INDUSTRY SCHEME
Whichever "radical" group Uwe Kitzinger had in mind it is clear that if those outside it knew about the hidden practices, the temptation for other groupings to come up with their own versions will have been irresistible. One such grouping is Industry. Management Development, Human Resources Development and Personnel Training of many kinds are in widespread use and much is known about them. But there is very little information on the methods of developing the top leaders of an Industry. It is postulated that in this connection hidden schemes have been instituted in which a person is researched, selected for development and then posted, tested, moved etc., etc. - all of this without that person‛s consent.
In my case, such a scheme was run by the English Electric Group. By the late 1950s English Electric (E.E.) was the largest hi-tech manufacturing company in the UK, covering a diversity of products for civilian and military applications. Fields covered included household appliances, jet aircraft, telecommunications and electricity generators. Companies within the group included Marconi Wireless Telegraph at Chelmsford and its subsidiary Marconi Instruments (M.I.) at St. Albans. The Chairman and Chief Executive of the whole enterprise was George Horatio Nelson who had just been created the 1st Baron of Stafford. He had built up the Group from small beginnings to the point where it employed some 200,000 people worldwide.
It was in the mid-1960's that I heard of the existence of the English Electric Scheme from R.E. Burnett, Managing Director of M.I. He told me that I had been spotted by an Industrialist on a visit to Cambridge and it had then taken 18 months to "winkle" me out of the Cavendish Laboratory.
A winkle is a small edible shore-dwelling mollusc. Its flesh is usually prised from its shell by vigorous prodding and movement with a pin. Hence to winkle out has come to mean to extract or obtain with difficulty.
I left the Cavendish in December 1961 so the "winkling out" part of the Industry scheme must have started in mid-1960.
ENGLISH ELECTRIC LINKS WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Though I did not know it at the time, English Electric had many contacts with the University of Cambridge. The 1st Baron himself had been a co-opted member of the University of Cambridge Appointments Board. His son, Horatio George Nelson, a Director of the English Electric and Marconi companies and a member of the Civil Service Commission was a King‛s College man. Another E.E. Director, the 2nd Viscount Caldecote, had been a Lecturer in the Department of Engineering until recruited to top level in the aviation side of the Group. Interestingly he was also a member of the Church Assembly.
One of my colleagues at the Cavendish was also a Director of English Electric. This was Phillip Bowden, the Reader in the Physics and Chemistry of Solid Surfaces. We were in regular contact at the Laboratory, especially in the renowned Tea Room and at Heads of Sections meetings. From October 1960 onwards we also met from time to time at high table at Caius. He always treated me with great deference. I greatly enjoyed his delightful fireworks parties at Finella, his home on Queens Road.
Yet another English Electric Director I met in Cambridge was Sir Gordon Radley - this was when he came to give a lecture to the local section of the IEE. No doubt there were also lower-level links to the English Electric Group in the form of consultancies for some of the dons.
Another striking discovery was that I and/or my wife were, through University and College activities and as a result of invitations to dinner, brought into contact with all except two of the Electors to the Professorship of Electrical Engineering. Both the exceptions were English Electric people - the first was Horatio George Nelson, who became the 2nd Lord Nelson, and the other was 2nd Viscount Caldecote.
When I realised all this, my first thought, which was accompanied by a sense of disbelief, was that I was at the time being considered as a successor to Charles Oatley. Subsequently, when I came to know how much Horatio George had been involved in the Industrial Scheme before he succeeded his father as Chairman of English Electric, I wondered if he was using that Board of Electors to make neighbourhood enquiries about my suitability for the Scheme.
Incidentally I did not belong to the enormous pressure group of
the status quo. It seems that my view that the University of
Cambridge was in need of reform was quite well known. For example,
in November 1958 Charles Oatley of the Engineering Laboratory in his
letter about the Electronics Lunch Club wrote “I believe that you and I
have very similar views about certain things that need to be done in the
University, even though we may differ about the best method of tackling
the problem”. I remember discussing what I considered needed to be
done with Nevill Mott as we wandered around his walled garden at Caius
just before he put me up for election to the Colleges. However, I
cannot now remember what I thought was in need of reform!
