14
February 1911. Sub-committee (b) defined ‘Political Institutions’ in Part I
as problems dealing with existing political institutions, with specialreference to Great Britain, the United States, the German Federation, andthe Swiss Federation 26 . However, Sub-committee (c) signed by only
Clapham and Fay and not by Benians, recommended three points as to‘Recent Economic and General History’ 27 : first, ‘recent’ should beinterpreted to mean ‘mainly since 1800’, and military or literary history
should not be included; second, two-thirds of Part I should deal with theUnited Kingdom, and one-thirds with self-governing colonies and India;
and third, two-thirds of Part II should deal with Europe and one-thirds with
the United States.

25

Min.v.114, 42nd Meeting, Section 9, MS [Keynes’s own handwriting], 3 February
1911.
26 Min.v.114, “Economics Board.” (no date) by G. L. D. and H. W. V. T., annexed
between p. 166 and p. 168.
27 Min.v.114, “Revision of the Economics Tripos” (dated 11 February 1911) by
Clapham and Fay, annexed between p. 166 and p. 168.
18

3-4 Sub-Committee: Round 3
Sub-committee (a) submitted on March 1911 a further report, dated 22
February 191128. This report was significant to the process of revising the
Tripos, in three aspects. First, the subject ‘Economic Functions ofGovernment’, previously Paper 6, was now Paper 3; it became compulsory,
together with ‘Subjects for an Essay’ and ‘Economic Principles’. The
content of the subject became simpler, dealing exclusively withgovernmental expenditure to improve production and distribution.
Philanthropic bodies and taxation justice were dropped, which meant that‘ethical aspects of economics’ disappeared, at least on the surface. Second,‘History of Economic Theory’ was deleted: instead ‘Miscellaneous
Economic Questions’ appeared for the first time. This subject should cover
the same subject-matters as Papers 4, 5, and 629. However, according toClause 10, which referred to the contents of ‘Special Subjects’, Paper 10
could touch on economic history, the history of economic theory, andpolitical science. Thus, the history of economic theory was dropped as a
subject name, but still survived as a field name. Third, these amendments
were reported “after consultation with Dr Marshall”. In this period,
Marshall still had a direct influence on his pupils.
1. Subjects for an Essay.

compulsory

2. Economic Principles.

compulsory

3. Economic Functions of Government.

compulsory

4. Structure and Problems of Modern Industry

one

5. Distribution and Labour.

from 4/5/6

paper

6. Money, Credit and Prices.
7. Miscellaneous Economic questions.

selective

28

Min.v.114, “Economics Tripos Part II, Revised proposals of Committee (a) after
consultation with Dr Marshall”, (dated 22 February 1911), annexed between p. 166 andp. 168.
29 For instance, it included the regulations of joint stock companies, industrial
combinations, railway and shipping rates, trade unions, banking, and advanced theory ofvalue.
19

8. Political Science.

selective

9. International Law.

selective

10. Special Subject or Subjects.

selective

Table 4 Revision (3), 22 February 1911
This revision was discussed at the Special Board meeting, and finallyaccepted after minute amendments and corrections:
1. A further report was received from Committee (a), after consultation with Dr
Marshall, on the revision of the Economics Tripos Part II. This report was approved,with the modifications noted on the appended copy of it.
2. Committee (a) with the addition of Mr Dickinson was instituted to draw up a30

report for the Senate on the proposed revision of the Tripos .

At last, the process of revising the Economics Tripos (especially in Part II)
was virtually finished, following a four-month discussion.
3-5 Final Report
The Special Board discussed on 2 May 1911 the final report on theregulations for the Economics Tripos. There are two documents; one31
dated 1 May 1911 and another 32 dated 2 May 1911. The difference
between the two documents seems slight, but one important point should
not be missed. In the final version, Clause 11 (previously Clause 10) was
deleted, which means that the field name of the history of economic theory
was dropped and not referenced to anywhere in the document. In due
30

Min.v.114, 44th Meeting, Sections 1 and 2, MS [Keynes’s own handwriting], 3March 1911, p. 170.
31 Min.v.114, “Draft Report of Sub-Committee (a): Report of the Special Board for
Economics and Politics on the Regulations for the Economics Tripos” (dated 1 May
1911), annexed between p. 170 and p. 172.
32 UA/5/1/5-6, “Report of the Special Board for Economics and Politics on theRegulations for the Economics Tripos” (dated 2 May 1911), the Keynes Papers[hereafter as KP], Modern Archives, King’s College, University of Cambridge.
20

course, the final report was complete, and in public through the Cambridge
University Reporter on 9 May 1911.
The final report to the Senate was open to discussion at thecongregation held on 18 May 1911. A member (Mr R.T. Wright) criticized
this report by claiming that new regulations merely required lessknowledge of Garman and French. Pigou answered:the Board did not intend to lessen the requirement with regard to foreign languages,
but it was a difficult matter to introduce French and German questions into a great
many papers.

