• Home
• Brief History
• The Greenwich Meridian
•  
• Greenwich (1675–1958)
• Herstmonceux (1948–1990)
• Cambridge (1990–1998)
• Outstations (1822–1971)…
  • – Chingford (1822–1924)
  • – Deal (1864–1927)
  • – Abinger (1923–1957)
  • – Bristol & Bradford on Avon    (1939–1948)
  • – Bath (1939–1949)
  • – Hartland (1955–1967)
  • – Cape of Good Hope    (1959–1971)
•  
• Administration…
  • – Funding
  • – Governance
  • – Inventories
  • – Pay
  • – Regulations
  • – Royal Warrants
•  
• Contemporary Accounts
• People
• Publications
• Science
• Technology
• Telescopes
• Chronometers
• Clocks & Time
• Board of Longitude
•  
• Libraries & Archives
• Visit
•  
• Search

The Northern Hemisphere Review Committee and the rubbishing and planned destruction of the RGO

 

Page under construction

 

The Northern Hemisphere Review Committee (NHRC) was a short lived committee of the Science Research Council (SRC). Set up in 1969, its remit was to conduct a policy review of British optical astronomy in the Northern Hemisphere. A total of nine meetings were held: six in London, one at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, Herstmonceux (RGO), one at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh (ROE) and one at the Rutherford High Energy Laboratory (RHEL).

Although a Report of its findings was written, it was never published. During the meetings, the RGO come under intense criticism from three expatriate astronomers. One of these was Margaret Burbidge who was subsequently appointed as the Observatory's Director. Perhaps not surprisingly, the appointment turned out to be somewhat disastrous for all concerned.

In 1991, Bernard Lovell, one of the committee members, published an account of the work of the committee in his paper:

The Genesis of the Northern Hemisphere Observatory. Bernard Lovell, QJRAS, Vol. 32, No.1 (1991)

Whilst telling the story, Lovell seems to have been careful not to write things that might offend other members of the committee, many of whom were still alive. As such, it gives a somewhat sanitised version of the disagreements. It should also be noted that Lovell did not attend the fourth meeting and it is currently unknown if he also missed others. It also seems that a number of important documents unearthed during research for this web-page were unknown to him.

At the present time (2024) it is proving impossible to locate many of the original documents. Lovell's paper remains the most definitive account and it is recommended that it should be read in conjunction with what follows below.

The aim of this page is:

• To provide some of the details and background that Lovell omitted
• To try and establish what was said (or to be more precise, what was put down on paper) about the Royal Observatory and the way it had been and was being currently being run
• To make some sort of assessment as to the validity of the criticisms that were being made
• To make some sort of assessment of the way that meetings were minuted
• To act as a guide for others trying to track down the relevant papers

 

Setting the scene – the relationship of the Observatory to the Science Research Council

The Board of Admiralty had financial and managerial responsibility for the Royal Greenwich Observatory until 1 April 1964 when it was abolished, its functions being taken over by a unified Ministry of Defence under a newly established Admiralty Board. On 23 March 1965, the Science and Technology Act 1965, received Royal assent. A week later, on 1 April, the new Science Research Council (SRC) was incorporated under Royal Charter and took control of the Observatory apart from the Chronometer Department which was put under the direct control of the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence.

The Research Council inherited much of the responsibility for the support of research and the support of research students at British universities from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as well as the running of a number of government establishments. From the start, there was a tension between the SRC and the University Grants committee as well as tensions that arose as a result of the different contracts of employment that existed between the government establishments and the universities. The table below shows the expenditure during the first year that the SRC was in operation.

	Expenditure of SRC (1965-66)
		Expenditure £ million	% of total
	Observatories (RGO & ROE)	0.93	3.4
	Rutherford High Energy Laboratory (RHEL)	6.00	21.8
	Danesbury Laboratory	2.39	8.7
	Atlas Laboratory	0.90	3.3
	Radio and Space Research Laboratory	1.26	4.4
	Research grants	5.88	20.8
	Post-graduate awards	4.13	13.8
	Space research	0.95	3.6
	International subscriptions	4.94	18.0
	Administration	0.61	2.2
	Total	28.21

At the top of the SRC sat the Council. Until 1 October 1967, when he was replaced by Brian Flowers, this was chaired by Sir Harry Melville. Policy was decided by the council which met monthly. in 1969, it was made up of 16 members appointed by the Secretary of State and drawn from universities and industry, the Directors of the establishments having been deliberately excluded. Council members in March 1969 included Fred Hoyle and the Director of the Jodrell Bank Observatory, Bernard Lovell.

Sitting beneath the Council, were three specialists Boards (four from October 1969), each of which was chaired by a member of Council:

1. University Science and Technology Board chaired by Sir Ewart Jones
2. Nuclear Physics Board chaired by Denys Wilkinson who had recently replaced Cecil Powell
3. Astronomy Space and Radio Board (ASRB) chaired by Sir Bernard Lovell with Jim Hosie as its Director.

