TI-IE HISTORY OP BROADCASTING

IN THE UNITED KINGDOMVOLUME II

THE

GOLDEN AGE OF
R%IRELESSBY

ASA BRIGGSTHE CITY UNIVERSITY LIBRARY,
8T. JOHN STREET, LONDON,
E.C.1.

THE CITY UNIVERSITY LIBRARY,
ST. JOHN STREET, LONDOR, E.C.1.

LONDONOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESSNEW YORKTORONTO

1965

Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C.¢
GLASGOWNEW YORKTORONTOMELBOURNE

WELLINGTONBOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
CAPE TOWN SALISBURY NAIROBI IBADAN ACCRAKUALA LUMPUR

NONO KONG

Q Oxford University Press 1965

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BY VIVIAN RIDLER
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

1.4C.1b,()I'S

1

THE HISTORY OF BROADCASTING
IN THE UNITED KINGDOMVOLUME II

THE GOLDEN AGE
OF WIRELESSI

This History is dedicated toJ. H. WHITLEY
Chairman of the Board of Governors of
The British Broadcasting Corporation(193O-1935)'He was all to us that a chairman could be'1PREFACE
Tins volume follows chronologically The Birth of Broadcasting
which appeared in 1961. In writing it I have had extremely
generous help from everyone I have consulted within the BBC.
I have had the fullest access to the voluminous records of the
Corporation, and I have benefited greatly from interviews,
conversations, and the opportunity of meeting collectively
groups of people associated with particular aspects of broadcasting. The record I present and the conclusions I have reachedare, however, entirely my own.
Outside the BBC I remain deeply grateful for the friendly
and invaluable co-operation of Lord Reith, who has placed at
my disposal all his private papers and his extremely full andinformative Diary. The use of this unique source has greatly
enlivened the writing of this volume of the history, just as it
enlivened the writing of the first. My debt to Lord Reith goesbeyond this, however, for it is in discussing people and problems
with him that I have learnt a great deal, not only about broadcasting, which could have been learnt in no other way. I cannot
conceive how this history could have been written without theinterest lie has shown in it and the help he has given.
I am also grateful to the late R. C. Norman, who gave mea vivid and illuminating first-hand account of the Governors of
the BBC in the late 193os, and to Oliver Whitley, who lent mepress cuttings and papers relating to his father, J. H. Whitley,a previous Chairman of the Board of Governors, to whom thisbook is respectfully dedicated. Through the kindness of T. W.
Tallents I have been able to use many of his father's papers andpress cuttings. These, indeed, constitute a major historicalsource. I am also greatly indebted to Ralph Wade, whose
manuscript history `Early Life in the BBC' is full of interesting
and unique information. Stuart G. Williams kindly madeavailable to me papers and books relating to his stepfather,
Sydney Moseley, and among a large number of former officialsof the BBC who have offered me their fullest co-operation I mustmention Sir Noel Ashbridge, Sir Basil Nicolls, Sir Adrian Boult,Mrs. Mary Adams, Donald Boyd, Gerald Cock, F. H. Dart,

PREFACE

the late Peter Eckersley, H. Lynton Fletcher, J. NV. Godfrey,
Maurice Gorham, ,John Green, Julian Herbage, Owen Mase,
W. E. Gladstone Murray, Norman Luker, W. St. J. Pym,
A. P. Ryan, Charles Siepmann, the late Mary Somerville,
Roger Wilson, Kenneth \Vright, and the Hon. R. T. B. Wynn.
I was also able to talk with Lady Ogilvie, to acquire usefulmaterial about the building of Broadcasting House fromMarmaduke T. Tudsbery, to study microphones and studios
with the help of Dr. F. NV. Alexander, to make use of Mungo
M. Dewar's Variety Day Book, to examine a file of articles
by S. J. de Lotbiniére, to collect information about programmefinance, a subject where some of the BBC's own files have been
destroyed, from P. E. Cruttwell, and, most important of allthese debts, to study the rich private papers of Sir Beresford
Clark which carefully document the whole development of
empire and overseas broadcasting. I have also been able to makeuse of relevant Post Office archives, and I would particularly
like to thank the Post Office for willing co-operation.
It would be invidious to single out people within the BBC,but a number of people who were of great help to me havesubsequently left the Corporation and some of them have readthrough parts of the manuscript. Sir Gerald Beadle, Val Gielgud,
and Eric Maschwitz all provided me with valuable information.
Sir Harold Bishop took immense pains to advise me about thetechnical complexities of radio history, and gave me muchother help. Sir Lindsay Wellington sketched out details ofpolicies which have never been given full expression on paper,and saved me from serious errors. The Controllers of the Midland
and North Regions, and Scotland, sent me valuable papers.
Kenneth Adam read through the first draft and made necessary
criticisms. H. Davies, T. H. Eckersley, Laurence Gilliam, H. A.
Hanlon, L. F. Lewis, A. P. Monson, R. C. Patrick, Martin
Pulling, R. J. E. Silvey, Donald Stephenson, and D. B. Weigall
all proved helpful in various capacities.
To R. L. W. Collison, the BBC's Librarian, and to Miss
M. S. Hodgson, the Archivist, I owe an immense debt. Mr.
Collison not only provided me with a fund of bibliographicalinformation, but prepared the index of this volume. Miss
Hodgson, in the process of planning and arranging BBC papers,
has acquired a prodigious detailed knowledge without which

PREFACEix

I would often have been lost. In addition, Dr. Harold Spivackeof the Library of Congress gave me useful information about
popular music across the Atlantic and B. G. Cooper, authorof an Oxford B. Litt. thesis, on the BBC and religion; while Mrs.
Healing helped me with material on BBC programmes during
the few months before the outbreak of the Second World War.
Miss Marjorie Whitaker, my secretary, helped me to organizeand pursue the whole enterprise, an often difficult undertaking,as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Above all, my friend
D. H. Clarke, with his wide experience and knowledge, has assisted me at every stage, setting me on the right paths and guiding
me towards the destination. Dr. Barry Supple and Dr. Bryan
Wilson very kindly read through the final proofs.
Contemporary history, particularly institutional history,
is a necessary but hazardous enterprise. I have tried in thisvolume, as in the first volume of this history, to keep a carefulwatch on perspective and not to allow current fashions of thought
to dominate either arrangement or conclusions. I have also
kept a close watch on scale. There are certain problems in
broadcasting history, as in other kinds of history, where unlessthe historian explores in considerable depth he can offer little
but meaningless detail and useless generalization. I have tried
to penetrate as deeply as I can where this is possible-it is notalways possible-and where I think it is necessary. I am sure,
however, that more monographs are needed in relation to
problems both in broadcasting history and in the social historyof which this volume is also a part. Like Volume I, this volume
is designed to be read in itself or to be treated as one volume ina bigger series. It will be followed up by a third volume on
broadcasting during the Second World War.
ASA BRIGGSThe University of Sussex
August 1964

I MUST apologize to Brigadier R. F. Johnson for misspelling his
name on p. 254 of Volume I, where, as author of a series of broadcast
talks under the title 'My Part of the Country', which began in 1924,
he is referred to as Captain Johnston. In my reference to Miss F. I.
Shields, Reith's secretary, I wrote that she was a graduate of
Newnham. She was, in fact, a graduate of Girton.

CONTENTSPREFACE

Vll

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XIII

I.

INTRODUCTION: PERSONALITIES ANDPERFORMANCE

II. PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

I

2I

I. Programme Parade

23Entertainment
3. Words and Music
4. Education

75

I2I

5. Religion

227

2.

III. AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

185

251

I. Home Listeners253

2. Spoken and Written

28o

3. Regional Broadcasting293

4. Europe: Co-operation and Competition339

5. Empire and Overseas

369

IV. ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN

INSTITUTION

4II

I. Public Corporation

413

The Logic of Growth
3. Public Images
4. The Ullswater Committee
5. After Ullswater

439

2.

466

476
504

CONTENTS

Xii
V.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

517

I. Back to Baird519

2. The Experiment

547

3.

The Rivals

566

4.

The Inquiry

582

5.

The Service

594

VI. FROM PEACE TO WAR

623

1.

A Change of Director-Generals

625

2.

Preparations for War

640

3. The Last Months of Peace

653

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

66o

TABLES

between 664-5

INDEX

665

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
The author would like to acknowledge with thanks the kind permission given to reproduce illustrations belonging to individuals and corporate bodies. Items marked with an asterisk are by permissionof the BBC. Pictures of wireless receivers are front the catalogues of the National Association ofRadio Manufacturers and Traders.

1. A Cheap Wireless Set of 1927

5

2. A Television Set of the late 193os

6(By permission of Ferranti Ltd., Manchester)

3. Sir John Reith's Farewell Message to the Editor of Ariel

18

4. The Twiddleknob Family as depicted by Arthur Ferrier.
From Radio Pictorial, Jan. 193424

5. A Postcard from George Bernard

65

Shaw

(By permission of The Public Trustee and The Society of Authors)

6. A Cable from Freya Stark

66(By permission of Miss Freya Stark)

7. Jack Payne's Popularity

87

8. Outside Broadcasting* (a)An Early Outside Broadcasts Hut* (b)A Cup Tie. Corinthians v. Newcastle United(1927) with George Allison commentating*(c)

The Boat Race (1928)

9. The Entertainers* (a)Jack Payne and the BBC Dance Orchestra (1928)*(b) Noel Coward and Henry Hall (1934)
10.

Variety*(a) Richard Murdoch and Arthur Askey in Band
Waggon (1938)*(b) St. George's Hall (1938)

11. Behind the Scenes*(a) Microphones used by the BBC (Ribbon, Reisz,
and Moving Coil)*(b) Listening Room (1932), re -named Studio Control
Cubicle, 1939*(c) The Dramatic Control Panel (1934)

between

pages

104-5

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XiV

12. Music

Toscanini Conducting the BBC SymphonyOrchestra in the Queen's Hall (1935)*(b) The BBC Symphony Orchestra conducted by Sir
Adrian Boult (1939)*(a)*13. The Midland Parliament (1934) discussing `The Sack at 18'*14. Gardening from Alexandra Palace (1937)
between

15. Education by Radio*(a) A French Lesson from Savoy Hill

pages
200-1

*(b) Pupils at Wembley School listening to a Broad-

cast (1933)
t16. Political Broadcasting. Cartoon from Punch, 16 Aug. 1933
(By permission of Punch)'Jr17. Sir Richard Maconachie (1938): Cartoon from Ariel-X *18.

R. W. P. Cockburn with the longest listener's letter everreceived by the BBC (1938)

19. Miss Cordeux's Printed Appeal (1926)

it 20. An early Radio Gramophone (1929)(By permission of Brookhirst Igranic Ltd., Bedford)". 21.

Wireless Set (1937)(By permission of Kolster Brandes Ltd., Footscray, Kent)*22. Anti -Social Behaviour:\ Bateman Cartoon

23. A Newspaper Poll
(By permission of the Telegraph and Argus, Bradford)

,n

231

254
255
257
270

.124. A Programme Questionnaire (1937)

277*25. How Not to Use Wireless Equipment: A Bateman Cartoon

297*26. Listeners to Foreign Stations, as seen by Bateman351

27. Back from Munich. Chamberlain at the Microphone,
Heston, Sept. 1938
(By permission of Central Press Photos Ltd.)

28. King George V at the Microphone, 1934
(By permission of The Times)' *29. Radiolympia (1933)*30. 5XX and Empire Stations at Daventry (1933)*31. J. H. Whitley (1931)

betweenpages

376-77

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS*32. Sir Charles Carpendale (1938)g *33. Reith: A Portrait by Sir Oswald Birley (1934)

xv
between
pages

376-7

34. 'A Tour of Babel: Glances at some of the lesser -known BBC

Departments' (1939): Cartoon from Ariel409

35. O_One Image of the BBC (193t). Drawing by John Reynolds in
the Morning Post

456

36. Max Beerbohm Cartoon of Reith (1938)(By permission of the Administsat»x of the Estate of Sir Max Beerbohm)

37. 'The Transit of Mercury' (1938)(By permission of Punch)y *38. Reith locking the door after the last Programme at Savoy
Hill (1932)
39. Broadcasting House*(a) As It Might Have Been: An Artist's Drawing of
1928*(b) Near Completion (1931)*(c) As It alight Have Been: An Artist's Drawing of1938

between

pages

456-7

*40. Savoy Hill: Studio 9 (1928)*41. Eric Gill at work on Prospero and Ariel (1933)
42. Broadcasting House: Interiors (1932)* (a)Studio 3E*(b) Studio 6D*(c) Studio 38

43. Sketch Plan of the proposed new Premises at Broadcasting House(1928). Architect's drawing by G. Val Myer
461
44. J. L. Baird at Work (1925). From the Radio Times Hutton

Picture Library
45. Early Television*(a) and (b) The Man with the Flower in His Mouth(1930)* (c)Experimental Television from Broadcasting House(1935)

between
Gages

536-7

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XVl

46. Early Images(a) Ready for the Camera(b) As seen by the Viewer(By permission of D. X. Campbell)* 47.

between

pages

536-7

The First Transmission (1932)*48. Preparing for Televising the Coronation (1937)

49. The Price Movement of Baird Shares (193, )557*50. The Television Studio: A Drawing for The Listener (1936)(By permission of the artist, II. Rutherford)*51. Alexandra Palace (1936)* 52.

Gerald A. Cock, First Director of Television (1937)*53. Elizabeth Cowell, Television Announcer (1939)*54. F. W. Ogilvie, Director -General, 1938

betweenpages

616-17I

INTRODUCTIONPERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCE... yet bath modern cultur enrich'd a wasting soil;
Science comforting man's animal poverty
and leisuring his toil, hath humanized manners
and social temper, and now above her globe-spredd net,of speeded intercourse bath outrun all magic,
and disclosing the secrecy of the reticent air
hath woven a seamless web of invisible strands
spiriting the dumb inane with the quick matter of life:
Now music's prison'd raptur and the drown'd voice of truth
mantled in light's velocity, over land and sea
are omnipresent, speaking aloud to every car,into every heart and home their unhinder'd message,
the body and soul of Universal Brotherhood... .
ROBERT BRIDGES
Lines 721-33 from The Testament of Beauty (193o), Book I

C 1995

B

Intro(luction
PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES
ON i January 1927 the British Broadcasting Corporation took
over the work of the four -year-old British Broadcasting Company. The principle of public service, which had dominatedthe development of the work of the Company, was given fullinstitutional expression in the Charter of the new Corporation.
So secure had the principle become and so directly had the old
régime of the Company become associated with it that thechange of constitution and title entailed no sharp break in thelife of the BBC: it was generally considered as a `logical andinevitable result' of the policy adopted from the foundation of
the Company in 1922.1 The announcers, indeed, had to bewarned to `remember the change' and ndt to refer over the air_to the Company instead of the Corporation 'by inadvertence'.2
I

There was only one change in the domestic nomenclature of
the BBC. Sir John Reith, who, as Managing Director of the
old Company, had directed broadcasting towards its new publicstatus, was given the title of Director-General. He was thenthirty-eight years old, adventurous and forthright. It was
Reith himself who told a later generation of BBC employeesthat 'the transition from Company to Corporation was hardly
obvious inside the BBC to anyone other than myself, nor toanyone outside either. Those of us who were with the oldCompany are sorry when we hear people talking of the BBCás if it began in January 1927.'3
Reith remained as Director -General of the new BBC for mostof the period described in this second volume of British Broací' The phrase 'logical and inevitable result' is that of Lord Clarendon, the first
Chairman of the Governors of the new Corporation. See his Foreword to the BBC
Handbook (1928), p. 29. Cf. the memorandum circulated to Members of Parliamentby the BBC just before the transfer of authority: 'The policy of the BBC during its
stewardship of the Service has led logically and indeed inevitably to the creationof a Public Corporation as the permanent Broadcasting authority.'
2'Memorandum to Station Directors and Head Office, 31 Dec. 1926. [An * infront of a footnote means that the letter or document is among the BBC's Records.]
3*Talk to the BBC Staff Training School, 2 Oct. 1936.

INTRODUCTION

4

casting history. When he retired in June 1938, to be succeeded
by Frederick Ogilvie, -fi ad spent sixteen years of his life inCreating one of the most distinctive and impressive of modern
British institutions. He discovered wireless when its use forentertainment was thought of at most as a fad, at least as aftoy. He left the world of broadcasting when everyone agreed
of communication. 'This
thatreless was -a grea
the 1930s.1 'Of thecalledBarkerErnestage of broadcasting',life and behumanshape
helpingtoareexternal forms that'none I
1939,
inremarkedcommentator
haviour,' anotherMenradio.
thanpermeating
andubiquitous
more
should say, is
be
feel
they
that,
where
point
at
the
and women have arrived
no
has
home
that
is
like
humble,noplace
it grand or ever soradio.f`That gentle or not so gentle murmur of music or talking''Which people summarily refer to as "the wireless" has become
as necessary a background to home life as was once the loud tickof the grandfather clock or the singing of the kettle on the hob.'z,
The acceptance of wireless as a part of the h-omely background of life and .the acceptance of the BBC as the `natural'institution íór controlling it distinguish the period covered inthis second volume from that of the first. The main theme ofthat volume was the control of broadcasting. The successful
effort to achieve public control gave unity to the period andstill provides a tidy case study with general implications.
Between 1922 and 1927 there had been a struggle to establish
both the medium and the institution, and out of the struggle
there emerged a system of public control over what only a few
people had the imagination to realize was an invention of majorsocial importance. From 1927 to 1939, however, that systemof public control was never seriously in jeopardy. The one big
official inquiry of the period, the Ullswater Report, publishedin 1936, started and ended with declarations that no major
constitutional changes were necessary.3 When Reith gave way
to Ogilvie the balance of power changed, but the constitutional
strength of the BBC was not undermined.
For this reason the main theme of this second volume is adifferent one. It may be called the extension and the enrich -medium'

`

C.

l

t

2
3

E. Barker, 'This Age of Broadcasting' in the Fortnightly Review, 1935, pp. 417-29.
B. Maine, The BBC and Its Audience (1939), p. 7.
See below, pp. 476 ff.

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

5

went of the activity of broadcasting. The theme was once usedas the starting -point of a provocative article by George Bernard
Shaw. `I leave to others the discussion of the political controlof the BBC', he began. 'They are sure to forget all about the
instrument the BBC controls, colloquially known as the Mike;and it is the Mike that interests me." It is amazing how
frightened many people were of the `Mike', although a few,
the `natural broadcasters', loved it. The fear is well communicated in a passage from Thomas Jones's diary:
Put into Studio 3B.... The red light quivered, then stopped andbefore I knew I was away. Up to that moment I had been thoroughly
at ease, but then I began to feel very `artificial', as if the voice did
not belong to me at all. At the end of my first five minutes I could
see I was about eight lines behind and about this time I rested myhand on the table and it bumped away, up and down, at a great
rate and I could not keep it still.... I tried hard to get out of thereading manner to a more natural speaking key, but for the life ofme, could I ? But I saw I was keeping fairly to my time until thelast five minutes when I realized I was going to be a trifle behind.
In fact I ended a minute over-which the announcer thought wasvery good for a first go off.2,. A Cheap Wireless Set of 1927

Thomas Jones's friend, Stanley Baldwin, a natural broadcaster,would never have behaved like this. Yet many music hall stars
did. No television camera could have created greater anxiety.
I G. B. Shaw, 'The Tell Tale Microphone' in the Political Quarterly, Oct.-Dec.
'935.
2 Thomas Jones, A Diary with Letters, 1931-1950(1954), p. ii8.

INTRODUCTION

6

To begin this book with the impact of the microphone directs
attention from the start to two aspects of broadcasting history.
First, the activity of broadcasting depended upon co-operation
between engineers and programme builders. The terms of cooperation changed frequently as the engineers carried throughsome of the biggest projects in the history of the BBC-the introduction of the Regional Scheme; theprovision of Empire and Overseas
broadcasting; and the first launching of a television service. Yet the programme builders had their influenceon the engineers also. They asked,
for example, for better acoustics and,1in the later 93os, for cheaper and` :more efficient means of recording
programmes.
The second aspect of broadcasting
history is the relationship between
broadcaster and audience. The
number of broadcasters and the number of people working for the BBC
increased with the increasing size ofaudience. On I January 1927 the
2. A Television Set of the late
BBC employed 773 people. There93os
eré then 2,178,259 wireless-licence5l00ó
' holders. On r September 1939 the BBC employed nearlyToholders.
-licence
people and there were 9,082,666 wireless
was
small
BBC
still
a
put the matter simply, in 1927 theorganization, catering for a minority, if a large and growing
minority, of the British public. In 1939 the BBC was a largeorganization, and it was catering for a majority of the British
public.
r'

03

Beginning with the `Mike', therefore, there are two possible
ways of approaching 'the golden age of wireless'. The firstwould be to concentrate on the development of the BBC as an
iñstitution-to trace the intricate pattern of its organizational
growth, comparing it with growth in organizations of otherkind The second would be to concentrate on the impact ofbroadcasting on society, the divided society of the inter -warPERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

7

years, divided by age, by class, by education, and by region,
yet more and more coming to accept radio as a part of life's
rotitine. Did radio help to hold British society together as it wasor did it introduce new leaven? Children born after 1922 increasingly took wireless for granted so that they could hardly conceive of a pre -broadcasting age. Did any of them see the influence of the medium, as Bridges saw it, with poetic vision, as
the weaving of `a seamless web of invisible strands spiriting thedumb inane with the quick matter of life'? Or did they thinkrather of 'the kettle singing on the hob'?
The second line of approach is extraordinarily difficult.
For, despite all the talk of wireless being `permeating' and`ubiquitous', it is almost impossible to separate its social andcultural consequences from the tangle of social forces whichwere changing Britain during the 19205 and 193os. The influence of broadcasting was neither exclusive nor necessarily
paramount. Obvious social changes, like the end of the isolationof rural life, owed as much to the internal combustion engine asthey did to the BBC. The revolution in popular entertainment
did not start inside the BBC. Interest in drama or opera andthe extension of the appreciation of classical music owed muchto the BBC, but it is not easy to say how much. In politics the
BBC diffused information but did not usually give a lead: itregistered and reinforced. There is always a temptation for
writers on radio to exaggerate its influence. For the most partit reflected the society and the culture in which it developed
rather than reshaped them.
When it did not reflect, as it often did not in Britain, it waslargely because Reith and his colleagues deliberately stoodout against some of the tendencies of the age. `Broadcasting inthis country', Reith told a conference in 1928, 'is a striking
example of the advantages which are gained through being
able to be definite-it may even appear arbitrary-in the
pursuit and execution of a line of policy capably but deliberately chosen.» The religious policy of the BBC during the periodstood out against many of the tendencies of the age, and ineconomic matters the BBC always remained outside themarket complex. It did not help to sell the products of an
expanding technology, except for wireless sets. Motor -cars,*

Speech to the Adult Education Conference, Cambridge, Oct. 1928.

INTRODUCTION

8

lawn -mowers, and kitchen -sinks were quite outside its province.
Stuart Hibberd, the distinguished and popular Chief Announcerof the BBC, noted in his diary in April 1936 that Professor
Lloyd James, who had just returned from a visit to the UnitedStates, made a `startling point' to a BBC announcers' meeting
when he told them that 'the American Universities regarded
broadcasting in America as having no cultural value at all,but looked upon the programmes put out by the various networks solely as instruments for selling goods'.'
In the United States radio, the cinema, the gramophonerecord industry, even the press, all belonged to the same worldof 'mass entertainment'. In Britain the BBC did not belong tothat world. It was not 'a factory of dreams'.z It reflected life,
even if it reflected it imperfectly. Given the wide social andgeographical divisions in Britain, it had a limited if useful roleas the interpreter of one part of 'the great audience' to another.
It is fair to say that it was more effective in its geographicalthan in its social mediation, in pulling together the different
parts of the country rather than in pulling together the different
classes. It was during the Second \\'orld \Var rather than before
it that it fully achieved what had always been its aim, that of
informing, inspiring-and diverting-a whole community. Yet
because it always set out to do this, it is necessary at every pointin the history of British broadcasting to turn back from social
history to institutional history, to the strategic decisions taken
inside the BBC, to the relations between the BBC and the controllers of the other media, and to the philosophy of communication which Reith and his staff upheld.
The BBC conceived of broadcasting -licence holders as a`public' and not as a `market'. It was technically permitted,
by the Licence and Agreement of 1926, to broadcast `sponsoredprogrammes', although direct advertisement was barred. No
use was made of this power, however, and sponsored programmes, along with direct advertising, were prohibited in the
new Licence and Agreement of 1936. The BBC's opposition toThis-is London (1950), p. 130.
Compare the remark of F. L. Allen, the American social historian. `If adozen or two feature pictures [of the 193os] selected at random were to be shownto an audience of ig6o, that audience would probably derive from them not the
faintest idea of the ordeal through which the United States went in the 193os.'
Since 7eslerday (1961 edn.), p. 222.
S. Hibberd,

2

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

9

systems of finance based on advertising was supported not only
by most British writers during this period but by the powerfulinterest of the press. `People have a horror of introducing into
England some of the systems of radio advertising to be foundin certain foreign countries', a writer who favoured a 'more openmind' admitted in 1936.1
The system was distinctive. The wireless licence was a yearly
obligation, more like rates and taxes than a cinema ticket.
It provided you with very mixed fare, a different kind of farefrom that provided in the United States, where business set thepace and the terms, or in Germany, where broadcasting became
an engine of propaganda after 1933, an instrument of totali-

tarian government.
These three broadcasting systems were diverging-not converging-during the 19305, yet Reith did not hesitate to advocate the merits of the British system even to Americans andGermans. In his advocacy he always stressed that while there
was public control or the possibility of public control in Britain,
there was at the same time no public interference in management. The standards were set by the managers themselves.
The BBC was an autonomous institution, as unlike a government department as it was unlike a retail store.
The kind of fare provided, therefore, is the subject of thefirst part of this volume, which, beginning with the `Mike',assumes that it is wisest for the historian to start where broad-casting ends-with the programmes themselves, the final product of the activity of broadcasting. Here is all the colourof broadcasting-and also a great deal of the routine-a
cavalcade of names and, for those who remember, of memories.
On Sunday, 2 January 1927, the first day to appear in theRadio Times after the advent of the Corporation, B. W. O'Donnell was conducting the Military Band, J. C. Squire reading The
Ancient Mariner, and Stanford Robinson conducting the Wireless String Orchestra; and on the following Saturday night
Tommy Handley was appearing in an Ernest Longstaffe revue.2
On Sunday, 3 September 1939, the programmes listeners would
have heard, had it not been for the war, included the first"Broadcasting in a Democratic State' in the Round Table, June 1936.
Radio Times, 31 Dec. 1926.

INTRODUCTION

IO

instalment of The Four Feathers, Reginald Foort at the theatreorgan, J. B. Priestley reading the first instalment of Let The
People Sing-and the BBC Military Band.'Behind the cavalcade of programmes was a multiplicity ofdecisions taken within the BBC. Some of the decisions camefrom above, encouraging as well as restraining: most came frombelow. Some reflected general programme policy: most bore theimprint only of scriptwriter, producer, and performer. At thislevel, as at any other, broadcasting rested on a partnership
between studio and control -room engineers and programme
builders, words and music being converted into electrical currents and voltages before they could become words and musicagain in listeners' homes.
The second detailed chapter of this volume moves to 'theother side of the microphone'. It is concerned with the listeners,
and the various ways in which their needs were met (or notmet) as the broadcasting system was expanded. The most
vocal of the listeners begin-and end-by holding the stage.
'As a student and lover of music, may I appeal for greater
simplicity in the music that is broadcast', a listener wrote to theRadio Times in the first week of the Corporation.2 `I have justheard the first 'Wagner Prom of the season', another listenerwrote in the last week before the war, 'and there must be alarge number of musical cranks at large to tolerate such meaningless tripe.'3 All things connect, or, as the BBC quickly
learned from listeners' letters, cancel out. Organized listenerresearch began late, only after a struggle.4 The tardiness of thedevelopment reflected the philosophy of control. If listeners
were not thought of as a market, why worry about market
research?
Both the Regional Scheme and the Empire Scheme find theirplace in this chapter on listeners, for both schemes, bold andenterprising as they were as engineers' exploits, were designed,
above all else, to provide the kind of service listeners required.
The partnership between engineers and programme builders
continued at all times. High -quality lines were necessary
to carry BBC programmes from their point of origin in thestudios to the transmitters, and an elaborate transmitter net' Radio Times, Sept. 1939.
3 Ibid., , Sept. 1939.
1

2
4

Ibid., 7 Jan. 1927.
See below, pp. 256ff.

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

II

work was necessary to ensure satisfactory reception both athome and abroad. At the same time, British schemes had to
fit into a European and a world framework, and, in relation
both to wavelengths and to programmes, there was competition
as well as co-operation. Zeesen and Radio Luxembourg must
both have their place, therefore, in any account of broadcastingin Britain. Both were interested in British listeners, the first to
influence their opinions, the second to shape their buying

habits.

From the makers of programmes and the listeners to them,
it is natural to turn to organization and control. Although these
are not the major themes of this volume, they cannot be leftout. Even when the BBC was small, it needed a formal structureof control, and the terms `controller' and `control committee'
were soon used in relation to administration.' As the organization grew, there was greater specialization and differentiation.
There were also greater difficulties in `communication'. Frequent experiments were made in organization, culminating ina major change in 1933 when the `creative' work of the BBC-that relating directly to programmes-was separated fromthe `administrative' work. Each division had its own formal
hierarchy, the first described as 'blue tab', the latter as 'redtab'. Engineering, it is interesting to note, was grouped with the'red tab' side, although Reith, who always recognized thatthe imagination and vision of engineers were needed as well as
their expert knowledge, admitted that in his language of colour
engineering 'was more blue than red'.
This division of control, which lasted until 1942, characterized an era of extreme centralization in the institutional
history of the BBC.2 The system was vigorously defended by
Reith, although it was widely criticized during the 193os andhas continued to be criticized since. The division between`creative' people and `administrative' people was designed toliberate the `creative' people from tasks in which they felt little
interest and for which they often had little aptitude. Yet dividing lines were difficult to draw, and there was sometimes resentment against administrative `rules'. Far too much emphasis,' See Vol. I of my History, The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 207.
See below, pp. 442 ff.

2INTRODUCTION

I2

according to Reith's critics, seemed to be placed on institutional
machinery, and even while committees were taking up toomuch time, they often seemed to have little real power.
It is organizational issues of this kind rather than the bigger
public issue of the BBC's constitution or the more publicizedand sensationalized problems of BBC staffing, which are ofgreatest interest during this period. As the BBC grew, both in
the size of its staff and the range of its functions, what was its
shape to be? Were the strains and stresses of growth which it
registered, sometimes painfully, the kind of strains and stresses
which are common to all growing organizations or were someof them, at least, peculiar to the BBC?
There are three other aspects of `organization' which must
be considered carefully in the third detailed chapter. The firstis the public reaction to the BBC. One of the features which
distinguished the BBC from many other large and growing
organizations was the publicity it received not only as a purveyor of programmes but as an institution. News of its internal changes was seized upon with avid interest: its personalities
were personalities in the press, whether they liked it or not.
'As far as the newspapers are concerned,' the well-known
journalist Tom Clarke wrote in 1932, 'the BBC has become
news.'
Corresponding to the `shape' of the BBC, therefore, there
was an `image'. The favourite image of the BBC during the
193os was that of a great British institution, as British as the
Bank of England, an institution which was different from otherinstitutions, which took decisions that q uite deliberately
diverged from the decisions many-perhaps most-listeners
would have taken. The image of the institution and the imageof its Director -General became blurred, and even after Refill
had left-and some very different kinds of people had begun toemerge as important figures in the BBC's hierarchies-the
BBC remained `Reithian' in most people's eyes.
Attitudes towards the BBC as a national institution require not
only social analysis but psychological study in depth. Suchstudy was not made during the 193os. The historian, therefore,
must sift superficial evidence. One point he must emphasize
is the clanger of reading back into the past attitudes which
11Daily Mail, 17 Jan. 1932.

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

13

belong to a later period, to the Second world war, for example,
or to the period of uncertainty after the war. Nobody referredto the BBC as `Auntie BBC' in the period covered in this volume,
just as very few people queried the constitution of public service
broadcasting. More emphasis was placed then than later bothon the `inspirational' power and on the `consoling' power ofradio, both of which the BBC was thought to cherish and defend.

...

consoling voices of the air
Soothing the sightless, cheering the bedridden.
The lighthouse -watchers, men who bravely bear
The burden of captivity unbiddenVoices that calm the heart and ease the strain
Of those who live in loneliness or pain.'This aspect of radio-neither as the broker of ideas nor as thepurveyor of culture, not even as the source of entertainment,
but as the instrument of `solace'-remained important so longas there was an older generation who remembered what it was
like before the days of radio and did not take their wireless sets
for granted. It was left to a later generation to demand fromthe BBC soul-searching 'face to face' interviews and ruthlesssocial and political exposure.
The `inspirational' power of radio was felt most strongly notby the listeners but by the broadcasters themselves. Throughout
the late 19205 and the early 193os the BBC attracted to its
service a considerable number of men and women who 'believed in broadcasting' almost as a social and cultural crusade.
They included a high proportion of young people and of men`who had served in the War but who, on account of some awkward versatilityor some form of fastidiousness, idealism or
general restlessness, never settled down to any humdrum profession after war was over'.2 Many of them have described theirapproach to the new medium. `we really believed', Lionel
Fielden has us ritten, 'that broadcasting could revolutionize
human opinion'.3 They also believed that it could develop ortransform taste. Their influence was felt not only in school
broadcasting or in adult education but in news, talks, music,
and drama. Music, indeed, was often picked out as the test case
2 H. Matheson, Broadcasting (1933), p. 52.
' Punch, i i May 1932.
L. Fielden, The Natural Bent (196o), p. i oo.
3

14

INTRODUCTION

of cultural penetration. 'The plain man', Ernest Newman wrote,'can now get in two or three years a knowledge not only of theacknowledged masterpieces, but of fine works of the second
rank which his father could scarcely have acquired in a lifetime!'
However uncertain the historian may be about the extent of thesocial and cultural influence of broadcasting, there were manybroadcasters who felt no doubts.
Some of the people who joined the BBC never_ completely
settled down once they had got there. It is interesting, indeed,that most of the -accounts of the BBC during the period coveredin this volume were written by `rebels', by people who wereforced to leave it, who did not like its ethos or who criticized its
organization. Their accounts are useful evidence, like the pféssaccounts of the BBC's activities, but they need to be supplemented and set in perspective. What you thought of the BBCiñ the 193os, if you were a member of it, depended not only on
your temperament, character, and experience-and the conditions and date at which you entered the Corporation-but on
the place which you occupied in the system. Your perspective
would often change as you moved upwards, downwards, oracross. The historian has less difficulty in interpreting theinstitution than in interpreting the society in which it developed.
He has the advantage of being able to look at the scene from
more than one angle, to take into account evidence which was
hidden from partial view at the time, and to trace complex
sequences of cause and consequence.

The chapter on organization in this volume ends with the one
public inquiry into broadcasting which was made during thisperiod-the Ullswater Committee investigation-and the reactions to it inside and outside the BBC. It was to meet theneeds of this committee that a great deal of BBC evidence wasassembled in 1935, and the year provides an excellent vantage
point from which to look back over the period from the foundation of the Corporation and forward towards the Second WorldWar.
The other vantage point in the period covered in this volume
was the move in 1932 from the cramped premises at Savoy Hillto the imposing new building, Broadcasting House. All BBC
Quoted in R. S. Lambert, Ariel and All His Quality (1940), p. 57.

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

15

history can be dated pre- or post -Broadcasting House. Thechange of building became identified not only with growth andall the problems which went with it but \vith a change of mood,even of style. Jack Payne, for example, has written: Wes, it wasa chummy atmosphere in the old Savoy Hill days. There wassome slovenliness about it too, or so it would appear against thepunctiliousness of the present regime." Even listeners felt thatthe end of Savoy Hill was a break, and it was natural that oneof the big programmes of the inter -war years should be Lance
Sieveking's The End of Savoy Hill, broadcast on 14 May 1932.
What happened in 1932, therefore, has a place in several
chapters in this volume, not only in the chapter on organization.

To move from Savoy Hill to the BBC's first television centre
at Alexandra Palace requires a less dramatic leap of the imagination than to move from Savoy Hill to Broadcasting House,
for the early days of Alexandra Palace had much in common
with the early days of Savoy Hill. There was a certain inevitability about the coming of television which did not escapeletter -writers to the early issues of the Radio Times. As earlyas October 1923, indeed, the winner of the BBC's `Brighter
Britain Essay Competition' began by describing somewhat fearfully the genie who lived inside his `magic wireless box' andwho could see everything which he translated into words. He
ended more confidently, however, that 'one day I shall beable to see through similar eyes'.z People were prepared fortelevision long before the apparatus or the programmes wereavailable, and the fifth detailed chapter of this volume is concerned with the steps that led up to the development of' theworld's first regular television service in 1936. Here again, thedetail is more revealing than the generalization, the detail ofthe mass of separate decisions taken by engineers, administrators, and programme builders.
One of the first internal memoranda on television related
not to techniques but to nomenclature. 'May I suggest', a prominent BBC official, V. H. Goldsmith, wrote in May 1928,'that the first of the three articles on Television which are to go
2

J. Payne, Signature Tune (1947), P. 39.
Radio Times, 19 Oct. 1923.

INTRODUCTION

16

into the Radio Times should define Television as distinct fromIt may be just as well, if you agree theTelephotography?
in the Press with a clear standard ofaway
right definition, to get
years later, nomenclature wasmean.»
Seven
what the words
has been raised', wrote
question'The
still raising difficulties.
to a listener should beequivalent
Ralph \Vade, 'as to what theknowwhether anybodyIdonotcalled in the case of television.
thing to get it
might
be
a
good
it
but
has ever considered this,
in.'2
The
Televisionnamecreepssettled before some horrible
intoinquiry
television,
first
official
1934,
theCommittee of
Director
Nicolls,
the
;
Basil
`looker'word
recommended the
and
V. H.
`televiser';suggestedof Internal Administration,infavourofwasRelations,
BusinessofDirector
Goldsmith,
Reith,
who
added
that
to
words
these
appealed`viser'. None ofhe had never liked the word `listener' either.
The word `viewer' made its début as an abbreviated versionof the more formal `televiewer', with the Radio Times itself
arguing that the abbreviation was inevitable. 'As for "televiewer", that may be the authorised word, but we don't see
it entering into the vocabulary of the masses all the same. \Ve
would back the "viewer" to shed the "tele" at the first fence.'3
There was no hint that `telly' by itself would establish independent usage naturally and with affection. The whole questionof terminology was referred to A. Lloyd James and throughhim to the authoritative Advisory Committee on Spoken
English. `Glancer', `witnesser', `telobservist', and even `visionist'and `teleseer' were formidable alternatives to `viewer'. Rose
Macaulay favoured `looker-in', and Lascelles Abercrombie
stated boldly that this was 'the word which will win in the longrun'. Logan Pearsall Smith, however, thought that nothing
better than `viewer' could be found, although the word `gazer'...

rather attracted him.4
The chapter on television is concerned with more basic
questions than these interesting if archaic issues of terminology-with the BBC's attitude towards Baird, for example, andwith the planning of the first regular television programmes.
There is a contrast at the end of the chapter between what
*V. H. Goldsmith to P. P. Eckersley, 16 May 1928.
*R. \Vade to B. E. Nicolls, 5 Feb. 1935.
3
Radio Times, 12 Apr. 'gm.
4 *Logan Pearsall Smith to A. Lloyd James, 5 June 1935.
'

2

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

17

happened to television and what happened to sound radio. The
history of sound radio in 'the golden age of wireless' leads
directly into the history of the Second World War, when soundradio through the BBC beca:má recognized .iñternational
force. The history of television, the lesser medium during the
193os, leaps the war, however,, almost as if the studios at
Alexandra Palace had never been closed clown ü1 -September
1939. There is a note of irony in the pages of the issue of theRadio Times for i September 1939 which set out the details of
television programmes for the week that never was. It was tobegin with The Circle by Somerset Maugham and to end with
Alice de Belleroche playing the guitar.
The last chapter in this volume is concerned with the shadowsof war-and the way they fell over 'the activity of broadcasting'.
It is a shert chapter, for much of the detail is more relevant to
the next volume of this History (a volume concerned solely
with the Second World War) than to the present one. There was
one major event, however, in the months leading up to the war
which was so important that it, rather than the outbreak of war,might have been made the last event in this volume.' When
Reith left the BBC for Imperial Airways in June 1938 this was
the end not only of a régime but of an era. New forces were released inside Broadcasting House which were to produce changes
with which Reith was_often out of sympathy, and the manner ofthe break had its profound sadness. Yet there could be no doubt
whatevér concerning the extent of Reith's contribution not only
to the history of the BBC but to the development of broadcasting
as a-1í agent in human history. 'The BBC is not without its critics',
The Times wrote, 'and never should be. But Sir John can leave
Broadcasting House with the knowledge that his pioneer work,
now brought to maturity, has not to wait for posterity. His contemporaries can measure their debt to his vision, his energy andeven his obstinacy.'2 The verdict stands. Reith dominates history
as he dominated the contemporary scene.
Without Reith British broadcasting would have been differently organized and, more important, differently guided
throughout the whole of the period covered in this volume. He,
in the last instance if not in the first, was the man who deter' See below, pp. 632-6.
C 1995

2

C

The Tines, 15 June íu38.

INTRODUCTION

18

mined what 'the activity of broadcasting' should be. 'A decadeanand a half ago', wrote The Economist, which always took
peoplediscriminating
few'a
independent line on BBC matters,

B.B.C.
D.G.

71¿,

21.~

`d`

.71-t

.---7'11.- 2á

á..,,

.

n-nr.ezy -ti 5.,/`.~¢VCt++ órAcat

Ce.`r

l

.
A"-e7

.

sGztF

4 tr.,..,p---rL.7`

T C,, -c...

3

3. Sir John Reith's Farewell Message to the Editor of Arielrealised that a monopoly of the use of the air for broadcasting
as a result
might have very serious hidden dangers. Todaythat the
world
whole
the
is
to
it
clear
of Sir John's work
may bemicrophonethethroughright of expressing opinion
instrument
powerful
most
the
not
if
one of the most powerful,for good or evil; and that the power of controlling the knowledge of events which is vouchsafed to the people of a country
may spell the difference between their being slave or free.'t
Such tributes were universal. Reith was only forty-eight
years old when he left the BBC for pioneer work of a different
kind. Yet the decision to end this volume with the war and notwith Reith's departure is a recognition of the fact that___y 193&
the BBC was something more than a projection of Reith. It was
an institution which had a dynamic of its own. Some, at least,of the conflicts of personality, which followed his departure,...

' The Economist, 18 June 1938.

...

PERSONALITIES AND PERFORMANCES

19

had antedated it, and battles were already being waged about
issues, particularly about listener research and the finance of
television, which have a curious element of topicality aboutthem) There was even a serious discussion of sponsored
television in 1939, not only in the BBC but in the Cabinet.

Reith was the outstanding personality in the BBC throughout the period from 1927 to 1938. Broadcasting is a co-operative
activity, however, and behind the anonymous façade there weremany other personalities who left their mark on major policies
and many others whose coming-or going-altered institutionalarrangements. Peter Eckersley, the Chief Engineer, who left for
personal reasons in 1929, had more ideas about broadcasting
than any other man in the country. Some he put into effect,
some were never realized, and some never could have been.
His successor, Noel Ashbridge, knighted in 1935, had worked
with Eckersley since 1926 and represented the continuity whichlies at the centre of the BBC. He made far-reaching projects
possible, not least the start both of Empire broadcasting and of
television. One of Reith's successors, Sir William Haley, thought
so highly of him that he made him Deputy Director -General in1943. Reith's choice for that office when Více-Admiral Sir
Charles Carpendale left the BBC a few months before Reith
left it himself was Cecil Graves, knighted in 1939: he thought ofGraves, indeed, as his own successor as Director -General.
Basil Nicolls, knighted in 1953, moved from Manchester to
London in 1926, and was given the key post of Director ofInternal Administration in 1933 when the division between the'blue tab' and 'red tab' was put into effect. Later called Controller (Administration), he had great power within the hierarchy, and when Graves became Deputy Director -General,
Nicolls took over his post as Controller of Programmes. Gladstone Murray, who had been with the BBC since 1924 in chargeof a shifting empire of publicity and public relations, did notleave until 1936: part of his work then passed to Sir Stephen
Tallents, who became Controller of Public Relations, a position
from which he exerted increasing influence. He later broughtin with him A. P. Ryan, who had been with him at the Empire
Marketing Board, as Assistant Controller. Another man whose
See below, pp. 6 i 6-i g, 644.

20

INTRODUCTION

changes oforganization,brief sojourn at the BBC involved many
who was appointed
if not of policy, was Colonel Alan Dawnay,
Heads', Roger`Output
Controller of Programmes over the two of Entertainment, andEckcrsley, Peter's brother, the Director
Talks. Dawnay came fromCharles Siepmann, the Director ofhe had seemed to Reithand returned to the Army. For a time
to be the answer to many problems. others figure frequently
Names can be multiplied, and many
level where the BBC wasin these pages. Most operated at the the level of programme
most properly judged by the public-at were to acquire posiwho
production. Some were young men
were others, however, whotions of influence in the future. There
the institution almost
seemed in some sense to `represent'
and forceful House
strictpermanently-H. L. Chilman, theand M. Arbuckle, to nameSuperintendent, and H. A. Plater
No organization becomes anonly two of the Commissionaires.
like these. They are, as a reinstitution until it has charactersthem, `cornerstones'.!
tired officer of the BBC has aptly calledthat counted,
programmes
For the public, however, it was thethis bookthat
programmes
and it is with the production of
begins.

' R. Wade, Manuscript History, Early

Lift in the BBC, p. 95.

II
PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

The elemental fact about broadcasting is its
tremendous output. You may have all theauthorities and restrictions and committees
and regulations: but they are all defeated by
the rapidity of successive programmes.
LIONEL FIELDENThe Natural Bent (196o), p. 104

1. Programme Parade
THE social and cultural consequences of broadcasting depended
not only on the philosophy of control which determined thedecisions and actions of the controllers of the BBC but on the
cumulative impact of daily programmes on a growing audience.
The decisions of the controllers were often hidden from thepublic: the `output' of the producers was the `stuff of radio'.
It was in terms of the range, the balance, and the quality of programmes that most people judged the BBC, whether they werepress critics, like Sydney Moseley, Collie Knox, Gale Pedrick,or Jonah Barrington,' or ordinary listeners beside their own
firesides. The Radio Times, which set out the details of weekly
programmes, sold a million copies for the first time at Christmas
1927 and had a regular weekly circulation of three million by
1939.2 Each day the popular newspapers had their regularration of information and comment about programmes, backed
by gossip about broadcasters.3 There was a difference of degree
rather than of kind between such information and commentand that provided in more specialized journals like Popular
Wireless. The first number of one of the new journals of theperiod, Radio Pictorial, published in January 1934., well reflects
the shift in interest from wireless as a technical hobby to radio
as a social activity. A free crayon portrait of Henry Hall wasissued to every reader, and in addition to a friendly message
from Reith there were contributions from A.J. Alan, Christopher
Stone, and Captain Wakelam. Arthur Henderson wrote on thetheme `Broadcasting Will End War' and Oliver Baldwin speculated ambitiously on what he would do if he were `Governor of
the BBC'. There was even a comic strip `introducing theTwiddleknob Family'.4
For Moseley, see S. A. Moseley, Broadcasting in My Time (1935) ; Collie Knox,
who wrote regularly for the Daily Mail, touches on broadcasting in his People of
Quality (1947).
_ *Note by G. V. Rice, , Feb. 1928; BBC Handbook (1939), p. 146. For the historyof the Radio Times, see below, pp. 281-6.
The press had threatened in the early days of broadcasting to boycott BBC
programme information. See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 142, where the con4 Radio Pictorial, 19 Jan. 1934.
sequences of this attempt are discussed.

24

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Much of the information contained in the wireless columns
and in some, at least, of the wireless journals was unauthoritative and even unreliable. A distorting mir"or was being held
up which accentuated the glossy and the bizarre. Yet broadcasters and producers themselves found it difficult to resist thetemptation of seeing themselves as others saw them. `If you wereto see the interest with which producers and all who are engaged

4. The Twiddleknob Family as depicted by Arthur Ferrierin the production of programmes at Savoy Hill rush for themorning papers to see what the critics have to say,' Eric Maschwitz, then editor of the Radio Times, told the first meeting of the
Broadcast Critics' Circle in 1931, 'you would be amazed.»
Reith himself deliberately remained aloof. He was shocked bywhat he frequently regarded as deliberate `misrepresentation',and he urged incessantly the need for `honest criticism' of
programmes hicit would concern itself not with gossip but
wwwith `standards'.
The volume of criticism, fair or unfair, trivial or sensible,
welcomed or resented, based on general criteria or on personalization, increased sharply during the 193os, far more sharply
than the volume of programme `output', as the BBC inelegantly
called it. According to BBC statistics, 65,800 hours of programmes were broadcast in 1927, great emphasis being placedon the fact that `breakdown' time was only oo7 per cent. of
the total.2 It is difficult to make precise comparisons between
these figures and those of a later date because of the reductionin the number of transmitters and the increase in their range.
' Quoted in Broadcasting in My Time, p. 65. For the founding of the Circle, see
S. A. Moseley, Private Diaries (1960), p. 310. Collie Knox proposed Moseley as

President.
2 BBC Handbook (1928), p. 55. The First Annual Report (Cmd. 3123, 1928)
gives a figure of 'over 68,000'.

PROGRAMME PARADE

25

In 1935, however, the `aggregate time for all transmitters',
excluding the Empire Service, was not very different-68,796
hours, with a `breakdown' time of 0.026 per cent. In 1938 thecomparable figure was 79,525.1 Behind these figures was anengineering achievement, none the less remarkable because it
was increasingly taken for granted. The term `technical hitch',which had been born in the early years of the Company, ceased
to inspire easy jokes. The development of a hidden network oftelephone landlines transformed the techniques of transmission.
As the interchange of programmes became more complex, theengineers never failed to accomplish what was required of them.
Both at the beginning and the end of the period the hours
of broadcasting were severely restricted. The main Daventry
station (5XX) did not begin its daily programme in January
1927 until 10.3o a.m., when the shipping forecast was read
twice-once at normal reading speed and then slow enoughfor long -hand dictation. There was then a gap until the midafternoon, when school broadcasts took place in term time, witha variation on Thursday afternoons when there was a broadcast of Evensong from Westminster Abbey. On Saturday afternoon there was no broadcasting at all except for occasional
outside broadcasts of outstanding special interest, and Sunday
broadcasting was kept to a minimum. In January 1927 it did
not begin until after the end of the evening service in church andchapel. Proposals made by the Assistant Controller of Programmes at a Control Board meeting in December 1926 thatboth Daventry and 2L0 (London) should provide daily morning music at 10.45 a.m. and on Saturday light music between
p.m. and 2 p.m.-were not accepted.2
During the course of 1927 there was some extension of hours,
including an extra hour of light music from London between
noon and 1 o'clock, but the new experimental station at Daventry, 5GB, the first transmitter in the world designed to provide
an alternative programme, was on the air only from 3 p.m. to
midnight. Morning programmes took shape only slowly withthe morning religious service, introduced in January 1928,
providing a `fixed point' which still remains.3 Morning talks
1

Cmd. 3088 (1936), p. 22; Cmd. 5951 (1939), p. 25.
*Control Board Minutes, 7 Dec. 1926.
3 For the history of the morning service, see below,
pp. 229-33.
'

2

26

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

started on 5XX in January 1929, and a year later 5GB began
to operate at noon instead of 3 o'clock. In 1930 the programmefrom Daventry 5XX became known as the `National' programme, and that from `Daventry Experimental 5GB' as the`Regional' programme.
Yet the beginning of the main Regional programme alongwith the extension of regional programmes from the provinces
did not add significantly to the hours of broadcasting.' It was
not until the end of 1932 that `continuous' broadcasting took
place every Saturday from noon to midnight: a few months
later, in September 1933, a `silent period' between 6.15 p.m.
and 8 p.m. on Sundays was filled in. The opening of a newtransmitter at Droitwich in 1934. meant that listeners had the
choice of alternative programmes from Monday to Friday from
Io.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. and from 6.3o p.m. until 11.15 p.m., but
in the same year an important Programme Revision Committee
stated that there was no case, 'on programme grounds', forbeginning general programmes before 10.45 a.m., the hour
agreed upon as a `concession' to the radio manufacturers, or for
extending the hours of transmission beyond midnight. Alternative afternoon programmes also were primarily provided not
to satisfy the listening habits or preferences of the `great audience' but to meet 'the requirements of the trade'.z \Vhen war
broke out in 1939 there was still no broadcasting before thedaily service at Io.15 a.m., and there were no regional variations in the afternoons before the start of Children's Hour.

The gradual increase in programme output over the whole
period was associated with the provision of more `alternative'
programmes as more transmitters became available and withchanges in `balance' between different types of programmes.
In January 1927 not only was output restricted, but there waslittle choice. Daventry (5XX) and London (2L0) in no sense
provided alternative programmes for those listeners who could
receive both stations: 5XX, indeed, was intended to extend
coverage, not to provide choice. Yet there had been talk of
alternative programmes as early as September 1924, when it had' For the technical and organizational aspects of the development of `National'and `Regional' broadcasting, see below, pp. 293 ff.
2 *Report of the Programme Revision Committee (1934), pp. 2,
3.

PROGRAMME PARADE

27

been suggested, without much thought, that a second London
station should cover 'high brow education and better classmaterial' while old 2L0 should transmit a `popular programme'.' A. R. Burrows, the first Director of Programmes,
actually went so far as to produce a scheme based on theassumption that there should be 'two opposite types of programme each night'. This was turned down after Carpendale
had called it 'a drastic and expensive change in our present
procedure'.2
Talk of alternative programmes had scarcely affected current programme policy by the time that the Corporation took
over from the Company, but it shaped the idea of the `Regional
Scheme', based on the transmission of alternative programmes-one `universal' and one `regional'-and it was in Reith's
mind in all his private and public deliberations. Peter Eckersley
made it the cornerstone of his engineering policy.3 While theObserver was still heading its weekly wireless column 'The Programme and the Listener', the BBC was beginning to promise`contrasting' programmes. `Universal' programmes would beoffered which would not call `fundamentally' for the undivided
attention of the listener: `speciality' programmes, whether
talks, music, news, or variety, would require fuller and moredeliberate and sustained listening.*
This was, however, a pledge for the future. The local stationsof the BBC in January 1927 were not providing their programmes as alternatives: indeed, the Corporation placedemphasis rather on the extent to which local stations wereadopting `simultaneous broadcasting', what would now be
described as simultaneous `network' programmes. The first
Programme Board of the BBC was a by-product not of thedevelopment of `alternative' programmes but of the growth ofsimultaneous broadcasting, and its first name was the Simultaneous Programmes Board.5 It was admitted in 1928 thatwhile the conception of a balance of programmes had been
known for years to the BBC programme builders, 'the possibilities of contrast are as yet for the most part unexplored... .
I_'Control Board Minutes, 23 Sept. 1924.
'Memorandum from the Controller to the Managing Director, 28 Oct. 1924:'With reference to Two Programmes Operating from London.'
4 BBC Handbook (1928), p. 67.
' See below, pp. 295-6.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 217.
5

28

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

It is a principle only less concrete than the principle of"balance" because the latter has been clothed with flesh andblood by experience.»
It is tempting to trace the development of what happened
to alternative programmes after 1928 with the contemporary
problems of television in mind. There was, indeed, in 1928 and1929 a growing recognition inside the BBC that much popular
criticism of BBC programmes would be softened if listeners
had a real choice. `We want entertainment, not instruction', alistener calling himself 'A Sufferer' had written during one of
the frequent anti -BBC campaigns of 1928. `Cannot a meetingof protest be called? I am afraid it would require a very large
space.'2 Although the BBC did not lack eloquent defenders inthis press controversy, it was clearly more likely to attenuate
controversy if both entertainment and what 'A Sufferer' hadcalled over-comprehensively `instruction' were both on offer.
It is possible, however, to make too much of the comparison
between sound radio and television and of the distinction
between `entertainment' and the rest. It is perhaps more useful
to note that it was not until after the end of the period covered inthis volume-not until 194.5 and 194.6-that the sound audience
was divided into `home, light, and third'. As regional broadcasting developed, alternative programmes were devised noton the basis of broadcasting for different types and sizes ofaudience, ranging from the `popular mass audience' to the`cultural minority', but of offering to listeners everywhere achoice of two programmes, each of which was felt to bebalanced.
The framers of policy in 1928 asked the question 'By what
principle of contrasted programmes is it possible to ensure thatthe great majority of listeners will be able to find one of thetwo programmes available at a given time suited to their tastes?'
The distinction between 'high brow' and low brow' was once
again explicitly rejected: so too was the distinction between a`spoken word' programme and a `continuous music' programme.
Instead, emphasis was placed on a choice, at any given time,
between a programme demanding `concentrated listening' anda programme suited to 'more casual listening'. No assumptions
were made about patterns of taste. The principle of contrast
BBC handbook (1928), p. 74.

2

Evening Standard, ig July 1928.

PROGRAMME PARADE

29

was designed rather to meet changes of mood, to satisfy people
who might usually prefer `serious chamber music' or reading,but who might also want to have the chance of relaxing with'a military band or musical comedy programme which would
normally leave them uninterested'.'After 1930, therefore, when National and Regional programmes were both being transmitted, it was assumed thaton each wavelength, at any given time, a cross-section of the`great audience' would be listening. The National programme
and the composite Regional programme were compoundedof the same elements. Given such assumptions, the role of the`programme builder' was of strategic significance. Assemblingideas for the week's programmes, injecting new ideas of hisown, organizing them into a coherent whole, which would set
out to please the listener rather than the producer, was a task
at least as interesting and important as that of the producer
himself. Yet by its nature it was bound to be as hidden from thepublic eye as the work of the engineers.
It was also bound by its nature to be something of an irritant
to independent minded or idiosyncratic producers. Nicolls used
to quote within the BBC the tart remark of the creative writer:'Now Barabbas was a publisher.' Lindsay Wellington, whojoined the BBC in 1924, became Presentation Director in
October 1933 and was Director of Programme Planning in 1935
-early stages in a long and distinguished BBC career-emphasized the need for diplomacy in the task of programme
planning, for maintaining 'a firm web of confidence and respect'. 'The whole operation', he has stated, 'was rather likedoing a jig -saw puzzle in such a way that the final picture not
only worked in the sense of pieces fitting together, but also
made the particular pattern willed by the chief policy makers
who neither cut the pieces themselves nor knew much about
them.' He thought of himself as a middleman between administrators and the makers of 'high policy' on the one hand and`creative artists' on the other, but he recognized that the `editorial or sub -editorial' function had considerable effect onpolicy as it was actually carried out.2 Planning was not madethe easier in that it was carried out eight weeks in advance.
2

BBC Handbook (1929), p. 58.
Oral evidence and Notes supplied in June 1963

30

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Some flexibility was possible, but inevitably a sense of immediacy
was not always easy to achieve.
Two of the most interesting and revealing articles on `programme building' appeared in the special Broadcasting Number of The Times in 1934..1 It was pointed out definitively by thewriter of one of them that 'you cannot compile programmes
as you would a Bradshaw', and some of the difficulties-andopportunities-were listed by him. 'One thing only is certain',he concluded, 'and that is that it is quite impossible to pleaselisteners all the time, and it would be a help if those who are
regular, or even intermittent, listeners, would pick their programmes, instead of turning on at random and expecting to
get what they want.' The writer of the second article examinedthe concepts of `contrast' and `balance' with some care. `Everybroadcaster is permanently engaged on the search for positive
programmes which have positive content, and positive programmes tend to annoy those whom they do not delight. Theirvery existence in a programme plan depends, therefore, on the
success of a parallel search for programmes to offset them which
will allay the irritation which might otherwise end by driving
them out of existence altogether.' There was, however, no
obvious formula. The oldest idea that speech should be balancedby music `pushed simplification to the point of nonsense'. The
newest ideas of `robust alternatives' were not very helpful
either, for definitions of robust alternatives were almost as
various as definitions of 'a good programme'. There were only
two principles to which the programme builder should usefullycling-first, 'to contrast an extreme with a mean and not withthe opposite extreme', and second, 'to refuse in the last resort
to sacrifice good programmes to good contrast'.
Given that each programme had to be balanced within itself,
in what did the balance consist? `There is a satisfaction bothto the builder and to the listener when the component parts ofan evening's programme follow smoothly on one another withthe links between them accentuated by careful presentation.
On the other hand, if careful listening is, as has been said, areasonably arduous occupation, is it not better that the component parts should contrast with one another? The latterview tends to hold the field at present, because it seems imThe Tunes, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. 1934.

PROGRAMME PARADE

31

possible for any one to listen carefully to the whole of an evening's broadcasting without suffering from mental indigestion.
The BBC has always held the belief (or hope) that the criticallistener will make his own choice from what is offered and will
not swallow broadcasting whole.'
The position did not change substantially between 1934 and1939, although the number of regional stations increased andthere was intermittent-and often highly vociferous-pressure
throughout the period for what later became known as a `lightprogramme'. The one official reference to BBC policy on `alternative programmes', in 1938, was less illuminating than The
Times articles of 1934.

The alternative programme service consists of a National and a
Regional programme [listeners were told in 1938]. The National
programme, transmitted by the high -power, long -wave station at
Droitwich and by three auxiliary medium-wave stations, is intended
for reception throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thereis one main programme alternative to the National programme .. .
which originates largely in London, but to which Regions contribute. This `Regional' programme is always transmitted by the
London Regional Station. Parts of it are included in the programmesof other Regions, and broadcast simultaneously by their transmitting
stations. The programmes of the individual Regions are planned so
as to contrast as far as possible with the National programme, andcontain certain items of particular interest to listeners in various local
areas. Each Region can work independently or in conjunction withany other Region as required.'

For most of the period covered in this volume the weekly
organization of programmes was considered weeks ahead by aProgramme Board or Committee which had held its first meeting in May 1924.2 From April 1926 until the reorganization of1933, its chairman was Roger Eckersley, who was styled
Assistant Controller (Programmes) and later Director of
Programmes. Meetings of the committee were attended by theheads of 'the output departments' as they were called, alongwith other full-time or part-time members of the BBC's staff,
including Filson Young, who was employed for many years as
an outside critic, and representatives of other BBC departments
2

BBC Handbook (1938), p. 59.
See above, pp. 26-27 and The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 207-8, 217, 260.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

32-Engineering, Public Relations, and Administration. The
average attendance was between twelve and fifteen. It was
the main task of this committee to shape the programmes of
the week under review in the light of suggestions already considered 'at a lower level'. A subsidiary task was to comment on
programmes which had been broadcast during the previous
week. The fact that programmes had to be planned so far
ahead was primarily due to the Radio Times arrangements forprinting and distribution, and also to the need for projectedplans to circulate around the regions. The weekly programme
sheet was not complete, indeed, until contributions had beenasked for from the regions.
After the meeting of the Programme Committee ended, it
was left to individual producers and programme builders toclothe the skeleton with flesh-to collect scripts, to hire artists(with the help of the contracts executives), and to rehearse.
The work was continuous. While the script-writing, hiring,and rehearsing vent on, the individual producers would also
be hatching new ideas which, if they survived scrutiny at thelower level, would ultimately make their way up to theProgramme Committee.'
Unfortunately, the minutes of the Programme Committee
do not survive for the period from 1927 to 1933. \Ve have it on
Roger Eckersley's authority, however, that 'in scrutinising the
programmes, the lay -out, content, contrast between alternative
programmes, financial implications and balance as between thevarious ingredients had to be considered. Each departmental
head would quite properly try to get as much representationof his own material as possible. Argument was encouraged, andsome of the comments made on someone else's programmemight be extremely caustic and as hotly defended.'z Eckersley
adds discerningly that while his brother Peter was very criticalin the press and in his books after lie left the BBC concerning
the programmes broadcast, he was not particularly criticalwhile he was at the BBC, either at the meetings of the ProgrammeCommittee or the Control Board.
The Control Board, set up as early as 1923, was the final
The procedures are set out in an undated note by Graves called `Notes on theI
Preparation of a Broadcast Programme'.
2R. H. Eckersley, The BBC and All That (1946), p. 97.

PROGRAMME PARADE

33

factor in the reckoning. It carried out its deliberations attheapex of the BBC's internal committee structure,
surveying 'highpolicy', which always included major developments orchangesin programme policy. It was attended by`controllers', any ofwhom could take along with him departmental chiefs
for thediscussion of special items. It was at this meeting thatsome ofthe most interesting and important general
discussions aboutprogrammes took place-what part, for instance, to assign
tothe regional stations, whether to change the shape ofbroadcasting on Sundays, or how to deal with political, industrial,
and religious controversy.
There was no agenda for the meetings, but minutes wereand circulated. They cover a wide range of items of almost kept
every
kind. In January and February 1927, for example,
there werediscussions not only about education, talks, regional
engineering, relay stations, and whether or not to abolish theProgramme
Board, but about whether to revert to the practice, only
recently
abolished, of referring in Children's Hour programmes
to`aunts' and `uncles' it was suggested that the titles of `aunt'
and `uncle' were not objectionable in themselves, but only
when
they were applied to men and women 'who had to carryoutsidethe dignity of senior organising officials'.' In January
andFebruary 1938 there were protracted discussions not only about
wireless exchanges and the opening of the Latin
Americanservice but about George Black's ban on his
theatre artists
taking part in television.2:

The

pattern of Programme Board (or Committee) plus
Control Board did not survive unchanged throughout the wholeof the period covered in this volume. As a result of theappointment of Colonel Alan Dawnay as Controller (Programmes) in
1933 and the major organizational changes which
followed inconsequence,3 Control Board meetings were terminated and 'theDirector -General's Meetings' took their place. The Programme
Board ceased to exist in its old form at the same time,but a`Programme Meeting' remained under the chairmanship of' *Control Board Minutes, 5 Jan. 1927, 15 Feb. 1927. For
the decision of Nov.
1926 to drop the titles of `aunt' and 'uncle', see The
Birth of Broadcasting, p. 261.
2 *Control Board Minutes, 18
Jan. 1938, 22 Feb. 1938. For some of thesedevelopments, see below, p. 613.
3

See below, pp. 443-9.

C 1905

DPROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

34

Dawnay himself.' By then the organization of programmes had
become far more specialized than it had been in 1927, andthere were `Directors' of Entertainment, of Talks, of Religion,of Information and Publicity, of Empire and Foreign services,and, as we have seen, of Presentation.2 In addition there wasa scattered regional organization,3 which later entailed monthly
meetings with Regional Directors and quarterly meetings with
Regional Programme Directors.
Dawnay's sojourn at the BBC was short, and there was afurther reorganization in 1935 when he left the BBC to returnto the Coldstream Guards.4 Thereafter until 1939-andthroughout the Second World War-two programme meetings were held each week. The first-on Thursdays-was called
the Programme Committee,s and the second, held on Fridays,
was called the Programme Board. The second body was thelargest in the history of programme planning. It included,
under the chairmanship of the new Controller of Programmes,
Cecil Graves, the new Controller of Public Relations, Sir
Stephen Tallents; it was at one of the early meetings of thereconstituted Board that it was agreed to recommend to the
Director-General that a scheme of `listener research' should
be started.6
An analysis of the range of programmes broadcast shows
how far the BBC was successful in realizing its objectives. The
early balance of programmes may be illustrated from the tableopposite, which gives a breakdown of the kind of programmes
broadcast in the third week of October in 1927, 1928, 1929,
and 1930. Some of the programme constituents remained
remarkably constant-the time devoted to Children's Hour,for instance, or the proportion of transmission hours given overto the `spoken word'. There are some surprises. Drama andfeatures took up little of programme time, and school broadcasting always accounted for more hours than religion. A place' See below, p. 435.
For the process of differentiation, see below, pp. 445-6.
7
See below, p. 336.
4 *Programme Board Minutes, 4 Oct. 1935.
5 For its first few meetings it was known as the Programme Sub -Committee.
6 *Programme Board Minutes, 2 Oct. 1936. For the history of Listener Research,see below, pp. 256-80.
2

PROGRAMME CONSTITUENTS
One week in October 1927, 1928, 1929, and 193o
028

7.927

7929

Total hours
and minutes oftransmission

77 hrs. 35 m.

8o hrs.

78 hrs. 55 m.

7.930

,Vat.
78 hrs.

Reg.

hrs.

614

PERCENTAGES OF PROGRAMME TIMEClassical\tunicOpera (whole or part.
not excerpts)
Orchestral (with soloists)
Chamber Music
Instrumental Recitals
Song Recitals
Cantatas, Oratorios,
Church Music

Total:
Light Music

..

to to

5'63
3'13
5'94

o64
4'73
0.32

1'13

7'38
3'27
4'12
0'95

7'45

6.22
6'59

2'98

5'37

1'83

3'30

..

..

..

..

15.79

19.40

19.32

11.69

20.01

21.28

7-6o

11.30

7'02

18'49

.

.

Orchestral, Band, Small
Combination (withsoloists)

Operetta, Comic Opera,
Musical Comedy
Ballad or Chorus Song
RecitalsCafé, Restaurant, or
Cinema Organ

Total:
Dance Music

1.83

..

..

rgg

1.22

..

458

0.85

064

2.20

6.34

9'69

1112

11.38

13'93

29.45

21.87

23.87

20-83

33.84

1643

11-56

9'92

11'48

19.76

Gramophone Records

1.29

7.50

6.96

2'55

0073

Drama

..

0.63

2'53

1'49

3'05

Features

..

1'04

1'27

..

3'97

3'44

3'06

3'19

129

1.25

0.32

0.32

..

5.26

4'69

3'38

606

7.83

Children's Hour

5-8o

5.63

5.70

6.08

..

Spoken Word News and Weather
Forecasts
Ministry and Society

4'51

6.24

4'75

9'05

9'02

0.75
9.13

0.52
7.92

o85

0'64
1117

6-83

0'21

0.31

2.11

0'10

0'64
0'11

0.64
0'11

0'37
0.12

15.22

2161

1634

Light
Music Hall, Vaudeville,
Entertainment Cabaret
RevueStar Entertainer orCelebrity

Total:

Bulletins
Talks and Discussions
Poetry and l'rose
Readings
Appeals

OutsideBroadcasts..

..

Total:

14.71

15.29

Running Commentaries

1'29

..

Ceremonies
Speeches

..

..

..

..

8.87

2.55

.

.

1'83

1.38

..

0-76
0.64

0.64

..
..

29

..

140

2.02

. .

Religion

2'25

4'05

3'80

5'32

2'44

School Broadcasts

7.09

8.54

6.65

7'87

..

Total:

Interludes¡'Fill ups' advertised inRadio Timm

0.64

TOTAL:

100

.

.

100

..

..

..

100

100

100

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

36

was deliberately left for chamber music 'of an advanced anddifficult order' and for talks on `intricate subjects'.'
While the BBC was considering the implications of theRegional Scheme, it envisaged some differences in the `balance'
between programmes on the Regional and the Nationaltransmitters. In fact, however, the difference did not develop
as had been anticipated. The Daventry `experimental' station,
5GB, had devoted more of its experimental time in 1928 and1929 to light entertainment than 5XX, which later became
the National transmitter: by 1934., however, there was more
light entertainment on the National than on the Regional
service. Gramophone records had accounted for only o25 percent. of 5GB's experimental time in 1928 and 1929-an
exceptionally low figure-as against 9.67 per cent. of 5XX'stime, but by 1934. the National figure was 7.12 per cent. andthe Regional figure 10.87 per cent.
There was a notable extension of the use of gramophonerecords in 1934., not only for background or interval music but
for whole programmes of serious, light, and dance music.
Surprisingly, however, they were not referred to as such in thecomprehensive Report of the Programme Revision Committee
in that year. What the Report, like The Times articles, cíid show
was that the same conception of `programme balance' dictatedthe pattern of evening broadcasting from both National andRegional transmitters. Many programmes, indeed, were`diagonalized', that is to say they were sent out first on the
National or Regional wavelengths and then repeated-live
usually-on the other wavelengths on a different evening and
as
a
means
of
thought
wasat a different time. `Diagonalization'
programme
hearingaofchancelistenersthenot only of giving
which they had missed at the first broadcast, but of `conserving
effort' and `controlling finance'.
The role of specifically regional broadcasting from thevarious regional stations was severely limited in practice,2 but
the close association between the National and the composite
Regional programme transmitted on 5XX was something
more than the reflection of centralizing prejudice or financial
stringency. It derived in part, at least, from Reith's desire not
to divide 'the great audience' more than was necessary. Britain'

BBC Handbook (1929), p. 58.

2

See below, pp. 306 IF.

PROGRAMME PARADE

37

was a small country: could it not be held together as one?
Every part of it deserved not what it was getting through themedia of existing cultural and entertainment facilities, but 'thebest'. It was in an effort to give it 'the best' that 'cliagonalization' was supplemented by what was known as the 'Phi'system. By this system, which went back to 1924, programmesof outstanding public interest or artistic value-a national talkby a national celebrity or a concert by Toscanini-were madeobligatory for all BBC stations. These `three -star' programmes
were `universal'. Two -star programmes were recommended to
the regions by Broadcasting House, but could be argued about:it was open to regions to suggest acceptable alternatives. One star programmes could either be accepted or rejected by theregions.' `Thus,' according to Reith, 'with due regard, financial
and otherwise, to what regions could efficiently and worthily
do-national and regional interests, characteristics and capabilities were reconciled.'=
There was also a deeper level of the argument. The `great
audience' was conceived as an audience whose tastes andinterests could develop over time. Listeners hearing the 'best
things' might begin by condemning and end by demanding.
Segmentation would reflect tastes and interests as they were:`national' programmes would develop tastes and interests
dynamically, changing some minorities into majorities or, at theleast, increasing their size and influence. Broadcasting could
enlarge horizons, both artistically and politically. Artistically
Reith believed that it could do much to engender new culturalinterests-in music and drama, in particular: politically it
could serve as an instrument of integration in a divided community.
The contrast in these respects between the work of the BBC
and the work of the other agencies of mass communication
was often pointed out during the period. Music was usuallytaken as the classic case, and there was powerful evidence later,
during the Second World War, that radio had in fact helped tobring into existence a new audience for serious music.; AsThe system is briefly described in J. C. W. Reith, Into the Wind (1949), p. 299.
Ibid.
See B. Ifor Evans and M. Glasgow, The Arts in England (19.91; Lord Bridges,
The State and the Arts (Romanes Lecture, 1958).
=

38

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

early as 193o, indeed, Reith had pointed out that `whereas
x hours of good music in the old days brought forward one
hundred letters of protest, one hundred x hours of good music
today bring forward not ten thousand letters of protest but
only fifty'.' Drama provided an equally good example. Whenin 1929 a number of \Vest End theatre managers sought tolimit or even eliminate all radio criticism of the stage, some of
their most influential colleagues, led by C. B. Cochran, repliedthat 'we are confident that BBC criticism brings the theatre
to the notice of many people into whose lives the theatre has nothitherto entered, and this creates an audience which did not
before exist'.z In the political world The Economist once statedthat BBC news had `helped to give the British public a powerof discrimination which has exercised a salutary influence on
the Press and the screen'. And 'if unbiased information tends
to break down the barriers of party feeling and thereby tomake the traditional organization of democracy on a party
basis more difficult and uncertain, it has unquestionably
helped to consolidate the feeling for democracy itself'.3
Many writers generalized from particular instances andargued that the development of the power of discrimination
was also assisting the emergence of a `common culture'. Everylistener was given equal access to the best, and although some
rejected it-unheard or hearing without listening-others
learned how to appreciate and to understand. If in 'the Ageof the Cinema' `the most amazing perfection of scientific technique' was all too often being devoted 'to purely ephemeral
objects, without any consideration of their ultimate justification',4 sound radio was seeking to reinforce what was lasting.
Not that the influence moved in one direction only. Experts
were learning how to communicate not with other experts butwith the `public', and `minorities' which otherwise would havebeen forced into increasing segregation were being subjected
to 'the contagion of the majority'. There was an obvious sensein which sound radio contributed to a revival of what J. L. andBarbara Hammond called `common enjoyment', an enjoyment
Speech given in December 1930.
3
The Economist, 18 June 1938.
Letter to The Times, 26 Oct. 1929.
4 A phrase of Christopher Dawson, quoted in R. C. Churchill, Disagreements(1950), p. 6.
2

PROGRAMME PARADE

39

which had been imperilled in industrial society since the great
technical and social changes of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries.I
One limitation and one qualification must be taken into
the reckoning in assessing the weight of this interesting social
argument. The limitation would have been true in any society.
Broadcasting carries with it not only the opportunity of pushing
forward the idea of a `common culture' but the danger of`standardization'. When Beatrice Webb visited Savoy Hill in
1925, she wrote of the `admirable way in which the BBC isusing this stupendous influence of wireless over the lives of thepeople-in some ways greater than the written word because
it is so amazingly selective and under deliberate control-andon the whole an eminently right control'. She added, however,'what a terrible engine of compulsory conformity, in opinion
and culture, wireless might become'.z Hilda Matheson madethe same point eight years later when sound radio had greatly
extended its hold on the British public. `Broadcasting may
spread the worst features of our age as effectively as the best;
it is only stimulating, constructive and valuable in as far as it
can stiffen individuality and inoculate those who listen withsome capacity to think, feel and understand.... Broadcastingis a huge agency of standardization, the most powerful theworld has ever seen.'3
The BBC avoided the worst dangers of standardization during
the inter -war years, particularly the kind of fragmentary andephemeral standardization inherent in commercialized `tnass
culture', but it avoided them only by deliberately following a
conscious and continuous policy. It allowed for a broad, if notunlimited, exchange of views and a wide variety of programmes.
The very fact, however, that the medium of sound radio permits
centralized transmission to millions of people must always imply
a threat as well as a challenge.
The qualification relates not so much to all societies as to1
For the idea of `common enjoyment', see J. L. Hammond, The Idea of Common
Enjoyment (The Hobhouse Memorial Lecture, 1930) and J. L. and B. Hammond,
The Age of the Chartists (1933).
2 M.
Cole (ed.), Beatrice Webb's Diaries, 1924-1932, p. 81: entry for 25 Dec.

1925.
1

H. Matheson, Broadcasting (1933), quoted in D. C. Thomson, Radio Is Changing

Us (1937), p. 4.

40

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

British-or more particularly English-society as it was constituted during the 192os and 193os. It was a divided society,divided both by bitterness and by complacency, and effective
social controls were always in the hands of `privilege' of one
kind or another. Cultural configuration was itself an expressionof economic inequality and social and educational privilege.
Covent Garden was distinguished by its diamonds as well as
by its music; only 2 per cent. of the Second World War
audiences who watched plays sponsored by the Council for the
Encouragement of Music and the Arts had been to a stage play
before.'The BBC, by the nature of its social context, never foundit easy fully to penetrate the working-class world which provided it with by far the largest part of its audience. It was
partly a matter of personnel. Roger Eckersley, 1ór example,
once feigned complete ignorance of the fact that by far thelargest section of British society ate high tea and not dinner.
It was also a matter of posture and attitude. BBC announcers
wore dinner jackets; their enforced impersonality clashedsharply with the powerful working-class instinct to stress the
personal in every aspect of human relationships.2 The languageof discourse-accent, vocabulary, style-was so separate that
it was always a matter of 'them and us'. There were excellent
reasons for paying special attention to the training of announcers
and for the encouragement of good standard English-G. B.
Shaw was, after all, a member of the Spoken English Advisory
Committees-but there were also, as Shaw never failed to point
out, all kinds of social and cultural complications.
In such circumstances to talk of common culture is exaggerated, and at its most rhetorical the talk is dangerously misleading. In an early contribution to the Radio Times G. K.
Chesterton expressed the view that it was 'a good thing indeed'
for the `masses'-a dangerously patronizing word-to listen to
the words of Lord Curzon: he did not add that it would havebeen at least equally good 'if his lordship could, by means ofradio, have listened to the views of the people'.4 There was
The Arts in England, p. 44.
See R. Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy (ig57), ch. iv, 'The Real World of People'.
' See below, pp. 467 ff.
2

4

Radio is Changing Us, p. 19.

PROGRAMME PARADE

4I

always a difficult problem of human communication, even if
it was never of the BBC's making, and it was well stated, where
we would expect it to be well stated, if it was to be stated at all,in the BBC's schools broadcasting service. One of the mostinfluential members of the Central Council for School Broadcasting, G. T. Hankin, an Inspector of Schools, frequently
warned against a `middle-class point of view'. `Historically wehave long believed in games and sports for the rich and are only
just beginning to realize the need for organized leisure for the
poor' was one of his comments on a suggestion that the fullweight of BBC persuasion should be employed to press workingclass children to join youth clubs) On a different occasion heobjected strongly to a proposed history pamphlet. `Herewith
the typescript of the English history pamphlet with a good many
criticisms. The whole attitude in the script seems to me middleclass. Our History is for the children of the workers.'2
Given the difficulties of social communication, the BBC did
much if not to break the barriers down, at least to make onepart of the community aware of the existence of other parts.
It did not gloss over the cracks \vith a thin veneer of 'heartiness'. The period covered in this volume was one of quite
exceptional economic and social strain-with a crisis in theworld economy and alarming waves of mass unemployment.
Against this background there were a number of radio talks
and programmes which genuinely sought to explain the plightof the unemployed. Sir William Beveridge gave six talks on
unemployment in 1931, following on a general series on thesame subject; `I feel that I should have liked leisure to makethem a little more human', lie commented after the last of his
efforts.3 There were no complaints of lack of humanity concerning talks on the same subject given by John Hilton from
1933 onwards. Hilton, indeed, knew how to talk not only about
the unemployed but to them, in his own words `making themlaugh, teasing them and saying occasionally a silly thing andoccasionally a wise one' but, above all, being just himself.4
Hilton's range of subjects was wide, from industrial relations*Hankin to Miss Gibbs, 7 Apr. 1938.
*Hankin to A. C. Cameron, Oct. 1938.
3 *Sir \\illiarn Beveridge to C. A. Siepmann, 26 June 1931.
4 E. Nixon, John Hilton (1946), p. 162.
I

2

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

42

to football pools: This and That was the title of the most successful of his series. He was never patronizing, and what N. G.
Luker, then a talks producer, called his `great belief in the manin the street' was a sincere belief and not a pose. There weremany other people who felt, however, as did one speakerdeliberately chosen to confront him in debate, that 'all thistalk about Tom, Dick and Harry is largely rubbish'.'There is evidence that the BBC was far more anxious thanmany of its critics genuinely to probe 'the condition of England' during the divided 1930s. In 1931 Beveridge was preparing conscientiously for a series of discussions on Changes inFamily Life, which entailed thorough social research by questionnaire.2 The questionnaires themselves, which greatly interested
R. S. Hudson, then the Minister of Labour,3 produced what
Beveridge called 'a splendid detonation in the press'.4 There
were also vigorous protests against some of the talks in a Whither
Britain? series in 1934., the first of many series of talks arrangedby the BBC to plot the national destiny. The complaints werecertainly not stilled by H. G. WVells's opening talk in the series
in which he stated in his first sentence that what he said was
uncensored. 'The BBC is responsible for giving me this halfhour with you-but nobody on earth, except myself, is responsible, and nobody's approval has been asked, for the things I haveto say.'5 Wells was an active controversialist, a dealer in provocative ideas. There was no dearth of BBC social reporting
either, although it always provoked far more vigorous protest
than social reporting does in the 1g6os.

The protest, which must be examined in more detail,6 often
expressed itself in political rather than social form. This wasinevitable, given the social basis of much of British politics.
Moreover, in an age when there was usually as much tension
between `establishment' and avant-garde as between rich andpoor, there was a tendency on the right to confuse all forms
of novelty, including artistic and cultural novelty, with 'leftwingism' and on the left to associate `stuffiness' with all forms*N. G. Luker to Sir Richard Maconachie, 13 Oct. 1937.
*Mary Adams to Beveridge, 2g July 1931.
*Mary Adams to Beveridge, I May 1933.
4 *Beveridge to Siepmann, 4 Feb. 1932 (copy sent to Reith).
5
The Listener, to Jan. 1936.
6 See below, pp. 128 if.
1

2

1

PROGRAMME PARADE

43

of authority. 'An impression of left-wing bias is always liable
to be created by any agency which voices unfamiliar views',
Hilda Matheson wrote in 1933-in the light of experience. `It
does not always follow that the ideas themselves are of the left.
In practice, they usually hail from every point of the compass.
How is the inevitable fear they provoke to be reconciled withthe spirit of open-minded enquiry which is inseparable fromall education, from any search after truth?'1
The notion that all new ideas inevitably provoke fear is analarming comment on the mood of the 193os. Yet programme
planners within the BBC, particularly planners of talks, were
often confronted with inevitable reactions which they had tochallenge or to ignore. They were also subject to attack fromthe left for not going far enough or for imposing an internal
censorship on broadcasters whose views were thought to be
dangerous. In 1932, for example, the New Statesman complainedthat `official and orthodox pressure' inside the BBC svas constantly permitted 'to keep out the expression of new ideas',
although it sugared its complaint with congratulations to Reithfor preserving the BBC from `commercial influences' and paid atribute to the BBC as a whole for offering 'a striking example
of a self-governing autonomous Corporation'.2 At the very time
this complaint was being made, Reith was being attacked in
private as well as public for allowing the BBC to `subvert
established ideas and spread left-wing propaganda'. Lord
Hailsham was long convinced that the BBC was 'a disruptive influence',3 and Sir Waldron Smithers was about to begin a longand tempestuous correspondence with the BBC. `Cannot Parliament compel the BBC to abstain from using their monopoly
for the purpose of socialist propaganda?'4 Not all the critics
were as far to the right as Sir Waldron Smithers.
In meeting the double -pronged attack, the BBC perhaps
accepted too easily the simple test that if criticisms carne fromboth left and right or from both highbrow and lowbrow, they
somehow or other cancelled each other out. The test made iteasy to defend the BBC in Parliament, but it did not followthat to limit argument or to promote the `middle -brow' were
Broadcasting, p. 199.

2

New Statesman, 19 Nov. 1932.

Reith, Diary, 22 Apr. 1934.
' 'Sir \Valdron Smithers to the Postmaster -General, to Mar. 1935.
3

44

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

proper objectives of programme policy. Cancelling out gives
no guarantees of quality. In marginal matters, however, it is
not easy to think of a more satisfactory test. There is always agenuine question as to the extent of freedom which 'a public
corporation like the BBC can permit itself in exorcising ... thesins and follies of Establishments of all kinds'. This was thelanguage of another writer in the New Statesman, thirty years
later, who concluded that `there is a line to be drawn somewhere', and that somehow or other criticisms from both sides
have not only to be met but to be encouraged.'
The implications of this argument were-and are-cultural
as well as political. At a time when a number of young artists
were grumbling that the BBC favoured safer and less unorthodox forms of expression, the BBC was being assailed from the
opposite angle on the grounds that it presented too much`modern music' or grand opera or even that it fostered `avantgarde philosophies'. `We may sometimes feel', Ernest Barker
remarked, 'that our broadcast programmes entertain us too
loftily, and that a young and advanced aesthetic élite, encampedin the Parnassus of Broadcasting House, is seizing us by the hairof our heads to draw us into a modernist Paradise in which
our feeble spirits faint.'2
What Barker noted professorially-from Cambridge-was
often expressed quite unprofessorially outside. In one sense theprogrammes from Radio Luxembourg were an implicit comment.3 A more explicit comment was made by a committee of
the Radio Manufacturers' Association in a memorandum of
1935. For a year before this the R.M.A. hacl been strongly
criticizing the content and timing of BBC programmes.4
The R.M.A. claimed that there was a `public apathy' about
radio which merited a careful testing of `public reactions'. 'The
fundamental contention is made that the general public-as
distinct from any select section-demands a greater proportionof light entertainment and evinces a lesser interest in cultural
broadcasts, education or serious entertainment.' No doubts
New Statesman, 14 Dec. 1962.
E. Barker, 'This Age of Broadcasting' in the Fortnightly Review, vol. 138 (1935).
3 See below, pp. 362 ff.
4 *Programme Board Minutes, 22 Feb. 1934.
2

PROGRAMME PARADE

45

were expressed as to whether such public demands provided
adequate criteria for programme policy: it was simply assumed
that they did.
A proper programme policy, the committee of the R.M.A.
contended, should be concerned with light entertainment above
all else. The key days of the week were Saturday and Sunday.
On Saturdays there should be a proper choice of alternative
programmes in the afternoon, with a concentration on `Music
Hall' in the evenings. On Sundays there should be no silent
periods, and there should always be musical or dramatic alternatives to religious services. The fact that the increasingly active
wireless relay exchanges were broadcasting foreign commercial
programmes on Sundays was `proof that the public desire thatkind of broadcast'. On weekdays there should be early morning
broadcasting from 6.3o a.m. with `physical exercises, followed
by a news survey, today's headlines and bright "tonic music"
by the Military Band or Theatre Orchestra or records'. In theevening, 'if Athlone with a negligible revenue can broadcast
a variety show every night, the BBC should be able to do one
also'. There should be regular 'star features' each day on
American lines, and fixed points within the week when the
public would 'make its date with radio'. `It is noted that the
BBC already subscribe to, and practise this policy, but it isvery significant that this applies only to such `heavy' subjects
as "Foundations of Music" and "Talks".'

Far too little money, it was suggested, was being spent on`popular programmes'. Indeed no attention was paid to whatshould have been the guiding principle, that 'of spending moston that type of entertainment that has greater public appeal
and least on those with minimum appeal'. `It is our experience,
based on close contact with the purchasing public, that of thetwo chief categories of listener-those who want entertainment
which requires no special training to appreciate it, constituteeighty per cent of the public, and those who have a cultivatedcapacity for appreciating serious drama, talks, grand opera,
chamber music and symphonies, represent no more thantwenty per cent.' Perversely the BBC got its priorities upside
down. Wozzeck cost 'well over a thousand pounds to broadcast'and four classic symphonies conducted by Toscanini more than£º,000: 'the Royal Command Performance was not broadcast

46

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

because ;E75o was all the BBC would offer'. Money and hours
went together. 'The incidence of time values should also bereversed and entertainment of popular appeal should occupy atleast sixty per cent of the air time."
It is not difficult to construct a week's programmes along thelines envisaged by the R.M.A. They are familiar enough, andthey would undoubtedly have had an obvious and immediate
appeal. Had broadcasting taken this shape, however, there
would have been an even greater element both of escapism
and waste during the 193os than there already was. Radio
would not have been different from the other mass media:
it would have been fully representative of them.
Some of the individual charges made by the R.M.A. werefair-a financial skimping, for example, in the provision ofcertain kinds of popular programme-and some of the individual changes it suggested have come about, notably the extension of broadcasting hours in the early morning. There was no
philosophy at all behind the proposals, however, except the
dubious pragmatism of giving the people what you believed
them to want. There is certainly no evidence that `commercialism' of this kind, particularly if practised by a public corporation, would have freed England from the invidious controlof the `Establishment', a post-war argument which was influenced as much by war-time experience as by memories ofthe pre-war BBC.
The matter was stated bluntly in the early 193os by R. J.
Smith of the Yale School of Law, in relation to the kind of
influence exerted by commercial broadcasting in the UnitedStates. 'To the extent that private interests become more andmore entrenched in this method of communication, it will bepossible for them to exert more and more a censoring influence
upon the types of all programmes which go before the public.
If the question resolves itself between private censorship andpublic censorship, I take it that it is in the interests of thecountry that the censorship be public rather than private.'2
Although this view was challenged in 1934. by the National
Association of Broadcasters in the United States, which echoed
I *Committee of the Radio
Manufacturers' Association, Memorandum on
Programmes, 1935.
2 Quoted in Broadcasting, p. 236.

PROGRAMME PARADE

47

Winston Churchill in accusing the BBC of `pontifical mugwumpery', the National Association hardly put up an attractive
case. It was not merely the London Times which pointed out that
American strictures against the BBC `emanated from an association which represents the American broadcasting trade generally and had a vested interest to protect'.[ However much someof the members of the Radio Manufacturers' Association might
disagree with aspects of BBC policy, they had an immense
respect for Reith's tenacity of purpose. At an R.M.A. lunch
attended by Reith, lie was loudly applauded, to his 'amazement', when he said that there would never be jazz or variety
on Sundays. He was told afterwards that while they quarrelledwith what he said, they greatly respected him for saying it.
Throughout the period styles of American broadcasting continued to generate far more criticism than praise in Britain.2
At the height of the 1928 press debate, already mentioned,3one `average listener' sharply attacked the view that America
provided a model. `American broadcasting', he stated, 'isdesigned for people who cannot concentrate.' He personally did
not like `sentimental songs, poetry reading, most talks, thenews bulletins and Walforel Davies'. Yet he did like the BBC.
'On my simplest set I am always able to hear what I like from
2L0 or 5GB.'4 This was before the days of alternative programmes and when there was less range of BBC programmes
than there was to be ten years later.
There is a fascinating account in Reith's Diary of a vis:t hepaid in i 93 i to the office of the Chairman of the Federal Radio
Commission, General Sultzman, in Washington:

I told him roughly what the English arrangement was and asked
him whether he did not think something of the sort would be possible
here, beginning with the Federal Radio Commission taking more
power and applying the public interest clause far more than the no
censorship one. In other words could the Commission not assert
itself now. At that point three of the four Federal Radio Commissioners trooped in.... This, I thought, is the Federal Radio Commission, of which one had heard so much, or rather four fifths of it.
I was not impressed by them. They were all of a different type to' The Times, 30 Jan. 1934.
2

For criticism before 1927, see The Birth of Broadcasting, P. 347-

3

See above, p. 28.

4

Evening Standard, 11 July 1928.

48

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

the Chairman, and just what I would have expected politicalnominees to look like.... They all sat in a row and I facing them.
I said I had just asked the Chairman an important question, which
I then repeated; their reply was significant. He (Sultzman) said that
it was for the other gentlemen to say. The meeting might well havereached a deadlock, because obviously they were all embarrassed.
They did not know how much I knew of their position and of conditions generally in America, and there was considerable reserve.
I thought the only way to clear it was to make a statement myself,
showing that there was not much that I did not know. They exchanged looks with each other, smiled, settled themselves moreeasily in their chairs and we got properly down to it
they wereimmensely tickled with the idea that they should exert their powers.'...

Two internal BBC committees took up positions radicallydifferent from that of the Committee of the Radio Manufacturers' Association and the National Association of Broadcasters
in the United States. A Programme Revision Committee,
headed by Colonel Dawnay just after he had been appointed
to the new key post of Controller (Programmes), held thirty
meetings in 1934 between the middle of January and the end of
March. Its terms of reference were to review the suitability of
programme timing, 'the correctness or otherwise of the present
ratio between one type of programme and another', and the`efficiency' (a curious word to choose) of the programmes asa whole. Dawnay was assisted by Roger Eckersley, who thenheld the post of Director of Entertainment, Siepmann, theDirector of Talks, G. C. Beadle, the Entertainment Executive,and Lindsay Wellington, the Presentation Director.
The committee endorsed most aspects of existing BBC policy,
including `control' of the regions from London,2 `balance' ofboth National and Regional programmes, and refusal to determine the shape of programmes `solely or even mainly by numerical consultations'. A few minor changes were suggested, however, in the light of outside comment. The Bach cantatas, which
liad been broadcast at regular times since May 1928, were tocease to have a `fixed spot' on Sundays; adult education talks
were to be reduced from five to three a week; an alternative
to dance music was to be offered from io o'clock until 11.15 in
the late evening; and continuous alternative programmes were'Reith, Diary, May 1931.

2

For this policy, see below, pp. 314 ff.

PROGRAMME PARADE

49

to be provided on National and Regional wavelengths from10.45 a.m. to noon on all week -days and from noon to 6
o'clock on Mondays to Fridays, 'to meet the requirements of
the wireless trade'. The committee also welcomed 'the recent
relaxation' of Sunday broadcasting and `considered that it
might well be extended to admit of still lighter material forwhich there was a widespread demand. There might even bea talk at 9.5 p.m. on regular matters of national or international
importance.' This anticipation of one of the great features of
war -time broadcasting was treated very cautiously by Dawnay.
'The selected topic should not by its nature inspire or exacerbate
acute or drastic controversy among listeners.'
Dawnay also had strictly limited interest in a `brighter
Saturday'. 'I am still extremely dubious with regard to any
extension of alternatives on Saturday afternoons. The day -time
alternatives agreed on working days, as a concession to theTrade, will be of the cheapest and simplest kind, gramophonerecords, cheap musical combinations and so forth, introduced
purely for service purposes and without the general listenerin view. If we were to have more alternatives on Saturdays,
they would have to be of a totally different order, such as
Symphony Concerts, plays and the like, which would be very
expensive and for which it would be difficult to secure theadditional material of the necessary quality."
The Report is hardly an exciting document, and Dawnay's
comments are even less so. The suggested changes were timorous-they were too much like extorted concessions-and there
was no clear policy about the scale or cost of light entertainment. The Regional Directors complained that they were insufficiently consulted.2 Reith himself queried the tendency ofthe committee to reject all `fixed points'-not only the fixed
point of the Bach cantatas. 'As a listener I welcome fixity ofa time; as a programme builder I should dislike it, but the
programme builders must take at least as much cognisance ofthe convenience of listeners and the general efficiency of theservice, which would, I think, lead to more fixtures than you
have recoinmended.'3 The argument about `fixed points' was' *Dawnay to Reith, 7 May 1934.
2 *Dawnay to the Regional Directors,
30 July 1934.
3

C 1905*Keith to Dawnay, 25 Apr. 1934.
E

50

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

to be put before the public in the Broadcasting Number of The
Times in August 1934. `There is undoubtedly a large class oflisteners who like to know when to expect certain items. Theylook forward to their variety programme on Saturday night,
their Symphony Concert on Sunday night. They would liketo know that talks would always be given at the same time, andthat they can turn on at the same time each night for the news.
A certain amount of fixity of this kind is not only welcome but
necessary, yet on the general grounds of good programme
building the fewer fixed points the better chance there is of
keeping the programmes changing and, therefore, fresher."
One of the Programme Revision Committee's recommendations marked a definite stage in the evolution of programme
policy. `During the early and more experimental clays of broadcasting', the committee concluded, `there was a tendency towards deliberate complexity in the techniques of presentation,
which is now regarded as highly undesirable in itself' `simplification' should now be the order of the day.2 It is possible toread a certain complacency in this judgement also. Programme
policy must always be experimental. The fact that some of theearlier experiments had been excessively complex and selfconscious did not mean that `simplification' was the answer,
even though the heads of all the departments of the Programme
Division were said to be convinced of the case for `simplicity:

in methods of production'.3
On the crucial question of balance, the Dawnay Committee
thought that the ratios were `about right'. Their breakdown ofprogrammes (opposite page) related only to broadcasts given
after 5.15 p.m. so that it is not strictly comparable with the figures
given in the Table on p. 35. To make comparison easier, an independent breakdown of the programmes in the second week ofOctober 1934 is given alongside the Committee's own figures.
The Committee suggested only one change-that there should
be a slight decrease in the proportion of music on Sundays. The
independent statistics suggest, however, that if balance was
the objective throughout the week, there was far too muchlight music, far too little light entertainment, far too little drama,
The Times, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. 1934.
: *Report of the Programme Revision Committee, 1934.
3 * Note on General Programme Standards, 14 May 1935.

PROGRAMME PARADE

51

and far too few outside broadcasts. It should be added that
one of the reasons why outside broadcasting figures seem solow was that there were considerable fluctuations from week
to week and the week in question had an exceptionally small
number. More important, however, was the unwillingness ofmany outside interests to allow the BBC to stage outside broadcasts at all.'PROGRAMME CONSTITUENTS
One Week in October 1934
PERCENTAGES OF PROGRAMME TIME

DawnayClassical Music
Light Music
Dance Music

Programme

14
16

17.46
29.08

13

8'55

43.02
9'97

7.92

10.87

2.79
0.54

0.90
2'15

2.,6

()Si
4'85

18.45
0.27

9.33
0.54
2.75

Gramophone
Records
Not given
Drama
3
Features
Not given
Light
Entertainment
6Children's Hour
8
Spoken Word
21
Outside Broadcasts Not given
Religion
6
School Broadcasts
Miscellaneous

Total
Total Hours
Broadcast

National

Committee's
figures

6

..

5.76
7.02

..

14.81

.

.

..

7

too

Regional
Programme

100

loo

92 h. 35 m. 9211.5o m.

A detached scrutiny of the alternatives offered by the
National programme and the composite Regional programmesuggests that there was too little contrast. This was an important point which Dawnay's Committee completely overlooked.
Some of the Regional Directors, who were asked their views
after the committee liad reported, made the point clearly. 'The
feeling here is that the contrast as between National andRegional programmes is not entirely satisfactory', wrote G. L.
Marshall from Belfast. `It would seem that frequently thecontrast is only between one type of music and another, say
See below, pp. 77-79, 92-93.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

52

for instance, the symphony as against a lighter type of concert,which does not seem to be sufficiently marked.' Marshall alsosuggested very pertinently that there was too much music of all
kinds. `It is the simplest form of entertainment to devise andproduce but it is tending to encroach too much upon programmetime as a whole.»
Other regional officials complained that the main or composite Regional programme was being elevated at the expenseof the subsidiary provincial programmes,2 while one of the mostenterprising young Programme Directors in the provinces, R. A.
Rendall in Bristol, argued that for all the committee's certitude,'we have little or no direct evidence that the present structureof programmes is satisfactory or otherwise. By direct evidence
I mean overwhelming correspondence on any particular point,
or anything in the nature of a statistical survey.'3
This was one of the chief points made in the second BBC
Report, which was written by Dawnay's successor, Cecil
Graves, in June 1936. Graves's Report was based on evidencecollected from four committees, one dealing with Sunday programmes, the second with clay -time programmes, the third withthe main evening programmes, and the fourth with forward
planning. Siepmann and Wellington were members of all fourcommittees. Graves had made it clear on taking over his postthat he wished to make changes. There was, he felt, `insufficient
live controversy in Talks' and `subjects of a more provocative
nature' should be discussed as they had been when Siepmann
was Director of Talks from 1931 to 1935. There should be atleast one straight variety programme of the music -hall typeonce a week. The Sunday evening concerts should be more
`popular' than they had been in the past. The `monotony' of
day -time programmes should be attacked, and there should be'a gradual insertion of more programmes of other types thancinema organs, restaurant orchestras, and the like which fill
the bulk of the day'. Foundations of Music had to go: `I cannot
allow general programme building to be blocked by the daily
insertion at a fixed time of a feature which has now had a2*Marshall to Dawnay, 19 Dec. 1935.
*H. J. Dunkerley (Midland Region Programme Director) to Siepmann, 13

Dec. 1935.
*The comments are quoted in E. R. Appleton (West Regional Director) to
Siepmann, 17 Dec. 1935.

PROGRAMME PARADE

53

sufficiently long innings in its present form.' Finally he looked
to 'an increased Regional contribution to the National and
London (composite) Regional Programmes in 1936/7'.'
It was no surprise, therefore, that Graves's Report was far
less complacent than the Report of 1934.. It was recognized that
programme planning required a much closer knowledge oflisteners' backgrounds, habits, and preferences, even if theplanners were not tied to the rule of giving the people what theywanted. `In considering programme revision as a whole thoseconcerned were faced at every turn with an absence of reliable
evidence on which to base their judgments and recommendations.' Listener research was necessary if 'the Corporation was
to rely mainly on its own professional judgment to produce thewidest possible range of programmes, each good of its own kind
. . . and to meet the reasonable demands of a considerable
audience'. It was necessary also to have a more clearly definedprogramme policy. `It seems evident that at present Heads ofDepartments and Regional Programme Directors are not conscious of a general Corporation policy and are uncertain as tothe parts that they, individually, are expected to play.'
Future policy, it was suggested, should not ignore the styleof treatment. 'The importance of presentation-or "showmanship"-should not be underestimated. Concentrated listening
to broadcast programmes is not easy, and the devices of presentation should be used to catch and hold the attention.'
Finally, the claims of the regions to a fuller life were acknowledged. `Regions are neither separate entities nor . . . mere
appendages of London. British Broadcasting regards itself as
one unit, and all our plans are made co-operatively. Regional
centres have two very important functions to fulfil: firstly, totake their share-and their share is on the increase-in contributing to the National Programme, and secondly, they havethe important task of providing broadcasting material of a
specialised and local kind for the benefit of listeners in theirarea.'2
Programme balance in the years after 1936 reflected to someextent at least the influence of this last big internal Report ofthe inter -war years.
2

C. G. Graves, Note on Programmes, 25 Mar. 1936.
C. G. Graves, Report of Programme Revision, June 1936.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

54

PROGRAMME CONSTITUENTS
One Week in October
PERCENTAGES OF PROGRAMME TIME

1936

National
Programme

1938

Regional
Programme

National
Programme

Regional
ProgrammeClassical Music

19.96

15.03

17.83

16.84

Light Music

21.90

2102

31'84

Dance Music
Gramophone
Records
Drama
Features

8.88

38'81
8oo

4.59

9.24

10.73
1.32

9.18

6.93
3'03

11.71

1.62

..

..

tic)

3.96

2.97
4.86
13-13

6.84

Light
Entertainment
Children's Hour
Spoken Word
Outside Broadcasts
Religion
School Broadcasts

..
16.45
1.85

6.24

1'53

19'23
2'68

6.76
6.58
9.15
0'37

3'33

4'76

3'75

..

8.71

..

..

0.54

0.09

..

too

too

too

too

9.70

Interludes:

Fill Ups, Rc.
Total
Total Hours
Broadcast

1'65
2.1 I

94 h. 45 m. 92 h. 35 m. 96 h. 15 m.

..

91 h. 5 m.

There was more light entertainment, an increase in outside
broadcasting, and a fall, if not a substantial fall, in the proportion of light music. For purposes of comparison, it isinteresting to examine a typical Sunday programme from oneof the foreign commercial radio stations, Radio Normandie.'Sunday was the day when the BBC was most vulnerable:2 itis a fair day to choose, however, since Radio Normandie wasconcentrating then on what it felt that the British listener
really `wanted'.
7.00 Radio Reveille
8.00 Sacred Music
8.15 Sing Song
8.3o (French News)
8.40 Astrology
8.45 'Musical Adventure' forChildren
9.00 Cabaret
9.15 'Hit' Songs
9.30 Dance Music
9.45 Sports Review
The day chosen is 18 June 1939.

io.00 Dance Music
10.30 Variety
11.00 Soloist
11.15 Variety
11.45 (French Programmes)
1.30 'Singing, Fun and Music'

2.00 Sponsored Show
2.30 'Teaser Time'2.45 Light Music
3.00 Dance Music
3.3o Theatre Organ2
See below, p. 272.

PROGRAMME PARADE
4.00 Variety
4.45 Personalities'
5.00 Sing Song5.15 'Discoveries'
5.30 Variety
5.40 Dance Music
6.00 Songs
6.30 Variety
7.00 Crime Serial
7.15 Light Music
7.30 (French Progralmnes)

55

to.00 'Motor Magazine'
10.30 Cinema Organ
10.45 'Hit' Songs
11.0o 'Musical Comedy Memories'
11.15 Variety
11.45 Light Music
12.00 'Melody at Midnight'
12.30 Dance Music

Loo 'Goodnight Melody'
Close Down

Among the British artists who performed on Radio Normandie on this `spot' clay were George Formby, Tommy
Handley, Jack Warner, Vic Oliver, Bebe Daniels, Leonard
Henry, Olive Groves, Donald Peers, Anne Ziegler and Webster
Booth, Phyllis Robins, and Reginald Foort. The bill of farerevealed what could be done if conceptions of balance werethrown to the winds. It is interesting to add that at least one
attempt was made to capture John Hilton:' it failed because
Hilton had great respect for Reith's views.

Determining the balance of particular BBC programmes
was the work of the programme planners. They were the people
working 'in the line' who implemented general policies agreed
upon at a higher level. Their work was an art, not a science, adifficult art which is not easily traceable in documents. It
rested, nonetheless, on certain general principles-first, thatdifferent tastes should be catered for, including the tastes ofminorities, and second, that different views should be expressed.
`Experience has evolved a practical working rule', it was statedin ¡930. 'Give the public something slightly better than it now
thinks it likes' in consequence, 'the public becomes not less but
more exacting'.z Yet it was always impossible adequately tocater for all minority tastes or to express all opinions. There
were limits set not only by time but by policy. Before scrutinizing the policy, it is important to note that it was the BBC itself
which determined it. The limits, it was felt both by Reith andthe programme builders, should be imposed neither by the Post
Office nor by the radio trade, and certainly not by government:
they should be determined within the BBC itself. The whole:2*Roger Wilson to Sir Richard Maconachie, 25 May 1937.
BBC Handbook (1928), p. 71.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

56

theory of the public corporation-with its monopoly powerswas basic to this conception of autonomous programme policy.'
Freedom from government interference M as one aspect of the
BBC's situation: freedom from the pressures of a market in'mass culture' was the other. Yet freedom by itself does notmake policy. 'The BBC must lead, not follow, its listeners, but
it must not lead at so great a distance as to shake off pursuit.'2
The viability of this conception of broadcasting depended
upon four factors-first, a sense of responsibility on the part ofthe BBC, responsibility coupled with enterprise, resource, andconfidence, equally necessary ingredients; second, the acceptance by Parliament of the `system' of public service broadcasting, and, behind Parliament, on the acceptance of the `system'by a preponderance of the forces of opinion and interests which
Parliament reflected; third, the pressure of honest criticism andthe ability of the BBC to meet it; and fourth, so Reith would
always have said, the `brute force of monopoly'.3
Monopoly made it possible for Reith successfully to resist thekind of competitive pressures which, if unchecked, might haveturned broadcasting simply and solely into a provider ofentertainment: competition would have determined automatically the balance of programmes rather than leaving thedetermination to policy -makers. Given that `policy' was the
crucial factor, a combination of enterprise and responsibility
was essential. Responsibility without enterprise would have been
stuffy and uncreative: enterprise without responsibility would
have magnified criticism. It is interesting to note that press
critics like Sydney Moseley, who based their argument on quite
different premises from those of Reith, supported the generalpolicy. `I am myself satisfied', Moseley wrote in a book with avery wide circulation, 'that the early policy of the BBC, basedon the belief that the needs of broadcasting were specialized
and distinct from those of any other form of entertainment
whatever, was the right policy. And I am sure that Sir John
Reich was equally right in his determination to elevate thepublic taste rather than play down to it.'+For the theory oldie public corporation and its critics, sec below, pp. 413 R.
2 *J. C. W. Reith, Draft on Broadcasting for a Blattnerphone Recording, 1931.
find, pp. gg-loo. See also The Birth of Broadcasting,
3 J. C. \V. Reith, Into theP. 2384

Broadcasting in My Time, p. 223.

57

PROGRAMME PARADE

Collie Knox, the Daily Mail critic, did not go so far he realisedthat `public opinion polls'-very unscientifically conducted-were a good stick with which to beat the BBC. With Rugby
and Sandhurst behind him, he was fascinated by the wcrldof show business, which impinged directly on the BBC without
ever controlling it.' The Times had a different angle: 'To the
British way of thinking, a service privately conducted and indirectly financed offers no attractions. It seems no more natural
to receive the amenities of the microphone as a by-product ofpublicity than to accept a book, a play, a film, a concert or an
educational course on the same terms. In the last resort thelistener retains direct control, and it is common knowledge that
he does not hesitate to let the BBC hear his opinions. The British
system, in short, is one of those social institutions over which
the man in the street has some right to a little complacency,
and when it is attacked it will not lack defenders.'2:

This was general support for a policy based on a philosophy:
it was support given by Parliament in all the important debateson broadcasting during the period. As far as individual programmes were concerned, however, or the balance between
them, there was scope for criticism both of programme builders
and of programme producers. `Output' is a quantitative term:
the most interesting aspects of programme policy are qualitative. The great themes of broadcasting history can be understood only if the attitudes and approaches of producers areunderstood-and the relation between producers, programme
planners, controllers, critics, and the public. The BBC's philosophy owed an immense amount to one man: the BBC's programmes were the work of many men cf extremely varied
experience and outlook.
The most remarkable development of the period was thegrowing sense that the production of wireless programmes wasan art, not a business. Talks producers had begun in the tgzos
by looking for `Voices to Fill the Hours'-mellifluous `golden
voices' \S ere specially prized-but they ended by treating thebroadcast talk as a distinctive art form. The most distinguishedthinkers, artists, writers, and academics were expected to state
their opinions in an approved form, to have their scripts scored' See We Live and Learn (195').

2

The Times, 30 Jan. 1934.

58

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

like pieces of music, and to rehearse as diligently as actors preparing for a West End opening. The medium had to be respected.' In drama, and even more particularly in `features',the bounds of theatrical form and stage convention began to bethought of as shackles: what radio could do distinctively began
to be prized. Experiment was felt to be a necessary part of the
exploitation both of sound and, though the new medium wasstill young, of television. The daring and creative mind of Lance
Sieveking was early applied to such productions as Kaleidoscope I (1929), 'a play too purely radio to be printed for reading', and The Man with the Flower in His Mouth (í93o), a speciallydesigned version of a Pirandello play for Baird's experimental
television.2
It is remarkable, indeed, to see how quickly, perhaps tooquickly, fascination with the art of radio, which led to original
and exciting experiments with sound, like Lynton Fletcher's
Pieces of Sound (1933) with its sequence of related and contrastingsounds, was merged in concern for the prospects of television.
Tyrone Guthrie, for example, who wrote and produced The
Squirrel's Cage in 1929-`a definite use of a new medium dealing
with a story after a fashion which no other medium could have
employed'-commentecl in 1931 that he felt that the future lay
along the lines of television, 'of co-ordination with other arts

-a vista of ever-growing elaboration, mechanisation, centralisa-

tion, most depressing to contemplate, but quite inevitable'.3
It was not for many years, however, that television was tothreaten the position of sound radio, and it was primarily tothe arts of sound radio that the writers of the 193os devoted
themselves. The mood of the period is captured in Sieveking's
book The Stuff of Radio (1934) where, after talking of the`ghastly impermanence of the medium', he seized on the `feature
programme'-`an arrangement of sounds which has a theme
but no plot'-as the distinctive art form of radio. The rest of the
programmes, with the possible exception of running commentaries, were not specifically `radio -centred' they provided
material which could be handled equally effectively by other:

For Talks, see below, pp. 125-6, 200.
For Kaleidoscope I, see L. Sieveking, The Stuff of Radio (t 934) ; for the performance of the Pirandello play in its setting, see below, pp. 550-1.
3 BBC rear Book (1931),
pp. 185-9o.
'

3

59

PROGRAMME PARADE

media-in the newspaper or on the concert hall or theatre
stage. Another writer called the use of such material 'the reproductive side of broadcasting', by which he meant 'the distribution of entertainment and cultural matter that exists inthe world already', a very wide definition.'
By contrast, the radio feature, whatever form it took, wasdependent not on reproduction but on invention, not on one
form of art but on several. As early as 1928 Cecil Lewis, one ofthe pioneers of the British Broadcasting Company,2 had drawn
attention to features as `radio at its best'. 'Such programmes',
the absorption
he póinted out, 'mean research and study
theability
to selectmore
important,isof the subject and, whataresuitable
to
it
best
and
illuminate
the striking views which
more
the
way
features,inofthe microphone.'3 The obstacle
he suggested, was a shortage of the right kind of people to write
and to produce them. Within a few years the interest of thiswork was more generally appreciated. It was at its mostintricate in 'the kaleidoscopic use of multiple studios, music andpoetry being employed as protagonists'. The feature gave
unprecedented opportunities to the producer, who throughbroadcasting could achieve not only invention but `intensive
concentration and continuity'. `There is no other training orexperience comparable to that of a radio producer unless it bethat of the producer to a repertory company in the theatre.'4
The other aspect of programme presentation which was
unique to radio had less to do with the producer than with thecommentator, and, behind the commentator, the engineer.
Radio acted as a kind of magic carpet enabling the listener tofeel that he was participating in events which he could notattend and which in many cases he would never have been
permitted to attend. Not only did the outside broadcast carrythe listener over great distances but, as S. j. de Lotbiniére put
it, 'it took him past "sold out" notices to some of the best seatsin the house'.S While Lance Sieveking was concentrating on theingenuities of the studio, particularly on the dramatic control...

' Filson Young, Shall I Listen? (1933), p. 5.
2 For Cecil Lewis, see The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 138 ff., 206 ff.
The Observer, 19 Feb. 1928.
The Stuff of Radio, p. 31.
5 Private Notes by S. J. de Lotbiniére on the development of Outside Broadcast

4

programmes.

6o

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

panel, which was to him like 'a flexible musical instrument',
permitting a subtle blending of voice, music, and effects, deLotbiniére thought that there was an 'art' of quite a different
kind associated with perfect commentating. It also rested on'a subtle mixture of description and interpretation'.
'The man who does these things [running commentaries]
properly', Roger Eckersley told Station Directors as early as
1927, `probably will be difficult to find, as he should have thejournalistic instinct, a decent voice, a sound communicableknowledge of the subject, and the power to make listeners feelas though they were present at the event.» The same point
was made clearly in the BBC Handbook for a much later date,
1939, in which de Lotbiniére complained that most people failed
to realize that `commentary is an art and that its successful practice depends on attention to a specifiable technique'. 'That few
people have the ability and application to succeed in this new
art', he went on, 'is apparent from the fact that first class commentators are still scarce.'2
More than anything else, commentators had to learn how
to play a variety of parts. At boxing matches they were allimportant: at Guildhall lunches they were 'only incidental'.
On big national occasions, when broadcasting pulled 'the great
audience' together more effectively than at any other time, theevents could 'more or less speak for themselves'. 'The commentator's virtuosity will be held in check.'3 Already by 1939 anumber of BBC commentators, notably John Snagge andHoward Marshall, had learned the art of combining restraint
and excitement in a way that commentators in no other part of
the world had been able to achieve.
It is not easy to describe in words either the `arts' of thefeature or of the commentary. Not only (lo both date, so that,when recordings exist, neither the restraint nor the excitement
is always fully convincing; but more often there are no records.
The output has been lost in the air. Sieveking was haunted not
only by the `ghastly impermanence' of particular programmes
but by the thought that the medium of sound radio itself mightprove equally impermanent. `Perhaps it never can happen again.
Perhaps, and it is more than likely, this present decade will be
2*R. H. Eckersley to Station Directors, 7 Jan. 1927.
BBC Handbook (1939), pp. 6¢-67.

3

Ibid.

PROGRAMME PARADE

61

the only decade in the history of the human race which willknow the radio play, that strange curiosity which appeals tothe ear alone, just as three preceding decades may be the only
ones to know the silent film. Of course, they may survive, these
two struggling, limited forms of art; survive and move on side
by side with fuller developments appealing to more sensessight, scent, touch, indeed the whole "five parts of knowledge".»

In approaching radio as an art, BBC producers during the
I93os were not always able to discover the right set of relationships with planners and controllers, critics and the public.
The controllers sometimes seemed to be too distant and to be
operating at a quite different level; the critics seemed to beless interested in BBC programmes than in theatre productions,films, or concerts; and the public included millions of listeners
who did not seek to discriminate or to judge. 'The only way toenjoy broadcasting', Filson Young wrote, 'or to get out of it theart which it has to give you is to decide what you mean to listen
to, and listen carefully and critically to that.'2 He admitted,
however, as did other writers on broadcasting, that large
numbers of listeners used wireless merely to provide 'a new
type of auditory background for home life'. 'The housewife is
tempted to perform her household chores to the accompaniment of music or speech; at most times a background of soundaccompanies the process of eating; reading, writing, sewing andplaying games are all done with the background provided bybroadcasting.'3
Leaving on one side the response of the public, the organizational shape of broadcasting was changed on many occasions
throughout the late 192os and 193os. There were some people
who felt that while the `output' of the BBC increased, its`immense and intricate organization' was destructive both ofcreative art and vision.4 At least one of the biggest changesthat of 1933-was designed 'to enable the creative stair toconcentrate on their creative work',5 but complaints continued
2 Shall I Listen?, p. 16.
The Stuff of Radio, p. 41.
M. Dinwiddie, 'The Influence of Broadcasting on Modern Life' in the Transactions of the Royal Philosophical Society (Glasgow, 1936).
4 Shall I Listen?, p. 2.
5*Memorandum on Re -Organization, 21 Sept. 1933. For the background of
the new policy and the details of the changes, see below, pp. 439-46.
3

62

PROGRAMMES AND TILE PUBLIC-and have continued since-that the actual rules under which`creative work' was carried out were made and applied bypeople who were responsible for administration but not for thework itself. The `hierarchy' was inevitably a hierarchy of control, more interested in order than in creation. `Luckily', one
critic has written, `there were always plenty of obscure people
on the production side who did their jobs according to theirlights and not according to the book.» Peter Eckersley, theChief Engineer of the BBC during the Lg2os, has gone further.
'The BBC Governors have, up till now, been appointed by thehighest governmental authorities; these gods have made Governors in their own image. I would suggest men whose background was in the arts instead of "public service", however
worthy. This would ensure the appointment of an executive
staff likely to have originality and enthusiasm rather than an
ability to "fit in" to a large organisation.'z
Such opinions have been countered, of course, by manyothers. Reith himself, for example, always argued firmly that
BBC Governors should not include `delegates' from music or
letters. The validity of the conflicting opinions can best be
judged at the many points in this History where specificdecisions are being discussed. Yet Reith as Director-General
was never complacent about organization, and had no illusions
about the ability of committees or hierarchies to achieve 'thebest'. He genuinely admired `creative power' and did his best
to allow it to develop. It is interesting to note that Lance
Sieveking, who demanded the most imaginative experiments,
should have dedicated his Stuff of Radio to Reith 'who, like apatron in the Middle Ages, has made it possible for an art toflourish, by enabling artists and craftsmen to devote their lives
to its practice and development in freedom from any limitations save those which have seemed, to an ever modifying degree,
inherent in it'.
It was a just and warm tribute, and it rightly directed attention to the element of patronage which broadcasting carried
with it. In the absence of state patronage of the arts, the BBC
did much to provide it, subsidizing many cultural activities
more generously than many of its more `philistine' critics
2

M. Gorham, Sound and Fury (1948), p. 54.
1'. P. Eckersley, The Power Behind the Microphone (1941), p. 18.

PROGRAM IE PARADE

63

wished it to do. The patronage in music, for example, wasreflected not only in the taking over of the Promenade Concerts in 1927-thereby ensuring their survival'-but in subsidy
to opera and in the commissioning of new works, including an
Elgar symphony in 1933. 'Most powerful of all the agencies
extending interest in music,' Sir Henry Hadow wrote in 1931,'both in the width of its range and in the concentration of its
authority, is the BBC which affords to our composers their due
share of opportunity and gives them the whole civilized world
for audience.'2 To the university world also the BBC provided
much indirect patronage and far greater opportunities to influence the public than lecturers or professors had ever enjoyedbefore, either intra-murally or extra-murally.
There were, of course, problems concerning patronage whichwere at least as difficult as problems concerning show business.
Were the speakers whom the BBC employed a kind of clique?
Was independent music in danger when a public corporation
could build up the strength of the new orchestra while theLondon Symphony Orchestra was passing through a difficult
phase of its history?3 There was almost as much rumour surrounding the answers to questions of this kind as there was tittletattle about `radio personalities'. In fact, the files of the Talks
Department of the BBC reveal not only a relentless search for
new speakers but a great unwillingness to `over-work' particularspeakers, including its best-known speakers like Hilton. Similarly, although the Board of the London Symphony Orchestra
had taken the initiative in 1930 in `bombarding the Press withletters of protest against the BBC',4 four years later, when it
turned to the BBC for help, the help was willingly givens In
both 193o and 1934. the BBC was consistent in seeking to lower
admission charges to concerts, a policy m, hich was extremely
unpopular with existing musical institutions. It also fought forcheaper opera, and on at least one occasion in 1934. Reith
said that he would be prepared to consider a bigger subsidy toCovent Garden if cheap performances were arranged as part of
the regular season.6
See below, pp.

172-3.
W. H. Hadow, English Music (1931), p. 173.
3 See H.
Foss and N. Goodwin, London Symphony (1934), p. 129.
2

4
6

Ibid.
*Geoffrey Toye to V. H. Goldsmith, 9 Oct. 1934.

sIbid., p. 145.

64

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

In discussions with outside people and outside interests the
BBC was anxious to recruit the best. Some of the discussions-at the highest level-were carried out by Reith himself who

was a superb negotiator. Others, like the complex discussions
on opera, brought in T. Lochhead, the BBC's Chief Accountant,or V. H. Goldsmith, who in 1933 was given the title of Directorof Business Relations. Some were initiated at the departmental
level by the Director of Talks or the Head of Outside Broadcasts. There was a fascinating correspondence, for example, in1936 between the Director of Religious Broadcasting, the Rev.
F. A. Iremonger, and the contributors to a series on Church,
Community and State, who included T. S. Eliot. 'You will see',
Eliot wrote, 'that the group of problems that has been handed
to me is extremely bristly, and likely to become more soI can't help feeling that the lot has fallen on me to go down thedrain after the man-eating tiger.'
Many more discussions, however, sonic of them quite informal,
were carried on at a lower level by individual producers, thebest of them men who were brave enough to make independentjudgements as well as to rely on speakers' records from the past.
Some of the comments on speakers were refreshingly frank.
Sir Thomas Beecham, for instance, who had often made devastating comments about the BBC-music on the wireless, heonce said, was 'the most abominable row that ever stunned andcursed the human ear, a horrible gibbering, chortling andshrieking of devils and goblins'2-was given a very candid
report by George Barnes on his first BBC performance as aspeaker in April 1939. `Title of Talk-The London MusicalFestival: Script-Obvious, but lively towards the end Delivery-Supercilious: Production-Nervous, Difficult.'3
Occasionally there were difficulties between producers andthe directors of their departments and even with people higher
up in the BBC's organization. More frequently, however, thedifficulties-and the pleasures-of personal relationships wereappreciated most keenly by the producers. It is fascinating to
trace in the personal files of BBC speakers and artists thedevelopment of relationships. In July 1925, for instance, C. A.
1:*T. S. Eliot to Rev. F. A. Iremonger, 12 Nov. 1936.
Quoted in C. Reid, Thomas Beecham: An Independent Biography (1961), p. 196.
3 *Producer's Report on New Speaker,
May 1939.
I

2

1

PROGRAMME PARADE

65

Lewis had a telephone conversation with George Bernard Shaw
just after he had installed a Burndept four-valve wireless set andloudspeaker: his opinion of plays broadcast by the BBC was

.'d

'
1;
.y i
,int w
'
-a
a__i
°, ,
2 ; s,t:.
4,,

,

m

=

d>,

,

1

o
a

:ó

:rnLnXA¢4l

V

1.rvuñy+rl av<<let.,11,,. I ta^Y°!s`.
r.

p_.1-1,4,-.(1.
,o .d+.r` `ni,.LC{
.2-A.
,/
;
^
-.44,1!"441-

;
_'

.

U

V

J
W

=

ht .k'=kL-.--- ,wat,.,.._.k`1!,',".

t ma.- D1`dg

vt 5 yern- :°"''14'tn.j'IllG",.,."'{ ' -w} r4°-:.

t,h(.)L2`

9:k '/,,.r

t^,

.

A51

k,yu

3 , 9 '-..'1.-14^'
n

V.

z.t.

'7-,
,,,

jJ.
Yzqr,)
s
C
G

¢

=
rv

C

W

Ó <

it <
W

W

m

N

O

G'

.0.rw%`},: i,-1' dt.6,

a- -t'1
^

.

VQ`,x

2?
W

; W~m
J =;
<
Sq

0

Z
O

r'
11

o

C

y

F

Q

m

1
F

W

5.A Postcard from George Bernard Shaw

expressed in one word: `damnable'.' Early in 1928 Shaw was
refusing an invitation from Lance Sieveking to take the chairat a debate on the grounds that he never took the chair: 'thelisteners -in cannot see me sitting and do not want to hear mysilence'.'- Reith himself was drawn into correspondence, as he'
2*G. B. Shaw to C. A. Lewis, to July 1925.
`Note by G. B. Shaw appended to letter from L. Sieveking to Shaw, o Feb. 1928.

C 1995

1

FPROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

66

was on many occasions with individual broadcasters, in 1932.
Asked by Reith to take part in a series called Rungs of the Ladder,
Shaw replied, 'if ever there was a man who succeeded in spite of
his incompetence for helping himself that man is myself. I
never put my best foot forward, because I never put my footforward at all.'T.PT_.I

r.a. ,>

.

rt.I

1

CABLE AND WIRELESSSW 134ZA

139 ATHINAI12PEROWNE BROADCASTINGACCEPT EXCLUDING HATSHEPSUT

2

1820

=

HOUSE LONDONWOULD MUCH PREFER CRUSADES

STARK

NO

INWAT PISINCTINCTTIucIIAM CAN

AIrIIS SMOOtO

AA

GS

MANCAD IM

ATT.. TO vmMOO+ r
AT ONI

-

Or

N OF

T. COMPANY f O.riCff.

-.

INS COPT.

6. A Cable from Freya Stark

If Shaw's correspondence with producers and BBC officials,
including the Director -General, brings out the fascination ofa developing relationship, there are other files which bring out
the colour. Freya Stark's file is as full of postcards as Shaw's,
but whereas Shaw's are often postcards with terse and cryptic
I

SG. B. Shaw to Reith, 2 May 1932.

PROGRAMME PARADE

67

messages, Freya Stark's postcards from Italy announce her
return from exciting journeys. The romance was contagious.
Lionel Fielden wrote to her in 1934 about a programme which
would begin with a man ringing up Imperial Airways abouta journey to Persia. 'One could then work through anecdoteand description from Baghdad to Teheran with some description of the Shah; from Teheran down the Caspian; from the
Caspian to Meshed and across the Salt Desert to Ispahan. Then
we could take in Luristan and through to Shirez and Bushire."

While programmes were being initiated and assembled
through widening circles of personal contact, letters aboutprogrammes were pouring in from unknown listeners. The
result was a running commentary on what the BBC was doing,a commentary supplemented by the comments of radio critics
and the opinions of a number of paid advisers, of whom
Filson Young was the most important.
From May 1924 onwards listeners' letters had been scrutinized by a Programme Correspondence Section, started by
Ralph Wade. Letters were answered with punctilious care, notonly for reasons of public relations, but because they were felt
to provide some indication of the views of minorities.2 By 1927
letters were reaching Savoy Hill at the rate of over 50,000 ayear. Most of them were appreciative: 'very few indeed of thecritics really intend to be rude or cross.' In a representative lveek
in 1931, 699 letters concerning the National Programme wereappreciative and fifty-seven strongly critical. A tiny minority
consisted of short, simple messages on postcards like 'Your
programmes are rotten' or more picturesque descriptions ofmood, like `I hope your face is getting red with temper as you
read this.' Among the appreciative letters, it is interesting tonote how phrases like the `wonder of wireless' or the `miracle
in the home' persisted long after broadcasting had developed
its routines.

Appreciative or critical, however, few letter -writers admitted
that they were speaking for themselves alone. 'One will speak
on behalf of his whole circle of wireless friends; another for the
overwhelming majority of listeners in his vicinity; others-yetz'Lionel Fielden to Freya Stark, 7 June 1934.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 203-4.

68

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

more confident-voice the views of anything from 90 to 99
per cent. of the entire audience. The latter is a very favourite
percentage and is applicable impartially to any type of matterbroadcast.»

According to an early analysis of the letters, the impression
was overpowering that anything which anyone particularly disliked predominated in BBC programmes. 'To those to whom
dance music is anathema, it appears to be broadcast in every
programme. A listener who does not care for talks cannot switch
on without finding one in progress, and another who longs
for variety entertainment is utterly bewildered at the interminable transmissions of symphony concerts.'z
The limitations of readers' letters as a source of constructive
criticism or as a `representative sample' of listeners' opinions
were clearly recognized in the 193os : so too, however, was theirsociological interest. 'It is clearly not enough to count heads
in dealing with such correspondence', Hilda Matheson wrote:'it amply repays scrutiny, and deserves to be charted, indexed
and kept for reference not only by a remote statistical department, but by those who devise programmes, talks and plays.'3
The comments made by listeners are very similar to the comments recorded by Mass Observation in its surveys of the last
three years of peace. Values obtruded in almost every sentence,and there was great confusion between opinion and prejudice.
The number of letters received revealed a curious pattern of
preoccupation and protest, and there were certain set reactions
to particular stimuli. A broadcast of The Emperor Jones in May
1937 evoked eighty criticisms, practically all being directedagainst 'the frequency ofswearing' : any references to vivisection
or to inoculation were immediately followed by a spate ofangry letters.4
The responses of one week in March 1936 have survived infull. Nineteen complaints against a Roman Catholic service
were evoked by controversial references in the sermon to the
Reformation; an item called `Handel in Harlem' provokedthirty-seven criticisms as against six letters of appreciation;a talk by John Hilton on football pools elicited seventy-seven
BBC Handbook (1928), p. 19.
32 Ibid.
H. Matheson, `Listener Research in Broadcasting' in the Sociological Review,
4 R. \V. P. Cockburn to R. J. Silvey, July 1937.

vol. xxvii (1955).

PROGRAMME PARADE

69

appreciations and thirteen criticisms.' Hilton subsequently published a selection of comments from letters which provide
fascinating sociological evidence. 'The answer to "why dopeople bet?",' one of them read, 'is easy. In the early days
man sought the Elixir of Life.... Today it's the Irish Sweep andthe Football Pool, in other words, the impossible. Getting something for nothing.'2
Some of the letters received by the BBC, far from dwellingon attack, had a ring of Samuel Smiles about them. `I write to
you as a music lover, and I owe my love of the best in music toyou entirely.' `Ten years ago I was a schoolboy and my favourite
music was Jazz. Symphony orchestras just faintly bored me.
Then I began to listen to light overtures and Military bands... .
Through shorter pieces like overtures etc., I came to find that
I could listen to a full Symphony Orchestra with pleasure.'`Please let me know the dates of the Toscanini Concerts next
summer; it would enable me to decide on my summer holidays.'
In retrospect, letters of this kind are among the most interesting. During the late 193os, however, the public relations aspectof correspondence came to dominate BBC thinking in this field,
and in 1935 the Programme Correspondence Section was transferred to the Public Relations Division and placed under thesupervision of Maurice Farquharson.3 Ten years earlier C. R.
\Vade had written that 'even though a listener may be almost illiterate and very vituperative in his comments he has probably
many friends, and far more may depend upon the conciliatory
nature of our reply than may appear on the surface'.4 In otherwords, diplomacy was at least as necessary as analysis. The
diplomacy became more sophisticated as the number of listeners grew. At the same time, listeners' opinions were communicated to the Programme departments.. A summary sheetof correspondence received was circulated daily to heads ofdepartments, giving details of criticisms and appreciations, anda weekly summary was produced centrally. In the office ofAssistant Director of Programmes-from 193o on ards-alarge wall chart was kept, giving the figures for a whole year.5' *The information in BBC Archives relates to the week ending 7 Mar. 1936.
2 Why I Go In For The Pools (1936), p. 63.
3 *Internal Memorandum of io Oct. 1935.
4 *C. R. Wade, undated note, probably written late in 1925 or in
1926. C. R.
\Vade was Ralph Wade's brother.
5*The system was perfected in February 193o.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

70

Listeners' letters were always supplemented by press comment, with questions of public relations overlapping from thestart with considerations of criticism. `Newspaper criticism
has increased considerably during the last twelve months', aBBC spokesman remarked in 1932. `It is a valuable addition to
the BBC's sources of information. In many instances it is wellinformed and constructive. Its chief limitation, which should
tend to disappear, is that it is hardly seasoned enough to standcompletely on its own feet without too close a reference to thepreferences, real or imagined, of its readers. It has not yet won
for itself the independence of the best kind of general dramaticand musical criticism.»
The spokesman was referring to the 'preference polls' whichnewspapers felt that it was useful to conduct. Not surprisingly,
they showed 'the public's preference for entertainment'. An
early Daily Mail ballot of February 1927, for instance, showedthat of the 1,285,083 votes cast, 238,489 (nearly 20 per cent.) put`variety and concert parties' at the head of their programme
preferences, whereas 78,781, perhaps a surprisingly high figure,put symphony concerts first, and only 30,919 talks. 'We must
remember', Basil Nicolls wrote, 'that the results were based
purely on first choices with no proportional representation ofother tastes and, therefore, whether they confirm us or otherwise, they are fallacious.'2
Eight years later, Hilda Matheson made similar points ingreater detail. 'The fact that the largest number of entrants
give their votes for variety programmes does not mean thateven they want to hear variety programmes all the time; it does
not indicate what kind of variety programme they want, nor
their relative preference for musical items, for comic dialogue,
for humorous sketches and the rest.'3 Miss Matheson made thefurther point that listeners' reactions were influenced not only
by content but by style of presentation.
Technique in broadcasting, like style in literature, is not trimming, but the essence of its quality. It is, of course, of less importancein connection with straightforward concerts than with entertainment, plays, discussions, talks and general programme planning and
BBC rear Book (1932), p. io6.
*Nicolls to Roger Eckersley and \\ . E. G. Murray, 28 Feb. 1927.
3 `Listener Research in Broadcasting', loc. cit.
2

PROGRAMME PARADE

71

presentation.... It is possible to make unduly lofty claims for theart of broadcasting, but it is equally misguided to deny that broadcasting is in any way different from other kinds of popularisation.
Broadcasting is not mass projection, though it seems to be so. It is
an individual, even intimate, business. It has, moreover, its own
technical limitations and properties. An interesting line of researchwould aim at discovering how far the popularity and unpopularityof items was clue to presentation as opposed to content.

Miss Matheson had left the BBC when she made this penetrating observation on the nature of listeners' response to programmes. The press critics seldom probed so deep. Theircomments on particular programmes-plays or variety especially-often cancelled each other out far more convincingly than did
political opinions on the content of `controversial broadcasting'.
Similar observations to those made by Miss Matheson were
often made behind the scenes, however, by the paid advisers
whom the BBC consulted from time to time both about particular programmes and programme balance. Filson Young,

who wrote a weekly column in the Radio Times from 1926
onwards, was employed as a `programme consultant' from
September 1926 until his death in 1938. His letters and criticisms, often highly idiosyncratic, provide a fascinating gloss on
the programmes of a whole era.
At first Filson Young attended meetings of the Programme
Board, and he was encouraged not only to express any views`constructive or destructive' about what the BBC was doing but
to suggest new ideas for the future;' later, the scope of his work
was greatly restricted, and he became a far from popular
figure with many people inside Broadcasting House. He had
as much trouble with the Commissionaires as he had with theprogramme builders. The range of his interests was wide, andtwo of his own ideas for programmes were as far apart as theFoundations of Music series and the BBC `National Lectures'.z
He could also make acute, if one-sided, comments about Variety
and urge the BBC to broadcast racing odds: `I do not think thatany moral objection can attach to letting people know the*V. H. Goldsmith to Filson Young, 27 July 1926.
For those two programmes, see below, pp. 177, 127, 144. *For an acknowledgement of Filson Young's part in their initiation, see Reith to Filson Young, 24. Apr.
rg2g. Filson Young also devised the Bach Cantatas and the St. Hilary programmes
from Cornwall.
2

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

72

price at which a winning horse ran.'' He could be devastatingly
destructive, particularly about theatre organs, but he could also
be disarmingly flattering. One summer's evening in July 1937
he found everything to his satisfaction from a `little symphonyconcert conducted by Edward Clark to "Our Hour" with Flotsam and Jetsam. One could not expect to have such programmes
every evening, but they stood out in such striking contrast to
the general level as to give one rather seriously to think. This
especially applies to the Flotsam and Jetsam programmeperfectly delightful entertainment, full of music and variety
and fun and presented in an unpretentious way, w hich provesthat it is not necessary for this kind of programme to succeed,
to be blatant and vulgar. It is also interesting to notice that forthree out of these first-rate features we were indebted to no
outside assistance, but to the internal resources of Broadcasting
House.'z
Lindsay Wellington, who was then Presentation Director,
agreed, adding that 'it is difficult to know precisely why thesame ingredients, mixed in the same way, can sometimes givedifferent or inferior results'.3 The mystery remains, and because
it remains, men like Filson Young have always been necessary
if occasionally exasperating. Roger Eckersley found his assistance invaluable.4 At a later date Graves considered that he
was always `useful in being constructively critical during thedevelopment of any particular branch ofour work'.5 In between,
Dawnay agreed with this verdict,6 not knowing that just afterhe (Dawnay) had been appointed to a job of which he knew
so little, Filson Young wrote to a BBC colleague 'Do you thinkthat it would be a graceful, helpful and useful act on your partto send Dawnay a copy of my book "Shall I listen?" It would
at least give him some kind of grasp of the job he has totackle.'?
Filson Young felt that as the BBC grew in size, 'the science ofadministration' had 'to some extent overlaid the essentially:' *Filson Young to R. H. Eckersley, 13 Dec. 1933.
2*Filson Young to Eckersley, I July 1933.

*Note on Filson Young's letter.
*Eckersley to Carpendale, 2 Dec. 1931.
*Graves to Carpendale, 23 June 1937.
6 *Dawnay to Carpendale, 18 Sept. 1933.
7 *Filson Young to \V. E. G. Murray, 6 July 1933.
I

4
5

PROGRAMME PARADE

73

creative side of broadcasting, to its disadvantage'.' At the sametime he maintained, in face of new moves inside Broadcasting
House, that the programme policy of the BBC did not needdrastic revision. 'On the contrary, if it were suddenly to beplaced in the control of any other body, I beiieve that after someyears of experiment and experience they would arrive at verymuch the same point to which the present organisation has
attained.'z
In 1925 he had once suggested to Reith that 'any intelligent
person' could have taken the previous week's programmes
together and `rearranged them in a way that would deserve andsecure the appreciation of the majority of listeners without adding a single item'.3 He took up the same theme in 1934. 'If I
were asked what, in my opinion, would be the most advantageous single extension or change in the present programme policy,
it would be to break up the time plan which has now become
more or less standardized. I would advocate a monthly change
in the time -table of standardized features so that listeners who
are governed in their habits by Time should have a chance ofgreater variety.'4
He did not add that some of the staleness came from the factthat the better the broadcaster, the more he tended to be `used',and eventually the more stale he became. Individuals as well as
programme sequences could wilt. The BBC has never completely mastered the intricacies of either of these two sets ofproblems, and when it has tried, it has more often alienated thelistener than raised the level of programmes.5 When Hilton
was rested in 1937, for example, on the grounds that he was'in danger of being ruined by excessive publicity and success',
there was talk in the press about political pressure-which
was certainly not there. Hilton himself received many letterssuggesting that he had been `stood off from the microphone
because of capitalist wire pulling'.6
Filson Young's interest in listeners' habits went as deep as2
Ibid.
*Filson Young to Dawnay, 5 Mar. 1934.
*Filson Young to Reith, 24 Mar. 1925.
4 *Filson Young to Dawnay, 5 Mar. 1934.
5 For an instance of difficulties, see below, p. 241.
6 *Roger Wilson to Sir Richard Maconachie, 9 July 1937; Hilton to N. G.
Luker, io Feb. 1938.
3

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

74

that of the first sponsors of listener research. He was intuitive,
however, where they tried to be scientific, speculative rather
than sociological. 'What is to he the attitude of the ordinary

listener towards broadcasting? Is he going to regard it simply
as a means of filling the vacuum of idle hours, carping at everything which does not make immediate and facile appeal forhim and being amazed when the programmes are not continually filled with the kind of items that do so appeal?'t So
much pivoted on the answer to this question. It haunted theProgramme Revision Committees and stimulated the search
for information about listening habits. It led Dawnay to dismiss
from the reckoning `the tap listener who wants to have one ormore very light programmes available at all hours between
breakfast and bedtime'.Z Two years later Graves concluded
that while the `serious listeners', who selected their programmes
carefully, demanded the most serious attention, the demandsof 'tap listeners' warranted 'no further provision in programmes'.3
It is impossible to understand the programmes of the period
from 1927 to 1939 without realizing that a special service for'tap listeners' was explicitly rejected. So was a special service for`highbrows'. So too was the idea of `continuity' itself. 'The BBC
definitely aims at having an interval of four or five minutes
between programmes', it was stated officially in 1932. `It is
obvious that it is irritating to a listener who switches on his set
to hear, say, the News to find himself listening to the last fiveminutes of an opera or a vaudeville turn. The News is what heswitched on to hear, and he does not want to listen to a fractionof some other programme which for him has no beginning andno middle.'4
It was not that no one thought of special continuous services
for listeners who had not appreciated the power of the switch.
Lionel Fielden in his reminiscences says that he and his colleagues in the early 193os had definite plans for a `continuous
news programme always on the air, always available, always
being added to by the latest events', a programme of light music
and waltzes `without the intervention of any announcer', a pro 2 *Programme Revision Committee, 1934.
Shall I Listen?, p. 16.
*C. G. Graves, Report on Programme Revision, 1936.
4 BBC rear Book (1932), p. 1'5.
1

3

PROGRAMME PARADE

75

gramme of continuous readings from the classics, and a `Third'
programme `essentially highbrow'. He acids characteristically:`Reith, however, was very much against such specialisation,and I think now that he was right.»

2. Entertainment
ANY detailed consideration of the pattern of programmes must

begin with popular entertainment. Some listeners wanted the
BBC to entertain them all the time, most listeners wanted the
BBC to entertain them most of the time, all listeners wanted
the BBC to entertain diem some of the dine. `Variety is the"bread-and-butter" of broadcasting', one writer on radio remarked in 1934., but not all listeners agreed that it was perfectentertainment.2 There was no agreement, indeed, about what
constituted `entertainment', particularly when it was entertainment before the listeners' own firesides.
Leaving on one side philosophical questions about the relationship between `education' and `entertainment',3 there had
been immense changes in `popular entertainment' during thefifty years before the BBC came into existence. The `amateur'
had given ground to the professional, the theatre to the cinema;
spectator sport had become highly organized; music hall had
travelled far from its humble Victorian origins. As early as 1912,
the year of Hullo Ragtime at the Hippodrome, there had beena Royal Command Performance, with Harry Lauder, Vesta
Tilley, George Robey, and Wee Georgie \Vood; Oswald Stolland Edward Moss had created formidable institutions in 'show
business'; and huge London theatres like the Coliseum (1904)
and the Palladium (1910) staged spectacular entertainment on
a lavish scale. The gramophone -record industry had grown' The Natural Bent, p. 108.
The Times, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. t934.
See below, pp. 185-6.
* See my Mass Entertainment: the Origins of a Modern Industry, Joseph Cowen
Memorial Lecture, University of Adelaide (196o). There are not many detailed
monographs, but there is much of interest in E. Short, Fifty Years of Vaudeville (1946)
and A. E. Wilson, Half a Century of Entertainment (1951).
2
3

76

PROGRAMMES AND TIIE PUBLIC

prodigiously since the time of Edison's first discoveries. When
Edison died at the age of eighty-two in 1929, enormous concentrations of economic power were becoming almost as common in the entertainment world as they were in heavy industry.
The merger of the Victor Talking Machine Company andthe Radio Corporation of America in 1930 demonstrated thatacross the Atlantic there were strong business links between
radio manufacture, the gramophone -record trade, broadcasting, and the cinema. In Britain two years later E.M.I. (Electricand Musical Industries Ltd.) was formed as the result of amerger between the Columbia Graphophone Company and
the Gramophone Company-it was to be the first company toproduce cathode-ray tubes for television sets'-while in thesame year Gaumont-British Picture Corporation, the parent
company of the General Theatre Corporation, took over controlof Moss Empires Ltd. The Performer wrote of 'a movement towards monopoly in the entertainment world', and hoped that
this 'new and huge combination' between screen and stage
would encourage the artist rather than ruin him.2
These massive forces behind so-called 'mass entertainment'
were usually hidden from the public view. So too was the growthof the `agency business' and of the trade unions. In the foreground of the public view, spotlighted on and off the stage, werethe `stars'. Again, it was often forgotten that for every star, there
were scores of performers about whom the public knew nothingat all.

The BBC had given its first variety programme in January
1923 and its first programme of dance music, from the Carlton
Hotel, in May 1923. Light music, musical comedy, revue, andgramophone -record programmes were very early features ofthe broadcasting week.3 Stanford Robinson, whose BBC careerspans the whole history of broadcast music, had been a memberof the staff since 1923 and had been given charge of a BBC
Chorus as early as September 1924; Albert Sandler and his
orchestra had first broadcast from the Grand Hotel, Eastbourne
L. White, The American Radio (Chicago, 1947), P. 32; S. G. Sturmey, The
Economic Development of Radio (1958), p. 42.
2 The Performer, 7 Dec.
1932.
3 See The Birth of Broadcasting, esp. ch. V, section 2.

ENTERTAINMENT

77

in July 1925.1 Comedians like John Henry, `Blossom', andHelena 1\lillais, 'our Lizzie', had quickly established their radio
reputations.2 Christopher Stone, the first of the British 'discjockeys' and thereby `founder of a very exclusive profession',3
did not broadcast, however, until July 1927, and because of therestrictive clauses in the BBC's agreement with the news agencies
there were no running commentaries on sporting events until
the same year.4
Quiz contests and competitions were also held in check.
A resolution of the Control Board at a meeting in January 1926
had read that 'the conduct of competitions should be carefully
considered by the Programme Board before they were enteredinto by any department' and that under no circumstances wasmore than one a month to be held.s In 1930 a note was sent toall heads of programme branches stressing that the Board ofGovernors was 'in principle not in favour of competitions in our
programmes' and that all suggestions for competitions, outside
the scope of the Children's Hour, were to be referred to the

Director-General.6`Live' broadcasts from theatres and music halls had beenbanned-with only occasional exceptions-from 1923 to June
1925, when a strictly limited agreement had been signed with
Walter Payne, the chairman of Moss Empires and the presidentof the Society of West End Theatre Managers individual artists
had hitherto found their broadcasting act'vities severely curtailed by clauses in their contracts forbidding them to broadcast while their contracts were in force, or by intimidating letters
threatening no future theatre contracts should they perform on
the air.7 The 1925 agreement provided for the setting up of an`Entertainment Organizations Joint Broadcasting Committee',including BBC representatives and members of the four `Entertainment Associations'. Unfortunately the agreement did not
clear the air. Although its purpose was to `eliminate friction', infact it continued to circumscribe the BBC's field of enterprise.
:

Ibid., p. 278.

2
Ibid., pp. 285-8.
*Rex Palmer, in an interview with Christopher Stone, BBC Light Programme,
These Radio Times, 25 Apr. 1952.
4 For the agreement, see The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 130-4, 262-7.
3 *Control Board Minutes, 13 Jan. 1926.
6 *Assistant Director of Programmes, Memorandum of 9 July 1930.
7 See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 251 if.

'

3

78

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Moreover, Variety was left completely outside the terms of theagreement, since the Variety Artistes' Federation would notsign it. Walter Payne interpreted the Federation's position tomean that variety managers would have nothing to do with
the BBC unless generous compensation was paid for the use of
their artists. He saw no possibilities either of broadcasting enhancing the value of the artist to the variety theatre manager
or of the BBC creating artists itself.'
His views were expressed even more forcibly in 1926 whenCharles Gulliver of the London Theatres of Variety threatened
to take legal proceedings against the BBC if it broadcast his
artists without his consent. And Gulliver was totally unimpressedby a letter from Roger Eckersley of the BBC in ,January 1927
in which Eckersley wrote somewhat plaintively that he wished
he could persuade Gulliver that broadcasting should not bethought of as a serious rival of the theatre: 'the fact that we cangive no representation of the visual sense makes it to our minds
so tremendously non-competitive that it should not be considered nearly so much a rival as, shall we say, the cinema'.2
A further agreement with the four `Entertainment Associations' in January 1927 did little to improve the position. It
certainly did not break the stranglehold which the Association
could place on the BBC's programmes. In March I927 a furious
campaign against the BBC was launched by Gulliver, Sir
Oswald Stoll of the Palladium, and R. H. Gillespie of Moss
Empires. Abandoning their unqualified opposition to broadcasting as such, they demanded large block sums for the 'use'of their artists and threatened that they might seek to open abroadcasting station of their own. A statement issued by the
Joint Committee of the Entertainment Protection Association,
another of the `combinations' involved in the bargaining of thisperiod, remarked that `either the music hall industry shouldbe allowed to broadcast from a station of its own or that itshould control the broadcasting of variety from BBC studios'.
If the industry broadcast from BBC studios it should be paidby the Corporation 'so much of the BBC's net income as
represents the proportion that Variety entertainment bears to
the rest of the matter broadcast'. The statement at first sight' *Oral evidence of Walter Payne to the Crawford Committee, 18 Dec. 1925.

.2 *R.. H. Eckersley to Gulliver, 3 Jan. 1927.

ENTERTAINMENT

79

looks reasonable enough, but the emphasis was being placedon the demands of the `industry' not on the interests of theartist-or the public.

Popular entertainment, at this time, was the responsibility
within the BBC of no single knowledgeable and experienced
person. This was a great organizational weakness. In January
1927 R. E. Jeffrey, the first Productions Director of the BBC,was dealing with popular entertainment very much as a sideline-under the general direction of Roger Eckersley who hadtaken over the chairmanship of the Programme Board in May
1926. George Grossmith (`Gee -Gee' in the world of the footlights) was an experienced `entertainment adviser', recruited
direct from the theatre. Two other men with interesting careers
before them had already been brought in. Bertram Fryer, formerly the Station Director at Bournemouth, had been given
charge of popular music hall and variety productions: the wasa shrewd organizer and after leaving the BBC in 1932 he waslater to be connected with the production of `sponsored programmes' from Radio Normandie. His assistant was John
Sharman, 'a perfect type of the real pro': he had been on thehalls for several years `ana his cat act was a surefire success at
the annual staff pantomime'.' Sharman joined the London
organization temporarily at first, but then permanently, tohelp with studio work and light programmes. He and Fryer
were the two people most directly involved in daily problems
of production, and Stanford Robinson: with the musicalarrangements.
Although there was much sharing of offices in the Savoy
Hill days Jack Payne, for example, sharing an office with
Stanford Robinson, and enjoying good relations with the Music
Departments-there was perhaps insufficient exchange of views
and ideas between the forceful group of people inside the BBC
who were concerned with `education'4 and the few who wereconcerned with popular entertainment. There was a tendency
M. Gorham, Sound and Fury (1948), p. 33.
For Stanford Robinson, see below, pp. 94-95, 182.
3 `I
rather expected the cold shoulder from the Music Department, whichhandled straight and serious music,' Jack Payne wrote, 'but everyone was mosthelpful.' Signature Tune, p. 42.
See below, p. 187.
2

8o

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

for `Talks' to think that `Variety' was vulgar and `Variety' that

`Talks' should not exist.'
One of the most lively, tough, vigorous-and knowledgeable-persons inside the BBC on its entertainment side was Gerald
Cock, the man who first broke the deadlock with entrenched
sporting and entertainment interests. Cock had enjoyed aninteresting and adventurous life before he joined the BBC in
1925 as Director of Outside Broadcasts he was later to be placedin charge of the BBC's Television Service, in 1935, one year
before the first regular television service began.2
As Director of Outside Broadcasts, Cock dealt with everything from royal broadcasts to the Cup Final and the Boat
Race. The year 1927 saw an enormous increase in the work of
his department, since from 1 January onwards the Corporation
was permitted for the first time to give full running commentaries on sporting events. The first commentary on a rugby
match, between England and Wales, was given on 15 January
and on a soccer cup -tie on 29 January. During the following
month several commentaries on international matches werebroadcast. The Grand National followed in March-with theInter -Varsity Sports a day later-the Boat Race on 2 April, theAmateur Golf Championship on 28 May (with Bernard Darwin), and Wimbledon in July (with J. C. Squire as one of thecommentators).
At first it was felt, in a very erudite simile, that 'the perfectcommentator, like the economic man, so convenient to the
hypotheses of the nineteenth-century philosophers, does notexist'.3 Yet the BBC soon brought many of them into existence-Captain H. B. T. Wakelam, who was the very first rugby
commentator on 15 January 1927 and covered, in addition,soccer, cricket, and tennis (the last-named along with Colonel
R. H. Brand) ; John Snagge, first employed by the BBC at its
Stoke-on-Trent studio, and one of the most versatile as well as
the most distinguished of all the BBC's commentators; Freddie
Grisewood, still loved by broadcast audiences; George Allison:

L. Fielden, The Natural Ben! (196o), p. 1o3; cf. M. Gorham, Sound and Fury,
p. 33. 'In that small building, we were always running across the popular broadcasters of the timeeven administrators were always meeting them in the lift
and in the corridors.'
2 See below, pp. 596-604.
3 See above, p. 6o. BBC Handbook (1928), p. 140.

...

ENTERTAINMENT

81

of Arsenal fame; and Howard Marshall, records of whose voice
still recapture the forgotten thrill of test matches.
Gerald Cock was the man behind all these other men. But
it was not only with sporting events that lie was concerned. It
was his task also to give the ordinary listener the feeling that
he was participating in great events and sharing in unseen
pleasures-events like the ceremony and service at the unveiling of the Memorial Arch at the Menin Gate at Ypres in
July 1927 or the Westminster Abbey Thanksgiving Service forthe recovery of King George V from serious illness in July 1929,
and pleasures like the Royal Command Variety Performance inFebruary 1927, a Gracie Fields excerpt from The Show's theThing in January 1930, or the Promenade Concerts.' It was not
until Cock left Outside Broadcasts for television in 1935 thatthe responsibilities of the Outside Broadcasts Department were
cut to exclude outside dance music, `restaurant, cinema andother O.B. orchestras, cinema organs and O.B. light music
generally'.z
Not only was Cock the man behind the increasingly popularannouncers and commentators on outside events, the people
who had a ringside view cf great occasions of state and every
sporting event in the calendar: he was also the negotiator behindthe scenes, completely hidden from public view, in the complex
bargaining with sporting and entertainment interests which
made the broadcasting of sport and variety possible. Cock was'an indomitable worker', as Roger Eckersley once described
him :3 in the words of another writer, he was the man who had
given to broadcasting 'many realistic touches'.4 Yet he worked
with slender resources both in Outside Broadcasts and later in
Television. In 1927 he had only one programme assistant tohelp him and in 1934. only five.
Inevitably much of his work depended on the skill andenterprise of Outside Broadcasts engineers, who played a largepart in the development of the wide range of activities associatedwith outside broadcasting. H. H. Thompson was in charge, andR. H. Wood, who started outside broadcasting work with the
For Promenade Concerts, see below, pp. 572-3.

*Director of Internal Administration, Internal Instruction, no. 313, 27 Aug. 1935.
R. H. Eckersley, The BBC and .411 That (1946), p. 85.
S. A. Moseley, 'Vito 's lVho in Broadcasting (1933), p. 36.
C 1995

G

82

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

BBC in 1923, was in charge of the London Outside Broadcasts
Engineering Unit after him through his long record of continu:

ous service, he has been able to meet and know large numbersof people in all walks of life. He has also been able to takepart in the development of outside broadcasting techniques fromthe early days of the cumbersome carbon microphone and thefirst large Outside Broadcasts lorry of 1929.

It was as a result of Cock's initiative and energy that an agreement was prepared in February 1928 whereby Reginald Foort
was allowed to broadcast a series of theatre -organ recitals fromthe Palladium.' In October 1928 a much more important generalagreement was signed with George Black, recently appointed
Director of the General Theatre Corporation, a man of great
drive and enthusiasm, who subsequently in 1932 made a merger
with the Moss Empires organization and thereby became controller of most of Britain's best music halls. Although Walter
Payne tried to persuade Black to stand out against the BBC-as
he had already stood out against the idea of variety performances inside cinemas-regular fortnightly broadcasts fromBlack's biggest theatre, the Palladium, began in October 1928.
They were popular from the start with listeners, but they were
bitterly criticized by the Variety Artistes' Federation.2 Broadcasters were accused of `giving their talents away', although, asBlack pointed out, they had the option of refusing the BBC ifthey wished and they were paid an additional fee by the BBC
if their turns were broadcast. 'Our new policy with regard to
the General Theatre Corporation is one of benevolence',
Eckersley wrote gratefully later in 1928.3
The agreement with Black was so much more satisfactory
to the BBC than the 1925 agreement with Walter Payne, as
modified in 1907, that in November 1928 Roger Eckersley told
Payne that the Corporation did not intend to renew theiragreement with him when it lapsed on 31 December.4 Payne
was in an `explosive mood', and a stormy meeting followed in
I *Cock to Castleton Knight, 21 Feb. 1928. The agreement was signed in April
and Foort gave his first broadcast on 14 April.
z The Performer, 10 Oct. 1928.
3 *Undated Memorandum, `General Theatre Corporation'.
4 *R. H. Eckersley to Walter Payne, 16 Nov. 1928. The full text of the letter ismissing from the BBC Archives.

ENTERTAINMENT

83

January 1929.1 The BBC stood by its decision, however, and theEntertainment Organizations Joint Broadcasting Committee

lapsed. A separate agreement was also signed with Sir Oswald
Stoll in December 1928 whereby relays were to be arranged
from the Alhambra, Leicester Square. Stoll had approached the
BBC through a useful intermediary, Archibald Haddon, hischief publicity officer, who had previously been a dramatic
critic with the BBC.2
The first broadcasts from the Alhambra were arranged in
February 1929 and the Coliseum broadcasts a fortnight later.
`It is a mistake to suppose that Sir Oswald has at any time been
opposed to broadcasting', a press release conveniently stated;`indeed, he has himself broadcast in America with gratifying
results.'3 Stoll himself recognized, as he told his shareholders
later in 1929, that `history is being rapidly made in the entertainment world: variety theatres, dramatic theatres, soundtheatres, silent theatres, new theatres and old theatres, and incircumstances which are changing almost daily'.4
Personal relations with Stoll remained good, as they did alsowith Walter Payne and H. M. Tennent, who was also connected with Moss Empires until he founded the enterprising
firm which bore his name. `I got to know Payne very well',Roger Eckersley wrote, 'and he was always a very good friend
to me and very helpful.' George Black, he thought, was 'oneof the most immaculately dressed people I ever inet'.5 Other
members of the BBC staff often complained about his 'Napoleonic' postures-the phrase recurs-hut few denied that, as
one BBC Director of Variety was to put it, he was a great man,'one of the very greatest that ever graced the lighter side of thetheatre'.6
As a result of these agreements and understandings, wellknown variety turns began to be brought before the listener inbroadcasting seasons which assured him of at least one outside
The meeting was held on 17 Jan. 1929. R. II. Eckersley, George Grossmith,and Cock represented the BBC. *For a note on Payne's mood, see Cock to
Eckersley, 22 Nov. 1928. 'It is not exaggerating to say that he "blew up"
andthat we, from the Governors down, ought to be ashamed of ourselves.'
2 *R. A. M. Dix to Cock, 21 Nov. 1928.
3 Stoll Theatres News Service, Press Release, 24 Jan. 1929.
4 Ibid., 31 Oct. 1929.
S
The BBC and All That, p. 149.
6 EricMaschwitz, No Chip on My Shoulder (196o), p. 72.

...

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

84

performance from a London music hall each week. In 1929 hecould hear popular artists like Jackie Coogan, Marie Burke,
and Flotsam and Jetsam. Not all the stars and programmes,
however, were of the Palladium and Coliseum type. Some
well-known stage variety artists were surprisingly temperamental, finding broadcasting 'a much greater strain than artists
do on the legitimate stage'.' There was long felt to be a dearthof comedians, particularly of comedians who could write theirown material. `In these days, when songs are only written in
the first instances as dance music, with the lyrics added alter, theso-called humour that these songs contain is often pitiful.'2 Some
promising comedians complained also that their material, which
under old conditions would last the length of a tour of the wholecountry, was killed by a single broadcast. Clapham and Dwyer,
for example, who first broadcast as a pair in 1926, were not very
keen at first: 'we had only one act at that time and we really
didn't want to give it away to thousands listening in'.3
Given such limits, there had to be a persistent search fortalent. Between 1,50o and 2,000 aspiring artists were given
auditions each year in the late 192os and early 193os, with lessthan 1 per cent. reaching the standard required.4 Fortunately,some new artists made their mark with the BBC. The BBC Year
Book for 1931, for example, describing the previous year's programmes, referred to Gillie Potter and Ronald Frankau as
comedians `worthy of the intelligence of the public' they provided, it said, 'the type of comedy that deserves and gets success, the type that will become more and more prevalent'. It
added that `broadcast vaudeville has attracted a large publicwhich does not in the ordinary course of events patronise themusic halls. It is for these listeners as well as the others that thequieter type of vaudeville is broadcast.'5
The difficulties of successfully presenting `theatre turns'
were never minimized. Juggling, dancing, trick cycling, and:BBC Handbook (1928), p. t t 9. There was also a problem of straight nervousness.
Elsie and Doris waters, who became such expert broadcasters, were so nervous on
their first broadcast that they called down `stern reprimands on the spurious mirthwith which they essayed to conceal it'. Another artist actually fainted when she
saw the light flick her signal to start. Seel Payne, Signature Tune (1947), p. 38.
a BBC rear Book (1931), p. 207.
3
* These Radio Times, BBC Light Programme, 6 Oct. 1951.
+ BBC Tear Book (1931), p. 209.
5 Ibid., pp. 207-9.
1

ENTERTAINMENT

85

acrobatics were obviously ruled out, like ballet: there was, infact, one conjurer billed in 1927, presumably a conjurer with arunning commentary. This was a period when people talked of`hearing' the Derby or the Cup Final, a habit that would havebeen meaningless to people of any other age except the blind.'
The hearing was far from `straight', for broadcasting was still
beset vith technical and production difficulties. In retrospectthey usually seem as distant as the difficulties of the silent screen,
although they were serious enough at the time. Roars oflaughter, we are told, ruined an act by Will Hay from the
Palladium in 1929 by `overwhelming the microphone': if thishad not been so, the turn would have `ranked high'.2
There had been earlier trouble of a different kind at the
Palladium in 1928, when the police complained that theatre organ recitals interfered with the work of the nearby magistrates'
court. Copyright was also a perpetual problem, this time tolawyers, not to engineers. There was a lawsuit in 1928, for example, over the BBC production of the musical comedy The
Little Michus; and because owners of the copyright of musicalcomedies feared that broadcasting would harm them, such
popular musical comedies as The Geisha and The Merry Widow
could never be broadcast. Nor could full performances ofGilbert
and Sullivan.
Dance music was easy to broadcast, but there were awkward
problems in this kind of programme also. Complaints of 'song
plugging' were made frequently in 1928 and 1929, the firstControl Board minute on this subject dating back to February
I928. The minute suggested that to deal with the possible 'use'of dance -band leaders-through subsidy-by the writers andpublishers of songs, the aid of the Popular Music Publishers'
Association should be enlisted.3 In fact, dozens of meetings
were held during the following decade-the first of them in
April 19284-scores of resolutions passed, and many different
procedures adopted without the problem of song plugging being
solved. Questions were even asked in the House of Commons. One of Gerald Cock's most drastic solutions was physical.
NI. Gorham, Broadcasting and Television Since r(1952), p. 68.
BBC Year Book (193o), p. 238.
3
'Control Board Minutes, 9 Feb. 1928.
4 Ibid., 12 Apr. 1928. There is a vast amount of material in the BBC Archives
on this subject.
2

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

86

He suggested in February 1929 that dance -band leaders should
not be allowed to use announcing microphones. 'This will prevent leaders from telling the public what number they haveplayed or are about to play.' `Should there be any tendency toshout the number into the announcing microphone,' he added,'the latter can be faded down between each number."Neither the dance orchestras, the Performing Right Society,the newspapers, nor presumably the song writers liked thisdrastic arrangement, which was dropped in October 1929.2
Gerald Cock was annoyed that the editor of the Radio Times had
left unexplained why the practice of not announcing numbers
had been adopted. It looked like cussedness, he complained, androused the annoyance of a public which was clamouring for
more light entertainment. In the same complaint he criticizedhis colleagues in public relations for not making clear that the
BBC's refusal to pay a sum of L5o to charity for the right tobroadcast the Cup Final was based on principle and not on amiserly desire to starve the public of the kind of entertainment
it wantcd.3

Despite all the difficulties, there were important developments in broadcast popular entertainment during the late 192os
and early 193os. Without ever being caught up in the bigger
world of show business, the BBC successfully organized its own
enterprises and created its own artists, not only comedians but
artists of all kinds, in face of outside restraints and criticisms.
In February 1928 Jack Payne was given the title of Directorof the BBC Dance Orchestra: he took with him to Savoy Hillthe band which had previously broadcast frequently from the
Hotel Cecil. It consisted of ten players (as against Sidney Fir man's six), and his signature tune 'Say it with Music' quickly
became popular throughout the country. Jack Payne has told
his own story with great skill and colour-of how he took up*Memorandum by Gerald Cock, 19 Feb. 1929.
*Control Board Minutes, 12 Mar. 1928; Memorandum from Cock to Station
Directors, 15 Oct. 7929. In July 1933 the quite different procedure was followedifof having a special BBC official to watch over programmes and `empowered,theneed be, to take positive action, including the banning of offenders frommicrophone for a period of at least six months'. (Memorandum by Nicolls, 14 July
1933)
1929.
3 * Memorandum by Cock, 9 Apr.
2

ENTERTAINMENT

87

dance -band leadership in the Midlands when the post-war
public was asking for more and more dance music, of his engagement at the Hotel Cecil in London, of how he yearned to
be travelling along 'the new road' of broadcasting himself, andof how he worked his way into the BBC with Roger Eckersley's
help.'From

THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
Telephone:
Telegrams:

TEAIPLE BAR 8400

SAVOY DILL,ETHANUZE, LONDONLONDON, W.C.2.
DATE AS OSTMA11K

Mr. Jack Payne has asked us to thank you very much forycur letter of recent date and he is glad that you appreciate
the work of his dance orchestra. All requests are noted,
but it is not always possible to include them on particulardays owing to the great numbers received.
7. Jack Payne's Popularity

His first contract covered much more than the broadcastingof late-evening dance music: he was expected also to provide
a light orchestra for revues and vaudeville programmes andincidental music for radio plays, if necessary with augmented
numbers.2 The orchestra was entirely his own, and he paid hismusicians. At first it was called, misleadingly, 'the BBC Dance
Orchestra, personally conducted by Jack Payne'. In August
1928 it became 'Jack Payne and the BBC Dance Orchestra',and in November 1929, correctly, at his request, 'Jack Payne
and his BBC Dance Orchestra'. By then the orchestra was felt
to have a well-known `collective personality', outside as well as
inside the BBC, and the number of players had risen to fourteen.
Payne's contractual position had greatly improved also. The
orchestra had two more members by February 1932, when
Payne left the BBC to begin a successful career on the stage andin the dance halls.
I

J. Payne, Signature Tune, particularly pp. 118-37. Cf. Eckersley, The BBC and

All That, p. 147.
2 Firman's band had also been used at first for Variety and Revue accompaniments, but it had dropped out of this work by Aug. 1927.

88

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

jack Payne's move from the BBC was treated as a `sensation'
on many of the newspaper placards. An artist who had madehis name with the BBC was going into 'show business'a reversal of what was still felt to be the normal procedure.
Yet Payne was now in a position to make far more money commercially than lie had ever done through sound radio.t His
successor at the BBC was Henry Hall, then thirty-three years ofage and the controller of thirty-two bands playing at London,
Midland, and Scottish Railway Hotels.2 Hall started with anorchestra of fourteen players, including an oboe player, the firsttime one had ever been included in a dance orchestra. Changes
were quickly made, however, the oboe player being dropped
and the brass section being extendecl.3 Seven hundred applications had been received for the first fourteen places in the band.3
Hall's first broadcast was on 15 March 1932, the first occasion
on which a Broadcasting House studio was employed: it
started two minutes late because the preceding programme had
run over, and consisted of ten tunes which Hall considered
would provide rhythm, harmony, and variety and give adequate
expression to the capabilities of the new combinations
Before long the scope of his programmes had been considerably widened, for he believed that the surest way of forfeiting
listeners' good opinions was to lead them to believe 'he had
only one shot in his locker'. He was always looking for what thepress called 'Hall Marks'.6 His `guest nights', first broadcast in
1934, were popular not only in Britain but were occasionallyrebroadcast in the United States and Canada. Jack Payne's
orchestra continued to broadcast from time to time, but Henry
Hall himself quickly became a popular and versatile radio`personality'. He even appeared on the stage at Radiolympia
in 1933. His signature tune `Here's to the Next Time' was composed by Roger Eckersley: it was also the first piece of music
played from the BBC's new Broadcasting House.? Hall admitted
later in life that he owed almost everything to the BBC, aremark which inspired a comment from Collie Knox that he' Signature Tune, p. 71.
H. Hall, Here's to the Next Time (1955), p. 83.
BBC rear Book (1933), pp. 166-7.
4 *BBC Press Release, 24 Feb. 1932.
6 here's to the Next Time, pp.
i, 115.
7
The BBC and All That, p. 79.
=

1

1

S

Ibid., 14 Mar. 1932.

ENTERTAINMENT89

was probably the only human being alive or dead 'who has
got out of that extraordinary institution exactly what hewanted'. t

The second big development in the BBC was the creation of
a separate `Revue and Vaudeville Section' of the Production
Department in March 1930. This was part of a bigger reorganization. In January 1929 R. E. Jeffrey had been transferredfrom the Productions Department to the Production Research
Section, a little group of people, with Lance Sieveking in their
midst, browsing through the whole range of BBC programmes
and initiating experiments wherever they could.2 Jeffrey leftthe BBC soon afterwards) His successor as Productions Director
was Val Gielgud, who had been working as an assistant on theRadio Times-leis first job was editing a page of listeners' letters-but who, after graduating through BBC amateur dramatics,
was quickly caught up in professional radio drama, in bothproduction and research.4 Although it was serious drama rasher
than variety which interested Gielgud most, it was he who was
responsible for staging the first variety programmes in a proper theatrical setting, with floodlights, chorus girls, and even(controversially) a studio audience.
It was Gielgud and Gladstone Murray who brought from
Belfast to London John Watt, a young and energetic producer,
who had made a mark with `shoe -string' revue productions in
the Belfast studio. Watt was given charge of the new Revue
Section in 193o. The Vaudeville Section consisted of Fryer,
Sharman, and Denis Freeman, and Watt worked alongside
Gordon McConnel and Doris Arnold. McConnel had worked
in the Research Section with Sieveking and Gielgucl;5 Doris
Arnold, who was to become well known to listeners everywherewith her programme These You Have Loved (1938), had started
her career as a BBC stenographer.6 Doris Arnold and McConnel
Collie Knox, People of Quality (1947), p. 234.
For the Research Department, see below, pp. 16o ff.
3 For Jeffrey and his work, see V. Gielgud, British Radio Drama, í922-1956(1957),
pp. 20-21, 241f.; The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 281-3.
4 For Gielgud's work in radio drama, see below, pp. 16o -g.
s His position there had been considered 'a little anomalous', but he insisted
when he moved to his new post that 'the theoretical freedom which he hadenjoyed had rendered his routine work much less arduous'. * Internal Memorandum
by V. H. Goldsmith, 9 Jan. 1930.
2

90

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

joined in 1932 by Harry S. Pepper, a great characterin show business, born and brought up in it. His father, \Vill
C. Pepper, had founded the famous Concert Party, 'The WhiteCoons', on Mumbles Pier in the summer of 1899, and Harry
was proud to revive the show in radio form in August 1932.1 The
performers included Elsie and Doris V\ aters, Wynne Ajello,
and C. Denier Warren. Pepper and Doris Arnold shared the
pianos and quickly became broadcasting partners in song andmusic acts. They were to marry in 1943.
There were many new `departures' both in revue and vaudeville under the new régime. The most significant of them inretrospect were the first `series' programmes. John Watt's Songs
From the Shows began its long run in April 1931, Music Hall its
even longer run in March 1932.2 Harry S. Pepper's WhiteCoons' Concert Party was the third of the series.
Music Hall was one of the first programmes to be broadcast
with an invited audience, and it brought to the microphone
both well -established artists and new ones. Among the latter
were Flanagan and Allen, who were first heard in 1932. The
curious link between amateur and professional in the early
history of BBC light entertainment is demonstrated by the factthat the stage equipment for the first performance of MusicHall was borrowed from the BBC Amateur Dramatic Society.
The first White Coons' Concert Party broadcast was followed in January 1933 by the Kentucky Minstrels: only Doris
Arnold and Harry S. Pepper had much confidence in the idea
behind the new show, that of reviving a 'real old-time black faced, "Sit around" show, as in the days of Moore and Burgess', but their confidence soon proved abundantly justified.
Pepper wrote the signature tune and the hit song of 1934,`Carry me back to green green pastures'. Leslie \Voodgate wasalso associated with the show from the start as conductor of thechoir of thirty singers, and Scott and \Vhaley were the two
extremely popular comedians.
Revivals of this kind have always had a place in show business. Val Gielgud, however, planned to write a new style ofradio operetta, `musicals' particularly adapted to sound radio.
It was with this in mind that he approached Eric Maschwitz,
m ere' Radio Times, 25 Aug. 1932.
2*These Radio Times, BBC Light Programme, 13 Oct. 1951.