What is more, Pigou pointed out that the changes were not in opposition to
the drafters of the old regulations. For, Dr Marshall wrote to Pigou:
I congratulate you on the Report of the Economics Board, a copy of which has justsent to me by the Secretary [Keynes]. I shall not be in Cambridge when it isdiscussed in the Senate House: so I will say now that I think all its new proposals
33

are, as it claims, justified by experience .

The final report was accepted by the Senate, and the new regulations would
come in force from 191334, instead of the original regulations accepted in
1903.
Section 4 Concluding Remarks
This section deals with the implications of the revisions made to the
Economics Tripos around 1910, with special reference to Maynard Keynes.
Among the aforementioned documents, there remain no single plans that
Keynes signed alone. All documents were signed by multiple members.

33
34

CUR, “Discussion of Reports” (dated 18 May 1911), 23 May 1911, p. 1056.
CUR, “Acta” (dated 1 June 1911), 6 June 1911, p. 1130.
21

Yet, there was one exception—although the document35 was not related to
the Tripos but to the Civil Service Examination.
4-1 Keynes’s Own Design
Keynes took a memorandum in June 1911 for candidates in Political
Economy, Civil Service Examination. It was necessary to design a generalcourse that was similar to that of Political Economy in Part II of theHistorical Tripos. However, he pointed out that it needed additional
requirements, in three respects. First, one or two questions were needed on
statistical methods, at least of which should be compulsory. Second, somequestions were set on economic history, of which at least one might becompulsory. Third, says Keynes, “Some knowledge is often required of theHistory of Economic Theory, but the questions on this part of the subject
are not as a rule compulsory”. Keynes mentions several books to be read.
Regarding the history of economic theory, he refers to three books: Adam
Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book IV; Marshall, Principles of Economics,
Book VI, chapters 1 and 2, and Appendices B, I, J, and L; Cambridge
Modern History, vol. X, chapter XXIV (The British Economists) written byJ. S. Nicholson.
It is also interesting to note Keynes’s favorite method of education. As
he himself put it:
Fortnightly papers will be set in connexion with it, and I strongly urge Civil Service
candidates to work these papers regularly. It is impossible to obtain a proper
knowledge of Economics by reading alone and without systematic paper work.

Keynes succeeded with the same method from his mentor Marshall.
Groenewegen (1993: 24–25) points out the intimate relationship between
the two men: Keynes formally enrolled in Marshall’s ‘Advanced
Economics’ of the 1905 Michaelmas term, and took classes on Tuesday
35

UA/12/29, “Memorandum by Mr. J. M. Keynes for candidates in Political Economy,
Civil Service Examination (Class I)” (dated June 1911), KP.
22and Thursday at noon. Further, Marshall gave lectures on ‘some analytic
difficulties’ on Saturday36. Keynes recalls his mentor’s didactic method:
I have papers which I wrote for him on which his red-ink comments and criticisms
occupy almost as much space as my answers. (Keynes 1972 [1924]: 215, note 1)

Keynes regarded the three subjects (statistics, economic history, thehistory of economic theory) as fairly important, although the weight heplaced on each differed. The subjects and their weight vis-à-vis an
economics education were almost the same between Keynes and Marshall.
Further, fortnightly paper works were vital for the both Cambridge dons:thus, we can safely claim that Keynes was a faithful follower of Marshall atthat time (around 1910)37.
4-2 Summary
Let us now to summarize our discussion on the process of revising the
Economics Tripos in 1910–11. The process can be divided into five phases.
First, discussions touching on revisions began immediately following
the submission of a report by the four Tripos examiners including C. R.
Fay. They recommended changes based on three guidelines: theadvancement of deep and restricted learning; abolition of subject
distinction based on ‘realistic’ versus ‘analytic’; and the abolition oftranslation questions. Based on these guidelines, the members of theSpecial Board continued to discuss the matter from November 1910 to May
1911. In this sense, we need to consider the role of Fay as important, as hewas the only one member of the four examiners who gave Tripos lectures
on both economics and economic history, and involved in the reform
process as an insider.
Second, five members—namely, Pigou, Dickinson, Clapham, Fay, andKeynes—comprosed a sub-committee that considered a general scheme for
36