The Astronomy Space and Radio Board (whose members included Hoyle), oversaw

• The Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO), which included the observatory at the Cape of Good Hope
• The Royal Observatory Edinburgh (ROE)
• Radio & Space Research Station
• Grants to Universities
• ESRO (European Space Research Organisation)
• The UK/USA/NASA programme
• The Anglo Australian Observatory

Sitting beneath ASRB were a number of committees. At the end of March 1969, the Annual Report recorded these as:

1. Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee (Chair: Fred Hoyle)
2. Royal Greenwich Observatory Committee (Chair: William McCrea)
3. Royal Observatory Edinburgh Committee (Chair: Roderick Redman)
4. Radio and Space Research Station Committee (Chair: AL Cullen)
5. Space Policy and Grants Committee (Chair: PA Sheppard)

In addition within the Astronomy Space and Radio Board there were the following Space Policy and Grants Committee working groups:

1. Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres (Chair: R Frith)
2. Ionosphere and Radio Propagation (Chair: J Sayers)
3. Energetic Particles and Magnetic Fields (Chair: H Elliot)
4. Moon Planets and Interplanetary Matter (Chair: SK Runcorn)
5. Solar and Stellar Astronomy (Chair: R Wilson)
6. Determination and Study of Orbits (Chair: Donald Sadler)
7. Technical Facilities (Chair BG Pressey)
8. Commonwealth Collaborative Programme (Chair: AP Willmore)

Not formally recorded with the permanent committees were the temporary committees. These that were active in during 1969 are known to have included:

• The Northern Hemisphere Review Committee (Chair: Fred Hoyle)
• The Altazimuth Mounting Committee – which reported to the Northern Hemisphere Committee (Chair: Roderick Redman)

As well as being Director of ASRB Hosie was also a member of three of the SRC committees, one of which was the Royal Greenwich Observatory Committee. His period in office of all three came to an end at the end of August 1972, which is believed to (roughly?) coincide with the time he ceased to be ASRB's Director and became Director of Administration instead.

 

Terms of reference of the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee

The terms of reference were as follows:

The Committee to review policy for optical astronomy in the Northern Hemisphere will:

(a)  have regard to:

(i)  the relevance of decisions on and plans for radio, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma- and X-ray astronomy and theoretical studies;

(ii)  the outcome of present studies on research in the millimetre band and on cosmic rays;

(iii)  foreseeable restrictions on manpower and finance;

(b)  seek to inform itself of the views of British astronomers, including such expatriates as the Board shall decide and the staffs of the Observatories;

(c)  make recommendations on:

(i)  the future needs of and the desired resources for British optical astronomy in the Northern Hemisphere, whether national or in collaborative projects;

(ii)  the Structure or organisation necessary to implement both policy for optical astronomy recommended for the Northern Hemisphere and that adopted for the Southern Hemisphere.

 

Membership of the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee

Chair

Fred Hoyle, FRS (Member of the Astronomy Space and Radio Board, Chairman of the SRC's Astronomy Policy Grants Committee (APGC) & Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge)

Members (in alphabetical order)

Robert Boyd, FRS (Professor of Physics in the University of London and founding Director of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory)

Herman Brück (Regius of Professor and Astronomy at Edinburgh, Director of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh and Astronomer Royal for Scotland)

James Cassels, FRS (Professor of Physics at the University of Liverpool)

Jim (James) Hosie (Director of the Astronomy,Space and Radio Division of the Science Research Council)

Sir Bernard Lovell, FRS (Professor of Radio Astronomy at Manchester and Director of the Jodrell Bank Observatory, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, Chairman of ASRB)

Sir Richard Woolley, FRS (Astronomer Royal)

Overseas consultants

Geoffrey Burbidge, FRS (Professor at the Department of Physics, University of California, USA)

Wallace Sargent, Assistant Professor at Caltech and former senior research fellow at the RGO (1962-64)

 

The members of the Altazimuth Mounting Committee (which reported to the NHRC and met on just three occasions) were:

• RO Redman (Chair), Cambridge Observatory
• GJ Carpenter, ROE
• JG Davies, Jodrell Bank
• VC Reddish, ROE
• TA Wyatt, Imperial College
  
  

The status of the overseas consultants

According to Hoyle's biographer, Jane Gregory, Lovell was asked to sound out Flowers on behalf of the SRC to see whether he might be willing to take on the Chairmanship of the SRC as Melville was about to retire. Flowers is said  to have replied, 'well, if I did accept that position, my first job would be to get rid of the Astronomer Royal.' Whether at this point he meant Woolley or the position, or the separation of the position from the Directorship of the Observatory is not clear. Gregory also states that one of Hoyle's aims for the Northern Hemisphere Review was the abolition of the post and that according to Sargent, who she interviewed in 2002, he 'was committed to the dissolution of the Royal Observatories, and saw the review as the means to destroy them'.

According to Hoyle's autobiography, the earlier Southern Hemisphere Review Committee had had no members with vested interests and it was his view that the same should have been true of the NHRC. He therefore objected to the presence of the two Astronomers Royal on the committee as he saw them as self-interested parties. Hoyle continued (p.369): I objected, but my objection was overruled by Flowers. ... I accepted the compromise of being allowed to nominate two British astronomers from abroad as counterweights to Richard Woolley and Herman Brück'. Those he nominated were his good friends Burbidge and Sargent.

One of the three terms of reference of the committee was to 'seek to inform itself of the views of British astronomers, including such expatriates as the Board shall decide and the staffs of the Observatories'. Taken at face value, one would not expect the views of expatriate astronomers to hold any more sway than those of any other British Astronomer. This was not however the case as to all intents and purposes, Hoyle treated Burbidge and Sargent as full members of the committee, so setting the scene for the inevitable series of disagreements and confrontations that were to follow.

At the first meeting of the committee on 28 January 1969 it was apparently agreed that Burbidge and Sargent be invited to the next meeting. Following the second meeting on 17 April, Woolley wrote formally to Lovell as chairman of ASRB stating his objection to the fact that they had been allowed by Hoyle to take part in a vote. According to Lovell, his reply 'evaded the issue"..The matter did not however rest there.