SECRETARYSHIP OF THE CAVENDISH LABORATORY
By late 1960 the Secretary of the Cavendish Laboratory, E.H.K. (Kenneth) Dibden, had left for a post in Ankara and at this point there was a curious episode. IEE‛s Nat Hiller asked me to find out if he would be regarded as a suitable applicant for the Secretary‛s post, which he considered highly prestigious. I went to see Nevill Mott who greeted me with "You are not going to leave me as Ratcliffe has done, are you?". I said I was not and then explained that I had a friend outside the University who had asked me to find out if he stood any chance of success if he applied for the post. Nevill Mott said he should apply in the usual way. When I told Nat Hiller he clearly had not been interested in the post anyway. This led me to wonder if Nat Hiller had been asked to approach me to get me interested.
Sir Henry Thirkill, Master of Clare College and Provincial Grand Master, had been Secretary of the Cavendish Laboratory and there were some points being made to me that Sir Henry was a great reconciler in University affairs and that I was good at that kind of thing. If there were some behind-the-scenes moves to elevate me through the Secretary route, who initiated and organised the operation? After further experience of behind-the-scenes processes I wondered if Kenneth Dibden had been encouraged to move elsewhere to make room for me.
Although the Secretary‛s post was better paid than my own that was not a sufficient reason for considering applying for it. The main thing was that I had a reasonably well paid and very interesting job. There were some day-to-day frustrations but there were compensating flexibilities and freedoms. Sheila and I did not make money a major determinant of my career. I had given up a retainer fee with Cambridge Instruments because I did not want to be beholden to the company and likewise I asked that a £500 p.a. consultancy fee from Bibby & Baron of Bury be reduced to £175 p.a. because I wanted to reduce the time travelling 1st Class to Bury for an hour or two‛s conversation with no significant outcome.
THE WINKLING OUT COMMENCES
Soon I.D.A. (Ian) Nicol of the University Appointments Board arrived to take Kenneth Dibden's place. Shortly after his arrival, which was probably early in 1961, we were talking about the difficulty in recruiting graduate staff for the Electronics Section when he said that a man of my calibre should be thinking of a Readership in a College of Advanced Technology. He said I would get such an appointment easily and he mentioned Northampton CAT (College of Advanced Technology), London. From time to time since joining the Cavendish Laboratory I had ignored hints from Industry and particularly from John Hammond of Cambridge Instruments, that a Readership was being proposed for me. I told Ian Nicol that I did not see myself in a normal academic post.
It was a little while after this exchange that Ian Nicol said that he served on an English Electric committee. He went on to say that he thought I was wasting my talent at the Cavendish and asked if I would like him to write to his E.E. friends about me. In fact I was not ready to move at that time - Ian Nicol's predecessor had said earlier that the renewal of my appointment would be automatic and very likely with a more suitable title. I certainly did not rule out the possibility of a major change of post but there was no hurry about it. However, I saw no harm in talking to industrial people so I agreed to Ian Nicol writing the letter.
It must have been in March 1961 that, following Ian Nicol's communication about me with his friends in E.E., I was invited to meet George Bosworth, the Group Director of Personnel, at English Electric House in London. I was with George Bosworth 40 minutes or so. He asked me what type of work would interest me and I replied that I was interested in general management and in formulating policy. It must have been on this occasion that George Bosworth took me to see an empty office containing two large desks and I was told one was used by Eric Eastwood, the Group Director of Research, and the other by my Cavendish colleague, Phillip Bowden.
George Bosworth (who I discovered years later was a Caius man) arranged for me to spend a day at E.E.'s Aircraft Electrical Division at Bradford. This probably took place in April 1961. I was not greatly impressed, except with one man who I think was the Chief Engineer.