CUR, 18 April 1906, p. 698.
Thus, it must not have been Keynes who took the initiative to drop ‘History of
Economic Theory’ from the Tripos regulations.
37

23

Part II of the Tripos. In November 1910, they renamed 10 papers,
drastically changing the original subject names in Part II for the first time.
Despite drastic changes in their names, the content was faithful toMarshall’s intent—or rather the names made it clearer and represented
concrete subject-matters in economics like industry, labour, money, and theeconomic functions of government and philanthropic bodies. The history of
economic theory was also included as a subject name.
Third, three sub-committees jointly submitted a report dated January
1911. Sub-committee (a), consisting of Pigou, Clapham, and Keynes,
defined the content of the papers in detailed. The scope and range of the
Tripos questions touched not only on the systematic analysis of supply anddemand but also ethical and realistic aspects in economies, such as national
insurance, remedies for the poor, justice in taxations, and philanthropic
actions, among others. ‘History of Economic Theory’ remained as Paper 7;on the other hand, Clapham and Fay of Sub-committee (c) restricted thescope and rage of economic and general history.
Four, Sub-committee (a) again drafted the memorandum in February
1911. ‘Economic Functions of Government’ became compulsory and its
content was simplified. The name of Paper 7 was changed from ‘History of
Economic Theory’ to ‘Miscellaneous Economic Questions’. Instead, Paper
10, ‘Special Subjects’, came to include the history of economic theory
together with economic history, political sciences, and statistical methods.
At this point, the ethical aspects of economics disappeared from the Tripos,
at least with regard to the stipulated regulations. Note also that on this draft,
Marshall himself was consulted.
Five, the final report to the Senate—drafted by Pigou, Clapham,Keynes, and Dickinson—was discussed in May 2011. One seemingly
minor but significant point changed, compared to the previous reports.
Clause 11 was deleted, to prescribe the contents of Paper 10. This meansthat the history of economic theory disappeared not only as a subject namebut also in terms of content. The final version was accepted by the Senate
in June 1911 and would be in force from 1913 onwards.

24

Phase 1

Draft dateRelease date

Drafters

Characters

HET

No date11 Nov 1910

Temperley,

Three main No

39th meeting

Nicholson,

guidelines

reference
Paper 7

Sanger, Fay
Phase 2Phase 326 Nov 1910

31 Jan 1911

2 Dec 1910

Pigou,

First

40th meeting

Dickinson,

schedule ofClapham,subject, two

Fay, Keynes

compulsory

Pigou,Two

3 Feb 1911

42nd meeting Clapham,Phase 422 Feb 1911

Phase 5(1) 1 May 1911

Paper 7compulsory,

Keynesin detail3 Mar 1911

Pigou,

Three

Clause44th meeting

Clapham,compulsory,

regardingKeynesno ethicalPaper 10

2 May 1911

Pigou,

Clause45th meeting

Clapham,regardingKeynes,Paper 1010

11

Dickinson
Phase 5(2) 2 May 1911

9 May 1911

All

CUR

members

12No
reference

Table 5 Summary of each phase4-3 Succession or Escape?
We shall make concluding remarks in reference to Marshall’s complex
intent to create the Economics Tripos.
Regarding Intent A (i.e. to liberate economics from metaphysics), his
pupils did not refer to it. It is natural, since the Economics Tripos had been
independent. As to Intent B (i.e. to obtain financial support from theoutside), they did not refer to support from business circles: at that time,they denied the creation of a diploma course in Social Study38 (on poverty,
38