The lack of access to all the relevant papers means that it cannot be known for sure how many meetings Burbidge and Sargent attended. Hoyle merely states that 'Hosie called a really immense number of meetings, despite which Burbidge and Sargent managed to attend all those that were relevant'. We do know however, that on 9 July, about two weeks prior to the fourth meeting at Herstmonceux on 24 July, concerns about Burbidge and Sargent were raised on behalf of the Observatory staff by Joy Penny, the branch secretary of their union (IPCS) in a letter to Alec Spurway (chairman of the SRC branch of IPCS). It would appear from her letter that the Observatory staff were unaware of the fact that Burbidge and Sargent had become involved until they had been told by Walker at a GPC meeting on 3 July. Towards the end of her letter, she wrote:

'we should have no objection to these two californian based astronomers being asked to give evidence, as are the professional staff of the observatories, but would object strongly if they are elevated to full membership of the panel. This appears to us to be a serious matter, can you deal with it urgently please.' (RGO147/3/2/1)

When the fifth meeting took place on 31 July a week after the fourth. After listing those present, the draft minutes of the fifth meeting continue:

'The chairman said that clarification had been sought [from whom is not stated] on the status of Professor Burbidge and Dr Sargent on the Committee. Broadly, it was that of Assessor. This status had been conferred as a contingency against difficulties arising from the fact that both were based in the USA and had the result that they did not count towards making up a quorum. As Assessors they could sign any report by the Committee or if they so wish draft their own. The status was different to that of the British astronomers and observers (including staffs of the [Royal] Observatories) not members of the Committee whose views had been or would be invited by the Committee.'

There was no mention of the status of Burbidge and Sargent being raised in the minutes of the fourth meeting, so it is not clear why the 'clarification' was given at the start of the fifth.

It is quite clear from p.371 of Hoyle's autobiography that whatever he said in meetings, he regarded Burbidge and Sargent as full members of the committee as evidenced by the fact that he states that the final Report 'had been passed 7 to 2 by the Review Committee'.

 

The nine meetings of the NHRC

The table below gives the dates of the nine meetings, the place where the meeting was held (if known) and the location of any sets of minutes that have been identified. The dates are taken from Lovell's Paper (link above)  and papers in the Hoyle archive.

		Date	Meeting location	Minutes (archive)
	1	1969 Jan 28
	2	1969 Apr 17
	3	1969 Jun 26
	4	1969 Jul 24	RGO	Hoyle (SJC Cambridge)
	5	1969 Jul 31	Holborn, London	Hoyle (SJC Cambridge)
	6	1969 Nov 3&4	ROE
	7	1969 Dec 4&5
	8	1970 Feb 12
	9	1970 Apr 23

 

The minuting of the meetings and the document reference system

How papers were referenced for filing purposes is not entirely clear, particularly as copies of most of them have not been located. Some documents carry an NHR reference such as NHR 34 or NHR: 38. Some contain in addition a reference of the form [SP/189/03]. These SP references are however not necessarily unique since NHR 33 and NHR 34 (minutes of the fourth and fifth committee meetings) both have the same SP reference as does a letter sent by Hutchinson (who was secretary to the committee) to Hoyle, though the letter itself has no NHR reference.

Regrettably, the only minutes that can be located are drafts of those of the fourth and the fifth meetings.These indicate that although each section of the minutes was numbered, rather than starting with the number one, the minutes started with the number that followed on from the last number of the previous set of minutes.

If the minutes of the fourth meeting are anything to go by,  judging by the number of changes that were required to the minutes of the third meeting before they were signed off, some individuals were going through them with a fine tooth-comb.

As for the content of the minutes, important points raised were not always mentioned. For example, in his account Lovell tells us that two papers were tabled at the fifth meeting. One was signed by Hoyle, Burbidge and Sargent (NHR 31), the other by Burbidge, Sargent and Burbidge's wife Margaret. There is no mention of the second of paper in the minutes.

Both the fourth and fifth set of draft minutes seem to devote most of space to what was said by individuals. For example the different sub-paragraphs of minute 32 begin:

• The Committee agreed that ...
• Professor Boyd felt that ..
• Dr Sargent wondered what ...
• Mr. Hosie outlined ...
• The committee decided that

Rather than putting action points (of which there seem to be very few) or things that had been agreed together in one place, they seem to be scattered throughout the document.

On the 28 July, a  few days after the fourth meeting, and three days before the fifth, Hosie wrote to Hoyle (SP/189/05) stating in the first paragraph: 'I thought it might help to focus discussion on 31st if I collected together some of the comments so far made' which he then proceed to present in the rest of the letter. It would seem from this that Hosie had no great confidence that the minutes of the fourth meeting would be ready in time for the fifth or that they would give a focused sense of where the discussions had got to and what still needed to be discussed and decided. He ended by saying:

'I am copying this letter to other members of the Committee. I am sure that you and they will recognise that it does not amount to and S.R.C., or a personal, proposal but is simply a rehearsal of what of have understood from views so far expressed'.

Likewise after the fifth meeting, Hosie put together a document titled Proposed programme of  work. The document itself carries no date of NHR reference not is it clear who apart from Hoyle received a copy. It began:

'At its last meeting the Committee discussed a paper entitled a "British National Centre for Optical Astronomy" and , in light of the divergences of views invited me to produce a revised version, I have failed to find formulae capable of accomodating the very different ideas expressed by individual committee members, I have concluded that if the Committee are to make progress they should first consider several other aspects and only then return to this issue.' (Hoyle 9/4/12)

This was followed by several paragraphs spelling out what those issues were. All in all, there is a real sense that Hosie did not particularly rate Hoyle's skills as a chairman.

