Transcription corrected from OCR by Claude (Sonnet 4.6), 8 June 2026. Footnote numbers have been standardised to arabic numerals in square brackets. Page numbers from the original are given in square brackets at the start of each page's content, e.g. [p.1]. Illegible or uncertain readings are marked [?].
J. C. Buckmaster's life spanned the greater part of the 19th Century. He was involved in the radical reform movements of the first half of the Century: in the Last Labourers' Revolt; in the Methodist revival; in Chartism and in the Anti-Corn Law League.
His radical consciousness underpinned his career in education which should, therefore, be considered in the context of the 19th Century Radical tradition in education. His major contribution to educational advance in his time was to help bring science to the people, a contribution which has not, so far, been examined in any depth or coherence. It is the purpose of this study to give an account of Buckmaster's educational work, particularly in the area of science education, within a biographical framework.
The major primary source for this study is John Charles Buckmaster's autobiography — written in 1897. A Village Politician is an authentic social document, even though some parts of it may read like a remnant [1], and is of particular value in providing a case study of the development of one man's Radical consciousness and in suggesting some answers to the questions of how and why working men sought to educate themselves. [2] But as source material for a detailed study the work is unreliable and inadequate. The changes made in personal names, understandable in the light of Buckmaster's occasionally libellous attacks on individuals, and in place names, the almost complete absence of dates and the highly emotive literary style have presented many problems of verification.
The Autobiography ends in 1859 with Buckmaster's appointment as Organising Master to the Science and Art Department. He never wrote its sequel; indeed, his penchant for plain speaking would have proved highly dangerous had he done so since many of the people with whom he had worked at South Kensington and met on his lecture tours were still alive. Although he makes one reference to his Diaries [3], these are not extant and only a few letters relating to his professional career and to his involvement in local affairs in Battersea, and later Teddington, [4] have survived. The primary source material for the period of
Footnotes
Buckmaster's life from 1859 to 1908 is restricted mainly to his own publications [1], his statements to the Samuelson Committee and to the Cross Commission, press reports on his activities, and to the printed and manuscript documents relating to the activities of the Department of Science and Art.
Footnotes
John Charles Buckmaster was born in February, 1819, the year of Peterloo and of the Six Acts, the nadir of English political liberty in the 19th Century. But at Slapton, Buckinghamshire, the place of his birth, the political reverberations were scarcely felt. Slapton in the early years of the Century was a small, secluded village in a valley of the Chiltern Hills, 2 miles south of Leighton Buzzard. It consisted of one street, lined with crumbling two-roomed cottages, with a stagnant pond in the centre. [1] It was a farming community where for over 300 years the Buckmasters had worked the heavy clay soil and had acquired the independent status of yeomen farmers. Family tradition has it that they were gentlemen farmers and could lay claim to a coat of arms granted to an ancestor in the 16th or 17th Century living in the neighbourhood of Peterborough. But when John Charles' son, Stanley, applied to the College of Arms for family bearings this claim could not be substantiated and the Buckmaster coat of arms as it exists today has no antecedents before 1915. Towards the end of the 18th Century the family fortunes began to run down. John's grandfather, Christopher Buckmaster, was unable to cope with new pressures: the enclosure movement and the absorption of small farms into large estates and the need for small farmers who wished to succeed to apply business methods to farming. He began selling off portions of the family property and John's father, Thomas Buckmaster, drank away what remained of his heritage so that by 1819 the Buckmasters were only little better off than the agricultural labourers and had lost the independent status of the yeoman farmer.
But the circumstances of John's birth make it doubtful whether he would have been legally entitled to any Buckmaster property. The
Footnotes
possibility that he was illegitimate arises out of the lack of any hard evidence concerning the date of his birth. His mother was Phoebe Price, descended from two well respected local families of yeoman stock, the Prices and the Fontaines. The Prices were Dissenters and Phoebe may have been a Quaker. [1] The Slapton Parish Register gives the date of Phoebe's marriage to Thomas Buckmaster as 17th October, 1824 and defines their respective status as spinster and bachelor, thus precluding the possibility of an earlier Dissenter marriage having taken place before the Church of England ceremony. There is no record in the Parish Register of the baptism of either John or his younger brother, Richard, but in a family Prayer Book [2] belonging to the Price family the "children of Thomas and Phoebe Buckmaster" are given as John Buckmaster, born 24th February, 1823, and Richard Buckmaster, born 12th August, 1824. If these dates are accepted then it is apparent that both children were born out of wedlock. The entry in Burke's Peerage, s.v. Buckmaster, gives the date of John's birth as 23rd February, 1823 and would appear to tally with the Price family Prayer Book. But there are a number of sources which suggest that John Charles was born in 1819, not 1823. First, his own statement that his mother died in November, 1822, when he was aged two. [3] Secondly, the lengthy obituary notice in the Surrey Comet states that "Deceased was born on 22nd February, 1819", [4] and thirdly, the Battersea Club Year Book, printed for the alumni of St. John's
Footnotes
Training College, Battersea, where Buckmaster was a student in the early 1840s, refers to his death in 1908 at the age of 89. [1] It is, therefore, essential to question the reliability of those sources which present contradictory evidence; entries in family Prayer Books are often made retrospectively and on hearsay and cannot, therefore, be considered entirely reliable, and Burke's Peerage was unable, on request, to substantiate their statement since most of their original records have been destroyed.
The conclusion that John Charles Buckmaster was born in 1819, and not 1823, does not remove the taint of illegitimacy even though the accuracy of the date of his parents' marriage as given in the Slapton Parish Register has been called into question. No final answer, however, to the problem of whether or not he was born illegitimate can be given. It is only possible to infer from his own behaviour, and that of other members of his immediate family, that Thomas Buckmaster and Phoebe Price were unmarried when both their sons were born. When Phoebe died Thomas made no attempt to care for the two children; they were handed over to their grandmother, Susannah Price, née Fontaine. By the time John Charles was ten years old, and working as a farm labourer in Slapton, so little did he know of his father, then living a few miles away at Totternhoe, "that had I met him in the street I should not have recognised him." [2] Even allowing for early 19th Century norms of paternal care and affection and taking into account Thomas Buckmaster's drunken habits, this was surely an atypical father/son relationship. Richard, the younger son, totally identified himself with his mother's family to the extent that when he emigrated to Iowa, U.S.A., in 1842, he made his way in America
Footnotes
under the name of Price. It is clear from an extant letter, dated 23rd February, 1883, and addressed to his brother John, but never posted, that even at the end of his life he still harboured a deep resentment against his father. He writes: "John, all that there is of you that has made you eminent (aside from your own indefatigableness) comes from your Mother's family. I do not by this wish to convey the idea that I would cast any reflection on Father's side. The Price family, yes and the Fountain (sic) family (our Grandmother's maiden name) were families of brains. I am probably a Buckmaster to all extents and purposes, and lack genius and ability. I am willing to be a Buckmaster, only call me Price. It is 41 years ago this month since I saw you last, and this brings me to a close." [1] The meaning behind the passage is ambiguous. Is Richard Price doubting his Buckmaster blood, or is he explaining away his own failings because his father was a Buckmaster? But in fact Richard became successful by American standards: he founded a legal firm in Clinton, Iowa, which in his son's time was transferred to headquarters in Times Square Building, New York, and he eventually became a small town Mayor. Although the letter written in 1883 was never posted it is known that in his lifetime Richard Price sent many letters to his mother which were never answered. It would seem that John wished to sever all connections with his relations. Once he left Slapton at the age of 13 to become a carpenter's apprentice in Uxbridge, he made no attempt to keep in touch with either his father or the Price family and did not return to the village until fifty years later. [2]
John Buckmaster makes no reference in his writings to the possibly illicit
Footnotes
circumstances of his birth, understandably enough given the moral climate of 19th Century England. But he held strong views on the double standards which governed the Victorians' attitude to sexual misconduct. "The condemnation falls on the woman as if she alone were the guilty party. It may be very well for old women who never felt the passion of love, who were never young, to lift up their pious hands and condemn the feebleness which yields to the most powerful temptations of human nature and which, at times, some appear helpless to resist. We know nothing of the circumstances or surroundings which helped to bring the downfall of these women who ought to be the objects of sorrow before we pass sentence on their sin... The sin is not against nature but against society which is wantonly cruel to the woman." [1] And society should not only treat the unmarried mothers more humanely but should also consider the fate of their bastards. "How could these children help their birth? Yet through life they must carry with them the mark of Cain." [2] Was this a cry from the heart of a fellow sufferer or the impassioned oratory of a humane man? Perhaps we should leave the last word with John's son, George Alfred Buckmaster, Professor of Physiology at Bristol University, 1919–1930. Writing to his younger brother, Martin Buckmaster in June, 1933, he says: "I have come to the conclusion that father was illegitimate. Much is, therefore, explicable. Women played little part in his talk, never do I remember a risky story or allusion. At the back of his head was this taboo. Seduction and drunkenness, which are the normal events of the lives of many, he not only disapproved of but was possessed with an
Footnotes
intense hate for such common sins." As George Buckmaster wryly observed: "It is an amazing story to learn at 75." [1]
What is extraordinary about John Charles Buckmaster's life is that his illegitimate birth, if this is indeed the case, was only one of several childhood traumas which he appears to have survived without permanent damage to his personality. To be left motherless at the age of two is distressing enough. But to grow up with the idea that Phoebe may have been buried alive must have added a nightmarish quality to the child's memory of his mother. John Buckmaster makes no reference to this hideous possibility but in the letter written by Richard Price in 1883 we read: "How often I heard Grandmother say, 'I am afraid your mother was not dead when they took her to the grave, they hurried her away.'" [2] Phoebe died of smallpox and it was the custom in the early 19th Century to bury victims of the disease at night and as quickly as possible because of the danger of contagion.
John lived with his maternal grandmother until he was seven. She taught him to read at an early age through the medium of simple religious texts and hymns and brought him up in the Quaker way of life. [3] But by the time he was seven his grandmother became crippled with arthritis and was unable to care for him any longer. He was sent away to an uncle living in Uxbridge where "the misery and wretchedness of life now began." [4]
John's experience of his uncle's house were almost Dickensian; he was
Footnotes
treated as a household drudge, starved, inadequately clothed and flogged with a heavy dog whip for no apparent reason. His only refuge was the local British and Foreign Society Elementary School, fees 1d. a week, and Sunday School which kept him occupied from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays. Enough is known about the physical and psychological cruelty inflicted upon young children in the 19th Century, frequently for their own good, to give credibility to John Buckmaster's story. One incident which he describes is particularly horrifying and, seen in connection with his mother's possible fate, must have been a terrifying experience for a small boy. Tied up with a sash cord to a bedpost as punishment for an offence he had not committed, he freed himself and since he was locked into the bedroom with nothing to do he began rummaging in the drawers and cupboards. He found a full bottle from which he drank but his uncle caught him in the act and informed him it was deadly poison. The "coffin man" (sic) was called in and the child was measured for a coffin — 3 ft. 4 in. by 1 ft. 2 in. across the shoulders, 9 in. deep, made of three-quarter elm — which would be delivered the following morning by which time, so his uncle told him, he would be dead. The boy endured a night of mental torture and when he woke in the morning did not know whether he was dead or alive. But his uncle and aunt soon enlightened him: "they laughed at my sufferings and said, jeeringly, that the bottle contained nothing but dill water, and they had said it was poison in order to frighten me and make me a good boy." [1]
After three years Buckmaster's sufferings at Uxbridge came to an end with his return to Slapton, but he soon realised that he "had exchanged one kind of wretchedness for the prospect of another." [2]
Footnotes
At the age of ten, with three years' elementary schooling behind him, Buckmaster was now considered old enough to earn his own living and he was put to work as a farm labourer.
Hobsbawm considers the history of the English farm labourers between the Industrial Revolution and the middle of the 19th Century to be the most tragic of all classes of English society. [1] By far the largest single occupational group, [2] the agricultural workers had for decades accepted their worsening standards of living. But in the 1820s the unprecedented agricultural boom which followed the ending of the French Wars broke down the traditional hierarchical and paternalist structure of rural society and exposed the farming community to the merciless forces of a raw capitalist economy. Deprived of their common land by enclosure, exploited by farmers on the make, forced to pay tithes to a degenerate Anglican Church and immobilised by the nature of agricultural work and by their own ignorance, the labourers found little relief in Speenhamland and in the end were driven to revolt. The Riots of the winter of 1830–1831, sadly the Last Labourers' Revolt, achieved little and were brutally repressed. But the rick burning, machine breaking and rioting which occurred spontaneously in the agricultural counties were proofs of the degree of desperation felt by the agricultural labourer at that time.
Buckmaster's experience of agricultural work relates to the years 1829–1832 and his account is, therefore, of particular interest. It documents the miserable living and working conditions of the agricultural poor, the parts played by the Church of England and Methodism in village life and the relationship between Methodism and revolutionary activity.
Footnotes
In Slapton the average weekly wage was 9/- or 10/- a week when bread cost 1/- a loaf and the rent for the picturesque but squalid tied cottages was 2/- a week. [1] At hay time and harvest time, seven weeks of the year, the labourers were fed by the farmer but the few shillings saved in this period were spent in paying off debts or in buying smocks, gaiters and boots. There was little security of employment. Buckmaster describes the annual Autumn hiring which took place in the local market town when the farm workers filled the market place "some with whipcords in their hats to show they were horse keepers, others with wool to show they were shepherds and others with cow hair to show they were cowmen." [2] As a pauper child and unskilled, Buckmaster came into the category of casual labour, "going the rounds" of every farm in the Parish, working for periods varying from three weeks to two days. When he was fortunate enough to find a permanent place as a ploughboy his wages were fixed at 2/- a week. [3]
The life of the village labourer was hard and monotonous. The only diversions from a life of back-breaking toil were the annual village festival, highlighted by the traditional fisticuffs with members of a neighbouring village, the harvest home held by each farm for its workers and the delights of nature. There was no school in the Parish and the educational standards of the villagers were abysmally low, [4] although the curate held occasional evening classes for boys who wished to learn to read and write. But the Anglican Church did little to
Footnotes
rouse the villagers from their torpor of ignorance and apathy. Indeed, the curate was hated and despised because he was the recipient of the Church rates, and because he was known to lead an easy life, conducting services only intermittently since so few people attended them and holding "a good house and garden and twelve acres of glebe." [1] And it was rumoured in the village that the buttons on his coat were "made of gold taken from Parish charities and the sale of goods taken from tithes and Church rates." [2] To his credit the curate befriended Buckmaster, appointed him sexton and gave him individual lessons, since after three years in elementary school he was educationally more advanced than the other village boys. Buckmaster was appreciative of his efforts:— "I shall always feel grateful for his evening school in the tower of the old church, where I first learned that the earth was like an orange and moved round the sun, and luna was Latin for moon." [3]
But the villagers of Slapton almost unanimously rejected what little the Anglican Church had to offer. They turned instead to Methodism and gave an enthusiastic welcome to the Methodist preachers, who, it was rumoured, were first brought into the village by the Churchwarden as part of a personal vendetta against the curate. [4] Buckmaster claims that 75% of the village population became converted to Methodism, the remaining 25% believing in nothing at all. [5] This is an astonishingly high figure if compared with the overall figures
Footnotes
for the County [1] only a few years earlier. And Wearmouth makes the point that "as late as 1830 many of the agricultural areas could be correctly described as a Methodist wilderness." [2] It would appear then that the influence of Methodism in Slapton was unusually strong.
Why was this so? One reason undoubtedly lay in the inertia of the Church of England. Buckmaster suggests that Methodism filled the void that had existed in the villagers' religious life since the Restoration [3] and that the weekly prayer meeting and hymn singing relieved the crushing boredom of the agricultural labourers' everyday existence. He admits that to "pass away the evening" he occasionally went to Methodist meetings where he observed the intense emotionalism that seemed to arise spontaneously out of a Methodist service. He found "the ranting and groaning and the confessions of some of the converted were frightful" and he could not share in what he considered to be a somewhat familiar form of communication with Jesus Christ. But he accepted that "it had its good side as well as its grotesque side" and that "as far as it went it was a civilising and humanising influence." [4]
Buckmaster saw the Methodist revival as a purely religious phenomenon without any political implications. Nevertheless a political dimension was added to the naive religious beliefs of the Slapton Methodists by the influence of the village shoemaker. He was the most literate member of the Methodist community, had "gone deeper into Arminianism and politics
Footnotes
than any of his fellows," [1] and shared in the radical tradition that had distinguished shoemakers since the founding of the London Corresponding Society by Thomas Hardy, shoemaker, in 1792. The village shoemaker earned good money from his trade (his boots were known to be the best in the county), and he was more independent than either the local farmers or the labourers. His universe went beyond the parish, unlike that of the village labourers, whose horizons were bounded by the market town 12 miles distant, and he kept in touch with informed Radical opinion. It was in his house that the weekly Methodist class meetings and prayer meetings were held, since there was as yet no chapel in the village, and in his house that the Methodist journals and tracts, which he had sent for, could be discussed. And because the villagers were mostly illiterate they accepted in good faith what the shoemaker chose to read to them.
From the villagers' point of view his most important attribute as leader of the local Methodists was his "deep religious conviction." [2] They had little sympathy for his political views and were fearful that his inflammatory political speeches, touching on every working class grievance, [3] would antagonise the local landowner who effectively controlled the lives of his tenant farmers and their employees. So when the shoemaker was evicted from the house where his family had lived for generations on the grounds of fomenting political unrest in the Parish there was little protest. The main concern of the converted was that the shoemaker's house, previously used as the venue for the weekly prayer and class meetings, was no longer available for this purpose. [4] It is possible that Slapton found a form of blood-letting
Footnotes
which reduced the need for overt political action; Buckmaster implies that contemporaneous with the religious revival, thirty-three men, women and children emigrated to Iowa, U.S.A. This exodus set the pattern for small scale emigration over the next few years, [1] which claimed Buckmaster's younger brother, Richard, in 1842.
Whether a causal connection between Methodism and Radical political activity can be established is controversial and it would be inappropriate to draw any general conclusion from Buckmaster's account of the political and religious happenings in Slapton. It is only possible to suggest that in this particular instance political activity did not accompany the intense religious excitement that was felt in Slapton in the years 1829–1832. Buckmaster indicates that the Methodist revival in the village coincided with an increased frequency of "incendiary fires" [2] in the district. Incendiarism was a feature of the Swing riots but the nearest place to Slapton where rick burning occurred was at Fenny Stratford, [3] some five miles away. There is no record of a disturbance of any kind taking place at Slapton. Buckinghamshire was not one of the counties seriously affected by the Swing Riots and the only major outbreak occurred at High Wycombe. Buckmaster records that from the population of Slapton the only people to be involved in the incident were himself, the shoemaker and "two or three others." [4]
To what extent was Buckmaster involved in the religious and political tensions of the village? It seems remarkable that a boy of less than thirteen years of age should have the tact and discretion to be on friendly terms with both the curate and the shoemaker, [5] two men
Footnotes
who loathed each other for personal and doctrinal reasons and were not even on speaking terms. His ability to profit from what both men had to offer without becoming committed to either is perhaps an indication of the precocious maturity which his experience of life so far had forced upon him. It was the shoemaker who provided Buckmaster with his first taste of mob politics. He took him to a large political meeting "held on the Downs about 10 miles distant" which was attended by thousands of people. This was possibly the Swing riot at High Wycombe on 29th November, 1830, the only occasion when the Bucks Yeomanry were called out to quell the disturbance. Buckmaster found it a frightening and confusing experience. He "had no idea there were so many people in the world," [1] he found the arguments and political language in which they were expressed incomprehensible, and on the appearance of the mounted Yeomanry from the woods fringing the Downs [2] he fled from the scene. The fear which Buckmaster felt on this occasion may well have shaped his future political career by instilling in him a profound distrust of demagogy and political violence.
Buckmaster's three years' stint on the land left a deep and lasting impression. Much of his educational work in the 1880s was given up to the campaign to introduce the elementary principles of "Scientific Agriculture" into the curriculum of rural elementary schools in an attempt to open up the myopic vision of the farm labourer:— "I had more particularly in mind the infinite variety of life by which the child of an agricultural labourer is surrounded from his birth to his death, of which he knows nothing, in which he has not the smallest interest; and which he has never been taught to see or understand. He knows nothing
Footnotes
of the world in which God has placed him." [1] The limited and unchanging nature of the labourer's life, coupled with the belief that "to rip and sow and plough and mow" and be a "farmer's boy" [2] was the sum total of agricultural practice, convinced Buckmaster, by the age of thirteen, that he knew as much about farming as he ever would, [3] and he viewed the prospect of becoming a journeyman farmer with some despondency. [4] He had struggled to improve himself, he had acquired from the curate the rudiments of a liberal education and from the shoemaker an insight into the workings of political radicalism and religious revivalism. But if he had spent the rest of his life as a farm worker in Slapton it is possible that he would have developed no further. As E. P. Thompson points out:— "Illiteracy, exhaustion, the emigration from the village of the ambitious, sharp-witted and the young, the shadow of the squire and parson, the savage punishment of enclosure or bread rioters and of poachers — all combined to induce fatalism and to inhibit the articulation of grievances." [5] John's future was decided for him by his father. Without consulting his son, whom he had virtually abandoned at the age of two, Thomas Buckmaster, for reasons we can only guess at, sent him away from Slapton to be apprenticed to a carpenter and joiner at Uxbridge. So at the age of thirteen John Charles left his native village, to exchange the olive green smock of the farm labourer for the flannel jacket, white apron and paper cap of the apprentice craftsman. [6]
Footnotes
Buckmaster entered a trade which was still, in the 1830s, highly respected and relatively well paid and whose master artisans looked upon themselves as members of a "labour aristocracy." [1] Although the apprenticeship clauses of the Elizabethan Statute of Artificers (5 Eliz. C.4) had been repealed in 1814 the custom of apprenticeships in certain trades took a long time to die out and in the quality carpenters' and joiners' trade the seven year apprenticeship was still operative. In the years after 1814 the trade had closed its doors against the mass of unapprenticed and unskilled labour clamouring for work in the early 19th Century and in 1827 had formed a General Union of Carpenters and Joiners in an attempt to maintain standards of craftsmanship and to protect the interests of masters and journeymen. But as in many other trades the pressure of unskilled labour, the erosion of apprenticeship and the gradual displacement of small independent masters by large "manufactories" and middlemen, had swelled the numbers in the unorganised, "dishonourable" part of the trade outside the Union closed shops. Unemployed carpenters who did not own their own tools or could not afford the materials to set up on their own as "garret masters" were "reduced to strapping shops where a sickening pace of gimcrack work was kept up under the foreman's patrol and where each man who fell behind was sacked." [2]
Buckmaster found himself placed with an independent master in the "honourable" part of the trade who employed "twenty to thirty carpenters besides bricklayers, painters, sawyers, and lath renders." [3] To his relief he did not have to work for his uncle, the cause of his childhood
Footnotes
unhappiness, who was foreman for a large building firm, although he lodged in his house. The carpentry trade was considerably more demanding and more varied than working on the land. For the first few months until he was apprenticed Buckmaster worked as an unbound labourer earning 7/6d. a week for a 10–12 hour day in a six day week. His tasks were manifold: "Making the glue hot, cooking herrings and bacon, fetching beer and water, sweeping up the shavings, chopping wood, and waiting on the men occupied nearly the whole of my time." [1] In addition he had to "count all the nails and screws, and measure and keep account of everything sent out of the yard." [2] In this way he learnt the different nails, screws, hinges, locks and bolts. And through the necessity of having to learn to write correctly architectural terms like "scaffold," "architrave" and "brestsummer" (sic), and to learn how to calculate the hours put in by the men, he extended his writing and numbering skills, a method of self education that was not unusual among the artisan class. Early on he grasped the meaning of the basic educational principle of "learning by doing":— "A short time in contact with these things (i.e. the tools of the trade) is a far easier way of learning them than any verbal description or even drawing." [3] Fifty years later, giving evidence to the Cross Commission, Buckmaster re-affirmed this belief. He referred back to the time when he was a carpenter's apprentice to prove his point that "trade and handicrafts which depend on tools can never be properly taught either in schools or night classes. The place to learn a trade is a shop." [4]
Footnotes
The time came for Buckmaster to be formally apprenticed. There were some months' delay in making the final arrangements since the premium required was £50, a sum of money which Thomas Buckmaster, understandably enough, had some difficulty in raising. [1] Although apprenticeship was no longer compulsory by law, nevertheless in those trades which still retained the practice the signing of the indenture amounted to a legal covenant which could only be broken with the joint agreement of the contracting parties. The terms of Buckmaster's indenture, which he quotes in full in his Autobiography, indicate the extraordinarily restrictive nature of the agreement. "This indenture witnesseth John Buckley, [2] of Claywick, [3] son of Thomas Buckley of Claywick, who of his own free will and accord and with the consent and approbation of his father, doth put himself apprentice to Joseph Shapward of Oxenbridge, [4] to learn the art, trade or business of a carpenter and joiner from the 1st of December, 1833, to the 1st of December, 1840. During his apprenticeship the said John Buckley shall go regularly to church, shall faithfully serve his master and keep all secrets, gladly do his lawful demands, shall not commit fornication nor contract matrimony within the said term of seven years, and shall not play at cards, dice, tables or any other game of chance; he shall neither buy nor sell, he shall not haunt taverns nor play horses, keep bad company, nor absent himself from his said master's service day or night, and the said Joseph Shapward, in consideration of the sum of fifty pounds, doth covenant to teach his apprentice the art, trade or business of a carpenter and joiner,
Footnotes
finding the said apprentice sufficient meat, drink and lodging, and for the due performance of every and all the said covenants and agreements, the said parties hereby bind themselves." [1] Buckmaster was more fortunate than many. He was legally apprenticed to a respectable trade and after seven years, as a journeyman, he could look forward to earning 21/- a week. [2] He enjoyed working with his hands and he could afford a second hand chest of tools, purchased with part of his £10 legacy from his grandmother, which gave him a degree of status among his fellows:— "As a man without a good chest of tools was regarded as an inferior workman, perhaps fond of drink, the first desire of an apprentice is for a good chest of tools and to take a pride in keeping them in first rate condition." [3] But his "gloomy forebodings" [4] of the future were soon realised and he discovered what he had suspected, that his uncle and his master were hand in glove in a scheme to exploit him once the indenture was signed and sealed. Although he should have drawn 7/6d. a week in wages he was informed that his wages would always be paid to his uncle for board and lodging according to the apprenticeship agreement. Buckmaster was reduced to selling sacks of shavings, one of the few perquisites of the apprentice, and this brought in 5d. a week. [5] Even though he was now apprenticed he was still given the most menial jobs to do and little attempt was made by the other men in the shop to help him acquire technical skills. Buckmaster had grown into something of a young prig and he found the atmosphere of the workshop uncongenial;
Footnotes
"The other men were often coarse and brutal, both in language and behaviour. My soul quietly rebelled, I hated nothing so much as filthy stories but every boy must hear them." [1]
Whatever the hardships and disappointments of his new life, they did not deter Buckmaster from his chosen path of moral and intellectual self improvement. As an apprentice carpenter he was accepted into the artisan class, an important stratum of 19th Century society which produced the men "of skill, expertise, independence and education," who were "the natural leaders of ideology and organisation among the labouring poor." [2] The ideology which appealed most strongly to Buckmaster throughout his life was that of the temperance movement and as a youth in Uxbridge he threw himself fervently into the anti-drink campaign which became the "fanatical idea" of his life. Buckmaster's passionate loathing of drink, which he considered to be "the upas tree" of Western civilisation, may have sprung from the shame of knowing that his own father was a drunkard. But in the 1830s and 1840s many working class and artisan Radicals, especially those with Non-Conformist connections, identified themselves with the cause for reasons similar to those given by Buckmaster; viz:— "that all efforts to improve the social life of the working classes were hopeless except through teetotalism." [3] It is difficult from the vantage point of the 1970s to appreciate the enormous hold that drink had over the every day lives of working people in the first half of the 19th Century and indeed later. Until the sanitary and water supply improvements of the 1850s alcoholic drinks were of necessity thirst quenchers and
Footnotes
their alcoholic content was far higher than today. [1] Public houses and other drinking establishments were at the hub of most recreational activities and of economic functions like fairs, wakes and statute hirings. Drunkenness and violence formed part of the normal pattern of working class life; on the other hand the middle class had, by the 1830s, identified itself with sobriety and respectability.
