return links at end of file
1. The Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Franks (1966), which did not itself investigate the University Press, recommended that the Hebdomadal Council should institute a full-scale inquiry into the status, functions, and workings of the Press (paragraph 632 and recommendation 149 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry).
2. On 8 May 1967 the Hebdomadal Council, in view of this recommendation and after consulting the Delegates of the Press, established the present Committee on the University Press with the following terms of reference:
To investigate the function, organization, and operations of the University Press and its relationship to the University.
Council appointed as members of the Committee:
Professor Sir Humphrey Waldock, C.M.G., O.B E., Q.C., D.C.L., (Chairman);
Mr. J. B. Bamborough (Principal of Linacre College);
Mr. R. J. L. Kingsford, C.D.E. (formerly Secretary to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, and Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge);
Mr. A. D. Marris, C.M.G. (Senior Managing Director, Lazard Brothers & Co. Ltd.);
Professor R. E. Richards, F.R.S. (Dr. Lee's Professor of Chemistry and Fellow of Exeter College, Warden of Merton College from 23 June 1969).
Mr. P. A. Gore, C.M.G., C.V.O., was appointed Secretary to the Committee.
3. The terms of reference and the composition of the Committee were announced in the University Gazette of 18 May 1967. The announcement further contained:
(a) a statement that the Committee would take evidence from the Delegates and through them from the Secretary and other principal Officers of the University Press; and
(b) a general invitation from the Committee to members Of Congregation and to any others whose evidence might assist the investigation to submit memoranda on matters falling within the Committee's terms of reference.
4. The Committee held a preliminary meeting to consider its method of work and concluded that, in view of the comparative paucity of published information regarding the University Press, its first step must be to ask the Delegates to supply it with the basic information necessary to enable it to begin the Inquiry. Accordingly, on 12 June 1967 it wrote to the Delegates inviting them to submit memoranda setting out such information as they might consider pertinent to the investigation, together with such observations as they might desire to make on matters falling within the Committee's terms of reference. The Committee enclosed with its letter a 'Preliminary Note of the Subjects on which Information is Desired', pointing out that this was intended merely as an aid to the Delegates in preparing their reply and was not necessarily to be regarded as exhaustive of the information required. The text of the Note, which established the general lines of the Committee's investigation, is reproduced at Appendix A.
5. The Committee asked the Delegates to bear in mind the possibility of presenting some of their memoranda on particular aspects of the Inquiry ahead of the remainder, in order to assist it in advancing its investigations. In the result, the Delegates submitted a series of ten basic memoranda between 30 October 1967 and 26 January 1968, which they supplemented with further memoranda as the investigation progressed. The Committee expresses its appreciation of the excellence of these memoranda, to the information in which the present Report is much indebted.
6. Specific invitations were addressed also to Council, the General Board of Faculties, and the Curators of the Bodleian to present memoranda setting out any information which these bodies might consider pertinent to the investigation and any observations which they might desire to make on matters falling within the Committee's terms of reference. In particular we asked:
Council for information concerning the Press in records of Council or the Registry and, more especially, concerning any machinery or procedures by which Council may exercise any measure of control or supervision over the operation or policy of the Press.
The General Board for information regarding any machinery or procedures, official or unofficial, that may exist for dealing with matters of common concern to the General Board, or to any of faculties individually, and the Press, and for its observations regarding the relationship between the Press and the University from the point of view of the interests of the faculties.
The Bodleian for information regarding any regular machinery procedures, official or unofficial, that may exist for dealing with matters of common concern to the Bodleian and the Press and for its observations regarding the relationship between the Press and the University from the point of view of the interests of the Bodleian.
7. Council replied in a letter of 25 July that 'there are in fact very few references to the Press in the central records, a point which is of importance as showing the very high degree of autonomy of the Delegates in the conduct of the Press'. It therefore confined itself to bringing a number of points of fact to the notice of the Committee and to stating that it would prefer not to offer any observations regarding the relationship of the Press to the University until after the Delegates had presented their evidence to the Committee.