 

Agreements and disagreements

By the time of the fifth meeting, it was clear that there were certain things that the whole of the committee agreed on and others where the two Astronomers Royal were at loggerheads with  Hoyle and the expatriate astronomers. This made putting together a report difficult, doubly so, as without agreement the findings of the report were unlikely to be taken further by the SRC's Council.

All were in agreement on the need for new large telescopes somewhere in the northern hemisphere where there were good viewing conditions, The chief area of contention was whether or not the control and administration of these new national facilities should be the responsibility of a new National Institute for Astronomy or the Royal Observatory's. In the end, all bar the two Astronomers Royal were in favour of the former.

As a result, it was decided that the recommendations of the of the Committee should be presented in two sections, those that were recommended unanimously and those that were recommended by the majority – i.e all those on the committee including Burbidge and Sargent, but excluding the two Astronomers Royal who were allowed to state their objections to the setting up of a National Institute for Astronomy in a minority report that was attached to the final Report as an appendix (Appendix 1).

 

The recommendations of the Committee

As stated above, the recommendations of the Committee were divided into two sections, those that were recommended unanimously and those that were recommended by the majority. The recommendations as set out here differ slightly from those as set out by Lovell. Although Lovell copied the text from a copy of the Report marked 'final version', this turned out not to be the final version as the text was subsequently amended slightly on two separate occasions. The text below is taken from what is believed to be the final 'final version'. It is thought the version Lovell used was identical to the copy in Hoyle 8/17/6 (see below).

The Committee unanimously recommended that:

(a) optical astronomy should become one of the main branches of physics. The SRC should encourage universities to develop close links between their astronomy and physics departments;

(b) modem facilities for British astronomers should be provided urgently on a good site in the Northern Hemisphere –  which, for climatic reasons, means outside the UK;

(c) the facilities so provided should comprise, initially, a large telescope and one of medium aperture;

(d) because of the urgency, systematic site testing at possible locations in the Mediterranean area should begin forthwith; the results should be compared with, and be assessed in relation to, those available for known sites in the Americas;

(e) for the large telescope at least, consideration should be given to the adoption of an alt-azimuth mounting;

(f) differences of timescale rule out collaboration with any of the other European countries also providing large national facilities in the Northern Hemisphere but the possibility of sharing a site and base facilities should be pursued;

(g) the present imbalance in favour of the Royal Observatories in the allocation of total funds, i.e. University and SRC, for support of astronomy should be removed by increasing the amount available to universities by some £250K p.a.;

(h) the SRC should apply selectivity in its support of University astronomy, selection for special treatment depending on evidence that a University is prepared to make and continue an allocation from its own resources and to develop very close links between its Astronomy and physics departments;

(i) SRC support, by grants or by budget allocations, for development of instruments for use with large facilities should be rigorously assessed in relation to the significance of the astronomical facilities they are to provide;

(j) there is no major issue in respect of manpower; sufficient high quality users will be forthcoming; but the SRC should provide some additional academic posts in both optical and theoretical astronomy and should adopt measures to facilitate other than fleeting absences of university staff with teaching duties;

(k) reorganization of the present structure in astronomy in the UK is essential in order to provide for control of the new national facilities by and for British astronomers as a whole, and as of right.

The majority of the Committee recommended that:

(a) control and administration of the new national facilities, planned and to be planned, should be the responsibility of a new National Institute for Astronomy;

(b) the new Institute should be controlled by a Management Committee nominated by the Vice-Chancellors of selected Universities, as set out in detail [in section 7.2. of the Report]

(c) the Institute should have a small staff of which at least half should be on term appointments;

(d) the staff of the Institute should have an allocation of time on the central instruments, not exceeding a maximum percentage determined from time to time by the Management Committee in consultation with the Astronomers Royal, the balance to be allocated on merit to applicants from universities and from the Royal Observatories;

(e) the Institute should be concerned with astronomy and should not become the centre for development of instrumentation. But the Institute must have some capacity in instrumentation.

(f) the Management Committee should have powers to make grants in support of work required by it in respect of development and use of the facilities for which it is responsible.

(g) the Management Committee, operating through the Director and staff, would be responsible to the SRC  for expenditure, and control, of the resources allocated to the Institute;

(h) the Institute should be responsible for optical and for ground based infra red astronomy;

(i) the Management Committee should be set up as rapidly as possible and take as its first task the recommendation to SRC of an individual whom SRC could appoint as Director.

 

The suppression of the Report

Although the Report was never published, work to establish a northern hemisphere observatory continued. Key to this was the setting up a Northern Hemisphere Observatory (NHO) Planning Committee by the APGC on 26 May 1971. Its initial members were Blackwell, Brick, Woolley and Hosie with Hoyle as chairman.

Hoyle believed, at least in part, that the Report was never published due to the fact that:

'the SRC had at last realized what, in the fever of Woolley's opposition, had been overlooked: that, by having a board [the proposed National Institute for Astronomy] ordering priorities, the SRC would lose something of its iron control over British astronomy' (autobiography p.371),

The SRC and Lovell tell a somewhat different story.

Some of the details are filled in by a note, dated 5 February 1973, that had been prepared for the Royal Greenwich Observatory Committee by the 'Head of the ASR division' Malcolm Robins, who had recently replaced Hosie as Director of the Board. By this point, neither Lovell nor Hoyle were on the scene either as members of Council or the Boards and committees (Lovell's term in office came to an end at the end of September 1970 and Hoyle's at the end of September 1972). Lovell was replaced on the Board by Eric Eastwood from the General Electric Company (GEC). Hoyle's position as chair of the Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee was taken by Douglas Stibbs from St Andrew's, who also sat on the ASR Board and was a member of Council.