ENTERTAINMENT

91

who had been his editor while he worked on the Radio Times,
was passionately interested both in writing and in the stage,
and was married to Hermione Gingold. Maschwitz had started
work in the BBC as a member of the Outside Broadcasts
Department in 1926, and his first nine months had been spentin `uproarious occasions with Gerald Cock at theatres, footballmatches and the like' and church services, which were his special
responsibility. On the death of Walter Fuller, the talented andcultured editor of the Radio Times, in September 1927, Maschwitz had taken over, first as acting and then as establishededitor.'
The Radio Times then and later was a centre of inspiration in
relation to the entertainment side of broadcasting. In addition
to Gielgud, Maschwitz also had under his direction Laurence
Gilliam, who later became Head of Features,2 and Maurice
Gorham, his art editor, who was to have an extremely varied
and lively BBC career as editor of the Radio Times, Director of
the North American Service, Head of the Light Programme,and Head of Television. Gorham has also written copiously
about the history both of the BBC and of broadcasting as a
Nvliole.3

The milieu was favourable, but Maschwitz had individual
gifts which would have pushed him to the forefront in a quite
different kind of organization. He wrote the words of the bestselling popular song, `These Foolish Things', with melody
by Jack Strachey and went on to co-operate with George
Posford in the kind of operetta about which Gielgud had
dreamed. The result was Good Night, Vienna, finished in 1932.
The operetta was broadcast for the first time-with great
success-in 1932. The BBC was not to have the monopoly of
the new kind of musical. Maschwitz was rung up the day after
the broadcast by Herbert Wilcox, the film producer, with anoffer to buy the film rights. The result was the first musicaltalkie made in Britain, with Anna Neagle and Jack Buchanan
For Fuller's contribution to BBC history, see M. Gorham, Sound and Fury,
particularly pp. 11-12, 22, 27-28; No Chip on My Shoulder, p. 51; The Birth of
1

Broadcasting, p. 306.

For Gilliam and his work, see below, pp. 112-13, 167-9.
See particularly the two books frequently cited in the footnotes of this History-Sound and Fury, an autobiography, and Broadcasting and Television since rgoo,
a general survey.
2
3

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

92

as stars. 'So', writes Maschwitz, `I became, almost by accident,a lyric writer and in a sense a musical playwright too."
There was no accident about his later career. He continued
to write radio shows and to take an interest in films, visited
Hollywood, and through both his social life and his work on
the Radio Times met many of the people whom he was later to
employ. In the meantime, Val Gielgud was finding himself

overworked in the Production Department. There was morethan enough to do with radio drama by itself `without troublinghimself with ukelele players and comedians'.z In 1933, therefore, there was a change in internal organization within theBBC, which marked the beginnings of really effective machinery
for the development of popular entertainment. A quite separate
Variety Department was created, and Maschwitz was put incharge of it.
Roger Eckersley has said that he `seduced' Maschwitz fromthe Radio Times.3 In fact, there had been long and heartsearching discussions in the BBC during the year 1932 about thewhole future of its policy for popular entertainment. After themove to Broadcasting House, it was decided that the popular
entertainment side of broadcasting should receive much more
attention: the development of the Empire Service gave added
force to the decision.4 So too did the increasing public appealof commercial programmes broadcast from Radio Normandie
and Radio Luxembourg.5 Finally, there was a new crisis in
the BBC's dealings with outside entertainment interests.
George Black had been extremely irritated in 1931 when the
BBC proposed, for reasons of' economy during the financial
crisis, that relays from the Palladium should cease, at least as
a temporary measure.6 Perhaps in consequence, in October1931 he reimposed the broadcasting ban on his artists which he
had lifted in 1928.7 Cock understood Black's `point of view as
a businessman' and warned Roger Eckersley that 'the whole of
my original six months of difficult negotiations to remove "bans"from stage artists in vaudeville threatens now to be nullified'.
No Chip on Afy Shoulder, p. 57.
3

Ibid., p. 64.

42

The BBC and All That, p. 79.

For the Empire Service, see below, pp. 369 if.

See below, pp. 35o if.
*Cock to Black, 7 Oct. 1931. For the financial crisis and its effects, see below,
p. 556.
7 *Lance Sieveking to Cock, 7 Oct. 1931.
5

6

ENTERTAINMENT

93

He argued rightly that the decision to cease the Palladium
relays had been a `false economy', and had led to what Black
thought was a breach of faith.' Gielgud backed him up. `Either
we must undertake a battle to the death with Black and the
G.T.C. for the complete independence of our vaudeville artists',
he told Eckersley, 'or else we must admit a blunder and getout of it as best we can.' A battle would be both wasteful andfutile. 'We are not in a position to offer any artiste a complete
livelihood, and an attempt to mobilise public opinion on ourside would be a double-edged weapon.'2 Black controlled onethird of the BBC's artists, and he was, after all, `representing anorganisation' just as the BBC was.
With these considerations in mind Cock persuaded Black,with Gielgud and Eckersley's approval, immediately to cancel
the ban on condition that the relays restarted.3 Unfortunately
Black remained suspicious and throughout the rest of the 193os,
as his power increased, his suspicions of the BBC increased.
The merger between the General Theatre Corporation andMoss Empires in 1932 gave Black control over both circuits,
and he imposed bans intermittently-and somewhat arbitrarily-on many of the army of artists whose livelihood he controlled.
Despite his ostensible lilting of the ban in October 1932, by theend of the year he had withheld permission to broadcast from
Dajos Bela's Orchestra, Layton and Johnstone, Norman Long,
and Max Miller, though their performances had all been advertised in the Radio Times.4
Confronted by Black, the BBC looked around for alliesother managements, some of the independent theatricalagencies, the gramophone -record companies, Equity, and the
Variety Artistes' Federation-but above all, it searched for its
own artists. In January 1933, a few months before Maschwitz
was appointed to his new post, a BBC memorandum react, 'weshould definitely refuse either to pay the G.T.C. a subsidy or' *Cock to R. H. Eckersley, 7 Oct. í93r. `Seeing that I held Black with us
against the strongest possible pressure from the managements wishing to exercise
a general ban on BBC Variety [cf. Gillespie and Stoll's threats and even Walter
Payne's prophecies] I feel I hale to a certain extent personally been obliged to
2 *Gielgud to R. H. Eckersley, 8 Oct. 1931.
break faith with him.'
3 *Cock to R. H. Eckersley, 8 Oct. 1931.
Vaudeville{ *Memorandum by Cock, `Resumption of G.T.C. studios' bans on
Artists', 16 Dec. 1932; further Memorandum of 19 Dec. 1932; Daily Express,
21 Dec. 1932.

94

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

fee per artist, and further refuse to make any commitment which
would in effect make BBC vaudeville a publicity medium for
G.T.C.... \Ve can pull through quite comfortably, with therecording companies' co-operation as a trump card.»
It was around this time that a long cool look at `entertainment' policy was beginning to clarify what the BBC could andcould not do. It shared with the theatre a shortage of `entertain-

ment material', yet it could not or would not call upon thefinancial resources of the largest theatre managers. Whereas
in the United States commercial sponsors were willing to spend
up to 25,000 dollars on a single hour's programme, and `professional broadcasters' of light entertainment were able to makelarge incomes by concentrating on radio work alone, in Britain
the costs of individual broadcasts were severely restricted. The
BBC thus had little chance of creating and retaining performers
who would remain radio artists, developing their performanceson lines most suited to broadcasting. There were genuine difficulties not only in business dealings with the theatre but in theadaptation for radio of a basic tradition of popular entertainment
which was visual, gregarious, and ribald. The slicker and moresophisticated side of entertainment, associated with the revue,
could easily become so slick and sophisticated that it ceased to
he popular at all.
As a result of the changes of 1933, Gielgud remained Headof the Productions Department with four producers and a teamof three researchers, while Maschwitz had seven producersMcConnel for light opera and old-time musical comedy, Wattand Pepper for revue and concert -party work, Freeman andMark Lubbock (`one of the few old Etonians who can ever
have danced in the chorus of a London show')2 for radio
operettas and `light productions', and Sharman and Webster
for vaudeville and music hall, the latter concentrating on
Empire programmes. In addition he had Stanford Robinson as
Music Director,3 Henry Hall and the Dance Orchestra, Doris
Arnold as Musical Assistant to Watt and Pepper, and Jean
Melville as an extra accompanist. The responsibility for `studioi *Memorandum by Cock,'Resumption of G.T.C. studios' bans on Vaudeville
Artists', 2 Jan. 1933.
2
No Chip on My Shoulder, p. 65.
3
He did not get this title until Sept. 1934. See below, p. 182.

ENTERTAINMENT

95

management, effects, balance and control' was left with Gielgud,
but Brian Michie and his 'effects staff' and Askew and his`balance and control staff' were to work equally with both
departments.'
The `effects staff' was one of the most interesting units in theBBC. Beg'nning with hand effects only, the members of theeffects unit soon guaranteed to produce any noise required.
Some of them were to have distinguished careers in production.
Brian Michie was an ex-L.C.C. schoolmaster; C. A. Ladbrookand George Inns had started their BBC careers as messengers.
They provided an invaluable link between drama and featureson the one hand and light entertainment on the other.2 Michie
was very warmly praised by Maschwitz when the changes of1933 took place. 'He knows studio work backwards, has acalm nerve, an occasional touch of inspiration and, very important, an unassuming manner which is greatly appreciated by ourartists.'3 With such a testimonial, it is not surprising that Michie
was soon transferred to production work and became an interviewer in In Town Tonight.
The `balance and control staff' had been entrusted since theearliest days of broadcasting with the responsibility of placing
microphones in the studios so that they would achieve thecorrect balance and of regulating volume so that it did not overload the transmitters. After 1933 the stage managers andmembers of 'the balance and control section' were known as`studio assistants' and the `effects staff' as `junior studio assistants'.4 Changes in title involved, in this case, some real changes
in function. They reflected developments in studio technique,which are far from easy to trace in exact chronological sequence.
Rex Haworth, working with Stanford Robinson and Gordon
McConnel, showed great ingenuity in dealing with the technicalpresentation of musical comedy and light opera. Work of thiskind called upon the imagination of the engineer as well as his
technical knowledge, and by 1939 'the balance and control
staff' were working directly under F. W. Alexander as Head
Programme Engineer.
*Memorandum from the Controller, 31 Mar. 1933.
2
3

4

See also below, pp. 165 8.
Memorandum by Maschwitz, `Variety Department Staff', to May 1933.
*Infernal Instruction, no. 291, 2 Jan. 1935.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC
One of the basic developments of the 193os was the improvement of studio acoustics. The earliest studios at Savoy Hill had
been very heavily damped with felt on the walls and ceilings,
and there had been a lavish use of curtains. It was not until
1927 that attempts were made to increase reverberation bycovering the felted walls with paper so that sound quality
would be lighter and more lively. In the preparations for themove to Broadcasting House, H. \V. L. Kirke and R. Howeof the Engineering Research Department experimented withsound -absorbing materials, which were later used in the newstudios, and when additional studios were opened at Maida
Vale in 1934, resonant floors were introduced along withresonant dados of wood with an air space between panel andwall.'
Acoustics was-and is-a very inexact science, the study ofwhich had been long neglected in Britain. Some of the best acoustic conditions were associated with buildings where no special
precautions had been taken. The lounge of the Grand Hotelat Eastbourne, for example, where Albert Sandler played, was amodel in this respect. The desirable 'echo effect' there led toattempts to introduce `artificial echo' to BBC studio output, andecho -room techniques were developed by the BBC's Engineering Research Department long before they became essential tothe equipment of certain kinds of 'pop' singer.2 Many otherspecial devices were associated with the Production Group ofstudios on the sixth and seventh floors of Iroacicasting House.
Studio 6D, like the Effects Studio at Savoy Hill, was equippedwith machines for the production of every conceivable noise,
including a large tank for water noises, a wind machine,suspended sheets for thunder, and even a barrel organ. Studio
6E, with elaborate electrical controls, contained six gramophone
turntables to be used for `mixing' a variety of noises, including
applause.3
Within the studios, much depended on the evolution of`microphone techniques'. Four different designs of microphone
96

Paper by Kirke and Howe to the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1936.
See also paper by H. Bishop,
2 BBC Handbook (1929), pp. 298-301.
3 BBC rear Book (1932), p. 74. It was the policy of the BBC throughout the 193os
not to introduce artificial applause into studio programmes.

ENTERTAINMENT

97

were employed between 1927 and I939.1 The Round-Sykes
electro -dynamic microphone, which had been a very valuable
instrument because of its silent background, had been in generaluse since the earliest (lays of broadcasting. It had, however, asmall angle of sensitivity, in front only, and outside this angle
it was sensitive only to low frequencies. This did not prevent
it from being disturbed by draughts and movement. The Reiss
carbon granule microphone was introduced in 1926. It had
a good frequency response, but had trouble with `s's and wasprone to `blasting' in loud passages and hiss in weak passages.
Yet it was more sensitive than the Round-Sykes microphone,and it remained in service until the late 193os. The moving -coilmicrophone-of American origin-was smaller and had a silent
background. It was used experimentally in 1932, and in greatly
improved form is still used in outside broadcasts-most of which
require multiple -microphone techniques.2 The angle of sensitivity was not so wide as tl:e Reiss, but its frequency response
was better and it did not `blast'.
Lastly, the BBC ribbon microphone, designed by F. S1'.
Alexander of the BBC in 1934, represented a revolutionary
advance. It had the enormous advantage of being sensitive forabout 120 degrees both at the front and the back, and of having
two dead sectors of about 6o degrees on either side. The frequency response did not vary, however, in the horizontal plane.
Its value in variety-as in drama and radio discussion workwas obvious, and it became the standard studio microphone in
1936. It had the additional advantage of being cheap. The
Marconi Company sold it for about £9 as against the price of£40 for the moving -coil microphone.
Advantageous though the new microphone obviously was,its development by engineers was not fully co-ordinated with thework of the producers, and there was some friction between
producers, who had become used to less highly developed
microphones, and engineers who were interested in technicalperfection. The eventual result, however, was closer liaison
between engineers and producers. R. T. B. Wynn, Senior
There was also a fifth, the condenser microphone, used in various forms
experimentally between 1927 and 1939. The first example, the Western Electric
Microphone, is illustrated in the BBC Handbook (1929), p. 302. The condenser
microphone was to become a service microphone during the 195os.
2 See BBC rear Book (1932), 'The Technique of Outside Broadcasts', pp. 345-7-

c 1995

11

98

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Superintendent Engineer in charge of Operations and Maintenance, was appointed as the representative of the Engineering
Department to maintain close liaison formally through a Microphone Committee and informally in many ways. This side of
BBC engineering has a special fascination of its own.
One main problem ín liaison was not solved until the Second
World War. There was no adequate control of `continuity'.
The centralization of continuity and control in the main Control Room on the eighth floor at the top of Broadcasting House
could often lead to tension between programme producers andjunior engineers-and incidentally to strange incongruities forthe listener, like the fading back to dance music after the firstbulletin on King George V's serious illness in 1936. The broadcasting of the unforgettable remarks of Lieut.-Commander
Woodrooffe at the Spithead Review of May 1937, beginningwith the phrase 'The Fleet is all lit up', was a further demonstration of the inflexibility of the centralized Control Room. It
was not until after 1939, however, that a new de -centralized
continuity system came into operation.' It had been suggested
first by Wynn as a direct result of the Woodrooflé incident, andit was designed by C. H. Colborn. The system consisted essentially of two rooms separated by a glass panel and sound insulated from each other. One was manned by a technicaloperator who was provided with technical facilities for selecting
and mixing programmes and checking quality. The other wasan announcing studio manned by the presentation announcer
for the programme or network. The latter was responsible formaking quick decisions about the running of the programme
and for making stop -gap announcements. Other countries
followed the BBC in developing this `continuity system', which
was so efficient that it quickly became taken for granted, likeso many of the achievements of the engineers.
Other aspects of the relationship between engineers and programme producers centred on the development of recording.2
The idea of `bottled programmes' had been mooted as early
as 1927-partly as a device for ensuring the provision of repeat
For this account, which cannot be traced in the Archives, I am grateful to theHon. R. T. B. Wynn. For information on microphones 1 am grateful to Dr. F. W.
Alexander.
2
See also above, p. 6.

ENTERT \INMIENT

99

programmes in an Empire Service so that in different timezones listeners could listen at convenient hourst-and dicta phones were used in 1927 to record both a rugby match between England and \Vales and the Grand National. It was not,however, until after I3lattner's development of the 1925 Stilleelectro -magnetic machine for recording programmes on steel
wire or tape that recording became a practical possibility, if
still a very cumbrous one.2 The value of the machine lay in thefact that immediate play -back was possible along with electrical
editing and `wiping' of the tape for re -use. Carpendale andAslibridge visited the Blattner studios at Elstree in 1929,3 andin 1931 a Blattnerplionc recording machine was installed at
Savoy Hill. It was transferred in 1932 to the seventh floor of
Broadcasting House and supplemented by other machines ofimproved design. H. L. Fletcher, who became first Recorded
Programmes Executive in ,January 1934,4 was the kind ofimaginative person who could see a direct link between engineering techniques and programme production, even though theBlattnerphone was an awkward piece of apparatus and thecutting of steel tapes was a hazardous procedure, requiring`battleship'-driving machinery.
Fletcher used the new apparatus to experiment with sound.
Pieces of Tape (1932) was produced from a number of Blattner phone tapes recorded during the year. Stars in their Courses(1933) featured Dame Irene Vanbrugh, Fay Compton, Sir
Frank Benson, and Matheson Lang. The use of the techniquein news programmes was obvious,s and Radio Gazette (1935)
pointed the way forward to such popular programmes of the
future as Radio Newsreel. 'We have built a number of pro' *Beadle to Reid', 12 May 1927. Beadle referred in this interesting memorandum on the `General Principles of an Empire Broadcasting Scheme' to `CaptainEckersley's "bottled programme" idea'. Eckersley was thinking of recording oniron wire at this time. A BBC engineer was sent to Berlin to investigate German
developments in 1927. Keith's Report to the Board of Governors, 15 June 1927.
2 See J. \V. Godfrey, 'The History of BBC Sound Recording' in the
Journal of
the British Sound Recording Association.
3*Control Board Minutes, 9 Dec. 1929.
4 *Internal Memorandum, no.2J4. Fletcher, who had been transferred in March
1933 from Programme Routine to a new Recorded Programmes Section, wasassigned the task of providing a link between the Technical Recording Section (inthe Engineering Branch) and the Programme Services Executive, R. J. F. Howgill.
At the same time a separate Gramophone Section was set up.
5 See below,
p. 155.

I00

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

grammes from records', Fletcher wrote as early as January
1934, including `guessing games' and `retrospective programmes'
like What's On In Town? 'in which an overseas visitor returns
to the Dominions and describes his experiences'. 'The use ofrecorded material', lie added, `involves a definite working knowledge [on the part of producers] of a new and special techniquewhich arises from the special nature of the new machinery
employed.'! When Thomas Jones first heard of it in 1933 he
was more guarded in his reception of the new invention, which
he described as 'new marvels in the behaviour of electrons inrecording human wisdom-and folly'.z
If Blattnerphone made recording feasible, it also left ít
expensive, and even after the introduction of the MarconiStille machine in 1934.3-six machines were installed in pairs,
at Maida Vale-the search for alternative methods of recording
continued. There were technical difficulties, too, associatedwith `wow', the wavering of pitch, and `plop', extraneous disturbances. BBC engineers were always searching for a better
process, and the development of flat-disc recording produced in1933 what in many ways was a far more flexible system. Cecil
Watts, the Managing Director of the Marguerite Sound Studios
in Old Compton Street, worked with zinc or aluminium discrecording-the discs had a lacquer or acetate surface-and the
BBC began to co-operate with Watts in October.4 The results
were found to be sufficiently satisfactory for the BBC to prefer
his apparatus to that of German competitors. The number ofWatts discs used inside the BBC in 1936 was double that in1935. Disc editing became possible, and John Lock of theEngineering Division developed a mechanism to locate theexact groove on each disc on which an incident or even a word
was recorded.
George Inns was one of the first highly skilled operators of
this equipment as of so much else, and one of the first deliberateuses of editing was in the recording of the speech of the Garter
King at Arms at the proclamation of George VI. With only theoriginal voice being used, a repeated spoonerism-`our right*Fletcher to Dawnay, 12 Jan. 1934.
T. Jones, A Diary with Letters (1954), p. 89.
visited Chelmsford to inspect
3 *On g Nov. 1933 MacLarty, Howe, and Patrick'=

this model.
4 *Bishop to Watts, 24 Oct. 1933.

ENTERTAINMENT

IOI

liegeful Lord' instead of 'our rightful liege Lord'-was corrected, after the Garter King at Arms and the Director -General
had given their consent. The record was long used as a test ofediting skill for trainees.' Such selective editing was also usedin the Empire Service to cut recordings of home programmes
which would otherwise have taken up too much time.
It is interesting to note that while editing was being used
for these innocent purposes in Broadcasting House, its moresinister possibilities were being recognized in Germany. The
more general use of recording was held back in Britain, partly
for reasons of cost-gramophone disc -recording and excerpts
from the sound track of films were particularly expensive2partly because there was a very powerful feeling in almost all
programme departments that it was better to broadcast `live'.
`If an hour's programme requires to be recorded on wax forany special reason', the Variety Executive wrote in 1936, 'it
must be borne in mind that this is a very costly business andcannot be done unless there are some very special reasons forit.'3 `If artists know they are being recorded and a re -take canbe made if they "fluff",' another BBC official put it, 'they tend
to give a mediocre performance. A live broadcast, with theartist having a "this is it" feeling when the red light comes on,
gives the most satisfaction to listeners.'4
Recording, nonetheless, made producers more conscious of`quality production' and ultimately may have made some ofthem, at least, less afraid of working without scripts. `In the
Savoy Hill days, we never had scripts', one of the Houston
Sisters recalled Iater.s Yet by 1935 scripts were almost obligatory
in light entertainment as elsewhere.6 Another aspect of recording, which later revolutionized light entertainment, wasvery slow to develop before 1939-the recording of outside
broadcasts. A 3o -cwt. Morris Commercial truck was bought in' For this story, which cannot be traced in the Archives, I am grateful to Mr.
H. L. Fletcher, who has also provided me with much other useful information about

recording.
1935 the BBC realized that it would be useful to have engineers with
2 Ingramophone -company experience, and F. H. Dart was brought in with this inmind.
3 *Note by M. M. Dewar, 25 Mar. 1936.
4 Note by R. C. Patrick, to whom I am grateful for information on this subject.
*BBC Programme, These Radio Times, 3 Nov. 1951.
See J. C. Cannell, In Town Tonight (1935), pp. 21-22.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

102

1935, but there was a tendency inside the BBC to regard it asa toy and there were disputes both about its control and its use.

Two more trucks were bought and both were equipped with
Watts recorders, yet they were so huge and unwieldy that they
were ultimately used as static channels during the Second
World War. L. F. Lewis suggested, more practically, in 1936
that recording apparatus might also he fitted into a lighter
touring car, but it was not until September 1938 that a Chrysler
was bought for this purpose. It was the war which gave mobile
recording the great boost it had never had in time of peace.
In this as in so many other branches of broadcasting, theordinary listener, when he listened, had no conception of thecomplexities of organization which lay behind even the lightestof light entertainment. By the very nature of broadcasting, thebest results could be obtained only through the willing cooperation-at the programme level-of the producer and theengineer. Lynton Fletcher always saw the importance of this.
So did R. T. B. \Vynn. Fletcher was not sure, in fact, whether hisplace should be with programmes or with administration. He
thought of the manipulation of technique as `creative' in itself,a field for experiment as well as a field of service. Wynn shifted
attention from the 'big' engineering problems, associated with
the Regional Scheme or with Empire broadcasting, to what
\sent on in the studio itself.
That difficulties remained is shown by the history of the lastof the systems of recording tried out during the 193os-thePhilips-Miller system. Apparatus for this system was producedin Holland and was first employed by the BBC on a trial basis
in October 1936.1 It was a reliable but expensive film -type
recorder system, and it guaranteed better quality than any
system previously used.2 As such it naturally commended itself
to the engineers for many types of recording. The Programme
Departments, however, were less impressed. They had been
asking for more Blattnerphone and Watts disc apparatus andfailing to get it, through no fault of the engineers. Now it seemed
that, with the more expensive apparatus, they were going to
be able to record less than they had recorded before. They
clashed with the engineers also on the question of the ease of2*For the beginning of negotiations, ,Jardine Brown to Meys, 5 Dec. 1935.
*L. \V. Hayes to Felix Greene, 29 jan. 1937.

ENTERTAINMENT

103

editing the products of the new system.' The result of the difference of opinion, as might have been expected, was a compromise. Philips-Miller apparatus was acquired, but more of
the other apparatus was acquired also. Gielgucl collected theopinions of his colleagues and recommended this compromisein May 1937.2
Techniques helped to shape BBC programmes, but the main
theme of Eric Maschwitz's régime as Director of Variety from
1933 to 1937 was not technique but romance. This was the`romantic era' in popular entertainment, with a deliberateemphasis on gaiety, colour, and movement.3 The mood wasquite different from that of the first BBC shows of the 1920s,
many of them hearty and uninvolved. It was not that simplicity
was discarded-the BBC Year Books speak, indeed, of a reaction
against `cleverness'-but the simplicity related to techniques,
not to style and tastes.4 Symbolic of the new period was
Maschwitz's Balalaika, written in collaboration with George
Posford and originally entitled The Gay Hussar. The story ofwhat happened to the production of Balalaika, as told by Maschwitz, is almost as exciting as the plot itself:5 so too is the storyof what happened to Variety.
This was the golden age of nostalgic light music, mainly
sweet but sometimes bitter-sweet, as the title of Noel Coward's
highly successful musical play of 1929 expressed it.6 Good Night,
Vienna was revived in 1933 as deliberate `radio operetta', alongwith a number of studio -produced musical comedies. In 1934
Gordon McConnel's production of The Lilac Domino-themusic by Charles Cuvillier-and John Watt's version of Show
Boat-the great Drury Lane triumph of 1928 with music by
Jerome Kern and libretto by Oscar Hammerstein-weregreatly appreciated. Bitter Sweet followed in 1935, as part of the*Note by Fletcher, 9 Feb. 1937.
*Note by Val Gielgud, 26 May 1937. See also Control Board Minutes, 291111C
1937; Bishop to Jardine Brown, 2', Oct. 1937; Jardine Brown to Meys, 26 Oct.
1937. The agreement between the Philips Company and the BBC was signed on
3o Nov. 1938.
3 6There Radio Times, BBC Light Programme, 13 Oct. 1951.
BBC rear Book (1935), p. 57. See also above, pp. 57-61.
s For the fascinating detailed story of this musical play, see No Chip an My
Shoulder, ch. vii.
6 The title was suggested by Alfred Lunt. See Fifty rears of Vaudeville, p. 182.
a

I04

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Silver Jubilee Festival, along with a revival of The Geisha. The
Student Prince and The Vagabond King (with Bebe Daniels in theleading part) followed in 1936. It says much for Maschwitz's
initiative that there was a spate of original BBC musical plays

and operettas to vie with such established stage successes. While
Gordon McConnel and Henrik Ege were specializing in the
difficult art of compressing 150 -minute theatre shows into 75
minutes, they and other writers were at the same time producing
such brand new BBC shows as Never Talk to Strangers, Three
Cornered Hat, and Money for Jam (1936).
Maschwitz did four important things in his tenure of officefrom 1933 to 1937. First, lie started a new BBC Theatre, St.
George's Hall, across from Broadcasting House in Langham
Place. Second, he pushed towards its logical conclusion thepolicy of encouraging new performers and new `runs' or `series'
of shows, of which Songs From the Shows, Music Hall, The WhiteCoons, and The Kentucky Minstrels had been early examples.
Third, he introduced many new ideas into popular entertainment, from the unscripted Christmas party to the `symphonic'
treatment of dance music. Fourth, he interested the press andthe public in what he was doing. For the first time the doingsof the BBC became news in the entertainment world. Behindthe scenes, Maschwitz was often conscious of almost overwhelming difficulties-the intermittent bans were one, the overwork
another-but they were seldom allowed to darken the gaiety
and colour of the picture as a whole.
The opening of St. George's Hall in Langham Place on 25
November 1933 was not only a sign that Broadcasting House
was too small but that broadcast popular entertainment hadreached a position of independence.' The theatre had been
empty for only a few months since the last performance of
Jasper Maskelyne's White Magic, and the BBC acquired it after
quick and straightforward negotiations. Maschwitz took overa large room above the theatre where he enjoyed what he has
described as 'a pleasant sense of escape from the growing formality of existence at Broadcasting House'. The members of
the Variety team called each other by their first names, ate anddrank together, and 'were friends'.2' The first broadcast from St. George's Hall had been given earlier-on 23 Oct.

1933

2

No Chip on My Shoulder, p. 7o.

a

`J

,

)/

.

a
1

Lo

..

,.
pi

L

(a) An Early Outside Broadcasts Hut(b) A Cup Tie
Corinthians v. Newcastle United (1927) with
George Allison commentating

r

f

(c)

The Boat Race (t 928)

8. Outside Broadcastingr1(a) Jack Payne and the BBC Dance Orchestra (1928)(b) Noel Coward and Henry Hall (1934)

9.

The Entertainers

z(a) Richard NIuctloch and
Arthur ,\skcv in Rand
aggon (193.8)
I

""'
et
,
_

- '
-__ .Itt:s-.

.,'t,

.

NY.

!

J 1
(b) St. George's Hall (1938)

to. Variety

I

'I

I

(a) Microphones used by the BBC(b) Listening Room (1932), re-named Studio
Control Cubicle, 1939

(Ribbon, Reisz, and Moving Coil)

.

s

^
-

r

.

r 'fiT

..4

C!
'7

P

.

ite

(c) The Dramatic Control Panel (1934)

n. Behind the Scenes

ENTERTAINMENT

I05

There were new faces too-A. \V. (`Bill') Hanson, the first
producer of In Town Tonight, whose unfortunate death inJanuary 1938 robbed broadcasting of a very talented producer;'
Max Kester, the son of a Yorkshire journalist and cartoonist;
Ernest Longstaffe, later of Palace of Varieties fame, who had
once posted showbills for Karno and had written and produced
broadcasts (including the Bee Bee Cabaret) as early as 1926
before becoming a full-time member of the BBC staff in May
1935;2 and Charles Shadwell, who was appointed Conductor
and Music Assistant in the BBC Variety Department in May
1936. Maschwitz recognized the importance of building up a
staff, the members of which would be capable of `writing up asituation or improving artists' material' :3 Shadwell, with his
loud and infectious laugh, was certainly to be remarkably
effective in bringing the best out of the material which wasthere, from Music Hall to war-time Garrison Theatre.
A further new appointment was that of Theatre Organise. In
the autumn of 1936 a theatre organ was installed at St.. George's
Hall, and it was decided to find an experienced permanentorganist rather than to employ a number of people on programme contract. The appointment was authorized in June
1936,4 and Reginald Foort was appointed in Novembers He
broadcast frequently until, in 1938, he followed Jack Payne's
example and appeared as an 'act' ín music halls, carrying ahuge organ round with him. By then his fan mail amounted to
4,000 letters a year. There were other artists appearing in St.
George's Hall who turned to the stage after they had made their
BBC reputation-even Christopher Stone once appeared on thestage of the Palladium-and it vas from St. George's Hall thatthe weekly Music Hall programme was broadcast. Harry S.
' *`I like the idea of Hanson, and think sse should get him at once', Maschwitz
wrote to Eckersley on to May 1933. He called Hanson 'an ideal man for a job inwhich adult good sense, business ability and a flair for production are essential'
and said that his appointment was urgently needed if his own appointment 'is tobear fruit'. For Hanson's own story, see In Town Tonight, pp. 78-87.
the2
S. A. Moseley, Who's Who in Broadcasting (1933), p. 95; *Memorandum on
Variety Department Staff, 17 May 1935.
*Maschwitz, 'Staff Writers for the Variety Department', 13 June 1934.
4 *Dewar to C. H. Brewer, 29 June 1936.
s *BBC Press Release, 20 Oct. 1936, describes the organ. Foort also wrote a BBC
pamphlet on the working of the organ, which he described as 'the grandest. mostversatile, most satisfying theatre organ in the world'.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

I06

Pepper has written, indeed, not of 'the romantic era' but of 'theSt. George's Hall era of Variety'.
Maschwitz's second achievement was to discover new performers, including performers from the provinces, and toincrease the number of regular `series' of broadcasts, widening
the range to include programmes quite different in scope andstyle from Music hall. In 1934. alone the new performers
included Vic Oliver, Tod Slaughter, Claude Dampier, andSandy Powell. Other performers who made their reputations
with the BBC, as Mabel Constanduros and John Henry hadclone, were Leonard Henry, Clapham and Dwyer, Ronald
Frankau, Elsie and Doris Waters, John Tilley, Les Allen, Gillie
Potter, Elizabeth Welch, Olive Groves, Bertha Wilmott, AnonaWinn, Tessa Deane, Alexander and Mose, 'Mrs. Feather' (Jeanne(le Casalis), Adele Dixon, Arthur Marshall, and Beryl Orde.
'We should do all that we can to discover and groom suchstars', Maschwitz wrote in 1936, when the was complaining
along the old familiar lines of a shortage of comedians and`stars'. `Occasionally', he added, 'they drop like manna out ofheaven', like Arthur Marshall and Beryl Orde, but more usually
they had to be `discovered' and `trained'. With this object inview, he suggested (abortively) an 'act building' department andencouraged the appointment of `Variety apprentices', young
people who made a good impression at auditions and were
thought capable of becoming `first-rate broadcasters'.' He also
gave his support to a young Canadian producer, Carroll Levis,
who in 1937 put before him the idea of programmes of amateur`discoveries' just when Maschwitz's own ideas for new programmes were running out:
I wanna be discovered, Mr. Levis,
Now don't you think that I've got what it takes,
My family think I'm good, of course, that's understood,
But somehow I can never get the breaks.

There was some doubt as to whether this song could go on theair, when it had Levis's name in the title and when other songs`dealing with milk bars, tea, etc. had all been banned'. The song,
like the idea, stayed.
' *Memorandum of 14 Mar. 1935; `Memorandum on Microphone Talent',
3 Mar.

1936.

107

ENTERTAINMENTIn the meantime, while the critics were praising 'the brusquesatire of Gillie Potter, the deprecating shyness of John Tilley,
the off -hand jokes of Christopher Stone, "Stainless Stephen's"
punctilious pronunciation and the never -risky riskiness of A. J.
Alan',1 there had been a quite remarkable spate of new programmes. The first of them was In Town Tonight which was firstbroadcast on 18 November 1933, with its signature tune, Eric
Coates's `Knightsbridge March', chosen by Maschwitz himself.
The idea of In Town Tonight was a by-product of Maschwitz's
experience on the Radio Times: the programme was to be a 'shop
window for any topical feature that might bob up too late to
be included in the Radio Times' .2 For years there had been spacesin the published programmes labelled `Surprise Item' Maschwitz and Bill Hanson set out in November 1933 to pack thesurprise items together in an attractive parcel.
The form of the programme was decided upon only on themorning of the first performance-the 'roar of London's traffic',
the flower girl murmuring `sweet violets', and the `stentorian
shout' of `stop!' Freddie Grisewood was the first-normallyquite unstentorian-shouter.3 The first programme, like so manyof the first programmes of series which eventual_y became quite
exceptional successes, was not a great success. Before long, however, the programme established itself as a popular favourite,
bringing to the microphone at the same time each week agreat medley of characters who either lived in or were visiting
London. A sense of spontaneity was achieved, and Coates's
signature tune became as well known as the programme itself.
There seemed to be a danger of success leading to staleness,and in October 1935 the programme was incorporated in a
Saturday Magazine, one of the earliest weekly magazine programmes. There were so many protests about its disappearance,
however, that it was restored in its own right in 1937. `There is
no doubt', the North Regional Programme Director wrote to
Hanson in June 1937, 'that In Town Tonight is still one of themost popular features, and one hears many regrets in thisRegion that it should have been stopped.'3 'We in Northern
Ireland', wrote the Northern Ireland Regional Programme:

The Times, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. 1934.
No Chip on My Shoulder. p. 67.
See F. Grisewood, Al) Story of the BBC (1959), pp. 168-70.
4 *Salt to Hanson, 28 June 1937.
2
7

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

IO8

Director, 'are inclined to give extremely sympathetic attention
to anything emanating from London and so to take In Town
Tonight perhaps even more enthusiastically than most of theRegions with the exception of Scotland.» This quixotic remark
was, surprisingly enough, corroborated from Glasgow where
the Regional Programme Director talked of Scottish listeners
to whom 'it is the very elixir of life to be transported on Saturdays to the hub of their heaven'.2
Among the other radio series which began between 1933
and 1937 was music from the Café Colette, `designed to present
continental dance music as an alternative to American jazz'3-one of the first of several BBC programmes (July 1933) whichsought, with music from \Valford Hyden, to recreate the atmosphere of Budapest or Paris in a London studio. Others were
Honeymoon in Paris (1934.), a radio operetta by Cecil Lewis andAusten Croom-Johnson; The Red Sarafan (1935), with Russianmusic in a Parisian night-club setting; and, more authentic, aprogramme of songs by Josephine Baker in October 1933.
Late -night monthly revues, on the lines of those of Noel
Coward, were organized by Denis Freeman, with words mainly
by Jack Strachey, and brought to the microphone sophisticatedWest End artists like Nelson Keys, Hermione Gingold, Greta
Keller, Eileen Hunter, Elizabeth Welch and-a further French
touchJean Sablon, borrowed, along with Marion Harris, thecrooner, from the Café de Paris. Maschwitz's best-selling song,`These Foolish Things', also had reminiscences of Paris, withthe line 'wild strawberries only seven francs a kilo' sounding far
more nostalgic today than 'the Ile de France with all the gulls
around it'.
Paris and Budapest were close rivals inside Broadcasting
House during these years, with Vienna never forgotten. Two
foreign writers, Burger and Walter, produced such combinationsof story and music as Vienna, Holiday Abroad and The Story of the
Waltz. While the news bulletins were presenting daily evidenceof friction and tension in Europe, the entertainers were offering
a quite different image, the Europe not of conflict but ofromance, of Ruritania, not Nuremberg.
2

3'Sutthery to Hanson, 23 June 1937.
*Scottish Regional Programme Director to Hanson, 22 June 1937.
No Chip on My Shoulder, p. 68.

ENTERTAINMENT109

It is interesting that it was towards Europe that the BBC
turned-however frivolously-rather than towards the UnitedStates. Maschwitz visited the United States on several occasions
and according to Maurice Gorham, his successor on the Radio
Times, they both shared 'the rabid pro -Americanism of thetwenties') There was relatively little direct American influence,
however, on British light entertainment as presented by theBBC, despite the dominance of Hollywood in the golden age ofthe cinema. American artists performed-Eddie Cantor, forinstance, and the `close harmony' Boswell Sisters-and the ideaof a `programme series', pushed much farther by Maschwitz
in 1934, owed something to the American idea of 'the So -and -So
Hour',2 yet no attempt was made to copy the comedy -series
type of American broadcast, already represented in the early
193os by 'Amos 'n Andy' and Burns and Allen.
It was in 1929 that Rudy Vallee, sponsored by Fleischmann's
Yeast, had extended the dance -band -with -plugs formula in the
United States by deliberately introducing `radio personalities':
the same year saw the beginnings of the Amos 'n Andy andGoldberg shows, the latter among the first of the afternoon
dramatic serials which were forerunners of the 'soap operas' of
the 193os.3 By 1934 large numbers of entertainment programmes
were being produced in Hollywood, with slick compering andcomedians being allowed to project their personalities throughwhole programmes rather than contributing `turns' of strictly
limited duration.
It was not until just before the Second World \Var, however,that such American fashions of light entertainment-influential
through the cinema-began to refashion British programmes.4
Even so, it was a sign of pride that the musical plays chosen for
the Silver Jubilee productions in 1935 were all British.5 Songs
were certainly becoming more American long before this. 'The
gramophone disc has carried Hollywood's "hits" into many
programmes', the Manchester Guardian complained in 1930.
'Much of this music is apparently so ephemeral that many of
the new numbers given abroad do not live to reach this country.
2 BBC Annual (1935), p. 59.
Sound and Fury, p. 38.
L. White, The American Radio (1947), pp. 61 ff., 'Love That Soap'.
from London by Burrs and4 Oddly enough, it was a transatlantic broadcast
Allen which put them on the stage in America. See .No Chip on My Shoulder, p. 74.
5
BBC Annual (1936), p. 41
3

Ilo
PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC
On the other hand, some tunes which have become popularhere have often been heard from the Continent months before
they reach us.... I have heard the Broadway Melody from six
different stations in Ireland, Latvia, Germany, Czechoslovakia
and France during the last fortnight. For Britain the bloom hasworn off it." In 1934. The Times was noting how 'each week the
Audition Committee of the Variety Department listens to adozen crooners offering a fairly accomplished imitation ofBing Crosby, and a dozen impersonators who follow Florence
Desmond and Beryl Orde in impersonations of Mae \Vest andZasu Pitts'.2 The outstanding BBC crooner of the 193os was

British-Al Boldly. Singing many of the same songs as Bing

Crosby, he had a distinctive style and mood of his own, and hehad great popular appeal then and since.
By current standards, even gramophone -record programmes,
strictly limited in hours, liad a strong British flavour. The
American (and continental) reliance on gramophone records as
the `staple diet' of broadcasting was never copied by the BBC.
Nor were the gramophone -record companies as sure of thebusiness attractions of radio as they subsequently became.
When the BBC turned to the gramophone industry in an effort
to break Black's broadcasting ban,3 at least one gramophone
magnate told Roger Eckersley that broadcasting was `definitely
competitive, both to the entertainment industry and to his own
business'. He said that he preferred the `steady sales' which
accrued from records of well-known artists whose names had
been made apart from broadcasting to the 'jumpy sales' stimulated by broadcasting.4
Such pre Juke Box Jury attitudes record the distance between
the 193os and the 196os. Already, however, there were signs
least in retrospect-of the shape of things to come, particularly on the other side of the Atlantic. In the late 19205
various systems of rating popular music and records began to be-atManchester Guardian, 19 Sept. 1930.
The Times, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. 1934.
3*Cock, Memorandum of 2 Jan. 1933. `Private contact should be made with
the Gramophone Companies to ascertain to what extent they would support us in2

including in any future contracts with their artists a clause preventing the latterfrom signing non -broadcasting contracts.'
4 *A note by R. H. Eckersley after visiting the H.M.V. Officeat I layes, 26 Jan.
1933.

III
worked out in the United States,' and Billboard began a 'NetENTERTAINMENT

work Song Census' in 1934., the year when the coin record
machine went into mass production.2 By 1939, when millionsof dance records were being sold each year in Britain, there were350,000 coin record machines in the United States.3 'A-tisket,
A-tasket' sold more than 300,000 copies in 1939, and earlier
songs like Mabel Wayne's `Ramona' and 'Little Man, You've
had a Busy Day' became known all over the world.
In 1935 the American radio began its flit Parade programmes,
and the ratings given in this series began to be set out a year
later in the British Melody Maker,; which had had its own'Honours List' (a different conception from the 'Top Ten') in1928. It was not until 1943, however, that details of 'the Ten
Best Sellers in Britain' began to be published weekly. By thena new pattern of 'popular culture' was emerging, although it
required very different social circumstances from those of the
193os to establish the pattern. The producers of entertainment
were not as preoccupied with the age gap between different
generations of listeners in the 193os as their successors were to
be in the 195os.

The distance in attitudes is also apparent in the BBC's Scrapbook programmes, which were an invention of the 193os hut
still retain their appeal today. The first-for 1913-was broadcast in December 1933. The work of Leslie Baily and, in theearly days, Charles Brewer, Scrapbook programmes, many ofthem subsequently revived to meet the demands of new generations, have given probably more pleasure than any other long running series of BBC programmes. Already by November 1934
the Manchester Guardian was referring to the Scrapbook series'which Leslie Baily has made famous' and Grace Wyndham
Golclie was writing in The Listener that statues ought to be
erected to Brewer and Baily.s
Variety, 31 July 1929, listed the three best sellers of the preceding week for eachof ten publishers on the \Vest Coast. Monthly Musical Survey, 13 Nov. 1929, included
details of the six best sellers both in sheet music and records in a number of American
cities.
Parade (1957).
2 Billboard, 3o June 1984; J. L. Davis, 1 oar All Time Hit
3 Ibid., p. 16. See also R. Gelatt, The Fabulous Phonograph (1956), pp. 208 ff.
+
The Melody Maker, 9 May 1936.
5
Manchester Guardian, is Nov. 1934; The Listener, 14 Nov. 1934. For the earlystory of Scrapbook, see L. Baily and C. H. Brewer, The BBC Scrapbooks (1937).

I12

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLICThe Scrapbook programmes satisfied the Englishman's loveof nostalgic reminiscence-as did Leslie Baily's later radio biographies, Star -gazing, beginning in October 1936-and at thesame time drew on a powerful documentary element whichearns them a certain place in the future interpretation of contemporary history. They were based on genuine research, andin Freddie Grisewood, who was narrator for the first two programmes, they were to find the perfect co_npére. The second
and third programmes in the series-in May and November
1934-covered the years 1914 and 1918. 'A night to remember',
wrote the Star radio correspondent of the first; 'the best broadcast I ever heard' added Archie de Bear in the Daily Express ofthe same day.'To thousands of listeners, as well as to the critics, Scrapbook
represented the art of sound radio at its best. So too did someof the peak outside broadcasts-the boxing contest between
Len Harvey and«Jack Petersen in November 1933; the weddingof the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina in November 1934;
Maschwitz's own commentary on the Silver ,Jubilee Ball fromthe Albert Hall in 1935; the annual British Legion Festival of
Empire and Remembrance; and, above all, the Christmas programmes which were devised by Laurence Gilliam.
King George V gave the first of his Christmas broadcasts toboth home and Empire listeners in 1932. Reith had suggested
such broadcasts to Lord Stamfordham five years before, and atlast, in circumstances which Reith has fully described, theyfound a unique place in the broadcasting year.2 The Kinghimself was 'very pleased and much moved' by the response to
his first broadcast, and his broadcasts almost immediately
became an established institution. Much ingenuity and enterprise also went into the arrangements for the programmes leading up to them, with Laurence Gilliam active behind the scenes.
Christmas, indeed, was always a broadcasting festival during theinter-war years, not least because it is a family festival. The
BBC added to the domestic enjoyment without seeming to
intrude. Behind the fun, however, there were elaborate arrangements. In 1933 there was a programme on Christmas Eve inwhich listeners heard the bells of Bethlehem and carol singing
The Star, to May 1934; Daily Express, 10 May 1934.

2

J. C. NV. Reith, Into the Wind ('949), pp. x68-9.

ENTERTAINMENT

113

from New York, 'a fine piece of organisation by the programmeand engineering staffs'. In 1934 the King's Christmas Day
speech was introduced by 'the grand old shepherd of Ilmington'. `It was a stroke ofgenius on the part of the producer', wrote
Stuart Hibberd, 'to find him and put him in the programme.»
The King's speech was always sui generis, but on many othernational occasions the BBC was entertaining its audience anddoing much more besides. It was holding together 'the great
audience' of which Reith was so proud. National pride was, ofcourse, a somewhat uncomplicated emotion, and care wasalways taken not to damage it. It rang triumphantly throughNoel Coward's Cavalcade (1931) which was hailed by James
Agate, the best-known theatre critic of the day, as a huge
success even before the public made it such. Agate also considered Coward to be 'the best comic dramatist since Sheridan'
and admired the wit with which he described and criticizedmany favourite British institutions.
One thing which the BBC did not do during the 193os wasto provide entertainment with a satirical edge. It could tolerateburlesque, although it was never anxious to have itself guyed,
as it was guyed in Herbert Paijeon's Nine Sharp, with its engaging song `Thank God for the BBC'. Nor could the Continent be
guyed either-for all the whiff of Paris in the air. When Max
Kester made suggestions in 1933 that there should be a programme burlesquing continental stations, one BBC official
insisted that there should be no references to foreign commercial
stations since this would be to draw attention to them. Anotherofficial added that it was important to avoid saying anything
derogatory about non-commercial continental stations either,because many of them were suffering from severe financial
limitations.2 `Satire has proved "on the air", as in the theatre,
a little too strong meat for British audiences', we read-and
believe-in the BBC Year Book of 1934.3
There was, of course, a persistent search for new means ofdiversion, and the new ideas in light entertainment which wereintroduced between 1933 and 1937 included serial thrillers,
the first of them Sydney Horler's The Mystery of the Seven Cafés' S. Hibberd, This-is London, p. to7.
2 *Programme Board Minutes, 14 Dec. 1933.
3 BBC ruar Book (1934),
p. 58.
C 1995IPROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

I14(1935), followed the same year by the introduction of a serial
thriller Strange to Relate into the Saturday Magazine.' There werealso regular programmes of `Curiosities'; John Watt's adaptation for radio of Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse features (1936) ;a 'first night' from a theatre, again with John Watt, this time
as a commentator in the foyer; and his Entertainment Parade(1936), which set out to present to the public in tabloid form
information concerning what was going on in show business,
not only in London and the provinces but abroad. Finally
there were many experiments ín `symphonic' popular musicof the kind that Paul Whiteman was beginning to popularize
across the Atlantic. Geraldo's Romance in Rhythm, Austen CroomJohnson's Soft Lights and Sweet Music, and Louis Levy's Alusic
From the Movies were examples of this genre.
Maschwitz was anxious to break away from the idea thatdance music was a `filler' or a `routine' programme for the endof a busy day.2 He also believed at the end of his four years as
Director of Variety that there was no longer any need for a
BBC Dance Orchestra as such. In a memorandum of February
1937 he pointed out that the situation had changed completelyfrom 1928 when Jack Payne had been appointed. Then there
was a dearth of suitable bands. In 1937, however, there was'an ample supply of dance bands and the facility to create as
many as we like' in addition, the coming into existence of the
Variety Orchestra had cut down the amount of work that a
BBC Dance Orchestra was expected to do. Henry Hall had a`magnificent record' in his five years at the BBC but the time
had come to encourage outside bands, to draw new programmeideas from 'the best brains available in the entertainment
world', and to create a separate Dance Music section totranslate the ideas into programmes, watch song -plugging,and `safeguard the interests of publishers, band leaders andlisteners'.3
Henry Hall had a shrewd idea of the direction of change, as
he saw more and more bands appearing on BBC programmes-Ambrose, Sid Bright, Billy Cotton, Roy Fox, Geraldo,
Carroll Gibbons, Nat Gonella, Brian Lawrence, Sydney:

2

Saturday Magazine reverted in autumn 1937 to its old title of In Town Tonight.
See above, pp. 86-88.
Memorandum from the Director of Variety to the Controller of Programmes,'

5 Feb. 1937.

ENTERTAINMENT

115

Lipton, Joe Loss, Felix Mendelssohn, Jack Payne, Oscar Rabin,
Harry Roy, Lew Stone, Maurice Winnick, and 'many others
less known'. Some of the bands had had an evening to themselves-Lew Stone, for example, on Tuesdays from 10.30 p.m.
to midnight, but in 1937 the policy was to vary hours, 'oddbands at odd hours and fair shares for all'.' As suddenly as heentered the BBC, therefore, Hall left it-on 25 September 1937,
without any row and characteristically with very little hiss.
One of the first and best offers he had was from Georke Black.
He accepted it. On Saturday he was giving his farewell BBC
broadcast: on the following Monday he was on the stage of the
Hippodrome at Birmingham.
By the time Henry Hall left the BBC Maschwitz had also
left, in June 1937, for Metro -Goldwyn -Mayer and the blue
skies of Hollywoocl,2 and it was John Watt, his successor, who
was left to make the arrangements for the new system of 'fair
shares' and 'free for all' in dance music. He was assisted byPhilip Brown, a band leader from Birmingham, who tookcharge of dance -music policy. Henry Hall's farewell broadcast
on 25 September began with `Here's to the Next Time' andended with Gracie Fields singing-as no one else could sing-`You've got to Smile when you Say Goodbye'. Other tunes
in the programme included `It's a Sin to Tell a Lie', 'Red Sails
in the Sunset', and `Let's Put Out the Lights'. There is no betterway of evoking a lost moment of time than to listen again to its
favourite tunes. 'The regular broadcasts by the BBC Dance
Orchestra, under Henry Hall,' the BBC Year Book commented
prosily, 'will remain a pleasant memory in the minds of many
listeners, both in this country and abroad.'3
Neither Hall nor Maschwitz was lost to British broadcasting.
Hall was to entertain post -Second \\ orld War audiences bothon sound radio and television. Maschwitz was to return to the
BBC in 1958. In his first spell, not the least of his achievements
had been to interest the public in what lie was doing and to
put the BBC in the centre of the entertainment world. The

number of light -entertainment programmes had substantially
Henry Hall, Here's To the Next Time (1955), p. 148.
*Board of Governors Minutes,
May 1937, reports his intending resignationand his replacement by Watt.
'

2

3

1

BBC Handbook (1938), p. 16.

1

116

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

increased-from twenty-nine hours a month in 1933 to fortyfour hours a month in 1935, and fifty-nine hours a month in
1936.' The fact that the number of staff did not rise pari passu
with the number of programmes, largely because the rightkind of staff could not be recruited, caused frequent organizational difficulties.2 These, however, were hidden from thepublic gaze. There were, in fact, considerable increases ofstaff in 1936-from 43 in February to 56 in November (there
had been only 28 in July 1934). By the time \Vatt took overand there was a further internal reorganization, the department
was not under -staffed, although there was no margin in caseof emergency, and organization had been effectively rationalized with Charles Brewer as an efficient Assistant Director of
Variety.3
The `codes' of the department were also laid clown in aninteresting mimeographed document for internal circulation
entitled Handbook of Variety Routine (December 1936). It wascompiled by M. M. Dewar, who was Variety Executive from1935 to 1942, and listed names, titles, procedures, and definitions. It also gave a detailed description (with photograph)of the organ in St. George's Hall, and even had a section on
American variety artists. 'Mr. F. W. Alexander will arrange
for a special ribbon microphone for American Variety artists
who are accustomed to working very close to the microphone.';A further note on microphone technique expanded the point.
After considerable experience with ribbon microphones, it was
decided that crooners would not be allowed to come nearer than
one foot to a ribbon microphone. This obviously has meant that
Producers and Balance Assistants have had more or less to train
vocalists, in this new technique, sometimes under great difficulties.
BBC Handbook (1936), p. 41; *Memorandum by M. M. Dewar, 5 Dec. 1935;*Memorandum by G. C. Beadle on Variety Department Staff, 3o Dec. 1935.
2 *For reorganization problems, see below, pp. 449 ff. M. M. Dewar put forward schemes of reorganization to alleviate serious overwork in Nov. 1935, but
in Mar. 1936 R. H. Eckersley was writing that 'the increase in work was wholly
disproportionate to the increase in staff, the result being that the present staff arebeing consistently over -worked. The over-work still continues, and Maschwitz isincreasingly nervous of breakdowns among his staff.' Eckersley to Graves, 2 Mar.
1936.

*J. Watt to L. Wellington 14 Nov. 1938.
Handbook of Variety Routine (1936), p. 46. Dewar's Day Book is also a usefulsource for this History.
3

ENTERTAINMENT
117
On the whole this has been carried out satisfactorily. However, onedifficulty has arisen. In cases of American Variety artists, who areaccustomed to working very much closer to the microphone, it has
been found impossible to get these artists to change their techniquefor perhaps just one broadcast with the BBC, such artists as thestreet singer (Arthur Tracey) and Pop -Eye the Sailor (Mr. Costello).
The only thing to be done in these cases is to alter the electric circuit, so that the singer may approach the microphone in the usual
American way.'

The `usual American way' and the usual British way diverged
more in the 193os than they do today. This does not imply, however, that Maschwitz and Watt did not always emphasize theneed for showmanship, or that in the circumstances of theirtime they were not right to do so. `If only these lads would thinkin terms of the microphone and the quiet room where it islistened to instead of the rabble behind the scenes and theapplause in front of the stage', Filson Young once exclaimed.2
The exclamation showed how out of touch he was with thechanging mood of the 193os, although he had always prided
himself on responding naturally to changes of mood. Big
national occasions like the Radio Exhibition of 1934 or the Silver
Jubilee of 1935 were used by Maschwitz and his colleagues to
put on special Radiolympia shows and Jubilee Festivals. They
helped more than anything else to soften Black's suspicion ofallowing his artists to broadcast and they began, sometimes totheir own surprise, to force him to consider the claims of artists`made' by the BBC.
Some of the new shows, produced by John Watt, had definite
stage possibilities. Harry S. Pepper, who had written music formany different kinds of shows, produced Monday Night at Seven(later Monday Night at Eight), a popular light entertainment
magazine, which combined music, patter, and detection (Inspector Hornleigh), and gave Mondays a new significance inthe listeners' week. On Wednesdays Arthur Askey and Richard(`Stinker') Murdoch entertained a wide public-possibly thewidest BBC public that had ever been attracted to light entertainment-in the Band Waggon programmes from their imaginary flat in Broadcasting House. Nausea Bagw ash, the landlady's
2

F. W. Alexander to M. M. Dewar, 14 Sept. 1936.
*Filson Young to R. H. Eckersley, 28 Aug. 1933.

118

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

daughter, has a permanent place in the mythology of showbusiness, like Suzette Tarri's unlucky spinster and Mrs. Mop in
Itma. Band Waggon was originally booked for thirteen weeks in
1937, longer than any previous British show, and it was planned
down to the last detail-sketch, music, 'new voices', and so on.
In a search for comedians Watt had gone the round of concert
parties and had narrowed the choice to two. He arranged tomeet the two in different public houses. He went to the firstwhere Arthur Askey was waiting-and never went on to thesecond at all. Askey had compered February Fill -Dyke, 'a variety
show with a new angle of presentation', in February 1936,1 but
it was after the start of Band Waggon that he established himself
as a national radio star.2 Richard Murdoch was brought inseparately to complete one of radio's most successful comedy
partnerships.
The show as a whole was so successful that other attempts
were made to plan entertainment of a similar `personalized'
kind which would have a permanent niche in the listeners' week.
The result was It's That Man Again, which was worked out at
a conference in the Langham Hotel between Ted Kavanagh,
the script writer, Francis \Worsley, the producer, and Tommy
Handley, the inimitable, in June 1939. The idea behind it was
not only to capture the large audience of Band Waggon but for
the first time deliberately to produce British programmes with
American -style quick -fire patter. `Basically, the idea,' Kavanagh
has written, 'and it was not a very good one, was to create an
English version of the Burns and Allen Show.'3 It is fascinatingthat in war -time circumstances the Englishness of the programme was to be its outstanding characteristic.
Itma was the crowning achievement of BBC light entertainment. Already in October 1938, however, it was a sign ofchanging circumstances that a memorandum was prepared,
headed Notes on the Exploitation of BBC Variety Productions on theStage. 'The Corporation has latterly entered, or is about to enter
into agreements with outside producers for the stage presentation of certain BBC Variety productions', the memorandum
begins. `These so far include Palace of Varieties, Monday Night*John Pudney to Arthur Askey, 6 Feb. 1936.
*Note by A. H. Brown, 14 Jan. 1938.
3 T. Kavanagh, Tommy Handley (1949), p. g6.
'

2

I19

ENTERTAINMENT

at Seven, Band Waggon and Music Hall, and the outside producer
in each case is Jack Hylton (simply because he was first in thefield).'' There had even been some complaints that Music Hall
was almost too well suited for the stage. `There is a growing
feeling', Maschwitz wrote in February 1937, `among listeners
as well as among people here, that acts are tending to disregard

the microphone and play at the audience!:
An account of the BBC's direct contribution to entertainment
during the 193os would be incomplete if it left out the further
development of outside broadcasting, particularly the outside
broadcasting of sport, before and after Gerald Cock left Broadcasting House for Television at Alexandra Palace in 1935.
His successor, S. J. de Lotbiniére, was later to return to thispost in the post-war reconstruction of BBC services. There
was thus an important connexion between Outside Broadcasts
and the development of a separate light entertainment policy,
just as there had been an earlier connexion between the Radio
Times and the beginnings of separately organized light enter-tainment.
Cock and de Lotbiniére covered the whole range of sports,
developing the arts of `running commentary', arts which in thecase of cricket, and perhaps even more so in the case of tennis,
involved elaborate setting of players in their scene with talk of`square one' and `square two' as well as `square leg'. It was not
only big events which were covered. In 1934 the first `afternoonsof Broadcast Sport' were transmitted they consisted of episodes, with rapid shifts from one sport to another-cricket,
tennis, rifle shooting, and speed -boat racing, for example; orfootball, rugger, hockey, and boxing-`without loss of continuity
so as to give the listener a total experience, not confused but
blended'.3
The breathlessness of the language suggests the novelty of'the wandering microphone' procedure. In the later 193os new
sports-speedway racing, gliding, darts, pigeon -racing, fencing,clay -pigeon shooting, and table tennis-were added to theagenda. Some of the commentators were experts in their own
sports, `amateurs' of skill and enthusiasm like Lionel Secconibe,:' *`Notes on Exploitation', 7 Oct. 1938.
2*Maschwitz to Sharman, g Feb. 1937.

3

BBC Annual ('g35), p. 66.

I20

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

an ex -heavyweight Blue, on boxing, or Squadron-Leader Helmore who covered air races in the great days of the Schneider
Cup: others became public figures. Howard Marshall's masterly
handling of the 1934 Test Matches made his voice one of themost familiar in the country: he went on during the 193os todescribe almost every kind of public event. John Snagge, who
had joined the BBC straight from Oxford, also found himself`turning up more and more on every occasion', always in command. There was even talk-at Maschwitz's suggestion-oftransferring him to the new post in charge of dance-musicprogrammes, which Philip Brown was to fill. Snagge showed
no interest: he was recognized already to be 'an expert on all
sporting broadcasts'.'
Before the public could listen to sport, there often had to be
the same kind of battles behind the scenes with outside interests
as there had been in the case of variety and musical comedy.
The Football League frequently banned broadcasts of League
games: the Football Association was thought to be more helpful. The less popular the sport, the more willing were its
sponsors to have it `advertised' by radio. Cricket, as a solemn
national sport, always had a special place. `I am arranging foran additional membership of the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Cricket Clubs to be taken out in the name of the BBC', wrote theNorth Regional Executive in 1936.2 There was even more direct
participation in sport than this. In December 1936, for example,
a BBC car was entered for the motor -racing trial from London
to Exeter: the car was not designed to compete but, completewith official pennants, 'to cover the course and to make shortcuts where necessary so that we can watch the arrival of competitors at the various controls'.3
The author of this note was Richard Dimbleby of the News
Department of the BBC. At a later rally which ended at Blackpool in April 1938 he was a co-driver of a BBC car as a competitor with Alan Hess, and the North Region arranged for
him to broadcast from the Empress Ballroom in Blackpool
Tower.4 Many new broadcasters, who later established general*Dewar to Beadle, 11 May 1935; Beadle to Brewer, 16 May 1935.
*H. M. Fitch to A. M. Wells, 12 Feb. 1936.
3 *Note of to Dec. 1936.
*B. D. Freeston to E. H. F. Mills, 12 Apr. 1938; Mills to Freeston, 14 Apr.
'

2

1938.

12I
ENTERTAINMENT
reputations, were introduced to radio audiences through sport.
Indeed, throughout the 193os, there was the same relentless
search for talent that there was in the world of show business.
The search was nation-wide. One of the first two letters in thesurviving BBC file on sports commentating begins: `Could you,even at this prodigious distance, recommend someone who
might be able to cover for us in the National News the All Blackversus Ireland Afatch in Dublín on December 7th?"
Yet supply of more sporting broadcasts never quite kept up
with demand. The Daily Dispatch understood what not all
critics of the BBC understood, that 'it is easier to make a commentator into a temporary expert than a true expert into acommentator',2 but there were occasional complaints that the
BBC's difficulties began not on the field but in the committee
room. `There is a director of everything except sport at Broadcasting House', the Daily Sketch exclaimed in 1937. 'As wellmight a newspaper editor hand over control of his sporting
pages to the magazine page editor-or the lift man.'3

3. Words and Music
THERE was-and is-no natural frontier within broadcasting
between light and serious entertainment. The arrangement ofeye -witness accounts of sport was in the hands of the News
Department, which was also dealing with issues of life anddeath. Stanford Robinson, who was Director of Music Pro-

ductions from 1936 to 194.6, was as interested in serious music
as he was in Music Hall, and was concerned with all types ofmusic from `little operettas in the Children's Hour' to BachCantatas.4 Leslie \Voodgate, who was appointed BBC Chorus
Master in 1934., conducted both madrigals and burlesquechoruses, and in an interesting letter from Julian Herbage ofR.

Murray to McMullan, 23 Oct. 1935.
Daily Dispatch, t8 July 1938.
3 Daily Sketch, 25 Jan. 1937.
s

Executive, 30 Nov. 1936;
4 *Children's Hour Executive to Variety Department
Note by Nicolls, 21 Feb. 1940.

I22

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

the BBC's Music Department to Sir Adrian Boult in June 1936
we read that Sir Henry Wood had suggested that in his absence
Woodgate should conduct Constant Lambert's 'Rio Grande'
at a Promenade Concert.'
In the notes which were prepared to assist Boult before
meeting the Ullswater Committee, it was stated that the Music
Department of the BBC had in recent years been within theso-called Entertainment Branch, by which it was not meantthat he was controlled by the Director of Variety. The term
`entertainment' had been used to distinguish the main Programme Branch from the Branch handling talks, news andinstruction.2 Even at this point on the frontier, there were noclearly marked lines.
The fact that `entertainment' was not treated as a distinct
programme segment by itself reflected Reith's basic approachto programme policy. Listeners were not divided naturally into`home', `light', and `third', nor did `highbrows' or `lowbrows',
it was felt, want necessarily to be highbrow or lowbrow all
the time. Not only might the habitual listener to light music
cultivate an interest in `serious' music, but the habitual listenerto `serious' music might want occasionally at least to listen tolight music. The versatility of the artist was a reflection of the`roundedness' of the listener.
Quite apart from general philosophical questions of thisnature, there were certain common problems which affected
producers of all kinds, not least the problems (and opportunities) posed by technical factors. Musicians had to concern
themselves by the end of the period with the systems ofrecording at least as much as variety producers: so, too,
did talks producers. Unscripted programmes raised difficult
questions whether they were political programmes on the one
hand or variety programmes on the other; in both cases
there were censorship issues lurking behind the love of
the formal script. Announcers had to announce all kinds ofprogramme from a religious service to a programme of dancemusic.
At this point philosophy entered into the discussion again,'the philosophy of presentation'. What could be more mystical'*Herbage to Boult, 22 June T936.

3*Notes for Dr. Boult. See also below, pp. 488-9.

WORDS AND MUSIC

I23

than the following passage from the Announcement Editor in
1936?

The BBC is one Corporation, and can only be thought of by thelistener as individual. It has many voices but one mouth. It canspeak in many styles, but the variety is due to the difference of subject
matter and must not betray any inconsistency of treatment. It is
a commonplace that `announcers sound all alike'. That is a tributeto their training. A announcing a symphony concert should sound likeB announcing the next in the series. And C, announcing a concert
party, although he should do it in a different style, should remind
the listener of A and B, because he is performing the same function.
Captain X of the Regiment giving an order should and does appear
to sound like Captain Y giving the same order, although not to asoldier who knows them both; and recognises tite separate personalities of each in the identical words.

In language of this kind, which must have left some of theannouncers bemused, Byzantium arrived in Broadcasting
House. The corollary drawn by the writer was, however, a little
more intelligible. `It is essential that the announcer should
announce two concert parties in the same style-that is what the
BBC thinks of concert parties-but not, however, necessarily
in the same words.» The Announcement Editor's views did not
represent established doctrine: indeed, they stimulated useful
discussion when the initial bemusement disappeared. A simpler
pragmatic statement of BBC working policy was that goodannouncing and presentation were `whatever was felt to be apt
to the particular programme and audience' visualized.
Diversity in unity can be made into a theme of broadcasting.
There were, of course, many BBC producers, performers, andeven administrators who were highly specialized, particularly
by the mid-193os, and there were always times, even before themid-193os, when one kind of expertise did not necessarily seemto lead to another. 'Mr. Sieveking's temporary transfer to
Vaudeville was not a success', Maschwitz noted in 1933:2 thisdid not imply that Sieveking was not a great success in otherBBC activities. There were also occasional signs of jurisdictional
jealousy between the different branches of production. `Before
muddle or worse occurs', the Talks Department complained'
2*Memorandum of 13 Nov. 1936.
*E. Maschwitz, Note on Variety Staff, to May 1933.

124

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

in 1934, `ought we not to have some definite understanding
with Mr. Maschwitz, whose In Town Tonight programme seems
all too liable to become competitive with the topical talks?'1

The story of talks, topical or otherwise, is one of the mostcomplex and fascinating in the history of the BBC. It is a storyof ups and downs rather than of continuous progress, of changes
in direction as well as changes in organization. Sometimes the
Director of Talks, or whatever his official title was, became themost powerful departmental chief in the BBC: at other times'his kingdom was partitioned, and he himself reduced to aroutine administrator'.2 There were frequent reactions against
previous régimes and for a short period in the mid-193os there
was something like an interregnum.
In the autumn of 1926 J. C. Stobart vas, in name at least, inoverall charge of an empire consisting of talks, news, education,and religion. Lance Sieveking and C. H. G. Strutt shared thework of topical talks and news, the former having the main
responsibility for topical talks and the latter for news. Sieve king's main duty was to discover speakers, read and correct
their scripts, and advise about new ideas. All new speakers
were rehearsed in the studio daily from 5 to 6 o'clock in the same
way that comedians or musicians were given auditions. As forthe advice on new ideas, 'Mr. Sieveking's work entails a gooddeal of absence from the office, and on one evening out of three
he works late'.3
This simple arrangement was changed with the arrival of
Hilda Matheson, and in January 1927 the Control Board
decided that a separate `Talks Section' should be formed, quitedistinct from education, news, and religion, with Miss Matheson
in charge.4 She remained there until January 1932, leaving
a very powerful imprint on the BBC. Before joining the Company, Miss Matheson had been working as secretary to Lady
Astor, and in that capacity she had formed a large circle offriends and acquaintances in the worlds of fashion, letters,
and politics. Liberal -minded and energetic, she introduced*J. R. Ackerley to Siepmann, 8 Jan. 1934.
R. S. Lambert, Ariel and All His Quality (1940), p. 59.
3 *Note on the Work of the Talks Section, Oct. 1926.
4 *Control Board Minutes, 1B Jan. 1927; Reith, Diary, 7 ,Jan. 1927. 'Saw
Stobart about the devolution of his department, and he was very nice about it.'=

WORDS AND MUSIC

I25

some of the country's best speakers and writers to the BBC andin the course of doing so performed an equally important task,that of introducing the BBC to them. She was, for a time, agenuine Director of the Spoken Word, although she never had
the title. `Under her guidance, it was possible for the younger
dons to mention broadcasting at the High Tables of Oxford
Colleges without fear of ridicule. The intelligentsia was interested. Society was mildly "intrigued".'Miss Matheson's contribution was bigger than this, however,despite the fact that her BBC career ended in bitterness andcontroversy. Since she was genuinely interested in ideas as wellas people, she saw that the Talk-it began to get a capitalletter-offered a very special opportunity in broadcasting.
`Broadcasting is clearly rediscovering the spoken language,
the impermanent but living tongue, as distinct from the permanent but silent print.'2 Without ever going quite as far as
A. Lloyd James, the BBC's indefatigable adviser on `standard'
Spoken English, who complained about 'the tyranny of print',
Miss Matheson set herself to extend 'the freedom of the air' in
the period after the formal lifting of the ban on controversy in1928.3 She welcomed speakers of every kind, and genuinely
tried to assist them to express their personalities over the new
medium. One of her favourite books was T. H. Pear's Voice andPersonality (1931) which was one of the few academic studies ofthe subject. It was based on a series of broadcasts from Manchester, where unique use was made of the microphone in apiece of psychological investigation.
In philosophizing about the `technique' or 'art' of the talk,therefore, Miss Matheson did not start with the `essay' or the`article' in her mind. She started with the broadcasting medium
itself. Very quickly she came to the conclusion that the dissemination of ordered ideas and the projection of personality
both depended on a formal script. `Without a carefully preparedand timed talk, how could a speaker be sure of getting all heneeded to say in its right proportion, into his fixed space oftime?' His words would be listened to in private, so that it would
be pointless for him to imagine that he was talking to a public' S. A. Moseley, Broadcasting In My Time, p. 35.
2

H. Matheson, Broadcasting (1933), p 74.
See below, pp. 128-g.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

I26

meeting, but the very effect of `naturalness' would be lost if
there were no element of dissimulation in presentation.
Experience almost everywhere has shown that, though a few
practised broadcasters, particularly if their speech is an informal
accompaniment of music and reading, can speak impromptu withsuccess, most speakers and certainly most novices need a prepared
manuscript if they are to avoid tiresome hesitation or equally tiresome verbosity. A technique had, therefore, to be found for thewriting, rehearsing and delivery of talks, which would avoid thepitfalls of impromptu speech and yet retain its atmosphere. Speakers,
however eminent, welcome rather than resent preliminary discussionof the way in which to approach and present material; they submit
with good grace to voice tests to discover points of intonation,rhythm, articulation which may need correction; and they accept
with thanks, if tactfully offered, criticisms of a manuscript which

retains the form and flavour of an essay or treatise instead of a talk.
Many manuscripts submitted require something not unlike translation before they can hope to sound as if they were spoken to aperson and not delivered to an assembly.'

What Miss Matheson said about the talk influenced all her
successors, not least C. A. Siepmann, who succeeded her aftera series of much publicized staff disturbances in 1932.2 It was
Siepmann who thought of the talk as resting on a `double artifice'. What was natural had to become artificial before it would
sound natural again.3 The early members of the Talks Department introduced to broadcasting some of its most brilliant performers-Harold Nicolson, Vernon Bartlett, Ernest Newman,
Stephen King -Hall, Raymond Gram Swing, and John Hilton.
They were vigilant also in looking for young people who had
not established themselves but had great natural gifts, and they
had long discussions with `great men' who could not or forlong had said that they would not broadcast, men like Arnold
Bennett and H. G. \\Tells. `I have always thought it to be pretty
devastating', Miss Matheson wrote to Wells in June 1929, 'that
an internationalist like yourself-perhaps you are the only realinternationalist-shouldn't be making use of the most international means of communication there is.'{ Her appeal was2
3

4

Broadcasting, pp. 76-77.
See below, pp. 141-2.

See also J. Hilton, `Talking about Talk' in This and That (1938).
*Miss ?Matheson to H. G. wells, 14 June 1929.

WORDS AND MUSIC

127

successful, and Wells was soon extremely interested in discussing
the possibilities of broadcasting.
`I remember best the trinity of E. M. Forster, Desmond
McCarthy and H. G. Wells,' Lionel Fielden has written, 'who
all gave us freely of their time and wise counsels, and would sit
round our gas fires at Savoy Hill, talking of the problems andpossibilities of broadcasting.'1 Arnold Bennett occasionallyphilosophized about broadcasting in print and for a wider
public. `There is no such an entity as the public', he once wrote.
`There are forty publics, and the members of one public arecontinually changing over to another public according tomood.'2 For this reason he was an early advocate of `alternative
programmes' and of Reith's philosophy of non -segregation ofparticular types of programme.
Talk was not only for the great, the kind of people who gaveor might have been asked to give the National Lectures whichbegan-following a suggestion of Filson Young-in 1928.3 It
was also for `ordinary people'. A series on The Day's Work in
193o proved surprisingly popular. 'Most people were keen tohear what the Covent Garden porter, the steeplejack and thepostman had to tell.'; Cookery talks and garden talks were as
much a feature of the work of Miss Matheson and Siepmann
as highly controversial talks on political and economic issues,
although it was not until 1936 that C. H. Middleton gave thefirst of his remarkably popular talks on gardening.
Another kind of talk was represented by James Agate, thetheatre critic, who boasted in 1932 that he had broadcast `oftenerthan anybody else except the announcers'. A friend of Lionel
Fielden, lie was an excellent broadcaster, lively, bold, andpopular even among listeners who had never been to a theatrein their lives.6 'The way the subject is presented by Mr. Agate' L. Fielden, The Natural Bent (1960), p. 105.
2
3

A. Bennett, `Wireless Without Yawns' in Saturday Post, 20 Feb. 1927.
Reith to Filson Young, 24 Apr. 1929. `In view of the considerable successwhich has attended the two first National lectures and because of the attention
which has been directed to them ... I want to let you have a line to tell you that
we do not forget that this scheme was started as a result of a suggestion by you
and has been carried on so far exactly on the lines which you proposed.'
J. Agate, Ego (1985), p. 163.
4 Broadcasting in My Time, p. tat.
6 Agate did his own `popularity poll' in 1932 when he estimated that `go percent. [of his listeners] were either non-theatre goers or very infrequent ones.'* Noteof 6 Apr. 1932.
5

I28

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

magnifies the "Theatre" into the most perfect item in the BBC
programmes at the present time', wrote a grateful listener in
1932.1 Theatre managements were not always quite so grateful.
In October 1929 the Society of West End Theatre Managers
discussed Agate's review of a play called The Flying Fool andheld unanimously that it was 'not only prejudicial to the play
but also to the interests of all theatres'.2 Attempts had alreadybeen made to prevent him from reviewing plays for which hehad not been sent a reviewer's ticket.3 Until he was rested in1933 Agate remained a highly controversial broadcaster, often
succeeding in provoking his friends as much as his enemies.
The question of controversy was, of course, the central question in the minds of all organizers and producers of BBC talks.
In January 1927, at the beginning of the new Corporation, theSecretary of the Post Office had written to Reith stating firmlythat in accordance with Clause 4 of the BBC's Licence, theCorporation had to abstain from `statements expressing theopinion of the Corporation on matters of public policy' andfrom `speeches or lectures containing statements on topics ofpolitical, religious or industrial controversy'.4 This thoroughly
illiberal approach to broadcasting had always been disputed by
Reith,5 and in January 1928 he asked the Post Office to review
the matter 'with the experience of a year's working behind the
Corporation'. The Crawford Committee, like the Sykes Committee before it, had recommended cautiously that, `given
guarantees of equality and fair treatment, a moderate amountof controversy should be allowed' .6 Surely it was now time,
Reith argued, for the BBC to be allowed a measure of discretion.
`During the past year well-informed and constructive critics of
BBC programmes have deplored the devitalising influence of
the absence of controversy. On most problems of immediate
interest the service is silent, and if controversial subjects arebroached at all it is done in a halting, inconclusive and even
' *A listener to James Agate, 28 May 1932. Agate sent the letter to Siepmannwith the comment, 'I have had a hard struggle with my modesty, which, however,has lost the battle.' (Letter of 31 May 1932.)
2 *Note ofOct. 1929; B. A. Meyer to Reith, t8 Sept. 1929.
*Walter Payne to Reith, t Mar. 1929.
4 *Sir Evelyn Murray to Reith, it Jan. 1927.
! See The Birth of Broadcasting, especially pp. 269-72 and pp. 38o-3.
6 Cmd. 2599 (¡926), Report of the Broadcasting Committee, §15.
3

1

WORDS AND MUSIC

I29

platitudinous manner. The application of the present policy
involves the neglect of many opportunities in forming public
opinion in matters of vital importance.'
Critics who have accused Reith, very unfairly, of seeking to
avoid controversial broadcasting during the 193os could nothave written a more powerful letter than this. The Governors,
lie went on, had submitted the request after careful deliberation,
viewing it as a `natural and logical development of the service'.
The power would, of course, not be misused: it was essentialthat it should be directed by a genuine sense of responsibility.'
The Post Office could scarcely counter this line of argument
had it wished to do so, and on 5 March 1928 the 'ban oncontroversy' was withdrawn in the light of the `loyal andpunctilious manner' in which the BBC had conformed to the
obligations imposed'. Not that there was any rush for freedom.
'His Majesty's Government feels that the time has come whenan experiment ought to be made in the direction of greater
latitude.' The ban on `editorializing' remained.2
The `experiment' continued without a break until 1939, with
the Postmaster -General repeatedly emphasizing that it was theduty of the Governors and not of himself to interpret the proper
scope of controversy. Twice in 1927, before the ban was withdrawn, Sir William Mitchell -Thomson and his deputy, Viscount
Wollner, made it clear that they had no intention of `directing'the BBC,3 and once, years later in 1933, when Kingsley Woodwas specifically asked in the House of Commons to use his vetopower to prohibit talks in a series on India, he replied that ae
had to trust 'the discretion of the Governors in this matter,
who have the responsibility'.4 There was only one occasion when
the ban might have been used in the early 1930s, when the
Postmaster -General suggested informally to the BBC that a
projected talk by an ex -German U -Boat Commander, Captain
Ernst Hashagen, would cause so much offence to the publicthat it ought to he cancelled. Heavy pressure was placed on the
BBC and the talk was, in fact, cancelled by the BBC without
the ban being formally used.5 The decision to cancel was takenby the Board of Governors, with Reich dissenting. Many years: *Murray to Reith, 5 Mar. 1928
*Reith to Murray, 16 Jan. 1928.
Hansard, vol. 203, cols. 200¢-5; ibid., vol. 212, cols. 598-600.
4 Ibid., vol. 276, cols. 6-7.
s Ibid., vol. 268, cols. 593-4..
c 1995K
3

130

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

later when both Reith and Kingsley Wood were ministers inthe same war-time administration, Reith asked Kingsley Wood
whether he would in fact have used his veto. 'Not on your life.
I would never have done it', was the reply.'
Reith has left a full account of the incident as it appeared at
the time. Baldwin asked Kingsley Wood to tell him that the
Cabinet had unanimously decided that the talk should not begiven. `I had quite an argument with the Postmaster -General,'Reid' goes on, `saying that I thought it was monstrous, andthat he would be doing us a good turn by declining to interfere.'He, Whitley, the Chairman of the Governors, and Gainford
went round to the Post Office and had a somewhat stormy
meeting. 'We could not get out of the P.M.G. what he would
do if we refused to cancel, but Whitley made it pretty clear that
we were not inclined to do so.' The three BBC representatives
then met on their own, with Reith strongly advocating carrying
on with the broadcast. He was certain, he said, that Kingsley
Wood was bluffing and would not use his veto. The others disagreed. `I said', Reith ended his account, 'that it was the mostimportant issue that had ever come before us, but I saw that
Whitley was inclined to yield, so I said I would stay out of theargument. In fact, I immediately wrote clown the reply which
the P.M.G. should give to the question in the House that afternoon, that the talk was a serious contribution to the eliminationof warfare, but that he had heard from us in the morning thatin view of the Lausanne Conference we liad decided to cancel
it. This is what he said. There was a tremendous downpour ofrain as we left the Post Office and this expressed my feelings
with regard to the matter.'2
Quite apart from the possible threat to the freedom of the
BBC from the Post Office, there was always a much more serious
threat from public opinion or particular sections of it. Before
the ban on controversy was lifted, the Morning Post complainedthat 'the suggestion that prohibition on controversy should be
removed opens up a vista of horrible possibilities. The average
man or woman, when at leisure with the world, has not theslightest desire to be plunged into disputes on any of thesesubjects [politics, religion, and industry].'3 After the ban was
2

Note by Maurice Farquharson, Apr. 1963.
Reith, Diary, 6 July 1932.

3

Morning Post, 9 Jan. 1928.

WORDS AND MUSIC131

lifted, particular broadcasts were always subject to sharp
criticism. The Manchester Guardian might hail 'the clash of
opinions', but The Times insisted that 'the balance must be kept'
and the Daily Telegraph urged that 'much caution will still be requisite if the new freedom is to work to the common good'.1 From
March 1928 to November 1929 the BBC had its own 'Controversy Committee' which included both Eckersleys, Gladstone
Murray, Graves, Stobart, and Miss Matheson. It dealt with all
points likely to create difficulty.
Another international incident in 1932 illustrated how easy
it was to be provocative. An anonymous speaker on Europe ina New Year's Eve programme mentioned that Poland was
spending one-third of its government income on armaments.
This statement, true or false, stirred the Polish Ambassador toprotest and the Foreign Office to seek to smooth out relations.
It then started off a long correspondence in The Times, wherethirty-one signatories to a most effective letter demanded fullindependence for the Corporation.2 The government thoughtthat it was advisable to allow the subject to he aired on the floorof the Commons, and a private -member's motion, backed by
the Government \Vhips, both affirmed the BBC's right tobroadcast controversial programmes and urged 'the greatest
care in the selection of speakers and subjects'. A Labour amendment suggesting the appointment of a Select Committee 'toreview the work of recent years and make recommendations'
was defeated on straight party grounds, and the private-member's motion was carried by 203 votes to 27.3
Such incidents indicated how difficult it would have been toextend the scope of `controversial broadcasting' during the
1930s. The difficulties derived in the first instance from thedomestic political party system. They began with Budget
speeches. These had been severely circumscribed before 1927,4
but in 1928 Winston Churchill, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was allowed to make a factual statement. 'He delivered
a good defence of the Budget, supposed to be non -controversial
but it was not', wrote Reith, who accompanied him to Savoy' Manchester Guardian, 6 Mar. 1928; The Tímes, 6 Mar. 1928; Daily Telegraph,
6 Mar. 1928.
2
The Times, 6 Feb. 1933. The signatories included Rutherford, Keynes, Julian
Huxley, F. M. Powicke, W. H. Hadow, and H. A. L. Fisher.
3 Hansard, vol. 274, cols. 1811 fr.
4 Sec The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 268.

132

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Hill.' MacDonald immediately protested on behalf of the
Executive of the Labour Party,2 and in 1929 it was decided
inside the BBC not to ask the Chancellor to speak because of
the imminent general election. 'Last year the Chancellor's
thoughspeech could not fail to be, in effect, propaganda
would
effecthe did it very skilfully. This year its propaganda
1931
asLabour1930
andbe doubled.'3 Snowden broadcast in
Chancellor of the Exchequer, but turned down a request fromthe BBC in 1931 that his speech should be part of a `politicalseries'.4 Neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party
by itself was prepared to lose the opportunity of political advantage. 'To include the Budget talk in the list of political talks',
Snowden's Parliamentary Private Secretary replied, `would
deprive the Government of one broadcast opportunity.'5
Snowden's Conservative successor, Neville Chamberlain,
took the same line, and this time it was George Lansbury on
behalf of the Labour Party who was aggrieved.6 Chamberlainslightly widened the terms of reference of his reply. `It would
be very undesirable,' his secretary wrote, `especially in difficultand critical times like these, to make the Budget the subject ofa controversial debate on the wireless before an audience whichis uninstructed in all the complexities and problems of thefinancial position at home and abroad. Moreover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, restricted by the responsibilities of his
office, would be at a great disadvantage compared with an
opponent who had no such responsibilities.'? Chamberlain took
up the same position the following year, but a political series
centred on the Budget began notwithstanding in 1934, with
Chamberlain, Attlee, Herbert Samuel, and J. H. Thomas as
the speakers. By 1939 the procedure was generally agreed.
The political rota at general election times often involved
the sharpest disagreement. Reith wrote to the leaders of thepolitical parties about the opportunities of political broadcastingin April 1928.8 The response was encouraging. Baldwin was...

2*MacDonald to Reith, t May 1928.
Reith, Diary, 25 Apr. 1928.
*Miss Matheson to Reith, 20 Mar. 1929.
4 *Keith to Thomas Kennedy, 25 Feb. 1931.
6 *Reith to Lansbury, 28 Apr. 1933.
5*Kennedy to Reith, 17 Mar. 1931.
*Donald Fergusson to Reith, 27 Apr. 1933. Fergusson also set out the same
argument in a memorandum of 27 Mar. 1934.
8 *Reith to the leaders of the three parties, 19 Apr. 1928.
3

WORDS AND MUSIC333

already an accomplished broadcaster, and MacDonald, thenLeader of the Opposition, expressed great interest. `Lunchedwith Ramsay MacDonald at the Club', Reith wrote in hisdiary in February 1929. 'He wanted to talk about politicalbroadcasting, the Labour Party being so dependent on thewireless. I told him we would agree if the three parties agreed
among themselves. \Ve might even make arrangements if twoof them did. He said the Labour Party were ready to agree toalmost anything.»
This statement was too optimistic, and there was much
acrimonious debate before MacDonald and" C. C. Davidson,on behalf of Baldwin, the Prime Minister, reached any kindof agreement. For two Conservative speakers there were to be
only one Labour and one Liberal speaker.2 MacDonald so disliked the arrangement that he remarked somewhat petulantly
that `if they [unspecified] are going to try to manipulate things,
the Labour Party will not appear in the scheme at all'.3 Walter,Jerrold in the Star was less concerned about the `double ration'
to the Conservative speakers:'Twill be found when he's finished, his matter is such
That he's talked twice as long and not said half' as much.4
To complicate matters further, Lloyd George was very annoyed
at not being given a date in the same week as Baldwin and
MacDonald.s He was very alive to the political possibilities ofbroadcasting at this time, having just made a speech in Parliament asserting that it was `vital' that broadcasting should be
used `to enable the vast mass of the electorate to know what theissues were' and adding that he 'did not know of any o`her way
by which it could get at t}tem'.6 Because of divisions between
the parties, Reith had had to settle the allocation of party timehimself, `to the equal discontent of all three parties'.? There wastalk in the papers, however, of the government dictating to theBBC, with the Daily News claiming that Baldwin had been
`egged on by Churchill'.8
For the first time during this general election the press
Reith, Diary, 13 Feb. 1929.
The agreement was announced in the press on 5 Apr. 1929 in what the Daily
News called `curiously ambiguous terms'. The Manchester Guardian called it a 'compromise'. 3 Sunday Graphic, 7 Apr. 1929. He was answered by Mrs. Snowden.
Ibid., 30 Apr. 1929.
6 The Times, 5 Mar. 1929.
4 Star, 7 Apr. 1929.
8
7 Into the Wind, p. 131.
Daily News, 5 Apr. 1929.
'

2

5

134.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

pointed to the direct influence of broadcasting on politics. The
Manchester Guardian, for instance, noted that there was one
wireless in three houses as against one in six or seven in 1923,
and claimed that `the whole technique of elections must undergo
a profound change as a result of the advent of the BBC'. The
psychological results were 'not certainly predictable' but it
seemed likely that they would be `good'. Instead of going to afew political meetings devoted to increasing the faith of those
whose minds are already made up, the voter will in time become
accustomed to following a reasonable debate in which his opponents as well as his own leaders will state their case.'' Thisbelief in the `rationalizing' influence of radio on politics persisted clown to 1939 despite what was happening in Nazi
Germany. There was a blissful ignorance of hidden persuadersand public relations techniques. 'It is an appeal to the individual
reason rather than to the crowd emotion', A. G. Gardiner, theveteran political commentator, wrote in 1931.2 He was recallingthe controversy between free traders and protectionists before
1914 rather than looking ahead to the 195os and 196os.
Not everybody welcomed the BBC's willingness to broadcast
politics at election times. The Daily Express spoke of 'thelistener's new ordeal', while the Daily Sketch asked bluntly:'Is Science, which has added so greatly to the horrors of international war to be allowed also to increase the horrorsof party politics warfare?'3 When W. Crawford, the Liberal
Member for Wolverhampton \Vest, told the House of Commonsthat 'each evening a certain amount of politics could be put
into the ordinary broadcasting programme', there were loudcries of 'Oh !'3 The speeches actually given by the politiciansin 1929 did not greatly impress the public. Sir Laming Worthington -Evans, the first Conservative speaker, called his experiencean `ordeal' and spoke of the `terrible microphone' 'he talked
like an extract from a political handbook', the Manchester
Guardian tartly remarked.s Arthur Henderson, the first Labour
speaker, had a `heavy father touch', complained the Star.6:of 16 May 1929 with

Manchester Guardian, 25 Jan. 1929. Sec also the issue
a leader entitled 'A Mechanised Election'.
2
3

4
1

A. G. Gardiner, 'The New Style in Elections' in the Star, 29 Oct. 1931.
Daily Express, 23 Jan. 1929; Daily SAetch, 6 Mar. 1929.
The Times, 5 Mar. 192g.
Manchester Guardian, 3 Apr. 1929.

6

Star, 12 Apr. 1929.

WORDS AND MUSIC

135

Reich gave an insider's view. The broadcasts confirmed his
previous opinions. Chamberlain had prepared nothing. MacDonald was far Iess effective than Snowden. Baldwin was bestof all. He had written asking Reith for information about thesocial classification of the audience, and he wanted to knowwhether working men listened at home or in clubs and pubs.
Keith helped him, as he had helped him before, with his per-oration.'
There were few press comments about the effect of broadcasting on the result of the election, which led to the formationof the second Labour government, but by the autumn of 1929
the Conservatives were protesting, like the Labour Party before
1929, against 'too many government speeches'.2 A different
kind of protest came from Winston Churchill, who was increasingly estranged from Baldwin. In December 1929 he wrote toReith saying that he was about to make a `public offer' to theBBC `of;Eloo out of my own pocket for the right to speak forhalf an hour on Politics. How ashamed you will all be in a few
years for having muzzled the broadcast !'3 Reith replied that
not only was the BBC precluded by its Licence from accepting
money, but that 'the American plan ... of allowing broadcasting
to be available on a cash basis' operated `irrespective of any
consideration of content or balance'.4 This did not end theargument: indeed, it was to be revived on several occasions
before 1939. Churchill wrote that the preferred the American
plan to 'the present British methods of debarring public men
from access to a public who wish to hear'. He added that the
BBC was wrong to seek to regulate its political broadcasts
through the political parties. `I was not aware that parties had
a legal basis at all, or that they had been formally brought into
your licence.'s
The exchange was not unfriendly, and within a few days
Reith asked Churchill whether he would be willing to takepart in a broadcast discussion, `preferably of the conversational
type', on 'some such subject as the Party system'.6 Churchill by-passed the suggestion with the broad and swcep_ng
Into the Wind, p. 131; Diary, 22 April tg2g.
*Winston Churchill to Reith, 2g Dec. 1929.
4 *Reich to Churchill, 31 Dec. 1929.

2

The Times, 8 Oct. 1929.

3

S*Churchill to Reith,zJan. i93o.

6'Rcith to Churchill, 8 Jan. 1930.

136

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

reply: 'Of course, I am anxious to speak to the public about
great questions like Egypt, India, the Navy, the dole, American
nationalisation of British industry and so on.' He also statedthat he intended to have the whole question of political broadcasting brought up in Parliament.' He did not respond to
Reith's suggestion that 'the expression of original and provocative points of view
can be done more effectively outside
the confines of stereotyped party rota'.z
As Churchill moved further away from Baldwin, he chafed
increasingly at all suggestions of `stereotyped party rota'. He
refused several BBC invitations to broadcast, stating bluntly
that he did 'not wish to speak upon the broadcast [sic] except
on great questions of national policy' or 'for some charitable
undertaking'.3 Lord Beaverbrook was more successful than
Churchill in broadcasting on a theme of his own choice in 1930
precisely because he did not raise general questions concerning
party control. He took part with Sir William Beveridge in aninteresting radio discussion on Free Trade versus Empire Free
Trade: `If he did not comply with all the canons of broadcasting,' the Manchester Guardian commented afterwards, 'he achieved
the rare distinction of putting his personality across into space.'4`While the other political parties have been earnestly debating
how long opponents should be allowed to remain at the
microphone,' another newspaper wrote, 'Lord Beaverbrookhas cut through the obstacles which bar the way to a proper
national broadcasting agreement with the sword ofeconomics.'5
Beveridge sent the BBC copies of the letters he received after
his broadcast talk, `pretty equally divided between shouts ofapproval and shrieks of rage'.6 `If one was to judge the effectof the broadcast from this correspondence,' Lionel Fielden
noted, 'one would say that Beveridge had confused a few of the"middle thinkers" and left the converted where they were. But
I suspect that the effect is really much greater upon the mass of"middle thinkers" who don't write.'? Unfortunately BBC comments on Lord Beaverbrook's forceful speech do not survive.

...

...

*Churchill to Reith, 14 Jan. 1930.
7 *Churchill*Reith to Churchill, 20 Mar. 1930.
to Reith, 15 Feb. 1931.
4 Manchester Guardian, 29 Aug. 1930.
5 Sunday Referee, 31 Aug. 1930.
6 *Sir William Beveridge toMiss Matheson, 12 Dec. 193o. This was Beveridge's
first broadcast.
*Note by Lionel Fielden, 15 Dec. 1930.
1

D

WORDS AND MUSIC137

It is interesting to note that Beveridge was 'much more against
Baldwin's preference policy than . . . against Beaverbrook's
protection policy',' and that he willingly refused 'to mention
British [political] parties any more than Lord Beaverbrookmentions them'.2
The political parties, which so strongly pressed for party
control of broadcasting in 1930, were themselves divided by
the events of 1931. A number of debates were cancelled becauseof the pressure of current party politics-including one between
Sir Oswald Mosley and Lord Eustace Percy on `tradition'sand Churchill was refused permission to state his views on India
in February. On this occasion letters exchanged between him
and J. H. Whitley, the Chairman of the Governors of the BBC,
were published in the press. One letter of Churchill's included
the tendentious phrase that he wanted the BBC to afford him'the opportunity of stating the British side of the case'.4 The
press also was divided on political grounds about this bold claim
as it was about the whole question of `access to the microphone'.
Questions of freedom shifted all too easily into questions ofprivilege. Many newspapers pointed out that if Churchill was
granted the freedom of the air every one else should be granted
it also: the BBC could not possibly allow every one to speak
who wished to do so. On the whole the BBC won the press
battle. Time and Tide noted that 'Mr. Churchill accuses the BBCof having made a lamentable departure from British traditions.
It is he who has departed from tradition in endeavouring toembarrass a government dealing with a delicate problem outside the range of home affairs.'s
Before the controversy about Churchill had settled, MacDonald stole the limelight. The financial crisis and the formation of the National government during the Parliamentary
recess made broadcasting a powerful element in political communication. On the evening of 25 August 1931, just after the*Note by Miss Matheson,

1Dec. 1930.

*Beveridge to Miss Matheson, 3 Dec. 1930. See also Lord Beveridge, Power andInfluence (1953), pp. 221-2.
Wireless, Apr. 1931.
3 See J. M. Kenworthy, 'Free the BBC' in Modern
4 *Winston Churchill to J. H. Whitley, 2 July 1931.
5
Time and Tide, 15 Aug. 1932; The Spectator, 30 June 1932: 'If it began withThe line Sir John
Mr. Churchill where could it be depended upon to stop?
Reith has taken is absolutely right. Not even Mr. Churchill can be supplied withbroadcasting facilities on demand.'
2

...

138

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

new government had been formed, MacDonald gave a broadcast from all stations in which he appealed for confidence.
It was said to have achieved its immediate purpose internationally if not at home. `Following Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's
broadcast speech, the pound sterling rose on all the leading
centres', wrote the Daily Afail.' There were the usual-and, tothe historian, devastating-differences of opinion about theessentials of its delivery. `We heard the Prime Minister lastnight and sensed his tiredness, his anxiety-and his earnestness',
wrote the Star: `admirable in its subject matter, it was admirably
delivered', wrote the Evening Standard. 'The Prime Minister's
voice was strong, clear and dignified. There was no evidenceof strain or tiredness.'z
The general election of 1931 took place in an atmosphere of
far greater political bitterness than the election of 1929, withLabour talking of betrayal and the `National Government' seeking to rally all good men to the aid of the party. No Labour

speaker broadcast in the critical months between August andOctober 1931, and it was not until the eve of the election that
Reich met Glyn, the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private
Secretary and some of his colleagues, and spent about two hours`discussing what to do about the political speeches'. They said
that they did not want Kennedy or Samuel, the representatives
at that time of `National Labour' and `Liberal National', to takepart in the pre -election broadcasts. 'They were all Conservatives', however, Reith noted, and `I was sure that there would
be a racket later'.3
As a result of a number of telephone calls-little of this wasever set clown on paper-Sir John Simon, a National Liberal,
was added to the list. This immediately roused Samuel. 'When
Samuel heard that Simon was in as one of the Liberals he went
off the deep end.'4 He did not recognize Simon as a Liberal,
although they were members of the same Cabinet. A few days
later Arthur Henderson, the leader of the Labour Party, said
that the proposed list was quite unacceptable to him. `There
ought to be as many speakers against the Government as for2
3

4

Daily Mail, 27 Aug. 1931; Financial Times, 27 Aug. 1931.
Star, 26 Aug. 1931; Evening Standard, 26 Aug. 1931.

Reich, Diary, Oct. 1931.
Ibid., 3 Oct. 1931.
1

WORDS AND MUSIC139

the Government, and he wanted for his Opposition as many as
for all the others put together.»In the midst of the troubles Reith took it upon himself totelephone Lloyd George, who had not been involved in the manoeuvres leading up to the formation of the National government.
Lloyd George did, in fact, broadcast on i 5 October, claiming thatthe election was a `partisan intrigue under the guise of a patriotic
appeal', and Reith thought that it was a first-class broadcasting
performance. `I have never met anyone with a more magnetic
personality.'2 Yet Lloyd George's broadcast, with its `Bardic
note', did not sway the election result. The most effective andprobably the most savagely controversial broadcasting the BBC
had ever transmitted came from Philip Snowden, who had
moved over with 1\IacDonald, yet still out of sympathy withhim, to join the National government. In his radio talk of i8
October he shocked his old colleagues by referring to Labour
Party policy as `Bolshevism run mad'. The Manchester Guardianfelt that a speech of this kind has 'no persuasive power ... in thecalm atmosphere' of the home, but there was little doubt thatit both persuaded doubters and, equally important, reinforced
anti -socialist opinion.3
Altogether there were nine political speakers in the immediate
pre -election campaign, of whom only one, Baldwin, was Conservative. `This', Churchill remarked, ignoring the other fivespokesmen of the National government, `was carrying the
suppression of Conservative opinion beyond the bounds ofreason and fair play.'4 Baldwin, 'with his feet on our fender',was as successful as usual,s and the Labour Party made pooruse of the facilities offered it. Henderson started well, but moved
along far too fast as 'a fatal urgency got him in its grip'.6 Clynes
had no understanding of the medium. When Attlee protested
later about the amount of time given to Labour, Kingsley Woodretorted amid laughter in the House of Commons that if
Labour had been given more time at the election the Labour
Party would have been wiped out completely.? No one denied
the influence of wireless in the election, but no one tried to
2 Ibid., 15 Oct. 1931.
Reith, Diary, 8 Oct. 1931.
, Manchester Guardian, 19 Oct. 1931.
4 The Tines, 14 Oct. 1931.
s Manchester Guardian, 16 Oct. 1931.
6 Ibid., 24 Oct. 1931.
7
The Times, 12 Dec. 1931. As it was, only 52 Labour candidates were returned.

140

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

measure it. `It is pretty generally agreed that this election was
won at the fireside', the Manchester Guardian claimed. 'The wireless played a part it never did in any previous election.» `Local
candidates were overshadowed in their own constituencies by
the etheric presence of mightier men', wrote Clifford Sharp.
`Electors would sometimes actually leave political meetings fortwenty minutes or so to hear Baldwin or MacDonald or Lloyd
George, and then return in a spirit perhaps a shade morecritical than beíbre of home town oratory.'z
At the general election of 1935 the National government soon
again with a reduced majority -24.7 against 497-and again there
were `great rows' behind the scenes about the allocation ofelect ion
talks.3 This time the Opposition Liberals were the main source offriction. Samuel wanted to include both Lloyd George andSnowden in the Opposition Liberal quota, much to the annoyance of Captain Margesson, the National government's toughWhip. `Margesson was furious', Sir Stephen Tallents wrote in hís
Diary, 'and rang up Graves several times, and at length.'4 Reith
refused to take part in the discussion, stating firmly that it was theduty ofthe political parties, and not of the BBC, to reach an agreement. If Margesson wished to protest, he should protest to the
Liberal Whip. Eventually the quota was fixed by the parties
themselves at five for the Government, four for the Labour Party,
and three for the Opposition Liberals-which was generally felt
to be a 'fair deal'. The Labour Party made better use of its opportunity than at the General Election of 1931, and one of its new
speakers, Herbert Morrison, was a distinct success.s Snowden,
who broadcast for the Liberals, despite Margesson's protests,
was once again a highly controversial figure. 'His egocentricacidulity', wrote the Evening News, 'has probed the vitals of
every other political leader in turn.'6
There was a somewhat more sophisticated approach to therole of broadcasting in 1935 than at previous elections.
1

Manchester Guardian, 4 Nov. 1931.

C. Sharp, 'The Recent War on the Air' in Weekend Review, 31 Oct. 1931.
Reith, Diary, 25 Oct. 1935.
4 Sir Stephen Tallents, Diary, 25 Oct. 1935 (Tallents Papers).
2
7

Daily Express, 9 Nov. 1935; Manchester Guardian, 14 Nov. 1935Evening News, 29 Oct. 1935. The leader was called 'Lone Wolf'. The Manchester
Guardian ran a contest for its readers based on appreciations of the election speakers.
One listener praised Snowden for offering vitriol not syrup (14 Nov 1935).
56

WORDS AND MUSIC141

The Daily Express questioned people as to whether or not they
had listened to Morrison and to Baldwin 29.5 per cent. hadlistened to the former, it was claimed, 40.9 per cent. to thelatter.' It was estimated by a second pollster also that about
40 per cent. of the subscribers to wireless-relay systems werelistening to the political broadcasts as against a `normal'
audience at that time of 6o to 65 per cent.z The greater use of
the broadcasting system 'as an instrument of political education'
The Times maintained, made the result harder to forecast, while
the Daily Express attributed 'the failure of the official prophets'
to forecast such a large majority for the government to the
influence of radio.3 The New Statesman looked forward to thenext election. The microphone was 'a soul -less non -odoriferous
instrument, a one-way traffic affair which does not answer back',
but the next election would be a television election. 'Thelisteners shall see the broadcaster, but he won't see them.'4:

Prophecies of this kind are obviously of long-term interest,
although many political squabbles of this period look petty andunimportant in the light of subsequent history. So too do thesquabbles about the BBC's own attitude to `internal censorship'. Under Hilda Matheson the BBC employed speakers of
every persuasion, but this did not save it from charges of `leftwing bias'. Under Síepmann the same charges were frequently
repeated, and the Corporation found it desirable to seek `rightwing speakers' who would offset criticism. To many people
outside the BBC the explanation of what w as happening inside
the organization was political. Miss Matheson, it was suggested,
had to leave because of political opposition to her. Siepmann'sdifficulties arose, others suggested, for exactly the same reason.
In fact, the difficulties centred as much on personalities as
on principles, and there is no evidence to suggest that either
Miss Matheson or Siepmann used the BBC to push one particular point of view or e'en to over -represent it. The circumstances leading up to Miss Matheson's resignation were, indeed,peculiarly complicated and were concerned as much as anything else with her administrative relations with Siepmann.
2
Daily Telegraph, 31 Oct. 1935.
Daily Express, g Nov. 1935, 12 Nov. 1935.
The Times, z6 Nov. 1935; Daily Express, 16 Nov. 1935.
4 New Statesman, 9 Nov. 1935.
3

142

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

There was a great deal of mutual scrutiny of motives in 1929
and 193o, and as Hilda Matheson lost her monopoly of the
Spoken Nord, there was also a good deal of bad temper andjealousy. She proved testy and difficult to co-operate with, andrecriminations multiplied on both sides. This was the secondof the BBC's difficulties with officers in positions of responsibility,
the first being the resignation for domestic reasons of the Chief
Engineer, Peter Eckersley, in 1929.1 In both cases the press took
up the stories, concentrating on issues which were general andleaving out many of the relevant particularities.2
Siepmann, who succeeded Hilda Matheson, had joined the
BBC in the autumn of 1927 on the recommendation of Sir
George Gater. He was a lively, enterprising, and ambitious
young man, who saw the opportunities of broadcasting in muchthe same terms as Hilda Matheson. His first job in the BBC wasthat of deputy to R. S. Lambert in the Adult Education Section, which hived off from Stobart's empire early in 1927,3 andwhen Lambert became editor of The Listener in October 1929,
Siepmann succeeded him. He worked extremely closely with
Hilda Matheson and in July 1929 it was decided to amalgamate
the Adult Education Section with the Talks Department.4 Thechange took place in December. 'Mr. Siepmann and his Assistant will transfer from Cecil Chambers to Savoy Hill', the Internal Memorandum stated. 'He takes seniority and general
responsibility next Miss Matheson but to some extent on acolleagueship basis, having direct responsibility on mattersaffecting the Central Council for Adult Educations The term
"Adult Education" disappears internally.'6
The language of this memorandum was more vague in its
references to the future of Charles Siepmann than it was to the
future of the term `adult education'. Nor was it immediately
obvious what lay behind a further memorandum of February
1931. `In view of the development of Talks Department's activities and in order to demarcate responsibilities more precisely
as between the Corporation and the Central Council for Broad' See below, P. 543.
See, for example, the News Chronicle, 2 Dec. 1931.
See below, p. 222.
4 'Control Board Minutes, 16 July 1929.
5 Internal
Memorandum, no. 125, 5 Dec. 1929.
6 For the organization of adult education, see
below, pp. 217íT.
2

WORDS AND MUSIC143

cast Adult Education, Miss Matheson will in future act (andbe known) as Director of General Talks and Mr. Siepmann
as Director of Adult Education Talks. These will be distinct
departments, but with a single executive (Mr. Rendall).'1 This
arrangement did not work well, and when suggestions were madethat there should be further reorganization, Miss Matheson sentin her resignation on 12 October 1931.
Siepmann formally replaced her as Director of Talks in
January 1932. Yet it was not a straight replacement. Someof Reith's critics have seen the Director -General's handbehind 'the advancement of Siepmann'.2 In fact, he appointed
him to the post previously occupied by Miss Matheson only
after very careful thought and prolonged discussion both with
Siepmann himself and with the Chairman of Governors. He
was very glad indeed, however, to see Miss Matheson go.
There was rumour of other members of the Talks Branch
resigning in support of Miss Matheson,3 but this very quickly
fizzled out. J. M. Rose -Troup took over as Assistant Director(and Executive) ; Fielden, who had been very close to Miss
Matheson, was placed in charge of General Talks; and Rendall
took over Adult Education Talks and became Secretary of theCentral Council for Broadcast Adult Education.+ Under Siepmann's general direction, the reorganized Talks Branch settled
down to plan some of the liveliest talks in the BBC's history.
An excellent series called Whither Britain?, for example, wasbroadcast in 1934. (with Wells, Bevin, Shaw, and Lloyd George
among the speakers) and this was followed later in the year bya series on The Causes of War (with, among others, Lord Beaver brook, Norman Angell, Major Douglas-of Social Credit fame-and Aldous Huxley). A few months earlier, in the spring of
1933, two of the best of BBC talkers were on the air. Professor
John Hilton gave his first series on industrial relations-his talks
evoke the mood of the 193os almost as strongly as the popularsongs of the period-and,J. B. Priestley, whose war -time broadcasts still recall a quite different mood, offered a personal comment on current events called I'll Tell You Everything. Alistair*BBC Internal Memorandum, no. 149, 25 Feb. 1931.
Ariel and All His Quality, pp. 72-73; The Natural Bent, pp. 116-18.
7 The Natural Bent, p. 117.
4 *BBC Internal Memorandum, no. 174, 8 Jan. 1932.
2

144

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Cooke, who was also to become one of the best of all broadcasters, began his radio career in 1934 as a cinema critic. His
early correspondence with the BBC is enlivened by a telegramof 1936 which reads `Script today would have to be about two
good books and game of ice hockey, for in 23 general releases
and 6 new films nowhere to go for a laugh or a cry." Despite
candid comments like this, Cooke avoided the sort of friction
with film interests which Agate continued to provoke with thetheatre. He was already hailed in 1936 as 'a really good broadcasting personality'.2 His was a voice of the future. Meanwhile
the National Lectures, which had been inaugurated by Robert
Bridges, the Poet Laureate and the first poet to write on broadcasting, went their somewhat sombre way, with occasional
peaks of retrospective drama like Lord Rutherford's lecture in
October 1933 on The Transmutation of the Atom.1
The record is impressive, but the way of the Talks Branch
was never smooth. There was trouble both about personalities
and about `message'. Churchill's difficulties, for example, did
not end in 193r. Having pressed hard to broadcast on the world
economic crisis in 1932,4 the imminence of the Lausanne Conference was given as a reason for `feeling' that a talk at that time
would not be `appropriate'.5 He took part in the Whither
Britain? series, however-with 'a broad latitude' to speak on
what he wished6-and in the later series on The Causes of War;and in 1935 he gave his long -postponed talk on India. Whitley
told him in October 1933 in the most friendly fashion that thereason he had not been asked to broadcast earlier on India was
because the Parliamentary Advisory Committee of the BBC had
recommended against it. There was a small inter -party consultative committee to advise on political talks, the idea of which
had been suggested by MacDonald in September 1932.7
This was implemented almost immediately, and the previous
elaborate arrangement with party Whips was abolished except
at election times. A small committee of five-Lord Rankeillour,*Telegram to Malcolm Brereton, 17 jan. 1936.
*J. Rose -Troup to C. G. Graves, 15 Jan. 1936.
3 For a list of talks between 1930 and 1985, see BBC Annual(1935), pp. 28-33.
4 *\\ inston Churchill to Reich, 28 Mar. 1932, 14 Apr. 1932.
s *Reich to Churchill, 27 May 1932.
6 *Churchill to Dawnay, 6 Nov. 1933.
2

7

Into the Wind, p. 162.

WORDS AND MUSIC

145

Lord Gorcll, John Buchan, Major Milner, and Ian Macpherson-was set up to meet at the BBC's request two or three times ayear.' The scheme did not work very well, however, sinceLansbury did not approve of Major Milner serving, and Milner
never attended.
The existence of this committee made it difficult for speakers,
like Churchill, who were not on good terms with their parties,
to broadcast on major political questions. `Surely', Churchill,
Lloyd George, and Austen Chamberlain complained in 1933,'it introduces an entirely new principle of discrimination in
British public life-namely the elimination and silencing of any
members of Parliament who are not nominated by the party
leaders or the party whips.'2 Snowden, who had been given theopportunity by the Liberal Party of making his voice heard ata critical time in 1935, joined in the protest on the ground thatit `crushes out all independent political views'.3 The parties continued to exercise direct or indirect influence, however, even after
the eclipse of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee, and the
public heard men like Churchill only rarely. This was a national
loss. Churchill, who turned down a number of requests tobroadcast on what he thought were subjects of little national
importance, spoke in 1937 `about the Navy in its relation to the
Empire'.4 `I should like to dwell', he told the BBC, 'on peaceand freedom, tolerance, Parliament and law, as well as upon the
Navy which renders our existence and mission possible.'S He
also broadcast on the Mediterranean in October 1938, when hetold a BBC official that he still felt himself to be 'muzzled'.6
It is necessary to acid that the BBC was influenced in its
political broadcasts policy not only by the parties but by thepressure of public opinion. There was always a powerful currentof opinion which resented the expression of all `strong' politicalstatements and accused the BBC of bias in one direction or
another. Churchill was identified with a `strong' right-wing
position before he turned increasingly to the international scene' Ibid., p. 172. *Control Board Minutes, 27 Sept. 1932.
2 *Winston Churchill, D. Lloyd George, and Sir Austen Chamberlain to J. H.
Whitley, 25 Aug. 1933.
3
The Times, 12 Sept. 1933.
4 *Churchill to Reith, 5 Mar. 1937.
5*Churchill to the Programme Contracts Executive, 24 Mar. 1937.
b *Note by Guy Burgess, 4 Oct. 1938.
C 1995

L146

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

in the 193os, and having roused left-wing opinion during theGeneral Strike-which left memories inside the BBC-heroused moderate Conservative opinion during the Indian discussions. After he had given his talk in the 1934 Causes of War
series there were complaints that he had delivered a `gratuitous
attack on Germany', and one writer said that it was 'in need offar more censorship than Professor Haldane's', a talk on theextreme left.= The mood of the 193os was not congenial to theforthright communication of Churchillian themes, and the
BBC did not seek to dispel it.
It had difficulties also, of a quite different order, with Vernon
Bartlett, the BBC's `foreign correspondent' who broadcast
regularly (on programme contract) on foreign affairs from
London and the European capitals from 1932 onwards. For
five years before that he had given a weekly talk entitled The
Way of the World. Bartlett was an excellent broadcaster but theran into many difficulties, particularly when articles he wrote
in the press were set alongside his broadcasts. A talk which hegave on Nazi Germany in October 1933 provoked a letter from
Ramsay MacDonald, who stated bluntly that 'a propaganda
in favour of Germany is certainly the most dangerous thing thatcan be started at present'.z A later talk by Bartlett on Germany's
withdrawal from the League of Nations, which was also heldby his critics to be pro -German, provoked a burst of public
protest-along with a far greater burst of appreciative praise.
Questions were asked in the House of Commons about thisbroadcast,3 and there was serious strain in the BBC's relations
with the Foreign Office. Sir John Simon, the Foreign Secretary,
had always hinted that the BBC made crises more critical, and
Sir Robert Vansittart backed him up. After abortive discussions
on the scope of future broadcasts, Bartlett left the BBC for theNews Chronicle. Yet he understood the BBC's point of view andfrequently broadcast after this, as did other speakers who had
temporary difficulties with the Corporation. He later became
an Independent Progressive Member of Parliament for Bridgwater in 1938. Reviewing his experience as a commentator on*Note by S. J. de Lotbiniére, 20 Nov. 1934.
*J. R. MacDonald to J. H. Whitley, i6 Oct. 1935.
3 Hansard, vol. 285, col. 1577. See an article
on this and allied subjects by Mrs.
Hamilton, a BBC Governor, in Harper's Magazine, Dec. 1935.
'

2

WORDS AND MUSIC

147

foreign affairs he concluded that 'no one person should be given
a position of such authority and responsibility'.'
If interpretations of Nazi Germany posed problems, so didinterpretations of the Soviet Union. Vansittart complained,
indeed, in 1937 that a talk by John Hilton on Russia was misleading and dangerous, and urged the BBC 'to keep off Communism and Nazi -ism and Fascism for the next year or so'.z

In August 1934 a new General Talks Department had been
formed in the BBC by the amalgamation of the old General
Talks Department and the Adult Education Department. The
Head of the Department under Siepmann as Director of Talks
was G. N. Pocock, and there were four General Assistants (including Felix Greene and J. S. A. Salt) and two part-timeassistants, one of whom was Mrs. Mary Adams, the highly
intelligent wife of the highly independent Conservative Memberof Parliament, Vyvyan Adams. Fielden was `promoted' to thepost of special assistant to Siepmann, 'with the duties of providing ideas for Talks programmes, producing special Talks
features and stimulating and criticising the content and execution of Talks throughout the Branch'.3 Within a year, on Reith's
recommendation, Fielden was on his way from Broadcasting
House to India to take charge of broadcasting there.
The new man inside the BBC who made the reorganizationnecessary was Professor John Coatman, former Professor ofImperial Economic Relations at the London School of Economics, who was deliberately brought in as `right wing offset'
to `balance' the direction of talks and news. Reith had decided
to divorce 'News and Topicality' from `Talks' in May 1934, thefirst open sign that Siepmann's empire was about to disintegrate.4
Coatman was not the first man to be thought of in relation tothe `News' job, but he was strongly supported by Norman and
Dawnay. His arrival almost immediately caused strains anddifficulties with Siepmann. Not only did the two men havedifferent views, but Coatman did not behave as a subordinate.
He insisted on his own independence as a maker of' policy. As
V. Bartlett, This is My Life (1937), p. 177.
*Memorandum to C. G. Graves, 9 Mar. 1937.
3 *Internal
Memorandum, no. 277, 27 Aug. 1934.
4
Reith, Diary, May 1934, t May 1934.
2

1

1

148

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

the strains between him and Siepmann intensified Reith became
increasingly concerned not only about Coatman's but about
Siepmann's behaviour. There was ominous talk-inside andoutside committee rooms-of parallels with the last days ofMiss Matheson in 1931. The climax came in June 1935 when
Siepmann was moved from his post as Director of Talks to thenew post of Director of Regional Relations. The Talks Department then passed into the hands of Rose -Troup.

Rose-Troup's tenure of office was little more than an interregnum when contending forces struggled against each other.
Indeed, he himself accepted the post only on condition that it
would be temporary. Norman Luker, who had joined theTalks Department in 1934.-and was eventually to become
Head of Talks-has called it 'a period of anarchy'.' It ended
with the appointment in February 1936 of Sir Richard Roy
Maconachie as Director of Talks. Maconachie had served as
British Minister at Kabul from 1930 to 1936 and had establishedan Indian reputation as a `master of the pen'. His appointment
to the BBC was naturally seen as a `swing to the right', but it
was something more than this. Convinced of the significanceof Talks and News inside the BBC's organization, he battled
hard (and sometimes irascibly) in the interests of his department. He had a genuine interest in promoting the work ofyoung men, and lie soon won their confidence by allowing
them both security and freedom. John Green, who was a young
man in 1937 and eventually was to be one of Maconachie's
successors, has written of him:
He came to the BBC at a period of unusual frustration andthreatened resignations, when the cult of the temperamental producer was slowly yielding to more professional and perhaps prosaic
concepts. A virtual anarchy (rather topical at that time because of
the Spanish Civil War) was in operation when the Talks Department was summoned to the Board Room to what was thought to be
at worst dismissal, at least another perplexing reorganization. It was
Sir Cecil Graves who merely announced that the Governors had
appointed 'a Sir Richard Maconachie to be Director of Talks', andadded most laconically as he left the room 'he is a most distinguishedpublic servant whom I am sure you will all like'. I well remember
Note by N. Luker, 7 Dec. 1962.

WORDS AND MUSIC

14.9

the only lifcbelt that could be grasped in that cold sea was theGovernors' solitary Who's Who. When one of those present had read
aloud the Kiplingesque dossier of deeds wrought on the Lldian
Frontier the situation seemed more unusual than ever. Ten years
later the only exceptionable word was `like' because the whole bodyof young idealists and intellectuals would unanimously have preferred `love'.'

The tribute rings true, even though in retrospect the choiceof a man with Maconachie's background must still be considered as a further retreat into caution. In the last two years of
the peace there were few series of talks which compared in
excitement with those of the earlier 19305, and controversy
itself began to seem somewhat vieux jeu. The most interesting
reaction inside the BBC was technical rather than political.
Both from `left' and `right' there was a demand for new techniques in the broadcasting of the spoken word. The approachof Hilda Matheson and Siepmann seemed to be out of elate,particularly in its emphasis on the formal script and the single
speaker. Could not the BBC learn from Mass Observation? Did
it have to rely on an élite? Could not more use be made of
speakers in the regions, speakers who would not naturally use
the standard BBC English with which the Talk was associated?
\Vas it not necessary to break with `intellectualism', with 'the
Platonism of the founders'?
Against this background, new kinds of programmes began
to be transmitted, or rather ideas associated with older programmes were given a new airing. Conversations in the Train(1932) had associated conversation with `appropriate soundeffects' the idea was Hilda Matheson's,z but whereas she wanted
to use first-class speakers, like E. M. Forster or Roger Fry, by1935 professional actors-of the calibre of Gladys Young, Mabel
Constanduros, Carleton Hobbs, and Charles Mason-were`performing' in scripts written by outsiders. The change of moodinside the BBC is well illustrated in a note by Felix Felton in
1938: `I suggest that Conversations in the Train should be takenover by us under the new title Casual Conversations. This would
have the advantage (a) of being a new title though reminiscentof the other and (b) of suggesting that the series will, in our:

12

Sec The Times, 25 Jan. 1962.

H. Matheson to R. H. Eckersley, passed to Reith, 4 Dec. 1931.

150

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

hands, deal with private and human problems rather than ones
as cosmic as "fixed Easter" or the metric system.''
In 1935 a series of unrehearsed debates was arranged by Mrs.
Adams-there had already been many of these since 19272on Saturday evenings. The two speakers and their chairman
met only once, at most, before the debate, and when Bertrand
Russell and G. K. Chesterton debated the motion 'that parents
are unfitted by nature to bring up their own children', no preliminary meeting was held until 'a light supper in the GreenRO0m' immediately before the broadcast.; Fear of silence seems
to have worried producers as much as fear of the uncensored,
though surely not in the case of Russell and Chesterton. There
was certainly little fear of sharp confrontations of opposing
points of view. A recorded debate in December 1936 was described by Graves to Rose -Troup as 'too obviously rehearsed
and lacking in interest because the divergence of views of thethree speakers was not sufficiently divergent'.4
The BBC's files on the debates contain many items of historical interest. In late 1936 and early 1937, for example, totake one short spell alone, Roger Wilson was arranging a series
called This Planning Business with Professor Arnold Plant defending laissez faire, John Strachey attacking it, and Harold Macmillan taking 'a middle line' ;5 Graves was saying that it wastime to give Grossman 'a rest' as a Labour speaker, but that hehad not heard of Gaitskell;6 and C. V. Salmon, the producer,
after arranging a discussion on 'The Younger Generation', wasasking, with genuine solicitude, `I understand that Cloudesley
Brereton always has a first-class railway voucher on these*Note by Felix Felton, 9 June 1938.
*Miss Matheson wrote to Reith on Feb. 1927, 'I should very much likepermission to experiment with one unwritten debate', to which he replied (2 Feb.
1927), 'By all means have an unwritten debate provided you can be certain thatthings will not be said which will subsequently get us into trouble.' Such debates
were subsequently arranged, and Miss Matheson was well aware of the technicalproblems they posed. '\Ve shall never get ideal conversational stuff in a comthe whole room is equivapletely natural and yet completely audible tone until
lent to a microphone. The present arrangements, though an improvement in someways on the past, are still too like Heath Robinson cartoons.' (Miss Matheson to\V. E. G. Murray, 27 Mar. í93o.)
3 *Mrs. Adams to Rose -Troup, 13 Mar. 1936.
4 *Graves to Rose -Troup, 7 Dec. 1936.
*Wilson to Salmon, 25 Feb. 1937.
6 *Graves to Rose-Troup, 18 Dec. 1936.
'

2

1

...

WORDS AND MUSIC:51

occasions. Do you think that C. P. Snow ought to have one aswell?' I
It is of importance to note that among the significant broadcasting developments of the years just before the war, developments in the Regions were as interesting-and in some cases
more interesting-than developments at the centre. It was in
Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol that changes in talks
policy were most clear and most striking.2 Agricultural talks
from the Midlands and West Region, `Midland Parliament'and `Northern Cockpit' programmes from the Midlands andNorth,3 and, above all, two series of programmes from theNorth, planned by Donald Boyd and Roger Wilson, brokeentirely new ground. In 1937 Wilson had paid a visit to theUnited States to study `serious broadcasting', and in the courseof his trip he made acquaintance with the Chicago Round Table
programmes, a serious unscripted discussion series sponsoredby the University. With the help of Boyd he determined on his
return 'to use the idea better' than the Americans had done, in
the North Region. Why Do You Believe That? was the first of thetwo series of programmes he devised. In it J. H. Sprott ofNottingham University conducted a Socratic dialogue withthree `partners in discussion', one of them a steelworker from
Scunthorpe. This programme series ran into difficulties with
Iremonger, the BBC's Director of Religion, who listened
zealously to all programmes on `moral themes', not only on Sundays.4 In the second series of programmes, Public Enquiry, an
audience of 200 people in Manchester listened to two speakers
of opposing views discussing issues in local government. Questions were asked from the audience who genuinely participatedin the broadcast. One of the technical difficulties, which Miss
Matheson had noted, was that in the absence of an omnidirectional microphone, microphones had to be placed everywhere in the hall. This programme was so successful, however,that it was due to be included in the National Programme in
the autumn of 1939. War, of course, intervened.
The Regions always had the ambition of having their programmes carried on the National Programme for reasons bothof finance and prestige. They had the advantage over London,
Salmon to the Talks Executive, 28 May 1937.
3

See below, p. 338.

2

See also below, p. 330.
4 See below, p. 246.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

152

however, of being able to deploy the operational resources of
the whole regional staff and not just a section of it. A series
from the North, called Burbleton after the name of an imaginary
borough with a mayor called Alderman Wool, had a script
written by T. Thompson, the Lancashire short -story writer. Its
realism was well enough estabLshed for a Staffordshire town clerk
to write to the Burbletown Town Planning Officer to ask for his
advice and for a Cheshire town councillor to accuse the BBCof having copied a speech he had just delivered to his own
council.'
It is interesting to speculate what would have happened tothis genre of broadcast had not war intervened. As it was, oneof the great successes of Howard Thomas's war -time Brains
Trusts had made his début in 1935 in an interesting unscripted
series, Men Talking. 'At last we have found the right man for the
Men Talking series,' Stuart Hibberd wrote in his diary, 'a Commander Campbell, R.N.R., a man with a good broadcasting
voice and a collection of sailor's yarns which must be unrivalled-spun not by the yard, but by the mile.'z

The story of Talks is related at almost every point to the story
of News. In December 1929 the News Section had been separated from the Talks Department and placed under the directcontrol of the Assistant Director of Programmes,3 but in February 1932, after Miss Matheson had left, the News Section was
brought back within the aegis of the Talks Branch and thereby
under the control of Siepmann.4 When Professor Coatmanjoined the BBC as Senior News Editor in August 1934, the News
Section became a department again, and a few months later it
became quite independent of the Director of Talks.s It remained
separate and distinct, reporting direct to the Controller of Programmes, until May 1940.
More interesting than these formal details of organization
are the facts concerning the timing and presentation of news,
the enormous spread of activities, and the relations in the back 1

Note by Donald Boyd, Dec. 1962.

This-is London, p. 119.
*BBC Internal Memorandum, no. 125, 5 Dec. 1929.
4 *BBC Internal Memorandum, no. 149, 25 Feb. 1931.
5*BBC Internal Memorandum, no. 277, 27 Aug. 1934; BBC Internal Memorandum, Apr. 1935.
2
3

1

WORDS AND MUSIC

153

ground with the powerful news agencies. Between 1927 and1939 the BBC established its reputation as the most honest
purveyor of news in the world: it was a reputation which was tostand it in good stead when war broke out. Yet there wasa remarkable contrast between the beginning and the end of
the period. It was only in January and February 1927 that
Reith, bargaining with great skill, reached agreement with thepress and the four main news agencies allowing the BBC tobroadcast its first news bulletin at 6.30 p.m. (instead of 7 p.m.)and to transmit a strictly limited number of 'eye witness descriptions'. Even then the Newspaper Proprietors' Association,
the Newspaper Society, Reuters Ltd., the Press Association, theExchange Telegraph Company, and the Central News-theparties to the agreement-severely restricted BBC activities.
The BBC had to promise to take its news bulletins exclusively
from the four press news agencies and not to give its listeners
more racing or sporting information than it was giving them atthe end of 1926.1 Although the term `copyright reserved' could
be used in bulletins instead of the older ritualistic formula ofobligation, the longer acknowledgement had to be made oncea week. Reith's skill ín reaching this agreement was greo.tly
appreciated by his colleagues. C. F. Atkinson, who was present
at the final meeting with the news agencies, rushed in jubilation
to Carpendale's room afterwards and said that the Director General by his conduct of the negotiations had earned a year'ssalary in little over an hour.
The BBC felt that it had gained an immense amount by the
new agreement, limited though it was. Its first 6.3o news
bulletin was given on 3 ,January 1927 and its first running
commentaries in the same month. Geoffrey Strutt, who was incharge of the section, had prepared a most interesting memorandum on its future in September 1926. He lamented theinability of the BBC 'to use the peculiar quality of our medium
for describing events as they happen', urged that there should
be more running commentaries, and emphasized above all else
the need for `accuracy' in news bulletins. In the long run themembers of the public would appreciate accuracy, even though' *Arrangement made between the BBC and Various Press Organisations, 22
Feb. 1927. Agreement about payment to the news agencies was reached in Sept.
1927, when a fixed annual payment was substituted for a sliding scale.

154

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

they would lack the `sensationalism' of the press. It would beenough for people to say, 'if it carne through the BBC, it is so'.1
There were only two sub -editors working in the News Sectionin January 1927 and at the end of the year still only three. Theirwork, which díd not, of course, include outside broadcasts,2
seems to have been limited in scope to checking the content ofnews rather than sub -editing it. It was not until February 1930
that the BBC put out the first news bulletin to be fully edited at
Savoy Hill. By then there had been new agreements with thepress and the agencies, and the first evening news bulletin wasgiven at 6 p.m. instead of 6.30.
All issues relating to the news had to be thrashed out at
a meeting of a joint committee of press and BBC, presided overby Lord Riddell, who had been actively engaged in all discussions between the press and the BBC since 1922. He was stilltalking in 1927 of the BBC `damaging the Press',3 and even three
years later Reith \S as complaining openly of the committee's`obstructive attitude'.4 In September 1928, however, the earlier
news bulletins were permitted and an increase in the numberof `running commentaries' was allowed,s while in 1930 directtape machines were installed at Savoy Hill and the BBC's
editorial staff was doubled so as to provide two editors and two
sub -editors, working in two shifts.6`Special efforts were made' in 1930, we are told, 'to improve
the presentation of news, so that items should be brief andsimply worded. A very definite standard of quality was aimed
at, and when news of that quality was lacking, no padding was
employed. When there was not sufficient news judged worthyof being broadcast, no attempt was made to fill the gap, and theannouncer simply said "there is no news tonight".'7 In this unostentatious way the BBC sharply distinguished itself from thenewspapers. When news did come in, as it usually did, little
attempt was made to supplement agency messages. News was*G. H. G. Stnttt, Memorandum on the BBC's News Service, 29 Sept. 1926.
See above, p. 80.
3 Reith,Diary, 3 July 1927.
Ibid., 26 Nov. 1930.
5*Arrangement made between the BBC and Various Press Organisations, 18
Sept. 1928.
6 *News Service, `Review of the Year 1930', 4 Jan. 1931. Agreement had beenreached with Exchange Telegraph in Feb. 1927 to instal one tape machine at=

Savoy Hill.
7 *`Review of the Year 1930.'

WORDS AND MUSIC

155

collected as it came off the tape machines and was written up
in `items' for broadcasting purposes.
In November 1932 a greater measure of freedom of a morepositive kind was secured. At a meeting of the joint committee
the BBC secured consent to put out at any time news of unforeseen events of special importance. The discussion on thisoccasion showed that the balance of power between BBC andpress had begun to tilt in favour of the BBC. When press representatives objected to the BBC broadcasting Test Match scoresfrom the tape, Reith retaliated by `indicating that if they were
obstructive we might decline to prohibit the re -diffusion ofimportant running commentaries, particularly of sporting
events, which they have always been bothered about'.'
The most interesting experiment before the News Department was founded in 1934 under Coatman was the 'news reel',first introduced in the summer of 1933. The idea came fromJohn Watt and the first broadcast of July 1933 was describedas `frankly experimental'. News and comment were welded
into a continuous fifty -minute programme, with switch-overs to
Manchester and Paris, gramophone and Blattnerphone excerpts,
including Derek McCulloch talking about the anniversary of
the Battle of the Somme, and a record of a lawn -tennis commentary earlier in the day. Listeners' comments were mixed.
One correspondent said that he wanted the news 'as short as
possible, at the regular time, and then I want to get on with myBridge'. `It compelled me to listen,' wrote another, 'and by
9.15 my yearning for cricket scores had vanished.'z 'The news
reel', wrote The Times, `exploited the element of surprise, andconception of news as something more than facts. News in thiswider sense is facts present, plus facts past, plus human reactions, and the experiment showed something of what may bedone in presenting such news for the ear alone.'3
News Reel was, in fact, too expensive to survive in the conditions of 1933. There was not a big enough staff or a staff &theright kind, and recordings were still thought to be an expensive
luxury rather than a necessary item of equipment. The programme was taken off the air in December 1933. A few months
later, under Coatman, the size of the News staff was greatly
13

1 Radio Times, Nov. 1933.
Reith, Diary, 16 Nov. 1932.
The Times, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. 1934.

156

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

increased and a separate News Section was started inside theEmpire and Foreign Services Branch. J. C. S. McGregor wastransferred as Empire News Editor, and the two units worked
quite separately. By 1940 the Empire News Section had growninto a huge Overseas News Department, serving not only
English-speaking audiences in the Empire but foreigners in allparts of the world.' This was one of the most remarkable transformations in the history of the BBC. Yet both branches wereof the same tree and shared the same approach to news, and in1934 it was Coatman's department which seemed the more
important.
Coatman made it abundantly clear to all the newcomers to
the News Department that his intention was to create a service
on new, professional lines which would be responsible throughthe Chief News Editor to Dawnay. Two professional journalists
were appointed to Coatman's staff-R. T. Clark, the Foreign
News Editor, who was a veteran of the Daily Telegraph and theManchester Guardian, and Kenneth Adam, Home News Editor,
who went to the BBC direct from the Manchester Guardian. They
were supported as sub -editors by F. D. Walker and Michael
Balkwill. Coatman left the actual compilation of news bulletins
to his staff, but his personality and methods quickly made him apower inside Broadcasting House. His appointment had been
as controversial as that of Maconachie was to be: the News
Chronicle, for example, referring to his earlier career in India,
hailed it with the headline, `Strange Appointment at the BBC:Ex -Police Official is News Editor'.z His colleagues do notthink of him in this context. 'He was an old-fashioned radical',Kenneth Adam has written, `whose two personal enthusiasms
were the Empire and cricket. He had a spendid contempt for
protocol and formality, and his special delight was to return tothe fifth floor of Broadcasting House late in the evening, often
after an official dinner, and sweep the whole staff, including
secretaries, off to a nearby public house for sausages and hitter.'3
In extending the scope of the news service Coatman had theactive support of Reith, who was keenly interested in the BBC's
presentation of news and often rang up at the end of a bulletin
to commend or to criticize the manner in which a particular3

See below, p. 408.
2 .hews Chronicle, 15 Aug. 1934.
*Note by Kenneth Adam on the News Department, June 1963.

WORDS AND MUSIC

157

news item had been treated. When there were press or agency
protests about the increase in coverage, Reith himself was theBBC's chief advocate. Two of the signs of change \%ere theopening of a News Library, with A. V. Batchelor from The Timesin charge and Elizabeth Barker, daughter of Sir Ernest, as his
assistant, and the beginnings of independent BBC reporting.
Vernon Bartlett had never been able to secure from the BBC thesame kind of terms as a foreign correspondent would securefrom a newspaper, even though he believed the BBC 'to be somuch more influential than any newspaper'.' Ralph Murray,
who was placed in charge of 'News Talks' after J. R. Ackerley
was appointed Literary Editor of The Listener in 1935, felt nosuch insecurity. He proved to be both an organizer and a performer of high quality, and his lucid descriptions of the Leagueof Nations and the Geneva scene were either recorded or fed
directly into news bulletins. The Foreign Office was later toclaim hím as an ambassador. In the meantime, Kenneth Adam
was active on the home front, covering such varied events as thelying -in -state of George V, a speech of Lloyd George at theTrades Union Club, the Spring Show at the Old Horticultural
Hall, and a new Shaw play at the Malvern Festival.
Not all the initiatives of the News Department developed
without hitch. A dramatic presentation of the news of a twentyfour -hour revolution in Barcelona, with a team of announcers
representing 'the Voice of Barcelona', 'the Voice of Madrid',and 'the Voice of the Outside World', was described in some
sections of the press as 'the occasion of a public sense of outrage'.
Members of Parliament even tried to ask questions about it in
the House of Commons. Coatman stood foursquare behind his
erring editors, and Reitli's rebuke was mild even though theparticipants in the programme had committed the additionalsin of over -running their time. This was the first time, though
not the last, that the BBC News made news. The initiative was
warmly welcomed in some circles. An editorial in Popular I Vire less, for example, noted in August 1935 that 'the vast improvement in the News Service lately cannot have escaped any one's
notice. A number of most interesting stories have been collected
and nicely written up. There have also been a number ofsummaries of official reports which have been extremely inter*Vernon Bartlett to R. FI. Eckersley, 15 Jan. 1932.

158

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

esting. Even the warnings have been delicately proclaimed. One
likes to hear experts and men on the spot, too, in the News
Bulletins. They give the bulletins the right authoritative touch.»
It is possible to exaggerate the extent of change before 1939.
Vernon Bartlett's dream of 'a panel' of foreign correspondents
and speakers on foreign affairs was not realized,2 nor was therea spoken counterpart of the current television programme,
Panorama. In March 1937, however, a new fillip was given to'on the spot' reporting of news during the Fen floods, and themobile van was kept very busy. Recordings were also used at thetime of the Thetis disaster, and before war broke out some of theyounger members ofthe BBC stafl'were beginning to talk ofa new
sub -section of the News Department to be called `actualitics'.3
Instead, listeners were offered more news at fixed times. Six
o'clock was still the time of the first news, and the 9 o'clocknews had not yet become a national institution. In the early
spring of 1936 a short news summary was provided at 11.3o p.m.
for the benefit of late home -comers, and later in the same year
the number of news bulletins and summaries was increased andthe length of the two main bulletins reduced from thirty totwenty minutes. Two other points were made at the time ofthese changes. First, listeners were told that practically all
topical talks would be relegated to one fixed period-from
10.15 to 10.25 p.m.-so as to avoid holding up the news.
Second, they were promised more news about sport. `Sports
experts have been added to the News staff, with the object ofmaking the sports service as efficient and as comprehensive as
is possible in the time available.'
It is interesting to note reactions to these developments. Six
o'clock and 9 o'clock became hallowed times, particularly 9
o'clock, yet 6 o'clock had its critics inside the BBC. 'Six o'clock
is too early for the majority of our listeners', Rose -Troup told
Siepmann in 1932. 'On the other hand we have always beenfighting the newspaper proprietors for an earlier news timing.»
Nine o'clock did not establish itself until October 1938, after
several experiments in timing had been tried -9.3o, 9.4o, andPopular Wireless, Aug. 1935.
See V. Bartlett, This is My Life (1937), ch. xi.
3 *L. F. Lewis, `Report on Mobile Recording,1935-1941'.
BBC Annual (1937), p. 43.
5 *Rose -Troup to Siepmann, 14 Apr. 1932.
2

WORDS AND MUSIC

159

Io o'clock. More sport produced on the whole favourable reactions, with one section pressing for even more. In 1932 theManchester Guardian directed attention to the fact that the BBC
had broadcast three -and -a -quarter hours of sporting running
commentaries the previous Saturday: 'this is the first occasiona programme so ambitious has been undertaken'.' Gerald Cock,the Daily Mirror pointed out, had been responsible for this `entertainment medley which was one of the best'.2 Yet five years
later, after the further extension of sports broadcasts, the newspapers were still asking for more.3 There were a few commentson the other side. 'We confess our astonishment', the Children's
Newspaper editorialized in 1935, 'that the BBC Announcer
should think it well, at a time when grave issues are in thebalance, to begin his news items with a long account of a horse
race. Not content with giving the result of the race, he eventold us who trained the winning horse.'4
While the public was being shocked, amused, or just informed,
there were difficult negotiations behind the scenes which led toa new agreement being signed with the Newspaper Proprietors'
Association and the Newspaper Society in March 1938.5 In
this agreement the press agencies were for the first time left out.
By the new agreement, which applied to home -service broadcasting only, the BBC confirmed its previous policy of broadcasting news bulletins only between the hours of 6 p.m. and2 a.m., promised not to broadcast betting news, and agreed, as
it had done in 1927 and earlier, not to broadcast paid advertising matter. Apart from these three strictly limited restrictions,
it was left free to do as it pleased-completely free, for example,
in relation to outside broadcasting policy. The agreement was
signed on behalf of the BBC neither by the Director -General
nor by the Controller of Programmes but by Sir Stephen Tallents, the Controller of Public Relations.6 This was a sign that
relations with the press liad now become a matter of public relations only and no longer a serious restraint on programme policy.
Manchester Guardian, 27 June 1932.
Daily Mirror, 27 June 1932.
See above, p. 121.
* Children's Newspaper, Apr. 1935.
*The BBC sent the press interests formal notice that it intended to terminate
3
the older agreement on 3o Nov. 1937.
6 *Arrangement made between the BBC and Various Press Organisations, 24
2Mar. 1938.

D

16o

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

One of the most complex questions in the BBC's relations
with the press agencies was whether or not the Corporation
should make use of the British United Press, which was nota member of the consortium and to which they were bitterly
opposed.' As early as 1931 Gladstone Murray had had talks
with the Chairman of British United Press,2 but it was not until
September 1939 that agreement was reached.3 Negotiations
with some of the other agencies were proceeding 'in the open
market' when war broke out.

'This is an Age of News', Sir Stephen Tallents told theInstitute of Journalists in October 1937 in a talk entitled `Fleet
Street and Portland Place'. 'All over the world they seem tobe turning from fiction to reality.'4 Although the appetite fornews was to grow sharper still during the Second World War,
there certainly seems to have been a greater appetite for news
during the 193os than there was for drama. `Almost all of us
have, consciously or sub -consciously, a strong sense of thedramatic', R. E. Jeffrey, the BBC's first `Productions Director',
had written, highly rhetorically, in 1924; 'the hidden books of
our lives are, for the best part, made up of pages full of dramatic
incident. We have all been thrilled by joy, fear, agony, love,
hate, inspiration, anger, passion, and other emotions. Strict
training and temperamental reluctance to allow these feelings
to take possession of us, has, perhaps, caused us to exercise
restraint which has permitted these soul -moving moments tobe rigorously suppressed." This was heavily dated by 1934, if
it was anything else in 1924. Even at best, it sounds more likea prelude to This Is Your Life than to serious drama.
Val Gielgud took over from Jeffrey on i January 1929. His
empire included variety as well as drama, but it was drama' *The position on the eve of the termination of the agreement is fully summarized in an important paper by Nicolls, 'The Present Position in Regard to Restrictions on the Broadcasting of News and the Cost of the Service supplied by the News
Agencies', 7 Sept. 1937.
2 *Notes on meeting between Murray and C.F. Crandall, 19 May 1931; seealsoReith to Crandall, 13 Apr. 1934, saying that the BBC would have to abide by its
Press Agreement; Control Board Minutes, 29 Sept. 1936, reporting favourably on
the value of the B.U.P. service; Control Board Minutes, 13 Apr. 1937, for the startof negotiations.
3 *Control Board Minutes,
Sept. 1939.
4 Sir Stephen Tallents, `Fleet Street and Portland Place', 12 Oct. 1937.
5*R. E. Jeffrey, 'Wireless Drama', 1924.
1

WORDS AND MUSIC

161

which interested him most.' His main helper was Howard Rose,
who had joined the BBC staff as a producer in 1925, having
already acted in broadcast Shakespeare. From the start, Gielgud
was given a very free hand. He was responsible not only for the
production of plays in the studio, but for the choice of plays, inshort for the whole of dramatic policy. `Apart from having toobserve the amber warning lights at the cross roads of Sex,
Religion and Politics,' he has written, `I could drive straightahead with reasonable confidence of security.'2 The proviso was
an important one, more important, indeed, than the statement,
yet it was an almost inevitable proviso in the Britain of the
1920S and 1930s. Not only does current drama reveal an age,through its attempt to escape as much as through its involvement, but the choice of the drama of previous generations isalmost equally revealing.
In the ten years after 1929, the BBC broadcast a very wide
repertoire of plays. In 1934., for example, five Shakespeare plays
were broadcast, along with two Chekhov plays and two playsby Ibsen. At the same time six plays were specially written forbroadcasting and five novels were adapted for radio, including
Oliver Twist, Wuthering Heights, and The Alan Who Could Work
Miracles. Gielgud was part -author of one of the plays, andLaurence Gilliam, who was one of the pioneers of the `feature',
adapted The Man Who Could Work Miracles in co-operation withthe author, H. G. Wells.
Some plays liad to be ruled out on obvious grounds-classicalplays dealing with exchange of identity, for instance (perfect for
television), or multiplicity of disguises, and some of the mostpopular current plays of the 193os, like the Ben Travers farces,
which relied on comic situation (visibly communicated) rather
than on dialogue. Other plays might tend to be ruled out, if
their `predecessors' had bored the great audience rather thanentertained it. A series called Twelve Great Plays in 1928 wasanimated by the worthiest intentions, but its reception made itdifficult for several years for Gielgud to persuade his `elders andbetters in the programme field to let me tackle anything in thenature of classical plays except Shakespeare'.3
2
V. Gielgud, British Radio Drama, r922-1956. p. 36.
*Gielgud, `Considerations Relevant to Broadcasting Drama based uponExperience in the Years 1929 to 1948'.

See above, p. 8g.

3

C 199.E

M

IÓ2

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLICOne freedom Gielgud greatly prized was that of being able
to select plays both short and long, a freedom which he said
American commercial broadcasting never permitted. He was
opposed to the `tyranny of the stop watch', and in the conditionsof the 193os found it less difficult to defend this policy than it
was to be later. During the early months of the Second World
War, for instance, all plays had to be cut short to fit into thesingle programme.'
The balance of different kinds of play did not change muchin subsequent years from that of 1934., although listener research suggested that there was a greater popular interest inradio drama than had earlier seemed likely,2 and Gielgud
himself had noted after a visit to Sweden in 1934. that 'it was
something of a reproach to us that a comparatively smallorganisation such as the Swedish Broadcasting Committee canhandle twice as many plays as we do-with extremely inferior
accommodation'.3
One way of increasing output which Gielgud always resisted
was that of encouraging a bigger spate of productions from theRegions. From the very beginnings of the Regional Scheme, he
had feared that regional drama would not reach 'a high standard',4 and he continued throughout the 193os to criticize
regions for seeking to achieve results beyond their reach.5 Heeven attempted, against the trend of the times, to increase
centralized control of Drama from London .6 The Regions went
ahead, however, in spite of his criticisms, partly by producing
plays of the type that Gielgud welcomed-those which set out'to reflect and promote the cultural and social life of the area'7and partly by producing plays which London was not putting
on.8 His objection was not to \Vest Region performances of
BBC Handbook (194o), p. 22.
See below, pp. 272-3.
3 *Gielgud to Maschwitz, Ig Jan. 1934.
4 *Gielgud to R. H. Eckersley, 22 Aug. 1929; 8 Oct. 1929.
*A most interesting `Memorandum on Regional Dramatic Policy' setting out
the opposite point of view, was written by Cyril Wood in Bristol in Sept. 1935.
6 *`Memorandum from Director of Drama to Controller (Programmes)', 8 May
1936. For the trend, see below p. 334.
7 *H. J. Dunkerley to Gielgud, 26 May 1936.
s *For regional opposition to Gielgud's views, see Siepmann to Gielgud, 3 June
1936. `There is unanimous opposition to D.D's proposal for centralised control.
This is thought to undermine the authority of Regional Programme Directors.
There is also a general feeling that D.D. neither appreciates nor sympathises with
2

\VORDS AND MUSIC

163

Eden Philpotts or J. R. Gregson's productions from the Northof England, but to plays of universal interest with a lower
standard of production, so he thought, than that insisted uponin London.
There were some Regional Directors who agreed with him.
G. L. Marshall wrote from Belfast, for example, in February
1939 that he regretted to see staff in the Regions `making names
for themselves by the writing or production of notable programmes which find their place in the National wave length'
while people writing or producing genuine regional progradrmes. 'first and foremost for the Region', should receive noacknowledgement. `I find my Programme Director becoming
a salesman for the Region,' he complained, `going up to London
every quarter and doing his best to sell a number of programmes to Head office.' `Only rarely', he concluded, `shoulda programme be produced which is foreign to the localised
needs of listeners, and that because, fortuitously, some memberof the Regional staff happens to he the best man in the whole
Corporation to deal with the subject.»
Gielgud always maintained this, although his insistenceon `standards' never reflected unwillingness to encourage
experiment. The very reverse, indeed, was true. In 1937,
therefore, while maintaining the balance of London productions, he introduced an `Experimental Hour', modelledon the `Workshop' of the Columbia Broadcasting System of
America. The new programme was designed to give producers
an opportunity to try out new techniques, and was put on late
at night since it was realized that the plays `might not be to thetaste of a large public'.2 The first production in the series was
The Fall of the City, a verse play by the American poet, Archibald
McLeish. It was followed by Words Upon the Window Pane by
W. B. Yeats, and a scene from Twelfth Night, presented firstin modern English and then in Elizabethan pronunciation.
The series failed to sur\ ive not because the public wasuninterested-the audience was again bigger and moreenthusiastic than had been anticipated-but because `worthy
material' could not be found in sufficiently large quantities.
that aspect of dramatic policy which refers to (a) encoutagement of local playersand (b) the representation of Regional dramatic work by writers past and present.'' *Marshall to Nicolls, 21 Feb. 1939.
2 BBC Handbook (1938), p.
17.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

164

It was difficult either to choose broadcast plays or to produce
them without having some `theory'. Were stage plays really
adaptable for radio, particularly current plays, unknown to themillions of the `great audience'? Were not `plays of ideas'
particularly well suited to the medium, plays like those of Shawor Wilde which cascaded words and poured out paradox? Was
there not a special place for plays of suspense and mystery? Did
not the radio play break down the barriers of costume, grease
paint, stage, footlights, and orchestra stalls? 'The story arrived,in the simplest domestic circumstances, told by voices unadorned.' Was it not essential, therefore, to break down the
final illusions associated with the theatre-those resting on theannouncement of the names of the actors?
Gielgud tried out the last theory and ruled, when he first
took over, that cast lists of plays should not be published in theRadio Times. Before he had had time to test his theory, however,there was such a furore, both from actors and the press, that it
had to be set on one side.' Intellectuals made much of the `ideas'
theory, if only because it offered them a more ample diet ofintellectual plays, and Gielgud went part of the way with them.
'The play of discussion is probably far nearer to what may becalled, for lack of a better expression, "Pure Radio", than any
play of action can be.'2 Ordinary listeners agreed with R. E.
Jeffrey that there was much to be said for the `mystery andsuspense' theory, and certainly there were few more effective
radio plays than Patrick Hamilton's Rope, first broadcast in
January 1932. Filson Young emphasized the relevance of thefirst theory. 'One of the great properties of radio drama is theintimacy of its appeal to the listener. Of all material for broadcasting, it seems to me to benefit best from being heard in darkness.'3 This `intimacy' was impossible in the theatre, and all`theatrical' influences had to be cast on one side in the production of radio drama. How many families actually listened in
darkness was the kind of question Filson Young never asked.
There were two other approaches to radio drama-the firstimaginative rather than theoretical, the second supremely practical. The first was represented by Lance Sieveking, the second
British Radio Drama, pp. 40-41.
See V. Gielgud, How to Write Broadcast Plays (1932).
3 Shall I Listen?, p. '37.
2

WORDS AND MUSIC

165

by L. du Garde Peach. Sieveking had been a leading figure in
the small Research Section of the BBC, founded in 1928, andhad had E. A. F. Harding, E. J. King -Bull, and Mary Hope
Allen as colleagues.' It was to this Section that Jeffrey wastransferred before he left the BBC. The Section was not concerned solely with drama, but it interested itself from the startin new dramatic techniques, particularly the techniques
associated with the `mixing -and -controlling unit', later calledby Sieveking 'the Dramatic Control Panel'.z
This panel was used with great enterprise and imagination
by Sieveking in Kaleidoscope I, 'A Rhythm representing theLife of Man From the Cradle to the Grave', which somecritics hailed as 'real wireless drama at last'.3 words, effects,
and music were blended together with the technical assistanceof the panel, and Sieveking was very cross with Tyrone Guthriefor referring to it in his preface to Squirrel's Cage and Two Other
Microphone Plays as a `device known as a mixing -panel', 'in thebald sort of way one might mention that there was a telephone
installed'.4 Sieveking was very cross, also, with Gielgud, ith
whom he said he was in total disagreement on the subject ofradio plays. He wanted radio plays-both in their writing andtheir production-to exploit every opportunity of the medium,and to be consciously modern at all times. Drawing on yet
another art, he quoted with approval Renoir's dictum, 'on doit
faire la peinture de son tenips'.5
L. du Garde Peach, who wrote more radio plays than any
other playwright, was, above all else, a craftsman, and he knew
how to appeal to the greatest possible audience for radio drama.
His Ingredient X (1929), Path of Glory (1931), and The Marie
Céleste (1931) were early successes which won him wide acclaim.
Of the performance of the first -named, a writer in the BBC rearBook said that `technical production reached what is probably
its highest level in the history of broadcast drama, and an
author was found with an almost uncanny sense of theappropriate balance of writing for the microphone'.6 Du GardeSieveking was given control of this Section under Roger Lckersley's overall

direction in July 1928.
2 See above, pp. 59-60.
See L. Sieveking, The Stuff of Radio (1934), p. 24.
Ibid., p. 52.
6 BBC rear Book (193o), p. 77.
3
4

5

Ibid., p. 62.

PROGRAMMES AND TIIE PUBLIC

166

Peach went on experimenting, at many levels, but his basic
approach was essentially simple, perhaps misleadingly simple.
'A stage -play need not be about anything in particular as longas it tells a story, but a good radio -play must have an idea
behind it. Where there is nothing to look at, there must be
something to think about.''
Gielgud made ample use of the work of both du Garde Peachand Sieveking, although the Research Section was very
quickly swallowed up in the bigger Drama organization.2 \Viththe move from Savoy Hill to Broadcasting House, facilities for
producing drama greatly improved-not always, however, aguarantee of quality-and a whole `suite' of rooms was reservedfor Drama inside the tower on the sixth and seventh floors.
There were five speech studios, an effects studio and a gramophone studio. Quick intercommunication between the studios
made multi -studio productions possible. The two DramaticControl Panels gave greater scope for experiments than the one
at Savoy Hill. The producer could handle his play at a distanceby loudspeaker and by microphone, judging the performanceas listeners would judge it through his ears alone. He could
manipulate the Dramatic Control Panel to control all effects
without stirring from one room.
\Vhen R. E. Jeffrey had tentatively suggested in 1926 that'an outside Drama studio (or whatever in future it may be
named) will elevate our work to a dignity it will never otherwise
possess',3 he had not had this kind of studio in mind. Nor had
Nicolls, when he opposed Jeffrey's idea on the grounds that it`involved the abandonment of all idea of a separate broadcast
technique and a lead back to the theatre'.4 The whole object of
the new dramatic studio was to differentiate it from a theatre.
Yet not all producers-or actors-liked the new arrangement,
which involved prolonged rehearsals. They felt that they wereisolated from each other-the producer in his box, the actors
Quoted in The Stuff of Radio, P. 54.
2

See above, pp. 8g if.

*R. E. Jeffrey, 'The Drama Studio', undated memorandum.
*11. E. Nicolls, 'The Drama Studio', 13 Apr. 1927. `Frankly I think our experiments might begin at home,' he added, 'e.g. by eliminating obtrusive declamation.
On the artistic side I do not candidly think that we have been conspicuous in thepast for artistic choice or artistic production of plays, and I do not see how transferring our attentions to a small theatre, in order to secure a visible audience, will3+

help matters.'

WORDS AND MUSIC167'on the floor'. Directions by microphone were not always as
effective as directions from the floor. And some producers-andplaywrights-distrusted the Dramatic Control Panel itself andpreferred to leave its operation to engineers. This to SieveKing
was the final betrayal.
Differences of opinion on basic problems of production arc
fairly common in the theatre, and there is little doubt that theavant-garde of the 193os was distinguished from the rest by its
willingness to experiment with the Dramatic Control Panel. As
Gielgud has written, however, a price had to be paid for their
enthusiasm. `Plays were written-and produced on the airless for their merits in terms of drama than because they offered
opportunities for the simultaneous use of more and morestudios, more and more ingenious electrical devices. Producers
concentrated more upon knobs and switches than upon actors
and acting. The radio play had so far always been among"minority" programme items. At this particular stage it tended
to grow progressively and self-consciously minority.»
Thirty years later, the experimentalism itself seems somewhat
dated. Although it is easy to understand the excitement it
generated, it was far less creative than experimentalism inpoetry, which was being reshaped during the 193os under the
influence of socially conscious poets, men who were interested
not only in language but in content. Much the most interestingof the new dramatic techniques was the development not of theplay but of the feature. At its best it was the outstanding artistic
achievement of sound radio, able to accomplish far more in its
own medium than another of the comparable artistic achievements of the 193os, the documentary film.
There were great difficulties at first in defining what a`feature' was. At one end of the scale was Laurence Gilliam's
Christmas Programme, designed for a 'mass audience' andincorporating the King's speech among all the other varied
materials. At the other end of the scale was the `literary programme', blending words and music, and designed for, as wellas listened to, by a minority audience of the kind that now
listens to the Third Programme. Features like Erasmus andColeridge belonged to this tradition. So did G. K. Chesterton's
Lepanto backed by Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony. Other
British Radio Drama, pp. 6o-61.

168

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

features, which attracted varying sizes of audience, included`small-scale actualities', like Gale Warning, Fog, and Trinity
House; `large-scale actualities', like Scotland Yard or Underground;commemorative programmes, like Gallipoli, Scott in the Antarctic,
or Arthur Bryant's The Thin Red Line; and `specialist programmes', like the series of Famous Trials or of episodes from
history, such as D. G. Bridson's outstanding March of the '45.
Some of these features overlapped with Talks, some with News,
some with Outside Broadcasts, some with Drama. Laurence
Gilliam drew a distinction between Features and Drama which
would have appealed to Tallents when he delivered his talk to
the journalists. Features dealt with fact, Drama dealt withfiction. Where fact ended and fiction began was never clear, as
Auden pointed out, even in-or perhaps particularly in-thenewspapers of the day.
Although Drama and Features drew on the same group ofactors and employed similar techniques, there was obviously
a case for organizing them separately inside the BBC, andGielgud, who had lost Variety-without regrets-to Maschwitz in 1933 delegated Features to Gilliam in May 1936. The
Drama Department was then split up into three sections, allunder Gielgud's overall direction; the first, Drama (withHoward Rose in charge, assisted by Sieveking, Creswell, andMiss Burnham) ; the second, Features (with Gilliam in charge,
assisted by Felton, Whitworth, and Miss Allen) ;1 and the third,
Children's Hour, which had been attached to the Drama
Department as an independent programme section in July
1935.2 A few months later the title of the whole department
was changed to Features and Drama, and, as if to show how
open its frontiers were, Moray McLaren was transferred from theTalks Department as Assistant Director.3 Gilliam had joined
Gielgud's staff in October 1933 from the Radio Times, anotherinstance of the influence of that milieu on the development ofbroadcasting.4 Among the outstanding Features writers, E. A. F.
Harding, who had produced his Imperial Communications as
early as 1929, had gone on to he Head of Programmes for the*BBC Internal Instruction, no. 35o, 7 May 1936.
*BBC Internal Instruction, no. 308, 12 July 1935. Children's Hour became'independent' again nearly three years later. *Memorandum by D. H. Clarke,
31 Mar. 1938.
' *BBC Internal Instruction, no. 361, 13 Aug. 1936.
4 For other instances, see above, pp. 89, 91.
2

I69

WORDS AND EiUSIC

North Region, where 'he had a hand in the discovery of
Geoffrey Bridson, of Francis Dillon, and of Cecil McGivern,
all to become outstanding radio personalities') Again it wasa sign of BBC flexibility that he became the BBC's first Chief
Instructor in the Staff Training Department.2
The last development in Drama before 1939 and the onethat again pointed the way forward to the world after the war
was the development of the dramatic serial programme, notalong American soap -opera lines3 but as a genuine `middlebrow'form of entertainment, seldom sinking lower, sometimes risinghigher. In 1938-immediately following the `Experimental
Hour'-Dumas's The Three Musketeers was produced in twelve
parts, with Terence de Mamey in the lead. It was an immediate
success and served as the forerunner of a large number of BBC
serials-stories by Dickens, Scott, Trollope, and Thackeray
being among the number. Many listeners must have gone backto read the novels after hearing the serials. In a lighter vein,
the detective serial Send for Paul Temple was also broadcast for
the first time in 1938 from the Birmingham studio with Martyn
C. Webster as producer. Unashamedly popular, the Paul Temple series was to be exceptionally entertaining, making use, in
its own way, of unique facets of radio and exploiting an element of suspense at the end of each instalment.
The gap between Paul Temple and the serious music of theidc. The clays when the `signaturetunes' or theme songs of popular dramatic programmes were to
take their place in the 'hit parade' had not dawned in 1939, anddespite the linking activities of Stanford Robinson or Leslie
Woodgate, there were doubtless many people who felt, like
Sieveking, that Music and Drama belonged to different spheres.
`There is no such thing as radio music', Sieveking wrote. `Composers go on composing music just as if wireless had not been
invented, and the music of all periods is played before microphones in exactly the same way as it has always been play ed.
It does not have to be "adapted". Imagine reading in a programme Concerto No. 2 in C. Minor, for pianoforte and orchestra (Op.
18), Rachmaninoff. Adapted for Broadcasting by John Robertson.'4
1920S and 193os seems very

' British Radio Drama, p. 5'.
3

See above, p. Jog.

v

2

See below, p. 515.

4

The Staff of Radio, p. 24.

170

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Sieveking did not foresee the elaborate and expensive individual orchestrations which were so popular with light musicians,
particularly dance orchestras, in the 193os. Nor did his absolutecontrasts leave a place for the remarkable parallels between theorganizing of Music and the organizing of Drama. In bothcases there were two main problems-selection and performance. In the case of selection, one of the most interesting choices
was that between `traditional' and `contemporary' work, achoice made more interesting-and also more difficult-by theresistance of large sections of the British musical public to`modern music'. There was also a tendency to prefer 'the worst
music of the best composers to the best music of the worst
composers'.'
There were also very similar problems in Music and Dramaarising out of the relationship between Centre and Regions.
How much music should he transmitted regionally, and whatkind of music should it be? What should be the relationshipbetween the `amateur' and the `professional'? As in the case of
Drama, there were powerful regional pressures during the late
1930s, when some of the orchestras which had been disbandedin the early years of `centralization' came back to life. The
Northern and Midland Orchestras, for example, were formed
in 1934, and worked in close touch with the Hallé and the Cityof Birmingham Orchestras. In 1935 the BBC Scottish Orchestra
and the BBC Welsh Orchestra were formed.
Two men directed the BBC's music policy in London during
the period from 1927 to 1939. The first was Percy Pitt, who hadjoined the BBC in May 1923 as part-time Music Adviser andleft it as Director of Music in December 1929. The second was
Adrian Boult, who became Permanent Conductor and Directorof Music in 1930. During Pitt's tenure of office the `foundationsof music'-to use the title of one of his favourite series-werelaid. The `panorama of music' which he presented in 1928
included Handel harpsichord pieces and Wolf songs in theFoundations series; chamber music by young composers, like
Alan Bush; a recital by Bartok of his own work and Hindemith
playing his own violin concerto; twenty symphony concerts,
including Beecham conducting his beloved Delius, and Stravinsky conducting the music of two of his own ballets; twelve"A Listener', 'The BBC and Music' in the Political Quarterly, Oct.-Dec. '935.

WORDS AND MUSIC

171`grand' operas, among them Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande; anda set of Schubert centenary programmes. It is scarcely surprisingthat Ernest Newman, one of the foremost music critics of hisday, stated that the coming of wireless had placed 'the musicaldestiny of this country in the hands of the BBC'.1
Boult not only saw the Music Department grow to one of themost important in the BBC, but he built up the BBC SymphonyOrchestra to be one of the great orchestras of the world. This
was a general verdict, and it was eloquently expressed by
Toscanini, who conducted four BBC symphony concerts in 1935,
two in 1937, and six in 1938. 'You have done with the BBC
Orchestra ín three years', he told Boult, 'what took me with the
New York Philharmonic Orchestra five years', and 'you havemade it into one of the finest orchestras in the world'. The
Toscanini concerts, which were arranged by Owen Mase,
created immense interest. Over 7,000 letters of application
were received for the 1937 concert at Queen's Hall and a ballot
had to be held to decide who should receive a ticket. 'Our chiefdifficulty', the manager of Queen's Hall wrote, 'was theenormous public interest in Toscanini.'2
Neither Pitt nor Boult would wish to take all the credit for
the formulation and success of the BBC's music policy or thequality of its performance. Music rests on co-operation, bothfor its performance and for its planning. The BBC SymphonyOrchestra, along Ivith other BBC orchestras, was able to get afine complement of musicians from the start, men like Arthur
Catterall, the first leader, Lauri Kennedy, the Australian cellist,
Frederick Thurston, the clarinettist, and Aubrey Brain, the hornplayer. There were also men behind the scenes. Before Boult
took over in 1930, Julian Herbage and Edward Clark, working
in the Music Department, had devised a scheme of `Comprehensive Orchestral Organization' and had made most of thecontacts which were necessary to make the scheme effective.
Edward Clark, who left the BBC in 1936, should have a key
place in any history of twentieth-century British music. It was
he who knew everything that was going on in the world ofcontemporary music-particularly in Europe-and everybody
who was engaged in it. The BBC was involved from the 1920S
1'
2

Sunday Times, 15 Nov. 1933.
B. Geissner, The Baton and the jackboot (1944), p. 301.

172

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

onwards in the hazardous enterprise of introducing to the
British listener Schónberg and \Vebern as well as Bartok andStravinsky.' In music it was always among the avant-garde, andClark knew just where the avant-garde was to be found. Other
active figures in the organization of music at various times wereKenneth Wright, formerly Station Director at Manchester;R. J. F. Howgill; Owen Mase, who joined the BBC as anaccompanist in 1927 and became Music Executive in 1930;
Aylmer Buesst, who joined the BBC as Assistant Music Director
in 1933 and remained there until 1935; and R. S. Thatcher,later Head of the Royal Academy of Music, who became
Deputy Director of Music in 1937. Thatcher's gifts were completely different from those of Clark, but they fitted him to tidy
up administration and to free Boult for more creative work.
Howgill, who was to become Controller (Music) in 1952, wasin charge of many of the negotiations with outside musicalinterests in Programme Administration, of which he became
Director in 1938.
The BBC had to operate in the ranks as well as in the vanguard of the musical world. In 1927, which began with one of
the most memorable concerts yet broadcast, one entirely
devoted to Berlioz, the BBC saved the Promenade Concertsfrom disappearance. After the death of Robert Newman, who
had founded the concerts along with Sir Henry Wood in 1895,
the `Proms' were given up as lost. Then a cartoon appeared in
Punch showing Sir Henry Wood walking out of the Queen's
Hall, where the `Proms' had always been given, with posters inthe background announcing 'No More Proms' and Beethoven's
ghost saying to Wood, 'This is indeed tragic, but I cannot
believe that this rich city will fail to find us a permanent home.'
The BBC came to the rescue, with Reith himself taking themain part in the complex negotiations by which the BBC maintained the `Proms' in being without a break. He had to negotiate with William Boosey, the managing director of the Queen's
Hall, who had given evidence before the Crawford Committeethat broadcasting would ruin the concert world.2 Boosey had' Schonberg conducted his Gurrelieder on 27 jan. 1928. A London critic, notunrepresentative, wrote that it was 'a remarkable work (caviare to the general),that we shall, I suppose, never hear again'. Quoted in This-is London, which
provides an admirable running commentary on BBC music, p. 35.
2 See The Birth of
Broadcasting, pp. 276-7.

WORDS AND MUSIC

173

somewhat grudgingly come to the conclusion that 'it would be
more profitable to let the Queen's Hall direct to the powers thatgovern broadcasting ... rather than to embark on a competition
which was really a competition with the Government itself'.'
This was to misread both the constitution of the BBC and thechanges in public interest in music which were to spring from
BBC policy. Reith himself was very happy about the newarrangement. `Today I fixed up a contract with Sir Henry
Wood', he wrote on 13 April. 'To hear Wagner at the Proms,'
lie wrote on 5 September, `seeing Sir Henry \Vood in theinterval. He [Wood] was delighted with everything, and said
it was the most successful Season he had had.'2 At the first
concert under the new régime Wood conducted Elgar's Cockaigne Overture, and told a friend that he was so elated he had
never conducted with greater spirit. He also said how wonderful
it was to be free at last from 'the everlasting box-office problem'.3
With equal zest he took part in a series of eight popular symphony concerts (`at Woolworths' prices') held at the People's
Palace in Mile End Road. Other conductors included Percy
Pitt, Geoffrey Toye, and Sir Edward Elgar.
Sir Thomas Beecham had made his broadcasting début inMarch 1925 with the Hallé Orchestra from Manchester, andthere had been suggestions even earlier that he should be
associated with a series of subscription concerts.4 He soon
emerged, however, as we have seen, as an irascible critic ofbroadcasting, and it \s as thought to be something of a triumphin 1928 when Sir Landon Ronald of the BBC's Musical Advisory
Committee wrote to Roger Eckersley that `I have really at last
entirely broken clown Beecham's opposition to broadcasting.'5
There were long negotiations, indeed, in 1928, 1929, and t930
about the formation under Beecham of a new National
Orchestra, to be given financial support from the BBC, and at
one stage Beecham thought that the enterprise seemed `fairly
See \V. Boosey, Fifty rears of Music (1931), p. 178; R. Elkin, Queens Ilall, 1893,941 (1944), P. 33. The negotiations with Boosey were successfully concluded in

May 1927.
2 Reith, Diary, 13 Apr., 5 Sept. 1927.
3*W. \V. Thompson in the BBC Programme Scrapbook, 18 Jan. 1948.
4 * Board of the British Broadcasting Company Ltd., Minutes. This was at thevery dawn of broadcasting, and the suggestion was made by Godfrey Isaacs.
*Sir Landon Ronald to R. H. Eckersley, 13 Mar. 1928.
5

174.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

straight sailing'.' The orchestra, both the BBC and Beecham
hoped, would be called the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, if
the Royal Philharmonic Society approved.2 The players would
be under contract at fees ranging from £500 a year for therank -and -tile to £1,200 a year for principals, and the deputy
system, which had for long been the bane of' British orchestralmusic,3 would be abolished. The orchestra would give overa hundred concerts a year at the Queen's Hall, the Royal
Albert Hall, and in the provinces, and would take part in opera
seasons at Covent Garden.4
Negotiations finally broke down in January 1930,5 by whichtime the BBC was losing a considerable amount of' money ona trial series of symphony concerts which it had hoped it would
be able to share with other musical organizations (and Beecham) .6
The Royal Philharmonic Society and the BBC went their own
ways, with the Secretary of the Society hoping that 'some clay,
perhaps we may yet be able to work together' ;7 and Beechamremained an angry judge of everything the BBC tried to do.
Among the casualties of the abortive scheme was a new
National Concert Hall: the site of All Soul's, Langham Place,
was talked of at one time as a serious possibility8 (before thedays of Broadcasting House). Beecham went on to form theLondon Philharmonic Orchestra in 1932.
The failure of the negotiations of the late 1920s left the BBC
to create a new independent orchestra of its own. The reconstitution of the London Symphony Orchestra in 1929 did notinterfere with the building up of the BBC Symphony Orchestra :9indeed some members of the L.S.O. joined the BBC which, like*Sir Thomas Beecham to R. H. Eckersley, 19 June 1928.
*Eckersley to Beecham, 27 Dec. 1928.
For the system, see T. Russell, Philharmonic (1942), pp. 28 ff.
+ See C. Reid, Thomas Beecham, An Independent Biography (1961), p. 196; H. Foss
and N. Goodwin, London Symphony (1954), P. 122.
5 *They broke down with an exchange of legal letters. \V. R. Bennett and Co.
to Steadman, Van Praagh, and Gaylor, 31 Dec. 1929; Steadman, Van Praagh, andGaylor, to W. R. Bennett and Co., 22 Jan. 193o.
e *R. H. Eckersley to Beecham, 15 July 1930.
7 *Cooper, the Secretary of the Royal Philharmonic Society, to R. H. Eckersley,I

2

Mar. 193o.

21s*Reich to R. H. Eckersley, 18 Mar. 1929. A site in Russell Square was talkedof as another possibility, with the advantage of offering more space. (Eckersley toGoldsmith, 7 Oct. 1929.)
o London Symphony, p. 123; *R. H. Eckerslcy to Reith, 16 Mar. 1929.