8. The General Board referred the Committee's questions to all Faculty Boards for their comments, and later replied in a letter of 5 December 1967, to which it annexed a memorandum setting out the replies of the Faculty Boards. A further separate memorandum was subsequently submitted by the Board of the Faculty of Physical Sciences. The General Board drew attention to the standing committees on Monographs maintained by certain Faculty Boards, but said that no other official machinery exists at present for liaison between the faculties or the General Board itself and the Press on matters of common interest. It also expressed itself as favouring establishment of 'identifiable channels of communication' between the Press and each faculty or group of faculties and regarding the functions of the Press in connection with the teaching requirements of the faculties.
9. The reply of the Curators of the Bodleian took the form of a memorandum submitted on 7 November 1967, in which they explained the various points of contact between the interests of the Press and the Library. They also expressed their general satisfaction with the Press's role in their common activities.
10. The Committee considered it desirable, for purposes of comparison, to obtain information from some other University Presses on the following points:
(a) the constitutional position of the Press in relation to its University;
(b) the composition, structure, and powers of its senior management;
(c) any general directives or understandings in regard to the
Functions of the Press as a University Press and any limitations upon the scope of its publishing activities;
(d) the relations between the Press and the faculties in its University
(e) the financial relationship of the Press to the University.
Accordingly, evidence on these points was invited from the Presses of Cambridge, London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool, and Leicester Universities and, in the United States, from the Presses of California, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Chicago. The Committee expresses its gratitude to the authorities of these University Presses for the generous way in which they responded its invitation and for the valuable information which they furnished.
11. In response to the Committee's general invitation published the Gazette, evidence, written and oral, was received from a number of individuals and bodies whose names are listed in Appendix B. These included members of Congregation, members of the staff and trade unions of the Press, the late Sir Stanley Unwin of George Allen & Unwin, Mr. N. J. Barker of Macmillans, Mr. R. Blackwell of Blackwells, Oxford, and Press authors. The Committee invited certain of these individuals and bodies to amplify their evidence orally at interviews with the Committee. In addition, the Committee invited to interviews:
(a) Mr. P. du Sautoy, then President of the Publishers' Association, Mr. Mark Longman, Chairman of Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., and representatives of the British Council, to inform the Committee on the role and significance of the Press today as a publisher and as an instrument for the promotion of education and English culture as well as on some other particular aspects of the Inquiry;
(b) Mr. R. W. David, Secretary to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, to explore further with the Committee treatment at Cambridge, in comparison with Oxford, of the organization and management of the Press and its relations with the University;
(c) Mr. J. N. Prentice of Messrs. Deloitte, Plender Griffiths & Co., then Auditors of the University Press, to present to the Committee his comments on the financial organization and management of the Press.
12. The Committee held its first plenary meeting on 3 November 1967, and had forty-three plenary meetings in all. Some of these were devoted to interviews with the Delegates and with the Secretary and other officials of the Press, with representatives of the General and Physical Sciences Boards and of the Bodleian, and with the individuals mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Visits were paid by the Committee, in Oxford, to the Clarendon Press, the Printing Works, the Paper Mill, and the Cartographic Department, and, in London, to Ely House, the Music Department, and the Neasden Warehouse and business offices. In April 1968 a group of members visited the New York Branch, and also had valuable discussions with University and University Press authorities at Princeton, Harvard, and Yale; in addition, one member visited the Canadian Branch of O.U.P. at Toronto. Moreover, the Committee was in frequent touch throughout with the Delegates of the Press and with the Secretary, who freely made available to the Committee all officers and staff of the Press whom the Committee wished to interview. These included staff in Oxford, London, and New York, and the Committee also had interviews with the President of the New York Branch and three Managers of overseas branches of the London Business while these officers were on visits to the United Kingdom. Two members of the Committee took advantage of visits to Australia to have discussions with the Manager of the Australian Branch. We may add that, since the adequacy of the Press's publishing effort in the scientific field had recently been put in question in Congregation, we gave particular attention to this point throughout the Inquiry.