It was to counteract the evil consequences of drink that the first national temperance organisation, the British and Foreign Temperance Society, was founded in London in 1831. Many working men joined the crusade and stumped the countryside giving lectures and holding meetings; for example, Thomas Whittaker, a cotton operative from Preston, John Hockings, "the teetotal blacksmith," and John Cassell, carpenter, both from Birmingham, became well known temperance lecturers. Buckmaster attended some of their lectures [2] and devoured the temperance literature [3] which began to be published in increasing quantities. In Uxbridge he and twelve other young men, mostly Methodists, formed themselves into a band of temperance pioneers. They "visited neighbouring villages, sang temperance hymns, held meetings in cottages, barns and schoolrooms" [4] and occasionally "reclaimed a drunkard if he were not the son of drunken parents." [5] His work for the temperance movement gave Buckmaster a moral purpose in life; perhaps more important it made him aware of the power of oratory and of his own talent for public speaking. "Whatever little
Footnotes
success I may have achieved in after years as a public speaker or lecturer is due to these meetings." [1]
His involvement with the Cause brought him into contact with a local group of Quakers whose religious views embraced teetotalism. Most Quakers in England in the early 19th Century were fairly prosperous, well educated and belonged to the middle class. The family in Uxbridge who befriended Buckmaster was no exception. He was tempted to become a Friend and attended Meetings, although this was forbidden by the terms of his indenture. But his reasons were personal rather than spiritual. His relationship with the daughter of the family, "a young Quakeress of about seventeen," [2] is the only indication we have that Buckmaster ever entertained any romantic thoughts towards a woman; he did not, apparently, feel comparable emotions for his wife. [3] But although his plans for marriage came to nothing his initiation into the middle class world of intelligent conversation had proved a novel and stimulating experience. Buckmaster was painfully aware of his own lack of education and the absence of any adult educational provision in Uxbridge. When a group of "leading artisans" in the town came together to found a Mechanics' Institute, Buckmaster gave the scheme enthusiastic support. [4] A room was hired in the market place three evenings a week and the "mechanics, shopkeepers and innkeepers" met there to read the books, newspapers and magazines [5] that were subscribed to and to hear occasional scientific and literary lectures given by itinerant lecturers. But the middle class, whom Buckmaster
Footnotes
calls "the genteel people," withheld their support and started up a rival literary and scientific institution. [1] This was an atypical move, since it has been argued that the tendency in the late 1820s and 1830s was for the middle classes to assume control of the Mechanics' Institutes and direct the interests of the working men away from Jacobinism and into the calmer waters of orthodox political economy. Thus, freed from their moderating influence the Mechanics' Institute in Uxbridge abandoned its educational function and degenerated into a revolutionary club: "the most inflammatory and seditious things were read and discussed and most of the men took an oath and swore if there was a general rising they were to march at once on the local banks." [2] The allusion to "a general rising" gives the lie to Buckmaster's chronological accuracy at this juncture. He implies that the political troubles associated with the Mechanics' Institute occurred at a point in time when he had served three years of his apprenticeship, that is, December, 1838. But he makes it clear [3] that the political troubles to which he refers are those of 1831–1832, caused by the protracted struggle over the Reform Bill. It is nevertheless true to say that in the 1830s some Mechanics' Institutes were seen by contemporaries to be failing to meet the educational demands of working men, [4] many of whom turned to Chartism, to the Co-operative movement or to Owenite Socialism
Footnotes
to find alternative ways of furthering their education. Buckmaster's frustrated educational aspirations were symptomatic of the disorganised and inadequate pattern of adult education that existed in the 1830s and 1840s; facilities did exist [1] but they were very unevenly distributed. Some of the 19th Century autobiographies of working men like Cooper and Holyoake reveal the extraordinary lengths to which some artisans and labourers went in their quest for education. [2]
After three years of apprenticeship Buckmaster's life appeared to be at an impasse. At the age of 17 he was still earning only 10/- a week for a 15 hour day in the summertime, and on account of his unpopularity in the workshop he was "put to the dirtiest and most unpleasant work fit only for a labourer." [3] But through his own efforts he had acquired many of the skills of the trade and had developed an inventive flair. Compared to the U.S.A. the woodworking industry in England was technologically backward in the first half of the 19th Century. The abundance of labour blunted the incentive to invent labour saving devices [4] and any departure from the time-honoured practices of the carpenters' trade was looked upon with suspicion, as Buckmaster found out to his cost. Put to work to do all the mortising for a heavy panelling job he was unable, after a few days, to sit down and hit on the idea of making a machine that could be worked standing. "I mortised the handle of a chisel into a lever, which worked like the handle of a pump," a principle which was later adapted, so Buckmaster claims, by
Footnotes
makers of mortising machines. [1] But the fury which Buckmaster's unasked-for ingenuity aroused in his employer led to an irreparable breach between master and apprentice. With few thoughts of the consequences Buckmaster decided to break the terms of his apprenticeship and leave both the workshop and the town. But his first attempt at escape proved a failure. He walked to London hoping to be taken on as a carpenter with the "Niger Expedition" but arrived at the docks to find that the expedition had already departed for Africa. [2] For some weeks he found work as a casual labourer but the law, in the shape of the Uxbridge Parish Constable, finally caught up with him. He was arrested and held in the town gaol for a night, an unpleasant experience which first brought him into contact with the criminal underworld. He shared his cell with two men arrested for highway robbery. Their language was "dreadful" and in the course of the night they were visited by two women with a tin teapot full of hot gin and water. The spout was put through the grating of the door to the cell and the highwaymen drank from it until "they fell helplessly drunk on the floor and went to sleep." [3] The next morning he faced the local magistrates' bench, to answer to the charge of "absenting himself without lawful excuse and damaging the property of his master." [4] Ironically enough, many years later, Buckmaster sat on this same bench, the Spelthorne Bench, as a magistrate. [5]
Although Buckmaster was discharged without sentence and allowed to resume his apprenticeship he found the return to his former existence an intolerable strain. And although he knew that a repetition of his
Footnotes
offence would mean conviction and a prison sentence, he resolved to make a second attempt at escape as soon as possible. He made careful preparations; saved as much money as he could from the sale of shavings and at the Mechanics' Institute planned his escape route with the help of a map of England and a gazetteer. His most intelligent move was to become a member of the Independent Order of the Rechabites. This temperance Friendly Society had been founded in 1835 in Salford and although its main strength was in the North of England it had, by 1837, organised a network of Tents (i.e. Lodges) in the South as well. In order to qualify for membership a person had to be "of good moral character, free from lameness or disorder, of any religious persuasion and shall be a member of the Temperance Society having signed the Pledge." [1] Buckmaster satisfied all these criteria. He was accepted into the Order and issued with the membership card and password which entitled him to hospitality and financial assistance at any one of the Rechabite Tents throughout the country. The Friendly Societies have been described as "the pioneers of the self-help movement among working men in the years 1815–1875." [2] For those working men who were constrained by the dislocation of labour to move about the countryside looking for work they provided a vital lifeline. The practice of "tramping" was widespread and was generally regarded as the working man's equivalent of the Grand Tour, [3] and was supported by an elaborate system of card holding and financial assistance organised by the Unions. But Union membership was restricted to artisans who could produce authentication of a term of apprenticeship and Buckmaster, having broken his indenture, was of course unable to qualify.
Buckmaster took to the road in the Spring of 1837. He had planned to
Footnotes
put at least a hundred miles between Uxbridge and his destination, wherever it might be, although in his whole life he had never travelled further than 30 miles from the Chilterns. He made Dorchester his goal, sent on his basket of tools in the West Country waggon to the staging point at Andover [1] and arranged for a brother Rechabite who lived there to collect them. A remarkably simple procedure for starting a new life. He walked the 50 or so miles to Andover in two days and stayed in the town for some weeks. But despite the ready availability of well paid work and the offer of money by a local temperance leader if he would stay on and speak at temperance meetings, Buckmaster still felt in fear of arrest and moved on to Salisbury. [2] The Autumn of 1837 saw the beginning of a five year cyclical trade depression, which ushered in a period of rising unemployment and Chartist agitation. [3] Buckmaster was in sympathy with the constitutional objectives of the Charter, which he refers to as the Five Points, [4] on the grounds that they were "just and reasonable." In the early days of the movement, which he describes as a time of "great political excitement," [5] he went to several of their meetings and heard Fergus O'Connor, Dr. Taylor, Bronterre O'Brien, Cooper and Dr. McDouall. He signed the Chartist Petition but never joined the movement. [6] The social and political implications of the revolutionary message preached by the physical force Chartists and expounded in O'Connor's newspaper, the Northern Star, deterred him from making any final commitment to the cause. There may well have been an element of
Footnotes
self interest in his decision; he had no wish for any political notoriety that might bring him before the magistrates, nor could he afford to lose his job which was bringing in a regular 25/- a week and enabling him to survive the economic vicissitudes of the time. His only misfortune was to succumb to an attack of smallpox, usually fatal in those days. His cure was assisted by the ministrations of a gypsy woman who applied warm milk and water bed baths and herbal teas, gratis. [1] Buckmaster never forgot this unsolicited act of kindness; in later life he retained an affection and sympathy for gypsies which his contemporaries had difficulty in accepting. [2]
Throughout the year which he spent in Salisbury Buckmaster never felt secure enough to assume his proper name; from the time he left Uxbridge he used the pseudonym Buckley. [3] He was naturally anxious to put behind him the deceit and anxieties of a life on the run but to do this he felt compelled to move further west. In the Spring of 1838 he left Salisbury for Tiverton, some 60 miles to the West, where he hoped to settle down in a permanent job under his own name. Tiverton was at that time a market town and centre of a textile industry with a population of about eleven thousand. [4] The woollen cloth industry dated back to Tudor times and was decaying but the lace factory, established by the Heathcote Amory family in 1816, was more prosperous. Tiverton's claim to national importance lay in its M.P., Lord Palmerston, who represented the borough from 1835–1865. Although Buckmaster names the town "Wiverton" [5]
Footnotes
its identity is obvious from the description in his Autobiography, viz:— "Wiverton had a population of eleven or twelve thousand, and about fifteen hundred men and women were employed in the lace and woollen factories." [1] Through his temperance connections he found employment with a master carpenter but his plans for a more settled existence came to nought. Tiverton, like other declining small industrial towns, was ripe for political disaffection. In 1838 Chartism became a major political force throughout the country and Chartism had a particular appeal for old centres of decaying or contracting industry. [2] Buckmaster was drawn into the agitation; he was temperamentally opposed to the revolutionary methods advocated by the exponents of the "physical force" wing of Chartism but in the context of the worsening social and economic conditions of 1838 he saw the need for some course of action which might relieve the distress. With this conviction and perhaps in order to counterbalance the violence of Chartism Buckmaster entered the theatre of national politics as the leader of the Anti-Corn Law movement in Tiverton.
Footnotes
The years that Buckmaster devoted to the Anti-Corn Law League cause, from 1838 to 1844, form the central part of his Autobiography. [1] They were the most exciting years of his life, a time when he became deeply involved in a national issue and met on equal terms heroic figures like Richard Cobden and John Bright, Daniel O'Connell and Francis Place. His commitment to the ideals of the Anti-Corn Law League was made spontaneously and unselfishly, with no thought of material rewards or career prospects. It led him to take a course of action which alienated him from his own relations, and laid him open "to the charge of being an agitator and setting class against class." [2] But Buckmaster was not a born agitator; political action as an end in itself meant little to him. In many ways he epitomised the 19th Century Radical ethos in his faith in the ameliorative rather than the revolutionary process of social change. He believed that the most glaring injustices in society could be rectified piecemeal, that the changes would be brought about gradually and that in the process of change each working man could play a part by an individual act of will. He writes: "Unless the working classes drink less and strive for a higher political morality they must be content to bear disappointments and remain where they are, with less power than they had before their enfranchisement. The first Reform Bill, Catholic Emancipation, the abolition of Church rates, the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and all the civil and religious liberty we enjoy, took a century of
Footnotes
agitation. Public opinion cannot be manipulated like a telegraph, men will not learn that evolution in sociology and politics, as in the natural world, is a slow developing process." [1]
The Anti-Corn Law League was in no sense a revolutionary organisation; it was seen by contemporaries more as a middle class movement even though it commanded considerable Radical support. It was dedicated to the abolition of the Corn Laws, a major impediment to social justice in the first half of the 19th Century. Its methods were non-violent and avoided the flavour of demagogy which permeated the physical force element of the Chartist Movement. Buckmaster felt passionately about the injustice of the Corn Laws. He came from farming stock and his early experience of working on the land had convinced him of the exploitative relationship that existed between the landowning class, the hard line supporters of Protection, and the agricultural working class. He writes: "My first conviction was that bread should be the last thing taxed, and my next that neither the farmer nor the labourer were benefited by the tax. Protection to agriculture meant taking from somebody else for the purpose of increasing the rental of land. The object of Protection is to raise the price of the thing protected or it is no use. Out of what fund is the increased price paid? There is but one fund, and that is the labour fund. The wages of farm labourers have never been decided by the price of wheat." [2]
Buckmaster found intense personal satisfaction in his work for the League; it gave him an outlet for his talent at public speaking and his organising skills and perhaps most important, it presented an opportunity for furthering his own education. The economic arguments which he had to master in order to become an effective member of the League provided the
Footnotes
stimulus for intellectual development which he had hitherto lacked. The temperance literature which had made up his intellectual diet at Uxbridge [1] had been emotive rather than cognitive in its content. But the tracts, circulars and newspapers which were dispatched in large quantities from the League headquarters in Manchester after 1838 were directed towards the educated middle classes and demanded a degree of conceptual understanding beyond the grasp of the average uneducated young man of 21. Buckmaster responded to this challenge in characteristic fashion: "I frequently had large packages of tracts from Manchester and read everything I could lay my hands on about the Corn Laws." [2] With some complacency he writes: "I think I mastered the whole question. I could repeat from memory the imports and exports since the passing of the first Corn Law in 1820, (sic), the average price of corn each year, the wages of the agricultural labourer, and the rent roll and acreage of the principal landowners." [3]
Thus equipped with the relevant facts and figures and inspired by devotion to the cause Buckmaster entered upon his chosen role as a "village politician." By the Spring of 1838 he was well established in Tiverton as a carpenter and joiner. His employer was "a leading man in local affairs, a teetotaller, who had a fair jobbing connection in the town and neighbourhood" and "a reputation for doing good work." [4] Buckmaster found pleasure in skilled craftsmanship and enjoyed his work, but his preoccupation was with the Corn Laws. The failure of the harvest in the Summer of 1838 revived sporadic opposition to the Corn Laws which had been endemic since 1815. But the years 1837–1842 were particularly
Footnotes
bad years for the economy as a whole. A severe depression in trade and industry and consequent unemployment "reduced the mass of the people to a degree of poverty never subsequently paralleled in Britain." [1] Beales goes on to point out that the unprecedented distress of the people "helps to account for the fact that the whole period between the passage of the First Reform Act and the death of Peel is unique for the strength and profusion of its popular movements of protest." [2] Tiverton, a small manufacturing town in an otherwise exclusively rural area, was no hotbed of militancy. By 1838 its inhabitants were beginning to feel the effects of rising unemployment and dear bread and were, therefore, predisposed to participate in radical movements which held out promises of better things. Buckmaster's account of his political activity in Tiverton in 1838 and early 1839 illustrates the near impossibility of organising any concerted radical action. The confusion in ideas arising out of the ignorance of the populace, the division of loyalties and the chaotic and undisciplined pattern of popular protest were factors militating against both the Chartist and the Anti-Corn Law Movements.
In Tiverton, a small manufacturing centre feeling the effects of rising unemployment, and in the neighbouring villages there were indications of growing unrest. Buckmaster's work took him into the outlying villages and gave him an insight into the mood of the times. He gives a vivid description of one small cell of generalised political activity which he encountered in a village shoemaker's shop:— "He was a good talker and drew together a shopful of labourers who smoked the filthiest tobacco. He was a physical force Chartist, and had rather confused ideas about the
Footnotes
Corn Laws, and thought it would be just as easy to obtain the Charter as the repeal of the Corn Laws; but he was positive we should never obtain either one or the other without a revolution, and this is my little friend — drawing from behind the curtain a pike." [1] It was in this promising situation that Buckmaster gave his first public lecture and founded an Anti-Corn Law Association. His success encouraged him to repeat the exercise in other villages and in Tiverton itself where he was elected Secretary of the Association. [2] But the rapid growth of the movement excited hostility and overt opposition from both the Chartists and the Protectionists in the town. The Protectionist cause was backed by "the whole force of the landed interest" [3] and made use of "a lying and corrupt local press," which Buckmaster claims was subsidised by the Protectionist party, as its vehicle for propaganda. The Chartists were numerically the strongest group and although disorganised and undisciplined held a trump card in their argument that the "repeal of the Corn Laws was more a manufacturers' question than a working man's." [4] Their disruptive tactics at public meetings effectively silenced both the Protectionists and the Anti-Corn Law Leaguers and reduced the level of public debate to hooliganism and rabble rousing. On the occasion of a public lecture organised by the Protectionist party, it became necessary to fence off the platform occupied by the speaker and the local worthies, (Anglican clergymen, local landowners, well-to-do farmers, land agents and lawyers), who formed the nucleus of the party, as a defence against the Chartist onslaught. But to no avail. Once the
Footnotes
usual preliminaries of jokes, catcalls and Chartist songs, all of which drowned the speaker's efforts to be heard, were over, the Chartists rushed the platform, tore down the fencing and after a hand to hand fight took possession, celebrating their victory by passing unanimous resolutions in favour of the Charter. [1] Inevitably the town became torn by triangular party strife, a situation exacerbated by unemployment and the high price of bread.
Buckmaster deplored such pointless violence and "urged the Anti-Corn Law Association to keep free of all disturbances." [2] In an attempt to get his case heard he organised a debate with the Protectionists from which the Chartists were excluded. Admission was to be by ticket only and the tickets were equally divided between supporters of the Protectionist party and of the Anti-Corn Law Association. Buckmaster was called upon to put the arguments of the Anti-Corn Law League. His Protectionist adversary was one Mr. Pipkin, (probably a pseudonym), a professional lecturer with considerable experience who cut an impressive figure in his dress suit and fancy accessories compared to the young Buckmaster dressed in "the Sunday clothes of a decent mechanic." [3] Predictably Pipkin took as his main theme the folly of depending upon foreigners, an argument which Buckmaster quickly destroyed in a direct personal attack. "I had the whole thing at my fingers' ends. I asked where Mr. Pipkin's shirt came from, his gold chain, his silk waistcoat, and umbrella, and his beaver hat? His trousers and coat were probably made from foreign wool. Let Mr. Pipkin strip himself and stand on this platform, if he is not ashamed, as a man independent of foreigners." [4]
Footnotes
The meeting proved a triumph for Buckmaster. A clear majority voted for the total unconditional repeal of the Corn Laws and a petition to that effect was adopted by the meeting.
Buckmaster's reputation as a public speaker and political activist was now made. But the Anti-Corn Law euphoria was shortlived. Buckmaster left Tiverton for three months to work on restoring an old manor house ten miles away and during his absence the Anti-Corn Law Association lost most of its members. He was reluctant to leave the scene of his triumph: "I wanted to remain with the people with whom I had acquired fame. I wanted to gratify a vanity which has been the ruin of hundreds, and might have been my ruin had I not been sent to Marley Hall." It was during this summer of 1838 that the Chartists mounted a massive national campaign of civil unrest, inspiring among the people a degree of militancy that surprised even Frederick Engels, writing in 1844–45. "Of the vehemence of the agitation no one in Germany has any idea. The people were called upon to arm themselves, were frequently urged to revolt, pikes were got ready, as in the French Revolution. . ." [1]
In Tiverton Chartist activity had intensified alarmingly: "The Chartists had become more violent and demonstrative; two or three had been arrested. They went to missionary meetings and Bible meetings, and passed resolutions in favour of the Charter. They held large open air meetings on Sundays, obtained the use of an old chapel where sermons were preached and Chartist hymns sung. Lectures on Peterloo, the Bristol riots, the Monmouth rising, and the Pension List were common. Bad trade, low wages and dear bread were the stimulating causes of a widespread discontentment. Men were driven to their lowest depth of hatred of the governing classes." [2] Buckmaster held the opinion that the Chartists
Footnotes
would have gained their objectives, which amounted to social revolution, "had they not been split up and weakened among themselves, occasionally romanced and encouraged by their enemies." For "the working classes were never so united or powerful on any political question as on the Charter and probably will never be so united again until some great and good man shall arise who is capable of combining the discordant elements in favour of one or two well defined objects." [1]
When Buckmaster returned to Tiverton in the Autumn of 1838 he found that the Chartists "had grown more numerous, more bitter and more unmanageable" and that "the Anti-Corn Law Association was nearly dead." [2] The struggle for working class support between the Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law party did not emerge fully until 1839, the year of the first Chartist Convention and the founding of the Anti-Corn Law League, but it is clear from Buckmaster's account that there was a fundamental lack of sympathy between the two organisations and that in a town the size of Tiverton there was no room for both to flourish. Buckmaster at once set about reviving the fortunes of the Association, making house to house visits and distributing "thousands of tracts, pamphlets, speeches and Anti-Corn Law catechisms." These canvassing efforts and his reputation as a public speaker made him the natural choice as the town's delegate to the first London Conference of the Anti-Corn Law Association, held in February, 1839. The London Conference was organised by the Manchester Association which numbered among its Committee members the future leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League: Cobden, Bright, J. B. Smith and George Wilson.
The purpose of the week long Conference was twofold: to arouse support for the Anti-Corn Law movement in the Capital and to prepare
Footnotes
evidence against the Corn Laws which the leaders hoped to present at the Bar of the House of Commons. For Buckmaster it was a week of intense and exciting activity, marching on the House of Commons, bearing petitions, making public speeches and meeting the Manchester free traders. He was full of enthusiasm "bursting with all sorts of ideas and information which the Conference ought to know" and claims that on two occasions he spoke on the working conditions of the agricultural labourer to an audience which included "Daniel O'Connell, Mr. Ward, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Bright, Dr. Bowring, Col. Thompson, George Thompson, Mr. W. A. Taylor, Francis Place, Mr. Rawson and Mr. Fox." He wrote his second speech on the final day of the Conference at a dinner at the "Palace Yard Hotel" which was acclaimed by Daniel O'Connell and reported favourably upon in "The Morning Advertiser, The Chronicle and, I think, The Times." The Times did give fair coverage to the Anti-Corn Law Conference, reporting its meetings at Brown's Hotel, Palace Yard, in Westminster on 11th, 14th and 15th February, but there is unfortunately no reference to either of Buckmaster's speeches. But Buckmaster's later career with the Anti-Corn Law League suggests that he made some impression at this stage and there is no reason to doubt his statement that he "kept up an occasional acquaintance with Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright until the dark veil separated us." [1] Indeed eight newspapers made a prominent feature of his friendship with Cobden and Bright in their obituary notices for Buckmaster in 1908. [2]
In effect the London Conference achieved little. The Commons refused to hear the League's evidence at the Bar of the House and rejected a
Footnotes
motion attacking the Corn Laws by a large majority. The Conference had been expensive to run and funds were short since the manufacturers, the League's main source of financial support, felt unable to contribute to the movement at a time of trade depression. It was clear too that the middle classes were reluctant to support the League; the unrest caused by the Chartists and by the Anti Poor Law agitators had made them wary of yet another radical movement. Despite these adverse factors the Anti-Corn Law leaders decided to found a permanent League, based in Manchester, and to launch a series of lecture tours in the agricultural districts, the strongholds of Protection, along the lines of their first lecture campaign in late 1838 in the industrial areas of the North. The immediate task was to recruit capable political agents. But the role of political agitator commanded little respect; his activities were identified with the system in which he worked and the political system of the times was notoriously corrupt. And if the League was to have any appeal to the middle classes and the small farmer, men of proven respectability and social standing had to be found. Paulton, who had conducted the Northern campaign, was young and untried, a mere medical student with a penchant for intemperate language which alienated the middle class. James Acland, a most loyal and pertinacious campaigner, had a history of Radical activity in the years 1830–1832 and had been in prison at least once. The man chosen for the Spring tour in the Eastern counties was Sidney Smith, a Scots solicitor from Edinburgh, who saw his function as a public teacher rather than a political agitator. As a respectable lecturer he was not expected to undertake the sordid chores of hiring rooms and haggling over their price. A lesser agent was sent on in advance to deal with such matters and in general to smooth the way for Smith. Shearman, former secretary to the Voluntary Church Society in Birmingham, took up these duties in the Spring of 1839 and his activities are well documented in a number
of League sources. Shearman left the League in October, 1839 and the role of troubleshooter for Smith's second campaign in the Spring and Summer of 1840 was taken over by Buckmaster, who writes: "As soon as the Winter was over it was arranged that Sidney Smith and myself should make a descent on the agricultural counties. I was to go first and find out if a room could be obtained, whether the Protectionist feeling was strong and whether there was likely to be a row." [1] In the early months of 1840 Buckmaster had taken part in the League's campaign to stir up support in London, work which was not to his liking since "nearly all the meetings in the metropolis were held in public houses." [2] But it was a useful preliminary to the Spring and Summer tour and it gave him his first taste of a political campaigner's life which for the next three years he found fascinating and satisfying:— "No one knows the pleasure there is in publicly denouncing a wrong or injustice unless they have experienced it." [3]
The Surrey Comet, one of eight newspapers which referred to Buckmaster's connection with the Anti-Corn Law League, [4] says of his work:— "He travelled about the country lecturing and debating in town and village, conducting elections, attending conferences and neglecting nothing that could promote the success of the cause he had at heart; and he did all this with an energy and a precise attention to detail that no salary could ever have bought and no remuneration ever adequately recognised." [5] And Buckmaster in his Autobiography writes at length and in great detail about his experiences with the League, although the usefulness
Footnotes
of his account is marred by a complete absence of dates and by the consistent use of pseudonyms for places and people, with the exception of the outstanding personalities of the League. But his work for the League is unacknowledged in the League Letter Books, [1] in the Wilson Papers, [2] in J. B. Smith's papers, [3] or the Cobden Papers, [4] and consequently by historians of the period. [5] This is not surprising since Buckmaster was not a prominent figure in the League, merely one of many of the ill paid, little respected agents who were recruited in the early years of the League and whose efforts, because unrecorded, are now forgotten. Peripatetic village lecturers were a fairly common sight in the 1840s, a time which has been described as "the golden age of lecturing." [6] Their popularity was an indication of the growing demand for knowledge among working men and the almost complete failure of the elementary schools to meet that demand. But only a few, notably Thomas Cooper and George Holyoake, achieved renown as political activists and imparters of knowledge. Cooper felt that the working class speakers of the 1830s and 1840s had done little to further the education of their own class since they were themselves men of little culture and their message had been almost exclusively political. "They went forth to rouse their order, and to speak out its mind against class injustice." [7]
Footnotes
Buckmaster had hoped to avoid falling into the political trap of class hatred. [1] But his experiences as a peripatetic village lecturer crystallised his political attitudes, instilling in him a compassion and respect for the working man and a contempt for "the greed and malice of the rich." [2] "The poverty stricken condition of the labourer, the ignorance and self-reliance of his employer, the utter absence of all humanity or sympathy with his struggle for existence against what appeared to be hopeless conditions," [3] convinced Buckmaster that his political campaign for the Repeal was not only the most practicable means of remedying this situation but was equal in the eyes of God to a religious Crusade. Inevitably he was drawn into the class conflict which underlay the Anti-Corn Law struggle and "had to admit to the charge of setting class against class." [4] To Buckmaster the justification lay in the fact that "it was the strong burglar class against the poor and defenceless." [5] For the first time he challenged the fundamental assumptions of a society which was so structured that the rights of the few prevailed over the needs of the many. "I began to attack the landowners and ask by what right they monopolised the land which was given by God for the use of all? What right had they to enclose commons, shut up footpaths, add the land by the side of roads to their fields, pull down cottages, take possession of all wastes, and persecute to helplessness and poverty every man who resisted them." [6]
Footnotes
Buckmaster retained this radical fervour throughout his life; in the 1860s he successfully fought the five year battle to preserve Wandsworth Common for the people. [1] Symbolising his lifelong dedication to the popular cause is the monument which he had erected to Jeremy Bennett, the radical shoemaker, who fought for and won the right of way for the public over Bushey Park, and which still stands close to the Hampton Wick gate.
Buckmaster enjoyed his work as a village lecturer although it was frequently frustrating and even dangerous. Because of the stranglehold of the local magnates on almost every aspect of rural life, he found town halls, schoolrooms and Church halls barred to him and the labourers fearful and consequently hostile. He suffered humiliation at the hands of the gentry and physical and verbal abuse from their henchmen. But despite his efforts, and those of the other League agents, the lecture tour campaigns of 1839 and 1840 were costly failures. In the Autumn of 1840 the Council of the League came round to Cobden's idea that direct political action would be the only effective method of achieving Repeal. This step was taken reluctantly because such a policy would necessarily involve the League in the corrupt world of party politics. But the near success of the League's candidate at the Walsall by-election in early 1841, which he lost to the Tory candidate by only 363 to 336 votes, appeared to justify the change of direction. Buckmaster writes: "The Council of the League had now resolved to contest every place without regard to any hope of success," [2] but this is a misleading comment on the highly organised and selective Parliamentary campaign which the League conducted in the years 1841–1845. The lecture tours were allowed to
Footnotes
lapse; when they were resumed in early 1843 they played a much more significant part in the movement. They were generously financed and the lecturers were no longer "hired agents of little or no personal standing or respectability," [1] but the leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, Cobden and Bright, who stumped the countryside with two specific objectives:— parliamentary votes and cash.