WORDS AND MUSIC

175

Beecham's projected orchestra, abandoned the deputy system.'
The members of the orchestra, Beecham admitted, were 'thebest known instrumentalists of Great Britain'.2 By the summerof 1930, 114 players had been chosen, an Orchestral Manager
and a Concert Manager had been appointed, and Boult, whowelcomed his new opportunity, was in excellent spirits. The
first appearance of the new orchestra was at the Queen's Hallin October 1930. It was a great success and by 1935, when theorchestra made its first continental tour-to Brussels-it had
established an international reputation. There was a further
tour to Paris, Zurich, Vienna, and Budapest in 1936.3
The orchestra always attracted good players, and whenreplacements had to be made, like that of Paul Beard (fromBeecham's London Philharmonic Orchestra) for Catterall in
1936, they always guaranteed the highest standard. Yet there
remained the problem of finding adequate accommodation. The
orchestra could not always use either the Queen's Hall or theRoyal Albert Hall, and before the move to Broadcasting House
the biggest studio at Savoy Hill was far too small for rehearsals
or performances by the larger sections. After a long search,an empty and clingy warehouse just across Waterloo Bridge, on
the south side of the river, was taken over and known as No. to.
In 1934 a large property was acquired at Maida Vale, an old
skating -rink, and it was from a studio there that many of the
BBC's concerts were conducted. The redecoration, reseating
and re-equipment of the Queen's Hall in 1937 suggests that theattempt to find another concert ball had been abandoned. The
newly equipped hall had only two full seasons, however, before
it was destroyed in the `blitz' of 1940.
Broadcasting House, of course, provided subsidiary facilities,
particularly for sections of the Symphony Orchestra and for thecluster of new orchestras and ensembles which the BBC brought
into existence during the early 193os-the Theatre Orchestra(1931),4 for example, the BBC Chorus and the BBC Singers,' *Control Board Minutes, 29 Jan. 1930. Sir Hamilton Harty of the Hallé
Orchestra, who complained that the BBC was stealing players, had the worst of
2 N. Cardus, Sir Thomas Beecham (1961), p. 54.
the argument. He lost two.
and Bax) was chosen as
3 British music (Walton, Vaughan Williams, Elgar,
part of the repertoire.
to the new Variety
4 This orchestra was transferred !'rom the Music Department
Department in June 1933.

176

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

and, most nostalgic of all, the Gersholm Parkington Quintet,
which was employed on an ad hoc contract basis. The highquality of performance of some of the smaller ensembles isdifficult to recapture in print. So too is the mood. The Gersholm
Parkington Quintet was engaged to broadcast light music onevery possible kind of social occasion-for example, between
the announcements of the general election results in 1935. The
BBC Chorus, formed in 1928, consisted of 26o amateurs, and it
was a condition of membership that candidates for the chorus
should also be members of another practising choral society.
It changed its name to the BBC Choral Society in 1934.. The
Wireless Chorus, by contrast, was a body of 40 professionals ofwhom any combination from 9 to 40 would be called on as
required: its nucleus was the group of BBC Singers, who were
employed on full-time contracts.
The Concert Hall in Broadcasting House was on the lower
ground floor, and the eighth floor was reserved at first for the
BBC's Military Band, which had been formed in August 1927
under the conductorship of Lieut. B. Walton O'Donnell,formerly Director of Music of the Royal Marines at Portsmouth.
Relations between the Symphony Orchestra and the MilitaryBand were always good. Filson Young once complained, indeed,that the same pieces were too often broadcast within a shortspace of time by the band and the orchestra.t When B. Walton
O'Donnell left Broadcasting House for Northern Ireland in1937 lie was succeeded by his brother, Major P. S. G. O'Donnell, also a former Director of Music of the Royal Marines, at
Plymouth.
The last feature of musical interest in Broadcasting House
was the organ in the Concert Hall which was opened on 16
June 1933, before a distinguished audience, by Sir Walter
Alcock, G. Thalben Ball, and G. D. Cunningham. The presenceof the organ made possible new combinations, like one describedby Stuart Hibberd in 1936-Melodies of Christendom, arrangedby Sir Walford Davies, the great pioneer of radio music, with
Dr. Thalben Ball at the organ. `It was a splendid Sunday nightprogramme', Stuart Hibberd wrote, `which ended with someof the St. Matthew Passion music by Bach, finely sung by the
BBC Singers. Such was Sir Walford's passionate desire to*Filson Young to R. H. Eckersley, ig Aug. 1933.

WORDS AND MUSIC

177

achieve as near perfection as possible, that even this performancedid not satisfy him, and as he said good night he added, "AndI do wish it had been better"."
Emphasis on quality was always a hallmark of the BBC's
approach to music, even when the quality of both microphones
and wireless reception, as in Pitt's early years, was notoriously
bad. It once led to one of the few disagreements between Reith
and Boult-as to whether a Bach motet should be broadcast
when I3oult thought its level of performance was not up to standard. `I was quite certain that there would he far less prejudice
to the Corporation through an inferior performance than there
would have been through cancellation', wrote Reith.2 AnotherBBC emphasis, also associated with Sir Walford Davies, was onmusical education. This was not always popular either insideor outside the BBC, some critics accusing the Corporation of
rating musical culture higher than other forms of culture.
The desire to ground listeners in this culture lay behind
Filson Young's notion of the Foundations of Music series whichbegan on 3 January 1927. 'Any one who chooses toswitchon the loud speaker will be sure of hearing ten minutes of puremusic
music about which the most extreme schools are inagreement ... and which constitutes the foundation from which
the whole of modern music is derived and on which it rests.'3
At first the music, like Gielgucl's actors, was anonymous, speaking for itself. The identification of the particular pieces in theFoundations series began at the same time as the first broadcast of the Bach Cantatas on Sunday, 20 May 1928. These
programmes were felt to constitute perfect listening for Sundays,
unlike some of the works of the great dramatists, like Ibsen,
which ran into difficulties with the Director of Religion. 'May
I state in half a dozen sentences my reasons for doubting
whether A Doll's House should be broadcast on a Sunday?'Iremonger had begun a memorandum to Graves in 1936.4

...

...

As far as opera was concerned, most of the difficulties which
the BBC faced related not to content but to organization. `Grand
Opera is a curious business', Victor Cazalet once told Ogib. ie,
Reith's successor. 'As the season approaches almost every one
3This-is London, pp. 128-9.
Radio Times, 31 Dec. 1926.
0 19952

4N

Reith, Diary, 2 May 1932.
*Iremonger to Graves, 8 Oct. 1936.

178

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

connected with it assumes some small part of the temperamentof a prima donna." Ogilvie knew little about opera at that time:
Reith had learned an immense amount. If the negotiations
leading up to the formation of the orchestra were complex, thenegotiations relating to opera-in which Reith again took
a prominent part-were even more so. In both sets of negotiations Beecham was directly involved, and another of the main
figures in the opera story was Mrs. Snowden, one of the mostcontroversial Governors of the BBC.2 Keenly interested in opera,
she was also the wife of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This
gave her both cultural and political standing.
The first BBC agreement with opera interests was made in
1926, when it was allowed to broadcast three acts a fortnightfrom the International Grand Opera season at Covent Garden
in return for lending Percy Pitt as Conductor and Director ofMusic.3 Pitt had been Musical Director of the British National
Opera Company before joining the BBC, and this seemed aneminently sensible arrangement. There were many difficulties
in practice, however, particularly about finance, and thelistener who happily heard Der Rosenkavalier in May 1927 or
the twenty excerpts from Covent Garden in 1928 was fortunatethat he did not know how much strain there had been. Sometimes, however, he was informed about at least one kind ofdifficulty. In 1929 a broadcast of Die Valkyrie had to be cancelled because Florence Austral would not allow herself to bebroadcast. A similar cancellation had to be made in 193o, thistime with Tosca, because Gigli would not broadcast.
The extent of the financial difficulties was revealed in December 1926 at the first meeting of a small BBC Advisory Committee
on Opera. The meeting was held at Savoy Hill, with Sir HughAllen in the chair, and Reith outlined problems which were topreoccupy him for the next six years. 'The British National
Opera Company, of whose performances the BBC had madeconsiderable use, had relied to an increasing extent on payment
from the BBC to save it from financial failure, and it was now*Victor Cazalet to F. W. Ogilvie, 12 Dec. 1938.
See below, pp. 425-8.
3*For the implementation of the same scheme in 1927, see Eustace Blois toReith, 21 Feb. 1927; Reith to Eustace Blois, 26 Feb. 1927; Control Board Minutes,
8 Mar. 1927. The first broadcast from Covent Garden had been given on 8 Jan.
1923.
2

WORDS AND MUSIC179

asking the BBC to subsidise it to an extent which made it
imperative that the whole question be reviewed. The BBC had
also been approached by the Carl Rosa Company and byothers, so that it was essential to have a new study of the wholequestion.' Speaking immediately after Reith, Allen said that'the co-operation of the BBC might be the one remaining opportunity of establishing Opera on a sound basis in this country'.'
The British National Opera Company ceased to function in
1928, when it was heavily in debt.2 One year before its collapse
the BBC was approached by H. V. Higgins, the chairman of theGrand Opera Syndicate, about the possibility of a direct link -up
with Covent Garden.3 The plan failed, however, not least
because of Higgins's tactlessness. `I was under the impression',he told Reith, whom he insisted on addressing as Sir James
Reith, 'that you had recognised that unless somebody assisted
Opera in some form or other, there would cease to be any Opera
worthy of the name in this country, but it appears that thewhole idea was to obtain from various operatic and musicalinstitutions assistance for the Broadcasting Company [sic] toenable them to add to their entertainment on terms greatly
advantageous to themselves.';
Negotiations were resumed in 193o when F. A. Szarvasy,a Hungarian financier, working with Colonel Eustace Blois,
approached the BBC to help form a new Covent Garden Opera
Syndicate. After long negotiations between the Syndicate, theBBC, the Gramophone Company, and the Treasury, agreement
was reached in the autumn of 1930. A new company was formed-Covent Garden Opera Syndicate (1930) Ltd.-with Szarvasy
as chairman and the BBC as a shareholder. The Corporation
also guaranteed Covent Garden a large regular income of£25,000 each year for five } ears.6 The novelty of the arrangement was not so much that the BBC took a controlling interestin the shares of the Syndicate as that the Treasury (with Snow *Advisory Committee on Opera, Minutes, 13 Dec. 1926.
If. Rosenthal, Two Centuries of Opera at Covent Garden (1958), p. 621.
*H. V. Higgins to Reith, t8 June 1927.
4 *Higgins to Reith,
Apr. 1927.
*Draft agreement, `Opera in Great Britain, A New Basis', 13 Nov. 193o;
Reith to F. A. Szarvasy, 13 Nov. 1930. The BBC held 84 shares, Szarvasy 7, and
the Gramophone Company 7. The Agreement was not completed until the end of
1

2

3

1

the year.
6*Control Board Minutes, g July 1930.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

180

cien as Chancellor of the Exchequer) under-wrote the agreement
and offered to contribute a subsidy of £5,000 for 1930 and£7,500 a year for the subsequent five years from January 1931
onwards.' The Treasury offer was set out in a Supplemental

Agreement between the BBC and the Post Office, signed onbehalf of the Post Office by Attlee. It was the first earmarked
subsidy the BBC had ever arranged. And it was granted in faceof considerable political and press opposition just before thebeginning of the great financial and political storm of 1931.
`There are better ways of spending £17,500 than in subsidising
a form of art which is not characteristic of the British people',wrote the Daily Express.2
Reith sat on the Opera Board, which met regularly. It caused
him endless worry,3 although lie frequently stressed to Szarvasy
that 'we are partners with you in this enterprise'.4 Part of theworry centred on Beecham, whose erratic plans were always
difficult to co-ordinate with the plans of others. His Imperial
League of Opera, founded in 1927 to mobilize opera lovers
throughout the country, was extremely difficult to encompass
within a national arrangement j5 and negotiations started, werebroken off, and restarted on many occasions. Beecham's flamboyance-artistic genius coupled with financial wildnessnever made matters easy. In July 1931, for example, he wastalking at a private lunch party at Claridge's as if he wereaddressing a public meeting.6
Another part of the worry in 1931 centred on finance. Covent
Garden lost L8,000 more than had been anticipated in theseason of that year,7 and in May 1932 the Carl Rosa Company
had to be helped to pay salaries due at the end of the week.8
The BBC had tested the Treasury and the Post Office on this subject long
before 1930, although Mitchell -Thomson denied in the House of Commons inMarch 1927 that he had been approached on the question of a subsidy. Hansard,
vol. 203, col. 228. Mitchell-Thomson was answering Colonel Day.
2 Cmd. 3884 (1931), Supplemental Agreement Between H.M. Postmaster-General andthe BBC, June 193t. For the opposition, see the Daily Express, 2 Nov. 1932.
3
He wrote, for example, in his diary on 18 Mar. 1932, `Opera Board in theafternoon, as wearying as ever.' On 5 Apr. he was talking about `everlasting opera
troubles'.
4 *Reith to F. A. Szarvasy, 29 June 1931.
See C. Reid, Thomas Beecham, An Independent Biography (1961), pp. 192-3.
6 Reith, Diary, t6 July 1931.
7 Ibid.,Oct. 1931.
s *Control Board Minutes, 31 May 1932; 14 June 1932.
5

1

WORDS AND MUSIC

181

Szarvasy blamed the musical difficulties of the year on 'the great
National Crisis, the abandonment of the gold standard, theformation of the National Government and the General
Election',' and these difficulties were used by the newly formed
National Government to get out of the subsidy in 1932.2 Reith
felt that there had been a breach of faith-`the Corporation did
not press the Treasury to enter into the arrangement, and we
can hardly imagine that an obligation of the Treasury's Mould
be dishonoured and the Corporation left to discharge it's-while
Lady Snowden said that her husband had expressed `horror'
at the idea of abandoning the subsidy.4 The subsidy was `suspended' in 1933, however, and the BBC was left again to fend
for itself. It promised 'to undertake to assist opera generally in1933 to such an extent as can be proved to its satisfaction to
be desirable'.S
Opera interests by no means always agreed that what the
BBC thought was desirable was suitable for them. More usually,
indeed, they failed to agree about anything. Reith did his best,
however, to persuade the various opera interests to work
together amicably, and it was largely as a result of his efforts
that in October 1932 a new organization called the National
Opera Council was set up. It fbllowed an agreement bete een
the Covent Garden Opera Syndicate, which was enlarged(Beecham joined its Board), the Imperial League of Opera, theSadler's Wells Theatre, the Old Vic Theatre, the Carl Rosa
Opera Company, and the BBC. Reith left the world of opera
at this stage, after lunching with Beecham on 27 October.
`I have been exceedingly bored by all these long, periodic discussions', he wrote in his diary. 'They are on the straight roadnow, although there are still plenty of difficulties to overcome
for proper collaboration among the various concerns.'6
British opera was not, in fact, on the straight road, although
the BBC did its best to continue to support it. There weredifficulties about the formation of the new company to replace
the 1930 Syndicate, and further difficulties between Geoffrey
Toye, who became manager of Covent Garden under the new*F. A. Szarvasy to Reith, 2¢ Oct. 1931.
*Reith to Sir Evelyn Murray, 23 Mar. 1932.
*Reich to Murray, 5 Apr. 1932.
4*Lady Snowden to Reith, 24 July 1932.
s *Note by Reich, 28 Oct. 1932.
6 Reith, Diary, 27 Oct. 1932.

2

E

182

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

scheme, and Beecham, his sponsor. There was continuous pressure on the BBC to maintain or to subsidize not only Covent
Garden but most of the other opera interests, with J. H.
Thomas, a most unlikely go-between, entering into negotiationsin 1934.. In fact, the BBC gave considerable financial help not
only to Covent Garden but to Sadler's Wells and Carl Rosa,'
and it broadcast opera from Glyndebourne as early as 1935.
Indeed, it broadcast more opera than most of its listeners liked.
Thirteen broadcasts, for example, were relayed from Covent
Garden in 1932 and thirteen from Sadler's Wells and the Old
Vic-along with Sir Henry Lytton's farewell performance in
The Mikado from the Savoy Theatre. By 1937 there were twenty
performances from Covent Garden, nine from Sadler's Wells,
and five from Glyndebourne-besicles a number of Carl Rosa
broadcasts from the provinces.2
In the meantime, studio opera had been revived after a longlapse. Boult had been pressing for more studio opera for several
years, and there was considerable enthusiasm within the BBC.
It had been hoped at first that an Opera Section could becreated in the Music Department and that Stanford Robinson,
after a period of sabbatical leave studying opera on the Continent, would then take over with a full Opera Orchestra.3 For
financial reasons, however, the scheme had to be delayed andmodified,4 and when the new Section was formed it was known
as `Music Productions', with no special orchestra but with

Stanford Robinson as Director and Conductor and Gordon
McConnel as Producers The first full opera was presented in
January 1938. Massenet's Manon was specially chosen for theoccasion, since it did not demand such complicated microphonearrangements as other operas would have done.6 It was followed
later in the year by Gounod's Faust, Smetana's Bartered Bride,and Vaughan Williams's Ilugh the Drover. English librettos wereused throughout.
Many of' these ventures met with scant support from theMusic Advisory Committee, and Beecham continued until 1939
*An important Opera Advisory Committee Report was prepared in 1936.
Cmd. 4051 (1934) BBC Seventh Annual Report, p. 3; Cmd. 5951 (1939), p. 5.
3 The Times,
23 Apr. 1936.
4 *Notes of a Meeting in Controller (A)'s Room, 2 Apr. 1936.
! *BBC Internal Memorandum,
Sept. 1987.
6 *BBC Press Release, Dec. 1937.
'

2

1

WORDS AND MUSIC183

to press the BBC from outside to give more financial help toCovent Garden. `There is one simple way', he told Ogilvie in
1939, 'in which your organisation could be of service, not only
to us but to the public, and that is by exercising to a fuller extent
than last year your right to broadcast our performances.»
Ogilvie replied simply, referring to 'the sad fact that lovers ofopera and serious music constitute only a small proportion of
the listening public. We have in consequence many otherdemands on our programme space in mee ing the needs of the
majority.'z

The BBC's efforts to promote music seldom met with the full
support they deserved. Its own Music Advisory Committee, of
which Sir Hugh Allen, Sir John McEwen, and Sir Landon
Ronald were all members, was vigorously-and rightlycriticized by Boult in his evidence before the Ullswater Committee for its narrow-mindedness and lack of imaginations `In
so far as the advice of the Committee is directed to the good of
the broadcasting service, that advice is followed where possible,
but more often than not the members occupy their time at themeetings trying to bully the Corporation into adopting coursesof action which they think would be to the benefit of the music
profession, but without due regard for the Corporation's programme standards or for the interests of the listening public.'+
Sir Landon Ronald, a prominent member of the committee,
was never alive to the opportunity as Boult saw it. `Regarding
the BBC', he wrote with excessive caution in the 193os, `I thinkthat if they do a certain amount of damage to professional musicteachers and small choral societies they make up for it by giving
hundreds of singers and instrumentalists engagements theywould never have got ten years ago, and that the way they are
spreading the love and knowledge of great music through theland must atone for certain sins they are accused of committing-personally I should say it was a question of fifty-fifty.'s
There was, indeed, a basic `protectionism' about the committee, which reflected the `protectionism' in British music as' *Sir Thomas Beecham to F. W. Ogilvie, 22 Mar. '939.
2"Ogilvie to Beecham, 27 Mar. 1939.
3 For the Committee, see below, pp. 476-504.
4 *Memorandum to the Ullswater Committee by Sir Adrian Boult, p. 1.
5
Landon Ronald, Myself and Others ('93r), p. 2o6.

I84

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

a whole-the suspicion of new works, the distrust of foreign
artists, the reliance on the known and the tried, and the lowlevel of criticism. The BBC did its best to change attitudes andto direct tastes, but it was not helped in its battle against`philistinism' by the conservatism of some of its avowed advisors
and the bitter arguments between them. Boult saw the chanceand took it.
As Music Director of the Corporation [he concluded his Memorandum to Ullswater], it is a little difficult for me to give an opinion
on the Corporation's contribution to the musical life of this country,
but as the majority of those who have so far given evidence before
the Committee have shown no appreciation of the value of the Corporation's work in this field, I feel it incumbent upon me to do so.
Five years ago, prior to the formation of the Corporation's Symphony Orchestra, the reputation of British music and British musicianship abroad was extremely low. Our capital city contained but
one orchestra, and that an inferior one. One of our provincial
orchestras-the Hallé-was the best that this country could boast.
The formation of the Corporation's Symphony Orchestra was theturning point. Symphonic musicians for the first time were offered
whole -time contracts under reasonable and humane conditions.
They for their part were prohibited from accepting outside engagements and appointing deputies in their place, an evil system which
had become traditional in this country. With this fine Orchestra
working under admirable conditions, the Corporation was clearly
capable of reaching a standard hitherto undreamt of in this country.

In this forthright statement, Boult left out the listeners. Wood,
who knew so much of British traditions and their limitations,knew just where he thought the BBC was managing to fit themin. It was making them understand music and enjoy music at
the same time. `V1 ith the whole -hearted support of the wonderful medium of broadcasting,' he once exclaimed, `I feel that I
am at last on the threshold of realising my life-long ambition of
truly democratising the message of music and making its beneficent effect universal.... I am quite convinced that not only
in music, but generally, the medium of broadcasting, as utilized
and developed in this country, is one of the few elements
ordinarily associated with the progress of civilisation which I
can heartily endorse."
Quoted in B. Maine, The BBC and Its Audience ([939), pp. 47-48.

(185)

4. Education
I r1 the cause of 'the progress of civilization' the crude distinction

between `entertainment' and `education' was never acceptable
to the BBC. 'When a critic complains that there is too mucheducation and too little entertainment in broadcast programmes,' Reith asked in 1931, `where does he draw the line? Is
it to the left or the right of Sir Walford Davies, Sir James Jeansand the like? Mr. Harold Nicolson will pass as entertainment
without much opposition, but what about Mr. Vernon Bartlett's
weekly summary of foreign affairs?'1
The distinction which Reith himself drew was between the
educational effect of programmes specifically designed as `educational' and the educative influence, potential or actual, of thewhole range of the BBC's activities. Education was inevitably
associated 'with hard benches in schools and colleges and universities, with the cramming of a certain amount of knowledge inorder that certain tests may be passed. I wish someone would
invent another word to describe the sort of education whichmakes life so much more interesting and enjoyable than itotherwise would be.'2
Filson Young, also, wrote about the public response to thetwo words `entertainment' and `education'. 'One of these words
appeals to everybody: the other, except for associations of people
who prefer administering closes to taking them themselves, isa word of somewhat repellent association. ... There is a gaiety
about the word "entertainment" which sets the eyes sparklingand the blood singing; but about the word "education" there
is a sleek oppressiveness; it suggests a process rather than anlong after, perhaps, we have found that in
occasion; [and]the over -pursuit of entertainment it is apt to turn to ashes in our
grasp, nevertheless the two words continue to represent two
definite things: an attractive thing and a dull thing.'3
Dull or gay, education had a very early place in the BBC's
scheme of priorities. Almost from the beginnings of broadcasting...

J. C. W. Reith, `Education by Broadcast' in Today and Tomorrow, 26 Feb. 1931.
For an earlier expression of this view, see Broadcast Over Britain, p. 147.
2
3

The Listener, 3o Apr. 193o.

Shall I Listen?, pp. noo

1

1.

186

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

there had been interest in specific educational broadcasts bothfor children and adults; and Reith believed also in the `great
educative work' which the BBC could carry out more generally.'
The two conceptions of how the BBC could help `education'through direct educational broadcasts and through `educative'
programmes-were, of course, related to each other. They had
more than one root. The deepest root stretched deep into theculture of Scotland, which nurtured not only Reith, but themost powerful personality in the history of schools broadcasting,
Mary Somerville, whose father had been chairman of a School
Board in Scotland.
Other roots were hidden ín new soil. There had been a widespread feeling during and after the First World War that thecountry had failed 'to conceive the full meaning and purposeof national education as a whole'; there was also concern tocreate a more `educated democracy'. The mood was well
expressed in such documents as the 1919 Report on Adult Educationand the 192I Report on the Teaching of English in England. It was
not a coincidence that H. A. L. Fisher, who had devised thegreat Education Act of 1918, \vas a Governor of the BBC from1935 to 1939, nor that Sir Henry Hadow, who was chairman of
the Board of Education Committee which produced one of themost striking official educational documents of the inter -war
years, The Education of the Adolescent (1926), should also havebeen chairman of the BBC Committee which produced thereport New Ventures in Broadcasting in March 1928. Reith maintained with justice thát this report might equally have been
entitled 'New Ventures in Education'.
The two conceptions of how the BBC could most effectively serve education are best thought of as associatedapproaches to the task of speeding up educational advance.
Hadow had talked of that advance in his Education of theAdolescent as the development of `a broad, general and humane
education under the stimulus of practical work and realistic
studies'. He was as much concerned with the cultivation of thequality of imagination as with the acquisition of knowledge.
Mary Somerville believed that broadcasting could fire theimagination more quickly than any other educational agency.
The first broadcaster she heard was Sir Wal ford Davies speaking
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 133.

EDUCATION187

on music one evening in the spring of 1924, and she heard it
in a country schoolmistress's parlour along with the schaolmistress and three pupils. `It was not a broadcast to schools',
she wrote later. 'No matter, he was teaching, and he was making
music, and the impact of his personality, and of his music, wastremendous. Things happened in all of us, in the children, in
their music -loving teacher and in me."
While at Oxford, Mary Somerville had dreamed of taking
part in what the Report on the Teaching of English in England called'the diffusion of knowledge' by 'a fraternity of itinerant
preachers'. The knowledge was not to be departmentalized
within subject boundaries but unified through experience.
Broadcasting provided her with a possible means of realizing
her dreams. Many of the other early recruits to the BBC, as wehave seen, joined it because they felt that they could contributeto the realization of a high purpose.2 Education in the broadest
sense was associated with that purpose: it was not dull, but
exciting. `There was the same feeling of dedication and hopewhich had characterised the League of Nations in its earliest(lays.'3
Such a feeling does not necessarily produce practical results:
it often peters out in frustration and disillusionment. In the
BBC itself the excitement of the young was encouraged by
J. C. Stobart, the older man whom Reith had brought in fromthe Board of Education in the summer of 1924 and who
remained in the BBC, giving it loyal and devoted service, until
his death in 1933. Stobart was a keen classical scholar andwrote two books which still command a vide public, The Glory
that was Greece and The Grandeur that was Rome. He had all thelimitations of a classical education and, for all his great culture,understood little either of the changing social background of
Britain in the 192os or of the techniques of radio. Yet he hadgreat vision, made his own mark as a broadcaster, with his
famous `Grand Gooclnight'-it ended the year's broadcasting in
1927-and laid enduring foundations for the more specialized

activities of others.
' M. Somerville, 'I-Iow School Broadcasting Grew
Broadcasting in Britain (1947), p. 9.
I See above, p. 13.
3 L. Fielden, The Natural Bent (196o), p. 103.

Up' in R. Palmer, School

188

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC
One of his critics has paid tribute to his 'many attractive
qualities and sound virtues'. 'He was the first educator of any
standing to respond to the call of the new medium, broadcasting, when it was still in its infancy, and regarded by mostintellectuals as a new toy. Some vision had entered Stobart's
mind of what broadcasting might achieve in the cultural life of
the community; and so he had left the sheltered life of a Boardof Education inspector, and had embarked, fairly late in life,
on a new career at the BBC." At least one of his early memoranda is very boldly conceived. He outlined a plan for a`Wireless University', breaking away from existing university
traditions, providing courses lasting for two years, some taught
wholly, some partially, by radio. The courses would be free forall: 'no one need be prevented from learning science by inability to pass in Latin'. Stobart described his plan as 'a Wellsian sketch of possibilities', but he passed it on to Reith for
critical observations.2 Reith thought it greatly to his credit, butwhen adult education was developed, it was not quite on thisscale.
Between 1927 and 1931 many different branches of BBC
activity separated themselves out from Stobart's office-talks,news, and publications as well as schools and adult educational
broadcasting.3 Stobart struggled manfully to establish schools
broadcasting and made an excellent impression in many circles,
but there were limits to his success. He never found it easy, forexample, to win the confidence of teachers or children. 'He
doesn't know one end of a child from another', one of his colleagues, Frank Roscoe, a former pupil -teacher, once remarked.4
Another limit to success was set by ill health. Stobart wasseriously ill during the late 1920s, and much of the work thatwould normally have fallen to him-work of the kind which
had fallen to him before 1927-passed into other people's
hancls.5 The other people, Hilda Matheson, Siepmann, Mary
Somerville, and Fielden, among others, svere the key figures in
R. S. Lambert, Ariel and All His Quality (1940), pp. 49-5o.
*J. C. Stobart, 'The \Víreless University', 8 Oct. 1926.
For the organizational changes consequent upon this division of labour, seeabove, p. 124 and below, pp. 441-2.
4 Note by Miss Somerville, Nov. 1962.
For Stobart's work before 1927, see The Birth, of Broadcasting, pp. 201, 242,
253-4.
3

EDUCATION

189

the development of the serious side of sound radio in its greatest
phase of expansion.
Between 1927 and 1939 a most successful system of schools
broadcasting was devised by the BBC which soon became theenvy of educationists in every other country. The system wassupremely practical both in its approach and in its organization.
In 1927, at a generous estimate, 3,000 schools were listening
to the BBC's schools broadcasts in England and Wales; asagainst 220 in late 1924: at the outbreak of war in 1939 thefigure had risen to 9,953. In 1939 thirty-nine school programmes a week were being transmitted.
Even more important than such statistics was the impact of
the BBC on the quality of effort and imagination inside theschools. It played a key role in a still unfinished `silent revolution', in part a revolution of educational provision and technology-books, pianos, projectors, and materials for art andcrafts as well as wireless sets-in part a revolution of educational
aspiration and ambition, associated with the widening of curricula, the use of experimental teaching methods, and the relaxation of purely external discipline.
H. A. L. Fisher talked to Mary Somerville of `streams ofwater irrigating thirsty lands', but he warned her against using
language of this kind too freely even in her dealings with educationists.' She would have to get on with the job, he advised
her, without talking too much about the dreams that inspired
her. He was right. The same kind of warning had been given
by an earlier educationist, Michael Sadler, who told hiscolleagues that the loftiest sentiments of John Ruskin would
hardly be `persuasive' if made to the members of a City Education Committee, assembled at a meeting with the usual
agenda.2
It certainly took time and patience to set schools broadcastingon the right course, and many problems arising out of therelationships between the BBC and other educational bodies,including the Board of Education, still remained unsolved in
1939. It was necessary throughout the whole period of growth
to convert the missionary zeal 'to do good' into a practical2Note by Miss Somerville, Nov. 1962.
Quoted in C. A. N. Lowndes, The Silent Revolution (1937), p. 1o8.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC
grasp of such diverse subjects as the administrative network of
British education, the art of the teacher, the properties of soundradio as a medium, and the place of the child both in his`listening situation' and in his society. The schools broadcasting
department of the BBC had been forced to concern itself
directly with the sociology of its listening public in the schools
before the BBC as a whole examined the sociology of its listening
public in their homes.'
190

The great turning -point in the early story was a report onschools broadcasting in Kent which was completed in May
1928. Two years earlier, with the aid of a grant from theCarnegie Trust, an experiment in schools broadcasting had
begun in the Kent schools organized by the BBC and the Kent
local education authority working in close co-operation.2 Reith
had suggested informally to Colonel Mitchell of the Carnegie
Trust early in 1926 that 'it was time the Carnegie people took
an interest in our educational activities' the Trust, in consequence, made a grant of £300, a small sum which has subsequently paid enormous dividends. It vas used entirely to buy'good receiving sets' for a limited number of Kent schools.
Kent was chosen for the experiment for four reasons. It wasclose to London; its energetic Director of Education, E. Salter
Davies, was a Carnegie trustee and was also keenly interested
in wireless; doubtless in consequence, the authority already had
within its boundaries a relatively large number of listening
schools; and, not least, the county of Kent had a varied economy
with parents of schoolchildren living in widely differing social
circumstances. Furthermore, the Kent Advisory Committee of
Teachers approved of the experiment and offered to take part in
it on 23 June 1926.
The experiment began in the Easter term of 1927 and continued until the end of the year. Careful study was made of thevarious Kent schools listening to BBC broadcasts. There were
20 urban and 52 rural or semi -rural schools in all, 12of the 72
schools having less than 8o pupils and 14 having more than:3

See below, pp. 256 ff.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 262.
3
*Keith to E. R. Appleton and D. Cleghorn Thomson, copy to Stobart, 18 Oct.
1926.
2

EDUCATION

191

250 pupils. Both children's and teachers' opinions were collected from observers in the schools, from questionnaires, andfrom comments made at teachers' conferences.
The Report concluded that broadcast lessons effectively
imparted a knowledge of facts, stimulated interest in ways
which could be definitely observed, created impressions as durable as those produced by ordinary classroom lessons, and w ere
particularly interesting to clever children. In addition, they
supplied views and information which teachers by themselves
could not have supplied, gave teachers new ideas for lessons,and interested some hitherto indifferent parents in the workthat their children did at school.
'All courses', the Report added, 'were not uniformly successful. Much remains to be done to ensure better co-operation
between lecturers, teachers and pupils, and further investigationis needed in many directions.' While the experiment was inprogress, much had changed. `There were improvements in themethod and content of the lectures, in the degree of co-operation
between teacher and lecturer, in the efficient maintenance of thewireless apparatus, and in the actual method of the enquiry... .
Some schools dropped out, others came in late.'
It was generally agreed that at the transmitting end broadcasters had to be `expert', to have a good delivery, and topossess some of the qualities of the classroom teacher. They also
had to be prepared to study the special problems of wirelessteaching. There was no reason, indeed, why wireless programmes should consist simply of straight lectures, which
involved strain in listening without visual relief; `talks might bemodified by the abandonment of the straight lecture in favourof a system of closer collaboration between the lecturer and theteacher'.
The general conclusions were stated in such a way that theymight at the same time reduce suspicion and kindle interest.
There was no question of broadcasting superseding the teacher.
On the other hand, the teacher could not afford to ignore 'the
new instrument which science has placed in his hands'. 'The
need at this moment is for sober and careful investigation by
men and women who have "the forward view".... Anothergreat instrument of culture and recreation-the cinema-has
been allowed to be exploited for commercial purposes without

192

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

control. It would be a tragedy if the development of wirelesswere allowed to follow the same line.»
As important as the conclusions of the Kent inquiry were two
features of the way in which it was conducted. First, it had
depended upon close co-operation between the BBC and alively local educational authority. Such co-operation was a good
example to set to other and less keen-or even hostile-local
authorities. Second, it taught BBC officials a great deal thatthey did not know. They had been taken to a new region 'on
the other side of the microphone'. The engineers learned muchtoo, for one of the greatest obstacles in the way of co-operation
between the educational authorities and the BBC was bad
reception of programmes.
There was much general hostility also in educational circles
to the novel idea of enlisting wireless in the classroom. The
earliest surviving BBC document relating to schools broadcasting is a copy of a letter written by A. R. Burrows to the Directorof Education of the London County Council in November 1923.
'We recognise that the London County Council is a great educational authority', Burrows wrote, 'and we think it desirable that
we should endeavour to ascertain the views of that body inorder that we may co-operate with it, as far as is possible, in any
educational work that we may undertake.'2 The London County
Council expressed no desire to co-operate. It remained aloof
and suspicious, partly on the grounds that receiving apparatus
was often inadequate to permit intelligent group -listening inschools, partly because it feared interference with the freedomof the teacher to plan his lessons as he wished, and partly
because the material used in broadcasts was said to lie (in thevaguest terms) 'not suitahle'.3
Carnegie Trust, Educational Broadcasting, The Report of a Special Investigation in

the County of Rent during the year 1927.
2*A. R. Burrows to the Director of Education of the London County

Council,'It appears probable', Burrows began, 'that very material assistancecould be afforded to the scholastic profession by the broadcasting of lectures andinstructive talks to schools, and we are anxious that the vast potentialities of broadcasting shall be directed to useful channels as well as to those of pure amusement.'
For difficulties of reception, sec below, p. 202. *That the L.C.C.'s early fears
about poor reception were not without foundation is shown by the complete failureof receiving apparatus at an address and demonstration given by Burrows before
an audience of about 300 inspectors and teachers at University College,
London,21 Nov. 1923.

D

EDUCATION

193

Underlying these rationalizations was the same kind of conservative attitude to broadcasting which had always been shownby St. Paul's Cathedral and sections of the press.' The only
concession the L.C.C. would make was that pupils in elementary schools could listen to broadcasts during the last half-houron Friday afternoons, from 4 p.m. to 4.30-and from January
1925 onwards such broadcasts were arranged.2 There were
further relaxations in 1926 and, with the Kent experiment in
mind, experiments were carried out in London in 1927.3 As an
expression of a change in attitudes, the L.C:.C. gave permission
in 1927 for schools to listen to the ordinary Friday BBC schools
programmes provided that the lessons were `integrated into theschool curriculum' and that the receiving apparatus used waspassed as adequate by BBC engineers. In July 1928 it went
further and decided that schools could take any lessons approvedby the Education Officer.
The L.C.C. had been one of the most prominent local education authorities to doubt the value of schools broadcasting:many other authorities were cautious also. So too were someteachers, who strained every argument to show how `useless'wireless was.4 The success of the Kent experiment helped toconvert them. The very idea of treating broadcasting as a controlled `experiment' seems to have had value in itself, not only
for Charitable Foundations and Directors of Education but forteachers and pupils. `It has been found that a good way tointroduce schools broadcasting into a large school', wrote theheadmaster of Nest Leeds High School late in 1928, 'is to appeal
in Jan. 1924. A later demonstration by J. C. Stobart in County Hall in November 1924, however, was attended by 150 teachers and 'immensely impressed theaudience and aroused their interest'.
' For examples of this conservative attitude, see The Birth of Broadcasting,pp. 262-7, 274-5.
2 *On 17 Dec. 1924 the Education Committee of the L.C.C. considered a reporton the broadcast lessons arranged since March 1924 and reached a generally
unfavourable verdict.
3 In March 1926 Central Schools where French was taught were allowed to listen
to a new series of BBC French talks, and permission was given to the schools tolisten to a series of orchestral concerts, the first of which had been broadcast on
25 Sept. 1925 from the People's Palace. The French talks were criticized by an
L.C.C. inspector on the grounds that they taught idiomatic French rather than theuse of the pluperfect.
4 There had been a sustained attack on broadcast education by 'A Teacher'in The Times (30 Oct. 1926) in an article called 'Do Schools Need Wireless?'
It provoked a reply from Stobart and a number of other letters.
0
0 1995PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

194.

to the school, stall' and boys to enter into the experiment; to ask
for suggestions and criticisms; to allow the wireless lessons tojustify themselves."
The second feature of the Kent experiment which was ofcritical long-term importance was its influence on people inside
the BBC. 'The BBC itself learned much from interim reports
and conferences', it was stated baldly in the BBC Handbook for
1928. `There was a revision of studio methods. The lecture wasmade more like a lesson, in which response was expected, theclassroom teachers were shown what part they were expected
to play, and valuable reinforcement was given by means ofprinted pamphlets.'2
Behind these phrases was a fascinating personal crisis. At
Easter 1927 Mary Somerville went with Stobart to a conferenceat Stratford -on -Avon. There she learned from Salter Davies
that 'the Kent experiment was not going well'. Problems multiplied in the summer of 1927 when Stobart was ill, and Mary
Somerville was given full powers by Reith to develop whatcame to be called `listening -end work'. She was given authority
to go around the Kent schools, collecting the comments ofteachers and children and seeing for herself what actually happened in the classroom. To enable her to do this, an extra
appointment was made at Savoy Hill in September 1927, andshe was relieved thereby of some of her central administrative
duties. Shortage of staff had hitherto been one of the reasonsfor limited ventures inside the schools: another had been
Stobart's initial suspicion of Mary Somerville `putting her nose
inside a school'.3
Miss Somerville revelled in her new opportunity, eventhough, as she later admitted, it involved much eating of
humble pie. `I found poor patient children sitting in rooms
being bored. Back I carne at the gallop and did somethingabout
It wasn't that the programmes were bad. They
were of the highest standards, and some, for instance, Walford
Davies, could be rated good radio. But they were not produced
or given by people who knew children in their bones. By theit....

' T. Curzon, 'School Broadcasting from the Schoolmaster's Point of View' in
the BBC Handbook (1929), pp. 231-3.
2 Ibid., p. 113.
3 Mary Somerville, Speech at Governors' Dinner, 20 Dec. 1955.

EDUCATION:95

autumn of that year-welI, things were different. Programme
assistants and broadcasters were led by the car into the schools.
Schools broadcasting as we know it now had begun." By theend of the year `a sufficient number of Kent teachers confirmed
our faith in the educational possibilities of our medium. We hadcome very near to failure, but we had at least begun to learn
to work as pioneers in radio education. \Ve were to go on
broadcasting but with a difference.'2
The study of broadcasting from the receiving end rather thanfrom the transmitting end revolutionized the use of the medium
as an educational instrument. One of the first developments was
an extension of the publication of illustrated pamphlets, and
233,000 pamphlets were issued to schools in 1927.3 The first

BBC schools pamphlet-Sir Walford Davies's Melody Book No. r-had been issued in September 1926.4 A second development
was a more systematic study of the language used in the broadcasts. Mary Somerville quickly realized that many of the criticisms made by teachers were fair-that broadcasts included
unintelligible words and unfamiliar metaphors. Thereafter
there was a progressive development of broadcasting techniquein the light of what was happening at the receiving end. Even
Sir Walforel Davies's style of broadcasting was affected when he
was given an observer in a Kent school whom he affectionately
called his `watchdog'.5
New broadcasters, some of whom were to make the best
possible use of `story telling' in school broadcasts, were offereda warm response by children, who began to feel that theirbroadcasts were 'just right'. Rhoda Power was outstanding
among the very first of the new team. Her Boys and Girls of
Other Days was a genuinely pioneer series, the first of many.
Stobart had argued that wireless lessons 'must always partakeof the nature of a lecture' and that this would inevitably meanthat they would play a subordinate part in the education of the
Mary Somerville, Rough Notes for a Co-ordinating Committee Discussion,
Oct. '954.
2 Mary Somerville's Introduction to Palmer, School Broadcasting in Britain, p. 12.
3 BBC Annual Report (1927), p. 6.
4 The early broadcast lessons had sometimes been accompanied by blackboard
notes, maps, diagrams, and bibliographies, which were issued from Savoy Hill andcould be obtained free on application. The Radio Times was also used for illustrating
and following up talks from the autumn of 1924.
Palmer, School Broadcasting in Britain, p. 12.
5

196

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

very young) Rhoda Poer proved just how wrong he as.
With new techniques there was the prospect of making a wider
appeal to children of all ages. There was also the prospect of agenuinely close relationship with teachers, since it had now
1%

become clear that teachers and broadcasters were not competitors but associates. They supplemented each other not onlyin the classroom work related to broadcasts, but in formulatingideas for future programmes and in discussing the best way of`putting across' material. One of the suggestions of the Kent
Report was that permanent machinery was needed 'to securecontinuous contact between the BBC on the one hand and, on
the other, the Board of Education, the Local Education
Authorities and the whole body of teachers'.z
This suggestion, which had also been put forward by the
Hadow Committee earlier in 1928, was implemented in February 1929 when the BBC set up the Central Council for School
Broadcasting. The new body was constituted on a representative basis with a dependent committee for Scotland. The
Council took the place of the National Advisory Committee on
Education, which had first met in October 1923 and met for theseventh and last time in June 1928.3 The constitution andmembership of the new Council were hammered out by a small`interim committee' which had Salter Davies as its chairman:
it also included Sir Walford Davies, Frank Roscoe, G. H. Gaterof the London County Council, and G. T. Hankin, a Board of
Education Inspector. All these men were to play an importantpart in the future of schools broadcasting. Gater, along with
two other members of the interim committee, provided a linkwith the old National Advisory Committee on which they had
served.
Before the first meeting of the new Council, H. A. L. Fisher
was chosen as chairman (`no one more suitable could we think
be found'4) with Roscoe as vice-chairman and chairman of the
Executive Committee which was to meet once a month. The
composition of the Council was representative: it included
nominees of the Board of Education, the local education
J. C. Stobart, Lecture to the Grantham Education Society, 15 Mar. 1927.
Educational Broadcasting (1928), p. 8.
For the history of the National Advisory Committee, see The Birth of Broad4 *Iteith to H. A. L. Fisher, 17 Dec. 1928.
casting, p. 242.
'

2

EDUCATION

197

authorities, and teachers' associations and unions as well as
a number of independent members. Among the `independents'
was W. W. Vaughan, the headmaster of Rugby, who was later
to be an active and distinguished chairman of the Council.
From many of these people-notably Roscoe, Hankin, andVaughan-Mary Somerville was to receive the most valuable
encouragement and assistance.
Whatever may be said in general terms of the influence ofcommittees on the creative arts of broadcasting, in the case ofschools broadcasting machinery and committees did not kill'the vision of exploration, delight and understanding' which bad
inspired Mary Somerville and her colleagues. They rather
helped to bring the vision to fulfilment.'
From the point of view of programme building, the mostimportant work after 1929 was done not by the Council itself
but by its network of Programme Sub-Committees, each ofwhich was charged with the task of determining what special
contribution broadcasting could make to the development of
a particular subject in the schools curriculum. At its first meetings in 1929 the Council appointed sub -committees to deal withgeography, history, modern languages, English literature,music, special secondary -school courses, and an experimental
course in science. The majority of members of these sub -committees were teachers using the broadcast courses in theirschools. The other members included specialists in the subjects
concerned, representatives of the Executive Committee of theCouncil, and officials of the BBC. These sub -committees helped
to draft the first new schools syllabus which covered theacademic year from September 1929 to June 1930.
It was a national syllabus which was used fully or in part by
5,000 schools: 2,356 schools listened regularly in 1929-30, an
increase of 912 on the previous year.2 Over 560,000 pamphlets
were distributed. The extension of the work nationally and theimposition of higher standards implied the end of local broadcasts to schools which had been given since the early days of
the Company. Many of these had been of an undoubtedly
low standard and did not reflect the growing interest in theE

2

K. V. Bailey, The Listening Schools (1957), p. 25.
BBC Annual Report (1929), p. 9.

198

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

possibilities of sound radio as a unique educational medium.
At the same time the system of receiving and correcting written
work from schools and awarding prizes to schoolchildren on acompetitive basis-a system which had been favoured by
Stobart-came to an end. The last prizes were distributed by
the Duchess of Atholl in July 193o.
In the early days of the Council the sub -committees wereable to take a very active part in the planning of courses. They
advised the Council on the commissioning of series-and evenon speakers-and they edited educational pamphlets. Under
their influence many new ventures were begun. In 1931, forexample, a new kind of' history course was introduced called
Tracing History Backwards: it was an attempt to deepen knowledge of current problems by examining them in historicalperspective. Another course, King's English, devised by Lloyd
James, was designed, with the help of experiment, to test theeffects of a broadcasting series on children's pronunciation. A
year later current affairs talks on such controversial problems
as unemployment, the means test, and the Irish question were
given with great success. Raymond Gram Swing was brought
in to explain the American point of view on the `repayment of
the American debt', and `unfinished debates' were arranged
with two seven -minute broadcast speeches from mover andopposer and the schools continuing the debate for themselves.
Three years later, despite all the denominational difficulties,
attempts were made to start experimental courses on Bible
study and religious knowledge.
From the point of view of the BBC the great merit of developing new schemes through the sub -committees was that it
brought producers into close touch with teachers: BBC programme assistants were the acting secretaries of the sub -committees. Tor every broadcast course', it was stated in 1932,`there is provided an interplay of the ideas of five or six persons,each possessing some special qualification of scholarship, broadcasting technique or practical knowledge of the schools." Ata time when it was far from easy to recruit good programme
assistants with teaching experience-if only because of pensions
problems-this interplay was necessary.
Some Problems of School Broadcasting, Reviewed by the Central Council for School
Broadcasting after Three Years' Experience (1932), p. 4.
1

EDUCATION199

The Annual Report of the BBC for 1930 stated simply that 'themachinery set up by the Central Council for School Broadcasting worked smoothly'.[ Between 1930 and 1935, however,as the number of schools broadcasts greatly increased, particularly from 1933 onwards, there were signs of serious congestionin the BBC's annual timetable. The full-time BBC officials werebeing seriously overworked as a result of a superabundance ofprogramme sub -committees meeting in the early part of theyear, and complaints of `unwieldiness of machinery' began toarise.2 In the year 1934-5 over seventy Central Council Committee meetings were held at Broadcasting House and 7,000
sheets of foolscap were duplicated for circulation.3
Much of the foolscap concerned the sub -committees, whichmight be dealing not with one or two but with several courses,
and it began to be difficult to justify the amount of time taken
up at least by the more ineffective of them. Some of the subcommittees, if not ineffective, were inactive in suggesting new
ideas. `Broadcast lessons should present the opinions of those
who are at the head of the main body of educational doctrine,'
G. T. Hankin, one of the liveliest members of Council and subcommittees had written in 1931, 'not of the Advance Guard,
still less of the Forlorn Hope.'4 If the sub -committees began tolag behind, the results were serious. They became vested interests, out of touch with new thought. Teachers' opinions on the
merits of programmes were not unanimous, and a sub -committee had to have definite standing ifit was to pursue a forward looking policy.s
By 1935 there were further arguments for reform of procedure.
First, listening -end work still needed further development.
`Work at the transmitting end had naturally developed inadvance of work at the listening end', Reith commented in 1932.
'The machinery for ensuring that the Council should control
the educational content of the programmes and pamphlets was
BBC Annual Report (í93o), p. 8.
*Mary Somerville to Schools Executive, ig Nov. 1935.
3 *Revision of Central Council Machinery: Memorandum
on Behalf of theBBC, Feb. 1936.
4 *Memorandum by G. T. Hankin on 'The Educational Problems of School
Broadcasting', 3o Dec. 193t.
2

For differences of opinion between teachers, see The Evidence Regarding Broadcast Geography Lessons (1932) which shows how uncertain was the guidance offeredby random collections of teachers opinions.

200

PROGRAMMES AND TILE PUBLIC

apparently satisfactory, but the Council's policy with regard tolistening -end work was not so clear.» A full-time `listening -end
officer' was, in fact, appointed in 1932, but he was concernedwith adult education as well as school education.2
Second, the sub -committees thought essentially in terms of`subjects'. If the BBC was to do what its educational officers had
always wished, to link subjects and to explore the boundaries
between them, a different kind of machinery was necessary.
Hankin was one of the men within the inner councils of schools
broadcasting who, from the start, refused to be hound by narrow,categories. He was a good historian, the chairman of the History
Sub -Committee, but he wanted to see history linked with geography, economics, literature and, above all, with current affairs.
Third, there was perhaps not quite the same need as there
had been in 1929 for large numbers of teacher representatives
at the programme level since a corps of experienced educational broadcasters-both writers of scripts and performers -was beginning to be built up. Among them were broadcastersof great distinction, like Rhoda Power, Stephen King -Hall, andProfessor Winifred Cullis, people of great creative ability who
found a natural outlet for their educational vocation in teaching
through the medium of sound radio. The background of theschools broadcasters varied considerably. Out of thirty-two
speakers between 1928 and 1932, seven were schoolteachers,
two training -college lecturers, seven university lecturers, andsixteen outside specialists.3

Whatever their background, the speakers had to devotea good deal of time to `acquiring a good technique of broadcasting'. Mary Somerville had once been reproved by Stobart
for having the impertinence to write to a distinguished Professor of Literature at Oxford requesting him to rewrite ascript. Such a reproof would have seemed absurd during theearly 19305 when scholars and specialists with an international
reputation were expected to rehearse for long spells, to visit
schools to discover the reaction to their performances, andeven to Iisten to recordings of their voices on Blattnerphone inorder to eliminate `future mistakes'.
*Comments by Reith on the pamphlet Some Problems of School Broadcasting.
*Memorandum, 'Work at the Listening End', 17 Aug. 1932.
3 Some Problems of School Broadcasting, p. I I.
2

rl
.4.
.r

(a) Toscanini

conducting the
BBC SymphonyOrchestra in the
Queen's Hall

°

4 ..

(1935)

4

C

r

I

r'y

.

11/1,

o

'

1-:1

.

11;,a.

-_

Orchestra

conducted by
Sir \drian

h

Bolt

(1939)

í
: ';.
_

1^.

(b) The BBC
Symphony

^

Music

s

¡

4

i

_.\

rirr
13.

The Midland Parliament (1934) discussing 'The Sack at 18'

1

111

14.

Gardening from Alexandra Palace (1937), with C. H. Middleton (centre)

r

i

rl
(a) A French Lesson from Savoy Hill. M. Stéphan and Stuart Hibberd

r

ti

,

-

.

d

--

rr

.

,_.

'
rvitt

''
s

/-

.n

Air

.,,.
.,

.
.

(b) Pupils at Wembley School listening to a Broadcast (íg33)
15.

Education by Radio

1

lit

16.

i

I

III 1:1 N.

Political Broadcasting. Cartoon from Punch,
16 Aug. 1933

1
8.

It. W.

P.

Cockburn with thelongest listener's letter ever received
hy the BBC (1938)

1^,.-....tir
1 ' ,f44''-.

(«>"--.

.

'

.

:II.

.

.

,5*

...,
t

.,.

' ..:Nr,:' ,,,.¡J

4

CALI RAN'S CA 13IN l'.."1 (i)17.

,---.7.:*'".''`,.

1

'

.5

>or

'.. 14;

.

ICI.

""

A I inister of Propaganda

Sir Richard Nlaconachie (1938)

EDUCATION

201

Quite apart from forces making for change and development
within the schools broadcasting system between 1929 and 1935,
two main sets of difficulties continued to put obstacles in theway of spectacular growth. The first set of difficulties concerned
finance and the second inadequate facilities in the schools forgood wireless reception.
Finance had always been a problem, and both Stobart andMary Somerville had worked with very slender resources. Reith
hoped, indeed, that the Board of Education itself might pay
a contribution towards schools broadcasting or 'pass a strong
recommendation to the Post Office, from whom our revenue
comes, endorsing the value of the educational work we aredoing-particularly the work at the listening-end, which isoutside our proper responsibilities'.'
A spokesman of the Board replied tersely in 1930 that 'it does
not seem to be practicable to consider the finance of your educational activities separately from the whole question of yourfinancial relations with the Exchequer'.2 The BBC, therefore,
was left to finance both programmes and listening -end workfrom its own resources. It ís difficult from surviving financial
returns to say exactly how much was spent on educational
activities each year. Indeed, the Central Council for School
Broadcasting itself complained on at least one occasion that it
had inadequate information about the financial side of its
work.
Three points are clear about the course of events between
1929 and 1935. First, schools broadcasting suffered from thegeneral inability of the community to take education sufficiently
seriously. The élan of the last months of the First World War andthe period immediately following the war had gone, andHadow's Report on the Primary School in 1931 and Spens's
Report on Secondary Education in 1938 were at best declarations of faith rather than blueprints of immediately applicablepolicy. Second, the financial crisis of 1931, which led the
Corporation voluntarily to relinquish a portion of its income
to the government, slowed down the development of schools*Memorandum by Reith on 'The BBC and Education',. June 193o; Reith toE. H. Pelham, 23 June 193o; Pelham to Reith, 13 Oct. 193o; Reith to Pelham,
14 Oct. 1930.
2 *Pelham to Reith, t Nov. 193o.

202

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

broadcasting.' Third, financial considerations influenced abasic revision of the constitution and organization of the Central
Council which took place in 1935.2
Difficulties with reception were noted from the very earliest
days of schools broadcasting. Complaints came in from several
schools and Directors of Education about bad reception ruining
interesting programmes. `Collective listening' was a hazardous
activity. In April 1924 the first Education Engineer, R. NV.
Blackwell, was appointed to the BBC staff and a few months
later, in September 1924, the Chief Engineer, Peter Eckersley,sent round the first list of technical instructions to schools. In
1925 Blackwell was seconded full-time to the Schools Service,and on leaving the BBC at the end of 1926 was replaced by
H. L. Fletcher. By January 1927 there were four full-timeengineers in what was called the Education Sub -Section of theEngineering Department. In April 1927 there were eight; atthe end of the year-with the Kent experiment in full progress-twelve; and by the spring of 1928, fourteen. `In those earlydays,' one of the engineers has written, `probably the greatest
menace to the success of educational broadcasting was bad
reception. And the BBC tried to impress on teachers what good
reception was really like by giving simple demonstrations ofbroadcast talks on suitable apparatus.'3 Among the engineers
who went down to Kent was Harold Bishop, who, after Ash bridge, was to be Director of Engineering of the BBC.
The change from business -sponsored Company to public Corporation enabled the BBC to carry out its work of advice andtechnical assistance rather more easily than it might otherwise
have clone, but there were still some difficulties because of thefear of appearing to support one firm in the radio trade rather
than another. 'We are an association of manufacturers', Reith
had written in the clays of the Company, 'and in addition to
impartiality, the trade expects us to encourage the sale of complete sets or anyhow not to discourage it. The whole situation,' BBC Annual Report (1931), p. to. The Report for the following year noted,
however (p. to), that 'school broadcasting suffered less than might have been
expected from the financial crisis'.
See below, pp. 208-9.
'Unpublished BBC Notes on the History of School Broadcasting; cf. *Notesof '. R. Burrows, 6 June 1924: 'Educational broadcasting is only successful when
the reception is really faultless.'
3

EDUCATION

203

Owing to our constitution, is one of critical delicacy, and only
the serious prejudice accruing through the use of inferior

apparatus justifies our offer of help in the matter.'' Even when
the constitution had changed, the `delicacy' lingered. It wasdifficult for the BBC to advise the use of one particular wirelessmodel for schools. 'We must still be circumspect,' Reith told
Mitchell, the secretary of the Carnegie Trust, 'not to appear to
be contrary to the interests of the trade in general or to favour
any particular manufacturer or group of manufacturers.'2
Fortunately, the radio trade itself understood the dilemma inwhich the BBC found itself, and did nothing to impede theextension of the market for wireless sets to schools and local
education authorities. It was as well aware as Mitchell that 'bad
reception could kill the whole thing'.3 In 1930 the chairman of
the Radio Manufacturers' Association attended a meeting of
the newly formed Technical Sub -Committee of the Central
Council and presented a resolution adopted by his association,
pledging willingness 'to co-operate to secure good broadcast
reception in schools'.4
The Technical Sub -Committee had been known at first as
the Reception Committee. It started its work by circularizing
Directors of Education about general factors influencing reception conditions, and went on to make detailed inquiries into
conditions in a number of' areas as widely scattered as Buckinghamshire and Fife, Blackburn and Reigate. Late in zg;o it
co-operated with the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research in a scheme to test sets submitted by manufacturers
against standards determined by the sub -committee. The Central Council passed on detailed information collected by the

sub -committee to interested authorities, thus absolving the BBC
itself from recommending specific makes of sets.
A method of judging listening conditions in schools without
being forced to pay visits to them was also devised in 1930. A
series of' twenty-five words, each containing three fundamental
speech sounds, was listed and broadcast daily. The sounds were*Reith to the Station Directors, 22 July 1925.
*Reith to Mitchell, 3 Nov. 1926. He was anticipating the change of constitution.
added, 'I had the greatest
3 *Mitchell to Reith, 5 Nov. 1926. 'Last night,' hedifficulty in getting even Daventry successfully, and finally I got it with one of thedials at a quite unusual number.'*Meeting of the Technical Sub -Committee, 4 July 1930.
4

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC
recorded by children in schools and the results compared withreturns made by certain selected schools where the reception
conditions were known. The comparison of results enabledschools to tell whether or not their reception conditions weregood enough to justify their making regular use of broadcast
lessons. Advice on these tests was given by Dr. Cyril Burt, thepsychologist; and an Investigation Committee, with O. F.
Brown of D.S.I.R. in the chair and Harold Bishop and Lloyd
James among its members, supervised the scheme.
Reports from individual schools often give a vivid picture ofworking conditions in schools in 1931 and 1932. 'The headmaster has frequently used his own set for school purposes, andintends to instal a school set shortly.' `The existing set isobsolete and not in use. The headmaster is enthusiastic, butdoes not consider that a set could be of very much value to theschool at present. In the event of an increase in the number ofchildren in the school and the installation of electric light, hewould certainly endeavour to instal a set.' `The headmistresshas collected £20, but the governors have refused their permission for a set to be installed on the grounds that the number ofchildren who would benefit is very small.'
In collecting such reports and in commenting on the kind ofapparatus which schools used, the Education Engineers wereplaced in a strategic, if somewhat anomalous, position. Theiradvice was indispensable, but it was not easy to say whereengineering problems ended and where educational problems
began. `Education engineers are not expected to express
opinions on questions relating to the treatment of subject matter
either in the studio or in the classroom,' a memorandum of 1928
stated, 'nor is it thought desirable that they should do so, butsome knowledge of the nature of the lessons broadcast is essential if these visiting representatives are to be able to convey theright impression of the BBC's policy to schools as well as convey
the nature of the teachers' difficulties to Head Office'.' Apparently doubts about the status of the engineers remained, and in,January 1930 Carpcndale had to settle the matter at the highest
level. 'The section was an integral part of the Engineering
Branch and under the direct control of the Assistant Chief
204' *`Report on the Range, Scope and Effects of the Work of Education
Engineers,
Nov. 1926 to Dec. 1928.'

EDUCATION

205

Engineer. Education Engineers were to take their instructions
from the Senior Education Engineer, who works in accordancewith the requirements of the Secretaries of the Central Councils
for School Broadcasting and Adult Education.»
One of the most popular ways of persuading would-be listeners that receiving problems were not insuperable, and one
in which both engineers and broadcasters played a big part, wasthe staging of demonstrations not only in individual schools but
at large national conferences like the annual meetings of the
British Association. A thousand people were present at a British
Association demonstration at Leeds in 1927, and at the 1928
meeting of the Association in Glasgow a model studio was constructed, and Stobart and Salter Davies spoke to large audiences
about the Kent experiment. In one of his speeches at Glasgow
Stobart told his audience that he had been wakened that morning in a sleeper at the Central Station by a railway worker
whistling Tchaikovsky's No. 1 Piano Concerto. He said that
'this disturbance' proved the value of broadcasting-not to therailway worker but to himself, for he had profited to the extent
of being able to recognize what the railway worker was whistling.2
By 1935, when important changes were made in the constitution of the Central Council for School Broadcasting, receptiondifficulties had been greatly reduced and emphasis was passing
naturally to the bigger question of how to finance the provisionof wireless sets in those schools which were still without them.3
The chairman of the Central Council between 1932 and 1935
was Lord Eustace Percy. Succeeding Fisher, Percy brought tobear on the work of the Council a wide experience of different

aspects of education. He had been President of the Board of
Education from 1924. to 1929,4 and as chairman of the Council
he made it one of his chief tasks to plead the case for large-scale
public provision of wireless sets in schools.
*Memorandum of the Assistant Controller, Jan. 1930.
Note by Reith, June 1963.
3 The difficulties by no means completely disappeared. `There is no doubt thatreception leaves much to be desired', a number of H.M.I.s reported in January
1937. They added that 'it may be worth noting that no significant correlation
could be discovered between the make of the receiving set and the quality of thereception'. *Board of Education, Use of Broadcasting in Secondary Schools, Jan. 1937.
See I.ord Percy, Some Memories (1958), ch. vi.
'

2

206

PROGRAM\IES AND THE PUBLIC

There is an illuminating note in the BBC Archives headed'The Estimated Cost ofSupplying all Public Elementary Schools
in England and Wales with Receiving Apparatus suitable for
School Broadcast Reception'. It was drawn up, at Mary Somer-

ville's request, by an official in the Board of Education.[ Assuming that the retail price of the appropriate receivers was between
to and £15 and that a large order could bring the price down
to as little as £8, the cost of installing receivers in seniorschools, `unreorganised departments', junior schools, and infantschools in England and Wales would have been £420,000.2
Percy referred to this figure in the draft of his Report on thework of the Council for 1935, stating that the BBC might set
aside this sum. Although one senior official of the BBC described it as 'a fantastic suggestion', Reith was sympathetic andcommented that it might be possible to raise the necessary sum
from the portion of the os. licence which the Treasury had
hitherto retained.3 Mary Somerville maintained that 'the position outside' at the time was such as would justify the BBC`thinking "big"'. 'Mr. Ramsbotham [the President of the Boardof Education]', she added, 'has been publicly declaring theneed for schools to have wireless receiving sets and projectors
and has persistently been refusing to be squashed by the officials
at the Board and Treasury in his determination to get thenecessary funds.' Her financial proposal was different from thatof Percy. 'What I have in mind', she went on, 'is that a block
grant might be made to the Board of Education by the government from the Wireless Licence Revenue and the Cinema
Entertainment Tax respectively to be devoted to the annual
equipment of a certain proportion of schools throughout theI

country.';

These sanguine hopes were not realized, and the most thatthe BBC could do ín 1935 was to salute those local authorities
who were prepared to embark upon ambitious plans of wirelessinstallation. One of the earliest authorities to enter the field was*P. Wilson to Mary Somerville, 18 Apr. 1935.
This figure assumed that two sets would be required for senior schools with
between 250 and 350 pupils and three sets for such schools with more than 35opupils. In other cases, one set only would be required, with the exception of juniorschools with more than 35o pupils which would be allotted two.
3 *Siepmann to Iteith, undated note; Keith toSiepmann, undated note.
4 *Mary Somerville to Siepmann, 7 Mar. 1935.
2

EDUCATION

207

Ayrshire, which celebrated the Royal jubilee by providing eachof its schools with a wireless set. Edinburgh granted £300 a year
towards such installations in 1935 and Hertfordshire £450,
although the Education Committee's proposals in Hertfordshire met with resistance from the Finance Committee. Interest
was quickened in the fate of such schemes in 1938, and many
local authorities, some stimulated by teachers, agreed to pay, if
not for equipment, at least for licences and a supply of pamphlets.

This pressure on the part of teachers was greatly welcomed
inside the BBC.' The Manchester Teachers' Consultative Cornmittee, for example, published a report in 1935 which the BBC
felt was `decidedly favourable'. A resolution of the Oxford
Schools Management Sub -Committee was also noted withpleasure: 'the practice has grown up whereby half the purchaseprice of various mechanical aids to learning is provided out ofschool funds and half by the Education Committee. This was
suited to a period of experiment, but the value of these aids is
now clearly proved. The sub -committee are of the opinion that
if these aids are recognised as necessary, the whole cost should
be borne by the Committee.' It is fair to add that the Oxford
Committee associated percussion bands (for infants' schoolsonly) with wireless sets as `necessary aids to learning'.
The London County Council was once again suspicious of
precipitate action. 'The L.C.C. has decided to institute an
enquiry by its Inspectorate into the use of broadcasting in L.C.C.
schools', it was reported in 1935. 'A preliminary conference washeld with the Inspectorate on October 25th. This revealeda disappointing ignorance on the part of the Inspectorate bothas to the policy of the BBC, the work of the Council, and theamount of broadcasting actually being used in the schools.'3

What was particularly pleasing about the Oxford resolution,
which was followed up by effective implementation, was its
clear statement that 'the period of experiment' in schools broadcasting was now over. This was the theme of the last report of2*Cameron to F. Mander, the Secretary of the N.U.T., 14 Dec. 1936.
*City of Oxford, Minutes of School Management Sub-Committee, 12 Dec.

193,1.3*BBC Note on Action taken by Local Education Authorities, Nov. 1935.

208

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

the Central Council before Pere retired. 'We find that the time
has come definitely to record our opinion that School Broadcasting has established itself as an educational influence of considerable importance, and to claim that it should be regarded
as an asset of great potential value to the public service of
education.»
The Council went on to draw conclusions. Hitherto, it said,
its policy had not been to `force the pace of development'.
It now believed that expansion should definitely be planned.
As many as 1,271 schools were listening to travel talks, the mostpopular item of fare, 1,002 to music programmes, 973 to British
history (significantly, as against only 555 to world history),= and934 to nature study. A new subject like regional geography
could secure an immediate following in 600 schools without
there being any decrease in the number of schools listening totravel talks. 'We have so far presented the programme', theReport added, `under the customary subject divisions in orderto facilitate the incorporation of the broadcast talks in theschool timetable, but the material of the broadcasts in mostcases is by no means confined within the limits of any one subject and we believe that broadcasting is particularly fitted tobreak down any unnecessary barriers between the subjects ofthe curriculum.'3
The reorganization of the constitution of the Council-for
the various reasons which have been outlined-began with theappointment by the Executive Committee in February 1935 ofan ad hoc committee to make recommendations about a simplification of machinery. This small committee recommended thatwhile the Council should continue to be of roughly the same
size and composition, the Executive Committee should be
divided into two-one section dealing with education and theother with finance and general purposes-and `greater expedition in the conduct of business of the sub -committees shouldbe achieved'.
*Report to the BBC on the Present Position of School Broadcasting, 19 Jan. 1935.
H. G. Yells later criticized (in May 1938) what he called the exaggeratedemphasis on British history. By then, however, 3,739 schools (age level 9-11) weretaking courses in world history as against 3,531 in British history (age level 11-14)*Hankin wrote to Steele, 3o June 1938, `I think we might send H. G. Wells a copyof our next year's programme and ask his opinion. The letter would have to
explain why we stick to British history.' Hankin did not explain why.
3 *Report to the BBC on the Present Position of School Broadcasting, p. 2.
2

EDUCATION

209

These proposals were accepted-with the exception of that
relating to the division of the Executive Committee-on I I June
1935. A more important change followed. Mary Somerville,with the support of Percy and his successor Vaughan, suggested
to Reith that there should be a division of interest and labour
between the Council and the BBC. She had been ill in theautumn and winter of 1934-5 and had come to the proper conclusion that too much work was falling on the shoulders of the
few people inside the BBC who were fully concerned withschool broadcasting. She herself wished to concentrate on workinside the BBC, and put forward a new scheme for divided
responsibility, with the Central Council becoming a public bodywith its own secretary and a substantial degree of autonomy.
Her scheme recognized that there was a `duality of function'
between programme builders inside the BBC and people inside'the world of education'. The Head of the Schools Department
inside the BBC should be placed in a position where she could`direct the production of the school programme and its related
services, giving that attention to the details of presentation anddevelopment of microphone technique which has for some time
been impracticable'. In future she should attend the Council
as 'the accredited officer of the BBC responsible for interpreting
to the Council such considerations as relate to the over-riding
powers retained by the BBC vis -á -vis the Council'. On the otherside, the work of the Council would `attract more attention andcarry greater weight' in the world of education if it was represented by officers who were recognized as `responsible servantsof an independent educational body'.'Miss Somerville went to great pains to set out details of her
scheme in diagrammatic form (see p. 21o).
Keith, however, needed no persuading. He wrote later that hehad always been in favour of giving the Council as much autonomy as possible `since the BBC is not a recognised educational
instrument'.z He welcomed Mary Somerville's proposals, therefore, and gave them his full support. So too did the UllswaterCommittee.; When A. C. Cameron, the Director of Education
for Oxford and a Governor of the British Film Institute, was'Mary Somerville, undated Memorandum on Proposed Staff Adjustments
relative to the Schools Department.
2 "Keith to Graves, 21 Apr. 1938.
3 Cmd. 5091 (1936), §1o2.
C 1995I'_.

EDUCATION

211

appointed Secretary of the Council, Reith noted in his diary,'I have always wished the Council to be more independent of
the BBC, and this looks like getting down to
The new Council was to have `full responsibility for a certain
field of work'. 'The Corporation has no desire in future', it wasstated, 'to interfere in any question of' the management of theCouncil or in the detail or policy of its arrangements for activities at the listening end.'2 To secure the Council's independenceof action, separate funds were to be placed at its disposal.3 Mary
Somerville hoped that these would be made available in theform of a block grant.4 Instead, they were based, as before 1935,
on annual estimates. The first grant was from April 1936. Toemphasize the independence of the Council, Cameron's offices
were sited in a house in Portland Place which at first was quite
unconnected with Broadcasting House.
Cameron took over his duties on I November 1935. Heemphasized that his task was 'to strengthen the links between
producer and consumer'. With this purpose in view, he wasgiven subordinate officials to assist him at the listening end.
They included R. C. Steele, a Cambridge graduate, who had
been an Inspector of Schools since 1933. Steele was a mosteffective adviser on educational policy. Cameron himself wasless interested in the `technique of broadcasting' than Mary
Somerville, but he was popular with teachers and administrators, and an effective spokesman of the general educational
policy of the BBC. `Broadcasting is not just a convenientmechanical aid to teaching in the classroom, like the gramophone or the magic lantern', he told the press soon after his
appointment. `First and foremost, it brings to the school the
personality of the expert. The broadcast talk does not brush theteacher aside: it offers what the best teachers are constantly
seeking, a link between the school and life outside, between theclassroom and the home.... We are concerned to secure not the
introduction of something called "School Broadcasting", distinct from programmes which the ordinary listener enjoys, butthat every school is equipped with a set that will enable it to'2

Reith, Diary, 6,June 1935.
*Revision of Central Council Machinery: Memorandum on Behalf of theBBC, Feb. 1936.
4*Director-General's Meeting, Minutes; 21 May 1935.
*Minutes of the Central Council, t t Mar. 1935.

212

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

receive any talk, Ivhether in the school programme or not,which will enable the pupil to become a more discerning citizen."

The newly constituted Council very quickly established close
relations with the Board of Education and the local authorities.
It was perhaps less successful in carrying out the kind of research
into educational problems which Mary Somerville believed tobe essential to the future development of sound radio. Before
her illness in 1934 she had made arrangements to send out
a series of questions to schools on their reaction to particular
programmes. The inquiry was made by Miss Ussher, and was
not officially supported by the Board of Education.2 A further
inquiry was carried out on an even bigger scale in 1935, whenover 1,70o replies from 2,50o listening schools were analysedcarefully by Dr. Perrie Williams to discover what the children
enjoyed and what they found `stodgy' and what the teachers
liked and what they found `useless'. Dr. Perrie Williams suggested that equal attention should be paid to the planning of
junior and senior courses and that the BBC should move still
further from the classroom and explore the world outside theschools.

The Board of Education itself began to take an increasing
interest in detailed investigation after 1935. It moved very
slowly, E. G. Savage telling Cameron in January 1936 that hewas `rather ashamed' at the delay inside his own organization.3'Our projected programme is that we should select two or threecourses, or at the most four,' he explained to Cameron, 'and
have them followed lesson by lesson, possibly throughout thewhole of the course in the schools where reception is good.'
There was to be no wasting of Llspectors' time. `We are particularly anxious not to have any wasted visits in places wherereception is likely to be defective.'
Following this initiative, which was limited to elementary
schools, a number of Inspectors of Schools reported in 1936 on*BBC Press Release, 31 Oct. 1935.
*Analysis of School Report Forms, 11 Nov. 1935.
3 *Savage to Cameron, to Jan. 1936. Cf. a letter from A. G. Philip of the Board
to Reith, 28 June 1935: `I have never really had any doubt about the ultimate
triumph of broadcasting in the schools, but perhaps my experience of the educational machine has given me the habit of expecting new things to advance se lately,even such startling magic as broadcasting.''

2

EDUCATION

213

teachers' and children's reactions to a number of BBC courses
in history and geography. In general, they concluded that 'thebroadcast talks had been well worth while': they had stimulated
interest, 'in particular by means of the dramatic interludes
which by skilful use of sound produce mental pictures in a sv ay
in which no individual teacher, however gifted, can hope to do'.
Yet they went on to make specific criticisms not only of the
difficult language of some of the broadcasts but of the attempt
to put across difficult ideas to children who were incapable ofgrasping them. One cautious Inspector could not resist adding,'how much enjoyment is still due to novelty and how much toreal interest is difficult to gauge'. Another Inspector wisely
pointed out that 'the wireless lesson is not a soft option which
relieves the teacher of his responsibility. It is an exceedingly
difficult form of lesson needing much thought.» The Inspectors'
views were supplemented by information from local BBC
officials. 'This is a fairly ordinary school of the older type', one
Lancashire official wrote bluntly. `I do not think that the Headmaster is much out of the ordinary either.'2
Inspectors' reports were followed up by discussions inside theProgramme Sub -Committees which had been left with lessinitiative after 1935 than they had enjoyed before. They nolonger had programme assistants as secretaries, and they wereless directly involved in detailed programme planning. Yet
many interesting discussions took place inside them. In the
History Sub -Committee, for instance, Hankin pressed some ofthe same points that had been made in Board of Education
reports. `It is a great mental strain for children of thirteen tolisten to connected thought for twenty minutes.... If one gets
across three big ideas it is a good clay's work.'3 Hankin also
added many points of his ol n. He was a shrewd observer of thesocial conditions in which broadcast lessons were received, andwarned his colleagues on more than one occasion about putting
across 'a middle-class point of view'.4 He also knew a good deal
about his colleagues. \'hen Cameron proposed adding an
Inspector of Schools to the History Sub -Committee in 1938,*Digest of Reports by H.M. Inspectors on Broadcast Lessons Listened to in the Summer
Term, 1936.
2 *Notes appended to the Reports by the North Regional staff of the BBC.
3 *Rankin to Miss Gibbs, to Nov. 1938.
4 See above, p. 41.

214

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Hankin replied, 'By all means get an H.M.I. for the History
Committee. It will do him good, whoever he is."In 1937 and 1938 the Board of Education produced reports,
through its Consultative Committee, on the use of broadcasting
both in elementary and secondary schools. These reports werereceived by the Council in March 1938. Reception conditions
were shown to be still unsatisfactory in some schools and the
Education Engineers were asked to investigate why this was so.
Little that was new was said in the Report on Elementary
Education: on Secondary Education, however, where the Central Council for School Broadcasting was making a new drive,
the Inspectors raised some new issues, not always winning theassent of the BBC. `There can be little doubt', one Inspector
had said, 'that this form has been wasting its time, for the course
is of practically no value for revision purposes for School Certificate.' The BBC did not retaliate by asking why this shouldhave been the test.
A certain narrowness of outlook pervades the reports, andthere seem to have been serious misconceptions about schools
broadcasting, including a fear lest it would make children
passive and `standardize or stereotype methods'. A main
general point of the Inspectors was that although pupils liked
broadcasts, 'they did not know how to listen'. They talked invague terms of 'the restiveness incidental to a new educational
experience', but they did not suggest how the art of listening
could be developed. Both these points had been dealt with moreconvincingly by Hankin in a note which he prepared as anappendix to the BBC's evidence before the Board of Education's
Consultative Committee met. 'Some teachers may be tempted
to use examinations as a convenient excuse for avoiding thestrain of thinking out the use of new methods and new devices
and for avoiding also the risk of failures that may affect their
future success in their profession.... It is true that many adults
lack concentration and cannot listen seriously to broadcasting.
That is only a proof that they have not been trained to do so.
It does not affect the argument that intelligent purposive listening can be a valuable part of the educational process.'2
Hankin dared to judge quite freely and with all the zest of2

Nankin to Cameron, 15.1111e 1938.
Hankie to Cameron, 29 Sept. 1936.

EDUCATION

215

an independent critic. The Consultative Committee was much
more cautious. It did not, for example, make much of the fact,
as the BBC put it, 'that many teachers seem to have missed
valuable opportunities of using the broadcast as a second expert
opinion for purposes of comparison and to train the pupils'
critical faculties'.' The liveliest ideas came from the Central
Council itself. The pressure of School Certificate and Higher
School Certificate examinations was apparently felt in 1938 not
only by pupils and teachers but by officials of the Board of
Education. \Vhen Steele sent in the sets of comments which theCouncil made on the Board's Report, he received the reply
from F. R. G. Duckworth that `I am afraid the pressure of theHigher School Certificate Examination will prevent me fromreally clamping down to it for the next few weeks.'2

There was a great deal ofcorrespondence between the Council
and the Board of Education in 1938 and 1939, concerned withconferences, courses, and technical problems, including the bestplace to install school wireless sets. The closer involvement
between Council and Board was what Cameron wanted. It isrevealed in such matters as the Board objecting to a course on
physical education in Scotland because neither it nor its
Inspectors had been consulted first-and later providing massive
help with the broadcasts.3 In the same spirit the Council asked
for, and received, approval to be added to the list of bodies who
were circulated with the `ordinary communications' which theBoard of Education made to local education authorities. In
June 1938 the Board requested the Council's permission to
include broadcasting statistics in a bulletin which it preparedand circulated to Inspectors and other officers.s One of theBoard's Inspectors even took the initiative in proposing a series
Comments of the Central Council on the Report of the Board of Education on the Use of
Broadcasting in Secondary Schools, Mar. 1938. Not all teachers failed to respond. *The

Principal of the Municipal College at Smethwick wrote a long report to Cameronon 16 Sept. 1936, which included the sentence: 'I believe the greatest gain is
obtained from the broadcast lessons by the teacher. Although he sometimes thinks
the lessons a nuisance and an interference with routine, yet he gets jerked out ofa rut and is generally stimulated to think more of his job.'
2 *F. R. G. Duckworth to R. C. Steele, 22 Mar. 1938.
*S. H. \Vood to Cameron, 11 April 1938.
*W. R. Reid to S. H. \Vood, 13 May 1938; *\Vood to Reid, 1g May 1938.
June 1938.
5 *Wood to Reid,
1

216

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

of broadcasts for junior schools and sixth forms.t The idea wascarefully considered but turned down, with the note that theCouncil would be very glad to hear at any time 'any further
suggestions you or your colleagues may care to put forward'.z
Another venture that failed was the attempt to install an`effective' wireless set in the Board of Education itself. `For thepresent, we will manage without', W. R. Richardson of the
Department of Intelligence and Public Relations of the Board
told Cameron in November 1938.3
This correspondence was in the background in 1937, 1938,
and 1939. In the public foreground was the great increase in
the number and range of schools broadcasts during the last three
years of peace. By 1937 there were twenty-seven broadcast
courses in England and \Vales-one for Infants, six for ,Juniors,
three for Juniors and Seniors, eleven for Seniors, and six forSecondary Schools. Two of the weekly talks were given in
Welsh. In Scotland also there were as many as twenty-six
series. The programmes for young children, notably Ann
Driver's highly successful Music and Movement for Very YoungChildren series, which was first broadcast in 1934., were particularly interesting in that the pioneers of schools broadcasting had
thought that only older children would be able to benefit fromthe work of the BBC. Following Dr. Ferrie Williams's recommendations, the Junior and Senior programmes became
increasingly distinctive, and more use was made of outside
broadcasts. The replacement of Districts of England, a series oftalks for rural schools, by Our Village, a dramatized series
popular both in village and city, was a sign that Hadow's ideas
had begun to change schools broadcasting itself.4 R. C. Steele
claimed without exaggeration that 'the outside world has begun
to have access to every class room in a way that could not havebeen imagined twenty years ago'.5
There had, indeed, been many changes since the earliest
days. `I always say that educational advance has traditionallygone in this country in three stages', Cameron wrote in 1938.
'
2
3

R. H. Barrow to Cameron, 8 Oct. 1938.
"Cameron to Barrow, 13 Dec. 1938.
'\V. R. Richardson to Cameron, 17 Nov. 1938.

4

The Listening Schools, p. 46.

5

Quoted in The Listening Schools from an article by Steele in the rear Book of

Education (1938).

EDUCATION^-.I7`First Stage: pioneers' experiments. Second Stage: responsible
teaching opinion generally becomes convinced that the value ofthe new medium or whatever it is may be proved and begins todemand its official adoption. Third Stage: the local education
authorities accept their recommendation. With School Broadcasting it seems to me that we are now well into the third stage."
In 1938 there was an increase of over 1,600 elementary
schools using wireless lessons, and the number of secondary
schools had reached the figure of 891.2 This increase, which was
carried still further in 1939, had taken place despite internalpressures within the BBC for `consolidation' on the grounds that
there was inadequate studio space, that the Schools Department was housed at some distance from the studios and, above
all, the old complaint, that there was not enough money.3
The shortage of money was felt even more acutely in 1937,
1938, and 1939 by the Adult Education Section of the BBC,a section which had been brought into very close relation bothwith the Central Council for School Broadcasting and the Boardof Education after the rearrangement of the Council in 1935.
'The foundations of listening to adult talks may be laid during
school clays', Cameron wrote in 1936.4 'The BBC has afforded
every opportunity during the past year to the Council's Staff',
an official report of the same year noted, 'for getting into touchwith what is happening on the Adult Education side and ofworking in co-operation with those concerned therewith.'s The
six Regional Education Officers of the BBC in 1939 were engaged
both in the organization of schools broadcasting and of adulteducation, but it had already been decided that the `listening end work' in adult education should cease to be a financial
obligation of the BBC in 194.0. Parliamentary discussions took
place in 1937 as to the possibility of transferring the cost oflistening -end work ín schools education also.
Reith had sounded the Board of Education on this point as
early as 1930.6 In June 1937 he asked Nicolls 'to start the ballrolling again'.7 'The whole issue' was, as Graves put it, `whether*Cameron to H. H. Cartwright, 13 Apr. 1938.
*W. R. Reid to the Board of Education, 31 May 1938.
3 *Mary Somerville to Reith, 9 Apr. 1937.
4*BBC Press Release, 17 June 1936.
S*\. C. Cameron, Policy Revision, 4 Nov. 1936.
7 *Note by Nicolls, 23 Sept. 1937.
° Sec above, p. 20.
2

218

PROGRAMMES AND 1'1íE PUBLIC

it is agreed by the Board of Education that School Broadcasting
is now so firmly established that we have clone all the listening end work which we legitimately should, and that it is now some-one else's duty to carry on this work, which is now an importantfeature of our national educational system.» The Board of
Education was never formally sounded, for it was the advice of
Sir Henry Richards, a nominated member of the Board on theCentral Council, that the Board woulcl be unlikely 'to be prepared at present to take any positive action' if the BBC's educational services at the listening end were discontinued. Most of
the people inside the Board would `probably be indifferent toit'.2 For all the progress that had been made, Reith neverrealized his hope that what the BBC had started, the community would fully take up.

The BBC's efforts in adult education were less successful thanschools broadcasting, although for a time they produced whatlooked like spectacular results. R. S. Lambert, who was incharge of the first work, wrote in 1927 to members of theWorkers' Educational Association, which he had served as atutor: 'The W.E.A. has long experience and knowledge of what
is wanted educationally: the BBC has an instrument of unparalleled range and power for reaching the mass of the people.'3
There was vision, therefore, in adult education as in schools
broadcasting.
The efforts took practical form, like the first large-scale
experiments in schools broadcasting, after the publication of
Hadow's New Ventures in Broadcasting in 1928. Much earlier,
however, a conference had been held at King's College, London,
to discuss adult educational talks, and Stobart had told a representative group of adult educationists that 'the BBC took thisside of its work very seriously'.4 Adult educational talks had
been broadcast first in the autumn of 1924, and in April 1927
Lambert had joined the BBC specifically to arrange such programmes. There is a familiar ring in a comment made by Reith' *Note by Graves, 23 Sept. 1937.
a *Report on an
Interview between Rose-Troup and Sir Henry Richards,
2 Dec. 1937.
R. S. Lambert, 'Broadcasting This Winter' in highway. Oct. 1927.
4 *Minutes of a Conference on Broadcasting in Relation to Adult Education,
held at King's College, London, 18 July 1924.

EDUCATION219

in October 1926 that development of this work awaited thedevelopment of `alternative programmes',' but Lambert's
appointment coincided with a burst of activity. A series of early
evening talks in 1927 was envisaged as the first attempt toorganize weekly adult educational programmes as part of a continuing process, and the first 'aid to study' pamphlet, One Hundred Years of Working Class Progress, was published in May 1927.
At one of many adult -education demonstrations that year thetwo main speakers were Reith and Harold J. Laski.
The Harlow Report provided a kind of charter for people
who were already interested in the possibilities of broadcast
adult education. It maintained that broadcast adult education
could supplement existing work in adult education without
supplanting the voluntay or public agencies which werealready in the field. Among its main recommendations were thesetting up of `listening groups', formal or informal, to discuss
BBC adult educational programmes, the launching of a `weekly
educational journal', and the creation of a representative Central Council for Adult Education, supported by Area Councils
representing local opinion and local organizations.
As in the case of schools broadcasting, an `interim committee'
hammered out the constitution of the new council. It had an
impressive membership, including G. H. Gater, who provided
a link with the Schools Broadcasting Interim Committee,
G. D. H. Cole, Oliver Stanley, Miss Harlow, and Miss Haldane;
T. H. Searls represented the British Institute of Adult Education, and the chairman was Lord Justice Sankey. J. W. Brownof the Institute and Lambert were the joint secretaries. Before
the Council was brought into existence in November 1928 (withmore than forty members and with Siepmann as secretary), theprojected educational periodical The Listener was already in its
first stage of planning and Lambert had been appointed its first
editor.2 Specialist Education Officers were also being appointed
in the Regions to undertake both adult educational and schools
broadcasting work.
There were many parallels between the organizational pattern for adult education and that for schools broadcasting. The
Council was given a small initial grant from the BBC and at2*Managing Director's Report to the Board Meeting, 21 Oct. 1926.
For the stormy launching of The Listener, see below, pp. 286 if.

220

PROGRAMJIES AND THE PUBLIC

research benefaction of £2,200 from the Carnegie Trust for theencouragement of `follow-up' work. It had an Executive Committee, with Gater as its first chairman and Cole as its first vicechairman, a Finance and General Purposes Committee, anda Programmes and Publications Sub -Committee. When Sankey
resigned as chairman of the Council on becoming Lord Chancellor in the second Labour Government, William Temple,
then Archbishop of York, took his place.
This was a remarkable start, and there were many early
successes to report in the organization of `listening groups'. The
first training course was held for group leaders at the University
College, Hull, in April 1929, and in the autumn of that year the
first comprehensive syllabus was drawn up with the help ofmembers of the new Council.' By the winter of 1930-I there
were over a thousand listening groups in existence-200 in the
North of England alone-and the first National Conference ofGroup Leaders was held at the London School of Economics inJanuary 1931. One of the groups had an attendance on one
occasion of 123, and Sir William Beveridge found it worth
while to go up to Liverpool after giving a series of broadcast
talks on unemployment to discuss the series with the Liverpool
group.2 `Quite apart from the listening groups,' the W.E.A.'s
journal commented in 1931, 'the BBC is doing a very importanteducational service, the full results of which cannot yet be seen.
All concerned with adult education should remember thata new ally has suddenly come into the field.'3
The ethos of the expansion is reflected in a sentence in the
BBC rear Book for 1932. `Russia has a Five -Year Plan; so also
has the Central Council for Broadcast Adult Education.' It was
careful to add, however, pace G. D. H. Cole, that it was 'a planwith a difference, for it is an attempt to foster a natural growth,and not to force the pace unduly'.4 There was most excitement
about expansion in 1931 and 1932, when perhaps the best remembered series of BBC adult educational programmes wasbroadcast under the title The Changing World. The series ran forsix months, and each of the programmes lasted for half an hour
For the adult educational background in 1929, see Paper 9 of the Adult
Education Committee of the Board of Education, which had been set up in 192 t,
1

Pioneer Work and other Developments in Adult Education (1929).
2 BBC lear Book (1932), p. 156. For the talks, seeabove, pp. 41-42.
3 Highway,
Oct. 1g31.
4 BBC Year Book (1932),

p. 175.

EDUC.ITION

221

instead of the usual twenty minutes. Five special pamphlets
were published, along with a `master pamphlet', Discussion
Groups and How to Run Them. This pamphlet was also publisl ed
in Braille. Along with a Board of Education pamphlet, Adult
Education Wireless Listening Groups, published in 1933, the literature surrounding The Changing World transports the reader backinto the excitements of the brief hey -day of \\ ireless adult education) It also recalls the extent of prejudice. Reith himself
remembers being told by a crusty old diehard in a club that the
BBC was 'of course, left wing', and on asking why being given
the simple reply, `Well, look at the title of the series that is onnow-"The Changing World".'
The excitement did not last as long as the prejudice, althoughmuch useful local work continued to be accomplished. There
were many reasons both for the failure to expand and for theultimate decline. First, the great successes in the field of schools
broadcasting diverted more and more professional BBC effort
in the provinces towards schools broadcasting rather than adulteducation. It has always been difficult to maintain momentum
in adult education: peaks are followed by troughs in a way thatis never true of compulsory child education. For every wave of
excitement there is a surfeit of grey routine. Even the waves
often look like ripples as they move into history.
Second, whereas the success of schools broadcasting depended
above all else on co-operation with teachers and local -educational authorities, the success of adult educational broadcasting
depended upon reaching agreement with a number of rival
bodies, some extremely cautious, all dominated by their own
traditions. The relationship between `expert' tutor and formalclass was a powerful one, particularly when the expert thoughtof himself as a member of the group and the formal class had
social cohesion as well as educational purpose. 'The BBC study
group cannot take the place of sustained class work', it wasoften felt, 'but it may meet the needs of many who at present
are not attracted by the offer of formal classes.'2 This wasa reasonable attitude, but it could all too easily be trig isted into
protectionism, with all the emphasis being placed not on the
H.M.S.O.. Adult Education Wireless Listening Groups (Pamphlet 92, Mar. 1933).
See also The Listener; 22 Mar. 1933.
,Innual Report (1930).
2 W.E.A. Yorkshire North District, Sixteenth

222

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

size of the potential audience but on competition between the
BBC and the voluntary body in relation to the existing audience.
The `listening group' could be branded as `superficial' and 'illequipped' and the dream of a greatly expanded adult -education
movement could be made to end all too soon. 'Many keen mem-bers of the broadcast audience prefer individual listening intheir homes to class work', wrote one spokesman of adult education, R. Peers, in 1934. `Immediately we cannot expect toreceive flocks of new students from this source.» Co-operation
between the BBC and other adult education bodies, therefore,
was never as real as it might have been. To a few of the bodies
the BBC appeared almost as an interloper: to others it failed tocommunicate the sense of unprecedented opportunity which
had fired the Hadow Committee. The most effective co-operation was in the training of' listening -group leaders which was
only possible with the assistance of the extra-mural departments of universities and the Workers' Educational Association.
Third, there were organizational difficulties in the BBC's own
structure, both at the top and the bottom. The place of adulteducation in the BBC's central organization was never secure.
In February 1931 it hived off from the Talks Department andbecame a separate department under the direction of Siepmann;in February 1932 it became a department of a new Talks Branchwhen Siepmann replaced Hilda Matheson as Director of Talks;in September 1934 it was fully merged in the Talks Branch,losing its departmental identity. Behind these vicissitudes there
were not only personal differences but deeper uncertainties
about what exactly was the relationship between talks andorganized adult education.2 At the base of the pyramid there
was no local organization equivalent to that of' the W.E.A.
branch, and in the middle it proved impossible to put into
practice the Hadow Committee's project of Area Councils.
Under the original scheme, fourteen Area Councils were to be
set up: only four, however, came into existence. The first was in
the Nest Midlands, and this was followed by a North-Western
Council, a Western Council, and a Council for Yorkshire. The
rest of the country was left blank. In Scotland only Lanark andDumfries had a committee organization, and there was nocommittee for Wales.
R. Peers, .tdu(t Education in Practice (1934), p. 86.

2

See above, pp.

'41-3.

EDUC \TION223

By the time the first `Five -Year Plan' was due to expire, there
was no thought of a second. In the nine months before the lifeof the first Central Council came to an end-in July 1934there was much talk, instead, of `streamlining' and 'rationalization'. It was decided first in April 1934, in the light of the findings of Dawnay's Programme Revision Committee, that theadult -education periods should he cut from five to three a week.'
It was decided later that the Central Council should be dissolved and replaced by a smaller Central Advisory Committee
for Broadcast Education with no executive powers. The Area
Councils were to be reorganized and their number reduced toseven. Both the Central Committee and the Area Councils wereno longer to include representatives of other bodies: instead,they were to consist of nominated members, or in the case of
the Central Committee, representatives of the Areas. In the
background of these proposals was a powerful financial motive.
The BBC made it as clear as it could that it could not regard as`permanent' its administrative and financial responsibility for`listening -end Ivork' in adult education. The new system of Area
Councils was to be 'the basic machinery for the development ofbroadcast Adult Education', but the BBC hoped that it would
soon be able, `through their advice and assistance to transfer, indue course, its financial and administrative responsibility inrespect of all listening -end work to some other body or bodies'.2

The Central Advisory Committee came into existence inDecember 1934 and disappeared at the end of two years. By
then the break had already been made, and the changes of 1937
merely ratified it. On January 1937 listening -end work passed
into the hands of an autonomous organization based on the
Area Councils and loosely linked through a Central Co-ordinating Committee. The chairman of the Central Committee was
Principal J. H. Nicholson of Hull University College and its
secretary was A. C. Cameron. The transmission -end was organized on quite a new basis with a Talks Advisory Committee,
chaired by Sir Walter Moberly, to consider all talks, including
adult education. There was no doubt about the shift of policyaway from the adult education audience to the general audience.
1' See above, P 48.
*BBC Press Release, 14 Dec. 1934.
2

PROGRAMMES \ND THE PUBLIC

224

Before the new bodies met, an internal memorandum announcing three weekly series of talks suitable for discussion groups
emphasized that 'it must be understood that these series form
part of the Corporation's general talks programme and that,coming at important listening periods, they must be of interest
to a wider audience than is likely to listen in groups'.'
The BBC provided the executive offices and the office space
for the Area Councils and the Central Co-ordinating Committee; it also gave an annual grant, which it insisted would
expire in 1940. The Central Co-ordinating Committee was once
more constituted on a representative basis, however, and under
Nicholson's chairmanship it managed to win a considerable
measure of support from other bodies in adult education. It
had its own Programme Sub -Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Francis Aclancl, and it made suggestions to the BBC
for series of talks suitable for listening groups. Cameron saw its
role as providing for what he called, `without disrespect', 'thesecond eleven' of adult education, those who 'took what they
were doing seriously but hesitated to incur the obligations offormal adult education'. In the first eleven he put the W.E.A.
and the extra -mural clepartments.2 That there was still ademand for group listening was shown by the statistics for the
winter of 1937-8. Altogether 1,393 groups were recorded ashaving listened to one or more series of talks.3 Among the groups
were clay -time classes of unemployed, for whom special financial provision had been made. `There is no specific pattern fora group', Cameron wrote in 1937; 'they may range from themost informal gatherings of two or three friends round thefireside of one of them to grant -earning classes formally run
by Local Education Authorities under an instructor paid by
them.'+
Cameron offered these facts and opinions to the General
Advisory Committee of the BBC, which discussed `group listening' for the last time on 15 June 1938. It was an interesting, if
academic, discussion, for the Chairman of Governors, R. C.
Norman, made it clear that the BBC would not in any circum*Memorandum regarding the Future Organization of the Group Listening
Movement, Oct. 1936.
a A. C. Cameron, Report to the General Advisory Council of the BBC, Islay 1938.
7

Ibid.

4

A. C. Cameron, `Broadcasting and Adult Education' in highway, Nov. 1937.

EDUCATION

225

stances contemplate an extension of its financial assistance 'at
the listening end' beyond 1940. The General Advisory Committee, which included two people who had sat on the original
Harlow Committee of 1926, paid tribute to the work which had
been done, and a number of speakers urged that it should continue. Among them were Sir Walter Citrine, who said hebelieved that television would provide an impetus to group discussion in the future, and Sir William Beveridge, who expressed
doubt concerning the BBC's decision that the finance and organization of listening groups fell outside its permanent province.
`Distribution and consumption were at least as important as
production, and it was necessary for the BBC not only to provide the best possible programmes and engineering arrangements but also to get the broadcasts right into the minds of thelisteners.' Moreover, in an age of international tension there wasneed to reinforce democracy at the grass roots. The resistanceof the British people to propaganda depended upon the informal
discussion of matters of general interest in the public house andelsewhere. 'The BBC ought to do everything in its power toencourage the spirit of local leadership which prompted men
with a little more intelligence than their fellows to initiate discussion and criticism.'
More interesting even than these general comments was the
speech of a Mr. Etherington, a listening -group leader. He described how his group had been in existence for seven years ina tiny Yorkshire village, with a population of 300, where previously there had been no adult education of any kind. Practically without exception the people had had no education otherthan the elementary school, and many of the older ones had left
school at the age of twelve or thirteen. 'Yet nearly all of them
have a much higher measure of intelligence than is generally
supposed and such people are very keen to do something in thenature of mental recreation or further education if the rightmeans can be found.' They had organized a most successful
group, first in the village school, then, when the seats proved
too hard, in the school -house. Their formal meetings were
supplemented by further informal meetings 'in the village
brickyard or near the railway line'. The most important effectof the group, however, had been that 'after a year or two,
whenever there was anything in the village which wanted
C 1995Q

226

PROGRAMMES AND TILE PUBLIC

doing, whether it was raising money for a playing field, or
running Coronation celebrations or badgering the District
Council into giving us a water supply, it was the members of
my group who were the people willing to take responsibility
and to start things going'.'
This was the authentic voice of adult education. But Norman
had to return to his brief. The BBC had undertaken a pioneer
experiment in adult education. It was not itself an adult education authority, and it did not wish to interfere with local
education authorities. The BBC was getting near to receiving
the full too per cent. of licence revenue from the government
and there were many urgent claims, including those of television,on that income. Broadcast talks for groups would continue: thegroups must learn, however, to fend for themselves.
By the time that 1940 came, many members of the pre-war
groups were already in the Forces, and once the issues wereraised again seriously inside the BBC, television could not beleft out of the reckoning. That the work of adult education itself
involved complex psychological and social issues was never indoubt. Nor was it in doubt that there was an undercurrent ofresistance. `We can imagine no more unsuitable medium for
adult education than a state-owned service which enters thehomes of people of every age, sex, religion, political colour,
standard of intelligence, and rank in society', the Glasgow Evening
Citizen had declared comprehensively in 1927.2
The term `adult education' was used as sparingly as possibleby the BBC between 1927 and 1939. There was also a growing
feeling that it should not monopolize 'peak hours'. As the Wireless Organizations Advisory Committee put it in a resolution ofApril 1927 at the very beginning of the period: `While every
encouragement should be given to the use of broadcasting for
adult education, no additional matter of this nature should be
introduced into the programmes after 7 p.m.'3 The Daily :Mirror
went further. 'The indulgent listener is middle-aged. Aroundhim fuming impatiently sit all the younger members of his
family. They want to be amuscd. They do not want to be
educatcd.'4
1*General Advisory Council, Précis of Discussion, 15 June 1938.

Glasgow Evening Citizen, 12 Jan. 1927.
* Le t ter of the Wireless Organizat ions Advisory Committee to Miss I I. Matheson,
3 May 1927.
4 Daily Mirror, 10 Jan. 1927.
2
3

(227).

ReligionI F there was a danger of adult education impinging on the peak

hours of evening listening, there was an ever-present threat to`entertainment' during the Sunday peak hours, when religion
set the mood of broadcasting and shaped the pattern of programmes. 'We began by assuming that we are living in a Christian land', Stobart wrote a few months before the Corporation
was founded, 'and that services were to be Christian andCatholic in the broadest sense.» Sunday was a special day set
apart from the rest of the week. If the radio could not be silent,it should not pollute the air Nvith programmes which would
offend the Christian. There was more controversy about this
aspect of BBC policy during the 193os than about anythingelse. To the critics there was a `disdainful flouting of millions oflisteners' 'this day of all days should be for "peak" listening andshould include the worthiest efforts of the best programme
builders'.z To the BBC Sunday was the clay of all days ina different sense.
The controversy was sharpened by the fact that it was
publicly known that Reith himself was personally behind thepolicy, that he had initiated it, and that he defended it against
all inside as well as outside challenge. One English bishop wentso far as to claim that the BBC's attitude to religion was`entirely clue to the faith of one man',3 and Reith himself told
the Archbishop of York that he was 'more anxious about thegeneral religious policy of the BBC in matters great and small
than about anything else'.4
In ,January 1927 almost all the religious broadcasting transmitted by the BBC took place on Sundays, and there was no
broadcasting at all on that clay until half-past three in the afternoon. Religious policy was discussed in detail by a Central
Religious Advisory Committee which had first met, under thechairmanship of Dr. Garbett, then Bishop of Southwark, in:

Methodist Times, 25 Feb. 1926.
S. A. Moseley, Broadcasting In My Time, pp. t61, 167.
Dr. C. S. Woodward, the Bishop of Bristol and Chairman of the Vest Regional
Religious Advisory Committee in the Western Daily Press, 29 July 1935.
+ *Reich to the Archbishop of York, 20 June 1930.
2
3

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

228

May 1923: the fact that this was the first of the BBC's Advisory
Committees reveals the basic priority given to religious broadcasting.' In the provinces there was a network of religious
advisory committees guiding each Station Director in the organization of Sunday religious services-with an understanding,dating from June 1925, that no services should be broadcast at
the times of ordinary church and chapel services.2 'With the
exception of those somewhat infrequent occasions when an
ordinary service is broadcast in full from a cathedral or church,
the wireless religious services are held outside the regular church
hours.'3 Every second Sunday in the month there was an
undenominational, national service from St. Martin -in -theFields.
It was from St. Martin's that the Rev. H. R. L. (Dick)
Sheppard preached in a style that made Christianity live for theordinary listener. His was the kind of Christianity which Reith
wanted the BBC to expound-`thorough-going, optimistic andmanly', unconcerned with the `narrow interpretation of dogma'
and centred on 'the application of the teaching of Christ to
everyday life'.4 Of Sheppard's preaching Reith was to write, 'it
was the work of a man who understood profoundly the needs
and sorrows and fears of humanity. The subtle mingling of
humour and sharp visual imagery and sincerity had an aptness
and reality which more complex sermons would have lacked
entirely.' Above all, Sheppard, as a perfect broadcaster, could
appeal direct to the individual listener, as if he were talking not
to a vast audience but to each member of it alone.s
Other preachers broadcast from other churches and chapels
on the fourth Sunday of the month, and on the third Sunday ofthe month there was a Children's Service. Once a week there
was a Sunday Bible reading, and once a month there wasa Sunday missionary talk. The other regular features were the
Week's Good Cause which followed the evening service and the
Epilogue which brought the day's programmes to a close 'with
its quiet suggestions through hymn and reading'.6 On weekdays' See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 241-2.
3Ibid., p. 274.

3

BBC Handbook (1928), p. 131.

Ibid.
H. Marshall and others, Dick Sheppard by His Friends (1938), p. 81.
6 BBC Handbook (1928), p. 133.
s

RELIGION229

the only religious service was a weekly Evensong from Westminster Abbey on Thursday afternoons 'for the special benefitof the sick'.

There were three most important developments between 1927
and 1933, when as part of the reorganization scheme' the Rev.
F. A. Iremonger was appointed Religious Director of the BBC.
The first was the introduction of the daily service; the second,an increase in the scope and volume of religious broadcastingon Sundays; and the third, a growing gap between Sunday
programmes (and hours) and those of the rest of the week.
The daily service was the product not of BBC initiative but ofprivate pressure. In June 1926 Reith received a letter from an
unknown correspondent, Miss K. M. Cordeux of The Cottage,
Bushey Grove Road, Watford. It was headed `Sunday evening'.
'Are letters still arriving for more Services to be broadcast?' she
asked Reith. `I am assured that lots of people have written to
you and names still come to me. I hope, however, to get many
more. It would be such a pleasure to me if I might meet you
some day. If I were in town could you spare me time?' Reith's
secretary replied : 'Mr. Reith has received your letter of the 11th
and asked me to reply as he is so exceedingly busy. Unfortunately he has an unusual amount of detailed work on his hands
just at present.... He suggests, however, that you should comeup here and meet Mr. J. C. Stobart, who handles all mattersconcerned with our Services and Religious Addresses.''This might have been the beginning of one of a thousand
brief exchanges of letters in the BBC. Instead, it drew the BBC-and Miss Cordeux-into a prolonged and quite exceptionalcorrespondence, which was conducted on the side of the BBC
by almost every important official and on Miss Cordeux's sidewith an extraordinary combination of simplicity and force. Miss
Cordeux had already sent a letter to the Radio Times, which wasprinted in the May issue which never reached the public becauseof the General Strike. In it she had appealed for a daily service
each evening for the benefit chiefly of invalids and hospitalpatients, and her letter had been given an editorial postsct ipt.
'2

See above, p. 25; below, p. 2¢2.
K. M. Cordeux to Reith, 1, July 1926; Miss Stanley to Miss Cordeux, 13

July 1926.

230

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

At Rcith's suggestion, the letter was reprinted in the Radio
Times, but did not appear until November 1927. 'A large
number of those who listen -in long to hear something daily of
God and his love', she began. `Already five thousand signatures and letters have been received by the writer testifying tothis.... We hope that the time may now have come for suchurgent need to be met. Few, if any, listeners will grudge say
twenty minutes out of eight and a half hours a day, to bringpeace and consolation to the sick, the lonely and the sad."Miss Cordeux was thinking of an Evensong service after theend of Children's Hour, but this proposal was not very welcome
to the programme planners. When talk of `alternative programmes' suggested that it would soon he easier to meet thedemands for new kinds of programmes, Miss Cordeux shrewdly
wrote again asking at least for a trial run.2 Stobart told Miss
Cordeux that it was necessary 'to proceed gradually in thismatter': in private, lie said that while 'one cannot but admire
the pertinacity of Miss Cordeux, I find it hard to gauge thestrength of this demand. Apart from Catholics (Roman andAnglo) the number of those who attend a daily service must heinfinitesimal. It is this and the fear of making unreasonable
demands upon programme time that has held me back. I
wonder whether a Morning Service might meet the demand.'3
It was the idea of the Morning Service which won-only
after experimental transmissions had begun from 5XX (Daventry) on 2 ,January 1928. The hour of 10.15 was free, and after
the first broadcast listeners were asked to say whether they
thought the idea and the time were satisfactory. Within two
weeks 7,000 letters of appreciation had been received and very
few complaints or criticisms. `I llave just been listening to thatlovely little Service from Daventry', Miss Corcleux wrote atonce, 'and joining in it with all my soul. It was so beautiful andreverent as it came through-and one feels that it may be thesmall beginning of so much.' This time Stobart did not hesitate.
`I think you may take it that henceforward the Daily Service
is an established feature of our programmes.';
Radio Times,
2
3
4

11

Nov. 1927.

*K. M. Cordeux to Reith,

1Feb. 1927.

*Stobart to Miss Cordeux, 5 Aug. 1926; Stobart to Reith, 23 Sept. 1927.
* K. M. Cordeux to Stobart, 2 Jan. 1928; Stobart to Miss Cordeux, 3 jan. 1928.

RELIGION

231

SUFFERERS and OTHERS "LISTENING -IN."
0
How many are there who "listen-in " who long to hear something dailyof God and His love?
We are told of the great numbers of wireless sets installed in hospitals
and nursing homes, and we rejoice. But do those who so generously bringthese gifts within reach of the pillows of the sick, realise the feelings andthoughts of those who lie there suffering ?
Life is a very real affair, and often so terribly grim to a large proportion ofthem (as well as to many others among the vast audience) that secular musichowever sweet and inspiring some of it may be-and variety -turns, talks andsuchlike-however desirable and helpful as instruction or pastime, failaltogether to satisfy the desperate need of something deeper, whereon thesoul may rest.
Surely the time has come for such need to be met, even though asection of listeners incline to raise objections on the ground that they
personally would be bored. And, after all, we know that these are reallywarm-hearted people who will, for the most part, cheerfully consent to giveup half -an -hour a day-say just after the children's hour-when invalids arc
ready to settle down for the night.
Indeed, since there is such wonderful opportunity of bringing peaceand hope to those who are sick or sad, dare we, care any of us, any longer
withhold them?
Almost every day there are some amongst those who "listen -in" wholisten for the last time before passing on into eternity.
Will all listeners who are in sympathy with this suggestion please sign
the appeal? When complete to be posted toK. M. C.,THE COTTAGE,WATFORD.
We greatly appreciate the Sunday evening Wireless Services, and the
Evensong relayed weekly from Westminster Abbey ; but all the more because
these are precious to so many do we plead earnestly for a daily consecrated

half-hour.
We believe that we shall get this. Already ready five thousand lettersand .signatures have been received. Many of them of a most touching nature,from blind, bedridden and aged folk.
Bishops, clergy, ministers of all
denominations, doctors, sisters and nurses have united to encourage us topress on.
Please send a long list of signatures without delay, remembering thateach one counts.
[P.T.O. FOR SIGNATURES.
19. Miss Cordeux's Printed Appeal, 1926

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

232

Within a month, Miss Cordeux was asking for daily Evensong
too. 'Now that the dear little Morning Service seems to havetaken good root and be thriving shall I ask for another quarterof an hour daily as Evensong?' Again Stobart was cautious.
`I do not think it would be wise to ask for more at present, or
indeed until we can offer alternative programmes to themajority of listeners. The Morning Service might have had
a rather different reception if it had cut across anything towhich the entertainment public were accustomed and attached.'
Miss Cordeux was not put off. She went on collecting moresignatures and bided her time until it was announced thatalternative programmes were on the way. `I feel rather like
Oliver asking for more', she wrote in November 1929, but her
feelings did not stop her from asking.2
She did not get what she wanted even when alternative programmes were generally introduced under the Regional Scheme.
`I don't think alternative programmes make any difference atall', Graves told Stobart in November 1929, 'as D.P's [Roger
Eckersley's] feeling is not dictated so much [sic] on the questionof available time as on the undesirability in his opinion of putting in any more regular religious work. He feels that we havereached a point beyond which it would be unwise to go.'3 It isinteresting to have this comment on Eckersley's views, for in his
autobiography he recalls that he was never `altogether at one
with the Corporation's religious policy in those distant days'.
He wanted alternatives to the religious service, longer programme hours, less rigid taboos on what was broadcast, and'no yielding to the views of "a vociferous (Sabbatarian)minority".4 He said later that if his inclinations had been followed, the BBC would never have lost large numbers of listeners
to the foreign commercial stations.s
Miss Cordeux never got her daily Evensong. Stobart replied
dutifully that 'we might easily make a grave mistake if we overdid the religious element in our broadcasting policy'.6 The same
1

*K. M. Cordeux to Stobart, 27 Jan. 1928; Stobart to Miss Cordeux, 3t Jan.
1928.
2

*K. M. Cordeux to Reid', 6 Nov. 1929.

*Graves to Stobart, 26 Nov. 1929.
*R. H. Eckersley, The BBC and All Thai (1946), pp. 163-4.
s
See below, pp. 363-4.
6 *Stobart to Miss Cordeux, 27 Dec. 1929.
3

RELIGION

233

reply was given by successive BBC officials, ending with Ire monger. Beadle told her in May 1933 that there was not 'theslightest chance of the request being granted', however manysignatures she collected: 'it is probable that a larger number ofsignatures could be obtained to an appeal for an increase invarious types of entertainment') `I am very much afraid that it
is impossible for us to fall in with your suggestions', said Ire monger, without giving any reasons at all.2 Finally, Reith lookedbehind the voluminous correspondence to the tenacious lady
who had started it all. 'Are we irrevocably opposed', he asked
in 1935, 'to an evening five minutes of the sort she wishes?'3`Yes,' said Dawnay, `I am afraid that this decision will cause
you much disappointment, but it was reached only after we
had thoroughly weighed the claims of our listeners as a whole
and the general make-up of our daily programmes.'4
If daily Evensong was not conceded, the Morning Service
went from strength to strength. From 12 January 1928 onwards
it was broadcast from London 2L0 as well as Daventry, andfrom December 1929 onwards from all BBC stations. The
service, which lasted for a quarter of an hour, was anonymously
conducted and usually consisted of a hymn, a few prayers,a psalm, a Bible reading, another prayer, and a closing hymn.
On Wednesdays and Saturdays, when the BBC Singers were notavailable, there was no choir and the psalms were read. The
early services were all conducted by the Rev. Hugh Johnstonof St. Martin -in-the -Fields, who has described the form andcontent which Ile deliberately tried to vary.5 From January
1932 onwards he was no longer solely responsible, and Iremonger
took it under his personal control after his appointment as
Religious Director in 1933.
The service seemed to offer what Sydney Moseley called'a simple message of cheerful, religious comfort, not narrowed
or crippled by denominational prejudice or inhibition'.6
Another more `highbrow' writer chose very similar words. The
Morning Service along with the Epilogue were `definitely new
both in conception and in method', he suggested. 'They are,
' *G. C. Beadle to Miss Cordeux, 29 May 1933.
2*F. A. Iremonger to Miss Cordeux, 18 Dec. 1933.
4*Dawuav to Keith, 24. Apt'. 1935.
3 *Keith to Dawnay, 5 Apr. 1935.
5 See H. Johnston, 1Vhen Two or Three (1932).
6 Broadcasting In My Time, p. 169.

234.

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

in essence, a presentation of a crystallised Christian thought,
each day and each week, altogether removed from the customary excrescences of creed, verbiage and circumlocution.»
Some indication of the popularity of the service ís given by
the fact that it inspired more correspondence from listeners thanany other BBC programme. When the prayers used in theservice were published in 1936, over 8o,000 copies were soldwithin less than three months.2 The service was certainly uniqueof its kind in the world.

The increase in die scope and volume of religious broadcasting on Sundays followed naturally from the increase inprogramme hours and the growing willingness to develop outside broadcasting. Although a new religious studio was designed
for the new Broadcasting House by Edward Maufe, the architect of Guildford Cathedral, by 1933 there were far more outside
broadcast services than services from the studio.3 The main
reason for this was the preference of listeners. They made it
plain in the press and in letters to the BBC that they liked tofeel 'the atmosphere of an actual church' and to know that they
were linked with a genuine congregation. A subsidiary reason
was that more churches were anxious to have their services
broadcast as early suspicions both of broadcasting and of the
BBC disappeared. The churches soon found that broadcasting
actually increased the size of their congregations. Thus, at
Chichester, the Dean reported that many inhabitants of thesmall town attended the cathedral for the first time when theservice was broadcast. In Edinburgh the Minister of St. Cuthbert's hesitated for a long time before consenting to put on
a broadcast service at 8 o'clock instead of the traditional 6.30.
When the service took place, the church was crowded to thedoors. At St. Martin -in -the -Fields it was found difficult to persuade the 6.3o congregation to leave the church before the
8 o'clock broadcast service began, and many people sat throughboth services.4 During the 1920s the BBC established close and' E. H. Robinson, Broadcasting andA Changing Civilisation(1935), p. tot.

New Every Morning (1936).
For the design of the studio, see Broadcasting House Souvenir Book (1932); BBC
Year Book (1932), p. 70; The Listener, 18 Apr. 1932 (for the first service broadcast
from the studio).
4 *'Notes on Religious Broadcasting' (July 1930), p. 13.
2

RELIGION

235

continuous relations with a number of churches and cathedrals.
Canterbury Cathedral, York Minster, Manchester Cathedral,
St. George's Chapel, Windsor, and Liverpool Cathedral, forexample, were all permanently wired for periodical religious
broadcasts.
The danger in the extension of outside broadcasting, even to
the cathedrals, was that 'the standard of religious addresses'
might fall as 'the net was cast wide'.' This had sometimes been
felt to be the case when the local stations had been quite free toplan their own religious broadcasts. In an effort to raise standards by controlling the procedures, the BBC issued a brochure,Hints to Sunday Speakers, in 1928. 'The address, which should in
all cases be react,' it began, 'is limited to ten minutes, and must
avoid sectarian propaganda or provocative argument. It is
intended primarily to be of a practical nature, of such a kindas may prove helpful to all listeners.' Manuscripts had to be sent
to the BBC ten clays before the broadcast.. 'You are asked toremember', speakers were told, 'that your vast audience is nota crowd or a congregation but various incliiiduals to whom you
are speaking in the intimacy of their homes.' They were also toremember that listeners were apt to stop listening at will and`thousands of them will "switch off" their sets if the opening
is unattractive'.
These directions must have cramped the style of thosepreachers who trusted to the power of the spirit to guide theirwords. In fact, it is recounted that after one famous Edinburgh
preacher had been told that lie had to write out his sermon ten
clays before broadcasting, he replied to the BBC, `I have neverdone this before and I am not starting now'.z Extemporary
prayer caused difficulties also-notably `preaching prayer' of
the type expressed in a Scottish prayer beginning 'Paradoxical
as it may seem, O Lord'.3 There is no evidence, however, thatbroadcasting destroyed pulpit eloquence. It favoured direct
sermons, but it raised the standard of exposition and made for
economy and relevance.
A second element of control was the development of a 'rotasystem', linking the National and Regional programmes. On
1'Keith to Ecketsley, 2 Sept. 1926, quoting a Canon of Westminster Abbey.

Quoted by M. Dimviddie in the BBC Programme The Scattered Seed, broadcast
3 Ibid.
on 3o Dec. 1962.
2

236

PROGRAMMES AND TILE PUBLIC

the first Sunday of the month in 1931 a London studio service
was given on the National programme with 'an eminentpreacher' there was no regional alternative from London, but
contrasting regional services could be arranged by Regional
Directors if they wished. On the second Sunday of the month
St. Martin -in -the -Fields had sole command of all BBC stations.
On the third Sunday there were contrasting denominational
services on the National and Regional programmes. On the
fourth Sunday on all stations a service was broadcast simultaneously, `usually of the Cathedral type', and on the fifth Sunday, when there was a fifth Sunday, there was a studio service on
the National programme for 'such bodies as the Brotherhood
Movement, the Salvation Army and the Quakers', with regional
contrasts from the provinces. Even this intricate system did notalways guarantee contrast. On 15 June 1930, by a coincidence,
three of the principal stations in the country chose a Roman
Catholic service.
The denominational range was wide, including, in the earlydays, at least one Unitarian, Dr. Gow, and a number ofMoravians, but there were no broadcasts from Christian Scientists or Christadelphians. Membership of the Free Church
Council became something of a test of Nonconformist claims.
At the opposite end of the religious spectrum, Catholic broadcasts never included the broadcasting of Mass, even thoughsome continental radio stations broadcast Mass regularly. In
the middle of the spectrum, an attempt was made to `represent'
the various types of Anglican churchmanship, although there
seems to have been a predominance of `Broad Churchmen' andof clergymen who had served with the Forces during the FirstWorld War.
Successive BBC Handbooks sought to define what was often
extremely elusive, the attempt to place broadcasting within 'themainstream of the Christian tradition'. In 1932, for example,
the Handbook reaffirmed that `broadcast services are not theoccasion for sectarian propaganda. All denominations alike welcome the opportunity of the great audience which wirelessaffords them and are content to preach the gospel of Christ on
its universal terms of love and charity to all men, to dwell rather
on that which unites than on that which divides.» A further:

BBC Year Book (T932), p. 216.

RELIGION

237

statement in 1935, after Ireruonger had been in charge ofreligious policy for nearly two years, was even fuller. The BBC's
policyhas been-and is-in range, to `tolerate the tolerable'; in method, tobe continually mindful of the almost endless variation in the spiritualand intellectual attainment of a wireless audience; and, in message,
to stress the fundamental truths of personal and corporate religion.
Merely to state these ideals is to expose the difficulty of fulfillingthem; ín practice, they mean that facilities for broadcasting are
given to ministers of all important denominations that can be said
to be in the mainstream of the Christian tradition; that no attempt
is made to satisfy the need of every kind of listener in the same broadcast; and that, while nothing could be less effective than a religious`lowest common denominator', it has been found possible to disseminate a spiritual `highest common factor' from which the listener
can profit and of which no church need be ashamed.'

Decisions about `range' and `balance' and 'the mainstreamof the Christian tradition' were taken by the Central Religious
Advisory Committee, which by 1931 had fourteen members,
representative of the main denominations. Garbett was stillchairman, and his colleagues included five Anglicans, five Free
Church members, two Roman Catholics, one of whom was
Father C. C. ?Martindale, S.J., and the Rev. H. R. L. Sheppard
as a `supernumerary'. None of the members was a layman. There
were also five Regional Advisory Committees, including a Scottish Committee presided over by the Rev. Professor Archibald
Main, and to assist in the co-ordination of the national systemthree representatives of the Regional Committees sat on theCentral Committee. Reith always attended meetings of the Central Committee along with other representatives of the BBC.
It was the task of this committee to ensure that the allocationof services and speakers among different denominations was`fair'. This task, which might have been difficult, was successfully accomplished with little strain. It was not thought of as anarithmetical exercise or a scheme based on proportional representation. Almost all the decisions of the committee wereunanimous, and the spirit of its meetings seems to have been
genuinely ecumenical. It is probable, indeed, that radio-along
BBC Annual (1935), pp. 66-67.

238

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

with other instruments of mass communication-has favoured
ecumenical influences inside the churches by making it possible-and necessary-for preachers of one denomination to address
members of another and by requiring spokesmen of different
denominations to serve as colleagues on committees like the
C.R.A.C.
BBC policy favoured ecumenical influences in a more specificway. Reith was anxious that emphasis should be placed on the
points where Christians agreed and not where they disagreed.
He achieved his wish. Thus, when the ban on controversy waslifted in 1928, the C.R.A.C. issued a public statement that 'theremoval of the ban on controversy in regard to religion createsa new position for the BBC in theory rather than in practice.
The responsibility remains with the BBC to see that nothing isbroadcast that is likely to provoke or offend large numbers of
their Christian audience. It can still be assumed that the policyof religious broadcasting has the support of the vast majority.
This policy excludes sectarian propaganda or contentious argument. The Religious Advisory Committee will still guide in the
choice of speakers and in other questions of procedure in thesphere of religious activities."
There were criticisms that Christianity without controversy
lacked `bite' and `depth' and that emphasis upon the morecheerful aspects of the Christian message robbed Christianity ofmuch of its subtlety. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of Salford argued in 1928, for instance, that`emasculated Christianity' should be replaced by the broadcastof 'very definite doctrines so long as this is clone without denunciation of other creeds'.2 Such thoughts were also in the mind ofCanon E. G. Selwyn when he moved in the Lower House of
the Convocation of Canterbury in 193o that a committee should
be set up to report on 'the religious value of broadcast services
and their hearing on public worship'. More intellectual Christian teaching over the radio was required, he argued, withgreater precision of statement. Listeners were becoming tired of
constantly being told to he better Christians.3 Selwyn's resolution was carried, and a committee was appointed under the' For the lifting of the ban, see above, p. 129. *BBC Press Release, Mar. 1928.
*Summary of the Views of the Archbishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of
Salford, 3 Apr. 1928.
3
The Times, 14 Feb. 193o.

RELIGION

239

chairmanship of the Bishop of Ely, l)r. White -Thomson. Its
Report was very favourable both to broadcasting and to the
BBC in particular, and the two Houses of Convocation passed`emphatic resolutions' in January 1931 recording `gratefulappreciation of the service rendered to the cause of religion by
the BBC'.' The Report stated that the effect of religious broadcasting had been exceedingly valuable since it had brought`religion once again into the market place'. It added, however,that 'more definite instruction should be given as to whata Christian ought to know and believe and do for his soul's
health'.2
Both the BBC and the C.R.A.C. were sensitive to the dangers
of emasculated versions of Christianity. They had never tried todeny that `people whose only religious contact is through listening miss some of the most essential influences of religion'.3 As
early as 1929 and 1930 they had arranged series of talks on such
subjects as 'The Psychology of Religion', `Politics and Society
in the Old Testament', and 'The Beginnings of Christian
Theology'. They had also contemplated religious `features'with a mild disagreement between Stobart and the `Research
Section' as to who should plan them.4 The most ambitious seriesof talks planned in the early 193os was God and the World ThroughChristian Eyes, broadcast in 1933.5 Stobart made it clear to the press
that they would not seek to soothe rather than to search. `Until
recently we expected preachers not to be controversial. The
word we should use nowadays is not "controversial" but "offensive" or "injurious". We want to avoid anything that may offend
the feelings of another Christian.'6 The dangers of radio asa medium of religious broadcasting, as well as its opportunities,
were frankly faced in the BBC's own Year Rook for 1933. 'Any'
2

The Times, 24 Jan. 1931; Reith, Diary, 23 Jan. 1931.
Report of a Joint Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury, The Religious

Value of Broadcast Services and their Bearing on Public Worship (1931). Canon Selwyn
was on the Committee which also included Canon Gray Rogers and the Rev.
NV. P. G. McCormick ('Pat' McCormick), .110 succeeded Sheppard at St. Martin in -the -Fields. (See R. J. Northcott, Pat McCormick (1941).)
3 BBC statement quoted in the Report of the Joint Committee, p. 3.
of July 1929.
4 *The disagreement was stated in a number of memorandas * BBC Press Release, 6 Oct. 1932. The lectures lasted for half an hour and were
followed by prayers and hymns. 'The purpose is to give a connected and definite
exposition of the basic principles of the Christian religion for the benefit of thinking
men and women.'
6 Morning Post, 28 Oct. 1932.

240

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

clergyman's advice necessarily loses that quality of point, vigour
and strength when it has to be broadened to meet the spiritualneeds of unknown millions."
Criticisms from religious bodies never ceased during the 193os.
`England is already suffering from a mild form of Christianity
which prevents her from catching the real thing', the Bishop ofSouthampton complained in 1935; `I fear that wireless services
give inoculation of the mildest form of Christianity yet discovered.'= A Roman Catholic Radio Guild was founded in thesame year to press for more Roman Catholic services of a more
proselytizing kind, and its sponsors even argued that there
should be a separate Catholic radio station.3 Militant Protestants felt that Roman Catholics had too much time on the air.
There was a storm of anti -Papal feeling in 1930 when a Roman
Catholic preacher prayed 'for our separated brethren'-theprayer was not used in Roman Catholic services after this date-and whenever Roman Catholic celebrations were broadcast,
there was always a vocal and hostile response from somelisteners. Services from St. Martin -in -the -Fields were frequently
attacked from many sides for their `colourless undenominationalism' and even for their `monopoly', and in March 1936
the C.R.A.C. itself agreed that outside speakers should broadcast in the St. Martin's services.
There were quite different currents of criticism also. The
strongest -moving was that from the `left'. Certain sects werebeing kept from the microphone altogether-Fundamentalists
along with Free-thinkers, the first because of their doctrines, thesecond because of their lack of them. Unitarians also, despite
Reith's personal interest in their views,4 were usually excluded
on the grounds that their views did not fall within 'the mainstream of the Christian tradition'.S Other sects which werealways excluded were Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, andMormons-Reith had a number of private complaints about
their exclusion-and there was no broadcasting of worship fromJewish synagogues. Although the National Secular Society con 1

2

3

BBC rear Book (1933), p. 188.

Manchester Guardian, 7 Oct. 1935.
Catholic Times, Mar. 1935.

+
See Into the Wind, pp. 194-5.
*There were, in fact, eleven Unitarian services on different wavelengths
between 1934 and 1939. See `Memorandum on the .Allotment of Religious Services
to the Churches', 5 May 1939.
5

1

RELIGION241

sistcntly attacked the BBC's religious policy on rationalist
grounds, there was sometimes a more comprehensive note of protest. `Surely it would be the sound democratic method in a country
which is officially Christian to yield space generously from time
to time to the reasoned expression of opposing arguments, andto allow free thinkers and adherents of the less populated sects
at any rate a hearing now and then. There is something timid,
high handed and medieval about the scant consideration given
by our radio authority to the unorthodox in religion as well as
in politics.''
The BBC did not accept the notion of 'open access' to themicrophone for all religious or humanist groups, any more thanit accepted the notion of open access for Churchill. Nor did it
consider that in a society where there were multiple means ofexpression its own attitude was `undemocratic'. It wanted the
conduct of its religious services to command the assent of thegreat majority of its listeners. Some of its services undoubtedly
accomplished this. During the dark days of October 1931, forexample, the Rev. W. H. Elliott, at Reith's personal suggestion,
began a weekly series of broadcasts from St. Michael's, Chester
Square, which continued each week until 1936 and createdunprecedented interest.z When there was the first break in the
broadcasts in August and September 1932 to allow Canon
Elliott to take a holiday, over I I,000 people wrote to the BBC
urging a resumption of the series. When Canon Elliott foundeda Guild of Prayer in 1936, it soon had a quarter of a million
listeners enrolled in its ranks, and his fifth anniversary service
later in the year was attended by 7,000 people. Elliott's personal
success created the same kind of problems as the success of
individual broadcasters in other fields of radio-the danger of
becoming stale or of `stereotyping' response-and although he' D. C. Thomson, Radio is Changing Us (1937), p. 105. For Rationalist criticisstts,
see The Free -thinker; also 'Clericus', BBC Religion (Rationalist Press Association,1942).
3
For the first broadcast, see BBC Press Release, 25 Sept. 1931. Elliott had
broadcast frequently before 1931, and Sydney Moseley described him as 'one of thepioneers of church broadcasting, having started with his distinguished sermons
from Folkestone'. Who's Who in Broadcasting (1933), p. 55. It was partly due to
Elliott's good offices that the opposition to broadcasting of the Chapter of St.
Paul's Cathedral was broken in 193o. The first service broadcast from St. Paul's
was on 25 June 193o. Evensong was broadcast for the first time-this time at therequest of the Dean and Chapter-on 27 July 1930.

C 1905

R

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

242

remained a popular and most effective broadcaster after 1936,
his appearances at the microphone became less frequent.
From 1927 to 1933 the Central Religious Advisory Committee
was the only `expert' authority to which the BBC could turn.
In June 1933, however, the general reorganization took place,and the Rev. F. A. Iremonger was appointed Religious Director.
He began his duties on 17 July. Long before the Corporation
was founded Reith had thought of such an appointment, andthere had even been talk of it in wider circles. 'I considered
about a year ago', Reith wrote to Gladstone Murray in February 1926, `whether it would not be desirable to have religious
matters handled more definitely. In fact, would it not be desirable to have a specialist. You might discuss the matter with Mr.
Stobart and he can have a talk with me about it later. It isa line of activity of sufficient importance to warrant undoubtedly proper handling.» In the wider circles, where the matter
was discussed, the name of Sheppard was frequently raised.2 It
was not until 1933, however, that the decision was taken.
Iremonger had wide ecclesiastical experience. Ordained in
1905, he had spent eleven years in the East End of London,
first at Poplar and Blackwall, then as Head of Oxford House in
Bethnal Green, and finally as Vicar of St. James the Great,
Bethnal Green. From 1923 to 1927 he had been editor of The
Guardian, and from 1927 lie had served as Vicar of Vernham
Dean, Andover. He had been appointed Chaplain to the Kingin 1927 and Honorary Chaplain to the Archbishop of Yorka year later.3 He had also written a book, Men and Movements in
the Church. He was recommended independently to Refill by the
Bishops of Winchester and of Chichester, by the Chaplain to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and by the proprietor of The
Guardian.

When Reith talked to Iremonger about his appointment hepromised him the utmost help, without seeking to hide the factthat lremonger would 'have a most harrowing time and would
have to work at a rate which would be quite new to him'. Reith
had no doubts that lremonger would be co-operative or forceful*Reith to \V. E. C. Murray, 5 Feb. 1926.
See E. Roberts, II. R. L. Sheppard, Life and Letters (tg42).
3*BBC Press Release, 28 May 1933.
I

2

RELIGION243

as the occasion demanded, a ul that he would be capable not

only of dealing specifically with religious broadcasting, but ofplaying an active part in more general discussions, for example,
about the shape of Sunday programmes. `I watched his work
pretty closely all through the years', Reith recalls. `Iremonger
used to tell people he always sat very much on the edge of hischair on Monday mornings waiting for the three short rings on
the telephone which meant that I was on the other end, withcomments about the day's work. I never had the shadow ofdisagreement with him, except that lie did not like old-fashioned
hymns like "Rock of Ages" and I did. He did magnificent workfor the BBC."As a leading member of the staff of the BBC, Iremonger
pursued the basic `ecumenical' policy which Reith had
demanded. A convinced Anglican himself, he was always fairto other denominations. He was also unobtrusively secure within the BBC hierarchy. It was Roger Eckersley who wrote of
him that he was 'a fearless, outspoken and utterly kindly person
who stood no nonsense and proceeded to put his ideas ruthlessly into action'.z Finally, he became a good broadcaster.
Reith found him a `thoroughly bad Bible reader' in 1933 vith'a typically parsonic' voice,} but before long his conduct of the
Daily Service was greatly appreciated by large numbers oflisteners. At the Coronation of 1937 he was the main religious
broadcaster, and Stuart Hibberd bracketed him with the King,the Queen, and the Archbishop of Canterbury as the successesof the occasion.4
Iremonger left the BBC in April 1939 to become Dean ofLichfield, and was succeeded as Director of Religious Broadcasting, a new title, by an ex -missionary, Dr. J. \V. Welch, Headof St. John's Training College, York. The ecumenical emphasis
remained. `Broadcast services make an obvious contribution to
the unity of the Churches', Welch wrote soon after his appointment. 'The religious services of all denominations are heardby all; each denomination learns from the others. Listeners
feel that they are sharing in a Christian, not merely a denominational service; suspicions and misunderstandings are removed;
2
Note by Reith, June 1963.
Reith, Diary, 22 \tay 1933.
4
S. Hibberd, This-is London (1950), p. 146.
7

The BBC and .411 That, p. too.

PROGRAMMES AND TIIE PUBLIC

244

divisions due to accidents of history, now meaningless, disappear,
and there is a growing sense that, though some differences are
great, yet the things we have in common are far greater.» Suchlanguage is far more common in the 196os than it was in the
1930s.

Iremonger was given a deputy, the Rev. J. E. Fenn, a Presbyterian, just before he left the BBC, but there was no BBCclergyman outside London until July 1939, when the Rev. C. V.
Taylor, an Anglican, was appointed to supervise religious
broadcasting in the West and Midland Regions. There wasa `Religious Executive', however, D. P. Wolferstan. Religion
had no place in pre-war television, and when Gerald Cock oncesuggested religious television the Dean of Liverpool commented
that the very idea of television `close-ups' of preachers madehim laugh.z The use of sound radio for religious services for the
Empire raised no such uncertainties. On the second Sunday of
every month, from June 1935 onwards, Empire services were given
from St. Paul's-the first preacher was the Dean, Dr. W. R.
Matthews-and relatives of people living in the Empire wereinvited to take part.
The pattern of home religious broadcasting was extended
rather than modified after 1933, in what have been describedas 'the years of consolidation'.3 One new service on Sunday
mornings was introduced in October 1935.4 The proposal had
first been mooted almost a year earlier and Iremonger had said
then that he favoured both outside broadcasts and studio
services, preferably beginning at 9.30 a.m.s Reith had put theidea in Iremonger's mind, and thought such services would be'very useful'.6 The initial delay in implementing it was caused
not by difficulties of programming but by objections from theengineers. `Hitherto we have regarded Sunday morning asa very valuable time for maintenance and special tests', Harold
Bishop reported in December 1934, adding that if the morning
BBC Handbook (194o), p. 66.
*The Dean of Liverpool to Iremonger, June 1935. He found Cock 'a delightful man'.
History and Current Practice',
3 *Memorandum on `Religious Broadcasting:2

1

Feb. 1943.
4
5*BBC Press Release, 6 June 1935.
*Iremonger to Reith, 22 Nov. 1934.

6*Note by Reith, 23 Nov. 1934.

RELIGION

245

religious service was introduced, there would have to be a flirt her
increase of engineering staff.'
While the question of trying to proceed without additional
staff was being considered, more problems arose. A quest
started for speakers, with one of the first names to come in beingthat of Leslie Weatherhead, then in Leeds.2 Nicolls remarked
that although Iremonger did not approve of the idea of 'a second
St. Martin's', 'the best solution from an administrative point of
view' would be if 'a regular service could be established fromone church'.3 Other officers of the BBC shared Iremonger's
preference for services from various churches, however, and it
was left to the Central Council to fix on the time-9.3o-andto discuss the allotment of services.4 There were difficulties
about this also, or rather about the type of services which thedifferent denominations might plan. Some Anglicans thoughtthat it would be 'a sheer disaster' if Morning Prayer or a `mixed
service' should be broadcast at that time of day and advocatedSung Eucharist: others, including the Archbishop of York, heldthat `there was something false in principle about the broadcastof the Eucharist'.5
Finally, yet another problem arose. `I urge strongly the desirability of holding up the beginning of this new programme
service until October', Wellington wrote to Iremonger inMarch. 'June is the time of year when we are cutting down our
activities, not embarking on new ones.... Will you bring thematter up for discussion at Programme Board, so that we mayunderline the necessity to stand firm when we are asked to fillup the period between the end of the morning service and the
beginning of regular programmes at 12.30? You will remember
our experience with the weekday morning service and the pressure which was immediately put upon us to fill that gap.'6
The interval between the inception of an idea-put forward
by Reith-and its realization was ominously long and showedjust how complex the planning procedure of the Corporation*H. Bishop to Day, nay, 3 Dec. 1934.
*E. G. D. Liveing to lremonger, 24 Jan. 1935.
3 *Note by Nicolls, 6 Feb. 1935.
4 *Central Religious Advisory Committee, Minutes, March 1935.
S*For the two points of view, see letters from the Dean of Rochester to Ire monger, 11 June 1935, and the Archbishop of York to Iremonger, 13 June 1935.
6 *Wellington to Iremonger, 13 Mar. 1935.
1

2

246

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

had become. Once started, however, the Sunday morning services became an established fixture. 'They evidently fulfil aneed, and the hour at which they are given appears to be suitable', the BBC stated in March 1936.1 They also gave a symmetry
to Sunday broadcasting, which now began with a service andended with an Epilogue.2
There were other interesting developments during the late19305-an extension of the series of religious talks; new experiments with religious `features'; and the introduction of greater
variety into children's religious broadcasts. Among the series oftalks broadcast in the late 193os were The Way to God (1934/5),
with Canon Raven, Father Martindale, the Rev. J. S. Whale(a Congregationalist), Dr. G. F. McLeod of the Church of Scotland, and the Rev. NV. R. Matthews seeking to appeal to the'will and the heart' as well as the intellect;3 Christian Living by
Donald Soper; and Dr. Whale's Explaining the Christian Way(1938). Iremonger hoped that the standard of these talks would
provide an example not only for listeners but for preachers at
the Sunday evening services. In February 1937 he said that hewas 'very uneasy' about these services, some of which 'were
worthy neither of the Churches nor of the BBC'. It was not
merely that the preaching was often poor, but that the preaching was frequently the worst feature. The example of the Talks
Department should be followed and an effort made to secure'the best possible'. 'The subject of the Talks may be such as willappeal to few or to many, but if the Talks are to be popular, theDirector of Talks will spare no effort to make them "goodpopular", which is as easy to recognise as "had popular" andshows it up as nothing else can.'4
Religious features drew the religious broadcasters into a different set of production problems. Filson Young had been fascinated by these in the late 1920s, and his arrangements of the
Nativity Play from the church of St. Hilary in Cornwall were
designed to stress the symbolic and the universal rather than the
didactic and the contemporary.5 The Vicar of St. Hilary's, theT

2*BBC Press Release, Mar. 1936.
*Of the first 26 morning services, 14 were Anglican, 4 Methodist, 2 Churchof Scotland, 2 Roman Catholic, 2 Baptist, and 2 Congregationalist.
7 See The Church of England Newspaper, 7 Sept. 1934.
*F. A. Iremonger, Memorandum on Broadcast Religious Services, 25 Feb.
1937.
5 See Shall I Listen?, ch. xi, 'Voices from the \Vest'.

247

RELIGION

Rev. Bernard Walke, wrote the plays which were broadcast
regularly from 1926 to 1934. From inside the studio the mostambitious religious dramatic broadcast attempted to that date
was transmitted on Christmas Day 1935. It was a programmedevised by R. Ellis Roberts and produced by Robin Whitworth,and its title was Unto Us. Music was under the direction of Sír
Walford Davies, who also produced a popular Sunday evening
series, Melodies of Christendom. Unto Us was followed by further
programmes of the same kind on Maundy Thursday 1936 andAll Saints' Day, and repeated at Christmas 1936. And in 1938
Dorothy Sayers, who was to write the remarkable war-time playcycle The Man Born to be King (1942), was first commissioned by
the BBC to write a nativity play, He That Should Come' T. S.
Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral had been broadcast in January
1936.

Children's programmes had often had a `feature' element inthem, even in 1924 and 1925 when there was a Sunday Children's Hour arranged by each station in turn. Special children's
services were broadcast each month from 19 September 1926
onwards, and in February 1930 the first of E. R. Appleton's
Joan and Betty's Bible Story programmes vas transmitted.2 In thesame year Dr. Basil Yeaxlee, Principal of the West Hill Training
College, Birmingham, formed a group of the Council of Christian Education to suggest suitable programmes for children tolisten to on Sunday afternoons, and from their discussions
a kind of rota system emerged, on similar lines to those of thechurch services rota. The Committee of Convocation in 1931
paid special tribute to these programmes which it believed
reached families untouched by the Sunday Schools.3 Along withthe sick, the aged, and the infirm, it suggested, children had
been specially provided for by the BBC. Experiments continued,
and from October 1936 onwards Geoffrey Dearmer produced
interesting programmes on the lives of famous Christians. He wasassisted in this work by Lance Sieveking. BBC policy was toleave the contents of the Sunday half-hour for the children 'aselastic as possible'.4' BBC Handbook (1939), p. 22.
2Appleton had also been responsible for 'The Silent Fellowship' broadcasts
from Cardiff which were discontinued in 1935.
7 The Religious Value of Broadcast Services, p. 5.
Oct. 1936.
4 *Central Religious .1dvisory Committee, Progress Report,
1

248

PROGRAMMES AND THE PUBLIC

Not everything went smoothly, however, during the 193os.
In 1936, for instance, the question of censorship of religious
addresses came to the forefront again. Eight years before, Roman
Catholic preachers had been allowed to submit their sermon
manuscripts to their own Roman Catholic colleagues, on theCentral or Regional Advisory Committees.' The subject was
raised again in 1936 when a provocative statement in a sermon
by Father Valentine Elwes led to a storm of disapproval. Ata meeting of the Central Religious Advisory Committee inMarch 1936 it was agreed that in future all sermons by Roman
Catholic preachers, whether from a church or from the studio,
should be sent in the first place to the Director of Religionthere had been no such post in 1928-and then, if necessary,sent on to Father Martindale.2
The change of procedure created no difficulties, and the
major preoccupation of the Central Religious Advisory Committee during the years before the Second \Vorld War was not
the relationship between different religious denominations but
the increasing pressure for a `secular' Sunday. Quite apart fromoutside pressure, there were people inside the BBC who objectedto the Sunday `code' as it had been formulated in the 19205 andearly 1930s and argued forcefully that 'if we took "the betterthe day, the better the deed" as our motto and put the best
contemporary light stub in on Sundays-thus excluding thebanal and the vulgar-we might evolve a new and enlightened
definition of Sabbatarianism'.3 The Committee left the formulation of policy to the BBC, `noting' in March 1938, for instance,that the proportion of British listeners to continental radio
stations was increasing substantially and that the BBC wasproposing to fill in with `light programmes' the hitherto silent
hours between 10.4.5 a.m. on Sunday mornings and 12.30 p.m.
On the motion of Dr. Scott Lidgett, seconded by Canon Rogers,
the Committee decided that it wished to express no view and toleave the decision in the BBC's hands.4 This interesting decision
was a sign of trust in the BBC, not a gesture of neutrality.
Sunday morning programmes were extended, and there was*Memorandum on Religious Broadcasting, 1930.
*Central Religious Advisory Committee, Minutes, 5 Mar. 1936.
3 A. P. Ryan to S. Tallents,
to Sept. 1936 (Tallents Papers).
4 *Central Religious Advisory Committee, Minutes, 3 Mar. 1938. For Sunday
1

2

programmes, see also above, pp. 52-55.

RELIGION

249

talk of a further extension in 1939 when the Committee met for
the last time before the outbreak of war. The BBC proposed tomove Sunday evening services in the Regional programmes to5.30 p.m. and to broadcast a secular programme-in keepingwith BBC standards-as an alternative to the religious services.
In the discussion which followed an account given by Nicolls,
who was then Controller of Programmes, of the reasons for the
proposed changes, most members of the Committee maintainedthat there was no real evidence of a desire for change among
listeners. Doubt was also expressed as to whether the BBC's`secular programme' would be of the type which would succeed
in winning listeners away from Radio Luxembourg and Radio
Normandie. Again it was Dr. Scott Lidgett and Canon Rogers
who took the initiative.' A proposal by Rogers, seconded by
Lidgett, that 'the present arrangement should continue' wascarried nem. con., and it was not until the introduction of theForces Programme in 194.o that a secular alternative was introduced. On its own initiative, however, the BBC had admitted
cinema organ recitals into Sunday programmes2 and hadcollected new evidence from its listeners' panel about the sizeof the public listening to foreign radio stations on Sundays.3
Although for the whole of the period covered in this volume,
the BBC's Sunday policy was preserved intact, there weremany signs in 1939 that the position would not he maintainedin the future. There was a suggestion, indeed, that the Archbishop of York should give a talk on 'The Meaning of Sunday'
and follow this up by discussing the subject on the air with agroup of listeners.4 This was to point forward to a quite different
phase in the history of religious broadcasting.
Central Religious Advisory Committee, Minutes, 2 Mar. 1939.
*Programme Committee, Minutes, 9 Mar. 1939; S. G. Williams to C. Max Muller, 10 Mar. 1939.
3*General Listening Barometer, Interim Report, No. to, 8 Feb. 1939. See also'2

below, p. 364-4*Report of Informal Conference on Sunday Broadcasting, 20 June 1939. See

also below, pp. 654-5.

III

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

I have now been a regular listener for ten

years, that is from the age of twelve, and I
should like to take this opportunity of thanking the BBC for the part that it has played in
my education, pleasures and formation of mytastes and opinions.
LETTER FROM :\ BRITISH LISTENER, I938

My grandmother was born in New Zealand
before the arrival of the first four immigrantships from England in Lyttleton Harbour.
I am a staunch Englishman at heart as well,and anything British appeals very strongly tome.... My wife and I never fail to get a thrill
when we hear 'This is London calling you'.
LETTER FROM A NEW ZE,\LAND LISTENER, 1936

1. Home Listeners
By the míd-193os listeners to BBC programmes constituted a
representative cross-section of the British public. There were
2,178,259 licence -holders in Britain when the Corporation was
founded. By the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 there were 9,082,666. The figures climbed steeply
even in years of economic depression. Between March 1929
and March 1933, for instance, the number of licence -holders
doubled. The biggest percentage increase in a single year wasin the gloomy months from March 1930 to March 1931. In thefollowing year also there was an increase of over 20 per cent.
in the number of licences. By 1935 98 per cent. of the population
could listen-on a cheap wireless set-to one BBC programme,
and 85 per cent. could choose between two. There were seventythree licences for every hundred households in the United
Kingdom by September 1939.
\Ve know little of the social composition of this `great audience', as it came to be called, but it clearly included people
from all sections of the community-among them the poorest,
that large segment of the population, estimated at between 15
and 3o per cent., who were in chronic poverty or near it before
the Second World War. The wireless `enthusiasts' of the 1920s,
the men who revelled in the art and craft of radio, became submerged in the growing ranks of the `listeners'. More and more
people felt that it was `necessary' to buy a wireless set, and theprice of sets in a competitive market fell sharply enoughbetween 1931 and 1937 to cause anxiety to a section of the
manufacturers. In 1938, for instance, 'a sharp downward trend'
in retail prices was said to have caused alarm `until it waschecked'. When Philco introduced `People's Sets' at Radiolympia in 1936, selling retail at five and six guineas, there wasprolonged discussion in the radio trade about discounts andselling terms. A Trader analysis of the market in 1937 showedthat over 600 current models were being produced.
Many of the sets, including the fashionable `Radio Grams',
were being bought by hire purchase: exact figures are not

254

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

known, but the hire-purchase trade multiplied twentyfold in
the golden age of wireless, and the first Hire Purchase Bill went
through Parliament in 1938.' About 4,200,000 of the 9,082,666
wireless licences in the autumn
of 1939 had been taken out bypeople with incomes of between£2. tos. and £4 a week and2,OOO,000 licences by people withan even smaller income. This..
_
last group included a large proportion of big families, but it
also included large numbers of
persons living alone, old-age pensioners particularly, to whom,along with the blind, the wireless set meant more perhaps thanto any other section of the com`w
munity.2
Britain came next after theUnited States both at the beginning and at the end of theperiod in the ranking order ofcountries with large numbersof wireless sets; and in terms of
20. An early Radio Gramophone,numbers of sets per hundred of1929
the population, only Denmarkand Sweden in Europe and New
Zealand and the United States outside Europe were more`radio minded'.; The same kind of pattern was to be repeatedin the history of television, although the post-war television
audience grew much faster after the first five years than thewireless audience had done.4
The density of distribution of wireless licences on the eve of

_,,,

I

>.`

' For the fortunes of the radio trade, see the useful summary in 77íe Wireless andElectrical Trader, 25 Mar. 1944. For the social side of hire purchase, see also
J. Hilton, Rich Man, Poor Man (1944), a published edition of the Halley Stewart
Lectures delivered in 1938.
2 R. J. E. Silvey, 'The Listening Public' in the BBC Handbook(1940), pp. 76-79:
3

Ibid., p. 10.

B. Paulu, British Broadcasting in Transition (1961), p. '75; R. J. E. Silvey,`Viewers, Viewing and Leisure' in the BBC Quarterly, Spring 1952, pp. 31-40.
4

HOME LISTENERS

255

the war was greatest in the Midlands and West of England,
where eight families out of ten held licences. There was almost
complete wireless coverage, however, largely as a result of thedeliberate policy of the BBC to `spread the service'. Even in themost remote parts of Britain-Northern Scotland, for example-there were over 14,000 licences distributed among less than40,o00 families living in the area. It was perhaps in the mostremote parts of the country, as in the socially least privileged
sections of the population, that there was most deep-felt
appreciation of the `solace' of wireless. 'The farther you get

r.
.

.1..

-I
21. Wireless Set, 1937. Model in cost range 8 gns.
to 163- gns.

from London, the more broadcasting seems to mean." In thetowns and great cities broadcasting was accepted casually andeasily as an unobtrusive element in daily life.
Wireless provided everywhere a new shape not only for the
day but for the week. 'Our eye is much more on the clock sothat we can get the programmes we specially want to hear',wrote the Scottish Regional Director of the BBC in 1936. `We
have become more time -conscious since the introduction ofbroadcasting.'2 Among the first points which were fixed in theweek were the News Bulletins, the Weather Forecasts, and theChildren's Hour. Later, as we have seen, religious services
followed, and later still entertainment programmes, like [Music
Hall, In Town Tonight, and Band Waggon.3 So accepted did the' Filson Young, Shall I Listen? (1933), p. 184.
2

M. Dinwiddie. `The Influence of Broadcasting on Modern Life' in the Transac-

tions of the Rgal Philosophical Society, Glasgow, 1936.
See above, pp. 104 ff., 117.

256

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

idea of such fixed points become that there was sharp public
resistance to any change. When Eric Maschwitz, for example,
once cut out the regular late -night dance music and substituteda dance -band feature -programme, 'the public gave the BBC
hell' and late -night dance music came back to stay.'
The programme builders were well aware of the general
problem. `Argument is always circling round the question of
fixed points', it was stated in 1933. 'Too many of them are apt
to keep programmes and listeners in a rut: they may make it
difficult to fit in unusual programmes of unusual length... .
To combine convenient regularity with stimulating irregularity
is one of the major problems of programme builcfing.'2
Also involved in the process of programme building was theassessment of the size of `potential audience'. It was recognizedin the 193os that 'peak times' of listening were from 8 to 9.30
in the evening, and it was generally assumed, although nottested until 1937 and 1938, that Saturday night yielded a maximum audience for entertainment. At the end of the period it
was estimated that by 10.3o in the evening half the listening
public had switched off their sets for the night and that after
o'clock only one listener in five was actually listening. `After
midnight only a small fraction remained.'3
1 1

Interest in listeners' habits-and in the social compositionof the `great audience'-was slow to cicvelop.4 At first, there
was more interest in the quality of reception and the antisocial behaviour of `oscillators' who spoiled other listeners'
evenings. As early as 1930, however, both Gielgud and Sicpmann, the one concerned with entertainment, the other witheducation, stressed the necessity for some sort of systematic
research into the social psychology of regular listening. The
members of the Central Council for Broadcast Adult Education
had been pressing for the appointment ofa `salaried investigator'even before that. They wanted a man who would find out 'themost suitable times for broadcast talks for different sections of
the listening public, general preferences for subjects, the extent
of continuity of listening, the most suitable length of talks, the2
3

J. Payne, Signature Tune (1947), p. 35.
1

I. Matheson, Broadcasting (1933), pp.

BBC Handbook (1940), P. 77.

49-50. See also above, p. 49.
4

See above, pp. 67 ff.

HOME LISTENERS

257

psychological effect of microphone personality, and the extent
to which broadcast talks lead to a follow-up of any kind, e.g.
reading'.[ This was an over -ambitious list of objectives, and it isdifficult to imagine what kind of man would have been qualified to pursue them. It was natural, however, that adult educationists should seek information about their audience before

Frigidity on the 9.15.

22.

A suspected oscillator in doubtful social popularity.

Anti -Social Behaviour: A Bateman Cartoon

they planned programmes: after all, similar `listening -end' work
had been thought to be indispensable in the Kent experimentin schools broadcasting.2
Whereas in the United States listener research began as abranch of market research-in an endeavour to give the listener'what he wants';-in Britain the first pressures came from people
who wanted to develop educational programmes. A number of
proposals were put forward in 1929, 1930, and 1931, when
Caradog Jones, Mrs. Webb, Professor Bowley, and Professor
Saunders Lewis were consulted; and at least one local surveyof listening habits was made by H. C. Shearman, then a' *Central Council for Broadcast Adult Education, Executive Committee,
Memorandum on Survey of Listening Public, Sept. 1929.
z See above, p. 191.
3

See above, p. 46.
C 1995

S

258

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

W.E.A. tutor, of six villages in north and mid -Bedfordshire.'
More ambitious schemes were dropped, however, mainly on
grounds of finance.2 One early project, based on answers to 115
questions from a sample of Io,000 listeners, was dismissed as
good material to hand over to John Watt for a variety sketch.;
For long it was true that the schools occupied 'the unique position of being the only section of wireless listeners able by meansof thorough questioning to influence the choice of its programmes'.4
Reith himself was uneasy about the possible implications oflistener research-particularly about the value judgements
underlying the demand for its-but as the `great audience'
grew in size and the number of BBC programmes increased,pressure for more listener research from inside the organization
was considerable. `It becomes important not only for sectional
but also to adapt the service in matters of timing
interests
to social requirements related to the hours of leisure', a BBC
official put it in 1932. `Much, of course, has' been achieved andcan still be achieved by a process of trial and error, but one isleft in the isolation of headquarters with the uneasy sense thatthe service is still inadequate to the potential demand.'6
Those people inside the BBC who were concerned not withsectional interests but with the tastes and preferences of thelarge majority were not silent in this domestic argument. An
undated memorandum from the Outside Broadcast Department, for example, asked for information about the relative...

C.C.B.A.E. Executive Committee, Minutes, 13 Dec. 1930; Siepmann toR. H. Eckersley, 17 July 1930.
2 *C.C.B.A.E. Executive Committee, Minutes, 15 Jan. 1930, for an abortive
proposal to prepare 'a statistical survey of the needs and tastes of listeners in isolatedareas'. The Eighth Report of the Executive Committee of the C.C.B.A.E. outlined a
proposal for a statistical survey, covering the whole field of broadcasting, which had
been prepared with the collaboration of Professor Bowley. It had been turned downby the Director -General and Governors on the grounds that it was too elaborate andexpensive. Alternative proposals made by the Corporation also lapsed in 1932. They
are set out in the BBC rear Book (1932), pp. 161-3. For the Corporation's negative
attitude, Board Meeting Minutes, 14 Jan. 1931.
3 *Atkinson to Carpendale, 24 July 1930.
4 *BBC Press Release, 22 Nov. 1935. The number of teachers' reports increased
from 600 in 1932 to 8,788 in 1936. Undated Note by Sir Stephen Tallents on
Listener Research.
' See above, pp. 55 ff.
6 BBC rear Book (1932), 'A Survey of Listeners', p. 162.

HOME LISTENERS

259

appeal of running commentaries and eye -witness accounts
given after the event. Among the other questions it raised were:'Do listeners prefer operas relayed from the stage to thosearranged for broadcasting specially by ourselves?', 'Do listeners
prefer what may roughly be described as the tone, or effectof a concert relayed from outside, to one in the dampened
atmosphere of studios?', 'Does the listener prefer short excerpts
from operas and musical comedies rather than the whole performance lasting up to two hours?', and `In religious broadcasts, what is the relative popularity of outside Church Services
compared with those in the studio?"
Many of these questions were answered weekly in the correspondence columns of the Radio Times and in letters fromlisteners received in the Programme Correspondence Section.2
To Gielgud and Siepmann, however, this flow of informationand views was quite inadequate and-even more importantquite unrepresentative. `I cannot help feeling more and morestrongly that we are fundamentally ignorant as to how ourvarious programmes are received, and what is their relative
popularity', Gielgud complained after a meeting of the Programme Board in May 1930. `It must be a source of considerable
disquiet to many people besides myself to think that it is quitepossible that a very great deal of our money and time and effort
may be expended on broadcasting into a void.'3
Graves, who was Assistant Director of Programmes in 193o,
supported Gielgud's views: indeed he had asked Gielgud toprepare his memorandum on the subject.4 Neither he nor
Gielgud, however, had much trust in questionnaires as guides
to listeners' habits and preferences: they were more interested
at the time in comprehensive foreign surveys of listening habits,
particularly a German inquiry, complete with Hollerith
machines, in the Berlin region in 1928-9; a plebiscite arrangedby the Danish Post Office; and the Starch Report, an American*survey of Listeners' Views from the Point of View of Outside Broadcasts.
See above, pp. 67 ff.
Programme Board Minutes, 9 May 193o; Memorandum by V. Gielgud,
I º May 1930, `Listeners' Reactions to Programmes'.
4 Graves to R. H. Eckersley, 15 May 193o. Eckersley wrote a note in pencil to
Siepmann at the end of this memorandum: `Before I take this any further I would
be glad to know what you have in mind from your angle as to an exploration ofthis kind.' Eckersley later approved in an undated pencilled note.
x

260

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

test made by the sampling method.' The results of these foreigninquiries were summarized by C. F. Atkinson, and Siepmann
gave his support to the idea of systematic British inquiry, sharing
Gielgud and Atkinson's view that 'some alteration in our present
system of measuring the reaction of the public is required'. He
said that he had no faith in the soundness of the conclusions
reached from the perusal of listeners' correspondence, but heurged that an inquiry should be not so much statistical-counting heads-as sociological-finding out more about `types andtastes among the various classes of society and in the various
parts of England'. By itself, he added, a single inquiry would
not be enough there should rather be a regular `intelligence
service' with BBC officers scattered throughout the regions.2
Something of the difficulty surrounding such projects isbrought out in a difference of opinion, or at least of language,
between Gielgud and Siepmann in their memoranda of 1930.
Behind the difference were other people's fundamental differences of approach. Gielgud said that he had been surprisedby a remark made by Stobart in the Programme Board that`broadcasting is not and should not be democratic'. 'It seems
to me,' Gielgud confessed, 'that there is no other entertainment in the world which is so much at the mercy of every single
member of its audience as is broadcasting.' Siepmann repliedin language very similar to that of Reith. 'I do not share Gielgud's view on the democratic issue. However complete andeffective any survey we launch might be, I should still be convinced that our policy and programme building should be based
first and last upon our own conviction as to what should andshould not be broadcast. As far as meeting public demand isconcerned, I believe that the right way is to provide for a more
conscious differentiation of objective within our daily programme.'3:*Memorandum by C. F. Atkinson, 15 May 193o. David Starch's report on'the entire United States' with a special survey of the Pacific Coast was made for

the National Broadcasting Company; ,8,000 families were personally questioned
by investigators. Atkinson prepared a further paper called 'Notes as to Statistical
Surveys carried out in Germany, Denmark and U.S.A.' Ile noted that there had
been strong American opposition to questions in the 1931 census as to whether theform-filler owned a radio. The object of this, the critics explained, was to provide'the Owen Young interests' with 'talking points in their efforts to sell programme
2time to advertisers'.
*Memorandum by C. A. Siepmann, 26 May 1930.
3 *I bid .;Gielgud's memorandum of t2 May 1930.

HOME LISTENERS

26_

In the background of these discussions, Reith was an interested observer. He was prepared to join Siepmann in consulting Seebohm Kowntree in June 1930 about the most effective
techniques of research, but he believed that, however much
Siepmann might distinguish between objectives, the introduction of regular listener research would inevitably have theeffect of influencing, even of dictating, programme policy: inthe distance he feared the shadowy shape of programme planning based on programme rating, on what Clancy Sigal wasto call 'the tyranny of Tam') Stobart's approach was more oldfashioned and prejudiced. 'As I hold very strongly that theordinary listener does not know what he likes, and is tolerably
well satisfied, as shown by correspondence and licence figures,with the mixed fare now offered, I cannot escape feeling thatany money, time or trouble spent upon elaborate enquiries into
his tastes and preferences would be wasted.'2
Apparently this view was shared by some even of the younger
people inside the BBC. 'The real degradation of the BBC
started', Lionel Fielden has written, 'with the invention of thehellish department which is called "Listener Research". That
Abominable Statistic is supposed to show "what listeners like"-and, of course, what they like is the red -nosed comedian andthe Wurlitzer organ.'3
Such forthright language evades most of the issues. Listenerresearch, when it came, did not, in its early phases, dictate
programme policy. The attempt to know more about the public
is not the same as `pandering' to every demand 'from below'.
Given the increase in the size of the audience and the `output'*Reith to Graves, 12 June 1930. C. Sigal, 'The Tyranny of Tam' in the New
Statesman, 20 Oct. 1g61. Rowntree suggested an inquiry based on the detailed

investigation of one street in London.
2 *Stobart to Siepmann, 29 May 1930. He attached a passage from a newspaper:' 1 questionnaire, about 42 feet long, and containing 1,630 questions was sent toall collective farms in its district by the Seed Trust of Omsk. The government
quickly annulled the document and punished the responsible officials.' Cf..Alan
Howland's reply to a request to embark upon a survey of children's attitudes toChildren's Hour: 'I do not think any useful purpose could be served by my submitting a questionnaire with regard to the Children's Hour. We already hold two"Request Weeks" every year, and are in close touch with Children's Hour listeners.
Any further enquiries, I fear, would only serve to confuse the issue.' *Howland to
Graves, 30 June 1930. The Children's Hour request weeks were well advertisedin advance and elicited up to 8,000 replies (*Note by D. McCulloch, 31 Dec. 1935).
3 L. Fielden, The Natural Bent (1960), p. tog.

262

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

of programmes, more careful attention to the problems described by both Gielgud and Siepmann was ultimately necessary. In a segmented and stratified society, also, there were few
instinctive ways of knowing what people of different ages andof different social groups really believed and felt. The obvious
preference of a large number of BBC listeners for the continental

commercial programmes added a sense of urgency to the quest
for information, yet at the same time made those people who
were afraid of research reluctant to have their worst fears confirmed.' In national perspective the reluctance to find out
about the listening habits of listeners was one aspect of thegeneral unwillingness of Englishmen in the 19305 to take fullstock of their position. Hilda Matheson rightly complained inchange in1935 that more attention was being paid to social
Britain.2
in
radio
of
primitive societies than to the social effects
demandthewith
Yet although Miss Matheson sympathizedintensetheappreciatedalso
for organized listener research, she'Theletters.3
listeners'
sociological interest of the unsolicitedpeople,very
ordinaryaremajority of such correspondents
including "the cabman's wife in Wigan" and dozens of thattype, not the sort who writes to the papers: they cover literally
every walk of life. I have seen in this way some of the mostinteresting letters I have ever seen in my life, and a personal
scrutiny of them and of others has been of real help to us.'4 The
Programme Correspondence Section continued in existence
throughout the 193os: although its conclusions were often
impugned, it played an essential part in the BBC's system of
public relations. `I don't believe that correspondence is valueless, that it should be disregarded with impunity, or that it is
written mainly by cranks', R. W. P. Cockburn exclaimed inJune 1936.5 Like Hilda Matheson, however, he did not object
to `useful developments' in listener research.
No definite decision about the launching of research wastaken in the light of the discussions of 1930, and after a long delay
the matter was raised again by Gielgud in November 1933.
Sec above, pp. 54-55, H. Matheson, `Listener Research in Broadcasting' in the Sociological Review,
vol. xxvii (1935), pp. 408-22.
3 See above, p. 68.
4 *H. Matheson to Graves, 28 May 1930.
s *R. W. P. Cockburn to M. G. Farquharson, to June 1936.

HOME LISTENERS

263

Press criticism, he said, was trivial or biased. Letters received,
pace Hilda Matheson and Cockburn, were written for the mostpart by `ego -maniacs, cranks, axe -grinders or the incorrigibly
idle who can find nothing better to do'. Once more he pleaded
that the BBC should pay more attention to `listeners' real reactions to our work'. 'What does the listener-whether at Wigan,
Chipping Sodbury, Stow-on-the-Wolcl or in the Western Isles-really feel about the broadcasting programme in which hisinterest is apparently not subservient to that of audiences in
the Queen's Hall or St. George's Hall?' He (Gielgud) was still
just as much 'in the dark', he went on, as he ever had been.
`It is, in fact, only when I occasionally give a lecture in publicthat I begin to have the slightest idea as to what listeners thinkof our dramatic work.»
Lindsay Wellington agreed with Gielgud that the desire fora `barometer of public opinion' was `inevitable and proper', but
doubted whether it could ever be gratified. There was too much`guessing' about listeners' reactions, but the trouble with Gielgud's ideas was that they were `Utopian'. 'We have so many
publics (and no Public) that I doubt the existence of "theaverage listener" unless he is so low a common denominator oflicence payers that we could not possibly arrange broadcasting
to implement his wishes.'2
It was perhaps to meet Wellington's objections that in March
1934. Gielgud made a very particular and very precise appeal
to listeners to let him know by letter what they thought of radio
plays. `Write to us and say, as candidly, as clearly and as
categorically as you can what you feel about the whole question.
Are there too many plays broadcast? Are there too few? Do you
hear the sort of plays you like to hear? ... To some extent, ourfuture dramatic policy w ill depend upon the result of thisappeal.'3 Over 12,000 letters were received in response to thisdirect request.4
Suggestions that there should be a listeners' panel to ccllectviews on the work of other BBC departments were turned down,
however, as was a proposal for `intensive research' put forward' *Gielgud to R. H. Eckersley, 18 Nov. '933.
2*Wellington to R. H. Eckersley, 21 Nov. 1933.

l *V. Gielgud, Broadcast Appeal, 8, g Mar. 1934.

323 were in
4 *Gielgud to Dawnay, 17 Apr. 1934. Of the 12,726 letters, only
general `critically adverse'.

264.

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

by Maurice Gorham, the editor of the Radio Times, and Professor T. H. Pear.' By March 1935 Atkinson was returning
patiently to ideas which he had first expressed five years before.
`Analysis of listeners', he reported, 'is not the same thing as
analysis of listeners' (real or supposed) programme preferences.'
The main object of a new inquiry would be to find out who thelistener was and when he listened to this and that sort of material
other words, to establish an electoral register, not to carryout a plebiscite.
In 1930 Atkinson had referred to evidence collected in theGermany of the Weimar Republic: in 1935 he had more powerful German ammunition at his disposal. The Times had recently
concluded that 'the phenomenal success of Nazi broadcastingin 1935' as compared with 'the relative failure of its first crudeefforts' in 1933 and 1934. was due to the fact that 'the mostelaborate measures' had been taken `(a) to get a picture of thecommunity and (b) to engage its interest'. The same, Atkinson
added, was true of Russia.3 Atkinson restated his case in August
1935-this time with references to the highly controversial
experience of the British Peace Ballot as well as to Nazi broadcasting.3 He pointed out also that in the task of compiling the
BBC Annual lie had heard from a lot of people inside the BBC
that they wanted far more information about listeners.
Yet once again the whole question of organizing a generalscheme of research was shelved. At the Director -General's meeting in August 1935 it was decided to leave over decisions until
Sir Stephen Tallents, who had just been appointed Controllerof Public Relations, had surveyed the position for himself.4-in' *Memorandum by M. Gorham, 'What Listeners Like: Intensive Research',
20 Aug. 1934. For Gorham's considered views on listener research, see Sound andFury (1948), pp. 58-60. For other proposals by J. S. A. Salt, sec a note on a
Talks Listening Panel, 12 Nov. 1934. Rose -Troup was not impressed: 'Mr. Salt's
suggestion, which at first sight looks attractive, is one which comes forward witha fair amount of regularity from newcomers to our organisation. It is a scheme which
has been turned down with equal regularity.' Rose -Troup to Pocock, 14 Nov. 1934.
3 The
Times, 15 Feb. 1935; *Memorandum by C. F. Atkinson, `Listener
Analysis', 1 Mar. 1935.
3 * Memorandum by C. F. Atkinson,'Listener Survey', z Aug. 1935.
4 *The D.G.'s meeting took place on 13 Aug. 1935: at thisperiod D.G.'s meetings had taken the place of the Control Board meetings. See below, p. 435. For
Tallents, see above, p. 19 and below, p. 448. *See also a note by Graves, 14 Aug.
1935: 'I feel this subject is definitely one that might be handed to Tallents to chew
over', with an addendum by Carpendale:'Keep for Sir Stephen Tallents's arrival.'HOME LISTENERS

265

Nicolls put the position as it was before Tallents's arrival withgreat succinctness and force. All the old objections remained.
To add to them, there was 'the main objection' of them all.
A large-scale inquiry would not even tell the BBC much thatit did not already know. `For instance, the ballot would tell usthat large numbers of people like dance music, other large
numbers have high tea at six and listen to the early evening
programmes and then go to bed early, etc. If any surprisinginformation came out of the plebiscite [the term lingered], wewould not accept it, except in the case where the plebiscite wasan absolutely complete one of every licence holder: otherwise
we would say that it was a freak result. I do not say that sucha survey would not be valuable, either on policy grounds, i.e.
as a stunt, or for the effect it might have on staff who wereclosely in touch with the conducting of it, but I think that theleast valuable result would be the actual information received.»
Tallents had the reputation of being interested in `stunts'in widespread press publicity, exhibitions, 'and so forth'. Yetas the New Statesman remarked, he was also 'a cultured and progressive man' who could be relied upon 'to "sell" an idea withthe minimum of vulgarity'. Some of the press comments on his
appointment linked it directly to the need for listener research.
'At present the BBC has to depend mainly for its contacts withthe public on the letters it gets from all those who listen to its
entertainment. Letters are a better contact than none at all,but after all, the man or woman who, having heard a programme he likes or dislikes, sits down and writes to the BBC tosay what he thinks and why is rather an exceptional than arepresentative member of the audience. Ought there not to besome genuinely representative body like the Committee ofBusinessmen which I believe is occasionally consulted by the
Post Office? [Tallents had been in charge of public relations
at the Post Office.] You want a Consumers' Council, so to say,to guide the policy of the BBC programmes.'3
This was just what Reith did not want. Nor did a large section
I
2*Memorandum by B. E. Nicolls, 'Listener Survey', 14 Aug. 1935.
something
New Statesman, 13 July 1985. It added, 'Sir Stephen Tallents has...

of a philosophy of publicity-he believes in the possibility of making democracy
function through the work of the sympathetic interpreter of chaotic group opinion.'
Daily Sketch, 10 July 1935. Some newspapers had been running 'radio popularity ballots' of their own. See above, p. 70.

