Morant and Sadler—Further Evidence
| Published date | 01 March 1953 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1953.tb01759.x |
| Author | D. N. Chester |
| Date | 01 March 1953 |
Morant
and
Sadler-Further
Evidence
By
19.
N.
CHESTER,
C.B.E.
IR
MICHAEL
SADLER
has many claims to a place in the history of Education-
S
as pioneer in University Extznsion work, Department
of
Education
official, Professor of Education, Vics-Chancellor and Head of an Oxford
college. His life and work have
beell
put on permanent record by
his
son,
Michael Sadleir, the author, in a Memoir published in 1949 (Constable
20/-),
and now by
Miss
Lynda Grier’s
Achievement
in
Edzlcution
(Constable pp. xxvi
+
267,
30/-). Both include the story of Sadler’s eight years (1895-1903)
as
first
Director of the newly-established Ofice of Special Inquiries and
Reports in the Department of Education. Both deal at some length with the
relations between Sadler and Robert Morant during this period. Miss Grier,
however, has drawn upon the diaries kept by Sadler between 1888 and 1903
which came to light only after the son had written his Memoir. This fresh
evidence is the only worthwhile feature of the chapter, for Miss Grier’s views
are too biased and her account too incomplete to warrant serious consideration.
The story of Morant and Sadler is of interest partly because it is a very
human story; partly because
it
is a kind of case-study in public admini-
stration showing both the interplay of personalities and the working of the
Civil Service
at
this period; and parcly because both Morant atid Sadler
became very well known public figures and Morant in particular was, and
still
is,
a controversial figure.
It
is desirable, therefore, that, if the story is
to pass into public currency,
i~
should be told with scrupulous fairness to
both the partics. Unfortunately both the books about Sadler are one-sided
and unfair to Morant. Those who wish to see the other side of the story
should r-ad Bernard Allen’s
Sir
Robert
Morant
(1934)
;
John Leese’s
Personalitks
and
Power
in
English Education
(1950)
;
and my own review-
article
in
the
Summer
150
issue of this Journal.
Miss Grier’s
~CCOUI~F
is marred by three weaknesses. First, Sir Michxel
Sadler
is
so
clearly
ow
of her herocs that she cannot see that being also
human
iie
may sometimes
have
bcen wrong.
In
her story
of
the rtlations
betwesn Morant and Sadler she most lcyally interprets the facts in Sadler’s
favour even though they (and some of her general comments) are capable of
a different interpretation, more favourable to Morant, She makes no effort
to give the reader all Ihs facts where Morant’s position is concerned. Thus
she omits
10
say that the PAinister (Sir John Gorst) asked Dr. Garnett to take
steps to test the legality
of
the London School Board’s expenditure on higher
grade schools at the next Districz Audit (see Bernard Allen’s
Sir Robert
Morant,
p. 132),
and
implies that
Morxr
acted alone-thus making Morant
appear to by doing some:hing
wrong.
Again, presumably because the facts
themselves do not obviously point in Sailer’s Pdvour,
she
does not hesitate
to bring in the opinions of others
about
iMorant’s character-the author of
only one of these opinions is given and he
(Sir
Arthur Salter) did not know
Morant at this period.
The other two weaknesses are that she does not appear
to
have informed
herself about
how
the Civil Service works and she makes no attempt to
relate
her
3t9ry
to
thc political struggles which affcctcd public cducational
policy at this period.
49
To continue reading
Request your trial