So Buckmaster was switched from the congenial task of village lecturing to the sordid work of electioneering in urban constituencies. He hated elections, believing that "they engendered bitterness and strife among neighbours and friends and lowered public morality." [2] The 1832 Reform Act had not changed the conduct of elections. Buckmaster's account of his experiences as an election agent reveals the corrupt inadequacy of the system. He cites several instances of the electoral skulduggery that was generally accepted; of intimidation, on one occasion by hired pugilists, of bribing electors and of general rowdiness, bullying and drunkenness which lasted the usual two or three weeks taken up by an election contest. [3]
Buckmaster took part in a number of by-elections contested by the League but he describes only one by name. This was the crucial City of London by-election, brought about by the death of Sir Matthew Wood, Liberal, and contested by James Pattison, for the Free Trade interest, and Thomas Baring, Conservative, in October, 1843. [4] Buckmaster thinly disguises the identity of the two candidates in his account of the City Election, under the pseudonyms of "Mr. Matterson" and "Mr. Flaring." [5]
Footnotes
For three weeks Buckmaster canvassed on behalf of "Mr. Matterson" in Kennington, one of the most respectable and strongly Conservative districts. He decided not to rely on paid canvassers, having had some experience of their corrupt methods, [1] and did the work himself. In this way he "met a large number of voters, mostly disagreeable." [2] On the day of the election he worked from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. visiting all likely voters and arranging for their transport to the poll. By 10 a.m. he had already sacked six cabmen for drunkenness. [3] Buckmaster's efforts contributed to the victory of the League; for the first time the City of London declared for the Free Trade interest. Once the results were posted Buckmaster took the coach to the League Headquarters in London where "there was great rejoicing." [4] When Buckmaster made his appearance "Mr. Paulton, Mr. Cobden and men whom I had never seen laugh gave way to great hilarity." [5] The cause of the mirth lay in Buckmaster's appearance. "I was bonneted (he had received a black eye in the course of his day's work and had a bandage tied over his head), I had fallen in the road, my clothes were dirt stained and torn, I had had nothing but a penny roll and a bottle of ginger beer during the day." But "we had returned our candidate which atoned for everything." [6]
After the City election Buckmaster started for the West Riding where there was "a rumour of a contest." [7] It is difficult to put this into context since there is no record of a by-election in the West Riding until
Footnotes
February, 1846 when on the succession of the Hon. J. S. Wortley to the Peerage, Viscount Morpeth was elected Liberal member. [1] However, McCord refers to a statement [2] made by Cobden in February, 1844 to Baines, the Leeds Liberal leader, asking him to persuade Lord Morpeth, "the Liberal candidate for an approaching contest," [3] not to oppose the League. McCord does not name the constituency concerned but Lord Morpeth was Liberal candidate for the West Riding. And Buckmaster refers not only to "a rumour of a contest" in the West Riding but also to "the nobleman ... who was to be the candidate in the event of a contest" [4] (author's italics). It can, then, be inferred that no election contest took place in the West Riding in early 1844 and that the League, in its all out campaign to secure Parliamentary representation, was in this instance too quick off the mark.
But if the West Riding campaign proved a futile exercise for the League, for Buckmaster it was to prove a watershed in his career since it brought him to the notice of Lord Morpeth. Viscount Morpeth, afterwards 7th Earl of Carlisle, and both Chief Secretary and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had represented the West Riding from 1832–1841, was defeated in the General Election of 1841 and regained his seat in 1846, holding it until his succession to the Peerage in 1848. "He was a singularly enthusiastic progressive and knew all the advanced spirits of his time." [5] At one of "several successful meetings" [6] held by Buckmaster and his
Footnotes
fellow Leaguers, Lord Morpeth met Buckmaster and, "much impressed by his zeal and ability," [1] he invited him to call at his town house once they had both returned to London. [2]
Although Buckmaster attempts to preserve Lord Morpeth's anonymity and further confuses the issue by designating him "the member for the West Riding" [3] (a surprising misstatement in the light of Morpeth's loss of the seat in 1841), the fact of his re-election in 1846 establishes his stature as Liberal candidate for the constituency, also accepted by McCord, [4] and makes it possible to identify "the nobleman" of Buckmaster's story. The Surrey Comet Obituary Notice devotes twelve lines to explaining the connection between the two men and states that "Mr. Buckmaster was first induced to turn his attention to education, principally the technical side of it, by Lord Morpeth." [5] For it was around the time of his visit to the West Riding that Buckmaster began to tire of his way of life. He had learnt a great deal from his years in politics. He had perfected the art of public speaking and had acquired confidence in his ability to command attention and to arouse enthusiasm. He had made contacts all over the country which fifteen years later were to prove invaluable in his public relations work for the Science and Art Department. Like many of the Leaguers he carried into his future employment "all the knowledge and techniques learnt during the agitation against the Corn Laws." [6] He had become accustomed to the peripatetic way of life, and perhaps most important of all, he had made himself known to men of influence like Cobden and Bright and had, as was to become evident later on in his
Footnotes
career, won their respect. His character had hardened. He had learnt to endure public hostility and verbal and physical assaults with equanimity and throughout his career with the League he had remained teetotal, a remarkable achievement since most of the League's activities were based in public houses.
But once the Corn Laws were repealed, and the inevitability of Repeal became increasingly clear to informed opinion from 1844 on, what then? Buckmaster does not explain how he lived during the five years he worked for the League. There was an official scale of rates of pay for lecturers and agents, ranging from £200 per annum for lecturers, in effect chief agents, to £50 per annum (in 1844) for part-time electoral agents. Buckmaster's own financial needs were minimal, he had no family to support and it was the practice for agents to live off the hospitality of Free Traders in whose districts they were working. But it was a hand-to-mouth existence and Buckmaster was well aware that his future was precarious. He felt no inclination to return to his old trade of carpenter [1] and felt unfitted for anything else. Unlike Cooper and Holyoake, two outstanding examples of self-educated working class Radicals, he lacked the educational background to embark on a permanent career as a lecturer in Mechanics' Institutes or Owenite Halls of Science. He sought his superiors' advice: Mr. Bright advised him "to go on a little longer" [2] on the grounds that the League did not expect the Corn Laws to be repealed until 1848 after the return of enough Free Traders in the General Election of 1847, to force it through. Bright could not have anticipated the Irish potato famine of late 1845. "Mr. Cobden suggested the 'Education question'" [3]
(Cobden had first entered public life as an advocate of popular education),
Footnotes
"and Mr. Sturge the Ballot and the Franchise." [1] There were already in existence influential organisations dedicated to these causes but the last two subjects had never inspired him and he felt "utterly unfitted for educational work" by reason of his own "defective education." [2]
It was in some state of confusion that Buckmaster turned to Lord Morpeth for help. [3] The advice he was given was straightforward; the Corn Laws would certainly be repealed and it was, therefore, pointless to continue with the work of a political agitator. The Government was bound to take up the "Education Question" and Morpeth suggested that Buckmaster should prepare himself for a career in education by taking a teacher training course. Morpeth was both influential and well informed and his analysis of the potential importance of education in Government policy was perceptive. By the mid-1840s the efforts of Kay-Shuttleworth, Secretary of the Committee of Council from 1839–1849, the growth of inspection in schools and the propaganda work of the Central Society for Education, had focussed public opinion upon the inadequacies of the elementary schools, with the result that the Government was forced to take on a greatly increased responsibility for popular education.
The "Education Question" appeared to hold out the promise of a rewarding and useful career and thus it was, upon the advice of Lord Morpeth, and with his monetary support, that Buckmaster entered St. John's College, Battersea, as a trainee teacher in January, 1844.
Footnotes
St. John's, Battersea, founded in 1840 as a non-sectarian training college by Kay-Shuttleworth and E. C. Tufnell, was the first of the "new model" Normal Schools which proliferated in the 1840s. Buckmaster entered the College at a time when the teacher training system was in its infancy: only a handful of Colleges existed and these differed widely over such basic issues as the curriculum, entrance standards and length of training. There was no consensus of opinion as to the purpose of popular education and consequently no publicly accepted rationale of teacher training. Elementary school teaching was a low status occupation, it was certainly not regarded as a profession, and only after 1846 did teachers acquire some measure of financial security and thereby a degree of social respectability. But to Buckmaster the uncertainties of his new career were no greater than those he had experienced, and overcome, thus far in his life. And he was enough of an opportunist to make the most of what Battersea had to offer. The eighteen months he spent there were to shape the future course of his life. Battersea provided the springboard for a career in education spanning half a century and instilled in him a love of science which was to give momentum and meaning to that career.
Buckmaster devotes a chapter [1] in his Autobiography to his experiences at Battersea but he fails to mention the College by name. He does, however, give an accurate account of its location and physical appearance [2] and the fact of his attendance may be verified by reference to several other sources. In a letter, dated 7th June, 1882, [3] to Sandford,
Footnotes
then Secretary of the Science and Art Department, he is more precise, designating St. John's as "the Training College, Battersea." The St. John's College, Battersea, First Register [1] and Adkins' History of St. John's, Battersea [2] and the Battersea Club Year Book for 1909 [3] provide further evidence.
The problem arises in trying to establish the precise date of his entry to St. John's. The College Register [4] gives this as 27th January, 1848, as does the Battersea Club Year Book for 1909, [5] while Adkins' History [6] gives 1847–48. Buckmaster is vague on this point. He mentions no date at all in his Autobiography and in his letter to Sandford which summarises his career up to 1882 he writes that he entered the College "as a student on the advice of Dr. Kaye in 1842 or 1843." [7] The accuracy of all these statements is open to doubt.
If it is accepted that Buckmaster's date of birth was February, 1819, he would have been twenty-eight years old had he entered the College in January, 1848. But his age on entry given in the Register [8] is twenty-four, the age which he would have been in January, 1844, his twenty-fifth birthday falling in the following month. Had he entered the College in 1848 it would be difficult to make any sense of Buckmaster's account of the events which led to his entry to St. John's. By examining these circumstances it is possible to infer a more probable date. In his work for the Anti-Corn Law League Buckmaster was involved in the City of London
Footnotes
by-election in the Autumn of 1843. Following upon the League's electoral victory he then went North to take part in the West Riding campaign. Here he and his fellow Leaguers held "several successful meetings" [1] and it was at one of them that Buckmaster was approached by his future benefactor, Lord Morpeth, Liberal candidate and supporter of Repeal. The actual date of the election was February, 1844 but if Buckmaster was involved in the preliminary canvassing work rather than the election itself, which he does not comment upon in his Autobiography, it is not illogical to suppose that he was still able to be admitted to St. John's in January, 1844. It is not in any case feasible that Buckmaster's entry to the College was as late as 1848, two years after the repeal of the Corn Laws. Buckmaster quit the Anti-Corn Law League while it was still struggling for victory; it was not until May, 1845 that, in the opinion of Cobden, [2] Peel decided for repeal and it was not until late 1845, with the failure of the Irish potato crop, that he was able to act. But Buckmaster in 1844 was convinced that the Corn Laws would be repealed, [3] in which event his own career as a political agitator would end and it was the realisation of his uncertain future that led him to enter education before repeal finally forced his hand.
Buckmaster refers in his letter to Sandford [4] to his connection with Kay-Shuttleworth. He was provided with a letter of introduction to the founder of St. John's by Lord Morpeth, [5] whose generosity to the
Footnotes
College at a time when it was being financed privately by Kay-Shuttleworth and Tufnell gave him some influence over its affairs. The problem here is that on 3rd December, 1843, after several appeals [1] for financial help to the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, had proved fruitless, Kay-Shuttleworth handed over the College to the National Society. But the new Principal appointed by the National Society did not take office until February, 1844, and during the period of interregnum Kay-Shuttleworth was still effectively in charge and responsible for student admission. Buckmaster states clearly that it was after he had entered St. John's that the Rev. Jackson was appointed as Principal which necessarily pushes back the date of his admission to before February, 1844. [2]
The confusion over what might appear to be a minor chronological detail has arisen for two reasons. One is Buckmaster's own vagueness over points of chronology in his Autobiography and the other must be the inaccuracy of the St. John's College First Register as an historical record in this particular instance. It is, nevertheless, important to clarify when exactly Buckmaster became a student at St. John's both in order to trace his later career and also because his Autobiography is a useful record of the early days of the College, and substantiates the views of Rich [3] and other secondary sources on teacher training before 1846.
Battersea in the 1840s has been described as a suburban village with much of its rural nature still remaining. [4] Buckmaster was struck by the "endless cabbage gardens" through which he had to pass to reach the College which was situated in one corner of Battersea Square, "a
Footnotes
triangular piece of ground surrounded by quaint old houses and shops." [1] The College had "once been the residence of a wealthy City merchant," it was a large square house, standing in about two acres of ground on the banks of the Thames, with several old cedar trees in its large gardens. [2]
The College was an impressive institution; it housed a printer's shop, carpenter's shop and smith's shop, classrooms and lecture rooms, a library as well as the students' dormitory and dining hall. Situated close at hand in Battersea High Street was the village school which the local clergyman, the Revd. Robert Iden, placed at the disposal of the College for teaching practice and for demonstration purposes.
Buckmaster's first impressions of his fellow students were not so favourable:— "A number of curious looking young men ... some over 6 ft., others dwarfs, some grey haired, others lads about 16, and all rather poorly dressed in seedy black and white chokers." [3] His analysis of their social backgrounds reinforces the generally accepted thesis that the entrants to the teaching profession in the 1840s were of low social status. This had been the case in England since the inception of teacher training in 1805 when Joseph Lancaster added a residential annexe for teachers in training to his monitorial school in South London. In Scotland, on the other hand, a more advanced system of secondary education enabled David Stow to recruit an older and socially more elevated type of entrant to the weekday training school at Drygate, Glasgow. The superintendent of the central school of the National Society at Westminster giving evidence to the Select Committee on Education in 1834 commented on the "very low
Footnotes
class of boy" [1] who would be able to avail themselves of teacher training should the National Society introduce the pupil teacher system which Kay-Shuttleworth was later to adopt. The superintendent did not, however, favour setting up a training institution for middle class boys, [2] presumably because the middle classes in general held elementary school teaching in such contempt, believing with Lord Macaulay that entrants to the profession were "the refuse of all other callings." [3]
Buckmaster describes the fellow students at Battersea as "a miscellaneous collection," comprising "clever lads from pauper schools, under butlers to deans and bishops, footmen, Sunday School teachers, drapers' assistants, tailors, clerks and a few mechanics." [4] Kay-Shuttleworth categorises the students he accepted at St. John's in the early years as "sons of small tradesmen, of bailiffs, of servants or of superior mechanics." [5] Buckmaster, as the son of a dispossessed yeoman farmer and as an erstwhile farm labourer and carpenter, was to a certain extent a typical trainee teacher although his work as a political agitator had given him a wider experience of life than most. He was essentially a man of the people, and had known poverty, ignorance and hardship. With this background he could be incorporated into Kay-Shuttleworth's grand design for popular education in which teacher training would be an element of utmost significance. For Kay-Shuttleworth saw education as a means of preserving the social order, and he argued that "the state had the most positive and direct interest in adopting measures to prevent the rearing
Footnotes
of a race of felons and prostitutes ... (it had) the duty of rearing these children in religion and industry, and of imparting such an amount of secular education as may fit them to discharge the duties of their station." [1] He develops this argument further in specifying what the objectives of the school teacher should be:— "In every English proprietor's domain there ought to be, as in many there are, school houses with well-trained masters, competent and zealous to rear the population in obedience to the laws, in submission to their superiors, and to fit them to strengthen the institutions of their country by their domestic virtues, their sobriety, their industry, and forethought." [2] In order to instil these virtues in the children they taught, schoolmasters must themselves be similarly indoctrinated, which is presumably what Kay-Shuttleworth meant by "well-trained masters." Respect for authority and acceptance of the existing social hierarchy was to be instilled in pupil and teacher alike. Kay-Shuttleworth's avowed aim was to produce from the ranks of the working and lower middle classes teachers who would be dedicated to teaching these virtues to children of their own class and not to their own social advancement. Writing of his Battersea students he elaborates upon these aims: "We hoped to inspire them with a large sympathy for their own class. To implant in their minds the thought that their chief honour would be to aid in rescuing that class from the misery of ignorance and its attendant vices. To wean them from the influence of that personal competition which in a commercial society leads to sordid aims. To place before them the unsatisfied want of the uneasy and distressed multitude and to breathe into them the charity which seeks to heal its mental and moral diseases." [3]
Footnotes
Kay-Shuttleworth's views on the social function of the teacher had crystallised as a result of a pedagogic tour of Europe he had made in 1839 with his friend and partner in the Battersea venture, E. C. Tufnell. He had been impressed by Vehrli's training school at Kreuzlingen in Switzerland where some of the local peasantry followed a comparatively rigorous academic course while at the same time putting in eight hours a day of manual labour in the fields. The latter activity, for which they wore the appropriate coarse peasant clothing and wooden clogs, was expressly designed to remind them of their station in life. In his Autobiography Kay-Shuttleworth quotes, with approval, Vehrli's words: "I am a peasant's son. I wish to be no other than I am, the teacher of the sons of the peasantry." [1]
It was to the end of producing "humble, industrious and instructed" [2] teachers that Kay-Shuttleworth and Tufnell instituted at Battersea a spartan and intensely paternalistic regime. Unceasing activity, both physical and mental, were the order of the day, every day, from 5.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. Students and staff performed the domestic duties and worked the garden and small home farm attached to the College and were made responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings. According to Kay-Shuttleworth, "the conceit of the pedagogue is not likely to arise among either students or masters who cheerfully handle the trowel, the saw, or carry mortar in a hod to the top of the building." [3] The academic side of life at Battersea was equally demanding. The curriculum was wide-ranging and, if we remember that most of the students had received only an elementary school education, overly ambitious. An attempt was made not only to impart knowledge of the "higher culture" with particular emphasis
Footnotes
on Biblical studies, English literature, grammar and etymology, arithmetic and mechanics, geography, drawing and vocal music, but to teach these subjects according to the most approved "modern" methods of the day, for example by the Pestalozzian method in arithmetic. In addition to these courses in personal attainments the students had to be prepared for the actual job of teaching. Teaching practice was held to be of prime importance and in a training period of eighteen months it was usual to have three hours daily practice for six or eight months. The practical experience was backed up by theoretical lectures, modelled on the German Pädagogik course, which dealt with the organisation of elementary schools, the general purposes of education, methods of discipline, methods of communicating knowledge and the teaching of special subjects. One wonders how much of the philosophical content the average hard-pressed student was able to absorb, let alone understand. Indeed the enormous range of activities, both intellectual and physical, allowed him little time for reflection or independent study, a state of affairs which Kay-Shuttleworth considered to be desirable on intellectual and moral grounds. "In so brief a training it is necessary that the entire conduct of the student should be guided by a superior mind," [1] and moreover any leisure time might give rise to "associations formed among the students inconsistent with discipline," [2] or be spent in "listless sauntering or in violent exertion." [3] It is hardly surprising that Buckmaster felt unable to enter into all the details of his "life and trials" at Battersea where his "experiences were often peculiar and painful." [4]
Footnotes
To what extent could Buckmaster subscribe to the Battersea ethos? It would be difficult for a man of twenty-four, who had earned his living since the age of ten and had been his own master for seven years, to accept either the suffocating restrictions imposed by Kay-Shuttleworth, and after 1844 maintained by Jackson, or the implicit assumption that school teachers were inferior beings. Buckmaster had associated with public men in the theatre of national politics and, if we believe his obituary notice in the Surrey Comet, had gained the reputation of a Village Hampden. [1] Although he had received no formal education his knowledge of politics and economics, and his facility with the English language, could well have raised him to the level of those superior minds who were in a position of authority over him at Battersea. It is unlikely that he saw himself as a teacher of peasants' sons, or, in the context of the English educational system, as an elementary teacher in a rural Church School.
Buckmaster may well have been out of sympathy with Kay-Shuttleworth's aims and methods but when in February, 1844, following the transference of the College to the National Society, an Anglican clergyman, the Revd. Thomas Jackson, was appointed Principal, he found that "new troubles began." [2] Buckmaster's religious position was eclectic and he found it difficult to agree with the Revd. Jackson's predictably sectarian views. Adkins in his eulogistic History of St. John's writes: "Good, gentle Thomas Jackson! There was not one among the staff and students of those early days under the National Society who did not reverence and love him." [3] Buckmaster, nevertheless, clashed with the Principal on more than one occasion and describes in some detail the misunderstanding which led to his assuming the role of a "papist agitator within the College." [4]
Footnotes
But, however demanding and frustrating his life at Battersea, Buckmaster had committed himself to a career in education and was determined to stay the course. This in itself presented something of a challenge. The drop-out rate at St. John's was high. Students withdrew for a variety of reasons, the most common over the years 1844–48 was, not surprisingly, that of poor health. In 1844, the year of Buckmaster's admission, out of an intake of thirty-two students, six left the College. Of these four were dismissed for improper conduct, for unsuitability for the office of schoolmaster, for being unfit to have the management of children, and one for no stated reason. One "deceased of decline" and one left for health reasons. In 1845, twenty-two students out of a total of seventy-two withdrew, eight of them for health reasons and of these eight two were listed as "deceased of decline." But one wonders what the actual physical condition of some of these students was on entry when the College Register for 1845 describes one unfortunate as being "incompetent, having only one arm and being very deaf." [1]
Another reason for the heavy drop-out rate was almost certainly the inability of some students to meet the intellectual demands made by the course. Not that these were very high at Battersea compared to St. Mark's, Chelsea, where Derwent Coleridge emphasised the intellectual rather than the manual aspects of teacher training and attempted to provide his students with a liberal education in the best middle class tradition. Of the twenty-two drop-outs at Battersea in 1845, six left on the grounds of "incompetence" and eight were either dismissed or discharged themselves for no given reason. [2] One can hypothesise that a prime cause of these failures was the near impossibility of absorbing
Footnotes
in eighteen months, the usual length of training at St. John's compared to three years at St. Mark's, the principles, and particularly the facts, of Religious knowledge, English Grammar and Literature, History, Geography, Mathematics and Mechanics and of passing a written examination in these subjects. For men in their twenties or older who had no grounding whatever in the academic work nor any experience of sitting examinations the Battersea course was a daunting prospect.
But why was it that the early training colleges admitted men of such limited attainment that they were doomed to fail the course? It is clear that no selection procedures operated and that Colleges were thankful to get whoever they could to fill their registers. Another problem resulted from the system of patronage which existed before the pupil teacher system was introduced in 1846. Many of the earliest students were sponsored and paid for by wealthy patrons, as in the case of Buckmaster whose fee of £32 12s. was paid for by Lord Morpeth, [1] and these protégés were often both ignorant and unintelligent.
This somewhat unpromising raw material was forged into a teacher mould by a variety of factors: by determination to succeed on the part of some students, by inspired leadership of the Colleges in this early period, in particular by Kay-Shuttleworth and Derwent Coleridge who both imposed regimes of intensive teaching and unceasing application, and by an efficient system of inspection and examination. Kay-Shuttleworth pinned many of his hopes for the progress of the training colleges on inspection, which he believed should be ameliorative rather than punitive. There should, he reckoned, be two inspections annually, each taking place over a period of one month. They would involve examination in fourteen subjects: Religious knowledge; reading and writing; arithmetic and algebra; grammar and etymology; geography; singing; mensuration; mechanics; history;
Footnotes
linear drawing; gymnastics; horticulture; school management and class teaching; visits to classes and to the Model School and the marking and discussion of scripts. The first publicly set examination in connection with elementary education were set by H.M.I. Revd. Allen and taken by the Battersea and St. Mark's students at the end of 1842. [1] This pattern of twice yearly examination formed the mode of assessment for the Colleges until the first Certificate examination, instituted by the 1846 Minutes, was set in 1848. Buckmaster refers only indirectly to the examinations he must necessarily have taken and passed. Perhaps this is understandable since his unconventional revision methods on one occasion landed him in hot water with the Principal. Eager to absorb as many facts as possible for regurgitation in the very important examination in Church History he learnt off the contents of a ninepenny Church History which he found on a local bookstall. Unfortunately this was a Catholic publication, so that there could be more than one version of "the truth." He reproduced the Catholic interpretation of the Reformation. To the Anglican Principal this was "a tissue of Popish lies," and as a reward for his pains Buckmaster found that his name was omitted from the pass list. [2]
It was indeed fortunate for Buckmaster that a system of external inspection and examination existed and it was doubly fortunate that from 1844 onwards the Revd. Henry Moseley was the H.M.I. responsible for the inspection of training Colleges. Moseley had taken a close interest in St. John's, Battersea since 1840 and had helped to build up the Mathematics and Mechanics course at the College. By the time Buckmaster entered the
Footnotes
College in 1844 the outstanding subject was mathematics, and especially Mechanics, taught by Tate, [1] and it may well have been the excellence of the teaching which encouraged him to specialise on the "science" side. It is also reasonable to suppose that his interests and predilections tended in this direction and he had shown a talent for mechanical inventiveness in his earlier career as a carpenter and joiner. [2] But he may also have seen the longer term career prospects of opting for subjects which were only just beginning to find a place in the elementary school curriculum and he may well have been enough of an opportunist and politician to grasp the value of gaining the support and approval of an influential and much respected H.M.I. Whatever his reasons, Buckmaster proved to be an exceptionally able student of Mechanics and an adept at making models for practical use in the classroom. [3] And Moseley was so impressed as to invite Buckmaster to his house on nearby Wandsworth Common to give science lessons to his own two sons, and six other boys, twice a week over a period of twelve months. [4] This was an unusual step to take since Buckmaster was still a student and in the light of Moseley's own intellectual reputation (he had held the chair of Natural and Experimental Philosophy at King's College, London from 1831–1844), may be interpreted as a recognition of Buckmaster's exceptional talents. Moseley was to remain a valuable friend and patron until he was removed from the London educational scene upon his appointment as Canon of Bristol Cathedral in 1855. The connection was revived much later when, in 1883, one of Moseley's sons, then Linacre Professor of Zoology at Oxford, interviewed Buckmaster's third son, George Alfred,
for the Radcliffe Travelling Scholarship. George Buckmaster won this
Footnotes
scholarship which was to prove the start of a distinguished career in Medicine.
Buckmaster enjoyed an active and varied student career at St. John's. In addition to tutoring Moseley's sons he was assigned for a period of one week to the task of assisting the Poor Law Inspector "in the examination of a large pauper school a few miles from town." [1] This was Norwood where Kay-Shuttleworth, then Dr. James Kay, had first made his reputation in the late 1830s as an educationist and had brought to public notice the distressing plight of pauper children. Kay-Shuttleworth as an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner was put in charge of Norwood in 1838 and in a short time he transformed the lives of the pauper children in his care. But after 1840 he was no longer able to give to Norwood the constant supervision that was needed and when Tremenheere made his first inspection in 1843 he found that the Poor Law School had suffered from Kay-Shuttleworth's absences. Buckmaster gives a sickening description of the conditions that obtained in 1845. [2] The children were underfed, inadequately clothed and in poor health. The dormitories were unheated and airless and were built alongside an open sewer ditch. It was hardly surprising that when cholera struck, these children went down like ninepins. Out of a total of 1,400 children, 352 died in less than a week and were buried without identification or inquest in boxes holding from four to six corpses. Fortunately the cholera epidemic did not spread to London even though the Poor Law Unions within a radius of 15 miles which had supplied pauper children to Norwood were forced to take back those who had not died. This incident at Norwood was one
Footnotes
of a series of scandals which directed public attention to the inhumanity to be found in many workhouses and which led to the appointment of a Select Committee of Enquiry and to the reconstitution of the Commission on the Poor Law Board in 1848.
For Buckmaster the effect of the Norwood cholera epidemic was to crystallise in him a strong sense of public duty. Although first-hand experience of the suffering and exploitation endemic in Victorian society had shaken his hitherto firm belief in God, his social conscience was so highly developed that he was able for the rest of his life to strive to protect the rights of the poor and underprivileged members of society with an unshaken faith in the ultimate improvement of mankind. It was with a genuine conviction that education could assist in this ameliorative process that he entered upon his career in education and in 1845 took up a teaching post in that other refuse dump of Victorian society, the juvenile convict prison at Parkhurst.
Buckmaster had entered the field of education partly with an eye to a more settled future. [1] But in the course of the fourteen years following his departure from St. John's, Battersea in 1845 he had to contend with fluctuating fortunes in his professional life and found no long term security until his appointment as Organising Master at the Science and Art Department in 1859. At a stage in life when most men are establishing a permanent career, between the ages of twenty-six and forty, Buckmaster worked at a variety of métiers, as a prison schoolmaster, a training college tutor, a science teacher in Trade and Navigation Schools and a museum keeper. And in addition he successfully completed a part-time science course at sub-University level at the Government School of Mines. This career record may be interpreted as evidence of Buckmaster's rootless personality and inability to hold down a job, in which case it is difficult to account for his thirty years of service in the Science and Art Department, or, perhaps more convincingly, of his opportunism and skilful manipulation of the job market. A more objective explanation may be that for the small number of trained science teachers who emerged from the Training Colleges in the 1840s there was no defined career structure.
Unlike most of his contemporaries at Battersea, Buckmaster did not proceed from Training College to elementary school. Of the 1844 intake, the majority went on to posts in National Schools, a few to Pauper and Industrial Schools and three took up appointments overseas, in Jamaica, the Cape of Good Hope and St. John's, Newfoundland. [2] In 1845 a career in elementary school teaching offered few prospects. The profession
Footnotes
lacked any discernible salary structure. There was no system of salary differentials based on qualification, no guarantee of a minimum wage, nor of a pension on retirement. It was widely known, and accepted, that the average wage was low. Although witnesses to the Select Committee on Education of 1834 [1] reckoned that trained and competent schoolmasters should be paid at least £100 per annum in London and other large towns, the Revd. Allen, H.M.I., found only one schoolmaster in the 440 schools he visited in the Home Counties in 1845 earning as much as £100, [2] proof that such a figure was well above the norm. The 1846 Minute did at least secure for a man who had gained a 3rd Class Certificate at a Training College (awarded on completion of a three year course) a salary of £60 per annum (half of which was paid by the Government and half by the School Managers) plus a free house with land attached, and a retirement pension. Even so, the pecuniary rewards were meagre and it is not surprising that Training Colleges continued to emphasise the vocational, rather than materialistic, appeal of school teaching.