When writing his paper, Lovell had access to the minutes of the Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee as well as various other papers. His account of what happened after the Report was completed is in some ways more detailed, but at the same time, omits certain key things, not least the discussions held by the two Royal Observatory Committee's. It is recommended that this section of Lovell's paper by read in parallel with what follows below.

Although Margaret Burbidge has stated that the Report was suppressed, it would probably be more accurate to say that it was repeatedly kicked into the long grass until a change of circumstances meant that it was no longer relevant. The steps in the process as itemised by Robins were as follows:

1. Rather than circulate the Report to the Astronomy Space and Radio Board, a decision was made to send it to Council who were asked to decide just one thing: whether or not it should be published. When the meeting took place in October 1970, the 'Council decided [that] in light of the Review Committee's deep division on the question of organsiation that the Report should not be published' at that time but that it should be 'considered in the normal way by the Royal Observatory Committees, the Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee (APGC) and the ASR Board which would them make recommendations to the Council, not only on the substance of the report but also on the question of its publication'. Who made the decision to send the Report to Council in the first instance is not stated, but the decision almost certainly involved Hosie and seems likely to have also involved Lovell as outgoing chairman of the Board.
2. Having been considered by considered by APGC and the Royal Observatory Committees, whilst 'the recommendations on scientific policy were generally acceptable ... agreement was not reached on the management issue. As a result, 'both the APGC and RGO Committee reported to the ASR Board on 16 March 1971 that they wished to defer further discussion until the new Director, RGO, had been appointed and his (or her) views ascertained.'
   ....
   ....

 

The papers signed by one or more of the Burbidges & their comments about the RGO

In total, there five papers have been found that bare the names of one or both of the Burbidges. Some are also signed by Sargent or by Sargent and Hoyle. 

			Date		Authors		Title		+, - or neut
	1		1969 Mar 11		GB, WS		The reorganisation of astronomy in the UK		neut
	2		1969 Jul		GB, MB, WS		An appraisal of the Isaac Newton Telescope and the Royal Greenwich Observatory		-ve
	3		1969 Jul		GB, WS, FH		Why Herstmonceux is not suitable for adaptation as the National Centre for Optical Astronomy		-ve
	4		1972 Sep 8		GB		British Optical Astronomy (letter published in Nature)		-ve
	5		1973 Apr		MB		The Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Northern Hemisphere Observatory		+ve

 

1. Typed document dated 11 Mar 1969 signed by G Burbidge and Sargent and titled The reorganisation of astronomy in the UK (11 pages double spaced). This was written after they had been drafted in as "overseas consultants" but before they had attended their first meeting and before the heard 'anything very much about the S.R.C. organisation and plans.' In the covering letter, Hoyle tells Hosie that it is useful as an outsiders viewpoint and they he 'may be a bit shocked at the candour of some of the comments, but there is nothing in the paper that international opinion would think unfair'.
2. 1969, Jul. Document titled An appraisal of the Isaac Newton Telescope and the Royal Greenwich Observatory signed by G Burbidge, M Burbidge and W Sargent (5 pages double spaced, unannotated). This is the text of a copy of one of the two documents tabled at the fifth meeting. Although the tabled document would probably have had an NHR reference number, this copy does not.
3. ...
4. 1972, September 8. Letter titled British Optical Astronomy published in Nature. Written less than two months after Margaret Burbidge had taken up here appointment as Director of the RGO, this lettter from her husband is primarily an attack on the SRC and those who were or had been responsible for developing the Isaac Newton Telescope. Although the RGO is not mentioned by name the criticism of it prior to Margaret's arrival is implicit.
5. 1973, April. By the time this document (which extends to just over two pages) was written, Margaret Burbidge had completely changed her tune. She ended her paper:

'To sum up, I believe that the RGO should be made responsible for a good part of the work toward the NHO, which should be allocated in some practical way between the two Royal Observatories and the University groups that are already strong in astrophysics. During the next years, never must we lose sight of the ultimate aim: to provide a first-class Observatory for first-class astronomers.'

 

A disparaging comment from Hoyle about the ROE

From Hoyle's notes from Dec 1969 (after the seventh meeting) sent to Hosie for the NHRC report (Hoyle 8/6/4). The item below was in square brackets meaning that it was for Hosie's eyes only, not for inclusion in the report.

'More than half the committee were completely at a loss to understand what E.R.O [ROE] imagines it is doing. The instrumentation program there appeared to be floating free of any understanding of scientific aims. Even in the case of GALAXY or which there has been so much talk, we could extract no sensible purpose from the E.R.O staff. In the U.S. an automatic coordinate measuring machine has been in operation for some years. ...'

Graham Smith's comments

In 1985, as the construction nears completion, there is again discussion of the roles to be played by the two Royal Observatories in running the major UK overseas telescopes on La Palma, Hawaii and in Austrailia. The proposal for a separate new institution has withered away in the face of the efficient and professional work of the Royal Observatories in building front-rank telescopes and instruments for the overseas observatories. Maintaining and enhancing these facilities will prove to be an equally demanding task and it will be an important matter of debate to decide on a structure of the home base which can as effectively serve UK astronomy as have the Royal Observatories over the last decade. Link

 

Known NHR numbers

	NHR number	Alternative ref	Content	Date
	NHR 23	?	Minutes of the third meeting of the committee	26 Jun
	NHR 27	SP/189/03	Note giving time date & location of fourth meeting	25 Jul
	NHR 28	SP/189/03	Breakdown of cost and staff at RGO	31 Jul
	NHR 29	?	Letter circulated to committee by Hosie	?
	NHR 30	SP/189/03	Breakdown of expenditure at ROE	31 Jul
	NHR 31	?	Paper presented by Hoyle Burbidge & Sargent at 5th meeting1	?
	NHR 33	SP/189/03	Minutes of the fourth meeting of the committee	24 Jul
	NHR 34	SP/189/03	Minutes of the fifth meeting of the committee
	NHR 36	?	Future work of the committee: Proposed programme of work	Oct
	NHR 38	?	? Correspondence between Hosie & profs Stibbs & Sweet	?
	NHR 40	?	Report of the alt-azimuth committee	?
	NHR 68	?	? but Draft report of the NHRC dated 12 Feb 1970 annexed	?