13. The Committee's task was complicated by the fact that material changes in the administration of the Press as a business were in progress or under active consideration during the course of the Inquiry. Some of those changes, no doubt, were in part stimulated by the setting up of the Inquiry, and some even by the ensuing dialogue which took place over a period between the Committee and Delegates and Officers of the Press. It was, however, clear to us that, when the Inquiry was set up, the Delegates (and in particular the Finance Committee) and their Secretary were already giving their minds to many of the questions, both short- and long-term, concerning the management of the Press which are the subject of recommendations in our Report. In general, therefore, on this aspect of the Inquiry our recommendations have the character not of criticisms of the management of the Press in the past but rather of proposals for continuing a process of modernization and rationalization of the Press already in progress.
14. We were informed by Council that our proceedings were to be confidential and that, after receiving our Report, Council would decide what, if any, parts of the Report and of the evidence should be published. In consequence, there has been no publication of any of the written or oral evidence taken by the Committee. We should, however, mention that at a meeting of representatives of Council, the Delegates, and the Committee convened by the Vice-Chancellor, certain arrangements were agreed under which the Committee would communicate to members of Council and the General Board, on a strictly confidential basis, relevant memoranda of the Delegates and other official bodies as background material for considering questions put to them by the Committee. At this meeting it was also agreed that the Committee should exercise its discretion in regard to the circulation of other evidence from non-official sources. These arrangements worked smoothly and the confidential character of the proceedings did not appear to the Committee to prejudice the effectiveness of our investigations.
15. The general question of giving greater publicity within the University to the policies and activities of the Press is examined in Chapter 3 of the Report. Our investigations lead us to believe that in the past the paucity of information available to members of Congregation concerning the Press has been the cause of some misunderstandings and misgivings in regard to the Press and its relations with University. In our view, therefore, greater publicity for the role, policies, and activities of the Press is in the best interests of Press itself, no less than of the University. This consideration is one to which we recommend that Council should give weight in arriving at its decision concerning the publicity to be given to the present Report.
16. We have already expressed our appreciation of the high quality of the memoranda presented to us by the Delegates and of the valuable information furnished by the authorities of other University Presses. We here express our gratitude also to the many other bodies and individuals whose evidence, written and oral, contributed so much to our knowledge of the Press and its problems; and, above all, to Mr. C. H. Roberts, Secretary to the Delegates, whose ability and objectivity in answering our many inquiries commanded constant admiration.
The Committee wishes further to place on record the assistance given to it by Lazard Brothers & Co. Ltd., who generously allowed Mr. A. D. Marris to serve as one of our members and whose staff, behind the scenes, did much to aid our understanding of the technical aspects of the Press's finances.
We are deeply indebted to our staff, Mr. P. A. Gore, of the Physical Chemistry Laboratory, [who] cheerfully bore a very heavy burden as our Secretary, in addition to carrying out his normal duties in the Laboratory. His skill in organizing, dedication to the Committee's work, and prodigious mastery of our documents were invaluable to the Committee. We were also fortunate in having the services of Mrs. C. Ross, whose consistent accuracy in the typing of our records and of this Report simplified our work. Nor should fail to mention the help given to us by others, particularly in the secretariat of the Physical Chemistry Laboratory, who have willingly taken on additional work on our behalf.
Click to return to the top of this file.
Click to proceed to Chapter 1.
Click to return to the Waldock Report index.
Click to return to the Waldock Introduction.
Click to return to the Cuttings Library index.
Click to return to the Law Library index.
Click to return to AKME index.
e-mail:
akme@btinternet.com
Please state your postal (rather than e-mail) address if you require a reply.