Conditioned by the Normal School regime to a low level of personal aspiration most new teachers were willing to accept the inadequacy of pay and status. Nor did they enter the profession with any marked degree of innovatory zeal. With the possible exception of St. Mark's, Chelsea, there was little sense of intellectual excitement, or even curiosity, in the Colleges. The full potential of the Colleges as agents for the dissemination of new ideas was never realised and when the opportunity arose in the early 1850s to implement a radically new philosophy of elementary education only a handful of practising teachers were able to grasp it. On the whole the Training Colleges failed to inculcate
Footnotes
a questioning and critical attitude towards the aims and assumptions of education. And the new teacher, then as now, had neither the time, energy nor incentive to change the system. The conservative, even reactionary, influence of a strongly sectarian Anglican Church which appointed the School Managers, of parents and of society at large, reinforced his innate desire to passively accept the status quo. Buckmaster, however, was not cast in this subservient mould. He had proved to himself that he was strong enough to challenge authority and to survive. And in other ways he was unsuited to the role of an elementary school teacher. His open-minded and eclectic attitude to religion, which had so provoked the Anglican Principal of St. John's, would be unacceptable in a National School where the master in charge was expected not only to subscribe to Anglican doctrines but also to promulgate them as part of his job. His interest and expertise in science teaching would count for little in a curriculum geared to religious education. It was not until after 1847 when H.M.I. Moseley began his intensive campaign to publicise Dawes' work at Kings Somborne, that the idea of a science-based curriculum, as an alternative model for elementary education, came to be seriously considered by a small group of educationists and scientists. [1]
In 1845, then, elementary teaching offered Buckmaster neither material advancement nor personal or professional satisfaction. Not for him the broken dreams of Mr. Phillotson, Hardy's archetypal schoolmaster in Jude the Obscure. But in the 1840s career opportunities for the partially educated product of the Normal School were limited. Clerical work, which presupposed the level of literacy and arithmetical skills attained by Certificated teachers, was a possible alternative but it was not until the second half of the century that the expansion
Footnotes
of commerce and administration greatly increased the demand for clerks. [1] And in the field of education there were few avenues of advancement for the trained teacher other than in elementary schools. Posts in public schools and in the new proprietary schools were monopolised by middle class, untrained schoolmasters and by clerics. The endowed grammar schools were only beginning to recover from the deadening effects of the Leeds Grammar School ruling in 1805, which had excluded science and modern subjects from the curriculum, and the publication of Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby in 1838 had shown that masters in private schools enjoyed, if possible, even less esteem than elementary schoolteachers. Army and Navy Schools were manned almost exclusively by ex-Services personnel and the Poor Law Schools were at the nadir of their fortunes, as Buckmaster had seen for himself at Norwood, prior to reorganisation in 1846.
Seen in this context Buckmaster's decision to begin his teaching career in a juvenile penal institution need not appear unduly bizarre. For between 1842, when Pentonville was opened, and 1848 fifty new prisons were built, a rapid expansion which created a demand for staff and gave the prison service the semblance of a growth industry. Parkhurst, which was modelled on the experimental French juvenile convict prison at Mettray, was opened in 1839 as a specialised institution for juvenile offenders. Since the Government Reports [2] on Parkhurst offer no information on teachers' salaries it is not possible to make any comparisons between the financial rewards of prison school teaching vis-à-vis elementary school teaching. Nevertheless, one may hypothesise that in order to recruit qualified teachers to the fast
Footnotes
expanding service the Home Office saw fit to offer more favourable terms than either of the Voluntary School Societies. Buckmaster describes the post of prison schoolmaster as "a safe Government appointment," presumably a reference to conditions of tenure which, as later events were to show, were in no way so secure as he had anticipated. But how important were considerations of financial gain and professional security to Buckmaster? His experiences at Norwood had heightened his awareness of how the rejects of Victorian society lived. At the lowest level existed those delinquent boys, victims of "Britain's barbarous criminal code," [1] for whom no answer had been found save social isolation and transportation from their native land. It is arguable, then, that Buckmaster, already possessed of a strong social conscience and outraged by the hypocrisy and acts of cruelty he had witnessed at Norwood, entered the prison service from altruistic rather than materialistic motives.
Buckmaster states in his Autobiography that he was appointed to a juvenile convict prison, upon a personal recommendation to the Home Secretary, to take charge, under the chaplain, of the junior division and furthermore that he held this post for two years. [2] He does not name the prison but reveals its identity by specifying its island site [3] and its proximity to the Solent. [4] In the 1840s Parkhurst, on the Isle of Wight, was the only juvenile prison in Britain. The only reliable primary source which corroborates Buckmaster's statement is the St. John's College Admissions Register [5] which shows that on leaving
Footnotes
Battersea in March, 1849, Buckmaster went to Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight. The entry in the Register gives no details of the nature of the activity which he took up at the prison though one may safely assume that it was in an educational capacity. The Register states that it was in March, 1849 that Buckmaster left Battersea to take up employment at Parkhurst. The chronological accuracy of this source has already been questioned [1] and if it is accepted that Buckmaster left Battersea in 1845, and not 1849, then we may fix his period of service at Parkhurst from 1845–47. But the problems relating to this stage of Buckmaster's career are not confined to chronology: the paucity of substantiating documentary evidence might lead one to ask whether Buckmaster's own account of his two years at Parkhurst is in fact a figment of his imagination.
Buckmaster's lengthy and detailed obituary notice in the Surrey Comet [2] makes no reference to his educational work at Parkhurst; only in a valedictory account [3] written after his death in the same newspaper do we find a reference to his appointment as "head teacher at a juvenile convict establishment," but since this account is patently a potted version of Buckmaster's own Autobiography it cannot be classified as corroborative evidence. Of the fourteen obituary notices assembled by Buckmaster's eldest son, Alec, from a wide range of national, local and trade papers, only one adverts to the Parkhurst appointment. [4] The Schoolmaster of 25th July, 1908, describes Buckmaster as "one of the early students at Battersea who for a time filled the post of Schoolmaster at Parkhurst
Footnotes
Prison." In two of Buckmaster's extant letters, the first [1] dated 1882 to Sandford, then Secretary of the Education Department and Head of the Department of Science and Art, and the second [2] dated 1884, to Mundella, then Vice President of the Committee of Council, no mention is made of the Parkhurst appointment although both give exhaustive accounts of his career in education from the 1840s on. The purpose of this correspondence was, however, to bring about an improvement in his status and financial position at the Science and Art Department and to this end Buckmaster would naturally try to present an impressive and unimpeachable career profile and may well have decided to omit the Parkhurst experience which proved in professional terms a near fiasco. But in his evidence to the Royal Commission on the Working of the Elementary Education Acts, in response to a request to give a brief account of his career in education, he states:— "I was sent by Sir George Grey to the convict establishment at Parkhurst, which had been recently established for juvenile offenders." [3] It is highly unlikely that called before a Royal Commission to give evidence Buckmaster would have lied about his career.
The logical source to turn to for confirmation of Buckmaster's appointment are the Annual Reports of the Commissioners relating to Parkhurst Prison. In the Reports for the years 1841–1850 the Chaplain's Report of the Junior Division makes no reference whatsoever to Buckmaster. [4] The names of the schoolmasters (the teaching
Footnotes
establishment numbered two or three) are listed in every Annual Report with the exception of the 1845 Report which describes the events of the year 1844. [1] But Buckmaster cannot be conveniently slotted in here if we accept that he only entered St. John's that same year and in any case he claims to have taught at Parkhurst for two years. There was certainly a connection between Parkhurst and St. John's. The 1843 Report shows that in August, 1842, "two youths from the Battersea Training School were added to the junior establishment with special reference to the introduction of new methods," [2] and the Report of 1849 refers to the appointment as second master of a Mr. Dixon who was trained at Battersea. [3] But if we accept the negative proof, or rather proof by omission, that Buckmaster was never appointed to Parkhurst, it is difficult to account for the vivid and detailed description of prison life which appears in his Autobiography. [4] This is not a generalised, emotive denunciation of the treatment of juvenile offenders which could be made by any writer familiar with the literature on prison reform and without first hand knowledge. Buckmaster makes specific references to the practice of transporting boys from Parkhurst to Port Philip, [5] to the para-military structure of the prison staff, [6] to the system of punishment, [7] to the composition of the prison dietary, [8] to arrangements of the cells, [9] and to the numbers
Footnotes
and age range of the boys [1] confined therein.
And Buckmaster's account of Parkhurst is not merely descriptive; he puts forward some radical ideas for reform. He deplored the indiscriminate herding together of boys of very different criminal records. He points out that "the boy who held his mother's head while his father murdered her was a different wretch from the boy who had committed a petty larceny or a bungling forgery; not knowing the enormity of his crime." [2] He proposed that "boys who had shown themselves worthy" [3] should be allowed some measure of individual responsibility on the grounds that "the prisoners never had a chance of showing they were reformed because they were never trusted to carry an empty ink bottle without a warder." [4] He advocated grouping boys into families "under good agricultural labourers and their wives, rather than soldiers, so that they should have some idea of a home which many of them had never seen." [5] But these practical and enlightened ideas were laughed at for "the discipline department was too strong; the desire to make these lads better was a thing they never thought about." [6] Only after Buckmaster left the prison service did this repressive and militaristic regime begin to crumble. The attempt to set fire to the Junior Ward "by a few depraved boys" in 1850, [7] an event which Buckmaster refers
Footnotes
to as a rising, [1] forced a Committee of Inquiry which discredited the "discipline department." [2] With some complacency Buckmaster writes: "As time went on many of my views were adopted and the treatment and discipline became more rational." [3]
Buckmaster's plans for reforming the prison school were equally ambitious. He hoped to introduce the "Pestalozzian or Froebelian system of teaching" which seemed to him "the only natural and common sense system" [4] and to teach science "through simple experiments." [5] He was told by the chaplain that "people would get their boys transported for the purpose of learning science." [6] Although Buckmaster implies that the response of the authorities to his plans was totally negative, [7] Hepworth Dixon, a well known penologist of the period, gives a very different picture in his book The London Prisons and A Description of the Chief Provincial Prisons, which was published in 1850 and dedicated, interestingly enough, to the Earl of Carlisle, who, as Lord Morpeth, had been Buckmaster's patron in the 1840s. Writing of the schoolroom at Parkhurst, he gives this description, which is worth reproducing in full, of a chemistry lesson: "You find yourself in a large apartment, with galleries at each side, and a black screen drawn across the end. Lift the corner of the screen, and as you lift it there is a flash of light, the room is filled with smoke in an instant and the galleries ring with
Footnotes
loud applause. You may wonder where you are. In a moment or two the smoke and noise subside, and you find yourself in the midst of a lecture on chemistry, illustrated by experiments such as may be seen any day in the year at the Polytechnic in Regent Street. There stands the lecturer in the midst of his retorts, his batteries, his receivers. His lecture is on the properties of the simple gases; and very brilliant effects he is able to produce; and much satisfaction he appears to give to his juvenile auditors ... And to do them justice, some of them seem to take it up with great eagerness and facility; and all of them, you find, prefer sitting to see such experiments to the drier studies of the ordinary schoolroom." [1] Hepworth Dixon notes that "the other two schoolmasters have often to regret the superior attraction of the burning gases" [2] and wonders whether the Home Secretary is "aware of the introduction of these amusements into Parkhurst." [3] But although Hepworth Dixon treats the lecturer almost as a figure of fun and refers to his experiments as amusements he also accepts that the boys did learn from them. He writes: "Though we were told that many of the boys who applauded the successful experiments with the 'simple gases' could neither read nor write, yet it is to be confessed that out of a room of 150 or 200, answers were given to most of the questions asked in regard to mechanics. One or two could name the different kinds of attraction such as gravity, capillary, cohesion; and could adduce examples of each, as in a stone, a tree, a stick. Many of them knew the difference between a lever and a wedge, a plane and a screw." [4] But Hepworth Dixon believed that "the
Footnotes
most important thing which every boy in Parkhurst is to learn is, how to live honestly" [1] and thinks that "knowledge of hydrogen and ammonia, strata and fossils, will help him but little in this." [2] He was, however, prepared to accept the validity of the unnamed science lecturer's justification of his lessons: viz., that "men will take more interest in agricultural operations when they have a scientific knowledge of the powers and properties of matter," [3] since most of the boys would have to earn their living by farming once they arrived in Australia. (Transportation was not abolished until 1867.)
Hepworth Dixon's view that the first priority of prison education must be moral regeneration was representative of informed opinion at that time. The futility of propounding abstract theories of right and wrong to boys whose frame of reference was that of the Victorian criminal underworld was ignored. A prison teacher convinced of the practical use and popular appeal of elementary science lessons would almost inevitably meet with distrust and ridicule from his superiors and in the long term would find his position untenable.
It is possible only to postulate and not to prove that the science teacher whose exploits so astonished Hepworth Dixon was Buckmaster. The experimental methods described by Dixon [4] were similar to those practised by Buckmaster, [5] the teaching of common things to which Dixon alludes [6] without apparently being aware that it was one of the "new" techniques of science teaching, Buckmaster claims to have carried out at Parkhurst. [7]
Footnotes
Buckmaster held the same views on the relevance of scientific knowledge to agriculture as those quoted by Dixon. [1] It was on account of the reputation he gained for putting these ideas into practice in his own teaching career that he was later called in to advise Sir Robert Peel on the planning of the curriculum for a new agricultural school at Tamworth. [2] And in his evidence to the Samuelson Committee on Scientific Instruction in 1868 Buckmaster argued that "a knowledge of chemistry and natural science would be more valuable to a boy intended for a farmer than mathematics." [3]
But if we are to believe Buckmaster's account of the events which terminated his career at Parkhurst, then we may accept that he was well known to Hepworth Dixon. Dixon's book London Prisons, which contained the addendum "A Description of the Chief Provincial Prisons," was published in 1850. The chapter on Parkhurst was based on the first hand experience of the author who was sufficiently aware of the delicacy of his task to write in the Preface:— "So far as regards the actual conditions of the various prisons, all the statements are made from personal knowledge and on my own responsibility." [4] The implication is that Dixon visited Parkhurst in person in order to gain the necessary material for his book at first hand. This Buckmaster substantiates. Although there is no mention of it in the Annual Reports, Hepworth Dixon, in the company of Charles Dickens, made a tour of the prison at a time when "the governor, chaplain and deputy governor were holiday keeping," [5] and it was left
Footnotes
to Buckmaster to conduct this tour and to shatter the carefully doctored public image. He writes:— "Everything was clean and orderly; every piece of iron was brightened up like silver, and you could eat off the floors. To a casual visitor the machinery was perfect, but in those cells, which could be counted by the little iron grating in the blank wall, there was pulsating a mass of human wretchedness, the sepulchre of all earthly hopes." [1] Buckmaster's straight talking was an unexpected bonus to Hepworth Dixon and Dickens, accustomed to the empty euphemisms of official propaganda. After the tour of the prison they invited Buckmaster to their hotel for the evening where they had a "long talk." [2] At Dickens' request Buckmaster sent him "in confidence" further information in the form of articles based on his prison experience which had been published in the local paper. [3] And he supplied him "with additional matter as to the average cost of each prisoner, the uselessness of some of their occupations, the unsuitable character of sedentary work, the feebleness of religious instruction and other information which could be obtained by access to the prison books." [4] These revelations brought about Buckmaster's downfall. A Committee of Inquiry was held, he was suspended from duty and obliged to resign. [5]
Buckmaster must have been well aware of the subversive nature of his conduct. Little was known about the National Prisons; it was deliberate Government policy to set them apart from society and to shroud their activities in an official veil of secrecy. Thus to gain access to Millbank, Pentonville, the Hulks, the Queen's Prison and Parkhurst, it was necessary
Footnotes
to obtain a warrant from the Secretary of State. [1] Buckmaster was, therefore, on shaky ground in claiming that "he had no idea of anything being paid for by public money being private, especially the cost of a convict." [2] And Charles Dickens and Hepworth Dixon were both well known public figures. Dixon was an established journalist and advocate of prison reform and Dickens, through the medium of his novels and newspaper articles, had taken on the Socratic role of public gadfly. Dickens' own newspaper, the Daily News, founded in 1846, provided the means for both writers to reach a wide public. Buckmaster had created a potentially explosive situation and he was lucky to get away with the relatively light punishment of suspension from official duty.
The crucial question still stands: why did the official Reports make no mention of Buckmaster, his teaching, and the events which led to his resignation? It is useful to look at these Reports and consider their function. Primarily concerned with propping up the system and justifying Government policy in the eyes of M.P.s on both sides of the House, the Reports presented a factual account of the day to day running of the prison. Occasionally the low key style considered appropriate to the reportage of administrative minutiae gives way to the higher literary flights of moralistic writing. Thus the Chaplain for the Junior Wards writes in the 1847 Report: "... but if we are only privileged to sow the good seed of eternal life and this, at least, we are, we have not only the encouragement but the almost certain hope that we may yet enrich, not only the souls of these youths, but many a waste and far distant portion of this moral wilderness for generations yet to come." [3] And
Footnotes
only very occasionally, for example in the reference to the Junior Ward fire of 1850, is the bland veil of official Report writing lifted to reveal the tensions and conflicts of prison life. Bureaucratic double talk did not escape Buckmaster; he scathingly dismisses "all fine writing about the reformatory influences at work in the prison" as "a cheat." [1]
Buckmaster's revelations to Hepworth Dixon and Charles Dickens amounted to no less than a security leak which, if taken up by opposition Members of Parliament, could seriously embarrass not only the Governor of Parkhurst but the Government itself. Could it be that in the circumstances a decision was taken to sweep the whole matter under the carpet, to expunge Buckmaster's name from the official records of Parkhurst Prison and to arrange for his departure with the minimum of publicity? Thus, with the co-operation of the Principal of St. John's, the Revd. Thomas Jackson, Buckmaster was hastily removed from Parkhurst back into the calmer waters of the Training College. And instead of receiving what was known in students' jargon as a "jawbation" from the Principal, Buckmaster met with a kindly welcome and "partial approval" for his views on prison discipline. This surprising turn of events was partly the result of Hepworth Dixon's intervention on Buckmaster's behalf; he had called upon the Principal to explain that though Buckmaster was "well respected and, except among the rigid disciplinarians, much liked, for the sake of discipline it was necessary to stop the adverse criticisms which had been published in the papers." [2]
Buckmaster's account of the circumstances of his departure from Parkhurst Prison reads convincingly enough even allowing for the understandable element of self-justification. But how he came to be accepted on the staff of
Footnotes
St. John's College is more difficult to understand. In his Autobiography Buckmaster implies that there was an ulterior motive behind the Principal's uncharacteristic welcome. The illness of the mathematics and science lecturer, Thomas Tate, to whom Buckmaster refers under the pseudonym of "Mr. Meyer," had created a temporary vacancy which was difficult to fill, presumably because of the shortage of trained science teachers. Buckmaster claims that he took over Tate's classes and when, after a few weeks, it became clear that Tate would be unable to return, that he was appointed, upon H.M.I. Moseley's recommendation, to the Science lectureship at St. John's. [1] But this is an inaccurate and misleading explanation of the situation at St. John's and makes the task of establishing when Buckmaster was appointed and in what capacity a complicated one.
Buckmaster did not step into Tate's shoes as smoothly and as quickly as he would have us believe. Tate was still on the staff of St. John's in the summer of 1848 [2] and did not resign until 1849 upon his appointment as First Assistant Master at Kneller Hall, the Government Normal School for Workhouse Masters which opened in 1850. [3] From Adkins' detailed description of the staff establishment "in Principal Jackson's time," i.e. 1844–1850, we can deduce that Tate and Buckmaster were teaching at St. John's at the same time. "Among the other masters, (after mentioning Hullah and Tate and McLeod) we may mention Mr. Kingston and Mr. Weddall who taught mathematics; Mr. James Brown, history and geography; Mr. Zurhost, writing master; Mr. Kenworthy, drawing; Mr. Hersh, of the Middlesex Hospital, visiting lecturer on Chemistry; and Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, who was afterwards so long and honourably associated with the Science and Art Department at South Kensington." [4] It is immediately noticeable that Buckmaster is the
Footnotes
only member of staff to whom Adkins does not attach a teaching subject. This may be because he worked as Tate's assistant but it is more likely that Buckmaster's initial appointment was as Industrial Master, a post which involved organising the practical scientific work carried out in the College workshops and giving simple experiments, and was not a specific lecturing appointment. Hence Buckmaster's comment that he "hoped it might be a stepping stone to something better," [1] viz., the Science Lectureship. Although it is highly probable that when Tate resigned in 1849 Buckmaster did take over the post of Science Lecturer (it would be difficult otherwise to account for his involvement with the Dawes/Moseley Movement and his connection with Sir Robert Peel), it was not until 1851 that he was officially confirmed in this position. The reason for this hiatus may be found in the financial crisis which the College went through in the years 1848–1851: a state of affairs which threw its continued existence into the balance and as a consequence suspended all decisions on staff appointments and promotions. Almost from the time of its foundation St. John's had suffered from shortage of funds and Kay-Shuttleworth's decision to hand over the College to the National Society in 1843 had been taken for financial reasons. [2] But the Society failed to make an adequate allowance and in 1848 Principal Jackson launched an appeal for raising extra cash by private subscription. [3] The response was disappointing and in 1850 the College Council, the new Governing body formed in June, 1849, was "seriously resolving to close the College altogether." [4] This crisis of confidence was reflected in the Council's decision not to appoint a new Principal immediately upon Jackson's resignation in the Autumn of 1850. [5] Instead
Footnotes
temporary arrangements were made whereby the Vice Principal, John Hunter, took over the duties of Acting Principal and students entered the College on the understanding that they might have to withdraw at any time. Early in 1851 the College was at last rescued from its financial straits by the "generosity of a few warm friends of Church education" [1] who undertook to raise the sum of £1,100 per annum over a period of five years. In the Spring of the same year the Revd. Samuel Clark was appointed Principal of the College, [2] and Moseley was able to write: "I augur favourably of its future." [3] Adkins' account of the year 1851, in his estimation almost an annus mirabilis because it marked the beginning of the Revd. Clark's term as Principal, includes this description of Buckmaster: "Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, later of South Kensington, a skilful teacher of scientific subjects, those taken up at the time being chemistry, mechanics and natural philosophy generally." [4]
If it is accepted that Buckmaster began his teaching career at St. John's, Battersea, almost immediately upon his removal from Parkhurst, then it may be established that he was appointed some time in 1847 or early 1848 in a relatively humble capacity as Industrial Master, that he effectively succeeded Tate as Science Lecturer in 1849 and after a delay of two years was confirmed, in 1851, in this position which he held until 1854. Buckmaster's appointment to the teaching staff of a Government aided, and inspected, Normal College raises the interesting question of what criteria were employed in staff selection and more generally, what was the policy of the colleges in respect of staff recruitment. Buckmaster's academic qualifications were minimal and his grasp of the theoretical principles of mathematics and
Footnotes
science was limited. He was enough of a realist to be aware of his deficiencies, allowing that "if my mathematics had been equal to my experimental knowledge I should have been a stronger man." [1] He had passed his final College examinations but had missed out on the Teacher's Certificate examination instituted by the 1846 Minute. [2] Nor had he been able to take advantage of the amendment made in March, 1847, enabling schoolmasters already in elementary schools to sit the Certificate examination and thus qualify for a Government grant, since he had never taught in an elementary school.
The 1846 Minute which established the pupil-teacher system also created an acceptable salary structure for elementary school teachers. But no comparable arrangements had been made for Normal School Lecturers. Indeed, elementary school teaching which could yield to the holder of a third-class Certificate a salary of £60 per annum plus a free house and garden, was a more attractive financial proposition to Certificated teachers than was College lecturing. One reason why Colleges had such difficulty recruiting well qualified staff in the 1840s lay in the fact that by taking up a lecturing post the certificated teacher lost the Government augmentation due to him in respect of his Certificate. [3] This situation was not remedied until 1852 when a Minute [4] made Certificated teachers in Normal Schools eligible for the Certificate augmentations and not until 1853 was the financial position of College Lecturers greatly improved by a set of Minutes which allowed an augmentation of £100 to be made to the salary of qualified lecturers in certain subjects provided they received a salary from the College of £100 or £150 per annum plus board and lodging. Eligibility for this augmentation depended on passing an examination in one or two of the following
Footnotes
subjects: history, English Literature, geography, physical science or applied mathematics. [1]
It could be agreed that compared to elementary school teachers training college lecturers had a much less stressful job and the time and opportunity to supplement their salaries either by writing textbooks and training manuals, as did Tate and McLeod at St. John's, or by teaching in Mechanics' Institutes. For the established lecturer perquisites of this kind did exist but it was a restricted field and for a new and unknown man opportunities were limited. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that Colleges were unable to pursue any planned policy of staff recruitment. They took what they could get and were not too particular about academic qualifications. Buckmaster's were undoubtedly meagre but so had been Thomas Tate's, who has been described as a remarkable product of the autodidactic tradition in science education. [2] He did have practical experience of science teaching, he was known to the College, and as a student he had enjoyed a reputation as one of H.M.I. Moseley's protégés. And it was, as Buckmaster acknowledged, on the recommendation of Moseley that he was appointed to the teaching staff of St. John's. [3]
The decade 1845–1855 were seminal years for the progress of science and science education in this country. At the national level there was a resurgence of public interest in science and technology which built up to, and was further stimulated by, the Great Exhibition of 1851. The founding of the Royal College of Chemistry in 1845, the first academic institution to provide professional chemical training, indicated the degree of royal patronage and of support by the English landowning class
Footnotes
for this subject which had suddenly become fashionable after Liebig's visit to England in 1842. In the area of elementary education these years saw the birth of a campaign to introduce science into the elementary school curriculum which by the early 1850s "had crystallised into a well defined movement." [1] Its leaders were the Revd. Richard Dawes, former Cambridge don, Dean of Hereford from 1850–1857, and in the years 1842–1850 Vicar of Kings Somborne, Hampshire, and H.M.I. the Revd. Henry Moseley. Teacher training, predictably, lagged behind in its response to this burst of enthusiasm for scientific studies. The Training College curriculum was still heavily biased towards literary subjects on the grounds that "A thorough acquaintance with the English language can alone make the labouring classes accessible to the best influence of English civilisation." [2] Physical science, although given more emphasis at St. John's than in the other Colleges, was still treated as an "additional subject," not a compulsory one. Furthermore science was taught as an information subject by the lecture technique, divorced from experimental work. Buckmaster lamented the fact that most students left St. John's with little knowledge or understanding of the physical sciences: "I could not understand a teacher being educated who could not explain the construction and operation of a common pump, or the formulae for common salts. I used to teach these things to convicts in my lessons on the common things, and the idea of men going out to teach others ignorant of science was to my mind a fraud." [3]
Buckmaster's personal stance on science education was very similar to that of his friend and mentor, Henry Moseley. Both men had a profound faith
Footnotes
in the educative function of science, particularly physical science, and believed strongly that experimental methods were both desirable and appropriate at the elementary school level. For some years Moseley had been conducting a vigorous campaign to disseminate Dawes' educational ideas and bring to the notice of the public the achievements of his little village school at Kings Somborne.
This was an ordinary village school, without endowments or subscriptions from neighbouring landowners. It depended solely upon the fees charged which were scaled according to family income. At the bottom of the scale labourers' children paid 2d. a week. The high regard which the farm worker had for the school and their approval of the kind of education it provided can be deduced from their willingness to pay the fees and to buy the necessary books in order to keep their children at school. In 1848, of 33 boys and girls in the top class, nineteen were the children of labourers. [1] For the school was notable not only for its science teaching but also for the general education it provided. At a time when the Bible was used as a means of teaching reading, and in some instances history and geography as well as morality and religion, Dawes confined its use to religious instruction only. A variety of Reading Primers with a secular and even scientific content designed to interest children were introduced. Poetry and singing were taught and the children were encouraged to write freely about things within their own experience. They learnt geography, history and English grammar, the older boys geometry and algebra, and Dawes himself taught all the children natural science, basing it "on the principles of the tools they use and science as seen in their experience." The boys kept a natural history journal for the parish. Homework was set and done, combs and toothbrushes were provided for each child and used each day. [2]
Footnotes
Within this enlightened ethos there developed a philosophy of science education. It was important that children should be engaged in practical science, through the medium of phenomena and things familiar to them, hence the use of the "object lesson" designed to teach children the properties and function of everyday common things. Thus in the hands of a skilled teacher, "objects" like bread, wood, fire, water could be used to introduce children to the elements of mechanics and the principles of agricultural chemistry which would have a real and recognisable application to their everyday lives. Dawes' methods were summarised in Suggestive Hints [1] which, through its adoption by the Committee of Council as a training manual, was very influential.
From the time of his first inspection of Kings Somborne in 1844, Moseley had worked unceasingly to bring about a wider acceptance of Dawes' ideas and methods, by his fellow Inspectors, by the Committee of Council, by Training Colleges and in the elementary schools. His long account of Kings Somborne was included in his official Report for 1847–48 [2] and this created enough public interest to warrant a reprinting as a pamphlet by Groombridge and Sons, Dawes' publishers, in 1849. Moseley and Dawes held that the fundamental aim of the movement to introduce science in the elementary schools should be to promote the intellectual development of the child. Moseley believed that an elementary education based on a literary culture would inhibit the growth of reason in children from the labouring classes. Not only was such a culture alien to them, it also demanded a high level of literacy and a familiarity with what is now categorised as the elaborated code. As Moseley put it, "... those more complicated modes of expression
which are proper to elaborate forms of thought; and which exercise the
Footnotes
reasoning faculties of our (middle and upper class) children from an early period, conceal effectually from the apprehension of the children of the poor the idea in the construction." [1] On the other hand there was "that kind of science which has to do with the ordinary occupation of life, with our food, our clothing, our health and the daily labour of our hands. Nothing is more certain to everybody acquainted with these subjects or more entirely confirmed by experience, (as for instance in the Kings Somborne School), than that this kind of knowledge may be taught in elementary schools with success, that the children take great pleasure in it and that it has a great educative power with them, tending to open and develop their minds, by accustoming them to reason, and to understand about the things amongst which concern their daily avocations and personal well being." [2] And again, writing on the active and creative element in knowledge, he says: "To develop this character of the maker in the child as contrasted with the worker, is the function of physical science in elementary education." [3]
The movement to introduce science into the elementary school curriculum was supported by other prominent educators, including the Revd. C. H. Bromby, Principal of the Training College at Cheltenham; the Revd. A. Rigg, Principal of the Diocesan Training College at Chester, by College lecturers like Tate, and by wealthy landowners, notably Lord Ashburton and Sir Robert Peel. Following the fall of the Conservative Government in 1846 over the issue of the Repeal of the Corn Laws, Peel had devoted his energies to the welfare and improvement of his estates at Tamworth, Staffs. He was particularly interested in scientific agriculture and entertained many leading scientists of the day, including his friend Lyon Playfair, at his manor house at Drayton.