The next outcome of my meeting with George Bosworth was an invitation to visit M.I. at St. Albans. The visit took place on or about 5th May 1961 and Ray Burnett offered me on the spot an essentially technical post. On 13th May I wrote declining the offer. On 31st May Ray Burnett wrote explaining the offer in more detail and I replied on 2nd June as before. I was happy to stay put where I was and though I still had not heard anything about renewal of my Cavendish post I was not unduly concerned. Moreover, Nevill Mott had circulated the annual notice on teaching duties which showed that I would be continuing to head the 2nd Year practical class long after my current appointment had expired. I did not spot a highly significant feature of that Notice until too late.
RE-ENTRY OF PERCY DUNSHEATH
It was in late May or early June 1961 that John Hammond, my friend at Cambridge Instruments, approached me on behalf of his Chairman, Percy Dunsheath. His mission was to determine if my wife and I would entertain a prominent Australian politician and his wife, together with Percy Dunsheath and his wife Joyce (a mountaineer), at a Caius College function during May week. All this was to be at Percy Dunsheath's expense. I am not sure now who the politician was but he was at the level of Prime Minister of one of the States.
I agreed to the request. I obtained tickets for a Caius musical event taking place on Sunday 11th June 1961, arranged for drinks to be available in the Junior Parlour, invited the Senior Tutor and his wife to join the party and we all had an enjoyable evening.
It was some time later that I made the probably highly significant discovery that in addition to the Chairs of Cambridge Instruments and the University of London Convocation and as well as being a Past President of the IEE, Percy Dunsheath was a Governor of Northampton CAT - as was M.I.'s Ray Burnett.
CARROTS AND STICKS
I was then subjected to what I realised later were carrots and sticks or, as I came to call them, PEPS & NIPS. For example someone went out of their way to say that when Phillip Bowden had declined a request to be present at a weekend house party of E.E. Directors in Devon, Lord Nelson of Stafford (the 1st) had sent a plane to Cambridge to pick him up. Conversely, after dining in Caius, a Visiting Fellow from West or East Germany pointedly asked me why I bothered to dine in College, adding that it was clear I did not enjoy it. In fact I derived considerable pleasure from my dinners in College and in any case what had the question of my enjoyment or otherwise got to do with him? I have no record of who the man was and unlike other incidents to be described I have had no corroborating experience with him since. Nevertheless it is my strong conviction that his comment was a prearranged discouragement or stick - or in "winkle" terms a painful prod with a pin.
The other like incident occurred in a conversation with Gordon Newstead, a Professor of Electrical Engineering from Australia, who was in England again. We had got to know him on a previous visit through my brother Alan. In the course of lunch in the University Combination Room Gordon Newstead came out with the statement that I ought to join British Industry. He made the point in such an unusual manner, as though he had been waiting to say it all during lunch, that it caused me great concern. I had in fact been receiving and following up invitations to visit a number of electronics companies such as Mullard, AEI, GEC, Elliott Automation and EMI. Generally, I was entertained at the most senior level at each place visited. However, I regarded such visits as part of my Cavendish job.
MANY CONSULTATIONS
I also received visitors from UK Universities, such as Richard M. Sillito, a Lecturer in the Department of Natural Philosophy, University of Edinburgh. It was in early February 1961 that he came to the Laboratory to consult me about something and I took him to lunch in Caius. I cannot now remember the purpose of his visit.
Another incident which gave me much pause for thought started with a letter I received from P.B. (Peter) Fellgett asking my advice on how to deal with an electronics technician who was on the staff of the Observatory at Edinburgh, where Fellgett had gone from Cambridge University. It seemed to me he was expecting too much of the electronics man, who was being treated as a second class citizen. I wrote to Fellgett saying in effect that he should give the man a chance to practice his electronics profession in the Observatory environment. Fellgett called in on me a week or two later and pursued the matter further, then expressed great appreciation of my advice. He then, surprisingly, said that he had kicked up a fuss over delays in hearing about a Civil Service appointment he had applied for and as a result he had been asked to see C.P. Snow himself and state his complaints. His appointment had followed quickly. I wondered if in a roundabout way he was pointing out what he saw as disadvantages of my position at the Cavendish. His intriguing point about C.P. Snow was something else.