1. Thought to be titled British national centre for optical astronomy

 

Hunting down the documentation

Google "Science Research Council" and there are remarkably few returns. Few of its publications seem to be held in libraries and even fewer have been digitised and made available to the public. Papers relating to the work of the committee are hard to find. Given the nature of the SRC one would expect its administrative papers to have been properly archived. This does not appear to be the case. In 2013 an enquiry was made of its successor body the Science and Technology and Facilities Council (STFC). It asked:

1. Who is responsible for the archives of the STFC’s predecessors – PPARC, SERC and SRC?
2. Where the archives are kept?
3. Is there is a catalogue of what is contained with them?

The following not very helpful reply was received to question 1 and 2 with no answer given to Question 3.

1. STFC holds archived records in both physical and electronic formats, including records from its predecessor organisations PPARC and CCLRC.  STFC also holds some SRC and SERC files relevant to activities inherited from SRC by either PPARC or CCLRC.  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)  http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx   also holds some SRC and SERC records and some have been transferred to organisations approved by the national Archives.  STFC has appointed a Records Manager who oversees its records management policy, activities and archives and advises on retention schedules.  Archives are run by departmental records staff who liaise with the Records Management team as appropriate.
2. Most paper records are held in archives on STFC sites, unless they have been disposed of according to disposal schedules in line with TNA guidance, which could mean destruction or transfer to another repository.  STFC has transferred some SERC and PPARC records associated with Astronomy to the UK Space Agency (UKSA) and some to places of deposit authorised by The National Archives (TNA).  Transfer is a formal process and STFC keeps a record of transfer.  STFC holds some archives in electronic format.  Some are data sets and STFC also manages data on behalf of other organisations.  These records are held within departments which take responsibility for digital continuity and disposal where applicable including transfer to another repository where appropriate.  

A more recent Freedom of Information enquiry (2024) asking specifically about SRC records received a somewhat contradictory reply saying that they are in what used to be the Nimrod Motor Alternator Hall Basement at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, an area that had been semi-abandoned for the past 30+ years. Records show that in total there are five tons of material on 1.5km shelving over seven stacks, but that it had only very recently begun to be sorted. How long it had been there was not stated, nor was it clear if the material included the records of any of the successor bodies.

When John Irvine and Ben Martin, wanted access to the Committee's Report for their paper Assessing Basic Research: The Case of the Isaac Newton Telescope, Social Studies of Science Vol 13, (1983) they faced some difficulty. In reference 30 of their paper they state that the Report of the committee 'was kept so secret that one of the members of the committee that had drawn it up informed us that, when he requested a copy, he was told this was not possible because its contents were "confidential".'

The Hoyle Papers

Hoyle's papers are deposited at St John's College Cambridge. Rather than all the committee papers being together, they are scattered across at least seven different files. They also appear to be remarkably incomplete. Although a copy of what is believed to be the final version of the unpublished Report is present, most of the minutes and agendas are missing. A list of the documents is provided towards the bottom of the page.

RGO papers

A search at the catalogue of Woolley's papers at the RGO archive in Cambridge finds no specific mention of the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee. Relevant papers may however be present in RGO10/655

Also in the RGO archive are the papers of David Thomas who was chairman the RGO section of the SRC branch of IPCS. RGO147/3/2/1 contains papers (some not yet examined) relate to the NHRC.

The RGO catalogue indicates that the Redman papers (RGO37/1070) have minutes of a committee meeting held on 1969 May 22. They have not yet been examined. However, Redman was chairman of an NHRC sub-committee and it is possible that the minutes refer not to the NHRC committee, but to the sub-committee. If so, they would presumably be for its first meeting.

The draft minutes of the fourth meeting of the Committee which was held at the RGO show that the following five senior members of the RGO staff attended the meeting in addition to Woolley. They were Clube, Hunter, McMullen, Murray and Pagel. It would appear that Lynden-Bell also attended and that his name was also left of the final version (Hoyle 9/8/17). We can also assume that Margaret Burbidge had accompanied her Husband to Herstmonceux as she was one of the signatories of the inflammatory document An appraisal of the Isaac Newton Telescope and the Royal Greenwich Observatory that was tabled for discussion at the fifth meeting.

The Papers of Herman Brück

Brück's papers are not yet properly catalogued. ROE is currently undertaking a search for relevant material.

 

Published accounts of the work of the committee

Papers:

The Genesis of the Northern Hemisphere Observatory. Bernard Lovell, QJRAS, Vol. 32, No.1 (1991)

As mentioned above, this is by far the most comprehensive account of the work of the committee. Lovell was present at most of the meetings and presumably had access to all the minutes. It does however give a a somewhat sanitised version of the disagreements.