Footnotes
Norman Gash considers that "of all the leading politicians of the day he probably was the most sympathetic to the progress of scientific thought." [1] It was in the hope of instilling in the minds of the children of his tenants the principles of scientific agriculture, which he saw as the guarantee of continuing prosperity on the land, that Peel decided to reorganise the village school at Tamworth. This school had been founded and endowed by his father in 1820 as a free grammar school for boys, who received annually a suit of clothes as well as their education. Peel was anxious to obtain the best possible advice on how to equip the school and restructure its hitherto classical curriculum on "modern" scientific and practical lines. He was evidently in touch with Dawes who sent him in October, 1849 a "pamphlet on the Working of the Educational Scheme of the Committee of Council, observations of a practical kind but not entirely undeserving of notice," knowing "that the school here, (i.e. Kings Somborne) had already your (i.e. Peel's) attention." Dawes had great hopes for the new Tamworth school:— "the success of which as connected with your name would have a most beneficial effect on the course of national education." [2] On the matter of appointing a new and progressively minded master for the school Peel consulted Moseley: "I said, 'I have confidence in you, Mr. Moseley (sic), find me the best master you can. ... I will give a very liberal salary and offer other inducements to insure the appointment of a very first rate master.'" [3] And for practical advice on equipping the school, on the subject matter to be taught and on the manner of teaching it, Peel turned to Buckmaster, probably on Moseley's recommendation. This
Footnotes
was an unexpected honour for Buckmaster, a public acknowledgment by the former Prime Minister of his growing reputation as a science teacher and practitioner of the new philosophy of science education.
Buckmaster was summoned to Drayton for a "long interview" which he admits to have been something of an ordeal. [1] Not on account of Peel's eminent position, for Buckmaster was noticeably free of the Victorian obsession with social status, but because Peel, as leader of the Conservative Party, had been a prime target for the hostile attacks of Anti-Corn Law Leaguers prior to his conversion to Repeal in 1844. But Buckmaster's conscience was clear; he writes: "although I had heard violent speeches against his policy, I had never uttered a sentence against him myself." [2]
He was favourably received at Drayton and given the opportunity of looking round the school. His observations reveal the degree to which the Tamworth School, which may be taken as a typical example of the small endowed grammar school, had fallen into decay and disrepute by mid-century. The master was a pedant, overly concerned with ornamental handwriting and mechanical Latin exercises. He was accustomed to shave at his desk in the morning upon his arrival, "which was very uncertain," while the boys stood round it, "declining Latin nouns and translating exercises from Henry's First Book." Only fifteen boys attended the School "and those that did attend went more for their clothes than for their learning," a nice dig at the terms of endowment. These boys were tradesmen's sons who "but for their pride could have obtained a better education at the National School." The teetotal Buckmaster found it "very unsatisfactory" that the school was "held in a club room connected with the public house and when the wicket was drawn aside you could see all the mugs and beer barrels from the classroom." This state of affairs, so Buckmaster tells the story, inspired the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom Peel had invited to Drayton on the occasion of the school's annual examinations
Footnotes
to declare: "This is not a school, Sir Robert — it is a public house." [1]
Peel proposed building a new school:— "a good middle class school ... where the science relating to agriculture and the mechanical trades should be taught" instead of Latin and Greek. To this end he authorised Buckmaster to buy scientific apparatus to the value of £50 (in his evidence to the Samuelson Committee of 1868 Buckmaster quotes the figure of £100), [2] which was to be publicly exhibited in the Town Hall and its uses explained by Buckmaster to the parents of potential pupils. Buckmaster made the suggestion, to which Peel agreed, that he should pick out twelve boys from the elementary school and give demonstration lessons in front of their parents "to show them that this kind of teaching was not difficult and had important industrial uses." [3]
The Tamworth School could well have become a spearhead in the campaign for science teaching in schools. Within a year the number of boys had risen from fifteen to sixty and a master was appointed "who had been specially trained at Battersea, (presumably by Buckmaster) and had paid special attention to the sciences which it was proposed to teach." [4] But the accidental death of Sir Robert Peel in July, 1850, effectively put an end to the venture. In his evidence to the Samuelson Committee Buckmaster reported that the Tamworth School "dwindled into a mere national school" and maintained that had Peel lived it "would have been a model of what we now require." [5]
Buckmaster was, however, well aware that the Tamworth experiment was too far ahead of its time to win much public support. His attempt to set
Footnotes
up similar schools — after Peel's death he "went to two other places, (unspecified) with the same object" — met with no success for "the notion was in advance of its time, and there was no public response to the effort." [1] The middle classes for whose children such schools were designed were unimpressed by the practical merits of scientific subjects; they clung, for reasons of status if nothing else, to the traditional classical curriculum. Buckmaster publicly regretted the set-back to the cause of science education in schools incurred by Peel's death but on a personal level he was more concerned with its effect on his own professional advancement. Referring to Peel's death he writes: "I was disappointed because I lost a rare opportunity of showing what I could do with what the papers called the New Education." [2]
Nevertheless he returned to St. John's with his reputation considerably enhanced. He felt secure enough to undertake marriage, which estate would, in the opinion of the Principal, afford him "a better standing in the College." [3] Little is known about Buckmaster's wife, Emily Goodliffe, who came from a well respected family of shopkeepers in Cambridge. She bore him four sons and one daughter, thereby fulfilling the ideal of Victorian womanhood. That she was a sincere Anglican may be deduced from the stained glass window in St. Albans Parish Church, Teddington, erected in her memory by Buckmaster, whose own religious beliefs were very different. The date of the marriage is given in Burke's Peerage [4] as August, 1853, but it is likely that it took place two or three years earlier, [5] before the
Footnotes
appointment of Revd. Samuel Clarke as Principal of St. John's. By 1853 the new régime had forced Buckmaster's resignation and in such circumstances he would hardly have embarked upon a marriage, which seems to have been more a matter of convenience than of passion. For he writes in his Autobiography: "I had no cause to regret it (the marriage), and it was not a failure. But my affection for my wife attained its climax when, after forty years, I stood with my five grown-up children by her bier." [1]
Footnotes
In 1851 Buckmaster was over thirty, comfortably settled in his domestic arrangements and in his professional life. The Dawes-Moseley movement was at last producing results; in 1851 the Committee of Council authorised Moseley to prepare lists of scientific apparatus for use in schools and training colleges and guaranteed that two-thirds of the cost of purchasing this apparatus would be recoverable in grant. [1] Buckmaster was in the happy position of teaching subjects which were now seen as exciting and important and he had the ability to teach them well. And in addition to his College work Buckmaster had "a good deal of teaching at other places," [2] presumably at local Mechanics' Institutes and Philosophical and Literary Institutions where there was a growing middle class demand for scientific lectures and demonstrations. He certainly had the time for outside work since we read in Moseley's Report for 1852 that: "Mr. Buckmaster gives one lesson a week to the students on physics and elementary chemistry," [3] a remarkably light teaching load. But Buckmaster's days at St. John's were numbered. Since the arrival of the Revd. Samuel Clark to take up his duties as Principal in the Spring of 1851 the College had been undergoing a chaotic upheaval. Adkins, who describes Clark as "A Great Principal," [4] interprets these changes as constituting a desirable, and much needed, reformation. Buckmaster, on the receiving end, took a different view. When the Revd. Jackson resigned in 1850 the then Vice Principal, John Hunter, had taken over the running of the College and, according to Adkins, his easy going nature "coupled
Footnotes
with the uncertain state of things" (a reference to the financial difficulties of the College) had resulted "in a rather loose condition of affairs." [1] In Adkins' view what was needed was "the intervention of a strong hand," and he approved wholeheartedly of the draconian measures introduced by Principal Clark. Clark had taught chemistry, geography and Shakespeare at St. Mark's, Chelsea, until his resignation on the grounds of ill health in Autumn, 1850. He was a man of strong personality, firm Anglican views (though Buckmaster alleges that earlier in life he had been for thirty years a Quaker) [2] and highly respected by H.M.I. Moseley. [3]
Once installed as Principal, the Revd. Clark initiated sweeping changes in personnel. Hunter had resigned of his own accord and was replaced as Vice Principal by the Revd. Robert Graves, who had also taught at St. Mark's and was a personal friend of Clark, [4] and Graves' brother, John, was appointed to teach Latin. Buckmaster paints a black picture of the new régime: "Things began to grow very unpleasant. There was constant friction between the old masters and Principal. Fault was found with their teaching; the workshops and printing press were abandoned as fads, the tools and type sold; and it was evident that the old masters would have to go and make way for others appointed through the recommendation of the Principal." [5] According to Buckmaster, the first of the masters to be attacked was the Master of Method. In 1851 this post was held by George Glenn Taylor who had succeeded McLeod, the original appointment, in 1846. McLeod, who acquired a considerable reputation through his teaching manuals, had resigned in that year to take up the post of Headmaster
Footnotes
of the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea. [1] Buckmaster alleges that because of Taylor's supposed scepticism and Unitarian leanings "things were made so uncomfortable for him" that he was forced to resign. [2] He was succeeded by "one of the most contemptible, hypocritical, lying creatures that ever walked on two legs." [3] This was presumably Frederick Rowbottom who is described by Adkins as "teacher of method" [4] and in Moseley's Report for 1851 as Assistant Master. [5] This new member of staff became the eyes and ears of the Principal and in the interests of moral rectitude "used to crawl about the passages after the lights were out to hear what the students talked about." [6] His reports were eagerly awaited by the Principal, "who drank with pleasure the most fulsome flattery" [7] and looked with favour upon his "sound Church views," [8] despite the fact that "this creature was married and carried on a clandestine correspondence with the housekeeper." [9]
It is hard to believe that such goings on were tolerated in an eminently respectable Church of England Training College or that Moseley, or the H.M.I. concerned, would have turned a blind eye to them. Indeed Moseley was consistent in the approval he expressed towards the new régime at St. John's. Adkins quotes from the recorded impressions of one George Manville Fenn, a student at Battersea in the 1850s:— "Stern,
Footnotes
bluff Mr. Rowbottom; he stored my mind with the gems of the thoughts of our best works of prose and poetry, sacred and secular, and above all taught me the value of being earnest and persevering." [1] It is worth noticing that in Fenn's memoirs this eulogy of Rowbottom is followed immediately by a somewhat cursory and patronising reference to Buckmaster: "I must not forget Mr. Buckmaster who worked hard with us over his lessons or lectures upon physical science and industrial matters." Could there have been an element of jealousy in Buckmaster's scathing and libellous attack on Rowbottom? But it is noticeable that Adkins makes no direct reference to Rowbottom's achievements as Method Master, whereas he writes with unequivocal approval of McLeod, "our capable and zealous first master of method." [2] Indeed Adkins' valedictory account of Rowbottom could be interpreted as an implied criticism: "When Mr. Rowbottom left to become Principal of the Episcopal College at Edinburgh, this important subject, 'method,' passed into other hands. The theory and practice of education has always received careful attention at Battersea but, being to any exhaustive and really scientific extent a comparatively new branch of study, it was not always easy in the College's early days to obtain the services of highly capable exponents of it." [3]
Whatever the truth of Buckmaster's verdict on Rowbottom, and it should be remembered that he wrote these strong words many years later when the possibility of a libel action was remote, his impression of the radical nature of staff changes in Clark's time can be substantiated. Adkins describes these changes in some detail [4] and makes it clear that
Footnotes
not only did Clark succeed in ridding himself of staff appointed before 1851 but that he also reduced the number of lecturers employed, probably in reference to the need to economise on resources. Thus when G. W. Martin, the Music Master, retired, Graves, the Vice Principal, "took charge of the musical practice of the College." [1] It would be interesting to know the fate of Hullah and May, who had built up the College's reputation for music in the early days and who were still listed as members of staff in Moseley's Report for 1851. [2] The justification for these changes was said to be "that the efficient government of the College was impossible so long as any of the old masters remained." [3] Buckmaster claims that finally he found himself in the precarious position of being the only member of staff not appointed by Clark. He survived because he had "one or two friends on the Council," namely Lord Morpeth, [4] his former patron, and the Earl of Harrowby, who had been a friend of Peel and interested in scientific agriculture. But in the area of staff appointments the Council acted upon the advice of the Principal and by 1853 Clark was determined to force Buckmaster's resignation and had armed himself with the ammunition whereby he could achieve this end. The campaign followed a predictable pattern: "Disagreeable and extra duties were imposed upon me which, as a married man, were often impossible and which I refused to perform. This brought me into direct conflict with the Council and Principal and our interviews were very unpleasant. He accused me of keeping company with a sewer, [5] of once obtaining my livelihood as a political agitator, of selling a shovel, not attending church and stirring up a spirit of insubordination among the students. I knew who prompted the accusations —
Footnotes
the man I abhorred was a genius at this work. In my anger I said, 'If you repeat these accusations, I will strike you.' I walked out of the library, wrote for my salary and never set foot in the place again." [1]
Indicted of what amounted to scandalous and immoral conduct, theft and subversion, Buckmaster could do no other than resign. It was, however, ironical that he was forced to leave the Training College at a point in time when the curriculum changes which he had advocated and worked to bring about were in the process of realisation. After several years of persuasion H.M.I. Moseley had received permission from the Committee of Council in 1853 to radically restructure the training college curriculum as part of an attempt to institute an examination system common to all male students. Moseley's reform made physical science a compulsory subject for the first two years of the Certificate course, thereby making it a basic subject of elementary education. Students would study mechanics in the first year, hydrostatics, pneumatics, electricity, optics and inorganic chemistry in the second year, and those who stayed on for a third year could follow experimental science as one of five optional courses. The scheme came into operation in 1854 but was too radical an innovation and in 1857 Moseley's successor, the Revd. Frederick Temple, revised it so drastically that within a few years the amount of physical science taught in training colleges was again almost negligible. But instead of being in a position to contribute to the brief flowering of scientific studies in the Training College, Buckmaster found himself, in 1854, unemployed, with no other job in view and dependent for a reference upon Clark who was now his "bitter enemy." [2] He was by now a family man with a wife and small child to support and the rent to pay on his "wretched jerry-built house" [3] in Wandsworth. The prospect, as
Footnotes
he wryly observed, "was not cheerful." [1] It was, therefore, fortuitous that he came on to the labour market as an experienced science teacher at a time when the growing awareness of a need for an organised system of science education was being translated by the Government into practical terms. The Great Exhibition of 1851 had been seen by many contemporaries as a triumphant vindication of British industry, proven by the large number of medals awarded to Britain by the international jury. But for the discerning few, particularly those luminaries of the Society of Arts who formed a close knit coterie around its President, the Prince Consort, there was no room for complacency. The major European countries, led by France with Germany and America not far behind, were fast catching up in the race for industrial supremacy. It was revealed that of all the important competing countries only Britain and Belgium lacked organised systems of technical education. It became known that Germany not only had a sound system of elementary education provided in the Volksschulen but had also developed a varied pattern of secondary education feeding the Universities and from the 1830s on, the Polytechnics which had been founded specifically to serve the needs of industry. Musgrave makes the point that so urgent was the demand for scientifically trained men that "Continental states vied with each other in opening polytechnics." [2]
In the months following the Exhibition the need for some similar organisational structure in Britain was constantly reiterated. In the course of lectures on the results of the Exhibition organised by the Society of Arts in the winter of 1851–52 the point was strongly emphasised by Lyon Playfair, industrial chemist and academic, who urged "the establishment of institutions for industrial instruction." [3] If
Footnotes
one excludes the Government-aided Schools of Design, which had by 1850 failed in their efforts to relate effectively to the needs of manufacturers, there was only one educational establishment in Britain purporting to link science with industry. This was the Government School of Mines and Science Applied to the Arts in Jermyn Street, which was officially opened on 6th November, 1851. In his inaugural lecture, Playfair, who was lecturer in applied chemistry at the School, spoke strongly in favour of developing the relationship between science and industry which was so essential to future industrial progress. In August, 1851, Playfair had written to de la Beche, Director of the Geological Survey and future Principal of the School of Mines, putting forward the idea of a system of technical schools throughout the country to be united "with a University of Mines and Manufactures empowered to grant degrees and diplomas." [1] Not only was the Prince Consort in favour of this idea, which was behind the purchase of the South Kensington estate, envisaged by some as the site of an industrial University City, but so were many educationists and scientists in closer touch with reality. The seeds of a national system of technical schools or colleges already existed in the nation-wide network of Mechanics' Institutes. James Hole reckoned that the Mechanics' Institutes had failed on two counts: "First, to attract the mechanic class (using the term in its generic sense, as including all classes of operatives). Second, to impart scientific instruction." [2] Whether or not the first failure was the result, as Engels postulated, of a conspiracy by the bourgeoisie to take the Mechanics' Institutes over for their own purposes, it is generally accepted that by the mid 19th Century they no longer attracted large numbers
Footnotes
of working men. And their activities had increasingly become confined to literary and leisure pursuits; what Hudson scathingly dismisses as "concerts and ventriloquial entertainments." [1] But in some cases they retained a vitality and an educational function, especially in areas where local Institutes had combined to form Unions as in Yorkshire, London, Lancashire, Cheshire, Scotland, the Midlands and the North. Led by the Revd. James Booth, a mathematician from Trinity College, Dublin and an active member of the Society of Arts, a movement began in the early 1850s to exploit the potential of the Mechanics' Institutes by converting them into industrial schools following examinable syllabuses under the aegis of a central technical college, to be sited either in London or in Manchester, which would teach and examine in scientific and technical subjects. [2] Although nothing came of the central college idea the Society of Arts went ahead with organising science examinations in collaboration with four hundred Institutes and from 1856 onwards the Society of Arts examinations in scientific and commercial subjects were taken by increasing numbers of candidates.
But the real need was not so much for examinations as for science teaching, (and in the 19th Century it was all too possible to have the one without the other), and for the Mechanics' Institutes to become teaching institutions it was necessary to obtain Government aid. Hole urged the Government to give financial assistance to the Institutes, claiming that the reason why this had so far been considered was "an unreasonable jealousy of all interference of government on the part of the people and an almost utter indifference on the part of the government itself to its own highest duties." [3] In the public debate on the need for a national system of scientific instruction the working men themselves played their part in 1856. Five thousand working men "belonging to the Royal Polytechnic, the
Footnotes
London Mechanics Institute and other Institutions in London" made a public plea in the form of a signed Memorial for the reorganisation of Mechanics' Institutes. This paper was presented by Buckmaster to the Samuelson Committee of 1868 in order to show "that the interest in this subject (i.e. scientific instruction) is not new." [1] The memorialists were "of the opinion that a large number of young men, apprentices and others, would gladly avail themselves of systematic instruction if it were imparted by competent teachers on terms within their means" and believed that "the Mechanics' Institutes are the best centres for this instruction." They emphasised the need for teaching science in elementary schools since "for the want of such instruction men fall into serious social errors and labour, instead of being an enlightened and intelligent application of principle is but too often a dull round of monotonous drudgery." Because of the importance of scientific instruction it was not enough to leave it to voluntary effort. The working classes could not "pay fees sufficient to secure the services of competent teachers: and to be dependent on charitable aid for that which ought in some degree to be regarded as our right is a humiliation to which the industrial classes ought not to be subjected." [2] Although the Memorial was drawn up in 1856 it may be interpreted as an accurate statement of the aims and aspirations of the more articulate members of the working class from 1850 onwards and was symptomatic of the intense pressure for some sort of declaration of intent by the Government that built up in the years following the Great Exhibition.
What was the Government response to this widespread and urgent popular demand for a system of scientific instruction? The Queen's Speech from the throne of the 11th November, 1852, augured well. It read: "The
Footnotes
advancement of the fine arts and of practical science will be readily recognised by you as worthy of the attention of a great and enlightened nation. I have directed that a comprehensive scheme shall be laid before you having in view the promotion of these subjects, towards which I invite your aid and cooperation." [1] In March, 1853, Cardwell, President of the Board of Trade, wrote to the Treasury putting forward two proposals. First, that a Department of Science should be created, organised on similar lines to the Department of Practical Art (established in March, 1852), and allied with it. Secondly, a Metropolitan School of Science should be founded to act as a central institution for the envisaged provincial science schools; it should be an institution of a "very good class where pupils could complete their training." [2] The Government School of Mines would discharge the functions of the Metropolitan School and with the Royal College of Chemistry, the Museum of Practical Geology, the Geological Survey and the Museum of Irish Industry and the Royal Dublin Society would be controlled by the new Department. Thus the Department of Science and Practical Art came into being, ruled jointly by Henry Cole, Joint Secretary for Art, and Lyon Playfair, Joint Secretary for Science. In 1855 the two branches were amalgamated to form the Department of Science and Art under the Secretaryship of Playfair with Cole taking on the office of Inspector General and in the following year it was transferred from the Board of Trade to the Education Department.
The aim of the new Department was to provide scientific instruction for the people by fostering local science schools and by setting up a central institution for training science teachers and for providing facilities for advanced study. The schools were to be encouraged to develop on the principles of self help, that is, local and voluntary
Footnotes
effort and to be self-supporting wherever possible. However, the Department was prepared to offer certain inducements: free advice and inspection, free scientific equipment, and a supply of trained masters with the promise of assistance with their salaries. Playfair was particularly concerned with the problem of how to increase the supply of science teachers throughout the country for without trained manpower the plan for establishing science schools would not get off the ground. The reluctance of most training colleges prior to Moseley's reforms of 1854 had resulted in a severe shortage of trained science teachers. Thus in 1854 the Department of Science and Art launched its training scheme for practising science teachers. Scholarships at the Government School of Mines were offered to the value of free tuition over a period of two years, plus a cash payment of £1 a week in the first year rising to £1.50 in the second year. These payments were in effect a partial contribution towards the salaries drawn by the teachers at the schools or institutions where they were employed while following the course at Jermyn Street. On successful completion of the course by examination the teachers would be guaranteed an annual salary plus an allowance graded according to the class of Certificate awarded by the School of Mines.
Buckmaster was one of five science teachers to win a School of Mines scholarship. In November, 1854 he entered "the salaried class of Masters in Training" with Thomas Coomber from Cheltenham Training College, William Mason from Williams' Scientific School in Edinburgh. [1] Two other students, Mr. A. B. Longshawe and Mr. I. W. Nottingham, entered the course at a later date. [2] It is clear from the manuscript minutes of the Department of Science and Art that teachers had to be personally recommended for these scholarships and in the light of Buckmaster's negative comments about the
Footnotes
Revd. Samuel Clark it is interesting to note that he was recommended by "the Principal of Battersea Training College and by the Revd. Canon Moseley." [1] We may assume, however, that it was Moseley who was instrumental in Buckmaster's success. For ten years he had given Buckmaster support and encouragement to a degree which indicates a bond of friendship between the two men as well as a common commitment to the cause of science education in schools. It was his final gesture on Buckmaster's behalf: in 1855 he was replaced in the Inspectorate by the Revd. Frederick Temple and on his departure to Bristol was effectively removed from participation in policy making at the national level.
Entrance to the School of Mines provided Buckmaster with the opportunity of acquiring the theoretical perspective which he had hitherto lacked as well as the assurance of academic respectability. For the first time in his teaching career he came into contact with scientists of the highest calibre. Perhaps the most outstanding was T. H. Huxley who succeeded Edward Forbes in 1854 as lecturer in Natural History and Zoology. Buckmaster was impressed by the academic achievements of his teachers at the School and was made to feel very conscious of his own limitations. He writes: "The teachers at the School of Mines were the most distinguished men in the subjects they had to teach, except the Chemistry Professor. They were all Professors and examined us in the Universities and what I and others knew, compared with what they knew, was not a very cheerful comparison." [2] But as a practising teacher he was quick to spot defects in teaching method:— "The most terrible man was the teacher of physics. There was a blackboard the area of the wall of a small room which moved up and down like a window, and in two minutes it was covered from top to bottom with x's and y's and formulae which no-one could read but himself. He was not a good teacher for students whose knowledge of science was only elementary, and when he
Footnotes
tried to explain the simplest problem about the pressure of fluids or the like, which could have been done by experiment, he at once went to the blackboard." [1] The lecturer in question was Robert Hunt, Keeper of Records at the School, who devoted all his time to the Record Department [2] when apparently he could have been giving some thought to improving his teaching technique.
The course lasted rather less than two years, in Buckmaster's case from November, 1854 to February, 1856, and proved to be physically and mentally exhausting. Buckmaster attended the School at least three days a week from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and was in addition committed to teach science classes at Wandsworth Trade School and at the Poplar Trade and Navigation School. [3] In order to save money he walked the five miles from his home at Wandsworth to Jermyn Street, a shining example of Victorian fortitude. Twenty-five years later his third son, George, was a medical student at St. George's Hospital and repeated the practice, walking every morning and evening the ten miles from Wandsworth Common to Hyde Park Corner. The considerable pressures imposed upon the masters in training by the intensive nature of the course were exacerbated by the examination arrangements. The School of Mines set two written examination papers, the first in August, 1855, the second and final examination in February, 1856. No resits were allowed and failure in one subject meant failure in all. The penalty for failing the August examination was expulsion from the course while the final examination result decided the amount of money to be awarded the successful candidate in the form of certificate allowances and annual salary. Buckmaster held strong views on the iniquities of this system. "Of all the cruel inventions of man for the mental torture of his fellow
Footnotes
creatures nothing is equal to a competitive examination, especially when his future existence depends on the result. The prospects of a prison cell to an innocent man is more cheerful than a competitive examination." [1] Buckmaster feared that he would come to grief over the physics papers, understandably since the lecture course had been incomprehensible, and he devoted every spare minute to cramming. He writes: "I used to carry about little problems on a card and study them in the train or anywhere — much may be done this way — but, as it often happens, none of these problems came in at the examination." [2] Only Buckmaster and Coomber passed the August examination and were rewarded with a rise of 50p a week. Buckmaster records an unlooked for fillip in the form of a compliment upon his chemistry papers from the examiner, Prof. A. W. Hofmann, one of Germany's leading chemists and first professor at the Royal College of Chemistry. [3] Mason, Longshawe and Nottingham failed and were removed from the School of Mines. [4] At the final examination Buckmaster gained a First Class Certificate in Chemistry and a Second Class Certificate in Physics, awards entitling him to a certificate allowance of £15 per annum. No mention is made of his annual salary although he was in 1856 employed by the Wandsworth Trade School and by the Poplar Trade and Navigation School and under the conditions of aid granted by the Department of Science and Art to such institutions, i.e., science schools, his salary was to be guaranteed by the Department. The financial position of Thomas Coomber, the other successful candidate, was made more explicit. He was to receive an allowance of £20 per annum on his Certificates and the Department of Science and Art guaranteed him an annual salary of £100 at the Bristol Trade School where he was appointed as master. [5] It may well be that
Footnotes
Buckmaster's financial status was intentionally left vague, since by 1856 the trade schools which employed him were on the verge of closing and the Department was wary of making any firm financial commitment. [1] The School of Mines training scheme was an unimpressive and indeed abortive exercise. In terms of cost effectiveness, the time and money expended in producing two qualified science teachers was laughable. The high failure rate was undoubtedly due to the mistaken policy of the School of Mines towards the "Masters in Training" class of student. The School refused to acknowledge the discrepancy between their own rigorous academic standards and the low attainments of practising teachers in school and were, therefore, unable to make any concessions to their needs. The orientation of the School was narrowly scientific. It had been formed out of the Geological Survey, the Museum of Economic Geology and the Mining Records Office and the interests of de la Beche, its first Director, and of his successor, Murchison, were confined to higher geological studies. Neither party was prepared to cooperate with Playfair in his attempts to set up an in-service professional training centre for teachers at Jermyn Street. But it was not only the intransigence of the Jermyn Street establishment that frustrated Playfair's efforts: more fundamental reasons may be found in the social and educational structure of the time. It was clear that in the mid 1850s there was still only a very limited demand for science teachers: the enthusiasm for science education and the apparent public interest in science and technology had not penetrated very deeply into the majority of schools. Coomber was fortunate to be appointed to Bristol Trade School where for unique local reasons there was a measure of community support for a science school. Buckmaster's experience in the London area in
Footnotes
1856 reflected more accurately the general feeling towards science teaching in schools. Encouraged by Playfair, Buckmaster, upon qualifying at Jermyn Street, offered his services as a specialist science teacher, free of charge, to "middle class and grammar" schools within a radius of twelve miles around London; not a single school took up his offer. [1]
Buckmaster's laconic comment on the School of Mines training scheme was that "it was in advance of the time." [2] Possibly this was appreciated by the policymakers for the experiment was not repeated. And all hope of a Government institution for training science teachers was abandoned. Such a plan would have involved a high degree of state intervention and run counter to the philosophy of self help which prevailed in the Science and Art Department, a philosophy which was clearly stated in the Department's Fifth Report: "The fundamental action of the Department being to afford but partial aid, and then only in those cases where the object desired cannot be carried on without it, it would seem to be stepping beyond the functions of the State to establish a Training School for Science Masters." [3] A state training school would also have challenged the voluntary societies' monopoly of teacher training, firmly entrenched since the early 1840s. The failure of the Jermyn Street scheme demonstrated that there was no viable alternative but to make use of existing resources. In 1856 arrangements were made between the Department of Science and Art and Chester Diocesan Training College to train eight students selected from Science Schools at the College for a further two years in order to qualify for the Department's Certificates of Competency. But such schemes only scratched at the surface of a complex and deep rooted problem. Until the Government, through the agency of the Department of Science and Art, chose to give
Footnotes
solid financial aid to the science schools, thus enabling them to acquire status and prove their educational merit, they would win little support and the fees essential to their survival would not be forthcoming. Dawes' school at Kings Somborne had demonstrated that a science based curriculum did have appeal to the consumer, i.e. the parent, provided that subjects taught were seen to be relevant and useful to the child. But most of the Science Schools of the 1850s were in a chronic state of insolvency, a condition unlikely to inspire confidence in the public mind. It was, therefore, a futile exercise to train science teachers specifically to teach in these schools which could offer no guarantee of permanent employment.