266

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

of the programme builders within the BBC want it. They might
demand more sociological information or better public relations,but they did not want to rest programme policy on declared
public preferences. Many sections of the press supported thisfundamental approach. 'The BBC ought never to be too anxious
to please the public at all costs.... The promoter of entertainment who tries slavishly to follow public taste is always left
behind and it is the promoter with the courage and the insightto lead the public tactfully towards new satisfactions who isrewarded in the end. Sir John Reith has done a great deal toenlarge British conceptions of entertainment, and at the sametime he has striven valiantly to expose the fallacy of the tradition
that education must always be dull. There does not seem, therefore, to be any urgent need for the BBC to revise drastically its
own policy or its attitude to the public."
Tallents, however, went forward on his own lines. In private
letters and in public speeches alike, he urged the need for `substantial' listener research. Describing his post to his son in a
letter probably written early in 1936, lie said that he was working out a scheme for 'what we call listener research'. 'We wantto know more than we do about the habits and tastes of listeners
in different parts of the country and at different times of theyear.... As to people's habits, there is a lot of information to
be got indirectly from indirect sources such as gas and electric
light companies-and even water companies, for the water
engineer at Portsmouth has just sent us a graph showing how
every one ceased to use water for cooking, washing etc. while
the broadcast of the King's Funeral was on.'z With the help of
his friend and colleague, A. P. Ryan, who had worked with him
at the Empire Marketing Board, he went through all the oldfiles on listener research which had accumulated since the Kent
experiment of 1926, preparing his own résumé as he went
along.3 He also consulted the heads of departments, not all ofwhom were able or willing to give him much assistance.4 The
1 orkshire Post, 10 July 1935.
Undated Note by Tallents to his son, probably written in Feb. 1936 (Tallents
Papers).
3*Sir Stephen Tallen ts, 'Past and Present Pract ices in Listener Research', undated.
4 *Rose -Troup, then Director of Talks, replied, for example: `I doubt whether
any one can say that anything in the nature of Listener Research in the current
meaning of the phrase has ever been undertaken.' Memorandum of 20 Dec. 1935.
2

HOME LISTENERS

267

material he collected provided the basis for a paper which was
submitted to the General Advisory Council of the BBC in

January 1936.1

This interesting paper distinguished between four different
kinds of research-research into listeners' habits, of the sort that
had always been advocated; research into the efficiency of thedifferent broadcasting techniques (Mary Somerville insisted onthis) ;2 research into listeners' preferences; and research into
`reactions of a type which are of more direct interest to thepsychologist or sociologist than to the BBC'-for example,
whether the coming of wireless tended to strengthen family
life. The last kind of research was suggested by Professor T. H.
Pear, who had long been advocating this line of inquiry andwho was one of the few people who had pronounced upon thesubject in public.
The clear distinction between the third kind of research-analysis of listeners' preferences-and the other three was particularly useful since there had been for so long so many blurring misunderstandings of the difference. Tallents was at pains
to insist, indeed, that 'the surrender of programme policy toa plebiscite would undermine the responsibilities imposed on
the BBC by its Charter'. In his conclusion he also made theimportant point, first enunciated by Atkinson, that listenerresearch required expert and specialized management urlessmoney and effort were to be wasted and work duplicated.
At the General Advisory Council of 13 January 1936 Tallents's
distinctions and suggestions were discussed in an `exploratory'
fashion.3 From the chair, William Temple, then Archbishop
of York, stated that in his view it would be unfortunate if agreat deal of money were spent in elaborate research: data
was needed, but there were inexpensive means of getting`representative and authoritative opinions'. Sir Arthur Salter
and Professor Ernest Barker supported this view also, the former
adding, like Reith, that he distrusted all large-scale methods,
large masses of correspondence, and even the simplest and mostcarefully drawn up questionnaires. Principal J. H. Nicholson,' *BBC General Advisory Council, 'Listener Research', Jan. 1936.
'Undated Note for Tallents on 'Enquiries Already Undertaken'.
7'General Advisory Council, Precis of Discussion of 13 Jan. 1936. For the roleof the General Advisory Council, see below, pp. 47o ff.
2

268

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

who was so directly involved in the BBC's plans for adulteducation, warmly supported Tallents's memorandum, notingthat the organized listener groups could play an active partin any plan of research: they were 'a special constituency ofregular listeners with an importance out of proportion to their

numbers'.'
With this discussion in mind, it is scarcely surprising that thefirst steps taken to discover listeners' reactions were of the mostmodest kind. Reith himself wrote to Salter after the meeting
agreeing with his view and going on to add that if anything was
to be done with respect to listeners' habits, `I do not think thatit need be very much, and certainly nothing formal'. The
General Advisory Council itself might make soundings: small
panels of listeners-they were later called 'glow worms'-shoulcl
be seen by members of the Council or by Governors, andshould be encouraged to put forward new ideas for broadcasts.2
There is no evidence that such panels ever met. Regionalquestionnaires were sent out, however, in some parts of thecountry-a Scottish questionnaire, for example, sent to 114.

`known listeners', 99 of whom had written to the BBC aboutprogrammes and 15 to `personal friends' of George Burnett in
Edinburgh. Cardiff suggested a Welsh questionnaire addressed
not to people who had written in about programmes-`after
all,' a regional representative noted, 'they are people of arather unusual mentality'-but to people who would write to
the BBC asking for questionnaire forms after an appeal had
been made over the air.3 This idea was turned down by Tallentson the grounds that 'any such job wants doing more carefully
and on a properly thought out plan'.4
Among the other modest proposals which were put into practice at this time was a series of talks to listener groups andwomen's meetings. Tallents himself addressed a large-scale
Women's Conference in April 1936. The BBC, he told hishearers, wanted to take listeners into its confidence and to learn
from them. 'This was not altogether easy, when its audience' For Nicholson and the Listener Groups, see above, pp. 223 ff.
2 *Unsigned Memorandum of 14 Jan. 1936;
Note on a meeting with Salter on
15 Jan. 1936.
3 *Results of Questionnaire sent to Listeners,
Jan. 1936; Note from Miss N. G.
Jenkins to Tallents, 20 Feb. 1936.
4 *Note by Tallents, 25 Feb. 1936.

HOME LISTENERS

269

had grown to be the whole Nation.» In an article in John Bull in
December 1935 he had written that there was no subject on which
the BBC spent as much anxious study as the problem of meeting'the infinitely various needs of its vast listening audience'. `It isa study which should last as long as broadcasting endures.'z
In a memorandum of March 1936, addressed to Carpendale,
Tallents stated that he had got a clearer idea of what a `listenerresearch' organization could and should do. Reith had eventually agreed to his experimenting on a limited scale with suchresearch, and Tallents began to set out the terms of his analysis.
Research concerning listeners' habits demanded expert treatment from psychologists and sociologists: research concerning
listeners' tastes depended upon the building up of a `sensitive
network of selected listeners throughout the country from whom(a small gratuity,
we can get reports on particular points
beofferedto these super
might
The
Listenersuch as a free copy ofrequired thesetslisteners'
glow worms)' ; research concerning
research was
of
kind
The
third
radio
trade.
co-operation of theabout'Information
the
two.
to
other
still important in relation
toproimportant
is
very
use
in
constantsets
the capacity ofregionalstructure.'3
toeven
building,
andgrammeTallents suggested that a special BBC officer should be
appointed to deal with all research problems, and this proposal
was accepted by the Control Board on to March 1936.4 Carpendale suggested the appointment of Atkinson who had written
so many memoranda about research: in fact C. V. Salmon waschosen.5 Associated with him was a small `Listener ResearchGroup', which included Tallents, Maurice Farquharson, withwhom Salmon had been working, Ryan, Siepmann, and Atkinson.6 Tallents tried to enrol F. W. Fox of the Post Office's
research department as a member of this group, but Sir Donald
Banks of the Post Office said that he was so busy that he could
not take on any additional work.?

...

*Report on the Women's Conference, 24 Apr. 1936.
John Bull, 14 Dec. 1935. Reith congratulated Tallents on this article.
3 *Tallents to Carpendale, 6 Mar. 1936.
4 *Control Board Minutes, to Mar. 1936. The Board said that 'this assistant2

should be drawn from existing stair if possible'. 'Research was to be selective,
specialized and more or less informal.'*Note appended to Tallents's letter of 6 Mar. 1936.
6 *Control Board Minutes, 28 Apr. 1936.
1936.
7 *Tallents to Sir Donald Banks, 15 Apr. 1936; Banks to Tallents, 23 Apr.
5

270

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

The first meeting of the group, planned for May 1936, does
not appear ever to have been held, and a few months later
R. J. E. Silvey of the London Press Exchange was appointed"TUNER'S"
Qllestiolluiaire
What kind of
Programme do
YOU likeontheWireless ?

"Tune r,"" The

Yorkshire

Observer "wireless critic, asks you to indicate the type ofprogramme you like best on the voting form
printed inside this circular.
Will you kindly fill it up and hand it
to our representative when he calls

for

it

in

the

courseof the next

few

days ?
23. A Newspaper Pollfrom outside the BBC to assist Tallents with listener research.
He had been with the London Press Exchange since 1929 andwas part author of the book The Home Market. It was Silvey

HOME LISTENERS

271

who was to build up through the years a highly organizedsystem of listener research.' His appointment coincided with anincrease ín outside interest. A number of newspapers organizedlistening polls; Professor Pear gathered together a group of
psychologists to discuss 'twenty-five problems suitable for listenerresearch investigation'; across the Atlantic there was talk of dieinvention at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology of a new`radio meter' to test the preferences of radio audiences; in the
British radio trade there were proposals for a Radio Development Association to conduct advertising and market research;and in March 1936 the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners
in Advertising had prepared a survey of the radio listening habitsof the public, based on 20,000 interviews.
Evidence of this kind was carefully scrutinized inside theBBC, although one continuing sceptic said that the Institute's
document was 'not worth the paper it is printed on as the sampling is only 20,000'.2 As for the radio meter, it was based ona quantitative fallacy, which could ruin programme building.
What was thought to be more useful evidence concerned the useof audience research by competing or complementary media.
It was noted with interest that there were sharp seasonal
fluctuations in cinema audiences, and that the Spectator hadsent out a questionnaire inviting its readers to criticize its content and format and to make suggestions for the future.3
When Silvey began working for the BBC, available evidence
from outside, trustworthy or untrustworthy, suggested that`average listening' was about four hours a day; that about athird of the listeners listened for as much as 375- hours a week;that over three-quarters of the listeners spent one -sixth of theirlistening time hearing light music; that a half listened to all
studio variety programmes; that variety or theatre relays wereby far the favourite programmes; that four out of ten listeners
never listened to an educational talk and two out of ten neverlistened to a talk of any kind; that 16 per cent. of listeners never*General Advisory Council, Report for Sept. 1936; BBC Press Release, 18
Sept. 1936.
was Advertisement
2 *Memorandum from R. Judson, 16 Mar. 1933. Judson
Manager of the BBC. Also *Note by Tallents on Pear's projects, 5 June 1936; NewYork Herald Tribune, 16 Mar. 1936; Broadcaster's Review, 16 Apr. 1936.
3*Note on S. Rowson's Statistical Survey of the Cinema Industry in Great Britain in
1934; Note by Tallents on a Spectator dinner, 2 Mar. 1936 (Tallents Papers).

272

AUDIENCES: AT HOME \ND ABROAD

listened to religious services; that the best listening hour wasfrom 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.; that programmes `tailed off' after
9 o'clock; that large numbers of listeners did not listen after
io o'clock; and that two-thirds of listeners never listened after
II o'clock.'
Drawing on evidence collected from the seven chief relay
exchanges, Garry Allighan, a radio journalist, concluded thatthe highest recorded audience (91 per cent.) was for the King's
Christmas talk, that Music Hall attracted 6o per cent. oflisteners,
and that even the Foundations of Music, frequently attacked by`lowbrows', had a rating of 15 per cent. Allighan also notedthat on Sundays the percentage of relay listeners listening to
BBC programmes varied from as low a figure as Io per cent. to35 per cent. and that the percentage listening to continental
programmes reached as high a figure as 8o per cent., dependingon the BBC alternative. Only on exceptional occasions did morethan 35 per cent. listen to the BBC.2 These figures were notquite borne out by the Advertising Institute's survey, which
estimated a maximum Radio Luxembourg audience of 45.7 percent. on Sundays.
The Institute tried to break down the public in terms of social
class. Interest in commercial radio programmes was greatest inClass C of the population, those with chief wage-earners receiving £5 a week or less. The programme preferences of this classwere markedly different from Class A, where the chief income
receiver was in receipt of an income of £Goo a year and upwards. In Class C 82.5 per cent. of the sample put variety as
their favourite type of programme: in Class A 65.5 per cent.
The figures for serious talks were 19.5 per cent. and 37.1 percent.
Silvey's own researches began in the spring of 1937 with aseries of inquiries into `particular' audiences. The first to bechosen was the audience for drama and features:
35o listeners,
whose only qualification was a known interest in this workthey were not expected to have technical knowledge-were
asked to co-operate by completing questionnaires about eachplay or feature programme which they heard over a period of
These estimates are based on the newspaper reports and other reports cited
above.
' *Garry Allighan, Note of it Dec. 1935.

HOME LISTENERS

273

four months. This unpaid panel was composed of 'men andwomen of all ages, drawn from all parts of the country, andincluded civil servants, miners, shop assistants, teachers, working-class housewives, and unemployed workers'.'
Its conclusions were that plays were often not easy to follow,that plays specially written for radio had not on the whole beenvery satisfactory, that background music was often too loud,that effects were often too insistent, that the construction offeatures was less successful than the choice of subjects, and that
too many narrators spoiled the broth.2
Grace Wyndham Goldie, then The Listener's drama critic,
rightly pointed out that almost all the conclusions of this `vast,
imposing and long awaited Report' had been set out week byweek in her own personal column in The Listener. The importance of the Report, she said, was that it had been drafted notby an individual but by 'a panel of four hundred representative
listeners'.3 The appeal to the representative listener was the newdevelopment. Apparently the response of listeners was considered
so encouraging that it was decided) that the `panel' method, about
which so much had been written earlier, was a technique applicable to all programmes `where the ordinary listener would becapable of some degree ofanalysis of his reactions'. The comments
which had been received in the drama survey were thought of(pace Grace \Vyndham Goldie) as providing 'a photograph ofa cross section of listeners and not a collection of criticalopinions'. They were considered sufficiently illuminating, however, to suggest `possible fruitful application to the work of otherprogramme departments'.4
Later in 1937, therefore, the panel method of evaluation wasapplied to a series of talks about the cinema and a series of`serious' talks called Clear Thinking. The first of these inquiries,
which attracted a thousand listeners 'at one of the worst timesof the year', gave an indication of what listeners wanted fromtalks about current films: the second-also with a thousand
listeners-of the qualities they expected to find in a goodbroadcaster.
"Testing Listeners' Tastes' in The Listener, 21 July 1937.
2*Listeners' Views on Radio Plays, Report of an Enquiry.
l Grace Wyndham Goldie, 'What About It?' in The Listener, 2I July 1937.
4 *Note by Silvey, `Drama Reports Scheme', 14 Apr. 1937; Note by Tallents,
17 June 1937.
C 1995T

274

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

In addition, listener research of a simpler kind was applied tothe timing of Mr. Middleton's gardening programmes. The
question was whether his talks should be on Fridays at 7.10
or on Sundays at 2, and Middleton broadcast a message to his
listeners asking them to let the BBC know by postcard whichtime they preferred. `There does not seem a better way of findingout what your wishes are, whether you regard me as a stimulation for the weekend's gardening or to send you off to sleep
after Sunday lunch. The BBC want to please you and I amquite prepared to do what I'm told as far as I can and to
give you what you want.» Seven thousand and nine listeners
preferred Sunday, 2,950 Friday: 66 stalwart Middletonians
answered 'for either or any time'.2
The question inevitably arose as to whether this simple plebiscite method could be applied substantially to other problems oftiming, for example, the timing of Saturday's Music Hall. Silvey
had his doubts. He raised the basic statistical point that if such
invited postcards were to be taken as guides to public attitudes,
the invited response had to be 'a microcosm of the whole'. Were
there, in fact, any forces at work which would prevent the
response from being representative? One, he suggested innocuously enough, might be a greater readiness to send in a postcard
among those who either wished or resisted a change than among
those who did not mind whether there was a change or not.
`Suppose the gardening talks public is half a million strong.
Then for our vote to be valid 150,000 of them must preferFriday and 350,000 must prefer Sunday.' But suppose that
400,000 listeners did not mind on which day the talks werebroadcast. 'So long as the possibility remains open that listeners
who are indifferent to a given point do not respond at the samerate as those who are more readily affected by the issue, grave
doubt is bound to be cast upon the statistical validity of samples
elicited by appeals from the microphone.'3
By sounding such a note, Silvey directed attention towards
possibilities of random sampling, of `investigation on scientificlines'. Distrust of this method was strong among social investigators of the reputation of Seebohm Rowntree-one of the*Broadcast of 25 June 1937.
*Note by Ryan, 'The Middleton l'oll', 7 July 1937.
3 *Note by Silvey, 13 July 1937.
'

2

HOME LISTENERS

275

people the BBC consulted.' Silvey, however, had begun tomove along the road which the BBC has subsequently followed.
Reith congratulated him on the success of his first experiments2
and talks began with other departments in the BBC, not only
about `panel' methods, but about the invention of a `listening
barometer'.
The first reference to the need for a random sample scheme
based on 30,000 out of 12,000,000 homes was made in a memorandum by Silvey in July 1937. Reactions would be tested fouror five times a year, and questions would be as simple as possible.
`It should not be impossible in these days of football pools',
Silvey noted, 'to design a form which should frighten off only
a tiny minority.' A sample of 30,000 would include about 9,000
persons under the age of fourteen; and one-third of the homes
could be without sets. Silvey specifically referred to differencesof age in determining `representativeness' but did not refer todifferences of class.3
Such points about the `representativeness' of samples weremade in a different context by Maconachie, the Director of
Talks. He rightly expressed doubt about the representativenessof the `panel' reactions of the organized Listening Groups. The
BBC's Education Officers had `tried very hard to persuade me,so far without success, that the Group Listener was exactly thesame in nature as the general listener and that, therefore,
the group listener's verdict on talks was a good indication of thegeneral listeners' reaction. It seemed to me, on the other hand,that the very fact that one person would take the trouble tochange and wash at the end of the day in order to listen totalks indicated the essential difference between him and theman who merely sat by his own fireside and switched on to atalk by chance.'4
The next development was an experiment carried out in
connexion not with talks but with light -entertainment programmes. It was concerned neither with random sampling nor
with what Maurice Farquharson called 'the searchlight scheme'
See A. Briggs, Seebohrn Rowntree (1961), ch. v.
Handwritten note to Tallents of 8 July 1937.
*Silvey to Tallents, 15 July 1937, following a conversation of 7 July;
Memorandum by Silvey, 'Proposals for Machinery for Sampling Listener
2

Opinion'.
4

Note by Maconachie for Talks Meeting, 12 July 1937.

276

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD-a plan to study listeners' habits and tastes by indirect means,`asking those who were in a position to know the habits andtastes of their fellows'.' It pointed forward, however, to the mostfamiliar of all post-war techniques of listener research-programme rating. It was known already from outside surveys andlisteners' letters that these programmes appealed to the widest
public, and an attempt was made to secure a measure oflisteners' opinions comparable with box-office information
available to a theatre manager.2 Two thousand listeners werechosen at random from 47,000 who volunteered to help in
response to a broadcast appeal by John Watt on 18 September
1937 immediately after Saturday Music Hal1.3 The 2,000 weresent week by week 'log sheets' which set out the forthcoming
week's light -entertainment programmes and were asked toindicate to which of the programmes they listened and how
much of each programme they heard. Alongside this group acontrol group was organized to ensure 'the representativenessof the sample'.
There were some doubts about the `representativeness' of the
2,000. First, they had all been picked out from the SaturdayMusic Hall audience. Second, they had all been supplied withvery convenient programme summaries in the form of theirlog sheets. Third, there was a danger that, as volunteers, theywould listen to wireless programmes more frequently than theywould normally have done under a mistaken obligation to
the BBC to do so. The control group was designed to act as acheck on such possible disturbing factors. It consisted of 1,000
members of the general listening public chosen by and interviewed in the presence of `agents'. They were not given log
sheets and they were distributed throughout the regions according to the numerical strength of the regional listening public.
They were interviewed in only one week out of four throughout
the research experiment. No criterion was applied to membership of the group except that it would consist of people who
liked to listen to variety programmes. It was `hoped' but notinsisted upon that 'men and women would be approximately
equal in numbers in the final figures and that the average
Memorandum by Silvey of 15 July 1937.
2
3*Silvey to Farquharson, 12 July 1937.
The original idea had been to have 1,000.

THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Vhere alternative answers are given please put a

X against the one you agree with.

I think we get:

Would you personally like more or lets of thefollowing types of programme?

Too Muc,5 Th. Right Xo1 EmughAmountMusic Hall, Palace of Voider)(a)Straight Variety(Examples:(b)Serials(Examples: Inspector Hornleigh, The Plums,
Mr. Muddlecombe, j.P.)(c)"Interest" programmes(d)Comedy Shows(Examples: Radio Pie, Flying High,
Kentucky Minstrels)(e)Convert Parties(Examples: Ivhite Coons, Fol-de-cols)(f) Musical Comedy(Examples: Scrapbook, Sear -gazing)(Examples: Arlette, Hit the Deck,
Moneyfor jam)foreign relays(g)American a(h)Dance Music(i)

Reginald Foort at the B.B.C.

(J)

Other Cinema Organs(Examples: Broadway Matinee,
Five Hours Back)

Theatre Organ

2.

Do you dance to broadcast dance music?

3.

Which of thesetimes do you prefer

Often

Seldom8.o -9.o

9.20-10.20

usually quite impossible for you to hear this programme
unless it is on at the time you have marked?
Yes
Ie

Never

for Saturday night Music Hall?

It

No

4.

If a specially good programme were put on regularly at
6.30 p.m. on Fridays, could you hear it?
YesNo
Would 6.30 p.m. on any of the following days be
more convenient to you?
Monday.._ -.Tuesday
Wednesday:.... Thursday

5.

About what time in the evening do you usually stop listening(a) on weekdays (not Saturday)?
(b) On Saturdays?

6.

Do you listen regularly to foreign stations(a) on weekdays? YesNo(b) on Sundays?

7.

Between what hours, approximately, do you usually listen to foreign stations(a) on weekdays?
(b) on Sundays?

8.

Which.foreign stations do you usually listen to(a) on weekdays?
(b) on Sundays?

Yes

No

If there is anything else you would like to say about our light entertainment programme, pleasetrite it on the back of this form.

lame

-

Address24.

\ Programme Questionnaire, 1937

278

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

listener included would be at somewhere [sic] about the £4 aweek level'.'Unlike post-war rating techniques, the listening barometer
was designed to show not the total audience appeal of particular
programmes but 'the relative sizes of audiences to different
types of output from a given department'. The demand formusic was not to be judged by the demand for light entertainment. 'A Variety Listening Barometer would be kept quite
separate from an Outside Broadcasts Listening Barometer or a
I%1usic Listening Barometer.'2 The old determination not torelate directly the distribution ofparticular kinds of programmes
to listeners' tastes remained.
It is doubtful whether Reith would have approved of ananalogy drawn by Silvey between the work of the BBC and adepartment store3-or even of references to `market research
now being used by many of the greatest industries in the
country'+-but he would have had every sympathy with acomment in the Observer that a possible danger in a philosophyof listener research was that of `seeking to give the public what it
wants when it has no idea of what it wants-until it hears it'.5
Another analogy which Silvey employed had unmistakable
Reithian undertones. `Think of broadcasting as a ship. Its finaldestination is determined by considerations of policy. The course
it takes is affected by many factors, including its available fueland the likelihood of the presence of icefields. But the task of
the helmsman will be made infinitely easier by good charts. It is
the job of Listener Research to prepare those charts.'6
By the autumn of 1938 the information files of the BBC
Listener Research Department were beginning to get fatterand the number of times when Silvey had to say that there were
no facts available about listener reactions was getting less fre*Memorandum, `Variety Department Control Group', 19 Oct. 1937. Silvey
to Regional Directors, 14 Sept. 1937: 'The plan for this control group has not been
worked out in detail.'s *Proposals for Variety Listening Barometer, 24 Aug. 1937.
3 *Silvey, Suggested Outline for a Talk
on Listener Research, 13 Oct. 1937.
4 *Silvey, Outline of Address to Press Conference, 26 Oct. 1937.
S*Note from Farquharson on a comment in the previous edition of the Observer,
2 Nov. 1937.
6 R. J. Silvey, 'What is Listener Research?' in Arie1, June 1938. For Reith's
captain and ship metaphor, see Broadcast over Britain (1924), p. 23; The Birth of
Broadcasting, pp. 4, 69.
1

HOME LISTENERS

279

quent.l The first random sample had been taken in January
1938-with the co-operation of the Post Officez-and there
had been `searchlight enquiries', including one into the popularity of Children's Hour. Outside research had not diminishedin volume or scope as a result of the BBC's own enterprise.
Research into listeners' habits was being carried out, for example, in Glasgow and Liverpool Universities.3 The patternof listening from one time of the year to another and from onepart of the country to another was becoming clearer than it had
been before. Other points of division-for example by class, by
age and sex or by occupation and specialized interest-m ere
beginning to be examined,4 and information was collected
about listening to foreign stations. `Middle-class log-keepers
exercise a wider range of choice and listen to more noncommercial than commercial stations. The average workingclass log -keeper, on the other hand, listens regularly on Sundays
to twice as many commercial as non-commercial stations.'s
It is difficult to tell, however, how far all this activity influenced the pattern of BBC work in 1937 and 1938. \V. A.
Robson had complained in 1936 that the BBC had 'only thevaguest and most remote contact with the world of listeners. It
does not really know who they are, to what they listen and what
their views are.'6 The Corporation knew far more in 1938 and
1939, but the research work itself was admittedly experimental,
lively but incomplete, and in places insecurely based. Moreover,the communication of research conclusions within the organization took time and effort.? Policy -making still rested on manyother criteria, and most people believed that it should continue
to do so. An element in the story, of course-and it was always
freely admitted-was the cultivation of good public relations.
"What is Listener Research?'
2 "Report on Conversation between Farquharson and Welch of the General
Post Office, 3 Sept. 1937.

"Note of 4 Aug. 1937.
Outline of Proposed Searchlight Scheme, 20 July 1938; Silvey to the North
Regional Director, g Sept. 1938.
s *General Listening Barometer, Interim report No. iC, 8 Feb. 1939.
6 W. A. Robson, Public Enterprise (1937), p. too.
For Silvey's brief account of what he calls 'the years of experiment' before 1941,see his important paper 'Methods of Listener Research Employed by the British
Broadcasting Corporation' in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 107
3'(1944)

280

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

In this connexion imitation was perhaps the best form of
flattery. `Please note that the Daily Mirror is starting a listenerresearch scheme', Ryan wrote to Tallents in ,July 1937.'`Listen in toYourself', the Daily Mirror told its readers. 'Our
idea is to select a corps of critics representative of all shades of
opinion.... 1\1y last words to the BBC', the author added,'are"Look Out!" '2.

...

2. Spoken and Written
BY 1937, when the Daily Mirror threatened to compete with theBBC, the Corporation was itself running a thriving publications
business which was the envy of many other publishers. It had
been established in face of great distrust and opposition and it
served two invaluable purposes-first, that of providing a forum
for radio, through the publication of programmes and theprinting of outstanding talks; and second, that of augmenting
the Corporation's frequently inadequate revenue. It was so
successful in achieving both these purposes that the Corporation
was involved in frequent quarrels with the press.
The three main BBC publications had different objects anddifferent histories. The Radio Times, founded in 1923, gave all
the details of programmes, details which the press had once
refused to print.3 It also provided notes about programmes andperformers, space for listeners' letters, and technical articles
about radio. Because of its large circulation, it was a perfect
advertisers' medium. World Radio, formerly the Radio Supplement, was founded in 1925, over objections from the trade press,
to contain foreign programmes and technical articles, and it
was expanded in 1932 to meet the special needs of Empire
broadcasting. The Listener was the most contentious of the trio.
Born in contention in January 1929, it has survived to become
one of the most respected weekly journals. The greater part ofits contents has consisted entirely of broadcast material: this,*Ryan to Tallents, 20 July 1937.
Daily Mirror, 20 July 1937.
3 See The Birth of Broadcasting; PP. 295 tr.
I

2

281

SPOKEN AND \WRITTEN

indeed, was a condition of the periodical coming into existence
at all.
The table given below sets out the comparative circulation
figures for the three journals, and the combined net profits whichwere passed over to the Corporation. It shows that while thecirculation of the Radio Times climbed sharply, it did not quite
keep pace with the increase in the number of listeners; that
World Radio reached an early peak and thereafter slipped andwent out of existence in 1939; and that the circulation offell
The Listener moved steadily along a plateau from 1934 to 1939:the `intelligent listener' public to which it appealed was
obviously strictly limited. In the cases both of the Radio Times
and The Listener, however, the figures should perhaps be corn pared with post-war figures íf they are to be set ín proper perspective. By 195o the average weekly circulation of the Radio
Times had passed the 8,000,000 mark, and the average weekly
circulation of The Listener was up to nearly 15O,000. Clearly thewritten word was not losing its appeal.

-it

BBC PUBLICATIONS
Total net

Average weekly net sales

rearRadio Times

World Radio

The Listenerprofits
accruing

1927
1928
1929
1930

851,657
977,589
1,147,571
1,334,063
1,575,151
1,825,951
1,962,047
2,155,371
2,456,764
2,628,757
2,821,597
2,880,747
2,588,433

60,30895,962
121,234
153,595
181,513
157,545
125,485
122,802113,5i6
102,530
105,752
97,41976,464

..

..

1931
1932
1933

1934
1935
1936
1937
1938

1939

27,77333,80337,58638,08742,62750,67052,37950,62648,18050,47849,692£160,209£237,834£322,285£391,823£347,706£421,576£442,009£480,527£365,567..

The figures for net profits also include net profits from otherBBC publications -pamphlets, reports, and so on -some ofwhich have already been mentioned and none of which wasever published in order to make a profit. The first book published by the BBC was a slim souvenir volume, Shakespeare's

282

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

Heroines, which appeared in September 1926 and was issued inconjunction with a series of Sunday afternoon broadcasts bywell-known actresses and actors: it was published and distributed as a contribution towards the Shakespeare Memorial
Theatre Fund. This was an exceptional enterprise. The BBC's
general policy was never to issue any hook which could equallywell be produced by an outside publisher.

The history of the Radio Times was reasonably straightforward
during this period. It had only three editors-Walter Fuller,
who died suddenly in 1927, Eric Maschwitz, who remained in
the post until 1933, and Maurice Gorham, who stayed on until
1941. They were all remarkable men, keenly interested in life
as well as in all aspects of radio. Their liveliness prevented theRadio Times from ever becoming a mere programme sheet.
There was, indeed, a kind of philosophy behind the Radio
Times, certainly in its early years. Its slogan was 'Plan Your
Listening in Advance', and it secured a reasonable response
from listeners. Whereas American and continental listeners,for different reasons, were liable to take radio as it came'on tap'-British listeners were encouraged by the Radio
Times itself to be `discriminating'. Filson Young, for example,
hammered home the message week after week for many years
in his 'The World \Ve Listen In'; and other `features'-`Both
Sides of the Microphone' and 'What the Other Listener Thinks'-were designed to make for more intelligent and criticallistening. A. A. Thomson's `Strolling Commentaries', whichstarted as a purely comic column in 1934., quickly became
what Gorham called 'a very useful form of readable popular
propaganda for BBC programmes, and is in fact to a considerable extent doing the work that "The World We Listen In"

should really do'.'Two interesting documents survive setting out the views of
1\ Iaschwitz and Gorham on their job as
editors of this mostsuccessful paper. In January 1928 Maschwitz stated that the
paper had three main objects. First and foremost, it was aprogramme, and whilst it had the advantage over programmes
printed in the newspapers, it had, to some extent at least, tocompete with them. The policy of `getting the most out of the*Gorham to W. E. G. Murray, 12 Oct. 1934.

SPOKEN AND WRITTEN

283

programmes' had started with Fuller and had been pushed
further in the light of experience. There was more annotation,
more economy in language, and more intelligent use of pictorial aids to give 'some real hint of the brain and character
behind the voice'. Listeners had shown that they did not likecaricature: `humorous distortion of their favourite broadcasters
always arouses their resentment'. They had shown too thatthey were insufficiently sophisticated to appreciate 'the modern
style of illustrative design'. They had a tremendous unappeased
desire to have more running commentaries and eye -witness
accounts of sporting events. It is easy to see from Maschwitz's
development of these themes why the Radio Times was a centreof ideas about programmes during the 1920S and t 93os and not
simply a recording agency for the programmes which had
already been planned.
The second purpose of the Radio Times, Maschwitz went on,
was to serve as 'the Listeners' Magazine'. This meant that it
had to have editorial matter, with a minimum requirement,
however great the demand for advertising space, of seven pages.
This matter should consist first of general or leading articles,
not articles by `great men' published for reasons of prestige
but genuine contributions to the critical appreciation of radio.
`Broadcasting has, one feels, since the day when its sheer
mechanical novelty wore off, suffered from disregard as an Art.
There is not growing up round the Art of Broadcasting that
strife and contention, that nucleus of critical writing, which has
grown up round the other Arts. There is, indeed, a tendency tolook upon it not as an Art but as a bastard form of the other
Arts. Listeners do not give it the same critical attention they
award the Drama and the Cinema, for example. The reason forthis may be that Broadcasting is too "easy" to listen to or that
there is a general unexpressed impression that it is second best.'
Alongside articles designed to promote a more critical appreciation of particular programmes, there should also be articles
setting out 'the various major changes in the policy and serviceof the Corporation'.
Maschwitz said that he had ruled out the reprinting of talks,
for which there had been a great demand, on the grounds thatunless they were almost all to be reprinted, the listener would
become even more disappointed than he was with none. He

284

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD
was prepared to change his mind on this point, however, andhe thought that it was a good idea always to print a note,`Points from Talks'. Articles on music he particularly welcomed,
and he intended to make the most both of `Listeners' Letters'
and of the gossip pages of the paper, which he knew were very
widely read. `Whether regrettable or not, the reader today
likes his facts served up in this particular form, and many newspapers today owe a great percentage of their circulation figures
to a well-edited gossip page.' He ended his document with amost effective peroration. 'My ambition for the Radio Times is
no purely journalistic or commercial one (my own belief in,and enthusiasm for, Broadcasting would never permit this) but
I should be doing less than my duty by the paper if I did notwish both its circulation and its revenue to be as great as
possible.»
Circulation had in fact trebled by the time Gorham wrote
his `manifesto' in 1934.. Guy Rice, who had been Secretary of
the old British Broadcasting Company, was still Business
Manager, but there had been several changes, as enterprising
young men like Laurence Gilliam made their way to otherbranches of the BBC. The biggest change of all was that withthe launching of The Listener some of t he purposes that Maschwitz
had underlined now belonged more properly to the new paper
than to the old. `There is no attempt to make the paper aliterary weekly', Gorham began, therefore, in 1934., `competing on the ground of literary contents with the old-fashioned
literary weeklies (the circulations of which, incidentally, generally range between ten thousand and fifty thousand copies).''The present policy', he went on, 'is based on the belief thatwhat readers of the Radio Times want [the emphasis is interesting] is every kind of information that can help them to appreciate broadcast programmes. This does not preclude occasional
humorous articles, nor occasional articles on the wider aspectsof broadcasting; but it does mean that the standard feature of
the paper is no longer the page essay, which I have seen
described in a letter of introduction given to a contributor(before my time) as "needing to have only the remotest connection with broadcasting".'
Gorham welcomed the recent relaxation of the `anonymity
I*E. Maschwitz, `Radio Times, Editorial Policy', 16 Jan. 1928.

SPOKEN AND WRITTEN

285

rule' on the grounds that listeners liked to feel that they 11 ere
listening to 'real people'. He intended, he said, to start a newfeature called `People You Hear and People You Don't Hear',giving a piece of personal matter about a well-known broadcaster alongside material about a 'man behind the scenes' who
was never heard on the air. He admitted that the trouble inside
the BBC was that the people the Radio Times most wanted to
publicize were often those who were most difficult to approach.
The programme section was, he thought, quite satisfactory,
although some Programme Departments sent him material lateso that he could not make the best use of it or did not tell him
which they thought would be the really important programmes
to feature. The brighter the programme pages, the better
would be the circulation. As things stood, there were marked
seasonal fluctuations, aggravated in 1934, he claimed, by theextremely unpopular attempt of the BBC to introduce a twenty four-hour clock. 'The paper picked up well after the summer
slump [when incidentally there was always a marked fall in thesale of radio receivers]-the Tenth Anniversary Number createda certain amount of friendly interest, and the Christmas Number
was a notable peak.' There had also been a rise in January,
when a new make-up was introduced. Summing up, he concluded that 'the paper is healthy and ready to develop in scope
as well as in circulation'.
The two-fold function of the Radio Times is, I take it [he concluded
in his peroration], to achieve the largest possible circulation andto give the most helpful kind of service ancillary to broadcasting.
For both these purposes, it is essential to consider the really average
listener; the person we have been accustomed to personify, in theoffice, as 'the cabman's wife'. This really average listener willprobably buy the paper primarily for the programme pages; thatis why they will always remain the backbone of the paper.... [Yet]to make such listeners read as much as possible of the Radio Times,
and to make what they read there help them to understand andappreciate their broadcast programmes is our obvious goal. To
attain it, it is necessary to avoid being highbrow but not necessary
to be cheap.'

Broadly speaking, this remained the policy of the Radio Timesthroughout Gorham's long tenure of office. And it is interesting*M. Gorham, 'The Radio Times', 1 June 1934.

286

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

to note what an able staff he managed to build up, given theseobjectives. As a former Art Editor, it was natural that he should
pay particular attention to illustrations and covers, and there
were, indeed, many fascinating achievements, particularly
Special Numbers, which remain interesting relics of the art ofthe 193os. Every school of artist was represented from Frank
Brangwyn to Austin Cooper, and there were two particularly
good colour covers in 1937, one for the Coronation by H. W.
Nevinson and one for a Woman's Number by Rex Whistler.
Until 1935 Radio Times drawings were done mainly by Arthur
Watts, who had made his name with drawings in Punch, andafter his death in an aeroplane crash a very different kind ofartist was engaged, Bob Sherriffs, who remained in the post
until 194o. Watts and Sherriffs used to illustrate each week
Gorham's own column, 'Both Sides of the Microphone'.
An equally remarkable group of writers on music was also
assembled. They included Ralph Hill, who later became music
editor of the Daily Mail, and Gerald Abraham, who later
became Professor of Music at Liverpool University. The Music
Editor was Felix Goodwin. Another field in which Gorham wasparticularly interested was television. He appreciated very
quickly the potentialities of a medium which he was later tocontrol, and employed as television writer Harold Rathbone,
a great enthusiast also, who was killed during the Second
World War.'

If Gorham was interested in the `average' listener-a somewhat dangerous concept-R. S. Lambert, the highly talented
editor of The Listener, was interested in the serious student. The
idea of a magazine which would back up the then dubious
authority of the spoken word with the sacred authority of thewritten word was first mooted by the Hadow Committee.2
A journal, it was felt, would supplement pamphlets and assist`follow-up'. Many memoranda were written, however, before
it was finally decided to plump for a `popular two -penny'rather than a `stately sixpenny', and there was even an argument about whether the title The Listener was appropriate.
For these and other details, see M. Gorham, Sound and Fury (t948), especiallychapter vi.
2
See above, p. x86.

SPOKEN AND WRITTEN

287

Nicolls, who was then General Editor of Publications, played
an active part in these discussions, and Lambert set to work in
the autumn of 1928 to produce the first `dummy' numbers.'
There was immediate opposition from almost every quarter.
The publishing interests accused the BBC of entering a field
which was not its own, while the existing weeklies raged against
unfair competition. Lord Riddell and Sir James Owen, in particular, were so incensed that they decided to appeal direct to
the Prime Minister. Never could there have been a bigger row
about the launching of an innocent non-political journal.
The Financial News led the first attack, which was followed
up with vigour by the New Statesman. `It is without doubt
a profit -making proposition,' the Financial News complained,'and is an illegitimate stretching of official activity.'z 'The project is thoroughly objectionable, ought never to have beenauthorised, and ought, even at the eleventh hour, to be abandoned', editorialized the New Statesman.3 The flood of criticism
carried with it some of the popular dailies, but it was the New
Statesman which enjoyed itself most. 'That the BBC should seek
to invade the press with a view to influencing the publicthrough its eyes as well as its ears seems to us to a wholly inAre we presently totolerable and indefensible proposition
Mail?'4
have a BBC Times and a BBC Daily
The Spectator came to the defence of the BBC. 'A few of theextreme champions of private trade seem to us to have exaggerated their grievance.' It did not claim that the BBC was
wrong to move over from the spoken word to the written word
-oddly enough, in this context, G. D. H. Cole had been its
biggest advocate-but it urged it to be cautious in its advertising
policy. 'The BBC has performed a great service in bringing
backward minds all over the country to a dawning recognitionof what is good and what is bad in the spoken word.' Could not
the same service be performed now with the written word as
well? `There is one way in which the BBC could take all thesting out of its proposed enterprise, and that is by refraining
from competing with existing papers for the custom of advertisers.'S It is difficult not to see in the background of both gentle
1*BBC Press Release, 3 Jan. 1929.
New Statesman, 28 Dec. 1928.

4

Ibid.

=

Financial News, 7 Dec. 1928.

3

Spectator, 12 Jan. 1929.

288

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

remarks of this kind and the fierce remarks of the New Statesman
the fear of a minority counterpart to the majority Radio Times.
From the literary cavalry of the New Statesman and the Spectator, the battle moved to the big battalions in December 1928,
when the formidable quartet with whom the BBC had had somany dealings-the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, theNewspaper Society, the Periodical Trade Press, and the Weekly
Newspaper Proprietors' Association-appealed direct to the
Postmaster -General. They asked him to receive a deputation ofprotest against the proposed publication of The Listener on the
grounds that it was 'an undesirable incursion by the Corporation into the newspaper and magazine publishing business' andthat the BBC was taking unfair advantage of its Charter.
The Postmaster -General refused to receive the deputationso, nothing daunted, the Big Four then directed their attention
at the Prime Minister himself. They wrote a letter on 3 January
claiming that 'the BBC was diverting trade from legitimate
trade channels', and persuaded the Prime Minister to receive
the deputation. The Newspaper Proprietors' Association sought
to strengthen its argument, which was very fully backed bymost other press interests, by pointing out that it represented
from two to three hundred million pounds of capital. `It is
curious', Lambert noted laconically, 'that a Socialist weekly
should have been the means of setting in motion such a gigantic
block of capitalist power, and that the leading Socialist daily
should not have dissociated itself in any way from this claim
on behalf of the sanctity of private enterprise.» Gladstone
Murray, however, had a more shrewd idea of what was happening. When the attack reached its height 'on all vulnerable
points', he saw behind it the influence of Lord Riddell as a kindof agent provocateur. `If the Corporation remains steady,' he went
on, 'all will be well.'z
Reith was abroad in Switzerland when the attack was raging,and he returned to England ín a thoroughly bellicose mood himself. He had been the most powerful advocate of a serious BBC
journal, and he was determined not to allow Lord Riddell and
Sir James Owen to manoeuvre with the Board of Governors tostop the BBC from doing what he wanted. `Apparently every
2

Ariel and All His Quality, p. 102.
*WV. E. G. Murray, Notes of 7 Jan. 1929.

SPOKEN AND WRITTEN

289

newspaper in the country is trying to prevent our publishing it',he wrote on 7 January 1929. `I was not the least bit worried if
only the damn silly Governors would keep out of it.'1 As soon
as he got back, lie went to see the Prime Minister himself;suggesting plainly that Baldwin should tell Riddell's committee
to see what it could do with the BBC before bothering him.2
The next day Riddell telephoned Reith and fixed up a meeting.
Reith had been expecting a committee of three or four people.
There were, in fact, thirteen or fourteen. 'They had evenmobilised the printers.' Reith himself was alone-`deliberately
so'. He told Lord Riddell, Sir James Owen, J. J. Astor, and theother press representatives to their faces that they had been
unwise not to consult the BBC before appealing to the Prime
Minister. Reith created a remarkable impression. `Riddell droveme back to Savoy Hill; he said he thought I would be Prime
Minister one day.'
After meeting the press representatives, Reith went back to theBoard of Governors carrying a short statement, with which theyagreed. He then met the press committee again-by himself-and within an hour got them to accept his statement in placeof a long and, to Reith, unacceptable memorandum by Riddell.
The press delegation was then received by the Governors, thatpart of the proceedings lasting for ten minutes. The result wasa settlement which was very favourable to the BBC, and Baldwin sent for Reith to tell him how pleased he was about theway things had worked out. The BBC had got its serious journal, much to the delight not only of Reith but of Lord Justice
Sankey and the members of the Adult Education Council. The
Corporation made it clear, however, that it did not want topublish much material in The Listener other than broadcast
talks, and that there would be no difficulty in a figure of to percent. as the maximum for other kinds of material. This was
put on record, and the BBC also promised not to accept for The
Listener more advertisements than were `strictly necessary'. With
the agreement signed, the first number of The Listener came out
as planned on 16 January.
The restraint on advertising helped The Listener, and the2

Reith, Diary, 7 Jan. 1929.
Into the Wind, p. 129. The account which follows draws heavily on this source,

pp. 129 ff.
C 1995U

290

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

ro per cent. quota was conceived of so flexibly that it proved
no barrier to Lambert's plans for the new journal. The noiseof battle very quickly subsided, and The Listener took its proper
place among British weeklies. Lambert wrote a most interesting
memorandum on his plans in July 1930. `There need be no
despondency about the circulation', he began, `although there
might be room for a feeling of depression about the size of theintelligent reading public in this country.' Of the alternate waysof treating the periodical, the first as a narrowly educational
paper, the second as 'a vehicle of general culture', Lambertunhesitatingly preferred the second. He felt, however, that theperiodical had three weaknesses. It lacked editorial personality,
it had a certain monotony and 'lack of elasticity' arising from'the printing of so many serial talks', and it did not containenough book reviews. The first defect could be remedied intime although remedies would all fall short of giving the editor
the full independence of, say, the editor of the .New Statesman;and the second and third needed immediate attention. Nicolls
also was quite sure that 'from every point of view it would bea mistake to lower the "brow" of the paper'.'
The `brow' was not lowered, and The Listener soon became
renowned not only for the quality of its book reviews but for
the variety of its intellectual fare. The issues for July 1930, themonth when Lambert was preparing his memorandum, included articles by Sir John Simon on 'The Future of Indian
Government', Ivor Brown on 'The Game of Cricket', Solly
Zuckerman on `Monkeys and Men', Leonard Woolley on`Treasures of the Grave', Sir Henry Hadow on 'The Universities
and Industry', and Beatrice Webb on `Taking the Strain off
Parliament'. There was also a supplement on `Race and Labour'by the anthropologist, Bronislaw Malinowski. New novels werereviewed by V. Sackville-West, Harold Nicolson wrote on`People and Things', Lambert had an editorial on televisioncalled `Looking -In?', and there was an advertisement for
Beecham's Imperial League of Opera.
Advertisements and correspondence are almost as interesting
to the historian as the articles and reviews. The reviews, however, were of high quality, since Janet Adam Smith and J. R.
Ackerley, who succeeded her as review editor, were people ofI*Note of 1 July 1930.

SPOKEN AND WRITTEN

291

sensitivity and style who brought to the periodical a wealth ofexperienced writers, including poets and novelists. From time
to time new features were introduced, including 'News Reel' in
1935-this brought welcome congratulations from the Advertising Manager'-and the photographs of the late 193os wereof a high quality which has never since been excelled. Radio
criticism began with Grace Wyndham Goldie's appointment
as radio drama critic in April 1935. It followed talks between
Lambert and Gielgud, the latter being `enthusiastic for theidea'.2 Mrs. Wyndham Goldie's eminent suitability for theappointment is shown in the first article she wrote, in which she
stressed that there could be no effective radio criticism `basedon ignorance of the conditions of work'. 'The physical limitations imposed upon any art by the material through which it
works determines its form, and it is impossible to criticise without knowing what they are.'3 This was a good start to radio'sdeliberate self-criticism. There followed in March 1938 theregular feature `Critic on the Hearth, Comments of a Casual
Listener'.4 As for the main staple of The Listener, the broadcast
talks, they imparted to it, as Lambert remarked, something of
the quality of an anthology. The paper had 'a subtle quality,
rather akin to the flavour of fine wines, which many palatescannot appreciate'.5
The publication of talks raised, of course, far more profoundquestions about the relationship between the written and the
spoken word. Miss Matheson and Siepmann were at pains totreat the Talk as a separate art form: they did not care whether
it read well or not, if it sounded right.6 This made them distrust
editorial tidying up in The Listener office. They wanted something nearer to a Hansard of talks than Lambert was willing toconcede. The result was an undercurrent of controversy which
was made no easier when the unscripted talk and discussion
began to come into their own and posed even more problems
for the editor of The Listener.? Lambert complained also that*,Judson to R. S. Lambert, 5 Nov. 1935.
*Lambert to W. E. G. Murray, 18 Apr. 1935.
3 G. Wyndham Goldie, 'At the Broadcast Play' in The Listener, 22 May 1935.
4
The Listener, 23 Mar. 1938.
Ariel and All ¡lis Quality, p. 116.
6 See above, pp. 125-6.
7 *R. S. Lambert, `Editing The Listener', 2 Feb. 1938.
I

2

292

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

in 1936 talks lacked `outstanding names and arresting subjects' and failed to provide 'journalistic attraction'.' He remained editor until January 1939, surviving the furore of theMongoose Case.2 Eventually he retired of his own choice when
he felt that he wanted a new kind of work.
Lambert was essentially an individualist, interested in the`circle' which broadcasting was creating, the writers, poets,novelists, and artists who ín some sense were being drawn
towards the `Establishment' of the BBC. It is revealing to notethat in his book Ariel and All His Quality he makes no judgements about listener research, which was one of Maurice

Gorham's favourite preoccupations as editor of the Radio Times.
Gorham was interested, above all else, in listeners: Lambert in
the listener. Yet both men were, after all, a part of the circle
themselves, critics of Reith yet directly associated with the projection of the BBC's philosophy of broadcasting. From time totime Lambert wrote editorials on British broadcasting in international perspective. In 1934, for example, he comparedcriticisms of British radio with criticisms of American radio,
noting that there was 'a close connection between the kind oforganisation built up and the kind of programme which isoffered to the listener'.3
Outside the London circle, far from the `Bloomsbury Circle'
which H. A. L. Fisher quite erroneously felt was exerting too
much influence in the counsels of The Listener,4 were the broadcasting circles of the regions. What broadcasting was doing or
not doing there raised a quite different set of questions, someof them, however, of an equally controversial character.
' R. S. Lambert to S. Tallents, 2o.July 1936 (Tallents Papers).
2
See below, PP. 472-3.
3 The Listener, 3 Jan. 1934. Lambert pinned this editorial on a talkby Ernest
Barker on 'The Constitution of the BBC' and an American book by H. Hettinger
called A Decade of Radio Advertising. He also quoted a Literary Digest straw vote ofAmerican readers' radio dislikes. They included 'trashy, coy, cute, patronising,
wise -cracking announcers', 'thrillers bad for children', and 'children trying to singsex songs'.
4 *Dote by Sir Stephen Tallents on a conversation with H. A. L. Fisher, roNov. 1937.

(293)

3. Regional Broadcasting
ONE aspect of increased social inquiry in the late 193os was
unprecedented interest in the life of the regions. 'BBC staff
resources are very small whether for establishing comprehensive
public relations throughout the country or for tapping local
programme resources,' Tallents wrote in August 1937. 'Thissuggests that each Region should be surveyed on a plan, andthat the results should be systematically recorded, and madeavailable to the different departments of the Regional staff."
This interest marked a new phase in the story of regional
broadcasting, one of the most important of the BBC's inter-war
ventures. In 1935 Charles Siepmann, on leaving the Talks
Department, had been appointed Director of Regional Relations. He produced a fascinating Report on Regions in January
1936, in which for the first time an official of the BBC fully
explored the social and cultural aspects of regional broadcasting. `After nearly ten years of concentrated work in London,'he began, `I could not fail to be impressed by contrasts in theconditions and attitudes of mind which obtain outside London[yet everywhere] I found a common pre -occupation
with the dangers resulting from the increasing tendency foradministrative, cultural and industrial concentration in the
London area.'2 These comments raised issues which had deeproots and which spread over into many other activities besides...

broadcasting.
The origins of the BBC's 'Regional Scheme' belong to a muchearlier period, and concern different personalities and problems. They are related to an engineering background-to
questions concerning the need for 'more extensive broadcasting',
which had been raised before the Company was converted intoa Corporation.3 Given that a limited number of wavelengths
were available for the development of British broadcasting,
how were the wavelengths best to be used in the interests of a
*Tallents to all Regional Directors, 17 Aug. 1937. At a meeting of 8 Oct. 1937,
at which Reith was present, all the Regional Programme Directors expressed theirinterest in Listener Research. (Xote by Tallents, 13 Oct. 1937.)
2*C. A. Siepmann, Report on Regions, Jan. 1936, p. 2.
3

Sec The Birth of Broadcasting, esp. pp. 213-27.

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

294

growing radio public? The original Regional Scheme was aplan for building five high-powered twin -wave stations-thestrength of transmission on each wavelength being more or lessthe same-to supersede the older system of nine main transmitting stations and eleven subsidiary relay stations of low power.'
The nine main transmitting stations had been locatedin London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff,
Glasgow, Aberdeen, Bournemouth, and Belfast,2 and the eleven
relay stations were in or near Sheffield, Plymouth, Edinburgh,
Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Nottingham, Dundee, Stokeon-Trent, and Swansea. The `relay station' policy had beeneffective in increasing coverage at a time when the BBC wishedto increase licence revenue yet could not employ large amountsof capital. It was impossible to extend it, however, partly`because the nations of Europe were rapidly building up similarsystems and interference between stations even within theirproper service areas was growing acute', partly because thescheme did not meet the needs of listeners outside the densely
populated urban areas.3
In place of the local network, therefore, it was suggested byPeter Eckersley that there should be a number of `Regional
stations', serving the needs not only of townsfolk but of countrydwellers. The building of Daventry, a genuinely pioneer experiment in long -wave high -power broadcasting, permitted 'theexperimental beginnings of a Regional Scheme'. Reliance onrelay stations had `consolidated the Company's resources andmade Daventry possible'.4 The opening of the new station, thebiggest broadcasting station in the world, in July 1925 ensured
that 94 per cent. of the population of Britain could enjoy practically uninterrupted reception of a `National' (5XX) programmes As the Regional Scheme evolved, each of the five
For the development of this pre -regional system, see The Birth of Broadcasting,PP. 215 ff.

2 The scheme of building British broadcasting around these station points had
been put forward before the Company came into existence. Bournemouth wassubstituted for Plymouth, however, and Belfast added to the list after Eckersley's
appointment. See kl'. P. Eckersley, Regional Scheme Report, 20 June 1927. This wasan important document of sixty pages.
+ BBC Handbook (1928), 'The Regional Scheme', p. 6o.
Ibid.
s The predecessor of 5XX was an experimental long -wave station at the Marconi
works at Chelmsford. It began to function in July 1924. See The Birth of Broadcasting,pp. 223-4.
D

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

295

new high -power twin -wave transmitters was designed to transmit two programmes-the first its own, and the second the`National' programme, originating in London and transmitted from Daventry.
Before Daventry was opened Peter Eckersley, the Chief
Engineer of the BBC, had already conceived of regional broadcasting. The idea came to him, he has written, in 1924.' At
that time it was a particularly bold and imaginative idea., forthere were only a million licence -holders in the whole country.
His purpose was not to tap reserves of local talent in Britain,
the programme builder's notion,2 or to seek to give provincial
culture a new place in the Britain of the future.3 What hewished to do was far more simple-to make a start, throughregional broadcasting, on the necessary task of giving listeners
in all parts of the country the chance of listening to `alternative
programmes'.
He began by stating the problem in technical terms. `Thereis an analogy which, if a little far-fetched, is nonetheless essentially sound. The problem of broadcasting distribution is notunlike that of trying to illuminate a square or market placewith red and blue light so that two colours (red and blue) canbe seen and appreciated everywhere. There are two problems(a) to keep the actual illumination constant over the areal (b)never to have a preponderance of either red or blue. Problem(a) is best solved by having the greatest number of lamps
practically possible and problem (b) is solved by making pairsof lamps so that one colour can never dominate.'4
Because of the shortage of wavelengths not only in Britain
but in Europe, a shortage which had become so acute that it
had speeded up the formation of the International Broadcasting
Union to `regulate the ether',5 the most that could be offered tothe majority of British listeners was a choice of two programmes.
Sec ibid., pp. 396-7. See also P. P. Eckersley, The Power Behind the Microphone(1941), esp. ch. vii, 'The Regional Scheme'; Radio Times, 7 Mar. 193o.
2 Sec above, pp. 26 ff.
3 See, for example, BBC Annual (1936) \chich spoke of the effort of the BBC 'to
employ and foster the characteristic resources of each part of the country' (p. 26).
4*The Regional Scheme Report, 20 June 1927.
The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 315 ff., discusses the origin of the IBU, described
there under its French name, the Union Internationale de Radiophonie. See also
below, pp. 339 ff.
5296

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD`Two', Eckersley rightly thought, 'were at any rate better thanone.'1 'One man's meat is another man's poison, and without
the possibility of alternative programmes a great deal of irritation is caused to listeners because of continual compromise.'2
Eckersley hoped that alternative programmes would `contrast'with each other. `What are we going to do to ensure a realcontrast?' he asked. 'What can be contrasted? Talk and Music?
But suppose Sir Oliver Lodge (who is popular because he isfallacious) and Melba singing in Bohéme occur simultaneously,
the listener is faced with embarras de richesse.'3
Although the distinction between `Home' and `Light' was
not anticipated at this juncture, there was talk inside the BBCof `highbrow' and `lowbrow', and Eckersley himself realized
clearly that one way of ensuring `contrast' would be to use
one BBC programme to make a special appeal to minorities
and the other to cater for the wants of the majority. He drewa distinction between `universal' and `speciality' programmes,
claiming that each had its place. Yet he was more interested
in the fundamental point of choice than in the details of what
was to be chosen.
Reith was equally determined that listeners should have theright to choose. When a number of BBC officials suggested that
there was no need for alternative programmes, Reith pressed
the case for extending choice as well as `spreading the service'.
He agreed with Eckersley that a 'loss of interest in the service
as well as loss of pride of place in world broadcasting' would
occur if the Regional Scheme or something like it were not put
into operation.4
The matter was first discussed by the Board of the old Company in February 1925, when Reith told the other members'that there was an increasing demand by the public to hear
' For the shortage of wavelengths, see The Birth of Broadcasting,pp. 308 IT.; The
Power Behind the Microphone, p. 116; *Report on the Proposed Regional
Scheme by the Chief
Engineer, 1929, p. 3. 'Continental stations increased rapidly in number and,withthe limited number of channels available, caused mutual interferences....
Aftera study of the international situation
it became obvious that broadcasting, inwhatever country, should be based on the use of fewer transmitting stations thanused before, which had therefore to be of higher power.'' Regional Scheme Report, 20 June 1927.
3 Memorandum by the
Chief Engineer in Relation to the Distribution of theService, Nov. 1926.
4 Regional Scheme Report, 20 June 1927.

...

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

297

other stations' and that if the Company were 'to retain its
control of broadcasting, conditions somewhat approximate to
the American variety of stations would have to be instituted,
but naturally without the American confusion'.' He went on toback Eckersley fully when the Chief Engineer was working out
details of the Regional Scheme, even though he knew that thescheme would involve considerable dislocation of existing services, would seriously disturb the pattern of listening behaviour,and would take years to put into effect.

Don't trynd communicate with your naishbourr.

25. How Not to Use Wireless Equipment: A Bateman Cartoon

Choice had to be bought at a price. The dislocation would beconsiderable enough to entail abandoning most of the existingone -programme transmitters and acquiring new sites outside
cities yet near to the populous areas. Disturbance of listening
behaviour would be caused not only by the large-scale change
in wavelengths-never a popular procedure-but by theenforced obsolescence of many cherished, if crude, pieces ofwireless equipment. It was inevitable, indeed, in the new*Board Meeting, Minutes, 19 Mar. 1925.

298

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

conditions, that the owner of a valve set would have a great andincreasing advantage over the owner of a cheaper crystal set.
The `re-distribution of the service', as it was called at first,`would encourage crystal users to adapt their sets to valves,
since, under the higher powered scheme, they would be able
to hear stations other than their own, and in addition thoseoutside crystal areas would be given a choice of stations, themain stations being audible at much greater distances.'
For all these reasons the Board of the Company recognizedin February 1925 that the `scheme of redistribution' could only
be put into operation slowly, and that `plenty of time would
have to be given for the adaptation of manufacturers' policy
thereto'.' In particular, time was needed to develop equipment.
There was no such thing as a high -power transmitter in I925,
and the BBC itself had to develop transmitter designs whichwere put into production by the Marconi Company.

The Board knew also that there would be considerable difficulty in securing the consent of the Post Office to the development of a large-scale scheme of high-powered stations. The
Post Office had been `concerned at the power demanded' when
Reith first broached the proposals in very tentative form.2 It
asked for more details of the scheme and for an explanation of
the reasoning that lay behind it. It also warned Eckersley ofthe perils of disturbing `customers'. Each time a newer andbetter method had been introduced for calling a telephoneexchange, the public had been `vituperous' in their complaints
against the innovation: `people got into the habit of turning themagneto ringer when they called up, and the introduction of
the central battery system was looked upon (particularly byinfuriated colonels) as a definite deprivation'.3
In a letter of December I925 Reith set out the main pointsof the BBC's case for the approval of the Post Office.
We, who formerly were the pioneers of broadcasting in Europe
and of unified control in the world, are now losing our supremacy,
since Germany is expanding her service rapidly in terms of higher
power. Public and press criticism is accumulating against our pro2
1

*Board Meeting, Minutes, 19 Mar. 1925.
*R. A. Dalzell to keith, 9 Nov. 1925.
*Regional Scheme Report, 20 June 1927.

2.99
REGIONAL BROADCASTING
gramme policy. Alternative programmes give the only solution toan otherwise insoluble problem. Alternative programmes can only
be given with more wavelengths or higher power. The former ís
impossible owing to the international situation.... Objections to theuse of higher power within a defined waveband can only be raisedin terms of obsolescence of the apparatus or services which fear
jamming outside that waveband. t1 e feel that a legitimate expansionof a public service should not be hindered by difficulties which canbe eliminated. If specific objection is made that the harmonics of
our high-powered stations may interfere with existing services, wetrust that permission to carry out the scheme will be made conditional, and not dismissed on the score of a potential difficulty..'

This powerful plea did not move the Post Office to speedy
action, nor did the recommendation of the Crawford Committeethat the Postmaster -General should continue negotiations`which we understand have recently been initiated in connection with a scheme for new high -power stations'.z The newly
founded but short-lived Wireless Organizations Advisory Committee, set up in January 1927,3 expressed disappointment one
month after its inception that 'no apparent progress had been
made' with the scheme, despite popular feeling that such ascheme should have `matured before now'. It asked the Postmaster -General to find 'an early opportunity to reassure listeners
that a system of distribution effective for the transmission ofalternative programmes, will be fully expedited so far as his
department is concerned'.
The most that the Post Office had been willing to do in 1926
was to authorize the start of further experimental broadcastingat a new Daventry station, 'as a necessary preliminary to thedevelopment of the whole scheme'.4 Equipment for the newstation was ordered in the summer of 1926 and delivered in
March 1927. \Vith the knowledge that the Post Office had been
willing to go as far as this, the BBC advised the Wireless Organizations Advisory Committee that it would be unwise topress the Postmaster -General further. `It was quite possible,
indeed, that any further pressure exercised on the Post Office*Keith to Sir Evelyn Murray, 24 Dec. 1925.
Crud. 2599 (1926), Report of the Broadcasting Committee, p. 12.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 249-50.
14 Feb. 1927.
4 *Wireless Organizations Committee, Minutes,
2

D

300

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

now might prejudice the position later on when there was reallysomething to be gained.»More valuable at that point than outside public pressure,
Reith and Eckersley maintained, were the recommendations ofa detailed report on the technical side of the projected
scheme.
The report had been prepared by an independent committeeof experts, appointed by the BBC, consisting of Dr. W. H.
Eccles, the president of the Institution of Electrical Engineersand formerly a member of the Sykes Committee, Professor
E. V. Appleton, then of London University, and Dr. L. B.

Turner of Cambridge.
Throughout 1926 Eckersley had been perfecting the detailsof his `regional plan'. He had finally reached the point where heoffered a choice of four different ways of siting regional stations.
Technical factors predominated ín his detailed scheme. The
siting of the stations had to be determined first by the power tobe employed in the aerial, second by telephone facilities for
simultaneous broadcasting connexions, and third by the routesof power cables under the new Central Electricity Grid Scheme.
At the same time non -technical factors influenced final judgement. 'We had the choice of running along the line, LondonChelmsford-Colchester, or the line London-Derby. The Colchester route does not appeal, because so much of the fieldstrength will be wasted over the sea, and so more interference(however little there should be) will be caused with the shippingin the estuary mouth.... We cannot come south of
London,firstly because the wipe-out zone would prejudice the use ofreaching-out sets in an area which is densely populated withwell-to-do people, and also because of the non-existence ofpower and telephone facilities. It is furthermore doubtful
whether the south coast represents numerically so importantan area as that of the industrial Midlands.'2
Eckersley's plan, stated in the form of a timetable of development, won the approval of the Control Board and of the Boardof the Company. In addition to objections from the Post Office,however, there was opposition from a powerful section of thewireless trade. `Whilst no trade antipathy should stand in ourway,' Control Board decided, 'it was desirable to have a paid
' *Wireless Organizations Committee, Minutes, 28 Feb.
1927.
2 *Regional Scheme Report, 20
June 1927.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

301

consultative technical committee to investigate the scheme, as
the backing of such a committee unconnected with the trade
and the Post Office would be of considerable value." The
Eccles Committee was the result. It was asked to advise the
BBC whether Eckersley's scheme was the most satisfactory andefficient method of achieving 'what was desired'. `In the eventof agreement', were the further plans for its extension approved
and was it considered that there would be any justifiable opposition from the `users of the ether'? `In the event of disagreement',
could any alternative methods or any `lines of research to bringabout the same end' be suggested? The experts soon produced
an interim report strongly supporting Eckersley's proposals.
They accepted also the long-term plan of opening five twin wave stations, each costing up to £4o,000.
No other `users of the ether', they added, could justifiably
object. This was a useful point, since the Post Office was naturally sensitive to the interests of the Armed Services, in particular. Eccles and his colleagues added also that in reaching
their decisions they had given careful consideration to thelisteners' point of view, realizing that the regional scheme `affects
a large proportion of listeners technically and also in what may
be called "the civic sense"'. On both the technical details andthe social implications they were fully satisfied.2
The unanimity of the Eccles Committee was useful to the
BBC in strengthening its case with the wireless trade and thePost Office. So too was the experimental work at Daventry,
where the new station (5GB) was operating very successfully,
as Post Office engineers admitted, in its strictly limited broadcasts. Listeners who took their service from Daventry now had,at certain times of the day, a clear choice of programmes. The
success of this arrangement for this limited section of the listening public meant that the arguments for delaying the further
development of the scheme as a whole looked peculiarly flimsy.
'We believe that the inadequacy of the present distribution will
shortly create real embarrassment if steps are not quickly taken
to adapt the service to the enlarging requirements of the listening public', Reith wrote to the Secretary of the Post Office inJuly 1927.3*Control Board Minutes, 3 May 1927.
*Report of the Eccles Committee.
July 1927.
3 *Reich to Sir Evelyn Murray,
2

1

302

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

As a result of this letter a conference was held at the Post
Office on 19 July 1927 at which the representatives of the BBC-Reith, Carpendale, and Eckersley-met four representativesof the Post Office-W. T. Leech, E. H. Shaughnessy, Lt. -Col.
A. S. Angwin, and J. W. Wissenden-and representatives

ofthe Admiralty, the Air Ministry, and the War Office \Vireless
Telegraphy Board. F. W. Phillips of the Post Office was in thechair. All the old arguments were rehearsed again. Phillips
began by saying that the Post Office was `rather perturbed' atthe possibility of a large proportion of listeners being deprived ofany coherent programme unless they modified their sets and of
public outcry against the closing of the present main and relay
stations, and Air Commodore Blandy, on behalf of the Services,
expressed fear that there would be interference mith theiroperations. Tall masts were particularly dangerous, he maintained, and for this reason the Post Office normally placed atotal embargo on masts more than 15o feet high within an area
south and east of the Wash and the Bristol Channel. Had thisobjection been sustained, there could have been no pattern ofregional broadcasting.
A new argument for delay was also introduced into the discussion-that since there was to be a World \Vireless Conferenceat Washington in I927, a `permanent scheme' would be difficult to approve before then. When Leech asked Eckersley
whether the BBC was alone among European broadcastingorganizations in making proposals of the kind they were advocating, Eckersley replied that while `regional schemes' had alreadybeen adopted in Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Sweden,
no proposals for twin-power stations had been formulated.
`The BBC', he added proudly, `desired to be pioneers in thisrespect.'
Eckersley was intensely irritated at this late stage of theargument by what he thought was 'the silliness of the bureaucrats'.' He foresaw no difficulties in putting across the Regional
Scheme if a patient policy of educating listeners in its implications were followed: 'The Regional Scheme must, of necessity,
be introduced gradually even to the extent of giving alternate
performances at a Regional Station and a Main Station for a' The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 123.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

303

time until the BBC and listeners were satisfied that they could
obtain a satisfactory service under the new Scheme. Preliminary
propaganda should be confined to generalities, such as enunciation of the general policy, "fewer stations, greater power", followed, when the Stations were nearly ready, by informative
articles in the public press.... The alteration of a crystal set
would cost only five shillings.' There would be no `overwhelming complaint' if there were proper `explanatory and educational
work'.
Reith, who said nothing at the meeting for two hours 'andthen dealt with the various points raised, and with some emphasis', felt that he `altered things completely'.' His forcefulcontribution successfully overrode most of the objections expressed except that of the need to wait until after the Washington Conference.2 Even though Reith pointed out in a letter to
Sir Evelyn Murray six clays after the meeting that he could notunderstand what possible bearing the Washington Conference
could have on the implementation of the scheme,3 the most that
the Post Office would do in July 1927 was to authorize regularscheduled programmes for Daventry 5GB from 2I August
onwards. On behalf of the Post Office, Leech insisted that no
publicity should be given to the 'main Scheme', which wasdependent, he said, on the building of high masts of 30o feetor more which could not at that time be authorized.4
The BBC was forced, therefore, to issue a statement in generalterms about the better service that would ultimately be provided by a Regional Scheme. 'The progressive improvement
in landlines attended by a corresponding development of programme technique and material synchronises happily with thepresent opportunity of improving the means of dístribution.'s
To Eccles, Eckersley was much more frank both about present
frustrations and future intentions: 'The Post Office have temporarily turned down the Regional Scheme. Their attitudeis that so much dislocation will be caused to listeners, that it
will place the Postmaster -General in an invidious position
Reith, Diary, 1g July 1927.
Post Office Conference, Minutes, 19 July 1927.
3 'Reich to Sir Evelyn Murray, 25 July 1927.
July
4 '`Basic Memorandum' attached to letter from Leech to Carpendale, 27
_

1927.
s

'BBC Press Statement, 29 July 1927.

304

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

inasmuch as he will have to take the Parliamentary responsibility. We, naturally, cannot accept this over -cautious attitude,
more particularly in view of the recommendations of your Committee. I do not think there is a lot to be done particularly, but
I think we should proceed just as if the Regional Scheme wasgoing to take place, only allowing certain time for negotiations.
The Post Office, at any rate, have consented to the putting of
5GB into service as an alternative to Daventry 5XX.'1
The BBC did, in fact, go ahead just as Eckersley said. Even
before the Post Office Conference met, the Control Board had
decided to follow up 5GB with the building of new stations
near London and Manchester. Cardiff and other regional
stations were to follow later.2 The formal opening of 5GB in
August 1927 gave a foretaste of some of the problems-andopportunities-that lay ahead. The older Daventry Station(5XX) was broadcasting the London programme at this time
on a long wavelength. Station 5GB, on a medium wavelength
and with greater power -3o kilowatts against 25-was used
to provide a `contrasting' programme of the kind that Eckersley
had advocated and the Control Board had agreed upon.
To simplify wavelength problems, however, and to cut costs,
5GB replaced the older station of lower power (5IT) in Bir=mingham. Many of the programmes of the new station originated from the Birmingham studio. Listeners in Birmingham,
however, had to adapt their listening conditions in the newcircumstances. Eckersley knew that while they would be able
to receive adequate signals from 5GB, the signals would besomewhat weaker than those to which they were accustomed.
Unfortunately on the night of the changeover, many Birmingham listeners, unaware of the technical subtleties of the transfer, heard nothing at all when the new station went on the air.
The result was a wave of public protest which only graduallysubsided. The Post Office received 3,000 complaints andEckersley himself estimated that 2 per cent. of the Birmingham
listening public gave up their wireless licences.3 A Birmingham
clergyman made a particularly eloquent protest that his poorer
Iz3*Eckersley to Eccles, 22 July 1927.
*Control Board Minutes, 29 June 1927.
*Report on the Proposed Regional Scheme by the Chief Engineer, 1929, p. 27; Post

Office Archives.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

305

parishioners could not afford to buy sets good enough to pickup the new 5GB programmes. As late as February 1928 complaints were still being received by the Post Office 'at the lateof over too per week'.'As the protests subsided, however, and alternative programmes (5GB and 5XX) could be picked up satisfactorily in
Birmingham, the example of Birmingham could be held up
both to the nation and the Post Office. 'We could cite a contented Birmingham as the justification of the Regional schemeand the chi-kying of the critics became less violent. But it had
been "a damned close -run thing" as Wellington said of Waterloo.'z

The closing of 5IT and the opening of 5GB had nothing to
do with the arguments for and against regional broadcasting as
such. It was not until 1930, indeed, that the term `National'
programme was introduced to describe the older Daventry 5XX
transmission. The argument was pursued in 1927 only in termsof `alternative programming'. At first Eckersley himself had
not anticipated the wholesale abandonment of the old local
relay stations which had been built in 1923 and 1924. In a noteprepared in November 1925 he had admitted that `relay
stations foster a provincial enthusiasm difficult to appreciate
in London'.3 In a later memorandum of November 1926 hehad written that such local stations could be useful in the future
in providing afternoon transmissions to schools, `fostering local
interest by means of the children's hour', broadcasting accountsof local dinners and `speeches by local men', and providing`local news'. Someone at Savoy Hill-unidentified-scribbled alarge pencilled question mark against each of Eckersley's four
points.
Eckersley had envisaged the local stations broadcasting local
programmes for strictly limited hours and not being used torelay either `Regional' or `National' programmes. In fact, therelay stations were very quickly closed down as the Regional
Scheme took shape-the first of them, Nottingham, in 1927.
The crucial decisions were taken at a meeting of the Control'

Minute by F. W. Phillips (Post Office Archives).

2

The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 122.

3

*Unpublished Memorandum, 'The Distribution of the Service', Nov. 1925.
C 1995

X

306

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

Board on 17 November 1926. It was at this meeting that the
BBC decided to substitute high-power twin-wave regional
stations for the existing main stations at Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff, and London, to abandon the name `relay
station', to restrict the time and range of programmes from the
newly styled `local broadcasting stations' and ultimately toabolish them altogether. `It is decided that during the next five
years a gradual elimination of all stations other than Regional
will take place unless technical methods can be devised to meetthe problem of their retention.'
The Control Board, however, went further than this. In all
its previous discussions of the Regional Scheme it had been
mainly concerned with technical questions and related questionsof finance. On Io November 1926 and again on 17 November,
however, it wrote into the projected scheme cultural presuppositions which had nothing to do with technical factors, but agreat deal to do with finance. No provincial station, it was
decided, was to do anything which could be better done from
London, and in normal circumstances it was in London that'the best talent and the greatest facility' were available.
`Occasionally a provincial hall or studio may be the originator',
but the scope of local programmes was to be narrowed drastically in the future. Although provincial orchestras were tocontinue at the Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff, and Belfast
stations, the orchestras at Newcastle, Bournemouth, and
Aberdeen would have to be reduced to octets on the completion of their contracts. 'The best can only be given where thefunds available are spent upon a few good programmes
sent S.B. [simultaneous broadcast]2 to many centres rather
than diluted to make every centre an originator of two programmes.'3
In 1926 London was thought of, almost without discussion,as the cultural metropolis, the place from which 'the best'
was most likely to come. Eckersley might argue, as the scheme
took shape, that 'the Regional Scheme exists to give certain
Regions programmes having Regional significance, or, to put
it another way, local culture',4 but finance inhibited Regional
1' *Control Board Minutes, 17 Nov. 1926.
2 For simultaneous broadcasting, see The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 216 if.
' *Control Board Minutes, to and 17 Nov. 1926.
4 *Report on the Proposed Regional Scheme by the Chief Engineer, 1929, p. 8. He had.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

307

Directors. Their `local culture' was considered to be inferior,
except in very special cases, to the `universal culture' of themetropolis.
Eckersley's brother Roger, who was Assistant Controller ofProgrammes in 1927 and 1928, was particularly `metropolitan'in his ideas and outlook. On 20 October I927 he wrote to Reith
suggesting that the `local nights' at the relay stations should be
gradually discontinued. `I think it is difficult to draw a hardand fast line to apply to all of them, but we might at all events
put the Stoke programmes to once a month instead of once a
fortnight as at present. Do you think it would be a good moment,
by way of gradually leading up to the Regional Scheme, toalter the rota to fortnightly instead of weekly at all or at any

rate certain of the Relay Stations?"
Reith had his answer ready. In a memorandum written
eárlier the same day he had pushed further the logic of theControl Board's discussions in 1926. He argued that it was
desirable 'to produce a circular memorandum making it plainthat it will not be interpreted as lack of initiative if fewer
activities are conducted [by stations outside London], and pointing out that the interests of the service in general come first
and that a separate show should justify itself as being efficientboth economically and artistically'.2
This policy was later confirmed in a Control Board minuteof great importance in November I928. At Roger Eckersley's
suggestion, 'the general principle was approved of provincial
programmes being concentrated on purely local material, and,as far as possible, of eliminating provincial programmes of asimilar character to those available in London at the salve
time'.3 In a memorandum from Eckersley to the local Station
Directors, this minute was interpreted to mean, 'Take from
London what you cannot (lo better yourself, and do yourself
what London cannot give you.'4
argued earlier that regional programmes should include `Regional programmes ofany sort reflecting a definite character of the Region they serve' (`The Distributionof the Service', 1925).
*Memorandum from R. H. Eckersley to Reith, 20 Oct. 1927.
2*Memorandum from Reith to V. H. Goldsmith and R. H. Eckersley, 20 Oct.
1927.
3
4

*Control Board Minutes, 21 Nov. 1928.
* Memorandum from Assistant -Controller (Programmes) to Scottish Regional

308

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

The cultural consequences of their policy were considerable,
particularly when, as we shall see, it became openly associatedin 1929 with a doctrine of `centralization'. The BBC was following all the other mass media of the early twentieth century inbolstering London's supremacy, and the proud `provincialism'of the Victorian age, already in tatters in many parts of thecountry, continued to fade unlamented until long after theSecond World War. Keith extolled the diffusion throughout
the country of 'the amenities of Metropolitan culture'.' Roger
Eckersley talked in 1928 of `fostering local debates and discussions', but he saw the main work of the provincial stations as
secondary, something which should be paid for only if there
were adequate funds in the purse.2
Before long his brother Peter was complaining that the`cultural side' of the Regional Scheme had been developed
badly. He had hoped that regional programmes would `reflect a
definite character of the Region they served'. Just before he left
the Corporation, indeed, he had prepared a very remarkable
Report on the Regional Scheme, in which he envisaged thecontrast between `National' and `Regional' programmes as acontrast between public and private enterprise. The regions
should be left to develop independently under private enterprise. `It is obvious that private enterprise broadcasting will
come in some form or another.... How much better to make abold and generous gesture now that it is possible to do so and let
evolution decide the survival of the fittest.' Such heretical talk
was a lively swan -song. 'With the responsibility for filling thesecond wavelength taken off his hands', Eckersley went on,'the BBC programme builder is freed of a lot of harassing work,
besides finding himself in possession of more funds for that work.
He may receive a much wanted stimulus in listening to otherpeople's work, he may in friendly rivalry put forward lessjaded productions.'3 Recollecting, not in tranquillity, how thescheme had developed after he left the BBC, he objected that'in practice the extra wavelength' had served as 'an adminiDirector, North Regional Director, and Station Directors at Birmingham, Cardiff,
Newcastle, Aberdeen, and Belfast, 28 Nov. 1928.
J. C. W. Reith, `Broadcasting and a Better World' in The Spectator, 22 Nov.
í93o.
2 *Memorandum of 28 Nov. 1928.
3*P. P. Eckersley, Report on the Proposed Regional Scheme (1929), pp. 91-92.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

309

strative convenience, not an extra facility to expand the scope ofthe service'.'
The Regional Scheme had come into operation on orthodox
lines, with all the inevitability of gradualness, as 'a logical development of BBC policy'.2 As if to emphasize the special placeof London in the system, the first twin -wave station to be built
was located near London. To the cultural and demographic
arguments there was now added a political one. The Earl of
Clarendon, the Chairman of the Governors of the BBC, told
the Postmaster -General on his own initiative at a meeting at
the Post Office in March 1928 that 'he did not want the Government to be unpopular in the London district because people
could not hear the new station in the year of a General Election'. Reith commented tartly that `there was much to fear
for them the other way round if they kept holding the Regional
Scheme up'.3 It was now three years since the first discussions
had taken place about Daventry 5XX. Permission to proceedwith North London was given only after the Washington Conference had come and gone and a further round of talks at the
Post Office had been completed.
The BBC went on to choose a 34 -acre site, 40o feet above
sea level on the Brookmans Park estate near the Great North
Road, fifteen miles from Charing Cross. Work began in July
1928 and was planned to take a year. Among the special
features of the station were two pairs of masts 200 feet high to
support the two aerials necessary for double transmission.4 The
station was connected to the studios at Savoy Hill by four Fost
Office telephone cable circuits, specially arranged to avoid
distortion.
Peter Eckersley had been 'very keen to have a building which
expressed the spirit of our enterprise'. Although the building
as.it finally appeared, with Guthrie as architect, was in Eckersley's opinion far better than the `Boys' Own Building Set in
Sixteen Pieces' which had originally been sketched by an
The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 127.
BBC Handbook (1928) p. 68.
1928. There
3 Reith, Diary, 22 Mar. 1928; *Control Board Minutes, 24 Apr.
had been a meeting at the Post Office on 22 March.
' For a good description of the Brookmans Park Station, see BBC rear Book
(1931), PP. 269-79.
2

310

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

architect who did not understand Eckersley's vision, it still 'fell
short' of his `imaginings'. Only the transmitter hall was, in his
view, an unqualified triumph. Eckersley never got his way completely. He thought of but resisted the temptation to urge thata motto should be placed at the entrance, `It is more blessed
to send than to receive'.'
Because of the great frost of 1929 the building programme wasdelayed for six weeks, and it was not until 2I October 1929 thatthe station began to function. When it opened, the old London
2L0 station, which had been located since April 1925 on theroof of Selfridges, was closed down. The problem of `dislocation' which had arisen in Birmingham could have arisen evenmore acutely in London. Listeners in Central London withina narrow radius of the old 2L0 transmitter now received asignal of only one -sixth the strength to which they were accustomed. Their new signal strength was more, incidentally, thanEast End listeners had enjoyed since the inception of broadcasting, but they were just as likely to be as upset by the change
as those listeners situated very near the new transmitter, whofound that they were `wiped out' by the thirty-fold increasein signal strength and were now incapable of listening to`foreigners'.
The example of Birmingham had been very useful to theBBC, however, and before the Brookmans Park station opened
R. T. B. Wynn, then head of the BBC's Technical Correspondence Section, had prepared a series of pamphlets dealing withevery expected question and complaint. Those listeners whofeared `dislocation' in 1929 were given immediate advice by
the BBC. Crystal set listeners in Park Lane were told to rely
on something more than a bit of wire round the living -roomand no earth listeners in Barnet were told to cut down thesize of their aerials. The pamphlet Crystal Sets and the Brookmans
Park Transmitter was distributed free of charge to large numbersof listeners. To make the transition easier still, a process of`sliding -in' was adopted. At first the new station radiated on
normal power only outside usual programme hours, for half
an hour in the morning and from midnight until i a.m. The
hours were gradually increased until the full take-over.
Although the main purpose in building the Brookmans Park:

The Power Behind the Microphone, pp. 124-5.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

31I

station was to permit London listeners to pick up two alternative programmes from the same station, it was not until g March
193o that a full daily service of `contrasted programmes' wasintroduced. This development also was heralded with a pamphlet, The Reception of Alternative Programmes, and a `slide -in'arrangement. The second transmitter radiated a scheduled
preliminary transmission for the first time on 9 December 1929
at a time when the first transmitter was not working this ,procedure was followed to enable listeners to tune in easily to thesecond wavelength. Hours of dual transmission were increased
first in the morning and late evening, and then for two evenings:

a week.

Correspondence about the changeover began to pour in to
Savoy Hill in January 193o after a questionnaire had been
published in the Radio Times, asking .for listeners' reactions to
the reception of the dual programmes (see p. 312).' By 9 March,when the two programmes began to be broadcast regularly side
by side, the correspondence had fallen off to a low level. The
public relations side of the BBC had made the changeover aseasy as possible. The experience gained, like the earlier experience of Birmingham, helped in the later development ofregional broadcasting.2

The second instalment of the Regional Scheme followed soonafterwards. Moorside Edge, the North Regional station, wasofficially opened on 12 July 1931. Great care had been taken
to choose the right site. If the station had been located on the
Lancashire plain, the densely populated areas of Yorkshire
would have been robbed of good signals: if the site had beenplaced near Leeds or Bradford, Lancashire would have suffered.
Eventually a site was acquired at Slaithwaite, near Huddersfield. It was on a windswept moor f, too feet above sea level,but it was mid -way between the most densely populatedareas of both Lancashire and Yorkshire. Two Soo -foot masts
were built to enable the station to serve a wider area than
Brookmans Park. North Region broadcast on the longest
medium wave allotted to the BBC in the European plan ofagreed national allocation of wavelengths, which had been
Radio Times, 17 Dec. 1929.
2

See BBC Yeas Book Om), pp. 387-92.

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

312

Number of letters and questionnaires in each week

O
Ó

N
O

Ó

W
CD
CDCD

Cn
CD

CD

Ó

CD

O

O'

O
O
O

z-!

O
O

CD

CD

O

CD

O
CD
O

O
O
CD

I

9 Dec. -Commencement ofDual Programme Tests
22 Dec.- Sunday Afternoon
added

17 Jan.- PublicationofQuestionnaire in Rod'o-Times
21 Jan-Date of 1st. Full_

Evening Dual ProgrammeWoP
27 Feb.-Announcement of Introductionof Fill Dual Programme Service
9 March -Introduction of Full
Dual Programme Service

Nv

April - British Summer Timecommenced
13

va N

20 Ipril-IEaster Sunday

NJ
CD

Dual Programmes from Brookmans Park: Listeners' Reactions, 1930.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

313

accepted by all European broadcasting organizations, including the Soviet Union, at Prague in April 1929.1
Other regional stations followed at different times during
the 193os. The Scottish Regional Station was opened at Wester glen, near Falkirk, in September 1932, and the west andWelsh Regional Station at \ashford Cross, watchet, in August
1933. There were consequent changes in both cases. With the
opening of the new high -power Scottish station, Aberdeen wasconverted into a relay station, with a changed wavelength, andthe Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee transmitters wereclosed. Soon after the opening of the West and Welsh Regionaltransmitter, the old Cardiff and Swansea transmitters weredismantled. The Plymouth and Bournemouth transmitterswere retained, however, since there were special difficulties
of reception in Cornwall, Devon, and Dorset.
Under the new arrangements, listeners in the remote Scottish Highlands still found reception difficult. The conversion ofAberdeen to a low -power relay -type station with a new exclusive
wavelength, specially borrowed from Poland, did not help
scattered listeners in north Scotland.2 Some would-be Welsh
listeners also had to wait until the division between \Vest andWelsh Regional in 1935 and the building of a new Welsh transmitter at Penmon in Anglesey in February 1937. Other regionaltransmitters opened in the late 193os were at Start Point andClevedon-for West Regional listeners-in 1939; at Burghead
and Redmoss, for Scottish listeners, in 1936 and 1938; and at
Stagshaw in Northumberland, sixteen miles west of Newcastle,
for North Regional listeners in Northumberland, Durham,
Cumberland, and \Vestmorland, in October 1937. The Northern Ireland transmitter at Lisnagarvey, about nine miles
south-west of Belfast, was opened in March 1936: it replaced
an older low -power transmitter, and was the first loo -kilowatt
medium -wave station to be built by the BBC.
With the building of these transmitters, the designs of whichwere prepared inside the BBC's own engineering department,
listeners in most parts of the country now had the opportunity of listening easily to alternative BBC programmes. The
See below, pp.

343-5

For details of Scotland, see BBC rear Book (,933), pp. 225 ff. For \Vales, see
the BBC rear Book (1934), pp. t61 ff.
z

314

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

network was greatly strengthened by the opening at Droitwich
in October 1934 of a new National station of stronger power toreplace Davcntry 5XX. The power of 15o kilowatts which it
employed was the maximum allocated under international
regulations. Droitwich could be received throughout the wholecountry, although, on account of electrical interference indensely populated areas, the `little Nationals' (the second of thetwin -wave transmitters) were retained at some of the regional
stations. Wavelength limitations continued to set the frameworkof necessity for the engineers: one long wave and ten medium
waves were all that they could exploit. Within this limitation,
however, the dream of the engineers had been fulfilled by 1939.
In the process, the number of users of crystal sets declined toa tiny minority. Exact figures are not available but an inquiry
in Germany, where conditions were not very different, showedthat in 1931 out of every hundred listeners there were eightyone owners of valve sets and only nineteen owners of crystal
sets. At the 1931 Radiolympia Exhibition there were only
three exhibits of headphones.' Home -produced wireless sets
also declined in numbers. By 1934 the home-made receiver
was described as a `comparative rarity'. `It is no longer able
to compete successfully either as regards price or performancewith the product of a manufacturer who has adopted the press
tool and the drilling jig to produce the metal chassis andquantity production methods which ensure minimum prices
and maximum reliability.'2
Alongside technical changes, there were substantial changesof organization and outlook. The closing of local transmitters
did not always imply the closing of local studios. The Cardiff
and Swansea studios, for example, were retained when the\Vashford Cross transmitter came into operation, and in Scotland studio facilities in both Glasgow and Edinburgh wereextended and modernized when the Westerglen station cameinto operation. Yet regional broadcasting altered the balance
between local centres as much as it emphasized the cultural
power of London. The cultural presuppositions, which had
first been debated in 1926 and were re-examined by Siepmann
2

BBC Year Book (1932), p. 3o.
BBC Year Book (1934), p. 427.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

315

nearly ten years later, were always factors in the development.
So, too, were finance and administration.
'The only authoritative criterion which he [Reith] had gig en-with respect to the inclusion of provincial matter', the Director -General wrote in 1932, 'had been on the basis of that which
was justifiable in the artistic and economic sense.'' It was during
the course of 1929 that BBC policy in London became more
explicit than it had been in Reith's and Roger Eckersley's
memoranda of 1926 and 1927, or even in the Control Board
minute of November 1928. The key word in the policy was`centralization'. It was used explicitly in a further Eckersley
memorandum of February 1929, and figures in all the correspondence passing between BBC officials in London and theprovinces.
After discussions by the Board of Governors, the Control Board,and a meeting of regional representatives, Reith sent rounda private and confidential memorandum headed 'Centralization' in April 1929. `Regional Directors are asked definitely', thememorandum stated, 'to accept the centralization policy, but
to be assured that every consideration has been given to the
problem. The disadvantages, of however definite a nature, suchas those to which they have referred, have been in my mind allalong. The local cultural loss should be, to a considerable
extent, offset by the quality of the London programme, and toa further extent by the activities still open to Regional Directors.'z
As part of the policy, orchestras had to be cut in size, mostof them to octets. Some local staff had to be declared redundant.
As Reith's memorandum was implemented, many notes wentout from London like that from Goldsmith, the Assistant Controller, to Edgar in Birmingham. `There appears no doubt
whatsoever that if the orchestral contracts are extended it will
not be beyond the end of September 193o, and even that extension will be due to factors which are not at present apparent.
As regards plays, the policy will be to do these only in London,
except where better or different material can be produced
locally, and in this case the play would probably be takenfrom an outside body of players. It would be uneconomic to'Memorandum of 3o May 1932.
2*Reith to the Regional Directors, 25 Apr. 1929.

316

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

maintain a special member of the staff for dramatic work at theRegional station for these rare occasions.»
This was the policy of centralization at its most bleak. Yet
Reith immediately qualified the bleakness in his memorandum.
`Whether it appears consistent or not,' he told the Regional
Directors, `I still believe that, in one way or another, it should
be possible for Regional Directors as fully as ever to exploit thecultural significance and importance of broadcasting under thecentralization system. The ways in which this can be done,
however, will be different in many respects. I do not think itshould be beyond the ingenuity and interest of Regional Directors to bring it about.'2 In a further statement of January 1930
Reith made similar points. He distinguished between centralization of control and centralization of content and insisted that`there would be a genuine attempt to make the transmissions
on the Regional wavelengths genuinely Regional in point ofview and in variety, providing a distinctive contrast to themore highly developed and standardised metropolitan programmes transmitted as "National". The organisation requiredin the provinces to achieve this purpose could be determined
only in the light of experience.'3
Ingenuity was shown by some of the Regional Directors,
although it was ingenuity within a framework which was atleast as limiting as the technical framework of one long wave
and ten medium waves was to the BBC as a whole. Some of the
Directors genuinely interpreted the policy as an invitation to
improve the quality of what they were doing, while reducing its
range: others put up a spirited defence of some at least of theactivities which it was suggested that they should cut. Edgar in
Birmingham, for instance, putting himself into the position of
the kind of independent entrepreneur whom Peter Eckersley
had envisaged as the Director of a different kind of Regional
Scheme, began several of his memos about staff with suchphrases as 'if I were running these offices on a sub -contract' or`I would unhesitatingly say that were I running broadcastingin the Midlands under ordinary commercial dividend paying
conditions, I would certainly have such a man.'4*Goldsmith to Edgar, 12 Aug. 1929.
*Reith to the Regional Directors, 25 Apr. 1929.
3*Control Board Minutes, 14. Jan. 1930.
4 *Edgar to Reith, 19 Feb. 1929.

2

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

317

The development of regional programmes and regional networks did not await the building of the high -power regionaltransmitting stations. An interesting Control Board minute of
September 1927, for example, states that the Director -General
had spoken to E. G. D. Liveing, the Manchester Station Director and later Director of the North Region, concerning 'thedesirability of gradually and tactfully acquiring ascendancy
over the smaller stations in his area as E. R. Appleton had done
over Swansea with a view to easier transference to the Regional
Scheme'.' A month later Douglas Clarke, who was then concerned with liaison work between London and the provinces,wrote that he visualized in a few years, 'with the Regional
Scheme in full working order, that the Central Station of each
Region will have its Regional Director and under him in threeparallel columns his Central Station staff, his outpost staff andhis experts. Regional Director will be at the top of the line.'
Clarke added that his picture was in line with 'that of Liveing
and others'. Local broadcasting was to be swallowed up inregional broadcasting.
The details of what happened in each region require separate
monographs, but the story of the North of England illustrates
many of the problems and the developments. As early as 1927,
before the Control Board minutes on centralization and four
years before the opening of Moorside Edge, there were efforts togroup together some of the scattered stations in the North. The
first move was to bring closer together the two Lancashire
stations of Liverpool and Manchester, the former a relay
station, the latter a main station since the beginning of broadcasting. Within a few months other northern stations were
exchanging programmes. During the summer of 1927 there
were frequent outside broadcasts heard throughout Lancashire
and Yorkshire of programmes from northern resorts as scatteredas Blackpool, Buxton, Morecambe, Scarborough, Southport,
and Harrogate. There were even `Huddersfield' nights. Eventsof special interest to northerners were given a regional coveragein 1928: they included the laying of the foundation stone of the
University College at Hull, the opening of the Mersey Tunnel,
and the `Roses' cricket matches at Old Trafford and Sheffield.
' *Control Board Minutes, 6 Sept. 1927.
*Note by D. H. Clarke, `Relay Stations', 19 Oct. 1927.

2

318

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

During the late summer and autumn of 1928 the process of`regionalization' went further. This was a time of `intensive
transition from the old individual stations to the collective
grouping'. t The relay stations at Liverpool, Leeds-Bradford,
Hull, and Stoke-on-Trent became subject increasingly to regionalpressures. The orchestra at the Manchester studio, which had
hitherto been engaged on weekly contracts, was made morepermanent and took the name of the Northern Wireless Orchestra in August 1928: it consisted mainly of members of the
Hallé.2 Two BBC Adult Education Councils were formed in the
North after a Conference at York in October 1928, the firstunder the chairmanship of the Vice -Chancellor of the University of Manchester, the second under the chairmanship of thechairman of the \Vest Riding County Council Education
Committee. Conferences of Station Directors were held toco-ordinate programme policy.
In September 1928 the title of `North Regional Director' was
first used, the earliest of the cluster of regional titles, and a month
later administrative activities were concentrated in Manchester. Liveing's position of supremacy in the North had been
expressed officially and in terms of organization. In a memorandum written some months after the change, Liveing spoke ofthe `advantages of Regional concentration'.
While we have added three officials to the Regional offices, wehave reduced officials at the relays by twelve.... Concentration
has resulted in a greater efficiency of operation (a) through the
opening up of interest in centres not hitherto touched and the improvement of local identification along specialist lines.
Our
Education Assistant has opened up a lot of new territory, and, without his efforts, it ís doubtful if, to mention School Broadcastingalone, the Education Authorities of Liverpool, Blackburn, Leeds
and elsewhere, would have granted large sums for experiments inschools. Auditions at the various centres are now properly regulated,
the Musical Director taking these. We have a wide knowledge of
the Press, and Press personalities throughout the Region, throughthe travelling of the Information Assistant. We have given a valuablestimulus to the repertory movement in the North, including theLeeds Art Theatre, the Liverpool Repertory Theatre, the Hull Little
Theatre, and the Sheffield Repertory Theatre, our Dramatic Assist.

'
2

BBC Year Book (1932), p. 278.
Control Board Minutes, Aug. 1923.
1.

.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

319

ant being employed for the purposes of such co-operation at thevarious studios. These are just a few of the results of our present
regime, and are given at random."Liveing was a supporter also of the switch from local news toregional news in November 1928.3
The North Region was thus recognized in some sense as
having a cultural unity of its own, although there were doubts
about the social and cultural relationship between the industrial areas of Lancashire and the \Vest Riding, the 'old North'looking to Newcastle, and the Potteries to the south. In what
the unity of the North Region consisted was never made fully
clear. At times there were suggestions that there was a specifically northern bundle of qualities. 'The typical Northerner isshrewd or "jannock" in business, very outspoken in his opinions,sensitive to the opinions of others, and extremely warm-hearted
and generous; he has a dogged determination, a very dry senseof humour, and, generally speaking, a more highly developed
love of music than has the Southerner.' At other times there wasemphasis on the economic differences between North and South:
it was in the North that industrial products were made whichwere `vital to the prosperity of England'.3
The special position of the 'old North' was recognized at lastin 1938 when it became a kind of `sub -Region' from 1932
onwards the experiment had been tried of transmitting a composite programme of National, North Regional, and London
Regional material from Newcastle instead of the regional programme as broadcast from Manchester. This by no meanssatisfied local pride, and it was often pointed out not only that
the North-East was very different from Lancashire but that
Newcastle had been one of the oldest BBC stations.4
In the south of the area, the Potteries were a bone of contention between the North and the Midland Regions. They were`transferred' from North to Midlands in 1935, and in 1936,
when their fate seemed to be in the ba ance, a representative of the Midland Region stated strongly that 'the area isrightly assigned to the Midlands and it should remain Midland:*Liveing to Reith, 18 Feb. 1929.
*Control Board Minutes, 20 Nov. 1928.
3
BBC Handbook (1928), p. 165.
4 See below, p. 337.
2

320

AUDIENCES: !.T HOME ANI) ABROAD
territory'. 'All my evidence goes the other way', Siepmann

retorted. 'The agricultural belt just south of them effectively
cut them off from any real contact with the Midlands proper,
and their activities brought them into much closer association
with the North Region than the Midlands.' None the less, heyielded to Birmingham's claims. 'As the North Region isalready larger than is convenient, we might, I suggest, let sleeping dogs lie.'1
The diversity of the North and the sense of local rivalry
inside it-both between its distinctive component `areas' andsmall, neighbouring communities within the same area-wasreflected in an exceptionally large number of outside broadcasts. It was reflected also in music programmes. `In other places
music may be the crowning grace of the aristocracy, the plaything of the virtuoso, a spectacle for the idle, a commodity
for the professional, but in the North it remains what it has been,a democratic institution, a supreme need of life.'z One bigmusic concert was broadcast each week in 1933 from the Manchester studio: in one month in 1932 northern listeners heard
the Huddersfield Choral Society in Bach's B Minor Mass,
Sir Thomas Beecham conducting the Liverpool Philharmonic
Society, and Act One of Die Meistersinger from the Theatre
Royal, Halifax.
Good northern plays were not easy to find, but many light entertainment programmes which later established a national
reputation had their origins in the North. Scrapbook, for example,
was first broadcast as an `experimental' programme from
Manchester in 1932: Liveing insisted on the adjective. At thatstage it was not built up around an historical theme. Evenearlier, Leslie Baily had prepared in the Leeds studio a programme called `Hello, Yorkshire!' which contained the firstgerm of an idea which later developed into a characteristicfeature of the Scrapbook series (and of so many other entertainment programmes)-the introduction of real -life `celebrities'
into the show. George Hirst, the cricketer, took part in such a
local programme in 1926.3*H. J. Dunkerley to Siepmann, 13 Aug. 1936; Siepmann to Edgar, 14 Aug.
1936; Dunkerley to Siepmann, 19 Aug. 1936, with appended note in ink by
Siepmann.
2 Kenneth Adam, `Music in the
North', in the BBC rear Book (1934), p. 201.
3 L.
Baily and C. Brewer, The BBC Scrapbooks (1937), pp. 49-50.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

321

While the story of the North Region is illustrative in many
respects of what happened in the other regions, where bothorganization and titles were introduced later, in Scotland andWales national as well as regional factors influenced backgroundand response, and in the Midlands and London there was far
less consciousness of separate identity.
Regional titles were decided upon at a Control Board meetingin July

1928-Scottish, Nest, Midland, and North Regional
Directors, with the remaining Relay Station Directors to be
known as `Representatives'.' Earlier in 1928, D. Cleghorn
Thomson in Scotland had been given the misleading title ofNorthern Area Director: this was changed after the Control
Board's decision to that of Scottish Regional Director. It was
not until September 1932, however, that the work of the four
Scottish short-wave stations was fully co-ordinated and a Scottish Regional Service, covering most of the population of Scotland, was introduced; and it was not until 1937, after the
Ullswater Committee had strongly backed the proposal, that
the Welsh secured a region of their own. Shortage of wavelengths
was the main reason for delay, and progress was made possible
only by the synchronization of the Scottish National wavelength with the wavelength of London and the North Region.
This provided the Corporation with an extra wavelength, andthe two old West Regional transmitters could at last be treatedas transmitters of two regions, one for Wales and one for a newWest Region. Scotland thereby made possible the salvation ofWales.
Co-ordination in Scotland began with music and talks andwas the subject of considerable local friction, centring both on
personalities and on problems, on the future of the Aberdeen
Octet, for instance, and the size of the Glasgow office. `One's
wings are being clipped and one is being debarred from flightin so many directions', Cleghorn Thomson wrote to Reith inMarch 1929 in a letter about 'the centralising trend which isobservable in all spheres of our activities'.z He admitted that'the speeding up of the process [of centralization] in Scotland isin the best interests of the service', but lamented the effects onz

C 1995*Control Board Minutes, 3,July 1928.
*D. Cleghorn Thomson to Reith, 5 Mar. 1929.
Y

322

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD'the atmosphere of Scottish broadcasting' and on `those people
who see their jobs vanishing'.'
Disputes about programme content followed somewhat later.
'What centralisation is going to do', Cleghorn Thomson told
Eckersley, 'is to wipe out 6o per cent. of our programmes.' He
added candidly-as a supporter of the scheme-that the 6o percent. which would go had found few staunch friends and many
enemies: it consisted of programmes which listeners had gradually come to know `could be done better from London'.2 Yetsome of the 'few staunch friends' of Scottish programmes werevery vociferous. From Aberdeen Neil McLean grumbled that'the Scottish point of view is not adequately represented'; moreover, 'the difference between Scottish programmes involving
Southern and Northern tastes is very considerable'.3 On a visit
to the Aberdeen studio in July 1929 Roger Eckersley found the
BBC staff 'sad but philosophic'.4 A few years later there were
public protests in Scotland against the policy, as set out in the
BBC Tear Book for 1933, that even after both Westerglen
transmitters were in operation there would be no `too per cent.
all -Scots programme on one of the alternative wave lengths'.5
The pattern of protest in Wales was muted by the fact thatthe BBC's programmes in the Welsh language were genuinely
innovatory. Welsh services were broadcast from Daventry fromJanuary 1929 onwards, and Appleton in Cardiff gave frequent
assurances that 'we shall be providing more Welsh programmes
when the Regional scheme is ready'.6 In March 1932 a Welsh
Religious Advisory Council was set up, with Lloyd George aschairman. Reith, who travelled by train to its first meeting with
Lloyd George, had a genuine appreciation of the role of the
Welsh language: 'it constitutes a bond of enormous value andimportance', he wrote in his diary; 'it is an immense pity thatthe whole of Scotland is not Gaelic speaking'.7
A number of big Welsh events received regular attention fromthe BBC. The Eisteddfod, for example, was regularly broadcast
each year; so too was the St. David's Day Banquet in London.
' *Cleghorn Thomson to Reith, 29 Apr. 1929.
_ *Cleghorn Thomson to R. H. Eckersley, 8 May 1929.
3*N. McLean to Goldsmith, 29 May 1929.
4 *Notes on a Visit to Scotland, 9 July 1929.
5 BBC Year Book (1933),
p. 246.
7 Reith, Diary, 8 Mar. 1932.
6 *Appleton to Goldsmith, 8 May 1929.

REGIONAL, BROADCASTING

323

The fact, however, that the West Region covered both theWest of England and Wales was a persistent source of grievance-not only on the Welsh side of the border. There were vigorous protests, for example, by 'West Country mayors' when
the Plymouth studio was closed down in 1934. 'Our desire isfor a greater proportion of items of local interest', the Mayorof Plymouth stated, somewhat weakening his case by adding,'for we recognise the publicity value of these items'.' J. T.
Sutthery, the BBC's spokesman, explained the BBC's case ata public meeting where, with Gladstone Murray's and Alan
Dawnay's support, he expressed sympathy with the strong
local feeling that 'residents in Devon and Cornwall are interested in having their own activities reflected through the broadcasting meclium'.Z When eventually the split between theWest Country and \Vales was about to take place in 1937, theBBC itself referred publicly to 'the zest with which the WestCountry and Wales have demanded separate treatment'. 'Nothing except technical difficulties', it added, 'has prevented the
speedier dissolution of this mutually uncomfortable partnership.'3

From Northern Ireland, which first became a 'Region' in
1934, Beadle, as Belfast Station Director, remarked in 1929
that since he held that an orchestra was not worthy of the nameunless it had at least thirty members, 'the policy of centralisa-

tion' had better be implemented by abolishing the Northern
Ireland Orchestra instead of reducing it. 'Acting on the principlethat we are to undertake no evening programmes which can hedone as well from London, I believe that our local work will
occupy on an average not much more than one night per week.'4
Belfast continued to produce a considerable number of distinctively Northern Irish programmes-the Royal Ulster Show,
for instance-and it also offered Ulster dialect plays. In the six
years from 1926 to 1932 when Beadle was Station Director at
Belfast the policy of centralization raised considerable difficulties and frequent 'clashes of interest', and Beadle has calculated
that he crossed the Irish Sea about 15o times during this petiod
Western Morning News, 30 Jan. 1934.
Ibid.; J. T. Sutthery to W. E. G. Murray, 3o Jan. 1934; Memorandum by
W. E. C. Murray to A. C. Dawnay, 31 Jan. 1934 with Dawnay's reply, t Feb.
2

193,1.3

BBC Annual (,937), p. 16.

' G. C. Beadle w Reith,1

May 1928.

324

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

to discuss matters in London.1 Because of lack of landline connexions with England, however, Belfast was spared drastic
cutting of local services, and the region developed many programmes of its own. 'The most characteristic tendency of the
year', it was stated in 1937, was 'the discontinuance of thepractice of importing cross -Channel material and the corresponding intensification of the search for local talent.'z This
policy had always to be qualified, however, in the knowledge
that Ulster, like the more outlying parts of the Empire, welcomed 'the constant relaying of the best of British programmes'.3
The remaining English region-Midland Region did notcome into existence at once when 5IT (Birmingham) was
replaced by the new Daventry 5GB. The 5GB programme wasdesigned to be `experimental, free and stimulating' rather than`balanced', and it was to the `National' programme (5XX)
that Midland listeners had to turn if they wished to follow
the kind of programme to which they had hitherto been accustomed. Percy Edgar, the Director of the old Birmingham station
5IT and the first Midland Regional Director, when the post
was formally so described in March 1930, wrote a most forcefulletter to Reith in February 1929 stating bluntly 'that the evergrowing policy of centralisation in London has clearly gone agood deal further and more rapidly than public opinion hereis prepared to accept.... The policy of concentration requiresvery patient exposition to local authorities as well as the Press.
Believe me, Sir John, I am not over -stating the case and frankly,
I feel not a little alarmed at the tendency of our policy today.'+`Centralization' and `Regionalization' went ahead, however,side by side, and although some local programmes were cut,by 1931 there was an increasing number of outside broadcasts
from the \Vest Midlands. The Midland Regional Orchestra
was disbanded, but efforts were made to broadcast a range ofprogrammes `which would to some extent reflect the life of thecentral counties'. 'The Midlands', it was argued, 'has its own
there is something there which can be foundpersonality
nowhere else.'s How far the BBC was able to project that 'personality'-if there was or is one-is less clear. Indeed, the 1936...

G. C. Beadle, Television, .4 Critical Review (1963), p. 24.
BBC Annual (1937), p. 36.
3 BBC Year Book (1934),
p. 235.
4 *Percy Edgar to Reith, 19 Feb. 1929.
5
BBC Year Book (1933), p. 203.
2

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

325

BBC Annual said of regional broadcasting generally, 'How far
Regional listeners are as yet generally aware of the efforts madeby the BBC to employ and foster the characteristic resources ofeach part of the country, is hard to say." The West Midlands
enjoyed quite different economic circumstances during the
193os from the older industrial region of Lancashire and Yorkshire, with which it had had strong social and political affiliations in the nineteenth century. There were differences, too,
between the West and East Midlands. In relatively prosperous
and cosmopolitan Birmingham, listeners may well have beenless interested in specifically regional programmes than in an`attractive' and popular `alternative' bill of fare.
There was an uncertainty in other parts of the country on thisissue too. How far did northerners, for example, wish to dingto what was distinctly northern? Jokes, yes: the latest dancetunes, no? Music by northern orchestras and shows, yes:
specifically northern talks, no? The country as a whole wassharing a 'mass culture', and local differences were being
reduced by other agencies of 'mass communication', particularly the press. If the BBC was to concern itself seriously with`sub -cultures' rather than with (or as well as) 'the great audience'in which Reith believed, what about East Anglia, which wasleft outside the system, or the South -East which was curiously
detached from the network, and even the London area itself,
which had no BBC identity of its own except as a metropolis?

Given the wide range of social and cultural factors involved,
it is scarcely surprising that there was some uncertainty about
the Regional Scheme as a whole, not only in its inception but
in its development. `For some time all has not been well in thematter of programme activities at Head Office and in the

Regions', an important memorandum of July 193' stated.
`Neither has been sufficiently informed as to the other. There
has not been enough collaboration, and misunderstandings havein consequence arisen. This is bad for programme work... .
Both Metropolitan and Regional prejudices and bias must be
eliminated, and ignorance on both sides lessened.'2
The writer of this memorandum recommended that Wellington, who had been concerned with programme policy and
BBC Annual (1936), p. 26.

2*Internal Memorandum, 19 July 1932.

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

326

planning since 1924, should act as a co-ordinator, dealing withsimultaneous broadcasting, regional material taken on thecomposite London Regional wavelength, regional programmes
shared between regions, and individual programmes in particular regions. Wellington took over the new post in the summer of 1932.1 He was placed in the BBC hierarchy `junior to
the Director of Programmes [Roger Eckersley] and the Director of Talks [Siepmann]', but 'his position with them was tobe advanced somewhat'-a gently nuanced phrase. 'By virtueof the special charge to him in regard to matters affecting
Regional policy, D.P. and D.T. will in general be guided by his
advice, but retain over-riding powers upon considerations ofmajor policy.' The status of the Regional Directors was unaltered as in the past, they were to have direct access bothto the Controller (Carpendale) and to the Director-General.2
Reith encouraged them to look to him. Whenever he visited
regional offices, he asked the senior officers there how they were
getting on with head office. If they said very well indeed-'no
trouble'-he always replied that there must be something wrong.
Regional policies did not change after 1932, nor did theformal limitations on the initiative of the Regional Directors or
the personal encouragement given them by the Director -General.
Awkward questions of hierarchy often arose, and there was aregular tug-of-war between the regions and the Programme
Planning Department in London concerning the content ofregional programmes. The kind of question which often
arose may be illustrated from a correspondence in December
1933 between Sutthery in the \Vest Region, Roger Eckersley
and Wellington in London, and Dawnay. It began with a lament
from Sutthery that the `indigenous musical activities' of theWest Country were inadequate. 'Both variety and music havebecome international, or at least national and the best stuff tobe found in the Region is brought there from outside.' Yet a
Rubinstein concert from Dartington Hall had been turned
down by head office 'on the score that Rubinstein has not yet
broadcast at all and that his first broadcast should be Nationalrather than West Regional'. Unless `imported' activities were:

He was appointed in the first instance for a trial period of six months, but thearrangement continued. (*Memorandum by Reith, 28 Feb. 1933.)
2 *Control Board Minutes, 19 July 1932.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

327

broadcast, the \Vest Region would have to rely on South Wales
choirs and West Country plays. 'As soon as we go into any otherfield and require a body of professional actors, I cannot reasonably contend that we can do better than London, unless I am toassume that we are more competent in production. And if thiswere true, there would be every argument for you to absorb our
Producer in Head Office.»
Eckersley wished Sutthery a merry Christmas and told himthat his memorandum raised such important issues in relation
to `regionalism' that he proposed to discuss it fully with Dawnay.
Two days later Dawnay replied that `existing regional policy
must be observed in principle'. `Duplication of effort . . . isundesirable both on financial grounds and from the point ofview of policy. What we want from the Regions is the sort ofprogrammes which they can provide and we cannot (characteristic regional programmes) rather than a duplication of the
programmes we do ourselves.' In fact, a quiet administrative
answer was found on this occasion. The particular Dartington
broadcast could be put on to the National programme 'if you
can assure us that a first class broadcast can be given from
Dartington from the technical point of view'.2 A few days later
Eckersley added, 'You asked for general permission to broadcast regionally any or all of the celebrity concerts from Darting ton if they could not be done nationally. We cannot give any
general sanction of this kind, but we will consider each caseon its merits as it arises.'3
Details were to be left to negotiations between Sutthery andWellington. The negotiations involved the same arts which
Wellington associated with programme planning.4 In February
1934 Sutthery was submitting a list of West Country programmes
to be considered for the National or comprehensive Regional
services. They included in addition to a running commentaryon the Padstow `Hobby Horse' ceremony and a short talk on
Cornish wrestling-both superbly regional items-variety from
Plymouth, organ music from Bath, and a symphony concert
from the National Museum of Wales.5*J. T. Sutthery to R. H. Eckersley, 18 Dec. 1933. Copies to A. C. Dawnay and
L. Wellington.
3 'Dawnay to Sutthery, 20 Dec. 1933.
3*Eckersley to Sutthery, 7 Feb. 1934.
5*Sutthery to \\ellington, 22 Feb. 1934.
4 See above, pp. 29-30.

328

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

Wellington has given another example of discussion andnegotiation with the regions, this time concerning the opposite
situation, that of' a region which was unhappy about taking a
programme from London. At a time when two main symphonyconcerts were being broadcast from London each week-one
on Wednesdays in the National programme and one on Sundays in the Regional programme-a Sunday concert, to be conducted by Casals, was given two `phis', that is to say it carried
the label, 'take this unless there is a strong reason for not doing
so'.' E. A. F. Harding, then Programme Director in the North
Region, planned instead to broadcast a concert given by a
Merseyside Orchestra of unemployed musicians. Subsequentdialogue between Wellington and Harding ran as follows:
L. \V. Surely you ought not to drop this Casals programme (a very

important one) and substitute a lesser programme of the same kind.
E. A. F. H. Yes-I think it's right. To give a platform to this Merseyside orchestra is of great social importance.
L. \V. I quite see that-but not on this date. Give them a special
studio date or take another of their public concerts on a date when
you don't have to pay such a price.
E. A. F. H. I'm most unwilling to change. I see the force of what you
say, but I very much do not want to disappoint them.
L. \V. All right: if you have committed yourself to them go ahead,but you know you ought not to have done so without knowing
what you would have been dropping. Now you will have to keepfaith with them but only at the cost ofdisappointing all the listeners
in the North of England who would want to hear Casals conducting. I really do feel this is wrong.

`There', says Wellington, 'the argument ended.' Harding did
not broadcast Casals, but this kind of difficulty never arose
again between them. At best, he concludes, there was a sympathetic interplay bet\seen region and head office on matters of
this kind. The periodic rows came and went, but there were long
periods of mutual conhdence.2

The general principles behind regional programme policy
were restated in an undated draft memorandum which was
2

For the 'phi' system, see above, p. 37.
Note by \Vellington, June 1963.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

329

prepared in 1935 for the Ullswater Committee.' `It is difficult
to define precisely the criterion of Regional activity. It is
understood in such terms as that no Region should embark on
an activity which could be better done elsewhere, in any otherRegion or London.... Regional activity should be justifiableeconomically, politically, and artistically, although from thelast point of view it would be permissible for a Region, for local
reasons, to broadcast a second-rate artist or programme item
to the exclusion of a first-class one from elsewhere, but not tolower the standard further than that.'
In 1935 the main features of London `National' programmes
were being circulated to the regions weeks ahead, and Regional
Directors were left to work out the details of `contrasting'regional programmes of their own and how much to broadcastof the London programmes or of programmes from otherregions. There were few outside programmes which they werebound to take, but their ability to produce local programmes
was limited not only by human resources but by programmefinance. Naturally, the BBC in London laid most emphasis on
availability of local resources, and in the evidence it submitted
to the Ullswater Committee it was able to show that extra
regional staffs were being recruited in 1934 and 1935.2 'The
degree to which Regional Directors in the exercise of their discretion are able to include local material is illustrated by thedivergence in the proportion of local material, which in 1934
varied from 23 per cent. in Northern Ireland to 4o per cent.
in the Midland Region, a ratio which gives a rough representation of the comparative artistic resources of the two regions.'3
Regional programme staffs had, in fact, been doubled in
1934-5, but they were less strongly backed by executives andwere still expected to show far more versatility than the more
specialized BBC central staff in Broadcasting House. In someways this was an advantage to the provincial producers: it led
to greater freedom and initiative in production. In other \ ays
it was a marked disadvantage, not least in that it involved
frequent overwork. A 1937 note by Roger Eckersley on regional
See below, p. 490.
2

For the table of staff submitted to the Ullswater Committee, see below,

P. 489-*Undated Draft Memorandum in the BBC's Ullswater Committee files,`Regional Programme I'olicy: Content of Programmes'.
3

330

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

staff set out details of 'the amount of transmissions undertaken
per capita of Regional staff, related to the same amount of work
done at Head Office' : the figures showed definitely that regional
staffs were handling between them a greater number of programmes and that there were far fewer people involved than in

London.'Overwork has always been willingly accepted in the BBC if
creative freedom has been secure. Whatever suspicious constitutional exchanges were going on in the I93os between head
office and regions, programme directors and producers foundmore excitement and fewer frustrations in their work than during
any period in the BBC's history. At this level of activity E. A. F.
Harding, Programme Director of the North Region from 1933
to 1936, was outstanding. Enterprising and exuberant, hetreated what might have been regarded as exile in the North
as a direct challenge to London. He raided the Manchester
Guardian-from which he captured four journalists, Kenneth
Adam, Donald Boyd, Robert Kemp, and E. R. Thompsonand \kith the full co-operation of W. P. Crozier, the editor,
he drew upon the services of a number of the Guardian's leader writers and reporters as North Regional broadcasters. He turned
also to the Northern Circuit, industry, the Civil Service, andthe repertory theatres, amateur and professional, for talent,
persuading Edgar Lustgarten to leave the Bar, encouraging
Geoffrey Bridson and Francis Dillon to turn to writing and production, and nurturing the budding talent of Wilfred Pickles.
At the centre of this little world, he attracted growing publicattention in the North. His friends came from all walks of society.
Mary Crozier, fresh from Oxford, became the radio critic of theManchester Guardian, and on the other side of the Pennines theYorkshire Post started a regular radio column. Harding himself,
however, was his own most forceful critic. Weary casts were
hauled off after performance for post-mortems which lasted
most of the night and sometimes all of it. Whatever the official
policy of the BBC, Harding's own motto was `Anything London
can do, we can do better'. The quality of Harding's work,
particularly in the production of features, showed that despite
financial limitations, regional broadcasting could offer listeners'the best' that the medium could provide.
*R. H. Eckersley, 'Regional Staff', 26 Oct. 1937.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

331

Yet the position in the provinces in 1935 when Siepmann was
suddenly moved from the important post of Director of Talks
to become Director of Regional Relations was far from easy.
The time was propitious for a large-scale critical survey bothof what was happening in the regions and what was the relationship in practice between regions and centre. Siepmann
provided a comprehensive and penetrating survey, which
represented the fullest examination of regional problems thatanyone inside the BBC had ever undertaken. Before writing thereport, lie visited all the regions, spending in each at least six
days and at most three weeks. `Apart from interviewing all
members of the staff, inspecting premises and listening to evening transmissions,' he began his report, `I have tried to give
impressions of listeners' habits and of their reaction to our
Regional programmes, and to secure from men of intelligenceand experience greater knowledge of the needs and problems of
the provinces insofar as these can be met by broadcasting."
Siepmann's main concern was with programme policy: mattersof administration were only lightly touched upon.
The provinces, Siepmann maintained-and he was writing
as a man with little direct experience of provincial life-wereeither being denuded culturally or, through lack of resourcesand opportunity, were being deprived of 'self expression' and'that richness and variety of experience which London enjoys
and assumes as a matter of course'. Yet within the world of
broadcasting the regions could have a creative part to play.
`Centralisation represents a shortsighted policy. The provinces
are the seed ground of talent and the ultimate source of supply of
our London programmes.' Examining the question from theother side, he concluded that while the regional services fostereda great variety of `local interests and loyalties', they had notgone far enough in adapting their services fully to meet local
needs. 'Most London material is out of tune to Northern andWestern ears and the differential pace and tone of life and feeling in the provinces still require adequate expression.... Regions
have been slow in the adaptation of their services.... Even now
we are only on the threshold of effective action. Of the more orless uniform pattern of all Regional programmes and of the equivalent extent of their respective output, I am definitely critical.'*C. A. Siepmann, Report on Regions, ,Jan. 1936, pp. 1-2.

332

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

The same view of the regional opportunities which Siepmann
set out in his report is presented in the introductory pages of the
BBC's official 1936 Annual, covering the events and problemsof 1935. Centralization on the business side was 'to a large
extent inevitable and desirable'. It was 'in harmony with thecommon trend towards rationalisation as an aid to businessefficiency'. It had both an economic and a technical basisthe need to make the best use of limited financial resources andthe need to make the best use of a limited number of wavelengths. `Once, however, these reasons of organisation havebeen allow ed for, there still remains ample scope for diversity
and individuality of programmes between the Regions. Somegloomy prophets have in recent years foretold the flattening outof regional characteristics under the steam roller of London
tastes and ideas.... Happily, despite all warring forces, local
life in the fullest sense of the word still flourishes up and clown
these islands.... The Corporation aims through its networkof Regional stations at reflecting local life and local loyalties,
and at strengthening associations and traditions which havetheir roots in the soil and history of our native countryside."
These lines may have exaggerated the strength of provincial
forces, but they certainly marked a retreat from Roger Eckersley's
policy. In his report Siepmann went further. The policy which
had first been mooted in 1926 of doing nothing in the provinces
which could better be clone in London was at the heart of the
difficulties. `It is appropriate that National services should
achieve as high a standard of excellence as possible, but thepurist's concern for artistic integrity can be carried too far, andthe case for Regional broadcasting cannot be measured by thissingle yardstick of artistic achievement.... The patronage of
all the arts, the representation of local life and of local interests
are limiting factors from a Head Office point of view, but need
to be carefully weighed in the balance of advantage in considering the purpose on which our Regional policy cfepends.'2
Siepmann made a number of practical comments, criticisms,
and suggestions. Regional Directors, he said, were uncertain of
their position, some of them feeling like 'poor relations'. They
often lacked adequate staff: in the country as a whole there
was only 'a bare skeleton of what is necessary'. There was too
BBC Annual (1936), p. 26.

2*Report on Regions, p. 3.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

333

much office work and too little field work. Head Office staff
enjoyed 'a more leisurely pace' and 'more congenial conditionsof work'. In all regions there was 'a marked deficiency in the
preliminary training of newly appointed members of the staff'.
Premises and equipment were below London standards. 'Our
studio premises at Swansea and Plymouth are disgraceful.'Among the proposals Siepmann made was a scheme for the
regular exchange of BBC staff between London and the regions.
He also suggested the setting up of a `regular school of broadcasting for all members of the programme staff', and a developed
programme of listener research. `Regional correspondence issmall and, great as is the collective knowledge of the staff ofRegional characteristics and sentiment, I could not fail to be
perplexed in my survey by the total lack of evidence as to theattitude of listeners to our Regional services.'' This was the prelude to the line of inquiry which was to end in Tallents asking
for a `Regional plan'.2 Siepmann also pointed to the 'hugeanomaly in our present system of Regional broadcasting-theabsence of any interpretation of the country-excluding London-which extends from Norfolk to Sussex and Hampshire.... It
is impossible to look at a map of England and to maintain thesignificance of our Regional policy ... and yet be careless of theneglect of the great block of counties, mostly rural, it is true, andtherefore limited in resources, but at any rate deserving of somemeasure of representation.'3
Turning in the last part of his report to the detailed work of
the individual regions, Siepmann noted 'the differences of outlook and variety of interests and occupations' in the North
Region alone, a region in which there was 'a real danger ofover -centralisation', and 'the rather dreamy, backward feudal
atmosphere which pervades so much of the West'.4 He madetentative proposals for strengthening the North and reducing
the area and output of the \Vest. In Wales developments were
to be gradual to give full time to a new and inexperienced staff'to prove their capacities and to allow of the cooling of politicaland racial passions provoked by past controversies over Welsh
policy'. In Scotland there was a `self-consciousness' which wasbest left alone. In Northern Ireland, where he had had 'a long'

Ibid., p. 9.

23Report on Regions, p. 12.

4

See above, p. 266.
Ibid., pp. 14-15+ 17

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

334

and helpful conversation' with Ogilvie, the Vice -Chancellorof the Queen's University, Belfast, who was to be Reith's successor, he found 'a lamentable dearth of talent' and an energetic
programme staff who `valiantly attempt the hopeless task ofmaking bricks without straw'.'
Siepmann's report was carefully studied by the Controller ofProgrammes, the Controller of Administration, and the Deputy
Director -General. Appearing in the same year as the Ullswater
Report, it focused attention on a subject which had interested
the Ullswater Committee.2 The Regional Directors had loyally
backed the BBC in the public inquiry, but they were awarethat changes were necessary. Graves said that 'he had always
felt that we should do more to help the Regions' he urged thecreation of a Southern Region, which would include the Midlands and counterbalance the North. At the same time, he andmany other people who were prepared to make changes deprecated a full-scale attack on the policy of centralization. 'The
object should not be to set up almost autonomous organisations
concerned only with broadcasting to the inhabitants of their
Regions' it should be 'to enable listeners throughout the country
to have all that is best no matter whence it originates'.
There was obviously a difference in 1936 as in 1930 between
those who believed, as Peter Eckersley had done, in regional
distinctiveness, and those who believed, like Val Gielgud on the
production side, that in a country as small as England broadcasting should aim at creating as large an audience as possible
for the very best. The same difference runs through the recent
history of the arts in England, and it was one of the themes of
the Romanes Lecture by Lord Bridges in 1957.3
Nicolls, speaking for the administration, admitted that it was
unfortunately true that some Regional Directors thought ofthemselves as 'poor relations'. `It is arguable, of course', hewent on, 'that a person who is confident in himself does notneed assurance as to the future and that the reasons for Regional
Directors worrying are probably subjective and personal.' He
did not accept Siepmann's picture of understaffing, his demand
:

:

I

2

*Report on Regions, Supplement on Northern Ireland, p. 3.

For the attitude of the Ullswater Committee to regional questions, see below,

1) 4993

Lord Bridges, The State and the Arts. See above, p. 37.

REGIONAL BROADC \STING

335

for a school of broadcasting, or his tentative suggestions, supported by Graves, for the creation of a new Southern or 'Home
Counties' region. Much in Siepmann's report, he added, was
not new.
Carpendale conceded that 'a case has most certainly been
made out for Regional broadcasting as being necessary toreflect the local life and characteristics in the different Regions
as well as to provide a valuable source of material for London
programmes'. And it was he who formally set out a list of new
appointments and staff changes which he thought would meetsome at least of Siepmann's suggestions.' 'The accommodating
spirit in which the Report is handled by the Deputy Director General', Siepmann wrote, `will, I know, be very welcome to
Regions. The specific approval of staff adjustment provides abasis for development, and is, I think, as much as we can wisely
tackle at present.'z
Regional comments on the report were mixed. Cardiff, forexample, submitted a quotation from Havelock Ellis to theeffect that there were `three well -marked foci of individual
behaviour in England', of which the south-western region was
one (the northern was not). From Manchester, by contrast, there
was a down-to-earth demand for better accommodation thanthe existing `Board Room'.3 The report, in general terms, wasaccepted by Control Board in July 1936 and by the Board ofGovernors a few clays later.4 Reith told Nicolls to do his best
to ensure that there was no leakage of the document preparedafter the Board meetings The document was carefully worded,
but it accepted Siepmann's report 'in its broad outline', areport which, it is said, had already been `foreshadowed by the
Corporation in its evidence before the Ullswater Committee'.6
The document was precise in its attack on the centralizationof cultural life. 'The Governors recognise the general tendency
outside broadcasting towards centralisation in the metropolis
and regard it as a bad tendency, which broadcasting can counter'Notes by the Controller of Programmes, the Controller of Administration,and the Deputy Director -General, 7 Apr. 1936.
_ 'D.R.R.'s Comments on D.D.G.'s observations, 14. Apr. 1936.
3 "Appleton to Siepmann, 18 Feb. 1936; Livcing to Nicolls, 14 July 1936.
4 Board of Governors, Minutes, 22 July 1936.
s ;Reich to Nicolls, 23,July 1936.
See below, pp. 487-90.

336

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

by representing the local point of view and encouraging local
talent.' Regional programmes were needed not only for contrast
with metropolitan programmes but 'to meet the legitimate
demand for programmes suited to local tastes and humour'.
All the same, there still had to be limits on regional autonomy.
Staff conditions had to be comparable in different regions;`artistic supervision is necessary to ensure a uniform standard
in all the programmes'; and financial and technical factors stillserved as restraints. All in all, the Governors believed that they
were setting out a policy which might be regarded as a 'Charter of Rights'. 'The Governors are satisfied that there should
not be any uneasiness among the Regional Directors as to the
future of Regional broadcasting. Adjustments may be necessary
from time to time, but the essential function will remain intact.'
As a pledge of faith, there was to be a meeting each month
between the Deputy Director -General, the four Controllers,
the Regional Directors, and the Director of Regional Relations;and Percy Edgar, as senior Regional Director, or any of theother Directors, was to be summoned to Control Board whenever regional matters were being examined.' Reith had always
emphasized close personal relations with Regional Directors.
Formal institutions were now being created to perpetuate personal conventions which he himself had established.

Conditions in the regions after 1936 did not change drastically, although there was a far wider range of activities than had
been anticipated in 193o and a far more specialized staff. The
establishments of the various regions were not identical, thevariations being designed 'to suit local requirements'. Relations
with London still rested on informal consultation as much as on
formal hierarchical patterns. Indeed, a fascinating set of contacts bound provincial staff with staff in London. `While intheory contact with London is canalized through the Regional
Director, in practice the various officials, notably the Regional
Executive, Programme Director and Public Relations Officer
correspond direct.'2 They also used the telephone. One of the
I *Draft Memorandum for approval by the Board, accepting D.R.R.'s Reporton the Regions, July 1936.
2 *Note by D. H.
Clarke for Regional Executives, `Staff Organisation ofRegional Offices', 8 Dec. 1937.

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

337

problems in every region was the `drift of staff to London'. It
particularly applied to regional announcers, who were in short
supply in the two or three years before the war. `I feel that the
only answer to the "not leading anywhere" feeling', one BBC
official wrote in 1937, 'is that the announcer should be trainedin London, go to a Region, and be allowed to hope to transfer
to London as vacancies occur.'
Much loyal work was carried out in the regions both bypeople who felt that they belonged there and had no desire to
move to London and by people who were conscious of the factthat regional work was one phase in their total BBC experience.
It was varied work. A full report on the North Region, dated
September 1937, forecast the `increased independence andoutput of Newcastle'; Leeds, it went on, 'acts in almost all
things directly under instructions from Manchester'. Musiccame from all parts of the region-the Huddersfield Choral
Society, lbr example, and the Sheffield Philharmonic Society
as well as the Hallé. At the same time, there was a Regional
Orchestra, consisting of thirty-five players, serving underannual contract. Among the Regional Advisory Committees
was a North Regional Music Advisory Committee, a North
Regional Religious Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Wakefield, a North Regional
Appeals Advisory Committee, a North-Eastern Appeals
Advisory Committee, and a North-Western Area Council for
Adult Education.
Money, however, was less abundant than advice, particularly
towards the end of the BBC's financial year. Programme financewas governed by a weekly allowance, fixed quarterly in London
after the budgetary proposals of all the regions had been examined together. The programme allowance varied considerably between quarter and quarter, a larger amount being
allowed in the winter than in the spring and summer. 'This isowing to the fact that all heavy orchestral and choral commitments take place during the winter months, being replaced
during the summer by the cheaper form of relay from seaside
resorts and spas. Sporting outside broadcasts on the other handincrease during the spring and summer, and in the case of theIsle of Man are very expensive.' There was considerable pruning
1*Note by E. J. King -Bull, 20 Aug. 1937.
C 1995

Z338

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

of estimates, and 'a deficit at the end of the year was frowned
upon by all concerned'.[In Scotland, to take a further example, the whole programmeallowance when Andrew Stewart became Programme Director
in 1935 amounted to £52o a week, reduced to £47o in thesummer months. The differentiation disappeared in the later
193os. There was a marked emphasis on the specifically Scottish
element in programmes, but no attempt was made to pretendthat they were solely Scottish. 'We do not, and I think should
not, aim at filling up every minute of the Scottish Evening
Programme with home performed entertainment', Stewart told
Scottish listeners, but there was an emphasis on Scottish poetry,
history, culture, and sport. For the rest, 'the Scot is and always
has been a good European, liberally educated and with catholicity of taste. We therefore try to select such items of a cosmopolitan nature as we feel would interest or entertain a
Scotsman, having regard always to this international cultural
tradition, and not to current metropolitan appeal.'2 In the same
year that Stewart set out this objective, the BBC Scottish
Orchestra was formed it broadcast for over 15o hours in 1936.3
Another interesting venture of 1936 was Geoffrey Bridson's
remarkable feature programme, March of the '45, a joint enterprise of the Scottish and the North Regions: it has been hailed
as the outstanding achievement of the features producers of the
1930s. In 1937 a lively discussion between two Scottish professors provided a remarkable ending to a series on Scotland and the:Empire.4

There were interesting developments in other regions also.
The BBC Welsh Singers were formed into a choir in 1936. North
Region and Midland Region co-operated in a programmedealing with the legends of the mountains common to bothit was presented from Bakewell. Midland Region sponsored
Midland Parliament, one of the very few examples in the interwar years of relatively informal broadcasting on major industrial
topics, including topics of great controversy . Along with North
Region's Cockpit, it provided listeners with frank and outspoken:*Note on the Work of the North Region, Sept. 1937.
*`Coming Scottish Programmes', BBC Script, 20 Sept. 1935.
3 BBC Annual (1937), p. 26. See also G. Burnett (ed.), Scotland on the Air (1938).
4 BBC Ilandbook (1938), p. 19.
1

2

REGIONAL BROADCASTING

339

argument. In the West, there were lively rural programmesFarmer's Tales, Village Opinion, and Roaming the Country: they
were successful enough to direct attention to the BBC's remarkable-and continuous-success in interesting both urban andrural listeners in the problems of the countryside.
Many of these programmes had more in common with theBBC's post-war programmes than with programmes being
broadcast during the same period from London. There weremany signs in 1939 that, whatever the limitations imposed on
the Regional Scheme, it genuinely provided centres of initiativeand innovation outside London. And many of the men who
made their mark in the regional capitals were to make theirmark in the country as a whole later on.

4. Europe: Co-operation and Competition
DURING the late 193os discussions of the Regional Scheme
centred mainly on questions of programme policy and organization. Yet the engineers, who had invented the scheme, wereinvolved at every point in its development. They had to take
into account not only the changing technology of radio but titechanging context of international regulation. The frameworkfor Eckersley's first regional proposals in 1926 and 1927 hadbeen the Geneva Plan for allotting European wavelengths,
which was accepted by the Council of the Union Internationale
de Radiophonie (UIR), also known as the International Broadcasting Union, in July 1926.1 A year later the Washington
Conference, to which the Post Office had attached so much
importance,2 had brought together representatives of national
administrations, of the IBU, and of other broadcasting organizations, and in 1929 a conference of governments at Prague
prepared a more complete and more effective framework forbroadcasting in Europe. So important, indeed, were these
See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 316 fr. In Volume I of my History, the Unionis called by its French initials,
2

See above, pp. 302-3.

UIR, which were generally used before 1927.

340

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

deliberations that the BBC rear Book for 193o stated firmlythat 'in the twelve months ending with August 1929 the international side of European broadcasting has outweighed thenational in the scale of importance'.'
The Washington Conference was the first International Radio
Telegraphic Convention to be held for fifteen years: previous
conventions had been held in 1903, 1906, and 1912.2 Whereas
in 1912 there had been no talk of broadcasting, in 1927 it was
impossible to leave broadcasting out of the world-wide regulation of radio. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce and later
President of the United States, described 'the congestion of thelanes on which communications are conducted' as the mostcomplex of all the problems which the participatory interests had
to consider; and the fifth article of the \\ ashington Agreement,
signed in November 1927, allowed administrations of the eighty
contracting countries to assign any frequency and any type ofwave to stations in their territory, `upon the sole condition thatno interference with any service of another country will result
therefrom' .3
The conference was concerned not with the allocation ofindividual wavelengths but with the allocation of Nvavebancls
between the different users of radio-ships, armed forces, commercial firms, and so on. It admitted the claims of broadcasting
to a medium band, some short-wave bands, and to long waves
between I,000 and 2,000 metres. These claims had often been
fiercely contested by other users within individual countries.
The BBC's demand to be allowed to engage in long -wave broadcasting, for instance, had been opposed in the first stages byboth the Services and the Post Oflice.4
International interference was serious not only because it
brought broadcasting concerns into conflict with other radio
interests but because it led to conflicts among broadcasting
concerns themselves. The sufferer was the ordinary listener, andEurope took the lead in seeking to eliminate the cause of his
suffering. The IBU's Geneva Plan, drawn up after protracted
argument, was designed to protect the ordinary listener andBBC rear Book (1930), p. 125.
A National Radio Telegraphic Convention had been held in Paris in 1925.
3 For details, see G. A. Codding Jr., The International Telecommunications Union:
An Experiment in International Co-operation (Leiden, 1952), pp. 116-31.
4 See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 222.
2

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

34.1

went some way to regulate the situation while there was stilltime. In the United States, by contrast, little progress was madeuntil February 1927 when Congress passed a Radio Act setting
up a Federal Radio Commission. One hundred and ninety-four
new American stations had gone on the air between July 1920
and February 1927, and there were serious problems anddangers analogous to those of traffic control. The five -man
Federal Radio Commission was given power to classify stations,assign frequencies, and determine power. Within a few monthsof taking office it had taken steps to end `bedlam on the air'and to exercise at least a measure of technical control overthe 733 American stations seeking to operate on ninety wavelengths.'
The Geneva Plan, agreed upon in the far more difficult context of divided Europe, was an effort at self-regulation by thevoluntary action of radio interests. The IBU had come into
existence in 1925 with Reith as its initiator, Admiral Carpendale
as its President, and A. R. Burrows, the first Director of Programmes of the BBC, as Secretarv.2 Carpendale was extremely
successful as President. There was a rule in the original constitution that the president should be chosen for one year onlyand should not be reappointed, but Carpendale held the presidency for ten years. He did much to develop an atmosphere oftrust and confidence. It was the engineers, however, who hammered out the details of the Geneva Plan and went on to modify
it, through a Technical Committee, in meetings held every
three weeks at Brussels.
The Control Centre at Brussels was the idea of Raymond
Braillard, a brilliant young French engineer who had worked
with Peter Eckersley on the details of the 1927 allocation. It
would have been useless to allocate wavelengths if the stations
did not stay strictly in their allotted channels. The Control
Centre was a laboratory where the length of the wave of every
European station was measured by a 'wave meter'. 'The laboratory started in an outhouse in Braillard's garden and grew intoa large building on the outskirts of Brussels.'3
See L. White, The American Radio (1947), ch. 7, 'The Government's Role';
C. A. Siepmann, Radio, Television and Society (195o), ch. i.
2 See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 312 f
3
P. P. Eckersley, The Power Behind the Microphone (1941), p. 94.
1

.

342

AUDIENCES: AT DOME AND ABROAD

Peter Eckersley has described the whole `Brussels phase' ofEuropean radio regulation as one in which the engineers took
the initiative and reached the key decisions. It was succeeded,he has written, by the jurists' phase, beginning with the Prague
Conference of 1929. This conference had been summoned by
the IBU, which invited governments and administrations toparticipate in its deliberations and share in its decisions. `Will
you walk into my parlour?' had been the approach. 'We
walked, some eagerly, some reluctantly', Eckersley adds. `What,after all, is the loud bruha bruha of "authority". Anyway, off
we went to Prague to hand ourselves over to "Ies administrations"."
It is not clear that there was any alternative, nor is it clearthat Eckersley himself was so conscious of the beginning ofa new historical phase at the time. `Carpendale, Eckersley andHayes back from the Prague Government Conference', Reith
wrote in his diary. `Apparently quite successful, and the Union
has emerged much more influential and authoritative than
before.'2
For good or ill, by I929 broadcasting was an affair of governments as well as of commercial concerns and public corporations. In France in 1928 and 1929 there were struggles between
the group of stations controlled by the French Ministry of Posts
and Telegraphs and French private stations, with the government being compelled to intervene. In Germany there wasalready a state -run service. The Soviet Union allotted an important role to broadcasting in its first Five Year Plan of I928,
promising 12 million receiving sets at the end of five years. In
eastern Europe the practice had already begun of nations building stations-often high -power stations-close to frontiers. 'The
word propaganda', a writer ín the BBC Handbook for I929 noted,'has acquired an evil connexion.'3 The declarations of the IBU
were declarations of international good will in an age of power
politics. 'Les administrations' held keys which opened or locked
many front doors.
The Prague Conference, unlike the Geneva Conference, was
one of governments and broadcasting authorities. There was
British initiative behind it-and useful support from Poland.

The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 97.

2Reith, Diary, 16 Apr. 1929.

3

BBC Handbook (1gag), p. 1o6.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

343

and a resolution suggesting such a conference had been proposed by the Czech delegate at Washington.' The main effectof the conference, however, was to strengthen the agreements
reached earlier at Geneva and Brussels, not to weaken them.
Governmental authority was given to the `unofficial' Geneva
Plan, as modified by the Brussels Plan of 1928; and it was agreed
that future modifications should be left to the IBU, with international inter -governmental conferences being called only whena majority of European governments so demanded. Braillard
was again active behind the scenes, patching up differences. The
decisions taken represented something half-way between `nongovernmental' and `governmental' initiative, to use terms thathave become more familiar since 1945. Any future changes inwavelengths negotiated by governments were to be put into
effect only after an opinion had been given by the IBU. The
IBU was thus recognized as the expert body for collective action.

The `Prague Plan' did not allot definite waves to definite
stations, except in a few exceptional cases. It left national
administrations to make detailed alterations within a total of
allotted waves. Many of the wavelengths, however, were thosewhich had already been agreed upon at Geneva and Brussels.
A number of wavelengths were permitted outside the Washington Conference bands. The Soviet Union, which had participated neither in the Geneva nor Washington Conferences, wasprovided with a number of wavelengths. Those countries withthe oldest broadcasting systems-Britain, Germany, and Sweden-made a number of `sacrifices' in exchange.
These and other arrangements made were fitted for the firsttime into a formal `juristic' framework. The sanction behind
the Prague Protocol of April 1929 was neither the interest of theengineer nor of the broadcaster, but the authority of government.2 Administrations were expected to make the radio
stations for which they were `responsible' conform to the plan.
Even the Brussels Control Centre was fitted into the new frame J. D. Tomlinson, The International Control of Radiocornmunications (Michigan,
1945), P. 181.
Union, Documents de la Conférence Tell2 International Telecommunications
graphique Internationale de Prague (1929). See also an article by P. Brenot, `La Conférence Radioélectrique de Prague' in the Journal Juridique Internationale de laRadio-llectricité (1929).

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

344

work by means of a neat diplomatic formula. 'The Belgian
Administration shall be asked, provisionally and without cost or
responsibility on its part, to be so good as to have measured, byorgans chosen by itself; the wave lengths remitted by broadcasting stations and to communicate the results of these measurements to all Administrations through the intermediary of theInternational Bureau of the Telegraphic Union.'!
From 1929 onwards the IBU was caught up both in broadcasting and politics. There were difficulties under both headings.
As the number of wireless stations in Europe increased rapidly,
particularly in 1930 and 1931, problems of radio interference
increased. `Transmitting stations are being established everywhere.
Radio waves nowadays accompany one another,cross, meet, superpose, juxtapose, oppose, penetrate, mix andinterfere with each other. Sent out together in all directions,they have great difficulty at times in finding their true destination.'z Engineers might have agreed-so Peter Eckersley
thought-on a quite new plan to defeat `cacophony', a plan
including not only a reallotment of wavelengths but an increasein the separation between the medium waves, probably to I1
kilocycles. The solution of the problems of interference, hethought, lay in the IBU treating Europe as the BBC treated
Britain-rationing wavelengths and accepting new shares.3
Instead, there was no agreement. Wavelengths became precious
commodities, and the agreement reached at Geneva and ratified
at Prague became a solemn covenant which could not be
broken. Precedent triumphed over logic.
The political difficulties were even more acute. The IBU held
two principal meetings, the first in October 1931 at Rome andthe second in June 1932 at Geneva. Because of the strains
imposed on the effective implementation of the Prague agreement, the Union asked the Czechoslovak government as theofficial guardian of the Protocol to convene a European conference of governments to be held at Lugano in the autumn of1931. It could not secure a majority of governments in favourof this course, however, and all that could be done was the.

.

.

"The Protocol of Prague', clause x.
2
Opening Address at the Lucerne Conference, 1933, by Pilet Golaz. Quoted in
The International Control of Radiocommunication, p. t 1o.
3 The Power Behind the AIicrophone, p. tot.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION'45
introduction of minor modifications. 'The European governments will hold a meeting in conjunction with the Union as
their expert adviser', it was promised, 'as soon as the World
Conference at Madrid has completed its labours and agreed
upon the extent of the broadcasting wave bands.''
Soon after the fourth International Radio Telegraphic Conference had met in Madrid in September 1932 and createda new International Telecommunications Union, an attempt
was made to reach a new agreement about European wavelengths. It had been hoped by the IBU that the Madrid Conference would lead to an appreciable increase in the number
and length of wavebands available for broadcasting stations,but only four additional channels in the long wavebands werereapportioned.
The ship -owners had triumphed over the less well -organizedbroadcasting interest. 'At Washington there liad been a measureof respect for the needs of the various services. At Madrid,
Biblical examples were used to support the claim of one service
as against another, regardless of the technical aspects.'z Nor was
there unanimity among the broadcasters. The possibility ofallowing certain stations to broadcast outside the bands allottedto broadcasting was admitted, but Russia stipulated that whilst
other European countries might wish to allot certain bands foroutside services she would reserve them for broadcasting. The
French, by contrast, in defending aviation and military interests,
made compromise with the broadcasting interests almost
impossible. The small powers left Madrid disgruntled anduncertain, and as far as the European pattern as a whole wasconcerned, far more variety of usage was anticipated at Madrid
than had been tolerated at Geneva or even Prague.
The Madrid Conference reiterated the case for nationalsovereignty in broadcasting matters \ hich had been stated at
Prague, but entrusted the IBU with the task of preparing fora further conference about particular wavelengths. For its partthe IBU, following its own precedents, entrusted the preparatory planning for the conference to a small Technical Committee. The committee began by undertaking an inventory of'2

BBC rear Book (1933), `The Year at Geneva', pp. 305-7.
The International Control of Radiocommunications, p. 58.
1

346

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

all European broadcasting stations, including those contemplated or in course of construction, and drew up a catalogue ofall power increases that liad been made by European stations
and all examples of persistent interference. It also listed the often
contradictory criteria which would have to be taken into
account in determining a new European allocation of wavelengths-the number of existing stations and those under construction or alteration; the necessity of providing minimum
national services; the requirements of countries in which broadcasting was non-existent, just beginning its development, or in
the course of expansion; technical and physical considerations,such as topographical and geographical conditions; politicaland national considerations, such as 'the co -existence of several
national languages' and 'the importance of broadcasting as an
instrument of government'; and `conditions already establishedwhich it would be difficult not to take into account'.'
All these criteria had been considered when Braillard andEckcrsley had worked out the `logical bases' of a broadcasting
formula in 1925. They were re-examined time and time again
when the conclusions of the Technical Committee were debatedat the European Broadcasting Conference called by the IBU
at Lucerne in May and June 1933. Agreement could not bereached on a particular new formula, however, largely because
different countries and different interests within countries
wished to attach different Weight to particular criteria. The
question was fundamentally a political one, and the juggling of
figures and formulae in technical jargon (like the juggling at
the Disarmament Conference) was `merely a diplomatic way of
expressing a political interest'.2
Matters eventually had to be referred back to the TechnicalCommittee, with the French even then protesting vigorously
against the presence on the committee of a BBC engineer, L. W.
Hayes. There had been persistent trouble between the British
and the French in the talks leading up to the formation of the
IBU,3 and although Carpendale had a French Vice -President,
Tabouis-the husband of the controversial French journalist
See Codding, op. cit.; *Admiral Carpendale, Confidential Report on theProceedings at Lucerne, May/June 1933.
2
The Power Behind the Microphone, pp. 88 89.
3
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 317.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

347

of the 193os, Madame Tabouis-this did not help matters.
`Tabouis was as famous in the Union for his speeches as Madame
became later on ín the larger world for her writings.'' French
objections to the choice of Hayes were described by Carpendale
as 'only one incident in the constant antagonism existing
between France and England in matters of broadcasting'.2
There was also friction between the British Post Office, represented by F. W. Phillips, and the Soviet Union. The Russianspressed, as they had done at Madrid, for a large number of
exclusive waves (Moscow alone wanted five wavelengths),
while the representatives of air and shipping services objected
to Russian stations `encroaching into their wave bands'. British
listeners knew nothing at all of all this elaborate bargaining,
but Carpendale was ringing Reith up every night from Lucerne
where, he said, they were `having a dreadful time'.3
There was one moment in the talks, indeed, when they nearlyreached an impasse.
Russia having refused to move sufficiently and the `Services'having refused to have her stations in their bands in such large
numbers, the only alternative was to `increase the number of Russianstations in the long wave broadcasting band'. This was done, butthereby the next plan was made unacceptable to broadcasters,
because in order to accommodate five Russian high power stationsin the long wave band, it placed the stations too closely togethermany of them being only 7 kilocycles apart. Daventry found itself
actually 7 kilocycles from Moscow and 8 from Zeesen (Germany)
which, of course, we refused to accept. The situation now was thatthe `other Services' and Russia had scored at the expense of broadcasting in Europe.4
Four more `plans' were put forward before the penultimate
plan was produced in the middle of June. By this plan Britain
found herself with no exclusive wavelength except Daventry

and with several unsatisfactory `shares', the power limit on theshares having been removed. At this point Carpendale resorted tohigh diplomacy, remembered Disraeli's threat at the Congress of
Berlin, and actually left Lucerne for London. 'His departure surprised people', Reith wrote, 'but he thought it would have aneffect, and he said he was returning to take instructions from me.'5
The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 91.

*Confidential Report, p. 2.
4 'Confidential Report, p. 3.

7

3

5

Reith, Diary, 8 June 1933.
Reith, Diary, 11 June 1933.

348

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

A few days later agreement of a kind was reached, Daventry
being separated from Minsk, its new Russian neighbour, by 8
kilocycles and from Zeesen by 9 kilocycles. `Carpendale backat last from Lucerne', wrote Refill on 19 June, 'much delighted
on having fixed on a plan of sorts for two years after a very
rough passage indeed.»
It was, indeed, only a 'plan of sorts'. After two months ofdeliberation, the conference had drafted and signed a European
Broadcasting Convention with an attached plan for the distribution of frequencies throughout Europe, but eight of the thirtyfive participating countries, led by Holland, Sweden, andPoland, refused to sign the draft, and nineteen of those who
did sign made reservations about particular wavclengths.2`Politics entered very largely into the final Plan.' Finland did
not sign because of a dispute with Russia about the power ofRadio Leningrad. Hungary was a non -signatory `through not
being able to get sufficient channels to counter her neighbours'
propaganda'. There was also trouble with the shipping interests.
'The obsolete and unselective apparatus in ships was a factor
which contributed to their excessive demands.'3 While thenations divided on broadcasting wavelengths, the marine andair services were grouped together in peaceful subcommittees
of all nationalities, 'and these formed a very strong opponent'.4
The best feature of the plan was that it provided wavelengths
for three high -power long-wave stations yet to be built-in
Spain, Roumania, and Turkey-and there was a hope, therefore,that it would be possible to have a two years' truce, and 'to fit
things in during the next two years for the benefit of the non signatory countries'. Britain agreed with Russia on a two-year
scheme and France opposed, Britain and Russia winning by
the barest margin, sixteen votes against fifteen.

The impact of these discussions on British listeners was notdescribed to them in 1933 with the same colourful detail thatPeter Eckersley had employed in his memorable descriptionsof the discussions at Geneva and Prague. Yet three at least ofReich, Diary, 19 June 1933.
*Confidential Report, p. 4.
3 International
Telecommunications Union, Documents de la Conférence Européenne
des Radiocommunication de Lucerne (1933), pp. 809-66.
4*Confidential Report, p. 4.
2

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION349
the items on the agenda at this and subsequent meetings of the
IBU-the 1934. meeting was held in London and the 1937
meeting, with Dr. Goebbels in the background, in Berlin-wereof very real interest to listeners in Britain. The first was the
problem of interference, the second the possibility of European

interchange of programmes, and the third, more important
than the rest, the fate of commercial radio stations in Europe,
particularly Radio Luxembourg.
Interference at particular times was noted throughout the
1930s, particularly on the long wave, where there were too manyclaimants for the limited number of places available.' The
separation between different stations was often inadequate topermit of good selective reception. Listeners often referred suchproblems, along with problems of domestic interference fromelectrical apparatus, to the Engineering Information Department of the BBC, earlier known as the Technical Correspondence Section. A further International Telecommunications
Conference on these and other problems was held at Cairo
from ,January to April 1938, and it was followed once more by
the delegation of specific wavelength problems to the TechnicalCommittee of the IBU.
Programme interchange raised quite different issues. Denmark, Germany, Holland, Hungary, and the U.S.A., forexample, relayed the speeches at the opening of the Interim
Round Table Conference in November 1930. A talk by George
Bernard Shaw on Saint loan \vas relayed to Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Finland, and the United States a year later. In
December 1934 Henry Hall was heard in Czechoslovakia.2
In 1935 British listeners could hear a Chopin recital from Warsaw, operas from Milan, Eskimo songs from Denmark, and a
programme of Egyptian music from Cairo.3
The IBU frequently discussed such relays, attaching great
importance to those which made for `international understanding'. It also suggested other programme projects. At its 1932
Conference, for example, it discussed the possibility of assembling in each country a collection of musical scores typical ofother nations.4 It later sponsored `National Nights' on which
See. for example, World Radio, ro July 1936.
z
4

BBC Annual (1935), pp. 45-46.
*BBC Press Release, r June 1932.
1

3

Ibid. (1936) , p. 126.

350

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

concerts were given in many parts of Europe `dedicated toa specific country'. On Christmas Eve 1933 the bells of Bethlehem were heard simultaneously 'in all the continents of theworld'.' Copyright questions figured frequently on the agenda,
and there was a separate Legal Commission which in 1937
drew up a formal memorandum of propositions about copyright.2 There were often bitter complaints against companies`whose operations consist solely in picking up or tapping intotransmissions of other organisations without previous consent
in order to distribute these to their clientele by wire, gramophone records or otherwise'.3
More important, however, than most of the other matters
was the development of commercial broadcasting in Europe.
All other questions dealt with by the IBU were in the last resort

questions of co-operation: commercial broadcasting raisedquestions of competition, particularly for the BBC. British
listeners were interested in the English programmes of Radio
Normandie, Radio Luxembourg, and other continental commercial stations. The fate of these stations concerned not only
the BBC but the Post Office, the press, and even the Foreign
Office. It also interested the Ullswater Committee. `It had been
widely recognised that the practice of excluding advertisementsfrom broadcast programmes in this country is to the advantage
of listeners', the committee reported. `In recent years, however,this policy has been contravened, and the purposes sought by
the unified control of broadcasting have been infringed by thetransmission of advertisements in English from certain stations
abroad which are not subject to the influence of the British
authorities except by way of international agreement andnegotiation.'
The Ullswater Committee supported the effort to preserve
the BBC's monopoly, while admitting that bodies like the IBU
had limited powers to control or to redress the situation. 'We
understand that the Post Office and the Foreign Office take all
the steps which are in their power with a view to preventing thebroadcasting from foreign countries in English of programmes'
23*BBC Press Release, 7 June 1934.
*BBC Press Release, 16 Mar. 1937.
*BBC Press Release, 17 May 1933.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION 351
which include advertisements and to which previous objection
has been taken. We approve this policy, but it is obvious that
co-operation with foreign countries is necessary to make thepolicy internationally efective»

This man boasts he can get Timbuctoo on one valve.

26. Listeners to Foreign Stations, as seen by Bateman.

The first English -language commercial programmes from
Europe made very little impression on listeners. In 1925
Captain L. F. Plugge persuaded Selfridges to sponsor a fashion
talk from the Eiffel Tower station in Paris: three listeners wrote
in to say that they had heard the broadcast.2 Three years latera firm of radio manufacturers began a fortnightly series of
Sunday concerts of light music by de Groot's orchestra fromRadio Hilversum: the broadcasts, timed for a period when the
BBC was off the air, lasted, with few interruptions, until 1930.
They were supplemented by other broadcasts in 1929, 1930, and1931 from Radio Toulouse. The broadcasts were advertisedin the Radio Times and in World Radio, two BBC publications,Cmd. 5091 (1936), Report of the Broadcasting Committee, §§ 113 and 14. For thegeneral conclusions of the Ullswater Committee, see below, pp. 498-504.
This is the IBC (n.(1.), p. 3.
1

352

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

and they caused little harm to the BBC. Indeed, when in 1928
there was talk of Baird Television buying time on Racíio
Hilversum, a note of warning from the BBC's Foreign Director,
Major Atkinson, drew the uninitialed comment, almost certainly from Reith, 'My reaction is why worry when io% of ourlisteners are affected? Are we so afraid of competition?'1
Competition quickened in 1929 and 1930. In 1929 a privatecompany of radio advertising contractors was formed under thename of Radio Publicity Ltd. It canvassed business firms andarranged programmes on a number of foreign stations, including the powerful long -wave Radio Paris. In February 1930 it
produced a pamphlet, 'How often have you thought-if only we
could advertise by radio?' A number of gramophone -record
firms, food -product firms, one toothpaste firm, and one cigarette
firm had thought-and they arranged Radio Paris programmes,
mainly recitals of gramophone records. Programmes were also
arranged from the Irish Free State. R.P.L. changed its name to
Universal Radio Publicity Ltd. in 1930. The BBC took no steps
to interfere with these programmes, but it welcomed a Dutch
ban on sponsored programmes in 1930 and a Belgian ban in
1932.

Two more serious commercial developments, scarcely noticed
at the time by the BBC, were the registration in March 1930
of a new private company, the International Broadcasting Company, another and more ambitious venture of Captain Plugge;
and the first concession to a French company, the Société
Luxembourgeoise d'Études Radiophoniques, for a wirelessstation of not less than ioo kilowatts in Luxembourg in September 1930. The object of the IBC was to sell time on the air fromforeign wireless stations. It had a curious contact, however, with
the BBC. Plugge and one of his fellow directors were also
directors of Radio International Publicity Services Ltd.: inthis capacity they had been under contract to the BBC since
1927 to translate and sub -edit foreign wireless programmes forWorld Radio.

In October 1931 the IBC began arranging broadcasts fromRadio Normandie, a io-kilowatt station located near Fécamp
and able to give a good service to the whole south coast area ofEngland. The potential British audience for Radio Normandie*Note by C. F. Atkinson, 5 Nov. 1928.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

353

was greater in size than the French audience. Again a firm of
wireless manufacturers, this time an American firm, were IBC's
first Radio Normandie clients: after the BBC had closed down,
they began a Sunday-night gramophone programme of 'hit'
records in what the BBC considered a 'blatant Americanmanner'. For the first time in its history the BBC made a protest
to the Post Office about foreign commercial competition, andthe Chief Engineer suggested representations through the IBU.'
In the meantime the Luxembourg plan \vent ahead. The
initial sponsors sold their concession to a new company, thistime with a less innocuous name, the Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Rediffusion, in June 1931. A majority of the Board ofnine directors were to be of Luxembourg nationality, but mostof the new capital, like the old, was French. Among the interests
behind the venture were the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas,the Compagnie Générale de Télégraphie Sans Fil, and the
Agence Havas. The Banque de París was closely associated with
the Société Francaise Radioélectrique, the great French wireless manufacturing company and owners of Radio Paris, andthe C.G.T.S.F. was a sister company.
The new sponsors were to plan programmes under the direction of a Programme Commission to be appointed by the
Luxembourg government. Advertising was to be allowed 'within limits fixed by the Luxembourg Post Office', and the power of
the transmitter was to be not less than too kilowatts. The station
was to operate on 'a wavelength of 210-500 metres in accordance with the Prague Convention or on a wavelength to be
determined later by international convention'. The reference tothe second possibility suggested that the sponsors were seeking
to obtain a long -wave allocation, and Burrows from the IBU
office in Geneva confirmed this. Both the technical detailswavelength and power-and the political pressures that lay
behind the project for the new station created great concern inthe BBC.
Knowledge of the `congestion' in the long -wave band, coupledwith the memories of the hard diplomatic bargaining about
particular wavelengths at IBU conferences, led the BBC to ask
the Post Office to write to Luxembourg concerning its future
Reich to the Postmaster -General, 16 Nov. 1931; Ashbridge to Reich, t6 Nov.
1931.
C 1905

A a

354

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

plans. An evasive reply was received which confirmed the worst
suspicions.' Concern at the political level was enhanced bya brief paragraph in the Wireless World which quoted a tributein the French Journal Officiel to one of the French sponsors of theventure who had just been promoted to office in the Légion
d'Honneur. 'He has succeeded,' the Journal Officiel put it, 'inagreement with the French government, in founding the mostpowerful station in Europe, to be situated in Luxembourg under
the absolute control of France.'2
Burrows made ominous supplementary points in two letters
written to the BBC in December 1931 and January 1932. `It
looks as though the use of European broadcasting stations foradvertising purposes will be unavoidable once Luxembourg has
begun to shout with a loud voice all over European territory.'
The power of the new station, he said, was to be 200 kilowatts
and it would start broadcasting in the summer of 1932. It set
an extremely dangerous precedent. `If Luxembourg, which
represents a certain financial group, is allowed by the governments of Europe to ignore the Prague Plan and the work of theUnion, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent
similar financial groups in other countries taking similar steps
to suit their personal interests.'3
The BBC's first response was to work through Carpendale as
President of the IBU. In January 1932 he wrote to Tabouis, his
N' ice -President, who was personally involved in the control ofRadio Paris and the Compagnie Générale de Télégraphie Sans
Fil. Carpendale began by pointing out that the BBC had notprotested against English advertising from Radio Paris, Radio
Toulouse, and Radio Normandie because these were French
stations and their `employment for non -French purposes wasmore or less exceptional'. This was an understatement, but theattitude underlying it vas similar to that expressed at Pragueand Madrid. Sovereignty was real and should not he challenged
without powerful reason. Luxembourg, however, was a different
matter, Carpendale insisted. Its power was vastly in excess ofthe needs of the Grand Duchy itself, and the people who liad
been granted the broadcasting concession had `expressly and*Letter from G.P.O., 26 Nov. 1931; reply from Luxembourg, 2 Dec. 1931.
Wireless World, 31 Oct., 21 Dec. 1931; Journal Officiel, 28 Aug. 1931.
3 *I3urrows to Carpendale, 21 Dec. 1931; to Atkinson, 6 Jan. 1932.
1

2

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

355

frankly confessed that their main object was to broadcast ads ertising programmes to neighbouring countries, particularly thosewhich do not allow advertising in their own national programmes'. Questions of principle is ere plainly involved. On thetechnical question of wavelength, a precedent would be established if Luxembourg, `under absolute French control' (as the
Journal Officiel had put it), were allowed to seize a long wavelength in defiance of international agreement. Did the French
intend it to make use of a long wavelength allotted to France?'
Tabouis in his reply made die most of the sovereignty of
Luxembourg. What could IBU do against a sovereign state?
He said that C.G.T.S.F. had not been involved in the first concession-conveniently overlooking its financial links with otherFrench organizations that were-and was only a minority holder
in the new concession. He tentatively hinted at compromises,`results which shall he satisfactory in practice and remove yourfears'.2 In fact, plans went ahead, and it was the British Post
Office which made the next protest, complaining in May 1932
that experimental broadcasts from Luxembourg on a wavelengthof 1,25o metres infringed the Washington Convention andwere interfering with British aircraft wireless services. The Air
Ministry supported this protest, which went through diplomaticchannels. F. NV. Phillips of the Post Office also made it clear to
Carpendale that he did not approve of the `threatened forcingof advertising programmes into Great Britain' and that the
Post Office would not rent lines to advertising concerns.
Finally the IBU in June 1932 unanimously adopted a resolution
at its Montreux convention; condemning Radio Luxembourg's`piracy' of a long wave. `It expresses the universal opinion of
our members', Carpendale told Phillips, `although one neverquite knows what certain countries who may benefit by thesearrangements really feel about it.'3
The Luxembourg government itself sent conciliatory replies
both to the IBU and to Britain, and a number of compromise
proposals were made in an effort to win British support for its
claim for a long wave. In September 1932, for example, Tabouis
suggested that Radio Luxembourg as 'a neutral and impartial*Carpendale to Tabouis, 2g Jan. 1932.
*Tabouis to Carpendale, 2 Feb. 1932.
3 *BBC Notes; Carpendale to Phillips, 16 June 1932.
I

2

356

AUDIENCE: AT IIOME AND ABROAD

station' could become 'one of the essential elements in that
European co-operation which IBU had always desired' heconveniently did not refer to sponsored programmes at all.'Carpendale was rightly sceptical. Luxembourg could not be an`international neutral post' unless it was managed by a `noncommercial and truly international committee'.2 He was willing, however, to meet representatives of the Luxembourg
sponsors, CLR, in London, and did so in January 1933.
Suggestions were made at this time that the BBC might be
represented on 'an international advisory board consisting ofseveral members per country'. Already German and Dutch
broadcasting interests had expressed interest in such a proposal.
It was pointed out also by the CLR representatives that unlessthe BBC came in, advertising interests would be completely freeto `counter the BBC's advertisement and Sunday policies very:

effectively indeecl'.3

British listeners still knew nothing of the haute politique of all
this. They did not even know much in general terms about thesignificance of the development of a third force between themand the commercial broadcasting interest-the British wirelessexchange or relay trade. It is impossible to tell the story even of
the haute politique without taking wireless -relay exchanges into
the reckoning. The first relay exchange in Great Britain had
been started in January 1925 in the village of Hythe near
Southampton: its organizer, A. W. Maton, who owned anelectrical shop, wired programmes to a number of local subscribers at a weekly rent.4 Even earlier, in 1924, the Guernsey
States Telephone Council had asked the BBC whether there
would be any objection to 'the installation of a wireless receiving
set near the switchboard in the Central Exchange so that the
British Broadcasting Company's programmes could be intercepted and relayed to telephone subscribers on payment ofa small charge'.5 This idea, which was as old as the 189os,6*Tabouis to Carpendale, 3o Sept. 1932.
*Carpendale to Tabouis, to Oct. 1932.
' *CLR Memoranda of 12 Jan., 23 Jan. 1933.
4 See R. H. Coase, British Broadcasting, A Study in Monopoly (195o), ch. 4, fora valuable general account of 'wire broadcasting'.
*r. J. Brown to Reith, Mar. 1924; Reith to Brown, 13 Mar. 1924.
6 See The Birth cf Broadcasting, pp. 42-43.
'

5

1EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

357

dazzled a number of people in different parts of the country
in the later 192os, and by 1929 there were thirty-four relay
exchanges in Britain with 8,592 subscribers. 'A new industry
had come into existence', and the number of exchanges morethan doubled in the course of 1930.1
The operators of the first local relay exchanges took out
a special licence from the Post Office: in addition, each separate
subscriber had to take out a separate wireless licence. The
nature of the owner's licence was changed by the Post Office inApril 1930, two years after the BBC had sent to the Post Officea copy of German regulations which laid down that exchange
operators had to promise not to relay `private' or foreign programmes. In the new British licence of 1930 similar limiting
conditions were imposed. First, in line not only with German
precedent but with the Post Office's policy in 1922,2 licensees
had to promise not `to originate at the stations [exchanges] orcollect by wire any programme or item whether musical orotherwise or information of any kind for distribution to subscribers'. Second, the licences, like the BBC's Licence, ereterminable. Third, the Post Office provided `tramway terms' forcompulsory purchase of private plant in 1932 at three months'
notice and upon terms favourable to the State.
These limiting conditions did not, in fact, prevent the rapid
growth of `re -diffusion'. By the end of 1931 there were 132
exchanges and 43,889 subscribers, and a year later 194 exchanges and 82,690 subscribers. The figures had risen to 343
and 233,554 by the end of 1935.3 Following representations byrelay interests, the Postmaster -General extended the period of
the relay licences to the end of 1933 and later to the end of 1936,
when the BBC's Charter was due to expire.
Relay reception liad obvious advantages. Loudspeakers inhouses were easier to operate than wireless receiving sets, andtheir hire was slightly cheaper and sometimes more convenient
than the purchase of a set even on instalment terms. They wereparticularly suited to people living in large blocks of flats whereindividual reception was liable to electrical interference. They
were capable, moreover, of providing better reception of foreign
programmes than many low or even high-priced wirelessreceiving sets: a master set with special aerials at the relay'

Ibid., pp. 70, 76.

2

Ibid., pp. 93-107.

3

British Broadcasting, p. 76.

358

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

station had definite technical advantages. They were bound to
be used, ín a free market, for the rediffusion of foreign commercial programmes, if these programmes genuinely made anappeal to large numbers of listeners. The motive of the relay
exchange owner was simple-to please the greatest possible
number of subscribers.
The BBC was interested from the beginning in the development of relay exchanges. The system was seen as a potentiallyvaluable supplement to broadcasting in areas of inferior wireless reception.' Peter Eckersley went further, and after he left the
BBC quickly became one of the most active supporters of `wire
broadcasting', attempting in vain to convert the BBC to a policyof `substituting wire for wireless'.2 He pointed out as early as
1925 that wire broadcasting got round part of the difficulty of
the limitation in the total number of available wavelengths,
and in 1928 he joined with Goldsmith and Lochhead in preparing a memorandum on rediffusion in which he stated thatthe problem might involve the creation of 'an undertaking far
surpassing the BBC in magnitude'.
This memorandum advocated the setting up of 'centrales',which would provide rediffusion by wire in towns and cities as'an integral part of the BBC service'. `It is not impossible',
Eckersley added, 'to visualise, in say 20 years time, complete
wire broadcasting, supplemented, it is true, but in minor part,by wireless broadcasting.'3 To get the scheme going he envisaged
co-operation with the Post Office, and went so far as to work out
a scheme for an experimental BBC exchange at Norwich, thewiring to be clone by the Post Office. The scheme broke clown,
one of the points of' difficulty apparently being that the Post
Office would not commit itself to the principle of BBC monopoly
in the event of the scheme proving a success.4 Eckersley leftthe BBC soon afterwards and in 1931 became associated with
Rediffusion Ltd., one of the large companies by then engaged
in the relay business. Sir William Noble, another of thepioneers of the BBC,S was also involved.
*Memorandum on 'Relay Exchanges', 28 May 1943.
See The Power Behind the Microphone, especially ch. xi.
*Control Board Minutes. 6 Nov. 1928; Eckersley to Reith, 23 Oct., 5 Nov.
1928; Memorandum on Wireless Exchanges, 29 Nov. 1928.
The detailed papers relating to this scheme have disappeared.
5
For Noble, see The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 117.
2

3

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

359

Both the growth of the relay business and the expansion ofcommercial broadcasting between 1929 and 1932 gave force
and urgency to the question of maintaining the BBC's monopoly
control. It was no longer possible for the BBC to watch quietly
what was happening. Relay stations putting across commercial
programmes could break the BBC's monopoly with the ordinary
British listener. Two conceptions of broadcasting, one explicitly
agreed upon by Parliament as the basis of the British systempublic service broadcasting by a public corporation-the other,
commercial broadcasting, explicitly turned down inside Britain
itself, were in danger of clashing without Parliament being consulted at all. In the conflict of conceptions the BBC had thefull support of the press, which sent deputations on its own
account to the Post Office to protest against foreign commercial
broadcasts. It also agreed through the Newspaper Proprietors'
Association and the Newspaper Society that newspapers would
not make use of foreign stations for advertising or publicity
purposes.'
With a view to avoiding an open clash, the BBC reachedagreement in October 1931 with two of the largest relay
exchange companies-Standard Radio Relay Services Ltd. andRadio Central Exchanges Ltd.-that in return for certain
services from the BBC the relay exchanges concerned would
rediffuse none but BBC programmes.2 This was a fascinating
development, but it broke down because of the attitude of the
Post Office which, both parties agreed, had to give its consent
to the scheme before it could come into force.

The Postmaster -General changed after the General Electionof 1931, and Kingsley Wood, the new holder of the office,refused his consent to the scheme in June 1932. However firm
the Post Office was in resisting the rise of Radio Luxembourg on
the international front, it refused to buttress further the BBC's

monopoly on the home front. It would be unfair, Kingsley
Wood and his advisers argued, to impose restrictions on relay
subscribers which were not imposed on the private ownersof wireless sets. Most of the relay subscribers were, after all,' British Broadcasting, pp. 107-8; Ad ertisers' Weekly, 22 Dec. 1932, 23 Feb. 19332
* Memorandum of ¢ Nov. 1938, `Relay Exchanges'. Among the services, theBBC promised to allow direct connexion between the exchanges and its control
room by land -line.