Books (autobiography and biographies)

Home is where the wind blows. Fred Hoyle (1994)

Conflict in the cosmos: Fred Hoyle's Life in Science. Simon Mitton (2005)

Fred Hoyle's Universe. Jane Gregory (2005)

Both Mitton and Gregory draw extensively on Lovell's paper. Of the two accounts, Gregory's is by far the most useful as unlike Mitton:

• She examined all or some of the surviving papers in the Hoyle archive
• In 2002 & 2003 she was able to interview three of the four surviving committee members: Lovell, Burbidge & Sargent The fourth, Boyd, died the following year. (Of the others, Woolley died in 1986, Hosie in 1993, Cassels in 1994, Brück in 2000 & Hoyle in 2001)
• She gives a reasonably extensive quote from the paper on the Isaac Newton telescope that was written by Sargent and Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, after the fourth meeting at Herstmonceux and tabled for discussion at the fifth

Hoyle's account does not directly refer to any of the meetings but is useful, because it explains some of the politicking that was going on, particularly at the SRC. He clearly was not impressed by the SRC as an administrative body in charge of scientific research nor at times by Hosie and was quite prepared to put his feelings into print.

 

---

 

The Hoyle Archive

The papers of Sir Fred Hoyle are preserved in the archives of St John's College Cambridge. A fulll catalogue can be found via the following link:

Catalogue of the Hoyle Papers at St John's College

The notes below give a more indepth picture of those papers that relate to the Northern Hemisphere Committee. Some items have not yet be looked at by the present author and are marked 'not yet examined'.

 

Box 5/1 (not yet examined)

• A case for a northern hemisphere telescope

Box 7/12

7/12/1–4

• Letter dated 21 Sep 1970 from Hosie to Hoyle enclosing what he hopes is the final version of the report which contains minor changes as agreed with Hoyle Lovell and Boyd as well as further changes that Hosie has included. Hosie states that he is not planning to circulate it to other committee members before it is sent up for consideration by higher levels at the SRC. Reference: SP/189/05. There was no NHR number on the enclosed report
• Two paragraph cover note drafted by Hosie and to be signed by Hoyle for submission with the Report
• Main body of the Report (29 pages, double spaced) divided into 11 sections many of which are subdivided: 1. Introduction, 2. The Science, 3. The present situation in British optical astronomy, 4. The need for further facilities, 5. Change of allocation, 6. Reorganisation, 7. A national institute for astronomy, 8.Instrumentation, 9. Manpower, 10. Financial implications, 11. Recommendations
• Appendix 1: The views of the Astronomer Royal and the Astronomer Royal for Scotland (3 pages double spaced)
• Appendix 2: Membership and terms of reference (1 page double spaced)
• Appendix 3: Submission by the Royal Astronomical Society (3 pages double spaced)
• Appendix 4: Submission by Whitley Council Staff Side (10 pages double spaced)
• Appendix 5: Report of the Altazimuth Mounting Committee (22 pages double spaced)

7/12/5:

• This appears to an earlier version of the main body of the Report (38 pages double spaced, undated)

7/12/6

• Hoyle's hand written redrafting of part of section 7 of the Report (undated)

Box 7/13 (not yet examined)

• Why Herstmonceux is not suitable for adaption as the National Centre for Optical Astronomy. This is possibly a duplicate of a document with the same name in Box 9 (9/4/15). Alternatively, it might be a final version.
• British National Centre for Optical Astronomy. This is possibly a duplicate of a document with essentially the same name in Box 9 (9/4/17?). Alternatively, it might be a final version.

Box 8/6

8/6/1–2

• Copy of covering letter from Hoyle to Hosie (dated 8 Apr 1969). Reference FH/AB
• The enclosure: Typed document dated 11 Mar 1969 signed by G Burbidge and Sargent and titled The reorganisation of astronomy in the UK (11 pages double spaced). This was writen after they had been drafted in as "overseas consultants" but before they had attended their first meeting and before the heard 'anything very much about the S.R.C. organisation and plans.' In the covering letter, Hoyle tells Hosie that it is useful as an outsiders viewpoint and they he 'may be a bit shocked at the candour of some of the comments, but there is nothing in the paper that international opinion would think unfair'.

8/6/4

• Copy of covering letter from Hoyle to Hosie dated 22 Dec 1969 (after the seventh meeting) with his and notes (12 typed pages single spaced) for the NHRC report. Letter reference: FH/AB

8/6/5

• Undated Draft report of the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee fairly heavily annotated by Hoyle (30 pages double spaced). Marked: Annex to NHR86
• Appendix 1 to the above – this became appendix 2 in the final report (1 page double typed)

Box 8/17

This folder contains various drafts and part redrafts of the report, some typed, some typed and overwritten and some handwritten. Also has a  note from Hosie (SP/189/03), a sumbission from the RAS which formed one appendix 3 of the final report, one marked Annex to NHR93. Two of particular interest are

8/17/6

• This is one of two different documents both of which are marked up as 8/17/6. This is the second one. It is headed 'Report of the northern hemisphere review committee - final version', This is only a draft. and appears to be the version immediately prior to that in Box 7/12/1–4. Key differences at the the Box 7 copy has paragraph numbers and one or two data entries for which spaces had been left in the 8/17/6 copy (30 pages double spaced, unannotated). No NHR number

8/17/14

• Letter dated 26 May 1970 from Hoyle to Hutchinson (secretary to the committee) in which he states there is a hitch with the report 'due to a change in Lovell's point of view' and continuing 'However I think we should go towards a final draft in a normal way. So I have made amendments which are enclosed herewith'

Box 9/4

This box contains material that seems to relate exclusively to the fourth and fifth meetings. It contains what are thought to be drafts of differnet parts of the document signed by Hoyle, Burbidge and Sargent that was tabled at the fifth meeting (the final document which is not present had the reference NHR: 31)

• Transit envelope originally containing papers for the fifth meeting of the Committee on 31 July 1969

9/4/1*

• An appraisal of the Isaac Newton Telescope and the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Dated July 1969 and Signed by G Burbidge, M Burbidge and W Sargent (5 pages double spaced, unannotated). This is the text of a copy of one of the two documents tabled at the fifth meeting. Although the tabled document would have had an NHR reference number, this copy predates it and does not have one.