During the years 1853–1859 twelve Science Schools were founded; by 1859 when the whole question of Government aid was reconsidered only four remained in operation. Buckmaster was employed at two of the unsuccessful schools:— Wandsworth Trade School and the Poplar and Blackwall Trade and Navigation School. The Wandsworth School was founded in 1854 by the Revd. James Booth, prominent in the movement to spread technical and scientific education among the artisan classes. Its aim was:— "to impart to the sons of workmen and others a knowledge of those principles of science and art on which all trades and manufactures are founded and to give a thorough insight into the elements of those things which they will constantly have to deal with in after life ... It is not proposed to have particular trades taught or to interfere between the master and the apprentice." [1] This was an essential qualification to the functions of any Science School, since there was considerable mistrust on the part of employers that trade secrets would be revealed to competitors in the classroom. Not that it was obeyed to the letter at Wandsworth, for
Footnotes
under that category of the curriculum entitled "Subjects of Special Instruction for those intended for Particular Employments" the principles of trades and manufactures were taught under three heads:— "Building Trades, Mechanical and Engineering Trades, Chemical and Manufacturing Trades." There were two other important components of the curriculum; Religious Instruction and Subjects of General Instruction for all pupils which embraced "Arithmetic, Bookkeeping, Euclid, Algebra, English History and physical and political Geography." [1] Buckmaster considered it to be an experimental school offering "an education which could not be obtained either in the elementary school or the grammar school and which was thought likely to be of more service than either." [2] The fees were low, "so as not to exclude the humbler middle and mechanic class," [3] and it opened with one hundred boys on the roll. It was in many ways an ideal school situation for Buckmaster: he was totally in sympathy with its aims and objectives, he enjoyed the support and friendship of Dr. Booth who allowed him a free hand in the classroom and the school was near to his own home making it possible for him to cultivate the "good opinion and friendship of the boys and their parents." [4] His teaching and that of the other masters was commended by the Governing Committee. Buckmaster claims that "within three months the boys had learned the symbols and combining equivalents of the commonly occurring elementary bodies and could perform simple calculations." [5] He made use of the Department's offer of free scientific
Footnotes
apparatus and in his first year requisitioned goods to the value of £22. [1] Buckmaster's career at Wandsworth lasted the length of the school's existence, from 1854 to 1857 when it was forced to close. "Repeated efforts had been made in vain to obtain pecuniary assistance from the Education Office." [2] "It was not to be expected that year after year men would continue heavy subscriptions towards a school which they thought worthy of help from the Education Office. One hundred and twenty boys had to find their way back to elementary schools or cheap middle-class schools." [3]
Buckmaster taught at Wandsworth on the days when his attendance was not required at the School of Mines. In the evenings he took adult classes at the Poplar and Blackwall Navigation and Trade School, founded by one Mr. Green, a local shipowner, in 1856. The attendance at the evening Trade School was on average fifty adults a week who paid a fee of 1/- a week for a course lasting forty-eight weeks of the year. It is not clear what Buckmaster received in the way of salary at this School. The fact that in February, 1856, he had gained his Certificate from the School of Mines with the promise of £15 per annum "with the penal conditions" [4] was ignored in the manuscript minutes referring to the salary scales at Poplar. [5] These minutes, passed in August, 1856, go into detailed arithmetical sums calculating the salary of the
Footnotes
School's Head Navigation Master, W. H. Bolt, who received a guarantee from the Department that for the first year of the School his income should not fall under £100; in fact he drew £125 per annum. A guarantee to Buckmaster that his income should not drop below £35 per annum was crossed through in the minutes which went on to state that he was "engaged by Mr. Green without responsibility as regards money to this Board." [1] Such equivocation may be interpreted as evidence of the Department's lack of confidence in the financial viability of the Poplar Trade and Navigation School and a reluctance to become over-committed. It was also symptomatic of the financial troubles of the Science Schools of the 1850s and their inability to pay specialist teachers an adequate salary. The Poplar School was closed in 1859. Although relatively well attended its fees were too low to ensure its survival without outside support. Buckmaster, possibly because of his vulnerable financial situation, abandoned an obviously sinking ship and he is not listed as a member of the staff in any of the Department's Reports after 1857.
Buckmaster's career as a specialist science teacher which had begun so promisingly in 1854 had within the space of three years fallen apart. The early enthusiasm for science education had proved ephemeral. By 1857 Government-aided science schools were failing, the plans for increasing the supply of trained science teachers had come to very little and the Dawes/Moseley movement was being eroded by Temple's revision of Moseley's reformed training college curriculum. For those members of the Society of Arts and the Department of Science and Art who had inspired this intensive, if short-lived, activity the results were disappointing; for Buckmaster, a redundant science teacher, they could have been catastrophic. It was
Footnotes
fortunate for Buckmaster that there was no great divide between the decision makers and the practitioners in the field. The scientists, educators, and practising teachers who came together to create some sort of system of scientific and technical education in the 1850s formed a close knit group whose interests were interlocking. Thus Playfair, who was central to the activity, was a member of the Society of Arts, Professor of Chemistry at the Government School of Mines and Joint Secretary of the Department of Science and Art. As Science Secretary at the Department of Science and Art he was directly concerned with the Wandsworth Trade School which had been founded by Dr. Booth, a member of the Society of Arts, and which was controlled by a Committee largely made up of members of the same institution. Buckmaster, in his capacity as science master at the School, worked closely with both men. He claims to have assisted Playfair with the preparation of science diagrams and apparatus, possibly for display at the Educational Exhibition of 1854, and continued with this work until 1857. [1] His successful teaching at Wandsworth Trade School and his eager identification with its aims [2] won him the respect of Dr. Booth and led to a friendship which lasted until Booth's death in 1878. [3] Buckmaster appreciated the opportunities which his connection with the School provided and doubtless made the most of them:— "It brought me into contact with some of the advanced educationists of the time and at educational meetings and conferences I was pretty well known." [4] His facility for making the right contacts and his powers of adaptation enabled him to find a way through the apparent impasse of 1857. He writes:— "I had a good friend, to whom I shall ever feel grateful, who obtained for me an appointment which had the prospect
Footnotes
of permanency in one of the education departments of the Government." [1]
In 1857 Buckmaster left teaching, never to return to it in the formal sense of teaching in school. Through the good offices of Lyon Playfair, his "good friend," and Secretary of the Science and Art Department, and upon the recommendation of H.R.H. Prince Albert, he was appointed to the post of Keeper of the Animal and Food Collection at South Kensington. [2] This Collection had formed one of the four major areas of exhibits at the 1851 Great Exhibition and belonged to, and was administered by, the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 whose President was the Prince Consort. The Prince's aim was to establish a comprehensive teaching institution, an Industrial University City or, as the wits termed it, an "Albertopolis," on the extensive site at South Kensington (purchased in 1852 with the surplus money from the Great Exhibition) where the four main sections of the Exhibition, raw materials, machinery, manufactures and the plastic arts would be housed. When the Exhibition had ended the Collection was stored at Marlborough House where Cole, Secretary of the Art Division of the Department of Science and Art, had assiduously added to it. The building operations on the South Kensington site began in 1856, under the direction of Lieutenant J. F. D. Donnelly of the Royal Engineers, and by 1857 a utilitarian structure of iron framework and glass roofing had been erected to house the Collection on the site of what is now the Victoria and Albert Museum on the Brompton Road. This edifice was officially known as the South Kensington Museum but since the glass roof made it into a hot house it became generally known as the "Brompton Boilers." Buckmaster took up his duties at South Kensington
Footnotes
at the same time as the Department of Science and Art was evicted from Marlborough House and forced to move into "the ramshackle structure where it remained ignominiously housed for the following fifty years." [1] Buckmaster was appointed on a permanent basis and drew an annual salary of £160 per annum [2] plus travelling expenses. [3] His duties involved travelling around the countryside with the object of inspecting animal or food products which could be added to the Collection. For example in September, 1858, he went to Leeds to attend an exhibition of woollen manufactures held by the British Association. [4] It was an interesting and rewarding job and clearly not too arduous for he found time, in 1858, to publish his first scientific textbook: The Elements of Inorganic Chemistry, and it brought him under the close scrutiny of the gifted Cole, on the look out for likely men whom he could use in the new scheme of Government-aided scientific and technical education which he was gestating at the time. Cole's recorded comment on Buckmaster was, however, hardly flattering:— "Lord Booth vouched for his morality but said that he was like an untamed Newfoundland dog." [5] It was with some reluctance that Buckmaster concurred with Cole's suggestion that he should transfer to the Department of Science and Art in 1859 and it was only in the assurance that no change would be made in his status or salary that he accepted the offer of a post as Organising Master of Science and Art Schools and Classes, [6] and so took a decision that was to have far reaching effects on his own career and on science education in Great Britain.
Footnotes
Buckmaster's appointment as Organising Master, a post which he was to hold for thirty-five years until his retirement in 1894, should be considered in the light of the failure of the Department of Science and Art to promote science education in the period 1853–1859. The system of aid operated by the Science division, Department of Science and Art, had proved almost totally inadequate; by 1859 the only places where science schools still existed were Aberdeen, Bristol, Wigan and Birmingham which provided for a total of 395 students. By comparison the activities of the Art division were conspicuously successful. The seventeen languishing Schools of Design which existed in 1852 had been transformed and expanded into fifty-six flourishing Schools of Art and the number of students had shot up from 4,800 in 1852 to 35,000. The success of the Art Schools can be accounted for in a variety of ways: drawing and painting were middle class occupations for which there was a growing demand, thus the Schools were attended largely by students who could afford to pay high fees. There were training facilities for Art teachers (the Government Normal School of Design had been founded in 1837), who were rather more fortunate than trained science teachers in that there was a demand for their services and once trained they could be certain of finding employment. But perhaps the greatest impetus to growth was given by the payment by results system under which Art classes received Government aid. In 1853 Cole had come up with the notion that instead of subsidising teachers by guaranteeing their salaries (the practice of the Science Division) the Department should pay them, through the local committees which controlled the various provincial Schools, on the results of their teaching. "Results" could only be objectively assessed by examinations and thus in 1854 "Art" was divided up into twenty-three examinable subjects
or stages, each examination yielding payments for the teacher according
to the degree of success achieved by his students. In 1856 the payment by results scheme was put into operation but for the Art Division only. It was clear to both Cole and Playfair that if science education was to develop at all the same system must be adopted by the Science Division and made accessible not only to classes in Science Schools, since only four existed and the Department had no intention of founding any new ones, but to part-time evening classes in science which the industrial classes, for whom the science scheme was specifically designed, could attend. With the resignation of Playfair in 1858 to take up the Chair of Chemistry at Edinburgh, Cole became Secretary of the Department and had the authority to put this plan into effect. He appointed Captain John Donnelly, R.E., to the vacant Inspectorship of Science and with his assistance hastily prepared a payment by results scheme for submission to Lord Salisbury, Lord President of the Council, and Adderley, Vice-President of the Committee of Council in Education. From Cole's own testimony it is clear that at the meeting which followed the continued existence of the Science Division hung in the balance:— Cole writes: "Two hours talking about Science. Lord Salisbury became impatient that science instruction had not advanced like art and said that if we could not find how to teach his carpenters at Hatfield some science useful to them he would abolish the name 'Science' from the title of the Department." [1]
The rapidity with which the memorandum was translated into an administrative minute is proof of Cole's genius for hard work and clear thinking. The Minute of 10th June, 1859, adapted for the Science Division the payment by results system already in operation on the Art side with two important differences:— science instruction was to be made available only to the artisan class and no provision for training science teachers was made. [2]
Footnotes
Science, as applicable to the industrial classes, was broken up into five Departments: Practical and Descriptive Geometry with Mechanics; Machine Drawing and Building Construction; Physics; Chemistry; Geology and Mineralogy (applied to Mining) and Natural History; and examinations were to be set on these five "subjects." [1] Anyone who passed and gained the Department's Certificate [2] could then become a science teacher qualified to earn payments on the results his students gained in the examinations. The pupils would be encouraged to attend classes and take the examination by the offer of prizes and also by the prospect of becoming "science teachers" themselves. Thus, in an ingenious way, the system of payment by results was made self-perpetuating. Basic to the whole plan was the provision that any science classes set up for the purpose of taking the Science and Art examinations should be the responsibility of the locality and not the Department. In other words, the Department did not intend to impose science instruction on the artisan population; it would grant the conditions of aid, which included, as in the 1850s, grants towards the cost of apparatus and diagrams, only in response to local initiative and only if local committees could demonstrably undertake the cost of setting up and running the classes. In this way suspicions of undue Government interference and control, to which mid-Century advocates of "laissez faire" strongly objected, were allayed and the system could be operated at minimal cost to the Government. A year later, after the first examinations had been held at the end of 1859, local committees were instructed in their duties connected with
Footnotes
the examinations. They were given the responsibility of finding suitable premises and conducting the examinations therein in accordance with the extremely detailed regulations laid down by the Department, and sending in the names of candidates taught by D.S.A. certificated teachers to the central office at South Kensington. [1] The Department, in addition to supplying aid, undertook to inspect those institutions in receipt of aid and to appoint academically qualified examiners to set and mark the examination papers. Administratively the Science scheme was a tour de force; it proved rather more difficult to execute. The minutiae of rules and regulations, conditions of aid, rewards and incentives, were set forth in all their complexity in the Directory, the Departmental Handbook, which was sent to all local committees. Duke, in his study on the work of the Science and Art Department up to 1864, [2] makes the point that the Directory and the other Departmental publications sent to provincial schools and interested bodies were so detailed that they were little read. But the success of the Department's scheme depended on informed local opinion. Publicity was of the utmost importance. How else were representatives of the local committees, and indeed how were these to be set up, to come forward with proposals for science classes without some knowledge of the workings of the system and the great benefits it offered? Between the idea and the hoped for reality there was a chasm which could only be breached by an efficient public relations network. Cole, who was himself a great publicity man, certainly appreciated the need for clarification and encouragement. What was extraordinary in his response to the situation was his decision to appoint just one man, Buckmaster, to take on, in the
Footnotes
capacity of Organising Master, [1] this responsibility. In practice it amounted to conducting a one man Public Relations campaign across the British Isles.
The manner in which Buckmaster performed the role of Organising Master was, therefore, crucial to the success or failure of the Department's science scheme. It would, perhaps, be appropriate at this point to draw together the strands of Buckmaster's early career in order to understand why it was that he appeared to Cole to have the potential for success. His most important attribute, and one which was emphasised by the Department, [2] was his practical experience as a teacher of science to artisans [3] and his training at Battersea [4] and at Jermyn Street. [5] Indeed Buckmaster's professional experience was almost unique; only Thomas Coomber could rival his qualifications and he was at the time fully occupied as Headmaster of Bristol Trade School. But scarcity value was not his sole recommendation. Buckmaster had proved himself at Wandsworth Trade School [6] to be an able and energetic science teacher with a known ability to communicate to others his enthusiasm for his subject. It is probable too that Cole knew of Buckmaster's record with the Anti-Corn Law League, [7] since he had been personally involved
Footnotes
in the Repeal movement in the 1840s and had declined an offer made by Place and Cobden to become Secretary of the League. [1] If this was so then Cole would have confidence in Buckmaster's lecturing talents, in his ability to win people over to a cause, in this instance the cause of science education, and above all, in his physical powers of endurance. Peripatetic work in the 1850s and 1860s was still both exhausting and time consuming even though the railway network covered most of Britain by this time. As Organising Master, Buckmaster's lack of social respectability would not necessarily militate against him. It would, however, have effectively excluded him from almost any other appointment in the educational Civil Service. Sir George Kekewich, writing of his early career in the Education Department, exposes the rigid class attitudes which prevailed amongst his colleagues — "The staff of distinguished men and aristocratic scholars from the Universities treated elementary education and elementary teachers with contempt. Their cherished creed was that no education mattered or was of any real use except classics and mathematics ... They had no use for Village Hampdens nor any idea that a child of the 'lower classes' might, after all, possess a modicum of brains. A ploughman's son was destined to be a ploughman as his father was." [2] Buckmaster would seem to personify all those qualities that those highly educated men, responsible for the progress of elementary education in England, despised. But in the Science and Art Department, staffed mainly by middle class men without University degrees, Buckmaster was almost socially acceptable. It is, however, possible that Cole, who was an arch snob and liked to mix in aristocratic circles as his Diaries
Footnotes
reveal, [1] had some reservations about Buckmaster on social grounds. Nevertheless, Buckmaster's working class connections and his apparently ungenteelly acquired manners [2] were useful assets, and would enable him to communicate effectively with artisan audiences. (And Buckmaster was no ordinary village Hampden; he had come into contact with eminent persons in the world of literature and of politics, as well as leading educators. Despite his lack of social graces he had won the respect of Lord Morpeth, [3] the Revd. Henry Moseley, [4] Cobden and Bright [5] and Lyon Playfair. [6]) Thus from the Department's point of view he would be well able to meet on equal terms, and even to impress, those local worthies whose support and co-operation in setting up science classes was so essential. In another unexpected way Buckmaster's background would help him in tackling the task that lay ahead. At a time when elementary education was torn by bitter sectarian feuds, the Department, possibly in order to avoid falling into a similar trap, offered its assistance on avowedly non-sectarian grounds. Buckmaster's religious position was eclectic; as a child he had been brought up in the Quaker tradition, [7] he later came under the influence of Methodism, [8] and towards the end of his life he attended Roman Catholic services at the Church of the Sacred Heart in Teddington. [9] But he never made a final commitment to any of these beliefs. Nor was he
Footnotes
a member of the Anglican Church, even though he later saw in it "a great organisation for good" [1] and his wife was a devout Anglican.
So in many respects Buckmaster would appear to have been an ideal candidate for the post of Organising Master. The only serious defect in his profile was his record of insubordination [2] but Cole was enough of a dictator in his own Department to put a stop to any signs of deviance on Buckmaster's part. In any case he had known Buckmaster for a number of years through his work for the Science and Art Department and, as Duke points out, he generally preferred people he already knew and thought suitable [3] and tended to employ men who had worked for him previously and who, to a certain extent, depended upon him not only for the advancement of their own careers but those of their sons and relatives as well. [4] But although blatantly nepotistic Cole had the knack of choosing loyal and hardworking Departmental officers. The two appointments he made in 1859, Buckmaster as Organising Master and Donnelly as Inspector of Science, fully justified the compliment paid to him by Hofmann a few years later: viz., "that friends and not friends agree that you know how to choose men." [5]
What precisely was Buckmaster's function as Organising Master? Specifically it was to foster the growth of Government aided science
Footnotes
classes in Great Britain, by publicising the Science and Art Department's policy as stated in the Minutes of 1859 and 1860. But as we have already seen, this policy was by no means clear. Thus in addition to encouraging the formation of science classes by means of exhortatory public lectures and diplomatic private conversations and by the offer of practical assistance, Buckmaster was called upon to explain and interpret the intricate rules and regulations governing the formation and conduct of these classes. It was a complex and often frustrating task and Buckmaster's difficulties were accentuated by the Department's refusal to grant him any executive power. He found himself hamstrung by the Department's fear of arousing public opposition to undue state interference in educational matters and by Cole's authoritarian and over-rigid control of all Departmental activities.
Buckmaster took up his peripatetic duties early in 1861. Although his services were not advertised [1] they were soon heavily in demand. Donnelly recorded in a Memorandum dated 6th February, 1861 that he received a request from Brighton for an officer from the Department to attend a public meeting for the re-establishment of the Science School there. "Mr. Buckmaster was to fulfil this need." [2] By end of February he had received several further applications for Mr. Buckmaster's services to explain the provisions of the Science Directory and give advice as to the formation of classes. [3] Buckmaster had no authority to visit towns and villages which requested his services without the sanction of the
Footnotes
Department. [1] Any applications he received personally had to be referred to Donnelly, the Inspector for Science, [2] and he was then informed where and when his services were required and told the name of the person with whom he must communicate for the purpose of arranging his visit. [3] This tight control from the top effectively nullified the possible advantages of more informal personal contacts. Buckmaster's activities were as restricted as were his movements. Donnelly considered that it was "very desirable to give a correct impression of the nature of aid granted by the Department, as well as practical advice towards the establishment of the science class" and that Buckmaster must be very careful when thus employed to confine himself to the provisions of the Science Directory. "It must be clearly understood that he visited the provinces not as the representative of the Department, authorised to make any arrangements for a class or school." [4] On no account was Buckmaster to take the initiative. His visits were expected to stimulate local people into activity and only then could he offer assistance and advice. But if he kept to the letter of the law laid down by the Department and merely confined himself to a step by step explanation of the provisions of the Science Directory then it was unlikely that the public would ever be jolted out of their apathy and inertia. Buckmaster's lecture to the United Association of Schoolmasters delivered at the Society of Arts on 27th and 28th December, 1860, is a good example of how boring and turgid such factual expositions could be. [5] What was
Footnotes
needed for the Department was inspiration and positive guidance within the framework of a full scale campaign for scientific and technical instruction, not a policy of penny pinching and prevarication. Only after Buckmaster had laboured in the field for ten years did Cole come round to the notion of positive action. In his evidence to the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction he accepted that "the public did not want education very much. It has to be forced down their throats" and that "it was the function of the state to interfere and get people interested in science." [1]
In 1861 Buckmaster was enmeshed in a web of petty restrictions and bureaucratic controls which on his own evidence to the Samuelson Committee, seriously curtailed his activities and his usefulness. [2] Temperamentally he was unfitted to adapt to these restraints; he never learnt to temper his enthusiasm with discretion and he lacked the quality of prudence. [3] One of his first tasks as Organising Master was to attend a public meeting at Banbury to discuss with leading citizens plans for establishing science classes in the town. Banbury was a prosperous market and industrial town, the home of Bernhard Samuelson's Britannia Iron Works and a bastion of the temperance movement and to all outward appearances a promising launching ground for Buckmaster's activities. There was every promise of considerable local financial backing since Samuelson was a well known advocate of technical education and a philanthropist. He had founded the Cherwell Infant School and in 1858 financed a scheme for distributing prizes to students in the local Mechanics' Institute who took the Society of Arts examinations, thereby helping to establish the movement for technical education in the district.
Footnotes
But Samuelson had reservations about the Science and Art Department's emphasis on theoretical science, maintaining that instruction in practical technical subjects would be of more benefit to the artisan class. And with the first issue of the Popular Science Review in October, 1861, Samuelson was in a position, as Editor, to voice these criticisms at national level.
It was in this context, which called for considerable tact and delicacy of approach, that Buckmaster is supposed to have committed a major indiscretion. By going beyond the narrow confines of his professional function Buckmaster involved the Department in a lengthy and convoluted correspondence on the subject of what he had or had not said to one Mr. Beale, an aspiring science teacher. The Banbury episode [1] is of particular interest because it reveals Cole's extreme caution, and clarifies Buckmaster's standing in the Department in explicit terms. His offence is supposed to have been that he made promises to Beale to the effect that on passing the Departmental examinations Beale would then be in a position to start science classes and qualify for payment on his results. Buckmaster had not only strayed too far from the terms of the Science Directory, he had also promised Beale more in terms of cash payments than the Department eventually allowed. Donnelly in an attempt to placate Beale wrote to him on 11th February, 1861 explaining that Buckmaster only went to Banbury to attend the public meeting "because no one in a position of authority in the Department (author's italics) was available at that time" and that his function was not to make arrangements for a science school or class, "but merely with a view to explaining the regulations in force and giving such advice as a practical teacher is qualified to give." The Banbury Science School was opened on 20th February, 1861 and Cole, who attended the ceremony, records in his Diary that he heard
Footnotes
"three good speeches from Dr. Acland, Dr. Lankester, and Buckmaster." [1] The school's success in the June examinations in which thirty-three out of thirty-eight students passed in physiology and twenty-eight got Queen's prizes was ascribed by Samuelson, who effectively controlled the School, to the philanthropic exertions of J. M. Beale. [2] But Beale considered his exertions to be inadequately rewarded, hence possibly Samuelson's snide use of the adjective "philanthropic," and put his case to both Samuelson and to the M.P. for Banbury, Sir Charles Douglas. In a letter dated 22nd March, 1862, Douglas made a complaint to Lord Granville, Lord President of the Council, about Buckmaster's ambiguous status; viz., that he was "only known as the agent of the Department." The implication that Buckmaster had no executive power was confirmed explicitly by Donnelly. Buckmaster was "not an officer of this Department and ... had no power to make any promise contrary to the provisions of the Science Directory." To what extent was Buckmaster guilty of an indiscretion, which assumed such major proportions and which threatened to undermine the credibility of the Department? In a letter to Donnelly dated 27th March, 1862 he admits to "engaging in desultory conversations" following upon his public address at Banbury but asseverated that "in all my public and private explanations of the Science Minute I have in all cases adhered strictly to the letter of the Science Directory."
Buckmaster may well have agreed with Playfair that the task of arousing provincial enthusiasm was "weary and dreary work" and felt too that his voice was like "one preaching in the wilderness." [3] Nevertheless
his efforts had not gone unnoticed. Within a few months of his appointment
Footnotes
the Athenaeum reported favourably on his work, claiming that "many are in support of him in his campaign for science teaching." [1] And as early as 8th February, 1861, a manuscript minute of the Department of Science and Art stated that "My Lords (of the Committee of Council) fully appreciate Mr. Buckmaster's zeal in promoting science instruction." [2] In numerical terms his efforts were producing results. The numbers of Science Schools (a term which covered all institutions promoting science instruction) increased from nine in the academic year, 1859–1860, to ninety-one in the academic year, 1863–64, and over the same period the number of students under instruction rose from five hundred to four thousand, six hundred and sixty-six.