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

360

listeners with limited means who should not be deprived of thefreedom enjoyed by richer citizens. Kingsley Wood did not add,
as he might have done, that relay subscribers also constituted
a section of the 'mass electorate'. At this point broadcasting
policy began to get caught up in the thickets of politics. Almost
at the same time that Phillips was bemoaning 'the threatened
forcing of advertising programmes into Great Britain', the Post
Office was refusing to limit reception of these programmes fromwithin.
When the agreement with the relay companies broke clown,
the BBC was left to work out its policy concerning commercial
competition inside the IBU, this time along with the Post Office.
As a result two important resolutions were passed by the Councilof the IBU, on the initiative of the BBC, in May 1933. The firstwas aimed at Radio Normandie and stated that, in the light of
the Madrid Convention, 'the systematic diffusion of programmes
or messages, which are specifically intended for listeners inanother country and which have been the object of a protest by
the broadcasting organisation of that country, constitutes an"inadmissible" act from the point of view of good international
relations'. Members of the IBU were asked to avoid such transmissions and to urge organizations outside the IBU to do thesame.
The second was aimed at the projected Radio Luxembourg.
'The Union can have nothing to do with any developments inthe technical field of broadcasting which do not pay the most
scrupulous attention to the rules established by international
conventions.' Moreover, 'the Union cannot sympathise withany type of programme which is essentially based on the ideaof commercial advertising in the international field'. Lastly,'the transmission of international programmes by a nationalorganisation, which has not been internationally recognised,
might give rise to such serious difficulties and disturb the goodunderstanding between nations so profoundly that the transmission of such programmes despite the absence of internationalrecognition must be considered by the Union as an "inadmissible" element in European broadcasting.»
These resolutions were passed on by the IBU to the Bureauof the International Telecommunications Union, and the latter,'

The resolutions are printed in British Broadcasting, pp. III -12.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION361

in passing them on to national governments, added its own
gloss. Commercial broadcasting was one way of organizing
radio inside countries: there was no strength, however, in thecase for broadcasting commercially to the inhabitants of anothercountry 'in their own language, in order by this indirect violation of national laws, to give large profits to the organisers'.I
Unequivocal statements of this kind determined the atmosphere when Luxembourg's demand for a long wave was turned
down at Brussels and Lucerne.2 Yet it was clear that the pressure
from commercial interests, including British interests, wasincreasing. The names of twenty-one British firms organizing
programmes from foreign stations were published at the end of
1932: they were mainly in consumer-goods industries, including
radio and gramophone records.3 One newspaper was involved,
the Sunday Referee, which in consequence was expelled from theNewspaper Proprietors' Association in February 1933.4
There was a close relationship between the Sunday Referee andPlugge's International Broadcasting Company (IBC) which
considerably increased its strength in 1932: it even set up an`International Broadcasting Club' in the summer of 1932 withthe alleged object of `bringing into closer relationship all
listeners to IBC transmissions'. In April 1933 it began its own
weekly programme sheet. Radio Paris was offering 2 hours ofsponsored programmes on Sundays, Radio Normandie 12, Radio
Toulouse 11, and Radio Cote d'Azur i hour. There were also
61 hours of sponsored programmes from Radio Normandie on
weekdays. A new arrival among stations sending out commercial
programmes in English was Radio Ljubljana in Yugoslavia.
Before Radio Luxembourg went on the air in the spring of
1933, in defiance of the IBU, the Post Office, and the BBC, theBBC had taken its first action to modify programme arrangements to prevent advertisers from foreign stations having a
Journal Télégraphique, May 1933.
For Brussels and Lucerne, see above, pp. 34i-8. Phillips had also made asharp attack on the long -wave proposal for Luxembourg at the Madrid Confer1

2

ence. See The International Control of Radiocommunications, pp. 159 6o, where a portion of one of Phillips's speeches is printed.
3 British Broadcasting, p. tot.
Sunday Referee, 27 Feb., 12 Mar. 1933. It offered advertisers who bought spacein its columns a broadcast advertisement of too words or more from Radio I'aris.
The Sunday Referee rejoined the NPA in Nov. 1934. Its use of Radio Paris had been
anticipated by John Bull in Dec. 1931.

362

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

special advantage. It lengthened the hours of broadcasting on
Sundays to include transmissions between 12.3o and 3 p.m. It
did not change the content of the programmes, however-Reith
said that it never would-and left Sunday variety and dancebands to Radio Paris and Radio Normandie.' When Radio
Luxembourg began its broadcasts in English-on the forbidden
long wavelength-it restricted them in the first instance to
Sundays, and concentrated on light programmes, particularly
the cheapest of all programmes to produce, gramophonerecords.
The object of the station was not to provide in any sense 'aninternational neutral point', but rather a communications centreof the `world of pop', `spots, pops and (in clue course) old-time
religion'.2 The first studios were opened in the Villa Louvigny,
set in a quiet park eleven miles from the city centre of Luxembourg. The BBC must have been extremely surprised when it
received a letter in March 1933 from the first Station Director
announcing that programmes in English \vould be sent out on
Sundays and asking for BBC publicity on their behalf.3 The
response of the BBC was to ban the publication of Radio Luxembourg's programmes in World Radio.4
Radio Luxembourg, once established, remained on the air
until two weeks after the outbreak of war in 1939, outlasting allother predominantly commercial stations. Further attempts ata `compromise' with the BBC in 1933 (and 1935) failed completely, and the station went on alone, as it put it in a memorandum, 'with the work it assigned itself'.5 Suppression was
impossible. 'Non possumus', said Reith and Carpendale, withgreat reluctance.6 In January 1934 Radio Luxembourg began
to broadcast on the wavelength of 1,304 metres which had beenallotted to Warsaw at the Lucerne Conference but had not vet
been taken up. Post Office protests, many of them backed up by
diplomatic representation through the Foreign Office, all failed,2

See above, p. 54.
See the interesting article with this title written by P. Williams in Time andTide, 15 Feb. 1962.

*J. Martin to the BBC, 30 Mar. 1933.
World Radio, 7 Apr. 1933.
5 *Memorandum of 6 July 1933. There were talks in the
Ardennes in 1935
3

between Carpendale and representatives of the Luxembourg government.
6 *Memorandnm
to the Board of Governors, 27 Sept. 1937.

EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION

363

the Luxembourg Prime Minister repeatedly emphasizing that
there was nothing he either could do or wished to do to stop
CLR from conducting its affairs in its own way.' Protests fromthe IBU were similarly brushed aside as the comments ofa `private organisation'.
The amount spent by advertisers increased sharply in 1934
and 1935, as the football pools increased their share and more
and more emphasis was placed on 'the lower middle and lower
class market', as one advertiser put it.2 Programmes consisted
almost exclusively of variety, light music, and gramophonerecords. The British Post Office refused to allow Radio Luxembourg or any other foreign station the use of land lines for relayof their sponsored programmes from Britain, but with thedevelopment of improved methods of recording,3 much of thepresentation work could be carried on in London.
The BBC refused Radio Luxembourg permission to relay
several big national events in Britain, such as the King's speech
in February 1936, but it could not always stop the relaying of
French commentaries on British events. Nor could it fully control its own broadcasters. Christopher Stone's contract with the
BBC was cancelled when he broadcast regular programmes
from the Continent, but some dance bands broadcast on both
BBC and Radio Luxembourg programmes and the Programme
Board had to recognize that it could not refuse BBC contracts
to artists who broadcast from foreign commercial stations.¢
The press remained suspicious of Radio Luxembourg. The
odd situation arose, indeed, that the Communist Daily Worker
could proudly announce, after the capitulation of the Sunday
Referee, that 'no other daily newspaper in Britain gives the
Luxembourg programme. The Daily Worker is now able to fill
the gaps.'s

In the meantime, the number of British listeners to Luxembourg increased sharply, with the relay exchanges often acting
as an intermediary. A survey made by the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising in November and December
There is a great deal of evidence on this matter ir. the Post Office Archives.
For the marketing side of commercial broadcasting, see Mather and Crowther
Ltd., Facts and Figures of Commercial Broadcasting (1938).
2

3
5

Sec above, p. 99.
Daily Forkcr, 29 Nov. 1935.
I+

See above, p. 55.

364

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

1935 showed that one out of two of the British listeners interviewed listened to Radio Luxembourg regularly on Sundays:
on weekdays the figure dropped to 11 per cent. A London Press
Exchange inquiry at the same time suggested that the Sunday
listeners to Radio Luxembourg were `loyal', that is to say theytended to listen at the same times each week.' Further inquiries
were made by the BBC's own Listener Research section after
the problem had been ventilated by the Ullswater Committee.2
Among 2,000 members of the `light entertainment' public,
22 per cent. listened regularly to foreign stations (not necessarily
commercial stations) on weekdays and 66 per cent. on Sundays.3
The last big pre-war inquiries were made in 1938 by a Joint
Committee of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers
and the Institute of Incorporated Practitioners in Advertising,with Professor Arnold Plant as chairman. Listening, it was
clear, was still heaviest on Sundays, much of it during theextended hours of BBC transmission.4 Over million households, it was estimated, were listening to Luxembourg between
o'clock and 2 o'clock on Sunday afternoons. The north-eastof England, South Wales, and the London area provided thehighest proportion of listeners-in that order. With minor
exceptions, the BBC weekday service remained more popularthan that of all foreign commercial stations combined, andBritish listening to foreign stations reached its peak when noneof the Corporation's stations was transmitting.s
Of foreign stations other than Radio Luxembourg, Radio
Normandie remained the most popular. Radio Paris was takenover by the French government in April 1933, and sponsoring
stopped in November. Radio Toulouse had controls imposed
upon it in July 1933, and there was talk of reducing the powerof Radio Normandie later in the same year. Radio Toulouse
was soon active again, however, and reopened with a blaze oftrumpets (and addresses from Winston Churchill-and Peter
Eckersley) in 1938. A new French commercial station, Poste
Parisien, began broadcasting commercial programmes in English in November 1933 and was followed by Radio Lyons, in
1

1*Material in BBC Archives.
z

See below, p. 502.

4

For the extension of hours, see above, pp. 25-26.
Survey of Listening to Sponsored Radio Programmes.

5

7

See above, p. 276.

365
EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION
which Pierre Laval had an interest, in 1936; and Radio Normandie actually increased the hours available for commercial
broadcasting in the mid-193os.
Captain Plugge, who was elected as Conservative Member ofParliament for Chatham at the General Election of 1935, talkedof Radio Normandie as a `thirteenth colony', which justified all
the efforts of IBC. Its advertising revenue was considerably lessthan that of Radio Luxembourg, yet it had the backing not onlyof the IBC but of a number of big advertising agencies, someof them American. IBC ran a programme unit-the Universal
Programme Corporation-in 1935, and Radio Normandie wasconsequently much less dependent on gramophone records thanRadio Luxembourg has been in its post-war phase. Many of the
programmes put across by Radio Normandie were of a distinctly American type. Three American 'soap operas' followed
each other in a row, for example, on five days of the week in
1939.
Repeated efforts by the BBC to persuade the kaleidoscopic
French governments of the 193os to `control' such broadcasting
all failed. In 1934., for example, Pellenc, of the French Ministryof Posts and Telegraphs, told Carpendale that `letters of recall'
had been signed by his Ministry to stop English advertisingprogrammes, but he did not know the outcome.' Three years

later ,Jardillier, of the same Ministry, admitted that taxes
imposed by the French government to act as a deterrent had
been easily evaded.2 Soon afterwards, in December 1937, it wasreported from Paris that the Chautemps government was about
to prohibit all English sponsored programmes by decree-andthe reports rang so true that in London threatened commercial
and political interests rallied with vigour3-but in January 1938
Chautemps resigned. The new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs
did not seek to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor. Nor was
the French Parliament any more effective than its Ministers.
In April 1938 the Posts and Telegraphs Committee of theFrench Chamber reported in favour of suppressing English*Pellenc to Carpendale, 2 Oct. 1934.
*BBC Note on a meeting of Dec. 1937.
adver3
The Times, 28 Dec. 1937; see the Advertisers' Weekly for 6 Jan. 1938 forandtisers' comments. There were also letters to The Times in February and March
IncorThe
645-6.)
331,
cols.
vol.
(Hansard,
Boothby.
by
Parliamentinprotestaporated Society of British Advertisers set up a Radio Defence Committee.
'

2

366

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND \BROAD
advertising programmes from French stations. Nothing came of
its report.
Other countries were either more amenable to BBC pressure
or were not tempted to yield to the pressure of British advertising interests, which was felt (and resisted) in Austria, Denmark,
Hungary, Yugoslavia, and even Germany in 1936 and 1937.
A limited amount of advertising was carried on from Radio
Athlone, renamed Radio Eireann in February 1938, and fora short time Spanish stations were drawn into the British advertising network. By spring 1939, however, Luxembourg and theFrench pirate stations were the only ones still broadcasting
advertising programmes to Britain. In Europe as a whole,a more serious problem was the extension of beamed radio

propaganda, stirring up hate and distrust, particularly among
ethnic minorities. With the opening of Radio Andorra in 1939,
Monaco was the only country in Europe without an independent radio service,' but listeners' freedom was often severely
limited. In Germany, for example, up to five years' imprisonment was the penalty for passing on to a third party `detrimental news' picked up from a foreign station :2 it was also an
offence to decry in any way the activities or personnel of theGerman broadcasting system.3 The People's Receiving Set was
designed to receive German stations only. Three million of themhad been sold by 1939, nearly 70 per cent. of them to `workers'.
Links with foreign countries were organized not through the
IBU, but through bilateral pacts, like the cultural agreementwith Italy in 1938, which provided for an exchange of music,
talks, and descriptive broadcasts between the two countries.¢
Against this background the BBC's battle against foreigncommercial broadcasting lost some of its sting. The last unsuccessful international attempt to deal with it was made at theWorld Telecommunications Conference at Cairo in 1938, when
all the participants at the Madrid Conference were present,along with representatives of nine new countries.s The conference increased the length of the waveband available for broad 2

World Radio, 29 Jan. 1939.
Ibid., 14 Apr. 1939.

See F. Gower, `Broadcasting in Germany' in The Spectator, 24 Feb. 1939.
World Radio, 9 Dec. 1938.
5
See Codding, The International Telecommunications Union, pp. 16o-8o; Tomlinson,
The International Control of Radiocommunications pp. 210-12.
1

367
EUROPE: CO-OPERATION AND COMPETITION
casting, yet refused to support the British Post Office incondemning commercial broadcasting for countries overseas.

The story of this last attempt, though dwarfed by frightening
new developments in European radio, is exciting in itself. In
February 1938 Colonel Angwin, the Engineer -in -Chief of the
Post Office, moved a resolution in the First Sub -Committee of
the Technical Commission of the Conference that `because of
the difficulty of allocating to the broadcasting service between
15o and 50o kilocycles, a sufficient number of waves to allow
each country in the European region to assure a satisfactory
national service, no wave of this band may be used by a country
in this region for transmissions in the nature of commercial
publicity sent in any other language but the national languageor languages of that country'.' Angwin said that the British
Parliament and press were `aroused over this question, and
the Post Office had even been requested to "interfere with thestations in question"'. Angwin was eloquent enough to win the
support of his sub -committee which, after a brief discussion,passed the resolution. The French representative, however, wasabsent, and at the next meeting the whole question was reopened with great feeling. The French challenged the jurisdiction of the sub -committee as well as the content of the resolution,
and after a heated debate the matter was referred back to theTechnical Committee as a whole. There was a tie in the vote in
the full committee-fifteen on each side-with twenty-threeabstentions. By the rules of the conference, the American chairman stated that the proposal had lapsed. The British had been
supported by only eight European delegations out of twentyseven. France had successfully defended French commercial
interests not only in France but in Luxembourg. Phillips of the
Post Office, unhappy about BBC Sunday programmes, hadbeen somewhat restrained at the final session. `Ashbridge', hewrote to the Director -General of the Post Office, 'came roundin a very gloomy mood. He suggested that if I had been in myusual form I could easily Dave carried the meeting.'z
On the eve of the Cairo Conference the Post Office had
International Telecommunications Union, Documents de la Conférence Internationale des Radiocommunications du Caire (1938).
2 Phillips to Gardiner, 3 Mar. 1938 (Post Office Archives).

368

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

considered its policy towards commercial broadcasting fromabroad in the light of changing circumstances. After Cairo there
was considerable feeling that efforts to destroy foreign commercial
broadcasting were, in the Postmaster -General's own words,'very unpopular and achieving no results'. Britain, with its
large home market and its public-service system of broadcasting,
was the only country which had to face this particular problem,
and the `arguments for abandoning existing policy' were carefully rehearsed and canvassed.
Phillips favoured 'a vigorous reaffirmation of existing policy,
coupled with an intimation that if and when sponsored broadcasting was permitted it would be undertaken by the BBC under State Control'. Others inside the Post Office-and othergovernment departments-were clearly prepared to consider
major changes of broadcasting policy. Sir Kingsley Wood, theformer Postmaster -General and then Secretary of State for Air,was not averse to commercial broadcasting from inside Britain;
Sir Robert Vansittart of the Foreign Office and Robert Boothby
from the Conservative back benches, conscious of the stormy
international scene, thought that Britain might actually sponsor
advertising stations abroad from which British programmes
could be disseminated; there were even voices in the Treasury
hinting that the BBC's licence revenue was becoming insufficient
to cover the amount required for the future development of
television and overseas broadcasting, and that different waysof financing broadcasting might have to be considered. It is
scarcely surprising that at the last pre-war international conference, the European Broadcasting Conference held at Montreux in the spring of 1939, the Post Office delegates were
instructed not to raise the advertising question and, if consulted
by other delegations, were to discourage them also from raising it.'Some of these discussions point forward to the post-war
debate. There was, however, a curious twist to the narrower
Luxembourg story during the last few months before the outbreak of war. Given that Europe was being dominated more
and more by propaganda, Vansittart, as chairman of the Committee for the Co-ordination of British Publicity Abroad, felt
' For Montreux, see The International Telecommunications Union, pp. 178-9. Post
Office files give some sense of the background of discussions in 1938 and 1939.

EUROPE: CO-OPER \TION AND COMPETITION

369

that it would be better to make use of Radio Luxembourg thanto continue to seek to destroy it. In September 1938, therefore,
the unprecedented step was taken of providing Radio Luxembourg with special recordings of Chamberlain's speech on the
Munich crisis. The BBC gave further help with the rebroadcasting of other speeches by Chamberlain ín December 1938
and March 1939, and offered facilities to French and Germancommentators on President Lebrun's visit to London in March
1939.

All these changes were made at the specific request of toDowning Street and the Foreign Office. The feeling that war
might be imminent was changing old relationships. Graves
noted in January 1939 that there was 'a very definite desire on
the part of the government that Radio Luxembourg should be
used'.' The commercial radio interest, particularly WirelessPublicity Ltd., was aware of some of the possibilities of this new
situation and supplied Vansittart with information and ideas,
but the outbreak of war brought talk of further action to a close.
To the end, the style of Radio Luxembourg broadcastingremained unchanged-the continuous supply of the lightest andmost ephemeral of all light and ephemeral fare. Yet the very
last item broadcast before the station closed down in September
1939 was a march written by a Luxembourg composer with thetitle 'For Liberty'. `It was played with considerable feeling,'a journalist reported, 'and the words were sung in none of
Luxembourg's commercial languages, but in the national dialect
which few but real Luxembourgers can understand.'=5. Empire and Overseas
BY 1938 and 1939, therefore, the pattern of BBC attitudes was
being modified under the threat of war as much as the patternof programmes.3 Broadcasts in foreign languages had begun with
the inauguration of an Arabic Service-little more, at the start,'

C 1995*Memorandum by the Deputy Director-General, 9 Jan. '939.

2

Daily Telegraph, 23 Sept. 1939.

3

For the details of the transformation, see below, pp. 645 ff.
BbAUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

370

than a daily news bulletin-in ,January 1938.' The LatinAmerican Service followed soon afterwards in March 1938, andfrom 27 September 1938 onwards, the day of Chamberlain's
broadcast at the height of the Munich crisis, the BBC broadcast
news nightly in French, German, and Italian: other languages
were added in 1939.2
Throughout this impressive range of activities, which set thestage for the international role of the BBC during the Second
World War, the chief object of the BBC was to provide honest
news, not propaganda. Sir Robert Vansittart, at the Foreign
Office, was never sure about the difference between the two:3
the BBC, inspired by Reith, to its own glory and the glory of thecountry, saw the difference clearly. The perception of the difference depends not so much on subtlety of intelligence as on
qualities of character. In the case of the BBC, the policy towards
overseas broadcasting owed much to the public-service tradition
in home broadcasting and, even more directly, to the Empire
Service which celebrated its sixth birthday at the end of 1938,
when overseas broadcasts were beginning to multiply. Long
before the crisis came, Reith and some of his colleagues appreciated the significance of this service: they thought of it, indeed,
as a natural development and not merely as the response to an
emergency.

The first regular Empire broadcasts began on 19 December
1932. Long before that, however, Reith had taken up the subject with vision and enterprise, not only in relation to Empire
broadcasting from the BBC in London but to the developmentof separate and autonomous broadcasting systems in the
Dominions and Colonies. He had approached the India Officeas early as 1924, and the Viceroy in 1925, about the great possibilities of broadcasting in India and he continued throughout
the 192oS and 193os to give his wholehearted support to separate
ventures which would have started years earlier and on firmer
foundations had his advice been taken.4
There would have been Empire broadcasting from London
long before 1932 had it not been for technical and, even more
important, financial limitations. These were described frankly
Sec below, pp. 403-6.
2

4

3 See above, p. 147.
See below, pp. 645 ff.
See Into the Wind (1949), pp. 113, 167; The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 323-4.

EMPIRE AND ()VERSE \S371

at the Colonial Office Conference of May 1927, presided overby L. S. Amery, then Secretary of State, when Carpendale andPeter Eckersley attended a session on broadcasting along withPhillips and Lee of the Post Office and two representatives of
the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Carpen dale told the Conference that the BBC had been `alive to thedevelopments and the necessity for experiments in short-wave
broadcasting' for Empire listeners: Eckersley, however, hadbeen anxious not to go ahead until 'the quality of short-wave
broadcasting' had improved.' He feared `fading, distortion andunrcliability'.2 `We stayed our hand so as not merely to put out
noises combined with all sorts of atmospherics and inaccuracies
and periods of silence and general unpleasantness, merely tosatisfy what might be called the sentimental feeling abroad justto hear something from another country which is neither music

nor intelligent speech.'At this conference, W. G. A. Ormsby -Gore, then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, pressed Eckersley to go
ahead. He had heard complaints, he said, that some listeners in
the Empire could get Philadelphia but could never get Daventry
or 2L0. `Bournemouth they occasionally get, but it is pretty bad.'
Could not the BBC aim deliberately at listeners outside Britain?
Carpendale then raised the financial difficulty in making
costly experiments in overseas broadcasting. 'Our whole income
is from listeners in England' could, then, large-scale overseas
experiments be justified? He added also that there were serious
copyright difficulties and problems of press suspicion and rivalry
in relation to the possible broadcasting of `Empire news'.
Phillips backed him up on the last of these points. `Judging
from the experience when broadcasting was first floated in thiscountry, we had an enormous struggle with the Press before we
could get any settlement at all. When you raise this with the:

The first short-wave broadcasting service had begun in the United State, in
1924, and Eindhoven in Holland, which began a regular three -day-a -week service
in 1927, had started experimental broadcasts a year earlier. On
Sept. 1927
Gerald Marcuse, the well-known English amateur, was allowed to transmit
material for two hours a day on wavelengths of 23 and 33 metres.
2*Memorandum by the Chief Engineer on Empire Broadcasting, 6 May 1927.
See also a further Memorandum with the same title, 6 Dec. 1928. In a letter toReith, 26 Feb. 1929, Eckersley rebuked critics who accused him of going slow onshort-wave broadcasting. 'It is not enviable to be in a position where one feels that
one has to be-in the general interest-apparently reactionary.'1

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

372

Press, for broadcasting news to the whole world by telephone,
you will have an enormous struggle, I think, before you getanything settled.»
Despite these difficulties, however, the BBC was willing to go
ahead, Carpendalc concluded, 'and not say anything aboutpaying yet'. `It is difficult to ask a Colony to pay if they do notknow in the least what they are going to get.' 'We want to put
the thing into being', Eckersley added, 'and then talk about it
as an actuality.' This approach was confirmed at a Control
Board meeting soon afterwards, although it was still hoped that
additional money would be `specially granted by Government'.2
Trial broadcasts began in November 1927 from an experimental short-wave station (G5SW) working on a wavelength of
24 metres and situated at the Marconi Works at Chelmsford.3
The results of the experiments were encouraging but reception
was really good only in certain areas. This was partly because
only one wavelength was used, and partly because there were no
elaborate aerials to enable transmissions to be directed towards
particular parts of the Empire. The first big transmission was
November, when a special programme was broadcast toonAustralia.4 This and following programmes were received withenthusiasm in many parts of the Empire and soon stimulated anoverseas demand for regular Empire broadcasting. There might
have been an even bigger demand had Reuters allowed news
items to be broadcast.
The BBC believed that experimental Empire programmes,with all their limitations, had a twofold purpose-`to keep us
in touch with the isolated man in the back of beyond to whom
any contact with this country would be a very good thing' and'to help the newly established broadcasting stations overseas
against circumstances which we have not had to face here'.5 It
went on, however, to stress the importance of quality. `IntelligiII

I *For the reasons for news bulletins not being included, sec Reith to the
2 *Control Board Minutes, 24 May 1927.
Colonial Office, t Dec. 1928.
3*Colonial Office Conference, 15th meeting, 20 May 1927: stenographic
record. For the origins of the BBC policy as put forward at this conference, seeControl Board Minutes, 17 May 1927. For the decision after the conference to go
ahead 'on an experimental basis at once', see ibid., 24 May 1927.
4 In Sept. 1927 Australian messages from Dame Nellie Melba and the AustralianPrime Minister, Bruce, had been picked up by the BBC.
5
*C. G. Graves, notes of a lecture on `Dominion and Empire Broadcasting',
g Dec. 1933.
1

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

373

bility, continuity and quality are essential conditions, prerequisite to successful broadcasting of this kind.» Programmes,
also, liad to be of a high standard of interest. 'An Australianpaper, commenting on the recent chance relay of the London
station programme via the Australian stations, expressed disappointment in the artistic quality and interest of the items
broadcast as compared with the fare provided by the local
stations. Its opinion is a significant indication that the overseas
programme cannot expect to enjoy a privileged status in pointof acceptable quality.'2
The Chelmsford scheme would have been impossible without
the full co-operation of the Marconi Company, which had usefulexperience in developing short-wave techniques even whentransmission by short waves was thought to be freakish andunreliable. Meetings had been held with the Marconi Company in August 1927 which led to a satisfactory agreement:. theRadio Corporation of America came into the picture also, andtwo-way broadcasts were arranged from and to the American
Station at Schenectady (2XAD). A receiving station at Tel -lingin Essex was established by the BBC and the Marconi Company
to test the success of this transatlantic interchange. By November
1928, however, the main Chelmsford transmitter was in a poor
condition, and `technical hitches' and breakdowns were frequent.
At a time, therefore, when the demand from overseas forregular broadcasts was becoming more insistent and foreigncountries were beginning to devote increasing effort to shortwave services, the whole future of the BBC's experimental
scheme seemed in jeopardy. Experiments cost money which the
BBC could not easily set on one side. It had already spent£19,000 by the beginning of 1929. The Post Office, which had
its own point-to-point telephone and telegraph station at Rugby,
was interested in the problem but equally unable to do anything about it. There was no doubt that if sufficient money wereavailable, a worth -while service could be achieved.3

This was the position in I929 when the BBC once more
approached the Colonial Office, first informally and then form Ibid., p. 298.
2
BBC Handbook (1928), p. 297.
There is a useful article by Sir Noel Ashbridge, `World Broadcasting on Short
Waves', in London Calling, Special 21st Anniversary Number, to Dec. 1953.
7

374

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

ally, to take effective action.' In June 1929 Reith showed Leechof the Post Office an extremely interesting memorandum on`Empire and World Broadcasting', prepared by Major C. F.
Atkinson, the Foreign Director, and in September 1929 Leechsaid that the Colonial Secretary had written to the Postmaster General concerning the need for Empire broacicasting.2 The
Colonial Secretary in the second Labour government was Lord
Passfield (Sidney Webb), and he was anxious that some action
should be taken before the Colonial Conference of 1930. He
welcomed a long printed memorandum, prepared in draft by
Atkinson and Ashbridge, the new Chief Engineer, which was
submitted by the BBC in November 1929 and which statedboldly in its introduction that although the BBC was not
responsible for providing an `outgoing service', it was `the only
body fitted by constitution and experience for the managementof such a service should it come into being'.;
The memorandum went on to state that although some technical problems still remained unsolved, `something like a service'
was technically possible, and that there was 'a real "listener's"
interest, distinct both from the amateur's reaction and theephemeral appeal of novelty'. It described the existing broadcasting facilities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa,
East Africa, India, Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and thecomplete lack of facilities in the \Vest Indies, Rhodesia, Colonial
Africa, and the remaining parts of the Empire. There wasa universal desire in all these countries, it said, 'to participate ingreat occasions and exciting events', although the right balance
between what would and should be provided from London was
difficult to decide. By the nature of things, decisions on suchmatters would have to be a priori and, in a measure, speculative.
Finally, the memorandum touched on foreign competition.
`Short-wave broadcasting stations are springing up everywhere,
and some are under the direct control of governments, having
as their objects: (i) the maintenance of touch with outlying
I *Control Board Minutes, 7 Aug. 1929, and a Note on them by Peter Eckersley,
dated the same day.
2 *Leech to Reith, 24 Sept. 1929.
3 *For Passficld's interest, see a note from Reith, 10 Jan. 193o, and a letter from
R. V. Vernon of the Colonial Office to Reith, 7 Feb. 193o. 'His Lordship has
considered the scheme with interest. and is impressed with its merits, although it

is not free from difficulties.'EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

375

nationals and (2) the world-wide presentation of the national
viewpoint in terms of national culture.' Neither of these objects,
it argued, was illegitimate, 'but the first assumes a principlethat has already caused friction in Europe, while in the second
the boundary between cultural and tendentious propaganda is,in practice, very indefinite'. The United States also, the largest
English-speaking nation in the world and the one which had
developed broadcasting on a larger scale than any other country, could not be ignored. In such circumstances, could theBritish Empire stay aloof? It was `presumably entitled no lessthan others to diffuse its ideas and its culture' indeed, it was'not impossible to conceive of a situation in which deliberate
recourse to propaganda might become desirable'.
The rest of the memorandum was concerned with technicalrequirements, finance, and programme policy. The existing
Chelmsford plant, on hire from the Marconi Company, would
not suffice to provide a regular service, nor would the existing
wavelength of 24 metres. At least two wavelengths were needed
if all parts of the Empire were to be reached `under varying
conditions of light and darkness'. Davcntry would be a good site
for a new experimental station, which could then be replaced
after five years with a permanent station. As for programme
policy, 'a programme service provided for listeners overseas
should be appropriate in scope, arrangement and timing totheir respective positions in longitude, the broadcasting services
already existing or planned, and other circumstances generally'.
At least four regular programmes should be provideda `Colonial' afternoon programme, `culminating in a substantial
news bulletin', and consisting of entertainment taken from home
programmes, 'with Big Ben and various items of sentimental
significance'; a `South African' programme, coinciding in timewith the home evening programme and containing little special
matter, except a news bulletin in Afrikaans: an `Australian and
New Zealand' morning programme, performed specially in the
day time but outside United Kingdom broadcasting hours; anda `Canadian' small -hours programme, designed also for theWest Indies, involving night staff and special terms for performers. In addition, there should be `means of occasionallytransmitting "peak" events or providing special programmes
for relay'.
:

376

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

The new temporary station would cost ;E4o,000 to build and£7,000 a year to maintain. The annual cost of programmes,
apart from news, would be £34,000, assuming 1,700 hours ofbroadcasting. 'No new body, whether of public service or ofcommercial constitution, would be able to provide the service
at lower cost, since such a body would not have the benefit ofBritish Broadcasting Corporation general programme expenditure, not to mention its experience and organisation.» An evencheaper scheme was suggested in an additional unprinted
memorandum of June 1930. It would have cost £22,000 a year,
but a new clause was added that `colonial governments would
be required to provide safeguards against any unreasonable
commercial exploitation of the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme matter by re -broadcasters or re -diffusers intheir particular territories'.2
The BBC's first scheme was discussed in March 1930 at the
Colonial Office by representatives of the Colonial Office, theDominions Office, the India Office, the Post Office, the Lord
Privy Seal's Department, and the BBC. Sir Samuel Wilson,
Permanent Under -Secretary of State for the Colonies, was in
the chair.3 The Dominions Office took the lead in arguing thatthe Dominions could not be asked to contribute financially: themost that they could do was to co-operate in the exchange ofprogrammes. The Colonial Office then pointed out that it
could not bear the whole cost of a service. It was in the light ofthis preliminary discussion, during which, Reith complained,
the BBC had been made to 'show up in rather a bad light',4that the BBC's second and cheaper scheme was put forward.
Reith had found the Post Office unhelpful, too, both before
and during this meeting. 'We are likely to be left with the baby
to carry, because everybody else is too selfish and we are too
decent to let it drown. Apart from ordinary instincts of humanity, we realise that it may have a great career in front of it.'s*`Memorandum on Empire Broadcasting submitted by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the Colonial Office in June 1930, and to the Imperial
Conference in October 1930.'
3 *Colonial Office Conference, `Memorandum on Empire Broadcasting', June
1930.
7
For the choice of chairman, see Passfield to H. B. Lees-Smith, 31 Dec. 1929
(Post Office .\rchives).
Keith to Leech, 12 Mar. 1930 (Post Office Archives); *BBC Note on the
Conference, 11 Mar. 193o.
*Reith to Atkinson, 21 Mar. 1930.
5

1

r

27. Back frota \luniclh
Chatnbalain at the Microphone, Heston, Sept. 1838t

28.

King George V at the Microphone, 1934

0-

'

i

' i-

,, :

I

s-1
-.4o
I

p11,&`g,

9

A

,< .9

\

tT
I

'AU

'1

Fl

r

_
A
1M

t
!'

º9. Racliolympia (1933)

.
..

am

4f_
R

_

r
r.

.i,f,.j/30. 5XX and Empire Stations at Daventiy (1933)r.

-

31..1. H. Whitley (1934)

32. Sir Charles Carpendale (1938)

I

33. Keith
A Portrait by Sir Oswald Birley (1934)

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

377

The cheaper scheme was quickly prepared.' Among its otherfeatures was the regular transmission of news bulletins at 12
noon, 6 o'clock in the evening, and 12 midnight G.M.T.
Reuters had at last expressed willingness to provide this service
on a fee basis for a five-year period in April 1930: indeed, they
provided an experimental news bulletin from Chelmsford forone month free of charge from 22 April onwards.2
At the Colonial Conference of June 1930 the BBC's revised
scheme was approved in principle. 'The Conference recognises
and appreciates the good will of the BBC in this matter. They
are in favour of a scheme for Empire Broadcasting and generally
agree with the proposals outlined.' A committee was set up to
examine the scheme in detail, which by then had also secured
the blessing of the Post Office.3 The committee recommended
that the cost of the scheme should be met out of a levy oncolonial receiving-set licences, the income from which would hesufficient in the long run, it was held, to pay for practically thewhole of the service.4 In the meantime, the British Treasury
was to be asked to provide funds to finance the service until thecolonial contributions came in.s
With its usual lack of enthusiasm for interesting pioneer
schemes,6 the Treasury replied that the matter should be
deferred until after the Dominions Conference in November
1930. `If the British Broadcasting Corporation as part of its
general policy of research and development likes to pay fora station and a service out of its existing revenue and makedirect arrangements on its own with other broadcasting authorities overseas,' a Treasury official kindly noted, 'we shall haveno objection.'
Unlike the Colonial Conference, the Dominions Conference,as had been anticipated, was far from enthusiastic. Reith,indeed, found its Communications Committee `unsatisfactoryand silly'.> For all the talk of Empire unity, the Dominions
always wanted to go their own way, and control of broadcasting'Carpendale to R. V. Vernon, 2¢ June 193o.
Reith to Leech, to Apr. 1930 (Post Office Archives); *BBC Press Release,
7 Phillips to Keith, 26 June 1930 (Post Office Archives).
15 Apr. 1930.
4 P. II. Morris to Phillips, 21 July 1930 (Post Office Archives).
Minute of Imperial Conference Inter -Departmental Committee on Economic
Questions (Post Office \rchives).
7 *Note to Atkinson, 16 Oct. 193o.
6 See also below, p. 564.
'

2

5

378

AUDIENCES: AT HOME \ND ABROAD

seemed almost to be a test case of national sovereignty. The
conference passed a resolution, therefore, directing attention to'the technical and financial difficulties of the scheme' anddemanding `further information' to see whether the difficulties
could be overcome.' It recommended 'as a first step that His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should suggest
to the BBC that that body should communicate particulars of
the scheme to the broadcasting organisations or other appropriate authorities throughout the Empire and should invite
them to furnish their views (after any necessary consultation
with their respective governments) as to the value to them ofsuch a service and as to their readiness to make a contribution
towards its cost in return for the right to relay any part of theservice which they may require'.2
The British Treasury for its part flatly refused to accept theview that any part of the cost of an Empire broadcasting scheme
should fall on the British taxpayer,3 nor was it unduly concernedwith the fact that the resolution of the Dominions Conference
meant indefinite delay. Yet even the Post Office admitted that'the proposal that the BBC should negotiate with the Dominion
organisations' was `rather a forlorn hope',+ and the Lord Privy
Seal's Office expressed regret 'at the inconclusive result which
has been reached'.
The BBC, with no confidence in the outcome, was left towrite round to the broadcasting organizations in Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and other Empire
countries.s The results were unfavourable,6 and in the meantime*BBC Note on the Colonial Office Conference and its Outcome, July 1930;
Treasury Letters in the Post Office files, 16 and 17 Oct. 1930.
2 *BBC Notes on the Dominions Office Conference and its
Outcome.
3 Treasury letter of 17 Oct. 1930 (Post Office\rchives).
4 Post Office letter of 21 Oct. 1930 (Post Office Archives).
*Phillips to Reith, 6 Jan. 1931; Reith to Phillips, 16 Feb. 1931.
6 * See, for example, the long, friendly, but unfavourable reply
from theAustralian Broadcasting Company (S. F. Doyle to Reith, 23 \pr. 1931), with theconclusion that Australia would not be warranted in making any heavy annual
contribution to an Empire broadcasting service 'at this juncture', and the letterfrom E. A. \Veir of Radio Services, Montreal, 30 May 1931. The Australian
Broadcasting Commission was not set up until 1932, and the politics of Canadianbroadcasting remained extremely complicated. See 'BBC Memorandum on the
Broadcasting Systems of Canada, Australia and New Zealand Compared', June
1934, revised Oct. 1935. The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, also set
tip in 1932, was the precursor of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of 1936.
1

5

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

379

the station at Chelmsford was felt to be in such a perilous statethat it might break down 'at any moment'. To make matters
far worse, the financial situation in Britain itself had become
extremely serious during the prolonged economic depression
and the political uncertainty associated with the faltering Labour
government. Sir Samuel Wilson of the Colonial Office told
Reith in May 1931 that `there is not the slightest chance of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer agreeing to a special vote for theamount we require'. Passueld did not think that it was evenworth while raising the matter with Snowden.2 The most that
could be hoped for was that the Treasury would permit the
BBC to retain a larger share of its revenue from licences, and it
was the Secretary of the Post Office himself, Sir Evelyn Murray,
who suggested to the Treasury early in 1931 that if the Post
Office's share of the licence revenue for `management' was
reduced from 121 to I o per cent. the BBC `might be induced' to`throw in the Empire scheme without any ad hoc grant'.3
By the end of the summer the financial crisis had reached its
alarming climax, and the Labour government had fallen. Just
before its fall, which obviously surprised Passfield, Wilson told
Reith that he was `extremely depressed' that the Colonial Office
had not been able to get the scheme put into effect: 'it is only
another example of how difficult it is to get anything done, andespecially in the Colonial Empire'.4 Reith replied that he was
equally disappointed, since broadcasting could provide 'a consolidatory element within the Empire, which in these days one
cannot well ignore'. He still hoped that the Treasury would
reconsider the matter fávourably.5
All talk of the BBC getting a larger share of licence revenue
was abruptly silenced, however, within the next two weeks.
Instead, the notorious Report of the May Committee on
National Expenditure, published in August 1931, suggested
a cut in BBC expenditure without the BBC having once beenasked by the committee for any information about its activities.6`I made a formal and emphatic protest to Snowden, Chancellorof the Exchequer', Reith has written. 'He replied that he sharedt*Note by Reith on an interview at the Colonial Office, I May 1931.
* Wilson to Reith, 2 May 1931. See also Control Board Minutes, 12 May 1931.
3 Letter from Sir Evelyn Murray, 26 Feb. 1931 (Post Office Archives).
4 *Wilson to Reith, 20 July 1931.
6 Cmd. 3920 (1931).
*Reith to Wilson, 21 July 1931.
I

2

380

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND \BROAD

my surprise that the May Committee had considered the BBCat all; it was clearly outside their terms of reference; he thought
my rejoinder admirable." Yet after the fall of the Labour
government, Snowden, who remained for a time as Chancellorof the Exchequer in the National government, asked the BBC
for a `voluntary contribution' to the National Exchequer. The
new Postmaster -General and Reith agreed upon £50,000 by
March 1932 and £150,000 in the course of the financial year,
1932/3. Murray, according to Reith, liad thought of £ i oo,000
in the first period, but Snowden thought that Keith's offer was'a generous one'.z
As part of the agreement, the BBC expressed its willingness'to carry the cost of Empire broadcasting'. Ormsby -Gore, inparticular, welcomed this declaration: he too was conscious of
the need for Empire broadcasting as a development 'of theutmost political as well as commercial importance to thiscountry' and one which, in his view, was 'long overdue'.;
Snowden wisely maintained, however, that it was inadvisable
to mention the subject to the Cabinet at that stage, doubtless
because he feared a bigger cut in BBC income. Yet the news
was well enough known behind the scenes. Phillips of the Post
Office wrote to a colleague in the Lord Privy Seal's office soonafterwards that 'as part of the settlement reached on thenational economy proposals the BBC have undertaken to proceed with the plans for the creation of an Empire BroadcastingStation and the operation of a service therefrom without asking
for additional revenue to finance the scheme'.4

In November 1931 the BBC publicly announced its intentionof proceeding alone with an Empire Services 'The British
listener's direct interest in the project is, of course, nil', it wasstated. 'But the question of national interests had to be lookedat more broadly.'6 The decision was an important one, and it is
Into the Vrnd, p. 154.

Snowden to the Postmaster-General, undated (Post Office Archives).
Ormsby -Gore to Snowden, 11 Sept. 1931 (Post Office Archives).
4 Letter from Phillips, 20 Oct. 1931 (Post Office Archives).
5*BBC Press Release, 6 Nov. 1931. Reith had a letter of congratulation fromSir Samuel Nilson, 31 Oct. 1931: `I am sure it is sound and that you will neverregret it.'e BBC rear Book (1933),
p. 263. The BBC felt itself free to reopen the questionof overseas contributions in the future. (Note by Ormsby -Gore, 9 Nov. 1931.)
2
3

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

381

attitudes

a comment on the cautious and unimaginative politicalitof the inter-war years that the BBC had been forced to takeresponsibility.
unilaterally and on its own
The first step necessary was the replacement of the olddesignChelmsford station by a new station at Daventry. The
coverageworld-wide
effectiveof a broadcasting station to give
manufacwas a new concept. Ashbridge and his staff, with thethe newofrequirements
theturers, developed a design to meet
Stanwithplacedwasservice and an order for the transmittersbycompletedwasstationThe
dard Telephones and Cables Ltd.
on
operatecould
which
December 1932. It had two transmittersanddirectionaleight wavelengths and numerous aerials-somefive `zones',some omni-directional. The Empire was divided into
were
Programmes
aerials.
each zone being served by directionalandAfrica,\Vest
Africa,`beamed' to Australia, India, Southsixomni-directional
The
Canada, the centres of the five zones.
aerials were designed for transmitting special programmespart ofwhich Empire listeners could receive at any hour in any
inshort-wave
concept
the world.' This was an entirely new
broadcasting. The first programmes of the new service Werewonsent out on Ig December 1932, and they very quickly
a wide and scattered audience.
The programmes were expected to make their main appeal tosets, and
Empire listeners equipped with short-wave receiving
Eckersley
as
keen
as
just
was
the new Chief Engineer, Ashbridge,
washad been to ensure good quality. 'Feed back' information if
only
get
on
could
we
that
essential to secure this: `we said
Empirelisteners helped us'.2 Relays by existing stations in the
been
had
they
than
stage
this
at
were considered less important
placed,was
Emphasis
1937.
in
be
in 1927 and than they were toofhowever, on the need for a plentiful supply of recordings
stations.
local
by
for
transmission
BBC programmes for export,
andThis was still a field for experiment. 'Time differences
broadaofreception
directput
atmospheric conditions often
of discs iscast out of the question, while the physical export
in transit.
elapse
must
that
weeks
made impracticable by therear Book (7933), Pp. 275-83.
' There is a full description of the system in BBC
19 Dec. 1932.
For the opening of the station, see the Radio Times,
a Lecture on `Dominion and Empire Broadcasting',
2 C. G. Graves, Notes of
9 Dec. 7933.

382

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

The expedient that has been adopted is to make, at the originating or receiving end, an electrical record for broadcasting at thefirst suitable moment alter the event.'t It was in such guarded
language that the BBC approached the beginnings of what was
to become general practice in Britain, no less than in the
Empire.
`Bottled' programmes had first been mentioned in November
1926:2 they were then 'in their extreme infancy', as Atkinson
put it. Progress had been slow between 1926 and 1932, although
on the eve of the start of Empire broadcasting Blattnerphonetapes were coming into use,3 a small specialist company, Colonial
Radio Programmes Ltd., had been formed, and there had been
meetings between the BBC and Electric and Musical Industries
Ltd. about the recording of their artists for broadcasting fromcolonial stations. There had also been a discussion with Sir
Stephen Tallents, then of the Empire Marketing Board, whowatched over BBC interests at the Ottawa Conference in 1932
and was said by Reith to be 'most interested' in the developmentof Empire recordings.;
In announcing that special records of BBC programmes were
to be made for the Empire, the BBC was at pains to insist thatthey were not for sale to members of the general public and thatthey would not be 'of a type likely to cause unemployment
among local artists and musicians'.5 The first BBC programmes
specially recorded for overseas included Cakes and Ale, a programme of old English songs and choruses; Lily Morris,
Bransby Williams, and Charles Coburn in vaudeville, with
Henry Hall's Dance Orchestra; Postman's Knock, a British
musical comedy written for broadcasting by Claude Hulbert;
A. J. Alan telling a story; 'A Pageant of English Life from 1812
to 1933' ; and, not least in the bill of fare, a Children's Hourprogramme. Such `bottled programmes' were the first instalment in the development of what later became the BBC's
BBC Year Book (1933), p. 266.
Sec above, p. 98. *The idea was first put forward in a letter by Gerald Beadle,
then Station Director at Durban, on 6 Apr. 1926. This was commented on by
Atkinson in an undated memorandum, probably written in May 1926.
3 See above, p. 99. *Control Board Minutes, 2Feb. 1932; Notes on Director General's Report for Board Meeting, 13 Apr. 1932; Supplement by V. H. Goldsmith, 11 Apr. 1932.
4 Reith, Diary, 26 May 1932.
5 Radio Times, 29 July 1932; *BBC Press Release,
21 July 1932.
2

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

383`transcription service'. Future programmes, it was stated in
1933, would depend in very large measure on the criticisms andsuggestions received from correspondents overseas. In otl-er
words, the Empire Service was to proceed on much the samelines as the parent BBC.
In one respect the new service was more fortunate thanthe BBC had been in the early days of domestic broadcasting.
The Empire Press Union accepted the BBC's plan for news
broadcasts. At an important meeting held in December 1931
representatives of the Empire Press Union, Reuters, and theNewspaper Proprietors' Association agreed to a plan of dailybulletins. `Somewhat to my surprise,' wrote Reith in his diary,`I got the whole thing across in 55 minutes, not only that there
would he a News service on the new station but that it would
start on the present station [Chelmsford] on January 4th 1932.'í
Liaison meetings were held between the BBC and the Empire
Press Union from the summer of 1932 onwards, and in October
1934, after the usual considerable discussion of financial questions and problems of copyright, agreement was reached with
Reuters for the renewal of the Empire news service.2 'The news
bulletins', it had been reported, 'seem to be the most generally
appreciated items in the daily programme.'3 Regular informal
meetings with the Empire Press Union continued to be held
throughout the first few years of the Empire Service.
In addition to news broadcasts, other early programmes for
the Empire included vaudeville, light music, running commentaries, and dance music, although a number of correspondents
in Canada complained that they already heard enough dancemusic from the United States. Symbolic items like Big Ben or'the voice of the nightingale' were genuinely thought to be
popular, but there was more doubt about talks. `These areappreciated', it was felt, 'only if they are short and are given by
the most eminent people.' The BBC could not supply these insufficient quantities. 'Once the man on the West Coast of Africa
says, "Give us the big men-give us Winston Churchill or' Reich, Diary, t Dec. 1931. 'The minutes of this meeting of 11 Dec. 1931
also survive.
2*Minutes of a Liaison Meeting between the BBC and the EPU, 25 July £932;
Sir Roderick Jones to Reith, 16 Dec. 1932; Reuters to Graves, 4 May 1934;
Reuters to Jardine Brown, 8 Oct. 1934.
4 Ibid., p. 256.
3 BBC rear Book (1934), p. 255.
1

384

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

Lloyd George", then we leave of'1 Established broadcasters in
Britain soon began to win new friends in the Empire. 'Sir
Walford Davies is now starting all over again to do in the
Empire what he started to do ten years ago in this country, andhe is proving extremely popular.'2
All these programmes cost little, most of them being prepared, in the first instance, for the home listener. Indeed, no
special programme allocation was made for the first few weeksof the Empire Service, when there was ten hours of broadcasting each day, and the first week's programmes cost no morethan ten guineas. It was thought to be quite a daring departurewhen soon after the success of the King's broadcast at Christmas
1932, a sum of Lloo a week was allocated to Empire programmes.3
In return for British programmes to the Empire, there wasa limited flow of programmes from the Empire to Britain.
Representatives of the BBC made Empire tours in November
1932 and May and June 1933, and one of the results of the kindof liaison which was possible, if not always realized, was an
Empire -wide broadcast in March 1933 from the top of Table
Mountain at Cape Town. The South African Broadcasting
Company arranged this broadcast. It was received in London
by Post Office beam telephone service, electrically recorded,
and rebroadcast by the BBC to Canada and other parts of the
Empire. The first programme from India to be treated in thisway was broadcast in December 1933.
Unfortunately, both beam transmission and electrical recording were expensive, and the number of such programmes, whichwere designed to make it easier for one part of the Empire toknow what was happening in other parts of the Empire, was all
too small. A less expensive `imperial' service was the dissemination of information on industrial and commercial matters. After
discussions with interested parties, a service of market intelligence reports produced by the Empire Marketing Board anda series of co-ordinated talks on business problems werearranged in 1933.4*Graves, Notes of a Lecture, g Dec. 1933.
2 *Ibid.
*Graves, Memorandum on The Empire Service, Apr. 1934.
4 *Ibid.; BBC rear Book (1934),
pp. 243-8. A conference on these matters washeld at Broadcasting House on 16 Jan. 1933. Tallents, not then a BBC official, wasamong those present.
I

3

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

385

The organization of the BBC's Empire Department wasplaced from the start in the hands of Cecil Graves, who had
been deputy to Roger Eckersley as Director of Programmes. To
Reith, Graves seemed the natural choice he had 'a fundamental
soundness of outlook and judgement over the whole range ofproblems', along with `powers of leadership and decision'.' His
Deputy was J. B. Clark, who was brought from the North
Regional offices at Manchester and was to have a long, varied,
and active association with Empire broadcasting.2 Graves effectively established the Service, and J. B. Clark, who was dedicated to his task and succeeded Graves in 1935, provided theService with continuous direction through changing circumstances. He was helped by a staff, at first very small, later huge,
the members of which were enthusiastic about their particularsphere of activity. In 1932 the staff engaged directly on the
Empire Service numbered less than ten, and indirectly-primarily in the technical departments-twenty or thirty people
at most were involved.
The setting up of a separate Empire Department-with all
the engineering work remaining within the Engineering Division under Ashbridge-had repercussions for Major C. F.
Atkinson, who had been Foreign Director of the BBC since
January 1928 and had been charged with `Foreign and
Dominion liaison' since January 1927.3 Graves took up his new
appointment in September 1932, with full responsibility for
programmes and planning,; and although Atkinson temporarily
retained his responsibility for dealing with `constitutional
matters of Empire broadcasting', he later lost his influence.
Even from the start Graves was made quite independent of the
Director of Programmes and the Director of Talks (Siepmann).
It was for Graves, if he wished, to ask them to construct special
programmes for him.s
Few departments of the BBC enjoyed such autonomy in their:

Into the Wind, p. 298.

Reith, Diary, 26 Sept. 1932, for his interview with J. B. Clark.
*V. H. Goldsmith, Internal Memorandum on Foreign and Dominion Liaison,
12 Jan. 1927; Internal Memorandum of 26 Jan. 1928. 'The Foreign Liaison Office
now becomes the Foreign Department, and Major Atkinson assumes the title ofForeign Director.'*BBC Press Release, 29 July 1932. G. C. Beadle, then Station Director at
Belfast, took his place as Assistant Director of Programmes.
i *Control Board Minutes, 26 July 1932.
C 1995
CC
2
3

386

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

early years. Few also enjoyed such outside influence. Before
constructing any Empire programmes, Graves met nearly all
the High Commissioners and heads of government departments
concerned with Empire work.' Reith was invaluable at thisstage in arranging contacts and discussing with Graves thegreat scope of his new post. Reith hoped that the King might
inaugurate the new Service. 'Saw Clive Wigram [the King's
secretary] about the King opening the Empire Service', hewrote in his diary in October 1932. 'He said he had had twosleepless nights about it, and was it a religious service?'z
Although the King did not open the Service, he gave his firstbroadcast on Christmas Day 1932 to the whole of the Empire.
'The King spoke more personally and effectively than I had
ever heard him', Reith wrote. `It was quite extraordinary how
quickly replies came from various parts of the Empire.'3 It was
extraordinary also what a new emotional power-and personalization-had been added to twentieth-century monarchy.
Letters welcoming the King's broadcast and the inaugurationof the new Service poured in from the Empire in 1933. As
Empire interest grew, important changes were made both intechnical plans and in organization in London. The programme
allocation was raised to £200 a week in September 1933. Thiswas overdue, since some listeners, anticipating `something
revolutionary' in the content of the programmes, had not been
completely satisfied.4 The timing of broadcasts had raised manydifficulties also. The aim of providing programmes for successive
audiences in different countries of the Empire at convenient
listening times by their local clocks had not been fully accomplished. Indians complained that the broadcasts were too short,
Canadians thought that broadcasts started too late, and Australians grumbled about unsatisfactory conditions of reception.
Attempts were made to deal with all these criticisms. The
first result was that there was a sharp increase in broadcasting
hours. In November 1932 Empire broadcasting took to hours
out of 24. There were five periods of 2 hours each, spreadthroughout the 24 to meet time differences across the world as'
2
3Reith, Diary, 28 Sept. 1932.
Ibid., 10 Oct. 1932.
Ibid., 25 Dec. 1932. For the royal broadcast, see also above, pp. 112-13 andInto the Wind. pp. 168-g.
4*N. Ashbridge, Memorandum on the Empire Station, 28 Feb. 1933.

EMPIRE ANI) OVERSEAS

387

the sun travelled from east to west. Within six months the tohours had risen to 14. Fundamental changes were also madelater in the year in the `zonal pattern' of broadcasting. There
had been a great deal of overlapping from zone to zone, with
West Indian listeners picking up Indian programmes and theWest African service being audible in New Zealand. Timing
was particularly odd in this context. 'The announcement of"London calling the African and \Vest African zones" wasbeing heard at night in Africa, in the evening in South America,in the afternoon in the West Indies and at breakfast time in New
Zealand.»
To try to remove some of these anomalies, the geographicalzones were converted into time zones. Former Zone One wasconverted into Transmission Number One, Zone Two into
Transmission Number Two, and so on. Every overseas listener
was then in a position to select any programme which he wasable to receive and in which he was interested. Transmission
One, which was radiated during early morning hours in Britain
for late afternoon or evening listening in the Antipodes, could
be picked up at earlier hours in the Middle East and India, andin Western Canada (especially in late spring and early summer)'on the previous night'.2 The overriding limitation in all these
programme arrangements was that the BBC had at its disposal
only two transmitters each with a power output of 15 kilowatts.
In addition to these changes, there was a further reorganization of the administration in June 1933, part of the larger set ofchanges in organization within the BBC.3 Atkinson now relinquished his title of Foreign Director and became a `Special Consultant', and Graves was given the title of Director of Empire
and Foreign Services, with extremely wide powers.4 The reasoning behind this change, which greatly strengthened Graves's
position, was questioned by Siepmann, who felt that Empire andForeign Services should not be managed by one Branch. The
former was largely an indenting agency for home programmes,
he argued, and would eventually become primarily a programme output department: the latter should be a genuine
BBC rear Book (1984), p. 253. The detailed account given in this Year Book
(pp. 249 t£.) of the first year's service is full and interesting.
2 BBC, The Empire Services (1g35),
p. 13.
3 See below, pp. 441-6.
4 \lemoranduln from the Director -General, 19 ,June 1933.

388

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABRO \t)`service' department, helping all other sections of the BBC.
Neither the Empire Service nor the future Foreign Service
was, in fact, to develop along these lines, although neither
Siepmann nor Graves could know this in 1933. Instead, Graves
replied that he intended to take both Empire and Foreign work
seriously, `distributing his energy equally'. Both required aplentiful supply of `intelligence' information. `Where "operations" are concerned, which, when all is said and done, are thecreative side of soldiering, no strategical or tactical scheme canbe drawn up unless there is "intelligence" on which to baseReith approved in 1933 of this conception of a `Command'
within Empire and Foreign work. A detached Branch Chief,
concentrating largely on 'such international questions as thosein which broadcasting could play a very important part', would
help to make up for lost time, for the earlier failure of Government to respond to the opportunities he had sketched out tothem. 'Past experience shows an extraordinary lag behind what
I myself had anticipated in this respect.'2
Graves was certainly far more than an indenter or controller
of programmes. Reith remained actively and powerfully interested in `Empire operations' too, and both he and Graves weredrawn into fascinating talks about strategy-about the future ofIndian broadcasting, for example, which Reith believed had
hitherto been overlooked, with tragic consequences. They wereboth very depressed after a meeting at the India Office in July
1934.,3 but when Lord Willingdon, the Viceroy, made a numberof references to broadcasting in a speech in New Delhi a month
later, Reith felt that frequent talks with him in London had
been of some value.4 They were interested also in broadcastingin Palestine, and when there were some home objections to thetemporary secondment there in 1935 of R. A. Rendall, who wasthought to be one of the BBC's most promising young men,
Graves overruled objections with the sentence, 'The Director General feels very strongly that when we are asked to (lo this' C. A. Siepmann, Memorandum on the Proposed Reorganisation of Empire
and Foreign Affairs, 31 May 1933; comments by Graves, 31 May 1933. Both wereaddressed to Reith.
2 Keith to Siepmann, 7 June 1933.
Keith, Diary, 5 July 1934.
4 Ibid., 30 Aug. 1934. For Lionel Fielder's account of his experiences in India
and a letter to him from Keith, see The Natural Bent; pp. 127 if.
3

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS:389

kind of job we should always give of the best, even if it meansa certain inconvenience to ourselves.''Reith also took a lively interest in the future of South African
broadcasting and went to South Africa in 1934., where he produced for General Hertzog, the South African Prime Minister,a report on broadcasting which he considers one of the mostimportant documents he ever wrote. Graves also, after discussing the rich opportunities of broadcasting in Nigeria, was soonafterwards drawn, at Reith's suggestion, into a survey of broadcasting in Newfoundland.2 It vas Graves \vlio wrote proudly in1934. that he regarded himself; 'in my position as Director of
Empire and Foreign Services, as the centre in the BBC to which
all Imperial matters should be referred'. `I regard it as my duty',
he went on, 'to bring to the notice of the home people the possibilities of overseas relays, or even ideas of Imperial interest forinclusion in the home programmes. I hold the view that thedevelopment of the Empire service depends on reciprocity.'3
This forecast was as wrong as some of the other forecasts of theperiod, but as a statement of intentions it was characteristic
both of the man and of the period.
The sense of imperial interest was enlivened in the mid- t 93os
by fear that the unity of empire was being threatened not somuch by the natural development of movements towards selfgovernment inside it as by the machinations of other great
powers. For this reason alone, Reith and Graves were in fullagreement with Ashbridge, the Chief Engineer, that the Empire
Service should be extended. From 1933 onwards the Germans
were increasing the power of their short-wave transmitters andsending out programmes in English which gave a propaganda
slant on national and international events.4 `Stayed to hear
Ashbridge and Graves talking about the Empire Service', Reith
wrote in August 1934., `which I believe we must develop much
' 'Graves to Nicolls, 18,July 1935. Rendall was then serving as \Vest Regional
Programme Director, and there were complaints that 'this is the worst possible
moment for sparing him'. Kendall was later complimented by the Palestine
Government for the way in which he had given 'broadcasting such a good start inthis country'. 'Sir Arthur \Vauchope to Keith, 6 Nov. 1936.
2 *Notes on visit of Mr. Hebden, Postmaster -General of Nigeria, 2 July 1934;
Report on Broadcasting in Newfoundland, June 1935.
Note on Imperial Policy, Nov. 1934.
' 'Ashbridge to Keith, 23 Aug. 1934; see also T. Grandin, The Political Use ofRadio (t 939).

390

AUDIENCES: AT IIOME AND ABRO \D

more quickly, and intensively, because of competition in othercountries, particularly Germany.» A few months later theFederation of British Industries expressed alarm at foreignpressure and pressed the government to allow the BBC a larger
share of licence revenue.2
The government, however, would not budge, and the BBC
was left to proceed alone, seriously handicapped by continued
shortage of funds. Other governments were not very co-operative either. For all the talk of colonial subventions in 193o, only
Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast had set aside minute sums(£15) from their budgets as contributions to the Empire Service.3
There is no evidence that the subventions were ever paid, andin both cases they were the work of one man, Sir Arnold Hodson,
who had moved from the Governorship of Sierra Leone to theGold Coast. `I really think', Graves remarked without too muchirony, 'that an official letter should be sent to the Secretary ofState, suggesting that about every six months Sir Arnold Hodson
should be moved to another Colony.'4
The whole range of the BBC's enterprise was pitifully small.
Not only were Germany-and Italy-both taking their foreign
services increasingly seriously, but American and Russian shortwave broadcasting was felt to be increasingly influential.s The
opportunities for Britain were so great: the resources so meagre.
The most that the BBC could do was to secure money for theextension of the Daventry station and a widening of the rangeof Empire broadcasting activities. In February 1935 the Postmaster -General approved an extension of Daventry which
would cost Li 70,000 and, along with further developments inReith, Diary, 28 Aug. 1934.
*Herbert Scott, President of the FBI, to Sir Philip Cunlifte-Lister, theColonial Secretary, 19 Nov. 1934. See also The Times, 21 Nov. 1934.
3 The
Colonial Office sent round a memorandum about broadcasting toColonial Governors in January 1933 which did not mention a subvention fromlicence revenue. It admitted, however, that the issue was not dead. *D. C. J.
McSweeney to Graves, 2 January 1933. The memorandum, dated 7 Jan. 1933,
was signed by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister and said that the Empire service, 'substantially due to the disinterested enthusiasm of the BBC, has my fullest support'.
On 14 June 1933 McSweeney wrote again to Graves, 'We have by no means forgotten the question of contributions.'*Graves to Reith, 12 July 1934.
R. E. Leeper of the Foreign Office told Graves as early as Sept. 1932 of theconcern of the Foreign Office at the spread of Russian radio propaganda its
Palestine and around the Persian Gulf.
rz

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

391

engineering and in programmes, would entail an increased
annual running cost of LBo,000. The Treasury, through Sir
Warren Fisher, endorsed the proposal, `undertaking that due
regard would be paid to this commitment in any future financial
adjustments'.1

The setting in which this decision was reached is recaptured
in two long reports on the work of the Empire Service which
Graves prepared in 1934., the first in April and the second in
December. In the first, he demanded more specifically Empire
programmes and more programmes of high quality. `We haveestablished a short-wave service, but we llave not been able tokeep abreast of foreign short-wave development-development
largely due to the vision of foreign governments who, appreciating the potentialities of our Empire Service, realised that we
could not be allowed to take the lead.' Graves went on to compare the amount of `exclusive material' prepared by the Empire
Service with that of a regional station the Empire came off
worse.
He also compared, more pertinently in the light of history(though not of internal BBC politics), the action taken to thatdate in Germany and Britain. German short-wave stations did
not re -broadcast programmes designed for the home listener:
they sent out special performances, `which presumably involved
considerable additional expenditure'. Graves asked for more
staff, some to deal with music, the others with drama and talks,
and for more studio space. Carpendale scribbled in red pencil
in the margin that the problem of studio space was harder thanthat of staff: `where can they work?' Dawnay, in passing on
Graves's memorandum to Reith, remarked fairly but gloomily
that the recommendations amounted to little more than 'theraising of the Empire Service to the plane and status of a:

Regional Station'.2
In his second memorandum, written a few months later justafter he had temporarily left Broadcasting House ill with tuberculosis, Graves further surveyed the resources at his command,*Note by Sir Donald Banks, 27 Feb. 1935.
*Graves, Memorandum on the Empire Service, Apr. 1934. Note by A. C.
Dawnay, 18 Apr. 1934. There sas a parallel memorandum by Ashbridge, dated
2 May 1934.
'

2

392

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

human and material. He did not recommend that while he wasaway any one else should take over his post temporarily. J. B.
Clark, lie felt, could handle all Empire problems adequately:
he would in time be 'one of the leading men in the Corporation'.
He went on to argue that the policy of `bottling' programmes
for export to individual Empire broadcasting concerns, which
he had hitherto advocated enthusiastically, should be dropped'All our energies should be directed on improvement of transmissions and reception and on inducing the Colonial Office to:impress on Colonial Governors the ease with which receiving
apparatus could be installed for the re -transmission of Empire
programmes either through Wireless Exchanges or through local
transmitters which need not necessarily beofgreat power.' Moreshould be done, too, to diffuse commercial information, and thenews service, which had become independent of home news in
1934,1 should be developed 'as freely and as rapidly as possible'
with more sub -editors and a greater output of topical talks.
Turning to `international relations', Graves strongly recommended that there should be a full-time BBC representative in
the United States and that a willing response should be made torequests for help in starting broadcasting stations in the Colonies.
In Palestine Rendall's work should be backed up. 'We shall be
asked by Palestine to send someone to help them put their show
in order at the time of the incorporation of their broadcasting
service. I am very anxious that this shall be done if possible.'2
The development of Empire broadcasting was the subject of
two official BBC memoranda to the Colonial Office in February
and May 1935. Transmissions by then were up to 16 hours
a day. An Empire News Editor, J. C. S. MacGregor, had been
appointed with a staff of three sub -editors in September 1934.
The service he provided was particularly appreciated 25,000
letters and reports had been sent in to the BBC from various
parts of the Empire. The number of listeners was increasing,particularly in places like Sierra Leone and the Falkland
Islands, where Wireless Exchanges had recently been set up.3
(However guarded was the attitude of the BBC to Wireless:See above, p. 156.

*Graves to Reith, 11 Dec. 1934.
J. B. Clark to Graves, 15 Feb. 1935; J. B. Clark to McSweeney, 19 Feb. 1935;
BBC, The Empire Broadcasting Service; 8 May 1935.
2

3

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

393

Exchanges in Britain, it always gave them the warmest possible
welcome in the Empire.) Some of the letters had been lyrical,
and the Sierra Leone Weekly News had written charmingly of
local reactions to the broadcast of the Duke of Kent's wedding
in 1934; 'the excitement, commotion and bustle of listeners ..
called for an appreciation of the honour conferred on us by
the installation of the radio in this Colony and the extent towhich the monotony was relieved can better be imagined thandescribed'. `For this signal blessing,' it added, 'we doff our hats
in genuine praise and raise three loud cheers to Sir Arnold
and Lady Hodson."Yet, for all the progress, German competition was always
increasing. In 1933 the German Overseas Radio (Reichssender)
had received 3,000 letters from listeners overseas. In 1934, thefigure was io,000, and in 1935 28,000.2 `It is possible for theGerman station to use a more concentrated type of beam transmission', Reith told the Colonial Secretary, 'than we can employ
at Daventry, having regard to the wide geographical areas which
our service must cover. This means that in certain areas where
the danger of foreign political influence through these channels
may exist (for example, in mandated territories in Africa) andin other big centres of population lying in the paths of theGerman beams, the transmissions in question can be picked up
with the utmost facility. News bulletins, which we ha\ e reason
to believe are prepared in the German Ministry of Propaganda,
are read at fixed times in English and other languages.';
The Evening Standard had already directed attention to 'thepersistence and thoroughness of the German short-wave station'and had forcefully drawn the conclusion that 'we must not lag
behind in a world where this is being clone'.4 The BBC knew
just how much was being done. Kurt von Boeckmann was incharge of German short-wave broadcasting, which \\ as given
a high priority inside the Reichs Rundfunk Gesellschaft, andhis staff were treated as being of equal importance to those inGerman home broadcasting. In July 1935 a German plan toput six new short-wave transmitters into use was announced,.

Sierra Leone Weekly News, , Dec. 1934.
C. J. Rolo, Radio Goes to IVar (1943), p. 38.
3 *Reith to Cunliffe-Lister, 22 Jan. 1935.
Evening Standard, 12 Apr. 1935.
T

394

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

and Dr. Kurt Ratlike, who was given charge of German international programme exchange, told J. B. Clark that Germany
was particularly interested in South America. This was only
partially true.' The Germans had also sent round a questionnaire to the Colonies and Dominions asking listeners to theirprogrammes for information about quality of reception and programme preferences.2 Clearly, the British Empire was well within their field of operations.
To counter this propaganda drive, the British government
preferred exhortation to financial assistance for the BBC, anda private and secret circular on foreign programmes was sentby the Colonial Office to Colonial Governors in June 1935.3
Malcolm MacDonald, the new Secretary of State for the
Colonies, expressed the greatest interest in what was happening,and offered help for the fúture.4 Reith told him that the German
broadcasts, designed to give the world 'a favourable impressionof conditions of all kinds in Nazi Germany', often involved`definite distortion of British and other events with interpretations of diem in a manner favourable to Nazi ideals', and that
Italian broadcasts were `particularly virulent'.5
All these considerations had been taken into account in the
preparation of the BBC's evidence to the Ullswater Committee.
'The BBC (still deficient of authorisation and finance, but hopeful of Lord Ullswater's Committee) is doing all it can', it stated.
`In certain Colonies there is need to counteract the subversive
propaganda of all foreign stations. In all Colonial territories it
is vitally necessary to employ the instrument of broadcasting to
its utmost extent.' Not for the first time, the BBC directed its
pressure towards the British administration itself. 'A Department may need to be established in the Colonial Office, thefunctions of which would be the maintenance of close contact,
on the one hand, with Colonial Governments and individual
broadcasting officers, and, on the other, with the BBC.'6*Notes of interview between J. B. Clark and Dr. Kurt Ratlike,
1935
Rathke had previously helped von Boeckmann with the Zeesen 4JulY
short-wave
Ibroadcasts.

Daily Telegraph, 9 Apr. 1935.
*Clark to Dawnay, t6 Apr. 1935; circular from Downing Street, June 1935.
4 *Letter from Malcolm MacDonald,
14 Nov 1935.
5*Graves, Notes for the Director -General's Meeting with MacDonald, 1936.
o*BBC: evidence to the Ullswater Committee, Broadcasting and theColonial Empire,
25 Oct. 1935.
2
3

1

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

395

The Ullswater Committee responded to the BBC's appeal. It
recommended unanimously that the Empire Service should be`expressly authorised in the new Charter', that increased funds
should he applied to its development (from an increased shareof licence revenue), and that 'in the interests of British prestige
the appropriate use of lanand influence in world affairs
guages other than English should be encouraged'.¿ In reachingthese conclusions, it doubtless drew on other evidence besides
that presented by the BBC. The press agencies had foreseen thatin the future the Director -General might 'be anxious to exert
the right of the BBC to broadcast in languages other than English', and the Federation of British Industries had stated that`because the programme designers of the BBC had shown theability to construct programmes second to none in the woilcf',
they should be granted adequate funds to do so for listeners
outside the country. That this was not merely a businessman'sview was shown in a later comment made by Sir Walter Citrineof the T.U.C. 'The BBC has a mission, without becoming propagandist, to tell the world what this country stands for.'Z...

There was a note of increasing urgency in this kind of comment, slow though the government's reaction was. The year of
the Ullswater Committee was also the year of the ItaloAbyssinian crisis, and thereafter the international situation
began to impinge more and more on the BBC's own plans andpurposes. Talk of Empire broadcasting merely as an extensionof `sentimental ties' gave way increasingly to talk of the need 'to
project England'.
In some ways the Silver Jubilee celebrations of 1935 marked
the climax of Empire broadcasting as it had hitherto been
largely conceived, even when foreign competition was known
to be increasing. `Tremendous enthusiasm in Australia', Sydneyreported. `Sydncyites were compensated for the rain whichdamped their own Jubilee celebrations by the satisfactory relay
from London conveyed to their own firesides tonight.' `Thousands of Canadians got up early this morning', Ottawa reported,'and were rewarded by a very clear broadcast of the procession.
The clattering hooves of the horses were heard quite clearly....

.

3

Cmd. 509' (1936), § 115-24. See also below, p. 502.
*General Advisory Council, Précis of Discussion, 16 June 1937.

396

AUDIENCES: AT I1O`fE AND ABROAD

The greatest cheers which have ever been heard to issue fromthe microphone echoed through many Canadian homes. For
clarity and drama it was the greatest broadcast in history.»
Again it was the popular reaction within the home whichcounted. The success of Queen Victoria's telegraphed message
to the Empire at her jubilee in 1897 had given a shadowy intimation of what wireless might do: 1935 was a triumphantdemonstration.2
By the time of the Abdication in 1936 steps had already beentaken to expand greatly the scope of the BBC's Empire Service.
Four more short-wave transmitters of high power and modern
design had been ordered for Daventry. It was recognized clearlyat that time that what the BBC was saying was being listened toeagerly all over the world. `During the speech of Edward VIII
after his Abdication not a single call was received at one of thelargest telephone exchanges in New York.'3 The coronation ofKing George VI in 1937 marked another milestone. This was
the kind of event the Empire Service could handle magnifi-

cently. How would it respond to new challenges with the wholeworld as the arena?
It responded vigorously. The year 1937 was a crucial one in
the development of the propaganda war, and J. B. Clark wasdispatched on an extensive Empire tour in May 1937, in thecourse of which he called at almost all British territories between
Malta and Fiji. He was able to make a full appreciation of thesituation and to answer criticisms about the scope of the Empire
Service which were being made inside the BBC. From theUnited States, for example, Felix Greene, first BBC representative from late 1935 onwards in the New York office which
Graves had suggested,4 complained in 1937 that Empire programmes were `flabby and uninspired' and had 'no real relation
whatever with the needs and tastes of listeners in distant lands'.3
It was no longer sufficient in Greene's opinion to talk of lack offunds: lack of ideas was handicapping svork also. From Delhi,*Reports on the Jubilee Programmes, May 1935.
For the Diamond Jubilee of 1897, see the report in the Daily Telegraph, 24June
1897: for 1935 see H. Nicolson, King George V (1952),
pp. 524-6.
3 *General Advisory Council, Minutes,
16 June 1937; see also, for the broadcast, BBC Press Release, to Dec. 1936.
4 *For his appointment, see BBC Press
Release, 9 Sept. 1935.
5 *Control Board Minutes, 15 July 1937; additional
notes by Greene.
I

2

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

397

Lionel Fieldcn noted that the small group of English listeners
often turned off their sets in disgust because they found `nothingworth listening to': `Germany, Italy and Holland were rapidly
out -stripping the BBC in the quality both of their transmissions
and their programmes."
Both J. B. Clark and Graves, who had left the Empire andForeign Department to become Controller (Programmes) andlater in March 1938 Deputy Director -General, queried therepresentativeness of both these verdicts. Yet both recognized
the need for change. `Looking back over the past five years,
I believe our policy to have been right,' Graves wrote, 'but thepolitical situation now makes it necessary for us to study thequestion of competition with foreign short-wave programmes.'2
Competition was, indeed, at the heart of the matter, and two
years later Felix Greene, who was never satisfied, was to stateeven more caustically that 'it has not been fully grasped that in
its international questions the BBC is not in the position ofa protected monopoly'.3
Not all the difficulties related to programming. The continuing problems on the engineering side were well summarized
by Ashbridge in October 1937. 'We are sending out a service,
which is somewhat inferior to the German service, both technically and from the point of view of programmes. On thetechnical side this has been mainly due to the disgraceful way
in which we have been let down by manufacturers entrustedwith our transmitters.' It might even be necessary, he added,
to use the Baird `ultra -short wave television transmitter'+ asa temporary high -power short-wave sound transmitters

The real test of resilience was the introduction of foreign language programmes, a subject which had concerned the BBC
before the Ullswater Committee directed public attention to it.6
In this field Greene, for all his talk of `competition', was more
12
3

Fielden to Graves, I4 July 1937.

*Graves, Report on the Empire Service, 20 Aug. 1937.
*North American Representative's Report on the Empire Service',

14 July

1939.

For the transmitter, see below, pp. 552-4.

' N. Ashbridge, 'The Present Position of the Empire Service', Oct. 1'937.

in the Empire
6 *Memorandum 'The Use of Languages, other than English,
Broadcasting Service', June 1936; Control Board Minutes, 5 May 1936.

398

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

cautious than the Empire and Foreign Department chiefs lie wascriticizing. Afraid that such programmes would be interpreted
as `propaganda', part of a 'war of words' in which the British
had hitherto refused to take part, he even sent the BBC a telegram to check up on the truth of a report in the New York Herald
Tribune that they were about to begin.' Yet this was only one
point of view. From County Hall, London, Herbert Morrison
wrote in June 1936 to ask whether the BBC had ever considered broadcasting news bulletins in German and Italian, andto press for an early decision to start them. `It is itself a terrible
tragedy that millions of people abroad are receiving no impartial British news.'2 Morrison, like Reith, was clear about thedifference between news and propaganda, and another correspondent, arguing along similar lines, reminded the BBC oflines in President Roosevelt's inaugural address of 1937-`thetime has come for democracy to assert itself'.3
The introduction of foreign languages was gradual, beginningwith the Arabic Service, and the way ahead was never easy or
clear. A few months after the publication of the Ullswater
Report, a memorandum entitled 'The Use of Languages, otherthan English, in the Empire Broadcasting Service' was circulated to British representatives all over the world. They wereasked for their views by the Dominion, Colonial, and Foreign
Offices. This was a characteristically cautious approach by thegovernment to a big subject, followed by what Reith describedas `several months of desultory talk' in the Cabinet.4
In April 1937 the same three government departments, alongwith the BBC and the Post Office, were represented on an
official committee to discuss the question. Most of the replies
from the Empire had urged the need not only for action but for
speed. From Cuba, for instance, it was reported that `British
broadcasts would be welcome as a token of British interest in
Spanish-speaking countries, and probably be accepted as evidence of British vitality'.5 From the Middle East, where, since*Greene to Graves, 19 April 1936; telegram of 3 Dec. 1936.
*Herbert Morrison to Reith, t7 Jtme 1936; Reith to Morrison, tg June 1936;
Morrison to Reith, 24 June 1936.
3 *E. \Vatrous to the BBC, 7 Jan. 1937.
lVatrous was an American living in
2

Paris.
4

Into the 'Wind, p. 290.

s*Note from the British Minister in Havana, June 1936.

EMPIRE \ND OVERSEAS

399

1935, the Italian station Bari had established itself as a purveyor
of inflammable propaganda, A. S. Calvert wrote that Arabic
broadcasts should be introduced at once. While they would
arouse some suspicion at the outset, 'a reliable service of appropriate items of News of a general nature, given with unfailingobjectivity', would `disarm suspicion'.' From Cairo Guy Pocock
sent a message that he had been approached by the Director General for European Relations at the Ministry of the Interior
in an effort to urge him to counteract Italian radio stations.
'The Italians by their very virulence and volubility have overreached themselves, and now is the time for the BBC to stepin with broadcasts in Arabic from England, not in the nature ofanti -propaganda, but just absolutely reliable news.'2
The Post Office told the BBC to call a meeting of all interested
parties before embarking on foreign -language broadcasts3-it
added, indeed, that this adv.ce was based on a Cabinet decision-and a meeting was duly held on 13 April at Broadcasting
House, at which the Dominion, Colonial and Foreign Offices
were represented along with the Post Office. The Foreign Officepressed for broadcasts in Arabic, Spanish, and Portuguese, but
the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office were less welldisposed.4 The result was the setting -up of a sub -committee
within the BBC `to consider how such a service could be introduced with the minimum amount of impairment to the Empire
Service today and to its development in the future'.5
Graves himself seems to have been doubtful about future
policy at this stage. All his experience in regard to the Empire
Service and the contacts which he had made, he told Reith,convinced him that its success would be damaged and its
improvement in future retarded if a policy of foreign -language
broadcasts was adopted. `British prestige and its reputation for
integrity partly arose from the fact that we were adopting
a different policy and were not doing something which othercountries were doing lavishly.'6*Note from the British Legation at Jcdda, 26 Oct. 1936.
*Pocock to J. B. Clark, 30 Oct. 1936.
*Gardiner to Reith, 5 Mar. 1937.
4 *For Dominion Office doubts, see Sir Edward Harding to Graves, 26 Sept.
1936. See also Batterbee to Graves, 19 Feb. 1937.
s Minutes of the meeting of 13\pr. 1937.
6 *Graves to Reith, undated note.
I

2
D

400

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD\Vhile the BBC's sub -committee was meeting, a Cabinet committee, on which the BBC was not represented, was considering
similar questions under the chairmanship of Kingsley \Vood. It
was not until the autumn of 1937 that representatives of the twocommittees met. Norman and Reith led the BBC contingent,and Graves expressed the doubts and anxieties he had expressed
earlier in the BBC sub -committee. Reith, however, had no
doubts. `I thought the BBC should have been in this field-andall over it-two or three years earlier.»
He insisted, however, on a number of necessary conditions.
Foreign -language services were not to prejudice the Empire
Service. They would have to be done on a considerable scale,
if they were to be done at all. Special finance would be required.
News would have to be supplemented by other programmes.
The BBC would have to be responsible, and would have to enjoy
the same freedom vis -á -vis government departments as in theprovision of its home service. The Foreign Office should not callthe tune or run broadcasting stations of its own, as it had beenplanning to do in Cyprus. Any difficulties between BBC andForeign Office were to be settled informally without the sanctions of a written agreement.
Less than three weeks later, on 29 October, the Postmaster General duly announced in the House of Commons that the
BBC would undertake broadcasts in `certain foreign languages'.= He made it clear that when news was broadcast, it
would be `straight' news and not propaganda. Unfortunately,
however, he referred to the new departure entirely in terms ofa government decision. This was bound to create consternation
both in the BBC and abroad. Reith rightly felt that an announcement in these terms prejudiced the new service before it began,
and that 'it was of cardinal importance that it should be known
that this was a BBC and not a governmental service'. 'The BBC
would be trusted where the Government might not be.'3
Kingsley Wood, to whom Reith complained at once by telephone when the news of the Postmaster-General's statement
came over die tape machine at Broadcasting House, soonrectified matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John
*Minutes of a meeting of 4 Oct. 1937 at the Ministry of I lealth; Into the Wind,
P. 291.
2

Hansard, vol. 328 (1937), col. 501.

3

Into the Wind, pp. 292-3.

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

401

Simon, followed up the Postmaster -General's statement witha further statement on the following Monday that the BBC had
been `invited' by the government to provide broadcast news
services for South America in Spanish and Portuguese andfor the Middle East in Arabic. South America was mentioned
before the Middle East, certainly as a cover. Simon made threeother points in his speech, which met Reith's stipulations. First,
nothing would be done which might interfere with the Empire
Service. Second, new transmitters were needed, and until they
were brought into use, only a limited service would be available.
Third, in operating the new service, the BBC would have `t hesame full responsibilities and duties' as were laid dolm by its
Charter in respect of its existing services.t

Having fought for its opportunity, the BBC lost no time.
A committee, chaired by Tallcnts, was appointed two clays afterSimon's statement, and within a fortnight two new transmitters
had been ordered.2 The first staff for the Arabic broadcasts wasappointed in the autumn of 1937, A. S. Calvert being seconded
from the Consular Service to act as first sub-editor.3 In November 1937 it was decided not to use classical Arabic, but rather'a form of Egyptian Arabic'.4 Discussions also began about what
the scope of the Arabic Service should be.
The service was aimed at an audience nearing 40 millions, anaudience which was already a `vulnerable' target for Russian,German, and Italian propaganda-particularly Italian propaganda from the short-wave station at Bari. Already in the
Middle East wireless sets were symbols of `modernization', andthere were some listeners, firmly entrenched in traditional
culture, whose willingness to listen turned them into what havebeen called `transitional' folk, people who are breaking partially with tradition without fully realizing it.s A. S. Calvert
had reported before he joined the BBC that `Arabs are insatiable
for news ... King Abdul Aziz receives the News at Riyadh
Hansard, vol. 328 (1937), col. 674.
*Control Board Minutes, 16 Nov. 1937.
t Nov. 1937.
3 *Tallents Committee, Minutes,
4 Ibid., 25 Nov. 1937.
5
D. Lerner (ed.), The Passing of Traditional Society (1958). Some wireless sets
were distributed free to Arabs by EIAR, the Italian radio organization, before
1937. See Radio Goes to War, p. 41.
c1995
Dd
'

a

1

402

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

daily (and by a portable wireless set while travelling), and it iscredibly reported that nowadays he employs a special official
charged with the duty of noting down the news and conveying
it to his royal master.''This was at the top of the feudal pyramid of Arab society.
More important from the BBC's point of view ere the listening
habits of the populace. Here the reports were very encouraging.
NS

Nearly every Egyptian home of some standing has its radio set[the BBC was told], but nobody is deprived of the pleasure of listening in, as every café boasts of a set, every barber's shop, every
grocer's shop, and many others. I have even found them in workshops and factories. As the Egyptians and Palestinians like to gettheir money's worth out of their sets, it is not surprising to note thatthey tune-in their sets in the morning directly the station starts
broadcasting, and they do not turn them off until the station closes
down. This 'tap listening' is an infernal nuisance, and there is boundto be reaction against it sooner or later. If one walks up the Sharia
Farouq in Cairo, one need not stop at one café or barber's shop toknow what is on the programme; one merely walks along and there
is a continuity of radio emission as though it were one set. In nearly
every building there are three or four cafés where the working classes
and the out of work sit for hours on end listening in to a badly
tuned -in station, mostly Cairo.2
At the same time, almost all Arab listeners were interested inpolitics, and few could believe that the BBC broadcasts did nothave a political purpose. 'Many enlightened Egyptians havestated that they are delighted that we are taking up Arabic
broadcasts', a report \vent on: 'They are flattered on the one
hand, and rather amused that the Italians have forced us into
this counteraction. I must insist on this point of view, however,that no Arabic speaking person who is aware of our action canbe convinced that we are not doing this except with a view to
issuing propaganda. He is convinced that if we do not start
actual propaganda now, we shall certainly work up to that in
the future.'
This was the practical, operational problem of foreign language broadcasting, as seen at a different level from that of*Note by A. S. Calvert, 26 Oct. 1936.
*J. Hcyworth Dunne, `Report on Arabic Broadcasting in Egypt and Palestinewith Special Reference to the Arabic Broadcasts from London', 20 Jan. 1938.
'a

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

403

the Cabinet Committee and the BBC's sub -committee. Hitherto'the Empire News had been prepared on the assumption thatits listeners have sufficient faith in its accuracy to know that the
BBC's silence is tantamount to a denial of a misleading reportwhich may have been broadcast from elsewhere, and that a BBC
News item automatically provides correction of any different
story broadcast by a foreign organisation.» Arab listeners did
not know these conventions: they had to learn.
The BBC, for its part, had to learn what kind of programmes
the Germans and Italians were beaming at the Arab world. It
acquired this information in the first instance from the Foreign
Office, which from the late summer of 1937 onwards had begun
to monitor Italian news broadcasts in Arabic. The first monitoring of English news bulletins from foreign stations had begun
during the Italo-Abyssinian War of 1935. The Foreign Officegave little sustained support to this venture, which went througha further phase of development at the time of the abdication
crisis, when Whitehall was especially interested in knowing
what American stations were saying about the King and Mrs.
Simpson. In the case of Arab -language monitoring, the Foreign
Office was genuinely interested from the start, and S. Hillelson,
an Arabic scholar from the Sudan Civil Service, was engaged
by the Foreign Office to monitor Bari broadcasts. The BBC took
over Hillelson when it began to transmit its own programmes.
Fortunately for the BBC, monitored information suggested
that the rival broadcasting organizations were not perfect. 'A
new announcer-very much more of an Arab than the previous
one', a monitoring official reported on a news reader from Rome.
'At the end he had to be hurried up, and consequently hetripped over himself.' When South American monitoring beganfour or five nights a week late in 1938, a German announcer
speaking Portuguese was said to have 'a very woolly voice, tomumble badly, and to speak too close to the microphone'.2

The Arabic Service was inaugurated on 3 January 1938 by
the Emir Seif-EI-Islam Hussein, son of the King of the Yemen,
who listened to the first broadcast in his palace in Sana'a.
Messages of goodwill were broadcast on this occasion by the2*BBC Memorandum, `Monitoring of Foreign News Broadcasts', 27 June 1938.
*1 bid.

AUDIENCES: AT IIOME AND ABROAD

404

Egyptian Chargé D'affaires in London, the Ministers for Iraq
and Saudi Arabia, and the Governor of Aden, an easier collection to assemble in 1938 than in 1964. It was estimated also,
unlike today, that 5o per cent. of the journals published in
Arabic would be 'not unfriendly'.' In his speech die Egyptian
Chargé remarked that `while an Englishman might make a mistake, he is temperamentally always eager to get at the real
truth'. This flattering statement was immediately put to the test
for, difficult though it was to include, an item was broadcast in
the first Arabic news bulletin relating to the execution that morning of a Palestinian Arab on the orders ofa British military court.Only the BBC would have jeopardized the start of Arabic
news bulletins by telling the truth in a bald, factual way. Protests were, in fact, received,3 but a principle had been established. When Calvert, with his Consular Service background,suggested tentatively that `there should be such selection andomission of items as to give a favourable impression of thiscountry to the Arab audience', J. B. Clark replied with theauthentic voice of the BBC-`the omission of unwelcome facts ofNews and the consequent suppression of truth runs counter tothe Corporation's policy as laid down by appropriate authority'.4
There was liaison between the Foreign Office and the BBC,not least in the field of listener research,s but it did not influence
programme policy. Every effort was made, instead, to create
a viable `Arabic programme unit' inside the BBC. Donald
Stephenson, who was later to have a distinguished career in quite
different branches of the BBC, was seconded from the Royal Air
Force in the spring of 1938,6 but great use from the start was*Undated memorandum, 'Publicity for Transmissions in Foreign Languages'.
*First Arabic news bulletin, 3 Jan. 1938.
3 *Telegram from The Times Correspondent in Palestine, I Apr. 1938; //abazbuz(Iraq), t Jan. 1938, 'Oh God help us against Satan. Accursed of God be the radio!
Thus the London radio station inaugurated its Arabic programme by the broada proceeding which even thecasting of reports of acts of terror in Palestinemost Zionist of Zionists would pronounce as representing a lack of taste, to say theleast.'*Calvert to J. B. Clark, 18 Jan. 1938; J. B. Clark to Calvert, 19 Jan. 1938.
s Meetings were held at the Foreign Office from time to time (e.g. on 12 jan.
1938) and Calvert was recognized as providing a link. 'Whilst we naturally
recognise that Calvert, having been seconded to the BBC has only one master toserve,' Leeper of the Foreign Office wrote, 'we are anxious that his new mastershould let him keep in the closest contact with his old.' *Leeper to Graves, 5 Jan.
1937.
6 *Arabic Service Committee, Minutes, 27 .Apr. 1938.
'

2

1

...

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

405

made of Arabs, as use was to be made of foreigners generally as
foreign broadcasting developed. A. K. Sourour and Aziz Rifaat
were appointed direct from the Egyptian State Broadcasting
Service in Cairo, where they had more than three years' experience. J. B. Clark signed them on, indeed, on his way back to
London from his Empire tour.' Rifaat was a man of great
imagination, a poet as well as a broadcaster, and Sourour had
the reputation of being the best Arabic announcer in the world.
They did as much to establish the BBC's Arabic Service as anyof its more highly placed sponsors, for they were able to takeaccount naturally of what Stewart Perowne called 'the ambivalence of the Arab mind when it is exposed to contact with theWest'. `It is an often remarked phenomenon', Perowne, theArabic Programme Organizer, wrote in September 1938, 'that
those who most ardently seek to possess themselves of thematerial equipment of the west are the most resolute champions
and apostles of culture and religion of the East.'2
Scanning through the early Arabic programmes is an interesting historical exercise, and sometimes there are historicalironies. In August 1939, for example, it was decided to have an
Englishman to speak on the anniversary of the Anglo-Egyptian
Treaty, 'as one was given by an Egyptian last year'. It wasagreed to recommend that Mr. Anthony Eden should beapproached. The opening of an Egyptian short-wave station in
the same month was hailed as 'an extension of the LondonCairo axis'.3
The Arabic broadcasters in Britain included journalists, politicians, diplomats, and students, among them a number of Arabstudents of drama at the Old Vic.4 Two Arab ladies who introduced programmes regularly were known as `readers', not as`announcers'.5 Sometimes Rifaat wrote a poem-as on theanniversary of the foundation of the BBC in 1939. Sometimes
there were plays in Arabic, the first of them being broadcast in
the spring of 1939 after hard work by Sourour.6 It is not surprising that there were frequent requests from listeners for`programmes in a lighter vein', like the running commentary' *The Director -General of Egyptian State Broadcasting at this time was A. S.
Delany.
2 *Note by Stewart Perowne, 2 Sept. 1938.
3 *Arabic I'rogramme Committee. Minutes, 9 Aug. 1939.
6 *Ibid., 26 \pr. x939.
4 *Ibid., 11 Dec. 1938.
*Ibid., 21 Dec. 1938.
5

406

AUDIENCES: AT IIOME AND ABROAD

on the Grand National which was broadcast with an Arabic
commentary in 1938.1 There was also some doubt about the
BBC's identity, however unique it seemed to itself. `Identification announcements should be made more frequently throughout the programmes in order to avoid confusion with otherstations broadcasting in Arabic.'2

The inaugural programmes of the BBC's Latin American
Service were broadcast on 14 and 15 March 1938. A large groupof guests was received by the Director -General in the Council
Chamber of Broadcasting House at the very appropriate timeof 11.3o p.m. on r4 March, and a champagne bullet supper wasserved at 2 a.m.
There is evidence that the BBC knew less about its potential
listeners in Latin America than its listeners in the Middle East.
It had been primed, however, with a great deal of information.
'Tap listening' was apparently as prevalent in Lima as it was in
Cairo. `Whatever views listeners might hold as to the Newsvalue of the Service, they would nevertheless listen.... And
what is heard sufficiently often sinks in, just as heavy advertisingcan sell any article whether good, bad or indifferent.'3 It is
doubtful whether Reith-or the inhabitants of Lima-would
have been impressed by this report. Other reporters were more
searching. They pointed to the need for securing rediffusion
rights through agreements with local stations, to the impossibility of winning the confidence of all sections of opinion inhighly divided societies, and to the benefits which would accrue
from linking news bulletins to more varied and colourful programmes. 'The demand for personalismo is probably the mostcharacteristic and profound sentiment of the continent', one
observer wrote. Another, a little later, remarked, 'My only
criticism of BBC programmes is that you don't blow your own
trumpet enough.'4
The urgent need for starting the service had been underlined
by Felix Greene, who was sent by the BBC on a tour of Latin
America in 1937. Latin America was just as vulnerable to out2
3
4

*Arabic Programme Committee, Minutes, 8 Feb. 1939.
*Ibid., t Mar. 1939.
*Report 1.1.091 Lima; 21 Oct. 1936.
*F. C. Lockwood to D. McCulloch, 17 June 1938; letter from T.P., 13 Oct.

1938.

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

407

side pressure as the Middle East. 'We are facing damaging propaganda in all its forms, propaganda concerted, skilful, highlyorganized, and prosecuted with resourcefulness, energy and infinite diligence. . . Countless Brazilians, Argentinians andChileans, in positions of influence and friendly towards ourcountry, have told me how difficult it is to stand by and watch
the effects of these activities and see Britain lift no finger toprotect her name and interests."
The Latin American Section confronted a huge task when it
was set in these terms, for most other British agencies did little
during the inter -war years-to the great annoyance of friends ofSouth America, like Sir Eugen Millington-Drake-to support
British cultural or political influence. Millington -Drake had theclosest relations with the new Section, which was small but compact. Another Calvert, R. A., was Spanish -Portuguese Editor,
with T. Farrell as first Spanish Sub -Editor and C. E. Glass as
first Portuguese Sub -Editor. J. A. Camacho, who was to havean outstandingly interesting later history with the BBC, was amember along with M. A. Braune and A. Cortesao. Much of
the work of the Section would have been impossible without
good public relations, which were managed in the first instanceby R. J. Baker, R. A. Fusoni,2 and R. E. Broughton. The engineering problems were considerable because South America
was-and is-a difficult area within which to provide an easily
receivable service from the United Kingdom.
It is possible, however, to exaggerate the distinctiveness of
response in South America and other parts of the world. As theLatin American Service developed, many of the letters received
from Latin America were of the same pattern as letters received
from elsewhere. `During the crisis, with the world on tiptoe,'a BBC official wrote from Ecuador in September 1938, 'weanxiously awaited the London news as the most authoritative
voice on these events.'3 `Sincere and cordial congratulations on
the impartiality, sound judgment and common sense with which
the London station has kept its innumerable Spanish speaking.

*Note by Felix Greene, Nov. J937.
Fusoni was in South America from October 1938 onwards. Another importantfour -month tour was that of C. A. L. Cliffe, the Overseas Programme Director,
who arrived in South America just before Christmas 1938. Ile sent back a fascinating
report on his visit.
3 *Note by C. A. L. Clitfe, Sept.
1938.
I

2

408

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

listeners informed of European events', wrote a listener in Cuba.
There was always a minority who wanted more than justnews. `Authoritative talks on world affairs and interpretation of
the News,' the same Cuban listener added, `would be regarded
as a valuable addition to the Service, and many listeners would
like the programmes to carry a presentation of the English pointof view and of English life in all its aspects.'
1

The presentation of the news depended on the highly efficient
Empire and Foreign News Section, which was later augmented
to include foreign -language news experts. J.. C. S. MacGregor
was succeeded as Empire News Editor by C. A. L. Cliffe in
September 1935, and the latter by J. F. G. Troughton, seconded
from the Colonial Office, in 1937. In December of that year
a new Overseas Intelligence Department was started under the
direction of M. Frost. A. E. Barker was appointed Foreign
Language News Editor in February 1938 and Overseas News
Editor in December of the same year. A few months after theLatin American Service had been launched, European news
bulletins began to be delivered in German, French, and Italian,and in January 1939 the European Language Service was madepermanent.2 In the meantime MacGregor had become Empire
Service Programme Director in 1935 and Cliffe had become
Overseas Programme Director in 1938.
We know very little of the new listeners who were recruitedin the dark months of 1938 and 1939, but there is a limited
amount of listener-research information about the listeners to the
Empire Service. Indeed this chapter of the BBC's history comesround full circle with two detailed (but undated) reports, thefirst on public -relations aspects of Empire broadcasting, thesecond on an Empire Service Research Scheme based on
information collected from a sample of 600 listeners in all partsof the Empire.
It was impossible to tell accurately how many listeners there
were or how many potential listeners there might be. Estimatessuggested that there were less than Ioo,000 wireless receiving
sets in use in 47 Colonies-the Dominions were not included*Note by C. A. L. Cline, Sept. 1938.

' *Control Board Minutes, 27 Jan. 1939. Sec also below, pp. 645 fr.

EMPIRE AND OVERSEAS

409

in this reckoning-and less than to,000 subscribers to WirelessExchanges. Palestine accounted for more than a quarterof the receiving sets. In many Colonies, listeners were at themercy of `ignorant wireless traders'. Some manufacturers quite
openly treated the Colonies 'as a clumping ground for out-ofdate and faulty stock'.' The Dominions provided a large andP..

~rp1,fflotiont

tp

\c1J

ARABICORABAN34.

LLN CH'A Tour of Babel: Glances at some of the lesser-known BBC Departments'(t939)

highly critical audience. There were 927,481 licensed receivers inAustralia, 226,476 in New Zealand, and 1,038,500 in Canada.
All these countries had their own broadcasting systems withwhich the BBC had to compete as well as to co-operate.
`Although we may not want to pander to the programme
requirements of Dominion listeners, we must recognise that if
we do not give them for at least a proportion of the broadcasting
programme time programmes of the type which they wish tohear, they will turn to other stations.' There was also an Empire
over -spill audience outside both the Colonies and Dominions.
*Undated memorandum, `Public Relations and Empire Broadcasting'.

AUDIENCES: AT HOME AND ABROAD

410

A considerable proportion of the total correspondence received

by the Empire Department originated in the United States.
How often did Empire listeners listen? In the sample survey,
21 per cent. listened up to to hours a week, 6 per cent. morethan 40 hours a week. Whatever the appeal of foreign broadcasts
to the Middle East or to South America, Empire listeners
favoured Daventry by a large margin. Dutch stations came nextin popularity, not Zeesen or Rome. Sixty-one per cent. of thesample in India, Burma, and Ceylon preferred Variety to any
other kind of programme, 68 per cent. in the Near East, and72 per cent. in British Colonies in West Africa. Music Hall was
the favourite programme, followed by In Town Tonight andMonday Night at Seven. There was a marked lack of enthusiasm
for Empire talks and little interest in features and drama,`almost entirely due to the need for concentration and the poor
quality of short-wave reception'. Few views on religious services
were expressed.
This picture needs to be taken into account when the recordof these years is finally assessed. The ideal of the great imperial
servant relying on radio to strengthen his values and enliven his
intelligence clashed sharply with the picture of the Empire
listener which can be drawn from this sample. `In the Colonies
most of our listening takes place when we have done our day's
work and (especially in the tropics) are sitting back and having
a drink; therefore light entertainment is required, not programmes of educational value.' Or, as the wife of a colonial civil
servant put it, 'it is very hot and Ns et, and light entertainment
and interesting talks are all I can be bothered with'.' It is notfanciful to trace back some of the later difficulties in the Empire,
both during the War and since, to the inability of any agency
to change attitudes of this kind. The fact that the BBC asa public corporation tried more than any other is to its everlasting credit. It was serving itself well, too, in preparation,
though for long it did not know it, for the enormous international task imposed upon it during the Second World War.
'

*Undated memorandum, `Empire Listener Research Scheme'.

1`1

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN
INSTITUTION

Ten years ago we hailed the new invention
Just as a curious scientific freak...
Those were the days of cramped accommodation
For workers on the hillside of Savoy:\ Company, not yet a CorporationWho spent laborious days, with little joy
And hasty meals, in long negotiation
Before they gained permission to employ
Artists and actors, and allayed suspicion
Of any undermining competition...
.

.

... This giant is no drone that sleeps or dozes,
teeth,Nor yet a monster armed with dragon's
And an impartial scrutiny discloses
The workings of a steadfast soul beneath;
The BBC is not a bed of roses,
But well has earned and ;yell deserves its Wreath;
For here at last we safely can applaud
One thing we manage better than abroad.
Lines taken from a poem of eight stanzas by cnARLES GRAVES in
May 1932
Pu,,de,1t1. Puhlic Corporation
THE idea of a `public corporation' influenced all aspects ofbroadcasting. Indeed, it had even wider implications. `Thereis more in the BBC than just broadcasting', Reith told theassembled staff of the BBC just after they had moved to Broadcasting House. `In this line you are not working to yourselves
only, but showing what the BBC type of constitution can do,
and the lessons it can teach with regard to other fields ofactivity.'
Reith had a number of points in mind when he made thiskind of statement, as lie so often did during the Ig3os. Firstand foremost, he wanted to emphasize that he and his subordinates were public servants: they did not require the incentive of making money to keep them energetic and enterprising.
'To the right kind of man, a dividend motive is unnecessary.
More than this, the serving of public interest and the serving offinancial interest are not normally fully compatible.'2 For talking like this, Reith sometimes won the reputation of being`something of a socialist'.3 In fact, he was falling back on adifferent tradition-on a concept of `duty' which was firmly
rooted in his Christian upbringing. The sense of service sprang
from within: it was nourished by introspection, heart-searchingand seering self scrutiny, rather than taken for granted. 'A
thorn in the spirit', he once told Baldwin, 'was worse than athorn in the flesh.' Baldwin, who was never troubled by thorns,'was much amazed and asked if I felt that I must burst'.4
Reith admired and trusted people who were clear what their
duty was and did it unflinchingly, even though they knew
it was hard. He felt that his own abilities were not always as
fully tested or `stretched' as they ought to have been, and thatwith his urge to serve, there might have been outlets for service
in quite different walks of life. Frequently, however, he turned
down opportunities of making far larger sums of money in other*J. C. W. Reith, Address to the Staff of the BBC, 3 May 1932.
I Address to the Royal Institution, 13 May 1932.
4 Ibid., 21 Feb. 1929.
3 Reith, Diary, 6 Feb. 1933.

411.

ORGANIZATION: TILE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

organizations, including other branches of 'mass communication', than he was making in the BBC. And although he wasoften `bored' by the BBC during the 1930s, as he admitted
freely in his diary, he never treated it lightly. In 1932 he wasreferring to his `over -burdened position', and over a year later
was admitting that he `should be very sorry to leave the BBC
andthere are very few jobs indeed that would interest me
at all'.' He did not shrink from talking about the need for`idealism'. 'The broadcasting authority must not be afraid topostulate a policy or policies in which idealism plays a part,
perhaps a determining part.... Idealism can be practical, andwe have not far to seek for plans and policies which would be
all the better for an infusion of idealism.'2
Reith's colleagues were expected to work in the same spirit.
When he appointed them, he wanted to be sure that theygenuinely wanted to be members of the BBC, that they were notmerely looking for a job but for a particular job. Once appointed, they were not very well paid and their hours of work
were long. `I am convinced that all producers and their secretaries are most seriously overloaded and that a really dangerous
situation exists', Rose -Troup wrote about the state of affairs inthe Variety Department in June 1938:3 the same comment had
been made by Nicolls in 1935.4 R. T. B. Wynn once went into
Ashhridge's office at 6.5o p.m. and said, `I'm sorry but I'mgoing a bit early tonight.' What was true of Variety or Engineering was true of many other departments during the same period,
and what was true of Reith-his refusal to take outside jobs
at far higher rates of pay-was true of many other people
inside the BBC.
A genuine disinterestedness was one of the hallmarks of' theorganization, and Reith believed that it could set an example tothe community at large. 'We have done our best', he once said,'to found a tradition of public service rather than public exploitation. The broadcasting system of a nation is a mirror ofthat nation's conscience.... This is the trust which we haveassumed and we did not assume it lightly. There are no loop-

...

1

2
D

Reith, Diary, 15 Mar. 1932, 19 Sept. 1933.
Address to die Royal Institution, 13 May :932.
*Memorandum by j. M. Rose -Troup, `Variety Department, Staff and Out-put', 28 June 1938.
4 *Nicolls to Reith, 3! Jan. 1935.

PUBLIC CORPORATION

415

holes to duty, and no compromise is possible with what one
considers to be right. The generation of tomorrow will judge
us not just in terms of the amusement we have given, but bywhat we have stood for in the past and may still stand for in
the future. If the day should come-and I don't think it will-when broadcasting should play to the lowest rather than thehighest in man, then will the country itself have fallen very

low.''At the same time, Reith was at pains to reiterate time andagain that public service in a public corporation was somethingquite different from public service in the Civil Service-in the
Treasury, for example, or in the Post Office. He and his colleagues were not government servants: they were genuinely
managing their own business themselves, and they should manage
it, he stressed, free from bureaucratic interference. There always
was a danger of bureaucratic interference, of petty -mindedness
stifling vision. Such petty -mindedness handicapped the development of the Empire Service, and tied up the development of
television.2 'There was also a danger of political interference.
Reith believed that many of the decisions of the Post Office were
crudely political, particularly when Kingsley Wood was Postmaster -General. 'He was more party -minded than his predecessors: both ears to the ground.'3 `It is a sorry affair that a man
should be so timid and his whole outlook be determined by considerations of popularity and avoidance of trouble', he noted
in 1934.4
Free of politics and as far as possible free of red tape, theBBC needed a spirit of enterprise as well as a sense of duty.s`Sir John Reith is the living proof of the truth of things in which
he does not believe', wrote one right-wing critic of his views on
public services and the irrelevance of the profit motive. `Thereis no recent example that illustrates better than his the qualities
of individualism and enterprise.'6 Yet Reith never saw any
antipathy between `individualism' and `institutionalization'.
He believed, indeed, that the rapid creation of an accepted'Notes for Blattnerphone Record on Broadcasting (193,).

See above, p. 376 for Empire broadcasting; see below, pp. 613 ff. for television.
2

7

Into the Wind p. 158.

4

Reith, Diary, 25, June 1934.

6

5

See above, p. 56.

The Independent, 9 June 193.4. The article was written by Sir Ernest Benn.

416

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTHOF AN

INSTITUTION

institution could be achieved only by outstanding individuals
who could take speedy decisions and command genuine loyalty.'
In the United States it was the `absence of the institution which
was preventing the best men in American radio from doing
their best work and at the same time permitting others tooperate without much idea of their responsibility to the public'.2
The parallels and contrasts between Britain and America
fascinated him. Americans, however, did not always agree withhis analysis. When in 1933 Reith sang the praises of the BBC as
an institution in the presence of the American radio magnate,
Owen D. Young of the Radio Corporation of America, Youngreplied that 'it was no good my [Keith] talking about the successof the BBC constitution and policy in general terms and as
applicable elsewhere, since, according to him, it had been all
done by me'.3
Reith s as sure that the kind of `public corporation' he hadcreated was adapted to the needs of the age, offering at the sametime authority, order, and enterprise. He was so sure, indeed,that he considered it to be 'a precedent for similar advances
towards a better world in other domains where great services
are handicapped by too definite State control or where thepublic is handicapped by there being too little State control'.+
He mentioned as possible candidates for `nationalised rationalisation' the railways, coal -mining, and the steel industry.5
As early as 1929 he was delighted to find that Philip Snowden's`conception of nationalisation was on BBC lines',6 and a few
days after he saw Owen Young in 1933, he had 'an interesting
conversation' on the same subject with Stafford Cripps. `I think
I got him to agree that the Post Office should be de -nationalised
to the BBC type of constitution', Reith wrote, 'but he persisted
in trying to make out that the conduct of a service like therailways was different in nature from that of the BBC.' It wasodd, Reith added, 'that I should be almost entirely socialist
in my outlook in regard to the point on which the socialists put
so much importance, namely the nationalisation of public' See his Address to the Royal Institution, 13 May 1932.

J. C. W. Reich, 'Broadcasting in America' ín the Nineteenth Century, Aug. 1931.
Reich, Diary, 14 Nov. 1933.
* Address to the Royal Institution, 13 May 1932.
J. C. W. Keith, 'Broadcasting and a Better World' in the Spectator, 22 Nov.
1930.
6 Reith, Diary, 9 Apr. 1929.
2

PUBLIC CORPORATION

417

services. Cripps had a good instance in his [broadcast speechof the way in which roads used to be run on a capitalist systembut became nationalised in the middle of the last century."
There was, however, a difference between railways-a meansof physical communication-and broadcasting-a means ofsocial communication-in Reith's mind as well as Cripps's.
Reith was always interested, as he still is, in both forms ofcommunication, but in the case of broadcasting he believedthat `economic and administrative arguments' were not the only
ones to take into the reckoning. Efficiency of service and the`right area' of operation were relevant to both, but there wereadditional arguments of 'an intellectual and ethical order' in
the case of broadcasting.2 `Ethical policy cannot stand competition', he wrote in 1931. 'The only ultimate unfailing powers
are, unfortunately, force and money. An ethical policy put
across by one of these (our monopoly arises from the former)
may be approved, but cannot establish itself on its own.'3
In a society where there were acute social divisions, competing political pressures, confusions of values and, above all, divergent assessments of individual worth, this approach did notalways impress. It was certainly never likely to be unanimously
accepted. The remarkable point was that through sheer strengthof personality Reith won a substantial measure of confidence
when he propounded his philosophy in public. In an age of little
men, lie had unmistakable moral stature. In an age when old institutions became sluggish or stagnant, as so many did in the 19205
and 193os, the BBC was a new institution, growing faster thanmost institutions had grown before both in size and in influence.
The vigour of Reith's philosophy is displayed in his interestin broadcasting overseas, in India, for example, Canada, orSouth Africa. He believed that the British idea of a public corporation-and the British ideal of public service that lay
behind it-had wide relevance. In different times he might havebeen a great Empire builder, for he always longed to exert
influence outside his own society as well as in it.
His power to impress was shown at its most striking in 1934.
In March of that year there was a `sustained' attack on theJ

Ibid., 30 Nov. 1933.
z
3

C 1995

See also `Broadcasting and a Better World'.
Reith, Diary, 14 Dec. 1931.

EC

418

ORGANIZATION: TILE GRO\VTH OF AN INSTITUTION

BBC in the press, 'very much on personal issues'.' `It seemed
to be as much against me personally', Reith wrote, 'as against
the BBC.'z At the height of the criticism, Reith paid a visit
to the House of Commons to address the Conservative 1922
Committee;3 he followed this up a few weeks later with anaddress in the same style to the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Both visits were personal triumphs: they were also publicdemonstrations of a philosophy of conduct. Reich spoke briefly
for five minutes, and \vent on to answer a battery of questions.
He never flinched. `I only wish the meeting had gone on for
two hours longer', he wrote at the end of the 1922 Committee
session. The following day, to his `astonishment', the press`executed an incredible volte-face'. There were fair accounts ofthe meeting in both the Daily Express and the Daily Herald, andamong the headlines were `Tables Turned on Critics', 'BBC
Critics Converted', and `Critics Turn into Supporters'. The
Labour Party meeting, with Clement Attlee in the chair, wassomething of' an anticlimax, but 'the result seemed equally
successful and the meeting was on the whole very cordial'.4

Very similar demonstrations of support were forthcoming when
Reich left the BBC in 1938, and people and organizations ofwidely divergent views paid universal tribute to his achieve-

ments
The idea of a public corporation was not, of course, a monopoly of Reith. Many writers and politicians dwelt on the advantages of `public corporations' at this time-notably Herbert
Morrison, Sir Henry Bunbury, and NV. A. Robson. American
visitors came to Britain from the United States of Franklin D.
Roosevelt to learn what `public corporations' were. They went
on conducted tours of the Central Electricity Board, the London
Passenger Transport Board, and the BBC to see how large-scaleinstitutions behaved when they were called upon to act as' Reich, Diary, 19 Mar. 1934.

' Into the Wind, p. 184.
D4

See also below, PP. 454-5

Into the Wind, pp. 185-6; Diary, 19 Mar., to May 1934.

See below, p. 634. Reith could also win over a difficult undergraduate
audience, as he did in the Oxford Union in 193o. Isis wrote that he was impulsive
and amusing. 'Ile says he is not a speaker, but if he is not, there are very few in theHouse who can call themselves so.'5

PUBLIC CORPORATION

419`trustees for the national interest'.' There was no more eloquent
protagonist of the system than Reith, and he was gratified by
an American scholar's conclusion, after a detailed factual
inquiry in 1936 and 1937, that 'the method of organising apublic service, of which the BBC, the Central Electricity Boardand the L.P.T.B. are conspicuous examples, represents a practical step of the greatest consequence towards resolving the conflict, inherent in a democratic system of society under existing
conditions, between "democracy" and "efficiency" '.2
As early as 1905, A. V. Dicey had forecast that the time would
come when `every large business may become a monopoly, and[when] trades which are monopolies may wisely be brought
under the management of the State'.3 This trend of thinking
had a definite influence on Conservative thought. Liberals also
took up the idea of `public enterprise' in their Industrial Inquiryof 1928, and J. M. Keynes gave it his blessing.4 Finally, much
Fabian argument pointed in the same direction, and the Labour
Member of Parliament, William Graham, who had been amember of the Sykes Committee on Broadcasting in 1923,
helped to popularize the term `public corporation'.5 Herbert
Morrison gave it wide political currency.6 W. A. Robson, who
was quick to see the administrative significance of the phenomenon, pointed out in 1935 that the London Passenger Transport Act was introduced into Parliament by a Labour Minister,
continued by a Liberal successor, and piloted through its final
stages by a Conservative Minister of Transport.?
Influencing each of these strands of thought was the British
desire to be `practical', and it was Lord Allen of Hurtwood,
whose own political attitudes were ambivalent, who describedpublic corporations as `accepted expressions of the British
commonsense way of doing a technical job efficiently and with'' This was the language of the Crawford Committee Report of 925. See Crnd.
2599 (1926), § 4. For the background and conclusions of the Crawford Committee
Report, see The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 327-48.
2
L. Gordon, British Experiments in Public Ownership and Control (x937), p. 27.
J A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England
during the Nineteenth Century (1905), p. 248.
4 J. M. Keynes, The End of Laissez -Faire (1926), pp. 41-42.
5
See Hugh Dalton, Practical Socialism for Britain (1935), P. 94.
6 H. Morrison, Socialization and Transport (1933).
7 W. A. Robson, 'The BBC as an Institution' in the Political Quarterly, Oct.-Dec.
1935.

420 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

general consent'.' Allen thought of himself as 'a sort of unofficial
spokesman for the BBC constitution', which he regarded as 'a
new illustration of the singularly skilful manner in which the
British race seems to develop the art of government'.z

Reith's main achievement was to create a public corporation
rather than to write about it, but in a number of interestingarticles he tried to set his own work in its administrative andhistorical context. The essential requirements of a public corporation, he stated, following Sir Henry Bunbury, were first,
public control over major policy; second, absence of public
interference in management; third, choice of the right field ofoperation; fourth, disinterestedness; and fifth, `expertness'.3
Public control over major policy was exercised by the Postmaster -General and through him by Parliament. The Charterof 1927 gave the Corporation power to sue and to be sued, tohold property, real and personal, and to take other actions
appropriate to its corporate nature. Yet it had to apply 'thewhole of its surplus revenue (if any) and other income solely
in promoting its objects'. It was not permitted to distributea profit. Supplementary to the Charter was a Licence grantedby the Post Office and running, like the Charter, for ten years

from I January 1927.
Each year the BBC had to provide the Postmaster -Generalwith a Report and Statement of Accounts. It also had to accept
certain conditions which he laid down. The Postmaster-General,who }tad international obligations to consider, retained authority
to approve the location, wavelength, power, and height ofaerials of the broadcasting stations. He also had authority,
which he did not use at this time, to specify hours of broadcasting. He could require the BBC to broadcast at its own expense
Lord Allen of Hurtwood, Britain's Political Future (1934), p. 139. Allen of
Hurtwood wrote to Reith on 24 Nov. 1932, 'I believe very few people even now
fully understand that you have probably made a more remarkable contribution tohuman thought and the future of civilisation than any other living person.'
2 Lord Allen of Hurtwood to Malcolm MacDonald, 23 Nov. 1932; BBC Year
Book (1933), pp. 52-53. I owe the reference to Lord Allen's letter to Mr. W. H.
Marwick.
3 Sir I lenry Sunbury, reportingon a discussion of problems arising out of the
management of public utility services at the Institute of Public Administration in
1926. Reith saw Ilunbury on 20 Nov. 193o, when they discussed this and otherquestions of administration (Diary, 20 Nov. 193o).

PUBLIC CORPORATION

421

any message which a government department might wish tohave transmitted. (Again, 'no improper advantage was taken of
this clause'.) He could by written notice call upon the BBC 'torefrain from sending any broadcast matter (either particularor general) specified in such Notice'. He could take over complete control of BBC stations in case of emergency. Lastly, he
could revoke the Licence at any time in the event of the BBC
failing to observe any of the conditions laid down in the Charteror Licence or neglecting 'to send efficiently from the stations a
programme of broadcast matter'.'Reith would have preferred control over the BBC's operations I-limited though it was in practice-to he exercised not by the
Postmaster -General but by a senior Minister, like the Lord
President of the Council, who would also be a member of the
Cabinet.2 This was to be the burden of BBC evidence to theUllswater Committee.3 He did not like major decisions to betaken by Post Office officials, who might be well equipped todeal with technical matters but knew little of the problems ofprogramme building. He welcomed ultimate parliamentary
control, however, as a check not only on the BBC but on the
Post Office. Indeed, as we have seen, it was through his direct
appeal to Members of Parliament that he won such a great
personal triumph in 1934.
To serve as a counter -balance to public control, Reith laid
great emphasis on the absence of public interference in management. He did not approve of the presence of elected representatives on the boards of control of public enterprises. Nor did hebelieve that ultimate public control involved daily scrutiny.
`Control should only be felt when the body was not carryingout its obligations, or had gone beyond its power, or had been
guilty in some way or another of offending the letter, or eventhe spirit, of the constitution which had been duly considered
and agreed.'4 Reith was as averse to the detailed control ofmanagement by the members of boards as he was to its more
remote control by Parliaments He vas, for the most part,
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 358.
See Into the Wind, p. 187; also below, p. 478.
3 See below, pp. 482-8.
4 J. C. W. Reith, `Business Management of the Public Services', A Paper leadat the Winter Conference of the Institute of Public Administration, Jan. 1930.
Bunbury persuaded Reith to give this paper.
5 See below, pp 424-31.
2

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

422

extremely successful in his efforts to avoid detailed parliamentary control, and the Postmaster -General stated explicitly in
Parliament in 1936 that while he was responsible for questionsof general policy, he could not answer questions of detail about
particular points of the broadcasting service.' There had beena debate on the subject in 1933 when the House of Commonspassed a resolution stating that it would be `contrary to the
public interest' to `subject the BBC to any control by Government or by Parliament other than the control already provided
for in the Charter and in the Licence'.2
Reith described the procedure whereby parliamentary questions about the BBC were sifted. Of ten questions which amember might like to ask, quite likely four or five might not
get through the Clerks of the Table. They would inform thewould-be questioner that the matters concerned fell within
the province of the Governors. The same answer might begiven by the Postmaster -General to two or three out of the ten
which actually got through. 'With regard to the other two or
three, he might either say that he would draw the attention of
the BBC to the matter or give the answer right off.'3
Some of the questions that did get through ring oddly today.
In March 1933, for instance, G. G. Mitcheson asked the Home
Secretary (not the Postmaster -General) if he would instruct thepolice to compel the BBC to remove immediately the statue
recently placed over the front entrance of Broadcasting House,as it was objectionable to public morals and decency.4 A few
months later Robert Boothby asked the Postmaster -General if
he would order the excision of all comments on foreign affairs
from BBC programmes.5 Finally-and most melodramatically-G. Buchanan asked the Postmaster -General in November 1934
if he was aware that 'a conspiracy had been made to take possession of the BBC and what steps were being taken to prosecutethe individuals concerned'.6
The looseness of parliamentary control ensured the virtualautonomy of the BBC, which had been fought for so hard during
Hansard, vol. 318 (1936), col. 2748.
Ibid., vol. 274 (1933), cols. 18o7-66 for the debate.
' *J. C. \V. Reith, Talk to the BBC Staff Training School, 2 Oct. 1936.
4//ansard, vol. 276 (1933), col. 325.
5 Ibid., vol. 285(1934), col. 794.
6
Ibid., vol. 293 (1934), cols. 1772-4.
2

PUBLIC CORPORATION

423

the days of the General Strike.' On the third facet of a public
corporation, control over 'the right field of operation', Reith
was not dogmatic. He believed that since broadcasting was
nationwide, it should be controlled by a national' organization,
which would take account of the interests of all parts of thecountry and not merely of the densely populated areas. He
admitted, however, that there was usually much to be said forand against centralization as against devolution of control, andin the case of broadcasting there was no exception. `It is in fact
one of the cases in which there is most room for an argument,
since it involves so many of the subtlest and most intangible
values, which cannot be subjected to the criteria of any customary or explicit scale.'2 Another subtle point mentioned by Reith
was that there was a distinction between the BBC's work in
Britain and in the Empire. `Although we operate an Empire
Service in addition to the Home one, we have no special rights
in that field, only a special responsibility.'3
On `disinterestedness' and `expertness' there was little to besaid. Reith did not suggest that `disinterestedness' was incompatible with 'a fair return on capital invested'. He always
pointed out, however, that the change from Company to Corporation in 1927 had been designed in part to eliminate any
doubts about `trade control' which might linger in the mindsof some people who would have no doubts about a public corporation. As for `expertness', this could be taken for granted.
The BBC had always had expert engineers in its own organization, and expert technical argument had frequently determinedpublic policy just as it had influenced very powerfully the originaldecision to grant a monopoly in broadcasting to the BBC.4
The concept of `expertness' in programme matters took longer
to establish. The talented `amateur' was at least as sure of a placein the BBC during the inter-war years, as he was in the Civil
Service. There was, indeed, a very special place for people who
would have found themselves dissatisfied in any other kindof institution, Civil Service, business concern, or university.
They welcomed the `contacts' the BBC provided and the close
See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 36o-84.
'Broadcasting in \merica', Aug. 1931.
3*Talk to Staff Training School, 2 Oct. 1936.
The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 93 if.; R.
4 See.I Study in Monopoly (195o), ch. i.
2

II. Coase, British Broadcasting,424

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

relationship between the BBC and the world of art and letters,
and thought of themselves not as `professionals' but as people
enjoying a full, interesting, and varied life. Certain aspects of
the work of engineers might not be very different from that ofengineers in other concerns, the Marconi Company, for example-there was much movement to and from the BBC and the
Marconi Company-but the work of the programme builders
was quite different from work anywhere else. It is fascinating to
trace the origins of what may be called `professional wisdom'among programme planners and producers. Certainly by 1939
a professional ethos was already apparent, although it was byno means universally shared or approved.
Reith himself, as an ex -engineer, knew about this range ofquestions and motives. He was much more interested, however,in the bigger question of where `expertness' of any kind should
be found-in the Board of Governors or in the Executive? On
this question, which was wrapped around in a blanket of personal issues, there was a tense conflict between 1927 and 193o.
There has also been much public argument in more recent
years.

The members of the Board of Governors of a public corporation have all authority, power, and responsibility vested inthem. This was the language of the Charter. Until 1937 there
were five Governors, all appointed by the King -in -Council -in practice, that is, by the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General acting in the name of the Crown. They were to bepersons of judgement and independence, who would inspire
public confidence by having no interests to promote other thanthe public service. They were normally to be appointed for aperiod of four or five years. The Chairman was to receive asalary of £3,000, the Vice -Chairman £I,000, and each of theother Governors £700 a year.'
Reith had a very clear conception of what the relationshipbetween himself as Director -General and the Board of Governors should be. All de jure authority lay with them, while, bycontrast, the Director -General's power was de facto. Their role,he thought, should be that of `trustees', exercising neither
executive nor administrative functions. They should not seek toCmd. 2756 (1926), Wireless Broadcasting, Charter and Licence, § 13.

PUBLIC CORPORATION425

be `experts', certainly not experts in particular departments ofbroadcasting business. Their value lay in their `general experience of men and affairs'. The Director -General had to manage
the BBC, to co-ordinate the various activities of broadcasting,and take responsibility for the daily conduct of affairs.

This conception of the relationship between Director -Generaland Governors was accepted in the 193os. It has been sharply
criticized in print, however, by at least one subsequent Chairman of Governors, who has contrasted the 'Reithian' view of
the relationship with that set out in the Beveridge Report of1950.1 It was criticized also in the period covered in this volume
by two of the first batch of Governors appointed when the Corporation was formed in 1927, and during the 193os it frequently
formed the basis for an attack on Reith's `autocracy'2 A cat efulstudy of the documents, however, justifies most of Reith's actions
in relation to the Board, notably during his first troubled encounters with the Earl of Clarendon and Mrs. Snowden, the twomost difficult members of his first Board. It would have been
disastrous for the future of British broadcasting if Clarendon,
basically a weak Chairman, and the ubiquitous and ambitious
Mrs. Snowden-widely divergent though their views were;-hadbeen able permanently to enhance the de facto powers of theGovernors vis-a-vis the Director -General.
The exact balance of constitutional relationships always
depends on the qualities of people. In the period from 1927
to 193o Reith not only knew far more about the needs andopportunities of broadcasting than his Governors, but he had
the strength of will to deal effectively with outside interests andthe force of character to hold his own organization together.
Clarendon gave him no help at all, and it is scarcely surprisingthat when Reith heard the news in February 1930 that Clarendon was leaving the BBC to become Governor-General ofSouth Africa he could not resist the comment in his diary:'What terrific news! We could not contain ourselves and did
not know what to do to show our delight.'4 With Mrs. Snowden' Lord Simon of \Vythenshawe, The BBC From Within (1953), ch. iii. See also
Cmd. 8116 (1949), Report of the Broadcasting Committee, pp. 166 g.
2
See, for example, E. Davies, National Enterprise (1946), pp. 66-67.
`1 might have got on with Clarendon if Mrs. Snowden had not been a memberof the Board', Reith has written, 'or with Mrs. Snowden if Clarendon had not been
4 Reith, Diary, 7 Feb. 1930.
a Chairman.' Into the Wind, p. 117.
7

426

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

his relations improved greatly after 1930, but when her period

of office came to an end in December 1932 he wrote that hecould not help feeling `profoundly relieved that Lady Snowden[as she then was] was no longer on the Board'.'
The first Governors of the Corporation had hardly established themselves as a vigorous and determined band of people
when they first met as a Board on 4 January 1927. They had

shown what Reith regarded as `appalling weakness' in not standing together firmly against the financial proposals of Sir William
Mitchell -Thomson, the Postmaster-General, in 1926.2 Their
first meeting in January 1927 was characterized by a disagreement between Clarendon and Mrs. Snowden about the appointment of the secretary and the form of the minutes. Between thenand the second meeting on 9 February Reith had seen both
Clarendon and Mrs. Snowden separately without being able toimprove relations. Part of the difficulty was that neither Clarendon nor Mrs. Snowden had great committee experience: they
had never sat on a Board of this kind before. An even greaterdifficulty was that while the Postmaster -General had given
none of the Governors any idea of what they were supposed todo, he had hinted to Clarendon that three-quarters of his time
would be needed for his post as Chairman and to Mrs. Snowdenthat she would be `almost fully occupied' by the BBC. She
expected to have a room at Savoy Hill and believed that 'theBoard should meet every day'.3
Two of the other Governors knew what boards were. Lord
Gainforcl, the Vice -Chairman, had served with Reith in the
old Company, and Sir Gordon Nairne was a former Comptroller of the Bank of England. The fifth Governor, Dr. Montague Rendall, knew something at least of one kind of Boardof Governors: he was a former headmaster of Winchester. He
wrote to Reith in 1928 that Reith was doing a `superb' job ofwork at the BBC and that 'no one could do it better and more
efficiently'.4
It is easy to attribute the strains and tensions of the period
from 1927 to 193o to Reith's distaste for the sharing of power.
2
3
4Reith, Diary, to Jan. 1933.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 356-7; hito the IVind, p. 115.
Into the Wind, p. 117.
*Rendall to Reith, 14 Jan. 1928.

PUBLIC CORPORATION427

In his own autobiography, he admits frankly that he has always`functioned best when responsibility for decision rested whollyand solely on me'. `Every faculty', he goes on, 'is then alerted,mobilised. When, as on a committee, others are involved, it
has often been otherwise. I can neither explain nor defend.»
An explanation of the troubles which concentrates on this personal attribute alone is, however, much too facile. Reith hadenjoyed a smooth and harmonious relationship with the Boardof the old British Broadcasting Company: he had led themquietly and with the minimum ofdifficulty to the most awkward
of all decisions for a group of people to take-to abdicate infavour of others. After 193o he was to enjoy good relations withall subsequent Boards of Governors.
There were two far more important causes of strain in theyears between 1927 and 1930. The first was the personality of
Clarendon and Mrs. Snowden; the second was the tension
springing from the changing organization of the Corporation.
The first cause was simple. Clarendon was neither sharp
nor smooth: Mrs. Snowden was not popular in the Labour
movement, where her husband occupied such a prominent
position, and she revelled in the unprecedented prospect ofpower which the BBC offered her. The second cause wasmore complex. The BBC was growing fast and dealing withimmensely varied problems between 1927 and 1930. In suchcircumstances, committees of any kind are subordinate topeople. They must be so. And there may be so much to do on a
big scale, so many big decisions to take, that personal authority
is essential. In such challenging circumstances, the favourite
British arts of committeemanship and sub-committeemanshipappear very minor virtues. Yet just because new institutions
cannot make all their strategic choices inside committee rooms,
this inevitably makes committeemen restive. It was, of course,
relevant in such circumstances that Reith himself was restive
when committees spent hours discussing issues which he believed
could and should be settled in minutes. 'The Chairman and
Board arc a humbug', he wrote in April 1927.2 He wasparticularly annoyed at a meeting in 1928 when Mrs. Snowden said that she thought 'the Regional Scheme and the new'

Into the Wind, p. 260.

2Reith, Diary, 16 Apr. 1927.

428 ORGANIZATION: THE GR01VTII OF AN INSTITUTION

Headquarters and everything should be abandoned unless I
gave a guarantee that I would stay with them for three or four
years') In Reithian language, 'the wells of satisfaction and inspiration' were being 'polluted'.2 The result was an inevitable
crisis, which again it is far too simple to call 'a badly conducted revolt against Reith's power'.3
In June 1929, after the monthly Board Meeting was over,
Clarendon told Reith that there 'were three small things hewanted to mention'. They had obviously been discussed by theGovernors at a meeting of their own. Governors wished toattend meetings of Advisory Committees sometimes; theywanted to be told of important resignations and appointments;
and they felt that they would like to hear more of the work of`Branch Chiefs'. 'They were all obviously frightened that I
would make a scene about this,' Reith wrote in his diary, 'butthey could have had all these things from the beginning andhad frequently been reminded of the fáct.'4 When Reith said
that there would be no difficulty about any of the three points,
Clarendon bade him 'a most hearty farewell'. In stating theneed for the third of the `three small things', Clarendon hadtalked of Governors visiting `collectively or in pairs Heads ofBranches in their respective branches'. This odd statement,
Reith felt, would make the Governors seem `utterly ridiculous'.
By their own ruling, 'a Governor was not to be allowed to seeme alone or to enter the building alone-not even the Chair-man'.SThis part of the ruling was not put into effect, but relations
between Reith and the Governors deteriorated further in Julyand August, with the long -deferred question of Reith's salary
injecting further complications.6 The July Board meeting was`negatively hostile'.? Clarendon told Reid' that all the Governors were 'very disturbed' at Reith's attitude at this meeting:Nairne said flatly that he was not one of them.8 Staff mattersfigured vaguely but ominously in the background. During thelate summer, Clarendon became convinced that there was'much discontent on the staff' of the BBC and that Reith was
Reith, Diary, 1¢ Mar. 1928.
7
5

7

The BBC From I Vilhin, p. 5o.
Into the Wind, p. 121.

Reith, Diary, 31 July 1929.

Ibid., 14 May 1929.
Reith, Diary, 25 June 1929.
6 Ibid., p. 122.
2

48

Into the Wind, p. 122.

PUBLIC CORPORATION429'a Mussolini') In conversations with Carpcndale, he addedvaguely that the Governors were 'not entirely satisfied with theadministration'. It was not difficult to deal with such comments,

but the atmosphere thickened. When Reith's secretaries heardthat Clarendon had said that they were terrified of Reith, they
were so incensed that they wanted to write to Clarendon themselves.2

Clarendon and Reith met at Clarendon's house in September
1929. It was an unpleasant interview, the tone of which can be
deduced from the fact that Reith was not asked to sit down.
Clarendon, who was nervous and ill at ease, began abruptly
by asking Reith whether he did not admit that the Board ofGovernors was in the position of Commander -in -Chief of anarmy. Were not the Governors absolutely supreme and entitled
to give any sort of order? Reith replied quietly-and it wassurely a better analogy-that the Board was more like theCabinet at home and the Chief Executive was more like theCommander-in -Chief in the field.3 The references on both sides
were hardly encouraging, considering the fierce conflicts that
had raged during the First World War as to where the real
locus of responsibility lay in military operations. Throughout theinterview Clarendon adopted the posture of a high-ranking
officer speaking to a subordinate requiring chastisement.
From generalities Clarendon and Reith passed to a few
particularities. Clarendon said that Reith had objected toseparate meetings of Governors and their lunching together at
the Savoy Hotel. He also referred to Reith `spying' on him,
giving one alleged instance of a ludicrous kind. Yet before
rushing off to another appointment, Clarendon had abandoned
the military analogy and was comparing Reith's position tothat of Permanent Secretary of a government department.
The meeting had accomplished little, and Clarendon suggested that Reith should put down his points in black and white.
Reith left hís chairman 'sure of our ground' and `perhaps in away spoiling for a row'. Nairne backed him, but urged him
instead to send a conciliatory letter to Clarendon, regrettingThis was not the only time the phrase was used. See, for example, G. Al&ghan
in Ideas and Town Talk, 25 Apr. 1931. See also below, pp. 509 ff., for staff problems.
2 Into the Wind, p. 123.
3
Reith, Diary, 24 Sept. 1929.

430 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

the difficulties, suggesting that the past be forgotten, and promising harmonious co-operation in the future. The letter wassent,' but did not clear the air. Nor did a memorandum. It was
not until the end of October that Clarendon suggested thatbygones should be bygones.2 Even then Reith was unsure about
the ultimate outcome. `People here are pleased
and I suppose I should be too, but I have always said that there was nouse in putting a patch on the sore until you have eradicated the
poison.' He admitted that the state of affairs was very bad for
the BBC. 'All sorts of things are going wrong now which are adirect result of my being sick with the Board, and all theirmuddling and wanting to interfere.'3
The Board meeting in November 1929 was peaceable, butdifficulties continued in December and in January 1930. They
ended abruptly in February 1930 when it was announced that
Clarendon was to go to South Africa. After discussing the stateof affairs inside the BBC with Reith, Ramsay MacDonald, thePrime Minister, asked Clarendon to leave his BBC post at
once, and after a good deal of brain -racking H. B. Lees -Smith,the Labour Postmaster -General, suggested that he should be
replaced by J. H. Whitley. Thereafter, says Reith, there was'with him light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom'.4
Whitley was a man of genuinely wide experience. Born andbrought up in Yorkshire as a Liberal and a Nonconformist,
he had made his way in politics from local government to theHouse of Commons (in 190o) and through the House of Commons to the Speakership in 1921. He held this office until 1928.
He had already given his name to the `Whitley Councils', joint
industrial bodies designed to secure regular consultation, cooperation, and conciliation in industry and the Civil Service.5
His `disinterestedness' was revealed by the fact that he hadrefused titles, and his power of conciliation was clearly demonstrated in his first letter to Reith. 'May I say with what pleasure
I look forward to being associated with you in the great workof which you are the creator. I hope our association will bemutually helpful in the service to which you have given such...

"Reith to Clarendon, 26 Sept. 1929.
'Clarendon to Reith, 3o Oct. 1929.
3 Reith,Diary, 3o Oct. 1929.
4 Into the Wind, p. 127.
I am grateful to Mr. Oliver Whitley for letting me see a private memoir of his
2S

father.

PUBLIC CORPORATION

131

unstinted devotion and to which I will bring my very humble
contribution in the spirit of an admirer and a learner."
Reith soon learned that the letter was not mere words.
Whitley chaired the Board with skill, and behind the scenes
told Reith that he wanted to be treated as 'a friend'. He discussed with him the philosophy of broadcasting which had
inspired all Reith's efforts and said how much lie was in agreement with it. There could r.ot have been a bigger contrast withClarendon. 'Free from internal strife, suspicion and distrust,'
Reith has noted, 'one was able, undisturbed, to get on with thejob.'z
It was during this period that Reith set clown most of histhoughts about the public corporation. He was able to takestock. It was during this period, also, that both he and Whitleyprepared statements on the functions of Governors. Whitleyaccepted Reith's draft which was circulated to all new Governors until 1952. `Their functions are not executive,' the statement read, `their responsibilities are general not particular, andthey are not divided up for purposes of departmental supervision. . . . WIth the Director -General they discuss and decideupon major matters of policy and finance, but they leave theexecution of that policy and the general administration of theservice in all its branches to the Director -General and his competent officers. The Governors should be able to judge of thegeneral effect of the service upon the public, and, subject as
before mentioned, are, of course, finally responsible for the
conduct of it.'3
It is important to note that Reith did of hold that Governors should not intervene in matters of a inistrative detail.
Nor did he underestimate their importance in supervising the`general administration of the service'. Long after the Second
World War, indeed, he set out his views in a private letter toa newly appointed Governor. `Whatever Governors may be
prepared (under safeguards) to leave to the Executive, theymust decide and direct policy; and they must have a lively,
comprehensive, and continuing care for the product of the' *Whitley to Reith, 3 June 1930. See also The Times, 3 June 1930.
Into the Wind, p. 132.
3 The document is printed in The BBC From Within, pp. 46-47.
Into the I1'ind, p. 301.

2

432

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

organisation they are appointed to govern.' Above all, they had
to watch `programme policy'. 'Are we "giving the public what
it wants", or have we any formulated and approved policy
deriving from a sense of responsibility-general and specific?'1
Co-operation between Director -General and Governors must
always depend on mutual confidence rather than on constitutional formulae. Until \Vhitley's death in 1935, Reith always
felt that working arrangements were ideal. `Whitley would
never allow an announcement to be made in the name of theGovernors or the Board. "We arc one body," he said, "Governors,
Director -General and staff. The Corporation; the BBC".'z
The same happy arrangement continued under R. C. Norman, who, at Reith's suggestion, had taken Lord Gainford's
place as Vice -Chairman in 1933, and had continued in theoffice when Viscount Bridgeman replaced \\ hitley in 1935.
There is a remarkable contrast between Reith's entries in hisdiary on the meetings of 1929 and 193o and a meeting ofJanuary 1933. `Norman came in and spent two hours asking allsorts of questions. He is very pleasant indeed. The Board Meeting was almost rowdy, certainly quite amusing.'3
Bridgeman was ill during his short period of office, and diedlater in 1935. Norman, who had been acting Chairman, formally succeeded him. He remained in the office until 18 April
1939, when he was succeeded by Sir Allan Powell. Norman wasa distinguished Chairman who lasted longer than any other,even though he had been told at the start that he would probably be quickly replaced by someone else. 'Mr. Norman's
extended term of service (over six years instead of the usualfive)', a BBC official publication noted, `covered perhaps themost striking period of expansion in the BBC's history.'; It did
not add that it also included the moment of most difficult
choice in the history of the BBC to that date-the finding ofa successor for Reith.5
Finding successors for the Governors was never an arduous
task. There was always a queue of people anxious to serve.
In 1933 R. C. Norman, Lord Bridgeman, and Mrs. Mary
I am grateful to Lord Reith for showing me a copy of this letter written in 1952.
3 Reith, Diary, 11
Into the Wind, p. 176.
Jan. 1933.
4 BBC Handbook (194o), p. 11.
5
For the complicated story of the choice of a new Director -General, see below,
pp. 636 Ir.
2

PUBLIC CORPORATION

433

Agnes Hamilton replaced Rendall, Gainford, and Lady Snowden. Nairne had already been replaced at the end of 1931 by
H. G. Brown, a company lawyer in the City and senior partnerof Linklater and Paines. When he was appointed, it was suggested in the popular press that the BBC had picked him out ofa mass of Browns as representing 'the typical suburban listener'.
In fact, his was one of the shrewdest appointments made, and heproved a tower of strength to the BBC. Lord Briclgeman was aConservative politician who had held ministerial office in successive Conservative governments, and Mary Agnes Hamilton,
like Lady Snowden before her, was felt to `represent' at thesame time both the feminine and the Labour point ofview. Reith
found her a particularly valuable member of the Board. Not
only did she provide a useful link with Labour politics, but at
the personal level her advice came to be greatly appreciated.
She, for her part, found Reith 'the most interesting individual'
she had met 'for long'. 'Says he believes in democratic aim, notin democratic method', she wrote in her diary. Later she wasto add that he liad 'a swift and powerful brain, and a strong
will. There is a fire within; something capable of greatness, but
impatient, intolerant and for co-operation ill adjusted.' Hercomplaint in retrospect was that `while I was at the BBC, wetalked and thought too much about the D.G. and too little

about broadcasting'.'
On Whitley's death MacDonald had recommended Bridge man rather than Norman as Chairman,2 and H. A. L. Fisher
came in as a new Governor, bringing with him experience not onlyof Oxford but, as he was wont to boast, of the Cabinet. He was
keenly interested in the immense possibilities of broadcasting,yet he did not take a major part in decisions about policy, andhe willingly acquiesced, it has been stated, when the voting went
against him. `Fisher was too deeply imbued with the central
doctrines of liberalism', his biographer tartly notes, 'to despisethe voice of the majority.'3 He strongly backed Reith, however,when lie was attacked in Parliament, and thought Norman 'an
ideal Chairman'.
M. A. I latnilton, Remembering My Good Friends (1946), pp. 28, ff.
Into the IVind, p. 216. 'L1 neither of MacDonald's appointments to the chair
liad he chosen a member of his own party.'
3 D. Ogg, Herbert Fisher (1947), p. 128.
s

C 1995

F f

434

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

When Norman replaced Bridgeman, the Vice -Chairmanship passed to H. G. Brown, and Viscountess Bridgeman becamea Governor in her husband's place. At the end of 1936 Mrs.
Hamilton was given a fifth year of office, and the Board ofGovernors was increased to seven. The two new Governors were
Sir Ian Fraser, who had taken great interest in broadcastingand had served on the Crawford Committee in 1925-herealized that broadcasting would be important in time of war
and gave up his parliamentary seat when he took the governorship'-and Dr. J. J. Mallon, Warden of Toynbee Hall. Otherchanges before the war were the substitution of Margery Fry for
Mrs. Hamilton and the replacement of Brown by C. H. G.
Millis, Managing Director of Baring Brothers. Millis became
Vice -Chairman of the Board in June 1937.
The issues centring on the appointment of Sir Allan Powellas Chairman in 1939 and the role of the Governors in war -time
belong more properly to the third volume of this History. There
were questions in Parliament, however, about Powell's qualifications which provide an epilogue to the 193os rather thana prologue to the 194os. `We have considered a great numberof names, and we think this gentleman is eminently suitable
for the position', Chamberlain replied. He would not, however,list any of the necessary qualifications. Nor did his questioners
reveal that they understood much about the scope and responsibilities of his office. `Will the Prime Minister tell us',
Jimmy Maxton asked, `which of these bits of experience qualify
this gentleman to arrange variety programr7es?2Reith did not always find that the new Governors were in sympathy with his views. While Norman had been in full agreementwith him about 'the rule against specialist Governors' and had
written forcefully to the Postmaster -General in support of therule,3 Mallon, for example, thought that Governors might`departmentalise'.4 Fraser, moreover, had ideas which clashedwith those of Norman, and there were open disagreements
about who should be appointed as Deputy Director -Generalwhen Carpendalc left. 'The present Governors arc absurd',
I. Fraser, Whereas I Was Blind (1942), p. 156.
Hansard, vol. 345 (1939), cols. 31-32.
3 *R. C. Norman to Major J. C. Tryon, t Oct. 1935.
4 Reith, Diary, ro Feb. 1937.
1

2

PUBLIC CORPORATION

435

Mallon wrote to Tallents in a most unconstitutional letter ofOctober 1937.1 `These new Governors and another one to comeare an infernal nuisance',2 Reith had commented a few months
earlier. Yet by the end of 1937 Reith was more uncertain thanever about his own place in the BBC, let alone the place of his
Governors. `Fifteen years since I went to the BBC', he wrote
in his diary on 31 December. 'What a time, and how doubtful
I am about staying much longer.'3 By the time that Powell wasappointed, the BBC Is as under new management.

When Reith talked about a public corporation, he was thinking not only of Governors responsible to the public but of 'Controllers' responsible to the Director -General. Just as the Governors had de jure authority and the Director -General de facto
power in the structure of the BBC as a whole, so the Director General had de jure authority and the Controllers de facto powerin the internal working of the administration. As early as 1923
there was a weekly meeting of the chiefs of departments, andin 1924 this was given the title of the Control Committee, later
the Control Board.4 The Control Board remained in existence
in 1939, although its name was changed to the Director General's Meeting in March 1933.5 The name was changed backagain in October 1935 after Dawnay's departure, and one
further change was made in the spring of 1938 when a distinction was drawn between Control Board Meetings at which
major matters of policy were discussed and Controllers' Meetings at which detailed decisions would be taken about operational matters.6 The last Controllers' Meeting was on 12 May
1939, after which the familiar and established pattern was
restored.
Reith saw the pattern in simple terms. At most, five or six
people were directly responsible to him. This narrowed 'thespan of control'. The five or six individuals who were in chargeof major units of broadcasting constituted an executive or control board. 'Here was in operation an ideal combination of cooperative management and definite leadership and direction.
There was nothing statutory about it. It might be said to have
J. J. Mallon to Tallents, 28 Oct. 1937 (Tallents Papers).
=

Reith, Diary, 20 Jan. 1937.

3' See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 207.
6*Controllers' Meeting, Minutes.

1Apr., 14 Oct. 1938.

Ibid., 31 Dec. 1437.
5

See above, p. 33.

436 ORGANIZA'I1oN: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

begun as a convenience to myself-a weekly meeting at which
I could have the several and collective views of senior officials,
and at which problems that affected them all might be discussed. It was more than that, however; I had in mind fromthe earliest clays that it should function as a real management
committee.»
There was never any suggestion, however, that the Control
Board was settling BBC policy by democratic vote. 'The situation as between Controllers and Director -General', Reith maintained, 'was the same as that between Director -General and
the Governing Board.' `They might be surprised if the Director General intervened in a particular matter-this or that-but
there would be nothing more than that to it. In other words,
the Director -General cannot give a Controller what he does
not expect the Governing Board to give him'; but de facto there
was great authority and responsibility vested in them. 'And
Control Board functions more and more effectively and comprehensively.'2
Reith said that he liked to think that the Governors could
feel secure that what had been recommended to them came notfrom the Director -General only, but from the Control Board;in other words, that what he was telling the Governors had had
the careful scrutiny of six senior BBC officials working together.
Indeed, the Chairman of Governors and other members of theBoard could attend meetings of the Control Board by invitation,
thereby expressing 'the unity of the whole organisation'.
There was also, in his view, a continuity of process. Just as
the Governors devolved specific duties on him as Director General, so he in his turn devolved authority on others. He
hoped that this process of devolution would operate in all
branches of the BBC. 'The four Controllers can give their subordinates no more than they themselves get from above, but
increasingly they too are devolving authority and responsibilityon their Departmental Directors.... There are, therefore, agreat many people party to and concerned in management at
the BBC.... What the BBC does, therefore, is more and more
not what one individual thinks: more and more, it comes froma consensus of opinion and experience.'3'

Inlo the Wind, p. 300.

2

*J. C. W. Keith, Talk to the Staff Training School, 2 Oct. 1936.

3

ibid.

PUBLIC CORPORATION

437

This was Reith's account of the public corporation in action.
It left out many imponderables, however, and was very muchthe view of an organization as seen from the top. The mostimportant element behind the `consensus' of the BBC was theinformal discussion of issues, which continued daily, withsecretaries usually acting as intermediaries,' whether or notcommittees were in session, and which was more free and unrestrained than the discussion which went on at the rather
formidable Control Board or Common Room tea party, towhich senior staff were invited. A different imponderable wasconcerned not with group consensus but with individual motivation. To some members of staff, at least, the keenness toserve the Corporation had its origins in the desire to belong toan organization which allowed for a very substantial measureof unrestrained personal initiative. They were frustrated, sometimes, by what they thought of as the gulf between themselves
and the 'men at the top'.
Even the committees sometimes seemed artificial. It was nota `rebel', but one of Reith's greatest admirers inside the BBC whowrote that he was sceptical of committees like the Control
Board unless they were required for policy reasons, 'as a shield
against outside, or even Government, criticism'. 'The members
are at best exercising a remote control over what their executive
stall' are in fact doing and many of the decisions reached arereally quite wrong ones.' `You can't sack a Control Board en
bloc', he went on, 'if they make a mistake, but you can sack anindividual Director or Head of Department. To my mind thetest of suitability for Headship of any group or activity is thewillingness to accépt responsibility; once you have a Board or
Committee, which is technically responsible for your opinions,either you despair of getting things done as you know they should
be or, if you are that type, you nestle snugly down behind theprotective screen of high level decision and become a "Yes"man.'2This was how part of the structure seemed to a man who had
an important part in it, attending the Control Board from time
to time as a deputy. Sir Stephen Tallents also-as a new -comer
R. \Vade, typewritten manuscript, `Early Life in the BBC'. `Secretaries could
bully their chiefs without feeling they were committing lése-majestf.'
2 Ibid.

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION-wrote in his diary after first attending a Control Board meeting of 'the triviality' of its proceedings.' It ís difficult, however,to see how the BBC could have proceeded on lines other than ofControl Board procedure. A system of personal devolution of all
power to Heads of Departments would have led to intensive andpossibly rigid departmentalism, and it would have left Reith witha wider span of control at the top than he wished to manage.

438

Critics who complained that the constitution of the control
system was modified to meet the absorption of Colonel Dawnay
into the staff as Controller of Programmes missed the essential
fact that Dawnay was appointed quite definitely to relieve Reith
from a mass of harassing detail.2
Reith, indeed, was never fully satisfied with the organizationalshell which surrounded broadcasting activity. He knew thatmany experiments were necessary to achieve effective internalorganization, and that just as effective action had to be taken
to deal with the strains of the 193os as had been taken to deal
with the external threats of the 192os. The fact that the BBC
was a public corporation was often overshadowed in practiceby the fact that it was a rapidly growing organization, subject
to all the stresses which growth entailed. And criticism of what
was happening inside Broadcasting House, much of it based on
malicious gossip, was sufficiently widespread at various times
during the 193os to provoke barrages of press comment. It wasalso one of the factors which had to be taken into account when
the Ullswater Committee inquired officially into the future ofbroadcasting in 1935.
Reith himself knew how difficult the problems of organization
were, and often he took Mrs. Hamilton into his confidence. 'Oneof the points I discussed with her', he wrote in his diary inJanuary 1934, 'was the extent of my control. I told her that it
required a good deal of renunciation on my part to avoid giving
categoric decisions, so that people could learn by experience andhe wiser next time; that often I would have vetoed things had I
been going still on my original line. I said that I thought that
' Note by Tallents, 15 Oct. 1935. He complained two weeks earlier of 'thedreadfully closeted' atmosphere of the Common Room tea party where there was
too much 'mutual admiration in the air'. Note of 3o Sept. A later verdict on theControl Board was that it was 'intrinsically not good enough for its job'. Noteof 17 Oct. 1937 (Tallents Papers).
2

See below, pp. 49.3 ff.

PUBLIC CORPORATION

439

even if this meant trouble for the BBC it was perhaps wiser
from the BBC point of view in the long run." A few months
before he left the BBC, he also noted, `Controllers' Meeting
will do far more than in the past, so still less for D.G. to do,which is as it should be.'2

2. The Logic of Growth
As an institution grows, it creates difficult problems both ofcontrol and communication. During the late 19205 and 19305
the BBC faced problems caused by two kinds of growth-first,
growth in the size of staff and the extent of premises; second,
growth in the areas of activity. To existing lines of activity wereadded new ones-notably the Empire Service and television.
Each kind of growth by itself entailed new responses. Together,
they called for bold decisions and well -regulated machinery.
The second kind of growth has acquired a special interest in
the light of what happened to the BBC during the Second World
War, when its Empire and Foreign Service expanded beyond all
pre-war dreams, and of what has happened since 194.5, notably
the emergence of an Independent Television Authority andof a system of competitive television. Although the first kindof growth-in staff and buildings-was thought of during
the 192os and 193os as the main factor creating both newproblems and new opportunities, it was problems associatedwith structural organization which set the frame for decision
making.
There were limits to what could be done with the frame. `Ina business which covers so many different lines of activity', Keith
told a Conference in 193o, 'it is impossible to enunciate onecomprehensive policy. There should in fact be as many linesof policy as there are lines of activity, and with every policy,
subsidiary and derivative ones as well.';
Yet, at any given time, within a broadcasting organization,
there have to be `groups', `branches', `divisions', `departments',2
Ibid., 5 Apr. 1938.
Reith, Diary, to Jan. 1934.
*J. C. \V. Reith, Address to the University of Cambridge, Board of Extramural Studies, Summer 193o.

3

440

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

or whatever they are called, within which `lines of policy' canbe determined and followed. `Engineering' is one obvious`group', whether the broadcasting organization is big or small`Programmes' is another. \Vas there any logical basis in the 19205
and '3os, however, for also having groups labelled `Administration', `Finance', or `Public Relations'? Clearly the structure of`groups', like the names they were to be given, had to allow forchange as the size of the whole organization changed and, justas important, as the people (with their varying abilities andtemperaments) changed. There was a further problem associated with growth. If new services arose, like Empire broadcasting or television, which could organizationally be split up as
between say `Engineering', `Programmes', `Finance', and `Administration', was there any case for making them into separate`groups' in such circumstances?
It is easy to poke fun at the elaborate cycles of nomenclature
which can be discovered in the records of the BBC during its
process of organizational growth. Two memoranda of different
elates reach quite different conclusions about names, eachapparently for quite sound reasons. In January 1928, for instance,a BBC memorandum was circulated saying that 'in order to avoid
the confusion which has existed in the past between sections andsub -sections, the only designations to be used in future will he
Branch, Department, and Section. The five Departments of the
Corporation which have hitherto been designated as such will
be known as `Branches" [i.e. Administration Branch, Engineering Branch, Information Branch, Programme Branch andAccounts Branch] and the allocation of the titles "Department"and "Section" will be carried out by the Head of each Branch
concerned." Seven years later, in August 1935, a BBC memorandum was circulated reading that the term `Branch' would be
abolished and that in future there would be four `Divisions' (i.e.
Administration Division, Engineering Division, Programme
Division, and Public Relations Division) and that the component units of the `Division' would be called `Departments'.
There was a complication, however, which obviously baffled
the title makers. `In some of the bigger Departments, having
Departments within them, the distinction in status will be maintained, except in the Engineering Division, by the position of:'*BBC Internal Instruction, no. 6r, g jan. 1928.

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

41.1

the word "Director" etc. in the title of the Head of the Department it will precede the name of the independent Departments
and follow that of the dependent ones."
Seven years in broadcasting history is as long as seventy inthe history of many institutions, and the changes in nomenclature mentioned above may be treated seriously as an expression of the sociological law that `large groups devote a larger
proportion of their resources to their own operation than dosmall groups'.z Behind issues of this kind, however, lies thecriticism that the BBC during the 193os was becoming 'toohierarchical'. There was, indeed, considerable confusion overtitles throughout the last years of the period, and although all thetitles were historically related to function, a number of them wereresidues, survivals of previous abandoned states of organization.
The titles often baffle the reader of memoranda years later.
Fortunately a system was fairly generally applied whereby theauthors of memoranda, however embalmed in titles, had theirinitials typed (along with the initials of their typist) at the footof their papers. This makes names on outgoing memoranda
easy to identify, but the names of recipients are often far fromeasy to place in periods of rapid change of office.
Before the major `reorganization' of 1933, which has beenreferred to on several occasions in other contexts, Reitll became
increasingly unhappy about the BBC's organizational structure.
Changes made, for instance, in the organization of Talks or
Drama3 were piecemeal, and there were only limited changes in
Administration.
From 1927 to 1932 there were five Assistant Controllers,each in charge of what was called after January 1928 a `Branch'.
The first Assistant Controller, \V. E. Gladstone Murray, wasAssistant Controller (Information), dealing with a `group' ofactivities which included Publications, Publicity, and `External
Relations'; V. H. Goldsmith was in charge of the Administration; P. P. Eckersley (and after 1929 Noel Ashbridge) was
Assistant Controller (Engineering), although the title `Chief
Engineer' was normally used; the fourth Assistant Controller:' *BBC Internal Instruction, nc.. 315, 30 Aug. 1935.

2 See T. Caplow, 'Organisational Size' in the Administrative Science Quarterly,_June 195o, and F. W. Terrien and D. I.. Mills, 'The Effect of Changing Size upon
the Internal Structure of Organisations' in the American Sociological Review ([955).
3 See above, pp. 89 fr., 124-6.

442 ORGANIZA110N: THE GRO\VTH OF AN INSTITUTION

was R. H. Eckerslcy, who was also called Director of Programmes; and the fifth, T. Lochhead, Assistant Controller(Finance), was usually called Chief Accountant. Between thefive Assistant Controllers and Reith was the Controller, Admiral
Carpendale, and one officer, Major Atkinson, the Foreign
Director, was directly responsible to him. The position is set
out in the simplified chart below.
Director -General
Controller
Assistant Controller

forInformIation

Finance

AdminIistration

Programmes

EnginIeering

Within the lower echelons of the system there were changes
in relationships, like that between News and Talks, and intitles. The Programme Executive, for example, was given thetitle of Assistant Director of Programmes in 1929. New jobs
were created also, like that of General Editor (Publications),
which came into existence in 1928 and was filled by Nicolls,
the former London Station Director. One of the most difficult
tasks during this period was the reorganization made necessary
by the gradual substitution of the Regional Scheme for thecluster of local stations. The acceptance of regional primacy
before the local stations closed was doubtless an attempt tonarrow the span of central-local relationships.'
A number of short-lived changes, some of them quite sweeping, like the abolition of the title of Assistant Controller (withthe exception of that of Goldsmith), followed in 1932. It seems
that `Administration' was deliberately being separated out at
this stage, with all other posts in the BBC being considered as`functional'. It was not until August 1933, however, that areally comprehensive reorganization was carried out, resting on
a crucial distinction between 'blue tab' and 'red tab' which wasto last until 1942. Reith called-and still calls-the reorganization 'a development of the existing system'.' In fact, however,an attempt was being made to express relationships logically' See above, p. 314.
*Draft Notes of a Meeting held in the Board Room, 21

2

Carpendale, Goldsmith, Graves, and Nicolls were present.

Mar. 1933. Reith,

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

443

in such a way that formal patterns of responsibility took theplace of the previous procedures. In this sense there was a real`re -organization' in 1933. There was a careful and detailed
examination of the role of every officer in the BBC and of almost
every operational process.' Considerable thought was given
to the `placing of each department' in the structure-including'difficult departments' such as Outside Broadcasts and Programme Booking.
There is no doubt that the changes were felt to be necessary
in the first place because Reith considered that he was being
given too much work to do under the `unreformed system'.
`I have been thinking for several weeks of reorganising things',
he wrote in his diary in January 1933. `Tonight I took Goldsmith to dine at the Athenaeum and gave him the outline ofit.'z Thereafter, the entries in his diary on the subject multiply.
`Today Carpendale, Goldsmith and I got down to the reorganisation business at 6.45', he wrote on 8 March, 'and with a shortinterval for dinner at the Langham worked in my room until
a quarter-to -one. I made notes about conclusions throughout
and felt at the end that at last we had got on to the straightroad.'3 When Reith met hís senior officers to discuss his planat the end of March 1933, he said specifically that one of its
main purposes was `to free the D.G. of a good deal of work heis now doing in dealing with officials direct'.4
The biggest single new idea in 1933 was not so much theseparation of the `creative' and the `administrative', although
this was fundamental, as the establishment of a new top post,that of `Output Controller'. In addition to talking to his colleagues, therefore, from February 1933 onwards Reith began
to scour the country for the right man to fill what he believed
would be one of the most important jobs in the BBC. Eventually, after many names had been considered and quite anumber of people informally interviewed, Colonel Alan Dawnay
was given the post. Among the other names considered by the
Board was that of Sir Stephen Tallents, who was to join the
BBC three years later in quite a different capacity.
*See, for example, Notes prepared on the Procedure for organizing a Mozart
Concert.
3 Ibid., 8 Mar. 1933.
2
Reith, Diary, 6 Jan. 1933.
1933.
Mar.
21
4 'Notes of a Meeting,444

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTIIOF AN

INSTITUTION

Dais nay came from the \Var Office to the BBC. In other circumstances, the post might have gone to a clon or even to apolitician. Reich was surprised, indeed, that one of Dawnay's
backers was an Oxford don, J. C. Masterman, who had originally been offered the post himself, but had turned it down for'the decisive reason' that he did not feel 'the sort of crusadingzeal-the missionary impulse to do something great which you
would be entitled to expect from your second -in -command'.
Reith accepted this reason as decisive, adding that 'for this job,a man would not merely have to be free from any doubt as towhether he had "crusading zeal", but he would very positively
need to feel certain that he had'.' Reith liked Dawnay and believed lie would do a useful job of work, yet he was not entirely
happy either in general terms about the outcome of the quest
or in particular terms about the range of Dawnay's qualities.
`It is dreadful to have been in the position of having so magnificent a job in one's gift. I could not help taking accountof the fact that an incalculable amount depends on thisdecision, to me personally, to the BBC, and to the country
generally.'2

The reorganization long outlasted Dawnay, who left the
BBC on his doctor's orders in 1935. His tenure of office wasnever easy, and the experiment could not be described as successful. The more general aspects of reorganization were fully
outlined in two internal memoranda of August and September
1933 before coming into effect in October. 'The object of thereorganisation', the first memorandum stated clearly, 'is tosecure (i) the better co-ordination of authority and responsibility, (2) the clearer definition and separation of administrativeand creative functions and (3) the freeing of the Director General from much of the detail with which he is at present
dealing.' The 'main innovation', it went on, 'is the separationof administrative and creative functions. The purpose of thisis to enable creative staff to concentrate on their creative work.'
An earlier note had stated succinctly that 'the main idea behind
the reorganisation is that the Administrative Division should' J. C. Masterman to Reith, 17 Mar. 1933. Reith to Masterman, 20 Mar. 1933.
I am grateful to Sir John Masterman for showing me these letters.
2 Reith, Diary, 26 May 1933.

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH-I

445

not merely administer the staff as at present but should administer Programmes and Publications'.'
The transferred administrative staff will work, under theiradministrative chief, to the requirements of the creative staff, ;rho
will be relieved of all immediate and direct responsibility in administrative matters. It is intended that the transferred administrative
staff shall form something in the nature of an Output Secretariat,
carrying out the smallest administrative functions on behalf of thecreative staff, e.g. taking the minutes of and making all arrangements
for their meetings. The system implies that Heads of Branches,
Departments and Sections in the Output Division will work direct
to their corresponding Executives and through them to the Directorof Internal Administration and Controller (Administration), thereferring of administrative questions to their creative superiors not
being contemplated as part of the normal procedure.2
By the reorganization, two Controllers were to be responsible
directly to the Director -General for the whole work of the BBC.
Carpendale was to be Controller (Administration) and Dawnay
Controller (Output). Each would be in charge of what wascalled a `Division'. In each Division there were to be fourBranches. In the Administration Division the Branches were to
be Internal Administration (under Nicolls), Business Relations(under Goldsmith), Finance (under Lochhead), and Engineering (under Ashbridge). It was explicitly stated, however, that
Ashbridge's `direct responsibility in certain respects to the D.G.
is unaffected by the reorganisation'. In the Output Division, thefour Branches were to be Programmes (under Roger Eckersley),
Talks (under Siepmann), Empire and Foreign Services (under
Graves), and Publicity and Publications (under Murray). The
new position is set out in simplified form in the chart below
which may be compared with the chart on P. 442-

Director -General

Controller(Administration)

Controller(Output)i

I

EmpireandForeign

Programmes

Talks

I'ub city
andPublications

I

Engineering

I

FinanceI

I

Bus nessinternal
Administration Relations

Services'2*Notes on a Proposed Programme Executive Department, 27 Mar. 1933.
BBC Internal Memorandum. no. 233, 29 Aug. 1933.

446 ORGANIZATION: TILE GROWTH OF 1N INSTITUTION

In fact, before the reorganization came into effect 011 2 October 1933, two important changes of nomenclature were made.
The Programme Branch was re -named the Entertainment
Branch and the Output Division was re -named the Programme
Division. Dawnay's title, therefore, was Controller (Programmes).
The new system marked a definite strengthening of central
control and got rid of such objections to the old system as 'too
many people working direct to D.G.', 'five separate provinces
reporting directly to D.G.', and 'too much responsibility spreadall over the Corporation'. It had weaknesses, however-mostof them concerned less with formal hierarchy than with informal
attitudes. An attitude of guarded suspicion on each side madefor a division of outlook between `output' and `administration'.
It became an article of faith that `programme people' should
not be bothered with administration-they certainly did not
fully free themselves from it'-and this could lead all too easily
into irresponsibility. On the other side, administrative staff
could all too easily come to regard themselves-and even moreeasily come to be regarded-as the `policemen' of the system.
As far as 'the ladders of control' were concerned, it proved
very difficult in practice to restrict communication about`administrative matters' to the vertical hierarchy of administrators without some of these matters being referred to a higher
level by a member of staff on the output side. The same wastrue of output matters. There might even be divided loyalties.
Some administrative matters were, in fact, referred upwards
through the Programme Division via the Head of Branch toController (Programmes) who then dealt direct with Controller(Administration). There was, moreover, a further proliferationof titles. Necessity rather than virtue was given as the reason
for this. `For convenience in both internal and external identification of writers and for sorting purposes, it is better to have titles
and not to have everyone signing for Controller.'2
The system remained intact until the Second World War,when the various branches of the BBC were scattered throughout the country, but some of the criticisms which were made ofr For example, they usually had to make many detailed arrangements for thebooking of studios for rehearsals and transmissions.
*Paper for the Reorganization Committee, `Titles', 24 Mar. 1933.

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

447

it during its last years had been anticipated before it came into
operation. `I feel that the happy working of a scheme which
separates so definitely administrative from creative responsibilities', Roger Eckersley wrote, 'is too dependent for its smooth
working on personalities.'' `I was influenced by the fact', hewent on, 'that after consideration over the weekend, eachdepartmental head definitely asked for the retention of theirown executives within the creative division.' Music, for example, had asked for the retention of booking and orchestralmanagement on the grounds of 'the delicately specialised natureof the work'. Ashbridge emphasized the need for small informal
committees. 'Very large weekly meetings would not meet theneed. It is not always advisable to talk fully with a large committee.'2 A few weeks after the system had been put into effectan unsigned note was prepared for Carpendale about what was
happening. `If reorganisation were working properly D.E.
[Director of Entertainment]', it stated, `would be spending
most of his time in three ways (r) outside creative contacts(2) internal programme conferences (3) attending rehearsals,
listening to transmissions etc. He told me a few weeks agothat his office work had not decreased at all and that he had
not been able to get near the studio. I think', the writer added,'that this is really because his general outlook is not reallycreative.'3
There were further changes within the system in October
1935 after Dawnay's departure.4 The post of Deputy Director General was then created, with Carpendale as the obvious man
to fill it. Nicolls took his place as Controller (Administration). At
the same time, Engineering became a Division, and Ashbridge
was called Controller (Engineering). Two further AssistantControllers were appointed to assist Graves, the new Controller (Programmes). Roger Eckersley was to assist him on theentertainment side, and Gladstone Murray was to move overfrom Publicity and Publications to a vaguely defined sphere of
programme duties. It was further stated that an importantnew post in Public Relations would be created, with an officer,*R. II. Eckersley to Reith and V. H. Goldsmith, II May 1933.
*N. Ashbridge to Reith. Io May 1933.
*Notes for Controller (A), 5 Jan. 1934.
4 *BBC Internal Instruction, no. 308, 12 July 1935.
'

2
3

448 ORGANIZATION: THE GRO\VTII OF AN INSTITUTION

still to he found, `working in collaboration with both Controllers and to the Director -General'.'The changes, when they came, went further. In 1936, after
Gladstone Murray had left the BBC to direct the newly formed
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Sir Stephen Tallents wasmade Controller (Public Relations) on the same level of thehierarchy as Graves, Nicolls, and Ashbridge. Tallents's appointment was suggested by the Board of Governors, Reith had
no alternative candidate in mind, and he accepted the namewith reservations. The new structure was as follows:
Director -General
Deputy Di ector-General

Controller
Controller(Programmes) (Public Relations)Controller(Engineering)Controller(Administration)

I

En pire Programmes Talks
andForeign Services

Finance

Internal

Business
Adminis- Relations
trationBy 1936 it had become obvious that the structure was imposing very heavy burdens not on the Director -General, but on
the Controller (Programmes). Television did not emerge as aseparate Division, however, and even after the development offoreign -language broadcasting, the Empire and Foreign Services (lid not pass completely out of the domain of the Controller(Programmes).2 Nor had regional relations ever been completely
tidied up. In the `centralizing' phase, Lindsay Wellington had
been Liaison Officer linking them with London, but with thereorganization of 1933 it had been specifically stated that
regions should work primarily through the Controllers and their
Divisions, as the `Branches' did in London. Siepmann's appointment in 1935 as Director of Regional Relations marked the
beginning of the process of mild decentralization,3 but its
organizational results were very difficult to assess. Regional
staffs had been standardized, as far as possible, in 1933,4 but' Ibid.
2
See above, P. 445: below, pp. 601-2.
3 See above, p. 331.
4 BBC Internal Memorandum, no.
233, 29 Aug. 1933. See below, pp. 489-90.

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

449

as they grew substantially from 1934 onwards, more and more

power inevitably passed into the hands of the Regional Directors. This shift was, in any case, in line with that recommended
by the Ullswater Committee.'

It was the increase in the numbers of staff more than any
other factor which posed problems for the Corporation. How
were they to be appointed, promoted, and organized? As early
as 1932 Nicolls, with Reith's blessing, was suggesting something
in the nature of an Appointments Board to allay complaints
amongst the staff, who did not realize that their qualifications
for vacancies that arose were being considered without theirknowledge.2 Until then, staff vacancies had not been advertised
internally as well as externally; and Reith, Carpendale, andGoldsmith had discussed names and qualifications on the basisof knowledge available to them from within the organization.
About the same time, Reith drew attention to the shortage ofstaff with the right qualifications. He had always attached great
importance to `motive' as a necessary qualification at every level
and to the willingness to work for the BBC with enthusiasm andnot simply for 'the sake of a job'. By 1932, however, staffing
was becoming more formalized. It was a landmark in the historyof the BBC as an organization, as it is in the history of mostgrowing business firms, when Reith argued that `without too
much regard for actual positions, we should endeavour to get
half-a -dozen first-class men who would be posted in various
training places in Head Office and the provinces to learn thebusiness'.3

From the angle of the `Branches', `Departments', and `Sections', changes in the demand for staff-at all levels-sometimes tended to be jumpy rather than smooth, influenced byoutside decisions as much as decisions from within. The process
was well described in a letter of December 1934 to Dawnay
from Harold Bishop, who always kept well in order the organization of the BBC's Engineering Service. 'The progressive increasein programme hours', he wrote, `eventually and inevitablymeans that we have to ask for more staff. This increase in staff
is usually a smooth one, but, of course, staff must go up in' See below, p. 499.
2

*Control Board Minutes, 19 Apr. 1932.

C 1995G g

3

Ibid., 15 Dec. 1932.

450 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

jumps. When the jump becomes necessary, it is difficult for me
to explain why one apparently small addition to the workmeans more staff. It is a case, however, of "the last straw
breaking the camel's back".'1
The growth of total numbers of staff between 1926 and 1939
is set out below in tabular form. The table shows a considerable jump in numbers in the first year of the Corporation-whilestill at Savoy Hill-a steady growth from the end of 1927 to
the end of 1931, the slowest growth in the Corporation's history,
and then an upward rise until the Second World War, theannual rate of increase only once falling below Io per cent. andon one occasion rising above 3o per cent. It is interesting to notethat the movement of staff numbers increased faster than thenumber of wireless licences issued to listeners. This was not anillustration of Parkinson's Law, but an indication of the greater
range of broadcasting activities, of the operation of the kindof forces described in Bishop's letter.
THE GROWTH OF BBC STAFF, 1926-39
Staff and licencesin each year on

3i December
Wireless% increase in year

Year

Staff

licences

Licences

Staff

1926

773

32'4

1927
1928
1929

17'5
27.5

1,064
1,109

2,178,259
2,395,183
2,628,392
2,956,736
3,411,910
4,330,735
5,263,017
5,973,758
6,780,569
7,403,109
7,960,573
8,479,900
8,908,000
9,082,666

1930
1931

1932

1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939

989

1,194
1,287
1,512

1,747
2,031

2,518
3,35o
3,673
4,060
5,100

10.0

9'7
12.5

7'6
4'2
7'7
7'8

15'4
26'9
21.5

17.6

13'5
13'5
9.2

15'6
16.3
24.0

7'5
6.5

33'1

5.1

9.6
1o6

2.0

23.1

Source: Figures in the Finance Division

The breakdown of staff numbers in terms of occupations is
impossible for this period, although at the time of the Ullswater' *Bishop to Dawnay, 3 Dec. 1934.