9/4/2

• Draft minutes of the fourth meeting (held at the RGO) (6 pages unannotated)

9/4/3

• Letter from Hosie to Hoyle dated 28 July 1969 about the forthcoming (fifth) meeting on 31 July (3 pages)

9/4/4

• Breakdown of costs at the Royal Greenwich Observatory (1 page)

9/4/5

• Breakdown of staff and expenditure at the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh (1 page)
• ROE expenditure forecast for 1969-70 subdivided into financial groups (1 page)

9/4/6

• Covering note for 9/4/4 & 9/4/5 dated 31 July 1969 from Hutchinson to Hosie

9/4/7

• Draft minutes of the fifth meeting (4 pages)

9/4/8

• Covering letter dated 8 Sep 1969 from Hutchinson to Hoyle enclosing draft minutes of the fourth and fifth meetings and asking for his comments

9/4/9

• Letter dated 18 Sep 1969 from Hosie to Hoyle saying 'I have failed to redraft the last NHR paper despite several attempts. This is because the exercise is not usefully to be regarded as one papering over teh cracks. ...' Also mentions setting the date of the next meeting.

9/410

• Letter from Reddish (ROE) giving his views on a potential Northern Hemisphere Observatory. They are at odds with the of his boss Brück.

9/4/11

• Item missing from file?

9/4/12

• N.H.R.C. Proposed programme of work. Note by the Director [Hosie], A.S.R. Division. Undated (2 pages single spaced). These follow on from the fifth meeting. It begins:

'At its last meeting the Committee discussed a paper entitled a "British National Centre for Optical Astronomy" and , in light of divergence of views, invited me to produce a revised version. I have failed to find forumlae capapble of accomodatging the very different idesas expressed by individual committee memebers. I have concluded that if the Committee are to make progress they should first consider several other aspects and only then return to this particular issue.'

9/4/13

• British National Centre for Optical Astronomy. This document begins: 'We believe that a national centre for optical astronomy is required. For a variety of reasons we do not consider that the existing Royal Observatories can be adapted for this task.' Document consists of one typed page undated and unsigned and appears to be the first page of a rather larger document. It is followed by 23 (24?) numbered pages of hand written text (in Hoyle's hand?) that appears to be an early draft of the final Report

9/4/14

• Appears to be a possible reworking of p19 owards of 9/4/13

9/4/15,16,17?

• These are possibly drafts of the Paper Lovell refers to as being signed by Hoyle, Burbidge and Sargent that was desicussed at the fifth meeting they consist of:

•  
  • Paper III. Why Herstmonceux is not suitable for adaptation as the National Centre for Optical Astronomy. Undated and unsigned. (2 pages single typed).
  • Why the Royal Observatories are not suitable for adaption as the National Centre for optical Astronomy. Manuscript document (4 pages) which appears to propose to starting with paragraphs from the start of the paper above. This is followed by a number of typed pages (double spaced) under the headings: II. The needs and economics of modern optical astronomy, III. A national centre for optical astronomy, IV. Why the Royal Observatories are not suitable for adaption as the national centre for optical astronomy, V. Financial considrations.

9/4/18

• (2 pages double typed). Appears to be a redraft? of part of another documents

9/4/19

• Chairman's brief for the sixth meeting to be held in Edinburgh on 3 November 1969 (1 page). This appears to be an agenda with additional notes for the chairman.

1. Minutes of the fourth meeting held on 24 July
2. Matters arising from the minutes
3. Minutes of the fifth meeting held on 31 July
4. Matters arising from the minutes
5. Future work of the committee: proposed programme of work
6. Discussions with ROE staff
7. Discussions with Professors Stibbs and Sweet - Correspondence with Mr Hosie
8. Consideration of the report of the Alt-Azimuth Committee
9. Dates and form of the next meeting

 

9/4/20

• Photocopy of page from the 30 July 1971 edition of Nature titled Astronomer Royal - New Astronomy (1 page) The contents are about the decision to separate the post of Astronomer Royal will be disassociated from the directorship of the RGO

9/4/21

• Missing??

9/4/22

• Note from Hutchinson dated 25 July 199 giving the time and date of the fifth meeting (1 page)

9/4/23

• Some basic statistics. Note by the Secretariat dated 16 July 1969. Paper ref: R.C. 46(69) & B/37/052 (9 pages)

9/4/24

• Not Northern Hemisphere material

 

Box 9/8

 

Box 25/3 (not yet examined)

• British national centre for optical astronomy

 

Box 45/5 (not yet examined)

• Report of the Northern Hemisphere Review Committee

 

Further Reading

Literature including the in-house magazine Quest relating to the Science Research Council

 

Acknowledgements and Image licensing

The image of Jim Hosie is reproduced from Quest Vol 4, No. 4 (1971) and is reproduced courtesy of UKRI Science and Technology Facilities Council, which is available from https://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/

The following images are © National Portrait Gallery, London. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) licence.

Portrait of Richard Woolley by Bassano Ltd. Half-plate film negative, 2 June 1965. National Portrait Gallery Object ID: NPG x172076.

Portraint of Brian Flowers by Bassano Ltd. Half-plate film negative, 14 October 1970. National Portrait Gallery Object ID: NPG x172718.

The photo of Geoffery Burbidge is reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License courtesy of NOIRLab