For a decade Buckmaster laboured at his allotted, though not chosen, task. He was up against overwhelming odds: there was no tradition of science education in the country, very few trained science teachers and no provision for training them, and, stemming largely from the inadequacies of elementary education, there was only a sluggish public response. After 1862, when Lowe's Revised Code came into operation, scientific subjects were dropped from the elementary school curriculum. Consequently artisans and working men had to be persuaded to study subjects which were totally unfamiliar to them and which appeared to be of little practical use in their occupations. Buckmaster had only two short breaks from his peripatetic work. From December, 1864 to May, 1865 he was employed as temporary assistant keeper for animal products at South Kensington, [3] and in April and May, 1867, he acted as Secretary to the 5 Juries at the Paris Exhibition. [4]
Footnotes
His evidence to the Select Committee on Scientific Instruction in 1868 was, therefore, based on seven years' almost continuous experience in the field and may be accepted as a fairly accurate account of the state of scientific instruction in the British Isles in 1868. By this time he had visited most of England, Southern Scotland and Ireland. He had crossed St. George's Channel to lecture to the teachers of the Marlborough Street Model School in Dublin in 1866 to urge the formation of local committees. For although the Irish science students had been outstandingly successful in the Department's examinations the classes were largely organised by individual teachers acting on their own initiative and not as the servants of local committees. Despite Buckmaster's entreaties [1] the Irish never adopted the plan for local committees and were apparently allowed to go their own way with disastrous consequences for science education in Ireland. [2] Buckmaster did not refer to his activities in Ireland in his evidence to the Samuelson Committee, presumably because he did not intend to follow up what had proved a relatively unsuccessful visit. His tour of "nearly all the towns of importance in the South and West of Scotland," at the request of the Royal Scottish Society of Arts, had, however, proved highly satisfactory. The tour had been organised by the Committee of Council in Edinburgh, rather than on the usual basis of individual town representatives making applications for his services to South Kensington, and efficient deployment of his time had enabled him to accomplish in four weeks what might have taken another tour. [3] But elsewhere he had not met with such resounding success. Although in Lancashire he had met with a
Footnotes
"heartiness" that augured well for the progress of scientific instruction in the county, he had been compelled to visit Manchester and the district three times before he could create any kind of interest and galvanise the Cheshire and Lancashire Union of Mechanics' Institutes into action. [1] Yorkshire presented even more of a challenge:— "a very strong feeling, till within the last few months, has prevailed against the Government doing anything except build prisons; ... Formerly, when I have had opportunities of attending meetings in Yorkshire to introduce the consideration of our scheme, a few influential gentlemen have always been ready to throw a wet blanket on everything which had the assistance of the state." [2] Buckmaster attributed the "cold indifference and suspicion" [3] he had encountered in Yorkshire to the fear of state interference which would "assuredly destroy their independence and self respect." Blanchet makes the interesting point that "the strength of this hostility to state intervention was in good part due to the vitality of the Voluntary movement among Yorkshire Non-Conformists." [4] Even though the Department of Science and Art was non-sectarian in its activities the fears of Anglican domination aroused by the educational clauses of Graham's Factory Bill of 1843 resurfaced at the slightest sign of Governmental interference. Blanchet maintains that the sudden shift in public opinion that occurred in early 1868, to the extent that Buckmaster could describe it as "now running to the other extreme," [5]
Footnotes
can be accounted for firstly by Baines' decision, made in December, 1867, to support the Department's educational policies, and secondly by the acceleration of interest in technical education following the 1867 Paris Exhibition. [1]
Buckmaster's evidence embraced one other industrial area which had as yet shown few signs of interest. Birmingham, despite the scientific nature of its industries, had resisted Buckmaster's efforts. The Midlands Union of Mechanics' Institutes had clung to the idea that "the Government ought to subsidise their institution with an annual sum of money which could be used as the Council of the Midlands Institute Union saw fit." [2] In the non-industrial areas Buckmaster had enjoyed slightly more success. His persuasive powers had won round the Mayor of Plymouth [3] and his skill in convincing the citizens of Torquay that what they needed was a combined Science and Art School rather than the Art School which they had requested resulted in well attended science classes being established in the town. [4] Classes had also been formed in Exeter, but not satisfactorily, [5] and at Kingsbridge in Devon, [6] but at Southampton aversion to state control had blocked any progress. [7] He reported that classes were in operation in Kent, at Woolwich and Deptford, [8] that there were one or two in Essex [9]
Footnotes
but nothing had been achieved in Norfolk or Suffolk. [1]
Buckmaster's general review was not encouraging. It exposed the major obstacles to progress that he had to contend with, and the difficulty of overcoming them. To make matters worse, the standard of science teaching was entirely inadequate [2] and there were no facilities for training science teachers; [3] defects in the Department's system which were strongly emphasised in the Committee's final Report. There was only one Science School "sui generis" and that was the Bristol Trade School. [4] Furthermore "the Revised Code had put an end to science teaching in training colleges," [5] and thus by extension science teaching in elementary schools. From his evidence the Committee was able to extrapolate that he had "found great difficulty in inducing the lower and middle classes to apply themselves to science as a means of education." [6]
Buckmaster's evidence was sympathetically received; indeed some of the questions put to him were so worded as to provoke a critical response. For the purpose of the Samuelson Committee was to expose the kind of scientific instruction promoted by the Department of Science and Art as "abstract" and "rudimentary," and by implication inadequate, and in so doing bring pressure to bear on the Government to grant more extensive aid to the "new" cause of technical education. The technical education movement had been inspired by Playfair's damning comments, made in 1867 on the failure of British industry to demonstrate any signs of
Footnotes
progress since the International Exhibition of 1862, a state of affairs which made urgently necessary a Governmental inquiry into scientific instruction with the widest possible terms of reference. Buckmaster was involved in the technical education movement from its inception. As Secretary to the 5 Juries at the Paris Exhibition, he had the opportunity of discussing with Playfair, his friend and mentor and a Juror at the Exhibition, the desirability of extending a system of technical education to the artisan classes in England. To Buckmaster, as to most of his contemporaries at this time, technical education meant teaching the scientific principles "which are applicable to various specified employments of life ... excluding the manual instruction which is given in the workshop." [1] It was not, therefore, very different in content from what was already being offered to the artisans under the guise of scientific instruction. The movement, which was widely publicised and commanded considerable support, reaffirmed Buckmaster's faith in the value of his work as Organising Master and inspired him with renewed vigour.
The press reports of Buckmaster's lecture tours in 1869 [2] do in fact indicate a shift in his approach. He was no longer prepared to confine himself to explanatory talks but expounded at length, and with impassioned oratory, his personal educational philosophy. His major theme was that technical education, by inculcating an understanding of the scientific principles underlying all manual work, could elevate manual labour "into what it was intended, and should become, a means of perfecting our moral and intellectual nature." [3] Industry, which Buckmaster saw as an exploitative rather than a beneficent force in
Footnotes
society, denied the dignity of labour:— "the present morality of industry is a disgrace to our Christianity; money is becoming everything and men nothing." [1] In a materialistic world the working man's hope for the future lay with education:— "the great effect of increased education is the enlightenment and amelioration of the industrial classes of every department in lifting them up to a higher standpoint and expanding all the noble qualities of mind." [2] And "Education is essential if the social condition is not to remain as it is now from generation to generation." [3] Buckmaster accepted that to win the working classes round to his point of view presented a serious challenge, "because you could not compel them to learn," but he believed that his function was to "stimulate in them a greater activity and make them feel the need of this kind of education," [4] i.e. technical education.
Buckmaster's high moral tone, the fluency of his delivery and the practical advantages he had to offer aroused an enthusiastic response. Most of the newspaper reports adverted to the "loud and continuous applause" which marked the end of his lengthy perorations: it seemed that at last he was achieving the public reaction which he had worked for since 1861. At a public meeting in Middlesborough he was reported to have said to his audience, who welcomed him with "considerable cheering," that "there was something pleasurable in a man living long enough to see a little of the seed he had sown grow up into the prospect of a very abundant harvest." [5] He had established himself as an exceptionally able public speaker; [6] he had an easy way of addressing his
Footnotes
audiences, a store of racy anecdotes to enliven the factual content of his lectures and most important, a natural inspirational power. Buckmaster had proved himself as a loyal and able servant of the Department. It seemed both convenient and appropriate to Cole that his talents should be deployed in new directions, and that as well as carrying out his duties as Organising Master, he should be given the task of popularising the Department's other activities at South Kensington.
Cole's decision to make greater use of Buckmaster's services at South Kensington was in line with the established Departmental practice of flexible deployment of staff. The use of Royal Engineers Officers as local inspectors had enabled Cole to restrict the number of permanent staff in the establishment and to create a small "in group" of powerful officials, running the Department under Cole's firm control. The smallness of the permanent establishment allowed for considerable movement between the three major sections of examining, inspection and administration and contributed to the intimate, almost family atmosphere at South Kensington. Duke makes the point that the Departmental officers who made the greatest success of their careers were those who had had experience of serving in all three sections [1] and it would also be true to say that professional advancement was assisted by membership of the "Cole circle" which as time went on became openly nepotistic. [2] Buckmaster had made an attempt to break into the magic circle. In February, 1861, he applied for an Examinership in Chemistry but his application was rejected on the grounds that he lacked the necessary academic background. "My Lords
Footnotes
consider it necessary that the Science examiners should be men among the most eminent in their respective sciences." [1] In itself a valid statement but rather unfair in the light of Bartley's appointment to an official examinership at about the same time. Bartley did not have a University degree but he had done well in the Department's science examinations whereas Buckmaster could offer his Certificates gained at the School of Mines, an institution of University status. Buckmaster's duties as Organising Master had, in fact, isolated him from South Kensington, to an extent which made it possible for him to state to the Samuelson Committee that he was "quite outside the Department so far as official work is concerned." [2]
Thus it may have come as a welcome break for Buckmaster to be chosen by Cole to popularise the various activities of the International Exhibitions which from 1851 onwards had been held regularly in London. [3] A departure
Footnotes
from the tradition established by the 1851 Great Exhibition was the International Working Men's Exhibition, held in London in 1870. Buckmaster was deeply committed to this project for he believed that working class solidarity across the nations could make a real contribution towards international understanding and the preservation of peace in Europe. [1] He was appointed a member of the Executive Council of the Exhibition and on 3rd August, 1870 chaired a meeting at Berners Hall held for the purpose of appointing the jurors. In 1871 he was requested by the Lord President of the Council to lecture on the collection of Art Treasures brought together at the London International Exhibition. [2] Although he had no training in Art and little knowledge of the subject, Buckmaster delivered these lectures at the Albert Hall with considerable éclat. He went to great pains to gather material for his course of five lectures as is apparent from the wealth of detail they contained. He spoke with authority on the Indian tradition in the Fine Arts, about religious patronage of the Arts throughout history and expounded upon the French and Prussian Collections that were on display. He infused his lectures with the message that the "anti-art" surroundings in which the poorer classes lived were inimical to aesthetic appreciation and that easy access to Museums, Picture Galleries and to Schools of Art was essential if their quality of life was to be improved. [3]
Buckmaster had demonstrated that within a short space of time he was capable of mastering an unknown subject and of imparting it in a convincing and entertaining manner to large audiences. He was the perfect tool for Cole who needed an able spokesman for the most recent of the many causes which he had promoted in a long and astonishingly versatile career.
Footnotes
His major preoccupation in the early 1870s was with the art of cookery, the absence of which among the working class was generally held to be a cause of the decline in the nation's health and morale. Cole's interest in food dated back to 1857, the year of the Exhibition of Food Stuffs at South Kensington, which under the direction of Dr. Lankester was converted into the permanent Food Collection. As Assistant Keeper to the Food Collection for 1857–1859 [1] Buckmaster certainly had some knowledge of food science but, like most Victorian males, no experience of practical cookery. But Cole, who wished to see cookery taught as a scientific exercise at a high intellectual level, persuaded Buckmaster, somewhat against his will, [2] that he could apply the scientific principles of chemistry, which was Buckmaster's academic subject, to the practice of cookery. Perhaps the two subjects were not so very different in the 1870s, at least at Buckmaster's level of chemical operations. For six months before the Exhibition was scheduled to open Buckmaster studied the art of cookery, and presumably prepared his 312 lectures which he was to give between April and October, and "his wonderful powers of observation and manual skill made the task easy." [3]
His initial reluctance to appear before the public as an authority on the subject soon gave way to an enthusiastic commitment to his task, the purpose of which was "to inculcate economical and health-giving culinary habits in working class wives and mothers." [4] His lectures were chefs-d'œuvre of showmanship. He spoke from a pulpit on a raised stage at one end of a large room in "the iron annexe of the Museum at
Footnotes
South Kensington." [1] Draped behind him "was a red curtain of medieval pattern against which he appeared to peculiar advantage." At his side, slightly to the rear, were two gas stoves, an open and close range, and a demonstration table at which an Italian chef and a bevy of kitchen maids put into operation, in unison, the recipes for pot au feu, macaroni au gratin or poor man's soup which Buckmaster was expounding from his pulpit. The Cookery Lectures proved such a sensational success that they were accorded the accolade of a Royal Visit. Buckmaster lectured to Queen Victoria on the "Preparation of an omelette" and personally created an omelette which the Queen tasted with approval. [2]
Buckmaster became one of the celebrities of the London season. His activities merited a full page illustration in the Illustrated London News and were widely reported in the Press stimulating considerable witty repartee. There was some adverse criticism to the effect that the cost of getting into his lectures was so high that working class women were excluded and "Mr. Buckmaster should leave South Kensington and go down to toss a pancake in Whitechapel." But the consensus was that "Mr. Buckmaster's preparation of a new dish and his description thereof is far more entertaining than most plays going on these days." [3]
Was this really the sort of public recognition that Buckmaster wished to see crowning his career with the Department of Science and Art? Had he not become more of a public entertainer than a serious scientist and educator? It is possible that after the flurry of excitement created by his cookery lectures Buckmaster had to seriously reassess the direction
Footnotes
his professional career was taking. He no longer had any pretensions to being an academically respectable scientist. The appearances of his textbooks in the 1860s and 1870s had met with a critical reception from professional scientists and he was by now far removed from their world. Nor did he have any lasting contact with the group of eminent scientists, known as the X Club, who were concerned with changing methods in the teaching of science. [1] Indeed his own views on scientific education no longer seemed so appropriate in the changing conditions of the 1870s. Buckmaster never abandoned his belief, which was also, officially, that of the Department of Science and Art, that the artisan classes should be initiated into the theoretical principles of science which, once grasped, could be applied to the practice of their trades and occupations. But in the 1870s the demand was for more practical instruction which had a direct bearing on manual work, and not for the theoretical scientific instruction that was insisted upon by the Department. The figures for students under instruction indicate a slowing down in the progress of science classes and in certain years, i.e. 1871–72, 1874–75 and 1876–77, growth was not maintained. The Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction which reported in 1872 indicated that there was an even more urgent need for technical or scientific education (there was still a confusion over terminology) but the Department of Science and Art was unable to make an adequate response to these needs. The rigidity of its bureaucratic machine, the deadening effects of the military element in its organisation, and the paralysis [2] which it suffered in the years between Cole's retirement in 1873 and Donnelly's de facto assumption of power in 1882 inhibited its capacity for change. The important develop-
Footnotes
ments that took place in technical education in the decade 1870–1880 derived from the activities of educational agencies other than the Department of Science and Art.
With the lessening of demand for the Department's Science Classes it became imperative for Buckmaster to channel his efforts in new directions. His official status was still that of Organising Master and his income depended mainly upon the earnings from his peripatetic work. For the next twenty years, until his retirement in 1894, Buckmaster continued to preach the gospel of scientific and technical instruction according to the Department of Science and Art, but his texts changed quite fundamentally. They were in fact linked to two new areas, cookery and agriculture. Neither subject could be interpreted as specifically scientific although Buckmaster attempted to promote the teaching of them in a manner which would encourage certain modes of scientific thinking. Cookery, although fashionable for a time, never acquired real educational status, partly because it was, and is, seen as a "women's subject." And the classes in the Principles of Agriculture never became particularly successful, and therefore highly regarded, because of the depressed state of agriculture in the last quarter of the Century and because of the near impossibility of arousing much enthusiasm for education among the agricultural workers. How did Buckmaster accommodate to the shift in the emphasis of his work? Was he aware that his activities were becoming less central to the advancement of scientific education in the country, the cause to which he had given so much of his energy and enthusiasm in the 1860s and to which he was totally committed?
Footnotes
Happily, Buckmaster had a faculty for rationalising whatever activity he found himself engaged in as purposeful and of value to society. Thus he provided dynamic leadership in the movement to establish Cookery Schools throughout the country in the years 1875–1879 and despite the petty snobberies [1] of the Central Training School for Cookery he made it his concern to instruct and inspire student teachers at Grosvenor House for many years. Convinced that domestic economy was the most important subject that girls could learn in school (for his ideas about the education of women reflected the male chauvinist attitudes of the time), [2] he persuaded some elementary School Boards to include cookery in the school curriculum before it was made a grant earning subject by Mundella's revision of the Elementary Code in 1880. And he popularised a scheme to enable voluntary non-provided schools to teach cookery as cheaply and efficiently as possible. [3] By the end of the Century domestic economy had become an essential part of the elementary school curriculum for girls. A corollary to this development was the increased influence of women in education, both as teachers and in supervisory capacities. Buckmaster urged the inclusion of women on the District and Local Committees planned by Local Authorities in accordance with the provisions of the 1889 Technical Education Act on the grounds that ladies are "often very useful in educational work, especially when Hygiene, Cookery and Domestic subjects are taught." [4]
Footnotes
To contemporary observers Buckmaster's cookery crusade may well have appeared highly successful. There was a rapid expansion in the number of cookery classes for adults, most of whom were middle class women, and for girls in elementary schools, [1] and the National Training School and the Provincial Schools could not produce enough teachers to satisfy the demand for their services. Buckmaster had consistently maintained that "cookery in its perfection, is an experimental science, an intellectual experience of the highest order" and he wished to see it "taught as you would teach chemistry, or any other experimental science." [2] But how far was it possible for elementary school classes of forty to fifty girls to learn the art of cookery, experimentally, respecting the scientific principles, through demonstration lessons? And even when the futility of demonstration lessons was realised the methods of teaching cookery in elementary schools was still didactic and authoritarian. [3] No wonder H. E. Armstrong made such a strong plea for heuristic methods in the teaching of cookery at the turn of the century. [4] Although the teaching of cookery was established by the technical education movement and by the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction of 1881–1884, the subject was never included in the Department of Science and Art's examinable subjects in receipt of aid. Thus an opportunity for extending it to working class women through adult schools was lost, for according to Sillitoe [5] most of the women who attended the classes organised by the Schools of Cookery were middle class ladies. For Buckmaster, whose enthusiasm for cookery was
Footnotes
founded to a great degree on his conviction that it provided a valuable means of improving the moral and social condition of the working class, [1] this was another disappointing outcome of his pioneer work in the 1870s.
The twenty-three subjects which qualified for State aid in 1864, and which were theoretical in emphasis, remained unchanged until the end of the Department's existence. Only two new subjects were added to the list:— Hygiene and Principles of Agriculture, "safe" subjects from the Department's point of view since neither involved workshop practice, which was gradually coming to be thought of as an essential component of technical education, but which ran the risk of antagonising the manufacturers on the grounds of Governmental interference and leakage of trade secrets.
From 1880 onwards Buckmaster was engaged in a peripatetic promotional campaign for the teaching of what was generally known as "scientific agriculture," a subject for which he had a profound sympathy. But the memory of his early experience as a farm labourer in a remote rural area made him well aware of the magnitude and perhaps the impossibility of his task.
The great advances in elementary education made in the decade following Forster's Education Act of 1870 had undoubtedly raised the level of literacy in rural areas. But in spite of Lord Sandon's Act of 1876 banning the employment of children under ten and Mundella's compulsory attendance Act of 1880 there were still, in country areas, lengthy absences at harvest time and other peak times of the farming year. Flora Thompson, who learnt her lessons at the National School at "Lark Rise," in North Oxfordshire in the 1880s, records the lack of any ambition among country children:— "If the children by the time they left school (i.e. ten years of age) could read well enough to read the newspaper and perhaps an occasional book for amusement, and write well enough to write their own
Footnotes
letters, they had no wish to go further." [1] Because of the reluctance to stay on at school, and indeed because of shortage of cash in Voluntary Schools and small Board Schools, there was little possibility of establishing in country districts the higher grade elementary schools which were becoming in the late 1870s part of the educational pattern in larger cities, and which were unofficially providing a type of secondary education. The level of educational attainment in country areas was so rudimentary that a great chasm existed between the intellectual grasp of the average farm labourer and his essentially practical interests, and the theoretical nature of the Department's classes in Principles of Agriculture. [2]
Although Buckmaster faithfully carried the torch of scientific knowledge into the villages, still, in his opinion "dark abysmal spots, wanting more light, more teaching, more education, more of everything which tends to elevate humanity," [3] he did not fully succeed in setting it alight. Advancing years, and the realisation that what he had to offer was neither appropriate nor much in demand, [4] combined to dampen his customary ardour. The speeches he made in the course of his lecture tours of 1880, 1881, 1882 [5] contain much less social comment, fewer impassioned exhortations to the working man to improve himself and are in no way as inspirational as in the late 1860s. Only in Scotland does he appear to have achieved any real success in promoting scientific agriculture. The Daily Free Press, adverting in its Editorial to the success of Buckmaster's
Footnotes
campaign in Falkirk, Crieff, Cumnook and Inchture in October, 1882, writes: "perhaps by Mr. Buckmaster's efforts more than anything else the present work has been accomplished in Scotland." [1] Certainly Buckmaster's passionate faith in education and his compassion for the sufferings of the underprivileged in Victorian society had not waned. The change which had taken place in him would seem to have its origin in how he saw himself within the Department and not in any fundamental shifts in his personal perspective. It is clear that by 1882 a certain disillusionment with the nature of his work and the conditions under which it was executed had set in. He had by this time completed twenty-three years' service as Organising Master but he had never gained full recognition from the Department and had never been granted the status of a permanent salary. In accordance with the financial policy of the Department, except where the small number of permanent staff were concerned, Buckmaster's remuneration derived from fees, not from a regular salary. From 1865 on he had been paid a fee of £2 2s. for every visit he made at the request of local committees. The fees were paid by the Committees concerned and not by the Department. In addition he received £1 1s. for each day spent in working for the Department in a capacity other than that of Organising Master. [2] Buckmaster's peripatetic work fluctuated and he augmented it with the proceeds from his textbook sales, but he reckoned that between 1867–1882 his annual earnings from "public sources" had averaged £370 per annum. [3] By comparison it was proposed that Cole should receive a pension of £2,000 a year when he retired in 1873. [4]
Footnotes
In June, 1882, Buckmaster began what turned out to be protracted negotiations [1] for a transfer from temporary to permanent status within the Department. In 1880 his eldest son, Charles Alexander, had been appointed Assistant Examiner to the Department with permanent status and a salary of £250 a year on the Civil Service salary scale. [2] This may have prompted Buckmaster to make his application but, of greater significance was the fact that he was now 63 years old and, as a temporary officer, faced the prospect of retirement without a pension. He was not greedy for money, his sons had completed their higher education and his own needs were modest, and he indicated that he was prepared to accept a salary at less than his present earnings provided it had the guarantee of security. In his letter of application to Sandford, Secretary of the Science and Art Department and the Education Department, dated 7th June, 1882, he writes: "With increasing years and occasional ill health I often feel scarcely able to perform my present work but which in some lighter form I hope to be able to continue for some years." Sandford blocked the letter [3] and Buckmaster was powerless to take any further action.
In 1884 Sandford retired from public life and Donnelly, who had effectively been in control of the Department since 1882, assumed the official title of Secretary of the Science and Art Department. A new régime brought with it the hope of fairer treatment and it seemed to Buckmaster a propitious moment for raising once again the question of his salary. In a letter dated 3rd May, 1884, Buckmaster put his case to Donnelly unofficially and without mentioning Donnelly by name. He
Footnotes
acknowledged that to write to his head of Department in this manner "is a very improper thing" but justified his action on the grounds of urgency:— "If I don't have the matter settled during the present Government (i.e. Gladstone's Liberal Government 1880–1885) it will never be settled and in my advancing years I shall probably be sent adrift." A pathetic, and somewhat uncharacteristic, plea on Buckmaster's part. He had for this second attempt built up an influential lobby of support for his case. Playfair, John Bright and Lord Frederick Cavendish all promised to do the best they could to advance his interests. Indeed Bright promised that once Buckmaster's application reached the Treasury he would see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. H. C. E. Childers, on his behalf. But the whole matter rested with A. J. Mundella, Vice President of the Committee of Council and reputed to be even more influential than the Lord President of the Council, Lord Granville. [1] Buckmaster's urgent request to Donnelly was that he "induce Mundella" to send the letter of application on to the Treasury for consideration. Three months later Donnelly put the wheels in motion and Mundella, at Donnelly's request, wrote to Herbert Gladstone, one of the Treasury Lords, saying, in effect, that if Gladstone could help Buckmaster he "will do a good service to a deserving man." But Buckmaster's application for a permanent salary, however justified and moderate in its demands, was turned down by the Lords of the Treasury on 16th August, 1884.
The matter dragged on. Buckmaster refused to let it drop for by now his sense of grievance was aroused. He wrote another formal letter, this time addressed to the Lord President, Vice President and Secretary of the Committee of Council, in which he complained that on several occasions he had asked Cole to reconsider his position but was "always advised to wait." He had not, in any case, wanted the post of Organising
Footnotes
Master but had been persuaded by Cole to accept it on an "experimental and tentative" basis. Buckmaster felt that he had been passed over for, "although several others had entered the service of the Department under similar conditions no one but myself has been left in the same position. I regard the circumstances of my case as purely exceptional." But clearly "My Lords" of the Treasury, to whom the letter was forwarded, did not share this view. A communication to Donnelly signed by Lingen stated that: "My Lords cannot entertain this application, which is in effect for a pension on behalf of a gentleman who is not shown to be entitled to any such grant as a Member of the Permanent Civil Service." [1]
Several points of interest emerge from this correspondence. Buckmaster's revelations about Sir Henry Cole serve to confirm views already held [2] that Cole ran his Department in an arbitrary and possibly devious manner. Buckmaster felt that Cole had acted unfairly, and even dishonestly, in persuading him to take on the post of Organising Master which from the career angle had proved to be a dead end. Cole had, in fact, passed Buckmaster over in favour of younger, and perhaps more dependent, men. And although he could be said to have given Buckmaster the chance of fame in the early 1870s the particular activities involved had seduced Buckmaster from his proper concern, the diffusion of scientific knowledge amongst the working classes. Secondly, the Treasury's rejection of Buckmaster's request for a permanent salary is symptomatic of important changes in Governmental policy towards public spending. In the years 1870–1885, the period during which H. W. Lingen, formerly Permanent Secretary to the Education Office, held office as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, "the Treasury began more forcefully to exercise
its right to determine what the various departments of state might spend
Footnotes
and in particular to control their staffing." [1]
Buckmaster had fallen victim to the bureaucratic mind, autocratic, rigid and arbitrary as it appeared to be in the later years of the 19th Century. What effect the rebuff had on him personally can only be surmised. He continued with his peripatetic work; indeed he was forced to do so as he had no prospect of a pension, and in 1893 [2] aged 74, was still touring the agricultural areas in an attempt to set up Departmental classes in the Principles of Agriculture. In practice, the culmination of a decade of agitation for state provision of technical education in the Technical Education Act of 1889 had more or less cut the ground from beneath Buckmaster's feet. The Technical Instruction Act had empowered Local Authorities to make provision for technical education, which was financed by Goschen's Local Taxation Act (also known as the Whisky Money Act) of 1890. The Department of Science and Art, while still pretending that the technical subjects it aided in technical schools, polytechnics, organised science schools and higher grade schools did not involve the teaching of practice, nevertheless contributed significantly by its grants system to the rapid expansion of technical education in the last decade of the century. Buckmaster's professional function became one of filling in the gaps; giving advice to the Local Authorities on how best to deploy their newly acquired funds in the promotion of technical education [3] and making personal visits to remote areas, for example Westmoreland in 1891, for the purpose of publicising the County Councils' plans.
When he finally retired in 1894, at the age of 75 and by this time
Footnotes
in receipt of a pension, [1] the office of Organising Master disappeared with him. It is true that by now this particular role served little purpose but it would, in any case, have been impossible to replace Buckmaster. In the public mind the office of Organising Master was synonymous with the name of Buckmaster. It would be impossible to measure quantitatively the degree of Buckmaster's contribution to the advancement of scientific education in Britain: the essence of the propagandist's work is that it is gradual and cumulative; results may be long term and even subliminal and hidden. Tidal changes of the Science and Art Department's remarkable achievement in establishing a general framework for scientific instruction and in providing a financial support system for later developments in technical education [2] might also devalue Buckmaster's personal achievement. Indeed the science classes which he urged upon the artisan classes may, in some instances, have had a negative educational effect in their strict conformity to the demands imposed by the payment by results system. Although the diffusion of scientific education amongst the working classes was not as great as had originally been hoped, nevertheless over a long period the Science and Art Department classes often provided the only means by which working men could achieve some measure of scientific instruction. And what was accomplished was largely the result of Buckmaster's inspirational and practically useful lecture tours. Boothroyd, in the History of the Inspectorate, written for the Board of Education Inspectors' Association, pays this tribute to Buckmaster:— "For a long number of years Buckmaster wandered over the country,
Footnotes
explaining the conditions under which grants could be obtained, inculcating the advantages to the nation, both educational and industrial, of the spread of scientific knowledge and artistic craftsmanship, and by his enthusiasm and keenness inspired people to establish classes. It is not too much to say that by his missionary journeys he did more to encourage the teaching of science than any other person, and it is not surprising if in many parts of the country he came to be regarded as the Science and Art Department." [1] Indeed Buckmaster's description of his efforts in the cause of cookery teaching may be applied quite validly to his work in the wider field of science education:— "I have laboured with earnestness and faith in a field hitherto uncultivated." [2]
Footnotes
It is not difficult to arrive at an understanding of Buckmaster's educational philosophy: it is there to read in his Autobiography, his public statements, his lectures and articles and in the prefaces he invariably wrote to his textbooks. And it is expressed not only in words but in actions, in his personal response to the trials and adversities of his life. Buckmaster's ideas on education were inseparable from his deepest beliefs about the nature of existence. "Human life was made up of hard facts and rugged experiences and was given to man for labour and to secure victory over natural forces." [1] And in the struggle towards the improvement of man's moral and material condition, which in the 19th Century was thought to be attainable, education played a role of the utmost significance. Like Robert Owen, and many other 19th Century Radicals, Buckmaster believed in the infinite power of education as an agent for change and as a force for good. He saw education as intrinsically worthwhile, an end in itself and not in utilitarian terms of social mobility. Personally, he cared little for "getting on" although his own history epitomises the process. [2] He had no wish to enable working men to rise out of their own class, for he had deep respect for certain artisan values. His mission was to improve their quality of life, morally and intellectually, aesthetically and materially and thus elevate the whole class. Fundamental to this change was the development of the power of reason through education. For without the faculty of understanding,
Footnotes
Buckmaster believed that men would be denied freedom of choice and human dignity and would be "condemned for ever to live and work in the slums and sweating dens," ... a form of social anarchy "which was in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ." [1]
Buckmaster's emphasis on scientific education as the means of inculcating in men the reasoning power which was the key to progress, was a characteristic of the Radical tradition [2] of which he was part. He believed that "... (science) more than any other subject impresses the mind with the nature of truth and the methods of acquiring it." He continues:— "When you teach a child practical Geometry and Drawing to scale he learns at the same time the habits of accuracy — mathematical accuracy; and mathematical accuracy is truth." [3] This very narrow interpretation of the meaning of truth is an indication of Buckmaster's epistemological position. The notion that knowledge was open ended and changing was foreign to him. He believed that knowledge, and in particular scientific knowledge, was founded upon laws and principles which were verifiable by observable fact and, therefore, absolute and constant. It was the purpose of scientific education to initiate students into an understanding of these principles, which once grasped would perhaps lead to the realisation of truth.