-5i
Committee ill 1935 the biggest single professional group consisted of engineers. "I here were 800 of them scattered about
the country, performing different kinds of tasks at very different
levels.' The staff was very roughly graded, at least from 1925
onwards, with five grades of employment, but there was noautomatic incremental system and no publicity was given tosalary scales.2 `Normal' increments had to be earned. Not toearn the `normal' rise indicated, in Reith's words, that `there
was a query about the man', but there were also `above normal'
rises. From 1927 to 1933 the details of staffing matters weredealt with by V. H. Goldsmith, the Assistant Controller. Nicolls,
then the Director of Internal Administration, took over theseduties from 1933 to 1935, and from 1936 onwards W. St. J. Pym
served as the BBC's first Director of Staff Administration.
Pym was a wise and shrewd administrator, and his first maintask was to overhaul the salary and grading system. In theprocess of doing this, he quickly ironed out a number of personal discontents.
The BBC, by current standards, had been a 'good employer'
long before 1936. From the earliest days it had a Medical
Officer and from 1932 a Surgery, and at Broadcasting House
it had a cafeteria restaurant operating (not to the satisfactionof every one) on a twenty -four-hour basis. A BBC Club had beenfounded in the days of the Company, and in 1929 a Club
Ground and Pavilion were opened at Motspur Park. A Provident Fund had been started in 1925, and in 1931 a large-scale
Staff Pension Scheme was introduced.3 A special feature of the1931 Scheme was that after comparatively short service, staff
resigning voluntarily could receive the moneys contributed on
their behalf by the Corporation in addition to their own contributions. The intention was to provide for easy movement outof the Corporation by `creative staff' who might wish to occupy
themselves in broadcasting for a relatively short period.
Reith always realized that BBC staff were quite different
from those of a civil service department. They needed, in his
view, not absolute security but relative security. By 1935
monthly-paid staff whose service with the BBC was terminated
THE LOGIC OF GROWTH' *BBC evidence to the Ullswater Committee, 1935.
3*First Report of the Director -General to the Board of Governors, 13 Jan. 1927.
3
A Benevolent Fund was introduced in Apr. 1934 by Trust Deed.

452

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

received one month's pay for every year's service less the numberof months' notice, and weekly -paid staff one week's pay forevery year's service. No payment was made, however, in casesof summary dismissal. This scheme was deliberately designed
to enable the Corporation to get rid of people, especially on
the programme side, who for one reason or another had notlived up to expectations, and, equally important, to enable suchpeople to be free of the Corporation. In fact, the BBC lost very
few staff of any kind, as the following table shows:
TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENTS
Employment
terminated

rear

Died

Resigned

1927
1928
1929
1930

2

25

6

2

19

16

3

38

24

2
3
3

10

7
6

3

9

9

9

II

1931
1932
1933
1934

6
10

5

Source: BBC's evidence to the UI swater Committee,

specially requested by Major Attlee.

The high figures for 1929 were accounted for by the starting of`talkies', which attracted some of the Corporation's Engineeringand Programme staff, and by the closing of relay stations andthe policy of centralization under the Regional Scheme. Manyof the people who left for the former reason subsequently tried
to get back. Thereafter, the figures were smaller than for mostorganizations of comparable size. There was, indeed, relatively
little staff discontent inside the BBC, as compared with otherbodies, although the glare of publicity was focused upon it.
Most of the many press `stunts' on this subject do not usually
stand up to historical scrutiny. Behind some of them, at least,
was something more than the pressure of publicity: there wasalso the resentment of people who had left the BBC. The resentment often led to distortion. There were certainly few, if any,other concerns-definitely not the universities-which were as
generous as the BBC in making ex gratia payments or in allowing

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

453

employees to have `Grace Terms' overseas, with assistance forboth subsistence and travel.
The 'good employer' policy was an aspect of management
which developed naturally and without strain both at Savoy
Hill and Broadcasting House. In 1929 and 193o, however,under Mrs. Snowden's pressure and with encouragement from
Horace Wilson, then Permanent Secretary of the Ministry ofLabour, the Governors began to turn their attention to staff
matters.' In February 193o Mrs. Snowden suggested the formation of a Staff Association consisting of five councils, which
could make representations direct to the Board of Governors,
short-circuiting management altogether.2 She, Clarendon, and
Sir Gordon Nairne were appointed as a committee 'to reporton the procedure which they recommend should be adopted
to enable the staff to make direct representation to the Boardon any matter concerning their work, conditions of service,status etc.'.3 Reith queried both the policy and the accuracyof this minute, but the committee-with Nairne increasingly
unhappy about his association with it-sought to find out how
staff organization was conceived in the Bank of England, thePost Office, and the Admiralty. Eventually a plan for a Staff
Association was produced by Lord Gainford. It had many
similarities with a scheme in operation at Lloyds Bank.
Reith, proud of' his personal approach, refused to believethat either Post Office or bank experience could help the BBC.
He felt, indeed, that there was already far more genuine `accessibility' and `communication' in the BBC than in banks or the
Post Oice.4 He asked the heads of all BBC Branches to express their opinion on the arguments for change. Carpendalc,
who for a time had served as a go-between when relations
between Reith and two of the Governors had been so strained,
felt that the proposed new scheme would do positive harm.
It had its origins in `misconception' and `misrepresentation'. Goldsmith and Aslibridge both said that the `morale'of their own staff was `excellent' and that staff members
were satisfied with the BBC's `personal approach'. `It has always
2
3

4*Board of Governors, Minutes, 12 Feb. 193o.
*Clarendon to Reith, 14 Mar. 1930, enclosing Draft Scheme.
*Minute of the Board of Governors, 12 Feb. 1930.
*Note by Reith on the Proposed Staff Association, 14 May 1930.

454 ORGANIZATION: TILE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

been my own policy', Roger Eckersley wrote, 'to beg staff not
to bottle up their grievances, but to be open and direct about
them, and I always encourage a policy of direct access upwards.»
Control Board collectively endorsed these opinions and expressed no interest in a Staff Association. `In Head Office', it
was stated, `there are 173 in the Programme Branch and 105
in the Information Branch (together including t 2I typists andclerks). This total is no aggregate mass which could be dealt
with largely upon common lines. It is made up of men andwomen, a few of whom are administrative and business people.
Others arc musicians, dramatists, educationists, novelists, journalists, artists, and some who might have been dilettanti had
they not found their métier in the BBC. The majority of these
are individualists, and any form of representative council would
be alien and repugnant to their whole outlook. These individuals require direct and personal approach and no other way-and this they have.' There were also 243 Head Office staff,
labelled Administration, and 246 in Engineering. In neither
case, it was claimed, were there any signs of wage earners `being
dissatisfied with their lot' or of salary earners seeking new kindsof machinery.2
When Whitley became Chairman of the Board of Governors,
he examined the question of staff representation for himself andcame to the expert conclusion that there was no immediate case
Ibr setting up a representative council. If Whitley himself did notwant a Whitley Council in the BBC, this was clearly a complete
rebuff to Mrs. Snowden's ideas of 1930. The matter did notcome to the surface again until 1934, this time on a different
plane, when there was a lively press campaign, led by Jonah
Barrington, who had just left the BBC and was supported by
Oliver Baldwin, who was then the BBC's Film Correspondent.3
The campaign was part of a bigger press attack on the BBC,and it spilt over into Parliament, where BBC staffing policy
provided one of several anti-BBC themes. It was on this occasion that Reith went across to the Commons and left both
*Memoranda by Controller, Assistant Controller, Chief Engineer, andDirector of Programmes, 28 May 1930.
2 *Control Board, Statement on Proposed Staff Association, signed by C. D.
Carpendale, V. H. Goldsmith, N. Ashbridge, R. H. Eckersley, \\. E. G. Murray,
and T. Lochhead, 27 May 1930.
3 See also above, p. 474.

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

455

Conservative and Labour members convinced that there wasno need for a public inquiry into the BBC's attitudes to staff
questions.'
On this occasion also, about 800 members of the staff,
organized by Miss L. Taylor of the Accounts Branch, signed amemorial expressing disgust at the press allegations which had
been made against Keith and the Corporation and affirming
their loyalty to the BBC. This was a very serious response.
More light-heartedly, a writer in a magazine of the BBC Club,The Heterodyne, poked fun at the whole episode with verses
which began:

The Colonel and the Admiral
Were in an awful state;
They said it was disgracefulThat the staff arrived so late.
They ground their teeth and bit their nails,
And rung their well -washed hands.
'Will nobody obey,' they said,'Our very just commands?'`Would thrashings do', the Colonel cried,'Or even boiling lead?'`I doubt it,' said the Admiral,And shook his heavy head.'=Another lampoon in the same number took the form of a sketch
in which Reith instructed Nicolls to administer the oath to abatch of new BBC staff-`Do you, newcomers to the BBC, mostsolemnly swear that you will serve the Corporation night andday-will read, remember and observe all rules, instructions,memoranda, and notices, that have been or shall be devised
and issued; will every detail of your private lives reveal to us at
all times-and, last, will do, say, think nothing that is not
approved?'3
The form of these comments hardly suggests the existence of`Prussianism' or of a `Reithian dictatorship' inside the BBC.
Some outside complaints continued, however, and were takenup (and found to be wildly exaggerated) by the Ullswater Committee. Yet with the growth of staff numbers there was a powerful case for more systematized procedures, and the committee'
3

Sec above, pp. 417-18.

Ibid.

_

*Heterodyne, Apr. 1934.

456

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

went on to make a number of important recommendations,which influenced future BBC policy. when Reith asked whether
these
staffing matters
do_would be raised by thecommittee, he was told
categorically by the secretary that 'both the issueof trade unionism and thatof some form of independent internal staff organisation will inevitably arisein the deliberations of theCommittee'.'On the trade union
issue, the BBC had neversought to prevent members of its staff from becoming members of tradeunions, but it did notnormally take part in collective bargaining procedures. On the issue of`independent internal staff
organisation',
decisionswere being taken before
the committee met. BeCALLING,
x;:sides the questions of tradeunionism and staff repre35. One Image of the BBC (1931)
sentation, there had also
arisen once more the more
fundamental question of recruitment and promotion, which
Nicolls had raised in 1932.2 Reith had always taken an active
interest in appointments, as many of the successful applicants
have recalled in their memoirs, and in the autumn of 1933 hecame to the conclusion that an independent committee should
be appointed to advise the Board of Governors about both
recruitment and promotion procedures.3 Professor Ernest Barker
.

$B.C

2

3

*H. G. G. Welch to Reith, 15 Oct. 1935.
See above, p. 449.
*Director -General's Meeting, Minutes, 9 Jan. 1934

A./

"It

!1.

37. 'The Transit of \Icrcurv' (22Iune 1938)

36. \lax Beerbohm Cartoon of Reith (1938)'Here. dear Sibyl. is svhat I meant about Sir
John Reith's appearance his essentially poetic(and queerly Pre-Raplrntlitt) appearance. This
have caught. I think. But I seem to havemissed the steely practical look hat is there
I

loo.'

'.

r!-

)0.,

í

.:.

38. Keith locking the door after the last Programme at Savoy Hill (1932)

q°11,

Y'

.

,t

1
,.7,1,.1:

;,

`,.fJ

re a

.

S,
:
;

'i

..:

r-rr-r--i Y rG Jrt:c .

i /L__..LS

é

....

5-71 )(¡r. a 1t La,t -J.

Drawing of 1928

W.-

r

11.;

-

(a) As it might have been: An Artist's

C[ ° .

i c 1;;: ;:C
C

II

L

:V:. 1 _
`

rr

r
L.

-P

I

1!1

.

1
!,,
(b) Near'o n

41-complru_.,i. _.-.
(1931)
._,.

-r_

r , r

.

`

.:

I

(e) As it 'night have been:

An .\rtist.s Drawing of
1938

m.._;'-,

11

Ár1ni+!

39. Broadcasting I louseT_-- ',

.

..

_

nti a
..71u.---,

40. Savoy Hill: Studio 9 (1928)

41. Eric Gill at work on Prospero and Ariel (1933)

I

I'

r1

si

(a) Studio 3E
1mw,...._.,, ;.;.....y. .,(c)1:1'.....

Studio 3B

42. Broadcasting House: Interiors (1932)~tTHE LOGIC OF GROWTH

457

and D. B. Mair, a retired Civil Service Commissioner, agreed
to serve, and they produced their report in February 1934.
The BBC's `collecting of candidates', Barker and Mairreported, had been well done and posts had been filled 'witha sole regard to the capacity and promise of the applicants'.
There were five main sources of supply-independent application, recommendation by friends, recommendations by outside
expert bodies like University Appointments Committees, public
advertisement, and transfer of existing staff. The only changes
Barker and Mair suggested were that the method of public
advertisement should be used 'as widely as possible' and thata system of interviewing boards should be set up, with representatives present of 'the particular branch of the service concerned'. 'The BBC', they concluded, `seems to us to stand half
way between a great commercial concern and a public authority
which manages an undertaking. It will therefore naturally
combine some features of both-the elasticity of appointmentof the commercial concern and the responsibility to the publicwhich belongs to the public authority. It is on this basis that
we have made our recommendations."
Barker and Mair also noted that there was 'a good proportionof women to men' on the staff. There was, in fact, a separate
Women Staff Administrator, Miss G. M. Freeman, in the BBC,
whose main concern was with the secretarial and clerical staff.
Women, indeed, were employed at many different levels of theBBC, far more than in comparable organizations. No historyof the BBC would be complete without reference to the key
part they played in the daily running of the organization. Caroline Banks, first head of the General Office, was responsible
between February 1923 and April 1931 for the selection, training, and promotion of all the women clerical staff and the conditions of their work. When she left the BEC-to return lateras Mrs. Towler-Reith said of her that she was 'big enough toincrease with increasing responsibility',2 and this was surely
the real test of personal contribution in a period of rapid
growth. Miss Isa Benzie was a key figure in the development ofoverseas broadcasting. Mrs. Esmond was a genuine pioneer of*E. Barker and D. B. Mair, Report on the Recruitment of the Staff of theBBC, 8 Feb. 1934.
2 *Heterodyne, Mar. 1931.

458 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

the early News Service, and Janet Adam Smith of The Listener,
Florence Minns, Kathleen Lines, and Elise Sprott all moved
over from secretarial work to posts of considerable responsibility;
Miss Shields was succeeded as Reith's secretary by Miss Nashin 1928, and Miss Nash by Miss Stanley in 1936. These secretaries were at the very heart of the organization. Miss Edwin,
Carpenclale's secretary, was the BBC's first archivist, collecting
invaluable notes of early problems and procedures; and Florence
Milnes was responsible for one of the biggest and best executedtasks in the BBC's history, the creation of a Library, on which
every one else, including the writer of this history, came todepend.

The later development of staff relations after the publicationof the Ullswater Report belongs to a different period in the
Corporation's history, a curious twilight period before war
swamped the staff and brought in thousands of new recruits
to the BBC's service. It was then that the real revolution occurred in the system of relationships which made the BBC such a
distinctive institution. The beginnings of these changes are best
considered, as they are below, in the light of the UllswaterCommittee's survey.'
Before these changes, however, there was what seemed at
the time to be an almost equally important revolution. It was
associated with the move from Savoy Hill to Broadcasting
House in 1932, which soon acquired a kind of symbolic significance. Before the move, all was `intimacy and harmony'.
After the move all was `bureaucracy and conflict'. This extreme
version of what happened indicates what a powerful hold buildings have on the imagination. Savoy Hill was cramped andcongested, yet the very limitations of the building made for
improvisation, a valuable ingredient in broadcasting, and for
personal contacts and relationships which cut right across departmental dividing lines. Savoy Hill was associated also withpioneer experiences, the first of everything in broadcastingexcept for the excitements of \Vrittle-and around such experiences the mists of nostalgia always gather. The memory of
Savoy Hill was frequently more powerful than all the hopes of
new endeavours.
See below, pp. 513 fi'.

TIIE LOGIC OF GROWTH

459
Broadcasting House, by contrast, was thought by some to bea kind of status symbol, `formal, cold and pretentious', representing in its architectural form the big organization on display.
It is interesting to note how all the `rebels' against the conventions of the BBC during the 193os vent their wrath firstagainst the building. 'A Leviathan of a building', R. S. Lambert calls it: 'not the dove or the eagle but the white elephantshould be its crest.' `Savoy Hill was suitable for the pioneering
stage of the BBC, and maybe Broadcasting House is suitablefor its bureaucratic stage." Maurice Gorham associated itwith Reith crossing the entrance hall with a sense of triumph.
'When the lift doors closed behind him, a sort of sigh swept
across the hall as everybody let his breath out and got to work

again.'2
The language evokes far more than it should, in the caseboth of Savoy Hill and Broadcasting House. Hierarchy did notsuddenly settle on the BBC in 1932: it was there, as Gorhamhimself points out, at Savoy Hill, expressed not only in titles,
as we have seen, but in the trays and carpets.3 It was, indeed,a necessary concomitant of growth, not a symptom of bureaucracy. Nor did Reith himself warm at once to the environmentof Broadcasting House. He was as nostalgic as anyone about
leaving Savoy Hill, for, after all, he had been there from thefirst, and he did not like the new Broadcasting House building
any more than the `rebels'. `I was not happy about the new
Broadcasting House', he has written since, 'but had not urged
my own view against that of others. It was really too early tocontemplate a comprehensive headquarters for British broadcasting, and I did not like the building.'4`There was publicity,' he adds, 'much of it probably sarcastic, about the dedication Deo Otnnipotenli from Philippiansiv. 8 in the entrance hall. It was Rendall's composition; theinclusion of my name [in the inscription] was his doing. The
sentiment was magnificent; I entirely approved of it; but was
not sure if the BBC could live up to it.'s Indeed, he asked
Marmaduke Tudsbery, who had been Civil Engineer of the
BBC since 1926, whether his name could be eliminated.
'
2
4

R. S. Lambert, Arid and All His Quality, p. 15o.
M. Gorham, Sound and Fury, p. 42.
Into the IVind, p. 159.

3
5

Ibid., p. 30.
Ibid.

460 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

Although the contrast between Savoy Hill and Broadcasting
House so quickly became symbolic of two phases in the natural
history of the BBC, there had been plans to move from Savoy
Hill during the earliest months of the Corporation. Tudsbery
was asked to search at once for a new site or building in London, and in the spring of 1927 directed attention to the freeholdsite of Foley House in Portland Place on which Broadcasting
House now stands. At that time the BBC was not in a position topurchase so large a freehold, and the plan was abandoned.
Tudsbery went on to examine a number of other sites-Dorchester House, an island site in Adelphi Terrace, the present
site of Grosvenor House, the Grand Hotel in Trafalgar Square,
40,000 square feet in Exhibition Road and 31,000 square feetin Haymarket, and so on. He even looked carefully at the present site of Bush House, where the BBC was eventually totransfer first its European Service and later all its ExternalServices, and took the site sufficiently seriously to have sketch
development plans made. Eventually, however, he returned toPortland Place, and the site, which had been acquired by afinancial syndicate, was leased in February 1928.1
A consideration of the list of rejected sites leads to the samekind of `if only' historical speculation as the consideration ofa list of rejected Director -Generals. A more useful historicalcomment is that the BBC was prepared to go ahead with theacquisition of the site in 1928 only on condition that parts ofthe future premises were let. The bottom floor of the building
was to be used for a garage, for example, and for shops, and theentrance hall for a bank (sec opposite page), while the first andsecond floors were not to be taken over at once, but to be reserved
for later expansion.2 G. Val Myer, the architect for the syndicate,
and Tudsbery drew up preliminary plans, of which 'the guiding
principle was to exploit to the utmost the peculiar advantages
in shape and size of the site'. `Offices and similar departments
to which daylight is essential' were to be arranged around thewhole of the exterior of the building. 'On the other hand, thestudios and their suites, for which insulation from external noise*M. T. Tudsbery, 'The Search for a Site for Broadcasting House, London', 20
Feb. 1959. Foley House, built by the architect James Watt on the site of an older
house, was demolished in 1928.
2*Joint Report by the Architect and Civil Engineer, 3 July 1928.

a

o

10

*u{»»{-{
{

{

I

7.

Io

go

A

.ae

6 f:

olwsr .Srotirlo/ ...Y/aor

lI:

crap

,../. 3->.!

'ABBEY HOUSC
YICTOTLIA STREET. 5.W1

C,VAL' M VCR AR4BAARCH ITCCT.

,11,

462

ORGANIZATION: TILE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION
is the first need, have been grouped in a vast central tower ofheavy brickwork, ventilated by artificial means and protectedfrom the streets by the complete outer layer of offices
andinsulated from the offices themselves by wide corridors andthick brick Ivalls.'1
A number of obstacles had to be overcome before building...

could begin, among them the encasement of the great London
brick sewer, more than 13o years old, running at low level
diagonally across the site. Another difficulty was the opposition of
the St. Marylebone Borough Council to the first proposed building line, and a different line had to be agreed upon in January
1929.2 The plan of the proposed building had to be changed
also. Originally Tudsbery had been interested in a so-called'top hat' design, and the ship-like design which followed later
was thought of as a second-best. The idea of incorporating thebank was quickly dropped, but the idea of the shops remained.
When the building was completed and occupied, there was arow of ugly unfinished shop spaces at pavement level withboarded windows. So much for the status symbol.
Val Myer, the architect, stated the case for the building infunctional terms. The studios determined the design and giventhat they were to be placed in the tower-`the key idea'-allelse followed.; 'At an early elate', he went on, `I realised thatthe site possessed a rare virtue in the long curve of the westernside, and so, in organising the proportion of my masses and theplay of light and shade, I tried to make full use of the gracious
horizontal lines which this curve suggested.' Inside, functional
requirements had again dictated the use of space outside thestudios. `Endless flexibility of subdivision of offices was requiredby the Corporation, which fact, naturally, weighed with me inpreparing my design for the faSade.'41 The building was said
to be `simple' and `economical'-it cost ,J5o,000-although
there were distinctive special features in the controversial Eric
Gill sculptures,s in the Poet Laureate's theme for the bas-reliefs
on the external walls, and in Rendall's Latin inscription in theentrance hall.
*Joint Report by the Architect and Civil Engineer, 3 July 1928.
Minutes of a BBC Deputation to the L.C.C. Building Acts Committee, 14 Jan.
1929; *Report of the Civil Engineer to Reith, 23 Jan. 1929.
3 See G. \'al Myer, `\otes on the Building' in BBC l
ear Book (1932), pp. 57-63.
4 Ibid.
See above, p. 422.
2

5

TILE LOGIC OF GROWTH

463

The first press announcement reflected the architect's conception very accurately and clearly. 'The design of the building will be simple, almost severe, depending for its effect more
upon the grouping of masonry masses titan upon profusionof detail." Professor Reilly, however, directed attention to thesymbolic nature of the building. `These great stone cliffs .. .
rising, as it were, one behind the other from a base modulated
by a range of larger windows, a band of wave ornament, anda central strongly marked balcony, but with no crowning cornice, give an aspiring look to the building well in keeping with
its central function.'2
To the historian of taste, the original décor of the building
is more interesting than its architecture or even the Latin
appellation Templum Ike Artium et Musarum. The décor caught
a mood in the history of English taste and deserved, which it
never could have been, to be preserved intact. The Gill sculptures themselves, particularly `Ariel between Wisdom and
Gaiety', were an expression of the mood, which was also very
well displayed in such different parts of the building as thestudio for religious services and the Director -General's suite.
Pictures of the Concert Hall Green Room should have a placein any history of twentieth-century styles.
A Studio Decoration Committee was constituted at a Control
Board meeting in November 1929,3 and Raymond McGrathwas chosen as special consultant. Several different decorators
were employed but there was a remarkable unity about theirwork, possibly because of the pressure of the committee, more
likely because of the presence of Dr. Rendall, `the Representative of the Governors and the ultimate authority in matters of
decoration at Broadcasting House'.4 There is evidence, indeed,that the Decorating Committee, like all decorating committees,
ran into difficulties. `Several of the Programme Departments-Talks Department, for instance-were of the opinion thateach Studio should be done by a separate Decorator to give it
individuality. Mr. [Roger] Eckersley, on the other hand, did notfavour this as lie thought that continuity would be kept in thework by the employment of as few minds as possible.'3
2' *BBC Press Release, 27 Nov. 1928.
Broadcasting House (193"), p. 12.
'Control Board Minutes, 12 Nov. 1929.
4

Carpendale, `Report on the Decoration of Broadcasting House', undated

memorandum.

3

Ibid.

464 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

The main comments of the stair on the new premises at
Broadcasting House were concerned more with space thandécor. For many people the move was a disappointment onthese grounds. Some of the offices were long and narrow, manyof the studios were far too small. The Architectural Review, whichreferred to 'the labyrinthine pokiness of the interior', was frequently quoted.' From the point of view of the Corporation,
the most serious deficiency of the building was that it was too
small from the start. Very shortly after the removal from Savoy
Hill there was only one spare office left, on the third floor, andsmall offices had to be subdivided, as in Savoy Hill days, toensure privacy. Expansion began almost at once both in nearby houses and further afield. St. George's Hall, as we have seen,
was taken over in 1933 and the Maida Vale premises in 1934..2
The BBC was never able before 1939 to have enough buildings
to house either its staff or its activities.
There is a wonderful account in Punch-`a moving commentaryby an actual Eye Witness'-of the BBC's `march' from Savoy
Hill across London to Broadcasting House. The procession,heralded by the Greenwich time signal, was accompanied by
the strains of 'Land ofHope and Glory'. It included M. Stéphan,
the well-known teacher of French, sur un petit cheval, and Father
Ronald Knox on a white elephant. Gillie Potter was the Hogsnorton representative of Reuters, the Press Association, theExchange Telegraph Company, and Central News, and Vernon
Bartlett the representative of the League of Nations. 'A modest
little display of Chamber Music' was accompanied by the
Wireless Correspondents of 'the cheaper papers, bleating andwailing'. Also in the procession was an ordinary listener captured by Sir Walford Davies and feeding out of his hand, and
Sir John Reith, last of all, except for the Epilogue. `Actually,'
Punch added regretfully, 'the BBC moved quietly, almost stealthily, by instalments and in plain vans.'3
When the staff was assembled in Broadcasting House, Reith
did, in fact, deliver to them one of his most interesting addresses,
which deserves to be quoted exactly as it was given.
Architectural Review, Aug. 1932. See also the description in The Architect anda commemorative book, Broadcasting House (1932).
2 See above, p. 175.
3 Punch, 13 Jan. 1932.

THE LOGIC OF GROWTH

465
You carne in response to an order issued [he began], and you
came as a staff. Would you try and listen to me as individuals, for
I am going to try to talk to you for a very few moments as such;
not as staff in the mass but as individuals? Now, in the front row
there are the eighteen veteran survivors of the thirty-one who
accompanied me into Savoy Hill on March 19th 1923. I felt I
should like to have their moral support in the front row.... If there
is anyone in this room who regrets leaving Savoy Hill, and who hada melancholy feeling on the last day there, I suppose it should be I,
as I was the first to enter it, and actually it was I who found theplace. But I have no regrets. I have an affection for the old place;it was the scene of great labour and some achievement on the partof those who worked there; but I do not regret the past, because
regretting the past is a great mistake. I look forward, and nothing
but forward.

He then went on to state his main purpose in gathering thestaff together.
I suppose I have had three main functions since I joined the BBC:one is to resist attacks on the organization from without. They wereconsiderable, and they are not altogether non-existent today.
Another is to be on the look -out for ways and means of progress in
our work. And the third is to ensure, if I can-and I mention it
third accidentally,-it is of no less importance, to say the least of it,
than the others-to ensure, if I can, the health and happiness ofeach one of you. With a big staff spread over several buildings I
could not come in contact with a great many of you. It has beena perpetual distress to me, and some of you know me well enoughto know that I don't say what I don't mean, to pass people in corridors and in the vicinity of our offices wondering whether or notthey were members of our staff.

During the next few weeks, he said, he proposed to visit
everyone in his office.
I will certainly know your names before I come in, and I shallknow something about your work. Have you ever heard people
say, or seen them write, that the BBC is a vast organization [heconcluded], and a pretty efficient one at that, but that there israther too much of the machine-not quite enough soul? Well, we
certainly are a big organization, but I am going to substitute forthat word another and a better one. I prefer to look upon this Corporation as an organism rather than an organization; an organization may have little of the human element; not so an organism.
C 1995

H 11

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION
We exist to provide programmes-that is why we were started andwhy we work, but no branch or department works to itself; nobranch or department can do well without others, in fact the whole,benefiting; and no branch or department can do ill without affecting
the whole. And an organism is a collection of individuals, and thehealth of one can affect, and mind you, does affect, the health of
the whole.
466

This was the essence of Reith's attitude towards staff relations,and it should be treated not as the epilogue but as the prelude
to any account of what happened in the I93os. What Reith
was anxious to secure above all else was a feeling of loyalty
to the BBC. Given this, he felt that everything else would
follow. He also wished personally to know who every one in the
BBC was, just as every one knew him. Broadcasting House did
not provide, however, the kind of milieu where these objectives
were easy to realize. Nor with a very considerable annual intake
of staff was it easy to take for granted a feeling of common
participation in a single enterprise. Even had there been noquestions concerning staff representation or trade union organization, as there were bound to be in the national social circumstances of the 193os, it would have been difficult to haveguaranteed the continuance of the staff relations which Reith
most desired.
In any event, he was given one more demonstration of support
for his views in November 1935 when the Ullswater Committee
was finishing its work. The question of forming staff associations, which Reith felt he did not wish to force on the staff,
however much pressure there was from outside, was put to afree vote by ballot: 9 per cent. were in favour of an associationof some sort, I 1 per cent. thought that association should befurther considered, and 8o per cent. were opposed.'

3. Public Images
ONE aspect of the BBC's organization has been left out-therole of advisory committees. The staff was responsible for daily
operations, the Governors for `public trusteeship', and advisory
Into the Wind, p. 230.

PUBLIC IMAGES

467

committees were expected to keep the BBC in touch with `representative' `specialist' opinion. It was through the work of thecommittees that a small but influential circle of people outside
broadcasting were permitted an entry to Broadcasting House.
Each separate committee had its own history, and some, likethe Central Council for School Broadcasting, had a considerable
measure of genuine autonomy.' The main committee, however,which to some extent knew of the activities of all the rest, wasthe General Advisory Council, which was not set up until 1934.
The oldest of the committees, the Central Religious Advisory
Committee, had been formed in 1923,2 and exercised a continuous influence over the BBC's policy. It was followed up by
the Music Advisory Committee, which first met in 1925. 'Suchcommittees are awfully difficult to handle', Reith wrote after
its first meeting,3 and Boult, after becoming Director of Music,
was highly critical of its members for their complete lack of
co-operation.4 Many of the members of the committee were all
too willing to pursue their sectional interests rather than toserve the interests of music, and they were usually far morecautious and protectionist in their outlook than the BBC's own
Music llepartment.
A characteristic minute of 1936 reads, 'Sir Landon Ronald
expressed apprehension of the unfavourable effect in many
quarters of the decision to include two pianos of foreign makesin the Corporation's equipment.... Mr. Norman said thatthe ... Music Advisory Committee had no responsibility for
the Corporation's decision, which was reached by the Board
after careful consideration of the report of the subcommittee ofjudges. After some discussion the Chairman react out the actual
marks awarded by the judges to the various makes includedin the tests.'s The Advisory Committee on Spoken English,
which was formed in April 1926, also caused difficulties, which
led Reith on more than one occasion to contemplate relying
solely on the expert advice given him by Professor A. Lloyd
James. It had a distinguished membership, however, and at
least in its early days the BBC profited greatly from the association with it of men like Bridges, Shaw, and Kipling.
' See above, pp. 196-7.
2 See above, p. 227.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 244.
s
See above, p. 183.
*Music Advisory Committee. Minutes, 12 Nov. 1936.

3

468 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

Only one minute -hook of this most interesting committee
survives, and the first meeting reported-in September 1934had Shaw in the chair, with Professor Lascelles Abercrombie,
Lord David Cecil, and Mr. Kenneth Clark as the first threepeople mentioned in the list of members present. This was animportant meeting, since the committee had just been enlarged
and reconstituted 'to include a larger body of authoritative
opinion over a wider range of scholarship'.' Among the words
which the committee solemnly discussed (with the aid of experts
like Lloyd James, Daniel Jones, H. C. K. \Vyld, and Harold
Orton) were `acoustic' (to be pronounced ácówstic), `aerated',`decorous', `disputant', `garage', `ordeal', and `ukelele'. Logan
Pearsall Smith signed the minutes.2
New standing orders for the committee were drafted in 1934,and Lloyd James made a statement about the history of thecommittee. It had decided from the start to direct its attention
to a limited number of problems. 'At all meetings, the leading
English and American dictionaries were consulted, every member being provided beforehand with the pronunciations in allthese dictionaries.' Although the conclusions it reached had notalways been put into effect, the committee had done much,
Lloyd James claimed, to improve the standard of spoken English. `Southern announcers cannot treat the r sound ín the
Northern manner, and very few English born speakers give tothe unaccented vowels the flavour that Mr. Bridges recommended. But the BBC very definitely concerns itself with checking ultra -modern tendencies in the language, and in carryingout the injunctions of the Committee with regard to the socalled purity of English vowels.';
Here was a BBC committee dealing with fascinating questions
concerning the language which no other committee, public or
private, was examining. It was a committee also which had thepower, through the publication of Broadcast English pamphlets,
the first of which appeared in 1928, and the system of training
announcers, to put its decisions into effect, and thereby toinfluence popular habits. Lloyd James, its inspiration, was not
only an erudite scholar but a man who believed passionately in*Statement by the Chairman of Governors, 29 Jan. 1937.
*.\dvisory Committee on Spoken English, Minutes, 20 Sept. 1934.
3 *Statement on the History of the .\dvisory Committee, 20 Sept. 1934.
'

2

PUBLIC IMAGES469

the power of broadcasting. Yet the problems which mostdirectly concerned him did not always admit of easy answer, andis encouraging to note that a resolution was carried (again withit Shaw in the chair) in January 1937 that `before a pronunciation could be recommended to the Corporation a two-thirds
majority of the full Committee was necessary'.' 'Many scholars
have had to confess', the Chairman of Governors remarked,'that the spoken word is a matter of human behaviour in which
few have had that scientific training that alone makes possible
calm and dispassionate judgements.'z It would have been interesting to have had the comment of the author of Pygmalion on
this.
\Ve have one of Shaw's comments, however, on the work of thecommittee as a whole just after the enlargement and reconstitution in 1934. 'The new Committee so far is a ghastly failure. It
should be reconstituted with an age limit of 3o and a few taxidrivers on it. The young people WONT pronounce like the olddons, and Jones and James, who are in touch with the coming
race, are distracted by the conflict. And then, are we to dictate
to the mob or allow the mob to dictate to us? I give it up.'3 He
did not. One man who did was Dr. C. T. Onions, co-editor of
the Oxford English Dictionary, who joined the committee with`misgiving', made a solemn protest to Lloyd James in 1932
against `insufficiently rigorous procedure', and wished to bowhimself out `silently without giving you any trouble'.4 `It is
odd that in no other department than language-one's own
language,' he added, `would the distinguished amateur be
tolerated.'s Bridges also had once expressed a doubt, before
Onions joined. 'Our own Committee of Six was open to theobjection that it had two Welshmen, one Irishman and one
American. If Onions is taken on, they may say there are three

Welshmen .'6
While the Advisory Committee on Spoken English was considering how to pronounce `acoustic' and `aerated', steps were
*Advisory Committee on Spoken English, Minutes, 29 Jan. 1937.
*Statement by the Chairman of Governors, 2g Jan. 1937.
3 Quoted in Into the Wind, pp. 235-6.
4 *C. T. Onions to A. Lloyd James, 3,Jan. 1932.
s *Onions to Lloyd James, 12 _June 1932.
*Robert Bridges to Lloyd James, 11 Dec. 1929.
I

2

470 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

being taken to constitute the General Advisory Council,
a completely new institution. Ernest Barker, one of its firstmembers, called its creation 'an act of statesmanship', very
specifically relating its existence to the theory of the public corporation. 'The attachment of consultative bodies, representing
both public opinion and expert knowledge, to departments ofState and to great public concerns which have something of thecharacter of a department of State, is a policy in which I profoundly believe.''
At Mrs. Hamilton's suggestion, Reith invited William Temple,
the Archbishop of York, who was already Chairman of the Central Council for Broadcast Adult Education, to become chairmanof the new committee.2 The intricate game then started ofthinking of names and crossing off names of which other people
had thought. It was decided from the start not to invite people
on a `constituency basis', but to expect that they should be`broadly representative of most, if not all, of the main interestscorporate and individual-which Broadcasting serves or affects'.3
The list of such interests drawn up by the Chairman of theBoard of Governors reads like a list of interests represented in
the chamber of a corporative state-`literature, philosophy,
music, art, drama, science, medicine, economics, law, journalism, history, religion, international affairs, imperial affairs,
politics, trade uníonísm, trade, industry, public services, social
services, universities, teachers, and rural interests'. Norman also
added touchingly at the foot of' his list, 'No category-Lord
Derby'.
Two of the most interesting points made about the first draft
list of highly distinguished people were first, in Days nay's words,
that it had 'too many of the elderly and venerable as opposed to
the younger and more active',4 and second, in Temple's view,that a representative of 'the extreme left' should be included`because it would tend to allay the bitterness of feeling always
characteristic of the Left Wing'.5 The Board of Governors would
not permit the inclusion of Harold Laski, however, or of Lord
' *Memorandum by Ernest Barker, 'The General Advisory Council', 3 Apr.
1936.
2 *Mrs. Hamilton to Reith, 28 Apr. 1934.
3*Note by R. C. Norman, 19 Apr. 193.1.
4*Dawnay to Reich, 29 June 1934.
*'Temple to Keith, g July 1934.
5

PUBLIC IMAGES

4.71

Lloyd on the extreme right.' Nor did they include J. B. Priestley,
who had been suggested by Siepmann `partly to get something
more rugged into the personnel of the Council and partly toescape from the rather academic quality of the members'.z
The General Advisory Council held its first meeting on 20
February 1935. Reith, who had proposed the new Council withhigh hopes of what it might do, was immediately doubtful aboutits `utility'.3 The Council met on two further occasions in 1935.
It submitted its own evidence to the Ullswater Committee,4 andin the years down to the outbreak of the war considered, however sketchily, most of the major issues relating to broadcasting
policy. Temple was chairman only for the first year, being
succeeded by Lord Macmillan.
The BBC's view of the Council, in so far as there was one
single view, was that it had a twofold purpose-`to secure theconstructive criticism of representative men and women' and tocreate a kind of pressure group or rather an opinion group, themembers of which would 'use their influence in helping towards
a fuller understanding of the BBC's problems and policy'. There
was no intention of making the Council a really active agency.
It was expected to be `detached' and `non -expert', and in 1937
it was decided that it should concentrate on 'at least one question of wide general debate' at its meetings. Care was taken to
de-limit the scope of its work in relation not only to that of theBoard of Governors but t hat of the network of specialist advisorycommittees, which are tending to develop in response to disclosed needs'.5

The General Advisory Council was rather too much like theHouse of Lords even for some of its members, and Ernest Barker
at least would have preferred it to have been more like the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education. He wanteda smaller body, with a maximum size of twenty, in touch with'the general body of consumers' and with fewer `distinguishedmembers'.6 His views received some support-Carpenlale
pointing out, for instance, that the `undue weight' of the Council*Reich to Temple, 19 July 1934. For Laski's comments on Reith, see Into the2*Siepmann to Reith, 2 July 1934.
3 Reith, Diary, 20 Feb. 1935.
' See below, pp. 486-7.
*Memorandum on the Future of the General Advisory Council, Spring'

Wind, P. 143.
5

1937.
a

*E. Barker, Memorandum on the General Advisory Council, 3 Apr. 1936.

472 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

arose to some extent because it was the successor to the oldCentral Council for Adult Education. In general, however,internal opinion inside the BBC held that the Council shouldbe above all else `ambassadorial', and it was Sir Stephen Tallents, the new Controller of Public Relations, who summed up
the feeling best by writing unctuously of the Council guaranteeing that questions of broad policy could be examined by 'someof the best and most experienced minds in the country, and ina detachment from the emergencies and compromises of the
day-to-day conduct of a broadcasting service'.'

When Tallents wrote these words, he and the BBC werealready being drawn, although Tallents did not know it, intoa most complex tangle of public relations. The `public image'of the BBC was to be upset more, indeed, by a curious sequenceof private events than it was ever enhanced by the `ambassadorial' influence of the General Advisory Council.
R. S. Lambert, the editor of The Listener, decided in February
1936 to demand an unqualified apology from Sir Cecil Levita,
an eminent public figure in London politics, for statements hehad made about Lambert's credulity. The difference between
Lambert and Levita had its origins in disputes within the Film
Institute, of which Lambert was a Governor, but the BBC wasinvolved from the start in that Lambert argued that Levita's
statements about him, which were made at a lunch with Gladstone Murray, tended to show that he was unfit to hold his
post in the BBC. The words to which Lambert took exception
included the phrase `belief in the occult, notably the talking
mongoose', and it was the Isle of Man mongoose, `answering to
the name of Gef', which gave the popular name to the casewhen Lambert's charges reached the Courts-and the pressin November 1936.2
The mongoose soon became less important than allegations
concerning the BBC's attitude towards Lambert after his decision to take legal action. Sir Stephen Tallents had warned
Lambert that if he proceeded with his case he would be doing
two dangerous things-first, making the Corporation doubt his*Dotes on Professor Barker's Memorandum, Apr. 1986.
The story of the mongoose is described in the book by R. S. Lambert andHarry Price, The Haunting of Cashen's Gap (1936).
I

3

PUBLIC IMAGES

473

judgement, and second, `placing his own interests in priority tothose of the Corporation'. The Chairman of Governors, R. C.
Norman, who was a political colleague of Levita, also told
Lambert much the same. Reith was in the background. The
issues were delicate, and he was irritated that Lambert had not
approached him first.
The BBC background came out in the press during the caseand undoubtedly did the BBC harm. Lambert, who wasawarded heavy damages-£7,5oo-had appeared as a solitary
individual fighting for his reputation and his rights not only
against Levita but against the BBC, the Big Corporation. There
had often been talk of the BBC interfering with the private livesof its employees: now it was said to have interfered with thecivil freedom of one of them.
In an attempt to redress the damage done to it by the revelations of the Lambert-Levita case, the BBC asked the Prime
Minister on 9 November for an official inquiry into the role of
the BBC from the time that Lambert had first expressed his
grievance. A week later the inquiry began before Sir Josiah
Stamp, Sir Maurice Gwyer, and Sir Findlater Stewart, andafter a number of witnesses had been examined-Lambert camelast-the Board of Enquiry produced a report which was far
more favourable to the BBC than Lambert had expected. It
exonerated the BBC from some of the most serious allegationsof undue exertion of pressure, but admitted that warnings given
to Lambert had been neither well couched nor based on a full
realization of the merits of Lambert's case. It also criticizedstrongly the tone and language of a memorandum Lambert had
sent to Reith. Finally, it urged the BBC to re-examine its staffing
arrangements. 'A tradition and a technique in dealing withstaff matters has to be established in the controlling authorities:
on the staff side a code to determine how far individual freedomof opinion and action are consistent k ith the paramount responsibilities of the Governing Body must be built up and accepted
ex animo by the staff.»

The timing of the Lambert-Levita case was almost as significant as its content. It followed hot on the inquiry of the
Ullswater Committee, which was something in the nature of
Cmd. 5336 (1936), Report of the Special Board of Enquiry.

474

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

a grand inquest on the BBC, and it could not have been calculated to do more harm in the public eye. The BBC had won
many plaudits during the 193os, often from the most unlikely
quarters, but there was also a current of criticism running
through the period, not so much criticism of the BBC's monopoly
as of its internal power structure. Against Reith's picture of thetwentieth-century public corporation, well adapted to the needsof the age, Raymond Yostgate, for example, set the picture ofa revived Chartered Company, `encouraged and authorised toseek the extension of its power ... with the knowledge that if its
immoderation in so doing led to serious trouble, the state would
rescue it'. `Although the BBC may equally plausibly be
regarded as an experiment in a wholly new form of socialorganisation', he went on, 'or as a revival of an old, there is atleast reason to inquire whether the diseases of the old Chartered
Companies arc not developing again in the new body.»
The charges were put in milder form in a special broadcasting
number of the Political Quarterly in the autumn of 1935 which
has to be placed alongside the laudatory Special Broadcasting
Number of The Times of August 1934. 'The BBC', Reith had
written in The Times, 'is the focus of many incoming and outgoing rays, and if (wilfully or even unwittingly) it changes
position the optical scheme may be greatly modified thereby.'z
The writers in the Political Quarterly represented several incoming and outgoing rays. W. A. Robson, who called the BBC 'an
invention in the sphere of social science no less remarkable than
the invention of radio transmission in the sphere of naturalscience', praised its successes and defended its constitution, but
criticized its Board of Governors as being too old and respectable, its staffing policy as being too personal, its regional policy
as being too centralizing, and its `controversial' programmes as
being too cautious. 'The BBC is almost overburdened witha sense of responsibility. One sometimes has the impression that
because it is not answerable to one particular body it feels itself
to be answerable to everyone for all its actions.'3 Ivor Thomas,
however, in the same number, tried to sec the BBC in interR. Postgate, What to Do With the BBC (1935), pp. 10, 11-12.
i J. C. W. Reith, `Evolution of Broadcasting: A Social Need Supplied' in The
Tunes, Broadcasting Number, 14 Aug. 1934.
J \V. A. Robson, 'The BBC as an
Institution' in the Political Quarterly, Oct.-Dec.
1935.
'

PUBLIC IMAGES

475

national perspective and praised it with few reservations. 'The
most important question which can be asked about any broadcasting organisation is: What is the ideal it sets before itself?'
Thomas had no doubt: 'The BBC has faced this question
courageously, and it has achieved a greater degree of successthan any foreign broadcasting institution.»Internationally, indeed, as the international scene darkened,
the BBC was standing more and more on its own. In Germany
Dr. Goebbels had already fashioned radio into an effective

instrument of propaganda. Each of the thirty-eight party
regions (cane) had a Garfnkwart or regional radio officer andunder them were Kreisfunkwarte in each of the thousand districts
into which Nazi Germany was divided. It was their business to
see that when Gemeinselraftsempfang, community listening, wasordered, every factory, public square, and school was fittedwith receivers. The People's Wireless Set was designed to receive
German stations satisfactorily and to receive nothing else.
Between 1935 and 1939 several other countries followed, lesssystematically, the same line of development. The defenders of
the Alcazar in Toledo during the Spanish Civil War were prevented by jamming from receiving messages saying that relief
was on the way: Queipo de Llano made his reputation asa `broadcasting general'. 'The voices of the national stentors arenow so loud that the ordinary listener to international broadcasting now feels his pleasure spoiled by competing politicalbroadcasts', wrote a foreign critic of radio in 1938.2
Few people understood the full implications of what was
happening ín Europe until it was too late, and a far more
serious objection to BBC policy than that advanced at the time
was that the BBC itself was slow in informing people of thedanger. 'The policy pursued was evasive', Mrs. Hamilton wrote
later; 'we ought to have given a positive direction-we did
not.... What the BBC did do was faithfully to reflect a quite
general outlook.'3 Viewed in this light, the Talking Mongoose
was as much a creature of escape as the Loch Ness Monster, andtalk about the `Prussianism' of the BBC was an excuse for notunderstanding what was happening in Prussia.
Ivor Thomas, `Systems of Broadcasting', ibid.
C. Saerchinger,'Radio as a Political Instrument' in Foreign Affairs,,Jan. 1938.
3
X1..1. t lamilton, Remembering My Good Friends (1944), p. 287.
2

476 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

What the BBC did do-and it was to do much in the international sphere-is the subject of a later chapter. In the meantime, while Postgate was attacking the BBC as a `Chartered
Company', while the Political Quarterly was praising and blaming
it, and while Tallents was resolutely defending it in John Bull,'the Ullswater Committee was sitting and subjecting the BBC
to its third official scrutiny. It was this Committee which wasto lay down the conditions under which the BBC was to operate
in the next long stage of its history until Beveridge took up the
charge again after the Second World War.

4. The Ullswater Committee
T 11E Charter of the BBC was due to expire on 31 December
1936. As early as December 1933 Reith touched on the subject
at a meeting with Kingsley Wood. This was long-term strategy.
The Postmaster -General told Reith that a public committee
would have to be appointed, and Reith replied that he presumed
that `certain changes' vould have to be discussed beforehand.2
Reith had in mind financial changes and a greater measure of`liberty'.
In fact, it was not with Kingsley \Vood personally that Reith
tried to reach an early agreement but with the new Director General of the Post Office, Sir Donald Banks, who replaced Sir
Evelyn Murray in February 1934., and Sir Warren Fisher, theactive and extremely influential Secretary to the Treasury.
Fisher was an outstanding civil servant, and one of his Treasury
colleagues told Reith that 'he would have considerable influencein the matter'.3 Banks was friendly and co-operative. `With him
at the Post Office,' Reith wrote, `things will go much more
simply with respect to our future constitution.'4
There were many meetings between the three men to discuss
what Reith called 'our best tactics for getting our new Charterand Licence'. Despite Kingsley Wood's remark in December' Sir S. Tallents, `The IBC's Sins-the Answer' in John Bull, 14 Dec. 1935.
Reith, Diary, 12 Dec. 1933.
3 Ibid., 21 Dec. 1933.
4 Ibid., 19 Jan. 1934.
2

TILE ULLS\\ATER COMMITTEE

477

1933, Reith still hoped for some time that the matter might besettled by a small committee of the Cabinet which would thentake its recommendations direct to the Cabinet and on to theHouse of Commons, and by February 1934 he had produced
draft proposals which, if acceptable, would have eliminated all
public discussion.' He quickly came to the conclusion, however,that there were some `public issues' which could best be aired
in a public committee. He wanted it to consist of about fivemembers, 'of such a sort as we would be quite happy with andsure of'.2 One of the most important of the `public issues' was
the question of the future of the Wireless Exchanges. For the
Exchanges, as for the BBC, the key date was 31 December 1936,
when their own Licence from the Post Office was due to expire.3
Reich, Banks, and Warren Fisher were able to agree on thekind of terms which would appear in a new BBC Licence andCharter, but Kingsley 'Wood had his own ideas on how toproceed. He knew about the meetings which had been held
between Reith and the two senior civil servants, and he obviously(lid not intend to leave Reith free to determine national broadcasting policy after discussing matters with them. For politicalreasons also he was anxious that there should be as few changes
as possible in the existing arrangements. When he saw the draft
agreement which had been prepared by Reith, Banks, andFisher, therefore, he was by no means as co-operative as Reith
wished. A meeting at the Post Office on 25 June 1934 was described by Reith as 'most unsatisfactory'. `I have never seensuch political expediency as the Postmaster -General showed at
this meeting', he wrote in his diary. `I said it was quite unnecessary to appoint a Committee if there were to be so few
changes in the present documents. There is no courage or determination.'4 The first time Reith had met Kingsley Wood he hadformed similar impressions. There was, indeed, a sharp clash oftemperament, involving complete incompatibility of outlook.
It was not simply that the Postmaster -General was seeking toimpose his authority over the Director -General of the BBC. 'He
talked a lot about giving the public what it wants and said thatno member of the Board really knew what the public wants.'5
2 Ibid., 2 Mar. 1934.
Ibid., 26 Jan. 1934.
Ibicl., 16 May 1934. For the position of the \\ ireless Exchanges, see above
Ibid., 5 Apr. 1932.
4 Reith, Diary, 25 June 1934.
PR 356-60.
1

3

5

478 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

One of the points that Reith wanted and had included in the`Analysis of Proposals' paper, drafted with the help of Banks andFisher, was the transfer of constitutional control over the BBCfrom the Postmaster -General to the Lord President of theCouncil. This idea, in particular, did not appeal to Kingsley
Wood. Nor was it made an easier idea to canvass by the notorious unwillingness of' the then Lord President of the Council,
Stanley l3alclwin, to add to his responsibilities. There is little
doubt also that Kingsley Wood disliked the active participationof a representative of the Treasury in the drafting of the proposals, even though BBC difficulties so often began not in the
Post Office but in the Treasury. Keith had made sure before
starting his conversations with \Varren Fisher that he had theapproval of the Prime Minister, MacDonald, and they hadtalked frankly of the need to improve liaison between the BBC
and the wide range of government departments with whom it
s% as concerned.' There is no evidence that the Prime Minister's
approval automatically carried with it the wholehearted
approval of Kingsley \Vood.
It was clear after the meeting of June 1934. that there would
he a public committee to look into the future of broadcasting,yet it was not until Easter 1935 that the membership of thecommittee was publicly announced. The months between werespent-intermittently-in a discussion about possible membership, but when the final names were announced, there weresome names added which had not been discussed either with
Reith or, more surprisingly, with Banks.2 Reith thought that
Lord McKenna would be a good chairman :3 it soon became
obvious, however, that he was not a persona grata with thegovernment. Reith's suggestion that Ernest Barker should bea member of the committee was also very quickly turned down,
probably on the grounds that he was 'too much of a Liberal'.4
Eventually the chairmanship was offered to Lord Ullswater, an
ex -Speaker of the House of Commons, who was then seventynine years of age. Kingsley Wood felt that he had the right kindof `judicial or quasi-judicial status'.5
Reith, Diary, 2 Feb. 1934. MacDonald quite agreed with Reith's view 'that
we could have a much better liaison without any prejudice to our autonomy'. See
also Into the Wind, pp. 182-3.
2 Ibid., p. 219.
3
*Reith to Banks, 9 July 1934.
4 *Reith to \Varren Fisher, 14 Aug. 1934.
5 *Reith to Warren Fisher, 26 Nov. 1934.

THE ULLS\\ ATER COMMITTEE

479

The members, whose names were decided upon in 1934,
included Sir William McClintock, an expert on finance whose
claims had been pushed by \Varren Fisher, and Lady Reading.
Before the end of the year McClintock had already gone throughall the existing papers on BBC finance, past, present, and future.
Within six weeks he had gone back to Reith and said that hewas `immensely impressed with the financial statements, withthe methods of financial control, and with the financial state
itself'. Reith was naturally happy about this. 'The credit forthis lay with Lochhead, the Chief Accountant. It was comforting to reflect that in this respect at least-a most important one-the Committee's findings were likely to be satisfactory."
Reith was anxious that no names of members of the committee should be announced until just before the committee got
down to work. `It would be a pity to have an interval ... giving
an opportunity for lobbying etc.'2 The politicians taking partin the committee's work s ere not approached, indeed, until
1935. They represented all three parties, thereby following theprecedent set by the Crawford Committee in 1925. The Conservative member was J. J. Astor, who had been a memberof the original Sykes Committee of 1923. Before Reith had
addressed the 1922 Committee, Astor had pointedly gone up to
him to shake him by the hand.3 The two Liberal members wereClement Davies, then a National Liberal but, more importantin this context, a Welshman, and H. Graham White. Labour
was represented by Attlee, and the committee was completedwith Lord Elton, an Oxford don and National Labour peer,
and Lord Selsdon, the former Postmaster -General who wasbetter known inside the BBC under his original name, Sir
William Mitchell-Thomson.4
Selsdon was approached at the last minute, as was Clement
Davies. Reith was very angry indeed about the choice of Selsdon,
who had just produced his Report on Television,° nor did hehave sympathy with the view that the committee should be
representative enough to cover Welsh interests as such. (AfterJ

2 *Reith to Banks, 3 jan. 1935.
Into the Wind, p. 215.
Into the Wind, pp. 185-6. For the meeting %%ith the 1g22 Committee, sec above,

P. 4184

For the difficult relationship between the BBC and Mitchell -Thomson, see

The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 353 if.
5
See below, pp. 591 R.

480 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

all, there vas no representative for Scotland.) More seriously,
he was concerned at the over -weighting, as he saw it, of Post
Office experience. After he had learned of the final compositionof the committee while he was on holiday, he wrote frankly to
Banks that he thought 'for a matter of this sort there is far too
much of the Post Office about it-appointed by the P.M.G.,
two Postmaster-Generals [Selsclon and Attlee] and one Assistant
Postmaster -General [Graham White]'. Selsdon was particularly unwelcome for the part that he had played in 1926 and1927. `Everything that bothers us in the Charter and Licence
he is responsible for.'[Given the composition of the Ullswater Committee and theway its membership was announced, Reith rightly felt that it
would be impossible to maintain the close personal relations he
had enjoyed with Banks while they had been discussing futuretactics with Warren Fisher. `I think you will see the difficulty',
he wrote candidly to Banks. `If relations are entirely official, or,to be more definite, if we have to regard the Post Office as being
against us, then we know what to do, and, however regrettable,
it is straightforward. But it is different if we imagine them to befriendly, act accordingly, and then discover that, whether for"political" considerations or for any other reason, we have been
led up the garden and all our plans frustrated.'2 Private talks
duly ceased. Indeed, Kingsley Wood telephoned Warren Fisher
to say that he would prefer that no mention be made to themembers of the committee of the meetings or agreements
between Reith and the two civil servants in 1934.3 Nor was the
BBC to have access to committee papers.4
Relations between the BBC and the Post Office became distinctly cool during the early weeks of the committee's life. 'He
ill sacrifice the interests of this great public service to his o\\nmiserable political ends', Reith wrote after he had had anotherinterview with Kingsley Wood on 3o Apri1.5 Unfortunately, weNS*Reith to Banks, 26 Apr. 1935. Reith also sent a frank statement of what had
happened in 1926 to Warren Fisher on 15 May 1935. 'It shows', he said, 'pretty
clearly that Selsdon put our present Charter and Licence across us in 1926.'
2*Reith to Banks, 26 Apr. 1935.

Into the Wind. p. 220.
*Banks to Reith, 2 May 1935. Reith, nonetheless, got them. Note ofJune 1963.
5 Reith, Diary,
30 Apr. 1935; *Reith to Banks, 3o Apr. 1935. 'This meeting',
Reith told Banks, 'was different from previous ones. . There was this afternoon, on both sides, as unfriendly a feeling as there could be.'
3

4

.

.

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE.481

do not have Kingsley Wood's comments on Reith, but we knowthat at this time the Post Office did not propose to include
a BBC representative on an inter -departmental committee toadvise with respect to the control and use of broadcastingin time of war. For its part, the BBC had little respect for
Ullswater. 'He is over eighty', Reith wrote, 'and I think it isextraordinary that they should appoint a man of this age to be
Chairman of the Committee. He seemed quite friendly, but thewhole affair is quite outside his comprehension, I am afraid.»

The terms of reference of the committee were 'to consider theconstitution, control, and finance of the broadcasting service inthis country and advise generally on the conditions under which
the service, including broadcasting to the Empire, television
broadcasting, and the system of wireless exchanges, should be
conducted after 31 December 1936'.2 Reith was consulted about
the terms, and had the word `constitution' substituted for theword `management'. The terms, like the membership, eresettled at the last moment, while Reith was on holiday, and it
was by telegram that he learned that the word `constitution' hadbeen substituted.3
Reith was anxious, above all, to draw a distinction between
the task of the new committee and the task of the Crawford
Committee in 1925. 'The situation was very different then,' lie
told Banks, 'as there were doubts about the old Company andradical change was assumed. The present Committee is presumably more to recommend respecting the future than toinvestigate the past[and] there is little doubt, if any, thatthe present system will be maintained.'4 There was little doubt,
as Banks confirmed. 'So far as I could judge Ullswater's disposition,' he told Reith before the committee met, 'he was notin the least inclined to turn the world upside down-and "theshorter the better" seemed to be his attitude to the Committee.'5
After its appointment had been announced in the House ofCommons on 17 April 1935, the committee quickly got down
to work. It decided to hold its sittings in private and not to
3,1

...

Reith, Diary, 28 Mar. 1935.
Cmd. 5091 (1936), Report of the Broadcasting Committee, § t.
3
*Telegram from Banks to Reith, 15 Apr. 1935.
4 *Reply by Reith, 15 Apr. 1935.
*Banks to Reith, 17 Apr. 1935.
2

5

C 19951

1

482 ORGANIZATION: TILE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

publish its evidence.' This severely circumscribes the work of
the historian even today. The committee agreed, however, toissue a press statement on I May, notifying individuals andorganizations that evidence or representatives would be welcome, and much of this evidence inevitably made its way not
only to St. Martin's -le -Grand but to Broadcasting House. In
all, seventy-nine witnesses gave oral evidence, almost four times
the number giving evidence before the Crawford Committee.
The witnesses included directly interested parties, such as theRelay Services Association of Great Britain and the International Broadcasting Company; representatives of powerfuloutside interests, such as the Newspaper Proprietors' Associationand the Empire Press Union; and spokesmen of other government departments, including the Foreign O(Iice and the Boardof Education.2 `Opinion Groups' were not very actively involved
for, as Banks had told Reith, there was little doubt that thebasic principles behind the organization of British broadcasting
would remain unchanged.
The BBC was formally asked to give its own evidence earlyin May 19353, and it duly submitted a brief but comprehensive
memorandum setting out its views.4 `It has purposely been
made as brief as possible', Reith told Welch, 'on the assumptionthat this would be to the liking of the Committee.'s The memorandum stated firmly in its introduction that while the BBC was'a monopoly with an assured income, independent of ordinary
commercial obligations', it always endeavoured to keep in close
touch with public opinion. As far as its programme policy wasconcerned, it had been shaped from the outset 'by the conviction that listeners would come to appreciate that which at firstmight appear uninteresting or even alarming'. The Corporation
had, in fact, `aimed at providing a service somewhat ahead ofwhat the public would demand were it possible for such demand
to be made articulate and intelligible'. As far as engineering
policy was concerned, `national coverage' had been the objecReith to Banks, 3o Apr. 1935, stating the position as II. G. G. Welch, thePost Office secretary of the Committee, had described it to him.
= Cmd. 5091
(1935), Appendix A.
*Welch to Lord Bridgeman, 3 May 1935.
4 `Memorandum of Evidence submitted to the Broadcasting Committee by
the BBC', May 1935.
*Keith to Welch, 3 May 1935.

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

183

tive, `first with one programme and then with alternative

programmes'.
On the finance of the service, a lucid statement was drawn
up, which set out the main headlines of income and expenditure(Table I). Capital expenditures, it was shown, had been met
TABLE IBBC Income and Expenditure, 1927-34
Accumulated
surplus or

Expenditure

IncomeRevenue,

Publications,
Licences

£

1927

1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
TOTAL

8o1,0oo
872,00o944,E

1,043,000
1,179,000
1,306,000

1,469,E

1,710,000

9,315,000&c.

£

100,000
130,000
153,000
181,000
246,000
323,00o392,000
349,000
1,874,000

excludingdepreciation£
747,00oCapital£deficiency
at 3r
December£

14,000140,000

6g,000226,00o254,000
392,00a

847,000
918.000
989,000
1,128,000
1,288,000
1,455,000
1,656,000

933,000
279,000
273,000
260,000-244,000

9,028,000

2;076,000

85,000151,000
97,000- 182,000'-58,000*
85,000* The deficiencies in the years 1931, 1932, and 1933 were met by short-termborrowing.

from income. This had been wise policy in a period when income
from licences was still expanding, but the Corporation would
soon cease to have any surpluses available for capital purposes.
Nor could it easily borrow `without carrying a liability not represented by corresponding assets'. Attention was directed, therefore, to the basic question of the share of the Post Office and theTreasury in gross revenue from wireless licences, and figures
relating to the respective shares were set out as in Table II.
The moral was clear. If the BBC was to develop Empire workand television, both ofwhich were treated briefly but adequately
in the memorandum, then far greater financial provision was
absolutely necessary. Five specific points were made. First, thePostmaster -General should undertake not to alter the licencefee without the agreement of the Corporation. Second, theretention by the Post Office of a fixed percentage of the total

484

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

revenue from licences was undesirable: it was manifestly absurd
to think of it as payment for the service of collection. Third, thewhole income from licences, subject to allowing for the real costof collection, should be received by the Corporation. Fourth,exemption from income tax should be granted, since the BBC
was not by its constitution allowed to make profits. Fifth,borrowing powers should be increased to £2 million.
TABLE II
Gross Licence Income, 192734, and Effective
Allocation Thereof
Post Office and Treasury share

Treasuryrear

Approxi-

Allotted toendingmate grosspost office for

share

31
Decemberlicenceserv'ce ofincludingintonecollection

increases

Specialsubsidies

£

£

1927
1928
1929
1930

1,192,000

£

J
19311
1932
1933
1934

£
121% 149,000

1,307.E

121 %1,470,000
I ,6g6,000

121% 184.000
121% 2í2,000

I 437.
7í4 Oo10% °163,0Ool2,614,000
2,968,000.000)
io% 261,000
10% 297,000

3,369,E

10°/a

16,767,E

1.Normal

BBC neteffective
share after

Income tax

£

Total

£

allowing forlaconic lax£

242,000
272,000
342,000
441,000

..
..
..
..

20,00020,00060,00050,000411,000
455,000
586,000

703,E

781,000
852,000
884,000
993,000

714.000

25,E

74,0001,046,000

1,105,000

910,000
986,000
1,135,000

137,000
225,000
187.000

110,000

1,418,000

1,196,000

121,000
113,000

1,629,000
1,772,000

1,339,E

5,042.000

574,E

568,000

8,020,000

8,747,000

444

337.001,836,000

1,597,000

Little was said in the memorandum about constitutionalquestions as such. It was submitted simply that the `relationshipbetween the State and the Corporation, evolved as a result of[and] that no change
practical experience, is satisfactoryshould be made either in the direction of reducing or of extending the measure of autonomy now enjoyed by the Corporation'.
Two important issues were raised, however, as they had beenin the talks between Fisher, Banks, and Reith. First, the Lord
President of the Council should assume ministerial responsibility, in place of the Postmaster -General, for all matters pertaining to direction and policy arising under the Charter.
Second, if only to make this transfer possible, a clear differentiation should be made between the respective functions of theCharter and the Licence. The Charter should deal with direction...

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

485

and policy; the Licence should deal with matters which the
Postmaster -General had to control and should continue to control by virtue of his powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts
-such matters as the regulation of wireless wavelengths andtraffic and the collection of licence revenue.
The memorandum suggested that the main reason for seeking
to transfer authority over `cultural and general matters' from the
Postmaster -General to the Lord President of the Council was that
it would ensure Cabinet `control' at the highest level. It hinted
that this would be the best way of perpetuating the pattern ofbroadcasting along the lines which had been followed since
1927. 'The Lord President's control should be so expressed as toensure that the Corporation gives an adequate and satisfactory
service, and (e.g.) [a disarming e.g.] to prevent its wholecharacter being changed to the sponsored system of the UnitedStates.'The only other section of special interest related to WirelessExchanges.
These exchanges are numerous abroad [the memorandum
stated], and are increasing in this country. In December 1934, there
were about 318 of them, with 192,707 subscribers. In their comparatively unregulated state the proprietors are in a position materiallyto damage the Corporation's programme policy by taking a large
proportion of programme material from foreign sources (as in fact
they do) and so upsetting the balance upon which the Corporation's
programmes are constructed. They may, for instance, omit talksof one political colour from a series which has been carefullybalanced. [This was probably one of the least likely of contingencies
and was not the BBC's main ground of alarm about the Exchanges.]
The Corporation seeks some measure of control over the programmes
by \Vireless Exchanges and urges that the existing rights held, andrestrictions imposed, by the Post Office, should be maintained andenforced.
tThis short statement of BBC policy, even when backed bya brief supplementary memoranclum,2 did not suffice, but it
provided a most useful background to Reith's oral evidence
to the committee. It also provides, along with memoranda
See above, p. 359.
2*`Supplementary Memorandum', submitted to the Broadcasting Committee.

This Memorandum dealt mainly with the proposed constitutional changes.

486 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

submitted later, a most useful survey for the historian of the
BBC's attitudes in tg35, a kind of summary of much of thematerial which has been set out in detail in previous chapters.
Reith himself, accompanied by Bridgeman and Norman, gaveoral evidence for the first time on 8 May. `I was examined forover two hours and got on quite well, supplying a vast amountof information apparently out of my head and being treated inquite a friendly way until
Selsdon got on to our proposedchanges in the constitution.» All Reith's irritation at his appointment bubbled to the surface, but he was sure that Selsdon's
hostile questioning irritated the members of the committee asmuch as or even more than it irritated him. There were twofurther interviews during the following week, which `tremendously pleased Norman, who thought they went very well'.2 At
these meetings it was agreed that Regional Directors and chief
officials from Broadcasting House should also give evidence.
Reith had no objections to this, although he believed that
Selsdon expected 'to find some criticism of me within theorganisation'.3 Reith also urged the General Advisory Councilof the BBC to give separate evidence, and a sub-committee wasappointed to draft a report. It included Lloyd George, Citrine,
and Beveridge.
The report provided powerful backing for Reith's view that
ministerial responsibility should be transferred to the Lord
President of the Council. `We are convinced that the independence of the Corporation must be fully respected, and we emphasise the importance of' avoiding the assumption-not
uncommonly made on the Continent and in this country-that
the Corporation is an organ or agency of the Government.' The
BBC should be allowed to extend facilities for political discussion-particularly at a time when `political speeches are
hardly reported at all in the popular press. It should be a senior
minister who dealt with whatever criticisms were made in theHouse of Commons, not the Postmaster -General.... On problems connected with universities, higher education and research
generally, the Lord President is now acknowledged as the guid-...

Reith, Diary, 8 May 1935; Into the Wind, p. 227.
Reith, Diary, 15 and 16 May 1935. .1t these meetings it was decided that theCommittee should see the draft Charter and Licence which Reith had discussedwith Banks and Fisher. See *Reith to Fisher, 10 May 1935
1

2

3

Into the Wind, p. 227.

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

487

ing authority of the State. By analogy, as well as owing to theprospective relations of the Corporation with British communities overseas, it would seem fitting that the Lord President
should announce the opinions of the Cabinet, and be the minister
to whom the Corporation can turn for counsel."
On Wireless Exchanges also the report backed Reith vigorously. 'No commercial organisation should be allowed to destroy the unity of programmes, and to introduce elements whichhave hitherto and with public approval been deliberately
excluded. . . . We therefore feel strongly that in future no
Exchange should be allowed to transmit programmes inconsistent with the general policy and principles followed in the programmes of the Corporation [no reference was made here towhat should happen in the BBC's silent hours] and that to thisend the Corporation should be given control over the programme
activities of all Wireless Exchange systems in the United Kingdom. At the same time, we suggest that the technical work of
the Exchanges he undertaken by the Post Off'ice.'2
Among the signatories to this report were William Temple,
as chairman of the General Advisory Council, Beveridge,
Margaret Bondfield, Citrine, Lloyd George, Lord Macmillan,
Lord Rutherford, Arthur Salter, George Bernard Shaw, Sybil
Thorndike, and Lord Tweedsmuir.3 It is not easy to dismiss thislist as a cross-section of the `Establishment' of the I930s.
The BBC officials who gave evidence to the committee did
not provide it with the kind of ammunition that Reith believed
Selsdon wanted. Three Regional Directors were interviewedEdgar, Liveing, and Dinwiddie. Edgar was pointedly asked by
Selsdon whether he would prefer no notes to be taken of hisevidence, but he and the other two Directors vigorously defended
the regional system as it operated at the time.4 Dr. Adrian Boultalso was asked questions about the case for greater decentralization both functionally and geographically. 'Some of us', Ullswater told him, 'feel that there should be a great deal morede -centralisation than there is.... We have rather been snubbed
about that and damped down and told that the thing is not*Report from the General Advisory Council, June t935.

2

Ibid.

Reith had hoped that Lord Tweedsmuir (John Buchan) might he a memberof the Ullswater Committee, but MacDonald said 'he would never do'. Keith adds,'I expected this'. (*Reith to Fisher, 14 Aug. 1934.)
4 Reith, Diary, 14 and 20 June 1935.
3

488 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

possible, and so on, but we cannot help thinking that it ispossible.'
Boult stood up boldly to this leading question and defended
current BBC policy. He had pointed out in his written evidence
that Regional Directors and their Music Directors had always
enjoyed complete freedom to choose the musical programmes
they wished and that they had been under instructions to cooperate as much as possible with musical enterprises within
their regions. The 'big disparity' in the amount of music-otherthan dance music-broadcast from each region was 'in itself
a proof' that these matters were 'left to the discretion of thelocal Directors who decide just what music within their regionalboundaries is fit for broadcasting and what is not'. Midland
Region, he told Ullswater, originated 41 per cent. of its musicalprogrammes, no other region more than 28 per cent. (Northern
Ireland reached that proportion), and West Region originatedas little as 22 per cent. `If these matters were directed from an
office in London, remote and ill-informed of local conditions,'
Boult said, `there would almost certainly be a much greater
degree of uniformity.»
Boult was able to point out that much of the evidence infavour of decentralization came from musicians' organizations.
'The agitation for Regional autonomy obviously has at the backof it the belief that this means a cessation, or at any rate a substantial reduction, in simultaneous broadcasting, which in turnwould mean the broadcasting of more performances by second
and third-rate societies, and more work for the music profession
generally.' Leaving on one side the probability that `autonomous' regional broadcasting would rely on `net -working'devices, Boult unashamedly said that if more work were reallyto be provided, 'the Corporation's programme standards would
go down'. The argument amounted, therefore, to 'a suggestionthat the Corporation should no longer run its service in the bestinterests of the public but that these interests should be subservient to the somewhat narrow interests of the music profession itself'.
It was the music profession, particularly the Incorporated
Society of Musicians, which emerged as one of the fiercest' *Oral examination of Dr. Boult; written evidence submitted to the UllswaterCommittee.

TIIE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

489

critics of the BBC in 1935. There was irony in this in that the
BBC prided itself above almost all else on the contribution it had
made to the diffusion and enjoyment of music.' It was the
charges made by the Incorporated Society of Musicians in what
Reith called 'a monstrous document'z which made the Ullswater Committee feel that they would like to see Boult. 'He so
flabbergasted them by saying at once that other witnesses had
been telling lies,' Reith wrote later, 'that they let it go at that.'3
They did not quite let `regionalism' go as easily as that, andrightly so, for there were important and controversial issues
here which needed to be sorted out. One of the most interestingstatistical tables submitted by the BBC gave details of programme staffing arrangements in London and the provinces toshow that the regions were not under -staffed.;
REGIONS
Midland North

Northern
Ireland

Scottish

[list

Welsh

Total

London

14

I b

16

19

2

2

12

1

I

I

I

t

I

Music
Drama and

4

3

3

3

Features

2

2

2

2

Variety

I

I

I

Talks
Outside

I

I

I

I

Broadcasts

Children's
Hour
Announcers
StudioAssistants

Totals

4
4

I

9
13

1

54
54

1

6

4

5

3

g

t

I

I

I

4

4

2

2

2

2

14

14

II

2

2

2

2

2

2

12

13

14

13

124

124

10!

104

73

78

8

Figures by themselves arc silent, and the most frank accountof the historical record of the BBC's centralization policy and' See above, pp. 171 ff.

Reith, Diary, 20 June 1935. `I saw Watford Davies in the afternoon', Reith
added, 'and he rang up the Secretary [of the I.S.M.1 to get a copy of it, but Eames
refused to give it to him. He sent a wire to the President who signed it, but he had
got no reply by Saturday. This shows what a dirty game they are playing if they
are not prepared to let an es -President of the Society see it.'Into the Wind, p. 229.
4 *Note on the Staffing of the Regions, 24 June 1935.
2

490 ORGANIZ \T1ON: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

the reactions against it was given by Reith himself.' In a memorandum which he used in giving oral evidence, he stressed threepoints-that central control and supervision were quite essential
as part of 'a nation-wide responsibility'; that the Corporation
had `taken full cognisance of the desirability of developing
Regional activities' and had `conferred as great a degree of
independence as is possible or desirable upon its Regional
Directors with a view to this being done'; and that 'the processof Regional devolution has in fact proceeded, and is proceeding,as quickly and as comprehensively as is compatible with efficiency in the broadest sense of the term'.2 He admitted that there
had been far more centralization 'in the early days' than there
was in 1935, for many reasons, not least the need to establish'a settled policy and the beginnings of a tradition of public
service'. Within the previous year, however, regional programme staffs had been practically doubled and 'the quality of
personnel' considerably improved. A new post of Director of
Regional Relations had been appointed 'to develop the policyof independence between the Regions and London'. (Siepmann
did not give evidence.) 'The de facto independence of theRegions' was proceeding, indeed, at a rate which could not be
accelerated `without injury to the interests not only of thecountry as a whole, but of listeners in any of the Regions'.
It was a frank and forceful memorandum, although it said
little about the cultural aspects of the question, and admitted
that it was difficult 'to define precisely the criterion of Regional
activity'. A more precise definition would have been helpful.
Regional Directors, Reith stated, had to be satisfied that local
material possessed local justification, that it was of a kind which
could not be produced elsewhere-there were difficulties ininterpreting this-and that it should conform to the principleof contrasting alternative programmes on which the Regional
Scheme was based. `Contrast' by itself, however, was the mostinadequate of criteria by 1935, nor, as ;ye have seen, was it
always adequately achieved.3
Boult's and Reith's rebuttal of the evidence given by the
Incorporated Society of Musicians-it led into areas far
For the problems associated with the policy, see above, pp. 314 if.
*J. C. W. Keith, undated Note on Regional Policy.
3 See aboye, pp.
51 if.

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

491

removed from music-was part of a pattern of rebuttal whichcharacterized the inquiry. As statements of other people's evidence reached Broadcasting House, 'many of them', Reith
thought, `devoid of foundation or sense', a `document of rejoinder' was prepared.) When the Publishers' Association, forexample, submitted a memorandum, the BBC protested thatit had made a false assumption about future BBC publications policy.2 Finally two sizeable printed memoranda, thefirst of thirty-three pages and the second of ten pages,
dealt with almost all the evidence in turn, hostile, friendly, or
neutral.3
The statements are interesting and cover many points. In
reply to the National Federation of Music Societies it was statedthat 'the Corporation has no desire to monopolise concert giving, and recognises that the concert -giving societies of thecountry have been and ought to remain, the backbone ofmusical culture. The Corporation has therefore avoided unfair
competition and has co-operated whenever and so far as programme and financial limitations will allow.' Sir Thomas
Beecham, who had given evidence complaining that the Corporation's public concerts damaged the enterprise of London
music societies, was said to have presented 'many grave inaccuracies in his evidence'. The Royal Philharmonic Society,by his own admission, had not suffered, and if experience fromthe whole country was taken into account, the number of music
festivals had increased from 15o in 1923 to 220 in 1934 andwithin the previous twelve months twenty new Chamber Music
Societies had been formed. There was no foundation for
Beecham's assertion that the BBC Symphony Orchestra had
made a 'very serious inroad into the volume of work hitherto
done by other orchestras, as the Corporation is most particular
to prevent the acceptance by members of its orchestras of outside engagements which might otherwise accrue to otherorchestras or to individual musicians'.
The evidence from music societies, unions, and musicians
did nothing in Coto to damage the BBC before the Ullswater
Into the Wind; p. 228.
* Rejoinder to Memorandum by the Publishers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland.
}*Rejoinder to Written and Verbal Evidence of Various Parties; Further Rejoinder toWritten and Verbal Evidence of Various Parties.
2

492

ORGANIZATION: TILE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

Committee, and it does nothing in toto to move the historiannearly thirty years later. Behind much of the evidence, which at its
best was evidence not against the BBC but against broadcasting,
was a tacit assumption that all had been well with British music
before the advent of the BBC-a parody of the truth-and that
there was a certain lump of musical activity which had to be
fairly shared out between a number of existing interests. The
BBC was an interloper, and what it did was to disturb theshares. Some of the proposals made by the BBC's critics would
have done great damage to music-the protectionist argument,
for instance, that all those engaged on the 'administration sideof music' should be completely `divorced from all active performance of the art'. This was almost as wild a protectionist remark
as the assertion that Children's Hour broadcasts had destroyed
the sale of children's books.'
Other remarks about music were plain nonsense-the remark,for instance, that it was impossible as a result of the interventionof the BBC to run in one year more than one-third or onefourth of the opera which had been possible previously. How
could this statement be reconciled with the fact that there wasan eight -weeks' season at Covent Garden, a six -months' season
at Sadler's Wells, a five -weeks' season at Glyndebourne, andvarious miscellaneous operatic enterprises? If opera was still
inadequately provided in 1935, it was not because of anythingthat the BBC had done but because of more fundamental causes
far beyond the BBC's control.
Reith's reaction to such remarks was that it would be `salutary' if the critics were given a taste of the American system ofbroadcasting. Indeed, they did not need to look so far. 'An
examination of the International Broadcasting Company's programmes will show whether or not the competition which the
Corporation has to face from sponsored programmes broadcast
in English is likely to raise the stanclard.'2 The I.B.C. itself gave
evidence in 1935 which forced the BBC to state firmly that 'to
concede the claim for a wave-length dedicated to advertisingwould be to upset the broadcasting system as now constituted'.
This was one of the few direct references to arguments that wereto swell in the post-war period. Another reference was made in
2*Rejoinder to Memorandum by the Publishers' Association.
Ibid., p. i8; Into the l l'ind, p. 228. For the work of I.B.C., see above, pp. 352-3.

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

493

reply to a suggestion of Philco Ltd. that there should be limited
hours of sponsored programmes on the American model andthat American programme practice and presentation should be
employed in the peak programmes.
Sponsoring, Philco suggested, was to be limited to `radio
manufacturers of standing', and it vas on this point rather thanon the bigger point of principle that the BBC chose to object.'
It still did not completely rule out sponsoring, although it contended that 'the suggestion that in the compilation of sponsoredprogrammes the final word should rest with the sponsors issurely absurd'.2 Another block of evidence came from variouspress and publishing interests, which at this stage were bitterly
opposed to `commercialism' in broadcasting.3 They were still
anxious, however, to set limits to the BBC's own activities, as
they had done since the early days of' the Company. The BBCreiterated its earlier policy of seeking the co-operation of press
interests, while at the same time safeguarding the developing
interests of its own listeners. 'The Corporation is ready to cooperate with the Empire Press Union as hitherto', it declared,'and has no desire to prejudice the activities of the overseaspress. At the same time the Corporation does not wish to haveits news bulletins stripped of all human interest. It is denied
that the broadcasting of news bulletins damages the press .. .
and the suggestion that news bulletins should not contain lastminute news is unacceptable.' On publications, the BBCstrongly objected to a suggestion of the Periodical Trades
Press that the BBC should confine itself entirely to the `spoken
word'. `Broadcasting created new demands and its publications
are an integral part of the broadcasting service. It is suggestedby the Corporation that private enterprise cannot meet thiswant in so consistent, reliable and disinterested a fashion as thenational organisation, which has special knowledge and whichin its programme planning takes account of the complementarypart that the publications play.'' *The Managing Director of Philco wrote to Reith on 12 June 1935 enclosing
a copy of the Philco written evidence. 'You will recall that some two years ago I
wrote to you in the same strain', he told Reith, 'but I am sure that you willappreciate that the suggestions we have made are solely dictated by what we
consider to be best for the community at large.'
2 *Rejoinder to Written and Verbal Evidence of Various Parties, p. 28.
3 See above; p. 359.

491 ORGANIZATION: THE GRO\\ TII OF AN INSTITUTION

On what Nvas probably the most contentious of all the issues
in 1935, that of the future of the Wireless Exchanges, there wasa sharp confrontation of views. After the failure to reach agreement both with the Wireless Exchange companies and the Post
Office on this question,' much time was spent on seeking toformulate an intelligent policy not for the present but for the
future. At the back of the policy was invincible suspicion. 'Each
exchange may increase to the stature of a BBC in miniature, andfurthermore the possibility must be visualised of several enlarged
exchanges being merged under a single financial control. Concerns with sufficient capital would be in a position to buy timeon the several continental stations which will sell it, and produce
their own programmes abroad on the existing American system .'z
The Post Office seemed less concerned about the growth ofrelay listening than the BBC, and there were times when Post
Office officials suggested that the Corporation was making'a great bother about a little matter'.; In October 1933, however, Jardine Brown produced a paper once again suggesting
joint control of the Wireless Exchanges by the Post Office andthe BBC. 'The Post Office has a new Public Relations Department under Sir Stephen Tallents', Jardine Brown added, `whichmight be readily adapted to look after Wireless Exchanges.'4
Ashbridge thought that the BBC might take over all existing
Exchanges of appreciable size 'only if the Post Office were prepared to carry out the work of installing and maintaining thewiring and possibly the collection of the weekly subscriptions'.5
He set out powerful arguments against the BBC being drawn
into the venture, but added on the other side that `we may haveto face the fact that the Post Office may gradually relax theirregulations in order to satisfy various political influences. Again,
various municipal bodies may get control of exchanges andendeavour to obtain the right to broadcast local politics direct
to exchange listeners.' This had seemed to be the issue at stakein 1933 when the Middlesbrough Corporation introduced a billwhich, inter alia, empowered the Corporation to run a relay
exchange. The relevant clauses were defeated on a free vote in
See above, p. 359.
2 BBC rear Book
(1933), P. 72.
*Notes on an interview between L. Simon and R. B. Solomon.
4 'Memorandum on Wireless Exchanges, to Oct. 1933.
N. \shbridge, 'Wireless Exchanges', 8 Nov. 1933.
3

TILE ULLS\VATER COMMITTEE

495

the House of Commons by 144 votes to 48. The Labour Party
opposed the deletion, but it was perhaps more significant that
Kingsley Wood gave no lead to Conservatives.'
A. M. Lyons, a Conservative back-bencher who moved thedeletion of the clauses, argued that the Relay Exchange system
would lead to `unbalanced programmes',2 and Lord Mount
Temple, moving deletion in the Lords, spelt this out more fully.
'The Wireless Exchange may, and probably will, completely
upset [BBC] balance. Either the exchange may broadcast an
excessive amount of entertainment, to the detriment of theentertainment industry, or it may broadcast an excessive
amount of one-sided controversial matter. The capitalist companies may select only items which express their economic views,
and the Socialist municipalities those items which further collectivism.'3 It is not certain how much views of this kind determined the ultimate vote. More stress was laid by most speakers
on unfair competition with private enterprise. All similar Corporation Bills failed, and interestingly enough their opponents
included the existing privately owned Relay Exchanges.4
BBC policy in 1935, when the Ullswater Committee was considering the question, continued to rest on the case for regulationin the interests of public service. Wireless Exchanges wereadmitted to have `public value', yet their owners had po\.er,'by substituting transmissions from abroad in place of items of
the Corporation's programmes, to alter entirely the generalspirit of the BBC's programme policy. They can, for instance,
select the lighter items from British programmes and replacetalks and other informative matter with light relays fromabroad, thereby reducing programmes to the level of entertainment interest only. The BBC has always regarded entertainment
as an important part of its work, but it has declined to devote
its programmes entirely to amusement. This policy has been
upheld by public opinion, and has already resulted in an
acknowledged improvement in public taste.'S
The existing system, the BBC suggested, was unstable. Small
Exchanges might be linked together. There might even be
See Broadcasting, A Study in Monopoly, p. 82.
3 Ibid., vol. 87, col. 188.
Hansard, vol. 280, cols. 98-gg.
4 Broadcasting, A Study in Monopoly, pp. 82 83.
5 *Wireless Exchanges, Amplifying Memorandum supplied at the request of the2

Broadcasting Committee.

496 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

unified financial control. 'A Press magnate, or other personwith large finances, may obtain control of the whole system,
artificially popularise it by relaying as far as possible amusement
programmes only, and then use it to mould public opinion tohis own way of thinking by a discriminating selection of programme items.' He might claim that he was acting in the causeof freedom, although the freedom in which he was interested
was not freedom for the individual but freedom for the relay
management. Even if such dangers were not to materialize,
there was always the possibility of collusion between advertisers
and Exchange owners. `Exchange managements can contend
that what they give is what their subscribers want; but thematter may actually be determined by what the managements
receive as a consideration.'
Successful regulation of the system depended, the BBC argued,on tightening Post Office limitations and vesting control of programmes in the BBC. In other words, the BBC was seeking thesame arrangement which Jardine Brown had advocated in 1933
-close co-operation between BBC and Post Office. There was
one sop. 'The Corporation would be willing, within practicallimits, to allow Exchanges to be connected direct by wire to theappropriate BBC Control Room (at the expense of the Exchanges), which would give subscribers an interference -freeservice.'
The Relay Services Association, which had been registeredin April 1934 and claimed to represent go per cent. of WirelessExchange proprietors, stated a diametrically opposed point ofview. It claimed that the relay system was much more efficientand economical than the scattering of individually owned wireless sets, and that the Postmaster -General should give it greater
freedom to develop in private hands. The threat of compulsory
purchase should be withdrawn, and the service should be recognized as 'a natural concomitant of the operations of the BBC'.
The BBC should supply it with programme details well inadvance, and there should be direct land -lines between BBC
stations and Exchanges. Perfect reception of BBC programmes
would wean subscribers away from foreign programmes, butthere should be continued freedom to transmit foreign programmes and, indeed, to originate local programmes relating tolocal affairs. The Postmaster -General already had power toTHE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

497

veto absolutely the relaying of any particular programme, andthe owners of Exchanges were prohibited by their Post Officelicence from receiving any money or other consideration fromany person for the distribution to the subscribers of any programme or message received by the station. In other words,
there was adequate ultimate control.

The BBC queried a great many of the statements issued
by the Relay Services Association and prepared a detailed`rebuttal' of some of the points. In addition to this work ofsubmitting criticism and counter -evidence, care was taken,
particularly by Reith, to secure positive support of BBC policy
from outside bodies, including government departments. It was
at his suggestion, for example, that the Board of Education gave
evidence. `I went to the Board of Education at twelve and wasthere for one -hour-and -a -half', Reith wrote in his diary on
18 June. He saw there the President of the Board and the Chief
Inspector and `stimulated them' into appearing.' A few days
earlier he had spent two and a half hours at Transport House
talking to the T.U.C. about its evidence.2
Reith always considered that work of this kind was a basic
task for the Director -General. The best case, as he saw it, stillneeded the most careful handling. Public relations could not beleft to chance. Soon after the committee had begun its meetings
he lunched with Mrs. Hamilton and Attlee, who told him thatno damage was being clone to the BBC by 'the procession of
more or less hostile and axe -grinding witnesses'.3 He talked
to McClintock at an interesting and enjoyable party given byLord Beaverbrook.4 With Welch he had a running correspondence, making it clear from the outset that 'a little encouragement would do both us and the cause a lot of good' `about themost we ever get in newspapers is something rather patronising
to the effect that on the whole the BBC has discharged its
responsibility with commendable vision and efficiency.' `As I
said, one gets rather bored at times.'s Such exchanges continued,
and towards the end of the year, when the Report was completed, he had a long and informal chat with Lady Reading.6:

Reith, Diary, 18 June 1935.
Ibid., 19 June 1935.
S*Reith to Welch, 24 June 1935.
e 199a'3

Ibid., 7 June '935.
Ibid., 4. July 1935.
6 Reith, Diary,
6 Dec. 1935.
4

K

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTIONHe also gave evidence once more in the middle of July before
the summer adjournment. Selsdon tried to move him on the
Lord President issue. `It was the voice of Kingsley Wood as well
as of Mitchell -Thomson', Reith believed.' By the end of theyear he was suspecting Selsdon even more. 'He is against ourhaving Wireless Exchanges and is playing a dirty game about
Luxembourg and advertising generally.'2 Other rumours fromthe committee were that Attlee was insisting on the publicationof BBC accounts in full-this goaded Reith into sending him
a note about the importance of freedom in the management of498

public corporations3-ancl that both Attlee and other members
were worried about staffing arrangements. There were press
rumours about Reith also. The one that annoyed him most wasa Daily Mail report that he had asked the Ullswater Committee
to combine his post with that of Chairman. 'Not only untrue,' hecommented, 'but I completely disapprove of this combination.'4
Waiting for a committee report requires patience. By the endof August 1935 Reith heard that the Report was circulating indraft.s It was not until December, however, one clay before
Christmas, that he received a copy of the Report a few months
before it appeared. `It gives us all we want', he wrote, 'but it isa wretched document with several silly and annoying things init; also the summary is deplorably misleading.'6 Within a few
months, this initial reaction had taken far more precise form.
A great debt of gratitude, the 53-hage Report began, wasowed to the wisdom which founded the BBC 'in its present
form' and 'to the prudence and idealism which have characterized its operations and enabled it to overcome the manydifficulties which surround a novel and rapidly expanding
public service'. The constitution of the BBC had been taken asa model in other countries and there was no reason for changing
it in any of its significant clauses. 'Our recommendations are
directed towards the further strengthening and securing of theposition which the broadcasting service of Great Britain has
happily attained in the few years of its history.'?
Reith, Diary, 6 Dec. 1935.
Reith, Diary, to Sept. 1935.
6 Ibid., 24 Dec. 1935.
5
Ibid., 23 Aug. 1935.
7 Crud. 5091 (1936). Report of the Broadcasting Committee, § 7, `General Approval'.
3

Into the Wind, p. 229.
Ibid., 17 July 1935; Into the 117ind, p. 229.

2+

THE ULLS\VATER COMMITTEE

499

This was a good start, although Reith was not mentioned
personally, as Mrs. Hamilton was to tell him, at any point in
the Report.' The Charter, the Report went on, should be
extended for ten years. Governors, as Reith had always argued,
should not be specialists or representatives of particular interests
or localities. Some of them, however, might be younger, particularly when 'new scientific developments' were constantly
occurring and `changes of opinion and practice' were so rapidthat 'each successive generation is brought up in a different
world of experience'.2 This sounds more like the comment ofold men regretting their youth than of young men seeking
power. There might be seven Governors instead of five, theReport continued, but they should not interfere too closely withthe work of the BBC's own officials. They had a joint responsibility, 'not divided for purposes of departmental supervision',and they were to `leave the execution of ... policy and the generaladministration of the service in all its branches to the executive
officers'.3

Within the Corporation, there was scope for continuing
regional devolution. Instead of criticizing under this heading,the committee chose to welcome trends which were alreadyapparent within the BBC. 'The position of the Regional Directors in relation to Broadcasting House has just been strengthened by the appointment of a Director of Regional Relations.
We approve the gradual enlargement of their responsibilities,
subject to the maintenance of a consistent policy for the service
as a whole and to ultimate control by the Corporation itself anda very small group of its highest officers whose duties are ofnational scope.'4 The extreme case for `regionalism' \x asrejected. `Listeners are by no means exclusively interested intheir own districts.' This and other factors affected 'the proportion of Regional programme time' which could with advantage
be devoted to material of local origins
On staffing questions, which had been of particular interest
to Attlee, the committee accepted the verdict of the Barker/Mair
Report that there was a fair field and no favour in recruitment. Posts had been filled with sole regard to the capacity andpromise of the candidates. Major staff appointments should,'
3

Reith, Diary, 6 Jan. 1936.
Ibid., §16.

4

2
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, § 12.
a Ibid.. §23.
Ibid., § 21.

500 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

however, he advertised in the future, and appointments madeon the recommendations of a specially constituted Selection
Board. Facilities should also be granted for a representative
organization of the staff if they should wish it. 'As the BBC is oneof a number of new and recently created forms of public institution standing between Government Departments on the one
hand and commercial undertakings on the other, its practice
may have some influence in each of these directions and belooked upon as a pattern for future institutions.»
The BBC's suggestions about constitutional changes wereapproved in general terms, although with far less precision thanthe BBC had stated the case in its own memoranda. Managerial
independence in the conduct of daily business was taken for
granted, and it was accepted that overall responsibility for 'thecultural side of broadcasting' should be transferred from the
Postmaster -General to 'a senior member of the Government .. .
free from heavy Departmental responsibilities'. The Lord President of the Council was not, however, mentioned by name.
'We refrain from specifying any individual office and we thinkthat it should rest with the Prime Minister to select a suitable
Minister for the purpose.'z
As for finance, after the Post Office had covered costs, i5 percent. of the remaining revenue from wireless licences should go
to the BBC for purposes other than television, and the balanceshould be available if it was required. Only if all broadcasting
expenses had been covered, should any surplus go to the State.
These proposals followed very closely an additional memorandum on finance which had been submitted to the committeeby the BBC. Capital expenditure, the committee ent on, shouldbe paid for out of revenue, as in the past, but borrowing powers
should be increased to £I million. On the question of the form inwhich the Corporation presented its annual accounts, the committee upheld the reticence of the BBC in face of much adverse
criticism. 'We accept the view that publication of details(whether of payments to individual artists or of staff salaries or of
any other category of expenditure) would tend to impair independence of day-to-day management and would serve nouseful purpose unless Parliament wished to withdraw that independence from the Board of Governors and to establish instead
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, § 30.

2

Ibid., § 53.

THE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

501

a system of direct control as in the case of a Government
Department.' After all, the Corporation's accounts, despite all
the adverse criticism, were open to investigation at any time by
the responsible Minister. They had also been kept in `complete
form and good order', and all that was needed in addition in the
future was a slight breaking down of sub -headings and subtotals.
A long section on programmes followed before brief separate
sections on Empire broadcasting, television, and WirelessExchanges. `Having regard to the immense number of listeners,
the infinite variety of taste, and the many types of programmehich are being broadcast at all times', the balance of programmes was right. More freedom should be permitted in relation to the broadcasting of news, and although it was necessary,as in the past, for the Corporation to refrain from broadcasting
its own opinions by way of editorial comment on current affairs,
it was `vital' that there should be a `strong and impartial editorial
staff'. Television had to be free from restrictions as to hours, and
it is possible that at some future date news bulletins would hewanted 'at times when they are not now given'. Above all, `controversial topics should continue to be discussed'. `If broadcasting is to present a reflection of its time, it must include matterswhich are in dispute. If it is to hold public interest, it must
express living thought. If it is to educate public opinion, it must
look upon the questions of the hour from many angles.'=
Further points were made about political broadcasts, music,
and schools broadcasting, but there was nothing about talks,
drama, variety, or light entertainment. The numerous critics ofthe BBC's music policy were given no encouragement. 'We
support the policy of a [úl1 development of studio performancesby the BBC orchestras', the committee affirmed, 'and their
judicious use in public concerts not necessarily confined to
London, together with the relaying of the best performances ofoutside organisations in any important class of music.'3 Broadcasting could serve 'as one of the strongest forces aiding theactive cultivation of music generally'. Schools broadcasting had
proved its value, and the councils concerned with it `should begiven independent status, with power to determine the school
educational programme to be broadcast and the ancillary
Ibid., §75.

2

Ibid., §85.

3

Ibid., §96.

502

ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

leaflets and pamphlets to be issued'.' Receiving apparatus
should be part of the basic equipment of every school.
areDirect advertising should continue to be banned. 'We
most anxious that the intellectual and ethical integrity which
the broadcasting system in this country has attained should bepreserved.'2 Sponsored programmes, however, should not bebanned, provided that they were used `discreetly'. `While recommending the continuance of the power, we hope that any
increase in its use will be limited to the initial stages of Television
broadcasting.'3 Foreign commercial broadcasting should be discouraged by every available means, although it was `obviousthat co-operation \vith all foreign countries' was `necessary to
make the policy internationally eflective'.4
Finally, the Empire Service should be expressly authorized
and developed, and 'in the interest of British prestige andinfluence in world affairs, the appropriate use of languages
other than English should be encouraged'.3 Television also
should be provided with necessary funds, since 'no hard andfast line can be drawn between Television broadcasting expenditure and ordinary broadcasting expenditure'.6 `Ownership andoperation of Relay Exchanges should be undertaken by the
Post Office and the control of their programmes by the Corporation.'7 On all these matters, the Corporation's case was acceptedin Coto. In relation to publications also, the committee found theexisting system quite satisfactory. 'The BBC has hitherto
observed reasonable limits in the exercise of its powers and wehave no reason to suppose that it will do otherwise.'$Favourable as the Report was to the BBC, there were anumber of private reservations. McClintock, pro -BBC, argued
that as there had been no criticism of BBC capital expenditurein the past, the BBC should not have to submit capital schemes
to Parliament in the future.9 Selsdon, pro -Wireless Exchanges,
held that they should not be owned by the Post Office or theirprogrammes controlled by the BBC. 'The owner of an ordinary
wireless set has-within the limits of the power and selectivityof his set-full freedom to receive BBC or foreign programmes
at will, and I do not see why, within reasonable limits, a similar

...

'
4

7

2
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, § 102.
S
Ibid., §I22.
Ibid., § 14.

Ibid., §13-1-

8Ibid., §137.

Ibid., § iog.

7

Ibid., § i r.
r

Ibid., § 128.
9 Ibid., p. 52.
6

TILE ULLSWATER COMMITTEE

503

freedom should not be vicariously enjoyed by subscribers to
exchanges.» Obviously, Selsdon had been left unmoved when
BBC witnesses had talked of different kinds of freedom. His
philosophy had little in common with that of the BBC. `Afterall, the relay Companies, if they are to succeed, must give their
public what that public wants and, in trying so to do, they havethe advantage that, by measuring the relative loads, they canestimate with some approximation to accuracy how many of
their subscribers are listening at any given moment to one orother of two alternative programmes.'
Elton, Astor, and Graham White wanted to see sponsoredprogrammes disappear completely, even as far as the earlystages of television were concerned. 'The costs of a public service
such as Television should he met out of public funds.'z They
foresaw a 'real danger that advertisement may intrude itself
over the whole range of BBC programmes' and believed that
'this would be contrary both to the public interest and to thewishes of a great majority of listeners'. Attlee did not sign thisreservation. He concentrated rather on party questions than on
general questions of public policy. It was undesirable that
Governors should be drawn solely from persons whose social
experience and background was that of the well-to-do classes.
(This had never been a problem.) It was necessary inside the
BBC that 'the Staff should he given full opportunities for ventilating any grievances collectively, that the BBC should definitely
recognise the right of every employee to join an appropriate
union, and that a proper system of consultation and collective
agreement should be instituted'. (These matters, however
important, created relatively little interest inside the BBC.)In political broadcasting, although the BBC had endeavoured
to hold the scales even between the various political parties,
there had been outstanding instances to the contrary. During
the economic and political crisis of 1931, there had been tendentious talks supporting the National government. Even in the
General Strike the BBC had been `used' to back the governmentof the day. Attlee does not seem to have carried out muchresearch on these questions, but his general line of argumentthat 'the BBC should have sufficient independence to resist
Ibid., p. 53.
2

I

bid., p. 48.

504 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

being made the instrument of one side in a national controversy'
corresponded very closely to BBC objectives.'
When Reith read the Report, he saw much of this kindthat appealed to him, but he has admitted that he felt little
enthusiasm. The summary, as he realized, was too brief andsuperficial to be sustaining. Christmas 1935, therefore, was not
a very happy time for him. `I went through ít all [the Report]
critically, hypercritically; made a hundred notes where thewording might have been different; eliminated ninety andwrote a memorandum for the Governors about the residual ten .'2
The Governors were pleased with the Report, yet by the timethey had read Reith's careful memorandum they must havebeen conscious of the fact that he felt that Ullswater and hiscolleagues had not recognized how much British broadcasting
had owed to his energy and independence. The Ullswater
Report suggested no drastic changes in the life of the BBC, but
it hinted, for those who had eyes to read and ears to hear, that
one day drastic changes might come.

5. After Ullswater
WHEN the Ullswater Report reached Reith, Kingsley Woodwas no longer Postmaster -General and Ramsay MacDonald
was no longer Prime Minister. There were substantial Cabinet
changes in June 1935, following an exchange of posts between
Baldwin and MacDonald. From the BBC's standpoint thechanges marked more than a reshuffle, for Kingsley Wood left
the Post Office for the Ministry of Health, almost taking Banks
with him. Wood was replaced by Major Tryon, a less adept
politician and a less ambitious Postmaster-General. He soon
took the opportunity of telling Reith that `the personal publicity
which his predecessor had indulged in was not at all in his line'.3
The new government was confirmed in power at the General
Election of October 1935, in which the BBC played a prominent
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, pp. 48-51.
Into the Wind, p. 247. Of his first toy comments 103 were critical. Tallents,
Diary, 6 Jan. 1936 (Tallents Papers).
3 Reith, Diary, 25 June 1935.
1

2

AFTER ULLSIVATER

505

part. Indeed, while the Ullswater Committee was still sitting,
Reith sent Welch a note of the political arrangements the BBC
had made.'
The change of government was followed by the death of King
George V in January 1936, only a few months after his Silver
Jubilee. On both these occasions, days of mourning and daysof rejoicing, the BBC enhanced its national prestige. 'The mostpotent means of unifying behaviour', a long and detailed Mass
Observation Report on Jubilee Day remarked, 'was the broadcasting of the ceremony and processions and of the King's
speech. It meant that a very high proportion of the population
spent the day listening in and thus partaking in the central
events.'2 As for the days of illness and mourning, it was a wireless phrase which perfectly caught and still evokes the moodStuart Hibberd's memorable rendering of the bulletin signedby the doctors, 'The King's life is moving peacefully towards
its close'.3

The Ullswater Report was published on 16 March 1936, andwas hailed at once as a further tribute to the BBC. At Reith's
suggestion Tallents, the recently appointed Controller (Public
Relations), saw Beaverbrook and found that he was `strongly
with the BBC'.4 'Now the test is over', the Daily Express commented, 'and the BBC emerges triumphant. There should llave
been a twenty years' Licence extension instead of ten. The
constitution of the BBC, '\ hich combines the best elements ofpublic and private control, has in fact served as a model in someforeign countries; in others which have followed different paths,
the contrast is all in favour of the British system.'s Newspapersof quite different political views took the same line. So did The
Times, which noted that the fact that the Ullswater Committee
took the BBC's existence so much for granted was the highest
tribute that could be paid.6 'You have certainly achieved avery friendly press these days', Dawnay wrote to Tallents? `I*Reith to Welch, Nov. 1935.
Mass Observation, May the Twelfth (1937), p. 267.
J See S. Hibberd, This-is London, p. 125. Large numbers of letters poured into
the BBC saying how well `broadcasting was managed' on this occasion, yet since
the public never agrees about broadcasting at times like these there was also a
critical minority. See a letter to The Times from C. G. Graves, 27 Jan. 1936.
4 Note by Tallents, 12 Mar. 1936 (Tallents Papers).
4 The Times, 17 Mar. 1936.
s Daily Express, 17 Mar. 1936.
7 Letter from Dawnay to Tallents, 16 Mar. 1936 (Tallents Papers).
'

21506 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

think we have had as good a press ... as we could reasonably
expect', Tallents replied. 'No monopoly can expect to be loved."
It was left to the Spectator, fulfilling the proper function of aweekly, to write, `There is no need to praise again the virtuesof the BBC, they are too well known. But is the note of selfsatisfaction not a little too strong?'2
This last criticism, which was quite exceptional, was directed
not so much at the Ullswater Report as at a press statement
which the BBC had had time to prepare between Christmas
1935 and March 1936. This statement, written by Reith, wasgiven to the press a quarter of an hour after the Report cameout. Fifty reporters were present when Tallents issued the
document) It noted the endorsement by the committee of theconstitution and work of the BBC and the approval of the committee for 'all the major points' in the BBC's recommendations,but went on, as Reith liad done privately, to complain of
the summary, which, 'if read without continuous reference
to the text', might prove 'in several places misleading'. There
were also points in the Report itself, the document went on,`which, while made as part of a declared policy of strengthening
and securing the existing position', might have 'a contrary effect'.
Fifteen specific points were made. Ten years was too shorta period of Charter extension. There was no need to have more
Governors: `Collective wisdom does not grow with numbers,
and a small Board is generally more efficient than a large one.'
Arrangements for the appointment of staff, at least since thetime of the Barker-Maim inquiry, had been satisfactory and there
was no need for further changes. `There will always be a considerable percentage of appointments which it would be uselessto advertise' and 'the compulsory addition of a Civil Service
Commission representative or of an independent member to
BBC Appointments Boards as the Committee had recommenclecí]4 would be incompatible with its independent status
and productive of no good results.'
There was still no pressure from inside the BBC for the formation of a staff association, and a recommendation in thefLetter from Tallents to Dawnay, 20 Mar. 1936 (Tallents Papers).
Spectator, 20 Mar. 1936.
3*`Observations by the Board of Governors of the BBC on the Report of the
Broadcasting Committee.'
Report of the Broadcasting Committee, §§ 34 and 35 and Summary (d).
'2

AFTER ULLS\VATER

507

Report that BBC staff `should be free from any control by the
Corporation over their private lives" was unwarranted. 'The
Corporation does not concern itself with the private lives of its
employees, except in so far as their personal conduct affects
or may affect the performance of their duties as servants of the
Corporation. The State itself is not indifferent to the private
activities of those who serve it. No good prívate employer canafford to disregard conduct of an employee which may affectthe efficiency of himself or his colleagues, or the good respectof hís concern. Still less can such a public authority as the BBC
with a service whose activities enter the great majority of thehomes of the country, disregard such conduct.' This was thefullest statement that the BBC had ever made on this thorny
subject. It ended with the words, `Every such case which the
Corporation feels obliged to consider-and in thirteen years
there have been very few-is examined individually and sympathetically on its merits.'
Objection was also taken to a clause in the Report dealing
with the BBC's attitude to critics. The committee had rightly
directed attention to the danger of a monopoly excluding
critics of BBC programmes from ever obtaining engagements
to broadcast. This has always been the strongest kind of argument against the BBC's monopoly of broadcasting, and thecommittee wanted the BBC to 'make ít clear that ít welcomes
criticism and that on no consideration would it exclude any
person from an opportunity of engagement merely because hehad expressed adverse opinions on its activities'.z The BBC
replied, a little tartly, that it welcomed criticism, and quitedeliberately brought critics to the microphone if only to protect
itself against those who sought to create for themselves 'a
nuisance value'. There were instructions, however, that theemployment of critics was to be judicious lest the critics feltthat the BBC was trying to ingratiate itself with them or that asure way to be invited to broadcast was to be unpleasant about
the Corporation. Perhaps it would have been more helpful
here if the point of principle had been taken more directly.
On advisory committees, the BBC was doubtful whether it
was necessary to extend the system throughout all the regions;and on capital expenditure, McClintock's reservation was fully
Ibid., § 39 and Summary (d).

2

Ibid., §40 and Summary (d).

508 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

endorsed. 'An obligation to submit annually to Parliament the
major items of contemplated capital expenditure would, as Sir
William McClintock states, tie the BBC's hands and involve an
undesirable encroachment on its independence, which elsewhere the Committee seem anxious to preserve and to which
the Corporation attaches the utmost importance.' On politicalbroadcasting there was a tilt at Attlee's personal note, a quite
deserved tilt. 'The dissatisfaction expressed in Mr. Attlee's
Reservation with the opportunities afforded to members of his
Party was at least equalled by that of his opponents.' Finallyor rather with a warm welcome for the committee's suggestions
about Wireless Exchanges conveniently following it and bringing
the document to a close-there was a reaffirmation of the Corporation's Sunday policy. `Sunday programmes have been progressively lightened, and the process continues. The Corporation
knows, however, that there are great numbers of listeners who
desire that the character of the Sunday programmes should not
be assimilated to those of weekdays.'
Before the government announced its views on the Ullswater
Report, there were questions and answers in Parliament anda not unexciting debate, during which both the Report itself
and the BBC's comments on it provided ample material for
discussion and argument.
Sir Percy Harris, Liberal member for Bethnal Green, asked
the Postmaster -General in March why an `interested party' liad
been allowed to see the Report and make comments on it
before it had been submitted to Parliament first. Tryon repliedthat the Broadcasting Committee was a departmental committee, not a Committee of the House, and that as soon as its
recommendations were known he had considered it essential'to consult the BBC in order to facilitate the Government's consideration of certain recommendations of the Committee'. He
resisted further pressure from H. B. Lees -Smith, Sir Archibald
Sinclair, and other supplementary questioners who pressed thepoint. 'The Report was not handed to the BBC for their information', he said neatly, 'but to obtain information.»Indeed, although lie did not tell time House so, a small Cabinet
committee had already been appointed to `brood on' theHansard, vol. 310, col. 53.

AFTER ULLSWATER

509

Report. It consisted of Sir ,John Simon, the Home Secretary,
as chairman, Neville Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (when he was required or available), Sir Kingsley
Wood, Oliver Stanley, the President of the Board of Education,
Ormsby -Gore, the First Commissioner of Works, and Tryon.
Malcolm MacDonald was added when Empire broadcasting
was discussed.

Tryon began by stating his own view to the committee that
the Ullswater Report had been right in concluding that there
should be no radical change in the existing system and That
any modifications should be directed to strengthening andsecuring it. He also supported the BBC's proposal that whenever government guidance 'or control' of the BBC was needed,
it could best be exercised by a Cabinet minister of high rank intouch with Cabinet policy and with full access to the mostsecret information. He did not believe, however, that the Charter could be renewed for a longer period than ten years. Attlee
was against a long renewal, and the House would obviously
divide on the proposition.
The House discussed the Report on 29 April 1936 with nogovernment statement to guide them. It was an unsatisfactory
debate in which more heat was generated than light. Lees Smith, for the Labour Opposition, said that the experiment ofrunning broadcasting by a public corporation had been fully
vindicated. There was great need, however, for the BBC toreform its staffing and to establish representative staff associations. The point was taken up with vehemence by later speakers,
particularly by Sir Stafford Cripps, who referred to the Lambert-Levita case which was then sub judice. 'What right havethey [the BBC] to use their economic power over Lambert',
he asked, 'to make him discontinue an action against Mr. X?'
The BBC was likened to 'an unlimited dictatorial autocracy',
one member going so far as to add (a few months later) that it
had become 'an autocracy which had outgrown the original
autocrat. It is a despotism in decay, and it bears all the marksof that autocracy.» Rumours of the wildest kind were freely
circulated on the floor of the House, driving Reith to comment-`incredible credulity; serene malignity'.2 One newspaper,2

Ibid., c01. 311, col. 974; vol. 318, col. 2740.
Info the I Vind. p. 199.

510 ORGANIZATION: THE GRO\\TH OF AN INSTITUTION

which had been highly critical of the BBC, expressed much thesame kind of reaction. 'To criticise, freely and frankly, thepolicy of administration of a public servant is the right of
democracy. To make hím an object of savage attack is altogether wrong. Such attack dishonours public service, reduces
its prospects of recruiting able men, and plays into the handsof vested interests in constant search of opportunity to convert
public services into private monopolies."
Apart from vituperation and platitude, the House had little
to offer. '1 he Front Bench was silent, and Wavell Wakefield,
one of the few speakers to touch on a main point at issue, theWireless Exchanges and their future, was himself a director of
one of the largest national relay concerns. Only one speaker,
Richard Law, directed the debate from talk of personal dictatorship to possible dangers of the BBC exercising a `cultural
dictatorship', and he cut little ice. `Are we to understand', heasked, 'that the only way in which the Corporation can achievea balanced and good programme is to have everybody in the
country listening to the BBC's programme, and nothing else
all the time?' Law wanted the Relay Exchanges to be `free' tobroadcast what they wished. `It is not a question of whether the
programmes are good or bad, but it is undesirable that any one
body should have the power, not only to say what should hebroadcast in this country, but to say what should be listened to,
not by the country as a whole, but merely by the poor and lessfortunate listeners.'2
It is doubtful whether the government was influenced one
way or the other by any of the speeches in the debate. Thereis evidence that Kingsley Wood's own view coincided with thatof Richard Law on the `freedom' of the Relay Exchange proprietor to broadcast just what he wished, and that he agreed
with members who had criticized BBC staff conditions. The
Cabinet Committee must have agreed not to inform the BBCof its plans, for when Norman and Keith went to see 'Tryon afortnight after the debate he gave them no information concerning what the government proposed to do. Instead, he produced a six -page document about detailed Nvork inside the
BBC and asked for comments. It was not until June 1936 thatthe government's White Paper was issued.
'

Quoted in Into the lt'ind, p. 248.

2

Hansard, vol. 311, col. +oo8.

AFTER ULLS\ATER

511

Most of the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee
were accepted, but not all of them.' The proposal that WirelessExchanges should be taken over technically by the Post Officeand executively by the BBC was shelved. In other words,
Selsdon's reservation counted for more than the committee's
Report on this matter. The licences of the Exchanges were to
be renewed for another three years, that is to say until 31
December 1939, and in the meantime the Post Office was toundertake experimental work on wire broadcasting. Two new
conditions were to be attached, however, to the relay companies' licences. First, the Exchanges had to reach 'a reasonable
standard of efficiency in technical and other aspects'. Second,
those Exchanges which distributed two programmes had to
distribute a BBC programme as one of them when the BBC
was on the air.
The proposal that a senior minister, such as the Lord President, should be responsible for policy matters concerning the
BBC which were raised in Parliament, was also turned clown.
This proposal had had a poor press, many of the newspapers
claiming that it would tie the BBC politically and make it seem
both at home and abroad more like a government department.
Most of the criticism along this line was based on ignorance ofthe fact that it was the BBC itself which had made the proposal
initially. It was no less effective criticism for all that. 'This
Cabinet Minister', wrote the Morning Post, `will soon come toregard the BBC as his Department. Then goodbye to the
independence and the cultural entertainment of wireless.'2 'Not
everybody would relish the idea of intimate political control
under a functionary who \could resemble in a suspicious degreea Minister of Propaganda', wrote the Western Mail.3
The other points of difference between the Ullswater Report
and the government's White Paper were only minor ones,
although the ban on `editorializing' was to be applied to publications as well as to programmes-in fact, publications always
had been treated in this way-and `sponsored' programmes as
Nvell as direct advertising were to be excluded. The press madelittle of these points, concentrating almost exclusively on staff' Cmd. 5207 (1936), Broadcasting: Memorandum by the Postmaster-General on theReport of the Broadcasting Committee.
2

Morning Post, 17 Mar. 1936.

3

Western Mail, 18 Mar. 1936.

512 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

difficulties and losing much of the `equability' which it had
shown when the Report itself first appeared. On this occasion
Reith was annoyed with Tallents. `It seems to me that we have
had an extraordinarily unsatisfactory press.... We have hada very raw deal from the government and there is only one
paper of any importance-and perhaps only one of any sortwhich realizes this.' He ended with the question, 'Can you layplans against this sort of thing in future?'1
After a further debate in the House of Commons in July
1936, with a somewhat milder atmosphere than had characterized the debate in April, Government and BBC set to workon the final draft of the Charter and Licence. Although the
Corporation had submitted drafts at the beginning of the Ullswater inquiry, these were not used as the basis for the new
documents and everything had to start again. Yet just because
the new Director -General of the Post Office, Sir Thomas
Gardiner, who had replaced Banks, insisted on taking every
point in detail with Reith, the final document was far more
acceptable to the BBC than it had once seemed likely to be.
`Jardine Brown [the BBC's lawyer] is amazed at the alterations
Í have got', Reith wrote.2 `Post Office share of the licence fee
was reduced to 9 per cent. If the PMG ever exercised the rightof veto, at least he had to say whether or not its exercise could
be made public, which implied that it normally would be.
Many objectionable points were taken out of the official documents and included in a memorandum of agreement which
could be modified without difficulty when desired and agreed.'3
Soon after the new Charter was granted, there was the lastof the three debates of 1936-with the ammunition of the Lambert -Levita case and the Stamp inquiry to add to the previous
inflammable materials. It was in this debate that Lees -Smith
excelled himself by referring to the BBC as 'the nearest thing
in this country to Nazi government that can be shown'.4 Everything was out of perspective when language of this kind wasused, and it did nothing to induce genuinely rational inquiry.
Yet at the end of the debate the Postmaster -General promisedthat there would be reforms in staffing arrangements at theMemorandum from Reith to Tallents, g July 1936 (Tallents Papers).
Reith, Diary, 27 Nov. 1936.
3 Into the II'ind, pp.
254-5.
4 Ilanard, vol. 3111, col. 2370.
1

a

513

AFTER ULLS\VATER

BBC. A Staff Association would be set up and-pace Reith's
J. Mallon, one
views on `non -departmentalized' governorsof the two new Governors, was especially adept in his handlingJ.

of the machinery of industrial conciliation.
When Tryon made this statement Reith had already taken
the most important decision in relation to new kinds of staffing
arrangements that he had ever made. W. St. J. Pym was appointed as Director of Staff Administration in November 1936,
and for the first time there was a section on staffing arrangements in the BBC's Annual Report to Parliament.! Pym was an
admirable choice for the new post. He was affable yet dignified,and he had wide experience of how to handle the multitude ofproblems the BBC was facing. He could also influence Reith,
who liked him from the start.2
Pym's first report was on staff representation. He beganwith the position of the trade unions, which he said had been
content hitherto for the most part to satisfy themselves that the
Corporation was observing their basic conditions. The Electrical Trades Union was exceptional in having asked for right ofaccess and organization in the Engineering Division. There was,in fact, no great urge inside the Corporation either for militanttrade -union action or a staff association. `There seems to be
little incentive-even in the absence of any other form of collective representation-for the staff, or any section of it, tostart an Association.'3 In other words, Pym, writing withgenuine independence, corroborated the general point madeby Reith about the state of staff feeling in Broadcasting House.
At the same time, Pym went on, there was a case for setting
up a Joint Council, not so much to `protect' staff as to serve the
Corporation. 'The staff may not feel the need for protection.
But the protection of individuals is not the concern of a Joint
Council, and the protection of groups is only one and not themost important of its functions. Moreover, the result of therecent referendum cannot be regarded as altogether conclusive;
to some extent it probably represented not so much a straight
vote on the general principle as a vote of confidence in theCmd. 5688 (1937), BBC Eleventh Annual Report, p. 24.
Reith, Diary, 18 Dec. 1936.
3 *WV. St. J. Pym, Report on Staff Representation (1937), p. 7.
2

(

1995

Lf

514 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

present management.' There was a final point, and it was probably the most important. 'The Corporation will no doubt
continue to be exposed to hostile criticism, so long as no formof staff representation exists. Such criticism, however illfounded, is bound to have an irritant effect on the public andalso on the staff.'
Pym's report, with useful information about the way in which
other bodies managed their staffing arrangements, was referredby the Board of Governors to the Treasury for the advice of asmall informal committee, consisting of Sir James Rae of theTreasury, J. W. Bowen, former Secretary of the Union of Post
Office Workers, and G. L. Darbyshire, the Establishment
Officer of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. This
committee proposed the setting up of Joint Councils of the
Whitley type.2 Again, however, it substantially backed theBBC's claim that the staff had been far less interested in thesematters than Attlee, Cripps, or Lees -Smith had suggested.
`Normally a system of Joint Councils is built up on the existenceof representative Associations or Unions and an expressed desire
for the introduction of such machinery. This position does not
obtain in the Corporation's service.'3
The report of the Rae Committee was referred to the BBC's
staff in September 1938, by which time Pym had prepared adraft scheme for a Joint Council. H. Parker, later Sir Harold
Parker, of the Treasury, to whom it was referred, thought that`given a desire to make the system work' it would 'be well worth
the time involved'.4 The next step was a new ballot held in
November 1938 in which 79.6 per cent. of the eligible staff
voted 77.7 per cent. of those voting said that they were infavour of a Joint Council, I.6 per cent. were opposed, and I I.3
per cent. did not express an opinion. Most `yeses' came from
the Midland Region, most 'nos' from the North occupationallythe male clerical workers were the most interested, and thecatering staff the least. 'The result of the ballot', Pym concluded,`points to the introduction of a Joint Council Scheme for all
sections of the staf'» He also told the new Director -General,
1

:

1

:

Report on Staff Representation, p. to.

*Staff Representation Report by Sir James Rae, J. W. Bowen, and G. L.
Darbyshire, Jan. 1938.
4 *H. Parker to W. St. J. Pym, 5 Oct. 1938.
3 Ibid., p. 8.
5 *Note by Pym, 28 Nov. 1938.
2

AFTER ULLSWATER

515

Ogilvie, that the details of the ballot were `quietly and seriously
reported in the Press'.' Ogilvie himself addressed a `meeting ofdelegates' from various BBC `groups' in February 1939, tellingthem that 'we are not bound in advance by the details of theRae Report. In view of the diversity of staff the scheme cannot
be a copy of any other scheme. It must be pliable. Probably
the right course for us is to start with a simple form of organisation, letting it develop naturally rather than handicap ourselves
by constructing something elaborate in advance.'2
Negotiations and meetings continued throughout the springand summer, and it was not until after the outbreak of war thatthe first Staff Assoc'ation came into being. In the meantime,
however, there had been a number of other changes in staff
policy. Long before Ullswater reported, increasing use had
been made of advertising and appointments boards in the recruitment of new staff. From January 1937 procedures were
further formalized. Reference was made to the Civil Service
Commission on the rare occasions when it was proposed to filla vacancy for a monthly -paid staff post with an outside candidate without public advertisement; and for appointments above
a certain grade the Assistant Commissioner and secretary of the
Civil Service Commission joined the BBC's appointment committee. There were so many applicants for jobs on a weekly wagebasis that advertisement was never necessary during this period.
Another interesting development was the setting up of a Staff
Training School in October 1936. Courses held there attracted
broadcasters from all over the world, including the UnitedStates, India, Turkey, and Nigeria.
Many of these changes can be paralleled in the natural historyof any great organization when it passes a certain point in its
development. Reith himself was very conscious in 1936 and1937 of the way in which conditions inside the BBC were changing, and set out to persuade his Controllers to recognize thesignificance of what was happening. `It is essential', he told
them, 'that you should satisfy yourself that any individual who
is meant to be carrying responsibility in however small ameasure is in fact carrying it.... No Controller can today be intouch with every member of his Division directly. But he can'2*Pym to Sir S. Tallents for the attention of F. \V. Ogilvie, 7 Dec. 1938.
*Notes of a Meeting of Delegates, 24 Feh. 1939.

516 ORGANIZATION: THE GROWTH OF AN INSTITUTION

and should be indirectly, whether there arc a hundred or athousand, members of it." Against this background of institutional change, in some respects the BBC was becoming lessdistinctive in other respects, it seemed to offer less of a challenge
to Reith himself at the apex of the pyramid. Vet there were
new challenges, particularly that of television. The story ofdevelopment in this new world of communication leads backfrom the 193os to the very beginnings of the BBC.
:

Memorandum by Reith, 18 May 1936 (Tallents Papers).

V

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

My time having been occupied with manyother matters, I find that I have not been able
to devote as much consideration to Television
as I would have wished; and while convincedthat it will have a very definite place in the
future, I do not feel any useful purpose would
be served by discussing the subject at thepresent time.
MARCONIIn a letter of 30 Oct. 1928

I believe that television is destined to become
the greatest force in the world-I think it will
have more influence over the lives of individuals than any other force.
II. A. LAFONT, American Federal Radio Commissioner, 1931

1. Back to Baird
TELEVISION LIDIITED, the earliest concern of its kind in theworld, was formed before the British Broadcasting Corporation
June 1925-with a capital of £5oo. Its sponsor, John
Logie Baird, 'a son of the manse', like Reith, had first experimented with television in an attic at Hastings in 1923 and 1924.
He was then thirty-four years old. In June 1923 he inserted a
notice in the Personal Column of The Times: `Seeing by Wireless-Inventor of apparatus wishes to hear from someone whowill assist (not financially) in making working model.» In fact,
he did need financial help, and through the advertisement was
brought into touch with W. J. B. Oclhams. He offered Odhams
a 20 per cent. interest in his `Television inventions' for £loo,
an offer which Odhams turned down. Through Odhams, however, necessary apparatus was provided by Captain A. G. D.
West, then Research Engineer at the BBC, and later one of
Baird's most loyal and zealous helpers.
Television was only one of Baird's interests at that time, but
it was an interest which obviously meant much to him. Marconi in his generation had turned 'the wonder of wireless' fromdream into reality: could not Baird do the same with the evengreater wonder of television? He had a good general grasp of
the principles and practice of electrical engineering, which hehad first learned as a student, again like Reith, at the RoyalTechnical College, Glasgow, and later at Glasgow University.
Even before that, as a boy, he had installed single-handed anelectric -light plant in his home. The current was generated bya home-made dynamo, driven by a water -wheel worked fromthe water main and a symposium of accumulators made out ofold jam jars and sheet lead.z Baird was still improvising at
Hastings in 1924. 'His first "televisor" had the ingenuity of
Heath Robinson and a touch of Robinson Crusoe.'3 An old tea
chest formed a base to carry the motor which rotated a circular-in

The Times, 27 June 1923.
R. L. Tillman, Baird of Television (7g33), p. 3o.
Romance and Tragedy of the Pioneer of Television
3 S. A. Moseley, John Baird, The(1952), p. 63. Both these biographies are lamentably 1%eak on exact chronology.
2

520

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

cardboard disc. The disc was cut out of an old hat box, and adarning needle served as a spindle. An empty biscuit box housed
the projection lamp. The necessary bull's eye lenses were boughtfrom a bicycle shop at a cost of fourpence each.
With such crude apparatus, held together with glue, sealing wax, and string, Baird achieved exciting results. Early in 1924
he was able to transmit the flickering image of' a Maltese crossover a distance of two or three yards. `I myself saw a cross', avisitor to the Hastings attic wrote in a magazine, 'and thefingers of my own hand reproduced by the apparatus across thewidth of the laboratory. The images were quite sharp and clear,although perhaps a little unsteady. This, however, was mostly
due to mechanical defects in the apparatus and not to any
fault of the system."
Baird's experiments have a genuine romance about them.
They were not, however, the first of their kind. The pre -historyof television began with the discovery by Edmond Becquerel ofthe electro -chemical effects of light in 1839, and entered a newphase with the announcement in 1873 of the discovery of thephoto -sensitive properties of selenium.2 This announcement led
to 'a glut of schemes and proposals' for `seeing by electricity'.
The projects, like the early wireless projects which were being
devised soon afterwards, were being advanced in different
countries.3 Senlacq in France experimented with transmitter
screens; Ayrton and Perry in England were inspired by acartoon in Punch and the fear of an American monopoly, under
the control of Graham Bell, to `intimate that complete meansof seeing by telegraphy have been known for some time byscientific men' ;4 George Carey of Boston introduced the ideaof a practical mechanism for scanning images in an article in
Design and Work in 1880; and in 1881 Shelford Bidwell actuallydemonstrated apparatus for transmitting sillhouettes (with an
F. H. Robinson, `The Radio Kinema' in Kinematograph Weekly, 3 Apr. 1924.
Selenium itself had been discovered in 1817. Willoughby -Smith drew attention
to its properties in the Journal of the Society of Telegraph Engineers in 1873. For detailsof this and other developments, see the important article by G. R. M. Garratt andA. H. Mumford, 'The History of Television' in the Proceedings of the Institution ofElectrical Engineers, vol. xcix (1952).
7
For the history of wireless, see The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 25-36.
4 Letter to Nature, 22 Apr. 1880.
2

BACK TO BAIRD

521

ingenious scanning system) which has been preserved in the
London Science Museum.
Many of these experiments belong more to the history ofphoto -telegraphy than of television-Senlacq's and Carey's,
for example-hut it is difficult to separate the two strands inearly technical history. The next crucial development, However,directly influenced Baird. In 1884 a German scientist, Paul
Nipkow, first conceived the idea of a scanning disc, spirally
perforated, and rotating. Nipkow's projected transmitter also
made use of a selenium cell, but the small currents passed by
the cell were not strong enough, in the absence of an amplifier,to give practical results. The theory was simple. Objects placedin front of the transmitter would he `scanned' by a series of concentric curved lines corresponding to the path of the holes inthe disc. There is no evidence, however, that Nipkow put his
theory into practice. The picture he would have obtained would
have been very small in relation to the size of the disc. A different scanning device, also to be used by Baird, was developedin 1889 by Lazare \Veiller. The image to be transmitted wasscanned not by perforated discs but by revolving mirrors, thelight reflections being projected on to a selenium cell.'
The 'glut of schemes and proposals' came to a halt at thisstage, largely because of a technical difficulty. The time lag ofselenium and its consequent insensitivity to rapid changes in theintensity of light proved discouraging, and inventors moved
over to other fields in the 189os. Even after the first commercial
cathode ray had been produced by Braun in 1897, it took ten
years before Boris Rosing, working in St. Petersburg, conceived
the first television system to use cathode-ray tubes. Rosing used
two mirror drums in his apparatus. These scanned the image
and played the light reflection upon a photo-electric cell. Rosing
lacked an amplifier, however, and ran into what lie called`practical difficulties'.
While Rosing was experimenting in Russia, A. A. Campbell Swinton in England suggested quite independently that by theproper use of cathode-ray tubes, `high -definition' television was
possible. Drawing upon Shelford Bidwell's work, he saw noinsuperable difficulties in the way of `distant electrical vision'.
According to Garratt and Ntumford, loc. cit., the device had been tried out
even earlier in 1882 by Atkinson.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION522

The absence of efficient thermionic valves, however, limited
the development of television transmitters.' Campbell -Swinton,
who was one of the keenest members of the Röntgen Society
and later of the Wireless Society of London and the Radio
Society of Great Britain, was to be a member of the deputation
which pressed for the beginning of regular sound broadcastingin 1922.2 With characteristic restraint, however, he stated in
191 that his `idea' about television was 'an idea only and theapparatus has never been constructed. Furthermore, I do notfor a moment suppose that it could he got to work without agreat deal of experiment and probably much modification.'3
Although no further practical developments were madebefore 1914, and the First World War did not serve to stimulate television in the way that it stimulated practical advancesin wireless, it is clear that before 1914 two possible future linesof development had been sketched out. The one looked back to
Nipkow and forward to Baird. The other looked back to Rosing
and forward to the present. The second line of development
depended entirely on undiscovered or undeveloped electronic
devices-particularly, the efficient thermionic valve and themulti -stage amplifier. It is an important fact both in the historyof technology and in the history of television as a `medium'that mechanical means of scanning developed before all -electrical systems were evolved. The resourceful individualist antedated the organization man. Baird was an example of the first
type. So too was the American, C. F. Jenkins, who in 1925
demonstrated the transmission and reception by wireless of theimage of a slowly revolving model winclmill.4 The television
technology both of Jenkins and of Baird was incapable of providing what we now call `high -definition' television. This could
be achieved only by all -electrical methods.
Because of the timing of development, the controversy between two `television systems' embittered the early history oforganized television in much the same way-although at thelevel of science rather than empiricism-as the conflict between
1

For the development of the thermionic valve, which was invented in 19o¢ byFleming, see The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 28.
2 See ibid., p. 129. He also gave evidence before the Sykes Committee.
See The Birth of Broadcasting, p. 214. Presidential Address to the RöntgenSociety, Nov. 1911, printed in the journal of the Röntgen Society, vol. viii (1912), p. 1.
4 Wireless World (1926), vol. xviii, p. 642.

BACK TO BAIRD

523

two gauges bedevilled the early history of railways. Associatedwith this controversy was a second and all too familiar one
concerning the nature of Baird's contribution to televisionhistory. To some commentators he has been the genius: toothers, a clever and persevering man, not so much the inventorof television as the first person to see clearly what its possibilities
were. Although the popular controversy is not dead, it is difficult to dissent from Peter Eckersley's verdict that Baird is to behonoured not because of his inventions but because he belongs
to the company of men 'who see past immediate technicaldifficulties to an eventual achievement'. Comparing him Nsith
Marconi, Eckersley argues that while neither man was preeminently an inventor or a physicist, they both had 'that flair
for picking about on the scrap -heap of unrelated discoveries andassembling the bits and pieces to make something work and so
revealing possibilities, if not finality'.'
Such an achievement is an invaluable one in an age ofscience, and few scientists rise to it. Whether or not Baird madea genuinely `original' scientific contribution, he was as skilful
and as persistent as most other great inventors of the industrial
revolution, and, like them, he ran into every kind of financial
and psychological obstacle. The promotion of his enterprises
caused him far more pain than pleasure: the enterprises themselves were often bold and visionary, although limited seriously
at their technical boundaries. Unlike the earlier inventors,
however, Baird was drawn into a blaze of publicity and surrounded by sponsors who often promised more than could
possibly have been performed. In consequence, Baird occupies
an important but curious position in history. He publicized
television more effectively than any other individual, but
eventually when television established itself it was not on
the lines he had for long envisaged.
Not surprisingly, it has been all too easy to surround both
Baird's achievement and his failures with an aura of legend.
It has also been all too easy to simplify the attitude of otherpeople and institutions towards his work. The BBC did notcome into the story until 1926, but having come into it, there
was ample scope for even darker legend, for what Baird's mostLetter to Sydney Moseley quoted in S. A. Moseley, John Baird (1952), p. 25o.
Compare my account of Marconi in The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 31-32.

524

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

recent biographer has called `tragedy' as well as `romance'.
Listening to a radio announcement that Baird had died in 1945,
the biographer, Sydney Moseley, noted tersely that 'the BBC
which had failed to acknowledge ,John Baird's existence, hadat last announced his passing'.' This was both dark and wildlegend. The BBC and John Baird had been only too aware ofeach other's existence: their relationship, indeed, is the main
theme of British television history until the mid-193os.
While making his early experiments in Hastings, Baird wasin urgent need of money and, like most pioneers, lie found itvery hard to get. A press demonstration of his apparatus got
him a mention in the Daily News and a gift of £50.2 Soon afterwards he sold a one-third interest in his invention for £200 to
Will Day, a London cinematograph proprietor, who had reada magazine article about the success of Baird's experiments.
With the money in his pocket, Baird bought several hundred
flashlamp batteries. Later he disposed of another share of a sixth
to Day.3 Having completed these extremely insecure financial
arrangements, Baird moved to London in August 1924.
In March 1925 he discovered a richer backer, Gordon
Selfridge jun., who was the first of the publicity seekers withwhom Baird was to have so many complicated dealings. Selfridge put him on display in his store, taking pains to state in
his advertisements that he was not financially interested: 'weknow that our friends will be interested in something thatshould rank with the greatest inventions of the century.' Selfridge also compared Baird with Edison, a comparison which
was to be drawn frequently in the future. `1 he picture isflickering and defective, and at present only simple pictures
can be sent successfully; but Edison's first phonograph announced that "Mary had a little lamb" in such a way that only
listeners who were "in the secret" could understand-and yet,from that first result has developed the gramophone of today.
Unquestionably the present experimental apparatus can besimilarly perfected and refined.'4
2 Ibid., p. 64.
Baird of Television, p. 67.
John Baird, p. 7.
The advertisement is reproduced in Baird of Television, pp. 74-75. A fulldescription of the apparatus was printed in Nature, 14 Apr. 1925. `Mr. Baird has
overcome many difficulties,' the writer in Nature added, 'but we are afraid that
7

4

there are many more to be surmounted before ideal television is accomplished.'

BACK TO BAIRD

525

From the glare of publicity, Baird passed yet again into thetwilight world of insecurity. Selfridge gave him only a brief
engagement, Day would not back him further, the Marconi
Company was uninterested in acquiring his patents, and thenewspapers to which he turned were for the most part unsympathetic. Again, following the footsteps of eighteenth- andnineteenth-century inventors, he had to fall back on relatives
to give financial backing to the tiny Television Company hefounded in 1925. His only other help came from Hart Accumulators and General Electric, who provided him with free batteries and valves. He was overjoyed, in such circumstances,when in October 1925 lie managed to produce a convincing
image. Unlike the images demonstrated at Selfridges, it was
something more than a black and white `effect' and had definite
outlines and features.
Business prospects soon improved also. By January 1926,
when Baird successfully demonstrated `original television apparatus' at the Royal Institution,' he had been joined in his
enterprise by an old business associate, Captain Oliver George
Hutchinson. Together with a friend, Broclerip, Hutchinsonbought out Will Day's interest in Baird's concerns. He tookcharge of the `management' of the Television Company, andin February 1926 moved Baird into an office and laboratory at
Motograph House, near Leicester Square.

The first reference to Baird's experiments in the Post OfficeArchives relates to Hutchinson. The Television Company firstwrote to the Post Office on 4 January 1926, and a month later
F. W. Phillips reported that Hutchinson had called to talkabout a `television service'. With the kind of absurd exaggeration which was to do Baird so much harm, Hutchinson said
that Baird's invention was `practically out of the experimental
stage'.
A shrewd member of the audience at the demonstration at
the Royal Institution-E. G. Stewart, a group engineer for theGas Light and Coke Company-had written at the time that it' See The Times, 28 Jan. 1926, for the account of the successful televising of theventriloquist's doll. The New York Times, 6 Mar. 1927, paid early tribute to Baird.
`No one but this Scotch minister's son has ever transmitted and received a recognisable image with its graduations of light and shade.'526

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

would be 'an error of judgment' if the inventor did what Hutchinson wanted and placed his apparatus immediately on themarket. 'The apparatus as now developed', he went on, `gives
a crude image which is not even physically pleasant to view.
Again distortion is present, whilst only comparatively small
fields of view (e.g. the face) may be presented. Whilst the existing type of apparatus would undoubtedly achieve a temporary
market, the public would quickly tire of the results and either
expect a rapid improvement or, failing such improvement,
leave the idea in disgust.... Those well-known personalities
whom the public would most desire to see would be scared of
television by the present reproductions so that deserving developments later on would be hampered in securing support."
Hutchinson, from whom Baird soon became estranged,2 was
not the kind of businessman who calculated carefully about
long-term results. His project was one of a cluster of highly
speculative ventures which titillated the Stock Exchange in
Britain's pale imitation of' the American boom of the `roaring
twenties'. He did not intend to be put off either by cautious
engineers or Post Office `bureaucrats'. When he saw Phillips
he did not admit that a Post Office Licence was necessary for
television, but he asked that the Post Office should grant the
Television Company some kind of concession for a public service. He had only the vaguest ideas of what a public service
meant, talking airily of transmitting photographs of speakers
from London to Paris or installing television apparatus intheatres.3
When the Post Office had not made up its mind by June 1926
as to what it wished to do, Hutchinson took the matter up
again, stating that the Television Company was losing money
and that powerful American interests had approached them
about a take-over. He suggested that it would be unfortunatefor Britain if Baird's apparatus had to be transferred to theUnited States.4 A few days later the Post Office gave its approval
to experimental television transmissions, and a licence (2 TV)
was issued in August. A further licence for 2 TW (Harrow)
This fascinating account by E. G. Stewart is in the files of the Gas Light andCoke Company, and I am grateful to Mr. L. Hardern for drawing attention to it.
2 John Baird, pp. g6 ff.
3
Minute by F. W. Phillips, 4 Feb. 1926 (Post Office Archives).
4 Hutchinson to Phillips, 29 June 1926 (Post Office Archives).

BACK TO BAIRD

527

followed. On the strength of the issue of the licences the Baird
Company advertised a `televisor' for sale at a price of 3oguineas.
These moves were associated with important financial
changes, which were to set the pattern of Baird finance for the
next few years. Television Ltd. remained as a parent company,
with Baird and Hutchinson as sole directors and a small
nominal capital, but Baird Television Development Company
Ltd. was formed as a public company in April 1927 with anauthorized capital of;EI25,000, all issued, and an outside chairman, Sir Edward Manville, the then chairman of the Daimler
Company.' Television had passed from its experimental stage
into the arena of high finance and business speculation, and theprice of TV shares moved with many other factors besides the
progress of technical invention. A year later, in June 1928,
when the formation of a third company, Baird International
Television Ltd., was announced, the authorized capital was;E7oo,000 and there was a heavy over-subscription.
Baird himself was uneasy about all these financial ramifications at the time, and even more so in retrospect. He objected
to Manville booming at him `through a cloud of cigar smoke'and making `impossible suggestions'. `I was busy with wheels
and pulleys', he wrote ín notes on his life, 'and soon came toregard Board Meetings as analogous to going to churchfunctions to be slept through. Sometimes I awoke with a startat some of the proceedings at these meetings, but after a few
questions I relapsed again into dreams of further permutations
and combinations of wire and mirror drums and lamps.'z
Through all the vicissitudes of business-and they were to
be many-Baird continued his experiments. In December 1926
he showed his `Noctovisor', a piece of apparatus which permitted transmissions of images from a dark room with infra -redrays.3 In May I927, after the American Telephone and Telegraph Company-possibly the `powerful American interest' towhich Hutchinson referred-had staged the first public television demonstration outside Britain and thereby broken ys hat
John Baird, p. gG. Hutchinson wanted the Company to be called `British
Television Ltd.' and actually had stationery printed with this title. Baird insisted
on his own name being kept in.
2
Quoted in John Baird, p. 98.
3 For `Noctovisor', see Nature, 5 Feb. 1927.

528

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

Hutchinson had loosely talked of as a `monopoly',' Baird
arranged a demonstration of television over the 438 milesof telephone wire between London and Glasgow.z He also
co-operated in experiments with H. L. Kirke, the lively and enterprising BBC engineer.3 In September 1927 he gave a demonstration at the British Association meeting at Leeds. A Post
Office engineer who was present indicated that 'the invention
has not reached a very advanced stage yet'.4 Other observers
were more enthusiastic. After witnessing one of the 1928
demonstrations a Glasgow University professor commented that'the chief difficulties connected with television have been overcome by Mr. Baird, and the improvements still to be effected
are mainly matters of detail'.3
Soon after the Leeds demonstration, a Television Society ofGreat Britain was formed, with Lord Haldane as its first President. By 1928 Baird was experimenting with colour andstereoscopic television he also succeeded in transmitting pictures \rhich were received on the other side of the Atlantic.6
These were `heroic' achievements which no historian can overlook. Baird's work was all the more remarkable, as the New
York Times put it, because he was pitting 'his inventive wits
against the pooled ability and the vast resources of the great
corporation physicists and engineers'.7 A similar point was madeby Sir Ambrose Fleming, the inventor of the thermionic valve,
who wrote after a visit to Baird in June 1928 that he was sure
Baird's laboratory was 'the birthplace of new, interesting andvery important inventions'.8:

There were, in fact, several interesting foreign developments. In 1926, forexample, work began in the Be Telephone Laboratories. The successful demonstration of Apr. 1927 used both wire and radio, and pictures were transmitted
22 miles from a station in New Jersey to New York.
1Nature, 18 June 1927.
John Baird, p. 81. For Kirke's co-operation with Baird, see Post Office Archives.
Hutchinson told H. G. G. Welch of the Post Office on 23 July 1927 of the extent of
the co-operation. The use of BBC stations for Baird broadcasts was felt by the Post
Office to be `premature' at this stage.
Minute by \V. E. Weston, 9 Sept. 1927 (Post Office Archives).
s
Nature, 18 June 1927.
6 For colour, see Nature, 18 Aug. 1928. For stereoscopic television, see a note by
C. Tierney in Television, Sept. 1928. For the transatlantic transmission, see the
New York Times, i i Feb. 1928. The successful transatlantic broadcast was followedby the foundation of the Baird International Television Company. Baird alsotransmitted pictures to a ship at sea. See Television, Apr. 1928.
8
Baird of Television, p. 122.
New York Times, , i Feb. 1928.
2
3

BACK TO BAIRD

529

At this juncture in events-with new companies being createdand new experiments being carried out-Baird met Sydney A.
Moseley, the journalist, who thereafter made it one of his`causes' to hail Baird as a genius and his inventions as thegreatest of the century. Moseley was proud of the fact that hewas, in his own phrase, `Britain's first radio critic'. He enjoyedbroadcasting as an `adventure', and wrote about it in Sunday
newspapers and Amateur Wireless, not alway s to the liking ofReith or his colleagues:' he was also an unsuccessful speculator
and the author of a widely read popular treatise on how to makemoney quickly.2 The date of Moseley's first meeting with Baird
was I August 1928. By then Baird had moved his office to
133 Long Acre. He told Moseley that 'he was having a bad timewith the scoffers and sceptics-including the BBC and part of
the technical press' and that he wanted Moseley to test his
claims.
Moseley, who found Baird 'a model for the schoolboy's pictureof a shock -haired, modest, dreamy, absent-minded inventor',soon felt that he had discovered not only a man but a cause.
He became Baird's `self-appointed champion'. 'Once more into
the fray', he exclaimed with his usual zest. By October 1928
he had publicized Baird with all the energy that he could
command 'the last few weeks have been a whirlwind of frenzied
activity'.3 In tite course of these weeks, he took particular
pleasure in persuading himself that the BBC was the chieftarget of the `attack'. `I wish to protest at once against theunfair attitude which the BBC appears to be adopting towards
television', he wrote in a letter to the BBC; `I think you willrecognise in me a friend of the BBC from No. 1.'4
Soon he vas talking in more lurid terms. 'The struggle toput Baird over with the BBC is more or less a guerre á mort, no:' His published Private Diaries (1960) describe the story of his association withbroadcasting in detail, from his first letters to the BBC in Nov. 1925. By Apr. 1926
he had broadcast often enough for J. G. Broadbent of the BBC to write to him,
'I expect you feel by now that you have thoroughly mastered the peculiar but by
no means easy art of broadcasting."I believe I have!' Moseley commented (p. 275).
One 'outspoken' article on the BBC that Reith did not like was called 'The
Napoleon of the BBC' (ibid., p. 278). Another article was called 'If I Ran the BBC'(ibid., p. 288).
2 Money Making in Stocks and Shares (1927). A large part of this book was writtenl John Baird, p. tog; Private Diaries, pp. 292, 295.
on Southend Pier.
4*Moseley to W. E. G. Murray, 13 Sept. 1928.
C 1995

M

530

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

holds barred.» The Report of the Directors of the Television
Company in 1929 stated the purpose of the war in more diplomatic language. `Today the apparatus required for the successful transmission and reception of living scenes both by wire andwireless has reached such a stage as, in the opinion of most ofthem who have witnessed demonstrations, warrants broadcasting facilities being accorded so that the "listening -in" public
might be afforded the opportunity of enjoying this new application of science.'2
Baird had not met Reith in October 1928-indeed Reith's
diary for this period is silent on all matters relating to television-anti by the BBC Moseley meant Peter Eckersley, theChief Engineer, and Gladstone Murray, the Assistant Controller in charge of Public Relations. AIurray seemed `sympathetic' : Eckersley, for the best of reasons, was sceptical. Not
averse to publicity himself, he liked publicity to be hacked up
by practical achievement. In his first talks with Baird andHutchinson he asked for genuine `scientific investigation' without publicity. He knew, from Murray, that the Daily Mail hadbacked the Glasgow demonstration of 1927, and he had ahealthy dislike of what were then called `stunts' and now would
be called `gimmicks'.
In an undated memorandum, he expressed views to which
he held consistently. Television was interesting and important,
yet before it could become a new `public service' there would
have to be prolonged scientific experiment:

The advisers of the Baird Television Company believe that thisapparatus is sufficiently developed to have a public service value.
They contend that the attitude of the BBC is obstructive and irrational. The advisers of the BBC believe on the other hand that the
Baird apparatus not only does not deserve a public trial, but also
has reached the limit of its development owing to the basic technicallimitations of the method employed.;_

John Baird, p. 294.

*Baird Television Development Company Ltd., Report of the Directors,
II Feb. 1929. It also stated that as soon as facilities were accorded, radio manufacturers would be ready to produce `televisors' manufactured under licence fromthe Baird Television Development Company.
memorandum, `Terms of Reference'. This memorandum was
3 *Undated
probably written after 1928, but the same ideas were expressed at a Control Board
meeting as early as June 1927. Control Board Minutes, 21 June 1927.
2

BACK TO BAIRD

531

Eckersley thought that however interesting Baird's work might
be as laboratory work, it would be 'an insult to the public' to
put on low -definition television pictures within the very narrow
channel allowed to the BBC for medium -wave transmission.
He also thought that it would be quite deceptive to encourage
the idea-so confidently taken up by Moseley-that broadcast
pictures would quickly `improve'. Clear, detailed pictures
required a wide television channel, and one effective television
station working on medium waves would occupy more of a
waveband than all the broadcasting stations, all the ships'
stations, and all the long-wave stations were to occupy at theoutbreak of the Second World War. Even if Baird's pictures
were to `improve' in 1928 and 1929, it would still not be possible
to transmit them successfully through the narrow channels
permitted on the medium waveband: if they did not improve,
they were not worth transmitting.'
This categorical statement provided the basis for a clear,coherent, and sensible policy for the BBC to follow at thatstage. If Baird and his technicians could show good pictures,the BBC would be glad to try and broadcast them, but it had
to be recognized that it would be impossible to do so on existing
wavelengths. Eckersley never tried to mislead the public about
this policy. Indeed, in the same number of Popular Wireless inwhich Moseley first advertised Baird's work to what wasthought of as a `hostile' technical audience, Eckersley \Tote anarticle' on the opposite page stating his own views of the significance of television clevelopment.2 In July 1928 the BBC
issued a press statement in which it stated clearly that it had
not 'so far been approached with apparatus of so practical anature as to make television possible on a service basis'. `Whenthe development of the science has reached the stage wheresome form of service which will benefit listeners may be guaranteed, the BBC will be prepared, subject to the co-operation of
the Postmaster-General, to co-operate in this matter.'3
Moseley made little effort to understand the BBC's pointof view. With his fondness for a fight, he imagined himself
Eckersley, The Power Behind the Microphone (1941), pp. 238-9.
Popular Wireless, 14 July 1928; see also ,john Baird, p. 103. Popular Wireless,sceptical of television, had issued an offer of;Ei,000 in Mar. 1928 to anyone who
could transmit within seven days more recognizable faces, various simple objects
3 Manchester Guardian, 16 July 1928.
in action, and the hands of a clock.
' P. P.

2

532

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

championing the lone individual against the great monopoly,
the inventor against the organization, the man without power
and influence against those with 'the trappings of rank andtitle and high office'.' He was a 'no stuff and nonsense' man.
This kind of fight is a favourite British pastime, hallowed by the
popular press, but it does not necessarily achieve results.2 Nordoes it become more convincing when men of rank and title
as well as journalists are used to support it. Moseley was very
proud of the fact that Herbert Samuel maintained that 'it is nota happy position when any great monopoly can impede progress'.3 There is no evidence that Samuel made any effort todiscover the facts. Nor did some others whose names Moseleyused.

Fortunately there were people who did. Baird's critics, indeed, included men who were far more outspoken than any
sceptics inside the BBC. Campbell -Swinton, who, as we haveseen, made his own contribution to the technical history of
television, believed that Baird and Hutchinson were misleadingan ignorant public. He felt that articles in the press in the latesummer of 1928 stating that the Baird Television Development
Company were going to `broadcast their own programmes'
were `impuclent'.4 So, too, did some sections of the press. `Known
television systems are not capable of sufficient development',
the Daily Telegraph noted, 'to warrant great optimism withregard to their early utility for television in the home.'S
This public debate was in the background in the autumn of1928 when the question of relations between the Baird Television Development Company and the BBC was suddenly
pushed to the forefront. Unfortunately the exact chronologyof the story is far from completely clear. Not only does Reith's
diary remain silent, but Moseley, for all his flurry of excitement,
has left few precise comments in his own published diary. Evenin the remarkably full BBC Archives some key documents areJohn Baird, p. 107.
2 Ibid., p. 111.
*There was a persistent attack on the BBC in the press 'for doing nothing about
television' in 1928. Rather inadequately, the BBC decided that the best way todeal with it was to publish three articles in the Radio Times. See Control Board
3

Minutes, 15 May 1928.
4 *A. A. Campbell -Swinton to Peter Eckersley, 4 Aug. 1928.
5 Daily Telegraph, 10 Mar. 1928.

BACK TO BAIRD

533

missing. One point about the approach to relations is clear: farmore than mechanical considerations influenced the argument,
then and at later dates.
The prelude to the story was the publication in the latesummer of 1928 of a series of Baird Television Development
Company advertisements to which Campbell -Swinton objected.
Their themes were `Television For All' and `Practical Televisionin the Home', and they suggested that regular television transmissions were about to start.' Very quickly, therefore, thequestion arose as to the attitude of the BBC towards the independent development of television.2 Reith knew little of
Baird or of television, but he believed from the start that speechtransmissions and visual transmissions were part of the same
technical and social complex and should not be separated.
Broadcast telephotography and television were `bound to come',
he argued, 'and it would be a mistake to allow others to hinder
them'.3 Preoccupied as he was in 1928 and the early months of1929 with other matters-mainly relationships with the Governors4-he did not consider that the BBC could ignore televisiondevelopments. Nor, of course, could television interests ignore
him. On at least one occasion in 1929 he was sounded as towhether he would head a television combine, 'at practicallyany figure'.S
It was the Post Office rather than the BBC which first took
up \\ ith the Baird Television Development Company thequestion of the misleading advertisements.6 It had been pressing
Baird in vain since August 1927 to allow Post Office engineers
to see a completely independent scientific demonstration,7 andit refused to consider any question of regular `broadcasting'until such a demonstration had been held.$ Baird replied somewhat breathtakingly that there was unanimity of opinion
among prominent radio manufacturing companies that his
The Times, 22 June 1928; Daily Chronicle, 4 Aug. 1928. The first `television'
had been advertised much earlier in the year. See the Daily Chronicle, 21 Feb. 1928.
2 *Control Board Minutes, 25 Sept. 1928. The advertisements were discussed
on this occasion.
4 See above, pp. 425-30.
Ibid., 14 July 1928.
Reith, Diary, 26 Apr. 1929.
6 Letter of 7 Aug. 1928 (Post Office Archives).
7 The first formal request had been made in a letter of 18 Aug. 1927 (Post OfficeArchives).
8 Letter of 3o Aug. 1928 (Post Office Archives).
5

534

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

television system was more advanced than radio reception waswhen a public service was first instituted in 1922. The manufacturers now wanted to obtain licences to make and sell television apparatus as the radio manufacturers had wanted tomake and sell wireless sets then.
The misleading precedent was hammered home. 'May I
direct your attention to the fact that the licence to manufacture this apparatus will be of little avail unless coincidentallysome sort of broadcasting at stated intervals can be assured to
producers of television.» Rumours of such `broadcasts' freely
circulated at the Radiolympia Exhibition. Christmas was mentioned vaguely as the date of the beginning of the broadcasts,
and 200 metres as the wavelength.2\Vhile approaching the Post Office, the Baird Television
Development Company also approached the BBC with a formal
request that one of its stations should be made available for
Baird television transmissions. The wavelengths which the Post
Office had assigned Baird in 1927, the Company claimed, were
technically unsatisfactory. Moreover, the Services were grumbling that Baird transmissions were interfering with their work.3
Confronted with this definite request, the Corporation temporized-doubtless for the kind of varied reasons that Eckersley
had stated-and Baird was then reported in the press as sayingthat he intended to go ahead and apply for a station of his own
with rights similar to those already granted to the BBC.
`Frankly,' he is said to have added, 'we regard the BBC as arival organisation.'4
Before considering Baird's request further, the Post Office
temporized too, suggesting quietly to Reith that if genuinely
scientific demonstrations of Baird television, which both the
G.P.O. and the BBC were demanding, proved that the invention had possibilities, the BBC should do as Baird had first
asked and allow experimental transmissions from a BBC stations
Baird to Sir Evelyn Murray, 8 Sept. 1928 (Post Office Archives). For theprecedent of 1922, see The Birth of Broadcasting, ch. III.
2 1,J. I I. Whitehouse to NV. E. G. Murray, reporting conversation with Bowyer
1Lowe, 25 Sept. 1928.
5926 only
3 The wavelengths had been assigned in the first instance in Aug.
after consultation and negotiations with the important Wireless Sub -Committeeof the Imperial Communications Committee.
4 Evening Standard, 10 Sept. 1928.
5'Sir Evelyn Murray to Reith, 12 Sept. 5928.

BACK TO BAIRD

535

Reith agreed that before the BBC decided what to say to
Baird the comments of Post Office engineers on Baird's work
would be extremely useful. At long last, therefore, on 18 September 1928 a Post Office demonstration took place at Long Acre
and at the Engineers' Club about 600 yards away. The `televisor'
receiver at the club was in a cabinet about the same size as apedestal gramophone, and the objects shown included faces ofindividuals speaking and singing. The image was only 31
inches by 2 inches, although, with the help of a lens, it could be
doubled in size. The mechanical scanner worked well, but theimage flickered and was distorted by interference. An unfriendly
observer complained that the image of the human head was`grotesque rather than impressive', `curiously ape -like, decapitated at the chin, and swaying up and down in a streaky streamof yellowy light'.' The Post Office engineers were sufficiently
impressed, however, to urge the BBC to allow one of its stations
to be used for further Baird experiments.2
Now came a crisis which only in the light of later events was
not the crisis in the troubled relations between the Baird Television Development Company and the BBC. Eckersley was notsatisfied with the Post Office report and insisted on the longawaited independent BBC demonstration. This took place on
9 October I928. It was attended by Reith, Peter Eckersley,
Gladstone Murray, Roger Eckersley, Major C. F. Atkinson,
and Noel Ashbridge, and it was agreed beforehand that no
opinion was to be expressed either at the time of the demonstration or in reply to questioners afterwards.3 Perhaps unfairly,
although this was not a game of cricket, Peter Eckersley warned
the party beforehand that all they would see would be the headand shoulders of a man. He added tersely that if they thought`listeners' wanted to see the head and shoulders of a man, theywould have to sacrifice an all too precious wavelength to do so.
'The question remains can the full length of a man be given
adequately, or two men standing together talking, or a lot ofmen playing football, or a liner arriving at Plymouth, or any
topical event? Can they, in fact, inadequately possibly, give
*Whitehouse to W. E. G. Murray, t Oct. 1928.
: Post Office Report, tg Sept. 1928; *Sir Evelyn Murray to Reith, 19 Sept. 1928.
1928.
3 *Control Board Minutes, g Oct.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

536

running commentaries? If they say that they cannot at present
but will be able to do so later, our reply should be "then we will
wait until you can before we do experiments".'1
This was prejudging other people's opinions, and Eckersley
was speaking with the weight of great technical authority. He
did not hesitate to answer his own questions. 'They can polishup the head and shoulders, but they can never give a completeman.... They will never do anything approaching a running
commentary, and to say that they can do so by experiment with
our stations is perfect nonsense.'
The conclusion for him was plain. `If it is thought by theControl Board that what they see demonstrated, i.e. what has
been done by Baird, justifies in itself a service, then let us goahead, but I warn everyone that in my opinion, it is the end of
their development, not the beginning, and that we shall be forever sending heads and shoulders. Are heads and shoulders aservice?'z
With the words of this document ringing in their ears, themembers of the Control Board saw the demonstration. It wasworse than they anticipated. Gladstone Murray, whom Moseley
had considered `sympathetic,'3 thought that 'from the angle ofservice' the demonstration `would be merely ludicrous if its
financial implications did not make it sinister'. `Keeping in
mind the fundamental fact that the intrusion of Baird transmissions into the broadcasting band will gravely disturb ournormal service and prejudice the Regional Scheme, I think it
is our duty to resist or delay the suggestion in every reasonable
and possible way.' Murray did not fear a clash with the Post
Office on the issue. `It is obviously the intention of the Post
Office to dump the blame for further obstruction on our shoulders. This does not worry me in the slightest. We can carrywell-informed and disinterested opinion with us. This is all thatmatters.'4'*Peter Eckersley, 'Note on Suggested Attitudes Towards Television', 8 Oct.

1928.
3 See above, p. 530.
Ibid.
*W. E. G. Murray, Note on 'Yesterday's Television Test', to Oct. 1928. Murraywrote round to a number of newspapers warning them 'to avoid accepting rumoursof the favourable attitude of the BBC towards the Baird Television Scheme':
e.g. Murray to R. M. Barrington -Ward, 15 Oct. 1928. Many of them shared theBBC's doubts. See a letter from the editor of the Daily Express to Murray, 15 Oct.

2
4

1928.

.'+'

DIE

1F

:.,
9

glé

..,--.

,r

44 J. L. Baird at Work (1925)

(a) The _Ilan with theblower in His Alouih(1930)Left to right. George
Inns, Lance Sieeeking.
Glades Young. Earl
Grey. Denis Freeman

1(kneeling), I.ionel
ti
41

--

Nlillard, and Mary
Everslcy

Lf;Q(b) The film/ with the blower in His .Mouth(1930)eStanding, Lance Sieveking with his Fading

Board; seated. Val Giclgud(e) Experimental Television from

Broadcasting I louse (1935)

,

_1

r

:
.

z

45. Early Television

4.

(a) Ready for the Camera(b) As seen by the Viewer

46. Early Images
Jane Carr made up for I elevision by E. Robb (i 932). the face is whitened, andblue black is applied to the eyebrows, lashes, side of nose and lips-I leaky white
is applied between lids and eyebrows'

r

s1,,

.2e4é

y_
-

.

a

1
47. The First Transmission (1932)
Left to right. ,J. L. Baird, S. Moseley, and Sir H. Greer

--d

.

."
1

k

'

.t

ÍI TjtMk,.

___a1..1.
-

_

:r

.

Z""
141

I

l

I111",1,

I

---

.

-qy.

48. Preparing for Televising the Coronation (1937)
On the plinth, Sir Noel Ashbridge..\lso in the party, Carpendale, Graves,
Tallents, Selsdon, F. W. Phillips, and Shoenberg

BACK TO BAIRD

537

There was, however, one other fact that mattered, and it wasa fact that Moseley appreciated. The BBC had allowed and wasallowing experiments with vision. It seemed to be treating
Baird and the initiators of the other experiments in contrasting
ways: moreover, the other experiments did not necessarily
point forward to technical perfection. Moseley was quick to
notice the willingness of the BBC to co-operate with Wireless
Pictures, a company formed in January 1927 and reshaped inAugust 1928: indeed, on his side, he saw something `sinister' inthis.' Wireless Pictures Ltd., unlike the Baird Television
Development Company, was interested only in still picturesnot television-but it had been granted rights to an experimental service (with Post Office approval) in July 1928.
The `Fultograph', invented by Otto Fulton, the TechnicalController and Adviser of the Wireless Pictures company, cost
£22 and printed a picture of only 4 inches by 5 inches. Sales
were not very great, and yet the BBC continued to allow the`experiments' in October 1928, just at the time when the Baird
issue came to a head.2 Technical specialists-a somewhat smaller
body than Murray's 'well informed and disinterested opinion'-might know that the Fultograph broadcasts did not raise thesame technical difficulties and dilemmas as Baird's television.
They might know also that the process had been tried and tested
and was in use in Vienna and Berlin. The public, however,knew nothing of this, and for its part the Post Office did notconsider that Baird ought to be treated differently from Wireless Pictures Ltd. In view of the facilities offered to Fulton, thePost Office told Reith, it would be difficult to refuse Baird.3
Yet this is precisely what the BBC did do after the unfavourable demonstration of 9 October 1928. It drew up a statement
which the Post Office regarded as too `uncompromising', andcontinued to stand by it after Reith had telephoned the Post
Office.4 The statement as issued by the Governors on 17 Octoberread that 'the opinion of the BBC representatives was that, while
Private Diaries, p. 294. It was a fact that when the BBC allowed experimental
transmissions in 1929, a share issue made by Wireless Pictures was over-subscribed.
2*Control Board Minutes, 3 and 17 July, 15 Aug., 2 Oct. 1928.
Letter of 25 Sept. 1928 (Post Office Archives). Baird bought out Wireless
Pictures in Apr. 1929.
1928 (Post Office
4 Reith to Phillips, 15 Oct. 1928; Phillips to Reith, 16 Oct.
Archives).

538

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

the [Baird] demonstration was interesting as an experiment, it
failed to fulfil the conditions which would justify trial througha BBC station. The Board of the Corporation has decided thatan experimental transmission through a BBC station shall not
be undertaken at present. The Corporation would be ready toreview the decision if and when development justified it.'1
Manville protested at once to the Post Office that the BBC
was arrogating to itself functions which had never been delegated to it,2 and Moseley told Murray that the statement was'a terrible mistake'. In face of this barrage, the BBC did notshrink. Murray replied briefly to Moseley that the statement
was the result of extremely careful thought. `It would have been
far easier and a more popular course for our people to havegone ahead with co-operation now, but they felt it their duty
to adopt the more difficult course.' In the heat of the moment,
however, Murray went much further than this and far further
than Reith had done. `For the future,' he added, `I am notsure whether broadcasting as it is now established should everabsorb television even in a state of development that would
justify general application. It is more probable that television
will evolve a new art form in its own way and for its own
public.'3
The crisis had almost reached its climax, and by the middle ofNovember Ig28 Murray as well as Moseley was talking of`hostilities'. On the one side, the Baird Television Development
Company had formally asked the Postmaster -General for alicence to operate its own broadcasting station.4 On the otherside the BBC was almost as suspicious of the Post Office as it
was of the Baird Television Development Company. Reith andClarendon, the Chairman of the Board of Governors, saw the
Postmaster -General, Sir William Mitchell -Thomson, and were`threatened' that if the BBC did not 'let' Baird have 'a private
show' the Post Office `would give an experimental licence to
Baird for higher power' and 'for speech as well'.5 It was doubtThe original copy of this note is missing from the BBC Archives.
Manville to the Postmaster-General, 19 Oct. 1928 (Post Office Archives).
3 *Moseley to W. E. G. Murray, 22 Oct. 1928; Murray to Moseley, 23 Oct.
2

1928.

Letter to the Post Office, 25 Oct. 1928 (Post Office Archives).
Reith, Diary, 6 Nov. 1928. Reich added of the Postmaster-General that hewas 'a feeble and blustering creature: thought less of him than ever'.
4s

BACK TO BAIRD

539

less in the light of this meeting that Control Board decided thesame day that should the Baird Television Development Company be given an experimental station for itself-which it
clearly considered to be a possibility-the BBC monopoly ofsound should be `strenuously upheld'.'
The BBC had no intention of abandoning television lightly.
In a further and longer statement of November 1928, 'The
Truth About Television', it emphasized that `without the introduction of some new and revolutionary principle', television,in which it was genuinely interested, could not become a visualcounterpart of sound. All existing television systems were incapable of producing pictures up to the standard even of newspaper photographs and drawings. Campbell -Swinton wasquoted to the effect that future realization of this standard was
beyond 'the possible capacity of any mechanism with mov^ng
parts'.z There were other problems in 1928, however, besides
mechanical scanning. The requirement for television purposesof a large number of twin -wave stations ran counter to thepolicy, associated with the Regional Scheme, of building asmaller number of high -power stations.3 'What would be given
to the millions of listeners to compensate them for the loss of
the alternative programmes for which they have been waiting
for years?' A few `viewers' might enjoy a curious spectacle but
large numbers of others would suffer. 'Such a move would
upset the democratic foundation of British broadcasting anddisturb its basic tradition of the greatest good for the greatest
number.'4
After this statement was issued, Murray met Moseley andHutchinson 'in the middle of hostilities' to go over the eventsof the previous few weeks. Hutchinson felt that the BBC's
attitude towards the Baird demonstration had been `perfunctory, casual and frivolous' and that subsequent statements had
been 'a gross breach of faith and manners'. He purported todetect `sinister' influences behind the Corporation's attitude,
and was unconvinced by Murray's reply that there were no
extraneous or hidden motives. He also attacked Peter Eckersley*Control Board Minutes, 6 Nov. 1928.
Campbell -Swinton had stated this in a letter to The Times, 20 July 1928.
3 See above, pp. 293-5.
4 *BBC statement of Nov. 1928, 'The Truth About Television'.
2

540

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

for his personal share in condemning Baird's work. Murrayin reply insisted that all the Corporation's officials from the
Director -General downwards were determined to implement a
common policy, which was 'to resist television while it is still premature and to welcome it and give it every encouragement once
it has reached a stage where it may fairly be regarded as being
available for general service as an adjunct [sic] to broadcasting'.'
In acknowledging a copy of Murray's notes on this meeting,
Moseley showed how strained relations were. He agreed that
Broadcasting and Television must come together', but did not
feel that Murray's methods offered the best way of achieving
the union. He would have been even more suspicious had heheard Peter Eckersley report to Control Board at the end of
November that there were rumours that the British Thomson Houston Company and the Marconi Company had `competitive
schemes under way'.z This had been very vaguely hinted atduring the conversations with Hutchinson and Moseley andwas, of course, implicit in much that Campbell -Swinton was
saying. Not all the suspicions, however, were on Moseley's side.
The BBC itself was highly suspicious of rumours that Hutchinson had been approaching continental broadcasting authorities,
Dutch, German, and French, to relay Baird transmissions: it
seemed very odd that `repeated efforts to get from France thetruth about the reputed Tour Eiffel arrangement for television
and English hours next February have drawn no réponse ordémenti'.3

Given such suspicions on both sides, the Post Office wasdetermined, none the less, to seek reconciliation. The main
reason was political. The Postmaster -General made it clear to
the BBC that he was finding it difficult politically to defend an
entirely negative attitude to television. He did not suggest thatthe BBC engineers were wrong in their pessimistic forecasts ofthe future of Baird's inventions, yet lie went on to say that hefelt it was necessary that there should be still another scientific' *`Notes on a meeting with Captain Hutchinson and Sydney Moseley in Long
Acre at 11.3o a.m. on the 19th inst.' The notes were sent to Moseley so that there
would be no misunderstanding (W. E. G. Murray to Moseley, 20 Nov. 1928).
Moseley did not fully accept them and felt in any case that they should not havebeen taken at all (Moseley to Murray, 21 Nov. 1928).
2 *Control Board Minutes, 27 Nov. 1928.
3*Notes by C. F. Atkinson, it Dec. 1928.

BACK TO BAIRI)

541

demonstration under stringent conditions. This time there
should be a panel of independent judges including himself,
Sir Evelyn Murray, Reith, Carpendale, some of the Governorsof the BBC, and a few selected Members of Parliament. The
panel should be split into two groups, one to witness the reception of television at Savoy Hill, the other to be stationed at the
Post Office in St. Martin's -le -Grand. The demonstration andtests were to he held ín complete secrecy.'
Reith, Manville, and Mitchell -Thomson agreed on this procedure,2 but it was impossible to maintain the secrecy on which
the BBC had insisted. The proposed test was the subject ofgeneral gossip in the lobby of the House of Commons as earlyas the first week of December, and in the first fortnight ofJanuary it broke out into the newspapers. `Further trials of the Baird
television apparatus will take place, it is understood, in February,' the Daily Telegraph stated, 'and one or more of the BBC
stations will be used for this purpose. It is part of the agreement,
however, between the BBC and the Baird Company that thesetests shall take place secretly and that no publicity shall begiven to them until the BBC has thoroughly considered theresults of the trials.'3
The Baird Television Development Company denied any responsibility for the leak or for a similar statement in Popular
Tireless four days later.4 People inside the BBC believed, however, that it inspired an article in The People a few clays laterwith the banner headline 'The Great Wireless Mystery'. 'The
attitude of the BBC in regard to this amazing British invention
is absolutely incomprehensible', The People thundered. `«"hatjustification has the BBC for denying to the British public thesame opportunities which are now open, or very soon will beopen, to wireless enthusiasts in other parts of the world?'S
It was known that Baird had been receiving a stream offoreign visitors in the last few weeks of 1928 and that some ofI' *Sir Evelyn Murray to Keith, 13 and 26 Nov. 1928.
*Keith to Sir Evelyn Murray, 3 and 11 Dec. 1928; Hutchinson to Keith, 18
Dec. 1928; Keith to Sir Evelyn Murray, 18 Dec. 1928.
s Daily Telegraph, I Jan. 1929.
4 Popular Wireless, 5 ,Jan. 1929. `There are to be trials from the BBC stations,presumably conducted with guarantees of secrecy. It is believed that these willtake place in February.'s The People, 6 Jan. 1929.
2

542

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

their views were very similar to those expressed in The People.
`Unquestionably the Baird system is increasingly in advance ofany system on the Continent', one of them wrote; 'it seems to
be extraordinary that a British invention should be unable toobtain facilities for its development in the country of its birth.»`I have no doubt in my mind from what I have seen here in
London', the Technical Manager of the Czechoslovakian
Broadcasting Service added, 'that television has definitely
reached a commercial stage.'2 The feeling that the BBC would
eventually co-operate was communicated to Moseley by E. J.
Robertson of the Beaverbrook Press who told him that after
several interviews with people inside the BBC he was sure that
the Corporation would 'give your people the chance for which
they have been waiting'.3
Three clays after the article ín The People, the Financial Timespublished the categorical statement that there was a rapprochement between the BBC and the Baird Television Development
Company, and the Manchester Guardian stated that Baird transmissions would be given by the BBC in February.4 As the priceof Baird shares rose on the Stock Exchange, the BBC's reaction
was to republish the original brief statement the Governors had
drafted on t7 October. Baird retaliated with a statement complaining that the BBC had violated a pledge of secrecy.s The
two messages were published simultaneously. Indeed, just after
the BBC's Control Board had decided to send a copy of its
statement to Baird's company, a messenger from Baird's company arrived during the discussion with a copy of the company's
statement.6 The struggle seemed to have begun all over again.
In fact, negotiations for a further test continued along thelines discussed in the earlier tripartite correspondence. The
Baird Television Development Company cultivated a `progresr Note by F. Gradenwitz in Television, December 1928, quoted in Baird of
Television, pp. 136-7.
2 Quoted ibid., p. 137. For a favourable British viewpoint, see Sir Ambrose
Fleming's article in Television, Nov. 1928. `There is no reason to despair of thepossibility of television being carried on with mechanical movements. . . . All
invention progresses by steps of evolution and we cannot at one jump attain theideal perfection.' For two more cautious articles, see M. P. Davis, the Vice President of Westinghouse, and Dr. A. N. Goldsmith in the New York Times,
3
Private Diaries, p. 298.
16 Sept. 1928.
4 Financial Times, g.Jan. 1929; Manchester Guardian, g Jan. 1929.
6 *Control Board Minutes, 9 Jan. 1929.
Ibid., 10 Jan. 1929.
3

BACK TO BAIRD

543

sively friendlier attitude towards the BBC' in the last half ofJanuary,' and Baird International shares rose sharply, partly on
rumours of imminent foreign deals, partly on rumours of a forthcoming merger between the Baird concerns and Wireless Pictures Ltd. On the last day of the month Reith met Hutchinson
for the first time, noting briefly and unemotionally in his diarythat 'they are supposed to be giving us a demonstration in
February'.2 By a curious coincidence, this was the day that Reith
first realized that domestic difficulties were jeopardizing theposition of Peter Eckersley within the BBC. Although Eckersley
carried on protracted and often acrimonious negotiations with
the Baird Television Development Company until his resignation in the autumn of 1929, his role inside the BBC had been
weakened. The way was prepared for what he later described,
with exaggeration, as a `reversal of policy'.3
At his meeting with Hutchinson, Reith began by asking about
the financial pattern of Baird interests, being answered by
Hutchinson that he and his colleagues were 'in no way market
jugglers'. They went on to discuss foreign interests in the project,
and the details of the further demonstration. Keith has often
been depicted as the arch -enemy of Baird,* but in his last words
to Hutchinson he said without equivocation that 'it was a pity
they should prejudice their technical case by exaggerated andunwarranted statements concerning immediate commercial
and public use'. And although he had been upset after his
own meeting with Eckersley, he told Hutchinson that itwas `absurd' to blame Eckersley for the BBC's attitude to
Baird.sThe `reversal of policy' owed much to what Gladstone
Murray called `political pressure'. Questions were asked andanswered in the House of Commons on 29 January and 5 February which seemed to link the BBC directly with the Baird*W. E. G. Murray to Reith, 28 Jan. 1929.
2
D

Reith, Diary, 31 Jan. 1929.
The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 238.