Another request for advice came in mid-August 1961 from a Mr. Tim Eiloart of Cambridge Consultants Limited (CCL), who approached me at the Cavendish about a technical problem. He was an Assistant Research Officer (or some such title) in the Department of Experimental Psychology and had set up CCL as a sideline. He worked for Richard Gregory, who was a Lecturer in the Department and also initially a director of CCL. I gave Tim Eiloart an hour of my time and it never occurred to me to ask for reimbursement. Later, another assistant in the same Department, named Saltmarsh, came and asked my advice on behalf of CCL.
Yet another request for advice at this time had something of the nature of an intensive vetting about it. The person who carried it out was a Mr. van Grutten, an Assistant Secretary with the University Appointments Board, who looked after the placement of engineers. Ian Nicol had come from a corresponding position dealing with scientists. Mr. van Grutten called on me at the Cavendish and said he had devised a new sort of burglar alarm. He then proceeded to quiz me for well over an hour in a most searching manner on its principles, its practical realisation, possible competing techniques and many other facets. At the time, I put his unusual persistence down to natural ebullience and self-interest but I am now almost certain he was questioning me on behalf of someone else and that the burglar alarm was incidental.
MORE WINKLING OUT MOVES
It was against this background that one day in mid-1961 Ian Nicol said he had run into someone connected with M.I. and the question had arisen of whether I might be interested in a more responsible post than the one I had discussed with them before and had declined. My situation at the Cavendish was still uncertain as I had not heard anything about my reappointment. Moreover the English Electric and other moves by Ian Nicol suggested that he was not keen to have me around. Under these circumstances I said to Ian Nicol that I could see no harm in negotiating with M.I. again, without any commitment on my part or theirs.
The new contact with M.I. was not direct or straightforward. The next development was that on 2nd August 1961 a Mr. Ahern, in the absence of his boss, George Bosworth, wrote to say that English Electric could not offer me a job at Bradford following my visit there "some time" ago (an offer of a job at Bradford was the last thing I wanted or expected) but that Mr. Burnett of M.I. had in mind a better post at a greater salary than the one he had previously offered me. Mr. Ahern asked me to write letting him know if I was interested.
To cut a long story short, on 16th August 1961 I again visited M.I. at St. Albans, I received an offer of appointment dated 6th September from Bill Brian, M.I.'s Company Secretary, and on 24th September 1961 I wrote accepting the offer.
I then received an extraordinary if bogus apology. Not long after the University knew of my impending departure, Ian Nicol sought me out while I was showing a visitor (a Mr.Chapman of Telequipment) over the practical class. Nicol said he had an apology to make, whereupon I suggested we adjourn to a neighbouring place, which was the Maxwell lecture theatre. There he told me that notification of renewal of my appointment had got lost somewhere and had only just come to light. He said it was his responsibility, he should have chased it earlier. He then said he imagined I was no longer interested ..... I replied that I would have liked to have had the opportunity of continuing in the post and that it had crossed my mind that he had delayed matters deliberately. I then quickly changed the subject and soon afterwards I returned to my visitor.
Although there had been an intimation that I would be
continuing at the Cavendish from the internal notice about the 1961‑62
Practical Classes, which was subsequently published in The
Reporter, it was not until after I had accepted
the M.I. post that I saw from a staff planning paper submitted to the
Management Committee that a new post of Lecturer with responsibility for
Practical Classes was being proposed, for which I was a 'natural'. I had headed one of the
practical classes for three years and was making quite a name for myself
in that field; the other heads were Lecturers (this is the point I had not
spotted when the Notice was circulated) and it is highly likely that the
fair and considerate Nevill Mott would seek to put me on the same
level.