On a more mundane level Buckmaster held that an understanding of the scientific principles underlying the manual and vocational trades was essential both for the self respect of the workman and for the successful execution of his task. "Now the natural and obvious way for improvement in any industrial art is a knowledge of those laws and
Footnotes
principles upon which the art is based, and without this knowledge the art is empirical, but when it is subject to laws and principles the art is scientific." [1] It was because he placed such importance on the principles underlying the practice that Buckmaster was never able to commit himself fully to the Technical Education Movement of the 1880s. In his evidence to the Cross Commission on Elementary Education, which was openly critical of theoretical science instruction in classes for artisans, he clung tenaciously to his belief that the place to teach a trade was in the workshop and not the schoolroom. [2] Buckmaster certainly appreciated the value of "learning by doing" and considered it to be "the only way to learn to do anything with your hands." [3] But he was unable to apply this principle to the learning of scientific subjects which he saw as an intellectual activity. Indeed one of the strongest justifications for the teaching of science lay in those cognitive skills which the able teacher could develop in his pupils. Elementary science, which could, he believed, be taught to young children "much earlier than is generally supposed," [4] "stimulated habits of inquiry on the part of children, ... it also quickened, to a large extent, their powers of observation; because they saw things which encouraged them to ask questions; and the questions were often very helpful to a more perfect understanding of the subject." [5] These intellectual skills of inquiry, observation and the ability to question were valued equally
Footnotes
highly by H. E. Armstrong; [1] the essential point was, how were they to be achieved? Whereas Armstrong maintained that children should learn heuristically, by engaging individually in the processes of scientific method, i.e. by experimenting, Buckmaster put his trust in the object lesson, the method of science teaching first advocated by Dawes and Moseley in the 1840s. [2] He described what he considered to be the ideal object lesson in his evidence to the Samuelson Committee:— "the teacher would take, for instance, a thermometer and explain its construction; if he were clever he would make a thermometer; he would explain the elementary laws of heat and how they acted upon the thermometer and by a few simple experiments, within the capacity of the children, he would give what was called an object lesson, which I say was a lesson in science." [3] The "few simple experiments" would be conducted by the teacher and only observed by the children. The emphasis was on oral explanation, for Buckmaster claimed that "All science teaching must to a large extent be oral." [4] Not surprisingly Armstrong condemned unequivocally this type of science teaching: "The conventional object lesson, in fact, is a model of what should be avoided." [5] Buckmaster's educational views should not, however, be condemned out of hand as reactionary and over-didactic. His recommendation that lessons should be "earnest, clear and systematic and well illustrated by experiments, diagrams and specimens" [6] would seem to be valid in educational terms and even today might serve as a useful antidote to an overdose of heuristic method.
Footnotes
Although Buckmaster stressed the need for oral explanation in science classes he did not fall into the trap of confusing oral teaching with lecturing:— "Lecturing is not teaching. Go into an Elementary School or Science Class and hear the teacher give a lesson. How he has to repeat over and over again the same thing in different ways and with different words and illustrations before it is understood by his pupils; and how he makes them reproduce in their own language what he has taught." [1] Buckmaster had little knowledge of learning theories; the psychology of education had not figured in his teacher training course at Battersea, but from practical experience he had gained some insight into the processes and levels of thinking. Because he appreciated the difficulty of teaching theoretical science to students who "are incapable of abstract thought" [2] he recommended that the lesson content should be made relevant to the background and future occupations of the pupils. [3] His psychological grasp was sound and in some instances comes remarkably near to 20th Century educational thinking. He writes:— "It requires a long process of mental training, before an ordinary schoolboy or mechanic can throw off that materiality of thought which always associates itself with our early impressions." [4]
Buckmaster's educational views were, on the whole, enlightened and consistent. It is extraordinary to find that at the same time that he was propounding pedagogic opinions of an almost Piagetian nature he was producing unimaginative, "cram," textbooks like his Inorganic Chemistry. [5]
Footnotes
Whether he was aware of this dichotomy is not known but he certainly went to some lengths to justify his publishing activities in terms of the needs of both students and teachers. [1] To a certain extent this was a valid point. Science teachers, who received no form of training until the Normal College of Science opened in 1881, were undoubtedly in need of guidance. But there were no suggestions in his textbooks on the teaching of any scientific topic. Their function was to help students get through the Science and Art Department's examinations as Buckmaster acknowledges in his Preface to the Third Edition of The Elements of Chemistry — Inorganic and Organic:— "I hope I have succeeded in producing at small cost, a work which will be found well adapted to the requirements of pupils preparing for the annual examinations of the Science and Art Department. The last May and November Examination Papers will be found in the Appendix, and the careful consideration of those questions involving methods of calculation will be found well worthy of the attention of persons preparing for teachers' certificates." [2] Apparently Buckmaster's textbooks could be relied upon for a tip-off for the next examinations. The standard of his textbooks improved over the years as he began to turn to practising teachers and scientists for assistance in revising them. Thus his Inorganic Chemistry was made respectable by G. Jarmain's "extensive alterations" [3] and was in fact used in Junior Classes at the City of London School. [4] Buckmaster worked hard at his textbooks and their steady sales yielded a valuable source of income; indeed they probably provided him with the means to send his sons to public schools and then to Oxford. But it is
Footnotes
difficult to imagine how Buckmaster thought that they contributed significantly to that "growth in knowledge" and "increase in wisdom" from which "we have the promise of a better and brighter future." [1]
In the evolution of his educational ideas Buckmaster was profoundly influenced by his own background and experience of life and by his involvement with the Dawes-Moseley movement of the 1840s and 1850s. What first motivated Buckmaster to seek an education poses questions which cannot be satisfactorily answered. It is possible only to hypothesise that his precocious preoccupation with self-improvement may have provided some form of emotional compensation for the unhappiness of his early years. And the knowledge that the Buckmasters had come down in the world, socially and materially, and that his own birth was possibly illegitimate, may have impelled the young Buckmaster to affirm his personal identity through the pursuit of an education.
Buckmaster knew from first hand experience the almost insurmountable hurdles confronting a child of the working class who wished to educate himself beyond an elementary level. His conviction that only through an education which developed the power of reason could the human condition be changed for the better led him to question the assumptions on which the elementary school curriculum was based. He came to share with Dawes and Moseley the belief that science should play a prominent part in the education of children of the working classes, for Buckmaster was one of "those who, like Moseley, saw science as the great transformer of the material and intellectual condition of mankind." [2]
Buckmaster produced no significant body of original publications in the course of his educational career. His writings were practical, designed to give support and encouragement to students and teachers at
Footnotes
grass roots level. Indeed it is unlikely that, given the demanding nature of his work as Organising Master for the Science and Art Department, he could have found the time or energy for original research. It could be argued that Buckmaster never fulfilled his undoubted intellectual potential and that his career fell short of its early promise and possibly of his own expectations. Whether this partial failure may be ascribed to his own limitations, particularly to his lack of a formal academic training, or to the constraints imposed by the Institution for which he worked is open to debate. It was, however, not as a theoriser but as a practitioner and propagandist of science education that Buckmaster found his own sense of purpose and was, therefore, most effective. Throughout his career in education his concern lay with the children and young adults of the working classes. He sought to initiate them into those areas of knowledge which would liberate them from the constraints of ignorance and mindless labour and which would enable them to share in the vision of what Albert Mansbridge called "the glory of education."
A. Diaries of Henry Cole, 1847–1882. Victoria and Albert Museum.
B. Correspondence of J. C. Buckmaster: Family Papers — Hilary Miller, 22 Milner Street, London, S.W.3. (not indexed); C. A. Buckmaster Collection, Gunnersbury Park Museum (partly indexed).
C. Correspondence of Sir Robert Peel: Peel Papers: Private Correspondence, 1845–50. B.M., Add. MS. 40:609. General Correspondence. B.M., Add. MS. 40:601, 40:602, 40:603.
D. Minutes of Official Records
Minutes of the Department of Science and Art, 1853–1865. PRO Ed. 28.
Treasury Outletters, 1853–1890. PRO Ed. 23.
A. Collections of Parliamentary Papers.
Command Papers: Reports from Commissioners. Reports relating to Parkhurst Prison. 1841–1850.
Annual Reports of Departments: Reports, etc. of the Department of Science and Art. 1854–1899. Directories, Calendars, Histories.
Reports, etc. of the Committee of Council. Annual Minutes and Reports of the Committee of Council on Education. 1842–43 — 1852–53.
Reports of Royal Commissions and Select Committees.
Select Committee on Scientific Instruction, 1868. (The "Samuelson" Committee.)
Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science, 1870–74. (The "Devonshire" Commission.)
Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, 1882–84.
Royal Commission on the Working of the Elementary Education Acts. (The "Cross" Commission.) 1886–88.
Printed Minutes of the Department of Science and Art. 1863–1899.
Buckmaster, J. C. A Village Politician: The Life Story of John Buckley.
Cole, H. Fifty Years of Public Work. London, 1884.
Cooper, T. Thoughts at Four Score. London, 1885.
Kay-Shuttleworth, J. Four Periods of Public Education. London, 1862.
Holyoake, G. J. Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life. London, 1892.
Wemyss Reid, T. Memoirs and Correspondence of Lyon Playfair. London, 1900.
Kekewich, G. W. The Education Department and After. London, 1920.
Solly, H. These Eighty Years. London, 1893.
Society of Arts. Lectures on the Results of the Exhibition. 2 Vols. London, 1852.
Buckmaster, J. C. Explanatory of the Aid given by the Department of Science and Art under the Science Minute of June, 1859. (Two addresses delivered at the Society of Arts, December, 1860. In Educational Miscellanies, Vol. 7, 8vo, 1861.)
Buckmaster, J. C. On the Industrial and Educational Importance of Elementary Science. (Two addresses delivered at the Society of Arts, December, 1860. In Educational Miscellanies, Vol. 7, 8vo, 1861.)
Buckmaster, J. C. Schools of Science and Art; Female Education and their Employment in Schools. (Two papers read at the 8th Anniversary of the Southern Counties Adult Education Society, 1861. In Educational Miscellanies, Vol. 7, 8vo, 1861.)
Buckmaster, J. C. Substance of a paper on the Nature and Amount of Aid offered by the Science and Art Department. (Paper read before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1863. In Educational Miscellanies, Vol. 10, 8vo, 1864.)
Buckmaster, J. C. County Councils and Technical Education in Rural Districts. London, 1891.
Donnelly, J. F. D. The Aid now granted by the State towards the Instruction of the Industrial Classes in Elementary Science. 1861.
Moseley, H. Report on King's Somborne School. Groombridge and Sons. London, 1849.
Buckmaster, J. C. The Elements of Experimental Physics. Preface. London, 1864.
Buckmaster, J. C. The Elements of Mechanical Physics. Preface. London, 1864.
Buckmaster, J. C. Buckmaster's Cookery. 1874.
Buckmaster, J. C. and Willis, J. J. The Elementary Principles of Scientific Agriculture. London, 1882. Preface by J. C. Buckmaster.
The Athenaeum, 1861.
The Dublin Builder, 1859–1866.
Nature, 1870, 1871.
The Popular Science Review, 1861–76.
The Times, 1839; February, 1908; July, 1908.
The Surrey Comet, 1908.
The Western Times and Gazette, 1838, 1839.
The Western Luminary, 1839.
Collection of cuttings from provincial newspapers referring to J. C. Buckmaster's Lecture Tours. C. A. Buckmaster Collection, Gunnersbury Park Museum. 2796/1.
Collection of obituary notices for J. C. Buckmaster. C. A. Buckmaster Collection, Gunnersbury Park Museum. 1273/2.
Burke's Peerage. 1938 Edition.
Dictionary of National Biography, 1896 Edition.
The Times Tercentenary Handlist of Newspapers, 1620–1920.
Vincent, J. and Stenton, M. McCalmont's Parliamentary Poll Book: British Election Results, 1832–1918. Harvester Press, 1971.
Wiles, R. M. (Ed.) Freshest Advices: Early Provincial Newspapers in England. Ohio State University Press, 1965.
Adkins, T. The History of St. John's College, Battersea. London, 1906.
Armytage, W. H. G. Four Hundred Years of English Education. Cambridge University Press, 1964.
Armytage, W. H. G. A. J. Mundella, 1825–1897: The Liberal Background to the Labour Movement. Ernest Benn, 1951.
Ashby, E. Technology and the Academics. Macmillan, 1958.
Ball, N. Her Majesty's Inspectorate, 1839–1849. Oliver and Boyd, 1963.
Bartley, G. T. C. Schools for the People. Bell and Daldy, 1871.
Beales, D. From Castlereagh to Gladstone. Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1969.
Bell, Q. The Schools of Design. Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1963.
Bishop, A. S. The Rise of a Central Authority for English Education. Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Boothroyd, H. E. A History of the Inspectorate, printed for private circulation by the Board of Education Inspectors' Association, 1923.
Briggs, A. (Ed.) Chartist Studies. Macmillan, 1959.
Brock, W. H. H. E. Armstrong and the Teaching of Science. C.U.P., 1973.
Brock, W. H. "Prologue to Heurism." In The Changing Curriculum. History of Education Society. Methuen, 1971.
Cardwell, D. S. L. The Organisation of Science in England. Heinemann, 1957.
Cole and Filson. British Working Class Movements: Select Documents, 1789–1875. Macmillan, 1951.
Collins, P. Dickens and Crime. Macmillan, 1962.
Conklin, R. J. Thomas Cooper the Chartist. University of the Philippines Press, 1935.
Cotgrove, S. F. Technical Education and Social Change. Allen and Unwin, 1958.
Eaglesham, E. From School Board to Local Authority. R.K.P., 1956.
Edmonds, E. L. The School Inspector. R.K.P., 1962.
Engels, F. The Condition of the Working Class in England. Panther Edition. London, 1969.
Gash, N. Sir Robert Peel: Vol. 2, The Life of Sir Robert Peel after 1830. Longmans, 1972.
Gosden, P. H. J. H. The Friendly Societies in England, 1815–1875. Manchester University Press, 1961.
Gosden, P. "Technical Instruction Committees." In Studies in the Government and Control of Education Since 1860. History of Education Society. Methuen, 1970.
Habakkuk, H. J. American and British Technology in the 19th Century. C.U.P., 1962.
Hepworth Dixon, H. The London Prisons: with an account of the More Distinguished Persons who have been Confined in Them. To which is added A Description of the Chief Provincial Prisons. London, Jackson and Walford, 1850.
Hobsbawm, E. J. Industry and Empire. Penguin, 1968.
Hobsbawm, E. J. Labouring Men. London, 1964.
Hobsbawm, E. J. and Rudé, G. Captain Swing: The Agricultural Labourers' Rising, 1830–31. Lawrence and Wishart, 1969.
Hudson, J. W. The History of Adult Education. London, 1851.
Hoskins, W. G. Old Devon. David and Charles, 1966.
Hurt, J. Education in Evolution. Paladin, 1972.
Kelly, T. A History of Adult Education in Great Britain. Liverpool University Press, 1962.
Layton, D. Science for the People. Allen and Unwin, 1973.
Leese, J. Personalities and Power in English Education. Arnold, 1950.
Millis, C. T. Technical Education. Arnold, 1925.
Montgomery, R. J. Examinations: An account of their evolution as administrative devices in England. Longmans, 1965.
Musgrave, P. W. Technical Change, the Labour Force and Education. Pergamon Press, 1967.
Ramsay, A. A. W. Sir Robert Peel. Constable, 1928.
Reeks, M. History of the Royal School of Mines. London, 1920.
Rich, R. W. The Training of Teachers in England and Wales in the 19th Century. C.U.P., 1933.
Saville, J. (Ed.) Democracy and the Labour Movement. Lawrence and Wishart, 1954.
Sillitoe, H. A History of the Teaching of Domestic Subjects. Methuen, 1933.
Silver, H. The Concept of Popular Education. Macgibbon and Kee, 1965.
Simon, B. (Ed.) The Radical Tradition in Education in Britain. Lawrence and Wishart, 1972.
Simon, B. Education and the Labour Movement. Lawrence and Wishart, 1965.
Snell, F. J. Chronicles of Twyford. London, 1892.
Snell, F. J. Palmerston's Borough. London, 1894.
Thomas, J. E. The English Prison Officer Since 1850. R.K.P., 1972.
Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. Gollancz, 1963.
Tropp, A. The Schoolteachers. Heinemann, 1957.
Turner, D. M. History of Science Teaching in England. Chapman and Hall, 1927.
Van Praagh, G. (Ed.) H. E. Armstrong and Science Education. John Murray, 1973.
Wearmouth, R. F. Methodism and the Working Class Movements in England, 1800–1850. The Epworth Press, 1937.
Winskill, P. The Temperance Movement and its Workers. Blackie, London, 1892.
Blanchet, J. Science, Craft and the State: A Study of English technical education and its advocates, 1867–1906. D.Phil. Oxford, 1953.
Butterworth, H. The Science and Art Department, 1853–1900. Ph.D. Sheffield, 1968.
Byrne, M. S. The Development of the Teaching of Chemistry in England, 1799–1853. M.A. Durham, 1958.
Duke, C. The Department of Science and Art: Policies and Administration to 1864. Ph.D. London, 1966.
Hipwell, M. E. A Survey of the Work of the Science Division of the Science and Art Department, 1853–1899. M.Ed. Nottingham, 1963.
Keane, P. The Evolution of Technical Education in 19th Century Britain. Ph.D. Bath, 1970.
Kerr, J. F. The Development of the Teaching of Science in Ireland Since 1800. Ph.D. Belfast, 1957.
Roberts, K. O. The Emergence of the Teachers in Technical Institutions as a distinct group within the Teaching Profession in England. M.A. London, 1968.
Thomas, D. H. The Development of Technical Education in England, 1851–1889, with special reference to economic factors. Ph.D. London, 1940.
Armytage, W. H. G. "J. F. D. Donnelly: Pioneer in Vocational Education." Vocational Aspect of Secondary and Further Education. Vol. 25, May, 1950. pp.6–21.
Argles, M. "The Royal Commission on Technical Instruction, 1881–84." Vocational Aspect of Education. Vol. XI. No. 23. Autumn, 1959. pp.97–104.
Edmonds, E. L. "The Science and Art Department: Inspection and/or Examination." Vocational Aspect of Secondary and Further Education. Vol. IX. Autumn, 1957. pp.116–127.
Harrison, B. and Trinder, B. "Drink and Sobriety in an Early Victorian Country Town: Banbury, 1830–1860." The English Historical Review. Supplement 4. Longmans, 1969.
Harrison, J. F. C. Underground Education in the Nineteenth Century. Eighth Mansbridge Memorial Lecture. Leeds University Press, 1971.
Hobsbawm, E. J. "The Tramping Artisan." Economic History Review. Series 2, III. 1950–51. pp.299–320.
Jordan, H. D. "The Political Methods of the Anti-Corn Law League." Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 42. 1927.
Layton, D. "The Educational Exhibition of 1854 (i) and (ii)." Journal of the Royal Society of Arts. February, 1972 and March, 1972.
Layton, D. "Science in the Schools: The First Wave — A Study of the Influence of Richard Dawes (1793–1867)." British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. XX. No. 1. (February, 1972.) pp.38–57.
Layton, D. "Science in General Education: The Rise and Fall of the First Movements, 1851–1857." Journal of Educational Administration and History. Vol. V. No. 1. January, 1973. pp.7–20.
Musgrave, P. W. "The Definition of Technical Education, 1800–1910." Vocational Aspect of Education. Summer, 1964. pp.106–111.
Peters, A. J. "The Changing Idea of Technical Education." British Journal of Educational Studies. 1963. May. pp.142–166.
Royle, E. "Mechanics Institutes and the Working Classes, 1840–1860." The Historical Journal, XIV, 2 (1971).
Salter, F. R. "Political Non-Conformity in the Eighteen-Thirties." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 1953. Vol. III. pp.125–143.
[The Appendix A page reproduces entries from the St. John's College, Battersea, First Register showing the admission details for three students including J. C. Buckmaster. The handwritten entries are largely illegible in the scanned original and are not reproduced here. The key information — that Buckmaster's entry records him leaving for Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight — is cited in the text at Chapter V.]
[Buckmaster Family Tree — compiled from Geoffrey Cockle's genealogical tables (1956); Revd. C. J. Buckmaster's genealogical table, C. A. Buckmaster Collection, Gunnersbury Park Museum, 1088/2; and Burke's Peerage, 1938.]
The principal figures are as follows:
Christopher Buckmaster (b. 1725, d. 1791)
Thomas Buckmaster (son) — married Phoebe Price (married 17th October, 1824)
Their children:
Children of John Charles Buckmaster and Emily Anne Goodliffe:
From the Buckmaster Collection, Gunnersbury Park Museum, 2796/1
| Date | Place | Source |
|---|---|---|
| January 13 | Winterbottom Nautical College, Newcastle, South Shields | *Daily Chronicle* |
| January 16 | Mechanics' Institute, South Shields | *Daily Chronicle* |
| January 30 | Soho Working Man's Club and Institute, London | — |
| February 2 | Ipswich Working Man's College | *Ipswich Journal* |
| February 13 | Halifax School of Art | *Halifax Guardian* |
| February (?) | Salisbury Literary and Scientific Institution | — |
| March 2 | Framlingham Mutual Improvement Society | *Framlingham Weekly News* |
| March 23 | Skipton, Yorks. | *Bradford Observer* |
| April 10 | Derby, the Market Hall | *Derbyshire Courier* |
| April 24 | National School, Coggeshall | *The Daily News* |
| May 18 | Diocesan Training College, Lincoln | *Lincoln Journal* |
| May 20 | Leeds Mechanics' Institute | *The Leeds Mercury* |
| May 28 | Middlesborough | *Middlesborough News* |
| May 29 | Darlington | *Darlington and Stockton Times* |
| July 19 | Riddings (the Erewash Valley) | *Nottingham and Midland Counties Daily Express* |
| July 22 | Ilkeston | — |
| August 7 | Worcester | — |
| August 21 | Gosport | *Hampshire Telegraph* |
| September 6 | Ironville Institute (Erewash Valley) | *Nottingham and Midland Counties Daily Express* |
| September 10 | Elgin | *Elgin and Morayshire Courier*; *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Nairn | *Dundee Advertiser* |
| September (?) | Fortrose | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Dingwall | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Inverness | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Invergordon | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Cromarty | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Tain | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Dornoch | *The Scotsman* |
| September (?) | Golspie | *The Scotsman* |
| September 25 | Glasgow — Mechanics' Institute | — |
| September (?) | Goswell Road, London | *Morning Star* |
| October 2 | Oxford | *Oxford Times* |
| October 7 | Watford | *Watford Observer* |
| October 9 | Silverton, Essex | *The Daily News* |
| October 11 | Bristol School of Science | *Western Daily Press* |
| October 13 | Leicester | *The Daily News* |
| October 16 | Launceston, Tavistock, Gulworthy and Plymouth | *Western Daily Mercury* |
| October 20 | Wadebridge, Liskeard, Callington, St. Austell | — |
| October 26–30 | Meetings at Clerkenwell addressed by Playfair and Buckmaster | *Clerkenwell News and London Times*; *Islington Gazette* |
| November 1–2 | Mansicon House, London | — |
| November 4 | Bedford Working Men's Institute | *The Daily News* |
| November 10 | Kettering | *Bedfordshire Mercury*, 13 Nov.; *Kettering Free Press* |
| November 15 | Exeter | *The Western Times* |
| November (?) | Westbury-on-Trym | *Western Daily Press* |
| November 23 | Walsall | *Birmingham Daily Post* |
| November 24 | Allen Street, Kensington | *Daily News* |
| November 26 | "Some market towns in Northants during the past two weeks" | *The Daily News* |
| December 6 | Chester | *The Chester Chronicle* |
| December 7 | Oldbury | *Birmingham Daily Post* |
| December 20 | Dundee | — |
(a) Typescript copy of letter from J. C. Buckmaster to the Secretary of the Science and Art Department. 7th June, 1882.
(b) Manuscript copy of above letter.
(c) Manuscript letter from J. C. Buckmaster to J. F. D. Donnelly. 3rd May, 1884.
(d) Manuscript letter from J. F. D. Donnelly to Bryant. 5th August, 1884.
(e) Letter from A. J. Mundella to Herbert Gladstone. 5th August, 1884.
(f) Typescript copy of letter from the Treasury to the Vice-President, Committee of Council on Education. 16th August, 1884.
(g) Typescript copy of letter from J. C. Buckmaster to the Lord President, Vice President and Secretary of the Committee of Council. 21st October, 1884.
The key documents are reproduced in full in the original thesis (pp.179–200). The most significant passages are as follows.
Buckmaster to Sandford, 7th June, 1882 (from St. John's View, Wandsworth):
"With increasing years, and occasional ill health, I often feel scarcely able to perform my present work but which, in some lighter form, I hope to be able to continue for some years ... My humble request is that the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education would permit application to be made to the Treasury to pay me, instead of fees, a fixed sum of £370 a year (or even a smaller sum), so long as I am capable of performing the duties which they may call upon me to do."
"The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have had under their consideration the application of Mr. Buckmaster ... Their Lordships are of opinion that the present mode of payment is better suited to the nature of the services performed by Mr. Buckmaster, and they therefore regret that they are unable to comply with the recommendation of the Lords of the Committee of Council that an annual salary of £250 should be assigned to him."
"I was assured both by Mr. Cole and Mr. Edgar Bowring that no change would be made either in my duties or salary. But in 1859 Mr. Cole proposed that I should be appointed Organising Master of Science and Art Schools and Classes, and I was led to believe that if there was a sufficient demand for my services the appointment would be made permanent ... although several others entered the service of the Department under similar conditions, no one but myself has been left in the same position. I regard the circumstances of my case as purely exceptional."
"My Lords cannot entertain this application, which is in effect for a pension on behalf of a gentleman who is not shown to be entitled to any such grant as a Member of the Permanent Civil Service."
Buckmaster, J. C. (Ed.) A Village Politician: The Life Story of John Buckley. Fisher Unwin. London, 1897.
The Education Question in Parliament: A Digest of Proceedings from 1816 to the publication of the Revised Code. Chapman and Hall. London, 1862.
Local Government in Battersea: The Substance of an Address Delivered at a meeting of the Ratepayers held at Lammas Hall, July, 1867. Chapman and Hall. London, 1867.
On the Nature and Amount of Aid afforded by the Science and Art Department in promoting a knowledge of elementary science among the industrial classes. Longman. London, 1863.
County Councils and Technical Education particularly in Rural Districts. Blackie and Son. London, 1891.
Two addresses delivered at Society of Arts, December, 1860, before the United Association of Schoolmasters:
(1) Explanatory of the Aid given by the Department of Science and Art under the Science Minute of June, 1859.
(2) On the Industrial and Educational Importance of Elementary Science.
Two papers read at the 8th Anniversary of the Southern Counties Adult Education Society, Dorchester, 1861:
(1) Schools of Science and Art.
(2) Female Education and their Employment in Schools.
Vol. 10, 8vo, 1864: Paper read before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1863:
(1) Substance of a paper on the Nature and Amount of Aid offered by the Science and Art Department.
Cookery Classes in National Schools by a Somerset Rector. With a preface by J. C. Buckmaster. London, 1880.
(a) Chemistry
1858 — The Elements of Inorganic Chemistry. Longman. London.
1863 — The Elements of Chemistry — Inorganic and Organic. 2nd Edition, enlarged.
1866 — 3rd Edition. Longman, Simpkin Marshall and Co.
1867 — 4th Edition.
1869 — The Elements of Inorganic Chemistry (revised and corrected by A. Jarmain). 8th Edition.
1870 — 9th Edition.
1871 — 10th Edition.
1873 — The Elements of Inorganic Chemistry in two parts (revised by G. Jarmain and C. A. Buckmaster). Part I — Elementary Stage, 13th Edition.
(b) Mechanical Physics
1864 — The Elements of Mechanical Physics. Chapman and Hall. London.
(c) Experimental Physics
1864 — The Elements of Experimental Physics: Acoustics, Light and Heat, Magnetism and Electricity. Longman. London.
1871 — The Elements of Acoustics, Light and Heat. 5th Edition.
1871 — The Elements of Magnetism and Electricity (revised, corrected and enlarged by Charles Lees). 5th Edition.
1874 — The Elements of Magnetism and Electricity (revised by one of the Examiners). 7th Edition.
1875 — The Elements of Acoustics, Light and Heat (revised by one of the Examiners and C. A. Buckmaster). 7th Edition.
1876 — The Elements of Magnetism and Electricity (revised by Charles Lees).
1880 — The Elements of Sound, Light and Heat (entirely revised by C. A. Buckmaster and one of the Examiners). 8th Edition.
(d) Cookery
1874 — Buckmaster's Cookery. An abridgement of some of the Lectures delivered in the Cookery School at the International Exhibition for 1873 and 1874, together with a collection of approved recipes. Routledge, London.
1876 — "New" Edition.
1887 — "New" Edition.
1875 — Cookery: Simple Lessons for Home Use. Edward Stanford. London.
1880 — Buckmaster's Domestic Economy and Cookery. Simpkin Marshall and Co. London.
(e) Scientific Agriculture
1882 — Buckmaster, J. C. and Willis, J. J. (Assistant in the Rothamsted Laboratory). The Elementary Principles of Scientific Agriculture.
Transcription corrected from OCR by Claude (Sonnet 4.6), June 2026. Footnote numbers standardised to arabic numerals in square brackets. Page numbers from the original are indicated inline as [p.n].