Notably in Moseley's book, where the position is overpersonalized. See particularly ch. viii, 'The Monopoly says No'. Moseley also described the `conflict'as 'a classic illustration of what may happen in any clash between Private andNational enterprise' (p. 113).
s *Note by Reith to Carpendale, Eckersley, and Gladstone Murray, 31 Jan.
4

1929.

544

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

interests.' The most that the BBC could do was to suggest thatthe picture of an `enlightened' Postmaster-General disposing ofreactionary resistance was quite inaccurate. The demonstration
did, in fact, take place-a little later than had been first suggested-on 5 March. One of the `performers' was,Jack Buchanan,
an old friend of Baird.2 As a result of it the Postmaster -Generalreiterated his earlier opinion that the Baird system was capableof producing an image ofsufficient clarity and definition to justify
regular experimental BBC transmissions. He called it a `noteworthy scientific achievement', adding that while the system was
not sufficiently developed to justify television `programmes' within regular listening hours, he would assent to a BBC station being
made available outside regular broadcasting hours. He madetwo further points-first, that since medium waveband broadcasting was seriously congested, the Company should press onwith requirements 'on a much lower band', and second, thatneither the Postmaster -General nor the BBC should accept any
responsibility for 'the quality of the transmission or for the results
obtained'. People who bought `televisors' were buying themat their own risk.3
On receiving this welcome news from the Postmaster -General,
Hutchinson wrote at once to Eckersley.4 He did not get an
immediate reply, for Eckersley was in Prague.s There was an
air of procrastination, indeed, inside the BBC which, given thedecision of the Post Office, was scarcely a helpful contribution
to the further development of experiment. For the first time inColonel Malone asked the Postmaster -General about the 'secret' demonstration, and the Postmaster -General robbed it of its secrecy by giving the date.
Thurtle asked Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister why the Baird Television Development
Company had not held an annual meeting or issued any accounts since the Company was formed in 1927 and was told that only now were negotiations in progresswith the BBC which would clarify the Company's future.
2
Baird of Television, p. 144.
3
*Sir Evelyn Murray to the Baird Television Development Company, 27 Mar.
1929. For a quite different opinion of the demonstration, see Popular Wireless,
16 Mar. 1929.
4 *Hutchinson to Eckersley, 4 Apr. 1929.
*Ashbridge to Hutchinson, 5 Apr. 1929. There were many further delays andfurther reasons given for delay on this anti other issues during the next few months.
On 2 May 1929 Hutchinson was still protesting at 'the seeming delay in making
definite arrangements' (letter to Eckersley, 2 May 1929). He pointed out that thedelay was hampering foreign deals with European and Colonial interests. He
enclosed a note of the German Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, which backed upS

his case.

BACK TO BAIRD

545

the story the BBC was behaving in a manner which it is difficult to justify. The only real reason it could give for delay-andunfortunately the reason was not advanced at once-was that
until the overdue Brookmans Park transmitter was available
the Corporation was extremely short of transmitters.'
No attempt was made to offer temporary help, and after
Hutchinson had written an important letter setting out hiscomplaints about the BBC's attitude on 15 May, he had to senda second letter on 24 May asking why he had not received areply.2 It was not until 26 June 1929 that the BBC promisedin a very grudging letter the use of 2L0 for certain limited
periods outside broadcasting hours-three morning broadcasts
weekly of one -quarter of an hour.3 Carpendale's grim list of
conditions contrasts sharply with the enthusiasm and excitement about experiments which rang through some of Hutchinson's earlier letters. Not surprisingly, Hutchinson refused theoffer and said that it would be necessary to reopen the matterwith the Postmaster-General.4 Accordingly, Ampthill andManville wrote a long letter to the Post Office setting out theposition as they saw it.s
On 6 August Keith saw Sir Evelyn Murray at the Post Office-television was only the third item on the `agenda'6-and thefollowing day the BBC more generously considered granting the
Baird Television Development Company five half-hours a week
outside programme hours.? Reith, who was not responsible
personally for the earlier delays,8 formally offered the increased
allocation of hours on 12 August,9 and the Post Office advised
See above, pp. 309-1o. The point about Brookmans Park was made clearly forthe first time only on 6 May. 'Eckersley to Hutchinson, 6 May 1929.
2 'Hutchinson to Eckersley, 15 and 24 May 1929.
1929.
3 *Carpendale to the Baird Television Development Company, 26 June
4 *T. W. Bartlett (Secretary of the B.T.D. Co.) to Carpendale, 9 July 1929.
s Ampthill and Manville to the Postmaster-General, 9 July 1929 (Post OfficeArchives).

Keith, Diary, 6 Aug. 1929.
*Control Board Minutes, 7 Aug. 1929.
In a scribbled note on an account of a meeting between W. E. G. Murray
and the Secretary of the Television Society, Reith complained, however, of the'gross misrepresentation' by the Society in suggesting that the BBC had delayed
matters. 'I don't like either personally or the BBC officially to be called evasive
or dilatory, etc.' (8 Aug. 1929). Nonetheless, it seems that the charges in thisparticular case were justified.
Reith to Phillips, 12 \ug. 1929 (Post Office Archives).
6
7

C 199.,

N 11

546

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

Hutchinson to accept. 'The Postmaster -General considers thatin present circumstances these periods should be sufficient forthe proposed experimental service.' He did not accept a proposal
from Hutchinson that the experiments should be guaranteed
for a period of years, maintaining that 'the BBC should be free
to use their stations for whatever system may ultimately prove
to be the most suitable.... It is hardly, however, necessary topoint out', he concluded, 'that if the proposed experimental
service proves a success and meets with widespread appreciation,
there will be a public demand for a regular and permanent
service: and the conditions under which such a demand shouldbe met will then be considered.»
Hutchinson accepted the offer on 4 September, although hecalled it inadequate. It was a `temporary measure', to which
there was no alternative.2 After a long meeting at the BBC on
if September, at which both Hutchinson and Baird were present for the first time, it was agreed that transmissions should
begin on 3o September. (Reith was not present.) They would
start from the Oxford Street transmitter and later be transferred
to Brookmans Park. Transmission times were normally to befrom I I to 11.30 in the morning on weekdays, excluding Saturdays, with the possibility of occasional broadcasts after midnight.3

Two riders were of special interest-one in relation to what
was to happen in 1936, the other in relation to what was tohappen in 1954. 'We desire to make it clear that no monopoly
can be created for any proprietary system of television' thisleft the way open for the rival system that eventually triumphed
in 1936. `In accordance with the Corporation's Charter, noadvertising matter can be transmitted' this left one way firmly
closed until 1954.
::*W. T. Leech to Hutchinson, 14 Aug. 1929.
*Hutchinson to H. B. Lees -Smith, 4 Sept. 1929.
3*Carpendale to Hutchinson, 11 Sept. 1929.
I

2

( 547 )2. The Experiment
ECKERSLEY left the BBC a few weeks before the 3o -line `experimental broadcasts' began. A joint statement of the BBC

and the Baird Television Development Company, announcingthat they were to take place, was issued two days after his lastattendance at the Control Board. 'The object of the demonstrations', the statement read, 'is to afford the Baird Company
wider opportunity than they llave hitherto possessed for developing the possibilities of their system of television and for extending
the scope and improving the quality of reproduction." The
Baird Television Development Company had agreed to all theBBC's conditions.2 A period of co-operation began, often cautious, sometimes cordial, which was to last until the first official
inquiry into television in 1934.3
The first transmission 'was a great day for Baird and for allof us', Moseley has written.4 In all the complex negotiations
between GPO, BBC, and BTDC, Baird himself had been ashadowy figure in the background, an eccentric wlio lived ina world of his own rather than dreamed of a new world of
television opening up for millions of viewers. There were no
millions of viewers when a letter from William Graham, President of the Board of Trade in Britain's second Labour government, was read on 3o September: had he appeared, he would
have made the maiden broadcast of any British politician on
British television. The `performers' who did appear were
Sydney Moseley, Sir Ambrose Fleming, Professor E. N. da C.
Andrade, Sydney Howard, the comedian, Miss Lulu Stanley,
the singer, and Miss King. When Baird, who spoke extremely
briefly, was asked how many people he thought had been able
to receive the programme, he put the total at under thirty.
`There is one receiving set at my home on Box Hill, and I
believe the BBC and the Post Office each have one. That makes
three and I should say there are half a dozen other sets in the' *Joint Press Statement, 11 Sept. 1929.
2 *Hutchinson to Carpendale, 26 Sept. 1929.
See below, pp. 582-94.
4 John Baird, p. t 18.

548

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

country. Add to them the receivers which clever amateurs may
have built for themselves from our directions and you might
count another twenty. That makes twenty-nine in all."Technical conditions were appalling. Because only one BBCtransmitter was available, sound and vision could not be synchronized and the sound and the pictures had to be transmitted
alternately in two -minute sequences. The transmitting apparatus was imperfect, and because two wires were badly connected, viewers in the early stages of the broadcast saw only
a waving silhouette instead of a recognizable human face. At
the receiving end, even with the help of a lens, the picture wasonly as big as a saucer. 'The general effect', one viewer put it,'is similar to that of looking into an automatic picture -machine
as installed in amusement halls.'2
This was far from the `candy floss' with which television cameto be associated. Baird had the vision to see into the future as
Sarnoff and Burrows had seen into the future of sound radio
before the BBC came into existence.3 `Television from the BBC
station will begin modestly, with turns such as a single singer.
But ít ís only a question of time before "lookers-in" will see the
Derby or the Cup Final.'4 Yet even when technical conditions
were so appallingly bad-and no high official of the BBC had
graced the opening transmission-Baird was still proud enoughto claim that 'it is a great day for Britain that she is the first
country to give official recognition to television'.5

The first big step forward was dependent not on Baird, buton the BBC. Synchronization of sound and vision was achievedon 3o March 193o. The second circuit at Brookmans Park was
brought into use a few weeks after the opening of the newstation. R. C. Sherriff, the author of the 'hit' play, Journey'sEnd, and Gracie Fields were among the performers, and a `televisor' was installed at to Downing Street to enable the Prime
Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, and his family to enjoy the
programme. Before this historic occasion the BBC had alreadyextended the hours of television transmission. The withdrawal' Quoted John Baird, p. g.
3 See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 39-4o.
4 Evening News, 30 Sept. 1929.
5
Quoted in John Baird, p. 128.
1

2

Amateur IVireless, Oct. 1929.

THE EXPERIMENT

549

of the Fultograph experiment in November 1929 permitted,
without strain, an additional half-hour on Tuesdays andFridays after the end of regular broadcasting.'
The synchronization of sound and vision, which the Baird
Television Development Company felt was a necessary technical pre -condition of their selling `televisors' to customers,
followed logically. The price of `televisors' was set at 25 guineas,
although very few of them were sold. MacDonald hailed thetransmission as a `wonderful miracle', telling Baird that hehad 'put something in his room which would never let h"mforget how strange the world was-and how unknown'.2 There
were other observers, however, who pointed to the many technical flaws. 'The general reproduction reminded me considerably of the early "movies", in which the characters lived, moved
and had their being in a heavy and persistent shower of rain.
A black smudge at the bottom of the picture was an incidental
flaw caused by some technical defect either at Brookmans Parkor Savoy Hill.'3
In the negotiations about these developments Ashbridge, the
new Chief Engineer, wrote and argued sensibly and in a cooperative spirit. He warned Bartlett, the secretary of BTDC,
as also did Reith, that good sound might actually handicap
the appreciation of faulty vision.4 Other people inside the BBC
were less co-operative. R. Gambier-Parry, the Information Executive, told Bartlett in December 1929 that if sound and visionwere synchronized and full programmes were transmitted, 'they
would have to be subject to rigorous censorship by ourselves,
and they would have to be submitted to me at least two
weeks ahead'. Such an attitude is antipathetic to all experiment. Bartlett, however, tried to be helpful. 'He was prepared
to go further in advance than two weeks,' Gambier -Parrywrote, 'but I did not want this as I was anxious to avoid any
excuse for including his programmes in the Radio Times.'s The
gracelessness of this attitude is also revealed in the BBC Tear
' *Bartlett to Reith, t Nov. 1929; Control Board Minutes, 12 Nov. 1929.
Bartlett to Reith, 22 Nov. 1929; Reith to Bartlett, 27 Nov. 1929. See also Private
Diaries, PP. 303-4.
I MacDonald to Baird, 5 Apr. 1930, quoted in Baird of Television, p. 153.
3 Quoted in John Baird, p. 131.
4 *Note by Ashbridge, 'Television Tests', 25 Nov. 1929.
5 *Gambier -Parry to W. E. G. Murray, 18 Dec. 1929.
1

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

550

Book for 1931 where no reference is made to the historic date of
30 March 1930.1

Fortunately at a different level there was some understandingof what the term `experiment' really meant. In an article on'The Future of Broadcast Drama' in the BBC Year Book (1931)
Tyrone Guthrie, who, as a bright young man, had alreadyproduced many experimental productions for sound radio,
stated that the future inevitably lay with television rather thanwith sound radio. `In fusion with the visual arts,' he went on,`I believe the broadcast drama will lose most of its individuality
and its virtue, but will only then for the first time come into its
own in popular esteem will only then take its place as the mostpopular method of entertainment, and consequently as the mostforceful medium of propaganda in the history of the world.'z
This was not a one-sided verdict, and it displayed genuine
imagination. So, too, did R. C. Sherriff's statement at the end of
the first broadcast of combined sound and vision: `I am afraid
if this invention becomes too perfect, it will cause most people
to spend their evenings at home instead of visiting the theatre.'3
It was in a mood of excitement and with a desire to experiment that Val Gielgud asked for permission in May 193o forLance Sieveking to produce the first television play, Pirandello's
The Man with the Flower in 11's Mouth.4 The idea of a play may
have come from Moseley, who was scheduled as joint producers
Again the BBC's consent was grudging. `There was some discussion as to whether this co-operation was desirable, and it was
decided that the collaboration should be made free of charge,
A.C.(I) [Murray] restraining the Television Company fromusing it for undue publicity.'6
Behind the grudging language was the nagging fear, neverdispelled, that to build up publicity was to lead the publicalong the garden path. In The Man with the Flower in His
Mouth only one figure could be projected at a time and thatfigure could scarcely move. The focus was still uncertain andvariable. George Inns, who arranged the effects, felt that it was:

BBC rear Book (193!), p. 66.
Ibid., pp. 185-9o. See above, p. 58.
3 Quoted in John Baird,
p. 133.
4*Control Board Minutes, 6 May 1930.
For Moseley's account, see John Baird, pp. 133 ff.
5
6 *Control Board Minutes, 6 May 1930.
1

THE EXPERIMENT

551

all very primitive and that television had no future.' He certainly did not foresee that in the distant future he would win thePremier Award at an International Television Festival. Yet thepress gave the performance an enthusiastic reception. Val
Gielgud considered the whole experiment 'most interesting' andSieveking wrote 'a full production report'.2
The play, in which Gladys Young took part, was a fascinating artistic experiment, but Control Board, ignoring the enthusiasm, hoped that it was the kind of experiment which
would not be repeated. `Whilst this play provided materialof interest to the Productions Department and no doubt to the
Baird Company and showed our willingness to co-operate to thelimits of which their system was capable, no material technicalprogress has been made such as would justify our Programme
Branch co-operating any further. Such co-operation, with attendant publicity, would mislead the public as to the possibilities ofthe system now or as now foreseen. Our future action therefore
would be only that the Engineering Branch holds a watchingbrief.'3
In fact, Baird himself was always exploring the fringes of his
imperfect medium, taking up one experiment after another,more with the passion of an artist than the prudence of a scientist, and with Moseley acting as an omni-present impresario
and calling himself `Director of Television Programmes'. In
July 1930 Baird introduced a big television screen to the public,
and each evening for a fortnight a part of the performance at
the London Coliseum was devoted to a 'tele -talkie' demonstration in which eminent men and women, including George
Robey and George Lansburg, were seen projected upon a television screen measuring five feet by two feet.4 The form of the
big screen, made up not of neon tubes and Kerr cells but of ahoneycomb of over 2,000 cells into each of which a peanut -type
filament lamp was placed, marked technical regression rather
than progress, yet the performance was warmly applauded in
Berlin, Paris, and Stockholm as well as London.
Early in 1931 he went on to demonstrate 'zone television',with as many as eight full-length figures projected on the'Television Programme, Window on the World, 7 Nov. 1961.
*Control Board Minutes, 22 July 193o.
John Baird, pp. 138 9.
4 Baird of Television, pp. 166-7; J. Swift, Adventure in Vision (1950), p. 46.
'

2

D

552

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

receiving screen and a cricket lesson by Herbert Strudwick.' In
May 1931 he showed street scenes in normal daylight,2 and one
month later televised the Derby. On that occasion the Nipkow
discs were abandoned and mirror drums used. 'The broadcast
is important', The Times noted, 'in that it is the first attemptwhich has been made, in this or in any other country, to securea television transmission of a topical event held in the open air,when artificial light is impossible.'3 In spite of poor definition,
viewers could see the parade of horses and all the excitementof the race itself. 'The result astonished us all', another journalist put it. 'We had found the stepping -stone to a new era inwhich mechanical eyes will see for us great events as they
happen and convey them to us at our homes.'4
More important perhaps than these `public demonstrations'
was the series of experiments with short-wave television transmissions, culminating in April 1932 with hat was describedas 'the world's first demonstration of ultra -short-wave television'.8 Baird did not know that the BBC had already undertaken ultra -short-wave experiments in 1931.6 Eckersley had
been doubtful of their usefulness on the grounds that they would
cover only a limited area,? and Baird himself had expressed thesame view on a visit to the United States in September 1931.8
Yet Baird was willing, when occasion demanded, to change his
mind. After securing permission from the Post Office to use aseparate wavelength for this and further experimental broadcasts independently of the BBC,9 he began to work co-operatively
with the BBC from December 1932 onwards.10
NN,

The Times, 5 Jan. 1931.
2

Daily Mail, 9 May 1931.

3

The Times, ¢ June 1931.

Daily Herald, 4 June 1931; see also the Daily Telegraph, 4 June 1931.
S *BBC Press Release, 29 Apr. 1932.
6 *Control Board Minutes, 6 Oct. 1931. R.C.A. had also carried out tests.
7 The Power Behind the Microphone, p. 239.
8 John Baird, pp. 210-Ií.
9 *Letter of Agreement 1931, quoted ibid., p. 159. The BBC was annoyed that
Baird had been given permission to use ultra -short waves (*Carpendale to Phillips,
28 Apr. 1932). Phillips replied on 7 May that the BBC had only been consulted in
the past `if the proposals raised the question of a public service or of the use of the
4

Corporation's stations'.

1O *BBC Press Release, 5 Dec. 1932. A wavelength of 7.3 metres was used and thepictures were stated to have 'much more detail and no flicker'. Baird wrote toReith (6 Dec. 1932) attaching the highest importance to this work, which he said
was more advanced than that carried on by the American Radio Trust.

THE EXPERIMENT

553

He showed complete inflexibility, however, in relation tonon -mechanical methods of scanning-partly, perhaps, because the financial and technical resources for large-scale
experiments were beyond his reach. `There is no hope fortelevision by means of cathode ray tubes', he told the Americans
in September 1931. Limitations of outlook quickly became
prejudices, and the fatal flaw in Baird's work was his inability
to see beyond these limitations. The result was that for all his
ingenuity and enterprise, he was doomed to be what Rebecca
West aptly called 'the man who sows the seed and does not reap
the harvest'.' With Moseley's aid he was publicizing televisionin 1931 and 1932, not ensuring that his own system would he thetechnical basis of a new service.
Yet it is difficult in retrospect not to catch the excitement of
all that he was doing. He had abundant vision even if his techniques Were limited. The BBC did not always appreciate thevision. There had been rumours that permission to transmit
would not be granted in 1931,2 and even when these rumours
were shown to be unfounded, there was a feeling that the
BBC's facilities were not being fully offered to Baird. In November 1930 Lord Gainford, the Vice -Chairman of the Board ofGovernors, had a long talk with Lord Ampthill, the chairmanof Baird International Television Ltd. Ampthill asked for abold BBC policy of active encouragement of television, and was
not put off when Gainford talked of flickering images and bad
reception. Gainford replied in guarded language that 'we were
not a Corporation which had to cater for Empire, or inventions,though we naturally wanted to help Empire and trade interests.
Our duty was to 3,200,000 listeners who paid os. to listen to
programmes, and for us to deprive those people of one alternative programme for longer intervals than were now conceded
was unreasonable.'3
Repeating his views in a long letter, Ampthill stuck to his
points. Viewing hours were at the most inconvenient times, andthe scale of activity did not encourage the sale of `televisors'.
Laboratory `televisor' models were more impressive than the1

2

Quoted in John Baird, p. 159.
* Lord Gainford to Lord Ampthill, 9 Dec. 1930; BBC Press Statement, 4 Dec.

1930.

' *Gainford to Reith, 8 Nov. 1930.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

554

models on sale, and experiments were continuing at Hendon
on ultra -short-wave television transmission. The Baird companies were having to do all their development work themselves
and pay the BBC for the limited services they received thiswas a much more unfavourable situation than their competitors
faced in, say, Germany. Could not the BBC assist the Baird
companies to develop their world-wide interests? 'The inventions we are developing are purely British and ill if successfully
developed provide increased trade and work for this country.'
Summing up, Ampthill said that what his company mostwanted were `extended facilities and a closer co-operation ofyour Corporation'.' Gainford replied that the BBC was prepared to co-operate as best it could but that its primary concern remained the interests of listeners. `Anything which eventemporarily cripples or reduces this service must be avoided
if we would observe our tradition and practice.'2 The correspondence ended with Ampthill telling Gainford neatly that it
was his confident hope that television would in due course`become an important part of the practice of the BBC and add
to the lustre of the traditions you are rightly observing'.3
Any coldness in the BBC should not be exaggerated, andwhere it existed, it should be studied in relation first to thecomparative lack of public interest in the programmes, outside
the press, and second to the BBC's knowledge that other systems
were being developed with what was felt to be a better technicalfuture. In January 1931 Baird told the Postmaster -Generalthat the number of television sets sold was less than a thousand :4
this was hardly the basis for large-scale immediate expansion,
although Baird added that by his calculations ten times as many
people had constructed their own sets.
As far as other systems of television were concerned, theGramophone Company was experimenting with mechanicalmethods from 193o onwards, and the Marconi Company set
up a research group in August of that year with the deliberate
purpose of examining alternative systems. `It was generally
realised', a Marconi Company historian has written, 'that much:

VS

*Ampthill to Gainford, 17 Nov. 1930.
*Gainford to Ampthill, 9 Dec. 1930.
3*Ampthill to Gainford, 15 Dec. 1930.
4 Report of Meeting of 2 Jan. 1931 (Post Office Archives).
r

2

THE EXPERIMENT

555

higher standards were necessary if commercial interests were
to be served, and investigations into the many involved problems in systems employing the scanning of a photo -image ofthe scene by cathode ray were being pursued, particularly in
America."
Given this background and the desire to give viewers a real
`service', if they were to be provided for at all, relations between
the Baird interests and the BBC improved in 1930 and 193 I., As
Eckersley faded out of the picture on the BBC's side, Hutchinson
also disappeared from the scene on the opposite side, and Baird
himself came increasingly into prominence, still with Moseleyas a trusted adviser. In September 1930 Moseley commented to
Gladstone Murray on how friendly relations had been of late :2 inJanuary 1931 Reith told Baird that there was the `maximum
good will' towards him `personally', and that the BBC was`anxious to be as helpful as possible in the solution of yourdifficult problems'.3 He met Baird in person in the same monthafter Baird had asked for an interview,4 and told him that there
were various directions in which the BBC could help the Baird
Television Development Company to make more effective andmore economical use of existing facilities `within the limits ofpresent policy'.5 The limits of that policy were clear, and Rcithnever pretended otherwise. The BBC still took the view that thedevelopment of television had not reached a stage where thepublic could be provided with regular `service' transmissions.6
What the BBC would not do was to `subsidize' Baird-a term
he resented?-or to provide more convenient and longer hours.
Information coming in from Germany and America seemed tosuggest-though Baird queried it violently8-that the BBC's
cautious policy, which Ampthill had questioned, had been fully
justified. The Bell Telephone Company, it seemed, had cut
Marconi Company, Chapters of Marconi History, no. ix, 'The Development of
Television in Great Britain', p. 2. See also N. E. Davis, 'Television Transmitter
Development, 1931-1936' in Sound and Vision (1g61).
2 *Moseley to W. E. G. Murray, to Sept. 193o.
3 *Reich to Baird, 15 Jan. 1931.
4 *Baird to Reith, 2 Jan. 1931.
S *Control Board Minutes, 6 Jan. 1931, followed by 'Draft Recommendations'.
6 *Baird to Reith, taking up these points, 27 Jan. 1931.
7 *Baird to Reith, 27 Jan. 1931.
8*Moseley to WV. E. G. Murray, including observations by Baird and Moseley,
25 Feb. 1931.

556

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

down its experiments after spending a huge sum, and the German Post Office had spent 200,000 marks on television in two
years, quite in vain. The Berliner Tageblait had warned all
television pioneers that they should not put a bad thing before
the public, label it `good', and reply to complaints that it was'good enough' except that people could not see it properly.'
Quite apart from these particular facets of international
television history, many of which Baird could dispute, it should
be remembered that 1930 and 1931 were years of economic
depression and that the BBC's finances were so severely strainedthat the Corporation could not contemplate even modest expenditure on the creation of an Empire Service.2 Two sets offinancial considerations were clashing. At the very momentthat Reith was arguing with the government about the BBC's
contribution to national solvency, Baird was pleading with
MacDonald to give financial help to save television from falling'into American hands'. `It is not possible to rely on the promisesof the BBC', he complained. 'They have outward friendliness,but have inwardly maintained a hostility which is difficult tounderstand.'3
Baird and his backers felt, as Ampthill stated it, that they
could not hope to sell British `televisors' until they had moreregular broadcasts at more convenient times: the BBC did not
feel that it could embark on a vast and unknown expenditure,
particularly when there was a fundamental doubt about the
future of the system. To dramatize this difference as a personal
contest between 'two sons of the Manse' is to see it completely
wrongly. Yet it is undoubtedly true that the Baird interests wereseverely shaken by their failure to offer more to their potential
clients. The boom days-in so far as boom days had ever existed
in Britain during the i92os-were over. The price of Baird
shares fell on the capital market and a series of elaborate financial changes followed, largely inspired by Sydney Moseley.
'*Cutting from the Berliner Tageblatt, 28 Jan. 1931; *Control Board Minutes,

17 Feb. 1931. The cutting was sent to Baird.

f

See above, pp. 375
For Reith's difficulties, see above, pp. 379-80. The letter from Baird to MacDonald is in the Post Office Archives. Baird got no response from the Prime Minister,whose secretary told him he was too pressed to reply and referred him to the Postmaster -General. Nor was Herbert Samuel much help to Moseley at this time, forall his talk. As ¡Tome Secretary, he doubted whether it `would be practicable' toengage the Prime Minister's attention. Private Diaries, p. 313.
2

3

THE EXPERIMENT

557

The Baird Television Development Company and Baird
International Television Ltd. amalgamated to form Baird
Television Ltd. in June 1930; this change was made probably
because ít was no longer considered desirable on strategic
grounds to suggest that television was still under `development'.
4/6

4/

3/6

3/-

2/6

2/-

1/6

1

1

3

6

7

S

9

TO

13

14

IS 16 17 70 11 22 23 14 17 19 19 30 31

3

4

S

6

7

10

11

11 13 14

Il 18 19 10 21 24 25 16 2729 I

NOVEMBEROCTOBER1931

49. The Price Movement of Baird Shares (2932)

The new company }tad a capital of £825,000 of which about£700,000 had been spent, sometimes with little restraint, onvarious kinds of development. The amalgamation was followed
in September 1930 by the `agreed' voluntary liquidation of theso-called `parent company', Television Ltd., which held amillion deferred shares in the new amalgamation. At the timeof liquidation of the `parent company', the shares of the publiccompany had fallen to about 4d.: not long before, in January
1929, shares in Baird International Television had reachedmore than 14c. and shares in the Baird Television Development
Company 3os.

558

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

The million deferred shares in the public company, which
had been allotted to the `parent company' in return for thesurrender of original rights, constituted a controlling interest,
and when the `parent company' voluntarily went into liquidation, Moseley had the task-congenial to the author of Money
Making in Stocks and Shares-of ensuring that these shares passed
from the liquidators into the right hands. The answer was
simple: he had to acquire the shares himself. To do this, however, he had to secure enough shares in the dying Television
Ltd. to control its policy. This he managed to do, in face ofconsiderable opposition both from big financial interests andfrom people who `believed' that the shares he had done so muchto publicize were a genuine gold -mine. 'The time arrived when
Moseley held, either himself or through his friends, sufficientvoting strength in Television Ltd. to carry a resolution authorising the joint liquidators to accept his offer of,E16,5oo for the997,30o deferred shares, and he signed a contract undertaking tocomplete the deal in a month."

The significance of this transaction was not so much that it
gave Moseley temporary control of the Baird companies,
which he had done so much to create, but that within a matterof weeks this large block of shares was acquired by Isidore
Ostrer, the President of the Gaumont-British Film Company.
Ostrer assisted Moseley while he was acquiring control and in
making his final payment: Ostrer's own acquisition of control
was announced publicly in January 1932.2 To Moseley he wasa `millionaire with ideals',3 the perfect deus ex machina: Reith wasmore sceptical about the extent of Ostrer's idealism. `Lunchedwith Murray and Isidore Ostrer', he wrote in his diary inDecember 1932. 'He said a great deal about Television and I
wondered how much was genuine, and how far it would takehim against commercial motives.';
Before Ostrer took control of the Baird interests in January

1932 there had been a marked improvement in Baird's relations
with the BBC. The Derby Day demonstration of 1931 has some' Notes by \V. H. Knight, quoted in John Baird, p. 175.
2
Private Diaries, p. 311.
3*News Service Release, 28 Jan. 1932. Maurice Ostrer, a Vice -Chairman of
Gaumont-British, was to be a Director of the new concern along with Moseley.
4 Reith, Diary, 15 Dec. 1932.

THE EXPERIMENT

559

times been held to have impressed the BBC so much that itchanged its policies,' and certainly it is true that in August 1931
the BBC allowed the Baird Company to install one of its new
portable transmitters in Studio to at Waterloo Bridge and totransmit a BBC sound programme.2 More important, however,in modifying attitudes was a favourable report by Ashbridgein October 1931 on the technical aspect of Baird's work. 'On
the 12th October I paid a visit to the Baird Television Laboratories in Long Acre', Ashbridge wrote. The first picture he saw
there was `easily the best television I have seen so far and might
be compared, I think, with a cinematograph "close-up" of say
fifteen to twenty years ago.... Were it possible for the ordinary
public to buy an apparatus of this kind and to run it without
difficulty or undue expense, I think we should just have reachedreal programme value.' This was by far the most encouraging
assessment ever made inside the BBC of Baird's work. 'At present', Ashbridge went on, 'this apparatus is not in a fit state todevelop commercially, but there is, I think, reason to assume
that this will follow in a comparatively few years' time.'3
Moseley, who was present when Ashbridge saw Baird, did
not help Baird's case, `although he did practically all the talking'. `While not being impressed very much with what Moseleysaid, because a good deal of it was contradictory, I was much
more impressed by the technical results which I saw, because
I now think that a good deal of development has been made in
the past nine months or so.' The conclusion was clear. 'We ought
to take steps to carry on Television transmissions and development by some means or other, including the Baird Company.
I would be inclined to encourage the Baird Company to areasonable extent in what they are doing no'' , because I feelthat someone must develop Television for broadcasting, andif they do it adequately so much the better. If not, sooner orlater, the BBC will he forced to do it, and at great cost to thelistening public.'' Sec, for example, John Baird, p. 153.

2 The portable transmitter went astray after it had left Long Acre in April 1931.
`Nothing has arrived at No. io Studios,' Murray wrote to Moseley, `so perhaps theportable transmitter was sent to No. io Downing Street, instead. I gather thecurrent there is quite appropriate.' (*W. E. G. Murray to Moseley, 17 Apr. 1931.)
For the first studio broadcast, see The Times, 20 Aug. 1931.
3* Memorandum of Ashbridge to Reith, `Television', 14 Oct. 1931.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

560

Gladstone Murray recognized at once that this memorandumchanged the situation. 'One always had in mind that sooner
or later there would arrive the right moment for the BBC totake the strategic initiative about television.. But a prerequisite
condition was an intimation from the Chief Engineer that progress was being recorded and that the service stage was notindefinitely remote. It seems to me that this condition has now
been fulfilled.» Two months earlier-after the Derby-Murray
had suggested flatly to Moseley that the period of experimental
transmission had lasted long enough to yield all possible data
and that 'a better scheme had to be evolved' if the BBC wereeffectively to assist further development.2 The result of discussions at this time had been a wide-ranging talk between
the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC and Bairdon 17 August 1931. 'He seemed extremely well disposed andanxious to help us', Baird had written to Sydney Moseley, who
was in America at the time, seeking financial help to complete
his purchase of the Baird Television shares.3
Before Ashbridge presented his `favourable' report, therefore,
there had been signs of rapprochement, with further talks abouta closer co-operation and a wider range of programmes.4 Midnight transmissions were to be replaced by one half-hour weekly
feature beginning with Jack Payne, and there were to be television tests in the North Region.5 Yet tension remained andcould flare out, as always, with considerable bitterness. Before
Ashbridge's memorandum of October, the discussions, friendly*W. E. G. Murray to Reith, 19 Oct. 1931.
W. E. G. Murray to Moseley, 12 Aug. 1931. Moseley welcomed this letterin his reply of 12 Aug. 1931: `I think it is vital in the interests of this country, thatthe one great force which is able to help it should come to an arrangement with the
Baird Company to safeguard the interests of British television.'
Letter from Baird to Moseley, quoted in Private Diaries, p. 313. For the meeting,see *`Chairman's Notes on his interview with Mr. Baird on 17 Aug. 1931'.
4 *Notes on a Television Meeting between Baird, Ashbridge, and W. E. G.
Murray, Sept. 1931. See also Control Board Minutes, 3 Sept. 1931; Murray to
2

1

Baird, 8 Sept. 1931.
Gladstone Murray had been very irritated when in the previous year there
had been newspaper talk of `television coming to Yorkshire'. See the Yorkshire
Weekly Post Illustrated, 18 Oct. 1930. According to oral evidence, engineers in the
BBC thought Baird had his eye on the second of the twin -waves at the regional
stations for television purposes. Gladstone Murray told Moseley tartly then(*a letter of 23 Oct. 1930) 'that there is no possibility whatsoever of television
being broadcast in December or January from the North Regional station at
Slaithwaite [Mootside Edge]'.

561

THE EXPERIMENT

though they often were, had not cleared the air. Baird, indeed,
had confessed to Gladstone Murray that he found the BBC's
communications dominated by 'a note of suspicion'. 'One might
deduce that the Baird Company was a kind of predatory monster engaged only in trying to embarrass or demolish the BBC."
Back from America, Moseley, who had dreams at this timeof the BBC taking over the Baird interests,2 added that `there
is no doubt that the BBC regards television as a nuisance andwould be glad to see it "fade out".... The venomous hostilityof the former Chief Engineer has crystallised into a kind of
cynical indiñerence.'3 The `co-operation' had been too limited.
Since the hours of transmission remained unchanged and noprovision was being made for television studios in the new
Broadcasting House, he intended to press ahead 'for separate
independent broadcasting facilities, both visual and aural'.
Ashbridge's report was prepared, therefore, with talk of`independent broadcasting facilities' once more in the air. It
ended with a definite comment that the granting of separate
wavelengths outside the broadcasting band `might be unsoundfrom our point of view'. Gladstone Murray took up the point.
'The right direction for the future seems to be for the Baird
people to concentrate on their commercial operations, leaving
us to look after the programme work and either to absorb or
supervise the technical development of the transmitting end... .
Once the initiative is passed to us, we should be in a position not
only to counter any hostile use of television but also to determine the rate and the manner of applying it to broadcasting.';
Control Board-or rather 'a majority of opinion' on Control
Board, backed by Reith-supported a `policy of co-operation'with Baird, and details were worked out in October andNovember 1931.5 The Baird Company was to provide andinstall complete television equipment in a studio in the new
Broadcasting House; the BBC was to pay a nominal rental
fee; there was to be consultation and association between
the engineers of the Corporation and the Company; and the
BBC itself was to provide a weekly one -hour programme from
*Baird to W. E. G. Murray, 9 Sept. 1931.
*Moseley to W. E. G. Murray, g Oct. 1931.
4 *W. E. G. Murray to Reith, 19 Oct. 1931.
*Control Board Minutes, 27 Oct. 1931.
3

5

C 199500

2John Baird, p. 202.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

562

o'clock to 12 o'clock on weekday mornings and 12 o'clock too'clock on Saturdays. These suggestions, sent to Lord Ampthill and approved in principle by the Baird interests, marked amajor change in policy. There was, however, a crucial escapeclause. `«'e should be free to give transmissions by other Television methods, whether the Baird transmissions were continued
or not.'
Before the negotiations between the Corporation and the
Baird interests were completed, Ostrer had taken over controlof the Baird interests and Ampthill had resigned from thechairmanship of Baird Television.z The detailed negotiations
had been left to a small `expert' committee of representativesof both sides, which seems to have worked amicably and constructively.3 This committee was supplemented inside the BBCfrom February 1932 onwards by a `Television Committee' dealing with programmes and programme research. It consistedof Graves, in the chair, Gielgud, Wellington, Mase, andFielden .4
Prospects not only for a legal agreement but for effective
co-operation on programmes seemed very favourable when the
Postmaster -General, Kingsley Wood, `inspected' the Baird
laboratory at Long Acre in March 1932. 'The demonstration
was good', Ashbridge wrote, but, once again, Moseley, hethought, had not helped matters by his rhetoric. He delivered'a long harangue about the development of a great British
industry, suggesting that the whole question was more thana mere commercial proposition, and [was] concerned [with] thebuilding up of a great public service. He suggested that there
was a potential market of q. million television sets, in fact mostof what lie said was hopelessly exaggerated.... He hinted atsome kind of Post Office or Governmental Enquiry, which,however, he left in a very nebulous state. He seemed almost to
hint that there should be some enquiry similar to that which
I I
I

1

*Reith to Ampthill, 19 Nov. í931. Ampthill accepted the plan in principle
in a letter of 24 Nov. 1931. There was, however, a further correspondence about
details: Reith to Ampthill, 22 Dec. 1931; Ampthill to Reith, it Jan. 1932; Reith
to Ampthill, 13 Jan. 1932. Control Board Minutes, 12 Jan. 1932.
2 John Baird, p. 214.
7 Baird's independent
pursuit of ultra -short-wave experiments did not help thenegotiations, however. See above, p. 552.
4 *Alinutes of the First Television Committee, 22 Feb. 1932.

THE EXPERIMENT

563

took place prior to the starting up of the British Broadcasting
Company. The Postmaster -General did not comment on this,and I commented very sparingly."

Agreement between Baird Television Ltd. and the BBC wasreached over a period of time, culminating in September 1932.2
The BBC promised to provide at least two television programmes a week until 31 March 1934.-a much later terminal
date than had originally been envisaged3-ancl the Baird Television Company promised, for its part, to issue a notice with all
television and kits of parts that it sold, stating without equivocation that transmissions by the Baird system might cease after
March 1934.. A BBC engineer, Douglas Birkinshaw, was appointed to the first BBC post in television-that of ResearchEngineer, later to be joined by D. R. Campbell and T. H.
Bridgewater, engineers of the Baird Television Company, whowere responsible for the installation of Baird equipment. It was
felt to be a good omen that their initials spelt `BBC'. On the
programme side, Eustace Robb, a former Guards officer, was thefirst television producer, and George Grossmith was an adviser.
Baird was less successful in his negotiations with the Post
Office than lie was in his negotiations with the BBC, even though
he had the BBC's backing. Kingsley Wood rejected two specificproposals-first to allow him one penny from the revenue ofeach wireless receiving licence, second to provide him with anannual subsidy of £1o,000 a year towards research.4 The
second idea, based on the opera subsidy, had been Reith's, andReich wrote to Kingsley Wood to support it.s He had addedand it was in line with his whole philosophy of broadcastingthat if such a subsidy were paid, 'it might necessitate some
*Ashbridge, 'Note on the Visit of the Postmaster General to the Baird Television Laboratories, 29 Mar. 1932'. See also Control Board Minutes, 6 Apr. 1932.
2 *Note 01 28 Oct. r932. There was no final signed agreement even at this date,
but what had been agreed was set out in a document in December of that year.
This date had first been discussed at a meeting on 22 Jan. 1932. It was madeclear from the start that `the assurance of continuance until 31 Mar. 1934 does
but only that
not imply continuance of the four or five programmes a week
there will not be entire discontinuance before that date'. (*Note of meetings of
22 Jan. and 4 Feb. 1932.)* For the penny rate, see Baird to Kingsley Wood, 12 Apr. 1932; Kingsley Woodto Baird, 21 Apr. 1932 (Post Office Archives). For the subsidy, see *Keith to W. E.G.
Murray, 15 June 1932.
*Reith to Kingsley Wood, 23 May 1932.
1

...

564

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

reconstitution of his company, for instance to the extent of alimited dividend', noting that the Company had hitherto neverpaid any dividend. Baird had regarded Reith's intervention asof 'the utmost importance' and thanked him warmly for it,1
but it drew no response from Kingsley Wood, even when the
BBC offered to augment the subsidy out of its own revenue.2'I have felt bound to refuse the application,' the PostmasterGeneral wrote to Reith in June 1932, `leaving the question of apayment by the BBC for settlement between the Company andyour Corporation.' No explanation was given to Reith. To
Baird it was pointed out simply that it was impossible at thatstage to add to the nation's expenditure on research: there
would be many other claimants, some of whom `might seem todeserve prior consideration'.3
Baird had made his big bid and failed. The BBC was cooperating with him more fully than ever, yet he himself wasincreasingly conscious of what he bitterly called `years of un remunerative labour'.4 There were very few viewers for his
programmes, and the sale of sets remained extremely lows The
press might take up his programmes as `stunts', but in a highly
competitive radio industry, where there was no unwillingness
to produce radio sets, there was no commercial company prepared to manufacture `televisors'. The BBC was basically rightin very cautiously assessing the permanent value of his work.6*Baird to Reith, 18 May 1932.
Baird had characteristically asked for a far bigger sum from the BBC than it
could hope to pay. For the use of his patents he asked an annual sum larger thanthat paid by the BBC for the whole of its wireless patents owned by the Marconi
Company, Standard Telephones, the Radio Corporation of America, and otherwireless interests. *See Reith to W. E. G. Murray, 15 June 1932.
*Kingsley \Vood to Reith, 20 June 1932; Kingsley \Vood to Baird, 20 June
3
1932 (Post Office Archives).
4 *Baird to Kingsley Wood, 9 June 1932.
5 He told Reith in Dec. 1932
that only about 50o manufactured 'televisions'were in use (*Baird to Reith, 2 Dec. 1932).
6 A quite independent writer on the BBC's attitude towards Baird sums up as
follows: 'The delay imposed by the BBC [on Baird] was right, both from the pointof view of public entertainment and of progress in the television art. The only
thing open to question was whether the delay was long enough.' See S. G. Sturmey,
The Economic Development of Radio (1958), p. 199. *Cf. Ashbridge in a note of 9 June
1952 on Moseley's book: 'Looking back over the years I do not think the BBC did
anything wrong, nor did it hold back excessively. It might, of course, have handled
the situation more adroitly, but this applies to so many things and is to someextent unavoidable with an organisation like the BBC when so many people areconcerned inside and outside the organisation.'IaTHE EXPERIMENT

565

The Ostrer interests, as Reith had prophesied, gave Baird lesssupport than he had anticipated, looking for quick results
rather than extended experiments and paying no attention tohis suggestions about the business side of development.
Finally in June 1933 Moseley resigned from the Board of
Television Ltd., ostensibly on the grounds that he could help
television more from outside the company than inside it.
`Experimental broadcasts' continued, sometimes with a flourish. In November 1932 Carl Brisson, the Danish film star, introduced by Baird himself, was televised from Broadcasting
House to the Arena Theatre in Copenhagen Goo miles a« ay.
Among the items of fare in 1933 were a television revue, Looking
In, presented by John Watt and Harry S. Pepper, with Anona
Winn as one of the performers, a boxing contest, and the firstof a continuing sequence of animal programmes, including
greyhounds and sea lions. There were 76 transmissions in 1932
and 208 in 1933.1 There was even an article by Baird himself
in the BBC Year Book for 1933.2
All these broadcasts enabled the BBC to gain valuable
experience of television far ahead of any foreign broadcasting
concerns, but they were viewed with suspicion by many people
inside Broadcasting House, who felt that the interests of a tiny
handful of people were jeopardizing the interests of the many.
'The BBC is most anxious to know the number of people whoare actually seeing this television programme', a remarkably
early broadcast listener -research' request stated in the summerof 1933. 'Will those who are looking in send a postcard marked"Z" to Broadcasting House immediately?' A year earlier Graves
had complained that those immediately concerned with television were demanding `ideal conditions' which would lead togreat expense being incurred, and Control Board held that`expense and interference with Broadcasting progress was unjustified in view of the extremely limited public for televisionand its present limited powers'. It was decided that Graves andAshbridge should tell Robb and Birkinshaw that 'they could
go so far and no further and must view the matter in its rightproportion'.3 The `right proportion' is never easy to decide.
' *Note on Television Programmes to 31 Dec. 1934, Plant Costs prepared for
Carpendale.
2 BBC rear Book (1933),
pp. 441-7.
3 *Control Board Minutes, 9 Aug. 1932.

566

THE NE\V WORLD OF TELEVISION

Only £2,225 was spent by the BBC on television in 1932,
including producers, engineers, studios, artists, scenery andcostumes, and £7,129 in 1933. The figure fell to £6,617 in
1934.1 It is difficult to imagine `experimental broadcasts' being
financed for any less than this.
Even at this level, the axe fell. In September 1933 a brief
formal notice was served on the Baird Television Company
that the BBC intended 'to terminate the arrangement between
us at 31 March 1934 in accordance with the terms of our letterof 21 March 1932'.z

3. The Rivals
THE letter of notice had less to do with dissatisfaction with
Baird or with the costs of television programmes than with theexciting progress made in developing other systems of television.
In Britain the first television experiments within a big businessorganization had been made along `mechanical' lines by the
Marconi Company: in 1932 the company had displayed 'head
and shoulders television'-with Nipkow discs and light -beamscanning devices. The displays included demonstrations at the
British Association meeting at York.3 On the other side of theAtlantic the competitors whom Baird most feared, the big
American radio and gramophone companies, were experimenting with `electrical' instruments from the mid-192os onwards.
V. K. Zworykin had begun to develop electronic methods ofscanning in the research laboratories of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company as early as 1925, and in 1930,
at David Sarnof 's suggestion, had transferred his experiments
to the associated laboratories of the large Radio Corporation ofAmerica-which in 1929 had amalgamated with the Victor
Talking Machine Company.4*Note on Programmes and Costs to 3t Dec. 1934.
*Letter of 22 Sept. 1933.
s Marconi Company, 'The Development of Television in Great Britain', p. 2.
See also The Marconi Review, September to October 1932.
4 V. K. Zworykin, `Television with Cathode -Ray Tubes' in the Journal of theInstitution of Electrical Engineers, vol. 73, 1933, pp. 437 ff. For the story of Zworykin's
dealings with Westinghouse, which did not permit him the full freedom to develop
2THE RIVALS

567

Zworykin, who had been a pupil of Rosing in St. Petersburg,
made a major `break -through' with his invention of the `ionoscope', a charge -storage type of transmitting tube. Details of
this invention were announced publicly in 1933. Zworykin also
designed viewing tubes which incorporated grid modulation,a hard vacuum, and electro -static focusing.' After modification,
the 'ionoscope' served as a model for the 'Emitron Camera',developed in Britain by Electric and Musical Industries Ltd.E.M.I.2
E.M.I. was the most important new British combination of
the period covered in this volume. It was incorporated in 1931
as the result of a merger between the Gramophone Company
Ltd., which had begun to carry out television research a year
earlier under the direction of G. E. Condliffe and C. O. Browne,3
the Columbia Grapliophone Company, and other interests.
Each of the two main firms had a long history. The Gramophone
Company had been founded as a private company in 1898 withpurely British capital; the Columbia Company had operated in
Britain from 1898 to 1922 as a branch of the American Columbia Gramophone Manufacturing Company, but had beena purely British concern since 1922. There were changes in the
structure of control in the 1920s. In 1925 the British Columbia
Company actually acquired the whole of the issued capital of
the American Company: in 1920 the Victor Talking MachineCompany of the United States acquired a controlling interestin the Gramophone Company, and when Victor was mergedwith R.C.A. in 1929, the Gramophone Company thus becamea subsidiary of the huge American corporation. E.M.I., the new
combination, not only spanned, therefore, the whole range ofradio, including both production and distribution,4 but it had
direct links with other American business interests.
The importance of these links in relation to the history of
television was that when E.M.I. was founded it did not have to
television that he required, see J. Jewkes, D. Sawers, and R. Stillerman, The Sourcesof Invention (1958), pp. 385-6.
The Economic Development of Radio, p. 200. See also \V. R. Maclaurin, Invention
and Innovation in the Radio Industry (1949).
I For the merger, see The Economic Development of Radio, p. 176. See also above,
p. 76.
3 C. O. Browne, `Multi -Channel Television' in the journal of the Institution ofElectrical Engineers, vol. 70, 1932, P. 34.
4 In 1931 it founded its own hire purchase company, the Retailers' Trust Ltd.

568

TILE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

start from scratch in the process of invention. Zworykin's early
work could be used in British development. There were also
business links between E.M.I. and the Marconi Company. In
1919 the Marconi Company of America had been wound up,
and the Marconi Company had given the Radío Corporationof America all its American patent rights in return R.C.A. had
granted rights in its patents to the Marconi Company in
Britain. Ten years later, in 1929, the Marconi Company soldall its interests in radio -receiver patents and other 'home entertainment apparatus' to the Gramophone Company, thereby
indirectly, when it was formed, to E.M.I.
There vas to be a final deal in 1934. when the Marconi Company joined with E.M.I. to form the private company, MarconiE.M.I. Television Company Ltd.' After 1934. it was possible tocombine the experience of the Marconi Company in designinghigh -power transmitters and aerials with the experimental acumen of E.: I.I., which had been demonstrated in the process ofperfecting the Emitron Camera. These interlocking relationships
were expressed on the Board of E.M.I. which had as its only two
non -British Directors David Sarnoff and Marconi himself.
The manipulation of Baird financial interests could not produce results comparable with those achieved through genuine
technical co-operation within and between large firms. The realreason why Baird was outstripped by E.M.I., it has been suggested, was not because E.M.I. was a powerful Anglo-American
combination, the kind of `sinister' combination he and Moseley
had painted in deep black for the benefit of the PostmasterGeneral, but because E.M.I. had at its disposal the laboratory
facilities for developing television which Baird lacked. 'Thecharacter of the direction of research may explain why it was
E.M.I. and not any other large company, which produced theworld's first high -definition television system.'2
Such an explanation, doubtless true as far as it goes, leaves
out genius. E.M.I. was fortunate enough, under the general
direction of Isaac Shoenberg who had formerly been an executive of the Marconi Company, to acquire a team of brilliant:

For some of these manoeuvres, see The Economic Development of Radio, ch. x,
passim. The BBC were informed of the new development: *H. A. White (of the
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company) to Keith, 23 Mar. 1334.
2 Professor Sturmey's verdict in The Economic Development of Radio, p. 212.

THE RIVALS

569

research engineers. Shoenberg had been educated in pre-war
Russia with Zworykin and Sarnoff and had worked closely with
Company,
S. M. Eisenstein in the laboratories of the RuskojeCompany.'
Marconithefounded in 1907 and later controlled by
He left Russia in 1914 to join the parent Marconi Company, andjoined E. M.I. when it was founded. Some of his new colleagues
had been employed previously by Columbia; they included
D. McGee,
G. E. Condliffe, A. D. Blumlein, C. O. Browne, J.
BrowneandBlumlein
P. W. Williams, and E. L. C. White.
they
War:
World
were killed in an air crash during the Second
originality,ofmenwere outstanding scientists in any company,
wereresourcefulness, and vision. They and their colleagues
theof
implications
willing to think afresh about the practicalouttwenty-fivekind of theory Campbell -Swinton had sketched
years before, and they took their first practical step in December
1931 when they obtained their experimental licence.
At first the group worked, as the Marconi Company had
done, on mechanical scanners for test transmissions, restricting
the use of cathode-ray tubes to receivers. By the end of 1932,
drawhowever, they were concentrating on electronic systems,
way
The
it.
ing on Zworykin's early work but going far beyond
ionoearly
theahead was not easy. The signals obtained fromassociatedscopes tended to become submerged in spurious signalsatemptation
waswith `secondary -emission effects', and there
to continue with mechanical scanning. `Instead,' Shoenberg
electronic
has written, 'we decided that the potentialities of the
problems
thescanning tube justified a great effort to overcome
Improvements
it presented at the time.'z Research went ahead.
moreto the electronic scanning tube made the spurious signals
had
White
and
manageable, and after Blumlein, Browne,
signals,
unwanteddevised ingenious circuits to deal withtoBlumlein and McGee went on to reach the ultimate solution
potential.
the problem-stabilization of cathodeIt was in November 1932 that E.M.I. first approached theof high
BBC to ask representatives to witness a demonstration
reported
Ashbridge
1932
definition television,3 and in December

t7 Dec. 1 931.
*J. W. Wissenden to E.M.I.,8 Dec. 1931 ; Wissenden to Ashbridge,accomplishedhad
engineers
his
and
he
what
of
accountan
2 Shoenberg draftedvol. xcix (1g52).
in the Proceedings of (he Institution of Electrical Engineers,'In my humble opinion,' Shoen3 *I. Shoenberg to Ashbridge, 29 Nov. 1932.
interest to you.'berg wrote, 'the results would be of quite considerable

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

570

with guarded approval of what he had seen.' The E.M.I.
apparatus, he stated, differed considerably from the Baird
system in particular, there were three times as many lines per
picture and twice as many pictures per second. Definition wasmuch better than with the Baird system and flicker greatly
reduced. The apparatus, however, had so far been developed
only for the transmission of films, and there were doubts about
its future in relation to studio performance. All in all, however,it offered prospects of steady improvement. Although the pictures 'are hardly likely at the present stage of development tocommand sustained attention over long periods, they represent
by far the best wireless television I have ever seen, and are,probably as good as, or better than, anything that has been
produced anywhere else in the world'.
Ashbridge added a few comments of his own on the general
problems of television development. Neither Baird nor E.M.I.
yet offered technical facilities as highly advanced as sound radio
engineers had offered the BBC in the distant days of 1922 and
1923. Whereas it had been possible then to hear a talk and catchthe personality of the speaker, Ashbridge could not imagine anyone looking at a 'home projector' with sustained interest for aperiod of much more than an hour in 1932. Even when television
reached a higher level of technical achievement, it would
not supplant sound radio. There would still be 'a number of important items'-orchestral music, for example-in which there
would be no obvious advantage in adding television to sound.
Moreover, during the first stages of development, television,
unlike sound radio, would be a `luxury service', hardly likely
to arouse `steadily increasing enthusiasm such as sound broadcasting has enjoyed'. There was no parallel to the crystal set.
Yet, given all this, Ashhridge wisely added that he did notthink that the BBC could 'hold back' in developing a newinvention of this type to its greatest extent, provided that 'thefinancial commitments on the programme and technical side'
were examined with the utmost care. From the start, the Corporation would have to accept 'the financial risk of anothermethod superseding the one under review at the moment'.
:*Ashbridge, `Report on Television Demonstration at E.M.I.', 6 Dec. 1932.
For Ashbridge's views in retrospect, see h's article `Twenty-five Yearsof BBC
Television' in Sound and Vision (1961).

THE RIVALS

571

E.M.I. did not want to hold back. Its directors soon showedthat they wanted to secure apparatus for broadcasting, and they
had no interest 'in the possibility of collaboration of some kind
between themselves and Baird'.' Reith put this possibility to
Alfred Clark of E.M.I. when they had preliminary discussions
in January 1933 about terms for co-operation, and Clark
immediately turned it down. Minor alterations to the BEC's
ultra -short-wave transmitters would be necessary, Clark said,but H.M.V., a part of the E.M.I. complex, would lend allnecessary apparatus and films sufficient for about a year. E.M.I.
into
was anxious, Clark concluded, to go almost immediately
the commercial production of sets to be ready for the seasonal
upsurge of demand in the autumn of 1933.2 The BBC thoughtthat this last ambition was precipitate: `I feel very strongly',
Ashbridge wrote, `against trying to clump another doubtful
service on the public as early as next autumn.'3
While the BBC was learning of E.M.I.'s plans, the Baird
Company was proposing to go into mass production of its own
receivers. This alarmed Ashbridge, who felt that though there
had been an improvement in the Baird techniques in ultra -shortwave broadcasting, it might still be necessary to terminate the
Baird experimental broadcasts altogether in March 1934.4 For
his part, Baird was sufficiently alarmed about the developmentof cathode-ray tubes in television to start experimenting in thisfield, although he was at pains to add that he did not think thatthey 'by any means supersede mechanical systems'.5
During the course of 1933 he completely abandoned the
Nipkow disc as a scanner for the televising of interviews andnotfilms, but in his anxiety to do things which his rivals could
devices.
do he was driven to develop many extremely cumbrous
For studio scenes, for example, which Ashbridge encouraged
him to concentrate upon, he made `intermediate' films, whichwere developed very quickly and, while still wet, were scannedby a `flying spot scanner'. The time delay of sixty seconds made*Notes by Reith on a conversation with Alfred Clark, 4 Jan. 1933.
*Control Board Minutes, 3 Jan. 1933.
3*Ashbridge to Reith, 5 Jan. 1933.
Board Minutes, 31 Jan. 1933.
4 *Ashbridge to Reith, 5 Jan. 1933; Control
1933.
13
Jan.
*Baird to Ashbridge,
5
I

2

572

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

this elaborate device far more unwieldy than instantaneous
methods of television transmission.
Recognizing the bother and messiness of the intermediate
film process, Baird borrowed under licence from the Farnsworth
Television Laboratories of Philadelphia an electronic system
which had been developed by R.C.A.'s rivals. Philo Farnsworth, its inventor, was as much of an individualist as Baird,
preferring to work on a small scale with relatively simple equipment, and as early as 1927 he had demonstrated a complete
electronic system of television, involving the use of cathode-ray
tubes both in transmitters and receivers. His camera, greatly
improved by 1931, was known as an `image -dissector tube', and,unlike other cameras, it did not employ the principle of chargestorage.
Farnsworth was taken up for a time by Philco, but, like
Baird, he was not at his ease about either financial entanglements or the desire of his `supporters' to make money quickly.
His role in America may, indeed, be compared with that of
Baird in Britain, although his methods were so different. `Farnsworth's almost single-handed battle to develop a practicaltelevision system before the R.C.A.', it has been argued, 'may
have driven the latter to increase the tempo of researchas the achievements of Baird with the mechanical system may
have hastened the development of the electronic system and the
beginning of television broadcasting in England.» Yet Baird's
willingness to secure the use of Farnsworth's inventions from theUnited States-with the help of Ostrer's capital-shows theextent of his uneasiness in 1933 as E.M.I. seemed to be increasing its hold over the BBC. The decision was late and reluctant,and it was not until 194o, when all his concerns were in ruins,that Baird admitted in a memorandum to Moseley that `cathoderay tubes are the most important items in a television receiver'.2
Baird's immediate reaction in January 1933 to the news thatthe BBC was negotiating with E.M.I. was to challenge any
agreement between BBC and E.M.I. on three grounds. First, it
would be contrary to the agreement between Baird and theBBC: the BBC had pledged itself not to transmit by any method
other than the Baird system `unless the proposed new method
showed an improvement of a revolutionary nature'. There was

just

The Sources of Invention, pp. 387-8.

2

Quoted in John Baird, p. 238.

THE RIVALS

573

nothing `revolutionary', he claimed, about E.1.I.'s work.
Second, if the BBC were to work with E.M.L. it would be dealing a heavy blow at British industry and directly assisting an
American concern this was the argument which Moseley loved
and which Baird tried out at various times with MacDonald
and Baldwin.' 'The development of television was a matter of'concern not only for the BBC but for this country.' It was of theutmost importance that `broadcasting in this country should not
be under foreign influence-directly or indirectly'.2 Third,
Baird held that he could produce as good television of the highdefinition type as E.M.I. could.
The BBC replied very firmly that it would and could support
or encourage research in any quarter. 'As a monopoly concern itis the duty of the BBC to endeavour to determine what is thebest method of doing television from a technical point of view,
wherever the system might originate. The question would afterwards arise as to whether the best system could be adapted fromother points of view.' why did Baird fear comparative tests of
his own performance and the performance of rivals? `If the
Baird system were better, no possible harm could be done to it
by doing tests with another system.'3
Receiving little satisfaction from the BBC, Baird and Moseley
turned back again to the Post Office. `I am not satisfied that the
BBC realises its duty to the country', Moseley wrote to Kingsley
Wood. 'My own relations with the executives are of the friendliest, but I think it is a matter for the Government rather thanfor the BBC to lay down a policy with regard to the future of
British television. The BBC, which holds a monopoly by virtueof a Charter granted by H.M. Government, seems to me to be
extraordinarily cynical where the rights of a British sister service
are concerned.' It would be a `public scandal' if the Radio
Corporation of America, through one of its `controlled' companies in London, were to `march in' through the back doors of:' *On 27 Jan. 1933 Moseley wrote to Baldwin: `I wonder whether, in thewelter of cynicism of modern politics, there is any sincerity in the plea of "British
first".' Baird also wrote to the Prince of Wales in February 1933, and his letter
was referred to Roger Eckersley by Sir Godfrey Thomas on 21 Feb. 1933. `_ amafraid I know very little about the present situation in regard to television',
Thomas wrote, `and cannot pass any opinion on the suggestion that the BBC are"wasting a pioneer British industry" or "giving secret encouragement to alien
2*Baird to Reith, 31 Jan. 1933.
interests".'
3*Minutes of a Meeting held with the Baird Company on 27 Jan. 1933.

574

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

the BBC.' The Post 01Iice immediately sent a copy of this letterto the BBC,2 and Reith personally supervised the draft of the
reply.3 The same question was repeated. Why was Baird afraidof comparative tests? The claim to superiority over rival systems
could best be demonstrated in a trial by ordeal.4
Evidently the Post Office shared this view, for two Post Officeengineers, Gill and Faulkner, were sent to Hayes in February
1933 to study E.M.I. transmissions. 'They reported favourablythat the picture was good and the film shown easy to follow. On
the international aspect of the question, they added that only
27 per cent. of the E.M.I. stock was held in America and that
Sarnofr was the only American director.' The E.M.I. system
had been wholly developed and manufactured by English staff
in English workshops.
Notwithstanding this evidence, however, the Post Officepressed the BBC to postpone E.M.I. tests from Broadcasting
House until further demonstrations of Baird's work had takenplace.6 It would be wiser `politically', Gill told Gladstone
Murray, not to conduct E.M.I. experiments in Broadcasting
House.? The BBC protested against this advice, but had to yield
to a Post Office suggestion that there should be two new `competitive' demonstrations of ultra -short-wave television on consecutive days, the first from Long Acre and the second fromHayes.8 The demonstrations were held on i8 and 19 April 1933,and once again there was general agreement among Post 011icc
representatives (including Phillips, \Vissenden, Lee, and Angwin)
and Ashbridge and Bishop of the BBC that 'the results of the
E.M.I. demonstrations were immeasurably superior to thoseobtained by Baird's and that the E.M.I. equipment was far inadvance of its competitor'.9*Moseley to Kingsley Wood, 28 Jan. 1933.
*Phillips to Carpendale, quoting Moseley, Feb. 1933.
3 *There is a pencilled noteby Reith to Ashbridge attached to Phillips's letter,reading `Urgent. Please give me a reply to sign explaining the whole thing.'*Keith to Phillips, 3 Feb. 1933. See also *Keith to Baird, 3 Feb. 1933.
5 Report of 13 Feb. 1933 (Post Office Archives).
6 *The BBC had asked for permission to broadcast by the E.M.I. system on
7 Feb. 1933 (letter of Harold Bishop to Phillips). The reply was given in a letter ofPhillips to Reith, 13 Mar. 1933.
7 *W. E. G. Murray to Reith, 8 Feb. 1933.
8*Phillips to Reith, to Apr. 1933.
° *Note of a Meeting held at the General Post Office on 21 Apr. 1933.
'

2

1

THE RIVALS

575

In spite of this agreement, the Postmaster-General, who was
not present at the meeting of engineers, continued to rule thatthe BBC should not give facilities to E.M.I. which might
prejudice Baird's case. Phillips, ho usually saw all the diíflculties ahead, had stated bluntly after the tests that the Post
Office was afraid that if the Baird Company were prevented
from installing high -definition equipment, questions would be
asked in Parliament and in the press. These would be difficult
to answer, and the Post Office (mainly) and the BBC (to a lesser
extent) `would be blamed for the inevitable bankruptcy of the
Baird Company'. 'The Post Office wanted to protect themselves
against any such trouble, and this was the real reason for theiranxiety." Ashhridge argued in vain that Baird's inability todemonstrate effective apparatus of a high -definition type wasa sign that he had not listened to persistent BBC advice and that
if any blame were to be apportioned it should be on Baird
himself.
Commercial as well as political questions were involved in
the argument at this stage. It was clear that whichever concern
first obtained facilities from the BBC for the development ofhigh -definition television would automatically acquire a very
considerable advantage in the manufacture and sale of receivers,
since it would possess patents which might be essential in the
manufacture of receivers suitable for the particular transmission
process which had been acloptecl.2 The trade in receivers was
the magnet. It was because of this that Reith refused an invitation from Bush Radio, an associated company of Ostrer's
Gaumont-British group, to attend a dinner to inaugurate theplacing on the market of a new consignment of `televisors'. `I am
afraid I cannot associate myself', he replied, 'with the launchingof a receiver by any particular company.' Any BBC dealings
with the receiver manufacturing industry should be withassociations of manufacturers rather than with particular firms.3
Reith also raised the question of Bush Radio's plans with
Kingsley \Voocl. `for some time past ít has been highly unlikely', he said, 'that we should be able to sec our way to continue Baird transmissions beyond March 1934., having regard
NS

1

2
3

Ibid.
For the economics of the matter, see Wireless World, 14 Apr. 1933*Reith to Moseley, 21 Apr. 1933.

576

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

to their programme value and to the limited interest which they
have evoked.' Bush Radio advertising, therefore, could createa difficult situation, particularly when the BBC (along with the
Post Office) had made it clear that it preferred the E.M.I.
system.' It was planned to introduce the Bush Radio receiver,
costing £25, to the press in May 1933, but the demonstration
did not take place.
At the same time it was announced that Captain A. G. D.
West, formerly Chief Research Engineer at the BBC andlatterly an engineer in the cinema industry at Ealing, was tojoin Baird's technical staff.2 This was the best move made so
far by the new controllers of the Baird concerns. `There is no
doubt', Ashbridge wrote after seeing West, 'that the Baird Company has received a fresh fillip and is now in entirely new handsfrom a technical point of view. Whether, however, this will leadto anything tangible or not, it is impossible to say.'3 The changeof direction was followed by a transfer of the Long Acre studioto the top of South Tower at the Crystal Palace.4

The idea of getting round the difficulties between the tworivals by trying out rival schemes in Broadcasting House side byside or on consecutive nights originated inside the BBCfrom V. H. Goldsmith. Baird objected at first, but later cameround to the idea Shoenberg remained adamant on the grounds
that Baird had nothing to offer.' Kingsley Wood supported theidea after discussions with Whitley and Reid', during which hemade it quite clear that his attitude to rival television claims
was `entirely political'.6 `I am sure it is wise', he told Reith, 'tohave the Baird and the E.M.I. apparatus installed at Broadcasting House simultaneously, assuming, of course, that Mr.
Baird so desires, and to carry out the trials of the two sets of:*Reith to Kingsley Wood, 27 Apr. 1933. Baird agreed to a form of wording
to be placed on all `televisors' saying that the BBC reserved the right to discontinuetransmissions after 31 March. (*Baird to Goldsmith, 25 May 1933.)
2 *H. Bishop,
Note on the Baird Press Demonstration, 30 May 1933. For \Vest,
see above, p. 519.
3
*Ashbridge to Reith, 13 July 1933. \Vest told Ashbridge on 13 July and in a
letter of 14 July that they were actively pursuing experiments in 120-line cathoderay work.
4 *\\'issenden to Reith, 20 July 1933.
5*Ashbridge to Reith, 12 May 1933.
6 Reith, Diary, 15 May 1933.

THE RIVALS

577

apparatus over the same period. I am prepared to stipulate
with Mr. Baird that his apparatus should be ready withina reasonable time, say two months." The BBC formally accepted
the idea in June 1933,2 and eventually Shoenberg agreed, statingthat he was not in the least concerned whether Baírd's apparatus
would be installed in Broadcasting House along with his own.
The best system, whichever it was, `would win in the end'?
After protracted discussions and many practical setbacks
E.M.I. decided, however, not to install apparatus in Broadcasting House and carried on further experiments between Hayes
and their receiving studios in Abbey Road. The Baird Company
had almost finished the installation of new high-definition
apparatus on the eighth floor of Broadcasting House when it
received the formal notice to terminate existing arrangementsfor `experimental broadcasts' on 31 March 1934..4 By a curious
twist in the history of publicity, it was now the turn of the Baird
Company to accuse the BBC of leaking information to the press
without first consulting Sir Harry Greer, the new chairman of
Baird Television Ltd.s
In fact, the BBC remained quiet during these interesting
months of discussions and negotiations. 'A discreet silence ismaintained by the authorities at Broadcasting House', the newspapers proclaimed.6 Until a public statement was issued in
October the world was dependent on rumour and leakages.?
'No reference is to be made in any of our periodicals to television without previous reference to Controller or ChiefEngineer
through me', Goldsmith had ordered in May 1933.8*Kingsley Wood to Reith, 22 May 1933.
*Reith to Kingsley wood, 14 June 1933; Kingsley Wood to Reith, 15 June

2

19333

*Note on telephone conversation between Bishop and Shoenberg, 24 June

1933.

4 *Bishop to Carpendale, 19 Sept. 1933: for the letter terminating the agreement, see above, p. 566.
*Greer to Reith, 27 Sept. 1933. The Baird Television Company made all its
employees sign a 'secrecy' pledge in Nov. 1933, See Greer to Whitley, 29 Nov. 5933.
6 Daily Independent, 22 Aug. 1933; North Eastern Daily Gazette, 17 Aug. 1933, 'BBCrefuses to Talk'.
7 It had been intended originally to get the statement out on 27 Sept. but
eventually, after long discussions about its contents, it was decided to make it intoa 'lowest common denominator' statement agreeable to all television interests,
including E.M.I. It finally appeared on 12 Oct.
s *Note of 8 May to the editors of the Radio Times, The Listener, and Norld Radio.
5

C 1095Pp

578

THE NE\V WORLD OF TELEVISION

The order followed an article by Filson Young, to which
Reith had taken exception.' In it Filson Young had prophesied
that `within a short time-a few years or even less-it will bepossible for the millions to see in their own homes an image of
events actually in progress elsewhere. The Grand National, theBoat Race, the Cup Final, now listened to in the form of descriptive ejaculations by an eye witness will be actually seen on
the glass panel of some parlour cabinet a thousand miles away.'`Before you have learned to be perfect listeners', he went on incharacteristic vein, 'you will have to begin to learn a new technique-the art of looking.' This was too much for Carpendale.
Correcting a draft statement which read that it was probablethat television would become a practical proposition during thenext few years, lie remarked, `I think this is too optimistic.
I would change the first two lines to read, "It is possible that television may become a practical proposition during the next few
years."' And then, as a heartfelt cry-`But in view of the graft
and intrigue etc., is it not best to drop the subject in our
publications ?'Z
There was neither graft nor intrigue in the success story of
E.M.I.'s experiments in the autumn of 1933 and the spring of1934. Outside observers noted that the freedom from mechanicalinertia and from difficulties of synchronization which the use ofcathode-ray apparatus permitted was a technical advantage
which would enable it to establish its supremacy.3 While Baird
engineers floundered, unhappy at the prospect of carrying out
public experiments in Broadcasting House,4 E.M.I. was spending £Ioo,000 a year on research.
The outlook of Shoenberg and his colleagues was diametrically opposed to that of Baird. `In deciding the basic features ofour system', Shoenberg wrote years afterwards, 'we frequently
had to make a choice between a comparatively easy path leading
to a mediocre result and a more difficult one which, if successful,held the promise of better things.'5 The atmosphere in which' Radio Times, 28 Apr. 1933; *Note by Reith, 30 Apr. 1933. See also above,
2 *Note of 2 May 1933.
P. 71.
3
Leader, 'The Progress of Television' in The Electrician, 25 Aug. 1933.
4 *Notes by Ashbridge, 8 Dec. 1933, on a letter from Greer to Whitley, 6 Dec.

1933. The Baird engineers did not like Kirke or Bishop even to 'look in' at what
they were doing. *Bishop to Ashbridge, 18 Dec. 1933.
5

Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. (1952).

THE RIVALS

579

choices were made was 'very rare because of the complete
absence of any kind of frustration, of red tape', Shoenberg added.
`Complete confidence in each other was the reason why we wereable to do a very complicated job in such a short time.''
The choice of the more difficult path was soon justified whenin January 1934 representatives of the BBC saw a further E.M.I.
demonstration at Hayes, and pronounced the results 'extremely
good'. `Programme value' was thought to be considerable and'the receivers appeared to be in practical form and looked verymuch like large radio gramophones'. 'The important thing
about this demonstration', Aslibridge added, 'is that it was far
and away a greater achievement than anything I have everseen in television.' Kirke agreed with him : they were bothclear, too, that E.M.I. meant to develop television `energetically'.2
Everything was pointing to the eventual triumph of E.M.I.
over Baird, yet the BBC did not immediately abandon Baird
even after the termination notice had been sent. It was decided
that a limited number of transmissions would continue, as ofgrace, after 1 April 1934,3 and a further Baird demonstrationin Film House, \'ardour Street, was attended on 12 March by
representatives of the BBC-and by the Prime Minister.4 Ash bridge, who attended, was scrupulously fair in his comments.
'The film transmission given by E.M.I. is appreciably better
than that shown by the Baird Company. On the other hand,
however, no opportunity has been available so far to comparea demonstration under absolutely strictly comparable conditions. Moreover, the E.M.I. Company have not so far attempted
a demonstration with living objects.'S
To try to settle between the rivals clearly involved the BBC
in issues which they were unable fully to settle for themselves.
On 15 March 1934, therefore, Reith wrote to Kingsley Wood
*Television programme, 1Vindow on the World, 7 Nov. 1961.
*Ashbridge to Reith, 17 Jan. 1934.
3
BBC Press Statement offering the possibility of this had been issued on
4 Dec. 1933: see Notes exchanged between Beadle and Goldsmith, 20 Feb. 1934;
Note by Beadle, 7 Mar. 1934, definitely stating that there would be two programmes
a week; Carpendale to Greer, 13 Mar. 1934. Saturday afternoon broadcasting
started in Oct. 1934.
4 "Greer to Carpendale, 7 Mar. 1934.
5
Ashbridge, `Report on Demonstration of Baird Television at GaumontBritish Studios, \1'ardour Street on 12 March 1934'.
2

A

580

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

asking for a conference `between some of your people and someof ours to discuss the future arrangements for the handling of
television'. There were three aspects to consider, Reith statedthe political (`using the term in the policy sense and for want ofa better one'), the financial, and the technical.' Kingsley Woodagreed, and nominated Phillips and Angwin to meet Carpendale
and Ashbridge.2
Doubtless Reith had political aspects in a wider sense in his
mind also, for in March 1934 the BBC was being subjected toa sustained attack in the press for not moving faster with television.3 At the fifth annual meeting of the Baird Television
Company on 20 March Greer was careful not to attack theBBC, but a number of shareholders did.4 Greer himself wascontent to put the problem into historical perspective. 'Last
week the Prime Minister came to view this miracle.... He wasaghast. So stunned was he by the marvel which had been shownto him that he spoke in alternate admiration and fear-admiration for the genius that had created it, fear that mankind might
not be wise to use it for its good. I do not share that fear. The
instinct which has prompted this invention is just as fundamental as the instinct which drove Marconi on.'5

The representatives of the Post Office and the BBC met at
St. Martin's -le -Grand on 5 April. They compared the work of
the Baird Television Company and E.M.I., noting that while
the latter, as manufacturers, were producing 'well constructed
and workmanlike apparatus', the former produced much thatwas `distinctly amateurish in construction and finish'. Only thecathode-ray tubes used by Baird and produced by General
Electric were superior, especially in colour, to the apparatus of
E.M.I. Both Baird and E.M.I., it was noted, were pressing the
BBC to provide further facilities, Baird threatening, as always,that he would otherwise take independent action, E.M.I. urging
the building of a separate television transmitting station ona high position overlooking 'the populous parts of London'.
Carpendale said that 'the BBC were loth to take such a step
*Reith to Kingsley Wood, 15 Mar. 1934.
*Kingsley Wood to Reith, 20 Mar. 1934. J. \V. Wissenden was later added to
the Post Office side.
3 For the general attack, see above,
PP 454-5.
*Greer to Reith, 21 Mar. 1934.
The Times, 21 Mar. 1934.
2

5

THE RIVALS

581

until the major questions of policy, probable development,
finance and technique were settled'.
The meeting then went on to discuss a number of generalquestions, including the best method of financing a public
service; the use of such a service for news items and plays; therelative methods of other systems, such as Cossor and Scophony ;1arrangements to prevent one group of manufacturers fromobtaining a monopoly of the supply of receiving sets; and thepossible use of film television to serve a chain of cinemas. It
is unfortunate that no full record survives of what was said
under each of these headings, some of which remain topical in
1964. As it was, the meeting concluded by agreeing that agovernment -appointed committee should be set up to advise thePostmaster -General on questions concerning television. The
weight of authority of such a committee, Carpendale declared,
would greatly strengthen both the BBC and the Post Office inthe decisions they would have to take.2
The idea of such a committee had already been put toKingsley Wood by Reith a few days before the meeting of
5 April.3 'I am sure that something by way of a Public Committee
is required,' lie liad written in his diary on 27 March, 'with the
Post Office and ourselves represented.' Alfred Clark of E.M.I.
approved of the suggestion.4 Reith thought of Eccles as a possible chairman, although the Postmaster-General had neverheard of him.s At the meeting of 5 April the question of who
should be chairman was left open, Phillips remarking that 'the
Postmaster -General would probably have strong views on this'.
On i6 May Kingsley Wood told the House of Commons that
he had set up a Departmental Committee 'to consider thedevelopment of television and to advise the Postmaster -Generalon the relative merits of the several systems and on the conditions under which any public service of television should be
provided'.6 The chairman of this important inquiry into thegreat medium of the future was Lord Selsdon, formerly Sir
William Mitchell -Thomson, who had been Postmaster -Generalwhen the Corporation came into existence. It was he who, in
The BBC corresponded with Cossor in 1933. Scophony Ltd. had been founded
in 1932, and developed optical -mechanical methods, known as `split focus' scanning.
2 *Comments on a Conference Meld at the Post Office, 5 Apr. 1934.
+ Ibid.
3 Reith, Diary, 29 Mar. 1934.
6 Hansard, vol. 288, col. 1450.
5*Reith to Carpendale, 4 Apr. 1934.

582

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

Reith's considered opinion, had so mismanaged matters in 1926
that the public control of sound radio had been given a mostinauspicious start.' Indeed, Reith considered the appointment
of Selsdon so `shocking' that it gave him no confidence in theoutcome of his inquiry.

4. The Inquiry
TILE committee took its first evidence on 7 June 1934, when it
interviewed on successive days representatives of the Baird Company and E. Z.I. Choosing between them was at least as fascinating as choosing between George Stephenson's Rocket and its
jaunty competitors on a distant clay in 1830. Before the committee met, however, it was solemnly warned by a member ofthe general public that the choice was not simply between two
rival systems already in existence. `I have written to you withall respect', the correspondent began, 'to warn the BBC that thesystems now before the public, however interesting, are not thelast word in practical television. The BBC should wait a while
before committing itself to an expensive outlay involving the useof short wave transmission with limited effective range.'2
Lord Selsdon and his colleagues proceeded with theirinquiries. His colleagues were mainly experts who already knew
a great deal about the problem of television-Phillips andAngwin of the Post Office and Carpenclale and Ashbridge of theBBC. O. F. Brown of the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research was added to the inner team, and the vice-chairman
was Sir John Cadman, who was to be chairman in 1938 of theCommittee on Imperial Airways, which reported just before
Reith took over his first post after leaving the BBC. Such is thetangle of historical connexion. The secretary was J. Varley
Roberts of the Post Office. Thirty-eight witnesses were examined-some of them on more than one occasion-and many
written statements were received. Baird himself was not among
See above, p. 480.
*J. B. King to Ashbridge, 15 May 1934; Ashbridge to J. Varley Roberts, thesecretary of the Television Committee, 16 May 1934.
2

THE INQUIRY583

the witnesses, but Blumlein of E.M.I. was. Every businessorganization interested in television was represented, anda small number of other interests, far smaller in number than
the interests which had been represented at the Crawford
inquiry into sound broadcasting in 1925 or the subsequentinquiry presided over by Ullswater in which Selsdon took part.'
The formal evidence was felt to contain `secrets of commercial
value', and was not published. Likewise appendixes on the rival
British systems and on developments in the United States andGermany, which had been examined on the spot by deputations led by Selsdon and Brown, were also left unpublished.
Yet the international dimension of the Report was particularlyinteresting. Technical progress at this date was at least as
advanced in the United States as it was in Britain, but there wasno television service. Television stations were licensed only on
an experimental basis, as in Britain, and their programmes were
not very attractive to the business interests who were managing
radio as a commercial proposition.2 They were to claim lateron, ín a very un-American way, that the industry had been
given a chance to profit 'by experience abroad' ;3 and even at thetime Sarnoff told Reith that he was not going to start a regulartelevision service until both competitive pressure and technicalexperience had increased. In Germany the State itself was sooninterested in technical progress in television. Goebbels had
spoken to one of the Baird Television directors about it, and had
told him what a wonderful thing it would be to show Hitler andhimself in every home.4
No British politician seems to have had similar ambitions, nor
was there any reference to politics in the final report of thecommittee. The issues centred on techniques, finance, andorganization. In the second of these matters the Treasury set thepace. In the first, however, and to a lesser extent in the third,
the position of the Post Office was of strategic importance, as it
had been at the time of the initiation of sound broadcasting.
It was the Post Office which felt the pressure of contending
Sec above, pp. 476 ff.
D. G. Fink, `Television Broadcasting Practice in America, íg27-x944' in the
Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol. 92 (1945). See also Adventure in
Vision, ch. ix.
3 Heinl Radio Business Letter, 20 Jan. 1939.
4 'Evidence to the committee by Major A. G. Church.
2

584

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

claimants for television facilities, which was expected to givesound and independent opinions on all technical matters, andwhich was called upon to judge and decide in the `public interest'. In the case of television, however, there was a worrying
minor doubt about the extent of its authority. Its power toexercise some measure of control over television was derived
from the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904,
under which no person could establish or work a wireless station
without a licence issued by the Postmaster -General. The Act
also prescribed that the Postmaster -General could decide theconditions attaching to any such licence. In submitting theReport of' his committee to the Postmaster-General, Selsdon
admitted, however, that there were doubts as to whether television without any accompanying matter, written or spoken,
was covered by the 1904 Act.'
The point was academic. Explanatory written or spoken
matter was already an essential part of a television service; thePost Office had intervened persistently from the start in television development; and new legislation, if necessary, could
always be passed. Post Office policy before 1934 had been toissue television licences to `qualified persons or firms' whoapplied for them, but the licences were confined to research andexperimental work and did not carry with them any authority
to conduct a form of public service. It had also been a part of
Post Office policy to confer with the BBC about all future
developments and to rely upon it to test new techniques byorganizing broadcast transmissions on a limited scale. 'The
view has been held that when television has reached such a
stage of development that it would be suitable for a public
service, it would probably be found preferable that such a
service should be undertaken by the BBC as an adjunct) totheir broadcasting service rather than that a separate organisation should be established for the broadcasting of television.'z
This was certainly the view of the BBC also,3 although it wasrecognized before the committee met that there were genuine
financial problems attached to the development of television by*Selsdon to Kingsley Wood, 14 Jan. 1935. A note by the Post Office Solicitor
had been dra.. n up on 27 June 1934.
2*Television Committee, Introductory Memorandum, 15 May 1934.
3 Seeabove, p. 533.

THE INQUIRY

585

the Corporation. In his memorandum of January 1934 Ash bridge had suggested that it might not be `practicable' tofinance a television scheme out of the ordinary licence fee. 'The
financial difficulties may become so serious that the only wayof getting enough revenue would be by sponsored programmes.
This is, of course, mainly because it must be started as a luxury
service and continue as such for some years. In the case ofordinary broadcasting this was not the case.» On at Ieast one
occasion before 1934 the question of sponsored television programmes had been raised. There had been talk of a `fashion
parade' in 1932, and it had been decided as a matter of principlethat there should be no mention by name of the dress houses
responsible.2
The wireless press, as represented by Dr. J. H. T. Roberts ofLiverpool University, speaking for Popular Wireless and the Wireless Constructor, backed the claim of the BBC to develop andcontrol television before the Sclsdon Committee. Roberts
believed, however, that 'part of the cost should come from thepresent revenue of the BBC, as television is a natural outcome ofbroadcasting.... Given improved facilities, and with the wholehearted co-operation of tl e BBC, Television would develop
more in twelve months than it has done since its inception andwould soon reach a stage at any rate of practical utility.'3
Popular Wireless had always deprecated exaggerated claims for
television systems, so that this statement was a gesture of faithand confidence.
The other interested party, the Radio Manufacturers'
Association, representative of 119 manufacturers and at least
go per cent. of total production in the radio trade, consideredthat the future of television was `assured'. 'The greatest progress
is to be expected', its memorandum stated, 'if development
takes place on lines parallel with those of acoustic broadcasting.'
Recalling the part pia) ed by the 'joint action of certain independent individual firms' in the foundation of the BBC, theAssociation looked to the BBC in the future. It insisted, however,that the cost of development should not be a new charge on the*Ashbridge to Reith, 17 Jan. 1934.
*Control Board Minutes, 23 Aug. 1932; note from Roger Eckersley to Robb,
24 Aug. 1932.
3 *J. H. T. Roberts, `Outline of Evidence to be presented to the Committee'.
Unfortunately none of the synopses or memoranda are fully dated.
I

2

586

THE NEW SVORLD OF TELEVISION

BBC. The Treasury should find the money out of that proportion of licence revenue which it had hitherto retained.
One precedent, the R.M.A. went on, should not he followed-that of collecting income from royalties on receiving apparatus. The system had quickly been found unworkable in the caseof sound radio and it would be unworkable again. The Association said little about the technical side of television, although
what it said was important. First, there should be no `exclusive
long term contracts' with the owners of existing transmitting
systems, `which would prevent or delay the adoption of any
new system which might be developed on more satisfactorylines'. Second, 'in the opinion of the R.M.A., the present thirty line transmissions are of no value whatever and should be
discontinued forthwith'.'Alone among the biggest manufacturers, the General ElectricCompany, a member of the consortium of firms which had
brought the British Broadcasting Company into existence in
1922,2 considered that 'the analogy' between beginning a
television service and the 'easy birth of broadcasting' was quite
misleading. 'We must be prepared for a greater measure ofdisappointment and the use of greater persistence and salesmanship if so great an experiment is to be successful.' General
Electric had entered into a gentleman's agreement with Baird
Television Ltd. and was thereby committed to the developmentof Baird's systems. It did not believe that the BBC would
provide the necessary `persistence and salesmanship' which, it
argued, was as essential in programme building as in engineering. 'The standardised and ordered machinery and organisation
which we have come to associate with broadcasting' was inappropriate in the case of television. Instead, there should he`responsible and substantial companies' operating 'on certain
wavelengths or in certain areas'. A `Central Television Board'should be created, including representatives of the Post Officeand six to eight independent members selected from public life,
industry, and commerce and unconnected with any financial
interests in television. Alongside the Board there should be an
Advisory Committee which would include a representative of*Synopsis of Evidence to be submitted by the Radio Manufacturers'
Association.
2
See The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 107 ff.

THE INQUIRY

587

the BBC and representatives of the `approved television transmitting companies'. The companies should also have the rightof direct access to the Board.'
The `line-up' on this issue is interesting, for the Newspaper
Proprietors' Association came out strongly in favour of a BBC
monopoly, 'in accordance with the terms of the present BBC
Charter', and added that there should be 'no forms of advertising by means of what are known as sponsored programmes'.
Any television organization outside the control of the BBC
would lead to `confusion and a lack of proper balance'.z
The Newspaper Proprietors' Association wished severely tolimit the scope of television, whoever managed it: General
Electric was thinking not so much of a permanent `settlement'
for television as of a satisfactory working arrangement during
the first years of research and experiment. The BBC made thesame point in one of its memoranda. 'The fact has to be facedthat it is probable, so far as one is able to see at the moment,that many years must elapse before even a majority of presentday listeners will be able to make use of the proposed television
service, if only because of geographical coverage. It must be
remembered also that the majority of listeners at the present
time do not pay more than £7 to £Io for a receiving set andthat were the minimum cost of a sound receiving set at thepresent time as much as £25, the possible effect on licences
would be to reduce the number by some 50%.'3

The Selsdon Committee had to examine both the technicalmerits of the rival television systems and future finance andorganization of a television service. Much of the technicalevidence was necessarily secret, since ít related to patents: theproblems of finance and organization, however, raised major
matters of public policy. On the technical side, there was tacitagreement between the Baird Television Company and E.M.I.
that low-definition' television of the 30 -line or 18o -line typewas obsolete. The old theoretical debate about scanning had
thus come to an end before the inquiry began, even though the
Baird Company had not yet produced an efficient direct scanner*General Electric Company, Synopsis of Evidence.
*Memorandum from the Newspaper Proprietors' Association.
3 *Memorandum from Carpendale.
'

2

588

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISIONof the `electric eye' or photomosaic type. The future, both sides
recognized, lay with television of much higher definition.
Disagreement started at the points where questions of technique and questions of policy overlapped. The Baird Television
Company made much of the fact that it had been first in thefield and that it was a British company. The Film Quota Act
had been passed in 1933: surely television needed similar protection. Moreover the Federal Radio Commission, after a twoday hearing in 1931, had rejected the use of the Baird system in
the United States simply because it was `alien'. E.M.I. for its
part insisted that all its equipment, including cathode-ray tubes
and photo cells, everything down to the last screw, was home manufactured, and that most of its key patents were British.
Evidence about other `systems' and organizations was given
by A. C. Cossor Ltd., Ferranti Ltd., General Electric, andScophony, some of it suggesting that the differences between
systems were not as great as the contestants maintained. There
was also some pressure for a `patent pool' of the kind that had
emerged in the wireless manufacturing industry.' Ferranti in its
evidence directed attention away from systems and patents tothe likely future appeal of television in the north of England,
where its main works had been located since 1897. `Imagine
how many people in Lancashire would have liked during thislast week to look at the Test Match.'
The BBC's main evidence was given by Reith, appearing
alone on 30 November 1934.. By then the committee had madeup its mind that since 'the relationship between sight and soundbroadcasting' was so close as to be `absolutely indissoluble', itwas `impossible to conceive' any authority controlling visualbroadcasting other than the authority which controlled soundbroadcasting. Selsdon made this clear to Reith at the outset.
The reasoning was set out ín the final Report. 'We have, ofcourse, considered the possible alternative of letting private
enterprise nurture the infant ser\ ice until it is seen whether it
grows sufficiently lusty to deserve adoption by a public authority.
This would involve the granting of licences for the transmissionof sound and vision to several different firms who are pioneeringin this experimental field. We should regret this course, not
Sec S. G. Sturmey, The Economic Development of Radio, ch. xi,
passim, for thedetailed history of pool arrangements.

THE INQUIRY

589

only because it would involve a departure from the principleof only having a single authority broadcasting a public soundservice on the air, and because the subsequent process of "adoption" (which we believe would be inevitable) would be rendered costly owing to the growth of vested interests, but also
because we foresee serious practical difficulties as regards the
grant of licences to the existing pioneers as well as possibly toa constant succession of fresh applicants."
This cumbrous sentence was concerned more with past andcurrent contingencies than with long-term agreement. In telling
Reith, before he gave his evidence, that this was the committee'sview, Selsdon went even further. He went as far, indeed, as any
one could go. `I cannot think that there can be any objection in
any quarter-except perhaps on grounds of private intereststo the BBC being entrusted with the task. I cannot see that any
rational being could object.'Reith told the committee that the BBC was quite prepared toorganize a television service with one station in the South andone in the North of England and an ultimate network of fcurteen stations,2 and that lie would welcome the formation ofa Television Advisory Council or Committee to operate during
the experimental phase. He added tersely, however, that theterm of life of such a council or committee ought to be defined :'some committees are not always ready to die when other people
think their usefulness has come to an end'.
The main part of the interview was taken up with a discussion
on finance, both the committee and Reid' agreeing that it was`quite impossible', as Selsdon put it, 'to disintegrate television
finance itself from the general question of the BBC revenue'.
The committee had already concluded that advertising should
not be considered as a form of revenue, and Reith consented
yet he left the issue of sponsoring quite open. `I have no objection in principle to the sponsor system and we do in fact dosomething which is near to that, and might do it in the futurc.'3
Taxes on retailers w ere ruled out, but not levies on the manufacturers of television sets.
:

1

Grind. 4793 (1935), Report of the Television Committee, § 40.

*The willingness of the Corporation 'to prepare seriously to assume responsibility for the new service' was put into writing in a letter from R. C. Norman, thenthe Vice -Chairman of the Governors, to Selsdon, 13 Dec. 1934.
3 *Evidence of Sir John Reith, 30 Nov. 1934.
2

590

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

These matters had been discussed by the committee on its
return by ship from the United States, but had not been finallysettled in November 1934. Nor was the crucial question of what
contribution the Treasury should make to future finance. \Vasthe BBC to pay from its existing level of income the greater
proportion, the smaller proportion, or no proportion of television costs? Reith was in no doubt that this unresolved question
was the crucial one. `Entertainment as we know it in our soundservice, is very costly, and it is only in terms of real interest andentertainment that the new service will succeed.' A `quite newstudio technique' would have to be evolved, and there would be
an immense demand for outside television broadcasts.
In this statement Reith was far more realistic than Brown andPhillips, who seemed to suggest that the service could be kept

working on the basis of 'old classic films', which could be `pickedup' cheaply, and `trailers' for films showing currently in thecinemas. Yet Selsdon saw further than Reith in one essential
respect. He asked Reith whether he envisaged a clay on which
BBC programmes would be so `enhanced in value' by televisionthat a number of people who did not then have sound broadcasting sets would go off and buy a combined licence. When
Reith replied simply, 'No, I do not ever envisage that', Selsdon
commented, `I frankly do. I think the time will come, it may
not be so far off as it may look at the moment, when you will
be having people definitely asking to see a football match, andwhen that arrives I am sure you will tap a whole reservoir ofpeople.' Reith was less enthusiastic about the prospects of television than he had been about the prospects of sound radio.
He found Selsdon 'very genial', but felt that the committee
as a whole was a 'poor one'.1
In saying this, he was probably still thinking about the vexed
question of finance which had been left open at this hearing.
Indeed, he wrote to Selsdon a few days later taking up again
the unfinished question. 'The members of the Committee cannot know anything about the state of our finances, and I was
not asked whether we had, so to speak, any surplus funds forthis or for any other purpose.' Far from having any surplus funds,
Reith insisted, the BBC lacked the funds to develop existing
services adequately. 'As a matter of fact, for your private inforReith, Diary, 30 Nov. 1934.

THE INQUIRY

591

mation, we propose in due course to present a case for an
increase of revenue, irrespective of television, feeling that ourpresent revenue is insufficient for our expanding needs, e.g. insuch matters as the very important Empire Service.' Reith
reiterated that the BBC wished to take up television, but thatthe 'real entertainment value' which was absolutely necessary
would cost a large sum. Television could not be provided on thecheap. 'The standard must be infinitely higher than anything
we have done up to the present.»
The committee's Report appeared on 31 January 1935,
twenty-eight pages in length, and price 6d. To the finance of
television it devoted its last five critical pages. The BBC's
responsibility was recognized, and a Television Advisory Committee was recommended-with Yost Office, BBC, andrepresentation-for a period of five years, without power todeal with the compilation of programmes, the detail of the construction of stations, or day-to-day operations. These were to beleft to the BBC itself. The `ultimate establishment of a general
television service' was recommended, with an immediate startin London. `Solvilur atnbulando.' The cost of constructing anational network was conjectured: so too was the cost of programmes. 'We have not budgeted', the Report read, `during
this early stage for a programme comparable in duration,variety or quality with existing sound programmes, although
the service should be amply adequate to provide interest andentertainment for the public, as well as opportunity for daily
demonstrations by retailers of sets.'2
Direct advertising was ruled out for the same reasons that she
Sykes Committee of 1923 had ruled it out:3 sponsored programmes, 'for which the Broadcasting authority neither makes
nor receives payment', were permitted. An increased licencefee was felt to be unfair to those millions of listeners who would
be outside the range of television stations, and a separate television licence was ruled out on the grounds that if it were highit would `strangle the growth of the infant service' and if it were
low it would be `purely derisory as a contribution towards thecost'.
*Reith to Selsdon, 6 Dec. 1934.
Report of the Television Committee, § 63.
3 Cd. 1951 (1923), The Broadcasting Committee, Report, §§ 4o-41.
'
2

592

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

It was easier to reject formulae than to find acceptable ones,
and the recommendation about BBC and Treasury `shares' of
expenditure was almost as vague as it had been in November.
We are left with the conclusion that, during the first experimental
period at least [until December 1936], the cost must be borne by therevenue from the existing los. licence fee. The determination of theallocation of this contribution as between the British Broadcasting
Corporation and the Treasury naturally presents a wide field ofcontroversy, which we should have had to survey at length were we
attempting to lay down a permanent basis. Since, however, we are
dealing with only a relatively limited sum (,ji8o,000), for a very
limited period (less than two years), we suggest that the best course
would be for a reasonable share of the amount to be borne by eachof the two parties-the Corporation and the Treasury-and we
think that the matter should be considered and determined in thislight by the Treasury after consultation with the Postmaster -Generaland the Corporation.'

This was hardly a clarion call. Nor were the paragraphs
relating to the committee's careful consideration of the technicalmerits of the rivals, particularly the Baird Television Company
and'The task of choosing a television system for a public
service in this country is one of great difficulty. The system oftransmission governs in a varying degree the type of set requiredfor viewing, and it is obviously desirable to guard against any
monopolistic control of the manufacture of receiving sets.'2 It
had proved impossible, however, to persuade manufacturers toform a `patent pool' into which all television patents should beplaced for the benefit of the `operating authority', which would
then choose which patents it wished to employ. The government had no power to compel an owner of television patents
to put them into a pool against his will and, 'with the best willin the world' (which was lacking), `patent holders might find it
exceedingly difficult to agree among themselves on a fair basis
for charging royalties and sharing the revenue so obtained'.3
Failing agreement, there had to be competition. Whicheversystem or systems were adopted at the outset, 'it is imperativethat nothing should be done to stifle progress or to prevent theReport of the Television Committee, § 7o.
3

Ibid., § 53.

2

Ibid., § 51.

THE INQUIRY

593

adoption of future improvements from whatever source they
may come'.'Low -definition television, which had served as 'a path along
which the infant steps of the art have naturally. tended', had noreal future,2 but low -definition 3o -line pictures should be maintained for the benefit of `pioneer lookers' until a high-definition
service began to operate.3 Such a service should be establishedat once, with a single transmitting station in London working
with two systems of television in parallel. Baird and E.M.I.,
tried so often, should be given yet another `extended trial',`under strictly comparable conditions': their systems should be
used `alternately-and not simultaneously' for the new public
service from the London station.4
A number of conditions were set out. The transmitting companies were to grant licences `to any responsible manufacturer'
to produce television receiving sets on payment of royalty;
the Advisory Committee was to have power to recommend thatdevices could be introduced by the BBC other than those
covered by the transmitting companies' patents; `transmissions
from both sets of apparatus should be capable of reception by
the same type of receiver without complicated or expensive
adjustment'; `definition should not be inferior to a standard of
240 lines and 25 pictures per second'; and 'the general designof the apparatus should be such as to satisfy the Advisory Committee, and, when it has been installed, tests should be given to
the satisfaction of the Committee'.5
By the time the Selsdon Committee reported early in 1935
E.M.I. had developed its system to the point where it could g've
demonstrations on a standard of 405 lines and 5o pictures per
second. An Emitron type of camera was being used in conjunction with a radio transmitter developed by the Marconi Company. The transmitter had a peak power of 12 kilowatts. Only
the modulator was in need of further specialized development.
The Baird Television Company's techniques remained inferior.
The intermediate film wasted time: it required, moreover, thatthe performer should be made up heavily with a thick yellowish
foundation, grey eye shadow, and bright red lips. The spotlight method, which produced Baird's best close-up head and+Ibid., §51.
Ibid., §§ 51-55.
C 19952

5Ibid., § 26.
Ibid., § 56.
Qq' Ibid., § 34.

594

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

shoulder effects, entailed complete darkness in the studio while
the programme was being transmitted. The Farnsworth camera
was not perfected, and in this kind of technique the Emitroncamera was manifestly superior. The doom of Baird was anticipated in September 1935 when the BBC finally closed down
the old 3o -line broadcasts. All the `televisors' still in existence
suddenly became obsolete, and there was a lull before anything
new went over the air.
Just before the lull started, the BBC announced that it had
chosen Alexandra Palace as the home for its new London transmitting station.' With the Baird Television Company ensconced
in the south tower of the Crystal Palace and the BBC in
Alexandra Palace, the Victorians were coming into their own
again. Both edifices recalled the exhibitions of the mid -nineteenth century. `Television is incongruously housed', The Times
complained. `Gaunt and unlovely, the Palace dominates part ofNorth London, with only the 220 ft. mast to indicate the marvelin the south-east corner. An inadvertent entry by the back door
brings the visitor over a desolate branch terminus of the L.N.E.R.
into empty, echoing halls, where the assorted objects might havebeen gathered by a surrealist.'z Yet there was a kind of aptness
in the fact that the home of one of the great nineteenth-century
exhibitions was to become the first centre of the greatest exhibition of the twentieth century-a continuous one. The exhibition
was not yet ready in 1935. `Nevertheless,' as the Report put it,'the time may come when a sound broadcasting service entirely
unaccompanied by television will be almost as rare as the silent
cinema film is today.'3

5. The Service
REGULAR BBC television broadcasts, the first in the world,began on 2 November 1936. Between the publication of
The Daily Herald anticipated the news, 17 May 1935. The lease ran for twentyone years as from June 1935. Contracts for building work were not sent out until
Oct. 1935. T. C. Macnamara was given the task of planning the station.
1

2

The Tintes, 7 Jan. 1938.

Report of the Television Committee, § 36.

THE SERVICE

595

Selsdon's Report and the official opening, much had happened
to determine the shape of things to come. First, the Television
Advisory Committee came into existence, meeting for the firsttime on 5 February 1935, only a few days after the Report had
been laid before Parliament.' Second, the Baird Television Company and E.M.I. hurried forward with their technical developments. Third, the BBC began to order equipment and to makeappointments in connexion with its new service. The technicalproblems of running a regular daily service were new, and it wasalso necessary to examine the problems and opportunities of
new kinds of studio work.
The Television Advisory Committee had exactly the same
membership as the Television Committee, except that Sir Frank
Smith of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
replaced Cadman. At its first meeting it decided on the minimumof publicity, turned down an offer by the Sunday Express to provide the first television programme, and agreed on the appointment of a Technical Sub -Committee, consisting of Smith,Angwin, Ashbridge, and Brown. It also approved the first steps
towards the acquisition of the Alexandra Palace site. It wassome time, however, before the BBC was able to go ahead withthe building and equipment of the station. The question of site
itself remained open until May, and tenders did not go out until
the summer of 1935.
There were difficulties, too, as between the various companies. It had been anticipated that the Baird Television Company and E.M.I. would not wish to use any apparatus incommon,2 but, in addition to this long-standing difference, theRadio Manufacturers' Association found it impossible to agreewith either of the two contending companies on a standard
form of licence covering the use of television patents.3 When thematter was at last settled in July 1935 the idea of a standard
licence had to be dropped, and the two companies were left 'to
The Report was laid before the Cabinet on 31 Jan. See The Times, Feb. 1935.
They did in fact use aerials, high-frequency feeder lines, and sound trans1

2

mitters in common.

' *See the Report of the Television Committee, § 56 (d). The R.M.A appointed a
Television Negotiating Committee to meet representatives of the Baird Television
Company and E.M.I. early in March 1935. See Minutes of the Television Advisory
Committee, 5 Mar. 1935. Clause 56 (d) had to be withdrawn when the two sides
could not agree. (Minutes of the Television Advisory Committee, 3o Apr. 1935.)

596

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

licence any responsible manufacturer to use their patents formaking television sets on payment of a reasonable royalty'.
The two companies were unequally placed in the last stagesof their duel, and Birkinshaw, appointed Engineer -in -Charge
at Alexandra Palace, had the difficult diplomatic task of keeping peace between them. \Vest of the Baird Company reported
to Ashbridge in October 1935 that the Baird Television Company's use of Farnsworth apparatus was still imperfect and thatintermediate film processes would have to be used at least until
March 1936.1 The variety of apparatus employed did not makematters easy for the BBC: when, for example, it was decided
that a small experimental `portrait studio' should be opened 'ator near Broadcasting House', it was agreed that it would be
impossible to accommodate Baird's intermediate film apparatus
as well as an E.M.I. ionoscope.2 And when all the necessary
apparatus had been installed at Alexandra Palace, both companies still needed two months to make preliminary programme
tests with their apparatus before public transmissions could
begin.3
Not all the difficulties were on Baird's side. E.M.I. had to run
a shuttle service from Hayes to replace cathode-ray tubes at
short notice. It insisted also on complete and what seemed attimes `unreasonable secrecy' as to what its engineers were doing.3
Relations between the two contestants were so strained that
Ashbridge suggested that the only fair way of deciding which
one of them should bat first when transmissions began was toinvite the two companies to toss for it.s Accordingly, a coin was
tossed by Lord Selsdon at a meeting held at St. Martin's -le Grand on 23 July 1936, and H. Clayton, the vice-chairman of the
Baird Television Company, had the luck.6
Before either company was ready, the BBC's new Directorof Television had taken a bold initiative of his own. He wasGerald Cock, a man given to bold initiatives,7 and he had taken
up his new post in February 1935, almost immediately after thecommittee reported. When he was first appointed he had 'notthe slightest appreciation of what would be needed', but he very2s*Minutes of the Television Advisory Committee, 2 Oct. 1935.
+ *Ibid., 20 Feb. 1936.
; *Ibid., 20 Jan. 1936.
*Ibid., t9 Dec. 1935.
6 *Ibid., 23 July 1936.
7 See above, pp. 8o ff.
*Ibid.

THE SERVICE

597

quickly came to the conclusion that he was concerned with 'thegreatest medium for communication the world had ever seen'.'Cock decided in the summer of 1936 that the long and inevitabledelay in providing a television service could best be brought toan end by a burst of activity that would capture public attention. Television could best be given a new boost by the BBC
organizing television transmissions from Alexandra Palace to
the Radiolympia Exhibition in August 1936. The Radio Manufacturers' Association was felt to be somewhat `half-hearted'
about this-only seven manufacturers showed television receivers-and the Baird Television Company was doubtful
whether, given short notice, transmissions would he as good asthey ought to be.2 Cock went ahead vigorously, however, withthe full support of the Television Advisory Committee.
The programmes were planned by Cecil Madden, who wasto have a long and successful career with the BBC. Madden,with ample theatrical experience, was given only ten days'
notice to commission lyrics and music and to find stars andarrange films. He was at the mercy not only of the engineers of
the two companies but of what were known to be difficult reception conditions at Olympia. Vet, with every kind of technicaldifficulty to harass him, and Cock's two highly publicized lady
announcers Jasmine Bligh and Elizabeth Cowell-both ill,
Madden at last succeeded in presenting what one newspaper
called 'real television'.3
Leslie Mitchell was the announcer: he had been employedin sound radio as an announcer and as a member of Maschwitz's
Variety Department, and he had to carry out his first duties for
the Radiolympia transmissions in the pitch dark which Baird's
spotlight system necessitated. He managed both to catch theexcitement of the occasion and to remain visibly unruffled evenwhen it was suspected that sabotage as well as technical hitches
were responsible for some of the irritating disturbances andbreakdowns. Cock, Birkinshaw, Madden, Mitchell, and Elizabeth Cowell, who returned from her illness to Alexandra Palacein time for the last few days of Radiolympia, helped to raise the*BBC Television Programme, Window on the World, tg Mar. 1962.
*Minutes of the Television Advisory Committee, 2 May 1936; Clayton to
Carpendale, 17 ,July 1936.
3 Morning Post, 26 Aug. 1936.
7

2

598

THE NE\V WORLD OF TELEVISION

spirits of the radio manufacturers far more than Baird had everbeen able to do, and they were relieved to discover that there
was an even slightly bigger demand for sets capable of receiving
both systems than they had anticipated. They even raised
Baird's spirits too. There had obviously been a wide enoughrange of programmes and sufficient signs of promise of futuretechnical quality to attract a public. The range included not
only live performances, but films of the Queen Mary docking
at Southampton, of Arsenal playing Everton, and of Baird, inwhat was to be the last of his big `stunts', `televising' aboard
a Royal Dutch airliner.
The entry of Gerald Cock into the picture marks a shift ofemphasis in the story of pre-war television. Hitherto almost
everything had depended on techniques: after Radiolympia
1936 it depended on programmes also. It is true that there \s asa deliberate pause between the end of Radiolympia and theofficial opening of the new television service on 2 November
1936 because plans were not completed. Yet pictures were being
sent out during this period and at least one programme witha long future ahead of it, the magazine Picture Page, was firstbroadcast, with Madden as producer, during the pause, on
8 October 1936. Joan Miller, the Canadian actress, was thecommentator, shown sitting at a telephone switchboard andplugging the viewers-they were still called `lookers' in 1936through to the celebrities. 'They were very adventurous wonderful days', she has reminisced since. `It was rather like "covered
wagon work" and we were homesteading as we went along,finding out everything. Every programme was a way of findingout how to do the thing. And the cameramen also were finding
their way." The engineers too were learning every clay about
the capabilities and limitations of the new equipment.
Before Radiolympia, Cock also had been finding his bearingsin the new world of television, a world which was quite alien to
many of the senior officials in Broadcasting House. The premonition that the world was about to change can be noted firstin a memorandum written by Roger Eckersley in July 1934,
while the Selsdon Committee was beginning its inquiries. `It
may be a long time before Television is perfected', Eckersley
wrote, 'and I suppose that at the beginning television sets will
* Window on

the World, 19 Mar. 1962.

THE SERVICE

599

be so expensive as to be the toys of the favoured rather thanpieces of furniture in the homes of the proletariat.' Yet `given
practical television, the general public will wish to see as well ashear.... Is there anything we can do to prepare for it?' Building schemes should be changed, Eckersley implied, and dressing -rooms and stages built. Broadcast drama would soon cease
to appeal. So would visionless Variety.'
No one seems to have replied directly to this memorandum,
although a few months later Gerald Beadle, who was to end hislong and distinguished BBC career as Director of Television,
was writing notes on the exceptionally high cost of television
Variety.2 Carpendale, seeking to impress upon Reith the importance of his evidence before the Selsdon Committee, could nothide his own scepticism. Watching at home in semi -darkness to
see what was happening on a tiny screen did not seem to him
ever to be likely to enthral the millions. `If television liad comebefore the movies I might think otherwise, but the cinema today
is so cheap and so perfect and so universal in its appeal that I
doubt if television can stand up to it for a long time to com.e.'3
Its only hope of success-and Eckersley agreed with him about
this-was to develop a costly television service, running inparallel to the sound broadcasting service. `It is impossible toforecast any independent programme which will be adequate
for the purpose, without the expenditure of a large sum ofmoney. \Ve feel that we have led the public to expect too mnch
for us to envisage the possibility of ourfrom broadcasting
service on the elementary lines
televisioncontinuing with theoriginally started.'4
itselfalong which broadcasting...

This was where Cock came in. His first report, written in
March 1935, envisaged a separate programme staff, including
a film expert, a first-class executive, and a permanently attachedtechnical adviser with wide and not circumscribed functions.
He also envisaged-in the short run only-'provided' or `sponsored' programmes, with brief acknowledgements at the beginning and end of the programme but with 'no selling of time on*Roger Eckersley to Dawnay, 12 July 1934..
*Beadle to Carpendale, 3 Dec. 1934.
*Carpendale to Reith, 20 Nov. 1934.
4 *Eckersley to Dawnay, 29 Nov. 1934.
2

600

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

the U.S.A. or Luxembourg model'. He felt that the suppliers of`ladies' hats, dresses and jewellery' and motor -car and aeroplane
manufacturers would be interested in mutual co-operation`without strings'.' There was strong opposition to this proposal
inside the BBC on the grounds that 'the principle was bad', andwhen Cock pointed out that `sponsoring' would raise the qualityof programmes, it was insisted that `considerations of economy
should not be the reason for accepting a principle which had
never been accepted by the BBC in the past'.z The Board ofGovernors took the same view, and insisted that during theexperimental period 'the same criteria should apply to the Television service as to sound broadcasting'.3`Sponsoring' of a strictly limited kind was, in fact, occasionally employed, although names quickly dropped out.4 New car
models, for example, were displayed for half an hour in October
1936, `driven slowly along the terrace of Alexandra Palace' and`halting in turn on a special concrete apron adjoining the ramp
on which the television "camera" is manipulated to provide
near or distant shots'.5 Nothing much more daring or contentious than this was attempted, and even this provoked protests.6
Cock was also determined, if he could, to forge new links withthe `entertainment world'. Recalling the tough negotiations
with outside interests in which he had taken part as Director of
Outside Broadcasts,7 he urged the need, in particular, to reachan agreement with the cinema industry. `It is suggested thata special tuning -in film should be made to our order by
Gaumont-British as the first co-operative effort between BBC
Television and the Film Industry.' It would be a special `show',lasting about three or four minutes, 'with an A. P. Herbert orMaschwitz lyric set to music'. Film technique would inevitably
begin to influence many types of programmes where the `artists'of sound radio had hitherto had a free field. There would bea great increase in `actuality' and `news-topical' programmes,' *Minutes of Television Policy Committee, 4 Dec. 1935.
2 *Noteon Sponsored Programmes, 5 Dec. 1935. The note, written by Nicolls,
followed a Controllers' Meeting on 4 Dec. 1935.
3 *Boardof Governors, Minutes, 1, Dec. 1935.
4 *Note by Goldsmith,Dec. 1936.
s *BBC Press Release, 6 Oct. 1936.
A. P. Ryan to Tallents, 5 Oct. 1936.
6
7 See above, pp. 8o ff.
1

THE SERVICE

6o1

and in the preparation of these, too, 'much of the present painfully acquired broadcast technique is bound for the scrap heap'.'
Ashbridge scribbled comments freely on Cock's draft, addingin pencil the urgent practical note-`must get a horse race orboat race or something as soon as humanly possible'. With his
experience of outside broadcasts, Cock immediately agreed. He
warmed to his new job as its range of possibilities became clear
to him, and he was quite at home in a brief battle with film
interests in October 1935, when Western Electric,, a subsidiaryof the powerful American Telephone and Telegraph Company,
and R.C.A. both refused leave for the televising in Britain ofany sound films licensed by them-virtually 90 per cent. of theAmerican talking-film output. Reith appealed direct by telephone to David Sarnoff, and R.C.A. waived its prohibition`until further notice'.2 Western Electric also waived its ban for
as long as television had not `actually passed out of an experimental into a commercial stage'.3
Cock's vision enabled him to move forcefully through such
obstacles. In one statement, indeed, his imagination ran aheadof what has actually happened since. 'The growth of a Television Service will see a revolutionary change in the gramophone record industry. "Telegram" sets will replace radiograms
and long -running film records will be used instead of discs, thepicture track being shown on the home television screen.'
Reith was worried that Cock might move too fast and too
independently in the position of `comparative autonomy' in
which he found himself:4 this was to be a worry ofother Director Generals in other circumstances, and it explains much in thesubsequent history of television. He approved, howe er, of thekind of organization Cock had suggested, with a skeleton television staff augmented by `borrowed' producers. Cock himself
was to be responsible in the BBC hierarchy to the Controller(Programmes), and Television was to be a department of theProgramme Division.
These decisions went much further than any which had been
hinted at before 1935, but it was clear that television, which,*G. A. Cock, `Television Programmes, Preliminary Report', 6 Mar. 1935.
Reith, Diary, 23 Oct. 1935.
3*Letters of 21 Dec. 1935, 24 June 1938, and 28 Dec. 1938.
4 *Reich to Graves, 14 Mar. 1935.
I

2

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

602

after all, was still in the `experimental' stage, was not to havecomplete freedom to develop on its own. It was to be treated aspart of a complex, a complex within which relationships werebound, almost by the nature of things, to be difficult and uncertain. What was to be the link between Broadcasting House
and Alexandra Palace? Were the two media to be treated as`integrated' elements in the same whole or as parallel services?
Reith fell back on the analogy of the Empire Service. 'Cock andhis staff are in the same position as Beresford Clark and his staffof the Empire Department. This means that they are subject toA.C.(P) supervision, but it would be as unreasonable to havea [separate] A.C.(P) for Television as to have an A.C.(P) for
the Empire Service. It would be no less unreasonable for one
suddenly to appoint an Assistant Director -General for programmes.'
This was a supremely logical conclusion, which derived from
Reith's conception of functional organization. It was in thelight of such argument that Control Board laid down in January
1936 that all television programmes should be subject to thefunctional control of the broadcasting departments and in particular that talks should be properly `censored', whatever 'theactual expedients or procedure in regard to manuscripts'.2 The
decision was reiterated a few months later when Control Board
stated that 'the Television Department should be dealt withdefinitely in future as other Departments of the Programme
Division, and subject to the same clear authorities'.3
Yet there was another side to the question. The disadvantagesof this policy were, first, that it was almost impossible to enforce,and second, that the `clear authorities' within the hierarchy
were not always clear about the special needs of television as a
medium. Graves, who was one of the main architects of thepolicy, argued cautiously, for example, not in terms of opportunity but of precedent. `In my opinion, the present plans of the
Television Director are too ambitious. With his characteristic
keenness and enthusiasm, he is planning to start a service at alevel which I feel need not be reached for some months after
the actual date of the start of the regular transmissions.'¢
1*Reith to the Controllers, 28 July 1936.
*Control Board Minutes, t¢ Jan. 1936.
3*Ibid., 15 Sept. 1936.
4 *Graves to Carpenclale, 26 Mar. 1936.
I

2

TILE SERVICE

603

Such attitudes, expressed or merely felt, can stifle creative
initiative at critical moments of broadcasting history. Graves
was comparing the early clays of Empire broadcasting with
television and getting the terms of the comparison wrong. He
wanted a succession of `repeats' rather than a burst of ideas. `Itis the novelty of being able to see that really matters at the start,
not what can be seen.' To try to exercise a measure of control
over Cock, therefore, he arranged that Roger Eckersley, at thisdate Assistant Controller of Programmes, should be givena special watching brief in relation to television.'Control Board approved this arrangement, although it also
approved an interesting four-month plan which Cock had
prepared.2 Many ideas were sketched out in this plan which
are crucial to the whole use of television as a medium. The
announcers were to have 'a pleasant personality and informalmanner'. There was to be a Television Orchestra led by HyamGreenbaum. A range of regular series of programmes was
suggested, including `Press Personalities', 'From the Theatre',`In the News', 'The World of Sport', and 'The Zoo Today'.
Short excerpts of old and silent film classics were to be offered,and an organization was to be formed for collecting `People in
the News' each clay.3
Until film supply was assured, it was impossible to say whether
or not there would be an independent BBC Newsreel Service:
there would be problems here deriving from news agreements
concerned with sound broadcasting. It was also difficult 'toknow how to deal with Religion with brevity and dignity atpresent'. Lastly and, in retrospect, not least interesting, theprogrammes were to be interrupted with what might be called`natural breaks'. 'To avoid eye strain, there should be intervalsignals between individual programme items, lasting not morethan half a minute. These intervals should be marked by meansof a modern clock, the dimension of whose face should beroughly the same as the dimensions of the received picture.'4*Graves to Reith, 3 Apr. 1936.
*Control Board Minutes, 26 Mar. and 7 Apr. 1936.
3 *There were difficulties with film companies throughout 1936 and 1937, but
permission was received to show British Movietone News in Sept. 1936 and the
Gaumont-British News Reel in Nov. 1936. Twentieth -Century Fox agreed to lease
its 'Magic Carpet' series in Oct. 1936.
4 *G. A. Cock, 'Notes on Television Programme Service', 5 Sept. 1936.
2

604

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

It was along the lines of this memorandum that Cock prepared for Racliolympia. Jasmine Bligh and Elizabeth Cowellwere chosen from the large numbers of women from all partsof the world ho applied for announcers' posts: the one, inMargaret Lane's words, was `tall, statuesque, really beautiful
in the dignified Edwardian manner', and the other `slight,
quick with a lively face which one would call "chic" '.t Leslie
Mitchell was chosen as third announcer from a list of 600 applicants. Cecil Madden, the programme organizer, had considerable experience of 'show business' he was soon to become a'Mr. Television' in himself.z Leonard Schuster, the former
Executive Officer of the Outside Broadcasts Department, wasthe administrator whom Cock wanted.
Among the others who joined the team, then or soon afterwards, were D. R. Campbell, who dealt with lighting, Peter
Bax, formerly assistant stage manager at Drury Lane, who
dealt with design, D. H. Munro, George More O'Ferrall, Dallas
Bower, a film director, and Stephen Thomas in presentation.
The engineering operation was under the over-all control of
Ashbridge, with assistance from all departments. At Alexandra
Palace the team on the spot was led by Birkinshaw, who had
among his engineering lieutenants T. H. Bridgewater as senior
maintenance engineer and H. W. Baker and H. F. Bowden as thetwo senior engineers -in -charge of transmitters.3
NS:

Cock's ambitions and dreams were dependent not only on
the goodwill or ignorance-of administrators, but on the skill-and knowledge-of engineers. In the month of Radiolympia,
just after Reith had warned the Controllers of the dangers of'staff troubles in Television',4 Ashbridge prepared a long paperon the engineering side of the new television service. First, there
was a real limit to its extension. There was no surplus of `wavelength space' on the ultra -short waves, which had been chosen
for the new service: there was almost as keen competition forthe limited number of waves available as there was in themedium -wave band, and the most that the BBC could legitimately promise on the current line of definition was a network of
2
3

4

Quoted in G. Ross, Television Jubilee, The Story of Twenty -Five rears (1961), p. 32.
Ibid., p. 37.

For the trio, Birkinshaw, Bridgewater, and Campbell, see above, p. 563.
*Keith to the Controllers, 28 July 1936.

THE SERVICE

605

four stations. There was also a problem of power. The power ofAlexandra Palace (about 17 kilowatts) would give an average
range of transmission of twenty -live miles. It was about thehighest power that engineers could then achieve: if power wereto increase to, say, too kilowatts, masts would have to be builtof at least 500 to 600 feet in height, and there would be powerfssl
Air Ministry objections to this.
These were major transmitting difficulties. So too was theconstruction of co -axial cable, essential for distributing television programmes more than a few miles, and the perfecting ofoutside broadcast apparatus, which depended on an efficient
link between the outside broadcasting point and the transmitting station. At the receiving end, there was a serious but as yet
unmeasured danger of interference, particularly from motorcars. 'This is the most virulent type of known interference fortransmissions by ultra -short waves, and this may conceivably
cause a serious set -back since legislation is not likely to be rapid,
and may be difficult to apply to existing motor -cars.'
All technical problems in broadcasting history overlap withother problems, and Ashbriclge passed in the second half of his
memorandum to the `programme side'. There, the central point
was 'the reaction of the public to viewing'. This would he difficult to assess at first, because of the need to separate the interest
due to novelty from that created by `genuine entertainment'.
The reaction would also depend on the quality of reception.
'We must avoid making decisions in committee or elsewhere asa result of looking at a picture on a receiver which not only may
have cost say £15o, but is in perfect running order, with notrace of interference, and has been adjusted by expert engineers.
All important decisions which are affected by the quality of the
programme must be judged on home receivers receiving thebroadcast at a medium range.' Those types of programmes indemand might involve greatest cost and most new technicaldevelopment. In general, technical costs might be two or threetimes greater than for sound broadcasting, and programme costs
would be correspondingly higher too. Studio provision at Alexandra Palace would not be big enough for more than a year or
two, and the BBC would have to build `elaborate studios apartfrom the Alexandra Palace of a size and type which at the
moment are quite unknown'.

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

6o6

The distant shape of Television Centre may have formeda misty image in Ashbridge's mind. He was certainly more
long-sighted in his brilliant forecast than those of his contemporaries on the programme side who envisaged the total decayof sound radio. 'At the beginning, the television service will be
only loosely related to the sound service', but, however it was
ultimately organized, `blind broadcasting' would still remain,at least for certain kinds of music and certain kinds of talks andnews. 'One must not assume that the analogy applying to talkies
and silent films will apply to television and broadcasting.' Ashbridge went on to foresee that there would ultimately be thesame `local' or `regional' question arising in relation to television as had already arisen in relation to sound radio. Indeed,'it is likely that there will be far more separate stations associated with cities than in the case of sound broadcasting'.'
Few of these issues, so cogently explained by Ashbridge, complicated the brief history of pre-war television. Had there notbeen a war, however, they would have arisen urgently andinescapably long before the late 194os. As it was, Radiolympia
came and went, and Ashbridge felt that 'very considerable
technical progress all round is necessary before the service
can be looked on as definitely and firmly established'.=After the pause,3 the official opening of the new service took
place on 2 November, with speeches on both systems from Major
G. C. Tryon, the Postmaster-General, the chairman of the
BBC's Governors, and Lord Selsclon. Sir Henry Greer, thechairman of the Baird Television Company, and Alfred Clark,
chairman of E.M.I., were each televised by their own systems.
Norman found the right words for the occasion. 'We believethat these proceedings will be remembered in the future as anhistoric occasion, not less momentous and not less rich in promise than the day, almost fourteen years ago, when the British
Broadcasting Company, as it was then, transmitted its firstprogramme from Marconi House.'I*N. Ashbridge, 'Notes on the Television Service for the Alexandra Palace',t o Aug. 1936.

*N. Ashbridge, Report on Radiolympia, Sept. 1936.
*Control Board Minutes, 7 Sept. 1936. 'Programmes for the next monthshould be as simple and flexible as possible; and the main programme effort should
be concentrated on research.'
2
3

607

THE SERVICE

The speeches were followed by light entertainment, provided
by Adele Dixon and Buck and Bubbles, two coloured American
comedians and dancers, and in the evening Madden presented
the second edition of his Picture Page. It was introduced by
Jasmine Bligh, and included Jim Mollison, the aviator, abreathless and extremely difficult person to interview, Kay
Stammers, the tennis star, and `Bossy' Phelps, the King's Barge master, who was interviewed by John Snagge.
It was Cock's object to provide television programmes for twohours daily, from 3 o'clock until 4 o'clock and from 9 o'clock
until to o'clock, 'with the finest artists' and the briskest possible
camera work. `Every day we are learning something new. We
discovered recently that the television eye is more sensitive
than a camera. It registers details the camera does not see.' New
techniques would be explored in every kind of programme.
`Informality and brightness will be the keynotes.» Every effort
was made to exploit not only the studio space in Alexandra
Palace but the amenities of the surrounding park, with its
grassy slopes, woods, and lake. Early studio programmes
included revue, variety, ballet, illustrated talks and demonstrations, and film excerpts from \Vest End shows. From outside thestudios came demonstrations of golf, riding, boxing, and othersports. By the beginning of December 1936 Reith admitted that
he had been more impressed by television than he had expected
and that it would develop quicker than had been anticipated.
Tallents went further. He said that he felt no doubt about the
popular appeal of the new service, particularly among 'the lesseducated', who would derive special advantage from the double
support of sight and sound impressions. Development would becontrolled by factors of cost and technique, and not by lack ofpublic demand. He thought that television would demand
a new technique, different from that of either sound broadcasting or film production. To some extent at least a specialized television staff was likely to be required, and the proposal to givefunctional control over it to the producing staff engaged insound production needed much further examination.2
An extraordinarily interesting and percipient memoran _lum
from Val Gielgud brought out the `creative' implications of discussions of administration and policy. It was as far removed*BBC Press Release, Oct. 1936.

2*Control Board Minutes,

1

Dec. 1936.

6o8

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

from Graves's memoranda as any statement of intentions could
be. If Reith's desire to keep the 'two services' together was to berealized-and Gielgud hoped that it would-then there would
have to be a complete change of outlook in Broadcasting House.
Otherwise television would become 'more and more divorced
from ordinary sound broadcasting' and would take on `the shapeof a rival organisation, competing for artists, finance and equipment'. `Would it not be possible for us', Gielgud asked, 'to try
to jump ahead of mere process by trial and error? ... Television
should concentrate upon those aspects of broadcasting which indue course it will be called upon to serve, and the programme
departments which are bound, before long, to have to cope with
Television as part of their normal activities should face up tothat problem now.'
This was the only way, Gielgud thought, of retaining what
Reith believed to be absolutely necessary-a sense of unity inbroadcasting and an `integration' of the two media. Gielgud
admitted honestly that he was to some extent dismayed with theprospect: 'it implies for my own work a degree of sudden andviolent return to the absolute simplicities which is hound to beboth difficult and rather disheartening'. Doubtless he was thinking back to The Man with the Flower in His Mouth when headded that he feared that within a very few years the radio playfor sound only will be 'as defunct as the dodo'. In the light of
this, he scent on, it seemed 'an irrational and mistaken dispersalof effort' to have two or three comparatively raw producers considering television production problems at Alexandra Palace,while his own staff continued to expend most of its energies onforms of programme `doomed to the scrap heap'. 'Even if it werenecessary for our actual programme output to he to some extent
limited as a result of such a change, I still feel', he concluded,'that by taking the public into our confidence, and by a clear
statement that we were regarding the implications of the not too -distant future in a practical way, we could achieve credit
for a far-sighted policy and at the same time lay the foundation
for being able to tackle Television properly as soon as it becomes
available as a service over a very wide area.»
Gielgud looked fearlessly across space into the new world of
television. Graves responded constructively a few months later*Gielgud to Reith, 2 Dec. 1936.

THE SERVICE

609

by telling departmental heads to take a more active share in andresponsibility for what was being transmitted from Alexandra
Palace. He closed with Gielgud's argument, that since outside
broadcasts would soon be very largely, if not entirely visual,and talks, features, drama, and schools broadcasts would beattempted by television, there would have to be a `considerable
adjustment in duties and responsibilities'. The longer it wasdelayed, the more difficult it would become to enforce it.'
There was further delay, however, before Carpendale issued
a general directive in January 1938 stating that the progress ofthe television service made it desirable that there should be'much closer contact with the sound broadcasting service'.
`Heads of Departments are requested tobear in mind thepossibility of eventual amalgamation in some fields of Television
and Sound broadcasting activities as well as the parallel operation of the two services.'2...

Before this directive was issued in January 1938, the television service liad made considerable progress. In February
1937 the contest between the Baird system and the MarconiE.M.I. system at last came to an end. The Baird system was
dropped. On 3o November 1936 there liad been a cruel fire at
the Crystal Palace which destroyed a great deal of the Baird
Television Company's equipment. It was not the fire, however,which destroyed the Baird Television Company, but theundoubtedly superior achievement of E.M.I.
Fortunately for the BBC the decision, when it came, had to
be made not by itself but by the Television Advisory Committee. The committee had already been told by Ashbridge in
October 1936 that Baird's system of spotlight transmission was
unsuitable for the official opening in November, and Selsdon
had declared that since the public service should not be allowed
to start with an inferior production of television, E.M.I. might
have to be called in first.3 In fact both systems were used at the
opening but when the committee re-examined the question
after the opening, there was `general agreement that the results*Graves to Heads of Departments, 20 Aug. 1937.
*Memorandum from the Deputy Director -General, `Television and Sound
Broadcasting', 7 Jan. 1938.
1*Minutes of the Thirty -Second Meeting of the Television Advisory Committee,
15 Oct. 1936.
e 1995R r
2

610

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

obtained with the Baird system were distinctly inferior to thoseobtained with the Marconi-E.M.I. system and that the Baird
spotlight and Intermediate Film methods in particular had
proved to be unsatisfactory in operation'.! Cock stated his viewfirmly that the BBC should make exclusive use of the MarconiE.M.I. system, and Selsdon agreed.z
The result was that what were called `London television
standards' were laid down : 405 -line pictures only were approved
with 50 frames per second, and Baird's 240 -line picture with
25 frames per second became sub-standard. The only pointthat held up an announcement along these lines until February
1937 was fear inside the Post Office-by no means a new fear-that unless adequate safeguards were secured, 'the adoptionof the Marconi-E.M.I. standards would put the Company ina very strong monopolistic position, which in the light of pastexperience with the Marconi Company should be avoided if
possible'.3 Adequate guarantees were given, and the Post Officeand BBC announcement of E.M.I's victory, when it came,
created far less friction than it might have done. Even Moseleyin his championship of Baird did not question the rightness of
this final decision.
Baird himself was completely isolated. His colleagues did notseem to understand what a terrible blow it was to him personally 'to be thrown out of the BBC', and argued that the sale ofreceivers mattered far more than facilities for transmission.
Before long Moseley was back again with a new plan and a newcompany, Cinema-Television, associated with Gaumont-British
and designed to fit big television screens into Gaumont cinemas.4
The BBC was able to profit directly from the withdrawal of
the Baird system. More studio space became available, and there
was no longer the handicap of moving everything round at theend of each week, as in a provincial repertory company. It was*T.A.C. meeting of 16 Dec. 1936.
*I bid ., meeting of 23 Dec. 1936.
3 *Ibid., meeting of t t Jan. 1937. For what was thought to be relevant 'past
experience', see The Birth of Broadcasting, pp. 30-34, 107 ff.
4 S. Moseley, John Baird, pp. 219-23.
*The Television Advisory Committee
recommended that independent Baird transmissions to cinemas on a wavelengthof 8.3 metres should not be allowed in view of the shortage of wavelengths. See
Minutes of the Forty -Second Meeting of the Television Advisory Committee,
2 June 1937; Phillips to Baird, 19 June 1937. The BBC also objected to Baird using
Post Office land -lines.
2THE SERVICE

Erra sign of changing times that from April 1937 onwards the BBC
began to invite distinguished visitors to watch television in the
Listening Hall at Broadcasting House: 15o privileged people
watched television in this style in May 1937.
In the same month came the great public event of 1937-theCoronation. Permission was not forthcoming for the installationof television cameras in Westminster Abbey' but three cameras,part of a total complement of twenty-two, were installed in therain at Hyde Park Corner. A special eight -mile cable was laidby the Post Office between Hyde Park Corner and Alexandra
Palace, and a huge new portable transmitter made its firstpublic appearance in the BBC's first four -ton television van.
Freddie Grisewood was the commentator and it was estimatedthat several thousand people saw the transmission, while a few
lucky `viewers' picked it up over sixty miles away.2
One of the highlights of the programme, to which the press
gave headline treatment, was a special smile by the King into
the television camera. There was also the inevitable near technical hitch. Two channels had been provided in case of
breakdown, and to the consternation of the engineers bothchannels went dead just before the transmission was due tostart. E. L. C. White, an E.M.I. engineer, found out what waswrong and reassembled the apparatus for one channel with only
a few minutes to spare.

Even with the Coronation, the beginning of a monthly sports
review, tennis at Wimbledon, the Lord Mayor's Show, theceremony at the Cenotaph on Armistice Day, Mr. Middleton
with his `television garden', and Pet's Corner at the Zoo, salesof television sets increased only slowly. About 4.0o had been soldby the end of January 1937:3 at the end of the year the figure
was estimated at just over 2,000.4 Yet in the early days of' 'T.A.C., meeting of 26 Feb. 1937. Ashbridge said that 'in all the circumstances
he was not disposed to regard the decision not to allow the actual Coronation
ceremony to be televised as being altogether a matter for regret'.
2 Ross,op. cit., p. 52, writes of 5o,000 viewers: the BBC Handbook (1938) moremodestly suggests 10,000 (p. 42).
7 Investors' Chronicle, Feb. 1937.
A Listener Research Report of 26 June 1939,
Appendix F, suggested that 28o sets had been sold by the end of 1936.
4 Listener Research Report. According to figures calculated by the Statistical
Department of Murphy Radio Ltd., the total number sold by the end of 1937 was
no more than 1,600.

612

THE NE\V WORLD OF TELEVISION

February, in good time for the Coronation, the price of receivers
had fallen by about a third. E.M.I. and H.M.V. sets fell in
price from 95 guineas to 6o guineas, and Baird 85 -guinea sets tofor the 1937 Radiolympia
55 guineas. Further cuts were madewhich opened on 25 August, but sales remained sluggish.
Three reasons were usually given for the slow progress. First,
the long years of exaggerated Baird Company publicity had led
to a recoil or at least to a popular reluctance to realize just how
much standards (though still inadequate) had improved.
Second, there was still some doubt about `systems'. The fundamental design of television receivers, unlike wireless sets,
depends on the technical standards in use at the transmitting
end, and some would-be buyers seem to have feared that achange in transmitting standards was imminent which would
render current sets completely obsolete. Third, the BBC was nottransmitting for a big enough number of programme hours.
A quarter of a million people visited a Television Exhibition
at South Kensington between Io June and 20 September 1937,
and although there was a fall of about a quarter in the total
attendance at Radiolympia in 1937 from the figure of the year
before, the television section was always crowded.
Jonah Barrington, writing in the Daily Express, expresseda widespread feeling when he said that the BBC was holdinga `thriving lusty baby called television' and it was 'too heavy
for them'. `Consider the lesson of Radiolympia. There we saw
manufacturers making magnificent gestures by dropping theprice of television receivers and increasing their efficiency. But
do the BBC reciprocate by increasing their programme service?
There is no definite news. They may do this and they may dothat. Gentlemen-we need action. And quickly. Because thepresent programme allowance-two hours daily and a demonstration film in the morning-is woefully, ridiculously inade-quate."

Barrington's solution-the complete amalgamation of soundbroadcasting and television, that is to say the televising of allsound programmes-was being widely canvassed in 1937,2 eventhough it rested on a confusion between the technical and' Daily Express, 6 Sept. 1937.
Gravesa *Sir Ian Fraser to Reith, 20 Oct. 1937; Reith to Fraser, 21 Oct. 1937;
1937.
22
Oct.
to Reith,THE SERVICE

613

artistic features of two different media. The BBC's response wasslightly to increase transmitting hours (after a total break from26 July to 18 August) and in February 1938, after the Postmaster-General had answered a question on the subject in theHouse of Commons, to introduce for the first time an hour'stransmission on Sundays. The Postmaster -General stated at thesame time that the existing standards of transmission would
remain unchanged until January 19411

There were various obstacles in the way of the BBC responding to public appeals to engage in a more adventurous television policy. One of them was die old difficulty with outside
interests-not only film companies, but music publishers andtheatres. George Black refused to release his artists even afterReith had met him, for the first time, at lunch in December
1937.2 Attempts to televise other artists from the BBC's own
stage in St. George's Hall also failed. Some artists disliked
wholeheartedly either the very idea of appearing on televisionor the 'long journey' of five miles from the West End to Alexandra Palace. The Jockey Club was opposed to broadcasts ofracing, although the Epsom Grandstand Association allowed
broadcasts of the Derby. Despite, or because of, one particularly
successful televised-and rediffused-prize fight, that between
Boon and Danahar in February 1939, the Boxing Board ofControl became very suspicious of televised boxing. More
important, however, than this kind of difficulty was the continuing problem of finance. Television, it was known, could
absorb money at an alarming rate. How was it all to be paid for?
The Selsdon Report of 1935 had left open the vexed questionof the size of the Post Office and BBC `shares' during the first`experimental' period of development between January 1935
and the expiry of the BBC's Charter on 31 December 1936.3
Selsdon himself thought that a fifty-fifty arrangement was right-L9o,000 each.4 Cadman, who was absent when the committee
discussed finance in detail, felt that the Treasury should pay thefull £18o,000.5 Before this difference could be settled, the Ullswater Committee had reported.6 Its proposal that the BBC's
Hansard, vol. 331, col. 32, I Feb. 1938.
2 Reith, Diary,Dec. 1937.
See above, p. 592.
+ *Selsdon to Kingsley Wood, 14 Jan. 193'..
6 Sec above, p. 498.
*Selsdon to Kingsley Wood, 17 Jan. 1935.
1

3

s

614

THE NE\V WORLD OF TELEVISION

share of licence revenue should be increased to 75 per cent. wasaccepted, but its suggestion that an extra proportion should be
provided for television development was watered down by thegovernment to read that if after the renewal of the Charter inJanuary 1937 'the Treasury should hereafter be satisfied thatthe income of the BBC is insufficient to support their services,
including Television and Empire broadcasting, it should be
open to the Treasury to approve such increase as they may
think appropriate in the circumstances in the proportion oflicence revenue payable to the BBC'. Once again everything
was left vague, and no specific guarantee was given in relation
to television.'
When it was clear in March 1937 that the allocation of 75 percent. would not cover the adequate development of the television service, even after drastic economies had been made bothin sound radio and television estimates, Reith approached the
Postmaster-General for an extra 7 per cent. of licence revenue,
a sum of ,E261,000.2 The request was too late to affect the
government's estimates, and the Board of Governors decided in
May 1937 that television expenditure in future should be determined by the sum the government was prepared to release.
A memorandum written by Ashbridge in the same month madeit abundantly clear that even if the whole balance of 25 per cent.
were paid to the BBC (about ;E95o,000) it could not financemore than three or four television stations. As it was, theAlexandra Palace studios were hopelessly small and inadequate
for any considerable increase in the output of programmes.3
In the light of Ashbridge's statistics, Reith wrote again to the
Postmaster -General in June, stating that the financing of television in 1938 and afterwards would have to depend entirely on`sources outside the present revenue available for sound broadcasting'.4 Given the small number of owners of television sets,
there was surely no justification for financing television in any
way that would be detrimental to the best interests of the soundbroadcasting service.
In July 1937 Reith met Sir Warren Fisher and Sir James Rae
For the government's general attitude to the Ullswater Report proposals,
see above, pp. 510-12.
z*Reith to Tryon, 23 Mar. 1937.
*N. Ashbridge, `Television Finance', 31 May 1937.
4 *Reich to Tryon, II June 1937.
1

THE SERVICE

615

of the Treasury and Sir Thomas Gardiner of the Post Office todiscuss television finance. The Treasury representatives began
by praising the BBC's system of financial control and by agreeing with Reith that the 75 per cent. was needed exclusively forsound broadcasting. 'They expected me to be grateful for this',
Reith wrote in his diary. `I said it would have been unjust
otherwise.' On political grounds, however, they refused to consider the idea of a separate television grant. `Television theywanted us to finance from a loan for two years or so and thenwork with the Advisory Committee, agree a percentage which
would eliminate this loan (over a long term if they have theirway, but they won't), and take care of expenditure, capital andmaintenance for say five years. Quite ridiculous and irritating
to us, but they urged political reasons and I said I should haveto accept it, but I argued with every emphasis against it.'1
Official intimation of the Treasury's attitude was given in
October, after Reith had told a Cabinet sub -committee of theimpossibility of financing either television or foreign service
costs out of 75 per cent. of licence revenue, and no one had
demurred.2 The Treasury letter of October accepted the factthat the 75 per cent. would not cover the costs of television, but
once again refused to set any particular additional percentage
to cover costs. It dropped the idea of loans on grounds of `constitutional accounting propriety' and agreed to provide a supplementary estimate for 1937 and a new estimate for 1938 on thebasis of figures submitted by the BBC.3

When the press campaigned for more television programmes,
few people had any idea of these difficult and often frustrating
discussions behind the scenes. They did not know, for example,
about a battle which was raging on the issue of whether or not
to convert the old theatre at Alexandra Palace into a large
studio at a cost variously estimated as between £70,000 and£140,000.4 The scheme eventually liad to be turned down on' Reith, Diary, 28 July 1937.

*Notes of a meeting held on 4 Oct. 5937.
*Letters of 25 Oct. and 3 Nov. 1937.
4 The idea was tentatively put forward in April 1937, was approved by anumber of BBC committees in the summer of that year, was included in the
Television Advisory Committee's recommendations of 23 Dec. 1938, and was finallyturned down, on account of Treasury opposition, in Feb. 1939.
2
3

616

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

grounds of cost, although Cock, who opposed it on opposite
grounds, argued tenaciously that 'the improvisation of facilities
by reconstructing buildings designed for other purposes cannever be really satisfactory and must be considered in the natureof stop -gap action. Television demands a functional plantdesigned for that purpose alone.» The failure to provide evena temporary scheme was really an example of the influence ofTreasury parsimony on broadcasting policy.
It was only after the Treasury had declared its willingness toprovide extra financez that the BBC came to the decision thatit could slightly increase hours of transmission and consider
Sunday programmes, which the radio trade was extremely
anxious to have started. From 3 April 1938 onwards, therefore,
Sunday programmes from 9.5 p.m. to 10.5 p.m. were broadcast,and from the end of 1938 to July 1939 an extra hour in theafternoon. Early in 1936 twenty programme hours each week
had been assumed to be the minimum basis of a television
service. The figure had only just been achieved when the imminent outbreak of the Second World War closed the service down.
Finance remained a serious problem until September 1939.
Supplementary income was provided in February 1938 to help
meet the BBC deficit on television programmes as set out in the
figures submitted by the BBC after the correspondence of theprevious October, and an additional estimate for 1938/9 was
carried through Parliament-without debate-in March
1938.3 The BBC was to receive an extra 15 per cent. of licencerevenue, making up 90 per cent. in all, the extra percentage
being granted to cover the costs both of television and foreign language broadcasting.
Yet the greatly increased expenditure on foreign -language
broadcasting4 did not make television development easy, andthe financial position had become very serious again by October
1938 when the BBC submitted a detailed Report on Television
Development in 1939 and 1940 to the Television Advisory Committees A 50 -per -cent. increase in television expenditure was
2*Control Board Minutes, 22 Feb. 1938; Note by Cock.
*T1,is was announced at the Forty-eighth Meeting of the Television Advisory

Committee on 14 Jan. 1938.
3 There was a debate on the supplementary BBC estimate: see ffansard, vol. 332,
cols. 1897-2022, g Mar. 1938.
4 Sec above,
pp. 397 ff
3*Minutes of the Fifty -Fourth Meeting of the Television Advisory Committee,

'J

'?-

-..

Ii

o

*
v4L(

--50. The television Studio: A Drawing for The Listener (1936)

.'i
.

.

; [,
"

1

¡z r

its

, -.-:
-

+ 4..
-

o

_

.

!

_r+

c,,...-

_

:741
.

-`-

u

-

o

i

v

5]. \leaandra Palace (1936)

+

11r¡
t

.±Ra c.

.+..,

52.

Gerald A. Cock,First Director of
Television(1937)

.e

.i

e

=i

o

53.

°

Elizabeth Cowell,
Television
Announcer(1939)

I

7

A

$

V

54. F. \V. Ogilvie,

Director-General, 1938

THE SERVICE

617

envisaged in 1939, even though this did not allow for any
increase in the hours of programmes. The main items of expenditure were the long overdue provision of `theatre' facilities
and the extension of television to four provincial centres. Longterm development demanded an order of expenditure far higher
than that which the Television Advisory Committee itself had
thought necessary. 'An annual income of,Ei,000,000 would notcover the needs of an acceptable Television service on a national
scale for more than a few years', the Report concluded. Further
revenue for television would have to be sought, therefore, either
from the introduction of a separate television licence or fromsponsoring.'
The acting chairman of the Television Advisory Committee
congratulated the BBC on 'an admirable document which took
a right view of the position', but the Post Office representatives
expressed the view that the BBC should devote a larger share of
its own resources to television. This division within the committee came at the end of a year when it had been seeking, at
the Postmaster -General's request, to work out a long-term programme of television development and the probable order of
television expenditure for a period of some years ahead.2 The
division of opinion became academic, however, when in February 1939 the Treasury flatly refused to sanction either the`theatre' expenditure or the extension of television to theprovinces.3 The reason given had nothing at all to do with
television. `Heavy demands for essential expenditure on rearmament and defence' were felt to be sufficient reason in themselves.
27 Oct. 1938. The BBC's report was also considered at the next meeting of thecommittee on 2 Nov. :938.
"Sponsoring', which had been discussed so generally in 1935, had been considered by the Ullswater Committee (Cmd. 5091 (1936), § 110-11). They did not
rule out the practice, but stated (§ t 1:) that there was `an obvious danger' thattelevision might come to rely more and more on sponsored programmes. The
government forbade the BBC to make use of sponsored programmes in the newCharter of 1937. The Director -General of the Post Office in a note to Reith (15Mar. 1937) said that this was meant to preclude programmes `provided' by commercial firms.
2 *The Postmaster -General had asked them to do this in Jan. 1938. See Television Advisory Committee, Minutes, 14 Jan. 1938.
3
The Postmaster -General passed on to the Treasury the BBC's proposals, as
supported by the Television Advisory Committee, on 2 Jan. 1939. The Treasury's
reply was sent to the Post Office on 18 Feb. 1939 and passed on to the BBC on
25 Feb. 1939.

618

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISIONIn the few months that remained before war was declared,
there was a searching review of television expenditure alongwith a discussion as to the extent to which a greater share of
BBC funds should be diverted to it.' There were also fruitlessefforts from inside the BBC and the Television Advisory Committee to persuade the Treasury to change its ruling.2 Ogilvie,
the new Director -General, even made a speech at Liverpool in
April 1939 telling the public that delays over technical researchwere not the most important handicap to television development in the provinces: since 1923 `nearly forty per cent oflicence revenue had goile in indirect taxation for purposes otherthan broadcasting'.3
The appointment of Lord Cadman to replace Lord Selsdon
as chairman of the Television Advisory Committee in March
1939 Selsdon had died in December 1938-led to a further
initiative. Cadman believed that `sponsored programmes'
might be the answer to the financial diffiiculties,4 and continued
to express this view when the BBC officially came out against
them.s The Treasury was drawn into this discussion, and madenew proposals in August 1939.6 It suggested a stable grant of
871 per cent. of licence revenue for the next few years andoffered help to start television in Birmingham. While the arguments against sponsored programmes in sound broadcastingmight be `considerable', it went on, entirely different considerations applied in the case of television where the service was very
experimental and had little prospect of becoming self-supporting*The official position on this point was reaffirmed in a memorandum of toMar. 1939: 'The suggestion that sound revenue should be employed to develop
television is contrary to the recommendations of the Ullswater Committee, andquite apart from the fact that 75% is needed for sound broadcasting, it seems
improper that licence buyers outside London should have still further to subsidise
the entertainment of those people in the London area who are able to afford to buy
a television set.'2 *BBC statement on its licence revenue with particular reference to television;
Sir John Simon to Ogilvie, 3 Apr. 1939, referring to the meeting of 6 March.
7
The Tines, 5 Apr. 1939.
4 *Minutes of the Television Advisory Committee, 14 Mar. 1939.
*The first BBC statement was completed on 2¢ Mar. 1939. The Television
Advisory Committee referred the matter back again to the BBC at its meeting on
18 May. Control Board reaffirmed opposition to sponsoring at its meeting of
25 May and the Board of Governors on 31 May. The Television Advisory Committee continued to support sponsoring in a long memorandum approved at its
meeting of 23 June 1939.
6 *Letter of it Aug. 1939, sent on by the Post Office on 16 Aug. 1939.
5

THE SERVICE

619

within a `reasonable period'. `If, indeed, the BBC share thegeneral view of the Television Advisory Committee as to thedesirability of giving a really stirring and immediate impetus totelevision', the Treasury offer concluded, 'My Lords find it
difficult to understand their reluctance to adopt the measure
which is, of all measures, most calculated to secure this result.'
The debate about how to deal with this matter was still raging
inside the Control Board of the BBC-with sharp divisions of
opinion-when war brought it to an abrupt end.' There wasa note of gloom in Ogilvie's comment that 'the arguments
against sponsoring such as they are (independence, artistry, theattitude of the press, etc.) arc hardly likely to appeal to theTreasury'.2 For his part, Cock stated his position unequivocally.
'May I record my conviction that the two greatest disasters that
could happen to television', he wrote to Nicolls in March 1939,`would be (1) sponsored programmes and (2) delivery of the
Television Service in any shape or form to cinema interests.'
Both these ideas were in the air 'only because of the restrictive
attitude of the Treasury to expansion'.3 The kind of sponsoring
the Treasury had in mind was very different from that which
he had advocated on a limited basis in 1935.

The small number of `viewers', as they began to be called, hadlittle idea that such fascinating discussions were going on behindthe scenes. Slowly and undramatically, however, their numbers
were increasing. Moreover, as the technical arts of transmission
improved, so too did the quality of reception. Cock was able toclaim in a broadcast in February 1938 that `thanks to the confrictinual co-operation of engineers and research workers
now
efficienta reallytion has disappeared and Television is
meclium'.4 'The qualified optimism of two years ago has given
place to a profound belief in this miraculous medium.' At the1938 Racíiolympia, television was the main feature of the show.
Sixteen firms displayed receivers, and prices had been sharply
reduced. Serviceable twelve -inch receivers could be boughtfrom 37 guineas upwards, and efficient small sets for as little as...

*Control Board Minutes, 26 Aug. 1939.
* Memorandum by Ogilvie, `Television Finance', 11 Aug. 5939.
S*Cock to Nicolls, 22 Mar. 1939.
Feb. 1938.
4 *Cock, Broadcast in the National Programme,
I

2

1

620

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

21 guineas.

With Munich intervening between the end of the
Exhibition and the advent of winter, more sets were sold between
the beginning of October and Christmas 1938 than had beensold in the whole previous period of television history. The
exact figure is unknown but it was probably between 5,000 and
6,50o. Sales during the eight effective months of 1939 are
harder to estimate, but must have been somewhere between
8,000 and io,000. Estimates of the number of sets in use inAugust 1939 vary between just under 20,000 and 25,000.1
The members of the Radio Manufacturers' Association campaigned very vigorously, a few singly and all collectively, toachieve this result. In March 1938 they formed a Television
Development Sub -Committee which sent fortnightly detailed
criticisms of programmes and suggestions for improvement firstto the Television Advisory Committee and in copy form to theBBC. C. O. Stanley of Pye Radio was the chairman of the subcommittee. Many of the requests they made were impossible toachieve for technical reasons: most were impossible to achieve
for financial reasons. Their attitude, however, was almost
uniformly friendly to the BBC.
Their tastes were undisguisedly lowbrow. They did not like`morbid, sordid and horrific plays'; they were sceptical about
foreign cabaret and ballet; and they were unmoved by Handel's
Acis and Galatea. They objected to studio items being presented
twice, a practice which was necessitated by the meagre programme allowance. Yet in the last year of pre-war television,
they organized joint publicity campaigns with the BBC. At
their suggestion, for instance, a series of talks on television began
on sound radio in November 1938, with Howard Marshall as
the speaker. During the next four weeks lectures were given in
London and the provinces, large advertisements appeared in
the Radio Times and the national dailies, and a thousand poster
sites were bought on the London Underground.2 In December
1938 Gerald Cock answered questions in front of the camera,
while viewers rang him up and were connected to a telephone
at his desk.
High quality transmissions provided more effective propa*The Listener Research Report of 26 June 1939 and the Murphy figures suggest a total sale ofjust under 20,000. C. O. Stanley of l'ye Radio estimated 25,000.
2*These comments are taken from the Minutes of the Sub -Committee.

TIIE SERVICE

62I

ganda than lectures about the medium or even lectures todealers about the sets. The Boon-Danahar fight of February
1939 was such a programme. So, too, were the televised Boat
Races. Permission to use land near the Thames for the 1938
Boat Race was granted by the Chiswick and Brentforcl Council
to the BBC in return for a small fee only after a vote had beentaken and carried by thirteen votes to eleven.' The Test Matchat the Oval against Australia in August 1938 caused no problems; the only problem at the Cup Final between Preston Nerth
End and Huddersfield Town a few months earlier was that after
he had unhesitatingly predicted the wrong result (a Preston
defeat) Thomas Woodrooffe, the commentator, had to eat his
hat.
Among the plays broadcast, Clive of India exploited many
arts of the cinema, while J. B. Priestley's When We Are
Married was the first play televised direct from a theatre, St.
Martin's, in November 1938. The Parnell Commission was oneof the first feature programmes; Tristan and Isolde the first opera.
The lake in the Alexandra Palace grounds was used for a reconstruction of the naval attack on Zeebrugge. Bertram Mills's
Circus was an immediate success. Cicely Courtneidge, Lupino
Lane, Tommy Handley, Tommy Trinder, Basil Radford andNaunton Wayne were among the comedians televised; Beverley
Nichols was the first after-dinner speaker. Margot Fonteyn also
appeared, as did Laurence Olivier and Ralph Richardson.
Behind the scenes there were many new names-Mary Adams,
Jan Bussell, Eric Crozier, Reggie Smith, Moultrie Kelsall, Harry
Pringle, Philip Dorté, and Royston Morley. There were also
two complete mobile film units, bought in August 1938.
In the same month, a new Central Control Room was openedin Alexandra Palace. The producer could now work in his own
control gallery separately from the engineers. Cyrano de Bergerac,
an early classic of sound broadcasting, was the most ambitious
television programme hitherto attempted in October 1938.
A few weeks before, one of the first politicians, after Tryon,
had appeared on the screen-Neville Chamberlain, arriving
at Heston from Berchtesgaden.
There was little doubt that this range of programmes, limited
though it was by finance, gave Londoners not only the first
Television Jubilee, p. 56.

622

THE NEW WORLD OF TELEVISION

regular television service but also the best television service inthe world in 1938 and 1939. The United States was well behind.
It was not until 1939 that N.B.C. announced that it was ready'to make the art of television available to the public', with two
hours of programmes a week which could be received on sets
constructed by R.C.A.: the first sponsored programmes were
not given until 194.1.1
Announcements of future prospects have a note of irony
about them, at least in retrospect. Early in 1939 the Americans
made a bet with the British Radio Manufacturers' Associationthat before the end of 1939 there would be more television setsin use in the United States than in Britain. The losers were to
pay for a dinner in Paris in the spring of 194.o, a dinner which
would itself be televised. Finland, it was announced about thesame time, was planning a service by 1940 in time for the
Olympic Games.2
Not only did Britain stand out in the international scene but,
according to listener research, British viewers liked what theysaw. In February and March 1939 nearly 6o per cent. ofviewers questioned thought that television programmes weresatisfactory and only 6 per cent. did not. Nearly 8o per cent.
thought that the programmes were getting better, and only 4
per cent. thought they were not.3 The world outside was darkening, but the world of television seemed (for all the arguments
behind the scenes) to be growing brighter and brighter everyday. Then came the sudden blow. On the morning of 1 September 1939, `Black Friday', Birkinshaw, the engineer in charge at
Alexandra Palace, received a message at to o'clock that thestation should be closed by noon. The last item to be televisedfor the benefit of visitors to Radiolympia was a Mickey Mouse
film. The last words spoken-in the style of Greta Garbo-were`Ah tink ah go home'. There was no closing announcement.
L. White, The American Radio (1947), p. 24. The NBC programmes did not
begin until 30 \pr. 1939. Fortune magazine commented (May 1939) that `it isnatural that television should not have come to stay before 1939'.
2 *BBC, Notes
on Television, sent to Fortune magazine, 8 Mar. 1939.
*Listener Research Survey, `Viewers' Opinions on Television Programmes',
26 June 1939. A total of 4,806 elaborate questionnaires were sent out to viewers
and 4,024 viewers (84 per cent.) replied. Forty-four per cent. of the viewers wereindifferent as to whether the announcers should be men or women: of the rest, an
overwhelming majority preferred women. This preference was in marked contrast
to that of the audience for sound radio at that date.
3

VI
FROM PEACE TO WAR

How I wish that every few years we could
build a big bonfire of these millions of interdepartmental memos-a bonfire which would
blaze to the memory of red tape.
Remark attributed to P. W. ocu.vre,

Autumn 1939

1. A Change of Director -Generals
TELEVISION was closed down for the duration of the war.
Sound broadcasting, however, was about to have its finest hour.
The shadow of war had begun to hang over the BBC long before
1939, and when Reith left the BBC in June 1938 it was realized
by observers that the Corporation might be called upon before
very long to change itself almost out of recognition. The Ullswater Committee had `recognized' in its Report that in `serious
or national emergencies
full governmental control [overthe BBC] would be necessary'. 'We recommend that this should
be announced as soon as possible,' the Report went on, 'andthat the action taken should at once be reported to Parliament.'
This was one of the clauses in the Report on which neither
Postmaster -General nor BBC made any comments. Yet Attlee
stated in his dissenting note that he thought that even in wartime 'the BBC must be allowed to broadcast opinions other thanthose of the Government'.'
The issue of war and peace had been raised so often behindthe scenes during the 193os that it is perhaps surprising that somuch was left vague in the Ullswater Report. The reason lay,in part, in the elaborate security precautions which were taken
for granted behind the facade of appeasement in the Britain of
the 193os. The first reference to future war in Reith's diary cameas early as September 1933 when Sir Maurice Hankey told himthat he thought that `some time ago the Government shouldhave taken some steps to prepare the country for what theywould have to do in the event of air raids, and that he thought
the best means of doing this would be through a series of talks
on the BBC'.z Thereafter references multiply. A few years later,
Reith, on a four weeks' holiday, was writing a fascinating book,
Wearing Spurs, on his experiences as a young officer during theFirst World War. The memories of the last war were still vivid
when the next war was being taken for granted.

...

Cmd. 5091 (1936), Report of the Broadcasting Committee, § 57; Reservations by
Mr. Attlee, p. 49.
2 Reith, Diary, 1g Sept. 1933.
0 1995S S

FROM PEACE TO WAR

626

Almost exactly a year after the first reference to the possibilityof war, Reith took up the matter very seriously, nominating
Ashbridge, Tudsbery, and Colonel F. NV. Home, the latter aformer chairman of the Services Wireless Board, to deal withquestions of defence, civil disturbance, and air raids.' He had
further talks with Hankey, General Sir John Dill, then the
Director of Military Operations and Intelligence at the War
Office, and with Wing -Commander E. J. Hodsoll of the Home
Office Air Raid Precautions Department. Dill proved particularly co-operative and there was `complete understanding andconfidence' from the start.2
It was Hodsoll who sent a copy of a letter, which he had justwritten, to Dawnay in October 1934, explaining the position as
it then was. `Censorship arrangements are already in train',
Hodsoll said, 'and need no further comment, as also are emergency regulations.' The three matters which did require consideration were 'the question of the general policy of the use of
the BBC in time of War', the physical protection of the BBC
against hostile air attack, and the physical protection of the
BBC against sabotage.
The first of these questions was-and is-the most interesting.
`I have always felt,' Hodsoll said, 'and my conversation with
General Dill confirms my opinion, that the BBC will be one of
the most important instruments in time of War, more particularly, if we are subject to air attack on a large scale, in helping
to keep up the morale of the civil population.... The first question that would naturally arise is as to whether the Government
should take over control of the BBC or not. After thinking overthis matter a good deal and discussing it with various people,
my own opinion is strongly that it would be better if the BBC
were left as they are, although naturally there would be
extremely close liaison between the Government and the BBC
officials.'3
While the position of the BBC was being discussed in Ministerial Committee, with a view to proposals going forward to theCommittee of Imperial Defence and the Cabinet, the Home
Defence Department was asked to decide what answers to give
Reith, Diary, 17 Sept. 1934.
3
3

Into the Wind, p. 192.
Copy of a letter by E. J. Hodsoll, 29 Oct. 1934.

A

CHANGE OF DIRECTOR -GENERALS

627

to the other two questions Hodsoll had raised.' Within the BBC
itself precautions were being taken which would relieve some of
Hodsoll's anxieties. 'The real essence of the problem', Hodsoll
told Reith, 'is one of organisation; that is to say, to face the factthat very heavy damage might be experienced, and to haveplans prepared which will reduce the disorganisation which suchdamage might cause to a minimum and will enable the services
to be maintained in as great a state of efficiency as is possible
in the circumstances.'2
This was the kind of assignment Reith appreciated, and heinitiated a series of inquiries which led to the preparation or along memorandum on `Protection Against Air Attack'.3 He also
helped Hodsoll with the final drafting of the text of a `short,
simple and concise handbook for the general population, giving
them some simple rules for their own protection in case of air
raids'.4 Within the BBC itself Colonel Home visited all regional
studio centres and transmitting stations early in 1935 and madearrangements for the erection of fences, steel shutters, and otherdefences.
While Ashbridge worked closely with Hodsoll, Bishop began
to draft a report on the technical operation of the broadcasting
service in time of wars At the same time, Reith sat on a subcommittee of the Imperial Defence Committee, along with
Dill, Warren Fisher, Vansittart, and others-`as strong a C.I.D.
Committee as had ever been callecl'6-in which the main matter
under discussion was the organization and role of a war-time
Ministry of Information .7 John Colville, the Minister -Designateof Information, was in the chair. Reith was particularly glad to
be invited to sit on this sub -committee since a few months earlier
Kingsley Wood, when Postmaster -General, had snubbed the
BBC by suggesting that it would be possible to have a committee
to inquire into the control and use of broadcasting in war on
which there would be no BBC representative. Reich in return
had snubbed Kingsley Wood by refusing to provide him with amemorandum stating the BBC's views, but he willingly cooperated with Tryon.8*Copy of a letter by Hodsoll, 3o Oct. 1934.
a*Hodsoll to Reith, 4 June 1935.
See below, pp. 629-30.
4 *Hodsoll to Reith,Oct. í935.
*Ashbridge to Reith, t6 Oct. 1935.
6 Reith, Diary, 25 Oct. 1935.
7 Ibid., 28 Oct. 1935.
s *Keith toTryon, 9 July 1935; Into the Wild, pp. 220-1. See above, pp. 48o-I.
I

2

1

5

628

FROM PEACE TO WAR

The sub -committee offered him the post of Director -Generalof the Ministry of Information, which he turned down.' He feltthat there was something ominous in a Foreign Office suggestion, made at the first meeting of the sub -committee, that oneof the existing Foreign Office departments should form thenucleus of the new Ministry and that the Minister should behoused in the Foreign Office.2 Further difficulties arose later in
relation to the position of the Admiralty. By insisting that thechief naval censor should be located in the Admiralty and notin the new Ministry, the Admiralty was restricting the powerof the Ministry of Information before it came into existence.
Reith remembered all this on a grey morning in January 194.0
when he told Chamberlain, the Prime Minister, that he had
imagined Chamberlain was about to offer him the Ministry ofInformation and that he had hoped that it would not be so.3

It was doubtless because he knew more than Attlee of thenegotiations that were in progress in 1934. and 1935 that Reith
did not refer publicly in 1936 to Attlee's note of dissent. Already,indeed, he had submitted to the Postmaster -General in July
1935 a long paper on 'The Position of the BBC in War'. Other
writers of memoranda on this subject were to lay emphasis on`morale'. Reith began, quite differently, by laying emphasis on
integrity. `It is essential that the responsibility and reliabilityof the BBC's News Service should be established beyond doubt,
even though in practice accuracy could not amount to morethan the nearest approach to absolute truth permitted by theoverriding war conditions including censorship.' He went on to
say that the Board of Governors would not find it easy to takecollective responsibility in time of war. Decisions and executive
action must as far as possible rest with individuals. There would
have to be very close liaison between the BBC and the Ministryof Information, and no constitutional machinery should impede
the process of reaching quick decisions.
Reith told Tryon that with the good offices of Dill he had
regularized censorship arrangements. Colonel Home would be
Chief Executive Censor of the BBC, working in close liaison
with the \Var Press Bureau.4 This would safeguard 'the negative
3

Into the Wind, p. 242.
Ibid., p. 352.

4

' Ibid., p. 234.
*Draft Note on the Position of the BBC in War.

A CHANGE OF DIRECTOR -GENERALS

629

side'. On the `positive side', proper working arrangements had
to be made with the future Ministry of Information. Reith wasless prescient in his picture of the content of war-time broadcasting. He foresaw, as some writers did not foresee, that
Empire broadcasting would probably continue-as he put it,`adequate, discreet and apparently objective'-but he did riot
foresee that there would be a great proliferation of overseas
broadcasting. And in his account of the pattern of home programmes, while he recognized that there would probably haveto be one single service, if only to save costs, he thought thattalks would have to be largely of a `utilitarian character to holdthe interest of the public on that basis'.
In the `Memorandum on Protection Against Air Attack' theposition was stated somewhat differently. Here it was remarked
that `whether the existing organisation of the BBC would continue to function in time of war on existing lines, so long as thisremains possible, is a matter for decision at the time.... It is,however, assumed generally that broadcasting will play such animportant part in any future emergency that it will be essentialthat services of some kind should continue, even if on a basis
more restricted than in normal times.»
The clots concealed a technical problem, the answer to which
was not fully known. How far would or could `broadcast emissions' be used to guide hostile aircraft along the wireless beams
to their targets?2 Until the answer to this question was known,
the answers to all further questions about broadcasting in wartime were necessarily obscure. From January 1936 onwards
Ashbridge and Bishop sat on a technical sub -committee of theImperial Defence Committee which sought an answer. These
were conflicting requirements. A scheme was proposed by the
BBC for synchronizing radio transmitters in three groups, eachusing a single wavelength, to ensure that enemy aircraft could
not use broadcasting stations for navigational guidance. The
Air Ministry began by turning the scheme down, as it also turned
down modified proposals that there should be two groups instead of three and that radio stations should be closed down whenenemy aircraft were near to them. The Home Office had made*BBC Memorandum, `Protection Against Air Attack' (undated).
See H. Bishop, 'War -time Activities of the Engineering Division of the BBC',
Paper read to the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Mar. 1947.
2

FROM PEACE TO WAR

630

it clear at a meeting ín April 1937 that ít wished broadcasting
to continue during war -time air raids, but in the light of the
Air Ministry warnings the government-as late as June t938was seriously contemplating that it might have to stop all broadcasting in war -time.'
It was not until July 1938 that the technical sub -committee
finally accepted the BBC's modified plan to limit home broadcasting to two groups of medium -wave transmitters, each synchronized on a single wavelength, with a proviso that any or
all transmitters might have to be closed down on orders fromFighter Command.2 The inevitable effect of the scheme wasa poor service to listeners in some areas of the country, particularly since the Air Ministry required that the long -wave
Droitwich transmitter would have to close down when war was
declared. Nevertheless the scheme proved highly successful inachieving its important objective.
The decision also implied that while there would be one
single 'home service' in the event of war, at least there would bea service. It would have two specifically war -time purposesfirst, to issue instructions to the public and second, to `maintainmorale', a hideous phrase, which everyone immediately understands. `It is not improbable', the `Memorandum on Protection
against Air Attack' stated, that 'the fortitude of the population,
particularly in crowded and urban areas, may be severely
strained and any measures which may be taken to help maintaintheir morale will be of inestimable value. It is conceived thatthe broadcasting of programmes of music [sic] may be a very
valuable factor to this end, and is another reason why great importance is attached to the maintenance of the broadcast service.'
A number of BBC committees considered all these questions
during the last few months of Reith's Director -Generalship.
A Broadcasting in War -Time Committee met nine times, forexample, between October 1937 and September 1938, with
Carpendale (and then Graves) in the chair, along with Nicolls,
Ashbridge, Tallents, and Lochhead; and a Sub -Committee on
War-Time Programmes, appointed in March 1938, drafted thesombre details of the single programme which would have to
2*Minutes of a Meeting at the General Post Office, 19 June 1938.
See the article by L. W. Hayes in the Radio Times, 14 Dec. 1945.