Min.v.114, “Social Study Committee” (no date) by G. Lowes Dickinson, A. C. Pigou,
25

unemployment, philanthropic bodies, and other subjects), a subject that
became familiar in newly industrialized cities. Rather, they repeatedlyemphasized the need for the university support39. With regard to Intent C(i.e. to establish a new liberal education through economics), by and large,
Marshall’s pupils eventually differed from their mentor, either consciously
or subconsciously. The subject distinction between ‘realistic’ and ‘analytic’was eventually abolished, implying that students preparing for business or
public offices had also to engage in specialized economics. Additionally,
they integrated four law subjects into one; restricted the scope and range of
economic and general history; dropped the history of economic theory;
stopped referencing the ethical aspects of economics. They also reduced thenumber of questions in French or German to a substantial extent. All thesechanges moved economics from being a branch of human study based onbroader and multidisciplinary knowledge (i.e. a moral science). Instead,they concentrated on Intent D (i.e. to master ‘economic organon’, the grandsystem of economic analysis). Moreover, they interpreted Intent D as study
that focuses on subdivided and restricted areas (modern economics), noteconomics compatible with both simplification (unified principles) andmultiplication (diversity in economies)40—an overarching body of subject
matter that should be termed ‘Marshall’s eclecticism’.
Keynes was rather faithful to Marshall: he respected Marshall’s
curriculum (important subjects such as statistics, economic history, and thehistory of economic theory) and the way of education (e.g. fortnightly
paper works). However, the Board members, including Keynes, decided torevise the Tripos curriculum, with Marshall’s consultation. It must have
J. M. Keynes, C. R. Fay and Harold W. V. Temperley, 40th Meeting, 2 December 1910,
annexed between p. 154 and p. 156.
39 Min.v.114, “A letter from the Special Board for Economics and Politics to theGeneral Board of Studies (dated 9 May 1907)”, annexed between p. 68 and p. 70.
Min.v.114, “Memorandum of the Special Board for Economics and Politics on theneeds of the Board” (dated 2 December 1910), annexed between p. 146 and p. 148.
Min.v.114, “Memorandum of the Special Board for Economics and Politics on theneeds of the Board” (dated 2 December 1910), annexed between p. 146 and p. 148.
40 Marshall’s motto was “the Many in the One, and the One in the Many” (Marshall1902: 13).
26

been intended that this change around 1910 would clarify Marshall’s
original positions (e.g. making the subject-names clearer); nonetheless, its
future (i. e. in the 1920s and onwards) implications were potentiallyhazardous. That is to say, indirect pupils might focus more exclusively on
academic and professional economics—as is the case today—after direct
pupils would retire from the active roles of managing the Tripos.
In 1930, Keynes declared to Fay as follows:
We are proposing a somewhat drastic revision of the Tripos, which may not escape
opposition, but looks like going through the Senate. This makes Part I a one-year41

course and Part II normally a two-year course .

This remark is interesting and could possibly supplement ourinvestigation, but for now we must adhere to the investigatory limit of thecurrent study.
Bibliography(A) Primary literature including archival documents
CUEP: Cambridge University Examination Papers, Cambridge: University ofCambridge (L952.b.5, West Room, University Library, University of Cambridge).
CUR: Cambridge University Reporter, Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
CR: The Cambridge Review: A Journal of University Life and Thought, Cambridge:
Elijah Johnson.
CC: Cambridge Chronicle, Microfilm.P.94, Macroform Reading Room, University
Library, University of Cambridge (Cam.b.41.30.1-108, Rare Books Room,
University Library, University of Cambridge).
Council of the Senate Minutes, Min.I.20B (1920–1921), Manuscript Room, University
Library, University of Cambridge.
Min.v.114/115/116: 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.
41

UA/5/2/98, from Keynes to Fay, 4 March 1930, KP.
27

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
Beveridge, W. H. (1921) “Economics as a Liberal Education”, Economica, 1(1):January 1921, 2–19.
Collard, D. A. (1990) “Cambridge after Marshall”, in Whitaker, J. K. (ed.) Centenary
Essays on Alfred Marshall, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164–192.
Deane, P. (1998 [1987]) “Clapham, John Harold 1873–1946)”, in J. Eatwell, M.
Milgate and P. Newman (eds.) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics,
volume I (A to D), paperback, London and New York: Macmillan: 427-428.
Deane, P. (2001) The Life and Times of J. Neville Keynes: A Beacon in the Tempest,
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Dostaler, G. (2007) Keynes and his Battles, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.	
 Engel, A. (1983) “The English Universities and Professional Education”, in K. H.
Jarausch (ed.): 293–305.
Gray, A. (1926) Cambridge University: An Episodical History, Cambridge: W. Heffer& Sons.
Groenewegen, P. D. (1988) “Alfred Marshall and the Establishment of the Cambridge
Economic Tripos”, History of Political Economy, 20(4): 62–667.
Groenewegen, P. D. (1993) “Marshall and Keynes: Observations on the Treatment of
the Relationship in Two Recent Biographies”, Marshall Studies Bulletin, 3: 21–35.
Groenewegen, P. D. (1995) A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall 1842-1924, Aldershot,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Groenewegen, P. D. (2012) The Minor Marshallians and Alfred Marshall: An Evolution,
Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Edward Elgar.
28