When I attended the Management Committee at which the paper was being considered I watched helplessly as, in passing and with the words "this no longer applies", Nevill Mott crossed the Lecturer i/c Practical Classes off the list of posts. However, the die was cast and I began preparations to join M.I. The key question is whether or not Ian Nicol knew of the Lecturer i/c proposal. To add insult to injury I was approached shortly afterwards with an offer of a Consultancy with Scientific Teaching Apparatus Limited.
There was another interesting development when, on 11th October 1961, Tim Eiloart of CCL sent me a cheque for the hour of consulting time I had given him. This prompted me to consult him about two weeks later on what to charge M.I. for a patent it wished to purchase from me. His advice was too vague to follow but the discussion with him of the basic issues was useful. When by early December 1961 agreement on the patent was reached with M.I. - they purchased it outright for £500 - I sent Tim Eiloart a cheque for £25 for his contribution to my thinking on the transaction.
Before I took up my post at M.I. on 1st January 1962 there were two events which later caused me disquiet. The first was an IEE Banquet held at the Café Royal at which the guest of honour was Shockley, who was then only of transistor fame. Seated at the same small table was an M.I. man named Christopher and his wife. The event took place after I had accepted the M.I. appointment but before any announcement had been made. This meant that either the seating of us together was an extraordinary coincidence or there was a link between M.I. and the IEE in the matter of dining arrangements. I have no doubt now that the latter was the case.
Then, on Christmas Eve 1961, Mr. Chapman of Telequipment, who though he knew I was joining M.I., insisted on travelling from London to my home in Cambridge for the sole purpose of presenting me with a Christmas hamper. It was in front of Mr. Chapman that Ian Nicol had confessed he had an apology to make regarding the delay in renewing my appointment. Four years later I read in a book on Managerial Psychology (supplied by English Electric) about the technique of having a spotter present when ‛firing a shot‛. The relevant passage was:-
First, to communicate is to shoot information and to hit a target with it. Shooting alone is not communicating. Second, to have more than chance probability of hitting a target requires that the sender get feedback from the target about the accuracy of his shots.
If an artilleryman had to fire over a hill at an invisible target, he would have to fire blind and hope that by luck one of his shells would land on the target. But by the simple addition of a spotter standing on the hilltop, the likelihood of accurate shooting can be greatly increased. The spotter can feed back to the gunner information about the effects of the gunner's own shots. The advantage is obvious, and it is precisely the advantage of two way over one way communication the communicator can learn the effects of his attempts to communicate and can adjust his behaviour accordingly.
I had wondered why Ian Nicol had thought it necessary to come to the practical class instead of asking to see me or having a word in the Cavendish tea room. Likewise, I had pondered on why he was about to apologise in front of my visitor. I would hazard a guess that Mr. Chapman, a member of the electronic instrument industry, had been present by prearrangement as a spotter, to provide feedback on how I reacted to Ian Nicol's 'confession'. His insistence on presenting me with a Christmas hamper may well have been an application of another management principle to ‛leave things sweet‛.
Arising out of my Civil Defence appointment I was asked at short notice to give a talk on the H-Bomb to Herts and Essex Police. This took place at Pendley, near Tring on 5th December 1961.
Finally, a day or so before I took up my appointment at M.I. I received a leaflet about a book on what qualities were needed in a Managing Director. I thought it odd at the time but am now certain it was an early example of dropping a hint. In my case, however, it was counterproductive because when I read the book I was much put off by the managerial attitudes espoused therein.
WHO WAS THE INDUSTRIALIST SPOTTER?
Ray Burnett's comment that I had been "spotted by an industrialist on a visit to Cambridge" prompts me to wonder who he was.
In the course of my IEE activities I met many people who could be described as industrialists. The most likely in this category is Sir Gordon Radley, who came to Cambridge to address the IEE Centre or Sub-Centre rather than the Cambridge Group. I remember asking a question of him at the meeting but I cannot recall on which engineering topic he was speaking - it was probably either Subscriber Trunk Dialling or Transatantic Cables (at one time he was Director of Post Office Research).