A

CHANGE OF DIRECTOR -GENERALS

631

be put out. Two sub -committees on Defence worked out thelogistics of staffing, given the curtailment of services, dividing
staff into categories, and leaving a large numbér in Category C-`those who would not be required in war -time and w hoshould at once find war -time service which could be approvedby the Corporation'. They also had to deal with the acquisitionof sites outside London and the best ways of equipping them,but they had not yet reached this stage of their activities when
Reith left.
Apart from Reith, the key man in the story was Sir Stephen
Tallents, who was appointed Director-General Designate of the
Ministry of Information when Reith refused. A second appointment of interest was that of Colonel R. S. Stafford, who joined
the BBC in May 1936, took up work on defence arrangementsin October 1936 and was later appointed Defence Director,' andserved on the various war -time and defence committees. Stafford had prepared the draft of an A.R.P. plan for Broadcasting
House within a month of arrival. Meanwhile from October
1936 to the beginning of 1938 Tallents maintained his curious
dual role, dealing with some matters where there was a diergence of opinion between the BBC and the government, andalways being in the anomalous position of acting as a subordinate inside the BBC to people who would be his own subordinates if war broke out.2
The difficulties did not come to a head, however, until theautumn of 1938, after Reith had left the Corporation. Tallents
had told the other Controllers in September 1937 that it wasessential that he should have full information about BBC plans
for war since he would be very directly involved in deciding
what to do about them. For the first time they learned directlythat the Committee of Imperial Defence in October 1935 had
decided 'that in time of War or when the threat of an emergency was imminent the Government should assume effective
control over broadcasting and the BBC'.3 During the next year
Tallents was so fully drawn into his prospective duties that the
new Director -General had to ask either for his release or for his*Control Board Minutes, 15 Sept. 1936; 29 May 1937; 6 July 1937.
*For the BBC's approval of Tallents's appointment, see Keith to \Varren
Fisher, 28 Oct. 1936.
3*Controllers' Meeting, Minutes, ºº Oct. 1937. The meeting of the Committeeof Imperial Defence had been on 4 Oct. 1935.
r

2

632

FROM PEACE TO WAR

full-time secondment to a government post. 'He wished to makeit clear', Ogilvie added, 'that the BBC was always glad, within
limits, to co-operate with the Government but that there camea point beyond which it was undesirable from every point ofview to continue with a joint arrangement.'' Tallents was, infact, released soon afterwards from the Director -Generalshipdesignate of the Ministry, and was plunged deep in the debates
which raged in Broadcasting House on the eve of the war.
As for the exact pattern of relations between the new Ministryof Information and the BBC, this was more or less settled before
Reith left. The government had decided that in the event of war
the Ministry of Information, in the course of its ordinary duties,
would be responsible for censorship control over the programmesof the BBC. As a consequence, the Board of Governors would goout of commission. An Order -in -Council would probably be
promulgated, reducing the number of Governors to two, appointing the Director -General and the Deputy Director -General
as the two Governors in question, and making them Chairman
and Vice -Chairman of the BBC. There would also be a Supplementary Licence in the event of war, enabling the Postmaster General to transfer certain of his powers to the Minister ofInformation.2 Reith felt that this arrangement would guarantee
the independent role of the BBC. It was dependent, however,on the strength of his own personality, and the plan was togenerate considerable opposition among Governors in 1939.3

Reith left the BBC in the midst of all these preparations, atthe express behest of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain.
`Fifteen years since I went to the BBC', he had written in hisdiary on 31 December 1937. 'What a time, and how doubtful
I am about staying much longer.'4 He had been writing very
similar things as early as 1927,5 but this time he was really
unsettled-so unsettled, indeed,that he had offered his resignation
to the Board of Governors a month earlier. It was turned down
*Minutes of a Meeting between the Home Secretary and the Director -General
2 *Unsigned Paper, 27 July 1938.
of the BBC, to Nov. 1938.
3 See I. Fraser, Whereas I Was Blind (1942), pp. 162 fr.; D.
Ogg, Herbert Fisher,
A Short Biography (1947), pp. 128-g ff. The problem will be discussed fully in
Volume III of this History.
4 Reith, Diary, 31 Dec. 1937.
S
See for example an entry in the diary for February 1927, 'Beginning to feelthat I ought not to be long with the BBC, but it is extremely difficult to know what
the next job is to be.'A

CHANGE OF DIRECTOR-GENERALS

633

by the Governors almost before it had been made. `Please feel assured', they told him, 'that you have in the fullest measure theunstinted confidence of every member of the Board."
There was talk of a number of important jobs in the spring of1938, including very tempting talk from Hore-Belisha abouta new post of `director of organisation' in the War Office.2 Noneof this materialized, however, and Reith was left with only one
definite offer, that of the chairmanship of Imperial Airways.
The offer was made in June 1938 by Sir Horace Wilson, who
acted as an intermediary between Reith and Chamberlain. The
affairs of Imperial Airways had been a subject ofofficial inquiry,
and there was need for a strong personality to give a new lead.
Reith did not want to go to Imperial Airways, and felt that hecould only leave the BBC if the Prime Minister gave him something in the nature of a definite order. He never quite got suchan order, yet he went to Imperial Airways, with what Is as calledin the House of Commons the government's 'full concurrence'.
A study of hís papers on the eve of this great turning -point
both in his own life and in the life of British broadcasting leaves
the impression that Reith did not feel like a really free man in
1938. He did not so much make a choice, therefore, as reach theconclusion that a decision had been forced upon him.3 From thetime of the publication of the Cadman Report on British Airways in March 1938-and it was not a report which made goodreading-Reith seems to have been drawn towards his ultimate
fate. He was forty-eight years old, and he wanted a job where
he would be `fully occupied quantitatively and qualitatively,
fully stretched'. He did not want to sever all connexion withbroadcasting, but he was tired of the Director-Generalship ofthe BBC, tired of its committees, of some of its Governors, of afew of his subordinates, above all of the way in which lie had
been attacked by people outside the Corporation. He felt thatlie had completed his task at Broadcasting House, rounding off,
as he told L. Marslancl Gander of the Dail, Telegraph, 'a fifteen
years' task of organisation'.4 Work had been devolved to other2 Ibid., p. 31o.
The whole episode is treated fully in Into the Wind, pp. 306 ff. In a letter toTallents, dated ¢ ,July 1938, he spoke of being to some extent 'under a kind ofanaesthetic-which is perhaps as well' (Tallents Papers).
main head4 See the interesting article in the Daily Telegraph, 27 Jan. 1938. Theline was 'Sir J. Reith completes BBC organization'.

Into the Wind, p. 296.

634.

FROM PEACE TO WAR

people, and the only way he could make himself busy again
was to withdraw 'some of the responsibilities and authorities
devolved'. He did not want to do this. 'He has in fact reacheda stage in his career', Marsland Gander wrote, 'when thevehicle of his creation promises to travel on smoothly to further
success.' When Woods Humphery, the Managing -Director ofImperial Airways, bobbed in and out to see him, it was as if hewere a messenger from the gods, not really a friendly messenger,
but one who could not be cast aside.
When Reith told the Board of Governors that he intended totake over the chairmanship of Imperial Airways on 8 June they
were 'all much shocked'. `Could he not be seconded,' they
asked, 'or take Norman's place as Chairman of the BBC when
Norman resigned?'1 To the first question, he said no, but hewent so far in relation to the second as to take soundings as towhether Imperial Airways might relax its rule that its chairman
should hold no other post. He had changed his mind, however,about whether to go further with the soundings by the time heactually left the Corporation on 3o June.
There were many twists of the emotions in the three weeks
which followed the Board Meeting of 8 June. The first was on thesame evening, when the Governors and Senior Executives were
giving a party for Carpendale, who had retired in March after
long and dedicated service. `Melancholy and rather ironic', Reith
wrote, 'that I should have to make a farewell speech when I myself
was departing.' The second twist came after the announcementof his new appointment had been made. When he read the morning papers and the masses of letters which flooded in, particularly letters from the staff, he was left in no doubt of the personal
hold he had acquired in his years with the BBC. There wasaffection as well as respect in much that was said. 'Sir Ariel
Takes Wings', wrote the Birmingham Daily Mail.2 'You havecreated one of the greatest organisations in the world', wrote
Maurice Hankey, `which will continue on your lines for
centuries.'3 'The news came as a great shock to the Corporation
itself', said Norman, the chairman of Governors, 'as a shock I
am sure to the whole body of listeners. Nothing but a sense ofurgent national importance would have taken him away, and3

Reith, Diary, 8 June 1938.
2 Birmingham Daily Mail, 15 June 1938.
*Maurice Hankey to Reith, 7 June 1938.

A

CHANGE OF DIRECTOR -GENERALS

635

he would never have consented to leave his great work here
except from the highest motives of public duty. But with "thecountry calling", Sir John would never fail to respond.»`Taking wings' or `responding to a call'? Reith is a complex
character, as great men arc, and neither verdict is totally true.
When Reith left the BBC, he hoped for something bigger thanImperial Airways. Yet he was drawn towards the new and theuntried, and behind his decision there was an element ofperverse obstinacy, along with all his other motives, including
the sense that a job had been clone. Yet he was not the only
character in the story. J. J. Astor grumbled at the `inversion ofvalues on the Prime Minister's part'. Just why did Chamberlain
want Reith, with whom he had never been friendly, to go tothat particular post at that particular time?2 Did the shadowsof war influence Chamberlain's will and Reith's choice?
What was most unfortunate and unpremeditated in June
1938 was the disturbed manner of Reith's going. When on 29
June the Governors chose his successor, they did not invite Reith
in. This hurt Reith badly. One or two of them felt also, Norman
told him, that it Nvould not be wise for him to continue to sit on
the Board. Reith was already overwrought with emotion when
this final twist came, and he did not feel that he could attend
any part of the Board meeting after what had happened. The
following morning he rang Chamberlain telling him not topursue any further the idea of his sitting on the BBC Board
while serving at Imperial Airways. He also gave instructions
for both his BBC receiving sets-one for television-to be
recovered from his home that day. That evening he left Broadcasting House, without ceremony, not to enter it again, except
in dreams, for many years. With three or four friends he drove
down to the high -power transmitting station at Droitwich, andat midnight switched off the transmitter and generating plant.
It was an engineer's job, like the job he had before he joined theBBC. He then signed the Visitor's Book-J. C. W. Reith,late BBC.3*BBC Press Release, 2 July 1938; see also Norman's address to the General
Advisory Council of the BBC, 15 June 1938.
2 Foranearlier incident involving Reith, Wilson, and Chamberlain, see Into theWind, pp. 307-8; M. Gilbert and R. Gott, The Appeasers (1963), pp. 69-7o.
Chamberlain complained to Reith that the BBC gave undue prominence to3 See Into the Wind, p. 319.
political attacks on him.
1

636

FROM PEACE TO WAR

There were no demonstrations thereafter, for there was toomuch pain and too much restraint. There was, however, a farewell message to all section and departmental heads in London
and the regions `When this reaches you I shall have left theBBC. In the short time since I knew I was going it has not beenpossible to take leave even of heads of departments individually,
but the mere going is painful enough so I am not altogether
sorry. I cannot leave, however, without sending this note towish you and your staff every happiness and good fortune. If
your work and personal contacts here bring you as much satisfaction as mine have to me, you will realise when your timecomes how I am feeling today. Goodbye and thank you.':1

Reith left on 3o June, but it was not until to July that thename of his successor was announced.
It was not the name of the favourite candidate, certainly not
the favourite of the press, where two names were very generally
quoted-Sir Cecil Graves, the Deputy Director-General, and
Sir Stephen Tallents, the Controller of Public Relations. 'As the
BBC continues on its leaderless way,' the Star pontificated aweek after Reith's departure, 'the conviction is growing that Sir
John Reith should never have been allowed to leave until his successor had been announced. That mistake having been made, the
new appointment should have been decided on with despatch.'2
Sagittarius in the New Statesman, in a poem 'The Air Presumptive' that deserves to be quoted in full, was irreverential:
Who shall succeed departed Reith?
To whom, in all sublunar space,
Can Britain suitably bequeathHis place?
Breathes there a being fit to sway
Reith's self-made Empire of the Air?
The Talking Mongoose is, they say,Less rare.3

Apart from Graves and Tallents as `insiders', a number ofoutsiders were mentioned, some of them obviously at very longodds. The Daily Express put forward the name of Maconachie
1

3*Message of 3o June 1938.
New Statesman, 16 July 1938.

2

The Star, 6 July 1938.

CHANGE OF DIRECTOR -GENERALS

A

637

from inside, the News Chronicle Sir George Gater from outside.
Four papers, including the Star, even mentioned Lord Selsdon.
Among the names referred to once in the bundle of leading
national and provincial papers were Sir John Anderson, Sir
William Beveridge, Sir Andrew Duncan, Sir Ian Fraser, Sir
Robert Vansittart, and Lord \Vinterton. Tallents, however,was mentioned twenty-six times, and Graves, who was a Roman
Catholic, as all the papers pointed out, twenty-three. The
Glasgow Evening News had its own favourite son, Sir Hector
Hetherington, but it also mentioned Professor F. W. Ogilvie.
He was referred to also in two other papers, the Daily Herald andthe Evening Standard, but the News Chronicle, which was consistently unreliable in its reporting of broadcasting matters during
the 193os, published what it called a denial from Ogilvie on
5 July. 'Mr. F. W. Ogilvie, Vice -Chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast, denies that the is a candidate for the Director -Generalship.'Ogilvie was in fact chosen. It was he whose name had been
discussed by the Governors at their meetings of 22 June and
29 June. At the first of these meetings Reith had been present,
and the Governors asked him to telephone Ogilvie in Belfast to
see whether he would be interested. He said that he would, andcame over to London on the 27th to meet first Reith, thenNorman, and next the other Governors. 'He had high academic
and intellectual qualifications,' wrote Reith, 'a man of finecharacter and outlook; of personal charm; thus far an exceptional candidate.' Then he acids, as he told Norman, `I wasquite sure he was not the man for the BBC.'z
He did not prove the man for the BBC in the difficult years
which lay ahead, and his tenure of office was short, stormy, andín some ways calamitous. Yet he had, as Reith said, the kindof background that would make him highly commendable tothe Warden of All Souls and highly presentable both to theGovernors and to the public. He had been educated at Clifton
College and Balliol, served for five years during the First World
War and was wounded, and became a Fellow and Lecturer at
Trinity College, Oxford, before moving to the Chair of Political
Economy at Edinburgh in 1926 and from there to the Presidency of Queen's University, Belfast, in 1934. His work there had
1News Chronicle, 5 July 1938.

2

Into the Wind, p. 318.

638

FROM PEACE TO WAR

been highly successful, involving tact and strength of characteras much as academic prowess. He had also written books asdifferent as Industrial Conflict and The Tourist Movement: an
Economic Study. Like Reith, he was the son of a Scottish Presbyterian and a regular church -goer. He knew a great deal aboutmusic, and was said to have a passion for Bach fugues.' At
Belfast he had instituted lunch-time concerts, which were known
as lunch-time pops'.
Norman, who took responsibility for Ogilvie's appointment,
said later that Ogilvie had every quality except that of being
able to manage a large organization, the one quality which wasindispensable. In appointing Ogilvie Norman had not taken
into account the likely imminence of war and the effect that it
would have on the shape of BBC organization. The situationneeded a strong man svho could manage an institution thatwould grow almost out of recognition. Far from the BBC being
a settled institution, as Reith had believed when he moved toImperial Airways, there were just as many problems ahead as
there had been during the previous decade. Ogilvie himself
knew little of these problems, but he believed that war was
imminent, and took the position of Director -General quitedeliberately with this in mind. Chamberlain seems to have had
it in mind also: he welcomed Ogilvie's appointment, as did
Baldwin. Perhaps none of them had the imagination quite torealize what a new war would mean to the BBC.
Reith would have preferred Graves, who, as Deputy Director General, acted the full part until Ogilvie arrived on I October.2
Reith felt that he was better than any of the outside candidates
whose names had been suggested. Graves had been chosen
as Deputy Director -General in October 1937, with Tallents
as his chief rival. Thereafter Tallents was extremely unhappy
about the shape of the organization and his own future place
within it. He believed rightly that Reith was against him, anddrew a distinction between 'the old gang' inside the BBC andnewcomers like himself. He was also keenly ambitious, andoften said that he was puzzled by the fact that he was thought
good enough to be Director -General of the Ministry of Information yet not good enough to be Director -General of the BBC.3
Evening Standard, 20 July 1938.
3

Notes on a Meeting with the Governors,=

Into the Wind, pp. 321-2.

13 July 1938 (Tallents

Papers).

A

CHANGE OF DIRECTOR -GENERALS

639

Tallents saw the Governors at his own request on 13 July, andhad a very friendly reception, telling them what he thought thequalities of a good Director -General should be. They included
the gift of understanding 'the creative spirit', of being able toharmonize 'a various and largely immature staff'; above all, of
having the tenacity and courage 'to hold out against pressure
to make the Corporation more like a Government Department'.
He said that he had never subjected himself to as much selfrestraint as he had done in his spell at the BBC. 'What you did
today', Fraser told him later, 'was forceful, appropriate and in
perfect taste and enhanced your reputation with all." Norman,
however, wrote simply to thank Tallents for the quality of his
services to the Corporation and to tell him that Ogilvie had
been chosen.z There is no record of Graves's interview with thegovernors, but it is known that Reith had advised Norman
that if Graves was not acceptable as Director -General, thepost should be offered to an `outsider'.
The most interesting letter was from Ogilvie himself toTallents on 19 July: `It ought to have been you or Graves.'3 He
thanked the two of them for the kind reception they had given
him at Broadcasting House when he had visited it the previous
day. There was, as yet, no talk of the future. The news of theappointment had not been very well received inside the BBC:in the popular press it came as a complete surprise. Ogilvie wasbombarded by reporters and received over ',too letters of congratulation. He also gave an informal talk to reporters about'his plans' for the BBC. 'Why Ogilvie?' the Star headed anotherof its ponderous articles. 'This is the question on everyone's lips.
The new Director -General bears a name unknown to the public.'
It ended the article, however, with the soothing words, 'The
success of Ogilvie will depend not on the flattery of the rich andthe powerful, but the confidence that he evokes from theordinary people. If they come to trust and believe in him, hecan become a second Reith.'4' Fraser to Tallents, 13 July 1938 (Tallents Papers).
Norman to Tallents, 13 July 1938 (Tallents l'apers).
3 Ogilvie to Tallents, 19 July 1938 (Tallents Papers).
4 The Star, 22 July 1938. Cf. a note by Tallents, 8 July 1938. `If Ogilvie fails, areal dog fight.' (Tallents Papers.)2

(640)

2. Preparations for War
No one could have become a `second Reith', nor would it havebeen good for the BBC, in 1938 or at any other time, for a new
Director-General merely to have moved in his predecessor's
footsteps. The post required initiative and leadership as wellas powers of conciliation and adjustment. Ogilvie had little
experience of the world he was entering, but he did his best to
discover its contours for himself. Unfortunately, he had little
time. Patient exploration was not permitted in the last few
months of 1938 and the months leading through the crises of1939. It would have been difficult to have followed Reith at any
time. In 1938 and 1939 the difficulties could turn into nightmares. Patience and a willingness to listen courteously and carefully to the views of other people were qualities that Ogilvie
possessed in abundance, and to some at least of his new colleagues he soon appeared in a favourable light-simple,
friendly, and unassuming. These very qualities, however-andsome of them Reith did not possess-were limitations in thecircumstances of the time. Managerial power was needed morethan patience, and willingness to listen could suggest weakness
instead of strength. Ogilvie was possessed of a stubborn tenacity
which he had displayed successfully in his previous post it did
not help him, however, in many of the situations which he confronted before and after the outbreak of war.
:

There were three aspects of the world of broadcasting which
set the terms of Ogilvie's life in 1938 and 1939. First, there was
the organization itself, big, bulging, and inevitably in places
bureaucratic. Ogilvie had a healthy dislike of bureaucracy, yetthere was very little he could do about it. `I believe that one of
the minor tragedies of a gigantic organisation such as the Corporation is its utter impersonality', he said to Jack Payne. `If
you want to talk business with another department it is not justa simple matter of telephoning; you have to write "memos" andhave them passed from hand to hand.' This was not the way inwhich a university worked. It was then that Ogilvie added thePREPARATIONS FOR WAR

641

words about building a bonfire of inter-departmental papers
which would blaze to the memory of red tape.' Much went up
in flames during the Second World War, yet Ogilvie never had
the bonfire of which he dreamed. There was no `reorganization',
indeed, until after he had gone, nor were there any memoranda
about reorganization in his neat, attractive hand. 'Why can't
we all get on with our jobs without raising wretched questionsof definition and of seniority?' he asked Graves once in a moving
letter after war had begun.2
There was no shortage of talk by others, however, about theneed for reorganization. The second aspect of the world of
broadcasting with which Ogilvie had to deal was the multiplication of duties and functions in the last few months of peace,particularly as a result of the introduction of foreign -language
work. As early as November 1937 there had been discussions
about the creation of a new post of Director of Overseas Services,a `Captain of the Ship', Carpendale described him.3 The post
should go to the Director of Empire Services, it was felt, andthere should be an overhaul of the Programme Committee.
In addition, recommendations of a committee headed by Sir
Stephen Tallents were also accepted, and two new departments
were created-one for Home Intelligence, headed by Maurice
Farquharson, and the other for Overseas Intelligence, headedby M. A. Frost.4
There was much talk about symmetry at this time-about
the lack, for example, of a post on the home side comparable inscope and grade to that of Director of Overseas Services,s andof the need for full `functional control' of both Empire broadcasting and television.6 Eventually it was decided to leave theshape of final organization on the Overseas side `until after
the actual experience ofoperating the foreign languages service'.?
The changes that were made díd not satisfy J. B. Clark, who
2 *Ogilvie to Graves, 27 Jan. 1941)*Carpendale to Reith, to Nov. 1937. See also Reith, 'Notes and Queries on
Organisation', g Nov. 1937; Nicolls to Reith, 8 Nov. 1937, and Graves to Reith,
8 Nov. 1937.
4 *BBC, Internal Memorandum, 3o Nov. 1937.
*Control Board Minutes, 12 Nov. 1937; 'Report on Reorganisation Agreed
at Control Board', 12 Nov. 1937; Carpendale to Reith, to Nov. 1937.
6 J. B. Clark to Graves, 14 Jan. 1938.
1938; BBC, Internal Instruction, No. 420,
7 *Note on Organisation, Feb.

J. Payne, Signature Tune, p. 34.

1

3

5

1

Mar. 1938.
C 1995T t

642

FROM PEACE TO WAR

described them in March 1938 as having been made in a`peremptory manner'.'
Such difficulties were merely a foretaste of much greaterdifficulties to come in April 1939, when the creation of two new
posts of Assistant Controller provoked considerable indignation
among many of the departmental heads. They felt that they
were losing rights of direct access to the Controllers, and thatthese rights were fundamental to the `Dawnay settlement'.2 'The
main point of danger to my mind,' Mary Somerville wrote on
behalf of herself and some of her colleagues, 'is that we Programme Department Heads, who, in the nature of things, havethe clearest grasp of the detail of programme work and of thediffering types of activity and conditions of work required in our
several Departments, seem to be getting further and further
removed from the counsels of those who on the one hand formulate and interpret external policy, and on the other hand theinternal policies which affect our conditions of work.'3
There were other difficulties, too. Whereas the Programme
Department Heads felt that the machinery for making organizational changes was so cumbrous, undemocratic, and moraleshattering that 'the less change of organisation there is, thebetter',4 Tallents, not Ogilvie, was trying to think out completely new patterns of organization. `I have tried the approach',
he began a memorandum of April 1939, 'of attempting to see
how the BBC would best be organised if it were being started
anew with all its present work in view, and with provision for
the addition of some extra work in the future.'s
No one could act as a really effective mediator in these altercations, and what Ogilvie said did not appease, although his
intentions were known to be admirable. In Savoy Hill days, heremarked, there was a small organization which permitted
a much closer co-operation. `It was more difficult today to run
a show like the BBC on quite the same family lines, though he
was entirely in favour of the Director -General and Heads ofDivisions keeping as close a contact with individuals as possible.'6' *J. B. Clark to Graves, 2 Mar. 1938.
2*Mary Somerville to Graves, 30 May 1939.

*Minutes of Informal Meeting of Programme Heads, July 1939.
*Unsigned note of Apr. 1939.
5 *Tallents, Memorandum on BBC Organisation, 13 Apr. 1939.
6 *Notes by Graves of a meeting on I2 June 1939.
3

PREPARATIONS FOR WAR

643

His nostalgia for the small informal organization was to grow.
In the meantime, he hoped that 'the machinery for putting
forward suggestions or complaints' would become as efficient as
possible. If there could not be forceful leadership, there coLld
at least be good communications.
The difficulties did not disappear, and they affected twolevels of staff in particular : first, the old-timers, those who could
really remember Savoy Hill and objected to serving the interests of what Mary Somerville once described very powerfully
as lay Ministers' and a 'lay Cabinet';' and second, the juniorstaff, who often felt that they were outside the picture alto-

gether. When J. B. Clark had accused the Control Board ofreaching decisions in a `peremptory manner', Graves noted
tartly that 'we could not consult junior staff as to their views on
proposed changes of organisation or policy'.z He was not, ofcourse, thinking of J. B. Clark himself, whom he regarded asa close colleague, but the remark was of the brand that sticks.
In Ogilvie's time much of the `restlessness and disquiet below'
had its origin in suspicions of other people's attitudes and in the
rumours which circulated around them. `Rumours of impending changes circulate, and garbled versions of the truth upset
people who are most likely to be affected.'3
Graves was in favour not of a `bonfire of red tape', but of
sharper definitions of responsibility. 'With a D.G. taking decisions on nearly everything that happened', he said of the 'olddays' at Savoy Hill, `there was necessarily very close co-operation, but as we grew larger there was gradually and inevitably
a devolution of authority and a consequent growth of depart mentalism. . . . I firmly believe that the difficulties we areexperiencing today are due to the fact that not enough people
are clear as to where their responsibilities begin and end, andwhere authority lies. Definition of responsibility may possibly
have had insufficient attention in the process of devolution.';In the same memorandum Graves argued strongly for theReithian conception of the Control Board as the body which
had 'to study and determine programme policy in general
Minutes of Informal Meeting, July 1939.
'Graves to J. B. Clark, 7 Mar. 1938.
*Graves to Nicolls, ig Jan. 1938.
4 *Note by Graves on 'Programme Division', 5 June 1939.
2
3

644

FROM PEACE TO WAR

terms'. He deprecated the tendency of Programme Board andControl Board to clash with each other.
The third aspect of the world of broadcasting, relations withgovernment, was just as uncertain and difficult in 1939 as theinternal relations between personalities and committees. By far
the most difficult problem was the finance of television, although
the development of propaganda, even on the hated Radio
Luxembourg station, raised problems also.' Some of the detailsof the television debate of 1939 have already been discussed.2
The last two documents before war broke out are extremelyinteresting. The first is a minute of the Television Advisory
Committee in June 1939 stating that in view of the great difficulty of financing the television service and providing for its
extension to the provinces, 'we consider that the inclusion ofsponsored programmes and even direct advertising in that
service would be fully justified'. It added that 'the BBC could
be trusted to carry out the new policy judiciously and in amanner which would not offend the susceptibilities of viewers'.3
The second was a memorandum by Nicolls setting out a numberof inevitable repercussions of such a proposal on sound broadcasting, including an increase of fees and a lowering of the standard of care taken to censor commercial allusions and to selectprogramme items. 'The question of sponsoring in Television',
he concluded, `raises that of sponsoring in Sound, and that inturn raises the far wider and ultimately more important issues of
the comparative prestige abroad of the present "incorruptible"
system as against the sponsoring system.... The estimate of therevenue to be anticipated from sponsoring does not affect the
principle but it may influence the decision.'4
On this and many other matters Ogilvie took the same line
as Reith would have done, and held it even more tenaciously,
perhaps, than some of his rivals for the Director -Generalship.
He was unhappy, however, about the concentration of powerin his own hands, so much so that he eventually came to distrust
the whole argument for monopoly. His principles were severely
tested in an organization where events and personalities moved
at a far faster pace than that to which he was accustomed. Nor
2 See above, pp. 618-1g.
' See above, p. 369.
3 'Report of the Television Advisory Committee, 23 June 1939.
4 'B E. Nicolls, Note on Sponsoring for Television, 17 Aug. 1939.

PREPARATIONS FOR WAR

645

did he keep in close touch with Reith about his problems.
`I know well that I shall be coming to you for unofficial advice
and help, if I may, for many, many a long day to come', hewrote to Reith on 16 July, but no personal relationship of thiskind ever blossomed out.'

In one important respect he-or rather the BBC-succeededin gaining a more favourable institutional settlement thanReith had thought possible. Reith's conception of war -time
relations between government and BBC, which depended on
the strength of his own personality, was considerably modified
between September 1938, the time of the Munich crisis, andSeptember 1939, when war was declared.
The Munich crisis provided a useful dress rehearsal for thebigger crisis of September 1939. It was the first stage, indeed, ina sequence of events which was to lead through into the Second
World War and which will be dealt with in more detail in thenext volume of this History. The most important development
was the inauguration of news bulletins to European countries
in three languages-French, German, and Italian. M. Stéphan
read the French bulletin, Walter Goetz, the artist, read theGerman, and Francis Rodd (later Lord Rennell) the Italian.
The bulletins displaced domestic programmes on some of themedium wavelengths. Indeed, many regional programmes werecancelled or postponed from 28 September until the end of thecrisis, and a single regional programme was broadcast from
7 o'clock in the evening onwards. Many government messages
were broadcast, and Chamberlain's movements to and from
Germany were carefully covered both on sound and television.
Richard Dimbleby was one of the commentators at Heston
when Chamberlain returned from Munich.
Summing up the role of broadcasting in the crisis, The
Listener concluded:

Broadcasting ... satisfied that hunger for news w' hich seizes the popu-

lation during critical hours.... [It also] scotches rumour, and thereby
helps to create that steadiness of nerve which is bound to be a principal asset of any civilized people subjected to war conditions in the
future. On the practical side the announcement of last Thursdaynight's plans for evacuating the children of London gave further
F. W. Ogilvie to Reith, t6 July 1938.

FROM PEACE TO WAR

646

proof of how broadcasting can be used to maintain order and guideaction. In pre -radio days what length of time must have elapsed,
and what output of energy been expended, in conveying to thousands of parents and children all over the Metropolis informationof the plans devised by authority for their orderly transference tosecurity in the country! But now, through wireless, it is possible togive them all simple directions where to go, what to take with them,and what to do on arrival-without lapse of time and with thecertainty that the mass movement thus initiated will take place
without panic.'
Some of the detail of the crisis is recorded in J. B. Clark's Day
Book. `Discussions about emergency plans' were the main itemon the day's agenda for 26 September. The following day Clark
attended an overseas announcers' meeting in the afternoon to explain war -time plans, and went on to visit the Foreign Officewith Nicolls to discuss the details of the inauguration of European language bulletins. The only heading for 28 September
reads `Abnormal rush of emergency work.' Ogilvie took up his
post at Broadcasting House earlier than he had intended towatch how things developed. By 5 October it seemed likely thatthe foreign -language bulletins would continue even if the crisis
ended. Halifax soon asked officially for them to be continued,
and there were discussions on the pattern of future news broadcasts in November.2 The anti -gas doors in Broadcasting House
were taken down on 12 October and the sandbags in the entrance
hall were removed on 17 October, but there was to be no full
return to the `normal' for many years.
The crisis revealed the double role of broadcasting: first for
the home audience-to give orders and to maintain morale;and second for the world-to spread reliable news and views.
On the first front the BBC mobilized its resources fully, withdozens of government messages, prayers from the Archbishopof Canterbury, serious talk from Harold Nicolson, whose highly
successful programme The Past Week had begun in July, and:Major Wakelam addressing staff on 'The Anti -Aircraft Defenceof Britain'. (John Hilton had broadcast on A.R.P. in April 1938,
earning Maconachie's praise-'great stuff'.)3 After the crisis
The Listener, 6 Oct. 1938, `Crisis in the Machine Age'.
*Minutes of a Meeting held at the Foreign Office, i Nov. 1938; Halifax to3 *Sir R. Maconachie to Hilton, 20 Apr. 1938.
Ogilvie, 10 Nov. 1938.
3

PREPARATIONS FOR WAR

647

ended there was a fascinating series of anonymous talks,arranged by Christopher Salmon, called Everyman and the Crisis.
J. T. Christie, then headmaster of Westminster, summed up at
the end. In the widest sense of the word, these broadcasts wereeducational, and perhaps the main effect of the crisis on
the public was that it extended national education. Neveragain would a listener write to the BBC along the lines of aletter received soon after the first German and Italian news
bulletins had been transmitted `I consider it against public
policy to allow the Germans and Italians to take over radio at
7.00 p.m. They are both against the British."Overseas listeners, including listeners in Germany, paid
tribute to the international role of the BBC. Empire countries
re -broadcast news bulletins, and Raymond Gram Swing told
British listeners after the crisis had ended that in the UnitedStates the Columbia Broadcasting System alone had taken
thirty-six talks from London as against fifteen from Paris andtwelve from Berlin.2 Typical of overseas comments was a letterfrom the Superintendent of the Colombo Broadcasting Station:`If I may say so, the privilege of relaying the Daventry News
Bulletin during the tense political situation in Europe was very,
very greatly appreciated.' A listener in Canada added that 'theLondon news was far more interesting, apparently more dependable and more impartial than that from other sources'.3
During the next year the various Overseas and European
services were expanded, and new services were started for Spain
and Portugal, and in Afrikaans. This extended activity was
made possible only by the provision, somewhat falteringly,, ofincreased financial grants from the government and by thebuilding of four more high -power short-wave transmitters in
1939. By the summer of 1939 plans had been completed for
a composite European service with music and other programmes
as well as news bulletins. This `consolidated service' continued
for a few weeks until the outbreak of war.4
The efficient development of this service from the hastily
improvised news bulletins at the time of Munich provides one:*BBC Record, Bulletins in Foreign Languages, Oct. 1938.
2
3*Raymond Gram Swing's American Commentary, 15 Oct. 1938.
*Summary of Overseas Comments, Nov. 1938.
See BBC Handbook (1939), pp. 118 ff.

648

FROM PEACE TO WARof the most remarkable stories in the history of the BBC. Alreadyon 24 September 19381 B. Clark was prepared to create a full
German service 'on exactly the same plan' as that followed indeveloping the Arabic and Latin American services,' and publicpressure was building up from outside encouraging him to doso. `Broadcast in German day or night' and 'tell people of theuniversal desire for peace' were two of the insistent messages
being received from all parts of the country.2 Dr. Wanner,a friend of Reith, who had been head of the South German
Broadcasting Organization before the Nazis took over, was telling Clark as a German that 'an antidote to their own propaganda is more precious to them than their food'.3 That theGermans took the broadcasts seriously was shown by the factthat within two minutes of the start of the first British bulletinin German, the German stations abandoned their normal programmes in favour of a re -broadcast speech by Hitler.4
The BBC's experience in running Arabic and Latin American
broadcasts was particularly valuable at the meeting on t
November when Halifax, as Foreign Secretary, was discussing
with the BBC what should be done in the future. Ogilvie
argued that it would be desirable for the bulletins to be prepared and edited by the BBC without direct Foreign Office
responsibility, as in the case of the existing foreign-language
broadcasts. At first Halifax `demurred slightly', pointing out
bet een ourselves and Germany was muchthat 'the relationship betw
more delicate and that the BBC could hardly be expected topossess sufficient knowledge of facts to enable it always to be thebest judge of what should or should not be included in a bulletin'.5 He yielded, however, in the light of the BBC's experienceof running the Arabic service, and agreed that regular but informal contact with the Foreign Office should be substituted for
direct Foreign Office control. A fortnight later Halifax reported
to Ogilvie a message he had received from a recent visitor toGermany. 'Most important of all is the BBC news in German.
It is eagerly listened to because it is and is known to be straight*Note by J. B. Clark, `Continental Service-German', 24 Sept. 1938.
*Note by J. E. H. Forty (North Region), 28 Sept. 1938.
3 *Note by J. B. Clark, g Oct. 1938.
4 'Note on Broadcasting of News Bulletins in European Languages, submitted
to Board of Governors, 12 Oct. 1938.
3'Notes of a Meeting at the Foreign Office, 1 Nov. 1938.
I

2

PREPARATIONS FOR WAR

649

news, with no propaganda.' The main difficulty was that British
broadcasts lacked adequate power to be picked up on 'theordinary German small wireless set'.'Rex Leeper of the Foreign Office formally raised the questionof Portuguese broadcasts to Portugal in January 1939.2 `It is
strategy with which we are dealing now and nothing else,' theBritish Ambassador in Lisbon told Tallents, 'and only quick
action will serve so far as this place is concerned.' He added that
it was a long time since he and Tallents had been associatedwith each other, and then it was in connexion with `the liquidation of the last war'.3 Spanish broadcasts to Spain were first
discussed in February.4 It was not until April, however, that
financial help was forthcoming from the Treasury.s In the meantime the scope of the German service was being extended, withmore expression of views as well as straight news. Local and`experimental' jamming of broadcasts to Germany was reported
in Apri1,6 as detailed reports began to come in about German
attitudes and listening behaviour.?
The shift in mood in 1939 is well reflected in changes ofcontent and approach in the `views' programme broadcast toGermany under the title of Sonderbericht. During the period from
27 January to 15 March the content of the `Sonderbericht'
service was consistent with a continuing policy of appeasement
there was only one political talk out of four. The period from
15 March (the German occupation of Czechoslovakia) to Io
April saw the proportion of political talks rise to one in two, and`Sonderbericht' writers were able to permit themselves a far
greater measure of plain speaking. From 1 o April to the summerof 1939 there was an extension of the policy pursued during thesecond period, with intensive research into German propaganda techniques, as carried out both in the German press andon the German radio. This development of policy was carried:*Lord Halifax to Ogilvie, 14 Nov. 1938.
*R. Leeper to C. G. Graves, 31 Jan. 1939.
*Sir N. Selby to Tallents, 2 Feb. 1939.
4 *Note by C. G. Graves, t6 Feb. 1939, after a telephone conversation with
Leeper; F. W. Ogilvie to Sir Alexander Cadogan, 17 Feb. 1939.
5*Cadogan to Ogilvie, 25 Apr. 1939.
6 *M. A. Frost to C. F. A. Warner, 12 Apr. 1939.
7 *See, for example, a Memorandum on `Reception of BBC Broadcasts inGerman in the Consular District of Dresden', June 1939.
2

650

FROM PEACE TO WAR

out smoothly and with little strain. It was a sign of the adaptability and resilience of the BBC.'
Between the time of Munich and the outbreak of war, expansion of services was coupled with the revision of a number ofunworkable and vexatious regulations. The idea of abolishing
the Board of Governors altogether was scrapped; censorship, it
was decided, was to be left to the Director -General--it was infact delegated to Nicolls as Controller (Programmes) in August
1939-with the exception of news and political censorship,
which was to be indirect, informal, and voluntary, based on
liaison with the Press Division of the Ministry of
and, in face of great initial opposition, it was agreed that there
would be no compulsory censorship of broadcasts to America
by N.B.C., Columbia, or other American broadcasting companies.
All these were gains for autonomy and freedom. Some were
the result of BBC pressure, others of second thoughts, at least
one of government anxiety. In late August 1939 the Prime
Minister's Office asked the BBC not to broadcast a message
from the National Council of Labour to the German people.
The BBC did, however, broadcast a summary of the message inthe Home News, and went on, after the Foreign Office withdrew objections, to broadcast the message in German-in full.
The incident left the T.U.C. and other Labour bodies full of
resentment at government handling of the BBC, and it confirmed Chamberlain's government in its fear of interfering too
closely in the affairs of the Corporation.
Sir Samuel Hoare, who was put in charge of the planning of
the Ministry of Information in June 1939, was strongly opposed
to any plans for the government taking over the BBC in wartime,3 and he was the first Minister to state publicly what
government policy towards the BBC would be. In an important
speech of 28 July 1939 he said that the government did notintend to take over the BBC, but rather 'to treat broadcasting
as we treat the Press and films and leave the BBC to carry on .. .
with a very close liaison with the Ministry of Information ... andInformation;2*A. E. Barker, 'The BBC's German News Talks', 2t July 1939.
*Nicolls, Memorandum of 28 Aug. 1939.
3 Hansard, vol. 352, cols.
394-5, i Oct. 1939.
2

1

PREPARATIONS FOR WAR

651

with definite regulations as to how the work should be carried
on'.1

Many of these regulations were set out in an important docu-

ment-BBC Document C-which filled twenty-two foolscap
pages of typescript. Incredible though it may seem, the draft ofthis basic document is undated, but it appeared in its final form
as late as August 1939. It provided a comprehensive operational
instruction both to engineers and to programme staff about
exactly what to do when the order was given. The proposals forthe synchronization on two wavelengths of home broadcasting
were set out, along with the list of stations to be closed down
completely. Droitwich long -wave was to be used only for
navigational warnings from the Admiralty, if required, and at
certain specified times after synchronization. Details were also
given in the document of how and when the Prime Ministershould speak to the country. The last section, foreseeing all
emergencies, was headed `Action to be Taken if a War Emergency should arise when the Home Transmitters are closed

down'.
`Document C' was fully discussed in a sub -committee of theCommittee of Imperial Defence, which included Bishop.2 At
the same time W. K. Newson, the BBC's Defence Assistant,
was attending meetings of a BBC sub -committee concernedwith the `Protection of Points of Importance Against Air
Attack'. It was agreed to plant trees at some of the transmitter
stations, to darken buildings and roads, and to provide additional protection. The first sandbags outside Broadcasting
House did not appear until the last days of August 1939.
The implications of these measures fall within the next volumeof this History. Three points, however, fit into the pattern evenat this stage. First, the BBC was inspecting sites and buildings
outside London which were to be used in time of war, and plansfor evacuation and dispersal were already far advanced by thetime war broke out. Second, some essential war -time services,like Monitoring, had their origins in time of peace. Third, whererelationships with outside bodies as well as with the government
were concerned, the BBC had clarified most outstanding
problems before war broke out.
Ibid., vol. 350, col. 1838, 28 July 1939.
2*The sub -committee produced two reports, on 4 Aug. and 29 Aug. 1939.

652

FROM PEACE TO WAR

It was in December 1938 that Ogilvie first saw Sir John Anderson about buildings. Anderson then told the Director -General thatwhile he felt that in principle big public organizations shouldchoose stand-by headquarters outside London, he could giveno advice about possible locations. A month earlier the BBC
had begun looking for outside properties, and Tudsbery andRalph Wade, accompanied by an estate agent and sometimes by
Bishop, began exploring the Home Counties. Their net spreadwider and wider, and eventually in March 1939 Wood Norton
Hall near Evesham was acquired. By April 1939 arrangements
had been made to billet 600 people in Evesham.' The settingof the Hall was impressive: it was said to have been `reconstructed' in the 189os by the Duc d'Orléans at a cost of
1oo,000, and the fleur-de-lis was the omnipresent motif. The
grandeur of the surroundings did not mean that there was any
lavish redeployment of BBC finance. One minute of the Defence
Sub -Committee reads: `A.R.P. Woodnorton, Re 533. An estimate of £2o for a trained dog for use at Woodnorton was turned
down and D.O.A. was requested to obtain a suitable animal
from the Battersea Dogs' Home.'2
The Monitoring Service had its origins in the mid-193os,3but it was not until March 1939 that an `enemy propaganda'
organization was set up under Sir Campbell Stuart. There wasloose Foreign Office control, and A. P. Ryan was the BBC'sliaison officer. It was envisaged that in the event of war Ryan
would be dividing his time equally between Campbell Stuart
and the BBC. During the same month Graves was in correspondence with J. B. Beresford, who had been designated head ofthe `Collecting Division' of the Ministry of Information, andvarious different schemes were put forward by the BBC for
monitoring. The first, not conditioned in any way by finance,
envisaged the setting up of a number of monitoring centres on
the lines of the existing centre at Tatsfield, 'with a total numberof receivers sufficient to monitor programmes of all countries inwhich we were interested on a twenty-four hour basis'. The
second envisaged the supply to selected experts of short-wave
receiving sets which they could use in their own homes.
2
3*Stafford to the Secretary, the Ministry of Health, 20 Apr. !939.
'Defence Sub -Committee, No. 2, 24 May 1939.
See above, p. 403.

PREPARATIONS FOR WAR

653

On this occasion, Graves for the first time seemed to haveenvisaged an expansion of BBC staff during the war. He told
Beresford that 'our present foreign languages staff were fully
occupied on their own jobs and would be taken over to similar
work in War time'. If an `enlarged scheme of monitoring' were
put into effect, it would require new sources of highly specialist
manpower which was already in short supply.' Proposals were
put forward a fortnight later for a `monitoring unit' which
would work on a three -shift basis for twenty-four hours a day.2
In this period of preparation for war, the main outside bodywith which the BBC had to concern itself was the press. Plans
were made early in 1939 for a twenty-four-hour service of BBC
news bulletins throughout the day, and this upset some sectionsof the press, 'as they felt that there would be serious competition
with the newspapers, to their detriment'. It was even suggested
that frequent news bulletins would be inadvisable, `particularly
if news were bad'. The BBC stood its ground, and was readywhen war broke out to broadcast far more news than had everbeen broadcast before. In this connexion, at least, prophecies
were correct. `People would be getting home at all hours of theday, and the first thing they would want to do would be to hear
the latest news.'3

3. The Last Months of Peace
WHILE all these preparations were going on, the ordinary
daily programmes were continuing also. It is true that theextension of foreign -language broadcasting ate into the listening
week-news in French at t o o'clock on the Regional Programme, for instance, followed by news in German (with news
talks) and Italian-but there was also a regular run of favourite
series. Listeners' letters had a familiar ring. `I am so disappointed
to find that The Thirty -Nine Steps, which I had been locking
forward to, is being given during Church time on Sundays. As
Graves to J. B. Clark, 3o Mar. 1939, describing visit of J. B. Beresford.
*Graves to J. B. Beresford, 14 Apr. 1939.
*Record of interview between Graves and Waterfield, 18 July 1939.
3
2

FROM PEACE TO

654

VAR

a few of us still attend Church or Chapel, it means that most of
us will miss it."t `When will the BBC cease to hail every new
Variety production as a successor to Band Waggon? The blightthat has descended over all light programmes since that fatal
March 15th, when Band Waggon ended, has not been lifted.'z
Band Waggon was, indeed, the big 'hit' programme of thewinter before the war. First broadcast on 5 January 1938, it
caught the spirit of the times and proved an unprecedented
success.3 So too did Sandy McPherson, who joined the BBC as
Theatre Organist in November 1938 and immediately established his reputation as a friend of his listeners, 'a homely man',the very reverse of the anonymous BBC stereotype. The music
he played was a pot-pourri of old and new, sacred and secular.
Among the new popular music was 'All The Things You Are', a
hit song of 1939. Together with `I Get Along Without You Very
Well', `South of the Border', `In an Eighteenth -Century Drawing -Room', and `Scatterbrain', ít set the background for thelast months of peace.
At the other end of the musical spectrum Toscanini broadcast
in May 1939, and the King and Queen with Queen Mary paida visit to Broadcasting House to listen. There was controversy
in the same month about a possible broadcast by the Duke ofWindsor. In the end, Ogilvie, after hours of anxiety, decided
not to permit it. Other broadcasts of 1939 recalled the controversial issues of the past rather than pointed forward to the
problems of the war. There was a debate on municipal trading,for example, in March 1939, and even a debate on unemployment-with Florence Horsbrugh, William Whiteley, and Megan
Lloyd George-a month later.
On 20 June 1939 an informal, confidential conference washeld at Broadcasting House at the suggestion of Dr. Welch, the
new Director of Religious Broadcasting. Among those present
were Professor T. S. R. Boase, Mary Trevelyan, the Rev. Donald
Soper, and the Rev. Eric Fenn. `There was unanimous feelingin the group that the strict puritan Sunday could no longer be
enforced and general agreement that this was to the good.'
Sunday broadcasting, however, the group felt, should be clearly
distinguished from broadcasting on other days of the week. The
Radio Times, 4 Aug. f939.
3

See above, pp. 117-18.

2

Ibid., 18 Aug. 1939.

THE LAST MONTHS OF PEACE

655

broad criterion was to be that Sunday programmes should`serve the purpose of making men and women more truly andfully human'. Anything, therefore, which enabled people betterto `appreciate beauty, apprehend truth, and live fuller and moreconstructive lives', it was held, `should be welcomed and shouldfind fullest expression (but not exclusive expression) in thespecifically "religious" items'.[
This new emphasis collided with the grim facts of 1938 and1939 as much as with traditional BBC policies. Beauty and truth
were not always compatible in 1938 and 1939, and the likelihoodof war lent irony to the phrase about living `fuller and more constructive lives'. The restless spirit of the times has been wellcaught in an entry in Stuart Hibberd's diary for the week of
12 to 19 March 1938: `During this week we heard of (a) Hitler's
triumphal march into Vienna as he annexed Austria; (b) Sir
Samuel Hoare's speech on A.R.P. requirements; (c) Barcelona
devastated by bombs, hundreds killed and injured; (d) Dr. Mess's
broadcast on "Can Progress be traced in human history?" '2
The news could not fail to break through, and it broke throughmore and more insistently between March and September 1939.
In January 1939 President Roosevelt's broadcast, with its attack
on dictatorships, was given in full-forty-one minutes instead of
the scheduled thirty-and Tallents was writing in his diary on
the eve of a Hitler speech that the government was at last convinced that war was `inevitable'.3 Government pressure on the
BBC was mounting steadily, and Ogilvie had to tell Sir John
Anderson, when he went to see him about evacuation, that hecould only broadcast about government defence policy if similar
facilities were given to the Opposition. Parliament was debating
the subject, and even after it had finished the debate the BBC
would have to watch carefully the amount of time that wasgiven to government speakers.4
There was one curious discussion inside the BBC whichshowed some of the problems as the country moved relentlessly
towards war. In April 1938 Graves asked his colleagues to offer
suggestions for `programmes to give a fillip to the morale of this*Minutes of Informal Conference on Sunday broadcasting, 20 June 1939.
2

4

This-is London, p. 157.
Diary, Jan. 1939 (Tallents Papers).

*Notes on meeting between Ogilvie and Anderson, 7 Dec. 1938.

656

FROM PEACE TO WAR

country'.' Moray McLaren suggested four programmes called
The Defence of Christendom, which would start with the Mongol
invasion of the twelfth century, along with programmes about
British heroes, including Henry V and Scott in the Antarctic; deLotbiniére said that he could not be very explicit, but that`broadcasts on royal occasions, e.g. the state drive through
Brussels-if it comes off-are also likely to give an impressionof foreign good will towards this country and of belief in its
future' ;2 and no one said anything about Band Waggon.
Maconachie wrote the most telling reply and the one whichshowed the difficulties which the BBC faced when it operated
in this new atmosphere. `I have been thinking over this proposal
since you mentioned it to me, and feel that propaganda of thiskind is full of pitfalls. If, for instance, we were dealing withsubjects of real public importance, such as the military strengthof the country, it would surely be futile, if not dishonest, toleave out the black spots, and emphasise merely the bright ones.'
So long as comments like this were made inside the BBC, its
own morale was not in real danger.
Maconachie, in fact, went on to make two specific suggestions-`the creation by Features and Drama or Variety Departments of a character on the lines of Mr. Penny but, unlike him,a confirmed pessimist, who through a series of adventures ismade to look ridiculous-the idea being to kill pessimism byridicule'-and 'a series of monthly talks byJohn Hilton'.`These',he added, `would be crude and emotional, and would appeal
probably only to the working class, but with this class would
probably be very effective.'3
There was also an interesting reply from R. T. Clark, theHome Service News Editor. 'As far as the News is concerned, it
is very difficult for me to put up any suggestions on the matterof improving the morale of the country. I am afraid that atpresent the majority of people would admit that the main itemsof news are, in themselves, depressing.' Again, Clark drew theright conclusion, which was to be the foundation of the BBC's
war -time policy: `It seems to me that the only way to strengthen

The memorandum itself is missing, but the first reply to it was by Moray
McLaren on 27 Apr. 1938.
2 Reply by S. J. de Lotbiniére of 27 Apr. 1938 to a memorandum by Graves.
3*Maconachie to Graves, 27 Apr. 1938.

THE LAST MONTHS OF PEACE657

the morale of the people whose morale is worth strengthening is
to tell them the truth, and nothing but the truth, even if thetruth is horrible. After all, what is horrible is a matter of taste
or conviction, and depression is as often as not caused, not by
the news itself, but by the peculiar conditions, physical or otherwise, in which the recipient hears it.'t
This emphasis on the bare truth was qualified by a strong
feeling inside the BBC that the Corporation itself should do asmuch as it could to explain to listeners what the crisis was andwhat effects it would have on them. Reith had little interest in
the discussion on morale, which he called an attempt at `national
heartening', but he rightly pointed out that 'the initiative iswith us. The Labour Party want more politics. Governors wantmore politics. And I think we all do.'2 A year later, under
the new régime, Siepmann was asking for broadcasting definitely
designed to meet the demands of an emergency. 'Only a few old
ostriches still question that we face an emergency. On the other
hand, the ignorance, unawareness and even unreadiness to serve
is depressingly evident on every side.' In his view, the BBC had
to exploit the appeal of `personalities like Churchill and Eden',the illustrative resources of feature programmes, and the educational possibilities of talks.3
There was no unified campaign, although special programmes
were devoted to the Services and their needs, a recruiting driveby radio was planned, and Churchill and Eden were thought ofas broadcast speakers on 20 June and 27 June. This last idea,
the most interesting of them all, was turned down by thegovernment, not formally but in informal talks behind the scenesthat led up to the final arrangements for the recruiting drive.
The account of just how it was turned down is interesting. A
discussion took place at the Ministry of Labour on 5 June 1939
between representatives of the BBC, the Ministry of Labour,and the Lord Privy Seal's Office. The government's point ofview was stated by S. H. Wood, speaking as Sir John Anderson's
representative. 'The Lord Privy Seal was grateful to the BBC for
its suggestions, but his general feeling was that it was taking asteam hammer to crack a nut. He objected to having in all the33

C 1995*R. T. Clark to Graves, 28 Apr. 1938.
*Keith to Graves, 27 Apr. 1938.
*Siepmann to Nicolls, 20 Apr. 1939.

u

FROM PEACE TO WAR

658

big guns: Churchill, Lloyd George etc., because he said that it
would make people think that the Government was in a holeand must have mismanaged its recruiting campaign in the past.
Moreover, the Lord Privy Seal objected to the proposed"crisis" programme as being likely to give people the idea thatthey might be involved in a war in a few months' time, say...

September.»Maconachie dealt with Wood as fiercely as he had dealt with
the Afghans, but he could not move him. `We did not believe',
Maconachie said, 'that they would get their recruits except byauthoritative public men telling people that there was still real
danger and real need for them, and that on a purely broadcasting plane they would not get, for example, stretcher bearers, by
substituting Walter Elliot (or Mrs. Chamberlain) as an appellant for the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges.'
War did, in fact, come in September. On 23 August Tallents
was opening the 1939 Radiolympia and prophesying that
British television would be 'a world winner'.2 The same evening
the Star claimed that the size of Broadcasting House was to be
doubled. It published a sketch of the new building and described
it as likely to rank as 'one of the finest buildings of its kind in theworld9 The 23rd of August, however, is remembered not for theseworld.
statements but for the Russo -German Non -Aggression Pact; andone day after news of the Pact was published the BBC's advanceparty set out for Evesham. For another week the BBC's National
and Regional Programmes were broadcast as usual, and theRadio Times appeared for 3 to 9 September as if the world would
remain exactly the same. Then the changes began to come,starting on Friday 1 September, the day Hitler announced that
he would enter Poland. Additional news bulletins were broadcast, a programme from Broadstairs was cancelled and gramophone records played in its place, and on the Regional
Programme a concert of light music from Holland was nottransmitted. On the same clay orders were signalled to everytransmitting station and studio of the BBC to make the changeover to war conditions. `Document C' was being put into effect.
*Report of interview at Ministry of Labour, 5 June 1939.
Notes for Speech, 23 Aug. 1939 (Tallents Papers).
3
The Star, 23 Aug. 1939. See also illustration no. 39.
I

2

THE LAST MONTHS OF PEACE

659

Saturday was a gloomy day. War had not been declared, but
the BBC was already behaving as if it had been. The single
synchronized Home Service programme consisted mainly ofgramophone records, punctuated by announcements. This was
not good for morale, nor was the government's ominous silence
about its intentions. Rumours were even spreading that Britain
was not going to fight. History seemed to be standing still, bothfor the listeners and for the broadcasters. At midnight, however,there was a thunderstorm, and the Cabinet began preparing its
ultimatum to Germany. The following morning, 3 September,
Chamberlain made the most effective broadcast speech of his
career, because it was the simplest and most heartfelt. 'Now may
God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things
we shall be fighting against-brute force, bad faith, injustice,oppression and persecution; against them I am certain that theright will prevail.'BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
THE main source used in the writing of Volume II of this history, as
in the case of Volume I, has been the BBC's own records. The
BBC's Registry houses past and current papers of the Corporation,and these are well indexed. The collection of papers is subject tosystematic review, and papers of permanent 'mportance are subsequently transferred to the Archives Section. The large number ofBBC files covers the various aspects of broadcasting at home andoverseas, broadcasters' personal dealings with the BBC, the institutional history of the BBC and its committees, and the relations of
the BBC with outside bodies, the government and the public. Someof these files duplicate material in the Post Office Archives, withwhich they must be studied in close conjunction. Other sources
inside the Corporation include volumes of press cuttings collectedby the News Information Service; the Play Library of scripts ofsound drama broadcasts; the Television Drama Script Library; theRecorded Sound Archives; and the Radio Times Hulton Picture
Library. The files of Ariel are also useful.
General books on the BBC and broadcasting include:(1) COASE, R. H. British Broadcasting: A Study in Monopoly. Long mans, 195o.
(2) CROZIER, M. Broadcasting: Sound and Television. O.U.P., 1958.
(3) GORHAM, M. Broadcasting and Television since rgoo. Dakers, 1952.
(4) PAULU, B. British Broadcasting: Radio and Television in the United
Kingdom. O.U.P. 1957.
(5) PAULU, B. British Broadcasting in Transition. Macmillan, 1961.
(6) SIEPMANN, C. A. Radio, Television and Society. New York, O.U.P.
1950.
(7) STURMEY, S. G. The Economic Development of Radio. Duckworth,
1958.

Among the hooks on broadcasting written between 1927 and1939 the following are informative:(I) BRITTAIN, SIR HARRY. The ABC of the BBC. Pearson [1932].
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

CHESMORE, S. Behind the Microphone. Nelson, 1935.
GOATMAN, \V. By-IVays of the BBC. King & Staples, 1938.
MAINE, B. S. The BBC and Its Audience. Nelson, 1939.
MATHESON, H. Broadcasting. Thornton Butterworth (Home
University Library), 1933.
(6) MOSELEY, S. A. (ed.) Who's Who in Broadcasting. Pitman, 1933.

661
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
(7) MOSELEY, S. A. Broadcasting in My Time. Rich & Cowan, 1935.
(8) ROBINSON, E. H. Broadcasting and A Changing Civilisation.
Lane, 1935.
(g) SMITHERS, S. W. Broadcasting From Within. Pitman, 1938.
(1o) THOMSON, D. C. Radio is Changing Us. Watts, 1937.
(11) THE TIMES. Special Broadcasting Number, 14 August 1934.
The following autobiographies have proved, in their various
ways, to be illuminating and important:(1) BEADLE, SIR GERALD. Television: A Critical Review. Allen &Unwin, 1963.
(2) BREWER, C. The Spice of Variety. Muller, 1948.
(3) DUNCAN, P. In Show Business Tonight. Hutchinson, 1954.
(4) ECKERSLEY, P. P. The Power Behind the Microphone. Cape, 1941.
(5) ECKERSLEY, R. The BBC and All That. Low, Marston, 1946.
(6) FIELDEN, L. The Natural Bent. André Deutsch, 1960.
(7) GIELGUD, VAL. Tears of the Locust. Nicholson & Watson, 194.7.
(8) GORHAM, M. Sound and Fury. Marshall, 1948.
(g) GRISEWOOD, F. The it orld Goes By. Seeker & Warburg, 19 52.
(Io) HALL, H. Here's To The Next Time. Odhams, 1956.
(I I) HIBBERD, S. This-is London. Macdonald & Evans, 1950.
(12) LAMBERT, R. S. Ariel and All His Quality. Gollancz, 1940.
(13) MASCHWITZ, E. No Chip on My Shoulder. Jenkins, 1957.
(14) PAYNE, J. Signature Tune. Paul [19471.
(15) REITH, J. C. W., 1st Baron. Into the Wind. Hodder & Stoughton,

1949.
(16) SIMON OF `VYTHENSHAi1'E, E. D., 1st Baron. The BBC from
Within. Gollancz, 1953.

For other selected aspects of sound radio, the following arc useful:(I) BAILEY, K. V. The Listening Schools. BBC, 1957.

(2) BBC. New Ventures in Broadcasting. BBC, 1928.
(3) BBC. Wireless Discussion Groups. BBC, 1931.
(4) BBC. Broadcasting House. BBC, 1932.
(5) BBC. A Technical Description of Broadcasting House. BBC, 1932.
(6) BBC. The Empire Broadcasting Service. BBC [1933]; rev. edn., 1937.
(7) BBC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SPOKEN ENGLISH. Broadcast
English, 7 vols. BBC, 1928-39.
(8) BOARD OF EDUCATION. Adult Education: Wireless Listening Groups.
HMSO, 1933.
(g) FOORT, R. The BBC Theatre Organ. BBC, 1938.
(1o) JAMES, A. LLOYD. The Broadcast Word. Kegan Paul, 1935.
(I I) KENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE. Educational Broadcasting: Reportof a Special Investigation. Carnegie Trust, 1928.

662

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
(I2) PALMER, R. School Broadcasting in Britain. BBC, 1947.
(13) PEAR, T. H. Voice and Personality. Chapman & Hall, 1931.
(14) RUSSELL, T. The Proms. Parrish, 1949.
(15) SIEVEKING, L. The Stuff of Radio. Cassell, 1934.
(16) TURNER, W. J. Facing the Music. Bell, 1933.
(17) YOUNG, FILSON. Shall I Listen? Constable, 1933.

On particular programmes there are a number of books, including:(I) BAILY, L., and BREWER, C. The BBC Scrapbooks. Hutchinson,
1937.

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

CANNELL, J. C. In Town Tonight. Harrap, 1935.
GIELGUD, V. British Radio Drama, 1922-1956. Harrap, 1957.
HILTON, J. This and That. Allen & Unwin, 1938.
PEACH, L. DU G. Broadcast Sketches. French, 1927.

On television the books already published include:(I) ASHBRIDGE,

SIR N. Television. Institution of MechanicalEngineers, 1938.
(2) BOGART, L. The Age of Television. New York: Frederick Ungar,
1956; 2nd ed., 1958.

(3) BBC. The London Television Station: Alexandra Palace. BBC, 1937.
(4) BBC. A Picture Book of Television, 1930-50. BBC, 1950.
(5) DINSDALE, A. Television. Pitman, 1926.
(6) GARRATT, G. R. M., and MUMFORD, A. H. 'The History of
Television' in the Proceedings of the Institution of ElectricalEngineers, Vol. 99, 1952.
HORTON, D. Television's Story and Challenge. Harrap, 1951.
MOSELEY, S. A. Private Diaries. Parrish, 196o.
MOSELEY, S. A. John Baird. Odhams [1952].
Ross, G. Television Jubilee. W. H. Allen, 1961.
SWIFT, J. Adventure ín Vision. Lehmann, 195o.
TILSLEY, F. Television Story. BBC [1949].
TILTMAN, R. F. Baird of Television. Seeley Service [1933].
TWENTIETH CENTURY. Special Number On Television, Nov.

1959.

The constitutional position of the BBC is discussed in:(1) DAVIES, E. National Enterprise. Gollancz, 1946.
(2) DIMOCK, M. E. British Public Utilities and National Development.
Allen & Unwin, 1933.
(3) GOODMAN, E. Forms of Public Control and Ownership. Christophers, 1951.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

663

O.U.P.,(4) GORDON, L. The Public Corporation in Great Britain.
1938.
and
(5) O'BRIEN, T. H. British Experiments in Public Ownership
1937.
Control. Allen & Unwin,
hat To Do with the BBC. Hogarth Press, 1935.
(6) POSTGATE, R. What
Special Number on The BBC, Oct.QUARTERLY.
POLITICAL(7)
Dec. 1935.
1937.
(8) RossoN, W. A. (ed.) Public Enterprise. Allen & Unwin,
The key official sources for the period, apart from Hansard,which has been very fully used, are:Cmd. 4793 (1935), Report of the Television Committee. The
Selsdon Report.
Cmd. 5091 (1936), Report of the Broadcasting Committee,
1935. The Ullswater Report.
Cmd. 5207 (1936), Memorandum by the Postmaster-Gencral
on the Report of the Broadcasting Committee, 1935.
Cmd. 5329 (1936), Broadcasting. Drafts of (i) Royal Charter.. .
for the Continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation;and (ii) Licence and Agreement between H.M. PostmasterGeneral and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Board of Inquiry(5) Cmd. 5337 (1936), Report of the Special
appointed by the Prime Minister to inquire into certain
Statements made in the Course of the Recent Case Lambertv. Levita affecting the BBC.
(6) Cmd. 5405 (1937), Minute by the Prime Minister on the Report of the Board of Inquiry... .
Interesting(7) House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts.
for 1927,
Reports
in
the
given
BBC
is
the
to
relating
material
1939.
and
1929, 1932, 1937, 1938,
by H.M.S.O.
(8) The BBC's Annual Reports and Accounts published
BBC Handinvaluable
theThese may be supplemented from
andillustrated
well
are
Most
of
these
Books.
books and Year
cover most aspects of BBC policy. Unfortunately, however, theamount of information given each year varied considerably,as did the format.

Among the periodicals which have been consulted for the period
covered in this volume the Radio Times, The Listener, Popular Wireless, Wireless Ilrorld, and The Economist have been especially useful.
The files of The Times, the Daily E.tpress, the Daily Mail, the Daily
Herald, the Manchester Guardian, and Punch have also been used.

BBC OUTLINE OF ORGANIZATION 1927

GOVERNORSCHAIRMAN

DIRECTOR-GENERALCONTROLLER

Foreign Liaison Officer
Foreign Relations

ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (Engineering)
Assistant Chief Engineer

ASSISTANT CONTROLLERASSISTANT CONTROLLER (Information)
Executive- District Liaison- Lectures-- Photographs
Visitors-- Press- Records
Library

Personnel
Internal
Administration and Payment

Printing
Stationery-

Development
Lines

Technical
Correspondence Equipment Research

ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (Finance)I- Press

I

I

I

Purchase

Standing
Charges

Cash

Liaisonwith allRecords

1

I

Buying-- Publications-- Management
Radio Times
World Radio

Maintenance -Premises and Fixtures

Departments
and Stations

I

Requisition
and Invoices

S.E. North
S.E. South
Daventry
O.B.
Gloucester

---

---

ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (Programmes)

I

LondonStationDirector

Productions Director

Executive

Music Director

Education Director

Talks Di!r
l

¡

I

I

News

and
S.O.S.'s

Talks
Eye witness
Accounts
and Running
Commentaries

I

Children's
Hour
Executive
Booking
Appealsand Church
Services

Balance

Schoolsandand Control
Orchestra

Literature
Schools

Engineers
Adult
Education

Executive
ChorusMusic Libraryand Hiring
Booking

Finance
Copyright
Programme
Correspondence
S.B. and

Varietyand Revue
Programmes

I

Play Reading
and adapting

Dramatic
Rehearsals
Productions

Booking

Effects
Writ ten

Material
and Play
Records

Radio Times

MAIN STATIONS

O.B.
Programmes
StudiosAnnouncers

Northetn Area Director

Cardiff

Bournemouth

Newcastle

Birmingham

Manchester

Aberdeen n

Glasgow

BelfastEdinburgh

DundeeRELAY STATIONSI

Nottingham

LeedsBradford

I

Sheffield

Liverpool

Hull

Stokeon -Trent

Swansea

Plymouth

MAIN STATIONS

1

LondonBirmingham

Bournemouth

Car1difr

Stoke-on-Trent

Swansea

Aberdeen

Glasgow

BelfastManchester

Newcastle

RELAY STATIONS

Nottingham

Plymouth

Sheffield

Hull

LeedsBradford

Liverpool

DundeeEdinburghBBC OUTLINE OF ORGANIZATION OCTOBER 1933

Chief Engineer
Assistant Chief Engineer
Civil Engineer
and Buildings

Staff
Engineer

1

Senor

Empire and Foreign

Research

Installat ion

Equipment

Superintendent
Engineer

I

I

Valves

Receivers

I

Low

I

I

Transmitters

Acoustics

Frequency

I

I(

London Education
Lines
OutsideEngineers Department
Broadcasts

I

I

Tatsfiel1

LondonControl
RoomSouthern
Area
Birmingham
Cardiff
Bristol

Swansea
Bournemouth
PlymouthEmpire Station(Daventry)

Establishment
Officer

London Regional Station(Brookman's Park)
Midland Regional Station(Droitwich)West Regional Station(Washford Cross)

I

House
Engineer

I

I

StoresEngineering
Information

I

I

Staff Designs Transport

Workshops

Sets

Northern
Area
Edinburgh
Manchester

Newcastle
Sheffield
North Regional Station(Moorside Edge)
Scottish Regional Station(Westerglen)

BelfastAberdeen
Glasgow
Leeds

Staff and Salaries
Pension Scheme- - Empire

Nomen Staff Administrator-.I

Directorof Empireand Foreign
Services---Foreign-Empire and Foreign Executiver
I_Religious and Children's
Hour Executive

Services andEpilogues

Religion

AppealsI

1-Children's Hour
Balance and-Concerts - - - -Control----

Accompanists-Booking
Entertainment
Executive---Routine

Music

Executive -Music Library_Orchestral

Management

CONTROLLER(Administration)-Choruses

Programme

L--Military Band

r

1

r--

Television

Routine-r- Duplicating-Studio Executive

Announcers- Presentation(including Balance and Control duties)

Services
Executivel- Compilation

I-----rLGramophone
Library

Recorded_
ProgrammestResearch-- Copyrightr- Programme Finance
Talks
Executive-

TheatreOrchestra-LibraryrRoutine

Variety

StudioDance Music-Registry and Post
-Catering

Recorded

VaudevilleMusicalComedy-P.B.X.

- Programmes
Executive--Revues-

Assistant
Director
Director of
Accommodation and VisitorsofInternal
Internal
Administration Administration -House Superintendent

Programme

Drama

Joint Studio Services -I(Balance and Control, Effects,
Stage Management)

Booking1
Dance Orchestra ---J

Executive

Plays

.1

Play Library-Variety

CONTROLLER(Programmes)
OutsideBroadcasts

Routine1r Booking

Drama

DirectorofEntertainment-Choruses--Outside Broadcasts Executive

Executive

I-'----- - -Music

Building-

Orchestra1-

I-- Programme Correspondencer-- -Ir

General (including Booking) --1

Topical Talks

Directorof Talks

Adult andI

I

J

Councils

News--1Topicality-Schools-

I- Costing and Audit- Premises and Standing Charges
Chief
Accountant
Assistant

Chief
Accountant

DirectorofBusiness- Financial Records and Control- Purchase and Accounts Department- Cash-Business Relations Manager

RelationsPublications
Business Manager

Midland Regional Director
North Regional Director(Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle)
West Regional Director(Cardiff, Bristol, Swansea)
Scottish Regional Director(Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen
Belfast Station Director

Press-

DirectorofRadio Times- Information
andThe Listener- Publications

I

II

1

r- -

I

I

Supplementary_
Publications

I

I-

Advertisement
Manager-Exhibitions
PhotographsJt'orl d Radio _

.

-

Ei

BBC OUTLINE OF ORGANIZATION 1938

There are Four Divisions, each under a Controller with Departments as shown

CONTROLLER (Engineering)
Civil Engineer

Assistant Controller (Engineering)

Station Design and Installation
I

I

I

I

Transmitters Studios Television

Power

Plant

1

LondonPremises

Regional
Premises

Transmitting SteelStations

Senior Superintendent
Engineer

Lines

work

I-

1

General S.B.I)cvelop- O.B.
Routinement
Lines

Equipment

Research

1

I

1

I

I

Overseas and Engineering
Information
ation

I

I

1

1

Stores Work- L.N. Transport Radio
Low
Television
shops DesignFrequency

Superintendent Engineer(Transmitters)

Superintendent Engineer (Studios)
Assistants to
Superintendent Engineer (Studios)Superintendent Engineer(Transmitters)
Transmitting Stations
Droitwich
Stagshaw
Daventry
PenmonBrookmans Park
Redmoss
Moorside Edge
Start Point
Westerglen
ClevedonWashford
Bournemouth
Lisnagarvey
PlymouthBurghcadAlexandra Palace

London Control Roomand Maida Vale
Technical Recording
Education Engineers-Chief Buyer-General Services
Accountant

Senior AssistantAccountant

London O.B.
(Sound and Vision)

Studio Centres
Broadcasting House
Maida Vale
Alexandra Palace
Aberdeen
Glasgow
BangorLeeds
BelfastManchester
Birmingham Newcastle
BristolPlymouth
Cardiff
Swansea
Edinburgh

Publications

Assistant Chief
Accountant- Chief Cashier- - Estimates Accountant- Salaries Accountant

Assistant Controller (Regions)-Staff Training Director

North American
Representative

Engineering-Establishment
Officer

Director of
Staff
Administration

GeneralEstablishment
Officer- Staff Records- Women Staff Administrator

Midland Regional Director(Birmingham)
North Regional Director(Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle)
N. Ireland Regional Director- Accommodation and Visitors- louse Superintendent(Belfast)
Scottish Regional Director(Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen)
Welsh Regional Director(Cardiff, Swansea, Bangor)
West of England
Regional Director(Bristol, Plymouth)
Responsible to the four Controllers

I-Office Telephones

Director- of Office
Administration

Duplicating-Registry and Post

- Library- Catering_Business
1j 2nager-Television Executive

Director of Television-- Music Executive- Variety Executive-Director of Music
Director of Variety-Features and Drama Executive

Director of Features and Drama-Outside Broadcasts Executive ---Home Service News Editor Director of Talks

News Executive (Home Service)-Studio Executive
Director
Assistant Director-of Programme o 'Programme
Administration Administration-

Director of Outside Broadcasts-

Talks Executive

C'ONTR OLLER
kAdministration)

Announcers -Programme
Organizer

Director of
Programme Planning

Announcement Editor-,CONTROLLER-(Programmes)

Assistant Controller(Programmes)

Director of Religion --School Broadcasts Executive-Director of School Broadcasts-Religion Executive--Programme Compilation-Recorded Programmes ExecutiveChildren's Hour ExecutiveChildren's Hour Director-Programme Contracts Executive-Programme FinanceForeign Liaison Officer--Programme Copyright'Empire Service Director - Empire Service News Editor -I- Overseas Programme Director
I- Overseas Services Executive

1-

Foreign Language Service
News Editor

Director ofOverseas Services-Overseas Bulletin- BBC Empire
Broadcasting- Overseas Information-

Representative-----ArchivesI1

PublicRelations Executive-- Spanish Press

I-Programme
Correspondence--Listener Research-'-Photographs1---Exhibitions-- Portuguese Press
Representative--Arabic Press
Representative'

L
I

RaIdioTimes

LGencralManager
Publications

1

I

I

House Superintendent
Engineerof works(London)(London)Assistants to

Chief
Accountant

1Ilcoustics Valves Empire Foreign Engineering
Information

Circulation¡- Circulation-- - and Production Distribution--[Manager
Production

World
Radio

The
ListenerI

Supplementary
Publications

Press

---

Advertisement
Director
Assistant Controller (Public Relations)

CONTROLLER (Public Relations)HomeIntelligence

Disp ay

Overseas
Intelligence

Tats
Rece
Stat

e

--

INDEX
Note. A diagonal stroke has been used to indicate intermittent
references over a number of pages: thus, Adult education 217/27
infers that various references to this subject may be found in pages 217
to 227; whereas 217-27 would indicate a connected narrative concerning this subject. The illustrations are indexed according to their
numbers, such references being in italics.
ABERCROMBIE, LASCELLES, 16, 468.

Aberdeen, 306, 313, 322.

Abraham, Gerald, 286.
Acis and Galatea, 620.
Ackerley, J. R., 124 n., 157, 290.
Acland, Sir Francis, 224.
Acoustics, 85, 95; improvement, 6, g6.
Adam, Kenneth, 156, 157, 320 n., 330.
Adam Smith, Janet, 29o, 458.
Adams, Mrs. Mary, 42 n., 147, 150,
621.

Adams, Vyvyan, 147.
Administration, 11-12, 413-66; separation of programme from administrative work, i i, 19, 61-62.
Admiralty, The, 302, 628, 651.
Adult education, 48, 142-3, 217/27,
257-8, 268, 289, 318.
Adult Education Conference (1928),
7 n.

Adult Education Wireless Listening Groups,
221.

Advertisers' Weekly, 365 n.

Advertising, 8 9, 159, 287, 350/68,
492-3, 498/5f1, 546, 591, 644;
television, 587, 589.
Advertising Institute, 272.
SpokenAdvisory Committee on
English, 16, 40, 467-9.
Advisory committees, 466-72; Regions,507.

African broadcasts, 374, 387, 393.
Afrikaans service, 369-70, 375, 398,
399, 647.

Agate, James, 113, 127-8, 144.
Agence Havas, 353.
Air Ministry, 302, 355, 605, 629, 630.

Air races, 120.
Air raids, 626/8, 631; precautions, 646,
651.

Ajello, Wynne, 9o.
'Alan, A. J.'. 23, 107, 382.
Alcock, Sir Walter, 176.
Alexander, F. \V., 95, 97, 98 n.. 116,
117 n.

Alexander and Mose, 106.

Alexandra Palace, 15, 17, 594/607,
613, 615, 621; ¡4, 5r
Alhambra, Leicester Square, 83.
Allen, F. L. 8 n.
Allen, Sir Hugh, 178-9, 183.
Allen, Les, io6.
Allen, Mary Hope, 165, 168.
Allen of Hurtwood, Lord, 419-20.
Allighan, Garry, 272.
Allison, George, 8o, 8i; 86.
Amateur Dramatic Society, 89, 90.
Amateur Golf Championship, 80.
Amateur Wireless, 529, 548 u.
Ambrose's Band, 114.
American Radio Trust, 552 n.
American Telephone and TelegraphCompany, 527-8, 6oi.
Amery, L. S.. 371.
'Amos 'n Andy , 109.
-

Ampthill, Lc.rcl. 545. 553/6, 562.

Anderson, Sir,John, 637, 652, 655, 657.
Andrade, E. N. da C., 547
Angell, Norman, 143.
Angwin, A. S., 302, 367, 574, 580, 582,-

595.

Animal programmes, 565.
Announcers, 40, 622 n.; image, 123;
television, 597, J98, 603, 604, 607.
Appeals, 35.
Applause, Artificial, 96 n.
Appleton, E. R., 52 n., 190 n-, 247,
317, 322, 335 n.

Appleton, E. V., 300.
Arabic Service, 36g -7o, 398, 399,
401-6, 648.
Arbuckle, M., 20.
Architectural Review, 464.
Armed Serv'ces, 301, 302, 340, 348.
Armistice Day, 611.
Arnold, Doris, 8g, 90, 94.

Artists, 286.
Ashbridge, Sir Noel, 19, 99, 202, 353 n.,367, 37311, 374, 381, 385/91, 397,
414, 441, 453, 454 n-, 494, 535,
544 0., 549, 559/85, 595/614, 626/30;
48.

666

INDEX

Askew, P. R., 95.
Askey, Arthur, 117, 118; roa.
Astor, J. J., 289, 479, 503, 635.
Astor, Lady, 124.
Atholl, The Duchess of, 198.
Atkinson, C. F., 153, 258 n., 260, 264,
267, 269, 352, 354 n, 374, 376 n.,
377 n., 3$2, 385, 387, 442, 521 n.,
535, 540.
'A-tisket, A-tasket',
Attlee, C. R., 132, 139, 180, 418, 452,
479, 497/9, 503-4, 508, 509, 514,
625, 628.
Audience participation, 59-60.
Audience research, to, 34, 53, 73-74,
141, 256-80, 292, 611 n.; commercial
broadcasting, 249, 363-4; press, 7o;

programmecorrespondence, 6g;
television, 565, 62o n., 622.
Audition Committee, Ito.
`Aunt' (Children's Hour), 33.
Austral, Florence, 178.
Australia: BBC broadcasts, 372, 375,
351, 386, 395, 409; internal broadcasting, 373, 374.
Australian Broadcasting Company,
378 n.

Ayrshire, 207.
Ayrton, W. E., 520.
BBC CHARTER AND LICENCE, 476, 512.
BBC Choral Society, 176.
BBC Chorus, 76, 121, 176.
BBC Club, 451.
BBC Handbook 1928, 3 n., 84.
BBC Singers, 176, 233.
BBC Symphony Orchestra, t 71, 17484, 491; r2a, 12b.
BBC Theatre, 104.
Bach, J. S., 176, 177, 638; cantatas, 48,
49, 71 n.

`Bagwash, Nausea', 117-18.
Bailey, K. E., 197 n.
Baily, Leslie, 111, 112, 320.
Baird, J. L., 16, 58, 519-94; 44, 47.
Baird International Television Ltd.,
527/94.
Baird Television Development Company, 527/94.
Baird Television Ltd., 352, 557/94.
Baird transmitter, 397.
Baker, H. W., 604.
Baker, Josephine, 108.
Balalaika, 103.
Balance and control staff, 95, 116.
Balance of programmes, 26-29, 34-35,
50-57.
Baldwin, Oliver, 23, 454.
Baldwin, Stanley, 5, 130/41, 287/9,
413, 478, 504, 573, 580, 638.

Balkwill, Michael, 156.
Ball, G. Thalben, 176.
Ballad recitals, 35.
Ballet: television, 607, 620.
Band Waggon, 117-18, 119, 255, 654,
656; roa.
Banks, Caroline (Mrs. Towler), 457.
Banks, Sir Donald, 269, 391 n., 476/86,
504, 512.

Banned broadcasts, 92-93, 120, 129.
Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, 353.
Baptist services, 246 n.
Bari Broadcasting Station, 399, 401, 403.
Barker, A. E., 408, 65o n.
Barker, Elizabeth, 157.
Barker, Ernest, 4, 44, 267, 292 n.,
456-7, 470, 471, 478.
Barker/Mair Committee, 499, 506.
Barnes, George, 64.
Barrington, Jonah, 23, 454, 612-13.
Barrington -Ward, R. M., 536 n.
Barrow, R. H., 216 n.
Bartered Bride, The, 182.
Bartlett, T. \V., 545 11., 549.

Bartlett, Vernon, 126, 146-7, 157, 158,
185, 464.

Bartok, B., 170.
Batchelor, A. V., 157.
Bateman, H. M., 257, 297, 351.
Bath, 327.
Batterbee, Sir Harry, 399.
Bax, Peter, 604.
Beadle, G. C., 48, 99 n., 116 n., 120 n.,
233, 323-4, 382 n., 385 n, 579 n,
599.
Beam transmission, 384, 393.
Beard, Paul, 175.
Beavcrbrook, Lord, 136, 137, 143, 497,
505.
Becquerel, Edmond, 520.
Bee Bee Cabaret, The, 105.

Beecham, Sir Thomas, 64, 170, 173/83,
290, 320> 491..
Beerbohm, Max, 36.
Belfast, 51, 306.
Bell, Graham, 52o.
Bell Telephone Company, 555-6.
Bell Telephone Laboratories, 528 n.
Benn, Sir Ernest, 415 n.
Bennett, Arnold; 126, 127.
Bennett, W. R., & Co., 174 n.
Benson, Sir Frank, 99.
Benzie, Miss Isa, 457.
Beresford, J. B., 652, 653.
Berliner Tageblalt, 556.
Berlioz, Hector, 172.
Bertram Mills's Circus, 621.
Betting news, 159.
Beveridge, Sir William, 41, 42, 136,
137, 220, 225, 476, 486, 487, 637.

667

INDEX
Bevin, Ernest, 143.
Bidwell, Shelford, 5º0-1.
'Big Ben', 375, 383.
Billboard, i t i.
Birkinshaw, Douglas, 563, 565, 596,
597, 604, 622.
Birley, Sir Oswald, 33.
Birmingham (51T), 151, 304-5, 310,
311, 324, 6i8.
Birmingham Daily Mail, 634.
Bishop, Sir Harold, 96 n., too n.,
103 n., 202, 204, 244, 449-50, 574,
576, 577 n., 578 11., 627/9, 651,
652.
Bitter Sweet, 103 -4
Black, George, 82, 83, 92-93, 110, 115,
117, 613.
Blackpool, 120, 317.
Blackwell, R. W., 202.
I3landy, Air Commodore, 302.
Blattner and Blattnerphone, 56 n., 99too, 102, 200, 382.
Bligh, Jasmine, 597, 604, 607.
Blind, the, 254; pamphlets in Braille,
221.
Blois, Eustace, 178 n., 179.
'Blossom', 77.
'Blue tab', it, 19.
Blumlein, A. D., 569, 583.
Boase, T. S. R., 654.
Boat Races, 8o, 621; 8c.
Bocckmann, Kurt von, 393.
Bondfield, Margaret, 487.
Book readings, 74.
Book reviews, 29o, 291.
Boon-Danahar Fight, 613, 621.
Boosey, William, 172-3.
Booth, Webster, 55.
Boothby, Robert, 365 n., 368, 422.
Boswell Sisters, The, 109.
Bottled Programmes, 98-103, 382, 392.
Boult, Sir Adrian, 122, 170/84, 467,-

487-9, 490-1; 12b.
Bournemouth, 306.
Bowden, H. F., 604.
Bowen, J. \V., 514.
Bower, Dallas, 604.
Bowley, A. L., 257, 258 n.
Bowlly, Al, 110.
Boxing, 6o, 112, 119, 120, 565; television, 607, 613, 621.
Boyd, Donald, 151, 152 n., 330.
Boys and Girls of Other Days, 195-6.
Braillard, Raymond, 341, 343, 346.
Brain, Aubrey, 171.
Brains Trust, 152.
Brand, Col. R. H., 80.
Brangwyn, Frank, 286.
Braun, F., 521.
Brent, P., 343 u.

Brereton, Cloudesley, 150.
Brereton, Malcolm, 144 n.
Brewer, C. H., 105 n., t t 1, i i 6, 120 n.,
32011.

Bridgeman, Lord, 432/4, 482 n., 486.
Bridgeman, Lady, 434.
Bridges, Lord, 37 u., 334
Bridges, Robert, 1, 7, 144, 467/9.
Bridgewater, T. H., 563, 604.
Bridson, D. G., 168, 169, 330, 338.

Briggs, Asa, 75, 275 n.
Bright, Sid, 114.
Brighter Britain Essay Competition(1923), 15.
Brisson, Carl, 565.
Bristol, 52, 151.
British Association, 205, 528, 566.
British Broadcasting Company, 3, 25, 59.
British Film Institute, 209, 472.
British Institute of Adult Education,
219.
British Legion, 112.
British Movietone News, 603 n.
British National Opera Company,

178-9.
British Radio Manufacturers' Association, 622.
British Thomson -Houston Company,
540.
British United Press, 16o.
Broadbent, J. B., 529 n.
Broadcast Critics' Circle, 24.
Broadcast English, 468.
Broadcasting House, 88, g6, 175-6,
458/66, 646, 651, 658; 39, 42, 45c.
Broadcasting in War-Time Committee,
630.
Broadway Melody, 110.
13roderip, J. 1'. M., 525.

Brookmans Park, 309, 310-11, 312,
545, 546, 548, 549
Brotherhood Movement, 236.
Brown, A. H., 118 n.
Brown, F. J., 356 n.
Brown, H. G., 433, 434.
Brown, Ivor, 290.
Brown, J. W., 219.
Brown, Jardine, 102 n., 103 n., 383 n.,494, 496, 512.
Brown, O. F., 204, 582, 583, 590, 595.
Brown, Philip, 115, 120.
Browne, C. O., 567, 569.
Bruce, S. M., 372 n.
Brussels Plan, 341 -3
Bryant, Arthur, 168.
Buchan, John, see Tweedsmuir, Lord.
Buchanan, G., 422.
Buchanan. Jack, 91, 544.
Buck and Bubbles, 607.
Budget speeches, 131, 132.
-

668

INDEX

Buesst, Aylmer, 172.
Bunbury, Sir Henry, 418, 420, 421 D.
Burbleton, 152.

Burger, Dr. Julius, 108.
Burgess, Guy, 145 n.
Burghead, 313.
Burke, Marie, 84.
Burnett, George, 268, 338 n.
Burnham, Miss, 168.
Burns and 11Ien, 109, 118.
Burrows, A. R., 27, 192, 202 n., 341,
353, 354, 548.

Burt, Dr. Cyril, 204.
Bush Radio, 575-6.
Bussell, Jan, 621.
Buxton, 317.

CABARET, 35, 108; television, 620.

Cabinet, The, 130, 380, 399, 400.
Cadman, Lord, 582, 595, 613, 618,
633.

Cadogan, Sir llexander, 649 n.
Café Colette, 108.
Café de Paris, to8.
Cairo Conference (Telecommunications) (1938), 349, 366-8.

Cakes and Ale, 382.
Calvert, A. S., 399, 401, 404
Cameron, A. C., 41 n., 207 n., 209/24.
Campbell, A. B., 152.
Campbell, D. R., 563, 604; 46.

Campbell -Swinton, A. A., 521-2, 532,
539, 540, 569
Canada: BBC broadcasts, 375, 3$1/7,

395-6, 409; internal broadcasting,374, 378.

Canterbury, Archbishop of, 646.
Canterbury Cathedral, 235.
Cantor, Eddie, 109.
Caplow, T., 441 R.
Cardiff, 304, 306.
Cardus, N., 175 n.
Carey, George, 520.
Carl Rosa Opera Company, 179/82.
Carlton Hotel, 76.
Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, Igo,
192 n., 203.

Carpendale, Sir Charles, 19, 27, 71 n.,
72 n., 99, 153, 204-5, 258 n., 264 n.,269, 302, 303 n., 326, 335, 341/8,
354/6, 362, 365, 371, 372, 377 n,
391, 429, 442, 443, 449, 453, 454 n.,
463 n., 471-2, 541, 543 n., 546 n.,
547 11., 574 n., 577/82, 587 n, 599,
602, 609, 630, 634, 641; 32, 48.

Carr, Jane, 46.
`Carry me back to green green pastures',
9o.

Cartwright, H. H., 217 n.
Casalis, Jeanne de, 106.

Casals, P., 328.
Casual Conversations, 149-50.
Cathode-ray tubes, 76, 521, 553, 555,
566/72, 576 n., 578, 580, 588, 596.

Catteral, Arthur, 171, 175.
Causes of War, The, 143, 144, 146.
Cavalcade, 113.

Cazalet, Victor, 177-8.
Cecil, Lord David, 468.
Celebrity programmes, 35, 37.
Cenotaph Ceremony, 611.
Censorship (see also Banned broadcasts),42, 43, 46, 122, 141, 248, 626, 628,
632, 650.
Central Council for Broadcast Adult
Education, 142-3, 219, 220, 223,
256, 258 n., 289, 470, 472.
Central Council for School Broadcasting, 41, 196-218, 467.
Central News, 153.
Central Religious Advisory Committee,
227, 237/42, 248, 249 n., 467.
Central Television Board, 586-7.
Centralization, 315/35, 423, 487-90.
Ceremonies, 35.
Ceylon, 374.
Chamber music, 35, 36; societies, 491.
Chamberlain, Austen, 145.
Chamberlain, Neville, 132, 135, 369,
370, 434, 509, 621, 628, 632/8, 645,
650, 651, 659; 27.
Chamberlain, Mrs., 658.
Changing World, The, 220-1.
Charity contributions, 86.
Chautemps, C., 365.
Chekhov, Anton, 161.
Chelmsford transmitter, 372/83.
Chesterton, G. K., 40, 150, i68.
Chicago Round Table, 151.
Chichester, Bishop of, 242.
Chichester Cathedral, 234.
Children's Hour, 33/35, 51, 54, 168,
230, 255, 261 n., 279, 305, 3H2, 492;
competitions, 77; music, 121; religion, 228, 230, 246, 247.
Children's Newspaper, The, 159.
Chilman, H. L., 20.

Chiswick and Brentford Council, 621.
Christian Living, 246.

Christian Scientists, 236, 240.
Christie, .1. T., 647.
Christmas party, 104.
Christmas programmes, 112-13, 167,
247, 272, 350, 384, 386.

Church, Major 1. G., 583 n.
Church music, 35, 48.
Church of England Newspaper, 246 n.
Church of Scotland services, 246 n.
Churchill, Winston, 47, 131/9, 144,
145, 241, 364, 383, 657, 658.

669

INDEX
Cinema industry, 271, 581, 60o, Got,
613, 619.

Cinema organs, 249, 261.
Cinema -Television Co., 610.
Circuses, 621.
Citrine, Sir Walter, 225, 395, 486, 487.

City of Birmingham Orchestra, 170.
Civil defence, 626, 646.
Civilian morale, 626, 630, 646.
Clapham and Dwyer, 84, 106.
Clarendon, Lord, 3 0., 309, 425/31,
453, 538.

Clark, Alfred, 571, 58t, 606.
Clark, Edward, 72, 171-2.
Clark, J. B., 385, 392, 394/7, 39911,
404, 602, 64113, 646, 648, 653 n.
Clark, Kenneth, 468.
Clark, R. T., 156, 656-7.
Clarke, D. H., 168 n., 317, 336 n.
Clarke, Tom, 12.
Classical music, 35, 51, 54.
Clay -pigeon shooting, 119.
Clayton, H., 596.
Clear Thinking, 273.

Clevedon, 313.
Clive of India, 621.
Clynes, J. R., 139.
Coase, R. H., 356 n., 423 n.
Coates, Eric, 107.
Coatman, John, 147-8, 152, 155/7.
Coburn, Charles, 382.
Cock, Gerald, 80/86, 91/93, 110 n.,
119, 159, 244, 596/607, 616, 619; 52.
Cockaigne overture. 173.

Cockburn, R. V. P., 68 n., 262, 263; 18.
Cockpit, 338-9.
Codding, G. A. (Jr.), 340 n., 346 n.,
366 n.
Coin record machines, iii.
Colborn, C. H., 98.
Cole, G. D. H., 219, 220, 287.
Cole, NI., 39 n.
Coleridge, 168.

Coliseum, The, 75, 83, 551.
Colombo Broadcasting Station, 647.
Colonial Conference (1930), 377.
Colonial Office, 371/9, 390/9.
Colonial Radio Programmes Ltd., 382.
Columbia Broadcasting System, 163,
647, 650.
Columbia Graphophonc Company, 76,
567, 569.

Colville, John, 627.
Comic opera, 35.
Commentaries, 59-60, 77, 8o, 119, 155.
Commentators, 8o-81, 119121.
Commercial broadcasting, 262, 272,
349/69, 492/3, 502; television, 586-8.
Committee for Co-ordination of
British Publicity Abroad, 368-g.

Committee of Imperial Defence, 626,
629, 631, 651.

Communism, 147.
Compagnie Generale de Télegraphie
Sans Fit, 353/5.
Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Re diffusion, 353, 356, 363.
Competitions, 77.
Compton, Fay, 99.
Concerts, 170/7, 259.
Condenser microphone, 97 n.
Condliffe, G. E., 567, 569.
Congregationalist services, 246 n.
Conservative Party, 132/9, 146, 495;
1922 Committee, 418, 479.
Constanduros, Mabel, io6, 149.
Continental programmes, 262, 272,
351/69.
Continuity, 74, 98.
Contrast of p-ogrammes, 26131, 3C14.
Control Room, 98.
Controllers' Meetings, 435, 439
Controversy, 128/31, 149, 501, 504.
Controversy Committee, 131.
Conversations in the Train, 14g-5o.
Coogan, ,Jackie, 84.
Cooke, Alistair, 143-4.
Cookery programmes, 127.
Cooper, Austin, 286.
Cooper, G. M., 174 n.
Copyright, 85, 350.
Cordeux, Miss K. M., 229/32.
Cornwall, 327.
Cossor, A. C., Ltd., 581, 588.
Costello, L., 117.
Cotton, Billy, 114.
Courtneidge, Cicely, 621.
Covent Garden, 63, 174, 178/83, 492.
Covent Garden Opera Syndicate, 179,
181.

Coward, Noel, 103, 108, 113; 9b.
Cowell, Elizabeth, 597, 604; 53.
Crandall, C. F., 160 n.
Crawford, \V., 134.
Crawford Committee, 78 n., 128, 172,

299, 419 0, 434, 479/82, 583.
Creative staff, 11, 61-62.
Creswell, R. \V. P., 168.
Cricket, 8o, 81, 119, 120, 156, 317.
Cripps, Sir Stafford, 416-17, 509, 514.
Criticism, 291, 507; press, 24, 70, 71;
BBC advisers, 31, 67, 71.
Croons Johnson, Austen, io8, 114.
Crooners, t to, 116 17.
Crosby, Bing, rio.
Crossman, R. H. S., 150.
Crozier, Eric, 621.
Crozier, Mary, 330.
Crozier, W. P., 330.
Crystal Palace, 576, 594, 609.

670

INDEY

Crystal sets, 298, 310, 314.
Crystal Sets and the Brookrnans Park
Transmitter, 3to.
Cuba, 398.
Cullis, Winifred, 200.
Cunliffe-Lister, Sir Philip, 390
393 n, 544 n.
Cunningham, G. D., 176.
Cup Final, 8o, 85, 86, 621.
`Curiosities', 114.

.,

Current affairs: broadcasts (to schools),

198, 200; debates, 654.
Curzon, Lord, 40.
Curzon, T., 194.
Cuvillier, Charles, 103.
Cyprus broadcasting station, 400.
Czechoslovakian Broadcasting Service,542.
DAILY CHRONICLE, 533 n.

Daily Dispatch, 121.
Daily Express, 112, 134, 140 n., 141,
t80, 418, 505, 536, 612, 636.
Daily Herald, 418, 552 n, 594 n, 637.
Daily Independent, 577 n.
Daily Mail, 23 n., 57, 7o, 138, 286, 498.
530, 552 n.; Ballot, 1927, 7o.
Daily Mirror, 159, 226, 280.
Daily News, 133, 524.
Daily Sketch, 12I, 134, 265 n.
Daily Telegraph, 131, 141 n., 156,
394 n, 397 n., 532, 541, 552 n., 633.
Daily Worker, 363.
Dajos Bela's Orchestra, 93.
Dalton, Hugh, 419.
Dalzell, R. A., 298 n.

Dampier, Claude, 1o6.
Dance music, 35, 36, 48, 51, 54, 68, 76,
84/88, 104, 256, 383; Continental,
1o8; Sunday broadcasts, 362.
Dance Orchestra, 86, 114, 115; ga.
Daniels, Bebe, 55, 104.
Darbyshire, G. L., 514.
Dart, F. H., 101 n.
Dartington Hall, 326-7.
Darts, 1tg.
Darwin, Bernard, 80.
Daventry, 25-26, 36, 230, 233, 294> 295,
299/305, 309, 314, 322, 324, 347,
348, 371, 375, 3$1, 390, 393, 396; 3o.

Davidson, J. C. C., 133.
Davies, Clement, 479.
Davies, E., 425 n.
Davies, E. Salter, 19o, 194, 196, 205.
Davies, Sir Valford, 47, 176-7, 185/7,
194/6, 247, 384, 464, 489 o.

Davis, J. L., t n.
Davis, M. P., 542 R.
Davis, W. E., 555 n.
Dawnay, Alan, 20, 33, 34. 48, 49,
1

1

52, 72, 7311, 74, too 11., 144 0., 147,
156, 223, 233, 245 n., 263 0., 323,
326, 327, 391, 39411., 435, 438,
443-4, 449, 470, 505, 506 0., 599 11,626, 642.
Day, H., 18o n.
Day, Will, 524, 525.
Day's Work, The, 127.
De Beer, A., 112.
De Groot's orchestra, 351.
De Lotbiniére, S. J., 59-6o, 119, 146 n.,
656.
De Marney, Terence, 169.
Deane, Tessa, 106.
Dearmer, Geoffrey, 247.
Debates on current affairs, 6J4.
Debussy, Claude, 171.
Decentralization, 487-90, 499.
Defence, 626, 631; broadcasts, 655.
Defence Sub-Committee, 652 n.
Denominational services, 236, 243-4.
Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, 203/4, 371, 552, 591, 595.
Derby, Lord, 470.
Derby, The, 85; televised, 552, 5589, 613.
Desmond, Florence, 110.
Dewar, M. M., to, 11., 105 n., 116,

117 n., 120n.
Diagonalization, 36.
Dicey, A. V., 419.
Dickens, Charles, 169.
Dictaphones, 99.
Dill, Sir John, 626/8.
Dillon, Francis, 169, 330.
Dimbleby, Richard, 120, 645.
Dinwiddie, M., 61, 235 n., 255 n., 487.
Director -General's Meeting, 33, 435.
Disc jockeys, 77.
Disc -recording, loo, 102.
Discussion Groups and How to Run Them,

22I.

Disney, Walt, 114.
Districts of England, 216.
Dix, It. A. M., 83 n.
Dixon, Adele, 1o6, 607.
Doll's House, A, 177.
Dominions Conference (1930), 377-8.
Dominions Office, 376, 398, 399.
Dorté, Philip, 62,.
Douglas, C. H., 143.
Doyle, S. F., 378 n.
Drama, 34-35, 38, 50-51, 54, 58, 61,
89, 16o-9, 263, 599; criticism, 38,
65, 291; dialect, 323; listeners,272-3; Regions, 315-16, 318-19;
religious, 246-7; serials, 169; television, 581, 620, 621.
Dramatic Control Panels, 165/7; tic.
Driver, Ann, 2t6.

INDEX
Droitwich, 26, 31, 314, 630, 635, 651.
Drury Lane, 604.
Duckworth, F. R. G., 215.
Dumas, Alexandre, 169.
Duncan, Sir Andrew, 637.
Dunkerley, H. J., 52 n., 162 n., 320 D.
Dunne, J. Heyworth, 402 n.
EAMES, F., 489 R.

East Africa, 374.
Eccles, I1'. H., 300/4, 581.
Eccles Committee, 301-4.
Echo -room techniques, g6.
Eckersley, P. 1'., t6 n., 19, 27, 32, 62,
99 n., 131, 142, 202, 294/310, 316,
334, 339/48, 353, 358, 364, 371/4,
3$1, 441, 523, 530/47, 552, 555, 561.
Eckersley, R. H., 20, 32, 40, 48, 6o, 72,
78/83, 87/88, 92/93, 99 n., 105 n., 110,
116 n., 117 n., 131, 149 n., 157 n.,
162 n., 165 n., 173, 174 n., 176 n.,
232, 235 n., 243, 258, 259 n., 263 n.,
307, 308, 315, 322, 326/32, 385, 442,
454, 463, 535, 540, 573 n, 583 n,
598-9, 603.
Economist, The, 18, 38.
Ecumenical trends, 237-8, 243.
Eden, Anthony, 405, 657.
Edgar, P., 315/16, 320 n., 324, 336,
487.
Edinburgh, 207, 234.
Edison, T. A., 76, 524.

Editing recorded programmes, loo -1.
Editorializing, 511.
Education, 185-226.
Education, Board of, 189, 196, 201, 205,
206, 212/21, 482, 497.

Education Officers, 275.

Educational Broadcasting, 192 n., 196 n.
Edward VIII, King, 363, 396, 403.
Edwin, Miss K. M., 458.
Effects, 95, 96.

Ege, Henrik, 104.
Egypt, 399, 40215.
Eiffel Tower station, 351, 540.
Eindhoven, 371 n.
Eisenstein, S. M., 569.
Eisteddfod, The, 322.
Electrical Trades Union, 513.
Electrician, The, 578 n.
Elgar, Sir Edward, 63, 173.
Eliot, T. S., 64, 247.
Elizabeth, Queen, 654.
Elkin, R., 173 n.
Elliot, Walter, 658.
Elliott, Rev. I1'. H., 241, 242.
Ellis, Havelock, 335.
Elton, Lord, 479, 503.
Elwes, Father Valentine, 248.
Ely, Bishop of, 239.

671

E.M.I. (Electric and Musical Industries Ltd.), 76, 382, 567/88, 592/6,
606, bog, 612.
Emitron Camera, 567, 568, 593, 594.
Emperor Jones, The, 68.
Empire Marketing Board, 19, 382, 384.
Empire Press Union, 383, 482, 493.
Empire Service, to -1 t, 92, 112, 369410, 415, 423, 439, 440, 460, 481,
483, 502, 309, 556, 591, 602, 603,
629, 641; 30; News Section, 156;
programmes, 94, 99, Iol; religious
services, 24.4..
Empress Ballroom, Blackpool Tower,
120.

Engineers and engineering, 6, 25, 97103; Education Sub-Section, 202,204-5, 214; Empire Service, 385,
397; Information Dept., 349; outside broadcasts, 81-82; policy, 4823; Regional problems, 293-305;
Research Dept., g6; Staff, tot n.,423, 449/51; Sunday duties, 244-5;
television, 551, 563, 566, 598, 604-5.
Entertainment, 75-122, 266; 9.

Entertainment Organizations Joint
Broadcasting Committee, 77, 83.
Entertainment Parade, 114.

Entertainment l'rotection Association,
78, 79Epilogue, The, 228, 233, 246.
Epsom Grandstand Association, 613.
Equity, 93.
Erasmus, 168.

Esmond, Mrs. H., 457-8.
Etherington, T. H., 225.
European Service, 460, 647.
Evans, B. Ifor, 37 n.
Evening News, 140, 548 n.
Evening Standard, 138, 393, 534 n., 637,
638 n.
Evensong, 232, 233.
Eversley, Mary, 45a.
Everyman and the Crisis, 647.
Evesham, 652, 658.
Exchange Telegraph Company, 153,
154 n.
`Experimental Hour', 163, 169.
Explaining the Christian Way, 246.
FALKLAND ISLANDS, 392.

Fall of the City, The, 163.
Famous Trials series, 168.
Far East, The, 374.
Farjeon, Herbert, 113.
Farmer's Tales, 339.

Farnsworth, Philo, 572.
Farnsworth camera, 594, 596.
Farnsworth Television Laboratories,
572.

672

INDEX

Farquharson, M. G., 69, 13o n., 262 n.,269, 275-6, 278 n., 279 n., 641.
Fascism, 147.
Fashion parades, 585.
Faulkner, H., 574.
Faust, 182.

Features, 34-35, 51, 54, 58, 167/9, 657;
listeners, 272; television, 621.

February Fill -Dyke, 118.

Federal Radio Commission, 47-48,
341, 588

Federation of British Industries,39o, 395.
Felton, Felix, 149, 150 n., 168.
Fencing, 119.
Fenn, Rev. _1. E., 244, 654.
Fergusson, Donald, 132 n.
Ferranti Ltd., 588.
Fielden, L., 13, 21, 67, 74-75, 8o n.,127, 136, 143, 147, 187 n., 188, 261,
388 n., 397, 562.
Fields, Gracie, 81, 115, 548.
Film Institute, 209, 472.
Finance, 201-2, 379-80, 390, 395, 420-1, 483-4, 498/502, 507-8; Empire
Service, 371/9, 384, 386, 390/5, 400;
opera, 178-9; programmes, 337-8;
Regions, 306; schools broadcasts,
201,206; television, 503, 566, 581/92,
613-18, 644.
Financial News, The, 287.
Financial Times, 138 IL, 542.

Fink, D. G., 583 n.
Finland, 622.
Firman, Sidney, 86, 87 n.
Fisher, H. A. L., 186, 189, 196, 205,
292, 433, 486 0., 487 0., 637.
Fisher, Sir Warren, 391, 476/80, 484,
614, 627, 631 n.
Fitch, H. M., 120 n.
'Fixed point' programmes, 49-50, 52/53.
Flanagan and Allen, 9o.
Flat -disc recording, loo.
'Fleet is all lit up, The', 98.
Fleming, Sir Ambrose, 522 n., 528,
542 n., 547
Fletcher, H. L., 58, 99/103, 202.
`Flotsam and Jetsam', 72, 84.
Fog, 168.

Foley House, 460.
Fonteyn, Margot, 621.
Foort, Reginald, 10, 55, 82, 105, 277.
Football, 8o, 99, 119, 598; 8b.
Football Association, 120.
Football League, 120.
Football pools, 42, 68-69, 363.
Forces broadcasting, 249.
Foreign affairs broadcasts, 422.
Foreign commercial broadcasting, 113,
232, 249, 262, 502.
Foreign correspondents, 157, 158.

Foreign -language broadcasting, 395,
397-8, 615, 616, 641, 645, 653.
Foreign Office, 131, 146, 350, 362, 368,
369, 398/404, 482, 628, 646, 648,
652.

Formby, George, 55.
Forster, E. M., 127, 149.
Fortune, 622.

Forty, J. E. II., 648.
Foss, H., 63 n.; 174 n.
`Foundations of Music', 52, 71, 177, 272.
Fox, F. W., 269.
Fox, Roy, 114.
France: BBC broadcasts, 37o; broadcasting policy, 342, 345/7, 360 7;commercial broadcasting, 352-6.
Frankau, Ronald, 84, io6.
Fraser, Sir Ian, 434, 612 n., 632 n.,637, 639.
Free Church Council, 236.
Free thinkers, 241.
Freeman, Denis, 89, 94, 108; 45a.
Freeman, Miss G. M., 457.
Freeston, B. D., 120 0.
French language talks (to schools),
193 n.; r5a.
Frost, NI. A., 408, 641, 649 n.
Fry, Margery, 434.
Fry, Roger, 149.
Fryer, Bertram, 79, 8g.
Fuller, \Valter, 91, 282, 283.
`Fultograph', 537, 549.
Fulton, Otto, 537.
GAINFORD, LORD, 130, 426, 432, 433,

453, 553-4.
Gaitskell, Hugh, 15o.
Gale Warning, 168.

Gallipoli, 168.

Gambier -Parry, R., 549.
Gander, L. Marsland, 633-4.
Garbett, Dr. C., 227, 237.
Gardening programmes, 274; r4.
Gardiner, A. G., 134
Gardiner, Sir Thomas, 367 n., 399 n.,
512, 615.

Garratt, G. R. M., 52o n., 521 n.
Garrison Theatre, 105.

Gater, Sir George, 142, 196, 219, 220,
637.

Gaumont-British Picture Corporation,
76, 558, 575, 600, 610; News Reel,
603 n.

Gay Ilussar, The, 103.
`Gazer' (term), 16.
Geisha, The, 85, 104.
Geissner, B., 171 n.

Gelatt, R., n l n.
General Advisory Council, 224-5, 267,
268, 467, 470, 486, 487.

INDEti
General Elections (1928), 132-5, 306;
(1931), 359; (1935) 140-1, 176, 365,504-5.
General Electric Company, 525, 580,
586/8.
General Strike, 146, 229, 503.
General Theatre Corporation, 76, 82,
92/94.
Geneva Plan, 339/41, 343.
Geography broadcasts (to schools),
199 n., 200, 208, 213.
George V, King, 8,, 98, too-1, /12,
157, 266, 272, 384, 386, 505; 28.
George VI, King, 243, 396, 654; preparations for Coronation, 61 ; 48.
1

Geraldo, 114.
Germany: audience research, 259, 264,314; BBC broadcasts, 146 7, 370,
397, 398, 645-53; broadcasts to
Britain, 366, 389/97; exchange
operators, 357; internal broadcasting,
298, 342, 475; television, 556, 583.
Gersholm Parkington Quintet, 176.
Gibbons, Carroll, 114.
Gibbs, Miss E.. 41 n., 213 n.
Gielgud, Val, 89/95, 103, 160/9, 177,
256, 259/63, 334, 550, 551, 562, 6079; rtc, 456.
Gigli, B., 178.

Gilbert, M., 635 n.
Gilbert and Sullivan, 85.
Gill, A. J., 574
Gill, Eric, 462, 463; 4r
Gillespie, R. H., 78, 93 n.
Gilliam, Laurence, 91, 112, 161, 167,
168, 284.

Gingold, Hermione, 91, 108.
`Glancer' (term), i6.
Glasgow, M., 37 n.
Glasgow, 306.
Glasgow Evening Citizen, 226.
Glasgow Evening News, 637.
Glasgow University, 279.

Gliding, 119.
`Glow Worms', 268, 269.
Glyn, Sir Ralph, 138.
Glyndebourne, 182, 492.

God and the World Through Christian Eyes,

239.

Godfrey, J. W., 99 n.
Goebbels, H., 349, 583.
Goetz, \\'alter, 645.
Golaz, filet, 344 n.
Gold Coast, 390.

Goldberg Show, The, 109.
Goldie, Grace Wyndham, 111, 273,
291.

Goldsmith, A. N., 542 n.
Goldsmith, V. H., 15, 63 n., 64, 71 n.,
89 11., 174 n., 307 n., 315, 316 n.,

673

322 n., 358, 382 n., 385 n., 411/43,
449/54, 576r9, 600 n.

Golf. 8o, 607.
Gonclla, Nat, 114.
Good Night, Vienna, 91, 103.
Goodwin, Felix, 286.
Goodwin, N., 63 n., 174 n.
Gordon, L., 419.
Gorell, Lord, 145.
Gorham, Maurice, 62, 79 n., 8o n.,
85 n., 91, 109, 264, 282/6, 292, 459.
Gott, R., 635 n

Gounod, C., 182.
Governors of the BBC, 499, 503, 5o6;
Chairman, 3 n.; functions, 431-6;

policy on controversial broadcasting,129; relationship with the Director General, 424-36; staff relations, 453,
456-7, 514.
Gow, H., 236.
Gower, F., 366 n.
Grace terms, 453.
Gradenwitz, F., 542 n.
Graham, William, 419, 547.
Gramophone Company, 76, 179, 554,
567, 568.
Gramophone records: broadcast programmes, 35, 36, 49, 51, 54, 76, 110;
industry, 7`i 76, 110, 361, 6or.
Gramophone Section, 99 n.
`Grand goodnight', 187.
Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, 76, 96.

Grand National, 8o, 99.
Grand Opera Syndicate, 179.
Granclin, T.. 389 n.
Graves, Sir Cecil, 19, 34, 52 53, 72, 74,
116 n., 131, 140, 144 n., 147 n., 148,
150,177,209 n.,217-18,232,259/64,
334, 335, 369, 372 n., 381/40o, 442 n.,
505 11., 562, 565, 601/3, 608-9, 612 n.,630, 636/44, 649 n., 652/7; 48.
Graves, Charles, 411.
Green, John, 148-9.
Greenbaum, Hyam, 603.
Greene, Felix, 102 n., 147, 396/8, 406.
Greer, Sir Harry, 577/80, 606; 47.
Gregson, J. R., 163.

Grey, Earl, 450.
Grisewood, Freddie, 80, 107, 112, 611.
Grossmith, George, 79, 83, 563.
Groves, Olive, 55, 106.
Guard dogs, 652.
Guardian, The, 242.
Guernsey States Telephone Council, 356.
Guild of Prayer, 241.
Guildhall luncheons, 6o.
Gulliver, Charles, 78.

Guthrie, L. R., 309.
Guthrie, Tyrone, 58, 165, 550.
Gwyer, Sir Maurice, 473.

674

INDEX

HMV, 571, 612.
Haddon, Archibald, 83.
Hadow, Miss G. E., 219.
Hadow, Sir Henry, 63, 186, 196, 201,
216, 218, 219, 290.

Hadow Committee, 222, 225, 286.
Hailsham, Lord, 43
Haldane, Miss E. S., 219.
Haldane, J. B. S., 146.
Haldane, Lord, 528.
Haley, Sir William, 19.
Halifax, Lord, 320, 646, 648.
Hall, Henry, 23, 88 89, 94, 114, 115,
349, 382; 9b.
Hallé Orchestra, 170, 173, 175 n, 184,

3i8, 337
Hamilton, Mrs. M. A., 146 n, 432/4,
438-9, 470, 475, 497, 499.
Hamilton, l'atrick, 164.
Hammerstein, Oscar, 103.
Hammond, J. L., and Barbara, 38-39.
Handel, G. F., 620.
'Handel in Harlem', 68.
Handley, Tommy, 9, 55, 118, 621.
Hankey, Sir Maurice, 625, 626, 634.
Hankin, G. T., 41, 196/200, 208 n.,
213/15.

Hanson, \. W., 105, 107, ,o8 n.
Hardern, L., 526 n.
Harding, E. A. F., 165, 168-9, 328, 330.
Harding, Sir Edward, 399 n.
Harris, Marlon, to8.
Harris, Sir Percy, 508.
Harrogate, 317.
Hart Accumulators, 525.
Harty, Sir Hamilton, 175 n.
Harvey, Len, 112.
Hashagen, Ernst, 129.
Haworth, Rex, 95.
Hay, Will, 85.
Hayes, L. W., 102 n., 342, 346, 347,
63o n.
Ile That Should Come, 247.
Hebden, G. B., 389.
'Hello, Yorkshire', 32o.
Helmore, W., 120.
Henderson, Arthur, 23, 134, 138, 139.

Henry, John, 77, 106.
Henry, Leonard, 55, 106.
Herbage,,Julian, 121-2, 171.
Herbert, A. P., 600.
'Here's To the Next Time', 88, 115.
Hertfordshire, 207.
Hertzog, General, 389.
Hess, Alan, 120.
Heterodyne, The, 455.

Hetherington, Sir Hector, 637.
Hettinger, H., 292 n.
Hibberd, Stuart, 8, 113, 152, 176, 243,
505, 655; 15a.

Higgins, H. V., 179.
Hill, Ralph, 286.
Hilton, John, 41, 42, 55, 63, 68-69, 73,
126, 143, 147, 254 n., 646, 656.
Hints to Sunday Speakers, 235.

Hippodrome, Birmingham, 115.
Hippodrome, London, 75.
Hirst, George, 320.
His Master's Voice, 571, 6,2.
History broadcasts (to schools), 41, 198,
200, 208, 213-14.
Hit Parade, 111.
Hitler, A., 583, 648, 655, 658.
Hoare, Sir Samuel, 650-1, 655.
Hobbs, Carleton, 149.
Hockey, 119.
Hodsoll, E. J., 626-7.
Hodson, Sir Arnold, 390, 393.
Hoggart, R., 40 n.

holiday Abroad, 108.
Holland, 397.
Home, F. W., 626/8.
Home Defence Department, 626-7.
Home Intelligence Department, 641.
I lome Office, 629-30.
Home Secretary, 422, 632 n.
Home Service, 296, 629, 630.
Home-made receivers, 314.
Honeymoon in Paris, 108.
Hong Kong, 374.
Hoover, Herbert, 340.
Hore-Belisha, L., 633.
Horler, Sydney, 113.

Horsbrugh, Florence, 654
Horse racing, 159, 613.
Horse riding, 607.
Hotel Cecil, 86, 87.
Hours of broadcasting, 24-26, 35, 51;
Empire Service, 386-7.
House of Commons, 131, 134, 139,
146, 400, 418.

Houston Sisters, The, 101.
Howard, Sydney, 547.
Howe, R.. 96, 100 n.
Howgill, R. J. F., 99 n., 172.
Howland, Alan, 261 n.
Huddersfield, 317; Choral Society,
320, 337.

Hudson, R. S., 42.
Hugh the Drover, 182.
Hulbert, Claude, 382.
Hull, 317.
'Hullo Ragtime', 75.
Humphery, Woods, 634.
Hunter, Eileen, 108.

Hutchinson, O. G., 525/32, 539/47,
555.
Huxley, Ahlous, 143.
Hyden, Walford, ,08.
Hylton, Jack, 1)9.

675

INDEX

'It's A Sin to Tell a Lie', 115.
It 's That Man Again, 1:8.

IBSEN, H., t6i, 177.
I'll Tell You Everything, 143.

Imperial Airways, 582, 633, 634.
Imperial Communications, 168.
Imperial Communications Committee
Wireless Sub -Committee, 534 n.
Imperial League of Opera, 18o, 181,
290.
In Town Tonight, 95, 105, 107-8, 114 n.,
124, 255, 410.

Incidental music, 87.
Income groups: listeners, 272.
Income tax, 484.
Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, 364, 365 n.

Incorporated Society of Musicians,
488 9, 490-1.
Independent Television Authority, 439.
India: BBC broadcasts, 381, 386, 387,
396-7; broadcasts to Britain, 384;
internal broadcasting, 147, 370, 374,
378, 388.

India Office, 370, 376, 388.
Ingredient X, 165.

Inns, George, 95, too, 550-1; 45a.
Inoculation, 68.
Inspector Hornleigh, 117, 227.

Institute of Incorporated Practitioners
in Advertising, 271, 363-4.
Institution of Electrical Engineers, 300,
578 n.

Instrumental recitals, 35.
Interference, 340, 344, 349.
Intermediate film processes, 596, 61o.
International Broadcasting Company,
352, 361, 365, 482, 492.

International

Broadcasting(1 BU),

339/46,295,
353/6, 36o/6.

349,

Union
350,

International Grand Opera Season,
178.

International Radio Telegraphic Conference (1932), 340, 345.

Telecommunications
Conferences, 349
International
Telecommunications
Union, 343 n, 345, 360.
Inter -Varsity Sports, 80.
Investors' Chronicle, 611n.
Invited audiences, 89, 90.
'Ionoscope', 567, 569, 596.
Iremonger, Rev. F. A., 64, 151, 177,
229, 233, 237, 242/6.
Irish Free State, 352.
Isaacs, Godfrey, 173 n.
Isis, 418 n.
Italy: Abyssinian crisis, 395; BBC
broadcasts, 37o; foreign services,
390, 394, 397, 399, 401, 403.
lima, 118.

International

JARDILLIER, R., 365.
Jeans, Sir James, 185.

Jeffrey, R. E., 79, 89, 16o, 164/6.
Jenkins, C. F., 522.
Jenkins, Miss N. G., 268 n.
Jerrold, Walter, 133.
Jcwkes, J., 567 n.
Joan and 13ettt's Bible Story, 247.
Jockey Club, 613.
John Bull, 269, 361n., 476.
Johnston, Rev. Hugh, 233.
,Jones, Caradog, 257.
Jones, Daniel, 468, 469.
,Jones, Sir Roderick, 383 n.
Jones, Thomas, 5, too.
Journal Officiel, 354, 355.
Judson, R., 271 n., 292 D.
KARNO, FRED, 105.
Kavanagh, Ted, 118.
Keller, Greta, 108.

Kelsall, Moultrie, 62i.
Kemp, Robert, 330.
Kennedy, Lauri, 171.
Kennedy, Thomas, 132 u., 138.
Kent, Duke of: wedding, 112, 393.

Kent Education Committee, 190, 193/6.
Kentucky Minstrels, The, 90, 104.
Kemworthy, J. M., 137 n.

Kern, Jerome, 103.
Kester, Max, 105, 113.
Keynes, J. M., 419.

Keys, Nelson, 108.
King, J. B., 582.
King, Miss, 547.
King -Bull, E. J., 165, 337 n.
King -Hall, Stephen, 126, 200.
Kipling, Rudyard, 467.
Kirke, H. W. L., 96, 528, 578 n., 579.
Knight, Castleton, 82 n.
Knight. W. H., 558 n.

`Knightsbridge March', 107.
Knox, Collie, 23, 24 n., 57, 88--89.
Knox, Father Ronald, 464.
LABOUR ORGANIZATIONS, 650.

Labour Party, 132/40, 181, 418, 495,
657.
Ladbrook, C. A., 95.
Lafont, H. A., 517.
Lambert, Constant, 122.
Lambert, R. S., 14 n., 124 n., 142,
188 n., 218 19, 286/92, 459; theTalking Mongoose case, 292, 472-3,
509, 512.

Lancashire, 317, 319.
Lane, Lupino, 621.

676

INDEX

Lane, Margaret, 604.
Lang, Matheson, 99.
Language in broadcasting, 40, 195.
I.ansbury, G., 132, 145, 551.
Laski, H. J., 219, 470, 471 n.
Latin American Service, 33, 370, 387,
394, 401, 406-8, 648.
Lauder, Harry, 75.
Lausanne Conference, 130, 14.4.
Laval, Pierre, 365.
Law, Richard, 510.
Lawrence, Brian, 114.
Layton and Johnstone, 93.
League of Nations, 157.
Lebrun, President, 369.
Lee, Sir George, 371, 574.
Leech, W. T., 302, 303, 374, 376 n.,
37711, 546n.
Leeds, 320, 337.
Leeper, R. E., 390 11., 404 n., 649.
Lees -Smith, H. B., 376 n, 430, 508,
509, 512, 514, 546 n.

Lepanto, 168.

'Let's Put Out the Lights', 115.
Levis, Carroll, 106.
Levita, Sir Cecil, 472-3, 509, 512.
Levy, Louis, 114.
Lewis, C. A., 59, 65, 1o8.
Lewis, L. F., 102, 158 is.
Lewis, Saunders, 257.
Liberal Party, 132/8, 140, 145, 419.
Licence and Agreement: 1926, 8;
1936, 9.
Licences: holders, 6, 253-5; relay
licences, 357; revenue, 226, 368,
371, 377, 379, 390, 483-4, 500, 512.
Lidgett, Scott, 248, 249
Light entertainment, 35, 36, 50-51,
54, 75-121; listeners, 275-6; policy,
119; scripts, 101.
Light Music, 35, 36, 50/54, 74, 76, 81,
103-4, 176; Empire Service, 383;
listeners, 271.
Light Programme, 31, 296.
Lilac Domino, The, 103.
Lines, Kathleen, 458.

Lipton, Sydney, 115.
Lisnagarvey, 313.
Listener, The, 111, 142, 157, 219, 269,

273, 280/92, 458, 472, 645-6.
Listener research, see Audience research
Listeners: correspondence, 234, 251,
259, 284, 311, 653-4; 18; culturaldevelopment, 37-39; foreign station
listening, 364; groups, 220/5, 268,
275; music, 122; panels, 263, 272-3,
275, 276; standardization of opinion
and culture, 39; Regions, 304.

Listening Room, rib.

Listening Schools, The, 216 n.

`Little Man, You've Had a Busy Day',
111.

Little Michas, The, 85.
Liveing, E. G. D., 245 n, 317/19,
335 It., 487.
Liverpool, 317.
Liverpool, Archbishop of, 238.
Liverpool, The Dean of 244.
Liverpool Cathedral, 235.
Liverpool Philharmonic Society, 320.
Liverpool University, 279.
Llano, Queipo de, 475.
Lloyd, Lord, 470.
Lloyd George, D., 133. 139. 140, 143,
145, 157, 322, 384, 486, 487, 658.
Lloyd George, Megan, 654.
Lloyd James, A., 8, 16, 125, 204, 467/9.
Local broadcasting, 27, 317; news,
305; stations, 306.
Local Education Authorities, 224, 226.
Lochhead, T., 64, 358, 442, 454 11, 479,
630.
Lock, John, too.
Lodge, Sir Oliver, 296.

London: O.B. Engineering Unit, 82;
staff, 489; 2L0, 25, 26, 233, 310,
371, 545; television standards, 6to.
London Calling, 373 11.

London Coliseum, 551.
London County Council, 192-3, 196,
207.

London Philharmonic Orchestra, 174,
175.

London Press Exchange, 270, 364.
London Symphony Orchestra, 63, 174.
London Theatres of Variety, 78.
Long, Norman, 93.
Longstaffe, Ernest, g, 105.
Longwave broadcasting, 340, 347/9,
353, 361.

'Looker -in' (term), 16.
Looking In, 565.

Lord Mayor's Show, 611.
Lord President of the Council, 478,
484/7, 498, 500, 511.
Lord Privy Seal, 376, 378, 380, 657-8.
Loss, Joe, 115.

Lowe, Bowyer, 534 n.
Lowndes, G. A. N., 189 n.
Lubbock, Mark, 94.
Lucerne Conference (IBU) (1933),
346-7, 362.
Lugano Conference 1931, 344.
Luker, N. G., 42, 73 n., 148.
Lunt, Alfred, 103 n.
Lustgarten, Edgar, 330.
Luxembourg (see also Radio Luxembourg), 352/6. 359/69.
Lyons, A. M., 495
Lytton, Sir Henry, 182.

INDEXMACAULAY, ROSE, 16.

McCarthy, Desmond, 127.
McClintock, Sir William, 479, 497,

502, 507-8.
McConnel, Gordon, 89, 94, 95, 103,
104, 182.

McCormick, Rev. \V. I'. G. (`Pat'),
239 n.

McCulloch, Derek, 155, 261 n., 406 n.
MacDonald, Malcolm, 394, 420 n.,
509.

MacDonald, Ramsay,

132/40, 144,
146, 430, 433, 478, 487 1-1, 504, 548,

549, 556. 573, 579, 580
McEwen, Sir John, 183.
McGee, J. D., 569.
McGivern, Cecil, 169.
McGrath, Raymond, 463.
McGregor, J. C. S., 156, 392, 408.
McKenna, Lord, 9.78.
McLaren, Moray, 168, 656.
MacLarty, B. N., 100 n.
Maclaurin, W. R., 567 n.
McLean, Neil. 322.
McLeish, Archibald, 163.
McLeod, G. F., 246.

Macmillan, Harold, 15o.
Macmillan, Lord, 471, 487.
McMullan, H. \V., 121 n.
Macnamara, T. C., 594 n.

Maconachie, Sir Richard, 42 n., 55 n.,
73 n., 148, 156, 275, 636, 646 n.,656, 658; 17.
Macpherson. Ian, 145.
McPherson. Sandy, 654
McSweeny, I). C. J., 390 n., 392 n.
Madden, Cecil, 597, 598, 604, 6o7.

Madrid Conference, 345, 347, 360,
361 n., 366.
Magic Carpet series, 603.
Maida Vale, 96, 100, 175, 464.

Main, Archibald, 237.
Maine, B.. 4 n., 184.
Mair, D. B., 457
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 290.
Mallon, J..J., 434-5, 513.
Malone, C. l'E., 544 n.
Man Born to be King, The, 247.
Man Who Could Work Miracles, The, 161.
Man with the Flower in Ilis Mouth, The,58, 550-1, 6o8; 45.
Manchester, 15 t, 172, 304, 306, 317, 337
Manchester Cathedral, 235.
Manchester Guardian, 109,111,131, 133
134, 136, 139, 140, 156, 159, 242,

330, 542.

Manchester Teachers'
Committee, 207.
Mander, F., 207 n.
Manon, 182.

Consultative

677

Manville, Sir Edward, 527, 538, 541,
545
March of the '45, 168, 338.
Marconi, G., 517, 519, 523, 568, 580.
Marconi Company, 97, 294 n., 298,
372/5, 424, 525, 540, 544-5, 554,
564 n., 5669, 593, 609, 61o.
Marconi -EMI Television Co. Ltd.,
568.
Marconi-Stille machine, too.
Marcuse, Gerald, 371 n.
Margesson, D., 140.
Marguerite Sound Studios, 100.
Marie Céleste, The, 165.

Marshall, Arthur, 106.
Marshall, G. L., 51, 163.
Marshall, Howard, 6o, 81, 120, 228 n.,
620.

Martin, J., 362 n.
Martindale, Father C. C., 237, 246,
248.

Marwick, \V. H., 420 n.
Mary, Queen, 243, 654.
Maschwitz, Eric, 24, 83 n., 90/95,

103/9, 112/24, 162 n., 168, 256, 282/4,
597, 600Mase, Owen, 171, 172, 562.

Maskelyne, Jasper, 104.
Mason, Charles, 149.
Massenet, J., 182.
Masterman, J. C., 444.
Masts, 302, 303.
;Mather & Crowther Ltd., 363 C.
Matheson, Hilda, 13, 39, 42, 68/71,
124/7, 131, 132 n.. 136 n., 137 n.,
141/3, 148/52, i88, 222, 226 n.,
256 n., 262, 263, 291.
Maton, A. AV., 356.
Matthews, Rev. \V. R., 244, 246.
Maufe, Sir Edward, 234.
Max -Muller, C. F. G., 249 n.
Maxton, Jimmy, 434.
Medical services, 451.
Melba, Dame Nellie, 296, 372 n.
Melodies of Christendom, 176-7, 24
Melody Maker, 11 1.
Melville, Jean, 94.

Men Talking, 152.
Mendelssohn, F., 115.
Menin Gate, Ypres, 81.
Merry Widow, The, 85.
Mersey Tunnel, 317.
Merseyside Orchestra, 328.
Methodist services, 246 n.
Methodist Times, 227 n.

Metro -Goldwyn-Mayer, 115.
Meyer, B. A., 128 n.
Meys, P. C., 102 n., 103 n.

Michie, Brian, 95.
Mickey Mouse, 114, 622.

678

INDEX

Microphones, 95-98, 177; ira; OB, 82;
volume regulation, 85, 95; Committee, 98; American artists, 116-17.
Middle East, 387, 390 r1., 398-9.
Middlesbrough Corporation, 494-5.
Middleton, C. H., 127, 274, 611; 14.
Midland Parliament, 151, 338; 13.
Midland Region, 151, 255, 300, 304-5,
31o, 315-16, 319/21, 324-5, 329,
333, 338, 488, 489.

Midland Regional Orchestra, 170, 324.
Mikado, The, 182.
Military Band, 9, 10, 45, 176.

Millais ('our Lizzie'), Helena, 77.
Millard, Lionel. 45a.
Miller, Joan, 598.
Miller, Max, 93.
Millis, C. H. G., 434
Mills, D. L., 441 n.
Mills, E. H. F., 120 n.
Milner, J., 145
Milnes, Florence, 458.
Ministry of Information, 627/32, 638,
65o, 652.
Ministry of Labour, 657.
Minns, Florence, 458.
'Mrs. Feather' (Jeanne de Casalis), 106.
'Mrs. Mop', 118.
Mitchell, J. M. (CUKT), 190, 203.
Mitchell, Leslie, 597, 604.
Mitchell-Thomson, Sir William, see
Selsdon, Lord.
Mitcheson, G. G., 422.
Moberly, Sir Walter, 223.
Mobile film units, 621.
Mobile recorders, 101-2.
Mollison, Jim, 607.
Monday Night at Eight, 117.
Monday Night al Seven, 117, 119, 410.
Money for Jam, 104.

Mongoose Affair, The, 292, 472-3,
475, 509, 512.
Monitoring, 403, 651/3.
Montreux Conference, 1939, 368.
Moore and Burgess, go.
Moorside Edge Station, 311, 317, 56o n.
Moravian services, 236.
Morecambe, 317.
Morley, Royston, 621.
Mormons, 240.
Morning Post, 130, 239 n, 511, 597 11.;35-

Morning Service, 230, 232, 233-4,
243.

Morris, Lily, 382.
Morris, P. H., 377 n.
Morrison, Herbert, 140, 141, 398, 418,
419.
Moseley, Sydney, 23, 24n., 56, 81 n.,
105 n., 125 n., 227 n., 233, 241 n.,

519 [t., 523 n, 524, 529/32, 536/40,
543 n, 547, 550/62, 565, 568, 572/5,
6,o; 47
Mosley, Sir Oswald, 137.
Moss, Edward, 75.
Moss Empires Ltd., 76/78, 82, 83, 93.

Motor -racing, 120.
Mount Temple, Lord, 495.
Moving-coil microphone, 97; Ita.
Mumford, A. H., 520n., 521 n.
Munich crisis, 369, 370, 62o, 645; 27.
Munro, D. H., 604.

Murder in the Cathedral, 247.
Murdoch, Richard, 117, 118; roa.
Murphy Radio Ltd., 611 n., 62o n.
Murray, Sir Evelyn, 128 n., 129 n.,
181 n., 299 n., 301 n., 303, 379,
476, 534n, 541, 544n., 545.

Murray, Ralph, 121 n., 157.
Murray, W. E. G., 19, 72 11., 89, 131,
15o n., t6o, 242, 282, 288, 292 n.,323, 441, 454 11., 472, 529 n., 530,
534/40, 543, 545 n., 549 n, 550,

555, 558/64, 574Music, lo, 13-14, 35/38, 45-46, 50 52,
64, 69, 121, 169/84; Advisory Committee, 182/4, 467; articles, 284;
British music, 175 n.; civilian morale,630; critics, 286; education, 177,
187, 208; festivals, 491; international
exchange broadcasts, 349; North
Region, 320, 337; overseas broadcasts, 647; professional interests,
488192; programmes, 32o; publishers,
613;
Regional decentralization,
488/92; \Vest Region, 326 7.
Music and Movement for Very YoungChildren, 216.

Music Department, 79, 121, 122.
Music From the Movies, 114.
Music hall, 35, 45, 52, 90, 104, 105, 119,255, 272, 274, 276, 410.
Music halls, 78, 82; live broadcasts, 77.
Musical comedies, 76, 85, 91, 109, 259.
Myer, G. Val, 460/2; 43.
Mystery of the Seven Cafés, The, 113.

NAIRNE, SIR GORDON, 426, 428, 429,

433, 453.
Nash, Miss E. M., 458.
National Advisory Committee on Education, 196.
National Association of Broadcasters in
the United States, 46/48.
National
Broadcasting Company,
260 n., 622, 650.
National Concert Hall, 174.
National Conference of Group Leaders,220.

National Council of Labour, 65o.

679

INDEX
National Federation of Music Societies,

491

National Government,

137/40,

181,

503.

National Lectures, 71, 127, 19.4..
National Museum of Wales, 327.
`National Nights', 349-50.
National Opera Council, 181.
National Orchestra, 173.
National Programme, 26, 29, 31, 36/37,
48/53, 67, 151, 305/8, 324, 329
National Radio Telegraphic Convention (1925), 340.
National Secular Society, 240. I
Nativity plays, 246-7.
Nature, 524 n., 527 t1., 528 n.
Neagle, 1nna, 91.
Netherlands, The, 397.
Network Song Census, USA, III.

1922 Committee, 418, 479.
Nipkow, Paul, 541, 522, 552, 566, 571.
Nixon, E., 41 n.
Noble, Sir William, 358.
`Noctovisor', 527.
Nonconformist services, 236.
Norman, R. C., 147, 224/6, 400, 432/4,
467, 470, 473, 486, 510, 589 n., 6o6,

634/9

North \merican representative, 396 7.

North Eastern Daily Gazette, 577 n.
North Region, 107, 120, 151, 163, 169,
172, 306, 3t 1, 313, 317/21, 328, 330,
333, 335. 337, 338, 489, 560.
Northcott, R. J., 239 n.

'Northern Cockpit', 151.
Northern Ireland, 51, 107, 163, 306,
323, 324, 329, 333-4, 488, 489.
Northern Orchestra, 170, 318.

Never Talk to Strangers, 104.

Norwich, 358.
Nottingham, 305.

New Every Morning, 234 n.
New Statesman, 43, 44, 141, 261 n., 265,
287, 288, 290, 636.
New Ventures in Broadcasting, 186, 218.
New York Herald Tribune, 271, 898.

`No. 10', 175.

Nevinson, H. W., 286.

New York Philharmonic Orchestra,
171.

New York Times, The, 525 n., 528, 542 n.
New Zealand, 254, 374, 375, 378, 387.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 306, 319, 337.
Newfoundland, 389.

Newman, Ernest, 14, 126, 171..
Newman, Robert, 172.
News: administration, 121, 152-60;
agencies, 153/60; broadcasts, 35, 74,
255, 493, 501, 653, 656; Empire
Service, 370/2, 377, 383, 392, 398/
400; library, 157; overseas, 645/8,
653; recorded material, 99-too;
Regions, 319; reporting, 157; television, 581, 603.

News Chronicle, 142 n., 146, 156, 637.
News Reel, 99, 155, 603.

Newson, W. K., 651.
Newspaper Proprietors' Association,
153, 159, 288, 359, 361, 383, 482,
587.

Newspaper Society, 153, 159, 288, 359.
Nichols, Beverley, 621.
Nicholson, ,J. H., 223, 224, 267-8.
Nicolls, Sir Basil, 16, 19, 2g, 70, 86 n.,
121 n., 160 n., 163 n., 166 n., 217,
245, 249, 265, 287,- 290, 334-5,
389 n., 414, 442, 449, 451, 455, 456,
Goon., 619, 630, 641/6, 650, 657 n.
Nicolson, Harold, 126, 185, 290, 396 n.,646.

Nigeria, 389.
Nine Sharp, 113.

OBSERVER, THE, 27, 278.

Odhams, W. J. B., 519.
O'Donnell, B. W., 9, 176.
O'Donnell, P. S. G., 176.
O'Ferrall, George More, 604.
Ogg, D., 433 n., 632 n.

Ogilvie, F. \V., 4, 177-8, 183, 334, 515,
618, 619, 643. 632, 637, 639/42, 54
Old Vic Theatre, 181, 182.
Oliver, Vic, 55, 106.
Oliver Twist, 161.
Olivier, Laurence, 621.
Olympic Games (1940), 622.
One Hundred Years of Vorking Class
Progress, 219.

Onions, C. T., 469.
Opera, 35, 63, 171, 174, 177/83, 259,
492; Advisory Committee, 178-9,
182 n.; Board, 180; television, 621.
Operettas, 35, 90 92, 103-4, Io8.
Orchestral Music, 35.
Orchestras: Northern Ireland, 323;
provincial, 3o6; Regions, 170, 315-16.
Orde, Beryl, 106, 110.
Organ music, 654; classical, 176-7;
light, 35, 52, 72, 82, 85, 105.
Organization, 411-516, 641-4.
Ormshy-Gore, W. G. A., 371, 380,
509.

Orton, Harold, 468.
Oscillation, ^56, 257.
Ostrer, Isidore, 558, 562, 565, 572, 575.
Ostrer, Matt -ice, 558 n.
Ottawa Conference (1932), 382.
'Our Hour'-Flotsam and Jetsam, 72.
'Our Lizzie', 77.
Our Village, 216.

68o

INDEX

Outside broadcasts, 35, 51, 54, 81,
97 n., 112, 119/21, 258-9, 600; 8;
church services, 234-5; engineers,
81-82; recording, lot -2; television,
552, 590, 607, 611.
Overseas broadcasting, 369-410, 629,
641, 647; Intelligence Dept., 408,
641; listeners, 647; News Dept., 156.
Owen, Sir James, 287/9.
Oxford, 207, 209.
Oxford Street transmitter, 546.
Oxford Union, 418 n.
`PAGEANT OF ENGLISII LIFE FROM 1812
TO 1933, A', 382.

Palace of Varieties, 105, 119.
Palestine, 388, 390 n., 392.
Palladium, 75, 78, 82, 85, 92, 105.
Palmer, R., 77 n., 187 n., 195 n.
Parker, Sir Harold, 514.
Parliament,' 3 n., 359, 367, 418, 420,

421; debates, 508, 512-13, 543-4;
questions, 85, 18o n., 422, 434, 613.
Parliamentary Advisory Committee,
144, 145.

Parliamentary Labour Party, 418.
Parnell Commission, The, 62,.
Party political broadcasts, 131/41.
Passfield, Lady, 39, 257, 29o.
Passfield, Lord, 374, 376 n., 379.
Past Week, The, 646.
Path of Glory, 165.
Patrick, R. C., too, 101 n.

Patronage, 62-63.
Paul Temple series, 169.
Paulo, B., 254 n.
Payne, Jack, 15, 79, 84/88, 105, 114,
115, 256 n., 560, 640, 641 n.; ga.
Payne, Walter, 77, 78, 82-83, 93 11.,128 n.

Peach, L. du Garde, 165-6.
Pear, T. H., 125, 261, 267, 271.
Pearsall Smith, Logan, 16.
Pedrick, Gale, 23.
Peers, Donald, 55.
Peers, R., 222.
Pelham, E. H., 201 n.
Pelléas et Mélisande, 171.

Pellenc, M., 365.
Penmon (Anglesey), 313.
Pensions, 451-2.
People, The, 541, 542
People's Palace, 173.

Pepper, Harry S., 90, 94, 105-6, 117,
565.

Pepper, Will C., go.
Percy, Lord Eustace, 137, 205/9.
I'erformer, The, 76.

Performing Right Society, 86.
Periodical Trades Press, 288, 493.

Perowne, S., 405.
Perry, J., 520.
Persian Gulf countries, 390 n.
Personality cult, tog.
Pet's Corner, 6t t.
Phelps, `Bossy', 607.

'Phi' system, 37, 328.
Philco Ltd., 103 IL, 253, 493, 572.

Philip, A. G., 212.
Philips -Miller recording system, 102-3.
Phillips, F. \V., 302, 305 n., 347, 355,
360, 361 n., 367, 368, 371, 377 n.,
378 n, 380, 525, 526, 537 n, 545 n.,
552 11, 574/5, 580/2, 590, 610; 48.
Philpotts, Eden, 163.
Physical education broadcasts, 215.
Pickles, Wilfred, 330.
Picture Page, 593, 607.
Pieces of Tape, 99.
Pigeon racing, 119.

Pirandello, L., 58, 550-1.
Pitt, Percy, 170-8.
Pius, Zasu, 110.
Plant, Arnold, 150, 364.
Plater, H. A., 20.
Plugge, L. F., 351, 352, 361, 365.
Plymouth, 323, 327, 333.
Pocock, G. N., 147, 264 n., 399.
Poetry and prose readings, 35.
Poland, 131.
Political broadcasts, 38, 131/41, 144/7,
486, 503/5, 508, 657; 16.
Political interference, 129-30, 415.

Political Quarterly, 474, 476.
Pop -Eye the Sailor (Mr. Costello), 1 t7.
Popular Music Publishers' Association,
85.
Popular Wireless, 23, 157, 531, 541, 585.
Portugal, 647, 649
Portuguese -language broadcasts, 399,
401, 647, 649.
Posford, George, 91, 103.
Post Office and the Postmaster-General,
128/30, 265, 269, 279, 288, 298/305,
309, 339, 340, 347, 350/63, 367/80,
384, 398/400, 415, 4i6, 420, 421,
426, 453, 476/86, 494/7, 511, 512,
525/46, 563, 57315, 580/94, 610/14,
617, 625, 632.
Poste Parisien, 364.
Postgate, Raymond, 474, 476.
Postman's Knock, 382.
Potter, Gillie, 84, 106, 107, 464.
-

Potteries, The, 319-20.
Powell, Sir Allan, 432/5.
Powell, Sandy, to6.
Power, Rhoda, 195, 200.
Prague Conference (1929), 339/45.
Prague Plan, 3m.
Prayers, 235.

G81

INDEX

Radio Development Association, 271.
Radio Eireann, 366.
Radio Exhibition (1934), 117.

Presentation, 53, 122-3.
Press, The, 265, 359, 367, 371, 372,
383, 395, 653.
Press agencies, 153/5, 159, 160.
Press Association, 153.
Price, I Larry, 472 n.
Priestley, J. B., to, 143, 471, 621.
Pringle, Harry, 621.
Production Research Section, 8g.
Productions Director, 79, 89.
Programme Board, 31, 33, 34, 71, 79.

Radio Gazette, 99.

'Radio Grams', 253-4.
Radio Hilversum, 351, 352.
Radio International Publicity Services
Ltd., 352.

Programme Committee, 34; known as
Programme Sub-Committee, 34 n.
Programme Correspondence Section,
67-70, 259, 262-3.
Programme Meeting. 33-34.
Committee
Revision
Programme(1934), 26, 36, 48-52, 74, 223.
Programmes, 24/27; contrast, 296, 311;
international interchange, 349;
organisation, 642-4; policy, 73, 501;
propaganda, 366; provision ofalternative programmes, 26-28, 48, 51, 295339; ratings, 276-8o; recording, 6.
Promenade Concerts, 63, 8,, 122,
172/5.

-

Public Enquiry, 151.
Public opinion, 57, 70, 141, 145-6, 280.
Public relations, 264-6, 407, 472, 497,
536 n.; with the press, 159.

Publications, 280-92, 310, 311, 491,
493, 502.
Publicity, 104, 265; television, 62o.
Publishers' Association, 491.
Pudney, ,John, 118 n.
Punch, 172, 286, 411, 464, 520; r6.
Pye Radio, 620.
Pym, W. St. J., 451, 513-15.
QUAKERS, THE, 236.
Queen Mary, 598.

Queen's Hall, 172, 175; r2a.
Quiz contests, 77.

Racing odds, 71-72, 613.
Radford, Basil, 621.
Radio Andorra, 366.
Radio Athlone, 45, 366.
Radio Central Exchanges Ltd., 359.
Radio Corporation of America, 76,373, 416, 552 11., 564 n., 566/8,
572/4, 601, 622.

Radio Cdte d'Azur, 361.

xis, 352/4, 361/4.

Radio Pictorial, 23.

Radio Publicity Ltd., 352.
Radio Society of Gt. Britain, 522.

Radio Supplement, 280.
Radio Times, 23, 32, 86, 89, 91, 92, 107,
119, 164, 168, 229, 230, 259, 264,
280/8, 311, 351, 532 11., 549, 578 n.,

Radio Toulouse, 354, 357, 361, 364.
Radio trade, 202-3, 361, 493, 583 '5
Radio ympia, 88, 117, 253, 314, 534,
597-8, 6o4., 6o6, 612, 61s122, 658;
29
Rae, Sir James, 514, 614.
Rae Report, 514-15.
Railway hotels, 88.
-644, 652, 656.
Prospero and Ariel, qr.

RABIN, OSCAR, 115.

350/4,60/

Radio620, 658.

Pronunciation, 125, 149; children, 198.
Propaganda, 225, 342, 366, 370, 375,
389, 390 11.9 393-4, 398, 401/2, 475,
Public corporations, 3 IL, 4, 56, 413 -39

Radio (listening) meters, 271.
Radio Ljubljana, 361.
Radio Luxembourg, II, 44, 92, 249,
272, 349, 350, 359, 362-3, 498, 644.
Radio Lyons, 364-5.
Radio Manufacturers' Association, 4446, 48, 203, 585-6, 595, 597, 62o.
Radio Newsreel. 99, 155, 603.
Radio Normandie, 54-55, 79, 92, 249,

'Ramona', 111.

Ramsbotham, H., 206.
Rankeillour, Lord, 144.
Rathbone, Harold, 286.
Rathke, hurt, 394.
Raven, Canon C. E., 246.
Reading, Lady, 479, 497.
Readings of poetry and prose, 35.
Re -broadcasting, 391, 392.
Reception, 177, 192, 202/5, 214, 371.
Reception of Alternative Programmes, The,
311.

Record ratings, 110-1 I.
Recorded programmes, g8; editing,
100-I ; Empire Service, 381-3.
Recorded Programmes Section, 99 n.
Recording, 98/1o3, 381/4.
Recruiting broadcasts, 657-8.
'Red Sails in the Sunset', 115.
Red Sarafan, The, 108.

'Red tab', t, 19.
Rediffusion Ltd., 358.
1

Rcdmoss, 313.
Regions, 10-11, 34, 36, 151-2, 232,
292-339, 489-91, 499, 6o6; adult

682

INDEX

Regions (cont.):
education, 223; Advisory Committees, 337; drama, 162-3; Directors,
486/8, 489; local obligations, 53;
Munich Crisis, 645; music, 170,
488-9; orchestras, 337; programmes,
26, 29, 31, 107-8; Religious Advisory
Committees, 237, 322; religious
services, 235, 236, 249; staff, 489;
television, 617; titles, 321; WorldWar II, 627.
Reichs Rundfunk Gesellschaft, 393,
544 n.

Reid, C., 64 n., 174 n., 18o n.
Reid, W. R., 215 n., 217 n.
Reilly, J., 463.
Reiss carbon granule microphone, 82,
97; ¡la.
Reith, Sir John: achievement, 4, 17-

18, 56, 113, 420; advisory committees, 467; alternative programmes,
296-9, 301/3; audience research,
258, 261, 266/g, 278; controversial
broadcasting, 128 3o; educational
broadcasting, 185/8, 190, 199-20o,
209-11, 217/19; Empire Service,
37o, 376/8o, 388-9, 393; foreign language broadcasting, 400; theGovernors, 426/35, 632 ; music broadcasts, 173, 177, 491; National
Lectures, 127 n.; negotiations withoutside bodies, 63-64, 153, 178-81,
288 q, 497; political broadcasting,
13i-6, 139; premises, 459; programme policy, 122, 156-7; preparations for war, 625/9, 657; public
corporations, 413/26, 435 6; theRegions, 307/9, 315-i6, 325, 335,
336; religious broadcasting, 227, 229,
233, 237/40, 242-3; retirement, 6326; Royal broadcasts, 112, 386, 490;
Selsdon Committee, 579/83, 588/91;
South African broadcasting, 389;
staff appointments, 19, 143, 147,
448, 449, 513, 638; staff control, 62,388, 435/9, 441/4, 515-16, 601-2;
staff morale and welfare, 451/6, 4657; television, 530/5, 543, 545, 555/8,
563-4. 575, 576, 6o8, 614-15; Ullswater Committee and Report, 476/
506; USA, 47-48, 492; r6, 33, 36, 37,

38.

Relay Exchanges, 272, 294, 298, 306,
307, 313, 317, 356/6o, 3$1, 389,
392-3, 409, 477, 4$1, 485, 487,
494/503, 5o8, 510, 511.
Relay Services Association, 482, 496-7
Religious broadcasting, 25, 34-35, 51,
54, 64, 68. 259; Advisory Committees, 227, 237/42, 248, 249 n,-

467; listeners, 272; school
broadcasts, 198; television, 603.
Rendall, Montague, 426, 459, 462,
322,

463

Rendall, It. A., 52, 143, 388, 389 n.,
392.

Rennell, Lord, 645.
Re -organization Memorandum (1933),
61.

'Request Weeks' (Children's Hour),261 n.

Restaurants, 451.
Retailers' Trust Ltd., 567 n.
Reuters, 153, 372, 377, 383.
Reviewing: plays, 127 8.
Revue and Vaudeville Section, 8g.

Revues, 35, 76; television, 607.
Reynolds, John, 35.
Rhodesia, 374.
Ribbon microphone, 97; rra.
Rice, G. V., 23 n., 284.
Richards, Sir Henry, 218.
Richardson, Ralph, 621.
Richardson, W. R., 216.
Riddell, Lord, 154, 287/9.
Rifaat, A., 405.
Rifle Shooting, 119.

'Rio Grande', 122.

Roaming the Country, 339.

Robb, Eustace, 563, 565, 585 n.; 46.
Roberts, E., 242 n.
Roberts, J. H. T., 585.
Roberts, J. Varley, 582.
Roberts, R. Ellis, 247.
Robertson, E. J., 542.
Robey, George, 75, 551.
Robins, Phyllis, 55.
Robinson, E. H., 234 n.
Robinson, F. H., 520 n.
Robinson, Stanford, 9, 76, 79, 94, 95,
121, 169, 182.

Robson, W. A., 279, 418, 419, 474
Rochester, Dean of, 245 R.
Rogers, Canon Gray, 239 n., 248, 249.
Rolo, C. J., 393 n.
Roman Catholic Radio Guild, 240.
Roman Catholicism, 236/40, 248; Services, 68, 236, 246 n.
Romance in Rhythm, 114.

Romanes Lectures, 334
Ronald, Sir Landon, 173, 183, 467.
Röntgen Society, 522.
Roosevelt, F. D., 398, 655.

Rope, 164.

Roscoe, Frank, t88, 196, 197.
Rose, Howard, 161, 168.
Rose -Troup, J. M., 143, 144 n., 148,
150, 158, 2,8 n., 264 11., 266 n., 414.
Rosenkaoalier, Der, 178.
Rosenthal, H., 179 n.

INDEX
Rosing, Boris, 521, 522, 567.
Ross, G., 604, 611 n.

Round -Sykes electro-dynamic microphone, 97.
Rowntree, Seebohm, 261, 274-5.
Row son, S., 271 n.
Roy, Harry, 115.
Royal Albert Hall, 174, 175.
Royal Broadcasts, 8o, 112, 386, 490.
Royal Command Performances, 75, 81.
Royal Institution, 525.
Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, 173/4.
Royal Philharmonic Society, 174, 491.
Royal Ulster Show, 323.
Rubinstein, Arthur, 326.
Rugby matches, 8o, 99, 119, 121.
Rungs of the Ladder, 66.
Ruskin, John, 189.
Ruskoje Company, 569.
Russell, Bertrand, 15o.
Russell, T., 174 n.
Rutherford, Lord, 144, 487.
Rutherford. H., 50.
Ryan, A. P., 19, 248 n., 266, 269,
274 n., 28o, 600 n., 652.
SAIILON, JEAN, 108.

Sabotage, 626.
'Sack at 18, The', r3.
Sackville-West, V., 290.
Sadler, Michael, 189.
Sadler's \Veils Theatre, 181, 182, 492.
Saerchinger, C., 475.
'Sagittarius', 636.
St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh, 234.
St. David's Day Banquets, London,
322.
St. George's Chapel, Windsor, 235.
St. George's Hall, 104, 105, 116, 464,
613; rob.
St. Martin -in -the-Fields, 228, 233/6,
240.
St. Martin's Theatre, 621.
St. Marylebone Borough Council, 462.
St. Michael's, Chester Square, 241.
St. Paul's Cathedral, 241 n., 244.
Salaries, 451.
Salford, Bishop of, 238.
Salmon. C. V., 150, 269, 647.
Salt, J. S. A., 107 n., 147, 264 n.
Salter, Sir Arthur, 267, 268, 487.
Salvation Army, 236.
Samuel, Herbert, 132, 138, 14o, 532,
556 n.
Sandler, Albert, 76, 96.
Sankey, Lord Justice, 219, 220, 289.
SarnoaF, D., 548, 566/9, 574, 583, 601.
Satire, 107, 113.
Saturday broadcasting, 25, 45, 49, 5o.
Saturday Magazine, 107, 114.

683

Savage, E. G., 212.
Savoy Hill, 14-15, 79-80, 96, 309, :tit,
458/65; 150, 38, 40.
Savoy Theatre, 182.
Sawcrs, D., 567 n.
'Say It With Music', 86.
Sayers, Dorothy, 247.
Scandinavia, 254.
Scanning, 566, 571, 581 n., 587-8.
Scarborough, 317.
Scattered Seed, The, 235 n.

Schenectady (2XAD), 373.
Schneider Cup, 120.
Schonberg, Arnold, 172 n.
School broadcasting, 34-35, 41, 51,
54, 189-218, 305, 501-2; 15; North
Region, 318; pamphlets, 195, 207.
Schuster, Leonard, 604.
Scophony, 581, 588.
Scotland, 306, 313, 314, 321-2, 333,
338; audience research, 268; licenceholders, 255; staff, 489.
Scotland and the Empire, 338.
Scotland Yard, 168.

Scott, I lerbert, 390 n.
Scott, Sir Walter, 169.
Scott and Whaley, go.
Scott in the Antarctic, 168.

Scottish Orchestra, 17o, 338.
Scrapbook, III, 112, 320.

Scarls, T. H., 219.
Seccomhc, Lionel, 119-20.
Selby, Sir N., 649.
Selenium, 52o, 521.
Selfridge, Gordon, 351, 524, 525.
Selsdon, Lord, 129, 18o n., 426, 479,
480, 486-7, 498, 502-3, 5i1, 538,
541, 581/4, 588/91, 596, 6o6, 609,
61o, 618, 637; 48; Committee andReport, 581 94, 598, 599. 673, 618.
Selwyn, Canon E. G., 238, 239 n.
Send for Paul Temple, 169.

Senlacq, M., 520, 521.
Serials, 113-34.
Series Programmes, go, 107-8.
Services Wireless Board, 626.
Shadwell, Charles, 105.
Shakespeare, William, 161, 163.
Shakespeare's Heroines, 281-2.
Sharman, John, 79, 89, 94, 119 n.
Sharp, Clifford, 140.
Shaughnessy, E. H., 302.
Shaw, G. B., 5, 40, 65-66, 143, 157,
164, 349, 467/9, 487.
Shearman. H. C., 257.
Sheffield I'hitharmonic Society, 337.
Sheppard, Rev. H. R. L., 228, 237,
239 n., 242.
Sherriff, R. C., 548, 549, 550.
Sherriffs, Bob, 286.

684

INDE.l'Shields, Miss F. I., 458.
Shoenberg, Isaac, 568-9, 576/9; 48.
Show Boat, 103.
Show's The Thing, The, 81.
Sick, Broadcasts for the, 229/31.
Siepmann, C. A., 20, 41 n., 42 n., 48,
52, 124 n., 126/8, 141/3, 147/9, 152,

158, 162 n., 188, 206 n., 219, 222,

256/62, 269, 291, 293, 314-15, 320,
326, 331/5, 341 11, 385/8, 471, 490,
657.
Sierra Leone, 390/3.
Sicveking, Lance, 15, 58/62, 65, 89,
92 0., 123, 124, 164/70, 247, 550/I;
45a, 45b

Sigal, Clancy, 261.
Signature tunes, 86.
Silver Jubilee (1935), 104, 109, 112,
117, 207, 395, 505.
Silvey, K. J. E., 68 n., 254 n., 270/9.
Simon, Sir John, 138, 146, 290, 401,
509, 618 n.

Simon, L., 494 n.
Simon of Wythenshawe, Lord, 425 n.
Simultaneous Programmes Board, 27.
Sinclair, Sir Archibald, 508.
Singapore, 374.
Slaughter, Tod, ,o6.
Smetana, B., 182.
Smith, Sir Frank, 595.
Smith, Janet Adam, 290, 458.
Smith, Logan Pearsall, 468.
Smith, R. ,J., 46.
Smith, Reggie, 621.
Smith, Willoughby, 520 n.
Smithers, Sir Waldron, 43.
Snagge, John, 6o, 8o, 120, 607.
Snow, C. P., 151.
Snowden, Lord, 132, 135, 139, 140,
145, 180, 379, 380, 416.
Snowden, Lady, 133 n., 178, 181, 425/8,
433, 453, 454.
'Soap operas', tog.
Soccer, 119, J98; 86; commentaries,

80.
Société FranSaisc Radioélectrique, 353.
Société Luxembourgeoise d'Etudes
Radiophoniques, 352.
Society of \Vest End Theatre Managers,
77, 128.
Soft Lights and Sweet Music, 114.
Solomon, R. B., 494 n.
Some Problems of School Broadcasting,
198 n., 200 n.
Somerville, Mary, 186/212, 267, 642,
643.
Somme, Battle of the, 155.
Sonderbericht, 649.
Songs: American influence, tog -to;plugging, 85-86, 114; recitals, 35.

Songs From the Shows, go, 104.

Soper, Rev. Donald, 246, 654.
South frica, 374, 375, 378, 3$1, 384,
389.
South -Eastern England, 300.
`Southern Region', 334.
'

Southport, 31;.
Southwark, Bishop of, 227.
Soviet Union, 147, 264, 313, 342/8,
390, 401.
157, 398-9, 475, 647, 649;
Civil War, 148, 157.
Spectator, t37, 271, 287, 288, 506.
Speeches, 35.
Speed-boat racing, 119.

Spain,

Speedway racing, 119.

Spiritualists, 240.
Spithead Review (1937), 98.
`Split-focus' scanning, 581 n.
Spoken English Advisory Committee,
16, 40, 467-9.
Spoken Word, 35, 51, 54, 125.
Sponsoring, 617/19, 644; programmes,

8-9,493,502,503,511,591,599-600;
television, 585, 587, 589; USApractice, 94, 622.
Spoonerisms, 100-1.
Sport, 119-21, 155, 158, 159; commentaries, 77, 8o-81, 119/21; television, 607, 611.
Sprott, Elise, 4.58.
Sprott, J. H., 151.
Squire, J. C., g, 80.
Squirrel's Cage, 165.
Staff, 6, 13-14, 446-6, 498/500, 503,

506/13; Christmas pantomime, 79;
complaints, 643; conditions, 336,
337; Empire Service, 385, 391;
foreign-language, 653; ideals, 413;
light entertainment, 115-16; overseas secondment, 388-9; `rebels', 14;
Regions, 329-30, 332-3, 336-7;
training, 3n., 16g, 333, 335, 515;

World War II, 631.
Staff Association, 453-66, 513-55.
Stafford, R. S., 631, 652.
Stagshaw, 313.
`Stainless Stephen', 1o7.

Stamfordham, Lord, 112.
Stammers, Kay, 607.
Stamp, Sir Josiah, 473
Stamp Enquiry, The, 512.
Standard Radio Relay Services Ltd.,
359.

Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd.,
381, 564 n.

Standardization of opinion and culture,39

Stanley, C. 0., 620.
Stanley, Miss J., 229 n., 458.

685

INDEX
Stanley, Miss Lulu, 547
Stanley, Oliver, 219, 509.
Star, The, 112, 133, 134, 138, 636, 637,

639. 658.
Star-gazing. 112.
Starch, David, 259, 2Go n.
Stark, Freya, 66 67.
Stars in their Courses, 99.
Start Point, 313.

Steadman, Van Praagh, and Gaylor,
174 n.
Steele, R. C., 208 n., 211, 215, 2,6.
Stéphan, M., 464, 465, 645; rya.
Stewart, Andrew, 338.
Stewart, E. G., 525.
Stewart, Sir Findlater, 473.

recordingelectro-magnetic
Stillemachine, 99.
Stillerman, R., 567 n.
Stobart, J. C., 124, 131, 142, 187-8,
193/201, 205, 2,8, 227/32, 239, 242,
260, 261.

Stoke-on-Trent, 307.
Stoll, Sir Oswald, 75, 78, 83, 93 n.
Stone, Christopher, 23, 77, 105, 107,363.
Stone, Lew, 115.
Story of the Waltz, The, 1o8.
Strachey,, Jack, 91, 108.

Strachey, John, 150.

Strange to Relate, 114.

Strudwick, Herbert, 552.
Strutt, C. H. G., 124, 153
Stuart, Sir Campbell, 652.
Student Prince, The, 104.

Studio Control Cubicle, rrb.
Studios, 95-96, 463; 40, 42; assistants,
95; drama, 166-7; Empire Service,391; Regions, 314; television, J96,
6o5, 610, 614/16; 50.
Sturmey, S. G., 76 n., 564 n., 568 n.,
588 n.

Sub -Committee on War-Time Programmes, 630-i.
Sultzman, General, 47-48.
Sunday broadcasting, 25, 45, 48/54,
227, 228, 234/9, 272, 353, 356, 362,
364, 367, 508, 616, 654-5.
Sunday Express, 595.
Sunday Graphic, 133 n.
Sunday RI eree, 136 n., 361, 363.
Sunday Times, 171 n.

Suttllery, J. T., lob n., 323, 326, 327.
Swansea, 294, 333.
Swearing, 68.
Swedish Broadcasting Committee, 162.
Swift, J., 551 n.
Swing, Raymond Gram, 126, 198, 647.
Sykes Committee, 128, 300, 419, 479,
522 n., 591.

Symphony concerts, 49, 68, 70, 171, 328.
Szarvasy, F. A., 179/81.
TABLE TENNIS, 119.

Tabouis, Madame G., 347.
Tabouis, R., 346/7, 354/6.

Talking Mongoose

case,

The, 292,

472/5, 509, 512, 636.
Talks Advisory Committee, 223-4.
Talks and discussions, 35, 49, 52, 57-58,
63, 68, 70, 8o, 122-8, 142, 147, 222,
246, 657; Empire Service, 383-4;
listeners, 271-2; publication, 283-4,
291-2; religious, 246; technique,
125-6; television, 607.
Tallents, Sir Stephen, 19, 34, 140, 159,
160, 168, 248 n., 258 n.. 264/7, 270,271 n., 273 n., 275 n., 280, 292, 293,
333, 3H2, 384 0, 435/8, 443, 472-3,
476, 494, 504/6, 512, 515 n., 600 n.,
607, 630, 632, 633 n, 636/42, 649,
655, 658; 48.
Tap listeners, 74.
'I'arri, Suzette, 118.

Tatslield, 652.
Taylor, Rev. C. V., 244.
Taylor, Miss L., 455.
Technical Correspondence Section, 3 to.
Telegraphic Union, 344.
`Teleseer' (term), 16.
`Televiewer' (term), 16.
`Televiser' (term), 16.
Television, 15-17, 8o, 81, 226, 415,
439, 440, 481, 483, 501, 502, 517622; 44 53; Advisory Committee,

586/91, 593, 595, 597, 609, 615/20,
644; colour, 528; criticism, 286;
finance, 566, 581, 584-6, 589-92,
613-18, 644; group discussions, 225;
hours of transmission, 613, 616-17;

industry, 575-6; nomenclature, 1516; Orchestra, 603; programmes,
58, 600/3, 616; religious services,
244; sets, 76, 6/1-12, 619-20, 622;

sponsoring, 19, 502, 503; stereoscopic, 528; transatlantic, 528.
Television, 528 n., 542 n.
Television Committee (,93.1), 16, 479,

562,581-93.
Television Development Sub-Committee, 620.
Television Exhibition (1937), 612.
Television Ltd., 519, 525, 5z6, 558, 565.
Television Negotiating Committee,
595 n

Television Society, 528, 545 n.
`Telobservist' (term), 16.
Temple, William, Archbishop of York,220, 227, 245, 249, 267, 470, 471,
487.

686

I ND E

Tennent, H. M., 83.
Tennis, 8o, 119, 155; television, 611.
Terling, Essex, receiving station, 373.
Terminology, 15-16.
Terrier, F. W., 441 n.

Test Matches, 81, 120, 155, 621.
Thackeray, W. M., 169.
'Thank God for the BBC', 113.
Thatcher, R. S., 172.
Theatre industry, 38, 77/84, 92/94, 613.
Theatre Organist, 105.
Theatres: direct TV transmissions, 621;
live sound broadcasts, 77, 85; television, 6o7.
Thermionic valves, 522.
'These Foolish Things', 91, 108.
These Ton Have Loved, 89.
Thetis, 158.
Thin Red Line, The, 168.

Third Programme, 74-75.

This-is London, 172 II., 177 n.
This Planning Business, 15o.

Thomas, Sir Godfrey, 573 n.
Thomas, Howard, 152.
Thomas, Ivor, 474-5.
Thomas, J. H., 132, 182.
Thomas, Stephen, 604.
Thompson, E. R., 330.
Thompson, H. H., 81.
Thompson, T., 152.
Thompson, W. W.. 173 n.
Thomson, A. A., 282.
'Thomson, D. Cleghorn, 39 n., 190 n.,
241 in, 321-2.
Thorndike, Sybil, 487.
Three Cornered Hat, The, 104.
Three Musketeers, The, 169.

Thrillers, 113-14.
Thurston, Frederick, 171.
Thurtic, E., 544 n.
Tierney, C., 528 n.
Tilley, John, 1o6, 107.
Tilley, Vesta, 75.
Tiltman, R. L., 519 n.

Time and Tide, 137, 362 n.
Times, The, 17, 47, 57, 110, 131, 133 n.,
134 n., 135 n., 139 n., 141, 145 n.,
149 11, 155, 264, 505, 594.
Tomlinson, J. D., 343 IL, 366 n.
'Top Ten', 111.
Topical talks, 158.
Tosca, 178.
Toscanini, Arturo, 37, 45, 69, 171, 654;

/2a.
Towler, Mrs. C.. 457.
Toye, Geoffrey, 63 n., 173, 181-2.
Tracey, Arthur, 117.
Tracing History Backwards, 198.

Trade unions, 456, 464, 513.

Trades Union Congress, 395, 497, 65o.

Transcription Service, 382-3.
Transmitters, 647; Empire Service,381; television, 545, 568, 658.

Transmutation of the Atom, The, 144.

Travel talks (for schools), 208.
Travers, Ben, 161.
Treasury, the, 368, 377/9, 391, 476-8,
617/19,649.
Trevelyan, Mary, 654.
Trinder, Tommy, 621.
Trinity House. 168.
Tristan and Isolde. 621.

Trollope, Anthony, 169.
Tryon, J. C., 434 It, 504, 5o8/13, 6o6,

614, 621, 627, 628.
Tuclsbery, Marmacluke, 459, 460, 462,
626, 652.
Turner, L. B., 300.
Tweedsmuir, Lord, 145, 487.
Twelfth Night, 163.
Twelve Great Plays, 16t.
T ssentietb-Century Fox, 603 n.
ULLSWATER COMMITTEE, 4, 14, 122,

183, 209, 321, 329, 334, 335,
350,
351 n., 364, 394/8, 421, 438, 449/52,

455-6, 458, 466, 471/516, 583, 61314. 617 n., 618 n., 625.
'Uncle' (Children's Hour), 33.
Underground, 168.

Unemployment, 41-42.
Union Internationale de Radiophonie(UIR), 295, 339/46, 349, 350, 353/6,

36o/6.

Unitarian services, 236, 24o.
United States of America, 47-48, 11617, 135, 254. 341. 365, 375, 383, 390,
392, 396, 416, 526/7, 621/2.

Universal Programme Corporation,
365.
Universal Radio Publicity Ltd., 352.
Universities, 279; extra -mural depts.,
222.
Unto Us. 24224.7.

Usher, Miss, 212.
VAGABOND KING,

TIl£, 140.

Valkyrie, Die, 178.
Vallee, Rudy, 109.

Vanbrugh, Dame Irene, g9.
Vansittart. Sir Robert, 146,
368/70, 627. 637.

147,

Variety, 52, 68, 7o, 71, 75/121, 175 n.,278, 414, 599, 654; lo; listeners, 271,
276 8; Orchestra, 114; programme
exploitation, 118-19; stage presentation, 118-19; Sunday broadcasts,
362; television, 599, 607.
Variety Artistes' Federation, 78, 82, 93.
Vaudeville, 35; Empire Service, 383.

INDEX
Vaughan, \V. \V., 197, 209.
Vernon, R. V., 374 n, 377 n.
Veto, Use of, 12g-30.
Victor Talking Machine Company,
76, 566, 567.

Victoria, Queen, 396.
Vienna, 108.

'Viewer' (term), 16.
Village Opinion, 339.

'Viser' (term), i6.
`Visionist' (term), 16.
Visitors: television, 611.
Vivisection, 68.
Voice and Personality, 125.

687

Weekly Newspaper Proprietors' Association, 288.
\Veek's Good Cause, 228.
Wciller, Lazare, 521.
\Veir, E. A., 378 n.
Welch, Elizabeth, 106, to8.
Welch, H. G. G., 279 n., 456 n., 482,
497, 505, 528 D.
Welch, Dr. J. W., 243, 654.
Welfare, 451..
Wellington, Lindsay, 29, 48, 52, 72,
116 n., 245, 263, 325/8, 448, 562.
Wells, A. M., 120 n.
Wells, H. G., 42, 126-7, 143,. 161,
208 n.

WADE, C. R., 69.
Wade, Ralph, 16, 20, 67, 437 n., 652.
Wakefield, Was-ell, 510.
Wakelam, II. B. T., 23, 80, 646.

Wales and Welsh Region, 306, 313,
314, 321/3, 327, 333, 335, 338, 479;
audience research, 268; staff, 489;
talks to schools, 2,6; Welsh Singers,

338\Vallee, Rev. Bernard, 246-7.
Walker, F. D., 156.

\\Taker, G., 108.
Waltzes, 74.
Wanner, T., 648.
War Office Wireless Telegraphy Board,
302.

War Press Bureau, 628.
Warner, C. F. A., 649 n.
Warner, Jack, 55.
Warren, C. Denier, go.
Wasliford Cross, 313.
Washington Conference (1927), 302,
303, 309, 339/41, 345, 355.
Waterfield, A. P., 653 n.
Waters, Elsie and Doris, 84 n., go, 106.
\Vatrous, E., 398 n.
Watt, John, 8g, 90, 94, 103, 114/18,
155, 258, 276, 565.

Watts, Arthur, 286.
Watts, Cecil, 100/2.
\Vauchope, Sir Arthur, 389 n.
Wavelengths, 293/9, 304-5, 311, 313,
339/49, 355, 362, 366-7.
Way of the World, The, 146.
Way to God, The, 246.

Wayne, Mabel, 111.
Wayne, Naunton, 621.
Wearing Spurs, 625.

Weather forecasts, 35, 255.
Weatherhead, Leslie, 245
Webb, Sydney and Beatrice, see Pass field, Lord and Lady.
Webster, M. C., 94.
Webster, Martyn C., 169.
Weekend Review, 140.

\Velsh-language broadcasts, 322.
Welsh Orchestra, 170.
\Velsh Singers, 338.
Wembley School, r5b.
West, A. G. D., 519, 576, 596.
\Vest Africa, 381, 383, 387, 389/93.
West Indies, 374, 375, 387, 398.
West Leeds High School, 193-4.
\Vest, Mae, t to.
\Vest, Rebecca, 553.
\Vest Region, 151, 313, 321, 323,
326-7, 333, 339, 389 n.; licenceholders, 255; music, 488; Religious
Advisory Committee, 227 n.; staff,
489.
Westerglen, 313, 322.
Western Electric, 6o t; microphone,
97 n.
Western Mail, 511.

Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, 566.
\Vestminster Abbey, 25, 8t, 229, 611.
\Veston, W. E., 528 n.
\Vitale, Rev. J. S., 246.
What to do with the BBC, 474.
!VI:at's On In Town?, too.
When We Are Married, 621.
Whistler, Rex, 286.
White, E. L. C., 569, 611.
\Vhite, H. A., 568 n.
White, H. Graham, 479, 503.
White, L., 76 n., tog n., 341 n., 622 n.
White -Thomson, Dr. L. J., Bishop ofEly, 239.

White Coons, The, go, 104.
White Magic, 104.

Whitehouse, J. H., 534 n
Whiteley, William, 654
Whiteman, Paul, 114.
Whither Britain?, 42, 143, 144.
Whitley, J. H., 130, 137, 144, 145 n,
146 n., 430-2, 454, 576, 578 n.; 31.
Whitley, Oliver, 430 n.
\\ hitworth, Robin, 168, 247.
IV/0, Do You Believe That?, 151.
-

1