Harrod. R. (1982 [1951]) The Life of John Maynard Keynes, London: W.W. Norton &Company (First Published by London: Macmillan).
Hubback, D. (1985) No Ordinary Press Baron: A Life of Walter Layton, London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Jarausch, K. H. ed. (1983) The Transformation of Higher Learning 1860–1930:
Expansion, Diversifications, Social Opening, and Professionalization in England,
Germany, Russia, and the United States, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Keynes, J. M. (1972 [1924]) “Alfred Marshall”, in The Collected Writings of John
Maynard Keynes, Volume X, Essays in Biography, London: Macmillan St.
Martin’s Press for the Royal Economic Society, 161–231.
Komine, A. and F. Masini (2011) “The Diffusion of Economic Ideas: Lionel Robbins in
Italy and Japan”, in H. D. Kurz, T. Nishizawa, and K. Tribe (eds.) The
Dissemination of Economics Ideas, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 223–259,
October 2011.
Komine, A. (2012) “Why did Keynes promote Grace I in 1921?: A Cambridge
University Officer’s Attitude towards Conferring Degrees on Women”, Discussion
Paper Series, Faculty of Economics, Ryukoku University, No. 11–02, 1–36.
http://www.econ.ryukoku.ac.jp/aesru/dp/dp.html
Lowe, R. (1983) “The Expansion of Higher Education in England”, in K. H. Jarausch(ed.): 37–56.
Lee, F. S. (2011) “David H. MacGregor and Industrial Economics at Oxford”, in T.
Raffaelli, T. Nishizawa, and S. Cook (eds.) Marshall, Marshalllians and Industrial
Economics, London and New York: Routledge: 231–249.
Marshall, A. (1902) A Plea for the Creation of a Curriculum in Economics andAssociated Branches of Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, A. (1903) The New Cambridge Curriculum in Economics, London:
Macmillan and Co., Ltd.
Marshall, A. (1906) Introduction to the Tripos in Economics and Associated Branchesof Political Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, A. (1921 [1919]) Industry and Trade: A Study of Industrial Technique andBusiness Organization, and of their Influences on the Conditions of Carious
Classes and Nations, third edition, reprint, London: Macmillan.
Marshall, A. (1925 [1885]) “The Present Position of Economics”, in A. C. Pigou (ed.)
29

Memorials of Alfred Marshall, London: Macmillan, 152–174.
Marshall, A. (1961 [1890]) Principles of Economics, Ninth (variorum) Edition, withannotations by C. W. Guillebaud, Volume II Notes, London: Macmillan.
Mill, J. S. (1867) Inaugural Address delivered to the University of St. Andrews, 1
February 1867, London: Longman, Green, Reader and Dyer.	
 Moggridge, D. E. (1992) Maynard Keynes: An Economist’s Biography, London and
New York: Routledge.
Perkin, H. (1983) “The Pattern of Social Transformation in England”, in K. H. Jarausch(ed.): 207–218.
Pigou, A. C. (1908) Economic Science in Relation to Practice: An Inaugural Lecture
given at Cambridge, 30th October, 1908, London: Macmillan.
Sanderson, M. (1975) Education and Economic Decline in Britain, 1870 to the 1990s,
Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
Simms, B. (2010 [2004]) “Temperley, Harold William Vazeille (1879–1939)”, Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept2010 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/36449, accessed 9 July 2012]
Skidelsky, R. (1992 [1983]) John Maynard Keynes, Hopes Betrayed 1883-1920,
paperback edition, London: Macmillan.
The Registrary of the University (ed.) (1928) Statues 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]) Statues 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.
Whitaker, J. K. (ed.) (1996) The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall Economist, Vol. II:
At the Summit, 1891–1902 / Vol. III: Towards the Close, 1903-1924, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

30