Percy Dunsheath does not seem likely as my encounters with him in Cambridge were in 1955 and 1961 - however he did write to me at M.I. in September 1964 saying that the 2nd Lord Nelson had suggested he visit the company in connection with a nephew's career choices.
One possibility datewise is Sir Willis (later Lord) Jackson - his visit to Cambridge in April 1960 (reported above) fits quite well. It is interesting to note that he was very helpful to me in 1965 in connection with a Conference on Electronics Design. However, he was not to my knowledge on any of the English Electric company Boards.
Another possibility is that the spotter was C.P. Snow. Ray Burnett would have wryly chosen the term "Industrialist" to describe a distinguished academic and author who had joined the Board of an Industrial company. Was his appearance at the door of the Master's Lodge subsequently described as spotting me on a visit to Cambridge?
On one occasion Professor Nevill Mott asked me to show a party of visitors over the Cavendish Laboratory. I do not remember their names or where they were from. Was the spotter among them?
My considered answer to these questions is that it was George Bosworth (E.E. Group Director of Personnel and a member of Caius College) who spotted me, most probably when attending an IEE event. George Bosworth then brought in Lord C.P. Snow, a Director of English Electric, who asked Nevill Mott to boost me. I think it likely that the encounter with C.P. Snow at the door of the Master's Lodge as I was going in to celebrate my election as a Senior Member of Caius College, was pre-arranged.
I also consider that in August 1961 M.I.'s R.E. Burnett jumped the gun while George Bosworth was on holiday. and that he recruited me to M.I. with entirely different objectives. Whereas GB had in mind my development for a job at Group level, REB saw me as a potential leader of the Instrument Industry. This would explain REB's misleading of GB and his setting up of a barrier to communication between myself and GB.
WHY THE 'BACK TO CAMBRIDGE' CAMPAIGNS?
There is one final issue to explore in order to understand why so much influence and effort was put into getting me back to a job in Cambridge.
The most likely explanation is that by the time I left Cambridge in 1962 I was well-known to a considerable number of senior figures on both the town and the gown side of Cambridge life and to many elsewhere in the Church, Freemasonry, Industry, Education and some branches of Government. Many of them thought a glittering career lay ahead of me, which would include a return or close association with the University of Cambridge at a high level. Most notably, Sir Henry Thirkill indicated a return to high Office in Cambridge when, at my Installation as Master of Alma Mater Lodge in December 1962, as Provincial Grand Master (PGM) he sat next to me at the celebratory dinner. I was very intrigued when Sir Henry expressed regret that I had left Cambridge and then pointedly said that he himself had gone away from Cambridge for some years and when he returned he had only a short spell as Master of a Cambridge Lodge before being appointed PGM. He added that one did not have to practice one's Masonry in Cambridgeshire in order to become its PGM.
There was one highly significant event which threw the English Electric scheme off course, namely the unexpected death of the 1st Lord Nelson of Stafford some six months after I joined the Group. He had been in charge of E.E, while the winkling out process was taking place. He already had two role models to work to, namely Philip Bowden's simultaneous appointments in the University and E.E. and the 2nd Viscount Caldecote's recruitment from a University Lectureship to an E.E. Division Managing Directorship.
On the 1st Lord Nelson's death the English Electric scheme was up for review and it was from this point that some in English Electric signalled a return to Cambridge - while others who were opposed to the 2nd Lord Nelson of Stafford taking over from his father were of the opposite opinion.
A further postulate is that the person (probably a Director in the E.E. empire) who had been given the task of getting me back to Cambridge, claimed to his taskmaster that he had been successful. When, however, I resisted all the pressures to make the move it was expedient for him to give the impression that I had complied. Hence, as will be described, the misleading announcements and false Board Minutes produced by CCL, which were no doubt cited as evidence. This was not something his taskmaster would seek to verify from other sources. Poor communication is an essential weapon in a manipulator's armoury - hence my determination to close the communication gap.
7a